Twins Dislike Platoons

[ThePuck]

I can't disagree with you more! The game is about players not managers. If a player isn't functional against LHers (or RHers) then he really isn't much. Train players to compete against all-comers (RH and LH) and play the best. The game slows down with player changes--and Lord knows it's too slow as it is right now.

 

My post had nothing at all to do with platoons...just expanding the active roster. You know that right? In the AL, if you have 13 pitchers, then you have to start a DH and 8 position players, that leaves three backups. I enjoy double switches, I like the strategy that used to be the norm but has been lost due to having to have so many pitchers on the roster.

[Lonestar]

To go slightly off topic, I think it's way past time for MLB to expand the active roster. With 5 man rotations, reliever specialists and pitch counts the norm, 25 man rosters are too small.

Before the rosters expanded I looked up the AL contenders. The only one that had a 13-man pitching staff was the Red Sox. The rest had 12-man pitching staffs. Except Tampa Bay which had 11.

 

I would advocate for the TB model.

 

edit

[Oldgoat_MN]

I think we should have the NFL drop its roster to 25 men as well.

 

That would make even me pay some attention.

[Alex]

It would seem if Terry Ryan wouldn't want to employ it - the manager for 2014 and beyond (whether Gardenhire or a new 'hire') would also have a similar philosophy.

 

To Ryan's point, 'who would you platoon?' has some merit. I'm not sure we really have that serviceable of players on offense to do it. And to maybe win another 5-10 games this year - would that make the difference? Maybe they want a high pick this year as if Draft experts are right, being in the top 5 picks will yield a very good prospect in 2014.

 

.....

 

So again...

 

Ryan, "On this club, who would you want to platoon?"

 

The short answer is that you could platoon for almost any of the Twins lineup and see an improvement (the exception is Mauer at catcher), and that's the frustration I have with the statement and why it comes off as a bit ludicrous to some of us. It's also frustrating to hear an argument that is essentially "since you can't platoon everyone...." I mean, I'm not even saying you have direct platoons, but every IF with the exception of 1B is better against RHP, so a LHB in the infield off the bench as a platoon mate rotating between positions makes a lot of sense.

 

A couple of points to make on this.

1) I think the point was made, already and clearly, that Tom Kelly did use a very significant platoon in 1991 despite being on record as not liking them. If we're harkening back over two decades to an example of a manager who begrudgingly used them and was successful when he did, I think that's more of a point that argues for the fact that parts of this organization are in need of fresh ideas.

 

2) I think you need to look beyond average. If you look at OPS, almost every player you mention and some you don't (Doumit) is better 80 points or more (Plouffe is almost 200 points better -- so your stats of choice on him are especially misleading).

 

3) IMO, the notion of platooning is ideal when you have a team like this one and need to maximize your competitiveness in every game. However, that requires a different set of roster planning than I think the Twins have used in recent years. If they went into the offseason with a clear plan to get a couple of platoon type players they might have gotten significantly more production out of the equivalent of 3 positions.

 

4) The final problem with the answer is that platooning is a simple and accepted idea and we aren't just talking about this season. These are basic steps that improve the team when there aren't a lot of other options to do so.

[Alex]

I can't disagree with you more! The game is about players not managers. If a player isn't functional against LHers (or RHers) then he really isn't much. Train players to compete against all-comers (RH and LH) and play the best. The game slows down with player changes--and Lord knows it's too slow as it is right now.

 

And if a manager isn't willing to use a basic, accepted strategy to get the best out of his players, then imo, he isn't much either.

 

Platoon splits are a fact of the game.

[ThePuck]

Before the rosters expanded I looked up the AL contenders. The only one that had a 13-man pitching staff was the Red Sox. The rest had 12-man pitching staffs. Except Tampa Bay which had 11.

 

I would advocate for the TB model.

 

edit

 

You have to have a darn fine pitching staff to only have 11 nowadays....which TB has...but even 12 pitchers, the point is still relatively the same. Dodgers in '61 had like 9 pitchers, same with the Cards in mid 60s, yet I'm pretty sure it was still a 25 man roster rule. That leaves some room from more strategy.

