chpettit19

Yeah, I just don't think it's getting lost in translation. I think it's just a flawed system that leads to flawed rosters with flawed execution and flawed results. That's why the change I want to see is at the top. It's Falvey and Levine's system. It's their strategy. It's their plan. If you keep running cheap, dumpster diving bullpens out there they're going to continue to struggle no matter who the manager is. If you keep rostering multiple short-side platoon bats you're going to continue to struggle for long chunks of the season when they're inevitably forced to face more righties than lefties due to injuries and ineffectiveness. If you're going to continue to bring in lesser talented players because you can control them for more years and believe you can mix and match perfectly to get more out of them than their talent will allow you're going to continue to struggle to produce talented results no matter who the manager is. You cure an illness at the source, not by ridding yourself of symptoms. The (fixable) problems with the Twins start with Falvey and Levine. Until you replace them it's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, in my opinion. And we're just going to have to agree to disagree on baseball managers making a huge difference. Why does Tom Kelly have 2 World Series rings but a career winning percentage under .500 and twice as many losing full seasons as winning full seasons? Talent wins. But I understand people disagree with that. We're just not going to see eye to eye on it, and that's all good.

Define "fundamental baseball." The front office believes in emphasizing the things Rocco emphasizes, leading the clubhouse the way Rocco leads the clubhouse, managing in game decisions the way Rocco manages in game decisions. Why would you think they'd hire someone who'd emphasize different things, run the clubhouse differently, or manage in game decisions differently? The way I see it, there's 2 possible situations at play here. 1. The front office wants a guy who does things the way Rocco does like they say they do. So firing him doesn't make a significant difference. Or 2. They're not allowed to fire him and this is all moot anyways. My point is, they've been very outspoken about their support of Rocco and how he does things. Why would anyone think they'd bring in someone who'd do things drastically differently when this seems to be pretty clearly how they believe in doing things?

You don't roster guys like Margot, Garlick, Luplow, Farmer, etc. if you don't believe in platooning to the degree the Twins platoon. These are decisions made at the top. And Rocco has far more than "surface level insight." He gets entire statistical breakdowns of every player vs the next day's pitcher, etc. The front office provides a ton of data every single day for Rocco and the coaches. If a manager in MLB only has a surface level understanding of analytics it's a complete and utter failure by the organization. Even if they're not as analytically driven as the Twins. You can't get hired in MLB in 2024 without a deep understanding of this stuff. This is all driven from the top. The FO and manager are one being now. There's no separation. This is what's so frustrating to me. This is very surface level thinking from an organization that claims to have a deeper level of strategy. But they haven't shown it at all. And they've shown basically no ability, or desire, at all to change from their strategies mid-season. Or some strategies at all (cheap bullpens, platooning, etc). It's bizarre stuff. I'd love to hear their justification for the continued Margot/Garlick player type usage. Has that roster spot or 2 ever been a success on a single one of their teams? There's a few things I'd love to hear their justifications for because they are so surface level and have been complete failures, but they keep doing it. Bizarre stuff. But they've convinced the one man in the world that matters that they're good strategies. So we'll run it back in 2025 and see if the 9th time is the charm.

I'd argue it's partly "gut" and partly macro-analytics. The Duran stuff is "gut" and a belief that the way to run a bullpen is match-up based and not inning based. But the pinch hitting and platoon stuff is a belief in large scale analytics saying lefties are bad at hitting lefties, not THESE lefties are bad at hitting lefties. And that's why I have a problem with it. They're broad, general beliefs in a general strategy with nowhere near enough emphasis on the actual players themselves and their performance in the current season. Once August roles around the analytics and decisions need to be based on this season. Like Margot and his pinch hitting. Your plan with this player didn't work. Don't let them set an all-time negative record. Adjust your plan.

