Woof Bronzer

You're probably right, though I think there's something to be said about the optics of holding someone accountable for poor performance. Among many other issues this team seems way to comfortable with losing. But let's be real, if Popkins does get canned he'll just be replaced by Popkins 2.0: a young, cheap, inexperienced diamond in the rough who the FO will mold into a genius and who will uncritically carry out the FO's grip-it-and-rip-it philosophy.

Don't think it was intended this way, but one would be hard pressed to find a more damning sentiment about the state of this franchise 6 years into the Falvine era.

To be fair, plenty of folks here have been begging the club to at least acknowledge there's a problem. Still waiting for the FO to do so (I remain unconvinced they think there is; to them process is far more important than results, and I believe they've deluded themselves into believing the process is so legendarily solid that this is all just bad luck and things'll turn around soon). But at least Rocco was willing to acknowledge it and call out some folks (in his own vague way of course). So credit where credit's due, I guess.

If I'm signing Rocco's checks I look at his comments and say, "What would you say you DO here, Rocco?"

I believe the technical term for "low leverage reliever" is "bad reliever."

In the absence of clarity all fans can do is assume and jump to conclusions.

He's been the worst reliever in baseball for 4 years. His ERA this year when entering with the lead is still hovering around 15 I believe. His HR rate is the worst in the history of baseball. It's not possible to "hide" him (or any pitcher) in the bullpen, especially this bullpen - he's going to have to pitch in higher leverage situations at some point. The minor leagues are littered with guys who can eat innings when the team is down 5 runs, at a much cheaper cost. This isn't complicated.

Not disagreeing with anything here, but I do think the lack of clarity also doesn't do Buxton any favors as some of the less-than-good-faith fans turn that into "he's soft" or "not a gamer" etc. Plus, if he's so injured that he can't consistently produce at the plate he's going to be criticized for the lack of performance which can't help his mindset either. Just a tough situation all around.

Maybe we can replace Popkins with Lewis :)

I did, actually. My bad. Lips zipped.

Does Buxton walk around the bases, but jog around the outfield? Sprint around the bases, and then sprint from center to right center. Tell me if it's the same amount of work or not.

I have never said DHing and playing CF have the exact same physical requirements, so we can put that talking point to rest. Again, I am reacting to exactly what the Twins have told us: he's physically unable to play CF, but he's physically able to run the bases. My belief is that the Twins are playing an injured player because....I don't know, honestly. They're desperate? They don't want it to look like their plan for him didn't work? Regardless, the decision is hurting both the team and Buxton.

Now we're concerned with him trotting out to center? You may as well factor in every step he takes all day. Is he in a wheelchair from the time he wakes up til he gets to the ballpark? If not, how come? All that walking around is wear and tear, no? What you are describing is an injured player. It's really not that complicated, except that for some reason the Twins are refusing to put an injured player on the injured list.

Everyone knows there's a difference. That's not what the Twins are saying, though. They are saying he is "physically unable to play CF". If he's physically unable to play CF he's physically unable to DH too, and should be on the IL.

Apologies - my frustration with the club is certainly making its way into my tone :)

Well, preventative maintenance - avoiding all that wear and tear - is not the same as "physically unable to play the position". An acute knee injury can happen just as likely from running the bases than running down a fly ball. Why don't they just IL him?

You discussed Buxton, agreeing that he should be IL'd. I agree with your agreement, because it makes no sense that he physically can't play CF but can run the bases. I don't know, figuring out the Buxton situation is critical to both the short- and long-term future of this franchise, sorry that people care about it.

If this was the case though how is he (theoretically, at least, ha ha) able to run the bases? I get that Rocco is tired of being asked this question, but he doesn't seem to grasp that the question keeps getting asked because the only information we've gotten from the team is nonsensical. How can someone be physically unable to run around the outfield while simultaneously being physically able to run around the bases? This situation is developing major "bilateral leg weakness" vibes.

I should have clarified, I'm not advocating for any firings right now. In fact it appears we are in the exact same spot: firing Rocco won't matter because Falvine will just replace him with a clone. And as much as I want Falvine gone it just aint happening mid season.

Because a) preseason expectations are opinion, not fact, and different people have different predictions. If you thought they would win 90 games this year, they are significantly underachieving. Conversely if you thought they would win 75 games they are actually overachieving. Do you think they are overachieving? b) preseason predictions don't factor in injuries, minor league call ups, trades, etc. They are an opinion based on a roster snapshot in time. IMO they're worthless come opening day. c) a simple record does not tell the whole story. As evidence, I cite the 2023 MN Twins. They are losing tons of winnable games due to record-pace hitting futility, poor fundamentals, poor bullpen management, poor roster construction, lack of effort/caring, etc. If they were scrappy and losing tight games due to a lot of bad breaks, different story, but if we only judge them against the preseason predications we'd say all of those failures/flaws are acceptable because they are on pace to meet someone's preseason prediction. d) and perhaps most importantly, it lets the team off the hook. Instead of owning the 2023 failure the club and its defenders can say, "hey this is who we thought they were, nothing to see here" which basically guarantees 2024 will be just like 2023, 2022, and 2021. So I guess I'll ask: given that the club is right on track toward your prediction, do you think this has been a successful season so far?

I generally agree with the first part here, but who determines the "realistic expectations"? And are preseason expectations really the main thing clubs should be judged against? I'd also add that winning 85-88 games in a competitive division is a vastly different proposition than winning the same number of games against this historically bad division - it may literally be the worst division in the history of baseball. I don't think this was anticipated in the preseason predictions. Not to mention the eye test - just watch this club play. Does anyone think this is working?

This is why I've always said the type of advanced sabermetrics like WAR, FIP can and should be used as a tool to help FOs identify and evaluate talent in roster building, but since the formulas account for things that didn't actually happen (e.g.. normalizing for park), they should not be used to measure current performance.

I tend to agree with @chpettit19 that nothing Rocco says is especially meaningful. However I am very interested to hear what the FO thinks about how this season has played out, how their trades have turned out, whether the new trainer is in any way better than the one they fired, if they still believe the bullpen "isn't a priority", why Pagan and Kepler are on the team, what concrete steps the organization is taking to turn this around, etc. I continue to fear the FO is just deluding themselves into believing "it'll turn" and if so, it's a much bigger problem than Rocco's pressers.

This is what happens when you prioritize process over results. I am not at all convinced Falvine think there is a problem here, just like they didn't think there was a problem last year (blaming it on injuries/trainer, publicly stating that the bullpen wasn't a priority, etc). That's really the only explanation for not changing anything.

But my point is that all "fresh relievers" are not created equally. Replacing Gray with Duran is a much different proposition than replacing him with Moran. The specifics of the situation have to factor into the decision. "Any reliever is better than a laboring starter" is just factually false, so if that's the process here I'd say it's pretty flawed.