How Can Rocco Baldelli Regain Twins Fans Favor?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

4 minutes ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

Don't bring logic to an emotional (or opinion based) discussion.

It’s ironic, given your screen name, because I don’t know if you listen to the games on the radio often or not, but Dan Gladden and Cory Provus routinely see deeper into the game than Rocco apparently does, and Gladden out-manages Rocco in real time on a regular basis.  

By the way, basically the whole radio team including Atteberry and the backups to him, everyone there sounds fed up with the starting pitcher usage. It’s not just some nasty people on the Internet who are questioning it.

[jmlease1]

1 hour ago, Blyleven2011 said:

By so many responses in a 24 hour period , it is clear what the twins fan base thinks of Rocco  ...

Don't forget the plan the FO  has orchestrated  , I hope they  stay away from the dumpster diving  ....

Average pitching can make you competitors during the seasons but not contenders in post season  ...

Their plan has to change,,, Quality pitching wins games ...

I don't think it's all that clear, because I don't know that a) twins daily is representative of the overall fanbase, or that b) the opinions in this thread are representative either. There's a definite segment that's very loud and very consistent in their opinions about the manager. (Those opinions are usually pretty consistent about the front office as well) Are they loud or are they loud and broad? (We don't really have any way of knowing, unless someone wants to spend on a poll)

I don't disagree that the Twins need to stay away form dumpster diving for starters, and frankly we should be past veteran reclamation projects for the rotation at this point (based on what we know right now, the rotation should be: Mahle, Gray, Ryan, Maeda, and Ober penciled in with Varland/Winder/Sands/SWR/Dobnak pushing for an opportunity. Signing an Archer/Bundy type doesn't move the needle to me over Ober, so why spend the money that way?). But we're also at a different point for the rotation from a roster standpoint now than we were at the end of 2021, when we didn't have Mahle & Gray, Maeda was in the Paddack realm of "injured/don't count on", and Ryan & Ober were still rookies. but that's a roster construction issue that has little to do with Baldelli as a manager.

I don't love Rocco, but I don't dislike him either. He seems fine, a manager who will do well when he has a talented team and good health for his players. He seems to manage the clubhouse well, from what little we get to see. I think his bullpen management needs some work, but it's better than the previous recent Twins managers (Molitor & Gardenhire) who used to drive me crazy with it. 

[cjvirnig]

Obviously, Rocco's use of the pitching staff is the biggest point of contention. Assuming the Twins continue to strategically pull their starters after 4-5 innings, it's absolutely paramount for the front office and coaching staff to get together and completely re-imagine the workflow of the staff.  Namely: they need an iron-clad plan that will allow them to effectively bridge the middle innings to get to Lopez and Duran at the end. 

Option 1 would be to have clearly defined roles for everybody in the bullpen. This is unlikely, however, given the Twins' reliance on analytics and playing the matchups game. 

Option 2 would be to take a page out of the LA Dodgers playbook and re-think how the rotation and bullpen work together. My suggestion would be for the Twins to have a regular four-man rotation -- with the fifth spot and long relief roles being grouped together. I personally believe the Twins should sign (or trade for) another impact starting pitcher, but for the sake of this example, let's just go with who they currently have on the roster. Under this premise, their 2023 rotation could consist of Mahle, Gray, Ryan, and Maeda.  After that -- Ober, Winder, and Woods Richardson would then be grouped together. Based on matchups, each of them would get to start some games in the #5 spot. But more importantly, they'd each be used in long relief to cover most of those middle innings. 

For some historical context, the Dodgers did this a few years ago when they had Maeda, Ryu, and Urias paired together this way.  Sometimes Maeda would start. Sometimes Ryu would start. And sometimes Urias would start. But the most important aspect is that when the starter was removed, Dave Roberts had a very high-quality option to come in and bridge the game to Jansen at the end. 

Regardless of the specifics (maybe Ober is the #4 starter and it's actually Maeda who would get paired with Winder and Woods Richardson) -- the Twins need a much better process. In 2022, they had no such plan, other than removing the starters early and then simply relying on individual matchups night after night. As we saw, that approach failed miserably. 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

8 hours ago, USAFChief said:

You're right. Almost no one actually defends Baldelli. 

But many here attack anyone who is critical.

