Joe Girardi is a good guy, but he doesn't exactly have a lot of managerial experience. Sure he won the manager of the year, and he managed to win 78 games with an overachieving Marlins team. Still, that's only 78 games -- about 20 games below expectations in New York.
Granted, Girardi has a lot more talent to work with now. Is it his kind of talent? What I mean is, Girardi squeezed everything out of a Marlins team with an average age under 26. His experience is primarily with motivating young players. The oldest position player on the team with more than 100 at bats was Joe Borchard at 30, and he didn't even have 150 ABs. Next in line? Backup outfielder Alfredo Amezaga at age 28.
Last year the Yankees' average age was nearly 31. Cano and Cabrera are young. All the other position players are at least 30. Not only does Girardi not have a lot of experience generally, his meager experience was with a completely different kind of team in a completely different kind of market. Is the theory that the Yankees are getting old, and they want Girardi around for the young players?
I'm not knocking the hiring of Girardi, but I expected an experienced coaching staff to surround him. Here's who he has instead:
1st Base Coach: Tony Pena -- has managerial experience (if you count the Royals), and is the incumbent. So I guess this is where the experience is for Girardi. Question: What is a catcher doing coaching runners at first base? He stole 80 bases in 18 seasons (and was caught 63 times). I think Pena makes a better bench coach. Wonder if he can still throw from his knees.
3rd Base Coach: Bobby Meacham -- coached for Girardi in Florida, and is a Yankee, having spent all of his 6 seasons with New York. He was a very good baserunner and an average infielder, so he's not such a bad choice. I might swap out Pena and Meacham, though. Meacham would be helpful for steals. Pena, as a former manager, might be more suited to the dignified third base spot (or the aforementioned bench coach).
Hitting Coach: Kevin Long -- another incumbent who seems to be competent, since the Yankees hitters are not too shabby. I'm not convinced A-Rod, Jeter, Giambi, Matsui and Posada need a hitting coach at this point, much less one who never played in the majors. Where's the credibility? Maybe Mattingly was really coaching the hitters.
Pitching Coach: Dave Eiland -- I don't know a lot about his coaching experience, but he wasn't much of a pitcher. He started 70 games in the majors -- basically a little more than two seasons' worth as a 5th or spot starter. His ERA was basically about 25% worse than the league for his career. Of course there are lots of pitching coaches without distinguished playing records, but they don't coach the Yankees and work for an inexperienced manager. Let's face it, Girardi is the real pitching coach here. Eiland pitched 373 innings. Girardi caught pitchers for about 10,000 innings.
Bullpen Coach: Mike Harkey -- a failed prospect from the Cubs system but coached for Girardi in Florida. Harkey had lots of potential as a starting pitcher, but could never stay healthy. He pitched for 8 years and had a grand total of 27 relief appearances. What's he doing coaching a bullpen? (I can hear Harry Caray's voice slurring Mike Harkey's name even as I type this).
Bench Coach: Rob Thomson -- First of all, why do teams need a bench coach? I understood it when a grizzled vet like Don Zimmer with 60 years of baseball experience was whispering in the manager's ear. But Rob Thomson? He didn't even play in the majors. Is this the guy who is going to coach when Girardi gets thrown out of games? When I first saw this I was hoping it was former Giant second baseman Robby Thompson, but alas...
I might be wrong -- sorta hope I am -- but I don't think this coaching team is going to last long.
Showing posts with label Managers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Managers. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Beckett in Game 5
Why on Earth is Francona sending Beckett out to pitch the 8th inning? Here are the facts:
1. Beckett has already thrown 96 pitches.
2. Boston leads 7-1.
3. Beckett sat on the bench for 20 minutes while Boston was at bat.
4. Boston has the best setup man in the AL in Okajima.
5. Boston has one of the best closers in MLB in Papelbon.
6. Beckett will not pitch Game 7, no matter what.
Only #6 would be an excuse to run Beckett back out there, but what about injury? Becket has been known to stiffen up, particularly his back. Why send your best player out to the mound when his arm is cold and at least somewhat fatigued, when you have a six run lead and a great bullpen?
Could it be that this is a game that does not fit the paradigm of setup man in the 8th and closer in the 9th because no one can get the save, and therefore like most MLB managers, Francona is just lost?
1. Beckett has already thrown 96 pitches.
2. Boston leads 7-1.
3. Beckett sat on the bench for 20 minutes while Boston was at bat.
4. Boston has the best setup man in the AL in Okajima.
5. Boston has one of the best closers in MLB in Papelbon.
6. Beckett will not pitch Game 7, no matter what.
Only #6 would be an excuse to run Beckett back out there, but what about injury? Becket has been known to stiffen up, particularly his back. Why send your best player out to the mound when his arm is cold and at least somewhat fatigued, when you have a six run lead and a great bullpen?
