What if Ned......

[endaround]

And I'll think back top one of the greatest collapses ever in 2007 and the near great collapse in 2008.

[DougJones43]

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.

The reason the franchise became competitive during his tenure was because of the talent level -- not anything he did. If the talent level had remained the same as the 2003 squad, the team would have remained in the cellar.

 

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.

You're examining results, when you should be examining the process and whether or not it is fundamentally sound. Having Gwynn in the lineup, and not utilizing his best attribute (defense) is just one example that demonstrates Ned too often made decisions that did not optimize the team's chance for success. Mench over Jenkins to face Dempster, and walking Howard to have Shouse face Burrell last year was another. Just because the DH Gwynn instance may not have "cost us the game" doesn't make Yost's managerial philosophies any less flawed.

[joepepsi]

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

That sealed the deal for me. This isn't 1953. You don't have the same catcher for the entire double header.

[jazzytrav]

Kendall has proven to be very durable. If he's good to go, he'll play.

 

Just because he was healthy doesn't mean he was durable. Look at Kendall's stats from the 2nd half last year and tell me he was the best option every game. He could have easily been injured in that doubleheader...the fact that he wasn't proves nothing. Regardless of that, it's very wearing, especially for a catcher that needs to be able to hit in October.

 

And that brings up another point...who determines if he's "good to go"? Of course Kendall will say he's good to go; he had bonuses riding on it. And Ned would always just take the player's word for it and trot them out there. There's a point where the manager has to make a decision that is best for the team and the player, regardless of what the player says or wants. That same thing happened with Gagne last year...it's just bad management.

[giffted1]

Kendall has proven to be very durable. If he's good to go, he'll play.

 

Just because he was healthy doesn't mean he was durable. Look at Kendall's stats from the 2nd half last year and tell me he was the best option every game. He could have easily been injured in that doubleheader...the fact that he wasn't proves nothing. Regardless of that, it's very wearing, especially for a catcher that needs to be able to hit in October.

A half season of stats is virtually meaningless. Was he visibly tired in October and September? If so, you may have something, but I didn't see it.

And that brings up another point...who determines if he's "good to go"? Of course Kendall will say he's good to go; he had bonuses riding on it. And Ned would always just take the player's word for it and trot them out there. There's a point where the manager has to make a decision that is best for the team and the player, regardless of what the player says or wants. That same thing happened with Gagne last year...it's just bad management.

Ned Yost isn't a mind reader. Good point.

[DougJones43]

Was he visibly tired in October and September? If so, you may have something, but I didn't see it...Ned Yost isn't a mind reader. Good point.

 

It's not about visible tiredness, or reading minds. It's about common sense. Kendall caught 149 games last year, the most in the majors in quite some time -- and he was 34-years-old! If it's something no other team is doing (or done for years), there's probably a reason why. Guys get worn down, especially catchers. You can say that a half season worth of stats is meaningless, but everything we know about baseball and the human body would indicate that he was playing way too much for his age.

 

It's the managers job to have discretion and not just say "he says he can play so I'll let him play!" What if Gallardo said he could make starts the rest of the season on two days rest? Should the Brewers just let him? No, because history, precedent, and common sense indicate it would be stupid. If it was up to the players, they'd all pencil themselves in the lineup everyday. That's why you don't let them run the team...

[giffted1]

It's not about seeing visible tiredness, or reading minds. It's about common sense. Kendall caught 149 games last year, the most in the majors in quite some time -- and he was 34-years-old! If it's something no other team is doing (or done for years), there's probably a reason why. Guys get worn down, especially catchers. You can say that a half season worth of stats is meaningless, but like everything we know about baseball and the human body would indicate that he was playing way too much for his age.

You're completely ignoring the fact that players wear down at different rates. If every manager was as robotic as you'd like there would be some players playing tired and others sitting on the bench for no good reason.

It's the managers job to have discretion and not just say "he says he can play so I'll let him play!" What if Gallardo said he could make starts the rest of the season on two days rest? Should the Brewers just let him? No, because history, precedent, and common sense indicate it would be stupid. If it was up to the players, they'd all pencil themselves in the lineup everyday. That's why you don't let them run the team...

Nice straw man.

