PDA

View Full Version : Gardy's Record



spideyo
09-30-2013, 01:11 PM
I've started hearing the complaint come up again that Gardy can't win in the playoffs, and we'll never be a championship team under him. This argument always annoyed me, so I finally decided to actually look at the numbers.

In the 12 seasons he's managed the twins, they've gone to the playoffs 6 times. In the 41 seasons prior to that, the Twins made it to the playoffs 5 times, under four different managers.

Gardy may only have 6 wins in the postseason, but all other twins managers (other than TK) managed only 3 wins.

Speaking of TK, while he did have championship teams in 87 and 91, he only had three other winning seasons in his 15 years as Manager.

If my math is right, Gardy has been manager for a full 1/3 of all Twins winning seasons since they began play in 1961.

So how come people think he's so awful?

Badsmerf
09-30-2013, 01:27 PM
Playoff have evolved to include 3 divisions with a wildcard (now a second wildcard) during his tenure. Only once during his regime did the Twins have the second-best record in the AL which would have qualified for the playoffs under the old format (and they got swept in the ALDS).

It isn't just his awful record either. The team looked scared and outmatched in every series. They hung their heads and quit. NY laughed and taunted the Twins and didn't get any kind of push back. Those are things that I put on the man leading the team. I would have fired him after the disgusting performance in 2006 (along with his issue with Lohse, Bartlett, Cuddy etc.). He should have never been allowed to lose another 6 straight playoff games.

mike wants wins
09-30-2013, 01:36 PM
So, he's good when the players are good, but its not his fault when the players are bad?

gunnarthor
09-30-2013, 01:45 PM
So, he's good when the players are good, but its not his fault when the players are bad?

Or his good teams still managed to overachieve. And his bad teams should have been worse.

gunnarthor
09-30-2013, 01:49 PM
Playoff have evolved to include 3 divisions with a wildcard (now a second wildcard) during his tenure. Only once during his regime did the Twins have the second-best record in the AL which would have qualified for the playoffs under the old format (and they got swept in the ALDS).

It isn't just his awful record either. The team looked scared and outmatched in every series. They hung their heads and quit. NY laughed and taunted the Twins and didn't get any kind of push back. Those are things that I put on the man leading the team. I would have fired him after the disgusting performance in 2006 (along with his issue with Lohse, Bartlett, Cuddy etc.). He should have never been allowed to lose another 6 straight playoff games.

Actually, I sure don't remember them looking scared and quitting. Sure, they weren't as good - esp the 87 win team that managed to lose three games to a 103 win team - but they didn't hang their heads and quit.

ThePuck
09-30-2013, 01:49 PM
Or his good teams still managed to overachieve. And his bad teams should have been worse.

How did his good teams manage to overachieve? They had, for pretty much Gardy's tenure up to and including 2010, the best talent of any team in the AL Central.

mike wants wins
09-30-2013, 01:52 PM
It is a serious question, why do Gardy's supporters point out his winning seasons as proof he is good, but say these last three years do not show he is bad?

He had Santana (best pitcher), Mauer (best catcher/hitter/player), Morneau (MVP), Hunter (All star) and many other very good players, and won some games, and he's a good manager, but now that he doesn't have those players, he's still a good manager but just doesn't have good players around?

gunnarthor
09-30-2013, 01:57 PM
How did his good teams manage to overachieve? They had, for pretty much Gardy's tenure up to and including 2010, the best talent of any team in the AL Central.

The 02-04 White Sox were better by RS and pyth w/l records. As were the 06 Tigers. (And the 09 Tigers were probably better, too). 2010 Twins were the only Twins team that was clearly the best team on paper.

Death Rattle
09-30-2013, 02:00 PM
The 02-04 White Sox were better by RS and pyth w/l records. As were the 06 Tigers. (And the 09 Tigers were probably better, too). 2010 Twins were the only Twins team that was clearly the best team on paper.

So they won close games during that time and he's suddenly magic?

Well 2012 Buck Showalter was magic...how did he suddenly lose that ability in 2013?

