Baldelli will be back in 2023

[Squirrel]

4 hours ago, rwilfong86 said:

I don't think the pendulum has come back. The batting order for tonight's game is another example of the inconsistency which has marred this team all season.

My statement about the disappointment that the front office isn't committed to winning is based on the outcome of where their emphasis on analytics has gotten the team the past two seasons. If they're truly committed to winning, we will see observable change in the way the the team is run next season. 

We will have to part ways on this topic. 

Edit to add: I guess the batting order tonight couldn't have been too awful ... then again, I'm sure Angel's pitching gave it some boost

[Mark G]

1 hour ago, Irishman said:

I’m very disappointed with Pohlad’s apparent decision to retain Falvey and Levine.  Now I’m questioning FO’s commitment for 2023 and beyond.   

I am somewhat torn on this one.  I do not believe that Falvey and Levine are not committed to winning, but I also  believe you cannot separate them from Pohlad.  The front office, so to speak, is a combination of ownership and the executives ownership puts in place to carry out ownership's vision.  They, then, put in place a manager and staff that takes that vision to the dugout and field game in and game out.  There are times I question JP's commitment to winning, per se, meaning all in toward that goal.  That puts constraints on his executives, who can't give the field management the tools to go full bore with.  But, at the end of the day, the FO is responsible for the people who manage the game from the dugout, and the manager is responsible for the game decisions he makes throughout.  There is an old saying that when everyone is in charge of something, no one is.  We keep lumping together these folks as a group that all work and think together, meaning no ONE individual is ultimately responsible for anything, from JP down to Rocco and everyone in between.  Convenient, don't you think, that no ONE ever has to take the blame, but every ONE gets the credit when things go well?  

[Nine of twelve]

I don't think there's anything about Baldelli's performance that would justify ending his employment. He seems like a pretty intelligent guy and I think he has mostly the right philosophies about handling players.

For example, I generally agree with his philosophy about usually removing starters when the batting order comes around the third time. This strategy should work in your favor if you have a deep, reliable bullpen. That said, if you don't have the ideal bullpen you have to manage based on the players you have. I think that this season there was room for improvement in his performance in that regard.

[Longdistancetwins]

Sigh.  I think he’s my least favorite manager since Ray Miller (for different reasons, of course).  

[tony&rodney]

43 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

I don't think there's anything about Baldelli's performance that would justify ending his employment. He seems like a pretty intelligent guy and I think he has mostly the right philosophies about handling players.

For example, I generally agree with his philosophy about usually removing starters when the batting order comes around the third time. This strategy should work in your favor if you have a deep, reliable bullpen. That said, if you don't have the ideal bullpen you have to manage based on the players you have. I think that this season there was room for improvement in his performance in that regard.

I could be wrong but you are more or less stating why some people are tired of Baldelli. 

You seem to agree with pulling pitchers but say a "deep, reliable bullpen" is needed if you pull every pitcher early. Then you suggest managing based on knowing your team.

Baldelli is quite religious in following The Plan, the bullpen was not a given strength from the beginning of the season and was then overworked badly. Rocco did not consider performance on many occasions or manage based on the players available. This is what individuals have noted. Perhaps Baldelli is ok, but The Plan is a fail. The worry is how Falvey and crew (includes Rocco) respond to their failure. Will they reflect and learn? Can they change? Do they consider the players and game as it happens? These are fair concerns. 

 

[gunnarthor]

Pretty disappointing to hear this news and signals that we can expect another sub-.500 season next year. The whole system has to be torn down at this point but it doesn't look like ownership has realized that. Not sure what the excuse will be for this season - probably injuries - but they'll need another excuse next year. And Cleveland is just going to get better.

[Mark G]

1 hour ago, Nine of twelve said:

I don't think there's anything about Baldelli's performance that would justify ending his employment. He seems like a pretty intelligent guy and I think he has mostly the right philosophies about handling players.

