Anti-Bomba Squad: Rocco Baldelli’s Blueprint to Avoid a Collapse in 2025

[PatPfund]

Sure, some of this sounds great, but I think offense was hurt more missing Correa for a big chunk of the season, pretty bad seasons from players meant to be key contributors (Julien, Kepler, Margot, and during the collapse Lewis found out slumps do happen while Miranda's back injury left him punchless). The two bigger problems for me are a pitching rotation that was 60% rookie at the end (one of whom was clearly not ready yet), a blown 'pen, and mediocre to bad defense. That last in particular lies at the manager's feet; the lack of fundamentals, the moving of players all over the place, the player comments coming out of the clubhouse in September, Rocco's own clueless non-specific 'Hey we need to play better' comments all speak to a void the manager should be filling.

The fact his main answer seems to be diversifying the offense rather than an overall fundamental approach (pitching, defense, then yep a diversified offense) isn't great; if you have to score 5 runs a game to win most days, and your fundamentals are weak, you've got problems hot streaks at the plate can't cure.

I'm pretty sure the only thing that kept Rocco from being canned was the pending sale of the team (and a 'let the new owner pick his management' philosophy). Rocco should manage this year as if his job is on the line, because it likely is.

[In My La Z boy]

1 hour ago, Mark G said:

I know what you mean; every time I sing the praises of Luis Arraez I get told, in so many words, to get into the 21st century.  If all you are going to give me is singles I don't even want 200 of them.  😉

Really, Richie TRG, I truly am sorry this time.  🤭

This old guy suggested Jeffers play 135 games and we trade Vazquez and was told its impossible for a catcher to play 135 games and we need 2 starting catchers. Baseball is different nowadays i am told. Mmm. Just a dumb old guy here thinking baseball is baseball 👍 

[jmlease1]

50 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Baldelli has fielded a single team with more than 87 wins in his 5 full season career with the Twins. People complain I use 87 wins as some arbitrary figure, but I could use 88 or 89 wins as well. The bottom line is Baldelli's teams would rarely win a division in baseball. 87 wins is a 2.6% chance. 89 wins is only a 7.7% chance, and Baldelli's teams played in the worst division in the game.

His teams have not gotten good results.

You are correct: 87 wins rarely wins you a division. (It does happen, and did in 2023) That said, since they expanded the playoffs, every team with 87 wins has gotten in. '21 had one miss (smaller playoff), '20 everyone projected to 87 wins (not sure how else to evaluate) made it in, and '19 (again, smaller playoff) had one miss. So 87 wins gets in the playoffs, and a chip a chair and a chance is the #1 priority, right? I one division winner with 87 wins during baldelli's tenure was...baldelli.

We also need to move past the idea that the AL Central is the "worst division in the game", because it's simply not. even with the CWS being trash, the AL Central is better than the AL West. the NL Central isn't any better, and the AL East has 3 good teams (maybe one great team in Philly) and 2 awful ones. not a ton of difference there, really unless you want to weight the good teams much heavier. (go ahead and make the case?) the payrolls might be the lowest in aggregate, especially with no one spending this offseason, but that doesn't mean the teams are bad. 3 out of the 4 teams in the AL Divisional round last year were from the AL Central.

[AKTwinsFan]

A lot of successful teams don't play for power each time they hit, it's about contact hitting and getting the ball in play.

[stringer bell]

I come down firmly on blaming the front office for lack of speed and athleticism. If Baldelli had more guys who could successfully steal 85% of the time, he’d use him as Castro was used on the bases in ‘23. They have guys whose best skill is their “hit tool” and somehow they have a premier shortstop (acquired in free agency) and two high first round and all of them are slow runners. 
 

Who are the best situational hitters in baseball? How do you develop that skill? I suspect the best situational hitters are the best hitters. 

[stringer bell]

2 minutes ago, AKTwinsFan said:

A lot of successful teams don't play for power each time they hit, it's about contact hitting and getting the ball in play.

