Gardy's Record

[John Bonnes]

Also, I'd personally trade 10 winning seasons or post season births for one championship. Probably more than ten.

 

I think we all would.

 

But regarding Gardenhire and Kelly, that isn't really the question. The question is: how much did Kelly have to do with the championships and how much did Gardy have to do with the losses?

 

And even that isn't the question if one is talking about whether Gardy should have been retained, because Kelly isn't replacing him. In that case the question is "Would Gardys replacement - whoever that is - be more likely to effect playoff games positively than Gardenhire. And I don't know if that's likely or not either.

[Seth Stohs]

So, if I'm reading this correctly, we are to ignore what happens over 162 games and make our judgments over what happens in a best of 5 series. I know which sample size tells me a lot more!

 

As long as these last three years have been, I for one would enjoy getting beat in the first round of the playoffs every year over this.

[JB_Iowa]

[T]he question is "Would Gardys replacement - whoever that is - be more likely to effect playoff games positively than Gardenhire. And I don't know if that's likely or not either.

 

None of us know. But I'd sure like to find out.

[LaBombo]

So, if I'm reading this correctly, we are to ignore what happens over 162 games and make our judgments over what happens in a best of 5 series. I know which sample size tells me a lot more!

 

As long as these last three years have been, I for one would enjoy getting beat in the first round of the playoffs every year over this.

Everyone gets the sample size argument, but even so, it's not A best of five series anymore. It's being swept three times in five chances that have produced two wins and 12 losses spanning a decade and two almost completely different rosters.

 

But setting aside whether a nearly complete lack of postseason success should have an impact on how a manager is evaluated, Gardenhire's perceived abilities as a manager are largely irrelevant to the discussion of whether it's a good idea to bring him back.

 

Yes, that sounds ridiculous at worst and counter-intuitive at best. But the simple fact is that when managers amass nearly three hundred losses in three years, they are almost never retained, regardless of their reputation or the lack of player talent.

 

And in the eight instances dating back to WWII that they have, every team has lost more than 90 games again, and most fired the manager during the following season. Only TK ever even managed his team again.

 

So if the historically predicted upside of retaining Gardy is another near-100 loss campaign followed by just one more year of Gardy, do you still feel there's enough subjective evidence of his ability to bring him back despite the fact that in the last 70 years only Casey Stengel lost more games in three years than Ron Gardenhire and kept his job?

[gunnarthor]

Also, I'd personally trade 10 winning seasons or post season births for one championship. Probably more than ten. There's something to be said for winning divisions and making the playoffs....but I'd be totally fine with the Twins/Vikings/Wild being the worst team in all of sports for 10 years if they just won one lousy championship. (I wasn't alive or living in Minnesota for their 2 WS wins)

 

So you'd be ok for a repeat of the 90s? Between 91-2000 the team had two winning seasons and one postseason appearance (which happened to be the GOAT. I saw it.)

[jm3319]

So you'd be ok for a repeat of the 90s? Between 91-2000 the team had two winning seasons and one postseason appearance (which happened to be the GOAT. I saw it.)

 

If it somehow meant we got a championship out of it, yes.

 

This is definitely off topic, but here's my short and sweet version: Remember when the Twins were rumored to be in the mix for Cliff Lee at the trade deadline, whatever year that was, but they didn't want to "risk the future" by trading away assets? Well, they saved all those assets, didn't make a deep playoff run, and are sitting on 3 straight 90+ loss seasons with a 4th a definite possibility. My interpretation: They wanted to be competitive for the division title for years to come, rather than go for broke that season. My personal feelings: I'd rather go for broke, and miss, than play it safe to be "competitive." 3 90+ loss seasons would be more understandable if we beefed up those stronger teams we had rather than playing it safe and still sucking years later.

 

What does this have to do with managers? Zero. But what I'm leading to is that I'd personally prefer one amazing season followed by sucking than just being sort of good for a longer time period.

[jm3319]

So, if I'm reading this correctly, we are to ignore what happens over 162 games and make our judgments over what happens in a best of 5 series. I know which sample size tells me a lot more!

 

As long as these last three years have been, I for one would enjoy getting beat in the first round of the playoffs every year over this.

 

In short, yes: That's how sports work. They award trophies to those that win those pesky series in the post season and not who racks up the most wins in the regular season ( well, they get a different trophy I guess). The 162 sample size may TELL you more, but the post season MEANS more.

 

Ask the Denver Broncos how their season was last year? They'd all be disappointed. Ask the Pittsburgh Penguins how their season was last year. Ask the Vikings team that went 15-1 in the regular season how they felt about it after they lost when it mattered most. Ask any number 1 seed or division winner in any sport how their season was after losing early in the playoffs.

