Ned Yost Yay or Nay thread: Hardball Times rips Yost

[Ennder]

So if Im' reading that right if Yost goes out and does something off the wall like play 5 IF's or something then he's a good manager? I'm kind of dubious about that.

 

I just don't care one way or other myself but seems like most of the complaints about him are just people getting frustrated and trying to find someone to blame. A large percentage of the complaints about Yost are so off the wall that I just sit back and laugh at them.

[Brewer Fever]

No one said a change in the way things are done has to be off the wall. Innovation and creativity does not automatically equal off the wall. Sometimes you make changes in your approach because it makes sense. Did some of those things like working on bunting until a player is exhausted or having Prince learn how to slide sound off the wall? Would sending a message to your own team and the opposition by plunking one their batters after Prince has been hit for the 10th time be off the wall? And it's odd that you laugh at the complaints some have against Yost, some of which are backed statistically and with research, yet say nothing for the fact that the only thing Yost supporters ever say in his defense is that he's not the one making mistakes on the field.

[Ennder]

If someone wants to post a nice statistically complaint about Yost (not really sure how you would though) I'd be fine with it. Its the people who complain about the lineups, the ones who say every time a run is scored its the bullpen change to blame, the ones who say the team always collapses in the 2nd half etc that I tend about.

 

Like I said I could really care less about Yost, he doesn't stand out at all so he's just a guy. We can replace him and we might get someone better which would be nice, but we could easily get someone worse too. I don't blame him for this rough patch though, the pitchers aren't doing well, the defense stinks and the offense isn't hitting, I doubt thats his fault just like the 24-10 start wasn't because of him.

[Brian the Automator]

It's not that he DOES these things too much or not enough, it's the fact that these are the only things he can hang his hat on. The problem is any Tom, Richard, or Harry off the street can change a lineup or give a guy a day off. A manger worth keeping makes changes outside of the box that correct or lessen deficiencies. Good managers are innovative and come up with new ideas that are implemented and repeated by others for decades to follow. When was the last time you heard or read about something that Yost was having the players do before a game or in practice that made you stop and think, "Wow that's a pretty neat idea, maybe it will pay off. Or wow, he changed their curfew on the road, maybe they'll start playing better. Oh really, he's wearing out Rickie and Corey before games having them work on their bunting. He's got Prince working on his sliding, that's a good idea."

 

I'm not sold on Mike McCarthy but when I hear about the things he's implemented in the kicking competition I'm impressed. You have to try things, tinker with things outside of just filling out a lineup card.

 

I seem to remember when the Yost/Maddux duo first arrived, almost every new pitcher was being taught a new pitch. You don't hear much of that anymore. Hell, I'd try having the players pitch tents in a ballroom at road hotels if I thought it would shake them out of their road woes. They really can't play any worse. Maybe a night stuck sleeping in a tent would make a road game seem like a release rather than a trip to the dentist. The point is try something. Be the manager who addresses shortcomings aggressively rather than the token lineup change or saying that they're big leaguers they should already know how to do this stuff.

 

You never hear Yost supporters giving him props for a managerial tactic used or change in the way the Brewers do things. The only argument you ever hear for Yost is that he's not the one swinging that bat or he's not throwing the pitches. That's really no argument in defense of Yost at all. You could say the same thing if they rolled a corpse out there to manage the game.

The reason you never hear Yost supporters giving people props for a managerial tactic is because all the props go to the player. That's just the nature of the business. When a pinch-hitter jacks a homer, yay for the PH. When a reliever comes in and nails down an inning, yay for the reliever. It's the same for any manager. Only when some screwball like LaRussa comes in and bats the pitcher 8th and it pays off do you hear that the guy's a "mad genius". It takes a pretty significant and unorthodox managerial move to get props.... Either that, or it takes the team firing on all cylidners for an extended period of time.

The opposite is true as well. You can't just always say that "Yost isn't swinging the bat" or "Yost isn't throwing the ball", because on-the-field results are the manager's responsibility too. Now, maybe the team's just not as talented as well all thought when they went 24-10 and looked to be the greatest thing since oxygen. Like most things, the truth is in between.

There are precious few managers who do what you suggest, and come up with groundbreaking ideas to jumpstart a team. What managers today have engineered concepts that will be copied or decades to come? I can't think of anyone on the Earl Weaver or Whitey Herzog level in recent years that we can say this about. If that's the kind of criteria we use to evaluate management, they might as well just take any schmuck off the message board with "outside the box" thinking to try concepts that will more than likely fail.

