strawbossisevil

Gopher, I really like the LaRoche, Krenshaw, and Broxton for Fielder deal. We would probably have to include quite a bit of talent on our end in such a deal, but that fills a lot of our team's holes. LaRoche is a solid OBP guy, who has solid pop. He is obviously available, and could be had. Krenshaw is a stud pitching prospect that we could put in the rotation along with Gallardo. Broxton would provide us with the shut down closer that we need. As I was thinking about moves that could be made. I thought of giving Sheets up to the Yankees for Hughes. The Yankees are in need of a Sheet's caliber pitcher right now as they are falling behind in the playoff chase, and they could certainly provide him with the extension he would want. Hughes would provide us with another young pitcher with a very high upside. Next Year's Rotation: Gallardo Krenshaw Hughes Suppan Villenueva/Parra/Bush (two of the three go to the pen) Next Year's Lineup: 1st Base: LaPorta 2nd Base: Weeks Shortstop: Hardy 3rd Base: LaRoche Left Field: Braun Center Field: Cameron/Hart Right Field: Hart/Gamel Catcher: Kendall

I've been thinking about this idea for quite a while. Since above average pitching is what you usually need to make it deep into the playoff chase. First off, this could only happen if LaPorta and Gamel get called up midseason to AAA and continue to rake, both looking like their bats could be major league ready for the '09 season. Now obviously, to expect Prince like numbers from either would be expecting far too much, but let's say both look to be able to hit around 25 HR in the majors. We could trade Fielder and Bush (or Parra) and get what our team really needs, above average young pitching (Lincecum and Cain). With Fielder gone, we would also have a bit more spending cash for the next few offseasons (since Prince won't be making a haul in arbitration), so we can turn around and sign Sheets to a 3 year 45 million dollar deal (or whatever it takes to keep him on the Crew). We would then enter the season with a rotation of: Sheets Gallardo Lincecum Cain Suppan Villenueva and Bush/Parra could be entered into the bullpen, where both were effective last season. Having their arms in the pen would help significantly, since they both could pitch multiple innings. Our batting order would be fairly solid as well, not top of the division, but probably pretty solid. Weeks Gamel Braun LaPorta Hart Hall Hardy Pitcher Kendall What are your thoughts? Would this make the Brewers significantly better? Significantly worse?

If we are talking Fielder, I would want both Cain and Lincecum (we'd probably have to add another player, but nothing too valuable). Then move LaPorta to 1B (which I'll admit might be a bit rocky at first). 2008 Rotation: Sheets Lincecum Cain Suppan Villenuena

Over the course of 5 seasons though would even it out considerably. Although that fact makes what Ned did that much more impresive. Since he had some really bad teams before '06.

Seriously end, The point of the study is to determine which manager does the best in the innings where they have to make the majority of their moves. It would make no sense to include data before the 6th inning, since a manager usually doesn't make many moves before that inning. The reason why they focus on the tie games, is that it doesn't give as large an advantage for a manager whose team has superior starting pitching/regular position players (something that has no reflection on the manager's in game managerial skills). Instead it puts them on an even field so that the managerial skills can be compared on an even playing field. A manager who makes more positive moves (bullpen/pinch hitting and running decisions) will generally win more of those games over a larger sample (the sample of this study was 5 years, so it is definitely a large sample). The fact that they are put on a level playing field is not a flaw, its what makes it such a valuable assessment of late inning managerial ability. It allows a person to see how managers handle their teams in the exact same situations when managerial moves are made. Any comparison needs a constant and a variable. The constant here is putting the managers in the exact same situation. The variable is how the managers perform. That's simple logic. I have a feeling that you feel the way you do about it, because you don't agree with the result. Like it or not, it is clearly a logical presentation of data.

