What Led to Rocco Baldelli's Unusual Reliever Usage in Tuesday Night's Twins Loss?

[chpettit19]

53 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

The new wizards use analytics that tell them to hit players like Mickey Gasper and Joey Gallo leadoff.  Do you really think they've got it figured out now?

None of them do. None of them ever will. But that isn't people's argument, is it? The argument is "don't change. The old guys figured it out and did it all correctly so just keep doing what they were doing because it's the right way to do things." It's the argument to the point that they ignore the fact that the old guys changed the game multiple times. Tony LaRussa is even brought up by many as an example of an old school manager who wouldn't do these things while ignoring the fact that he was the "new guy" who changed how bull pens were used. He created the modern closer, but we should ignore that when discussing modern managers doing things differently because that's not how things were managed when people were growing up, and how things were done while I was growing up were automatically the right way to do things. He also was a pretty big fan of dudes who mash homeruns. 

And I already conceded the Gasper thing was nonsense. My argument has always been that managers make very little difference to wins and losses and are extremely overrated. Talent wins. The Twins scored 1 run in the game we're discussing, and people are upset that Rocco screwed things up with the pen and cost them the game. 1 run. 1 freaking run and Rocco's pitching decisions cost them the game? That's ridiculous and not a logical argument. It's an emotional one by people who dislike Rocco and the way the modern game is managed. I don't care about managers so I don't care if they fire Rocco. He's lived a charmed life and he'll be fine. I think people will be just as disappointed with the new manager because they won't manage things significantly differently and this lineup is not talented enough and no manager is winning games with a lineup that can't score more than 3 runs on a regular basis.

[Mike Sixel]

2 hours ago, Bodie said:

Point - Jax has pitched himself out of "high leverage" innings and will have to earn those opportunities back.  Rocco has publicly said so, so quit acting like him getting lower presume situations to right himself is somehow a great mystery.   He's stunk individuality among this dumpster fire of a team.  No mystery, no "controversy" in that.

You want to debate who becomes the #2 in Jax's remedial tutorial, that is fair game.  But he isn't trusted by his manager (rightly so, right now), and until he regains it (or gets it back by default- i.e. injury in the bp) by pitching better, expect to see him against the bottom of the lineup, relatively early in the game. 

People on this site begged him to move Jax down in the pecking order....

[Coach Wheels]

A piece on Rocco overthinking the bullpen could be a weekly copy and paste if you want it to be. Just change the names of who/when he pinch hits or uses his bullpen. It's a tiring conversation going on 6+ years of his work

[Western SD Fan]

First, if you want to blame Rocco for not leaving Paddack in when he is actually pitching well, I will agree.  Rocco is so concerned about wanting to start his relievers with a clean inning that he forgets that there's only so many pitches in these guys at any given time.  If I remember correctly, it was stated on an earlier broadcast that Jax ASKED to be moved into lower-level situations to get his confidence back instead of Rocco making the move.  I missed if Perkins had made any comments about that or what that says about Jax's mentality.  Most high-leverage pitchers, from my memory, want the ball late in the game and they have to have the ball pulled from their cold, dead hands even if they are underperforming like Jax was at the time.  I guess I'm suggesting I wouldn't know what to do with a good pitcher who is in his own head at the moment but to keep him in a medium-high leverage situation (7th) vs a high leverage situation (8th), but that's why I don't get paid to be the manager.  I did think about Coloumbe at the time, but at the moment, I didn't think it was a bad move by Rocco.

[IndianaTwin]

22 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

I think this is a matter of a good process that led to bad results. 

Serious question for the poster:  how much more losing - bad results - would cause you to consider that maybe, just maybe, it's actually the process that's bad?  It's just shocking to me that we are on our way to miss the playoffs in the joke AL Central for the 4th time in 5 years and we've still got people saying "the process is good!"  

Fair, and great, question.

I'm not the poster, but I'll take a shot, if you'll let me shift the question a little bit.

For context, I'm less of a "Fire Rocco" guy than many (most?) on TD, though that's admittedly a low bar. Based on my posts, including some above, I suspect people would think I'm a bigger Rocco fan than I actually am. I try to offer posts that suggest some nuance and that remind ourselves that we don't have all the information we need to make pronouncements on some of the things we pronounce about, myself probably included.

I don't know if you have reason to follow Iowa men's basketball, but my name really should be "Iowa Twin." I just live in Indiana. For different reasons, there are parallels between how fans (at least on TD) see Rocco and how Iowa fans saw Fran McCaffery over the end of his tenure. This year in particular, there were legions of "Fire Fran" posts.

I wasn't necessarily one of those, but when I started to read that they were only selling about 60 percent of seats and only actually having about 30-40 percent of fans actually showing up (in the context of a post-Caitlin Clark women's basketball team still selling out the arena*, so it's not that Iowa folks have something against basketball), it got to the point where I started to ask myself, "Is Fran going to be allowed to succeed?" Things had gotten to the point where they could have gone on a run and won the national championship, and I think the most fans would have given him was one more year. There was too much water over the bridge, and I think things had reached the point where the AD really didn't have a choice.

