Mark G

And have him pitch in a handful of 1-2 inning relief appearances in non pressure situations? I am still lost as to how that helps develop a starter. I guess I am of the old school mind set that starters are starters and relievers are relievers; find what they are best suited for and put them in the situation that brings out their best and trust their development. But don't develop a starter and then put him in the back of the bullpen until you figure it out. Just my extremely humble opinion.

Wrong is such a strong word. I understand the concept you are espousing, I just don't agree with it, and that doesn't make either one of us wrong. You talk about a macro viewpoint, and I see it. That is the job of the FO, putting together the best roster they can. Rocco's job, on the other hand is entirely micro, using the info each at bat of every game of the season. He sees his job as protecting everyone, and saving them for games in Sept. that may or may not mean anything, and playoff games we may or may not be involved in because we didn't win enough of the games the first 5 months. And some of us are not impressed, a lot of others are I guess. But at the end of the day, analytics are simply putting into computers what baseball people used to put in their books on each team and each player; the info is only as good as the people entering the data. So the human element really hasn't changed, just how the info is used. And for all the new approaches and pitch taking and launch angles and all the rest of the data, they have still only scored 3 runs or less in 25 of 46 games so far this year, so how someone is using the data would have to be somewhat shaky, wouldn't it? And last I looked (recently) the BP has pitched just over 47% of all innings pitched this year. BP usage, as well as SP usage, is the use of that data, so I guess we will see as the year progresses which side of the coin that will land. I guess the bottom line is we see what we want to see in the way the team is managed long term and in the game that day. And until we see better competition this year, the jury is out on what I see. What I have seen over 5 years is we have had teams consisting of players who have been able to adapt to this style of interchangeable parts and rotating in and out of AAA, and other teams that didn't adjust as well. So our success will depend, it appears, on obtaining a roster of the former, not the latter, because Rocco is not capable of changing his managing philosophy any more than Ryan or his crew were able to change theirs. I don't trust "analytics" on a micro basis because it is a replacement for "gut" calls and broad experience and it simply does not have a track record long enough to have proven it is any better than the old "book" they kept on each team and each player. Thanks, again.

I am a little confused as to how we limit innings by having him work on 5-6 inning starts, and then build up his arm strength by bringing him back down to a 2-3 inning relief role. If we want to build him up, then 6 or more innings would be more logical, and limiting his innings in the majors would do the opposite of building arm strength. I still say we need to make up our minds at this stage of his career if he is going to be a starter or a reliever and stay the course.

While I admire the eloquence of your argument, and at the risk of being seen as bickering ( ), it seems we may not be on the same page as to the use of analytics. The example I used with Jeffers and Arraez, for instance, is a good example of how Rocco will NOT use the compiled info on players. If he did, he would bunt far more often (including making Kepler take the bunt singles he is being given with that shift) because sometimes the situation says to ignore his statistics that say giving up an out for a base is not advantageous overall. He would have had the info on how Duffey has fared against KC and not put him in that situation. And I will never accept the concept that the 82nd, 84th, 86th, etc. pitch would injure a pitcher who is in total command of his game that day. Analytics or no, thousands of pitchers throughout history have already proven that. If our pitchers are getting hurt, it is not because we over used them in a particular game, it is because we have NOT stretched them out over their professional career. It was interesting, as well, to say that Ryan wouldn't change, but you don't acknowledge that Falvine won't alter their overall approach when it fails too. And it has at times, just as Ryan didn't always succeed. They are just as proud of "their way" as anyone in Ryan's tenure was. Especially in the context of putting rosters together, as you allude to. '18 was not so great, '19 was great, '21 terrible, and '22 the jury is out. Again, if the analytics are what it suggests, an analytical approach, then the wild card has to be the manager/FO (not necessarily in that order) and the way they use it in roster construction and game management. Which does not explain how, if you have the same 3 people working it every year, how they can be so up and down with the results other than maybe it isn't the brainchild it is made out to be. I stand behind the extremely humble opinion that it does see players as interchangeable, which is why you see the roster moves (especially pitching), lineup changes on a daily basis, and the bullpen usage and pinch hitting moves. The job of a FO is to give the manager the best roster they can, and the manager's job is to put the players in situations that they have the best chance of succeeding. They are NOT interchangeable parts on a 26 (or more) spoke wheel. That is why it succeeds sometimes and not others; how it is used by these 3 people. If they are given accurate info, which is what it should be, then forgive those of us who are not impressed by the system or how these 3 use it. And I still say that if analytics are the reason we are in first place right now, then they have to be the reason we finished last last year. Can't have it both ways. Thanks for the debate.

What is it with this organization that they keep turning their minor league starters into relievers the minute they get within a country mile of Minneapolis? AA is the place to decide: are we going to stretch him out into an actual starter, or groom him to be a reliever through AAA and up. Enough of the short starts and innings limits. Can the kid pitch or not? Decide. Then plan his future.

