What Led to Rocco Baldelli's Unusual Reliever Usage in Tuesday Night's Twins Loss?

53 minutes ago, rv78 said:

You are missing the point. And that is...... when the change isn't working you don't continue with it. LaRussa changed things but it worked. Analytics and especially Rocco's overuse of them doesn't work. Big difference. I would have no problem with analytics driving decisions if they have proven to work, but in more cases than not, they don't. So how about another change........... and stop relying on analytics.

I'm not missing the point. You are. Rocco isn't the only one who uses these analytics, and he isn't doing anything that nobody else is doing (outside of the extreme platooning the last couple years). The Dodgers follow analytics, and it seems to work pretty well (they have 4 guys with saves this year, 2 with multiple saves). Tampa does. Cleveland does. Everybody's favorite manager Terry Francona does. The guy I see named around here frequently as the guy people hope would replace Rocco if he's fired, Joe Maddon, does. The White Sox do. The Giants do. The Rangers do. Pick a team, they all do. Bruce Bochy? Uses analytics. Dusty Baker? Go look at the Astros pen usage in the playoffs his last few years. Dusty Baker used analytics.

The difference is talent. LaRussa relied on analytics to make those changes. Rocco, and the front office that helps drive these decisions (and that's the real point that you're missing), did stop some stuff. They stopped platooning so much this year. 

Like I said in that post, I don't care if they fire Rocco. It won't matter because the front office believes in this stuff. You're missing the point if you think firing Rocco leads to some manager who doesn't believe in any of this stuff. Falvey does and he isn't going to hire (promote, because that's what they'd most likely do) somebody who doesn't. "Stop relying on analytics" is a nonsense, ridiculous statement. Everybody uses analytics. Everybody. 100% of teams. And in game changes take place. They have with the pitching in the last week. It's not hard to see when Ryan and Ober go deep into games and Paddack went nearly 3 times through the order in his start before the one we're discussing in this thread.

I'm not defending Rocco. I don't care if he's fired. I disagree with some of the things he does. I've been very outspoken on the extreme platoon usage the last few years. But they stopped that so far this year (weirdly, since this year's roster talent level makes more sense to me to try to squeeze every last drop out of through things like that). People just don't like that I don't shout "fire Rocco, that'll solve things!" I'm pushing back on this idea that analytics are the problem. Talent is the problem. The front office is the problem.

19 minutes ago, laloesch said:

Yep.  I've said this in other threads but Rocco just can't control the urge to pull starters much too early. I don't know if he has preset innings limits on Paddack, or once he has guys warming up he won't deviate from the plan regardless of how the starter is doing, but man if the last three starts aren't enough to start ramping up Paddack's innings I don't know what is.

With Richardson the other night it was understandable why he pulled him early.  He was clearly laboring through 4-2/3 innings and had thrown nearly 100 pitches, and walked 5 batters.  Paddack in contrast was cruising along in his start and was only at 76 pitches in 5 innings.  Why he didn't at least roll him out in the 6th just baffles me.  And to be fair Paddack has been pretty darn good his last three games after a very rough start.  Rocco should be building him up in innings, if anything to increase his trade value.  He should be pushing 6 or 7 innings a start by now.  

I've also said this before in other threads.  But Rocco needs to go.  He's costing the team a significant number of wins by over thinking things and inept roster decisions.  

 

Paddack was giving up rockets all over the field that night. Gave up 5 balls over 105 MPH off the bat. Last batter he faced was a 99.3 MPH ball he was lucky wasn't a HR. He gave up 16 balls in play from the 19 batters he faced, and 10 of them hit it over 90 MPH. 7 of them over 99.

Maybe you don't believe in this stuff, but major league teams do. As a manager, when your starter goes 5 innings and gives up that kind of loud contact you thank the baseball gods you're still in the game and go to your fully rested pen. Almost half the batters he faced put the ball in play off him at nearly 100 MPH or better that night. He wasn't "cruising along." This is one of the many things major league teams are tracking during games to make decisions on when to pull starters.

Arias was the next guy up. His last AB was a 106.7 single. Then it was Jose Ramirez who had a 99 MPH groundout his last AB. Followed by Manzardo who had a 106.2 MPH single in his last AB, followed by Santana, and then Noel who had a GIDP at 106.2 in his last AB after having had a 108.4 MPH single in his first AB. Those were the next 5 guys set to face Paddack. I'd say they were seeing him pretty well that night.

