IndianaTwin

A la Maeda a year ago, I'm guessing the Twins presence (or lack thereof) in the pennant race will be a key determinant (along with his actual progress, of course).

Give us a break, @TwinsDr2021. We know we're not doctors. We're much smarter than that. We're all pitching coaches! 🤣

We'll see Sunday and next Thursday.

That's a valid critique of the six-man rotation. I assume that going that route also includes Toby Gardenhire having several St. Paul Shuttle tickets on hand and clear instructions on which relievers to not be using. And as I just mentioned in a previous comment, the reality is that a six-man rotation depends on health (and performance), and they really only need to do it twice to get the benefit. After that, with off days, a six-man rotation is pitching once a week. so I assume they don't want to do that long-term. More importantly, I assume they won't need to, because someone will get hurt. For the reason you note, I don't think a six-man rotation is viable for the long term, but in this case, I think it merits consideration. For those keeping score at home, if they want to use the June 12 off day to give everyone five days off heading into that 16-game stretch, Maeda gets activated on the 18th.

And the reality is that they only use Maeda twice in the 16 game stretch. If he doesn't throw well, it's an easy demotion to the pen. If a starter (including him) gets injured, it's an easy shift back to a five-man rotation. If all stay healthy and none get hurt, awesome! That's a good problem to have.

I don't think anyone has mentioned this, but I'm guessing a factor in the decision to pull Varland is that his last four starts had 95, 97, 92 and (last Friday) 100 pitches. Thus, I don't think the "Let's see if he can handle another inning" holds much weight -- he's already shown he can. So, the choices were essentially, "He can handle it, so let's let him go another inning" or "He's thrown a lot of pitches lately, so let's give him a blow." They chose the latter. I agree with that approach, particularly given that he gets Tampa Bay next.

Thanks, Ash. This is helpful. It both helped confirm that my understandings weren’t all wet and also added some good nuance for my understanding of WPA. And I’m glad to join rabbit holes. My son just told me that his high school English teacher suggested that the title of my son’s autobiography would likely be, “But I Digress…” Said son gets that honestly, from his father. With that in mind, here’s my summary of Pagan’s season. Consider it my contribution to the rabbit hole, but if you find it helpful, I might turn it into its own thread. Let me know if you think it deserves further conversation. A.. The debacle in L.A. B. The game in Boston where Maeda got hurt, and Pagan came in early, down 1-0, and gave up six. As I remember, he had some bad luck, with some soft contact turning into hits. It can’t be argued that he pitched well, but it can be argued that he contributed in that he bought some outs in a game that was going to be tough to win, given the circumstances. C. A total of 15 games where his WPA was between 0.056 and -0.041. Here’s a breakdown of these games. C1. In nine of them, he came in in the seventh, with six of them starting the inning and the Twins down one or two and one starting the inning up six. In the other two seventh-inning appearances, he came in with a runner on first, once with one out and up six and once with two outs and down one. In the former, he faced four batters, giving up two hits, getting two outs and letting the inherited run score. In the latter, he also pitched the eighth, giving up a single hit. In those nine games, he pitched 9.0 innings, giving up six hits, a walk and a HBP. He gave up an earned run and an unearned run and struck out 10, This subset of nine games includes Sunday, where he came in, hit a batter, and was pulled because of injury. In two of these nine games, the Twins rallied, and Pagan got the win. C2. In three of the category C games, he pitched the ninth, coming in down six, down one ahead four. In the first two, he went 1-2-3. In the latter, he gave up a run on two hits. He struck out three in the 3.0 innings. C3. He came in in the eighth twice, once opening the inning down two, where he gave up a walk and a strikeout in completing the inning, and once with two outs and two on, down three, where he gave up a double to let one score, followed by a groundout and a one-hit ninth. C4. In the other, he started the sixth down four and walked two and struck out two, allowing no runs. D. A game with a WPA of .105. He entered a tie game in the fifth with two outs and a runner on first. He got the out and then pitched a one-hit sixth. E. A game with a WPA of .120. With the Twins down 1-0, Maeda gave a lead off single in the sixth. Pagan gave up a walk, got a fly ball and a double play. He then pitched the seventh, with a fly ball and two strikeouts. F. A game with a WPA of .304. That was the one where he pitched the bottom of the 11th in Chicago after the Twins hadn’t scored in the top. He got a strikeout, gave up a fly ball, intentionally walked Benintendi and struck out Hamilton. The Twins scored four in the 12th and Pagan got the win. So as I look at this, the dominant thing I see is that that Rocco’s preferred usage is to bring him in in the seventh, with the team still in the game (C1). He doesn’t like to use Lopez or Jax without them being tied or ahead, so he goes to Pagan, and Pagan has done his job. He’s also used when down in the eighth and in blowouts in the ninth. In summary, I see 15 games in the WPA middle. Of those, 12 have a positive WPA and three have a negative. In two of the negatives, he did his job, in that the job was “don’t screw this up.” The third was Sunday, which doesn’t really count, so I’d suggest that in 14 of 14 games, he did his job, often times perfectly, other times very well, and a couple times so-so. And on five occasions, he’s been used in higher-leverage situations, generally out of necessity because other options had been used or were otherwise unavailability. In one (A) he had a major fail, in three (D-F), he was successful, and in one (B), he was in-between, not pitching well, but given the context, playing a needed role. I’d call that one a tie and say he was 3-1-1, but I’m fine calling it a loss as well. So in total, that means that in 17 or 18 out of 19 games, he’s done his job. But because of one game in LA and the memory of last year, most on TD are not ready (or more accurately, willing) to give him his due.

