"Nothing Rocco could do,.."

[Mike Sixel]

Zero people have claimed they make no decisions. Life is a series of dials, not on off switches. It just isn't so black and white as some feel. I think that's the huge disconnect here. Some people think there is a right and wrong and someone is always to blame for things. Others think there's a spectrum, and that stuff happens not in our control for the most part 

I still don't know if I'd keep it fire Rocco.... But he's staying. So I guess there's other things to discuss now. 

[Craig Arko]

13 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

So I guess there's other things to discuss now. 

Indeed. The place I’m working for has a branch office in Atlanta, and not everyone has checked in because Comcast has been down out there. I trust all of you non-MN folks in the Southeast are okay? Any word about Fort Myers?

[Mike Sixel]

6 minutes ago, Craig Arko said:

Indeed. The place I’m working for has a branch office in Atlanta, and not everyone has checked in because Comcast has been down out there. I trust all of you non-MN folks in the Southeast are okay? Any word about Fort Myers?

I know someone that moved to Portugal, and left partly due to the heat and fires. They moved to Asheville because it was supposed to be one of the safest cities for climate..... I've been following her and her husband online, as I thought about moving both those places. Now I'm not sure Asheville even exists. Unreal 

[NYCTK]

Manuel Margot was 4th in all of baseball in pinch hit appearances (and first in Twins OF games!) That's all you need to know to justify his release. 

Seriously, what the heck more do you need than that. 

[nicksaviking]

28 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I know someone that moved to Portugal, and left partly due to the heat and fires. They moved to Asheville because it was supposed to be one of the safest cities for climate..... I've been following her and her husband online, as I thought about moving both those places. Now I'm not sure Asheville even exists. Unreal 

It's insane, it's so far inland, but I guess flood waters can move a long way. It's been at the top of my places to visit for a long time. Wishing them all well.

[USAFChief]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

Zero people have claimed they make no decisions. Life is a series of dials, not on off switches. 

And zero people have said fire Rocco based on one decision. 

BTW, it's a shame you and Arko are forced to come into this cleverly disguised thread and discuss the manager against your will.

 

 

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

3 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

And zero people have said fire Rocco based on one decision. 

BTW, it's a shame you and Arko are forced to come into this cleverly disguised thread and discuss the manager against your will.

 

 

 

 

I didn't say I didn't want to discuss Rocco in a Rocco thread. No one has said your first sentence, but I replied to a comment saying that some people say managers make zero decisions. 

[farmerguychris]

I think it is more likley that they extend Rocco compared to letting him go.  He is doing what this F.O. wants him to do - make analytical decisions.

The only way I see him losing his job is if they need someone to blame and he becomes the target.

My vote for where the blame should go is to the top by 'right sizing' the business.  But we can't fire them.

[Aggies7]

2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

I didn't say I didn't want to discuss Rocco in a Rocco thread. No one has said your first sentence, but I replied to a comment saying that some people say managers make zero decisions. 

There have certainly been posts saying as much. “Moves are determined before games between the FO and coaching staff”. “He’s just doing what the FO has predetermined they want”. “Any new manager will simply follow what the FO wants”

Are you suggesting nobody has said that? The post above me says exactly that. A lot of people seem to just sort of believe that the manager has been given no leeway to make in-game decisions. Has that ever been proven or are people just assuming?

I’ll ask about the loss in Kansas City late in the season in particular because it was so impactful. Analytically, it really never made sense to pitch your closer in the 7th inning when his numbers outside of save situations were awful. So did Rocco brazenly go against the numbers or is he allowed to when he feels like it? Does anyone know? 

[Mike Sixel]

5 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

There have certainly been posts saying as much. “Moves are determined before games between the FO and coaching staff”. “He’s just doing what the FO has predetermined they want”. “Any new manager will simply follow what the FO wants”

Are you suggesting nobody has said that? The post above me says exactly that. A lot of people seem to just sort of believe that the manager has been given no leeway to make in-game decisions. Has that ever been proven or are people just assuming?

