Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

chpettit19

Community Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,094

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    167

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by chpettit19

  1. chpettit19
    The Astros were known as the "analytics" leaders in baseball for years. Designed an entire "blow it up and rebuild" strategy around it. Were one of the first teams to start using swing path vs pitch angles in their analysis. I'm quite sure that's some MIT %#*&^%!@. They've won multiple championships with it. Every team not winning a championship in the last 10 years doesn't mean using "analytics" is the wrong choice. My only point was that all you did was pick 3 teams who you feel haven't done great and you know they use "analytics" so you tried to claim it clearly doesn't work. The fact is that 100% of major league baseball teams use MIT %#*&^%!@. 100%. There isn't a team in baseball that doesn't use that stuff. Every team that's won a championship recently has used analytics heavily. The question is still just how well you use the tools at your disposal to build a team. The Twins haven't done it well enough. Nobody is arguing they have. But arguing they shouldn't use anything other than the "old school" stuff that "anyone can calculate" is an incredibly bold move. Why would we ever want them to refuse to use new, better (yes, they're better whether you like them or not) tools? We just need them to use the tools better.
  2. chpettit19
    You don't see any difference in trying to get him through 162 games and trying to get him through 30? You wouldn't change your criteria for readiness based on 162 games vs 30 games? I would. But we don't all see things the same.
  3. chpettit19
    We agree there!
  4. chpettit19
    That's literally what I've said. They aren't going to play him if his hammy isn't healed. He's not starting a game tomorrow. He's continuing to receive treatment and work his activities up to the point where he's capable of playing in a game when his hammy is fully healed. You're the one suggesting they're going to be throwing him out there while his hammy is still hurt. They aren't going to play him in CF if his hamstring is still hurt. They aren't going to DH him if his hamstring is still hurt. It's a completely separate thing than the knee and hip stuff that have kept him out of CF this year. It has no bearing in what to do with him when he returns because he won't return until it's not a factor. We're taking over this thread and we clearly won't agree so I'm just going to stop the conversation right here.
  5. chpettit19
    His performance was terrible for a DH only and it absolutely hurt the team to keep hitting him in the heart of the order and clogging the DH spot for the kind of stats he was putting up. Maybe that's because he was hurting too much, maybe it was because he just couldn't adjust to the fulltime DH role (his explanation), or maybe he was just having a bad year (like Correa, unless you think he's hurt and should be shutdown, too?) If 3 weeks of treatment and rest allowed him to get to the point where he has a chance to play some part-time CF for a month+, yes I'd absolutely argue they should increase the physical toll on his body. Would playing CF part-time for a month jeopardize part of his 2024 season? If it would then I wouldn't argue they should increase the physical toll on his body. They don't have to try to get him through multiple months of games anymore so I think what they're willing to ask of him could/should change. If playing CF in May would've given him 2 months on the field and then he'd be done for the year I wouldn't have had that as my option A. But now getting 2 months out of him finishes the season so it would be my option A. Clearly you disagree. It happens.
  6. chpettit19
    His hamstring isn't going to be hurt anymore when he plays the field. This conversation is clearly not going to be productive. Literally every player in the history of professional sports "ramps up" while they're on the IL and start getting healthy. They do as much work as their body will allow them to do until they're fully healthy, then they go as hard as they can for a little while to get back in the flow of the game and take the field again at full health. The hamstring literally has no bearing on anything because they aren't going to play him anywhere, including as a DH, when he has an injured hamstring. What a wild argument.
  7. chpettit19
    I mean his current "ramping up" is some basic "baseball activities." Why bring up the hamstring? Is your belief that he's going to return while he still has a "bum hamstring?" This is exactly what every player does as they heal on the IL. Royce Lewis "ramped up" after his oblique. Jorge Polanco "ramped up" after his hammy. Brock Stewart is reportedly "ramping up" after his arm problems. Alex Kirilloff is hopefully "ramping up" after his shoulder. That's literally what happens with players on the IL. I'm not going to get into the "playing the outfield plus hitting is clearly the same thing as just hitting so it makes no sense that they didn't play him in the field" debate again. It's played out. You think it's all the same and extra activity doesn't mean anything, I don't. But can you see how trying to get him through 6-7 months of baseball games is different than trying to get him through 1-2 months of baseball games?
