Isn't It Good To Have A Manager Who Agrees With The Front Office?
by Charlie Wilmoth on Oct 28, 2010 3:50 AM EDT
Email
PrintSince the Pirates' firing of John Russell a few weeks ago, a number of writers and fans have argued that one of the problems with Russell was that he toed the company line, even when his superiors were making bad decisions, and thus the Pirates need someone who will tell Neal Huntington where to shove his next bad idea. This point of view might have arisen largely as a result of the reporting in this article:
When Huntington made a costly trade in acquiring overweight and under-motivated Aki Iwamura in the winter, the front office wanted so badly to get Iwamura going that Russell was urged to put his .169-hitting second baseman atop the order ...
When Charlie Morton's pitching was all that kept the Pirates from a winning record a month into the season, the front office wanted so badly to get him going -- Morton also was acquired in a trade -- that he lasted in the majors until late May, when he was 1-9 with a 9.35 ERA. He would need a breather from baseball and help from a sports psychologist in the minors to recover.
Perhaps most extraordinary, there was front-office meddling in game situations, such as the conspicuous defensive shifts earlier this season, drawn up off statistical models but often proving embarrassing when applied to actual games. These faded over the summer, largely because of Russell's wish.
Now, it isn't good that these things happened. The Pirates hung onto Iwamura (and Ryan Church, come to think of it) for way too long, and they kept Morton in the rotation for too long. The shifts, I think, are debatable. Judging with my eyes, they didn't work, but that's the sort of thing I don't necessarily trust my eyes to determine. If Pirates stats guy Dan Fox thinks they were a good idea, they might well have been, at least in the long term. And I think it's generally a good idea for a last-place team try tactics that have potential upside, even if they run the risk of looking silly.
Whether these things were good or bad, though, John Russell was right to do them if that was what the front office wanted. John Perrotto noted a few weeks ago that the Pirates were looking for another "yes-man." Well, they should want a "yes-man," in a way - not a sycophant, definitely, but someone who basically understands and will subscribe to the front office's idea. If you don't like that the Pirates played Iwamura or Morton for too long, you shouldn't hope for a manager who will defy his superiors. You should hope for his superiors (Neal Huntington, Frank Coonelly) to learn from the experience and get better at their jobs.
In the worst case, a willful manager can really mess things up for a general manager, as Jim Tracy did with Paul DePodesta back when Tracy was managing the Dodgers and finding excuses not to use young players. At best, a manager who is willful but not openly defiant might be able to help a front office see things it might have otherwise missed.
But I'm not sure such a manager would be well-suited to this front office. Not because this front office is perfect, but because it has spent the last three years building an extremely rigorous development program that's just now starting to bear fruit. Farm director Kyle Stark has run a very tight ship, and minor-league personnel who haven't gotten with the program, like Altoona's Matt Walbeck, have been shown the door.
That sounds draconian, but I think Stark deserves the benefit of the doubt right now. Pirates minor leaguers have struggled with injuries, but many of those injuries have been fluky, and when prospects have been able to stay on the field, they have mostly flourished. Many players who were big question marks when they arrived via trade, such as Jose Tabata, Jeff Locke, Bryan Morris and Nathan Adcock, have done very well. Rudy Owens became a very good prospect under Stark's watch, and he has given the Pirates' staff credit for suggesting changes that led to his emergence. All of the Pirates' big-bonus high-school pitching picks from the 2009 draft have gotten through short-season ball with their prospect status intact. The Pirates' development record isn't perfect (Tim Alderson's flop is one strike against them, even if his downfall probably started before he was acquired), but at least at the minor-league level, it has been pretty darn good.
In three years, the Pirates' roster will be composed largely of players who have gone through the Bucs' minor-league system. The single most important thing a major-league manager can do for young players is to teach them. The Pirates need someone who understands and is willing to follow their development procedures, which can be much more subtle than the issue of whether or not to play Aki Iwamura. It therefore seems especially important that they find someone who is on board with their ideas.
The Bucs should not have stuck with Iwamura or Morton for so long, and the front office has deserved a lot of the criticism it got for the way it handled those two players. But that doesn't mean the Bucs' new manager should be a headstrong type who wants to stick it to the front office. A lot of the front office's ideas are actually pretty good, especially in player development, which is critical right now.
Here's a funny exchange in a Bob Smizik chat a few weeks back:
Just Win Baby: You said Macha wouldn't mesh well with Huntington/Coonelly. So that means another substandard yes-man is going to be hired here?
Bob Smizik: A "yes" man does not have to be substandard. And let's not forget that the GM is the manager's boss. When I was a columnist at the P-G, my bosses usually gave me a free rein on topics. But sometimes they told me what to write. That's their right. Huntington might have interfered too much, but to suggest the GM should have no influence over the manager is not correct.
I hate to say it, but I agree with Bob Smizik. Hiring a manager who is on board with the Pirates' ideas does not necessarily mean hiring an anonymous manager, or a manager who won't bring anything to the table. As Perrotto points out in the article linked above, Eric Wedge was part of a "yes man" sort of arrangement in Cleveland, and Wedge is fairly well-known and has a good reputation. The Pirates shouldn't want a manager who radically disagrees with them, and neither should the fans.
175 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thanks for writing what I’ve been thinking. The Pirates are precisely the type of team that should be experimenting and the next manager should be one who wants to stray from “the book.” That’s not to say Huntington should hire a yes man. Rather, he should hire someone who whom he is already on the same page, philosophically.
Nate McLouth was given more time than Iwamura was given before losing his starting job. Although I would have brought Walker up about 3 days earlier, I don’t think you can fault the FO for waiting 3 blasted days.
Also, it’s very curious that we have a direct denial from Huntington that Russell was told where to position fielders. He said they provided information, nothing more.
I wonder what the real story is there.
McClouth was also on a long-term contract with millions committed. Kind of like how we’re sticking with Maholm
the difference is
atlanta could come up with a decent option to replace mclouth. we could only come up with daniel mccutchen to replace maholm.
hey hijacking here
All youse Minecrafters!
I made a Pedro Alvarez skin. (because 17 is the easiest number to make in that res and Paul Waner’s number is retired)
Anyone wants the file
can email me at the address on my profile. It’s pretty easy to switch out and there’s plenty of youtube instructional vids.
by BlindSquirrel on Oct 28, 2010 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions
whoops
I just realised the P is around the wrong way… I might have to fix that.
by BlindSquirrel on Oct 28, 2010 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions
For all of the teaching...
that has supposedly been going on for the last 3 seasons…this is NOT a fundamentally sound baseball team. When is that going to start?? Or do we have to discount all of the current major leaguers from that, since they haven’t necessarily had 3 years of Kyle Stark?
If we are looking for someone that will maintain the system…then Banister should have been hired a week ago. If we are looking for potentially the best candidate…then…that candidate’s name hasn’t come out in public yet.
I’d like the manager that helps the Pirates to perform their best to get the job. And agreeing with the FO every day…while nice for the GM…isn’t an absolute requirement. There are times for the manager to agree…and others where the FO needs to be told…“If you don’t like the way I am doing things…fire me.”
Or do we have to discount all of the current major leaguers from that, since they haven’t necessarily had 3 years of Kyle Stark?
Well, if we are going to hold the front office responsible for them, then yes.
I’d like the manager that helps the Pirates to perform their best to get the job
You and everyone else. No one is out there saying “I want a manager who will screw up this team. Royally.” The issue is how the manager goes about trying to do that, and if the FO believes that his approach is the correct one.
"If you don’t like the way I am doing things…fire me."
Are you quoting Kerrigan or Varsho there?
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 28, 2010 8:43 AM EDT up reply actions
It seems to me that the players who have spent the most time in Stark’s system are the ones that tend to be more fundamentally sound. Can’t claim cause-and-effect of course, but guys like Alvarez, Tabata, and even Walker seem to be more fundamentally sound than guys like Cedeno, Doumit, and Milledge. We’ll know more as guys like Cunningham, Grossman, and Marte advance through the system (guys that joined the team out of HS or LA).
I was going to make the same point. Given the talent vacuum that occupied the upper . . . oh . . . 100% or so of the system when NH took over, there’ve been very few products of the farm system reach the majors. I can’t think of any significant blunders, or certainly not any pattern of it, on the part of the ones who did. Tabata in particular is one of the more fundamentally sound players the Pirates have had in a long time. The blunderball has been played almost entirely by guys who were already in the majors or who came up through other systems.
But let’s not let facts get in the way of a good bashing . . . .
No offense Thunder...
and others where the FO needs to be told…"If you don’t like the way I am doing things…fire me."