No it's not. It puts every manager on an even playing field. It gives no advantages. Most managerial decisions are made from the 6th inning forward, and in order to see how they best compare to one another when major decisions have to be made, it would make perfect sense to show how they've done with a tie ball game going into that inning when the manager will begin to play a big role. The fact that it hurts managers with winning records is true, because it basically takes out the first five innings of a game where the manager has very little control of things (and is more dependant on the ability level of his starting pitchers/batters), once he gets into the 6th the managers decisions play a much larger role in the outcome of the ballgame. It makes perfect logical sense how they did it. It created an even playing field so that the innings where managers moves are most important can be compared, a situation that Yost did well in according to the study. I think you are just letting your subjective opinion on Yost cloud your judgment on this very objective measure of how managers perform when the ballgame is tied late in the game (the time, I would argue their decisions are probably the most vital).

It's not garbage. It shows the situation where the manager's coaching has the greatest impact on a game. That happens late in the game, when the game is tied. It shows who has made the best decisions in those scenarios (or had their decisions pay off the best in those scenarios). Certainly averaging the three out may not be something you like. Then look at their individual rankings under each. Here they are for Nedly: Close Games: He's ranked 7 (meaning over the last five years only 6 managers have had a better outcomes in games that were tied as late as the 6th inning) - No matter how you spin it, it shows that he is doing something right in that situation to be ranked in the top third of all managers. What's even more astounding is that he is ranked this high despite the fact that the first few years he was here our team was pretty awful. Wins above expectation: He's ranked 7 (meaning over the last five years only 6 managers have had better records in comparison with their "Pythagorean" win expectations than Ned, according to the article, he has actually won 5 more games over their expected win total) - Here again, instead of being -3 wins per season as some suggest, he has averaged out to +1 wins per season over the past half decade, which points to him being what many of us have been saying all along, an average manager. Player Performance: He's ranked 6 (meaning over the last five years only 5 managers have done better at getting the most out of their players). I'm not quite sure how they arrived at these numbers, but the article states that these were put together by an editor at the Hardball Times who did a lot of data crunching. I think many would agree is a pretty solid source. So what does all this tell us? Adding them together may be a bit bogus. But the fact that Yost did well in all three suggests that he is probably an average ML manager. He does well when the game is tied going into the last 4 innings, he wins more than the raw offensive and defensive numbers should suggest, and he generally gets the most out of his players. I know its hard for many to be objective when dealing with Ned, because we are passionate fans and at times disagree with his decisions, but in comparison with other league managers he really isn't as bad as many here suggest.

I think that study pointed to by gifted makes a point. We tend to be very subjective in our evaluations because we follow our team so closely and bad moves tend to stick in our craw, and often we can't see things objectively. That study showed a number of things, Yost is in the top 10 in close games won, he is a top 10 manager in winning more games than expected, and he is in the top 10 in regards to getting his players to perform. Now, you can argue that he's making a lot of mistakes, but he must be doing some things right in order to get that top 10 status in each of those categories. Now certainly anyone is entitled to put up his own subjective opinion on where he sees Yost in relation to other managers, and who knows maybe over the course of one season he might under perform. But his past suggest he wouldn't be the -3 games terrible manager.

I agree. Personally, I have criticized Yost on a few occasions this season. He isn't above criticism. But the extent that some take it on this site is utterly ridiculous. I've come to the conclusion that some just enjoy fault finding. Some of the "faults" brought up in this thread have been stretches to say the least, many of them were moves that nearly every manager in the bigs would go with. The man can do no right with some on this site, and its sad that every night has basically become a Yost "fault" hunt, so they can come back here and talk about how "right" they have always been about Yost.

Either that, or Yost wanted him to get through 5 innings to spare the bullpen, but only felt comfortable leaving him out there for an additional inning if we had the lead. It doesn't have to just be about the "W" in front of Sheet's name. Its pure speculation on your part to think so.

