Guardians 2, Twins 1: Long, Dry Rain Delay Begets Short, Dry Walkoff Loss

[DJL44]

22 minutes ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

This could get interesting. You have to figure that Clemens goes when Lewis comes back. Then it gets a little dicey. When Castro is ready (should be soon), who goes?  Bride has raked since he came and the Twins coaching staff fixed his swing (can't believe I just wrote that). Not only that Bride was a .276/.367/.461 (.818) hitter last year with 11 HRs and a 55/31 SO/BB ratio in 262 PAs and palys 3B, 1B, 2B, and LF in a pinch. Sounds like a good guy to have around. Gasper hasn't been good at the plate (.583 OPS overall, but .686 in the last 7 games), but is a 3rd catcher and he's been a lot better than Keirsey.

Bride can be an emergency catcher. They don't need two emergency catchers.

 

[David Maro]

I have said for years Varland isn't a pitcher,he is a thrower. He basically put the pitch on the tee for Manzardo.

The offense was also a no show which seems to happen after a big game the day before.

Enough already with Julien leading off. He apparently doesn't understand his job is take some pitches so the hitters behind him get a look.

[DJL44]

8 minutes ago, David Maro said:

Enough already with Julien leading off. He apparently doesn't understand his job is take some pitches so the hitters behind him get a look.

Julien is seeing 4.2 pitches per plate appearance. League average is 3.9 p/PA

[chpettit19]

The "should've kept the starter in and things would've ended up great" discussions are always fascinating to me. Weird that the assumption tends to always be that the results would've been positive if they just would've left them in.

It's always "Jack Morris in Game 7 of the '91 WS" and never "Matt Harvey in Game 5 of the '15 WS" or "Pedro Martinez in Game 7 of the '03 ALCS." We're Twins fans so I get why we lean towards Morris.

They scored 1 run. That's why they lost. The rest is just coping and the weird human need to place blame on somebody.

[Sjoski]

3 hours ago, Danchat said:

I’m surprised the discussion here is more about the bullpen when the primary cause of loss is only scoring one run.

My guess—and what I thought as it happened—was, "Oh man, Rocco’s back to emptying the pen again." It’s just a flawed strategy. Bibee had nearly identical numbers—1 run, 4 hits—and an even higher pitch count. But Cleveland stuck with him. When Rocco went to the bullpen, I figured the game was probably going to swing their way. It’s not just about who’s hitting; it’s just about probabilities.

And I believe this is what others are pointing out too—Rocco’s pattern of early hooks and over-relying on the bullpen is hurting us.

[Patzky]

1 hour ago, JD-TWINS said:

Didn’t understand your comment initially - I think we’re on same page:

Pretty sure his ERA after his first start is under 3.00…… shouldn’t have to shutout Teams to get a favorable outcome!!

I’m not in love with Paddack in the rotation (lack of K’s & walks too many) but one has to be fair - he’s pitched well (well as expected) in last 5 consecutive outings.

He has done quite well and if he can hold up hour he'll be well worth $7 million on a contending team. Truly we have given up 1, 0, 1 and 2 runs the last four games. 

 

Pitching has settled in nicely. 

[Patzky]

22 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Julien is seeing 4.2 pitches per plate appearance. League average is 3.9 p/PA

He's seeing them and not swinging at them.

[Patzky]

1 hour ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

This could get interesting. You have to figure that Clemens goes when Lewis comes back. Then it gets a little dicey. When Castro is ready (should be soon), who goes?  Bride has raked since he came and the Twins coaching staff fixed his swing (can't believe I just wrote that). Not only that Bride was a .276/.367/.461 (.818) hitter last year with 11 HRs and a 55/31 SO/BB ratio in 262 PAs and palys 3B, 1B, 2B, and LF in a pinch. Sounds like a good guy to have around. Gasper hasn't been good at the plate (.583 OPS overall, but .686 in the last 7 games), but is a 3rd catcher and he's been a lot better than Keirsey. I was beating the drum for Keirsey last year but it looks like the FO was smarter than me; Keirsey hasn't shown/can't hit MLB pitching. Do we make Castro the 4th OF until Wallner comes back and send Keirsey back to AAA? Do we keep Keirsey for his speed and OF glove and send someone else down? Who is that, Julien or Gaspar? Two weeks ago that would have been an easy answer, now, I'm not so sure.  Are we going to give McCusker a shot in the OF?

