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

[Brewer Killa]

Thanks strawboss. I am in the camp that says Ned gets wayyyy more heat than deserved. I think the manager does much less to decide the games than people think. But what he does effect in the games seems to be more positive than most will like to see. At least you have some numbers to back it up instead of the same stuff we hear everyday.

 

I simply disagree with always wanting to change the pitcher or he isnt using a pinch hitter or he didnt bunt a guy over, etc...If we listened to the game thread we would use every pitcher in every game. We always need to use the loogie pitchers and matchup. I left the in game last night after hearing that Mota shouldnt be facing the lefty. We had a three run lead. Another example of over managing imo.

 

But I really think this Ned talk has gotten out of control and apparently Ned is dumb because he does things one way and everyone else is correct. I don't understand how someone can leave a post that says Ned has had more (or less) bad moves this year. Whos scale is that on? Who says if it is right or wrong? The beauty of baseball is having options and while it can be debated, I have no idea how anyone can say that Ned has done things wrong or right.

 

It will always be easier to say them while they are sitting in a bar or at home. I prefer to watch the game, get upset when we are losing (especially to the cubs) and excited when we win. But to blame everything on the manager has become a phenomenon in itself and now people are just joining that crowd and taking it to a new level.

[endaround]

No the measure is crap. Close game records how they have it setup are going to be very close to .500. Meaning it helps managers with overall losing records (like Yost) and hurts mangers with winning records. Its bogus from construction.

 

And ranking by numbers is bogus in this instance when the spread is so great. Put me and Bill Gates in a room together and I'm the second richest person but that tells us squat.

[Baldkin]

Backupcatchers wrote:

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.

Even in your post you wrote why "Playing the hot hand" is just a myth. No matter how well the guy did over the previous game, 2 games, or 8 games, he's just as likely to go 0-4 as any other time.

[strawbossisevil]

No it's not. It puts every manager on an even playing field. It gives no advantages. Most managerial decisions are made from the 6th inning forward, and in order to see how they best compare to one another when major decisions have to be made, it would make perfect sense to show how they've done with a tie ball game going into that inning when the manager will begin to play a big role.

 

The fact that it hurts managers with winning records is true, because it basically takes out the first five innings of a game where the manager has very little control of things (and is more dependant on the ability level of his starting pitchers/batters), once he gets into the 6th the managers decisions play a much larger role in the outcome of the ballgame.

 

It makes perfect logical sense how they did it. It created an even playing field so that the innings where managers moves are most important can be compared, a situation that Yost did well in according to the study.

 

I think you are just letting your subjective opinion on Yost cloud your judgment on this very objective measure of how managers perform when the ballgame is tied late in the game (the time, I would argue their decisions are probably the most vital).

[jazzytrav]

It will always be easier to say them while they are sitting in a bar or at home. I prefer to watch the game, get upset when we are losing (especially to the cubs) and excited when we win. But to blame everything on the manager has become a phenomenon in itself and now people are just joining that crowd and taking it to a new level.

I also say these things from the confines of Miller Park. If Ned Yost was in front of me, I would say them. Just because I don't have control over the team doesn't mean that Ned Yost's decisions are better than mine. Your argument has no logical point to it.

 

And I have never blamed Ned Yost for everything. I don't blame Ned Yost for carrying 14 pitchers, and I actually thought it was clever to use Suppan as a better guy to bunt when other options were exhausted. But sometimes, most times, those gimmicks are unnecessary. With a young team, they can help, but when you have a good team with some years under their belt, they don't need gimmicks anymore. They are perfectly capable of winning a baseball game without that crap. I don't even care what other managers do in different situations. Can any of you seriously justify the "contact play"?

 

 

[Brewer Killa]

Can any of you seriously justify the "contact play"?

 

I could justify any play. If that ball is hit 2 feet either way the run scores. There is a fine line on that play and when it doesnt work someone will rag on him. But if it works and we steal a run, it was great baserunning or some other reason, just not "a great move byYost".

 

Obviously in your eyes you are always going to be right but every decision will have some that liked it and some that get upset about it. My point of the previous post was exactly that. What are these gimmicks you speak of? I have no idea what that means. Ned has a way of doing things and it really pisses some off. Who says the ways posted on here are the right way of doing something? Except the whole hindsight 20-20 thing. And ya, I know, you said it before it happened. But I read the in games. People say things all the time and repeat that after the fact. But how many times do they say we should do something, Ned does it the opposite way, and it works. Like last night. Saying how we should have gone to the lefty, which would have led to at least one more pitcher being used, and Mota did just fine. Small example but my point is there is always someone yelling for something else to happen and sometimes they are right and sometimes wrong. But you only hear about the times where they were right and Ned was wrong.

[endaround]

No it has no meaning at all. It was choosen the way it was because the data was easy to find and sort out. An no the punishing successful mangers in not a feature, its a bug,

[naivin]

Ned has a way of doing things and it really pisses some off. Who says the ways posted on here are the right way of doing something? Except the whole hindsight 20-20 thing. And ya, I know, you said it before it happened. But I read the in games. People say things all the time and repeat that after the fact.