 

We see this differently. What many attack is the need to criticize him for everything, in every thread, including celebration threads. Often with rude name calling. Criticize all y'all want, but doing it over and over and over in every thread is tedious. Look at game threads and their death. Look at some of the monthly or yearly minor league celebration threads 

There are good reasons to question his decisions without doing so over things he has no control over. Without saying he knows nothing, doesn't care, etc. I realize this is a fan site, and I'm fighting an uphill battle here....

As I've said, I have no idea if he should be back. 

[Mike Sixel]

8 minutes ago, cjvirnig said:

Obviously, Rocco's use of the pitching staff is the biggest point of contention. Assuming the Twins continue to strategically pull their starters after 4-5 innings, it's absolutely paramount for the front office and coaching staff to get together and completely re-imagine the workflow of the staff.  Namely: they need an iron-clad plan that will allow them to effectively bridge the middle innings to get to Lopez and Duran at the end. 

Option 1 would be to have clearly defined roles for everybody in the bullpen. This is unlikely, however, given the Twins' reliance on analytics and playing the matchups game. 

Option 2 would be to take a page out of the LA Dodgers playbook and re-think how the rotation and bullpen work together. My suggestion would be for the Twins to have a regular four-man rotation -- with the fifth spot and long relief roles being grouped together. I personally believe the Twins should sign (or trade for) another impact starting pitcher, but for the sake of this example, let's just go with who they currently have on the roster. Under this premise, their 2023 rotation could consist of Mahle, Gray, Ryan, and Maeda.  After that -- Ober, Winder, and Woods Richardson would then be grouped together. Based on matchups, each of them would get to start some games in the #5 spot. But more importantly, they'd each be used in long relief to cover most of those middle innings. 

For some historical context, the Dodgers did this a few years ago when they had Maeda, Ryu, and Urias paired together this way.  Sometimes Maeda would start. Sometimes Ryu would start. And sometimes Urias would start. But the most important aspect is that when the starter was removed, Dave Roberts had a very high-quality option to come in and bridge the game to Jansen at the end. 

Regardless of the specifics (maybe Ober is the #4 starter and it's actually Maeda who would get paired with Winder and Woods Richardson) -- the Twins need a much better process. In 2022, they had no such plan, other than removing the starters early and then simply relying on individual matchups night after night. As we saw, that approach failed miserably. 

 

 

I agree the strategy didn't match the execution this year, and I mainly blame the front office and injuries for that. 

[Mark G]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

Many many years ago. I landed my first Classic Rock programming job and we had an event that first week that a lot of our listeners would attend. I was going to talk with all of them and gather their opinions in an effort to build the perfect radio station because I was young, inexperienced with reality and I was going to create the greatest radio station ever on my way to being the best radio programmer ever. 

I talked to a listener and he told me that we played way too much Pink Floyd. I listened to him, I took him seriously and I respectfully talked about the popularity of Dark Side of the Moon, The Wall, Album Sales, I talked about the test scores of Wish You Were Here. I gave him actual rotation data on the approximate intervals of how often Pink Floyd is actually played. I compared Pink Floyd air play to the Stones, Zeppelin and other artists. I told him exactly how many Pink Floyd songs that we consistently play and how many we would consider playing. I took him seriously and I answered honestly, I spent a lot of time explaining Pink Floyd and the role it played in the format and the radio station. 

It didn't matter... he replied to everything with something along the lines of "If I wanted to hear Pink Floyd, I'd listen to the Soft Rock Station". 

I thanked him and worked my way through the room to gather more opinions from others in my quest to be the greatest ever. The next person that I talked with told me that "WE DIDN"T PLAY ENOUGH PINK FLOYD". 

Rocco has no chance of avoiding pitchforks. No matter what he does... they are coming from one direction or the other. 

 

I love the analogy, and in its own way it is perfect.  Can I give you another one, fictitious as it is?

