Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

How to Define the Minnesota Twins 2022 Season


6 hours ago, Karbo said:

IMO the entire coaching staff needs to go. I believe one of the reasons top tier starters don't want to sign here is Rocco and his "plan". These guys have a lot of talent, and pride and ego to match. Why would they want to sign here with a manager that doesn't have enough confidence in them to get through opposing lineups more than twice? I know it is becoming a bit of trend around the league, but top tier starters want to and should be allowed to go longer. Next year they should have a fairly deep stable of starters to draw from, so now the FO won't have to bargain shop again. Instead, they need to concentrate on keeping Correa and signing at least 2, 2-3 inning relievers instead of filling the pen with one-and-done types.

"The plan" was taken too far this year with their refusal to change it as the season progressed, but linking this year's plan to FA pitchers not coming here is inaccurate. Berrios was amongst the league leaders in innings pitched the whole time he was with the Twins. He was on pace for over 200 innings last year before he was traded. Typically the Twins, and Rocco, haven't been this extreme about pulling starters. I don't know what they were doing this year, but it was outside the norm, even for them. But you can't claim "the plan" is why FAs never come here when this is the first year they've run so aggressively with "the plan."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MinnInPa said:

I'd luv to see a stat showing what twins batting avg is with runner in scoring position and no outs.. very sad batting with RISP. 

According to Baseball Reference: (BA/OB/SLG)
0 outs, runner on 2nd - .245/.336/.426  (109 plate appearances)
0 outs, 1st & 2nd - .230/.288/.311 (82 PA)
0 outs, 2nd & 3rd - .200/.286/.267 (21 PA)
0 outs, runner on 3rd - .400/.455/.500  (11 PA)
0 outs, 1st & 3rd - .211/.160/.368 (25 PA)
0 outs, bases loaded - .250/.158/.583 (19 PA)

Combined runners in scoring position, no outs - .241/.252/.384 (267 PA)

EDIT - overall the Twins slashes are .249/.317/.405

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Platoon said:

There is a lot of bad luck in injuries. Buxtons do not belong in that category. His history made this predictable. He is what he was. And the Twins got what they paid for!

Between Buxton and whoever else they were forced to run out there, Twins got about 2 WAR from CF. That’s worth about $15m, so probably correct, except whatever we paid Celestino was lost money because he was replacement level and has no other reason to be in the show except to spell Buxton. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Community Moderator
6 hours ago, Minny505 said:

I get so tired of seeing comment boards with some variation of Rocco is the problem.

He's not.

The sooner you and your ilk can comprehend that he is just a lackey executing the strategy of the FO, the sooner we can stop with this nonsense. 

He is likely pushing the envelope as far as he can with the FO without getting canned. You seem to think he should be fired because he pulls SPs too early for your liking. It's almost certainly the other way around that what he would actually get fired for by the FO is letting the SP go too long. 

Any replacement for Baldelli is almost certainly going to frustrate you even more as pitchers get pulled even earlier.

Rocco is merely a Lieutenant who is ordering his troops to execute "the plan" of his commanders back at base. As long as he sticks to "the plan" he gets positive marks. But if he veers from that, he gets reprimanded.

No one likes getting reprimanded.

I don't think the idea the manager should be insulated from criticism stands up to any analysis.

First, there's no proof I'm aware of that Falvine are making in game decisions. And in fact, I'd bet a large sum of cash they aren't. 

Second, that Rocco is implementing an overall strategy with regards to pitching decisions is plausible, even likely. But even within that framework, individual, game level decisions are on Rocco. Is it your contention Falvine are calling down to the dugout during games and telling Rocco who should be on the mound, and when? Does Rocco consult the FO when decisions are made to warm up reliever(s)?

I think the opposite.  That's Rocco and his pitching coach.

And third, there are PLENTY of other reasons someone could question the manager. Playing time, lack of fundamentals, plays put on, not put on. Infield in, or not. Sacrificing. Batting order. You name it.

If you like Rocco, fine. You have every right. But stick to why.

Jumping on others, for holding the manager responsible for managerial decisions, isn't a valid argument. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MABB1959 said:

Typical and never going to change.  We will continue to bargain shop and when we do get a gem let them go with not much in return.  We have been waiting 20 years for our window of opportunity.  Last blow for me was letting Berrios go and then trying to find someone to replace him.

