The Alex Cora Managerial Decision Thread

[Maxbialystock]

Max - Any chance you think that some here just want something to do so they post? It is a hobby for me. Gets a little trashy from time to time but really it is something to do that provides some sort of entertainment.

 

Absolutely true. But this thread has 54 pages and moonslav's "A Realistic View of 2018," which is an invitation to discuss all manner of things about this team this year, only has 74 pages. This thread started March 29, that one March 25.

 

Then again, to confirm your point, the thread on trading JBJ has 63 pages. \

 

The game thread for April 11--Sox lost to Yankees, 10-7, Holt got spiked, the perp got hit, etc--is 50 pages.

 

What do we find boring and not worth discussing? An easy win. Ho hum.

[cp176]

Absolutely true. But this thread has 54 pages and moonslav's "A Realistic View of 2018," which is an invitation to discuss all manner of things about this team this year, only has 74 pages. This thread started March 29, that one March 25.

 

Then again, to confirm your point, the thread on trading JBJ has 63 pages. \

 

The game thread for April 11--Sox lost to Yankees, 10-7, Holt got spiked, the perp got hit, etc--is 50 pages.

 

What do we find boring and not worth discussing? An easy win. Ho hum.

 

Got to tell you though Max doesn't it seem like that is the way of the world today? The more ridiculous something seems the more time is spent talking about it.

[User Name]

I like Cora. He has a Tito-ish vibe to him, but he seems a better in-game tactician in his short time in my unsubstantiated, biased opinion. I didn't like his decision to let Price pitch to Krush the other day, but it's defensible.

[jacksonianmarch]

Welcome back UN? Why the long sabbatical?

[notin]

I like Cora. He has a Tito-ish vibe to him, but he seems a better in-game tactician in his short time in my unsubstantiated, biased opinion. I didn't like his decision to let Price pitch to Krush the other day, but it's defensible.

 

It's defensible on the small sample size and team record. But it's exactly the type of thing Francona and Farrell have been crucified for in the past.

[Bellhorn04]

It's defensible on the small sample size and team record. But it's exactly the type of thing Francona and Farrell have been crucified for in the past.

 

Most managers get crucified now and then, especially in the age of the internet. There were Yankee fans who wanted Boone fired about 10 games into his tenure. That talk seems to have quieted down for the moment though...

[User Name]

It's defensible on the small sample size and team record. But it's exactly the type of thing Francona and Farrell have been crucified for in the past.

 

No, it's defensible because of the pitch count and how Price had looked. Cora's managed for a month. We are just getting an idea on his tendencies, chill out.

[User Name]

Welcome back UN? Why the long sabbatical?

 

Had s*** to do.

[notin]

No, it's defensible because of the pitch count and how Price had looked. Cora's managed for a month. We are just getting an idea on his tendencies, chill out.

 

While I agree, it's also true that Francona and Farrell err bith repeatedly criticized for similar (non-)moves multiple times. In fact, I bet we have both seen each of them repeatedly accused of not knowing how to run a bullpen, and accused by people who honestly have no idea how to run a bullpen. ..

[User Name]

While I agree, it's also true that Francona and Farrell err bith repeatedly criticized for similar (non-)moves multiple times. In fact, I bet we have both seen each of them repeatedly accused of not knowing how to run a bullpen, and accused by people who honestly have no idea how to run a bullpen. ..

 

I liked Tito, but didn't like Farrell's super-aggro style, but that's just my opinion.

[notin]

I liked Tito, but didn't like Farrell's super-aggro style, but that's just my opinion.

 

It's one thing to not like his style. It's another to say he's incompetent he does things different than you would.

 

You're the first I've seen to criticize Farrell solely for not liking his style. I think that's a much more honest statement, and I can see myself agreeing with it a lot of times as well...

[Kimmi]

It's one thing to not like his style. It's another to say he's incompetent he does things different than you would.

 

You're the first I've seen to criticize Farrell solely for not liking his style. I think that's a much more honest statement, and I can see myself agreeing with it a lot of times as well...

 

The vast majority of managers' moves are defensible. For one, the managers likely have reasons/insight behind their decisions that we fans are not aware of.

 

For two, from a strictly numbers viewpoint, the run/win expectancy between Decision A and Decision B, BEFORE the event occurs, is usually so small that it virtually makes little difference whether the manager goes with A or B.

 

For many fans, the decision becomes a good or a bad decision based on whether it worked or not.