But I find that comment a little silly. No management team anywhere is going to hire someone who is going to go rogue and tell the boss to stick it. It just doesn’t happen anywhere. You are confusing the manager’s job with Coonelly’s job. Huntington was obvioulsy hired to be a more hands on GM or Coonelly would have stepped in. If the President wants the GM to be hands on than the GM is going to want a manager who is going to let him be hands on. If you don’t like the GM’s philosophy that’s one thing, go ahead and argue that we need a new GM. But I just can comprehend the concept of hiring a rebellious malcontent as a manager, and calling that a good thing.
I don’t want a manager to go rogue. I don’t want a rebellious malcontent.
The main thing I don’t want is a manager that does EVERYTHING the GM wants. If that was the case…the GM should be in the dugout, and remove the middle man. You take the suggestions…yes. The approach should be similar…yes. The philosophies should be compatible. But every once in a while there are things happen that the GM SHOULD be told no. Not that the public would ever find out about them.
If a manager is hired because he has a certain philosophy of running things…he damn sure should be a strong enough person to stand up for that. If not…how’s he going to manage 30+ different personalities (players and coaches)?
How do you know this wasn't the approach?
Of course, if you idea is that the mgr. once in a while should be able to flat-out say “no,” and then do what he wants with no consequences, I’d be interested if you could identify a few businesses that are run like that. Ones that aren’t bankrupt.
the GM should be in the dugout, and remove the middle man
Not allowed, ever since Ted Turner tried to make himself his own manager.
every once in a while there are things happen that the GM SHOULD be told no.
Oh yeah? Name one of them.
Turner was not the GM…he was the owner.
When should the GM be told no…when a player is being played to raise his trade value…and not because he’s the best player for the position. Or because a starting pitcher has been getting hammered for 2 months…and the GM thinks he’s throwing well.
The same ruling covers both situations, however.
There have been guys who functioned as both GM and manager simultaneously, but those were all back in the days of Connie Mack.
When should the GM be told no…when a player is being played to raise his trade value…and not because he’s the best player for the position.
No, you’re wrong. The long-term interests of the team need to come first. I doubt you could find one person in pro ball who would agree with you here.
Or because a starting pitcher has been getting hammered for 2 months…and the GM thinks he’s throwing well.
No, you’re wrong. The manager is being paid to manage, not to scout. He needs to leave the scouting to the scouts, and focus on the things that his job is actually supposed to involve: handling in-game tactics, dealing with the players on a personal level, and interacting with the media.
on the last part
A manager should be able to go the GM or CEO and say, in private of course, “we’re doing this wrong, and here’s why”.
After a discussion, they should come up with an answer : keep doing it the GM’s way, or change to the manager’s way.
Whatever decision is made, everybody has to follow it like it’s his own choice.
IMHO, that is true in every business.
If the manager doesn’t like it, he can quit. Or worse, do whatever he wants, but he should expect to be fired.
by From France on Oct 28, 2010 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good point...
and quite different from telling the general manager “…it’s my way or the highway.” There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that Russell had this type of freedom and used it successfully to get the support of the general manager (firing of Kerrigan and Varsho and abolishing batting the pitcher 8th are two examples).
This is exactly right
There’s a big gap between maverick and yes man. Given that the FO is experimenting, I think it’s only to the good to have a manager who is on board with the overall vision and approach yet willing to call bullshit on mistakes – especially if “calling bullshit” means doing so in closed door meetings with the GM.
Not to dredge up the “GMs should travel with the team” thing, but I wonder if a bit more opportunity for facetime would help with that. When the team is in Pgh, either NH is out visiting farm clubs or he’s doing his daily, very busy job. Then, when they’re out of town, he tends not to be there, either. Meaning that the two staff members who need to have the best communication may not actually have the proverbial open door relationship. I certainly may be wrong about that – and I guarantee that JR would never have said that I’m right, regardless of the facts – but I think that on principle the manager and GM need to spend a lot of unscheduled time together in an organization like this one, with a strong GM. Otherwise “yes man” is the only realistic option.
The exact parameters of the supposed “Neal is never around” problem weren’t really spelled out, but the timing of the whole fuss could have been better. The Pirates were playing out the string with guys like Karstens, Burres and D.McCutchen in the rotation, and NH was in Altoona watching Morris, Locke, Owens, Wilson and Watson. Three of those guys become eligible for the Rule 5 draft this fall. Did he really need to be assessing Burres to know that his roster spot can be put to better uses?
But my understanding
is that NH traveled with the team less than typical GMs all season long. One specific roadtrip would be irrelevant to my point – if NH is with the team for 72 road games, then obviously there’s plenty of time to interact with his manager in a less formal environment.
But as I said, I wasn’t interested in going over that narrow issue again: I was talking about how, where, and when the GM and manager interact. It strikes me that roadtrips would be an excellent alternate communication time.
I think it’s only to the good to have a manager who is on board with the overall vision and approach yet willing to call bullshit on mistakes – especially if "calling bullshit" means doing so in closed door meetings with the GM.
I ask again — Does anybody here have a shred of evidence that this hasn’t been the case?
Another question — Has everybody here forgotten how quickly Dana Eveland disappeared once the coaching staff got a look at him and concluded he didn’t have major league stuff?
This entire discussion is proceeding pursuant to underlying assumptions that are devoid of support.
What happened to the scouts that recommended Eveland, Penn, Church, Iwamura, Vazquez, etc.? You know, the ones that said they had major league stuff.
Oh, that’s right, they still work for the Pirates.
And who, specifically, are the scouts who recommended those players?
Do you know? Or are you just guessing?
It’s not a moot point. We signed Vazquez in 2008, for example, and have seen a fairly large number of people come and go since then.
Scouts
I don’t think the issue of scouting at the MLB has been addressed as much as I’d like.
Vlad, you are right. We don’t know which scout recommended which player.
But there have been some mistakes that, I think, should cost a few people jobs.
(And Penn is a bad example.)
Do I know the specific scouts??
No…but it has been stated on several occasions by management and the media that there has been very little turnover in the scouting team…especially in the departures department since the Littlefield administration.
False
I posted this once before — this is a myth. If you check the 2007 and 2010 media guides, there’s been heavy turnover in the scouting department.
I also don’t ever remember the team saying it’d had little scouting turnover.
by WTM on Oct 29, 2010 8:25 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
WTM
I think the little scouting turnover applied the first year.
But I also think you are right: Since then, there has been turnover.
Probably
It took NH a while to get changes in place, like it does in any organization after a change at the top. But the “same old scouts” stories just got repeated mindlessly year after year, without anybody bothering to check the facts. I DID check the facts and those stories are totally wrong.
Am I correct
that the top level people – the Special Assistants – are largely the same? I think that’s still the case as of 2010, but may be wrong.
Some are, some aren't.
Here was the top management in 2007 (minus Littlefield, Creech, Graham, etc.):
Assistant GM: Doug Strange
Special Assistants: Jack Bowen, Jesse Flores, Jax Robertson, Louie Eljaua, Roy Smith, Pete Vukovich
And here it is now:
Special Assistants: Jim Benedict, Larry Corrigan, Marc DelPiano, Jax Robertson, Pete Vuckovich
So we only kept two of the six special assistants. Strange was also kept on staff, but as Director of Player Personnel, a position of reduced responsibility.
OK, thanks
More holdover than one might expect, but certainly that reflects NH’s opinion that the guys he kept were worth keeping.
For the record, other than a kneejerk “Clean house!” reaction when I heard that they hadn’t done so, I don’t think I’ve ever felt that NH mishandled this part of the transition. I’ve had doubts about the performances of the scouts, but not tied to any sort of “blame the DL guys” sentiment. Indeed, since it’s unlikely (but not impossible) that DL had hired exclusively bad personnel, it makes lots of sense to keep them all for a year and then start cleaning house.
You are a better person than I am ...
I hate to say it. But when I hear someone was hired by DL, I immediately think the person is incompetent.
Penn DOES have major league stuff. He just can’t control it.
Church was a solid hitter before the Pirates got him and he hit very well for Arizona after they traded him. Who knows why he didn’t hit in Pgh. No scout could have predicted that and only an idiot would fire a scout for not predicting it.
Iwamura was acquired based on his play after he came back from the knee injury, which apparently wasn’t bad. He got out of shape AFTER the Pirates acquired him. How was a scout supposed to see that?
Vazquez was coming off one very good and one passable season as a UT player. Same as Church, nobody could have expected he’d fall off a cliff.
And, of course, you have no idea whether any Pirates’ scout actually recommended any of these guys to begin with.
