What if Ned......

[joepepsi]

Macha appears to love playing his starters nearly every day just as much as Ned did. I've always liked managers like Garner and LaRussa that rotated their backups into the lineup somewhat frequently.

I also like managers that use their entire roster. Earl Weaver was the master at making mediocre players look like All Stars by putting them in the best position to be successful. I didn't like Ned's approach in the early years, when he insisted on set lineups even though the talent didn't call for it. Later, the Menchkins platoon seemed particularly difficult for him to grasp.

 

But I can understand playing the starters every day this year and last year. They're young, talented, and healthy for the most part. Kendall plays too much and Cameron should get regular days off. Hall is the only one with real platoon issues. The others really should be playing every day. It would be different if the they were in their 30's.

[Ennder]

If we had a real bench I could see playing them more often. He works Counsell into the lineup a bit and that is our one real bench guy.

[Thurston Fluff]

It isn't the marginal moves that put it over the line it was the downright stupid ones he seemed to make at least once a month. Moves that were so bad they were likely the absolute worst thing he could have done

 

Macha had Soup hit in the bottom of the sixth inning the first solid outing he had all year and was approaching 100ish pitches and then replaced him with nobody out and a man on in the 7th. I tend to think that is a downright stupid move. One that few thought had any justification. I guess that could be called one stupid move a month so far in Macha's tenure here. By your own reasoning Macha is no better than Ned so far.

[giffted1]

It isn't the marginal moves that put it over the line it was the downright stupid ones he seemed to make at least once a month. Moves that were so bad they were likely the absolute worst thing he could have done

 

Macha had Soup hit in the bottom of the sixth inning the first solid outing he had all year and was approaching 100ish pitches and then replaced him with nobody out and a man on in the 7th. I tend to think that is a downright stupid move. One that few thought had any justification. I guess that could be called one stupid move a month so far in Macha's tenure here. By your own reasoning Macha is no better than Ned so far.

And if you add letting Jeff Suppan walk in three runs in one inning to the list, that would be more than one downright stupid move a month for Macha, making him worse than Yost by that reasoning.

[logan82]

Don't forget bringing in Jorge Julio, who is known for poor control, with the bases loaded after Suppan had already walked in 3.

 

I think Macha is still feeling out the players. We are still feeling out Macha. He sac bunts to much for my liking, but there is a reasonable argument for most of the times he has sac bunted.(I still think they are all a bad idea) He doesn't seem much better other than his personality in interviews.

[jazzytrav]

Macha appears to love playing his starters nearly every day just as much as Ned did. I've always liked managers like Garner and LaRussa that rotated their backups into the lineup somewhat frequently.

 

Ned liked to rest all of his best players on the same day...usually Sunday afternoon. I actually stopped going to Sunday afternoon games because I knew that Hart, Fielder, Braun, and Hardy would be on the bench.

 

I think Ned deserved a lot of the criticism he got. Some of it was unwarranted, I'll admit. But for me, the position-based lineup just defines Ned. That and his press conferences. I haven't caught a Macha presser yet, but I think that will be what separates or compares the two. Ned just said some dumb, dumb things. His moves would be questioned, and he would answer as if it was obvious.

 

"He's Eric Gagne!" Can't say I'll ever forget that one, nor will I let Macha off the hook if he pulls something like that.

[Ennder]

Macha had Soup hit in the bottom of the sixth inning the first solid outing he had all year and was approaching 100ish pitches and then replaced him with nobody out and a man on in the 7th. I tend to think that is a downright stupid move. One that few thought had any justification. I guess that could be called one stupid move a month so far in Macha's tenure here. By your own reasoning Macha is no better than Ned so far.

That is a marginal one. The downright stupid one would be to let Suppan hit and then just take him out without facing a hitter. I agree that I wasn't happy with that one though. If you sit down and think to yourself, what is the absolute worst move a manager could make in a situation at least one time a month Yost did exactly that. A move so bad it was like he was trying to lose.

 

With that move if Suppan doesn't give up a triple to the next batter he probably faces at least one more and he easily could have gone the rest of the inning if it was a clean one.

[joepepsi]

It isn't the marginal moves that put it over the line it was the downright stupid ones he seemed to make at least once a month. Moves that were so bad they were likely the absolute worst thing he could have done

 

Macha had Soup hit in the bottom of the sixth inning the first solid outing he had all year and was approaching 100ish pitches and then replaced him with nobody out and a man on in the 7th. I tend to think that is a downright stupid move. One that few thought had any justification. I guess that could be called one stupid move a month so far in Macha's tenure here. By your own reasoning Macha is no better than Ned so far.

