Farrell

[a700hitter]

or...Torre never got to the WS without a $200MM+ payroll......

And he didn't get to the WS with a $200 million payroll when he didn't have Zimmer at his side.

[a700hitter]

But the judgement has a lot of leeway so there really is no right or wrong. They are very subjective. How often can you say what the right or wrong move is at the time it is made and be correct? Try to critique moves when they are made and see how often you are right about what you think are bad moves. Do this for a lot of games and see what % of the times a bad result occurred. And not only that, see how many times you were correct and the wrong move can be said to have most likely caused the team to lose the game. But do this in real game time, not in hindsight. Keep an honest chart of this and I think you will be surprised at the results.

When you made the statement below aren't you acknowledging that in-game usage of players (i.e., in game moves including lineup) are important?

 

A really good manager instills a certain philosophy in his team in how to play the game. He also utilizes every player in such a way as to help them reach their maximum potential. It is an art that very few master. An that is truly where we separate the great managers from the rest. It isn't in their use of in game moves. Within each game, the manager has a very limited ability to impact the final outcome.

[Kimmi]

I am not arguing at all how much of an impact good or bad managers can have on a team. I don't need to. I have seen both sides and have been on both as well. It might seem odd to some but I really do think that there are and will continue to be situations where bad managers screw up good players and good managers are able to win with lesser talent. But - hey - I know that I am on an island here because I do believe there are still times that things like stolen bases, and sacrifice bunts should be utilized.

 

I agree with the bold statement above. I have said many times that I think that managing the players is the most important part of a manager's job. To see evidence of this, we need look no farther than Bobby Valentine and Terry Francona.

 

There are absolutely times when stolen bases and sac bunts should be utilized. Those times, especially for the sac bunt, are just not nearly as often as some people think.

[Kimmi]

Maybe making good in-game decisions also has a positive impact on the clubhouse, by suggesting to the players that their manager isn't a complete nitwit.

 

I'm sure there is some truth to that statement.

 

It is really difficult to quantify a manager's impact on a team. For one, there are times when we don't know whether a move, like a sac bunt or a stolen base, was called by the manager or the player acted on his own. For two, sometimes the manager makes absolutely the right call but the players fail to execute, or vice versa. For three, we have no way of knowing what might have happened if a different call was made.

 

All we have is the difference in win expectancy between one decision versus another, which is very, very small, and the fact that managerial skills show no ability to repeat.

 

I am not saying that a manager's decisions make no difference in a game, just that they don't impact the game as much as most people think they do.

[a700hitter]

I'm sure there is some truth to that statement.

 

It is really difficult to quantify a manager's impact on a team. For one, there are times when we don't know whether a move, like a sac bunt or a stolen base, was called by the manager or the player acted on his own. For two, sometimes the manager makes absolutely the right call but the players fail to execute, or vice versa. For three, we have no way of knowing what might have happened if a different call was made.

 

All we have is the difference in win expectancy between one decision versus another, which is very, very small, and the fact that managerial skills show no ability to repeat.

 

I am not saying that a manager's decisions make no difference in a game, just that they don't impact the game as much as most people think they do.

You have convinced me. Managers are unneeded baggage and excess payroll. Put the money toward better players or improved scouting. There really seems to be no justification to keep them.

[Kimmi]

Hey Kimmi, I'm still in your gang. Or are you in my gang? I've felt for a while that in game moves do not impact chances to win very much, especially when you are sacrificing an out. Baseball, in general, is not a strategic sport when it comes to making moves in the game. The most important strategizing takes place before the game begins. You don't run plays or schemes in baseball games to the same extent you do in football, basketball, or hockey. Sure, there are more things done today with shifting infields and such, but that tends to be widely followed rather than exclusive to certain managers.

 

A really good manager instills a certain philosophy in his team in how to play the game. He also utilizes every player in such a way as to help them reach their maximum potential. It is an art that very few master. An that is truly where we separate the great managers from the rest. It isn't in their use of in game moves. Within each game, the manager has a very limited ability to impact the final outcome.

 

I would happily be a member of your gang. I have enjoyed your posts in this and other threads.

