Article: Who Should Be Gone From the Coaching Staff?

[TheLeviathan]

Answer how do you find even middle of the road pitchers?  How do you predict injuries? How do you predict development curves for your minor league players? How does changing a manager win more games with the same group of players?

 

Whose arguing that the sole reason to change managers is to win more games?  

 

This is the same tired scarecrow this topic gets into every time.  Do I hope it could result in more wins?  Sure.  But the reason to move on is more symbolic - so can we be done with this and drop that line of questioning?

[Oldgoat_MN]

Part of the problem is that Ryan signs a guy like Nolasco for more $ per year than Kazmir signed for, and to a longer contract.

Better pitchers would help. Signing someone who is likely to be an excellent, above average pitcher would help. (rather than hoping for lightening to strike)

 

That said, Anderson has too much history of pitchers coming here and doing worse or leaving the Twins and doing better. jokin had an excellent post on that about a year ago.

 

Bottom line for me: I appreciate loyalty, but Gardy's loyalty to Anderson exceeds his loyalty to the Pohlads or to the Twins fan base. Anderson has to go. If Gardy leaves because of it, so be it.

 

* if Gardy leaves because of it a lot of teams would think twice about hiring him as their manager

Edited September 9, 2014 by Oldgoat_MN

[Thrylos]

The players regularly profess their fondness for Gardy. But why? Is he a great clubhouse guy? Big on back pats? Asks them how their mom is doing? Or is it because he is too easy on them?

 

I suspect that even one might not really care about their boss, if asked in public and on the record they will say how wonderful he/she is.

 

Simple.

[Thrylos]

I want a new manager because this organization has come to expect losing. Nobody...not the players, not the fans, not the GM, not the coaches, and not the manager, expects to win. It becomes a habit, or a culture. Losing.

 

Agree 100%.  But the whole organization begins with St. Peter who was defending the Twins' performance mentioning the (weak) division wins of the 00s (but not the one and outs) as positives.

 

Everyone has to go.

[Thrylos]

List of managers who have lost 90 or more games four consecutive years with the same team:

 

Tom Kelly, Minnesota Twins, 1997-2000

 

Zack Taylor, St. Louis Browns, 1948-1951

 

Connie Mack, Philadelphia A's, 1940-1943

 

Good insight.   A couple of food for thought rhetorical questions:

 

a. How many of those teams still exist?

b. What was the prescribed fate of the one that does then, if the owner had his way?

 

I hope that this puts the current 96+ 3+ season Loss steak in perspective

Edited September 9, 2014 by Thrylos

[Platoon]

I want a new manager because this organization has come to expect losing. Nobody...not the players, not the fans, not the GM, not the coaches, and not the manager, expects to win. It becomes a habit, or a culture. Losing.

I want a new voice, from outside, who expects to win,and goes about trying to make that happen because he knows his job depends on it. A manager looking to make a name for himself, rather than one trying to hold on for dear life because of the past.

A manager who will embrace new ideas, maybe even come up with a few of his own, rather than resist change at every opportunity.

The Twins should have changed managers already, certainly by last winter. It's inevitable. Putting it off farther into the future only reinforces in everyone's mind the perception this organization is a losing one.

Ron Gardenhire had his time, and he was once the right choice. But that time is over. He'll be fine. Move on.

I might have said this once before, at my age I have said everything once before! The Twins remind me of the Lions when Bud Grant had the Vikes. The Lions knew they were going to lose. And they did. In every way imaginable. It was never a matter of IF, only of How!

[Thrylos]

 How does changing a manager win more games with the same group of players?

 

Lots and lots of examples about that, especially if the new manager lights a fire under the players, establishes a culture of winning, treats everyone the same and does not accept lack of effort.

 

Look at what difference Sam Mele made in the same team over Cookie Lagavetto, for example.  Or Billy Martin over Cal Elmer, or Tom Kelly over Ray Miller.   You don't have to go very far...

Edited September 10, 2014 by Thrylos

[Kwak]

Good insight.   A couple of food for thought rhetorical questions:

 

a. How many of those teams still exist?

b. What was the prescribed fate of the one that does then, if the owner had his way?

