2021 Game 6: Minnesota Twins at Detroit Tigers

Well that sucked. On the plus side, they are undefeated in nine innings. Unfortunately, two games took extra innings.

Kenta Maeda
vs
Matthew Boyd

Boyd had a scoreless start to open the Tiger's season. It wasn't a particular great start with more walks than strikeouts but with only three hits it was good enough.

Lineup
Garver - C
Garlick - RF
Cruz - DH
Polanco - 2B
Buxton - CF
Rooker - LF
Sanó - 1B
Astudillo - 3B
Simmons - SS

76 thoughts on “2021 Game 6: Minnesota Twins at Detroit Tigers”

  1. Why would they hold him up on the base hit but then try to score on the fly ball? That's how you give away an inniong with two outs on the bases. I wonder when's the last time the Twins had two outfield assists in the same inning.

  2. Maddeningly, my MLB.tv feed keeps hiccuping, blasting white noise, going blank, and then presenting the “Commercial Break in Progress” screen.

    I blame Bally/Sinclair; there have been other production hiccups (test screen-style images in interstitials) that confirm Sinclair’s turd-in-the-bottom-of-the-barrel reputation.

    1. I found it funny that during the first game of the season, Justin was saying he was warming up to the rule, which I assumed was perhaps because of some outside pressure. But he went right back to trashing it today.

      1. Good point. Longest game the Twins have had with the new rule is 12 innings. In 2019, the Twins had two 17+ inning games and I think had to send multiple players down afterward to get fresh arms. Losing on a gift runner scoring sucks, but both teams are playing by the same rules. If the Twins were better at getting the gift runner home themselves, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

        1. Could’ve won either or both games in the 13th, sent arms down, and avoided a Game 163 and/or Wild Card play-in game with a win or two in games not decided by an arbitrary rule change after the regulation number of innings is over.

          Wins and losses in April or September count the same in the standings at the end of the season. There’s no Bettman/loser points system to level out extra-inning losses decided by the Manfred rule. It’s just a straight L in the standings and winning percentage.

          1. Do you think the Twins are particularly suited to win regular extra inning games and not the new extra innings games? Otherwise your argument is just you don't like it.

            1. No, I can set aside my opinion and still argue that the Manfred rule is arbitrary, illogical, and poorly implemented:

              - MLB uses the rule in regular season, but won't in the postseason. Why? This seems like a tacit acknowledgment that it's arbitrary and is primarily intended to artificially shorten games, rather than determine which team won under the actual rules of baseball.

              - When played under the Manfred rule, why should an extra-innings loss be weighted in the standings the same as a loss in a regulation game? See above re: Bettman/loser points and calculation of position in the standings.

              - If the goal is to make extras “more exciting” (I find this ridiculous, but okay), why do all innings start with a runner on second, instead of progressively ratcheting up the tension? Wouldn’t it be more exciting to start the tenth with nobody on, then a runner on first in the 11th, a runner on second in the 12th, and a runner on third in the 13th and thereafter?

              - The Manfred rule messes with leverage statistics. Managers can, to a large degree, distribute their high-leverage innings to their best relievers within a regulation game. Under the Manfred rule, every extra inning becomes a high-leverage inning by default, and relievers deployed in them are penalized for situations that are completely artificial within the context of the regulation game's rules. MLB decided the winning run would be unearned to insulate ERA, which is a pretty worthless gesture, but you can't do that with leverage stats.

              - The home team is gifted a massive, unearned leverage advantage if the visiting team doesn’t score, far exceeding what it would have in any previous bottom of an extra inning.

              - Theoretically, a pitcher could lose a perfect game under this rule: a runner could advance on a passed ball and score on a caught foul fly ball. This is illogical.

              - The batter who made (or hit into) the last out of the previous inning can score the winning run of the next without a plate appearance in that inning. This is illogical.

              - If we're going to be arbitrary, why not give the batting team the choice of starting with no runners and no outs, or a runner on second (the last batter of the previous inning) with one out?

              - Continuing with the arbitrary rules, if the runner must be mandatory, why not let the fielding team select the hitting team's runner at the beginning of each half-inning? Restrictions on not choosing the same player more than once could be reasonable.

              - Any rule that rewards more bunting is a bad rule.

              1. Not disagreeing with the arguments against the rule. I just don't see how this affects the standings after 162 games more than any other rule in baseball.

  3. Twins finish off first one-run win of the season with 3 scoreless innings from the two free-agent relievers they signed. Hopefully, fans are feeling better about Colome after that Opening Day debacle, which would have been avoided with just a little help from Kepler.

  4. I believe this was the first time that a Twins starter had given up more than 1 earned run. I'll take 2 earned runs in 6 IP. Of course, he was helped out greatly by the defense (and poor decisions by the Tigers) in the sixth inning.

Leave a Reply