Thurston Fluff

Thanks Baldkin. The read is good but all it does is explain why sabermetrics don't work with that team. It does not explain how conceding games somehow make his good relievers better. It doesn't account for how some of his good relievers had logged more innings and more games than the most overworked in our pen yet still performed at a higher level. Melvin never had to worry if he was overusing one or two guys because he had five very good ones and the ones he did rely on heavily didn't fall apart like ours did. Give Yost a big five instead of a big three and the Brewers record looks better. Give Yost as many relievers capable of going 70+ games and 65+ innings and see if his record would look better. Conversely give Melvin a weaker bullpen and tell me with a straight face he would be were he is today. Another point needs to be made. Since the number of blowouts are relativley small compared to close games how does Yost's dregs being better than Melvin's dregs really to help a team win the majority of games? While I can see the advantage of doing such in blowouts that isn't the differance between the two clubs. It's that Melvin had 5 great relievers all year, 6 by August and 7 by September. Yost by September had three. Four if you wish to count McClung. There is not one situation where Melvin was stuck with the choice of running his group of good relievers into the ground or relying on those so called dregs in tight games. There are plenty of such occasions Yost had to make those choices. I wonder how genious Melvin would have looked conceding games and losing close ones because of poor relief help and shaky starters. Odds are they would be looking for a new manager and their boards would have been blowing up about his unbelieveable mismanagement and admitting defeat without trying. Had Yost done what Melvin did with the relievers and offense that he had available to him they would have been looking at one more year without a winning record and even I would have been calling for his replacement G IP H R ER HR W K ERA RA ERA+ Big 5 249 250.7 204 93 77 21 94 225 2.76 3.34 167 Dregs 86 106.7 127 91 84 21 51 76 7.09 7.68 65

AZ had I believe 6 guys with an ERA under 4. Milwaukee had three. One of which came in July and another is a loogy. Actually... 4, if you count Linebrink as the one that came in July. And prior to Wise's last two outings of 2007, he was in that category as well. So that's 5. I only looked at pitchers who had logged 20 inning of more. I think it's fair when using stats to count only ones that logged enough time to get a reasonable idea of their contribution to the team over a period of time. Otherwise I could go back and count every guy on every team who had 5 innings in September and get some odd numbers including at least two more for AZ. That left out McClung. I don't think anyone is going to consider a career +6 ERA pitcher a sub 4 ERA pitcher after less than 20 innings one year. You can't say Wise could have been if he would have pitched better in his last two outings because he didn't. Everyone would be better if you took out a couple bad outings over the year but that isn't how it works. The only three guys the Brewers had with a sub 4 ERA and more than 20 innings pitched was CoCo- @ 2.98, Shouse (the loogey) @ 3.02 and Linebrink (partial year) @ 3.71. I don't see five there I see three. If you like the idea of using a single reliever in a blow out I think that's a fair debate to have. It's also fair to say I believe Yost should have done so. I don't think you can say because Yost does not agree with that philosophy that he sucks at handling the pen. To say that would be to say 95% of the managers suck at it. If you wish to say that then it's fair to ask who could we hire that would be better at it? I should also point out there are differances in the circumstances of both teams. AZ was built on pitching and defense. A 4 run deficit in AZ is a larger hurdle to clear than it was for Milwaukee. Az was 26th in runs scored while Milwaukee was 11th. I wonder how ofter Melvin would have conceded games if he had Milwaukee's offense. Melvin did nice job but he didn't win because of his philosophy in blow outs. He won a lot of 1 runs games. He did so by having a very good, very deep bullpen. If Yost had 5 or 6 relievers (depending on how you count them. They had two guys who came from other teams during the year) who could be counted on I doubt you would have seen Spurling in a game in extra innings. I'm not so sure Melvin indeed did use a single pitcher in blowouts all that often either. That seems to be overstated. If someone has actual numbers of how often he did this it would be nice to see. But if the team was seventh in all of baseball in team ERA I don't think there where many blowouts to begin with. The reason people seem to think so is they had such a poor run differential for their record and people seemed to just account for it that way. If you take a closer look it has as much to do with how good their record was in one run games than it had to do with using fewer pitchers in blowouts. The record in one run games had more to do with how good the bullpen was than some sort of managerial strategy IMO.

