Twins 6, White Sox 3: Buxton's 22nd Homer, Arraez 3-hit Night Fuels Extra-Inning Win

[AceWrigley]

8 minutes ago, 2wins87 said:

Rhubarb, peas and carrots, ROCCO!!, rhubarb, rhubarb, SPREADSHEETS!!, peas and carrots...

Ice cream and cake and cake.

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

Concur.

100 percent a tag play for the lead runner. 100 percent. 

Concur on the concurrence.

I mean, there are a few seconds for the runner to work with, so use them wisely.  Maybe first instinct is to take off and/or go partway, but gotta keep an eye on the ball and fielder and be prepared to reverse course and tag.  You also have the luxury of a uniformed team representative, standing a few feet away from you in foul territory, who is permitted to also judge and give you some guidance, such as "no no no!" (unless that sounds too much like "go go go").

The pitiable part, for these runners and the respective base coaches, is that their eye is apparently not as adept at tracking the ball (and Buxton's progress toward it) as Buxton himself.

[MMMordabito]

Great extra inning win to cap off a great 4th of July celebration!

[Old fox]

I am glad the Twins are where they are and they find a way to get it done. There are 11 other ALC teams that would gladly change places with theTwins. That’s why we play the game. 

[KirbyDome89]

Chicago is just the gift that keeps on giving. For all the warts the Twins do or don't have have, the Sox offer a healthy amount of perspective. 

[Aggies7]

So the decision is entirely based on numbers, which is what I’m hearing here and what people have an issue with. There is no need for a manager then. The front office can program a robot to decide what they want from each individual player. The computer can make all the calls. I’m fine with that. Let’s be the first team to not have a human manager. How cool would that be? We could even dress him up like Rosey the Robot from the jetsons, but with a twins hat on. Even better, it could be the robot from lost in space, that way it’s arms can flail when a decision doesn’t work out. You’d just not be able to spray champagne on it in the event that we win a pennant. Attendance would skyrocket!

[IndianaTwin]

4 hours ago, Squirrel said:

Actually, no, it wasn’t defensible, in my (and Ozzie Guillen’s) opinion. You wait to tag. If he doesn’t get to it, it’s likely you score anyway. And if he does get to it, you end up on 3rd with only 1 out.

I completely agree it wasn't defensible for Engel to not be tagging. And Moncada can't go more than two-thirds of the way.

Which makes it's one of the rare times I agree with Ozzie!

And to those trying to defend it, I say you have to know who the outfielder is. 

[Squirrel]

21 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

So the decision is entirely based on numbers, which is what I’m hearing here and what people have an issue with. There is no need for a manager then. The front office can program a robot to decide what they want from each individual player. The computer can make all the calls. I’m fine with that. Let’s be the first team to not have a human manager. How cool would that be? We could even dress him up like Rosey the Robot from the jetsons, but with a twins hat on. Even better, it could be the robot from lost in space, that way it’s arms can flail when a decision doesn’t work out. You’d just not be able to spray champagne on it in the event that we win a pennant. Attendance would skyrocket!

Oh, come ... seriously ... you don't think there can be any middle ground here, that it's only completely one or the other? These arguments to the extreme isn't what anyone is saying. I get that this is very emotional for you, but just because it wouldn't be what you'd do doesn't mean it was entirely done by numbers and the manager can be replaced by a robot. Yes, the numbers are a big influence to the game plan in baseball, like it or not, but not everything goes according to plan and none of us knows what gets changed along the way because of the situation. I'd guess that they already planned for a series of different scenarios. Maybe there is 'less gut' to it than what you want, but I'd guess it's not none, in the same way that it's never anything but the numbers and a robot replacement would be just as good.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Nice win! This team can flat out hit.

Baserunning for Dum Dums!  Pinch runner comes in and completely loses his mind lol.

I do agree that was definitely the difference in the game. Someone could go look at win expectancy and compare "tie game, top of eighth" to what it should have been, first and third one out, bottom of seventh.

Another fun fact - Remember that so-called "4th out" play from last week between Pittsburgh and Washington? (link)

Well two big IFs: I think IF there had been one out instead of zero outs, and IF Engel had for some reason kept running and crossed home, he would have gotten there before Urshela tagged the trail runner and the run would have counted - the same situation as that other play. I think. But don't quote me. Just a fun observation.

