I think Gardenhire's probably a pretty good manager, but the last time I was paying close attention to the Twins (around the time of the Johan trade), I noticed that he had one really bizarre habit: positional batting order. Joe Mauer would play catcher and hit third maybe 120, 130 times in a season -- and when Mike Redmond stepped in for him, instead of adjusting the batting order, he'd just leave Redmond hitting third. He'd do the same thing with Morneau, 1B and the cleanup spot, though not nearly as frequently. I'm sure there was some kind of logic behind it, but whatever it was, it wasn't readily apparent to the naked eye.

Ron Gardenhire is a classic example of how fans, all baseball fans, sometimes allow perception to cloud reality.

Gardenhire's flaws are very obvious and have been discussed repeatedly in this forum. His POSITIVES are very subtle and and as such are all but ignored. Such as Gardenhire always having a good bullpen. Nobody notices until you don't have one. THEN everybody screams. But the Twins always have a good bullpen. So nobody screams.

And to be blunt, Gardenhire LOOKS like a dumb guy. He's a short, stocky, kind of messy looking fella with stupid facial hair. If he wasn't sitting in a dugout on a major league field Gardenhire looks like a guy you pass rummaging through dumpsters looking for aluminum cans. Ron Gardenhire doesn't PROJECT. Davey Johnson had that problem. Folks always struggled with Davey because he was this dumpy dwarf with gross personal habits. Only Howard Stern finds anything appealing in that combination.

And I will now hit the Harvey Repeat Button and mention again that while Gardenhire has his flaws those flaws are part of Ron's Plan. Ron Gardenhire has a very clear idea of what he wants from his players and makes those expectations clear to them. Most managers stink at one or both of those things. Ron has a PLAN. Which provides his team FOCUS. Which generates RESULTS.

There is an old saying in leadership that when a subordinate comes to explain why a project is delayed the person in charge responds, "Don't be talking to me about labor pains, just show me the baby".

Gardenhire's detractors need to stop thinking about the labor pains.....................

Voxter:

That is a long-time manager approach when they want their guys to keep focused on their designed roles. There is a belief, right or wrong, that if you move someone in the batting order the player or players will change their approach thinking they have to do things more appropriate to that spot in the order and in turn scr*w up their ability to be productive at the plate.

Ron Gardenhire is a strong proponent of this belief. That if you put so and so from the number 6 spot to the number 3 spot that guy will make an adjustment that will cause his entire batting approach to go haywire. So the replacement takes not only the defensive spot but the offensive spot as well.

Again, fairly common. Been around a long time.

Maybe he’s the guy who keeps making the $40-$60 million payroll Twins underachieve year after year.

It would be just as accurate, probably more accurate, to call them the $55-$80 million payroll Twins under Gardenhire's tenure.

and the cost of batting a poor hitter (Redmond) in the #3 hole 15 games a year is probably what, less than one run? If the player pysche thing is even of minimal importance, I say bow to it here.

I'd be more pro-Gardy if it wasn't for his Punto / Tyner / little-ball fetish (& ill-timed brainfarts like letting Joe Nathan pitch 40 innings in that 2004 ALDS game versus NYY). If there haven't been parallels drawn between the Twins & the "Moneyball"-era A's, there should be -- both teams did what they had to do (given whatever constraints they faced), & while both have realized surprising success, they also failed to achieve their ultimate goals in large part due to what made them successful.

I think a big part of what makes unappreciated is that--and I don't mean ti imply this is because of him--Gardenhire's teams haven't won #### in the playoffs. He's 1-5 in playoff series all-time, lost his last nine games in a row, and 6-18 in postseason play overall. When the most people are watching, his teams play .250 baseball.

Again, that's not to say this is Gardenhire's fault, or that this is a reasonable way to judge managers. But I think that is a big part of it.

EDIT: To add, I think Gardenhire is criminally underrated.

doesn't he already have a job?

The title is a reference to FireGardy.com, an anti-Gardenhire website.

I know.

the opposite would be extendgardy.com

But that doesn't rhyme!

I'm someone who believes that the manager can do very little to help his team win ballgames. A bad manager can screw things up, but a good manager just figures out what his players are good at, and lets them do that.

