Does the Twins Front Office Have Difficulty Admitting When They Are Wrong?

[Trov]

To me it is not just about if they were "wrong" in signing or trading for a player, but who else do we have to step in and are they better?  You point out to some starting pitchers that they held on to for awhile, but you do not point out who would have made those starts instead if they would have cut the player earlier on, and if that player would have done any better.  Without pointing me to a clear easy replacement that was available at the time, it is hard to say they had a hard time admitting they were wrong. 

You point out Simmons and having different options at SS, but other than putting Polanco back at SS, what was their clear option, after we had Simmons.  Yes, we had options of picking someone else, but the article is after we had the player not arguing we should have signed someone else. Lewis was hurt, and the next SS on the top prospect list was Wander Javier.  So it was find someone off the junk pile, move Polanco back to SS, and use Arraez at 2nd full time, but he was filling in at 3rd and 2nd already with some time in LF.  So who was our clear better choice during the season for Simmons?  

You also address the 2021 starters we held onto, but do you forget we used 16 different guys to start games, some as an opener, but still had 16 different guys start games that year.  One of them was Joe Ryan after we traded for him when we gave up on season as well.  So who would have been a better option, for the 2 you wanted cut earlier than was?  

My point is, to say we hold onto a player too long simply because we do not cut them when they struggle does not tell the whole story.  Sometimes you hold onto who you have because you do not have current better options due to injuries, lack of MLB ready prospects. 

[chpettit19]

49 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Not saying any other manger would have gotten more wins out of that team, but, he showed IMO in 2019 he didn't have what it took to be a successful manager, wins aren't everything when it comes to a manager. I thought he made a ton of mistakes, got out managed, was bailed out by the Bomba squad and played one a super easy schedule. and IMO he wasn't the type of manager that was going to lead the Twins to the World Series. (Maybe that changes this year or next and I am wrong, I really, really hope I am wrong but as of today I am not)

And that opinion is fine. I'm certainly not suggesting Rocco is great. I just think firing someone off their first season managing when the team had all that success is shortsighted. Allowing a little room to grow seems like the prudent path to me. I'm also not someone who subscribes to the "bailed out by the bomba squad" storyline. They were 9th in the majors in ERA, and everyone got to use the juiced ball. That team pretty well maxed out their abilities. If you're (and I'm not saying you are, just people in general) going to blame a manager for losses, you have to have a way to give them credit for wins. If he's to blame for winning 70 some games, you have to give him credit for winning 100 some.

As outsiders, in my opinion, the only way we can judge a manager is by w/l record, and what players say about them. He tends to get glowing reviews from players, current and former, for his clubhouse management so I don't think we have anything to go on negatively there, and then all we're left with is their w/l record. His has been subpar lately, and he should feel some heat for it. The team hasn't been good enough.

But, generally speaking, I don't think managers matter very much. The FO matters significantly more than the manager, in terms of non-player team employees. You can pick whoever you think the best manager ever was and they're not winning games with the Oakland As this year. I also don't subscribe to the idea that Rocco not having mandatory IF/OF and BP everyday is a mistake (I don't know your feelings on that, just an example of where I think managers don't matter much). These are grown adults being paid millions to play a game. If your manager has to tell you to work on your game you're not a championship player, and nothing your manager can do will change that. I just don't think managers make that much of a difference. Especially in today's game where much of their decision making power is stripped away.

Falvine wouldn't replace Rocco with someone drastically different. That's the main reason I don't call for his head. We don't have enough info, as fans, on what he's like behind the scenes to have strong opinions there. But the FO isn't going to hire a manager who does things differently than they'd like on the field, so there wouldn't really be a big change in the platooning, bullpen usage, etc. with someone new. The same complaints people have about Rocco would be true of the new guy. I don't see Rocco as the reason they can't win, I see talent as the reason. And, to tie back into the theme of this thread, the FO's inability to change their plans quickly enough. Their in season pivoting (not just with roster turnover, but overall baseball strategy) is atrocious, and I think that's a far bigger problem than anything Rocco does. Mostly because I think he has very little control on what he does.

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

I would have fired him after 2019, to me it was obvious he wasn't ever going to be a great manager IMO. I also said in 2016 the Vikings should fire Zimmer (only took the Vikings 5 years to see what I seen)

If the Twins don't make the playoffs and win at least one game I would fire this FO and Manager.

Which genius got away? 

[ashbury]

I don't know whether The Twins Front Office Has Difficulty Admitting When They Are Wrong, but I'm pretty sure they fail miserably at Admitting When TD Posters Knew It All Along.

