The Alex Cora Managerial Decision Thread

[cp176]

I have no problems with questioning a manager's decisions. I, myself, have stated that I think Cora left Kelly in the game too long. I will also give the manager credit when I think he made a good move. Correct move or not, the players still need to execute.

 

The actual decision of the manager is not what impacts the game greatly. It's the execution, or lack thereof, by the players that impacts the outcome of the game.

 

I agree with for the most part players need to play. Coaches and managers not so much these days. Bad managing though I think can impact a game greatly. No managing is better than bad managing.

[Kimmi]

Put me in the camp believing that good teams find ways to win close games, more often than not. While there is randomness, luck is the residue of design. You make your own luck.

 

The notion that good teams find a way to win close games is a falsity.

 

Good teams will tend to win a slightly larger % of close games than bad teams, just because they are a good team, but not close to the same winning % that they have in blow out games or overall. The reason is that randomness trumps skill in those close games.

 

I can give you example after example of the best teams in baseball having a .500 or below W-L record in one run games, or vice versa.

[Spudboy]

The criticism on the game thread was that I saw was that he should have taken out Smith AFTER the home run. I didn't see any criticism for putting him in to start the inning, but you will just make it up as you go along. Your post indicates that because you stated it in the form of a bet... because you don't know.

 

lol

[a700hitter]

The notion that good teams find a way to win close games is a falsity.

 

Good teams will tend to win a slightly larger % of close games than bad teams, just because they are a good team, but not close to the same winning % that they have in blow out games or overall. The reason is that randomness trumps skill in those close games.

 

I can give you example after example of the best teams in baseball having a .500 or below W-L record in one run games, or vice versa.

"Good teams will tend to win a slightly larger % of close games than bad teams." That is the same as what I said "that good teams find ways to win close games, more often than not."

[Kimmi]

"Good teams will tend to win a slightly larger % of close games than bad teams." That is the same as what I said "that good teams find ways to win close games, more often than not."

 

No, more often than not good teams win the close games by random factors, as do bad teams.

 

They don't 'find a way' to win close games.

[cp176]

"Good teams will tend to win a slightly larger % of close games than bad teams." That is the same as what I said "that good teams find ways to win close games, more often than not."

 

Oh boy - Do I hear a can of worms being opened? For the record though, I will always believe that a very well coached team seems to have better luck than others. I have always believed that you don't necessarily have to have more talent than everybody else in order to win. i believe in luck for sure but I also think that what some people see as luck quite often is just a by-product of a better prepared team regardless of talent.

[Maxbialystock]

The criticism on the game thread was that I saw was that he should have taken out Smith AFTER the home run. I didn't see any criticism for putting him in to start the inning, but you will just make it up as you go along. Your post indicates that because you stated it in the form of a bet... because you don't know.

 

And my point was and is that the critics on the game thread were wrong. Smith stayed in and got 3 outs--good move by the manager. Cora was right, the boobirds were wrong--including you if you say Smith should have been pulled after the dinger.

[Maxbialystock]

About close games. To me the key factor is something one manager has been quoted as saying--"the difference between a smart manager and a dumb one is a great bullpen."

 

I further think that the two Carson Smith gaffes--3 run triple in game 1 and 2 run dinger in game 7--notwithstanding, the bullpen has been pretty doggone good. And it is the one thing the manager is most in control of. So, me, I give Cora some of the credit for the 6-1 record because as manager he has more control over pitching than anything else, and the pitching to date has been fantastic. This is especially true because Cora picked the two back-up starters and two surprise relievers.

 

The hitting has been lousy, and the manager can do very little to fix that. Ditto the fielding, which has been error free but not so hot in the infield.

[a700hitter]

And my point was and is that the critics on the game thread were wrong. Smith stayed in and got 3 outs--good move by the manager. Cora was right, the boobirds were wrong--including you if you say Smith should have been pulled after the dinger.

No, your original point was that people have been saying that the Red Sox are winning games in spite of Cora. Let’s not lose sight of what started this. That was made up. No one has done that.

 

As for the game thread, you shouldn’t lump me in unless you know. Otherwise, you are just making up stuff regardless of the use of the word “if” which just brings your statement into the realm of a hypothetical — a madeup scenario.

[Natick to NC]

Marlins are desperate for back end relievers ...hmmm

[a700hitter]

No, more often than not good teams win the close games by random factors, as do bad teams.

 

They don't 'find a way' to win close games.

So, then there is often not a deserving first place team or deserving champion as most of the time the margins of victory are the difference in winning more close games than the other team, especially in the post season.

 

Since you have unequivocally stated that I am wrong, I will pay you the same deference. You are wrong. The good teams win more of the close games than the bad teams, because they are good teams, not because they are lucky.

[mvp 78]

Grady Little was a victim of randomness!

