chpettit19

The disconnect here is that you think the other teams are taking guys out after 5 and 80 pitches because of the 80 pitches. I'm saying that's what you're wrong about. Do you read the idea of that ESPN article as a pitch count thing? Because that's not what it's about. Take the Wainwright quote for example. "If you're OK with throwing five and you came out of the game and you thought you did your job, then the standard is set." 5-6 is the standard because that's the area where you're getting through the lineup twice. That's what the teams are targeting. They then also want relievers to come into clean innings instead of trying to clean up messes since that's the best way to reduce runs against. Guys are throwing 80 pitches in 5 or 6 and being taken out because that's their new role. It's trained into them in the minors. They're not being taken out because of the 80 pitches, they're being taken out because they've done their job for the day. It's about "out getters" now. Starters are bulk out getters and the team wants 15-18+ outs out of them. As they approach the 15 out mark managers and pitching coaches start looking at a crazy amount of factors and make a decision on when to pull them. Sometimes it's after 15 outs. Sometimes it's after 21. Sometimes it's in between. If they start getting up to 100 pitches in 4 then pitch count becomes a factor. But the 80-90 pitches isn't what's triggering them being removed from the game. Now there are guys that are on pitch counts due to arm health concerns. Like Archer. And teams typically try to back those guys up with another 9-12 out guy. The Twins have gotten away from that after Winder was in that role to start the year. I don't get why, but it's the choice they made. Relievers aren't all just 3 out guys anymore. Some are 6 out guys. They all have different roles and they adapt to them. If you know you're only expected to get 18 outs that day you're not conserving pitches like guys used to do to be able to get 21-24 outs.

It is absolutely part of the determination. Teams are watching velo numbers (both pitch and exit velo numbers), extension numbers (how far pitcher is striding and extending arm each pitch), spin numbers, contact numbers (are guys fouling more balls off as the guy goes through the order multiple times into the game?), etc. It's only part of the equation as the manager and pitching coach also have to take into consideration the game situation, what arms are available out of the pen, the upcoming schedule, get feedback from the pitchers on how they're feeling, etc. But it is part of in game and pre-game decision making and planning.

I can promise you teams have far more in depth data than any of us can find on the internet. And they're using historical data mixed with comparison data to determine what kind of pitchers do well in more scenarios than we could even imagine. They're not just going off the shortened starts of the last handful of years and using that skewed data. It's the challenge with these sorts of online debates. We're arguing over freshman calc data while teams are doing doctoral level math. Well maybe the spread isn't that big, but I think it'd blow a lot of minds if people got a look at the data teams have and use.

Has another team had that situation come up? As I said a few times, the decision of taking the starter out is far more complicated than any 1 variable (times through the order and pitch count included). You're trying to break down 1 start to 1 variable. Game score, hitters due up, velo readings, spin readings, extension readings, pitch count, bullpen availability, next off day/immediate future schedule, guys coming off IL, minor league arms ready to replace a pen guy so you're willing to run him into the ground knowing he's getting DFA'd the next day (say hi to Tyler Thornburg), and more variables that I'm not thinking about this early. Calling others lazy for not wanting to spend the time looking up every start and the circumstances surrounding taking a pitcher out to disprove the point you yourself haven't taken the time to look up the actual information to prove seems a little hypocritical. You have a hypothesis but don't want to do the work to prove it. Don't call others lazy for providing information to back up their hypothesis when you're not willing to do the same. I use the averages precisely for the reason that comparing ONE start is rather meaningless, because there's far too many variables to make it a worthwhile exercise. And if you want an example of a pitcher being pulled "early" with a "low" pitch count later in a season because the numbers said the pen was the right choice you can go ahead and look at Blake Snell in game 6 of the 2020 World Series. He was at 5 1/3 and 73 pitches, but was doing even better than Bundy the other night and was a higher quality starter. There's your research that at least 1 other team is willing to pull a pitcher with a low pitch count before they get through 6 innings because the odds say the pen is the better choice. And, yes, I'm aware the Rays lost that game. And when people point that out and say Cash should've "managed with his gut instead of his spreadsheet" I'll point out Terry Collins "managing with his gut" in game 5 of the 2016 World Series and leaving Matt Harvey in to lose the game when he should've used his spreadsheet and taken Harvey out. See how going off of 1 game can "disprove" whatever stance you want to take and why many of us choose to use leaguewide trends and averages to come to conclusions instead?

