Cubs manager interviews out of ordinary

[JET15]

I don't know how many people saw this Chicago tribune article, but it's pretty interesting. "Applicants will be confronted with game-like situations to test decision-making"http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1104-process-cubs-chicago--20111104,0,5854329.story

 

I wonder how Ron or Ned would have done with that. I can't see Doug trying anything like it.

[PrinceEatMeat]

I kinda like this. It's definitely an interesting way of doing things.

[NYChez]

Question # 8: Your 8th inning guy has an opponent's batting average of .900 against lefties. Do you leave him in to face Joey Votto or take him out?

Question # 14: It's September 15 and your third baseman is having an historically bad season. Do you give him two more weeks to break out of his 5 1/2 month funk, or do you replace him with a better hitter/fielder/baserunner?

Question # 19: Would you ever, ever start a slow, 35-year old has been in center field in a very important pitchers' duel-type game in a big ballpark when your alternatives are guys with more overall ability and twice the range?

Question #22: It's the franchise's biggest game in 29 years and an elimination game. Your starting pitcher hasn't gotten anyone out in a month. Do you treat it like an early-season regular season game and start him and let him get shelled to save the arms of other starters and relievers, or do you do what the opposing manager has done repeatedly and successfully all series and come up with a quick Plan B?

Sorry, those were probably cheap shots.

[Raw Biz]

I don't know how many people saw this Chicago tribune article, but it's pretty interesting. "Applicants will be confronted with game-like situations to test decision-making"http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1104-process-cubs-chicago--20111104,0,5854329.story

 

I wonder how Ron or Ned would have done with that. I can't see Doug trying anything like it.

I wish more teams would do this. It makes sense considering it gives you a chance to see what kinds of decisions the manager would make in a game. Also, it reminds me of the stuff they asked Billy Heywood in Little Big League.

[adamb100]

Something like this seems so obvious to ask that I wonder why people didnt think of it before.

[Dollarbill13]

I don't know how many people saw this Chicago tribune article, but it's pretty interesting. "Applicants will be confronted with game-like situations to test decision-making"http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-1104-process-cubs-chicago--20111104,0,5854329.story

 

I wonder how Ron or Ned would have done with that. I can't see Doug trying anything like it.

I wish more teams would do this. It makes sense considering it gives you a chance to see what kinds of decisions the manager would make in a game. Also, it reminds me of the stuff they asked Billy Heywood in Little Big League.

But what you say in an interview really doesn't have much bearing on how you perform in real life. I mean Billy Heywood gave the ultimate statistical driven explanation of why not to do any bunts or hit & runs with his top hitters. Then he goes out and runs a play to pick off Ken Griffey Jr. that's about the clearest balk in the history of baseball and gets away with it due to the luck of having an umpiring staff that doesn't know the balk rule. He clearly only succeeded due to the small sample of the partial season that he managed.

[JimH5]

During the offseason, I think teams should make their manager play Strat-o-Matic (or the like) for several hundred games, just so they get a feeling for what can happen when they try something out of their comfort zone.

 

Could it hurt?

[TooLiveBrew]

I remember reading that Melvin did this same kind of thing when interviewing post-Yost.

[Oldcity]

Yeah, I was coming on here to say, "Wait... You mean all teams don't do this already? No wonder there are so many bad managers."

[ttsather]

Yes, generally, I think it is a good idea for any employer that is attempting gauge the ability of a candidate to perform a particular function to . . . have that candidate demonstrate that they can in fact do what they will be asked to do on the job.

 

It's pretty amazing how often this doesn't happen at all - and certainly not just in MLB.

 

(Caveat: You can't test everything, of course, and there is plenty that can be learned. But it's pretty darn easy to test someone's decision-making in MLB situations.)

[MNBrew]

The article leads us to infer that these things don't happen in other interviews, and some of you with a jaded view of Roenicke seem convinced nothing in Melvin's interview process ever asked any questions like this because you heartily disagree with anything & everything Roenicke & Melvin do, and they clearly never do anything right. In other words, I think you're reading into this what you want to. . . .

