Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

chpettit19

Community Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,590

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    169

 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

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by chpettit19

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. chpettit19
    My understanding is that administrative leave is an official move under the domestic abuse, etc. agreement so the MLBPA or Franco can appeal it. Usually that means the league feels it can defend itself to some degree in their decision to place a player on leave. Generally not a good sign for the player, but we'll see what details come out as the investigation continues.
  13. chpettit19
    Is there any word on Jenkins and/or Winokur being guys that get a little extra run in A ball? I'd think maybe Jenkins DHing up until yesterday was them saving his legs a little to extend his season a couple more weeks at the next level up. Would like to see him get challenged in A ball so he knows what to really focus on in instructs and over the winter.
  14. chpettit19
    And what a few of us have pointed out is that the thing that changed is when pitchers are removed from games. The opener is the change, not the pinch hitting. That's why it's important to know what pitchers are available for the other team. I already broke down Pits options on Sunday. And Rocco didn't take out all his righties he took out 1, his platoon bat. He knew they only had 1 other lefty available and with his lefties spread throughout his lineup he forced the pirates to decide between using that lefty vs Julien (his best bat) where he could pinch hit Farmer if he wanted, or use the lefty vs Wallner and Gallo (his lesser bats). So my response to your hypothetical situation is that the strategy would depend on what I know about the other team's staff that day. What you described wasn't what the Twins were facing, and they knew that. But I agree that if you know they're going bullpen day and have multiple lefties capable of throwing multiple innings I wouldn't like wholesale changes. But the Pirates didn't have that setup, Rocco started his 2 lefties down in the order to get them away from the opener as best possible, and only replaced 1 guy.
  15. chpettit19
    There's nothing "all-knowing" about this. This isn't new baseball strategy. You know that, too. The strategy of starting righties against a lefty and then pinch hitting for some of those righties with lefties when a righty is brought in to pitch isn't new. I don't get why it's crazy that this is pointed out as a fact instead of opinion. It's not my opinion that that used to happen it's a provable fact. Suggesting Rocco should leave his platoon bats in when the pitcher changes is actually the idea that goes against decades of baseball norms.
  16. chpettit19
    And as has been pointed out over and over the opener is the difference. The strategy has not changed. The time when the platoon advantage is taken advantage of has changed because the time when pitchers are pulled has changed. It did happen in the starting lineup yesterday. Rocco went "heavy on right handed hitters against a left handed starter." Then the other team went to their "bullpen" so a pinch hitter was used for one of those righties to take back the platoon advantage in a close game. That isn't a new strategy. The point is wrong. Not to mention you left out the part where the other part of the point I was referring to included comparing Jordan Luplow to Hall of Famers. That's not an opinion. Actually, none of this is opinion. The strategy hasn't changed. Pinch hitting for Jordan Luplow isn't the same as pinch hitting for Harmon Killebrew. Those aren't opinions they're facts. The only thing that has changed is the time during a game that pitchers are changed. And that's been happening for years now. So I will stick with the point being wrong. Since it's easily proved that it's wrong. There's a difference between someone liking the strategy and the strategy having changed. One of those is opinion the other is fact. The strategy hasn't changed. The point is wrong.
  17. chpettit19
    Or you just don't understand the strategy. And you've been proven wrong about it being "new wave" by multiple posters now. But you clearly don't care about the explanations of the strategy or the proof that your stance on this being new is wrong so I'm just going to see myself out of this convo.
  18. chpettit19
