84 thoughts on “July 15, 2013: Home Run Derby!!!!!”
I've never been a big "Fire Gardy" guy. I think his record is about as good as it could reasonably be expected to be, given the talent he's had. On the other hand, going forward, the Twins are going to need a manager who has the ability to develop young talent. I have real reservations about whether Gardy has that ability.
Your thoughts on this topic are welcome.
I see through your flimsy plan, to get Citizens bantering about on a rolicking topic during a Twins off day. Well, I'm not falling for it!
If you fire him and bring in someone young and intelligent (Dougie?) then I'd give it a whirl.
It worked, didn't it?
Unfortunately, Showalter and Yost are employed elsewhere.
I don't trust any new coach to be marginally better instead of marginally worse.
Better the Devil you know, I think.
Better the Devil you know than Scott Ulger.
ftfy
After a while, nobody listens to the Devil they know. Even if we don't trust anyone to be an overall upgrade, occasional change can be motivation for players. I find myself pretty tired of Gardenhire, but without much interest in replacing him. When managers are handed teams this terrible, it can harm their careers. Alan Trammell is probably a perfectly reasonable manager, but he had that disastrous season and I don't think he's reached the management level since.
Most of the players are new.
I'm with you on the raising of young talent to be the single biggest need for the Twins manager right now.
I feel like they've been trying to put coaches around Gardy who can handle that aspect of the game better (Bruno, Cuellar, Steinbach). To my mind:
If those coaches can do the trick, then Gardy can stick.
If Gardy interferes, he's out of heres.
Reasonable AND catchy!
If the glove don't fit, at least he can hit.
I don't think Gardy would have had the success he has without being able to develop young talent. My biggest complaint right now is the treatment of Parmelee. I think the biggest problem there is that he actually had been hitting well for more than a month until about a week ago. Even then his numbers are pretty good over the last six weeks. I think the biggest problem is Gardy and his staff don't look at the best stats to determine who's hitting well. Parmelee doesn't have anything he really does well, but he reaches base pretty well and hits for some power. His treatment reminds me of a young Michael Cuddyer when he started out poorly and then was a pretty good all-around hitter, but Gardy was inconsistent with his usage. However, it all worked out in the end.
I think that's a common pattern for Gardy with young players. If you don't do well right away, he has no patience with you and starts shuffling you in and out of the lineup on an inconsistent basis. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Hicks, and he had no real alternative early in the season. Had Mastroianni been healthy, I have little doubt Hicks would've been treated the same way.
This. Gardy doesn't seem to have the patience needed generally, nor the teaching ability to truly practice a tough love approach, ala TK.
Oh hey, what's TK doing? He'd be a guy!
In Hicks' case, it maybe would have helped to get him out of the lineup a bit (or certainly at least out of the leadoff spot)
"You can see it: Right now (Parmelee) is talking himself into things," Gardenhire said. "He's running over trying to dissect every swing, every pitch, and you can't play the game like this. You have to go up and hit. You need to go sit down and relax. He's asking way too many questions right now. His mind is spinning."
This is an excellent example of why Gardy bugs me. It reminds me of what the Twins did with Slowey, and to a lesser degree, Lohse, Hardy, Garza and others- there's little to no patience with players who don't fit Gardy's preferred model. Instead the Twins end up with Butera, Tolbert and a constant parade of pitch-to-contact veterans.
Still, for the most part I like Gardy, and I don't know how much blame or credit he should get for the roster construction. I don't want TR to replace him unless they completely blow it up and change the entire coaching staff, and I really don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.
Yeah, that's just... a weird sentiment. Curse those young, inexperienced guys for trying to get answers to why they are young and inexperienced.
to me, its sounds like Grady is saying Parm is his own head right now. Instead of 'see ball, hit ball' its 'why this' or 'why that'
Parm is in kind of a tough situation for playing time because Ryan Doumit is on the roster. Once Doumit is traded, I bet Parm gets called back up and plays just about everyday.
SoCal made the comparison to Cuddyer. I agree with that.
What's the list of young players who've developed under Gardenhire? Especially, what's the list of young players who struggled initially, then developed into good players (sorry, I don't give Gardy credit for Joe Mauer)? I suspect it's a pretty short list.
Now, you could argue that a lot of those guys weren't all that good in the first place, and you might be right about that. Still, that's not evidence that Gardenhire can develop young talent; it's just a reason why he hasn't.
The bottom line for me is that, if Buxton comes up and struggles at first, I don't want him losing at-bats and then being sent to Rochester so the latest incarnation of Thomas/Mastroianni/Repko/Tyner can play. If Sano comes up and has a bad week or two, I don't want him sitting in favor of some scrappy utility infielder. My fear is that, if Gardy is still the manager at that point, that is exactly what will happen.
Pretty sure TR won't allow those two to sit much, when the time comes.
The bottom line for me is that, if Buxton comes up and struggles at first, I don’t want him losing at-bats and then being sent to Rochester so the latest incarnation of Thomas/Mastroianni/Repko/Tyner can play.
That seems like the worst possible example to give. What happened to Hicks when he epically struggled to start this season? And it would be hard to find a worse start than Hicks's start--he started basically as poorly as Rondell White did back in 2006. Did Hicks get sent to Rochester so the latest incarnation of Thomas/Mastroianni/Repko/Tyner could play?
