chpettit19

I didn't say anything about me trusting him. You claimed Rocco didn't trust him and would be using him "relatively early in games" and to face "the bottom of the lineup." I simply pointed out that yesterday he faced the 2-3-4 hitters in Cleveland's lineup in the 8th inning of a tie game. Oh, and he struck out 2. For the 5th game in a row, I'll add (1 of those games was 3 Ks even). I know those back-to-back blowup games were traumatizing, but Jax has 11 Ks in 5 innings since. He's struck out 61% of the batters he's faced since those blowup games. Just trying to provide some facts amongst the emotions.

2-2 game in the bottom of the 8th against the 2-3-4 hitters is Rocco not trusting Jax? Or is that Jax "against the bottom of the lineup, relatively early in the game?" Are his 5 straight appearances with 5 innings, 3 hits allowed and 11 Ks the part where he's "rightly" not trusted? Sure looks like Rocco trusted him last night by putting him into an awfully high leverage situation against the heart of their order with the game on the line. Seems he may have earned his opportunity back.

You do realize Tony LaRussa changed how bullpens were used, right? I mean they called it the "La Russaization" of baseball for goodness sake. He was known for bringing relievers in earlier in games than what the previous generation would have. He's literally the anti-example of what you're talking about. Rocco isn't the only one who plays matchups instead of innings. The game changes. Why do people act like this is the first time it's ever changed and it's just unthinkable that it's changing? ANALYTICS have been used forever. Batting average is an analytic. The analytics have just gotten better as our ability to measure things have improved. The old time guys used to use analytics that told them to hit Nick Punto and Alexi Casilla types in the two hole. Do we really think they had it all figured out? (Edited to add that I concede that the analytics telling Rocco to hit Gasper leadoff the other day were nonsense, too, no matter what the roster is looking like these days) That being said, with the depth we have at the back end of the pen I'd prefer that Rocco just puts Duran in a 9th inning role, Jax in the 8th, Sands in the 7th. But it's not outrageous to give them matchups. That is a defined role as well. Telling a guy he has a set chunk of the lineup to focus on and know the scouting report for is a role that allows them to prepare for the day and be ready to go for the game.

They wouldn't hire an outside manager; they'd just promote Tingler or Conger or someone else already on staff. Doesn't mean they're going to fire Rocco, but there's not a lot of managers just sitting around at home waiting for jobs even if they do. The point is that they wouldn't have to pay 2 managers, they'd just shift roles on the current staff. Much like they did with the front office this offseason with DSP leaving and Falvey taking over the business side, too.

"I think it is 1000% clear that Rocco manages to a plan and is not willing to go with what his eyes or gut are telling him." I wasn't looking for the argument from you, it was already made and you questioned why we'd question it. It was literally the first sentence of what you questioned us disagreeing with so I provided examples of Rocco going "with what his eyes or gut are telling him."

And the thumbs down and responses are fair rebuttals to the critique. I provided 3 examples from the last week as a rebuttal to the idea that Rocco sticks with his in game plans no matter what. You said it isn't even debatable. I gave you 3 examples out of 5 games. And a more than reasonable explanation for the decision last night. That's 4 of 6 games. The point is that larger issue is debatable and we can provide examples for why.

Every manager goes into every game with a general plan, yes. Do you think the plan on Monday was Ober for 7 2/3 with 102 pitches and facing 31 batters? Or do you think Rocco adjusted in game? What about Sunday? Was the plan Joe Ryan for 7 innings and 98 pitches with 25 batters faced or did he adjust the plan in game? I mean those are the 2 games before the one we're discussing so we don't even have to go deep into the past to find 2 games that we can make very reasonable arguments that the plan was adjusted mid-game. And if you want to look at Paddack's last start he threw 99 pitches and faced 24 hitters. So, he wasn't pulled after twice through in that outing. Do you think the last 10 balls put in play against Paddack including 6 over 90 MPH and 4 of them being over 105 played a role in the decision? The last hitter he faced hit it 99.3. Of the 19 batters he faced, 10 of them put in play over 90 MPH, 5 over 105, and 7 over 99. Do you think it's possible any of this factored into the decision and that's why people are disagreeing and things are getting downvoted? Because we can point to a lot of reasons why we disagree with those statements in this specific situation. I agree they are too stubborn on some big picture plans. But that doesn't mean we can't disagree with individual statements about individual games.

