From what I have heard Jake Mauer is considered to be the best of the Twins minor league managers. He seems to win no matter how good or bad the talent is. However because of his brother, he cannot be the next Twins manager. Time to go outside the organization.

That's not necesarily to his credit as a minor league manager. The job is to develop the 3 or 4 or maybe 5 legitimate prospects on the team. Period. If in doing that, the team wins more than it loses, that's simply gravy.

 

So I was pretty critical of Molitor last year.
I do have to say I've seen quite a bit of improvement from him this year.
That said, I still think he goes.
Not because he's not good enough, necessarily.
I just fundamentally think that Falvey and Levine ought to be able to pick their own guy.

 

For the record, I think he goes too. I just don't think it's going to make much of a difference.

 

That's not necesarily to his credit as a minor league manager. The job is to develop the 3 or 4 or maybe 5 legitimate prospects on the team. Period. If in doing that, the team wins more than it loses, that's simply gravy.

Learning how to win is part of that development though...

 

Learning how to win is part of that development though...

 

what does that even mean? isn't getting outs or hits how you win?

 

If a manager could be worth 8 to 16 wins per season, shouldn't we expect the top managers to make upwards of $50 million per season?
Let's say we split the difference and call it 12.
What would a 12 WAR/ Year player go for on the open market?

I tend to agree that mlb managers are a little under rated, but the fact that none of them make even close to that kind of money leads me to believe it's not by nearly as much as you suggest.

 

You are asking the right question -- why don't managers make more -- but for the purpose of this discussion you are making an apples-to-oranges comparison. Managers make what they make because of the market, not because they're worth less than the worst free agents. Who would you pick to manage the 1991 Twins: Terry Leach or Tom Kelly? Should the 2016 Cubs have just let David Ross manage the team?

 

Besides, salaries:WAR is a false correlation, in the general sense.  Paydays happen when hitting the arbitration and free agent milestones, and if anything it's based on WAA.

Edited August 1, 20179 yr by Doomtints

 

what does that even mean? isn't getting outs or hits how you win?

I guess the intent with that statement is learning to play sound situational baseball; getting those key outs or hits in big situations.  As the big league squad has shown time and time again, not getting the key hit or the key out costs them wins.  

 

Learning to do that against higher level competition is part of that development.

Edited August 1, 20179 yr by wsnydes

 

You are asking the right question -- why don't managers make more -- but for the purpose of this discussion you are making an apples-to-oranges comparison. Managers make what they make because of the market, not because they're worth less than the worst free agents.

 

Besides, salaries:WAR is a false correlation, in the general sense.  Paydays happen when hitting the arbitration and free agent milestones, and if anything it's based on WAA.

 

Agreed. The best of the best managers set the market for everyone else. And if someone like Joe Maddon and Terry Francona top out at $5 MM a season, why would anyone offer more to less accomplished managers? 

I'm surprised at this point a place like Fangraphs hasn't tried to at least quantify a manager's WAR... It must truly be impossible to measure, much like Torii Hunter's leadership WAR in 2015

I guess it's just something people have to believe in or not believe in. I think managers like Joe Maddon consistently get their teams to overachieve their projections/talent level. Managers like Paul Molitor may get his team to play at their talent level, but more likely than not underachieve. 

 

I guess the intent with that statement is learning to play sound situational baseball; getting those key outs or hits in big situations.  As the big league squad has shown time and time again, not getting the key hit or the key out costs them wins.  

 

Learning to do that against higher level competition is part of that development.

 

good answer! thanks, makes sense.

 

That's not necesarily to his credit as a minor league manager. The job is to develop the 3 or 4 or maybe 5 legitimate prospects on the team. Period. If in doing that, the team wins more than it loses, that's simply gravy.

I don't think that's true, though.

 

While the Twins hire staff, minor league teams are an independent business and they need to put fans in the seats. If he doesn't put an entertaining product on the field, the team unaffiliates. 