You can blame Huntington for some of these, but if you were firing people for reasons like this, you’d be known as Dr. Scapegoat.
If no scouts recommended these players…that would leave the decisions totally to NH…and if most of the recommendations came from one or two people, I’d start questioning things. Especially with some of the trade flops we’ve acquired. But then…we aren’t allowed to question those things. After all…we’ve got the best management team in the major leagues.
Penn may have major league stuff…so do Ian Snell and Ollie Perez…and I wouldn’t want either of them on my team.
Church…yep…he hit well for Arizona…about .265 in 50 or so PA. Of course, his concussion problems in 2009 couldn’t have had anything to do with his performance in 2010, could they?? Or did the Pirates forget to do a physical when they signed him, too??
Iwamura hit real well in 2009 after his injury… .250/.310/.355. And again…he was healthy enough to come off the DL at the end of 2009, but that didn’t mean he was remotely capable of playing the position well at that point. As has been pointed out before…he played about half the games after he returned, and very rarely played more than 2 in a row. Red flags abound…but no physical…and he showed up for ST overweight and with knee problems. Surprised he failed?? Not me.
Vazquez…do we even need to go there…he had one decent season…the year before the Pirates signed him. His career OPS+ numbers by season…95, 87, 40, 44, 76, 109, then 66 with the Pirates. Which of these numbers is not like the others? In the previous 5 years before the Pirates signed him…he started a total of 47 games at SS, and 34 at 2B. Most of his starts in those 5 years were at 3B…he started 9 at 3B with the Pirates, and most of those were while LaRoche’s back was bothering him. Who thought he could play middle infield?? If the Pirates didn’t think it was possible for him to “fall off a cliff”…they didn’t look at his history…at all. In fact it was highly unlikely when they signed him that he would repeat his 2008 numbers.
Again…Pirates management is not capable of making mistakes…at least not in some eyes. And every team makes mistakes. When you have a low payroll and have lost 299 games in 3 seasons…you can’t afford to make more mistakes than the rest of the teams in the league.
Moving the goal posts
You started off with JR wasn’t allowed to make his views known, then shifted to them not firing the scouts, and now it’s management made bad moves. What exactly is your point? Just free-floating FO bashing?
Yes, mgmt. has made a bunch of bad moves. NH has done a lousy job building a bench. I’ve posted a number of times about his mistaken approach of bringing in declining veterans as bench players. But that’s changing the subject again.
People keep giving Perez and Snell chances. I guess there are a bunch of teams out there who should fire their scouts. It’s just a fact that teams will give chances to guys with good stuff. It’s not like the Pirates acquired Penn to be their opening day starter. He got the vital white flag role, which by itself shows they knew he was high-risk. There’s no earthly reason to think their was any problem with the scouting.
Funny how you use BA for Church and OPS+ for Vazquez. Could it have anything to do with the fact that Church had a 119 OPS+ for AZ? Cherry-pick much? Church’s hitting for AZ shows quite well that it wasn’t the 2010 concussion. And even if it was, what does a physical have to do with scouts? Do scouts conduct physicals? Or are you just shifting the subject again because you can’t back up your original point?
Iwamura . . . same thing. Scouts don’t give physicals. And Markindallas already went to great length to show that Iwamura was moving fine after the injury in 2009. The fact that he didn’t play every day tells us squat. Tampa had this guy named Zobrist at second. He was riding a 27-HR season. Everybody knew by that time that Iwamura was finished in Tampa. I’m surprised he played as much as he did.
Your Vazquez stats are a bunch of apples and oranges masquerading as the same thing — the 40 and 44 OPS+ came in seasons where he got a whopping 85 and 67 ABs. The 68 came in a season where he had 115 ABs. The better numbers all came in seasons of 300-423 ABs. Funny how you just stuck them all together as if they were comparable. For a UT infielder, Vazquez’ career hitting wasn’t bad at all. Even after his crappy 2009 season, and even with the dismal numbers in seasons in which he got only a few ABs, his career OPS+ was 83. If he had a 100+ career OPS+, he wouldn’t have been a UT guy, he’d have been a starter. And it was well known he didn’t have the range to play short on any regular basis. The problem there was that NH left the team without a long-term option at short because he gave the other bench position to Luis Rivas and had nobody better than Bixler in AAA (actually another gift from Littlefield, in part). Vazquez should never have been called upon to play short in any role other than double switches and the like. That was NH’s blunder, not the scouts’.
by WTM on Oct 29, 2010 8:56 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think the point
Is that you seem to be advocating that the manager do whatever NH says, no matter what. Thunder is suggesting that NH may not be perfect, and that a manager should therefore be permitted to offer input and deviate from NH’s plan. Your reply is that this is unpossible, because NH is teh awesome. Thunder therefore points out that NH has not always been teh awesome (with Bernie6 kvetching about the scouting, which is under NH’s purview), and you’re getting unaccountably irritated about it.
If NH is a supergenius, then he should absolutely have a manager whose job it is to stand on the top step and look inspirational. But if NH is merely a good executive with a sensible plan, then he would benefit from input from, say, an experienced baseball man who knows what’s going on with the major league team better than anyone else.
The point I was making, before Thunder started changing the subject, is that there isn’t a shred of evidence that JR had no ability to offer input, or to deviate to some extent. There is, however, evidence to the contrary, as the episode with Eveland and the firing of the coaches shows.
YOUR claim, that I’m saying NH is awesome, is a complete fabrication. Maybe you should actually read my posts.
You're right
The tone seemed awfully defensive – saying that the Church, Iwamura, and Vazquez signings were all sensible – but you were actually defending the scouts more than NH.
Your “unsupported claim” comment remains out of left field. Thunder made a completely correct, generic point about organizational hierarchy, and you attacked it for what he didn’t say. I recognize the context, but still.
Thunder made a completely correct, generic point about organizational hierarchy
We aren’t fighting Thunder over whether or not a manager should be able to offer input on decisions. That’s an entirely uncontroversial way of doing things, and in fact appears to be the way that things were done when Russell was our manager.
We’re fighting Thunder because he seems to think that the manager should have the power to overrule the GM when he doesn’t agree with organizational directives, which is crazy talk. There’s a reason that the GM has the power to hire and fire the manager, and not the other way around.
Thunder is trying to act like we don’t think the manager should be able to talk to the GM about stuff, because that’s a much easier case for him to make. But that’s not the core of the actual debate we’re having.
If the Pirates didn’t think it was possible for him to "fall off a cliff"…they didn’t look at his history…at all.
Any player can fall off a cliff, at any time. The only way to avoid it is to waive all your players and forfeit all your games.
Slight correction
"Bullshit. It’s the scouts’ optometrists’ fault."
— Nate McLouth
by biggyv on Oct 29, 2010 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Actually,
the thing that disturbs me a little about the FO “meddling” with game decisions (if that’s what was going on) is that they showed a willingness to try off the wall tactics (the no triples defense, the pitcher batting eighth) but not really commit to them for a whole season, just to see what would happen. What, we might lose 110 instead of 107? I don’t think these are tactics that are going to make a LOT of difference, but why not give yourselves a season’s worth of data to find out, instead of trying it for two or three weeks and then bailing? One of the benefits, perhaps the only one, of a season like we just went through is that we have absolutely nothing to lose by trying any and everything that might give us an edge. I think we kind of failed there.
Good post. This gives me a chance to say a few things I’ve been thinkng. I envision meetings with Huntington, Russell, maybe a stat guy and maybe other coaches as well. The stats say that guys like Church, Morton, and Iwamura are likely to even out at their career averages, and therefore are due to get hot. The stats say that more hits are going into the LC field gap than down the line, so playing the fielder there should cut down on hits. This is where a manager decides to listen to the stats or not. The information is provided by the front office, but the manager has the choice to make lineups and decisions that follow those stats. I think Russell followed the safe path, the path that puts him at the least amount of risk for criticism from the front office.
Generally, those stat guys might be correct. But it takes a manager to see that Iwamura is a different player than he was in the past (fat and slow). And that our pitchers do not have the command to dictate where the ball will be hit. I wonder where Kerrigan stood on the outfield shifts. Did we stop doing those shifts when Kerrigan was let go? Did Kerrigan feel we could use those to our advantage or did Russell?
by ballparkfranks on Oct 28, 2010 10:34 AM EDT reply actions
The stats say that guys like Church, Morton, and Iwamura are likely to even out at their career averages, and therefore are due to get hot.
That’s not precisely true. What you just stated sounds like it’s more in line with the gambler’s fallacy.