Nobody is saying he "had" to come out. We're saying there's a legit reason to take him out. It was a 1 run game. Leaving a guy you know isn't great in there against the top of their order in that type of game is more of a risk than bringing in your 2nd best relief arm. Playing the "well wait til he gives up a baserunner" game puts your pen in a worse spot then. It's about maximizing your chances. It doesn't always work, but over the course of 162 games it gives you the best chance to win the most games. There's reasonable arguments to be mad to leave him in, and I'm sure some other teams would have while some would've taken him out. I have no problem with people thinking he should've stayed in or that the Twins in general pull guys to early. You're smart and make solid arguments. But the argument that the average innings per start stats thrown around are lazy is lazy in itself. The best pitchers throw the most. The worse pitchers are pulled too early to lower the risk of them going bad and blowing up a good game. That's the strategy and it's pretty sound if you ask me. Doesn't always work out, but it's a good strategy over 162 games.

Stats pulled from Fangraphs with 10 innings pitched as the qualifier for making the list. Then took out guys who haven't made a start and broke down to innings pitched per start based on "Start-IP" (innings pitched as a starter) divided by "GS" (games started). If you feel that's a bad way to break this down let me know. Number of pitchers averaging at least 6 innings a start: 22 Average ERA of pitchers averaging at least 6 innings per start: 2.76 Number of pitchers averaging 5-5.946667 innings per start: 101 Average ERA of pitchers averaging between 5 and 5.9... innings per start: 3.77 Number of pitchers averaging 4-4.95 innings per start: 84 Average ERA of pitchers averaging between 4 and 4.95 innings per start: 5.11 Dylan Bundy average innings per start: 5 (70 innings in 14 starts) Dylan Bundy ERA: 4.5 Bad pitchers throw fewer innings. Comparing Bundy (or anyone the Twins staff) to Cole and Scherzer types is crazy. Dylan Bundy is directly in line with the number of innings he should be throwing based on his ERA/performance. That's the point some of us are trying to make. The Twins are trying to optimize their pitching staff. They think the market inefficiency they can take advantage of is getting more out of a worse staff by using them for the optimal amount of innings/pitches/times through the order/type of hitters they face/leverage of game situation/etc. This topic is so complicated and nowhere near as straight forward as just pitch counts, just times through the order, or just anything. There's a lot of factors that go into these decisions. But Bundy sure seems to be being used the same way the league says he should be used. Average 5th guy in a rotation type should get 5ish innings a start.

Here's all I need to know about your argument: You're suggesting taking out 36% of Carrasco's starts to fit him into your narrative. If you take out his top 5 starts he's at 4.4 innings a start. Crazy how taking out all the numbers that don't fit your narrative really changes the numbers, huh? In fact Carrasco only has 5 starts all season that he went 6 innings. If I take Bundy's 5 worst starts out of his numbers he's at 5.7 and suddenly the Twins look like they let him get 2 outs in the 6th every time out. There's a reason you don't just pick the elite pitchers like Cole and Scherzer and instead go off team averages. Because, as has been said multiple times, the quality of pitcher is one of the big factors in the decisions of replacing a starter with a reliever. The Twins have let pitchers go 6, 7, 8 innings in starts when the game isn't close or when it's a Ryan quality pitcher on the mound. You're literally proving my, and other's, point here. I mean look at the range of inning totals you just presented and then the reasons (excuses?) you make to try to explain away why so many of the starts aren't 6+ innings. The point is that there's a lot of factors that lead to league wide average starts being under 6 innings. But when the Twins do it all some people want to do is yell that the Twins are terrible at managing pitchers and won't let starters go even though every other team would supposedly do it differently. But in those 2 posts you have both suggested getting rid of guy's lowest inning starts so they fit your narrative while providing reasons why some guys shouldn't be expected to go 6+ innings. So you've openly tried to manipulate stats to fit your narrative and then agreed with those of us who say there's reasons the Twins take guys out before they hit 100 pitches or 7 innings or whatever. Manipulating stats and agreeing it's sometimes justified is a questionable strategy for proving the point you're trying to prove.

