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

21 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

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

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

Nice win! This team can flat out hit.

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

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

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

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

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

17 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

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

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

There was no needed "4th out."

The two plays weren't similar.

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

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

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

 

I also asked you not to quote me! ?

3 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

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

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

2 hours ago, Aggies7 said:

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

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

12 hours ago, Aggies7 said:

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

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