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
    I'd have given it an error. He mini-jumped and mostly extended because he had a terrible read on it and didn't get to the spot. I understand why they didn't give him an error, but that ball should've been caught. The over then back route at about 75% speed cost Grossman and a competent fielder catches that ball. It was Sano's best swing of the year, though. So that was good at least.
  2. chpettit19
    Urshella making his own mistake doesn't mean Sano's original decision to go to second wasn't a bad base running play. It was. It just didn't have a big consequence on it's own since he could've made it back with no issue since the 1B wasn't there. But "assuming either a runner was going home or had already" is a mistake and shows a great lack of situational awareness. It was 100% a mistake. Just wasn't the biggest mistake on the play.
  3. chpettit19
    10 years and 350 million dollars is what it will take for Carlos Correa to stay in Minnesota. Easy question.
  4. chpettit19
    Him going to 3rd was the correct play. The winning run was on it's way to the plate and the Detroit throw should have gone home (wouldn't have gotten him anyways). If that run is thrown out at the plate Sano should be at 3rd, not 2nd. Going to 3rd was 100% the correct play. Going to 2nd was a massive mistake that turned out for the better after Urshela made his own massive mistake and Haase bailed them both out with whatever kind of mistake is bigger than massive.
  5. chpettit19
    Certainly has an argument for most talented. Think the question of best comes down to health.
  6. chpettit19
    Don't know that I agree those are likely lineups for August '22, but I think there's a very real chance the non-Correa lineup is pretty accurate for opening day '23. I'd at least think that's the hope at least.
  7. chpettit19
    It got Nelson Cruz to the best seasons of his career as a 40 year old. Do you think they're making everyone on the team take naps or something? When a player comes to them with a request for something that will help them perform better I want the organization to be willing to provide that to the player. Why would anyone want anything other than that? They changed the batter's eye at Target Field because the team complained the trees weren't ideal for hitting, should we be pissed about that, too? Or which things are we supposed to be mad about the team doing to help their players perform? Who says anyone is "Ok with mediocrity?" You're the one calling out nap rooms as if they're some grand org plan that they're making everyone use. I don't think Rocco is a great manager, but he's not the reason they have an 18 game playoff losing streak, sorry. I get that it's frustrating to be a fan of this team sometimes, but at least be mad about the right things. I wasn't suggesting they have a "tough" job, I'm speaking to the general human condition of performing better, at anything, when you're happy doing it and in a good mood. You're expecting them to be robots because they're professional athletes and that means they somehow shouldn't be affected by things like happiness and comfort. Again, I get it that they're a frustrating organization, but at least be mad about the right things. Your North Korea analogy is awful. They aren't paid $10 Million to travel around with each other, they're paid $10 Million to perform on the baseball field. You being able to be in the same room as someone isn't the same as you being able to perform your best in a precision sport day after day after day. Try again on the analogies cuz that was a complete miss. What are your grand fixes to bring championships? No naps. Not caring who gets along with who. Not having Rocco because he accepts players napping and tries to make them happy and comfortable at the park. Any other grand wisdom for Falvey? I'll pass it along so he can fix things.
  8. chpettit19
    People realize Nelson Cruz was the one who wanted the nap room, right? Like the Twins didn't have that until one of the greatest DHs in the history of the game asked for one and they provided it to allow a player to play at his peak. Seems weird that people are mad that a player told the team what they needed to best perform and the team provided it for them. Seems like that's how we should want the org to do things. The rest of this is the chicken and egg question. What comes first chemistry and happiness or Ws? It's also weird to me that people basically say "it doesn't matter if you like your boss or your coworkers, if you're all doing your jobs right you'll like each other no matter how different you are as people." I don't think most of us would say that about our own personal jobs. I know if I dread seeing my coworkers or boss everyday I'm not performing at my peak because I'm in a bad mood. Weird that we'd think players wouldn't be affected by being around each other 200+ days a year, and traveling with each other for half those days, but not liking each other.
  9. chpettit19
    I don't want Miranda anywhere near LF in Minneapolis (well technically 3B is close to LF so that's not totally true). He played there super limited innings in St Paul last year and they never put him back. I want the days of "just put that slow guy in the corner OF" to stop in Minneapolis. Defense matters and there's no reason to believe Miranda can play left field. In a league where the goal is to lift the ball I want defenders in all 3 OF spots to take away the extra base hits that everyone is searching for. But agree on Lewis. Keep him at SS everyday if we expect him to be the next SS for the Minnesota Twins. Don't put him anywhere else. He needs reps there and only there.