As I said above, Hicks is the one exception I can think of off the top of my head. However, as I also said above, the latest incarnation of Mastroanni was injured. Had he not been, I suspect things would have gone differently.
Clete Thomas wasn't injured and Antoan Richardson is still playing well and probably should have been called up before Clete even though Richardson started in AA.
Since Mastroanni had been pegged as the alternative, I don't think those other two really count. But even still, ultimately this amounts only to "Hicks was given a little more leash than other players." And let's not forget, Hicks had a few doghouse moments too, with the not tossing the ball in thing, or whatever. And Hicks' response was the "my bad, I've got to learn" type of thing. So... something that wasn't that big of a deal was something the manager called him out for, and Hicks had to respond in a way that mollified Gardy.
And maybe that hits on what has bothered me most about Gardy with young players... he seems to judge them based more on attitude than performance, but he doesn't seem to teach them what he expects in terms of attitude. I'm all for having proper respect for the game, but you've gotta teach it throughout the organization, and I think that certainly fell apart in the minors for a few years there.
...he seems to judge them based more on attitude than performance, but he doesn’t seem to teach them what he expects in terms of attitude.
I'm not saying Parmelee shouldn't have been sent down, but that quote about him asking too many questions seems to fly in the face of Gardy's position in the past. I remember reading something about how much he liked Maestro because he was always paying attention to the game, asking questions, talking to the veterans and coaches about various plays, etc., trying to get better.
Maybe he meant that Parmelee needs to relax and not get overly fixated on evaluating every swing, every at-bat, but the way he conveyed it and the fact that Chris was surprised at being sent down gives me pause.
I kinda get the feeling that the quote about Parmelee asking questions really means "he's questioning what we are telling him to do." That combined with the surprise factor of his demotion makes me wonder if they're trying to give him an ego check like they did with Bartlett back in the day. Who knows.
Hicks was given "a little" more leash? He was hitting .042 on April 20th. He was striking out in more than 1 every 3 PA. Most onlookers would have moved him to Rochester to (potentially) save the Pohlads a couple bucks down the line. The word of the day was all about how the Twins moved Hicks up too quickly too soon, but they stuck with him anyway. You can try to come up with excuses like this player or that player wasn't available, but at the end of the day they kept putting him in the lineup. It was really just a continuation of the faith they showed in Hicks over the offseason by trading away not just Span but also Revere.
And let’s not forget, Hicks had a few doghouse moments too, with the not tossing the ball in thing, or whatever. And Hicks’ response was the “my bad, I’ve got to learn” type of thing. So… something that wasn’t that big of a deal was something the manager called him out for, and Hicks had to respond in a way that mollified Gardy.
How should have Hicks responded? Wouldn't any reasonably mature person just say, "sorry boss, won't happen again." Would we prefer that Hicks defiantly started flipping the ball at every next turn? If that's the minimal standard to which Bartlett, Lohse, et al could not live up to, then I can understand Gardenhire's frustrations.
The solution of Hicks' appropriate response wasn't the issue - it was that he needed to mollify the manager, who was picking on non-performance issues (through the media, no less) in the first place. Do you really mean to suggest, based on the fact that the Twins stuck with Hicks through a rough start, that Gardenhire is model of patience with young players? Because that's the counter-point I'm presenting... From my observations, it seems Gardy has had a lot of problems with young players based on things other than performance.
The reason the ball flip thing went public was because they do their jobs in public and everyone caught on to it so if he didn't say anything about it, he'd have been dodging questions. Gardenhire even said as much at the time. 30-40 years ago (or in the minors where there aren't 12 cameras on every game) probably none of the reporters even notice because they couldn't have seen Gardy's reaction from the press box.
I haven't observed all managers, but from the managers I have observed, they seem to generally have the same problems with young players that Gardy has. The young players are supposed to be professionals, but not every 23-year-old is as mature as a 23-year-old Joe Mauer. So Gardy is a bit of a hard-ass on some of the ways that they behave on the field and the way that they go about their business. I don't think he's perfect, but I don't think this is holding him back as a manager.
I also think that Gardenhire and the Twins have shown more patience with better prospects than they've shown with lesser prospects and a lot of the pissing and moaning about not being patient enough or cutting a guy too early happens with the more marginal prospects.
What’s the list of young players who’ve developed under Gardenhire?
Michael Cuddyer, Justin Morneau, Jason Kubel, Johan Santana, Scott Baker, Glen Perkins, Denard Span, Trevor Plouffe, Francisco Liriano, Jesse Crain, Matt Guerrier, Juan Rincon, Kyle Lohse, Carlos Silva,
How many of those guys struggled initially, which was my question? I don't have time to look them all up now, but at least some of them started very well, then struggled more as they were "developed".
Funny, I wouldn't count most of those as Gardenhire successes. And I don't know that I'd give him any credit for any of the pitchers.
My list would be Morneau, Kubel, Span (Cuddy was more of a TK guy, wasn't he?). Meanwhile there's a sizable list of players who seem to have been run off by Gardy.
Cuddy was all Gardy
OK then.