ThePuck
09-30-2013, 02:01 PM
I don't hold pyth projections as gospel. I think it's silly to do so. Looking at the actual talent on the teams, the Twins were usually the best team, talent-wise, in the division from 2002-2010.

BHtwins
09-30-2013, 02:02 PM
They had a perennial Cy Young candidate and a solid young rotation a lights out bull pen, two former or future MVPS. If anything they underachieved. Those teams from 2004-2008 should have won the division. For sure I think the 2006 team had world series caliber talent. The 2007-2008 teams should have won the division but some big spending from rivals plus underperforming prevented it. the 2010 team is the only outlier from a talent perspective.

Hosken Bombo Disco
09-30-2013, 02:05 PM
I've started hearing the complaint come up again that Gardy can't win in the playoffs, and we'll never be a championship team under him. This argument always annoyed me, so I finally decided to actually look at the numbers.

In the 12 seasons he's managed the twins, they've gone to the playoffs 6 times. In the 41 seasons prior to that, the Twins made it to the playoffs 5 times, under four different managers.

Gardy may only have 6 wins in the postseason, but all other twins managers (other than TK) managed only 3 wins.

Speaking of TK, while he did have championship teams in 87 and 91, he only had three other winning seasons in his 15 years as Manager.

If my math is right, Gardy has been manager for a full 1/3 of all Twins winning seasons since they began play in 1961.

So how come people think he's so awful?

Spideyo,

Making the playoffs has been a lower bar since the mid 1990s and the realignment.

I'd like you to compare Gardenhire with Terry Francona, Tom Kelly, and Joe Torre -- all of these managers won a World Series in their first year as manager, and in Francona's situation in Boston he broke the Babe's curse.

Each of those guys had at least as much success as Gardenhire. Those guys stepped aside when it was time. What makes Gardenhire's case so different that he can't be allowed to step aside when it's time to step aside?

Thanks.

nicksaviking
09-30-2013, 02:10 PM
Or his good teams still managed to overachieve. And his bad teams should have been worse.

I don't totally disagree with this, some years the team was clearly better than their average talent, and the Twins likely have less talent now than the Cubs and White Sox yet still have a better (or same) record.

It still doesn't explain the terrible playoff outings however. I don't know that Gardy is to blame, but for at least a decade there has always seemed to be an "Aw shucks, just glad to be here" attitude with this franchise when they play the big-money, East Coast teams. Sure, the Twins likely would have always been the underdogs, but they should still have been able to win a game or two. I don't blame Gardy, but I don't like the underdog mentality this club tries to tattoo on itself and sell to the public. I want to lose that attitude, and if getting rid of it means getting rid of the manager, then I guess some eggs need to be broken to remake this omlette.

gunnarthor
09-30-2013, 02:15 PM
I don't hold pyth projections as gospel. I think it's silly to do so. Looking at the actual talent on the teams, the Twins were usually the best team, talent-wise, in the division from 2002-2010.

Well, I was trying to supply facts. But ok. Those 02-04 White Sox had guys like Frank Thomas and Paul Konerko. Dye. Carlos Lee. Magglio Ordonez. Bartolo Colon. Buehrle. Garland (a top pitching prospect who had a nice career). Estaban Loiza came in 2nd in Cy Young voting. Generally had some strong bullpens w/Gordon and Koch. Contreras. That talent lapped MLB in 2005 but couldn't get past the Twins for several years beforehand.

I think you could make a case that if the 06 Twins had stayed healthy, they might have been better than the 06 Tigers but they didn't, so I don't think they were. The Tigers were a lot better in run differential, made the WS and had a really strong rotation (verlander, Bonderman, Rogers and Robertson were all 3 WAR or better guys). Bullpen w/Zumaya. Inge had a great year.

I'm not going to argue about the 2009 87 win Twins overall talent level.

I agree that the 2010 team was the best team in the central.