The Twins were among the better teams at putting the ball in play last year, one year after setting an all-time strikeout record. Did their offense improve?

[jmlease1]

1 minute ago, stringer bell said:

The Twins were among the better teams at putting the ball in play last year, one year after setting an all-time strikeout record. Did their offense improve?

never let stats get in the way of an opportunity to trash the manager. :P

[Doctor Gast]

'19 Twins players picked up that the league was using a juiced ball. You often heard that they often got together to discuss hitting (most likely how to take advantage of it). They exploded with HRs & broke the season HR record & came close to the club season-winning record. '20 the juiced ball went away, yet the club decided to make "moonshots" their slogan & team philosophy. Hit HRs as high & as far as possible. Their drafting & development was focused on big bats & everybody hitting HRs,

'23 Falvey finally had his opportunity, Twins success was due to their "all or nothing approach" although those who contributed didn't abide by their philosophy. To heck with the SO record by the offense they were pushing through with this approach. The league got the book on the Twins. Those who didn't adhere to this approach Correa, Miranda, Kiriloff & the little that Lewis played were great but the rest of the team was bad & Margot, Santana, Wallner & Farmer were horrid. The SOs mounted up w/o the HRs. I credit Baldelli for bucking the system, & changing the approach & Popovich for implementing it to turn the ship around. 

We went through a long winning steak after that. They changed the approach so I don't blame the collapse on the old approach (although many hitters when desperate often start swinging for the fences). I blame the absence of veteran leadership & chemistry when Buxton, Correa, and later Kepler were down. Also the breakdown of the rotation & BP, largely due to not addressing the lack of depth in the rotation (depending too much on rookies & Paddack) & not quickly picking up a high-leverage LHRP.

I blame this FO for the bad showing in '24. For making many bad decisions on philosophies, player evaluations in placing, getting rid of, acquiring players we didn't need, & not plugging real holes. Making Popovich & others sacrificial lambs doesn't make up for this. Many people are using this bad showing to reflect on what they could improve on, how about Falvey? I guess finally letting go of his pet-hitting approach is a start. 

[miller761]

Does that mean we will actually see more than 2 Twins players be able to successfully put down a bunt to score a run this season? That would be wonderful. Will our manager be willing to put that play on? That would be wonderful. That would be playing baseball not some version of slow pitch softball. 

I have been on the backfields in spring training a few times. The drills and the speed the drills are run at are not conducive to game speed. It would be nice to see game conditions simulated when these drills and skills are practiced.

[ashbury]

2 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Baldelli's first 2 seasons were during baseball's steroid era. He hasn't played the game in a successful manner in 20 years, and he was never really a good MLB hitter.

1. Rocco was a high first-round draft pick
2. He reached the majors at age 21 and played full-time right away
3. He finished third for Rookie of the Year
4. He followed up with similar performance the next year but with injuries
5. He was diagnosed with "channelopathy, a rare metabolic/muscular disorder which causes frequent soft tissue injuries and severe fatigue" (Wikipedia)
6. He never could stay on the field after that and retired a few years later

If you think that age 21-22 stats define a player's ceiling, I don't know what to say.  He was a really good MLB hitter, and we never got to find out his peak.  He wasn't some scrub who just hung on.  If you don't like his managing style, fine but there's no reason to gaslight us on his playing days.

[gman]

The roster is still more non base stealer than base stealer. Martin and Castro are probably the only base stealers available to Baldelli. Kersey if he makes the squad can run. Anybody else will at best be a 50% of the time base stealer, or catch the other team while they sleep base stealer. Rodriguez might when he gets here.

Bunting is not much different, except you could add Lee to the bunters.  I'm not sure about Martin, but he has bunted well in Fall Ball - that is the Arizona League.

