chpettit19

What would better preparing them look like? The Twins are 2nd in baseball in pinch hitting PAs at 142 (Boston is at 149 and 3rd place is San Fran at 129). The Twins have played 124 games. Everybody who didn't start is either getting a full day off and they know they aren't playing at all (because Rocco told them before the game), or they know the chances are somebody is getting a PH AB that day so they should be prepared. And it's not hard to figure out that Farmer and Julien are a platoon and Margot and the corner guys are. Farmer goes into every game he's not starting but Julien is knowing that he's hitting for Julien if a lefty comes in. And vice versa. Same for Margot and the lefty corner bats. They have more pinch hitting PAs than games played. They should all be doing the necessary work to be prepared to pinch hit as the game goes along. I'd bet a large sum of money that Rocco also tells them throughout the game that "if situation A plays out you're hitting so be prepared." Although, he may actually have his other coaches do the communicating, but the idea is the same. How would Rocco better prepare them?

And with a rehab assignment possible for 20 days they could probably get away with not having to put him back on the major league roster for much time at all this year if they don't want to. Assuming that no news is bad news on his current injury situation and his return is not imminent.

If they're not willing to move him to the OF and they have 4+ everyday quality bats on the IF and he's the worst fielder of the infielders they should absolutely move him to 1B. It's not a problem right now so it's not a real discussion point for the rest of 2024. But it could very much be a real discussion point in 2025 and beyond. If Lee is an everyday bat in 2025 he gives them 4 everyday IFers. That's not even counting Julien maybe bouncing back next year. If Lewis isn't the best option at any other IF position they should move him to 1B. Playing a worse defender at 3B because he's a better athlete would be "management malfeasance." There's a very real chance Lewis is the worst IF defender amongst the 5 guys likely fighting for everyday ABs next year. At this point it's probably a fight between him and Julien.

I agree with everyone else that it's too soon to pull the plug on him at 3B. I'm not sure he's the best option there (I think Lee is better there defensively), but until somebody pushes him out of the spot I wouldn't move him yet. I do think, no matter where he plays, he should spend the offseason reworking his throwing motion, though. I've never seen such an athletic person look so uncomfortable throwing. I don't remember if he's always thrown that way or if he's trying to emulate Correa or what, but it looks like he's thinking about how to throw the ball on routine plays and it looks so uncomfortable. On quick hitting plays where he isn't thinking and is just reacting and playing he looks much more athletic, to me. But on routine plays where he takes a couple hop steps to first and throws from that super uncomfortable looking angle he looks like he's thinking about everything and he looks so unathletic. Whether he moves to 2B, or even 1B (I hope he's not all the way down to 1B anytime soon), I think they should rework his throwing motion.

Yeah, 8th round picks starting the year in A+ ball don't often reach the majors that season. So that surprises people. Nothing you said changes that. Him reaching the majors faster than the previous, lower median even is surprising. He's beaten the odds of what anyone was expecting of him in 2022 or coming into 2024. That article is about college players taken in the top 20 picks in the draft. An 8th round pick beating their median is surprising. That article is actually proof that we should be surprised by the rapid ascent of Zebby Matthews. We should be both surprised and excited about his rapid ascent.

How many other players from the 2022 draft have debuted already? Jackson Holliday, Brooks Lee, Zach Neto, Drew Thorpe, Ben Joyce. I'm probably missing a couple, but it's not more than 10, I'd bet. As an 8th round pick it's pretty quick to the majors to be one of the first 10 there. Is there any other starting pitcher who's debuted besides Thorpe? I think people's surprise comes from the fact that Zebby was by no means a top prospect until a couple months ago. Again, 8th round pick just over 2 calendar years ago. I'd be surprised if there's a lot of 8th round pick starting pitchers debuting within 2 calendar years. Think you're over selling how quickly people should be expecting a guy like Zebby to debut. Kumar Rocker, Cade Horton, Gabriel Hughes, Cooper Hjerpe, Landon Sims, Thomas Harrinton, Justin Campbell. All top 40 picks out of college who haven't debuted yet. Zebby flew threw the system pretty darn quick.

