Article: Twins Game Recap (7/18): Rosario Ignites Late-Inning Comeback

[PDX Twin]

 

Garver is pretty incredible as well. He’s emerging as a premier player. The guy can hit.
 

 

I remember a lot of us having great debates about Garver vs. Stuart Turner, who was drafted in the same year. 

 

I think the Twins got this one right.Turner's career MLB average is .134 in 37 games with the Reds in 2017. This year he's hitting .163 with the Reds' AAA affiliate.

[Riverbrian]

I completely understand wanting to get the win by using Rogers for another 2 inning save... However, I'm getting a little concerned how much Rocco is using him lately. The Twins really need another reliever who can produce in high leverage situations.

Fully agree that we need additional high leverage options. But I personally don’t worry if Rogers throws 5 innings.

 

It’s only an issue because we need more high leverage guys.

 

Which is close to what you are saying... other than the 5 inning part.

[USNMCPO]

 

I completely understand wanting to get the win by using Rogers for another 2 inning save... However, I'm getting a little concerned how much Rocco is using him lately. The Twins really need another reliever who can produce in high leverage situations.

When the Twins went up by 3 in the 8th, I was looking for Rocco to put another reliever in so Rogers could be used next game.

[USAFChief]

 

When the Twins went up by 3 in the 8th, I was looking for Rocco to put another reliever in so Rogers could be used next game.

I was thinking the same thing, but also thinking..."Who else do I trust to get 3 outs with a 3 run lead?"

 

And the answer is "nobody."

[Riverbrian]

guys get doubled off third on line drives to first all the time?

 

Again, I disagree.

 

And as pointed out above, it wasn't even a strong throw to third, Olson threw from his backside. Cave just screwed up. It shouldn't have happened. Much like the play recently where Buxton got caught tagging and going to third on a fly ball to center, costing the Twins a run (and ultimately the game), I'm quite positive if you could privately ask the player (in this case Cave, not Kep), he'd say, "yeah, I know. Bad play on my part. Won't happen again."

I’m trying to recall from memory but wasn’t the ball caught close to the ground. If that’s the case, it excusable. Not perfect base running but excusable. But I admit that I don’t know if the contact play was on.

 

Arraez in the “not hit” by a batter pick off. That’s a teaching moment for the 22 year old. Let the umpire make the call and stop for breakfast as he walks to 3B. If he is advancing on a what he thought was a passed ball... then he got picked plain and simple.

[wsnydes]

 

The ball is by the ground, the runner can't see if the ball bounced or not readily. The reaction is to go home, if he hesitates or goes back and its on the ground, its an out without the runner going. Absolutely handled the right way, no way anyone said "My bad" in the dugout. More like "**** happens"

I guess we had very different coaches. I was always taught to freeze on a line drive. Make sure that it hits the ground or is caught before doing anything. If he hesitates and doesn't score but the out is recorded at first so be it. There's still a runner in scoring position and another batter comes to the plate with another chance to drive him in. If you don't know whether it hit the ground or not, err on the side of caution. Live to fight another day. If that ball was hit to 3B, I'd understand. I don't recall seeing too many 3-5 putouts. The ball was caught at knee height. Nice play by Olson for sure and it's made even better doubling Cave off. 

 

I'm still more bothered by the fact that Cave didn't even try to get back to the bag. Even if the contact play was on, not trying to get back is a mistake. With as weak as the throw was, he could have at least made it close.

[SwainZag]

 

When the Twins went up by 3 in the 8th, I was looking for Rocco to put another reliever in so Rogers could be used next game.

 

At that point he already warmed up and threw 16 pitches in the 8th.  Someone else probably could have gotten the 3 outs, but.....I don't mind the decision at all to let him back out there.  

[USAFChief]

 

I’m trying to recall from memory but wasn’t the ball caught close to the ground. If that’s the case, it excusable. Not perfect base running but excusable. But I admit that I don’t know if the contact play was on. I’ve seen Kep do some questionable things at 3B this year.

Arraez in the “not hit” by a batter pick off. That’s a teaching moment for the 22 year old. Let the umpire make the call and stop for breakfast as he walks to 3B. If he is advancing on a what he thought was a passed ball... then he got picked plain and simple.

respectfully disagree. Doesn't matter where the ball was caught. Until you're sure the ball is on the ground, your first step is always back towards the bag, even on a contact play. If it's caught in the air, you might get back. If it's not caught, play it as you see fit. If it hits the ground, you're off (on a contact play). If it's past the infield, you score anyway. If it's caught by an outfielder in the air, you're tagging up anyway.

 

And in this case, the play was 150 feet away. Inexcusable to get picked off.

 

Agree on Arraez. Shouldn't happen.

