Who Deserves the Blame for Another Second-Half Collapse by the Twins?

[C-Gangster]

I wouldn't even call this a collapse. This was expected to happen Us twins fans are just to greedy i guess. Rocco Got robbed last year. It was Falvey and Joe Pholad last year our new front office is fine. Its not like we were in playoff contention anyways at least we have even made it this far.

[Riverbrian]

23 minutes ago, MeleMouth said:

So there's no reason to blame anyone for the margins being thin in the first place?

Nobody's performance to improve or upgrade? No mistakes to avoid in the future? 

It's hard to look at several years of Twins history and say that there aren't patterns of sub-par decision-making, poor roster construction, and failure to create and stick to good plans.

Yeah sure but the article was implying "another 2nd half collapse".  

The 2nd half has been pretty heavily influenced by that stretch of games that I highlighted. 

The Twins were 15-9 in July. 

11-18 in August. 

26-27 for both months. It's .500 ball and that is where you find most teams during most 30 game stretches or entire seasons.  .500 ball is where half of them reside at any given time and .500 isn't a collapse... it's normal. 

Where does the 2nd half start? If it's game 82. The Twins were 38-43 in the first half and that means 29-30 in the 2nd half. If it's the all-star break. We were 48-49 at the all star break. We are 19-24 since.  

Season's are up and downs and if the Twins or any team can control the roller coaster. We would all have to find something else to complain about. 

Now... if the purpose of this article is to get the TD posters to attack prior decision making. OK... in that case... I have my criticisms... I would have taken another approach in the off season... However... my approach... your approach... anybody's approach wouldn't be immune to a sub par stretch of baseball at any given time of the season like our August has been. 

Case in point... The Dodgers are 13-17 in their past 30 games. The Dodgers like the other 29 teams do not have immunity from the ups and downs. 

 

 

 

[twinstalker]

Um, the Twins were supposed to win about 75 games, and they've lost their best hitter and best pitcher in the second half.

[Saxophone Joe]

20 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

The Dodgers like the other 29 teams do not have immunity from the ups and downs.

Which reminds me - I showed my father-in-law the other day the Jomboy breakdown of the Ohtani/Rushing snafu at Target Field and became mad all over again that we lost that game 4-3 after scoring 3 runs off Ohtani. Also got 3 runs off the Miz in the second half and didn't win that one either (another 4-3 loss). 

[tarheeltwinsfan]

5 hours ago, Patzky said:

Last night in a microcosm. No hitting til there was. Then there wasn't again. Suspect pitching from the starter and Funderburk. Nance should never have come out for a second inning, if not for incompetent at bats from Clemens, Culpepper, Lewis and others. Using a position player then not using him, then never using a guy who's on the bench, why? All fairness Shelton probably thought we had the game won in the eighth.  Til we didn't.

How about the bunt that backfired with no outs and Jeffers on 2B? I think bunting in that situation is good baseball, even though the stats may disagree, however my problem is that the players do not know how to bunt. Period. I bet Rod Carew screams at his tv during every extra inning game..."Bunt , Bunt. Listen to the sound the ball makes as it hits the bat". Practice bunting, everyone, including the slow footed "sluggers". Bunt the ball  more,  but first lean how to bunt.  That is on the manager, who makes on field decisions plus decisions not to insist on regular bunting practice in the majors and a front office that does not require players to learn how to bunt well before they play on the Twins. It is not rocket science ! OK sabermetric  experts, let me have your best shot.

[Saxophone Joe]

Just now, tarheeltwinsfan said:

decisions not to insist on regular bunting practice in the majors and a front office that does not require players to learn how to bunt well before they play on the Twins. It is not rocket science !

Yeah, didn't you hear Plouffe recently on the broadcast? The players don't have time to focus on bunting🤣

[MeleMouth]

17 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

Yeah sure but the article was implying "another 2nd half collapse".  

The 2nd half has been pretty heavily influenced by that stretch of games that I highlighted. 

The Twins were 15-9 in July. 

11-18 in August. 

26-27 for both months. It's .500 ball and that is where you find most teams during most 30 game stretches or entire seasons.  .500 ball is where half of them reside at any given time and .500 isn't a collapse... it's normal. 

Where does the 2nd half start? If it's game 82. The Twins were 38-43 in the first half and that means 29-30 in the 2nd half. If it's the all-star break. We were 48-49 at the all star break. We are 19-24 since.  

Season's are up and downs and if the Twins or any team can control the roller coaster. We would all have to find something else to complain about. 