Starting on Tuesday, they have a stretch of 28 games in 30 days, including a stretch with 16 straight. If everyone remains healthy, I suspect we’ll see a couple trips through a six-man rotation when Maeda is healthy enough to join it. With the All-Star Break soon after, I could see that as a time to skip Ober and Varland to save a few innings.

I was busy tonight, so unable to follow along. Apparently the sky didn’t fall. I can’t wait to skim through the Game Thread for the several pages of grumbling about the getaway day lineup.

I was looking at WPA the other day and realized that I probably need a primer on how it operates. I get the whole, “check the win probability before and after each at bat and add them up” thing. But what do they mean? On the surface, I’ve been assuming that a positive WPA in a game means that the player gave his team a better chance to win and a negative means that he gave his team a lesser chance to win. Is that a correct interpretation? Secondly, the participants in a given game always total 0.00, does there tend to be a similar number of guys with positives and guys with negatives? Or does it often skew to have a bunch of guys with positive and a comparably few guys with big negative values? I’m asking because I look at Pagan and see what looks like a bad season, because he’s got a total of -0.173 (though I don’t know enough to know whether that’s bad or REALLY bad). But, as you note, if you look at him on a game-by-game basis, he’s only been negative in 5 of his 20 games. That includes the debacle in L.A. and the game in Boston when he was left out to dry. Take out those two, and his season total is easily positive. Another of the negatives was Sunday, when he hit a batter and was pulled because of injury. It seems hard to count that one, but technically, he did lessen the team’s chance to win with the one batter he faced. They’ve generally been careful on how they’ve used him — I get that — but it seems like a “won-loss record” of 15-5 (i.e. positive vs. negative) is actually pretty good. (And I do recognize that a number of the positives were very small, but that seems to be greatly affected by the situations they’ve put him in.) I guess my main point is to say that I agree with Wizard11. It sometimes (often?) feels like he could be pitching like the second coming of Mariano Rivera and folks on TD would still be calling for his DFA. ——————— And to clarify, Ash, though I used quoting you as my starting point, I’m not pointing at you in particular with my last paragraph. I honestly don’t know what your comments about Pagan have been. That paragraph is about TD in general. And if you or others show me a better understanding of WPA that helps me understand that I’m using it wrong, I’m fine with that learning.

