How Should We Evaluate a MLB Manager?

[Pedro]

I don't want this to be another Ned Yost thread. Honest. But the myriad discussions about his managerial abilities (or lack thereof, depending upon the poster) has me now thinking about the issue in a broader scope.

What are the criteria we should use when evaluating baseball managers?

There seems to be some primary categories that are discussed (in no particular order): 1) in-game strategy, 2) overall philosophy (e.g. small ball v. 3-run HR), 3) handling a clubhouse, 4) ability to teach and develop talent, 5) ability to motivate, 6) roster management, and finally 7) wins and/or championships. I'm sure there are others, these are the first ones that come to mind for me.

Now, outside of wins/championships, these seem to be extremely subjective areas to evaluate and are not things that can be known through statisitical analysis (at least, I don't think so, but sabermatricians always surprise me).

Are different managers better for different teams at different times? Do you want a manager to nurture a young team (ala Yost), or do you want a manager to steady a veteran team like Kuehn in 1982 with the Brewers, just stay out of the way like Casey Stengel with the Yankees, or just be a little nuts and get short term results like Billy Martin? Fiery like McGraw or stoic like Mack?

I don't know if it was said about a baseball manager or a football coach, but (paraphrasing here) I recall a quote that went something like this: "He can take his team and beat yours, then turn around and take your team and beat his." In my gut, I feel that way about some managers (given, of course, not a total disparity in talent). That they will get more out of the same 27 guys than others will.

But how to know this? I'm truly unsure how to evaluate a manager. I do have strong opinions about them, but I'm not sure they are based on much more than visceral reactions a majority of the time.

So, how do you evaluate a manager?

[Never Outhustled]

I've always tryied to compare how players play under 1 manager compared to the rest of there careers. Under Lopes/Royster, pretty much every player had the worst seasons of there career.

[TooLiveBrew]

I think you need to consider the matchups a manager creates. That's really the one stand-out quality of a manager. For example (& not to bash - I know the situation from today's game) - having Parra face Helms today was a bad matchup, turning a below-average hitter into an above-average one. When a manager trots out a 'Yosted'/'Piniella-ed' lineup, just to play his hunch(es), that's something to be criticized, too. But to be fair, managers do come up with some successful 'creative' decisions.

 

When a manager consistently creates poor matchups, I think he can cost his team games. I don't think a manager really has much effect beyond this, though I admit my 'criterion' is rather broad.

[imaji]

"I don't know if it was said about a baseball manager or a football coach, but (paraphrasing here) I recall a quote that went something like this: "He can take his team and beat yours, then turn around and take your team and beat his." "

 

The reference was to Bear Bryant.

[Ennder]

I think you need to consider the matchups a manager creates. That's really the one stand-out quality of a manager. For example (& not to bash - I know the situation from today's game) - having Parra face Helms today was a bad matchup, turning a below-average hitter into an above-average one. When a manager trots out a 'Yosted'/'Piniella-ed' lineup, just to play his hunch(es), that's something to be criticized, too. But to be fair, managers do come up with some successful 'creative' decisions.

 

When a manager consistently creates poor matchups, I think he can cost his team games. I don't think a manager really has much effect beyond this, though I admit my 'criterion' is rather broad.

 

This of course is very situational, in your example Yost really had no choice. He could put in Spurling and then have nobody left to pitch or he could let Parra try to get Helms out. Those were his two choices and I think he probably made the right one given the situation

[Ennder]

I think you need to consider the matchups a manager creates. That's really the one stand-out quality of a manager. For example (& not to bash - I know the situation from today's game) - having Parra face Helms today was a bad matchup, turning a below-average hitter into an above-average one. When a manager trots out a 'Yosted'/'Piniella-ed' lineup, just to play his hunch(es), that's something to be criticized, too. But to be fair, managers do come up with some successful 'creative' decisions.

 

When a manager consistently creates poor matchups, I think he can cost his team games. I don't think a manager really has much effect beyond this, though I admit my 'criterion' is rather broad.