I have noticed that too , they let Rosario go and left field has been a revolving door since  , they traded Rogers and got nothing to help this year to replace him  , traded pressley and now after years in the minors have have some return , same thing with Escobar  ,  I'm sure there are more , Berrios trade we are still waiting for the return replacing him ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would define this season as a fun offseason once the labor dispute was resolved and the good starting pitchers were gone, injuries, and incremental failures.  No one big failure just a bunch of small one at in opportune times and failure to seize the moment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

I don't think the idea the manager should be insulated from criticism stands up to any analysis.

First, there's no proof I'm aware of that Falvine are making in game decisions. And in fact, I'd bet a large sum of cash they aren't. 

Second, that Rocco is implementing an overall strategy with regards to pitching decisions is plausible, even likely. But even within that framework, individual, game level decisions are on Rocco. Is it your contention Falvine are calling down to the dugout during games and telling Rocco who should be on the mound, and when? Does Rocco consult the FO when decisions are made to warm up reliever(s)?

I think the opposite.  That's Rocco and his pitching coach.

And third, there are PLENTY of other reasons someone could question the manager. Playing time, lack of fundamentals, plays put on, not put on. Infield in, or not. Sacrificing. Batting order. You name it.

If you like Rocco, fine. You have every right. But stick to why.

Jumping on others, for holding the manager responsible for managerial decisions, isn't a valid argument. 

 

Agreed on pretty much all counts.

As an analogy, there is also no evidence that banning the shift as MLB is implementing for 2023 will have any sort of impact on BABIP, but 70-something-percent of MLB fans share the opinion that it will. 

The comment I was responding to only cited a quick hook for SP. 

I am open to the fact that this is an incorrect take I have, just as my take on the 2023 MLB shift rules having any sort of league-wide impact on BABIP is, but I'm willing to make an equally strong statement regarding both outcomes. 

But if SPs start going longer with a change of manager, I suspect it will more likely be a change in data of the effectiveness of a SP vs RP in that situation, a new training method, rostering better SPs, etc...just as I suspect a bump in BABIP from 2022 to 2023 will coincide with a regression/progression to the BABIP mean and incorrectly attributed to the new shift rules.

I don't disagree that the Twins could be better off with a manager who makes better player usage decisions elsewhere, or a stronger emphasis on all other facets of managing a baseball team, but I do not believe this one facet of game management will improve with a new manager that the FO would actually hire in his place.

I am in favor of replacing the leadership of the FO. They have not proven very adept at player personnel decisions after five years and that would have a far greater impact on the success of this team than changing the manager...even if Rocco stayed.

Good discussion though. Appreciate you digging deeper on the manager topic than his quick hook with SPs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Blyleven2011 said:

….And Wes Johnson left during the middle of the season  which I thought was lame but might say something of the plan he didn't like  ...

Or it might say something about what many of us would do when offered a position closer to home, with less travel and at twice the pay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Teflon said:

According to Baseball Reference: (BA/OB/SLG)
0 outs, runner on 2nd - .245/.336/.426  (109 plate appearances)
0 outs, 1st & 2nd - .230/.288/.311 (82 PA)
0 outs, 2nd & 3rd - .200/.286/.267 (21 PA)
0 outs, runner on 3rd - .400/.455/.500  (11 PA)
0 outs, 1st & 3rd - .211/.160/.368 (25 PA)
0 outs, bases loaded - .250/.158/.583 (19 PA)

Combined runners in scoring position, no outs - .241/.252/.384 (267 PA)

EDIT - overall the Twins slashes are .249/.317/.405

awesome ..thanks... i knew they were pretty pathetic...last night..leadoff man on 2nd .....next guy up  - K..   couldnt even move him over..seems like its been this way all year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Teflon said:

According to Baseball Reference: (BA/OB/SLG)
0 outs, runner on 2nd - .245/.336/.426  (109 plate appearances)
0 outs, 1st & 2nd - .230/.288/.311 (82 PA)
0 outs, 2nd & 3rd - .200/.286/.267 (21 PA)
0 outs, runner on 3rd - .400/.455/.500  (11 PA)
0 outs, 1st & 3rd - .211/.160/.368 (25 PA)
0 outs, bases loaded - .250/.158/.583 (19 PA)

