Ned Yost Yay or Nay thread: Hardball Times rips Yost (part 3)

[adambr2]

October 9th, 2007

 

As for the job done by Leyva, Yost said, "He worked hard and gave us everything he had. I'm certainly not putting anything on Nick Leyva. I just felt like I wanted to make a change."

 

October 9th, 2008

 

As for the job done by Yost, Melvin said, "He worked hard and gave us everything he had. I'm certainly not putting anything on Ned Yost. I just felt like I wanted to make a change."

[iluvlamp]

He got to 0-2 on Cliff Floyd, whose laundry was practically hanging over the plate. Suppan threw a borderline strike and Floyd was struck by the pitch. Yost lost it, running to the mound and to the complete, total and utter astonishment of everyone with the I.Q. of a common squash, yanking Suppan from the game. In comes Linebrink. Two outs and an E-1 later, and it's 5-3 Cubs and Milwaukee is below .500.

I am still pissed about this. I.Q of a common squash included Drew Olson, Bill Whatshisface, and Needles. Haudricourt, Braun, and McCalvy (although he at least spoke of it as wrong on WSSP). That article so nailed the media in the city. Kudos for a great article.

[logan82]

Hardball Times rips into Yost. BTW, I wonder if the poster he refers to is a bf.netter?

 

Hardball Times

 

This guy really goes after Ned, there's some powerful criticism in here. I see endaround had already posted that link, if you haven't read the story, you should, no matter which side of the Yost debate you're on, there's plenty to talk about in that piece.

Looks like the biggest complaint is the Yost didn't let his starters pitch far enough into games. I disagree with the complaint about benching Hall. Hall played poorly all year. Gross and Hall should have and were, for the most part, platooned for the last portion of the season.

[giffted1]

Hardball Times rips into Yost. BTW, I wonder if the poster he refers to is a bf.netter?

 

Hardball Times

 

This guy really goes after Ned, there's some powerful criticism in here. I see endaround had already posted that link, if you haven't read the story, you should, no matter which side of the Yost debate you're on, there's plenty to talk about in that piece.

Couple of Thoughts:

One of his main criticisms was that Turnbow, Wise, Villanueva, and Shouse were all overworked. Maybe he wanted to see more of Spurling, Aquino, etc...that would have gone over well.

Also, he criticizes Yost for not sticking with Hall, and then goes on to criticize him for sticking with Capuano. Both have had success in the past. He blasts Yost for benching Hall because Hall was "the squad's most popular player". Should Capuano have been moved to the pen earlier because he wasn't as popular? Whatever, John.

[AJAY]

Even though I dislike Ned Yost, I wasn't overly impressed by that analysis by the Hardball Times. I agree that the starters didn't go deep into games and the bullpen was overworked, but I find it hard to blame Yost for that because there was a long stretch where the starters just weren't getting it done.

 

I actually had more frustration with Yost for different reasons.

[danzig6767]

Even though I dislike Ned Yost, I wasn't overly impressed by that analysis by the Hardball Times. I agree that the starters didn't go deep into games and the bullpen was overworked, but I find it hard to blame Yost for that because there was a long stretch where the starters just weren't getting it done.

 

I actually had more frustration with Yost for different reasons.

 

I'm not a Yost fan,but agree with you Ajay that the piece in Hardball Times wasn't all that impressive nor written in a convincing fashion about Ned's faults.

 

[Jay Zahn]

The Reds are really the only comparable team, and they play in a hitters' park (I didn't adjust for parks.) Miller Park is neutral. Look at the stats. No manager is going to be able to make moves to mask that sort of junk. If you think someone could actually get Turnbow, Wise, et al to pitch better, then that's something else.

 

That's nice but are those stats taking unearned runs into account? I would bet no.

All runs, earned and unearned, were counted. Just a count of how many runs were given up each inning. It's a quick and rough tool but a pretty good indicator I think.

 

 

[don1481]

Even though I dislike Ned Yost, I wasn't overly impressed by that analysis by the Hardball Times. I agree that the starters didn't go deep into games and the bullpen was overworked, but I find it hard to blame Yost for that because there was a long stretch where the starters just weren't getting it done.

