Reusse: Fire Molitor

[old nurse]

39 year old Kevin Cash would  be lucky to see 41 as a manager, Andy Green, 40 in San Diego might not be long term or the job, either. 

[Jham]

Managers do have an impact.  I won't get into the "Rosario throw home benching" scenario again, but basically, throwing home was a freebee in that situation, while playing it "the right way" would basically just give the opponent extra chances to beat you.  The difference was +- 2-5%.  These percentages accumulate.  Let's say a manager has a similar situation once every 10 games.  Let's say one manager bunts only when the odds encourage it, and the other bunts against the odds (Molitor). If a good manager makes 1 call that increases his team's odds of winning by 2.5% every 20 games, while another manager makes the wrong moves and hurts his team by 2.5% every 20 games, that's a 5% difference between the best and worst.  That's a win difference a month.  By the end of the year, that's a 7.5 game difference.  That's a team going to the playoffs vs a team struggling to .500.  I wonder if the the % gap between the best and worst might be even greater than 5%.

 

If no one already does this, I think win projectors could be used to evaluate each move made by a manager.  This would show which managers are consistently giving their teams the best chance.  Additionally, you could view wins vs. win expectancy to see how often the manager's hunch or use of information not factored into win projection (playing against the odds) worked out.  mWAR maybe?  Do they already have mWAR?

[TheLeviathan]

I'd be curious to see if those projections actually matched, over time, team records.  I think before I put stock into your first paragraph as a valid argument, I'd have to see the data to suggest it's valid.

 

But it's certainly an idea I'd enjoy reading more about should that be explored more.  I'm just not ready to accept it as a means of evaluation until it's more verified.  Just because it intuitively makes sense doesn't mean it actually works that way.

[Platoon]

If you remember, opinions here on Rosario's play were not so cut and dry.  And virtually every time some young player who is part of our core sits, we roast Molitor for not playing the guys he should be playing.  

 

I can't say I recall you or any other posting standing up and declaring Kepler should sit for a few games after that comically ill-conceived dive attempt of his a few months ago.  I remember this board lighting up that Sano was getting demoted down the lineup and sitting, with no thought at all as to whether that could be the manager doing exactly what you want him to do.

 

The truth is that we don't know what happens behind closed doors.  We don't know how many conversations, tongue lashings, or ultimatums are happening privately.  And that's a good thing.  The previous manager made no such attempt to keep things professional.

 

 Do I still think there is more veteran deference going on?  Yes.  But that's common among pretty much any work force you're a part of.  The second you start pushing back on the veteran staff is the moment you start risking an insurrection.  

 

I don't know what the exact answer is, but i know it's far less black and white as you're portraying it.

The reason you did not see me call for Keplers head, or possibly a lower part of his anatomy is I wouldn't have done it if I had been manager. I just did not see that attempt as egregious as some did. A week or so later he saved a game with a dive on the foul line. Same as Rosarios throw home. If Ryan just catches a chest high throw the game is over. Both were attempt plays. Making the last out at third is not an attempt play, as it's a long held rule of the game that the effort is not worth the risk. And I exempt Roaarios, because there was no risk with that shift. I imagine each play is in the eyes of the beholder, as is each managers decision, so it's doubtful we will agree on this. But at least we agree on the matter of deferential treatment. And once that horse is out of the barn, that's when you can no longer put it back in by trying to belatedly discipline veterans. You either establish it in the beginning, or you are stuck with the disrespect of the players, likely for your tenure. And what players say to the press about their love and respect of coaches and teammates, is sort of like what the used car salesman says to you about that car, grandma drove to church on Sunday's.

[deanlambrecht]

 

The same opinion has been shared on this site hundreds of times before Reusse published it.

 

I don't generally like Reusse's knee-jerk ranting, but that one was well written and absent of fire and brimstone.

 

Also, being wrong about Danny Santana shouldn't disqualify anyone from having a meaningful take on baseball.

 

And this is exactly what I said.  That's why I qualified my comment in a number of ways.  First, one need not rely on Reusse to make that point.  Second, Reusse's being wrong about Santana, as I noted, was only one of many, many uneducated comments he's made that over time has disqualified him as a trustworthy source of opinion or information.  Third, and most important, because he's disqualified as a trustworthy source, citing his opinion actually harms the point one is trying to make.  

