chpettit19

The coaches working for him is an interesting situation. I'd say it's closer to working with than working for. Rocco had a hand in hiring the coaches, but it's much more FO driven than Rocco driven. That's what I'm trying to get at. The vast majority of complaints are FO complaints. Rocco has far less say in all this stuff than the FO. His biggest control is in in game strategy, but even that is guided by FO directives and ideas. Terry Francona isn't breaking down swings either. As coaching staffs have expanded, and specialized, it's even less of a priority for managers. What's the difference between a well coached team and one who isn't that is clearly about coaching and not talent? Do you have some examples where a player came up, was seen as a certain talent level, produced at that talent level under one manager, but then had a significant change in his performance under another manager (but not a new hitting or pitching coach) with regards to the complaints you, or anyone, has about Rocco? Not bullpen usage or lineup stuff as we've already agreed upon those being the manager's job, and things we should critique them on. But actual performance. Fixing swings, swing decisions, etc. Do you have examples of players getting a new manager and suddenly performing outside of expectations? To me, if it's so clearly about managers, and managers have a significant impact on performance, there should be some pretty easy examples to come up with. Yes, Rocco is involved in everything. He's the organizer and has to have contact with everyone everyday. He's absolutely the one in charge of the staff and players maximizing their overall talent. Your suggested measure of that was the over/under stuff. Team is right on track there. I don't see anyone outside of Correa and Miranda who are performing significantly below expectations (some may argue Gordon, but I was never a Gordon believer so I don't personally count him), or significantly above expectations (maybe Jeffers there I guess). So, to me, it looks like the team overall is performing to expectations, all but 2/3 individual players are performing to expectations, and fans are frustrated (as they should be with this team). To me, that screams that the manager doesn't really matter (as is my stance), and it's talent that matters. And that comes from the FO, along with the general approach to the game that caused them to bring in players with certain approaches. It doesn't have to be the Arraez vs Sano examples I used, but can be any player. The Pirates have been a surprise early. They've had Derek Shelton in place since they stole him from the Twins in 2020. They'd won 61 and 62 games the last 2 years. Did Derek Shelton get better or did the talent in the clubhouse get better? Diamondbacks have been pretty good this year after winning 52 games in 21 and 74 games in 2022. Torey Lovullo has been their manager since 2017. Did he get better or did the talent in the clubhouse get better? I'd argue he's the perfect example of my stance. His winning percentages have gone 57, 51, 53, 42, 32, 46, and currently 58%. Was he a good manager, then a bad manager, then a good manager again? Or did the team have talent, then not have talent, and now have talent again?

PS: Love the use of the meme.

In game player usage decisions and creating lineups are their outward facing jobs. Managing the clubhouse and player egos, emotions, etc. are their inward facing jobs. The coaching staff is different, to me. The Twins have multiple (3 I think, but at least 2) hitting coaches who are available to the Twins players all day, everyday. The Twins have multiple (main, bullpen, etc) pitching coaches who are available to the Twins players all day, everyday. Those are the people who are working with the players on laying off high fastballs, not swinging for the fences 100% of the time, pitch usage, self-scouting, opponent game planning, whatever. Rocco is around, and can give advice on things, but he's not a hitting or pitching coach. That is not his job. Rocco isn't a pitching expert and doesn't go teach Jax how to throw pitches, or which pitches to use. That's not his job. Rocco was a heck of a hitter, but he doesn't break down every player's swing, ABs, etc. That's not his job. Those are the pitching and hitting coaches jobs. Rocco's job is to know what the players need and get them to the people who can help them. It's to put them in the best situation to succeed. People can certainly voice some displeasure with his lineups, pinch hitting, bullpen, whatever decisions, and I don't think it's crazy to think he's not great at putting people in the best situations all the time. But Rocco isn't breaking down swings, or pitch usage. That's why the Twins have 874 coaches on staff. (That last number was an exaggeration) I also used Eddie Rosario and Oakland As examples. Now I'll use a James Rowson example. People call for his return all the time because they want to give him credit for the 2019 offense. I say I don't know if he's a good coach or not, but his offenses in Miami were the worst in the league, and his current Detroit offense is 4th worst in baseball with multiple top picks, and the great Akil Badoo there. Talent is what matters. Players are what matter. Coaches aren't nothing, but they aren't turning bad players into good players. Rocco not being able to get some players to cut down on Ks doesn't make him terrible at his job. I don't think he's great at his job, but if I pointed to Luis Arraez's strike out numbers with the Twins and gave Rocco the credit for that would you buy it? I don't think you should, but I also don't think you should buy that Rocco was to blame for Sano's strike out numbers.