And for the Rays specifically... Average innings per start: McClanahan 6.13 in 16 starts Kluber 5.07 in 15 starts Springs 4.92 in 10 starts Baz 4.84 in 5 starts Rasmussen 4.78 in 13 starts Yarbrough 4.03 in 6 starts Fleming 3.5 in 2 starts Feyereisen 2 in 2 starts Beeks 1.84 in 5 starts Wisler 1.55 in 4 starts Their 4 top starters average 5.225633013 innings per start. So there's the number 1 offender of non-traditional starters still coming in far below 6 innings a start even with their traditional starters. The stat isn't lazy, it just doesn't follow your narrative.

Of guys averaging less than 3 innings a start there have been 31 total starts made. Of starters averaging 1 or fewer innings (Dauri Moreta of the Reds made 1 start and got 1 out in it), there have been 11 total starts. You're drastically overestimating the sort of effect those starts would have on the 6 inning a start stat.

I did the data searching for you: Atlanta currently has 2 starters who average 6 innings a start (Fried and Wright). The Yankees have 0. Mets have 0. Astros have 3 (Verlander, Javier, Valdez). Dodgers have 1 (Tyler Anderson). That's of pitchers who've thrown at least 70 innings this year to give us a decent sample size. For the record 70 innings pitched wouldn't even qualify them for the ERA title so it's a pretty low standard.

Again, the pitch count thing wasn't the driving force on the decision about Bundy last night. It was a close game and the math said they had a better chance of not giving up runs by using Jax than letting Bundy attempt a 3rd time through the order. It had nothing to do with his pitch count. Him having been efficient through 5 was nice, but didn't play a role in the decision last night. I don't know why you call that stat lazy. There are currently 64 starting pitchers qualified for the ERA title. Sandy Alcantara is averaging 7.19 innings per start. Only guy over 7. There are only 19 other starting pitchers in baseball averaging at least 6 innings a start. 20 out of 64 qualified starters are averaging 6 innings a start. If I drop the innings qualifications down to 70 innings pitched there are 113 pitchers. Keegan Thompson of the Cubs joins Alcantara over 7 (he's made 10 starts out of 18 appearances). But the total number of pitchers averaging 6 innings a start goes up to just 25. There haven't been enough rain delays or injuries to change those numbers drastically. There are 25 pitchers who have thrown at least 70 innings that average 6 innings a start. And 3 of those have only made 9 or 10 starts.

I think the difference in the current debate is that pitch count isn't the factor the Twins were going on. Pitch count is a big topic because it's been talked to death over the last decade. There's certainly still a top (100ish) limit to pitches teams are comfortable letting their guys throw due to arm health concerns, but the driving factor in the short starts now isn't about pitch count, but times exposed to hitters and that sort of thing. So it's sort of 2 different debates.

Fans are always allowed to complain about things, and they always will complain about things. Doesn't automatically mean their complaints are well thought out, informed, accurate, or relevant. Not saying there aren't well thought out, informed, accurate, and relevant complaints about pitcher usage, but just because people are allowed to complain about things doesn't mean people should listen to the complaints. We're all entitled to opinions, but opinions aren't entitled to being right.

The previous FO was lightyears behind the times in terms of pitching development. That plays a large role in this specific complaint. The new FO has updated the development strategies and systems, but it takes a little time to get that going. 2020 delayed everything a little as well. Age is only part of the equation on this, too. You can't debut at 20 if you were a 4 year college guy (drafted after your 3rd year most likely, but attended a 4 year university as opposed to JUCO so aren't eligible to drafted until after your 3rd year). So it's not just about age, but time spent in the minors. Urias was signed at 16 in 2013 and debuted in 17 at the age of 19, but wasn't a fulltime major leaguer until he was 22. Kershaw has an argument for being the best pitcher of this generation so it's a little unfair to compare guys to him, but yes he debuted at 20 after 2 years in the minors. Dustin May was also drafted out of high school, took 3 years to debut. So if we use 2-3 years as a cutoff for not "rotting in the minors" you'd be looking at guys drafted in 2020 or 2019 for the Twins. Canterino is the best looking arm from the 2019 draft and would likely be in the majors now, but he can't stay healthy. Louie Varland was a 15th round pick out of a D2 school and has a shot to debut this year, but certainly looks on track to debut next year at the latest. 2020 the Twins only had 4 picks so little hard to judge there. So the Twins have setup their development systems and have 2 arms that could make that 3 window debut timetable if Canterino could get healthy and if Varland keeps dominating, and that's with no season in 2020. So one could argue that really those drafted in 2018 are on their 3rd minor league season and that'd put both Winder and Sands in the 3 year window the Dodgers were turning pitchers out in after being drafted. Many are calling for Austin Schulfer to get a shot in the pen this year and that'd be a 3rd arm from that class (19th rounder even). Hajjar and Povich have both looked good this year after being drafted last year and it wouldn't be unrealistic to predict they debut within 3 years as well. Same with 13th round pick David Festa. Bailey Ober debuted in 2021 after being drafted in 2017 (12th round) with the lost 2020 season mixed in. All this to say that I think the perception that the Twins leave goes to "rot in the minors" may be inaccurate.

