It's Official: Twins/Molitor Agree To Three-Year Deal

Paul Molitor was a student of the great Dick Siebert, one of the finest college baseball coaches in history. Siebert literally wrote the book on baseball fundamentals. In the early 1970's my dad used to coach little league kids right out of Siebert's book, and among the photos demonstrating correct fielding, throwing, and base running technique was a young college player: Paul Molitor. 

 

For a team loaded with young, impressionable talent, it's hard to imagine a better teacher than Paul Molitor. It's true that baseball has advanced since Siebert's time, but Molitor is a Hall of Fame example of how to play the game right. Especially in an organization that depends on developing its roster through its own minor league system, you need a manager at the major league level that is also a teacher of the game. 

 

As this generation of Twins players matures in their expertise, perhaps the team will be better served by a more demonstrative emotional manager. But for now, at least the next few years, Paul Molitor can teach these young guys a lot about baseball. 

If you have the attention and respect of the players why would you need to act out to get results?  Labile leadership is usually not a good thing.

Molitor is still 61 years old.

So what. What has age got to do with anything? Is Molitor going to drop dead because of age before the contract is over? Senile dementia going to set in? The ability to relate and communicate with people is not age defined, it is personality defined.

Looks like Boston doesn't have the same perspective on management. Farrell gone after American League East titles the last two years and World Series championship in 2013. Maybe if Molitor takes them to the division title...........

 

This is a real catch-22 now. If the Twins continue to improve, and with the core and better pitching, there is a high probability of that, with or without Molitor - are you stuck with him until he retires? Or do you make a bold move to make the team even better in the relatively short window (2-3 years if you are lucky) that is upon us? We all want the Twins to succeed. Nobody really roots against the Manager. What if the team only improves to 86 wins (the last two year pace of +1 game a year, 83 to 85 wins), or to 90 wins (the last 3 year pace of +5 games a year, 70 to 85 wins)? Is 90 wins, and a Wild Card game exit satisfying? How about 90 wins and a Wild Card game win, and a ALDS exit? What are the expectations now?

Hiring Chip Hale was considered a bold move.  Hiring Lovello was a necessary move.   Considering that most of the preseason predictors, the so called media experts. had The Twins around 70 wins, a team that won 85 games did something right. There were not many changes made. Somebody made spmoe decisions  that worked. Hiring a new manager would be a bold move. Likely followed by a necessary one.

I turned on the Indians-Yankees game last night when it was 3-2 Yankees and Cody Allen was pitching. Cleveland had a lefty up in the bullpen, and Brett Gardner was coming up. Francona sends out the pitching coach, and I'm thinking "what the **** is he doing? Has he never seen how Gardner works over righties?"

If Molitor had failed to put a lefty in to face Gardner in a situation like that, this site would have exploded.

Disappointed, but likely inevitable. The sac bunting and pulling the IF in early in games, and the odd BP moves are hard to watch. We can only hope that the reason it took 4 days is that Molitor had to write on the blackboard 1000 times "I WILL NOT SAC BUNT BEFORE THE 7TH INNING".

Hard to watch maybe because you don't know what Pauli knows.  I can think of nobody that knows baseball who thinks a sac bunt is dictated by what inning you are in.  It is dictated by who is on and where, how many outs there are, and who is up and can he  get the bunt down. And who is coming up next. It is also dictated by how well the pitcher is doing in shutting down our offense. You bunt more in a 3-2 game than you do when a lot of runs are being scored.  

think that Mollie's emphasis on bunting, and our young speedsters getting better at it,  will lead to more base hit bunts and fewer sac bunts.  There are several Twins that can outright fly.  Take Bux and Rosario.  Those guys can bat 400 with bunts, once they get the hang of it. And nobody criticized Billy Martin in 1969 when Rod Carew bunted 29 times for hits. Bunting is a largely overlooked part of the game today, and I applaud Mollie for using this overlooked tool. When you have speedsters, you use the speed because speed never goes in a slump.  

I remember a Mariners game where I was there and the Twins bunted three times innarow. Punto, Span and someone else I can't remember. The bunts all worked and nobody criticized Gardy. 

I turned on the Indians-Yankees game last night when it was 3-2 Yankees and Cody Allen was pitching. Cleveland had a lefty up in the bullpen, and Brett Gardner was coming up. Francona sends out the pitching coach, and I'm thinking "what the **** is he doing? Has he never seen how Gardner works over righties?"

 

If Molitor had failed to put a lefty in to face Gardner in a situation like that, this site would have exploded.

Cody Allen is Cleveland's closer.  In the playoffs, at home, winning or losing or tied, your closer is going to pitch the 9th inning.

Cody Allen is Cleveland's closer.  In the playoffs, at home, winning or losing or tied, your closer is going to pitch the 9th inning.

That's obviously what Francona was thinking. Although it makes no sense that they were even warming up a lefty with Judge and Sanchez coming up next. And it makes no sense from a purely statistical probability standpoint with Gardner being much, much better against right-handed pitchers. And there were runners on first and second and two outs, so it would have made a lot more sense to bring in a lefty to get Gardner than risk facing Judge and possibly Sanchez next.

My point is that's exactly the kind of old school thinking that would not be tolerated here if it were Molitor.

Hard to watch maybe because you don't know what Pauli knows.  I can think of nobody that knows baseball who thinks a sac bunt is dictated by what inning you are in.  It is dictated by who is on and where, how many outs there are, and who is up and can he  get the bunt down. And who is coming up next. It is also dictated by how well the pitcher is doing in shutting down our offense. You bunt more in a 3-2 game than you do when a lot of runs are being scored.  

 

 

Well, you probably don't know even close to everyone who knows baseball nor have you likely had discussions with anyone in baseball in regards to that. If so, please share.  I'm sure many would love to hear how those conversations went.

Lots of studies have shown how bad it is to purposely give away outs.  With the pitcher in the NL it makes slightly more sense in certain situations, but teams get 24-27 outs in most games and giving them away has been shown to decrease the odds of scoring, not increase it.  So I imagine that managers who embrace newer info out there, only call for it in selected situations.  Some older school managers might find it makes sense whenever because that's how the game has been played for so long.

Bunting for hits is a different conversation.

Enlightening article concerning Molitor and bunting in the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

 

http://www.twincities.com/2017/10/09/dont-tell-paul-molitors-twins-the-sacrifice-bunt-is-a-dying-art/

Wow, I just threw up a little in my mouth.

Asking your third place hitter to sacrifice is beyond dumb IMO. There is a reason that guy is hitting third. It usually means he’s one of your best (if not THE BEST) hitters.