This seems like a premature conversation. Come October, the front office will know more about… 1. Whether Buxton’s knee held up at DH. 2. Whether there’s any likelihood of his returning to CF. 3. Whether/how Lewis has handled several months of full-time play. And whether they want to consider him in CF. 4. Where Miranda’s bat (and defense) have gone, and whether they are ready to plan on him as a full-timer. 5. Whether Lee has pushed himself into needing to find playing time in the infield. 6. The progress of Celestino. 7. How they like Taylor, though it seems really unlikely they’d resign him. And a bunch of things I haven’t thought of, but this is at least a starting point. Until October, these discussions feel like vanity, a chasing after the wind,

My bad. Perhaps a little brain fog from feeling a bit dehydrated.

I generally think you’re right, and yes, it would be a temporary thing (hopefully, which means assuming no other injuries), if for no other reason than that they will soon want to get back to 13 pitchers. I also offer this suggestion not knowing the situation on Pagan after getting hit. They may already feel they will be playing a day or two with a 12-man staff. I’m not overly concerned on the part about Sands staying down, in that they have a workaround if the transaction involves putting someone on the IL. Alternatively, I’m already suspecting that if Sands gets a long relief outing, they’d put him on the St. Paul Shuffle, so there may already be someone else who could take the 13th slot if needed.

I give Kepler credit for being more than “proven mediocrity.” To me, league average hitter with excellent defense and excellent baserunning is more than “mediocre,” but I recognize that we’ll get about as much agreement on TD about the definition of “mediocre” as we do “ace.” :-) But overall, I agree with your point. And as others have stated or implied, if Wallner (or Larnach) push their way in the door when they have opportunities (and they will, that’s life in a 162-game season), they will gradually take Kepler’s playing time.

Actually, with an off day coming on Thursday and a bullpen that is not overtaxed at the moment, I wondered about sending down Sands and going with a 12-man staff for a few days.

I’m not suggesting that Garlick would have gotten all (or even most) of Kepler’s at bats. And in a sense, I’m using Garlick metaphorically. My point is that they have already have had enough injuries that they needed to call up Garlick for a spell. Without Kepler, he gets called up one injury sooner. Taken a step further, if Garlick was called up an injury sooner, that means someone else had to be called up when Garlick got the call. Who is your preference, Mark Contreras or Ryan LaMarre? A lot of us have named that the strength of this roster is its depth, even if not everyone has played up to expectations. I just think the “problem” of having to send Wallner down for a time is better than the “problem” of having to call up AAAA players. I’ll say the same thing if Julien is the one sent down to make room for Polanco.

Let me phrase it another way. Kyle Garlick has had 19 plate appearances. Max Kepler has had 119 plate appearances. Without Max Kepler in the picture, Kyle Garlick would have some number more than 19 plate appearances. Having too much talent is not a problem.

To summarize -- what we are saying is that we have too much talent available?

(Oops, posted the comment on the wrong thread and don't know to delete.)

Varland started 2022 as a 24-year-old in Wichita, made 20 starts with a 3.34 ERA, was called up to St. Paul and even ended up making five late-seasons starts for the Twins as a result of injuries. Enlow started 2023 as a 24-year-old in Wichita and has made eight starts with a 3.02 ERA. That's overly simplistic, but without obvious folks standing in his way, if injuries build up at the MLB level, it's not hard to imagine him even sniffing the majors yet this year. I'm not saying that's the ideal -- just noting that we can probably assume that a number of additional starters will be needed at some point, and he's likely approaching the availability list, if he's not already on it.

