Official Fire Yost thread.

[msiris]

Derrick has a couple days off....

Good thing dont you think?

[Bleeding Green]

-= original quote snipped =-

:noway: How? Look at his win%

Grady Little won 95 games in 2003.

[skitch815]

-= original quote snipped =-

Then how do the Twins do it?
They dont have great players. Very average. A great pitcher. Yost tends to stick with certain things. If we are leading in the 8th who are we going to see? Turnblow. How predicable is that.

The Twins have the defending AL MVP, the best pitcher in the AL, the best hitting catcher in baseball and one of the best CFers in the game. Throw on top of that Joe Nathan, Liriano last year and solid vets through the past few years. How exactly is that the same as the situation Yost dealt with in his first few years with the Brewers?

[Bleeding Green]

You people calling for Yost's head realize that managers are basically meaningless, right? Put me in charge of the Royals and they lose 90 games. Put Earl Weaver there and they still lose 90 games.

That is, unless they do something dumb like bunt on every atbat or leave a pitcher in for 200 pitches.

Maybe, at best, a manager can affect the course of a season by two or three wins either way. Even if he makes the wrong decision, it might not come back to bite him in the ass. Even if he makes the right decision, it's the wrong decision.

OK, it's frustrating when he falls in love with a certain player or whatever, but does he do it to the extent where the Brewers lose 15 more games than they would have?

[whatthe_buck!?]

OK, it's frustrating when he falls in love with a certain player or whatever, but does he do it to the extent where the Brewers lose 15 more games than they would have?

Actually, that might be more debatable then you may think. It could be that if you were following closely the Brewers struggles last year (from June onwards) you would realize that your question is much less effective rhetorically than it would be if used to persuade most other fanbases of the minuscule effect a manager can have on a team's season.

Granted, 15 games is certainly a stretch, but on the other hand even having the course of just 5 games altered from that of a close win to that of a come-from-behind victory for the opposition is enough to transform what could have been a 5 game division lead into a 1-5 game division lead for what should have been the second place team (assuming, of course, one or more of those 5 blown wins came against the would-be second place team). That is not even to bring up the sometimes truly devastating effect such losses can have on the morale of not only the player who blew the game, but also the team as a whole.

One question I would like to ask of someone who I will assume is a fervent Red Sox fan is this- If you could go back in time to the end of the 2003 season, and, somehow, the decision to replace Grady Little with Terry Francona before the 2004 season could be undone, what is the maximum amount of money, if any, that you would be willing to send to Larry Lucchino as a bribe to make certain that he would make the decision he went on to make? I think your answer would show clearly the extent in which you truly believe in your statement "managers are basically meaningless". If, as you indicate in that statement, you don't think there is any difference and would not give any money, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that this would put you at odds with most if not all of your fellow Sox fans, who, as i recall, would have given just about anything to be rid of Mr. Little after the debacle that was game 7 of the 2003 ALCS (among others).

-for a complete list of Grady's transgressions I would direct you to read some of Bill Simmons' baseball columns from that year if you need a refresher-

[whatthe_buck!?]

Grady Little won 95 games in 2003.

I just noticed this comment, and -correct me if I'm wrong- I think you are using the fact that Grady Little won 95 games as proof that winning percentage has very little to do with the talent of the manager (the implication being that Grady Little is an example of a poor manager who won many games in a season). If you are using Grady as an example of a perceived bad manager then that is one thing, but if you agree that he is a manager of lesser skill than most then that opinion would seem to contradict your statement that managers are "basically meaningless". That is unless you believe that the talent of a manager should measured by something other than their ability to impact their team in a positive or negative way relative to other managers.

*edited so as to try to help clarify my meaning*

[whatthe_buck!?]

It would have been way too predictable to just go ahead and intentionally walk Cabrera there with a one run lead in the sixth, one out, a runner on second, and a lefty on the mound. A lesser manager would have given into temptation.

*This post refers to the masterful decision made by the Brewers skipper to pitch to one of the best hitters in baseball in the perfect intentional walk situation (a lefty righty matchup against the #3 hitter with a meager late inning lead, a speedy guy on second, and one out). This took place on June 2nd against the Marlins, second game of a three game series*

[Bleeding Green]

Grady Little won 95 games in 2003.

I just noticed this comment, and -correct me if I'm wrong- I think you are using the fact that Grady Little won 95 games as proof that winning percentage has little to do with the talent of the manager (the implication being that Little is an example of a poor manager who won many games in a season). If you are using Grady as an example of a perceived bad manager then that is one thing, but if you agree that he is a manager of lesser skill than most then that opinion would seem to contradict your statement that managers are "basically meaningless". That is unless you believe that the talent of a manager should measured by something other than their ability to impact their team in a positive or negative way relative to other managers.