So the question I've been asking myself is, "How much more losing - bad results - would cause me to consider that maybe, just maybe, it's actually time for a change?" At what point are they at a place where Rocco isn't going to be given a chance to redeem himself, where even a magic turnaround to a World Series championship only gets him one more year? 

It's complicated by the ownership situation and Falvey's own status, but I think if they get to a point where they end up, say, a 70-win team, I'm not sure the team has a choice. I'm not sure whether 70 is the right number in my mind, but it's certainly climbed up since the beginning of the season, but my primary outlet is TD, which may or may not be reflective of the fanbase as a whole. I don't know. I'm not generally one for midseason changes, but I think if they'd won only maybe one or two in the White Sox/Angels homestand they may have reached the point of no return in my mind.  

 

*And to be honest, I've always been a huge men's basketball fan, but I found a way to get to six women's road games and didn't make an effort to get to any men's games. In our household, we started to refer to the women's games as the Varsity and the men's team the JV as a way to keep them separate.

[IndianaTwin]

2 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

I think this is a matter of a good process that led to bad results. 

Serious question for the poster:  how much more losing - bad results - would cause you to consider that maybe, just maybe, it's actually the process that's bad?  It's just shocking to me that we are on our way to miss the playoffs in the joke AL Central for the 4th time in 5 years and we've still got people saying "the process is good!"  

(If you found my immediately previous post of any value, read on. If not, jump ahead.)

I responded, @Woof Bronzer, because I think it is a great question. I find that asking ourselves these questions from time to time on the internet is helpful, because it's so easy for all of us to dig our heels in on something. 

My response largely centered around the notion of scapegoating, though I didn't use that term. I don't want to take this thread off track, but I've wanted to ask a similar question of people related to Paddack. Each year, particularly in years when we struggle, we come up with a whipping boy or two. Colome, Pagan, Gallo, Bundy and more recently Paddack come to mind.

I have no idea what you think of Paddack, so this isn't pointed at you, but, serious question -- how many good performances would it take for Paddack to be removed from this year's designated whipping boy status? 

A couple years ago, it was Pagan, for example. He had some epic meltdowns, but by the time they figured out how to use him, he actually was pretty effective, but very few people were willing to acknowledge that.

In Paddack's case, there's a lot of history. And then he gets shellacked in his first game. But over his last five starts, he has a 3.00 ERA with a 1.21 WHIP. Last four starts and it's even better -- 2.25 and 1.10.

I'd like to see him go longer than five innings. On Tuesday, I'm told that while he ended up with a decent line, he also had some hard outs. But still, hard outs are better than hard hits. He only went five innings and was at 76 pitches, but I wondered in another post whether the decision to pull him was also affected by having thrown 99 pitches in his previous outing (one short of his post-TJS high and on normal rest) and having a tremendously rested bullpen. With fewer pitches the previous game, an extra day of rest, a less-rested bullpen or some combination thereof, would have he gone out for the sixth? We'll never know.

And that's from a No. 4/5 starter. So how many more games at the level of his last five starts does he have to provide for him to be removed from whipping boy status? Or how much better does each game have to be? Would he be given more grace if he'd gone a sixth inning on Tuesday, even if it meant giving up a second run and relinquishing the lead? He's had a career of throwing some clunkers amidst some solid starts, so how many is he allowed -- 1 out of 4, 1 out of 6, only 1 out of 15?

Serious question -- does he even have a chance for redemption in TD readers' eyes, or is there too much water over the bridge?

(And then we can move on to Buxton, currently on pace for 147 games. How many games does he have to play this season, or this season and next, to be seen as an asset in your minds?)

[IndianaTwin]

1 hour ago, TopGunn#22 said:

...

I've stated many times here on TD and many others have as well.  Bullpens operate the best when guys have clearly defined roles.  Mariano Rivera, once he was the Yanks closer, never came into a game in the 7th inning.  Never.  The only time Rivera came into the game was to close it.

...  

Rivera's two highest-save seasons, 2001 and 2004:

He was 50 of 57 in save situations in 2001, so 14 appearances in non-save situation (20 percent. He was 53 of 57 in save situations in 2004, so 17 appearances (23 percent) in non-save situations.

Those were two of the best seasons of the best closer in history and more than 20 percent of the time, he was used in non-save situations. 

Continuing on, in 2005, it was about a third of the time in non-save situations and 41 percent of the time in 2006. 

 

 

 

[rv78]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

None of them do. None of them ever will. But that isn't people's argument, is it? The argument is "don't change. The old guys figured it out and did it all correctly so just keep doing what they were doing because it's the right way to do things." It's the argument to the point that they ignore the fact that the old guys changed the game multiple times. Tony LaRussa is even brought up by many as an example of an old school manager who wouldn't do these things while ignoring the fact that he was the "new guy" who changed how bull pens were used. He created the modern closer, but we should ignore that when discussing modern managers doing things differently because that's not how things were managed when people were growing up, and how things were done while I was growing up were automatically the right way to do things. He also was a pretty big fan of dudes who mash homeruns. 