 

Reusse is like the Fox News of baseball reporting.  Relying on him is a signal to others that one is not a reliable source of opinion or information.

[old nurse]

The bunting argument would only make sense if the Twins  had a significantly higher  number of bunts than other teams. League average so far his season is 70 per team, the Twins have tried it 79 times.  Not a big difference in 5800 plate appearances.

[TheLeviathan]

 

But at least we agree on the matter of deferential treatment. 

 

My response to this would be that I think you'd be a bit surprised how common that deferential treatment is.  That doesn't make it right, but Molitor deferring to vets means he has something in common with basically all of the other guys managing in the big leagues.

 

Nobody, so far as I am aware, does anything else.  The key is to not make it public or shaming as Gardy often did.

[jimmer]

 

The bunting argument would only make sense if the Twins  had a significantly higher  number of bunts than other teams. League average so far his season is 70 per team, the Twins have tried it 79 times.  Not a big difference in 5800 plate appearances.

you including the NL where pitchers bat?

 

Anyway, Twins rank 13th in the AL for % of bunts that result in hits.  So they are above average in attempts and pretty bad on actual results.

 

And only 3 AL teams have more SAC bunts.

 

[Kwak]

Bunting (while I personally don't like them) have been used by the Twins for a long time. Therefore, for Molitor to employ them should neither be unexpected or evidence of being a poor manager. I would counter that bunts were simply one element of "The Twin Way". I don't have the numbers, repeat, no numbers, but it seems to me that the use of bunts increased after the April scoring drought, but they were less frequent when the total amount of hitting, HRs, and total scoring improved significantly in the Summer. Teams that score frequently, especially by HR, are probably not going to use the sacrifice bunt until late in a close game.

 

I have posted that I believe Molitor should be fired after this season ends--but not for bunting, not for employing multiple line-ups. Part of having a highly rated MiL system means a team has "options". If option #1 doesn't pan out then switching to option #2 is warranted. Buxton was considered the top prospect in the OF, but there were several others who were highly rated prospects and worthy of a "chance" given Byron's "stuggles". It's just that darn near everybody "struggled" leading to the appearance of a merry-go-round (cue the corgis) between Rochester and Minneapolis. 

 

Then there's the pitching staff... .

 

No, Molitor shouldn't be relieved because he failed as a manager for this, that or some decisions--but he should be relieved to show that the entire team is committed to changing the losing results.

[Jham]

 

I'd be curious to see if those projections actually matched, over time, team records.  I think before I put stock into your first paragraph as a valid argument, I'd have to see the data to suggest it's valid.

 

But it's certainly an idea I'd enjoy reading more about should that be explored more.  I'm just not ready to accept it as a means of evaluation until it's more verified.  Just because it intuitively makes sense doesn't mean it actually works that way.

Yeah, there are limitations.  The results are the average for the exact situation as documented since like 1955 or something according to the projector I used.  The sample size should take a lot of the variance out of the equation, so it should be a true average.  However, even though it is a projection, it only takes into account the things that have already happened.  There is absolutely no taking into account the players involved.  So whether it's Tommy Milone facing Mike Trout or Andrew Miller facing Logan Schaefer, the odds of winning are the same.  At least that's my understanding.  Perhaps there's some projectors that aren't simply historically based...  We're finding new ways to measure variables all the time.  So...  I think the Twins should be the first to hire a computer for a manager.  I'd pay to see the motivational speeches.
 

[old nurse]

 

you including the NL where pitchers bat?

 

Anyway, Twins rank 13th in the AL for % of bunts that result in hits.  So they are above average in attempts and pretty bad on actual results.

 

And only 3 AL teams have more SAC bunts.

It still does not change the flaw in the premise that it cost 7 wins.   The imagined injustice of Molitor having players bunt is not there.  Last I checked there was still a significant portion of inter league  play. If you have the numbers that do not include pitchers batting that would be fine. If pitchers bunt more unsuccessfully than other batters then it would also throw off the win probability numbers of a bad bunt attempt.

[jimmer]

 

It still does not change the flaw in the premise that it cost 7 wins.   The imagined injustice of Molitor having players bunt is not there.  Last I checked there was still a significant portion of inter league  play. If you have the numbers that do not include pitchers batting that would be fine. If pitchers bunt more unsuccessfully than other batters then it would also throw off the win probability numbers of a bad bunt attempt.

