IndianaTwin

Difference being that Austin also has significant minor league innings at 1B, and Mauer was a good enough athlete to be a Gold Glove catcher. That's not to say that Austin won't improve with experience, but I'm skeptical he'll improve to the level of Mauer.

The rest of the team has had RISP on 24.25 percent of its at bats. Mauer has had RISP in 20.10. Also, I don't know how to easily figure out who was on base for Mauer, but with where he has been in the batting order, the vast majority of his games have come with guys like Garver, Wilson, Grossman, Lomo, and even the pitcher batting up to three batters in front of him. Specifically, in his 63 games as a lead off hitter, 47 times the No. 9 hitter has been Wilson (27), Garver (7), Adrianza (7), or a pitcher (6). When your guy on 2B is Wilson, you're not going to get as many RBIs as when your guy is Rosario. Also, take into account that Mauer doesn't hit homers. The batter, by definition, isn't in scoring position. Mauer has driven in 34 base runners. For context, in more at bats for each, Dozier drove in only 36 and Kepler 29 base runners. All factors in why a guy with great success with RISP may not have gobs of RBIs.

Greenwood Memorial Park, Lower Burrell, Pa., according to this excellent bio: https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/cdec8871

Dear Brian, You can get mad now. Sincerely, IT

Spycake, if you found this easily, I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of starts throughout the league were in this range the past few years. The curiosity has nothing to do with Blackburn -- just wondering if the number has dropped as precipitously as it seems, or if it just seems that way because short starts are getting more attention.

Sorry, but I couldn’t resist — how tall is he when he’s not healthy?

I agree. And I think what magnifies the effect from a fan perspective is that last year’s team seemed unusually lucky in terms of injuries. There were nowhere close to as many major, long-term injuries last year, which is what helped us over-perform and have the surprising 85 wins. If they’d had a few more injuries and ended up a still much-improved 75-78 win team, we’d have felt good and would have been targeting being somewhat above .500 this year. That would have made this year feel like a minor disappointment rather than a major bummer. Going into this year, I was saying that they could be improved and still only end up around 85 wins based on a more normal number of injuries. But all the stuff you name got us into the big hole. But even with the long losing streak, they are 15-14 over the last month. Go .500 the rest of the way and they end up at 78-84. Win 78 last year, and I think 78 this year would have seemed like a good-sized bummer, but not necessarily a full-fled disaster. But realistically, I think the team IS better at this point than it was at many points in the first half. Even decent second-half health, plus Santana, and I think it’s still easily possible to get to at least .500, maybe a few games above. 90 wins? No. But even 83 or 84? Possible.

I can buy that argument too. And maybe the shuttle has begun -- it looks like they just sent Romero back down.

Similarly, it looked like Escobar's verbal response after the strikeout was in response to one of their defenders mouthing off.

Thanks -- I missed that Magill is out of options. But if I look at his game logs, it doesn't seem like his usage is that out of line. His days off pattern the last few weeks has been 4-1-5-1-6-1. The long rests have come on the heels of long outings -- 34, 60, and 45 pitches. He's also in a tough spot. In those six appearances, he's come in in the 2nd three times and 4th or 5th twice. That's a hard role to predict, because the manager is in a constant state of "I'd rather not use him today in case I'm going to need him early tomorrow." Somebody's got to be that guy, and it looks like it's Magill right now. Somebody will probably say, "As long as Belisle is around, why isn't he that guy?" Frankly, over the last few weeks, Belisle has been more effective than Magill. Though Belisle sucked yesterday, he was actually unscored on in the previous five outings. He's either been horrible or pretty good since coming over, but even his three horrible outings all came in the 8th or 9th when they were already down at least three. If the game had been closer, he probably wouldn't have lasted long enough to give up five runs like yesterday. Don't interpret my comments as being down on Magill -- he clearly had some top-notch outings that kept us in games. Perhaps, based on his lack of effectiveness recently, rather than trying to send him to Rochester, they should have considered a DL stint. (Similarly, don't read me as high on Belisle, but maybe not as down on him as a lot of folks.) And here's a wondering on Magill. They didn't name Romero as today's starter until after yesterday's game. That sounds like it could have been Plan B. I could easily see Plan A as having been seeing today as a bullpen game, with a good likelihood of a Magill sighting. But they shot that possibility with so much bullpen usage Friday and Saturday, so it was Romero's start and then play the rest of the game with the guy Molitor thought gave them the best chance of winning. He wasn't ready to go to Magill first, but at one point he appeared to be the next up.