1 minute ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Sure, the only constant is change, etc.  (Though I would say part of baseball's charm is its timelessness...walks will always haunt.) But I have equally little patience for the current sabermetrics cult that has overtaken the game, where there are a set of "right" sabermetrics that every team must adhere to.  Pull starters early, no 3 times through the order, strikeouts are fine (for hitters), strikeouts are the only thing (for pitchers), etc.  Whenever fans questions these things we hear "every team does it".  So, for example, the Twins just keep doing what they are doing (losing, mostly) because it's the "right" way to do things.  I doubt Derek Falvey has ever considered that maybe his process is flawed.  To the cult, it's ALWAYS the result that's flawed.  And to me this is no different than the old "back in my day guy" refusing to even look at any of them newfangled analytics. 

I think a lot of it is the lack of actual in-depth conversation about these things and our society's tendency to put things in 1 of 2 buckets instead of discussing matters in the nuanced way they should be discussed. For example:

Anybody telling you that no pitcher should see the order 3 times through isn't paying attention. Because not even the Twins follow that "rule." I do see a lot of anti-analytics people claiming that's a rule, but the people who actually follow the analytics and what teams are actually doing will point out that the good pitchers who are successful do face the order 3+ times while it's the bad pitchers who are limited in the number of times they see the order a 3rd time. Ryan, Ober, and Lopez see the order 3 times through when they're on. SWR and Paddack don't get as much leash, but Paddack just faced 24 guys (nearly 3 times through) 2 starts ago.

A certain level of strikeouts are acceptable for hitters if it comes with a certain level of slug. But there is a limit to it. There's a balance. Like I said, there's nuance to things. And because hitters are looking to do so much damage with their swings it is then naturally important for a pitcher to be able to miss bats. Louis Varland is a good example. When he misses bats he's very good. But when they hit it they tend to hit it extremely hard and it goes a long way. That's very bad. So strikeouts become very important to pitchers.

And the Twins can be doing things the "right way" and still losing. Talent still matters. You can put me out there to do things the "right way" and I'm still not going to win you a lot of Major League baseball games. I think saying Falvey has never considered his process is flawed is unfair. They've changed things. They aren't platooning nearly as much this year. They've stopped drafting the slow sluggers early and gone more athletic. That doesn't mean he's great, but it's those extreme statements that lead to the lack of middle ground, nuanced conversation I'm talking about. I'd fire Falvey if I owned the team. He's had more than enough time and he's failed. I like what he's done with the pitching development side of things, but it isn't enough. So, I'd fire him. But he's still about an average MLB POBO. And every team is doing most of this stuff.

7 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Lol right on cue.  "We are just copying every other team" should be a demerit, evidence that this organization is stuck in the mud, refuses to innovate, does things the same way it's always been done.  The analytics movement used to be about exploiting competitive advantages and being innovative.  Now it's about copying your neighbor's homework.  

You have an example of something only one team is doing? Give me 1 example of 1 in game strategy that only 1 team is using. Just one. I'm not picky. Don't need a lot. Just 1. 

Every team has their own unique combination of the same strategies. The Twins went crazy heavy on the platooning the last couple years. Pretty much all of us hated it. They stopped doing it. So, they were pretty unique there and we all complained. So, it was bad when they were unique, but now you're mad that they aren't unique as well? They learned from the data and adapted. They adjusted. Like they should. This year they have a different formula and combination.

But I'm super interested to hear your example of a team doing something completely unique that no other team in baseball is doing. I watch a lot of baseball so this will give me something to keep an eye on.

29 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

You're not defending Rocco?

You don't care?

You spend hundreds--thousands of words daily defending Rocco.

At least be honest.

BTW, nobody is saying the Twins don't have a talent problem. Well, almost nobody.

What people are saying is Rocco is part and parcel of that talent deficiency. I dont think thats even debatable. 

And the simplest deficiency to attempt to fix.

Also BTW, managers DO matter. A lot.

I don't disagree with every move he makes and that gets me labeled a "Rocco defender." And since there's a general lack of ability to have a nuanced conversation (point being proven by you right here, so thank you) there's only the options of "Rocco hater" and "Rocco defender." 

I've been one of the 2 most vocal critics on this site of the platooning decisions for 2+ years. I have complained on numerous occasions when he's pulled pitchers when I did feel it was too early. I've complained when I felt he left them in too long. I didn't like Gasper leading off. I don't like when he sits all his best players on the same day. I don't like scheduled days off. There's a lot of things I complain about. I just have this crazy thing where I can take individual situations and judge them and agree with some and disagree with others. I don't hate his bullpen management and you do and you've decided that means I "spend hundreds--thousands of words daily defending Rocco." Some days I do defend him because I agree with him. Others I don't because I don't agree with him. It's crazy, I know.

