The Alex Cora Managerial Decision Thread

[Bellhorn04]

Kimmi, you're being paged!

[Carbo-Diem]

Especially when you'll only use it at Christmas time.

 

BADA Bing!

[Natick to NC]

In 27 innings how many runs have this team scored ???? Bzzzzz not enough 3-1 could be 0-4 easily .start playing Swihart.

[cp176]

In 27 innings how many runs have this team scored ???? Bzzzzz not enough 3-1 could be 0-4 easily .start playing Swihart.

 

I sure and hell would not consider trading him right now. I wouldn't trade anybody who even looks as though they might hit right now. The all powerful rays holding these guys to 10 runs in 4 games is pathetic whether we won 3 or not.

[Natick to NC]

I sure and hell would not consider trading him right now. I wouldn't trade anybody who even looks as though they might hit right now. The all powerful rays holding these guys to 10 runs in 4 games is pathetic whether we won 3 or not.

 

It scares the crap out of me honestly ...slow start ? Sure ... But in 36 innings 10 runs ???? It's time to try something new right ??? 2.3 and change is not enough a game...it isn't going to cut it in the AL East .Lets show some nuts Cora switch the lineup or play Blake I don't care but this isn't happening .

Edited April 2, 2018 by Natick to NC

[notin]

Wow. It didn't take long at all to get to the " we're winning but not by enough" complaints.

 

What happens if the changes don't work in the first game?

[cp176]

It scares the crap out of me honestly ...slow start ? Sure ... But in 36 innings 10 runs ???? It's time to try something new??? 2.not enough a game isn't going to cut it in the AL East .

 

I'm concerned too but I also think that 4 games is way too soon to assume that this is who they are going to be. What bothers me was the lack of guys driving the ball anywhere. There were some shots but way to many weak outs against a team that we have been led to believe isn't much better than a solid triple A club. It is pretty obvious that they are going to have to hit soon.

[notin]

In 27 innings how many runs have this team scored ???? Bzzzzz not enough 3-1 could be 0-4 easily .start playing Swihart.

 

Yes. Swihart should be a much bigger addition than JD Martinez. ..

[S5Dewey]

If the lineups don't matter and the in-game decisions don't affect the games, why waste money on them. Teams have Press Secretaries to deal with the media. They have pitching coaches to keep the pitchers ready.

 

The statement that lineups don't matter and its statistically proven is bogus. As Emp pointed out some time ago the only way it could be proven is by comparing a lineup that was prepared to maximize run production with one that was "drawn out of a hat".

Until I see a significant number of random lineups not constructed to maximize run output to one that was intended to maximize run output I'm going to be taking the position that there is no baseline data to compare the two. Without that baseline it's impossible to compare the difference.

 

Therefore, bogus.

[moonslav59]

4 games in and it's time to start benching people? Wow!

 

Sox OPS

.000 Leon

.125 Moreland

.154 Beni

.282 JBJ

.375 Holt

.522 Vaz

.561 JMart

.641 Devers

.641 HRam

.801 Betts

.833 Swihart

.833 Nunez

1.412 Bogey

 

If it was up to me, I'd play the starters until they need a rest or prove they don't deserve to start anymore. That will take more than 4 games.

 

As far as I'm concerned, these are the only players who deserve to start:

 

JMart

Betts

Bogey

Devers

Beni (keep an eye on how he does vs lefties)

Nunez

Vaz

 

JBJ is deserving due to his defense, but I'm okay with sitting him here and there during slumps.

 

HRam does not deserve a FT slot- neither does Moreland. This is the only slot, next to maybe JBJ's where guys like Swihart can muscle their way to a FT role.

 

[dgalehouse]

As metrics come more and more into vogue , we will see some apparently strange and unexpected decisions being made by managers. It looks like some teams now actually have analytics people in the dugout. If managers want to get along , they may have to go along with this. In the end , the success or failure of the player will determine the wisdom of the manager's decisions. And it has always been that way. For me , I think there is certainly some value in analytics , but I would never let the Industrial Engineer run the workplace operation. Leave that to people who know the business.

[a700hitter]

As metrics come more and more into vogue , we will see some apparently strange and unexpected decisions being made by managers. It looks like some teams now actually have analytics people in the dugout. If managers want to get along , they may have to go along with this. In the end , the success or failure of the player will determine the wisdom of the manager's decisions. And it has always been that way. For me , I think there is certainly some value in analytics , but I would never let the Industrial Engineer run the workplace operation. Leave that to people who know the business.

There is so much data in the dugouts that managers can;t find the time to call the bullpen to warm up relievers.