Could it be that this is a game that does not fit the paradigm of setup man in the 8th and closer in the 9th because no one can get the save, and therefore like most MLB managers, Francona is just lost?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Hurdle as Tactician
Clint Hurdle makes a lot of questionable moves. One of them was pulling Jeff Francis and allowing Matt Herges to face Chris Young.
In Hurdle's favor: Francis has already thrown a full game. Plus, traditional wisdom says you want a right handed pitcher facing the right handed batter.
Against Hurdle: Francis is a much better pitcher than Herges. He's a Cy Young candidate. Herges is a journeyman.
More importantly, check the stats Clint! Chris Young does not hit lefties well, and his power numbers are much better against righties. He hit home runs against lefties half as often as he hit homers against righties.
Hurdle got away with it because Young only walked, and Drew then flied out. I'm not sure how many of these Hurdle can get away with in the postseason, though.
In Hurdle's favor: Francis has already thrown a full game. Plus, traditional wisdom says you want a right handed pitcher facing the right handed batter.
Against Hurdle: Francis is a much better pitcher than Herges. He's a Cy Young candidate. Herges is a journeyman.
More importantly, check the stats Clint! Chris Young does not hit lefties well, and his power numbers are much better against righties. He hit home runs against lefties half as often as he hit homers against righties.
Hurdle got away with it because Young only walked, and Drew then flied out. I'm not sure how many of these Hurdle can get away with in the postseason, though.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Bud Black on Milton Bradley
Bud Black was acting very strangely after last night's game in which Bradley was ejected and hurt his knee when Black wrestled him to the ground. Bradley is out for the season.
I watched Black's press conference.
First, Black said he didn't know what the conversation between Bradley and umpire Mike Winters was about. That has to be a lie. He's right there in the dugout, and the argument went on for 3-4 minutes at first base. In addition, he consulted with first base coach Bobby Meacham, who heard every word of the Bradley/Winters argument. Moreover, are you telling me that after the game Black did not talk to Bradley at all? Wouldn't that be strange behavior, considering he is arguably the best hitter on your team? If you were the manager, wouldn't you be curious?
A few minutes later a reporter asked if Bradley was upset about Jeff Francis' pickoff move, and Black emphatically said it had nothing to do with Francis. Oh, Bud, I thought you didn't know what it was about.
Second, a reporter asked if this is the first time he has been in a situation where he had to tackle a player. Black answered with a clipped "No." He did not elaborate.
Third, a different reporter asked if it was the first time he tackled a player who went down and didn't get up again. This time, Black said "I can't remember. Tackle? I was trying to pull Milton away from the argument. That's what I was trying to do. Y'know, I was trying to pull Milton away from the confrontation. I wasn't trying to 'tackle' him."
The reporter said, "it just looked that way." Black said "Did it look as though I was trying to pull him away?" The reporter said "it looked like you were trying to pull him away," and Black interjected "okay" and turned away from the reporter, ignoring the rest of the question.
Black had no problem with the word "tackle" the first time it was used, but then got defensive. And he can't remember if he ever tackled a player on the field and injured him? I've watched a lot of baseball, and I've never seen anything like that. You'd think Black could remember.
Fourth, a reporter said "is it a knee injury?" Black said "Yes. Somethin', yeah, I think. We don't know if that was a pre-existing injury or not." Black doesn't even know what part of his star outfielder is injured? And he suggests that Bradley has a pre-existing knee injury, when it is clear the injury was sustained when Black wrestled him to the ground? It's like Black is afraid he'll get blamed.
He was not confused about Mike Cameron's injury, by contrast.
Finally, a reporter said "Where do you go from here?" referring to coping with the situation. Black looked off to his left and said "Uh, where do we go, San Francisco?" A team official said "San Francisco" and Black said "Yeah." He was being cute with his answer, of course, but when you watch the press conference, it is clear that Black did not know who their next opponent was and needed help remembering. In the middle of a pennant race?
I watched Black's press conference.
First, Black said he didn't know what the conversation between Bradley and umpire Mike Winters was about. That has to be a lie. He's right there in the dugout, and the argument went on for 3-4 minutes at first base. In addition, he consulted with first base coach Bobby Meacham, who heard every word of the Bradley/Winters argument. Moreover, are you telling me that after the game Black did not talk to Bradley at all? Wouldn't that be strange behavior, considering he is arguably the best hitter on your team? If you were the manager, wouldn't you be curious?