[KirbyDome89]

The Twins were right to sign Donaldson, and right to move him when they did. The guy slashed .247/.352/.475 over 135 games 2021. If you want to complain that he was injured in 2020, go for it, but that was a 60 game season. Poor performance absolutely did not taint his time in MN. 

Whether it's blind faith or a lack of options, the rationale for sticking with some of these guys doesn't really matter to me. They're two versions of the same thing, poor decision making.  

[Beast]

I don’t care whether they admit it.

I’m more concerned as to why they’re repeatedly wrong, specifically on these relievers (and numerous times on starters), and why they seemingly can’t learn from it.

There’s clearly a flaw in the way they interpret data.  Throw all the fancy numbers out on Pagan you want.  The fact is, he’s one of the worst relievers in major league history in terms of results.  Get off my lawn with this “pitching + is in the top half of the league” stuff.  What a waste of time and energy.

Im tired of the excuses made for the FO.  Sure, finding relievers is hard.  It’s unpredictable.  But, their job is to get it right.  That’s their only job - and there’s two of them doing it.

Similar to Pagan, I don’t care about the underlying trash-in trash-out computer program that contorts data to paint whatever picture you want.  My great grandmother could throw a bullpen and have AI find a way to make her look like Mariano Rivera. I care about real things.

Real things like them trading “the best reliever in game right now,” according to ESPN’s front page, for Jorge Lopez.  The historically inept Orioles are now fleecing us and turning our castoffs into stars.  We saw it with Liam Hendricks, Nick Anderson, etc.  They consistently make the wrong choice when it comes to the bullpen.  At some point, you have to stop pointing at luck and randomness.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

I sincerely doubt that it is about admitting (or not admitting) that they were wrong.  They have certainly DFA'd players that they have owed money to in the past, and will again in the future.  More likely, they are trying to get value out of a player who they perceive has some hidden value.  Unlocking something in a player with potential is what all teams try to do.  Also playing into this is whether or not they have someone ready to go to take the player's place.  Those players listed above are all examples of former Twins  (or prospects) who have been unlocked by other teams.  That's where the big value is.

In the Pagan situation, I would likely have pulled the trigger by now, but I'm really not sure who they have to jump in and take his place.  He appears to have a "rubber" arm and can be thrown out there frequently, albeit with subpar results -- or more accurately, with pretty good results followed by an unmitigated disaster.  It is truly uncanny. 

[Jocko87]

6 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

But, generally speaking, I don't think managers matter very much. The FO matters significantly more than the manager, in terms of non-player team employees. You can pick whoever you think the best manager ever was and they're not winning games with the Oakland As this year. I also don't subscribe to the idea that Rocco not having mandatory IF/OF and BP everyday is a mistake (I don't know your feelings on that, just an example of where I think managers don't matter much). These are grown adults being paid millions to play a game. If your manager has to tell you to work on your game you're not a championship player, and nothing your manager can do will change that. I just don't think managers make that much of a difference. Especially in today's game where much of their decision making power is stripped away.

But the manager can make a huge difference. We are reasonably assuming that Rocco has many of the decision powers pulled away in favor of the computer but we don’t know his mandate in detail. It would make sense based on what we see but it wouldn’t explain most of the issues we have with this team. 

The data may lead them to swing hard all the time but it certainly doesn’t say take horrific at bats and swing at bad pitches. A manager should fix that. 

The data may say Griffen Jax has the best stuff+ in the league but it doesn’t tell him to be predictable or tip his pitches. A manager should fix that. 

The data will say that not bunting leads to more runs but it’s not saying in the bottom of 10, tie game one run wins let’s swing as hard as possible 9 times just in case. A manager should fix that.

The data will tell Correa that his approach is great, exit velo, xwoba all great, good things coming but it won’t tell him he pressing, swinging at bad pitches and letting the pitcher dictate the at bat. A manager should fix that. 

The manager is certainly limited in what they can do but what I’m seeing is a lot of failing in the areas that he absolutely can affect. Most of the lineup or bullpen calls don’t actually directly affect the outcome of a game. We wonder wtf he was thinking pinch hitting for the clean up hitter but was it the reason the game was lost? No.  

The problems I’m seeing are preparation, approach, in game strategy, in game adjustments, self scouting and leadership. All things the manager has direct control of. Coaches need to coach constantly. I hear him getting more frustrated and we don’t know what he’s actually doing but we see the lack of results. 

It would be fairly easy to put together a manager wins above expectation.  Actual wins against the Vegas composite over/under is pretty straightforward.  The front office has assembled a ton of talent. What’s it lacking?