[IdahoPilgrim]

I can't disagree with you more! The game is about players not managers. If a player isn't functional against LHers (or RHers) then he really isn't much. Train players to compete against all-comers (RH and LH) and play the best. The game slows down with player changes--and Lord knows it's too slow as it is right now.

 

A good gameday manager, with tactical skills and acumen, can make a difference in close games. I have no problem with that being a part of the equation. It's like a symphony orchestra - you have to have quality musicians, but a good conductor is also an essential piece of the puzzle. Same idea here.

[Shane Wahl]

It's precisely when you DON'T have regular everyday good players that platooning makes sense. Again, Parm and Plouffe next year eventually.

[diehardtwinsfan]

The problem I see with them is when do you start it? Morneau couldn't hit lefties that well when he first came up... He became MVP Morneau when he figured it out. The truth is that some of this takes time and repetition to develop. I agree that there's a point when you recognize that JJ cannot hit lefties. The problem is that you have to let him try enough times and fail at it to a point where it's obvious he isn't going to learn.

 

And in this regard, TR is right, especially with large pitching staffs. You cannot build a roster around this idea... It certainly might help with an established roster and an obvious gaping hole where a guy that fills other positions of need becomes available who also has those favorable platoon splits... but there's a lot of ifs there.

[snepp]

You cannot build a roster around this idea...

 

Which no one has even remotely suggested in any way whatsoever.

[John Bonnes]

Who would I want to platoon? Off the top of my head, and I'm not looking up stats here....

 

Plouffe and Colabello vs LHs and Parmelee and Doumit vs Righties in RF/1B/DH next year seems like a decent idea.

Center field - Mastroianni and Tomas/Pressley? And that's only because I'd have Hicks start in AAA.

 

That leaves the bench a little crowded - with a catcher I'm at 13 already, and I don't have a backup middle infielder. But there are some things I can pick through there.

[John Bonnes]

The problem I see with them is when do you start it? Morneau couldn't hit lefties that well when he first came up... He became MVP Morneau when he figured it out. The truth is that some of this takes time and repetition to develop. I agree that there's a point when you recognize that JJ cannot hit lefties. The problem is that you have to let him try enough times and fail at it to a point where it's obvious he isn't going to learn.

 

Yeah, as I was watching Plouffe last week, I was wondering something similar. I'd be interested to see if Cuddyer's splits were worse when he came up. It seemed like he learned to go opposite field against righties and really drive lefties. But I don't know that I've studied it. Plouffe just mashes lefties so much, that he really only needs to be a little worse than average vs right-handers to have a pretty impressive overall statistical line.

[LaBombo]

Twins relievers have thrown one out short of 560 innings this year. That's almost 80 more than either the AL or MLB average, and exactly the result you'd expect from having the worst rotation in baseball. Had Correia not exceeded expectations, even 13 relievers might not have been enough.

 

So as if the awful rotation just costing a ton of defensive runs isn't enough, it's also costing a few offensive ones as well, taking away a bench spot that could have been a pinch hitter, pinch runner, or, with different manager, an effective platoon instead of a mediocre everyday player.

 

It also didn't help bench flexibility very much to have three catchers at times, and continually unavailable injured players at others.

[Winston Smith]

" And to maybe win another 5-10 games this year - would that make the difference?"

That's the point to win games and winning another 10 would get us close to .500 and make watching much more interesting.

On the extra player or 26 man roster that would cost a team around another mill in payroll and expenses at the minimum. Can't see it happening.

[Guest USAFChief]

Which no one has even remotely suggested in any way whatsoever.

Sorry, but I must disagree. As I read the comments in this thread, to me it seems that is what some are suggesting.

 

You can't put "Plouffe/Parm in RF" if you don't build your roster to account for that, and accept the limitations such a plan puts on that roster. Likewise a "Parm/Cola at 1st base" platoon. There was even the suggestion that a four man bench allows for "a few" platoon opportunities.