But earlier in the season... when the Brewers were "rolling" to their fast start, I remember a few people (including myself) that wondered out loud why Ned was working his pen so much so early in the season, and that it would come back and have bad effects later on.

 

I do blame Ned for not keeping his starters in longer during games that the Brewers were up by 3+ runs during that stretch. It ultimately contributed to the heavy wear and tear that the pen faced, which in turn led to what would appear to have been a pretty vicious downward spiral during the second half.

 

I don't know what the entire reasoning was for the starting rotation getting into the funk that it did midseason (Sheets' injury being probably the only thing that remotely fits the bill - increased workload on relievers because the other starters weren't going deep as often, etc), but the funk was magnified by Ned's early-season mismanagement of the bullpen and starters and the resulting ineffectiveness of the relievers from overuse.

[logan82]

Nevermind. I already went over this with you in post #1176.

[igor67]

Turnbow's appearances were entirely a correctable mistake. There was a point early in the season when Ned was trotting out Turnbow and Cordero for any lead under 10 runs. Spurling wasn't the best pitcher in the world, but 4 and 5 run leads in the 7th-9th is why you have a guy like that. He's not a great pitcher, but even a mediocre pitcher can get those outs most of the time. This was the biggest problem with Ned's bullpen management. Having a quick hook with T-bow also should have been obvious by July. Sure it puts more strain on the pen, but you've got to figure out a way not to leave a surefire loss in the game.

[Thurston Fluff]

Turnbow's appearances were entirely a correctable mistake. There was a point early in the season when Ned was trotting out Turnbow and Cordero for any lead under 10 runs. Spurling wasn't the best pitcher in the world, but 4 and 5 run leads in the 7th-9th is why you have a guy like that. He's not a great pitcher, but even a mediocre pitcher can get those outs most of the time. This was the biggest problem with Ned's bullpen management. Having a quick hook with T-bow also should have been obvious by July. Sure it puts more strain on the pen, but you've got to figure out a way not to leave a surefire loss in the game.

Do you remember how everyone hammered Ned for putting in Aquino(?) (forgot which scrub it was) instead of Turnbow in the 8th inning in NY. Then when he totally crumbled Ned went to Trunbow who subsequently crumbled. The critisism then was he should have used Turnbow to start with since he can't pitch out of someones mess.

While some people did say Ned overused his relievers early I'm not sure what pitchers he could have used that wouldn't risk games when we were four or five runs ahead. The problem wasn't Ned's use of the bullpen it was the bullpen itself. He only had a couple guys who were good enough to get major league hitters out.

By the way if Turnbow was so over used it must have beed that extra 2/3 of an inning that did it since that's how many more innings he pitched this season than in 05. How exaclty is that over used?

 

Just took a look at the innings pitched for pitchers this year. The highest total for a Brewers reliever was tied for 18th in Villy. Every pitcher who had a higher innings total had a better ERA than vitually all the Brewers. No the Brewer releiver was in the top 30. Just how the heck is it so obvious that he overworked his pen? How was Turnbow so overworked? It's his job. It seems plenty of other pitchers did thiers far better. Perhaps if Ned had one of them all those bold predictions woulnd't have been so spot on. Again blame Yost all you want but the fact that this bullpen wasn't capable of doing what other bullpens can made Yost's job a lot harder than other managers.

[Thurston Fluff]

I've posted this sepatately so it wouldn't be hidden in the last rant.

The idea that Ned somehow overworked some of his relievers appears to me to be more myth than reality. No one in the pen was even in the top ten in innings. One was in the top 30. Just don't see that as overworked.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitching?sort=thirdInnings&split=128&league=mlb&season=2007&seasonType=2&type=reg&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&hand=a&pos=all&minip=0

 

Could this be one of those cases where something gets repeated so often that it starts to be viewed as something it's not?

 

Total innings for the relievers was good for 16th in baseball.

[windiv07]

I've posted this sepatately so it wouldn't be hidden in the last rant.

