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

[jeffy]

This thread has seemed to turn into a debate between 3 types of people. People who think:

 

1. The manager is completely to blame

 

2. The players are completely to blame

 

3. The players and the manager are to blame

 

#1 and #3 seem to have beef with Yost, while #2 has no beef with Yost. How anyone could not have any beef at all with how Yost manages is beyond me, but as long as there are the #1s there will always be the #2s.

 

I am not so sure there is anyone in category 1? This is the "Ned Yost Yay or Nay thread" not "Players Yay or Nay".

 

In order to not be assumed to be in category 1, is one expected to include "of course, the players failed to get the job done" every time one criticizes a Yost move in a thread about Yost?

[Bruce Ciskie]

I think they could have layed down when they were playing bad but they didn't and i think ned had a lot to do with it, i'm sure wanting to win helped alot too.

 

We're all entitled to our opinions, but I would like to know what has happened or what has been said to make you believe this? Is it just a premonition of yours?

 

I mean, I tend to believe that the guys are playing hard for their own reasons and not because they respect Ned so much, but it's just a thought that I have no evidence to back up.

[Invader3K]

I guess, while I was somewhat gleeful to see Pujols get hit last night, I think it was a bad decision that may not have cost the Brewers the game, but contributed to it, at least. I don't think handing the lineup card to your bench coach, in the middle of a "down to the wire" playoff race is ever a good move. Theoretically Yost could still be down the hallway yelling instructions, but we have no proof of that.

 

I guess I wish the Brewers had just risen above LaRussa's petty crap and played to win, and not tried to get revenge or show the other manager up.

[windiv07]

Of course they aren't going to quit now, that's not what i was trying to say. I'm saying they could have when they were playing awful in July and August, but they kept plugging away and giving the effort to turn it around, which they have done to a certain extent. quit trying to put words in my mouth. its obvious joey that we do not agree on anything so i'll just leave it be, you have your opinion i have mine. I think they could have layed down when they were playing bad but they didn't and i think ned had a lot to do with it, i'm sure wanting to win helped alot too.

I'll have to agree with you both except for one thing (and I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth), in my opinion, he's fatter than joey. http://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/roll.gif

[Fatter than Joey]

Why do you believe they should be in first place by several games? If you could turn back the clock, what would you go back and change to make that reality?

 

I believe that the Brewers should be in first place because the management did not use its talent effectively or efficiently.

 

If I could turn back the clock, I would fire Dale Sveum, promote Ned to bench coach, and insert myself as manager (seeing how I can turn back the clock). Then I would pretty much ask Ned his opinion and do the opposite.

 

I would never talk to players about grit and battling.

[JohnBriggs12]

Bruce Ciskie,

 

All the points you make about his other options are true, but we're trying to determine if he sent McClung in to hit Pujols.

 

Yost could have left Linebrink in to start the inning, but that has not been his pattern before. He could have started the inning with Turnbow, but again his pattern suggests he doesn't use Turnbow down a run. He could have brought in Cordero after McClung was ejected, but he doesn't bring in Cordero when they're tied, so that he doesn't when they're behind is no surprise.

 

My whole point is not that Ned's a wise manager, but that he brought McClung in to get two guys out. In that situation if you had asked me to guess who he would bring in there after King retired Ankiel, I would have guessed either McClung or Spurling. Again, that's not to say I agree with those choices just that it would have been what I figured Yost would do there. I didn't think they'd go after Pujols there even after it was McClung who came on.

[mark brouhard is number on]

oh yeah, my bad. This argument is like the old miller lite, less filling tastes great commercials. neither side is necessarily right and neither side is going to change their mind. I'm just glad we still care this much this late in the year.

[pretendastronaut]

I think they could have layed down when they were playing bad but they didn't and i think ned had a lot to do with it, i'm sure wanting to win helped alot too.

We're all entitled to our opinions, but I would like to know what has happened or what has been said to make you believe this? Is it just a premonition of yours?

 

I mean, I tend to believe that the guys are playing hard for their own reasons and not because they respect Ned so much, but it's just a thought that I have no evidence to back up.

