IndianaTwin

I do think it would be fun to be a fly on the wall in the offseason (and in-season) planning meetings as they are talking about things like pitching staff makeup. We tend to oversimplify it and say things like "5 starters x 160 innings means 800 innings, so 8 relievers x , but they are working with so much more data. I imagine they are sitting there with statements like: Best case scenario is Lopez and Ryan at 170 innings (or whatever). Based on history, we know that "top-level" starters average about 85 percent (or whatever) because of injuries. Best case scenario on Ober and SWR is 150 (or whatever). Based on history, we know pitchers of their ilk average about 80 percent (or whatever) of that total because of injuries and (in)effectiveness level. Then we've got Bradley, Abel, Festa. Based on their talent and development levels, best case is 135 (or whatever). We know that one of them will need to be in the Opening Day roster. Based on history, it's reasonably likely two will. On average, we need a sixth starter by April 15 (or whatever) because of injury and our seventh by May 1 (or whatever). We've got Prielipp, Rojas, etc. Developmentally, the ideal is to keep them in St. Paul until at least May 1. Developmentally the best case scenario is 120 innings (or whatever) on the season. Based on when we think we'll need them, it's best to start them with just 4 innings on a seven-day schedule in St. Paul so we don't use their bullets. But if the best case scenario on Lopez turns into the worst case of a TJS, here's the most likely adjustment... And so on and so forth, knowing they need an plan for some combination of pitchers to pitch approximately 830 innings in "starter" roles over the course of the season. And then the same thing with the bullpen: We'd like a bullpen that generally includes: Someone in a closer "role." Historically the person in the starter role pitches 65 innings (or whatever). An "8th inning guy." A "7th inning guy." A "mid-inning, come in with runners on base guy" A "flexible guy" Another "flexible guy" A "long guy" (capable of up to 100 innings, see upcoming comment) A "developmental guy" (see upcoming comment) Obligatory "(or whatever)" comments as these roles are defined. And each of those "roles" has a typical number of innings. We know that very few guys pitch the entire season in the same role (other than perhaps the closer if you've got a Duran still around), but we are going at the roles. We also know that there's no such thing as a "low-leverage reliever," but we also know that some guys aren't ready for consistent high-leverage innings. Developmentally, the guy in that "developmental" role is either going to pitch himself up the ladder or down (or be forced up or down by some guy getting hurt or coming off the IL), at which point he's replaced by a new guy. A few times, he'll be forced into higher-leverage innings than we really desire. And then you're figuring out combinations. We don't have an established closer and we don't see a rookie immediately ready to step in. Let's invite x number of veterans to camp and let them sort themselves out, hopefully buying time until.... Injuries and ineffectiveness happens, so we know that that on average, the eight guys who start the season in the bullpen end up getting about 65, 65, 60, 50, 30, 25, 15 and 10 (or whatever) innings. On average, we know that it takes about seven guys with the ability to throw 60+ innings to end up with three that actually do. Do we have those seven guys? We want to always have a "long guy," even if it's not always the same guy. Let's start the season with (whomever) in that role. When he pitches his way into higher-level innings, or is needed in the rotation, or sucks, or gets hurt, etc., a new guy is going to be in this role for a time. So while it won't be a single guy in that role all season, there will be a combination of guys who total that number of innings during the windows of time they are in that role. That also sounds way, way, way, way, way more rigid than I'm intending. Thus the constant "or whatevers" I included. I'm just thinking that there has to be a process that they start from and that constantly needs to be adjusted as stuff happens. It's essentially an ongoing asset allocation question not unlike what businesses go through. That's a conversation I'd love to listen in on, just to hear how they work at it.

I think we're in complete agreement that the OP was based on a false premise, which was the bulk of my first comment. I think we're also in complete agreement on the value of having at least some of the relievers a) be able to throw multiple innings and b) be used that way. Maybe I misinterpreted how you were describing it. My larger rejection of the "piggy back" or "bulk" premise is that it's not really feasible to do it in an overly structured way, the rigidity you reference. Because of how some others on TD have talked about it in the past, I may have read an implied rigidity into your comments that wasn't intended on your part. Sorry about that.