Not even a little surprised, but fairly disappointed. Falvey, Levine, and Rocco are a package deal. Falvey and Levine bring in Margot and Farmer types because they believe in platooning. Rocco platoons because he believes in platooning. Falvey and Levine bring in a billion AAAA reliever arms every year because they believe they can find a bullpen by August from the scrap heap. Rocco cycles through relievers and uses them all frequently until August because he believes he can find the right spots for the pieces by August. Firing Rocco doesn't solve anything. Firing Levine doesn't solve anything. Firing Falvey and letting the new guy pick his guys would. This regime believes in a few core principles. They're not changing that for next year because they haven't changed them in 8 years. They believe in cheap bullpens. They believe in being able to mix and match position players to make up for a lack of talent in a large chunk of the roster (specifically platooning). They believe in their moves (especially trades) needing to provide more than just short-term help, even if it means bringing in lesser talent (team control is king). They believe they can be Tampa 2.0 by spending more on the top 4 or 5 roster spots while mixing and matching the bottom. If this team doesn't bring in a short-side platoon bat, cheap relievers, or makes a short-term trade this offseason it'll be the most surprising team building development I've ever seen in sports. This is who they are. And they aren't changing those core beliefs. And that's why I'm disappointed in a lack of changes being made. I don't think these strategies are ever going to give them a legit shot at a World Series. More than happy to be wrong, though.

Instead of having Julien stink up MN and have no starting pitcher in return? Polanco is at a 93 OPS+. By no means great, but I'd take that every day of the week over Julien's 79. Julien and another piece could've brought back young, controllable starting pitching that wouldn't have cost any more than Julien does. That was the move I wanted, at least. If he was as valuable as last year theoretically made him you could have made a big swing on getting a legit controllable pitcher. Theoretically. We'll never know. But it's a reasonable enough thought process that Julien and 5 years of control with another piece could've brought back a real pre-arb arm. Or you could've saved some money by not bringing back Farmer or bringing in Margot.

While I agree in general, Julien felt like a good option to trade if you could spin him into a legitimate arm instead of DeSclafani. A risk for sure, but that was my hope for what they'd do.

Luke Keaschall is a full go from day 1 in spring. He had the surgery when he did because it would allow him to be full go from day one. Mid-summer is not at all his timeline. Day 1 of spring training is. They should go into spring with an open competition for 2B that includes Eeles and Keaschall both having a legitimate chance to take that job and run with it. Julien isn't going anywhere. Lee isn't going anywhere. Castro is the wild card. But neither of them deserve any sort of roster spot being handed to them. It's time to let the play on the field decide playing time.

No, the stats I provided that you couldn't refute made me less wrong before. But at this point you're not even trying to argue facts so it needs to be the end of our back and forth here. Because, based on your logic, this should be a smart move based on Julien's career OPS of .753 while ignoring his season OPS of .636.

Here's a great example to prove my point that I am absolutely not a "Nothing is ever the manager's fault. Ever." guy. Batting Ed Julien leadoff tonight after basically refusing to play him in any circumstance for weeks is atrocious. See how I had a different take based on it being a different situation?

People replied to me, so I replied to them. You could definitely have chosen not to have responded to a message that wasn't for you, but here we are. Correa hitting 2 instead of 1 makes it "laughable?" Got it. Real deep dive analysis on that one. So far your points have been to use Margot's career numbers instead of in-season numbers, but use other people's in-season numbers instead of career numbers, and that Correa hitting 2 instead of 1 was a massive blow to their chances. Real mind blowing breakdown there. Glad you came back for more of this earth shattering analysis. Margot having an .835 OPS in the leadoff spot is emblematic of the problems of the organization? Cool. Sounds like some real first world problems when your 2 primary leadoff hitters have 140 and 139 wRC+ in that spot. Really bringing the lineup down. Can't wait to hear your next great insight. Sorry if my stats from this actual season got in the way of you being mad at Rocco. If he'd lead-off Julien you'd have a really nice argument.