The Twins have been very good at finding good baseball players. I don't know that the secret to their success extends much beyond that. The AL Central isn't very good - a team with Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau on it is going to be a contender in that division by default.

Ron Gardenhire is a classic example of how fans, all baseball fans, sometimes allow perception to cloud reality.

Harveys, Your posts are all good, but this whole post is outstanding. Thank you.

The Twins have been very good at finding good baseball players. I don't know that the secret to their success extends much beyond that.

I think most people would disagree strongly in the case of the Twins.

I think most people would disagree strongly in the case of the Twins.

"Most people" aren't paying attention, then. There's this image that the Twins have of being these scrappy overacheivers, when the reality is that they have some very talented ballplayers. Kudos to the Twins organization for finding these guys, but they're not the Bad News Bears.

Yes, they have some mediocre players, but most teams have some mediocre players. On the current roster, Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau are both All-Star caliber players, and Cuddyer, Kubel, and Span are all very good. Add to that a very deep bullpen and an okay starting rotation, and the fact that their division rivals are mediocre at best, and it's no surprise that they're in contention every year. It doesn't take a managerial genius to win 86 games with this bunch.

"Most people" aren't paying attention, then. There's this image that the Twins have of being these scrappy overacheivers, when the reality is that they have some very talented ballplayers. Kudos to the Twins organization for finding these guys, but they're not the Bad News Bears.

I agree completely that the Twins' scrappy, overachieving days are behind them. I don't understand how this ties to Gardenhire's skills as a manager. I think the things that he does well are things that take place behind closed doors--maintaining a good clubhouse atmosphere, interacting with the players on a personal level, things like that. By all accounts, Gardenhire does these things well. It's easy to lose sight of the aspects of managing that don't appear in the box score.

Heavens no, the manager doesn't deserve any credit. Any time Gardenhire makes a move that's different from the obvious moves you'd expect any manager to make, it's the wrong move. He hates platoons even when they're obvious, distrusts young players of all types and (as mentioned) falls in love with the Jason Tyners and Matt Tolberts.
And it's actually entirely possible that a good manager would have won them 6 titles in 8 years, because I'm convinced he costs them at least a win a year, and that's all it would've taken in 2008.

The Twins have been very good at finding good baseball players. I don't know that the secret to their success extends much beyond that.

One thing: in my book I look at every reliever to toss at least 20 IP in a season for Gardy. A jarring number/percentage of them tend to pitch far better for Gardy's Twins than they do elsewhere. Certainly pitching coach Rick Anderson deserves a ton of credit, but divorcing the manager from the coaching proces makes as little sense as divorcing the pitching coach from it. Relations involving people are messier than that.

I really liked this Poz article - in part because I agree with it. On a purely self-centered note, I was hoping to see a mention of my book, but it didn't happen. That's fine obviously- but rats. Anyhow, making up for that I've been told that Jayson Stark mentions my book in a piece in the new print version of Baseball America. Haven't seen it, but that's what I heard.

I agree completely that the Twins' scrappy, overachieving days are behind them. I don't understand how this ties to Gardenhire's skills as a manager.

I think Gardenhire's a fine manager. There's nothing wrong with him. I just think that those that think that he's completely or even mostly responsible for the success of the team are off-base.

I can't tell if post #17 is a sarcastic parody of that position or if it's serious. When it began, it sounded so over-the-top - Any time Gardenhire makes a move that's different from the obvious moves you'd expect any manager to make, it's the wrong move - I figured BillP had to be making fun of that position, but by the end I wasn't sure.

I think Gardenhire's a fine manager. There's nothing wrong with him. I just think that those that think that he's completely or even mostly responsible for the success of the team are off-base.

Ah, okay. We're in agreement then.

I can't tell if post #17 is a sarcastic parody of that position or if it's serious. When it began, it sounded so over-the-top - Any time Gardenhire makes a move that's different from the obvious moves you'd expect any manager to make, it's the wrong move - I figured BillP had to be making fun of that position, but by the end I wasn't sure.

I think he's serious.