[chpettit19]

10 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

But the manager can make a huge difference. We are reasonably assuming that Rocco has many of the decision powers pulled away in favor of the computer but we don’t know his mandate in detail. It would make sense based on what we see but it wouldn’t explain most of the issues we have with this team. 

The data may lead them to swing hard all the time but it certainly doesn’t say take horrific at bats and swing at bad pitches. A manager should fix that. 

The data may say Griffen Jax has the best stuff+ in the league but it doesn’t tell him to be predictable or tip his pitches. A manager should fix that. 

The data will say that not bunting leads to more runs but it’s not saying in the bottom of 10, tie game one run wins let’s swing as hard as possible 9 times just in case. A manager should fix that.

The data will tell Correa that his approach is great, exit velo, xwoba all great, good things coming but it won’t tell him he pressing, swinging at bad pitches and letting the pitcher dictate the at bat. A manager should fix that. 

The manager is certainly limited in what they can do but what I’m seeing is a lot of failing in the areas that he absolutely can affect. Most of the lineup or bullpen calls don’t actually directly affect the outcome of a game. We wonder wtf he was thinking pinch hitting for the clean up hitter but was it the reason the game was lost? No.  

The problems I’m seeing are preparation, approach, in game strategy, in game adjustments, self scouting and leadership. All things the manager has direct control of. Coaches need to coach constantly. I hear him getting more frustrated and we don’t know what he’s actually doing but we see the lack of results. 

It would be fairly easy to put together a manager wins above expectation.  Actual wins against the Vegas composite over/under is pretty straightforward.  The front office has assembled a ton of talent. What’s it lacking?

How should a manager fix a player's at bat? In his press conferences he certainly sounds like he's annoyed with their at bats. This is where I just disagree with people. The manager isn't taking at bats. Do you think he was telling Miranda to swing at every fastball at his eyes, or do you think he was telling him not to? Suggesting a manager should, or can, have a big effect on the type of at bats guys have is significantly oversimplifying what an at bat is like. You think the players aren't aware they should swing at balls down the middle and not out of the zone? Why hasn't Rosario changed his approach in Atlanta with what I assume is a better manager since their team is great? A manager can only do so much, and I think it's very little, when it comes to player at bats. When 100 MPH is coming at them, the players aren't thinking "oh, shoot, Rocco told me not to swing at this ball." It's way more complicated than that.

Does a manager call the game? Is Rocco the one with the pitchcom on his knee guard or glove or wherever calling pitches?

The manager could call a bunt there, yes. I'll refer to my first paragraph on AB approaches being a player thing.

Fix Correa pressing how? What exactly do you think great managers do to stop a player from pressing when they actually step into the box? Chuck Knoblauch had a pretty good manager in New York, right? Why couldn't Torre stop him from pressing and throwing the ball into the seats from second base?

I strongly disagree that the manager can effect these things as much as you seem to be suggesting. Preparation is a player thing. Approach in real time is a player thing. In game strategy is a manager thing, but you just said in the previous paragraph that those things don't actually lose games. I don't know what exactly you mean by in game adjustments, but I'd say it's some manager, some player. You can see the players in the dugout self scouting mid-game, they have hitter and pitcher meetings everyday about both self, and opponent, scouting. He gets rave reviews from pretty much everyone on his leadership so not sure we can complain about anything there. I just disagree with the assumption that him getting more frustrated, but the results not changing, is his fault or a sign he isn't coaching. Talent wins. Like I said in a previous post, pick whoever you want as the best manager ever and they aren't winning with this year's Oakland As team.

I disagree with your assessment of the talent compiled, or that comparing Vegas over/unders to actual wins is an effective tool to measure a manager. This team is not that talented. They're about average in talent. Their bullpen and lineup are not contender units, and that's been a complaint by many people on these very boards since last season. Outside of Correa, most of the players are playing to about what our expectations were. Miranda would be another disappointment. But who'd we expect to be significantly better? MAT? Gallo? Jeffers? Vazquez? Castro? Kepler? Anyone in the bullpen? What's lacking is true, above average talent. They have a whole bunch of 6-9 hole hitters, and very few 1-5 hitters. Hard to score runs with a lineup of bottom of the order bats, and Correa flopping.

But let's go with your Vegas over/under idea. Their over under was 84.5 from what I can find. They're on pace for 85 wins. So, by your own measure, Rocco isn't failing the team. He's just an average manager who's not really effecting the team w/l total in any way since they're basically dead on pace.

[IndianaTwin]

Since many TD discussions lead back to Pagan, I could use some help understanding Win Probability Added, which people reference on a regular basis. And these are honest questions -- I'm not trying to be snarky. 

