Thurston Fluff

How is it presuming to speak for you to say I'm sure you, as someone who claims to be a Anti-Yost somehow thinks he makes more mistakes as someone like me who likes Yost does? That would seem fairly obvious to most people I would think. Is it wrong? Do you think Yost makes more mistakes than most of us Yost supporters do? If not then why don't you like him? Personally I think you're being a little over sensitive on this but If you wish I'll just refrain from discussing this with you altogether since it appears to me you seem to get offended pretty easily.

Has anyone who won two World series had to wait this long to get another chance to manage? I always wondered what that was all about. (I guess since it's Toronto the correct spelling should be aboot).

Yeah either throw strikes or you might find yourself in the rotation! If they all work out as well as the last guy they did that to I'm all for it.

There's no need to be personally uncivil this way. What so uncivil about saying I'm sure you'll disagree with me on this point?

I thought Stetter thought he was overused as to why he couldn't throw strikes. Either way with rookies the message should be loud and clear. No learning on the job. Either put up or go down. I agree with it. With the Cards and Cubs stumbling a bit the Brewers have top make some sort of move if they wish to get to October.

There is two ways to be overrated. One is to be considered great when in fact the payer is only above average. Jeter is probably about average but is still viewed as one of the elite shortstops in the game. The other way is to be great but viewed as being able to shift the balance of power in the game itself. A-Rod is that type. He has been hired to play on a team yet paid and viewed as someone who can take an average team and make them championship caliber. That works in the NBA were a Jordan type player can shift the balance of power in the league on his own. Baseball isn't that type of sport yet certain guys like A-Rod get put in that category. Then when he doesn't change the landscape of the league he's viewed as overrated.

Sorry to overgeneralize, but it seems to me that many Yost defenders (or maybe they are better classified as anti-anti-Yost folks?) take issue with the fact that we don't praise Ned enough for making the "right" moves, Actually the problem I have is when someone thinks a decision is so bad when in fact he made one of the 6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other variety. The Tavarez in the 12th is a prime example. Difelice also sucked that game and Dillard has shown himself to be every bit as volatile as Tavarez out there hasn't he? I don't care if you don't give him credit for doing what is expected of him nearly as much as it bothers me when he gets lambasted for not winning a no win situation. Go ahead and criticize him all you want for using Mench against a nightie in a critical situation. He blew that and it was a dumb move. But there are a lot fewer of those situations than most anti Yost people would like to think. Though I'm sure you will disagree with me on that point.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

It was a straw-man argument -- nothing more, nothing less. Since some of us think there is some truth to what he said I don't see how it can be a straw man argument. His biggest problem was using the word always. but why do we have to talk about DM every time we want to discuss whether Yost should have used pitcher A or B. If you're going to assign blame for his moves it would make sense to assign the blame to the person really responsible for it doesn't it? I don't see a Melvin ya or nay thread 80 pages long yet he is the one responsible for the bad choices Ned has to chose between. Blaming Ned for having to chose between DiFelise and Tavares is like blaming a firefighter for not getting to a fire in time when he was given a truck with three flat tires to use. I should mention just like Bucky shouldn't have used the word "all" I should not have said "no one".

I'd pretty much have to say three of the four free agent signings were good ones. Given the amount of money and length it could be argued there might be two great ones when all is said and done. The one failure was known to be a high risk/high reward one so I can't really even fault them for that. It would have been better not to have done it but the potential reward was worth the risk IMO. Maybe Mark A. would disagree since he's paying for the mistake but I think he knew it could turn out this way and agreed to take the chance.

This move confirms that Tavarez was viewed as the worst reliever in the pen. That begs the question... why was he being used in close games when other players were available (not talking about the last extra inning game). He was viewed as such today but a week ago there was some argument to be made who was really the worst. One of the hidden advantages of his last meltdown was that he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was the worst. Had that not happened DiFelice might not be on the team today. I am in not way saying Ned did that on purpose but it very well may have turned out to be do or die day for him.

It is amazing how Ned all of a sudden looks like a competent manager again now that we are winning. IMO a managers performance is 95% out of his control. It is amazing how well he manages when at least a couple of his players do the job they are supposed to isn't it? I've said this before but I think the players are the ones who make the manager look good or bad. Yesterday he takes out Mota and Torres makes it look genius. Last season he would have had to take out Spurling and replace him with Turnbow in that situation. As far as Bucky's comments go, semantics aside, the basic idea was not far off though overstated. The Tavarez criticism is more or less the norm. He was forced to chose from three bad choices and when it turns out bad it's his fault. No one blames injuries, Melvin for not finding a better option or Jack Z. for his failure to provide enough pitching prospects in the system. It has to be the fact that Ned chose bad option A instead of bad option B which, now that the game is over and it can't be proven wrong, would obviously have worked out so much better. Before the "I said it before it happened argument," comes up Let me address that. Even if you did think something was the right move and Ned didn't make it doesn't mean your choice would have worked out any better. I have no doubt, if given three bad choices to chose from on a regular basis, you will chose wrong as often as Ned does. Primarily because, when there are no good choices there are no good moves to be made. Regardless of who makes them.