I don't remember ever saying any of these guys should or would be traded for major league pitchers. But that's not the point. The point is you're misrepresenting how prospects work. Balazovic not being able to get major leaguers out now doesn't mean he won't be able to get them out in the future. The Twins traded Chase Petty for Sonny Gray a few months back. Why would the Reds do that when Chase Petty likely couldn't get AA or AAA hitters out this year? Calling up prospects who aren't ready is an awful idea, and saying prospects who aren't currently dominating the minors will never be good is also a terrible take. "The pipeline" is certainly not performing as well as we'd all like, but Winder and Duran came from that pipeline this year and they're looking awfully nice. Ryan, Ober, Moran, and Jax all debuted with the Twins last year (yes, Ryan was acquired via trade, but they still targeted a minor leaguer they thought could get major leaguers out eventually). If your expectation is that every big name prospect the Twins have in the system will eventually be big name major leaguers you're going to be really disappointed.

Agree with the general idea here in relation to current stats. But the league has far more stats than this that they've based this strategy on. They're using historical data, and minor league data, and pitch data, and so many other things. The better the pitcher the more leash they get, too. The reason guys like Bundy are taken out earlier than guys like Ryan is because the teams are better at knowing who gives you the better chance of getting the next 3 guys out. Teams don't take deGrom, Scherzer, and Verlander types out after the 2nd time through the order or when they give up a single to the 3 hole hitter his 3rd time up. They take Bundy types out because they don't want to overexpose lesser pitchers because that's not the best way to win baseball games.

I don't know that I like comparing him and Lewis, but Gordon has shown he's a very useful player on a big league roster. With everyone running 13 man pitching staffs it makes guys with Gordon's versatility even more important. He's a big league player even if he may not ever be a big league regular. Having a guy who can play just about anywhere defensively and not totally kill you is very useful. I'd keep him over a Garlick type. I don't know how long Gordon sticks with the Twins, but I think he has a big league job until he starts losing his speed. He's not as fast as his brother, but his speed is still important to allowing him to play the outfield as he can make up for some slower reads with some closing speed. My guess would be the Twins hold onto him until he starts getting into his 2nd and 3rd years of arbitration when I'm not sure they'll see him as worth the money. He probably has a nice career as a journeyman utility guy ahead of him. Not a bad life.

