Cup of Coffee

June 19, 2017: Lost Weekend

75 Comments

The Twins get a "much needed break" today before the BiSox come to town. So, the question is, a rough stretch or regression to the mean?

(Yes, I realize we pulled some guys off the street and let them pitch, but still)

75 thoughts on “June 19, 2017: Lost Weekend”

  1. The Twins were a longshot before and they still are, but this weekend didn't change my opinion about them. Going into the weekend, giving the pitching matchups, I thought the Twins would be doing well to win one out of four, and that a sweep was a real possibility. But they play the White Sox next, with Santana and Berrios pitching. They were dominated by Houston and bounced back. I'm hopeful they will again.

  2. Minnesota Wild protected players in the upcoming expansion draft:

    Charlie Coyle (F)
    Mikael Granlund (F)
    Mikko Koivu (F)
    Nino Niederreiter (F)
    Zach Parise (F)
    Jason Pominville (F)
    Jason Zucker (F)
    Jonas Brodin (D)
    Jared Spurgeon (D)
    Ryan Suter (D)
    Devan Dubnyk (G)

    That leaves players like Dumba, Staal, and Scandella unprotected.

  3. After yesterday, Bronson Arroyo has given up 23 home runs in 71 innings.

    I'd say he's about done.

    Assuming that's true, he'll set the record for most home runs given up in under 80 innings pitched in a season, as well as the record for most HR/9 for anyone who pitched over 50 innings in a season.

  4. Problems...wife got me two growlers from the local place (OMNI) thinking I was taking one to the neighbor's for a party and another to enjoy for Father's Day/week.
    Neigbors didn't need any more booze, and I was in no condition to partake yesterday, sadly. (see: neighbor's, above)
    So I have two growlers at risk of unuse. I suppose I could open one and drink flat beer for a week, but that's less than ideal. Does anybody need a growler? What's a Dad to do?

    1. They do hold carbonation preeeeettty well after the initial fill, so you probably won't be drinking flat beer for the first couple days.

  5. I saw the Tacoma Rainiers play the Salt Lake Bees yesterday. I am down with the pitch clock. The experiment is a success as far as I am concerned--bring it on for MLB. Seemed like they shut it off at one point when there were runners on 1st and 2nd--I could see an allowance for turning the clock off in certain situations depending on the runners on base. But generally speaking, it was no problem for the pitchers to beat the clock and the game moved along really briskly, especially when batters weren't reaching base, which is exactly the part of the game that you want to move quickly.

    The only real problem in the game happened when the scoreboard operator was napping and missed a ball, so there was a minor dispute over whether the count was 2-1 or 3-1, but the umpire handled it well.

    I also witnessed my first in-person intentional walk with no pitches. I'm still not totally convinced on this. It's not really a problem, it just seems like it's almost too fast. Of course, I never thought intentional walks were part of the game speed problem. If anything, I bet throwing four intentional balls went quicker than most plate appearances in the first place.

    1. Call me a traditionalist, but I don't like taking random human failing out of the IBB. I know a wild pitch or passed ball during an intentional walk attempt is rare, but I have seen them happen and don't like eliminating them as possible outcomes in order to shave half a minute off the game time.

      2. Yeah, I basically agree. It's not the hill I want to die on, but like I said, it probably takes less time to throw four intentional balls than it takes for most plate appearances, so I never really saw a problem there in the first place. Considering that it's always been this way, and there haven't always been pace of play concerns, I think that suggests the intentional walk was never really a problem.

        To me, the evils of pace-of-play are the lazy 25-seconds-between-pitches pitchers, the ridiculous explosion of tedious mound conferences, and the LaRussianization of the bullpen. The difference between two Mark Buerhles throwing 100 pitches each and two Yu Darvishes throwing 100 pitches each is literally about half an hour and starting pitchers throw 100 pitches practically every game. And maybe Buehrle pushed the pace a bit, but it's not like he was doing anything superhuman--Carlos Silva could work quickly and he was at least 90th percentile for looking out of shape--he just got the ball back from the catcher and threw the pitch. Everyone knew if you wanted a game that was going to reliably move along, just pick one where Brad Radke or Carlos Silva was going up against Mark Buerhle. Even shaving 30 seconds off between innings (also a worthy goal if you can manage it) only saves you 9 minutes. So having seen it in action, I'm now a big proponent of the pitch clock.

        They should have solved these big problems first before tossing out tiny quarter-steps to addressing the problem, like the no-pitch IBB.