 

The simple truth is, if a manager is going to employ anything close to a traditional platoon, that needs to be built into the roster and will impact it in other ways.

 

With today's pitching staffs, I'm not sure the roster implications are worth it. Maybe, but it definately has an effect.

 

What frustrates me more about Gardy is his tendency to ignore the platoon advantage when he already has it. It used to drive me nuts to see Butera at catcher against a RH starter on a Sunday afternoon, giving Mauer a day off, when they faced a lefthander the day before. As pointed out above, he's still likely to do the same thing.

[Alex]

Twins relievers have thrown one out short of 560 innings this year. That's almost 80 more than either the AL or MLB average, and exactly the result you'd expect from having the worst rotation in baseball. Had Correia not exceeded expectations, even 13 relievers might not have been enough.

 

So as if the awful rotation just costing a ton of defensive runs isn't enough, it's also costing a few offensive ones as well, taking away a bench spot that could have been a pinch hitter, pinch runner, or, with different manager, an effective platoon instead of a mediocre everyday player.

 

It also didn't help bench flexibility very much to have three catchers at times, and continually unavailable injured players at others.

 

One of the reasons I don't like the "we don't have enough bench spots" argument is that it's symptomatic of other issues within the organization. Inability to acquire solid pitching leads to the need for the 13th pitcher, as does inefficient roster construction (carrying three catchers).

[Shane Wahl]

Sorry, but I must disagree. As I read the comments in this thread, to me it seems that is what some are suggesting.

 

You can't put "Plouffe/Parm in RF" if you don't build your roster to account for that, and accept the limitations such a plan puts on that roster. Likewise a "Parm/Cola at 1st base" platoon. There was even the suggestion that a four man bench allows for "a few" platoon opportunities.

 

The simple truth is, if a manager is going to employ anything close to a traditional platoon, that needs to be built into the roster and will impact it in other ways.

 

With today's pitching staffs, I'm not sure the roster implications are worth it. Maybe, but it definately has an effect.

 

What frustrates me more about Gardy is his tendency to ignore the platoon advantage when he already has it. It used to drive me nuts to see Butera at catcher against a RH starter on a Sunday afternoon, giving Mauer a day off, when they faced a lefthander the day before. As pointed out above, he's still likely to do the same thing.

 

And . . . . how much time have Plouffe and Parmelee been on the roster this year together? Now just fast-forward to next year and Sano taking over at third. That's not building anything into the roster--it's using what they already have. Obviously Sano takes a roster spot from somebody next year, but the Twins could have Doumit and Willingham to choose from for that.

[Shane Wahl]

By "few" I guess I mean two. John mentioned two, though I hope Doumit is not on the team next year for that. Mastro and Presley would be a clear case next year. If Wilkin Ramirez were healthy in the Clete Thomas epoch this year, that would have been another.

[LaBombo]

I'm not sure. I don't think I could stomach 4 catchers.

Even if they promise that none of them is Son of Sal?

[Alex]

Sorry, but I must disagree. As I read the comments in this thread, to me it seems that is what some are suggesting.

 

You can't put "Plouffe/Parm in RF" if you don't build your roster to account for that, and accept the limitations such a plan puts on that roster. Likewise a "Parm/Cola at 1st base" platoon. There was even the suggestion that a four man bench allows for "a few" platoon opportunities.

 

The simple truth is, if a manager is going to employ anything close to a traditional platoon, that needs to be built into the roster and will impact it in other ways.

 

I think there's a distinction here that can be made between building a roster around platooning and simply planning it during roster construction.

 

My hope is that the Twins would use it in the planning stages as they fill out their bench. For example, realizing that every infield hitter they have is better against LHP and then go and find a infielder in the offseason who can fill in as a LHB that might play everyday and be rotated around.

 

To me, it doesn't make a lot of sense to start the season as they did this year with the left 3/4 of your starting infield as Plouffe, Florimon, and Dozier, who are all better against LHP, and then have two players on the bench who are also better against LHP in Carroll and Escobar.

