IndianaTwin

Fun fact: The 13 guys currently on the staff have a combined 3.66 ERA. Fun fact No. 2: Through 67 games, the entire team is on pace to allow 711 runs. The average over the previous seven years was 797. Fun fact No. 3: In the playoff run from 2002-2010, they averaged 715. With some guy named Johan helping out. (And this year is without the guy who was supposed to be the No. 1.)

I get the love for Magill -- I've been impressed too, but I think that going to Hildenberger and Rogers was the right move. Think of the bullpen in tiers and roles: Rodney is the closer, and the hope was not to use him.Reed and Pressley are the guys he's had confidence in in tight games, but we're all complaining that they are overused, and it was a five-run lead. It was right not to use them.Duke is the Loogy and threw 13 pitches on Tuesday and 15 on Thursday. It was right not to use him.That leaves Hildenberger, Pressley, Magill, and Belisle. Magill has been impressive, and threw 3.1 and 3 innings in his last two outings. It would have been easy to give him two innings. Last Tuesday, he threw 3 innings and kept the team in the game -- you need a guy who can go multiple innings when a starter gets blown out early, and it appears that there is reason to have confidence in him in this role. Molitor also has his least-experienced pitcher starting today and "5-inning Odorizzi" tomorrow, so it's not a bad thing to have the multiple-inning guy fresh. By contrast, Hildenberger and Rogers are both primarily one-inning guys. Since April 30, Hildy had thrown 22.2 innings with a 1.19 ERA and a 0.79 WHIP. In the same time period, Rogers had thrown 15 innings with a 1.80 ERA and a 0.87 WHIP. Both were also well-rested. Hildy had thrown twice in the last eight days, including only 23 pitches since last Saturday. Rogers had thrown once in the last eight days, 10 pitches on Sunday. So to me, it was better to give Hildy and Rogers an inning each and continue building them into guys that he can go to in higher-leverage situations in the 7th and 8th. With their history, they are probably the next options to use in the Reed/Pressley roles. Hildy pitched fine and Rogers just happened to have his first clunker in more than a month. It happens. And by going just one inning each, Hildy and Rogers are both are likely still available for today or tomorrow. Plus Magill is still ready for a longer outing today or tomorrow if needed -- had he gone two innings, he probably wouldn't be available today and probably not tomorrow.

Something I like about his relative inexperience is that he could easily have more improvement left in him than the guys who've been playing 11 months per year.

Decisions like this are a blend of art and science. My momma always said, "We'll cross that bridge when we get to it." So I think you make a general plan and adapt as the circumstances call for it and as things play out. Odorizzi shows us that not every inning is equal, since he's been averaging 18.6 pitches per inning, so I like Jeremy's approach of looking at pitches thrown. And 2400-2500 seems about right for the year. That leaves Romero in the neighborhood of 1250 pitches remaining. If you ballpark 90 pitches per start, that's around 14 more starts. So keep that in mind and see how things play out over the next month or so. Considerations in that are: Staying on the current 5-man rotation with no rainouts gives Romero five starts -- June 22 and 28 and July 3, 8 and 13 -- before the all-star break.How's Santana doing? None of the current guys has really pitched himself out of the rotation. If Santana or May gets to the point of being ready, it only takes three starts by one of them (in a six-man rotation) to save a start before the break. Or two starts and a rainout, etc.If that doesn't happen, move Romero to the back of the rotation coming out of the break, which essentially is the same as skipping a start.If all five current guys are still healthy and pitching effectively when (if) Santana (or May) are ready, go ahead and go to a six-man rotation for a few times through the rotation and see how things go.By that time, you also have a pretty good sense of whether you're buyers or sellers. If sellers, and everyone is healthy, Lynn's going to be a trade candidate.And if sellers, that also means that it's pretty easy to shut down Romero when it seems appropriate based on fatigue and effectiveness.In a best case scenario (the Twins are still in it and guys are healthy), I think Romero would be a good candidate for the bullpenning approach. I'd think about pairing him with Odorizzi, since Odorizzi seems to particularly struggle with the third time through the order. But to keep Romero on a regular preparation pattern, consider starting him and letting him go two innings. Often, that would bring Odorizzi into the game at the bottom of the order, so when he starts his third time through, he's starting with the 7, 8 or 9 hitter. Similarly, two innings of Romero and five of Odorizzi gets us to the eighth inning and very close to the FRE, so it (in theory) also provides a lighter day for the bullpen.

