Rocco Baldelli: The Best Manager in Minnesota Twins History?

I too have seen every Twins manager in action and Baldelli isn't even in the ballpark of being the best Twins manager. I still rate him in the lower half  of Twins managers. 

I don't have an opinion yet. As time goes on or if Baldelli's tenure ends, then that would be a better time to judge. Now if his team does something big in the playoffs, maybe revisit it. The early strict platooning of lefties is hard to take. They seem to have adjusted their all our nothing approach at the plate, maybe they will end the terrible platooning and end the low level veteran right on right late game plate appearances. That and don't hang onto under performing mediocre vets when there is a young player with more upside languishing in the minors. Those are my biggest beefs. 

50 minutes ago, jccracraft said:

I will give Rocco credit for this year, with the Correa and Bux injuries, as well as starting pitching guys. And bullpen for that matter. Obviously the roster is a bit constrained due to budget as well. He used to drive me crazy with his pinch hitting for guys early in the game. He's had a pretty good record overall. If he has more success in the post season, he could move up in the rankings.

I am not a fan of Rocco but given the roster he has to work with this season it counts for something to see them 13 games over 500 at this point.  Not until he has post season success will I think he belongs in the conversation.

5 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I think MLB managers are one of the most overrated things in sports. The Guardians were only good because they had Francona. Except now they're good with a guy who's never managed a day in his life before this season. Tom Kelly was great in 87 and 91 because they won World Series titles, but apparently forgot how to manage in 10 of his 15+ seasons when they finished below .500. People love to mention him towards the top of the Twins managerial rankings despite him having a career 47.8 winning percentage as a manager. Talent wins, not managers.

That being said, I think it's really hard to compare today's managers to yesteryears. It's a different situation. Baseball ops departments are more involved with the everyday decisions than ever before. Even Joe Maddon complains about front offices stepping too far into clubhouses and manager's offices now. And he's viewed by many as the original "manage by analytics" guy with what he did in Tampa. That shift has happened more and more each year to the point that even he moved on from the managing thing.

I don't think Rocco is great. He appears to do well managing the clubhouse. As best we can tell from the outside at least. Everyone not named Shoemaker seems to praise the Twins and how they treat their players (even Sonny had nice things to say when he was back the other day, despite some crazy claims around here). That's a lot on Rocco. I also don't think Rocco is terrible. He makes some decisions I really don't understand, but for the most part I can see the logic in his choices. But comparing him to guys who had full control of how the players were used isn't exactly comparing apples to apples. It's a different world for managers now. Not just with the Twins, either. Baseball Ops departments are more involved than ever. So just pointing at a manager and saying it's all on them is ignoring a lot of the reality of modern MLB team management.

Point very well taken.  Thanks for the post.  

The point I would make is this: Does the manager give his team the best chance to win the game using the talent of the players he has to work with? If Tom Kelly had not been a victim of the Pohlad's cost cutting in the 90's and 00's he would have had a much better record.  When his team was competitive in a game/season, he consistently out managed the other team.  Paul Molitor did the same though realistically he wasn't given much of a chance since his tenure was so brief.  Does Rocco do this?  It would be difficult for me to maintain that he meets that criteria in his game management.  Too many decisions that leave me to ask. "Why is he doing that?"  Much to formulaic in his approach with a lack of feel for the game.

4 hours ago, gregens said:

I'd say Rocco is better than Ray Miller was.

Maybe , if Calvin  still owned the twins , he'd have fired Rocco either after 2021 or 2022 ...

The pohlad have proven they are loyal 

I judge a manager by how he does when his star players go down. Anyone can win with great players like Joe Torre and Casey Stengle did with the Yankees. However, when your best players can't play, how do you manage the team. In that sense Baldelli has done an excellent job keeping the team winning during his tenure- especially this year with just about everyone who would be considered the best players and pitchers have been injured. 

As for being the best ever for the Twins, he still has a way to go but would have to be in the top 5. Martin won with every team he managed but caused so much difficulty he couldn't last. Kelly won the championships and has to be at the top of the list but didn't have to go through wild card playoffs which make it tougher today. Mele was successful early in our history. Mauch was always considered to be one of the best wherever he went. Gardy had good success during the season and you had to love his arguments with the umps. Molitor could maybe have done better with more to work with. Rigney was at the end of his managerial career and inherited a very good team from Billy.