  8. chpettit19
    No, it doesn't seem odd to me. They're not trying to maximize him for 162 games now. They're trying to maximize him for 30. Their stated plan coming into the season was to start him at DH and build him up into playing the field depending on how his body reacted in order to maximize his games played and ABs, correct? Body apparently didn't react how they were hoping with the fulltime DH thing so the team, drs, Buxton, everybody apparently didn't think putting him in CF in April or May made sense because it'd more than likely take him out of the lineup for a massive chunk of the season. There's not a massive chunk of the season left to worry about. There's a month + playoffs (hopefully). The math has changed. I don't think we'll find many people who'd want to argue that the plan worked. Whether the plan was right or not is a different debate, and I'm sure we'd find many people on each side of that debate. But the plan didn't work out. But there's a very clear difference, to me at least, between trying to get him through 1-2 months and trying to get him through 6-7 months.
  9. chpettit19
    I gave a sad face because I actually wonder the same thing, and it's sad. Body just seems to be failing him.
  10. chpettit19
    So I can claim to be on the IL and pretend I'm still an athlete?
  11. chpettit19
    What are guys on the IL supposed to be doing if not ramping up to play?
  12. chpettit19
    Most recent data I saw was saying 30% is kind of the trigger line for an increase in risk. I'm definitely surprised they've let him go as freely as they have. Not that I think it's right or wrong, just that this org plays things incredibly carefully with most everyone else when it comes to injuries and playing time so I'm surprised to see them let him go so much.
  13. chpettit19
    We could stop waiting for them to ask and just show up?
  14. chpettit19
    That's mostly where I'm at, too. Definitely have no desire to see them do what the Nats did with Strasburg back in the day. I'm surprised this risk averse organization has let him get this high in innings, but at this point I'd let him go. I also have no confidence he has more "full seasons" in him moving forward anyways.
  15. chpettit19
    There is data, you just maybe haven't read it or maybe you have and just don't believe it, I don't know. I'd love to see the "thousands of others" with significant innings increases to help prove your point. You think there've been "thousands" of guys who've gone from 75ish innings to 150+ innings from 1 season to another? I'd take the under on that bet. There is statistically significant data that shows increasing your innings total by 30+% year over year leads to more injuries and performance decreases. Then going up from there the risk escalates. There's even data showing that simply pitching through the postseason leads to slower starts the next year because the body hasn't been able to recover well enough. I appreciate your input. I have no problem with you wanting them to just let him, or any other pitcher, go as much as they can. I'd have some limits, but they'd be different than others. To each their own.
  16. chpettit19
    Don't disagree that those minor league innings are far less than ideal. That is about what my plan would've been as well. I would've found a couple times where they had extra off days to skip his start throughout the year. I think there's legitimate reason to worry about a 28 year old who's only been able to throw 100 innings twice in his life being able to throw 180 innings in a year after he threw fewer than 80. I don't know the right answer for how you weigh that extra risk from a 100+ inning increase vs his current performance, but there is absolutely extra risk that I think it'd be poor team management practice for them to ignore. I prefer the plan that would've limited his starts here and there throughout the year to the one that limits his innings in individual starts, but they don't ask me my opinion much these days.
  17. chpettit19
    Fair. But I wouldn't call a guy who's been able to stay healthy enough to throw 100 innings twice in his life somebody who has a low injury risk to start with. I've said over and over here that I don't know what the right answer is, and I would've been fine with him going another inning. It's the people acting like it was a travesty that he was removed when he was who are acting like there's a simple, obvious right answer. The question is how do you balance future risk vs present performance. I don't know the right answer. But the people acting like there should be no concern paid to the future risk and they should just "let him pitch" have the luxury of acting from a fan perspective as opposed to a team employee perspective. We have these kinds of discussions all the time around here. The team absolutely needs to be concerned about the future of Ober and the rest of the guys they're relying on for future production. Not all fans like that answer. And, yes, there are other data points outside of his inning totals and pitch counts that need to be factored into his injury risk. And the team is tracking those as well. Are those who are so confident that he should've kept going positive that they haven't seen any red flags in those indicators over his last few starts, or they weren't seeing them yesterday? Or is the only possible answer that Rocco is terrible and has no idea what he's doing?