A few minutes later a reporter asked if Bradley was upset about Jeff Francis' pickoff move, and Black emphatically said it had nothing to do with Francis. Oh, Bud, I thought you didn't know what it was about.
Second, a reporter asked if this is the first time he has been in a situation where he had to tackle a player. Black answered with a clipped "No." He did not elaborate.
Third, a different reporter asked if it was the first time he tackled a player who went down and didn't get up again. This time, Black said "I can't remember. Tackle? I was trying to pull Milton away from the argument. That's what I was trying to do. Y'know, I was trying to pull Milton away from the confrontation. I wasn't trying to 'tackle' him."
The reporter said, "it just looked that way." Black said "Did it look as though I was trying to pull him away?" The reporter said "it looked like you were trying to pull him away," and Black interjected "okay" and turned away from the reporter, ignoring the rest of the question.
Black had no problem with the word "tackle" the first time it was used, but then got defensive. And he can't remember if he ever tackled a player on the field and injured him? I've watched a lot of baseball, and I've never seen anything like that. You'd think Black could remember.
Fourth, a reporter said "is it a knee injury?" Black said "Yes. Somethin', yeah, I think. We don't know if that was a pre-existing injury or not." Black doesn't even know what part of his star outfielder is injured? And he suggests that Bradley has a pre-existing knee injury, when it is clear the injury was sustained when Black wrestled him to the ground? It's like Black is afraid he'll get blamed.
He was not confused about Mike Cameron's injury, by contrast.
Finally, a reporter said "Where do you go from here?" referring to coping with the situation. Black looked off to his left and said "Uh, where do we go, San Francisco?" A team official said "San Francisco" and Black said "Yeah." He was being cute with his answer, of course, but when you watch the press conference, it is clear that Black did not know who their next opponent was and needed help remembering. In the middle of a pennant race?
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Why Does Soriano Hit Leadoff?
I've spent the entire year wondering why the Cubs have Soriano in the first spot in the order. He doesn't have a high OBP (.332), yet he has a ton of power. He now has 30 HR, but because he hits first, only 61 RBI.
Over at Baseball Musings Cyril Myrong, Ken Arneson and Ryan Armbrust have a lineup optimizer based on their research. I plugged in the most common Cub lineup, as follows:
Soriano
Theriot
Lee
Ramirez
Floyd
DeRosa
Jones
Kendall
Pitcher (I used Marquis).
According to the lineup optimizer, this should produce 4.664 runs per game for the Cubs. The Cubs have actually scored 4.62 runs per game this year. That's damned close, considering all the lineup variations they have used (120, not counting pitchers).
Cubs pitching has given up 4.29 runs per game. Using pythagenport to estimate what the Cubs' record should be based on runs scored and runs allowed, we get 82-72. Their actual record is 81-73. So far, so good with our predictive measures.
The lineup optimizer says that the Cubs best lineup (assuming those same 9 players) is as follows:
DeRosa
Lee
Theriot
Ramirez
Floyd
Soriano
Jones
Marquis
Kendall
According to the lineup optimizer, this batting order would produce 5.102 runs per game. Substitute that into our pythagenport and the Cubs record would be 90-64, a whopping 8 wins better than predicted with their common lineup.
In fact, in the top 8 run producing combos for the Cubs with these 9 players, Soriano hits sixth each time. In the other top 17 scenarios, he hits either sixth or fourth.
If this is accurate, there shouldn't even be a pennant race in the NL Central.
Over at Baseball Musings Cyril Myrong, Ken Arneson and Ryan Armbrust have a lineup optimizer based on their research. I plugged in the most common Cub lineup, as follows:
Soriano
Theriot
Lee
Ramirez
Floyd
DeRosa
Jones
Kendall
Pitcher (I used Marquis).
According to the lineup optimizer, this should produce 4.664 runs per game for the Cubs. The Cubs have actually scored 4.62 runs per game this year. That's damned close, considering all the lineup variations they have used (120, not counting pitchers).
Cubs pitching has given up 4.29 runs per game. Using pythagenport to estimate what the Cubs' record should be based on runs scored and runs allowed, we get 82-72. Their actual record is 81-73. So far, so good with our predictive measures.
The lineup optimizer says that the Cubs best lineup (assuming those same 9 players) is as follows:
DeRosa
Lee
Theriot
Ramirez
Floyd
Soriano
Jones
Marquis
Kendall
According to the lineup optimizer, this batting order would produce 5.102 runs per game. Substitute that into our pythagenport and the Cubs record would be 90-64, a whopping 8 wins better than predicted with their common lineup.
In fact, in the top 8 run producing combos for the Cubs with these 9 players, Soriano hits sixth each time. In the other top 17 scenarios, he hits either sixth or fourth.