So who do you like? Different managers with different teams in leagues with different competition.

2 hours ago, Pat said:

The point I would make is this: Does the manager give his team the best chance to win the game using the talent of the players he has to work with? If Tom Kelly had not been a victim of the Pohlad's cost cutting in the 90's and 00's he would have had a much better record.  When his team was competitive in a game/season, he consistently out managed the other team.  Paul Molitor did the same though realistically he wasn't given much of a chance since his tenure was so brief.  Does Rocco do this?  It would be difficult for me to maintain that he meets that criteria in his game management.  Too many decisions that leave me to ask. "Why is he doing that?"  Much to formulaic in his approach with a lack of feel for the game.

This is my favorite post in this thread so far!!  

TK had some garbage rosters in the late 90's.  When he had talented rosters he won.  Teams in '88 and '92 played very well following winning the World Series.  That team in '01 was ascending bigtime when he stepped down.  From a personality standpoint Gardy was a good fit with that '02 squad and the years to follow when they won the division back to back to back.  Rocco like any manager has those who adore and those who think he is terrible.  I will take TK for the win.  

Computers, obviously give us a totally different and much easier and more in depth way to gather information.  This information is extremely valuable.  But the feel for the game should never go away completely.  If you want to manage strictly by using computer analytics, then go play video games. If you want to manage baseball,  you need to know your players capabilities on a deeper level than just the ones and the zeros.  Sure, you can't get away from the technology completely, but being able to use it wisely is a whole nother level.  This, in my opinion is where Rocco fails.  And because of the way information is gathered today,  I don't see any way to compare managers past and present.  Oh, and just so you know,  I am not a Rocco fan.

4 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

I think MLB managers are one of the most overrated things in sports. The Guardians were only good because they had Francona. Except now they're good with a guy who's never managed a day in his life before this season. Tom Kelly was great in 87 and 91 because they won World Series titles, but apparently forgot how to manage in 10 of his 15+ seasons when they finished below .500. People love to mention him towards the top of the Twins managerial rankings despite him having a career 47.8 winning percentage as a manager. Talent wins, not managers.

That being said, I think it's really hard to compare today's managers to yesteryears. It's a different situation. Baseball ops departments are more involved with the everyday decisions than ever before. Even Joe Maddon complains about front offices stepping too far into clubhouses and manager's offices now. And he's viewed by many as the original "manage by analytics" guy with what he did in Tampa. That shift has happened more and more each year to the point that even he moved on from the managing thing.

I don't think Rocco is great. He appears to do well managing the clubhouse. As best we can tell from the outside at least. Everyone not named Shoemaker seems to praise the Twins and how they treat their players (even Sonny had nice things to say when he was back the other day, despite some crazy claims around here). That's a lot on Rocco. I also don't think Rocco is terrible. He makes some decisions I really don't understand, but for the most part I can see the logic in his choices. But comparing him to guys who had full control of how the players were used isn't exactly comparing apples to apples. It's a different world for managers now. Not just with the Twins, either. Baseball Ops departments are more involved than ever. So just pointing at a manager and saying it's all on them is ignoring a lot of the reality of modern MLB team management.

Spot on. The job isn’t even the same as it was pre Falvey. 

4 hours ago, Pat said:

The point I would make is this: Does the manager give his team the best chance to win the game using the talent of the players he has to work with? If Tom Kelly had not been a victim of the Pohlad's cost cutting in the 90's and 00's he would have had a much better record.  When his team was competitive in a game/season, he consistently out managed the other team.  Paul Molitor did the same though realistically he wasn't given much of a chance since his tenure was so brief.  Does Rocco do this?  It would be difficult for me to maintain that he meets that criteria in his game management.  Too many decisions that leave me to ask. "Why is he doing that?"  Much to formulaic in his approach with a lack of feel for the game.

