Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Squirrel

Community Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    34,759

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    167

 Content Type 

Profiles

News

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospects Ranking

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

Minnesota Twins Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Pick Tracker

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Squirrel

  1. Squirrel
    The way I see it ... it's a team sport. I don't think the manager alone is responsible for that much outcome difference. But, what a manager does can impact how players execute their jobs, i.e. ... keeping the clubhouse in good stead, and from every interview I've heard, the players give him lots of props for that. How that impacts wins and losses ... I don't think you can compute that exactly, unless the manager is awful in that regard. And even then, sometimes player personalities just cannot be overcome, either. As for game execution, it's primarily up to the players. How the manager communicates the plans is a factor, but, again, I think from everything I've heard from players, he does a very good job of that. I think together they win, together they lose, so no, I don't point a finger and blame him for specific losses or wins, except to poke a few who give him blame while giving no credit. I just don't think you can have it both ways. I do question some of the decisions, but there are many people on here who consistently say, 'This one's on Rocco' or 'They won in spite of him.' A LOT say this. I just don't think that's true. It's not that manager could be a robot and that wouldn't matter, but I don't think he's as responsible for wins and losses directly, at least not on his own. I mean, one poster here constructed their own measurement, called it manager WAR and basically gave Rocco a minus point for every game they thought Rocco lost for the team, and claimed it was legitimate because of how many games they've watched in their lifetime. I just think that's completely ridiculous. I don't think the manager is responsible in that manner. <shrug> We can agree to disagree on this, but how you and others put such specific responsibility on the manager for losses just isn't correct, imo. Yeah, he's the easy figure head to point a finger at, but ultimately, I don't really think that's fair.
  2. Squirrel
    I think his extreme idea was very much akin to your overly dramatic plan of replacing the managers with robots. Why does everyone need to take an extreme pov?
  3. Squirrel
    I actually wanted this to be the plan whenever Sabathia was on the mound opposing us. Someone pointed out that batters would likely get hit pretty quick into that plan.
  4. Squirrel
    Oh, come ... seriously ... you don't think there can be any middle ground here, that it's only completely one or the other? These arguments to the extreme isn't what anyone is saying. I get that this is very emotional for you, but just because it wouldn't be what you'd do doesn't mean it was entirely done by numbers and the manager can be replaced by a robot. Yes, the numbers are a big influence to the game plan in baseball, like it or not, but not everything goes according to plan and none of us knows what gets changed along the way because of the situation. I'd guess that they already planned for a series of different scenarios. Maybe there is 'less gut' to it than what you want, but I'd guess it's not none, in the same way that it's never anything but the numbers and a robot replacement would be just as good.
  5. Squirrel
    Yeah, and they also thought Buxton's catch was routine and their elite CF let two drop for doubles that should have been caught. And, they blamed the base running gaffe all on Moncado because he had a better visual of what was happening and Engel didn't. Um, okay. Fandom at its best.
  6. Squirrel
    Listening to the Sox post-game show, Ozzie Guillen said that that play was not why the Sox lost. Yeah, it was a blunder, but odd stuff happens in baseball all the time. He said the reason they lost is because the heart of the order didn’t come through in the bottom of the 9th. I get you don’t like how Rocco manages, I’m not always a fan either, but mostly I don’t care because managers, eh. But if we are going to play the if game here, then let’s say they don’t blunder and the Sox have runners on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out, you don’t know how that would have turned out. Could have scored, but maybe not. You are making a big assumption they do in order to justify your dislike of Rocco. I mean, this is the White Sox we are talking about, not the Yankees. There is absolutely no guarantee the Sox score there. Its more likely another team does, but not the White Sox. Or if they do, maybe the Twins come through in the 8th and/or 9th. The Twins won, so it meant they were supposed to win, so they would have even without the Sox blunder.
  7. Squirrel
    Actually, no, it wasn’t defensible, in my (and Ozzie Guillen’s) opinion. You wait to tag. If he doesn’t get to it, it’s likely you score anyway. And if he does get to it, you end up on 3rd with only 1 out.
  8. Squirrel
    That was when the Dodgers faced the Astros in 2020 for the first time after the cheating scandal came to light in the previous off season. Google ‘Joe Kelly Carlos Correa’ and you’ll come up with plenty of video. He was pitching about as well then as he did tonight
  9. Squirrel
    It totally was ... so you must have one for breakfast every morning to keep the streak going!
  10. Squirrel
    Quit being disingenuous here and arguing against things I’ve never said. I stated a few times already that the BP needs help and is not okay. But we are talking about last night’s game which you made the claim the BP melted down again. It did not. That doesn’t mean I think the BP is okay, and I stated that. But in this one game, which this thread is about, the BP wasn’t the problem.
  11. Squirrel
    Again, yes, our BP needs help. But that was still not a meltdown nor the problem in last night’s win. It is not realistic to expect a BP to never give up a run, ever. Giving up 4 in the bottom of the 10th after we scored 3 in the top of the inning, that’s a meltdown. Last night was almost a loss due to an inconsistent offense, once again. Thankfully they came through.
  12. Squirrel
    Giving up two runs over 9 innings is not a meltdown by anyone. The offense was almost non existent, again, innings 2-8 but finally came through when we needed it. But I do agree, our pen is scary and we need better arms.
  13. Squirrel
    Did you even read this article or just respond to the title?
  14. Squirrel
    I know that, Chief ... they could have made another trade, and I thought maybe something else would/could happen ... they could have done something BEFORE the lockout. I've been on this page with you about the BP, maybe not as irate about the trade itself, but certainly about the BP.
  15. Squirrel
    While I didn't mind the trade ... I was hoping there was more to come to shore up the BP, especially after losing Rogers. Heck, even BEFORE losing Rogers.
  16. Squirrel
    You're just still numb from last night ...
  17. Squirrel
    Well ... so much for my thought that Baldelli should have used Thornburg last night instead of Pagan ... sigh. Frustrated.
  18. Squirrel
    Yeah ... I don't think Sands is the right choice, either ... but we have Ryan, Gray, Ober (IL), Archer, Bundy, Winder, Smeltzer ... we can figure out something there.
  19. Squirrel
    Or ... as was suggested the other day ... make Archer and Bundy the tandem ... I mean, there ARE options for having so many starters that are still young, and not having a capable enough BP. Doing the stacking thing would save the BP at least that one day. (I'm not in favor of stacking more than that, but for one 'start', let's try that.)
  20. Squirrel
    He can be a swing man. He can be a starter when we are down a starter, but be part of a stacking team with either Bundy or Archer when Ober gets back. Or, Smeltzer does this. There are options. Winder doesn't *have* to be a starter.
  21. Squirrel
    I agree he didn’t have much choice, and that’s the most maddening thing about it. But, given Pagan’s most recent outings, I’d have gone with one of the other bad choices just because of that. It couldn’t be worse, and just maybe a bit better
  22. Squirrel
    It’s overheated from reading too much here
  23. Squirrel
    Well, actually, I think it was Duffey a time or two, too
  24. Squirrel
    Uh, Rocco isn't the one who makes these trades ... or is that the joke?
  25. Squirrel
    I was more referring to the starts lately that Bundy has given us and Archer has been strong in his outings over all ... that is great production from the 4-5-6 starters on any team that isn't the Yankees or Dodgers. Of course, if they can't hold it together, of course, decisions need to be made, but if they are doing well, I don't know if I'd move them. What @chpettit19 suggested, stacking Archer and Bundy might be an option. We'll have to let it go another month, I think, and make whatever moves need to be by then at the latest, and before if the situation calls for it.
×
×
  • Create New...