You know this how? He doesn't. He's just making up a point to support his argument. The only one who could possibly know that is the coaching staff. I imagine the reason he went out there for the 5th was to spare the bullpen from having to go 5 innings. (Had he done that, I'm sure he would have been accused of bullpen mismanagement by some, so its a no win situation for Nedly). I do find it rather ridiculous the lengths some will go to pile on Ned. In many cases it seems to be nothing but an ego stroking exercise, meant to make some feel like they are "smarter" than the thick skulled manager.

Wow, I hate the Cubs so much. Theriot with a basehit to give them the lead. The Rockies are not looking good.

Not Ned's fault he doesn't have more position players. Talk to his boss Doug about that one.

I've seen 6 year old girls who could throw a ball better than Weeks just did. Bah!

Villanueva with a great game. We have been getting wonderful starting pitching lately. It is definitely a strength on our team, and once we get a bit more offense, we should start winning more games.

I think Yost just moved into the "needs a change of scenery" category. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

He did have an ERA under 2 when he didn't pitch back to back games last year. Unless he's a completely different pitcher this year, he can still be effective when used correctly. Now Ned just has to use him correctly.

Warming up Gagne? Noooooooooooooooooooooooo! Don't do it Ned.

Thanks end, off to the vent thread! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

Ok, I tend to be a Yost apologist. But seriously, both sides need to relax on this one. It's getting way to personal and way to heated on both sides. We get it, some liked the move last night, or didn't see it as terrible. Some saw it as terrible and unnecessary. I don't think anyone is changing anyone else's mind at this point. Maybe we can put off the argument until the next mistake later this evening?

I wonder what the mistake dejour will be for Yost tonight? What will he do that will enrage the masses into adding three or even five pages to the vent thread, and another 5 to the Yost thread. I can't wait to find out.

But if we had someone other than Yost we'd be 18-0. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif Shame on you for settling for anything less http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif.

I think everyone could agree that it wasn't one of his better moves of the year. Was it moronic? Maybe, maybe not. If Gagne honestly told Ned that he'd be available for today's game, that he was feeling well enough to go an inning (and there is no reason for us to think he didn't based on what we know) the move at least makes a little bit of sense. It doesn't mean that he should have sent him out when he had other well rested options. It certainly opened himself up to the possibility of being second guessed if it didn't work. I personally wasn't happy to see Gagne brought in for a fourth straight day. I was equally unhappy when Gagne failed. However I think calling him a moron is a bit much (that and name calling is forbidden on this website http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif). Gagne is supposed to be the best arm in our pen, and Ned wanted to use that arm to lock down a sweep on the road (something that hasn't happened in years). One thing though, is that I don't hold Yost as the only one responsible for this loss. Basically the entire team minus Hardy, Gallardo, and Stetter deserved anything but a loss. The middle of our lineup went 0 for the game. I think when game after game our offense fails to contribute (leading to close games), it makes making a good bullpen decision much more difficult (especially when every pitcher, aside from Turnbow, has been used frequently over the past few games). Was this probably his worst move of the year? I'd probably agree with that. I would have done it differently myself. Telling someone to "face the facts" = not cool

Ok, I tend to agree with Yost on many of his moves. I didn't like the idea of trotting Gagne out for the fourth game in a row. I think the blame on this goes to both Yost and Gagne. Gagne for saying that he felt good enough to go an inning in today's game (since he obviously didn't have it), and Ned for not giving him a day off (we need him all year, overworking him here is not a great idea). Once he was in the game, I don't think Yost could have brought in anyone else any earlier. There was no reason to have someone up in the pen until the game was tied. And he pulled him after the next batter. I agree, in this situation, Yost carries some of the blame. Although, he is one of many on our team who carries the blame (Braun, Fielder, Hall, and Hart 0-for the game get honorable mention as well, as does Gagne and Torres). Gallardo and Hardy are the only people on the team who deserved better.

No one saw Gross as an ideal starter, only that he would be offensively better than Gwynn. And like it or not, those who feel that way have a bit more than 35 ABs on their side. So hold on to your crow, you might be eating it later.