If this is accurate, there shouldn't even be a pennant race in the NL Central.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Notes from White Sox/Angels
Scot Shields
Shields has not had a particularly good year, at least not by his standards, but his rates are all about the same. His walks are a tad higher. I think I know why.
This is the first time I've seen him pitch all year, and I understand why he has only given up 6.8 hits per 9 IP over the last three years. I've never seen so much movement. His fastball moves a foot. His slider moves even more. It's like trying to swing and hit a heat seeking missile.
Maybe all that movement is hard to control, and results in a higher walk rate.
Bad Calls, Mike Scioscia and Ken Harrelson
Bottom of the 8th, one out, no one on, Angels lead 2-1. Jerry Owens hits a grounder to first. Owens is fast. He arrives at Casey Kotchman about the same time the ball does. Kotchman, in one motion, scoops up the ball and swipes at Owens. At the time their paths cross, their bodies are literally six inches apart. Umpire calls Owens safe, saying Kotchman missed the tag.
It was impossible to tell, in the live action, whether Kotchman made the tag. But at the same time, it seemed impossible he could have missed him. They almost collided. Kotchman complained loudly.
And here comes Scioscia. This is one of the most interesting arguments I've seen a manager make. He's very angry. He starts yelling, but mid-word gets control of himself. Puts his hands in a prayer like pose and says "Mike, Mike, Mike" pleading to the umpire. Then Scioscia is on the verge of rage and starts to explode, but again, gathers himself. Puts his hands in the prayer position and begs the ump. The sequence repeats a third time.
(MLB Gameday referred to this sequence as "On-field Delay")
WGN finally gets around to showing a replay. The replay is from the visitor's dugout camera. It is utterly inconclusive, because the shot is blurry and the angle is wrong. Nevertheless, the hopeless homer Ken Harrelson declares from the broadcast booth: "He missed him. They got the call right!" leaving both me, and his broadcast partner speechless. I still didn't know if Kotchman made the tag, but I knew that angle didn't prove anything.
We got two more angles. Both showed Kotchman tagged him. Twice. Once on the butt, and once on the back foot kicking up. Harrelson said that "just goes to show that it depends on the angle." Yeah, no kidding.
Mike Scioscia, reprise
Scioscia lost the argument obviously. He's in the dugout stewing, because he's leading 2-1 and the Angels are in a playoff race.
Podsednik is now at the plate. Shields throws three pitches, two strikes and a ball. Then wham, on the fourth pitch, Shields gets Podsednik looking, and catcher Jeff Mathis fires to first and picks Owens off first with a snap tag from Kotchman. Scioscia called for the catcher pickoff from the dugout.
Scioscia's awesome!
Shields has not had a particularly good year, at least not by his standards, but his rates are all about the same. His walks are a tad higher. I think I know why.
This is the first time I've seen him pitch all year, and I understand why he has only given up 6.8 hits per 9 IP over the last three years. I've never seen so much movement. His fastball moves a foot. His slider moves even more. It's like trying to swing and hit a heat seeking missile.
Maybe all that movement is hard to control, and results in a higher walk rate.
Bad Calls, Mike Scioscia and Ken Harrelson
Bottom of the 8th, one out, no one on, Angels lead 2-1. Jerry Owens hits a grounder to first. Owens is fast. He arrives at Casey Kotchman about the same time the ball does. Kotchman, in one motion, scoops up the ball and swipes at Owens. At the time their paths cross, their bodies are literally six inches apart. Umpire calls Owens safe, saying Kotchman missed the tag.
It was impossible to tell, in the live action, whether Kotchman made the tag. But at the same time, it seemed impossible he could have missed him. They almost collided. Kotchman complained loudly.
And here comes Scioscia. This is one of the most interesting arguments I've seen a manager make. He's very angry. He starts yelling, but mid-word gets control of himself. Puts his hands in a prayer like pose and says "Mike, Mike, Mike" pleading to the umpire. Then Scioscia is on the verge of rage and starts to explode, but again, gathers himself. Puts his hands in the prayer position and begs the ump. The sequence repeats a third time.
(MLB Gameday referred to this sequence as "On-field Delay")
WGN finally gets around to showing a replay. The replay is from the visitor's dugout camera. It is utterly inconclusive, because the shot is blurry and the angle is wrong. Nevertheless, the hopeless homer Ken Harrelson declares from the broadcast booth: "He missed him. They got the call right!" leaving both me, and his broadcast partner speechless. I still didn't know if Kotchman made the tag, but I knew that angle didn't prove anything.
