SB Nation Pittsburgh Editor's Pick
Grading The Post-Leyland Managers
With the Pirates seemingly deciding to rest on their laurels for the remainder of the off-season after their signing of Lyle Overbay sent shock waves through baseball, real news has been hard to come by. To break up the monotony, I thought I might revel a bit in past misery by rating the team’s four, post-Leyland managers. Before you even say it, yes, yes, yes, nobody could have won with the Pirates’ talent. I figured that out for myself. The ratings, as you’ll see, are often low, but I’ve tried to focus on whether the manager got the most out of what he had, not simply on whether he won. Besides, doesn’t it stand to reason that a team that’s done such a poor job of choosing players would also do a poor job of choosing managers?
Anyway, here are my totally subjective, unscientific, stat-free ratings in what seem to me to be the crucial areas of manager endeavor, on a one-to-five scale.
Game Strategy (lineups, pinch-hitting, etc., but not pitching moves)
Jim Tracy - I don't recall Tracy being especially bad at anything. He didn't bunt all that much or otherwise over-manage, and his teams had good stolen base percentages. There was that bizarre all-left-handed platoon of Chris Duffy and Nate McLouth. Grade: 4.
Gene Lamont - I also don't remember Lamont being too awful. Like all of the team's managers since Leyland, he didn't use platoons effectively and he was too hidebound to let his catcher lead off more than sporadically, which would have given the Pirates one of the best leadoff hitters of recent times. But he bunted an average amount and his teams stole bases very effectively. Grade: 3.
Lloyd McClendon - He over-managed frantically his first couple years, running the team out of inning after inning. He eventually settled down, but remained clueless about the platoon advantage. Severely damaged the team's interests by pushing Jason Kendall and Aramis Ramirez to play hurt. Loses mega-points for mistaking Abe Nunez for Manny Mota. Grade: 1.
John Russell - Just awful. Clueless about the platoon advantage. Didn't bunt any more excessively than most managers, but did so at bizarre times, like with an extremely weak hitter on deck. Sometimes failed to use his best pinch-hitters ("best" being a relative term) in crucial middle inning situations so he could save them for big ninth-inning rallies that never occurred. The infamous Sean Gallagher no-pinch-hitter incident was one of the stupidest managerial decisions not made by Grady Little. Grade: 1.
Judging Talent
Lamont - I'm saving "Handling Rookies" for a separate rating, so Lamont does OK here. There were no particularly glaring issues that I can recall. Grade: 4.
Russell - There wasn't really much choice, as his teams were set up with younger players as regulars and washed-up veterans on the bench. There were few real decisions, although he at least gave full-time chances to McLouth and Ryan Doumit. Grade: 4.
McClendon - Overrated Tike Redman and underrated Craig Wilson. He did manage to get about as much out of Rob Mackowiak as could be expected, using him to fill different holes at different times. Dave Littlefield stuck him with some serious problems, like Raul Mondesi and Benito Santiago, and a chronic lack of a major league second baseman, none of which he could help. Grade: 3.
Tracy - Preferred Joe Randa to Freddy Sanchez. Wanted to replace Jack Wilson with Cesar Izturis. Benched a red-hot McLouth for Nyjer Morgan. Buried Craig Wilson at a time when he was still productive. Too bad the rules won't let me give less than a "1." Hey, wait, they're my rules! Grade: 0.
Handling Starters
McClendon - Possibly because of the trauma of seeing his rotation vanish with a puff of smoke in his first training camp, thanks to Lamont, McClendon was very careful with his starters. He also made a serious effort to get the starter out quickly once he started struggling. Grade: 5.
Russell - Was fine with pitch counts, probably thanks to Neal Huntington's mythical meddling. Routinely left struggling starters in until after it was too late and the game was blown. This especially hurt Jeff Karstens and James McDonald in 2010. Often let winnable games get away due to his obsession with conserving the bullpen. Grade: 2.
Tracy - Generally wasn't too bad, but took foolish, pointless risks with Paul Maholm and Tom Gorzelanny in late 2007, which was possibly very costly in the latter case. Grade: 2.
Lamont - A shredder of arms. Abused Kris Benson, Jason Schmidt and Francisco Cordova, with disastrous results. Habitually left struggling starters in too long, blowing games unnecessarily and creating health risks. Grade: 1.
Handling Bullpen
Lamont - Rarely had established relievers but generally had decent bullpens. Had surprising success with guys like Rich Loiselle, Mike Williams, Brad Clontz and Scott Sauerbeck. More or less did what Huntington has been trying to do. Grade: 5.
McClendon - Had very little to work with at times. Got good, even great, results from reclamation projects with Salomon Torres and Brian Meadows. Was slow to recognize what he had in Mike Gonzalez. Gets bonus points for using Julian Tavarez as multi-inning closer when he found himself with no other effective relievers. Grade: 4.
Tracy - Generally did OK, but overused Torres and Matt Capps, leading to arm problems in both cases. Grade: 2.
Russell - Clueless about the platoon advantage. Left starters in too long to conserve bullpen while at the same time wasting relievers by refusing to let anybody except the designated long man go beyond one inning. Grade: 1.
Handling Rookies (or young players generally)
Russell - Didn't exactly have a choice. Outside of occasional dopey decisions, like platooning Lastings Milledge with Ryan Church, he played the guys he needed to play. Grade: 4.
Tracy - He didn't hesitate to play rookies like Morgan, Capps and Ronny Paulino. He just made some bad choices about which ones. Grade: 4.
McClendon - Started off fine when he put Ramirez in the lineup and left him there, but grew rookie-phobic as his job became less secure. Jerked Ryan Doumit around ridiculously and refused to play September callups. Grade: 1.
Lamont - Made no secret of the fact that he hated playing rookies. Acted like a martyr when he was forced to play Ramirez and Chad Hermansen. Did everything he could to undermine Ramirez, platooning him with future Yankee mascot Luis Sojo and going all the way to Puerto Rico to ask Wil Cordero to play third. Couldn't have been a less appropriate choice to manage a rebuilding team. Grade: 1.
Leadership
McClendon - Didn't dump on players in the press, stood up for them with umpires and Tony LaRussa. Probably learned a lot from Leyland. Bonus points for stealing first. Grade: 5.
Lamont - Whined about players, especially rookies, to media. Seemed more interested in what players couldn't do than what they could. Grade: 2.
Russell - Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Grade: 1.
Tracy - Got off to bad start by bragging endlessly about the great success of his high-payroll, mostly underperforming LA teams. Seemed to think he invented the idea of winning with pitching, defense and timely hitting. Took credit when things (on rare occasions) went right, pointed the finger when they didn't. Threw players under the bus, like when Doumit made an error in his first game ever at first base. Team seemed to quit on him in second half of his last season. Grade: 1.
I'm not going to give overall grades, but it should be pretty obvious I think McClendon was the least bad of the four. Tracy had some good qualities but canceled them out with huge negatives. Lamont and Russell were terrible.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.
264 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Can Lloyd get extra bonus points for stealing first?
Somehow anything less than 5 bonus points feels like we’re cheating him
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.
I think your grades for Russell are, by and large, unfair.
Possibly because he’s the most recent, and therefore his dumb stuff is freshest in your mind. But just to pick one example: only one point better than Lamont the Arm-Slayer on handling pitchers? Really?
Your game strategy grade for Tracy also doesn’t properly account for things like Jose Hernandez: First Baseman.
I'm inclined
To agree with Vlad here, but I know you despised JR so I’m not shocked or anything by the ratings.
Despised? Yes, I’d have to say despised. Vlad probably has a point, though. I thought about giving Lamont a “0” there, but I didn’t want to overuse the coveted “0” rating and lessen its impact.
I forgot all about stepson, although I probably would have dinged Tracy for that under talent evaluation. It was all a part of Tracy’s attempt to reproduce his one Dodgers playoff team.
Reflection
A team is in many respects a reflection of their management. Russell showed no fire, and as a result neither did his team. IMHO, Lloyd McClendon came too early. He had a fire that could inspire a young team. Maybe, that’s why I have some hope for the Clint Hurdle reign. He seems like a no nonsense guy that will push players to perform to their ability. If that turns off some guys, so be it, a weak constitution can go to another team. Play hard, play tough, and let the chips fall where they may!
Lloyd McClendon came too early.
Obligatory TWSS.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 25, 2011 12:06 AM EST up reply actions
PUTTIN ON DA REEEEEEEEEEETZ!
— Young Frankenstein
Good stuff!
I did throw up in my mouth, however.
I'll total 'em up for ya:
Lamont: 16
McClendon: 19
Tracy: 13
Russell: 13
And think about THIS: GMs have their hands in line-ups more than ever now, and McClendon has shown an affinity for statistics in the last few years. So his past weaknesses might be nullified, making him a pretty good manager. Not for the Pirates, of course.
by joepinion on Jan 19, 2011 3:04 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I think Mac would have been fine, once he had a few years’ experience, if he hadn’t been in such a bad situation in Pgh. The entire franchise was run in the latter half of DL’s reign of error as if there was no tomorrow, which is what led to a lot of Mac’s bad decisions, especially not playing younger guys. He and DL both seemed to be in save-my-job mode every minute of every day.
Lloyd always seemed likeable to me...
…and would sometimes show flashes of baseball intelligence… I remember in 2005 or so when a bad Pirates team went on a random 10-game winning streak. Lloyd was asked what made the difference in those ten games. He said something along the lines of, “Absolutely nothing. That’s just baseball.” I can only imagine Tracy’s self-praising philosophizing in such a situation.
Lloyd was thrown in the deep end before he was ready.
If he’s been paying attention on Leyland’s staff and working to improve his game, I could see him becoming a good manager somewhere down the road.