On Magill, I get the love based on the way he started, but he's also given up 11 runs in his last 11.2 innings going back to June 21, with at least a run in all six games. The way today was going, I didn't mind not seeing him in such a tight game. (I also wouldn't mind him going down to Rochester to get a couple innings in the next few days, though a lot of guys are going to be on really long rest the next while.)

That would have been a viable option. But doing so would have also put two guys into situations they aren't used to -- Rodney starting, and Romero coming into a game when he doesn't know exactly when he'll be used. Starters are creatures of habit, and I'm not sure it's fair to a rookie with less than 10 MLB starts to have to guess at the +/-10 minutes of when the second inning will roll around. In addition, with a rookie, there's a reasonable likelihood that he's going to need to be replaced mid-inning. Though that's not the primary way Rodney's been used, he's certainly been there before. And if Romero doesn't need to be replaced mid-inning, there's a good likelihood that he pitched a nice spiffy 5 or 6 quick innings. So yeah, using Rodney as the "opener" would have also made sense, but I think this was a good approach.

Per Molitor's interview, Rodney has an immigration interview in Miami tomorrow morning and needed to catch a flight. They've rescheduled the appointment several times, but were unable to get something better than this. Life happens, and I applaud them for finding a way to still use him for a couple key outs.

Per the post-game show, Rodney needed to leave the stadium by 3:15 because of a citizenship appointment. Always good to know the whole story before assuming the MOY screwed up...

Great idea to link to the game recap over in the game thread. How about doing the same thing in reverse and linking the game thread to the game recap? Maybe put "Today's Game Thread" between the "Next Three Games" and "Last Three Games".

I’ve sometimes felt like he’s been lollygagging as well, but not sure on this one. He’s played a bazillion games and knows that’s a single to left, so it’s not surprising that he jogs over to cover second for the throw in from the outfield. Problem was Polanco made a great play, so Dozier looks bad. Sure, we can say Dozier should have been hustling over, but there’s a fine line between giving full effort and racing to cover the bag when there’s nothing there.

I’ve always thought of having the ability to hang with it on a day when you don’t have your best stuff as being one of the marks of a good player in any sport. Sounds like that’s what Lynn did.

I get it — there’s plenty of reason to be down on the Twins, but I’m too committed to optimism in my life. I was at Wrigley yesterday and it was miserable. I was sitting, not running around. And it was worse today, so in this kind of conditions, I’m not going to get down on anyone too much. By contrast, it was good to see sparks from the offense in the past two days. Scoring 15 runs off the second-best pitching staff in the NL offers some hope, particularly when you consider that the Eds were only 4-14, with two extra-base hits, and only had 3 of the 15 RBIs. A total of 21 hits in two days, when that’s seemed like a week’s worth most of the season. Battling back to tie or take the lead twice today and managing to get a few RISPy hits as well the past two games. Still not where it needs to be, but a few signs of life.

Fun fact: The 13 guys currently on the staff have a combined 3.66 ERA. Fun fact No. 2: Through 67 games, the entire team is on pace to allow 711 runs. The average over the previous seven years was 797. Fun fact No. 3: In the playoff run from 2002-2010, they averaged 715. With some guy named Johan helping out. (And this year is without the guy who was supposed to be the No. 1.)