My son gave me a "Relax, I have a spreadsheet for that" fridge magnet that I have by my computer at work, so I love a good set of numbers. Some of these ideas work well on screen, but they don't work well in practice. First, though you used an average start of 6 innings for ease of numbers, that's not reality. So far, the league average is 5.1 innings per start. For context, the Twins are right at league average with 5.1. That's skewed a bit because of some Openers, so let's give the benefit of the doubt to having starters that average 5.33 innings (or 5 1/3). Average 5.33 for the season over 162 games means the starters have only covered 864 innings, so your bullpen has to cover essentially 100 more innings than you've allotted. The actual number of innings a team typically needs is a bit lower than 1458, since road game losses (with 8 pitched innings) tend to exceed extra innings. More typical is around 1440. So if your starters cover 864, you're needing 576 from the bullpen, which works out to 72 innings per spot, about 10 innings more than you've assumed. But the bigger issue is that having a piggy back reliever has usually meant tying a given reliever to a given starter. In a best-case scenario, that starter gives 5 innings and the piggy back 4 to fill a game, leaving the other seven relievers to cover the remaining four starters. But the piggy back is pretty much by definition the weakest starter, so he's likely not going to average 5 innings (160 innings for the year). And the piggy back guy is probably your sixth-best starter. It's possible, but not necessarily likely, that he could average 4 innings (about 130 for the season). But there's a problem here on several levels. Big picture, an injury is going to happen (quickly), so that piggy back reliever is likely going to get pressed into the rotation somewhere and now you need a different guy to start throwing up to 4 innings per game as a piggy back reliever. Medium-sized picture, the reality is that pitchers aren't so mechanical that you can guarantee getting even eight innings combined from the two guys. More times than not, you are going to need at least one of your bullpen guys to finish out the piggy back game. Often, whether because of game situations, including extra inning possibilities, you're going to use two other relievers, which makes it even harder to cover the other games. Now you don't have the full use of seven guys to cover the other four starters. And unless he gets shelled immediately, your piggy back reliever is going to throw enough pitches that they aren't available for any of the other games either. And even if he was available, you'd be reluctant to use him, because you want to save him for the piggy back starter. And then smaller picture, using the piggy back approach ties the manager's hands into not being able to adapt to game situations. There's just too many times the flow of the game doesn't lend itself to staying on pattern. Say the piggy back starter is throwing great, so you run him out for the sixth, but then he runs into trouble and you need to use your fireman to get out of the inning. But because the fireman gets the last hitter on three pitches, it makes sense to run him out for the seventh and get four outs. Now there's just two innings for the piggy back reliever. But then the tight game calls for using the closer, so you only use the piggy back for the eighth inning (and even then, there may be another reliever best suited for the job). Now your piggy back reliever is he's either sitting idle (while very rested) for four days until the next piggy back day or you use him on one of the ensuing days to bail out a starter that's gotten hit, which makes him unavailable for his intended piggy back day, etc. While piggy backing looks good on paper (or screen), it just doesn't work in practicality. Now what you're describing as a "bulk reliever" getting 40 longer appearances is more realistic, but by definition, with 40 appearances, he's not tied to a given starter as a piggy backer. In practical terms, I think it's going to be hard to have a bulk reliever go through a season with 40 appearances of 3 innings each to get 120 innings, primarily because injuries are going to happen and that guy is likely going to get pushed into the rotation, but also because he'll get hit a few times to go less than 3 innings and probably won't go 4 innings enough times to make up for that. There's also the reality that game situations won't conveniently line up with his availability. If he's available, but a couple starters have great games on back-to-back days, he's not going to get to 40 games, etc. So while I don't think there will be a long-term "bulk reliever," I do like that Shelton seems to be more willing to use guys for multiple innings that previous managers have (and I'm not limiting this to Rocco, it feels like he's doing it more than Molitor did, though I'm not digging into it to check). If there was a single reliever that got to even 90 innings, that would be a huge boost to the rest of the pen, Right now, there's not anybody on pace to get to 90 innings, however. Orze has the most innings and is on pace for about 75. Morris is a little harder to calculate. He's not been on the roster the full season. If you took the innings he's thrown in the time he's been up and extrapolated to the entire year, it works out to about 86, but that's driven by a few longer outings when he came up, Last night not withstanding, his role has morphed into one that is being used at a rate that would him to about 65 innings over 162. I think it will be interesting to see how the season wraps up. Rojas hasn't been a full-time starter or reliever, but has pitched multiple innings. Depending on how quickly he's back, I could see him being used at a pace that would give him around 100-120 innings for the year. Even if he stays healthy, I could see them either shutting Prielipp down or moving him to the pen so he ends up around 120-130. Ryan is the only guy on pace to go more than 162 innings. Technically, Ober is, but he's on the IL. After Sunday, he won't be. Bradley is a little under that pace, so if the recent missed starts are the only ones he has, he could get there. No one else is close.

