"Nothing Rocco could do,.."

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, Twins_Fan_in_NJ said:

Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

The Cleveland Guardians and the New York Mets.

Interesting how two teams that missed the post-season in 2023 suddenly remembered how to hit and pitch in 2024. I wonder why? Must have been some major changes to the respective rosters. 

Hmm...that's not it.

Oh wait. New managers!

Managers matter. 

So now we're blaming Terry Francona?

That's a choice.

[NYCTK]

3 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

Other than last year when they won a playoff series for the first time in two decades. 

Against a Toronto Blue Jays team that also didn't win 90 games. It was fun, but lets not pretend as if we beat an actual contender. The expanded playoffs have lowered some people's expectations so much. 

[NYCTK]

2 hours ago, Twins_Fan_in_NJ said:

Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

The Cleveland Guardians and the New York Mets.

Interesting how two teams that missed the post-season in 2023 suddenly remembered how to hit and pitch in 2024. I wonder why? Must have been some major changes to the respective rosters. 

Hmm...that's not it.

Oh wait. New managers!

Managers matter. 

 

Well...a lot changed with the Mets besides just the Manager. But he's been such a good find for them. From Bench coach to Manager of the Year? 

I just go back to the Mets owner commitment to winning. Last season, they were only 50-55, 7 games out, when they decided it wasn't their year and sold off anything that wasn't bolted down. This season, they weren't quite convinced it's their year so they didn't sell their farm but were still able to bring in 3 bullpen arms, an OF, and a SP. Can you imagine the Twins bringing in 3 BP arms and a SP? For next to nothing! 

 

[Mike Sixel]

3 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Against a Toronto Blue Jays team that also didn't win 90 games. It was fun, but lets not pretend as if we beat an actual contender. The expanded playoffs have lowered some people's expectations so much. 

The bar is the bar. They won a playoff series. That's not success at all?

[NYCTK]

4 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

The bar is the bar. They won a playoff series. That's not success at all?

It was a monkey off the back. But this idea that it was a great team is ridiculous. It was a great stepping stone. But management decided to just jump off it. 

People have memories of the series, but they're on par with game 163. It was a win to get into the playoffs, not really a playoff win. 

[TheLeviathan]

4 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Against a Toronto Blue Jays team that also didn't win 90 games. It was fun, but lets not pretend as if we beat an actual contender. The expanded playoffs have lowered some people's expectations so much. 

Every year, multiple times, worse teams beat better ones in the MLB playoffs.  For a franchise that found a hilariously inept path to never doing that....breaking that streak was worth celebrating.

But the bigger issue is the irrationality that people were referring to as a cesspool.  Why go so far out of your way to minimize what Rocco rightly gets to count as a positive of his tenure?  We can't acknowledgegood things?  Only mistakes or poor tendencies?  We have to also diminish the positives? 

That's the issue.  The Rocco hate is irrational and omnipresent.  It literally has swallowed all discourse into an abyss of trolling, flame baiting, griping nonsense.  There ARE irrational Rocco haters. There are no irrational Rocco cheerleaders at TD.  The very notion that there are two "crews" is only coming from the crew that wants to pretend through equivocation that they are an equal opposite force rather than a hurtling comet of incessant stupidity hell bent on hitting every thread.  What actually exists is those that would like to criticize fairly and with context (You know, how intelligent discourse occurs) but they instead are accused of having him over for the holidays.  Or being apologists.  A thread about the struggles of the bullpen becomes a Rocco thread.  A post about the offensive struggles becomes a grouse-fest about Rocco.  We have flame-baiting topics like this one that violate community standards being posted two months after an event happens.  Why?  I guess there was a dearth of Rocco-centric gripe threads?  I guess?

What some people want is the ability to be critical without such an obtuse framework to operate in.  We've been overrun by Sith-like Rocco haters.  So let me ask....is it not possible to say "I do appreciate that he helped break that playoff streak" along with "Man I wish he'd stop pinch hitting in the 4th"?  Can we not reach a point where that is possible?

