IndianaTwin

It varies. For example, in the Wild Card Round, you only need three starters on Tuesday-Wednesday-Thursday. I agree on Maeda and Pineda for the first two games. Because Game 3 (if necessary) is a decider, I’d lean toward Hill’s experience over Berrios, but would keep Berrios on the roster. Because of contrasting styles, he could be a good stack option following Hill, for example. In a three-game scenario, Odo and Dobnak may not make the roster. With the new rules, you probably don’t need the long guy for the possible 14-inning game. If they win, they then have several days off to move the bubble, where they play five in a row. That doesn’t start until the following Monday, so they can go back to the top of the rotation with Maeda on five days of rest. In that case, I go Maeda-Pineda-Hill-Berrios-Odo. Rather than planning for Odo/Dobnak In Game 5, I’d hope that the first four starters go long enough to leave a reasonably rested bullpen. If you can get four innings from Odo, I’d go to the bullpen guys before Dobnak. Then if they win, they’re back to the traditional 2-3-2 format for the final two rounds, so you only need four starters. At this point, I’d assume you’re back to Maeda-Pineda-Berrios-Hill, though one might argue that Berrios is better suited to the bullpen as a contrast in style to either Hill or Odo.

Right — my point is that there isn’t really that much to gain by putting someone on the 45-man compared to the 10-day at this point in the season.

And putting Rooker on the 45-day IL would only gain them two weeks of wiggle room, right? They'd have to take him back off near the beginning of the off season.

Regarding Rooker getting hit — with Kepler expected back tomorrow, likely either Rooker or Wade were going to get sent down. This probably makes the decision.

It's also just the fourth time this season and the second time since the opening weekend that they have scored more than seven runs. Last year they did that in about one of every four games. Even the Pirates have done it as many times as the Twins this year, and the Nats have done it five times.

Well, right now, they have six games in five days. Unless you think Odo will be ready for one of the games, you either have to use a bullpen game once or call up someone else. They've demonstrated that they don't want to call up someone else. So, in that case, the issue isn't, "They've just had two days off." It's, "Which game makes the most sense to make a bullpen game?" If there's going to be a bullpen game, I think they picked the right one. It was the second game of a double header (so you only need seven innings rather than nine) and following a pitcher who has been one of your better guys (unfortunately, Dobnak wasn't good in the first game) against the team that appears to be the weaker of the two in that stretch. And don't look now, folks, but expect the same approach starting Friday, when we have seven games in five days. I'm hopeful Odo will be back so that they only need one bullpen game in that mix, but don't be surprised if we get two. (Note -- I'm not arguing for or against bullpen games. I'm just saying that if you're going to go that route, I think they've taken the best approach.)

I do predict at least two trades this week: *On Wednesday, I predict they trade Lewis Thorpe for Michael Pineda. *On next weekend, I predict they trade Juan Minaya for Jake Odorizzi. Further, sometime this week, I also predict they trade a PTBNL for Josh Donaldson.

I can’t speak to whether or not Robinson considered himself a lifelong Republican or not, but according to this article, he supported Humphrey over Nixon in 1968. https://web.archive.org/web/20080302110739/http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070603&content_id=2003372&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb I think it’s pretty hard to know what another person’s politics would be, nearly 50 years after his death, particularly someone as complex and thoughtful as him. Both parties have changed in that time, and one thing that seems consistent in his life was that his political preferences evolved according to the current context. I’ve not read the book edited by the author of this column, but I also found this column an interesting read. https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-jackie-robinson-100-politics-mlk-nixon-0131-20190130-story.html