Stats guys believe that those players are likely in future games to regress toward the weighted mean of their several most recent seasons’ performance, which is a different thing.
Right
They’re likely to play better (or less bad), but once the 2 months of terrible performance have happened, there’s no particular reason to expect 2 hot months to balance it out (unless we’re talking Mario, of course). It may happen, of course, but it’s no more likely than 2 more bad months and a lost season.
If anything, two more bad months are slightly more likely than two hot months...
…since the weighted mean of the player’s performance is going to be including the two months of crappy performance that he just put up, and not including whatever (presumably better) performance he was putting up three years and two months ago. As such, his weighted mean that you’re using to forecast his future performance will have dropped.
If a manager is ALWAYS going to take the “safe” path…we can let the computer run the team…since it will always give you what decision has the best chance of succeeding. At least…then…we know where the blame goes…the computer.
JR likely took the safe path…the one the FO would be satisfied with. That path didn’t put his team in the best position to win, though. But then, winning at the major league level hasn’t been important to the Pirates FO since they took charge. It’s all been about the minor league players, which is fine, IF it works. And we will be waiting another 2 or 3 years, at a minimum, to find out whether it does.
Putting the team in the best position to win...
…is what makes “the safe path” the safe path in the first place. That’s why they call it playing the percentages.
Sheesh.
Actually...the safe path for the manager...
is whatever keeps the GM happy. Even if it doesn’t put the team in the best position to win. If your GM believes the computer provides the best ideas…then it could be said that playing the computer percentages is the safe path. Unfortunately…there are flaws in many of the statistical measures that are available. So…blindly taking the statistical input without other considerations ends up being not the safest path…although NH may think it is. However, the Pirates FO doesn’t take all information to heart. They don’t seem to believe in platoons…even though it’s been shown platoons can be effective, for instance.
Or another…you play the no triples defense where the LF is bunched toward center. Then you pitch a LHB outside…and can’t understand why they hit the ball in the general vicinity of a normal LF position and have it fall in for a hit…usually a double. Again…if the no triples defense was effective…a lot of teams (especially those with a large CF, like the Rockies) would do it. Do they?? No.
If a manager always took the safe path…John Milner would never have faced Tug McGraw on 8/5/79. After all, Nicosia was 4-4 (including 3-3 with a HR against Steve Carlton, so it’s not like he couldn’t hit lefties).
(sarcasm) Actually, if a hitter hits a double to LF with the no-triple shift on, the shift worked : he didn’t hit a triple !
The safe path doesn’t always mean following the computer’s advise. Because sometimes, the computer says “Bat Tike Redman 3rd” …
That's the kind of result you get...
…when you come to a conclusion and then start looking for evidence to support it, and manufacturing that evidence if necessary.
I have no doubt that they used unsound methodology to come up with some wack-ass expected batting line for Redman that year, and then fed it into the computer to determine lineup position.
Again…if the no triples defense was effective…a lot of teams (especially those with a large CF, like the Rockies) would do it. Do they?? No.
That’s infallible logic.
by Wizard of Woz on Oct 29, 2010 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Yep.
It can be applied to so many things.
If these “shin guards” were effective, wouldn’t other catchers than Roger Bresnahan be wearing them?
If these “black people” were good ballplayers, wouldn’t other teams than the Dodgers have signed some?
Etc.
blindly taking the statistical input without other considerations ends up being not the safest path
Is there any evidence that they’re just “blindly” taking the statistical input? Other than your visceral dislike for the conclusions they reached, that is?
If a manager always took the safe path…John Milner would never have faced Tug McGraw on 8/5/79. After all, Nicosia was 4-4 (including 3-3 with a HR against Steve Carlton, so it’s not like he couldn’t hit lefties).
Sure, you can sometimes get a good result by not playing the percentages, just like you can sometimes fire a gun into a crowd without hitting anybody. But in the long run, the percentage play will be the right play more often than not. That’s why it’s the percentage play.
Actually, as an article I read about Tanner explained recently, McGraw was better against RH batters. (For his career, RH batters hit 120 OPS points worse against him than LH batters.) Tanner was playing the percentages.
Tanner’s move with Milner was exactly the sort of thing NH gets reflexively bashed for by the haters. An unorthodox strategy with sound statistical support. Yet because it’s Tanner, people present it as just a brilliant move that came entirely from the gut. It was nothing of the sort. It was gutsy, which is a different thing, but it was well thought out.
It went beyond McGraw’s splits, too. As I recall, there were fewer than two out. Nicosia, especially batting against McGraw, was a huge DP risk.
Nicosia, from BR:
Nicosia had a solid rookie season, platooning with Ed Ott for the 1979 Pirates. He hit .288/.367/.435 and had career highs in almost every area. The day before 24th birthday, he went 4 for 4 with two doubles, a homer and three runs. With the score tied, two outs and the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th, Steve was set to try to cap his big day – when Chuck Tanner brought in left-handed pinch-hitter John Milner even though the Philadelphia Phillies had just brought in a southpaw, Tug McGraw. Milner made the move pay off with a grand slam to end the game. Nicosia only went 1 for 16 in the 1979 World Series but got to take home a ring in his first year.
.Good times. Good times.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 29, 2010 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Tanner's move
There is a long discussion of this on the 1979 anniversary tape.
You had quotes from Nicosia, Ott, Tanner.
I need to get a copy of it.
Golf clap!
Well done Charlie. It really irritates me when people suggest we need a manager who will tell Huntington to stick it. How ridiculous is that? In no other walk of life would we expect anyone to ignore their bosses wishes but somehow we expect the manager of the Pirates to do just that. Besides, in the end, if Huntington continues to make “questionable” decisions, it’s Coonely’s job to step in, not the manager’s.
Right. Do we need a manager or Stone Cold Steve Austin here?
by Adam Reynolds on Oct 28, 2010 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
They really want a renegade manager to tell the Nuttings to kiss his rear and sell the team.
by Adam Reynolds on Oct 28, 2010 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
fixed
They really want a renegade manager to tell the Nuttings to kiss his rear and sell sale the team.
Actually…many/most bosses are actually open to someone not being a yes man, if it can be shown that the points the subordinate brings up are valid, and benefit the company.
If someone is going to ignore ALL of the bosses wishes, yes, he will get fired, and rightfully so. But until they invent the perfect boss (and I think there’s only been one of those in recorded time), some of the bosses’ suggestions should be disputed. It’s where and how they are disputed that should make the difference.
Oh…you mean the unsupported claims that the “no triples defense” and batting the pitcher 8th…and giving Church much too frequent playing time all came from the FO and not the manager. And probably a bunch of other decisions that came from the FO that didn’t become public like those 3 did…as was indicated by more than one Pirates beat writer (or former one, in Perrotto’s case).
It’s fairly obvious that disagreeing with the FO and/or the manager cost 2 Pirates coaches (and one minor league manager) their jobs, even though THOSE disagreements weren’t done in a public forum. Had JR disagreed with the FO on anything of significance, I’m sure he would have been given the same result.
The ONLY reason FC/NH fired JR is because they needed a public scapegoat for the 299 losses in the last 3 seasons. If JR was truly great as a manager, then the FO should have kept him and withstood the criticism. Instead, JR was expendable, just as most “yes men” are. It’s easy to find people that agree with the boss all the time. It’s not so easy to find talented men willing to put their tails on the line when the boss is wrong, as occasionally happens. And sometimes…it costs those talented men their jobs. Which usually makes the boss wrong twice.
It’s fairly obvious that disagreeing with the FO and/or the manager cost 2 Pirates coaches (and one minor league manager) their jobs…
This is a comical misreading of the two situations. Disagreeing with your boss is fine, and telling your boss in private that you disagree with him (in an effort to change his behavior) is also fine. I do those things fairly often in my job, and as long as you have a good take on things and you aren’t an asshole about it you can do a lot of good. But if I started gossiping with other employees and talking shit about how my boss was stupid and wrong after he listened to my concerns and then decided to do it his way anyway (as Kerrigan and Varsho apparently did), or started ignoring my boss’s orders and doing whatever the hell I wanted (as Walbeck apparently did), I’d get fired post-haste, and I’d deserve it. The boss is the boss for a reason. He’s the guy who gets to make the decisions, right or wrong. That’s why the company pays him – to make those decisions. A workplace where the boss doesn’t make those decisions, and where the workers don’t do their best to implement them, is screwy and dysfunctional and probably not long for the industry.
You have personal misgivings about a particular strategy? Fine. Make your case, and let the chips fall where they may. But once the rubber actually meets the road, all of that stuff needs to stay in-house, with a unified front in public.