1. His total WPA for the season is -0.207. Am I correct that that's bad, that in total he's cost us .207 wins?
2. Given that the league will finish .500, is the total WPA of all players in a game going to be 0.000? If so, is that suggesting that any player with a positive WPA has increased his team's chances of winning a game and any with a negative has decreased the chances of winning game.     
3. In Pagan's case, the cumulative number is driven by 0.611 of the negative came from the debacle in LA last week, and another .299 comes from the early entry in Boston in the game where Maeda got hurt and someone needed to pick up innings. In 14 of his 18 games, he has a positive WPA. Is that suggesting that in 14 of 18 games, his pitching improved his team's chance to win? Maybe I'm not understanding how this works, but it seems pretty good to say that in 78 percent of games, you helped your team win. Since every game has a winner and a loser, would the league average be 50 percent positive? 
4. What is meaningful? As in, in three of the positive games, his score is 0.001 or 0.002. I assume that means he had negligible effect on the win or loss, which is reflective of his pitching late in games that ended with an average margin of nearly eight runs. Even if those are treated as a "tie," his "record is 11-4-3, which would be a pretty good "winning percentage"
5. Ultimately, what is more important in determining whether Pagan has been effective -- is it the net of -0.207, or is it the reality that in 14 of 18 games he helped the team? Intuitively, since a win is a win is a win, it seems like the latter (a .778 "winning percentage") is more noteworthy.

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

How should a manager fix a player's at bat? In his press conferences he certainly sounds like he's annoyed with their at bats. This is where I just disagree with people. The manager isn't taking at bats. Do you think he was telling Miranda to swing at every fastball at his eyes, or do you think he was telling him not to? Suggesting a manager should, or can, have a big effect on the type of at bats guys have is significantly oversimplifying what an at bat is like. You think the players aren't aware they should swing at balls down the middle and not out of the zone? Why hasn't Rosario changed his approach in Atlanta with what I assume is a better manager since their team is great? A manager can only do so much, and I think it's very little, when it comes to player at bats. When 100 MPH is coming at them, the players aren't thinking "oh, shoot, Rocco told me not to swing at this ball." It's way more complicated than that.

Does a manager call the game? Is Rocco the one with the pitchcom on his knee guard or glove or wherever calling pitches?

The manager could call a bunt there, yes. I'll refer to my first paragraph on AB approaches being a player thing.

Fix Correa pressing how? What exactly do you think great managers do to stop a player from pressing when they actually step into the box? Chuck Knoblauch had a pretty good manager in New York, right? Why couldn't Torre stop him from pressing and throwing the ball into the seats from second base?

I strongly disagree that the manager can effect these things as much as you seem to be suggesting. Preparation is a player thing. Approach in real time is a player thing. In game strategy is a manager thing, but you just said in the previous paragraph that those things don't actually lose games. I don't know what exactly you mean by in game adjustments, but I'd say it's some manager, some player. You can see the players in the dugout self scouting mid-game, they have hitter and pitcher meetings everyday about both self, and opponent, scouting. He gets rave reviews from pretty much everyone on his leadership so not sure we can complain about anything there. I just disagree with the assumption that him getting more frustrated, but the results not changing, is his fault or a sign he isn't coaching. Talent wins. Like I said in a previous post, pick whoever you want as the best manager ever and they aren't winning with this year's Oakland As team.

I disagree with your assessment of the talent compiled, or that comparing Vegas over/unders to actual wins is an effective tool to measure a manager. This team is not that talented. They're about average in talent. Their bullpen and lineup are not contender units, and that's been a complaint by many people on these very boards since last season. Outside of Correa, most of the players are playing to about what our expectations were. Miranda would be another disappointment. But who'd we expect to be significantly better? MAT? Gallo? Jeffers? Vazquez? Castro? Kepler? Anyone in the bullpen? What's lacking is true, above average talent. They have a whole bunch of 6-9 hole hitters, and very few 1-5 hitters. Hard to score runs with a lineup of bottom of the order bats, and Correa flopping.

But let's go with your Vegas over/under idea. Their over under was 84.5 from what I can find. They're on pace for 85 wins. So, by your own measure, Rocco isn't failing the team. He's just an average manager who's not really effecting the team w/l total in any way since they're basically dead on pace.

I guess I'm confused then.  What would you say Rocco's job is?  I listed a few things that are objectively and obviously on the coaching staff and you use a 1 in a million Knoblauch example to say managers don't do anything? 

 

 

[chpettit19]

37 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

I guess I'm confused then.  What would you say Rocco's job is?  I listed a few things that are objectively and obviously on the coaching staff and you use a 1 in a million Knoblauch example to say managers don't do anything? 

