Grading Rocco Baldelli’s First Losing Season

[Mark G]

20 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Exactly, he has been making the same in game decision mistakes since he got here

He got bailed out by a team that set the homer record in 2019 and a division that had two teams lose 100 games., how hard is it to win a division when you have 5 guys hit over 30 homers, 7 hit over 20, 11 hit over 10. Odo started the way he did,

He again got bailed out in 20202, by a short season and another starting pitcher off to an amazing start.

2021 he didn't have an lineup going crazy or a amazing pitcher, basically everything that could go wrong from the players did, and he still made the same crappy in game decisions.

Not blaming this on Rocco, but it is really hard watching baseball when a left handed batter walks up to the plate and the whole left side of the infield is open and that player doesn't even attempt to go the opposite way,

Good analysis.  But I will have no problem blaming Rocco for allowing hitters (more than one, but kepler comes to mind) to stubbornly hit right into the shift all season.  That is either an instruction or permission, and I really don't care which; someone has to step up and force the issue or it never gets better and Rocco won't.  

You know, it is fun to read the NY Post and how they critique the Yankees.  They talk about the same shortcomings, and how the general manager and manager may or may not be back and should they or shouldn't they be.  They talk about needing to upgrade SS, the bullpen, etc.  And they won 92 games!!  What do we hear about?  Changing hitting coaches and relegating others to "player development" roles.  One can only guess how many of those there are buried in this organization.  I do not anticipate Mr. P making any major shakeups; he allows himself one a century, and this was it, so I will not hold my breath.  I also am not betting the farm on him laying out enough payroll to meet the immediate needs, hoping his farm can provide the pieces that are missing.  I may be wrong, I have been before.  As a matter of fact, I can still remember the time I was.  But unless I am, we may be waiting a while for better days.  

[Trov]

I would give him around a C+.  I think early in the year he fell into the these are our guys thing putting Colome out there again and again for too many blown saves, but Rodgers blew some early too.  Really early on no bullpen guy had it going.  I less had an issue early on when some guys were failing because you do not expect them to be so bad because they had track records.

Where I had more of an issue is later in the year when the season was a loss and he did not give some guys a chance to see what they could be long term.  Maybe that was mandate from FO or Rocci showing he will continue to try and win and use the best team possible but I would have liked to see Gordon get a little more time at SS just to see if the team is right that he cannot play there.  

Some times I feel teams create a self fulfilling prophecy.  They believe a player cannot do something, so they never give them a chance to do it over time and the few chances they get if the player does not excel right away the team just says, "see they will fail."  In a lost season, I like to give guys a shot to see if they can do something, because there is little to lose if they fail, other then they may learn to do it better later on.  

[chpettit19]

11 hours ago, D.C Twins said:

Umm... We were considered to be equally talented at the beginning of the year...so...yeah...

Tony L and the White Sox had a fantastic season and made more than the expected progression with their youngish team.

Us on the other hand wildly under performed, especially when the games actually mattered.

During that stretch Rocco made obvious mistakes and mismanaged his bullpen, all while not deviating from his robotic demeanor.

Again, Tony L has won with multiple MLB teams over decades. Rocco will never be a MLB manager again. You are right... Tony L is not a great example...he is an AMAZINGLY FANTASTIC example

 

If them winning the division this year is proof Tony L is still a great manager then the Twins winning the division the last 2 years is proof Rocco was a great manager. How do you feel about that? Oh, you think those teams won in spite of the horrible manager, but my point that the White Sox underperformed their talent levels this year is a bad one? Glad the rules apply to both Tony L and Rocco. If winning 93 games in a division with 4 teams under .500 is a fantastic season I have no idea what the Twins winning 100 games in 2019 was. What's better than fantastic? Stupendous? So Rocco lead the Twins to a stupendous season 2 years ago and won at the same rate last year. So back to back stupendous seasons for the Twins, but Rocco is trash. I got it.

Rocco has a .547 winning percentage as a ML manager (La Russa, with a way bigger sample size, has a career .537 winning percentage for reference). The Socks won 57.4% of their games this year. You're arguing that the difference between 93 wins and 88 wins is 1 manager is AMAZINGLY FANTASTIC and the other will never be a MLB manager again. That's your argument right now.

Players currently being managed by Tony La Russa have openly complained about him and how he manages the clubhouse. I am yet to see even 1 player complain about Rocco and how he manages the clubhouse (entirely possible I missed it, but quite positive I didn't miss any public fights between him and players like La Russa). That's why I continue to say it's complete nonsense for people outside the clubhouse to say he's not good at managing the people in the room. It's simply people not liking the way his personality comes across on TV. There are no clubhouse struggles and everyone who leaves praises Rocco and the Twins and how they do things, yet so many people want to stick with "Rocco has no idea how to lead athletes!" Mind blowing to me.

[Mark G]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

If them winning the division this year is proof Tony L is still a great manager then the Twins winning the division the last 2 years is proof Rocco was a great manager. How do you feel about that? Oh, you think those teams won in spite of the horrible manager, but my point that the White Sox underperformed their talent levels this year is a bad one? Glad the rules apply to both Tony L and Rocco. If winning 93 games in a division with 4 teams under .500 is a fantastic season I have no idea what the Twins winning 100 games in 2019 was. What's better than fantastic? Stupendous? So Rocco lead the Twins to a stupendous season 2 years ago and won at the same rate last year. So back to back stupendous seasons for the Twins, but Rocco is trash. I got it.

