Managerial questions

[ashbury]

10 minutes ago, Epravens said:

I believe his name is Thornburg. But I do know this MOST managers would not have handed the ball to Pagan given the events of the last 10 days. And he had made that decision before Kepler's AB. In what universe would you think he made the proper choice?

Pagan failed to get 3 outs to close things out.  Cotton couldn't even get 2.

But you have 100% certainty from some source on high that a Braves castoff signed for the minimum would have done it.  And you are certain that Rocco wasn't weighing his pitching coach's advice, into the choice to avoid Thornburg?

A pair of improper assumptions on your part.

[Epravens]

8 minutes ago, Epravens said:

I believe his name is Thornburg. But I do know this MOST managers would not have handed the ball to Pagan given the events of the last 10 days. And he had made that decision before Kepler's AB. In what universe would you think he made the proper choice?

Or perhaps let Jax go one more and give Duran 9 and 10 given that extras seemed likely. There were options beyond flying the Hindenburg again.

[ashbury]

11 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

Respectfully, managers can do nothing to assure wins. But they can certainly do things to increase their team’s chances of winning. Putting Pagan in did not do that in the least. Cotton gave up the home run, but I would even trust him more to throw strikes in that situation. That’s what sank pagan. Falling behind. The umpire’s zone shrank but the close pitches were balls.

it’s simply impossible to absolve the manager here.

It's simply impossible to assign him all the blame, either.  I was responding to a simple counting argument that ratcheted some arbitrary number to 44.

[Aggies7]

1 minute ago, ashbury said:

It's simply impossible to assign him all the blame.  I was responding to a simple counting argument that ratcheted some arbitrary number to 44.

I’m lost at the most basic of new age stats so I couldn’t comment on a made up one.

I do know that not many managers would have done what Rocco did tonight. In a way you almost have to applaud the gall of it. Like “he can’t possibly blow another one AGAIN can he?”. I said somewhere else that he’s lucky he manages where he does and not some place out here on the east coast.

if you’re going to fail, fail with someone else. Anyone else. At least no one could blame you for trying.

[Epravens]

8 minutes ago, ashbury said:

It's simply impossible to assign him all the blame, either.  I was responding to a simple counting argument that ratcheted some arbitrary number to 44.

Arbitrary or not 2019;-10, 2020 -10, 2021 -15 and so far in 2022 -9

[Epravens]

16 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Pagan failed to get 3 outs to close things out.  Cotton couldn't even get 2.

But you have 100% certainty from some source on high that a Braves castoff signed for the minimum would have done it.  And you are certain that Rocco wasn't weighing his pitching coach's advice, into the choice to avoid Thornburg?

A pair of improper assumptions on your part.

I'm basing it on the pitcher I watched get 6 outs on Sunday. Why do like the Pagan choice? (This should be good)

[ashbury]

8 minutes ago, Epravens said:

Arbitrary or not 2019;-10, 2020 -10, 2021 -15 and so far in 2022 -9

If you have any investments, I bet you check the market ticker each day, and if the price is down you add the change in value to your running total of losses.

And then at year's end when you receive the annual summary, you are shocked when (some years) the investment actually went up, or (other years) it went down less than you expected.

That's the crux of the fallacy you are clinging to.  We can explain it for you but we can't understand it for you.

Your hill.  Feel free to die on it.  But I doubt I'm coming to visit you on it any further.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

In a world where Rocco’s value is -44, then I think most managers would be in the negative, and some worse than -44 since April 2019, and there were be no balance point at zero. And that doesn’t bother me, since it’s the players who have the most influence on results. Not my stat, not my argument. 

but really? Pagan, again, tonight? 

i did like batting Buxton in the 9th with the knowledge that if he made an out, he would be the runner who started the 10th on second. 

Another thing: and this probably isn’t on Rocco, but first base isn’t necessarily a gimme position. It took Mauer a year and a half to master first. Miranda has not shown to be a deft athlete yet hasn’t played much first in the minors. Just a minor thing, but still a thing.

