Ned Yost Yay or Nay thread: Hardball Times rips Yost

[pitchleague]

(with that genius move of taking out Braun for a defensive replacement in the 8th),

this is from a different thread, but I've read something similar all over the board.

 

What was wrong with that decision? In the 8th inning with a 3-run lead, Ned pulled one of his defensive liabilities (Braun) out of the game to put in a better defender (Counsell) at a position where it is important to have good range in a close game. It was the right decision.

 

Yeah, it backfired, only for the bottom of the 8th when Braun's spot came up. But if the bullpen had done the job or more balls were hit to Counsell at third (one ball was hit there for the first out if I remember correctly) it would have been praised by all that "Thank Goodness, because Braun wouldn't have got to that one!" kind of comments.

 

I don't agree with bringing in Aquino, but taking Braun out of a 3-run game to improve the defense was absolutely the right call. Now, putting Mench out there in left?

[Bucky Rules]

pitchleague -- it doesn't matter if Yost's decision to pull Braun was good or bad. It didn't work, so this board and talk-radio mongers across southeastern Wisconsin will be all over him.

As for pulling Shouse for Aquino... well, if Turnbow doesn't load the bases and look like he's about to have one of his occasional blow-ups, we're not discussing this right now. I have no doubt that taking Shouse out was the right decision because Pence - while good against everybody - crushes lefties. If Aquino gets an out, we're still not discussing this. If Cordero gets brought in to get out of the 8th, and blows it in the 9th, then Yost is still an idiot for over-using him (and therefore should've left Shouse in).

It just doesn't matter. If the Brewers lose a game, it's Yost's fault. If they win a game, they win in spite of him. The guy is a good manager. 99 times out of 100, I can see the logic in his decisions. That's good enough for me. And a manager's game decisions don't have nearly the impact that so many would like to believe.

But, I almost guarantee he's going to get run out of town. The upside is, I'm sure Melvin will bring in somebody with a similar philosophy. One this is for sure... it won't be Cecil Cooper. When he bunted in the 5th with a guy on 2nd, that told me all I needed to know about his managerial style.

[Fatter than Joey]

it doesn't matter if Yost's decision to pull Braun was good or bad. It didn't work, so this board and talk-radio mongers across southeastern Wisconsin will be all over him.

 

It does in fact matter. -- Bad decisions are less likely to work out. It is not as simple as players not executing, rather players being put in situations to fail.

[sheethead]

As for pulling Shouse for Aquino... well, if Turnbow doesn't load the bases and look like he's about to have one of his occasional blow-ups, we're not discussing this right now. I have no doubt that taking Shouse out was the right decision because Pence - while good against everybody - crushes lefties. If Aquino gets an out, we're still not discussing this. If Cordero gets brought in to get out of the 8th, and blows it in the 9th, then Yost is still an idiot for over-using him (and therefore should've left Shouse in).

It just doesn't matter. If the Brewers lose a game, it's Yost's fault. If they win a game, they win in spite of him. The guy is a good manager. 99 times out of 100, I can see the logic in his decisions. That's good enough for me. And a manager's game decisions don't have nearly the impact that so many would like to believe.

 

But, I almost guarantee he's going to get run out of town. The upside is, I'm sure Melvin will bring in somebody with a similar philosophy. One this is for sure... it won't be Cecil Cooper. When he bunted in the 5th with a guy on 2nd, that told me all I needed to know about his managerial style.

 

This just isn't true in my opinion. In fact, I bet there were plenty of fans hoping he would have went to CoCo in an attempt to finish the 8th with no further damage. There would not be the uproar about the loss if Ned would have made that move instead of going to Aquino, because he would have put the team in the best position to win the game. Ned is getting blamed for these losses because he deserves it, not because they are actually losing the games. Make a stupid move and feel the heat, that is what Ned did. 99 out of 100? I must not be watching the same games, because in the last two weeks alone - in a pennant race no less - I have counted at least 8 bonehead moves that only crap managers make. That does not add up to 99% for me. There is no way on Earth Ned Yost is a "good" manager. Barely serviceable would be my more accurate description.