[NYCTK]

 

38 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Every year, multiple times, worse teams beat better ones in the MLB playoffs.  For a franchise that found a hilariously inept path to never doing that....breaking that streak was worth celebrating.

But the bigger issue is the irrationality that people were referring to as a cesspool.  Why go so far out of your way to minimize what Rocco rightly gets to count as a positive of his tenure?  We can't acknowledge mistakes or poor tendencies only?  We have to also diminish the positives? 

That's the issue.  The Rocco hate is irrational and omnipresent.  It literally has swallowed all discourse into an abyss of trolling, flame baiting, griping nonsense.  There ARE irrational Rocco haters. There are no irrational Rocco cheerleaders at TD.  The very notion that there are two "crews" is only coming from the crew that wants to pretend through equivocation that they are an equal opposite force rather than a hurtling comet of incessant stupidity hell bent on hitting every thread.  What actually exists is those that would like to criticize fairly and with context (You know, how intelligent discourse occurs) but they instead are accused of having him over for the holidays.  Or being apologists.  A thread about the struggles of the bullpen becomes a Rocco thread.  A post about the offensive struggles becomes a grouse-fest about Rocco.  We have flame-baiting topics like this one that violate community standards being posted two months after an event happens.  Why?  I guess there was a dearth of Rocco-centric gripe threads?  I guess?

What some people want is the ability to be critical without such an obtuse framework to operate in.  We've been overrun by Sith-like Rocco haters.  So let me ask....is it not possible to say "I do appreciate that he helped break that playoff streak" along with "Man I wish he'd stop pinch hitting in the 4th"?  Can we not reach a point where that is possible?

I think this is entirely reasonable. But it's also entirely reasonable to say that Rocco should be shown the door tonight, assuming they get knocked out. His tenure hasn't been a good one and he did seemingly completely lose the clubhouse, as well as the fans. 

I do think it's actually better for a fan base to have that manager as a lightning rod instead of vitroel towards players. A 50 year old is better equipped to take that criticism than a 25 year old. So it doesn't really bother me even if it is misguided. 

[TheLeviathan]

6 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

 

I think this is entirely reasonable. But it's also entirely reasonable to say that Rocco should be shown the door tonight, assuming they get knocked out. His tenure hasn't been a good one and he did seemingly completely lose the clubhouse, as well as the fans. 

I do think it's actually better for a fan base to have that manager as a lightning rod instead of vitroel towards players. A 50 year old is better equipped to take that criticism than a 25 year old. So it doesn't really bother me even if it is misguided. 

I won't take issue with your opinion to fire him and your second paragraph is a valid argument.  I think many coaches are fired as scapegoats.  It might even be wise/effective in many cases, including this one.

But neither you or I know if he lost the clubhouse.  That is, IMO, never a fair argument.  We simply are too much in the dark.  It may prove to be true, (like Zimmer for example) but it is purely speculative given what we know.

[LaBombo]

5 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

 

Can't wait to see this guys light up Waukee, Iowa in November...

 

[Mike Sixel]

16 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

 

I think this is entirely reasonable. But it's also entirely reasonable to say that Rocco should be shown the door tonight, assuming they get knocked out. His tenure hasn't been a good one and he did seemingly completely lose the clubhouse, as well as the fans. 

I do think it's actually better for a fan base to have that manager as a lightning rod instead of vitroel towards players. A 50 year old is better equipped to take that criticism than a 25 year old. So it doesn't really bother me even if it is misguided. 

Reasonable

[NYCTK]

7 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I won't take issue with your opinion to fire him and your second paragraph is a valid argument.  I think many coaches are fired as scapegoats.  It might even be wise/effective in many cases, including this one.

But neither you or I know if he lost the clubhouse.  That is, IMO, never a fair argument.  We simply are too much in the dark.  It may prove to be true, (like Zimmer for example) but it is purely speculative given what we know.

