Designated Yost Thread... Latest: No accountability and lack of urgency (part 5)

[ESPNOwen]

I have a question that may seem silly, so forgive me if this is the case. If Yost IS the issue, how many games do you think he has cost the team this year? And, is it possible to guess how many games he's won for the team this year? My guess, and it's only a guess, is that it's a wash.

 

-----

Continued from:

 

viewtopic.php?p=378741#p378741

 

Original Lead:

 

viewtopic.php?t=12043

[sheethead]

There have been a lot of 'gems' to fall from his lips.

Its a daily occurrence unfortunately.

[jazzytrav]

I have a question that may seem silly, so forgive me if this is the case. If Yost IS the issue, how many games do you think he has cost the team this year? And, is it possible to guess how many games he's won for the team this year? My guess, and it's only a guess, is that it's a wash.

 

I think someone posted some research earlier that showed a possible 6 game swing based on how good the manager is. In other words, really bad manager can lose you 3 extra games, really good manager can win you 3 extra games. Doesn't sound like much, but it could have been useful last year.

 

If you read back 20 pages or so on this thread there was a previously a discussion on this, but I have no idea where it is.

[sheethead]

ESPNOwen[/b]]I have a question that may seem silly, so forgive me if this is the case. If Yost IS the issue, how many games do you think he has cost the team this year? And, is it possible to guess how many games he's won for the team this year? My guess, and it's only a guess, is that it's a wash.

This is impossible to quantify, mainly because the players have to win the game. Yost could have brought in Mota in the 12th, and Mota could have subsequently gone out and given up back-to-back homeruns. However, it is the manager's job to make sound decisions during the game. I would not be going too far out on a limb to say the majority of the 25,000 Brewer fans in attendance thought he was not doing his job in the 12th inning on 6/14. In the 11th Yost was sitting on a 16 with Tavarez, doubled down and got a 5. That doesn't mean you should do it again, ever.

 

But to answer your question: the manager does not win games, so zero for me on that one. I would say Yost has cost the Brewers 2 wins so far this year (Rockies and Reds), while helping them to lose on several occasions.

[ESPNOwen]

I agree with you re: Yost. This, of course means that all the hand wringing over Yost is pointless. The best move the Brewers could have made would have been to bring Walt Jocketty, who has been shown to be the best GM in terms of acquiring players who will win you games. With that said, I like the job Melvin has done. He hasn't been perfect, but he's been better than most.

[Thurston Fluff]

Come on, Buc. You've had this debate so many times. It's the equivalent of using W-L to evaluate a pitcher.

 

The reasoning given for why Francona was better was because he was better with the media. If the choices to determine who is the better manager are between how they handle the media or wins and losses count me in as one who believes the records are more significant.

[jeffy]

It's like sticking with a job that you don't like because it pays the bills, and you're afraid that if you quit you'll find another job that's even worse.

 

And what's wrong with that? That has been me for about the last 20 years.

[Bucky Rules]

It's like sticking with a job that you don't like because it pays the bills, and you're afraid that if you quit you'll find another job that's even worse.

 

And what's wrong with that? That has been me for about the last 20 years.

Don't most people stick with their job until they're fairly certain they're moving on to something that will be better. I know that I'm not going to quit a job unless I have something better lined up. I'm not sure that's the analogy the author was looking for.

[sheethead]

The reasoning given for why Francona was better was because he was better with the media.

 

That was only one reason, not the reason. If you need more see championships, bullpen management, and in-game decision making in addition to the handling of the press.

 

This, of course means that all the hand wringing over Yost is pointless.

 

Its not pointless imo. I don't like to boo, but I had no choice on Saturday. The manager simply did nothing but gamble when he needed to do something else. He did his job poorly, and that alone has a strong point.

[Thurston Fluff]

I have a question that may seem silly, so forgive me if this is the case. If Yost IS the issue, how many games do you think he has cost the team this year? And, is it possible to guess how many games he's won for the team this year? My guess, and it's only a guess, is that it's a wash.

 

Since it seems to have been established that wins and losses are not a good way to determine if a manager is any good a this job I don't see why it matters. However if you are like I am and feel wins and losses measured in relationship to talent level are useful in determineing a manager's competence I know someone posted somehting a while back that showed Ned was very good in producing wins in close games late or something like that. I know I'm being pretty vague but does anyone remember at all what I'm talking about? I would guess that should help as much as the anicdotal evidence against him.

 

If you need more see championships, bullpen management, and in-game decision making in addition to the handling of the press.