[sheethead]

I have no quarles with replacing Braun defensively late in games where a lead is to be protected. But that move gets nullified the instant Aquino is summoned. If you are going to make pitching moves like that one, you better have some offense left in the lineup, because you are going to need it.

[jeffy]

I don't have a problem with the Braun decision. There are alway going to be those fans who will criticize every single move that appears to not work out and praise every move that does. I'm am rather new at spending much time here, but I don't see the majority on this board as being in that camp.

 

I also don't think most on this board think that a different decision from Aquino guaranteed success or that Aquino guaranteed failure. Just that this decision significantly reduced the chances of winning the game and seemed sensless...he should have gone with the flow of the game http://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/roll.gif.

 

Yost's saying basically "fan's are stupid and will complain no matter what I do, if it does not work out", really pisses me off. While it is true that some are and will, not all are and it ain't just the fans questioning it, the announcers did and even mild mannered Davey Nelson did. It also is not a good idea for Yost to alienate himself further from the fans that pay his salary. It'll be interesting to see how much booing Yost gets the rest of the way.

[trwi7]

Aquino gets an out, we're still not discussing this.

 

I completely disagree. The fans at Miller Park were booing when Shouse was taken out. Many here, at realgm and on the ESPN boards questioned the move before Aquino gave up the hit. We may not be discussing it as long as we are now but we'd still be discussing it because it was a mistake in the eyes of many here.

[Bucky Rules]

It does in fact matter. -- Bad decisions are less likely to work out. It is not as simple as players not executing, rather players being put in situations to fail.

Yes... but determining whether or not a decision is bad, is a matter of opinion, if we ignore the result. IMO, Shouse would've been put in a position to fail, not Aquino. If Aquino can't be called upon when our bullpen is on their last leg (short of Cordero), then why call him up to the big league roster?

[Eddiehitsthefoulpole]

Good question!

[sheethead]

That's easy, he is here to eat innings in the laugher games.

[Baldkin]

Ned had Wise, Spurling or Cordero to go to.

 

All of them would've been better choices than Aquino. I said as much when I was at the game. No one sitting near me could believe Aquino was coming into the game.

[Jay Zahn]

Ned Yost yay!

 

Seriously, the criticism of Yost is way overblown. Yost had many players who let him down in yesterday's game. Sheets could only go 6 and was a walk machine. He could have brought in Linebrink to start the seventh, but then McClung would have relieved Shouse instead of Aquino, and that may not have worked out either.

 

Aquino's no rook - he's been in the majors for parts of four seasons, briefly as a closer. He's a plausible option in today's baseball. Cordero wasn't an option because Yost couldn't double switch because of Jenkins' injury and some other moves. Anyone who sees Spurling or Wise as improvements over Aquino in that situation - give me a break.

[Bucky Rules]

The fans at Miller Park were booing when Shouse was taken out.

Yes... and that makes my point about how people over-react to every decision the guy makes --- even if its the right one. I don't think its even close on whether or not to take Shouse out. He had to come out against Pence. The only viable option that I see that is better than Aquino is Cordero. Spurling,Wise, and Aquino are a horse a piece since Wiser's meltdown -- and Aquino has the best stuff of that group for what that's worth. If Aquino only gives up a 2-run single, my guess is he brings Coco in. The risk was the bases clearing extra base hit. He gambled on Aquino hoping to save Cordero. He lost. I can live with it because I see what he was trying to do.

His decisions are not irrational. They just don't always work.

[Bucky Rules]

We may not be discussing it as long as we are now but we'd still be discussing it because it was a mistake in the eyes of many here.

The only thing we'd be discussing is a 4-game win streak, and the Crew being back within a 1/2 game of the Cubs. You can believe what you like. There are real-time message board criticisms of every decision made. The only ones that get discussed after the games are the ones that don't work out.

[trwi7]

We may not be discussing it as long as we are now but we'd still be discussing it because it was a mistake in the eyes of many here.

The only thing we'd be discussing is a 4-game win streak, and the Crew being back within a 1/2 game of the Cubs. You can believe what you like. There are real-time message board criticisms of every decision made. The only ones that get discussed after the games are the ones that don't work out.