The idea that Ned somehow overworked some of his relievers appears to me to be more myth than reality. No one in the pen was even in the top ten in innings. One was in the top 30. Just don't see that as overworked.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitching?sort=thirdInnings&split=128&league=mlb&season=2007&seasonType=2&type=reg&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&hand=a&pos=all&minip=0

 

Could this be one of those cases where something gets repeated so often that it starts to be viewed as something it's not?

 

Total innings for the relievers was good for 16th in baseball.

There are many myths. As long as we are doing an autopsy, how many times was youth blamed for a loss? I remember specifically when (with a 78 pitch count in the 7th inning, a runner on first, and the lead) Suppan was summarily yanked without any discussion on a first trip to the mound in Chicago within what Hardball Times so eloquently described in probably the most memorable Yosting in Brewers history (remember the look on Soup's face?)...the postgame litany from the grinning Brewer's coaching staff was, how later in that inning, 'youth and inexperience' cost us the game. How many times have we heard that? How old must a roster be to qualify for competent management?

[valpocrewsader]

I actually had more frustration with Yost for different reasons.

 

Me too, like never pulling Jenks/Mench for an advantage late in the game, or not using Jenks/Mench in the strict platoon they should have been, using Turnbow in situations he is not built for (runners on, back-to-back days), and generally over-using our best relievers (either by bringing them into the game or simply warming them up) during games they were unlikely to be needed in. And sending runners like Bill Hall to steal bases. Or sending anyone with Braun/Prince up to bat. Or pulling Braun too early to take his bat out of the lineup. Or not using Cordero for non-save situations. Or getting into a bean-ball war when we're facing elimination. Or batting Estrada 5th for forever. Or never pulling Rickie or Billy for defensive replacements. Or just generally standing there with a "What, Me Worry?" idiot-face when he chooses the wrong reliever for the 50th time.

[Thurston Fluff]

and generally over-using our best relievers (either by bringing them into the game or simply warming them up) during games they were unlikely to be needed in.

 

Judging from the ESPN link I provided it was pretty clear he didn't overuse any reliever with the possible exception of Villy although he wasn't even in the top 10. No other reliever was even in the top 35 in innings pitched. Total innings for relievers was 16th in MLB. Just don't see that as overuse. I guess it could be argued that he overused his relievers because he didn't have any relievers capable of logging many innings. If that is the arguement then it stands to reason it was less a Yost problem than it was a Melvin one.

[biedergb]

Just to play devil's advocate. The innings pitched can be a bad surrogate for overuse, as pitcher's actually need to get outs to record innings pitched. When Turnbow would walk runners on, he may only have 0.1 or 0.2 IP, but it would be as taxing as 1-2 IP if he got those batters out. So I don't know if there's a stat for number of pitches, and appearances, etc.

 

I still think he overused guys like T-bow and Villy early, while underutilizing Cordero when we needed him. Also down the stretch (someone can look this up and correct me) but I think Linebrink did a good job at stranding runners, and should have been used in those situations more -- rather than him start an innning, and T-bow brought in with runners on.

[don1481]

Nevermind. I already went over this with you in post #1176.

 

Sorry for not responding to this sooner (to post 1176) but Igor hit it right on the head. Trotting out the same relievers game in and game out, regardless of the size of the lead, put additional wear and tear on arms. Pitchers didn't necessarily get the rest that they needed, so it began to wear on them. I remember earlier in the year pointing out that if Ned continued to use certain arms (Turnbow, Shouse, Villy, Cordero specifically) at the rate that he was in terms of appearances, we were going to witness a bullpen meltdown from Ned overusing that group of pitchers. I used Brian Shouse's first and second half splits from 2006 as an example of this sort of overuse. Heck - I even said that Spurling was on pace for over 50 appearances - I know... *shudder*. Unfortunately, that post was pre-Yuku and far enough in the beginning of the season that it wasn't saved.

 

Furthermore... It's not just the innings that come into play, Catchers, but also the number of appearances AND the number of times that the pitcher had to warm up without going into the game. Basically, if a pitcher has to get warmed up and ultimately doesn't have to come into the game, there's still enough usage on the arm so that it really doesn't count as a "rest" day.

