chpettit19

That's why part of the difference between managers is the talent they have at their disposal. There's no manager in the history of baseball that carried an untalented team to great success. They just don't have that kind of influence on wins and losses. Especially wins. But that 2019 team also had the 9th best ERA in all of baseball while their relievers pitched the 20th fewest innings, and the the starters threw the 6th most. People tend to act like Rocco/the FO has some hard and fast rule about starters going deep in games. The 2019 team had better starters, and hadn't had a pandemic shortened season, so they were allowed to go deeper. People tend to act like the HR record covered for Rocco despite that being a quite complete team until Pineda cheated and injuries hit late so they went into the playoffs with far less then their A team out there. I'm not a huge Rocco fan. I don't think he's great and I wouldn't be broken up about it if he was fired (other than it's never a happy thing to me when someone loses their job). Sac bunts are very rarely the smart play and it's why the league as a whole doesn't use them very often anymore. The math says it only makes sense in certain situations. I'd like to see Rocco put some hit and runs on with certain guys at the plate, but they also have a lot of dudes who swing and miss A TON and you're just giving away outs when they swing through it and the guy is toast at 2nd. Who on this team should be stealing a ton of bases outside of Buxton who has been battling a bad knee all year? They're not exactly full of speedsters. That's not on Rocco. He can't make the roster he's given faster. At some point it just becomes a no win situation for a manager, though. Rocco can't just never pitch Pagan. You can't afford to just completely waste a spot on your roster like that. Like I said, I don't love Rocco, and don't think he's done a great job, but he's also only able to use the guys he's given. If he's part of the decision making to keep Pagan on the roster because he wants to use him that's 1 thing, but if he's just using what he's given I can't blame him too much for using all 26 guys on the roster.

Firing Rocco wouldn't lead to this FO bringing in a non-analytics guy. They hired Rocco because he's an analytics guy. It's what they believe in. Tampa wins every year. Dave Roberts is an analytics guy and LA wins more than any team. AJ Hinch is an analytics guy and did alright in Houston. Not sure why being an analytics guy means they aren't managing to "win" when the teams that win the most in baseball are lead by "analytics guys." The difference between managers these days is mostly what analytics they use and the talent they have at their disposal. Chicago has what many would consider a non-analytics, old school guy in La Russa running a team many say is far more talented than this Twins team yet the Twins are percentage points ahead of Chicago in the standings.

Or use Sands/Sanchez/Varland/literally anyone in a long relief role in tandem with at least 1 of them. My guess is they aren't doing that because of game situation and trusting all their 1 inning arms to succeed over Sands being able to hang 3 or 4 0s, but there's definitely ways around blowing through your pen so much. And the odds of Pagan hanging a single 0 can't be any better than Sands hanging 2 or 3. I have no problem with pulling mediocre starters after 2 times through the order/5 innings/whatever, but you need to back that up with an adjustment in the makeup of your staff and how you utilize your pen if you're going to manage 3 or 4 of your starters that way. I think they manage their starters pretty reasonably even if I'd prefer an extra inning here or there from them. My problem is the makeup of the pen. Or at least their willingness to use someone like Sands for multiple innings. 1 inning guys: Lopez, Duran, Fulmer, Jax, Thielbar, Moran Multi-inning guys: Sands, Sanchez Starters: Mahle, Gray, Ryan, Bundy, Archer Split up Bundy and Archer while using Sands and Sanchez in combination with them to get through 7 or 8 innings and let your 1 inning guys get some rest to be able to come out throwing fire in their appearances.

Guess I don't know what else people think Rocco should say. They didn't play good baseball and lost because they couldn't score runs against a brutal pitching staff. Is he supposed to call guys out specifically? Don't see many managers going that route these days as most professional athletes in 2022 don't respond well to being publicly shamed. The offense didn't score and he pointed that out without throwing individuals under the bus. Not sure what else he can say after games like that. Baseball is a 162 game season. There's only so many things for a manager to say. So by game 113 he's probably running low on deep, thought provoking lines after his team lost 2 games where they simply couldn't push runs across the plate against bad pitchers. Are people seeing other managers saying more than this this year? What are some examples of a manager with non-captain obvious responses in post game pressers?

Due to too much fun at the Saints game last night, today's game thread will be like a Chris Archer start...short and not overly sweet. After another frustrating loss in a game they should've won last night the Twins woke up today still 1.5 games out of first in the central and 1 game out of the final wild card spot. Plenty of season to go for the hometown boys to get things turned around and heading in the right direction, and that hopefully starts today! Chris Archer vs Tucker Davidson on the mound Arraez 1B Correa SS Buxton DH Miranda 3B Polanco 2B Celestino CF Gordon LF Leon C Cave RF Fletcher 2B Ohtani DH Rengifo 3B Ward RF Adell LF Walsh 1B Suzuki C Sierra CF Velazquez SS

I won't put up much of a fight on anyone's prediction for the division champ (unless they're saying KC or Detroit) because I wouldn't be shocked by any of the top 3 winning it. A hot 10 days may be all it takes since none of the 3 seem to be able to put together an extended stretch of great play. If I were a betting man (and I'm not) I'd pick Cleveland, but arguments can be made for all 3.