And I already conceded the Gasper thing was nonsense. My argument has always been that managers make very little difference to wins and losses and are extremely overrated. Talent wins. The Twins scored 1 run in the game we're discussing, and people are upset that Rocco screwed things up with the pen and cost them the game. 1 run. 1 freaking run and Rocco's pitching decisions cost them the game? That's ridiculous and not a logical argument. It's an emotional one by people who dislike Rocco and the way the modern game is managed. I don't care about managers so I don't care if they fire Rocco. He's lived a charmed life and he'll be fine. I think people will be just as disappointed with the new manager because they won't manage things significantly differently and this lineup is not talented enough and no manager is winning games with a lineup that can't score more than 3 runs on a regular basis.

You are missing the point. And that is...... when the change isn't working you don't continue with it. LaRussa changed things but it worked. Analytics and especially Rocco's overuse of them doesn't work. Big difference. I would have no problem with analytics driving decisions if they have proven to work, but in more cases than not, they don't. So how about another change........... and stop relying on analytics.

[laloesch]

6 hours ago, Mark G said:

The pecking order would never had come to that if he hadn't pulled Paddock early.  Was it really a good process gone bad, or a process that didn't have to happen?  There was no hindsight when he pulled Paddock; he knew in that moment he was going to use at least 4 guys from the pen, and if Varland had gotten through, who was going to take the 10th?  Varland?  Or one of the guys he was trying not to use in the first place?  

It all began with the decision to pull Paddock when he didn't need to.  

Yep.  I've said this in other threads but Rocco just can't control the urge to pull starters much too early. I don't know if he has preset innings limits on Paddack, or once he has guys warming up he won't deviate from the plan regardless of how the starter is doing, but man if the last three starts aren't enough to start ramping up Paddack's innings I don't know what is.

With Richardson the other night it was understandable why he pulled him early.  He was clearly laboring through 4-2/3 innings and had thrown nearly 100 pitches, and walked 5 batters.  Paddack in contrast was cruising along in his start and was only at 76 pitches in 5 innings.  Why he didn't at least roll him out in the 6th just baffles me.  And to be fair Paddack has been pretty darn good his last three games after a very rough start.  Rocco should be building him up in innings, if anything to increase his trade value.  He should be pushing 6 or 7 innings a start by now.  

I've also said this before in other threads.  But Rocco needs to go.  He's costing the team a significant number of wins by over thinking things and inept roster decisions.  

 

[chpettit19]

53 minutes ago, rv78 said:

You are missing the point. And that is...... when the change isn't working you don't continue with it. LaRussa changed things but it worked. Analytics and especially Rocco's overuse of them doesn't work. Big difference. I would have no problem with analytics driving decisions if they have proven to work, but in more cases than not, they don't. So how about another change........... and stop relying on analytics.

I'm not missing the point. You are. Rocco isn't the only one who uses these analytics, and he isn't doing anything that nobody else is doing (outside of the extreme platooning the last couple years). The Dodgers follow analytics, and it seems to work pretty well (they have 4 guys with saves this year, 2 with multiple saves). Tampa does. Cleveland does. Everybody's favorite manager Terry Francona does. The guy I see named around here frequently as the guy people hope would replace Rocco if he's fired, Joe Maddon, does. The White Sox do. The Giants do. The Rangers do. Pick a team, they all do. Bruce Bochy? Uses analytics. Dusty Baker? Go look at the Astros pen usage in the playoffs his last few years. Dusty Baker used analytics.

The difference is talent. LaRussa relied on analytics to make those changes. Rocco, and the front office that helps drive these decisions (and that's the real point that you're missing), did stop some stuff. They stopped platooning so much this year. 

Like I said in that post, I don't care if they fire Rocco. It won't matter because the front office believes in this stuff. You're missing the point if you think firing Rocco leads to some manager who doesn't believe in any of this stuff. Falvey does and he isn't going to hire (promote, because that's what they'd most likely do) somebody who doesn't. "Stop relying on analytics" is a nonsense, ridiculous statement. Everybody uses analytics. Everybody. 100% of teams. And in game changes take place. They have with the pitching in the last week. It's not hard to see when Ryan and Ober go deep into games and Paddack went nearly 3 times through the order in his start before the one we're discussing in this thread.

I'm not defending Rocco. I don't care if he's fired. I disagree with some of the things he does. I've been very outspoken on the extreme platoon usage the last few years. But they stopped that so far this year (weirdly, since this year's roster talent level makes more sense to me to try to squeeze every last drop out of through things like that). People just don't like that I don't shout "fire Rocco, that'll solve things!" I'm pushing back on this idea that analytics are the problem. Talent is the problem. The front office is the problem.