Since many TD discussions lead back to Pagan, I could use some help understanding Win Probability Added, which people reference on a regular basis. And these are honest questions -- I'm not trying to be snarky. His total WPA for the season is -0.207. Am I correct that that's bad, that in total he's cost us .207 wins? Given that the league will finish .500, is the total WPA of all players in a game going to be 0.000? If so, is that suggesting that any player with a positive WPA has increased his team's chances of winning a game and any with a negative has decreased the chances of winning game. In Pagan's case, the cumulative number is driven by 0.611 of the negative came from the debacle in LA last week, and another .299 comes from the early entry in Boston in the game where Maeda got hurt and someone needed to pick up innings. In 14 of his 18 games, he has a positive WPA. Is that suggesting that in 14 of 18 games, his pitching improved his team's chance to win? Maybe I'm not understanding how this works, but it seems pretty good to say that in 78 percent of games, you helped your team win. Since every game has a winner and a loser, would the league average be 50 percent positive? What is meaningful? As in, in three of the positive games, his score is 0.001 or 0.002. I assume that means he had negligible effect on the win or loss, which is reflective of his pitching late in games that ended with an average margin of nearly eight runs. Even if those are treated as a "tie," his "record is 11-4-3, which would be a pretty good "winning percentage" Ultimately, what is more important in determining whether Pagan has been effective -- is it the net of -0.207, or is it the reality that in 14 of 18 games he helped the team? Intuitively, since a win is a win is a win, it seems like the latter (a .778 "winning percentage") is more noteworthy.

Regretfully, I don't think Chicago can be considered out of it, being down only 5.5. Much of their early season struggles were when Tim Anderson was on the shelf, and Liam Hendricks is likely to return in the next week or so. I agree with Dxpavelka in that the Twins biggest opponent is themselves. They are in a scuffling spot with losses in five of their last six, but they have the ability to run off a couple of strings with five out of six wins as well.

If we were making observations about an individual on 43 at bats, we'd say "small sample size." Seems to me that 43 at bats spread over an entire roster, meaning that hardly anyone has more than four or five at bats, makes for a really small sample size. It's frustrating (very frustrating!), but it's hard not to see it as being anything but incredibly unlucky.

I wasn't suggesting that they COULDN'T offer more for the relievers the Mets signed. Rather, I'm saying that it would have likely cost more than the Mets paid and the Twins CHOSE not to go there.

If you look back to the offseason, you'd find that I was an advocate for signing multiple relief arms. My approach is that the more darts you throw against the wall, the more likelihood for bullseyes. But I don't think it's accurate to associate a lack of MLB signings with "ignoring the pen." As analytical as the front office is, it's hard for me to imagine them ignoring anything. For what it's worth, the FO may have... Looked at Duran and thought they had a closer. For the most part, they've been right. Looked at Lopez and thought they had their backup closer/8th inning guy. For the most part, they've been right. Looked at Jax and thought they had a high leverage righty. For the most part, they've been wrong. Looked at Thielbar and thought they had a high leverage lefty. He's been hurt, so in that sense they've been wrong. Looked at Pagan and thought he was worth $3.5 million, based on how he pitched the last part of last season and thinking they could fix other issues. For the most part, they've been right, with a couple notable blowups. Looked at Alcala and thought that with health, he would develop into a contributor. Not so much. And Moran. Not so much. Looked at the starters and their plan for improving the rotation and determined they'd need about 20 percent fewer innings from the bullpen. For the most part, they've been right. The cumulative of those may have led to not pursuing any MLB pitchers, but those are all "decisions," not a case of "ignoring" the bullpen. Similarly, for all we know they made an offer to Robertson that wasn't acceptable. And to Ottavino. And to Fulmer. And to whoever your favorites were. Again, we don't know if any of those happened, but if so, those are decisions on the max they want to give a reliever, not a case of "ignoring" the bullpen. If you want to say it was a mistake to not offer one or two guys more, enough to sign them, I'm fine with that. I might even agree with you, though I don't remember many, if any, signings where I thought, "Wow, I wish the Twins would have offered more than that." That speaks to the volatility of relievers that others have referenced. What we know is that they didn't sign any MLB relievers (other than tendering Pagan). What we don't know is the decision-making process. As is generally the case with the front office, we just don't know enough of what happened, so it seems overly simplistic to equate a lack of MLB signings with "ignoring."