Only Here in Negative

Will people be upset if the 25th spot goes to Gibson? I don't think its the best use of the roster but perhaps there are other team morale/loyalty reasons that Rocco and co. would bring him along? I think I would be fearful but not upset at the decision.

13 pitchers. Littel is a lock. Carry Stashak, Thorpe, and Graterol. 12 position players means the starting 9 plus Castro, Cave, and Schoop. I'm basing this on Adrianza not being back and in game shape for the ALDS. All reports show he's not close to coming back and obliques are tough. I'd rather carry that 13th pitcher than Astudillo or a pinch runner who can steal. It just seems like the Twins may need it given the issues with starting pitching.

Dyson going down makes me more into Graterol because the options for that last pitching spot go down. Assuming they don't take Gibson, he's competing with guys like Stewart, Romero, Hildenberg, and Harper. Graterol has some warts but he's better than those guys. I will still be terrified when he comes into the 13th inning of a 23-23 Game 2 against the Yankees.

That seems endemic to boards. Unless we institute a "sum up your back and forth" (which would get tough on some of these), its likely better for people to either read back for context or maybe not come in so hot when responding to something mid stream. It seems odd that it would happen in an analytical age when we question everything though. The Twins have remade their entire MiLB pitching program and have top executives who are focused on it. Feels like there must be something to it. That's why I think its likely a "jumping off point" kind of thing, where teams start from an innings pitched thing but take into consideration things like the build of the player, their motion, velocity dips, spin rates etc. It also makes sense that wouldn't be public knowledge since it would give up a competitive advantage.

Yeah. It was in response to someone who was honestly asking why innings pitched would matter. All I was saying was that this is a relatively standard practice for analytically minded teams so there must be something definitive that impacts this. I agree with you that there's not a lot of independent reviews that prove that but there also aren't a lot of independent reviews that disprove it either (the ones you see tend to be either small samples or not have access to a lot of close information). That's likely because teams study it internally since they're the ones with the incentive to do so. In my opinion, innings pitched is too facile to be relied upon. I think teams are probably including it is as a factor but not a sole factor. For instance, the Twins this year seem to be using the pitches per inning thing more in the minors, which makes some sense. I also think it probably depends on the arm - a guy who relies on finesse and not power might get a longer leash. Unfortunately, that doesn't help Graterol much. His arm motion is relatively violent from what I've read and he throws so hard that I think some caution is a good idea. A lot will depend what the Twins do this offseason but I'd be fine with him in some sort of a hybrid role next year before being a full-time starter in 2021.

Are we really defending Polanco's PED use? I thought it was a bit of an unnecessary low blow and imagine that it might make the MLB locker room uncomfortable for Clevinger (you seem like you're supporting management with that somehow), but as a fan, not sure it's my place to defend a PED guy to the end. I cheer for him as a Twin and he earns back trust over time but I'm sure each of us has had the same thought as Polanco broke out this year. I'm relatively indifferent to who makes the Wild Card. Cleveland seems the weakest of the three contenders so I guess I'd rather see one of the others who might actually beat the Astros?

I never said that I believe this is key, just that most MLB teams do. The Twins have repeatedly referenced this during the development of pitchers, shutting guys down when they get close to big innings jumps (Romero last year if I recall?). That makes me think that they have some sort of evidence of this, whether its a study or something internal (teams guard stuff like this pretty tightly). I'd be surprised if they were willing to throw Graterol for 30+ MLB starts next year as it would be not in tune with how they've handled it in the past. That could mean aggressively skipping him, using six starters/bullpen games regularly with the 26 man roster, or starting him out as a reliever.

I think we err in putting Perez in the same bucket as Gibby. Gibby is sick/injured and looks terrible. Perez is just erratic. His last 7 starts include four in which he went five innings and gave up two earned runs or less - and that includes good offenses like Milwaukee and Boston. The other three include a start of 4.2 with 3 ER and two where he got shellacked (though one of those his defense did him no favors). He sometimes is terrible but if you have a quick hook, Perez is a guy I don't mind handing the ball to. He seems as likely to have a solid short start as Smeltzer or Thorpe. They just can't treat him like Odorizzi or Berrios and give him a long leash. Edit: Of course, Perez is getting lit up as I wrote that

Dobnak should start Game 1, not Game 2. If you're going to stretch the pen in a Dobnak game, you want Berrios after as he's most likely to give you 7 or 8. That's a break before Odo/Perez, who strain pens in general. And Berrios would still line up to pitch Game 5 on normal rest.

I'm not going crazy looking but these from the first page of a Google search allude to it: https://www.nfhs.org/articles/reducing-pitching-injuries-count-pitches-don-t-count-on-surgery/ https://www.dukehealth.org/blog/prevent-overuse-injuries-baseball-pitchers https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21098816 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29861301 (against the correlation here!) I also think that the fact that all that most of the analytically minded teams concentrate on this is pretty strong evidence that they believe this theory (and I'll emphasize that I've been clear this is not proven, just influential). It does seem to be something that will develop over time and be more nuanced, which seems to be the issue with blanket concepts like innings limits.

