Souhan's Questions

[TheLeviathan]

Unimportant was a poor choice of words....perhaps not as impactful as some emphasize. For instance, I don't hold it against Gardy that his teams have been awful in small sample sizes in the playoffs.

 

But the "Manager for Life" position I really don't like.

[Craig Arko]

I hear Bobby Valentine is available.

[gunnarthor]

That said, my main concern is his ability to deal with rookies. I've seen plenty of cases where it's clear he doesn't handle rookies as well as he could. Some of this is on them, I won't argue with that, but this team has a bevy of young talent coming up through the pipeline, and Gardy is going to have to deal with a young team. I've seen little indication that he's the guy for this job. I don't think you can dismiss this easily. There's a long track record that goes with it. I'd first and foremost look for a manager that fits that criteria, whether that's Molitor, Dougie M, or a Joe Maddon type outside the org. The next manager of the Twins is going to need to deal with a bunch of mid 20s guys and a few older vets. I don't see Gardy as that guy.

 

You realize that is exactly what Gardy had for most of 2002-2009, right? I mean, I know the Gardy can't deal with rookies thing keeps floating around but there really is no actual reason to believe that. He's often had some of the youngest rosters in the league and he usually outperformed his pyth w-l record, so what are you basing this idea that he isn't maximizing his talent? Just a hunch? A third hand report where he said something mean to someone? Kevin Slowey?

[drjim]

You realize that is exactly what Gardy had for most of 2002-2009, right? I mean, I know the Gardy can't deal with rookies thing keeps floating around but there really is no actual reason to believe that. He's often had some of the youngest rosters in the league and he usually outperformed his pyth w-l record, so what are you basing this idea that he isn't maximizing his talent? Just a hunch? A third hand report where he said something mean to someone? Kevin Slowey?

 

All rookies don't come up and immediately perform at peak level. What more proof do you need?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

How many other years was a team patched together? Yep, one year they had one superior pitcher. Takes a few more than that to win a series.

 

At least recognize that Santana won two Cy Youngs in two separate years?

[diehardtwinsfan]

You realize that is exactly what Gardy had for most of 2002-2009, right? I mean, I know the Gardy can't deal with rookies thing keeps floating around but there really is no actual reason to believe that. He's often had some of the youngest rosters in the league and he usually outperformed his pyth w-l record, so what are you basing this idea that he isn't maximizing his talent? Just a hunch? A third hand report where he said something mean to someone? Kevin Slowey?

 

Unfortunately, I can provide plenty of frustrating examples of how Gardy handled rookies poorly. Cuddy was a good example, so was Kubel, Bartlett, and Neshek. More recently, Plouffe, Parmelee, and Hicks. His biggest flaw has been the double standard between mediocre vets and rookies. The new guys have a lot less wiggle room and end up in the dog house far too quickly... add the publicly calling them out for things that others get a mulligan for, and I think there's enough of a pattern.

[gunnarthor]

Cuddy played a ton down the stretch in 02 and was the playoff starter. Pretty mean of Gardy to do that. Sure, Cuddy got hurt in 03 and couldn't crack our OF in 04 (I mean, it was a playoff team and our top 3 OFers were #1,2, and 4 in WAR that year). So Gardy tried to keep him in the lineup at second and third. The bastard.

 

Kubel put up a .230 OBP after July 1 his rookie year (06). Can't fathom why Gardy wasn't willing to give him more AB - wait, he did. And he made him a major part of the 07 team (7th in ab).

 

Neshek was a prominent piece in the pen as soon as he came up (as were other young arms like Mijares and Crain).

 

I have no idea what the Parm complaint is - Gardy basically started him full time until he was sent down. Plouffe was clearly a gold glover until Gardy mentioned he wasn't good with the glove. Like he did with other "rookies" like Lamb, Baustista, Harris, Dozier ...

 

Gardy's relied on young players from the get go. Kyle Lohse got 3 of his 8 2 WAR seasons in with us at 25 and under. Guys like Slowey, Blackburn, Perkins, Baker got a lot of opportunities as young guys. In the late 2000s, Gomez and Young (and Casilla) got a bunch of at-bats.