Lloyd already has the leadership thing down
The worst one can say about him in this regard is that he let Giles, Kendall and Williams haze Jack Wilson and others. I realize there is a tradition of rookie hazing in all sports. But everything I’ve read about the Pirates’ situation suggests that the miscreants hurt the team with their antics. If that’s true, then the manager and his coaches are also blameworthy. It’s their job to keep the clubhouse in order.
On the other hand, Lloyd challenged Capt’n Blood LaRussa to fight him under the stands because he wanted to defend his player and team. Tracy, if my memory is right, nearly apologized to LaRussa through the newspaper for another one of LaRussa’s complaints about the Pirates. I would have fired Tracy the moment I heard about that.
s.zielinski
One rumor had Giles and, perhaps, Kendall wanting to...
…pound on Benson outside of a Pittsburgh area bar. The reason: Kris told Anna about Giles’ messing around on his wife. Anna told Mrs. Giles and….
Rumor also had Matt Stairs stepping in to help Benson defend himself and this lead to the broken arm/hand (?) he suffered while a Pirate.
I always discount complaints about players, but Giles, Kendall and Williams seem to have been pieces of work.
s.zielinski
I'm not being a jerk when I ask this
but genuinely curious: do you (or anybody) have a source (preferably a linkable one!) for any of this? (Especially about Giles and Kendall). I read the hell out of the newspaper and listened to (too much) sports talk on the radio, but I don’t really remember hearing anything like that. I don’t think I heard any of it until I started reading this blog a few years ago. I’m just curious where it comes from, since the “official” channels weren’t giving me anything!
I can confirm the part about Anna Benson squealing on Giles’s cheating (though not any fight that resulted), based on a personal conversation with an involved party. I’m not comfortable going into more detail than that.
I knew it.
I thought he looked familiar last year in Pittsburgh….
by IAPiratesFan on Jan 20, 2011 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
Just to be clear:
I’m not saying that a fight did or didn’t happen, just that it didn’t come up in the conversation in question.
I forget where I read it
I probably heard about the fight at OBN. But I can’t swear to that. The bar where the fight took place is near my home and near Kris Benson’s Pittsburgh residence, so I suppose I could ask the manager if three or four knuckleheads from the Pirates got into it at his place. But in my limited dealings with him I concluded that I wanted to have less contact than I had in the past.
I tend to discount stories like this one. But, given what we learned about Giles after his divorce and trade to the Padres….
s.zielinski
"It's their job to keep the clubhouse in order."
Would Chuck Tanner score a coveted 0 in this category?
Agree with everyone else, really
He had some good ideas early on and the players and fans really did love him. It’s just that he unfortunately managed during the absolute nadir of the franchise.
http://bleedblackandgold.com/
by Say Hey Johnny Ray on Jan 19, 2011 8:42 PM EST up reply actions
It is a loose definition to be sure
http://bleedblackandgold.com/
by Say Hey Johnny Ray on Jan 20, 2011 12:22 AM EST up reply actions
One alleged negative for Lloyd
He supposedly liked to readjust hitters for whatever reason. I do not recall many “Wow, what an improvement” moments afterwards.
s.zielinski
with the rare zero
Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Jack Butler, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene and Jerry Kramer
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King Jr.
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan
by WVPiratesfan on Jan 19, 2011 3:29 PM EST up reply actions
I know -
he said that in the post.
I meant that it could have been 1-10, and still pretty much the same numbers…
;-)
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 19, 2011 3:37 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know how anyone could've done a whole lot better with the organization since '93.
But there were times when Tracy was manager that I just didn’t think he cared about anything other than his paycheck, and Russell was simply clueless.
WTM
How do you potentially stack up Clint Hurdle to the rest?
Would he rate better than Mac?
Or be as bad as Tracy?
No one could do worse than Sleepy Russell
None Really Good
It looks like a perfect score would be 30 (6×5). So our best was 63%?
McClendon 19=63%
Lamont 16=53%
Tracy 13=43%
Russell: 13=43%
It seems like the Handling Rookies (or young players generally) really was “WIll he play rookies”? Playing <> Handling.
Playing/handling
It was intended as both, but in many cases it amounted to the same thing. I thought Lamont was especially bad because even when he played rookies, he made it clear he had no faith in them. He carried on a lot in interviews in his last year about how he was jeopardizing his job by playing Ramirez and Hermansen, which showed he had zero confidence in them. He also did stuff like bat them 7th and 8th, and I recall at least once that he pinch-hit for Ramirez with a couple runners on in the 5th inning. When Ramirez came back up from the minors later that year, Lamont immediately announced that he’d give Ramirez a couple starts and that was it. Ramirez luckily torpedoed that scheme by going 5-for-11 in his first three games.
Mac did some similar stuff with Doumit, who at the time was the Pirates’ best hitting prospect, sad though that is to think about. He played Doumit only sporadically when he came up, and when Doumit would do something like go 7-for-12 over a short stretch, Mac would bench him. Mac also wouldn’t play Bay every day when the Pirates first got him. It wasn’t just playing the guys or not, to my way of thinking, it was showing that the team had a commitment to them.
This game?
Holy crap. What was he thinking taking Ramirez out and putting Doug Strange in?
Or perhaps this one. Take out Ramirez and put that absolute stud Kevin Polcovich in.
Or maybe this. Take him out in the 2nd inning after getting a double. Seriously. How did Lamont ever become a manager?
by IAPiratesFan on Jan 19, 2011 4:50 PM EST up reply actions
You take that back about Kevin Polkovich.
He was not a stud.
Ummmm….wait…
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 19, 2011 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn't normally stand up for Lemont AT ALL...
but in the 2nd example…Ramirez was hit by a pitch when Polcovich PR’d for him. And the 3rd example also had to be injury related as he missed the next 22 games.
Okay.
I missed his not playing 22 games when I was looking through his 98 game logs…
by IAPiratesFan on Jan 19, 2011 5:16 PM EST up reply actions
No Wonder Russell was Fired
In general I agree with the rating except they are (IMHO) too generous. However with Russell getting the lowest rating, no wonder NH canned him.
Of what I know of Hurdle....
I like him better than all of these guys. I expect him to be as good as McClendon at leadership and I think he will handle thhe young guys well. Hopefully he eventually gets a 5 in all of these!!!
ETHAN MARTIN!!!!
He also gets a 10...
…as a self-serving, soul-killing crap weasel.
If any of these guys had been literally beaten to death in the clubhouse by his players, it would have been Tracy.
by Vlad on Jan 19, 2011 6:18 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Lamont shouldn't be far behind though
http://bleedblackandgold.com/
by Say Hey Johnny Ray on Jan 19, 2011 8:44 PM EST up reply actions
I particularly like the info on Lamont. I was too young at the time to really “get” any of the stuff you hammered him about. So I’ve gone all these years not really knowing what I think of him, except that he burned through a couple pitchers.
Honestly, I’d be interested in you scoring and talking about Leyland the same way.
Leyland
This is harder, because back then I couldn’t follow the team on the internet daily and I was traveling a lot in my job during part of his tenure. I paid little attention between roughly 1992 and 1997, for various reasons. And the success (in the regular season) from 1990-92 colors memory. The best I can do:
Strategy: The Jay Bell bunting stuff was absurd, but he was very good at getting the platoon advantage. He got tremendous mileage by platooning fringy players like Redus, McClendon, Merced and others, and had productive platoons with King/Backman and Slaught/Spanky. I remember more than once watching him manage rings around Don Zimmer. 1992 team played well above its talent, and the 1990 team beat out a more talented Mets team. 5
Talent: Moving Bonds to left and AVS to center seemed odd at the time, but he got two gold glovers out of it. I don’t remember ever thinking he failed to adequately appreciate anybody, except maybe Wakefield. Tended to have pets like Wehner and Cangelosi, but that only really got out of hand after Pgh. 5
Starters: People weren’t conscious of pitch counts and the like then, so it’s hard to judge. Got a lot more mileage out of Drabek than anybody did later. Got a lot out of Tomlin. 4 at least.
Bullpen: Managed to cobble some effective pens out of spare change like Landrum, Gott, Kipper, Bob Patterson, Ted Power, Scott Ruskin, etc. Good at finding the right roles for guys. 5.
Young players: There were two different Leylands, the one who ran season-long tryout camps after the salary dumps in the mid-1980s and built the 1990-92 teams, and the one who couldn’t handle doing it again after 1992. 5/2.
Leadership: Leyland’s players are always extremely loyal, which says a lot. Handled Bonds very well. There was a period where Bonds really didn’t look like he was going to put his talent to use. 5.
by WTM on Jan 19, 2011 6:14 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
yeah, dont forget about leyland quitting the marlins and rockies...
and taking over a tigers team that got to the world series in his first season, even though he deserves very little credit for that.
i disagree. your job is to manage/coach, then do it.
just like Piniella repeatedly leaving squads that lose. just like perry hill quiting when he actually had to earn his paycheck. you would think a manager/coach would love the challenge of helping a team grow, but NOOOOOOOOOOO. they want the cushy job where if the team is winning they get the credit. what makes joe torre a great manager???? great players—- thats it.
as a reward for winning the WS in '97, Huizenga had a fire sale
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Fire_sale#Post_1997_Florida_Marlins
seriously, would you have put up with that kind of shit from an owner?
Seriously
If I worked my way up from the shop floor to factory manager, then the owner sold that factory off and told me to start over as foreman of a 3-man shop, I’d walk away, too. Rebuilding jobs are for, well, McClendons and Russells – new guys starting in shitty circumstances, hoping to either ride a wave or at least distinguish themselves.