The first game was a make-up from Jackie Robinson Day in April when everybody wears 42.

I’ll do my best to keep things brief(ish). (Warning, I failed.) Seth wrote an article and titled it as being at least partially about “high character.” I thought that was appropriate – the front office has talked about character being a priority, but we all know that it’s not as easily quantifiable as fastball speed, etc. His article was great and, I have to assume, seems to capture their spirit well. I also appreciated it because, stats geek that I am, I can only handle so much fWAR and BABIP. It was nice to see their human side. (Aside: If the “character” language comes up from the front office around this year’s draft, I think an interesting article would be a conversation with the powers-that-be. What attributes are they looking for in “high-character” people? Is it vocal leadership? Humility? The ability to make people around them better? Are there certain attributes they prioritize? Do they do any quantifiable stuff like the NFL attempts?) I added an item that, from my limited perspective, seems to support Seth’s description of Lewis. Based on the number of likes, at least a few seemed to appreciate that addition. ThejcKmp named the challenge that comes with trying to identify character and what it’s worth. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I read it as even asking whether the notion of “good character” is over-rated. I thought he raised his questions tastefully and that he tried to emphasize that he wasn’t accusing anyone of anything improper. ThejcKmp introduced the issue of race, but I thought did it very appropriately. From the post: “There’s another reason I always feel uncomfortable with that word. I hesitate to even make this point because it may be divisive but I’ve (unscientifically) noticed that when we apply character, we tend to do it with white players.” In reality, there is scientific data that suggests that different races (or genders, or other characteristics in which we tend to group people) are viewed differently when it comes to demonstrating various attributes or personality traits. I appreciated the response and said so. I named my own wonderings about the words we describe certain players, also using race as my reference. Similarly, I tried to do it tactfully and tried to emphasize that it was a wondering on my part. To give it a bigger context, I used an example from outside Twins Daily. I could have similarly described conversations I’ve had with an African-born professional athlete friend who has experienced what it means to be viewed differently because of his race, both on and off the field. In following his career through our local newspapers, I’ve seen a difference in how he was portrayed compared to white teammates. In statements like, “He carries himself with a lot of humility,” it was clear to me that it was occasionally code for “He carries himself with a lot of humility (for a guy with dreds).” There have been varied responses. Several have noted in various ways that this is rarely an all-or-nothing thing, particularly when discussing something as broad as race. We can all name “high-character” black or Latino guys. We can all name “low-character” white guys. There is often going to be greater difference within a group than there is between groups. There have also been comments about the appropriateness of bringing race into the discussion. As one who did, I can only speak for myself. I vacillated about whether to apologize for doing so, but decided to let my comments stand, for at least a few reasons. First, the conversation has made me think a bit more about how we view “character” in a player and whether that’s different from one race to another. Perhaps it’s been beneficial in some way for others as well. If so, I consider that a positive. Second, to take that a step further, I hope we can also recognize that sport is part of a bigger society. Baseball made a difference in broader society’s conscious views of race on April 15, 1947, and beyond. Perhaps we in this little corner of the sports world can grow just a little bit in how we think about a divisive issue. Finally, over the past while, I’ve come to think differently about how we ask our questions and make our statements on difficult topics. (Please note: I am not accusing anyone of the following.) But when we say, “It’s okay to talk about that, but not in this context,” we run the risk of sweeping an issue under the rug and avoiding it. Naming an issue is important, as is naming it in the right context. In some cases, it’s a big action. Had John Carlos and Tommie Smith raised their fists after a junior high dual meet in some unknown county, no one would have cared. But they made a visible statement in a particular context and the 50th anniversary of their act will no doubt be commemorated this fall. I don’t have that much courage. I doubt my post will be remembered 50 days from now, let alone 50 years. But I consider Twins Daily a safe place, for which I am thankful to you alll, so I took the small step and joined the conversation. I hope people will hear my previous (and this) statement in the spirit with which they were written. I said it would be “brief(ish),” and I’m now at roughly 1,000 words. If you’ve read this far, thanks for listening. If I’ve offended any, I apologize. To the moderators, if you want to leave this as is, I’m fine with that. If you would prefer to use it to start its own thread, I’m fine with that (though I’d prefer to tweak it a bit for context). And if you so deem, I will regretfully accept my first “warning points.” In any case, I will now move myself over to tonight’s Game Thread.