[Woof Bronzer]

3 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

None of them do. None of them ever will. But that isn't people's argument, is it? The argument is "don't change. The old guys figured it out and did it all correctly so just keep doing what they were doing because it's the right way to do things."

Sure, the only constant is change, etc.  (Though I would say part of baseball's charm is its timelessness...walks will always haunt.) But I have equally little patience for the current sabermetrics cult that has overtaken the game, where there are a set of "right" sabermetrics that every team must adhere to.  Pull starters early, no 3 times through the order, strikeouts are fine (for hitters), strikeouts are the only thing (for pitchers), etc.  Whenever fans questions these things we hear "every team does it".  So, for example, the Twins just keep doing what they are doing (losing, mostly) because it's the "right" way to do things.  I doubt Derek Falvey has ever considered that maybe his process is flawed.  To the cult, it's ALWAYS the result that's flawed.  And to me this is no different than the old "back in my day guy" refusing to even look at any of them newfangled analytics. 

[chpettit19]

19 minutes ago, laloesch said:

Yep.  I've said this in other threads but Rocco just can't control the urge to pull starters much too early. I don't know if he has preset innings limits on Paddack, or once he has guys warming up he won't deviate from the plan regardless of how the starter is doing, but man if the last three starts aren't enough to start ramping up Paddack's innings I don't know what is.

With Richardson the other night it was understandable why he pulled him early.  He was clearly laboring through 4-2/3 innings and had thrown nearly 100 pitches, and walked 5 batters.  Paddack in contrast was cruising along in his start and was only at 76 pitches in 5 innings.  Why he didn't at least roll him out in the 6th just baffles me.  And to be fair Paddack has been pretty darn good his last three games after a very rough start.  Rocco should be building him up in innings, if anything to increase his trade value.  He should be pushing 6 or 7 innings a start by now.  

I've also said this before in other threads.  But Rocco needs to go.  He's costing the team a significant number of wins by over thinking things and inept roster decisions.  

 

Paddack was giving up rockets all over the field that night. Gave up 5 balls over 105 MPH off the bat. Last batter he faced was a 99.3 MPH ball he was lucky wasn't a HR. He gave up 16 balls in play from the 19 batters he faced, and 10 of them hit it over 90 MPH. 7 of them over 99.

Maybe you don't believe in this stuff, but major league teams do. As a manager, when your starter goes 5 innings and gives up that kind of loud contact you thank the baseball gods you're still in the game and go to your fully rested pen. Almost half the batters he faced put the ball in play off him at nearly 100 MPH or better that night. He wasn't "cruising along." This is one of the many things major league teams are tracking during games to make decisions on when to pull starters.

Arias was the next guy up. His last AB was a 106.7 single. Then it was Jose Ramirez who had a 99 MPH groundout his last AB. Followed by Manzardo who had a 106.2 MPH single in his last AB, followed by Santana, and then Noel who had a GIDP at 106.2 in his last AB after having had a 108.4 MPH single in his first AB. Those were the next 5 guys set to face Paddack. I'd say they were seeing him pretty well that night.

[h2oface]

6 hours ago, Doctor Gast said:

Management gets weird ideas, then they spin stats to support them. The players are told not to look at results and to trust the process. It is long overdue for ownership to look at the results & say the process isn't working & make changes. But Pohlads know nothing about baseball & are in love with Falvey, Falvey is in love with Baldelli & Baldelli is in love with Tingler, Conger & Watkins. So nothing gets done.

Falvey is in love with himself. 

[Woof Bronzer]

12 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Rocco isn't the only one who uses these analytics, and he isn't doing anything that nobody else is doing

Lol right on cue.  "We are just copying every other team" should be a demerit, evidence that this organization is stuck in the mud, refuses to innovate, does things the same way it's always been done.  The analytics movement used to be about exploiting competitive advantages and being innovative.  Now it's about copying your neighbor's homework.  

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Sure, the only constant is change, etc.  (Though I would say part of baseball's charm is its timelessness...walks will always haunt.) But I have equally little patience for the current sabermetrics cult that has overtaken the game, where there are a set of "right" sabermetrics that every team must adhere to.  Pull starters early, no 3 times through the order, strikeouts are fine (for hitters), strikeouts are the only thing (for pitchers), etc.  Whenever fans questions these things we hear "every team does it".  So, for example, the Twins just keep doing what they are doing (losing, mostly) because it's the "right" way to do things.  I doubt Derek Falvey has ever considered that maybe his process is flawed.  To the cult, it's ALWAYS the result that's flawed.  And to me this is no different than the old "back in my day guy" refusing to even look at any of them newfangled analytics. 