 

I mean, the Gardy can't relate meme is based on two things - 1) 2006 and 2) anytime he says anything about a player, he's throwing him under the bus. Even if it is the most casual truthful comment possible. I've posted before how Gardy hasn't done half the stuff other managers have done. The Nats manager pulled Harper for failing to run out a ground ball to the pitcher. Joe Maddon told the press that Wil Myers had to work on his defense and be better prepared mentally for the game. The Mets manager said something about Wheeler needing to focus more and the NY media went crazy saying he threw the rookie under the bus. Washington made one of his pitchers give him the ball "the right way" when he was being removed.

 

Since Gardy took over, he's had to deal with a bunch of different types of players - young guys coming up, journeymen, crappy minor leaguers, vets on their way out, MVPs, Cy Young winners, players from all over the world. It's insane to suggest that he hasn't been able to relate to young players considering how many young players he's had that he developed. He gets young guys into games immediately. His players usually know their role.

[curt1965]

The best example was Danny Valancia, who everyone, I guess, thought was a jerk.

[drjim]

Cuddy played a ton down the stretch in 02 and was the playoff starter. Pretty mean of Gardy to do that. Sure, Cuddy got hurt in 03 and couldn't crack our OF in 04 (I mean, it was a playoff team and our top 3 OFers were #1,2, and 4 in WAR that year). So Gardy tried to keep him in the lineup at second and third. The bastard.

 

Kubel put up a .230 OBP after July 1 his rookie year (06). Can't fathom why Gardy wasn't willing to give him more AB - wait, he did. And he made him a major part of the 07 team (7th in ab).

 

Neshek was a prominent piece in the pen as soon as he came up (as were other young arms like Mijares and Crain).

 

I have no idea what the Parm complaint is - Gardy basically started him full time until he was sent down. Plouffe was clearly a gold glover until Gardy mentioned he wasn't good with the glove. Like he did with other "rookies" like Lamb, Baustista, Harris, Dozier ...

 

Gardy's relied on young players from the get go. Kyle Lohse got 3 of his 8 2 WAR seasons in with us at 25 and under. Guys like Slowey, Blackburn, Perkins, Baker got a lot of opportunities as young guys. In the late 2000s, Gomez and Young (and Casilla) got a bunch of at-bats.

 

I mean, the Gardy can't relate meme is based on two things - 1) 2006 and 2) anytime he says anything about a player, he's throwing him under the bus. Even if it is the most casual truthful comment possible. I've posted before how Gardy hasn't done half the stuff other managers have done. The Nats manager pulled Harper for failing to run out a ground ball to the pitcher. Joe Maddon told the press that Wil Myers had to work on his defense and be better prepared mentally for the game. The Mets manager said something about Wheeler needing to focus more and the NY media went crazy saying he threw the rookie under the bus. Washington made one of his pitchers give him the ball "the right way" when he was being removed.

 

Since Gardy took over, he's had to deal with a bunch of different types of players - young guys coming up, journeymen, crappy minor leaguers, vets on their way out, MVPs, Cy Young winners, players from all over the world. It's insane to suggest that he hasn't been able to relate to young players considering how many young players he's had that he developed. He gets young guys into games immediately. His players usually know their role.

 

Great post. This complaint always struck me as so much narrative over any actual facts.

 

I still think he should have been replaced two years ago, but not for this reason. And I actually think he is a fine manager and will probably get another job if he wants it. Just time for a change.

[The Wise One]

Oh, well as long as we cherry pick all the "yes" answers I guess that's great! I mean, if we included Florimon, Nolasco, Deduno, Morales, Mauer, Hicks, Arcia, Kubel, Bartlett, Burton, or Pelfrey that would just be unfair right?

 

It's really hard to take the "Gardy deserves the credit for all improvements" angle seriously when you don't acknowledge the flip side of that.

I forgot Arcia. I looked at the young players, not players that would probably be in the minors, not established veterans, and not too concerned with players that would not be here in 2 years. Sorry it wasn't clearer to you. The concern though was for the development of young players. Hughes was still mentioned to have upside. In considering other players currently on the roster

I thought the players with minimal big leauge time that were over 30 would not be in the plans for the Twins, thus their development not as much of a concern. Their purpose with the club is placeholder. That is also why I ignored Fuld's career year that he is having. It is inconsequential to the future.