I'm suggesting it isn't black and white and those phrases don't mean always. Is this really hard to understand? No one says always. No one. Zero people. 

[Mike Sixel]

I posted this earlier... The disconnect is clear. Some people think life is on and off switches, and some think it's dials. Some think someone is always to blame, and some think stuff happens. I can promise you that those saying Rocco does what the front office wants don't mean he literally takes direction on every minute decision. They have an agreed upon approach, which he follows. But that is a philosophy and approach, not something that says to bring in this RP if this exact thing happens, which is literally impossible to do. 

[USAFChief]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

 I can promise you that those saying Rocco does what the front office wants don't mean he literally takes direction on every minute decision. They have an agreed upon approach, which he follows. But that is a philosophy and approach, not something that says to bring in this RP if this exact thing happens, which is literally impossible to do. 

So then the manager DOES matter, and changing managers likely will result in different decisions.

He has a philosophy to guide him, but he makes decisions. He, alone. 

Every. Single. Game.

 

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

2 hours ago, Aggies7 said:

I’ll ask about the loss in Kansas City late in the season in particular because it was so impactful. Analytically, it really never made sense to pitch your closer in the 7th inning when his numbers outside of save situations were awful. So did Rocco brazenly go against the numbers or is he allowed to when he feels like it? Does anyone know?

My thinking is that the KC game was the turning point. I am fine if people disagree with that and call the Texas loss or Miami loss the big ones, or one of the Cleveland losses.

Heck the Twins would still have been mathematically alive on the last day of the season, had they won that KC game, if everything else had played out the same (which it wouldn’t have, but still).

Everyone in the game thread was asking for Ober to be allowed to pitch the 8th that night; Ober was breezing, and the bottom of the order was coming up. Ober knew the deal and wanted to stay in. You gotta roll the dice at some point for your starters. You need to save your bullpen guys in that stretch. Etc etc. Rocco compounded the mistake by bringing in Duran as you said. 

[Mike Sixel]

56 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

So then the manager DOES matter, and changing managers likely will result in different decisions.

He has a philosophy to guide him, but he makes decisions. He, alone. 

Every. Single. Game.

 

 

Based on input, yes. Has anyone said otherwise, really? Seriously? 

However, imo, the decisions matter a lot less than most think. It's still the players that matter way more. And, as you know, you can make a good decision and lose, or a bad one and win. 

If he made decisions contrary to into all the time, he'd be fired. That's how collaboration works. No idea why this needs to be explained.

Again, dials, not switches. 

[Aggies7]

2 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Based on input, yes. Has anyone said otherwise, really? Seriously? 

However, imo, the decisions matter a lot less than most think. It's still the players that matter way more. And, as you know, you can make a good decision and lose, or a bad one and win. 

If he made decisions contrary to into all the time, he'd be fired. That's how collaboration works. No idea why this needs to be explained.

Again, dials, not switches. 

I’m going to guess that the vast majority of sports organizations have collaboration between front offices and coaching staffs. That’s how coaches get hired in the first place. Nobody interviews with a plan different from the desires of management and is offered the job. The twins are not unique in this regard. Every team has a plan and all mlb teams rely on analytics. Coaches also get fired all the time for all sorts of reasons. Are the ones getting fired the ones who strayed too far from the collaboration/plan Or, is it at all possible that many times, coaches get fired because they aren’t getting results?

This whole argument is just a disconnect between people who think managers matter little and those who think they matter a good deal. But if you think they matter “a lot less”, then what’s the harm of trying something else? It couldn’t get much worse than it is now, if that’s what you believe. But maybe it could get a little better, no? And yes I know it’s been decided already.

[Mike Sixel]

30 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

I’m going to guess that the vast majority of sports organizations have collaboration between front offices and coaching staffs. That’s how coaches get hired in the first place. Nobody interviews with a plan different from the desires of management and is offered the job. The twins are not unique in this regard. Every team has a plan and all mlb teams rely on analytics. Coaches also get fired all the time for all sorts of reasons. Are the ones getting fired the ones who strayed too far from the collaboration/plan Or, is it at all possible that many times, coaches get fired because they aren’t getting results?

