Twins 1, Padres 10: Twins West Coast Tour Starts with Another Loss

[Mike Sixel]

8 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

So let's do something really stupid instead of executing a plan with the best probability of success.  

BTW ... he number of prospects that "survive has very little value in measuring the impact of trading prospects for elite / established pitching.  That measure would be exclusively the prospects traded for elite pitching.  When you look at prospects returned for pitchers like Sale / Clevinger / Kluber / Shields, etc you will find a much higher frequency of success.  I cringe every time someone uses the failed prospects argument in this context because it is quite misquided.

To be clear, Cincy, Detroit, KC, etc are always playing for next year (pittsburgh is another).....so it isn't like that plan is guaranteed to work. 

And, there is a really good article online right now about trading prospects for elite players, the team getting the elite player often wins the deal.....because lots of prospects don't work out.

[bean5302]

18 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

To be clear, Cincy, Detroit, KC, etc are always playing for next year (pittsburgh is another).....so it isn't like that plan is guaranteed to work. 

And, there is a really good article online right now about trading prospects for elite players, the team getting the elite player often wins the deal.....because lots of prospects don't work out.

That does make sense. If the deals were always lopsided in favor of the team getting prospects or the team getting the elite player, the deals would change. It just about what the teams are risking for the reward.

I think it's pretty rare teams acquire an elite player and that player does not help the team at all in the current year. Playoffs don't grow on trees historically in baseball, but the owners seem intent on changing that, but that's a different topic.

The risk is next year is totally unknown. Who knows what will happen? That's the case for any team. If you're on the track to the playoffs this year, a single World Series win is worth any player in baseball whether the player's name is Mike Trout or Juan Soto. 

[jorgenswest]

Ryan was at 82 pitches. he was throwing strikes. Two of the home runs had an expected batting average around .200. All were just out of the reach of the outfielder.

If he had pitched exactly the same but different conditions/park resulted in two home runs and three outs on the warning track would we be frustrated that he was pulled too early?

[ashbury]

5 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

Ryan was at 82 pitches. he was throwing strikes. Two of the home runs had an expected batting average around .200. All were just out of the reach of the outfielder.

If he had pitched exactly the same but different conditions/park resulted in two home runs and three outs on the warning track would we be frustrated that he was pulled too early?

I forget the site, but there is one that lets you guesstimate whether a fly would be a home run in other ballparks.  San Diego is a pitcher's park, I believe.  Maybe it would have been more out of reach, not less, in most other parks?  I don't know.

[h2oface]

2 hours ago, cHawk said:

Really? Fire the manager when in first place?

You mean the manager that was 11 games over .500 in May and should be at least 20 games over .500 by now and at least 10 games up on second instead of making the cummulative decisions that led to tanking to where we are now? That guy?

[jorgenswest]

29 minutes ago, ashbury said:

I forget the site, but there is one that lets you guesstimate whether a fly would be a home run in other ballparks.  San Diego is a pitcher's park, I believe.  Maybe it would have been more out of reach, not less, in most other parks?  I don't know.

I was going by the expected batting average. The only home run that game with an expected batting average of 1.000 was Buxton’s. Hosmer’s was in the  .900s. Two were centered at .200. 

[Mike Sixel]

33 minutes ago, h2oface said:

You mean the manager that was 11 games over .500 in May and should be at least 20 games over .500 by now and at least 10 games up on second instead of making the cummulative decisions that led to tanking to where we are now? That guy?

Is this a real take? You think this pitching staff should be twenty games over? There are five teams at that pace or better....

[h2oface]

36 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Is this a real take? You think this pitching staff should be twenty games over? There are five teams at that pace or better....

manager decisions. regardless of staff with this offense. They only needed to have the outcome changed on 9 games. You bet it is a real take, There were way more than 9 that Baldelli deisions were a top contributing factor.

[Danchat]

27 minutes ago, h2oface said:

manager decisions. regardless of staff with this offense. They only needed to have the outcome changed on 9 games. You bet it is a real take, There were way more than 9 that Baldelli deisions were a top contributing factor.