 

If someone hwo couldn't even get close to .500 in four years with the Phillies but wins a championship with the REd Sox I'd have to think it's less the manager and more the team. As far as in game decisions what do you base that off of? How many games do you watch of Boston or probably more imprtantly of Philly then and now to be able to base that claim on? No disrespect intended but I honestly believe that is a little grass is greener on the other side of the fence syndrome.

[jazzytrav]

That was some kind of weird stat about his record after having a lead of a few runs or less after 7 or 8 innings. Basically it was trying to determine how good he was during the times when a majority of his decisions are made. I'm not even sure what the result was, but it wasn't measured against other managers and there are way too many variables.

[Diskono]

I have a question that may seem silly, so forgive me if this is the case. If Yost IS the issue, how many games do you think he has cost the team this year? And, is it possible to guess how many games he's won for the team this year? My guess, and it's only a guess, is that it's a wash.

Paul DePodesta posted this on his blog the other day:

 

http://www.colinbaker.org/files/images/process.jpg

Taking Saturday's game as an example, Julian Tavarez was probably the wrong pitcher to use in the 11th inning, but it turned out ok. Dumb luck. Ned should have realized that he lucked out, but the "bad process" continued when Ned left Tavarez out in the 12th, and the results were predictable.

 

For the most part, being on the top half of the table is a good thing. This leaves everything up to the players. Most managerial decisions don't matter a whole lot, but the "bad process" decisions will eventually lead to some losses. I'd put the number of Ned's "could have cost us the game" bad decisions in the 5-10 range, but even if he had made the right decisions, we still could have fallen into the "bad break" corner of the table.

[Thurston Fluff]

Taking Saturday's game as an example, Julian Tavarez was probably the wrong pitcher to use in the 11th inning, but it turned out ok. Dumb luck. Ned should have realized that he lucked out, but the "bad process" continued when Ned left Tavarez out in the 12th, and the results were predictable.

 

Unless of course you give some credit for not using Mota in that game to him being more effective in the next game he pitched. Then it appears to be a wash. Which is more or less the problem with determining such things. Nothing is done in a vaccum of one game. How someone gets used today effects their effectiness tommorrow.

[sheethead]

Since it seems to have been established that wins and losses are not a good way to determine if a manager is any good a this job I don't see why it matters.

 

I battled the W-L argument case against Francona (unsuccessfully I see), because there was no evidence of him pulling a yost (def. mismanaged situations) anywhere to be found. Your argument was simply based on W-L, mine is based on years of visual evidence.

 

Your argument that Francona is not a better manager than Yost is because of the W-L record in his Philly years. How about Larry Brown's record with the New York Knicks? Does that year prove he is not any better of a NBA coach than Terry Stotts? Of course not.

 

I can tell you exactly where Ned Yost goes wrong. Can you tell me where Francona went wrong in Philly other than his eventual W-L record? This is the reason I argued that W-L does not necessarily make a manager good, because it isn't the only indicator.

 

IMO, luck also has a lot to do with successfully leading a team, and that is another thing Ned (as well as myself) is short on.

[sheethead]

Good post Diskono

 

Nothing is done in a vaccum of one game.

 

"I was trying to win this game. I don't think about tomorrow at all in that situation." - Ned Yost

[Thurston Fluff]

Your argument that Francona is not a better manager than Yost is because of the W-L record in his Philly years. How about Larry Brown's record with the New York Knicks? Does that year prove he is not any better of a NBA coach than Terry Stotts? Of course not.

DO we have to go into why this is not a useful example? Apples and Oranges.

I battled the W-L argument case against Francona (unsuccessfully I see), because there was no evidence of him pulling a yost (def. mismanaged situations) anywhere to be found. Your argument was simply based on W-L, mine is based on years of visual evidence.

How many games in those years of visual evidence? Do you watch the Phillies and now the Red Sox like you have the Brewers? It's easy to miss the games he may have Yosted his teams if you only watch one game a week. The record over a four year period isn't as random or luck related as you suggest IMO. One year perhaps random luck plays a role but 4 in a row all bad luck? Kind of hard to argue that one.

Perhaps it's time for us to just agree we think different things are important in determining competence and go onto something more fun to argue about. Like how long before we catch the Cubs in the standings. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[sheethead]

Perhaps it's time for us to just agree we think different things are important in determining competence and go onto something more fun to argue about. Like how long before we catch the Cubs in the standings.

 

Stalemate? Agreed, time to move on.

[trwi7]

Unless of course you give some credit for not using Mota in that game to him being more effective in the next game he pitched. Then it appears to be a wash. Which is more or less the problem with determining such things. Nothing is done in a vaccum of one game. How someone gets used today effects their effectiness tommorrow.