Have they looked like a club that's focused or fired up the last couple weeks? Did they seem united? 

To me, that goes to lack of leadership, and that vacuum starts with Rocco. Fair or not. 

[TheLeviathan]

2 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

Have they looked like a club that's focused or fired up the last couple weeks? Did they seem united? 

To me, that goes to lack of leadership, and that vacuum starts with Rocco. Fair or not. 

I understand the sentiment towards that.  I don't know if you can relate, but I've worked in environments with wonderful leadership that still suffer from all kinds of external variables they can't control that beat morale down.

Even a great leader can only weather so much storm.is it not possible that these guys still want to fight for Rocco but simply can't get out of their own way?

And if that is possible, how would you or I from our couch, ever be able to tell the difference?

[NYCTK]

26 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I understand the sentiment towards that.  I don't know if you can relate, but I've worked in environments with wonderful leadership that still suffer from all kinds of external variables they can't control that beat morale down.

Even a great leader can only weather so much storm.is it not possible that these guys still want to fight for Rocco but simply can't get out of their own way?

And if that is possible, how would you or I from our couch, ever be able to tell the difference?

There was no true external factor outside of the team's control. 

The offense sucked? Whose job is it to mix things up to try to jump start it? The bullpen stuttered? Who controls the bullpen? SWR hit a wall? Who puts him on the bump? 

Sorry, but this team sucked and it comes back to leadership. It wasn't bad luck. It was a bad team. 

[TheLeviathan]

13 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

There was no true external factor outside of the team's control. 

The offense sucked? Whose job is it to mix things up to try to jump start it? The bullpen stuttered? Who controls the bullpen? SWR hit a wall? Who puts him on the bump? 

Sorry, but this team sucked and it comes back to leadership. It wasn't bad luck. It was a bad team. 

I disagree.  Injuries.  Payroll decisions.  Trade decisions.  Who is rostered.  These are all external factors.

I hear people criticize Rocco (just this week!) for mixing the lineup TOO much.  Who does he pitch instead of SWR?  

I don't think Rocco was somehow a different human in June and July when the Twins were womping people as he is now.  What changed is the options he had to deploy and their performance IMO.  Roller coaster seasons are hard to pin on one person unless you were jumping for joy at his brilliance in July but bemoaning his incompetence now.  That seems....odd.  No?

[NYCTK]

2 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I disagree.  Injuries.  Payroll decisions.  Trade decisions.  Who is rostered.  These are all external factors.

I hear people criticize Rocco (just this week!) for mixing the lineup TOO much.  Who does he pitch instead of SWR?  

I don't think Rocco was somehow a different human in June and July when the Twins were womping people as he is now.  What changed is the options he had to deploy and their performance IMO.  Roller coaster seasons are hard to pin on one person unless you were jumping for joy at his brilliance in July but bemoaning his incompetence now.  That seems....odd.  No?

So in all those 6 weeks, nothing could be done. Got it. 

Rocco was just a bystander to a runaway truck. You mention morale, that's like half his job. The clubhouse morale is low, whose job is it to try to right the ship? 

We all saw SWR was gassed for weeks. Try something. Throw Sands for 4 to start. Ask for Boushley for a week. Idk. Something. You guys act like he doesn't have any control over anything. 

[Jocko87]

Just checking in to the cesspool to point out that in the original example we are comparing a tired starting pitcher to a fresh reliever.  Grapes and turnips.

Speaking of Rocco getting in heads.

Don't miss the easy stuff, like the team did for the last two months.

[TheLeviathan]

27 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

So in all those 6 weeks, nothing could be done. Got it. 

Rocco was just a bystander to a runaway truck. You mention morale, that's like half his job. The clubhouse morale is low, whose job is it to try to right the ship? 

We all saw SWR was gassed for weeks. Try something. Throw Sands for 4 to start. Ask for Boushley for a week. Idk. Something. You guys act like he doesn't have any control over anything. 