And Gardy jerked him around quite a bit initially. Granted, Cuddy didn't complain and did (within his limitations) what he was told
I think prospects have generally done well coming up under Gardy, and I think most of the negative qualities he brings to the table are institutional, so a replacement selected by the current organization would likely be more of the same.
I also think a lot of organizations have this problem where the problems they have are much bigger than one or two people and to make really significant shifts you have to have a pretty sweeping overhaul to address things.
I thought Gardy should have been fired two years ago when he started hinting (or not denying) that Mauer was the problem. That is either an inexcusable lack of class and leadership or an inexcusable lack of understanding of what is happening on the field.
I agree that the roster is the problem. I don't give gardy a pass for that. Bill Smith's mistake was listening to gardy. The guys that Gardy ran off because he didn't like them could all be helping the team right now. (Lohse, Garza, Hardy, etc.)
Obviously, we can't know how much input Gardy has on roster construction. Still, I have a hard time believing, for example, that Parmelee and Arcia would've been sent down had Gardy said he wanted to play them.
I agree. I just hate to see someone jettisoned based on their personality. I don't remember hearing about any legal problems and it never seemed to be based on play on the field.
I also don't like to see players moved based on their personality, but I suspect that happens with all clubs whether they are forthright about it or not.
This is certainly true. It is also true that some players are kept based on their personality. And I agree, it happens on pretty much all teams.
the Gardy situation is a tough one. On the one hand, its hard to win when your starting staff cant get 18 outs. But on the other Gardy is pretty good at massaging the bullpen the get through a game more often than not. He seems like a players manager, but at the same time seem to jerk players around (as noted in this discussion). Its nice to have stability, but at the same time does hearing the message from the same guy for a long time start to wear thin.
I think Gardy will be offered a contract, but its really up to him whether he wants to stay.
I think Gardy will be around a while longer, and will get every chance to prove me wrong. I hope he does.
There is no doubt in my mind that Jimmy's "little birdy" was Cuddyer. We haven't had nearly as many negative articles about Mauer from Jimmy since then.
I was always a Cuddyer booster myself (loved that cannon on his shoulder), though I understood his limitations and his propensity for injury was frustrating.
The injuries were bad, but his propensity to swing at terrible, low and outside sliders with two strikes in important game situations was more maddening. It seemed he'd rather fail by swinging at crap than count on someone else to be the hero.
New countdown on DbT starting today, where we rank all the state license plates. The worst license plate goes to Florida!
The following calls were all made in a 3 inning softball game between 10 year olds:
Infield fly with bases loaded and 1 out. Ball is dropped. In ensuing confusion, runner from 3rd is tagged out trying to advance for a double play.
Catcher's interference.
Coach interference. (Base coach touched a baserunner.)
A runner was called out for turning towards 2nd base while overrunning 1st base while the pitcher had the ball on the rubber.
So, was it the same umpiring crew that was in the Bronx for that last Twins series?
I think most of the calls were actually correct. I don't think the rounding first call was correct but I am not sure. I think the coach interference should have been a warning unless he actually helped the girl advance.
I've never heard of the rounding first/turning towards second being an out if the pitcher has the ball and is on the rubber- must be related to not allowing stolen bases or something.
I don't know if a 10-year olds' league keeps score or if standings matter, but if it's a for-fun summer league, I think warnings are always a better way to go.
Seems like an age where letting them play (the last two) would be more enjoyable.
Unless this is a league for future umpires.
Yes.
The overrunning first base call seems blatantly wrong. If the pitcher has their foot on the rubber, presumably this means a dead ball, so you just tell the runner to go back to first base. Maybe there's a provision for this specific instance in this particular league, but in general there's certainly no way to get called out for trying to advance in a dead ball situation--you just get sent back to where you are supposed to be.
I'm okay with catcher's interference at that age unless the batter was somehow trying to reach back to hit the mitt. It's unfortunate, but it shouldn't be happening much.
At that age, I think I'd enforce the infield fly rule, but runners would not be allowed to advance on the play. In an infield fly scenario, once the ball is popped up in the infield, the play would be dead. That would introduce the concept of the infield fly rule while eliminating much (all?) of the confusion.
Coach's interference is the most ridiculous call in general. Did the coach actually really aid the player in going faster? Did the coach make a difference in a bang-bang play at the plate?
The rounding first base call is unique to softball. They can't leave the base until the pitch is thrown. If they are between the bases and the pitcher has the ball in the circle, they need to pick a direction. They cannot stop or change their direction.
I don't know exactly how it is worded, but I would think there would be the opportunity to round the base, see that the pitcher has the ball, and then head back to first. That is how another umpire interpreted the rule in a later game and makes sense. The umpire in the first game is basically saying that if you round the base and the pitcher has the ball in the circle, you must attempt to advance.
That seems like a weird way to run the game. I thought the point of getting the ball to the pitcher in the circle was to stop play, not to force runners to continue advancing.
I've never seen the infield fly rule called in a Little League game. Not sure if this is because the umps don't know the rule/don't think to call it or because players rarely are underneath the ball and waiting for it to come down.
I remember it being called when playing and calling it when umping.
