Ned Yost Yay or Nay thread: Hardball Times rips Yost

[brewcrewkid14]

I take back comments of firing Yost yesterday if I were in management, but I still hope they at least start watching some of the decisions he makes. I'm going to be disappointed if we do implode these last few weeks and we come into 2008 with the same manager as we ended with.

 

I don't understand why us as Brewer fans (myself included obviously) have such a tendency to get so restless over each and every step through the season. I also don't understand why Yost goes out and points at the fans for doing so, as that probably doesn't help matters with the easy criticisim. Both sides have arguments on different topics, but I think only one thing, and one thing only will cure this rocky relationship between the fans and Yost:

 

A 2007 National League Central Champions banner hanging right next to that 1982 American League Champions banner in left field. Let's hope we can do it.

[sheethead]

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.

In all fact, he does play hunches, and admittedly so to boot.

[endaround]

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.

Yes that .0000 BA of Mench vs Dempster and his .200 average in August was just too much to replace. Yost had three better options than Mench and didn't use any of them. Yost had three better options than Aquino and didn't use any of them.

 

[Ennder]

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.

 

22 AB's is not a funk and Jenkins played just fine the next game. Jenkins has over an .850 OPS against Dempster so those numbers are just fine. The choice by Yost was horrible, there is really no reason to try to support it.

[RU Rah Rah]

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.

What makes him "good," exactly?

 

[Bucky Rules]

Yes that .0000 BA of Mench vs Dempster and his .200 average in August was just too much to replace. Yost had three better options than Mench and didn't use any of them. Yost had three better options than Aquino and didn't use any of them.

You mean the 0-1 against Dempster?

You believe that he had three better options than Mench. One was Jenkins who had a .154 OBP in his last 38 ABs with 10 Ks. That qualifies as scuffling in my book. One was Counsell who was 1-10 lifetime against Dempster. And I don't know who the third one was. You think he made a bad choice, and you're perfectly entitled to that opinion. I think you can argue a reason to stay with Mench who hit the ball hard twice that game (albeit against LHPs), and was not coming in off the bench cold, when your other options are less than compelling. Apparently you find that irrational thinking?

[Bucky Rules]

22 AB's is not a funk and Jenkins played just fine the next game. Jenkins has over an .850 OPS against Dempster so those numbers are just fine. The choice by Yost was horrible, there is really no reason to try to support it.

It was 38 ABs, and he was 0-4 with 2 Ks the next night.

[sheethead]

Yes that .0000 BA of Mench vs Dempster and his .200 average in August was just too much to replace. Yost had three better options than Mench and didn't use any of them. Yost had three better options than Aquino and didn't use any of them.

You mean the 0-1 against Dempster?

You believe that he had three better options than Mench. One was Jenkins who had a .154 OBP in his last 38 ABs with 10 Ks. That qualifies as scuffling in my book. One was Counsell who was 1-10 lifetime against Dempster. And I don't know who the third one was. You think he made a bad choice, and you're perfectly entitled to that opinion. I think you can argue a reason to stay with Mench who hit the ball hard twice that game (albeit against LHPs), and was not coming in off the bench cold, when your other options are less than compelling. Apparently you find that irrational thinking?

 

Estrada was the other one... hard to blame Ned for staying away from that. And as I have stated before, the decision was not irrational. It was just bad.

[Bucky Rules]

What makes him "good," exactly?

That, my friend, is pointless to get into. Because everything that you believe he does wrong with game management, I believe is a complete mischaracterization of him. It's simply a difference of opinion.

I also believe that game management is almost inconsequential. It is the most over-rated aspect of managing a team. The players win/lose games, not managers. Handling the personnel (ie leadership) is probably the #1 quality in my book. Heck... a monkey could fill out the lineup card, and it's not going to make much difference in the season record. On the other hand, a guy that completely loses a team (ahem... Jerry Royster) can cost a team 10 games.

 

If you believe that these players have given up faith in their manager, I would be more inclined to fire him. Much more so, than if he makes an arguable decision on a pitching change.

