Does the Twins Front Office Have Difficulty Admitting When They Are Wrong?

49 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Not saying any other manger would have gotten more wins out of that team, but, he showed IMO in 2019 he didn't have what it took to be a successful manager, wins aren't everything when it comes to a manager. I thought he made a ton of mistakes, got out managed, was bailed out by the Bomba squad and played one a super easy schedule. and IMO he wasn't the type of manager that was going to lead the Twins to the World Series. (Maybe that changes this year or next and I am wrong, I really, really hope I am wrong but as of today I am not)

And that opinion is fine. I'm certainly not suggesting Rocco is great. I just think firing someone off their first season managing when the team had all that success is shortsighted. Allowing a little room to grow seems like the prudent path to me. I'm also not someone who subscribes to the "bailed out by the bomba squad" storyline. They were 9th in the majors in ERA, and everyone got to use the juiced ball. That team pretty well maxed out their abilities. If you're (and I'm not saying you are, just people in general) going to blame a manager for losses, you have to have a way to give them credit for wins. If he's to blame for winning 70 some games, you have to give him credit for winning 100 some.

As outsiders, in my opinion, the only way we can judge a manager is by w/l record, and what players say about them. He tends to get glowing reviews from players, current and former, for his clubhouse management so I don't think we have anything to go on negatively there, and then all we're left with is their w/l record. His has been subpar lately, and he should feel some heat for it. The team hasn't been good enough.

But, generally speaking, I don't think managers matter very much. The FO matters significantly more than the manager, in terms of non-player team employees. You can pick whoever you think the best manager ever was and they're not winning games with the Oakland As this year. I also don't subscribe to the idea that Rocco not having mandatory IF/OF and BP everyday is a mistake (I don't know your feelings on that, just an example of where I think managers don't matter much). These are grown adults being paid millions to play a game. If your manager has to tell you to work on your game you're not a championship player, and nothing your manager can do will change that. I just don't think managers make that much of a difference. Especially in today's game where much of their decision making power is stripped away.

Falvine wouldn't replace Rocco with someone drastically different. That's the main reason I don't call for his head. We don't have enough info, as fans, on what he's like behind the scenes to have strong opinions there. But the FO isn't going to hire a manager who does things differently than they'd like on the field, so there wouldn't really be a big change in the platooning, bullpen usage, etc. with someone new. The same complaints people have about Rocco would be true of the new guy. I don't see Rocco as the reason they can't win, I see talent as the reason. And, to tie back into the theme of this thread, the FO's inability to change their plans quickly enough. Their in season pivoting (not just with roster turnover, but overall baseball strategy) is atrocious, and I think that's a far bigger problem than anything Rocco does. Mostly because I think he has very little control on what he does.

10 hours ago, Jocko87 said:

But the manager can make a huge difference. We are reasonably assuming that Rocco has many of the decision powers pulled away in favor of the computer but we don’t know his mandate in detail. It would make sense based on what we see but it wouldn’t explain most of the issues we have with this team. 

The data may lead them to swing hard all the time but it certainly doesn’t say take horrific at bats and swing at bad pitches. A manager should fix that. 

The data may say Griffen Jax has the best stuff+ in the league but it doesn’t tell him to be predictable or tip his pitches. A manager should fix that. 

The data will say that not bunting leads to more runs but it’s not saying in the bottom of 10, tie game one run wins let’s swing as hard as possible 9 times just in case. A manager should fix that.

The data will tell Correa that his approach is great, exit velo, xwoba all great, good things coming but it won’t tell him he pressing, swinging at bad pitches and letting the pitcher dictate the at bat. A manager should fix that. 

The manager is certainly limited in what they can do but what I’m seeing is a lot of failing in the areas that he absolutely can affect. Most of the lineup or bullpen calls don’t actually directly affect the outcome of a game. We wonder wtf he was thinking pinch hitting for the clean up hitter but was it the reason the game was lost? No.  

The problems I’m seeing are preparation, approach, in game strategy, in game adjustments, self scouting and leadership. All things the manager has direct control of. Coaches need to coach constantly. I hear him getting more frustrated and we don’t know what he’s actually doing but we see the lack of results. 

It would be fairly easy to put together a manager wins above expectation.  Actual wins against the Vegas composite over/under is pretty straightforward.  The front office has assembled a ton of talent. What’s it lacking?

