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

[Ennder]

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.

 

2nd and 3rd with 1 out gives you a 1.45 run expectancy. Bases loaded with 1 out gives 1.65. 1st and 2nd no outs is 1.58.

 

Now that is overall run expectations, not just getting 1 run. All 3 scenarios are very close for overall runs expected and I can only assume the fewer outs the more likely to score 1 single run rather than multiples. The fewer outs you have the better off you are in general. Sac bunts were good moves back in the day but now that SLG is so high on an average player and now that pitchers dont' pitch to contact its generally a bad idea to bunt with anything but a pitcher.

[TooLiveBrew]

Blazer's point isn't that Braun is not a defensive question mark, but that Yost takes out Ryan, and not Weeks (who had what, 3 errors?!). Aside from that, Braun is the better of the two hitters (even though Weeks is red-hot right now). That's what Blazer's trying to say, if I understand correctly.

[Blazer25]

Taking Braun out for defense has been explained to death.

Really? I've never seen it brought up. Enlighten me. I think it's one of the worst things Ned has done of late. Especially when he's been leaving Weeks in.

 

As for runners on 2 & 3rd with one out giving you a better chance for one run...sure in a vacuum.

 

But Corey Hart up (Jenkins on deck) with a runner already in scoring position vs Estrada batting with the bases loaded and 1 out seems to be an easy choice for me.

 

I guess Ned was comfortable with a chance for only 1 more run rather than a chance at 2-3. With the lead at home I go with the chance for 2-3 every time.

 

 

Blazer's point isn't that Braun is not a defensive question mark, but that Yost takes out Ryan, and not Weeks (who had what, 3 errors?!). Aside from that, Braun is the better of the two hitters (even though Weeks is red-hot right now). That's what Blazer's trying to say, if I understand correctly.

Exactly TLB.

[DougJones43]

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.

According to the tangotiger run frequency matrix, here is the likelihood of scoring at least 1 run:

 

1st/2nd, 0 outs = 64.1%

2nd/3rd, 1 out = 69.5%

 

So, there is only a very small increase in the probability of scoring at least 1 run, and that is assuming a 100% success rate with the bunt. Obviously, sacrifice bunts don't work anywhere near 100% of the time. There is a relatively high rate of failure involved with bunt attempts. Combine the bunting failure rate with the odds posted above, and statistically speaking, Ned actually lessened the chance of scoring even 1 run when he decided to attempt a bunt with Hart. When you look even further, and realize Hart is one of the team's best hitters, and the bunt was also going to really hinder the chance for multiple runs, there is really nothing left but anecdotal evidence left to support the decision to bunt with Hart yesterday.

[logan82]

Blazer's point isn't that Braun is not a defensive question mark, but that Yost takes out Ryan, and not Weeks (who had what, 3 errors?!). Aside from that, Braun is the better of the two hitters (even though Weeks is red-hot right now). That's what Blazer's trying to say, if I understand correctly.

 

I would be willing to bet if Graffy is not hurt, both get taken out. I would also be willing to bet that if Dillon shows he can play 3B with any amount of credability both get taken out as well. Our lack of a 2nd true IF on the bench is hurting us right now. Weeks has had a bad couple of games lately. While he isn't a strong defender, he is still better than Braun.

 

Now that is overall run expectations, not just getting 1 run. All 3 scenarios are very close for overall runs expected and I can only assume the fewer outs the more likely to score 1 single run rather than multiples. The fewer outs you have the better off you are in general. Sac bunts were good moves back in the day but now that SLG is so high on an average player and now that pitchers dont' pitch to contact its generally a bad idea to bunt with anything but a pitcher.

I agree. You actually helped me show what I wanted to. There are many different ways to look at different situations. You can bring up and use stats to support almost any decision you make. If you want a big inning then bunting in that situation would be bad. If you are playing for one run then it is a good move. I know there are also certain thresholds at which a manager should or shouldn't have a player bunt. For the most part only pitchers fall below those thresholds, but if you only look at the % of times 1 run scores, then a bunt makes sense. Like Bucky has been saying, shades of grey.

[mothershipconnection]

As for runners on 2 & 3rd with one out giving you a better chance for one run...sure in a vacuum.

 

It's definitely a situational thing. Like ennder points out, you're gonna score more on average with 1st and 2nd with no outs, but what would be "better" depends on the situation. If you're tied in the ninth and have a good runner on third with great bunters or slap hitters coming up, you'd take that runner on 3rd, while you'd rather have 1st and 2nd with no out when you have Braun and Fielder coming up down by 2+ runs.

[Ennder]

The only bunt situation that has bothered me recently is having Hardy bunt with 2 strikes. Even though it worked out I thought that was a horrible choice since it almost certainly lowered our chances to score a run since if he failed to bunt hits an out.

[logan82]

It is very much a situational thing. It can also be argued both ways very easily depending on what you believe. Depends how important that one run is.