 

 

In game player usage decisions and creating lineups are their outward facing jobs. Managing the clubhouse and player egos, emotions, etc. are their inward facing jobs. The coaching staff is different, to me.

The Twins have multiple (3 I think, but at least 2) hitting coaches who are available to the Twins players all day, everyday. The Twins have multiple (main, bullpen, etc) pitching coaches who are available to the Twins players all day, everyday. Those are the people who are working with the players on laying off high fastballs, not swinging for the fences 100% of the time, pitch usage, self-scouting, opponent game planning, whatever. Rocco is around, and can give advice on things, but he's not a hitting or pitching coach. That is not his job.

Rocco isn't a pitching expert and doesn't go teach Jax how to throw pitches, or which pitches to use. That's not his job. Rocco was a heck of a hitter, but he doesn't break down every player's swing, ABs, etc. That's not his job. Those are the pitching and hitting coaches jobs. Rocco's job is to know what the players need and get them to the people who can help them. It's to put them in the best situation to succeed. People can certainly voice some displeasure with his lineups, pinch hitting, bullpen, whatever decisions, and I don't think it's crazy to think he's not great at putting people in the best situations all the time. But Rocco isn't breaking down swings, or pitch usage. That's why the Twins have 874 coaches on staff. (That last number was an exaggeration)

I also used Eddie Rosario and Oakland As examples. Now I'll use a James Rowson example. People call for his return all the time because they want to give him credit for the 2019 offense. I say I don't know if he's a good coach or not, but his offenses in Miami were the worst in the league, and his current Detroit offense is 4th worst in baseball with multiple top picks, and the great Akil Badoo there. Talent is what matters. Players are what matter. Coaches aren't nothing, but they aren't turning bad players into good players. Rocco not being able to get some players to cut down on Ks doesn't make him terrible at his job. I don't think he's great at his job, but if I pointed to Luis Arraez's strike out numbers with the Twins and gave Rocco the credit for that would you buy it? I don't think you should, but I also don't think you should buy that Rocco was to blame for Sano's strike out numbers.

[chpettit19]

42 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

I guess I'm confused then.  What would you say Rocco's job is?  I listed a few things that are objectively and obviously on the coaching staff and you use a 1 in a million Knoblauch example to say managers don't do anything? 

 

 

PS: Love the use of the meme.

[Jocko87]

56 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

In game player usage decisions and creating lineups are their outward facing jobs. Managing the clubhouse and player egos, emotions, etc. are their inward facing jobs. The coaching staff is different, to me.

The Twins have multiple (3 I think, but at least 2) hitting coaches who are available to the Twins players all day, everyday. The Twins have multiple (main, bullpen, etc) pitching coaches who are available to the Twins players all day, everyday. Those are the people who are working with the players on laying off high fastballs, not swinging for the fences 100% of the time, pitch usage, self-scouting, opponent game planning, whatever. Rocco is around, and can give advice on things, but he's not a hitting or pitching coach. That is not his job.

Rocco isn't a pitching expert and doesn't go teach Jax how to throw pitches, or which pitches to use. That's not his job. Rocco was a heck of a hitter, but he doesn't break down every player's swing, ABs, etc. That's not his job. Those are the pitching and hitting coaches jobs. Rocco's job is to know what the players need and get them to the people who can help them. It's to put them in the best situation to succeed. People can certainly voice some displeasure with his lineups, pinch hitting, bullpen, whatever decisions, and I don't think it's crazy to think he's not great at putting people in the best situations all the time. But Rocco isn't breaking down swings, or pitch usage. That's why the Twins have 874 coaches on staff. (That last number was an exaggeration)

I also used Eddie Rosario and Oakland As examples. Now I'll use a James Rowson example. People call for his return all the time because they want to give him credit for the 2019 offense. I say I don't know if he's a good coach or not, but his offenses in Miami were the worst in the league, and his current Detroit offense is 4th worst in baseball with multiple top picks, and the great Akil Badoo there. Talent is what matters. Players are what matter. Coaches aren't nothing, but they aren't turning bad players into good players. Rocco not being able to get some players to cut down on Ks doesn't make him terrible at his job. I don't think he's great at his job, but if I pointed to Luis Arraez's strike out numbers with the Twins and gave Rocco the credit for that would you buy it? I don't think you should, but I also don't think you should buy that Rocco was to blame for Sano's strike out numbers.

The distinction helps me understand your point but it doesn't change my stance.  Rocco is a member of the coaching staff.  They also work for him.  That makes it his job and responsibility.  He should absolutely be involved in breaking down swings and pitch usage.  Not every swing but when there's an issue he needs to be involved with both feet.  I'm not saying coaches turn Gallo into Arraez as some of the sweeping examples you are using would suggest but there is absolutely a difference in a well coached team vs one who isn't. 