For example, I generally agree with his philosophy about usually removing starters when the batting order comes around the third time. This strategy should work in your favor if you have a deep, reliable bullpen. That said, if you don't have the ideal bullpen you have to manage based on the players you have. I think that this season there was room for improvement in his performance in that regard.

Is it safe to assume that this is at least somewhat tongue in cheek?  The two points that were made are so far apart, I just can't assume anything else.   I Love the philosophy you used, Rocco, but to use the philosophy, you better have something you don't have, so you should adjust accordingly, and you didn't........seriously, I know I couldn't have made that up   

[wabene]

4 minutes ago, Mark G said:

Is it safe to assume that this is at least somewhat tongue in cheek?  The two points that were made are so far apart, I just can't assume anything else.   I Love the philosophy you used, Rocco, but to use the philosophy, you better have something you don't have, so you should adjust accordingly, and you didn't........seriously, I know I couldn't have made that up   

Huh? He said he approved of Rocco's performance overall, then mentioned one area where he thought Rocco could improve. Pretty straight forward. And I agree. 

[rwilfong86]

12 hours ago, Squirrel said:

We will have to part ways on this topic. 

Edit to add: I guess the batting order tonight couldn't have been too awful ... then again, I'm sure Angel's pitching gave it some boost

And the Angels defense committing multiple errors helped a lot. The issue with the batting order isn't that it was awful, it's that there is no consistency day to day on the lineup. You never know who is playing and where. 

[wabene]

1 hour ago, rwilfong86 said:

And the Angels defense committing multiple errors helped a lot. The issue with the batting order isn't that it was awful, it's that there is no consistency day to day on the lineup. You never know who is playing and where. 

Wouldn't it be more important to a hitter who the pitchers are they will be facing and the scouting reports than where in the lineup? Do you know that all hitters like to hit in the same spot every day?  The focus rigid batting orders seems to be some projecting their own preferences on others. 

[rwilfong86]

1 minute ago, wabene said:

Wouldn't it be more important to a hitter who the pitchers are they will be facing and the scouting reports than where in the lineup? Do you know that all hitters like to hit in the same spot every day?  The focus rigid batting orders seems to be some projecting their own preferences on others. 

Multiple times during the radio and TV broadcasts this season the commentators mentioned how hard it is for the players to get into any rhythm when they don't know where (or if) they will be playing in the field and where they will be batting. So much of baseball is about getting into a routine and consistency is a key component of that. And this is coming from players in the Hall of Fame so I think it is certainly reliable. 

[DJL44]

14 hours ago, Squirrel said:

As has already been confirmed, Rocco is coming back next season, and likely will as long as Falvey and Levine are employed. If not Rocco, it will still be someone who executes the way the FO office wants.

I've never denied that there were times I think the starter could have been left in for longer, but, the fault really lies with the pitchers we had, more than anything else, imo. The number of times a pitcher could have gone longer, I just don't think equates and correlates alone to the number of losses we've had and I don't think it's simply a common sense issue, either. Had we had a reliable and durable BP, some of this may not have been as much of an issue.

And none of these decisions I think equates to them not committed to winning, as someone suggested above, just because they don't do as we think they should. We all have our opinions on that, but I don't agree with that conclusion.

Rocco is coming back because Rocco is doing everything Falvey wants him to do. Levine is coming back because he's acquiring the kind of players Falvey wants him to acquire.

The roster, especially the pitching staff was not constructed to give the Twins a good chance at winning. The Twins don't want to spend money on long-term contracts for starting pitchers. Part of this is you're usually paying a premium. Part of this is probably ego thinking they can produce this consistent pitching pipeline despite all the evidence to the contrary. That means they spent money on short-term stopgaps like Bundy and Archer thinking they could use them as 4-5 inning pitchers and turn the game over to the bullpen. That's the best "value" for the money.