Both? I'm not sure what you're arguing?

[Aggies7]

4 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

Both? I'm not sure what you're arguing?

You say that he does have some level of autonomy to make decisions. He has responsibility for some of the results because he makes some of those decisions.  
 

You also say that baseball managers matter “less than” we think they do. So what’s the harm in changing leadership? It couldn’t get much worse if managers don’t earn as many W’s as players (as you say). But what if it got better?

The AL wild card was determined by one game. The NL WC ended in a tiebreaker. Half the divisions were settled by 4 games or less. Margins are small. Is a better manager worth a few more wins? Can’t we at least try?

[Mike Sixel]

21 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

You say that he does have some level of autonomy to make decisions. He has responsibility for some of the results because he makes some of those decisions.  
 

You also say that baseball managers matter “less than” we think they do. So what’s the harm in changing leadership? It couldn’t get much worse if managers don’t earn as many W’s as players (as you say). But what if it got better?

The AL wild card was determined by one game. The NL WC ended in a tiebreaker. Half the divisions were settled by 4 games or less. Margins are small. Is a better manager worth a few more wins? Can’t we at least try?

I literally have said I don't know if he should be kept or not. 

[jctwins]

4 hours ago, USAFChief said:

So then the manager DOES matter, and changing managers likely will result in different decisions.

He has a philosophy to guide him, but he makes decisions. He, alone. 

Every. Single. Game.

 

 

Word I heard just the other day is Wes Johnson left because the guys with the iPads were making all of the decisions. Sorta makes sense.

[knothole61]

Dang, I was prepared to lick my baseball wounds in solitude while becoming happily beguiled by the surprising Vikings...and then I happened upon this acrimonious and fascinating postseason thread concerning Himself and his fitness to manage our favorite MLB team.

Full discloser: Rocco, judging from the admittedly small window I have into his soul. is not my cup of tea. Billy Martin, the passionate, visceral, in your face kind of guy who took on all comers, including his team's owner was more to my liking, although I must admit that he probably would have benefitted from some psychological counseling. Rocco Baldelli, however, with his analytics and empathy and the sort of "doo dah man" essence of his postgame pressers is, I believe, the antithesis of Billy. Don't get me wrong, I have friends who remain "Dead Heads" to this day...I'm just not so sure it's a good thing for an MLB manager to embrace. And, of course, as always I may be entirely misguided in these thoughts.

So, this is my long-winded way of admitting that some of my negativity toward Rocco may be based on things not directly related to baseball and that I will try to fight against that herein. 

Determining Baldelli's value to the team, and his fitness to continue as manager, is a very complicated thing. In mid-August he deserved only praise for guiding a team wracked with some serious and long term injuries and crippled by a miserly owner, to within reach of the Division lead and a near certainty of making the playoffs. But the six-week collapse thereafter was so colossal, so horrible, that questions must be asked about his leadership abilities in a crisis.

Pitchers failed, hitters failed to an amazing degree, base runners (and base coaches!) failed, fielders failed...and the manager, as far as I can tell, kept strumming the same tune throughout. Leadership, rising in spite of the obstacles one has to overcome, is why he's paid the big bucks. And I do believe that a manager as a spiritual leader has a great deal to do with the success or failure of a team--often in ways that will not chart out statistically.

After two or three weeks of the slump it had to be obvious that something needed to be done to shake things up, while there was still time to pull the the season out of the fire. What? you ask...oh, I don't know, maybe send the third base coach packing, refuse to let Margot pinch hit, become more aggressive on the bases or play some small ball to squeeze out a few more runs and win some of those 17 (?) games in the last 39 where the Twins scored two runs or less! How about this: send the guy who went from a 1.000 OPS, grand slam hero to the Mendoza Line almost overnight back to AAA for a couple of weeks to help get his head straight and as a message to others that no one is protected from poor production. Two weeks back in a minor league locker room without big league buffets, etc. can I believe, prove chastening.