*I responded to the comment in the game recap, but this is a better place for the bigger convo so will reply here, too. I think the way it's talked about is too firm and certain. The 3rd time through the order doesn't automatically mean the starter is coming out. It's 1 piece of the equation. Bundy was allowed to face guys a 4th time in the blowout start he had. Last night the game was close and he ended an inning after getting the 9th hole hitter out. The Twins, and many teams, like to give relievers a clean inning and avoid bringing guys in with runners on if they can. The game was close so they wanted to go with the guy they thought had the best chance of getting through the next inning without allowing a run. If it were Gray or Ryan on the mound that would have been an added factor as well. The top of the lineup approaching for a 3rd time is a trigger to start making decisions, not a decision maker on it's own. The nuance is often lost on message boards, etc. because people tend to speak in far more certain terms while making short arguments online. Bundy has faced guys a 3rd time in 9 of 14 starts. Ryan 12 of 12. Archer 4 of 15. Gray 8 of 11. Ober 5 of 7. Smeltzer 9 of 10. I think the "formula" (I know that'll trigger a few people, but it's the best word to use) for deciding when to take someone out is far more complex than "can't do a 3rd time through the order" or "can't throw more than 80 pitches" or "righty vs lefty" or "he's a closer so has to throw the 9th with a 3 run or fewer lead" or any of the other very basic, straight forward ideas that are thrown around on the internet. And despite what people like to think, there was a "formula" when La Russa started managing just like there is today. It's just changed over time. Like everything did. They've gained new information and adjusted. The formula is just more complex and not what people are used to so it upsets some people. It's also not as entertaining and that upsets me. But managers weren't just managing "with their gut" all this time. There just wasn't as much information so readily available so fans didn't have much to argue about. I mean La Russa himself changed how pens/pitchers were used. It's just how the world works. People get used to things being done a certain way and when that way changes they complain and call the new way dumb. They wait for any opportunity to point out where it goes wrong while ignoring the times it goes right. When La Russa started using lefty specialists, and going on matchups earlier in the game to give Eckersley a clean 9th inning to work with people called him crazy, too. Now that teams are advancing past that formula they're being called crazy. And in 20 years when teams start using guys different than this they'll get called crazy. It's just the way of the world.

For this specific situation, Bundy has an OPS against of .957 against the top 2 guys in an order, .744 against 3-6 hitters, and .601 for 7-9 hitters. Bundy has an .865 OPS agsint 3rd time through the order, which is often him facing the top of the order as you point out, but he's worst against the top of the order. Jax, who replaced him to face the top of the order, has a .392 against the top 2 guys (small sample size), .688 3-6 hitters, and .655 7-9. And an OPS against of .588 the first time he faces a guy in a game. .572 OPS against in his first 25 pitches thrown. I think the 3rd time through the order narrative is also misrepresented as being the hard rule for every pitcher. It's the general rule for Bundy, but not Ryan. Ryan has faced someone a third time in all 12 of his starts this year. Bundy has done it in 9 of 14 starts. Archer 4 of 15 starts. Gray 8 of 11. Ober 5 of 7. Smeltzer 9 of 10. Now there are many reasons why a guy would face guys a 3rd time or not. Sometimes a blowup game is a reason they don't, but sometimes it's a reason they do (just eating the L that day and trying to save the pen). Sometimes the lineup gives you such a big lead it leads to the starter being able to throw more (Bundy faced guys a 4th time in 1 start). I think the 3rd time through the order rule is more about when they start making decisions. It's more about "ok, we're getting to the top of the order a 3rd time, who do we have available, what's the score, what inning are we in, how's the starters peripherals, when's our next off day" and so on. Yesterday was a close game with a fully rested back of the pen and an off day in 3 days. Numbers show Jax had a better chance of getting through the next inning with a 0 so they went to him. The math changes everyday. It's not a hard and fast rule. It's a general guideline they look at as 1 part of an extremely complicated situation with a ton of variables.

Guess it's a little about what we're trusting them to do. Need a big HR late? Buxton is #1. Need a big hit late? Buxton is not in my top 3. I'm with the majority in the comments here that I don't have any idea how you can't list Arraez #1. Is that just a ploy to get the comment section going? Cuz he's clearly #1 and I don't think it's particularly close. Correa would be a very clear #2 to me. I'd probably go Polanco 3, Buxton 4, and Kirilloff 5.

Because he's trying to put the team in the best position possible to win the game. If it weren't such a close game Bundy would've been allowed to go. But in a close game you play the odds and the odds very clearly say taking Bundy out gives you the better chance to win. Which they did. Winder is in Chicago on the taxi squad and could be activated today to eat multiple innings out of the pen. They knew that before yesterday's game since he was with them then. Is it possible that they had a plan of "if it's close take Bundy out and use the pen since that's our best odds and we'll activate an extra starter for Tuesday if we need to, but if it's a blowout let Bundy go as long as possible and save the pen arms for Tuesday?" I'm not saying Winder is going to be activated, but it's a possibility. Oh, and they have an off day Thursday. Then a 3 game series before another off day. They have plenty of time to rest arms.

And he's been up a couple times in the pen. Twins tend to not have the guys who do that available the next day even if they don't get in the game so they may already have Duran crossed off tomorrow's list anyways.