Combined runners in scoring position, no outs - .241/.252/.384 (267 PA)

EDIT - overall the Twins slashes are .249/.317/.405

In a bubble, I agree these numbers are not great.  But I am glad that you added the overall slash numbers as it shows that their overall performance with no outs and RISP is fairly similar to the normal stat lines.  (The same argument made for "great" or "poor" post season players.  Given enough at-bats, they trend to their normal stats).

I would be interested to see how other teams slash lines compare to their overall stats and how that correlates to their success on the field.

Another thing that would be interesting (though basically unprovable outside of the team) would be to see how the slash lines compare with what they are supposed to do (ie runner on 2nd, 0 outs, was the batter supposed to swing away, hit to right to advance the runner, sac bunt, etc.).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Minny505 said:

I get so tired of seeing comment boards with some variation of Rocco is the problem.

He's not.

The sooner we could agree that he is just a lackey executing the strategy of the FO, the sooner we can stop with this nonsense. 

He is likely pushing the envelope as far as he can with the FO without getting canned. You seem to think he should be fired because he pulls SPs too early for your liking. It's almost certainly the other way around that what he would actually get fired for by the FO is letting the SP go too long. 

Any replacement for Baldelli is almost certainly going to frustrate you even more as pitchers get pulled even earlier.

Rocco is merely a Lieutenant who is ordering his troops to execute "the plan" of his commanders back at base. As long as he sticks to "the plan" he gets positive marks. But if he veers from that, he gets reprimanded.

No one likes getting reprimanded.

OK that is your opinion and I respect that. So maybe we can agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

"The plan" was taken too far this year with their refusal to change it as the season progressed, but linking this year's plan to FA pitchers not coming here is inaccurate. Berrios was amongst the league leaders in innings pitched the whole time he was with the Twins. He was on pace for over 200 innings last year before he was traded. Typically the Twins, and Rocco, haven't been this extreme about pulling starters. I don't know what they were doing this year, but it was outside the norm, even for them. But you can't claim "the plan" is why FAs never come here when this is the first year they've run so aggressively with "the plan."

Maybe so, and do we know why Berrios didn't want to stay here? Was it all about money? Just look at the fact for the 1st time ever no Twins starter will have enough innings to qualify for the leaders board, there have been some rumblings from Gray, and the pen as used up so many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Karbo said:

Maybe so, and do we know why Berrios didn't want to stay here? Was it all about money? Just look at the fact for the 1st time ever no Twins starter will have enough innings to qualify for the leaders board, there have been some rumblings from Gray, and the pen as used up so many times.

Are you suggesting Berrios knew the Twins were going to go from letting him throw 200 innings a year to not letting him do what they'd let him do his whole career this year and that's why he didn't want to sign here? I don't know if it was all about money, but I'd be willing to bet the Twins didn't tell him they were going to cut 50 innings off his season inning totals.

Rumblings from Gray? You mean that Twitter clip where he complained about not going deeper in games? The one where when he was asked about it later he said he was mad at himself for not being better and not at the team?

Look, I haven't enjoyed the pitching strategy this year, and think it played a huge role in ruining the season. But before this season they'd never done anything like this so the suggestion that this particular plan has played a role in FA pitchers not coming here is simply false. They've never done it before so how could it play a role in pitchers not coming here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Community Moderator
2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Are you suggesting Berrios knew the Twins were going to go from letting him throw 200 innings a year to not letting him do what they'd let him do his whole career this year and that's why he didn't want to sign here? I don't know if it was all about money, but I'd be willing to bet the Twins didn't tell him they were going to cut 50 innings off his season inning totals.

Rumblings from Gray? You mean that Twitter clip where he complained about not going deeper in games? The one where when he was asked about it later he said he was mad at himself for not being better and not at the team?

Look, I haven't enjoyed the pitching strategy this year, and think it played a huge role in ruining the season. But before this season they'd never done anything like this so the suggestion that this particular plan has played a role in FA pitchers not coming here is simply false. They've never done it before so how could it play a role in pitchers not coming here?