Why didn't he do it in Paddack's last start then? You know, the game where he threw 99 pitches and faced 24 batters (that's nearly 3 full times through the order if you don't want to do the math)? I don't think it's "a pretty clear yes." I think Paddack giving up a lot of very loud contact was very much a factor in the decision. I think Paddack is a bottom of the rotation starter who doesn't get the benefit of the doubt and when he's giving up rockets all over the field the first 2 times through the order through 5 innings and you have a fully rested pen you thank the baseball gods you're still in the game and turn it over to the pen. I think that's a very reasonable choice. You can discuss the manager all you want, but you're doing what you claim to dislike, just bringing THE factor to the table and making a decision on that. The starter was pulled before the third time through so it's automatically wrong. You don't care about why the decision was made. You don't even care about being open to the idea that there may be other factors as to why the decision was made. You don't even care that a different decision was made the very last time that particular pitcher pitched. You just have a set criteria you want to complain about and it presented itself so you complained. Don't act like you're here to have some deep conversation about any of this. You saw an opportunity to complain about Rocco and you took it. Your complaint has zero to do with the actual circumstances of last night's game, or for that matter the manager's actual performance, short or long term. Hi pot, I'm kettle, nice to meet you.

The "should've kept the starter in and things would've ended up great" discussions are always fascinating to me. Weird that the assumption tends to always be that the results would've been positive if they just would've left them in. It's always "Jack Morris in Game 7 of the '91 WS" and never "Matt Harvey in Game 5 of the '15 WS" or "Pedro Martinez in Game 7 of the '03 ALCS." We're Twins fans so I get why we lean towards Morris. They scored 1 run. That's why they lost. The rest is just coping and the weird human need to place blame on somebody.

10 man pen and enough guys to platoon 6 lineup spots?! That is stuff of nightmares.

McCaughan does not have any options left or they would have used it. Canterino hasn't thrown a pitch in a regular season game in 3 years. And Bride doesn't have any options left so he won't be sent back to AAA unless he makes it through waivers after being DFA'd. Couldn't one make the argument that the fact that they used 55 players last year mean that the 40-man isn't holding guys back? That means the Twins gave 55 guys time in the majors and also gave numerous guys an opportunity to be picked up by other teams and be given more opportunities to play in the majors. Isn't that the best of both worlds for players? They're still getting to the majors and the 40-man rule is forcing teams to give them the chance to be picked up by other teams before they can send them back to the minors. Isn't that what the players should want? Expanding it to 42 just means you're making it easier for teams to stash 2 more of those players without forcing teams to expose them to other teams first.

Scott Blewett isn't being DFA'd because of lack of 40-man space, he's being DFA'd because he's out of options. You could make it an 80-man roster and he'd still have to be DFA'd to send him to AAA. And adding more spots to the 40-man doesn't necessarily help players. The 40-man is paired with DFA, option, and Rule 5 draft type rules to stop teams from hoarding players in the minors. The more spots you add to the roster the more players the teams can stash and the fewer guys available for other teams to "steal" and add to their roster. It limits the number of opportunities a player has to get to the majors. And that's all of their ultimate goal. It's not about getting there with the team that drafted or signed you originally, it's about getting there at all. If you expand the roster to 42 or 44 there would be essentially nobody taken in the Rule 5 draft because everybody would be able to be protected. Now you've taken a dozen or so opportunities a year away from guys. If you make it a 44-man roster I can add 4 more players to my roster that I can sit on for 3 years without ever having to give a shot in the majors before I DFA them. It makes it harder for guys to get their shot. Players, generally speaking, want more opportunity to move between teams so they can find a path to the majors, not less. The more spots on 40-man rosters where teams can stash them the harder it is for them to earn service time or burn options and earn their freedom to move about the league.