[Bellhorn04]

For two, from a strictly numbers viewpoint, the run/win expectancy between Decision A and Decision B, BEFORE the event occurs, is usually so small that it virtually makes little difference whether the manager goes with A or B.

 

Now you've opened up the floodgates again Kimmi.

 

I must admit that this particular postulation drives me a little wacky too.

 

I've said myself many times that often the manager is just rolling the dice.

 

But I think sometimes there has to be a pretty meaningful difference between one move or the other.

[Maxbialystock]

Like Kimmi, I'm fine with almost all managerial decisions and believe managerial accountability is all about wins and losses, with the one caveat that the FO can always choose to boot a winning manager who they think should have won more. Occasionally, too, they will keep a losing manager--see Farrell, who won it all in 2013 and finished at the bottom of the AL East in 2014 and 2015 and stayed 2 more years.

 

As for Cora, I give him credit for that 17-2 opening run and now await what he and the team do after going 2-5. Completely unfair to say this, but he is managing the highest paid team in MLB.

[notin]

Like Kimmi, I'm fine with almost all managerial decisions and believe managerial accountability is all about wins and losses, with the one caveat that the FO can always choose to boot a winning manager who they think should have won more.

 

Of the 10 teams to make the post-season in 2017, three of them fired their managers.

 

Of the 20 teams that failed to make the post-season in 2017, three of them fired their managers.

 

Not winning at the right time might be more critical than anything else....

[cp176]

The vast majority of managers' moves are defensible. For one, the managers likely have reasons/insight behind their decisions that we fans are not aware of.

 

For two, from a strictly numbers viewpoint, the run/win expectancy between Decision A and Decision B, BEFORE the event occurs, is usually so small that it virtually makes little difference whether the manager goes with A or B.

 

For many fans, the decision becomes a good or a bad decision based on whether it worked or not.

 

If your last sentence has truth to it, I think that it is sad. I like to think that good baseball fans are able to tell the difference between a good or a bad decision regardless of whether it works or not. Plenty of good ones don't and plenty of bad ones do.

[S5Dewey]

If your last sentence has truth to it, I think that it is sad. I like to think that good baseball fans are able to tell the difference between a good or a bad decision regardless of whether it works or not. Plenty of good ones don't and plenty of bad ones do.

 

I've got to agree with this post. We make decisions based on the best information we have at the time and sometimes the results aren't what we expected.

In fact, sometimes I feel like I've made a career of saying, "Gee, that seemed like a Hell of an idea.... at the time.

[notin]

If your last sentence has truth to it, I think that it is sad. I like to think that good baseball fans are able to tell the difference between a good or a bad decision regardless of whether it works or not. Plenty of good ones don't and plenty of bad ones do.

 

I think the overwhelming majority of manner decisions ate betteR than many fans realize, since these decisions get made with knowledge fans don't have. It's not just a matter of "good baseball sense / bad baseball sense" that many fans think it is.

 

I do think hindsight becomes the basis for more managerial criticisms than you think. But sometimes that hindsight is accompanied by some sort of rationalization to mask it's true nature...

[devildavid]

I liked Tito, but didn't like Farrell's super-aggro style, but that's just my opinion.

 

If you're talking about Farrell's philosophy of base running, that was the main criticism I had of him.

[devildavid]

Like Kimmi, I'm fine with almost all managerial decisions and believe managerial accountability is all about wins and losses, with the one caveat that the FO can always choose to boot a winning manager who they think should have won more. Occasionally, too, they will keep a losing manager--see Farrell, who won it all in 2013 and finished at the bottom of the AL East in 2014 and 2015 and stayed 2 more years.

 

As for Cora, I give him credit for that 17-2 opening run and now await what he and the team do after going 2-5. Completely unfair to say this, but he is managing the highest paid team in MLB.

 

Well, since the manager signs a guaranteed contract for a certain number of seasons, it can get kind of expensive to fire them on a whim.

 

If the highest paid team fails, the blame falls on upper management, not the field manager. The field manager has no say in players contracts.

[devildavid]

The vast majority of managers' moves are defensible. For one, the managers likely have reasons/insight behind their decisions that we fans are not aware of.

 

For two, from a strictly numbers viewpoint, the run/win expectancy between Decision A and Decision B, BEFORE the event occurs, is usually so small that it virtually makes little difference whether the manager goes with A or B.

 

For many fans, the decision becomes a good or a bad decision based on whether it worked or not.