Rocco has a .547 winning percentage as a ML manager (La Russa, with a way bigger sample size, has a career .537 winning percentage for reference). The Socks won 57.4% of their games this year. You're arguing that the difference between 93 wins and 88 wins is 1 manager is AMAZINGLY FANTASTIC and the other will never be a MLB manager again. That's your argument right now.

Players currently being managed by Tony La Russa have openly complained about him and how he manages the clubhouse. I am yet to see even 1 player complain about Rocco and how he manages the clubhouse (entirely possible I missed it, but quite positive I didn't miss any public fights between him and players like La Russa). That's why I continue to say it's complete nonsense for people outside the clubhouse to say he's not good at managing the people in the room. It's simply people not liking the way his personality comes across on TV. There are no clubhouse struggles and everyone who leaves praises Rocco and the Twins and how they do things, yet so many people want to stick with "Rocco has no idea how to lead athletes!" Mind blowing to me.

I don't mean to argue with you, my friend, but I am not sure whether this is strictly a I hate LaRussa post, or an I love Rocco post; or is it a little of both?  The debate, in my extremely humble opinion, is kind of an old school vs. new age debate.  Tony could care less what the guys in the clubhouse think, as long as they follow his way of thinking and win, vs. Rocco's I want the guys in the clubhouse to love me approach.  Rocco plays everyone all the time, getting everyone into the games, regardless of the production they give.  That is not exactly debatable, is it?  Tony, on the other hand, may view it differently.  He plays things a little more old school, which today is not cool to some.  Personally, I like old school, so I am not a fan of Rocco.  On the other hand, Tony may be a little more rough around the edges than I might be myself, but he gets the job done.  He is still managing, and winning, at 73 (did I get his age right, sorry if I didn't), so Rocco should maybe take a few notes from him instead of his computer.  Bottom line:  Rocco thinks pitchers can fill any roll he wants them to fill on any given day, and position players should be able to play any position he wants them to play on any given day.  Not to mention they should be able to bat in any order he dreams up on any given day.......you get my point.  In the long run, not a long term winning way to manage long term.......so to speak.  But that, apparently, is the new age way.  LaRussa, on the other hand, has won his way for a long time.  If Rocco is winning when I am 90, I will apologize profusely.  In the meantime, I don't believe he will with his current style.  Rocco has abandoned any semblance of old school baseball, and it finally showed this year.  When you don't use all the tools in your bag, you limit the ability of your team to match up.  Again, it finally showed this year.  Next year?  Who knows?  I guess it will depend on the FO and the players they provide, but I, for one, will not bet on Rocco to bring them to their full potential whoever they are.  He simply does not believe in anything other than what his computers tell him to believe in.  Just one mans extremely humble opinion.  

[chpettit19]

15 minutes ago, Mark G said:

I don't mean to argue with you, my friend, but I am not sure whether this is strictly a I hate LaRussa post, or an I love Rocco post; or is it a little of both?  The debate, in my extremely humble opinion, is kind of an old school vs. new age debate.  Tony could care less what the guys in the clubhouse think, as long as they follow his way of thinking and win, vs. Rocco's I want the guys in the clubhouse to love me approach.  Rocco plays everyone all the time, getting everyone into the games, regardless of the production they give.  That is not exactly debatable, is it?  Tony, on the other hand, may view it differently.  He plays things a little more old school, which today is not cool to some.  Personally, I like old school, so I am not a fan of Rocco.  On the other hand, Tony may be a little more rough around the edges than I might be myself, but he gets the job done.  He is still managing, and winning, at 73 (did I get his age right, sorry if I didn't), so Rocco should maybe take a few notes from him instead of his computer.  Bottom line:  Rocco thinks pitchers can fill any roll he wants them to fill on any given day, and position players should be able to play any position he wants them to play on any given day.  Not to mention they should be able to bat in any order he dreams up on any given day.......you get my point.  In the long run, not a long term winning way to manage long term.......so to speak.  But that, apparently, is the new age way.  LaRussa, on the other hand, has won his way for a long time.  If Rocco is winning when I am 90, I will apologize profusely.  In the meantime, I don't believe he will with his current style.  Rocco has abandoned any semblance of old school baseball, and it finally showed this year.  When you don't use all the tools in your bag, you limit the ability of your team to match up.  Again, it finally showed this year.  Next year?  Who knows?  I guess it will depend on the FO and the players they provide, but I, for one, will not bet on Rocco to bring them to their full potential whoever they are.  He simply does not believe in anything other than what his computers tell him to believe in.  Just one mans extremely humble opinion.  

I'm actually not a particularly large fan of either of them, really. I think Rocco is servicable, but nothing great. I think La Russa has a job right now cuz he's best friends with an owner. My take is that the manager plays a very small role in the grand picture of season total wins and losses. There are very few organizations that would hire someone like La Russa right now. Maybe just the 1, really. The point isn't whether you or I would prefer old school or new school, the actual players in MLB, and most owners and FOs, prefer new school. Like my first post in this thread said, you aren't complaining about Rocco, you're complaining about the world of major league baseball. 90% of teams are doing things the exact same way as the Twins and Rocco. Gerrit Cole didn't complete 3 innings in Tuesday's game, and both Wainwright and Scherzer were real pissed about how early they were pulled last night. This is how baseball works now. You're more than welcome to not like it (I'm not totally on board with it), but it doesn't make Rocco a bad manager, it makes him a current manager. This is how the game is played now.