 

I think it's fair to believe Ned had something to do with the team being able to continue to fight despite their struggles. Its pretty common for a manager to get credit for being able to keep the team together and motivated in dire situations. It's really easy to let negativity run throughout the clubhouse during stretches and someone has to be able to pick things up, keep motiviating people, keep them focused, etc. I think we have more indications than not that the clubhouse likes Ned and respects him. Unfortunately for the fans, we're not a part of that, and we're fed up with his game time decisions, but they're unrelated matters.

[xisxisxis]

I don't think JJ Hardy e.g., has Ned on his myspace buddies list, -- but of course that is only my speculation.

 

I'm still confused by all the claims that the players like Ned so he's obviously a good manager. You don't have to like your manager to respect him. I've had 2 "bosses" in the last 9 years. The first, I liked quite a bit personally and had similar experiences. I don't personally get along with the second nor do we have similar senses of humor, etc. The first never helped me get my job done or put me in a position to succeed. The second helps me and puts me in a position to succeed more in a few months than 8 years from the first boss. My job satisfaction is much better under the new boss, I'm having better success, but I don't like my new boss personally nor do I really enjoy working with him. For me, the second boss is better because I'm better at my job. I don't have to like my boss to appreciate what he brings to the table and I don't understand why I have to like my boss to perform better. Personal experience for me is that I perform better with the boss who helps me succeed and not the one I like better. It's great if you have both, but it doesn't mean that if I like my boss he's better than a boss I don't like.

[Bruce Ciskie]

Bruce Ciskie,

 

My whole point is not that Ned's a wise manager, but that he brought McClung in to get two guys out.

 

And this is where we differ. I cannot even force myself to believe that Ned brought McClung in to get Pujols out, because there were multiple options available at the start of the inning that would have been more effective for that. Even with how dense I think Ned is a lot of the time, I'm sure he understood that.

 

There's no way Pujols is intentionally walked in that situation under normal circumstances. There was no need for it. Sure, you're careful with him, but you're pitching to him and trying to make an out. And the odds of getting an out are in your favor.

[Fatter than Joey]

I'll have to agree with you both except for one thing (and I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth), in my opinion, he's fatter than joey.

 

I read this and was thoroughly confused, my slow moving hamster wheel ground to a halt -- The first thing that came to my head was "Aquino fields his position better", and then I blurted out "Math is on my side".

 

If you are being mean to me, I am going to get McClung loose -- I am going to have insist you stand perfectly still, and be somewhat patient, but I am pretty sure he will hit you eventually.

 

 

That will learn you.

[sheethead]

I am not so sure there is anyone in category 1? This is the "Ned Yost Yay or Nay thread" not "Players Yay or Nay".

 

In order to not be assumed to be in category 1, is one expected to include "of course, the players failed to get the job done" every time one criticizes a Yost move in a thread about Yost?

 

My point was that most Ned Yost "Yay" people come back with the "you guys just want to blame the manager for everything." While this is truly a black/white mentality, it certainly isn't the case with most "Nay" people as opposed to "Yay". The fact of the matter is, players will be shuffled this off-season, and the manager should be too.

[sheethead]

I'm still confused by all the claims that the players like Ned so he's obviously a good manager. You don't have to like your manager to respect him. I've had 2 "bosses" in the last 9 years. The first, I liked quite a bit personally and had similar experiences. I don't personally get along with the second nor do we have similar senses of humor, etc. The first never helped me get my job done or put me in a position to succeed. The second helps me and puts me in a position to succeed more in a few months than 8 years from the first boss. My job satisfaction is much better under the new boss, I'm having better success, but I don't like my new boss personally nor do I really enjoy working with him. For me, the second boss is better because I'm better at my job. I don't have to like my boss to appreciate what he brings to the table and I don't understand why I have to like my boss to perform better. Personal experience for me is that I perform better with the boss who helps me succeed and not the one I like better. It's great if you have both, but it doesn't mean that if I like my boss he's better than a boss I don't like.

 

Well put, good analogy.

 

I read this and was thoroughly confused, my slow moving hamster wheel ground to a halt -- The first thing that came to my head was "Aquino fields his position better", and then I blurted out "Math is on my side".

If you are being mean to me, I am going to get McClung loose -- I am going to have insist you stand perfectly still, and be somewhat patient, but I am pretty sure he will hit you eventually.


That will learn you.

 

Hilarious. http://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/roll.gif

 

At the end of the day, just vote NAY!!

[jeffy]

All the points you make about his other options are true, but we're trying to determine if he sent McClung in to hit Pujols.

