IndianaTwin

Thing is, that's exactly what my friend the White Sox fan said about. "He was pretty effective, but he was maddening to watch. I'm glad he's gone." I think that comes with the territory with him. I, too, am in the camp that says they might well (and maybe even should) bring him back. Even with the start, his ERA+ has actually gotten back to the plus side at 107. I do think that his propensity for walks and soft (bloop) contact makes him particularly ill-suited for the stupid extra-inning rule that has him starting with one of the bases already occupied.

Yeah, I found "abstrusity" a little obscure and hard to understand. Then I looked it up.

And another save for Everyday Alex.

Cody, with this title, are you suggesting he spend the offseason hanging out with Liam Hendricks or someone in Australia?

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it. The notion of a trade having a "winner" and a "loser" is a false dichotomy. Good trades help both teams. If you get a reputation for screwing the other team, you'll never get the opportunity to make another trade. Get the reputation of wanting to help the other team while improving your own, and folks will gladly take your call.

If he matches Sal Maglie's career, I'll be happy.

From the looks of his travel itinerary, it's probably a good thing he was a geography major!

So I couldn’t but think today was like high school. “Okay, everybody on the plane, in uniform, by 9 a.m. Bring money to stop at Arby’s after the game and we should be back home by 7.”

I'm going to add a suggestion that will help convince fans that it's not a sell-off. Buy. Not as in "buy for this year," but "buy for next year." One of the guys supposedly available is Kyle Gibson and his 156 ERA+, with $8 million on the contract for next year. In keeping Berrios and Maeda, it's going to be very difficult to sign three SP studs, let alone two. If the baseballtradevalue site is of any worth, it says it would "only" take something like Sabato (a 1B, where we seem to have depth) to get him.

Nolasco.

I think the 3-4 years on Lewis that he was referring to are 2019-2021 and maybe 2022. But your first paragraph in particular is spot on. The only way they could have anticipated getting replacement or sub-replacement from those three are injuries, and unfortunately, that’s not where the injuries happened. Your summary is why I don’t see them over-reacting to this year.

So from what I can tell, if you take out the stats against Tanana, Kusick’s .235/.342/.392 goes to .230/.334/<=.382. I didn’t track down all of his at bats, so I treated the 12 non-homers as singles. If some of them were extra bases, his slugging percentage is even lower. I’ve never looked at this, but it has to be pretty rare for someone with that many plate appearances to have their stats affected in such a positive way by hitting against a particular pitcher, particularly a good one like Tanana.

Any post that uses several paragraphs on Craig Kusick as the intro will get a “like” from me. ?

I hadn’t thought of it in these terms, but if he’d gotten the year of service a few years ago, he’d be going through free agency THIS year. Some team would likely take a chance on his big time talent, but you’re right, given the injuries that did happen this year, he’s much better off hoping to be healthy next year over being a free agent this year.

Naming the Giants is interesting. This isn’t a poke at you, Lombo, but it points out to many people that stuff happens, even when you make good plans. Is there anyone here who was reading GiantsDaily in the offseason and can report on how their front office was likely being excoriated for their dumpster-diving approach to the rotation? Who among us would have taken the rotation of Gausman, Wood, DeSclafani over Berrios, Maeda, and Pineda? Yet one of those threesomes led the team to 25 games over and the other to 15 games under. And when stuff happens, you don’t overreact.

The bolded part is the cut-to-the-chase, if you ask me. I'd further edit the last sentence to say it's funny how we want to blow it up after a disappointing HALF-year.

I managed to take in the NCAA regional at Notre Dame, where Hajjar was locked in a 1-1 duel through five innings before UConn scored three in the sixth on four singles sandwiched around a stolen base. The final hit was past a drawn-in 3B, as I recall. Can't give further specifics from memory, other than that it was a well-pitched game both ways to that point. And given that the only other D-1 college game I've attended included a Larnach HR in the College World Series, I consider myself a good omen.