It’s not as if the ‘98 team was talented but raw, presenting an interesting/exciting challenge. It was a AAAA team at best, and (as we now know) 5 years away from winning again. Life’s too short for that shit (if you have a choice, anyway).
by JRoth95 on Jan 20, 2011 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
baseball is not the same as a construction company or an autobody repair shop
baseball is a luxury job, even for the managers and coaches. sure its okay for leyland to walk away from a job, as it is for anyone. its their choice. its also my right to say that its pussy to walk away from a baseball position that requires you coach just because “your” players have been traded away. ive seen countless NAME coaches/managers out there who wait for the right moment to jump aboard a team and take credit/money for doing absofreakinlutely nothing. bobby valentine is waiting for this chance. soon, piniella will do the same. im almost positive that torre will follow suit
Part of the problem, IIRC...
…is that when the Marlins were pursuing Leyland as their manager, he received explicit assurances that they’d attempt to field a competitive team for as long as he was there. As such, when the fire sale happened, he felt that they’d lied to him.
by Vlad on Jan 20, 2011 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
you recalled correctly
Demonstrating the same class that he personified in leading the Florida Marlins to victory in the 1997 World Series, Leyland announced last week that he will return to manage the soon-to-be-sold-and-downsized Marlins in 1998. His prompt and welcome announcement ended speculation that he would exercise a clause in his five-year contract that permits him to escape South Florida if the Marlins are sold or decimated.
Leyland could have left in November 1997, but he stuck it out for another year before exercising his ‘out’ clause.
Life's too short?
But… Leyland is still alive, and the Marlins did win again.
yes, my point exactly
hes a fricken coach, so go coach already. youre hired to be fired anyway!!!
by white angus on Jan 21, 2011 10:03 AM EST up reply actions
The years in between count
The 5 years in between World Series represent 10% of his adult life. 10% doing shit work because his employers lied to him.
Sure, in some sense any MLB managing/coaching job is a good one (money’s certainly OK), but the reality is that I wouldn’t, personally, trade my current job/life for what JR went through the past 2 seasons: crazy travel, crazy long hours, and to what end? Watching a bunch of no-talents lose 2 games of every 3? I can’t imagine what appeal that would hold for someone who’s already done that, has managed good teams, and has won a WS.
by JRoth95 on Jan 21, 2011 11:11 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
you take the bad with the good
and youre defending leyland because his employer wiped out the entire roster? leyland’s job is to coach… period. it doesnt matter if you have 6 allstars on your team or if you have 6 rookies. if he wants to manage an established team that wins, thats fine. but leaving a team because they now stink, makes you a quiter. you should stick around and, if given a chance by the owner, help turn them around. but no, he pulls a piniella and leaves when he knows it could be years before the team gets better.
by white angus on Jan 21, 2011 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
Leyland and Hizenga were friends...
They had an agreement that if the Marling had to rebuild that Leyland could/would walk. There is nothing wrong with that since it was clear that Leyland wanted a chance to win and not go through a rebuild. So he didn’t leave because they stunk he left because that was the condition of their agreement.
by Slick1 on Jan 21, 2011 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
if he wants to leave thats fine
but everybody wants to win. if you want to quit because you dont think your team can win, well, that means you suck just as bad as the players, IMO. go find the easy job and get all the glory while earning absolutely none of it.
by white angus on Jan 21, 2011 11:42 PM EST up reply actions
angus -
Let’s say you were given a job to be the Sales Manager of a company – let’s say sales of heaters, for instance – and you had 5 of the top 50 sales people in the country selling your product, a very progressive budget, and the promise from the company that they would do everything in their power to keep you and your staff at the peak of sales trends, information gathering, generation of new, qualified (eager and able to buy) leads nationwide, new products and a training program to ensure you had more salespeople in the same mold as your top 5, so that you could continue the success you’ve had.
Then the company tells you you can only use the phone book for Needles, CA (est. population 5700 – in July, the normal high temperature is 107 degrees with a normal low of 85.) for your leads, and can only sell your heaters to the residents of that town.
You have an “out clause” in your contract that enables you to leave if you are not continually provided with the tools for success outlined in Paragraph 1 of this story.
Do you stay on the job, knowing that, even if you somehow get all 5700 residents (How many heaters do you think you can sell to the residents of a town with that kind of climate?) to buy a heater from you (remember, that’s residents, not households, and you can only use the phone book – no unlisted numbers!), you are now out of sales possibilities, and probably will not sell another heater for 3 to 5 years, when some of the older residents die, and the younger population is finally able to buy one (not even counting the fact that they may inherit heaters from their parents/grandparents)?
Do you stay?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 22, 2011 12:26 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
baseball is NOT a normal job, nor career
its a luxury that 99% will never experience. and that goes for those that teach it as well.
comparing a baseball manager to a guy who actually works for a living doesnt make any sense, no matter how well you present the argument (which you did.)
Answer the question, dude.
Do you stay?
And there are LOTS of jobs that 99.9999999999999999% of the population can’t or won’t do. I could have just as easily used an astronaut as the example, to make it more “elite,” I suppose.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 22, 2011 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
yes, godammit yes
unless your pay is docked, then yes. your job is to coach, wether it be kevin brown or doug waechter
There.
That wasn’t so hard, was it?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 23, 2011 3:31 PM EST up reply actions
surprisingly emasculated
wheres that pitcher of beer you talked about earlier???
by white angus on Jan 23, 2011 10:34 PM EST up reply actions
Actually
you take the bad with the good
Part of the deal with being one of the very best at your job is that you actually don’t have to do this. Horse trainers at the Kentucky Derby don’t shovel manure. Airline pilots qualified on 747s don’t fly puddlejumpers. Frank Gehry doesn’t draw foundation sections. Back in the day, executives didn’t have to answer their own phones or type their own letters (pretty sure major CEOs still don’t.
The big benefit of being world class at something is that you don’t need to take the good with the bad.
by JRoth95 on Jan 22, 2011 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Game 7, 1992
Loyal to a fault: Let Drabek start the ninth inning.
Had gone all year and six playoff games without finding a closer he could trust to get three outs with the World Series on the line.
Years later threw Cecil Espy, of all people, under the bus for the ninth-inning meltdown.
Fail.
+infinity
Loyal to a fault: Let Drabek start the ninth inning.
Loyal to a fault: Left Drabek in to face Justice.
Loyal to a fault: Left Drabek in to walk Bream.
Handling bullpen:
Brought in Belinda with the bases jammed, despite that Belinda had allowed 163% of inheritied runners to score that season.
Epic fail.
A few things here
— Teams in those days didn’t have the Proven Closer Fetish that MLB does now. Only about half the teams in the NL had a single, established closer that year.
— Leyland didn’t have much of a bullpen. Belinda was the best of a weak lot. There was nobody else remotely resembling a closer.
— You’re essentially blaming Leyland both for not going to his bullpen and for going to it. Drabek was a true ace and was dominating the game, and was not close to some of the pitch counts he reached (successfully) during the regular season. Even today a lot of managers wouldn’t take him out to start the inning or because of one hit, and certainly not after an error on a routine play. Back then, hardly any would have.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
I didn't have a problem with leaving Drabek in...
but knowing the bullpen was weak I was hoping he would get creative and bring in Wakefield or even Walk to finish the game. I could have dealt with the loss better if we went down with the hot hand. Throwing 70 mph Wakefield couldn’t have been too sore.
"Only about half the teams in the NL had a single, established closer that year."
Not forward-thinking. Just did what other managers were doing (even though Tanner/Tekulve had given him a blueprint eight years before). Belinda wasn’t lights out but if he starts the ninth with none on and none out, HE HAS NO INHERITED RUNNERS TO LET SCORE.
If you ever get to the ninth inning and need to get three outs to get to the freaking World Series, you need to have a bullpen plan. They didn’t have a great pen but they had a few guys who certainly could gotten those three outs without giving up three runs. He could, indeed, have used Walk or Wakefield in that role (nobody had hit Wakefield all series except Justice, and Drabek had been hammered in his first two starts). Leyland ignored them and went with his gut and a guy who looked (to me) like he was gassed.
Casey Stengel won a whole bunch of World Series and he still (probably justifiably) got canned for mishandling his pitching staff in the 1960 Series. If Casey can get called to account, I’m not letting Leyland off the hook. Plus he cost me $7 and a lot of dreams that day (the “convenience” fee TicketMaster kept when I returned my World Series tickets).
Also front office failure if they knew Leyland didn’t have someone he trusted to get those three outs and they didn’t find him someone.
This is just a long and complicated way of saying that Leyland shouldn’t have gone with his best reliever—which definitely was Belinda—because Belinda fucked up. Strictly hindsight.
BTW, Wakefield had pitched a complete game the day before. Walk, who was always injury-prone, had pitched a complete game in game five.
I watched that game and Drabek didn’t look gassed until the walk, which is when he came out.
Not forward-thinking.
Huh? Let me repeat: Leyland didn’t have a really good reliever. When teams back then had a Lee Smith or an Eckersley, they went with one settled closer. The ones that didn’t, which included the Braves, mixed and matched or went with the hot hand. That was better than the current practice of turning mediocre relievers into overpaid mediocre closers by letting them pile up cheap saves.
Casey Stengel got fired because he was getting senile. His decision to start a nobody over a guy who by then was the greatest post-season pitcher in history was just one piece of evidence.
Also front office failure if they knew Leyland didn’t have someone he trusted to get those three outs and they didn’t find him someone.
Nutting was too cheap to get him a closer!!