One thing I'd like to expand on with this post if I may is:  Since MLB baseball pitching and hitting needs to be so precise for a player to excel at, players experience slumps and hot streaks.  A good manager should make decisions based on how a player is currently performing instead of looking at career or seasonal performance.  Rocco seems like a below average manager at playing the hot man and sitting those in a slump.

No

And here I thought I was in the minority for not being a Rocco fan. Twins blew it when they fired Molly who played in more games (2683) than Rocco had at bats.(1910). 

9 hours ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

I completely agree on the managers getting far too much credit and far too much blame for their record and what the perceptions are.  Funny how teams like the Yankees and Dodgers always seem to have amazing managers. . . .

Also, you are right.  Comparing managers across eras is pretty difficult.  Sam Mele did some impressive things, but have you ever looked at that lineup?  Gene Mauch seemed to get a fair amount out of not much, but never really got anywhere (ever). Tom Kelly won two WS championships, but is that enough to make up for poor years with mostly the same team? They all have their warts, and you just hope to match up the right guy with the right moment.

I agree that Rocco is OK.  I don't think he's amazing but he's a long way from terrible.  I also think that we as fans, even though we get to voice our opinions, have a particularly good handle on the job a manager is doing from the outside looking in.  Outside of talent, which has nothing to do with the manager, there are some game decisions and the clubhouse atmosphere.  One of those most people don't understand (more on that later) and the other, we can't know.

Reading through these comments, there are plenty of shoot from the hip reactions. . . Rocco Sucks!  He's the Worst! Etc.  They have no basis in real analysis.  Every article like this one (which was ill timed at best and obnoxiously trolling at worst) invites reactions of the most ridiculous kind.  There will be the usual list of "manages with a spreadsheet", "only does what the computer tells him," doesn't trust his players, especially pitchers," "should be managing more with instinct and gut feel," among others. 

I know I will regret this, because I will likely get beat up by many commenters, but I'm going to ask for some information.  Define your terms.  What does it mean to manage the game by feel? Is that like my Grandpa telling me it was going to rain because his knee was acting up?  How about too much analytics? Is it better to just throw a dart at the dart board for the next move or would you rather the manager took into account the potential for success or failure of the next move?  Is being #2 in the league in innings pitched by starting pitchers last year indicative that Rocco has moved on from "not trusting his players?" Do you propose that instead of "using the computer too much" he tries to haphazardly keep the information in his head, or writes it in one of those little flip page notebooks?  Does saying the word analytics make him a terrible manager anymore than Ron Gardenhire managing from the gut made him a good one?  Analytics are the way of the league and I'm pretty sure more knowledge mostly outdoes less knowledge.  YMMV.

I return to my assessment.  He's OK.  Fine.  I don't think he's blowing multiple games on his own in the past two weeks.  I don't think he's ruining the career of young players.  I think he's good enough that he might get us into the World Series at some point, but I don't think it will suddenly make him amazing.  The real question for those who would condemn the man is who do you want to be manager (that is available) that would be particularly better than Rocco Baldelli?  Obviously Terry Fancona must be better. . . . until he wasn't.

"What does it mean to manage the game by feel?" Is that a real question? There have been numerous times this year alone. A LH hitter will be having a SOLID game. Only to be PH for as early as the 5th inning because the opponent brings in a lefty. Only to have the same guy who pinch hit in 1 advantageous AB have to face a RH pitcher for 1 or 2 AB now at a disadvantage. Margot or Farmer should NEVER ph for Larnach or Wallner this season. All last year when Buxton and Correa were both playing hurt and not performing very well they kept their high spots in the batting order. WHY? Is that what a good manager does? I'm not an anti Rocco guy. But those are just several examples.  There are many more. 

Is this site just trolling click-bait now? 

The manager to remain nameless would take the tee out of a tee ball game after two innings. He doesn't know how to manage a pitching staff at all. If doing exactly what a computer tells you to do is the sole criteria, the manager to remain nameless is top five.

On 8/27/2024 at 7:51 AM, wabene said:

Is winning percentage a good metric for judging the manager?

Unfortunately no, wins are not the best metric.  Ownership, both today and yesteryear, cares more about nickels than wins.