Ned Yost Yay or Nay thread: Hardball Times rips Yost (part 2)

[Bucky Rules]

Mike Scoscia putting the bunt on with with a guy on 2nd and nobody out before the 8th inning? What is so blatently irrational about that? I don't get it. Is this really an irrational strategy? If so then its new to me.

 

As for Scoscia being ignorant... I'm not a big fan of his, but he has a World Series ring so I guess he's not that dumb - or maybe it was all the rally monkey, right. His overall talent level this year is very close to the Brewers (only with less offense and a better bullpen), but he manages to not make as many dumb decisions. You can question his strategy all you want, but he is not the type of manager to make the same dumb mistake 2, 3, 4, 15 times before he changes his pattern. Mike Scoscia for Ned Yost? You bet!!!!

You've just made my complete argument all wrapped up with one nice little bow.

 

You consider Scoscia a better game manager than Yost, in spite of the fact that he hands outs to his opponents like candy. You claim Scoscia doesn't make the same dumb mistake 2, 3, 4 , 15 times, yet I will not have much problem finding him giving up ABs 2, 3, 4, 15 times by bunting in the early and middle innings (any time prior to the 8th). I think it's been proven with some pretty sound evidence that early game bunting is a complete waste -- noting that there are late game scenarios that make sense to do so. Scoscia has never gotten that memo apparently. But, you'd be OK with that type of game management.

 

Furthermore, you claim that because he has a World Series ring that validates his poor game management. I'll stick to my argument that players win games, not a manager's decisions. Although, I'm sure Scoscia is a very qualified leader -- which is the most important role that a manager plays. One that Yost fills quite nicely, IMO.

[brewmann04]

I have to agree with a previous poster about Aquino.If that was Yost Belief that he was going to take out Shouse. Then he needs to bring his Closer in that sisuation.

[Bucky Rules]

So lets see if I understand this. You can't complain when Yost makes a move and the Brewers lose because you only complain when the Brewers lose. you can't complain about Yost when the Brewers win because, hey they WON! I guess you can only complain about Yost after suspended games.

Nope... not in my book. It's perfectly legit to complain about a move at any point - win or lose. If you don't like the bunt in the 8th, I'm OK with that. I'm torn on that one as well. Although, I'm confident that if that situation arose any time prior to the 8th, we wouldn't have seen a bunt. The Astros only had one more AB to work with. An extra run there is huge. A bunt brings a sac fly into play, but it also brings an Estrada AB / dp potential into play as well. So what do you have a better chance of getting... a) a fly ball or a hit from Estrada, or b) a base hit from either Jenks or Hart. I'd lean towards getting the fly ball or better from Estrada, but that's mitigated by virtually eliminating the chance of a big inning. On the other hand, all you really need to feel good about winning with Coco is one more run.

Again... close call.

[Bucky Rules]

Yep -- and a good throw nails Braun.

Well... there's little chance of a good throw coming from Houston's outfield. With Braun's speed, I'd take my chances.

[Bucky Rules]

What Brewer fan doesnt remember Davey Lopes? I'm starting to feel condescended upon. Where is the irrational decision? Oh, now I have read the rest and am starting to get a good read as to where this is going... nowhere.

I think you may be taking this a bit too personal, my friend. I was not being condescending with that comment. I was merely pointing out that we've had bad managers that make bad decisions. There was a time when I felt that the most important part of the managers job was his game time decisions. I simply don't believe that any longer. Davey Lopes made many bad decisions, and I was all over him to anybody that would listen. And in hindsight... I don't think it even mattered that much.

On the other hand, he was followed by Jerry Royster who completely lost that team. They ended up winning 56 games. You don't lose 106 games by accident. The following year Yost came in with the same talent (if not worse) and improved the win total by 10 or 11 games. IMO that's the impact of having a guy that you respect in clubhouse. In hindsight, I doubt that Lopes would've lost 106 games that season.

 

Having said all of that, that doesn't turn an 85 win club into a 95 win club. But, it is more important (again IMO) than the relatively few critical chances that a manager has to make a difference over the course of the season. It's just not magnified by everyone screaming on a message board and on talk radio about it. And I think Yost makes the right choice the vast majority of the time -- recognizing that there are a lot of people that view that differently than I do.