No matter how you slice it those inning needed to be used if the starters weren't going to absorb them. If you think Ned should have kept the starters out there longer I can see your reasoning. That wasn't as easy as it sounds though. We had one guy who is a career 6 inning pitcher in Soup. Cappy fell apart, Sheets got injured, YoGa was on an innings limit, and Vargas' pitch count was usually pretty high after 5 innings. The one time he did go 8 he sucked the next two starts. That pretty much leaves Bush. I'll even give you Soup as someone who could have taken a few more innings even though his history shows he's best at the inning he pitched this season. Even if those other pitchers got used more than the third and fourth guys on another staff what does that mean? It means the relievers this team has aren't capable of doing the work required of them. Perhaps Ned could have let relievers in to get knocked around and save the rest of the pen like AZ did. I don't know how much that helps when the pen just doesn't have many good arms in it. AZ had I believe 6 guys with an ERA under 4. Milwaukee had three. One of which came in July and another is a loogy. When you have five or six guys capable of pitching in tough situations and only need to use one or two in blowouts it makes managing a lot easier. As Logan stated you could have dropped the 7th man or added the 7th man to the Brewers equation and it would have made it look differant as well. But I will give credit were credit is due. You at least took time to see if your theory had some validity to it and it does. I think there is a bit of a flaw in that it should be expected for a reliever to handle a workload of 65+ innings and 70+ appearances. If they don't get that many it should be due to lack of need as opposed to lack of ability. I'd be more than happy to see a revision or another way of looking at it or perhaps find another flaw in my reasoning. Losing an arguement would mean I learned something.http://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/smile.gif

Saw these two while looking up reliever info. Heath Bell 93.2 IP, 81 games, 2.02 ERA Peter Moylan 90 IP, 80 games, 1.80ERA Anytime you can get a releiver who pitches in nearly half your games and still be that productive it has to be nice. I don't know much aobut these guys maybe they are better known than I think but for the most part relievers are unnoticed unless they lead the league in saves.

At the time he was sent down Villy had the second most innings pitched of any reliever in the majors. He was badly overworked and was able to get back into a routine in Nashville. So was he overworked or was he out of sinc? One would seem to indicate Ned did something wrong the other would indicate a young pitcher not making the adjustments he needed. If he was so badly overworked how could a few weeks in Nashville have turned him around? Wouldn't it have taken rest instead of a starters workload? He became a starter and was getting stretched out for the return in Spetember. He took his turn every 5th day and got back into a routine he was comfortable with. If his arm was fatigued or he was plain wore out that couple week stretch in the minors was not enough to do what he did in September. If he was tired then Yost got the most out of him with no damage to his arm or losing a valuable player in September. If anything the use of Villy was masterful when you look back at it. Not that I believe Ned did so on purpose but all things considered it worked out pretty well for him. If someone would have asked you in March we could have a guy in the pen who would be tremondous for April, May, June, part of July and be a key cog in the starting rotation in September but the cost would be a month of poor pitching and a couple weeks regrouping in the minors in August would you have thought it a fair price to pay for the production? Before you answer I'll add to that. During the time that pitcher is struggling you will be able to trade for one of the better setup men in the league for minorleaguers. Would you have thought that to be a fair tradeoff? I would.

I do have a problem with watching Spurling and Aquino getting to pitch in close or tied games and never seeing Cordero in the same game. Especially in the 12th inning at home when it's imposible to "wait until a save situation". Those are the types of decisions I think Yost made that cost us games. The problem wasn't that he used them. The problem was, if he didn't use CoCo every game that was close, Spurling and Aquino were his best options. Who else was there? Wise and his 4.19 ERA and inability to get anyone out after he hit someone? McClung and his career 6.16 ERA? At first people say he abused his top pitchers. Then that myth gets debunked and now he should have used them more. Is he supposed to ride a couple horses until they drop or is he supposed to spread the wealth and see if some of the guys Melvin gave him are capable major league pitchers? So far he's been bashed for doing each of them. All of it sounds a lot like blaming the messanger type stuff. Maybe, just maybe it's the players who he had to work wiht that sucked. There was no way to make that bunch of second rate clowns into a valid reliaf core. To blame someone who couldn't make chicken soup out of chicken you know what is missing the real problem. A bullpen with few vialbe options and a GM who didn't do enough to get some better options. I'm fine with what Melvin has done for this franchise but when it comes to the pen I'm sure he'd agree he didn't do Ned any favors this season.