Not significant enough  to change the fact that NL pitchers have 4,664 PAs while AL pitchers only have 414 PA. One would understand that NL teams utilize the bunt quite a bit more (since most pitchers can't hit a lick) which would significantly raise the MLB team average amount of bunt attempts you quoted. For example, the Cubs pitchers have more successful sacrifice bunts than our whole team combined has.

 

In any event, what do the numbers you quoted look like when just looking at AL teams? I'd look for myself, but I have no idea where you're getting your stats from.

[USAFChief]

 

It still does not change the flaw in the premise that it cost 7 wins.   The imagined injustice of Molitor having players bunt is not there.  Last I checked there was still a significant portion of inter league  play. If you have the numbers that do not include pitchers batting that would be fine. If pitchers bunt more unsuccessfully than other batters then it would also throw off the win probability numbers of a bad bunt attempt.

1.  I must have missed it...where did "7 wins" come from?

 

2.  "Imagined injustice"?  Did I imagine the sac bunts called for by Molitor?

 

3.  The Twins played 10 interleague games in NL parks this year (interleague home games are irrelevant to the discussion--pitchers don't bat).  1/16 of the schedule.  "Significant" is open for interpretation, but IMO that is not a "significant" portion of the schedule.  

 

4.  In the specific case of the Twins, their pitchers had only 2 successful sac bunts in 2016, and I doubt anyone here is complaining too loudly about those (although in my case, unless there's 2 on and no out, I would even be reluctant about having a pitcher sacrifice, unless I knew him to be close to incapable of putting the ball in play.)

 

5.  Looking only at successful sacrifice bunts ignores both the good (the occasional base hit or fielding error on a sac attempt), and the bad (force play at 3rd or 2nd instead of advancing the runner(s), an out with no advance, or as often happens, a combination of called strikes and fouled bunt attempts puts the hitter in a 2 strike hole from which he never recovers.)

 

I submit to you the bad happens more than the good, although I have no numbers to back that up,and combined with the limited value of successful sac bunts, makes the entire strategy pretty cost ineffective.

 

Particularly in the case of a team like the Twins, possessed of a pitching staff that makes playing for one run early in a game the definition of penny wise and pound foolish.

[wsnydes]

 

Yeah, there are limitations.  The results are the average for the exact situation as documented since like 1955 or something according to the projector I used.  The sample size should take a lot of the variance out of the equation, so it should be a true average.  However, even though it is a projection, it only takes into account the things that have already happened.  There is absolutely no taking into account the players involved.  So whether it's Tommy Milone facing Mike Trout or Andrew Miller facing Logan Schaefer, the odds of winning are the same.  At least that's my understanding.  Perhaps there's some projectors that aren't simply historically based...  We're finding new ways to measure variables all the time.  So...  I think the Twins should be the first to hire a computer for a manager.  I'd pay to see the motivational speeches.
 

I'm glad that you pointed that out.  That was the issue I had with your original post given we had an exact context.  I still disagree with your take on that specific context, but I found that post very insightful and agreed with your larger point.  

 

And really, the only reason that I disagree with the original take is that the run that scored didn't matter and I'd rather have the runner earn his way to 2B with the meat of the lineup coming up.  The runner (Dyson I believe) may have just stolen the base in the end, but at least he earned it.  I'm not a fan of giving things to the opponent.  Make them earn everything.  That's just my strategic preference.  

[Homer Hanky]

time once again for Dougie Baseball 

[Jham]

I'm glad that you pointed that out. That was the issue I had with your original post given we had an exact context. I still disagree with your take on that specific context, but I found that post very insightful and agreed with your larger point.

 

And really, the only reason that I disagree with the original take is that the run that scored didn't matter and I'd rather have the runner earn his way to 2B with the meat of the lineup coming up. The runner (Dyson I believe) may have just stolen the base in the end, but at least he earned it. I'm not a fan of giving things to the opponent. Make them earn everything. That's just my strategic preference.