 

I hope that this puts the current 96+ 3+ season Loss steak in perspective

Answers:  a) All of them still exist.  The first two are under different ownership and the St. Louis Browns moved to Baltimore and changed their name to the Baltimore Orioles.

                 that owner (deceased) would have accepted contraction (alledgedly) for $125MM.  Or, no longer inexistence.

[LaBombo]

I'm less interested in the "team sucks, fire Gardy" rants and more interested in WHY he should be removed and WHY someone else would be better.

That's a two way street, and the burden of 'proof', such as it is, officially passed from the 'fire Gardy' sentiment to the 'don't fire Gardy' sentiment when Gardenhire was retained for 2014 after 3 consecutive 90+ - loss seasons. 

 

That just doesn't happen.  As Gleeman noted again recently, non-expansion managers since WWII don't get to come back for another season after that.  Pretty much ever.  Yes, TK did, but he had more WS rings than Gardenhire does playoff series wins.

 

And what's been the result of every manager in that span returning after three 90-loss seasons? 

 

Another 90+ loss season. 

 

Even so, if you want my reasons why he should go, they're probably pretty unsurprising and perhaps even unconvincing, but here goes:

 

Irrational contempt for sabremetrics, lineup-  and roster-debilitating pathological fear of losing the DH, obsessive/compulsive hoarding of light-hitting middle infielders, and my unprovable suspicion that while not a leading cause, Rick Anderson's mandatory presence beside Gardenhire really is part of the reason the pitching has been inconsistent and then consistently awful for years.

 

He's probably a good manager even with those faults, and a likeable fellow in any case.  But he's had thirteen seasons and some talented rosters yet gone nowhere in the postseason except the year he inherited the team from Kelly.

 

Still, if there are compelling reasons the Twins, not known as a terribly cutting-edge franchise, should ignore 70 years of virtually unanimous conventional baseball wisdom by bringing him back yet again, I'm all ears.  Or in this case, eyes.

Edited September 10, 2014 by LaBombo

[jokin]

 

 

old nurse, How does changing a manager win more games with the same group of players?

 

Lots and lots of examples about that, especially if the new manager lights a fire under the players, establishes a culture of winning, treats everyone the same and does not accept lack of effort.

 

Look at what difference Sam Mele made in the same team over Cookie Lagavetto, for example.  Or Billy Martin over Cal Elmer, or Tom Kelly over Ray Miller.   You don't have to go very far...

 

And it isn't just fire-lighting or culture-building (as important as they are), FWIW, Gardy actually has the team playing more competitively this year based on a year-over-year run-differential basis;

 

But....  in addition to the value of an attention-getting, "New Voice", a new manager can bring new in-game-strategies and philosophies, which would ideally include someone who intrepidly embraces a more sabremetric approach, to address the obvious areas of deficiency, such as the pitching woes, and he also can introduce new preparation and training regimens, as what is being done now in these areas has, based on the continued W-L woes, by and large failed on almost all fronts.

[jokin]

That's a two way street, and the burden of 'proof', such as it is, officially passed from the 'fire Gardy' sentiment to the 'don't fire Gardy' sentiment when Gardenhire was retained for 2014 after 3 consecutive 90+ - loss seasons. 

 

That just doesn't happen.  As Gleeman noted again recently, non-expansion managers since WWII don't get to come back for another season after that.  Pretty much ever.  Yes, TK did, but he had more WS rings than Gardenhire does playoff series wins.

 

And what's been the result of every manager in that span returning after three 90-loss seasons? 

 

Another 90+ loss season. 

 

Even so, if you want my reasons why he should go, they're probably pretty unsurprising and perhaps even unconvincing, but here goes:

 

Irrational contempt for sabremetrics, lineup-  and roster-debilitating pathological fear of losing the DH, obsessive/compulsive hoarding of light-hitting middle infielders, and my unprovable suspicion that while not a leading cause, Rick Anderson's mandatory presence beside Gardenhire really is part of the reason the pitching has been inconsistent and then consistently awful for years.