Let's see how the White Sox respond and if the Twins can tease out a good plan for how to pitch to them tonight. The White Sox seem like a team that will hang their heads. Meanwhile, another strength for this Twins team is its rebounding and resilience. If the Twins had run into this triple play, I really think they would just put it behind them and move on. 

 

 

 

[Aggies7]

17 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Oh, come ... seriously ... you don't think there can be any middle ground here, that it's only completely one or the other? These arguments to the extreme isn't what anyone is saying. I get that this is very emotional for you, but just because it wouldn't be what you'd do doesn't mean it was entirely done by numbers and the manager can be replaced by a robot. Yes, the numbers are a big influence to the game plan in baseball, like it or not, but not everything goes according to plan and none of us knows what gets changed along the way because of the situation. I'd guess that they already planned for a series of different scenarios. Maybe there is 'less gut' to it than what you want, but I'd guess it's not none, in the same way that it's never anything but the numbers and a robot replacement would be just as good.

I’m obviously exaggerating for a bit of comedic effect, but it’s really not far off from what some people think. How many times have you read posts here that say managers are worth many wins, they don’t do much, etc etc? And now this total embracement of any move that the numbers agree with leads me to believe that maybe we SHOULD try a robot manager. Let’s honor bill veeck and be totally innovative and pioneering!

[USAFChief]

37 minutes ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

Nice win! This team can flat out hit.

Baserunning for Dum Dums!  Pinch runner comes in and completely loses his mind lol.

I do agree that was definitely the difference in the game. Someone could go look at win expectancy and compare "tie game, top of eighth" to what it should have been, first and third one out, bottom of seventh.

Another fun fact - Remember that so-called "4th out" play from last week between Pittsburgh and Washington? (link)

Well two big IFs: I think IF there had been one out instead of zero outs, and IF Engel had for some reason kept running and crossed home, he would have gotten there before Urshela tagged the trail runner and the run would have counted - the same situation as that other play. I think. But don't quote me. Just a fun observation.

Let's see how the White Sox respond and if the Twins can tease out a good plan for how to pitch to them tonight. The White Sox seem like a team that will hang their heads. Meanwhile, another strength for this Twins team is its rebounding and resilience. If the Twins had run into this triple play, I really think they would just put it behind them and move on. 

 

 

 

I don't think his run would have counted. In this case, tagging Moncada was the second out, stepping on 2nd the 3rd out. 

There was no time out, the ball was in play the entire time.

There was no needed "4th out."

The two plays weren't similar.

edit: I just re-read your post and noticed you said "1 out."

In the immortal words of Emily Littela, "Never mind."

In the also immortal words of Bert Blyleven, "I ****** that all up."

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

17 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I don't think his run would have counted. In this case, tagging Moncada was the second out, stepping on 2nd the 3rd out. 

There was no time out, the ball was in play the entire time.

There was no needed "4th out."

The two plays weren't similar.

edit: I just re-read your post and noticed you said "1 out."

In the immortal words of Emily Littela, "Never mind."

In the also immortal words of Bert Blyleven, "I ****** that all up."

 

I also asked you not to quote me! ?

[jorgenswest]

It was a starting pitcher match up of two pitchers that were inexpensive free agents. Both put their teams in a position to win this game. The Twins had the better reliever for extra innings this time and it made a difference.

[Vanimal46]

1 hour ago, Aggies7 said:

I’m obviously exaggerating for a bit of comedic effect, but it’s really not far off from what some people think. How many times have you read posts here that say managers are worth many wins, they don’t do much, etc etc? And now this total embracement of any move that the numbers agree with leads me to believe that maybe we SHOULD try a robot manager. Let’s honor bill veeck and be totally innovative and pioneering!

I’m game. I’m also setting the over/under of 0.5 games before someone complains about the robot and hammering the under. 

Tonight, I’d like all 9 of our players to bunt in their 1st PA. Damn the numbers, I’ve got a gut feeling at least one of them will end up a hit. 

[Aggies7]

19 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

I’m game. I’m also setting the over/under of 0.5 games before someone complains about the robot and hammering the under. 

Tonight, I’d like all 9 of our players to bunt in their 1st PA. Damn the numbers, I’ve got a gut feeling at least one of them will end up a hit. 