We got two more angles. Both showed Kotchman tagged him. Twice. Once on the butt, and once on the back foot kicking up. Harrelson said that "just goes to show that it depends on the angle." Yeah, no kidding.
Mike Scioscia, reprise
Scioscia lost the argument obviously. He's in the dugout stewing, because he's leading 2-1 and the Angels are in a playoff race.
Podsednik is now at the plate. Shields throws three pitches, two strikes and a ball. Then wham, on the fourth pitch, Shields gets Podsednik looking, and catcher Jeff Mathis fires to first and picks Owens off first with a snap tag from Kotchman. Scioscia called for the catcher pickoff from the dugout.
Scioscia's awesome!
Monday, September 03, 2007
Brewers and Yost
The Brewers are not a championship team, and they do not have a championship manager. Today, after Sheets pitched well enough and the Brewers blew the lead, the Brewers' owner gave Yost a vote of confidence. Why?
Surely the two misplays in the outfield (Gross and Hall) were not Yost's fault. Nor was the poor baserunning by Johnny Estrada, who appears to be eyeing the "slowest man in MLB" title from Bengie Molina. Watching Estrada huff it to third today, I thought "He is the fattest man I've ever seen play baseball." Fatter than Kruk, Joey Meyer, Terry Forster and Sid Fernandez.
Where Yost should be castigated is managing the bullpen, because he is playing by some stupid rule that developed with the save stat, which says you only use your closer in the 9th. He brings in Turnbow in the 8th, which is fine, since he is the setup guy. But when Turnbow can't get the job done, Yost looks first to Brian Shouse, who gets the lefty, and then to journeymen Greg Aquino and Chris Spurling, who proceed to lose the game for Milwaukee.
Ned, aren't you trying to WIN? This is a pennant race. Are you going to miss the playoffs because you pitched Aquino and Spurling, when Cordero -- your bona fide closer with 39 saves -- sits on his ass? Maybe Frankie wouldn't have gotten the necessary outs, but you'd be going down with your best, not a couple of retread middle relievers.
Surely the two misplays in the outfield (Gross and Hall) were not Yost's fault. Nor was the poor baserunning by Johnny Estrada, who appears to be eyeing the "slowest man in MLB" title from Bengie Molina. Watching Estrada huff it to third today, I thought "He is the fattest man I've ever seen play baseball." Fatter than Kruk, Joey Meyer, Terry Forster and Sid Fernandez.
Where Yost should be castigated is managing the bullpen, because he is playing by some stupid rule that developed with the save stat, which says you only use your closer in the 9th. He brings in Turnbow in the 8th, which is fine, since he is the setup guy. But when Turnbow can't get the job done, Yost looks first to Brian Shouse, who gets the lefty, and then to journeymen Greg Aquino and Chris Spurling, who proceed to lose the game for Milwaukee.
Ned, aren't you trying to WIN? This is a pennant race. Are you going to miss the playoffs because you pitched Aquino and Spurling, when Cordero -- your bona fide closer with 39 saves -- sits on his ass? Maybe Frankie wouldn't have gotten the necessary outs, but you'd be going down with your best, not a couple of retread middle relievers.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Mistaken Platoon Splits
The Braves have decided to put Kelly Johnson at 2b when they face righties, and Yunel Escobar there when they face lefties.
Let's look at the splits. Johnson definitely ought to play against righties. A 913 OPS from your second baseman is nothing to sneeze at. Escobar is a poor 651 against righties. That portion of the platoon is working.
Now for the lefties. Escobar has a 790 OPS against lefties, which is pretty good. Kelly Johnson, however, has a 789 OPS against lefties -- nearly identical. Assuming that major leaguers hit better when they get lots of at bats, why sit Johnson against lefties when he is just as good as his platoon partner?
Could it be defense? Absolutely not. Escobar is very average defensively. Better than replacement, but -1 FRAA according to BP. Johnson, on the other hand, is superb. He is +16 FRAR and +9 FRAA. That 10 run difference on defense is worth a win.
Why, then, is Escobar playing against lefties? Because he has a very high batting average (.338) against them, and for some reason, that still blinds managers to what's best for the team.
Several books have been written about the Braves eschewing statistical analysis, including one by John Schuerholz ("Built to Win: Inside Stories and Leadership Strategies from Baseball's Winningest GM") and a horribly one-sided Braves-commissioned piece of crap ("Scout's Honor: The Bravest Way To Build A Winning Team" -- one of the worst sports books I've read*).
Perhaps they ought to get on the statistics bandwagon, because they are wasting one of the best second basemen in the game.
*You can read my review of the book at Amazon.com
Let's look at the splits. Johnson definitely ought to play against righties. A 913 OPS from your second baseman is nothing to sneeze at. Escobar is a poor 651 against righties. That portion of the platoon is working.