 

He's probably a good manager even with those faults, and a likeable fellow in any case.  But he's had thirteen seasons and some talented rosters yet gone nowhere in the postseason except the year he inherited the team from Kelly.

 

Still, if there are compelling reasons the Twins, not known as a terribly cutting-edge franchise, should ignore 70 years of virtually unanimous conventional baseball wisdom by bringing him back, I'm all ears.  Or in this case, eyes.

 

Add the irrational and ill-advised bullpen management over the years- often leading to needing 13- and 14- man staffs, and I think you've pretty much made the case.  What else is Nick "looking" for (listening for?) here?

[LaBombo]

Add the irrational and ill-advised bullpen management over the years- often leading to needing 13- and 14- man staffs, and I think you've pretty much made the case.  What else is Nick "looking" for (listening for?) here?

Yeah, left that one off just because of how much better the bullpen has looked than the rotation on a macro level, but the bullpen thing makes me crazy too, especially the purely tactical component of it.

 

Seems like there have been many weeks-long stretches (maybe a little more in 2012 and 2013 than this year. yay!) where the Twins wouldn't play a three-game series without me reacting to a Gardy bullpen decision/non-decision with something ranging from "huh?" to "oh, you gotta be bleeping me" and of course the occasional "WTF, dude!"

 

And that those were just the games I was able to watch.  Who knows how many of those episodes it was my good fortune to miss?

Edited September 10, 2014 by LaBombo

[drjim]

Add the irrational and ill-advised bullpen management over the years- often leading to needing 13- and 14- man staffs, and I think you've pretty much made the case.  What else is Nick "looking" for (listening for?) here?

 

I would think horrendous starting pitching had as much to do with the need for big bullpens.

 

You really need to watch other teams for long stretches for some context.

[jokin]

I would think horrendous starting pitching had as much to do with the need for big bullpens.

 

You really need to watch other teams for long stretches for some context.

 

In another post I acknowledged that the SP has a significant component in the total equation.  But factoring in the haphazard wasting of multiple RP arms either warming up or "wasting" an appearance facing one or two batters, plus the lack of defense from playing a position player short- exemplified in the +1 run differential between ERA and FIP for the SPs, these complementary areas of roster management hasn't proven to be very strategically effective.

Edited September 10, 2014 by jokin

[Platoon]

Gardy manages by rote. When his starting pitching was better, and he got all of six out his starter, it was pretty much a set series of pitchers for the next three innings, if we were ahead. He would prefer to do that with his lineup also, meaning discussion on Pinto as a DH\sub catcher role and Santanna as a SU player seems to me a waste of digital data!

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

This is a good, reasoned take. I'm less interested in the "team sucks, fire Gardy" rants and more interested in WHY he should be removed and WHY someone else would be better.

That's a two way street, and the burden of 'proof', such as it is, officially passed from the 'fire Gardy' sentiment to the 'don't fire Gardy' sentiment when Gardenhire was retained for 2014 after 3 consecutive 90+ - loss seasons. 

 

Well said LaBombo. I can chalk up Nick's reply to tobi as hasty typing in service of hasty thoughts.

 

There are many reasons to retain Gardenhire and Anderson, but very few good ones anymore. On these boards we've read maybe a dozen different, fundamental, compelling reasons to part ways with them. (Compelling to me anyway.) If the status quo is maintained yet another year, let's hear something in that pathetic press conference other than "terrible players" and "Terry Ryan takes all responsibility" for everything!

[stringer bell]

I pretty much disagree with the posts immediately above me.  First of all, Gardenhire has done an excellent job protecting the health of his bullpen.  In the past two years at least, there has been minimal lost time in the bullpen.  Some of that might be good luck, but Gardenhire tries hard not to pitch guys on three consecutive games and if they go long in one game, they likely get a couple days off. 

 

As far as strategy, every manager tries to get LH pitchers in against LH hitters and finds spots for right handers to face primarily right handers, so sure they'll have short outings.   Francona used something like eight relievers in a game where he led throughout to maximize matchups.  If a guy goes 10-15 pitches, he's probably available to face a couple batters the next day.   

