Squirrel

But were they a mirage for those of us who expected what we got? Of course I always hope for better, we should hope for better. But many of us still predicted average or just above. That's where they are right now.

Can statistics measure luck, good and bad? :)

I’ve said it often … you never know what the day will bring. On any given day the best can be the worst and the worst can be the best. Everyone and every team has moments. It’s why we tune in every night, because we really don’t know. As for the Twins, this is just about where I thought they’d be. Not that I’m a good predictor of anything, the off season just couldn’t inspire me that they would be anything more. I wasn’t deluded by anything and I don’t think most people on these boards were. But hope springs eternal. And when spring and spring training comes around, we are all at 0-0 and anything is possible. (Probable is a different discussion.) I may not like what all transpires throughout the year, my hopes for better get dashed and dashed again, but deluded? Nope. I think people on these boards confuse hoping and wishing vs those who just want to grumble. I’m not sure who are the deluded ones in this scenario.

Reminds me of the time I added an iffy weather report to one of your openers when we were played in a roofed stadium … 🙂

Amen.

Yep. And this is problem number one. And why I don’t believe much will change. Maybe we’ll get a new manager, maybe Falvey will go, maybe the entire coaching squad, but the culture will stay the same and the Twins will continue to field the teams they do.

Sure. And if we had won the games the players lost, we’d be leading the division. Team sport, it’s not on one alone.

Again, how many games really is that? As I’ve said, I don’t think it’s a many as you do, because much of the criticisms are in hindsight with lots of bias and emotions and not actual objective critique and analysis. Managers have always been scapegoats and will always be scapegoats. But I will concede on the Guardians. No one thought they would sustain that but good for them. Still,is the difference solely because of the manager? Managers are easy targets. The players play the game … how many missed opportunities with RISP? How many errors that led to winning runs? How many blown outings for a pitcher? While you lay fault on Baldelli for most of that saying it’s his decision making that cause most of that, I don’t. Some, yes, probably, but most? no. The players need to take the field and play the game, win or lose. A lot of that, even most of it, is on them. That’s my take on the game. What a manager has to work with is a big part of winning and losing. If we had won a small handful of games we lost due to managerial decisions, yes, we’d be in a better spot. But we’d be in a much better spot if players could/would actually hit the ball. But we’d be in a much better spot if we had better players. Would we be better with a better manager? No way to know. You are convinced yes, I’m not because we would still have this roster. A better manager might have eked out a few more wins, but enough of them? Better players probably would have eked out more. Even with the manager of your dreams leading this team, with the same injuries and same players, this team is not a WS team. That all said, still doesn’t answer the question about the clubhouse. Not for me. You and I are at an impasse, so let’s just agree to disagree.

Maybe they just weren’t that good.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! Sure, if honest conversation = an echo chamber. 🙄

That could be very much so. As I said, I just don’t know if he’s lost the clubhouse or not. If Rocco is dismissed after the season, I think we’ll have an answer. If he isn’t, I still don’t know. But as I just said above, managers are the scapegoats. It’s just too bad that the Pohlads can’t ever ante up when they should.

Look, he can’t. It’s up to the players to play the game. I’ve long said I’m sure Rocco has lost a game or two for the team, but I do think the players have lost way more for themselves. But as Craig said above … I won’t be surprised either if he’s dismissed, and I won’t be surprised if he isn’t. Managers have always been the scapegoats. This team from the beginning has been average, maybe slightly above. They have never been a great team. I do think Rocco got most of the most he could out of them considering the injuries and all. But the ones I blame most, are the Pohlads. They are the ones who pulled the rug out from under before the season even began. Problems, such as team culture, begins at the top, but it’s usually the coaches and/or manager that take the hits. Even if you think they should, it still won’t solve the top of the problem, and team culture still starts at the top, and as long as the Pohlads are at the top, mediocrity will thrive here. But go ahead and blame Rocco for the season and every loss they took. It’s a team sport. Winning and losing is done by more than one person. But the manager always has been and always will be the scapegoat. Just thought this site was better than falling into that easy answer.