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on Jan 21, 2011 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Not hindsight
Above you said I blame him for not going to the bullpen, and for going to the bullpen. The thing is, I hated Belinda. I can’t prove it, I wasn’t in any game thread or anything, but it’s one of those “I remember exactly where I was” moments. I thought Tomlin could have been used, or Walk. I don’t think a CG in Game 5 mattered, nor his injury-proneness. There was no tomorrow.
And if he had no bullpen, and I don’t entirely disagree, then he’s got to play matchups and situations. I don’t care that Belinda was his “closer”, in my eyes, he was the worst reliever on the team. But again, I’d built up plenty of hate for Belinda as the season went on. I called him Backdraft Belinda, with cause. I’m not hindsighting anything regarding that move.
“Gassed” is also pretty vague. A leadoff double is at least a yellow flag, possibly red, that your guy doesn’t “have it” any more.
We can disagree. I think Leyland botched it.
You people have a screw loose.
Belinda was the worst reliever on the team? The same Stan Belinda who had a 3.15 ERA, a 1.22 WHIP, and 7.2 K/9? The same Stan Belinda against whom batters hit .204/.280/.372 in high-leverage situations that year?
Damn your "facts"!
My memory of him is only game 7 of the 1992 NLCS and he sucked in that situation, so therefore, he sucked in all situations ever.
BTW, if he was so terrible, how did Bonifay get Jon Lieber for him the next summer?
by IAPiratesFan on Jan 21, 2011 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
No, this Backdraft Belinda
Stan Belinda 1992:
Inherited runners: 28
Inherited runners scored: 18
64 percent.
Case closed. Screws tight.
His strand rate that year sticks out like a sore thumb when you compare it to the strand rates over the entire rest of his career, which were fine. By your reasoning, it would’ve been fine to use him in the exact same situation in any other year, which is the kind of illogic that results from small sample sizes.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Huh?
“The 1992 season” is a small sample size?
His strand rate in the other years was nothing special either. He wasn’t an elite reliever, ever. But considering reliever volatility, I may have been OK with using him in a different year, I don’t see anything wrong with that. (Cue “tinfoil hat” or other pithy comment.) (But don’t stop using tinfoil hat, I love it when you drop that one.)
Maybe it’s partly that he tanked down the stretch too. He was just regular bad in September, not just with stranding runners. Throw in his last appearance in August, and in his last 13 appearances he was downright abysmal. Sure, that’s a small sample, but it’s relevant.
Why did Leyland use him once in the first 6 games? Situation? Partly, I’m sure, but he did use him in the blowout Game 2 win. Then not for another week. Leyland didn’t trust him either. With reason. In 1992, Belinda was a bad reliever.
Statistically, other than the inherited runner thing, he may have seemed like a fine pitcher. But in his role, he stunk. In 1992 Stan Belinda was bad at his job. And Leyland put him in a bad spot.
Small sample size: 28 runners. You’re talking about the equivalent of a couple dozen ABs. Yeah, that’s a small sample size. Microscopic, in fact. His strand rate in other years was consistently roughly double what it was in 1992. And, no, he wasn’t a great reliever. For the umpteenth time, Leyland didn’t have any really good relievers. Belinda was the best guy he had. That would have been a bad spot for anybody they had.
Leyland used him only once in the series because all the Pirates’ wins were complete games—yes, they had those in 1992—and most of the Braves’ wins were blowouts. He pitched well his one time out earlier. Or maybe Leyland should’ve gotten his starters out to start the 9th inning of all their playoff wins, since it obviously worked out so badly.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Change your sig
Am I entitled to my opinions or not?
I said before, I would have gone with Tomlin (at any number of points in the 9th, like to face Bream, for starters). He had a rough outing in Game 4 but got a groundball DP, and he also go 4 groundball outs in Game 2. I still would have taken my chances with him facing Hunter if he pinch hit for Bream. Tomlin was a groundball pitcher and had been effective in his short career to that point. Those aren’t my facts, they’re the facts.
Walk pitched a CG on Sunday, he really wasn’t available on Wednesday?
Patterson wasn’t decent, or downright good in 1992? The facts, not my facts, seem to indicate he was. He gave up a single run in his 3rd (partial) inning of work in Game 2, and that scared Leyland off for good?
Roger Mason, arguably one of the worst options during the 1992 season, had thrown 3.1 hitless innings in the series.
Belinda was ineffective down the stretch, and allowed a lot of inherited runners to score that year (facts). Of all the bad options Leyland had, I don’t know why he was (apparently) more scared of all the others, and less scared of Belinda. That’s my opinion.
My sig has nothing to do with you.
No matter what Leyland did, if it didn’t work out in the end people would be screaming about something. If he put in Tomlin, it’d be, “Tomlin had almost no experience in relief.” If he put in Walk, it’d be, “Walk had only two days rest after throwing nine innings and he was never known for his durability.” If he put in Wakefield, it’d be, “Wakefield threw nine the day before and you don’t put in a knuckleballer with guys already on base.” If Patterson, it’d be, “Patterson was just a journeyman reliever at that point who still wasn’t as good as Belinda.” If he went with Tomlin or Patterson to face Bream and didn’t follow with Belinda, it’d be, “How could he leave the lefty in to face Gant and a bunch of RH pinch hitters?” (The Braves had already used their lefties and, of course, would have PH for Bream anyway against a LHP.) Every last move Leyland could have made could and would have been subjected to second guessing.
This all still amounts to, “He shouldn’t have put in his best reliever because it didn’t work out.” It’s all Monday morning quarterbacking.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on Jan 22, 2011 5:14 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
nice
usually it’s JRoth and Vlad having these tête-à-têtes
by BlindSquirrel on Jan 23, 2011 10:27 PM EST up reply actions
SSS, stranded runners
It’s all a red herring. The worst reliever in baseball probably has a better than 50 percent shot at getting three outs without three runs scoring IF IF IF you let him start the ninth with NOBODY ON. Then strand rate isn’t an issue.
The one thing that Leyland did to bugged in the 92 NLCS:
Catchers, why not start Don Slaught in game 7? Against righties that year, he hit: .395/.429/.580, meanwhile LaValliere against righties hit: .267/.356/.340.
During the series, Slaught hit .333/.556/.667 and LaValliere hit .200/.200/.400.
I just don’t understand why Leyland would want his fifth best hitter that series on the bench for game 7.
by IAPiratesFan on Jan 21, 2011 5:24 PM EST up reply actions
I hated Belinda.
OK, not hindsight. Blind, unreasoning bias, instead.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
He’s got you dead to rights on the “unreasoning” part, though.
Unless you think that Belinda suddenly lost the ability to strand runners that year, and then just as suddenly re-acquired it the following season.
Bullshit
What the hell are you even saying? That the entire 1992 season only counts so much toward the decision making? I’m sick of this. I didn’t Monday morning QB. I can’t prove it, as I said, but I thought it was the wrong decision as soon as it was made. I don’t feel better than I was right.
Unreasoning? Absurd. Whatever. You’re right. Belinda was the best choice, especially right then. I’m sorry I commented. It’s not even close. It was Belinda or forfeit. Christ all fucking mighty. Am I that much of a dipshit (answer: apparently yes)? I was right, as I sat on my couch in Henrietta, NY in 1992, and history fucking backs me up.
Unreasoning.
Holy fucking shit. I’m unreasonable, right now, because I’ve had enough of this rigoddammeddiculous notion that Belinda was the only choice, apparently. Leyland was a genius. He should be in the Hall of goddammed Fame.
What the hell are you even saying?
I’m saying that Belinda’s one-year fluctuation in numbers with men on probably was probably a function of sample size rather than skill (since it was much higher in not only his career as a whole, but also the preceding and following seasons), and as such Leyland was right to ignore it when making his decision.
You are apparently refusing to either acknowledge or respond to this point. Which is why I believe that the “unreasoning” tag fits, in this case.
I did respond
In 1992, Stan Belinda was not good at his job, especially down the stretch. Recency counts. Reliever fluctuation happens, and 1992 was a down year for Belinda.
Leyland was wrong to ignore several dozen appearances worth of work. If he ignored 1992 because Stan was “his guy” or a “gut feeling” or “Belinda was the closer and that’s that”, well, OK, that’s all dumb. But if he ignored 1992 because in 1991 Belinda was actually much better, then Leyland never should have landed another job.
I think this boils down to you think 1992 is a small sample size, and I don’t. I don’t feel the need to tear it apart any more because not only do I think you’re wrong, I think you’re wildly absurdly wrong.
18 runners out of 28
Sure, in isolation, when you just put it out there, it seems small.
59 appearances over 162 games.
Not small. Not even sorta small. Not smallish.
And I apologize for overreacting. I didn’t get your comment about him having me on “unreasonable.” it was pretty funny, but I’d made so many responses elsewhere in the thread I missed the context I helped create.
In 1992, Stan Belinda was not good at his job, especially down the stretch. Recency counts.
Only if there’s an underlying cause, which in this case, there isn’t (or, at least, there isn’t one that you’ve demonstrated). If you flip a coin three times and get three consecutive heads, you don’t necessarily have a magic quarter.
59 appearances over 162 games.
Not small. Not even sorta small. Not smallish.
The vast majority of those games had nothing to do with his ability to prevent runners on base from scoring, however. The “18 runners out of 28” bit is the appropriate comparison, because we’re discussing his ability to deal with runners on base. If it sounds like a small sample, that’s because it IS a small sample.
If you want to talk about his performance across 162 games, that’s fine… in which case, the appropriate standard is his full-season performance in all contexts: 3.15 ERA, a 1.22 WHIP, 7.2 K/9, etc. None of which suggest that he was a bad or inappropriate choice.
No.
Because if you translate his minor league numbers from Indy for the portion of the year he spent at AAA, they suggest a much lower HR rate for that half of the season.
