2009 ALDS: Twins @ Yankees

[a700hitter]

As much as I'm enjoying your guys's little argument here and want to stay out of it so I can continue to enjoy it, I have to agree with Keeper. Ron Gardenhire has been a great manager for the Twins. In his 8 years he's won 5 division titles with a revolving door of players. So many good homegrown players have left or been traded away over the course of his years, but the Twins have been so good at re-developing and replacing those players that came up through the system with more players coming up through the system, and they've always been successful and often times exceeded expectations. He's done a great job of instilling his players fundamentals, a winning attitude, and the right way to play the game. I think because of the market they're in and their lack of postseason success he's under-appreciated for how well he's done there. He's been a model of stability, as was Tom Kelly before him for 16 seasons. Something about the Twins, but with their resources; or lack thereof, they just always seem to do it right. They're a very well-run organization.

 

Now with all that said that doesn't mean I'm not enjoying beating up on them in this series (so far), as we usually do when we match up in the postseason. But they're a great team and despite their unfortunate fate at the hands of the Yankees deserve a lot of respect for what they were able to accomplish this year. I think Gardenhire is going to be very much in the running for Manager of the Year.

He may be a good manager insofar as he gets the msot out of his players and he has his team play sound fundamentals, but he is a terrible in-game manager.

[Dipre]

He may be a good manager insofar as he gets the msot out of his players and he has his team play sound fundamentals' date=' but he is a terrible in-game manager[b'] against the Yankees[/b].

 

Fixed

[a700hitter]

Fixed

True. It is really uncanny how bad he is against the Yankees.

[Dipre]

True. It is really uncanny how bad he is against the Yankees.

 

I think that's the core of your argument with Keeper. Besides, man, he managed a completely clean game against the Yanks last night, but Nathan and his offense s*** the bed.

[a700hitter]

I think that's the core of your argument with Keeper. Besides' date=' man, he managed a completely clean game against the Yanks last night, but Nathan and his offense s*** the bed.[/quote']You are right. I have no problem with his moves yesterday. He didn't need to step into lose the game yesterday. He had all the help he needed from Nathan and the Umps.

[Dipre]

You are right. I have no problem with his moves yesterday. He didn't need to step into lose the game yesterday. He had all the help he needed from Nathan and the Umps.

 

I think more than the umps, you should blame Nathan and Carlos "Suck" Gomez.

[a700hitter]

I think more than the umps' date=' you should blame Nathan and Carlos "Suck" Gomez.[/quote']They all played a role.

[yankees228]

They all played a role.

 

Did you read my explanation addressing why the call likely had absolutely no impact on the outcome of the game? It's one page back.

 

As for Gardenhire, when I've seen him manage in big games I don't usually like what I'm seeing, but it's hard to make such a general judgement when I don't see the Twins that much. I think you would fall into this category also, a700, unless you watch frequently watch the Twins. He is, however, the guy that blamed God Bless America for his team losing a playoff game.

[a700hitter]

Did you read my explanation addressing why the call likely had absolutely no impact on the outcome of the game? It's one page back.

 

As for Gardenhire, when I've seen him manage in big games I don't usually like what I'm seeing, but it's hard to make such a general judgement when I don't see the Twins that much. I think you would fall into this category also, a700, unless you watch frequently watch the Twins. He is, however, the guy that blamed God Bless America for his team losing a playoff game.

I mainly watch the Twins play the Yankees and the Red Sox, and when they play the Yanks he makes lots of wrong moves. That's what I am saying about him. I don't care what a great baseball guy he is and how much he gets out of his talent. He is only relevant to me when the Twins play the Yanks and teh Sox, and from what I have observed over the last several years is that the Twins would be no worse off if he skipped all the Yankee games.

[yankees228]

I mainly watch the Twins play the Yankees and the Red Sox' date=' and when they play the Yanks he makes lots of wrong moves. That's what I am saying about him. I don't care what a great baseball guy he is and how much he gets out of his talent. He is only relevant to me when the Twins play the Yanks and teh Sox, and from what I have observed over the last several years is that the Twins would be no worse off if he skipped all the Yankee games.[/quote']

 

That's fair. All I'll say is this; this is the third time Gardenhire has faced the Yankees in the playoffs (2003, 2004, and now 2009). Throughout the course of all those games (10), I think there is only one decision (or lack thereof) that you can really hold against Gardenhire. In the 2004 ALDS Game 4, he let Rincon face Sierra representing the tying run in the 8th inning. Other than that, there is nothing in the playoffs against the Yankees that you can really hold against him.