  10. chpettit19
    To be fair, when you started watching baseball there was also no DH so benches needed to be bigger for that. But that's not really the point of this. There weren't 200 pitchers in the world who were all that high quality back then. Teams let inferior pitchers go longer in games "because that's just how baseball works." Bullpen usage used to be way different and that didn't change in the "analytics era" we're in now. That changed because Tony La Russa decided there was a better way to do things and he'd put a closer out there for just the 9th to shut things down. Baseball has been changing for generations. Every sport has. Football didn't used to use the forward pass. Then it used it a little. Now it uses it most of the time. Humans gain more info and adjust strategies. It's true in every matter of life. We used to ride horses now we have self driving cars. Change and advancement happens. We've learned that the best strategy is to let really good pitchers (deGrom, Scherzer, Kershaw types) throw deep into games and back them up with 1 or 2 elite bullpen guys. But, as you point out, there's not that many great pitchers for starters or pen guys. So they've figured out that having the lesser pitchers max themselves out for shorter stints can have them perform better and thus improve your staff. If I can turn Liam Henricks into Kershaw for an inning why wouldn't I?
  11. chpettit19
    I literally just did the math for you and show you that not only does it work it's better than the current 8 man situation unless your 5 starters are going 7 innings. Which they aren't. The math is not why they aren't doing it. You could have 6 guys covering 15 innings and still not be over 8 guys covering 20. And the shuttle between St Paul and Minneapolis already happens with an 8 man pen. There's no argument you can make that the math doesn't work. It does.
  12. chpettit19
    I'd argue that the piggy back days would be off days for the pen. If you can't get 9 innings out of 2 starters (5 innings and 4 innings) you're in trouble. So you'd be looking at 9 innings every 5 days, with 2 off days mixed in which means you have all 6 bullpen arms ready for 2 of those "regular starter" games. Right now with starters only going 5 innings (league average is 5.1 innings per start I believe) you're asking 8 guys to go 20 innings (4 innings a day for 5 days) every 5 days. That's 2.5 innings per pen arm every 5 days on average. My way is 1.5 innings per pen guy every 5 days. Even if it's 11 innings per 5 days for 6 arms that's 1.83 innings per 5 days per pen pitcher. Still less than the 2.5 innings you're averaging by having a 5 man rotation of guys who can't go more than 5. If you have 5 guys who can go 6 innings (you don't think we even have 5 guys who can go 4 or 5 innings regularly so hard to imagine they have 5 who can go 6) you're leaving 15 innings for the pen to cover every 5 days. With 8 bullpen spots that's 1.875 innings per guy per 5 days which is still higher than even the 1.83 per 5 in the scenario of 11 innings for 6 guys that you suggested was unreasonable. Not sure why you think it's impossible when it's fewer innings per pen arm with 7 starter types and 6 pen arms. And I'd argue Bundy, Gray, Archer, Ryan, Ober, Paddack, and Winder are 7 guys that could go 4 to 6 innings every 5 days. So there's your 7. All of which were on the major league roster on opening day (Gray obviously hurt now).
  13. chpettit19
    It depends on the mix of arms you have. Do you have 3 guys who can go 6 on a regular basis? Then you need 4 piggy back types to fill the other 2 rotation spots. Do you have 0 guys who can go 6 on a regular basis? Then you need 9 or 10 piggy backers and you're in a different sort of position. This doesn't have to be a full season thing (I expected it to be the April strategy this year, but was clearly wrong on that). 7 "starters" in that first example leaves you with 6 bullpen arms. If every other game is expected to have 8 or 9 innings handled by your 2 piggy back starters you have 6 arms to cover the 3 or so innings each of the days the other starters go. If you piggy back them all (10 "starters") you have 3 pen arms so your piggy back guys better cover at least 8 most nights or you'll be rotating those 3 arms as you wear them down. There's a lot of different ways you can go about it. The problem comes in by trying to mix 1 inning guys with starters who can't go more than 5 (what the Twins have been trying to do). That means all of your pen guys need to be pretty good cuz they're all being used quite often. We lost that concept when starters started throwing 90-100% effort every pitch instead of 80-90% while throwing harder and harder from year to year. The human body can only do so much. There are still starters who go deeper into games, but teams have realized it's more efficient to have a lesser pitcher go max effort (or close to it) for fewer innings and back them up with 1 innings guys going max effort 100% of the time than trying to have a lesser pitcher finesse his way through 6 or 7 innings. The problem is getting caught in the middle. You can't use a "classic" bullpen setup of 1 inning only guys if none of your starters can go longer than 5. And the Twins seem to be in that spot now.
  14. chpettit19
    Do we know why Smith isn't being given more clean, late inning chances? All of the usage so far feels like the plan was to use April to figure out who should be what in the pen and go from there. And I don't like that at all. I've defended the FO about as much as anyone on here, and generally agree with not spending big on bullpen pieces, but the plan can't be to waste a month of the season figuring out who goes where. I'd love to know the honest opinions of the relievers on whether they'd prefer set roles ("LOOGY," fireman, 7th inning guy, 8th inning guy, 9th inning guy) or if they're good with this "matchup" based process of throwing a different inning every day depending on how the opposing lineup is setup. I think the ideal situation is having set roles, but you need guys in each of those roles who excel at them. The FO seems to have handcuffed Rocco with a bunch of guys you have to try to setup with the ideal spot in the lineup and cross your fingers they're on that day. Wonder how drastically different this pen looks in June, or even May.