 

I'm sure we have all worked for good bosses and for bad bosses. The impact that they have on things like morale and production is very real.

[Kimmi]

I respectfully disagree (and I don't give a damn about bunting). I think many baseball games do entail a fair number of impactful decisions. It's not so much about strategy as it is about NOT SCREWING UP. You do have to know when to pull the starting pitcher. In the modern game you do have to know the 3 or more relievers you're going to use after that and in what order.

 

Baseball has one unique strategic element in that when you remove a player he's gone from that game forever. So you have to be careful about exactly when you use pinch hitters and pinch runners.

 

Frankly I'm getting tired of all this diminishment of the importance of good in-game management.

 

Well I've long been tired of all the snarky, sarcastic remarks in response to my and others' opinions because people don't agree with our opinions. At least David takes the time to support his opinion and debate in a respectful manner.

 

And you know I'm not talking about you, because you have always disagreed with me in a respectful manner (I just needed to vent), but I don't think you should get offended by the opinion that a manager's moves are not as important as some people believe they are.

[Bellhorn04]

Well I've long been tired of all the snarky, sarcastic remarks in response to my and others' opinions because people don't agree with our opinions. At least David takes the time to support his opinion and debate in a respectful manner.

 

And you know I'm not talking about you, because you have always disagreed with me in a respectful manner (I just needed to vent), but I don't think you should get offended by the opinion that a manager's moves are not as important as some people believe they are.

 

I'm just sticking up for managers, really. I think their job is fairly demanding.

[a700hitter]

Well I've long been tired of all the snarky, sarcastic remarks in response to my and others' opinions because people don't agree with our opinions. At least David takes the time to support his opinion and debate in a respectful manner.

 

And you know I'm not talking about you, because you have always disagreed with me in a respectful manner (I just needed to vent), but I don't think you should get offended by the opinion that a manager's moves are not as important as some people believe they are.

If you are referring to me, I am just agreeing with you. Some people have trouble taking yes for an answer I guess. You beat this drum about the insignificance of every managerial decision from lineups to in game decisions, but when I suggest that they are not needed, you think that is snarky. If you are right and managers mean so little to the outcome of games, how can you make a compelling case for keeping the field manager position? You mention that they are important in the clubhouse. To that, I would answer that you are thinking too traditionally. There would be other ways to manage a clubhouse and team morale without having a field manager. Maybe the hitters and the pitchers could each have captains with increased clubhouse responsibility or maybe just a non-player clubhouse manager. As for dealing with the Press, each team has a Press Secretary. Let them handle the media.

[cp176]

I agree with the bold statement above. I have said many times that I think that managing the players is the most important part of a manager's job. To see evidence of this, we need look no farther than Bobby Valentine and Terry Francona.

 

There are absolutely times when stolen bases and sac bunts should be utilized. Those times, especially for the sac bunt, are just not nearly as often as some people think.

 

I agree with you for sure about the potential of over using some of these so called small ball techniques. Good managers just have to be able to recognize when the time is right to try to something different to help their team. I think that over coaching can actually be more harmful to a team than no (basically) coaching.

[OH FOY]

I see more blunders and screw-ups on Sac. Bunts, than I ever did. Teams don't practice it anymore, especially in the AL. A fundamental, that is forgotten. I would use it just because of this.

[Kimmi]

I'm just sticking up for managers, really. I think their job is fairly demanding.

 

I agree with that. Their jobs are very demanding. I'm not the one who thinks we can do away with them.

 

I just think that the most important and demanding part of their job takes place off the field.

[MADSTORK]

How about today's game in Chicago for all you arm chair managers.

 

Why would you bring in your best setup reliever in Kelly for the 6th inning?

Kelly in ten 8th inning appearances has 8K and a 0.00 era.

 

Some might say Chicago had there best 3 hitters batting in the 6th. With a rested bullpen even if Chicago had scored, you still have 9 outs to win the game and Kelly Kimbrel for the final 2 innings...

 

I'm not saying the move was right or wrong, I'm saying these are the types of bullpen moves Farrell has made over the years that begs the ? Is he a good or bad in game Manager

[a700hitter]

I agree with that. Their jobs are very demanding. I'm not the one who thinks we can do away with them.