Yes. I don’t think any of us knows what goes on behind closed doors. Winning or losing says nothing about the clubhouse, imo. And I don’t say that out of defense for Rocco. I say that as I don’t know. I don’t get local news so I have heard any rumblings from players. But it’s the players who have lost way more games than Rocco has. Rocco can’t hit the ball for them.

You think the Pohlad’s are going to increase payroll after cutting it? Thats should be problem #1 on everyone’s list. Nothing will change, nothing, because ownership will stay the same. That’s the outlook.

Agreed. Ownership took care of that by cutting payroll.

I actually think he is, mostly. And that isn't me defending anything because I've made my opinions clear on just how much I think the manager brings to the team in terms of wins and losses on any given day. This team is mediocre, maybe slightly above average. The pitching depth, both starting and BP are sparse, and with your best players spending big chunks of time on the IL, yes, he's managing with 2nd, 3rd, and 4th string players. And a few of those some wondered why they were there to begin with. (Farmer anyone?) But, oh, payroll. So behind the few good players we did have, is mediocre. Because we 'can't afford' more. This has never been a great team. Potential maybe, if the cards fell right, but I guess I never expected them to be where they are now. Hoped for better, thought the potential could be there, but was also guarded.

You do have options if the team is simply not fun to watch ... don't watch. Seriously. I'm as much a fan as anyone here, but I am not giving the team my money or my viewership if I don't like it. doesn't mean I don't keep up with things, I do. But, my time is more valuable and I do have other things to do. For me, and I've said this before, when ownership cut payroll, that was the absolute worst travesty of the off-season, and set a tone of things to come ... which, imo, is far worse than any of yours or others' complaints about the manager.

I’m not sure any of us can know any of this. But from how players talk about him, I’d say, yes, he did. As of right now? I don’t know. I don’t think any of us can glean anything off of anything to know that. The Twins have always been pretty good about keeping that stuff in the clubhouse.

It’s a new day. You can rant about yesterday in yesterday’s game recap. We don’t need today’s game thread to be a rehash of last night’s game thread. I think Brock made that clear. Agree, disagree, be disappointed because losing sucks, but act like an adult and be respectful of one another.

Stop making your posts personal towards anyone. This is a discussion forum and we disagree. No one is right or wrong, so stop with the personal comments.

No one changed the topic title. Another thread was started to complain about Rocco’s lineups and Richie merged the topics. When you merge topics, you can choose which title it will take, Richie chose the new topic title. It was no one being immature. I changed it back to the original just now so others like yourself won’t be confused.

This is where I digress from most of you. Can a manager impact a game? Yes. Has Rocco? Most likely, no way to really know for sure or how often, but most likely. Enough to really make a difference? Perhaps ... depends on how close you are in the end. But I wouldn't say his impact was as much as what most of you think. Rocco isn't great, but I don't think he's the worst, either. And I've said this for most of the last couple of seasons. It's up to the players to play ... they know their roles, then execute. Some of you believe how he handles the line up and bp matter; okay, yes, they matter, but how much? I'm not convinced it matters as much as most of think think. I'm not sure it's the reason for losses; if it is, it's the reason for wins, too, and there are more of those than losses. I don't think every loss is on him. I don't think most losses are on him same as I don't credit him for most of the wins, either. I just don't believe the manager is that affecting of the outcome. Now, in the end, if your difference is within 5 games ... certainly, some of that is on Rocco. But a lot of that is on the players. A lot more, imo. More losses come at their hands than Rocco's. More wins come at their hands than Rocco's, too. I also think the FO has a lot of fingers in this, as well. If not Rocco, we'd likely have someone just like him and we'd still be here. And then there's ownership cutting payroll and limiting who we can get. That is more frustrating to me, way more. Losing is not a one person thing, but most nights, after a loss, I hear many of you point the finger at one person. It just isn't so, imo. The managers in this game have always been the scapegoats. Always.

That is my guess

None of those was the case. It was a close play we didn’t get. Julien was there.

Yep. Read that, too