Most team's bullpen can patch over the 5th and 6th innings  for a weak starter every few days but few teams have the depth to do that every game. You can't construct your starting rotation with 5 inning pitchers unless you have a deep, kickass bullpen to rely on. This directly conflicts with their philosophy finding relievers which is to never pay for the bullpen when you can grab guys like Megill off waivers or use your failed minor league starters like Jax. Relievers are volatile so the cheapest way to assemble a bullpen is to get a lot of options in the offseason and sort it out as the season progresses. This also make sense from a "value" perspective if you can quickly determine which relievers are going to perform that season and which ones will not. The experience with Emilio Pagan this season proves pretty dramatically that this organization is NOT good at quickly determining which relievers are going to perform unless you give them someone obviously dominant like Duran.

Either one of those strategies (5 inning starters, sort out your bullpen) can help a team win on a budget but putting them together is a recipe for disaster. You can't go with a rotation of 5 inning starters unless ALL of your relievers are studs. You won't have a bullpen full of stud relievers if you're using rookies and secondhand waiver wire pickups. You can use low leverage innings to sort out the back end of your bullpen to find the treasure among the flotsam but not if you need to use the bullpen in the 5th inning every game. If you want to construct a bullpen that way you need at least 3 starting pitchers who consistently pitch into the 6th and sometimes the 7th inning to give the high leverage relievers a breather.

It is all hubris and ego. "We don't have to pay for pitching talent. We're so smart we can develop our own through our genius pitching development program and our analytics team's ability to find treasure in other team's trash."

[wabene]

14 minutes ago, rwilfong86 said:

Multiple times during the radio and TV broadcasts this season the commentators mentioned how hard it is for the players to get into any rhythm when they don't know where (or if) they will be playing in the field and where they will be batting. So much of baseball is about getting into a routine and consistency is a key component of that. And this is coming from players in the Hall of Fame so I think it is certainly reliable. 

They do know where they will be batting based on who is pitching and what they've been told. They also know we there they will be playing in the field based on injuries and where they've been told to take fielding drills. Most of these fluctuations are due to injury and the players involved are fringe players who are happy just to be in the bigs. Do you think a guy like Morneau who seems to really be in his own head is going to be similar in his preparation to a guy like Eddie Rosario? When I listen to former players rail against any change in the game I reflexively look down to make sure I'm not on anybody's lawn. 

[Squirrel]

18 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Rocco is coming back because Rocco is doing everything Falvey wants him to do. Levine is coming back because he's acquiring the kind of players Falvey wants him to acquire.

The roster, especially the pitching staff was not constructed to give the Twins a good chance at winning. The Twins don't want to spend money on long-term contracts for starting pitchers. Part of this is you're usually paying a premium. Part of this is probably ego thinking they can produce this consistent pitching pipeline despite all the evidence to the contrary. That means they spent money on short-term stopgaps like Bundy and Archer thinking they could use them as 4-5 inning pitchers and turn the game over to the bullpen. That's the best "value" for the money.

Most team's bullpen can patch over the 5th and 6th innings  for a weak starter every few days but few teams have the depth to do that every game. You can't construct your starting rotation with 5 inning pitchers unless you have a deep, kickass bullpen to rely on. This directly conflicts with their philosophy finding relievers which is to never pay for the bullpen when you can grab guys like Megill off waivers or use your failed minor league starters like Jax. Relievers are volatile so the cheapest way to assemble a bullpen is to get a lot of options in the offseason and sort it out as the season progresses. This also make sense from a "value" perspective if you can quickly determine which relievers are going to perform that season and which ones will not. The experience with Emilio Pagan this season proves pretty dramatically that this organization is NOT good at quickly determining which relievers are going to perform unless you give them someone obviously dominant like Duran.

Either one of those strategies (5 inning starters, sort out your bullpen) can help a team win on a budget but putting them together is a recipe for disaster. You can't go with a rotation of 5 inning starters unless ALL of your relievers are studs. You won't have a bullpen full of stud relievers if you're using rookies and secondhand waiver wire pickups. You can use low leverage innings to sort out the back end of your bullpen to find the treasure among the flotsam but not if you need to use the bullpen in the 5th inning every game. If you want to construct a bullpen that way you need at least 3 starting pitchers who consistently pitch into the 6th and sometimes the 7th inning to give the high leverage relievers a breather.