I guess that’s why Jones didn’t finish 2010 with an .805 OPS (his OPS at the end of June). Long-term performance is still a better predictor than recent, short-term performance.
Oh . . . wait . . . that’s why somebody invented the term “small sample size,” isn’t it?
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
No cause?
He was never great, especially with runners on, especially bad in 1992, especially in September.
Those are all facts.
You may think they don’t justify the decision I desired, but they’re facts nonetheless. My opinion is those facts outweighed the facts you cite.
You’re just removing game context from the decision. It’s a variation of Billy Beane’s “my shit doesn’t work in the playoffs.” You believe he was right in essentially going with long-term statistical analysis rather than game context. I’d rather he gone with shorter term analysis and game context.
Belinda’s ability with men on base, or the fact he was an extreme flyball pitcher and the first batter he faced was a flyball hitter, would have been better things to base a decision on, in the 9th inning of that game.
Other than that, you’re right.
He was never great, especially with runners on, especially bad in 1992, especially in September.
Those are all facts.
Not quite. The results were bad. That doesn’t necessarily mean Belinda was bad, and it doesn’t necessarily mean anybody else was bad.
It’s exactly like saying Vlad’s coin isn’t good at landing on heads when you flip tails the first four teams. You don’t know that: you’re assuming your conclusion in your premises.
Sure it is.
Because you haven’t established that the scoring of inherited runners that season was in any way a reflection of Belinda’s skill.
No it's not
Just because he had a bad year doesn’t make it luck.
I don’t know why he pitched the way he did in 1992, but he pitched that way. In all the ways you cite, but in the ways I cited too.
It’s impossible for me to establish the cause because I believe the cause may not necessarily be found in his line at bbref.
Just because he had a bad year doesn’t make it luck.
It doesn’t mean that it’s not luck, either, and if you want to affirmatively claim that it’s something other than luck (i.e. a lack of ability, temporary or otherwise, in preventing inherited runners from scoring), then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that.
Otherwise, surely you can understand why readers would find your argument unpersuasive?
All I've argued is why I felt the way I did
If I’ve tried to persuade, it’s for others to understand why I felt that way. It wasn’t hindsight. When Belinda came, at that time, I felt it was fait accompli. If Belinda had started the inning, I’d have felt better. Perhaps even confident. I mean, he had a 3.15 ERA, a 1.22 WHIP, 7.2 K/9, etc. after all.
He was never great, especially with runners on, especially bad in 1992, especially in September.
Mat pretty much covered this: Correlation does not imply causation.
Those are facts
They didn’t cause Belinda to perform as he did in Game 7. Never claimed that. They’re just things.
They didn’t cause Belinda to perform as he did in Game 7. Never claimed that. They’re just things.
If you aren’t claiming that Belinda’s strand rates on inherited runners that year are a reflection of his skill (or lack thereof), but are rather “just things” that happened, then those rates aren’t at all useful as evidence to support your claim that he was the wrong choice in that situation.
Right, a reflection, not a cause of the outcome
In which case, you’re right back to needing to provide some kind of evidence as to how those rates are, in fact, reflective of skill (and why they’re so far out of line with the rates from the rest of his career).
Oh for God's sake
On October 14, 1992, was Stan Belinda more likely to pitch like
Stan Belinda, ver. 1992
Stan Belinda, ver. 1991
Stan Belinda, ver. 1993
Apparently, the answer is Stan Belinda ver. 1989-2000.
I don’t know what I was thinking.
You're assuming a connection...
…between the rate of inherited runners scoring and what Belinda was “pitching like”, when there isn’t necessarily any connection between the two.
This is the essential point behind our disagreement.
I took a quick look at...
Belinda’s 1992 gamelog at baseball reference.
A significant amount of the inherited runners that scored occurred in games where he had not pitched in at least 4 days.
May 1st…first appearance since April 25th. Came in in the 6th in a game the Pirates were already down 6-2 (lost 10-4)…3 inherited runners scored.
June 1st…first appearance since May 27th (4 days). Came in with the Pirates trailing 7-6 in the 9th (lost 8-6)…1 inherited runner scored.
June 27th…first appearance since June 21st. Came in with the Pirates leading 5-3 in the 8th (won 12-4)…1 inherited runner scored.
July 11th…first appearance since July 6th. Came in with Pirates up 8-2 in the 8th (won 9-3)…1 inherited runner scored.
August 28th…first appearance since August 23rd. Came in with Pirates down 7-6 (lost 11-6)…2 inherited runners scored.
September 12th…first appearance since September 7th. Came in with Pirates ahead 6-4 (won 9-7)…gave up a 3 run HR to Darren Daulton…2 inherited runners scored. Belinda had an RBI single in the bottom of the inning for the Pirates 9th run and pitched a 1-2-3 9th inning.
That’s 10 out of the 18 inherited runners that scored right there…and they cost the Pirates exactly zero wins. I’m sure that in most of those games…Leyland was just trying to get him some work.
That’s not to say that Belinda didn’t struggle in September…he had a 4.20 ERA in September with only 3 saves in 12 games. But the Pirates had a healthy lead for most of the month.
Well that's a small sample size
But, he hadn’t pitched in a week when he entered Game 7, so now that you mention it…
That’s one case where getting a pitcher some work is not a consideration, since there are no more games following if a team loses.
Of course, had Lind fielded the ground ball cleanly, Cabrera would have never come to bat. And if Merced doesn’t get gunned down at the plate in the 8th…
yeah, that was a joke
It just coincidentally supported my point.
More to the point
in his 59 appearances in 1992, he gave up three OF HIS OWN runs twice and two of his own runs four times. That’s 53 appearances in which he gave up 1 or 0 runs. If he starts the ninth WITH NONE ON and none out, he has a very good chance of saving it.
His strand rate is irrelevant.
Is that how it works?
Why do they call them inherited runners?
If he starts the ninth WITH NONE ON and none out, he has a very good chance of saving it.
I completely agree. is that what everyone wants to hear?
TicketAsster
Plus he cost me $7 and a lot of dreams that day (the "convenience" fee TicketMaster kept when I returned my World Series tickets).
Those fuckers tried than on me once – I had tix to see the Grateful Dead (the 1st time Jerry lapsed into a coma) & the show was canceled. I pitched a bitch until the manager understood that (A) because the show was canceled, I didn’t use their service, and (B) (and probably more importantly) I made it abundantly clear that I wasn’t leaving without the full refund.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 21, 2011 7:26 PM EST up reply actions
heh
did you do the “self-righteous American” act?
“this is America, and in America if you pay for something that doesn’t get used you get a refund” or something…
by BlindSquirrel on Jan 23, 2011 10:39 PM EST up reply actions
Didn't need to -
the reasons outlined above did the trick.
Especially (B).
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 23, 2011 11:00 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah.
I blame Jose Lind.
Um, how can he bobble that ground ball?
by IAPiratesFan on Jan 21, 2011 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
And....
Rich Donnelly waiving Orlando Merced and getting thrown out at home by about 5 feet in the top of the 8th was pretty dumb as well. Leyland had nothing to do with that.
by IAPiratesFan on Jan 21, 2011 5:06 PM EST up reply actions
Except that he had LaValliere coming up next.
If he had Slaught….
by IAPiratesFan on Jan 22, 2011 5:03 PM EST up reply actions
The throwing arm...
…is why he was playing left field in the first place.
That’s the way it goes, sometimes.
Bonds may have been a multiple GG winner...
but it wasn’t because of his arm. And he NEVER had a good arm. That’s what made it so easy to decide to put AVS in CF instead of Bonds.
Nevertheless,
the throw wasn’t terrible, maybe 7 feet up the first base line. True, a perfect throw and Bream is out, but I’ve probably seen literally thousands of worse throws to the plate. Bonds gets shit for that throw, but under the circumstances it wasn’t awful.
If anybody should be getting crap for his fielding that inning...
…it should be Lind.
It amazes me how easily he dodged that blame, and how eager people were to pile it on Bonds.
Blast from the past
Round Tripper Kipper!!!!
Did Tracy own stock in Greyhound??
He threw enough players under the bus.
Megabus
McClatchy was too cheap to pay for Greyhound or Trailways.
This might actually be pretty true.
Pirates, Vikings, Hokies. I'm used to heartbreak. At least I have the Penguins....
"When I put on my uniform, I feel I am the proudest man on earth."
-The Great One
by blackjackfishtaco on Jan 20, 2011 5:19 PM EST up reply actions
JOHN RUSSELL
As actuall managing skills and personality he is the worst BUT he did his job great…. he was a yes man and a company man who hdid everything that was asked. He had all his players traded away and did whatever N.H. told him with shifts and starting AKI at leadoff… Russell did his job well, sit there and take all the bullshit and keep his mouth shut, and he never really made excuses. he was a good pick for the situation the franchise was in at the time, and his time was up.
age of last winning season: 5
everybody is a yes man to whomever pays their salary
even a commisioned salesman kisses the asses of his customers
by white angus on Jan 19, 2011 10:03 PM EST up reply actions
And that’s where I am. No one here is going to not do what their boss asks. Or else you don’t have a job.
Pirates, Vikings, Hokies. I'm used to heartbreak. At least I have the Penguins....
"When I put on my uniform, I feel I am the proudest man on earth."