If JR was truly great as a manager, then the FO should have kept him and withstood the criticism.
The sad truth of the matter is that the difference between a great manager and a replacement-level manager is much, much less valuable than a hundred season tickets.
So yeah, firing him was probably just about PR. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t right to do so, in the interest of the team. PR is as much a part of the business of baseball as talent acquisition or merchandising or facilities upkeep.
Maybe I can put it this way:
You ever see/read “The Godfather”? I can’t find a clip of the relevant scene online, but here’s the quote from the novel (pp. 66-67). Sollozzo has just pitched the Don on his drug enterprise, and been rejected:
The only sign of Sollozzo’s disappointment was a quick flickering of his eyes around the room, as if he hoped Hagen or Sonny would speak in his support. Then he said, “Are you worried about security for your two million?”
The Don smiled coldly. “No,” he said.
Sollozzo tried again. “The Tattaglia Family will guarantee your investment also.”
It was then that Sonny Corleone made an unforgivable error in judgment and procedure. He said eagerly, "The Tattaglia family guarantees the return of our investment without any percentage from us?"
Hagen was horrified at this break. He saw the Don turn cold, malevolent eyes on his eldest son, who froze in uncomprehending dismay. Sollozzo’s eyes flickered again but this time with satisfaction. He had discovered a chink in the Don’s fortress. When the Don spoke his voice held a dismissal. "Young people are greedy," he said. "And today they have no manners. They interrupt their elders. They meddle. But I have a sentimental weakness for my children and I have spoiled them. As you see. Signor Sollozzo, my no is final. Let me say that I myself wish you good fortune in your business. It has no conflict with my own. I’m sorry that I had to disappoint you."
Sollozzo bowed, shook the Don’s hand and let Hagen take him to his car outside. There was no expression on his face when he said good-bye to Hagen.
Back in the room, Don Corleone asked Hagen, "What did you think of that man?"
"He’s a Sicilian," Hagen said dryly.
The Don nodded his head thoughtfully. Then he turned to his son and said gently, "Santino, never let anyone outside the family know what you are thinking. Never let them know what you have under your fingernails. I think your brain is going soft from all that comedy you play with that young girl. Stop it and pay attention to business. Now get out of my sight."
You get the picture?
That really is sad
The sad truth of the matter is that the difference between a great manager and a replacement-level manager is much, much less valuable than a hundred season tickets.
And it really is true. Well, maybe not “great”, but certainly “good”.
Nice spinning. Too bad none of it’s accurate.
Nobody is saying those decisions didn’t come from the FO. YOU are saying, with no support whatsoever, that the mgr. had no ability to question those decisions. Has it occurred to you that, if Dejan was aware JR disagreed with those moves, NH sure as hell was aware? How else would Dejan have found out other than by hearing that JR had expressed his disagreement? The mere existence of these stories contradicts your assumptions.
The two coaches weren’t fired for disagreeing, they were fired for undermining the manager’s authority behind his back, which is absolutely a firing offense in any business.
The minor league manager wasn’t fired for disagreeing, he was fired for refusing to follow orders, which is absolutely a firing offense in any business. Two completely different things.
JR was fired because he’s a shitty manager. He committed some of the most outlandish blunders I’ve ever seen a manager commit, and he managed every game as if his only concern was keeping the bullpen fresh for tomorrow’s blowout. The only things I can blame NH for there are hiring him in the first place and not firing him sooner. Managers in similar situations get fired every season and there are always loads of applicants for those jobs.
I'm curious...
where Walbeck may have refused to follow orders. It was said that there wasn’t enough pre-game work (the main firing reasoning made to the public)…yet the reports that made it to the public were that just the opposite was true. Or could players and announcers that have watched or performed on teams for numerous years be wrong about how much pregame work is normal?
JR could disagree with the moves that the FO put out there…but if he implemented the FO’s moves…he’s taking the safe way…for him. He didn’t disobey his marching orders. And I didn’t see reports that Kerrigan and Varsho went behind JR’s back…nor failed to carry out orders…just that they had a difference of opinion in how things needed to be done.
You (NH in this example) hire a person to do a specific job…in this case…to develop your players and give your team the best chance to win each day. After all…wins and losses are how success is measured in the majors. Then you don’t let him do his job…the one you hired him to do…you decide that you want to do it for him…telling him how he has to do it. And do the coaches jobs as well. It’s called micro-management…and it’s rarely effective. Congratulations…you now have an organization with ineffective middle management…which means there is no reason for them to be there.
Evidently, getting rid of Kerrigan and Varsho improved the situation greatly with the Pirates.
Pre firing…39-71 for a .355 percentage
Post firing…18-34 for a .346 percentage
I went to a dozen Altoona games
Trust me when I say they looked more like a MLB team fundamentally that the bucs.
They played proper positioned in field…they ran the bases well…they hit and run quite often…and sucessfully…the played good situational ball…they threw to the right base…they LOOKED AND PLAYED ENTHUSIATIC BASEBALL (part of a mgr’s job too)…they expected to win.
NH was mgr for most part…JR was a puppet…and unfortunantly their way of running a MLB team on a nightly basis is a JOKE
Good to hear
PJ Forbes, who managed the same players to a Carolina League title the year before, must have done a great job. He’ll probably get the Altoona job, so the Curve will be in good hands.
It was an enjoyable experience
to actually watch a team that wasn’t bad news bear like.
Hopefully Forbes can keep up the good work.
I get a kick when guys argue…it’s the way they get instructions and are taught that are most important…not winning…LOL If a teams roster is taught the fundamentals properly along w/ put in positions to win/ suceed/ maximize their strengths/ production…THE SIDE AFFECT IS WINNING GAMES.
by Dan Jenkins on Oct 29, 2010 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
If a teams roster is taught the fundamentals properly along w/ put in positions to win/ suceed/ maximize their strengths/ production…THE SIDE AFFECT IS WINNING GAMES.
Sometimes, not always. An advanced, well-trained 20-year-old is still going to be at a disadvantage against a 25-year-old minor league vet. Particularly if the training process involves getting him to stop doing something that’s effective in the minors but won’t be in the majors, or encouraging him to work in game action on specific aspects of his technique (like learning the feel for the changeup).
And I didn’t see reports that Kerrigan and Varsho went behind JR’s back…nor failed to carry out orders…just that they had a difference of opinion in how things needed to be done.
From Dejan:
There also is a feeling among some in the clubhouse that there were issues of loyalty to Russell, though no one would discuss that for the record.
Dejan also reported that the decision to fire them was Russell’s.
The Pirates this morning fired pitching coach Joe Kerrigan and bench coach Gary Varsho, moves initiated by manager John Russell and approved by general manager Neal Huntington.
"I made the call," Russell said.
I never read anything about it being over a difference of opinion, although Kerrigan fucking up Lincoln’s delivery apparently was a reason.
where Walbeck may have refused to follow orders. It was said that there wasn’t enough pre-game work (the main firing reasoning made to the public)…yet the reports that made it to the public were that just the opposite was true.
They clearly were unhappy about more than that, they just didn’t discuss it publicly.
The sources with whom I spoke suggested that the Pirates were not exactly hemming and hawing on this firing. They wanted Matt Walbeck out, and they feel they can do better in terms of development. They were not happy with him, whether he wanted a promotion or not.
The Pirates’ main issue with Walbeck, as I was just told in no uncertain terms, was a lack of extra work, pregame work and other preparations involving the players. The lack of extra work in Altoona stood out compared to other affiliates, I was told. There were other issues, as well, but those were not shared.
Nothing in here about Walbeck speaking his mind too much. Does make it clear, though, that it extended well beyond pregame drills.
The Pirates were disappointed with this aspect last year, too, but liked Walbeck enough to give him a second chance this year. Two was too many, apparently.
The 2009 Altoona team had the worst record in Altoona history and had all sorts of problems with defense and fundamentals. Of course, they were still relying heavily on DL players at that point and didn’t have the NH guys, who’d won a title under PJ Forbes at Lynchburg the previous year, so it can’t all be laid on Walbeck. It does show, though, how idiotic it was for people to get into such a huge uproar about Walbeck being fired after winning the Eastern League title.
Evidently, getting rid of Kerrigan and Varsho improved the situation greatly with the Pirates.
Pre firing…39-71 for a .355 percentage
Post firing…18-34 for a .346 percentage
I guess NH shouldn’t have listened to JR and allowed him to fire them, huh? Damn FO, giving so much leeway to the manager!
What a complete non sequitur
Are you actually disagreeing with the substance of Thunder’s claim in this comment? Have you ever worked in successful and unsuccessful businesses? What the hell?