 

 

[SwainZag]

 

I guess we had very different coaches. I was always taught to freeze on a line drive. Make sure that it hits the ground or is caught before doing anything. If he hesitates and doesn't score but the out is recorded at first so be it. There's still a runner in scoring position and another batter comes to the plate with another chance to drive him in. If you don't know whether it hit the ground or not, err on the side of caution. Live to fight another day. If that ball was hit to 3B, I'd understand. I don't recall seeing too many 3-5 putouts. The ball was caught at knee height. Nice play by Olson for sure and it's made even better doubling Cave off. 

 

I'm still more bothered by the fact that Cave didn't even try to get back to the bag. Even if the contact play was on, not trying to get back is a mistake. With as weak as the throw was, he could have at least made it close.

 

For those who maybe didn't see the play, it's here:

 

https://cuts.diamond.mlb.com/FORGE/2019/2019-07/18/af0c7379-879a0b62-8b2461eb-csvm-diamondx64-asset_1280x720_59_4000K.mp4

 

That is a hard hit ball.  I am going to guess Cave has a modest lead off of 3rd so he can score off a routine ground ball in the IF.  That ball is off of Kepler's bat and out of Olson's hand in about a second and a half.  Cave takes one step towards home when it's off the bat and he has no chance of getting back.  Even if he freezes 30 feet down the line he is going to have trouble getting back on a strong throw.  Just unfortunate the ball was hit that hard and he was playing in the right spot.  The Arreaz base running mistake was a far more mental one in my book.

[Riverbrian]

respectfully disagree. Doesn't matter where the ball was caught. Until you're sure the ball is on the ground, your first step is always back towards the bag, even on a contact play. If it's caught in the air, you might get back. If it's not caught, play it as you see fit. If it hits the ground, you're off (on a contact play). If it's past the infield, you score anyway. If it's caught by an outfielder in the air, you're tagging up anyway.

 

And in this case, the play was 150 feet away. Inexcusable to get picked off.

 

Agree on Arraez. Shouldn't happen.

If it’s close to the ground he may have made the assumption that it was going to hit the ground.m and it just didn’t. But again... it wasn’t perfect base running regardless. And I’ve seen quite a bit not perfect base running.

 

Teaching moments all over the place.

[Alex Schieferdecker]

The poor fielding dates to well before the All-Star break. I think we can pin it precisely to June 12th, when the Mariners came to town, and the Twins made FIVE ERRORS in a twelve inning loss.

 

Ever since Seattle brought their fielding disease into Minnesota, the Twins have been ill with it.

[wsnydes]

 

For those who maybe didn't see the play, it's here:

 

https://cuts.diamond.mlb.com/FORGE/2019/2019-07/18/af0c7379-879a0b62-8b2461eb-csvm-diamondx64-asset_1280x720_59_4000K.mp4

 

That is a hard hit ball.  I am going to guess Cave has a modest lead off of 3rd so he can score off a routine ground ball in the IF.  That ball is off of Kepler's bat and out of Olson's hand in about a second and a half.  Cave takes one step towards home when it's off the bat and he has no chance of getting back.  Even if he freezes 30 feet down the line he is going to have trouble getting back on a strong throw.  Just unfortunate the ball was hit that hard and he was playing in the right spot.  The Arreaz base running mistake was a far more mental one in my book.

I wouldn't consider that a strong throw. Good under the circumstances, but hardly a rifle to 3B. I would also consider that a line drive whether it's close to the ground or not. As Chief said, if it gets through he's scoring anyway. I don't necessarily disagree that he's out one way or another (it's likely), but at least try. I don't like simply handing the opponent outs. I'm just bothered more by the lack of try. Lots of things could happen that could have resulted in Cave being safe at the bag. Don't compound one mistake by making another. It happened quickly, but not so quickly that Cave couldn't have been trying to get back to the bag.

[SwainZag]

 

I wouldn't consider that a strong throw. Good under the circumstances, but hardly a rifle to 3B. I would also consider that a line drive whether it's close to the ground or not. As Chief said, if it gets through he's scoring anyway. I don't necessarily disagree that he's out one way or another (it's likely), but at least try. I don't like simply handing the opponent outs. I'm just bothered more by the lack of try. Lots of things could happen that could have resulted in Cave being safe at the bag. Don't compound one mistake by making another. It happened quickly, but not so quickly that Cave couldn't have been trying to get back to the bag.

 

It wasn't a strong throw, when he flipped over he could see he didn't need to rifle to 3rd.  No one likes giving up outs, but that was a bang-bang play across the diamond, I really think chastising Cave on it is going too far, but that's just my opinion.  I would like to see an opposite camera angle.  I can almost guarantee he was a 3rd of the way down the line as the ball came off the bat.