I manage a Holiday Station Store (I actually did a long time ago), and the company gives me, as manager, a great amount of leeway in how I stock my store, as I know my neighborhood and my customer base.  So, I stock a lot of produce, put out certain hot foods throughout the day, and put hard goods on my shelves that I think will sell.  I price them according to what my customer base will be willing to pay before going somewhere else.  For 2 years, I don't have issues with spoiled product, I produce a pretty good gross product, and the company and the customers are pleased.  But in those 2 years the makeup of the neighborhood has been changing.  A lot of the apartment buildings have had considerable turnover, and the economy is a little different.  In other words, my customer base has changed.  But I don't.  I continue to stock fresh produce, which I end up throwing out because no one is buying it.  My milk spoils because it is not a popular staple anymore.  And the hot foods I continue to put out are thrown away because my new customer base doesn't like them.  In those 2 years I have considerable waste, a low gross profit, and a total net loss.  My customer base is not pleased with my store, and my company is losing its patience.  What are the odds I keep my job unless I adapt, like yesterday?  

What worked for 2 years hasn't worked for the last 2.  No one is going to please everyone, and in reality shouldn't try to.  But when your customer base, the ones you live or die off of, tell you you are doing something wrong, you have to adapt, adjust, or you lose them.  And in the real world, it doesn't matter what or who you manage, you have to succeed to keep your job.  To succeed, you adapt, adjust, to the ever changing  circumstances.  Does anyone truly see that here?  Again, as I have said before, I don't pretend to speak for anyone else, but this extremely humble observer does not.  

Your analogy really was great, and I agree with it in principle.  But even if you produced the greatest radio station ever your listener's tastes would change over time, and you would have to make changes to your format along the way or you would die.  I just want our favorite team to do the same.  

[Mike Sixel]

4 minutes ago, Mark G said:

I love the analogy, and in its own way it is perfect.  Can I give you another one, fictitious as it is?

I manage a Holiday Station Store (I actually did a long time ago), and the company gives me, as manager, a great amount of leeway in how I stock my store, as I know my neighborhood and my customer base.  So, I stock a lot of produce, put out certain hot foods throughout the day, and put hard goods on my shelves that I think will sell.  I price them according to what my customer base will be willing to pay before going somewhere else.  For 2 years, I don't have issues with spoiled product, I produce a pretty good gross product, and the company and the customers are pleased.  But in those 2 years the makeup of the neighborhood has been changing.  A lot of the apartment buildings have had considerable turnover, and the economy is a little different.  In other words, my customer base has changed.  But I don't.  I continue to stock fresh produce, which I end up throwing out because no one is buying it.  My milk spoils because it is not a popular staple anymore.  And the hot foods I continue to put out are thrown away because my new customer base doesn't like them.  In those 2 years I have considerable waste, a low gross profit, and a total net loss.  My customer base is not pleased with my store, and my company is losing its patience.  What are the odds I keep my job unless I adapt, like yesterday?  

What worked for 2 years hasn't worked for the last 2.  No one is going to please everyone, and in reality shouldn't try to.  But when your customer base, the ones you live or die off of, tell you you are doing something wrong, you have to adapt, adjust, or you lose them.  And in the real world, it doesn't matter what or who you manage, you have to succeed to keep your job.  To succeed, you adapt, adjust, to the ever changing  circumstances.  Does anyone truly see that here?  Again, as I have said before, I don't pretend to speak for anyone else, but this extremely humble observer does not.  

Your analogy really was great, and I agree with it in principle.  But even if you produced the greatest radio station ever your listener's tastes would change over time, and you would have to make changes to your format along the way or you would die.  I just want our favorite team to do the same.  

I don't think the FO tried to win all that hard last year, given their moves. No manager was going to take that pitching staff and win.

This year? They changed direction and it didn't work. I blame both the front office and the coaching staff. But, they clearly changed their approach, trading for Gray and signing CC.

Also, their pitchers went deeper into games in 2019..... So they did change things....

It's possible they aren't good enough at their jobs.... It's possible that bad stuff just piled up, and it's isn't anyone's fault. We'll know more as time goes on, given they are keeping their jobs. 

[Battle ur tail off]

For me, I just want him to watch the game with his eyes and react accordingly. Having an analytical approach to the season as a whole is fine by me. But when you can see your offense is struggling, it's OK to try and manufacture a run late in the game. 

When you can see a pitcher has it that day, it is OK to run them out a third time through the order. Especially in situations such as double-header, long stretch of games when your bullpen is tired, etc. In the same view, if a guy doesn't have it, it is OK to pull them early.

It is also OK to not use certain players in your pen when you can see they haven't been effective. Pagan, Megill, Columbe, Duffey, etc. 