There is a difference between bickering and debating. I don't think anyone has crossed a line yet.

I could make a pretty strong case that it is exactly Rocco's fault. When you discard the sacrifice, the hit and run, the stolen base, bunting for base hits or squeezing runners home...............need I go on? Rocco is the sole person making these decisions, and they have led, game in and game out, season in and season out, to relying on the long ball or 3 or more hits in an inning to score runs. That doesn't happen much of the time, so it is important to "manufacture" runs, as they say, and Rocco does not do that effectively. Hence the case it is not only Rocco's fault, it is solely Rocco's fault. On the other hand, is it the computer's fault? I can never tell which one is which.

Taking that argument to its logical conclusion they would be in first place every year. They used the same analytics last year; I remember debating it then as well. The analytics don't change, so why does the record? I would submit it is because the computer doesn't see the intricate differences in skill levels and strengths and weaknesses each player has. For instance, if you have a .198 hitting catcher at the plate with a runner(s) on, and a .349 hitter in the on deck circle, it might make sense to bunt the runner(s) along. Rocco's computer tells him not to, because the statistics show (he has actually said this out loud) that sacrificing an out for a base does not work out often enough to use it as a strategy, So the .198 hitting catcher swings away, and we all know how that turns out most of the time. To the computer players are interchangeable, which is the reason Rocco interchanges players the way he does. Analytics is supposed to be a tool, not a never bending management style. So, in that way I understand the belief that it is a lazy way to manage. We can debate lazy, or reality, or any other semantics, but in the end it is being used as cover for questionable game management decisions. Everyone does it this way, or the analytics showed this was the move to make, shouldn't be the answer to every question.

"Going to the pen in the 8th" is fine, if he has 104 pitches (or more). When you have allowed 3 base runners on 80 pitches you have a proven commodity in the game vs. an unproven one. If we truly do not trust our starters to go through a lineup a 3rd or 4th time, then find 13 decent relievers and throw 162 bullpen games. Just kidding...............sort of. Shoot, there I go again, now I am going to get yelled at.

YES! Hey, maybe I am not a minority of one.

That is amazing, considering they have scored 3 runs or less in 25 of their 45 games so far. It would be interesting to see what categories they are so high in.

Baldelli's entire tenure here has been mind boggling to me, but I keep getting told that I shouldn't question the MOY (what year was that again.......oh, never mind, it was back there somewhere), and that nobody lets pitchers throw more than 80 pitches anymore or complete games (or was that going a 4th time through a lineup?). So who am I to question a plan that requires 3-6 pitchers all 162 games regardless of how well the starter is doing that game? We play the game today by 2 rules: #1) the computer is always right. #2) when the computer is wrong............see rule #1. Never let it be said that Rocco doesn't play by the rules.

I can't find an argument with a single bullet point you listed. All are partially, or even mostly accurate. I would only add the point that, for me at least, the caliber of competition has hurt as well. We have played a total of 8 games against teams of any type of playoff contending caliber (only 5 at home), and paying the prices they charge for bottom of their division teams hasn't sold so far. If this team proves itself against upper level competition and appears to be a real contender, the attendance will rise; otherwise............ The other point you made that is the biggest factor for me is the fact you never know from game to game who is going to play at all and, if so, where. Musical chair lineups don't sell tickets; recognition and loyalty does. I know who I am willing to pay to see play, and I have no guarantee on any given day any of them will be in the lineup (Buxton, for instance?).

I know, once again, I am going to be a minority on this, but it is amazing how one can pull whatever analytics one needs to to make a .250 hitter look like a star. In fairness, though, he did get a pinch hit single the other day to bring it up to .273, so maybe he is a star.

If your premise was true, most, if not all of the teams would be hovering around .500. There are good teams, there are pretty good teams, and there are not as good teams (and, frankly, some pretty poor teams). The Twins right now appear to be the best of the rest, but the win/loss record of the competition so far speaks for itself. Re-post this in late September, when we have played more competition at the level we are currently 2-6 against, and we can kick it around at that time. That is not to say we don't have a promising team. But we haven't proven anything other than we can handle teams under .500. I, for one, am waiting to be proven wrong. If I am, remind me of this post come the end of September.

I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, but that sounds as Twins esq as anything else I have seen. A first baseman who hits within a couple points of Sano, a RP that would fit in perfectly on one of our IL's and a starter that averages 6 innings a game even when he is on an all star pace. You may be right on Perez; besides, by trade time we will have gone through every pitcher between here and AA, so we may need a couple of more arms that are still attached to the shoulders.

I was hoping I wouldn't have to be the only one lobbying for Cron. A decent defensive first baseman and has some pop. I know they talk about Denver's air and all, but he hit what, 25 home runs when he played for us in Target Field? He just might be a nice addition at a decent price.

I will say Amen to that!