 

This of course is very situational, in your example Yost really had no choice. He could put in Spurling and then have nobody left to pitch or he could let Parra try to get Helms out. Those were his two choices and I think he probably made the right one given the situation

[Ennder]

I think you need to consider the matchups a manager creates. That's really the one stand-out quality of a manager. For example (& not to bash - I know the situation from today's game) - having Parra face Helms today was a bad matchup, turning a below-average hitter into an above-average one. When a manager trots out a 'Yosted'/'Piniella-ed' lineup, just to play his hunch(es), that's something to be criticized, too. But to be fair, managers do come up with some successful 'creative' decisions.

 

When a manager consistently creates poor matchups, I think he can cost his team games. I don't think a manager really has much effect beyond this, though I admit my 'criterion' is rather broad.

This of course is very situational, in your example Yost really had no choice. He could put in Spurling and then have nobody left to pitch or he could let Parra try to get Helms out. Those were his two choices and I think he probably made the right one given the situation

 

Edit : I accidentally triple posted this, the ability to delete mistakes like that by myself is just one more thing I love about the forum move. Thanks guys.

[Fatter than Joey]

I think consistent performance needs to be something that is measured.

[Thurston Fluff]

I think the most important thing for a manager in baseball is the ability to keep his players playing hard day in and day out. Baseball is so much more a grind than any other sport it would be easy to take a few days off so to speak. I think htere are three levels of manager. Ones who shouldn't be, ones who can manage certain types of teams and some that can take anything given him and do more with it that most others. Most probably fall into the catergory of capable of certain types of teams. Tom Trebelhorn was a good manager for a yougn developing team IMO but I wouldn't want him with a veteran team. Phil Garner is the opposite.

One thing that is to me at least way over rated in strategic decisions. It's visible but for the most part those decisions are dictated tothe manager by external factors. When to replace a starting pitcher and who to replace him with not only is dictated by game circumstance but bullpen workload, the need to avoid burning out certain pitchers, the need to get a struggling one back on track. Yosts use of Wise Sunday was a good example of that. He needed to get Wise on track since he's an important part of the pen. He put him in a game with no pressure and very little chance of changing the outcome. He struggled but that move should get Wise on step closer to regaining form and it shouldn't have cost the game. His move was a smart one even though it backfired.

[1992casey]

I don't want this to be another Ned Yost thread. Honest.

It doesn't look like one to me. Honest. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif Good topic.

 

But I do see the possibility of this thread straying. Let's keep this about general managerial job evaluation criteria.

[Bruce Ciskie]

A manager should know his talent. Certainly, this isn't going to happen immediately. A guy isn't going to know everything he needs to know about a player simply by looking at numbers while sitting in his office. There needs to be a sense of when a guy needs a day off, and when a certain player is in a good spot and needs to be in the lineup more often. Such things shouldn't be left up to gut feelings or simple looks at the matchups. An example would be if Jenkins really gets dialed in and starts ripping the ball. If that happens, you can't just autmatically sit him against lefties. There are some lefties you wouldn't let him hit against, but there are also some that you would let him take a shot at if he was swinging well enough.

 

There happens to be a manager in the NL Central who I think is doing close to a pathetic job of managing his bullpen. That, along with the fact that a bunch of guys in the bullpen are stinking up the joint right now, is really hurting the team. http://static.yuku.com/v2//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/wink.gif

[Ennder]

I will say one thing, EVERY fan base thinks their managers bullpen management is bad. I'm a pretty big time fantasy baseball player and I go to a lot of teams forums checking up on guys etc and one common thread you'll find in every single one of them is complaints about bullpen usage.

[uwisfan]

I say a good way to evaluate a manager is to put him a well-rounded team, with no serious weakness, add 3 all-stars (ie, Sheets, Coco, and Hardy), plus an MVP candidate (Fielder) and see if he is able to play .500 baseball (been playing about .450 baseball since the great early start). For good measure, add a second MVP candidate (Braun) and another allstar pitcher (Gallardo) or two (Parra).

[TooLiveBrew]

This of course is very situational, in your example Yost really had no choice. He could put in Spurling and then have nobody left to pitch or he could let Parra try to get Helms out.

I know Ennder, which is why I included the parenthetical in my original post.

[Pedro]

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. Interesting perspectives.

I wanted to bring this topic up again based on something that was mentioned in the In-Game Thread tonight.

Seriously all the Ned talk is getting old, I doubt whoever is managing this club right now would do any better.