 

Well I won't speak for anybody else but I'd still be discussing it. And I'll discuss whatever I feel was the wrong move if it works out or not. That was the wrong move even if it did work out. I'd love it if it did work but it didn't and it was incredibly stupid.

[logan82]

I knew this thread would fill up fast after yesterday. To blame that game on Yost is, in my opinion, just wrong. I would lay the blame at the feet of 5 players.

1. Gabe Gross, yeah I know that might have been a little difficult catch but that has to be caught.

2. Turnbow, the 7th inning is his and he has to throw strikes.

3. Aquino, you have a guy 0-2, make a pitch.

4. Estrada, you have to catch that ball. Are you kidding me.

5. Loretta, how the heck did you get to that ball.

Looking at it that is a 7 run swing. Players have to do their jobs. The only one on that list who did was Loretta and unfortunatly he was on the other team.

[Bucky Rules]

Well I won't speak for anybody else but I'd still be discussing it. And I'll discuss whatever I feel was the wrong move if it works out or not. That was the wrong move even if it did work out. I'd love it if it did work but it didn't and it was incredibly stupid.

Maybe you would. Maybe you're one of the few that would do that. I would actually be impressed with your stance if you could point out to me that last time that you criticized an "incredibly stupid" decision that didn't backfire the day after the game.

[gregmag]

Is it just me, or have the defenses of Yost gotten, on the whole, more reflexive and less substantiated than the attacks? I used to think it was the other way around; a fair number of people would say "Yost sucks" and not really back it up with anything. But I think the "Yost sucks" posts have started to provide more support, more often, while the "Yost rules" posts have been providing a higher percentage of unsupported assertions. I'm not meaning to rip on anyone, and hey, I may be entirely wrong even on the general level I'm talking about. But it seems that way from my reading, and I think it's significant; Yost may finally have provided his critics with a critical mass of ammo.

 

Greg.

[Brewer Fever]

Is it just me, or have the defenses of Yost gotten, on the whole, more reflexive and less substantiated than the attacks? I used to think it was the other way around; a fair number of people would say "Yost sucks" and not really back it up with anything. But I think the "Yost sucks" posts have started to provide more support, more often, while the "Yost rules" posts have been providing a higher percentage of unsupported assertions. I'm not meaning to rip on anyone, and hey, I may be entirely wrong even on the general level I'm talking about. But it seems that way from my reading, and I think it's significant; Yost may finally have provided his critics with a critical mass of ammo.

 

Greg.

 

I think you're reading that correctly. I think momentum swung in the last few weeks.

[Bucky Rules]

while the "Yost rules" posts have been providing a higher percentage of unsupported assertions.

I think "Yost rules" would be a bit over the top as a characterization of my opinion, but I think he's a good manager. If you'd like to be more specific in what you're calling unsupported assertions (that I've made, that is -- I can't speak for others), I'd love the opportunity to rebut them.

Yost may finally have provided his critics with a critical mass of ammo.

If the Mench decision and the Aquino decision provide a critical mass, then I think I've already addressed what I thought was a rational thought process for both of those moves. Although I admit that rational people can view those decisions in multiple ways. The fact that they didn't work out, gives credence to the Yost bashers. But, that doesn't make the decision irrational. And that's my biggest defense of the guy. He doesn't make irrational decisions. In spite of what so many here believe, he does base his decisions on history and fact. Those decisions are still not always going to be the same ones as other rational people who ALSO base their decisions on history and fact.

[TooLiveBrew]

Not just you, greg, you're right on. The critics who bring well-informed, not simply hindsight problems they have with Yost & his poor decisions, they tend to get dismissed as this: "Yea, you just criticize everything & then take credit when anything goes wrong. It's easy to make decisions when you know the outcome!"

 

Nevermind that most of the complaints offered came on the spot, watching the game, and/or anticipating bad moves Yost might make - like when I was watching the last Cubs-Crew game and said aloud, "Please tell me that Mench in the on-deck circle is just a part of some elaborate decoy!" Just an example, there are plenty more from way more than just one person.

 

EDIT: The fact that they didn't work out, gives credence to the Yost bashers.