He's 1-5 in playoff series all-time, lost his last nine games in a row, and 6-18 in postseason play overall. ... Again, that's not to say this is Gardenhire's fault

From what I remember watching the Twins the past few post-seasons, I'd say a fair amount of this is Gardenhire's fault -- when he's not mismanaging, he's being outmanaged. There've been plenty of bad breaks, but Gardy tends to compound that with his strategic proclivities. (There's a " his sh*t don't work in the post-season" joek to be had here, but someone else can have it.)

From what I remember watching the Twins the past few post-seasons, I'd say a fair amount of this is Gardenhire's fault -- when he's not mismanaging, he's being outmanaged. There've been plenty of bad breaks, but Gardy tends to compound that with his strategic proclivities. (There's a " his sh*t don't work in the post-season" joek to be had here, but someone else can have it.)

I have no problem with the notion that he's a bad in-game manager, I just think that portion of the job is overrated. These guys are more managers of men than of the game.

Even with any limitations at strategy, I have trouble believing his play-calling is why the Twins have had such problems in October. They've lost 16 of their last 19 playoff games. Whatever's going on, it's more than who's batting seventh. That said, I do think it's fair to hold such massive post-season failures against someone. This might be the postseason stretch any manager ever had.

"Most people" aren't paying attention, then. There's this image that the Twins have of being these scrappy overacheivers, when the reality is that they have some very talented ballplayers. Kudos to the Twins organization for finding these guys, but they're not the Bad News Bears.

Yes, they have some mediocre players, but most teams have some mediocre players. On the current roster, Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau are both All-Star caliber players, and Cuddyer, Kubel, and Span are all very good. Add to that a very deep bullpen and an okay starting rotation, and the fact that their division rivals are mediocre at best, and it's no surprise that they're in contention every year. It doesn't take a managerial genius to win 86 games with this bunch.

My post was more about the Twins having the reputation for having organizational philosophies (from minors to majors) and stressing different things than other teams. They do not seem to be the type of organization that just bunches a bunch of talent together and sees what happens. Maybe some of their players are not just good players who were found by the Twins, but players whom the Twins developed well and molded into useful players (for the Twins system). I'm not sure this is true, but I guess it is plausible.

Even with any limitations at strategy, I have trouble believing his play-calling is why the Twins have had such problems in October. They've lost 16 of their last 19 playoff games. Whatever's going on, it's more than who's batting seventh. That said, I do think it's fair to hold such massive post-season failures against someone. This might be the [worst] postseason stretch any manager ever had.

I put a word in there for Chris, I assume that's what he meant.

I'm reluctant to call Gardenhire out for his failings in the post season, even if I probably agree that no manager has done worse over so many games. But it's over a period of years and they've played some pretty good squads in that time (two World Series winning teams, plus another AL pennant winner).

Actually, Minnesota's postseason problems are part of a larger issue for the club: they do worse again good teams than they should. Under Gardy, they have a .547 winning percentage from 2002-09, but are only .466 (281-322) in regular season games agasinst teams with winning records.

Well, you SHOULD do worse against good teams. But how much worse should they have done? Well, Gardy's overall mark of .547 is near a 89-73 season (.549). There have been 31 different 89-73 teams in MLB history. Combined, they have good 1261-1259 (.500 - .5004 to be exact) against teams with winning records.

By that standard, Gardy's Twins should've gone 302-301, 21 more wins than reality. Since his record is .547, not .549, maybe nick him a win.

Even in the regular season, Gardy's Twins lose about 2-3 more games per year against good teams than one would expect based on their overall talent.

I'm someone who believes that the manager can do very little to help his team win ballgames. A bad manager can screw things up, but a good manager just figures out what his players are good at, and lets them do that.

I've never really understood this point of view. I've always felt that if you can get blame when things go wrong, you ought to get credit when things don't go wrong. There's a lot of things that go on in baseball that the outside world never sees or hear about if things are going as expected. People should get credit for making the better decision even if that choice seems obvious, and this isn't just true of baseball managerial decisions, but every walk of life.

re #26, most of this can be accounted for by their constant tendency to lay down and get stomped on by the Yankees. As a Sox fan, it annoys me to no end and makes me hate the Twins.

The Twins have also usually been the weakest AL team to make the playoffs, and in most of their playoff losses under Gardenhire they were eliminated by a 100+ win team and eventual league champion. 2006 is really the only year I think they were favorites.

I love the strike-throwingness...atuity of the Twins, but I wonder if that contributes to their lack of playoff success at all.

