TheLeviathan

I'm happy for Buck that he got to have 100 games. He's such a good dude, he deserves better than constantly being hurt. I would expect this is probably the high water mark for this contract and, if so, the Twins probably will get their money's worth out of it.

Look, I'm going to be as blunt but as fair as I can be here: The prices you're talking about are not reserved for the Twins. Expensive beer and expensive parking is what you get in 100% of pro sports experiences. Traffic and parkings snarls too. The Twins building their stadium on the edge of 394 has easily made it a top 10% stadium I've been to for ease of entrance. (I don't live in Minnesota but when I return I travel from outside the metro, I"ve also gone to half the major league ball parks in addition to non-baseball arenas in many places too) It's easier to get to than the Dome was and way easier than the vast majority of stadiums. These complaints simply aren't valid in the larger context. You may feel them to be true, but they're true everywhere and do not explain the original article's point. "Chicago. Riots. Swore off Minneapolis" I grew up in rural Minnesota. Now that I've lived in urban areas and many other states I can tell you this: I know what that's code for. You don't have to be stuck in that kind of backwards thinking and it's ok to grow as a person past it. Minneapolis - and all it's fine citizens - are perfectly wonderful to enjoy a game with.

The Twins need to start asking people like you how they have won and retained their loyalty and how to replicate that. Great post!

You are aware that you have yet to share a single link, study, or data set in support of your opinion....right?

Why does capacity percentage matter and why are you not doing that math (or any?) In service of your claim? Your second paragraph is a strawman. No one claimed winning wasn't correlated. I suggest you go back to my post you "wholeheartedly" denied: i said winning isnt the only thing. Other factors clearly matter. As demonstrated by the significant attendance advantages in Colorado (where they have won nothing and made a litany of bad decisions and frequently field stripped down garbage teams) and Milwaukee (who has low payrolls, sells off established vets just like we complain about, and have won at a similar clip) To avoid another strawman, allow me to be clear: winning matters, but so do other factors. Milwaukee and Colorado are doing something (probably many things) that are allowing them to draw hundreds of thousnds more fans than we are despite worse or roughly equal amounts of winning. Which, by definition, means your sole focus on winning is not supported by evidence. Certainly not always and in all markets.

No one said it was static, just consistently higher than this: https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/attend.shtml By sizable margins too. That's the point, as it was in the article with the Rockies who outdraw the Twins by a ton and have only been good 4 times this century.

The article references Colorado, which also directly contradicts your assumption. Here is Milwaukee from another, similar thread: https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIL/attend.shtml

Evidence has been posted that in two comparable markets: St. Louis and Milwaukee, this simply isnt true. They draw well regardless. There may be a myriad of reasons, but winning isnt the exclusive reason. (especially in Milwaukee's case)

Winning solves when winning happens, but all teams go through non-winning stretches. These other franchises with more consistent attendance are doing things beyond game results to encourage and retain fan investment. Winning certainly helps, but it doesn't explain everything.

I think you read a different thread. I think another poster made my point nicely for me.

You get the trust and devotion you earn. There is more that goes into that than merely won or lost games.

My bullpen point speaks to yours: too many guys who are Brock Stewart wild-card types.

That was my sense of things. They were put in a holding pattern and then had to scramble when Defcon-1 was issued on payroll. The malfeasance on the broadcasting deal had catastrophic consequences for this year.

Sure: "There was no true external factor outside of the team's control" We were talking about Rocco so I assume you meant "Rocco's control". So, if you admit you said it and stand by it, why are you taking issue with me holding you to it? Identifying an external factor is not excusing it or complaining about it. It's pointing out a fact that contradicts your claim. There are absolutely factors that are outside the control of the manager. To claim otherwise is plainly false.

That was not the point. You claimed everything was in his control. Have you changed your stance on that? You ignored my question, that's fine. I won't respond to the rest because it appears we stepped out of being reasonable again.

I don't act like he doesn't have control and didn't suggest that he couldn't do anything. That's an unfair strawman. Let's go back to reasonable: Rocco does have influence on morale, but I would hope you agree he's not the sole influence on it. There are external factors that can also heavily weigh on morale. Do you disagree with any of my list? Are those not valid external factors Rocco cannot control? That doesn't mean there aren't things he could've done differently, but he there ARE things he can't control. I do think mixing up the lineup should've been done.....but he did that. Maybe not well, but he did it. Much to the chagrin of many posters here. (There were arguments about who hit in the top of the lineup (Margot) and where Farmer was hitting for example) One common anti-Rocco rant is the constantly fluctuating lineup! So what is it I'm supposed to be mad at? Too much change? Not enough? You see the problem with that right? You truly think taking your third best bullpen option (in a pen that is only three deep) and starting him is going to be a viable winning strategy? I mean, yeah, it's bold, but I also don't want a manager whose approach is wreckless, "throw stuff at the wall for what sticks" either. Isn't one of the complaints about Rocco that he doesn't give players enough consistency in their day to day? And therein lies the problem. The criticisms are often completely contradictory day to day. Anyone who suggests that there might be context gets the strawman treatment from above. That's not being reasonable. Let me ask more pointedly - how much praise did you have for him when they were the second best team in the AL in July?

