Article: Twins Minor League Report (5/7): Larnach Lift-Off

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

As of this date last year, Reed had faced 70 batters; Pressly 73. Rogers has faced 71 so far in 2019. Do you think he has been overused? I guess Rogers has 2 less appearances, so that's a few less warm-up pitches. But I'd hesitate to draw any direct lines about these usage patterns.

 

Except through May 7 this year Rogers has thrown 206 pitches.  Through May 6 last year, Reed had thrown 277, which is the equivalent of almost 4 more appearances.  Pressly had thrown 281.  I think it's pretty clear Reed and Pressly were getting quite overused last year, and you can't dismiss that as a factor in Reed's decline.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Must say I wasn't initially impressed with the return (Forsythe/Raley/Smeltzer) in the Dozier trade to the Dodgers last summer.   Happy to say that the production of Raley and Smeltzer early this year is changing my mind in a big way.

 

Especially given Brian's 69 wRC+ and -0.1 WAR so far this year.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Except through May 7 this year Rogers has thrown 206 pitches. Through May 6 last year, Reed had thrown 277, which is the equivalent of almost 4 more appearances. Pressly had thrown 281. I think it's pretty clear Reed and Pressly were getting quite overused last year, and you can't dismiss that as a factor in Reed's decline.

Another poster just said games was a more important factor than innings or pitches. +70 pitches over 40 days might be completely meaningless in terms of "overuse" depending on their distribution.

 

There is so much noise and randomness, unless something is really egregious, I don't think we can confidently point to usage as much of a factor in most situations.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Must say I wasn't initially impressed with the return (Forsythe/Raley/Smeltzer) in the Dozier trade to the Dodgers last summer. Happy to say that the production of Raley and Smeltzer early this year is changing my mind in a big way.

Smeltzer has been way more impressive than Raley so far. Although even then, impressive minor league pitching performances may not mean much -- remember Littell's incredible run in 2017?

 

Until one of these players becomes a contributor at the MLB level, I am not sure anything should really change our view of the trade. (And mind you, I don't think it was a bad trade at all.)

[Mr. Brooks]

Just like every player looks bad if you throw out their good months and only count their bad months? You stated he wasn't good before his injury. I provided a number that demonstrates that not to be true (to at least some extent). In no way did I cherry pick--I looked at a timeframe in which you said he wasn't good, and provided evidence that, actually, he was.

On which date was he injured? Or are you just assuming that he only started to pitch poorly after the injury?

Or are you saying that there was a snippet of the season that he was good, which technically came before the injury?

[Mr. Brooks]

Just like every player looks bad if you throw out their good months and only count their bad months? You stated he wasn't good before his injury. I provided a number that demonstrates that not to be true (to at least some extent). In no way did I cherry pick--I looked at a timeframe in which you said he wasn't good, and provided evidence that, actually, he was.

I'm not throwing out any months though. I'm using the assumption that he was healthy when he was on the field. Unless you have explicit evidence that the team, the medical staff, and himself all allowed him to pitch while injured.

[bird]

 

Must say I wasn't initially impressed with the return (Forsythe/Raley/Smeltzer) in the Dozier trade to the Dodgers last summer.   Happy to say that the production of Raley and Smeltzer early this year is changing my mind in a big way.

 

 

The most dramatic gain from the Dozier sell is the opportunity gain derived from the decision to forego signing him to a long and illiquid contract.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

Another poster just said games was a more important factor than innings or pitches. +70 pitches over 40 days might be completely meaningless in terms of "overuse" depending on their distribution.

There is so much noise and randomness, unless something is really egregious, I don't think we can confidently point to usage as much of a factor in most situations.

 

35% more pitches feels pretty egregious to me.  It seems reasonable to assert that the more pitches you throw, the longer it takes your arm to fully recover (after all, starters go at minimum 3 days in between appearances, and that's almost exclusively reserved for extraordinary circumstances).  Therefore, I think we can safely say a pitcher being used more often, and for longer stretches, is being more "worked", so while think Rogers, until recently, was being borderline overworked, it seems pretty clear that both Reed and Pressly were definitely overworked at this point last year.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

On which date was he injured? Or are you just assuming that he only started to pitch poorly after the injury?
Or are you saying that there was a snippet of the season that he was good, which technically came before the injury?