And the point of the comment you responded to was that if win/loss records determines if a manager is good or not ("He is still managing, and winning") then you actually think Rocco is a good manager. He's won 54.7% of the games he's managed and won over 100 games 2 years ago while winning at a 100 win rate again last year. If you think La Russa having a career win percent of 53.7 automatically makes him good then you have to think Rocco winning at 54.7 makes him good. 54.7 is an 88 win season. That's the rate Rocco wins at. If La Russa winning 93 games this season in the worst division in baseball automatically makes him good then it's really hard to say that Rocco winning 100 games in a division with another playoff team doesn't make him good. All I'm asking for is that people use the same standards for both and quit pretending the last 2 years didn't happen.

[ashbury]

On 10/6/2021 at 5:14 AM, Cody Christie said:

Grading Rocco Baldelli’s First Losing Season

Are you from The Future? Are you here to tell us this won't be his only one?

[Mark G]

58 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm actually not a particularly large fan of either of them, really. I think Rocco is servicable, but nothing great. I think La Russa has a job right now cuz he's best friends with an owner. My take is that the manager plays a very small role in the grand picture of season total wins and losses. There are very few organizations that would hire someone like La Russa right now. Maybe just the 1, really. The point isn't whether you or I would prefer old school or new school, the actual players in MLB, and most owners and FOs, prefer new school. Like my first post in this thread said, you aren't complaining about Rocco, you're complaining about the world of major league baseball. 90% of teams are doing things the exact same way as the Twins and Rocco. Gerrit Cole didn't complete 3 innings in Tuesday's game, and both Wainwright and Scherzer were real pissed about how early they were pulled last night. This is how baseball works now. You're more than welcome to not like it (I'm not totally on board with it), but it doesn't make Rocco a bad manager, it makes him a current manager. This is how the game is played now.

And the point of the comment you responded to was that if win/loss records determines if a manager is good or not ("He is still managing, and winning") then you actually think Rocco is a good manager. He's won 54.7% of the games he's managed and won over 100 games 2 years ago while winning at a 100 win rate again last year. If you think La Russa having a career win percent of 53.7 automatically makes him good then you have to think Rocco winning at 54.7 makes him good. 54.7 is an 88 win season. That's the rate Rocco wins at. If La Russa winning 93 games this season in the worst division in baseball automatically makes him good then it's really hard to say that Rocco winning 100 games in a division with another playoff team doesn't make him good. All I'm asking for is that people use the same standards for both and quit pretending the last 2 years didn't happen.

And Rocco has a job right now because he is the apple of the eye of Falvine.  Just kidding.........sort of.  All managers are where they are because of who they impressed at one point.  The are still managing at 73 because they are a proven commodity.  

Old school.......new age.......funny, but the game itself hasn't changed one iota.  Only the way it is managed has changed, and what each one does is open to scrutiny based on wins and losses.  Period.  Over the course of a career.  Right now, Rocco hasn't proven he can win consistently with his analytics; Tony has won over and over without them.  When Rocco is done, and he is a proven winner year in and year out, team in and team out, I will bend the knee and buy into the new age.  Until then, I stay old school, because it has stood the test of time, as has the game itself.  Thanks for the give and take.

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, Mark G said:

And Rocco has a job right now because he is the apple of the eye of Falvine.  Just kidding.........sort of.  All managers are where they are because of who they impressed at one point.  The are still managing at 73 because they are a proven commodity.  

Old school.......new age.......funny, but the game itself hasn't changed one iota.  Only the way it is managed has changed, and what each one does is open to scrutiny based on wins and losses.  Period.  Over the course of a career.  Right now, Rocco hasn't proven he can win consistently with his analytics; Tony has won over and over without them.  When Rocco is done, and he is a proven winner year in and year out, team in and team out, I will bend the knee and buy into the new age.  Until then, I stay old school, because it has stood the test of time, as has the game itself.  Thanks for the give and take.

This will be an unproductive conversation if your belief is the game hasn't changed. The rules today are different than the rules 2 years ago, let alone 20 years or 100 years. The game is constantly changing. People cling to the phrase "old school" as if it actually means something specific. It doesn't. It means there was a period in time you preferred better than now, but La Russa's in game strategies changed a dozen times during his career. There's no "old school" way to do things. There's about 1000 "old school" ways to do things. You don't like analytics. That isn't new information around here. And I don't mind that you don't. I work in baseball analytics so I tend to lean that way in my assessments of things. To each their own. But the idea the game hasn't changed is ridiculous. But go research what La Russa started doing with his bullpens in the late 80s before you go too far down the road of the game never changing and being so against analytics as a whole. You just don't like the new analytics. Cuz La Russa changed how the game was played in 88 and used what analytics he had at his disposal then to do it.