I don't think that was a stupid move. He had thrown 96 pitches and was leading off the inning. He was ahead 3-1, pitching well-had only walked one batter, and was averaging 16 pitches per inning. One more 16 pitch inning isn't going to kill a journeyman like Suppan and it could have saved using one reliever. It was a bit of a risk to be sure, but once he gave up the triple Macha immediately did the right thing and pulled him.

[Thurston Fluff]

That is a marginal one. The downright stupid one would be to let Suppan hit and then just take him out without facing a hitter.

 

I think you get the point though. Sometimes the move is perceived as better or worse than it actually is depending on how one feels about the person making the move. Even the idea of letting a backup hit in the same spot as the starter had merit in that it didn't force others to move up or down the order to accommodate one person. Given how several of his players felt about the place they were hitting in, Braun behind Feilder and JJ batting in front of the pitcher it had more merit in that particular team than perhaps others. I didn't always agree with his choices but on the whole could generally see the reasoning behind it even if I disagreed. Like you very astutely pointed out he did have that what the heck moment about once a month but I think it's being shown that many do.

[Pudster13]

Remember last year when Ned decided to platoon our 5th stater spot (Bush/McClung) with McClung getting road starts and Bush getting home starts?

 

That was some classic baffoonery.

[Thurston Fluff]

Remember last year when Ned decided to platoon our 5th stater spot (Bush/McClung) with McClung getting road starts and Bush getting home starts?

 

That was some classic baffoonery.

 

just what exactly did that do to harm the team's record? Nothing that I can see. In fact if you look at it there was some possible net benefit to it. If Ned had just put one in the pen that person could have resented it. By effectively making both of them tell him they would rather just know their role than keep that platoon going neither of them would hold a grudge. So what it actually did was cause no harm but possibly avoided lingering resentment in one of them. It didn't work out, as I recall Ned never said it would just that he thought it was worth trying, and hurt nothing for the effort. Doing something that has no effect one way or the other is not pure buffoonery. Just someone willing to try something new instead of following the other sheep. If people never tried new concepts we'd still have a three man rotations and all white players.

[DougJones43]

If Bernie Madoff wanted your money to make an investment, would you be more wary than with somebody else?

 

If Chris Brown wanted to take your daughter on a date, would you be more reluctant than if it was the nice guy that lives down the street?

 

Does that show some kind of unfair personal bias on your part? No. It's just a sound discretionary judgment based on these people's history and reputations. Of course people were more critical of moves Yost made during his last few years, because he had acted like a complete ignoramus so many times before. Is it wrong to consider somebody's past actions in determining how much you trust their judgment? Of course not.

 

Nobody ever said Macha wasn't going to make questionable moves. However, for now he has the benefit of the doubt because he hasn't yet flushed it down the crapper. With Yost, head-scratchers became such a pattern that yes, he had lost the benefit of the doubt in many fans' eyes. So don't act like it's an unfair double standard, because Yost earned his poor reputation.

[clancyphile]

Over Hall in left? Not really. I do the same thing with Baseball Mogul sometimes.

[Thurston Fluff]

Does that show some kind of unfair personal bias on your part? No. It's just a sound discretionary judgment based on these people's history and reputations.

 

What history? What reputation? Are you talking about the guy who came in after a 106 loss season with even less talent than that team and immediately show improvement? Or are you talking about the guy who managed a team to it's first winning season in more than a decade? Or are you talking about the one who, once he had some semblance of major league players to work, with won more games than he lost? Or maybe the guy who managed the team to 99% of the first playoff appearance in a quarter century? Like him or not he did his part in bringing a moribund franchise back to respectability.

 

The only negative reputation he had was among armchair quarterbacks who seemed to enjoy picking apart every move he made. Many of which made sense on one level or another. Like keeping the batting order more or less the same even if it meant a guy batting in a place some thought would be detrimental. Never mind it has been shown not to matter one bit. BTW the same time he was being criticized for that he was also being criticized for having too many different lineups. Never mind that turned out to be totally false since he had less lineups changes than average but he was simultaneously criticized for both having too many different lineups and not changing the lineups more.