 

[Brewer Fever]

I agree with both of you on two general points. Yost is just a guy. He's nothing special and he's defintely been given a fair amount of time to prove his worth. He's been given more time than a lot of managers who were proven to be just "guys". And Brian is right on when he says that precious few managers have a great deal of lasting impact. And just because it's hard to unearth one who does, doesn't mean you give up trying. But there are managers in the game that are better than average. You do hear of other managers coming up with new approaches in an attempt to correct glaring and unexplained weaknesses. And I guess I just believe when a window of opportunity opens to field a team with talent capable of doing special things, you decide whether your leader is just a guy, and if he is, you go out and try to get someone better.

 

Personally, I think it's time to get a manager with experience who has won before. The guy I wanted when Yost was hired was Leyland. Maybe he wasn't interested, who knows. I don't remember hearing if Melvin put out any feelers for him. The guy who fits the mold best right now to me is Tom Kelly. Proven to be a better than average manager. One would think he'd be enticed by the talent in place, plus there is no team in baseball closer to Minneapolis where either you'd think has still has his roots, or at minimum did not mind the locale. For once open up the wallet and bring in a manager who has proven he can lead a team to more wins than losses. Throw enough money in front of him and who knows.

 

I'm not totally entralled with the Davey Johnsons and Bobby Valentines out there, but I'd pick having either of them as the Brewers manager next year over Yost in a heartbeat.

[Brian the Automator]

Let's try to keep the thread on-topic, there's already another thread for replacement ideas, and I don't want to have good ideas here cross-posted and cross-discussed.

[Brewer Fever]

Point taken. My first paragraph in that last post is what I want to emphasize.

[HebrewHammer]

Yost doesn't tinker with his lineup more than anyone else does. He has used about the same number of lineups as other teams and less than many of them including multiple 1st place teams. Complaints like that one and the fact he rests guys too much (if anything he rests them too little) are pretty much off base. His bullpen usage is questionable for sure but not nearly as bad as people think it is since at least 50% of the complaints are pretty much off base.

 

He's not a great manager, he's not a terrible manager. I don't mind one bit if he gets fired if we miss the playoffs but don't think it will magically make us better next year. Its just as likely we get someone worse as someone better. For most fans it will just be a new name to complain about.

Are you considering the semantics of that data though? Switching one guy out for another (a platoon) and giving guys rotational days off will result in different lineups. But this is typical fare for a baseball manager. It's a common approach to managing players over a long season. Moving guys around in the order a lot, rarely keeping a solid lineup (platoons and typical off day rotations) seems more like Yost trying to get lucky. He's trying to find luck instead of create it by implementing solid baseball practices other managers use to keep a team fresh. This is based on yearlong observation.

 

His players don't know what days they'll play, where they'll bat, etc, as an effect of this mismanagement.

 

You're right that he uses as many "different lineups", statistically, as other managers. The syntax is right on. What you potentially fail to take from those numbers are the semantics of the them. Those numbers are fairly meaningless when the makeup of the lineup differences isn't taken into account.

 

I think it's fair to complain about such things. especially when one day all of a sudden 2 call ups are the #1 and #2 batters with the 3 and 4 switched around for no apparent reason. Yost has made some bizarre lineup adjustments.

[Ennder]

Even that is normal, just go look at the Indians lineups on the year (another team I follow closely). Martinez and Hafner swap around #3 and #4 a lot and even Garko and Blake are in th emix. Sizemore has been #1 all year as a very strong leadoff hitter, Blake has mostly been #2. The rest of the lineup seems to change on a daily basis.

[HebrewHammer]

But does it make any sense at all to swap Braun and Fielder? Any?

 

The only thing I can think of is Yost wants some type of l/r/l/r/l/r..., etc lineup. And that because teams are likely to put a lefty in against Fielder, that lefty might have to face Braun. Before they could pitch righty to Braun and lefty to Fielder. To do that with the new lineup they would have to use an extra pitcher.

 

But that can't possibly outweigh the other facts:

 

1) Their previous spots in the lineup were working. They might have been the only 2 things working day to day on the offense. And now he wants to change it?