Define "proven winner year in and year out." Cuz La Russa hasn't been above .500 every year of his entire career or anything. I've already given you Rocco's data. He's won more than he's lost. He has 2 seasons of .600+ winning percentage already. La Russa has 6 for his entire 36 year hall of fame managing career. La Russa finished bellow .500 10 times (almost 1/3 of his managing seasons). You don't like how Rocco does things. That's fine. But beyond that you have no leg to stand on. Rocco has succeeded at winning major league baseball games as a major league manager. If that's the tool you want to use to measure the quality of managing then you should be supporting Rocco.

[jgfellows]

I’ve had friends make the argument that 98% of what a manager does is not on game day.  (They would say that when I groused about Gardenhire). If there’s truth to that, I think Rocco gets a B to B+. Honestly half the critiques in the article can’t be placed on Baldelli. I’m pretty sure he wasn’t solely responsible for Shoemaker and Happ making more starts or Colombe closing without input from the front office.  It wasn’t Baldellis fault that there were so many injuries.  On the flip side, the fact that the Twins stayed cohesive and didn’t turn on each other when things went to crap is a testament to good management.  

[DocBauer]

While I'm a little late to the party, I have to toss my $.02 in to the conversation. And I'm giving Rocco an overall grade of a C, maybe a C+. But I'm splitting my grade with a D in the first half and a B in the second half.

I don't put all the blame on Baldelli for April and May. I don't blame him for injuries. I don't blame him for Colome because as bad as he was, you had to believe in his history and I'm sure it was believed he would quickly figure things out. (Of course, he did, but not until around June). Where I find fault with Baldelli was some strange pitching moves and player substitions that often made no sense. While SP often only work 5 or 6 innings at a time now...and I'm sure there was a sense of protecting arms for the duration of the season after only a 60 game one in 2020...there were a few games when someone was rolling pretty well and should have been stretched another inning. And while poor play/performance falls on the players primarily, as a manager part of your job is to make sure your guys are mentally ready to go. And there were just too many mistakes and errors and ineptitude those first months. And why on earth do you speak about Bell's desire/opinion to have Arraez, your best over "hitter" and OB threat being a fixture in the #1 spot but then not do it?

The team played much better the second half. And they didn't quit. As a squad, they seem to enjoy playing together and seem to like playing for Rocco. I think it's incorrect and perhaps a little naive to say they played better because their season was over and they had no pressure on them. It would be very easy to be out of contention so early and just lose interest or become frustrated. And there was no fighting, no back-stabbing, nobody ever got thrown under a bus. A lot of the crazy mistakes we saw the first few months disappeared. And without their best bat and best two pitchers, and a rotation that was cobbled together, they simply worked better as an overall team. 

So that's my opinion and my grade.

 

[Jonasty24]

Rocco Baldelli is what "F" looks like. Pitching has been covered so I won't rehash that.... let's talk about offense and defense.

First, the offensive numbers don't look terrible from a purely statistical standpoint but game over game... yuck. The Baldelli Twins have a mentality that the only way to score runs is the the long ball. Go back and watch all of the Twins extra inning games this year. While the other teams are bunting to move the runner on second into scoring position, the Twins are primarily swinging (and missing) for the fences. There were also way too many games where the Twins scored in the first or second inning and then phoned in the rest of the game. That shouldn't happen. They should be taking quality at-bats throughout the entire game.

Second, the defense. On paper, our team was supposed to have a strong defense and historically, the Twins have been known for a strong defensive mindset. There were some injuries which impacted defensive quality, but the Twins played sloppy defense overall. Simmons, a former golden glove SS, didn't look great. He had great range to get to balls but made a lot of bad throws and/or failed to throw at all. Sano was a trainwreck at the easiest defensive position in baseball. I also witnessed a lot of throws from the outfield that did not utilize the cutoff man properly. This comes down to poor preparation and inadequate fielding routines.

Baldelli has either ignored or forgotten about the fundamentals of baseball. The Twins will continue to suffer until he makes an adjustment or he is fired.

[Mike Sixel]

4 minutes ago, Jonasty24 said:

Rocco Baldelli is what "F" looks like. Pitching has been covered so I won't rehash that.... let's talk about offense and defense.

First, the offensive numbers don't look terrible from a purely statistical standpoint but game over game... yuck. The Baldelli Twins have a mentality that the only way to score runs is the the long ball. Go back and watch all of the Twins extra inning games this year. While the other teams are bunting to move the runner on second into scoring position, the Twins are primarily swinging (and missing) for the fences. There were also way too many games where the Twins scored in the first or second inning and then phoned in the rest of the game. That shouldn't happen. They should be taking quality at-bats throughout the entire game.

Second, the defense. On paper, our team was supposed to have a strong defense and historically, the Twins have been known for a strong defensive mindset. There were some injuries which impacted defensive quality, but the Twins played sloppy defense overall. Simmons, a former golden glove SS, didn't look great. He had great range to get to balls but made a lot of bad throws and/or failed to throw at all. Sano was a trainwreck at the easiest defensive position in baseball. I also witnessed a lot of throws from the outfield that did not utilize the cutoff man properly. This comes down to poor preparation and inadequate fielding routines.

Baldelli has either ignored or forgotten about the fundamentals of baseball. The Twins will continue to suffer until he makes an adjustment or he is fired.