[Maxbialystock]

No, your original point was that people have been saying that the Red Sox are winning games in spite of Cora. Let’s not lose sight of what started this. That was made up. No one has done that.

 

As for the game thread, you shouldn’t lump me in unless you know. Otherwise, you are just making up stuff regardless of the use of the word “if” which just brings your statement into the realm of a hypothetical — a madeup scenario.

 

My original point was that Cora's conduct in game 1 was very defensible, and I still believe that. Moreover, he has made plenty of bullpen decisions since then that argue strongly he knows a heckuva lot more about which pitcher to use and when than you do. You rely way too much on 20-20 hindsight and too little on insight.

 

I entirely agree no one has actually said the Sox are winning despite Cora, but would argue that notion is implicit in the criticism and the lack of endorsement--not by everyone, but by some.

 

Indeed, right now the most popular statement about the Sox going 6-1 is to say that we are winning on luck, and the second most popular is to say that we should be beating teams like the Rays and Marlins because they are terrible.

 

Me, I think Cora is a big reason why they are winning. His handling of the bullpen has been astute, ditto the rotation. Name me another Sox manager who went 6-1 at any point in any season with hitting this bad and an infield that is so-so (but a pretty good outfield). Managers, I hasten to add, have a much bigger impact on the pitching than the hitting.

[mvp 78]

My original point was that Cora's conduct in game 1 was very defensible, and I still believe that. Moreover, he has made plenty of bullpen decisions since then that argue strongly he knows a heckuva lot more about which pitcher to use and when than you do. You rely way too much on 20-20 hindsight and too little on insight.

 

I entirely agree no one has actually said the Sox are winning despite Cora, but would argue that notion is implicit in the criticism and the lack of endorsement--not by everyone, but by some.

 

Indeed, right now the most popular statement about the Sox going 6-1 is to say that we are winning on luck, and the second most popular is to say that we should be beating teams like the Rays and Marlins because they are terrible.

 

Me, I think Cora is a big reason why they are winning. His handling of the bullpen has been astute, ditto the rotation. Name me another Sox manager who went 6-1 at any point in any season with hitting this bad and an infield that is so-so (but a pretty good outfield). Managers, I hasten to add, have a much bigger impact on the pitching than the hitting.

 

I think people are overstating how much Cora bungled game 1. I think he was fine that game. He had back to back relievers s*** the bed. Hard to manage around that.

[Maxbialystock]

I think people are overstating how much Cora bungled game 1. I think he was fine that game. He had back to back relievers s*** the bed. Hard to manage around that.

 

Dever uber alles? I know that tune and used to hum it in a former life. Devers has talent and is fun to watch.

[Maxbialystock]

...and your wife won't put up with it?

 

Nothing to put up with. I ain't crazy, but it took me right about 50 years to achieve sanity.

[mvp 78]

Dever uber alles? I know that tune and used to hum it in a former life. Devers has talent and is fun to watch.

 

When Devers gets inducted into the HOF, I'm going to tell everyone that I was the only poster who believed he was ready in 2017. Then kimmi and moon will jump in and yell "that's not true! Stop saying that! What is wrong with you?!?!?" I'll turn away and whisper to the wind "my brain was damaged when they never traded Pedroia."

[moonslav59]

When Devers gets inducted into the HOF, I'm going to tell everyone that I was the only poster who believed he was ready in 2017. Then kimmi and moon will jump in and yell "that's not true! Stop saying that! What is wrong with you?!?!?" I'll turn away and whisper to the wind "my brain was damaged when they never traded Pedroia."

 

LOL.

 

I'll admit, you were the leader on calling up Devers.

 

I'd like to see Devers start batting 3rd or 4th pretty soon.

[a700hitter]

My original point was that Cora's conduct in game 1 was very defensible, and I still believe that. Moreover, he has made plenty of bullpen decisions since then that argue strongly he knows a heckuva lot more about which pitcher to use and when than you do. You rely way too much on 20-20 hindsight and too little on insight.

 

I entirely agree no one has actually said the Sox are winning despite Cora, but would argue that notion is implicit in the criticism and the lack of endorsement--not by everyone, but by some.

 

Indeed, right now the most popular statement about the Sox going 6-1 is to say that we are winning on luck, and the second most popular is to say that we should be beating teams like the Rays and Marlins because they are terrible.

 

Me, I think Cora is a big reason why they are winning. His handling of the bullpen has been astute, ditto the rotation. Name me another Sox manager who went 6-1 at any point in any season with hitting this bad and an infield that is so-so (but a pretty good outfield). Managers, I hasten to add, have a much bigger impact on the pitching than the hitting.

