Article: Twins Game Recap (7/22): Twins Turn Triple Play, Mitch Garver Homers Twice in Win Over Yankees

[ashbury]

just saw this:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/twins-troll-yankees-with-music-after-strikeouts/ar-AAEJmBc?ocid=spartanntp

Ell Oh Ell. Ever been at a game in Yankee Stadium? After every strikeout by a visiting player, there is an annoying whistling sound that I was told is sponsored by some local company, using a familiar cadence from their ads. Downright bush league. So they've monetized their strikeouts, but take umbrage at another team's choice? Priceless.

[ashbury]

[nokomismod]

Excellent game (defense, big hits, and clutch bullpen work)! 

 

Did anyone else catch Dick on the TV broadcast saying if the Twins hold on to the lead they should erect a Thorpe statue outside the stadium? Cmon man!

[howeda7]

 

Polanco really put a charge into his homer in the first, that was a mighty swing. Twins giving CC the whiplash treatment for once.

Thank God he ignored that foolish advice to bunt.

[SpicyGarvSauce]

 

Excellent game (defense, big hits, and clutch bullpen work)! 

 

Did anyone else catch Dick on the TV broadcast saying if the Twins hold on to the lead they should erect a Thorpe statue outside the stadium? Cmon man!

 

I did, and I cannot say I am surprised. Bremer loves hyperbole.

[nicksaviking]

 

For some reason I care about this...

I found three other Twins games this year in which the starter did not go 5 but left while leading.

One was a Twins home game. Perez followed Pineda in an early season game. Perez gave up the only 3 runs the Twins allowed and was awarded the win. Harper pitched a scoreless inning but I guess was somehow determined less effective than Perez. Pineda was the most effective pitcher this day but the scorer couldn’t choose him.

In an away game Hildenberger pitched 1/3 of an inning to finish the fifth for Gibson. He was awarded the win for his 1/3 inning. May pitched a scoreless full inning but I guess was deemed less effective than Hildenberger.

In an away game Duffey finished the fifth for Berrios and had a clean 6th inning. This was the game that Austin Adams blew hitters away for 2 innings striking out 4 though he must have been less effective than Duffey who was credited with the win.

In every case the reliever completing the 5th inning was awarded the win. In each of these cases I think there is a lot clearer argument that another pitcher was more effective.

Thorpe and Duffey were critical to yesterday’s win. Unless it is so clear that Thorpe was much more effective Duffey should have had that win.

 

I think you'll find that those of us applauding the win going to Thorpe are doing so because it's uncommon, though the right thing to do in our mind. I don't recall your other examples explicitly, but if they're as you state them, we probably would have applauded giving the win to the pitcher who did most of the heavy lifting in those cases as well.

[h2oface]

 

Great job by bullpen though Duffey comes out of the game without a hold or win to his record.

His stopping of the Yankee momentum was critical. Two runs in. Tying run at the plate. Heart of the order. No outs. One fat pitch and the four run lead has vanished.

He gets out with a clean inning. Stops the momentum. I would have given him the win. In support he had the highest WPA among the pitchers. Thorpe was awesome also. Seems like Duffey should at least have a hold in the box score.

 

It was an interesting call by the official scorer, the same group of charity workers that decide hits so generously instead of errors. Thorpe's first inning was not good, in fact, just as lucky to not give up more than one run as Duffey's was to not give up any. How many fans were cringing to have Thorpe come out for the 7th inning after that scary 6th? Duffey got sooooo lucky after his first batter walk and the bonehead play to not be on the bag for the double play. Still, he didn't give up any runs, and inherited a runner. Thorpe gave up 4 hits, an earned run, let the lead close from 2 to one run with a horrible first inning that started clean, and left the game with a runner in scoring position he had just given up a double to. 2.2 innings to 1 inning. I don't know. I could go either way, but I think I give the win to Duffey, who pitched the 5th, came in with 2 runs in and one runner on, the momentum swinging "bigly", and got out of the inning without letting the inherited runner score, saving the all important 2 run lead. I would also be giving fielders a lot more errors and the batters less hits.

Edited July 23, 2019 by h2oface

[USAFChief]

 

For some reason I care about this...

I found three other Twins games this year in which the starter did not go 5 but left while leading.

One was a Twins home game. Perez followed Pineda in an early season game. Perez gave up the only 3 runs the Twins allowed and was awarded the win. Harper pitched a scoreless inning but I guess was somehow determined less effective than Perez. Pineda was the most effective pitcher this day but the scorer couldn’t choose him.

In an away game Hildenberger pitched 1/3 of an inning to finish the fifth for Gibson. He was awarded the win for his 1/3 inning. May pitched a scoreless full inning but I guess was deemed less effective than Hildenberger.

In an away game Duffey finished the fifth for Berrios and had a clean 6th inning. This was the game that Austin Adams blew hitters away for 2 innings striking out 4 though he must have been less effective than Duffey who was credited with the win.

In every case the reliever completing the 5th inning was awarded the win. In each of these cases I think there is a lot clearer argument that another pitcher was more effective.

Thorpe and Duffey were critical to yesterday’s win. Unless it is so clear that Thorpe was much more effective Duffey should have had that win.