Now... if the purpose of this article is to get the TD posters to attack prior decision making. OK... in that case... I have my criticisms... I would have taken another approach in the off season... However... my approach... your approach... anybody's approach wouldn't be immune to a sub par stretch of baseball at any given time of the season like our August has been. 

Case in point... The Dodgers are 13-17 in their past 30 games. The Dodgers like the other 29 teams do not have immunity from the ups and downs. 

 

 

 

I would agree that the "second-half collapse" is a faulty premise, because the team basically performed a small amount above its ability for most of the year and now just had some regression. A 40-45 team becoming a 67-73 team is not a collapse.

Early in the year, they had luck on batted balls and sequencing, resulting in better offensive stats than would be expected by performance, but many people mistook results for a true talent level and convinced themselves that a bullpen upgrade, removal of Matt Wallner (with Martin? Roden?), Royce Lewis becoming a star, and insertion of a couple of top prospects would lead to 1987 redux. But the overall talent level remains relatively low and regression to the mean is a thing,

[nicksaviking]

2 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

It's also absolutely inevitable.  Save your tears friend, you're going to need them.

To me, Tom's big talk sounds more like the precursor to making an actual splash as opposed to a half dozen tiny splashes. They all know signing five Josh Bell's won't move the needle in 2027.

I don't trust Zoll to have the ability to do it, but Tom sounds like somebody who's already telling him, make another Carlos Correa move to put people in the seats, or next year I'll find somebody who can.

[old nurse]

3 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

The way he had been pitching, yes, almost definitely!  It led to Zebby getting more starts and Zebby was great.  A healthy Joe Ryan was busy giving up 6 HR to the 27 Yankees Guardians.  

Blaming a bad year on injuries is such loser talk.  Every single team could use this excuse if they wanted.  

If this article was written towards the end of July, Mathews would be on the blame side of the ledger. How quickly people forget. 

[TheLeviathan]

21 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

To me, Tom's big talk sounds more like the precursor to making an actual splash as opposed to a half dozen tiny splashes. They all know signing five Josh Bell's won't move the needle in 2027.

I don't trust Zoll to have the ability to do it, but Tom sounds like somebody who's already telling him, make another Carlos Correa move to put people in the seats, or next year I'll find somebody who can.

I admire your optimism.

[Riverbrian]

24 minutes ago, Saxophone Joe said:

Which reminds me - I showed my father-in-law the other day the Jomboy breakdown of the Ohtani/Rushing snafu at Target Field and became mad all over again that we lost that game 4-3 after scoring 3 runs off Ohtani. Also got 3 runs off the Miz in the second half and didn't win that one either (another 4-3 loss). 

I've been tracking opposing team starts. There are a lot of examples of scoring off the aces and getting shut completely down by guys with a 4 plus ERA's. The Miz has been exceptional but the Cubs just put a 5 spot on him. The Twins, The Cards, The Pirates and Red Sox have all put a 3 on him. A 1.97 ERA is incredible but a 1.97 means that there are occasions where he gave up two runs or more to create that average. Bailey Ober has a 4.37 but he has 6 starts out of 21 where he gave up 1 or less. While the Orioles, Pirates and Nats touched him up pretty severely. I'd say he had 9 starts were he was average and gave the offense a chance to win it. 

When you look at individual games. There are always these individual moments in key situations and they work in both directions. The Twins also probably stole a couple of games along the way.  

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

Yeah sure but the article was implying "another 2nd half collapse".  

The 2nd half has been pretty heavily influenced by that stretch of games that I highlighted. 

The Twins were 15-9 in July. 

11-18 in August. 

26-27 for both months. It's .500 ball and that is where you find most teams during most 30 game stretches or entire seasons.  .500 ball is where half of them reside at any given time and .500 isn't a collapse... it's normal. 

Where does the 2nd half start? If it's game 82. The Twins were 38-43 in the first half and that means 29-30 in the 2nd half. If it's the all-star break. We were 48-49 at the all star break. We are 19-24 since.  

Season's are up and downs and if the Twins or any team can control the roller coaster. We would all have to find something else to complain about. 

Now... if the purpose of this article is to get the TD posters to attack prior decision making. OK... in that case... I have my criticisms... I would have taken another approach in the off season... However... my approach... your approach... anybody's approach wouldn't be immune to a sub par stretch of baseball at any given time of the season like our August has been. 

Case in point... The Dodgers are 13-17 in their past 30 games. The Dodgers like the other 29 teams do not have immunity from the ups and downs. 

 

 

 

Sure, we should always be mindful of making judgments based on small samples.  I agree.  That's precisely why there is reason to criticize the moves and judge ownership for pushing forward with contention.  To put it succinctly: the framework of a "collapse" is the necessary rebuttal to the falsely premised "we're contenders!" argument that got us into this current dilemma.  Both are driven by small sample thinking.

