Molitor 2017

[Darius]

You all seem to think that the manager has much more to do with player performance than he actually does.

 

I'm not advocating one way or the other. But, to think that things would be better with a different manager is downright delusional. It's just a terrible roster put in place by a terrible FO.

 

For all anyone really knows, under normal circumstances (an average team), Molitor may be a great manager.

 

After all, this team nearly squeaked into a wild card spot last year when the pitching staff wasn't historically bad. The lineup is in place to compete. Not sure what Molitor can do about the pitching staff.

[jimmer]

This team was horribly constructed, no doubt.  But Molitor has made a ton of mistakes both with roster construction and in-game calls (like consistently giving away outs).  He deserves to be fired too.

[Guest]

The main defense of Molitor as manager seems to be that the team was so bad that it couldn't be his fault. Pursuing this position further, it seems to mean that if the team were mildly disappointing, then that could be on Molitor, but that he can't be held responsible for a huge disappointment like this year. This isn't logical.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The main defense of Molitor as manager seems to be that the team was so bad that it couldn't be his fault. Pursuing this position further, it seems to mean that if the team were mildly disappointing, then that could be on Molitor, but that he can't be held responsible for a huge disappointment like this year. This isn't logical.

 

why can't that fit?  Shouldn't the manager be judged based on his results relative to what he was given?  If we had sent a team of 6 year old T-ballers out this year and went 0-162 would we complain the manager couldn't even luck his way into a win?

 

And, even if you were to argue that Molitor didn't get enough wins out of his team this year, wouldn't most of us argue they got more wins than they deserved last year?

 

I can't stand the Suzuki hitting cleanup, Danny Santana playing, the bunting tendencies, or the not playing of Polanco/Kepler, etc.  Those things I have beef with and could justify firing him for.

 

Connie Mack would lose 90 with this pitching staff.  Firing him for the win total misses just how thoroughly messed up the roster construction was.

[Jham]

 

I think there are some inaccuracies worth pointing out here.  First, Dougie is NOT going to give you the modern game.  He's on the record as basically dismissing the value of analytics.  If you somehow think we turned down the more progressive coach in not hiring him, I think you're mistaken.  Dougie M. is about as old school as you can imagine.  

 

Secondly, I have a hard time calling Molitor the "alpha" in an organization that has had Ryan's fingerprints on it for over two decades.  Blaming him for what scouting, development, coaching, and all that just doesn't seem plausible.  Those systemic issues preceded him.  Now, he may be a product of them and complicit in them, but he isn't to blame.  That guy resigned a few months ago.

 

I'll blame him for who sits and who plays at the major league level and for other similar issues, but this is just going way too far IMO.  

 

Molitor vs. Mientkiwicz 2.0

 

http://twinsdaily.com/articles.html/_/minnesota-twins-news/minnesota-twins/the-merits-of-mientkiewicz-and-molitor-r3116?st=50#commentsStart

 

Seems that the main point favoring Molitor over Dougie, was Molitor's willingness to embrace the Metric game.  He hasn't.

Doug was seen as the type of fiery motivator who could get better effort from young players.  (I believe the biggest benefit of effort in baseball is better mental focus, tough over 18 holes of golf, let alone 162 games in a summer, better focus = faster development/learning, etc.)

 

Doug also never said he'd disregard metrics.  Almost the opposite.  He'd listen.  This is probably a better route than blindly following metrics, to the point where you don't see the gaps, holes, and flaws in the stats.

 

Keep in mind, Doug played when Moneyball came out and said defense didn't matter.  He was a defensive specialist.  (In actuality, defensive metrics just couldn't be calculated well yet/still).  Also, metrics favor OBP, but perhaps still undervalue the metric as it is now perpetually lumped in with SLG as equals.  Doug was .360 career OBP guy.  He also measured 13 DRS in the first year bbref calculated it (2 years after his back to back GG awards).  So you can see why he's leery about metrics.  My biggest issue with metrics is that it disregards anything it can't measure.  

 

Ironically, it's metrics that now allow us to appreciate Doug more as a ballplayer than he may have been during his career.  It's my hope that as metrics has shifted its view of Doug, Doug may shift his view for metrics.

 

[USAFChief]

why can't that fit?  Shouldn't the manager be judged based on his results relative to what he was given?  If we had sent a team of 6 year old T-ballers out this year and went 0-162 would we complain the manager couldn't even luck his way into a win?