Baldelli seems to be a decent man and I know that he was a great ball player, but I believe that when he faced a crisis this season he proved unable to meet it resolutely and creatively. I am not saying that I fault him for failing to quickly and completely solve what was a deep and tangled situation--I fault him for not recognizing that something entirely new and dramatic was needed. 

For those of you who reached this point, thanks for listening...Win Twins!

[insagt1]

One thing..I don't for one minute think that Rocco coming back is a done deal. Yeah thats what Falvey said NOW. But things can change on a dime. I suspect if a 'better' managerial choice floats to the surface a change will be made and the FO will work out the numbers. If not, he may return. Tune in in late March!

I saw a good documentary yesterday 'The Un-Civil War...the Yankees-Dodgers rivalry. A great march thru the history of Yanks v. Dodgers...especially the Reggie-Billy-George drama's. Back then George was an owner who totally interfered with the day to day running of the team. Charlie Finley did the same for the A's. One extreme. When Martin was fired mid-season 1977, Bob Lemon took over and told the players to just do what they do best. He wasn't going to interfere. Other extreme. (Yanks won the WS and Reggie became Mr October)

One other thing I noticed regarding pitchers in 2024. The MLB leaders in complete games threw exactly TWO complete games...and I believe there were only 3 of them who did it. For fossils like me, that is simply astounding.

Postscript on this discussion. I live in Rochester, NY and we have always been spared extreme weather. We complain about snow in the winter but that is so insignificant when you see the disasters and heartbreaks that take place every year with fire, wind, rain, temperature extremes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods...my heart goes out to all those who have lost everything.

[In My La Z boy]

On 10/1/2024 at 12:53 AM, knothole61 said:

Dang, I was prepared to lick my baseball wounds in solitude while becoming happily beguiled by the surprising Vikings...and then I happened upon this acrimonious and fascinating postseason thread concerning Himself and his fitness to manage our favorite MLB team.

Full discloser: Rocco, judging from the admittedly small window I have into his soul. is not my cup of tea. Billy Martin, the passionate, visceral, in your face kind of guy who took on all comers, including his team's owner was more to my liking, although I must admit that he probably would have benefitted from some psychological counseling. Rocco Baldelli, however, with his analytics and empathy and the sort of "doo dah man" essence of his postgame pressers is, I believe, the antithesis of Billy. Don't get me wrong, I have friends who remain "Dead Heads" to this day...I'm just not so sure it's a good thing for an MLB manager to embrace. And, of course, as always I may be entirely misguided in these thoughts.

So, this is my long-winded way of admitting that some of my negativity toward Rocco may be based on things not directly related to baseball and that I will try to fight against that herein. 

Determining Baldelli's value to the team, and his fitness to continue as manager, is a very complicated thing. In mid-August he deserved only praise for guiding a team wracked with some serious and long term injuries and crippled by a miserly owner, to within reach of the Division lead and a near certainty of making the playoffs. But the six-week collapse thereafter was so colossal, so horrible, that questions must be asked about his leadership abilities in a crisis.

Pitchers failed, hitters failed to an amazing degree, base runners (and base coaches!) failed, fielders failed...and the manager, as far as I can tell, kept strumming the same tune throughout. Leadership, rising in spite of the obstacles one has to overcome, is why he's paid the big bucks. And I do believe that a manager as a spiritual leader has a great deal to do with the success or failure of a team--often in ways that will not chart out statistically.

After two or three weeks of the slump it had to be obvious that something needed to be done to shake things up, while there was still time to pull the the season out of the fire. What? you ask...oh, I don't know, maybe send the third base coach packing, refuse to let Margot pinch hit, become more aggressive on the bases or play some small ball to squeeze out a few more runs and win some of those 17 (?) games in the last 39 where the Twins scored two runs or less! How about this: send the guy who went from a 1.000 OPS, grand slam hero to the Mendoza Line almost overnight back to AAA for a couple of weeks to help get his head straight and as a message to others that no one is protected from poor production. Two weeks back in a minor league locker room without big league buffets, etc. can I believe, prove chastening.