Good bosses listen to their subordinates and consider their input. Bad bosses hire yes men and refuse to listen to anything but their own opinions. This isn’t exactly MBA-level insight into how large organizations operate. The US Army, for instance, has gone to great lengths to create channels for alternative views to be inserted into the decision-making process, to the point that they invite in people like Ayelet Waldman to participate in seminars at the War College.
Maybe you’re just annoyed at Thunder and so you don’t really mean to suggest otherwise. But this is the 2nd or 3rd thing I’ve read from you suggesting that businesses, including ballclubs, should be run like France under Louis XIV. It’s not true, and it’s a recipe for disaster.
Bad bosses hire yes men and refuse to listen to anything but their own opinions.
I repeat yet again . . . Where is there a single shred of evidence that NH wouldn’t listen to JR’s opinions?
I repeat yet again
We’re discussing Charlie’s post, which advocates for yes men.
You’re so busy disagreeing with Thunder about JR’s position that you’re reacting unreasonably against anything else. The only thing I’ve said about JR is that I wonder if his lines of communication to NH were sufficient. I don’t have any sense that he personally felt like he couldn’t talk to NH, and DK said that they both expressed that they talked. But the time and circumstances of such talks make a difference. Pure speculation but, as I’ve said 3X now, I’m not talking about JR at all.
And I know
That’s a bit unfair to Charlie (who was making both a broader and a more subtle point), but it’s not exactly wrong either.
You need to re-read Thunder’s posts. The things you’re saying he never said . . . he said.
It’s fairly obvious that disagreeing with the FO and/or the manager cost 2 Pirates coaches (and one minor league manager) their jobs…
And I didn’t see reports that Kerrigan and Varsho went behind JR’s back…nor failed to carry out orders…just that they had a difference of opinion in how things needed to be done.
You (NH in this example) hire a person to do a specific job…in this case…to develop your players and give your team the best chance to win each day. After all…wins and losses are how success is measured in the majors. Then you don’t let him do his job…the one you hired him to do…you decide that you want to do it for him…telling him how he has to do it. And do the coaches jobs as well. It’s called micro-management…and it’s rarely effective. Congratulations…you now have an organization with ineffective middle management…which means there is no reason for them to be there.
That’s just from two posts. And all of it is unsupported.
Are you actually disagreeing with the substance of Thunder’s claim in this comment?
Yes. He’s saying that Kerrigan and Varsho were fired for disagreeing with management, which is factually incorrect. They were fired for trying to undermine their boss’s authority and forment dissent in the clubhouse, as was reported by Dejan and cited upthread by WTM. As such, all Thunder’s conclusions derived from his incorrect premise are also incorrect.
The US Army, for instance, has gone to great lengths to create channels for alternative views to be inserted into the decision-making process, to the point that they invite in people like Ayelet Waldman to participate in seminars at the War College.
Does the US Army also allow lieutenants in the field to disregard orders from the general back at HQ? Because that’s what Thunder is saying that the manager should be able to do: If he gets directives that don’t make sense to him, he should ignore them and do whatever he want.
Personally, I don’t think you’re going to win many wars that way, but what do I know?
Wrong comment
The comment I was referring to was
Actually…many/most bosses are actually open to someone not being a yes man, if it can be shown that the points the subordinate brings up are valid, and benefit the company.Not a word about Kerrigan and Varsho. There may have been some confusion, but I was trying to be very clear that Thunder wasn’t saying anything controversial. Perhaps the “up” button was called for.If someone is going to ignore ALL of the bosses wishes, yes, he will get fired, and rightfully so. But until they invent the perfect boss (and I think there’s only been one of those in recorded time), some of the bosses’ suggestions should be disputed. It’s where and how they are disputed that should make the difference.
Furthermore
If you look at the correct Thunder comment and at the Slick1 comment he was replying to, Thunder was emphatically not trying to claim that the manager should tell the GM to stick it – he took Slick1’s strawmannish claim that anyone here is asking for a manager who would “ignore” the GM’s directives, and pointed out that, in reality, good bosses listen to their subordinates, even when their subordinates are disagreeing.
I agree completely that Thunder is wrong about what happened with Varsho and Kerrigan (and I don’t know how he missed the multiple reports that JR was solely responsible for their firings), but I don’t see him as having made the extreme arguments that are being ascribed to him. That’s why I asked what the heck WTM was objecting to, when he replied insultingly to Thunder making a reasonable and correct point.
Jeebus this is getting tedious. Can we just start commenting on games from the 1977 season until the Winter Meetings start?
Here, I’ll get us started: Boy, can you believe Bannister last night? 11 hits and 3 walks, but he still kept us at 3 runs. I guess 9 Ks will help. Of course, it’s easy when Reuss spits the bit like that. 5 runs in 3+ innings? To a mediocre offensive club like Houston? Ugly.
Thunder was emphatically not trying to claim that the manager should tell the GM to stick it
Yes, he was.
*Link: “The approach should be similar…yes. The philosophies should be compatible. But every once in a while there are things happen that the GM SHOULD be told no.”
*Link: “When should the GM be told no…when a player is being played to raise his trade value…and not because he’s the best player for the position. Or because a starting pitcher has been getting hammered for 2 months…and the GM thinks he’s throwing well.”
Slick’s claim isn’t a strawman. It’s an accurate reflection of what Thunder has advocated in both this thread and in other past threads. Thunder wants the manager to be able to exercise veto power over the GM’s policies (as long as he really, really strongly disagrees with them).
Again, in the comment I was replying to
Or rather, to which WTM was replying with a non sequitur, he was making a reasonable claim.
You can’t argue with someone by simply ignoring their sound points (or rather, insulting them baselessly) because they also made unsound points.
Thunder said something true.
WTM said, “That’s not true!”
I said, “WTF, WTM?”
Nothing I said or responded to was based on Thunder’s bad arguments. All of it was based on sound, obvious statements by Thunder that WTM decided were somehow out of bounds, because he also was talking shit elsewhere.
I don't understand...
…why you’d ignore Thunder’s other comments in this same thread when considering the appropriateness of WTM’s response. These aren’t separate constructs in and of themselves – they’re all supporting pieces of one larger point.
WTM objected to Thunder’s statement about bosses who “are actually open to someone not being a yes man” within the context of Thunder’s past remarks about what he would consider to be a yes man (i.e. a manager who isn’t willing to tell his GM to stick it). That’s a perfectly reasonable position for WTM to take.
Because his response was pure non sequitur
If he wanted to, he could have written, “You may be right about that, but it doesn’t help your argument because you’re crazy/wrong.” But instead he called the comment an “unsupported claim.”
I know he was talking about the other things Thunder said (primarily the JR was NH’s puppet stuff), but that doesn’t make it OK to literally ignore the substance of a comment.
If we’re arguing the merits of a player, and I’m being a bonehead in characterizing his offense, that doesn’t give someone else carte blanche to ignore (or denigrate) absolutely accurate characterizations of his defense. Then we just devolve to blind opposition.
He didn't ignore the substance of the comment.
The comment was building on Thunder’s past comments on the subject, and needs to be viewed within that context in order for you (or anyone else) to underestand exactly what Thunder was trying to say.
Let’s go with your hypothetical, with the added proviso that earlier in the thread you’d said something totally wrong and crazy connecting offense and defense, like “shortstop is a defensive position from top to bottom – a player’s offense there is totally irrelevant”. If you start talking about a given shortstop’s defense further downthread, it’d be totally legitimate for another party in the discussion to point out your earlier statement and to view your later comment within that context (e.g. “Of course you prefer better defensive Shortstop B to good-but-not-quite-as-good-defensive Shortstop A! You don’t understand the value of offense at all!”)
Vlad already responded with what I wanted to say...
but I’ll add that you are really splitting hairs JRoth95 to support your argument. IMO, an employee who tells a boss “if you don’t like the way I do things than fire me…” is the same as an employee going rogue and telling the boss to stick it. It seemed pretty obvious to me. But I guess if you want to turn that assertion into a strawman argument really, really bad I can see where you are coming from…never mind, no I can’t.
That said, I do agree that Thunder’s reply to me clarified his stance in that he doesn’t want someone who is going to tell NH F_ _ _ Off! but like Vlad said Thunder believes a manager should have veto power and I don’t. And I don’t think in any other business does a subordinate have veto power over his boss; not without consequences anyway.
The only other ones I can come up with...
…are in creative/artistic fields, like a director who’s contractually guaranteed final cut on his picture.