This ties into the evaulation factor. When a team is struggling, and starting pitching and bullpen have been shaky, then do you agree that no other manager would make a difference?

For the record, I don't necessarily agree with the above statement. I think some managers might get their players to perform better. But I obviously have no way to prove that.

But, if it is indeed true that the manager has no influence in this scenario, then where does the blame belong? If we say it lies with the players themselves, then are we not damning the GM to some degree, for building the roster is his responsibility and that includes both the physical and mental make-up of the players he selects.

[JohnBriggs12]

You evaluate a manager on wins and losses and by that measurement Yost doesn't do well. He's in his 5th year and has one .500 record, 3 under .500 records, and this year which is deteriorating so fast, they might well end up under .500 when all is said and done.

 

I don't know how under any circumstances he could be allowed to return for 08 if that happens.

[Brian the Automator]

You evaluate a manager by record, factoring in injuries to the team and available talent. I don't see how you can evaluate on wins/losses alone.

[Fatter than Joey]

This ties into the evaluation factor. When a team is struggling, and starting pitching and bullpen have been shaky, then do you agree that no other manager would make a difference?

I disagree with this 100% -- Certainly if a manager misuses a bullpen throughout the course of a season, no manager is going to make a gassed arm throw better. However, a different manager may have not gotten you into that predicament. Generally speaking though when people make statements like "no other manager could have done better with these players" it is nothing more than hand-waving, and there is no study or support that goes into these sorts of statements.

 

If we say it lies with the players themselves, then are we not damning the GM to some degree, for building the roster is his responsibility and that includes both the physical and mental make-up of the players he selects.

Yes. Now we can blame the manager, if young blossoming players in 2006 did not get enough ABs, and consequentially are still cutting their teeth in 2007, but certainly the GM needs to take some heat for not making moves. It's hard to criticize GMs though because you just don't know what happens in their universe -- for example -- I think that the Brewers tend to hold on to players past their trading peak (Vargas e.g.) I am critical of DM because he didn't move Vargas when he had a 9-2 record and not so bad ERA -- of course other GMs may have seen exactly what I did, an inflated W-L record and steered clear of Claudio, so it is really hard to be assured that the fault is on Melvin, of course DM did trade for CV though.....

[Ennder]

You evaluate a manager on wins and losses and by that measurement Yost doesn't do well. He's in his 5th year and has one .500 record, 3 under .500 records, and this year which is deteriorating so fast, they might well end up under .500 when all is said and done.

 

I don't know how under any circumstances he could be allowed to return for 08 if that happens.

Yep exactly, if Torre had been our manager for the past 5 years we'd have gone to the playoffs at least 4 times.

 

W/L is probably the worst way you could judge them.

[RU Rah Rah]

W/L is probably the worst way you could judge them.

 

I understand your point, but I think W/L has to figure in, at some point. There has to be some kind of bottom line. (I agree, though, that W/L can't be the be-all, end-all.)

[DrWood]

with a good manager, the losing streaks are short and the same mistakes are seldom repeated.

[JohnBriggs12]

Despite the inequities in baseball, it remains a bottom line business and no matter how you spin it, Yost's bottom line isn't very good. In 04, they went from 7 games over on July 1st to 27 games under at the end of the year. I remind you that Yost presided over that epic collapse and it appears they are on the verge of or in the midst of another.

How many collapses is one guy allowed?

It's probably too late to make a change this year but I'd be very disappointed if they brought back Yost if he falls short of .500 with this team. For those that don't remember, Harvey Kuenn was not the Brewer manager at the start of 1982. Changing managers sometimes works. Players get tired of listening to the same guy especially if that guy has no record of success.

[Boy Jeenius]

If our team has a solid GM with a track record of success (and of course DM is great) and he trusts the franchise's success to that person, then I all for it. I could care less who it is.

 

That's how I evaluate a manager.

 

The beauty of baseball is that this is a game where we all have a pretty good idea in general and we think we know what's going on. Therefore our opinion of a situation must be right. It's a great game to talk about and rehash.

 

If us fans were aware of just how little we actually know about what's going on with the team, clubhouse, game/seasonal startegies, I think many would back off with their criticisms.