[gregmag]

Bucky, I wasn't talking about you or anyone else in particular, and obviously I meant "Yost rules" to be a deliberately oversimplified label, just like I obviously meant "Yost sucks." I was reacting to a very quick spin through the recent posts, and I deliberately cast my reaction in general terms.

 

But, since you ask -- you seem to be arguing, categorically, that Yost does nothing systematically wrong: he never plays hunches; he always has a reason for what he does that's as good as any other rational person's reason for doing otherwise. (That's based on your recent posts; if I missed a qualification earlier, please correct me; I'm not out to sully your good name.) As a centrist on this issue (admittedly a rare posture for me), I just don't find that view plausible.

 

This is exactly what I was talking about before. It used to seem to me like Yost's critics would say he was across-the-board terrible, and his supporters would say, well, of course he isn't perfect, but on balance he's a good manager. The supporters' basic tone just struck me as more plausible then. But now I'm seeing a lot more posts where people are saying, man, I've refused to rip Yost for quite a while, but lately he's just done some particular things that a good manager wouldn't do. More supporters now -- like you, in your recent posts at least -- seem to be making categorical, reflexive defenses, arguing that there isn't even another side to the debate, that no reasonable person could find serious fault with Yost. That makes no more sense to me than when the shoe was on the other foot.

 

The man has presided over an epic collapse. I'm not smart enough to know how much of that is really his fault; I think reasonable people can differ about things like the Braun-Counsell defensive switch debated above. But I agree with the critics that some of the pitching moves and uses of Mench, especially, worked out exactly as badly as most people with one or more clues (of whom, Al, there are a few) expected them to work out. Even if Yost is a genius who has suffered the worst run of unpredictable bad luck in the history of sports, firing him may still be a good idea. Not fair, perhaps, but a good idea, because the team next year needs to get past this wreckage and play up to its ability. Frankly, fairness to the manager is about the least important consideration right now, IMHO.

 

Greg.

[Bucky Rules]

And as I have stated before, the decision was not irrational. It was just bad.

Well... I've lived thru irrational. A bad decision is a matter of opinion. I'm willing to live with a manager that makes decisions that I believe are bad - because I allow for the fact that he may be right and I may be wr... wro... something other than right. It's the unexplainable decisions that I have much more problem with.

 

He doesn't make decisions without looking at situational splits. The guy recites the numbers in the post-game pressers like they're written on the back of his hand. He makes his decisions for a reason. That's all I can ask for. Because in the margins of what I think is the right call and what he thinks is the right call is probably 0-1 wins in either direction over the course of the year. If I had to bet, I would bet that he comes out on the plus side of that.

[Ennder]

22 AB's is not a funk and Jenkins played just fine the next game. Jenkins has over an .850 OPS against Dempster so those numbers are just fine. The choice by Yost was horrible, there is really no reason to try to support it.

It was 38 ABs, and he was 0-4 with 2 Ks the next night.

Its not 38 AB's, If you go back 22 AB's jenkins had just come off 11 games started with at least 1 hit in all but 1 of them. Jenkins took three 0 for's a week ago and that is supposed to mean he is slumping basically. If that is how the manager is running the team he is not doing a good job. But sure I'd much rather have mr .550 OPS vs righties Mench in there than Jenkins who has a career .886 OPS vs righties, an .831 OPS this year against them and an .802 OPS since the all star break which apparently means he's scuffling.

 

 

Between Shouse not facing Jones, Jenkins not facing Dempster and just about anyone but Aquino not facing Pence Yost failed to put us in position to win at least 3 times within one week. This team would be in 1st place with an even average manager on the year, if we had say LaRussa I bet we are 5 or 6 games up, but instead we have Yost who has blundered his way to a terrible second half.

[sheethead]

And as I have stated before, the decision was not irrational. It was just bad.

Well... I've lived thru irrational. A bad decision is a matter of opinion. I'm willing to live with a manager that makes decisions that I believe are bad - because I allow for the fact that he may be right and I may be wr... wro... something other than right. It's the unexplainable decisions that I have much more problem with.