If you really don't believe this was intentional, I think you must believe that there never has been a batter intentionally hit in the history of baseball. The most telling thing to me was both McClung and Yost left without a peep of protest. This is the same Yost that has been on the warpath with the umpires recently.

[windiv07]

If you are being mean to me, I am going to get McClung loose -- I am going to have insist you stand perfectly still, and be somewhat patient, but I am pretty sure he will hit you eventually.

http://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/wink.gif Cut Turnbow loose on me for all I care. Your chances will be just as good. And no...I will not sit still...hit this... http://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/roll.gif

 

....which gives me an idea... (see next post)

[windiv07]

...a team that should at this moment definitely be in first place by several games.

I am curious as to your rationale for that position...Why do you believe they should be in first place by several games? If you could turn back the clock, what would you go back and change to make that reality?

Okay. I'll take the bait. Let's turn the clock back to last night. I am Ned now, right? Okay (duh)....

 

1) Leave McClung in the pen.

2) Trot Turnbow out there with the same order to plunk Pujols.

3) Tell Miller to extend one finger prior to the pitch and don't take no for an answer.

4) Tell Skaalen to holler out "THIS ONE'S FOR PRINCE!!!" just as Turnbow begins his windup.

5) Leave Sveum instructions to bring Cordero in after Skaalen, Turnbow, and I are ejected.

 

That would have probably kept us within a run and greatly enhanced our chances of being within a game of the Cubs today.

[logan82]

Which only happened because Yost wanted McClung to hit Pujols. Otherwise Turnbow would have started the inning or Linebrink could have stayed in. King only pitched so Yost could get even at LaRussa.

I am sorry, but that is quite a stretch. People complain that Yost doesn't try to gain the handed advantage then when he does it was just so he could pull the guy to bring in somebody to hit a guy.

 

All this complaining about pitching choices as the cause of the loss last night is overlooking one major thing. They only scored 3 runs. One of those was in a garbage time situation in the bottom of the 9th.

[pretendastronaut]

I'm just glad to know that pitching around Albert Pujols prevented the next 2 Brewers relievers from ending the inning.

 

(That, and it prevented the Brewers from scoring any more runs....when they were already behind.)

 

 

IMO, you might as well blame Ned for stranding 9 baserunners through 4 innings.

I don't know how many times I personally have repeated this since last night, along with several other people, but here's another because it doesn't seem to be being read by the Yost supporters.

Nobody is excusing the bullpen from not doing their job, Turnbow not being able to throw a strike anywhere near the plate is inexcusable. Plenty of people have pointed out how many runners were left on and opportunities wasted. The point is the move put the team in a position to fail, and fail they did. There's accountability on both sides. You can be upset they failed, but you should also be upset they were put into a position to fail to make a worthless "statement".

If people want to defend Yost, that's your prerogative, but quit doing it by mislabeling the argument, its getting mighty frustrating.

How does pitching around Pujols (the move, be it with 1 pitch or 4) put the team in a position to fail? The decision was to not let the Cardinals' best hitter beat the Brewers in that situation. It's the same decision that every manager faces when dealing with elite hitters. Plus, with a .996 OPS, the difference between a free pass to first and a Pujols AB are essentially negligible. You make the other guys on the team beat you: Cardinals hitters behind Pujols got big hits that brought in runs. Corey Hart went 0-4 and stranded 7. (The one time Hart didn't end a scoring opportunity, Jenkins walked and Hall grounded out). That's the difference in the game.

 

Why didn't the Brewers "rally" around Fielder getting drilled earlier in the game, since that is what happens when you hit an opposing batter?

 

IMO, fans / writers / second-guessers can't blame Ned for leaving Turnbow in the game (since he had already been ejected), so this decision is as close as they can get. I apologize if this is somehow "mislabling the argument," but it's the the only form of arguing that I see. Tell me why it was such a poor decision not to pitch to Pujols; how did it set them up for failure, when it didn't even put a runner in scoring position?

 

For one I don't believe you pitch around Pujols in that situation. Yes he's a great hitter, but its not like he's impossible to get out. He went 4 for 9 in the series, which while good, is still getting out over half the time. And only 2 of those were extra base hits. I've seen several people say we would have either pitched around him to walk him, or given him an IBB in that situation, which I just don't buy. Pujols has gotten 1 IBB all year when there is no one on base, it is simply not a position where you intentionally walk anyone. When we intentionally walked him earlier in the game, with runners in scoring position, that's where you give the intentional pass to a guy like Pujols. You go out there and pitch to him and try to get the out. We'd already gotten burned by giving him an IBB earlier, so its not as if the guys behind him couldn't bring him in.

