Are Comments About the Twins' Culture More a Reflection of Correa, or Rocco's Clubhouse?

[chpettit19]

7 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

How do you know Correa was checked out? You're reading a lot into the guy with Plantar Fasciitis not running max effort on every grounder. Fans get way too obsessed with the peformative stuff (like how dirty a player's jersey is after a game, etc) in deciding whether a player works hard or not. This is the sort of thing people bend in shape to rip a guy they had already decided they didn't want/thought was overpaid. Got a quote from an actual Twins player or coach on Correa's work habits or other evidence that Correa has "checked out"?

I mean, FFS someone on this board declared that Buxton had checked out on the season (apparently because they didn't like the box score or something) and the next day Buck rapped out 3 hits. There's no real evidence that I've seen to this point that suggests that Correa ever checked out or dogged it. Multiple players did talk about how they learned things from Correa, both in terms of things they did on the field and how to prepare as well.

And was so "checked out" last year he came back and played through the pain to try to get the team into the playoffs and put up a .960 OPS in 50 PAs the last 2 weeks of the season despite still suffering from the plantar fasciitis because he didn't care at all and was checked out.

Correa said from the day he got here that this was Buxton's team and he wasn't trying to step on toes. Maybe he failed at that attempt and stepped on toes anyways. It's weird that Buxton did everything he could to convince that toe stepper to come back and sign a long-term deal here, but who knows. If Lopez, Ryan, Ober, Jeffers, and Buxton had to wait until now to be leaders and change the culture after sitting through what Lopez says was bad culture for years and having watched last year spiral out of control and then watching this team never get going so much that it had to be blown up I find it hard to believe they're really leaders. Correa and Rocco are such strong leaders that the 5 of them plus Duran and Jax couldn't stop them from destroying 2 straight seasons but they're going to fix it all now? Pablo just now figured out that they should do something to only lose 2 games in a row instead of 5?

[Aggies7]

3 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

Really? Lots of people wanting Rocco strung up by his ankles around here, but that was mostly for not bunting enough/treating starters like it was 1972/platooning too much. Plenty of second-guessing every pitching switch, lineup choices (lot of complaining about not having a "set lineup"), etc. Very little on clubhouse culture, unless it was demanding that the Twins run and bunt more.

I still believe that people overrate a manager's impact on winning: player performance and good health are much much more important. But my point on managers isn't to say that anyone can do it, but that there's much less of a difference between managers when you talk about the guys in the middle of the pro pack. There's fewer than ever total incompetents, but also fewer truly elite/impactful guys. Most are in that middle who look very smart when their players play well and stay healthy, and very dumb when they don't.

Yes really. There was plenty of talk towards the end of last season, on this board and from players themselves, that things were not hunky dory in the clubhouse. The collapse was stunning enough to call in to question what’s happening. Isn’t that why they instituted a “new approach” coming into spring training? I mean how many guys need to want out and/or badmouth the organization? How long to ignore the smoke?

[The Great Hambino]

2 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

Really? Lots of people wanting Rocco strung up by his ankles around here, but that was mostly for not bunting enough/treating starters like it was 1972/platooning too much. Plenty of second-guessing every pitching switch, lineup choices (lot of complaining about not having a "set lineup"), etc. Very little on clubhouse culture, unless it was demanding that the Twins run and bunt more.

I still believe that people overrate a manager's impact on winning: player performance and good health are much much more important. But my point on managers isn't to say that anyone can do it, but that there's much less of a difference between managers when you talk about the guys in the middle of the pro pack. There's fewer than ever total incompetents, but also fewer truly elite/impactful guys. Most are in that middle who look very smart when their players play well and stay healthy, and very dumb when they don't.

Yeah, there's a bit of a gulf between "people claiming that Rocco is costing the Twins 15+ wins per year are overstating his effect on the team [an actual figure that has been thrown out multiple times by multiple posters]" and "managers are essentially meaningless and anyone can do it".  The 2024 Twins weren't close to a 95+ win team on talent

I don't know who/where/what are these voices claiming Rocco is doing a good job and should be retained.  I think the closest anyone has come to a defense of Rocco lately is "it doesn't matter because he'll be replaced by a clone."  I don't really agree with that, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

24 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

There's no real evidence that I've seen to this point that suggests that Correa ever checked out or dogged it.

