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

[1992casey]

I agree with you giffted1. A single substitution doesn't massively improve a team's chances of winning a game.

 

But in my mind, the explanation for that decision triggered a laundry list of decisions that showed a definite pattern, most notably Ned's reliance on super-duper small samples.

 

Pretending that the small 18 AB sample was actually a meaningful one, Geoff had a .500 SLG percentage against Dempster. With runners on 2nd and 3rd and the team down by a run in the bottom of the ninth, that looks pretty nice. Geoff also had four walks against him. While a walk would have likely been a negative outcome in that situation, as a fallback, it still would have beaten an out.

[TooLiveBrew]

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...

 

Well,

 

To be fair, Ned very well MAY have made a move or 2 like that, and I'm not aware of them.

 

Exactly - when a manager makes the 'right' move, it's because he's supposed to. When he makes the 'wrong' move, it's 'Bring me his head on a platter!' The moves that make you upset/annoyed/irate are the ones that are going to be more memorable - just simple human psychology. When a manager has a successful outcome, it's usually not nearly as exciting as when a player does, and when a player has a negative outcome, it's usually not nearly as frustrating as when a manager does.

 

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.

 

I think that's a pretty fair estimate of how it probably played out. I'm no fan of Yost, as I think he was one of numerous factors that cost us a significant number of games in 2007. However, I don't think you can point to just him as THE reason the Crew missed Postseason 2007 - just like you can't just point at Braun's D, or Sheets missing time, or Rickie not being healthy, or Estrada estradizing.

[pete]

I think a couple of things add to the dislike of Yost. One would be how often you yelled at the TV in frustration. One example for me was watching Wise loft his 7th or 8th fluttering high ball in a row. How bizarre. If anything the team should spend money on a sports psychologist or hire a new one. Sometimes the frustration may be misplaced, but it makes you wonder. Another thing is Yost's weirdly acidic manner. A lot of the time he looks like he trying to look calm or unworried, but you're waiting for his teeth to crack as he grits them.

 

I think its nonsense to think you can derive mathematical formulas to determine effectiveness of managing. They do a lot of things. How about managing personalities? The Cubs is one example. They could easily go bad with the stew they got there. Another is calling for bunts and steals. I watched several games where Piniella sniffed out bunts and steal attempts as well as times where he bunted or stole unexpectedly to great effect. There are far too many data points. At best, an attempt could be made after a career.

[TooLiveBrew]

But in my mind, the explanation for that decision triggered a laundry list of decisions that showed a definite pattern, most notably Ned's reliance on super-duper small samples.

That, and how frequently he manages in order to 'save' players for some hypothetical situation later in the game. While somtimes situations like those he anticipates/invents do come to pass, but for the most part he gets left holding his... books.

 

EDIT: Fwiw, I bet that in 5 years from now, we will have relatively accurate & reliable metrics for evaluating managers - taking into account bullpen mgmt., substitutions, PH, PR, IBB, HBP, etc.

[mletto157]

I agree with these guys. The fact is... looking at Mench's BA vs. RHP he has like a 1/5 shot to get on base and looking at Jenkins, he has like a 1/4 shot to get on base (he's 4-17 vs Dempster career too). That's just taking into account their averages over the course of the season. That's not taking into account that fact that on that night Mench was 1-3 with 2 RBI's, and seeing the ball very well. Do you still think it was a terrible move? Maybe not the statistically correct one... but with the night Mench was having pulling him in favor of Jenkins and watching him WHIFF strike 3 in the dirt would have sent just as many fans screaming. Out of 20 AB Jenkins gets on base ONE more time than Mench in that situation. Yost did not LOSE us the game, period. Yes, statistically Jenkins would have been better... but being on a hot streak or a cold streak should and does play a HUGE role in determining who gets the nod in certain situations.

 

Is there a better option than Ned out there... probably; but to think that it's going to have the impact that some people on here think is utterly ridiculous.

[pete]

FWIW, I bet in 5 years someone will make money claiming to have metrics for measuring managers and lots of other things.

[Thurston Fluff]

I'm as big a Ned fan as there is here and even I think Ned has to show us he's capable of leading this team to higher levels. I'm not compfrtable with saying it's playoff or bust since there are way too many variables involved. I think this team should be a 85-95 win type team. 85 with a normal amount of injuries and 95 if they stay healthy.

 

. Yost has had 6 years to work with this core, he is blessed with MVP type talent at a couple positions, all-star talent at other positions, two ace arms in the rotation, and at least average MLB ability at pretty much every position. He also has a payroll now pushing $90 million, unheard of 6-7 years ago. Seriously, the excuses are over for Yost -- at least they should be.

 

Yost has not had this core for six years nor was he blessed with MVP type talent for nearly that long. He started with crap and had crap until about 2 years ago. What two allstar arms has he had in the rotation for the last six years? Sheets was on the IR more often than not and YoGa has about 1/2 a season under his belt. Even in the last two years some of that allstar talent has had problems staying on the field.