This is worded very oddly (or maybe I'm very stupid and/or tired) so I have no idea what you're saying that I'm saying.

My point is this: Grady Little is one of the worst managers in baseball history. The team he managed won 95 games in one season. Therefore, bad managers (epically terrible managers) can win lots of games. And thus, managers aren't that important.

I think the manager is more or less just there to keep the players in line and happy and all that good stuff. The difference between the worst on-the-field tactician and the best is probably negligible. The talent on the field will supercede whatever the manager does.

This is assuming that the manager isn't so inept that he would leave his obviously faltering pitcher on the mound in the most important spot of the season against the Yankees in the ALCS.

[whatthe_buck!?]

This is worded very oddly (or maybe I'm very stupid and/or tired) so I have no idea what you're saying that I'm saying.

Looking at it again, I realize that you are correct to point out that my reply to your "Grady Little won 95 games in 2003" post is kind of confusing, so let me apologize for that and try to explain what i was trying to say. The reason I did not take the liberty to assume your comment's implication was that you believe that Grady is a bad manager whose team won 95 games (although I was fairly sure it was) is that it is not explicitly stated. Instead of being presumptuous, I listed two possible ways your statement could be viewed (which I acknowledge made understanding my point more difficult)-

1. You were using Grady Little as an example of a manager who is perceived by many as being bad. If so, this would help to make the case that even skippers who many people see as terrible are, in actuality, just as able to produce a high winning percentage, and thus would strengthen your argument that managers are unimportant/irrelevant.

2. You were using Grady Little as a example of a truly terrible manager. If so, this would strengthen the argument that Ned Yost should not have his ability as a manager judged on winning percentage, because it shows that a poor manager can have a high winning percentage: It should then follow, quite logically, that a manager with low winning percentage could be a good manager. The problem with this second interpretation is that it seems to contradict your stated opinion that managers are unimportant, because if there is such a thing as a good or a bad manager, then the questions become--
How we are to judge a manager's quality other than by the effect their decisions have on the outcome of games?
And if manager's decisions are impacting the outcome of games (even only a few games) then how can it be said that managers are unimportant?

Hopefully you now have a better understanding of my post, so allow me to precede to try to clear up what I see as the disagreement between our two opinions.

First, it is important to point out that I think we are actually in agreement on one critical point, and that is that we are basically in concurrence regarding the relatively negligible effect of a manager on a baseball team's winning percentage. Stated more directly, you worded it like this:

Put me in charge of the Royals and they lose 90 games. Put Earl Weaver there and they still lose 90 games.

I think that is probably right for the most part. From here, however, the direction we choose to go is where we differ. In your most recent post, you said this-

My point is this: Grady Little is one of the worst managers in baseball history. The team he managed won 95 games in one season. Therefore, bad managers (epically terrible managers) can win lots of games.

Up to this point I'm still with you, and your conclusion that "bad managers can win lots of games" follows logically if you hold the previous two sentences to be true. Then you go on to say that based on this conclusion, you can therefore go on to conclude the following-

And thus, managers aren't that important.

This is where we disagree. I do not believe that this jump can be logically made. Just because I think that the quality of a manager has little effect on on a team's total wins -the overwhelming factor for wins being the quality of a team's player personnel- does not mean that I (or anyone) must believe that a manager's role is irrelevant/unimportant.

In fact, I would conjecture that for each team, on average, 10-15 games boil down to the sagacity of the manager throughout the course of the 162 game season (that number being more like 5-10 for teams with relatively bad player personnel and possibly larger for great teams). Also, for teams fortunate enough to make the playoffs, my conjecture would be 1 or more games per series are decided by the cunning (or ineptitude) of the manager (once again, on average).

I will go on to guess that the average position player helps to decide a game's outcome once every seventh game, and that even the absolute best position player (I'm talking Pujols caliber here) is, at the very most, a deciding factor in every third game. Hell, even the best starting pitcher is only going to factor into a game's outcome every fifth contest. In comparison, my projection for the manager of an "good" team has him as a deciding factor in about every 10th regular season game and close to every fifth postseason game.