ThePuck
09-30-2013, 02:16 PM
Well, I was trying to supply facts. But ok. Those 02-04 White Sox had guys like Frank Thomas and Paul Konerko. Dye. Carlos Lee. Magglio Ordonez. Bartolo Colon. Buehrle. Garland (a top pitching prospect who had a nice career). Estaban Loiza came in 2nd in Cy Young voting. Generally had some strong bullpens w/Gordon and Koch. Contreras. That talent lapped MLB in 2005 but couldn't get past the Twins for several years beforehand.

I think you could make a case that if the 06 Twins had stayed healthy, they might have been better than the 06 Tigers but they didn't, so I don't think they were. The Tigers were a lot better in run differential, made the WS and had a really strong rotation (verlander, Bonderman, Rogers and Robertson were all 3 WAR or better guys). Bullpen w/Zumaya. Inge had a great year.

I'm not going to argue about the 2009 87 win Twins overall talent level.

I agree that the 2010 team was the best team in the central.

The pyth isn't fact. It's an estimation of record based on runs scored and runs allowed...giving teams extra credit for blowout wins as if a win isn't a win. It's like the college football ranking system, considering points scored as part of the equation for determining who plays for the national championship. As if running the score up on severely weak teams proves anything.

gunnarthor
09-30-2013, 02:21 PM
I don't totally disagree with this, some years the team was clearly better than their average talent, and the Twins likely have less talent now than the Cubs and White Sox yet still have a better (or same) record.

It still doesn't explain the terrible playoff outings however. I don't know that Gardy is to blame, but for at least a decade there has always seemed to be an "Aw shucks, just glad to be here" attitude with this franchise when they play the big-money, East Coast teams. Sure, the Twins likely would have always been the underdogs, but they should still have been able to win a game or two. I don't blame Gardy, but I don't like the underdog mentality this club tries to tattoo on itself and sell to the public. I want to lose that attitude, and if getting rid of it means getting rid of the manager, then I guess some eggs need to be broken to remake this omlette.

Keep in mind, the Twins weren't losing to run of the mill playoff teams. They lost to three teams that won 101 or more games during the season, another team that won 99. Two went on to win the WS. Only the 06 team had a better record than its opponent (and that series really hurt). It's tough to beat those sort of teams, esp if you're missing a Liriano, Morneau or Nathan. They did knock of one 103 win team but I would suspect that a 25% winning percentage against playoff teams w/over 100 wins is actually above average.

ThePuck
09-30-2013, 02:25 PM
I don't totally disagree with this, some years the team was clearly better than their average talent, and the Twins likely have less talent now than the Cubs and White Sox yet still have a better (or same) record.

It still doesn't explain the terrible playoff outings however. I don't know that Gardy is to blame, but for at least a decade there has always seemed to be an "Aw shucks, just glad to be here" attitude with this franchise when they play the big-money, East Coast teams. Sure, the Twins likely would have always been the underdogs, but they should still have been able to win a game or two. I don't blame Gardy, but I don't like the underdog mentality this club tries to tattoo on itself and sell to the public. I want to lose that attitude, and if getting rid of it means getting rid of the manager, then I guess some eggs need to be broken to remake this omlette.

Hey is this true? From 2002-2011, the Yankees beat the Twins every time they faced them in the first round of the playoff...and lost to every other team they faced in the first round of the playoffs

whydidnt
09-30-2013, 03:17 PM
I like to think that perhaps Gardy was a good manager and still could be, but for whatever reason, he is not currently pushing the right buttons and his teams have been terrible for 3 straight years. IMO, Gary has never been a great tactical manager, but he had a track record of getting results out of guys. It seems he isn't doing that as well with the current crop of Twins. I don't think he is fully to blame for their results of the last 3 years, but I do think other managers may have been able to get a few more wins, especially in the 2nd half of the season, as it seems the Twins have completely imploded down the stretch in each of our lousy years under him. 3 straight horrible years is enough for me to say it's time to try a different approach. Really, it can't get any worse can it?

Hosken Bombo Disco
09-30-2013, 03:32 PM
Keep in mind, the Twins weren't losing to run of the mill playoff teams.

Gunnarthor,

How many playoff series did the Yankees win between beating the Twins in '04 and beating the Twins in '09?

gunnarthor
09-30-2013, 03:36 PM
Gunnarthor,

How many playoff series did the Yankees win between beating the Twins in '04 and beating the Twins in '09?