It is all hubris and ego. "We don't have to pay for pitching talent. We're so smart we can develop our own through our genius pitching development program and our analytics team's ability to find treasure in other team's trash."

I agree with most of this. I’ve said before in several threads the need for a deep, durable and reliable BP is the key and what they didn’t do. Yes, other things are certainly at play, but the BP construction was awful. If they aren’t going to pay for premium starting pitching then they have to have that BP that gets it done. If their strategy was to get their SP to keep us in games through 5 innings, on average, then we need that BP. To me that was the biggest failure. Their strategy did not mesh with what they constructed. I’m not ready to call it hubris and ego, yet, because some of it is necessity. It’s not that they don’t have to pay, it’s that they won’t, so now they have to develop. I think it’s a good strategy, but Other teams do this more successfully than we do. If there is hubris and ego, it’s believing in their evaluation process which, imo,  is in need of repairs. Hopefully hubris and ego doesn’t get in the way of evaluating how they evaluate acquisitions and roster construction.

Thank you for your post.

[DJL44]

5 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

If there is hubris and ego, it’s believing in their evaluation process

It is this belief that they have special sauce and other teams don't. The evidence says they are not special when it comes to finding or developing talent.

[Squirrel]

1 minute ago, DJL44 said:

It is this belief that they have special sauce and other teams don't. The evidence says they are not special when it comes to finding or developing talent.

If we have a third year in a row with another BP like this, I’ll be ready to call it hubris and ego. 

[rwilfong86]

24 minutes ago, wabene said:

They do know where they will be batting based on who is pitching and what they've been told. They also know we there they will be playing in the field based on injuries and where they've been told to take fielding drills. Most of these fluctuations are due to injury and the players involved are fringe players who are happy just to be in the bigs. Do you think a guy like Morneau who seems to really be in his own head is going to be similar in his preparation to a guy like Eddie Rosario? When I listen to former players rail against any change in the game I reflexively look down to make sure I'm not on anybody's lawn. 

The one thing you see on the teams in contention right now is the opposite of what you see on the Twins. Do you think the Guardians or Mets or Dodgers use 7 different lineups in 7 days? 

[wabene]

1 minute ago, rwilfong86 said:

The one thing you see on the teams in contention right now is the opposite of what you see on the Twins. Do you think the Guardians or Mets or Dodgers use 7 different lineups in 7 days? 

This subject was brought up before and I wish I could find the post. Somebody did a good job of showing that the Yankees and Twins used their lineups similarly. With similar consistency. Now when the bulk of your lineup is on the shelf, as it is now, consistency will suffer. 

[DJL44]

What players you put in the lineup matters a lot more than the batting order.

[Nashvilletwin]

To my fellow DNers who believe Rocco should be back, I respectfully ask if you might respond to the following questions:

1. Is Rocco a better than average in-game manager (i.e. do his in-game decisions, involving pitchers, substitutions, base running, field positioning, etc. etc. result in more net wins or losses vis-a-vis other managers)?

2. Would you say his Twins are well known for playing strong fundamental baseball in all aspects of the game? Even some aspects? If so, please identify.

3. Would you say that Rocco and his staff have consistently developed young players once they joined the big club to the most of their potential (it would be helpful if you could cite some examples other than Miranda and Gordon in their rookie seasons)?

4. How have Rocco and his staff performed in terms of keeping his players on the field vis-a-vis other teams? Above average or below average? Or is this irrelevant because injuries are all bad luck anyway?

5. Would you say that Rocco’s teams have demonstrated the confidence or “swagger” to perform their best against stronger competition? Do his Twins teams (perhaps outside of the clear outlier “Bomba Squad” year) ever really look like they belong in the conversation as true contenders? 