How do you think Baldelli ruined Simmons? What do you think he did that it is his fault? I'm just curious, because I'd guess this is 100% on the player.....I'm not arguing they played poorly on D (though, given Larnach, Rooker, Astudillo, Sano and Simmons, not sure what we'd expect).....I'm asking why you think Simmons' play is on the manager.

[Jonasty24]

39 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

How do you think Baldelli ruined Simmons? What do you think he did that it is his fault? I'm just curious, because I'd guess this is 100% on the player.....I'm not arguing they played poorly on D (though, given Larnach, Rooker, Astudillo, Sano and Simmons, not sure what we'd expect).....I'm asking why you think Simmons' play is on the manager.

@Mike Sixel I think you make a good point with Simmons. At this point in his career, he should absolutely be able to self-correct. I wouldn't necessary say that Baldelli ruined Simmons but I would say that he (or his coaching staff) failed to correct a veteran when he made a mistake. Even though Simmons is a veteran, he still needs to be managed. I won't speculate on what discussions were had/not had off the field but Simmons didn't seem to change anything throughout the entire season. I feel like managers like Dusty Baker, Tony LaRussa, and Terry Francona would not let that slide. Even Ron Gardenhire seemed like he wouldn't have let that slide.

[Mark G]

20 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

This will be an unproductive conversation if your belief is the game hasn't changed. The rules today are different than the rules 2 years ago, let alone 20 years or 100 years. The game is constantly changing. People cling to the phrase "old school" as if it actually means something specific. It doesn't. It means there was a period in time you preferred better than now, but La Russa's in game strategies changed a dozen times during his career. There's no "old school" way to do things. There's about 1000 "old school" ways to do things. You don't like analytics. That isn't new information around here. And I don't mind that you don't. I work in baseball analytics so I tend to lean that way in my assessments of things. To each their own. But the idea the game hasn't changed is ridiculous. But go research what La Russa started doing with his bullpens in the late 80s before you go too far down the road of the game never changing and being so against analytics as a whole. You just don't like the new analytics. Cuz La Russa changed how the game was played in 88 and used what analytics he had at his disposal then to do it.

Define "proven winner year in and year out." Cuz La Russa hasn't been above .500 every year of his entire career or anything. I've already given you Rocco's data. He's won more than he's lost. He has 2 seasons of .600+ winning percentage already. La Russa has 6 for his entire 36 year hall of fame managing career. La Russa finished bellow .500 10 times (almost 1/3 of his managing seasons). You don't like how Rocco does things. That's fine. But beyond that you have no leg to stand on. Rocco has succeeded at winning major league baseball games as a major league manager. If that's the tool you want to use to measure the quality of managing then you should be supporting Rocco.

Oh, I don't know, I think every conversation is productive if you choose to look at it that way.  I appreciate this one.  

As for the game changing, I think of basketball, and how the shot clock changed the game.  How the 3 point shot changed the game.  In Football, for generations you had to control the ball all the way through the tackle; now "the ground can't cause a fumble".  Total change of the game itself.  Being tackled on the two yard line and stretching out your arm with the ball in it to the goal line, and it is a touchdown.  Total change of the game itself.  I simply don't see changes in the rules of the game of baseball that reaches a level even close to that.  Things like putting a guy on 2nd to start extra innings, in my extremely humble opinion, is an experiment, as is 7 inning double headers.  If these changes stick for good, I will say the game has changed.  But a ball is still a ball, a strike is still a strike, a balk is still a balk, a force play is still a force play, a tag play is still a tag play, and I could go on.  The baselines never change, the distances from base to base, the distance from the mound to home, the batters box, and on and on.  Except for a couple of experiments I have mentioned, the game is exactly the game I watched in school in the '60's.  Replay hasn't changed the game, it has simply slowed it down.  What has changed is how the game is managed, by the organizations and the on field coaching staffs.  Power pitching and spin rates.  Exit velocity and launch angles.  Strike outs and home runs are far more valued than ever before, but it is still the game.  

As for Tony vs. Rocco, you are right; Tony has 10 under .500 seasons.  He also has 26 .500 or better seasons.  Over 2800 games against.......let's see......less than 400?  Tony has 12 pennants and 6 world series rings covering 3 different teams, and a .543 lifetime post season record.  Just saying that he is a proven winner, Rocco's less than 400 games simply don't match up, no matter how many he won the first year. (He is actually under .500 since season one).  I think he is a poor manager, because he doesn't manage.  He mixes and matches what his computer says to mix and match; sometimes it works and sometimes not so much.  He has eliminated any run manufacturing beyond the power numbers he is looking for.  In Rocco's 3 years, his teams have a grand total of 15 sacrifice bunts - combined. (not counting pitchers hitting in NL parks)  He is up front about the fact he simply doesn't believe in giving up an out for a base.  The same is true for base stealing.  Total for 3 years?  96, finishing 15th out of 15 two of those years.  How often do you see the hit and run?  I guess if it is happening, it must be when I am not watching, because I don't know if I have ever seen it.  Taking the extra base on singles and doubles......anyway, you get my point.  We slap balls into the shifts far too often, and our discipline in the strike zone (swinging at pitches outside of it) is, well, lets just say less than stellar.  All of those things are on the manager, whoever he is.  And all of those things are a large part of why we scored 3 runs or less in over 45% of our games this past season.   And relievers are like anyone else, they want a routine and a role.  Knowing your role, and knowing when it is likely you will be called on in any given game depending on the score and the circumstances, gives them a certain sense of security in their role.  Our guys never know from phone call to phone call which one of them is going to get up; it is not a good way to run a pen.  Again, on the manager.  I could say the same for the defense.  If you never know what position you will play that day, or if you will end up in the original position, it is hard to excel at any position defensively.   For all of the above reasons I did not think Rocco was a good manager in '19, I didn't think he was good in '20, and I didn't think he was good in '21.  Wins and losses are only part of it, as I believe I have laid out.  TK managed the team for 16 years.  His teams only made the playoffs at all twice; he just happened to win it all those 2 times.  With a lifetime winning percentage below .500 (.478) he was put into the Twins Hall of Fame.  Clearly, wins and losses are only part of it.  He took teams that were supposed to be good and helped them be good.  He took teams that were not so much and tried to make them into future contenders.  And he taught fundamentals.  Sorry, I just don't see any of that in Rocco.  Maybe someday I will, and as I said before, I will stand corrected if it comes about.  

