The Alex Cora Managerial Decision Thread

[dgalehouse]

Hard to compare strategy in baseball and football. In season , baseball is played almost daily - while football has a week to prepare and strategize for the opponent. Regardless , whether it be baseball , football or any business or industry, a good manager / coach / supervisor makes a big difference.

[Bellhorn04]

Hard to compare strategy in baseball and football. In season , baseball is played almost daily - while football has a week to prepare and strategize for the opponent.

 

That's a good point - football is so much about the game planning. A guy like Belichick spends a big chunk of a week preparing plays and schemes and whatever for 60 minutes of football.

[devildavid]

Hard to compare strategy in baseball and football. In season , baseball is played almost daily - while football has a week to prepare and strategize for the opponent. Regardless , whether it be baseball , football or any business or industry, a good manager / coach / supervisor makes a big difference.

 

Yes, but in baseball its more about off the field preparation than it is about on field use of strategic moves.

[devildavid]

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.

 

Some sports allow for more strategic moves within a game tailored to counter a specific opponent. Predictions are based on information about the opponent, their tendencies, their strengths and weaknesses. This is much tougher to utilize in baseball, as much of the action cannot be directly impacted by strategic moves during a game.

[Bellhorn04]

The biggest strategic moves in baseball are made by the pitcher and the catcher - what kind of pitch to throw and the location, and the sequencing of the pitches. It's a limited range of strategy but there's a lot of information about the hitters that goes into it.

[Bellhorn04]

Then of course there are those bloody defensive shifts...not one of my favorite developments in modern baseball. Thanks to guys like Joe Maddon who think the game can be micro-managed.

[Emp9]

I think the rise in defensive shifts the last few years should be up on the list of strategy in baseball. Its at least one that you can see and point to. Most of baseballs’s strategies i feel is behind the scenes pouring over the scouting reports from left/righty splits, to bad catcher defense along with a pitcher with a poor pickoff move to run on, to how to use your BP later in the game. Is stealing signs a strategy or a tactic? Haha

[Emp9]

Then of course there are those bloody defensive shifts...not one of my favorite developments in modern baseball. Thanks to guys like Joe Maddon who think the game can be micro-managed.

 

Jinx!!!

[notin]

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...

 

It's not a disconnect.

 

Certain situations in games are more critical than others. While many fans (and sportswriters) like to believe the ninth inning are the most critical, it's not always the case.

 

The advanced metrics suggest deploying the best reliever in the game situation with the highest Win Probability. Because while most situations may matter very little, this is ideally the one the most...

[devildavid]

There may not be a single critical point in the game, there may be multiples. And it may be too difficult to really know when they happen as the game is unfolding.

[Bellhorn04]

It's not a disconnect.

 

Certain situations in games are more critical than others. While many fans (and sportswriters) like to believe the ninth inning are the most critical, it's not always the case.

 

The advanced metrics suggest deploying the best reliever in the game situation with the highest Win Probability. Because while most situations may matter very little, this is ideally the one the most...

 

The disconnect is between this idea and the idea that managers can't make any difference...it's kind of a running argument here.

[notin]

There may not be a single critical point in the game, there may be multiples. And it may be too difficult to really know when they happen as the game is unfolding.

 

And that's why managers get paid a million dollars while you and I watch games and criticize his decisions for free..

[Bellhorn04]

There may not be a single critical point in the game, there may be multiples. And it may be too difficult to really know when they happen as the game is unfolding.

 

Of course. The only real 're-think' is that maybe you should be prepared to use your best relief pitcher in the 7th or 8th inning like Francona has been doing with Miller.

[notin]

The disconnect is between this idea and the idea that managers can't make any difference...it's kind of a running argument here.

 

"Can't make a difference" or "don't make a difference?

 

I think they do, but how quantifiable it is another matter...

[Kimmi]

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.

 

Here's one example that I can give because I have the run expectancy data for the two situations.

 

Let's say that there's a runner on 1B, no outs, in the bottom of the 9th, with the team down by one run. Your #9 hitter is up at the plate. Do you have him sac bunt or swing away? Let's assume the sac bunt will be successful.

 

From a run expectancy viewpoint, the team's chances of scoring a run in that inning dropped by 1.9%, from 41.6% to 39.7%. The difference is not very significant at all.

 

Sadly for me, I don't have access to all of the run expectancy data on how Pitcher A would fare in a situation versus Pitcher B, but the stat geeks do. From what I've read, that difference is surprisingly small.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

IMO, what a manager does off the field can have a fairly significant impact on how the players perform. I think the clubhouse management has a lot bigger impact on a team's record than the in game decisions.

[Kimmi]

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 everyone here is a knowledgeable baseball fan who can discern good from bad decisions. That said, I think a large majority of decisions could go either way. Do you want to let Sale (who has been cruising along but is at 110 pitches) get the last out of an inning or do you want to pull him for a fresh reliever? A case could be made for either choice.

 

If Cora leaves Sale in and he gives up a bomb, then many would say Cora should have pulled Sale.