 

And, even if you were to argue that Molitor didn't get enough wins out of his team this year, wouldn't most of us argue they got more wins than they deserved last year?

 

I can't stand the Suzuki hitting cleanup, Danny Santana playing, the bunting tendencies, or the not playing of Polanco/Kepler, etc.  Those things I have beef with and could justify firing him for.

 

Connie Mack would lose 90 with this pitching staff.  Firing him for the win total misses just how thoroughly messed up the roster construction was.

If Connie Mack would lose 90 (and he would), that still means Molitor is responsible for about 10 losses this year, because the Twins are going to lose ~100.

 

And that's the point. You don't get a pass on poor managing because you had a poor team. If he turned a 90 loss team into a 100 loss team, why would we think he won't turn a 100 win team into a 90 win team?

[TheLeviathan]

 

If Connie Mack would lose 90 (and he would), that still means Molitor is responsible for about 10 losses this year, because the Twins are going to lose ~100.

And that's the point. You don't get a pass on poor managing because you had a poor team. If he turned a 90 loss team into a 100 loss team, why would we think he won't turn a 100 win team into a 90 win team?

 

That's a fair point.  On that I can accept and acknowledge criticism and grounds for firing.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

Ironically, it's metrics that now allow us to appreciate Doug more as a ballplayer than he may have been during his career.  It's my hope that as metrics has shifted its view of Doug, Doug may shift his view for metrics.

 

I wish I could find the interview he had a few years back where he basically sounded like Gardenhire about metrics.  It was with Reusse on 1500 but the link seems to be down.  I've tried everything I can think of to track it down and I just can't find it.  

 

You're right that he SHOULD embrace them, but he doesn't.  Or, at least, he didn't.  He openly dismissed SABR and emphasized old school philosophies.  I took the "I'll listen" from him the same way I take it from my wife when I tell her I have a sweet idea about turning the kid's play room into a man cave.  

 

That interview single-handedly took me off the bandwagon for ever wanting Doug as our manager.

[jimmer]

 

This team was horribly constructed, no doubt.  But Molitor has made a ton of mistakes both with roster construction and in-game calls (like consistently giving away outs).  He deserves to be fired too.

I meant lineup construction here

[Jham]

 

I wish I could find the interview he had a few years back where he basically sounded like Gardenhire about metrics.  It was with Reusse on 1500 but the link seems to be down.  I've tried everything I can think of to track it down and I just can't find it.  

 

You're right that he SHOULD embrace them, but he doesn't.  Or, at least, he didn't.  He openly dismissed SABR and emphasized old school philosophies.  I took the "I'll listen" from him the same way I take it from my wife when I tell her I have a sweet idea about turning the kid's play room into a man cave.  

 

That interview single-handedly took me off the bandwagon for ever wanting Doug as our manager.

True.  I mean, hypothetically, the statement could have been more lip service for the decidedly anti-metric TR, as he was applying for a job at the time.

I also think there's a difference between managing through analytics and developing a team through analytics.  With the available metric data available, and most every team working off the same stats (or developing and hiding their own), there's a much more level playing field as players are reduced to numbers.  If the metrics playing field is level, the teams to get an advantage will be the teams that best analyze the variables that metrics miss.  Of things that can cause a player to exceed their sabremetric prediction of production, I think effort, concentration, and stamina over 162 games (along with health) are probably the biggest factors other than maybe lady luck.  

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

True.  I mean, hypothetically, the statement could have been more lip service for the decidedly anti-metric TR, as he was applying for a job at the time.

I also think there's a difference between managing through analytics and developing a team through analytics. 

 

It could be, but I don't think so.  Dougie was always a bit old school in how he handled himself.  Not in a bad way, it just doesn't surprise me that his mentality matches his style.

 

And for me personally, I'd rather have the GM and the manager working in concert on analytics rather than either one having an outdated viewpoint.

[ashbury]

Molitor has failed to prove himself irreplaceable, and that for me is enough grounds to replace him after this kind of season and try to find someone who will do better.

 

Only a few managers exist who have a markedly positive effect on their teams. Many candidates exist who would have a markedly negative effect, but the great majority of reasonable candidates will turn out to be virtually indistinguishable in terms of their impact. Molitor looks like he's establishing himself within that group; you're not risking a real lot for the team by firing him.