In your first example, Pineda started and pitched 4 innings. By rule, can't get the win. Perez came in in the 5th, and pitched 3.2 innings. Hildenberger and Harper combined for 1.1 innings to close a 9-3 win. Pretty easy to say Perez should get the win, he pitched the bulk of the relief effort. 

 

In the second example, Gibson was removed with 2 outs in the 5th, with a 6-3 lead, but had just walked two hitters to load the bases. Hildenberger got the final out in the 5th, preserving the 6-3 lead. Nobody else pitched more than an inning in a game that went to the 9th with the Twins leading 14-4. I'd say Hildenberger probably was the "most effective," and certainly had the highest leverage.

 

In your third example, the Twins were up 15-0 in the bottom of the5th, when Berrios gave up four runs, and left with 2 on and 2 out. Duffy came on, suffered through dropped foul pop that should have ended the inning, but got the K. He then pitched a scoreless 6th, again surviving an error, with 2 more K's. Harper later pitched an inning, and Adams the final two innings of a game that ended 18-4. Hard to argue that Duffey wasn't the "most effective."

[h2oface]

Great discussion over the assignment of a win to the pitcher, eh? Especially since, in these days, so many claim that wins for a pitcher don't mean anything, and are worthless.

Edited July 23, 2019 by h2oface

[Dantes929]

 

Thank God he ignored that foolish advice to bunt.

Meh.   So he bunts for a base hit and CC gives up a 2 run dinger instead.   I still love the idea of bunting for base hits against CC but I did notice their third base man was often playing pretty shallow.

[tarheeltwinsfan]

Troll this Yankee fans: "Start spreading the news, you're losing today".

[Dantes929]

 

When we get wins like this, against real competitive teams, teams that will most certainly be going beyond the regular season, it tells me ... we can compete against them. We can do it. It gives me hope.

 

But we still need to make a couple of trades or it's just hoping for the best with my fingers AND toes crossed.

First of all competitive does not mean come close and then lose.   It means plays well enough to win or lose.   Second, even with a couple trades it is just hoping for the best (fingers and toes) regardless of who is in there.    I get this feeling that fans think if we had other proven relievers games would no longer be in doubt when we had the lead after 6 innings.   ALL relievers give up runs and ALL teams blow leads regardless of their relief staff.     Hendricks just blew a game and so did Rogers.    Nathan was the 2nd best reliever in baseball when he gave up leads to the Yankees in the playoffs.  I even remember the great Rivera giving up a grand slam to Kubel and losing a game 7 in the World Series.    IF the Twins make the playoffs they would have a fair shot at winning the WS.   If they got a couple good relievers they would have a better chance but we are talking about 1 in 20 better shot.  (10% chance without help.  Probably less than 15% chance with help)  Consider this.   We would definitely be howling for two better starters and 3 better relievers if we were following the 87 Twins.    If they had done so they would have had a better chance to win but we know for fact the inferior 87 Twins did win the WS.   We don't know that the improved 87 Twins would have won because it would change everything.    I am absolutely in favor of improving our bullpen but  don't kid yourself.  We are not getting better relievers than Rogers and I am guessing you were crossing fingers and toes when he was in there.   You will be crossing fingers and toes no matter who we put out there in a close game in the playoffs.  

[howeda7]

 

Meh.   So he bunts for a base hit and CC gives up a 2 run dinger instead.   I still love the idea of bunting for base hits against CC but I did notice their third base man was often playing pretty shallow.

Certainly may well have had Schoop give it a shot since his AB's were worthless anyway.

[Squirrel]

 

First of all competitive does not mean come close and then lose.   It means plays well enough to win or lose.   Second, even with a couple trades it is just hoping for the best (fingers and toes) regardless of who is in there.    I get this feeling that fans think if we had other proven relievers games would no longer be in doubt when we had the lead after 6 innings.   ALL relievers give up runs and ALL teams blow leads regardless of their relief staff.     Hendricks just blew a game and so did Rogers.    Nathan was the 2nd best reliever in baseball when he gave up leads to the Yankees in the playoffs.  I even remember the great Rivera giving up a grand slam to Kubel and losing a game 7 in the World Series.    IF the Twins make the playoffs they would have a fair shot at winning the WS.   If they got a couple good relievers they would have a better chance but we are talking about 1 in 20 better shot.  (10% chance without help.  Probably less than 15% chance with help)  Consider this.   We would definitely be howling for two better starters and 3 better relievers if we were following the 87 Twins.    If they had done so they would have had a better chance to win but we know for fact the inferior 87 Twins did win the WS.   We don't know that the improved 87 Twins would have won because it would change everything.    I am absolutely in favor of improving our bullpen but  don't kid yourself.  We are not getting better relievers than Rogers and I am guessing you were crossing fingers and toes when he was in there.   You will be crossing fingers and toes no matter who we put out there in a close game in the playoffs.  

Where are you getting the 10% and 15% figures? Are those just what you think the odds are, or was that quoted from somewhere?

 

I think with better arms, our chances to win go up by more than that. And I think we are competitive. I mean, we won last night, didn't we?

