Minnesotans want Ron Gardenhire to keep his job

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CDog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrylos98

But what really gets me and I think it is ridiculous is that the same fan/media base who drove Childress out of Minnesota wants to keep Gardy despite the fact (yes it is a fact, look it up ;) ) that Childress' teams as a whole were more successful that Gardy's teams...

---

---I looked it up. 5 seasons. 39-35 overall record. 2 playoff appearances. 1-2 playoff record.

Sorry, not seeing the basis for the claim that it is a fact that these teams were "as a whole were more successful that Gardy's teams...".

---

Were you expecting anything else when you consider the source?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrylos98

But what really gets me and I think it is ridiculous is that the same fan/media base who drove Childress out of Minnesota wants to keep Gardy despite the fact (yes it is a fact, look it up ;) ) that Childress' teams as a whole were more successful that Gardy's teams...

---

---I looked it up. 5 seasons. 39-35 overall record. 2 playoff appearances. 1-2 playoff record.

Sorry, not seeing the basis for the claim that it is a fact that these teams were "as a whole were more successful that Gardy's teams...".

---

There you go:

Regular Season:
Childress: Overall record 39-35 .527
Gardenhire: Overall record 926-839 .525

Childress went to a league championship game and was cheated out of a Superbowl Playoff record: 1-2 and a bye
Gardy's post-season record has been dismal. Post-Season record: 5-22

So:

Unless .527 is worse than .525 and a 1-2 and a bye record is worse that 5-22 record, it is a fact (last time I checked)

Another example of the pro Gardy bias

Really? That's your argument. A .002 difference in win percentage?

That's statistically insignificant. 1 Twins hot streak could put Gardy back on top in that race.

Not to mention, surely even you can work out why Gardy hasn't been run out of town the way Childress was. Childress had alieanted virtually everyone in the organization by the time he got canned, and had lost the support of his players completely.

And Childress was cheated out of nothing. When you take yourself out of range of a potential game winning field goal with a too many men on the field penalty, you don't deserve to win, and you have no right to complain.

But back to baseball - if winning percentage is your measuring stick, why don't you look up how .525 stacks up against other managers, past and present. Guys like Maddon, Showalter and Tom Kelly for example.

Here a hint: it's higher. But I guess that's just "pro-Gardy bias", right?:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

Really? That's your argument. A .002 difference in win percentage?

That's statistically insignificant. 1 Twins hot streak could put Gardy back on top in that race.

Not to mention, surely even you can work out why Gardy hasn't been run out of town the way Childress was. Childress had alieanted virtually everyone in the organization by the time he got canned, and had lost the support of his players completely.

And Childress was cheated out of nothing. When you take yourself out of range of a potential game winning field goal with a too many men on the field penalty, you don't deserve to win, and you have no right to complain.

But back to baseball - if winning percentage is your measuring stick, why don't you look up how .525 stacks up against other managers, past and present. Guys like Maddon, Showalter and Tom Kelly for example.

Here a hint: it's higher. But I guess that's just "pro-Gardy bias", right?:rolleyes:

---

In reverse order:

TK has 2 rings and a great post season record. Maddon has an excellent post-season record. Showalter is as good as Gardy :)

The Vikings were cheated big time at that game. Lots of non-calls including the bounty calls. If they called that personal foul dirty hit against Favre game was over. But the powers of being definitely had a Katrina-driven agenda.

Again, I said that Gardy's record is worse than Childress and they got totally different treatment by the fan base. Regular season records are a dead heat (so Gardy is about as great as Childress, I give you that) but the postseason/playoff records are not. Gardy is light years worse. And this is a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrylos98

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

Really? That's your argument. A .002 difference in win percentage?

That's statistically insignificant. 1 Twins hot streak could put Gardy back on top in that race.

Not to mention, surely even you can work out why Gardy hasn't been run out of town the way Childress was. Childress had alieanted virtually everyone in the organization by the time he got canned, and had lost the support of his players completely.

And Childress was cheated out of nothing. When you take yourself out of range of a potential game winning field goal with a too many men on the field penalty, you don't deserve to win, and you have no right to complain.

But back to baseball - if winning percentage is your measuring stick, why don't you look up how .525 stacks up against other managers, past and present. Guys like Maddon, Showalter and Tom Kelly for example.

