Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • What If...?


    Steven BUHR

    Here we are in the final week of the 2015 MLB season and the Twins are still in contention for a playoff spot. All things considered, that’s pretty incredible. Virtually none of us expected this when the season began.

    Twins Video

    Hoped for it? Sure. We all hope for it. We’ve hoped for it for the past four years, too, but show me someone who went on record in April that the Twins would have a .500 record locked down and still be pushing for a wild card berth, then I’ll believe someone actually expected this to happen.

    The Twins front office, their manager and coaching staff, and particularly the players, deserve a lot of credit for putting the team in this unlikely circumstance. Twins fans should all appreciate the hard work that has produced the most encouraging Twins season in at least five years.

    And yet…

    It’s really hard for me not to play a little “what if?” game. If the Twins are not able to overcome both the Astros and Angels to capture the coveted final American League wild card spot, they’ll almost certainly finish within a couple of games of doing so.

    A couple of games.

    That makes it pretty easy to go back and look for opportunities that were lost to turn enough losses into wins to put the Twins in the playoffs.

    The easy part is looking at late game leads that were blown by failed relief pitching, by a late error, by a base running mistake or by failing to capitalize on runners in scoring position. Those examples are easy to come by.

    Then again, you can say that about literally every team that finishes just short of the postseason, every year.

    Similarly, though to a lesser extent, fans of any team that falls just short can come up with strategic managing/coaching decisions that failed and, ultimately, led to enough losses to make a difference. Not every decision made by a team’s manager is going to work and when a decision ends up in a loss, second-guessing is easy and, with Paul Molitor in his first season as a manager at any level, there have been plenty of second-guess-worthy decisions to choose from if you want to find a couple of games that could have had better outcomes.

    And then there’s the front office.

    On August 3, I wrote about my disappointment with the lack of results from the Twins at the non-waiver trade deadline.

    To demonstrate that none of us are above being second-guessed, I obviously undervalued the addition of Kevin Jepsen at that time. Despite being underwhelmed with the Jepsen trade, my biggest problem wasn’t the trade itself or the prospects that were given up for the reliever. My problem with it was that it was the only deal made.

    It seemed to me that either General Manager Terry Ryan should have acquired more help for his manager to take in to the final two months of the season than just an additional bullpen arm or he shouldn’t have bothered going out to get even that much.

    Clearly, Jepsen has been a life-saver in light of the free-fall we’ve seen from closer Glen Perkins. Without Jepsen, the Twins would have almost certainly been eliminated before now, so kudos to the front office for that deal. I was wrong about Jepsen.

    I’m still playing coulda-shoulda-woulda, however, on the question of whether there might not have been one or two other deals that “coulda-shoulda” been made in July that “woulda” made more than a couple of games’ difference in the Twins fortunes this year.

    It’s an impossible question to answer, of course. And, to be fair, you can’t just throw out a name and say, “If the Twins had gone out and gotten this guy, they’d be playoff bound by now.” There’s no way to know that.

    The primary positions most people talked about upgrading were shortstop and catcher.

    But would any of the shortstops available at the time done better at solidifying the position than Eduardo Escobar has? That’s a debate we could have, but it’s certainly not a given that any addition would have been a net-gain over Escobar for the Twins in the win column.

    Kurt Suzuki has struggled to control opponents’ running games, but catching is about so much more than throw-out rates that I think it’s impossible to say whether a change at the starting catcher position would have had a positive effect on the team over the final two months. We simply don’t know what effects that would have had on the effectiveness of the pitching staff.

    Could the Twins have added a starting pitcher at the deadline? Sure. But you have to ask who would have been the likely odd man out of the rotation to make room for a newcomer. It doesn’t take much imagination to consider that it might have been rookie Tyler Duffey. The same Tyler Duffey who has been arguably the most consistent starter in the rotation over the final two months.

    If the Twins end up falling short of the playoffs this week, it will be almost impossible for us not to ask, “what if?” I know I’ll do plenty of that.

