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

[bigredrobbo]

Since nobody wants to win this flippin' division, spirit and unity is what'll do it. I think because of Yost and the coaching staff the Brewers have the tightest set of guys. That's why we'll win.

You still haven't really answered my question. I know you think spirit, unity, and a good clubhouse help win games. Just re-stating it doesn't really qualify as tangible evidence or reasoning. How and why do these things help a baseball team win more games? I would really like just one solid reason that shows some type of direct correlation between a good clubhouse and winning baseball games.

 

There's countless studies, data, and facts that show baseball-related decisions have a direct impact on wins and losses, so I'll take sound strategy and logic over clubhouse unity anyday as a means to increase my team's chances of winning.

But, hey, it's not a popular stance among some of the knee-jerk bandwagonners we see here from time to time.

Come back in a month. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. That's way more than I suspect a great number of the Fire Yost crowd will do...

 

Hey, if you don't have leg to stand on in the debate, just begin name calling and ad hominem responses. Nice.

 

Good grief, back off with the self-righteousness for a minute or two. If you can find zero posts in the last month that include the words "season over" , "I'm done watching this team" or some similar defeatist phrase, then I'll admit to name calling, but we both know that's not gonna happen.

 

And I apologize for there not being a sabermetric to qualify MY OPINION. I'd have thought the words "I think" might have given it away, but apparently in this debate it's hard stats or nothing...

 

I'll turn it round for you. Why don't you come up with an exact number of games Yost's decisions have cost us and subtract that from the number of games his decisions may have helped win. By all the numbers the Marlins shouldn't have had a snowball's chance and yet they won it all in 03. Neither the Cards nor the Tigers last year were the "best" teams in the majors yet both attributed team spirit as being important in getting them to the WS. Maybe not everything has a numeric value...

 

I'll say it again, if Yost was spelt Y-O-U-N-T we'd have considerably fewer threads asking for his head.

[jeffy]

Negligible? Braun is flat out terrible. Weeks is just bad. At this point I would almost take Helms at 3B over Braun if you are talking defense.

Again you avoided the point. They are both bad. Bad enough to cost you games. I'd say it's closer than you think as to their defensive ability.

 

But why sub one and not the other especially considering:

 

Braun OPS=1.029

Weeks OPS=.744

 

 

I don't have a problem with Ned removing Braun in the 9th inning with a lead for defensive purposes.

 

But if there is a chance that Braun may come to bat again and you take him out in the 8th why not take Weeks out instead?

 

It's an indefensible move IMO and it smacks of Ned's old tendencies to stick with more established guys over rookies no matter what the data says.

 

I don't really have a problem with subbing for Braun in late innings, even if he might have one more at bat coming. But I do wonder if it might make more sense to put Counsel at 2b. You do not lose as much offensively with this substitution and 2b has more plays to make than 3rd. OTOH Weeks has over double the chances of Braun in about the same number of innings yet Braun has double the errors. OTOOH, it seems like a lot of misplays by Weeks have not been scored as errors.

[Fatter than Joey]

You do not lose as much offensively with this substitution and 2b has more plays to make than 3rd.

 

Yep -- Weeks has looked particularly bad these last couple of games, both with his glove and throws. I agree with your post.

[Fatter than Joey]

A manager does not make that big a difference in the long run.

 

This is simply not true.

 

Ennder astutely points out:

 

The manager probably gives a swing of about plus or minus 3 games overall. Going from a LaRussa to a Yost might see a swing of 5 or 6 games overall.

 

Going from a bad manager to a good manager can swing 6 games.

 

If I illustrate these 6 games to give it some depth: Using Pete Palmer's "Batting wins" metric -- 6 games would be like upgrading a league average 1b like Mike Jacobs (2006) to the NL MVP Ryan Howard (2006).

 

That to me is a "Big Difference"

 

A couple of points/conclusions.

 

1.) A more accurate way to think about upgrading a manager is that it would be the equivalent of upgrading any one of your position players from average to AS/MVP level.

 

2.) $$$$$ -- When you upgrade a position like 1b from average to AS -- that is going to cost you big bucks. The manager position is your cheapest place to get wins. This means a team like Milw. rather than dumping $15M/year on the FA market could make a similar impact upgrading their manager for a tenth of that.