[a700hitter]

That's fair. All I'll say is this; this is the third time Gardenhire has faced the Yankees in the playoffs (2003' date=' 2004, and now 2009). Throughout the course of all those games (10), I think there is only one decision (or lack thereof) that you can really hold against Gardenhire. In the 2004 ALDS Game 4, he let Rincon face Sierra representing the tying run in the 8th inning. Other than that, there is nothing in the playoffs against the Yankees that you can really hold against him.[/quote']How about taking Santana out of the game after only 5 innings and 87 pitches in a deciding 5th game with the score 5-1 Twins. He went to the bullpen for 4 innings when his horse had only thrown 87 pitches.

[26 to 6]

He may be a good manager insofar as he gets the msot out of his players and he has his team play sound fundamentals' date=' but he is a terrible in-game manager.[/quote']

Fair enough. I've seen him make some questionable decisions.

[yankees228]

If How about taking Santana out of the game after only 5 innings and 87 pitches in a deciding 5th game with the score 5-1 Twins. He went to the bullpen for 4 innings when his horse had only thrown 87 pitches.

 

There are a couple things to consider here. Santana was going on three days rest. We have no idea how much he had left in the tank. Maybe 87 pitches is all he could give them. The other part, which is the most important, is that Grant Balfour came in and pitched two perfect innings. That takes us through seven innings. So even if Santana could have continued, you can't possibly contend that he would have pitched more than seven innings. While it might have been the wrong move, it did not hurt the Twins in any way.

[a700hitter]

There are a couple things to consider here. Santana was going on three days rest. We have no idea how much he had left in the tank. Maybe 87 pitches is all he could give them. The other part' date=' which is the most important, is that Grant Balfour came in and pitched two perfect innings. That takes us through seven innings. So even if Santana could have continued, you can't possibly contend that he would have pitched more than seven innings. While it might have been the wrong move, it did not hurt the Twins in any way.[/quote']I doubt that 87 pitches from a 25 year old ace was enough to gas him even on 3 days rest, especially in October weather. At the time, they had some BS explanation about not wanting to abuse a young arm. Well, if there is any time to abuse a young arm, it's in a deciding playoff game and 87 pitches is not abuse. Of course the move cost them. If he had gone 6 or 7 innings, Balfour's 1 or 2 innings would have taken them right to the closer. I was driving when I heard that Santana had been removed. I almost crashed the car. I knew there was no way he was going to get 4 innings from the pen without one of those guys blowing up, and he didn't, so it most definitely cost him. If he had done that for the yankees or the Sox and the team got eliminated in the playoffs, he'd have been fired and never managed another game for the team no matter how good he was at teaching fundamentals. It was a terrible move, and it cost them.

[Optimist]

He is' date=' however, the guy that blamed God Bless America for his team losing a playoff game.[/quote']

 

Whaaaaa?

[yankees228]

I doubt that 87 pitches from a 25 year old ace was enough to gas him even on 3 days rest' date=' especially in October weather. At the time, they had some BS explanation about not wanting to abuse a young arm. Well, if there is any time to abuse a young arm, it's in a deciding playoff game and 87 pitches is not abuse. Of course the move cost them. If he had gone 6 or 7 innings, Balfour's 1 or 2 innings would have taken them right to the closer. I was driving when I heard that Santana had been removed. I almost crashed the car. I knew there was no way he was going to get 4 innings from the pen without one of those guys blowing up, and he didn't, so it most definitely cost him. If he had done that for the yankees or the Sox and the team got eliminated in the playoffs, he'd have been fired and never managed another game for the team no matter how good he was at teaching fundamentals. It was a terrible move, and it cost them.[/quote']

 

Lets break this down in a simpler context.

 

Lets say they send Santana back out there. Lets say he pitches two more innings. Lets say they're both perfect innings. You would have to agree that there is no way he's going to pitch beyond seven innings.

 

Now here's the problem with your logic. If Santana went seven innings, Balfour would not have come in the game. It would have been straight to Rincon. He was their eighth inning guy all year, and that would have continued. Even if they had left Santana in, the eighth inning still would have played out the same way.

 

I've seen this criticism thrown out numerous times on this board, mainly by you and Kilo. I've addressed it in the past, but maybe I haven't done a good enough job. I think this is clear and concise, and you have to see why it's logical.