[BrewCityUnit]

did i miss something. they won yesterday right? and yet your still complaining about decisions. give it up! hart bunting might not have been a popular decisions but if it gets in another run, i'm all for it. now some of you are complaining just for the sake of finding something wrong with ned in every game.

 

 

I thought the whole point in all of this is that people complain only when we lose. The posters who are ripping Ned (even after a win) are the posters who disagree with a lot of Neds decisions no matter what the outcome of the game is.

 

To me, when your bullpen is a bad as it is, bunting with your number 5 hitter with a one run lead in that situation, knowing Jenkins would get walked so they can face Estrada is a bad decision. Hart is very tough to double up, so there was a very good chance that no matter what happened during that at bat, Hart would have gotten the runner to third at the very least. By saying this team wins, despite Ned's bonehead decisions, isn't far fetched at all. To me it is simple, Ned Yost does not give this team the best chance to win night in and night out.

[lcbj68c]

Amen, DJ. I'm getting sick of being told how crazy I am. Lcbj, your point on how a difference in percentages (an example of something over which a manager does sometimes directly affect) is negligible is just plain off. Your throw-away of a ten-point percentage gap in either way is exactly why you aren't understanding why the critics have beef. A .330 hitter is a significant upgrade over a .250 hitter, so why would you want your manager to either stick with or sub in the inferior player - or maybe better stated, why wouldn't you be upset if he did so?

 

Again, I wasn't talking about the manager making a substitution or not. I said [i'm neither yay or nay. I'd rather watch the players than armchair manager.]. I didn't say there isn't an advantage to being a .330 hitter as opposed to a .250 hitter, of course there is. But then again, where's our .330 hitter? All I was saying was I don't feel the need to get upset at a player when 67-77% of the time, they fail anyways. And if that player does fail, why is it AUTOMATIC that the other option on the bench was going to work, when maybe their percentage of failure was 10% less. It's NOT AUTOMATIC in my mind. This YOSTED business is silly. Because the other option isn't AUTOMATIC is why I don't place any wins or losses directly on the manager. Case in point, on another day, Acquino could have been lights out and Cordero could have come in and given up a 3-run jack, it's up to the players to perform as they are capable.

[sheethead]

dude i've probably played and forgot more baseball than you ever will, so i wouldn't go there. i just don't let my dislike for a player or manager cloud my judgement. i have never said i love yost or hate him all i know is he is our manager now and i will support him till he isn't. he's not just guessing out there, he has valid reason for every decision he makes, and you don't know all that goes into it. putting guys on second and third with one out is never a bad idea, especially in a one run game. that's 2 guys in scoring position and one out. whose to say hart and jenkins would have done anything. then you got first and second still and two out. use some sense or have a decent argument to back up the nonsense.

 

dude i've probably played and forgot more baseball than you ever will, so i wouldn't go there.

 

I'll admit, I'm baffled by this.

 

i just don't let my dislike for a player or manager cloud my judgement.

 

I'll admit, I'm baffled by this also. I have reitterated on numerous occasions that I like Ned Yost. Its just a shame he isn't a good MLB manager.

 

putting guys on second and third with one out is never a bad idea

 

Unless of course you have a lefty coming up that even I knew was going to be walked to get to DP Estrada. The lineup was in my head from the time it was posted. Don't assume you are the only one to have played baseball. You say you've "played and forgot[ten] more baseball." Its starting to sound more like the later.

 

whose to say hart and jenkins would have done anything.

 

Hard to tell, but the odds are better of them doing something than Estrada.

 

use some sense or have a decent argument to back up the nonsense.

 

Please. Practice what you preach. Your whole post can be discredited in a heartbeat.

[sheethead]

I think it's been proven with some pretty sound evidence that early game bunting is a complete waste -- noting that there are late game scenarios that make sense to do so. Scoscia has never gotten that memo apparently. But, you'd be OK with that type of game management.

I have not come upon said evidence, so I wouldn't know. I am not taking this personal, just interpreting the tone. To mention another bad manager such as Davy Lopes (whom may I mention will never manage in the bigs again) is not really providing an example of an irrational move. Neither is portraying your own belief that bunting runners over before the 8th is wrong. In addition, to say Ned Yost added 10 or 11 wins to the same team from the prior year is sort of saying the manager does have an impact on wins and losses, right?

 

By the way, is that late game bunting scenario you mentioned kind of like the one in last night's game?

