Designated Yost Thread... Latest: No accountability and lack of urgency (part 2)

[giffted1]

I'd like to know exactly what people feel the actual impact is, both to this point and for the remainder of the season.

 

I think statistically people have boiled it down to a 3 game swing -- a good manager picks up three games for his team, a bad one loses 3. So the difference between Ned Yost (a bad manager) and a good manager is probably 5-6 games.

One assessment says quite the opposite. Of course their study is very limited, but it think it has more value than some random number.

 

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-baseballMgrs08.html?n=50&page=1&sd=ASC&sort=overall

[Fatter than Joey]

I'm sorry to interrupt the I hate Ned Yost circle-j*rk, and will not do so in the future

 

Thanks! -- your kind consideration will be appreciated

 

So...barring an abnormally bad bite by the injury bug or something like that, you feel this Brewer roster should win roughly how many games this year?

 

I am not going to pretend I know this -- However I think the Brewers are an 80 team -- then with the Yosted factor, subtract 2-3 games. I think a good manager

could get 82 wins out of this team, -- If the team continues on with Ned I would guess 78.

 

I'm not discounting the difference... I would just like to know what people feel it is.

 

I think going from a bad to a good manager nets a team 5 wins.

 

Where would they finish with his replacement?

 

Depends on the replacement -- if it was Dale Sveum, I'd say sub-Yost. Ned Yost's hat probably a couple of games above Yost.

[naivin]

Take however many games you have the Crew pegged for winning, and subtract 2 or 3.

So for you that win total is...

[Fatter than Joey]

One assessment says quite the opposite. Of course their study is very limited, but it think it has more value than some random number.

 

The "3" wins is far from a random number.

[Baldkin]

Personally, I think that he's the difference between 86 and 90 wins this season.

 

Gut feelings and hot-hand have no business as justification for guys getting playing time. The 160 AB's that Mench got last year starting over Gross vs RHP's may very well have cost us the division.

[naivin]

I am not going to pretend I know this -- However I think the Brewers are an 80 team -- then with the Yosted factor, subtract 2-3 games. I think a good manager

could get 82 wins out of this team, -- If the team continues on with Ned I would guess 78.

All I wanted to know. I don't pretend to know either, but I am certain everyone has an opinion on roughly how many games the Brewers should win given their talent level, and what impact the manager is likely to have on it.

[TooLiveBrew]

One assessment says quite the opposite. Of course their study is very limited, but it think it has more value than some random number.

 

But that's using W-L to evaluate a manager, not saying that, on aggregate, a manager's decisions add up to 3 wins. All that study looks to do is take close & late performances by players into account, along with whether or not a team outperformed its pythagorean expected W-L record. A talented team with an awesome manager can easily play 3 (or more) wins of their pythag. in any given season.

 

So for you that win total is...

As I said, irrelevant. What is going to matter is the divisional race, which by all accounts is not expected to be greater than maybe 5 games. Also by all accounts, the Brewers & Cubs are the two most talented teams, and expected to finish a very close 1-2.

[Thurston Fluff]

I think statistically people have boiled it down to a 3 game swing -- a good manager picks up three games for his team, a bad one loses 3. So the difference between Ned Yost (a bad manager) and a good manager is probably 5-6 games.

 

How many games do you think Ned will have saved us from losing by noticing and correcting a flaw in Kendall's throws to second base on steal attempts? Do things like that get noticed like the supposed strategic mistakes that he often gets critisized for? I don't think so but doing something like that before the season even starts helps the team in a way that, in my view, win far more games than deciding whether to pinch hit for someone at a particular time. I think the Kendall example is one of many that a sound manager, with a capable staff he puts together and works with win far more games than the mistakes he may make during the game. They just aren't as noticable. Quite frankly if he's doing his job they won't be because the players will always have done it right. The Kendall example is just one that is easier to see because it was such an obvious problem under a couple differant managers and seems to have been corrected here. So for that reason I agree that perhaps it is a five or six game swing. I just respectfully disagree which direction that swing is.

 

For reference his totals last year was 111 sb/20 cs. 59/15 in Oakland and 52/5 Cubs. With the Brewers so far he's 12/8.

[strawbossisevil]

I think that study pointed to by gifted makes a point. We tend to be very subjective in our evaluations because we follow our team so closely and bad moves tend to stick in our craw, and often we can't see things objectively.

 

That study showed a number of things, Yost is in the top 10 in close games won, he is a top 10 manager in winning more games than expected, and he is in the top 10 in regards to getting his players to perform. Now, you can argue that he's making a lot of mistakes, but he must be doing some things right in order to get that top 10 status in each of those categories.