Not an argument, my friend, just an explanation as to why I think what I do.  I treasure the game itself, and when half of it is gone by computer game players, I try to make my case.  And pointing out that most managers do it this way as well doesn't convince old school guys like me.  It is like saying that good grammar is going out of style, so I won't try anymore.    Just wanted to see if you are still reading.    Take care, my friend.  

[Mike Sixel]

10 minutes ago, Jonasty24 said:

@Mike Sixel I think you make a good point with Simmons. At this point in his career, he should absolutely be able to self-correct. I wouldn't necessary say that Baldelli ruined Simmons but I would say that he (or his coaching staff) failed to correct a veteran when he made a mistake. Even though Simmons is a veteran, he still needs to be managed. I won't speculate on what discussions were had/not had off the field but Simmons didn't seem to change anything throughout the entire season. I feel like managers like Dusty Baker, Tony LaRussa, and Terry Francona would not let that slide. Even Ron Gardenhire seemed like he wouldn't have let that slide.

I doubt he let it slide. I'm just not sure what he could have done to help him be better. 

[Jonasty24]

12 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I doubt he let it slide. I'm just not sure what he could have done to help him be better. 

@Mike Sixel I will fully admit to a lot of speculation on my part. I could be completely wrong with Simmons. It just seems like, as a whole, there are certain discussions that don't seem to take place with this team. For example, I look at Max Kepler's offense. He spent the 2021 season in the basement of a .200 batting average. When you watch his at-bats, more often than not, he grounds out or lines out to the right side of the field in 3 pitches or less, regardless of the count. When that happens for an entire season, I can't help but question if there is anything being done/conversations taking place between the player and manager. It's possible those conversations are taking place but the players are unwilling to listen but I feel that's part of the manager's job too - manage the game and manage the players - specifically their egos.

[Mike Sixel]

14 minutes ago, Jonasty24 said:

@Mike Sixel I will fully admit to a lot of speculation on my part. I could be completely wrong with Simmons. It just seems like, as a whole, there are certain discussions that don't seem to take place with this team. For example, I look at Max Kepler's offense. He spent the 2021 season in the basement of a .200 batting average. When you watch his at-bats, more often than not, he grounds out or lines out to the right side of the field in 3 pitches or less, regardless of the count. When that happens for an entire season, I can't help but question if there is anything being done/conversations taking place between the player and manager. It's possible those conversations are taking place but the players are unwilling to listen but I feel that's part of the manager's job too - manage the game and manage the players - specifically their egos.

All fair. As for Kepler,I think fans greatly underestimate how hard it is to direct a batted ball..... 

[chpettit19]

31 minutes ago, Mark G said:

Oh, I don't know, I think every conversation is productive if you choose to look at it that way.  I appreciate this one.  

As for the game changing, I think of basketball, and how the shot clock changed the game.  How the 3 point shot changed the game.  In Football, for generations you had to control the ball all the way through the tackle; now "the ground can't cause a fumble".  Total change of the game itself.  Being tackled on the two yard line and stretching out your arm with the ball in it to the goal line, and it is a touchdown.  Total change of the game itself.  I simply don't see changes in the rules of the game of baseball that reaches a level even close to that.  Things like putting a guy on 2nd to start extra innings, in my extremely humble opinion, is an experiment, as is 7 inning double headers.  If these changes stick for good, I will say the game has changed.  But a ball is still a ball, a strike is still a strike, a balk is still a balk, a force play is still a force play, a tag play is still a tag play, and I could go on.  The baselines never change, the distances from base to base, the distance from the mound to home, the batters box, and on and on.  Except for a couple of experiments I have mentioned, the game is exactly the game I watched in school in the '60's.  Replay hasn't changed the game, it has simply slowed it down.  What has changed is how the game is managed, by the organizations and the on field coaching staffs.  Power pitching and spin rates.  Exit velocity and launch angles.  Strike outs and home runs are far more valued than ever before, but it is still the game.  