[Nine of twelve]

 

I remember the Twins turning two in one game:

 

 

One was with Brunansky at the plate, which I didn't remember. Sweet.

I remember turning that game on somewhere in the middle innings. I also remember having the sound down, either because I was listening to music or talking on the phone. I saw the team exulting in their accomplishment and didn't realize until a graphic appeared on the screen in the next half-inning that it was their second of that game.

[stringer bell]

I remember watching on TV when the Twins turned two triple plays. They still lost the game!

 

As for the decision to award Thorpe the win, while the rules have been quoted, it is a bit of an arbitrary decision. Neither pitcher was "lights out", but both did their jobs--Thorpe for a longer duration and Duffey in a tight spot. I think that Thorpe working for seven outs, compared to just three for Duffey was the deciding factor. 

[Dantes929]

 

Where are you getting the 10% and 15% figures? Are those just what you think the odds are, or was that quoted from somewhere?

 

I think with better arms, our chances to win go up by more than that. And I think we are competitive. I mean, we won last night, didn't we?

Thin air but reasonable I think.  One site had them at plus 950 which I think means better than 1 in 10.  Another site had them at 15/1 but that is all from where we stand now.   If we make the playoffs it will be as a wild card play in game or as division champs.    Hard to give double digits chances to any wild card entrant.   Once they make the full playoffs the odds are likely close to one in 8 but the odds of winning the wild card game is still roughly 1 in 2.    I give a nod to those that think the Twins odds are reduced significantly by having a weak bullpen though there are those that think the starting pitching hurts also by giving them slightly worse odds than the 1 in 8 (12.5%)    With a bolstered bullpen I still have a hard time giving them better odds than the Yankees, the Astros, the Dodgers, etc. which puts them back to 12.5% at best.    Playoff games are won and lost in all matter of ways.  Umpire calls, home field advantages, fan interference, hot offense, great defense, starting pitching, relief pitching, speed, luck, power, grit,  etc and they are by no means all won by 1 run nail biters.   Great relievers blow games and so so relievers come up big (my memory was Dan Schatzeder came up big in 1987).   The difference between a 4.00 reliever and a 3.00 reliever statistically if they pitch an inning at a time is that they both give up a run in 3 of their first 8 appearances and the worse reliever gives up a run in that 9th appearance.      Of course that run might be a difference maker but only might be, not likely to be.

[Mr. Brooks]

Thin air but reasonable I think. One site had them at plus 950 which I think means better than 1 in 10. Another site had them at 15/1 but that is all from where we stand now. If we make the playoffs it will be as a wild card play in game or as division champs. Hard to give double digits chances to any wild card entrant. Once they make the full playoffs the odds are likely close to one in 8 but the odds of winning the wild card game is still roughly 1 in 2. I give a nod to those that think the Twins odds are reduced significantly by having a weak bullpen though there are those that think the starting pitching hurts also by giving them slightly worse odds than the 1 in 8 (12.5%) With a bolstered bullpen I still have a hard time giving them better odds than the Yankees, the Astros, the Dodgers, etc. which puts them back to 12.5% at best. Playoff games are won and lost in all matter of ways. Umpire calls, home field advantages, fan interference, hot offense, great defense, starting pitching, relief pitching, speed, luck, power, grit, etc and they are by no means all won by 1 run nail biters. Great relievers blow games and so so relievers come up big (my memory was Dan Schatzeder came up big in 1987). The difference between a 4.00 reliever and a 3.00 reliever statistically if they pitch an inning at a time is that they both give up a run in 3 of their first 8 appearances and the worse reliever gives up a run in that 9th appearance. Of course that run might be a difference maker but only might be, not likely to be.

Thanks for that.

I think people tend to overestimate how much one guy can help a team, let alone one relief pitcher.

Even an 8 WAR player like Mike Trout wins you one extra game per 20. A great relief pitcher is closer to one every 50 games.

 

That's not to say you shouldn't add help, you absolutely should.

[Dantes929]

 

Where are you getting the 10% and 15% figures? Are those just what you think the odds are, or was that quoted from somewhere?

 

I think with better arms, our chances to win go up by more than that. And I think we are competitive. I mean, we won last night, didn't we?

I should add that playoffs have more days off so relying on Harper and Rogers or Pineda, etc is more reasonable than relying on them to carry the full load in the regular season.   I want better relievers as well.   Don't care to give up a lot in terms of prospects for them and want them more to fight off Cleveland than worrying about how they might do in the playoffs..   We can have different views but I stand by my opinion that you will be crossing fingers and toes no matter who we have out there.    I don't recall any 1 run game in Twins history where I thought "this game is over" with an inning left to play.   Nathan made me nervous, as did Perkins, Buerenguer, Reardon, Guardado and Aquillera.  

[Old Twins Cap]

FYI, Martin Perez will not be able to win a playoff game for the Twins. Neither will Pineda.

 

Question becomes:  who will be able to win a playoff game?

 

Berrios. Maybe Odorizzi.

 

And, in the bullpen?  Rogers can. Anyone else?

 

So, the Twins have a problem to solve. Need to start thinking in terms of winning big games against good-hitting teams.