When I watch baseball with my son, I want to enjoy watching the best players possible with him. Os true. Some of the best memories I have of the Brewers are of a series in MN when Plesac had to face Puckett with the winning run on in the 9th two days in a row and he struck him out both times. That memory of a series in the early 90's doesn't last to 08 without it being two of the best facing off.

There was some laughing by Cub fans when YoGa was on the ground so I don't really give a rats behind what they think. I doubt it was from NSBB members though. The little I've read from their site they seemed to be pretty civil. They look to be the 1% of good Cub fans IMO. The injury is non life threatening, won't affect his personal life and might not even affect his professional life after this season. I had a shoulder injury in college and it still isn't the same more than 15 years later. As good as doctors are today turning hamburger back into steak is hard to do perfectly. Even if he does come back injuries tend to show themselves years later. AS far as the injury itself it's the nature of the game. I don't celebrate injuries but, other than feeling for the physical pain of others, I don't really feel all that bad either. I've been saying all along that somewhere along the line injuries will catch up with the other teams like it did the Brewers. It will also test my theory that the reason the Brewers are better is because their depth was better to begin with.

I guess the AL should go one step furhter to help poor Hank out. They need to implement designated fileders for the pitcher. If they can't run 90' without getting hurt they sure as heck shouldn't be expected to run on the infield after a ball, pick it up and throw it all in the same inning. Sometimes they have to do that like five times a game for petes sake. I wholeheartedly agree pitchers shouldn't be expected to leave the mound area for fear of injury. I think they should get those golf carts out of storage so they don't stub their toe on their way to the mound. After all this is the 21st centruy. An age in America when obesity is running rampant. Where excercise is a dirty word. How on earth could we expect our athletes to do something my grandma can routinely do without fear of injury?

There may not have been good options, but anything was better than Tavarez. Would Winklesas, Hendrickson, or knuckleballer Fernandez been better options? No, over the last several years they've proven that they actually are not as good as Tavarez. DiFelise is the same as all of them. Career minor legue journeymen who stick around long enough to get a cup of coffee for an injury riddles team someday. After their brief moment in the sun, they are never heard from agian. That is not better than someone who has at least had some success. Even if he hasn't been good for a while and is insufferable as a person. After the 11th, it should have been a forgone conclusion that Tavarez will fail if left out for the 12th. It's not always a foregone conclusion that one bad inning means another one is invaribley going to follow. I think if you're honest with yourself you would admit you've seen pitchers look great one inning and terrible the next and vice versa on a fairly regular basis. I do agree it was a risky move but not because his last inning showed he obviously was going to implode but because, like most of our middle relievers at the moment, he's just not very good. That is not something Ned has control over though. DiFelice has been a starter for almost all of his career, so 2 IP the previous day shouldn't have been a big issue. Tavarez has been a starter as well and has plenty of experience going more than one innning in the pen. If there is any advantage it would go to the guy who has done it many times before. The fact that DiFelice has relatively little experience going back to back days could be a detriment not a benefit. Buc, I don't mind arguing the facts and points, but IMHO its time for Startingcatcher to get a chance. I was going to comment on this earlier and forgot. Good one Sheethead made me laugh. Thanks for the reminder TLB.

I think we'll see the samething happen to St louis before to long. I just don't see them as all that much more talented than Houston. Probably not the right thread for this question but what happen to the NL West?

Then of course we could argue that it was a stupid decision to use him for the second day in a row after pitching two innings the previous night when Ned didn't need to. His results the second day after pitching two innings the previous night were predictable (1 IP, 2 ER) and if Mota wouldn't have pitched and he would've gone with Dillard or someone else with a four run lead (which leads me to another question, why is Dillard even on the team when he barely pitches?) then he wouldn't have been "unavailable", even though he actually was and Ned was "saving him" for an inning that never happened which he tends to do. which agian assumes we know everything that went into those decisions. When something seems so obvious some like to think the manager is an idiot. I tend to think there is something else going on that we aren't privy to. Then agian I tend to start with the idea that he is, at the very least, competent. If you start with the opposite assumption then I get why you would think that way. Either way it's getting old so I guess I'll just shut up now and secretly think he's a good manager.