As for Tony vs. Rocco, you are right; Tony has 10 under .500 seasons.  He also has 26 .500 or better seasons.  Over 2800 games against.......let's see......less than 400?  Tony has 12 pennants and 6 world series rings covering 3 different teams, and a .543 lifetime post season record.  Just saying that he is a proven winner, Rocco's less than 400 games simply don't match up, no matter how many he won the first year. (He is actually under .500 since season one).  I think he is a poor manager, because he doesn't manage.  He mixes and matches what his computer says to mix and match; sometimes it works and sometimes not so much.  He has eliminated any run manufacturing beyond the power numbers he is looking for.  In Rocco's 3 years, his teams have a grand total of 15 sacrifice bunts - combined. (not counting pitchers hitting in NL parks)  He is up front about the fact he simply doesn't believe in giving up an out for a base.  The same is true for base stealing.  Total for 3 years?  96, finishing 15th out of 15 two of those years.  How often do you see the hit and run?  I guess if it is happening, it must be when I am not watching, because I don't know if I have ever seen it.  Taking the extra base on singles and doubles......anyway, you get my point.  We slap balls into the shifts far too often, and our discipline in the strike zone (swinging at pitches outside of it) is, well, lets just say less than stellar.  All of those things are on the manager, whoever he is.  And all of those things are a large part of why we scored 3 runs or less in over 45% of our games this past season.   And relievers are like anyone else, they want a routine and a role.  Knowing your role, and knowing when it is likely you will be called on in any given game depending on the score and the circumstances, gives them a certain sense of security in their role.  Our guys never know from phone call to phone call which one of them is going to get up; it is not a good way to run a pen.  Again, on the manager.  I could say the same for the defense.  If you never know what position you will play that day, or if you will end up in the original position, it is hard to excel at any position defensively.   For all of the above reasons I did not think Rocco was a good manager in '19, I didn't think he was good in '20, and I didn't think he was good in '21.  Wins and losses are only part of it, as I believe I have laid out.  TK managed the team for 16 years.  His teams only made the playoffs at all twice; he just happened to win it all those 2 times.  With a lifetime winning percentage below .500 (.478) he was put into the Twins Hall of Fame.  Clearly, wins and losses are only part of it.  He took teams that were supposed to be good and helped them be good.  He took teams that were not so much and tried to make them into future contenders.  And he taught fundamentals.  Sorry, I just don't see any of that in Rocco.  Maybe someday I will, and as I said before, I will stand corrected if it comes about.  

Not an argument, my friend, just an explanation as to why I think what I do.  I treasure the game itself, and when half of it is gone by computer game players, I try to make my case.  And pointing out that most managers do it this way as well doesn't convince old school guys like me.  It is like saying that good grammar is going out of style, so I won't try anymore.    Just wanted to see if you are still reading.    Take care, my friend.  

I don't know how to say this any other way, but, again, you are complaining about how the game is played now, not Rocco specifically. The White Sox weren't sacrifice bunting or stealing bases this year either, even with their "old school" manager. Rocco is an entirely normal 2021 manager. Nobody bunts or steals (unless you can steal at a rate better than like 84% or something like that, I forget the exact number). Outs are your life blood on offense. Giving them up is a bad strategy. It's been shown it costs you runs, not gains them. You don't like that, and that's fine, but that's not just Rocco, it's literally 100% of major league organizations. This is how the game is played now.

The Twins bullpen pieces have roles, they're just not the roles that you're used to seeing. The Twins had the 9th best ERA in baseball in 2019 and 4th best in 2020. Was Rocco screwing up those top 10 staffs, too? For 2019 and 2020 combined Twins pitchers accumulated more fangraphs WAR than any other pitching staff in the AL and 2nd most in all of baseball. Was Rocco screwing them up to? After the trade deadline the Twins had a top 3 bullpen in baseball, were they just so uber talented that they overcame your perceived Rocco mismanagement? The team also knows who's starting day to day. They know when their scheduled off days are coming. They know why they hit in certain spots and what their roles on the team are. You not seeing it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I'm not a big fan of what analytics has done to the entertainment value of the game, but the idea that Rocco is making the team worse by using them is simply incorrect. I have no problem with you not liking the use of numbers or what they're doing to todays game, but the Twins are better at winning games using them than not, and Rocco is using best practices whether you like them or not. I wouldn't be sad if he got fired as I don't think he's anything special, but he's certainly not dooming the Twins because you don't understand (not a shot at you, many people don't) or like the strategies that are used now. Honestly, this is more about your lack of understanding of modern baseball strategy than anything. And that's not a bad thing and I don't think you're out of bounds feeling how you do about a number of things, but this is how the game is played now. The game has changed, the athletes and their expectations have changed, and the way FOs and managers run their teams have changed. I'm not a big fan and feel bad that I'm paid to help push these strategies further down the line, but it's just how things are now. I appreciate the wonderful back and forth, though! It's been fun.

[cHawk]

On 10/7/2021 at 1:42 AM, TwinsChupacabra said:

For those of you that thought Rocco deserved a grade better than D-, I don't understand you.  I don't understand why you make excuses for him.  Why settle for the same old failure and disappointment?  How can you watch a game and say he is what they need to be a winner?  Rocco is dreadful and it saddens me that not enough fans see that.  Because until there is consensus on his poor management, we are doomed to more crappy baseball.   

