chpettit19

This kind of sums up this FO regime. Can produce ML talent, but can't produce stars. So they have decent to solid teams who can hang around .500, but are never really contenders. They need to start producing stars or they're doomed to mediocrity. Their jump to #5 this year is a huge opportunity. Don't get cute. Have to get your star this year.

I know crazy things happen at the top of the draft, and draft dollar games are played, but if they go outside the general public's declared elite top 5 they better be right. These prognosticators are wrong all the time, and we shouldn't take their word as gold, but when every publicly available ranking system has the same 5 guys in some order, and they're all talked about as being likely 1-1 picks in almost any other year, you better have a really good reason to go outside them. And it being a HS hitter doesn't seem like a good reason to me when they took Lewis 1-1, and Cavaco earlier than predicted in the first. You got lucky in the first ever draft lottery and jumped into the top 5 in a 5 superstar draft. If you take someone else, but the guy(s) in the top 5 you passed on turns into a hall of famer(s) it doesn't matter if you picked an all star or a complete bust. You can't pass on the top 5 guy and have whoever you pick be worse than them, unless you also completely nail your bonus pool money manipulation. If you come away with multiple all stars you're good. But passing on the elite prospect, and having them turn out to be better than who you picked will not go over well with fans. Especially if it's one of the college guys and they're in the majors quickly. As far as Skenes goes, though, I'd be awfully surprised if he got beyond Texas at 4. It feels like they'd love to have him in their bullpen for the playoff push this year before putting him in camp with deGrom next year and letting him learn.

Option 1: Buxton's knees aren't toast, and he can get back to CF in some amount this year, and more next year. I'm starting to think this isn't a real option anymore. It feels like Buxton's knees are shot, and he simply will never be able to hold up to the wear and tear of playing CF anymore. Absolutely a disastrous outcome for everyone involved, including the team who want him in CF more than any of us and would put him there if they thought he could do it. Option 2: MAT. No thank you. Option 3: Free Agents/Trades. Not a lot of great options in the open market, but maybe there's a trade that can be found? I can't imagine it'd be cheap to trade for a really good CFer, though. It's what made Buxton so valuable as a plus defender and hitter there. Option 4: Royce. I've been on this bandwagon since last year, and it's still my preferred move. They have much more depth at 3B (and 2B) than they do in CF. Royce was tremendous in CF in the AFL, and his very brief Twins stint. Even the play he got hurt on showed how good he can be out there. I think this solves a lot of their immediate needs, and I'd have him start taking flyballs out there and have him ready to transition in the 2nd half of this year. Option 5: Other prospects. I'm not a Celestino believer. So he's nowhere near the top of my list of options. I think ERod is a corner guy, and needs to do a lot before I count on him to even make the majors at this point. Any of the top 4 hitters in the draft feel like they may be an option, but the HS kids would be years away, and Langford doesn't look like he tracks the ball well enough to play CF. Austin Martin may be the best non-Lewis youngster option. I haven't seen any update on him lately, but hopefully they get this elbow thing figured out, and he can come back and look like he did in the AFL. I don't know if they'd use him out there everyday, but he could be the main CFer as part of his likely utility role.

I think he's average. But, in general, I just don't think managers matter very much. I think they can swing a team's record +/-4 games in a season. I don't think managers are the reason teams win or lose close games, I don't think they're the reason a team's bullpen or offense or whatever are bad. I think they have very minimal effect overall. But, as for Rocco specifically, I think he's just another manager.

The Twins were 14th in baseball in runs scored in 2021. Almost the exact definition of average is all the team needs to go from being bad in close games to Rocco not even mattering? Feels like thats wrong. Your argument is basically that when the team loses close games it's Rocco's fault, but when they win them it's because the players are good. Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Sometimes it feels like they don't even read our brilliance.

FYI, Castro is one of the youngsters if we're just going by age. He's 26. He's half a year older than Kirilloff, 2 years older than Julien, the same age as Jeffers, half a year older than Wallner, a couple months younger than Larnach, a year and a half younger than Gordon, and only 2 years older than Lewis.