I disagree. Injuries. Payroll decisions. Trade decisions. Who is rostered. These are all external factors. I hear people criticize Rocco (just this week!) for mixing the lineup TOO much. Who does he pitch instead of SWR? I don't think Rocco was somehow a different human in June and July when the Twins were womping people as he is now. What changed is the options he had to deploy and their performance IMO. Roller coaster seasons are hard to pin on one person unless you were jumping for joy at his brilliance in July but bemoaning his incompetence now. That seems....odd. No?

I understand the sentiment towards that. I don't know if you can relate, but I've worked in environments with wonderful leadership that still suffer from all kinds of external variables they can't control that beat morale down. Even a great leader can only weather so much storm.is it not possible that these guys still want to fight for Rocco but simply can't get out of their own way? And if that is possible, how would you or I from our couch, ever be able to tell the difference?

I won't take issue with your opinion to fire him and your second paragraph is a valid argument. I think many coaches are fired as scapegoats. It might even be wise/effective in many cases, including this one. But neither you or I know if he lost the clubhouse. That is, IMO, never a fair argument. We simply are too much in the dark. It may prove to be true, (like Zimmer for example) but it is purely speculative given what we know.

Every year, multiple times, worse teams beat better ones in the MLB playoffs. For a franchise that found a hilariously inept path to never doing that....breaking that streak was worth celebrating. But the bigger issue is the irrationality that people were referring to as a cesspool. Why go so far out of your way to minimize what Rocco rightly gets to count as a positive of his tenure? We can't acknowledgegood things? Only mistakes or poor tendencies? We have to also diminish the positives? That's the issue. The Rocco hate is irrational and omnipresent. It literally has swallowed all discourse into an abyss of trolling, flame baiting, griping nonsense. There ARE irrational Rocco haters. There are no irrational Rocco cheerleaders at TD. The very notion that there are two "crews" is only coming from the crew that wants to pretend through equivocation that they are an equal opposite force rather than a hurtling comet of incessant stupidity hell bent on hitting every thread. What actually exists is those that would like to criticize fairly and with context (You know, how intelligent discourse occurs) but they instead are accused of having him over for the holidays. Or being apologists. A thread about the struggles of the bullpen becomes a Rocco thread. A post about the offensive struggles becomes a grouse-fest about Rocco. We have flame-baiting topics like this one that violate community standards being posted two months after an event happens. Why? I guess there was a dearth of Rocco-centric gripe threads? I guess? What some people want is the ability to be critical without such an obtuse framework to operate in. We've been overrun by Sith-like Rocco haters. So let me ask....is it not possible to say "I do appreciate that he helped break that playoff streak" along with "Man I wish he'd stop pinch hitting in the 4th"? Can we not reach a point where that is possible?

I appreciate this chance to talk bigger picture. Here are some thoughts I have: 1) I think the team is right to prioritize matching up righties vs. lefties and vice-versa. The data this year suggests seeking out that matchup via pinch-hitting (especially in aggressive fashion early in the game) is probably not working the way they expected it to. I think a serious look at this strategy is necessary. At the very least, if you plan to employ it, you better have a roster capable of enacting it with proper depth to pull it off. 2) Herein lies the rub on the above....will they be given the green light to fill out the roster with depth? I'm a big believer that you win a World Series with your depth more than your star power. One need only peruse the last decade of playoff runs to see that the teams who make it often bank on guys who are the 19th or 12th or 23rd best guy on the roster in April. But without the cash to spend to build that kind of depth, can they pull off what they're trying to accomplish? If not, then they seriously need to look at trading to add depth - in coin terms - think move dimes for two nickels. Or a quarter for five nickels. Not my preferred build style, but perhaps necessary. 3) Agreed on the farm - it's taken longer than we had hoped to see pitching returns, but it's clear this FO and their scouts are acquiring and developing talent well. That cannot be overstated as a positive. A few I'd like to add: * I hope this FO revisits the stance it has on speed and the running game. We are far too slow-footed and our roster is incapable of applying pressure to opposing defenses and creating easier run scoring opportunities. * The bullpen salvage operation has been pretty successful overall, but they need to focus on filling their major league bullpen with reclamation projects. Sign guys you work on in St. Paul as reserves, your 4th thru 6th guys can't be as unstable as we've been using. *We need to consider what our organizational coaching philosophies on hitting are doing to produce the kinds of inconsistencies we've seen. Players seem to really struggle with their approach staying consistent. I know slumps happen, but there are slumps and there are what happened this year where we go from an .800 team OPS for two months to .600 for a month and a half to end the year. The swing shouldn't be that dramatic and that team wide. * Our training/medical staff has had some MAJOR misses on trades and other issues with player health. A serious look at that department and how it's failing the team in preparation, nutrition, maintenance, evaluation, etc. is desperately needed.

I think it's reasonable to expect the team to spend what it can. I also think it's reasonable to assume that the choice not to spend to improve the quality of your roster will show up in the quality of the results as well.

Their justified reason for the cut was 40M in TV revenue. That money could've been spent on players and one of the reasons for this collapse was a lack of depth on the roster. It may not have been spent wisely, there are no guarantees.....but it quite likely would've made a difference. Kneecapping your roster's depth is a good way to have bad things happen.

Closer to 40M. And 40M buys you a competent starter and two good bullpen arms. Yes, that absolutely could have made a huge difference. Other factors would've still caused this team a lot of difficulty, but three more competent members of the pitching staff is definitely not something to ignore.

Is this a new one for our collective sports pain in Minnesota? Always nice to diversify your collection!