I would make a series of moves when Lewis and Castro come back in the next week or two. Lewis for Clemens, Castro for Keirsey, and McCusker for either Julien or Gaspar. Still probably Gaspar goes but that could change over the next week. McCusker and Julien/Gaspar are then playing for who goes down when Wallner comes back. Better hitter stays since none of those guys offer much defensive upside. 

Put this in flow chart form and email it to Ty France. He has their attention and he's all over Instagram lol.

[Mike Sixel]

10 minutes ago, Sjoski said:

My guess—and what I thought as it happened—was, "Oh man, Rocco’s back to emptying the pen again." It’s just a flawed strategy. Bibee had nearly identical numbers—1 run, 4 hits—and an even higher pitch count. But Cleveland stuck with him. When Rocco went to the bullpen, I figured the game was probably going to swing their way. It’s not just about who’s hitting; it’s just about probabilities.

And I believe this is what others are pointing out too—Rocco’s pattern of early hooks and over-relying on the bullpen is hurting us.

They were 14th in starter's innings last year ... This just isn't factually true. They were 15 innings short of being tenth. 

[Mike Sixel]

2 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

They were 14th in starter's innings last year ... This just isn't factually true. They were 15 innings short of being tenth. 

They are 11 innings over thirty games from being tenth this year. About one out per start. 

[USAFChief]

44 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

The "should've kept the starter in and things would've ended up great" discussions are always fascinating to me. Weird that the assumption tends to always be that the results would've been positive if they just would've left them in.

It's always "Jack Morris in Game 7 of the '91 WS" and never "Matt Harvey in Game 5 of the '15 WS" or "Pedro Martinez in Game 7 of the '03 ALCS." We're Twins fans so I get why we lean towards Morris.

They scored 1 run. That's why they lost. The rest is just coping and the weird human need to place blame on somebody.

Did Rocco remove last night's starter based on a predetermined criteria or not? 

Did he decide, well before a pitch was thrown, that "third time through" was THE deciding factor, or didn't he? 

I think thats a pretty clear yes. Not effectiveness. Not fatigue. Not even pitches, or innings. 

Just a set criteria. 

If you're good with that, fine. Defend it. But the post above is just an ad hoc attack on anyone who dares have a difference of opinion on the manager. It has zero to do with the actual circumstances of last night's game, or for that matter the manager's actual performance, short or long term.

For the record, nobody claimed "things would've ended up great." They scored one run. That's a problem, long and short term. What suggestions do you have to fix that? 

That doesn't mean we can't discuss things that are ongoing managerial weaknesses

 

[chpettit19]

24 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Did Rocco remove last night's starter based on a predetermined criteria or not? 

Did he decide, well before a pitch was thrown, that "third time through" was THE deciding factor, or didn't he? 

I think thats a pretty clear yes. Not effectiveness. Not fatigue. Not even pitches, or innings. 

Just a set criteria. 

If you're good with that, fine. Defend it. But the post above is just an ad hoc attack on anyone who dares have a difference of opinion on the manager. It has zero to do with the actual circumstances of last night's game, or for that matter the manager's actual performance, short or long term.

For the record, nobody claimed "things would've ended up great." They scored one run. That's a problem, long and short term. What suggestions do you have to fix that? 

That doesn't mean we can't discuss things that are ongoing managerial weaknesses

 

Why didn't he do it in Paddack's last start then? You know, the game where he threw 99 pitches and faced 24 batters (that's nearly 3 full times through the order if you don't want to do the math)? 

I don't think it's "a pretty clear yes." I think Paddack giving up a lot of very loud contact was very much a factor in the decision. I think Paddack is a bottom of the rotation starter who doesn't get the benefit of the doubt and when he's giving up rockets all over the field the first 2 times through the order through 5 innings and you have a fully rested pen you thank the baseball gods you're still in the game and turn it over to the pen. I think that's a very reasonable choice.

You can discuss the manager all you want, but you're doing what you claim to dislike, just bringing THE factor to the table and making a decision on that. The starter was pulled before the third time through so it's automatically wrong. You don't care about why the decision was made. You don't even care about being open to the idea that there may be other factors as to why the decision was made. You don't even care that a different decision was made the very last time that particular pitcher pitched. 