But in 2021 they went 25-19 in 1 run games while going 73-89 overall. Was he a great manager that year to raise their level of play in 1 run games so drastically? (For the record I'm not a Rocco fan, I'm not defending him, just attempting to point out the randomness that goes into most stats people think are driven by managers. I don't care 1 way or the other on who the manager is.)

The manager, and being around longer, is what's being talked about here, and my stance is he matters very little, and it's almost entirely about the players on the field. Like 97.5% players, 2.5% manager/coaching. If you're going to analyze the manager's extension I think it's prudent to discuss how much a manager effects a season. My stance is managers/coaches can swing a record +/- 4 games. That's 2.5% of the season. So I'm not so worried about them. I didn't say I don't know if it matters, I said I don't know if those 3 coaches are some great coaching talent. My stance is clearly that it doesn't matter "a great deal." 🤷‍♂️ There's many stories about Popkins working with Correa, Baldelli crediting Tingler with great insights (Tingler "is able to come at me in a lot of ways, in a lot of different scenarios. He knows what goes into every decision. He's made all those decisions," Baldelli said. "He's a teacher of the game, and he's very good with the mental side of it. I've been extremely impressed."), etc. If those guys are so impactful, why do their teams suck at scoring runs (Rowson) or winning games (Shelton)? We'll have to agree to disagree on coaching, and managing, mattering "a great deal." But we can agree that the problems run higher in this (and any struggling) organization. Because it's about talent, and the talent accumulated. Until I start seeing coaches turning bad players into good players, or managers making the playoffs with untalented teams, they simply don't matter much.

I like the creativity. I'd actually try to get Rocco to burn his bench moves in the 1st in this scenario. Start a righty opener, but go to the lefty in the first, intentionally walk 2 guys to get both Kirilloff and Gallo out of the game, then turn to Gausman in the 2nd for 8 shutout, 1 hit, 17 K innings and call it a night. Wait, now I'm moving your pieces.

These are interesting thoughts to me. I'm in the camp that managers, and most MLB coaches, mean very, very little in the success, or failure, of a team. Talent wins. Shelton, Rowson, and Pickler are good examples of this. Shelton is in his 4th year as manager of the Pirates. He has a winning percentage of 38.6 as a manager. He's lost 100 games each of the last 2 years. How much of that is on him, and how much is it that the Pirates just haven't been very talented? Rowson gets a lot of credit for the Twins offense while he was here, but he went to Miami and oversaw the worst offense in baseball, and is now coaching the 2nd worst offense in Detroit this year. Pickler is in Cincinnati. Does anyone wish the Twins were the Reds right now? How much impact do any of these guys really have? Terry Francona is pretty widely considered the best manager in baseball. His team has scored the fewest runs in baseball this year. Should we blame that on Francona or the players? The Guardians have all these big time young players that were supposed to take over and flourish under the guidance of Francona. Oscar Gonzalez is back in the minors. Gimenez and Kwan are flopping. Straw is pushing towards unplayable. Rosario seems to have completely forgot how to hit. They have 2 hitters with wRC+ over 100, and 1 of them has 20 PAs. The other is Ramirez with a 112 wRC+ that is 15 points below his career number, and 30 below where he's been the last couple years. If Rocco is to blame for the Twins offensive struggles (not saying you're saying that, but in general) is the best manager in baseball to blame for the Guardians offensive struggles? Are/were Shelton, Rowson, and Pickler great coaching talent? I have no idea. I don't think anybody on here really does. Player talent is really all that matters. The Athletic had an article a few months ago about MLB hitting coaches and how volatile that job is. The average length of tenure for active MLB hitting coaches is 2.4 years. Derek Shelton is quoted in it saying "Why there’s so much turnover is because one of the easiest things to do is just to blame the hitting coach." I think he's on to something there. Not just for hitting coaches, but MLB coaches, and managers, in general. The greatest manager ever isn't getting the 2023 Oakland As to the playoffs. They're just the easiest scape goats. All that said, I don't really care what they do with Rocco. I think he's just another manager. And the FO would bring in Rocco 2.0 if they fired him. So if the players aren't complaining behind closed doors I think the continuity is useful enough.