Now for the lefties. Escobar has a 790 OPS against lefties, which is pretty good. Kelly Johnson, however, has a 789 OPS against lefties -- nearly identical. Assuming that major leaguers hit better when they get lots of at bats, why sit Johnson against lefties when he is just as good as his platoon partner?
Could it be defense? Absolutely not. Escobar is very average defensively. Better than replacement, but -1 FRAA according to BP. Johnson, on the other hand, is superb. He is +16 FRAR and +9 FRAA. That 10 run difference on defense is worth a win.
Why, then, is Escobar playing against lefties? Because he has a very high batting average (.338) against them, and for some reason, that still blinds managers to what's best for the team.
Several books have been written about the Braves eschewing statistical analysis, including one by John Schuerholz ("Built to Win: Inside Stories and Leadership Strategies from Baseball's Winningest GM") and a horribly one-sided Braves-commissioned piece of crap ("Scout's Honor: The Bravest Way To Build A Winning Team" -- one of the worst sports books I've read*).
Perhaps they ought to get on the statistics bandwagon, because they are wasting one of the best second basemen in the game.
*You can read my review of the book at Amazon.com
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
LaRussa's All-Star Strategy
The National League has men on first and second. LaRussa has to decide whether to let Orlando Hudson face K-Rod, or whether to pinch hit with Albert Pujols. Why would he stick with Hudson over the perennial MVP candidate?
Hudson hits from the left side. K-Rod is right handed, and lefties fare significantly better against him, although still not very well.
Also, Hudson has seen K-Rod before, when Hudson played with Toronto. He was 1-for-4 against K-Rod with two walks and a strikeout. He has an OPS of .750 against K-Rod in 6 plate appearances. Not awe-inspiring, but not a disaster.
Pujols, on the other hand, has faced K-Rod once, and struck out. So maybe sticking with Hudson made sense. I wouldn't, but it worked out. Hudson walked.
Bases are loaded, so now LaRussa's choice is Aaron Rowand, or the perennial MVP candidate. He sticks with Rowand, even though Rowand has the exact same batting history against K-Rod as Pujols, but has never even had an all-star quality season before. Meanwhile, Pujols is widely considered one of the best hitters in the game.
I thought these games were supposed to matter.
Hudson hits from the left side. K-Rod is right handed, and lefties fare significantly better against him, although still not very well.
Also, Hudson has seen K-Rod before, when Hudson played with Toronto. He was 1-for-4 against K-Rod with two walks and a strikeout. He has an OPS of .750 against K-Rod in 6 plate appearances. Not awe-inspiring, but not a disaster.
Pujols, on the other hand, has faced K-Rod once, and struck out. So maybe sticking with Hudson made sense. I wouldn't, but it worked out. Hudson walked.
Bases are loaded, so now LaRussa's choice is Aaron Rowand, or the perennial MVP candidate. He sticks with Rowand, even though Rowand has the exact same batting history against K-Rod as Pujols, but has never even had an all-star quality season before. Meanwhile, Pujols is widely considered one of the best hitters in the game.
I thought these games were supposed to matter.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Hargrove and Narron
Mike Hargrove
Hargrove walks out on the team when it is finally turning things around. On the one hand I have some sympathy, because something weird is obviously going on with Hargrove personally (though he said it was nothing big). On the other hand, this team -- which is not tremendously talented -- is finally playing good baseball, and he drops out in the middle of the season.
Even Jose Guillen liked him.
Jerry Narron
Jerry Narron gets fired by the Reds. How did he get that job anyway? I guess if you spend enough time as a backup catcher, you've got a shot at managing bad ballclubs.
He was just a placeholder. There was nothing notable about his tenure, except that he was set up to be the scapegoat for bad front office decisions the last couple of years.
I remember a Narron baseball card from when I was a kid. Back when Topps had a monopoly. He had a pitiful pose. A kind of half-assed batting stance. Hmmmm.
Hargrove vs. Narron
I don't think Baseball Reference.com should first show Hargrove's managerial stats when you search for his name, before showing his playing stats. He was a better player than a manager. Career OPS+ of 121 isn't half bad, with two years in the 140s. He could also pick it at first.
I have no advice for Baseball Reference.com about whether Narron's managerial or playing record should appear first when you search for him. Theoretically, the answer is neither, but that's not practical.
Narron's best OPS+ was a 74 (63 for his career). He only had as many as 200 AB in one season. A miserable hitter. He accumulated a WARP3 of 0.9. That's right: 0.9 is his career total! Five of his 8 seasons were negative WARP3.