 

It's his job to develop players and to win. Just like a manager at any other level.

 

I guess the intent with that statement is learning to play sound situational baseball; getting those key outs or hits in big situations. As the big league squad has shown time and time again, not getting the key hit or the key out costs them wins.

 

Learning to do that against higher level competition is part of that development.

Yes, but it is important that the prospects do that. Not so much the org filler. Here's a for instance: Let's say the Lookouts are playing and facing 2 on, 1 out in the 6th. Fernando Romero is pitching and at about 80 pitches. Now, to win the game, it might make more sense to pull Romero and let one of the big arms get out of the jam. But it is CRUCIAL that Romero learn how to get those outs when he is running low on gas. If Romero gets out of it or doesn't, either way is a learning experience. Pulling him would be the WRONG move no matter what the outcome is.

 

I wouldn't say Molitor is flawless, but I also don't ding him (much) for using his best reliever in that situation, even with the bad splits.

We have a saying in the areas I come from "How did it work out"  Rodgers is not overwhelming enough for that matchup.  Find a better one.

The bar to keep a 61 year manager with an expiring contract should be very high.  Even if somehow this team rebounds and comes 2 or 3 games short of the playoffs he should be gone.  We can debate how good of a manager he's been but in the end he's a 61 year old who has accomplished nothing as a coach or manager.

 

Yes, but it is important that the prospects do that. Not so much the org filler. Here's a for instance: Let's say the Lookouts are playing and facing 2 on, 1 out in the 6th. Fernando Romero is pitching and at about 80 pitches. Now, to win the game, it might make more sense to pull Romero and let one of the big arms get out of the jam. But it is CRUCIAL that Romero learn how to get those outs when he is running low on gas. If Romero gets out of it or doesn't, either way is a learning experience. Pulling him would be the WRONG move no matter what the outcome is.

Frankly, I wouldn't expect a starter to be pulled in that situation.  I want all of my pitchers to know how to get out of that situation - especially in the minors.  Starters need to learn to get through those late middle innings where they might be tiring a bit.  

 

I get what you're saying, developing the prospects is more important and I don't disagree.  Org fillers can be useful in those situations too though.  They can help younger players get through those situations just like a veteran player can at the big league level.  I also think that learning how to win as a team is also important.

 

If your scenario plays out at the major league level and I have my ace on the mound, I'm expecting him to get himself out of that situation too.

Edited August 1, 20179 yr by wsnydes

We have a saying in the areas I come from "How did it work out" Rodgers is not overwhelming enough for that matchup. Find a better one.

Molitor isn't in charge or player acquisition unfortunately.

Edited August 1, 20179 yr by drjim

Molitor isn't in charge or player acquisition unfortunately.

I would say fortunately.

 

Yes, but it is important that the prospects do that. Not so much the org filler. Here's a for instance: Let's say the Lookouts are playing and facing 2 on, 1 out in the 6th. Fernando Romero is pitching and at about 80 pitches. Now, to win the game, it might make more sense to pull Romero and let one of the big arms get out of the jam.

 

What "big arms"?  Are we talking about the same Twins bullpen here?

What "big arms"? Are we talking about the same Twins bullpen here?

I was speaking of the AA bullpen. Of course, some of those guys are now hurt and some have moved up. But the philosophy remains the same.

I wouldn't say Molitor is flawless, but I also don't ding him (much) for using his best reliever in that situation, even with the bad splits.

Best reliever isn't very comparative though. Molitor has to know Rogers isn't Andrew Miller or even vintage Glen Perkins.

 

To be fair though, I'm more then thrilled Rogers and Hildenberger are getting high leverage spots. Though maybe he's forced to due to his options.

 

Molitor isn't in charge or player acquisition unfortunately.

