Why I'm Inclined to Give John Russell a Break
A couple days ago in one of the gamethreads, we were discussing John Russell's tactical decisions -- batting 0-for-3vas second, leaving starting pitchers in the game too long, and so on. I've noticed these things but haven't commented on them too much because, at this point, they just don't matter that much and are merely a minor annoyance.
Until a couple years ago, Rowdy used to start each year predicting that the Pirates would finish .500 because the tendency of all teams is to regress to the mean, or something like that. The powerful will be brought to their knees. The meek will inherit the earth. That kind of thing.
There may have been layers of irony to that argument that I didn't get then and still don't understand, but for now, let's assume we can take it at face value. There are clearly a lot of problems with it, like the fact that the Pirates have had 15 losing seasons in a row, or that any argument that suggests that the 2008 Giants have anywhere near the same chances of finishing .500 as the 2008 Red Sox is kind of absurd on its face.
But I'm beginning to understand some aspects of what Rowdy was saying. It's true that a bad team's chances of finishing .500 purely accidentally are, if not exactly good, then not miniscule either. 15 consecutive losing seasons simply should not happen. The Rockies wound up in the World Series last year. The Marlins won 78 games in 2006 with a team that was younger than the Altoona Curve. The Royals won 83 games in 2003 but lost 100 or more in both 2002 and 2004. Young players develop. Veterans turn in career years. Things happen. That's why we play the games.
One problem was that Rowdy was making that argument about the Pirates. Dave Littlefield and Jim Tracy simply could not be counted on to take advantage of even the meager opportunities that presented themselves.
Take the Freddy Sanchez controversy in 2006. In the offseason, the Pirates had signed veteran Joe Randa to a $4 million deal to play third ahead of Sanchez. Now, let's forget for a second that Sanchez, a reasonably effective and reasonably young player, was about 800 times more likely than Randa to break out and provide the sort of season a team like the Pirates needs to have a few of to have a chance at topping .500. Randa got injured in early May and had a .559 OPS when he headed to the DL. Sanchez, who was already hitting .327 in a reserve role at the time, stepped in and continued his hot hitting. In spite of this, Littlefield was still unwilling to name Sanchez the starting third baseman as of May 26, when Sanchez was hitting .341/.378/.530.
How the hell is a team as talent-strapped as the Pirates supposed to win 81 games with someone like Littlefield at the helm? Forget looking gift horses in the mouth; the only reason Littlefield didn't do that was that he wasn't even interested in gift horses.
Not that being smarter than Littlefield and Tracy makes anyone a good evaluator of baseball talent, but -- how many at bats do you think Nate McLouth would have this season if those two were still in charge? How many would Ryan Doumit have? And how many more games would the Pirates have lost as a result? You can quibble with some choices Russell has made with regard to bullpen usage, or Rivas, but he's gotten the big things right. And if he keeps doing that, a lot more people are going to adopt Rowdy's theory. Even if the drafting and developing doesn't get better -- and I think it will -- the Pirates will eventually have a freak .500 season, just by not botching the big decisions.
0 recs |
9
comments
Read Related
Comments
Regression to the mean
I’d imagine the Pirates all time winning percentage remains above the McClatchy Line even though we’ve had this long winning-season drought. Considered over the long-term, the losing streak itself can be considered a regressive movement toward the mean.
In the short-term, it would have helped a lot if the Pirates cared to field a winning team. It would also have helped a lot if the Front Office had been competent. Greed and incompetence can account for the short-term fall from the mean we have seen since 1992. They would act as causal mechanisms that are independent of the random distribution of front office and on-field talent.
Steve Z
by steve_z on May 16, 2008 8:40 PM EDT 0 recs
.506 since 1882
by steve_z on
May 16, 2008 10:25 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Steve Z
touches a bit on a point I was going to make: probably in pure mathematical terms (I’m not a mathemetician, so sue me), regression to the mean assumes all things being equal. For instance, if you flip a coin 100 times, odds are probably very good you’re going to flip heads between 45 and 55 times, and that while you will have stretches of five, six, eight flips where you get all heads or all tails, those stretches will pretty much even out—pull to the center.
What regression to the mean can’t take into account is outright deviousness or complete boneheadedness.