Your argument that Francona is not a better manager than Yost is because of the W-L record in his Philly years. How about Larry Brown's record with the New York Knicks? Does that year prove he is not any better of a NBA coach than Terry Stotts? Of course not. DO we have to go into why this is not a useful example? Apples and Oranges. I battled the W-L argument case against Francona (unsuccessfully I see), because there was no evidence of him pulling a yost (def. mismanaged situations) anywhere to be found. Your argument was simply based on W-L, mine is based on years of visual evidence. How many games in those years of visual evidence? Do you watch the Phillies and now the Red Sox like you have the Brewers? It's easy to miss the games he may have Yosted his teams if you only watch one game a week. The record over a four year period isn't as random or luck related as you suggest IMO. One year perhaps random luck plays a role but 4 in a row all bad luck? Kind of hard to argue that one. Perhaps it's time for us to just agree we think different things are important in determining competence and go onto something more fun to argue about. Like how long before we catch the Cubs in the standings. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

Taking Saturday's game as an example, Julian Tavarez was probably the wrong pitcher to use in the 11th inning, but it turned out ok. Dumb luck. Ned should have realized that he lucked out, but the "bad process" continued when Ned left Tavarez out in the 12th, and the results were predictable. Unless of course you give some credit for not using Mota in that game to him being more effective in the next game he pitched. Then it appears to be a wash. Which is more or less the problem with determining such things. Nothing is done in a vaccum of one game. How someone gets used today effects their effectiness tommorrow.

Since it seems to have been established that wins and losses are not a good way to determine if a manager is any good a this job I don't see why it matters. However if you are like I am and feel wins and losses measured in relationship to talent level are useful in determineing a manager's competence I know someone posted somehting a while back that showed Ned was very good in producing wins in close games late or something like that. I know I'm being pretty vague but does anyone remember at all what I'm talking about? I would guess that should help as much as the anicdotal evidence against him. If you need more see championships, bullpen management, and in-game decision making in addition to the handling of the press. If someone hwo couldn't even get close to .500 in four years with the Phillies but wins a championship with the REd Sox I'd have to think it's less the manager and more the team. As far as in game decisions what do you base that off of? How many games do you watch of Boston or probably more imprtantly of Philly then and now to be able to base that claim on? No disrespect intended but I honestly believe that is a little grass is greener on the other side of the fence syndrome.

Come on, Buc. You've had this debate so many times. It's the equivalent of using W-L to evaluate a pitcher. The reasoning given for why Francona was better was because he was better with the media. If the choices to determine who is the better manager are between how they handle the media or wins and losses count me in as one who believes the records are more significant.

Never in my entire life have I felt quite as jaded and cynical as I do right now, at this moment. The best I can hope for, my friend, is that you and I have very different definitions of "complete idiot". Put it in context with the rest of the post and it should make sense.

The only argument I heard on Francona was his W-L record wasn't very good in Philly. Just what are we supposed to base their performance on if not how well the team does with the talent they have? If he has worse results with a similar type team then it stands to reason he is not as good. There is no way you could convince anyone that Ned had better talent in his ealry years in Milwaukee than Francona did in Philly yet he never had as bad a record as Francona did. If that isn't an idication of who is better I don't know what is.

Found this in the JS this morning. Perhaps we've been off base with two of our assumptions. One is that if Tom said anything bad about the Brewers he'd be shut out. It appears he already is as much as allowed. So I wouldn't expect that to factor into his decisions about what to write. Second is if the regular beat writers aren't allowed into the inner circle of player interactions I don't see how an outsider from another team gets to see such. Perhaps he got it from a source close to the team but honestly it sounds more like he's just taking the things we all hear and read and extrapolating what he wants from that.

Also, the reason I said the part that you quoted is because a common Yost defense lately has been "he's not that bad" and "there are worse managers out there." In my mind, I don't except that. If you think he's a good manager, then I leave you to your opinion, but I don't like hearing that it could be worse when it could also be better. In the last couple pages we've had people use Francona and Pinnela as examples of how good managers do things compared to Ned. In both those instances I tried to show how both of them have shown no more genius than Ned. If that's the equivalent of saying "he's not that bad" then I guess I didn't make my point very well. To clarify, two guys who have been used as examples of great managers have shown themselves to either have no better results with similar teams or have shown themselves to be no better at particular parts of in game management over the course of a season than Ned. So I guess since people have told us who good managers are and I showed why I feel Ned is as good as them I'm not saying Ned is not that bad I'm saying if they are great managers so is Ned.