 

The simple fact is he was not what many made him out to be. His reputation wasn't tarnished completely by his own doing like Madoff or Brown. It was in large part fabricated as being something it wasn't. Maybe he should be compared more to someone like AIG's CEO Edward Liddy who inherited a mess and, in the process of cleaning up made some questionable moves, but on the whole was not to blame for the current mess. Yet, unlike Liddy so far, he had in fact done exactly what he set out to do when hired. He started by getting them to play hard and not embarrass themselves or the city. Then, when talent permitted, he actually won. Then he got them in position to get to the playoffs. Yep pure trash as a manager. All he did was what he said he would do. Somewhere he should get some amount of credit for doing what others failed to do. He should be remembered as much for actually succeeding in his stated goals as he somehow is for failing to make universally accepted strategic maneuvers. After all isn't the record supposed to count for something? Isn't winning supposed to trump using the wrong pinch hitter in a particular game? Especially when 90% said use is debatable to begin with?

 

Ned was not perfect but he was far from the buffoon he is usually made out to be. I have no doubt he will get another shot at managing and will do just fine. After all Garner was made out as some sort of idiot (I'll admit to being one who thought so) as well but he did manage a WS appearance with a team that had never been there before. Not to mention a couple division titles to go with it. Ned was not perfect and maybe even the wrong guy for the team as it currently is but he can and will win in the right situation. Which is what all but a select few managers ever do.

[DougJones43]

What history? What reputation?

 

Does anybody have handy, that poignant quote from last year about the Shouse/Howard/Burrell move that sealed Ned's fate last year in Philadelphia?

[Fatter than Joey]

Ned was not perfect

 

Yep, and I am not skinny....

 

I think that MLB managers can best be compared to the villains of the 1960s TV show Batman.

 

For the most part they all have the same goal -- kill Batman -- but they fail to do it more often than not.

 

They all make the same mistakes, they hire inept goons, they put Batman and Robin in weird thematic death-contraptions that always fall short -- and then they always leave the room so that the Dynamic Duo can escape. Most of MLB managers are like this -- of course there are a few innovative successes, like Falseface. On the other end of the spectrum, there is Ned Yost, who is like the criminal that Chief O'Hara was able to catch without any help.

 

Ned Yost is like this guy.

 

[trwi7]

Does anybody have handy, that poignant quote from last year about the Shouse/Howard/Burrell move that sealed Ned's fate last year in Philadelphia?

Yost elected to walk Howard to face Pat Burrell. This was... well, it strains my vocabulary to find the right word for it. Howard cannot hit left-handers, and would be a platoon player if performance mattered anywhere near as much as reputation does. Or if he had a competent manager. Howard is at .228/.313/.458 against lefties in his career, .212/.287/.410 this year. Howard. Can't. Hit. Lefties. Shouse, on the other hand, is in the major leagues for exactly one reason: lefties can't hit him, to the tune of .175/.192/.289 this year, and .211/.263/.325 for his career, which includes a bunch of years when he was barely a major leaguer. Manuel sending Howard up against Shouse was a continuation of a theme for the Phillies: not hitting for Howard when he has little chance of doing something good. He was giving Yost an out, and Yost gave it right back.

That set up Shouse versus Pat Burrell, which cried out for a right-handed reliever. After all, Shouse is a pure specialist (.307/.390/.455 vs. RHB career; .293/.371/.446 this year). The only way walking Howard even might make sense is if Yost were to bring in a righty to try and get a double play out of Burrell. Burrell doesn't have the big platoon splits he showed earlier in his career-he's a dangerous hitter against both kinds of hurlers-but leaving Shouse in to face him was asking for trouble.

 

No, the players didn't play well in Philadelphia, but Ned Yost gift-wrapped that first game, a game the Brewers could well have won with some better decisionmaking. He earned his firing, and short of replacing him with Dakota Fanning or something, the Brewers will be better off for his absence.

Link

[DougJones43]

Yep. That was the article I was looking for. My favorite quip is this one, which really sums things up:

 

Think about this for a second. Yost had a 481 OPS pitcher facing a 697 OPS hitter. He elected to issue an intentional walk in that situation to allow an 817 OPS pitcher to face a 905 OPS hitter with an additional runner on base. That's when you start looking around the roof of the stadium for snipers, because gunpoint is the only place where that kind of decision makes sense.

To me, the discussion begins and ends with something like this. He had a pattern of doing things like this, it just took the high importance of this playoff chase game to finally draw enough people's attention. You simply can't have somebody, with that poor of an understanding of simple logic, calling the shots for an MLB team.