 

The pitchers have roles and it helps them to better prepare.  They know when they are likely to be used and who they'll face.  It is easy to second-guess if the "8th inning guy" gives up the lead with the closer not warmed up.  But if for example Casey Fien throws a good eighth, should he be a candidate to go out for the ninth?  There are a lot of one inning relievers in baseball.  There is less flexibility and that combination makes for seven and eight-man bullpens.

 

Sometimes we see situations where we say "huh", but more often than not there is a reason why the peculiar move or non-move was made. 

[LaBombo]

 

 

Well said LaBombo. I can chalk up Nick's reply to tobi as hasty typing in service of hasty thoughts.

 

There are many reasons to retain Gardenhire and Anderson, but very few good ones anymore. On these boards we've read maybe a dozen different, fundamental, compelling reasons to part ways with them. (Compelling to me anyway.) If the status quo is maintained yet another year, let's hear something in that pathetic press conference other than "terrible players" and "Terry Ryan takes all responsibility" for everything!

 

 

Fair enough,and thanks for the backing.  Maybe we can either sit together behind home plate to show support for a team with a new, winning philosophy, or at least compare lost follicle totals regarding the continued mismanagement of what's going on now.

[Paul Pleiss]

Who stays and who goes. I weighed in on this earlier, but I'd like to get back into the discussion.

 

First of all, I don't think Rick Anderson has any reason to expect the Twins to renew his contract after the season is out. Ron Gardenhire may say that if Rick goes, he goes, and that will be a tough pill to swallow, but then they both need to go. I don't know Rick Anderson as a man, he's probably an upright citizen in high standing within his community. I don't know Rick Anderson as a pitching coach either, he appears to have a strong ability to teach guys how to throw more strikes, thereby decreasing their walk rate. A loss of K rate seems to be related to this same pound the strike zone approach. Maybe it's more oganizational than just Rick Anderson, maybe pitch to contact is a real thing the Twins as an organziatin are pushing, not just Rick Anderson.

 

I don't know those things, but I know about accountability. Our good friends at Merriam-Webster define accountability as : the quality or state of being accountable; especially :  an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions <public officials lacking accountability>. Somone has to be accountable for the awful state of Twins pitching for the past 3+ season. If the Twins want to hold that blame at the organizational level, maybe Dave St. Peter needs to go (I don't think he does), or maybe Terry Ryan (I don't think it's on him either) or maybe Ron Gardenhire needs to step up and accept some blame, to tell the public that he's failed as a manager to turn this club around, and if Gardy can't step up and say that, then someone has to go, and that someone is Rick Anderson, who I have less and less belief is good as his job.

 

So I think the Twins start with not bringing Rick Anderson back, and accept any fallout (Gardy) from that move. If Gardy goes, I think a new manager, hopefully from OUTSIDE the organization is brought it. That seems unlikely, but I beleive would be the best course of action, as it would likely entail some sort of scorched earth policy for coaches currenly at the MLB level. I think Burno and Cuellar (SP?) and Molitor are doing good things, but I'm not sure any of them aren't replaceable with a new face and a new approach. Sometiems bringing in a new approach allows you to see things differently, to get a new perspective, and find problems and issues that used to not seem like issues at all. I think the Twins need that at the MLB level, I hope they get it.

 

If they stay with an internal option, and promote from within, again, all I think is that Rick Anderson needs to go, The rest of the coaching staff seems productive. Rick Anderson seems predictably unsuccessful.

 

The Twins don't even need to FIRE Rick, his contract expires after the season, everyone saves face. Heck, you could even have him remain in the organization as a spring training instructor, or a guy who works in the instructs helping guys learn to throw strikes, but he clearly has had problems finding flaws in pitchers and helping them back to success.

[old nurse]

Whose arguing that the sole reason to change managers is to win more games?  

 

This is the same tired scarecrow this topic gets into every time.  Do I hope it could result in more wins?  Sure.  But the reason to move on is more symbolic - so can we be done with this and drop that line of questioning?