-The Great One
by blackjackfishtaco on Jan 20, 2011 12:47 AM EST up reply actions
exactly. if youre not a YES MAN, then he'll find someone who is...
all managers are yes men, even the successful ones. larussa, cox, torre, etc… yinzers who claim that russell was hired because he was a “yes man” are so completely moronic that i cant even think of a name to call them. russell was hired because he had a reputation at being a good instructor and good with young players. thats it.
there's yes men...and then there's a puppet regime
JR was a puppet…IMO
ya but
they continued to put him there when it was obvious he shouldnt be there if i remember correctly it was understood that NH wanted him there… i could be wrong
age of last winning season: 5
our FO wanted mccutchen to have some RBI opportunities, just like crawford
aki stopped getting on base
by white angus on Jan 20, 2011 10:42 AM EST up reply actions
Not Tracy.
He mutinied on his GM in L.A. I’ve always figured he got the Pirates job because nobody else would have him.
It was amazingly blatant, too.
The GM trades for a new starting-caliber 1B, and the manager installs his no-stick backup catcher as the team’s new everyday 1B.
He might as well have had the groundskeeper mow “Fuck you, Google boy” into the outfield grass.
yes he did what he was asked
But they took it too the extreme with russell and how many managers would have put up with all the bullshit and not make 1 comment about anything like russel did. i agrree with dan that he was a puppet
age of last winning season: 5
So . . . you were present at all Russell’s meetings with NH and can verify that Russell never made his views known?
NH: I want you to bat the pitcher 8th and shift the outfield around all funny-like.
JR: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……….
i'm talking
About post game interviews ETC, russel took a huge beating on the feild and never complained or made excuses. ala Jim tracy throwing players under the bus…
I just dont think clint hurdle would be as inclined to let N. H make on the field calls as much as russell did.
Im just stating that russel was the perfect man for the last few years, he had no ego and didnt throw the front office or any players under the bus during the bad years.
there is alot of managers in MLB that wouldnt have put up with the crap as well as russell did.
age of last winning season: 5
So . . . because Russell didn’t throw players under the bus, that shows he let NH do all the managing while never saying anything to NH? I don’t see how that follows.
No.
The shifts he made them use continuing to play aki when it was obvious his time here was up. i have no proof i just felt like NH was the manager not john russell,
my main point is Russell was the perfect guy for the past few years of horribleness because he kept his mouth shut and took the beatings like a man, i’m just saying there isnt many managers out there that would have been able to cope with what russel did without blowing there top
age of last winning season: 5
i have no proof i just felt like NH was the manager not john russell,
This was my point. Neither does anybody else.
There are three things about this whole manufactured issue that I find pretty amazing.
— Most of the stuff people point to is stuff I’d rather have the FO doing. It’s their job to provide the coaching staff with data like spray charts. (BTW, everybody involved, FO and coaching staff, has consistently maintained that the coaches positioned the fielders. I’ve never seen a shred of evidence that NH did it.) As for Iwamura, with McCutchen hitting 3rd, who else was going to lead off? Clement? Cedeno? And everybody forgets, Iwamura throughout his career, including most of his first month with the Pirates, had an above-average OBP. There was no other candidate. Beyond that, I don’t want a manager who feels free to abuse his pitchers like Lamont, or to refuse to play September callups like Mac. When you’ve got millions invested in these athletes, you don’t want some guy making crucial decisions by reading his tobacco spit. Very few teams are run that way any more.
— If NH is so determined to manage the team, why on earth did he hire a guy like Hurdle, who’s known for being blunt and outspoken? And why would Hurdle take the Pirates’ job when he still had a shot at the Mets’ job?
— I’m not that impressed by Russell not spouting off in the media. It would’ve made the FO haters happy, but how many managers have you ever seen do that? One reason Tracy got so much attention for ripping his GM in public in LA was that it rarely happens. Case in point: Manny Acta, here in DC. Acta had players who were not only every bit as bad as Russell’s, but were unbelievably injury-prone. Nick Johnson was an iron man by Jim Bowden’s standards. Acta literally had trouble putting a team on the field at times. And apart from all that, Acta was saddled with severe clubhouse problems (Elijah Dukes was just a part of it) and a chaotic, directionless FO that had its GM and top int’l guy under FBI investigation. Acta never said a word, just put the best face on everything. Just like Russell. That’s what all these guys do, except the whiners like Tracy, and I could do without that.
(BTW, everybody involved, FO and coaching staff, has consistently maintained that the coaches positioned the fielders. I’ve never seen a shred of evidence that NH did it.)
Bitchfests and conspiracy theories are not built on actual, y’know, evidence.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 20, 2011 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
Bitchfests and conspiracy theories are not built on actual, y’know, evidence.
i am far from either of these, and i know you werent calling me one..
I listen to every sunday afternoon NH interview on Pirates radio, and i distincly remember him explaining why they used the shift, and him saying that they have stats that show the shift is actually the best way to play it. the way he talked about it ,It deffinity sounded like he was the one who implamented it.
i wasnt really against the shift and i am cool with him doing stuff like it, i was just using the shift as an example of him maybe over ruling russell on alittle too much. and again thats why russel was the perfect manager he just went with the flow, now its time for a manager
age of last winning season: 5
If the stats show that the shift might be the right thing
and NH showed Russell the data, and upon seeing it, Russell agreed, how was NH intervening a bad thing? If NH suggested something that went totally against the books or totally against what the statistics showed and Russell went along with it, the the whole yes-man thing might carry water.
I’m not sayin Russell is even close to a good manager, but i think the yes-man thing is totally fictional.
If NH is so determined to manage the team, why on earth did he hire a guy like Hurdle, who’s known for being blunt and outspoken?
exactly my point: John russell had his purpose to sit and take it like a man while NH tore apart the roster and tried players like clement and gave the starting jobs….. that Era is over and now its time to have a manager take the next step and actually manage the team we have now with this core of players we have… russell was perfect for his purpose and now its time for an actual manager
age of last winning season: 5
This is strictly tinfoil hat stuff. Why on earth would he not want a “real manager” running the team with all his trade acquisitions on it? Was he hoping to be made to look bad?
As for Russell “taking it like a man,” it’s no different from the situation the Nats had with Acta, except that nobody around here dreamed up conspiracy theories like this. The Pirates were a rebuilding team and figured to be crappy until they could do something about the disaster DL left behind, and the manager was going to have to deal with that. It happens all the time in baseball. It doesn’t mean Russell wasn’t a real manager.
Basically, you’re saying NH was trying to lose a ton of games the last couple years. Of course, now that they have, his job is probably on the line, so I guess he’s trying to get fired, too.
And, of course, all of this is contradicted by Dejan’s statement the other day that Coonelly, not NH, chose Russell. Hey, maybe Coonelly is really a closet manager!!
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
O come on
im not trying to make it sound that extreme if it came off that way, i was just trying to show a point that Russell was pretty much a floor matt, everybody in the pirates organization new they were gunna be horrible after tearing down the roster and rebuilding ( wich needed to be done, i’m not arguing that fact) and russell new that and we all knwo they had no chance at competing tha past 2 years.
I’m just saying russell served his purpose well ( which is alright we are rebuilding) and now its time to hire a real manager to take this core to the next level, as the pirates enter the next stage of rebuild.
age of last winning season: 5
russell is a quiet guy. and we have no idea what was said behind closed doors.
managers work for the owner, just like the GM and the prez. you do what your boss tells you to do or you go find work elsewhere. snell and hinske could attest to this.
by white angus on Jan 20, 2011 10:45 AM EST up reply actions
we have no idea what was said behind closed doors
You shouldn’t be wandering around out in the cold without your hat.

We have many lovely styles

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
...and shapes to fit all sorts of noggins...

.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 20, 2011 4:30 PM EST up reply actions
amateurs...
<img src="http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dtin%2Bfoil%2Bhat%26rs%3D0ni%253D21%26b%3D64%26ni%3D21%26xargs%3D0%26pstart%3D1%26fr%3Dslv8-tyc8&w=625&h=529&imgurl=www.sheldonaubut.com%2Fnarma%2Fnarma%2Frally_y2k%2Fimages%2FP0000648b.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sheldonaubut.com%2Fnarma%2Fnarma%2Frally_y2k%2F2000photos2.htm&size=63KB&name=Tin+Foil+Hat+Con…&p=tin+foil+hat&oid=ea908e7f83879b8cb628e486071517c0&fr2=&no=64&tt=5120&b=64&ni=21&sigr=121m6q41m&sigi=11vls219t&sigb=13gmr14q1&.crumb=k050RJQkSk."/>
by white angus on Jan 20, 2011 10:07 PM EST up reply actions
The problem I had with Russell
was that he was supposed to be a great instructional man. Now I’m not saying he didn’t do this behind closed doors after the game but with a young team I felt like he needed to give more in game instruction. Not calling a player out, just instruction. How many bone headed mistakes did you see on the field the last 2 years and how many times when that camera was aimed at him did anyone see him talking. Honestly I might have only saw him speaking to a player less than 5 times in 2 years. Again I’m not saying he didn’t instruct but I feel he wasted way too many real time opportunities to point things out. Also it hurt his reputation and reporters just fell back on the “oh he’s just laid back”
How many bone headed mistakes did you see on the field the last 2 years and how many times when that camera was aimed at him did anyone see him talking.
I always got the impression that he was a “keep it in the clubhouse” kind of guy, who’d be more likely to talk about mistakes and solutions in the dugout after the game than in the clubhouse in front of a dozen cameras.
Glad to see
That my positive feelings towards Lloyd weren’t entirely a product of the first base incident.