He dogged it when he tapped back to pitcher on the final out of the Miami series late last September, with the season hanging by a thread. Then there was a wild throw and he turned on the burners. Remember?

[TheLeviathan]

I'm always hesitant to step in these waters because we don't know what the clubhouse is like.  But I would suggest one point in favor of this being more of a Correa shot than a Baldelli one is that only one of those guys is gone.  Lopez is smart, so it feels like this is more of a note about what is gone rather than encouraging what remains.

But I could be totally wrong at that.  I think Correa, while a genuine person himself, is the kind of dude that comes off as fake to others.  Quick to lecture, quick to climb the high horse, quick to shout down advice from his perch.  I think it's easy to perceive that as disingenuous even if it isn't intended that way by Correa himself.

That said, ultimately the clubhouse is on the manager and if Baldelli allowed that to fester, he needs to own it as well.  It's time for a mass turnover in leadership but like all roads with the 2025 Twins....that leads back to the family cutting the checks.

We needed the Pohlads to sell, to change our organizational culture, and usher in a new on-field culture that guys like Keaschall can help set.  Alas....we get none of that except for maybe the last one if the kid (and others like him) push hard enough through the other noise.

[Aggies7]

4 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

Yeah, there's a bit of a gulf between "people claiming that Rocco is costing the Twins 15+ wins per year are overstating his effect on the team [an actual figure that has been thrown out multiple times by multiple posters]" and "managers are essentially meaningless and anyone can do it".  The 2024 Twins weren't close to a 95+ win team on talent

I don't know who/where/what are these voices claiming Rocco is doing a good job and should be retained.  I think the closest anyone has come to a defense of Rocco lately is "it doesn't matter because he'll be replaced by a clone."  I don't really agree with that, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement

The twins didn’t need to win 95 games last season to make the playoffs or win the division. Detroit got in with 86 wins. We needed someone to manage the players well enough to avoid the catastrophe that happened. Even this year, the AL is not strong. Even a mediocre performance would have us in the race.

[TheLeviathan]

3 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

Yeah, there's a bit of a gulf between "people claiming that Rocco is costing the Twins 15+ wins per year are overstating his effect on the team [an actual figure that has been thrown out multiple times by multiple posters]" and "managers are essentially meaningless and anyone can do it".  The 2024 Twins weren't close to a 95+ win team on talent

I don't know who/where/what are these voices claiming Rocco is doing a good job and should be retained.  I think the closest anyone has come to a defense of Rocco lately is "it doesn't matter because he'll be replaced by a clone."  I don't really agree with that, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement

I think managers have about as much impact as their salaries indicate: not much.

[The Great Hambino]

12 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

The twins didn’t need to win 95 games last season to make the playoffs or win the division. Detroit got in with 86 wins. We needed someone to manage well enough to avoid what happened. Even this year, the AL is not strong. Even a mediocre performance would have us in the race.

I didn't say they needed to win 95 games to make the playoffs.

My point is twofold:

1. If the claims that Rocco was costing the team 15+ wins a year were true, then the Twins must've been a 95+ win team based on talent.

2. Pushing back against that idea is not equivalent to saying managers are meaningless

 

I'm not disputing that Rocco should be replaced.  I don't know if anyone is at this point.

[Craig Arko]

21 minutes ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

The discourse can sometimes be summed up as, "I don't know what I'm talking about, therefore none of the rest of you know what you are talking about, either."

You don’t. I don’t. We’re all guessing. 

[Aggies7]

6 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

I didn't say they needed to win 95 games to make the playoffs.

My point is twofold:

1. If the claims that Rocco was costing the team 15+ wins a year were true, then the Twins must've been a 95+ win team based on talent.

2. Pushing back against that idea is not equivalent to saying managers are meaningless

 

I'm not disputing that Rocco should be replaced.  I don't know if anyone is at this point.