Yes he did. In 05, the one he was so dominant in, he logged exactly 2/3 less innings than this year. He was in no way overworked. As for Villy he's older than Gallardo and logged less inings this year. If he was so overworked why was he so effective in September? He was used a lot but not some astonomical number for someone who was a starter. Nor was he used so much more than many relievers in baseball. Take a look at some stats and you may change your mind about this supposed abuse of the pen.

Furthermore... It's not just the innings that come into play, Catchers, but also the number of appearances AND the number of times that the pitcher had to warm up without going into the game. Basically, if a pitcher has to get warmed up and ultimately doesn't have to come into the game, there's still enough usage on the arm so that it really doesn't count as a "rest" day. Do you have some sort of evidnece that Ned does this more than any other manager? If not that is a completely baseless accusation. There are reasons to believe Ned does know this and hasn't abused them in this way. I know they've mentioned this on the pregame show with Ned so he is aware of it. They do log every pitch thrown in the game and warmups. The same guy who manages the bullpen, Billy Castro, has been there for years. One would think Billy has Ned's trust since he's retained him for so long. I doubt Ned has any more dry runs than any other manager since he doesn't use relievers more than anyone else. Without some sort of evidence there should be no reason to accuse him of that. The funny thing is some of the same people bashing Ned for abusing guys like Turnbow complained that he shouldn't have been left in if he gave up a lead off walk. Which would mean warming up someone with Turnbow every time he came in. Since Ned knew Turnbow was really bad when he was bad and didn't have another pitcher warming up with him every time he pitched it leads to more evidence that Ned didn't have any more pitchers with dry runs than any other one in the league. As has been mentioned Turnbow is tied for 17th in the league in appearnaces. All of those above him logged more innings and had an ERA under 4. The one who was tied with him had a lover ERA but over 4. So there are guys who can and most certainly do log more innings with a greater number of appearances. Does that mean every one of those managers are worse at handling the bullpen than Yost. Given the reasoning so far from those critisizing Yost you'd have to say yes. Washington had 2 relievers who pitched more games and logged more innings than our most overworked guy. The dodgers had 2 1/2, the Yankees 1 1/2, Baltimore 2, Toronto 1, Mets 2, Padres 2, Atlanta 1, houston 1, Cubs 1, Colorado 1. As you can see there are certianly some managers with an impressive track record who abused their pitchers far worse and three of the playoff teams had a manager who deserve more blame for bullpen abuse than Yost. But of course that doesn't fit the paradigm of Yost being the worst bullpen manager ever does it? The innings pitched can be a bad surrogate for overuse, as pitcher's actually need to get outs to record innings pitched. If a pitcher needs more pitches to get three outs that's the pitchers fault not the manager. Yes Turnbow does need more pitches because he has such poor control. If that is the case then, agian, it's not Yost as much as Melvin for not aquiring enough pitchers who can hit the strike zone. No matter how you look at it Ned would have needed someone to get x number of outs. If the pitcher can't get them without throwing 50 pitches an inning what is Ned supposed to do to reduce said workload? After looking at actual stats instead of just reinterating the same false accusations it appears, to me anyway, the bullpen problems were caused far more with the pitchers and the man who aquired them than it does the one who was stuck trying to figure out how to use them.

and generally over-using our best relievers (either by bringing them into the game or simply warming them up) during games they were unlikely to be needed in. Judging from the ESPN link I provided it was pretty clear he didn't overuse any reliever with the possible exception of Villy although he wasn't even in the top 10. No other reliever was even in the top 35 in innings pitched. Total innings for relievers was 16th in MLB. Just don't see that as overuse. I guess it could be argued that he overused his relievers because he didn't have any relievers capable of logging many innings. If that is the arguement then it stands to reason it was less a Yost problem than it was a Melvin one.

I've posted this sepatately so it wouldn't be hidden in the last rant. The idea that Ned somehow overworked some of his relievers appears to me to be more myth than reality. No one in the pen was even in the top ten in innings. One was in the top 30. Just don't see that as overworked. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitching?sort=thirdInnings&split=128&league=mlb&season=2007&seasonType=2&type=reg&ageMin=17&ageMax=51&hand=a&pos=all&minip=0 Could this be one of those cases where something gets repeated so often that it starts to be viewed as something it's not? Total innings for the relievers was good for 16th in baseball.