 

While this statement is certainly true, this supports what gregmac was saying. You blatantly choose to ignore the fact that Yost routinely makes a decision/creates a matchup that is not the best available choice. This is my, and nearly every critic of his, problem with the man. He plays his hunches far too often, and - not surprisingly - they routinely fail to work out. If one wants to oversimplify and say he has only two choices in any given situation, fine. But that ignores the reality that Yost frequently has more than two choices, and even given just two, far too often selects the one that doesn't put his team & players in the best situation to succeed. I , for one, am really starting to get offended that my critiques are getting dismissed as simple monday-morning quarterbacking. This couldn't be further from the truth, and if Yost were making moves to put his players in the best position to succeed, and then the players weren't executing, I'd have no problem with him as manager. Problem is, he simply doesn't do that nearly enough. It should be the norm instead of what it sadly has become - the exception to the rule.

[sheethead]

1) If the Mench decision and the Aquino decision provide a critical mass, then I think I've already addressed what I thought was a rational thought process for both of those moves. Although I admit that rational people can view those decisions in multiple ways. The fact that they didn't work out, gives credence to the Yost bashers. 2) But, that doesn't make the decision irrational. And that's my biggest defense of the guy. He doesn't make irrational decisions. In spite of what so many here believe, 3) he does base his decisions on history and fact. Those decisions are still not always going to be the same ones as other rational people who ALSO base their decisions on history and fact.

 

1) The problem I have with these two moves (other than being the wrong moves to begin with) was the logic and explanation regarding the decsions was not consistant. There is no consistancy to the thought process, kind of like a mad scientist. This could definitely be confusing the players. Either you go with the flow or use the stats. Flip flopping between the two on a regular basis is what provides me with the critical mass ammo. The decisions themselves is the empty chamber. The rationalization of the decisions, to me, is the critical mass of ammo, and why I think he is not a good manager but in fact a bad one.

 

2) The decisions themselves were not irrational, at least not in the eyes of Yost and that's all that matters. The decisions were indeed bad, and that matters as well. It can be argued that the decisions were not bad, but that argument is without much substance.

 

3) And for the final point... no, Ned does not base all his decisions on history and fact. You need only listen to the post-game press conference to find that he does indeed make decisions based on hunches and heat-of-the-moment gut feelings.

[Ennder]

Although I admit that rational people can view those decisions in multiple ways. The fact that they didn't work out, gives credence to the Yost bashers. 2) But, that doesn't make the decision irrational. And that's my biggest defense of the guy. He doesn't make irrational decisions

 

Yost is just pulling explanations out of his behind pretty much. One night he talks about how he ignored the numbers and went with the flow of the game, the next night he sites the numbers as the reason for his moves... numbers which show the move was bad anyway.

[Bucky Rules]

You blatantly choose to ignore the fact that Yost routinely makes a decision/creates a matchup that is not the best available choice.

I don't choose to ignore anything. I believe that Yost makes rational decisions. What you choose to ignore is the fact that two rational people can have differing opinions using the same set of facts. There are many ways to interpret statistics given a situation. What you are calling something other than the "best available choice" may not be viewed that way by others.

 

He plays his hunches far too often, and - not surprisingly - they routinely fail to work out.

This is exactly what I'm saying that he DOESN'T do. He doesn't play hunches. He has a rational reason for every move he makes. But, as I said... sometimes people will view the situation differently.

 

I , for one, am really starting to get offended that my critiques are getting dismissed as simple monday-morning quarterbacking.

I am not calling your critiques Monday morning QBing. I'm saying that the result of the decision that you disagreed with has a lot to do with whether or not there is a discussion on Monday morning. I believe you when you say you disagreed with the decision at the time of the decision. I just don't think we would've heard about it if it worked out.

[Bucky Rules]

One night he talks about how he ignored the numbers and went with the flow of the game, the next night he sites the numbers as the reason for his moves... numbers which show the move was bad anyway.

I'm pretty sure the "flow of the game" comment came after the Mench situation. And while he didn't throw Jenkins under the bus, I think the fact that Jenkins was in a funk -- and his numbers against Dumpster weren't huge (though decent) -- had a lot to do with that decision. But he did offer up facts. He knew Jenkins stats and Counsell's stats vs Dempster when asked about the move in the post-game.