Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Twins News & Analysis

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

    Minnesota has once again watched a promising season unravel after the All-Star break. But who is actually responsible for the latest collapse?

    Cody Christie
    Image courtesy of © Bruce Kluckhohn-Imagn Images

    Twins Video

    For the second consecutive season, the Minnesota Twins are entering September with more questions than answers. There was a point this summer when the Twins looked like a legitimate postseason contender. On July 28, Minnesota was 54-54 and just a half-game out of the American League's final Wild Card spot. General manager Jeremy Zoll publicly stated that the organization intended to be a buyer at the Trade Deadline, and ownership followed through by adding A.J. Minter, Dean Kremer and Jeff Hoffman.

    Then August happened. The Twins went 10-17 during the month, dropping to 66-72 heading into September. They remain within striking distance of a crowded Wild Card race, but the margin for error has nearly disappeared.

    This is not the first time Minnesota has watched a season go sideways during the second half. That makes it fair to ask a difficult question: Who deserves the blame? The answer isn't one person.

    Tom Pohlad

    Ownership deserves a significant portion of the blame because the roster's limitations ultimately fall on the people responsible for funding and building it.

    To be fair, Pohlad has done something previous ownership groups have been reluctant to do. He has publicly acknowledged that simply being competitive isn't good enough, and he committed to increasing payroll again in 2027. He also approved more than $8 million in prorated salary at this year's Trade Deadline.

    That is important progress. But Minnesota still entered the season with too many holes for a team expecting to contend. The bullpen needed significant help. The rotation could have used more depth. The lineup had areas that could have been upgraded. The front office did address the bullpen at the trade deadline, but the additions haven't magically transformed the roster into a postseason-caliber team. It was too little, too late. 

    Pohlad can't control what happens on the field. He can control whether the organization has enough resources to build a roster capable of surviving injuries, slumps and the long grind of a 162-game season. For years, Twins fans have been told that the organization wants to contend. Eventually, those words have to be supported by a roster that leaves fewer excuses.

    Jeremy Zoll

    Zoll deserves blame, too, although this is where things get more complicated. This is his first season truly operating as the person in charge of baseball operations, and there were signs that he understood what the team needed. He identified the bullpen as an area worth improving and followed through at the deadline. The problem is that the Twins' issues were bigger than three additions.

    Minnesota entered the stretch run needing everything to go right. Instead, injuries piled up and several important players failed to provide consistent production. Byron Buxton is now back on the injured list with a right hip impingement, his third IL stint of the season. Joe Ryan missed much of the second half with a glute injury, and performed poorly when on the field. 

    Zoll deserves credit for being aggressive enough to add talent. But the responsibility of a general manager goes beyond making a few deadline moves. The roster construction matters. When a team falls from .500 and into a 66-72 record in the span of a little more than a month, the front office has to examine whether it built a roster with enough depth and enough impact talent to withstand adversity.

    Derek Shelton

    Shelton will naturally receive plenty of criticism when a team collapses. Managers always do. There have certainly been decisions worth questioning throughout the season. Bullpen usage, lineup construction and individual matchup decisions will be debated, especially when losses pile up.

    But blaming Shelton for everything would be taking the easy way out. A manager can put players in advantageous positions. He cannot make them execute. The Twins have scored 652 runs this season, but they have also allowed 685. Their -33 run differential is a much better representation of their overall performance than their record alone. 

    There is a limit to how much a manager can fix with strategy when the roster isn't performing consistently. Shelton deserves scrutiny, but this collapse shouldn't become an excuse to avoid examining the larger organizational problems.

    The Players

    Ultimately, the players have to accept the largest share of the blame because they are the ones playing the games. That's especially true after a month like August. The Twins didn't simply lose a few close games. They went 8-17, and the club spent much of the month struggling to string together quality performances.

    There are some clear players that have fallen short of expectations. Entering the season, ZiPS projected Matt Wallner to be the batter with the second highest fWAR, but he struggled enough (-0.8 fWAR) that Minnesota sent him to Triple-A. Royce Lewis has also had an up-and-down year (literally and figuratively). He is only 0.2 fWAR from hitting his ZiPS projection, but has a below average wRC+ and has posted a .633 OPS over his last  23 games. 

    Pablo Lopez and his 2.6 projected fWAR never made a pitch this season. Bailey Ober was expected to have the third highest fWAR among starters (2.0 fWAR), but has struggled with velocity and sits at 1.2 fWAR. Simeon Woods Richardson was the biggest disappointment among starters. He was projected at a 1.8 fWAR and left the Twins with a -0.4 fWAR.  

    Too many players have taken turns disappearing from games offensively. Too many pitchers have struggled to string together quality outings. Too many mistakes have turned manageable games into losses. At some point, the players have to be accountable for that.

    The Real Answer

    So, who deserves the blame? Probably everyone.

    Pohlad deserves blame for an organization that still hasn't provided enough financial resources to build a deep, star-powered roster. Zoll deserves blame for a roster construction that has exposed too many weaknesses and hasn't produced enough impact talent at the major-league level. Shelton deserves blame for the decisions that haven't worked during the team's collapse. And the players deserve the most immediate blame because they are the ones who have failed to consistently execute.

    But this is bigger than one bad month. The Twins are a below .500 team. A postseason berth remains mathematically possible, but Minnesota has spent another season turning September into an exercise in scoreboard watching and hoping.

    That's the part that should concern the organization most. When the same organization keeps finding itself asking what went wrong after another promising season fades away, the answer probably isn't sitting in one office, one dugout or one locker.

    It's the entire structure. The Twins have spent plenty of time talking about building a sustainable contender. Now they have to prove they know how to actually do it.


    Who deserves the most blame? Leave a comment and start the discussion.

    Want more Twins in your Google results? Add us as a preferred source.

    Follow Twins Daily For Minnesota Twins News & Analysis

    Recent Twins Articles

    Recent Twins Videos

    Twins Top Prospects

    Marek Houston

    Wichita Wind Surge - AA, SS
    Today, Baseball America announced that they've named Houston the Twins Minor League Player of the Year. He is also a finalist for MLB Pipeline's Top Minor League Defensive Player award.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    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. 

     

     

     

    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). 

    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.

    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🤣

    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,

    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.

    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. 

    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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. 

    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. 

    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. 

    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.....

    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. 

    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....

    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.

    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. 

     

     

     

    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. 

    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.

    ‘’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.

     

    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.

    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. 

    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.  

    14 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

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

    😀

    I just think using the language of "analyzing" rather than "blame" ratchets down the emotions and contributes to better comment threads. I think "analysis" rather than "blame" allows for more nuance when part of the answer is sometimes that "life happens." 

    (I think your comment is in response to mine. If not, my apologies.)

    EDIT to add: As in, I appreciate your analysis above noting that this hasn't really been a collapse, but rather an extension of a team that has generally played a few games below .500. That's much more helpful to the conversation than another diatribe.

     




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...