 

This makes sense because baseball is a game in which the outcome is not highly dependent on strategy.

[Bellhorn04]

This makes sense because baseball is a game in which the outcome is not highly dependent on strategy.

 

Yes and no. If you consider pitching changes to be strategy, there's quite a bit of it involved. One of the toughest managerial decisions is knowing when to pull a pitcher who is tiring or who doesn't have their best stuff. A lot of it is guesswork and instinct.

[Bellhorn04]

Here's an example:

 

A lot of the metrics people say managers don't deploy their closers, or their best relievers, properly, because they save them till the 9th when the critical situation may actually be in the 7th or 8th.

 

But if it doesn't matter much one way or the other, who cares if they do it or not?

 

I find this to be a bit of a logical disconnect...

[cp176]

I think the overwhelming majority of manner decisions ate betteR than many fans realize, since these decisions get made with knowledge fans don't have. It's not just a matter of "good baseball sense / bad baseball sense" that many fans think it is.

 

I do think hindsight becomes the basis for more managerial criticisms than you think. But sometimes that hindsight is accompanied by some sort of rationalization to mask it's true nature...

 

agree

[cp176]

I've got to agree with this post. We make decisions based on the best information we have at the time and sometimes the results aren't what we expected.

In fact, sometimes I feel like I've made a career of saying, "Gee, that seemed like a Hell of an idea.... at the time.

 

 

Oh boy do I agree with this one. There are plenty of people who have a tough time ever admitting that they might be wrong. I try hard to stay away from those folks. They tend not to learn well because they already know everything.

[devildavid]

Yes and no. If you consider pitching changes to be strategy, there's quite a bit of it involved. One of the toughest managerial decisions is knowing when to pull a pitcher who is tiring or who doesn't have their best stuff. A lot of it is guesswork and instinct.

 

You are actually agreeing with me. The right time to pull a pitcher is a guess. The right reliever is a guess. A guess is not equal to strategy. The strategy is knowing how to utilize pitching in the long term, not in a particular game situation. I'm saying that strategy plays very little role in the context of one game, but a much greater role in the long run of a season.

[devildavid]

Here's an example:

 

A lot of the metrics people say managers don't deploy their closers, or their best relievers, properly, because they save them till the 9th when the critical situation may actually be in the 7th or 8th.

 

But if it doesn't matter much one way or the other, who cares if they do it or not?

 

I find this to be a bit of a logical disconnect...

 

Games may have multiple situations you could call critical. They can happen at any point during the game. You are seeing this thinking employed more often in playoff games than in the regular season, because the importance of each game is magnified. It is much more difficult to employ in the long run.

 

However, Tampa is utilizing a new strategy with their bullpen games. This is truly a new and radical strategy change. The question will be whether it proves to be effective in the long run.

[Bellhorn04]

You are actually agreeing with me. The right time to pull a pitcher is a guess. The right reliever is a guess. A guess is not equal to strategy.

 

I disagree that the right reliever is a guess.

 

And actually, strategy in any sport, or even in war, generally involves educated guessing.

[devildavid]

I disagree that the right reliever is a guess.

 

And actually, strategy in any sport, or even in war, generally involves educated guessing.

 

No, strategy involves getting information and using it to formulate a strategy to achieve victory. It differs from sport to sport, with baseball the least strategic of all. Football is highly strategic as it involves gathering knowledge about the opponents strengths and weaknesses, and coming up with both offensive and defensive play calling strategies and adjusting to game situations. War relies on getting information on enemy strengths and weaknesses, and coming up with strategies of when to attack, when to defend, etc.

 

Baseball is mainly about pitchers vs. hitters and watching what unfolds. The manager can't call for the pitcher to try for a strikeout or a hitter to try for a home run or a fielder to make spectacular play. Most of the game is entirely out of the control of the manager's ability to affect it.

[Bellhorn04]

No, strategy involves getting information and using it to formulate a strategy to achieve victory. It differs from sport to sport, with baseball the least strategic of all. Football is highly strategic as it involves gathering knowledge about the opponents strengths and weaknesses, and coming up with both offensive and defensive play calling strategies and adjusting to game situations. War relies on getting information on enemy strengths and weaknesses, and coming up with strategies of when to attack, when to defend, etc.

 

Game plans most certainly involve trying to predict what the opponent will do, how they will react. Predict is just another word for guess.

 

None of it is exact science. There are always variables that can't be foreseen.