[a700hitter]

Lets break this down in a simpler context.

 

Lets say they send Santana back out there. Lets say he pitches two more innings. Lets say they're both perfect innings. You would have to agree that there is no way he's going to pitch beyond seven innings.

 

Now here's the problem with your logic. If Santana went seven innings, Balfour would not have come in the game. It would have been straight to Rincon. He was their eighth inning guy all year, and that would have continued. Even if they had left Santana in, the eighth inning still would have played out the same way.

 

I've seen this criticism thrown out numerous times on this board, mainly by you and Kilo. I've addressed it in the past, but maybe I haven't done a good enough job. I think this is clear and concise, and you have to see why it's logical.

When Rincon was obviously blowing up in the 8th, he had no place else to turn. He'd already used his only other reliable guy. He was out of options. If he'd have had Balfour, he might have gone to him when it was becoming obvious that Rincon was s***ing the bed. Did the move cost him the game? Neither you nor I know how it would have turned out if he had kept Santana in the game, but it was a terribly wrong and stupid move.

[yankees228]

When Rincon was obviously blowing up in the 8th' date=' he had no place else to turn. He'd already used his only other reliable guy. He was out of options. If he'd have had Balfour, he might have gone to him when it was becoming obvious that Rincon was s***ing the bed. Did the move cost him the game? Neither you nor I know how it would have turned out if he had kept Santana in the game, but it was a terribly wrong and stupid move.[/quote']

 

If he wanted to take Rincon out in the 8th inning he would have brought in Nathan, not Balfour. We both know that. We also both know that there is a good chance (not 100% certainty) that the move had no bearing on the outcome.

 

As for the move itself, it's one that I disagree with. But we also don't know who influenced that decision. It was Santana's first full year starting. It's possible that Gardenhire was given instructions from the front office not to extend him beyond a certain pitch count on short rest. That's total conjecture, but it is logical.

 

Now, we disagree on the impact that Santana's early exit had on the game, but we agree (I'm assuming) that he should have went to Nathan at some point in the 8th inning, prior to the game being tied. Any way you look at it, Gardenhire's decision(s) had a negative impact on the result of the game. But, with that being said, through today, they have seven other postseason losses to the Yankees. I don't think you can reasonably blame any of those on Gardenhire.

[Keeper]

I think more than the umps' date=' you should blame Nathan and Carlos "Suck" Gomez.[/quote']

 

I'm on board with this. Gomez is so raw it looks like he should be in Double-A.

[a700hitter]

If he wanted to take Rincon out in the 8th inning he would have brought in Nathan' date=' not Balfour. We both know that. We also both know that there is a good chance (not 100% certainty) that the move had no bearing on the outcome.[/quote']We don't know that at all. You have no idea what the impact would have been and how it would have changed the dynamics of the game. When a protest is upheld on a play that seemingly had no impact on the ultimate outcome of a game, the game is replayed from the point of the protest, because you don't know how the wrong call or ruling would have affected the game. No one does. Maybe he didn't want to go to Nathan, because he had thrown 53 pitches two days before. If he had had another fresh arm, maybe he would have gone to it. While your theory is logical, it is just speculation, and not going to Nathan for more than 3 outs because of the 53 pitches, but using Balfour is just as reasonable.

 

Your theory is based on hindsight. My theory was formulated at the time of the move. I felt the chances were very slim that he would get 4 innings out of his bullpen without one of the guys blowing up. I didn't know which guy would blow up, but one of them did and they lost. You can try to deconstruct the game after the fact and use logic to try to exonerate him for his stupid move, but outcomes of games are not determined by logic. The only way we could ever know if removing Santana from the game cost them the game would be if you turned back time and left him in the game. One move can change the whole dynamic of the game. You can argue all you want about whether it had any effect on the outcome, but you just don't know. It was a bad move and it stands on its own as a supremely stupid move. The only way he could have exonerated himself was by having his team win the game. They lost, and the stupid move will always be remembered by those who watched or listened to the game. You think it had no effect on the outcome. I think it did.