Established or injured veterans it is about health and maintaining, not developing.

 

At the end of the year, I really don't know if the answer is going to be yes for a few of the players I mentioned and Arcia for if they have developed and improved. My list was not cherry picked.

[The Wise One]

Sorry, thought superior pitcher would be known to all as Santana. I am suprised some did not ask if I was refering to Boof.

[TheLeviathan]

My list was not cherry picked.

 

No, it appears from this last post that what you did was narrowly define your criteria to omit most the the players struggling so it could fit your argument. Which isn't any better.

[The Wise One]

No, it appears from this last post that what you did was narrowly define your criteria to omit most the the players struggling so it could fit your argument. Which isn't any better.

 

That is your opinion on my motive. So define struggle so as to say Arcia, Parmelee, Plouffe, Gibson have not fit that at times this season and very well might finish the season that way. The point you forgot was that going forward on a young team you want the staff to be able to work and improve them. Considering within the next two years the old players on the team may well only be Nolasco Perkins and Mauer , if I am trying to figure out if Gardenhire is still the manager for a young team I don't really care how he manages older players in decline. How does he bring up the younger ones. That will be the core of the team. That to me what is important.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't think you understood what I meant by what I posted or whatever reason. Your opinion on wht Ichose who I did is fabrication. I posted why I chose what I did. There was nothing nefarious behind it. Show a little respect.

 

This doesn't mesh:

 

The results that are measured are not the wins and losses, but the performance of the people he directs.

 

Now apparently the "people he directs" is a very limited subset you have created by ever narrowing criteria to fit your argument.

[The Wise One]

This doesn't mesh:

 

 

 

Now apparently the "people he directs" is a very limited subset you have created by ever narrowing criteria to fit your argument.

 

Whatever. Pick, Nitpick, Forget the concept and bicker

[TheLeviathan]

Whatever. Pick, Nitpick, Forget the concept and bicker

 

I didnt realize it was nitpicking to point out an argument changing as the ground beneath it erodes.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Moderator note: settle down everyone.

 

Thank you.

[The Wise One]

I didnt realize it was nitpicking to point out an argument changing as the ground beneath it erodes.

 

The argument has been the same one the whole thread. Judge Gardenhire on the forward progress of what is going to be part of your team of the near future. I am afraid to say anything more than that as that seems to set off a semantics debate and the point seemed lost. I think the why was covered earlier.

[TheLeviathan]

The argument has been the same one the whole thread. Judge Gardenhire on the forward progress of what is going to be part of your team of the near future. I am afraid to say anything more than that as that seems to set off a semantics debate and the point seemed lost. I think the why was covered earlier.

 

So Gardenhire isn't responsible at all for the veteran talent? If he had a team with no rookies, is it your contention we'd have no way of judging his managerial work that year? Or that if we continually traded away youth for veterans he could have a job for life or, maybe even more crazy, wouldn't be necessary at all? (Since, apparently, progressing young players is his sole function worth considering)

 

I'm trying to figure out how this narrowly tailored definition of a manager's role actually works in evaluation of performance.

[Badsmerf]

So wise one, I'm interested to hear your argument for gardenhire. In his body of work, what has he done to make you defend him so strongly? Not only that, but deny an obviously and well documented weakness? I don't get it. I don't hate gardy, but it's time to move on. The terrible seasons combined with botched games when the team was good are pretty tough to ignore.

 

The current regime of this organization are just succeeding. You want to keep losing and give them longer.. whatever. Some of us are ready for a change.

[The Wise One]

So Gardenhire isn't responsible at all for the veteran talent? If he had a team with no rookies, is it your contention we'd have no way of judging his managerial work that year? Or that if we continually traded away youth for veterans he could have a job for life or, maybe even more crazy, wouldn't be necessary at all? (Since, apparently, progressing young players is his sole function worth considering)

 

I'm trying to figure out how this narrowly tailored definition of a manager's role actually works in evaluation of performance.