    Sure, we can pretty much all agree that this Twins roster doesn’t look like it’s built for a deep playoff run this season anyway. With the young talent in the pipeline, maybe 2016 or 2017 will be more likely seasons for legitimate title contention.

    But, as Twins fans have learned, you can’t for granted any opportunity you get to qualify for the postseason. You can’t assume other opportunities are just around the corner. Stuff happens and that stuff isn’t always good stuff.

    So I’ll continue to ask, “what if?” I’ll continue to maintain that more help should have been brought on in July; that Molitor was not given the tools to make a legitimate playoff run this season.

    I’ll also acknowledge, however, that it wouldn’t have been easy and that there’s no assurance that any such additional “help” would have necessarily improved the results. I’m smart enough to know that any additional “help” that would have been brought in might have actually ended up resulting in fewer wins, rather than more (see: Nationals, Washington).

    In the end, I’m glad it was Terry Ryan making those decisions in July, rather than me. Ryan may not have done everything right and he’s certainly accustomed to second-guessing from people like me. It all goes with the GM job.

    And we are still paying attention to the Twins during the final two series of the season. I’d almost forgotten how much fun that is.

    (This article ​was originally posted at Knuckleballsblog.com)

    MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
    — Latest Twins coverage from our writers
    — Recent Twins discussion in our forums
    — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email
    — Become a Twins Daily Caretaker

     Share


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Featured Comments

    I'm just happy we are 158 games in and still well within reach of making the playoffs.  Were there decisions made that were questionable (like taking May out of the rotation) that maybe cost us? I think so. But we are still in it which means there was a lot of things done right too.  So I'll applaud the effort by the players, the coaching staff, Molitor and the FO.  Not sure it's repeatable with the talent on this team, but that's a discussion for the offseason.  For this season, we're in it.

    Edited by jimmer
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have had a lot of issues (LOL) with the handling of some of the personal decisions and game managing decisions this year. But I'm not a fan of going back and second guessing specific moves or games at this point. For every game the Twins "lost a heartbreaker" they likely had one they won where they had no business winning (See: All those Chris Sale wins, the last two Kluber wins, and that amazing 7 run 9th inning comeback against Detroit)

     

    Here they are, 4 games left. If Houston loses tonight, they control their own destiny sort of (4-0 gets them a tie for the wild card) even if Houston wins, 4-0 gets them to a tie like 80% of the time. Hard to ask for more than that at this moment.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    How do you write this without mentioning Berrios?  That's the biggest "what if" for me, and it's notable because it doesn't require hindsight, better health, a trade partner, unforeseeable circumstances, or anything really.  He was right there, in the face of an obvious need on August 1st, ready and presumably very willing to be promoted or at least managed with an eye toward a later promotion.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    I’ll also acknowledge, however, that it wouldn’t have been easy and that there’s no assurance that any such additional “help” would have necessarily improved the results.

     

    Berrios almost certainly would have improved the results.  Even if his only appearance was the August 14 spot start and he lost it, Trevor May probably wins us at least a game staying in the pen that week.

     

    Any other benefit from Berrios would have been icing on the cake (and there was more potential benefit, most easily in the form of just being the first man out of the pen in close games ahead of Achter and Graham, not to mention other starts or even possibly forcing his way into later inning appearances).

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thanks for reading, all. I appreciate your comments.

     

    If the Twins fall short, I'm sure everyone inside & outside the organization will spend some time second-guessing themselves.

     

    Hopefully, it's not too long, though. For those with roles that matter, it's much more important that they quickly begin to figure out how to improve the team enough that the Twins lock themselves in to the postseason early next season.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I agree with spycake. I think the mess with the Berrios no-promotion was one that hurt. Not only because Berrios didn't come up, but also it meant a complete mess with May: Starter-bullpen-1 start (which was predictably short and awful) and back to bullpen again. All the others, you can argue, but that one is pretty hard to defend.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Good point about the biggest position of need at the deadline being shortstop. And it turns out not trading for a shortstop was a brilliant call -- it would have cost us Escobar's spectacular second half, and possibly having him as a starting shortstop next year.

