disagrees

aka “Woody”

what can you criticize then? At the end of the season we can criticize game decisions?

I think what most of us don’t like is his consistency to make certain moves. Some of these things are fine (batting the pitcher 8th, 13 pitchers during long stretches, etc.) but some of them really irk me (never using that 13th pitcher, yanking Colby to shift Skip into the OF for “defense”, etc.) I usually make a criticism about Tony from a larger state than just a single game. In one game a move could work out great and yet I would still beleive it was the wrong move to make.

Especially part 2.

In part 1, would you consider corrections for random variance (eg high team BABIP or low HR-allowed rates)? Or is that encompassed by “ability to get the best of a team/players”?

that did an article on that exact thing last year sometime.

If you ask any statistically inclined fans what they think of their managers the responses will range from “Meh” to “He’s awful”. We focus on TLR, so we don’t see the warts on the other guys as clearly from 50,000 feet, but their fans sure see them. It’s one of those deals where all we expect them to do is what they should. There is no move that exceeds our expectation. There is just either doing what you are supposed to or not doing it, from a fans perspective.

If you look at the managers that we regard as HOF managers, often times, you can point to a string of great players that they had on their team. So the outstanding (and perhaps unanswerable) question is whether the manager makes the team or the team makes the manager? The answer likely lies somewhere in the middle.

Bobby Cox = overrated

He’s a pretty good manager when he has three hall-of-famers in their prime at the top of his rotation. Since they’ve gotten old/gone to other franchises, though, his Atlanta teams have been pretty bad, and far underachieved their Pythagorean records, even with Teixiera (for about a season), McCann and Jones.

Baseball-reference.com has him at 62nd with a baseline of 2 full seasons

I think that TLR would be doing more with a team like Houston or Pittsburg than their current managers are.

I dunno about Houston – they’ve had a lot of big holes for the last few years and managed to remain vaguely competitive. They finished ahead of the TLR-run Cardinals last year, with what I’d say was an inferior team…

You can’t blow your wad in the first two months

of course you can. But then the team becomes disloyal and and disillusioned. And she probably complains to her friends about you behind your back.

Hawksworth should have come in after WW to keep all of the overworked arms off the field.

But what if that same roster management keeps a SP or a bullpen arm just a little bit fresher, and that helps said arm in the postseason?

I agree with you that it can, but that would require TLR using the 13th pitcher in this fashion. As DanUp writes in the main post, TLR used his three most-worked arms in one of the most lopsided wins of the season before turning to the 13th pitcher. He could have done just as you posited, and I’ve have applauded him for it, but, instead, he inexplicably trots out K-Mac and Motte. This is indefensible, especially after K-Mac’s late-season meltdown last year.

Ryan Ludwick pinch-hitting was the right decision. Objectively. Even if Brendan Ryan gets a hit. Or, had TLR pinch-hit Ludwick and Ludwick committed an out, it still would have been the right decision. As you say, it’s a question of putting the team in the best position to win at the moment, before the action plays itself out and a result is reached. TLR objectively did not put his team in the best position to win when he pinch-hit Ryan over Ludwick in that situation. What’s more, Goold’s follow-up question showed that TLR was unprepared and did not have any information to back up his misplaced rationale. TLR stated that he wanted to avoid the double play, but, when confronted with the fact that Ludwick, being a flyball hitter, is one of the five hardest to double up batsmen in all of MLB, offered up something about his gut. Not only did he not put his team in the best position to win, he did so for reasons that should not be mistaken by a man who is reportedly incredibly prepared for every conceivable matchup and has copious stats (gasp!) in binders.

that doesn’t neccessarily mean Ludwick would have got the job done. You can’t assume that just because one decision in baseball didn’t work, that another one would have, there are far too many variables involved.

This is the beauty of paying attention to the process and making the correct decision. If you make the right decision based on what you have to work with at the time, you did what you were supposed to do. In baseball, hitters are more likely to fail than not. What you have to do is pick the guys who are LESS likely to fail. Take, for example, the 2007 All Star Game. Is Aaron Rowand more likely to fail than Albert Pujols? I think you know the answer. Now, if Rowand had hit a bomb and won the game, sure it would have “worked.” But that doesn’t make it the right decision.

I go back to the red baron’s rather crude analogy…the famous “Dick in a Toaster” Situation. You can shove your man meat into a toaster and not get burned, and in theory the decision worked. However, isn’t it patently moronic to stuff your dong into a toaster? Well, yes, in fact it is. Is choosing Brendan Ryan over Ryan Ludwick, particularly when he was swinging it well, a poor decision? I would say yes, b/c Ludwick all things equal Ludwick is a better hitter. The result, while important in determining the game, is ultimately second to the decision.

Did you happen to catch Kruk and Singleton’s little spiel last night on BBTN about striking out? That show, which had already gone down the crapper, has now officially exited the sewage plant as well.

one one internet dollar.

“Please don’t be discovered as a PED user”

But, the BBWAA did not vote unanimously for Ruth, Mantle, Aaron, Morgan, Musial, Gibson, Robinson, Mays or Williams. An entity with this as their track record clearly operates in a mysterious way which we mere baseball fans will never understand. Surely, some of their membership will illuminate the reasons why they are not going to vote for Pujols when that day comes.

understand going in that a player is either a lock or borderline. I highly doubt that a writer would not vote for a borderline player because of the unanimous thing.

Also, It is theoritcally possible, although highly unlikely that a sure fire HOFer misses the cut because every writer takes it upon themselves to be the ‘no’ vote.