 

I never said Gardenhire isn't responsible for veteran talent. I don't think that is a problem for Gardenhire. I did not propose that he be manager for life.

I never proposed to trade away youth for veterans.

I never said for him to be only judging him on how he deals with rookies.

I did say that if he needs to be evaluated on how young players are developed through this year. Is it the only function worth considering? I did not say that it should be. With a team that as early as sometime next year have up to 8 position players and 3 starting pitchers as well as a couple of relievers with careers that would have as yet nowhere near reached a ceiling it would be prudent to have confidence that your field staff is going to get the most out of them.

It is not the sole function of the manager worth considering. If he can't do that function, I really don't think the rest matter. I would love to hear your argument for retaining a system that doesn't develop players that you are advocating as you continue to make me think my point is meaningless.

[The Wise One]

So wise one, I'm interested to hear your argument for gardenhire. In his body of work, what has he done to make you defend him so strongly? Not only that, but deny an obviously and well documented weakness? I don't get it. I don't hate gardy, but it's time to move on. The terrible seasons combined with botched games when the team was good are pretty tough to ignore.

 

The current regime of this organization are just succeeding. You want to keep losing and give them longer.. whatever. Some of us are ready for a change.

 

If I told a statistics guy a pitcher had a 7-9 record and therefore was a mediocre pitcher, they would tell me something like a w/l record is not reflective of the pitchers talent. If I said that the same pitcher had a K% of 25.6 and a K-BB% of 19.7 with a FIP 2.98 so he must be having a decent year, the stats guy would probably like my thinking. To judge a manager on w/l record is like judging a pitcher on w/l record. Stating as reason for dismissal as it is time to move on is like judging a pitcher on w/l record. People post what they perceive . Because they said it, it must be so. I merely proposed that one needs to objectively look at this year at the end of the year and ask the question is Gardenhire making improvements to a young player's game. I meant it as the starting point. If the answer is no, there is no need for any other measure for what is coming for the team. That is construed as defending Gardenhire after I even posted the answer might be more players than not may have failed to develop.

I am not going to jump on a bandwagon and grab a cyber bucket of tar and feathers and slop it onto Gardenhire, There have been plenty of exchanges about what is perceived as Gardenhire weakness and rebuttals pointing out that wasn't true. I would prefer here and now data. Not what happened many years ago. Mistakes are made. Was there learning from them?

Change the manager if the manager is the problem. Don't change him if he is not. Fix that problem. If that makes me a defender (usually used as a term of evilness) so be it. What I am trying to defend is a process done rationally and objectively.

[TheLeviathan]

I never said

 

I never claimed you did. I took your argument and asked relevant hypotheticals.

 

If he can't do that function, I really don't think the rest matter. I would love to hear your argument for retaining a system that doesn't develop players that you are advocating as you continue to make me think my point is meaningless.

 

I agree, if he can't help young players flourish, he should be in trouble. But when you made that argument you conveniently left out Hicks, Arcia, Florimon, Pinto, and Deduno - at least two of which are some of our most critical players. So it certainly seemed like you were stacking the deck for your own argument.

 

I want to know what other functions there are. Your original claim was that there was "no basis" to fire him. I think on-field results (which should reflect player progression by the way) should matter a lot. We're moving into four years of wheel spinning ineptitude. Even if a large share isnt his fault, some certainly is.

 

I think the biggest difference you have from many others is you insist he has to be proven to be THE problem. When most of us feels he's PART of the problem.

[The Wise One]

I never claimed you did. I took your argument and asked relevant hypotheticals.

 

 

I agree, if he can't help young players flourish, he should be in trouble. But when you made that argument you conveniently left out Hicks, Arcia, Florimon, Pinto, and Deduno - at least two of which are some of our most critical players. So it certainly seemed like you were stacking the deck for your own argument.

 

I want to know what other functions there are. Your original claim was that there was "no basis" to fire him. I think on-field results (which should reflect player progression by the way) should matter a lot. We're moving into four years of wheel spinning ineptitude. Even if a large share isnt his fault, some certainly is.