Draft wise it's mostly geared towards guys that can hit the ball hard. Not too much speed in the group. Of course most guys seem to be bulked up to play football, consequently they get hurt more often from not being flexible enough for the sport they play.

It's going to be hard to change this roster into something it's not.

 

[karcherd]

With the rule changes, you do not need the traditional speed guy to steal bases.  We have players that are capable of stealing bases under the new rules.  But the analytics department has determined that stolen bases have little or no value in run scoring.  That is why we don't hold runners on effectively or try for more stolen bases.  So is Rocco going to go on his own instincts or has the organization changed their thinking.  

[bean5302]

2 hours ago, ashbury said:

1. Rocco was a high first-round draft pick
2. He reached the majors at age 21 and played full-time right away
3. He finished third for Rookie of the Year
4. He followed up with similar performance the next year but with injuries
5. He was diagnosed with "channelopathy, a rare metabolic/muscular disorder which causes frequent soft tissue injuries and severe fatigue" (Wikipedia)
6. He never could stay on the field after that and retired a few years later

If you think that age 21-22 stats define a player's ceiling, I don't know what to say.  He was a really good MLB hitter, and we never got to find out his peak.  He wasn't some scrub who just hung on.  If you don't like his managing style, fine but there's no reason to gaslight us on his playing days.

1) Does Baldelli have experience as a hitter in the modern era of baseball? No.
2) Was Baldelli an great hitter for his time? No.
3) Was Baldelli ahead of the game in terms of plate approach when he played? No.
4) Then what is the argument in favor of his experience at the plate being relevant vs. his potential managerial or hitting coach peers? There is none.

You arguing in favor of the relevance of Baldelli's playing career helping players at the plate today more than other potential managers or hitting coaches is like deciding a candidate is qualified for a senior level developer position because they have a computer science degree from 2003.

"Gaslighting" is the new era term replacing whatever version of "-ist" from previous years which is designed to invalidate a person's existence rather than debate the argument. Guess your position is pretty weak, huh?

[TheLeviathan]

11 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

1) Does Baldelli have experience as a hitter in the modern era of baseball? No.
2) Was Baldelli an great hitter for his time? No.
3) Was Baldelli ahead of the game in terms of plate approach when he played? No.
4) Then what is the argument in favor of his experience at the plate being relevant vs. his potential managerial or hitting coach peers? There is none.

You arguing in favor of the relevance of Baldelli's playing career helping players at the plate today more than other potential managers or hitting coaches is like deciding a candidate is qualified for a senior level developer position because they have a computer science degree from 2003.

"Gaslighting" is the new era term replacing whatever version of "-ist" from previous years which is designed to invalidate a person's existence rather than debate the argument. Guess your position is pretty weak, huh?

If manager expertise is determined by "how much did they play in the era they are currently managing" - I think everyone but Pete Rose would be disqualified as an expert.  Virtually every manager doesn't get a big league job until 10-20 years after their playing days.  By definition, their era was passed by.

And Pete would get himself disqualified for other reasons.  It's such a preposterous argument to make, putting aside any bias in the argument itself.

[NYCTK]

Forgive me, but I just don't have any faith in the instincts of the manager that coached Manuel Margot to an MLB record of futility. 

Only reason he wasn't fired is probably because they want to give the new hiring opportunity to new ownership. 

[bean5302]

2 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

If manager expertise is determined by "how much did they play in the era they are currently managing" - I think everyone but Pete Rose would be disqualified as an expert.  Virtually every manager doesn't get a big league job until 10-20 years after their playing days.  By definition, their era was passed by.

And Pete would get himself disqualified for other reasons.  It's such a preposterous argument to make, putting aside any bias in the argument itself.

This post confused me. I feel like you think you're disagreeing with me, but also that you're probably not disagreeing with me.

My position is managers and coaches should be appointed based on their currently applicable knowledge and wisdom, not what they knew 20+ years ago. Baldelli's obviously been a student of the game since he was drafted. Early career quotes reflect that. The knowledge and wisdom he's accumulated from being a student of the game is what's relevant. Not his batting average from 2003.