There have been numerous studies that show that when guys make drastic jumps in the number of innings pitched, they strain their arms and get injured. Those are by no means definitive and there are people who disagree (or agree but disagree with approaches to dealing with this) but there is validity. One of the issues for Brusdar starting next year is that his injury this year and time in the pen mean that he isn't likely to ramp up his innings much this year. It might not be a good idea to throw him out as a 180 innings starter next year. You may see the Twins start him in the pen and then stretch him out as they need someone as the year goes along. 130 innings may be solid and then they can work him up to a full-time starter. Kyle Gibson has had numerous better performances this year. Eight innings of two hit ball against these Royals Jun 14th springs to mind. That doesn't take away from Drobnak but we should not forget what a healthy Kyle Gibson can do. We also shouldn't forget that Drobnak is young and came out of nowhere. There's not much of a scouting book on him and teams will adjust as one starts to develop. Drobnak may still be great when that happens. Or he may become more of a 5th to 7th starter or a bullpen piece. Kyle Gibson's contract is going to be fascinating. A team could talk themselves into illness as the context for his struggles this year. That said, he is going to be 32 and his success has been fleeting. He could be a great value pickup or money flushed down the toilet. I wouldn't mind the Twins taking a shot if the years and money is right but won't be sad if someone gives him 3 years and it isn't the Twins.

I'm always leery when someone uses an extraordinary example as the standard everyone should meet. Pete Rose was an extraordinarily competitive human being, an outlier out on the edges with Ty Cobb. He competed insanely and hustled relentlessly because he was driven to do so. He's not really reflective of all players. This is the guy who broke a catcher's arm in the All Star Game and never felt bad about it. The competitiveness made a good player great but it also alienated teammates and opponents and led pretty directly to his ban from baseball. I'm not saying he's not great, just that he's not a great reference since he's so far out there. It'd be like saying more baseball players should be like Ricky Henderson. Sure they should. But they can't, that's why he's Ricky. Its easy to say that these guys should go all out every play but that's more of an ideal than a reality. Guys would get hurt busting tail down the line on every groundball. They'd hurt opponents barreling into second base at full speed. There's somewhere between Puig and Pete Rose that's ideal. Eddie Rosario wasn't it that play but saying "Every player should play all out because we pay them to do so" is a pretty Draconian way of viewing it and isn't particularly realistic. P.S. I'm wary whenever anyone uses the phrase "off the backs of the hardworking folks". There's an amount of hyperbole there that's a bit much.

Why is dragging injury into this off base? Eddie Rosario has dealt with nagging leg injuries all year. I think its worth thinking about that in contemplating why he might be gauging how hard he needs to run on a ball to the wall. I also think its entirely relevant when we explain why every player doesn't Pete Rose it every play. It isn't just laziness or lack of hustle - there are real injury concerns that come into play. You're going to tweak a hammy a certain percentage of times you run all out. If you can keep the number of times you sprint down, you'll be healthier. It's not different than telling a pitcher they don't need to throw it as hard as they can each pitch or strikeout each batter. Finding ways to succeed without doing that is the name of the game.

Buxton is also constantly on the DL. I love watching Buxton going all out but I imagine that many of the people dogging Rosario for not going all out all the time are also the ones asking Buxton to take it easy. Also untrue that Buxton goes all out all the time. On clear doubles he too slows coming around first base and jogs into second. There just are less clear doubles for him :-)

To the all-out runner crowd: Yes, we were all told to run all out in Little League. We were kids, they’re trying to teach you to hustle. But not all lessons from Little League are applicable to the majors, no matter how much we want to extrapolate from our own meager experience. MLB players don’t tend to run all out on the bases all the time. It’s just not reasonable. They play 150 games a year, often with weeks between off days. They play in all kinds of weather and all kinds of field conditions. They’re nursing injuries and getting medical treatment constantly. So they pick their spots. They don’t spring to first on a ground ball to 2B in the 4th inning of a 5 – 3 game. They run hard but not all out. If they did that, they’d be more likely to get injured and miss time. They save it for moments where they think it will matter. Eddie Rosario has dealt with lingering leg injuries all year. The games in question are not particularly important from a game theory perspective – the Twins are overwhelming favorites to win their division. And yet we’re talking about benching him without knowing anything about his health? Guys like Cruz and Sano fairly regularly run out ground balls at ½ to ¾ speed and don’t get much of a peep. I’ve seen Polanco and Kepler do the same. There’s just something about Eddie that is a lightning rod for hustle criticism and I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s because he makes some incredible hustle plays and gets people’s expectations up in a way other guys don’t? It’s very strange. Keep playing Eddie. A hot Eddie Rosario is the batter I most want to see down 4-2 in the 8th with two guys on and a tough reliever coming in.