*By the way, I do understand how vague I am being when I say "a deciding factor" or "a factor in the outcome", but I think you can understand what I am trying to say. It would definitely take a fairly long explanation to be more precise, and I am getting a little carried away with this reply as it is*

To finish up my argument I will simply say this: If you (or anyone else) find these rough estimations to hold some truth, I think it would be nearly impossible to make the case that managers are unimportant to the degree that it would not be worthwhile to replace one who showed signs of being unable to make key decisions wisely. If, on the other hand, you/anybody significantly disagree(s) with my estimate of the frequency of a manager's decisions affecting the outcome of games, I would then ask what you/anyone would suggest as a more accurate appraisal. We shall then be able to resume the debate regarding a manager's importance from there.

[whatthe_buck!?]

This is assuming that the manager isn't so inept that he would leave his obviously faltering pitcher on the mound in the most important spot of the season against the Yankees in the ALCS.

One other point I wanted to reiterate is that it is hard for me to understand how someone who acknowledges the critical role a manager served in blowing a game 7 in a league championship series can yet maintain that a manager's role is "not that important". Clearly you would argue that it takes a special kind of manager to make a decision that bad, and that very few managers would ever make a decision that terrible. To that I would ask, in what way are fans and/or upper management supposed to decide if their team has a manager that atrocious other than to predict whether or not he is capable of making that detrimental of a foul up based on his track record when he was placed in similar situations in regular season games? Ned Yost has never managed a team in a playoff game. Would it be prudent for me to wait until he cost the Brewers a playoff series with a terrible decision to call for him to be replaced? And even though I earlier suspected he was capable of causing a Grady Little-Level catastrophe?

[trwi7]

And I dub'eth thee Braindead Ned, manager of the Milwaukee Brewers.

[whatthe_buck!?]

And I dub'eth thee Braindead Ned, manager of the Milwaukee Brewers.

O ye dub-ber of Ned the Brain-dead,

one can ponder if it shall be said,

that we on primrose path do tread,

to bring skill in maladroitness' stead.

Will with success our campaign be spread?

or from minds with ease shall our cause be shed,

and into the depths shall fall this thread-

I rejoin not save OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

[whatthe_buck!?]

I guess I should assume that the lack of feedback means that everyone on this board is in agreement with me?

Where you at, Bleeding Green?

[whatthe_buck!?]

Didn't get a chance to watch any of the game saturday night, so it's probably unfair for me to up this thread, but I was just curious to hear if any "fire yost" ammunition was created (besides the fact we're about to get swept by the rangers) that I should be aware of. Thanks in advance.

[trwi7]

Didn't get a chance to watch any of the game saturday night, so it's probably unfair for me to up this thread, but I was just curious to hear if any "fire yost" ammunition was created (besides the fact we're about to get swept by the rangers) that I should be aware of. Thanks in advance.

No there's not really anything you can say. Sheets went 7, we had the lead so we went to Turnbow in the 8th and he pitched a scoreless inning and then Cordero got the first 2 outs and then went 0-2 on like 4 straight batters and couldn't put them away.

[MickeyDavis]

I'm not a big Yost fan but nothing he did Saturday night, or didn't do, led to the loss.

[trwi7]

"We're just not scoring enough runs to win right now.

The reason we're not scoring enough runs is because our pitching is giving up too many runs, plain and simple."

At least his quotes make sense. Oh wait.

http://milwaukee.brewers.mlb.com/news/a ... p&c_id=mil

[whatthe_buck!?]

Unfortunately for those of us who have hitched a ride on the fire Yost bandwagon (myself especially), we must come to grips with the realization that if Cordero keeps blowing saves this train could come to a standstill. Even I can admit that there really isn't anyone in the pen who can now be entrusted with a lead without Coco being his old dependable self (aside from maybe Villanueva). On the other hand, being familiar with Ned, it's not out of the realm of possibility that he'll open an entirely new avenue for criticism -unrelated to bullpen management- with some completely unexpected gaffe. I know I'll be keeping an eye out for it.

BTW Mickey, I think you were right on to point out that it was questionable of Yost to start Bush over Vargas. Luckily for all of us he was able to pull the trigger and yank him with one out in the 5th before too much more damage was done.

[bigkurty]

The No Hitter has finally put me on the Fire Yost Bandwagon. His moronic decisions just can't be excused anymore. I don't care if its a no hitter chance, he has to try to win the game. Why were no pinch hitters used?

[livestrong4ever]

The No Hitter has finally put me on the Fire Yost Bandwagon. His moronic decisions just can't be excused anymore. I don't care if its a no hitter chance, he has to try to win the game. Why were no pinch hitters used?

There was a DH.

You dont fire a manager with a winning record.

But everyone knows we lost this game because of a manager, it wasn't prince or hall or corey hart not having any hits. it was ned yost .