chpettit19

The "bullpen" they watched Manaea throw wasn't him just warming up. It was a separate incident. He went out to the pen hours before the game started and threw 8-10 or 30 or however many pitches. Then he warmed up again for the game. That is not normal. That is not what Bailey Ober did. Starters do not go to the pen hours before the game and throw pitches off the mound. Giving information the general public didn't have, or explaining what may be behind a decision, is not the same as defending it. Not at all. I can explain to you what Hitler was attempting to do without defending Nazis. Explaining and defending are not the same thing. How do you know what due diligence he did? He was wrong. It happens. He was given bad information. It happens. To completely write off anything he says now because he was wrong about the number of pitches Manaea threw in a bullpen session that you don't even know isn't typical practice feels awfully extreme. But you do you. Agreed. That's what my post said. There's a disconnect. What they're trying to accomplish, and how they're trying to accomplish it, aren't meshing. I hope they're working on figuring out what the problem is. I think you very well may be correct with information overload. Correa loves info, and wants all he can get. If that's how they're treating everyone that's a problem. It's a very real possibility that certain players have too much going on in their heads at the plate. Maybe all the info was helpful when they had all day to mess with their batting gloves between pitches, but now with the clock they can't process as well and the team needs to adjust. Maybe they're just not that good of players and we need to adjust our expectations of what these guys can reasonably do. I don't know. Lots of options.

He didn't defend the moves. He was wrong in the number of pitches Manaea threw in his bullpen, yes. It happens. That doesn't mean he was lying. It's entirely possible he just had bad information. And, he didn't defend anything, he just gave information. He didn't say the moves made sense. He didn't defend them in any way, shape, or form. Simply gave information. But you're now suggesting he's making up statements from players. Gonna go ahead and disagree with that stance. And throwing 8-10 pitches 2 hours before the game isn't SOP for someone who is going to pitch. I mean now you're actively making things up. Do you think Ober went out to the pen 2 hours before the game and threw 8 to 10 pitches then came back and warmed up again later? That's not SOP. It certainly shouldn't have fooled them in any way, and Hayes was wrong about that, but to suggest he's making up quotes is a bit of a stretch. And he called the moves "questionable" in his article. Doesn't exactly sound like someone defending Rocco. At least I don't regularly defend people by calling what they do "questionable." You're certainly free to be alarmed. And there is certainly such a thing as too much information. It's the coaches jobs to know how much information each player needs to be successful, and give that to them without giving them too much. Maybe that's the disconnect. Maybe they're bad at judging who needs what info. Certainly a possibility.

"Despite the early moves, including removing one of the team’s hottest hitters (Kirilloff), several Twins said there were no complaints in the dugout from players, attributing a lack of questions to the coaching staff thoroughly communicating its plan in Monday’s hitters’ meeting. Several players were informed they might not sniff the plate despite starting depending on how San Francisco utilized its pitching staff. One player said the group has been conditioned by the staff to expect moves because of the way the team’s strategy surrounds matchup-based decisions." That is a quote from Dan Hayes' article in The Athletic this morning. I find it interesting. I'm encouraged by the fact that they're communicating so well that everyone knows the plan. There are plenty of posts around these parts suggesting the players have no idea what's happening, and it's all chaos and that's why they can't succeed. That quote seems to directly refute that. But the last sentence is also interesting, and concerning. It seems to support the idea that things are indeed very formulaic, and robotic. There's not much leniency in following "the plan." A plan is not only good, it's needed in today's sports world. But being unable, or unwilling, to adjust that plan is every bit as harmful as not having one at all. The players being ready for moves should also be a positive in that they know they all need to be ready to contribute during any given game. This also goes to the complaints about bullpen usage/roles that pops up every now and then. I'd think the pitchers' meetings are also well communicated, and every bullpen arm knows what part of the game, and what part of the lineup, they may see that day. It should allow them to maximize their preparation for the day. It doesn't seem to be working, though. So what's the disconnect? I hope it's something the FO, and coaching staff, are examining.

I'm going to start by saying I thought the early pinch hitting was absolutely ridiculous last night. Wasn't a fan of it then, and am not a fan of it now. That being said...the Twins had 4 hits, and 4 walks last night. 2 of the hits, and 3 of the walks, came from the 2 guys who entered the game as pinch hitters in the 2nd and 3rd. I don't know that we really expected Kirilloff and Julien to do better than reaching base 5 times, with 1 homerun mixed in. As a general rule I will never think pinch hitting in the 2nd and 3rd for your 1 and 4 hole hitters is smart. Why shorten your bench so quick? But those moves didn't kill the team last night. Buxton swinging at a first pitch breaking ball off the plate from a reliever who just entered the game was worse for the team. Buxton leaving 3 men in scoring position with 2 outs was far worse for the team. The players lost the game, even if I'll never understand Rocco's moves in the slightest.

I read this as sarcastic. I'm not really sure what your point is. If you were the boss and you had that experience would you choose to just force them to do their work, or would you fire them and find people who you wouldn't have to babysit? If you're a potential client and had that experience would you hire them and call them everyday to make sure they're doing their work, or would you walk out and go to a place where you wouldn't have to babysit?

The vast majority of them take BP, and IF, basically everyday. It's just not required. You can go to Target Field and watch them before any game. But these aren't high school kids. They're professionals. They're adults. If they have to be forced to take BP, or IF work, they aren't the guys you want on your team. To me, the bigger question is if they use their knowledge of who puts in the work, and who doesn't, to make decisions on who should be on the team, or in the lineup. If you're struggling, and you're not taking BP you wouldn't be on my team. If I have to force a professional baseball player to practice playing baseball I don't want them.