 

The fact is, Epstein's only ever interviewed for one other previous managerial opening, so he's just doing again now what he did then. I don't see all of this as being so novel at all. The Chicago Cubs are going to pitch to the media anything Epstein's doing as new, innovative, and surely the right & logical steps that will lead the Cubs and their fan-dom to the Promised Land. That's what goes on with a new GM, esp. one with a championship under his belt.

 

The article also talks about each interviewee having a Q&A with the media after his interview. That's exactly what Melvin did with all the candidates when Ned Yost was ultimately hired. That's when Yost said something about not wanting to manage just any team, but wanting to manage the Brewers, because he knew from experience how the team & its fans can be when top-caliber baseball is going on in Milwaukee. . . . which made sense at the time for why he'd be a better candidate than Macha or some of the others interviewing at the time.

[AdvantageSchneider]

Question # 8: Your 8th inning guy has an opponent's batting average of .900 against lefties. Do you leave him in to face Joey Votto or take him out?

Sorry, those were probably cheap shots.

No, no they weren't.

[JohnBriggs12]

If GMs were so good at in game strategy, how come so few were ever big league managers? If the GM has flawed ideas on what strategy works best then he's likely going to hire a manager who also does.

 

Now if someone brought in LaRussa, or Leyland to evaluate a candidate, now that might hold some validity.

[thebruce44]

Its not so much the decision the potential manager makes, its the process and what information they look at that is important. This is why RR was so maddening. Beyond the decision itself, he would usually justify it in a way that you could tell he just isn't very logical or analytical.

 

Theo has said that is what he looks at and that they try to create a stressful situation for the interviewee by getting in his face and making him make a quick decision.

[thebruce44]

If GMs were so good at in game strategy, how come so few were ever big league managers? If the GM has flawed ideas on what strategy works best then he's likely going to hire a manager who also does.

 

Now if someone brought in LaRussa, or Leyland to evaluate a candidate, now that might hold some validity.

I disagree. I think a lot of us here could watch the results of this type of an interview and make a pretty good decision on the thought process of a manager. How to conduct a practice and relate to the players is something you have to learn by playing or coaching at minor league levels. Watching tons of baseball your whole life though gives you a pretty good foundation for in game assessments.

[kramnoj]

If GMs were so good at in game strategy, how come so few were ever big league managers?

 

For the most part, managers are former players. If not from the majors, at least minor league experience. Yes, there are exceptions (Jack McKeon), but that is the standard. Players like to be led by men who have been there before, gone through the wars, etc.

 

If this standard didn't exist, we could have female baseball managers. I bet Hawing would be a better manager than quite a few who have held the position.

[thebruce44]

I would go as far as to say being stuck in a single dugout for 162 afternoons a season actually prevents you in some ways from experiencing as many important in-game decisions as a fan or executive who can flip back and forth between several games at a time.

 

Its similar to the online poker scene. Teenagers could camp out in their parents basement playing 4-5 tables at a time until 5 in the morning. Then you started seeing 18 year olds sitting across the table from veterans and having the same amount of experience. Would they do as well at the table as someone who had been sitting through all those hands in person and reading the other players, feeling the flow of the game, and acting when necessary? Probably not.

 

But strategy wise, they would know the correct play just as many baseball fans know it was stupid for RR to bring in Loe 8th inning after 8th inning when he is a ROOGY GB pitcher.

[RobertR]

It's easy to make the right decision when you don't have to take a person's feelings/attitude into account. I'll bet most managers can give the "right" answer in a hypothetical situation. But, making a hard decision about a player you like? That's tough. Especially if the potential manager knows that you're asking what "the book" says you should do.

 

Not, that I don't think you can come up with some hypotheticals. It's possible that you can set up some traps too where there's no "right" answer. Give the potential manager your players and see how he would set up a lineup. Give him some options and check not so much which player that he picks for a certain situation but if he's smart enough to ask "how many ABs make up these stats" so that you know he recognizes sample size. Heck, role playing "how do you tell a player who's struggling that he's being benched" might be more important in the long run than debating what's a significant sample size.

 

Robert