 

I just think that the most important and demanding part of their job takes place off the field.

Kimmi, if neither a manager's lineup order or in game decisions contributes significantly to the outcome of games as you argue, what is it about their off field responsibilities is so important to justify their position? You have also given them a pass on teaching smart baserunning and fielding ...no?

[Bellhorn04]

How about today's game in Chicago for all you arm chair managers.

 

Why would you bring in your best setup reliever in Kelly for the 6th inning?

Kelly in ten 8th inning appearances has 8K and a 0.00 era.

 

Some might say Chicago had there best 3 hitters batting in the 6th. With a rested bullpen even if Chicago had scored, you still have 9 outs to win the game and Kelly Kimbrel for the final 2 innings...

 

I'm not saying the move was right or wrong, I'm saying these are the types of bullpen moves Farrell has made over the years that begs the ? Is he a good or bad in game Manager

 

He probably hoped to use Kelly for 2 innings, but Kelly threw 29 pitches in the 6th.

[cp176]

How about today's game in Chicago for all you arm chair managers.

 

Why would you bring in your best setup reliever in Kelly for the 6th inning?

Kelly in ten 8th inning appearances has 8K and a 0.00 era.

 

Some might say Chicago had there best 3 hitters batting in the 6th. With a rested bullpen even if Chicago had scored, you still have 9 outs to win the game and Kelly Kimbrel for the final 2 innings...

 

I'm not saying the move was right or wrong, I'm saying these are the types of bullpen moves Farrell has made over the years that begs the ? Is he a good or bad in game Manager

 

Kelly had not pitched in 5 days. I'm not sure why you wouldn't try to get more than 29 pitches out of him. I liked the fact that he brought him in early. An unexpected change. I would have liked to see him try to get at least one more inning out of him.

[Bellhorn04]

I agree with that. Their jobs are very demanding. I'm not the one who thinks we can do away with them.

 

I just think that the most important and demanding part of their job takes place off the field.

 

And I don't disagree with that.

 

And I'm sure you're not really intending to do this, but some of your statements leave the impression that once the game starts the manager can pretty much have a snooze.

[cp176]

And I don't disagree with that.

 

And I'm sure you're not really intending to do this, but some of your statements leave the impression that once the game starts the manager can pretty much have a snooze.

 

didn't somebody actually fall asleep in the Nationals dugout just a few years ago? lol

[devildavid]

And I don't disagree with that.

 

And I'm sure you're not really intending to do this, but some of your statements leave the impression that once the game starts the manager can pretty much have a snooze.

 

Not so much a snooze, but a lot of the game is not in his control. Unless you think it's good practice to micromanage and make every pitch call from the bench and use a lot of offensive strategy such as bunting, hit and run, and base stealing to attempt to "make" things happen on the field. But even the most active in game managers still can't call for a home run swing or a strike out pitch or a double play ball or a slow chopper past the pitcher or a great catch in the outfield etc.

[devildavid]

When you made the statement below aren't you acknowledging that in-game usage of players (i.e., in game moves including lineup) are important?

 

Yes and no. I was thinking more of who starts the game i.e, depending on their ability to hit certain pitchers or platooning and broad strategies such as that. Pinch hitting and other in game moves are much more of a crap shoot. It has to do with sample size and best utilizing the largest sample to get the most out of each player.

[Maxbialystock]

For Kimmi and others who don't want to throw managers on the ash heap of history, my earlier post was not intended to argue that we don't need managers--good managers--because in fact we do. If nothing else, management of the pitching staff--who to start, how long to keep them in, who relieves and when and for how long--is a big job all by itself. I'm sure some managers are better at that than others, but at the end of the day much depends on what those pitchers actually do on the mound in any given game.

 

Take yesterday's game in Chicago, a perfect example. It was Price's first start after missing most of two months plus ST and having just had to so-so outings at best for Pawtucket. I got the NESN feed on mlb.com and Remy was complaining for most of the 4th and all of the 5th inning that Farrell should have had someone warming up in the bullpen. But in fact Price just gave up that costly 3 run dinger in the 3d (after two walks) but otherwise had 4 scoreless innings, including the 4th and 5th, and only threw 88 pitches.