Symbolic gestures are meaningless and empty. Fire somebody for what? Symbolism? Hard to argue that one.

[old nurse]

Lots and lots of examples about that, especially if the new manager lights a fire under the players, establishes a culture of winning, treats everyone the same and does not accept lack of effort.

 

Look at what difference Sam Mele made in the same team over Cookie Lagavetto, for example.  Or Billy Martin over Cal Elmer, or Tom Kelly over Ray Miller.   You don't have to go very far...

Your examples of managers replaced were managers who proved they could not win. Gardenhire has won when he has had the players, lost when he hasn't

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

Assuming Rick Anderson is not retained for next season, who should take his place?

 

Bobby Cuellar seems like he'd be next in line to take the gig - does it seem like he would be a significant improvement?

 

What about getting a guy from the minor league system? I don't know much about him beyond reading interviews on TD, but Ivan Arteaga from the Cedar Rapids team seems like a really smart coach.

 

second assuming -  - if Gardy/Anderson et al are done after this season, will the coaching staffs in the minors start getting moved up the ladder, or is the general consensus of people in the know that the org. likes the coaches right where they are?

 

EDIT TO ADD:

My guess is that if Anderson is let go, Gardy will resign. If those two are gone, I'm guessing Ullger and Vavra will be gone as well, but the Twins may retain Molitor and Steinbach (especially if they make Molitor the new manager, I think Steinbach will be back too). I don't know if Cuellar will stick around at that point, but I get the sense that he is well liked by org.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Kirby_waved_at_me

[Linus]

Symbolic gestures are meaningless and empty. Fire somebody for what? Symbolism? Hard to argue that one.

This.  The act of firing someone is not akin to cleaning out your garage and should not be taken lightly.  If he is truly deficient at his job, he should go but none of us has the information required to make that assesment.  I get the whole "bottom line" argument but its not that simple.  He's had horrible pitchers to work with over the last 4 years.  For all we know, he might actually be really good at his job but there is only so much that coaches and managers can do.  I wonder if the pitching coach in NY is getting ripped because he couldn't get the best out of Phil Hughes like the pitching coach in Minnesota?

[Mike Sixel]

So what does he do? If he can only win with great talent, is he actually good at his job, or is he just along for the ride? Good leaders lead, even lesser talent. Good coaches make their students better. I have no idea if he's good or not, but most organizations need new leadership after 7-10 years to remain successful and grow. 

 

And, the BS about Smith remains unreal to me......people know it takes 4-6 years for players to graduate from the minors. If there were no good young players in the Smith years, that's because the minors were barren when he took over.....if the minors are now graduating players, those guys were likely acquired by Smith or the beginning of TR's return. 

 

The team is going to lose 90+ games for a 4th year in a row. If I ran a company, and the leadership spent lots of money and resources to improve a part of the business, and utterly failed, again, at improving that part of the business, someone would be fired after this much time. Luckily for the Twins, they have tv revenue even if they are terrible.......

[jokin]

I pretty much disagree with the posts immediately above me.  First of all, Gardenhire has done an excellent job protecting the health of his bullpen.  In the past two years at least, there has been minimal lost time in the bullpen.  Some of that might be good luck, but Gardenhire tries hard not to pitch guys on three consecutive games and if they go long in one game, they likely get a couple days off. 

 

As far as strategy, every manager tries to get LH pitchers in against LH hitters and finds spots for right handers to face primarily right handers, so sure they'll have short outings.   Francona used something like eight relievers in a game where he led throughout to maximize matchups.  If a guy goes 10-15 pitches, he's probably available to face a couple batters the next day.   

 

The pitchers have roles and it helps them to better prepare.  They know when they are likely to be used and who they'll face.  It is easy to second-guess if the "8th inning guy" gives up the lead with the closer not warmed up.  But if for example Casey Fien throws a good eighth, should he be a candidate to go out for the ninth?  There are a lot of one inning relievers in baseball.  There is less flexibility and that combination makes for seven and eight-man bullpens.