I wouldn’t say they have experimented with a six-man rotation. Look at Ryan. He started game 1. Then because of two off days, he started game 5, followed by games 10/15/20/25/30/35/40/45/50/55 and then 61. So only once (the last time, in the middle of their current long consecutive-day streak), has Ryan been out of a five-man rotation rhythm. That there have been more than five guys getting starts is more of a reflection on the rotation shifting to compensate for injuries (or suckage, in the case of SWR’s demise). On one occasion, they used a rotation shift to get Prielipp a couple extra days once, but again, other this current time of injecting an extra starter, the rest of his starts have come five games after his previous start. He’s thrown in games 24, 29, 34, 39, extra rest 46, 56 and then the insertion to 62. Separately, a reason not to go to a six-man rotation is the same as the reason to not piggy-back long-term. It leaves you with a seven-man bullpen.

As does Spotrac.

I don't know if these are bold or not, but here's mine... June prediction: TD has at least six articles on the pros and cons of trading/extending Joe Ryan. July prediction: TD has at least nine articles on the pros and cons of trading/extending Joe Ryan. August/September prediction: TD has at least four articles on why they should have or shouldn't have traded/extended Joe Ryan.

Berrios bWAR in the 1.5 seasons of control the Blue Jays received: 0.8. SWR bWAR, even with the debacle of this year: 2.5; Martin bWAR so far: 0.7 and counting.

Several have noted here and in other threads that the bullpen has been pitching much better "of late." I think a better way of saying it is that the guys currently in the pen have pitched well all season. They've gotten rid of the dead weight in Topa, Garcia, etc. The seven current guys in the bullpen not named SWR have a combined ERA of 3.64. If you take out an eight-day April stretch from Banda, it drops to 3.06. And for what it's worth, SWR hasn't given up a run in the extremely SSS of 3 innings in the bullpen. Add those and the numbers drop a smidge to 3.56 and 2.98.

Much of TD was convinced it was 70 win team at best going into the season. Based on what we’ve seen so far, that means either: a) they are a 70-win team and will play like a 65-win team the rest of the season to end up 70-92; or b) they aren’t a 70-win team after all, despite the proclamations of the braintrust on TD.

I don't anticipate any All-Star bids from the bullpen, but the seven guys currently in the bullpen not named Woods Richardson have a combined ERA of 3.75 on the year. Banda had an eight-day stretch in April when he gave up nine earned runs. Take out those three appearances and the combined ERA is 3.15 for the non-SWR portion of the current bullpen.

"Anthony Banda has been a little better excellent in May after looking rough in his first month an eight-day stretch in April with the Twins...." I fixed this sentence. Banda gave up nine runs in an eight-day period in April. Aside from that, his ERA is 2.79. He didn't give up a run in five of his six outings before that three-game stretch and hasn't in 13 of the 16 games since. Since May 2, he's given up one run in 8.2 innings, with just three hits and three walks allowed.