6. Would you agree that for small-mid market teams to truly compete against big market teams attracting better hitters and pitchers, they must have a strong in-game manager, play better fundamental baseball than others, develop their young players to their potential, keep the talent they do have on the field, and develop a confidence that allows then to compete against stronger teams? If not, please identify the areas of performance that are more important for a team like the Twins to contend.

Truly, I’m just trying to understand the basis/criteria for evaluating the job performance of the Manager, Minnesota Twins.  Objectively, how has he performed against the criteria and can you realistically point to anything that might hint at substantive improvement (if any is sought) in the future? Rocco’s performance should be evaluated just like any senior executive - against the goals of the organization and his specific job description criteria and responsibilities. 

[jctwins]

23 hours ago, Nashvilletwin said:

Kind of a shot across the bow perhaps? A bit of - “it’s all of us or none” maybe?

Pohlads are too smart - they must see Rocco is not the right leader for their type of ball club - mid market and young. To win, they know the team has to play better fundamentals and have a stronger in-game manager. Rocco’s skill base might be better with a high priced slugging team with lots of veteran leadership and maybe some big egos. That’s not the Twins.

Regardless, expect more throwing the ball around, endless base running gaffes, not moving base runners over, poor pitching management, etc, etc.  Why would it change? Every team under Rocco has exhibited these traits. 

What have the Pohlads ever done as owners of a baseball team to indicate that they are "smart". They completely delegate all baseball responsibilities to St. Peter and Falvine, and they consistently hang on to comfortable sweaters way too long. 

 

 

[jorgenswest]

15 minutes ago, Nashvilletwin said:

To my fellow DNers who believe Rocco should be back, I respectfully ask if you might respond to the following questions:

1. Is Rocco a better than average in-game manager (i.e. do his in-game decisions, involving pitchers, substitutions, base running, field positioning, etc. etc. result in more net wins or losses vis-a-vis other managers)?

2. Would you say his Twins are well known for playing strong fundamental baseball in all aspects of the game? Even some aspects? If so, please identify.

3. Would you say that Rocco and his staff have consistently developed young players once they joined the big club to the most of their potential (it would be helpful if you could cite some examples other than Miranda and Gordon in their rookie seasons)?

4. How have Rocco and his staff performed in terms of keeping his players on the field vis-a-vis other teams? Above average or below average? Or is this irrelevant because injuries are all bad luck anyway?

5. Would you say that Rocco’s teams have demonstrated the confidence or “swagger” to perform their best against stronger competition? Do his Twins teams (perhaps outside of the clear outlier “Bomba Squad” year) ever really look like they belong in the conversation as true contenders? 

6. Would you agree that for small-mid market teams to truly compete against big market teams attracting better hitters and pitchers, they must have a strong in-game manager, play better fundamental baseball than others, develop their young players to their potential, keep the talent they do have on the field, and develop a confidence that allows then to compete against stronger teams? If not, please identify the areas of performance that are more important for a team like the Twins to contend.

Truly, I’m just trying to understand the basis/criteria for evaluating the job performance of the Manager, Minnesota Twins.  Objectively, how has he performed against the criteria and can you realistically point to anything that might hint at substantive improvement (if any is sought) in the future? Rocco’s performance should be evaluated just like any senior executive - against the goals of the organization and his specific job description criteria and responsibilities. 

As I read this and think about it I do feel better about Rocco as a manager. 
I do think his young players (none of whom were global top prospects as they arrived at the big league club) have performed better made even much better than expected. Let’s start with Luis Arraez in 2019. Look at the huge step Jorge Polanco took in 2019. How about Byron Buxton before 2019 and since? They somehow squeezed good innings out of Dobnak and Smeltzer. Was anything expected of Bailey Ober? Joe Ryan was not a global a top 100 prospect. Johan Duran has been magnificent. Lewis excelled in his short time here.

Looking at those rosters the Twins have had to entrust several young players with important roles and none was a global top prospect at the time they were entrusted with that spot. Buxton was once but he was coming of a historically awful 2018. A side effect of entrusting young players is going to be more fundamental mistakes.