I'm sure that in general little league umps are less likely to know/recognize/call the infield fly rule, but I've definitely had it called in games when I was growing up.
I could go either way on it, I suppose. If you just don't call the infield fly rule and eventually some kids are smart enough to figure out how to exploit it, then the kids gain an appreciation for why it's a rule in the first place. The main reason I think it's worth keeping the infield fly rule (and not allowing runners to advance, just calling it a dead ball) at that age is that it makes it a really difficult situation for the guys on first and second (and third). The younger they are, the more likely there is to be an error on a routine play, but if it's a pop-up in the infield, the runners can't really cheat far off the base anyway. So the smart play is to take a couple steps off the base but not go too far. If the runners play it smart but the fielder misses it through incompetence, then getting one out is usually still pretty easy. Without any kind of infield fly rule, it seems like at best, the defense has an opportunity to get more than an out, and they'll probably get at least one anyway.
Ha! Jackie Autry talks some good smack for the AL's in the press conference. And as Tim Kirkjian pointed out afterwards, when Bryce Harper is batting 9th for the NL and Joe Mauer is batting 8th for the AL, you're talking about some really good teams.
From a hitting perspective, it seems like Cano and Mauer are pretty interchangeable, but since they usually go to the bench after a starter's 2nd PA, then hitting Mauer 8th potentially allows him to catch an extra inning or two. I freely admit that I haven't been following the league that closely the last 3-4 years, but I've never heard of Jason Castro or Salvador Perez until I just looked up the All-Star lineups. (On the other hand, this could be a hint that they actually aren't stars.) Looks like Castro's had a decent first half and his minor league resume seems good, so in the absence of a good non-Mauer he's pretty legitimate as the Astros' lone representative. Is Salvador Perez really good defensively? He doesn't seem like a very strong candidate.
At any rate, faced with these three catchers, if you wanted to win the game, you'd play Mauer for the whole game. If you sort of want to win the game but have to deal with the politics involved, you find a way to hopefully get a couple extra innings out of Mauer by hitting him lower in the order.
Perez led the league last year by gunning down 42% of attempted steals (18/43), this year he is at 33% (13/40)
To sort of tack on to the main point here, though, the ASG is almost more disappointing when the starting lineups are really great. Likewise, Scherzer and Harvey are having great seasons. It would be must-see TV if Scherzer and Harvey were going to face those lineups like it was a game that counted in the standings. (Although historically, even going back to the 50s, it looks like the starter basically never goes more than 3 innings.) All of the substitutions just makes it into a circus.
But, but... it counts!
From my brother-in-law's blog (a bit long, but of interest here, especially given the discussion above):
I wrote a few weeks ago about the Twins, and how they have apparently used hard take signals and a drilling in of patience and working counts to wring some value out of bad hitters, and to maximize the value of average ones...
On Sunday, the Twins demoted Oswaldo Arcia, Chris Parmelee and Eduardo Escobar to Triple-A, recalling no one as important to the team as the least of those.
Arcia is the interesting one to me. Parmelee fits, too. They rank second and third, respectively, among the 10 Twins who have substantial at-bats this season, in swing rate on the first pitch of a plate appearance. Only Justin Morneau swings more in those spots than Arcia. Morneau is also the only Twin who swings more overall than Arcia.
Despite their hyper-aggressive approaches (relatively speaking), both players are outperforming Aaron Hicks. The organization has every bit of the incentive to option Hicks as they have to farm out Arcia, from a service-time and budgetary perspective, and maybe more. Yet, Hicks will remain the starting center fielder, and Arcia is headed back to Rochester.
Why? Because the Twins are not giving in. It’s clear that they consider the philosophy of selectivity and plate discipline a mandate, not a suggestion. If a player goes off the reservation in that regard, it’s mash or die. Hicks is working hard to maintain his approach despite his struggles, and the team is rewarding him with the chance to work through his problems at the big-league level. Arcia is not going to be afforded the same chance unless he makes the same effort to conform, and Parmelee could be left out of the team’s plans permanently.
so, I'm assuming that this brother-in-law does not have a meth problem?
Well, I'm not a DEA agent either...
Dozier is the only Twins batter that has been better than Hicks over the last 30 days. Of course, that includes Hicks' time on the DL. Still, over his last 13 games, Hicks is batting .271/.327/.521 and playing Gold Glove defense. Based on quotes from Gardy, the Twins have sent down Arcia and Parmelee more because of how they are reacting to struggles than how much they are struggling. Arcia looks completely lost right now. It sounds like Parmelee is thinking too much at the plate and I think the Twins want both to relax and gain some confidence in AAA. I'm not sure I would agree with Parmelee, but I'm not in the dugout everyday, either.
He'd been taking a pretty wide look around baseball on the topic of plate discipline lately, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's onto something. Pressing is pretty much the exact opposite of discipline, so the two assessments aren't mutually exclusive.
Despite their hyper-aggressive approaches (relatively speaking), both players are outperforming Aaron Hicks.
I think they are demoting Parmelee and Arcia because they aren't very good, and they're keeping Hicks because he's the best center fielder in the organization today, even though Buxton will likely assume that title in a season or two. When Parmelee and Arcia start playing above-average defense in center field, then we can throw them in the conversation with Aaron Hicks.
b-r's version:
Dude
WAR
Aaron Hicks
1.3
Chris Parmelee
0.8
Oswaldo Arcia
-0.6
Arcia is rated as the worst batter on the team this year. DRS does not like his fielding at all, giving him a -10.
