Is 2008 Yost's last shot? Latest: What are we doing? I am getting worried! (reply #212)

[AdvantageSchneider]

logan3825 wrote:I guess the question would be "why is Yost on the hot seat?" He has only had one good team to work with in 5 years.

 

Because our window is only open for a limited time and we don't have 3-4 years to find out if Yost is a good manager or not, and the evidence appears to be that while he may be a good manager for teams that are trying to rebuild, he may not be the guy that can get you over the hump.

[TooLiveBrew]

This thread has superseded Yay or Nay as the new Yost thread

 

And so the beast's breathing slowed, as a chill ran through its body. Its face grew cold, its limbs weak. In its eyes, one could still see the glimmer of fight - of hope, but as the lungs rose & fell slower and slower, the fire grew dull. The beast's eyes fell slowly closed, and thus passes - unceremoniously - the greatest villain and hero to ever walk these halls.

 

---RIP "Yost: Yea or Nay?" thread!---

[adambr2]

hauser42 wrote:

Why would Melvin be on the hot seat?? He has built this team to be one of the best in the NL and has been given only last year to see if he could get into the playoffs. Canning Melvin in the near future is people feeling we are th Yankees and need to contend any year.

I guess the question would be "why is Yost on the hot seat?" He has only had one good team to work with in 5 years.

 

I guess I don't really agree with that. It depends what you mean by "good." I think he had a good team in '05. He had a good team in '06, although I understand that injuries bombarded that team. He definitely had a playoff-caliber team in '07, and instead, they ended up in familiar terroritory around .500.

 

I don't think there's any question that the talent is on this team, the mix of young guys and vets is there, the big bullpen names are there to help remedy last year's problem, and the starting rotation is deeper than perhaps at any time in franchise history. I know we're not used to it, but there really aren't very many holes on this team. Cameron and Kendall are probably our two weakest links, and even both of them are established veterans who have had solid, successful careers. The payroll isn't even there to blame any more, they've gotten to throw around some cash this off-season.

 

It's not like he's been asked to build this thing from the ground up in 2 years. He's had 5 years already, and been given an unprecedented payroll and plenty of talent.

 

Even if we lost in '08 and it wasn't his fault entirely, there just comes a time in plenty of professional franchises after enough unsuccessful years where you just say, "You know, this just isn't working anymore", and you move on and try another plan. I promise you that Braun, Fielder, Gallardo, Hardy, Hart, and Weeks aren't going to be playing on the same team for their entire careers, and as a fan, I'd much rather at least give another plan a shot rather than continue to wait and wait to see if Yost can really lead a playoff baseball team.

[TooLiveBrew]

Even though I know over the course of the season, Yost's mistakes cost us at least two games, there were so many other bummers in 2007 that did too. Braun's D at 3B, Hall's D in CF for the first half, Weeks not being healthy (every time I type about him, I get so excited for 2008), Sheets missing starts, Estrada estradizing, Prince Fielder being terrible...

 

What's crazy to me is that I can honestly say I felt that 2007 team had an honest chance to pick up at least 5 more games, and so many problems - most of which have been improved. Sure, Yost overall probably at best had a neutral impact. But not only is Braun in LF, Hall's out of CF (even though I am confident he would have been average or better in CF), and we have a plus fielder (don't forget Cameron has an arm, too) in CF.

 

Yost really has a shot as being as 'smart' in 2008 as he was 'moronic' in 2007. But I have one thing to add - Ned, please *please* don't bat Kendall 2nd. Please. He's a perfect 8th hitter, and Cameron can fill in fine once he's healthy. If you want, you can play around with it in the first 25 games. I can handle that. If you do it more, I will have supressed rage.

[1992casey]

Where does 'Fielder being terrible' fit in?

 

As far as the batting order goes, I feel most of it makes little difference, so I try not to get excited. But batting Estrada fifth for as long as Nedly did was blatantly bizarre.