If the third idea is a large part of the equation Rocco really needs to rethink this strategy. Margot is the right-handed hitter who replaces Larnach, and his pinch hitting numbers are well known. Handing the team a free out in order to get a lefty in there to face Lewis or Buxton isn't a great strategy. Buxton has an .836 OPS against lefties this year. .884 against righties. Lewis is at 1.079 against lefties. But still at .963 against righties. Just another thing to add to my complaint about the platooning. Buxton and Lewis are great hitters, they don't need the platoon advantage. Buxton is actually better against righties this year, and almost identical for his career (.779 against righties, .781 against lefties). Lewis is better against righties for his career, and even with the disparity this year, is over a .900 OPS against righties this year. So you're really not gaining any sort of significant advantage for those guys while running a guy who don't trust to hit lefties (Larnach) in the 2 hole only to supplant him later in the game with a guy who's 0-fer in pinch hitting this year. You're giving away an out and not getting anything back. In yesterday's lineup the Guardians could've taken both Larnach and Wallner out of the game whenever they wanted just to get Lewis 1 AB against a lefty? Margot's automatic out, Lewis gets his 1 AB against a lefty, and then it's Martin against a lefty. That's advantage Guardians by a mile. Put your great hitters at the top and quit trying to perfectly match your platoon and pinch hit situations because they rarely happen perfectly and you're actually making it really easy on the other team by being so predictable.

I just don't see anyway they find a middle ground on Lewis this offseason. He just cracked 100 games played in what should be his 4th season. He's barely averaging 25 games a year! The discount the Twins would need to demand based on those numbers would be way below what Lewis should be willing to take. I'm all for extending young guys before they hit arbitration to eat up a couple FA years at a discount. This just isn't a situation that lends itself to such a play. There's no realistic middle ground here. Buxton played 306 games his first 4 years. Lewis is going to be at 154 if he plays every game the rest of this season. You can't pay Lewis until he plays 100 games in a season. He's never even played 60. And I've been driving the "Lewis is a star" bus since 2019. You simply can't pay him yet.

Lee going back down isn't outlandish, but Kyle Farmer brings nothing to the field for a team trying to fight for it's division/wild card life in August and September. By all means let him keep collecting checks and hang out in the clubhouse and dugout as a "glue guy," but you can't be crossing your fingers that he's finally found his already below average swing in August as you face Cleveland, KC, Texas, San Diego, St Louis, Atlanta, and Toronto. The first 6 of those teams are still fighting for playoff spots. Farmer has no spot on this team if there aren't more injuries to come.

Ok, then what's the difference between skill and athleticism? My point is that what you call "skill" is "athleticism." They're the same thing. They aren't different today than in the 60s? The average height of a man in the US in the 1960s was 5'8". It's now over 5'9". The average height of a male has increased by over an inch in 50 years (actually it was over an inch growth in about 40 years). You don't think the average athleticism has gone up with that? It's just our bodies growing, but not anything else improving? We aren't naturally a little stronger while growing? Guess we'll just agree to disagree on that. 1 inning closers started in the late 80s. How long did it take them to figure out they didn't have to pace themselves during those 1 inning stints? 30 years? Or do you think Eckersley figured it out pretty quick that he didn't have to pace himself and could just let it fly? Why, if they could physically do the same things as today's players, did they not all start throwing 100 right away? Pacing themselves isn't the reason, so what's the reason now? How far down would Ryan's fastball go? Low-80s? Mid-80s? Upper-80s? 90ish? 90ish was the peak back then (with a handful of outliers a little higher). It'd be Joe (who has an average MLB fastball in 2024) dialing it back from already not 100% effort. He throws 90ish% effort now and is at 94. To drop down to 90 MPH he'd have backed down to about 85% effort. How much lower were the guys in the 60s at on the effort scale so that they were mostly all throwing in the mid-80s? Were they putting in 80% or less effort? Those hitters must not have been very good if pitchers were dominating them so much at 80% effort that they had to lower the mound. Makes it hard to argue that all those dominant athletes could figure out today's pitchers when they couldn't even hit off guys throwing 80% or less effort. Yes, "the best of them" could very likely adapt. But would they still be Hall of Famers today? I won't say no, but I won't say it's an obvious yes by any means. The very best pitchers they faced back then would just be average pitchers now. Would they be HoFers still? Or just average MLBers? I don't know, but humans are bigger, stronger, and faster now. Not sure why that's controversial. And since I don't know why that's controversial, I don't know why saying humans can now throw harder and swing faster is controversial. But we can just agree to disagree.