I did not take exception to you taking the side of the manager on that move. It took exception to the accusation that criticism of that move is a condemnation of Cora and your subsequent accusation that Cora is getting blamed for the loss and that people claim the wins are in spite of Cora. Neither of those things is true. Edited April 6, 2018 by a700hitter
Grammatical

[moonslav59]

I did not take exception to you taking the side of the manager on that move. It took exception to the accusation that criticism of that move is a condemnation of Cora and your subsequent accusation that Cora is getting blamed for the loss and that people claim the wins are in spite of Cora. Neither of those things are true.

 

Well said.

 

Besides, we did go 6-1 about 4 times last year with one of our worst offenses in 2 decades (.736 team OPS).

[cp176]

LOL.

 

I'll admit, you were the leader on calling up Devers.

 

I'd like to see Devers start batting 3rd or 4th pretty soon.

 

Don't give him all the credit. Just gives him a reason to pat himself on the back. lol I was very happy that they brought him up although I will admit that MVP wanted him up as much as he has wanted Pedroia to be someplace else. What did surprise me was the number of people who got hooked on the concept that bringing him up was too soon and that it would certainly hurt his development. Wrong! We needed to give him a chance. Once again it was a case of "my kingdom for a hitter".

[moonslav59]

Don't give him all the credit. Just gives him a reason to pat himself on the back. lol I was very happy that they brought him up although I will admit that MVP wanted him up as much as he has wanted Pedroia to be someplace else. What did surprise me was the number of people who got hooked on the concept that bringing him up was too soon and that it would certainly hurt his development. Wrong! We needed to give him a chance. Once again it was a case of "my kingdom for a hitter".

 

Anybody heard anything about Rafael working overtime to improve his defense?

[Kimmi]

Oh boy - Do I hear a can of worms being opened? For the record though, I will always believe that a very well coached team seems to have better luck than others. I have always believed that you don't necessarily have to have more talent than everybody else in order to win. i believe in luck for sure but I also think that what some people see as luck quite often is just a by-product of a better prepared team regardless of talent.

 

Better teams will likely take advantage of lucky breaks more often than bad teams.

 

Having a wind blown fly ball turn into a triple has nothing to do with how good or bad a team is, nor with how well the team is coached. Whether a team can then take advantage of that by scoring the run from third has to do more with skill. However, randomness still contributed more to that scoring opportunity than skill did.

[Kimmi]

When Devers gets inducted into the HOF, I'm going to tell everyone that I was the only poster who believed he was ready in 2017. Then kimmi and moon will jump in and yell "that's not true! Stop saying that! What is wrong with you?!?!?" I'll turn away and whisper to the wind "my brain was damaged when they never traded Pedroia."

 

That's not true! Stop saying that! What is wrong with you?!?!?

[Maxbialystock]

LOL.

 

I'll admit, you were the leader on calling up Devers.

 

I'd like to see Devers start batting 3rd or 4th pretty soon.

 

I was not pushing for Devers to come up because he was so darn young, but he was pretty amazing when he did.

[Maxbialystock]

I did not take exception to you taking the side of the manager on that move. It took exception to the accusation that criticism of that move is a condemnation of Cora and your subsequent accusation that Cora is getting blamed for the loss and that people claim the wins are in spite of Cora. Neither of those things is true.

 

Yup. I definitely went overboard on defending Cora in game one. And I've already said I have not seen anyone comment that we are winning despite Cora. But what I did say is that the inference is there when almost all the comments about Cora are about his mistakes. But even there I agreed the managers rarely get credit for wins.

[cp176]

Better teams will likely take advantage of lucky breaks more often than bad teams.

 

Having a wind blown fly ball turn into a triple has nothing to do with how good or bad a team is, nor with how well the team is coached. Whether a team can then take advantage of that by scoring the run from third has to do more with skill. However, randomness still contributed more to that scoring opportunity than skill did.

 

obviously Jd's triple was a lucky break . Often times what we see as simple luck, they don't. it's probably fairly safe to say that good fielders make plays everyday that might appear lucky to an opponent when in reality they are just good fielders. Your theory is interesting but I don't buy it. That's ok.

[Emp9]

If this is the case, we should all just get strat-o-matic baseball and roll the dice and play out every season with randomness.

 

Wouldn’t work. Rolling dice is much more random than baseball.

[Bellhorn04]

Wouldn’t work. Rolling dice is much more random than baseball.

 

I think it's time for me to start my thread about Baseball Philosophy - in which we seek explanations for WHY there is so much randomness in baseball, WHY hitters and pitchers have such hot and cold streaks etc.

[cp176]

I think it's time for me to start my thread about Baseball Philosophy - in which we seek explanations for WHY there is so much randomness in baseball, WHY hitters and pitchers have such hot and cold streaks etc.

 

How about a step further - Why is there so much randomness in life in general? Sometimes wish that I had taken the road less travelled like my Father did.