There is also a clear mental difference between plunking him and pitching around him to draw a walk, or even Pujols hitting for a base hit. Only one of those options is going to really fire up the Cardinals bench. When Prince got plunked it clearly fired up the bench, but unfortunately it didn't translate onto the field obviously. Did that lead to the Cards coming out and scoring the way they did? I could see how people could make that argument, but I don't really agree that it did, we gave it to them as much as they took it. Taguchi was the only one who put good wood on the ball after that. The rest were bloops and walks. But there still is an obvious change in the mental state of everyone throughout the inning after that point. And in the same vein, the way that inning played out was much more spirit crushing than Pujols coming out and even hitting a solo shot would have been. 2 runs would have still felt manageable at that point, 5 didn't.

I don't blame Ned for leaving Turnbow in, I blame Ned for bringing him in with a runner on base, that we intentionally put there. That's where I feel he was set up for a chance at failure. It is no secret that Turnbow is prone to melting down with runners on and in pressure situations. So if you really want to send a message to LaRussa, and plunk Pujols, then you don't follow that up by bringing in a guy who has high odds of melting down in that type of situation. Granted we don't have a lot of great choices to go to in that spot, but you know going in Turnbow enters the game at that point with extra baggage. After that point blame can get spread all over the place, but I firmly believe Turnbow is set up with a high probability for failure at that point, and he did fail. That's on him for not coming through, but it's on Yost for getting him there.

[sheethead]

All this complaining about pitching choices as the cause of the loss last night is overlooking one major thing. They only scored 3 runs. One of those was in a garbage time situation in the bottom of the 9th.

 

So that means Pujols, who was intentionally hit with no body on base, scored the winning run. Case closed.

[bjkrautk]

I'm not going to quote pretendastronaut (lest the quote get too obnoxious...and in hopes that people might miss my having forgotten about the Brewers scoring a 3rd run in the 9th), but this is a partial response to him.

 

I'll spot you that there's a difference between ensuring Pujols reaches 1st, and at least giving himself a chance to get himself out on a bad pitch. That said, the difference between his Avg. and OBP are fairly consistent across his splits this season, be none on, or runners on. (He's actually a bit less prone to draw a free pass with none on and none out, but that wasn't the situation in the 8th inning.) Whether it's intentional or intentional* ("don't give him anything to hit"), the strategy of not letting the opposing team's best hitter beat you is fairly common. Last night marks the 3rd time this season that he's been HBP with none on and 1 or 2 outs.

 

Likewise, this past month, Ned has been fairly consistent in pulling Turnbow when he starts to melt down; that he was allowed to walk in a run does more to back up the notion that Sveum was making the call, IMO, after the ejection. That's the decision which I think is most arguable....but I don't think Ned borrowed Bobby Valentine's disguise in order to make those decisions from the tunnel.

 

 

.....

 

 

Since I don't think I've chimed up in the past 53 pages of this thread (don't quote me on that), I could actually take or leave Ned Yost.

There are decisions of his that I would disagree with, including the bullpen. I'd like to think I would have swapped Linebrink and Turnbow, rather than kept D-bow on a short leash in the 8th. I didn't really like raising Sheets and Davis's pitch counts over ~110 a few seasons back. And, while I remember hearing Ned talk about the importance of moving runners (playing "A B C baseball" as Ted Simmons used to say) and producing runs....it's either not being emphasized anymore, or the players just can't seem to do it.

 

That being said, I don't really expect the team's manager to be in lock-step with what I would have done. Heck, I only agree with my own decisions about 90% of the time. I don't think Ned is much better or worse than any other manager in MLB. If pressed on the issue, I'll say "better than most," because the team has been careful about not abusing Parra, Villanueva, and Gallardo despite being in contention.