[Brock Beauchamp]

32 minutes ago, Epravens said:

An improper assumption on your part. But whatever. Have a great night!

Except that's what you're doing, as you're obviously working within the parameters of what you would have done versus what Baldelli did, expect with none of the plusses of when you were wrong.

And I'm pretty much done with your nonsense. Either put forth your system or be banned from this thread. If you're so rock-solid in your opinion you won't mind sharing the numbers behind it.

[Epravens]

3 minutes ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

In a world where Rocco’s value is -44, then I think most managers would be in the negative, and some worse than -44 since April 2019, and there were be no balance point at zero. And that doesn’t bother me, since it’s the players who have the most influence on results. Not my stat, not my argument. 

but really? Pagan, again, tonight? 

i did like batting Buxton in the 9th with the knowledge that if he made an out, he would be the runner who started the 10th on second. 

Another thing: and this probably isn’t on Rocco, but first base isn’t necessarily a gimme position. It took Mauer a year and a half to master first. Miranda has not shown to be a deft athlete yet hasn’t played much first in the minors. Just a minor thing, but still a thing.

Would agree that many managers would be on the negative side of the equation, but not to this level and still have a job.

[Brock Beauchamp]

2 minutes ago, Epravens said:

Would agree that many managers would be on the negative side of the equation, but not to this level and still have a job.

This is the last comment before you're banned from this thread unless you show numbers behind your opinion.

[ashbury]

10 minutes ago, Epravens said:

Why do like the Pagan choice?

I didn't.

Stop with the strawman arguments.

[Epravens]

1 minute ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Except that's what you're doing, as you're obviously working within the parameters of what you would have done versus what Baldelli did, expect with none of the plusses of when you were wrong.

On the contrary you are seriously in error on that front. I very much give credit where credit is due. Perhaps you don't analyze as much as I do but my career made me that way. Try writing 4000 or so game stories and avoid being analytical.

[Epravens]

1 minute ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

This is the last comment before you're banned from this thread unless you show numbers behind your opinion.

I already did.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Just now, Epravens said:

On the contrary you are seriously in error on that front. I very much give credit where credit is due. Perhaps you don't analyze as much as I do but my career made me that way. Try writing 4000 or so game stories and avoid being analytical.

Last chance. Show numbers or banned from this thread.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Well, epravens is gone now.

[Squirrel]

Well, let’s see … 249 wins, 208 losses, that calculates to +41 WAR.

Did I get that right?

[Battle ur tail off]

Well, that was fun last night. 

You know what is a good idea? Bringing in the reliever that has been hammered the most the last 2 weeks and has particularly struggled against a certain team in what amounts to a pretty darn important game. 

 

Again, Rocco blew it. This team should have a huge lead in the Central, yet here we are, actually have more losses and up 2 games. Cleveland has a pile of games in hand on us. 

 

It's really, really disappointing to have a team that is actually pretty darn good here that should have a comfortable lead right now sitting in the position we are simply because their bullpen is terrible, but their manager continues to use them way more than he should.

[MMMordabito]

20 hours ago, Danchat said:

Rocco is a clown who is severely holding this team back.

I think I now qualify to work for the national media.

[Schmoeman5]

18 hours ago, Epravens said:

 

I would politely suggest this: If Mr. Francona was in the Minnesota dugout and Mr. Baldelli was doing his thing in Cleveland the Twins would have won all 6 games in this series so far and the Guardians would be sucking exhaust fumes instead of having the opportunity to close within one game by tomorrow night. But I will give Mr. Baldelli credit for this: His teams have proven to be remarkably resilient, able to recover from the most gut-punching of losses, which is why I have suggested in the past he is better suited to be a yoga instructor.

I don't know if Francona wins all 6 games. You have to account for the occasional bad breaks or bounces. But yes, I'll bite. You're doing a great job of p ing some people off. Not me. I just want to know where you came up with -43. I see last year was -15 and so far this year a-9. My analysis is ‐15 for this 2022 season. It's-5 in the last week. I was defending Rocco a little, but to just keep throwing Pagan and Duffy back out in the same situations is the definition of insanity. Or as my dad would say,  dumber than a fencepost.

