Decisions, decisions.
It seems to me that one of the hardest decisions a manager, and a team, has to make is when to give up on a struggling player. That's especially true when the player once had some success. Is the player going through a temporary down time, such as everyone goes through? Is there some physical reason why he's struggling? Is there some mechanical reason? Are the problems he has correctable? If so, is the player going to be able to correct them? Or are we at a point where this player just isn't going to be able to get the job done, and it's time to move on.
In 2013, in a season split between Miami and the Dodgers, Ricky Nolasco had the best season of his career. He pitched nearly two hundred innings and went 13-11 with an ERA of 3.70 and a WHIP of 1.21. He then signed with the Twins, and in 2014 had the worst season of his career. He pitched 159 innings and went 6-12 with an ERA of 5.38 and a WHIP of 1.52. In three starts in 2015, he's been no better. Yes, he's 2-1, but he has an ERA of 9.00 and a WHIP of 2.00. Last year, in 27 starts, he had a game score over 60 in five of them. He has zero such starts this season.
Now, to be fair, in most of those starts he hasn't been absolutely terrible. But he rarely has been good, either. As we've observed previously, he's had a lot of "almost good" starts, starts where it might have been a good start except for one inning or except for a few home runs or except for something else. So far, he's been reminiscent of a description Bill James had of a pitcher years ago: "He pitches just well enough to fool you into pitching him some more."
So, how long do the Twins go with Nolasco? Do they keep sending him out there every fifth day, thinking/hoping that he's going to get turned around? Or do they decide this is as good as he's going to be, and since it's clearly not good enough it's time to move on.
It's not an easy decision. A few weeks ago I'd have said it was time to give up on Mike Pelfrey. Since then he's gone 2-0 with an ERA of 0.95 and a WHIP of 1.00. That's not proof that he'll keep it up, and of course no one keeps up numbers like that, but right now it appears that a decision to give up on him would've been the wrong one.
Also, for the first time in some time, the Twins actually have some options. It's not like in recent years, when we were trying to convince ourselves that people like Cole DeVries and P. J. Walters could actually be big league pitchers. We have Tommy Milone. We have Taylor Rogers. We have Pat Dean. We have Alex Meyer. There's no assurance that any of them will be better than Nolasco, but they certainly all have a chance to be. They're not likely to be significantly worse than the Nolasco we've seen so far. So, what to do?
Let me make clear that I don't think Nolasco's contract should enter into the decision. I know the temptation is to think, well, we're paying him all that money, so we need to use him. I disagree. We're going to be paying him all that money whether he pitches or not. Bringing someone up from AAA and paying him the major league minimum, while a sum that would be large to you and me, is not going to make a major difference to the Twins payroll. This should be a baseball decision, not a financial decision.
The good news, of course, is that even though Nolasco didn't pitch well, the Twins won anyway. That's partly thanks to some poor defense on the part of the Athletics, and party thanks to the fact that Drew Pomeranz isn't very good, either, but they won. And they won without Joe Mauer in the lineup. Eddie Rosario got another hit and drove in two runs. Eduardo Escobar similarly got a hit and drove in two. Aaron Thompson and Blaine Boyer continued to pitch well. Glen Perkins did, too, but then we expect that.
The Twins have been on quite a roll. They've won seven out of eight. Since starting the season 1-6, they've gone 15-7. I read that they're three games over .500 for the first time since 2010. They have a one-game lead for the second wild card spot. Can they keep this going? Who knows? It's baseball. Let's just enjoy it while it's going and see how long it can go.
Tonight the Twins hit the road, traveling to Cleveland. They give the ball to Mike Pelfrey who, as noted above, has been really good lately. Cleveland counters with Trevor Bauer, who started the season really well but has struggled in his last two outings. May he continue to struggle tonight. We're still on track for 149-13!
Is it really in the lap of the manager, or of the GM? For all we know, Moli is just playing the cards he's been dealt, whether he's gone on record with TR over his unhappiness or not.
That's why I said "a manager, and a team". There's really know way to know, from the outside, whether the decision is Molitor's, Ryan's, or both.
I'm really don't have as much angst by the personnel decisions; if there's anything that does bother me, it's the performances. Would I like a better player in the ballgame? Well, yes. Would I like the player in the ballgame to perform better? Absolutely.
While I would have preferred to have Joe in the game, he was resting while a LH was on the mound, and I can't fault having him on the bench when the possibility of a PH appearance vs. a righty later in the game should it have been required.
I find the personnel decisions interesting, just as I find the strategy decisions interesting. As fans, we tend to make each of those decisions sound cut-and-dried, while there usually are a lot of factors involved in them. I think it's interesting to look at those factors and how the decisions are made.
And I wasn't second-guessing the decision to give Mauer a day off. I was just pointing out that he wasn't in the lineup, and the Twins scored six runs and won anyway.
No, I know you weren't.
Now, if Gardy was still manager, he would have been held out whether lefty or righty, and he would be the last man off the bench, grudgingly.
Funny thing is that Drew Pomeranz was pretty good last year. 1.5 rWAR in only 69 innings (20 appearances, 10 starts), and an opponent slash line of 204/282/304. I suppose that may have been SSST distortion, partially driven by an unusually low BABIP (.246).