        1. I've seen it written that increasing fastball speed is a/the reason why pitchers are slowing down. They simply can't pitch at a faster pace. I wonder if instituting a pitch clock will require pitchers to not throw that hard. I also wonder if that will result in fewer injuries, fewer strikeouts, and more balls in play.

          1. Those are all reasonable thoughts. I am perfectly okay if a faster pace of play means pitchers can't throw quite as hard. If hitters get the upper hand, we have ways of addressing that like raising the height of the pitching mound or increasing the size of the strike zone. And like you mention, if pitchers can't throw as hard, it's possible they won't get hurt as much. Personally, I think one of the factors behind increasing pitcher injuries is that lineups now are quite likely stronger top-to-bottom than they used to be (especially with the DH replacing the pitcher in the AL), so pitchers can't choose their spots as much as they used to. (And while pitching to the score is a poor excuse in some cases, I'm sure that pitchers indeed paced themselves to some degree over the course of the season, this being more true the farther back you go.)

            Have you seen any statistical overviews of the minor league pace-of-play experiments? It seems they instituted the pitch clock back in 2015 and a quick search didn't yield any summaries of what, if anything, changed after they put in the clocks.

            1. Jeff Sullivan went over it briefly in an Effectively Wild episode. He noted big drops in time of game in the first year and most of those gains being lost in 2016 and early 2017. I don't have a citation or an episode number for that though.

      3. You can't do this anymore, either

        I can see the no-pitch IBB as a benefit because those four pitches don't count against the pitcher's pitch count, and they shouldn't.

        1. But there aren't any rules about pitch count right? Any reasonably intelligent team could take those pitches out of a pitcher's pitch count anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more sophisticated teams count breaking pitches with different weight than fastballs.

          1. You're penalizing the unintelligent teams, though!

            It's not an important item, but it's just cleaner. For historical/posterity's sake: someone goes back to an old boxscore and says "But he threw 127 pitches!" totally ignoring IBB(s). You know it happens.

    2. if baseball were serious about speeding things up, the right way to do this would be to keep batters in the box between pitches and to impose some mechanism for penalizing both pitchers and batters for slow play.

      1. I only noticed the batter stepping out of the box once the entire game yesterday and that was with runners on base so I'm not sure if the pitch clock was in effect then. But I think keeping batters in the box is part of the deal with the pitch clock. I think violating the pitch clock does come with a penalty, but I don't remember what it is--maybe an automatic ball after a warning or somesuch.

        1. Looking about the internets, it appears the penalty for a pitcher is a ball and the penalty for a hitter not being "alert to the pitch" with 5 seconds left in the pitch clock is a warning then an automatic strike. There also wasn't a bunch of ridiculous BS gamesmanship with hitters calling time every other pitch. If you haven't been to a AAA game recently, I highly suggest it. I hadn't been to one in years, but it was kind of refreshing. I feel like I'm mostly a "get-off-my-lawn" traditionalist and was prepared to hate the pitch clock, but it was pure goodness as far as I could tell. It was like everyone came to the field and decided they wanted to concentrate on playing baseball rather than trying to beat each other in a contest of "how many ways can I find to delay the next step."

            1. He gets 15 seconds, should be plenty of time. The signals can't be too complicated or the players forget them. Didn't even notice a batter looking for signs all game, and there were a couple of situations where players were bunting.

              1. And it gets back to the runners on 1st and 2nd situation where signs would be especially important. I think what they're currently doing clockwise seems more than reasonable.

        2. ROBOT PITCH CLOCK NOW!
          🙂

          Yea, I'm ok with this concept and curious about how the tests have gone in the minors.

          Us old farts grew up in the heyday of the Earl Weaver-managed, George Bamberger/Ray Miller-pitch coached Orioles. Work fast, change speeds, throw strikes. It was very, very, very effective.

          1. It would be hilarious if the pitch clock has the side effect of making pitchers more effective.

      2. also also, I still kind of like the Bob Gibson approach to the IBB: just bean 'em.

        also also also, apropos of this thread:

        Chapter One—The Pitched Battle

        Any Little Edge

        Reggie Jackson: "When I stepped into the box, I felt the at-bat belonged to me. Everybody else was there for my convenience. The pitcher was there to throw me a ball to hit. The catcher was there to throw it back to him if he didn't give me what I wanted the first time. And the umpire was lucky that he was close enough to watch. Gibson was the same way. That's why people thought he was mean. And that's the attitude you've got to have. When I hit, I felt I was in control of the home-plate area, and it was important that I felt that way. If I let the pitcher control it, it would give him an advantage. There are at least three kinds of advantages that the pitcher and batter contest. There's the physical advantage, the strategic advantage, and also the psychological advantage. I didn't want two out of three. I wanted them all. The pitcher has the ball, and nothing happens until he lets go of it. So, as the batter, I felt I had to fight for any bit of control I could get. I expected the umpire, the catcher, and the pitcher to wait on me. I wanted to get ready on my time. I'd call time or pause or do something that wasn't too annoying but at least would get the pitcher off his pace. If I could disrupt his rhythm a little bit, just for a second or two, the advantage swung to me. But I didn't want to create an ire, some kind of anger to make him bear down harder. I didn't want a guy to step back and grit his teeth. Being a jerk about it just doesn't work. There's a fine line between annoying somebody just a little bit and angering him to the point where you may get drilled in the back."

        Bob Gibson: "Him backing out of there all the time, that is annoying, because I liked to pitch in a hurry. But I never let it annoy me to the point that it distracted me. You don' t knock guys down for that kind of stuff. They give you plenty of other reasons to knock them down."

    3. but the umpire handled it well.

      I look forward to Joe West or CB Bucknor in this situation.

  6. and a callback to the weekend thread about Bauer beaning Vargas:

    No baseball player, not even Ty Cobb, has had so many stories told about menace. There are two — TWO — famous stories about Gibson throwing at a batter in an Old Timers’ Game.

    Story 1: Gibson once plunked Pete LaCock in an Old Timers’ Game because had the gall to hit a grand slam off Gibson in the last inning of Gibson’s career in the major leagues. After he hit LaCock, Gibson shouted, “I’ve been waiting years to do that.”

    Story 2: Gibson brushed back Reggie Jackson in an Old Timers’ Game. Why? Because he had the gall to hit a home run off Gibson in an EARLIER OLD TIMERS’ GAME.

  7. I saw two Confederate flags flying in the last week: Friday afternoon while driving through a podunk town in Western North Carolina and yesterday while driving through Faribault, MN. The first was on a porch and the second on the back of a pickup.

    1. For logical consistency, that pickup truck should have a St. Jude statue on the dashboard.

  8. Odd thing I found while perusing past drafts.

    Did 1999 Twins 2nd round draft pick Marcus Sents change his name to Marcus Moseley? I can find plenty of articles from the time that refer to Marcus Sents coming out of nowhere on draft boards by adding several MPH to his fastball, as well as a couple that seem to imply that he was hit pretty hard in high A-ball. There's even a hot prospects baseball card of his. But bb-ref has no info whatsoever on him.

    They do, however, have info on a Marcus Moseley, who has to be the same person (born same day, same town, etc). There is also a baseball card or two for Moseley, and it's clearly the same guy. I was just wondering if there was a story worth hearing about there.

  9. We are all bouncing around these ideas, I think. But the part I want to focus on here is the comment by thrylos:

    The Cleveland and Houston series should put an end to the 2017 mirage.If you cannot keep up with and beat good teams at home, you are not going to go far in a post-season, even if you are lucky enough to make it there.

    So the Twins should be sellers, try to get a few prospects that will help them next year and beyond and try to close holes with more trades or free agency (Michael Pineda might look pretty good in Twins' pinstripes) during the off-season.
    This way, they can evaluate some of the kids as well...

    Are there really only two possible positions: buyer or seller?

    To me, "seller" means that you are not in a position to compete for a playoff spot and (a) have assets that others value more than you do because of their short-term impact; and (b) that those assets don't really figure into your medium- or long-term plans.

    A guy in the last year of his contract who will become much more expensive to keep in the offseason is a great example of an asset that a seller should consider dealing. So is a guy who is currently expensive who is blocking the development of a younger player.

    How many current Twins does this describe?

    The Twins have a total of nine guys on the 40-man age-30 or older (Belisle, Breslow, Santana, Mauer, Gimenez, Kintzler, Hughes, Dozier, Castro). Gibson and Santiago turn 30 before next season.

    Of those, Belisle and Gibson (and maybe Hughes) appear to be below replacement-level. Breslow and Gimenez are right at replacement level, Castro a bit above, and Kintzler, Dozier and Mauer a bit above that. I don't see any assets that the Twins could credibly "sell" that would have no place in the franchise's plans for next year.

    I guess Dozier and Kintzler probably are marketable and could gather some worthwhile returns. Dozier is signed through next year for a modest $9 million (considering he's averaged 4.7 rWAR per year the last three seasons). Kintzler would be a rental and doesn't have great peripherals.