I moved a father-in-law to the retirement home in the last two months, sold his house, and had a son get married last month, so I haven't been following as closely as usual, but was impressed with what seemed like some resiliency recently. In total, 39-50 obviously stinks, but I'm struck that if you split that in (roughly) half, you get a 16-28 stretch over the first 44 games, followed by 45 games of playing .500 (23-22, technically). And over the last 21, they are 12-9, though five of those losses were unfortunately to Chicago. I'm not saying that's "don't sell" territory. I'm just suggesting that the team hasn't been a complete disaster the past month and a half the way most here have suggested. Disappointing, yes, because of what preceded it, but I'd encourage folks to slowly step away from the ledge. Put another way, if they continue at even a .500 clip the rest of the way, they end up at 76 or 77 wins. If they play 12-9 level the rest of the way, they get to, hmmm..., 81 wins. I'm not a betting man, but I'd frankly take the over, particularly if they played out the year with this roster.

"This year has been a complete disaster" is the dominant narrative. I don't completely disagree, but here's a few tidbits I found for perspective: While the team is 38-50 with today's win, it's interesting to split that in half. In the first half of the games so far, they were 16-28, followed by 22-22. In my admittedly cherry-picked sample size, they are 12-9 over the last 21 games. That's not awesome, but it's still 92-win pace for that sample. Buxton has played a little over two games in the last 58. We don't know how much better they would have done, but my hunch is that there's general agreement among us that the record over the last 44 would have been better than 22-22. A friend is a Sox fan (He'd be a good friend if he wasn't a Sox fan. He claims that this is their worst year for injuries that he's even seen. No doubt it's because they've only had two lineups that they've used more than twice. They have used each five times. However, the only difference between the two is the CF, so for 10 games they have had the same lineup EXCEPT for the CF. In total, they have had 69 different lineups in their 87 games going into today. That's pretty tough. However, the Twins have had 79 different lineups in their 87 games going into today. They have had the same lineup three times and six other lineups have been used twice. To my mind, that's worse. The Sox have missed Robert, but Anderson, Moncada and Abreu have each started at least 72, all in the top four spots in the order. So with all that, I'm going to upgrade my assessment from "complete disaster" to "massive disappointment, largely driven by injury." I didn't even address the effect of losing Buxton compared to losing Robert and the fact that the Sox have only needed five starts aside from their opening-day rotation compared to the Twins needing 10 different starters so far, with only Berrios not missing at least one start. So put me clearly in the "retool" category. I completely agree with the lineup and bench in the OP, down to the SS and DH issues. Here's my short-term planning there: Offer Simmons an extension at $10 million for next year. Do it now. Or better yet, $8M with an extra million each at 100, 115, 130, and 145 games. If he gets that many games, he was worth the extra $2-$4M. With the great class, Simmons probably doesn't want to go back on the market against them. I like that the SS issue is addressed early, relatively inexpensively, with great defense and resulting in potentially just one real offensive hole in the entire lineup. IF messages from the front office point to an increase in budget, try to negotiate an extension to Cruz, at around this year's $13M. Again, if he likes it here, he may well go for the guarantee of an additional year given the uncertainty of last winter for him, and he effectively has gotten the 2/$26M he was looking for. If I can't get that, I indeed try to trade him, recognizing I won't get much. At that point, I'm probably assuming I'm going for an offseason signing a la Cron from a couple years ago to serve as an additional DH in the mix. And planning on more from Sano and rotations through the position. Since people have been talking about Donaldson, I'll say that I keep him unless there is an established major league 3B option included in the return. That's not likely, but I'll talk. I'm comfortable with a slight MLB downgrade if it saves money, but I'm not comfortable counting on the existing options in the system. If a trade does happen, I use the dollar savings to go harder after Cruz to ensure that we don't lose both bats. In a nutshell, I'd love to have the 2022 position players relatively set by mid-August, allowing myself the ability for minor tinkering in the offseason if there is a deal that make an upgrade or free up a few bucks for pitching. Good analysis on the rotation options. Given the health of current minor league guys, I'm not sure that you can trade both Pineda and Happ. There's just too many starts to cover the rest of the year to think of getting up to an additional 25 or so starts from the young guys between now and season's end. The likelihood of injuries points to at least some of the rookies getting some starts the rest from here to yearend, but even if two of them thrive and get 12-15 starts the rest of the way, that's not enough for a contending team to consider starting the rotation with two guys with less than 20 career starts in the majors. Sorry, but neither Jax nor Ober has guaranteed a spot yet, let alone by yearend. I'm fine with trading one of them, however, to free up a certain number of starts for rookies, so I trade whichever of Pineda or Happ gets me a better return. That's probably going to be Pineda, but maybe a team is particularly looking for a lefty. In terms of bullpen, however, I'd try to trade both Colome and Robles, putting more effort into getting mid-level guys who have any hope of contributing in 2022 over stronger prospects who are further away. I'm playing for 2022. And realistically, unless you're talking stud starters, teams seem to pursue bullpen help more than starters anyway, since they have to give up too much for starters. For the rest of the year, I'm glad to use the traded Colome and Robles innings for young guys, including some of the young starting candidates listed above. The latter isn't with the view to making them relievers, but rather as a developmental tool for getting MLB innings at various leverage levels without wearing them out. Implied in here is that I don't trade Berrios. With a retool, there's no way you're going to get anything that helps for 2022 that is close to what he is going to do. Similarly, I don't trade Rogers, even though he only has 1.5 years of control. Relievers are unpredictable, but he's been as predictable as about anyone over the last few years. I plan to ride him for the remaining 1.5 years, knowing that he's an affordable strong contributor for next year and still a trade chip (though less valuable, obviously) next July if 2022 doesn't play out as we wish. This post is too long already. I won't address which starters I plan to target in the offseason, since that will be dependent on how the above plays out. But I think my moves set the course well.