If only we hired you as manager, we'd one of the best teams in baseball!

I just don't get how you can view Baldelli as a bigger issue then the horrific pitching, which has been the worst pitching by ERA since Wes left / the past month. It's not Rocco's fault the starters stink and the bullpen is worse, there's no reinforcements in the minors, that Bundy and Smith were the biggest FA additions to the pitching staff, and that the FO still hasn't made any trades. Hiring anybody else as manager wouldn't fix those issues.

[nicksaviking]

55 minutes ago, h2oface said:

manager decisions. regardless of staff with this offense. They only needed to have the outcome changed on 9 games. You bet it is a real take, There were way more than 9 that Baldelli deisions were a top contributing factor.

Can you clarify which lock down relievers and how many innings these relievers were supposed to go?

Because I assume your answer is Duran and he should pitch all the innings. 

[h2oface]

4 hours ago, Danchat said:

If only we hired you as manager, we'd one of the best teams in baseball!

I just don't get how you can view Baldelli as a bigger issue then the horrific pitching, which has been the worst pitching by ERA since Wes left / the past month. It's not Rocco's fault the starters stink and the bullpen is worse, there's no reinforcements in the minors, that Bundy and Smith were the biggest FA additions to the pitching staff, and that the FO still hasn't made any trades. Hiring anybody else as manager wouldn't fix those issues.

Ooooooooo. I believe that is a personal attack. Or a great compliment, for which I thank you.

I never said it was a bigger issue. "a top contributing factor". Yup. Horrible bullpen. Baldy's decisions are his. 

I'll say it again, and correct my typos. 

There were way more than 9 Baldelli decisions that were a top contributing factor.

A top, not necessarily the top.

[h2oface]

4 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Can you clarify which lock down relievers and how many innings these relievers were supposed to go?

Because I assume your answer is Duran and he should pitch all the innings. 

We all know the ol' assume saying.

It wouldn't matter if I spent hours to notate all the specific instances. You will argue what you will anyway. This is how I feel. And of course it isn't Duran should pitch all the innings. I certainly wouldn't have made him throw a wasted eighth inning in Saturday's game when the score was 7-1!!!!!!

And there were at least 15 games over the season so far that the starter was cruising and pulled way too early (like today again). That adds up to torch your pen, whoever they are. And that is a Baldy decision. The contributing factor is not always the pen, but it is still a Baldy decision.

[nicksaviking]

30 minutes ago, h2oface said:

And there were at least 15 games over the season so far that the starter was cruising and pulled way too early (like today again). That adds up to torch your pen, whoever they are. And that is a Baldy decision. The contributing factor is not always the pen, but it is still a Baldy decision.

So it sounds like Baldelli has two choices. Pull the starters early and have fans call for him to get fired. Or clearly defy his bosses by leaving them in and actually get fired.

[h2oface]

3 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

So it sounds like Baldelli has two choices. Pull the starters early and have fans call for him to get fired. Or clearly defy his bosses by leaving them in and actually getting fired.

I have never once called for Baldelli to get fired. I can have an opinion about his decisions without calling for his job. 

So you feel that Baldelli is not managing, but a puppet of his bosses? The decisions made are not his, but Falvey or Levine's? I guess I was giving him more credit and am of the mind that he is the manager and the decisions are his.

[USAFChief]

6 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

So it sounds like Baldelli has two choices. Pull the starters early and have fans call for him to get fired. Or clearly defy his bosses by leaving them in and actually get fired.

First of all, while I agree overall pitching strategies are almost certainly decided above Baldelli, I strongly doubt individual in-game pitching decisions are. Exactly if/when to remove pitchers, which relievers to use and exactly when. Etc etc. 

So "we're of the belief we can get more effective starting pitching if we limit their exposure" comes from the FO, or a collaboration, "I'm taking my best guy out after 5 and less than 80 pitches" is 100 percent Baldelli. As was leaving Ryan in to get shelled the previous night. I wonder if one might be an overreaction to the other?