    My long-winded point: what's wrong with pretty much staying the course, given that the front office didn't plan to be this competitive this year? There's not much sellable that they'd want to sell, and there's too much that needs fixing in the pitching to think it very likely that they could fix it enough to win the division this year.

    1. I agree, I don't like the idea that you have to be all in on the future or all in on today. Most of the time, you shouldn't be either. I think there is something to be said for having the attitude that you are out there to win games, and if you are playing for draft position all the time, you risk instilling a toxic culture (see: Wolves).

      Most of the time, teams that are mediocre or bad are just short on assets, it's not that their assets are misaligned regarding performance in the present or the future.

      I loved the comment to the effect of "let's just get two adequate starting pitchers and three more bullpen arms"--yeah, let's just change out half of our pitchers! Sounds easy to me.

      ETA: I specifically hate the idea of trading away all the veterans and "playing the kids" in some lame attempt to evaluate the younger players. The best way to evaluate your prospects is when they are placed at their appropriate level for development. If they are ready for the majors, then you make way for them, but if they aren't, then you evaluate them at AAA just like everyone else does. Playing for an awful team devoid of veteran talent is not the sort of learning environment that will turn your prospects into stars.

    2. Yeah, everyone drools over trading Santana, but is he blocking anyone, and do we really want to have only one dependable starter in the rotation? If they could get someone for him, I guess, but I'm not one to trade just to trade. It's like media thinks the Twins should be paying tribute to contenders by trading someone they need -- forget that.

      1. Heh, I think Nick Turley or Adam wilk getting a start immediately disproves any theory that Santana could possibly be blocking anyone.

      2. As with Dozier in the off-season, I'm not opposed to putting Santana's name out there and seeing what people will offer. If they can get enough to make it a good deal, fine. But I see no reason to trade him just because they don't expect to win the championship this year.

  11. Joe Maddon excusing Rizzo for running over the Padres catcher who had the ball and wasn't even blocking the plate.

    I am calling bullshit, Joe. Your guy could have ended that catcher's career. We don't tolerate that crap in other levels. Rizzo should be fined and suspended.

    2. Here.

      "I loved it, absolutely loved it," Cubs manager Joe Maddon said. "That's part of the game. If the catcher's in the way, you hit him."

      Joe, you are begging for the Padres to retaliate and wipe out your catcher on purpose. I'm not advocating for that or hoping for that, and you shouldn't be acting like an ill-trained, junior high football coach.

      1. That's just terrible. The league actively tried to make it not part of the game (never mind that he wasn't actually on the way, anyway).

    3. Freeze frame from right before the collision:

      Rizzo clearly had the plate open for a slide but instead collided with Hedges instead.

        2. At first I was inclined to give Maddon a pass based on "sticking up for his player", but as I think about it, he could have stuck up for his player without effusively praising him. If MLB takes no action, it will tell us that the rules about home plate collisions no longer apply, or at least they don't apply to media favorites.

          1. I think one will be assessed on Gomez with the proceeds going to McCann's favorite charity.

      1. The rule is supposed to be enforced in game, in other words, Rizzo should have been out regardless of the tag. I'm not sure if they are allowed to punish players through fines, etc., after the game. I don't know if the MLBPA allows that. If anything, MLB needs to punish the ump for not properly enforcing the rule. I'm not sure if all fines of umps are made public or not.

        1. Are you kidding? The umpire needs to be fined for ruling Rizzo out when he should have ruled Rizzo out? He could have been more proactive about ruling Rizzo out before waiting to see if the catcher held on to the ball, but put yourself in his shoes for a second--if the catcher holds the ball, then everyone agrees that Rizzo is out and we can get on with the game.

          Going back to the HBP-on-fourth-ball example--this is like debating whether a hitter should be awarded first base due to the fourth ball or from getting hit by the pitch. Everyone is going to agree it was the fourth ball, so just point to first base and get on with the game.

      2. I would say to think about it like the HBP rule. If a batter is hit by pitch, the rule states he is awarded first base. Sometimes these situations require additional discipline and other times they don't. Apparently in this situation, that call is up to Joe Torre. But the HBP rule is not worthless just because sometimes pitchers aren't suspended for going after hitters.

        This was a bit like getting hit by a pitch on the fourth ball--the runner was ruled out regardless, so the result was the same regardless of whether there was a collision rule or not.

          1. He had a really good point: with the rule in place, it's even more dangerous for the catcher because he isn't (theoretically) expecting to be hit.

            1. I thought that was a good point as well. Though this is probably a good example that they should have it in the back of their heads that the rule will just reduce the frequency/severity of hits against them, but it's still possible to get hit if someone's being a dick.

Comments are closed.