I don't necessarily disagree. I think the biggest situational difference there is that an out ends the game. In almost every other situation, I suspect the right play is to limit advancement. Rosario sometimes makes selfish throws. Maybe he was actively taking a chance to win the game, or maybe he was just letting fly. I just didn't think it sent the right message as it would dissuade every attempt at the out in that situation. To me, it's similar to defensive indifference. If a team is down 2 with 1 on and 2 out, why give the free base of you've got a catcher who can throw? If the run really doesn't matter, take the shot at the out to end the game. Who cares? I don't even care if 1b is playing off. Like you said, make them earn it. I think not conceding a run and taking affable of over-aggressive baserunning is making them earn it. Imo.

[wsnydes]

 

I don't necessarily disagree. I think the biggest situational difference there is that an out ends the game. In almost every other situation, I suspect the right play is to limit advancement. Rosario sometimes makes selfish throws. Maybe he was actively taking a chance to win the game, or maybe he was just letting fly. I just didn't think it sent the right message as it would dissuade every attempt at the out in that situation. To me, it's similar to defensive indifference. If a team is down 2 with 1 on and 2 out, why give the free base of you've got a catcher who can throw? If the run really doesn't matter, take the shot at the out to end the game. Who cares? I don't even care if 1b is playing off. Like you said, make them earn it. I think not conceding a run and taking affable of over-aggressive baserunning is making them earn it. Imo.

And I think that is fair.  That's why the last statement in my reply was that it was my strategic preference, figuring that this is where you'd go.  I don't think you're wrong, it's just not how I would have wanted it to play out.  I also look at it as defensive indifference that the run scored.  They still have the lead and that trail runner is stuck on 1B, which also leaves me a force at 2B, and makes them earn three more bases to score again.  

 

I think what your original post did wonderfully was point out that there are two ways to play that particular scenario that weren't overly different percentage-wise.  I'd put that small difference well within the margin for error based on players involved versus the historical average.  Dyson's speed plays into this too, which can't be accounted for in the historical average.  If that play occurred with the bottom of the lineup coming up rather than the 2 hitter, I don't think I'd mind it at all.

[old nurse]

 

1.  I must have missed it...where did "7 wins" come from?

 

2.  "Imagined injustice"?  Did I imagine the sac bunts called for by Molitor?

 

3.  The Twins played 10 interleague games in NL parks this year (interleague home games are irrelevant to the discussion--pitchers don't bat).  1/16 of the schedule.  "Significant" is open for interpretation, but IMO that is not a "significant" portion of the schedule.  

 

4.  In the specific case of the Twins, their pitchers had only 2 successful sac bunts in 2016, and I doubt anyone here is complaining too loudly about those (although in my case, unless there's 2 on and no out, I would even be reluctant about having a pitcher sacrifice, unless I knew him to be close to incapable of putting the ball in play.)

 

5.  Looking only at successful sacrifice bunts ignores both the good (the occasional base hit or fielding error on a sac attempt), and the bad (force play at 3rd or 2nd instead of advancing the runner(s), an out with no advance, or as often happens, a combination of called strikes and fouled bunt attempts puts the hitter in a 2 strike hole from which he never recovers.)

 

I submit to you the bad happens more than the good, although I have no numbers to back that up,and combined with the limited value of successful sac bunts, makes the entire strategy pretty cost ineffective.

 

Particularly in the case of a team like the Twins, possessed of a pitching staff that makes playing for one run early in a game the definition of penny wise and pound foolish.

jhan's post    That is what I get for not quoting the post that was shortly before mine.  

 

 Yes the awful Twin's pitchers have been only successful twice with sacrifice bunting. They have a combined 3 hits.  14 strikeouts.  Not a whole lot of success doing anything

 

There is a limited value in sacrifices. Playing for one run is the ideal use.  Then the question becomes what is the next few batters good at doing when you have a batter at first with no outs. If the answer is GDP then a sacrifice is a far better alternative.

[Spinmom]

As a season ticket holder for over 12 years, next year is the first time in those 12 years that we are considering strongly to give up our tickets.  the money that we pay would go quite well to a deck at a cabin.

I am not a Molitor fan as far as his leadership abilities.  I don't understand why Jim Pohlad is so strong willed about keeping Molitor on staff.  Molitor may have been a Hall of Fame player, but he is an awful coach.  I often wonder if it is because Jim's grandaughter is in business with Molitor's oldest daughter, a Jim feels he needs to keep him in his job.  It sure isn't because of Moitor's stellar decision on his line -up cards, his need to pamper to Joe Mauer, or his inability to connect and use his bullpen squad.