There's some good wisdom in the original post and in the comments (on both sides), but on the comments about health, it's worth noting that he's on pace for 125-130 games, is tied for third on the team in games played, and third in plate appearances. That's a reflection of injuries to others, sure, but I think 125-130 games is about what the Twins expected for a 35-year-old 3B on a team that values days off. His OPS+ is also 133, which isn't something you replace easily. I'd also disagree that his presence means nothing for the 2021 team. If you mean that his presence isn't going to get the team to the playoffs, sure. But his presence also means allowing them to not play Arraez or Sano out of position every day. To those who want a team/manager with "more fire," what other players on the team are going to lead that way? From all I've read, he's a teacher of others, etc. Listen to offers, yeah, because that's what you do with everyone, but I'm not too eager to create holes for this year and the future in order to maybe sorta get something that might help down the road.

I just logged in to read the comments about Shoemaker...

From the OP... And Rocco didn’t have any regrets over his decisions This one may get me the most. It’s one thing to make decisions that don’t go your way, look back with the benefit of hindsight and admit you would have liked to do things differently. Instead, Rocco said “there’s really nothing that we would do differently.” Uh, okay ... --------------------------------------------- I have zero problem with this response from Rocco. Everyone knows that not every decision a manager makes is not going to turn out right, but I want my manager to be confident in his decisions. He's going to get enough second-guessing from everyone else -- I don't want him second-guessing himself, at least in public. That he said this to the media could also have been very different than the conversations he's having with his bosses, and I'm okay with that too. I appreciate that he doesn't throw his players under the bus. What did you want him to say? Something like, "Well, if we'd known that Alcala was going to give up a homer, that Duffey was going to suck, and that Shoemaker was going to struggle in the second inning, we wouldn't have gone with those guys"?

While we seem to be disagreeing on Shoemaker, I think your point is exactly right. It seems so obvious on the surface that I'm sure I'm missing something, but it seems like the missing link is the true "long man." Relievers are conditioned to throw 60-70 innings for the season. Barring injury, starters are conditioned to throw 160. No one is conditioned to throw 100. Think of the difference it would make to preserving a bullpen if someone is conditioned to give you 30-32 games per year at an average of three innings per outing. I'm thinking of the guy you bring in: in the sixth when you're up two, hoping for even two innings, but then you tack on a couple more runs and ride him to the four-inning save. in the fourth when you're getting blown out, hoping he can get you three innings, by when you can decide whether to ride out the last two (if you're on the road) or three innings with your lower-leverage guys or go to the high-leverage guys because your bats had come alive. It just seems like there's a place for that guy. Rocco wouldn't have gotten excoriated for it on TD, but if they had gotten a run in the bottom of the fifth to make it 4-2, that's where I would have preferred seeing Shoemaker last night.