 

I thought Kelly was the right guy to bring in next because now the Sox had the lead, 4-3, and needed 4 scoreless innings. Unfortunately, Barnes gave up those 2 runs, but the first one came after a triple that was just a great swing because it was a curveball either low in the zone or below the zone that was semi-golfed down the RF line. And the next hit, a double, was an opposite field fly/drive down the same line. Plus let's give the White Sox player who scored from 2b on a Cabrera single that Rutledge fielded some credit--he gambled he could score and it worked. After those 2 runs, the Sox still had 2 innings to score, but of course were out of gas with just 4 hits total in the game.

[a700hitter]

For Kimmi and others who don't want to throw managers on the ash heap of history, my earlier post was not intended to argue that we don't need managers--good managers--because in fact we do. If nothing else, management of the pitching staff--who to start, how long to keep them in, who relieves and when and for how long--is a big job all by itself. I'm sure some managers are better at that than others, but at the end of the day much depends on what those pitchers actually do on the mound in any given game.

 

Take yesterday's game in Chicago, a perfect example. It was Price's first start after missing most of two months plus ST and having just had to so-so outings at best for Pawtucket. I got the NESN feed on mlb.com and Remy was complaining for most of the 4th and all of the 5th inning that Farrell should have had someone warming up in the bullpen. But in fact Price just gave up that costly 3 run dinger in the 3d (after two walks) but otherwise had 4 scoreless innings, including the 4th and 5th, and only threw 88 pitches.

 

I thought Kelly was the right guy to bring in next because now the Sox had the lead, 4-3, and needed 4 scoreless innings. Unfortunately, Barnes gave up those 2 runs, but the first one came after a triple that was just a great swing because it was a curveball either low in the zone or below the zone that was semi-golfed down the RF line. And the next hit, a double, was an opposite field fly/drive down the same line. Plus let's give the White Sox player who scored from 2b on a Cabrera single that Rutledge fielded some credit--he gambled he could score and it worked. After those 2 runs, the Sox still had 2 innings to score, but of course were out of gas with just 4 hits total in the game.

Pitching changes are in-game moves as are defensive replacements, shifts, and other game strategy such as moving the runners and pinch hitting. It seem that there is a back-tracking by admitting that certain managerial game functions are significant while other decisions are deemed statistically insignificant. The conclusions as to what is insignificant and what is significant strikes me as somewhat random. Whether a manager uses his bullpen correctly and makes wise pitching changes seems just as hard to quantify as any other game decision.

[Maxbialystock]

Pitching changes are in-game moves as are defensive replacements, shifts, and other game strategy such as moving the runners and pinch hitting. It seem that there is a back-tracking by admitting that certain managerial game functions are significant while other decisions are deemed statistically insignificant. The conclusions as to what is insignificant and what is significant strikes me as somewhat random. Whether a manager uses his bullpen correctly and makes wise pitching changes seems just as hard to quantify as any other game decision.

 

I actually think that "significant" doesn't often apply to any managerial decision because so much depends on that pitcher and/or that batter. That's why I cited the White Sox game yesterday because: 1) I thought leaving Price in for 5 innings made sense, ditto Kelly in the 6th, and Barnes in the 7th. Yes, Barnes gave up two runs, but the triple as a minimum was a surprise given where the pitch was thrown. I think you have to credit both Chicago batters who hit the triple and then the double, and the latter for scoring from 2b on a grounder fielded by Rutledge.

 

I do think Price blew it in the 3d when he first walked two guys, then had the hot Cabrera at bat and gave him a pitch right down the middle which he hammered. But overall I'm happy with his 5 innings.

 

What I'm trying to say that most of the time the manager's decisions are sensible and supportable, but either our guys don't do their jobs--yesterday it was hitting--well or the other team does their jobs better.

 

I do think that some managers are better at managing players--personalities--than others.