Using Duran last night, with a 6 run lead: Baldelli. 100 percent Baldelli. And I would imagine not a decision the FO would be pleased with, by the way.

Secondly, it's "some fans," not "fans," but more importantly it's pretty lazy analysis to constantly fall back on the "what do fans know" defense. Or set up two strawman sides to argue against. 

Baldelli, by the way, will almost certainly get fired at some point. Like ?95? percent of all MLB managers. A few retire. The rest get canned. That's not a reasonable defense either.

Defend the decisions. That's what should be discussed.

[USAFChief]

11 hours ago, Danchat said:

If only we hired you as manager, we'd one of the best teams in baseball!

I just don't get how you can view Baldelli as a bigger issue then the horrific pitching, which has been the worst pitching by ERA since Wes left / the past month. It's not Rocco's fault the starters stink and the bullpen is worse, there's no reinforcements in the minors, that Bundy and Smith were the biggest FA additions to the pitching staff, and that the FO still hasn't made any trades. Hiring anybody else as manager wouldn't fix those issues.

Could all of that be true, and still be sometimes compounded by some questionable managing?

I don't think ANYone would argue Rocco has plenty of good options.

But it seems to me that makes it pretty important he use what he has efficiently and smartly. No?

[nicksaviking]

8 hours ago, h2oface said:

I have never once called for Baldelli to get fired. I can have an opinion about his decisions without calling for his job. 

So you feel that Baldelli is not managing, but a puppet of his bosses? The decisions made are not his, but Falvey or Levine's? I guess I was giving him more credit and am of the mind that he is the manager and the decisions are his.

I do think Baldelli is largely an on field avatar for the overall brain trust, of which he’s only moderately influential of.

I absolutely think before every game they determine ‘starter a’ gets x innings or x pitches or gets pulled once ‘batter a’ comes to the plate for a third time. 
 

Id guess there is another discussion about which relievers are to be used with his real freedom only being able to decide the order they’re used based on matchups.

I don’t like that Gray only went 5 innings or that Duran was used in a blowout, but I  do believe Baldelli is just following the conglomerate’s game plan.

[Major League Ready]

17 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

To be clear, Cincy, Detroit, KC, etc are always playing for next year (pittsburgh is another).....so it isn't like that plan is guaranteed to work. 

And, there is a really good article online right now about trading prospects for elite players, the team getting the elite player often wins the deal.....because lots of prospects don't work out.

No ... Pittsburgh / KC and Detroit have been bad for a prolonged period.  They have not been a position to be buyers which is a very different scenario from what you are implying or the situation the twins find themselves.  It's reasonable the Twins would be buyers.  The question is how much should the Twins leverage their future for this team?  The teams you mentioned have had absolutely no chance.  

Wasn't the article you are referencing specifically about position players?  If so, how is that relevant to the Twins situation?  We have recent examples in the Clevinger and Kluber trades where those players were hurt and provided nothing while those teams gave significant long-term assets.  Clase for Kluber, Miller / Naylor and Quantrill for Clevinger.  Snell has not been of significant value and of course there is always the Shields for Tatis jr.  

[Danchat]

4 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Could all of that be true, and still be sometimes compounded by some questionable managing?

Absolutely. I think that Baldelli isn’t close to being the main problem - but he’s also not the solution to any, either.

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

I do think Baldelli is largely an on field avatar for the overall brain trust, of which he’s only moderately influential of.

I absolutely think before every game they determine ‘starter a’ gets x innings or x pitches or gets pulled once ‘batter a’ comes to the plate for a third time.

Agreed, Rocco seems to be a puppet - which is why I’ve grown more disillusioned with the front office rather than directing it mostly at Rocco.

[Melissa]

Tough game to have to cover, Sherry.

But I want to compliment you on what may be your best-composed story on TD yet! Keep ‘‘em coming! ?