I do think Baldelli is the right person to lead what will be a young team in 2023.

 

[rwilfong86]

43 minutes ago, wabene said:

This subject was brought up before and I wish I could find the post. Somebody did a good job of showing that the Yankees and Twins used their lineups similarly. With similar consistency. Now when the bulk of your lineup is on the shelf, as it is now, consistency will suffer. 

 

38 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

What players you put in the lineup matters a lot more than the batting order.

The Twins aren’t getting 60 home runs and 100+ RBI and don’t have a player that can single handed carry the team like the Yankees have. But you also noticed I didn’t include the Yankees in my post because they’ve been decimated by injuries as well.

You want to put guys at the top of the lineup who can get on base, which is why Arraez should be the primary lead off guy with guys who have power following. You don’t want a guy with a .250 OBP at the top of the order. I can agree the injuries make things more difficult but it isn’t a valid excuse for the inconsistency in the lineups we are seeing. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

18 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

But to claim, as two people now have, they don't care if they win? Most likely not true.

I’ve actually been told in this forum by someone liking your posts that, yes, there are games the Twins don’t care if they win or not. Because by not putting your best team on the field in some games gives you a better chance in other future games.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Well it looks pretty clear that Joe Ryan and Sonny Gray do not like pitching here, due to being pulled from games too early. 

This will not end well unless there is a philosophical change or a purge of all but three or four present members of the bullpen for significantly better bullpen arms. 

And if your response to Ryan and Gray being unhappy is some version of “well they are professionals and need to get over it” then I suggest you try an experiment at your own place of employment. Do something to someone that pisses them off and inhibits their ability to get their job done. If they stop what they are doing and look up at you, tell them they are professionals and need to get over it. 

Let us know how it goes!  
 

[Mark G]

11 hours ago, wabene said:

Huh? He said he approved of Rocco's performance overall, then mentioned one area where he thought Rocco could improve. Pretty straight forward. And I agree. 

Apparently we read the original post I responded to in two different ways.  

You are entitled to agree, and you are entitled to the opinion that Rocco is the man going forward.  But I have to infer from that that you are comfortable with the last two years, because the 2 go hand in hand.  Can't say I don't like the last 2 years, but want the leader of those years back for more of the same.  Some of us aren't comfortable with the recent performances, hence the give and take, which I like because it keeps the interest alive.

[Squirrel]

3 minutes ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

Well it looks pretty clear that Joe Ryan and Sonny Gray do not like pitching here, due to being pulled from games too early. 

Joe Ryan’s comments were about his own performance, that he couldn’t last longer than that, that he was losing the feel for pitches, not that he was pulled too soon. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

6 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

Joe Ryan’s comments were about his own performance, that he couldn’t last longer than that, that he was losing the feel for pitches, not that he was pulled too soon. 

After his 7 no hit innings he said that?

[Squirrel]

21 minutes ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

After his 7 no hit innings he said that?

I thought you were referring to Ryan’s comments last night.

And I still think you are making a mountain out of a molehill with both of those instances to suit a larger narrative. I could be wrong and there is a lot that hasn’t been said publicly by the starting pitchers, but while both pitchers might have been frustrated in a particular moment, do you have reports of season-long frustration from Ryan and Gray? Could be they’re quiet about it because of team dynamics and whatnot, but I haven’t heard about an upset clubhouse. I don’t think it’s something either is making a lot of noise about over all. And let me repeat, I wanted Ryan to go out for the 8th, too, and I do think there have been a few instances where a pitcher could have gone longer in their starts, but I don’t think those instances are difference makers. I think the issue of pitchers being pulled too soon would be far less noisy if we had a properly constructed BP to begin with.

i hope next season we see Ryan go consistently longer into games. He’s still a rookie this year, and had a bout of illness that seemed to pull him out of his groove for a good chunk. Outside of that one instance of being pulled when he had no hits, I think he has been handled well over all.

[Squirrel]

Just thought I’d put this here. Seems like a good thread for it ???