 

I have no idea on what date he was injured, although I think we should also clarify that injured and hurt are not necessarily mutually inclusive.  I'm not assuming an injury or hurt is the sole cause of a decline in Reed's 2018 performance, but nor do I think, based on his March/April stats, which he then repeated in September, that an injury or hurt can be ruled out so casually and completely as you did when you stated in blanket terms, "Reed was not good before his injury".  I was simply debating your original, sweeping assertion, which was easy to at least partially refute.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

I'm not throwing out any months though. I'm using the assumption that he was healthy when he was on the field. Unless you have explicit evidence that the team, the medical staff, and himself all allowed him to pitch while injured.

 

Using the assumption that every player on the field is healthy is severely flawed in my opinion.  Just last year, we saw Byron Buxton pressed into service when he was not healthy.  If I remember correctly, Logan Morrison also played much of the year not truly healthy.  Is it really so hard to believe that Reed either didn't disclose being hurt (not necessarily injured), or he was simply going out at 80-90% (which I'm sure many players do on a regular basis), and that simply erased his margin for error?  Or do you have explicit evidence that the team, the medical staff, and himself all did NOT allow him to pitch while injured?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

35% more pitches feels pretty egregious to me.  It seems reasonable to assert that the more pitches you throw, the longer it takes your arm to fully recover (after all, starters go at minimum 3 days in between appearances, and that's almost exclusively reserved for extraordinary circumstances).  Therefore, I think we can safely say a pitcher being used more often, and for longer stretches, is being more "worked", so while think Rogers, until recently, was being borderline overworked, it seems pretty clear that both Reed and Pressly were definitely overworked at this point last year.

It feels like that should be the case -- but in this specific case, I'm not sure there's even correlation here, much less causation.

 

Reed threw 265 pitches over the first 40 days of 2016; he threw 281 over the first 40 days of 2017. And you think we can say he was definitely overworked by throwing 270 over the first 40 days of 2018? There's nothing to suggest that 200 pitches over 40 days should be any kind of baseline, much less than 270 over 40 days is particularly egregious.

 

There's so much randomness and noise about player performance and injuries, it's almost impossible to judge based on the kind of information we have here. Mind you, I'm not saying there's no limit, but you can't get too fine in these judgements. Egregious usage, to me, would have to be something rare -- a reliever throwing 50 pitches in a game when he hasn't done that in forever; a high-stress 40-pitch inning; some amateur throwing 130+ pitches every other day in a tournament somewhere.

[Mr. Brooks]

Using the assumption that every player on the field is healthy is severely flawed in my opinion. Just last year, we saw Byron Buxton pressed into service when he was not healthy. If I remember correctly, Logan Morrison also played much of the year not truly healthy. Is it really so hard to believe that Reed either didn't disclose being hurt (not necessarily injured), or he was simply going out at 80-90% (which I'm sure many players do on a regular basis), and that simply erased his margin for error? Or do you have explicit evidence that the team, the medical staff, and himself all did NOT allow him to pitch while injured?

I'm not the one who requires evidence as I'm not tossing out chunks of time to support my argument.

 

Let me rephrase my argument.

During the time before he went on the DL last year, his collective numbers were not good.

 

I have no idea what the health level was for the players you mention. Playing hurt to the detriment of the team seems incredibly stupid and selfish to me, so that is not a reassuring excuse to me, even if valid.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

I'm not the one who requires evidence as I'm not tossing out chunks of time to support my argument.

Let me rephrase my argument.
During the time before he went on the DL last year, his collective numbers were not good.

I have no idea what the health level was for the players you mention. Playing hurt to the detriment of the team seems incredibly stupid and selfish to me, so that is not a reassuring excuse to me, even if valid.

 

I enjoy that you say you're not the one tossing out chunks of time, and then immediately proceed to toss out a chunk of time in your restatement.  Unless of course you don't consider the time from the beginning of the 2018 season through Reed's injury to actually be time.

 

You initially made, and in the above post re-made, an argument that Reed/Reed's numbers before his injury last year were not good.  You've yet to provide any supporting evidence whatsoever for this, and when I provided evidence that contradicted your assertion, you segued into a tangent demanding I provide evidence for my claims, which again, you've yet to do yourself.