Rocco might and probably is an extention of the front office's strategy. I get that. I would however like them all to at least admit that they may not always know 100% the right way to do things. It's OK to change or tweak strategies in order to get the best out of your roster. 

Can or will they take a step back this offseason and possibly look at some of these things? I don't know if they will, but I sure wish they would. 

[Mike Sixel]

3 minutes ago, Battle ur tail off said:

For me, I just want him to watch the game with his eyes and react accordingly. Having an analytical approach to the season as a whole is fine by me. But when you can see your offense is struggling, it's OK to try and manufacture a run late in the game. 

When you can see a pitcher has it that day, it is OK to run them out a third time through the order. Especially in situations such as double-header, long stretch of games when your bullpen is tired, etc. In the same view, if a guy doesn't have it, it is OK to pull them early.

It is also OK to not use certain players in your pen when you can see they haven't been effective. Pagan, Megill, Columbe, Duffey, etc. 

Rocco might and probably is an extention of the front office's strategy. I get that. I would however like them all to at least admit that they may not always know 100% the right way to do things. It's OK to change or tweak strategies in order to get the best out of your roster. 

Can or will they take a step back this offseason and possibly look at some of these things? I don't know if they will, but I sure wish they would. 

What difference would it make if they publicly said they made some mistakes? Most good leaders do that in private, to protect their people. 

As for not using bad relivers, some days that was his only option. I blame the front office for that.

[Mike Sixel]

They did change their pitching strategy this year, based on having Bundy and Archer, among others. It didn't work. I would have preferred they let some starts go longer, but they literally changed from previous years.......

[Battle ur tail off]

1 minute ago, Mike Sixel said:

What difference would it make if they publicly said they made some mistakes? Most good leaders do that in private, to protect their people. 

As for not using bad relivers, some days that was his only option. I blame the front office for that.

I didn't say they had to make a public statement about it, I'm not asking them to do that. I am asking them to look at themselves this offseason, then make changes as to how they go about the games next year. We would all notice a change in what they do if they in fact make it.

As for using poor relievers, it's not your only option. When it is a close game and you know your pen is spent and if you pull a starter early say in the 5th , that you might have to use someone like Pagan that day. I guess I am fine with letting Bundy even take another inning than I am hoping that someone who has been performing terribly in a spot he can lose us a game. 

I do agree though that the way the bullpen was constructed, was surely not conducive to the type of pitching usage strategy them employed this season.

[Battle ur tail off]

4 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

They did change their pitching strategy this year, based on having Bundy and Archer, among others. It didn't work. I would have preferred they let some starts go longer, but they literally changed from previous years.......

Then they should have had guys in the pen that could pitch multiple innings to piggyback those guys. They didn't. They mainly went with one inning guys each game. 

[Aggies7]

16 hours ago, wabene said:

You could actually argue that due to the above average amount of injuries, a fine managing job was done to meet the original expectations. 

No way Jose. This was the worst division in the AL and arguably the worst in baseball. Nobody expected the white Sox to be as bad as they were and Cleveland was just as dreadful until the last month or so of the season. 19 games each against the two worst teams in the AL, and two other mediocre teams and the twins will STILL finish 6-8 games under .500, possibly a 19 game turnaround from late May.

how could anyone argue, with a straight face, that the team with the worst record in AL over the last 4+ months got a “fine” job from their manager? Yeesh

[Mark G]

3 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

What difference would it make if they publicly said they made some mistakes? Most good leaders do that in private, to protect their people. 

As for not using bad relivers, some days that was his only option. I blame the front office for that.

A couple of questions as I fade away to sleep (I work overnights).........

Is admitting mistakes in private really admitting mistakes?  Admitting to whom?  Themselves?  If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear...........

And if the mistakes are made by "their people", how is protecting them (and keeping them) solving the problem of the mistakes?  

No matter how good or bad a hand you are dealt, it is still up to you to play the hand.  How long can you blame the dealer for your losses?  

Just one extremely humble observer's thoughts as he drifts off to sleep.......zzzzzzzzzzz  

[insagt1]

The bunt: some managers always hated it...Earl Weaver for one. However he also had a lineup that had no problems producing runs. Twins OTOH, blow chance after chance because they can't even deliver a 'productive out'. A good bunt, as has been already stated, changes the entire strategy. It turns a routine single into a run scoring chance with another single.