First, you're not going to have to take any lumps from me. I appreciate your insights. Good thought-through responses like this are the best part of Twins Daily. Please don't make this your last post. You've pointed to what I think is the one of the biggest challenge managers face. You named it as "math" vs. "feel." Sometimes it gets described as the balance between art and science. Needing to find that balance isn't unique to baseball managers -- in the nonprofit world where I work, I've heard it said that the two biggest complaints about nonprofit boards are "they act too much like a business" and "they don't act enough like a business." A second key balancing point, which I think is very related to the first, is the balancing between the immediate (as in, in-game) and the long term. In Rocco's case, I would agree that he does lean to the "math" side and the "long-term" side. In my experience, those traits often go hand-in-hand in people. That also tends to be my orientation to life, which is probably why I actually felt pretty good about the decisions he made along the way. But I also think sometimes guys like Rocco don't get credit for the "feel" that they have. Because we're not in the dugout, and because "feel" is so much harder to accurately get a read on (see, there I go, talking in a math/science mindset), we can't see that part as easily, Spycake noted that 81 pitches is the most he's thrown and that he's thrown 29 innings so far this year, when the highest in his career has been 80, give or take. That means that he only has another 11 or 12 starts before he'll match his high from previous years. For him to finish the year in the rotation, even at just five innings per game, would blow past his previous high after not having any game action a year ago. Those are mathy things and offer an explanation for pulling him. But in last night's case, I think it was actually the "feel" that had him pulling Ober. Game situations don't always allow for this, but I think Rocco does a good job of bring along young guys and putting them in positions to succeed. Note the way that Alcala has gradually worked into higher-leverage situations, for example. With young guys Ober, Rocco seems to "feel" that it's better to pull them a batter too soon than a batter too late. Combine that with feeling like Ober was starting to get hit a little harder, and I think he felt it better for the next start for Ober to feel like he'd had a good one, rather than to come out saying, "Crap, I got off to a good start, but then the wheels came off." We tend to remember our failures MUCH more than we remember our success, and I think his mindset will be better for the next game for having been pulled. I'm sure that's also a conversation that has happened behind closed doors, but we're not privy to that. Again, thanks for your thoughts.

I'm not going to debate whether they should have made any roster moves, but let's look at the bullpen decisions: First, based on the pitch chart above, Jax and Farrell are likely not available. More on that later. After five innings, Ober has thrown 75 pitches, has gotten hit harder in the fifth, and is in the third time through the order. He's in position to win, and can leave with confidence in having a solid start. So you go to Alcala. That's a logical decision, though he's pitched three of the previous four nights. Unfortunately, he gives up a run and it's now tied. You don't score in the sixth. Alcala has now pitched four of the last five nights and had 15 pitches in the sixth, so you can't run him out for the seventh, so you go to Duffey. Again, a logical decision, though less than ideal given that he'd thrown 20 pitches Thursday night, but he'd had the two previous days off. Unfortunately, he gives up a run and is looking like he could give up more. So you go to Rogers to keep yourself in the game. He gets you out of the inning with no more damage, but you're down a run thanks to Duffey. You don't score in the seventh, so what do you do? It's still a one-run game, but do you want to use your best reliever when you're down a run, certainly shooting that bullet for tomorrow night? No. Your choices are a rested Shoemaker, a tired Colome, and Robles, who also pitched last night. You don't want to use your other closer down a run, and you don't fully trust Colome. Besides, it would have been his third game in four days. So you go to Shoemaker, which seems logical given the options. Though less than an ideal situation for him, it's also a chance to see how he does in a new role. He does well, getting the 5-6-7 hitters in order. Donaldson homers to tie the score. So for the ninth, here's your options, in a tie game: Colome, who would be pitching his third game in four days. Jax, who threw 23 pitches on Tuesday and 53 on Wednesday. Farrell, who threw 19 on Tuesday and 23 on Thursday. Robles, reasonably rested, though he threw 11 pitches Thursday. But if you don't score in the ninth, your options for the 10th are Colome, Jax, or Farrell. And you've also shot yourself for Saturday. Or Shoemaker, who has just thrown a solid eighth, is accustomed to going multiple innings, who hasn't thrown in several days, and who will be facing 8-9-1 in the order. Again, I'm not discussing whether someone else should have been called up. And even if you had brought someone, do you want to throw them into this high-leverage situation? So as the game played itself out and with what Rocco had to work with, I think running Shoemaker out for both the eighth and the ninth was the right choice. Like so much of the season, it didn't work out.