So, because the 07 lost the 04 Yankees were just a run of the mill team?

Boom Boom
09-30-2013, 03:47 PM
I've heard the refrain that Gardy "gets the most from what he has", but I think that his good teams, especially the early 2000s teams, had more talent than people give them credit for, and the players were frequently underrated.

Hosken Bombo Disco
09-30-2013, 03:59 PM
So, because the 07 lost the 04 Yankees were just a run of the mill team?

Maybe not run of the mill, but definitely not special.

The 2009 Yankees was a nice swan song for Jeter Rivera Pettitte et al but they weren't necessarily destined. The Twins could have at least put up a fight that year if they had any fight in them.

The answer was zero, by the way. The Yankees won zero playoff series between 2004 and 2009. Thanks for playing Gardenhire trivia, we have some nice parting gifts. :)

gunnarthor
09-30-2013, 04:07 PM
I've heard the refrain that Gardy "gets the most from what he has", but I think that his good teams, especially the early 2000s teams, had more talent than people give them credit for, and the players were frequently underrated.

Maybe. And maybe that credit goes to Gardy. Jauque Jones, AJ, Lohse, Koskie, Lew Ford (had one really nice season), Keilty (played well enough to get traded for Stewart), etc were never highly regarded prospects. Guys like Everyday Eddie and LaTroy Hawkins emerged when he came in. But as I posted somewhere else, it's pretty arguable that those 02-04 White Sox had more talent.

spideyo
09-30-2013, 04:07 PM
I'd like you to compare Gardenhire with Terry Francona, Tom Kelly, and Joe Torre -- all of these managers won a World Series in their first year as manager, and in Francona's situation in Boston he broke the Babe's curse.

Each of those guys had at least as much success as Gardenhire. Those guys stepped aside when it was time.



I think you need to do a little more research. Let's look at your three examples.

Joe Torre:
Mets: 77-81, fired without having a single winning season.
Braves: 82-84, made the NLCS his first year, but each record declined each of the next two seasons an he was fired.
Did not manage 85-90
Cardinals: 91-95, winning records his first three seasons but no playoff slots, fired in June of 95
Yankees: 96-07, had a lot of success, but also had arguably some of the best teams ever assembled playing for him, including several known juicers. Turned down a one year contract that seemed like an insult from Steinbrenner.
Dodgers: 2008-2010, had some post season success, retired in 2010 at the age of 70, 50 years after his baseball career began.

Terry Francona:
Phillies: 97-00, fired after four straight years of losing
Did not manage: 01-03
Red Sox: 04-11, won a couple titles and had a lot of success, but ultimately got fired after the Red Sox collapsed and he apparently lost respect and control in the clubhouse
Did not manage: 2012
Indians: 13-present, so far so good

Tom Kelly:
Twins: 86-01, in his second season as manager (first full season), won the World Series with a team that had one of the worst winning percentages and run differential of any World Series team. After the amazing 91 season, presided over a long depressing decline, and eventually resigned amidst discussions of the league's plan to eliminate the Twins franchise entirely.

So there you have it. Torre and Francona have both been fired repeatedly, neither of them winning, well, anything at all with the first team they managed. Francona never "stepped aside", TK only retired when it looked like the entire team would be gone after that season, and Torre was on his fifth team as a manager, and going into his 6th decade in baseball.

Compare that to Gardy. He will be going into his 13th year with the Twins, a longer tenure than Torre had with the Yankees, and only two seasons short of TK's tenure.

TK most certainly did NOT have more success then Gardy, when you view his managerial career as a whole. Including this year, Francona has now led teams to post season play 6 times, same as Gardy, but 5 of those were wild card slots, whereas all of Gardy's teams won their division.
Yes, Torre has had more success than Gardy, but he only made it to the post season once in his first thirteen years of managing.

With the exception of World Series rings, I think Gardy compares pretty well to these guys. He hasn't been fired, he hasn't had a complete clubhouse meltdown, and he's certainly had more consistent success than TK ever did.