I don't act like he doesn't have control and didn't suggest that he couldn't do anything.  That's an unfair strawman.  Let's go back to reasonable:

Rocco does have influence on morale, but I would hope you agree he's not the sole influence on it.  There are external factors that can also heavily weigh on morale. Do you disagree with any of my list?  Are those not valid external factors Rocco cannot control?  That doesn't mean there aren't things he could've done differently, but he there ARE things he can't control.

I do think mixing up the lineup should've been done.....but he did that.  Maybe not well, but he did it. Much to the chagrin of many posters here.  (There were arguments about who hit in the top of the lineup (Margot) and where Farmer was hitting for example) One common anti-Rocco rant is the constantly fluctuating lineup! So what is it I'm supposed to be mad at? Too much change?  Not enough?  You see the problem with that right?

You truly think taking your third best bullpen option (in a pen that is only three deep) and starting him is going to be a viable winning strategy?  I mean, yeah, it's bold, but I also don't want a manager whose approach is wreckless, "throw stuff at the wall for what sticks"  either.  Isn't one of the complaints about Rocco that he doesn't give players enough consistency in their day to day?

And therein lies the problem.  The criticisms are often completely contradictory day to day.  Anyone who suggests that there might be context gets the strawman treatment from above.  That's not being reasonable.

Let me ask more pointedly - how much praise did you have for him when they were the second best team in the AL in July?

[NYCTK]

3 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Are those not valid external factors Rocco cannot control?

I forgot. The Minnesota Twins were the only team in major league baseball to experience injuries. Great point. 

 

4 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

You truly think taking your third best bullpen option (in a pen that is only three deep) and starting him is going to be a viable winning strategy? 

Why the hell not? Is it better to get in a 5 nil hole? SWR needed rest. We all knew it. Even if it was two times through the order. This was no grand mystery. Try something out. 

That's essentially what the Tigers did. They had starting rotation depth issues. 11 different people started games for them since August 1st, most of those openers. They tried **** out and look where they are. 

Rocco is risk averse, as is the Twins way. It's also a great way to lose. 

Also, other people's criticisms are not mine, so don't assign them to me. I'm entirely consistent. 

[TheLeviathan]

1 minute ago, NYCTK said:

I forgot. The Minnesota Twins were the only team in major league baseball to experience injuries. Great point. 

That was not the point.  You claimed everything was in his control.  Have you changed your stance on that?

You ignored my question, that's fine.  I won't respond to the rest because it appears we stepped out of being reasonable again.

[NYCTK]

48 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

tired starting pitcher to a fresh reliever.  Grapes and turnips.

You know they're both pitchers and an inning counts the same regardless where you pitch, right? 

It's more like...cotton candy grape to sour grape. 

[NYCTK]

4 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

That was not the point.  You claimed everything was in his control.  Have you changed your stance on that?

Please quote me. I'd love to see where I said that. I did say there was no true external factor that was outside the teams control. Which is hyperbolic but I stand by it.

Complaining about injures is such loser behavior as if the Twins are some cursed team, the only team that happened to experience an injury throughout the season. Let's be real. 

[TheLeviathan]

11 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Please quote me. I'd love to see where I said that. I did say there was no true external factor that was outside the teams control. Which is hyperbolic but I stand by it.

Complaining about injures is such loser behavior as if the Twins are some cursed team, the only team that happened to experience an injury throughout the season. Let's be real. 

Sure:  "There was no true external factor outside of the team's control"  We were talking about Rocco so I assume you meant "Rocco's control".  So, if you admit you said it and stand by it,  why are you taking issue with me holding you to it?

Identifying an external factor is not excusing it or complaining about it.  It's pointing out a fact that contradicts your claim.  There are absolutely factors that are outside the control of the manager.  To claim otherwise is plainly false.