Except I frequently say Rocco screwed things up. I was on these same boards complaining about taking Zebby out for Irvin the other day. So, apparently, you don't get it. You're the one who's decided it's always his fault. I have this crazy thing where I can say he does some things well and some things poorly. I can agree with some of his moves and disagree with others. I can defend easily defendable decisions instead of just searching around to make it Rocco's fault the entire lineup went 1-9 with RISP. I didn't say "nothing he could do" about the Alcala game. I've never said his frequently changed lineups are great decisions. I'm sorry if other people have, but don't put that on me just because you don't like Rocco. Maybe pull back from focusing on Rocco being the cause of all their problems and just accept that sometimes, in fact, most of the time, it's the players on the field who are at fault for failing. I didn't bring up Margot. I did what you asked me to the other day and defended the position with a logical, stat based defense. You're the one trying force this into your narrative. Not me.

Fine, then putting Correa in your top 3 contradicts you "hottest hitter" thing if he was 2-14. But the point is to look at those numbers and say there is any definitive lineup that should be set. That's a pathetic list of players and numbers. This idea that they lost last night because of Rocco's batting order is ridiculous. There's not a lineup to be built out of that mess that anyone should even remotely come close to saying "this would've gotten us to 5 runs and a win last night." So I'll stick with my original point that Manuel Margot hitting leadoff against lefties is far from the biggest problem on this team.

Isn't it a little contradictory to say "I am ignoring all that and I am putting my hottest hitter 1st..." and then end with putting Lewis in the top 3? You aren't "ignoring all that" if you'd put Lewis in the top 3. You're expressing 2 different strategies. Which is the point because it leads to the real answer of: "Now I get it they all have been pretty terrible so whatever lineup they put out there will look like trash." Why can't fans just say "dang, these players really fell apart and this roster isn't that talented. Not sure what any manager could do to make them succeed when they're playing like this?" Why can't it just be a lack of talent? Why can't we just say the bullpen has 2.5 good pitchers and the rotation has 1.5 so it's really going to be hard to get good pitching and win games? Why can't we just say the lineup has 3 good hitters, 2 of which have been back for a week and a half, so it's really going to be hard to get good hitting and win games? I mean I think we all know the answer is because people have a need to lay blame on someone and it's easier to point at the manager than saying the vast majority of the team has simply fallen apart. But every loss isn't Rocco's fault. Do any of you actually believe there's a magical lineup that would have this team scoring? The team was 1-9 with runners in scoring position and left 10 guys on base. Is that really because Manuel Margot got 3 PAs in the leadoff spot? If the other guys had been hitting in different lineup spots they would've driven those runs in? How many runs do you think the Twins score if it'd gone Correa, Buxton, Lewis...? Honestly, what real life difference do you think it would've made? Do you think they score at least 5 runs if he'd combined your 2 separate strategies that you're suggesting? Most fans thought this team was going to win between about 84 and 88 games. This team is going to win about 84 games. So the low end of the expected outcomes, but still just about where most of us predicted. We all saw a flawed roster that wouldn't be able to survive any pitching struggles/injuries. I get that they got to the expected outcome in the most brutal of ways, but why are we so surprised that they aren't running away with the AL? As Dennis Green once said so eloquently...they are who we thought they were. Not sure why we can't just say that.

I didn't say it wasn't a good one, in fact, I said it was an easily defended one. I said it isn't the decision I'd make. Is the argument there's only 1 right decision when it comes to how this lineup could/should be put together? 2 things can both be good ideas at the same time. The lineup, with Margot leading off, was the best in baseball at scoring runs against lefties for about 85% of the season. Any correlation to the Margot decision there or would this team have doubled up every other team in runs if Rocco was just smart enough to put the lineup in the right order?

Not infallible at all. I've already said in this thread I'd fire them all. But your argument that "I'd simply not lead off with a player that isn't a good hitter" pretty well goes out the window when you're good with Kyle Farmer and Willie Castro being the right choices. And, for the record, I wouldn't leadoff Margot either. But acting like it was some ridiculous thing or cost them this game is what I'm pushing back on. It's quite easy to see why he does it even if it's not what I'd do. I'd go Buxton-Wallner-Correa-Larnach-Lewis-Miranda-Santana-Catcher-Castro everyday they're healthy no matter who is on the mound. But that doesn't mean Manuel Margot hasn't performed well in his leadoff against lefties role this year. Because he has. Enjoy the rest of your night.