 

The counterpoint to your "not capable of logging many innings" argument is Carlos Villanueva. He threw over 180 innings in 2006 between AA, AAA, and MLB; overuse by IP wouldn't really be an issue. Overuse by appearances, however, did prove to be an issue. It's part of why Smoltz was moved back into Atlanta's rotation (that plus they needed him); it's why originally Papelbon was supposed to move back to the rotation this year.

 

Do I think that this is as much a DM problem as a Yost one? Yes, 100%. Doug gave Ned the players, Ned - unfortunately - didn't have as deep of a bullpen as he should have been given. Would Ned have not leaned so heavily on that small group of relievers had he had, say, Linebrink from Day One? Maybe, maybe not. The point is... the more quality arms Ned has available, the less the overall workload should become.

[giffted1]

Just to play devil's advocate. The innings pitched can be a bad surrogate for overuse, as pitcher's actually need to get outs to record innings pitched. When Turnbow would walk runners on, he may only have 0.1 or 0.2 IP, but it would be as taxing as 1-2 IP if he got those batters out. So I don't know if there's a stat for number of pitches, and appearances, etc.

Derrick Turnbow has the most appearances for a Brewers reliever with 77; he's tied for 17th in the league. Brian Shouse is next, tied for 30th.

 

Carlos Villanueva has the most pitches as a reliever for the Brewers with 1382; 7th in the league. Turnbow is next, tied for 35th.

[Thurston Fluff]

Furthermore... It's not just the innings that come into play, Catchers, but also the number of appearances AND the number of times that the pitcher had to warm up without going into the game. Basically, if a pitcher has to get warmed up and ultimately doesn't have to come into the game, there's still enough usage on the arm so that it really doesn't count as a "rest" day.

 

Do you have some sort of evidnece that Ned does this more than any other manager? If not that is a completely baseless accusation. There are reasons to believe Ned does know this and hasn't abused them in this way. I know they've mentioned this on the pregame show with Ned so he is aware of it. They do log every pitch thrown in the game and warmups. The same guy who manages the bullpen, Billy Castro, has been there for years. One would think Billy has Ned's trust since he's retained him for so long. I doubt Ned has any more dry runs than any other manager since he doesn't use relievers more than anyone else. Without some sort of evidence there should be no reason to accuse him of that.

The funny thing is some of the same people bashing Ned for abusing guys like Turnbow complained that he shouldn't have been left in if he gave up a lead off walk. Which would mean warming up someone with Turnbow every time he came in. Since Ned knew Turnbow was really bad when he was bad and didn't have another pitcher warming up with him every time he pitched it leads to more evidence that Ned didn't have any more pitchers with dry runs than any other one in the league.

 

As has been mentioned Turnbow is tied for 17th in the league in appearnaces. All of those above him logged more innings and had an ERA under 4. The one who was tied with him had a lover ERA but over 4. So there are guys who can and most certainly do log more innings with a greater number of appearances. Does that mean every one of those managers are worse at handling the bullpen than Yost. Given the reasoning so far from those critisizing Yost you'd have to say yes. Washington had 2 relievers who pitched more games and logged more innings than our most overworked guy. The dodgers had 2 1/2, the Yankees 1 1/2, Baltimore 2, Toronto 1, Mets 2, Padres 2, Atlanta 1, houston 1, Cubs 1, Colorado 1.

As you can see there are certianly some managers with an impressive track record who abused their pitchers far worse and three of the playoff teams had a manager who deserve more blame for bullpen abuse than Yost. But of course that doesn't fit the paradigm of Yost being the worst bullpen manager ever does it?

 

 

The innings pitched can be a bad surrogate for overuse, as pitcher's actually need to get outs to record innings pitched.

 

If a pitcher needs more pitches to get three outs that's the pitchers fault not the manager. Yes Turnbow does need more pitches because he has such poor control. If that is the case then, agian, it's not Yost as much as Melvin for not aquiring enough pitchers who can hit the strike zone. No matter how you look at it Ned would have needed someone to get x number of outs. If the pitcher can't get them without throwing 50 pitches an inning what is Ned supposed to do to reduce said workload?

 

After looking at actual stats instead of just reinterating the same false accusations it appears, to me anyway, the bullpen problems were caused far more with the pitchers and the man who aquired them than it does the one who was stuck trying to figure out how to use them.