 

He doesn't make decisions without looking at situational splits. The guy recites the numbers in the post-game pressers like they're written on the back of his hand. He makes his decisions for a reason. That's all I can ask for. Because in the margins of what I think is the right call and what he thinks is the right call is probably 0-1 wins in either direction over the course of the year. If I had to bet, I would bet that he comes out on the plus side of that.

 

I see your point of rational vs. irrational decisions. However, what short of pinch hitting Turnbow for Mench would be irrational? Yost can rationalize anything with his train of thought. The bottom line is he DID NOT rationalize his decision to stick with Mench with stats, but rather with flow of the game. Sure he knew the splits (this is how he is keeping his job currently), but he chose to not use those splits in his decision making process on that occurance. Not sure I have seen a blatently irrational decision by a manager ever. Please give me an example of one if you have it.

[logan82]

Not fair, perhaps, but a good idea, because the team next year needs to get past this wreckage and play up to its ability.

Is this team really playing below expectations? I think most people had them at 82-85 wins this year. 82 wins would be 2 games over .500 and they are only on game short of that right now. They just need a stretch where they win 8 of 10 and they are right where people expected them to be.

[Bucky Rules]

you seem to be arguing, categorically, that Yost does nothing systematically wrong: he never plays hunches; he always has a reason for what he does that's as good as any other rational person's reason for doing otherwise. (That's based on your recent posts; if I missed a qualification earlier, please correct me; I'm not out to sully your good name.) As a centrist on this issue (admittedly a rare posture for me), I just don't find that view plausible.

Why is that view not plausible? In a world of a million statistical analyses, certainly there is more than one way to interpret results. The Mench/Jenkins situation seems to me to be the perfect example. Yes... career numbers suggest that Jenkins was the better play. But, what part does recency play in that situation?

I'm not even arguing that Jenkins wasn't the better play. I just think you can make a case for the way that Yost went about it. It's a close call. As so many of his decisions that get completely ripped are. The fact of the matter is, he was in a lose/lose situation. And, of course it doesn't help that Mench grounds out weakly on the first pitch to make him look even worse.

 

 

More supporters now -- like you, in your recent posts at least -- seem to be making categorical, reflexive defenses, arguing that there isn't even another side to the debate, that no reasonable person could find serious fault with Yost.

It is not my intention to say that. You can find fault with Yost. Because you can believe that given all the facts that he made a bad decision. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I thought that I had stated that clearly through several of my posts. I have much more of a problem with the fact that people seem to see this as black and white when there are a thousand shades of gray. There are shades of gray with the Mench call. And there are shades of gray with the Aquino call.

 

 

Even if Yost is a genius who has suffered the worst run of unpredictable bad luck in the history of sports, firing him may still be a good idea. Not fair, perhaps, but a good idea, because the team next year needs to get past this wreckage and play up to its ability. Frankly, fairness to the manager is about the least important consideration right now, IMHO.

I can't find much to disagree with here. If we don't win the division, he very well could get fired. And that's life. He'll go on and possibly manage again - or maybe not. And we'll find another manager to abuse, because frankly... geniuses don't reside in baseball dugouts. I think he's a good manager. But if Doug Melvin deems it that Yost should go, I have trust that Melvin will find another good manager. I'm not joined at the hip to Ned Yost. I simply think he takes much, much, much more abuse than is warranted.

[Bucky Rules]

Its not 38 AB's, If you go back 22 AB's jenkins had just come off 11 games started with at least 1 hit in all but 1 of them.

Now you're not only telling me how to interpret the stats, you're telling me which stats mean more. It was 38ABs. In ABs 23 thru 38, he was 3-16 with no walks. A whopping .188 OBP. That doesn't qualify as much better than the following 22 ABs in my book.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Some people have absolutely no willingness to see the shades of gray when it comes to Yost.

 

This team would be in 1st place with an even average manager on the year, if we had say LaRussa I bet we are 5 or 6 games up, but instead we have Yost who has blundered his way to a terrible second half.

I really think you over-estimate the impact of a manager's decisions on the outcome of games. There is no way that LaRussa makes up for 7 games on a manager whose team hasn't completely quit on him.