It eliminates the GIDP,It also throws the 'd' off. It is a way to beat the shift (that will go away next season)  It can also get a slumping lineup out of a rut. Its a great tool, when used properly. Imagine for a moment--Buxton leading off with a single. He gets bunted over to 2nd...he steals 3rd and scores on a sac fly. One hit, two productive outs. Nobody  k's or hits into a bang-bang DP.  When you're down by 4, its a different situation, but when you need 1 run and you just haven't been able to get one, try a different strategy. It actually works.

[Mike Sixel]

17 minutes ago, Battle ur tail off said:

Then they should have had guys in the pen that could pitch multiple innings to piggyback those guys. They didn't. They mainly went with one inning guys each game. 

I agree. That's not on the manager though

[TwinsDr2021]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

I don't think the FO tried to win all that hard last year, given their moves. No manager was going to take that pitching staff and win.

IMO this is not true, they had the pitcher that finished 2nd in the CY, they had a future 100 million dollar pitcher, they brought back Pineda, they brought in Happ and his 3.57 ERA in 2020. And they had the pipeline to fill any needs (Ober did just that).

Plus they brought in Colome and Robles to solidify the bullpen.

They had basically the same lineup that won them the Division in 2020 and brought in Simmons.

To say they weren't trying to win 2021 is revisionist history at best. What you are trying to sell is that this FO coming off of a Division title decided to bring in Happ, Colome, Robles and Simmons but weren't really trying?

 

 

[Battle ur tail off]

40 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I agree. That's not on the manager though

That part is not. And I think this is more than just Rocco earning back favor with fans, I think the front office needs to as well. Everyone knows they and Rocco adhere to the same philosophy. How many fans do you hear cry to fire them as well? It is quite a few. 

Honestly, if we look at this big picture, I do feel like their plan is close to working with the pitching. They have some guys that look like they will be big league starters and/or relievers, the key IMO is for one of them to become a "guy" and be the stopper everyone has been waiting for or enough of them that your BP is so strong we can get by with a bunch of 3-5 starters.

Injuries killed them this year both on the ML team and the minors. I'm not in the fire them all camp, I would just like them to look inward and be able to adjust on the fly a little more next year. We just saw what beating your head against the wall over and over looks like.

[Unwinder]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

I agree. That's not on the manager though

I don't know, I remember Jax being used as a multi-inning reliever early on, and then getting limited to one-inning stints after a while despite being decently effective in multiple innings. There may have been some really good reason behind the scenes for this, but it feels like Rocco prioritized getting the best possible stuff out of Jax (and possibly some others?) over covering innings adequately.

[rv78]

7 hours ago, prouster said:

Well, Manny Machado isn't playing third base for Eden Prairie.

That's a really "you know what" comment. I'll give you one in return. I'm sure Byron Buxton wasn't running to first base or trying to score from 3rd for Eden Prairie either. All things considered equal...

[Fire Dan Gladden]

7 hours ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

It’s ironic, given your screen name, because I don’t know if you listen to the games on the radio often or not, but Dan Gladden and Cory Provus routinely see deeper into the game than Rocco apparently does, and Gladden out-manages Rocco in real time on a regular basis.  

By the way, basically the whole radio team including Atteberry and the backups to him, everyone there sounds fed up with the starting pitcher usage. It’s not just some nasty people on the Internet who are questioning it.

I am not going to go too off topic here, but Dan Gladden is inarguably the worst color commentator on the radio.  He is like listening to Bob Uecker's color from Major League (Fly ball... out).  When he is talking, you have no idea what is happening in the game.  He will miss complete at-bats, state the obvious like it is something new.  He ruins the entire radio broadcast.  It is not listenable.

Here is a direct quote:  "And the Twins have the bases loaded with one out, here comes the pitch [sound of ball hitting bat], pop fly to short right field... oh... well that will end the inning for the Twins who score just one run after right fielder dropped it."

I have no clue why anybody thinks he has value in the booth.  In 15+ years he has never improved.  He needs to be fired.

Anybody want to discuss this on a different thread we can, but I don't see how anybody can make a case for him.

[Riverbrian]

10 hours ago, Mark G said:

I love the analogy, and in its own way it is perfect.  Can I give you another one, fictitious as it is?