 

As you yourself admit, you don't know the health level of players--therefore isn't it reasonable to suggest it's possible some players, including potentially Addison Reed, were playing not at full health, especially since I provided you with two examples of players who were known to have played at less than full health just last year?  And if we can't quantify if a player is fully healthy, shouldn't we perhaps consider that a player was hurt before he was injured, and that could be a contributing factor in his decline before a trip to the IL?

 

Finally, I'm not saying players should play while hurt, I'm saying that they do, in the past, the present, and the future.  That will never change.  If you only wanted to play players who were 100% healthy, you would have to forfeit every game due to not having anyone available to play.  Teams need to learn to manage the difference between hurt and injured, and ensure the former doesn't become the latter.

 

With that, unless you want to provide some actual hard evidence to suggest that pitching hurt did not play a role in Reed's decline prior to his IL trip last year, I'm going to move on from this discussion, with a full rejection of your subjective assertion.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

It feels like that should be the case -- but in this specific case, I'm not sure there's even correlation here, much less causation.

 

Reed threw 265 pitches over the first 40 days of 2016; he threw 281 over the first 40 days of 2017. And you think we can say he was definitely overworked by throwing 270 over the first 40 days of 2018? There's nothing to suggest that 200 pitches over 40 days should be any kind of baseline, much less than 270 over 40 days is particularly egregious.

 

There's so much randomness and noise about player performance and injuries, it's almost impossible to judge based on the kind of information we have here. Mind you, I'm not saying there's no limit, but you can't get too fine in these judgements. Egregious usage, to me, would have to be something rare -- a reliever throwing 50 pitches in a game when he hasn't done that in forever; a high-stress 40-pitch inning; some amateur throwing 130+ pitches every other day in a tournament somewhere.

 

This is interesting, I did not realize Reed had been throwing that many pitches consistently.  That being said, 40 days is about 22% of the major league season, so throwing 270 pitches in the first 40 days puts you on pace for about 1,230 over the course of a full year.  Over the past 5 years, that number would be in the top 20 for most pitches thrown by a reliever every year.  A reliever who did that every year for the past 5 years would actually be 2nd in number of pitches thrown over that timeframe.

 

To me, this suggests overwork, and perhaps Reed was able to get away with it in 2016 and 2017 when he was 27 and 28.  Perhaps last year, after having thrown the 11th most pitches of any reliever from 2014 to 2017, he just wasn't able to handle that workload any more, which would mean 270 pitches in 40 days was, for Addison Reed, being overworked.

[Mr. Brooks]

I enjoy that you say you're not the one tossing out chunks of time, and then immediately proceed to toss out a chunk of time in your restatement. Unless of course you don't consider the time from the beginning of the 2018 season through Reed's injury to actually be time.

 

You initially made, and in the above post re-made, an argument that Reed/Reed's numbers before his injury last year were not good. You've yet to provide any supporting evidence whatsoever for this, and when I provided evidence that contradicted your assertion, you segued into a tangent demanding I provide evidence for my claims, which again, you've yet to do yourself.

 

As you yourself admit, you don't know the health level of players--therefore isn't it reasonable to suggest it's possible some players, including potentially Addison Reed, were playing not at full health, especially since I provided you with two examples of players who were known to have played at less than full health just last year? And if we can't quantify if a player is fully healthy, shouldn't we perhaps consider that a player was hurt before he was injured, and that could be a contributing factor in his decline before a trip to the IL?

 

Finally, I'm not saying players should play while hurt, I'm saying that they do, in the past, the present, and the future. That will never change. If you only wanted to play players who were 100% healthy, you would have to forfeit every game due to not having anyone available to play. Teams need to learn to manage the difference between hurt and injured, and ensure the former doesn't become the latter.

 

With that, unless you want to provide some actual hard evidence to suggest that pitching hurt did not play a role in Reed's decline prior to his IL trip last year, I'm going to move on from this discussion, with a full rejection of your subjective assertion.

I don't want players to play if they are so hurt that their performance is negatively impacting the team, as you are suggesting it was.

 

If we are to dismiss any poor performance because, "they might have been hurt", then you are effectively saying that we can never say that a player wasn't good.

 

That's fine if that is how you personally want to view things. But please don't grandstand against me for choosing to use the numbers that a player posted while on the field. If a player chooses to play hurt, that's on them, they still have to own their contributions.

 

I'll just rephrase my initial comment to, Reed was terrible last season, for whatever the reason.