In civilian parlance, hes the director of operations which is a position that requires technical proficiency.  He may be an expert in only one field of his operation but his overall technical proficiency has to be at a level he can function in all areas.  In the management field, leader eventually grow to positions where they have less and less technical skill but are still responsible for production in those areas.  One of the main jobs is helping your sub reporting managers solve problems. 

Excluding bullpen catchers there are 12 coaches on the staff including Rocco per MLB.com. He's involved in everything, I don't see how he couldn't.  How much time does it take to fill out a lineup card? 

If you have a reference that states the org operates like you say I will become the biggest advocate for firing everyone involved and burning everything that remains.  It will save me a ton of time watching the team because I know its not going to work and the end will be spectacular.

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

PS: Love the use of the meme.

Its the most recent movie I've seen.  I'm the hippest.

[chpettit19]

12 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

The distinction helps me understand your point but it doesn't change my stance.  Rocco is a member of the coaching staff.  They also work for him.  That makes it his job and responsibility.  He should absolutely be involved in breaking down swings and pitch usage.  Not every swing but when there's an issue he needs to be involved with both feet.  I'm not saying coaches turn Gallo into Arraez as some of the sweeping examples you are using would suggest but there is absolutely a difference in a well coached team vs one who isn't. 

In civilian parlance, hes the director of operations which is a position that requires technical proficiency.  He may be an expert in only one field of his operation but his overall technical proficiency has to be at a level he can function in all areas.  In the management field, leader eventually grow to positions where they have less and less technical skill but are still responsible for production in those areas.  One of the main jobs is helping your sub reporting managers solve problems. 

Excluding bullpen catchers there are 12 coaches on the staff including Rocco per MLB.com. He's involved in everything, I don't see how he couldn't.  How much time does it take to fill out a lineup card? 

If you have a reference that states the org operates like you say I will become the biggest advocate for firing everyone involved and burning everything that remains.  It will save me a ton of time watching the team because I know its not going to work and the end will be spectacular.

The coaches working for him is an interesting situation. I'd say it's closer to working with than working for. Rocco had a hand in hiring the coaches, but it's much more FO driven than Rocco driven. That's what I'm trying to get at. The vast majority of complaints are FO complaints. Rocco has far less say in all this stuff than the FO. His biggest control is in in game strategy, but even that is guided by FO directives and ideas. Terry Francona isn't breaking down swings either. As coaching staffs have expanded, and specialized, it's even less of a priority for managers. What's the difference between a well coached team and one who isn't that is clearly about coaching and not talent?

Do you have some examples where a player came up, was seen as a certain talent level, produced at that talent level under one manager, but then had a significant change in his performance under another manager (but not a new hitting or pitching coach) with regards to the complaints you, or anyone, has about Rocco? Not bullpen usage or lineup stuff as we've already agreed upon those being the manager's job, and things we should critique them on. But actual performance. Fixing swings, swing decisions, etc. Do you have examples of players getting a new manager and suddenly performing outside of expectations? To me, if it's so clearly about managers, and managers have a significant impact on performance, there should be some pretty easy examples to come up with.

Yes, Rocco is involved in everything. He's the organizer and has to have contact with everyone everyday. He's absolutely the one in charge of the staff and players maximizing their overall talent. Your suggested measure of that was the over/under stuff. Team is right on track there. I don't see anyone outside of Correa and Miranda who are performing significantly below expectations (some may argue Gordon, but I was never a Gordon believer so I don't personally count him), or significantly above expectations (maybe Jeffers there I guess). So, to me, it looks like the team overall is performing to expectations, all but 2/3 individual players are performing to expectations, and fans are frustrated (as they should be with this team). To me, that screams that the manager doesn't really matter (as is my stance), and it's talent that matters. And that comes from the FO, along with the general approach to the game that caused them to bring in players with certain approaches.

It doesn't have to be the Arraez vs Sano examples I used, but can be any player. The Pirates have been a surprise early. They've had Derek Shelton in place since they stole him from the Twins in 2020. They'd won 61 and 62 games the last 2 years. Did Derek Shelton get better or did the talent in the clubhouse get better? Diamondbacks have been pretty good this year after winning 52 games in 21 and 74 games in 2022. Torey Lovullo has been their manager since 2017. Did he get better or did the talent in the clubhouse get better? I'd argue he's the perfect example of my stance. His winning percentages have gone 57, 51, 53, 42, 32, 46, and currently 58%. Was he a good manager, then a bad manager, then a good manager again? Or did the team have talent, then not have talent, and now have talent again?