Correct. More or less they expect them to be adults and do what they need to do to be ready to perform their jobs.

The Twins have batting practice everyday. It's just a matter of who takes part, and how much, and who doesn't. It's pretty standard.

Fair point. Really been holding the lineup back recently. Weird he even started.

I may actually watch the post-game presser for the first time to see how Rocco explains this strategy.

What's Rocco's plan for facing the Giants right handed closer when it's Garlick due up in the 9th of a 1 run game? There's no way taking out 2 hitters this early is a good strategy.

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.

If you take out those 5 games, while leaving in their top scoring games (so the opposite of what the other poster did) their average runs per game goes from 4.66 (219 runs in 47 games) to 5.17 (217 runs in 42 games). That puts them over 5 runs a game, and, as already discussed on this thread, scoring over 5 runs a game means you win a whole lot of games. A couple of us were showing that simply taking out their 5 top scoring games is obviously going to swing things dramatically, just like simple taking out their 5 lowest scoring games.

I thought there was less of a chance of my letters getting lost in the shuffle!

I've been writing Falvey 1 letter a day for years explaining how smart I am, and that if he'd just do what I say 100% of the time they'd never lose a game. I haven't gotten a reply yet...

If Lewis can't replace an 82 OPS+, or 83 wRC+, bat he's not the player we think he is, and we really shouldn't be worrying about where he plays. He definitely shouldn't be replacing anyone at 3B if he's 20% worse than league average with the bat.

That's fine, but all the more reason to not put Headricks in the pen without a concern on keeping him stretched out. My point was you can't take your top 2 depth starters and transition them both to fulltime pen roles. Leaving a struggling SWR, and the Aaron Sanchez's of the world, as your only rotation depth before the end of May would be a disastrous move.

I think it's pretty extreme to suggest not worrying about keeping your next starting pitcher stretched out while also suggesting they move Maeda to the pen. Do you believe the current starting 5 will make it through the rest of the year injury free? I get the bullpen is in the midst of falling on it's face, but to fix that by blowing up all rotation depth seems like you're not really solving the problem of maximizing season wins. They've got 115 games left. Let's pace ourselves a little when it comes to rotation depth. They're going to need it.

Prioritizing the long view isn't automatically what a smart front office does. It's absolutely a part of things, and, as I've said many times on these boards, the FO doesn't have the luxury to live in just the now. But there's a balance between the long view, and the short view. A FO that puts too much weight on the long view gets themselves fired just as much as the FO that prioritizes the short view. TR and his crew got themselves fired, in part, because they put too much emphasis on the long view, and let the short view go to crap for too long. This FO seems willing to take calculated risks on the short view without doing too much damage to the long view (like trading Steer and CES when they're full of corner, bat first prospects in the high minors and needed a starter).

So with my quick math, there have been 1406 team games played. 603 of those have scored 3 runs or fewer. That's roughly 43% of team games where teams score 3 or fewer runs. The Twins (based on your next post) are at 21 of 47 games, or 44.6%. So Twins are worse than average, but not significantly so. But I don't want them to just be average so they definitely need to pick that up. I'd think the teams that have top notch pitching staffs see a boost in their winning% at 4 runs per game compared to normal. The Twins starting rotation is definitely giving them a chance to see a boost there. But the bullpen has not been helping lately. Overall, I'm surprised they're as close as they are to average in terms of scoring 3 runs or fewer, and the problems for this team are what many of us thought they'd be. They're short a big, middle of the order bat, and the bullpen has stretches where it's simply not good enough. I expect there to be some dip in the starting rotation performance, but nothing drastic. Their best internal option for added offense is Lewis, and he should be here soon (although, this article tempering expectations has me worried they're going to be dumb about things), but the bullpen is really going to need some guys to step up. I believe in Duran and Lopez. But the rest make me nervous right now. It's not easy to find external improvements in May. They need Stewart to be for real, Thielbar to come back in top form, and Jax to make a tweak or 2 and be a real asset again.

What happens to their numbers if you take out their 5 lowest scoring games? What does "scoring consistently" look like in MLB? Honest questions. The numbers sound terrible when looking at them scoring 3 or fewer runs, and "scoring consistently" sounds great, but what are other teams doing? When you look at the best offenses for a year what percentage of games do they score 3 or fewer runs? What percentage do they score between 4 and 6 (or however you define "scoring consistently")? What percentage do they score 7 or more? I have no idea, and have never looked it up. How far off the MLB norm is this offense for consistency?

I'll start by saying that I disagree with the notion that the FO is paying much attention at all to the "fan hivemind." I think that's a false narrative with next to no evidence at all. Would the fans have had Buxton DHing all year? Would they have Pagan on the roster? Would they have traded Arraez? I don't think the FO cares at all about the fans opinions. As they shouldn't. Well maybe a little, but they certainly don't care anymore than they should. That being said, put Royce Lewis in CF (or 3B if you really think Farmer on the bench is smarter than Taylor/Castro), and the leadoff spot, the second he's eligible (May 29th I believe). The last time he was both good, and healthy, was last season when he destroyed AAA, and more than held his own in the majors. He's currently destroying AAA now. If he does it for this next series in St Paul there's no reason he shouldn't be called up a week from today. A torn ACL is an acute injury, not a chronic one. He wasn't playing injured last year (like Buxton apparently at all times), he got injured. Royce isn't injured now. He's healed. As @mikelink45 suggested, the odds of him getting hurt at Target Field aren't any greater than him playing at CHS Field. He's performed not only in AAA, but the Majors. Suggesting he hasn't been good in 5 years is ignoring a whole lot. Royce is ready. He's shown he's ready. Put him in the majors.

Yeah, I just lumped it all in as a slider.