Do you remember how everyone hammered Ned for putting in Aquino(?) (forgot which scrub it was) instead of Turnbow in the 8th inning in NY. Then when he totally crumbled Ned went to Trunbow who subsequently crumbled. The critisism then was he should have used Turnbow to start with since he can't pitch out of someones mess.While some people did say Ned overused his relievers early I'm not sure what pitchers he could have used that wouldn't risk games when we were four or five runs ahead. The problem wasn't Ned's use of the bullpen it was the bullpen itself. He only had a couple guys who were good enough to get major league hitters out. By the way if Turnbow was so over used it must have beed that extra 2/3 of an inning that did it since that's how many more innings he pitched this season than in 05. How exaclty is that over used? Just took a look at the innings pitched for pitchers this year. The highest total for a Brewers reliever was tied for 18th in Villy. Every pitcher who had a higher innings total had a better ERA than vitually all the Brewers. No the Brewer releiver was in the top 30. Just how the heck is it so obvious that he overworked his pen? How was Turnbow so overworked? It's his job. It seems plenty of other pitchers did thiers far better. Perhaps if Ned had one of them all those bold predictions woulnd't have been so spot on. Again blame Yost all you want but the fact that this bullpen wasn't capable of doing what other bullpens can made Yost's job a lot harder than other managers.

I don't think it's as much Goerge making a move he feels necessary to win as it is his attitude. He's a bully who got his financial start the old fashioned way. He inherited it. The way he's treating a guy who won him more rings than anyone else could under the same circumstances is less dignified than Torre deserves for what he's meant to that organization. If he thinks a move is needed maybe not tell the press about it until the time comes. One would think an icon in your organization should be told of such things privately after he's actually lost in the playoffs. Then agian this is the guy who was banned from baseball for trying to spread lies about another icon in the organization.

I could certainly claim with just as much legitimacy that the Brewers BP was managed the worst in the NL. When Ned left guys like Tbow in too long, and brought in his lowest relievers in the highest leverage situations, more runs were scored. Turnbow was left in too long anytime he walked the first batter. Does that mean Ned should have another pitcehr warmed up everytime he pitched just in case? That would't have taken a toll on an already overtaxed bullpen. The point is there was no such thing as lowest relievers. Not a single guy beyond CoCo, Linebrink and Shouse had an ERA under 4. None under 2. One of them was a 38 year old lefty specialist who wouldn't have had that low an ERA if Ned had used him more. So kudo's to Ned to get so much out of a leftover from the Texas roster a year ago. A guy they thought so little of they gave him away for the proverbial bag of balls. The other guy came to us in a trade already overused as well. Then we had guys like Spurling who believe it or not had a better ERA than Turnbow. But of course maybe we should have used Turnbow in some of those situations. Or gone to one of our other studs in tight games...like...well...Wise with his 84 MPH fastball and changeup that couldn't get anybody out after hitting a guy...how about...McCLung because when he hits the side of a barn it does vibrate the boards...Aquino need I go one with him?...Linbrink, just how much more could he have been used since he came to use overused already. Not that he was overly effective in the higher leverage situations with the Brewers to begin with. Give me actual names that really were his high leverage pitchers that succeeded in those situations consistantly. You can't because there are none.

No offense End but that rant was form someone with no more insite than the rest of us. A lot of that was redifeing things after the fact to fit the theory and making inferences without backing it up with anything more than that theory. For example if Villy was so over used and burned out how did he rebound in September? Since he did rebound why wasn't Ned given credit for that like he was for his poor August? It could just as easily be argued that Ned was a genious in his use of Villy. Here he had a guy who ate up important innings early in the year. Innings that needed to be taken by someone due to the lack of consitant starters. Then when his arm was tired and he wasn't effective they use an option at the perfect time to send him down to regroup and get ready for starting in the strecth run. It seems to me since he did rebound in September that maybe Ned didn't wear him down. Maybe Villy just lost his control or had a bad month. Or maybe Ned figured all along that they could send him down to recuperate if they tired him later in the year. I certainly don't think that is the case but neither do I believe all the assertions without basis made from that particular person. Noone not privey to long, extended, conversations about the club with Ned really knows what contingency plans Ned had. I'd suspect there was a lot more that went into his approach than that person suggested. I'd also suspect that Doug Melvin and Mark A. were fully aware of his intended approach and felt it was backed by some sort of reasonig they, at the least, did not disagree with. All that person did was take snippents of information he could find and filled the holes with his own ideas of what went on. Nothing wrong with that from a fans perspective. I do it all the time. We all do. But we should be aware of the potential faults in logic when all the information isn't avaliable.