 

Seth, I agree 100% I'd rather lose in the first round of the playoffs than lose a million games 3 years in a row. Everyone would. But that's also a function of our standards being down in the dumps these last few seasons. Ask yourself this, would you be happy with 5 straight years of losing in the first round? Personally, yeah the first couple years would be fine, but after awhile even that first round loss becomes disappointing because we expect more after continued success. Gardy had some great teams( whether he was directly responsible for them is a different topic). Getting to the post season a bunch of times is great. Getting swept year in and year out doesn't feel great after awhile. It's all about perspective.

[spideyo]

My initial poin of this post wasn't that we should cling to Gardy no matter what.

 

My point was more that he is NOT a terrible manager. If he needed to go just to have a fresh face in there is one thing. But it's foolish to claim he should be fired for being incompetent and terrible, that is simply not supported by the numbers.

 

Strictly by the numbers, you can arge Gardy is the best manager the Twins have ever had, in their 50+ seasons of play.

 

That doesn't mean, nor did I mean to imply, that he should have a job for life. If you need to move on for the sake of moving on, that happens. I'm just gettin really sick of all the people claiming Gardy is the worst manager ever.

[ThePuck]

I'm just gettin really sick of all the people claiming Gardy is the worst manager ever.

 

Who has said that? Who are 'all the people'?

[gunnarthor]

If it somehow meant we got a championship out of it, yes.

 

This is definitely off topic, but here's my short and sweet version: Remember when the Twins were rumored to be in the mix for Cliff Lee at the trade deadline, whatever year that was, but they didn't want to "risk the future" by trading away assets? Well, they saved all those assets, didn't make a deep playoff run, and are sitting on 3 straight 90+ loss seasons with a 4th a definite possibility. My interpretation: They wanted to be competitive for the division title for years to come, rather than go for broke that season. My personal feelings: I'd rather go for broke, and miss, than play it safe to be "competitive." 3 90+ loss seasons would be more understandable if we beefed up those stronger teams we had rather than playing it safe and still sucking years later.

 

Well, the 2010 Twins did trade Ramos but that was after Seattle turned down a Ramos and Hicks offer for Lee. Cliff Lee Rumors: Monday: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com

Seattle ended up liking Texas' offer (centered around uber slugging prospect Smoak) better.

[TheLeviathan]

Well, the 2010 Twins did trade Ramos but that was after Seattle turned down a Ramos and Hicks offer for Lee. Cliff Lee Rumors: Monday: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com

Seattle ended up liking Texas' offer (centered around uber slugging prospect Smoak) better.

 

My understanding was that they preferred our offer until Ramos got hurt.

[jm3319]

My initial poin of this post wasn't that we should cling to Gardy no matter what.

 

My point was more that he is NOT a terrible manager. If he needed to go just to have a fresh face in there is one thing. But it's foolish to claim he should be fired for being incompetent and terrible, that is simply not supported by the numbers.

 

Strictly by the numbers, you can arge Gardy is the best manager the Twins have ever had, in their 50+ seasons of play.

 

That doesn't mean, nor did I mean to imply, that he should have a job for life. If you need to move on for the sake of moving on, that happens. I'm just gettin really sick of all the people claiming Gardy is the worst manager ever.

 

Sure, an argument can be made that the team had it's "most success" under Gardy. Whether that means he is their best manager is a different debate. There's far more to winning games than who is managing the team.

 

Personally, I'd argue that '86-'01 was the Twins' "most successful" block of time, only because it contains the Twins' only 2 WS wins. It just happened to occur under TK. I'd take his 2 rings and lower lows than Gardy's more "consistent competitiveness" 10 times out of 10. Again, not trying to compare the two managers, but more so the organization's success through the time periods managed by these 2 managers.

[ThePuck]

Since Gardy's playoff record is mentioned, A blast from the past:

 

From Jim Caple's story on the Twins, the day after they were swept by the Yankees in 2010:

 

The only solace the Twins could take Saturday was they didn't blow a lead as they had in their eight previous postseason losses to New York. They fell behind in the second inning and never threatened until loading the bases after scoring one run in the eighth on Span's RBI single, one of two hits the Twins had with runners in scoring position this series. (The other didn't bring home a run, though.)Twins manager Ron Gardenhire said "dominating" is not the right term for the Yankees' success against his team. "Recordwise, yes, they've won nine in a row. That's not dominating us, other than wins and losses; the games are really close and could go either way."

 

Yeah, well, maybe. But wins and losses are the only things that really matter at this point.

 

My comment:

 

So, I guess that "putrid", is not the right term for the Twins' record the last three years. Record-wise, yes, we have lost 96 or more games the last three years, but that's not "putrid", other than wins and losses; the games are _really close_ and _could_ go either way.

 

Please note: This post is not mine originally, it came from another site I frequent, but I had to share.