Yes, the front office has been terrible, and share the blame for this season and the next few, (as there are going to be more of the same).  But that is no excuse for being terrible at his job on a nightly basis. The list is long of things he is poor at.  Many were mentioned in previous posts.   I've never seen any Twins manager look so clueless as I do now looking at Rocco. (he is worse than Ray Miller at this point).  BTW, I've been watching since 1972.  The list of things he is actually good at is extremely small.  The only one that I can think of is that he is a good interviewer.  How else could he have convinced anyone to hire him?  

Using injuries as an excuse is tiresome.  Giving him a good grade in the second half when all the games were meaningless, is stupid.  He was one of the primary reasons their season was over after 30-45 days in the first place.  

To say managers are overrated in their significance to success/failure is also off the mark.  If they don't matter, why even have them?  Why not grab someone out of the crowd to manage?  In fact, they do matter.  Many pennant races are determined by a few games.  Certainly you can't suggest that poor game management decisions couldn't cost a team a title. 

Baseball, as in life, you are supposed to learn from your mistakes.  Rocco simply doesn't. 

If you want to blame the players, the front office for picking those players, fine, I would agree.  But the Tigers, Royals and Indians didn't have good players either, and they were better that we were.  Rocco is a difference maker, in that he makes the Twins even worse.  Just think about it, the Twins couldn't be competitive in baseball's worse division, the Comedy Central. 

The Twins, in their current management situation have about as much chance of a title as the Detroit Lions have of winning a Super Bowl.  I want my kids to see competent baseball and a hope of winning a single playoff game.  Every year with Rocco is another year wasted.

Grade: F

If I were in a crowded theatre, I'd still yell "Fire".

 

 

I’m sorry but I don’t agree with any of this.

He was not the main reason for the early collapse of anywhere close to it. The Twins faltered early on because of two things:

1. Colome blowing saves and the rest of the pitching staff sucking
2. Simmons giving the team COVID

Neither of those two things are Baldelli’s fault. The FO is the one who signed Colome and designated him as their closer. Baldelli wasn’t the one who made that decision. If you want to argue he ruined Colome, how much do you think Baldelli actually coaches his pitchers? If he did it to any significant degree, they probably wouldn’t have a designated pitching coach. If you think they ruined Colome, it’s not Baldelli’s fault. Stuck with Colome too long? He only stuck with him for 5 blown saves, y’all act like it’s 15 or 20.

As for the pitching staff, I don’t think you understand the true ****tieness of the hand dealt to him. He was handed a rotation featuring JA Happ and Matt Shoemaker for 40% of the starts. Both aging #5-at-best starters at the time. The Twins didn’t “ruin” Happ and Shoemaker, they were simply bad pitchers.

As for the bullpen he was dealt, you can say the same thing about Duffey at times, Rogers at times, Thielbar at times, etc. that I said about Colome. That’s on the pitching coach, not Baldelli.

Also, Simmons. Not only did he post a -0.5 WAR on the season, but he also came to camp unvaccinated and he was the first one to catch COVID. That derailed the team quite a bit.

Saying that he’s only good at giving interviews and nothing else is pretty unfair. Have you ever considered he played the game himself and was a very fundamentally sound player? We have seen problems with the fundamentals throughout the year, but that is attributed to a coaching staff as a whole, not just a manager. And I don’t think that Baldelli would have much to do with problems with the fundamentals, because that’s something he demonstrated he can do well.

[Mike Sixel]

It's almost like the previous two sessions didn't happen the way some people talk.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

50 minutes ago, cHawk said:

Saying that he’s only good at giving interviews and nothing else is pretty unfair. Have you ever considered he played the game himself and was a very fundamentally sound player? We have seen problems with the fundamentals throughout the year, but that is attributed to a coaching staff as a whole, not just a manager. And I don’t think that Baldelli would have much to do with problems with the fundamentals, because that’s something he demonstrated he can do well.

To further your point, Rocco instituted mandatory pregame drills mid-season. He saw the issues we all saw, and took action with the coaching staff to improve fielding challenges.

this is the same manager who preaches rest as a part of the regimen. 
 

I give Baldelli a lot of credit for this team not giving up as the season got out of hand. I do agree, this season sucked. That has to fall on the players, the FO and the manager/coaching staff. The players and FO are 80% of the failure. Players need to play the game, the FO acquires the players. Baldelli and the coaching staff earned 20% of the failure too.

[Squirrel]

3 minutes ago, Sconnie said:

To further your point, Rocco instituted mandatory pregame drills mid-season. He saw the issues we all saw, and took action with the coaching staff to improve fielding challenges.

this is the same manager who preaches rest as a part of the regimen. 
 

I give Baldelli a lot of credit for this team not giving up as the season got out of hand. I do agree, this season sucked. That has to fall on the players, the FO and the manager/coaching staff. The players and FO are 80% of the failure. Players need to play the game, the FO acquires the players. Baldelli and the coaching staff earned 20% of the failure too.

Yes, yes and more yes! Thanks, sconnie

[jjswol]

I think a C- is being generous. A 29-28 record for the last two months is nothing to crow about, If you asked fans before the start of the season if a .500 record would be acceptable in 2021 they would have laughed at you. Twins fans and baseball experts all predicted a huge year for the Twins and the Twins FO and Baldelli fooled us all The only thing I see standing between Baldelli and a big red F is the Twins FO.