You just have a set criteria you want to complain about and it presented itself so you complained. Don't act like you're here to have some deep conversation about any of this. You saw an opportunity to complain about Rocco and you took it. Your complaint has zero to do with the actual circumstances of last night's game, or for that matter the manager's actual performance, short or long term. Hi pot, I'm kettle, nice to meet you.

[jkcarew]

A 1-run loss following a 10-run win against the Guardians, especially the Guardians, is the most '24/'25 Twins thing that the universe could possibly offer. As predictable as the sunrise.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Once you get to the late innings, there is not a world of difference whether the score is 2-1 or 8-7 or whatever. You do your thing at that point, and hopefully it works out.

I’m sure Rocco didn’t want that Varland-Manzardo matchup in the 9th but Cleveland has a lot of lefty hitters up and down the lineup, and I’m thinking Rocco saw Coulombe as the 10th inning guy last night, tried to squeeze an inning out of Varland, and it didn’t work out. 

[Mike Sixel]

40 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Did Rocco remove last night's starter based on a predetermined criteria or not? 

Did he decide, well before a pitch was thrown, that "third time through" was THE deciding factor, or didn't he? 

I think thats a pretty clear yes. Not effectiveness. Not fatigue. Not even pitches, or innings. 

Just a set criteria. 

If you're good with that, fine. Defend it. But the post above is just an ad hoc attack on anyone who dares have a difference of opinion on the manager. It has zero to do with the actual circumstances of last night's game, or for that matter the manager's actual performance, short or long term.

For the record, nobody claimed "things would've ended up great." They scored one run. That's a problem, long and short term. What suggestions do you have to fix that? 

That doesn't mean we can't discuss things that are ongoing managerial weaknesses

 

You have no idea if this is true. But you've decided it is. 

[KirbyDome89]

1 hour ago, Twins_Fan_in_NJ said:

Twins 'expected win-loss record' is 17-13. They've had some absolutely gut punch losses to start the season. It seems, knock on wood, that they have worked out some of the kinks and are getting themselves settled. Keep stacking series wins between now and Memorial Day, which is the first benchmark point on the baseball calendar.

Eh, 32 runs in a 4 game stretch is going to skew things no? Maybe they've turned a corner, or maybe they just blew up some bad pitching. 

[jkcarew]

i think it is 1000% clear that Rocco manages to a plan and is not willing to go with what his eyes or gut are telling him. This is a generalization of my opinion on observing him for several years now. In-game circumstances almost always take a back seat to what he had planned pre-game for his ideal scenarios to be. He does this with his in-game platooning and his bullpen moves.

Last night...if he went by his eyes, he might have pulled Paddack after 4 innings. But, he didn't, because he wanted him to go 5. The 5th was so clean, that the eyes said 'give him the sixth'...but he had only figured on 5.

Some call it a discipled approach...some call it an inflexible approach. My opinion is that over a 5 to 7 game series against a team with a good manager, the Twins will always be at a disadvantage with Rocco.

And they lost last night's game because they scored one run.

[TheLeviathan]

4 hours ago, IndianaTwin said:

Chief, I think you're better than this. Seems "spreadsheet management" would have taken Ober out after five or six innings on Monday instead of letting him pitch into the eighth. Seems "spreadsheet management" would have pulled Ryan after five or six on Sunday, instead of letting him go seven. 

I wasn't able to watch/listen last night, but what I see is Paddack having gone 99 pitches last outing (and it seems "spreadsheet management" wouldn't have let him face six batters three times in that game, which he did, by the way), his having already given up hits to two of the three guys he would have faced in the sixth, his having put the first two batters on in the fourth and a bullpen that was about as rested as could be.

And there's stuff that none of us can see and none of us have access to. For example, it sounds like the decisions made around the rain delay were screwy, so who knows how many starts and stops there were to his prep during a three-hour rain delay. (And why don't people complain when guys get pulled early when they are struggling, when "spreadsheet management" would say that they need to get a full five innings out of that day's starter?)

The Twins didn't lose last night because Rocco's "spreadsheet management" didn't let Paddack come out for the sixth. They lost because they only scored one run. The winning percentage when you score only one run is pretty low. (I'd give you the exact percentage, but it would have to come from a spreadsheet. 😀)

Someone put this damn post on the main page and force everyone to read it. 