How should a manager fix a player's at bat? In his press conferences he certainly sounds like he's annoyed with their at bats. This is where I just disagree with people. The manager isn't taking at bats. Do you think he was telling Miranda to swing at every fastball at his eyes, or do you think he was telling him not to? Suggesting a manager should, or can, have a big effect on the type of at bats guys have is significantly oversimplifying what an at bat is like. You think the players aren't aware they should swing at balls down the middle and not out of the zone? Why hasn't Rosario changed his approach in Atlanta with what I assume is a better manager since their team is great? A manager can only do so much, and I think it's very little, when it comes to player at bats. When 100 MPH is coming at them, the players aren't thinking "oh, shoot, Rocco told me not to swing at this ball." It's way more complicated than that.

Does a manager call the game? Is Rocco the one with the pitchcom on his knee guard or glove or wherever calling pitches?

The manager could call a bunt there, yes. I'll refer to my first paragraph on AB approaches being a player thing.

Fix Correa pressing how? What exactly do you think great managers do to stop a player from pressing when they actually step into the box? Chuck Knoblauch had a pretty good manager in New York, right? Why couldn't Torre stop him from pressing and throwing the ball into the seats from second base?

I strongly disagree that the manager can effect these things as much as you seem to be suggesting. Preparation is a player thing. Approach in real time is a player thing. In game strategy is a manager thing, but you just said in the previous paragraph that those things don't actually lose games. I don't know what exactly you mean by in game adjustments, but I'd say it's some manager, some player. You can see the players in the dugout self scouting mid-game, they have hitter and pitcher meetings everyday about both self, and opponent, scouting. He gets rave reviews from pretty much everyone on his leadership so not sure we can complain about anything there. I just disagree with the assumption that him getting more frustrated, but the results not changing, is his fault or a sign he isn't coaching. Talent wins. Like I said in a previous post, pick whoever you want as the best manager ever and they aren't winning with this year's Oakland As team.

I disagree with your assessment of the talent compiled, or that comparing Vegas over/unders to actual wins is an effective tool to measure a manager. This team is not that talented. They're about average in talent. Their bullpen and lineup are not contender units, and that's been a complaint by many people on these very boards since last season. Outside of Correa, most of the players are playing to about what our expectations were. Miranda would be another disappointment. But who'd we expect to be significantly better? MAT? Gallo? Jeffers? Vazquez? Castro? Kepler? Anyone in the bullpen? What's lacking is true, above average talent. They have a whole bunch of 6-9 hole hitters, and very few 1-5 hitters. Hard to score runs with a lineup of bottom of the order bats, and Correa flopping.

But let's go with your Vegas over/under idea. Their over under was 84.5 from what I can find. They're on pace for 85 wins. So, by your own measure, Rocco isn't failing the team. He's just an average manager who's not really effecting the team w/l total in any way since they're basically dead on pace.

37 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

I guess I'm confused then.  What would you say Rocco's job is?  I listed a few things that are objectively and obviously on the coaching staff and you use a 1 in a million Knoblauch example to say managers don't do anything? 

 

 

In game player usage decisions and creating lineups are their outward facing jobs. Managing the clubhouse and player egos, emotions, etc. are their inward facing jobs. The coaching staff is different, to me.

The Twins have multiple (3 I think, but at least 2) hitting coaches who are available to the Twins players all day, everyday. The Twins have multiple (main, bullpen, etc) pitching coaches who are available to the Twins players all day, everyday. Those are the people who are working with the players on laying off high fastballs, not swinging for the fences 100% of the time, pitch usage, self-scouting, opponent game planning, whatever. Rocco is around, and can give advice on things, but he's not a hitting or pitching coach. That is not his job.

Rocco isn't a pitching expert and doesn't go teach Jax how to throw pitches, or which pitches to use. That's not his job. Rocco was a heck of a hitter, but he doesn't break down every player's swing, ABs, etc. That's not his job. Those are the pitching and hitting coaches jobs. Rocco's job is to know what the players need and get them to the people who can help them. It's to put them in the best situation to succeed. People can certainly voice some displeasure with his lineups, pinch hitting, bullpen, whatever decisions, and I don't think it's crazy to think he's not great at putting people in the best situations all the time. But Rocco isn't breaking down swings, or pitch usage. That's why the Twins have 874 coaches on staff. (That last number was an exaggeration)

I also used Eddie Rosario and Oakland As examples. Now I'll use a James Rowson example. People call for his return all the time because they want to give him credit for the 2019 offense. I say I don't know if he's a good coach or not, but his offenses in Miami were the worst in the league, and his current Detroit offense is 4th worst in baseball with multiple top picks, and the great Akil Badoo there. Talent is what matters. Players are what matter. Coaches aren't nothing, but they aren't turning bad players into good players. Rocco not being able to get some players to cut down on Ks doesn't make him terrible at his job. I don't think he's great at his job, but if I pointed to Luis Arraez's strike out numbers with the Twins and gave Rocco the credit for that would you buy it? I don't think you should, but I also don't think you should buy that Rocco was to blame for Sano's strike out numbers.