I think a lot of it is the lack of actual in-depth conversation about these things and our society's tendency to put things in 1 of 2 buckets instead of discussing matters in the nuanced way they should be discussed. For example:

Anybody telling you that no pitcher should see the order 3 times through isn't paying attention. Because not even the Twins follow that "rule." I do see a lot of anti-analytics people claiming that's a rule, but the people who actually follow the analytics and what teams are actually doing will point out that the good pitchers who are successful do face the order 3+ times while it's the bad pitchers who are limited in the number of times they see the order a 3rd time. Ryan, Ober, and Lopez see the order 3 times through when they're on. SWR and Paddack don't get as much leash, but Paddack just faced 24 guys (nearly 3 times through) 2 starts ago.

A certain level of strikeouts are acceptable for hitters if it comes with a certain level of slug. But there is a limit to it. There's a balance. Like I said, there's nuance to things. And because hitters are looking to do so much damage with their swings it is then naturally important for a pitcher to be able to miss bats. Louis Varland is a good example. When he misses bats he's very good. But when they hit it they tend to hit it extremely hard and it goes a long way. That's very bad. So strikeouts become very important to pitchers.

And the Twins can be doing things the "right way" and still losing. Talent still matters. You can put me out there to do things the "right way" and I'm still not going to win you a lot of Major League baseball games. I think saying Falvey has never considered his process is flawed is unfair. They've changed things. They aren't platooning nearly as much this year. They've stopped drafting the slow sluggers early and gone more athletic. That doesn't mean he's great, but it's those extreme statements that lead to the lack of middle ground, nuanced conversation I'm talking about. I'd fire Falvey if I owned the team. He's had more than enough time and he's failed. I like what he's done with the pitching development side of things, but it isn't enough. So, I'd fire him. But he's still about an average MLB POBO. And every team is doing most of this stuff.

[chpettit19]

7 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Lol right on cue.  "We are just copying every other team" should be a demerit, evidence that this organization is stuck in the mud, refuses to innovate, does things the same way it's always been done.  The analytics movement used to be about exploiting competitive advantages and being innovative.  Now it's about copying your neighbor's homework.  

You have an example of something only one team is doing? Give me 1 example of 1 in game strategy that only 1 team is using. Just one. I'm not picky. Don't need a lot. Just 1. 

Every team has their own unique combination of the same strategies. The Twins went crazy heavy on the platooning the last couple years. Pretty much all of us hated it. They stopped doing it. So, they were pretty unique there and we all complained. So, it was bad when they were unique, but now you're mad that they aren't unique as well? They learned from the data and adapted. They adjusted. Like they should. This year they have a different formula and combination.

But I'm super interested to hear your example of a team doing something completely unique that no other team in baseball is doing. I watch a lot of baseball so this will give me something to keep an eye on.

[USAFChief]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm not missing the point. You are. Rocco isn't the only one who uses these analytics, and he isn't doing anything that nobody else is doing (outside of the extreme platooning the last couple years). The Dodgers follow analytics, and it seems to work pretty well (they have 4 guys with saves this year, 2 with multiple saves). Tampa does. Cleveland does. Everybody's favorite manager Terry Francona does. The guy I see named around here frequently as the guy people hope would replace Rocco if he's fired, Joe Maddon, does. The White Sox do. The Giants do. The Rangers do. Pick a team, they all do. Bruce Bochy? Uses analytics. Dusty Baker? Go look at the Astros pen usage in the playoffs his last few years. Dusty Baker used analytics.

The difference is talent. LaRussa relied on analytics to make those changes. Rocco, and the front office that helps drive these decisions (and that's the real point that you're missing), did stop some stuff. They stopped platooning so much this year. 

Like I said in that post, I don't care if they fire Rocco. It won't matter because the front office believes in this stuff. You're missing the point if you think firing Rocco leads to some manager who doesn't believe in any of this stuff. Falvey does and he isn't going to hire (promote, because that's what they'd most likely do) somebody who doesn't. "Stop relying on analytics" is a nonsense, ridiculous statement. Everybody uses analytics. Everybody. 100% of teams. And in game changes take place. They have with the pitching in the last week. It's not hard to see when Ryan and Ober go deep into games and Paddack went nearly 3 times through the order in his start before the one we're discussing in this thread.

I'm not defending Rocco. I don't care if he's fired. I disagree with some of the things he does. I've been very outspoken on the extreme platoon usage the last few years. But they stopped that so far this year (weirdly, since this year's roster talent level makes more sense to me to try to squeeze every last drop out of through things like that). People just don't like that I don't shout "fire Rocco, that'll solve things!" I'm pushing back on this idea that analytics are the problem. Talent is the problem. The front office is the problem.

You're not defending Rocco?

You don't care?

You spend hundreds--thousands of words daily defending Rocco.

At least be honest.

BTW, nobody is saying the Twins don't have a talent problem. Well, almost nobody.

What people are saying is Rocco is part and parcel of that talent deficiency. I dont think thats even debatable. 

And the simplest deficiency to attempt to fix.

Also BTW, managers DO matter. A lot.

[DJL44]

People are super upset that Rocco mismanaged his bullpen so badly that they gave up 1 run in 4 innings.

[chpettit19]

29 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

You're not defending Rocco?

You don't care?

