devildavid

It is impossible to read into these incidents. They flare up now and then and they all have different consequences.

I don't think the manager's demeanor in the dugout is all that critical. Both calm and fiery managers can succeed and all other types in between.

No one is saying these things can't happen during a game. They are just saying that the most important part takes place when preparing the team to play. If you don't drill fundamentals outside of game experience you can't expect to effectively do it during game experience. Games are played to win or lose, not for training. If the manager doesn't prepare the players to succeed, they are not doing their job properly. And preparation is the most critical part of the manager's job.

The manager manages the coaching staff who are supposed to drill the players in fundamental baseball skills. If the manager picks good coaches and communicates well with them, the fundamentals will be instilled. Managers are not simply there to speak to the press and create "clubhouse atmosphere." They are there to run the coaching staff and communicate what is important for each player to work on in general and specific terms. They are expected to understand the talents players have and how to get the best out of that talent to best serve the team. A lot of this is done in preparation time outside of actual game activity.

I have been following the Sox since 1972 and IMHO JBJ is the absolute best fielding CF I have ever seen. He nearly always gets a good jump on the ball and knows where it is going. He makes tough catches look easy and he makes amazing catches that others can only dream about.

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.

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.

You are correct, despite the sarcasm. Productive outs are random unless you are told to lay down a sacrifice bunt. Making a productive out is not a skill, making good contact is a skill. That good contact can result in both good and bad results, one of which is a productive out that advances runners and may drive one in. Sounds random to me. Good contact can produce a hard ground ball right at a fielder and lead to an easy double play. Either way, the hitter is showing their skill in making good contact. The results are random and depend on the game situation at the time.

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.

I'd switch Beni and Bogey.

Simply swinging away puts pressure on the defense to make the play.

The efficacy of in game management is mostly seen in hindsight. There is no right time to put in a reliever or right time to pinch hit. You are correct in that there are sometimes obvious bad moves. But both obvious good and bad moves are extremely rare and almost impossible to demonstrate that the moves are what impacted the outcome.

Yes, there are productive outs. I'm just questioning getting them intentionally. If you make an out, you always prefer one that advances runners. But you should prefer not to make an out at all.

Not really. But batting order is not critical as long as your top hitters are bunched up at the top of the batting order. My thinking is that leading off with Bogaerts increases the chances of having him on base for the hitters with more power to start each game. And he will also get more plate appearances so it would maximize getting men on base in general.

The problem with this is that you can't predict outcomes. If your team is not hitting it doesn't follow that they will continue not to hit. Giving up outs in an attempt to score can also decrease your chances of scoring. Trying to make something happen in that way has a price that may be too high and actually hurt our chances of scoring more runs in general. The strategy cuts both ways. The appearance of "trying" to score may satisfy an emotional desire, but does it really work out statistically in the long run?

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 agree. Although sometimes managers can appear to be just figureheads. As long as they are not having a negative impact they do serve an actual function. Bad bosses are everywhere and none are worth paying at all. It's hard for us to say what kind of manager that Farrell is in the big picture. Judging on in game moves is very subjective and mostly done in hindsight. His style is bland and low key, but that doesn't necessarily reflect on his baseball IQ. Managers who micromanage games aren't always helping their teams. You have to look at how the players are performing. If you think they are performing at their very best, some of this may be attributable to a good manager.

Even though batting order doesn't really change scoring that much, I would like to see Bogaerts leading off. He gets on base and has good speed.

You tried to make it look like Zimmer had something significant to do with Torre winning championships. But you failed to mention that Torre did not win another championship after 2000 with Zimmer still on the bench until 2003. So he stopped winning championships for 3 years before Zimmer left.

So, now that Sam Travis has been brought up, how do you want him utilized?

Torre won no more titles after the 2000 season. Zimmer was bench coach until 2003. And Zimmer was manager of the Red Sox in 1978. Torre's Yankees finished in first place in the AL East from 1998 to 2006. in addition they won the AL Pennant in 2001 and 2003. I guess in game management is not a very significant factor when it comes to winning games.

I'm concerned that Porcello has not been off. Maybe 2016 was an outlier.

Whether or not it was meant for me doesn't change what you were calling for even if you didn't use certain words.

What specifically do you think the analytics get wrong? I think there is little that the manager can "control" that directly effects actual game outcomes even though it can have an indirect influence on the outcomes. For example, bringing in a reliever. The time to bring one in is not always clear cut. Then, even if you make what is considered the "right" move, the reliever still has to execute. And the opposing manager can counter with a pinch hitter. The final result is somewhat removed from the initial managerial decision. And you also have to consider that some managerial moves have no impact on the final outcome. You can call a bunt to get a runner to second, but you can't call for the following hitters to knock him in. And you have most likely sacrificed an out to accomplish this. so now you only have two outs to work with to drive in the run. Many of these in game micro moves are just an illusion of managerial control. Here is an interesting article addressing managerial influence on performance: most-managers-are-headed-to-the-hall-of-mediocrity

So what exactly did you mean by all this?