Berrios threw 200 innings once in his Twins career.

So if by "doing his whole career" you meant 2019, then you have a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Berrios threw 200 innings once in his Twins career.

So if by "doing his whole career" you meant 2019, then you have a point.

How many was he on pace for last year before being traded? Hint: 200. Yes, he only reached 192.1 in 2018. He was only up for part of 2017 and was on a pace that in a full season would've had him right around 190.

So, yes, I'm technically wrong. He went from 185 (if you include his minor league innings) to 192.1 to 200 to covid year to 200 innings pace again. Are you suggesting that him being at 190+ innings a year instead of 200 is proof that I'm wrong in my suggestion that they were never limiting his innings? Seems a little funny that you're arguing over 1 out a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I define this season as a disappointment. We still have a great core but the outcome is once again short. Sano & Kepler not adjusting to a nonjuiced ball & shift, management not implementing long relief that was promised and hitters not hitting w/ RISP. When Buxton was not 100% and after Wes Johnson left there seemed like there was no fire.

Reading some of the posts, some blamed injuries & other blamed management for not playing some players enough. Those who blame injuries believe that they're all accidents which cannot be helped. While some are accidents or genetics, I believe most are from extending players beyond their limits.

I believe the Buxton management experiment was a failure. Playing Buxton at much less than 100%, believing that by giving him a couple of days off here & there, refraining from putting him on the IL will maximize his output, it has not. Players like Polanco will never tell you when he's hurting until it's too late. Giving players calulated time off is very productive & keeps them healthy as long we have capable players to sub which we have. Arraez have looked to be playing hurt, which makes him less effective. To me it was obvious that Polanco had been playing hurt, Baldelli said Polanco had been playing hurt for awhile. Either they knew Polanco was hurt & didn't do anything about it (which is terribly wrong) or they weren't able to see he was hurt (which is worse). This means they can't evaluate a player wether he's hurt & needs help or not.

Most of our injuries are pitching injuries & none were accidents (like hit by a line drive), IMO they were by being over extended. Bundy was doing great in the beginning of the season and he was begging for more innings. He got more innings, although he never got seriously injured, it greatly effected his effectiveness. Management's over reliance on a poor short relief corp quickly depleted them which translated into extra innings from the rotation.

It's common knowledge that you can't overextend rookies. Rookies, Winder & Ober were over extended and had long IL stints. Ryan were at times over extended and it resulted in short term injuries & some ineffectiveness. I believe one day Ryan could be a work horse but for the time being he's still a rookie.

IMO Gray didn't join the Twins in strong condition for some reason. Although Gray was a work house in his early days at OAK but his innings have been dwindling ever since. Gray's a competitor so it's only natural for him to want to pitch longer but is it productive? Because he still gets injured & run into ineffectiveness.

The idea of squeezing an extra inning from the rotation to save the BP is not a factor. Saving one inning will spare you one low leverage short RP while you still need at least 3 higher leverage short RPs to complete the game. This will still compromise the rotation and does nothing to relief the over burdened high leverage RP. The only real solutions are #1 a strong long relief corp to fill the gap from SP to closer or even completing the game. This will save you at least all but one high leverage RP. #2 an offense that keeps the game from being close.

While I was disappointed with our depleted catching & BP starting the season. Though our rotation was short of something  to be desired, it was adequate. Complemented with a great supply of long relief, we could have been very successful. The mismanagement of the balance of SP/ long relief/ short relief was our main downfall of not winning the Central Division & advancing to the post season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of opinions. Most all thought out well. As a fan of the great game for 7 decades, it is amusing to see how much things have changed. When for those decades, starting pitchers somehow managed to get thru the lineup the 3rd time with enough success to log complete games, or at least 7 innings..is it now that pitchers have the need to throw the ball 200 mph in order to get batters out?  Somewhere Greg Maddux is chuckling. is this really good for the game? Opinions vary.