 

It also doesn't make sense to start the season with three other positions where players have similar platoon strengths: RF (Doumit and Parmelee), 1B (Morneau, Parmelee), and C (Mauer, Doumit)

 

Our initial plan for CF was the same as well, with Hicks, Mastro, and option 3 Ramirez as all better against LHP. Clete Thomas might have been a better option to start the season.

 

Willingham in LF, btw, has an .823 OPS vs. RHP and a .855 OPS against LHP for his career, so he's an example of one of maybe two players (Mauer was about equal this season, but for his career he is about 100 points lower vs. LHP) that you have on the roster that you could probably assume a platoon type situation isn't going to improve production.

 

So, with the exception of Hammer and Mauer (Morneau is roughly a .700 career OPS hitter vs. LHB, so I'd say you could platoon him) a platoon or at least a backup who hit opposite would have improved production at 7 spots in the lineup. You can't plan your roster around it but you can certainly try to take advantage of it when constructing a bench, at the very least.

[Alex]

Who would I want to platoon? Off the top of my head, and I'm not looking up stats here....

 

Plouffe and Colabello vs LHs and Parmelee and Doumit vs Righties in RF/1B/DH next year seems like a decent idea.

Center field - Mastroianni and Tomas/Pressley? And that's only because I'd have Hicks start in AAA.

 

That leaves the bench a little crowded - with a catcher I'm at 13 already, and I don't have a backup middle infielder. But there are some things I can pick through there.

 

I think we need to figure who is going to start before we can come up with decent platoon ideas for next year. A key factor in that will be if the Twins think Plouffe is a 3B or not and whether Mauer moves to a much more regular 1B. Both of those items will create a massive corner crunch for Plouffe (if he's a 1B), Colabello, and Parmelee because in addition to those three you've got Willingham and Doumit who are both corner OF or DHs.

 

In the OF, with Pressley and Arcia as what appear to be two sure things, Mastro, or another RHB, would be the best option as a fourth OF and can platoon in CF or provide days off at other times to the other corners.

[kab21]

Sorry, but I must disagree. As I read the comments in this thread, to me it seems that is what some are suggesting.

 

You can't put "Plouffe/Parm in RF" if you don't build your roster to account for that, and accept the limitations such a plan puts on that roster. Likewise a "Parm/Cola at 1st base" platoon. There was even the suggestion that a four man bench allows for "a few" platoon opportunities.

 

The simple truth is, if a manager is going to employ anything close to a traditional platoon, that needs to be built into the roster and will impact it in other ways.

 

With today's pitching staffs, I'm not sure the roster implications are worth it. Maybe, but it definately has an effect.

 

What frustrates me more about Gardy is his tendency to ignore the platoon advantage when he already has it. It used to drive me nuts to see Butera at catcher against a RH starter on a Sunday afternoon, giving Mauer a day off, when they faced a lefthander the day before. As pointed out above, he's still likely to do the same thing.

 

A roster would be incredibly easy to setup between a starting OF'er like Presley and a 4th OF'er like Mastro. It would also be very easy to setup with someone like Plouffe on the bench. This is a team that has found a way to have at least one of the following on the roster at almost all times during the last 3-4 yrs: a 3rd catcher, a 2nd futility IF'er or Thome.

 

Setting up a bench for 2 platoons (not including platoons at C or MI)

backup C

Mastro - 4th OF'er - platoons with Presley

Plouffe - can backup multiple positions and platoon with someone

futility IF'er - a 2nd futility IF'er is not needed since Plouffe can play almost any position if needed

[Guest USAFChief]

A roster would be incredibly easy to setup between a starting OF'er like Presley and a 4th OF'er like Mastro. It would also be very easy to setup with someone like Plouffe on the bench. This is a team that has found a way to have at least one of the following on the roster at almost all times during the last 3-4 yrs: a 3rd catcher, a 2nd futility IF'er or Thome.