Your brother-in-law could certainly have information that I don't, but it seems to me one of the things Gardy has said he likes about Arcia is his aggressive approach at the plate. This would seem to say the exact opposite.
There is one thing that bugs me about sending Arcia down. I have heard that the major league pitchers have learned to not throw him fastballs for strikes and he hasn't adjusted. Are minor league pitchers going to pitch him the same way? If not, what will he learn by going down?
I read some speculation that Parmelee was sent down because Morneau is going to be traded, and they want Parmelee not only to get some swings but some work at first base. That would make some sense, but it is, of course, pure speculation.
I've never been a big "Fire Gardy" guy. I think his record is about as good as it could reasonably be expected to be, given the talent he's had. On the other hand, going forward, the Twins are going to need a manager who has the ability to develop young talent. I have real reservations about whether Gardy has that ability.
Your thoughts on this topic are welcome.
I see through your flimsy plan, to get Citizens bantering about on a rolicking topic during a Twins off day. Well, I'm not falling for it!
If you fire him and bring in someone young and intelligent (Dougie?) then I'd give it a whirl.
It worked, didn't it?
Unfortunately, Showalter and Yost are employed elsewhere.
I don't trust any new coach to be marginally better instead of marginally worse.
Better the Devil you know, I think.
ftfy
After a while, nobody listens to the Devil they know. Even if we don't trust anyone to be an overall upgrade, occasional change can be motivation for players. I find myself pretty tired of Gardenhire, but without much interest in replacing him. When managers are handed teams this terrible, it can harm their careers. Alan Trammell is probably a perfectly reasonable manager, but he had that disastrous season and I don't think he's reached the management level since.
Most of the players are new.
I'm with you on the raising of young talent to be the single biggest need for the Twins manager right now.
I feel like they've been trying to put coaches around Gardy who can handle that aspect of the game better (Bruno, Cuellar, Steinbach). To my mind:
If those coaches can do the trick, then Gardy can stick.
If Gardy interferes, he's out of heres.
Reasonable AND catchy!
If the glove don't fit, at least he can hit.
I don't think Gardy would have had the success he has without being able to develop young talent. My biggest complaint right now is the treatment of Parmelee. I think the biggest problem there is that he actually had been hitting well for more than a month until about a week ago. Even then his numbers are pretty good over the last six weeks. I think the biggest problem is Gardy and his staff don't look at the best stats to determine who's hitting well. Parmelee doesn't have anything he really does well, but he reaches base pretty well and hits for some power. His treatment reminds me of a young Michael Cuddyer when he started out poorly and then was a pretty good all-around hitter, but Gardy was inconsistent with his usage. However, it all worked out in the end.
I think that's a common pattern for Gardy with young players. If you don't do well right away, he has no patience with you and starts shuffling you in and out of the lineup on an inconsistent basis. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Hicks, and he had no real alternative early in the season. Had Mastroianni been healthy, I have little doubt Hicks would've been treated the same way.
This. Gardy doesn't seem to have the patience needed generally, nor the teaching ability to truly practice a tough love approach, ala TK.
Oh hey, what's TK doing? He'd be a guy!
In Hicks' case, it maybe would have helped to get him out of the lineup a bit (or certainly at least out of the leadoff spot)
From Mike Berardino at twincities.com-
This is an excellent example of why Gardy bugs me. It reminds me of what the Twins did with Slowey, and to a lesser degree, Lohse, Hardy, Garza and others- there's little to no patience with players who don't fit Gardy's preferred model. Instead the Twins end up with Butera, Tolbert and a constant parade of pitch-to-contact veterans.
Still, for the most part I like Gardy, and I don't know how much blame or credit he should get for the roster construction. I don't want TR to replace him unless they completely blow it up and change the entire coaching staff, and I really don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.
Yeah, that's just... a weird sentiment. Curse those young, inexperienced guys for trying to get answers to why they are young and inexperienced.
to me, its sounds like Grady is saying Parm is his own head right now. Instead of 'see ball, hit ball' its 'why this' or 'why that'
Parm is in kind of a tough situation for playing time because Ryan Doumit is on the roster. Once Doumit is traded, I bet Parm gets called back up and plays just about everyday.
SoCal made the comparison to Cuddyer. I agree with that.
What's the list of young players who've developed under Gardenhire? Especially, what's the list of young players who struggled initially, then developed into good players (sorry, I don't give Gardy credit for Joe Mauer)? I suspect it's a pretty short list.
Now, you could argue that a lot of those guys weren't all that good in the first place, and you might be right about that. Still, that's not evidence that Gardenhire can develop young talent; it's just a reason why he hasn't.
The bottom line for me is that, if Buxton comes up and struggles at first, I don't want him losing at-bats and then being sent to Rochester so the latest incarnation of Thomas/Mastroianni/Repko/Tyner can play. If Sano comes up and has a bad week or two, I don't want him sitting in favor of some scrappy utility infielder. My fear is that, if Gardy is still the manager at that point, that is exactly what will happen.