Managers. Do they make a difference or not? Opinions on this vary too. Some say anyone could have managed the Yankees during the tenure of Joe Torre. Was Joe a great manager, or did he simply have the temperament and personal skill to hold a team full of super-egos together, better than anyone else? What made LaRussa and Lasorda great managers? Or were they? Or how about Cox in Atlanta? Gene Mauch was considered a 'genius' by many...why did he never win a thing?  In hockey you had Toe Blake, Scotty Bowman, Punch Imlach...all uber-successful...all with the talent to go along with. So you take a team full of talent and combine that with good leadership and you have a nice result. A great leader/manager/coach with a team full of duds, will never win. So it goes.

This year, Twins manager and coaching staff made several questionable moves. At the end of the day  the players still have to execute. Were they taught properly? IMO, this was an awful season of unfulfilled expectations, given how they started. The 'mix' wasn't very good. The injuries piled up. Too many winnable games were blown. (more than normal I believe...look at our games with Cleveland)  I see several players being cut loose. I see sleepless nights in the smoke filled boardroom trying to figure out what to do with the never healthy Buxton. I wonder how Correa plans on spinning his decision once this season ends.

We'll be watching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Community Moderator
1 hour ago, Doctor Gast said:

 

 . Rookies, Winder & Ober were over extended and had long IL stints.

I disagree with 95 percent of your post, but I HAVE to push back on the idea these two were "over extended."

Ober has thrown 43 innings this year. Winder 60. 

 

C'mon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

I disagree with 95 percent of your post, but I HAVE to push back on the idea these two were "over extended."

Ober has thrown 43 innings this year. Winder 60. 

 

C'mon.

I know that I think outside the box, and you have difficulty understanding & agreeing with what I post.

What I mean Chief by "over extending" has nothing to do with total # of innings pitched during the season. It has to do with having them pitch too many innings in each game too soon over a period of time. I suggest that if they were kept at a 5 inning limit in the beginning, depending on how many pitches pitched, they would not have gotten injured (at least not seriously) and they could have pitched over 120 innings each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 11:50 AM, chpettit19 said:

Are you suggesting Berrios knew the Twins were going to go from letting him throw 200 innings a year to not letting him do what they'd let him do his whole career this year and that's why he didn't want to sign here? I don't know if it was all about money, but I'd be willing to bet the Twins didn't tell him they were going to cut 50 innings off his season inning totals.

Rumblings from Gray? You mean that Twitter clip where he complained about not going deeper in games? The one where when he was asked about it later he said he was mad at himself for not being better and not at the team?

Look, I haven't enjoyed the pitching strategy this year, and think it played a huge role in ruining the season. But before this season they'd never done anything like this so the suggestion that this particular plan has played a role in FA pitchers not coming here is simply false. They've never done it before so how could it play a role in pitchers not coming here?

I'm really not suggesting, just thinking. Word gets around fast about coaches and policies. Just kind of thinking. There must be a reason why over the last few years none of the good starters have wanted to come to the twins. Different reports have the offers equal or maybe even better than the ones they sign. The only other reason I can think of  is they don't want to play in this weather or the coaching staff. I am however sure that if this trend of limiting innings or times thru lineup will have an effect on attracting good starters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

I know that I think outside the box, and you have difficulty understanding & agreeing with what I post.

What I mean Chief by "over extending" has nothing to do with total # of innings pitched during the season. It has to do with having them pitch too many innings in each game too soon over a period of time. I suggest that if they were kept at a 5 inning limit in the beginning, depending on how many pitches pitched, they would not have gotten injured (at least not seriously) and they could have pitched over 120 innings each.

Look at their game logs on baseball reference. Both were reduced to less than 80 pitches throughout the season. If that is over extending them then both are bullpen arms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2022 at 12:33 PM, Vanimal46 said:

Look at their game logs on baseball reference. Both were reduced to less than 80 pitches throughout the season. If that is over extending them then both are bullpen arms. 

Thank you Vanimal46, I noted that they kept them to 80 pitch limit. But a steady 80 pitch limit might have been too liberal especially in the beginning, taking into consideration that spring training was short, that they were rookies (with extra adrenalin pumping, unable to pace themselves like veterans and unseasoned arms) plus Winder had some injury problems the year before.

So especially in the beginning of the year, I'd say they were both better suited in long relief and regularly used there. Not saying they couldn't be used in spot starts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premiere Twins community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...