How should a manager fix a player's at bat? In his press conferences he certainly sounds like he's annoyed with their at bats. This is where I just disagree with people. The manager isn't taking at bats. Do you think he was telling Miranda to swing at every fastball at his eyes, or do you think he was telling him not to? Suggesting a manager should, or can, have a big effect on the type of at bats guys have is significantly oversimplifying what an at bat is like. You think the players aren't aware they should swing at balls down the middle and not out of the zone? Why hasn't Rosario changed his approach in Atlanta with what I assume is a better manager since their team is great? A manager can only do so much, and I think it's very little, when it comes to player at bats. When 100 MPH is coming at them, the players aren't thinking "oh, shoot, Rocco told me not to swing at this ball." It's way more complicated than that. Does a manager call the game? Is Rocco the one with the pitchcom on his knee guard or glove or wherever calling pitches? The manager could call a bunt there, yes. I'll refer to my first paragraph on AB approaches being a player thing. Fix Correa pressing how? What exactly do you think great managers do to stop a player from pressing when they actually step into the box? Chuck Knoblauch had a pretty good manager in New York, right? Why couldn't Torre stop him from pressing and throwing the ball into the seats from second base? I strongly disagree that the manager can effect these things as much as you seem to be suggesting. Preparation is a player thing. Approach in real time is a player thing. In game strategy is a manager thing, but you just said in the previous paragraph that those things don't actually lose games. I don't know what exactly you mean by in game adjustments, but I'd say it's some manager, some player. You can see the players in the dugout self scouting mid-game, they have hitter and pitcher meetings everyday about both self, and opponent, scouting. He gets rave reviews from pretty much everyone on his leadership so not sure we can complain about anything there. I just disagree with the assumption that him getting more frustrated, but the results not changing, is his fault or a sign he isn't coaching. Talent wins. Like I said in a previous post, pick whoever you want as the best manager ever and they aren't winning with this year's Oakland As team. I disagree with your assessment of the talent compiled, or that comparing Vegas over/unders to actual wins is an effective tool to measure a manager. This team is not that talented. They're about average in talent. Their bullpen and lineup are not contender units, and that's been a complaint by many people on these very boards since last season. Outside of Correa, most of the players are playing to about what our expectations were. Miranda would be another disappointment. But who'd we expect to be significantly better? MAT? Gallo? Jeffers? Vazquez? Castro? Kepler? Anyone in the bullpen? What's lacking is true, above average talent. They have a whole bunch of 6-9 hole hitters, and very few 1-5 hitters. Hard to score runs with a lineup of bottom of the order bats, and Correa flopping. But let's go with your Vegas over/under idea. Their over under was 84.5 from what I can find. They're on pace for 85 wins. So, by your own measure, Rocco isn't failing the team. He's just an average manager who's not really effecting the team w/l total in any way since they're basically dead on pace.

He (48.2%) swings more, in general, at any pitch than the average MLBer (47.1%). He (68.1%) swings at more pitches in the zone than the average MLBer (66.9%). He (81.8%) swings at more "meatballs" than the average MLBer (76.1%). And he (38.8%) swings at the 1st pitch more than the average MLBer (29.5%). I don't think MATs problem is being aggressive, it's being able to do well with that aggression. He has had a couple caught looking's on fastballs over the plate recently, though. Never ideal to do that.