[mark brouhard is number on]

have fun complaining about the seaon guys, i'm out for good. i'll just enjoy the ride to the end of the season, and let you guys belittle every decision the manager makes. have fun with it guys. most of you would be great to watch games with, some of you it must be awful.

over the last couple of years its been great coming to this site for all the insite and intelligent comments, but the first time we get in a pennant race and we should be having the most fun of any season in awhile, this site has become awful. thanks to all the ned haters and second guessers for ruining it.

[twobrewers]

over the last couple of years its been great coming to this site for all the insite and intelligent comments, but the first time we get in a pennant race and we should be having the most fun of any season in awhile, this site has become awful. thanks to all the ned haters and second guessers for ruining it.

I think you are overreacting a little here. People come to this site because they are Brewer fans. Second guessing a managers decision doesn't make them any less of a fan than yourself.

 

If everyone on this board agreed with everything everyone else said - there would be no point. You can't have a discussion without different opinions. Otherwise every post would be "I think the Brewers are great!" - quickly followed by "I agree! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif " - and then another "I can't wait till their next game!"

 

Having different opinions on topics doesn't have to mean you two hate each other personally. One person wants to see the Brewers managed one way - another person wants it another way.

 

And looking back - I believe you started to make it a little personal with the "I've forgotten more baseball than you ever knew" comment. If you want to keep the discussion fair and reasonable - you need to follow your own rules and refrain from personal attacks.

 

Not to mention the fact that if you don't want to read people doubting Ned's decisions - you can chose not to read the "Ned Yost Yay or Nay thread". I am not sure what else you expected to find posted in such a thread?

[sheethead]

have fun complaining about the seaon guys, i'm out for good. i'll just enjoy the ride to the end of the season, and let you guys belittle every decision the manager makes. have fun with it guys. most of you would be great to watch games with, some of you it must be awful.

over the last couple of years its been great coming to this site for all the insite and intelligent comments, but the first time we get in a pennant race and we should be having the most fun of any season in awhile, this site has become awful. thanks to all the ned haters and second guessers for ruining it.

 

I am having fun. And I am fun to watch a game with. I see the game from all angles and am ususally on the side with the majority of knowledgeable sports fans when it comes to issues like this. I may be wrong, I may be right, but I will always acknowlege a good argument even if I don't agree with it. There just are not many good arguments for Ned being a good MLB manager left. Take it and leave if you must, but if I were defending Ned I would be plenty frustrated also right about now. Lest I remind you, everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially on the internet.

[RU Rah Rah]

To me, when your bullpen is a bad as it is, bunting with your number 5 hitter with a one run lead in that situation, knowing Jenkins would get walked so they can face Estrada is a bad decision.

I'm not one to nit-pick every little thing Ned has ever done, but I agree with you here. It's a manager's job to think ahead a little bit, and I don't think Ned did, in this instance. I just don't think he realized that they would walk Jenkins in order to face Estrada in a DP situation. It wound up working out ok with the sac fly, but it had "rally-killer" written all over it.

[logan82]

i have never said i love yost or hate him all i know is he is our manager now and i will support him till he isn't. he's not just guessing out there, he has valid reason for every decision he makes, and you don't know all that goes into it.

That is exactly how I feel.

[TooLiveBrew]

It's NOT AUTOMATIC in my mind. This YOSTED business is silly. Because the other option isn't AUTOMATIC is why I don't place any wins or losses directly on the manager. Case in point, on another day, Acquino could have been lights out and Cordero could have come in and given up a 3-run jack, it's up to the players to perform as they are capable.

 

But the point at which I just don't understand you is why you don't care whether or not your manager plays his best option. This is our one and only shot at the playoffs as far as Yost goes - there is no guarantee that we will be in the mix every year for the next 5 (though there is, at worst, a decent chance) - and if we don't make it this year, Yost is likely out of the job. Yet he continues to have a weakness for playing a lower percentage move than the best one he has available. Why does this not disturb you?

 

Nowhere have I ever made the assertion that the higher percentage move is guaranteed to come through. But why don't you care if you have the best option out there or not? Acquino has proven again and again that he is not 'lights-out.' Cordero, on the other hand, has proven to be lights-out waaaaaay more often than he's not. Why do you see this as a toss-up? I agree with you (nor have I ever disagreed) that Yost does indeed use rationale for his decision-making, which makes it all the more disturbing that he so often tends to make a choice that is < his best available option in high-leverage situations, such as Monday night.