 

And, for the record, I think that 24-10 is a bit of a misnomer. Look back on who they played during that first 34 games:

Dodgers - 3 games (2-1); .506 win rate (2007 season)

Cubs - 6 games (3-3); .525

Marlins - 3 games (2-1); .430

Cardinals - 5 games (4-1); .468

Reds - 2 games (1-1); .449

Pirates - 6 games (5-1); .430

Astros - 6 games (4-2); .443

Nationals - 3 games (3-0); .453

 

Maybe if the Brewers could keep playing sub-500 teams all year....they could have kept up that pace. They were only 5-4 against winning teams. The first month isn't representative of the rest of the season, which is why I think it's unfair to have re-adjusted expectations based on that record. I look at where they are now, and it's not that far off from the overall performance that I expected back in March.

 

 

I like playing devil's advocate to some extent. I am willing to accept that people don't share my thinking on an issue, but I want them to be able to back up their thinking with a rational explanation. I don't like seeing people describe things as "obvious" (or words to that extent) when there is a legitimate counter-argument for the contrary viewpoint. My evaluation of Ned is much the same; I don't always agree with his thinking about his decisions....but I do know that he is thinking about his decisions.

[TooLiveBrew]

I don't always agree with his thinking about his decisions....but I do know that he is thinking about his decisions.

 

This is what confuses me. Why is the critique not based on results, as opposed to whether or not he's thinking? Obivously every head coach in every sport thinks about what he/she is going to do, but Yost has the tendency to take a less-effective option than the best that he has available. Does that not trouble you? What worries me is that Yost clearly puts a lot of thought into his decisions, yet still comes to the conclusion more often than not that the best available choice is, in fact, not.

 

endaround puts it best: "Ned has always and still manages under the assumption of what will happen is what he hopes will happen instead of what likely will happen."

[pretendastronaut]

I'll spot you that there's a difference between ensuring Pujols reaches 1st, and at least giving himself a chance to get himself out on a bad pitch. That said, the difference between his Avg. and OBP are fairly consistent across his splits this season, be none on, or runners on. (He's actually a bit less prone to draw a free pass with none on and none out, but that wasn't the situation in the 8th inning.) Whether it's intentional or intentional* ("don't give him anything to hit"), the strategy of not letting the opposing team's best hitter beat you is fairly common. Last night marks the 3rd time this season that he's been HBP with none on and 1 or 2 outs.

 

Likewise, this past month, Ned has been fairly consistent in pulling Turnbow when he starts to melt down; that he was allowed to walk in a run does more to back up the notion that Sveum was making the call, IMO, after the ejection. That's the decision which I think is most arguable....but I don't think Ned borrowed Bobby Valentine's disguise in order to make those decisions from the tunnel.

Yes, it is common to not let the best hitter beat you, that's why we gave him the free pass in the 3rd inning. It is highly uncommon to give him a pass in that situation in the 8th. Pitcher around him and maybe he draws a walk, fine, but you're not looking to put him on either. We'll obviously never know for sure, but the numbers dictate you normally pitch to him in that situation.

But that brings the actual crux of the issue, intentionally putting Pujols on and then following that up by bringing in Turnbow. Ned has been better at pulling Turnbow when he starts to melt down, but the difference here is, you just put him into the exact spot he normally starts to melt down, runners on base. The more I've talked about this whole thing, I think that's what it really boils down to, deciding to use Turnbow after the plunking. Which isn't to say we had another great option, but at the very least you should know you're putting Turnbow into a spot he normally melts down in. As I said to another post today, if Turnbow had been brought in to actually pitch to Pujols, and walked him, lately they pull him right there. This time, we brought him in instead. That was the mistake on Yost's part. After that, yes Sveum should have pulled him when the bases got juiced, and Ned should have told Dale before the whole event to be sure to pull Turnbow at the first sign of trouble. Maybe he did and Dale didn't do it, we don't know.

[TooLiveBrew]

at the risk of being condescending, don't kid yourself that Yost wasn't calling the shots. It's s.o.p. for managers to simply relay in decisions from the tunnel once they get run. Happens with every manager.

[windiv07]

All this complaining about pitching choices as the cause of the loss last night is overlooking one major thing. They only scored 3 runs. One of those was in a garbage time situation in the bottom of the 9th.

 

So that means Pujols, who was intentionally hit with no body on base, scored the winning run. Case closed.

Hammer meets nail head dead center.

[AJAY]

Yost was just shown on TV saying you have to back your players.

 

Ned, do you really think the players want to be playing golf next week? How about backing the fans who waited 25 years and spent so much money on this team?