And that opinion is fine. I'm certainly not suggesting Rocco is great. I just think firing someone off their first season managing when the team had all that success is shortsighted. Allowing a little room to grow seems like the prudent path to me. I'm also not someone who subscribes to the "bailed out by the bomba squad" storyline. They were 9th in the majors in ERA, and everyone got to use the juiced ball. That team pretty well maxed out their abilities. If you're (and I'm not saying you are, just people in general) going to blame a manager for losses, you have to have a way to give them credit for wins. If he's to blame for winning 70 some games, you have to give him credit for winning 100 some. As outsiders, in my opinion, the only way we can judge a manager is by w/l record, and what players say about them. He tends to get glowing reviews from players, current and former, for his clubhouse management so I don't think we have anything to go on negatively there, and then all we're left with is their w/l record. His has been subpar lately, and he should feel some heat for it. The team hasn't been good enough. But, generally speaking, I don't think managers matter very much. The FO matters significantly more than the manager, in terms of non-player team employees. You can pick whoever you think the best manager ever was and they're not winning games with the Oakland As this year. I also don't subscribe to the idea that Rocco not having mandatory IF/OF and BP everyday is a mistake (I don't know your feelings on that, just an example of where I think managers don't matter much). These are grown adults being paid millions to play a game. If your manager has to tell you to work on your game you're not a championship player, and nothing your manager can do will change that. I just don't think managers make that much of a difference. Especially in today's game where much of their decision making power is stripped away. Falvine wouldn't replace Rocco with someone drastically different. That's the main reason I don't call for his head. We don't have enough info, as fans, on what he's like behind the scenes to have strong opinions there. But the FO isn't going to hire a manager who does things differently than they'd like on the field, so there wouldn't really be a big change in the platooning, bullpen usage, etc. with someone new. The same complaints people have about Rocco would be true of the new guy. I don't see Rocco as the reason they can't win, I see talent as the reason. And, to tie back into the theme of this thread, the FO's inability to change their plans quickly enough. Their in season pivoting (not just with roster turnover, but overall baseball strategy) is atrocious, and I think that's a far bigger problem than anything Rocco does. Mostly because I think he has very little control on what he does.

I'm not someone who puts much weight on managers in general so it's whatever to me. Just saying, if you're firing guys after that season it's pretty rough to set what an acceptable performance is for your manager. The argument would basically be that they were a 110+ win team without him. Not sure anyone would argue that team should've been pushing for the all-time wins record.

Dang, top 10 offense and pitching staff, win 101 games in your first season, and get fired. That's a tough gig.

To be fair there's been Burnes rumblings since his arbitration hearing when he came out and said his relationship with the team was hurt. I don't think that means he's definitely on the block or anything, but I don't think anyone around baseball would be surprised to see him moved. Especially since I don't think anyone expects Milwaukee to extend him and they'd likely enjoy the haul he'd bring in prospects. I don't see the Twins paying that price, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him moved this year, or next offseason.

I think it's pretty significant. St Peter doesn't do anything with baseball decisions. He helps set the budget, but he's not sitting in scouting meetings or discussing draft strategy. There's really not much for us to speak on with St Peter outside the budget he helps set, and his insane comments that I'm sure made a lot of people, including his boss, angry when he said them.

From the moment I'm typing this...34.5 and 1 out.

They didn't technically extend him. He had options on his contract that they picked up. His original contract ran through last year, but they picked up his options through 2025. I'm not sure exactly how those were structured so I don't know if it was an option to just pick up year by year, or they had to pick them all up at once. I think a discussion about not picking up his options is certainly valid.

Oh, I don't think it's outrageous to be talking about his job security now, or after 2022. But the post I responded to suggested firing him after 2021, and I think that'd have been awfully quick. Molitor got fired because there was a new FO brought in. They're not truly comparable situations. It's pretty standard that a new FO who's changing a whole lot about the organization would want to bring in their own guy. I actually think it was unfair to all involved that the Pohlads made them keep Molitor for the extra year when everyone knew he'd be canned at the first chance. I'm quite torn on the FO. I think they've done a great job modernizing the organization, but I think they've really struggled to identify, and develop, top end talent. I also think they rely too heavily on data in some instances. Pagan being the obvious one with their refusal to accept his performance stats over his "underlying data." The lineup being another one. I hate the extreme platoon decisions. Platooning is great for the bottom of your lineup, but if you're going to be a great team you need a top of the lineup that you just plug and play everyday. I think some of it is bad luck in injuries, but they also make a lot of decisions I don't understand. I think they're probably an average FO, and Rocco is an average manager, but I don't know that I really think they can get the team over the top and truly become contenders.

I'm pretty sure Lewis has been on the 60 day IL for 56 days. So he should only need to be on for 4 more days. Which should mean he should be playing for the Twins the day they open the Houston series on 5/29, not June 1.

Welcome to Twins Daily! While I 100% agree with the idea that the guys in the building have WAY more info than those on the outside, there's some incredibly smart, and highly knowledgeable folks posting on these boards. Including an "insider" or 2 from time to time. And everyone has access to his performance stats. You don't need to be a front office staff member to see how he performs. I don't need to see Pagan throw a bullpen to see that he's been one of, if not the worst reliever in baseball for years. I also don't need to see him throw a pen to know he's got good stuff, and understand why the Twins wanted to take a chance on "fixing" him. At some point you have to just admit he's not who you wanted him to be, though.

Same reason lots of guys bounce around and get numerous chances. The "underlying data," or scouting, suggests there's more in them, and every team thinks they have the key to unlocking someone. Just a matter of what the rest of their roster looks like on whether or not it's worth a shot to get them in your building and see them up close.