[bighat]

 

I truly hate to say it but Sano made 2 errors in Gibson's last start and I believe he is a liability in the field and totally unpredictable at the plate. I don't want to see him at 3rd in a really crucial game.

Nice to see Baldelli leave Gibson in for 7.

Score 5 or more and win. Score less than 5 and usually lose. Pretty simple formula. Applies again tonight.

 

Don't agree with the Sano comment.

Do agree with the 5 runs comment.

[wsnydes]

 

It wasn't a strong throw, when he flipped over he could see he didn't need to rifle to 3rd.  No one likes giving up outs, but that was a bang-bang play across the diamond, I really think chastising Cave on it is going too far, but that's just my opinion.  I would like to see an opposite camera angle.  I can almost guarantee he was a 3rd of the way down the line as the ball came off the bat.

The best angle that I saw made it look like he was halfway down the line. I agree, a good angle would be helpful. In my view, if he had a modest lead and then froze he would have had a good chance at getting back. If he's a third of the way down the line (let alone half), in my opinion, that's too far. He risks getting doubled off in a situation like that. The mistake then becomes in the lead, not necessarily in whether he froze or not. Even on a contact play, he has to make sure the ball hits the ground. I look at it similarly to a pickoff attempt by the pitcher. He has to make sure that he can beat the 3B back to the bag. If the 3B could get to the bag that quickly in this situation, then Cave should have been able to as well. 

[jorgenswest]

Nice work by Gibson. That is the kind of start against a good team that can win a playoff game.

 

Rogers is awesome. Another two inning save.

 

I love how Rosario was ready on that first pitch.

 

It was a really good at bat by Sano to draw a walk. He had a hard time laying off those pitchers on the low outside edge earlier in the season. So often it would be a strike called on his attempt to check his swing. It was also an alert play with a good secondary to get home on the passed ball.

 

Loved the defensive play by Gonzalez in the outfield. He has been so reliable at so many spots.

[USAFChief]

 

Nice work by Gibson. 

Concur.

[stringer bell]

Agree on Marwin. He has been as advertised. Rocco likes Adrianza better in the MI and I don’t blame him, and Ehire has hit just as well, so Marwin hasn’t played much second and short, but Gonzalez is competent almost anywhere.

[SpicyGarvSauce]

Rogers needs help in this bullpen - he is probably unavailable until Saturday, maybe Sunday given how we have seen Baldelli handle the pen. You can't run him out there for 2 innings (30 or so pitches) and have him shut down for a couple days.

[stringer bell]

Yes, we need more than Rogers in game situations in the bullpen. That hasn’t changed since May/June. 12 days to the deadline. Space has been cleared. Time to get two bullpen arms and maybe a starter.

[Tom Froemming]

 

Rogers needs help in this bullpen - he is probably unavailable until Saturday, maybe Sunday given how we have seen Baldelli handle the pen. You can't run him out there for 2 innings (30 or so pitches) and have him shut down for a couple days.

Twins most definitely need to find more help in the bullpen, but, Rogers just threw 25 pitches in a two-inning save July 12 and then pitched the following night. If they really need him for an inning tonight, he'll be available (but hopefully they can give him a night off).

[SpicyGarvSauce]

 

Twins most definitely need to find more help in the bullpen, but, Rogers just threw 25 pitches in a two-inning save July 12 and then pitched the following night. If they really need him for an inning tonight, he'll be available (but hopefully they can give him a night off).

 

Sure, okay - but that isn't sustainable. It just isn't.

[USAFChief]

 

Sure, okay - but that isn't sustainable. It just isn't.

Imagine the Twins without Rogers.

 

They can't keep running him out there every time they get in a close game, for multiple innings.

 

 

[SpicyGarvSauce]

 

Imagine the Twins without Rogers.

 

They can't keep running him out there every time they get in a close game, for multiple innings.

 

Exactly.

[Tom Froemming]

 

Sure, okay - but that isn't sustainable. It just isn't.

I didn't say it was ...

[PDX Twin]

Maybe someone with more knowledge can help me out on this one: Why is it no problem at all for a starter to throw 100 pitches every 5th day, but a reliever cannot throw 20 pitches every day, adding up to 100 pitches every five days? I get that something will be lost to warming up 5 times instead of 1, but the starter throws warm-up pitches every inning but the reliever only once or twice per appearance, which should mitigate some of that. But these days it seems like it is viewed as abusive to have a pitcher throw even 3 20-pitch outings in 4-5 days.

 

Is it just empirical observation that RPs' effectiveness declines over the year with that level of usage? If so, would that be the case for all RPs or would some have more endurance than others? Is there some physiological basis for the difference in 5-day pitch counts? Help me out!