I get the love for Magill -- I've been impressed too, but I think that going to Hildenberger and Rogers was the right move. Think of the bullpen in tiers and roles: Rodney is the closer, and the hope was not to use him.Reed and Pressley are the guys he's had confidence in in tight games, but we're all complaining that they are overused, and it was a five-run lead. It was right not to use them.Duke is the Loogy and threw 13 pitches on Tuesday and 15 on Thursday. It was right not to use him.That leaves Hildenberger, Pressley, Magill, and Belisle. Magill has been impressive, and threw 3.1 and 3 innings in his last two outings. It would have been easy to give him two innings. Last Tuesday, he threw 3 innings and kept the team in the game -- you need a guy who can go multiple innings when a starter gets blown out early, and it appears that there is reason to have confidence in him in this role. Molitor also has his least-experienced pitcher starting today and "5-inning Odorizzi" tomorrow, so it's not a bad thing to have the multiple-inning guy fresh. By contrast, Hildenberger and Rogers are both primarily one-inning guys. Since April 30, Hildy had thrown 22.2 innings with a 1.19 ERA and a 0.79 WHIP. In the same time period, Rogers had thrown 15 innings with a 1.80 ERA and a 0.87 WHIP. Both were also well-rested. Hildy had thrown twice in the last eight days, including only 23 pitches since last Saturday. Rogers had thrown once in the last eight days, 10 pitches on Sunday. So to me, it was better to give Hildy and Rogers an inning each and continue building them into guys that he can go to in higher-leverage situations in the 7th and 8th. With their history, they are probably the next options to use in the Reed/Pressley roles. Hildy pitched fine and Rogers just happened to have his first clunker in more than a month. It happens. And by going just one inning each, Hildy and Rogers are both are likely still available for today or tomorrow. Plus Magill is still ready for a longer outing today or tomorrow if needed -- had he gone two innings, he probably wouldn't be available today and probably not tomorrow.

Something I like about his relative inexperience is that he could easily have more improvement left in him than the guys who've been playing 11 months per year.

Decisions like this are a blend of art and science. My momma always said, "We'll cross that bridge when we get to it." So I think you make a general plan and adapt as the circumstances call for it and as things play out. Odorizzi shows us that not every inning is equal, since he's been averaging 18.6 pitches per inning, so I like Jeremy's approach of looking at pitches thrown. And 2400-2500 seems about right for the year. That leaves Romero in the neighborhood of 1250 pitches remaining. If you ballpark 90 pitches per start, that's around 14 more starts. So keep that in mind and see how things play out over the next month or so. Considerations in that are: Staying on the current 5-man rotation with no rainouts gives Romero five starts -- June 22 and 28 and July 3, 8 and 13 -- before the all-star break.How's Santana doing? None of the current guys has really pitched himself out of the rotation. If Santana or May gets to the point of being ready, it only takes three starts by one of them (in a six-man rotation) to save a start before the break. Or two starts and a rainout, etc.If that doesn't happen, move Romero to the back of the rotation coming out of the break, which essentially is the same as skipping a start.If all five current guys are still healthy and pitching effectively when (if) Santana (or May) are ready, go ahead and go to a six-man rotation for a few times through the rotation and see how things go.By that time, you also have a pretty good sense of whether you're buyers or sellers. If sellers, and everyone is healthy, Lynn's going to be a trade candidate.And if sellers, that also means that it's pretty easy to shut down Romero when it seems appropriate based on fatigue and effectiveness.In a best case scenario (the Twins are still in it and guys are healthy), I think Romero would be a good candidate for the bullpenning approach. I'd think about pairing him with Odorizzi, since Odorizzi seems to particularly struggle with the third time through the order. But to keep Romero on a regular preparation pattern, consider starting him and letting him go two innings. Often, that would bring Odorizzi into the game at the bottom of the order, so when he starts his third time through, he's starting with the 7, 8 or 9 hitter. Similarly, two innings of Romero and five of Odorizzi gets us to the eighth inning and very close to the FRE, so it (in theory) also provides a lighter day for the bullpen.

The first game was a make-up from Jackie Robinson Day in April when everybody wears 42.