I manage a Holiday Station Store (I actually did a long time ago), and the company gives me, as manager, a great amount of leeway in how I stock my store, as I know my neighborhood and my customer base.  So, I stock a lot of produce, put out certain hot foods throughout the day, and put hard goods on my shelves that I think will sell.  I price them according to what my customer base will be willing to pay before going somewhere else.  For 2 years, I don't have issues with spoiled product, I produce a pretty good gross product, and the company and the customers are pleased.  But in those 2 years the makeup of the neighborhood has been changing.  A lot of the apartment buildings have had considerable turnover, and the economy is a little different.  In other words, my customer base has changed.  But I don't.  I continue to stock fresh produce, which I end up throwing out because no one is buying it.  My milk spoils because it is not a popular staple anymore.  And the hot foods I continue to put out are thrown away because my new customer base doesn't like them.  In those 2 years I have considerable waste, a low gross profit, and a total net loss.  My customer base is not pleased with my store, and my company is losing its patience.  What are the odds I keep my job unless I adapt, like yesterday?  

What worked for 2 years hasn't worked for the last 2.  No one is going to please everyone, and in reality shouldn't try to.  But when your customer base, the ones you live or die off of, tell you you are doing something wrong, you have to adapt, adjust, or you lose them.  And in the real world, it doesn't matter what or who you manage, you have to succeed to keep your job.  To succeed, you adapt, adjust, to the ever changing  circumstances.  Does anyone truly see that here?  Again, as I have said before, I don't pretend to speak for anyone else, but this extremely humble observer does not.  

Your analogy really was great, and I agree with it in principle.  But even if you produced the greatest radio station ever your listener's tastes would change over time, and you would have to make changes to your format along the way or you would die.  I just want our favorite team to do the same.  

I appreciate ya... I find analogism's much more interesting compared to the sterile rehashing... so you get an A+ from me. 

Using yours

Yes... your seat would be feeling the heat given the "great amount of leeway in how I stock my store, as I know my neighborhood and my customer base".  

However, let's add a dimension.

Holiday corporate has employed a team of one-hundred plus analysts that have been tracking the inventory, cost, pricing, daily sales, dead inventory write-offs at your store, along with similar data from all the Holiday Stations stores and whatever data they can get their hands on from Kwik-Trip, Casey's, Stop-N-Go and Superamerica.  

You get daily emails with your store data and how you rank amongst your peers.  

You have an hour long weekly conference call every Wednesday at 2PM with your bosses, vice-president of analytics, chief human resources and marketing officers. You discuss your successes and challenges on the ground, best practice discoveries are shared, long term goals and progress are discussed, atta-boys and recommendations are given. You are completely in the the loop, as a matter of fact, the car-wash that you recommended for your store will start construction in March. 

The data says that you average 50 cartons of milk and 15 bags of Oreo Cookies sold each day. However, they share data with you that the Kwik-Trip on the other side of interstate is selling 50 cartons of milk and 30 bags of Oreo Cookies a day because the product placement makes you walk past the cookies on the way to the milk.

The recommendation is therefore 50 cartons of milk and 30 bags of Oreo cookies and a new placement for the Oreos. So... you purchase 50 cartons of milk and 30 bags of Oreo cookies daily and you rearrange the aisles.  

When you only sell 10 bags of cookies a day. Is it your rear in the hot seat? 

Holiday corporate has identified an opportunity in Oreo cookies and has implemented a company wide strategy to increase cookie sales, you understand the plan, you follow the company strategy so your rear is perfectly comfortable.  

Here is how you lose your job. You throw the emails away, you tell the people on the conference call to stick it because you know your neighborhood and you follow the folks on Twinsdaily who insist that Pop Tarts are better. So you only purchase 2 bags of Oreo cookies and you place them next to the air fresheners and WD-40.

If your supervisors have analysts, marketing, the entire organization heading north and you insist on walking south...  you will not last long. ?

There is no way that Rocco is fighting the cookie strategy. When he starts fighting it... we will find out with the announcement of his termination, along with the obligatory thanks for his years of service.   

 

[Mike Sixel]

9 hours ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

IMO this is not true, they had the pitcher that finished 2nd in the CY, they had a future 100 million dollar pitcher, they brought back Pineda, they brought in Happ and his 3.57 ERA in 2020. And they had the pipeline to fill any needs (Ober did just that).