Pretty sure TR won't allow those two to sit much, when the time comes.
That seems like the worst possible example to give. What happened to Hicks when he epically struggled to start this season? And it would be hard to find a worse start than Hicks's start--he started basically as poorly as Rondell White did back in 2006. Did Hicks get sent to Rochester so the latest incarnation of Thomas/Mastroianni/Repko/Tyner could play?
As I said above, Hicks is the one exception I can think of off the top of my head. However, as I also said above, the latest incarnation of Mastroanni was injured. Had he not been, I suspect things would have gone differently.
Clete Thomas wasn't injured and Antoan Richardson is still playing well and probably should have been called up before Clete even though Richardson started in AA.
Since Mastroanni had been pegged as the alternative, I don't think those other two really count. But even still, ultimately this amounts only to "Hicks was given a little more leash than other players." And let's not forget, Hicks had a few doghouse moments too, with the not tossing the ball in thing, or whatever. And Hicks' response was the "my bad, I've got to learn" type of thing. So... something that wasn't that big of a deal was something the manager called him out for, and Hicks had to respond in a way that mollified Gardy.
And maybe that hits on what has bothered me most about Gardy with young players... he seems to judge them based more on attitude than performance, but he doesn't seem to teach them what he expects in terms of attitude. I'm all for having proper respect for the game, but you've gotta teach it throughout the organization, and I think that certainly fell apart in the minors for a few years there.
I'm not saying Parmelee shouldn't have been sent down, but that quote about him asking too many questions seems to fly in the face of Gardy's position in the past. I remember reading something about how much he liked Maestro because he was always paying attention to the game, asking questions, talking to the veterans and coaches about various plays, etc., trying to get better.
Maybe he meant that Parmelee needs to relax and not get overly fixated on evaluating every swing, every at-bat, but the way he conveyed it and the fact that Chris was surprised at being sent down gives me pause.
I kinda get the feeling that the quote about Parmelee asking questions really means "he's questioning what we are telling him to do." That combined with the surprise factor of his demotion makes me wonder if they're trying to give him an ego check like they did with Bartlett back in the day. Who knows.
Hicks was given "a little" more leash? He was hitting .042 on April 20th. He was striking out in more than 1 every 3 PA. Most onlookers would have moved him to Rochester to (potentially) save the Pohlads a couple bucks down the line. The word of the day was all about how the Twins moved Hicks up too quickly too soon, but they stuck with him anyway. You can try to come up with excuses like this player or that player wasn't available, but at the end of the day they kept putting him in the lineup. It was really just a continuation of the faith they showed in Hicks over the offseason by trading away not just Span but also Revere.
How should have Hicks responded? Wouldn't any reasonably mature person just say, "sorry boss, won't happen again." Would we prefer that Hicks defiantly started flipping the ball at every next turn? If that's the minimal standard to which Bartlett, Lohse, et al could not live up to, then I can understand Gardenhire's frustrations.
The solution of Hicks' appropriate response wasn't the issue - it was that he needed to mollify the manager, who was picking on non-performance issues (through the media, no less) in the first place. Do you really mean to suggest, based on the fact that the Twins stuck with Hicks through a rough start, that Gardenhire is model of patience with young players? Because that's the counter-point I'm presenting... From my observations, it seems Gardy has had a lot of problems with young players based on things other than performance.
The reason the ball flip thing went public was because they do their jobs in public and everyone caught on to it so if he didn't say anything about it, he'd have been dodging questions. Gardenhire even said as much at the time. 30-40 years ago (or in the minors where there aren't 12 cameras on every game) probably none of the reporters even notice because they couldn't have seen Gardy's reaction from the press box.
I haven't observed all managers, but from the managers I have observed, they seem to generally have the same problems with young players that Gardy has. The young players are supposed to be professionals, but not every 23-year-old is as mature as a 23-year-old Joe Mauer. So Gardy is a bit of a hard-ass on some of the ways that they behave on the field and the way that they go about their business. I don't think he's perfect, but I don't think this is holding him back as a manager.
I also think that Gardenhire and the Twins have shown more patience with better prospects than they've shown with lesser prospects and a lot of the pissing and moaning about not being patient enough or cutting a guy too early happens with the more marginal prospects.
Michael Cuddyer, Justin Morneau, Jason Kubel, Johan Santana, Scott Baker, Glen Perkins, Denard Span, Trevor Plouffe, Francisco Liriano, Jesse Crain, Matt Guerrier, Juan Rincon, Kyle Lohse, Carlos Silva,
How many of those guys struggled initially, which was my question? I don't have time to look them all up now, but at least some of them started very well, then struggled more as they were "developed".
Funny, I wouldn't count most of those as Gardenhire successes. And I don't know that I'd give him any credit for any of the pitchers.
My list would be Morneau, Kubel, Span (Cuddy was more of a TK guy, wasn't he?). Meanwhile there's a sizable list of players who seem to have been run off by Gardy.
Cuddy was all Gardy
OK then.
And Gardy jerked him around quite a bit initially. Granted, Cuddy didn't complain and did (within his limitations) what he was told
I think prospects have generally done well coming up under Gardy, and I think most of the negative qualities he brings to the table are institutional, so a replacement selected by the current organization would likely be more of the same.