Yeah, that'd certainly be an option for Toronto, but how easy is it? You pulling your starter after 5 to make that happen? Burning through 4 pen arms just to get Garlick in the game? Do you risk using your lefty against Julien, Kirilloff, or Gallo segment of the lineup and risk Rocco letting his lefty hit? Cuz now you've pulled your starter early and are using a number of bullpen arms and you didn't even get Garlick in the game (for the record I'm sure Rocco would use Solano and Garlick no matter who the lefty is cuz that's how this team rolls). These are also games 15-17 with no off days for the Jays. How creative can they be? How heavily can they rely on their pen right now? Their starter went 3 last night. Mayza threw 1 inning. 2 nights ago their starter went 5. Berrios went 7 3 nights ago, and Mayza threw 1 inning. Bassitt toughed out 6.1 the night before that. Gausman was great for 8 5 nights ago, but they went extras and had to use 3 relievers. If Toronto wants to pull Gausman in the 5th or 6th to get Garlick in the game tonight I'm saying advantage Twins for the series. Watch tower to cone head red 52, set, hike! (I'm terrible at chess so this feels like an unfair advantage to you)

I will counter the Garlick going down cuz he won't play idea with keeping Garlick up because he won't play. Argument #1: The "threat" of him on the bench may motivate an opposing manager to leave their righties in, and I'd prefer that so Rocco doesn't get crazy with his substitutions. The other teams only having 1 lefty gives Rocco the chance to be more straight forward with his lineups, and force the opposing manager's hand a bit with when to use that lefty. Now Rocco could go off the rails and really get wild with things so maybe it's not the best idea, but, assuming he'll be pretty sane with it, having Garlick on the bench as a counter to their lefty usage is pretty nice for lineup strategy. Argument #2: With Garlick being the bench bat Rocco/the team will feel less, or no, pressure to play him. They seem fine letting certain guys "rot" on the bench, and I think they'd do that with Garlick as they seem to see him as strictly a platoon bat vs lefties. That means they'll be more inclined to set, and forget, their lineup. This stretch could be what a number of us have been asking for in that Rocco takes his best hitters, puts them at the top of the order for a week+ straight, and we see what they can do. Julien-Correa/Lewis-Kirilloff-Buxton-Gallo-Farmer-Wallner-Catcher-Taylor and let it roll for a week. Solano and Garlick on the bench is a nice package to have late in games depending on how the lineup falls for the opposing manager. If they use the lefty against Wallner you can make the move to one of the righties. It also lessens the chance you see the lefty at all since they're both such well thought of hitters against lefties so the manager may favor using their superior righty pitcher against the Twins lefties. If it's just Solano on the bench it's easier for the opposing manager to pick the section of the lineup he wants to target and know his lefty will get a positive matchup somewhere. With 2 righty bats on the bench his lefty wouldn't see a single lefty unless he's allowing runners or pitching multiple innings. Advantage Twins. The biggest question is the 3 games this weekend before Lewis is eligible to return. I think playing the series with a banged up Gallo, and unavailable Correa would be a mistake. Have to decide on Correa before tomorrow's game. Then it's is Kepler healthy, do you bring up Miranda, or are you playing 40-man games? I'd rather have Miranda up for 3 days than play 40-man games, because I don't see anyone in the minors as being truly useful and worth the DFA move for them in 3 days, or a vet now. Miranda getting a little time around the big club for the weekend isn't the end of the world. Could be worse than a couple big league ABs and Correa in his ear.

How old school we talkin? La Russa started saving his best guy for the 9th back in what the 70s or 80s? Before that there wasn't nearly as much bullpen usage in general so it's not quite the same thing. When starters are throwing 300 innings a year there's not much of a "when to use my best bullpen arm" decision to make since you only have 2 innings to cover a lot of the time. But once La Russa really got that closer thing going the best guy was almost always saved for the 9th, until very recently. Rivera, Nathan, Gagne, Papelbon, Hoffman, Fingers, Eckersley, even Sutter in the earlier 70s was being saved for save situations.

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.