[sheethead]

I agree some people overestimate the impact of a manager with regards to wins and losses. I agree some people underestimate the impact of a manager with regards to wins an losses. I believe Ned Yost, over the course of mismanaging more games than I can count on two hands, has cost the club at the very least 3 wins this year. He might not have been able to win them all, but if he would do his job and put the club in the best position to win every game, there is no doubt in my mind the Brewers would have at least 3 more wins this year and be in first place still.

[gregmag]

Bucky, those are good points, extraordinarily well made IMHO, and I withdraw my charge that your defense of Yost lacks nuance. I still think you're digging in harder for Yost than his pattern of decisions warrants, but everybody deserves good representation.

 

Greg.

[RU Rah Rah]

What makes him "good," exactly?

That, my friend, is pointless to get into. Because everything that you believe he does wrong with game management, I believe is a complete mischaracterization of him. It's simply a difference of opinion.

No, I meant the question at face value. What makes him "good"? I am willing to listen to an affirmative argument for him.

 

[Bucky Rules]

I see your point of rational vs. irrational decisions. However, what short of pinch hitting Turnbow for Mench would be irrational? Yost can rationalize anything with his train of thought. The bottom line is he DID NOT rationalize his decision to stick with Mench with stats, but rather with flow of the game. Sure he knew the splits (this is how he is keeping his job currently), but he chose to not use those splits in his decision making process on that occurance.

He didn't use the flow-of-the-game as the reason. He said that Counsell was 1-10, Jenkins was 4-17, and since those options weren't compelling, he decided to go with Mench over a guy coming off the bench cold. So, he DID rationalize his decision with stats. Although he could've done it even better by stating Jenkins recent numbers to show his scuffling. Maybe he didn't want to throw Jenks under the bus with those numbers, or maybe he didn't feel the need to explain it any further, or maybe that didn't even enter his thought process -- I don't know. But, he rarely - if ever - offers up "I had a hunch" type reasons without any supporting evidence.

Not sure I have seen a blatently irrational decision by a manager ever. Please give me an example of one if you have it.

Do you remember Davey Lopes? If you want one more recently, go check out the last time that Mike Scoscia bunted with a guy on 2nd and nobody out before the 8th inning. I'm sure it won't take you long to find that scenario. I'd be willing to bet it happened within the last week. Yet Scoscia is everyone's manager of the year. It just goes to show you how meaningless game management decisions really are. This guy hands out outs like candy, yet his team is cruising. Maybe that's more ignorance than irrationality. I don't know.

[Bucky Rules]

No, I meant the question at face value. What makes him "good"? I am willing to listen to an affirmative argument for him.

To me, the most important aspect of managing a team is just that -- managing a team. Handling personnel is one of the most difficult things you have to do run a successful organization. He has shown in his years here that he has the respect of his players, and they are willing to follow his leadership. People tend to pooh-pooh that quality. But, there is a lot to be said for a strong leader. A perfect example of his leadership is how he handled a potential blow-up in spring training over Jenkins and Mench "platooning". That was a disaster waiting to happen. He nipped it in the bud, and we haven't heard boo from either player on that topic since March - even though they have essentially been a platoon.

He doesn't put up with a lack of effort. Alex Sanchez was his 1st centerfielder that, at the time, many believed was a talented guy. Yost didn't like his attitude, gave him several opportunities to improve, and then he was gone. Yet he keeps the respect of the players by not making his unhappiness public knowledge. A couple of years ago, he had a problem with some lackadaisical effort from Bill Hall that resulted in him sitting for a couple of games. Yost never discussed it publicly -- although there was widespread speculation that he never confirmed. IMO, the same thing may have happened earlier with Johnny Estrada on that ground ball that he never ran out. Yost sat him -- claiming injury that may or may not have been the case.

 

The point is, he goes out of his way to protect the image of his players. He defended Geoff Jenkins to the grave last year until he just couldn't do it any more, and then still praised him for being a real professional about the situation. And to have Jenkins handle that the way he did, says a lot about him, but also a lot about his respect for Yost.