You spend hundreds--thousands of words daily defending Rocco.

At least be honest.

BTW, nobody is saying the Twins don't have a talent problem. Well, almost nobody.

What people are saying is Rocco is part and parcel of that talent deficiency. I dont think thats even debatable. 

And the simplest deficiency to attempt to fix.

Also BTW, managers DO matter. A lot.

I don't disagree with every move he makes and that gets me labeled a "Rocco defender." And since there's a general lack of ability to have a nuanced conversation (point being proven by you right here, so thank you) there's only the options of "Rocco hater" and "Rocco defender." 

I've been one of the 2 most vocal critics on this site of the platooning decisions for 2+ years. I have complained on numerous occasions when he's pulled pitchers when I did feel it was too early. I've complained when I felt he left them in too long. I didn't like Gasper leading off. I don't like when he sits all his best players on the same day. I don't like scheduled days off. There's a lot of things I complain about. I just have this crazy thing where I can take individual situations and judge them and agree with some and disagree with others. I don't hate his bullpen management and you do and you've decided that means I "spend hundreds--thousands of words daily defending Rocco." Some days I do defend him because I agree with him. Others I don't because I don't agree with him. It's crazy, I know.

No, I don't care. Because, as we've discussed numerous times, I don't think firing him changes anything significantly because the front office is intimately involved in how the team is run and they aren't going to put somebody in charge who does things drastically differently. So, I don't care if they fire him or not because I don't think it will change anything in a meaningful way so it isn't worth my time or energy to care about. I don't care what you think is debatable. I'm debating it so I guess you're wrong. You being unable to see any other options than the one you've decided is correct doesn't mean there aren't other options.

Also, BTW, we've discussed managers mattering many times and you've never come close to showing they do. But you'll keep saying they do and I'll keep saying they don't and being able to point to all kinds of win-loss records that show they don't. Crazy that Tom Kelly and Bruce Bochy have multiple WS rings and career losing records, huh? Almost like their teams win when they're talented and lose when they're not. But go on about these managers mattering "a lot." My goodness, how talented were the Twins the last 6 years if even the awful, no good, terrible Rocco Baldelli could screw up constantly and still come away with a .521 winning percentage? I mean, are we talking 90+ win teams for 6 years? That would've been fun. And everyone around here was definitely looking at these rosters and seeing that kind of talent. Definitely. No question about it. Or, and hear me out here, maybe most people were looking at these rosters and seeing talent that put them in the low- to mid-80s in wins and that's where his mostly healthy teams finished in 2 of the last 4 years (with a third year not being mostly healthy). Almost like they finished essentially exactly where we saw their talent saying they should finish. Crazy.

[Woof Bronzer]

50 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

You have an example of something only one team is doing? 

My post was about the Twins' strategy to just copy what others do.  I think this is a bad strategy in any forward thinking organization, and I think screeching "but everyone does it!" is a tactic used by sabermetric wizards to shut down any of the nuanced discussions you pine for.  

Again, it's mind blowing that anyone can look at this organization and say "this is good.  the process is good.  the strategy is good."

[chpettit19]

35 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

My post was about the Twins' strategy to just copy what others do.  I think this is a bad strategy in any forward thinking organization, and I think screeching "but everyone does it!" is a tactic used by sabermetric wizards to shut down any of the nuanced discussions you pine for.  

Again, it's mind blowing that anyone can look at this organization and say "this is good.  the process is good.  the strategy is good."

Weird that you cut out the part where I pointed out what they did differently. And weird that you can't point out any in game strategy (because we were talking about the strategies Rocco uses) that any team does that's different than any other team. And where I explain that the differences between teams is how they balance each strategy and combine them all into their own formula because each team has their own analytics that they use to personalize their use of each strategy. We're talking in game strategy. You seem to now be trying to move the goal posts to other areas. But there's only so many in game strategies to use. The way you're unique is the way you personalize your usage of those strategies.

So, again, the Twins DID do something drastically different (about as close as you can get to not just copying what others do) the last couple years when it came to their use of platoons. They were the very clear outliers in their use of the platoon last year. 

What "strategy?" That's where nuance comes in. It isn't just one strategy. You don't think their pitching development strategies (again, more than one strategy at play there) are good? I don't think their platoon strategies were good. And I've been one of the most vocal critics of it for years. To the point where people call me out on boards for being a broken record, or send me private messages asking me to just shut up about platooning. I don't like that strategy. I didn't like their strategy of drafting slow sluggers early in drafts. They've changed that strategy and gone more athletic lately. 

What's mind blowing to me is the statement that there's one singular strategy or process to judge. There aren't a lot of people on these boards saying the results are good or that the Twins have it all figured out. I'm certainly not saying that and never have. I've been very critical of their position players and their roster construction strategies when it comes to the position player side of things. But I do think they have some very good strategies when it comes to the pitching side. See, nuance is important. I've said many times, including in this very thread, that I'd fire Falvey if I were in charge. And that's the key move. You have to start at the top. But this simplified idea of looking "at this organization and saying this is good. the process is good. the strategy is good." is the problem. All you're doing is putting things into the "good or bad, black or white" buckets again and ignoring that there is no 1 individual strategy to judge the entire organization on.