 

I think the biggest difference you have from many others is you insist he has to be proven to be THE problem. When most of us feels he's PART of the problem.[/QUOTe

 

What you do is direct comment away from the issue at hand by bringing up a side argument like it is my position

 

Hicks and Pinto are in the minors. If it is the FO who determines who gets sent down then either the player was deemed to be not major league ready to the point the major league staff can develop them, or Gardenhire and staff could not develop them. Deduno again was left of because he is not a young player and I already pointed out the Twins have gotten more out of him than his previous teams. I already said sorry I forgot about about Arcia initially. I guess I might need that in every post with you. Sorry I forgot about Arcia.

 

 

You can feel like Gardenhire is part of the problem. Feelings are not facts. If that hurts your feelings, I am sorry. That I want something done based on objectives rather than group think feeling is something that is perfectly fine in my book.

 

The no bassis was part of the change for the sake of change argument to change managers bit. Again change what I say to fit your argument.

[jharaldson]

I just did a pull on Fangraphs and there are 6 players this year that are 25 and under and here are my immediate observations on how Gardy has affected their seasons:

 

Tonkin - Tonkin has had a poor season and has been demoted to the minors. I attribute much of this to sporadic work due to Gardy's desire to have overly large bullpens. I view Gardy as a negative on his development.

 

Santana - Santana has been a quality hitter so far this year but has played out of position (CF from SS) which reduces his value. This situation was caused by Gardy wanting Bartlett over Alex Pressley which created a gap in CF. I view Gardy as a negative on his development.

 

Pinto - Pinto has had defensive issues at catcher and was cooling down after a hot start as a hitter. Some of that cooling could be because Gardy refused to play him due to his 3rd catcher fear and sporadic play caused the decline. I view Gardy as a negative on his development.

 

Escobar - Escobar has really stepped up in place of Florimon but it doesn't negate that Gardy wanted Florimon instead of Escobar. Gardy did realize his mistake and switched though. I view Gardy as a positive on Escobar due to that realization.

 

Arcia - Arcia has blown up AAA two seasons in a row but struggled in the majors. I can't evaluate anything specific so I will say Gardy has been neutral on his development.

 

Hicks - Hicks failed again a second time in the majors and was required to stay in the majors due to the lack of CF options. This situation was caused by Gardy wanting Bartlett over Alex Pressley which created a gap in CF. I view Gardy as a negative on his development.

 

That is 4 negatives, 1 neutral, and 1 positive in regards to our under 25 players. That feels like a bad job to me.

[TheLeviathan]

What you do is direct comment away from the issue at hand by bringing up a side argument like it is my position

 

I specifically said "I'm trying to figure out your argument". I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.

 

Hicks and Pinto are in the minors.

 

Right now - both spent significant time in the major leagues. One unable to progress defensively and the other one of the worst trainwrecks to start a career in recent memory. Again this feels like a convenient way to wiggle out of the consequences of your own argument.

 

You can feel like Gardenhire is part of the problem. Feelings are not facts. If that hurts your feelings, I am sorry. That I want something done based on objectives rather than group think feeling is something that is perfectly fine in my book.

 

You can't quantify what you're arguing. How exactly are you gleaning facts to prove he's progressing players? How do you know it's not just the player making adjustments? How is it even possible to factualize such an abstract concept as "player progression"? You're not arguing anything objective here I'm sorry to say.

 

You want something objective? 239-342. Which, if he truly was getting players to play better over time, would be improving steadily the last four years....right? Or is the team somehow adding talent, Gardy is progressing it well, and we're still losing almost 100 games? I find that hard to fathom.

[TheLeviathan]

That is 4 negatives, 1 neutral, and 1 positive in regards to our under 25 players. That feels like a bad job to me.

 

I would take some issue with Escobar and maybe Santana as well and muddle those numbers. But you did just demonstrate how totally subjective the concept of grading player progression is, so I appreciate that.

[The Wise One]

I specifically said "I'm trying to figure out your argument". I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.

?

 

Right now - both spent significant time in the major leagues. One unable to progress defensively and the other one of the worst trainwrecks to start a career in recent memory. Again this feels like a convenient way to wiggle out of the consequences of your own argument.