I applaud your employer in doing that. And from the tone of your response, I gather that you saw it an overall beneficial thing to do. The cynic can say, “It was a PR move by the company,” but let’s count a few ways that it was actually good business: A company’s biggest resource is often its staff. It seems that you and (and I’m guessing others) did some valuable reflecting.By virtually any account, stress level has been up in virtually all walks of life, and addressing mental health is a significant cost for many employers. They took a step to address mental health by giving the gift of a day off that probably didn’t cost them very much.They sent a message to a segment of their employees that they recognize that the challenges they face are real, further validating their appreciation for this group. The net of all these is that it likely contributed to a sense of well-being for the employees and to this being a desirable place to work. I draw some of these observations from my own situation. For several years, we’ve had MLK Day as a paid holiday. This year, they made it a required work day, but gave us an additional floating holiday in exchange (a net gain, since it gave us flexibility in when we take the day off). But instead of business as usual on MLK Day, we were closed for business and we spent the day in educational activities around systemic racism, including ways that systemic racism has been an issue in the industry we are a part of. And it’s made a difference. Since then, I’ve heard people from senior management to entry level ask about the ongoing decisions we make and whether they are ethical. I’ve heard differences in our thinking about hiring practices. I’ve seen us make better decisions about how we engage with markets that have typically been under-served. So now, the cynic says, “Well, they only did it to benefit themselves. They didn’t really care — they just wanted to make more money.” I think that’s a lame response as well. In both cases, it suggests that individual decisions are singularly motivated, when they are nearly always multifaceted. In this case, I think not playing was a good move on a lot of fronts. PR? Sure. But I think it’s also a good move in adding to the conversation, which is what the majority of players who’ve spoken have seemed to say is their primary goal in not playing. I’ve heard a lot of articulate statements from those involved. The one that stood out the most was Joe Girardi, who said something to the effect of, “I hope that there are kids who are asking their parents, ‘Why didn’t the Phillies play tonight?’ And I hope that there are parents taking those questions seriously and talking with their children about what’s happening in our world.” Players are recognizing that they are in position to encourage those conversations in ways that Indiana Twin and his friends on Twins Daily are not able to do. In my mind, that’s advancing the overall conversation, and it’s a responsible thing for them to do. Did it cost the players anything to reschedule a game? Who cares? Why do so many things need to be seen as a zero-sum game? Why does it only count as a “statement” if someone has made a “sacrifice”? Why was it only worth doing if dramatic changes happen as a result? And why do we as humans sometimes see it as our job to make sure that if someone hasn’t “sacrificed” enough in some other way (at least as judged by me), they at least sacrifice by receiving our scorn for something that they have done with good intentions?

Yep. With Bauer going tonight against Hill, this is the "if we win it, we're lucky" game of the series, which is why you pull out the stops and get game 1 in the bag, even if it means using May, Romo, and Rogers. And don't forget Adrianza if we're down six.

My understanding is that the three playoff games last year counted toward his suspension, so he is eligible after six more games. That is next Monday. He has thrown enough pitches in simulated games to step into the rotation. I look for: 25th: Hill (Cle) 26th: Berrios (Cle) 27th: Dobnak (Det) 28th: Bullpen (Det) 29th: Maeda (Det) 30th: Hill (Det) 31st: Berrios (CWS) 1st: Dobnak (CWS) 2nd: Pineda (CWS) 3rd: Off 4th: Maeda (Det) 5th: Hill (Det) 6th: Berrios (Det) 7th: Dobnak (Det) 8th: Pineda/Odo (or bullpen, if Odo not yet ready) (St.L) 9th: Off 10th: Off 11th: Maeda (Cle) 12th: Berrios (Cle) (skip Hill, unless he’s pitched well) 13th: Dobnak (Cle) 14th, following: Continue with two or three of Hill, Pineda and Odo, in either a five- or six-man rotation as health allows. While using Pineda could be used on the 31st, holding him off until the 2nd allows for lining up Maeda/Berrios/Dobnak for the remaining Cleveland series. That assumes no more line drives up the middle or other injuries to pitchers, but it’s good to flesh things out for a couple weeks in the best-case scenario.

Yes, with the Orioles returning to being the Orioles, it feels like the AL playoff field is set, with only the seedings to be determined. Six teams are at a .407 percentage or lower and the Orioles are sliding. Six are at better than .600, and the Astros are climbing. And the Blue Jays are in the middle at No. 8. Sure, a five-game winning or losing streak can change things, but the list of which team is in which group is pretty much what we expected. But what I'm most struck by is that most of us can probably point to all the places where we're not playing up to potential, yet we're in first place in the division, a game off the best record in the league, and have the league's best run differential. To me, one of the best marks of a good team is when you are winning despite not playing well.

So apparently if last week was the 4-2 weekend, this is the 7-2 one?

Thinking of this this morning. Genetically speaking, and disregarding the question of whether a bullpen game is a good strategy, if a team has a Saturday doubleheader and a Sunday game, without off days before and after, when is the best time to use the bullpen game? Is it one of the seven-inning games, figuring that you only need to get through perhaps five guys without one getting shelled vs. needing to get through perhaps seven guys? Or do you go the traditional route in the doubleheader, hoping you get perhaps five innings from one starter and six from the other, meaning that you only needed three innings of relief and hopefully have a well-rested pen for the bullpen game? The risk is a starter getting shelled and having used a bunch of guys heading into the bullpen game. If it doesn’t mess with a starter’s psyche, I wonder if it makes sense to assume two starters, but if the first guy goes six, or better yet, seven, switch to the bullpen for Game 2. The bullpen is well rested for the bullpen game, and hopefully doesn’t get depleted heading into the 9-inning game. But if the first game pitcher gets shellacked and only goes two or three, better start the starter in Game 2 so you don’t have to get 12 innings from the pen in a single day. What other thoughts?