And ditto -- I'm glad to go elsewhere if appropriate. I think you posted this while I was writing my response. I do appreciate the work you do as moderators, and I think that all in all TD is great in working with these dynamics. A primary reason I come back regularly is the civility that is demonstrated here.

Thanks, Thejac Kemp. And as another straight white dude (who's working on being gray-haired to boot), I think you're spot on. I try to be very sensitive to that dynamic, but I know that I still carry my implicit biases. I've cringed a few times when our language on Twins Daily has described a few (read, often Latino) players with less than complimentary terms and wondered if the same descriptors would get used about other (read, Anglo) players. To take it to a different setting, I recently send a message to the host of my favorite syndicated radio show, naming that I thought it inappropriate that on their Cinco de Mayo show featuring "South of the Border" classic country music, a disproportionate number of songs featured the stereotype of Mexicans only caring about drinking and partying. I've not gotten a response. I've not yet had the courage to raise that question on TD, at least in part because I think the moderators do a great job and that people are generally pretty respectful, but sometimes it's the subtle stuff that's most damaging, just because we don't realize it's happening. (But as an aside, I did actually hear Dan or Corey (Corey, I think) brag on Drew Butera's character last night, so I'll share it as a good story. Apparently Butera befriended a kid with cancer and told the kid that if the kid beat the cancer, he would dye his hair whatever color the kid wanted. The kid did, and a few weeks ago they went to the salon so that Drew could get pink hair.)

I used to be a children's minister, and I'm married to a special education teacher, so I pay attention to how people treat little kids and those on the margins of society. When I saw the Kernels in Clinton a few weeks ago, I was struck that Lewis was the one guy on the team that asked the bat boy his name, told them his, bumped knuckles and asked them a question. Then, when they switched teams mid-game, he did the same with the second kid, who also had a physical limitation. Nice job, Royce.

This is great. I'm going to be in town on business and am thinking of catching a game with a buddy. Which game did you go to on the general admission ticket?

When I read the article title and it began, "The year was 1973...," I thought I was going to get this:

Thanks. 'Cause negativity stinks. Can I say that?

Enough with these literature references. Give me some math!

Concur. Though since we're talking about hopes, I hope it's in the National League.

I saw him last night, and I thought he looked pretty good. Of the six hits, one was a bloop, and most of the others were ground ball singles through the infield. A couple were nearly knocked down by diving infielders but took big hops on an infield that looked like it had a couple lips. Several other comments. I thought Banuelos did a good job working with all three pitchers. I was sitting right behind the dugout, and I liked how Lewis interacted with others, from being the only guy to talk to both bat boys and then comparing notes on pitchers with other hitters. Cabbage seemed to have good wheels for his size. Rortvedt crushed the ball on his double into a brutal wind.