[Invader3K]

I just can't come up with a good reason to have a catcher start two games of a double header. Maybe if it was Mike Piazza in his prime and you needed the offense, but Kendall isn't any kind of real offensive weapon.

 

I still say Mike Rivera must have hit on Yost's wife or something, the way he seemed to collect dust on the bench.

[TheCrew]

There is no reason Kendall should have caught both games. Kendall played in more games last season than he had in any season since 2001 - considering how he slumped down the stretch last season, (.202 BA in the final month and 2 for 14 in the playoffs with 0 walks) I think we can conclude it caught up with him. As others have said, Yost wasn't the reason the team emerged from mediocrity - the talent is. Most of us could put a long list together of mind boggling things Yost did....... the positional batting order is something I'll never forget about him.

 

Back on point, Hall has experience in the OF - not shocking to see him get a start out there. Sure, if Yost would have done it, there may have been some grumblings because Yost drove us to question everything he did - but in reality, he has OF experience so it's not a shock.

 

I like what I've seen from Macha - he does a much better job of handling the bullpen and isn't afraid to a pull a pitcher before he has the big inning.

[TooLiveBrew]

I still say Mike Rivera must have hit on Yost's wife or something, the way he seemed to collect dust on the bench.

 

Rivera & Branyan were in cahoots!

[logan82]

I think we can conclude it caught up with him.

 

You can, but that doesn't mean you are right. I agree that Kendall played to much last year. However, if he had not gotten off to a really hot start in 2008 his first half stats would have been just as bad as his 2nd half stats. Kendall is not a good hitter.

 

I see little indication that Macha is going to play Kendall much less than Yost did last year. His strategy seems ot be giving Kendall every 5th day off for the start of the season so that he can ride him into the ground in the second half.

 

I think we need to be open to the possibility that Kendall can play more game than the average catcher without tiring instead of just sticking with conventional baseball wisdom that says the catcher needs 30+ games off a year.

[TooLiveBrew]

However, if he had not gotten off to a really hot start in 2008 his first half stats would have been just as bad as his 2nd half stats. Kendall is not a good hitter.

 

For the record, Kendall had 3 decent months (Apr., June, & Aug.), and 3 bad months (May, July, Sept.) last season. It wasn't just a hot start, but obviously that helped.

 

The main problem, though, is that Kendall's good months were just so-so, and his bad months were so bad you really can't get any worse for a regular player.

[logan82]

I think it is because he relies on weak grounders. When they dribble through the infield he will look good. When they don't, he will look bad. I think it is just random and has nothing to do with wearing down. We are seeing much the same so far this year.

[joepepsi]

Giving Kendall every 5th day off will give him 30+ days off. I hope Macha at least sticks to this plan.

[jazzytrav]

His strategy seems ot be giving Kendall every 5th day off for the start of the season so that he can ride him into the ground in the second half.

 

I may have missed something, but why are we assuming that Macha's strategy is to ride him into the ground in the second half?

[Thurston Fluff]

And I'll think back top one of the greatest collapses ever in 2007 and the near great collapse in 2008.

 

Of all the criticisms this one is at least understandable. I think it was more injury related in 07 combined with youth and crap for a bullpen but at least it is a fair critique. Last year is hard to call a collapse since he didn't get a shot at finishing it nor, since they did make the post season, did they actually collapse. But, to give credit were credit is due, this is a very reasonable argument against Yost.

 

 

Just because he was healthy doesn't mean he was durable. Look at Kendall's stats from the 2nd half last year and tell me he was the best option every game. He could have easily been injured in that doubleheader...the fact that he wasn't proves nothing. Regardless of that, it's very wearing, especially for a catcher that needs to be able to hit in October.

 

I think this looks to be the case on the surface but if you look at it closer he was simply not a good hitter for a couple years now. He was poor prior to getting here and a hot start covered some of his bad months prior to September. He certainly can't be all that wore out now and he has worse numbers now than last year. He was never here to provide offense so why is it such a big deal? He was here to provide good defense and handle the pitching staff. He was not so tired out that it affected that part of his game.