I also think a lot of organizations have this problem where the problems they have are much bigger than one or two people and to make really significant shifts you have to have a pretty sweeping overhaul to address things.
I thought Gardy should have been fired two years ago when he started hinting (or not denying) that Mauer was the problem. That is either an inexcusable lack of class and leadership or an inexcusable lack of understanding of what is happening on the field.
I agree that the roster is the problem. I don't give gardy a pass for that. Bill Smith's mistake was listening to gardy. The guys that Gardy ran off because he didn't like them could all be helping the team right now. (Lohse, Garza, Hardy, etc.)
Obviously, we can't know how much input Gardy has on roster construction. Still, I have a hard time believing, for example, that Parmelee and Arcia would've been sent down had Gardy said he wanted to play them.
I agree. I just hate to see someone jettisoned based on their personality. I don't remember hearing about any legal problems and it never seemed to be based on play on the field.
I also don't like to see players moved based on their personality, but I suspect that happens with all clubs whether they are forthright about it or not.
This is certainly true. It is also true that some players are kept based on their personality. And I agree, it happens on pretty much all teams.
the Gardy situation is a tough one. On the one hand, its hard to win when your starting staff cant get 18 outs. But on the other Gardy is pretty good at massaging the bullpen the get through a game more often than not. He seems like a players manager, but at the same time seem to jerk players around (as noted in this discussion). Its nice to have stability, but at the same time does hearing the message from the same guy for a long time start to wear thin.
I think Gardy will be offered a contract, but its really up to him whether he wants to stay.
I think Gardy will be around a while longer, and will get every chance to prove me wrong. I hope he does.
Top Jimmy loves him some Cuddyer:
http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/215465831.html
There is no doubt in my mind that Jimmy's "little birdy" was Cuddyer. We haven't had nearly as many negative articles about Mauer from Jimmy since then.
I was always a Cuddyer booster myself (loved that cannon on his shoulder), though I understood his limitations and his propensity for injury was frustrating.
The injuries were bad, but his propensity to swing at terrible, low and outside sliders with two strikes in important game situations was more maddening. It seemed he'd rather fail by swinging at crap than count on someone else to be the hero.
New countdown on DbT starting today, where we rank all the state license plates. The worst license plate goes to Florida!
You've already dissed MO, but here
The following calls were all made in a 3 inning softball game between 10 year olds:
Infield fly with bases loaded and 1 out. Ball is dropped. In ensuing confusion, runner from 3rd is tagged out trying to advance for a double play.
Catcher's interference.
Coach interference. (Base coach touched a baserunner.)
A runner was called out for turning towards 2nd base while overrunning 1st base while the pitcher had the ball on the rubber.
So, was it the same umpiring crew that was in the Bronx for that last Twins series?
I think most of the calls were actually correct. I don't think the rounding first call was correct but I am not sure. I think the coach interference should have been a warning unless he actually helped the girl advance.
I've never heard of the rounding first/turning towards second being an out if the pitcher has the ball and is on the rubber- must be related to not allowing stolen bases or something.
I don't know if a 10-year olds' league keeps score or if standings matter, but if it's a for-fun summer league, I think warnings are always a better way to go.
Seems like an age where letting them play (the last two) would be more enjoyable.
Unless this is a league for future umpires.
Yes.
The overrunning first base call seems blatantly wrong. If the pitcher has their foot on the rubber, presumably this means a dead ball, so you just tell the runner to go back to first base. Maybe there's a provision for this specific instance in this particular league, but in general there's certainly no way to get called out for trying to advance in a dead ball situation--you just get sent back to where you are supposed to be.
I'm okay with catcher's interference at that age unless the batter was somehow trying to reach back to hit the mitt. It's unfortunate, but it shouldn't be happening much.
At that age, I think I'd enforce the infield fly rule, but runners would not be allowed to advance on the play. In an infield fly scenario, once the ball is popped up in the infield, the play would be dead. That would introduce the concept of the infield fly rule while eliminating much (all?) of the confusion.
Coach's interference is the most ridiculous call in general. Did the coach actually really aid the player in going faster? Did the coach make a difference in a bang-bang play at the plate?
The rounding first base call is unique to softball. They can't leave the base until the pitch is thrown. If they are between the bases and the pitcher has the ball in the circle, they need to pick a direction. They cannot stop or change their direction.
I don't know exactly how it is worded, but I would think there would be the opportunity to round the base, see that the pitcher has the ball, and then head back to first. That is how another umpire interpreted the rule in a later game and makes sense. The umpire in the first game is basically saying that if you round the base and the pitcher has the ball in the circle, you must attempt to advance.
That seems like a weird way to run the game. I thought the point of getting the ball to the pitcher in the circle was to stop play, not to force runners to continue advancing.
I've never seen the infield fly rule called in a Little League game. Not sure if this is because the umps don't know the rule/don't think to call it or because players rarely are underneath the ball and waiting for it to come down.
I remember it being called when playing and calling it when umping.
I'm sure that in general little league umps are less likely to know/recognize/call the infield fly rule, but I've definitely had it called in games when I was growing up.