 

I concur with you completely, though, about the idea of Kendall batting second. There are plenty of better options. Unfortunately, Jason looks like just the type of guy Ned would like to stick in that spot.

[logan82]

By good I mean a team that had a chance at the playoffs or a winning record. It could easily be argued that Melvin left Yost with a bad pen and nobody to play 3B at the start of the year. We therfore had to bring up Braun instead of leaving him AAA to improve his defense. I think Melvin was operating like he had Koskie coming back last year when he didn't. Yost has only had one year when winning actually mattered more than developing players.

 

Changing managers isn't going to change our overall strategy much unless you get a different GM.

[adambr2]

I would assume that the Fielder thing is a joke. I hope. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

I agree there is no need to bat Kendall 2nd. I think Gross will get most of Cameron's starts the first 25 games, and I think he should be batting 2nd.

 

I'm not huge on the idea of Cameron batting 2nd, mostly because of his difficulty putting the ball in play. If Jenkins drove you nuts with his swings at strike 3 in the dirt, you're going to hate watching Cameron do it 150 times next year.

 

Hardy batting 2nd isn't a thrilling concept, but I think it's the best option we have. Weeks/Hardy/Fielder/Braun/Hart as the 1-5 is fine with me.

[adambr2]

By good I mean a team that had a chance at the playoffs or a winning record. It could easily be argued that Melvin left Yost with a bad pen and nobody to play 3B at the start of the year. We therfore had to bring up Braun instead of leaving him AAA to improve his defense. I think Melvin was operating like he had Koskie coming back last year when he didn't. Yost has only had one year when winning actually mattered more than developing players.

 

Changing managers isn't going to change our overall strategy much unless you get a different GM.

Well, there's a difference (at least usually) between a team that has a chance at the playoffs and a team that has a chance at a winning record.

 

From what I remember, we did have a plan for 3B going into last season pretty well laid out....platoon Counsell and Graffy, and tread water with that until it was late enough to bring up Braun. It didn't really work out the way we wanted it to, but I don't think it was a bad plan. That was really the only reason we signed Counsell. I hardly think we should feel sorry for the 3B situation we left for Yost because his ROY who hit around .325 35 100 in 4 months didn't field well.

 

As far as the pen, if you would have asked most of us last year, I don't think we would have thought the bullpen was a huge concern going into the season. We had Cordero to close, we had Turnbow as a setup man rather than closer, we had a respectable LOOGY in Shouse, we had a previously reliable 7th inning man in Wise, and we had Villy as our long man. We also had Capellan, Balfour, Bray, and others for depth in AAA. If you could go back to late March last year, I don't think there was a panic at all about the pen, I sure wasn't.

 

I don't have a major problem with Yost getting a shot in '08, but if he doesn't get it done, I do think we've given him ample time at this point to put a playoff team on the field.

 

[logan82]

I really don't care who the manager is, I just disagree that changing the manager is going to make much difference.

 

But batting Estrada fifth for as long as Nedly did was blatantly bizarre.

 

I also disagree with Estrada batting 5th but this is one where I don't get to worked up over anymore. You are talking 18 PA over the course of the season. Lets say he is batting ahead of 2 guys with Fielder's OBP. The difference between .296 OBP and .395 OBP over 36 PA is about 3.5 base runners. Moving him ahead of Hall and Hart is approx 1.4 baserunners over the whole year. I might have made a mistake in the calculations, but my point is the difference is very small. Just trying to put it into some perspective. The difference would show more in the extra base hits I think, but should still be pretty small.

[adambr2]

I agree, a different manager isn't going to make a huge difference. Maybe 2-4 games over the course of a season. However, divisions are usually won or lost by 2-4 games.

 

I promise you that there were at least 2-4 instances last season where a very questionable Yost decision either costed us a victory or kept us from getting a chance at victory, beyond the normal "hindsight is 20/20" type decisions that you see throughout the season.