 

 

 

You can't quantify what you're arguing. How exactly are you gleaning facts to prove he's progressing players? How do you know it's not just the player making adjustments? How is it even possible to factualize such an abstract concept as "player progression"? You're not arguing anything objective here I'm sorry to say.

 

You want something objective? 239-342. Which, if he truly was getting players to play better over time, would be improving steadily the last four years....right? Or is the team somehow adding talent, Gardy is progressing it well, and we're still losing almost 100 games? I find that hard to fathom.

 

I clearly stated my position that Gardenhire needed to be evaluated objectively on how the young players progressed. It was a simple statement., so I thought. It must be my fault that things are not clear.

 

Kevin Slowey was a hell of a pitcher because he went 13-6. Wins and losses in a team sport to tell how an individual does. Would the record be 239-342 with a starting staff of Mike Leake and Colby Lewis as your top two starters over that period as opposed to not even having one starting pitcher who has pitched with the team over that time frame? The record is reflective of the assembled team than the manager

 

You can"t tell over time if a player is performing better? It is not measurable? I would expect a team that analyzes their players will know if they are making progress. Throw out the f/x machines. Throw out the trackmans. Throw out the computers that can track individual pitches on each at bat. There is no way that all of the data generated from a game can tell you if a player is making progress. You can't see how you can objectively tell if a player is making progress

[TheLeviathan]

The record is reflective of the assembled team than the manager

 

So the FO is 100% responsible for this?

 

You can't see how you can objectively tell if a player is making progress

 

Let's try some hypotheticals:

 

Player A - goes from batting .325 to .285 but raises his OBP from .340 to .350. He regressed in BA but progressed in OBP - which matters more, did he progress?

 

Player B - Raises his OPS from .742 to .755 but goes from passable defense to horrific defense - did he progress?

 

I could come up with dozens of these and none of them can solely be tied to the work of the manager or the field staff. The might be facts insofar as "these happened" but they are not facts insofar as "these happened because of Ron Gardenhire". For example, if Hicks comes back and hits .300 all of September in the big leagues...does Gardy get credit for that?

 

The problem is that you believe interpreting facts is objective, when what you are describing is most definitely subjective. It's in the very nature of how you lay out your criteria and define "progressing". And most certainly it comes about in how you determine who is credited.

[jokin]

I just did a pull on Fangraphs and there are 6 players this year that are 25 and under and here are my immediate observations on how Gardy has affected their seasons:

 

Tonkin - Tonkin has had a poor season and has been demoted to the minors. I attribute much of this to sporadic work due to Gardy's desire to have overly large bullpens. I view Gardy as a negative on his development.

 

Santana - Santana has been a quality hitter so far this year but has played out of position (CF from SS) which reduces his value. This situation was caused by Gardy wanting Bartlett over Alex Pressley which created a gap in CF. I view Gardy as a negative on his development.

 

Pinto - Pinto has had defensive issues at catcher and was cooling down after a hot start as a hitter. Some of that cooling could be because Gardy refused to play him due to his 3rd catcher fear and sporadic play caused the decline. I view Gardy as a negative on his development.

 

Escobar - Escobar has really stepped up in place of Florimon but it doesn't negate that Gardy wanted Florimon instead of Escobar. Gardy did realize his mistake and switched though. I view Gardy as a positive on Escobar due to that realization.

 

Arcia - Arcia has blown up AAA two seasons in a row but struggled in the majors. I can't evaluate anything specific so I will say Gardy has been neutral on his development.

 

Hicks - Hicks failed again a second time in the majors and was required to stay in the majors due to the lack of CF options. This situation was caused by Gardy wanting Bartlett over Alex Pressley which created a gap in CF. I view Gardy as a negative on his development.

 

That is 4 negatives, 1 neutral, and 1 positive in regards to our under 25 players. That feels like a bad job to me.

 

Good analysis overall. I would add that you have been generous in regards to your grade on Escobar. When your SS is batting .092- reminiscent of the Hicks April 2013 nightmare- why did it take so long (May 7 was his last game before his demotion) for Gardy to recognize his huge mis-assessment and get Escobar in the lineup sooner? It seems it was obvious in ST to everyone in "the group", except Gardy, that Florimon had no chance of being ready to play in the majors to start the season.