[hitterscount]

2 hours ago, USAFChief said:

You're not defending Rocco?

You don't care?

You spend hundreds--thousands of words daily defending Rocco.

At least be honest.

BTW, nobody is saying the Twins don't have a talent problem. Well, almost nobody.

What people are saying is Rocco is part and parcel of that talent deficiency. I dont think thats even debatable. 

And the simplest deficiency to attempt to fix.

Also BTW, managers DO matter. A lot.

I'm not convinced that the talent is the issue. I would take this starting rotation over 3/4 of the league... maybe more. They have a reliable closer and an adequate BP. The position players are playing dbelow average,  at least for now. But I don't believe they should be playing sub .400 ball the past 5 months, not with this rotation and the quality starts they usually deliver.... and that is my reasoning for removing Rocco. Hell, most experts had us winning the division, it's not going to happen with Rocco. 

[laloesch]

5 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Paddack was giving up rockets all over the field that night. Gave up 5 balls over 105 MPH off the bat. Last batter he faced was a 99.3 MPH ball he was lucky wasn't a HR. He gave up 16 balls in play from the 19 batters he faced, and 10 of them hit it over 90 MPH. 7 of them over 99.

Maybe you don't believe in this stuff, but major league teams do. As a manager, when your starter goes 5 innings and gives up that kind of loud contact you thank the baseball gods you're still in the game and go to your fully rested pen. Almost half the batters he faced put the ball in play off him at nearly 100 MPH or better that night. He wasn't "cruising along." This is one of the many things major league teams are tracking during games to make decisions on when to pull starters.

Arias was the next guy up. His last AB was a 106.7 single. Then it was Jose Ramirez who had a 99 MPH groundout his last AB. Followed by Manzardo who had a 106.2 MPH single in his last AB, followed by Santana, and then Noel who had a GIDP at 106.2 in his last AB after having had a 108.4 MPH single in his first AB. Those were the next 5 guys set to face Paddack. I'd say they were seeing him pretty well that night.

And yet he controlled himself and only needed 76 pitches through 5 innings.  He could have gone another inning easily and been fine, END OF STORY no excuses 

[laloesch]

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Weird that you cut out the part where I pointed out what they did differently. And weird that you can't point out any in game strategy (because we were talking about the strategies Rocco uses) that any team does that's different than any other team. And where I explain that the differences between teams is how they balance each strategy and combine them all into their own formula because each team has their own analytics that they use to personalize their use of each strategy. We're talking in game strategy. You seem to now be trying to move the goal posts to other areas. But there's only so many in game strategies to use. The way you're unique is the way you personalize your usage of those strategies.

So, again, the Twins DID do something drastically different (about as close as you can get to not just copying what others do) the last couple years when it came to their use of platoons. They were the very clear outliers in their use of the platoon last year. 

What "strategy?" That's where nuance comes in. It isn't just one strategy. You don't think their pitching development strategies (again, more than one strategy at play there) are good? I don't think their platoon strategies were good. And I've been one of the most vocal critics of it for years. To the point where people call me out on boards for being a broken record, or send me private messages asking me to just shut up about platooning. I don't like that strategy. I didn't like their strategy of drafting slow sluggers early in drafts. They've changed that strategy and gone more athletic lately. 

What's mind blowing to me is the statement that there's one singular strategy or process to judge. There aren't a lot of people on these boards saying the results are good or that the Twins have it all figured out. I'm certainly not saying that and never have. I've been very critical of their position players and their roster construction strategies when it comes to the position player side of things. But I do think they have some very good strategies when it comes to the pitching side. See, nuance is important. I've said many times, including in this very thread, that I'd fire Falvey if I were in charge. And that's the key move. You have to start at the top. But this simplified idea of looking "at this organization and saying this is good. the process is good. the strategy is good." is the problem. All you're doing is putting things into the "good or bad, black or white" buckets again and ignoring that there is no 1 individual strategy to judge the entire organization on.

When some fans say Rocco over complicates things with his roster decisions (particularly the pen), that is what I thought of when reading this quoted post.  Over complicated, too analytical, and far too long.  The more you over complicate the plumbing the easier it is to clog up the drain.  

[mluebker]

11 hours ago, TopGunn#22 said:

So if Rocco were replaced as manager, who would it be?

I’m pretty sure it won’t be Doug Mientkiewicz, but I’d sure love to see him take the helm. He’s like the Anti-Baldelli, and with this shaping up to be another lost season anyway (aka more of the same), at the very least we’d see some interesting baseball.

[chpettit19]

5 hours ago, laloesch said:

And yet he controlled himself and only needed 76 pitches through 5 innings.  He could have gone another inning easily and been fine, END OF STORY no excuses 

"He controlled himself?" What does that even mean?