Maybe this isn't the place to note this, so it doesn't take the thread off topic, but are you referring to the bullpen that's just given up two runs over 27.1 innings this week when you take out the three runs in .2 innings given up by the guy who's since been DFAed? I don't anticipate any All-Star bids from the bullpen, but the seven guys currently in the bullpen and not named Woods Richardson have a combined ERA of 3.75 on the year. Banda had an eight-day stretch when he gave up nine earned runs. Take out those three appearances and the ERA is 3.15 in the current bullpen less SWR.

What’s so hard about spelling “Jake”?

That was my previous thought as well, but he’d be taking a significant chance. With this season’s success he’d be looking at a pretty good contract and there’s such an injury risk. Think of the contract Raleigh would have gotten last winter as a 28 year old compared to what he would get this year as a 29 year old. He would have cost himself more than the QO. I recognize he was coming off a historic year, but the ages and concept are the same. If Jeffers thinks something like 4/$72M is legit, he has to be confident he’s still going to get 3/$49M the next year if he takes the QO. This also fits in the “too early” category and my comment is based on his coming back healthy and finishing well. Even then, I don’t think it’s clear-cut that he gets offered, but I also don’t think it’s clear cut he takes it. We yell “Cheap Pohlad,” but it was a Pohlad that offered Mauer a contract. If Tom wants to communicate a willingness to spend, this is his first real opportunity to do so.

Too early. But at least enjoyable to speculate on right now. Buxton -- No. PR disaster to trade. And the team isn't THAT far away. Ryan -- No. Not sure Lopez will be ready to start next year. Add him in late May like the Yankees have done with Cole and Ryan, Lopez, Ober, Bradley, Abel, Prielipp could be one of the elite rotations in baseball. Too many starters is never an extended problem. Jeffers -- I get the thought of trading him, but catcher consistency goes a long way in pitcher development. Playoff-caliber teams tend to have their catcher situation resolved (unless there's a midyear injury). Will they get that much more at the deadline than they will get with a QO at the end of year? I'm not sure they will. Consider, but only for something significant, and treat keeping him as an investment in the continued development of the pitching staff. Bell -- Sure, though I don't know that you'll get much. Martin -- No at this point. Why create a hole that you don't need to? If the prospects keep pounding down the door, one of them will be tradeable in the offseason. If they don't, you'll be glad you kept Martin. Lewis -- Definitely too early. Not sure you'll get much at this point. I keep rolling the dice that he will rebound. For what it's worth, he's the same age as Martin, who many of us wanted to dump at this time last year. People don't trade for projects midyear. Someone might in the offseason. Wallner -- Not sure you'll get much, but sure. Generally though, I keep rolling the dice on his return. If he bounces back, he's worth more in the offseason than now. If he doesn't, non-tendering him in the offseason is likely an easy call. Rogers -- I'd go the other way. If he's pitching well enough to generate a return and his veteran presence is worth something, dangle another $2M in front of him and extend him to '27. Larnach -- I'm not sold on retaining him given his bounceback year, but aside from Bell, he's probably the one on this list I'm most willing to move. A team can want a bat, and you're probably selling high on him at this point. Outman -- I'm not nearly as down on him as TD, but with his recent better hitting, he's perhaps improved his stock from last year at this time. If you can get more than Stewart for him, sure. But mostly sit back and endure the wrath of TD for doing very little, as you continue to sift and sort through the options for 2027.

"Welcome to the big leagues, kid. See that big green wall in left? Good luck!"

You know how MLB guys on injury rehabs in the minors are often known to treat the minor leagues to supper? Hopefully Gonzalez gives the Gray child a nice baby gift or makes a contribution to an Education 529 account as thanks for the opportunity to get a bump in pay for a couple days! 😀

Cool for him (and even more so for Gray, but that's a different thing)! Given that Gray doesn't play much, I'm going to predict four plate appearances -- one as a courtesy intro pinch hitting appearance after Friday or Saturday's game is decided (potentially with an inning or two on defense) and then three as a designated hitter in Saturday or Sunday's game. But again, cool for him. If he gets the extra couple days from Gray being on the restricted list Monday and Tuesday, perhaps I'll get to see him Tuesday night, when I hope to attend the game at The Monument to Cement.

I can only speak for myself, but I find paragraphs 4 and 5 a more enjoyable way to live life than paragraphs 2 and 3.