[TooLiveBrew]

compfrtable

We need to find a recurring use/employ for this word. It's too good to let slip away into obscurity.

[logan82]

GenoSeligPrieb wrote:

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.

That is a pretty flimsy arguement to use against a manager as I would say all but 2 or 3 managers stick to that. If you want a different bulpen management you have to change the GM as well. I can almost guarantee you that the next manager does the same thing. As I said before, if we looked as closely at other managers as we do at Yost we would easily find each costing his team 2-3 wins a year.

 

BTW I think it is a terrible idea to use your best reliever in only save situations.

[MessiahRp]

"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?" LOL, that was classic and could happen. :shakes head:

 

Personally while there is a good point above about there being no guarantees about a player substitution changing the outcome of the game I went to a ton of games the last two years where every person in the stands knew the struggling pitchers were finished and Ned left them out there Grady Little-style to blow the game. I don't really know if I buy the 3-4 games tops line when you could go through all of those ridiculous lost leads from last year and probably pick out more than 3-4 where if Yost had made a change he could have at least stopped the bleeding early enough. It might not have been a complete heal but it would have at least been a temporary tourniquet to give you a CHANCE to get out of a jam.

 

And that's sorta what I am driving at. Would every switch work and win the game? No way. But most times he didn't make the switch at all and left the reliever in until it was way too late. Or at least that's my perspective from attending games last year.

 

Rp

[adambr2]

GenoSeligPrieb wrote:

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.

That is a pretty flimsy arguement to use against a manager as I would say all but 2 or 3 managers stick to that. If you want a different bulpen management you have to change the GM as well. I can almost guarantee you that the next manager does the same thing. As I said before, if we looked as closely at other managers as we do at Yost we would easily find each costing his team 2-3 wins a year.

 

That's a separate argument in itself, but speaking of that method of bullpen management, I do hate it, and the fact that it's just become "conventional wisdom."

 

Talent in the bullpen is great, but it has to be utilized the right way, too.

 

You said 2-3 other teams don't follow that rule, notice that one of those teams won our division last year, and had a very successful bullpen down the stretch. Notice that their best reliever (Marmol) was not the closer, but rather brought in during the most crucial gametime situations. I'd much rather have a closer by committee situation like they had rather than the seemingly daily disasters that we had in the bullpen and the extraordinary amount of 3+ run leads that were blown with the use of our "conventional wisdom."

[logan82]

adambr2 wrote:

You said 2-3 other teams don't follow that rule, notice that one of those teams won our division last year, and had a very successful bullpen down the stretch. Notice that their best reliever (Marmol) was not the closer, but rather brought in during the most crucial gametime situations. I'd much rather have a closer by committee situation like they had rather than the seemingly daily disasters that we had in the bullpen and the extraordinary amount of 3+ run leads that were blown.

The teams I was refering to were NYY, CIN, SEA, and OAK.(so I guess I should have said 4, I also know that some of those teams changed managers over the year, but their closers didn't show much different use when the manager changed) They were the only ones who used their closer more than an inning any significant amount of the time. Chicago got somewhat lucky that they had a younger player who could be stepped over for the closer's role. Saves are about money. You have to have either an inexperienced young guy you can pass over or a guy new to the team if you want somebody else as the closer.

[adambr2]

adambr2 wrote:

You said 2-3 other teams don't follow that rule, notice that one of those teams won our division last year, and had a very successful bullpen down the stretch. Notice that their best reliever (Marmol) was not the closer, but rather brought in during the most crucial gametime situations. I'd much rather have a closer by committee situation like they had rather than the seemingly daily disasters that we had in the bullpen and the extraordinary amount of 3+ run leads that were blown.

The teams I was refering to were NYY, CIN, SEA, and OAK.(so I guess I should have said 4, I also know that some of those teams changed managers over the year, but their closers didn't show much different use when the manager changed) They were the only ones who used their closer more than an inning any significant amount of the time. Chicago got somewhat lucky that they had a younger player who could be stepped over for the closer's role. Saves are about money. You have to have either an inexperienced young guy you can pass over or a guy new to the team if you want somebody else as the closer.

So it almost sounds to me like you think that the conventional wisdom managers generally use is wrong as well, but since closers are paid by the save and are paid in accordance to how many saves they have, it almost forces the hand of MLB managers to maximize their save opportunities. Which does make sense, but doesn't seem to be a good thing for baseball. And also reinforces my belief that the save is a very overrated stat.

[1992casey]

Even though I don't like some things that are considered conventional wisdom, I'm not going to rip on Nedly for doing what 27-29 other managers are doing.