Edited July 19, 2019 by PDX Twin

[Tom Froemming]

 

Maybe someone with more knowledge can help me out on this one: Why is it no problem at all for a starter to throw 100 pitches every 5th day, but a reliever cannot throw 20 pitches every day, adding up to 100 pitches every five days? I get that something will be lost to warming up 5 times instead of 1, but the starter throws warm-up pitches every inning but the reliever only once or twice per appearance, which should mitigate some of that. But these days it seems like it is viewed as abusive to have a pitcher throw even 3 20-pitch outings in 4-5 days.

 

Is it just empirical observation that RPs' effectiveness declines over the year with that level of usage? If so, would that be the case for all RPs or would some have more endurance than others? Is there some physiological basis for the difference in 5-day pitch counts? Help me out!

I don't have an answer, but I have some theories on where things are headed.

 

With a reliever, the concern isn't just the gross number of pitchers over a stretch so much as it is how often they're worked. If, say, Ryne Harper throws 10 pitches on three-consecutive days, he's probably going to get at least the next day off. I'm sure there are some fancy athletic performance studies that back that logic up. I'm not sure what the magic formula is in concern to pitches in an outing vs. simply having worked, but very few MLB managers deviate from similar line of thinking.

 

Texas was doing some really interesting things with Jesse Chavez in the bullpen during May and June last season that really caught my eye. There were a few periods he threw 80-100 pitches in a week stretched over 3-4 appearances. That experiment ended when he was traded to the Cubs, who used him more like a traditional reliever.

 

Down on the farm, there's all sorts of fun stuff going on. Most relievers pitch multiple innings and 30-40 pitch outings are not all that uncommon. For example, Cody Stashak has gone 2+ innings in 16 of his 31 appearances this year and 30 or more pitches in 14 of his 31 outings.

 

I think the big difference in ideology is that, while winning is desired in the minors, it's not really the only thing that matters. That shift in philosophy results in a little looser thought process with bullpen usage. 

 

I think sometime very soon we're going to see teams blur the lines between roles. I could see teams building their staffs like this:

 

Five-man rotation: Everybody only goes 4-5 innings (70-80 pitches)

Four-man multi-inning crew: These guys always cover 2-3 innings per outing, get two days rest.

Four-man specialist crew: Single-inning, high-leverage guys and LOOGY types.

 

The expansion from 25 to 26-man rosters next year could be what sparks the start of this line of pitching staff building. This makes sense from a strategical standpoint and a fiscal one. So many starters fade late or struggle with that third time through the order, right? Makes sense to shorten starts then. It's gross to even go here, but owners will also love this line of thinking because it will devalue starters and I'd expect it wouldn't really boost the value of relievers all that much. Could it also help prevent injuries/Tommy John? Not sure, but I'd think so.

 

A team like the Marlins, hopeless and in a rebuilding phase, should be testing out something like this right now.

[Tomj14]

 

 It's gross to even go here, but owners will also love this line of thinking because it will devalue starters and I'd expect it wouldn't really boost the value of relievers all that much. Could it also help prevent injuries/Tommy John? Not sure, but I'd think so.

 

I agree it is gross for the owners to do it for that reason.

Until they can convince the younger pitchers it is in their best interest (statistically and financially) there will not a buy in from the pitchers and teams willing to spend the money or willing to give the starters a chance to pitch more inning will end up with all the best "starting" and thus forcing the league to go back to traditional starters.

The teams trying things like this are (seems like) doing it with younger starting pitchers that aren't considered top end prospects or prospects that aren't living up to.

[Jham]

What are you talking about? Guys get picked off on that play all the time. I can remember (but not specifically) the Twins doing it twice this year. It's one thing to say a guy should be more cautious but to say that there's no excuse is laughably ignorant of actual baseball.

 

Taking a normal lead and then moving another 2-3 steps towards home with the pitch means that Kepler is likely 5-6 steps from the bag. That was a hard smash and Olson was immediately up and throwing. An entire infield away is like 125 feet. MLB players make that throw in an instant. Kep had no chance.

 

Ironically, the only people in the league who aren't doubled off on that are probably your pitchers and slow plodders who don't take much of a lead because they aren't going home on anything but the most obvious wild pitch anyway. Any player with any speed at all is too far from the bag. That's just bad luck.

The type of secondary lead you're talking about leads to pick offs. happened to Garve sauce, what, 2 3 weeks ago? The play is to freeze and return. You anticipate the ball in the dirt, you don't presume it.

[Nine of twelve]

 

I could understand getting doubled off if it were a close play at the bag, but he didn't even make a move back to the bag. That's the part I didn't like. That play didn't develop that fast and that wasn't a strong throw to 3B. Cave was still halfway down the line when the ball was caught at 3B.

The play DID develop fast. The ball was in the first baseman's mitt an instant after it was hit. The reason the throw to first wasn't very strong is because both the first baseman and the base runner knew it didn't have to be.