[The Great Hambino]

13 minutes ago, jkcarew said:

Last night...if he went by his eyes, he might have pulled Paddack after 4 innings. But, he didn't, because he wanted him to go 5. The 5th was so clean, that the eyes said 'give him the sixth'...but he had only figured on 5.

Wait ... so he left him in too long and pulled him too early?

Schrodinger's Manager

[jkcarew]

5 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

Wait ... so he left him in too long and pulled him too early?

Is that what I said? No, it is not. Not close to what I said. 

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Why didn't he do it in Paddack's last start then? You know, the game where he threw 99 pitches and faced 24 batters (that's nearly 3 full times through the order if you don't want to do the math)? 

I don't think it's "a pretty clear yes." I think Paddack giving up a lot of very loud contact was very much a factor in the decision. I think Paddack is a bottom of the rotation starter who doesn't get the benefit of the doubt and when he's giving up rockets all over the field the first 2 times through the order through 5 innings and you have a fully rested pen you thank the baseball gods you're still in the game and turn it over to the pen. I think that's a very reasonable choice.

You can discuss the manager all you want, but you're doing what you claim to dislike, just bringing THE factor to the table and making a decision on that. The starter was pulled before the third time through so it's automatically wrong. You don't care about why the decision was made. You don't even care about being open to the idea that there may be other factors as to why the decision was made. You don't even care that a different decision was made the very last time that particular pitcher pitched. 

You just have a set criteria you want to complain about and it presented itself so you complained. Don't act like you're here to have some deep conversation about any of this. You saw an opportunity to complain about Rocco and you took it. Your complaint has zero to do with the actual circumstances of last night's game, or for that matter the manager's actual performance, short or long term. Hi pot, I'm kettle, nice to meet you.

Another one that needs to be gold plated and posted at the top of every thread.  But we've played this game before:

"Well intentioned" Rocco-obsessed posters: Rocco is to blame for everything!

Others: Well....data says the team is league average in starter usage, data suggests that the patterns you claim to be true are false, data shows your complaints appear to have no legs.  Etc.

"Well intentioned" Rocco-obsessed Posters : I'm being attacked!  You can't defend anything!  Prove it!

Others: I....just did?  Here...let me try again...*repeats themselves for the eleventy millionth time*

"Well intentioned" Rocco-obsessed Posters: Nuh uh! *Repeats original claims again as if the entire prior conversation didn't exist*

Rinse, repeat every freaking day.

[The Great Hambino]

Just now, jkcarew said:

Is that what I said? No, it is not. Not close to what I said. 

You said the eye test should've had him pulled in the fourth and left in for the sixth.  So yeah, at least in the ballpark of what you said.

[jkcarew]

16 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

You said the eye test should've had him pulled in the fourth and left in for the sixth.  So yeah, at least in the ballpark of what you said.

I said MIGHT have…you understand the difference right?

I’ll simplify.  It is my opinion that if Rocco’s pre-game scenario is the right move…he’ll stick with the plan. Many reasons to want Paddack to get through at least 5. If the plan represents a very questionable move given the in-game scenario…he still tends to stick with the original plan. To a fault.

[The Great Hambino]

8 minutes ago, jkcarew said:

I said COULD have…you understand the difference right?

I’ll simplify.  It is my opinion that if Rocco’s pre-game scenario is the right move…he’ll stick with the plan. Many reasons to want Paddack to get through at least 5. If the plan represents a very questionable move given the in-game scenario…he still tends to stick with the original plan. To a fault.

Does he save these inflexible plans just for Paddack?  Because in the two games before last night, the starters were allowed to finish the seventh, with one being allowed to go to the eighth.  Only one reliever was used each game.  The last non-Paddack pitcher to not be allowed the sixth was Pablo coming off an IL stint and sitting at 101 pitches through 5 innnings.  Doesn't really follow the narrative of sticking to the plan to a fault.

I watched the game last night.  My eyes saw a pitcher who was allowing more and more hard contact in the fourth and fifth, and was in a lot of ways lucky to get away with allowing only one run.  Paired with a bullpen as about as rested as it could be without a recent off day, the decision was made to pull the starter 23 pitches short of his last outing's output because it was the most prudent thing to do in the situation, regardless of any plan.