[TooLiveBrew]

Where does 'Fielder being terrible' fit in?

 

Sorry... substitute 'tlb' for 'Fielder.' Didn't think I needed blue there.

I think Gross will get most of Cameron's starts the first 25 games, and I think he should be batting 2nd.

Ned... ^ ^ ^ ^!!!!

 

I promise you that there were at least 2-4 instances last season where a very questionable Yost decision either costed us a victory or kept us from getting a chance at victory, beyond the normal "hindsight is 20/20" type decisions that you see throughout the season.

There were also probably just as many games that Ned 'won' for us, and just as many that players 'won'/'lost'.

[Tbadder]

I think it's absolutely essential that the Brewers do poorly enough early on, so that Mark can ride Yost out on a rail. I do not believe we have a chance with Nedly. I hold him responsible for the bullpen problems last year. His inability to use Wise and Turnbow correctly; his ridiculous idea of putting Villy in the pen when all the evidence said "starter." I also think he made a mistake by not designating a couple of guys innings eaters in the pen--possibly Vargas and Capuano.

 

I think the Brewers need to do just the opposite of what they did last year. Go 10-24, fire Yost, hire a competent manager, and blaze a trail thru the NL the rest of the season nipping the Cubs at the wire. At that point they're the hottest team in the NL and pull off a Rockies scenario, so they can get killed by the Tigers in the World Series.

[JohnBriggs12]

I really don't understand why Yost was brought back. While pondering how to rank the NL, it really struck me how even the top 8 or 9 teams really are. Yost is at or near the bottom of those 9 if you ranked the managers. It's a huge reason I'm not bursting with confidence because I can't trust him. Why they didn't make a play for Torre really rankles me. He's expensive sure, but they could have nontendered a couple guys and paid his salary. Joe has Milwaukee ties. He goes back nearly 50 years with Uecker.

[BrewCrewForever]

Maybe Ned's replacement is already on the scene. I'm not sure I'd mind Ted Simmons taking over the job in June.

That is a real possibility I think. If Ned takes us to the postseason he stays, if not so long Ned. I have been one of his biggest supporters but if he can't get it done this season its time to move forward.

 

[GenoSeligPrieb]

"I guess the question would be "why is Yost on the hot seat?"....I really don't care who the manager is, I just disagree that changing the manager is going to make much difference."

 

Logan:

 

The short answer comes from George W Bush, via Pete Townshend: "...fool me once, shame on....shame on...we won't get fooled again!"

 

The first time Ned guided the Brewers to a monumental collapse was 2005. OK, that may have been an aberration. The talent wasn't there, perhaps. Injuries...all that. But 2007's collapse suggests a trend. Ned apparently can't seem to manage for the stretch run.

 

When the chips are down, he doesn't adjust and react to the situation. If we're leading on the road, it's chiseled in stone that the Closer therefore must be brought in, but not before the bottom of the 9th. Hell, Ned has quoted that one directly to Haudricourt from the Unwritten Rules of Baseball Guidebook. If he prefers Mench, and the situation calls for a lefty bat, he's sticking with Mench. It's the 7th inning, and we're down 1, but because the book says Braun has to be replaced, defensively, guess what? Counsell's batting 3rd now, ahead of Prince in the 9th. When we need that extra bat in the lineup against a high-powered offense, but Ned's calendar calls for the backup catcher to start that day? Then a .210 hitter is in there, regardless.

 

No adjustments on the fly. He's incapable.

 

And a team with talent like ours demands a capable, experienced strategist as manager. We've matured past the days of "rah-rah-get-the-young-un's-some-inspiration." Prince will be the Yankees 1st baseman in a few years when Scott Boras guides him there. Weeks, Hardy, Braun...they won't be Brewers indefinitely. We're at the level now where the Brewers are ready to move up to playoff-caliber baseball, and with Ned costing us 2, 3, probably 5 games a year, we may not make it to the playoffs due to his bumbling. And then, when Mark and Doug discover we missed the boat a few times maybe, just maybe, because of Ned? It'll be too late, and this rare window of opportunity when the Cardinals and Astros are asleep at the switch, coupled with our once-in-a-generation Brewer talent level, will be closed.