First, I like the premise of this new series. I think it has the potential for some great discussions. Second, I wrote a lot of this in today’s game recap thread, but it may fit better here. A lot of the responses above use the “cut Hughes” language. Sorry, but I’m not ready to give up on him. He’s retired 10 of 12 in his four one-inning stints in the pen, and thrown the vast majority of his pitches for strikes after less than 60 percent for strikes as a starter. Two strikeouts and no walks. The first two games were the ninth inning in blowouts, but Monday was the first time he was tested in a game that was still in the balance. He succeeded, getting three outs on nine pitches with the team down just 1-0 in the ninth. He had a strikeout and two weakly hit balls. It’s true that the two batters he hasn’t retired in relief have each hit homers. But they were each solo, because he hadn’t allowed any other runners. Overall, I think he was probably able to leave each of the four outings with a sense that he had taken at least a small step forward. Those are the incremental steps toward getting the confidence of your manager. I think he’ll get a few more outings in low-leverage situations, but if he is able to continue progressing, I could see him moving into the mix. But to the original question, I think the bigger issue at this point is how much longer they can afford to run Lynn out there every five days. Most of the posts have also focused on the Santana question, rather than the May question. But May threw 58 pitches on the 12th — is he scheduled to go tomorrow night? Whenever he goes, I assume the goal is 75 pitches or so. This front office has seemed to operate by making their decisions at the last possible minute. Witness the way they played day-by-day on when they actually had to roll out Hughes as a starter amidst the postponements. We didn’t have large amounts of lead time on the fact that Romero was going to get a start. Put all those pieces together, and I could see the following. Lynn pitched today and May potentially tomorrow? With a Twins off day tomorrow, Lynn and May are essentially on the same scale. Eventually optioning May is a legit possibility, and I could see wisdom in that, but if May pitches well in the next two rehab starts and Lynn struggles (again) next Tuesday, I could also see making the switch to May on the 28th when he is eligible and Lynn’s turn comes around. In other words, one more guaranteed start for Lynn. If he pitches well on the 22nd, he gets to stay around. If not, May on the 28th. Then what do you do with Lynn? The optimist in me says that I think Hughes can work his way into the legit bullpen options group by then. The realist in me says that someone is going to get hurt or pitch their way back to Rochester. Either way, Lynn slots into the current Hughes role, seeking to regain his effectiveness in low-leverage situations. He wouldn’t be the first starter forced to make that transition. And if Hughes and Lynn could both actually make that transition, that has the makings of a deep pen! Now back to the original question. If from the mix of Romero, Berrios, Odorizzi, Gibson, Lynn, and May, there are five that are pitching effectively, add Santana and go to six. If not, Santana replaces the fifth most effective. If Romero isn’t among the top four, send him back to Rochester for a few starts and to protect innings, with the possibility of coming back as a starter if needed, or as reliever if not, since 150ish innings is likely the limit. (And by the way, if somehow they get through a six-man rotation for a few turns and all are effective, that sounds like a trade brewing, with either Odorizzi or Lynn hitting the road for prospects.) Finally, let’s remember that all of these options are better than last year’s choices!

Why not use Hughes in long relief? How about, “because that’s not his role.” When Lynn got pulled, it wasn’t a 5-0 game where you say, “Here, Phil, pitch until your arm falls off.” It was a 3-2 game, and Molitor was probably looking for the most likely candidate to get him 2-3 scoreless innings. Based on the last 16 months, Rogers was probably a better shot than Hughes. But sorry, I’m not ready to give up on Hughes. He’s retired 10 of 12 in his four one-inning stints in the pen, and thrown the vast majority of his pitches for strikes after less than 60 percent for strikes as a starter. Two strikeouts and no walks. The first two games were the ninth inning in blowouts, but Monday was the first time he was tested in a game that was still in the balance. He succeeded, getting three outs on nine pitches with the team down just 1-0 in the ninth. He had a strikeout and two weakly hit balls. It’s true that the two batters he hasn’t retired in relief have each hit homers. But they were each solo, because he hadn’t allowed any other runners. Overall, I think he was probably able to leave each of the four outings with a sense that he had taken at least a small step forward. Those are the incremental steps toward getting the confidence of your manager. I think he’ll get a few more outings in low-leverage situations, but if he is able to continue progressing, I could see him moving into the mix.

1-For all the “let’s call up the young pitchers and give them a chance” clamoring that goes on on TD, it seems an over-reach to declare Garver a flop at 105 at bats. 2-If Gimenez indeed has an opt-out on June 1, why trade anything for him on May 16?

I think I’ll play a little music while I go pick up some chicken... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gw6JO_l8NyQ

I was having second thoughts on the plan to run Berrios out again after how long the inning was, but at least he gets the ovation.

Elsewhere in the race to the bottom of the gene pool, Boston’s (and my fantasy team’s) Carson Smith hits the DL after a “right shoulder subluxation” after throwing his glove in the dugout following his last outing...

Feel free to go to class now. Fernando and Friends have this covered.

But they should have played the outfield back a little farther!

The wheels on the Bux go round and round...

Don’t we hate it when Molly bunts?