[logan82]

adambr2 wrote:

So it almost sounds to me like you think that the conventional wisdom managers generally use is wrong as well, but since closers are paid by the save and are paid in accordance to how many saves they have, it almost forces the hand of MLB managers to maximize their save opportunities. Which does make sense, but doesn't seem to be a good thing for baseball. And also reinforces my belief that the save is a very overrated stat.

To be perfectly clear I think the save is a stupid stat and the current "typical" use of closers is stupid as well.(stupid may be a little strong, but I would say extermely flawed) I think the "closer" position is driven more by money than what is best for the team. Look to what Cordero got in free agency compared to Linebrink. Do I think Cordero is better, yes, but not worth more than twice the money. Keeping a player as the closer is more about keeping a player happy and not "cheating" him out of free agency money than effective use.

[TooLiveBrew]

Notice that their best reliever (Marmol) was not the closer, but rather brought in during the most crucial gametime situations. I'd much rather have a closer by committee situation like they had rather than the seemingly daily disasters that we had in the bullpen and the extraordinary amount of 3+ run leads that were blown with the use of our "conventional wisdom."

 

But Marmol wasn't the CP only due to him being young. The Cubs didn't have closer by committee - Dempster was/is their CP. It was only until Piniella got tired of him that he went to Howry for some SV opp.'s. It wasn't like it was structured carefully so that the RP were in their right roles, it was just that the old MLB standby of 'veteran-ness'/'track record' happened to work out in their bullpen's favor. You had Howry & Marmol for the higher leverage roles, and Dempster for CP.

[logan82]

TooLiveBrew wrote:

But Marmol wasn't the CP only due to him being young. The Cubs didn't have closer by committee - Dempster was/is their CP. It was only until Piniella got tired of him that he went to Howry for some SV opp.'s. It wasn't like it was structured carefully so that the RP were in their right roles, it was just that the old MLB standby of 'veteran-ness'/'track record' happened to work out in their bullpen's favor. You had Howry & Marmol for the higher leverage roles, and Dempster for CP.

Dempster also spent some time on the DL from about the end of June to the end of July. 7 of Howry's 8 saves came during that time.

[Ennder]

Marmol was their 3rd best RP or so. Dempster was about the 5th best as the closer but I don't think that was part of the 'plan'. Seriously Marmol = Turnbow, can be extremely effective over a small sample but over the long haul the BB/9 will catch up to him.

[lukevan]

I went to a ton of games the last two years where every person in the stands knew the struggling pitchers were finished and Ned left them out there Grady Little-style to blow the game.

 

And yet Ned has been criticized on numerous occasions by many for overworking his bullpen. I'm not saying you specifically have criticized him for that, but when people are criticizing Yost on both sides of a situation, the accepted truth becomes that Yost really fouled up the situation, even though what he had to choose from was lethal injection or the electric chair.

 

I don't think Ned has a great feel for a game, either. He goes with guys on hot streaks too long (Gwynn, Mench). I'd like to see what Ned can do with more options in the bullpen, like he hopefully will have this season. If the Brewers are mired under .500 for any meaningful stretch, I think Ned will be gone with Simba taking the reins, at least in the interim. However, I think the Crew will start off fast again and sustain a more consistent win percentage throughout the season, leaving Ned neat and tidy.

[endaround]

See though you can do both. Yost would pitch Turnbow, a guy who doesn't do well back to back days, in 5 run games in the 9th and then bring him the next day and watch him have no control and let him give up the lead before doing anything.

[lukevan]

See though you can do both. Yost would pitch Turnbow, a guy who doesn't do well back to back days, in 5 run games in the 9th and then bring him the next day and watch him have no control and let him give up the lead before doing anything.

 

Yeah, I remember that instance, but that doesn't really have anything to do with leaving a starter in too long. He probably shouldn't have used him in that instance, but if I remember right that was early in the season and Turnbow hadn't had a lot of work the week before that.

 

After that game, it seemed to me Ned saved Turnbow for more meaningful situations (of which he blew a few). Ned really didn't have much choice at times in pitching Turnbow back to back days, unless you wanted to throw Aquino/Wise/Spurling into the game in a late tight situation. A guy could look at the game logs and see if Turnbow was put into a meaningless situation again, he may have, but I seem to remember different.

 

To me, our starters throwing short innings last year and the overall lack of depth in the bullpen are the obvious culprits.

[endaround]

Nope it was the last week of the season Yost was still doing that.

[lukevan]

Houston series. Yep.

[Invader3K]

Yeah, I believe this is the make or break year for Yost. Melvin? No way, he'll be in Milwaukee for at least another season or two, barring something catastrophic.

[sgtcluels]

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.

Beyond the numbers of Mench trying to hit a RHP, the bigger problem that I had during that game was the fact that Dempster hit a guy, walked in a run, and Ned left the free swinging Mench bat. Who promptly first pitch grounded out. PH someone who can work the count better sounds like a better option. I'm not saying that it would have won, or tied the game for us. But it would have put us in a better situation to get a positive outcome for the good guys.