Baldelli seems to be a decent man and I know that he was a great ball player, but I believe that when he faced a crisis this season he proved unable to meet it resolutely and creatively. I am not saying that I fault him for failing to quickly and completely solve what was a deep and tangled situation--I fault him for not recognizing that something entirely new and dramatic was needed. 

For those of you who reached this point, thanks for listening...Win Twins!

That was worth reading. Old timer here and I couldn't agree more. I've always found myself being frustrated w/Rocco's in game decision making. Not sure how much of it is driven by Falvey and the already pre-determined playbook for todays game? I prefer the in-game managerial decision making to be more of an "on the fly" "instinctive" "gut" feel, based on the flow of the game, not on something that was determined before the game started. If it were my call I'd immediately have fired Rocco & give Toby a shot. Most of our core now came through Toby's teams. Kind of similar to how/when TK got the job. 

[ewen21]

On 9/30/2024 at 9:45 PM, Mike Sixel said:

Both? I'm not sure what you're arguing?

He's making a case to replace Rocco.  That much is clear.

What are you arguing?  Is it that you want to be contrarian to those who want him gone even though you "literally said" you did not know if he should be kept or not?   I actually think the Rocco bashing has become ridiculous.  It is a distraction from what I see as the real problem: our GM alliance.  They hired a guy like Rocco for a reason, and that was he could be molded and controlled by them.  Whether that was explicitly stated by them or not doesn't matter.  Why else would they hire someone with no managerial credentials?   I wanted Rocco gone long ago, but I also realize switching managers under this current configuration of leadership will not matter at all.  That's why I think all this is sort of silly.  They will pick another manager that is philosophically aligned with their interpretations of how to use analytics.

 

Then again, I can relate to Chief and Aggies7.  Why shouldn't we simply axe him?  He has had six seasons and that's plenty of time to create a culture.  He ABSOLUTELY has a lot to do with that and I believe we need better leadership in the clubhouse.  That would include some of the players who have been tabbed as leaders.  Only thing is, we are stuck with them.

[JD-TWINS]

On 9/27/2024 at 12:34 AM, USAFChief said:

How is this related to managerial decisions?

 

 

It’s not & the Twin’s season turned south with their inability to hit and score runs! Strategy and line-up choices didn’t lose games it was guys not performing in the batter’s box over vast majority of 6 weeks.

[JD-TWINS]

On 9/26/2024 at 10:51 PM, USAFChief said:

IMO this season turned as Rocco watched Alcala turn a 4-0 lead into a 4-5 deficit on an August Sunday afternoon. 

I've been told there was nothing the manager could do about that...it all just happened too fast. 

I call BS. BS then, still BS today.

Witness: in tonight's game, Carlos Correa leads off the 6th with a HR. Miami's manager activates the pen. Has the pitching coach amble out and stall at the mound. Ambles back to the dugout. The pen WAS NOT active until the HR, as called out by Provus.

Larnach is the next Twins hitter. On the second pitch, he gets an infield single. 

Miami manager waits the extra 20 seconds between hitters...and then ambles out to make a pitching change. 

It took a total of 2 pitches to activate the pen, and get a relief pitcher in the game. 

Two. Pitches. And a little legal stalling.

Now tell me again how Baldelli sat through 7 hitters, 5 runs, including 2 HRs, a 3 minute wait while they searched for Wallner's glove, and DIDNT HAVE TIME to make a change anywhere in there.

 

 

First, Alcala threw 9 pitches and the game was tied………once it was tied he got the 2nd out……seemed to have settled himself. Not burning a stopper at 4-4 in mid August. Alcala sucked and it’s in him - 100%.

Second, rules are a pitcher starting an inning has to face 3 batters. There is no 2 pitch appearance that’s feasible nor logical.

Three, the guy was put into the game to do his job. His ERA at that point was under 2.00. Why, with a 4 run lead would a Manager freak out and get somebody up after 2 pitches when Alcala has been nearly bullet proof for 60 days?

Everything is SO CLEAR in hindsight……,getting Alcala out of that game in a heartbeat made no sense in real time.