Understood. I think “costing 15 wins” is an outlier opinion though. I haven’t said that and I would guess few have. I have seen it often said that managers aren’t really important. Same thing said about closers 😂

[USAFChief]

41 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

Really? Lots of people wanting Rocco strung up by his ankles around here, but that was mostly for not bunting enough/treating starters like it was 1972/platooning too much. Plenty of second-guessing every pitching switch, lineup choices (lot of complaining about not having a "set lineup"), etc. Very little on clubhouse culture, unless it was demanding that the Twins run and bunt more.

Bull****.

Most people here calling for a new manager do so based on observing piss poor play from his team, over years long time periods 

Calling out individual examples of said poor play on a daily basis doesn't mean otherwise.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

58 minutes ago, D.C Twins said:

(disclaimer... I was one earliest on the bandwagon for 'fire Rocco' starting years ago because I didn't see leadership nor great in game management so I am wildly biased when processing all new information at this point)

We all are, in one way or another, so that's pretty normal.  I disagree with you but am equally entrenched, so I understand completely!

[1985Fan]

1 hour ago, USAFChief said:

How the heck is "playing hard" not a cultural issue, Nick? Ditto "competing?" "Holding each other accountable?"

These are 100 percent culture. They are choices made. Behaviors allowed, or not allowed. Corrected or ignored. Compounded or eliminated. Rewarded or punished.

Winning doesn't cause you to run out ground balls. But running out every ground ball certainly contributes to winning. 

Now multiply "running out ground balls" by 100 behaviors. 1000. 

This nonsense that everything that matters can be measured on a spreadsheet is part of the problem with this organization.

 

 

This exactly! Culture is about establishing the rules or how they play the game. That’s how a winning culture happens. There was the “Twins way” of playing baseball established under TK that emphasized fundamentals, defense, pitching, situational hitting, and effort. If players didn’t play the Twins way, TK made sure they either learned to, or they didn’t play. 
Fast forward to Baldelli and the fundamentals are completely lacking, the effort and hustle is gone, and it is hard to watch. That is one hundred percent on Baldelli. Contrast Baldelli’s clubhouse culture with the Brewers. It’s noticeable and is why the two organizations are where they are at. Ken Rosenthal wrote an article in the Athletic about the “Brewers way” of playing fundamentally sound ball. He said: “The Brewers are not perfect. ... But they at least try to play the game properly at a time when most teams place too little emphasis on fundamentals and too much on the next big analytical thing.” That  describes the Twins and Baldelli perfectly; no fundamentals, focused on launch angle and hard hit rate, and playing the game from a spreadsheet! 

[The Great Hambino]

1 minute ago, Aggies7 said:

Understood. I think “costing 15 wins” is an outlier opinion though. I haven’t said that and I would guess few have. I have seen it often said that managers aren’t really important. Same thing said about closers 😂

Wasn't trying to single out you specifically.  But that statement or similar statements I think are a little more prevalent than you might realize.  Just as comments that managers are meaningless are maybe a little more prevalent than I might realize.  

I think most of us fall on the spectrum somewhere between those two poles.  You think managers matter more than I do, but I think (or at least want to think) that we fall in the reasonable section of that spectrum.  And it's natural for the extreme opinions we disagree with more strongly to stick out more in our minds.

[Twins_Fan_in_NJ]

Pablo, Ryan, Ober and Jeffers will be gone before spring training '26. It will be a long time before this team has any type of winning culture.

[Aggies7]

9 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Bull****.

Most people here calling for a new manager do so based on observing piss poor play from his team.  

Calling out individual examples of said poor play on a daily basis doesn't mean otherwise.

I also think it’s generally accepted that people don’t ask to leave well run, happy situations. Whether that be your average business or a pro ball team. I don’t necessarily trust Correa, but didn’t mild mannered Jax also want out? Players and coaches employees that are happy with management don’t do that.