    I don't miss the point. The point is wrong. Who the hitter is absolutely matters. Rocco wouldn't pinch hit for a HoFer in the 3rd. That is a very, very, very important piece of the equation. It's not the same principal. At all. The hitter matters in the situation. They never did what? Pinch hit a lefty for a righty? I can absolutely tell you they did that back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. As 2 others have pointed out, it's the opener that is different. Not any kind of analytics or lineup management changes. Platoons and pinch hitting has been around forever. The thing that has changed is pitcher usage so the timing of the pinch hitting has changed. The Pirates have 3 lefties on their roster. 1 of them is a starter so Rocco could be pretty confident that guy isn't going to come into the game at any point. One of them started the game, but Rocco knows he's a reliever so is only going through the lineup once max. That left Jose Hernandez as the only other lefty pitcher possible for the Pirates yesterday. He hadn't pitched in a while so Rocco knew he'd likely throw at some point. But he had his lefties spread out in the lineup with Gallo (who he knew would come in for the "bulk guy") in the 1 hole, Julien in the 5 hole, and Wallner in the 8 hole. Julien is his best lefty hitter, but Wallner and Gallo could be attacked by 1 lefty pitcher without having to go through a bunch of righties. So Rocco put the Pirate manager in a spot to have to decide if he wanted to attack Wallner and Gallo or Julien with his lefty. It's not hard to see the strategy there. Your argument isn't with the strategy it's with Gallo. Which is a completely different argument that I don't think you'd find much pushback on at all around here. Shouldn't be on the roster. But the strategy was pretty sound this time given who the options available were.
  19. chpettit19
    It's all good. There's no comeback to "I don't care about any if the stats."
  20. chpettit19
    https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/major-league?stats=bat&lg=al&type=8&season=2023&month=0&season1=2023&ind=0&pos=c&qual=200&sortcol=17&sortdir=desc&pagenum=1 Nope, not using BA, but I guess I could. Not even all that close in wRC+. But, sure, you can take all those other guys. Rogers is a bold name to add to that list, by the way. But, no, the Twins aren't screwing up by giving Jeffers less than half the PAs as Adley. He'd be way too tired if they increased his playing time. I see the argument.
  21. chpettit19
    Best hitting catcher in the AL this year, but I guess you could try to argue that's not true if you want.
  22. chpettit19
    And this team has just been running away with this brutal division, right? Those said playoffs have just been an absolute certainty while this team struggled to score 3 runs most nights and continually played a guy with a 61 OPS+ over a guy with a 137 OPS+? The playoffs are meaningless if you're not in them. It's why teams play their best players.
  23. chpettit19
    No, I named 5 in the last 2 years. Good try, though. The guys I left out are the bad hitting catchers. The point is that the great hitting catchers play way more than Jeffers is and it's not even debatable.
  24. chpettit19
    Yeah, I wouldn't go out of my way to get him a ton of extra starts the rest of the way assuming they maintain their division lead. I would give him a number of stints where he's starting 4 games in 6 days, though, to help him get a feel for a playoff series. Things have gotten a little confusing in this thread as there's a couple different things being discussed as there's talk about the rest of this year, catching in general, and Twins catchers usage this year as a whole. I'm not sure I've followed that other poster's thoughts clearly so I'm not sure when they're discussing the rest of this year vs this year as a whole vs games caught in general. The rest of the year is all about maintaining the division lead and then preparing for the playoffs as they get closer to locking that spot up. But I will complain as they get into the Texas and Cleveland series coming up and continue the 50/50 split for those games. Those are huge for finishing this division off early enough to set your rotation and rest guys for the playoffs and need to be treated like it.
  25. chpettit19
    I'm sorry if I'm just missing your stance, but after I said I didn't think an extra game or 2 a week was going to crush him you responded with: "Catching 4-5 games over 6-7 day series is a piece of cake for Jeffers ………..no argument………for a couple weeks……i.e. Playoffs. The debate was about physical/mental fatigue doing it throughout 162 games. The game is a grind for left fielders in August let alone a catcher playing the bulk of the time." I read that and: "Guys like Molina are the typical “catcher” profile and theoretically is what organizations are trying to guard against. Lost power & can’t run at all after 9-10 years. See Vazquez. I get they weren’t burners to start but they appear really beat up.' to mean you're worried about much more than just him catching an extra game or 2 a week for the rest of the year. But it wouldn't be the first time I've misunderstood someone. But we just disagree on the impact of him catching and extra game or 2 a week. And even if he goes from being a 137 OPS+ bat the rest of the way to a 115 OPS+ bat the rest of the way because of an extra game or 2 I'll still take it over Vazquez's 61 OPS+ bat. Simply calling it "diminishing returns" and saying it's automatically a bad idea is ignoring all the context of how far he'd have to drop as a hitter for it to actually be diminishing returns for the team overall. I find it very hard to believe he's going to lose 76 OPS+ points from catching a couple extra games here and there.
×
×
  • Create New...