People want Rocco to use his eyes and make decisions based on what he's watching. Well watching the ball rocket off bats all night should tell him his pitcher is in trouble. Your argument is to go with the stat line instead and ignore his eyes. Just use what the stats say. Just go by pitch count and inning and ignore the fact that over half the hitters he's faced have pissed on the ball.

Is that what you want? You want Rocco to just use the numbers? No eye test? Not watch what's happening and just use pitch count and inning? Because anyone truly watching that game was seeing Paddack give up all kinds of hard contact. You didn't need Statcast numbers to provide that. But, hey, it was just 76 pitches and 5 innings so let him go, right? That's what you want? You going to stand up and say your belief is Rocco should ignore what he's watching and just use the numbers?

[DJL44]

7 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

"He controlled himself?" What does that even mean?

People want Rocco to use his eyes and make decisions based on what he's watching. Well watching the ball rocket off bats all night should tell him his pitcher is in trouble. Your argument is to go with the stat line instead and ignore his eyes. Just use what the stats say. Just go by pitch count and inning and ignore the fact that over half the hitters he's faced have pissed on the ball.

Is that what you want? You want Rocco to just use the numbers? No eye test? Not watch what's happening and just use pitch count and inning? Because anyone truly watching that game was seeing Paddack give up all kinds of hard contact. You didn't need Statcast numbers to provide that. But, hey, it was just 76 pitches and 5 innings so let him go, right? That's what you want? You going to stand up and say your belief is Rocco should ignore what he's watching and just use the numbers?

"Starting pitchers should always go 6+ innings and 100+ pitches" is just a different kind of managing by the spreadsheet instead of paying attention to what is happening in the game.

[dxpavelka]

On 5/2/2025 at 7:35 AM, chpettit19 said:

You do realize Tony LaRussa changed how bullpens were used, right? I mean they called it the "La Russaization" of baseball for goodness sake. He was known for bringing relievers in earlier in games than what the previous generation would have. He's literally the anti-example of what you're talking about.

Rocco isn't the only one who plays matchups instead of innings. The game changes. Why do people act like this is the first time it's ever changed and it's just unthinkable that it's changing? ANALYTICS have been used forever. Batting average is an analytic. The analytics have just gotten better as our ability to measure things have improved. The old time guys used to use analytics that told them to hit Nick Punto and Alexi Casilla types in the two hole. Do we really think they had it all figured out? (Edited to add that I concede that the analytics telling Rocco to hit Gasper leadoff the other day were nonsense, too, no matter what the roster is looking like these days)

That being said, with the depth we have at the back end of the pen I'd prefer that Rocco just puts Duran in a 9th inning role, Jax in the 8th, Sands in the 7th. But it's not outrageous to give them matchups. That is a defined role as well. Telling a guy he has a set chunk of the lineup to focus on and know the scouting report for is a role that allows them to prepare for the day and be ready to go for the game.

LaRussa is known for Dennis Eckersley.  How many times did he come in before the 9th?

[chpettit19]

47 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

LaRussa is known for Dennis Eckersley.  How many times did he come in before the 9th?

You completely missed the point. The point was that he didn't just do what the previous generations did like you were preaching. He actively rejected your stance of just doing what the managers before him did.

And if you think LaRussa is just known for Eckersley, you've only read 1 chapter of the metaphorical book and there's no point in furthering this discussion.

[TheLeviathan]

On 5/2/2025 at 6:46 AM, IndianaTwin said:

I agree with that saying.

A corollary would be "Don't get beat without using your best guy." If you throw Varland in the seventh and he fails, you've deprived yourself of the opportunity to use Jax and Duran in the roles they have often played, maintaining a lead in the 8th and 9th. 

A critique of Rocco is that he doesn't go for the jugular. In effect, that's what he was doing to the Cleveland offense, saying, "You can't score in six? Well, let me stuff your offense in a deeper hole by giving you Jax and Duran next."

Said another way, offensively, if there's an opportunity to score in the seventh or eighth and a manager doesn't pinch hit his stud for Kody Clemens because he wants to the save his stud for a possibility in the ninth, the manager gets chastised with, "You gotta use him now -- there may not BE an opportunity in the ninth." This is essentially what he did on the pitching side, saying, "I gotta use Duran in the eighth, because otherwise there might not BE a ninth." 

The Jax/Duran part of the strategy worked. The part that didn't work was the offense getting any runs to make it an easier job for Varland in the ninth. 

This is correct.  Here's my spin on it:

People are constantly arguing that Rocco is a robot.  That all decisions are determined hours beforehand.  You know what I saw?

A manager who knows his team's over/under for runs scored right now is about 1.5 because he's fielding a AA lineup.  So he put his best out there in hopes of giving the offense light at the end of the tunnel that if they could just get 1, they'd have a chance to pitch with the lead and win.

He swung for the fences trying to give his anemic offense a chance.  I'm not sure direct steroid injections would work, but he's trying.