[moonslav59]

there is so much data in the dugouts that managers can;t find the time to call the bullpen to warm up relievers.

 

lol!

[jad]

The statement that lineups don't matter and its statistically proven is bogus. As Emp pointed out some time ago the only way it could be proven is by comparing a lineup that was prepared to maximize run production with one that was "drawn out of a hat".

Until I see a significant number of random lineups not constructed to maximize run output to one that was intended to maximize run output I'm going to be taking the position that there is no baseline data to compare the two. Without that baseline it's impossible to compare the difference.

 

Therefore, bogus.

 

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems to me that this would be extraordinarily simple to test (at least statistically): take the performance from any number of games (same players), and see how many runs are produced when the order is changed. Wouldn't that provide a reasonable test? Of course, you could argue that each AB is situational, so that changing the order of 'what happens' isn't valid. But if you argue that, you are really assuming your conclusion: the argument (you would be saying) is untestable. I'm sure you've gone over this before--sorry, I haven't been following it-- but which of those is your position? (1) That the test (rearranging results) do indeed show a significant difference in batting order? or (2) that it is finally untestable?

[dgalehouse]

There is so much data in the dugouts that managers can;t find the time to call the bullpen to warm up relievers.

 

With all due respect to Gabe Kapler , evidently the data tech forgot to input " get somebody warmed up before you go to the mound to change pitchers " into the computer. As John Sterling might say ," That's technology , Susan. "

[S5Dewey]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems to me that this would be extraordinarily simple to test (at least statistically): take the performance from any number of games (same players), and see how many runs are produced when the order is changed. Wouldn't that provide a reasonable test? Of course, you could argue that each AB is situational, so that changing the order of 'what happens' isn't valid. But if you argue that, you are really assuming your conclusion: the argument (you would be saying) is untestable. I'm sure you've gone over this before--sorry, I haven't been following it-- but which of those is your position? (1) That the test (rearranging results) do indeed show a significant difference in batting order? or (2) that it is finally untestable?

 

Essentially untreatable.

 

The premise is that the batting order makes no difference. Therefore players will perform the same whetever they are in the order.

The obvious argument is that it does make a difference and that players will perform differently. And that's a position that's been upheld my several (most?) MLB players.

 

One cannot take a batting order that's prepared to maximize run production and compare it to another batting order that's constructed to maximize run production and then use one of them as a baseline for comparison. The only fair comparison would be against a random order not constructed to maximize run comparison.

I hesitate to use the word 'never' but I strongly doubt that thete have been a significant number of times when a manager has constructed a lineup without trying to maximixmze run production.

[notin]

The statement that lineups don't matter and its statistically proven is bogus. As Emp pointed out some time ago the only way it could be proven is by comparing a lineup that was prepared to maximize run production with one that was "drawn out of a hat".

Until I see a significant number of random lineups not constructed to maximize run output to one that was intended to maximize run output I'm going to be taking the position that there is no baseline data to compare the two. Without that baseline it's impossible to compare the difference.

 

Therefore, bogus.

 

That's a very flawed counterargument. "It hasn't been proven so therefore it's bogus." It's not like traditional lineup construction has been proven.

 

If Cora had been drawing lineups out of a hat, would the Sox be sco ring more, less or the same?

 

While personally I do think lineups matter, I'm willing to bet the standard style lineup construction we all learned growing up isn't nearly as optimized as we think. The logic behind it appears very flawed in many cases...

[Emp9]

That's a very flawed counterargument. "It hasn't been proven so therefore it's bogus." It's not like traditional lineup construction has been proven.

 

Say what you want about Traditional Lineup construction, but at least it has Test phase.

[Bellhorn04]

The Red Sox did briefly have a manager who pulled lineups out of a hat - Joe Kerrigan, who earned the nickname 'The Nutty Professor' while guiding the team to a 17-26 record at the end of the 2001 season.

[oldtimer]

Essentially untreatable.

 

The premise is that the batting order makes no difference. Therefore players will perform the same whetever they are in the order.

The obvious argument is that it does make a difference and that players will perform differently. And that's a position that's been upheld my several (most?) MLB players.

 

One cannot take a batting order that's prepared to maximize run production and compare it to another batting order that's constructed to maximize run production and then use one of them as a baseline for comparison. The only fair comparison would be against a random order not constructed to maximize run comparison.

I hesitate to use the word 'never' but I strongly doubt that thete have been a significant number of times when a manager has constructed a lineup without trying to maximixmze run production.