 

3.) If you are the worst team in MLB, getting a new manager and keeping the same players is not going to get you to the playoffs, however, neither will Ryan Howard.

 

4.) This metric/estimate of 3 games, really only speaks to in-game "micro-effects" -- There are "macro-effects" that can cost a team games as well, for example, burning up pitcher's arms, or burying a rookie on a bench and not letting them develop in deference to a crappy veteran. Brewer fans are intimately familiar with this concept, as it is linked to Bando when ever his name is taken in vain.

[sheethead]

You and I just have different philosophies on baseball. I believe that even in the 8th inning, when you have a lead, it is more important to prevent runs than score them.

 

That is exactly why you don't bring in Greg Aquino. Thank you. I see we have the same philosophy. http://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/wink.gif

[gregmag]

But FTJ, there's one big factor you aren't taking into account -- the uncertainty of managers' contributions. If you upgrade from Mike Jacobs to Ryan Howard, of course nothing is guaranteed, but you have a lot of valuable information that tells you how much that upgrade is going to help. That's why it costs so much to do it. In contrast, whatever side of the debate you believe about how and how much managers influence wins, I haven't seen anybody (not just here -- I mean ever) come up with even a vaguely meaningful metric. There's no real basis for saying a manager costs X wins or adds Y wins; there's no real basis for measuring the W/L consequences of clubhouse leadership vs. good in-game strategy vs. good handling of players over the season.

 

I'm in the "Yost has to earn his return" camp, and I'm comfortable defending that view, but I would never pretend that it's based on concrete information. That's why managers are a lot cheaper than players. If we knew that luring LaRussa away to replace Yost would be worth six wins, we'd offer LaRussa $10 million. But we don't know that -- not even close. By the same token, one really can't use this uncertainty to defend Yost categorically, as in "We don't know that he's killing the team, so we should keep him." If we thought about the problem that way, then every manager would be a manager for life. Teams shouldn't just sack managers reflexively, but after several years of losing, you start to realize that, whatever the manager's contributions have been, you aren't winning with him and you just might win with someone else. At that point you just have to think about the whole problem -- what do we know, what are our options. In the end, you put down your money and you take your chances.

 

Greg.

[Fatter than Joey]

But FTJ, there's one big factor you aren't taking into account -- the uncertainty of managers' contributions.

 

Well -- I am 100% certain that managers have either a positive or negative contribution. I am not certain that you could accurately extract and evaluate that contribution effectively -- but I suspect this is one of those times you embrace the marriage of scouting and statistical analysis.

 

I guess what I wanted to address and add some perspective to, is the false idea that managers' contributions are trivial. That is to say -- if we can agree/assume that managers affect "only" 2-3 games a year, that in fact is a "big difference".

 

It seems to me that a lot of the "pro-Yost" camp will concede that a manager will affect 2-3 games a year, but that is nothing to get concerned about -- I just tried to illustrate a little depth to what a 3 game swing means in terms of positional players.

 

To me, the idea that managers have no effect on a game's outcome obscenely defies common sense. I will be the first to admit that there are no reliable metrics to measure managers, but that doesn't mean that the effect should be ignored.

 

I would certainly agree that changing managers is a bit of a gamble unless you tie up a proven commodity.

[yoyomayoma]

Thought this would be a good thread to post the latest from Ken Rosenthal concerning Ned's future:

 

The Brewers are tied with the Cubs for first place in the NL Central, but Ned Yost could be in trouble if the team misses the postseason after opening the season 24-10. The Brewers' Class AAA and AA managers, Frank Kremblas and Don Money, were managers of the year in their respective leagues. And Joe Girardi lives not far away in Lake Forest, Ill.

[sheethead]

I'll turn it round for you. Why don't you come up with an exact number of games Yost's decisions have cost us and subtract that from the number of games his decisions may have helped win.

 

The managers job is to put the team in the best possible position to win the game, each game. When one of Ned's decisions helps win the game he is simply doing what he gets paid to do. On the other hand, when he makes a bad decision that debatedly costs the game he is not doing what he gets paid for. Managers don't get credit for the decisions that win games because that is their job.

[bigredrobbo]

But FTJ, there's one big factor you aren't taking into account -- the uncertainty of managers' contributions.