I feel as if, more than any of the other 3, he got the most out of his bad teams (‘97 aside). Lamont actually had a kernel of a talented team, and mostly failed to get a lot out of them (in some cases actively sabotaging). Tracy had some talented guys, but no clue about how to get results from them (again, what was the question to which Jose Hernandez was the answer?). And Russell was stuck with big piles of crap, yet still managed to get them to underperform (I still don’t see how the lineup, SPs, and bullpen of the late ’10 team managed to perform at a .375 pace – subpar, yes, epically bad, no).
by JRoth95 on Jan 20, 2011 9:04 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
One of the biggest turnoffs with Tracy for me was when he talked in his first spring about how he couldn’t understand, watching the Pirates when he was in LA, why they didn’t win more with their talent. I suppose he was just trying to pump up the players or something, but I thought that was a classless slap at Mac. I didn’t like Mac as a manager, especially toward the end when he just wouldn’t play Sept. callups and the like, but he was always classy and always fought for his team, and didn’t deserve that kind of crap. I’d far rather see Mac succeeding elsewhere than Tracy.
Funny thing is that I think the role of a manager ought to be more like the role of a, uh, a manager. Like in any other line of work. They (well, the good ones) don’t micromanage everything I do, tinker with my approach, jerk me around just to “do something”, put people in a position to succeed, etc etc. Their job is to make sure I’m doing my job and to get me to show up and put forth my maximum effort. To primarily manage the people not to manage the work. Period.
Baseball’s almost the opposite. A “good” manager is expected to mess with everything. It doesn’t make any sense. By the criteria I laid out above, I think Mac was still far from perfect, but he was far and away the best of the four.
Er
They (well, the good ones) don’t micromanage everything I do, tinker with my approach, jerk me around just to "do something", put people in a position to succeed, etc etc.
Their job IS to put people in a position to succeed. Awkwardly constructed sentence there.
what was the question to which Jose Hernandez was the answer?
Who is the one guy who could possibly strike out on two pitches?
I’ll take “Burnitz to the ground” for $200 Alex
by theatrain on Jan 20, 2011 8:23 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Leadership, I’d assume, was the largest negative in this past coaching staff. Russell, Garcia, and them didn’t have much experience at the level in those roles.
So they went with the veteran manager Clint Hurdle, who’s been to the world series, along with a new staff and some veteran players in the clubhouse, as well (Snyder, Overbay, Diaz, Correia along with Doumit, Maholm). But not to the point that we’re overflowing with vets and blocking prospects.
The Bucs are still one of the youngest teams in the National League, so some new voices might have some inside effect.
by Adam Reynolds on Jan 20, 2011 10:27 AM EST via mobile reply actions
and no team can win with nothing but youngsters on the team. gotta put some ol' farts in there..
as long as they dont block the youngsters, just like you said.——— just like some people resent randa being in the lineup when freddy was ready. well, we dont have any “freddy’s” ready just yet.
by white angus on Jan 20, 2011 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
TB was winning and was basically as young as us
You do need some veteran leagership usually….but it still boils down to “well run organizations win more regularly” and poorly run organizations Lose…despite age/ veteran disparities.
It comes down to acquiring talent, signing guys not only add’s production but also helps other batters in the line up, and utilizing your talent correctly…
IMO, that’s why some low rev teams have winning cycles and one hasn’t.
TB is winning because they were so gawdawful since their inception, and they drafted very well because of it
once they changed ownership and rid themselves of the ben grieves and greg vaughns and randy winns and aubrey huffs of their roster, you know… the guys who end up making more money than their worth? anyway, they build their team through the draft and they hope they have replacements for the stars who end up leaving. -———as far as adding veterans, the Rays added Pena who only got the starting job because Norton got hurt. they traded for bartlett because lugo wasnt getting it done. they signed cliff floyd, eric hinske and traded for gabe gross. they added the old farts without hurting the core players.——- but the key was getting the HOME GROWN arms to come up and perform. shields and sonnanstine came into their own. kazmir was still effective. garza and jackson, both now gone from the team, were aquired elsewhere. now they have studs like hellickson, davis and niemann in the rotation, with mcgee, moore and many others coming up in the near future. they even have 10 picks in the 2011 draft before the second round even starts!!!
long story short: (too late)— keep building the system the way NH has done and maybe your positions are filled by average to better than average players. look at the steinberg regime in tampa; hes only signed one true allstar, and thats Longoria. hellickson has that potential. maybe even brignac becomes one, but more than likely a solid every day player.—— not every player that NH aquires has to be a star, they just have to play “well” enough.
by white angus on Jan 20, 2011 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
the Rays added Pena
A 29-year-old journeyman with a track record of strong minor league numbers, I’m compelled to point out.
That sounds familiar. Where have I heard it before?
and let go HOW many times in his career?
by white angus on Jan 20, 2011 10:10 PM EST up reply actions
overbay's minor league numbers were stellar... just sayin
i know, i know, hitter friendly parks.
by white angus on Jan 20, 2011 10:11 PM EST up reply actions
At this point in his career…Overbay’s minor league stats have very little significance to his expected performance in 2011…as they occurred 9 years ago and earlier. And, you are right, playing in Tucson and El Paso probably didn’t hurt his minor league numbers very much.
pearce's minor league numbers have actually regressed as he advanced thru the system
so you can also say, by this logic, that his numbers will do the same in Pitt
by white angus on Jan 21, 2011 10:05 AM EST up reply actions
This isn't telling the whole story...
Last year was one of his best seasons. It was his third go round but that doesn’t represent a regression. The pro-Pearce group acknowledges the fact that he successfully changed his approach just like Walker. Guys like you ignore that fact or just don’t see it as significant.
im not ignoring it, but i am saying its insignificant
most pearce supporters are “fans” of his while “guys like me” see a basic run of the mill 1B. the main reason why some people here want Pearce to play is simply because they dislike Overbay so much. thats what i see.
now if pearce, whom i believe stars in AAA, takes off like he did last season, and overbay doesnt, then i think he SHOULD get a shot. i have no problem with that in the least. but as of today, overbay is our 1Bman, and he deserves to start.
by white angus on Jan 21, 2011 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
most pearce supporters are "fans" of his while "guys like me" see a basic run of the mill 1B. the main reason why some people here want Pearce to play is simply because they dislike Overbay so much. thats what i see.
Oh, for fuck’s sake.
I was such a big Pearce fanboy last spring that I was trying to get him traded to the Rangers for a UT IF.
If I’ve been pushing him as an alternative to Overbay this offseason (and I have), it’s because the facts of the situation compel me to do so, not because I want to sit with Pearce under a willow tree and braid his hair while we talk about boys.
by Vlad on Jan 21, 2011 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
i agree too.
i like it when Vlad gets all worked up, throwing the F bombs around like that. good start to the weekend!!!
by white angus on Jan 21, 2011 11:44 PM EST up reply actions
That's sorta what I am saying
They drafted well…they traded very very well…they filled holes that needed filled…they judged talent very well. Low rev teams need to do well in all area’s, little room for error.
We need to draft very well…and we’ve done a much better job at it since ‘08…the NH plus Nutting allowing monies spent have improved this aspect…filling holes? Terrible…trades? I wonder what TB would have gotten for what we traded away…I’d bet the house a heck of alot more…judging talent? All looks of what NH has traded for and threw in the starting line up has me questioning talent evaluation and “HAVING A PLAN” at all.
The draft is the first place to improve and build for the future…and I am confident we’ll be much more competitive in the years ahead but I dont believe NH is good enough to finish the job…Vlad mentioned some strong possibilities…but we’ll eventually need someone to tie everything together…if NH delegates some power to someone strong in the area…that’d be great.
the 54 fans that the devil rays had when steinburg took over threw hissy fits at all their "stars" being traded
they even griped when toby hall was let go… TOBY HALL!!!!…. see the similarities yet?
by white angus on Jan 20, 2011 10:13 PM EST up reply actions
All looks of what NH has traded for and threw in the starting line up has me questioning talent evaluation
You carp about this quite a bit. You say over and again the NH has no ability to evaluate talent.
Do you really think NH is doing ALL of the talent evaluating for the Pirates’ organization? That there are no scouts or advisors? That FC just allows NH to make these deals willy-nilly?
Also –
I wonder what TB would have gotten for what we traded away…I’d bet the house a heck of alot more…
Las Vegas was built on bets like that.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
Also, college ball Danno loves himself some John Bowker…who was acquired through a trade.
Pirates, Vikings, Hokies. I'm used to heartbreak. At least I have the Penguins....
"When I put on my uniform, I feel I am the proudest man on earth."
-The Great One
by blackjackfishtaco on Jan 20, 2011 5:26 PM EST up reply actions
If you are a betting man and think they'd get less
then I would again remind you to refrain from too many cocktails.
NH is the ONE who ultimately makes the decision on who to sign or trade for…does he listen to his scouts? I dont know…but I do know my eyes aren’t aren’t lying when I see an adult version of the bad news bears playing in front of me.
and it’s not the young core doing it…it’s his garbage fillers playing positions they cant play…I cant wait to see who he puts in that LOOGY role…probably Olsen who’s never pitched relief…hey, maybe he’ll sign one but I’m more than expecting another blundering attempt to fill this roster.
I would again remind you to refrain from too many cocktails.
hahahahahahaha – I get it – it’s from my screen name, so it’s “funny.” And you got it from somebody else who is a jackass. You can lay off that, please – I don’t see you saying such things to Vlad or WTM or JRoth or others.
NH is the ONE who ultimately makes the decision on who to sign or trade for…does he listen to his scouts? I dont know
So – what you’re saying is that your constant denigrating of NH’s talent judgment (or lack thereof) is… based on… a feeling, I guess. And that’s okay, as long as you know that that’s an opinion, and not fact-based.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 20, 2011 7:25 PM EST up reply actions
if im not mistaken, didnt we fill in our 2010 bullpen later in the offseason?
wasnt the signing of lopez and carrasco and even dotel considered, by yinzers, to be huge wastes of money, and that NH wouldnt know his ass from his ass?
by white angus on Jan 20, 2011 10:15 PM EST up reply actions
Yep
All those signings were hugely criticized by the FO haters.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
If you're saying I bitched about Dotel/Lopez
you best do a better job of researching or remembering…I always said Dotel’s signing made alot of sense and Lopez was a decent gamble..via his previous success…and that we needed a LOOGY.