Yes I can see how leaving the starter in for the 6th inning ay 58 pitches is akin to bunting everyone the first time through the order ?

[Squirrel]

3 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Tonight, I’d like all 9 of our players to bunt in their 1st PA. Damn the numbers, I’ve got a gut feeling at least one of them will end up a hit. 

I actually wanted this to be the plan whenever Sabathia was on the mound opposing us. Someone pointed out that batters would likely get hit pretty quick into that plan.

[Squirrel]

2 hours ago, Aggies7 said:

Yes I can see how leaving the starter in for the 6th inning ay 58 pitches is akin to bunting everyone the first time through the order ?

I think his extreme idea was very much akin to your overly dramatic plan of replacing the managers with robots. Why does everyone need to take an extreme pov?

[Aggies7]

1 hour ago, Squirrel said:

I think his extreme idea was very much akin to your overly dramatic plan of replacing the managers with robots. Why does everyone need to take an extreme pov?

But people have literally said here that managers are overrated and don’t contribute much to wins/losses. Seen it posted many a time. So I don’t think I’m that far off.

[Squirrel]

12 hours ago, Aggies7 said:

But people have literally said here that managers are overrated and don’t contribute much to wins/losses. Seen it posted many a time. So I don’t think I’m that far off.

The way I see it ... it's a team sport. I don't think the manager alone is responsible for that much outcome difference. But, what a manager does can impact how players execute their jobs, i.e. ... keeping the clubhouse in good stead, and from every interview I've heard, the players give him lots of props for that. How that impacts wins and losses ... I don't think you can compute that exactly, unless the manager is awful in that regard. And even then, sometimes player personalities just cannot be overcome, either. As for game execution, it's primarily up to the players. How the manager communicates the plans is a factor, but, again, I think from everything I've heard from players, he does a very good job of that. I think together they win, together they lose, so no, I don't point a finger and blame him for specific losses or wins, except to poke a few who give him blame while giving no credit. I just don't think you can have it both ways. I do question some of the decisions, but there are many people on here who consistently say, 'This one's on Rocco' or 'They won in spite of him.' A LOT say this. I just don't think that's true. It's not that manager could be a robot and that wouldn't matter, but I don't think he's as responsible for wins and losses directly, at least not on his own. I mean, one poster here constructed their own measurement, called it manager WAR and basically gave Rocco a minus point for every game they thought Rocco lost for the team, and claimed it was legitimate because of how many games they've watched in their lifetime. I just think that's completely ridiculous. I don't think the manager is responsible in that manner. <shrug> We can agree to disagree on this, but how you and others put such specific responsibility on the manager for losses just isn't correct, imo. Yeah, he's the easy figure head to point a finger at, but ultimately, I don't really think that's fair.

[Karbo]

On 7/5/2022 at 9:01 AM, wabene said:

That is a good question and one I ponder as well. I believe if they are going to protect the starters to such an extent, then they need more multi inning appearances from the pen. Of course then that complicates pen usage. I was a little surprised they pulled Bundy, but it's Bundy. If it had been Gray, Ryan or Winder they would've run with it. You gotta have the horses.

All I'm saying is that's poor planning on the part of our management team. The same team that keeps saying they have a plan. As it turns out they probably knew Archer was a no go but even at that IMO they could have possibly saved an inning or two from the pen which as we all know has been drastically over worked due to so many short starts. 

[Karbo]

On 7/5/2022 at 9:35 AM, chpettit19 said:

Because he's trying to put the team in the best position possible to win the game. If it weren't such a close game Bundy would've been allowed to go. But in a close game you play the odds and the odds very clearly say taking Bundy out gives you the better chance to win. Which they did. 

Winder is in Chicago on the taxi squad and could be activated today to eat multiple innings out of the pen. They knew that before yesterday's game since he was with them then. Is it possible that they had a plan of "if it's close take Bundy out and use the pen since that's our best odds and we'll activate an extra starter for Tuesday if we need to, but if it's a blowout let Bundy go as long as possible and save the pen arms for Tuesday?" I'm not saying Winder is going to be activated, but it's a possibility.

Oh, and they have an off day Thursday. Then a 3 game series before another off day. They have plenty of time to rest arms.

IMO warm the pen and let him go until he gets in any kind of trouble. Save the pen if you can.