 

OTOH, if Cora brings in Kelly or Kimbrel, who then gives up a bomb, then many would say Cora should have let Sale get the last out of the inning.

[Kimmi]

Then of course there are those bloody defensive shifts...not one of my favorite developments in modern baseball. Thanks to guys like Joe Maddon who think the game can be micro-managed.

 

Believe it or not, I am not at all a fan of defensive shifts.

[Bellhorn04]

Here's one example that I can give because I have the run expectancy data for the two situations.

 

Let's say that there's a runner on 1B, no outs, in the bottom of the 9th, with the team down by one run. Your #9 hitter is up at the plate. Do you have him sac bunt or swing away? Let's assume the sac bunt will be successful.

 

From a run expectancy viewpoint, the team's chances of scoring a run in that inning dropped by 1.9%, from 41.6% to 39.7%. The difference is not very significant at all.

 

Sadly for me, I don't have access to all of the run expectancy data on how Pitcher A would fare in a situation versus Pitcher B, but the stat geeks do. From what I've read, that difference is surprisingly small.

 

But Kimmi, this all implies that there is no such thing as a good decision or a bad decision by a manager. He might as well literally flip a coin every time he needs to make a decision in a game.

[cp176]

I think everyone here is a knowledgeable baseball fan who can discern good from bad decisions. That said, I think a large majority of decisions could go either way. Do you want to let Sale (who has been cruising along but is at 110 pitches) get the last out of an inning or do you want to pull him for a fresh reliever? A case could be made for either choice.

 

If Cora leaves Sale in and he gives up a bomb, then many would say Cora should have pulled Sale.

 

OTOH, if Cora brings in Kelly or Kimbrel, who then gives up a bomb, then many would say Cora should have let Sale get the last out of the inning.

 

With respect to the situations you give here, of course there would be people disagreeing with the manager's decision. That is just the nature of the beast. Knowledgeable baseball fans will question just about every move made whether the outcome is good or bad. The two examples you have listed here - I might disagree with the decision but it doesn't mean that they were bad. It is not always about the outcome.

[Kimmi]

But Kimmi, this all implies that there is no such thing as a good decision or a bad decision by a manager. He might as well literally flip a coin every time he needs to make a decision in a game.

 

Many of the decisions are more or less a coin flip.

 

There are good decisions and bad decisions. However, most managers are typically not going to make decisions that are so egregious as to have a huge impact on the outcome of the game. Most 'bad' decisions are not so bad that they are indefensible.

[Kimmi]

With respect to the situations you give here, of course there would be people disagreeing with the manager's decision. That is just the nature of the beast. Knowledgeable baseball fans will question just about every move made whether the outcome is good or bad. The two examples you have listed here - I might disagree with the decision but it doesn't mean that they were bad. It is not always about the outcome.

 

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with a manager's decision. I disagree with and question moves frequently, though I do try to give the manager the benefit of the doubt.

 

You are actually making the point that I am trying to make, that whether a decision was good or bad is not based on the outcome.

[cp176]

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with a manager's decision. I disagree with and question moves frequently, though I do try to give the manager the benefit of the doubt.

 

You are actually making the point that I am trying to make, that whether a decision was good or bad is not based on the outcome.

 

Is that the point you are trying to make? ok -

[Bellhorn04]

Many of the decisions are more or less a coin flip.

 

There are good decisions and bad decisions. However, most managers are typically not going to make decisions that are so egregious as to have a huge impact on the outcome of the game. Most 'bad' decisions are not so bad that they are indefensible.

 

Sometimes managers just flat out mess up. They make mistakes. They're human just like the players. They have an error rate. Sometimes they will even admit later they made a mistake. It's understandable. There are a lot of details to keep track of especially now with all the information being disseminated.

[Kimmi]

Sometimes managers just flat out mess up. They make mistakes. They're human just like the players. They have an error rate. Sometimes they will even admit later they made a mistake. It's understandable. There are a lot of details to keep track of especially now with all the information being disseminated.

 

I do not disagree with any of this.

[cp176]

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with a manager's decision. I disagree with and question moves frequently, though I do try to give the manager the benefit of the doubt.

 

You are actually making the point that I am trying to make, that whether a decision was good or bad is not based on the outcome.

 

All this time I've been thinking that you have said that most fans would simply think that any decision was a good one if it worked and subsequently a bad on if it didn't. Guess I misinterpreted what you have been trying to say.

[Dalas21000]

I know everyone will disagree, but would anyone give Kelly another chance to be a starting pitcher???(Considering that Pomeranz has been average this year)

[Dalas21000]

I know everyone will disagree, but would anyone give Kelly another chance to be a starting pitcher???(Considering that Pomeranz has been average this year)

 

I think I would consider trading Pomeranz

[Dalas21000]

I know everyone will disagree, but would anyone give Kelly another chance to be a starting pitcher???(Considering that Pomeranz has been average this year)

 

I think this is where Farrell would have made a difference because I think he handled pitching well.

[Dalas21000]

I think I would consider trading Pomeranz

 

Not sure if anyone would want him though at 6.14 ERA