[Bucky Rules]

I have not come upon said evidence, so I wouldn't know... portraying your own belief that bunting runners over before the 8th is wrong.

I'm sure one of the many sabermetricians on the board would be happy to point out one of the numerous articles on the subject. Or just google it. But, I assure you that this is not a matter of "my opinion".

 

Or I can spend the 12 seconds and google it myself. Here's one. I haven't even read it, but I know what it'll say. Bunting by non-pitchers is not good, except in a select group of late inning scenarios.

 

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/07/empirical_analy_1.php

 

If you don't like that article, google one of a thousand others. They all say the same thing.

 

I am not taking this personal, just interpreting the tone...

Judging from YOUR tone, I believe you are taking it a bit too personal. We should probably just drop this discussion. If the tone doesn't improve going forward, I just won't respond any further. You can interpret that as a victory, if you wish.

 

 

In addition, to say Ned Yost added 10 or 11 wins to the same team from the prior year is sort of saying the manager does have an impact on wins and losses, right?

That's correct. But, I never said managers don't have an impact on wins and losses. And forgive me for saying this, but I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself after having my statements mischaracterized. I said their GAME DECISIONS are waaayyyyyyy overrated as far as having an impact in the win/loss column. They can impact wins and losses in other ways - mostly in a negative fashion. Really, the 10 or 11 wins that can be argued for Yost in his 1st season is in comparison to Royster, which may not be a fair comparison. Because it's likely that Royster was just that bad, rather than Yost being that good. But, I believe that Yost is respected by the guys in his clubhouse. And to me, that makes a bigger impact than game management. Yet I still think his game management is mischaracterized, and scrutinized to an absurd level. Furthermore, I believe he makes the right game management decisions the vast majority of the time.

 

By the way, is that late game bunting scenario you mentioned kind of like the one in last night's game?

Actually it is. I have no problem with either side of that argument really. You can make a good case for letting Hart hit away there. But, under the circumstances of it being our last AB of the game and an insurance run for Coco is huge, I don't hate the bunt call either. I think it provided a better chance to score one run in that situation, but a worse chance to score multiple runs.

 

And that's my stance with most of these recent situations that are popping up. Unfortunately, you seem to believe that I think you're an idiot for believing that he made the wrong decision. I never said that. I never even implied that. I am simply frustrated with the fact that several of you who believe that the decisions were wrong, show absolutely no willingness to accept that there's a lot more gray area in those decisions than you're willing to admit. You guys are the ones stating that Yost is in idiot for not seeing what you're seeing (and implying that I am as well for seeing the shades of gray). All I'm saying is that Yost's logic in each scenario is not flawed. There is a reason for everything he does, and personally, I like his thought process 99% of the time. Having said that, I'm sure you've seen where Yost essentially said that if he had it to do over again, he would've thrown Cordero instead of Aquino. Even in that case, it's clear what he was trying to do. He was trying to steal an out to save Cordero. A gamble that didn't work because Aquino gave up a bases clearing hit. For the stretch run, he said that he'll likely ride Coco for every out he can get. If he comes to that epiphany one game earlier, we're probably not having that particular discussion.

[Ennder]

I am simply frustrated with the fact that several of you who believe that the decisions were wrong, show absolutely no willingness to accept that there's a lot more gray area in those decisions than you're willing to admit

 

I have defended Yost all season long until this past month and I agree, a lot of the complaints are in the gray area for sure, especially things like taking Braun out for defensive replacements and bunting late in close games.

 

Aquino pitching was not a gray area, it was just a plain terrible choice by Yost. Mench batting was not a gray area, it was a terrible choice by Yost.

 

If I'm managing the other team and I get to pick one player to come in and hit against Dempster with the game on the line I pick Mench, he is the worst person to have up in that situation. If I'm managing the other team and I get to pick one person to face Pence with the game on the line I pick that LOOGY guy who i don't even know the name of, Stetter or whatever it is. The second choice is Aquino. These choices aren't just gray, they are terrible. No amount of small sample size stats is going to say otherwise.

[lcbj68c]

But the point at which I just don't understand you is why you don't care whether or not your manager plays his best option.

 

I do care, but I care more about the players on the field performing, it's just how I feel. I'm not going to whine and boo a manager and call for his firing because he went with a different option. Again, I'm neither yay or nay. Another other manager could come in here and fritter away games too if his players don't perform up to his decisions.