[Whitey333]

Rocco is a poor excuse as a major league manager.  Certainly not every loss is his fault or is every win attributable to him.  But he is the manager.  He sets the tone for the entire team.  He is the face of the team.  His poor in game management and inflexibility is astounding.  The team is near the bottom in defense and baserunning.  They have catchers that have no chance of throwing out would be base stealers.  Twins don't manufacture runs.  Yes at times you need to do that to win games.  We are at or near the bottom in stolen bases with a team total of 13.  They don't know how to bunt or advance runners.  These are issues with the manager. I've seen too many players not hustling out ground balls and balls they hit to outfield.  Jeffers getting thrown out at second the other day because he jogged half way to first is just the latest example.  That falls on the manager.  A player may get 3-4 at bats a game.  If he can't hustle each of those at bats out he shouldn't be playing.  The decision, again to rest Buxton and Correa out of the same lineup is ridiculous.  That is the managers fault.  There isn much of a reason why Correa couldn't have played and then give the $35 million player off Thursday.  The FO is hugely to blame for not bolstering the bullpen.  They need to upgrade the bullpen now and not wait until the trade deadline.  By then it may not even matter.  We should remember these blown games against Cleveland as blown opportunities to beat up on contenders.  Very frustrating.  This team IMO has a chance but needs some obvious help now.

[prouster]

12 hours ago, Epravens said:

On the contrary you are seriously in error on that front. I very much give credit where credit is due. Perhaps you don't analyze as much as I do but my career made me that way. Try writing 4000 or so game stories and avoid being analytical.

You’ve yet to name the small town paper or Wordpress site where we can read your trove of analysis. Maybe that will help others understand where you’re coming from. 

[prouster]

1 hour ago, Battle ur tail off said:

Well, that was fun last night. 

You know what is a good idea? Bringing in the reliever that has been hammered the most the last 2 weeks and has particularly struggled against a certain team in what amounts to a pretty darn important game. 

 

Again, Rocco blew it. This team should have a huge lead in the Central, yet here we are, actually have more losses and up 2 games. Cleveland has a pile of games in hand on us. 

 

It's really, really disappointing to have a team that is actually pretty darn good here that should have a comfortable lead right now sitting in the position we are simply because their bullpen is terrible, but their manager continues to use them way more than he should.

He already used Jax and Duran in the 7th, 8th, and 9th in a tied ballgame. Moran threw two innings in the nightcap the day before, so he wasn’t available for the tenth. The options were Pagan, Thielbar, Thornburg, Duffey, and Cotten. Thielbar has an ERA over 5.00 and pitched in the morning game the day before. Thornburg is not exactly a trusted commodity. Duffey has been as bad or worse than Pagan. Cotten of course gave up the winning homer after Pagan set the table. 
 

I’m not saying Baldelli is Connie Mack or even Tom Kelly, but when these are your options…there are no good options. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

30 minutes ago, prouster said:

He already used Jax and Duran in the 7th, 8th, and 9th in a tied ballgame. Moran threw two innings in the nightcap the day before, so he wasn’t available for the tenth. The options were Pagan, Thielbar, Thornburg, Duffey, and Cotten. Thielbar has an ERA over 5.00 and pitched in the morning game the day before. Thornburg is not exactly a trusted commodity. Duffey has been as bad or worse than Pagan. Cotten of course gave up the winning homer after Pagan set the table. 

I’m not saying Baldelli is Connie Mack or even Tom Kelly, but when these are your options…there are no good options. 

One doesn't have to be a Baldelli supporter to see the primary failing here is from the front office. While people say "don't bring in Pagan!" you just illustrated why it didn't really matter. Duffey has been terrible, too. Cotton ended up taking the L yesterday because he was also bad. Thielbar isn't reliable against righties.

So are we really hanging our hats on bashing Baldelli for not bringing in Tyler-****ing-Thornburg? Is that the argument we're trying to make here? Get out of here, that's nonsense.