 

The team that you see on the field today, is one that has won several championships on their way up to the top.  The only think that is different, is the coaching staff.  The players seem to have issue with the lack of direction, and are frustrated because they don't get it from the managerial squad.  Molitor plays favorites, including his fellow alumni Joe Mauer.  I had a hard time digesting about what Molitor said in the pre-game interview, about Mauer having to run from first to home in the heat was affecting his legs, and so Joe had to sit out a game.  What is that all about?

 

Molitor never looks at the camera in the post game interviews, and never takes responsibility for the way he is driving the ship.  Quite often, he throws players under the bus, time and time again.   I agree he has aged at least 5 years since he first started, and if there is something more to it, like health or problems at home, deal with it and come back fighting, or give the next manager a chance. 

 

Some people have a natural talent at sports, and Molitor was one of them.  Sometimes, they have a hard time coaching, because they don't know how to bring it out of the player because they just assume that the player has it.  We need a manager who has busted their butt to get where they are, and who can relate to the players.

 

A few days ago, I received a letter from Jim Pohlad, a form letter of course.  In that letter he again stated that he had faith in Molitor, although most of us don't.  He sees Molitor as a great asset, which means that the fans are going to be stuck with him for another year.  I was also told to expect a message from Molitor and Brian Dozier.  To tell you the truth, I don't care what Molitor has to tell me, and Brian Dozier has worked his butt off in the last part of this season, and I don't need an apology from him.  Lo and behold, instead of a letter, I get a link to St. Peter, Molitor and Dozier's "information about the team."  Well, when you watch the link, you see that St. Peter has Aged, Molitor throws out Terry Ryan's name sort of passive-agressive like, pretending he likes the guy, but basically says that we are in the state we are in because of him.  Dozier sits next to him, giving the usual  "we will get them next year...thanks for our fans".  Sorry, Twins front office, it isn't enough.

 

If Molitor is so distracted by personal issues that he can't help this team, he should step down.  there are other people within the organization who would gladly fill in.

 

We have until the end of October to re-new our tickets instead of Mid-October.  I hope that is a clue as to the direction of this club.  Otherwise, we will be building a deck.

[USAFChief]

 

As a season ticket holder for over 12 years, next year is the first time in those 12 years that we are considering strongly to give up our tickets.  the money that we pay would go quite well to a deck at a cabin.

I am not a Molitor fan as far as his leadership abilities.  I don't understand why Jim Pohlad is so strong willed about keeping Molitor on staff.  Molitor may have been a Hall of Fame player, but he is an awful coach.  I often wonder if it is because Jim's grandaughter is in business with Molitor's oldest daughter, a Jim feels he needs to keep him in his job.  It sure isn't because of Moitor's stellar decision on his line -up cards, his need to pamper to Joe Mauer, or his inability to connect and use his bullpen squad.

 

The team that you see on the field today, is one that has won several championships on their way up to the top.  The only think that is different, is the coaching staff.  The players seem to have issue with the lack of direction, and are frustrated because they don't get it from the managerial squad.  Molitor plays favorites, including his fellow alumni Joe Mauer.  I had a hard time digesting about what Molitor said in the pre-game interview, about Mauer having to run from first to home in the heat was affecting his legs, and so Joe had to sit out a game.  What is that all about?

 

Molitor never looks at the camera in the post game interviews, and never takes responsibility for the way he is driving the ship.  Quite often, he throws players under the bus, time and time again.   I agree he has aged at least 5 years since he first started, and if there is something more to it, like health or problems at home, deal with it and come back fighting, or give the next manager a chance. 

 

Some people have a natural talent at sports, and Molitor was one of them.  Sometimes, they have a hard time coaching, because they don't know how to bring it out of the player because they just assume that the player has it.  We need a manager who has busted their butt to get where they are, and who can relate to the players.