One thing: in my book I look at every reliever to toss at least 20 IP in a season for Gardy. A jarring number/percentage of them tend to pitch far better for Gardy's Twins than they do elsewhere. Certainly pitching coach Rick Anderson deserves a ton of credit, but divorcing the manager from the coaching proces makes as little sense as divorcing the pitching coach from it. Relations involving people are messier than that.

I think it has more to with them knowing when to let players go than it does with magically making them better. They don't bring back a lot of players after they get to free agency or after they are free agents and they've had a notably good year. Why? Because they get expensive and are likely to regress. It's not like Juan Rincon sucks now because he doesn't have Gardenhire and Anderson. He sucked with them here too for a while. He lost his edge/wore out his arm/whatever, so they cut him. They focus on kids and cheap free agents, which means most of the gambles have more upside than down. When they hit, they look very smart. When they don't, those guys usually don't pitch enough make much impact.

re #26, most of this can be accounted for by their constant tendency to lay down and get stomped on by the Yankees. As a Sox fan, it annoys me to no end and makes me hate the Twins.

Inerestingly, this is my favorite thing about the Twins. In their defense, they lay down and stomped by the Yankees in the regular season too.

I read the title as HireGrady.com.

I was very confused.

I've never really understood this point of view. I've always felt that if you can get blame when things go wrong, you ought to get credit when things don't go wrong.

There's nothing wrong with extending credit for helping his team perform to expectations, but there's only so much a manager (any manager) can do. No manager can turn a talentless team into a contender.

There's nothing wrong with extending credit for helping his team perform to expectations, but there's only so much a manager (any manager) can do. No manager can turn a talentless team into a contender.

Yes, this I would agree with.

I think I'd like the Twins to fire Gardenhire. Then the Braves could hire him for 2011. He sounds like the next Bobby Cox.

The AL Central isn't very good - a team with Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau on it is going to be a contender in that division by default.

The Royals had Carlos Beltran in his peak and Mike Sweeney when he was still very good, and aside from 2003, never sniffed contention. In 2002, they got a 148 OPS+ from Sweeney, 122 from Ibanez, and 112 from Beltran...and finished 32.5 games back of a Gardenhire led Twins team that won the division without anyone named Mauer or Morneau. Their best hitters were Jacque Jones and Corey Koskie and their best full-time starting pitcher (Johan only made 14 starts) was Rick Reed.

Sure, Minnesota has been better than KC at identifying talent, but let's not gloss over what Gardy has done. Its not as easy as "write in Mauer and Morneau in the lineup card."

Inerestingly, this is my favorite thing about the Twins. In their defense, they lay down and stomped by the Yankees in the regular season too.

Yeah, that bothers me more than the playoff no-shows.

Quick correction: I meant to say guys who threw more than 40 IP in relief in a season for the Twins, not 20.

I think it has more to with them knowing when to let players go than it does with magically making them better.

But some of the guys they pick up from other teams also improve when they come to the Twins: MIke Jackson came off a poor season but rebounded at age 37, before regressing again elsewhere and retiring. Terry Mulholland was 173 years old but improved slightly (he was still only "meh" at best, but that was still an improvement for him as he stood in the twlight of his career. Tony Fiore and Joe Roa each had their only good season under him. Not to mention Super Joe Nathan. Dennys Reyes was a middling reliever who had a stupendous season with an ERA under 1.00 when he came to Minnesota. He hasn't even come close to keeping that up, but his overall MN tenure has been more effective than his previous tenure. The main exception to this is Aaron Fultz. He came, had his normal season, then the next year in Philly pitched much better. Then again, Fultz's improvement was entirely a function of BABIP - he immedately turned back into a pumpkin after one big year. He's the guy who doesn't fit the trend - and even he didn't underperform - just failed to overperform.

In 2002, they got a 148 OPS+ from Sweeney, 122 from Ibanez, and 112 from Beltran...and finished 32.5 games back of a Gardenhire led Twins team that won the division without anyone named Mauer or Morneau. Their best hitters were Jacque Jones and Corey Koskie and their best full-time starting pitcher (Johan only made 14 starts) was Rick Reed.