[Riverbrian]

If you got a problem with someone.

You should always look at the people who hire the people. 

If I'm not happy with Emilio Pagan Performance... it's pointless for me to take it out on Emilio Pagan. He's doing what he is capable of. I'm going to be looking at the people who hired Emilio Pagan and keep him employed. 

If I have a problem with Rocco... He is doing what he is capable of. I'm going to look at the people who hired Rocco. 

To be clear... I don't have a problem with Rocco... I made a fairly large deal over his jumping the shark with his early pinch hitting on Monday night and I'd really like it if he snapped out of this strict platoon thing while the offense is clearly struggling under it's implementation. 

However, I consider Monday night a simple mistake like we all are capable of making and not punishable by death and I would never hold anyone responsible for not thinking like I think since I'm still married and my wife seems to have her own thoughts that are different than mine. 

If I develop a problem with Rocco... my complaints will be directed over his head. If I develop a problem with the front office... I'll direct my complaints to ownership. If I develop a problem with ownership... I'll go up a level and direct my complaints to John Bonnes. 

[nicksaviking]

Just like everyone else, I can't make sense of the Pagan stuff.

However, since the front office took over, they went from a slap-hitting club, to setting records for HR, to focusing on higher OBP players and seemingly back to whatever this un-labelable circus is that we see now.

The rotation went from deadball-era pitch-to-contact arms to extreme flyball pitchers, to extremely ineffective short starts then to strikeout arms among the league leaders in innings pitched.

Defensively, they went from a fairly solid defensive team for two decades, then said, 'screw the errors, give me HRs' and now to, 'screw the offense, give me flexible players with + gloves'.

So, are they not admitting a mistake on Pagan? Yeah, maybe. But basically everything else they're doing? Clearly not, they change their whole philosophy pretty much every season.

 

[Guest]

On 5/24/2023 at 11:50 AM, Jocko87 said:

 

Its not that its a required course, but the undercurrents are everywhere.  Part of what is taught though, is how to address failure.  Key to this conversation is none of it has to do with us.  There are very few instances of any high performing organization just openly apologizing for anything.  Its usually a bad idea because it foments more distrust and suspicion of failures.  Its the beginning of the end.  I know this from having an MBA, getting the good inside/private fortune 500 training and personal experience. 

They owe us nothing in the way of an apology or admitting wrong.  Customers get apologies when the latte order is wrong, not highly complex multi million dollar and variable business moves.  The closest we will get is moving on from Donaldson quickly. 

The important part of the equation is what happens behind closed doors.  While I don't know what happens in the Twins offices, I've been behind several of these closed doors.  You better have thick skin and be able to admit errors while standing firm on where you were correct.  In well run organizations you can articulate what the boss did wrong as well with no repercussions if delivered correctly.  The most important thing, by far, is that it stays behind closed doors.  When I have these meetings I say out loud very clearly that we will be honest, say what we need to say including about me, and have it out.  When we open this door we are a united front on the plan forward, no exceptions.  The Twins are good at the united front, I hope they are having these open discussions behind the scenes.

What I do think they do to a failing is relying on too heavily on the data and miss more obvious signs where the numbers aren't matching up with actual results.  I think they are slow to act if the data still shows a good trend.  This is generally a good trait but makes it very hard to act away from the data at times.  Examples are if Jax stuff+ and whatnot looks great but his scouting report is one simple sentence.  Pagan has great location+ except that one pitch that he also is tipping.  Data can lie, other teams can do things that are effective for them inside your good data etc.  I feel like the coaching staff is missing the one old school guy that can point these things out.  The underlying data is worthless if the other guys know whats coming.

The best thing we can do with the data we have is see them adjust their approaches when things go wrong.  It is a stated organizational philosophy not to invest in the bullpen.  The haven't, but then spent lots of prospects at the deadline.  We will see if they change this going forward as it looks like they may need to.  We have seen them adjust their approach many times over their tenure and they do continue to improve in all facets.  They've also improved so many parts on the roster the bullpen will be a glaring area where they can upgrade as everything else needs minimal help compared to other years.  Times are tough right now but this is objectively the most talented 40 man roster most of us have seen in our fan lifetimes.  Now they need to learn to execute. 