More strawmannery
What Thunder said (in the comment in question, which is what he wrote in reply to you and what WTM was replying to):
some of the bosses’ suggestions should be disputedHow you just characterized that:
an employee who tells a boss "if you don’t like the way I do things than fire me…"No one is asking anyone to constantly go to brinksmanship with his boss. But to occasionally say, “You’re nuts on this, Boss, and here’s why”? That’s called doing your job.
I’m sorry if none of you have ever been in a position to tell your boss that he’s full of shit, but it’s not exactly unheard of for people who are, themselves, in positions of authority (and the manager of a MLB team is not exactly at the same rank as the fryer guy at McDonald’s). In my professional career, I’ve never worked for anyone that I couldn’t say that to. If they’ve been absolutely committed to whatever the course of action was, then I grumbled and went along, but I also kept track of it in terms of how long I planned to keep the job.
A manager who benched a player his GM insisted on playing would surely be headed for a firing*. But he’s not doing the organization much good if he doesn’t at least tell the GM, “You’re nuts to tell me to play this guy.” He can decide whether it’s worth getting fired for, but he’s neglecting his job if he just shuts up and takes it.
- a well-deserved one all around, really: if it’s a situation of long term benefit vs. short, well, the manager is going to be harmed by the short term considerations because his job is always the more tenuous, while the GM is right to focus on long term. Tell me, did JR benefit from going along with ideas of NH’s that resulted in more losses in 2010, even though they might add wins in 2013?
I refer you, once again...
…to the quotes I provided in this post, in which Thunder explicitly advocates for the manager to be able to veto directions from the GM. He’s not just advocating for dispute or discussion or discourse or the constructive exchange of mutually valued opinions. He’s saying that the manager should be able to say, “No, you’re full of shit. I’m doing it my way.”
You are arguing with a position that people like Slick and WTM are not taking, primarily out of a misunderstanding as to what Thunder is advocating and why people are fighting him on it.
Tell me, did JR benefit from going along with ideas of NH’s that resulted in more losses in 2010, even though they might add wins in 2013?
Yes, because those are the conditions under which he was hired, and if he hadn’t been willing to agree to that, he never would have gotten the job in the first place.
JRoth95...
get off your high horse for a second a go read Thunder’s comment that I replied to. Thunder said:
There are times for the manager to agree…and others where the FO needs to be told…"If you don’t like the way I am doing things…fire me."
I would say that I characterized it EXACTLY the way Thunder stated it. It would appear to me that you are completely unaware of that statement which would make several of your follow up posts in defense of Thunder null and void or you are cherry picking bits and pieces of different posts to support your claim. Well you have gone ahead and accused me of making strawman arguments twice now when in fact I did not and it is clear that I did not. I know you like to pretend you are the Robin Hood of BucsDugout sometimes but please get your facts straight before you start throwing out accusations.
No one is asking anyone to constantly go to brinksmanship with his boss. But to occasionally say, "You’re nuts on this, Boss, and here’s why"? That’s called doing your job.
I don’t dispute that. That’s a very healthy and functional working relationship (maybe without the you’re nuts part but whatever). But what I dispute is that after the boss hears what you have to say and says “I appreciate your opinion Roth and I think you make some good points but in the end we are going to do it my way,” is it healthy for you to reply, “well Boss I’m going to do what I want and if you don’t like it you can fire me?” And before you accuse me of more Strawmannery, this is the context of my first reply to Thunder. I ask you to go read that exchange again before you throw out the strawman argument because if you do it again I swear I might jump through your screen.
There’s a lot in here and Slick and Vlad have pretty much dealt with it. The bottom line is that JRoth appears not to have actually read Thunder’s posts. The claims he’s saying Thunder never made, Thunder damn well did make.
IN THE FUCKING POST I WAS REFERRING TO
Thunder said A. WTM said, You stupid Thunder, Z isn’t true! I said, Wow, WTM, Thunder said A, which is true.
And now Vlad, Slick1, and WTM are all excited because, in other posts, Thunder said Z. How about WTM say what he should have fucking said the first time, which is, “You’re right about A, Thunder, but you’ve been wrong with Z elsewhere”?
Oh no, it’s too fucking important to insist that Thunder always has been and always will be wrong about everything. And anyone who thinks that’s BS argumentation had better shut up, because, because, well, just fucking because.
And let me explain
why I’m so het up about this.
I don’t give a shit about Thunder or his (overall) argument. But I made a comment yesterday (or maybe first thing this morning) that had nothing to do with Thunder or JR or Kerrigan or any of that shit, and that was primarily a response to Charlie’s post – you know, the reason this thread exists at all. And WTM comes at me with a completely unresponsive reply because, to him, anyone who isn’t completely in agreement with him must be in complete agreement with Thunder, who’s the world’s biggest idiot, and therefore any suggestion that it might be healthy for a manager to question his GM is tantamount to demanding that every manager subvert his GM’s intentions at every turn.
It was completely ridiculous, and so when I saw WTM’s utterly unresponsive reply to a very reasonable Thunder comment (even if it was Thunder’s only sensible comment in the entire history of BD*), it set me off. The wagon-circling that followed did not incline me to charity.
I don’t care how poor someone’s overall argument is; if he makes a valid point, then acknowledge it as such (or even ignore it, if it’s painfulto admit its validity). If you need to point out that the valid point is a rare exception, that’s fine, too. That much courtesy has been extended to NuHo and MR. ALL CAPS, Son. I don’t know why it was so hard to extend in this thread.
- which it wasn’t – I’m exaggerating for effect here
If you bothered to read the posts more carefully, instead of inaccurately claiming Thunder wasn’t making the argument he was in fact making, you might not have had such an emotionally charged experience. I’m sure as hell not going to apologize for your poor reading comprehension. The fact is, YOU’RE the one who continues even now to mischaracterize what was being said as an excuse to jump all over me. I ignored most of your post, apart from the false claim that I was arguing everything NH does is right, because it was completely irrelevant to what I was saying. Nobody else has had the problem understanding what was being argued that you continue to have.
But I made a comment yesterday (or maybe first thing this morning) that had nothing to do with Thunder or JR or Kerrigan or any of that shit, and that was primarily a response to Charlie’s post – you know, the reason this thread exists at all. And WTM comes at me with a completely unresponsive reply because, to him, anyone who isn’t completely in agreement with him must be in complete agreement with Thunder, who’s the world’s biggest idiot, and therefore any suggestion that it might be healthy for a manager to question his GM is tantamount to demanding that every manager subvert his GM’s intentions at every turn.
Can you point to this post of yours? There’s no reasonable way for us to respond without having the opportunity to see what you said, and what was said in return.
And now Vlad, Slick1, and WTM are all excited because, in other posts, Thunder said Z.
Context matters. If someone says, “I don’t like Al Sharpton,” that’s a perfectly reasonable and legitimate position. Like most people, he has some disagreeable personal qualities, any one of which would be perfectly reasonable grounds for forming that opinion.
However, if someone says, “I don’t like Al Sharpton,” in the same thread where he’d earlier made comments about “uppity n——-s,” his comments on Sharpton are going to be viewed with a more jaundiced eye, and rightly so.
Thunder’s post, in isolation, would have been a perfectly reasonable and unobjectionable statement. But within the context of his other remarks within the thread, it means something different than it would have purely on its face.
This seems like a fairly obvious point to me. I’m not sure why you are fighting us on it.
But this is the 2nd or 3rd thing I’ve read from you suggesting that businesses, including ballclubs, should be run like France under Louis XIV.
Heh…hyperbolize much?
Let me also say...
…that we could do a lot worse than ending up as successful as the Sun King, y’know?
Eh
Sure, he was successful in the short term, but he left the organization so stripped of resources that his successors ended up losing the franchise, among other things.
If Huntington goes on to have a successful 72 year reign as Pirates GM, where he conquers and absorbs most of the present NL Central, I’m sure we’ll cut him some slack even if his great grand nephew goes on to screw up the franchise in 2138 or so.
by maguro on Oct 29, 2010 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Rec'd.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 29, 2010 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Minor quibble
The single most important thing a major-league manager can do for young players is to teach them.
Teach them what, exactly? About baseball? I’d disagree with that. But then, I disagree with how managers affect the teams they manage so…
I think the most important thing he can do is understand what makes them tick, as individuals, and use that to bring out the best the player can give. I know it’s nebulous, but he needs to coax their best from them. Helping coax them through periods of self-doubt or arrogance, or when they’re just gliding and getting by on talent when they have more to give. It could be via hard boot tactics, or father figure tactics, or cold statistical analysis. Or a combination.
well
thanks to Vlad having raised the gamblers’ fallacy in this thread, I can say that the manager can teach them about percentages, and perhaps specifically, the gamblers’ fallacy, the hot hand fallacy, and FIP/xFIP/UZR/wOBA :-)
Maybe Dan Fox for manager?
by BurgherKing on Oct 28, 2010 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
What Stengel said
about keeping the X number of guys who hate you away from the Y number of guys who haven’t made up their minds.