 

Well -- I am 100% certain that managers have either a positive or negative contribution. I am not certain that you could accurately extract and evaluate that contribution effectively -- but I suspect this is one of those times you embrace the marriage of scouting and statistical analysis.

 

I guess what I wanted to address and add some perspective to, is the false idea that managers' contributions are trivial. That is to say -- if we can agree/assume that managers affect "only" 2-3 games a year, that in fact is a "big difference".

 

It seems to me that a lot of the "pro-Yost" camp will concede that a manager will affect 2-3 games a year, but that is nothing to get concerned about -- I just tried to illustrate a little depth to what a 3 game swing means in terms of positional players.

 

To me, the idea that managers have no effect on a game's outcome obscenely defies common sense. I will be the first to admit that there are no reliable metrics to measure managers, but that doesn't mean that the effect should be ignored.

 

I would certainly agree that changing managers is a bit of a gamble unless you tie up a proven commodity.

Halleluiah. At last the Pro and Anti side can be on the same page. I concede that going from Yost to a top tier manager probably wins a couple more games. The problem is a distinct lack of that top tier manager banging on Melvin's door looking for work.

Kremblas? Yount? Cecil Cooper? Joe Girardi? Not exactly Sparky Anderson and Connie Mack, at this stage in their career.

That's the issue I have with firing Yost now - change for change's sake? If the really honest haters were to admit that they just don't like the guy and never did, at least they'd stop trying to find any justification to back it up.

If the Brewers don't make the playoffs I think Melvin will be too fearful of his own job to keep Yost on. Until then I'm going to "enjoy" that rarely felt phenomenon of a meaningful September.

[bigredrobbo]

I'll turn it round for you. Why don't you come up with an exact number of games Yost's decisions have cost us and subtract that from the number of games his decisions may have helped win.

 

The managers job is to put the team in the best possible position to win the game, each game. When one of Ned's decisions helps win the game he is simply doing what he gets paid to do. On the other hand, when he makes a bad decision that debatedly costs the game he is not doing what he gets paid for. Managers don't get credit for the decisions that win games because that is their job.

The very best hitters in baseball fail 70% of the time yet managers need to be 100% or they are not doing their job?

 

Sheesh...

[sheethead]

I'll turn it round for you. Why don't you come up with an exact number of games Yost's decisions have cost us and subtract that from the number of games his decisions may have helped win.

 

The managers job is to put the team in the best possible position to win the game, each game. When one of Ned's decisions helps win the game he is simply doing what he gets paid to do. On the other hand, when he makes a bad decision that debatedly costs the game he is not doing what he gets paid for. Managers don't get credit for the decisions that win games because that is their job.

The very best hitters in baseball fail 70% of the time yet managers need to be 100% or they are not doing their job?

 

Sheesh...

I did not say anything about 100%. I was saying that you cannot credit the manager for winning games when he makes a good decision. Its his job to make good decisions. I did not mean to confuse anyone by implying that good decisions need to work out. They just have to be good, sound decisions. Anyone who has played solitare (or a similar game) knows that good decisions don't always work out. But they give you the best chance to succeed.

[jeffy]

Thought this would be a good thread to post the latest from Ken Rosenthal concerning Ned's future:

 

The Brewers are tied with the Cubs for first place in the NL Central, but Ned Yost could be in trouble if the team misses the postseason after opening the season 24-10. The Brewers' Class AAA and AA managers, Frank Kremblas and Don Money, were managers of the year in their respective leagues. And Joe Girardi lives not far away in Lake Forest, Ill.

 

And a couple of those guys won in the minors with many of the same players that make up the Brewers today (as well as some who will be Brewers in the future), right?

[Blazer25]

You and I just have different philosophies on baseball. I believe that even in the 8th inning, when you have a lead, it is more important to prevent runs than score them.

Logan,

 

Actually we agree 100%. Like you, I think it's important to prevent runs late in the game but I also think you have to give yourself the best chance to score them at any point. Runs scored in the 7-9th are just as valuable as runs scored in the 1-6th.

 

As such, I think Yost should be making a substitution for the player who is least valuable at doing both...Rickie Weeks.