 

What some people view as a fault is his patience. I think its another of his redeeming qualities. The confidence that he showed in the early struggles of JJ Hardy and Rickie Weeks was a very important part of their development, I believe. Some guys would've cared more about winning as many games as possible for their own sake. But, he sees the big picture. Even the patience he showed with Jenkins last year. It didn't pay dividends until injuries forced Jenks back in in September, but Jenks never quit on him. And I think the rope he gives guys goes a long way towards keeping them happy.

 

You may view all of this stuff as mamby pamby, but I'm telling you that leadership is SOOOOOOOOOOOO much more important than game management. It's not even close.

[logan82]

What makes him "good," exactly?

That, my friend, is pointless to get into. Because everything that you believe he does wrong with game management, I believe is a complete mischaracterization of him. It's simply a difference of opinion.

No, I meant the question at face value. What makes him "good"? I am willing to listen to an affirmative argument for him.

 

 

What makes any manager good? It is far easier to blame and criticize a manager than it is to come up with concrete evidence that a manager is good. Just about anything that you can say good about a manager can be argued away with either, "he got lucky" or "that is what he should have done". The only thing I can say is that he seems to be well liked by his players. You saw that Jenkins was upset with being taken out of the game, but you didn't hear anything in the press about him being upset with Yost.

You can say this manager is good or that one is bad because of their record, but I still believe that is comes down to players. Is lou Pinella good because he had a .512 win% with Seattle or does he suck because he had a .412 win% with Tampa Bay?

[Jay Zahn]

Logan3825: I'd move Turnbow to #1 since he was pitching to the bottom of the order, got the first guy out, and I think went to 0-2 on a couple of those guys. What a meltdown in that situation. But nice list.

[logan82]

I think I put them in the order they happened in the game. I do agree that Turnbow should be put #1 on a list ranking them as reasons. I did make the mistake of saying 7th inning, but meant 8th inning. Turnbow going out and blowing it is a case, in my opinion, where Yost made the right move and it backfired. Just goes to show how you can make the right move and still have it blow up in your face.

[sheethead]

He didn't use the flow-of-the-game as the reason. He said that Counsell was 1-10, Jenkins was 4-17, and since those options weren't compelling, he decided to go with Mench over a guy coming off the bench cold. So, he DID rationalize his decision with stats. Although he could've done it even better by stating Jenkins recent numbers to show his scuffling. Maybe he didn't want to throw Jenks under the bus with those numbers, or maybe he didn't feel the need to explain it any further, or maybe that didn't even enter his thought process -- I don't know. But, he rarely - if ever - offers up "I had a hunch" type reasons without any supporting evidence.

 

 

Do you remember Davey Lopes? If you want one more recently, go check out the last time that Mike Scoscia bunted with a guy on 2nd and nobody out before the 8th inning. I'm sure it won't take you long to find that scenario. I'd be willing to bet it happened within the last week. Yet Scoscia is everyone's manager of the year. It just goes to show you how meaningless game management decisions really are. This guy hands out outs like candy, yet his team is cruising. Maybe that's more ignorance than irrationality. I don't know.

 

I am not sure what to respond to this. Or he could have used career or even current year stats... but that would have been embarrassing to him. How about the game earlier this year MA asked Ned before the game why he had Mench in the lineup against the righty... Yost was going with the hot hand.

 

What Brewer fan doesnt remember Davey Lopes? I'm starting to feel condescended upon. Where is the irrational decision? Oh, now I have read the rest and am starting to get a good read as to where this is going... nowhere.

 

Mike Scoscia putting the bunt on with with a guy on 2nd and nobody out before the 8th inning? What is so blatently irrational about that? I don't get it. Is this really an irrational strategy? If so then its new to me.

 

As for Scoscia being ignorant... I'm not a big fan of his, but he has a World Series ring so I guess he's not that dumb - or maybe it was all the rally monkey, right. His overall talent level this year is very close to the Brewers (only with less offense and a better bullpen), but he manages to not make as many dumb decisions. You can question his strategy all you want, but he is not the type of manager to make the same dumb mistake 2, 3, 4, 15 times before he changes his pattern. Mike Scoscia for Ned Yost? You bet!!!!