Keep in mind, in spite of himself, Littlefield made some moves that worked out well, and some of them all in the same year. Reggie Sanders, Matt Stairs, that crew that year—the five major free agents were all fair to very good. And he got them all pretty much on the cheap. Then Giles got hurt early in the year and the bullpen imploded. It was almost like the rest of the team regressed to the mean to make up for Littlefield’s good luck.
He flipped Suppan for Freddy and Mike Gonzalez. That was a pretty good trade, no? Of course, he got little for the rest of the bunch—mini-regression.
Anyway, what I’m trying to say is, Littlefield pretty much shot his wad there. It’s not impossible that some of the things he tried afterward could have worked better than they did. But I’m thinking the baseball gods (regression gods, whatever) gave him that year and then said, “That’s it, you got a decade’s worth of good free-agent luck in one year and look what it got you. Now you’re going straight to hell.”
by bucdaddy on May 16, 2008 9:01 PM EDT 0 recs
"That’s it, you got a decade’s worth of good free-agent luck in one year and look what it got you. Now you’re going straight to hell."
Ha ha ha. Spot on.
by Charlie on
May 16, 2008 9:10 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The coin used must be fair
if H and T have an equal chance of occurring on any given toss.
Having the McClatchy partnership and Bonifay/Littlefield is a bit like having an unfair coin. Instead of H and T having a .5 chance of occurring on any given toss, the coin is such that H occurs at a .6 rate. Having McClatchy and Littlefield meant the team Drove for 75 every season starting about 2003. Front Office incompetence meant that the Pirates fell short of that meager goal.
Steve Z
by steve_z on
May 16, 2008 10:33 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Suppan for Freddy and Gonzo?
The only reason he got either one is because Lyon failed his physical AFTER the initial deal was consummated. But even if you want to give him credit for getting Freddy on the rebound (which is a dubious proposition), you still shouldn’t give him credit for getting Gonzo – because he wouldn’t have been on Boston’s roster for us to get if Littlefield hadn’t included him in the disastrous initial version of the deal in the first place.
by Vlad on
May 18, 2008 12:38 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Big v. small
Good post. All things considered, I’d rather have management that gets the big decisions right. But after a while, you might forget there was ever a decision. Pretty soon, most people will like Nate so much, and Nyjer will probably have dropped off the face of the earth, they’ll consider it a no-brainer that Nate was the guy. The tone will be, “duh, I could have made that decision.”
But picking apart game decisions on a daily basis, it makes the small stuff seem so important.
by azibuck on May 16, 2008 9:58 PM EDT 0 recs
Pitching Stafff Management
It seems to me that you are giving Russell too much credit for starting McLouth instead of Morgan and Doumit instead of Paulino. These are decisions that my grandmohter would have gotten right, though perhaps not Jim Tracy.
Meanwhile the management of the pitching staff is by far the most important job that the management team has. If it is true as some have suggested that Russell’s discisions have been poor in this area, he will not be a satisfactory manager unless he improves.
by WestCoastBuc on May 17, 2008 11:49 AM EDT 0 recs
Have we regressed so far that...
We are now commending Russell for the mistakes he DIDN’T make? That shouldn’t even be a question for an organization as pitiful as the Pirates to discuss. What we should be discussing is why Russell has taken a group of pitchers who have all had some type of success during their careers and converted them to the staff with the worst ERA in the NL? He’s sure-as-hell doing something wrong and I’d like to know what it is. Am I to understand that he couldn’t tell that Matt Morris had nothing left in the tank during spring training and that we had to let him implode for 5 starts to figure that out? What about LaRoche? He never had one bad start in Atlanta and yet he’s had two of them with us. Why is that? What is it that Nady, McClouth, and Bay are doing differently this year to cause them to be hitting the ball so well? Let’s find out and see if we can duplicate it with some of the other players as well as make sure these three continue to do well this season. What happened to Paulino? How could he go from a .300 hitter to a .200 hitter over the past 2 seasons? Why did his defense fall apart last year and can we expect more of the same now that he’s our catcher for the next month? Maybe if we could answer some of these questions we might actually finish above .500 for a change. Lord knows it doesn’t take a ton of money to do so and so we have to still be doing things wrong and I think it’s time we found them out.
by Illinois Pirate Fan on May 18, 2008 4:09 PM EDT 0 recs