 

Think of it this way, Logan. You say a manager makes no difference? If we had someone even half as talented as Piniella, Leyland, LaRussa, Francona...would they have stubbornly kept Mench in there against a tiring, punchy righty reliever, when better lefty (and righty!) bats were available? Multiply that situation by 3, 4 or 5 other similar bad, game-changing, game-losing decisions, and it DOES make the difference between the Brewers making the playoffs or not.

[giffted1]

I really don't care who the manager is, I just disagree that changing the manager is going to make much difference.

 

My thoughts exactly. The performance of a team is based on the performance of the players.

 

With managers the whole "grass is greener on the other side" saying is so true. I'd bet there are fans on every team that think their manager sucks and that other managers are significantly better. There's no real way to prove or disprove these claims because their no magical algorithm to calculate a managers performance. I find it amusing when people pull out some random number and say "Yost cost us _ wins." If they can find some way to prove that other than saying "he made a bad move here, here, and here," I'll give them a cookie.

 

That being said I wouldn't be too disappointed if Yost is fired. All managers get fired. His replacement won't make any more of a difference than he did, but maybe his firing would put some fire in the team. But of course if the team does better under a new manager people will always use that to show how Yost was holding us back or something.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

"My thoughts exactly. The performance of a team is based on the performance of the players."

 

Sure. But if a manager puts the wrong player in a situation he's not best-suited for, then it's on the manager. It would have been hilarious if, on August 30th, in that situation, Mench heads out to the on-deck circle, but Jenkins tackles him, subdues him, and screams at Ned: "NO! I'M batting against Dempster! For the good of the team!!" After the dugout applause subsides, Jenkins succeeds and we tie the game. But no, that can't happen, because players can't take the situation into their on hands.

 

"There's no real way to prove or disprove these claims because their no magical algorithm to calculate a managers performance. I find it amusing when people pull out some random number and say "Yost cost us _ wins." If they can find some way to prove that other than saying "he made a bad move here, here, and here," I'll give them a cookie."

 

I agree that there's no reliable formula to determine manager effectiveness (although I'm sure someone here will deliver one, this morning http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif ), but I cited specific examples (hell, I even gave quotes and game dates!) when Ned's decisions, and not the players forced to execute them) cost the Brewers at least 4, maybe games in the standings.

 

What if Sheets gets sprayed by a skunk in his yard, and is out until May, and Ned tabs Prince Fielder as our Opening Day starting pitcher? Through a combo platter of bad umpiring, bad pitching and bad luck, Prince gives up 8 earned runs in the 1st, and we lose. Prince was the one responsible for pitching poorly, but if Ned sent him out there in a poor managerial decision, then who's to blame?

 

OK, that was a bit of hyperbole on my part of course, but was it REALLY all Corero's fault for the loss when he was sent out there for a 3rd straight day on August 5th against the Phillies, and he lost the game? Was Counsell really a # 3-hole hitter all those times Ned yanked Braun for defensive replacement iin the 7th inning, and Counsell wound up batting an inning or 2 later? It's the manager's job to place players in the optimal situations to maximize their effect, but so, so often, Ned failed to do that.

 

By the way, I'm partial to white chunk macadamia cookies!

[adambr2]

I promise you that there were at least 2-4 instances last season where a very questionable Yost decision either costed us a victory or kept us from getting a chance at victory, beyond the normal "hindsight is 20/20" type decisions that you see throughout the season.

There were also probably just as many games that Ned 'won' for us, and just as many that players 'won'/'lost'.

I know that's the conventional line of thinking, but from having watched almost 162 games, I am fairly confident that that is not the case, or at least wasn't in 2007. Sometime when I'm really bored at work I'll try going reviewing some of the instances on both sides last season.