 

Now certainly anyone is entitled to put up his own subjective opinion on where he sees Yost in relation to other managers, and who knows maybe over the course of one season he might under perform. But his past suggest he wouldn't be the -3 games terrible manager.

[Thurston Fluff]

Gut feelings and hot-hand have no business as justification for guys getting playing time.

 

playing the hot hand is most certainly justification for getting playing time in a particular instance. Players get into and out of streaks all the time. It only makes sense to capitalize on a hot streak. I just never understood why someone wouldn't take that into account along with overall numbers. I get one will be better in determining long term ability but short term it is no better than just going with who is playing well at the time.

 

 

 

The "3" wins is far from a random number.

 

Where did it come from? Is there some sort of study like the link from gifted or what? If so please post it if possible. I'd really like to see how it was done.

[naivin]

So for you that win total is...

As I said, irrelevant. What is going to matter is the divisional race, which by all accounts is not expected to be greater than maybe 5 games. Also by all accounts, the Brewers & Cubs are the two most talented teams, and expected to finish a very close 1-2.

Nice try. Of course its relevant. Its extremely relevant. If you think the Brewers have a roster that is about a 70 win team, obviously a manager costing that team 3 games means nothing. If you think they are about a 90 win team, those 3 games could be very significant. So which is it? You don't have any realistic thoughts on where the Brewers might finish in terms of wins? I do give you credit for the attempt to have your cake and eat it too. This way if the Brewers fall a a game or two short of the Cubs, you can just point the finger at Ned and say I told you so. How about if they finish 6 games back, would that be because of Ned? If they finish ahead of the Cubs, would that be because of Ned?

[naivin]

The "3" wins is far from a random number.

 

Where did it come from? Is there some sort of study like the link from gifted or what? If so please post it if possible. I'd really like to see how it was done.

+1

[Fatter than Joey]

Where did it come from? Is there some sort of study like the link from gifted or what?

 

Yes -- it was a way more thorough study. I don't have a link though, as it was done some time ago.

 

I'm sure you can find it if you google it.

[TooLiveBrew]

That study showed a number of things, Yost is in the top 10 in close games won, he is a top 10 manager in winning more games than expected, and he is in the top 10 in regards to getting his players to perform. Now, you can argue that he's making a lot of mistakes, but he must be doing some things right in order to get that top 10 status in each of those categories.

That's fine if you want to gauge manager performance on W-L record. I don't think it's very accurate.

 

 

Nice try

 

Your snarkiness brings nothing to an objective discussion. I'm not 'trying' to do anything & am flat-out exhausted with the constant baiting in this thread. Looks like any Ned discussions that I actually want to participate in will have to be back on private messaging.

 

EDIT: Fwiw, anyone that wants to discuss Ned via PM, I'd be happy to get away from this thread & still be able to discuss Yost. Perhaps no one will, which is no big deal.

[naivin]

Nice try

 

Your snarkiness brings nothing to an objective discussion. I'm not 'trying' to do anything & am flat-out exhausted with the constant baiting in this thread. Looks like any Ned discussions that I actually want to participate in will have to be back on private messaging.

If you want to call that snarky and you feel it really detracts from the discussion, that's fine (I don't happen to agree - seems to me it was fairly innocuous), but you also continue to ignore the central question. If asking or challenging someone to provide a justification/reason/basis for their argument or position is baiting, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

 

It seems as if people just want to be able to criticize or blame Ned for things that may go wrong this year without having to expose themselves to the slightest possibility that they might end up being wrong.

[jeffy]

That's fine if you want to gauge manager performance on W-L record. I don't think it's very accurate.

It doesn't rate them on just raw wins and losses, the description of the ratings is:

 

For the close-games category, we subtracted each manager's overall winning percentage from his winning percentage in games tied after the sixth inning, thus determining whether he performs better or worse in close games. The win-expectations chart compares the number of games each manager's team won versus how many it should've won based on how many runs it scored and allowed (also known as the team's Pythagorean expectation). The third category states how many additional games a manager won or lost for his team per season. David Gassko, a contributor to the Hardball Times Web site, arrived at those figures by comparing how players' statistics improved or declined under different managers (with adjustments for age and other variables).

I am surprised to see Ned Yost rated #3 overall based on a combination of these three ratings. If not this, what would you base your rating of managers on?

[TheBwaz]

Brewcrew: No, I do not really think that if we win it is in spite of Ned. That is, in summation, the prevailing attitude of the first camp. There is nothing Ned can do that is right and you can always argue the negative. For a stat obsessed group of folks (and that is a good thing) we lose sight of what stats can teach us. I'm simplifying but a .400 OBP guy is still gonna make an out 60% of the time.