No, I don't care. Because, as we've discussed numerous times, I don't think firing him changes anything significantly because the front office is intimately involved in how the team is run and they aren't going to put somebody in charge who does things drastically differently. So, I don't care if they fire him or not because I don't think it will change anything in a meaningful way so it isn't worth my time or energy to care about. I don't care what you think is debatable. I'm debating it so I guess you're wrong. You being unable to see any other options than the one you've decided is correct doesn't mean there aren't other options.

Also, BTW, we've discussed managers mattering many times and you've never come close to showing they do. But you'll keep saying they do and I'll keep saying they don't and being able to point to all kinds of win-loss records that show they don't. Crazy that Tom Kelly and Bruce Bochy have multiple WS rings and career losing records, huh? Almost like their teams win when they're talented and lose when they're not. But go on about these managers mattering "a lot." My goodness, how talented were the Twins the last 6 years if even the awful, no good, terrible Rocco Baldelli could screw up constantly and still come away with a .521 winning percentage? I mean, are we talking 90+ win teams for 6 years? That would've been fun. And everyone around here was definitely looking at these rosters and seeing that kind of talent. Definitely. No question about it. Or, and hear me out here, maybe most people were looking at these rosters and seeing talent that put them in the low- to mid-80s in wins and that's where his mostly healthy teams finished in 2 of the last 4 years (with a third year not being mostly healthy). Almost like they finished essentially exactly where we saw their talent saying they should finish. Crazy.

35 minutes ago, Woof Bronzer said:

My post was about the Twins' strategy to just copy what others do.  I think this is a bad strategy in any forward thinking organization, and I think screeching "but everyone does it!" is a tactic used by sabermetric wizards to shut down any of the nuanced discussions you pine for.  

Again, it's mind blowing that anyone can look at this organization and say "this is good.  the process is good.  the strategy is good."

Weird that you cut out the part where I pointed out what they did differently. And weird that you can't point out any in game strategy (because we were talking about the strategies Rocco uses) that any team does that's different than any other team. And where I explain that the differences between teams is how they balance each strategy and combine them all into their own formula because each team has their own analytics that they use to personalize their use of each strategy. We're talking in game strategy. You seem to now be trying to move the goal posts to other areas. But there's only so many in game strategies to use. The way you're unique is the way you personalize your usage of those strategies.

So, again, the Twins DID do something drastically different (about as close as you can get to not just copying what others do) the last couple years when it came to their use of platoons. They were the very clear outliers in their use of the platoon last year. 

What "strategy?" That's where nuance comes in. It isn't just one strategy. You don't think their pitching development strategies (again, more than one strategy at play there) are good? I don't think their platoon strategies were good. And I've been one of the most vocal critics of it for years. To the point where people call me out on boards for being a broken record, or send me private messages asking me to just shut up about platooning. I don't like that strategy. I didn't like their strategy of drafting slow sluggers early in drafts. They've changed that strategy and gone more athletic lately. 

What's mind blowing to me is the statement that there's one singular strategy or process to judge. There aren't a lot of people on these boards saying the results are good or that the Twins have it all figured out. I'm certainly not saying that and never have. I've been very critical of their position players and their roster construction strategies when it comes to the position player side of things. But I do think they have some very good strategies when it comes to the pitching side. See, nuance is important. I've said many times, including in this very thread, that I'd fire Falvey if I were in charge. And that's the key move. You have to start at the top. But this simplified idea of looking "at this organization and saying this is good. the process is good. the strategy is good." is the problem. All you're doing is putting things into the "good or bad, black or white" buckets again and ignoring that there is no 1 individual strategy to judge the entire organization on.

5 hours ago, laloesch said:

And yet he controlled himself and only needed 76 pitches through 5 innings.  He could have gone another inning easily and been fine, END OF STORY no excuses 

"He controlled himself?" What does that even mean?

People want Rocco to use his eyes and make decisions based on what he's watching. Well watching the ball rocket off bats all night should tell him his pitcher is in trouble. Your argument is to go with the stat line instead and ignore his eyes. Just use what the stats say. Just go by pitch count and inning and ignore the fact that over half the hitters he's faced have pissed on the ball.

Is that what you want? You want Rocco to just use the numbers? No eye test? Not watch what's happening and just use pitch count and inning? Because anyone truly watching that game was seeing Paddack give up all kinds of hard contact. You didn't need Statcast numbers to provide that. But, hey, it was just 76 pitches and 5 innings so let him go, right? That's what you want? You going to stand up and say your belief is Rocco should ignore what he's watching and just use the numbers?

47 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

LaRussa is known for Dennis Eckersley.  How many times did he come in before the 9th?

You completely missed the point. The point was that he didn't just do what the previous generations did like you were preaching. He actively rejected your stance of just doing what the managers before him did.

And if you think LaRussa is just known for Eckersley, you've only read 1 chapter of the metaphorical book and there's no point in furthering this discussion.