You just liked a post suggesting Willi Castro or Kyle Farmer would be the better choice. Explain to me why you agree with that. Go ahead and throw their career OPS numbers in there to defend it like you're trying to do with your Margot stance. And when you accept that you absolutely would not do that and the reason you liked that point is because "you've been duped by a sample of results into believing (they have) skill for some reason" maybe rethink your stance here.

The reason I don't want him on the team matters. But he does have a singular skill. And Rocco puts it to use as often as he can. That's logical. It shouldn't be that much work to come up with a batting order if it's all so obvious. My simple answer is that it's not always Rocco's fault the team loses. This game is a pretty solid example. His number 2 pitcher gave up 4 runs early and his offense scored 1. Margot could've been on this train to Vermont with me and it wouldn't have caused them to score 17 runs. The entire lineup is bad. Blaming Rocco for the guys on the field being absolute trash right now is a lazy take. Especially if you can't even explain the better option. Margot got 3 PAs tonight. That didn't cause them to go 1 for 9 with RISP and leave 10 guys on base. Margot was 0-1 with 2 left on. Are the other 7 times they got out with RISP and 8 guys left on his fault, too? The entire lineup sucks. Put whatever lineup you want together. There's no reason to expect them to score right now. Margot lead off against lefties the majority of the season when they were the best offense in baseball against lefties. Was Rocco "a bad manager" during that stretch too or is it just right now?

So you don't have an answer? You just know this is the wrong one even though you don't have a right one? Got it. Margot leading off against lefties is one of the easier decisions of Rocco's to defend. Waiving away actual statistical reasons just because you don't like them isn't an argument. The reason I don't want Margot on the team is because hitting against lefties is the only thing he's good at. That isn't enough, in my opinion, to be worthy of a roster spot. But not taking advantage of the one skill he has while he's on the roster would be foolish. You use stats and splits all the time to support things. But now that they don't match what you want them to say you don't like the stats. That tells me enough about this discussion. To each their own. But Margot's leadoff performance against lefties is absolutely not a problem for this team.

So what is the secret lineup that should be thrown out there? I don't know how many times in this thread I have to say I don't even want him on the team, but he is on the team. If people want to bash the lineup choices provide a better one. What should the lineup have been tonight? Provide your reasoning. And career OPS is not going to be an impressive reason.

Again, don't want him on the team, but I'm going to use his line from this season in the situation being discussed when determining how well he's done. His career OPS means nothing when discussing leading him off against lefties this season. If his career OPS was .853 but his season OPS was .670 would you want him playing? Goes both ways.

Who is fast and an on base machine for this team? His OBP is .380 in the leadoff spot. Again, hate him being on the roster. But Margot leading off against lefties is the least of the team's problems right now. There's not a lineup you can build with how these guys are hitting that should make anyone confident they'll score more than 2 or 3 runs. At some point we need to just point at the players and say they're the problem. Plenty of blame to go around for all this, and I'd fire Rocco and the FO, but at some point the players just need to be better and fans need to quit blaming guys not actually on the field for how the guys on the field are playing.

I despise Margot being on this team, but in 41 games as a leadoff hitter he's hit .326/.380/.473/.853. It's literally the only thing he's been good at.

That rainout on Saturday was actually pretty brutal for their playoff rotation. If Lopez had started Saturday he'd have been good to go Thursday on normal rest and then again for game 1 on normal rest. Instead they're either going to have to lock a playoff spot up early (highly unlikely) or they're going bullpen game for game 1 and may see their season end without Ober throwing a playoff pitch.

"The best pitchers back in the day" also had worse numbers the third time through. So I'm not sure that's actually fact instead of just how things were talked about. I did this exercise in another thread with another poster. They picked 3 Hall of Famers and 3 All Stars and they all got worse the 3rd time through. The 3rd time through is a real thing. The question, to me, is more about how drastic you want to get with it. Does it have to be the second the leadoff hitter comes up the 3rd time? Does game situation matter? Does how dominant the pitcher has been matter? Does the quality of your bullpen matter? Pitchers have always been worse the more they throw to the same lineup. Finding the nuance in managing around that fact is the trick.