You don't think it takes great athleticism to be able to throw 100 MPH? Or even 90 MPH? You don't think it takes great athleticism to swing a bat fast enough to catch up to 100 MPH? Or even 90 MPH? This idea that baseball isn't about athleticism doesn't make sense to me. Hand eye coordination is athleticism. The average person doesn't have the same hand eye coordination, ability to whip their arm through at the necessary speed, or ability to swing a bat at the necessary speed. How is throwing a baseball 100 MPH skill and not athleticism? How is controlling your arm to be able to repeat your delivery, or swing, time and time again not athleticism? What "skill" are the players losing as they get older that stops them from being as good? Is it not athleticism? Is it not that their bodies simply can't move in the ways it needs to anymore? It takes athleticism to make the minor tweaks needed to reach the majors. Body control is athleticism. Running fast and jumping high aren't all that makes up athleticism. Tiger Woods probably can't run that fast or jump that high, but to have the "skill" to hit a golf ball like he did took great athleticism. Steph Curry isn't overly fast and doesn't jump that high, but he's so incredibly athletic that he can repeat his shot mechanics over and over. Skill is just a code word for athleticism that isn't running fast or jumping high. Body control (what most of baseball is) is absolutely athleticism. The "skill" that the major leaguers have that none of us do is that their bodies can do things ours can't. That's athleticism. There is absolutely a change in approach. We'll just have to agree to disagree that guys didn't throw harder or have more break back in the day mostly because of innings, though. The "necessity" in getting another contract was being good. If the argument is that the guys simply didn't have to try as hard on the mound to be good back then I'm simply not going to buy it. What effort level were they putting in? 50%? 60%? 70%? 80%? 90%? If the pitchers were only putting in 60% effort and still getting hitters out it's not a great sign for the hitters being able to succeed today. Or were the pitchers actually giving more like 90% effort and that's why they had to lower the mound in '69? If the pitchers were giving 90% effort and still not even touching the average fastball today is that not evidence that the average player today is simply more talented? I'm sorry, I just don't buy that players back then simply weren't trying that hard. Were they max effort all the time? Of course not. But let's not pretend they were going at 70% effort or something. The average fastball now was the max fastball in the 70s. That's not just effort levels, sorry. And starting pitchers today still pace themselves. It's why when guys shift to the pen they are able to add velocity. Joe Ryan isn't throwing max effort, but he's still throwing 94. Players are simply better now. Because they're more athletic.

Royce? As in the guy who just cracked 100 games played in what should be his 4th season? Not sure he's the guy to be pointing to when it comes to injury stuff. In fact, it wasn't his last injury he complained about not being back when he should be, it was the one before that. Meaning he got hurt again after having complained he should've been back sooner. So, yeah, not the best guy to be using in this argument. And, again, Buxton and Correa both played through injuries much of last season. Many of us complain about them not ILing guys. Like Buxton right now. He's sat 3 games but he isn't "automatically out for weeks" just because he isn't 100%. Kepler has the same thing happen all the time. Like I said, I agree with the scheduled off days being less than ideal. But the idea that they just IL guys at every little ouchie is wrong.