I have an idea.
Get the best manager for the job…. Our FO shouldn’t have a problem doing that since they are so great. We shall see, these guys are professionals so lets see some professionalism.
by Jake The Snake1 on Oct 28, 2010 1:02 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Did you even
look at who posted it?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 28, 2010 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Don't tell Smizik that...
He’ll run with it ya know. I can see it now
A source has informed me that the team is looking for “the worst manager for the team”
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
that
sounds like Jake more than Smizik… Smizik is happy to attribute his dreamed-up philosophies to himself.
Hehehehe.
“This blog has said for a long time that Neil Huntingdon and Bob Nutting were looking for the worst possible manager for the Pirates because he’ll be cheap.” – Bob Smizik, about two weeks from now.
by IAPiratesFan on Oct 28, 2010 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Put me in the corner of those who think a manager has very little influence on a team, yes-man or not.
But he should be able to speak his opinion to the GM in private if he sees something that could be improved.
The whole “teaching” thing is a bit overblown. If an outfielder doesn’t know after 15 years playing baseball, including a handful as a pro, that he has to throw the ball back towards the relay-man, he’s not gonna “learn” it magically in year 16.
There is a lot more than just on the field teaching. Plus, shouldn’t they be trying to learn constantly. Are you saying that after 15 years on the job there is nothing new to be learned?
Put on your dancin' shoes.
I mean, look at a guy like Bautista. He went up to Toronto, they found something in his swing, and they had him make some adjustments. Not everyone is going to have such spectacular results, but if JB had simply said “I’ve been doing this for 15 years. I don’t need your help.” he probably wouldn’t have a starting job right now. There are always ways to improve and it is the managers and coaches jobs to find these things. Of course they don’t need to learn stupid crap like throwing the ball to the cut off man, but there is plenty of learning to do. The idea that nothing new can be learned is complacency and should not be tolerated, let alone on a team with 107 losses. Looking at their play this past season I would say there is plenty to be learned.
Put on your dancin' shoes.
if JB had simply said "I’ve been doing this for 15 years. I don’t need your help." he probably wouldn’t have a starting job right now.
Apparently, that’s exactly what he DID say his last year or so in Pgh. and his first year and a half in Toronto.
Robinzon Diaz
was much more coachable.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 28, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions
What I meant is not that there’s nothing left to learn. But after 15 years, you should know the basics.
Of course, each player should change his approach here or there to remain competitive. But, if a manager/coach doesn’t help his players do just that, he’s not trying to get the best out of his team.
What I meant is that I believe each MLB manager is (or should be) already doing it. And, if everybody’s teaching, then nobody’s teaching.
But if your players don’t have the abilities, willingness and/or instincts to be above average MLB players, then no manager will ever get them to the World Series.
FYI, the “now that you’re in the Bigs, learn to throw the ball back to the cut-off man” was the stupidest comment I’ve heard during a game. I actually heard it twice : once for Granderson (iirc), once for Carlos Gomez (in 08).
from france, you obviously NEVER played ball
How do you explain the Balt turn-about? They hot lucky? Trembley WAS UNLUCKY? tHE MATURED INCL MILLWOOD OVERNIGHT?
Attitude, clubhouse atmosphere, a managers not accepting losing, not putting his team in stupid situations that lead to failure, sitting/ demoting a guy who has stunk and starting guys who have produced (accountibility for your production, you dont do the job, you are gone from your starting position). Using hit n runs, manufacturing runs…that’s why some managers seem to be consistantly getting the most out of their talent and some lose everywhere they go.
Anyone who has played ball and have played for a great manager and also a terrible manager can attest to just much (wins and losses) it really means.
I agree players should already know the fundamentals by the time they reach PGH but they should be held accountible when making bad mistakes (3rd base coach too, worst in baseball since JR held that job).
by Dan Jenkins on Oct 29, 2010 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions
PG blog
What’s going on there?
With Dejan away, do they have nobody else? They haven’t had any content in forever now!
wait, you actually expect chuck finder to earn his paycheck? That’s a laugh riot. There’s at least been some updates by a guy named Bill Brink
i guess i m wondering
what the people who paid for the PG Plus are thinking… was it a 6 month deal? 12 month deal?
It’s quite shocking. Does the print edition do better, at least?
Chuck's laziness...
…is explicitly the reason why I didn’t subscribe.
Good to know that my decision was the right one.
i have also not subscribed due to the fear of DK leaving and being stuck with CF….although I do view the blog through someone who does subscribe.
I think Dejan’s entrenched for the long term. He not only is the beat writer, he has the BA gig now, too, which wouldn’t work if he wasn’t covering the team for the PG.
The PG put his blog on PG Plus, or whatever it is, because it attracts a tremendous amount of traffic, by PG standards. Obviously, most of that traffic would disappear if Finder took over the blog. Even if Dejan does leave, they’ll have to find some other solution.
At this point…Dejan has attracted a good amount of traffic to PG+…but from what I’ve seen recently…there are a LOT of frustrated people on that blog. And most of it has to do with paying money for something that doesn’t work half the time. And they seem to be losing some of their paying customers. And with Dejan away for almost 2 months, very little timely and accurate information is going on there anyway.
Frankly, as long as one doesn’t feel the need to comment, you can see most all of that information in fairly short order without paying, even on the blog. And anything that’s time sensitive hits Twitter pretty darn quick now.
I know they’re having technical issues. I haven’t read the blog much since Dejan went on break so I don’t know what people have been saying. Is it dissatisfaction with the lack of content? That might explain Brink stepping in for Finder, which at least shows the PG is being responsive.
I don’t really care because there’s no real news now. Once Dejan returns, the blog will be worth reading again.
Exactly
I wish there were more, but let’s face it: nothing is happening in the world of the Pirates right now, and there’s little value added in running links to somebody else’s WS coverage.
If Bill Brink – or someone else not Finder – were to develop some long-term rapport with the commenters, then I could see this down time having a bit more life, but since it’s not intended as an opinion blog, and both Finder and Brink have other jobs to do, it’s hard to develop content when there’s no actual news about the Pirates (main exception is the winter league stuff; there’s no real excuse for failing to at least post links to roundups or stat pages or whatever exists – but that would still be pretty thin).
Me too.
I’m not broke or anything, but I knew I’d get any news that is released on the blog eventually.
by IAPiratesFan on Oct 29, 2010 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I was one of those who posted early on...
that we needed someone other than a mere yes man. I probably didn’t explain myself very well, so let me try again.
I want a manager who has say in the decisions, whose input is valued and worthwhile. He should then be able to take a directive, even if he disagrees with it, from the front office. Specific in game strategy decisions should be his to make, but in terms of implementing a strategy for playing time or player development or general on field strategies and player utilization he should be implementing the front offices plan after having had a voice in the decision making process.
FWIW, I think Hurdle is a good candidate. I’m as excited about him as I was anybody else that has been mentioned.
Good day.
It should be obvious
I’m mostly pissed none of you took me up on a discussion of the ’77 Pirates.
Look at the season final records and run differentials. Someone was seriously under- or over-performing, but I can’t immediately tell who.
I think that's the right call.
Or at least a good working theory.
Having a dominant performance at the back end of a bullpen can sometimes give you a temporary bounce in performance in one-run games, and Gossage was pretty killer that year (best season of his career, arguably). The ’77 Pirates went 31-20 in one-run games.
The common saying is that good teams win the close ones, but in reality the opposite is usually true. Good teams win blowouts, and for any given team, as the margin of victory/defeat approaches zero, their winning percentage will tend to move toward .500.
It appears
That St Lo was right on track, Philly maybe underperformed (which is hard to say of a 101 win season, but that’s a steep differential), and the Bucs definitely overperformed (at first glance I hadn’t realized just how close our runs were to the Cards’). Presumably due to veteranosity, given that club’s lineup.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Baltimore’s tradition of fans shouting ‘O!’ during national anthem sparks interleague feud
- Chris Perez follows rant against Cleveland fans with even better rant against Cleveland fans
- Pitcher Clayton Richard gets key pinch single in 13th after coming in 0 for 16
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ball boy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
- Man beaten by four others in Dodger Stadium parking lot