Here a hint: it's higher. But I guess that's just "pro-Gardy bias", right?:rolleyes:

---

In reverse order:

TK has 2 rings and a great post season record. Maddon has an excellent post-season record. Showalter is as good as Gardy :)

The Vikings were cheated big time at that game. Lots of non-calls including the bounty calls. If they called that personal foul dirty hit against Favre game was over. But the powers of being definitely had a Katrina-driven agenda.

Again, I said that Gardy's record is worse than Childress and they got totally different treatment by the fan base. Regular season records are a dead heat (so Gardy is about as great as Childress, I give you that) but the postseason/playoff records are not. Gardy is light years worse. And this is a fact.

---

Winning percentages between football and baseball are apples and oranges. A great baseball team might win 60% of their games (~100 wins) but win 60% (10-6) of your games in football and you aren't even guaranteed to go to the playoffs. Great teams in football win 80%-90% of their games.

he's not the source of the problem. but at the same time, he isn't the solution. You honestly think he can rally the troups and get guys like Mauer and Morneau fired up after hearing the same voice after all these years of never really being THAT good? I don't think so. I don't like change for the sake of change, but if you're not going to make a change after 200 losses in 2 years, when will you make a change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jm3319

he's not the source of the problem. but at the same time, he isn't the solution. You honestly think he can rally the troups and get guys like Mauer and Morneau fired up after hearing the same voice after all these years of never really being THAT good? I don't think so. I don't like change for the sake of change, but if you're not going to make a change after 200 losses in 2 years, when will you make a change?

---

That would be, never.

2 managers in 26 years. Gardy walks out of this job on his own set of terms, just as TK did.

It's an old boys club, comfortable in its ways, they couldn't even entirely get rid of the worst GM of the 21st Century!, with semi-engaged, semi-absentee ownership- who besides letting a "temporary" GM determine what his own status might be from year to year, or even day to day- is focused on a different set of priorities than the fans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oxtung

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrylos98

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

Really? That's your argument. A .002 difference in win percentage?

That's statistically insignificant. 1 Twins hot streak could put Gardy back on top in that race.

Not to mention, surely even you can work out why Gardy hasn't been run out of town the way Childress was. Childress had alieanted virtually everyone in the organization by the time he got canned, and had lost the support of his players completely.

And Childress was cheated out of nothing. When you take yourself out of range of a potential game winning field goal with a too many men on the field penalty, you don't deserve to win, and you have no right to complain.

But back to baseball - if winning percentage is your measuring stick, why don't you look up how .525 stacks up against other managers, past and present. Guys like Maddon, Showalter and Tom Kelly for example.

Here a hint: it's higher. But I guess that's just "pro-Gardy bias", right?http://twinsdaily.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.png

---

In reverse order:

TK has 2 rings and a great post season record. Maddon has an excellent post-season record. Showalter is as good as Gardy http://twinsdaily.com/images/smilies/smile.png

The Vikings were cheated big time at that game. Lots of non-calls including the bounty calls. If they called that personal foul dirty hit against Favre game was over. But the powers of being definitely had a Katrina-driven agenda.

Again, I said that Gardy's record is worse than Childress and they got totally different treatment by the fan base. Regular season records are a dead heat (so Gardy is about as great as Childress, I give you that) but the postseason/playoff records are not. Gardy is light years worse. And this is a fact.

---

Winning percentages between football and baseball are apples and oranges. A great baseball team might win 60% of their games (~100 wins) but win 60% (10-6) of your games in football and you aren't even guaranteed to go to the playoffs. Great teams in football win 80%-90% of their games.

---

Huh ?!? This is a partly true, but in the end, still a specious argument, is the discussion even about "great teams"? Even by your criteria, Gardenhire has never had a "great team" (closest was .593 in 06), he's 0/11, while Childress had one, making him 1/5.