  15. chpettit19
    Piggy backing would use more starters and fewer relievers. You'd piggy back the starters on top of each other. Archer for 4, Winder for 4. Bundy for 4, Paddack for 4. For example. Many variations could be used, but general idea is 2 starters should be able to handle 8 or 9 innings alone. As arms get stretched out you'd rely on it less. As guys separate themselves (Ryan was just very good for 6, as was Ober) you use the piggy backing less and send Winder back to AAA and pick a 5 man rotation. Many of us thought that was the plan for April as they kept 7 starters with Duran as another multi-inning guy. But instead they've gone heavy on the 1 inning guys to cover 4 innings a night and that hasn't gone so swell. As we move into May and they're capped at 13 pitchers it'll turn back into rotating AAA arms. The piggy backing made sense to some of us early, but the Twins clearly had some different ideas.
  16. chpettit19
    That last sentence is all you really needed to say. I don't think Rocco is great by any means, but the Twins are doing everything the same as everyone else. If you think a simple pitch count mark is all the Twins are using to determine when to take pitchers out you're greatly mistaken. I'm not arguing that Archer shouldn't have been taken out earlier, but your argument started as you not having watched the game last night, but Archer is 33 and if he can't throw to a rookie hitting .150 in that game he should be told he's not a starter anymore. You have since tried to change that argument after it was shown that that stance was simply confirmation bias on your part because you "can't stand Rocco" and you thought you had ammo against him. You think pointing out their pitch counts is an argument that the Twins are basing things on pitch count marks while ignoring the context of their exits from games. Bundy was at 71 pitches in his start in Boston, but had just given up a single and a double and the tying run was coming to the plate with the heart of their order seeing him for the 3rd time (hint: it being the 3rd time through the order played a bigger role than the 70 pitch mark) so they pulled him to avoid a blowup inning, and it worked! No runs scored. The day before Ober threw 70 pitches and was taken out after having just given up 2 runs in the 6th. So he got through 6 innings with the lineup having seen him 3 times (again, times through the order is a bigger concern). Day before that Gray got hurt in the 2nd and Winder threw 5.1 innings and 66 pitches in just his second time in a game in 2 weeks. Day before that Ryan went 6 innings and 82 pitches which would put him right in line with those numbers you sent, but we should just ignore that and complain about Rocco? You feel you have some great stat showing how Rocco is just doing crazy things that no other team would do while ignoring everything else that shows he's doing basically the same thing as every other team. And it's way more a FO thing than a Rocco thing, fyi. I'm not running cover. I'm giving actual information with actual context. I'm not even telling anyone they should like the strategy. And they're also using extension numbers, rotation numbers, velo numbers, quality of contact numbers, and probably another dozen data points on a pitch by pitch basis to make determinations on things. It's not just a pitch count decision.
  17. chpettit19
    I agree, I misstated things in my original post. Their in season use is definitely not what's best for the player. It's what's best for the team to get the results they want. But their offseason treatment is 100% meant to get them to last as long as they can during the season. It ends with rotating arms between AAA and MLB to maximize the 40-man roster. Been happening for years now. It's why the MLBPA put in the limit on send downs during a season. The expectation is that the team finds 4 or 5 relievers they really trust and then rotate guys through the rest of the pen spots. I don't like it. I'm not arguing it's good for the game. Just letting you know the thought process and disagreeing with the stance that starters should be able to go full strength to start the year with no ramp up needed or should be throwing all year round.
  18. chpettit19
    Twins starters have faced 205 hitters this year and that's including the Gray injury game otherwise it should be closer to 215. 215 batters faced over 11 games would put the Twins right smack dab in the middle of batters faced per start of the league at just over 19.5. The top team (Seattle) is at 22.3 batters faced per game. That's less than 3 extra hitters faced per game. You could argue it's 1 inning, but that's assuming those 3 batters are all retired so it's much more likely it's less than 1 extra inning pitched worth of hitters. Going by innings pitched per start the Twins are right smack dab in the middle of things even with Gray's injury game. San Diego is tops in starters innings per game and they're less than an inning ahead of the Twins, again, including Gray's injury game. If you want to call me, and others, actually comparing trends over the first 9 to 13 games of each team's season "running cover for them" by all means have at it. I'm going to stick to the actual facts (the Twins are doing what everyone else is doing!) over confirmation bias by picking out 1 day's worth of pitch counts and trying to show the Twins are doing something wild by using Chris Archer as the example. The Twins starters are less than an inning different than the very top of the league by both batters faced and actual innings pitched and you're acting like they're doing something crazy. They aren't.