 

The past few pages have gone a long way to making my point: You either want Yost run out of town on a rail or you are content to let him have his last chance this year. The twains are not meeting.

 

O/T, but why no fire Skaalen thread? You couldn't throw a dead cat without finding a fire Wynegar thread 2 years ago.

[Fatter than Joey]

No, I do not really think that if we win it is in spite of Ned. That is, in summation, the prevailing attitude of the first camp.

 

Insofar as if Craig Counsell is our starting 3b and we win games, it's not because Craig Counsell is doing anything but being Craig Counsell.

[naivin]

endaround[/b]]McClung was warming at that point. Sheets was in to get the win.

Sheets ended up having the potential to come up to the plate in the 5th (which he did of course), which would be a very logical reason McClung started throwing should a PH be needed/used. Had there been runners an 2nd and 3rd with 2 out instead of 1st and 2nd with 2 out, I would think Ned almost certainly would have PH for Sheets. With runners on 1st and 2nd and 2 out, playing a man down in a 1 run game, I think it is safe to conclude that he didn't want to burn both a PH and an extra pitcher for that AB. Had the inning gone a little differently, would Ned have used a PH there? We'll never know, but I would certainly think so.

 

That's all relevant because Sheets was at a fairly reasonable 85 pitches, and had worked a 1-2-3 4th.

 

Yet again, upon closer inspection, the situation may not be as simple as those who look for reasons to criticize Yost would like it to be.

[endaround]

That WSJ study is garbage. Starting with the first measure--close games are only those tied after 6. You hold a one run lead? Not Close! So its crap. Then they average ordinal rankings across catagories which is one of the worst ways to do things.

[jazzytrav]

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but this is an interesting way to examine manager tendencies. The study doesn't decide if managers are better or worse, but puts a "face" on the manager based on their tendencies compared to league averages.

 

Study

 

Yost is in the bottom-right corner. He looks scared.

[LaprilOne]

O/T, but why no fire Skaalen thread? You couldn't throw a dead cat without finding a fire Wynegar thread 2 years ago.

 

Fire Skaalen!

 

Now, leave my cat alone.

[germanking]

Sorry I could not post this early as my job is outdoors but, I am actually going to look at the top of the 5th from a different point of view and an idea that has been brought up that I could find. I thought McClung was already starting to get loose before or just as Hall was in the on deck circle. He did look like he was warming up pretty quickly when J.J. started his at bat. Then Sheets comes into the on deck circle just at the end of Hardy's at bat. What if Ned Yost, yes our Nedly, was actually calling a bluff with McClung in the pen warming up and the Cubs walked Hardy to create a force out situation for a PH that would actually not leave the on deck circle?

 

Do you really believe Yost would put McClung in a 1 run game against the rival Cubs after a day off with 3 good pitchers who should be able to go 2 innings if need be?

 

Maybe Ned is actually getting better at poker than some of us have thought all along.

[strawbossisevil]

It's not garbage. It shows the situation where the manager's coaching has the greatest impact on a game. That happens late in the game, when the game is tied. It shows who has made the best decisions in those scenarios (or had their decisions pay off the best in those scenarios).

 

Certainly averaging the three out may not be something you like. Then look at their individual rankings under each.

 

Here they are for Nedly:

 

Close Games: He's ranked 7 (meaning over the last five years only 6 managers have had a better outcomes in games that were tied as late as the 6th inning) - No matter how you spin it, it shows that he is doing something right in that situation to be ranked in the top third of all managers. What's even more astounding is that he is ranked this high despite the fact that the first few years he was here our team was pretty awful.

 

Wins above expectation: He's ranked 7 (meaning over the last five years only 6 managers have had better records in comparison with their "Pythagorean" win expectations than Ned, according to the article, he has actually won 5 more games over their expected win total) - Here again, instead of being -3 wins per season as some suggest, he has averaged out to +1 wins per season over the past half decade, which points to him being what many of us have been saying all along, an average manager.

 

Player Performance: He's ranked 6 (meaning over the last five years only 5 managers have done better at getting the most out of their players). I'm not quite sure how they arrived at these numbers, but the article states that these were put together by an editor at the Hardball Times who did a lot of data crunching. I think many would agree is a pretty solid source.

 

So what does all this tell us? Adding them together may be a bit bogus. But the fact that Yost did well in all three suggests that he is probably an average ML manager. He does well when the game is tied going into the last 4 innings, he wins more than the raw offensive and defensive numbers should suggest, and he generally gets the most out of his players.

 

I know its hard for many to be objective when dealing with Ned, because we are passionate fans and at times disagree with his decisions, but in comparison with other league managers he really isn't as bad as many here suggest.

[jhart05]

Nice post "strawbossisevil".