You're selling the 2002 Twins dramatically short. Not only were Jones and Koskie above-average players at that point in their careers, but they got substantial offensive production from Torii Hunter, AJ Pierzynski, and David Ortiz. They also had one of the better bullpens in the American League. That was far, far from a talentless team, or even a mediocre one.

Meanwhile, the Royals were below-average on offense (the dropoff from the players you mention was incredibly dramatic) and had an atrocious pitching staff. Nobody on earth could have made that team a contender.

But some of the guys they pick up from other teams also improve when they come to the Twins

Couldn't at least some of this have to do with park effects, or improved defense? I don't know if I'd feel comfortable putting this 100% on coaching.

I also don't feel comfortable putting it 100% on coaching. I also don't feel comfortable putting it 0% on coaching.

If it was coaching, wouldn't those pitchers be able to take the lessons learned with them to their next organization?

This isn't restricted to Minnesota, and it's not just something that you've mentioned - I remember the Mazzone effect well. I just find it odd that apparently there's no 'hangover' effect to good coaching.

That assumes that coaching isn't an ongoing process.

Even in the regular season, Gardy's Twins lose about 2-3 more games per year against good teams than one would expect based on their overall talent.

I'd guess this is mainly impacts of the unbalanced schedule -- i.e. the Twins wouldn't finish 89-73 with a balanced schedule but a little worse than that.

I won't comment on Gardenhire's abilities but we all know that if the Twins were in the AL East or the AL West, they would have been lucky to make the playoffs once in the last 8 seasons (barring some talent upgrades). And chances are Gardenhire would be out of a job and certainly Poz wouldn't be writing an article suggesting he's a really good manager. Instead he'd look a lot like Bruce Bochy. And one can only imagine the howls of "you can't expect to compete in the AL East while playing Nick Punto!"

Wow, Bochy has managed 15 seasons now. He as a sub-500 record, 4 playoff appearances, one pennant. That's an impressively long record of mediocrity. He'll hit the 2500 games managed mark this year with that sub-500 record -- can't be many modern managers who've pulled that off. (Gene Mauch is one if we still consider him modern)

Oh ... there's the b-r managers page. Whaddya know, Jim Leyland sits at a 496 win %age. Tanner (should have thought of him) is at 495, better than I'd have guessed. Rigney (kinda modern) at 484. There are a bunch of sub-500 guys just below 2500 -- McNamara, Kelly, Howe, Robinson. And whadelsedya know, Mike Hargrove is at 503.

Anyway, Bochy's mediocre longevity isn't nearly as impressive as I thought.

Again, fairly common. Been around a long time. [on Redmond in the 3 spot]

Yes and no. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many cases where a team was resting their #3 hitter and put a hitter as bad as Redmond in his place. That's not exactly a "fair" way to judge it given that most #3 hitters are an OF or 1B and most backup OF/1B hit better than Redmond, so managers might slot the replacement into the #3 slot to not disrupt the lineup and it wouldn't look so strange. But I doubt you'd find many managers at any point in history who would submit a lineup card with Redmond in the #3 spot under Gardenhire's circumstances.

Some minor checking ... Bill Plummer never started a game higher than 6th (and that only 6 times) while Bench's backup. Fisk hit mostly 4th, 5th or 6th in 1976 but Montgomery didn't start in those spots once that season. (It was too hard to trace it across multiple seasons but he did have some starts higher in the order in other years.) Piazza hit 3rd and 4th most of his career. In 96, Tom Prince was his backup and he was in the 7/8 slot anytime he started. I don't know if he's ever backed up a good hitting C (Soto in 08), but Henry Blanco is a classic backup, and a decent-hitting one at that, and he has 0 starts in the 1-5 slots, 11 at 6 and 101 at 7 and 507 at 8 and 50 at 9 (not much AL time).

I agree it's small potatoes ... and not necessarily wrong even. But I'd guess that the managerial belief that the 3/4/5 (and leadoff) spots are "special" is much stronger than "don't upset folks by moving them around the lineup" -- so it is weird on Gardenhire's part.