I’ll do my best to keep things brief(ish). (Warning, I failed.) Seth wrote an article and titled it as being at least partially about “high character.” I thought that was appropriate – the front office has talked about character being a priority, but we all know that it’s not as easily quantifiable as fastball speed, etc. His article was great and, I have to assume, seems to capture their spirit well. I also appreciated it because, stats geek that I am, I can only handle so much fWAR and BABIP. It was nice to see their human side. (Aside: If the “character” language comes up from the front office around this year’s draft, I think an interesting article would be a conversation with the powers-that-be. What attributes are they looking for in “high-character” people? Is it vocal leadership? Humility? The ability to make people around them better? Are there certain attributes they prioritize? Do they do any quantifiable stuff like the NFL attempts?) I added an item that, from my limited perspective, seems to support Seth’s description of Lewis. Based on the number of likes, at least a few seemed to appreciate that addition. ThejcKmp named the challenge that comes with trying to identify character and what it’s worth. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I read it as even asking whether the notion of “good character” is over-rated. I thought he raised his questions tastefully and that he tried to emphasize that he wasn’t accusing anyone of anything improper. ThejcKmp introduced the issue of race, but I thought did it very appropriately. From the post: “There’s another reason I always feel uncomfortable with that word. I hesitate to even make this point because it may be divisive but I’ve (unscientifically) noticed that when we apply character, we tend to do it with white players.” In reality, there is scientific data that suggests that different races (or genders, or other characteristics in which we tend to group people) are viewed differently when it comes to demonstrating various attributes or personality traits. I appreciated the response and said so. I named my own wonderings about the words we describe certain players, also using race as my reference. Similarly, I tried to do it tactfully and tried to emphasize that it was a wondering on my part. To give it a bigger context, I used an example from outside Twins Daily. I could have similarly described conversations I’ve had with an African-born professional athlete friend who has experienced what it means to be viewed differently because of his race, both on and off the field. In following his career through our local newspapers, I’ve seen a difference in how he was portrayed compared to white teammates. In statements like, “He carries himself with a lot of humility,” it was clear to me that it was occasionally code for “He carries himself with a lot of humility (for a guy with dreds).” There have been varied responses. Several have noted in various ways that this is rarely an all-or-nothing thing, particularly when discussing something as broad as race. We can all name “high-character” black or Latino guys. We can all name “low-character” white guys. There is often going to be greater difference within a group than there is between groups. There have also been comments about the appropriateness of bringing race into the discussion. As one who did, I can only speak for myself. I vacillated about whether to apologize for doing so, but decided to let my comments stand, for at least a few reasons. First, the conversation has made me think a bit more about how we view “character” in a player and whether that’s different from one race to another. Perhaps it’s been beneficial in some way for others as well. If so, I consider that a positive. Second, to take that a step further, I hope we can also recognize that sport is part of a bigger society. Baseball made a difference in broader society’s conscious views of race on April 15, 1947, and beyond. Perhaps we in this little corner of the sports world can grow just a little bit in how we think about a divisive issue. Finally, over the past while, I’ve come to think differently about how we ask our questions and make our statements on difficult topics. (Please note: I am not accusing anyone of the following.) But when we say, “It’s okay to talk about that, but not in this context,” we run the risk of sweeping an issue under the rug and avoiding it. Naming an issue is important, as is naming it in the right context. In some cases, it’s a big action. Had John Carlos and Tommie Smith raised their fists after a junior high dual meet in some unknown county, no one would have cared. But they made a visible statement in a particular context and the 50th anniversary of their act will no doubt be commemorated this fall. I don’t have that much courage. I doubt my post will be remembered 50 days from now, let alone 50 years. But I consider Twins Daily a safe place, for which I am thankful to you alll, so I took the small step and joined the conversation. I hope people will hear my previous (and this) statement in the spirit with which they were written. I said it would be “brief(ish),” and I’m now at roughly 1,000 words. If you’ve read this far, thanks for listening. If I’ve offended any, I apologize. To the moderators, if you want to leave this as is, I’m fine with that. If you would prefer to use it to start its own thread, I’m fine with that (though I’d prefer to tweak it a bit for context). And if you so deem, I will regretfully accept my first “warning points.” In any case, I will now move myself over to tonight’s Game Thread.

And ditto -- I'm glad to go elsewhere if appropriate. I think you posted this while I was writing my response. I do appreciate the work you do as moderators, and I think that all in all TD is great in working with these dynamics. A primary reason I come back regularly is the civility that is demonstrated here.