While I don't argue with the premise of taking a look at anyone who appears solid, just how many guys can a team "take a look at" in a season? We have already trotted out 23 different guys at one time or another, and while it is true 6 of them are on one IL list or another, at some point I would say you have to dance with the girl you brought; we appear to have come stag and want to dance with everyone. All the up and down swapping really doesn't help anyone, at least in my extremely humble opinion. I think it is time to settle on a staff and hold our options on the guys we want to keep in reserve. If Smeltz is one of those guys great, but make up our minds.

I was wondering if anyone would mention Terry. It seems odd we will bring up Celestino from AA last year, Lewis up this year with very little AAA experience, and pitchers we had no plans for back in March have pitched as well. We will try Kirilloff, Miranda, and Arraez there, but won't consider giving the one actual first baseman a look? Makes me wonder why.

Kipp35 can correct me here if I am wrong, but I think you just made his case for him. Falvey, Levine, and Baldelli work in tandem with each other; they come as a package deal, and it would be pointless to get rid of one without the others. Hence his calling out all three. Baldelli won MOY because his team happened to hit 307 home runs in a season that may never be repeated. He has been living off of those home runs ever since. Molitor won MOY and was fired the next season for only going 78-84 as the FO was selling out from under him in July, so I don't hold that award in as high esteem as some do. As for being inept, it isn't that so much; he is very good at his managing style. A growing number of people are simply not enamored with that style. Our starters are absolutely capable of giving more than 4 innings a crack. More than one have said so at one time or another. That is purely our 3 some in charge. Two stats come to mind off hand (I'm sure there are more, and some you could counter): In 38 games so far the starters have 7 quality starts. Not because of the runs allowed, but because only 7 times has a starter gone 6 or more innings (only once has a starter crossed the 100 pitch mark). And as of the 38th game the BP has pitched just over 48% of the total innings pitched; again, entirely on the 3 in charge. Second is offense: with the team we have offensively this year how is it possible that we have scored 3 runs or less in 22 of our 38 games? Especially considering the quality of competition we have faced so far? This time it is entirely on Baldelli. When you do not believe in bunting as part of your game, do not believe in the hit and run as part of your game, and do not believe in stealing bases (we have stolen 9 bases as a team, with 2 being the team leaders), what do you believe in? Apparently, with all the launch angles and acceptable strike out rates, it is the home run. Earl Weaver was very successful with that mind set, but only because he let his starting rotation carry the load as well. Baldelli won't, so what we see is what we get. Runs scored when we hit home runs and counting on 4-6 pitchers a game being on to bail us out when we don't hit any. We saw last year how far that got us, and so far we are successful against the bottom teams in the league, bur are 2-6 against teams over .500 which is the caliber of team we will see in the playoffs. Playing musical chairs with the lineup, both in who is playing that day and where they are hitting in the lineup, is all Baldelli as well. I said this once before in a previous post that our only real hope is this particular blend of players on this particular team can adapt to the style and pull us through. I sure hope so, because this could be a good group if they are allowed to be.

This is just a thought, and I hope ya all don't yell at me too loud, but what would be so wrong with Buck being our next Nelson Cruz? Full time DH? If Cellestino is for real, he can handle center much of the time with Gordon and Kepler as back ups. Put Buck in the cleanup spot behind Arraez, Correa, and Polanco and let him swing away 500-600 times a year. Tell him to back off the sprints that get him hurt so much of the time and run at a pace he knows is safe for his body. The damage he could do at the plate would be immense, and he stays safe (or at least safer). If he hurts himself in that role we know we are cursed. Might be worth a try. His bat in the lineup every day will more than compensate for the difference in defense by the others. And since he is only playing center part time now, how much difference could it make? Just a thought at 4:00 am after work. (think I should have slept on it?)

Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, wouldn't it also be important to look at the W-L records of the opposing teams in the games he plays in? If he plays much of his games in a weak division, Detroit, KC, etc., and we win our share of those games, how many games does he play against NY, Houston, etc.? What is our record in those games? I say that because it is these teams we see in the playoffs. So far this year we have played only 8 games against teams that are over .500, and we are 2-6 in those games. And, again, these are the caliber of teams we will see in the playoffs. This is not to discount the stat you presented, I would just be curious to see a breakdown of the opponents records he is playing against before I get too carried away with our record in the games he plays in.

One has to wonder if a small (maybe not so small?) part of this is to try to have the option of maintaining another year of control while waiting to see what Correa is going to do long term. But if Miranda continues to struggle the way he has, they may switch gears and wait a year for Miranda and bring Lewis up again. But if Miranda begins to hit, and Sano and Kirilloff stay on the IL, they may be grooming Miranda for long term 1st base use and that would mean Lewis staying east for a while longer. I may be wrong, I was once, but it appears to this extremely humble observer that it is going to be between Lewis and Miranda as to who stays the year and who is held back one more.

And Molitor won it two years before Rocco, and was fired for finishing 78-84 the next year. As for this year, yes, it was a very outlandish suggestion. But you are entitled to it.