James Rowson left after 2019. Rudy Hernandez, David Popkins, and Derek Shoman were all coaches together. They weren't replacing each other. And, actually, Rudy Hernandez overlapped between Rowson and Popkins/Shoman. Rudy Hernandez was on the Twins major league coaching staff since 2015. He overlapped multiple managers and hitting coaches. If that's not continuity in a major league staff, I don't know what is.

His changeup heat map is pretty fascinating. A lot of red down, out of the zone and then a nice red dot right in the middle of the zone. 100-120 exit velos aren't surprising on changeups middle-middle. That's always been his problem. Too many pitches left middle-middle that get absolutely destroyed. Slider has a lot of red right down the middle of the plate this year, too. Not surprising at all to see the numbers against those 2 pitches be really high (slugging at or over 1.000 for both). I think he has good enough stuff to be an effective reliever if he can just keep it out of the middle of the plate more frequently.

Like everything to this point of the season, way too small of a sample size to make any declarations. As @bean5302 points out, Louis continues to give up a lot of hard contact. That's a dangerous game to play. His profile is actually pretty similar to a guy named Pagan from 2022. Throws hard. Strikes a lot of people out. Gets people to chase at a really nice clip. Gets swings and misses. But when they hit it, they hit it. Louis is giving up harder contact than Pagan did that year. Nearly twice the barrel rate. A higher hard-hit%. And getting fewer swing and misses. But it's a small sample size. He's always given up hard contact so it's a concern and what we should be keeping our eyes on. I don't know where he goes from here, and he's gotten good results to this point of the season. But declaring Louis some locked-in, back-end bullpen piece at this point feels premature to me. There are some red flags still.

$4,691.36 to be a little more exact.

You absolutely don't want a cap on the number of times a guy can be claimed during a season. Unless you want that guy to stop making MLB teams that season. Because it won't stop a team from DFAing him and now all you've done is stop him from having any chance of getting claimed and making the majors. You haven't helped him you've completely destroyed his chances of making the majors. This rule would not go the way you're picturing it. It would go the other way. You wouldn't be forcing teams to keep Blewett in the majors, you'd be forcing them to keep him in AAA. Raising the stipend from roughly 2k to 10k? So, is it about their family and mental health, etc. or money? Because they're already getting more money simply by getting claimed and getting that shot with the next MLB team instead of being sent to the minors. As @bean5302 points out, the difference between being DFA'd and sent to the minors and claimed and bouncing between MLB clubs is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Does that extra 8k really make up for the extra stress of being bounced around away from their family? Is a 10-day window really that impactful? Maybe. I don't know. But it may be even more frustrating. Now I have to spend a week and a half here and be used twice and then be shipped out instead of being used twice in 3 days and being shipped out? Now I'm actually starting to feel a little settled and you're pulling the rug out from under me again? I don't think an extra week in the city is really making any kind of difference. And it's probably making it harder for some guys to get shots in MLB as teams are less likely to take chances on guys they aren't sure on if they have to carry them for 10 days. You may cut down on the DFAs, but you're also cutting down on the number of guys who get shots because teams won't risk carrying guys they can't use for a week and a half. Is the DFA game ideal? No. But would Scott Blewett rather be bouncing between multiple MLB teams the rest of the season than sitting on 1 AAA team? Probably. Would he rather be bouncing between multiple MLB teams than sitting in a cube somewhere "working for the man?" I'd bet a "yes" to that one. This is part of the deal. It's not perfect, but this is what these guys sign up for. He's fighting for his dream and he knows it's not all rainbows and puppies. And his family knows it, too. He makes a prorated $760,000 salary for his time in the Majors to throw a baseball. He gets to stay in the best hotels, eat the best food, watch baseball every day, and live a pretty darn awesome life. It's stressful and not perfect. But he can quit if he doesn't like it. I'm pretty sure there's a town ball team out there somewhere that would take him and he can sell insurance or real estate like AK sadly has to do now. Anybody on here not willing to bounce between a few different MLB teams for 760k a year?

Yeah, you'd think they'd have to have at least have him out there before games taking some ground balls. Maybe they hit him some balls on back fields during spring and it was unimaginably bad? He's an athletic dude so you'd think he could be serviceable somewhere.