[Emmz]

Carlos Gomez plays the centerfield position better than almost anyone, but that's it. He has nothing at the plate. He's basically just an awesome glove with absolutely no offensive ability whatsoever aside from speed. I really wish that we had traded Santana for Lester. Gomez? Srsly? Wtf was that, we gave Santana up for practically nothing. Hell, atleast if we had traded for Lester, my Red Sox would have Santana, and the Twins wouldn't have been buttf***ed on that deal so much. God I hate Bill Smith, the worst GM. He gave up Garza for Delmon Young too. Get rid of this guy, atleast Terry Ryan knew how to make a deal like no one else could. I've never seen someone get so many good teams on Pohlad-budgeted teams.

[yankees228]

We don't know that at all. You have no idea what the impact would have been and how it would have changed the dynamics of the game. When a protest is upheld on a play that seemingly had no impact on the ultimate outcome of a game, the game is replayed from the point of the protest, because you don't know how the wrong call or ruling would have affected the game. No one does. Maybe he didn't want to go to Nathan, because he had thrown 53 pitches two days before. If he had had another fresh arm, maybe he would have gone to it. While your theory is logical, it is just speculation, and not going to Nathan for more than 3 outs because of the 53 pitches, but using Balfour is just as reasonable.

 

Your theory is based on hindsight. My theory was formulated at the time of the move. I felt the chances were very slim that he would get 4 innings out of his bullpen without one of the guys blowing up. I didn't know which guy would blow up, but one of them did and they lost. You can try to deconstruct the game after the fact and use logic to try to exonerate him for his stupid move, but outcomes of games are not determined by logic. The only way we could ever know if removing Santana from the game cost them the game would be if you turned back time and left him in the game. One move can change the whole dynamic of the game. You can argue all you want about whether it had any effect on the outcome, but you just don't know. It was a bad move and it stands on its own as a supremely stupid move. The only way he could have exonerated himself was by having his team win the game. They lost, and the stupid move will always be remembered by those who watched or listened to the game. You think it had no effect on the outcome. I think it did.

 

That's fine, but, if you leave Santana in, who has labored hard through five innings while on three day's rest, he might get hit around. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[a700hitter]

That's fine' date=' but, if you leave Santana in, who has labored hard through five innings while on three day's rest, he might get hit around. We'll have to agree to disagree.[/quote']He might have gotten knocked around. We don't know what would have happened if he would have stayed in. We do know that he was the ace of the team, one of the best pitchers in the game that year, only 25 years old, only thrown 87 pitches, and it was an elimination game. If your argument is that the move didn't effect the outcome of the game, that is arguable but there is no answer. Although there may be an argument after the fact that the move didn't cause the Twins to lose the game, it doesn't change the fact that it was a bad baseball move. In the post-season, a successful manager rides his horses as close to the finish line as they can go before turning it over to the bullpen. Torre would never have taken him out after 5 innings and 87 pitches. Whether or not it changed the outcome of the game, it was a stupid move. If Tito used Nick Green to PH for Youkilis with the bases loaded in a playoff game and Green hit a home run, would that make it a good baseball move? I don't think so. It would be incredible luck, but it wouldn't be a smart move.

[msubulldogs21]

He gave up Garza for Delmon Young too.

 

Don't forget Jason Bartlett was in that deal, making it even worse than it already was.

[Twins_Morneau]

Gigantic hangover today after this game, never been so pissed at my club in so long.. They absolutely CHOKED. But this series isn't over, welcome to the house of horrors known as the Metrodome, Yankmees.

[Keeper]

But this series isn't over' date=' welcome to the house of horrors known as the Metrodome, Yankmees.[/quote']

 

Hate to burst your bubble, but it was over before it started. And when Carl Pavano stands between you and elimination... better pack your bags.

[Jacobysgirl729]

^If you say so!

[26 to 6]

I love that Twins fans still have ope, it's great! I mean bigger comebacks have occurred before, but with Pavano on the mound for them I feel really good about closing the doors on the "House of Horrors for the Twins tonight.

[a700hitter]

I love that Twins fans still have ope' date=' it's great! I mean bigger comebacks have occurred before, but with Pavano on the mound for them I feel really good about closing the doors on the "House of Horrors for the Twins tonight.[/quote']Pavano has pitched very well against the yankees this season, and he has done very well in big games during his career. Perhaps you have put 2003 out of your memory. Pavano will probably not be the Twinkies problem today. There offense is very weak.

[yeszir]

Hate to burst your bubble' date=' but it was over before it started. And when Carl Pavano stands between you and elimination... better pack your bags.[/quote']

 

I sincerely wish that the Tigers had won.