 

Games lost because of experiments with the batting orders might well cost a team the season and if radical would likely cost a manager his job. Not going to see that happening. There are no totally weak hitters in ML baseball other than pitchers. There are however weaker hitters and by putting them at the bottom of the order, they tend to get fewer ABs. The idea of putting your high OBP hitters in front of your power hitters makes a lot of sense to me and to most managers. Also the idea of stacking your best hitters in the front of the order is also what is done and has been done. I am happy with those approaches but for those who think putting a weak hitter up high in the order makes sense, good luck to them.

[moonslav59]

The Red Sox did briefly have a manager who pulled lineups out of a hat - Joe Kerrigan, who earned the nickname 'The Nutty Professor' while guiding the team to a 17-26 record at the end of the 2001 season.

 

Joe Morgan took line-up hints from his little daughter during the "Morgan Magic" streak.

[mvp 78]

If Joe Kelly didn't puke all over himself on Thursday, everyone would be saying how Cora is pushing all the right buttons.

[jad]

Essentially untreatable.

 

The premise is that the batting order makes no difference. Therefore players will perform the same whetever they are in the order.

The obvious argument is that it does make a difference and that players will perform differently. And that's a position that's been upheld my several (most?) MLB players.

 

One cannot take a batting order that's prepared to maximize run production and compare it to another batting order that's constructed to maximize run production and then use one of them as a baseline for comparison. The only fair comparison would be against a random order not constructed to maximize run comparison.

I hesitate to use the word 'never' but I strongly doubt that thete have been a significant number of times when a manager has constructed a lineup without trying to maximixmze run production.

 

OK. I think I follow that. (As to comparisons, I was thinking of a simple statistical one, not a 'real life' one: just take the results of individual hitting [hitters] from any number of games and put them in different orders and see whether there's a difference in the runs produced. I assume this has been done, and I think what you imply is that these results would not be valid. I imagine it would be difficult to find any guiding principle other than the obvious 'Get your best hitters up to the plate the most number of times.')

[moonslav59]

If Joe Kelly didn't puke all over himself on Thursday, everyone would be saying how Cora is pushing all the right buttons.

 

Had Kelly had puked again yesterday, we'd see some calling for Cora's head.

[mvp 78]

Had Kelly had puked again yesterday, we'd see some calling for Cora's head.

 

Why didn't he pitch Kimbrel 3 days in a row!?!?!?!??

[S5Dewey]

It's amazing how results-oriented we are. I've always liked Kelly, mostly because of his velocity, but his performance thus far in 2018 has him starting to wear out his welcome with me. And I know, SSS, but still...

 

Frankly, Kelly did puke all over himself yesterday, he just got away with it. As the closer he gave up 2 hits and got Gomez (?) to swing at a ball four that would have loaded the bases. It's one of those situations where the box score doesn't describe how (in)effective he was.

 

The fact that he escaped doesn't give me any faith in him going down the road.

[Bellhorn04]

It's amazing how results-oriented we are. I've always liked Kelly, mostly because of his velocity, but his performance thus far in 2018 has him starting to wear out his welcome with me. And I know, SSS, but still...

 

Frankly, Kelly did puke all over himself yesterday, he just got away with it. As the closer he gave up 2 hits and got Gomez (?) to swing at a ball four that would have loaded the bases. It's one of those situations where the box score doesn't describe how (in)effective he was.

 

The fact that he escaped doesn't give me any faith in him going down the road.

 

I couldn't even watch. I followed it on the game thread here.

[Emp9]

Picture a Post-Apocalyptic World. The virus has long since fully mutated. There is no known cure or vaccine. Out of the 7.6 Billion people that populate the earth, there are only a handful of families scattered about the world that are safe. I know what you’re thinking. “Zombies?” you ask, simultaneously and flamboyantly trying to stifle a yawn... “Oh, HOW original”. Answer? Ummm... No. Smhh. Not zombies, stupid. You get bitten, you don’t turn into a flesh-eating, moaning, bloodied, partially dismembered, foot-dragging zombie. Smart-ass. If you get bitten, you do, in fact, mutate into an exact replica of present day Rose McGowan. (Why Rose McGowan you ask? Why not Susan Sarandon? Because in my story, Susan Sarandon died before the outbreak during the 30th Anniversary of Bill Durham. Crash and Nuke tried to re-enact their fight scene, but when Nuke throws his wild pitch that breaks through the door window on the 5th take, little does he know Sarandon was standing behind the glass. It’s deemed a “National Tragedy” by many (note: not all). So much so, that a film about the event was being scripted and casted. McGowan tried out for Annie Savoy and failed to seize the role. The title of the movie was going to be called ‘Dying Quail’, but that’s around the time when The Outbreak happened and consequently never went into full production.)