     

    I will say, though, that it was clearly a mistake to stick with Danny Santana at shortstop as long as they did. It clearly was not working, and they were very stubborn about doing something about it, even when it suddenly mattered. Switching to Escobar a month or two earlier could have won the wild card.

     

    So why didn't they? It clearly wasn't on-field production.

     

    One factor was probably the assumption that this was an audition year; they're not going to win anyway, so you may as well see what you got with the rookies.  And it turned out to be the right gamble with Rosario, right? I was fine with that. But even I would have bailed much, much earlier on Santana. Let the poor kid work it out in AAA, that's what it's for.

     

    Was it his surprising success last year? It shouldn't have been a surprise that didn't last! And Molitor knows how to read modern statistics. I don't think that was it.

     

    The worst reason would be because Molitor announced in the preseason that the job was his, and he was sticking with Santana all year. You don't sacrifice the team's success to save face. Better yet, don't make pronouncements like that. If you want to give him a long leash to work out the kinks, fine. But never promise to do anything that hurts the team. If it was embarrassment or pride or credibility that made him stick with Santana longer than he wanted, that's sad. Tragic pride, you could even say, like in Greek dramas. But I have too much respect for Molitor to think that was the main reason. It might have been part of it, but it's not enough.

     

    My guess is it was also partly a reward for playing out of position last year in centerfield. He sacrificed without complaint, came through anyway, while learning on the job, and now deserved a fair shot at his real position, where he might be even better. That's honorable, I suppose, to pay someone for their loyalty -- but clearly wrong. It has to be all about the team's success.  I'm okay with trading present day struggle for future success, but not with trading present-day struggles for past efforts. His job is to win, damn it. His players know it. You don't lose your team by winning, but by playing favorites.

     

    Did it help Danny Santana to play 88 games, at a .524 OPS?  I don't see how.  But more important, if that's your priority, you've got your priorities wrong.  Especially if those 88 games of .524 OPS cost you the playoffs. Which, frankly, it might have.

     

    If other teams were demanding a ransom in prospects for a bullpen arm who may or may not have been better than Tonkin, fine, stand pat.  If a starting catcher costs you Kepler or Buxton, and you don't like the catcher enough to bite, fine.  But they had another shortstop that whole time already on the team.  A shortstop with a .721 OPS in 133 games last year.  And they sat him for 88 games, in favor of a rookie who happened to have a .405 BABIP the year before.  (When I looked up his 2014 BABIP the page that came up was titled, BEWARE OF DANNY SANTANA BABIP REGRESSION. So no, his struggles should not have come as a surprise to a modern-day front office.)

     

    I don't know if promoting Berrios would have won them the division or not. I cut them slack on that -- I respect not rushing player development, and their eventual promotion of Duffey turned out to be nothing less than brilliant.

     

    If I had to single out one thing, I'd say it was those 88 games of .524 OPS from Danny Santana, when a better player was right there next to him the whole time.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Another point about calling up Berrios is that most posters assume that he would have replaced Pelfrey.  How do we know it would not have reduced Duffey's starts. I was all for calling up Berrios especially since you could still manipulate his service time by leaving him in AAA at the start of next season. I am not sure it would have made a difference but you have to try when you get this close.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    TWINS GET: P Kevin Jepsen

    RAYS GET: P Chih-Wei Hu   Charlotte Class Adv A, 0-3 W-L, 18 inn, 7.36 ERQ

    P Alexis Tapia  Princeton Class A, 1-0 W-L, 23.1 Inn, 3.86 ERA   

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Another point about calling up Berrios is that most posters assume that he would have replaced Pelfrey.  How do we know it would not have reduced Duffey's starts.

    We know because we needed Duffey to start August 15th regardless of what we did with Berrios, and that is when Duffey staked his claim to further starts.  Berrios was needed on August 14th.  The only start Berrios could have taken from Duffey would have been his debut start in Toronto.

     

    Actually I think most posters assume little more than Berrios getting the August 14th start, keeping May in the pen that week, and perhaps assuming some long relief or more spot start work after that.  Berrios didn't need to be a full-time starter or replace anyone (except that bullpen game) to have a tangible impact.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...