[NYCTK]

15 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Sure:  "There was no true external factor outside of the team's control"  We were talking about Rocco so I assume you meant "Rocco's control".  So, if you admit you said it and stand by it,  why are you taking issue with me holding you to it?

Identifying an external factor is not excusing it or complaining about it.  It's pointing out a fact that contradicts your claim.  There are absolutely factors that are outside the control of the manager.  To claim otherwise is plainly false.

I repeat, complaining about injuries is loser behavior. If that's what this organization is, we shouldn't be surprised how it ended up. 

[Jocko87]

11 hours ago, NYCTK said:

You know they're both pitchers and an inning counts the same regardless where you pitch, right? 

It's more like...cotton candy grape to sour grape. 

 

Any manager that doesn't have the pen loose as a starter nears the end of his day is an idiot.

Any manager that always has a spare reliever warmed in case the first one is instantly awful is also an idiot. 

You might do it in the postseason but a random August day isn't going end well for you.

But, your cotton candy to sour grapes also works.  Because they aren't remotely close to the same thing.

[NYCTK]

10 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

 

Any manager that doesn't have the pen loose as a starter nears the end of his day is an idiot.

Any manager that always has a spare reliever warmed in case the first one is instantly awful is also an idiot. 

You might do it in the postseason but a random August day isn't going end well for you.

But, your cotton candy to sour grapes also works.  Because they aren't remotely close to the same thing.

Fire Rocco. 

[DocBauer]

I like to think I'm pretty tempered in my thoughts/feelings/opinions.

I was having a discussion with my dad last night about Rocco, as well as the FO. But sticking to Rocco primarily since that is the OP, I agree with what he does about 75-80% of the time. IMO, that makes him, generally, a good manager. I don't feel he's a great manager, but I think he's good. When he makes a pitching move I don't agree with, or uses an arm incorrectly, or PH too soon in a game, I state that I disagree. I also say what I feel when I disagree with the FO.

I don't feel any manager is ever perfect. And I don't know, if a team wins 90 plus games, I think he's still going to be imperfect. So is my opinion that Rocco is good at what he does 75-80% of the time too low of an expectation? I don't know if there's a quantifiable answer to that question.

I see the playoffs in 2019,2020 and 2023, along with the club FINALLY breaking the dark cloud of playoff futility last year as well. I also see recent Twins teams like 2022 where they were really good and winning and projected to reach the playoffs before they were fielding a AAA team to close the year and everything collapsed. Despite a surprising and completely frustrating and unexpected begining to this 2024 season, the Twins played at a level for 4 months they were one of the best overall teams in MLB. And Rocco has been the manager through all of this.

I am fine if others don't agree with my 75-80% ratings scale. For that matter, I'm also OK if the FO/ownership decide to go a different direction and feel there's someone better for the job going forward.

I don't feel, regardless of anyone's thoughts on Rocco, that a single game of a pen decision resulted in a 6 week collapse to end the season. I think it's fair to offer feelings and opinions on the past 6 weeks. But I also think it's fair to temper those feelings and opinions with previous successes under his watch, including 4 of the 6 months of this season. 

Only slightly off topic, I'm generally a fan/believer of the FO. But again, i don't always agree with every move they make, and I call that out. Just recent examples of ignoring players at AAA that MIGHT provide a shot in the arm when injuries and poor performance happen are seemingly ignored, I'm frustrated and say so. When Hoffman wasn't kept a couple seasons ago...and went on to be a staple of the Phillies pen...I said so. But overall, I think they've done a really good job. Doesn't mean I always agree with what they did or didn't do.

And I WON'T take this discussion to the FO, which is where I think a lot of blame should be directed for lots of reasons, but there is a "trickle down affect" from their decisions that had an affect on the FO, and then down to Rocco and the coaching staff. And that, ultimately, has an affect on what Rocco and his staff have to work with. 