 

2) Fielder is much slower than Braun. You now have limited what Braun can do on the bases. If they both single we have guys on first and second. Before, there was at least a chance Braun would be on second before Fielders hit and players would be on 1st and 3rd or potentially 1st and a run scored. If Braun gets on base and Fielder doubles, Braun will likely score. Not the case for Fielder.

 

Point 1 is the one that bothers me the most. Why brak what is working. Especially when it's the only thing working?

[craigharmann]

I'm torn. Yay, nay, yay, nay. Part of my torn-ness is that these many of these guys are young and are going to have ups and downs. Last night, with the worse than little league play, Braun threw the ball without looking. Part of it was because of the shift that put everyone else out of position. Then Gross decided he was going to try to make a play on Griff and was off balance when he threw, making that an absolutely abysmal throw. However, getting these guys to play IS the responsibility of the manager, and it's obvious that things are getting worse as opposed to better. The biggest thing offensively was that earlier in the season, and when the team was doing well, they really were driving the ball up the middle and to the opposite field. Last night, it was swinging at the first pitch almost every time and trying to pull EVERYTHING. As for Yost, when he first started, he kept going on about gamers, battlers, etc. etc.. all that means is these guys don't have a whole lot of talent, but they're giving their best. Now, the challenge is, we have a team that HAS talent. How do you, Ned, get these guys to put that gamer, battler attitude together with that talent? I haven't seen it. That's why I keep going back and forth. Would a new voice make a difference? Maybe. Would another year of this team growing together make a difference? Possibly. I just don't know. That's why I'm not in charge.

[Ennder]

2) Fielder is much slower than Braun. You now have limited what Braun can do on the bases

 

I'd draw the opposite conclusion. There is no reason for Braun to be stealing when Fielder is up next, but with Menchkins batting behind him I'd have no problems sending him.

 

I do agree with you that there was no good reason to swap them in the order, seemed like he just did it to make a move kind of like LaRussa batting the pitcher #8. I just don't think the lineup changes any more than it does for most teams. A few teams like the Red Sox and Yankees have more veteran teams and go with a slightly more static lineup but most teams trot out 3 or 4 different lineups a week and very few are set 1-5 for any chunk of time.

[Brian the Automator]

But does it make any sense at all to swap Braun and Fielder? Any?

 

The only thing I can think of is Yost wants some type of l/r/l/r/l/r..., etc lineup. And that because teams are likely to put a lefty in against Fielder, that lefty might have to face Braun. Before they could pitch righty to Braun and lefty to Fielder. To do that with the new lineup they would have to use an extra pitcher.

 

But that can't possibly outweigh the other facts:

 

1) Their previous spots in the lineup were working. They might have been the only 2 things working day to day on the offense. And now he wants to change it?

 

2) Fielder is much slower than Braun. You now have limited what Braun can do on the bases. If they both single we have guys on first and second. Before, there was at least a chance Braun would be on second before Fielders hit and players would be on 1st and 3rd or potentially 1st and a run scored. If Braun gets on base and Fielder doubles, Braun will likely score. Not the case for Fielder.

 

Point 1 is the one that bothers me the most. Why brak what is working. Especially when it's the only thing working?

The reasoning was that Braun's ability to swipe bases were neutralized by Prince's home run power.

 

[JohnBriggs12]

Ned makes some good moves and some bad moves.

 

It's no longer though a question of his strategic abilities or lack thereof. It's primarily the fact that he's had 5 years and it's time for a change when all he can point to is one .500 season. Add in the fact that in 2 of those 5 seasons, he's overseen collapses that are historic.

 

A new voice, a new presence in the clubhouse is needed to if anything, shake things up.

 

If players are to be held accountable, then managers and coaches have to also.

[DougJones43]

Brian the Automator wrote:

The reasoning was that Braun's ability to swipe bases were neutralized by Prince's home run power.

 

I agree with this reasoning and switching those two in the batting order. However, Ned's bizarre decisions seem to be interfering with the actual execution of this idea. For example, in yesterday's game, Braun was on 1st with Jenkins at the plate and no outs. Ned waited until the count was 1-2, and then sent Braun to steal. It's almost a guarantee that on 1-2, Jenkins is going to get something off the plate and away. Predictably, that's exactly what the pitcher threw, and the catcher had an easy throw to nail Braun at 2nd base. That pretty much killed the inning right there. Other managers might have attempted a steal with Braun, but probably not in that exact count/situation, and that can be the difference between a stolen base (guy on 2nd, no outs), and a momentum killer (nobody on, 1 out).