Did he make up for it with defense behind the plate? Defense alone would have given him about 2 WARP, so his hitting wiped out 1.1 of that. But that's if you use his fielding above replacement. Most people agree that fielding ought to be judged against average, and there he would have a -2.7 WARP. So if you use that figure, his career would be about 3.6 wins below replacement. The catching position must have been real thin in the early 80s.
Hargrove walks out on the team when it is finally turning things around. On the one hand I have some sympathy, because something weird is obviously going on with Hargrove personally (though he said it was nothing big). On the other hand, this team -- which is not tremendously talented -- is finally playing good baseball, and he drops out in the middle of the season.
Even Jose Guillen liked him.
Jerry Narron
Jerry Narron gets fired by the Reds. How did he get that job anyway? I guess if you spend enough time as a backup catcher, you've got a shot at managing bad ballclubs.
He was just a placeholder. There was nothing notable about his tenure, except that he was set up to be the scapegoat for bad front office decisions the last couple of years.
I remember a Narron baseball card from when I was a kid. Back when Topps had a monopoly. He had a pitiful pose. A kind of half-assed batting stance. Hmmmm.
Hargrove vs. Narron
I don't think Baseball Reference.com should first show Hargrove's managerial stats when you search for his name, before showing his playing stats. He was a better player than a manager. Career OPS+ of 121 isn't half bad, with two years in the 140s. He could also pick it at first.
I have no advice for Baseball Reference.com about whether Narron's managerial or playing record should appear first when you search for him. Theoretically, the answer is neither, but that's not practical.
Narron's best OPS+ was a 74 (63 for his career). He only had as many as 200 AB in one season. A miserable hitter. He accumulated a WARP3 of 0.9. That's right: 0.9 is his career total! Five of his 8 seasons were negative WARP3.
Did he make up for it with defense behind the plate? Defense alone would have given him about 2 WARP, so his hitting wiped out 1.1 of that. But that's if you use his fielding above replacement. Most people agree that fielding ought to be judged against average, and there he would have a -2.7 WARP. So if you use that figure, his career would be about 3.6 wins below replacement. The catching position must have been real thin in the early 80s.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Jack McKeon (update)
ESPN is reporting that Marlins' sources are saying McKeon will keep his job for the rest of the season. However, John Kruk, who played for McKeon in San Diego, said "When he first takes over the team, he's like a big cuddly grandpa. Then he becomes a manager." Apparently when he becomes a manager, he has a tendency to lose his team with "rants" and "some guys don't like that."
That's a fairly handy explanation. It fits his managerial profile in Kansas City, San Diego and Florida. That does not appear to be the way it happened in Cincy, but it sure looks like a pattern.
That's a fairly handy explanation. It fits his managerial profile in Kansas City, San Diego and Florida. That does not appear to be the way it happened in Cincy, but it sure looks like a pattern.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Jack McKeon
Last week I posted something about Lou Piniella, because watching the Devil Rays' games and his slovenly appearance, I got the idea he was nothing special as as manager. Apparently I'm wrong.
The other guy I most frequently see on t.v. (because I'm in Florida) is Jack McKeon. McKeon's head is apparently on the block. I must admit I don't see much brilliance there either. Some of that is his media personality. He speaks in short clipped sentences and certainly does not appear to enjoy being interviewed. He never sounds insightful.
So I did the same analysis on McKeon as I did on Piniella, using the Bill James measures.
Under Method 1, McKeon gets 13 points, which I mentioned in the Lou Piniella post. That's not too bad, but nothing special over a 14-year managerial career. He does poorly on Method 2, earning only 7 points over 14 years. That's 60 expected wins behind Piniella.
McKeon is an odd study. Those numbers don't look too good. He got his first managerial job in '73, with Kansas City. Since then, he's had two stretches in his career where he went 6 years or more without managing a club. And he's never managed a club for more than 4 years.
Unless the Marlins start winning fast, he's not gonna make 4 years at Florida either.
But he's won Manager of the Year twice (1999 and 2003).
Sounds to me like McKeon is an average manager who occasionally hits it big when the team he happens to manage gets hot.
The other guy I most frequently see on t.v. (because I'm in Florida) is Jack McKeon. McKeon's head is apparently on the block. I must admit I don't see much brilliance there either. Some of that is his media personality. He speaks in short clipped sentences and certainly does not appear to enjoy being interviewed. He never sounds insightful.
So I did the same analysis on McKeon as I did on Piniella, using the Bill James measures.
Under Method 1, McKeon gets 13 points, which I mentioned in the Lou Piniella post. That's not too bad, but nothing special over a 14-year managerial career. He does poorly on Method 2, earning only 7 points over 14 years. That's 60 expected wins behind Piniella.