 

For all the complaints about how Ned handled Kendall he was one of the guys I can empirically point to as improving essentially because of Ned. Before the season started he said he thought Kendall's poor caught stealing % was due to a mechanical flaw. They fixed it and he went form worst to first in that area. Coincidentally it is back to bad once again. So if Ned did cost us games with his strategic blinders how many games did he win by saving runs throughout the year with getting more out of Kendall than others did?

 

 

It's the managers job to have discretion and not just say "he says he can play so I'll let him play!" What if Gallardo said he could make starts the rest of the season on two days rest? Should the Brewers just let him? No, because history, precedent, and common sense indicate it would be stupid. If it was up to the players, they'd all pencil themselves in the lineup everyday. That's why you don't let them run the team...

 

Couple things. Didn't all of baseball have three man rotations for quite sometime? How many more injuries did those pitchers suffer? Second it is far from such a certainty that all players in every position would say they want to play everyday. One of the things most managers want out fo their players is honesty with regard to availability. The relievers have to be honest about their ability as do the starters when it comes to how much they have left in a game. Same goes for catchers. If the son of a catcher who has himself caught for a decade tells the manager who was a catcher he's ready to go and the bench coach who was a catcher doesn't see something to indicate otherwise I think it's a bit of a stretch to think we know what type of workload he can handle.

 

That sealed the deal for me. This isn't 1953. You don't have the same catcher for the entire double header.

 

Was there something in the water in 1953 that made them so much more durable? What's the difference what year it is?

 

Just because the DH Gwynn instance may not have "cost us the game" doesn't make Yost's managerial philosophies any less flawed.

 

No but it shows how overblown such decisions are. Foo every poor move like that we see things like an improved Kendall in throwing out base runners save us games. If he lost us a couple games one way he saved us in less visible ways in others.

 

I may have missed something, but why are we assuming that Macha's strategy is to ride him into the ground in the second half?

 

In spring training he stated he wanted Kendall to get more rest early so he could play more later. At least that was the original plan. If he can't hit for a lick all year or throw out a few more base runners than he has that may change.

[TooLiveBrew]

Was there something in the water in 1953 that made them so much more durable? What's the difference what year it is?

 

The difference is that people now have an understanding of the long-term physical effects of overusing players like pitchers & catchers. Just because 'Rub some dirt on it!' sounds tough... doesn't make it solid medical advice.

[Thurston Fluff]

The difference is that people now have an understanding of the long-term physical effects of overusing players like pitchers & catchers. Just because 'Rub some dirt on it!' sounds tough... doesn't make it solid medical advice.

 

I get that but it doesn't explain how those players could play at a high level then but better conditioned athletes of today can't. I think a lot of the debate we are having is whether JK really was burned out by the end of the year. You yourself provided some pretty strong evidence that his offense didn't just go south at the end of the year but was in fact fairly streaky throughout the season. In any event a player who is here for his defense and isn't adversely effected by the playing time then I'm not sure what the problem is. I kendall would have had 10 more base hits and two more doubles would keeping him out of 20 games have been worth the lost defense or the 5 or so extra steals against?

[Baldkin]

Look back, even 20 years ago. You've always had freakish athletes who could play 9,000 innings in a row and not have any problems. You could have guys go on 3 days rest for a month and not have problems.... but the number of guys who blew their arms out, who suffered major injuries, or who had a "dead arm" after 3 or 4 years was much higher than today... and the number of 34 year old guys who can play like that is even fewer.

 

The great ones did it, and that's what made them great. You never hear about the ones who didn't. Like, say, Cal Eldred, who was overworked and overused his first three years in the league and was never close to the same pitcher afterwards.

[TheCrew]

I'll be shocked if Kendall plays in more than 130 games this season - Macha wants to keep him well rested throughout the season, I don't remember reading anything that the Bush/Rivera pairing would be going away in the 2nd half or even down the stretch. If someone has a link stating that states he will be riding Kendall down the stretch, please post it.

 

Kendall was horrible down the stretch last year because he was overworked - if you don't want to base if off his lackluster performance at the plate down the stretch, I don't have the numbers but I'd be willing to be that the sb% was up on Kendall down the stretch as well - I know the Phillies had quite a few SB in the playoffs off of him. Now you can blame all that on whatever you want, but it's not a stretch to think that his playing in more games than he had in nearly a decade had something to do with that.