Had ownership, sports media, TD article writers, and some diehard posters not fallen victim to the very problem you are suggesting, we wouldn't need to talk about a collapse.  The larger sample made clear we were not contenders, that we should embrace the rebuild started last year.  Had we done that, and not overemphasized the noise of June/July, we could be reveling in phase 2 of a rebuild (calling up the next wave of studs) and care less about wins and losses and more about develop.  Complete with bonus assets that we have otherwise frittered away by the logic you rightly criticize above.

[mikelink45]

4 hours ago, LastOnePicked said:

I mostly agree, but I know I wouldn't have excluded Baldelli from blame, so I don't feel right doing so even though I like Shelton more.

Managers have an impact on momentum, tone and focus. But I think the margins for error for this team were always razor-thin. 

If Shelton were not in his first year with the team I might have given him a little more blame - but regardless he can only use the players on his roster. 

[Saxophone Joe]

7 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

The Twins also probably stole a couple of games along the way.  

For sure. Fair to wonder what the front office would've done come the deadline had we not won (stolen) those two walk offs against KC. 

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, MeleMouth said:

I would agree that the "second-half collapse" is a faulty premise, because the team basically performed a small amount above its ability for most of the year and now just had some regression. A 40-45 team becoming a 67-73 team is not a collapse.

Early in the year, they had luck on batted balls and sequencing, resulting in better offensive stats than would be expected by performance, but many people mistook results for a true talent level and convinced themselves that a bullpen upgrade, removal of Matt Wallner (with Martin? Roden?), Royce Lewis becoming a star, and insertion of a couple of top prospects would lead to 1987 redux. But the overall talent level remains relatively low and regression to the mean is a thing,

There is the on paper viewpoint and the what is actually happening on the field viewpoint.

My opinion is only my opinion. I won't use the terminology rebuild. But, they started a re-whatever in August and they didn't finish what they started and I would have finished what they started. The bullpen was almost completely gone and it was going to take time to rebuild that thing and with the rather large hole in the bullpen and a rather large hole in infield depth. Again... in my opinion... We had two players who had to be at the top of their trade value and hanging on to them was going to for sure lower their trade value... I felt it would have been a perfect time to move them to add some young talented talent to the system. Specifically I wanted a young SS capable of anywhere in the infielder and a young 1B and young bullpen arms. Joe Ryan and Ryan Jeffers could have plugged some of those holes. 

The front office decided to go for it instead. In the process of going for it. They found themselves in contention and being in a weak AL is not something you hold against them. The offense was good in comparison to their peers. The Bullpen while still not where I'd want it to be was improved significantly through the process of audition. The starting pitching was not what I was hoping. I think they are just delaying the inevitable because our players are going to age out and we need a clearer focus on development to keep the wolves away. 

No matter how I felt about the approach. I still believe I was right in the off-season. The team played itself into contention and I'll never question contention. I was OK with the trades because you don't declare you are going for it, not fail going for it and pull the plug anyway. The front office needed to support the effort of the players on the field. 

It doesn't always work but they needed to support it. 

Now... this coming off-season. I'm probably right back where I was last off-season. We are going to have to make a stronger commitment to youth before the walls cave in. 

[Saxophone Joe]

9 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

 

Had some diehard posters not fallen victim to the very problem you are suggesting, we wouldn't need to talk about a collapse.  

[Mike Sixel]

5 hours ago, Craig Arko said:

Never saw much value in the blame game. It doesn’t actually solve anything.

So, never assess anyone's performance to figure out how to get better? Because that's what this is about, fixing things. 

The players aren't good enough. The owner is either delusional or thinks fans are stupid. The GM didn't have the courage to sell at the break. 

But there is no second half collapse. They have actually been better from game 82 on.....

[IndianaTwin]

4 hours ago, Parfigliano said:

Can't make banana bread without over ripe bananas.

Speaking as someone who just came home to a fresh batch of banana chocolate chip muffins made by Mrs. IT, I concur. 

[Riverbrian]

17 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Sure, we should always be mindful of making judgments based on small samples.  I agree.  That's precisely why there is reason to criticize the moves and judge ownership for pushing forward with contention.  To put it succinctly: the framework of a "collapse" is the necessary rebuttal to the falsely premised "we're contenders!" argument that got us into this current dilemma.  Both are driven by small sample thinking.