Yeah, Baldelli makes some real head-scratching moves, things I wouldn't do in-game. But if we're squabbling about Tyler-****ing-Thornburg's usage, we're completely off the rails here.

[Battle ur tail off]

I agree no good options, other than letting your starter get a few more outs. 

Or possibly another one of your relievers that has been somewhat reliable. Bringing in Pagan also, come on. I'd have just as soon one of the position players threw that inning. Pagan is done, cooked, shot. Everyone can see it expect Rocky.

[Brock Beauchamp]

2 minutes ago, Battle ur tail off said:

I agree no good options, other than letting your starter get a few more outs. 

That's literally the only option that isn't laughably bad.

But the flip side of that is don't expect success, either. It might be "less bad" but it also won't be good.

And then we're back to the crux of the situation, that Baldelli has zero legitimately "good" options.

[ashbury]

Putting the 10th inning under the microscope, as we all have, just underscores for me how interconnected it all is.  Talent-evaluation plays a role in the decision-making.  Why didn't they use Thornburg?  Someone, maybe multiple someones, had big misgivings.

There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth that Wes Johnson is leaving.  Presumably Pete Maki shares many characteristics with him, but also is his own man.  Maki's been involved with this year's pitching staff.  So I find myself wondering, in Johnson's final series with the Twins: who was putting the bug in Rocco's ear that Thornburg was not a good option with a three run lead even though he was better rested than the other remaining options to open the bottom of the inning?   So, with the coming change in coaching personnel, is this something that would have played out differently with Maki the top dog?  Maybe we'll see.  And maybe Thornburg blows up in their faces just like Duffey/Cotton/Pagan have.

Conversely, I don't believe Rocco's assessment, that Pagan's stuff is good, is his alone.

And then of course is the assessment weeks and months back, by the front office, that isn't going to be radically misaligned with what on-field staff thinks now.

Wheels within wheels.

[Battle ur tail off]

1 minute ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

That's literally the only option that isn't laughably bad.

But the flip side of that is don't expect success, either. It might be "less bad" but it also won't be good.

And then we're back to the crux of the situation, that Baldelli has zero legitimately "good" options.

Less bad is leading by 4 games instead of 2 right now. 

 

No more Rocco. Ask Buxton what he wants to do or whoever is sitting on the bench next to him. Take his keys away, he is drunk.

[Squirrel]

15 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

One doesn't have to be a Baldelli supporter to see the primary failing here is from the front office. While people say "don't bring in Pagan!" you just illustrated why it didn't really matter. Duffey has been terrible, too. Cotton ended up taking the L yesterday because he was also bad. Thielbar isn't reliable against righties.

So are we really hanging our hats on bashing Baldelli for not bringing in Tyler-****ing-Thornburg? Is that the argument we're trying to make here? Get out of here, that's nonsense.

Yeah, Baldelli makes some real head-scratching moves, things I wouldn't do in-game. But if we're squabbling about Tyler-****ing-Thornburg's usage, we're completely off the rails here.

I'm not bashing him for bringing in Pagan ... but I am sorely disappointed because Pagan in his last 3 appearances has blown it. Yeah, this is the on the FO for not having better options in the BP ... 95%. But ... Rocco made the choice and I, personally, who knows nothing, would have at least gone with someone else because ... why not try something that's different when the same has blown it several times in a row recently? Frankly, I would have had ALL of them up and ready because, yeah. I've 'complained' about our offense not coming through when needed, and here they did just that, came through and came through BIG. We should not be losing it in the 10th that way, giving up 4 runs. I'm just frustrated, and I'm not directing that frustration at anyone else because I own my own emotions, but sheesh, that was the toughest loss for me. FRONT OFFICE, ARE YOU LISTENIN'?

[Schmoeman5]

12 hours ago, Squirrel said:

Well, let’s see … 249 wins, 208 losses, that calculates to +41 WAR.

Did I get that right?

Nope. It's still -43