 

 

Then of course we could argue that it was a stupid decision to use him for the second day in a row after pitching two innings the previous night when Ned didn't need to. His results the second day after pitching two innings the previous night were predictable (1 IP, 2 ER) and if Mota wouldn't have pitched and he would've gone with Dillard or someone else with a four run lead (which leads me to another question, why is Dillard even on the team when he barely pitches?) then he wouldn't have been "unavailable", even though he actually was and Ned was "saving him" for an inning that never happened which he tends to do.

[tosabrewfan]

This was in yesterday's paper, discussing Suppan's missed squeeze sign in Sunday's game:

 

"Yost said he didn't consider an acknowledgement by the hitter mandatory but admitted, "We might have to review that. We've got some signs (the hitter can use)."

 

So after Kendall missed the sign for the squeeze play earlier this year, they still didn't institute an acknowledgment sign. This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. It would take five minutes in a team meeting to say "Hey guys when we signal for the squeeze, you need to acknowledge it." If Yost can't get this decision right, he shouldn't be managing a tee-ball team (That's pretty much my opinion, by the way).

[MickeyDavis]

Yup, you would think after they botched it once they would have taken steps to make sure it didn't happen again. They probably still haven't.

[Bring Back the Stein]

I think I posted this once before, but this poem still pops into my head every time I think of Ned Yost:

 

"Who is in charge of the clattering train?

The axles creak and the couplings strain,

And the pace is hot, and the points are near,

And Sleep has deadened the driver's ear;

And the signals flash through the night in vain,

For Death is in charge of the clattering train."

[Thurston Fluff]

Then of course we could argue that it was a stupid decision to use him for the second day in a row after pitching two innings the previous night when Ned didn't need to. His results the second day after pitching two innings the previous night were predictable (1 IP, 2 ER) and if Mota wouldn't have pitched and he would've gone with Dillard or someone else with a four run lead (which leads me to another question, why is Dillard even on the team when he barely pitches?) then he wouldn't have been "unavailable", even though he actually was and Ned was "saving him" for an inning that never happened which he tends to do.

 

which agian assumes we know everything that went into those decisions. When something seems so obvious some like to think the manager is an idiot. I tend to think there is something else going on that we aren't privy to. Then agian I tend to start with the idea that he is, at the very least, competent. If you start with the opposite assumption then I get why you would think that way. Either way it's getting old so I guess I'll just shut up now and secretly think he's a good manager.

[TooLiveBrew]

When something seems so obvious some like to think the manager is an idiot. I tend to think there is something else going on that we aren't privy to.

 

I used to feel this way. I honestly don't much anymore, though. I've heard enough 'justifications' or 'explanations' that made even less sense than the questionable moves that precipitated them.

 

I think Yost is in the neighborhood of 'competent', but slightly better or slightly worse. In my opinion he's slightly worse, but not nearly as bad as some of his counterparts.

[sheethead]

Either way it's getting old so I guess I'll just shut up now and secretly think he's a good manager.

 

Buc, I don't mind arguing the facts and points, but IMHO its time for Startingcatcher to get a chance.

[UndraftedFA]

"I felt like he could use one more day off.

...

 

"I was trying to win this game. I don't think about tomorrow at all in that situation."

 

 

WOW. There have been a lot of 'gems' to fall from his lips. This one, however, may trump them all.

'I was managing with tomorrow in mind. I never manage with tomorrow in mind.'

Did you ever stop to think that both phrases related to the same game? Tavarez was obvious gassed, but he demonstrated that game both the good and bad. Bad: he was walking guys. Good: He's a goundball pitcher, and that is what they needed once the bases were full. The groundball was the best chance to get out of it, but the Brewers didn't get it. I'm not repeating this because my savior, Ned Yost, said it later either. I said it that night in the game thread. I would have done the same thing as Ned.

 

Mota was bad his previous few games, and needed the time off. Dillard threw 32 pitches and gave up 5 runs the night before, and DeFelice hasn't been very good in the majors.

Here was the choices:

1. Gassed Tavarez who at least gets strikeouts and ground balls, but walks too many.

2. Gassed Dillard. Probably a good choice if he didn't throw so many pitches the night before and get shelled.

3. Gassed Mota. Had the night off before, but was showing major signs of fatigue in his outing leading up to the night.

4. Defilice. Wasn't gassed, but just hasn't been all that good.

 

I don't see any good options there, so I am going to go for the groundball pitcher. If someone disagrees that is fine, but I don't think it is that hard to see the logic in the move. All 4 choice were a recipe for disaster.