[KirbyDome89]

 

59 minutes ago, jkcarew said:

I said MIGHT have…you understand the difference right?

I’ll simplify.  It is my opinion that if Rocco’s pre-game scenario is the right move…he’ll stick with the plan. Many reasons to want Paddack to get through at least 5. If the plan represents a very questionable move given the in-game scenario…he still tends to stick with the original plan. To a fault.

I'd love to know what part(s) of your posts are being downvoted here. I don't think it's even debatable that this organization has been rigid and slow to move away from whatever their plan is over the past few seasons. The extreme platooning you mentioned earlier 100% is an (albeit smaller) example of that. Does softer phrasing sooth the disagreement? 

[chpettit19]

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

 

I'd love to know what part(s) of your posts are being downvoted here. I don't think it's even debatable that this organization has been rigid and slow to move away from whatever their plan is over the past few seasons. The extreme platooning you mentioned earlier 100% is an (albeit smaller) example of that. Does softer phrasing sooth the disagreement? 

Every manager goes into every game with a general plan, yes. Do you think the plan on Monday was Ober for 7 2/3 with 102 pitches and facing 31 batters? Or do you think Rocco adjusted in game? What about Sunday? Was the plan Joe Ryan for 7 innings and 98 pitches with 25 batters faced or did he adjust the plan in game? I mean those are the 2 games before the one we're discussing so we don't even have to go deep into the past to find 2 games that we can make very reasonable arguments that the plan was adjusted mid-game. And if you want to look at Paddack's last start he threw 99 pitches and faced 24 hitters. So, he wasn't pulled after twice through in that outing.

Do you think the last 10 balls put in play against Paddack including 6 over 90 MPH and 4 of them being over 105 played a role in the decision? The last hitter he faced hit it 99.3. Of the 19 batters he faced, 10 of them put in play over 90 MPH, 5 over 105, and 7 over 99. Do you think it's possible any of this factored into the decision and that's why people are disagreeing and things are getting downvoted? Because we can point to a lot of reasons why we disagree with those statements in this specific situation. I agree they are too stubborn on some big picture plans. But that doesn't mean we can't disagree with individual statements about individual games.

[KirbyDome89]

59 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Every manager goes into every game with a general plan, yes. Do you think the plan on Monday was Ober for 7 2/3 with 102 pitches and facing 31 batters? Or do you think Rocco adjusted in game? What about Sunday? Was the plan Joe Ryan for 7 innings and 98 pitches with 25 batters faced or did he adjust the plan in game? I mean those are the 2 games before the one we're discussing so we don't even have to go deep into the past to find 2 games that we can make very reasonable arguments that the plan was adjusted mid-game. And if you want to look at Paddack's last start he threw 99 pitches and faced 24 hitters. So, he wasn't pulled after twice through in that outing.

Do you think the last 10 balls put in play against Paddack including 6 over 90 MPH and 4 of them being over 105 played a role in the decision? The last hitter he faced hit it 99.3. Of the 19 batters he faced, 10 of them put in play over 90 MPH, 5 over 105, and 7 over 99. Do you think it's possible any of this factored into the decision and that's why people are disagreeing and things are getting downvoted? Because we can point to a lot of reasons why we disagree with those statements in this specific situation. I agree they are too stubborn on some big picture plans. But that doesn't mean we can't disagree with individual statements about individual games.

I read the post I responded to as a fair critique of a larger issue. 

[chpettit19]

15 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I read the post I responded to as a fair critique of a larger issue. 

And the thumbs down and responses are fair rebuttals to the critique. 

I provided 3 examples from the last week as a rebuttal to the idea that Rocco sticks with his in game plans no matter what. You said it isn't even debatable. I gave you 3 examples out of 5 games. And a more than reasonable explanation for the decision last night. That's 4 of 6 games. The point is that larger issue is debatable and we can provide examples for why.

[USAFChief]

Might have been nice for Stewart not to be on back to back outings today. 

Of course, nothing could have prevented that.

[h2oface]

11 hours ago, BrokenCompass said:

Louie ain't fooling anyone. 

He is fooling himself, thinking he can control where the ball is going..... that is, unless he thinks he can blow it by right down the middle.