NH’s poor talent evaluation is my opinion…and the fact that watching him throw a bad defensive catcher who cant hit at 1B and trade for a 250 lb 2B off a surgery and getting released…I could write a novel on his hairbrained moves/ trades…
Bottom line is his team has lost more games year in and year out…and have played worse baseball fundamentally…he is responsible for who gets signed, who gets traded for, who manages the team despite rumors to the contrary, and he’s been the one deciding on who starts where and when.
Cocktails, I’m not telling to to limit your drinking as a personal insult…it’s a joke…and I stole it off someone else…you and NH’s family are the only people who think TB would have gotten less in trades w/ our players…track records be damned…
by Dan Jenkins on Jan 21, 2011 10:16 AM EST up reply actions
Maybe I'm mistaken...
but aren’t most (but not all) of the Pirates scouts and advisors the same ones from the previous administration??
Do we expect that they suddenly got smarter when NH and FC were hired?? Results over the last 3 years say no.
When it comes to players at the major league level, it doesn’t seem that talent evaluation (no matter who is doing it) has earned an A grade (or even a B or C). Amateur evaluation, the jury is still out on.
but aren’t most (but not all) of the Pirates scouts and advisors the same ones from the previous administration??
There are a few holdovers, but the majority of the people in place under Littlefield have gone and been replaced by others.
I had the same confusion
There was almost no turnover in NH’s first season (although certainly some rearranging), but he’s since cleaned house.
Which was the right way to handle things, since even a shithead like DL would inevitably have ~20% of his personnel be competent, and the only way to figure out which ones are in the 20% is by watching them for a year (well, theoretically you could go through the paperwork and figure out who recommended which moves, but that’s a lot of forensic work for a guy who has a lot of other concerns upon being hired).
by JRoth95 on Jan 21, 2011 11:19 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
For example:
Here’s the front office staff as of the start of 2007. Guys in bold are still with the team in the same capacity, guys in italics are with the team but have been reassigned.
Robert Nutting Chairman of the Board Owner
Dave Littlefield Senior Vice President and General Manager
Doug Strange Assistant General Manager Assistant GM
Jack Bowen Special Assistant to GM Special Assistant to the GM
Jesse Flores Special Assistant to GM Special Assistant to the GM
Jax Robertson Special Assistant to GM Special Assistant to the GM
Louie Eljaua Special Assistant to GM Special Assistant to the GM
Roy Smith Special Assistant to GM Special Assistant to the GM
Pete Vuckovich Special Assistant to GM Special Assistant to the GM
Jon Mercurio Director, Baseball Operations Baseball Operations
Bryan Minniti Coordinator, Baseball Operations Baseball Operations
Brian Graham Senior Director, Player Development
Ed Creech Senior Director, Scouting Scouting Director
Jeff Banister Field Coordinator Minor League Operations
So. Nutting’s still the owner, Huntington held onto two out of six special assistants, Banister moved into coaching, and Strange and Bowen stuck around but got knocked down a pay grade or two (Strange to DPP and Bowen to advance scout).
Seems like a fairly clean sweep to me. There’s been a comparable amount of turnover among the low-level scouts as well, if not more so.
by Vlad on Jan 20, 2011 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
youre knowledge of the pirates is amazing, vlad
do you have like a huge file on everything bucco???
+ infinity!!!
by white angus on Jan 20, 2011 10:17 PM EST up reply actions
I had to look that one up.
Though I remembered the gist of it.
Since I wasn’t born into looks or wealth, I guess a steel-trap mind for baseball minutiae is better than nothing.
$#@!, im 0 for 3.
back to dealing meth for me.
by white angus on Jan 20, 2011 10:50 PM EST up reply actions
well you COULD
but it’d have crusty white bits on the sides.
by BlindSquirrel on Jan 23, 2011 10:55 PM EST up reply actions
Still no thoughts of how Hurdle stacks up at Colorado
compared to the other ex-Pirate managers WTM?
I’m surprised and yet disappointed.
I really want to know how Hurdle can handle a potential 100+ team like the Pirates
Why bother it’s useless I guess
Well, I already tried to figure out Hurdle’s tendencies in those earlier posts. Beyond that, you’d have to follow a team every day to get a clearer idea of game strategy. It’s hard to judge his use of pitchers, too, partly due to Coors and partly because his bullpens most of the time there really had no talent at all.
I was encouraged by the fact that he platooned, or partially platooned, some guys right from the start, like Hawpe until he became a semi-star. And he seems to have done OK breaking in rookies, although his reluctance to bench Garrett Atkins for Ian Stewart is a red flag, even more so because the Pirates have Atkins now. (If he makes the team, that’s a very bad sign, like Tracy/Jose Hernandez type bad.)
Hurdle at least clearly won’t be asleep at the wheel. There were a lot of times where Russell’s teams gave me the impression of a third-grade class when the teacher’s out of the room. Hurdle reminds me a lot more of Mac in that area, which I think is probably good.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Leadership
I think that the home/road split is very indicative of a team in need of leadership, whether from the manager or from vets. I’m not sure Overbay or Diaz will help much, but it seems like Hurdle sure will. The uniformity of the rookies’ inability to perform on the road – especially Cutch, who already had a half season under his belt and is, by all accounts, a mature guy – suggests to me a structural failure. I can’t tell you what JR did wrong, of course, but there are managers whose rookies do better than that, so presumably he was doing (or not doing) something.
Even a modest regression in the road performances will be worth 5-10 wins, not including (presumed) improvement from young players. Last year I cheated and did a split prediction: 72 wins if the pitchers stay healthy, 62 otherwise. This year I’m inclined to say 72, straight up. And I’d take the over, too.
I didn't mean to be snide
typical work stress….I’m just starved for the Pirates to even contend for .500 but I guess that’s a couple years away
No biggie
I’ve actually been trying to think this through. Some things do bother me. The few good young pitchers he had, for instance, ended up with arm problems. But I think “meddling Neal” would probably enforce whatever their data is on starter endurance. And the problems in Colo. may not have been Clint’s fault. It’s just a small sample size.
He did bunt quite a bit. I don’t know where or if there’s a home/road breakdown, but a Rockies’ team bunting a lot is . . . uh . . . disconcerting.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
Comparing Results for Leyand to Russell
Using http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/PIT/2010-schedule-scores.shtml, here are some stats from Leyland thru Russell. Proj Wins are the Pythagorean Wins.
Leyland:
Yrs : 11
Total Wins-Proj Wins : 0
Avg Wins-Proj Wins : 0.0
No. Yrs Wins > Proj Wins : 7
No. Yrs Above .500 : 4
No. Yrs RS > RA : 4
Total RS-RA : -365
Avg RS-RA : -33
Note: If you remove 1986, Lelyand’s Total Wins-Proj Wins = 13 or 1.3 per season
Lamont:
Yrs : 3
Total Wins-Proj Wins : -10
Avg Wins-Proj Wins : -3.3
No. Yrs Wins > Proj Wins : 1
No. Yrs Above .500 : 0
No. Yrs RS > RA : 0
Total RS-RA : -205
Avg RS-RA : -68
McClendon:
Yrs : 5
Total Wins-Proj Wins : -7
Avg Wins-Proj Wins : -1.4
No. Yrs Wins > Proj Wins : 1
No. Yrs Above .500 : 0
No. Yrs RS > RA : 0
Total RS-RA : -491
Avg RS-RA : -98
Tracy:
Yrs : 2
Total Wins-Proj Wins : -5
Avg Wins-Proj Wins : -2.5
No. Yrs Wins > Proj Wins : 0
No. Yrs Above .500 : 0
No. Yrs RS > RA : 0
Total RS-RA : -228
Avg RS-RA : -114
Russell:
Yrs : 3
Total Wins-Proj Wins : -1
Avg Wins-Proj Wins : -0.3
No. Yrs Wins > Proj Wins : 1
No. Yrs Above .500 : 0
No. Yrs RS > RA : 0
Total RS-RA : -411
Avg RS-RA : -137
Of course...
A lot of this has to do with the players that each manager had. Jim Tracy could have managed the 91 squad to the playoffs.
by IAPiratesFan on Jan 22, 2011 5:05 PM EST up reply actions
This thread

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
by WTM on Jan 24, 2011 12:04 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
This thread...
I’m getting better. No, you’re not, you’ll be stone dead in a moment.
(I’d go through the entire piece…but I’d like to sleep today).
I don’t want to go on the cart…
Oh, shut up, you big baby.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 24, 2011 8:20 AM EST up reply actions
Can you come back in a couple of hours?
No, I’ve gotta go down the Robinson’s. They’ve lost nine today.
Well, isn’t there something you can do?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 24, 2011 9:50 PM EST up reply actions
You’re not fooling anyone, you know.
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Jan 25, 2011 7:26 PM EST up reply actions
Just Compare
Steelers management vs Pirates management – It is possible to win consistently in aq small market!
Especially when you have a payroll cap and equally shared broadcast revenue.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
And when you draft players...
…who are ready to contribute and make a difference immediately, rather than players who require 3-4 years of development. And when 37.5% of the league makes the playoffs in any given year, rather than 25% (for the NL) like in baseball. And when the season is only sixteen games long, and thus one or two lucky wins can put you into the playoff picture.
Etc.



