Hosken Bombo Disco
09-30-2013, 04:52 PM
TK most certainly did NOT have more success then Gardy, when you view his managerial career as a whole.

Including this year, Francona has now led teams to post season play 6 times, same as Gardy, but 5 of those were wild card slots, whereas all of Gardy's teams won their division.

Yes, Torre has had more success than Gardy, but he only made it to the post season once in his first thirteen years of managing.

With the exception of World Series rings, I think Gardy compares pretty well to these guys. He hasn't been fired, he hasn't had a complete clubhouse meltdown, and he's certainly had more consistent success than TK ever did.

I asked for it, I got it. :) Whereas I was reflecting on the bigger picture and the relative normality of occasionally needing to part ways with a good manager, you managed to get down into the gritty details to argue that Ron Gardenhire not only belongs in the pantheon of the best managers of our generation, but even excels them in many key respects, and you backed it up with numbers. I'm still not swayed though. I would have thought a change was the right thing to do. We'll see.

spideyo
09-30-2013, 07:29 PM
What can I say, I had a slow day at work.

Really what they should do now is send Gardy to Venezuela or Dominican Republic for the winter so he can learn some Spanish and find an assistant hitting coach that can relate to Pinto/Florimon/Ramirez/Rosario/Sano/Arcia/Escobar

LaBombo
09-30-2013, 08:16 PM
With the exception of World Series rings, I think Gardy compares pretty well to these guys. He hasn't been fired, he hasn't had a complete clubhouse meltdown, and he's certainly had more consistent success than TK ever did.
It's pretty hard to think of any manager with no playoff success who is widely regarded as one of the elites of his generation. Maybe that's as unfair as not considering players on non-contenders for the MVP award, but that seems to be the prevailing attitude almost everywhere.

But even if that comparison is conceded, what does it have to do with not firing Gardenhire? Managers who amass nearly 300 losses in 3 seasons are fired. In the incredibly rare postwar instances that they have not, they have all lost 90+ games again and gotten fired the following year, usually during the season. All but one.

Tom Kelly is the only manager since WWII to continue managing his team after four 90+ loss seasons. He did it for one year. If the best comp to defend Gardenhire with is a single-season aberration of historical proportions, isn't that extraordinarily compelling evidence that Gardenhire doesn't belong in the Twins' dugout any more?

jm3319
09-30-2013, 08:40 PM
With the exception of World Series rings, I think Gardy compares pretty well to these guys. He hasn't been fired, he hasn't had a complete clubhouse meltdown, and he's certainly had more consistent success than TK ever did.

This is a HUGE exception.....

Sure, they're pretty similar if you ignore the MULTIPLE CHAMPIONSHIP SEASONS.....no big deal.

ThePuck
09-30-2013, 08:42 PM
This is a HUGE exception.....

Sure, they're pretty similar if you ignore the MULTIPLE CHAMPIONSHIP SEASONS.....no big deal.

So, Mrs. Lincoln, besides THAT, how did you like the play?

jm3319
09-30-2013, 08:44 PM
With the exception of World Series rings, I think Gardy compares pretty well to these guys. He hasn't been fired, he hasn't had a complete clubhouse meltdown, and he's certainly had more consistent success than TK ever did.


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)

John Bonnes
09-30-2013, 09:24 PM
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
09-30-2013, 09:44 PM
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
09-30-2013, 10:00 PM
[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
09-30-2013, 10:10 PM
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
09-30-2013, 11:40 PM
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
10-01-2013, 12:28 AM
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
10-01-2013, 12:35 AM
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
10-01-2013, 12:28 PM
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
10-01-2013, 12:34 PM
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
10-01-2013, 12:37 PM
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 (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/07/cliff-lee-rumors-monday.html)
Seattle ended up liking Texas' offer (centered around uber slugging prospect Smoak) better.

TheLeviathan
10-01-2013, 02:08 PM
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 (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/07/cliff-lee-rumors-monday.html)
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
10-01-2013, 06:09 PM
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
10-02-2013, 04:02 PM
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.