[Wedman13]

4 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

I'm always hesitant to step in these waters because we don't know what the clubhouse is like.  But I would suggest one point in favor of this being more of a Correa shot than a Baldelli one is that only one of those guys is gone.  Lopez is smart, so it feels like this is more of a note about what is gone rather than encouraging what remains.

But I could be totally wrong at that.  I think Correa, while a genuine person himself, is the kind of dude that comes off as fake to others.  Quick to lecture, quick to climb the high horse, quick to shout down advice from his perch.  I think it's easy to perceive that as disingenuous even if it isn't intended that way by Correa himself.

That said, ultimately the clubhouse is on the manager and if Baldelli allowed that to fester, he needs to own it as well.  It's time for a mass turnover in leadership but like all roads with the 2025 Twins....that leads back to the family cutting the checks.

We needed the Pohlads to sell, to change our organizational culture, and usher in a new on-field culture that guys like Keaschall can help set.  Alas....we get none of that except for maybe the last one if the kid (and others like him) push hard enough through the other noise.

Or maybe Jax or Varland then?  Varland pouting about going to the bullpen (which was the right move) or Jax about being taken out of the game before being traded?

I tend to think none of the three players were what Pablo is referring to (although your logic of not pointing at anyone still here makes sense).  I would think it's when Joe Pohlad pulled the strings on the payroll.  But just speculating as I have no idea.

[USAFChief]

6 minutes ago, The Great Hambino said:

Wasn't trying to single out you specifically.  But that statement or similar statements I think are a little more prevalent than you might realize.  Just as comments that managers are meaningless are maybe a little more prevalent than I might realize.  

I think most of us fall on the spectrum somewhere between those two poles.  You think managers matter more than I do, but I think (or at least want to think) that we fall in the reasonable section of that spectrum.  And it's natural for the extreme opinions we disagree with more strongly to stick out more in our minds.

Personally I think a team's manager is the single most important individual factor in winning or losing. 

I don't know how many games that equals. But whether the team should be winning 60 games or 100 based on talent, the manager has more influence on how close.they come to that level than any single player. Easily. 

Hes responsible for a lot.

[KirbyDome89]

I was never a huge fan of the Correa persona, but blaming him for the "culture," is total scapegoat nonsense. 

Also, did the interviewer ask Pablo why he, or any of the other listed vets who plan to "reshape the culture," didn't step in sooner before the clubhouse allegedly went off the rails? I mean if "culture," is the issue, and this group stood idly by while Correa and/or Rocco poisoned the well, why should anybody believe they're capable of reforming anything? 

I don't buy any of it...

[Woof Bronzer]

55 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

How do you know Correa was checked out?

From watching him play.  

I posted this yesterday, but the image that best sums up the Rocco/Falvey era is last September when the Twins needed a win to stay alive and Correa made the last out dogging it to 1B.  The throw was bad so if he'd been running he would have been safe.  Is this leadership to you?

You will never convince me a locked-in, engaged "leader" will make the last out of the season trotting to first.  

But again, this goes well beyond Correa.  Other players should have get on Correa for dogging it.  Rocco should have held him accountable.  None of that happened.  The Twins are broken.  

[Vanimal46]

10 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

I also think it’s generally accepted that people don’t ask to leave well run, happy situations. Whether that be your average business or a pro ball team. I don’t necessarily trust Correa, but didn’t mild mannered Jax also want out? Players and coaches employees that are happy with management don’t do that.

Also to be added is Thad Levine leaving without another job lined up. He wanted off this sinking ship before it tarnished his reputation as a GM. 

[1985Fan]

9 minutes ago, Twins_Fan_in_NJ said:

Pablo, Ryan, Ober and Jeffers will be gone before spring training '26. It will be a long time before this team has any type of winning culture.

I agree that Pablo and Ober might be gone in the offseason. The winning culture starts with Baldelli and Falvey. Baldelli has control of what type of play and effort he tolerates. I see no repercussions for stupid mistakes, poor play, lack of hustle, and poor effort. 
This rebuild will be for naught unless and until both Falvey and Baldelli are flushed. Otherwise, it will be more of the same play with different players. 