I'm on your bandwagon with not wanting to trade Ryan. Look at this: Turn Lopez into a shorter leash on SWR and this group turns into one of the top rotations in baseball in the YTD. Controllable Lopez/Ryan/Ober/Abel/Bradley/Prielipp (and Rojas and more to come?) is potentially an elite rotation. Having six isn't a problem, given that Lopez may well not be ready on Opening Day. This is a season about sifting and sorting -- any success in 2026 is a bonus. But sifting and sorting is a longer-term process than fans are predisposed to endure. For example... By the end of the year, some of the current bullpen guys will work themselves into being counted on. I'm not smart enough to tell you which ones, but they've tried a bunch of guys and they will keep churning. And no, the bullpen isn't jam-packed with old guys -- less than 70 innings have been pitched by guys over 30, one of which has since been DFAed. Another is Banda, for whom one lousy eight-day stretch has soured TD after two really good seasons. Keep sorting. Last season's SSS on Keaschall had us convinced he is an All-Star (hint: I don't think he's going to be selected this year). But sorting is happening with sticking with him, Lewis and Wallner getting demoted, Lee showing progression, Topa getting DFAed, Martin playing well, etc. Injuries have slowed down prospect sorting (including Roden), but it's happening now with Outman, who has actually started to hit a bit in the week-plus since Wallner went down. Based on how Martin has done this year, I'm glad the front office takes longer to sift and sort than TD would do. Based on many of us on TD (me included, and I tend to have a long leash), he would have been a year ago. So back to my original point -- don't create a huge hole in the process by trading Ryan in order to "solve" a problem with one (or two or even three) new prospects and lottery tickets. And keep sifting and sorting along the way.

That was my thought -- he could be the second coming of Carson McCusker! I don't know similar they truly are in style and defensive ability, but that's the comparison that came to mind. Outman is never going to succeed, at least on TD -- he's reached Pagan/Bundy/Shoemaker status in these parts. But he's actually started to hit a bit (.794 OPS) since getting consistent at bats since Wallner was sent down. He brings pinch-running and defense. It will be interesting to see how long any improvement lasts -- I'd continue riding with him and rolling the dice for as long as lasts.

Are you suggesting trading Ryan for a bonifide cleanup hitter to improve year’s team? That ain’t happening. Not because Ryan isn’t worth that, but because no team in contention is going to trade their cleanup hitter midseason.

This is the internet. Trusting people who are closer to the scene than us is not allowed. /s🤣

The No. 3 pick.

Adams (.066*), Rojas (.000), Morris (.000), Gomez (.135), Laweryson (.017), Acton (.031), Orze (.116) all entered the season with less than a year of service time. Plus SWR (1.153), Funderburk (1.122) and Sands (3.017) are still on the young side of 30. Some of those are injured or on the St. Paul Shuttle, but any who are healthy will likely pitch again for the Twins this year. Only 65 innings have been pitched by guys over age 30. Guys like Garcia, Banda, Rogers, and Topa serve a couple of functions: A) it's a roll of the dice to see if they have something left or that can be tweaked or B) to cover innings so that the young guys aren't overexposed too early and are developed properly. For example, in category A, Banda has been a scapegoat this year, but if you look at his game log, his entire cumulate negative WPA can be attributed to one game -- take it out and he's a net positive. I don't know whether .500 is an average "winning percentage" in WPA, but in 15 of his 22 games, he's had a positive WPA. Of his 15 earned runs, nine came in an eight-day span in early April. Of his 18 hits allowed, nine came in the same span. He's only 32 and threw 114.2 innings over the past two years with a 3.14 ERA. I've no problem with rolling the dice a little longer to see if two-plus years of quality outweighs a week of stinkage. In category B, Garcia is 39 and is likely just here until they need a roster spot. Rogers has been pitching fine and serves as innings eater/stability factor. Topa exited today. I'm not smart enough to pick out which ones, but several of the guys in the first paragraph will be good medium to high-leverage guys by year end or early next year. *Years.days of MLB service time heading into the season.