No one that I can see suggested an apology is in order.  And if the Twins' FO is having open, critical conversations behind closed doors, good for them, but well let's just say they have yet to translate to results.  I spent over two decades with a very well-known, private company just down the road from Goddard, in the US and overseas, and while that company and its principals are exceedingly efficient executioners of business strategy worldwide, an immensely generous, admired and teaching management, admitting mistakes internally and articulating lessons learned sometimes took a very long and frustrating time.  The Twins' FO may have a better 40-man than they had when they walked in (who really knows today?), but if they've learned lessons they haven't yet borne fruit sufficient to produce champions and elicit cheers.  Mostly, they've earned a reputation as having the longest injured list, the most blown saves, more strikeouts on offense (and pitching) than just about anyone in MLB.  The rewards for trading away two excellent contact hitters haven't (yet) materialized, and the doctors and trainers for the Mets and Giants appear to be smarter than ours.  Progress this season?  Nope, they're behind last year's pace and we know where they finished in 2022.  Make no mistake, I'm generally in favor of this FO, believe they're an improvement over Ryan et al., and further believe fans must give new FOs 6-10 years before we can really judge their work.  All in all, this FO is saying all the right things, sounding all the maximum optimism, but there's still far too much sad trombone wah-wah-wah on the field.

[Fred]

On 5/24/2023 at 10:22 AM, Schmoeman5 said:

I think we had this discussion a few months ago. I said then that the Twins would have a hard time cutting anyone that money was owed. Unlike the Yankees who cut loose a guy who they owe way more than the Twins owe Pagan. I'm not sure if it's a monetary thing either. More of an embarrassing thing because nobody likes to hear the phase "I told you so" I'm sure that behind the scenes the Twins are working with Pagan. His stuff isn't terrible.  You've seen it, as have I. I think it's a mental thing more than a physical thing. Low leverage, high leverage. Makes no difference. Cut him and wish him well. 

My Daughter said they need to hire a team hypnotist. Maybe they could straighten out the "only useful in low leverage" relief pitching, and the abysmal bases loaded non-hitting. Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek, but it's time for desperate measures.

[Fred]

19 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

But the manager can make a huge difference. We are reasonably assuming that Rocco has many of the decision powers pulled away in favor of the computer but we don’t know his mandate in detail. It would make sense based on what we see but it wouldn’t explain most of the issues we have with this team. 

The data may lead them to swing hard all the time but it certainly doesn’t say take horrific at bats and swing at bad pitches. A manager should fix that. 

The data may say Griffen Jax has the best stuff+ in the league but it doesn’t tell him to be predictable or tip his pitches. A manager should fix that. 

The data will say that not bunting leads to more runs but it’s not saying in the bottom of 10, tie game one run wins let’s swing as hard as possible 9 times just in case. A manager should fix that.

The data will tell Correa that his approach is great, exit velo, xwoba all great, good things coming but it won’t tell him he pressing, swinging at bad pitches and letting the pitcher dictate the at bat. A manager should fix that. 

The manager is certainly limited in what they can do but what I’m seeing is a lot of failing in the areas that he absolutely can affect. Most of the lineup or bullpen calls don’t actually directly affect the outcome of a game. We wonder wtf he was thinking pinch hitting for the clean up hitter but was it the reason the game was lost? No.  

The problems I’m seeing are preparation, approach, in game strategy, in game adjustments, self scouting and leadership. All things the manager has direct control of. Coaches need to coach constantly. I hear him getting more frustrated and we don’t know what he’s actually doing but we see the lack of results. 

It would be fairly easy to put together a manager wins above expectation.  Actual wins against the Vegas composite over/under is pretty straightforward.  The front office has assembled a ton of talent. What’s it lacking?

It drives me crazy to watch the other guys bring in a left handed reliever and watch Baldelli go to as many right handed batters as he can, depleting his bench. Then we are told the reliever statistically has a lot more trouble with left handed batters. Geez, if they're going to use analytics, USE analytics. I had enough anguish watching him burn out a not very good bullpen last year insisting on not letting starters pitch the third time around to the bad guys. It took him a year to figure out that wasn't workable, and let's not talk about Colome in a save situation. At this point, I'm ready to make a comment about riding the short bus, but that wouldn't be politically acceptable.

[ashbury]

34 minutes ago, Fred said:

At this point, I'm ready to make a comment about riding the short bus, but that wouldn't be politically acceptable.

And yet, somehow, some way, you just did.

[ashbury]

6 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

Its the most recent movie I've seen.  I'm the hippest.

"You know how to whistle, don't you?  You just put 'whistle how to' into Google and then click the first link and follow the instructions."

[Rigby]

On 5/24/2023 at 1:44 PM, MABB1959 said:

Kind of kidding but except for this year he would fit right in in BA for the Twins.

Yeah, but he's no John Ryan Murphy......

[Fred]

15 hours ago, ashbury said:

And yet, somehow, some way, you just did.

😁