[The Great Hambino]

2 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Personally I think a team's manager is the single most important individual factor in winning or losing. 

I don't know how many games that equals. But whether the team should be winning 60 games or 100 based on talent, the manager has more influence on how close.they come to that level than any single player. Easily. 

Hes responsible for a lot.

I guess it depends on how finely you splice those individual factors.

More that any one specific player?  Yeah, probably

More than units like lineup or rotation?  I don't think so.

I believe a team's talent level is the main driver of a team's success,  and a manager's influence is more in the margins.  Now when I say marginal, I don't mean to put down or discount that effect.  I mean for most teams that aren't either uber talented or the White Sox, the teams hovering near playoff contention, those marginal differences can be the difference in making the playoffs/winning the division/winning it all.   Also, managers are cheap relative to players, which means it's an area that a team on a budget can put their dollars to very efficient use.

Anyway, this is a lot of arguing about a manager that no one wants to be retained.

[DJL44]

9 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Personally I think a team's manager is the single most important individual factor in winning or losing. 

I don't know how many games that equals. But whether the team should be winning 60 games or 100 based on talent, the manager has more influence on how close.they come to that level than any single player. Easily. 

Hes responsible for a lot.

True, but there's also not that much difference between managers at the professional level. They all run the same batting and fielding practices. The differences are subtle and there is rarely a truly incompetent manager at the MLB level. If the Dodgers swapped managers with the Twins, would either team notice?

[Wedman13]

After re-reading the article I found it interesting he mentions discussing it with  Buxton, Ryan, Ober and Jeffers.  Anyone else find it odd there is no mention of Royce? 
 

And toward the end he mentions something about "you have to play hard, it's not enough just to be up here".  If it's a player he's referencing, that sounds like someone on the younger side of their career, not Correa.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

The question of "leadership" is a complex one.  I am not a baseball coach or manager, but as a musician and conductor have dealt with lots of individuals over the years that I think give me some perspective.  I am not here to crown nor destroy Correa or Baldelli (or anyone else), just to offer some thoughts.

1.  Some individuals are ridiculously talented. In most organizations, that gives them a "de facto" leadership position whether they desire it or not.  Some of those individuals thrive on it, while others are uncomfortable with it.  The scary part is that it's not always evident from the outside looking in.  In fact, it's not even always evident within the organization. 

2.  Some of these ridiculously talented individuals have "always" understood how to play baseball (or trumpet, or clarinet) and things have come pretty easily for them.  They may not always recognize it, citing their hard work/work ethic, etc.  Some of those individuals who have had things come easy to them are unable to recognize what struggle looks like in others and so are unable to relate nor offer meaningful feedback.  Frequently, they just make others frustrated by their lack of empathy/leadership/understanding.

3.  Some of these ridiculously talented individuals who have "always" understood how to play baseball yet are now somehow struggling don't understand how to react to that.  So, when they get into trouble in their own game, they struggle/become frustrated, etc.  That can affect their "leadership" ability, and it can also affect how other players view them.  i.e. Who is that guy to tell me what to do?  He has a .586 OPS. 

4.  Some individuals are very much self-made.  They have a reasonable amount of talent (they are major leaguers after all), and have used that as a base to continuously develop their skills.  They have faced a lot of adversity, but it has led them to having an understanding of the game well beyond what the average player has.  These types of individuals usually have a built in empathy for other players, OR conversely, sometimes have a chip on their shoulder about everything.  I think it's why (at least in my mind) a lot of good teachers/coaches/managers were utility players and catchers.  Simply put, they can relate and have the knowledge to help others. 

5.  There are lots of kinds of leadership and many types of them can co-exist or can fight with each other depending on the personalities involved.  Some are relatively quiet but are monster players and lead by example (Trout).  Some put themselves in the spotlight and seem to come though when they do. (Puckett, Bonds).  Some are rah-rah people who can rally the troops to victory (David Ortiz).  There are more, with a bit more nuance to them.  Some can exist in several of these categories.  Really great organizations have many people with different types of leadership skills that know how to co-exist with each other.  