42 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

I guess I'm confused then.  What would you say Rocco's job is?  I listed a few things that are objectively and obviously on the coaching staff and you use a 1 in a million Knoblauch example to say managers don't do anything? 

 

 

PS: Love the use of the meme.

12 minutes ago, Jocko87 said:

The distinction helps me understand your point but it doesn't change my stance.  Rocco is a member of the coaching staff.  They also work for him.  That makes it his job and responsibility.  He should absolutely be involved in breaking down swings and pitch usage.  Not every swing but when there's an issue he needs to be involved with both feet.  I'm not saying coaches turn Gallo into Arraez as some of the sweeping examples you are using would suggest but there is absolutely a difference in a well coached team vs one who isn't. 

In civilian parlance, hes the director of operations which is a position that requires technical proficiency.  He may be an expert in only one field of his operation but his overall technical proficiency has to be at a level he can function in all areas.  In the management field, leader eventually grow to positions where they have less and less technical skill but are still responsible for production in those areas.  One of the main jobs is helping your sub reporting managers solve problems. 

Excluding bullpen catchers there are 12 coaches on the staff including Rocco per MLB.com. He's involved in everything, I don't see how he couldn't.  How much time does it take to fill out a lineup card? 

If you have a reference that states the org operates like you say I will become the biggest advocate for firing everyone involved and burning everything that remains.  It will save me a ton of time watching the team because I know its not going to work and the end will be spectacular.

The coaches working for him is an interesting situation. I'd say it's closer to working with than working for. Rocco had a hand in hiring the coaches, but it's much more FO driven than Rocco driven. That's what I'm trying to get at. The vast majority of complaints are FO complaints. Rocco has far less say in all this stuff than the FO. His biggest control is in in game strategy, but even that is guided by FO directives and ideas. Terry Francona isn't breaking down swings either. As coaching staffs have expanded, and specialized, it's even less of a priority for managers. What's the difference between a well coached team and one who isn't that is clearly about coaching and not talent?

Do you have some examples where a player came up, was seen as a certain talent level, produced at that talent level under one manager, but then had a significant change in his performance under another manager (but not a new hitting or pitching coach) with regards to the complaints you, or anyone, has about Rocco? Not bullpen usage or lineup stuff as we've already agreed upon those being the manager's job, and things we should critique them on. But actual performance. Fixing swings, swing decisions, etc. Do you have examples of players getting a new manager and suddenly performing outside of expectations? To me, if it's so clearly about managers, and managers have a significant impact on performance, there should be some pretty easy examples to come up with.

Yes, Rocco is involved in everything. He's the organizer and has to have contact with everyone everyday. He's absolutely the one in charge of the staff and players maximizing their overall talent. Your suggested measure of that was the over/under stuff. Team is right on track there. I don't see anyone outside of Correa and Miranda who are performing significantly below expectations (some may argue Gordon, but I was never a Gordon believer so I don't personally count him), or significantly above expectations (maybe Jeffers there I guess). So, to me, it looks like the team overall is performing to expectations, all but 2/3 individual players are performing to expectations, and fans are frustrated (as they should be with this team). To me, that screams that the manager doesn't really matter (as is my stance), and it's talent that matters. And that comes from the FO, along with the general approach to the game that caused them to bring in players with certain approaches.

It doesn't have to be the Arraez vs Sano examples I used, but can be any player. The Pirates have been a surprise early. They've had Derek Shelton in place since they stole him from the Twins in 2020. They'd won 61 and 62 games the last 2 years. Did Derek Shelton get better or did the talent in the clubhouse get better? Diamondbacks have been pretty good this year after winning 52 games in 21 and 74 games in 2022. Torey Lovullo has been their manager since 2017. Did he get better or did the talent in the clubhouse get better? I'd argue he's the perfect example of my stance. His winning percentages have gone 57, 51, 53, 42, 32, 46, and currently 58%. Was he a good manager, then a bad manager, then a good manager again? Or did the team have talent, then not have talent, and now have talent again?