I think there may be some teams trying to be sellers. I just don’t think there will be many teams willing to be buyers, for many of the reasons listed above. You need both to make trades. (And unless I missed it, nobody’s mentioned the possibility of playoffs not even happening, in which case you’ve given away an asset for essentially no return.)

I think Rocco articulated well a strategy that makes sense, particularly when you are a strong team and there are eight playoff spots. With their offense, they’re probably going to be tied or have the lead after six innings in at least 33-35 of those games. Get the win in 90 percent of those, and you’ve got 30+ wins in the bag. And with their deep pen, even the Nos. 5 and 6 guys are usually going to keep them close enough for the bats to come back and get a half-dozen wins amount the remaining games. That’s 36 wins and a pretty high seed. I don’t mind the bullpen games, and with Hill being so close to back, they likely aren’t going to need more than one more (assuming health). Look for it Monday or Tuesday, with Maeda pitching the other. Hill will be back by the following weekend when that spot comes around again, if not before. Beyond that, Pineda is back in a couple weeks, and Bailey is assumed to still be in the mix. An issue with sending down a reliever to bring up Duran or another starter from St. Paul is that you’ve now lost that reliever for the next 10 days (barring an IL move, which admittedly they are very willing to use). And speaking of the offense, if they’d exploded for 12 runs on Tuesday rather than Wednesday, we wouldn’t be worked up about it having been a bullpen game.

I’ve really enjoyed these articles — thanks for the series, Ted. This may seem like splitting hairs because it’s a nuance, but I think of four of the stories as being more about “women in sports media” than “women in baseball.” (And “women in sports media” is also a worthy series, since that’s another place were women have been woefully under-represented.) I think of it this way. For Lambert, for example, the logical career path is likely to be up the food chain to a network job doing the NFL and the Final Four, or even to the news side doing “60 Minutes.” I think it’s also telling that she says the Twins are a great organization to work “with” than “for.” It’s Fox that signs her paycheck, not MLB or the Twins. Now, if she was a producer for the Twins marketing/scoreboard/social media department with the natural path of moving up to be Twins Director of Media, I’d portray this differently. Or the producer slicing and dicing video to work at player development. Again, that’s not to detract from the excellence of the articles. That you’ve needed to expand to include people like Lambert speaks to the paucity of women in the field. I’m also looking to watching the Diversity webinar to hear some additional stories about women.

Short a significant injury, I don’t see any reason to start the service clock on any of them. At 12-7, they’d have to go something like 17-24 to not make the playoffs. Beyond that, I’m not sure that seeding is that big of a deal, so the advantage of a win or two isn’t much. None of the guys you’ve named have had any real opportunity to significantly up their game since spring training, other than the maturity that comes with a few more months of physical development. While they may be more successful than Cave, the marginal value of improving your 4th outfielder is about as small as any spot on the roster. While there’s something to be said in player development for being up close and personal with the major leaguers, these guys are probably getting more hands-on time and reps with coaches in St. Paul than they would in Minneapolis. Frankly, if they are able to call Whitefield back up after optioning him to Pensacola, having him available to pinch run for Cruz, Sano, or the catcher when they start on second base in an extra-inning game is probably more likely to make a difference in a crucial game than having Kiriloff, Larnach, or Rooker available as a pinch hitter. I might also see it different if one of them was a clear upgrade over Sano and could serve as a defensive replacement.

Can he hit?

So, for perspective, at least Garver (3 for 32; .094) is outhitting Gary Sanchez (3 for 35; .086).

I’m sure Rocco would rather not use Rogers in three straight days, but only throwing 18 pitches in the two games would tempt me into using him if needed on Sunday, particularly with four games coming up against the Pirates. (Better, of course, would be an 8-0 win.)

I'd argue that the drop from No. 1 to No. 2 is bigger at catcher than at any other position, save perhaps shortstop. Then, take into account that you need two catchers and that the drop from No. 2 to No. 3 is also huge, I have to go with Garver.

Fifteen. I look at the roster and say, "Even the 15th dude on the staff has the ability to contribute." I like that.

I was wondering about this. With this scenario, he could easily have some games when he hits three markers, one for the start and two for innings levels. In theory, he could even get four incentives if he has something like 55.2 innings though 10 starts and goes 7.1 to reach 56, 59, and 63 in his 11th start.

I'd like to see an average of three out of four starts, with a reasonably quick hook in blowouts. (And extra days off in the final two weeks after they have clinched the division. )