These are just some of many playoff teams and/or division champs over the years thanks to the ridiculous priority placed on geographical division alignments in the "League of Parity", the NFL:



78 Vikings 8-7-1
80 Vikings 9-7
04 Vikings 8-8
04 Rams 8-8
10 Seahawks 7-9 (division winners!)
04 Seahawks 9-7
99 Seahawks 9-7
99 Dolphins 9-7
95 Dolphins 9-7 (These are just a few of the countless 9-7 playoff/div. champ teams)
09 Jets 9-7
09 Ravens 9-7
91 Jets 8-8
90 Saints 8-8
85 Browns 8-8
82 Browns 4-5
82 Lions 4-5
11 Cincy 9-7
11 Broncos 8-8
08 Chargers 8-8
06 Giants 8-8

There are mediocre teams that make the playoffs in MLB as well- who would dispute that the inbalanced schedule has skewed Gardy's record significantly better than it should be?, his dreadful performance against the Eastern Division is well documented. He made his career mark feasting on the dregs of the AL and just about every inter-division series against the clearly inferior NL. This has clearly been more than "good enough" for the ownership, which fought a pitched battle to commit club suicide- leave the state or contract itself out of existence- from 2001 to 2007. It's also "good enough" for the fans, just happy to still have a team in town with a laconic, unflashy, but seemingly successful, manager. Childress, though on the surface similar in delivery to Gardenhire, by dint of his aloof and secretive ways and anal personality, was never able to endear himself in Minnesota.


In the end, the point of discussion is about a body of work over a career and the final net record, not single season "great teams". Both compiled records in some of the weaker-to-mediocre divisions in their respective leagues. Gardy gets the edge for making the playoffs, watered down as these accomplishments are, 6/11 years, Childress made it in 2/5 years. As far as postseason goes, Gardy and Childress come up short yet again, as they both were able to make it past the first round of the playoffs just once. Curiously though, Gardy did it in his first year, inheriting a group of up-and-comers, and failed to learn and build from the experience- as we all are well aware, he has been a playoff flopper ever since, even with "better" teams on paper, and losing embarrassingly meekly each time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrylos98

In reverse order:

TK has 2 rings and a great post season record. Maddon has an excellent post-season record. Showalter is as good as Gardy :)

The Vikings were cheated big time at that game. Lots of non-calls including the bounty calls. If they called that personal foul dirty hit against Favre game was over. But the powers of being definitely had a Katrina-driven agenda.

Again, I said that Gardy's record is worse than Childress and they got totally different treatment by the fan base. Regular season records are a dead heat (so Gardy is about as great as Childress, I give you that) but the postseason/playoff records are not. Gardy is light years worse. And this is a fact.

---

---Always interesting how some people get judged solely what that they so in the postseason, and bit of success there erases memories of other shortcomings. TK is often considered a legendary manager because he won 2 World Series. Nobody talks about his .478 career winning percentage or the fact that in 15 years, the Twins finished higher than 4th in their division only 5 times.

Same thing happens with players sometimes. See Jack Morris and Reggie Jackson, a lot of people look back on those guys as being a lot better than they really were because of a couple of great postseason performances.

I get why it happens, but it strikes me as much more emotional than logical.

If postseason succes is how you measure greatness, then what about players who had great careers but never achieved there. Ted Williams and Rod Carew for example: .200 and .220 respective career postseason averages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jokin

In the end, the point of discussion is about a body of work over a career and the final net record, not single season "great teams". Both compiled records in some of the weaker-to-mediocre divisions in their respective leagues. Gardy gets the edge for making the playoffs, watered down as these accomplishments are, 6/11 years, Childress made it in 2/5 years. As far as postseason goes, Gardy and Childress come up short yet again, as they both were able to make it past the first round of the playoffs just once. Curiously though, Gardy did it in his first year, inheriting a group of up-and-comers, and failed to learn and build from the experience- as we all are well aware, he has been a playoff flopper ever since, even with "better" teams on paper, and losing embarrassingly meekly each time.

---

---

You need starting pitching to win in the posteason.

I think the lack of playoff success is a lot more attributable to the fact that we were running out the likes of Brian Duensing and Nick Blackburn to face stacked Yankee lineups in October than it is to Gardy's "failure to build and learn."

(When Brucy Bochy won his first World Series in 15 years of managing with the Giants in 2010, was that because of his ability to "build and learn" from his previous failures? Or you think maybe that pitching staff had a little something to do with it.)

And I think you're point about ownership is a fair one. At least in the '00s, before Target field, they were content with having a team that competes but never truly contends. Those teams were built to beat the Royals in July. They were not built to beat the Yankees in October. But that's more a reflection of ownership than of Gardy.