Good points. People sitting in their living rooms, or playing the game on their keyboards, also have the luxury of being able to make these calls one AB at a time, heck maybe even a couple down the line. Often times a MLB manager has to make what would appear to be a routine decision based on what has already happened, as well as what is yet to happen. He has to consider not only who is at the plate and/or in the on deck circle (which is generally as far as it goes for the average manager sitting on his couch), but also who is due up the next inning or the inning after that - for both teams. That's why many decisions debated here are in actuality often done with plenty of hindsight. Plenty of decisions that need to be made in any game are largely related to decision that were made earlier. Are some more black and white or more glaring than other? Of course. Those are the ones usually debated here. I just think its the other 99% of the things he does that will usually make a manager good or bad.

[jazzytrav]

People say things all the time and repeat that after the fact. But how many times do they say we should do something, Ned does it the opposite way, and it works. Like last night. Saying how we should have gone to the lefty, which would have led to at least one more pitcher being used, and Mota did just fine. Small example but my point is there is always someone yelling for something else to happen and sometimes they are right and sometimes wrong. But you only hear about the times where they were right and Ned was wrong.

I'm not explaining the probabilities thing again, but if you'd like you can go back and read my posts where I have addressed this at least twice. Just because Ned does something that works doesn't make it right. Your argument says that as well, just as much as it makes your own points. Yes, sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but it's about the PROBABILITY that the decision will be right. In my opinion, Ned's decisions don't give us as good of a PROBABILITY of being successful as someone that makes what I feel are the right decisions.

 

 

Except the whole hindsight 20-20 thing. And ya, I know, you said it before it happened. But I read the in games.

Then why do you continue to ignore this and call hindsight?

 

Good points. People sitting in their living rooms, or playing the game on their keyboards, also have the luxury of being able to make these calls one AB at a time, heck maybe even a couple down the line. Often times a MLB manager has to make what would appear to be a routine decision based on what has already happened, as well as what is yet to happen. He has to consider not only who is at the plate and/or in the on deck circle (which is generally as far as it goes for the average manager sitting on his couch), but also who is due up the next inning or the inning after that - for both teams.

Good point. This is exactly why I was upset that Yost brought in Shouse to face Votto when Suppan was at 85 pitches and seemingly untouchable. I was looking ahead to the 9th inning when Griffey and Dunn would be coming up, and Shouse has owned those two. But unfortunately that would have kept Gagne from being able to come in for the save.

[strawbossisevil]

Seriously end,

 

The point of the study is to determine which manager does the best in the innings where they have to make the majority of their moves. It would make no sense to include data before the 6th inning, since a manager usually doesn't make many moves before that inning.

 

The reason why they focus on the tie games, is that it doesn't give as large an advantage for a manager whose team has superior starting pitching/regular position players (something that has no reflection on the manager's in game managerial skills). Instead it puts them on an even field so that the managerial skills can be compared on an even playing field. A manager who makes more positive moves (bullpen/pinch hitting and running decisions) will generally win more of those games over a larger sample (the sample of this study was 5 years, so it is definitely a large sample).

 

The fact that they are put on a level playing field is not a flaw, its what makes it such a valuable assessment of late inning managerial ability. It allows a person to see how managers handle their teams in the exact same situations when managerial moves are made. Any comparison needs a constant and a variable. The constant here is putting the managers in the exact same situation. The variable is how the managers perform. That's simple logic.

 

I have a feeling that you feel the way you do about it, because you don't agree with the result. Like it or not, it is clearly a logical presentation of data.

[lukevan]

I wouldn't consider it an even playing field since all managers have different hitters and pitchers.

[strawbossisevil]

Over the course of 5 seasons though would even it out considerably. Although that fact makes what Ned did that much more impresive. Since he had some really bad teams before '06.

[giffted1]

No the measure is crap. Close game records how they have it setup are going to be very close to .500. Meaning it helps managers with overall losing records (like Yost) and hurts mangers with winning records. Its bogus from construction.

The study does give a slight advantage to managers with losing records , but there is zero correlation between losing managers being near the top and winning managers near the bottom in the rankings. Ron Gardenhire, who has had quite a few winning seasons is at the top, and Clint Hurdle, a perennial loser until last year is at the bottom.

 

But obviously the methodology is severely flawed because it claims that Yost is a good manager.

[logan82]

Everything I have seen points to managers not being able to outperform/underperform their pythagorean record on a consistent basis. Having a good or bad bulpen is much more relavant. Look at the D-Backs last year. Good pen=outperfoming pythagorean record.

 

All managers lose games for their teams. Trying to compare managers on anything other than what kinds of strategy they prefer to use is very difficult if not impossible.

[jeffy]

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.

I became an anti-Nedite, last season about late July/early August. After seeing this actual data, I now have to say that he appears to be better than average. Three different ways of looking at this and in all three Ned is 6th or 7th out of 20 managers that were rate-able. I'd rather base my opinion on solid long-term facts and data, rather than an emotional response to a few situations where I thought he should have done something different. Not sure how one can deny that this study at least provides pretty good evidence that, overall, Ned has not hurt the team. I would never have expected any rating system to put Ned just two notches below LaRussa (let alone beating him by some measures). So...I guess I am now no longer in the anti-Ned camp.