I could go either way on it, I suppose. If you just don't call the infield fly rule and eventually some kids are smart enough to figure out how to exploit it, then the kids gain an appreciation for why it's a rule in the first place. The main reason I think it's worth keeping the infield fly rule (and not allowing runners to advance, just calling it a dead ball) at that age is that it makes it a really difficult situation for the guys on first and second (and third). The younger they are, the more likely there is to be an error on a routine play, but if it's a pop-up in the infield, the runners can't really cheat far off the base anyway. So the smart play is to take a couple steps off the base but not go too far. If the runners play it smart but the fielder misses it through incompetence, then getting one out is usually still pretty easy. Without any kind of infield fly rule, it seems like at best, the defense has an opportunity to get more than an out, and they'll probably get at least one anyway.
Ha! Jackie Autry talks some good smack for the AL's in the press conference. And as Tim Kirkjian pointed out afterwards, when Bryce Harper is batting 9th for the NL and Joe Mauer is batting 8th for the AL, you're talking about some really good teams.
From a hitting perspective, it seems like Cano and Mauer are pretty interchangeable, but since they usually go to the bench after a starter's 2nd PA, then hitting Mauer 8th potentially allows him to catch an extra inning or two. I freely admit that I haven't been following the league that closely the last 3-4 years, but I've never heard of Jason Castro or Salvador Perez until I just looked up the All-Star lineups. (On the other hand, this could be a hint that they actually aren't stars.) Looks like Castro's had a decent first half and his minor league resume seems good, so in the absence of a good non-Mauer he's pretty legitimate as the Astros' lone representative. Is Salvador Perez really good defensively? He doesn't seem like a very strong candidate.
At any rate, faced with these three catchers, if you wanted to win the game, you'd play Mauer for the whole game. If you sort of want to win the game but have to deal with the politics involved, you find a way to hopefully get a couple extra innings out of Mauer by hitting him lower in the order.
Perez led the league last year by gunning down 42% of attempted steals (18/43), this year he is at 33% (13/40)
To sort of tack on to the main point here, though, the ASG is almost more disappointing when the starting lineups are really great. Likewise, Scherzer and Harvey are having great seasons. It would be must-see TV if Scherzer and Harvey were going to face those lineups like it was a game that counted in the standings. (Although historically, even going back to the 50s, it looks like the starter basically never goes more than 3 innings.) All of the substitutions just makes it into a circus.
But, but... it counts!
From my brother-in-law's blog (a bit long, but of interest here, especially given the discussion above):
By the way, here's his blog.
so, I'm assuming that this brother-in-law does not have a meth problem?
Well, I'm not a DEA agent either...
Dozier is the only Twins batter that has been better than Hicks over the last 30 days. Of course, that includes Hicks' time on the DL. Still, over his last 13 games, Hicks is batting .271/.327/.521 and playing Gold Glove defense. Based on quotes from Gardy, the Twins have sent down Arcia and Parmelee more because of how they are reacting to struggles than how much they are struggling. Arcia looks completely lost right now. It sounds like Parmelee is thinking too much at the plate and I think the Twins want both to relax and gain some confidence in AAA. I'm not sure I would agree with Parmelee, but I'm not in the dugout everyday, either.
He'd been taking a pretty wide look around baseball on the topic of plate discipline lately, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's onto something. Pressing is pretty much the exact opposite of discipline, so the two assessments aren't mutually exclusive.
0.0 fWAR -- Aaron Hicks
-0.1 fWAR -- Chris Parmelee
-0.4 fWAR -- Oswaldo Arcia
I think they are demoting Parmelee and Arcia because they aren't very good, and they're keeping Hicks because he's the best center fielder in the organization today, even though Buxton will likely assume that title in a season or two. When Parmelee and Arcia start playing above-average defense in center field, then we can throw them in the conversation with Aaron Hicks.
b-r's version:
Arcia is rated as the worst batter on the team this year. DRS does not like his fielding at all, giving him a -10.
Your brother-in-law could certainly have information that I don't, but it seems to me one of the things Gardy has said he likes about Arcia is his aggressive approach at the plate. This would seem to say the exact opposite.
There is one thing that bugs me about sending Arcia down. I have heard that the major league pitchers have learned to not throw him fastballs for strikes and he hasn't adjusted. Are minor league pitchers going to pitch him the same way? If not, what will he learn by going down?
Minnesota Twins' Series Win Over New York Yankees Defies Logic
socal, looks like someone at Yahoo wants to pick a fight.
Is this like the old saw about how one lawyer in a town will go hungry, but two will get rich?
Ha ha - not one mention of Mauer in the article or in the comments.
remember Bobby Keppel? of course you do! well, he is still playing ball but now in Japan. he mad an amazing catch
A pastor friend of mine is named Bob Cappel. It took a long time for me to get over referring to him as "Keppel".
For a few brief seconds, I think he looked like Algonad.
I didnt know Parmelee was a Scott Boras guy
Boars has some interesting comments about Parms demotion
I read some speculation that Parmelee was sent down because Morneau is going to be traded, and they want Parmelee not only to get some swings but some work at first base. That would make some sense, but it is, of course, pure speculation.
Pure speculation is the best kind.