MIke Jackson came off a poor season but rebounded at age 37, before regressing again elsewhere and retiring. Terry Mulholland was 173 years old but improved slightly (he was still only "meh" at best, but that was still an improvement for him as he stood in the twlight of his career. Tony Fiore and Joe Roa each had their only good season under him. Not to mention Super Joe Nathan. Dennys Reyes was a middling reliever who had a stupendous season with an ERA under 1.00 when he came to Minnesota. He hasn't even come close to keeping that up, but his overall MN tenure has been more effective than his previous tenure. The main exception to this is Aaron Fultz. He came, had his normal season, then the next year in Philly pitched much better.


But they also signed Jesse Orosco, James Baldwin, Mike Fetters, Bob Wells, Carlos Pulido, Joe Biemel, Willie Eyre, RA Dickey, Luis Ayala, etc, who also made the team and didn't pitch particularly well despite those same advantages. Add in who knows how many other scrap heap guys they signed that were stuck at AAA so no one knows how bad they were. They sign guys off the scrap heap. Some of them happen to have good years; most of them don't and disappear. Meanwhile Guardado, Hawkins, Romero, Fultz, Beimel, etc leave the team and still have occasional good years. There are lots of factors that go into relievers performances. Twins coaching might well be part of it, but it could just as easily be luck, novelty, steroids, or who knows what else.

There are lots of factors that go into relievers performances. Twins coaching might well be part of it, but it could just as easily be luck, novelty, steroids, or who knows what else.

You've already pointed this out, but one of the things I've noticed that the Twins do is refuse to devote lots of money to pitching. They make the occasional exception for a fan favorite (Brad Radke and Joe Nathan spring to mind), but in general, they tend to let pitchers walk. The organization also tends to have lots of pitching depth, and when they make trades, they tend to add more pitching depth.

Wow, Bochy has managed 15 seasons now. He as a sub-500 record, 4 playoff appearances, one pennant. That's an impressively long record of mediocrity. He'll hit the 2500 games managed mark this year with that sub-500 record -- can't be many modern managers who've pulled that off. (Gene Mauch is one if we still consider him modern)

I noted in my book that Bochy is one of only four men to last a dozen years with a team with a losing record. The others are Connie Mack, Tom Kelly, and Jimmy Dykes.

Give Rick Stelmaszek some credit for the bullpen also.

Gardy always has a good bullpen and he manages to get good performances out of people like Tony Fiore and Bobby Keppel. He is good at making adjustments with his team for the stretch run. He is a good motivator and manager of people.

He is below average at in-game strategy, Sciosia outmanages him in games consistently. I don't know if he overemphasizes defense or if this is part of his motivation to get everyone to play defense (reward hustle with playing time).

But they also signed Jesse Orosco, James Baldwin, Mike Fetters, Bob Wells, Carlos Pulido, Joe Biemel, Willie Eyre, RA Dickey, Luis Ayala, etc, who also made the team and didn't pitch particularly well despite those same advantages.

Huh. Interesting.

(checks)

Well, you're really kinda reaching with some of those guys. Fetters didn't pitch well? His ERA was 0.00. That ain't bad. The real problem with him was innings - he only tossed 6. That's the real issue with most of the guys mentioned. Fetters's 6 innings is almost as much as Biemel and Orosco combined, for example. Toss in Baldwin and you have four pitchers who combined threw under 28 innings. If Gardy's not giving many inning to guys who aren't pitching well, that's not really a knock against him. That's a dodge on my part, but more importantly I don't see much point to these exmaples. The reason I made a cut-off at 40 IP isn't just to make Gardy look good. It's because guys with negligible innings pitched are just that - negligible.

As for some of the other examples - Dickey actually did improve. He came to Minnesota at age 34 with a career ERA+ of 85, and posted a 95 mark. Not good, but still an improvement. It was his first ever ERA under 5.00.

I began my big paragraph in post #38 talking about guys they pick up from other teams, which is why I didn't note Pulido or Eyre. I'm not sure they didn't get the most out of Pulido. (If you look back at post #38, it's that the Twins got the most out of their relievers, not necessarily that everyone pitches great for them. Some of my example - such as Mulholland - weren't that good, but were still better than one would expect - just like Dickey from you're list of examples). Willie Eyre pitched poorly for Minnestoa, then poorly for a year in Texas, then didn't pitch at all for a year. He was good last year in 17 innings. Let's see if that holds up.