 

Setting up a bench for 2 platoons (not including platoons at C or MI)

backup C

Mastro - 4th OF'er - platoons with Presley

Plouffe - can backup multiple positions and platoon with someone

futility IF'er - a 2nd futility IF'er is not needed since Plouffe can play almost any position if needed

In your example, only Mastro/Pressly constitutes a true platoon. And as I've said elsewhere, it can be done with a 4th OFer, although since others will need a game here and there, the 4th OFer will end up filling in elsewhere and most likely you'll lose the platoon advantage in a few cases.

 

If Plouffe is backing up multiple positions, then he's probably not platooning with Parm in RF often enough to call it a platoon.

 

Perhaps we're just arguing semantics here. I'm all in favor of a manager using the RH hitter vs LH pitcher (and vice versa) platoon advantage whenever possible. That advantage has existed since baseball was invented and will likely exist until they stop playing the game. If you can have your 4th OFer, or futility infielder(s) be someone who hits from the opposite side as the players they spell, great.

 

What I'm arguing is that a "platoon"--two players sharing one position, one a RH hitter, one LH--is getting awfully hard to pull off in today's game, and has an impact on what you can do with the rest of your roster. Tying up two players to play 1st base, or RF, is almost a thing of the past.

[old nurse]

In the cases mentioned for platooning I would offer the following advice. Go find a better player. The cases offered are bad vs worse.

[kab21]

Plouffe being available to backup multiple positions still enables him to be part of a true platoon. to be honest it's exactly what makes it possible to do multiple platoons.

 

When Sano comes up (which he eventually will) then he should be playing almost everyday. And lets be honest Plouffe shouldn't be playing a lot of MI. but having him available for that rare situation where you need two backup MI'ers can eliminate the need for the frequently rostered two futility IF'ers. That's almost as silly as carrying 3 C's.

[Alex]

In the cases mentioned for platooning I would offer the following advice. Go find a better player. The cases offered are bad vs worse.

 

That's obviously the preferred method: get one player who can equally hit lefties and righties. That's the point, though, that that's not easy to do, especially where the Twins are.

[Guest USAFChief]

Plouffe being available to backup multiple positions still enables him to be part of a true platoon. to be honest it's exactly what makes it possible to do multiple platoons.

 

Again, maybe this is semantics, but if Plouffe is spelling an infielder, he's not available to platoon Parm in RF, so you end up with Parm against a LH pitcher, which means you don't have a platoon.

[Alex]

Again, maybe this is semantics, but if Plouffe is spelling an infielder, he's not available to platoon Parm in RF, so you end up with Parm against a LH pitcher, which means you don't have a platoon.

 

I think you're looking at a very strict version of a platoon, and you're right that with the Twins inability to find decent pitching and need three catchers it would be nearly impossible to dedicate two players to just one position and spot in the lineup.

 

A more loose version would be setting and using your roster to have players that compliment each other based on platoon splits, maximizing ABs vs. opposite hand pitchers over the course of a season a limiting those with weaker side splits.

 

The Twins don't seem to fall anywhere on that spectrum, as you point out. In fact, in a post above, I point out how their roster was set up to make things worse with almost no option for it at all. They don't even really alter batting order to adjust for the starter they face.

[kab21]

Again, maybe this is semantics, but if Plouffe is spelling an infielder, he's not available to platoon Parm in RF, so you end up with Parm against a LH pitcher, which means you don't have a platoon.

 

You are talking about an occasional game start against lefties. That is going to happen in almost every platoon situation. Sometimes your 4th OF'er is going to need to start in LF because of a nagging injury to the LF'er. I would still consider that a platoon for the other 150-155 games (if it went a full season). The same is true with Plouffe although he will get some starts elsewhere.

[old nurse]

That's obviously the preferred method: get one player who can equally hit lefties and righties. That's the point, though, that that's not easy to do, especially where the Twins are.

 

Cots lists 30 outfielders as free agents for this winter. Hitting with an OPS over .725 would be an improvement over the current situation. 2 throw in minor leaguers might even get you one in trade