6.  There is a tremendous amount inside the clubhouse that we don't or can't know.  Correa and/or Baldelli could be absolutely terrible inside the clubhouse or they could be absolutely wonderful.  I'm betting on somewhere in between for both of them, and I'm also betting that they each work better/worse for some individuals than for others.  Maybe getting rid of both should be the solution, but it's hard to know that without witnessing it first-hand.  The first guys to spill the tea outside the clubhouse are expressing what THEY think, not necessarily what everyone things.  Who knows?  The problem may have been Jorge Alcala or Daniel Duarte!  OK, probably not, but you get the idea.  

I'm not here to suggest Correa was a clubhouse cancer or anything like that.  However, what I am suggesting is that Correa on the Twins became gradually more. . . . "complicated", both in his own mind and in the minds of others on the team -- particularly as his own abilities ebbed and flowed over the years.  My own take on Correa is that he is mostly in the category of quiet example driven leadership, who likes to thrust himself into the spotlight at times.  That works pretty well when you are the best player and/or the elder statesman, but no so well when you aren't.  I think that's where we were on Correa.

Sorry for the long essay, but it's been a long process to get here and will probably take a long process to get back out of it.  In the meantime I will continue rooting for my team, the Minnesota Twins, and hope things are brighter in the months and years ahead.  YMMV

[nicksaviking]

2 hours ago, The Great Hambino said:

Re: Rocco, I was later than many/most here to hop on the FIRE ROCCO train (for the record, it was when they came out completely flat out of the gates this year).  It was my belief that he was good at those things that, like you said, happen behind the scenes and out of the public eye.

But this story kinda puts the final nail in the coffin of that theory (if it hadn't been fully sealed already).  If you're not able to control the clubhouse culture, and you're not a master tactician, and you're not known for player development ... what exactly is it you do here?  

Rocco is overdue for his meeting with the Bobs

Agree, I've also thought Baldelli historically got more flack than he deserved, but not only is it time for a change, I don't think he's a fit here any longer.

If a low payroll team has to pay free agents based on the 'culture' they bring to the team instead of their actual play on the field, you are not going to field a good team. Your organization needs the 'culture' to be emanating from the manager and coaches. 

Baldelli would probably be just fine on a team with lots of GOOD veteran players; that's not this team.

[Aggies7]

7 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

True, but there's also not that much difference between managers at the professional level. They all run the same batting and fielding practices. The differences are subtle and there is rarely a truly incompetent manager at the MLB level. If the Dodgers swapped managers with the Twins, would either team notice?

I’m sure the dodgers would. Give me the guy who’s won the whole thing. Yes, with more talented guys. But he still had to manage the clubhouse, one with some of the highest paid players in the game and their egos.

[Twins_Fan_in_NJ]

11 minutes ago, 1985Fan said:

I agree that Pablo and Ober might be gone in the offseason. The winning culture starts with Baldelli and Falvey. Baldelli has control of what type of play and effort he tolerates. I see no repercussions for stupid mistakes, poor play, lack of hustle, and poor effort. 
This rebuild will be for naught unless and until both Falvey and Baldelli are flushed. Otherwise, it will be more of the same play with different players. 

Agreed on Rocco.

He should have been fired at the end of last season. Culture begins and ends with the manager. The leadership void is obvious to players. It explains Correa's ill-fated attempt at becoming a de facto player manager and Lopez's comments. They see it every day. They know what the manager does or doesn't do.

[Dman]

It seems like we have this discussion every year.  When the team is doing great the culture is great.  When they aren't the culture is toxic. Before the deadline I remember Bader hitting a home run and getting hugs from teammates and high fives etc.is that a show of an uninspired team?  They pan the camera to the dugout and guys are chatting with each other smiling etc.is that display of bad culture?Just a week ago Keaschall was saying how much energy all the young guys were bringing and that is was a fun atmosphere.

Talent wins baseball games period.,  Culture is a nice talking point, but in the end means very little.  These are pro ball players fighting to stay relevant in the game the have trained their entire lives for.  Culture's not the problem.