Feels like an awful lot of context missing from that process. By all means you can make your predictions based on whatever criteria you see fit, but I'd think games in May don't mean as much as games in August when making August predictions. Like the White Sox just losing 3 of 4 to the Royals while also losing their SS and leadoff hitter for the majority of the remainder of the season, and currently being 3.5 games back in the division.

That's interesting since Fangraphs currently has the White Sox at 20% to win the division, as compared to the Twins at 35.4 and Cleveland at 44.6%. So maybe it's not "just like Fangraphs" then?

Are you predicting a White Sox division title because of 3 games in May and 3 games in June? That would be one of the bolder data sets I've seen used to base a prediction on this late in a season.

I'm assuming a play that he ended up being out on when he used, as you say, the most direct path to the plate would also end with him being out when using a less efficient path, yes. I'm not talking about when he left third, I'm talking about when he decided to slide and where he decided to slide. He doesn't have to be able to see the ball coming to know Sanchez is in the process of catching it. He can look at Sanchez and know he's catching the ball. At that point he admits to making a conscious decision to slide directly into Sanchez because he hoped the rule would give him an automatic safe call. "It's just a matter of whether or not they call it" in describing why he chose to slide how he did sounds an awful lot like a guy saying he was putting his faith in that call, not his ability to reach the plate before being tagged, no? It worked in the end and I have no problem with him making that decision as it was his best chance to help his team. My point is that that rule is hardly ever enforced. And he knows it's hardly ever enforced. So deciding to slide how he did for the reasons he admits he made that decision doesn't sound like someone who thought they were going to be safe when they started their slide. He knew the ball was arriving before he slid. He watched Sanchez shift into position, raise his glove, and prepare to catch the ball. He's an excellent athlete who has had multiple plays like this in his lifetime. He doesn't need to be tracking the ball itself to know whether or not it's going to beat him. He did the calculations in his head and decided a rule that is hardly ever enforced actually being enforced was his best chance of being safe. I think that pretty clearly shows he knew he was out if not for being bailed out by the judgement call of the people in NY. And on a side note, if taking an indirect slide makes that rule likely disappear they need to make the rule disappear. Or a whole bunch of guys should automatically be safe at second on steals because the MI has their foot in front of the bag and the player has to indirectly slide to the outside corner.

Perhaps I'm just reading too much into his comments and the fact that he made no attempt whatsoever to avoid being tagged out. I find it hard to believe that a player as smart, and experienced, as him would put all of his eggs in the basket of having that call be overturned by a rule that is hardly ever applied if he felt he had any chance of being safe without that overturn. If this were a call that were enforced on a regular basis and Merrifield had more reason to believe he'd be called safe because of it I'd buy more into him not knowing he was toast. “I know what the rule is. It was just a matter of whether they were going to call it or not" doesn't sound like a guy who was super confident that he was going to get that call and I find it hard to believe he would've gone with the "directly into him" slide if he thought he had any other chance of being safe.

Sanchez not being a quick tagger doesn't mean the throw wasn't there in time for the out. That's what I've been speaking against. Fans complaining that Beckham double clutched before the throw, thus making it a bad play by him. Merrifield was out at the plate and the throw was as good as anyone can reasonably ask for. I haven't been debating the rule at all. I don't think this was an example of what they meant by "clearly" beating the runner either, but I don't think he's blocking the plate and not allowing a lane for Merrifield. If Merrifield wanted to he could've slid to the outside of the plate and reached it like Gordon did the game before. I think the rule is poorly written so it's almost impossible to use it universally as it's a judgement call on what constitutes a lane to the plate. All that said, my comments stand as I don't think the double clutch not happening would've gotten the ball there sooner to the point that they would've said he "clearly" had it soon enough either. My comments are purely about fans needing to find something to complain about even when the Twins got the out on the play until a quite controversial judgement call on replay.

Yes, this is the "Posey rule."

Merrifield openly admitted he knew he was going to be out so he purposefully slid into Sanchez. So, no, I don't think he'd have taken a different slide path. He knew his slide path didn't matter cuz he was going to be out so he just hoped to get the call on that rule and it's why he immediately started complaining to the ump. That was his strategy cuz he knew the ball beat him and he was toast. I mean, unless you don't believe Merrifield when he says " So, I tried to just slide in to him straight in as best I could." He had no intention of trying to reach the plate, he was just hoping to get the call on that rule which is clearly far too vague to be effective or called universally.

Unless you think that ball is moving slower than Merrifield the ball most definitely beat the runner. Maybe it could've been a foot lower and that would've been perfect? Sanchez had the ball before Merrifield got to the plate. So, no, I don't see it at all as akin to a throw to first that pulls the first baseman since they'd be safe while Merrifield was out.