Sure, but they aren't keeping guys there til they're 30. Do you have some examples of guys who were performing well enough in AAA to deserve a promotion, there was an opening on the big league roster (there've been a ton the last couple years, that's for sure), the team didn't call them up, and then the player started getting injured for the first time in their career (whether we're talking TJS or any other injury)? I can't really think of any, but there certainly could be some.

The Yankees kept Hicks for 2+ years when he was bad. Yes, they cut him now, and owe him a bunch, but he's been terrible, and hurt, for 2+ years now. I don't think Pagan is a money thing, I think it's an overreliance on the wrong data while not being willing to admit that the results have spoken much louder than the predictive stats. It's the one spot where I wouldn't argue with anyone that the FO thinks they're smarter than the results, and just won't admit they're wrong about someone. Dave St Peter had some really questionable comments after last season. Falvey and Levine haven't said anything of the sort (that I'd seen/heard at least).

You wanted them to fire Rocco after 2021 because they had 1 down year? He'd had 2 seasons of 60+% winning percentage the 2 seasons before that. Firing him after 2021 would've been incredibly hasty. No idea why the tenured Pagan, that we definitely agree on. And the baseball ops (Falvey and Levine) didn't blame the fans. Don't lump them in with St Peter's nonsense comments.

They pitch fewer innings in AAA than they'd be expected to in the majors. My confusion comes in on what the difference is in them pitching in AAA or MLB. The level they're at doesn't matter when it comes to being injury prone or not.

It's a tough line to know where to draw on "giving up" on a guy. There are a lot of variables that go into it. Not the least of which is who'd replace that player. You can send Miranda down if you have Farmer to replace him. You have to watch Taylor struggle when your best replacement is Castro. I have no defense for Pagan. I haven't understood what they're doing with him for a year. They don't have a ton of great options to replace him, but relief pitchers are easily disposed of assets, especially when your desired role for a specific guy is low leverage only. Another factor that plays in, and fans have very little knowledge of, is "tweaks" or "adjustments" the FO, and coaching staff, believe will help a player. The work being done behind the scenes plays into the decisions being made on how long to keep someone. Does Duffey or Smith have enough left in their arm to make a tweak and get back to top form? Can you adjust something with Pagan to get his "stuff" to perform the way it "should?" Can you change Castro's swing slightly and he's back to his SSS 2020 self? We'll never be privy to the work happening behind the scenes so can't ever have the full picture view. But there's no helping Pagan. Can we please just cut him?

What is the supposed connection between being in AAA too long and becoming injury prone?

I don't like 3 true outcome baseball like these guys bring either. Not many people do. Just saying, by industry accepted measures, these guys are/were productive hitters. 1 per team is my limit. Especially if they're a good base runner, and defender, like Gallo. Once you start stacking multiple of them in the lineup I get less accepting of them. I totally get not enjoying this style of hitter, though.

That 1976 season was good for a 126 wRC+, or 129 OPS+. That's kind of Nick's point. He was 26, or 29, percent better than the average hitter that year. Not an MVP candidate, but better than any season Jorge Polanco has ever had. In 78 and 79 he was indeed better with 131 and 145 wRC+, and 132/146 OPS+. Those are all star worthy years. For his career he had a 113 wRC+, and 115 OPS+. Adam Dunn had a 125 wRC+, and 121 OPS+, his first all star season. 115 wRC+, and 114 OPS+, his 2nd. First season was worthy, second wasn't. But he also had seasons of 142/147 wRC+/OPS+ (2004), 138/141 (2005), 135/136 (2007), 130/131 (2008), 142/144 (2009), 136/138 (2010). Career wRC+ of 123, OPS+ of 124. Plenty of people don't like their style of hitting, but in comparative, overall hitting production stats both of those guys had some really nice years, and were solidly above average bats for their careers.

Boras also said he doesn't tell teams where to play players. And has a pretty strong interest in Correa staying at SS for a while, too. The quotes I saw didn't include him saying putting Lewis in the OF would be a mistake, just more or less that Lewis is more comfortable in the IF since that's where he's played the most. Lewis has been pretty open about his desire to stay on the dirt, but he also knows that it's better to be in the bigs playing CF than in AAA playing IF. I would be shocked if the Twins haven't had talks with him and pointed out what everyone already knows: they have a gaping hole in CF, and a whole bunch of IF prospects knocking on the door. Will be interesting to see what transpires over the next couple years.