[logan82]

Don

I was hoping you would support your accusation that our starters were pulled to early. That was the something that I thought Yost did well. I think Backupcatchers adressed the overuse issue wuite well.

[biedergb]

Just to play devil's advocate. The innings pitched can be a bad surrogate for overuse, as pitcher's actually need to get outs to record innings pitched. When Turnbow would walk runners on, he may only have 0.1 or 0.2 IP, but it would be as taxing as 1-2 IP if he got those batters out. So I don't know if there's a stat for number of pitches, and appearances, etc.

Derrick Turnbow has the most appearances for a Brewers reliever with 77; he's tied for 17th in the league. Brian Shouse is next, tied for 30th.

 

Carlos Villanueva has the most pitches as a reliever for the Brewers with 1382; 7th in the league. Turnbow is next, tied for 35th.

 

Thanks giffted1. I guess my devil's advocate argument wasn't completely accurate. I guess overuse shouldn't really be a critique of Ned's. Therefore I say it was his bullpen use / management that is the issue.

[Weirdos19]

The idea of Turnbow pitching that many games is kinda crazy. The guy puts alot of stress on his body with his pitching motion.

 

I haven't looked up any stats, but I'm guessing that he had never approached 70 appearances in a season. Just because he was the closer and we weren't that successful of a team.

 

His abuse of Villanueva was what botheres me the most. There were times when he pitched Carlos 2 innings in back to back days, early in the season. It's obvious that he should be treated the same as Gallardo, yet he wasn't.

[RightFieldCoder]

There are many myths. As long as we are doing an autopsy, how many times was youth blamed for a loss? I remember specifically when (with a 78 pitch count in the 7th inning, a runner on first, and the lead) Suppan was summarily yanked without any discussion on a first trip to the mound in Chicago within what Hardball Times so eloquently described in probably the most memorable Yosting in Brewers history (remember the look on Soup's face?)...the postgame litany from the grinning Brewer's coaching staff was, how later in that inning, 'youth and inexperience' cost us the game. How many times have we heard that? How old must a roster be to qualify for competent management?

Maybe they were refering to the "youth and inexperience" of the coaching staff?

 

I agree that our bullpen didn't seem to be "overused" based on the numbers and that a number of people in the bullpen cost us games. I never had a problem with Yost if he puts someone into a 'normal' position (Turnbow/Linebrink in the 8th for example) and the reliever failed. I do have a problem with watching Spurling and Aquino getting to pitch in close or tied games and never seeing Cordero in the same game. Especially in the 12th inning at home when it's imposible to "wait until a save situation". Those are the types of decisions I think Yost made that cost us games.

[Thurston Fluff]

The idea of Turnbow pitching that many games is kinda crazy. The guy puts alot of stress on his body with his pitching motion.

 

I haven't looked up any stats, but I'm guessing that he had never approached 70 appearances in a season. Just because he was the closer and we weren't that successful of a team.

 

His abuse of Villanueva was what botheres me the most. There were times when he pitched Carlos 2 innings in back to back days, early in the season. It's obvious that he should be treated the same as Gallardo, yet he wasn't.

 

Yes he did. In 05, the one he was so dominant in, he logged exactly 2/3 less innings than this year. He was in no way overworked. As for Villy he's older than Gallardo and logged less inings this year. If he was so overworked why was he so effective in September? He was used a lot but not some astonomical number for someone who was a starter. Nor was he used so much more than many relievers in baseball. Take a look at some stats and you may change your mind about this supposed abuse of the pen.

[trwi7]

Yes he did. In 05, the one he was so dominant in, he logged exactly 2/3 less innings than this year. He was in no way overworked. As for Villy he's older than Gallardo and logged less inings this year. If he was so overworked why was he so effective in September? He was used a lot but not some astonomical number for someone who was a starter. Nor was he used so much more than many relievers in baseball. Take a look at some stats and you may change your mind about this supposed abuse of the pen.

 

At the time he was sent down Villy had the second most innings pitched of any reliever in the majors. He was badly overworked and was able to get back into a routine in Nashville.