Now, it might be a little different if Justin Turner was competing against Rocco Baldelli for a position in the management or coaching staff based on hitting philosophy. Turner's knowledge based on his career experience would be relevant, though perhaps not more relevant than Baldelli's experience in the position and accumulated knowledge.

[sweetmusicviola16]

5 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

'19 Twins players picked up that the league was using a juiced ball. You often heard that they often got together to discuss hitting (most likely how to take advantage of it). They exploded with HRs & broke the season HR record & came close to the club season-winning record. '20 the juiced ball went away, yet the club decided to make "moonshots" their slogan & team philosophy. Hit HRs as high & as far as possible. Their drafting & development was focused on big bats & everybody hitting HRs,

'23 Falvey finally had his opportunity, Twins success was due to their "all or nothing approach" although those who contributed didn't abide by their philosophy. To heck with the SO record by the offense they were pushing through with this approach. The league got the book on the Twins. Those who didn't adhere to this approach Correa, Miranda, Kiriloff & the little that Lewis played were great but the rest of the team was bad & Margot, Santana, Wallner & Farmer were horrid. The SOs mounted up w/o the HRs. I credit Baldelli for bucking the system, & changing the approach & Popovich for implementing it to turn the ship around. 

We went through a long winning steak after that. They changed the approach so I don't blame the collapse on the old approach (although many hitters when desperate often start swinging for the fences). I blame the absence of veteran leadership & chemistry when Buxton, Correa, and later Kepler were down. Also the breakdown of the rotation & BP, largely due to not addressing the lack of depth in the rotation (depending too much on rookies & Paddack) & not quickly picking up a high-leverage LHRP.

I blame this FO for the bad showing in '24. For making many bad decisions on philosophies, player evaluations in placing, getting rid of, acquiring players we didn't need, & not plugging real holes. Making Popovich & others sacrificial lambs doesn't make up for this. Many people are using this bad showing to reflect on what they could improve on, how about Falvey? I guess finally letting go of his pet-hitting approach is a start. 

Yep, and when your big additions in the past two seasons have been Margot and DeSclafani. Their is no excuse. People can blame ownership for making the cuts, I'm not applauding this, but the GM has to make the right calls. Bring in the guys he did and get rid of Miller and Polanco. People will say "look what a bad year Jorge had, it was the right move to trade him." We have no idea how the trade affected Polanco. He may have had an entirely different season here than he had in Seattle. But I would still have taken what Jorge produced in 2024 over what was brought in. Money would have been about the same too as what Margot and DeSclafani cost.

[stringer bell]

42 minutes ago, sweetmusicviola16 said:

But I would still have taken what Jorge produced in 2024 over what was brought in. Money would have been about the same too as what Margot and DeSclafani cost.

IIRC, the Polanco trade netted enough money so that the Twins could sign Santana. One way of looking at the deal is that the Twins got DeSclafani, Topa and Santana for Polanco. Even though they got nothing from Topa and DeSclafani, Santana's production was greater than Polanco's. I'm not sure I'd go quite that far, but the two salaries were significantly less than what Polanco was owed. Margot was a different transaction altogether (and it really didn't work out).

[KirbyDome89]

21 hours ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

Are not! I do not believe you :)

from a fan’s perspective, 3 true outcomes is terribly boring to watch, but it’s hard to argue with being the 6th highest scoring team from 2019 through 2024.

When those runs occur is equally as important. Uneven offensive performance has plagued this club for a while now. 

[sweetmusicviola16]

14 minutes ago, stringer bell said:

IIRC, the Polanco trade netted enough money so that the Twins could sign Santana. One way of looking at the deal is that the Twins got DeSclafani, Topa and Santana for Polanco. Even though they got nothing from Topa and DeSclafani, Santana's production was greater than Polanco's. I'm not sure I'd go quite that far, but the two salaries were significantly less than what Polanco was owed. Margot was a different transaction altogether (and it really didn't work out).