[Baldkin]

Ned DH'd Tony Gwynn, Jr in Boston.

 

Tony Gwynn, Jr.

 

DH.

The second part of that is HITTER.

 

He let Jason Kendall catch both ends of a double header.

 

He platooned two starting pitchers, after one of them had finally found his arm slot and was pitching very well -- he had a 3.65 ERA in June and had given up 1 run in his first 2 starts (both 8 innings, mind you) in July.

What do you do with that? Oh yeah, send him to the bullpen so he doesn't pitch for 16 days.

 

Macha will make head scratching moves from time to time, every manager does. The thing Yost never seemed to understand was there's a difference between a good decision and a good result.

[giffted1]

Ned DH'd Tony Gwynn, Jr in Boston.

 

Tony Gwynn, Jr.

 

DH.

The second part of that is HITTER.

But even this terrible move wasn't even close to the reason we lost that game. We lost 11-7. Would someone else over Gwynn have meant 4 more runs? That's not even remotely likely.

He let Jason Kendall catch both ends of a double header.

Kendall has proven to be very durable. If he's good to go, he'll play. If he's not the best option behind the plate that's a whole nother matter.

He platooned two starting pitchers, after one of them had finally found his arm slot and was pitching very well -- he had a 3.65 ERA in June and had given up 1 run in his first 2 starts (both 8 innings, mind you) in July. What do you do with that? Oh yeah, send him to the bullpen so he doesn't pitch for 16 days.

And what negative impact on our record, if any did that have?

 

I don't deny that Yost made some bad decisions. What I disagree with is the impact they had on our record. Last year there were frequent measures of how many games Yost had cost us (anywhere from one to a dozen it seems), most of them nonsense. Even with his worst decisions it's debatable or simply not the case that they affected the outcome of games.

[endaround]

Just because there isn't much to buy with a dollar doesn't mean its smart to play the lottery.

[Postseason2006]

Yost worst decisions were trying to get "an extra out" because the pitcher was due up next inning.

[Thurston Fluff]

Despite all the criticisms I still don't see much denial that Ned did, in fact, accomplish the things he said he would pretty much in the time frame he said he would. If he was so terrible I guess all that means is how inconsequential the manager is. I tend to think that is only partially the case. The other part has to be he had qualities that compensated for his supposed dismal game management.

[Invader3K]

My opinion of Ned is that he did a good job turning the Brewers from a terrible perneially loser team into a .500 or slightly above type team, but didn't seem to show that he had what it took to get them "over the hump" to the playoffs. There's no doubt in my mind that if he hadn't been fired when he was, the team would have missed the playoffs yet again. You can't necessarily blame that on Yost, but that's my honest opinion.

[Thurston Fluff]

but didn't seem to show that he had what it took to get them "over the hump" to the playoffs. There's no doubt in my mind that if he hadn't been fired when he was, the team would have missed the playoffs yet again.

 

This is one we can debate with no definitive outcome. I do think the plans implemented after he was fired had to have been discussed prior to the firing. I also question whether a team that didn't have any higher winning % after the firing than before it really did better without him. I do not think Cameron as the lead off hitter and Durham replacing Weeks did all that much to win more games than not. With CC replacing whom ever else I think that was going to happen at that time either way. It wouldn't have happened any sooner since it was all he could do to go that many starts on that short of rest anyway. When to start CC on short rest is one of those things that had been discussed before Ned got the axe IMHO.

 

Like I said I judge him by what he said he would do compared to what he actually did. By that standard I have no complaints. Hard to argue the simple fact that he did take this team from pure crap to respectability and finally into competitive meaningful games to the very end of the season. Had he not been fired why would we doubt someone who accomplished what he set out to do that far wouldn't accomplish the rest of his goals? Seems his history would say he would.

If someone chooses to judge him by a different standard who am I to argue personal standards? Nor can I argue what might have been other than the fact he did what he said he would thus he probably could have done the rest in the way he said he would.

 

By my standards I will always be grateful to him and think back fondly of his time spent rebuilding one of the worst into one of the best. If someone wants to argue it could have been done better so be it. That should not detract from what he actually did. Not in theory, not in hindsight, not sitting on a couch watching thinking of how much better someone else could have been, but what he actually did. It's fine to hate him or think we are better off without him just don't discount what he said he would do and the fact that he actually accomplished those things pretty much in the time frame he said it would take.