 

Ryan Braun and Rickie Weeks are both equally bad defenders. One of them needs to be removed late in games. Braun still gives you a better chance to score late in games (and we've needed it). You need to leave him in.

 

Ned just hasn't figured that out yet.

 

Glad to see we're on the same page.

[logan82]

The thing we disagree on is who is a worse defender I guess.

[TooLiveBrew]

I don't think that's fair to say - even if you still hold that Braun is inferior to Weeks (lately imho that's incorrect, but we can still use that), the point is that (Braun's O - Braun's D) > (Rickie's O - Rickie's D).

I was saying that you cannot credit the manager for winning games when he makes a good decision. Its his %*# to make good decisions.

 

I think this is harsh. While I understand what you're getting at, I just don't agree. Like your point about solitaire, you can make the right move and still not win. You can definitely credit the manager for putting his team/players in the best situation to win, especially when the players come through in such situations. While it may be 'the manager's ''$+%'' to do such, it's Prince Fielder's ''$+%'' to hit the ball hard, yet we still celebrate and praise him when he does so. It's much easier to blame a manager for a poor move, but undeniably fair to also be able to celebrate a smart move.

 

EDIT: why can't I type the word - j-o-b - without it getting 'cuss-filtered'?

[KCBrewerfan34]

No question Braun is the worse defender of the two, I think the HUGE error total by Braun pretty much seals that argument up. That being said it goes without saying the difference in the bats are HUGE as well.

[TooLiveBrew]

true, but it's also fair to keep in mind that Weeks has been significantly worse lately. While Braun's E total is much higher, that doesn't seal the deal entirely - especially when you take recent results into account. I don't hold my breath when the ball is hit to Braun - he fields balls well & his throwing is suspect. When Rickie's d gets off, both his fielding & throwing are shaky. Please, Rickie, shore up your game! We need you.

[jason21nl]

this guy continues to blow my mind how bad his in game decisions are. please get him the heck outta here

[bucks2281]

Dear Ned Yost,

 

When Derrick Turnbow walks multiple batters in an inning, bad news is on the way. You should know that by now.

 

Sincerely,

bucks2281

[JohnBriggs12]

I'm amused at how the media focuses on Brewer fans unhappiness with the manager at a time when the team is in it's first real September race in a generation. Hey media, it's because we watch the games intently that we've come to the conclusion that Yost is a poor manager. It has nothing to do with not being used to the ups and downs of a pennant race. Bad managing is bad managing, and Brewer fans are intelligent enough to know it when they see it.

[Klements Bratwurst]

Tony LaRussa to the Brewers for Ned Yost and a bag of balls?

 

Tom Kelly to the Brewers and Ned Yost to Tom Kelly's Lazy Boy?

[biedergb]

We may not realize how a good manager can make a difference until we have one.

Heck most of thought we had some talent on previous Brewers teams -- but seeing what we have now puts that in perspective.

Some of us thought Dean Taylor was a good GM, until we got Doug Melvin.

[sheethead]

It's hard for me to decide whether or not to shell out the cash for playoff seats tomorrow at 10am. This game today didn't make my decision any easier. I can just imagine a giant boo fest as Ned bumbles time and time again. He is so bad.

[RU Rah Rah]

OK, after taking a little time to process today's debacle, here's my thinking:

 

It's probably not fair to second guess every move that Ned makes, or fails to make. Sure, in retrospect, not pinch-hitting for Billy or Jenks in the eighth today seems like a bad move, but I can understand (to a point) the logic of leaving in highly-paid veterans in clutch situations. The decision to leave Turnbow in during the eighth after his two walks was less explicable, but, again, he's getting paid a lot of money to deliver in that spot.

 

So when you look at Ned's moves individually, you probably can find a way to defend them. But it's when you step back and look at the totality of his moves that you realize how inept he is. The guy just seems to have a knack for not making the right move in a decisive situation. (I'm sort of surprised that someone hasn't created a thread for a master list of his questionable decisions.)

 

But this one isn't completely on Ned. Bill Hall has to score that runner from third with one out in the eighth inning. Period.

 

My feeling is that a reasonable outcome to expect would have been a 5-5 tie after nine (Hall drives the runner in, the Pirates turn around and score one run after a quick hook on Turnbow), with the final outcome determined in extras.