Wells was picked up under Kelly - but he did flop badly in Gardy's rookie season. However, he was the only prominent holdover from the '01 bullpen who underperformed for Gardy (and he was in mid-30s on the verge of involuntary retirement).

I was mostly just throwing up names from the rosters that I recalled as being bad or about as good as expected, to show that there is a more expected assortment of performances...some good, some mediocre, some bad, and some so bad that they didn't stick. Fetters wasn't the best example, since he was injured. And I realize you gave some examples that didn't exactly make it sound like Gardenhire is a relief pitcher zen master. It goes both ways...not all of mine are perfect examples. But when you put all of these examples together, I think you see the bigger picture shows a pretty normal range of performances. Picking the guys who pitch more than 20 innings presents a selection bias....the rest of those guys tried and failed, and Gardy was trying to help them succeed too. And if the Twins had better relievers than Tony Fiore and Joe Roa, they would have never gotten a chance to luck into a good year.

I began my big paragraph in post #38 talking about guys they pick up from other teams, which is why I didn't note Pulido or Eyre.

You did, but then you listed 3 or 4 guys that the Twins signed as free agents, so I figure they are fair game. And I don't understand why they wouldn't be fair game anyway in regards to Gardenhire...he's not the GM, he doesn't control how the team acquires players...he manages them when they do get acquired. Mostly, he manages them bullpens pretty well. But he didn't turn Joe Roa into a dependable reliever. He put him the pretty good situations and Roa got lucky enough that he kept his head barely above water. Same with Fiore. Mike Jackson's improvement was largely a mirage of ERA. I just don't see how these here-and-gone relievers prove anything about how well Gardy manages his bullpen...and I think he does manage his bullpen pretty well.

I have a question about the lineup order thing: is there a current (or recent) manager who platoon-shuffles his lineup on a regular basis? That is, uses the same, or nearly the same, players against RHP and LHP, but puts those same people into a substantially different order depending on the handedness?

I ask this because that's exactly what the team of my youth, Schoendienst's '67-'68 Cardinals did. Spots 1, 4, and 8 of the batting order stayed the same, but 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 all changed.

Leyland shifts his lineup around considerably based on the handedness of the pitcher (and platoons quite a bit).

Walt:

Horsehockey. I have seen Ned Yost write a pathetic Wes Helms in at cleanup which is far sillier than Redmond. I could continue at length on similar moves by other managers.

Just because it didn't happen on your team doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

isnt batting order insignificant beyond extra pa's for players in the top spots?

So what are the theories on why Gardy's Twins roll over for the Yankees? Until they can lick that problem, I've got a feeling that is going to be his nagging legacy...

if the Twins were in the AL East or the AL West, they would have been lucky to make the playoffs once in the last 8 seasons (barring some talent upgrades). And chances are Gardenhire would be out of a job and certainly Poz wouldn't be writing an article suggesting he's a really good manager

Bingo.

I just find it odd that apparently there's no 'hangover' effect to good coaching.

Managing a bullpen is a lot more than "coaching". It is knowing when to use which pitcher (who's fresh; who's tired; who's stuff or handedness matches up best with the batters*); when to pull him; how to give the pitchers in the pen enough work to keep them sharp, while also keeping them reasonably rested; what kind of off-day and conditioning regimen to follow.

I would not expect much, if any, of that to "follow" a pitcher to another team.

*That is not to say that I believe in head-to-head stats per se, but some batters have specific weaknesses, beyond handedness that some pitchers can exploit while others cannot.

But when you put all of these examples together, I think you see the bigger picture shows a pretty normal range of performances. Picking the guys who pitch more than 20 innings presents a selection bias

Well, I meant 40 innings, not 20. On the one hand that reinforces your point (bigger innings means more selection bias), but on the other hand I really disagree. If almost all relievers with 40 or more innings in a season from 2002-08 (haven't looked at 2009) perform better than one would expect, you have something really special going on. There's another selection bias at work: being a Twins fan can warp one's perception of what constitutes good performance from relievers. I hope that sentence doesn't come off in a confrontational manner, it's meant more envious if anything. Aside from Cardinal fans, no fan base has less recent experience with bad managers than the Minnesota faithful. Not a bad manager in Minnesota since the Iran Contra scandal.