 

You'd be eating a year of his 3-year contract by firing him at the end of the season. But that's part of how you construct a contract - you don't want players tuning him out in the second year by thinking he's going to be replaced soon anyway. A year of wasted pay is a frequent cost of doing business. If Pohlad is thinking he'll be "smart" by saving a few bucks another owner would waste, by telling his new GM that Molitor is here to stay, he's not smart after all. What's that old penny-wise saying?

[Guest]

why can't that fit?  Shouldn't the manager be judged based on his results relative to what he was given?  If we had sent a team of 6 year old T-ballers out this year and went 0-162 would we complain the manager couldn't even luck his way into a win?

 

And, even if you were to argue that Molitor didn't get enough wins out of his team this year, wouldn't most of us argue they got more wins than they deserved last year?

 

I can't stand the Suzuki hitting cleanup, Danny Santana playing, the bunting tendencies, or the not playing of Polanco/Kepler, etc.  Those things I have beef with and could justify firing him for.

 

Connie Mack would lose 90 with this pitching staff.  Firing him for the win total misses just how thoroughly messed up the roster construction was.

Within your comment is the answer to your question. You are correct not to judge him on his record out of context of his performance and the quality of the team. However, his performance hasn't been good and I frankly believe that the talent of his players is better than 100 losses. The fact that team performance has been so abysmal is NOT a reason everything else gets excused.

[magiklair]

If the twins finish with the worst record in team history. Which it looks like they happen.. I'd be all for firing him, regardless not all that impressed. With many aspects of his management of the game and players

[Mr. Brooks]

Within your comment is the answer to your question. You are correct not to judge him on his record out of context of his performance and the quality of the team. However, his performance hasn't been good and I frankly believe that the talent of his players is better than 100 losses. The fact that team performance has been so abysmal is NOT a reason everything else gets excused.

Exactly.

Molitor doesn't seem to understand that just because the GM gives you Schaefer and Beresford, doesn't mean you have to play them.

That's on Mollie, not the FO. And, he's been doing that all year.

[jimmer]

I'm guessing that the GM DID say play Beresford.  It was a feel good story, a reward to him for toiling in the minors for so long and will likely be followed by releasing him in the offseason.

 

Additionally, if he hadn't been playing Saturday, we lose that game.  His diving play on the line drive shot behind 3B in foul territory saved at least one run, perhaps two.

 

I'm not saying he should stay on the team after this season, but his play hasn't been disastrous.  Him playing isn't keeping us for making the playoffs either.

[old nurse]

Mad Dog for 3!!!!              Oh, and he missed the shot.  

 

It is either that or Shaffer and Beresford work the butts off and others are slacking so Molitor is sending a message.

[Mr. Brooks]

I'm guessing that the GM DID say play Beresford. It was a feel good story, a reward to him for toiling in the minors for so long and will likely be followed by releasing him in the offseason.

 

Additionally, if he hadn't been playing Saturday, we lose that game. His diving play on the line drive shot behind 3B in foul territory saved at least one run, perhaps two.

 

I'm not saying he should stay on the team after this season, but his play hasn't been disastrous. Him playing isn't keeping us for making the playoffs either.

He's not part of the future. Any AB's he gets come at the expense of someone who will be.

It's not about wins and losses at this point.

[old nurse]

 

Molitor has failed to prove himself irreplaceable, and that for me is enough grounds to replace him after this kind of season and try to find someone who will do better.

 

Only a few managers exist who have a markedly positive effect on their teams. Many candidates exist who would have a markedly negative effect, but the great majority of reasonable candidates will turn out to be virtually indistinguishable in terms of their impact. Molitor looks like he's establishing himself within that group; you're not risking a real lot for the team by firing him.

 

You'd be eating a year of his 3-year contract by firing him at the end of the season. But that's part of how you construct a contract - you don't want players tuning him out in the second year by thinking he's going to be replaced soon anyway. A year of wasted pay is a frequent cost of doing business. If Pohlad is thinking he'll be "smart" by saving a few bucks another owner would waste, by telling his new GM that Molitor is here to stay, he's not smart after all. What's that old penny-wise saying?

Nobody is irreplaceable in terms of a manager. Some may do some things better than others. Some much better. Nobody is irreplaceable