[1992casey]

I don't think there's a totally reliable formula for determining managerial effectiveness, either, Geno. But there seem to be models that are usable as long as their flaws are understood and taken into account.

 

And while most of these models seem to indicate that the vast majority of managers fall so close that they're not making much difference, and while our statheads have impressed that fact upon us over the years, the same statheads started showing rather objectively that the numbers offered evidence that Nedly was problematic.

 

The reason I give our resident statheads credit for doing a good job with this is that they weren't trying to claim that Nedly singlehandedly lost a dozen games for the 2007 Brewers. They were saying it was more in the 3 or 4 loss range and impressing that statistically, 3 or 4 losses attributed to the manager is very, very high.

 

While most stats have some kind of flaw, any stat developed with any degree of care is probably going to do a decent job when it comes to identifying the extremes. It appears that Nedly fell into that category last year.

[TooLiveBrew]

it was more in the 3 or 4 loss range and impressing that statistically, 3 or 4 losses attributed to the manager is very, very high.

 

That's pretty high for any individual (player, coach, GM) member of a team, let alone just a manager. My guess is that between Yost & our IF defense, you could probably find almost a 10-game swing from 2007.

[Fatter than Joey]

If they can find some way to prove that other than saying "he made a bad move here, here, and here," I'll give them a cookie.

 

I think the onus in the debate of "managerial impact" is on the group that believes managers DO NOT have an impact. There have been have a lot of studies that have shown about a 5-6 game swing between bad/great managers. Now certainly we can debate on the degree of impact -- however I don't see how fans can get around the most base logic, that tells us -- Managing is a skill, generally speaking people have skills developed at different levels, therefore it is only logical that some managers are better/worse at this skill than others.

 

Bottom line -- There is evidence, data and base logic that tells us managers have an impact, someone need to prove, or at least show some evidence, that managers do not have a tangible impact for this debate to continue.

 

Impact

 

Now, if we can accept that managers have an impact of 5-6 games, let's put a little depth to this concept. When Ryan Howard won the MVP, he gave his team 5-6 wins that an average 1b would not have (e.g. Ryan Jorgensen). Now, I think we can all imagine the impact Ryan Howard MVP year would have on a team that had an NL average 1b -- I also know we can imagine the amount of payroll those five wins would have cost us on the FA market. If we can get wins at the manager position -- those wins are probably going to be the cheapest wins a team can upgrade to.

 

Injuries

 

I think that every year there are a couple of teams that seemed blessed with good health, and a couple of teams that seem unfairly cursed with injuries. Overall though, every team is going to have some key players miss time due to injuries -- and a manager needs to be able to deal with these events as they happen and minimize subsequent losses. I understand giving a manager a pass if their whole pitching staff implodes with injuries, but generally managers should not be let off the hook for injuries -- unless they exceed the norm for the league.

 

W/L & playoff expectations

 

I don't like setting arbitrary benchmarks like "81 wins", or "making the playoffs" as a measuring stick for a manager -- A GM/owner should be able to look at the decisions the manager makes over the season and decide whether or not a manager got the most wins out of his talent. For example -- letting Mench bat against Dempster -- DM should have seen that, and IMO, realized that most managers that could fog a mirror would not have made that move, -- or of course the year-end pissing match Yost had with LaRussa (and the list goes on). If a manager gets 97 wins, but the GM thinks they should have gotten 102 based on the talent they had -- that manager should be fired. If a manager gets 78 wins on a team that should have gotten 70 that manager should be retained.

 

All in all I think Ned's impish handling of the fans is what will do him in, Ned will have no slack in 2008, and if the Brewers start out slow for whatever reason -- that doesn't bode well for Nedgar.

 

I thought Ned should have been fired after 2006, so I really hope this is his last shot.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

"...whether or not a manager got the most wins out of his talent. For example -- letting Mench bat against Dempster -- DM should have seen that, and IMO, realized that most managers that could fog a mirror would not have made that move"

 

Nice line, FTJ.