McKeon is an odd study. Those numbers don't look too good. He got his first managerial job in '73, with Kansas City. Since then, he's had two stretches in his career where he went 6 years or more without managing a club. And he's never managed a club for more than 4 years.
Unless the Marlins start winning fast, he's not gonna make 4 years at Florida either.
But he's won Manager of the Year twice (1999 and 2003).
Sounds to me like McKeon is an average manager who occasionally hits it big when the team he happens to manage gets hot.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Lou Piniella
I live in Florida, so I often see Tampa Bay Devil Ray games on television. I watch probably 30-35 Devil Rays games a year. I have never once seen Lou Piniella make a move that seemed significant, good or bad. He appears to do absolutely nothing.
His personal appearance lends credence to that. He has, shall we say, let himself go. During his playing days he was roughly 6'2" and 198 pounds. My own recollection was that it was never distributed on his frame in a way that screamed "work ethic." I don't know how tall he is now, but he's probably a couple of inches shorter with his gut bending him over. I'd put his weight at no less than 250, and probably more. He still does not wear it well. He has given up trying to wear a baseball jersey and just wears a warmup pullover, which either accentuates his belly or holds it in, or both. Many days he does not bother to shave. He couldn't be more different than Tony LaRussa or Terry Francona.
All of this got me to wondering what kind of manager is he. Is he really any good? In his book on managers, Bill James described two different methods of measuring a manager's performance. The first awards one point each for a winning season, winning the division, winning the league championship, winning the World Series, winning 100 or more games, and finishing 20 games over .500 (Method 1). The second predicts a team's record based on a team's tendency to finish .500, weighted by the team's record in the prior three years. If the team finishes with more wins than expected, we can attribute those wins to the manager (Method 2). James noted the flaws in Method 2 and said he preferred Method 1.
I tested Piniella on both Under Method 1, Piniella receives a very respectable 22 points. That's no Bobby Cox (58), Joe Torre (45) or Tony LaRussa (44), but it is better than Dusty Baker (17), Jack McKeon (13), Buck Showalter (11) and other current managers, and similar to Tom Kelly (19) who did a nice job managing the Twins over the years.
Under Method 2, Piniella comes out 67 runs ahead of expected, which is quite an achievement, except that nearly half that came through the 2001 Seattle club's performance. He still lags Cox (176) and LaRussa (72) but is ahead of Torre (33), who was in the negative until reaching the Yanks.
So I guess Piniella is as good as anyone else. Maybe managing a ballclub is like managing your investments. Studies have shown that investing in a manner that tracks a market index (essentially a do-nothing approach) is much more successful over the long run than actually managing your portfolio.
His personal appearance lends credence to that. He has, shall we say, let himself go. During his playing days he was roughly 6'2" and 198 pounds. My own recollection was that it was never distributed on his frame in a way that screamed "work ethic." I don't know how tall he is now, but he's probably a couple of inches shorter with his gut bending him over. I'd put his weight at no less than 250, and probably more. He still does not wear it well. He has given up trying to wear a baseball jersey and just wears a warmup pullover, which either accentuates his belly or holds it in, or both. Many days he does not bother to shave. He couldn't be more different than Tony LaRussa or Terry Francona.
All of this got me to wondering what kind of manager is he. Is he really any good? In his book on managers, Bill James described two different methods of measuring a manager's performance. The first awards one point each for a winning season, winning the division, winning the league championship, winning the World Series, winning 100 or more games, and finishing 20 games over .500 (Method 1). The second predicts a team's record based on a team's tendency to finish .500, weighted by the team's record in the prior three years. If the team finishes with more wins than expected, we can attribute those wins to the manager (Method 2). James noted the flaws in Method 2 and said he preferred Method 1.
I tested Piniella on both Under Method 1, Piniella receives a very respectable 22 points. That's no Bobby Cox (58), Joe Torre (45) or Tony LaRussa (44), but it is better than Dusty Baker (17), Jack McKeon (13), Buck Showalter (11) and other current managers, and similar to Tom Kelly (19) who did a nice job managing the Twins over the years.
Under Method 2, Piniella comes out 67 runs ahead of expected, which is quite an achievement, except that nearly half that came through the 2001 Seattle club's performance. He still lags Cox (176) and LaRussa (72) but is ahead of Torre (33), who was in the negative until reaching the Yanks.
So I guess Piniella is as good as anyone else. Maybe managing a ballclub is like managing your investments. Studies have shown that investing in a manner that tracks a market index (essentially a do-nothing approach) is much more successful over the long run than actually managing your portfolio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)