Really? "What we know Velocity is seen as a risk factor for injury, but it’s not the only one. It’s assumed that velocity is a risk factor for injury because increased velocity comes with increased elbow torque New research shows that pitchers who throw at similar velocities likely won’t be experiencing the same elbow torque (mechanics play a role). New research also shows that as a pitcher throws harder, he’ll likely to be experiencing higher elbow torque. Velocity is a beneficial piece to performing well. What we don’t know: The exact relationship between injury and torque." They list 6 studies showing velocity is directly linked to injuries. State themselves ("Therefore, we can conclude that velocity is still an injury risk factor") that velocity is an injury risk factor. But because they say there's also other factors (I don't believe I claimed it was the only factor, but if you want to pin your stance on me saying it's the "leading factor" go for it) then velocity being an important part of Ryan's success and it making him an outlier from his peers is wrong? Weird take considering the conclusion part of the article I quoted above literally says velocity is a risk factor and is a beneficial piece to performing well. I'll take back the word "leading" in my other statement if that makes you feel better. But the science, from multiple sources, shows a statistically significant correlation between velocity and injuries. And velocity and improved performance. You know, the 2 things I've claimed on this thread. Driveline's argument isn't that velocity isn't a risk factor, it's that the extra velocity causes extra torque and that's what's causing injuries to players with bad mechanics. The extra velocity is still part of their equation. "New research also shows that as a pitcher throws harder, he’ll likely to be experiencing higher elbow torque."

You can believe what you want. If you believe athletes haven't gotten better in 55 years more power to you, I guess. I mean every world record being broken time and time again would disagree. But you do you, my man. But this is a nice way to circle back to the original point that pointing at individual, extreme outliers, isn't a good way to look at things. The average major league pitcher today would absolutely dominate MLB in 1967. Could Oliva and some others get some hits off them? Of course. But a guy throwing in the mid-90s with more spin and break than just about any pitch anybody was throwing in '67 would blow people away. It's why there are extreme outliers. It's why Gibson was so dominant. Why Ryan was. Why Chapman was when he first arrived. They were simply throwing such advanced stuff that hitters couldn't hit it. Then more and more hitters adapted and pitchers adapted back. They all improved. It's the nature of human advancement. Not sure why it's a controversial take to suggest athletes have improved significantly over time.

Would the guys from 1964 have a 3.46 ERA against the hitters in 2024? The league will always be in a general range because they design it to be that way (change mound heights, hitters faced requirements, etc.) and because hitters adapt to pitchers and pitchers adapt to hitters. The better hitters get the better pitchers have to get. And the better pitchers get the better hitters have to get. If you are throwing the same kind of "stuff" to today's hitters that the guys in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. were throwing you aren't going to be successful. Because the hitters have already figured that out. You have to continue to improve or you'll be left behind. Welcome to human evolution.

Haven't the Twins had multiple players in the last 2 years refuse to talk about their injuries and have it lead to incredible decline in production? Joe Ryan and Alex Kirilloff are the 2 very public examples. Didn't Buxton try to play through an injury all last year? Didn't Correa play through an injury 90% of last year? Didn't Polanco play through multiple injuries? I'm not a fan at all of scheduled off days. If a guy needs a day give him a day, but don't give him a day just because. But there are plenty of players playing through things everyday for this team.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36649827/#:~:text=Faster ball velocity was positively,0354). https://www.drivelinebaseball.com/2019/03/injury-risk-performance-velocity/ https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5400454/2024/04/09/mlb-pitching-injuries-velocity-pitch-clock-fact-fiction/ There's more if you'd like. It's really not a question anymore. Higher velocity, on every pitch type, is directly correlated to arm injuries.

But not at that velocity. Ryan is different because he was throwing far harder than everyone else was back then. And the science is pretty clear now that velocity is the leading issue with arm injuries. That's why he's pointed at. Because he was the closest in velocity to the guys throwing today and still threw far larger workloads. He's an absolute outlier. Not the only one, but the one most often pointed at. MLB is never going back. It just isn't happening. The disadvantage you'd put yourself at by having your pitchers not maximize their "stuff" would get you fired so fast. They don't care about the health of their pitchers. They care about the best chances to get outs. From there they see how long you can go getting those outs. It's never going back. Whether it should doesn't matter. Isn't ever happening.