 

I know that is only one minor example, but it just seems like Ned makes head-scratching decisions like that way too often. He tries stealing, bunting, hit-and-runs, etc. as much as any other manager, but he doesn't seem to have the instincts or intelligence to pick proper players or situations to do so. I think that's part of the reason that those things fail so often when he calls them, while other managers seem to have more success with similar tactics. On a day-to-day basis, those decisions seems small, but I really feel like over the course of a season it adds up.

[brettac1]

I'm not really yay or nay. Unless it's someone like a LaRussa or Cox, I don't really think any manangers make that much of a difference. Yost doesn't strike me as any different than 20 something other guys that do the same job. I think Melvin likes him, though, so I think he stays for the foreseeable future. GM's just have way more influence over how a team does, record-wise, since the guys who do actually have a say over how the team performs (the players) were acquired by the GM.

[billyhallfan]

you know, this topic has been beaten to death, we all have our opinions and no matter what reasoning anyone says, considers, or brings to the table, none of us are going to change our opinions, it is the same way with the controversy surrounding Bonds, I just hope that Milwaukee fans don't become like Cubs' did last year when they booed Baker at Wrigley, that was ugly.

 

you can't blame everything on the manager, i'm a yost supporter, but if someone wants to make a valid point, bring up his record in the second half, not the errors or pitching changes.

[RU Rah Rah]

What I sort of fear happening is a third-place, 84-win season. Despite the gigantic choke job over the second half of the season, this might be perceived as being just enough "progress" to keep retaining him.

[brettac1]

He gets credit for the "choke", but not the exceeding of expectations in the first half?

[HebrewHammer]

He gets credit for the "choke", but not the exceeding of expectations in the first half?

 

No one ever said manager analysis would be fair. Plus, you've probably heard the saying "What have you done for me lately?". Well, it applies here.

[MNBrew]

Basing a decision on whether or not to fire Yost on the fact that Yost has had 5 years and only one non-losing season seems to miss the point that, realistically, it was going to take at least 5 years for the Brewers to have a chance to become contenders. They were totally horrid when he was hired, the team was pretty much starting over, the farm system resurrection was underway but hardly complete, the best position player prospects were in the low minors, and the Brewers had practically ZERO credibility with players that had the choice of whether or not to choose Milwaukee as their next home park. Barring a series of unlikely miracles, turnarounds from that low a point don't happen quickly at all.

 

The Brewers are at a point where they should start being good. And overall, they've been average. So has the rest of the division, or worse, so the Brewers are still in the thick of the division race. They could still pull it together and have a good chance of winning. . . . The expectations should continue to elevate over the next 3-4 seasons as the core of the team matures and gains experience. This season is not a one-year window. They should be at the beginning of a several-year window. Yost has done a lot of good things to get them to where they are. The only reasons, I think, to possibly consider firing Yost are a) if the total nosedive doesn't end until October, and b) if Yost can't show the signs of growth he needs to in order to show that he can do a better job of getting his team OUT of its freefalls.

 

Thus, I guess I just strongly disagree with the idea that Yost should be fired because he's been here 5 years and hasn't won. It's a true point, granted. But I think it's an oversimplification.

[Eddiehitsthefoulpole]

I posted earlier that I thought Ned should go. I just want to add that I am looking at a glass half-empty. Right now, I think that the Brewers will finish with a losing record this year. This looks like a train wreck to me. If the Brewers stay in contention, then I think he showed something and he should probably.

[DougJones43]

He gets credit for the "choke", but not the exceeding of expectations in the first half?

 

I think he received a decent amount of praise for the team's impressive first half performance. It's not really worth much though if you end up letting it all slip away during the second half. I mean, the overall result so far has been a pretty mediocre team, and how much credit does manager really deserve for their team accomplishing that? Mediocre is where the Brewers were 2 years ago. With all of the talent that has come up through the system (including an MVP and a ROY candidate), I don't think expecting a little more progress as a team is unfair.

[tigerbrew]

Like it or dislike it, the manager's track record is probably the biggest indicator of his performance and quality.

[Brian the Automator]

Like it or dislike it, the manager's track record is probably the biggest indicator of his performance and quality.

I don't know how you can evaluate the manager's winning percentage independently of available talent.