Had ownership, sports media, TD article writers, and some diehard posters not fallen victim to the very problem you are suggesting, we wouldn't need to talk about a collapse.  The larger sample made clear we were not contenders, that we should embrace the rebuild started last year.  Had we done that, and not overemphasized the noise of June/July, we could be reveling in phase 2 of a rebuild (calling up the next wave of studs) and care less about wins and losses and more about develop.  Complete with bonus assets that we have otherwise frittered away by the logic you rightly criticize above.

I understand your point. 

I'm in the crowd that says that ship sailed in the off-season. I wouldn't have done what they did but they did what they did and it wasn't a complete failure. It certainly didn't knock our socks off but they kept themselves in contention... Unimpressively in contention or impressively in contention. It is contention and there are peaks and valleys to come. 

I wasn't happy with the off-season approach but I would have been more pissed if they decided to go for it, stayed in contention and then did what we thought they should have done in the off-season. If they trade Joe Ryan at a significant value loss at the deadline instead of the off-season at peak value. That would piss me off. 

You can make the argument that they probably shouldn't do a thing. Which is a viable argument but I don't like standing still. 

It's tricky but the end result of it all... in my opinion. We just delayed the inevitable for a year. We are going to have to make a heavy commitment toward youth at some point because we are going to be graduated people through the arb system and we need replacements. Young replacements. 

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, Riverbrian said:

I understand your point. 

I'm in the crowd that says that ship sailed in the off-season. I wouldn't have done what they did but they did what they did and it wasn't a complete failure. It certainly didn't knock our socks off but they kept themselves in contention... Unimpressively in contention or impressively in contention. It is contention and their are peaks and valleys to come. 

I wasn't happy with the off-season approach but I would have been more pissed if they decided to go for it, stayed in contention and then did what we thought they should have done in the off-season. If they trade Joe Ryan at a significant value loss at the deadline instead of the off-season at peak value. That would piss me off. 

You can make the argument that they probably shouldn't do a thing. Which is a viable argument but I don't like standing still. 

It's tricky but the end result of it all... in my opinion. We just delayed the inevitable for a year. We are going to have to make a heavy commitment toward youth at some point because we are going to be graduated people through the arb system and we need replacements. Young replacements. 

We didn't just delay the inevitable. We lost two prospects and didn't get three or more back in trades. When people complain there aren't enough young players to bring up, they better not be the people that said to buy....

[TheLeviathan]

1 minute ago, Riverbrian said:

I understand your point. 

I'm in the crowd that says that ship sailed in the off-season. I wouldn't have done what they did but they did what they did and it wasn't a complete failure. It certainly didn't knock our socks off but they kept themselves in contention... Unimpressively in contention or impressively in contention. It is contention and their are peaks and valleys to come. 

I wasn't happy with the off-season approach but I would have been more pissed if they decided to go for it, stayed in contention and then did what we thought they should have done in the off-season. If they trade Joe Ryan at a significant value loss at the deadline instead of the off-season at peak value. That would piss me off. 

You can make the argument that they probably shouldn't do a thing. Which is a viable argument but I don't like standing still. 

It's tricky but the end result of it all... in my opinion. We just delayed the inevitable for a year. We are going to have to make a heavy commitment toward youth at some point because we are going to be graduated people through the arb system and we need replacements. Young replacements. 

I agree, the time to push chips in was the offseason.  Doing nothing and then bypassing on continuing the rebuild at the deadline was the worst of all possible strategies.

They made a mess out of what was actually looking to be in a good place.

[Riverbrian]

19 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I agree, the time to push chips in was the offseason.  Doing nothing and then bypassing on continuing the rebuild at the deadline was the worst of all possible strategies.

They made a mess out of what was actually looking to be in a good place.

On this we agree.

Well... except this deadline part. The off-season was the time to set the correct course.

Joe Ryan was probably half his January trade value at the trade deadline. That would have pissed me off more than keeping him using all of his trade value by hanging on to him until the very end and getting nothing at all. 

 

 

 

[Riverbrian]

1 minute ago, Mike Sixel said:

We didn't just delay the inevitable. We lost two prospects and didn't get three or more back in trades. When people complain there aren't enough young players to bring up, they better not be the people that said to buy....

Well... You probably know by now but this is where the crux of my disagreement with the organization lies. 

Our spillage is my main concern. We need more than Jenkins and if prospects have to be Jenkins like to get a full shot at full development. We are doing Agbayani types a favor by trading him. With our utilization of Fedko and how we are going to be utlizing Martin. Those guys can go away.

They will have no trade value even if they are successful at the very specific minimal task we ask out of them.  

Dasan Hill is the only guy we lost that bugged me and it's not that I'm a Dasan Hill expert.

Hard throwing lefties. I'd hang on to them with all my might. 