I assume Castro will be back before Lewis. Or at least at essentially the same time. And since we're talking about what to do when Lewis is back it feels like mentioning Castro is pretty relevant. Unless somebody has reliable information that suggests Castro will be out for a significant amount of time.

Royce alternates between 3B and DH. Keaschall alternate between DH, 2B, and 1B. Julien DH and 2B. France 1B and bench. Bader more time off with Castro taking time in the OF. Lee 3B and 2B. Most likely answer is somebody else is hurt by the time Lewis is back or not that long after he is back. If they all miraculously stay healthy and productive for a month or 2 straight, trade one of them for a catcher and then freak out over the lack of infield depth again when 2 get hurt.

I'm not putting words in your mouth because I didn't say you said anything at all about Keaschall. I have no idea what you said about Keaschall. He was just an example of someone who was rushed because of injury. That is just a statement of fact. If injuries didn't happen Luke Keashcall would not be in the majors. And if you were watching AAA games you would have seen that McCusker has been having every bit as controlled of ABs as Keaschall has. It's why I asked how many ABs you've actually seen. McCusker is very awkward in the field. Nobody is claiming he's a good fielder. Likely never will be. But he's very close to ready at the plate. He's going to K more than we'd like, but he makes good swing decisions and has a plan up there. The few ABs you saw of him a month ago aren't telling the story. You should go watch him for a few games now. He's fun to watch.

I never said he shouldn't demote him. I said he wasn't struggling before his back to back blowup games. I even specifically said that those 2 games should get Rocco's attention. And if you think pitching him in the 7th in 1 run games instead of the 8th inning in 1 run games is some sort of huge demotion you haven't been paying any attention at all to how Rocco runs his bullpen.

What about him in spring training was so discouraging? How much of him did you watch in spring and how much have you watched of him in AAA? Isn't close? Seriously, how many AAA PAs have you watched of his? He had 12 ABs in 10 spring training games. 12. You want 12 PAs where he hit .333/.429/.417/.846 to tell us that its "far from encouraging?" You don't think that insanely small sample mixed with his current .298/.385/.684/1.069 AAA line in 66 PAs is a little encouraging? Luke Keaschall was rushed to the bigs because of injury and it doesn't seem to be breaking him. Back to Indy ball by the end of the year because they gave him a shot at the end of April? A little dramatic, aren't we?

I'm not. I'm pointing out that literally every team plays those bad teams. I am literally providing context. I didn't mention any 12-game win streak. I mentioned months. Like over half the season. Then I mentioned the entire season and how many teams over .500 they played over the entirety of the season. I understand the context. I'm providing more. Like the fact that literally 100% of Major League Baseball teams play and beat bad teams. It's why they're bad. Because everybody beats them. The 2024 Twins were roughly a .500 team. The 2025 Twins are 23 games into a 162-game season. You're more than welcome to make declarations on what this team is. Anyone is. I'm going to go ahead and wait a little longer than 14% of the season to decide on what any team or player is for the 2025 MLB season. 162 is a lot of games. Enough for me to say that your record is a pretty darn accurate representation of who you are. You can slice and dice things however you want to confirm your biases. Feel free to do it however you want. I'll take a 162-game sample size and say that's what the teams were. The teams were a pretty darn average team.

It's not any more disingenuous than picking out just the Twins games against Chicago and taking those wins off their record. That's the point. The entire idea of taking wins off a team's record because they came against a bad team is disingenuous. That's literally my point. The Twins won 82 games last year. That isn't all that impressive to start with. They did have a multiple month long stretch in the middle of the season where they won games at a one the best rates in the league. They did play some bad teams during the season. But so did everybody else. Should the standings be based on your record against teams over .500? Houston was under .500 against teams over .500, should their 88 wins not have got them into the playoffs because they weren't good against good teams? KC and Detroit were both also under .500 against teams over .500. In fact, there were only 3 teams in the entire American League with records over .500 against teams over .500. The Yankees, Orioles, and Guardians. So, like I said, a lot of teams beat up on the bad teams. It's why they're bad. Edit to add: Oh, and the Twins played 98 games against teams over .500 last year. Yankees played 93. Orioles played 91. Dodgers 92. Padres 94. Guardians 97. How about we stop acting like the Twins only played crappy teams last year?