[logan82]

The only bunt situation that has bothered me recently is having Hardy bunt with 2 strikes. Even though it worked out I thought that was a horrible choice since it almost certainly lowered our chances to score a run since if he failed to bunt hits an out.

 

Yeah I don't like bunting with 2 strikes, unless you are Johnny "double play" Estrada. There were also times a couple years back when I would have liked to see Helms bunt instead of hitting into a DP.

[DougJones43]

It is very much a situational thing. It can also be argued both ways very easily depending on what you believe. Depends how important that one run is.

 

Re-read what I just posted. A good amount of statistical data supports the theory that the Brewers might have actually had a better chance of scoring at least 1 lone run if Hart did not bunt.

 

Even if Yost was really hoping for just 1 run (which, to me, is silly enough on its own), bunting still probably wasn't the way to go.

[sheethead]

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.

 

I also feel no happiness knowing Yost admitted this. He should have known the right move when we all did, not a day later. Bad manager.

He gambled and lost. In hindsight, he probably got too cute, and it cost him.

 

'Cause he's a gamblin' man... and you know what's next - he crapped out [another bad decision].

 

9/5 - Good game tonight overall for Ned. He used the bench appropriately. Distributed some playing time to the AAAers. Two things: 1) myself and all three friends I attended with agreed that Yo should not have been pitching past the 5th. Save the kid for hopefully an extra start down the road. 2) Ray Ray has been in town less than 24 hours and Ned is already abusing him. Where was Capuano, Aquino, Spurling, or McClung? They must be getting their rest for that situational lefty appearance on Friday. Yeah, that's what we concluded.

 

Edit: Nay.

[logan82]

Re-read what I just posted. A good amount of statistical data supports the theory that the Brewers might have actually had a better chance of scoring at least 1 lone run if Hart did not bunt.

 

Even if Yost was really hoping for just 1 run (which, to me, is silly enough on its own), bunting still probably wasn't the way to go.

 

Don't need to reread it. I disagreed with it and didn't feel like answering. Since you ask though. I don't see the failure rate of bunting being higher than the failure rate of hitting. Hart has shown that he is good at bunting. The failure rate of hitting for Hart is approx 70%. He fails to get on base around 65% of the time. I just feel that it boils down to wether you think a team should play for only one run. You obviously don't.

 

Also find it somewhat amusing that people would talk about 50 points of OBP or BA as being a really big deal, but say that 5% isn't.

[Baldkin]

2 innings wasted for Yovani tonight.

 

What was he doing in there in a 12-0 game?

 

Nay.

[stoutdude04]

2 innings wasted for Yovani tonight.

 

What was he doing in there in a 12-0 game?

 

I dont know the exact pitch count, but I am sure he is on a pitch count thing more then an innings thing. You might think that he should save his pitches. That is one way to look at it. I think you need to let him pitch, keep that experience and confidence. Just me though. I still like Ned, he makes me mad at times but I have confidence.

YaY

[DougJones43]

logan3825 wrote:

I disagreed with it and didn't feel like answering.

 

I'm not sure how you can "disagree" with statistical data.

 

 

logan3825 wrote:

I don't see the failure rate of bunting being higher than the failure rate of hitting. Hart has shown that he is good at bunting. The failure rate of hitting for Hart is approx 70%. He fails to get on base around 65% of the time.

I don't think you completely understand the concept behind what I posted. The run frequency matrix takes the failure rate of hitting into account for it's projections. However, pulling the stats from the post-bunt (2nd/3rd, 1 out) run frequency projection does not take the bunt failure rate into account. It just assumes that the bunt was successful. You need to consider the fact that the bunt had a chance to fail if you want to accurately examine the strategy, and it's potential to produce at least 1 run.

 

 

logan3825 wrote:

 

Also find it somewhat amusing that people would talk about 50 points of OBP or BA as being a really big deal, but say that 5% isn't.

That's really comparing apples to oranges, and I think it's a pretty big stretch. Like I've tried to say (perhaps I'm not explaining my position very well?), the 5% you mentioned is basically wiped out, and then some, by the failure rate of bunting. But, if you find all that stuff "amusing," then there is probably not much point in continuing this discussion.

[logan82]

You have totally missed the point I was trying to make. I was trying to say that depending on what stats you looked at you could form very different opinions.

[TooLiveBrew]

I think what he mentioned was that your notion about '5%' ignored the fact that the bunt may not be successful. At least I think so.

[dvoiss]

I am one of the people who says it's the players on the field that determine the outcome of the game. Is Ned a good in game manager? IMO no. But the Brewers record wouldn't be all that much better with somebody else. A manager does not make that big a difference in the long run. If Ned goes how do you know his replacement will do any better? I keep going back and forth on this thing but I have to say he stays at this point. If he goes than he does but I really don't think it's gonna make that much difference. This team will probably improve next year because the players will have more experience no matter who manages. Unfortunately if Ned goes the new guy will get all the credit.