  18. chpettit19
    Actually, teams have a ton of data showing evidence for limiting innings. So do places like Sports Info Solutions, Inside Edge, and other baseball data tracking companies. But I do always appreciate your snark. Just like mentioning Greg Maddux to suggest soft tossing control artists are clearly going to succeed, or comparing pinch hitting for Jordan Luplow to pinch hitting for Harmon Killebrew, are bad comps, using Nolan Ryan to prove arms can last forever is a bad comp. I'm sorry I'm not sold on Hall of Famers and once in a generation outliers as solid data points for the average player. I never said it was right to take him out. I've actually stated multiple times here I'd have been fine letting him go another inning. But let's not pretend there's no future effects when you push the human body well past what it's ever done before. As it turns out, that logic isn't specious, it's accurate.
  19. chpettit19
    Ober has thrown 136.2 innings this year. Those pesky minor league innings count, too. I would've been fine letting him go another inning. I haven't made any comments about whether taking Ober out was right or wrong. I was just curious as to how others would handle it. Good rant, though. I hope it helped ease your pain.
  20. chpettit19
    It's not all about just yesterday. I would've had no problem with him going another inning. But pretending that there's no future effects of him doubling his inning total is simply ignoring the realities of the human body. Did that 1 inning save his career? Of course not. But their plan, believe it or not, isn't just about that 1 inning. I don't know what the right amount of innings for him is, but they've already gone above and beyond what most teams would do. That's not necessarily right or wrong, but it is interesting. To me at least. And Rocco stated before that game even started that they were going to start giving Ober extra rest here and there including pulling him earlier in games. So, yeah, listen to Rocco.
  21. chpettit19
    There's some pretty solid data showing that large increases in innings pitched lead to injuries and significant decrease in performance. I don't know the right answer. And I'm not suggesting they shut him down or anything. But pretending that there's no future effect from him throwing 100 more innings this year is ignoring the realities of the human body. To me it's a question of weighing the now vs the future. Whether that's an inning a game here and there vs his playoff performance or his 2023 innings vs his 2024 performance. These are things organizations need to consider so I'm just interested to see what people think.
  22. chpettit19
    I think that's a pretty accurate description for a number of people. It's fascinating to watch the dynamics of fans who have the luxury of being emotional about/breaking down 1 game, 1 AB, 1 pitch sample sizes vs the team making decisions based off 162 games + postseason. Now I'm no Rocco lover. I'm not a hater either. I'm just neutral on him and the FO (I'd fire them all, but am not going to rant and rave about it yet). But I'm really interested in hearing the thoughts of the masses when it comes to Ober and what they'd do with a guy who threw 72.2 innings all of last year and has nearly doubled that already with 6 or 7 starts to go. He's already blown past where I thought they'd let him get to so I'm already intrigued by how they'll handle things. I most definitely am not advocating they shut him down like the Nats did with Strasburg back in the day, but he's in uncharted territory. Despite what many believe, the human body does breakdown when you throw too many baseballs in a set amount of time, and performance will suffer (yes, I know Nolan Ryan did crazy things, save me that speech, please). Just an interesting view into the minds of fans.
  23. chpettit19
    That's a good question. I think it's pretty self-evident that bringing the IF in is the best way to cut the run off at the plate, but it would be interesting to see how often you get out of that inning without allowing the run after you bring the IF in. But, to be fair, that Turang "blooper" should have been a double play even with the infield in. That ball hit Correa right in the glove. You and I could've caught that ball.
  24. chpettit19
    I get that watching Ober get pulled from that game with 78 pitches is frustrating, but, legitimate question, is there an inning limit total that people around here would put on Ober? For reference, the most innings he'd ever thrown in 1 season before this year was 108.1 in 2021. He threw 106.2 in college in 2014 when he was 18. He's never thrown more than 100 innings in a season in his life outside of those 2 instances. He's at 136.1 so far this year. So I'm legitimately curious if there's any limit fans around here would put on him, or would you all just let him throw an unlimited amount of innings?
  25. chpettit19
    You seemed to care about the Rays and Dodgers.
×
×
  • Create New...