[jazzytrav]

So...I guess I am now no longer in the anti-Ned camp.

I'm confused. Going back through this thread, you've defended every move of Yost's that has been questioned. When were you in the anti-Ned camp?

[Fear The Chorizo]

When comparing managers, it ultimately boils down to what kind of players he has to use in situations.

 

carrying a 13 (or 14???) man pitching rotation handcuffs any manager from making aggressive pinch-hit and double switch moves. having a roster full of right handed hitters and a bench full of lefthanded punch and judy hitters limits a manager, too.

 

I'm not the biggest Yost fan in the world, but I do think he gets too much of the blame for this team's shortcomings - the makeup of this current roster really limits the changes he can make to the position player lineup, and the bloated pitching staff seems to have 3-4 relievers to pick from for close games, and 2-3 relievers to pick from in blowout games.

 

I'd much rather throw blame on a starter who can't get anyone out or a reliever who can't throw strikes AND get anyone out than try to blame the manager for every bad game a player/pitcher has.

[jeffy]

I'm confused. Going back through this thread, you've defended every move of Yost's that has been questioned.

Really??? I don't think that is true, but I don't know how to reseach it, is there a way to find all my posts in this particular thread? Anyway, even if anti-Yost it does not mean one has to oppose every move he makes, does it?

 

I thought I had been mostly neutral regarding Yost so far this season, the one move that had me yelling at my TV was bringing in Turnbow as closer. I did not think that could have possibly been the best option at the time. That was a big risk for him to take in an attempt (I assume) to salvage Turnbow.

When were you in the anti-Ned camp?

 

I already had indicated that in my post.

[Roscoe Chill]

It's more of a bummer that Villanueva bombed the way he did, but did he really need to face Carlos Lee last night to prove that he was done? No.

[jazzytrav]

Sorry jeffyscott, I only went through the last 7 or 8 pages of this thread and during those pages it seemed as though you were defending him. I apologize if I was incorrect, and I apologize for my comments being out of line.

 

Anyway, on to other things for us all to fight about http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Does it seem to anyone else, Yost apologists or not, that Yost just doesn't have any emotion this year? I'm trying to figure out what happened, but the biggest thing that I liked about Yost back when I liked him was the fire he had. This year it seems like it's just gone. Even if he walks out to talk to the umps about something, he's all calm and collected. Is he afraid of getting thrown out all of a sudden?

 

I realize that the players are older and such, but that doesn't mean they don't need a kick in the butt sometimes. I also realize that maybe they're getting that in the clubhouse, but I'm more talking about Yost showing some fire publicly to maybe get the players fired up.

[jeffy]

Sorry jeffyscott, I only went through the last 7 or 8 pages of this thread and during those pages it seemed as though you were defending him. I apologize if I was incorrect, and I apologize for my comments being out of line.

 

No need to apologize. I took it as a legitmate question not an attack, I wasn't offended and did not think you were "out of line".

[Brewer Fever]

You know how uncomfortable it is to listen to Yost's post game press conferences each day. You see a man who is hard to like. Can you picture any way that that attitude he carries doesn't every once in awhile rear it's ugly head in the lockeroom? Would you want to play for someone who carried himself like that? And even if you were a consumate professional and took his negativity like a man, would it not have a tendency to make you play the game like you had a ten-foot spear up your backside? Heck yes he's stifling this team. They all play like they have to be perfect every day.

 

Add in the fact that as someone said perfectly earlier, he manages with no feel for the game, and you have a recipe for futility.

[Postseason2006]

What just kills me is we fired Phil Garner who actually had a great season. Ned has done less with more but he still coaches...or attempts to with this team. The only way he goes is if Mark realizes and rewatches the job Melvin did at Texas with larger purse strings and looks at his AL Championship and World Series trophy case.

[adambr2]

I am still trying to figure out how Yost ticks......

 

Several times last year, I saw him come out of the dugout all fired up about a call that wasn't even wrong with basically the sole intention of getting himself tossed.

 

Today, we're sitting there absolutely taking it up the tailpipe from Phil Cuzzi and his crew in the 9th, and Ned sits there in the dugout with arms crossed.

[Brewer Fever]

Under Ned Yost this team continues to play undisciplined baseball. The fail to move runners over, fail to score with runners at 3rd and less than 2 outs, swing at pitches in the dirt time after time. They try and pull everything. They continue to play shoddy defense. Pitchers walk far too many hitters by failing to be aggressive and go after hitters. They take leads early in the game and then start swinging for the fences as though the game is in hand and they can pad their home run numbers. Does anyone think these players aren't hard workers? I don't get that impression. It's clear that either this coaching staff doesn't know how to teach fundamentals or they don't have the teaching skills to get through to these players. Enough is enough. These players are either plateauing or regressing under Ned Yost's watch.