 

A few details that I’ll share about The McGowan Outbreak (TMO for short) if bitten are: 1) Make-up has zero effect, it just seeps through the skin. 2) Sunlight has zero effect, it just seeps through the skin. 3) Your hair stays within buzzcut length and never grows past that for all eternity. Which, technically is a cure for baldness finally, but still ... no cure for the Buzzcut. I mean, Rose McGowan Buzzcut is only thee sliiiightest of upgrades over Male Pattern Badness. But only for so long. If you think about it. I digress. Through painstaking trial and error and a little common sense actually, the surviving families (approximately 30 different locations world-wide) are sufficiently protected having built border walls composed of continuously connecting Barnes & Nobles stores. With the front of the store buildings facing the outside of the wall per usual, and the back of the buildings facing the inside. The idea is that a McGowan will always enter the front and leave by the front and never venture through the stockroom to leave via the rear employee exit. These communities are thus rendered safe.

 

Within one of such Barnes & Noble confines, there are two families. One family has a decent sized farm that’s been in their possession for generations and has a cow for milk. We’ll say it’s their last cow and we’ll call them Family #1. The other family does not have a cow. They trade with the “cow possessing” family #1 for milk. This is Family #2. The farm-less, cow-less, no milk making mof***in’’ Family #2.

 

One day, the leader of Family #2 approaches Family #1 to give suggestions on how to make the milk taste better, from the ground up, the grazing practice, to less harsh homogenization, to adjusting the ph balance, blahbity blah blah, you name it, and etcetera.

 

Now, the leader of Family #1 wasn’t entirely opposed to the idea of having the milk taste better, but they’d have to change their whole process for such a minute, hypothetical change with no way of knowing if the milk will actually taste “better” at the end of the day, so to speak. Their way, of about 150 years experience, seemed fine and got results. Besides, there were more important things to worry about. With an endless supply of Jawbreaker, those 4 seasons of Charmed co-co-co-starring Paige Mathews and The Sound dvds flooding the Barnes & Nobles every 2 weeks. I mean, SOMEBODY had to keep the community bonfire going.

 

Anyway. The extremely anti-climatic ending to this story ends with a brutally non-Aaron Sorkin-esque exchange of dialog that probably went like this:

 

***

Family #2 leader: “ I can make better milk”.

 

Family #1 leader: “ Can you? ... do you have your own cow”?

 

Family #2 leader: “ No “.

 

Family #1 leader: “ Hmmm. Will you EVER have your OWN cow? “

 

Family #2 leader: “ No “.

 

Family #1 leader: “ Meh. f***-off then”.

 

***

 

The End

 

...

 

... or is it?

[guinness22]

Had Kelly had puked again yesterday, we'd see some calling for Cora's head.

 

So true. As we were watching Kelly go BB, base hit with two out in the ninth, I said to my wife Kelly better close it out or things are gonna get a little heated for Cora a mere 4 games into his managerial career .

 

On a somewhat related note, since I was flipping to the Jays/Yankees game yesterday I was watching with morbid fascination as Boone called for the intentional walk to RHB Donaldson to load 'em up for switch hitting slugger Smoak with 2 out in the 8th...on the heels of a loss the day before...and of course, Smoak takes Robertson deep for the slam and another Yankee loss. I don't care enough to check any boards/media coverage with respect to the Yankees but I gotta think there is likely some questioning of Boone already after his opening series as manager.

 

As an aside, gotta think both rookie managers are going to have some ups and downs this year in two of the most scrutinized markets with some of the highest expectations in MLB. Personally, I like Cora a lot more, based on pedigree and the fact he played in Boston. Gonna be a fun ride!

 

Now, if they can just find a way to NOT leave 11 men on base and hit a little better than .200 with RISP, Cora will look a lot better as a manager as well, and maybe the 9th inning won't be quite so stressful.

[guinness22]

It's amazing how results-oriented we are. I've always liked Kelly, mostly because of his velocity, but his performance thus far in 2018 has him starting to wear out his welcome with me. And I know, SSS, but still...

 

Frankly, Kelly did puke all over himself yesterday, he just got away with it. As the closer he gave up 2 hits and got Gomez (?) to swing at a ball four that would have loaded the bases. It's one of those situations where the box score doesn't describe how (in)effective he was.

 

The fact that he escaped doesn't give me any faith in him going down the road.

 

This. I can't watch Kelly and not think of Billy Koch, former closer for the Jays (and Oak and CWS IIRC)...a hundred miles an hour at a time 100 mph was more rare than it is today, but with NO movement on his FB. In at a hundred, out at 120...

 

It's hard to have any faith in Kelly, I agree.