Thanks, I forgot about Santana already. My bad. So they hit on 1 out of 3. Doesn't cut it. DeSclafani was key to the deal and that was money thrown away. Topa did nothing. The magic beans they acquired with them mean nothing. But back to Santana, if they themselves had really believed in him then why not have signed him for two? Or one and an option with buyout? My best bet is Santana would have been game. He wants to play. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

12 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

When those runs occur is equally as important. Uneven offensive performance has plagued this club for a while now. 

Sure is! The standard of deviation of runs scored per game could tell a very different story than simple sum. “Uneven” matters relative to the other teams. For all I know, the distribution falls right inside the league average or well outside to be an outlier.

[gman]

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

When those runs occur is equally as important. Uneven offensive performance has plagued this club for a while now. 

Looks like the Twins got a lot of bang for their bucks. The Dodgers probably spent about a billion $ more. Maybe about 1 1/2 billion difference. In other words the appx selling price of the team right now. Looking at this I am amazed the Twins managed to be this close.

[TheLeviathan]

3 hours ago, bean5302 said:

This post confused me. I feel like you think you're disagreeing with me, but also that you're probably not disagreeing with me.

My position is managers and coaches should be appointed based on their currently applicable knowledge and wisdom, not what they knew 20+ years ago. Baldelli's obviously been a student of the game since he was drafted. Early career quotes reflect that. The knowledge and wisdom he's accumulated from being a student of the game is what's relevant. Not his batting average from 2003.

Now, it might be a little different if Justin Turner was competing against Rocco Baldelli for a position in the management or coaching staff based on hitting philosophy. Turner's knowledge based on his career experience would be relevant, though perhaps not more relevant than Baldelli's experience in the position and accumulated knowledge.

Your argument was dismissive of Rocco's knowledge based on the era in which he played. As if someone has to retire in 2022 to be able to manage in 2023.  The original poster's claim was simply that Rocco has a wealth of baseball experience.  That his own personal style of play and experience aligns with a less modern approach.  How successful he was or wasn't or how far that time has past aren't relevant criticisms.

No one would argue against TK's knowledge of the game and he managed 100 ABs and hit .181.  Clearly his experience didn't lead to the offensive powerhouses we saw in 1987 and 1991.  

Your attempt to discount his "wisdom" is basically a flimsy ad hominem.

[h2oface]

18 hours ago, In My La Z boy said:

Bingo 🎯 
It's philosophical. Like some football teams "script" their first 25 offensive plays regardless of "in game" circumstance. Rocco is scripted. Falvey needs to back off on the 'script" and let/encourage Rocco to use his instincts and feel for the game to make decisions. I felt we were out-coached many times last year and often felt it was because of a pre-scripted decision, rather than a "in real time gut feel" for the particular game situation.

Do you think Baldelli actually has any instints left?

I kinda doubt it. 

New ownership will take care of all of this I figure.

[TwinsDr2021]

13 hours ago, stringer bell said:

IIRC, the Polanco trade netted enough money so that the Twins could sign Santana. One way of looking at the deal is that the Twins got DeSclafani, Topa and Santana for Polanco. Even though they got nothing from Topa and DeSclafani, Santana's production was greater than Polanco's. I'm not sure I'd go quite that far, but the two salaries were significantly less than what Polanco was owed. Margot was a different transaction altogether (and it really didn't work out).

Remember they didn't have to pick up Polanco's option and they would never had to get rid of his 10 million dollar salary. They could have used that money to sign Santana and ????.

So it was a bad pickup and even a worse trade. Put lipstick on it all you want but that and picking up Farmer were absolute terrible, terrible FO decisions. You add that with the Margot trade and the Gallo pick up the year before and anybody in the FO is lucky to still have their job.