 

A few days ago, I received a letter from Jim Pohlad, a form letter of course.  In that letter he again stated that he had faith in Molitor, although most of us don't.  He sees Molitor as a great asset, which means that the fans are going to be stuck with him for another year.  I was also told to expect a message from Molitor and Brian Dozier.  To tell you the truth, I don't care what Molitor has to tell me, and Brian Dozier has worked his butt off in the last part of this season, and I don't need an apology from him.  Lo and behold, instead of a letter, I get a link to St. Peter, Molitor and Dozier's "information about the team."  Well, when you watch the link, you see that St. Peter has Aged, Molitor throws out Terry Ryan's name sort of passive-agressive like, pretending he likes the guy, but basically says that we are in the state we are in because of him.  Dozier sits next to him, giving the usual  "we will get them next year...thanks for our fans".  Sorry, Twins front office, it isn't enough.

 

If Molitor is so distracted by personal issues that he can't help this team, he should step down.  there are other people within the organization who would gladly fill in.

 

We have until the end of October to re-new our tickets instead of Mid-October.  I hope that is a clue as to the direction of this club.  Otherwise, we will be building a deck.

Welcome to the boards.

 

 

[Jham]

 

  Dyson's speed plays into this too, which can't be accounted for in the historical average. 

And Zuke's throwing!  And the Twins' recent issues with relievers holding runners...  

 

[Vanimal46]

 

As a season ticket holder for over 12 years, next year is the first time in those 12 years that we are considering strongly to give up our tickets.  the money that we pay would go quite well to a deck at a cabin.

I am not a Molitor fan as far as his leadership abilities.  I don't understand why Jim Pohlad is so strong willed about keeping Molitor on staff.  Molitor may have been a Hall of Fame player, but he is an awful coach.  I often wonder if it is because Jim's grandaughter is in business with Molitor's oldest daughter, a Jim feels he needs to keep him in his job.  It sure isn't because of Moitor's stellar decision on his line -up cards, his need to pamper to Joe Mauer, or his inability to connect and use his bullpen squad.

 

The team that you see on the field today, is one that has won several championships on their way up to the top.  The only think that is different, is the coaching staff.  The players seem to have issue with the lack of direction, and are frustrated because they don't get it from the managerial squad.  Molitor plays favorites, including his fellow alumni Joe Mauer.  I had a hard time digesting about what Molitor said in the pre-game interview, about Mauer having to run from first to home in the heat was affecting his legs, and so Joe had to sit out a game.  What is that all about?

 

Molitor never looks at the camera in the post game interviews, and never takes responsibility for the way he is driving the ship.  Quite often, he throws players under the bus, time and time again.   I agree he has aged at least 5 years since he first started, and if there is something more to it, like health or problems at home, deal with it and come back fighting, or give the next manager a chance. 

 

Some people have a natural talent at sports, and Molitor was one of them.  Sometimes, they have a hard time coaching, because they don't know how to bring it out of the player because they just assume that the player has it.  We need a manager who has busted their butt to get where they are, and who can relate to the players.

 

A few days ago, I received a letter from Jim Pohlad, a form letter of course.  In that letter he again stated that he had faith in Molitor, although most of us don't.  He sees Molitor as a great asset, which means that the fans are going to be stuck with him for another year.  I was also told to expect a message from Molitor and Brian Dozier.  To tell you the truth, I don't care what Molitor has to tell me, and Brian Dozier has worked his butt off in the last part of this season, and I don't need an apology from him.  Lo and behold, instead of a letter, I get a link to St. Peter, Molitor and Dozier's "information about the team."  Well, when you watch the link, you see that St. Peter has Aged, Molitor throws out Terry Ryan's name sort of passive-agressive like, pretending he likes the guy, but basically says that we are in the state we are in because of him.  Dozier sits next to him, giving the usual  "we will get them next year...thanks for our fans".  Sorry, Twins front office, it isn't enough.

 

If Molitor is so distracted by personal issues that he can't help this team, he should step down.  there are other people within the organization who would gladly fill in.

 

We have until the end of October to re-new our tickets instead of Mid-October.  I hope that is a clue as to the direction of this club.  Otherwise, we will be building a deck.

Welcome to Twins Daily! I wouldn't blame you, or any other season ticket holder for cancelling your plan. They're going to need to be more creative than what they're doing to retain people's business. 

I thought I saw during the game last Sunday that people who renew also get access to a Rewards' program or something? Doesn't sound like much to prompt any impulse purchases. 

[wsnydes]

 

And Zuke's throwing!  And the Twins' recent issues with relievers holding runners...  

...and this team's love of throwing wild pitches...