 

The people on the nay side of this argument have to agree that if the Brewers can win this thing Ned stays. So if your hoping Ned gets fired you almost have to be hoping that the Brewers blow this thing. And even if they do there's no guarantee that he goes.

[bobskube]

Ned still cannot manage a bullpen. The only way I can still give him a pass is if Brewers win division.

[RU Rah Rah]

dvoiss wrote:

The people on the nay side of this argument have to agree that if the Brewers can win this thing Ned stays. So if your hoping Ned gets fired you almost have to be hoping that the Brewers blow this thing. And even if they do there's no guarantee that he goes.

This is a good point. I want Ned to get canned, but I want the Brewers to win more, and those two things are kind of mutually exclusive. So I'm willing to resign myself to Ned if the team can get, say, 85 wins (or whatever suffices) to win the Central. You can't really argue with the team going to the postseason for the first time in 25 years (even though the margin might have been larger, etc.).

 

For me, the real dilemma is going to be if the team is barely over .500 but manages not to win the Central. Then I think you can make the argument that Ned should be fired because his incompetence might have cost the the Brewers a handful of games -- enough to have actually put the team in the playoffs. But the counter-argument would be that he can't get fired after basically meeting expectations and guiding the team to its first winning record in over a decade. (I don't buy this, but I think it might carry enough weight with the person who really matters -- the team's owner.)

Sub-.500 is a no-brainer: he gets fired.

[Fatter than Joey]

So I'm willing to resign myself to Ned if the team can get, say, 85 wins (or whatever suffices) to win the Central.

 

I really do not like arbitrary win totals.

 

If DM thinks he has put together a team that should have won 90 games, and they win less than that -- Ned should be canned. The bottom line being whether Ned got as many wins as he should of. I know this is sort of a small distinction, but if DM thinks that they could have won more games, then Ned should be fired whether that magic number is under .500 or not.

 

It is my opinion that if we have a 70 win talent team, Ned is going to get 63 wins out of them, if we have a 100 win team, Ned will get 93 wins.

[RU Rah Rah]

So I'm willing to resign myself to Ned if the team can get, say, 85 wins (or whatever suffices) to win the Central.

 

I really do not like arbitrary win totals.

 

If DM thinks he has put together a team that should have won 90 games, and they win less than that -- Ned should be canned. The bottom line being whether Ned got as many wins as he should of. I know this is sort of a small distinction, but if DM thinks that they could have won more games, then Ned should be fired whether that magic number is under .500 or not.

 

It is my opinion that if we have a 70 win talent team, Ned is going to get 63 wins out of them, if we have a 100 win team, Ned will get 93 wins.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I think that it would be extraordinarily difficult -- in a political sense -- to fire a manager who had led his franchise to its first playoff berth in a quarter-century, even if the team hadn't quite met W/L expectations.

Do I agree with that? Not really. I would be perfectly happy to see Ned get fired even if the team won the Central, because I think it's in the best interests of the franchise to bring in someone more capable next year. But I think that scenario is far-fetched (unfortunately).

 

[bklynbrewcrew]

This team will win less than the talent indicates they should and that why Yost should be fired. You fire a manager when he doesnt get the most out of his talent and Yost has clearly not done that. He has cost us 5 games at a minimum with his moves and you could argue much more than that. Hopefully we can win the division and still fire Yost when all is said and done.

[sheethead]

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I think that it would be extraordinarily difficult -- in a political sense -- to fire a manager who had led his franchise to its first playoff berth in a quarter-century, even if the team hadn't quite met W/L expectations.

Do I agree with that? Not really. I would be perfectly happy to see Ned get fired even if the team won the Central, because I think it's in the best interests of the franchise to bring in someone more capable next year. But I think that scenario is far-fetched (unfortunately).

 

I agree, mostly. Before this year I thought it would be unheard of to fire a manager/coach that wins a division in pro sports. Then Marty got fired in SD. That got me wondering how an organization let their GM throw a good guy and good coach under the bus. I think it was because of expectations. Go 14-2 in the NFL and you are pretty much expected to win the Super Bowl.

 

Ned is not in the same boat simply because he has never won anything. And this year the Central is just as bad as last year. If Ned can barely get the 86 or 87 wins needed to win the division, but does win the division by a game or so, I think he should still be fired if they fizzle in the division series. At the end of the day the division should not have even come that close to begin with. He has clearly cost the team 3 or more wins, and mismanages his bullpen constantly (yes, even in 14-0 laughers). Why is it so hard to find a good manager? The job is not that hard. Get along with the guys, makes the in-game substitiution, and manage the bullpen. Its not that hard!!

[Fatter than Joey]

But I think that it would be extraordinarily difficult -- in a political sense -- to fire a manager who had led his franchise to its first playoff berth in a quarter-century, even if the team hadn't quite met W/L expectations.

 

I hear you. I think it makes it harder that Ned is DM's hire. It's not as if Ned is really popular right now -- He is even getting scorched by national columnists. There may be some wisdom to firing Ned now, rather than waiting until the end of the season.