While this is true it still doesn't account for the other things Ned does well that, IMO, more than make up for said 5% benefit. To take your example of russian roulette would it be better to have a 6 chambered gun with one bullet or a 15 chambered gun with two? Ned's strength wouldn't be to chose how many bullets to put in the gun. His would be the ability to convince the person to give him the 15 chamber gun. It doesn't get noticed once the gun is in play but the differnace is no less real. I'm not going to argue there are guys who may be as good at handling egos and getting the most out of his players and be better at game management. I would argue that there is no way to tell who those people are until they have had a chance to manage that particular team for a while. I don't think it's quite time yet to chance getting much worse for the small benefit of having someone slightly better overall.Not when this team can do things that will help way more than any manager would. Like getting bullpen guys who can actually be counted on when called upon. If we have better players Ned's weakness will be even less of a problem. To further exemplify how much easier it was to manage the two NL teams remaining lets look at how many good relievers they have vs Milwaukee and for fun I added the Cubs ERA below 2 ERA below 3 ERA below 4 AZ - 0 6 2 1/2 Bob Wickman only part time in AZ Rockies - 0 3 3 Cubs- 1 0 3 Milwaukee - 0 2 1/2 - Linebrink I'd be willing to bet the Indians and Red Sox have similar numbers to AZ and CO vs. Milwaukee. In fact I'd be willing to bet there are very few winning teams with 2 1/2 relievers or less with an ERA below 4. No matter what choice he would have made unless he trotted Coco out there every game he didn't have much of a choice. Especially considering one of the two relievers with an ERA below 3 was a left handed specialist. Not someone you can use in a ton of circumstances. NO Ned's choices usually came down to Turnbow and his 4.63 ERA or everybody's whipping boy Spurling who actaully had a better ERA of 4.50 or maybe Aquino and his 4.50 ERA. Of course they did have Wise who was serviable for 1/2 the year and some others but I think you get the point. There were no viable alternatives.

The only way this post season could get better is if the Red Sox get eliminated next. It would be great to see an Indian - Rockies World Series.

I agree with King Georgeabout the insect thing. His millionaires couldn't be expected to compete with a young Indian team with merley half the millionaires if the game was infested with insects. After all the really rich guys expect first class treatment and perfect conditions where as the merely rich guys more or less expect some minor inconvienences. It was blantanty unfair to the best team money could buy to have to deal with the exact same conditions as the other team. That's just not the Yankee way.

Of all the things that matter for a manager I think how they handle the press is pretty low on the list. Is there anyone who was worse with the press worse than Bill Parcels and he wasn't to shabby of a coach.

Torre manages differently in teh playoffs, brining in Rivera early, throwing out the defined "roles" for players, pinch hitting for his lefties against LOOGYs. during the season he does zilch, since the Yankees are built to win 85 games easily How does managing differantly in the playoffs make him a good manager in general? Quite frankly I think most managers manage differantly in the playoffs so there is nothing sacred about what Torre does in the payoffs. Torre is a guy who given the right circumstances will do a good job. I think there are more managers who can be fine in certain circumstances but not all of them. Since there are very few who are good in any circumstance the trick is to find a manager that fits the team. I think Torre is a great example of how things other than in game management can be as important, if not more so, than in game management. Torre is great at handling egos making players play hard and not let them get too down in bad times or too high in good ones. Those are just things that aren't as visable as when he pinch hit for someone or who he sent in as a reliever when.

We learned that how good Villanueva was in his short time with the team last year wasn't a fluke. This guy is one of those surprises that sort of pooped oout of no where and could be a stud #4. While the starting pitching struggled this year the depth was very good. We could trade Cappy, Bush or Vargas and still not worry about the depth too much going forward. Tony Gwynn Jr played well enough to be worth something to a rebuilding team in trade.

Ned has made many remarks when asked why Player X is starting, and he will reply with Player X hits Player Y well, and it is based on a ridiculously sized sample. I guess part of "he hits him well'" is based off the other things I mentioned not just he's 5 for 10 against him. While his remarks made to the press after a game might not include a long winded explaination of all that goes into it that doesn't mean it's non-existant. The media wants sound bites and quick quotes not 1/2 hour explainations of everything that goes into every move in every game. I just don't believe any manager goes strickly by statistics small samples or large. They use stats as a tool not as an end all be all. If all that counted in being a good manager was translating relevenat stats they would hire accountants to manage the team not lifelong baseball people.