  19. chpettit19
    There is more time lost to injury now, yes. I guess I should've worded that differently. The MLB teams know what's best for getting the results they want for their organization. In terms of offseason work the teams are absolutely doing what's best for the players in an attempt to get as much out of them as they can during the season, but once the season starts it's about the organization and they don't want injuries, but are willing to deal with them to have the pitchers max out their stuff and performance.
  20. chpettit19
    What results are you talking about?
  21. chpettit19
    Pitchers do not throw year round and it's because they have the finest trainers, etc. on the planet. You may think that's the way it should work, but people with a whole lot invested in these arms do a whole lot of research and talk to a whole lot of people who know way more than either of us could ever hope to know about this and they tell them not to do that. I mean you're basically arguing that spring training is a complete waste of time and that every major league organization (who, again, invest a whole lot into this stuff) is doing things wrong by having their pitchers spend several weeks gearing up before they can complete a single game. Players/pitchers today are "babied" more than ever because they're throwing harder and putting more stress on their bodies than ever before. It's the tradeoff the industry has decided makes the most sense. Better velo and "stuff" for shorter periods of time. You can disagree with that stance or dislike that style of play (I don't like it as I prefer starters who can go 7+ innings regularly), but I'm quite positive the baseball industry as a whole knows better what's best for the athletes they invest billions in.
  22. chpettit19
    Again, Chris Archer signed on March 29th and made 1 spring appearance. This was his 3rd time pitching in any sort of game action. If your expectations are that a pitcher is totally stretched out by their 3rd appearance I think you're going to be pretty disappointed. I mean you just sent a list of a bunch of guys who threw 80 some pitches after having a "full" spring training and you're mad that the guy with basically no spring training could only throw 76 before coming out? Sorry, I'm not swayed by that. You think that Walker Buehler guy is supposed to be a decent starter who goes deep into games? Only 5 innings and 79 pitches?! Is the rotation really where he belongs? Webb in the 2nd game of a double header could only go 3.2 on 75 pitches?! Should probably take him out of the rotation. I notice you left Cole's line out since he was bad and his manager pulled him before he gave up more runs. Weird that you find that acceptable, but Rocco pulling Archer after 1B, 1B, BB, BB in a 1 run game in the 5th is somehow unacceptable. Oh, and Alex Cobb got pulled for being "terrible in the 5th" which you don't seem to be complaining about even though he was only at 60 pitches. Sure glad the Twins didn't sign that guy cuz the rotation clearly isn't the spot for him!
  23. chpettit19
    I've been pleasantly surprised to see him sitting 94ish in his starts with a few at the 95 or 96 point. That's old Archer type velo and he was a very nice pitcher when he was throwing like that before. Agreed it's all about durability and stamina now. He seems to have his stuff back so we'll see if he can stretch out and start getting through 5 or 6 quality innings over the next handful of starts.
  24. chpettit19
    I don't know what the pitch by pitch data was telling them after the 4th, but it's quite possible they should've noticed. Hard to say for sure. The Dodgers took Kershaw out of a perfect game after 80 pitches, is the starting rotation really the place for him if he can't go more than 80 pitches? Short spring training has every team being very cautious with their starters. If he's getting gassed after 70 pitches in the middle of May there's a cause for concern, but he was a late signing in an already shortened spring training so I don't think there's much cause for concern right now.
  25. chpettit19
    The most shocking thing to me to start the year is that they haven't tried any piggy-backing at all really. Yes, Winder went 5.1 innings after Gray left with an injury, and Rodriguez went 4 against the Dodgers, but neither of those appeared to be the actual plan. I don't get the point of having one of your best prospect arms sitting in the pen never being used instead of putting him in the AAA rotation and calling up someone like Smeltzer for that long relief role if it's just going to be the typical "wait til a starter gets hurt or blows up" usage plan. Put Winder in St Paul and let him develop. I don't see how this pen is going to survive with throwing individual inning guys out there for 4 or 5 innings every night. They don't have the arms for that. I had a reasonable amount of hope they could have a solid staff by being creative with their usage of arms early when they can carry 16 guys, but they've just done things business as usual and the team definitely can't survive when they go down to 13 arms. I fully expect the starters to start getting more leash to go longer into games as we get into May and the staff size shrinks, but, as others have said, they seem to be sacrificing games early in the name of figuring out who they'll keep when the staff goes down to 13. Maybe when it shrinks they'll start being more creative or define roles better, but I'm not impressed with the strategy at all to this point. And I've been a rather big defender of the FO and Rocco to an extent. Thielbar is cooked and Duffey is looking like it, too. Losing Alcala after trading Rogers may be the undoing of the season since the pen was so thin to start. It sure isn't looking good so far.
×
×
  • Create New...