Despite a rash of injuries, and guys not playing anywhere close to 100%...same with most players on most teams...IMO, there was still enough talent on hand for this team only needed to play .500 ball, or even less, to make the playoffs and then see what happens. Such INEPITUDE over the past 5-6 weeks should have at least some blame placed on the players. They still have a job to do and simply haven't, especially on the offensive side, IMO.

Again, I think Rocco is a good manager, but not saying he's great. I don't always agree with him, yet again. But arguements of "run more" don't make sense if you don't have guys who can run. Opinions of him pulling pitchers too early has been proven to be false when he has good, healthy arms. If you think he's PH too early, or used a RP wrong, or too soon, I agree at times!

If you honestly feel Rocco isn't the guy to lead this team for the future, I respect your opinion. If you feel there is a manager out there can lead this team the way Rocco has, but be a better "in game" manager and take the Twins to another level, I respect your opinion. Once again, I like Rocco. But I'm OK if there is someone better.

But I also just can't look at a single game, or even a couple examples, and reflect on past success, and just ride a bucking bronco of emotion to blame every disappointment on the manager alone as a single scapegoat. I don't think it's that easy.

I'm as disappointed, angry, frustrated, and depressed by the collapse of this season as anyone. I mean, the carpet has been pulled out and I feel emotionally as if I took a tumble down the stairs. Ouch! (And I actually have a time or two in my life, LOL).

IF. Rocco has lost this team...and we don't know if that's true...and if subtle comments made by the team captain, absently endorsed by Rocco,  that some young players aren't yet "getting it" as reported...then maybe Rocco is part of that. But if it's  injuries, young players, young players stretched, but Rocco STILL has the respect of the team, it certainly should change the perspective, right?

While it's arguable how good of a manager you have in Rocco...do I need to reference my 75-80% agreement rate again?...is he REALLY a poor manager? Or have bad injuries and a collection of talented young players still adjusting to MLB but struggling and adapting part of the equation as to how good/bad of a job Rocco has done?

Sorry @USAFChief, I just can't pick a single game to dismiss Rocco. And I just can't blame the last 5+ weeks vs 4 months of 6 no matter how good they WERE before this disappointing end to the season vs past success. 

I believe the FO BLEW everything from GOOD WILL to potential wins and FUTURE GOOD WILL for the team. As much as I endorse MOST of the FO, they weren't great/successful with some of their moves. 

But even if we disagree with some of what Rocco does, is he a manager to be replaced because of the collapse this year? Maybe. Is there a manager who could have done better? Maybe. Could a different manager make a difference going forward? Maybe.

I just don't know that Rocco is or isn't the "bad guy" who's responsible for this collapse. If there's SOMEONE better to lead this team in to the future, I'm all in. But I'm still not certain that Rocco can't do a good job if he gets a little more support.

 

 

[Parfigliano]

8 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Well...a lot changed with the Mets besides just the Manager. But he's been such a good find for them. From Bench coach to Manager of the Year? 

I just go back to the Mets owner commitment to winning. Last season, they were only 50-55, 7 games out, when they decided it wasn't their year and sold off anything that wasn't bolted down. This season, they weren't quite convinced it's their year so they didn't sell their farm but were still able to bring in 3 bullpen arms, an OF, and a SP. Can you imagine the Twins bringing in 3 BP arms and a SP? For next to nothing! 

 

I can imagine them bringing in useless nothing BP and SP arms.

[NYCTK]

5 minutes ago, Parfigliano said:

I can imagine them bringing in useless nothing BP and SP arms.

They were scrap heaps, and two of them turned out being useless, but two were very effective and important. Ironically it was not the two I expected! 

[Watersmack]

Dear MN Twins:

Please keep Rocco at the helm.

Sincerely, Tigers, Royals, Guardians, WhiteSox

[USAFChief]

12 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

in the original example we are comparing a tired starting pitcher to a fresh reliever.  Grapes and turnips.

Speaking of Rocco getting in heads.

 

That was NOT the original point.

No sir, it was not. And furthermore, you know it.