Ned uses stats -- He uses them stupidly. He will give players starts based on a 10 AB sample where they performed well. I think you are assuming it's based solely on those 10 ab's. I think he's taking more into account than that. How they are swinging the bat lately, the type of hitter they are vs the type of pitcher being faced. If a guy went 5 for 10 agianst a certain pitcher it may or may not be purely luck. If you have a guy who hits high inside fastballs well and the pitcher is a high fastball pitcher it makes ense there ismore to it than simply luck. That IMHO is what pure stat people fail to take into account. Add to a favorable style hitter vs pitcher the hitter is swinging the bat well all his mechanicxs are in order and everything thrown at him looks like a pumkin and those 10 ab's mean more than people would liek to admit. Does that mean it will work out every time? No. But it isn't something that is born out of pure idiocy like some think. BTW TooliveBrew that was the best arguement I have yet to see regarding Ned's failures. Very well thought out and articulate. It certainly gives someone like me who likes Ned something to think about.

Have you looked at either of their credentials? Dale Sveum Managed Double-A Altoona in the Pirates organization from 2001-2003, compiling a 213-211 (.502) record...Led Altoona to its first back-to-back winning seasons in 2002 (72-69) and 2003 (78-63), including the clubs first appearance in the Eastern League playoffs in 2003...Named Top Managerial Prospect in the Eastern League by Baseball America in 2003. Frank Kremblas In 1998 Kremblas became the manager of the Gulf Coast League Expos, a Rookie League team. He was promoted to the Single-A Cape Fear Crocs in 1999. After the California League All-Star break of 2000, he became manager of the Mudville Nine. In 2001 he guided the High Desert Mavericks to the second round of the California League playoffs. Kremblas was made skipper of the Double-A Huntsville Stars in 2002, where he would stay through the 2004 season. During his time with the Stars he also served as manager for the 2004 Southern League All-Star Game, coach for the 2003 All-Star Futures Game, and coach for the 2003 Arizona Fall League Peoria Saguaros. In 2005 he was promoted to the Triple-A Nashville Sounds where he guided the team to win the Pacific Coast League Championship. Next season he managed the team to win the American Conference - Northern Division title before losing in the conference finals. He began the 2007 season in Nashville. I don't see any reason to believe one would be better than the other than Sveum Named Top Managerial Prospect in the Eastern League by Baseball America in 2003. For the record I also believe Leyva and Sedar won similar awards in the past. Sveum, Leyva and Sedar have time with the big league staff which seems to be a sort of stepping stone to managerial positions. The Kremblas love just has me baffled. Not that he's bad or anything but obviously when it came time for promotions to the big leagues last year Kremblas wasn't the first choice within the organization. If there is a replacement I'd like to see Sedar get a shot first.

I know you're not one of the stat junkies FTJ so you might think this has more merit than others. While every manager uses stats anyone that uses them alone isn't going to do his team justice. Even if you take into account long term trends there is something to be said for guys in the zone. Every player goes through streaks where their mechanics are perfect they see the ball well ect. It makes sense when a amanger sees a player in one of those streaks to use him more. Let's take Ned out of the equation and just go generic for a second. Managers in general have been around baseball longer than many of us have been alive. They can see small sample stats and use it in combination with what they've seen in batting prctice and recent games. If they got a lot of cheap hits the sample doesn't show it but the eyes do. If he sees a guy who is hitting the ball on the screws and is laying off the balls he's likely to believe that player can hit someone with superior stats in a given situation at that particualr time. There is nothing wrong with that type of approach IMO. Has Ned done some awfully strange things? Yes. Has he made moves That I believe to be wrong? Agian yes. That doesn't mean his whole approach is off if (and to me this is the big IF) he is doing so not by gut feeling but by actual observable evidence. Same can be said for the pitching aspect. Again I believe he needs serious improvement and a sound harsh self evaluation of his observation abilities. That doens't mean small samples plus astute observations of how well a guy is playing that particular instance somehow has no merit.

I am skeptical of Ned's ability to learn, and in no way do I think he is good at ANY aspect of his job. WOW I like you FTJ so take this for what it's worth but I think the second part of that statement says more about you hating Yost than it does about Ned's actual abilities. Just hard to believe Melvin would risk his own job security on someone who didn't have a single quality that made him capable of managing.