He was in charge of that matchup.  Any righty would have been a better matchup than Rogers.   How Molitor uses his pitchers goes right to the heart of managing.  And when you only seem to have 2 you can trust and use them too much that is not good.  Why not try and see if Hildenburger or one of the other new pitchers can do the job.  

It appears that they sacrifice bunted in the first inning today.....I wouldn't even let the manager fly home on the company dime after that. Let's hope it was an attempt for a hit, and not that. Seriously.

 

It appears that they sacrifice bunted in the first inning today.....I wouldn't even let the manager fly home on the company dime after that. Let's hope it was an attempt for a hit, and not that. Seriously.

yeah, that's truly ridiculous.

 

Best reliever isn't very competitive though. Molitor has to know Rogers isn't Andrew Miller or even vintage Glen Perkins.

To be fair though, I'm more then thrilled Rogers and Hildenberger are getting high leverage spots. Though maybe he's forced to due to his options.

 

It's interesting to me how few pitchers the Twins have who have been used in any high leverage situations at all. Molitor, for whatever reason, leans heavily on a couple of pitchers and never tests the others. There are guys with good ERAs who are never used when it matters. I truly do not understand him.

 

stick a fork in him. within 24 hours. i guarantee it. believe me.

 

Is this a Dave Guarantee℠?

Two of the three years Moli has been at the helm his team has over performed. He leans heavily on a few pitchers because it's all he has to lean on. I'm a bigger fan of bunts than most so I'm not bothered by that. Lineup construction is weird at times. That's tough when Dozier insists on hitting lead off.

Two of the three years Moli has been at the helm his team has over performed. He leans heavily on a few pitchers because it's all he has to lean on. I'm a bigger fan of bunts than most so I'm not bothered by that. Lineup construction is weird at times. That's tough when Dozier insists on hitting lead off.

I don't agree that's tough at all.

The manager fills out the lineup card, players play.

Dozier can have all the insistence he wants, Molitor doesn't have to listen to it.

I missed it.

 

Honest question - is there a link to where Dozier is directly quoted insisting on leading off?

I am not a huge Molitor fan. I don't love his tactics, though it seems he's bunting less this year, so that's good. I don't see a huge amount of improvement in baserunning, which you'd think he would excel at teaching. I don't see maturity in Rosario's play. Those are just examples, and I don't feel like writing paragrpahs on what he does well, doesn't do well. I think it is hard to argue he's a good tactician. You may disagree, I'm not really here to convince you today.

 

But, most of what a manager does takes place off the field. And we can't really see this at all. I can't judge the clubhouse at all. And no, wins and losses don't necessarily mean much about that. It's clear, imo, that the FO and Molitor felt more leadership was needed in the clubhouse. It's not clear to me if that says good or bad things about Molitor as a leader, actually.

 

That's a lot of me typing.....based on what we can see, I'd let him go, but we can't see the most important stuff, so I am just going to trust the FO on this one.

 

If they replace him, I want someone that loves teaching and working with young players.

Excellent post Mike and I agree that I'll trust the FO on this one.

I don't agree that's tough at all.

The manager fills out the lineup card, players play.

Dozier can have all the insistence he wants, Molitor doesn't have to listen to it.

It's true he's seemingly a players manager. I would like to see Doze in the 5 hole. The lineup just doesn't have enough depth either way though.

Dozier bats 1st because he feasts on under-prepared pitchers and their "get-me-over" pitches until they "get their feel".  Examine Dozier's 1st ABs--he's a killer.  Take away that chance to feast on "cookies"--and he will post abysmal numbers.  Hence, he bats 1st.

Great discussion by all...

 

Bottom line....opportunities to lead a MLB FO don't come around often. They will want to succeed or fail with whom they perceive to be the best at each level underneath them.

 

It is unlikely that they see Molitor as the BEST manager available.

 

Ergo...he was always going to be gone at the end of the year

 

(This year was for talent assessment, so the FO probably didn't push back much when they were told to keep him for the last year of his contract)