[MeleMouth]

51 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

To me, Tom's big talk sounds more like the precursor to making an actual splash as opposed to a half dozen tiny splashes. They all know signing five Josh Bell's won't move the needle in 2027.

I don't trust Zoll to have the ability to do it, but Tom sounds like somebody who's already telling him, make another Carlos Correa move to put people in the seats, or next year I'll find somebody who can.

There is only one possible "Carlos Correa move" in free agency this year, which would be to sign Skubal. That has maybe a 1% chance of happening and maybe a 10% chance of working out better than the Donaldson and Correa signings if it does. (Remember how everyone wanted to say "good riddance" to both of them within about 18 months?) The price for Skubal would also be much higher than the price for Correa, so high that it would eat most of the team's budget, making it difficult to plug any other holes.

They could try to make a trade, superior to Arraez for Lopez, but to get talent superior to Lopez they would probably have to offer Jenkins plus another top prospect. That sounds like a good way to continue the Twins' streak of futility. (Since 2011, tied for second-worst playoff record in MLB; since Falvey's arrival in 2017, fourth worst in playoff wins among the 28 teams that have qualified for the playoffs, and absolute worst in winning percentage.)

If Pohlad really wants to run the team well, he should tell his baseball experts to come up with a sustainable plan that requires two to three years to execute. Trying to solve years of meandering and oscillating by one or two big moves is what they keep doing; doing it again would be a good way to extend their mediocrity.

We have to stop thinking in terms of quick fixes to deep problems.

[LeatherAntenna]

‘’Pohlad has done something previous ownership groups have been reluctant to do. He has publicly acknowledged that simply being competitive isn't good enough,’’

 

when was ‘’simply being competitive?’’  I guess I missed that.

[BaseballBob]

With your logic, maybe they should. Little difference between a 33-year-old and a 21-23 year old.

[IndianaTwin]

 

6 hours ago, Craig Arko said:

Never saw much value in the blame game. It doesn’t actually solve anything.

 

6 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Can't disagree more.  If a business isn't meeting its goals it is absolutely worth figuring out what is going wrong.  How can you fix something if you don't diagnose the problem?

 

@Craig Arko can correct me if I'm misinterpreting his comments, but I read what he's saying as: "Never saw much value in the blame game when I'm not in a position to make a genuine difference in the situation. [Blaming] doesn't actually solve anything."

Mrs. IT would tell you that I do much better at this some times than I do at others, but as a general rule of thumb, I find it much easier to walk when my shorts aren't in a wad blaming people for things I can't control. 

I think there's also a significant difference between "blaming" and "figuring out what went wrong," though "blame" does likely generate more clicks on the interweb. Certainly a business that isn't meeting its goals is needs to figure out what is going wrong. We don't know the conversations going on behind the scene (and we shouldn't, I would say), but when you look at the amount of roster turnover between, say, July 1 and what's now on the 26/28 man roster, I think they are trying a lot of new things.

[ashbury]

Nobody knows who you are replying to if you don't use the Quote button.

[Mike Sixel]

2 minutes ago, IndianaTwin said:

 

 

 

@Craig Arko can correct me if I'm misinterpreting his comments, but I read what he's saying as: "Never saw much value in the blame game when I'm not in a position to make a genuine difference in the situation. [Blaming] doesn't actually solve anything."

Mrs. IT would tell you that I do much better at this some times than I do at others, but as a general rule of thumb, I find it much easier to walk when my shorts aren't in a wad blaming people for things I can't control. 

I think there's also a significant difference between "blaming" and "analyzing," though "blame" does likely generate more clicks on the interweb. Certainly a business that isn't meeting its goals is needs to figure out what is going wrong. We don't know the conversations going on behind the scene (and we shouldn't, I would say), but when you look at the amount of roster turnover between, say, July 1 and what's now on the 26/28 man roster, I think they are trying a lot of new things.

There might be six threads on this whole site if we didn't analyze things we didn't control, and the site would fold. 

[Czelgert]

The Twins run a shoestring operation that one could argue would be successful if it weren’t for injuries or the occasional bad luck.  The fact of the matter is there will ALWAYS be injuries and bad luck in a 162 game season and good teams have depth and redundancies to minimize those variables.  You cannot give away almost 10 wins in the first half of the season with a minor league level bullpen and think that will make no difference when there are inevitable stumbles in the second half.  Bad luck and injuries will happen but the Twins have done a poor job affecting the things they can control.

 

Just remember that the Twins have won 90+ games only twice in the Target Field era while Milwaukee and Cleveland have topped 90 wins 8 times EACH in the same span.  That’s on the organization.