[In My La Z boy]

5 hours ago, h2oface said:

Do you think Baldelli actually has any instints left?

I kinda doubt it. 

New ownership will take care of all of this I figure.

No. He was obviously hired to be a Falvey robot. I was being generous. 

[1985Fan]

This roster isn’t even constructed to their all or nothing approach, so why not adjust the hitting philosophy. Their leading HR hitter was a 38 year old fill in player that hit 23 HR. I’d say something should change cause swinging for the fences sure ain’t working. Earl Weaver’s 3-run HR coaching philosophy works when you have guys that can hit hit 3-run HR when it counts.
I know you’re going to bring up stats to say I’m wrong. The reality is when they were facing good pitching(like Cleveland), they were exposed and their all or nothing philosophy failed. 
Adjusting their 2-strike swing, or knowing to put the ball in play to move a runner over, or focusing on making contact to not K in certain situations should not be a large adjustment or major change. It’s not a radical concept and has been part of baseball forever. This is what Baldelli should have realized DURING the season and made adjustments. It took him time to reflect in offseason? He’s not manager material. 

[Riverbrian]

On 1/28/2025 at 5:06 PM, stringer bell said:

IIRC, the Polanco trade netted enough money so that the Twins could sign Santana. One way of looking at the deal is that the Twins got DeSclafani, Topa and Santana for Polanco. Even though they got nothing from Topa and DeSclafani, Santana's production was greater than Polanco's. I'm not sure I'd go quite that far, but the two salaries were significantly less than what Polanco was owed. Margot was a different transaction altogether (and it really didn't work out).

Margot was a separate transaction. Santana was a separate free agent signing. 

However... both players would fit into "netted enough money so that the Twins could..." bucket. 

Its all roster building from Jan 29, 2024 on and all connected by the final product leaving Fort Myers. 

In regards to the 2024 roster. At the time... I questioned if it was smart to take one big piece (Polanco) and turn him into 4 smaller pieces (DeSclafini, Topa, Santana and Margot). Which in my opinion... is what basically happened. 

I wasn't even being declarative at the time... I was just questioning weather it was smart to move one big piece for multiple smaller pieces. I remember it vividly because just questioning, not being declarative just questioning one big piece for 4 smaller pieces led to a certain poster feeling the need to explain over and over and over and over and over again how Cleveland and Oakland built their rosters.

I'm ready to be declarative now.

It was a mistake to trade one big piece for multiple smaller pieces. 

I recognize that one of the smaller pieces Santana performed much better than big piece Polanco in 2024. DeSclafini, Topa and Margot were negatives. 

The negatives... made it a mistake. 

[In My La Z boy]

22 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Margot was a separate transaction. Santana was a separate free agent signing. 

However... both players would fit into "netted enough money so that the Twins could..." bucket. 

Its all roster building from Jan 29, 2024 on and all connected by the final product leaving Fort Myers. 

In regards to the 2024 roster. At the time... I questioned if it was smart to take one big piece (Polanco) and turn him into 4 smaller pieces (DeSclafini, Topa, Santana and Margot). Which in my opinion... is what basically happened. 

I wasn't even being declarative at the time... I was just questioning weather it was smart to move one big piece for multiple smaller pieces. I remember it vividly because just questioning, not being declarative just questioning one big piece for 4 smaller pieces led to a certain poster feeling the need to explain over and over and over and over and over again how Cleveland and Oakland built their rosters.

I'm ready to be declarative now.

It was a mistake to trade one big piece for multiple smaller pieces. 

I recognize that Santana was much better than Polanco in 2024.

The wasting of additional rosters spots and the money poured down the drain... made it a mistake. 

🎯 Exactly. Falveys job is to construct a roster around a philosophy to win championships. Every decision should build upon previous decisions, and every decision effects every other decision. Who are we, what are we trying to accomplish, and how are we going about it? Good comment!