[logan82]

I don't have the numbers but I'd be willing to be that the sb% was up on Kendall down the stretch as well

 

That wouldn't really prove anything either. All that could mean is that teams got smart and quit trying to steal with marginal base stealers.

 

Now you can blame all that on whatever you want, but it's not a stretch to think that his playing in more games than he had in nearly a decade had something to do with that.

 

Nobody said it was a stretch to blame his drop in production on playing time. There just isn't any definitive prof that he did wear down.

 

I may have missed something, but why are we assuming that Macha's strategy is to ride him into the ground in the second half?

 

He didn't say ride him into the ground, but I think 34 straight games at the end of the year would be considered riding a catcher into the ground. Link

 

I am not the only one who interpreted it as Kendall likely to catch 140+ games. Link

[TheCrew]

There just isn't any definitive prof that he did wear down.

 

You mean other than all his numbers? When all his numbers are down across the board over the last month and you throw in the fact that he hadn't played in that many games in nearly a decade (and only a combined 137 in the 2 prior seasons) - I'm gonna go ahead and chalk that up as a guy who was overworked. I understand numbers don't always indicate a guy wearing down - but I think it supports the argument that he wore down in this case. Regardless, you even said Kendall was overused last season - that's the main point here.

 

He didn't say ride him into the ground, but I think 34 straight games at the end of the year would be considered riding a catcher into the ground.

I am not the only one who interpreted it as Kendall likely to catch 140+ games.

 

You did say he would ride him into the ground though in an earlier post.... that's where the poster is getting it from. Kendall also hit nearly .300 that season - if he's hitting .220, I don't see Macha running him out there for a month straight.

[giffted1]

There just isn't any definitive prof that he did wear down.

 

You mean other than all his numbers? When all his numbers are down across the board over the last month and you throw in the fact that he hadn't played in that many games in nearly a decade (and only a combined 137 in the 2 prior seasons) - I'm gonna go ahead and chalk that up as a guy who was overworked. I understand numbers don't always indicate a guy wearing down - but I think it supports the argument that he wore down in this case. Regardless, you even said Kendall was overused last season - that's the main point here.

If you think a month-long sample is good enough then fine. In 2005, Kendall played in 150 games, accumulated 601 at bats (quite a few more than last season) and his two best months were September and October where he batted .324 and .333 respectively...maybe Kendall is at his best after being worked like a horse?

 

Now I'll be the first to admit that the numbers I touted are pretty meaningless but hopefully they help you to see how silly it is to look at one month of stats.

[TooLiveBrew]

You mean other than all his numbers? When all his numbers are down across the board over the last month and you throw in the fact that he hadn't played in that many games in nearly a decade (and only a combined 137 in the 2 prior seasons) - I'm gonna go ahead and chalk that up as a guy who was overworked. I understand numbers don't always indicate a guy wearing down - but I think it supports the argument that he wore down in this case. Regardless, you even said Kendall was overused last season - that's the main point here.

Obviously I agree with your thoughts on workload, TheCrew, but here is my take on Kendall's 2008 (relative to his talent) --

 

Apr.: Good

May: Bad

June: Good

July: Bad

Aug: Good

Sep.: Bad

 

 

So, while his production was bad in September, it was also bad in May & July... which suggests to me that his being overworked played a role... just a marginal one.

[Thurston Fluff]

The great ones did it, and that's what made them great. You never hear about the ones who didn't. Like, say, Cal Eldred, who was overworked and overused his first three years in the league and was never close to the same pitcher afterwards.

 

Cal Eldred had a very predictable injury because he was over worked at such a young age. Yet CC doesn't seem to have suffered much effect from his workload late last season. Age matters in these types of things. I think Hart and Parra wore down and didn't even realize it both said something to that effect afterward. Young players going through a tougher workload than they ever had is certainly something that has to be monitored. Quite honestly I think Yost overworked both of them a little more than he should have but in a pennant race it's hard to know for sure what wins that one last game.

Kendall was a completely different story. He was old enough to know the rigors of the workload and understood how much he could handle. I have no doubt at all that Yost asked Kendall for an honest answer and Kendall gave him one. Kendall wasn't here to prove he belonged like young guys often do. He understood his value to the team and was not going to short change the team or himself by trying to be he-man.