 

Sometimes we see situations where we say "huh", but more often than not there is a reason why the peculiar move or non-move was made. 

 

Sure, there may be "reasons" why particular moves are made, but more often than not, we still say "huh" when the strategy fails, but even moreso, when after multiple games of using up his RPs haphazardly, Gardy then complained that the bullpen has been overused, and he seemingly lacked the self-awareness to understand that the overuse was largely of his own making.

[jokin]

This.  The act of firing someone is not akin to cleaning out your garage and should not be taken lightly.  If he is truly deficient at his job, he should go but none of us has the information required to make that assesment.  I get the whole "bottom line" argument but its not that simple.  He's had horrible pitchers to work with over the last 4 years.  For all we know, he might actually be really good at his job but there is only so much that coaches and managers can do.  I wonder if the pitching coach in NY is getting ripped because he couldn't get the best out of Phil Hughes like the pitching coach in Minnesota?

 

I would disagree with this assertion. There are a bevy of researched TD threads and articles, along with the wider universe of analytical and direct-source-quoted media pieces, that shine a spotlight on the inner workings and thought-processes of the manager and coaching staff, plus sources for statistical results that, when put together, all provide large amounts of information to base an informed opinion on whether or not to retain a manager or a coach. That, and 100+ years of baseball history and methodology on retention practices say it's likely time to move in a different direction.

[Linus]

I would disagree with this assertion. There are a bevy of researched TD threads and articles, along with the wider universe of analytical and direct-source-quoted media pieces, that shine a spotlight on the inner workings and thought-processes of the manager and coaching staff, plus sources for statistical results that, when put together, all provide large amounts of information to base an informed opinion on whether or not to retain a manager or a coach. That, and 100+ years of baseball history and methodology on retention practices say it's likely time to move in a different direction.

I would disagree with this assertion.  The information required to make this type of decision is not available to TD posters - sorry.  His actual working knowledge of pitching mechanics, his ability to relate to players, ability to communicate his thoughts effectively would all be the most important factors in a decision like this.  We don't know this stuff and never will.  Twins Daily is great - I visit every day but let's be honest.  All of the this stuff (including mine) is speculation, pure and simple.

[tobi0040]

Agree 100%.  But the whole organization begins with St. Peter who was defending the Twins' performance mentioning the (weak) division wins of the 00s (but not the one and outs) as positives.

 

Everyone has to go.

 

I think chief spin man St. Peter is actually less likely to go than Terry Ryan.  They credit him with the stadium more than anyone else.  Talk about the goose that laid the golden egg.  If someone made me $300M dollars, I would have a hard time firing them.

 

I think his unofficial job title is to put lipstick on a pig and he actually does a decent job at it (given how hard that objective has become). 

[jokin]

I would disagree with this assertion.  The information required to make this type of decision is not available to TD posters - sorry.  His actual working knowledge of pitching mechanics, his ability to relate to players, ability to communicate his thoughts effectively would all be the most important factors in a decision like this.  We don't know this stuff and never will.  Twins Daily is great - I visit every day but let's be honest.  All of the this stuff (including mine) is speculation, pure and simple.

 

Well then, I disagree with your disagreement.  It's helpful to try to form opinions based on as little speculation and as many facts as is possible.  Through his long tenure with the Twins, I would assert that Gardy has given us many insights into all of the factors you cite, and the results speak for themselves, leaving much less to speculate about.  I think it's pretty fair to proclaim that Gardy is a (veteran) "player's manager" with a number of managerial blind spots, which can work really well for a period of time with a group of established vets all on the same page with him, but also can lead to a manager becoming more of an enabler to the players, and appearing behind the curve, when things are not going really well.

[TheLeviathan]

Symbolic gestures are meaningless and empty. Fire somebody for what? Symbolism? Hard to argue that one.

 

Then no manager should be fired ever because they are completely dependent on everyone else on the team to do their job.  Nothing they do is an independent, measurable action that results in wins or losses.  

 

Essentially, your position amounts to the title manager being a meaningless symbol of organization that is unassailably worthless.