It's really not that hard to understand. You have to qualify for the playoffs first. You can't enter the World Series Building until you find the playoff door. If the Twins are part of a division with weaker teams. So be it... but let's not assume that the Tigers and White Sox were just laying there sleeping and not making an effort at all.

Once there... Anyone can win it... Who's hot... Who's not... David Freese anyone?

I don't have a lot of time for anyone who thinks that Gardy should be blamed for the Twins Playoff Record when so many managers couldn't even find the door.

I'd like to see a new Manager next year... However... it won't take a calender... It will take a stop watch... To time how quickly that new manager is torn apart.

Sometimes I think the Anti-Gardy crowd is just trying to stir things up. Some of the points made are rediculous...

If you think a different manager will be a better fit next year... OK... Let's hear it... I'm down with that... There may be some valid reasons for a change. Fresh Voice... I can hear that... Someone who works with young players better... I can hear that...

But... if the reason is because Gardy sucks in the playoffs and that he won division titles against weak oppenents... You are not worth reading!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jokin

In the end, the point of discussion is about a body of work over a career and the final net record, not single season "great teams". Both compiled records in some of the weaker-to-mediocre divisions in their respective leagues. Gardy gets the edge for making the playoffs, watered down as these accomplishments are, 6/11 years, Childress made it in 2/5 years. As far as postseason goes, Gardy and Childress come up short yet again, as they both were able to make it past the first round of the playoffs just once. Curiously though, Gardy did it in his first year, inheriting a group of up-and-comers, and failed to learn and build from the experience- as we all are well aware, he has been a playoff flopper ever since, even with "better" teams on paper, and losing embarrassingly meekly each time.

---

---

You need starting pitching to win in the posteason.

I think the lack of playoff success is a lot more attributable to the fact that we were running out the likes of Brian Duensing and Nick Blackburn to face stacked Yankee lineups in October than it is to Gardy's "failure to build and learn."

(When Brucy Bochy won his first World Series in 15 years of managing with the Giants in 2010, was that because of his ability to "build and learn" from his previous failures? Or you think maybe that pitching staff had a little something to do with it.)

And I think you're point about ownership is a fair one. At least in the '00s, before Target field, they were content with having a team that competes but never truly contends. Those teams were built to beat the Royals in July. They were not built to beat the Yankees in October. But that's more a reflection of ownership than of Gardy.

---

You do remember the #2 ranked in pitching 2006 team with Santana, Radke, Nathan, Garza, Reyes, Rincon and Liriano, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

It's really not that hard to understand. You have to qualify for the playoffs first. You can't enter the World Series Building until you find the playoff door. If the Twins are part of a division with weaker teams. So be it... but let's not assume that the Tigers and White Sox were just laying there sleeping and not making an effort at all.

Once there... Anyone can win it... Who's hot... Who's not... David Freese anyone?

I don't have a lot of time for anyone who thinks that Gardy should be blamed for the Twins Playoff Record when so many managers couldn't even find the door.

I'd like to see a new Manager next year... However... it won't take a calender... It will take a stop watch... To time how quickly that new manager is torn apart.

Sometimes I think the Anti-Gardy crowd is just trying to stir things up. Some of the points made are rediculous...

If you think a different manager will be a better fit next year... OK... Let's hear it... I'm down with that... There may be some valid reasons for a change. Fresh Voice... I can hear that... Someone who works with young players better... I can hear that...

But... if the reason is because Gardy sucks in the playoffs and that he won division titles against weak oppenents... You are not worth reading!!!

---

Even if all the points are demonstrably valid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jokin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jokin

In the end, the point of discussion is about a body of work over a career and the final net record, not single season "great teams". Both compiled records in some of the weaker-to-mediocre divisions in their respective leagues. Gardy gets the edge for making the playoffs, watered down as these accomplishments are, 6/11 years, Childress made it in 2/5 years. As far as postseason goes, Gardy and Childress come up short yet again, as they both were able to make it past the first round of the playoffs just once. Curiously though, Gardy did it in his first year, inheriting a group of up-and-comers, and failed to learn and build from the experience- as we all are well aware, he has been a playoff flopper ever since, even with "better" teams on paper, and losing embarrassingly meekly each time.