Nolan Ryan as a selling point on workloads and Greg Maddux success as a selling point for not needing velocity are my biggest pet peeves in pitching discussions. Picking the absolute best ever, complete outlier and saying "see, people can do it" is so ridiculous to me.

Ryan Jeffers has caught 56 games. 56. This talk of him wearing down is ridiculous. He's going to catch roughly 81 games, just as they planned. If he can't catch 81 games and DH another 30 they should trade him. If DHing is wearing him down they should trade him. If catching 81 games is going to wear down 27 year old Ryan Jeffers, how broken down is 33 year old Christian Vazquez going to be?

I wouldn't be surprised if Lee is the guy sent to St Paul when Correa is back. In fact, he's who I'd bet on being demoted if nobody else is hurt between now and then. Don't see much playing time for him when Correa comes back and they'll want him getting everyday ABs more than they'll care about Martin sitting on the MLB bench most of the week. Agree with @JD-TWINS and have no idea how Kyle Farmer "heals" this year. There's just no place for him unless this team is absolutely destroyed by injuries. His time on the field in a Twins uni should be over. Keep collecting checks and hang in the dugout, but no more ABs for him. I'd like to see Kiersey be the September call-up so they know if he's worth keeping around next year, but I don't see them giving him a shot in the heat of a division/playoff race. Same goes for Severino. Best situation is the roster stays relatively healthy and it's Julien who comes back because he's figured things out. Not sure if it'll be him or maybe Lee coming back (assuming he's the one sent down when Correa comes back), but the odds are they'll both see some time in September as injuries will pop up here and there still.

If Randy is DFA'd he'll be put on unconditional waivers. Meaning any team can claim him and the Twins can't stop them from taking him. But since he doesn't have 5 years of MLB service time he has no option to choose free agency and reject the assignment. He does have 3 option years left so the team can option him to AAA without taking him off the 40-man, but since they likely don't care if they lose him (and his contract with him) he's likely the first DFA candidate when they need a 40-man spot.

I'm with the others. Varland will be in the pen at some point in September and for all of October. Likely enters next season in the opening day pen. But Dobnak is not "starter depth" and relying on a Zebby debut in the heat of a division and wild card race is crazy aggressive. Varland is the #6 starter right now. Can't put him in the pen quite yet.

He had figured it out, that's the point. Or is the argument that AA and AAA numbers shouldn't mean anything? He mashed lefties in the upper minors when he was given consistent at bats against them. Gunnar didn't. But when Gunnar got to the bigs the O's let him keep facing them and he improved. The Twins did the opposite and Wallner struggled in completely useless small sample sizes over 3 seasons. Matt was good, too. Suggesting he wasn't is nonsense. I've already provided multiple players who also didn't debut until they were 24. You make it sound like he was just some minor league journeyman who debuted at age 30 as a cute story. Wallner is 3 years older than Gunnar. You're trying to make it sound like he's 35 years old or something. 3 years is "much much older?" Come on. Wallner was the 39th overall pick in the draft. He was actually taken 3 picks before Gunnar. He dominated the minors, including against lefties. He owns a career 140 OPS+ in the majors. This isn't just some random hitter who's come out of nowhere to have a little success. We've taken over this thread a bit, though, so I'll just say thanks for the back and forth and I'll just have to agree to disagree with you.

What was that evidence? What was the evidence he'd improve against lefties? His OPS against lefties in 2021 (year before he debuted) was .642. He played 8 games in AA that season, so that stat line is from A and A+ ball. In 2019 he had a .641 OPS against them in rookie ball. In 2022, when he debut, he had a .670 OPS against them in the minors. I already provided his early MLB career numbers. Wallner in rookie ball had a .789 OPS against lefties. In A+ he had a .678 OPS. In AA and AAA the year he debuted he had a .911 OPS against them. The Twins gave him 18 PAs against them in the majors that year. In bouncing back and forth last year he had an .848 OPS against lefties in AAA. The Twins gave him 46 PAs against them in the majors last year. What about Gunnar's numbers vs Wallner's numbers say Gunnar had "all the evidence in the world that he would improve" but Wallner is so clearly doomed?