[a700hitter]

I actually think that "significant" doesn't often apply to any managerial decision because so much depends on that pitcher and/or that batter. That's why I cited the White Sox game yesterday because: 1) I thought leaving Price in for 5 innings made sense, ditto Kelly in the 6th, and Barnes in the 7th. Yes, Barnes gave up two runs, but the triple as a minimum was a surprise given where the pitch was thrown. I think you have to credit both Chicago batters who hit the triple and then the double, and the latter for scoring from 2b on a grounder fielded by Rutledge.

 

I do think Price blew it in the 3d when he first walked two guys, then had the hot Cabrera at bat and gave him a pitch right down the middle which he hammered. But overall I'm happy with his 5 innings.

 

What I'm trying to say that most of the time the manager's decisions are sensible and supportable, but either our guys don't do their jobs--yesterday it was hitting--well or the other team does their jobs better.

 

I do think that some managers are better at managing players--personalities--than others.

Some of the best managers were despised by their players.

[a700hitter]

 

What I'm trying to say that most of the time the manager's decisions are sensible and supportable, but either our guys don't do their jobs--yesterday it was hitting--well or the other team does their jobs better.

 

For each type of cancer, there are morbidity statistics. One thing is for certain. If you don't have a good Oncologist working on your case, the greater the chance you will die, but not everyone who goes untreated will die from the cancer. People have been known to go into spontaneous remission although it is rare. If you have the best Oncologist in the world, your chances of survival would increase, but even the best Oncologist loses patients (and even some that they are sure they can save). The morbidity statistics are the big sample size and give you the best indication of chances of surviving. No one would Google the survival stats and see a morbidity likelihood of 65% and conclude that the quality of the doctor doesn't matter.

 

The outcome of a game is much less certain than the outcome of a cancer case, but you give yourself the best chance of winning if you have a good manager who consistently makes the high percentage and smart moves. The additional games that the good manager will win for you as opposed to a dumb ass manager is very difficult measure with accuracy.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi, if neither a manager's lineup order or in game decisions contributes significantly to the outcome of games as you argue, what is it about their off field responsibilities is so important to justify their position? You have also given them a pass on teaching smart baserunning and fielding ...no?

 

Well even if there is nothing important about the job, and that is not at all what I'm saying, somebody has to do it. Somebody has to run the ship.

 

Managers have to deal with the media without creating a media circus at every turn (see Bobby valentine). A good manager will know how to get the best out of his players by the atmosphere that he creates in the clubhouse.

 

And no, I have not given them a pass on teaching smart baserunning and fielding. I just said that those fundamentals should already be well established by the time a player reaches the major leagues.

[Kimmi]

And I don't disagree with that.

 

And I'm sure you're not really intending to do this, but some of your statements leave the impression that once the game starts the manager can pretty much have a snooze.

 

No, but the manager can pretty much kick back and just "sit and spit". LOL

 

Joking, of course.

 

Managers do have to make in game decisions. But often times, just letting the players do their thing is the best way to manage the game.

[Kimmi]

For each type of cancer, there are morbidity statistics. One thing is for certain. If you don't have a good Oncologist working on your case, the greater the chance you will die, but not everyone who goes untreated will die from the cancer. People have been known to go into spontaneous remission although it is rare. If you have the best Oncologist in the world, your chances of survival would increase, but even the best Oncologist loses patients (and even some that they are sure they can save). The morbidity statistics are the big sample size and give you the best indication of chances of surviving. No one would Google the survival stats and see a morbidity likelihood of 65% and conclude that the quality of the doctor doesn't matter.

 

The outcome of a game is much less certain than the outcome of a cancer case, but you give yourself the best chance of winning if you have a good manager who consistently makes the high percentage and smart moves. The additional games that the good manager will win for you as opposed to a dumb ass manager is very difficult measure with accuracy.

 

There is no evidence of any manager being able to repeat that skill.

[dgalehouse]

Good management and supervision is important to the success of any business or industry. The only exception might be when you have a group of skilled and self motivated employees. That does not happen too often.

[Maxbialystock]

Some of the best managers were despised by their players.

 

I can't think of any, but I also can't disagree because I don't know enough.