 

I also forgot the LaRussa feud. It was a classic case of a great, winning manager taking a poor one to school.

 

"There were also probably just as many games that Ned 'won' for us, and just as many that players 'won'/'lost'. "

 

OK, I'm trying to be equitable here, but I just can't find instances when we said "Great move, Ned!" A key double-switch...a move that paid off, such as when Gwynn was able to leg out a roller that the guy he pinch -hit for, couldn't. A stolen base decision that got us a game-tying run (a la Dave Roberts in the '04 ALCS).

 

To be fair, Ned very well MAY have made a move or 2 like that, and I'm not aware of them. But I'd surmise that, over the 2007 season, it was probably Ned on the Plus side of the ledger +3 game saving decisions, and Ned on the Minus side, perhaps -8 or so, for an overall loss of 5 games.

 

Dare to dream if we had a neutral manager, whose moved cancelled each other out! Brewers/Diamondbacks in the 2007 playoffs...

[bigredrobbo]

It's playoffs or bust for me this year too, if for no other reason than this; we have one of the best, most exciting teams in the league, and there are a gajillion threads about the manager. If we don't make it, he gone, and we can turn our collective vitriol to whichever new guy comes in.

 

Unless, of course, the new guy's a Brewers legend, in which case all bets are off...

[giffted1]

You just can't pick out situations where Ned made the wrong move in a game that the Brewers lost and say that Ned cost us that game.

 

For example, on August 30th the consensus seemed to be that Ned cost us the game. People add that game to their list of wins that Ned cost the Brewers. Taking the numbers into account, it was the wrong move, but in reality, there was only a small chance that Ned's poor decision cost us that game. The difference between Mench's OBP vs. RHP and Jenkins OBP vs. RHP for their careers about .050. So even in a situation where a manager clearly makes a wrong move, the chance of it actually making a difference is small.

 

If Jenkins had been guaranteed to get on base in that situation and the bullpen was guaranteed to hold the lead, then you can said that Ned cost us that game, but obviously that isn't the case.

[UndraftedFA]

I agree with gifted1. I think 2 situations that people blame Yost on the most are Aquino vs. Houston and Mench vs. Cubs. Neither one do I find to be as dumb as must people. I don't think double switching was a good option for the Houston game, so the pitcher's spot was due up pretty quick in the bottom of the inning. Aquino was facing Hunter Pence, who is pretty good and was able to hit a pretty good RHP in Sheets earlier in the game. I hardly think it was any guarantee the Coco shuts him down either. I think the defense was just as much to blame for that as well. He either would have had to bat Cordero when he needed runs, or PH for him and send someone else out for a full inning.

 

In the Cubs game, I am pretty sure that Mench was about the only guy hitting the ball with any authority that night. Yes, it was against a LHP earlier, but the guy was seeing the ball well that night when hardly anyone else was. Mench's approach obviously stunk in that at-bat, but I put that on him, not Yost.

 

I hardly think that since people complain about Yost moves in game day threads is any sort of indication that his logic is flawed. People hardly agree with each other about what the right moves are. Everyone has their own belief which is based on some points with merit. That includes Yost. It is easy to say someone else is wrong when you never even have to prove your own ideas are right. On a message board you have the luxury of assuming you are right. Yost is the only one who has his ideas tested. I think if Brewerfan.net was the next manager of the Brewers, there would be threads calling for Brewerfan.net's head with pictures of couches.

 

I don't feel Yost is a bad manager at all. I think I remember seeing a suggestion to start a tally of all his "dumb" moves and see what it looks like at the end of the year. I think if fansites of other teams did the same thing, you would find pretty similar list. After one series, I have seen on Cardinal message boards that people thought our boneheaded Yost schooled LaRussa. I think through the course of the year, you will find plenty of threads asking for the manager's head for all 30 teams.