Are we sure he fell in the draft last year because of injury concerns? I don't remember that being the reason. The injury concerns was why the Mets didn't offer him a deal, but he didn't provide medicals to the teams before the draft (if my memory serves) so I don't think the reason he fell was health related. From everything I've seen on him scouts have him rated in the middle to back end of the first round. Not on injury concerns, but on ability. Health has really messed up the entire top of the pitching class this year. I haven't seen anyone who rates Rocker as the best arm in the class on talent so I wouldn't want him at 8 anyways. Unless you are pretty darn positive you can get another top of the draft talent with your second pick and the money you save on Rocker. If you're going to ignore medical concerns with the arms in this class I'd take Lesko, Porter, Prielipp, Whisenhunt (not hurt, but got suspended this year), and maybe a few others over him this year. I don't think this year is the year to reach for an arm in the top 10. I think it's pretty universally accepted that the top 10-12 players in the draft are hitters. Now there's the signability stuff, and draft pool games that are played that stop the best players from always being drafted first, but at 8 I want best player available, period. And I don't think Rocker is in that conversation.

1. The point of my post seems to have gone completely over your head. The point was about the misconception thrown around these boards constantly that the Twins can't win in the postseason cuz they'll never have a pitcher who's expected to win on paper verse the other starter. I provided an example of a series that was won (not just 1 game, an entire 7 game series) by a rotation full of arms that weren't as good as the other rotation. 2. Balazovic currently has a 9.24 ERA in AAA, let me save the suspense and let you know now he can't get guys out in the 6th and 7th innings in the majors. Cole Sands has gotten a couple chances and shown he has things to work on. Josh Winder has been on the roster for much of the season. SWR got off to a fantastic start in AA this year, but he's given up 19 runs in his last 31.2 innings at AA. Again, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know he's not ready to get major leaguers out. Matt Canterino hasn't thrown a pitch in over a month. Ronny Henriquez has an ERA of 6.66 in AAA. Drew Strotman's ERA is 8.40 in St Paul. I guess you could make a case for testing out Varland since he's actually been quite good this year. The whole "just throw the young guys in there and see if they can do it" is such an awful baseball take. No organization runs that way. Teams don't just say "eh, he's 24 so may as well." Guys with ERAs over 9 in the minors shouldn't just be thrown into the majors to see if they can swim. They can't.

Happy 4th of July Weekend, everyone! I am here today to discuss whether Independence Day (1996) or The Sandlot (1993) is the best 4th of July movie ever. Now I know The Sandlot is not a movie based around the 4th of July, but it's a movie about the heart of America and the 4th of July night game is a special part of the movie. Independence Day is clearly a movie based around the 4th of July and features one of the greatest movie speeches of all time. There's aliens and victory cigars. It's a tight battle. To make my final decision on which is best I had to go to the quotes. The Independence Day speech is an all-timer. "We will not go quietly into the night!" gives me goosebumps every time. "Today we celebrate our independence day!" gives me the chills. That speech gets me ready to go fly a fighter jet into a spaceship! But I can't fly a fighter jet, and I've never seen a space ship (they're out there, though!), so I have to give the nod to The Sandlot in the battle of 4th of July movies. "You're killing me, Smalls" is a classic and I could use it everyday (maybe I do...). "He had kissed a woman, and he kissed her long and good" is a line that's harder to use in everyday life, but is a quality line. "It's about time, Benny. My clothes are going out of style." is a wonderful line and I'm proud to say I've used it in everyday life. I still call people L-7 weenies! (I would never call anyone on TD one, though!) I still use the slow-mo "For-Ev-Er" on occasion. "You play ball like a girl" would still make me cry (not that I don't know some ladies who are more talented than me!). And of course "Heroes get remembered, but legends never die." An unforgettable quote from the best 4th of July movie ever. Oh, and there's baseball in The Sandlot so I guess that's cool, too. Speaking of baseball here's our matchup for today. Let's hope it's a little less dramatic than the last 4 games. Pitchers: Orioles: Tyler Wells 6-4 3.23 ERA Twins: Devin Smeltzer 4-1 2.86 ERA Hitters: Orioles: Hays Mancini Mountcastle Santander Rutschman Nevin Odor McKenna Martin Twins: Arraez Correa Polanco Miranda Kepler Gordon Sanchez Kirilloff Celestino