---

---

You need starting pitching to win in the posteason.

I think the lack of playoff success is a lot more attributable to the fact that we were running out the likes of Brian Duensing and Nick Blackburn to face stacked Yankee lineups in October than it is to Gardy's "failure to build and learn."

(When Brucy Bochy won his first World Series in 15 years of managing with the Giants in 2010, was that because of his ability to "build and learn" from his previous failures? Or you think maybe that pitching staff had a little something to do with it.)

And I think you're point about ownership is a fair one. At least in the '00s, before Target field, they were content with having a team that competes but never truly contends. Those teams were built to beat the Royals in July. They were not built to beat the Yankees in October. But that's more a reflection of ownership than of Gardy.

---

You do remember the #2 ranked in pitching 2006 team with Santana, Radke, Nathan, Garza, Reyes, Rincon and Liriano, right?

---

You've confused the necessary with the merely sufficient.

Think about it for a second. If you win the world series, you have to have had good pitching. But if you have good pitching, you don't necessarily win the world series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jokin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jokin

In the end, the point of discussion is about a body of work over a career and the final net record, not single season "great teams". Both compiled records in some of the weaker-to-mediocre divisions in their respective leagues. Gardy gets the edge for making the playoffs, watered down as these accomplishments are, 6/11 years, Childress made it in 2/5 years. As far as postseason goes, Gardy and Childress come up short yet again, as they both were able to make it past the first round of the playoffs just once. Curiously though, Gardy did it in his first year, inheriting a group of up-and-comers, and failed to learn and build from the experience- as we all are well aware, he has been a playoff flopper ever since, even with "better" teams on paper, and losing embarrassingly meekly each time.

---

---

You need starting pitching to win in the posteason.

I think the lack of playoff success is a lot more attributable to the fact that we were running out the likes of Brian Duensing and Nick Blackburn to face stacked Yankee lineups in October than it is to Gardy's "failure to build and learn."

(When Brucy Bochy won his first World Series in 15 years of managing with the Giants in 2010, was that because of his ability to "build and learn" from his previous failures? Or you think maybe that pitching staff had a little something to do with it.)

And I think you're point about ownership is a fair one. At least in the '00s, before Target field, they were content with having a team that competes but never truly contends. Those teams were built to beat the Royals in July. They were not built to beat the Yankees in October. But that's more a reflection of ownership than of Gardy.

---

You do remember the #2 ranked in pitching 2006 team with Santana, Radke, Nathan, Garza, Reyes, Rincon and Liriano, right?

---

---You do remember that by the time the postseason rolled around, Liriano was injured and unable to pitch, Radke's arm was barely attached to his body, and Garza had started only 9 major league games, going 3-6 with a 5.76 ERA, right?

And you surely also remember that the remaining players you mentioned were relief pitchers, and thus irrelevant to the discussion of the quality of starting pitching, right?'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jokin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jokin

In the end, the point of discussion is about a body of work over a career and the final net record, not single season "great teams". Both compiled records in some of the weaker-to-mediocre divisions in their respective leagues. Gardy gets the edge for making the playoffs, watered down as these accomplishments are, 6/11 years, Childress made it in 2/5 years. As far as postseason goes, Gardy and Childress come up short yet again, as they both were able to make it past the first round of the playoffs just once. Curiously though, Gardy did it in his first year, inheriting a group of up-and-comers, and failed to learn and build from the experience- as we all are well aware, he has been a playoff flopper ever since, even with "better" teams on paper, and losing embarrassingly meekly each time.

---

---

You need starting pitching to win in the posteason.

I think the lack of playoff success is a lot more attributable to the fact that we were running out the likes of Brian Duensing and Nick Blackburn to face stacked Yankee lineups in October than it is to Gardy's "failure to build and learn."

(When Brucy Bochy won his first World Series in 15 years of managing with the Giants in 2010, was that because of his ability to "build and learn" from his previous failures? Or you think maybe that pitching staff had a little something to do with it.)

And I think you're point about ownership is a fair one. At least in the '00s, before Target field, they were content with having a team that competes but never truly contends. Those teams were built to beat the Royals in July. They were not built to beat the Yankees in October. But that's more a reflection of ownership than of Gardy.