Plus they brought in Colome and Robles to solidify the bullpen.

They had basically the same lineup that won them the Division in 2020 and brought in Simmons.

To say they weren't trying to win 2021 is revisionist history at best. What you are trying to sell is that this FO coming off of a Division title decided to bring in Happ, Colome, Robles and Simmons but weren't really trying?

 

 

Fair. The front office tried, but the pitchers were terrible. Not sure how that's on the manager. They were nearly .500 the last four months, once they made changes. Even after trading Berrios. 

[dex8425]

On 10/5/2022 at 2:38 AM, Mark G said:

And they move runners up, putting them in scoring position or even better scoring position, they eliminate the force play and reduce the odds of a double play considerably.  They put more pressure on the pitcher and the defense.  The out becomes worth it, especially when the person you are asking to bunt is your low average hitter and is likely to make an out anyway.  

Look at the data. Moving runners up, while creating outs, reduces run expectancy. The out is never worth it, unless you are ONLY playing for one run, AND the guy at the plate is a good bunter, AND the guy at the plate is a bad hitter, AND the guy up next is a bad hitter. Playing for only one run is a very seldom occurrence, but we've seen the Twins do it, off the top of my head, with Jeffers. Maybe with Gordon once earlier in the season. 

https://danblewett.com/run-expectancy-bunting-bad/

[dex8425]

On 10/5/2022 at 7:47 AM, rv78 said:

Not if they are executed properly. I've seen our high school baseball team win 2 state Championships with properly executed squeeze bunts. Oh, never mind, that's not baseball for the majors, it's only for young people who don't know how to play the game.

Yeah, this thread is actually about a major league baseball team, not high school baseball. We have MLB data about sac bunting, which should inform your decisions about bunting. Sac bunting is seldom a good idea. 

 https://danblewett.com/run-expectancy-bunting-bad/

High school data would be interesting too-the defense is worse (you should bunt) but run scoring is higher (you shouldn't bunt because you reduce chances for that "big inning"). There's also a larger discreptancy between your good hitters and your poor hitters, especially for, say Janesville Waldorf Pemberton and Two Harbors high school:) I think I probably would bunt more in high school/little league, especially with poor hitters. 

 

[BD57]

"Lack of options" is the biggest issue I think of when considering "managing the Twins."

Have to hope the truncated spring training had something to do with all the injuries & time missed because of same.  Please . . .give me some reason to be more hopeful.

For too much of the year, the majority of the lineup should've been playing in St. Paul, getting experience & getting better, but they were starting for the Twins b/c the guys who "should have been playing" were injured & out.  Hard to win with a AAAA lineup . . . . 

Same issue with pitching. Moves were made to bring in better pitching, then guys get hurt (in some cases) and don't produce (in others).   What do you do next?

I share the opinion that Baldelli's too "twice through the lineup for the starter bound," especially when you consider the relative weakness of the bullpen options (woefully lacking in guys to get you from Inning #4/5/6 through inning #8).   

Twins' baserunning was atrocious this year.  Responsibility for that falls first on a coaching staff (IMO) - if they refuse to accept that sort of thing, they'll get less of it.   While I'd expect them to do their best to keep such things in the locker room, we would have noticed if 'something was being done about it' (IMO).

Ultimately, this roster produced the result it earned.  We have too many guys who miss too much time too often.  Think about it . . . how many guys do we have where their season is described by the words "missed a whole lot of time due to injury again"?

IMO, we need

"New hitting philosophy & coaches system wide."

Too much trying to hit home runs, etc., too much striking out, not enough contact.

"Baserunning practice."

Ran into way too many outs, left way too many runs on the bases b/c of poor baserunning.

"Top flight pitching coach"

Get someone who's a master of the craft in, someone who's going to stay a while.  There's no stability there.

"Evaluation / restructuring of training"

Again, while this might just be because everyone started in a bad place because of the truncated spring training, it sure seems like guys were dropping like flies because of sore (fill in blank here). 

 

[prouster]

On 10/5/2022 at 11:01 AM, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

Gladden out-manages Rocco in real time on a regular basis.  

 

Maybe Rocco should chill and throw back a few cold ones in the dugout now and then. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

45 minutes ago, prouster said:

Maybe Rocco should chill and throw back a few cold ones in the dugout now and then. 

Maybe.