[Bucky Rules]

But the point at which I just don't understand you is why you don't care whether or not your manager plays his best option.

You are 100% correct. The manager should play his best option all the time. I know your post was not directed at me, but I couldn't agree with you more. I simply believe his decision process in determining what his best option (for the current game and future games) is correct the vast majority of the time. Then there are several scenarios that could go either way. Unfortunately, many believe that these scenarios are actually cut and dry, black and white. That's where I have a difference of opinion.

Here's a concession for the anti-Yost crowd. I have never liked how he refuses to PH for a catcher because he's only got one other catcher on the bench (and he wants his catchers to truly get a day off). That's the one pet-peeve I have. I thnk he is too steadfast in that rule. In general, I'd be OK with it, but he seems too insistent on never waivering from it. But, in the grand scheme of things, I'm willing to live with that. Because overall, I think he's good.

[lcbj68c]

I'm going to say 90% correct. I guess the best option everyday is starter just goes CG and then we don't worry about the rest of the non-sense. It seems to get gray when you start considering how many pitches a guy throws in a week or series of days. Is Cordero still the best option if he's already pitched 3 consecutive days and 70 pitches? Just a thought, without having it directly relate to Monday, because that wasn't the case.

[Bucky Rules]

Aquino pitching was not a gray area, it was just a plain terrible choice by Yost. Mench batting was not a gray area, it was a terrible choice by Yost.

There's no point in my beating my head up against the wall any further to demonstrate the gray areas. I've made my case. I'll leave it at that. You won't change your mind. I won't concede that it was a no-brainer.

 

As far as Aquino goes, you should be happy that Yost came out and said that if he had it to do over again, he would've summoned Cordero. At least you should feel good that he took something away from that game that will lead him to your camp. And I agree that Cordero was the best short-term option in that game. He gambled and lost. In hindsight, he probably got too cute, and it cost him.

[TooLiveBrew]

As far as Aquino goes, you should be happy that Yost came out and said that if he had it to do over again, he would've summoned Cordero.

 

For me, this gets precisely at the crux of the issue: He doesn't get a do-over. And anyone knew (except Ned) the right move was Cordero - at the point in time when the decision had to be made, not reflecting upon it later, after the poor move worked out poorly. I am in no way happy about Ned admitting he was horribly wrong, because it was painfully obvious in the game situation that he was. This isn't like it was bringing in TBow over CoCo, this was literally going to your worst option (next to staying with a LHP) against Pence with the game on the line. I'd still have been ticked if he'd chose Wise, but then I could defend him with, "Well, at least he knew enough to not call Acquino - the guy that has done nothing but prove he's not cut out for MLB action this year."

[DougJones43]

have fun complaining about the seaon guys, i'm out for good...this site has become awful. thanks to all the ned haters and second guessers for ruining it.

 

I'm sorry to hear that you were so traumatized by finding discussions and criticisms of Ned Yost in the "Ned Yost: Yay or Nay" thread. It must have really caught you off guard. Sorry for ruining brewerfan.net for you.

 

For future reference, if reading certain things is going to destroy your life, you might want to check the title of what you're looking at before you go ahead and read it. For instance, if you detest reading about United States history, try and avoid books that contain the words "United States" and "History." Just a thought. Have a nice life.

[Blazer25]

dude i've probably played and forgot more baseball than you ever will, so i wouldn't go there.

Condescension is no way to go in this forum.

 

There are a lot of people who know a lot of baseball on this forum.

 

The bunt was a poor decision for a "chance" to get 1 more run. You had your hottest hitter of the day up with two men on (and the lead) and you gave away an out for no reason. Not to mention Hart is the Brewers fastest player and doesn't get double up very often. Not to mention Jenkins was on deck and got IBB'ed.

 

Yost took the bat out of two of our best players hands for the chance to get one more run. Even you "players on the field are all that matter" guys have to see the error in that management strategy.

 

And again explain to me how it's a good idea to take Ryan Braun out before the 9th inning for defense but it's OK to leave Weeks in?

[logan82]

Guys on 2nd and 3rd with one out gives you a better chance to score one run than guys on 1st and 2nd with no outs. Bases loaded with one out gives you less of a chance to score one run than 2nd and 3rd with one out, but still more of a chance than 1st and 2nd with no outs. Taking Braun out for defense has been explained to death. You don't agree with it by now and I would guess you never will.