---

You do remember the #2 ranked in pitching 2006 team with Santana, Radke, Nathan, Garza, Reyes, Rincon and Liriano, right?

---

---You do remember that by the time the postseason rolled around, Liriano was injured and unable to pitch, Radke's arm was barely attached to his body, and Garza had started only 9 major league games, going 3-6 with a 5.76 ERA, right?

And you surely also remember that the remaining players you mentioned were relief pitchers, and thus irrelevant to the discussion of the quality of starting pitching, right?'

---

That's a large part of managing your arms to be ready for the playoffs. In the playoffs, every pitcher on the staff is relevant to the discussion of the quality of the pitching as you go to a short starting pitcher rotation and improvisation is critical when one of your starters goes bust (as Radke did).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jokin

That's a large part of managing your arms to be ready for the playoffs. In the playoffs, every pitcher on the staff is relevant to the discussion of the quality of the pitching as you go to a short starting pitcher rotation and improvisation is critical when one of your starters goes bust (as Radke did).

---

---Can you provide actual examples of what Gardy did wrong and what he could have done differently with respect to managing his arms to be ready for the playoffs and improvising? Because I don't find these non-specific claims to be particularly persuasive.

If you recall, the Twins won the division on the last day of the season. So that, understandably, was the focus.

I can't really fault his pitcher selection in the 3 games. He went with Santana in game 1. No brainer, but he got outpitched by Zito. (I'm sure there will be some explanation for how that was all Gardy's fault.)

Most of us realized we were toast when that happened.

In game 2, he went with Bonser, which turned out to be a pretty good move as he pitched plenty good enough to give us a shot. But when he went to the bullpen, specifically the guys you mentioned, they blew it. (Let me guess, that was Gardy's fault too?)

Then it was on to Oakland for Game 3, where his choices were Radke (who had very little left), Garza (promising rookie but ineffective in limited action), Silva (ineffective more often than not) or Baker (same deal). I would have given the ball to Radke too. It didn't work out, but there's really no basis for assuming that one of the other guys would have done any better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

Sometimes I think the Anti-Gardy crowd is just trying to stir things up. Some of the points made are rediculous...

If you think a different manager will be a better fit next year... OK... Let's hear it... I'm down with that... There may be some valid reasons for a change. Fresh Voice... I can hear that... Someone who works with young players better... I can hear that...

But... if the reason is because Gardy sucks in the playoffs and that he won division titles against weak oppenents... You are not worth reading!!!

---

This.

I'm in the "it's time for a change" camp. I like Gardy, I think he's a very good manager. And given that he's finished the top 3 in MOTY voting 7 times, clearly I'm not alone. I'm not saying he's a great manager or deserves to be enshrined in Cooperstown, you can question some things he does like you could with any manager. I just don't understand the "Gardy sucks" crowd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jokin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oxtung

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrylos98

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by one_eyed_jack

Really? That's your argument. A .002 difference in win percentage?

That's statistically insignificant. 1 Twins hot streak could put Gardy back on top in that race.

Not to mention, surely even you can work out why Gardy hasn't been run out of town the way Childress was. Childress had alieanted virtually everyone in the organization by the time he got canned, and had lost the support of his players completely.

And Childress was cheated out of nothing. When you take yourself out of range of a potential game winning field goal with a too many men on the field penalty, you don't deserve to win, and you have no right to complain.

But back to baseball - if winning percentage is your measuring stick, why don't you look up how .525 stacks up against other managers, past and present. Guys like Maddon, Showalter and Tom Kelly for example.

Here a hint: it's higher. But I guess that's just "pro-Gardy bias", right?:rolleyes:

---

In reverse order:

TK has 2 rings and a great post season record. Maddon has an excellent post-season record. Showalter is as good as Gardy :)

The Vikings were cheated big time at that game. Lots of non-calls including the bounty calls. If they called that personal foul dirty hit against Favre game was over. But the powers of being definitely had a Katrina-driven agenda.

Again, I said that Gardy's record is worse than Childress and they got totally different treatment by the fan base. Regular season records are a dead heat (so Gardy is about as great as Childress, I give you that) but the postseason/playoff records are not. Gardy is light years worse. And this is a fact.