He threw the guy out at the plate. I don't see how that in any way equals a bad play. So anytime Correa doesn't hit the 1B directly in the chest in 1 smooth motion with no extra movement in fielding or throwing the ball when he gets an out at first it's a bad play? Cuz that's the argument you're making. The runner was out at home. The fielder got the ball to the catcher before the runner got there and the catcher tagged the runner out. That's not a bad play. It may have been imperfect execution with the extra step, but arguing it is a bad play is beyond controversial, it's flat out wrong. Thus it's unnecessarily negative. If the standard for a play not being bad is that a player never makes any extra movements during a play then there have been very, very few non-bad plays in the history of baseball.

Nobody called anyone a "bad fan" so let's not go putting those words in my mouth/keyboard, Chief. And nobody has "observed" playing an infielder in the outfield contributed to the play, they've "observed" that despite having made the play he should've made it better. He didn't make a bad play! Did he double clutch or crow hop twice because he didn't know if Merrifield was going to go? Or is it possible he didn't have a good grip on the ball so he had to regather himself because he's, you know, human? Throwing a guy out a home isn't "bad defense." Everyone's allowed to be a fan in their own way and I haven't told anyone on any of these boards they shouldn't be allowed to say anything they want to say. And I'm allowed to disagree with those "laments" when it's about something I don't think should be "lamented" about. No, you can't expect better than throwing someone out at the plate. He literally did what you want him to do so I will point out that it's an unnecessarily negative take to wish he threw a guy out at the plate better than he threw him out at the plate.

So the infielder playing OF took an extra step to make sure his throw was on target and we're upset? Come on now. I know they're professional athletes and we all want them to be perfect while doing the things we can't, but an extra split second to gather himself while making a throw he's likely never made in a professional game seems like something that maybe doesn't need to be complained about. He's played 95 professional OF innings. The throw was perfect and beat the runner but we still need to complain it wasn't perfecter?

Tim Beckham is not an outfielder and came up with a perfect throw that beat the runner and the runner was out. We're reaching way too far for complaints when a throw right on the plate that beats a runner and results in an out is now being criticized for not being better. You realize that Gordon's deep grounder wouldn't have been a deep grounder with Kepler on 3rd because the infield likely would've been in, correct? And while I think Kepler needed to go back to tag, I don't know that he beats the throw to 3rd from the left center gap. That's certainly not a given.

Gordon has really stepped up of late. Great to see. Wonderful utility guy to have around and I'd expect him to play that key role for years to come. Can't say I expected this of him this year, but he really has been a savior as everyone around him gets hurt and he just steps in where needed.

Sano was/is a victim of hype and circumstance. He's had a nice career to this point, but he was hyped as the next Miguel Cabrera (awful comparison from the start) and co-franchise savior with Buxton during a really awful stretch of Twins teams. That leads to fans being disappointed that he didn't become a hall of famer and carry the squad to championships with Buck. His style of play leads to disappointment as he strikes out at record rates and it makes it really hard to watch. He is the epitome of a streaky hitter and goes from unplayable to best hitter in baseball at the drop of a hat. Unfortunately for him the hype combined with the style of hitter he is leads to a disappointing feeling even though he's actually been an overall above average hitter in the majors. Overall above average just wasn't enough, unfortunately. His time with the Twins is likely over, but I expect him to get a chance somewhere else and I hope he does become the next Big Papi. Silly to me that we'd wish anything but the best for any player who isn't just a bad human.

I just popped in to see how many "we're doomed cuz Archer is pitching!" followed by "Pagan will give up 5 runs now, guaranteed!" followed by "well there goes any chance of staying in this game now that Sands is in!" comments there were. Basically 4 full pages. Not bad, not bad.

Moran is the only one with an argument for being a better option than Pagan. And I'd actually take Moran over Pagan right now. But "better of late" in AAA does not equal better option than Pagan. He'd likely be quite good in AAA. "Can't throw strikes, but throws hard so could be good" is Pagan. Not sure why we think an inconsistent, can't throw strikes pitcher in AAA would jump to the bigs and be good.

I'm guessing Sands will back Archer until he's sent back down. If you pair Bundy and Archer who is starting the other game? Twins don't exactly have a ton of starters kicking in the door to take either of their jobs right now.

Great win! Love Rocco using his big guns out of the pen again tonight to lock down the W. Archer and Sands piggy back tomorrow means you hopefully only need a couple innings from the single inning guys and there's an off day Monday so the big guns are all lined up again to be deployed as needed starting Tuesday. Archer and Sands isn't extremely confidence inducing, but if Archer gives his usual 4 innings and 1 run without having to go back out for his typical blowup in the 5th you hope Sands can give you 3 without blowing up in any inning and you've got a chance to take 3 in a row from a playoff team. Twins looked good today. Fun to see.