IndianaTwin

Ober is at 57.2 innings in the majors, but also has 17.2 in the minors, so his total is already at 75.1. The team has 89 games remaining. If they were to follow a straight five-man rotation, that would set him up for 18 more starts. If he averages the 5.72 innings per start that he's had in the majors, he would have another 103 innings, which tracks to 178 for the year. That would be more than 75 percent more than his highest season and close to 2.5 times what he threw last year. And hopefully a few more in the playoffs. I don't see that happening/being allowed to happen. At the very least, I see them using a sixth man in some variation a few times. Even if they did that three times, they would save 15-18 innings from Ober's arm. We'll get a first glance of their plans in the coming weeks. Assuming Ober-Gray-Ryan through the Boston series, there are 15 games left before the All-Star Game. Rocco said last night that Maeda will pitch "in the majors" this week. Assuming no injuries, they've got three (or four) logical options with those 15 games. Use Maeda from the pen. Yesterday, Rocco didn't say Maeda would get a "start," but that's how they've been using him. I don't see that changing, at least immediately. Go to a six-man rotation for a couple weeks. No matter where Maeda slots in against Detroit, that gives them three starts each for Maeda, Varland and Lopez and two each for Ober, Gray and Ryan in the 15 games from Friday to the break. With a couple of off days, everyone would be making their last two starts on six days rest. Given that Varland has struggled the last several times out, they could have Maeda take his spot, drop him back to St. Paul (or the bullpen) and have three starts each from Maeda, Lopez, Ober, Gray and Ryan. Again, with the off days, most of the remaining starts would come on five days rest. A variation on those would be give Maeda Friday, Varland Saturday and then send him down. With the exception of one game, each starter would be going on five days rest until the break. It would cost Ryan one start before the break. Option 2 saves a start for Ober, but I think it weakens the rotation in that it also trades three starts of Varland for a start each of Ober, Gray and Ryan, who have arguably been their three best starters the last while. For that reason, I would go with Option 3 (or perhaps 4). Though it costs Ober a start now, they will have opportunities to skip a start for him after the break. No matter which option they choose, they will get an extended break for Ober (and everyone) in three weeks, but what they do with Friday and Saturday of this week will give a clue on how they plan to handle Ober.

It feels in the mean spirit of the “Worst Twin of All-Time” series from a few years ago that was thankfully nixed.

You're not suggesting a timing for the extension, but by writing it now, you may be inclined to do it now. In that case, a signficant difference is that Pineda signing didn't come until the offseason, so he was further along in his rehab than Mahle is now.

I don't know that they are purposely stretching him out. Because of how they've played lately, this is only his third game since Memorial Day, and on one of those (Wednesday), he only threw two pitches. He was likely well rested. From the radio, it sounded like if the Twins hadn't scored in the top of the 10th, he was unlikely to pitch the bottom.

Who are they trailing in strikeout percentage? Because if it's Houston, recognize that an advantage they have over the Twins is that they just got to pitch to Twins hitters.

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.