---

Winning percentages between football and baseball are apples and oranges. A great baseball team might win 60% of their games (~100 wins) but win 60% (10-6) of your games in football and you aren't even guaranteed to go to the playoffs. Great teams in football win 80%-90% of their games.

---

Huh ?!? This is a partly true, but in the end, still a specious argument, is the discussion even about "great teams"? Even by your criteria, Gardenhire has never had a "great team" (closest was .593 in 06), he's 0/11, while Childress had one, making him 1/5.

These are just some of many playoff teams and/or division champs over the years thanks to the ridiculous priority placed on geographical division alignments in the "League of Parity", the NFL:



78 Vikings 8-7-1
80 Vikings 9-7
04 Vikings 8-8
04 Rams 8-8
10 Seahawks 7-9 (division winners!)
04 Seahawks 9-7
99 Seahawks 9-7
99 Dolphins 9-7
95 Dolphins 9-7 (These are just a few of the countless 9-7 playoff/div. champ teams)
09 Jets 9-7
09 Ravens 9-7
91 Jets 8-8
90 Saints 8-8
85 Browns 8-8
82 Browns 4-5
82 Lions 4-5
11 Cincy 9-7
11 Broncos 8-8
08 Chargers 8-8
06 Giants 8-8

There are mediocre teams that make the playoffs in MLB as well- who would dispute that the inbalanced schedule has skewed Gardy's record significantly better than it should be?, his dreadful performance against the Eastern Division is well documented. He made his career mark feasting on the dregs of the AL and just about every inter-division series against the clearly inferior NL. This has clearly been more than "good enough" for the ownership, which fought a pitched battle to commit club suicide- leave the state or contract itself out of existence- from 2001 to 2007. It's also "good enough" for the fans, just happy to still have a team in town with a laconic, unflashy, but seemingly successful, manager. Childress, though on the surface similar in delivery to Gardenhire, by dint of his aloof and secretive ways and anal personality, was never able to endear himself in Minnesota.


In the end, the point of discussion is about a body of work over a career and the final net record, not single season "great teams". Both compiled records in some of the weaker-to-mediocre divisions in their respective leagues. Gardy gets the edge for making the playoffs, watered down as these accomplishments are, 6/11 years, Childress made it in 2/5 years. As far as postseason goes, Gardy and Childress come up short yet again, as they both were able to make it past the first round of the playoffs just once. Curiously though, Gardy did it in his first year, inheriting a group of up-and-comers, and failed to learn and build from the experience- as we all are well aware, he has been a playoff flopper ever since, even with "better" teams on paper, and losing embarrassingly meekly each time.

---

Wow did you miss the point of my post. Let me try this again without #'s since that seems to have diverted you from the point. Football and baseball are very different sports. A .525 winning percentage in football is not the same as a .525 winning percentage in football from a success stand point. So like I said in my last post...apples and oranges.

Apples and oranges are pretty comparable. Baseball and football is more like apples and battleships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jokin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

It's really not that hard to understand. You have to qualify for the playoffs first. You can't enter the World Series Building until you find the playoff door. If the Twins are part of a division with weaker teams. So be it... but let's not assume that the Tigers and White Sox were just laying there sleeping and not making an effort at all.

Once there... Anyone can win it... Who's hot... Who's not... David Freese anyone?

I don't have a lot of time for anyone who thinks that Gardy should be blamed for the Twins Playoff Record when so many managers couldn't even find the door.

I'd like to see a new Manager next year... However... it won't take a calender... It will take a stop watch... To time how quickly that new manager is torn apart.

Sometimes I think the Anti-Gardy crowd is just trying to stir things up. Some of the points made are rediculous...

If you think a different manager will be a better fit next year... OK... Let's hear it... I'm down with that... There may be some valid reasons for a change. Fresh Voice... I can hear that... Someone who works with young players better... I can hear that...

But... if the reason is because Gardy sucks in the playoffs and that he won division titles against weak oppenents... You are not worth reading!!!

---

Even if all the points are demonstrably valid?

---

We just got done watching the Orioles and Rays play intense September baseball. I remember that feeling and it was every year but one under Gardys watch. How anyone can simply dismiss that and take it for granted is beyond me.

So the playoffs haven't worked out. They usually didn't work out for Bobby Cox either. Playoff record Smeckord. A playoff record is the very definition of small sample size.