[wsnydes]

 

Welcome to Twins Daily! I wouldn't blame you, or any other season ticket holder for cancelling your plan. They're going to need to be more creative than what they're doing to retain people's business. 

I thought I saw during the game last Sunday that people who renew also get access to a Rewards' program or something? Doesn't sound like much to prompt any impulse purchases. 

There's already a "rewards" program in place for us.  I think they're a bit stingy on those as well.  We do get 10% off of concessions and discounts on merchandise.  But as far as rewards, I've only actually gotten one in 12 years as a season ticket holder.  Most of that stuff I wouldn't miss at all, it's the baseball that I'd be missing.  Though, one could probably argue that what we've witnessed in the past half decade can't be classified as baseball.  If I didn't love going games and getting outside so much, I would have given up my tickets long ago.  This year, I'm waiting to see what they do with the GM hire first before making my decision.  

[Kwak]

 

I don't necessarily disagree. I think the biggest situational difference there is that an out ends the game. In almost every other situation, I suspect the right play is to limit advancement. Rosario sometimes makes selfish throws. Maybe he was actively taking a chance to win the game, or maybe he was just letting fly. I just didn't think it sent the right message as it would dissuade every attempt at the out in that situation. To me, it's similar to defensive indifference. If a team is down 2 with 1 on and 2 out, why give the free base of you've got a catcher who can throw? If the run really doesn't matter, take the shot at the out to end the game. Who cares? I don't even care if 1b is playing off. Like you said, make them earn it. I think not conceding a run and taking affable of over-aggressive baserunning is making them earn it. Imo.

Rosario doesn't appreciate the difference between: The best possible result and The best result possible. He also takes it as an insult if a player rounds a base aggressively and to the point of throwing behind him and then staring the guy down. It's an attitude that hurts him and the team. Maybe if the Twins didn't have so many other options for the OF he would be secure enough to reign in the emotions and play the percentages?

[magiklair]

This team it seems without a doubt has underperformed.. Can we take a vote on who wants to keep Molitor?

[Bark's Lounge]

It really doesn't mean a **** whether Molitor should be the guy going forward in this thread. The next baseball ops guy should make that determination and hire his own guys. Over and done.

 

Loved you as a player Paul, you gave it your best shot. That's how the ball bounces sometimes.

 

If you are the manager when April 2017 rolls around - I will check out 100%.

[TwinsCD]

Apologies if any of what I say has already been rehashed in the previous 8 pages.  I checked out on these guys in May and only popped back in for a couple of looks a couple of times until the 13-game losing streak.

 

--Despite his history as a player with the team, Bruno should have been bounced as hitting coach on April 15.  When you go the first 9 games striking out as many times as they did and do something that no one in baseball had done in 120 years, you have to wonder what kind of approach at the plate that these guys have been getting drilled into them.  

 

-Neil Allen should have been gone after the DUI arrest.  Yes, I believe in 2nd chances but really, who on this pitching staff has really given us much encouragement for the future?  Berrios certainly has the talent but like Buxton and, to a degree, Sano, the continued development once they reached the majors has been lacking.  

 

--I believe in a complete napalming of this organization from a leadership standpoint.  The ideas that worked in 2002 aren't going to work right now.  The new GM **CAN NOT** come from inside the organization.  With respect to Rob Antony, the 'Twins Way' is dead.  You can hire a Michigan Man for the Wolverines football program or a Dean Smith disciple for the Carolina job (unless it's Matt Doherty) because those brands have worked with successful consistency for decades.  The Twins Way died years ago.  There is talent in the pipeline and given the last couple of years of poor play, there will be top-notch talent in the pipeline on down the line (if the draft works out).  This organization needs someone with different ideas that can help that talent develop and flourish at the MLB level.

[beckmt]

The last few days have given me the impression, that some of the players have checked out.

This cannot happen and since you cannot fire 10 -15 players the field staff has to go.

[Boom Boom]

How many managers in MLB history have survived a 100+ loss campaign? I really don't know and don't care to do the research, but it can't be many.

 

I'm of a mind that managers don't have a huge effect on team wins, but that's the nature of the job. Maybe it's not fair to fire Molitor, but there's nothing fair about his chosen line of work. It probably wasn't entirely fair to fire Gardenhire either, but it also probably wasn't fair to give him as much rope as he had when other teams would have fired him way earlier.