Bucky Rules

There's no point in my beating my head up against the wall any further to demonstrate the gray areas. I've made my case. I'll leave it at that. You won't change your mind. I won't concede that it was a no-brainer. As far as Aquino goes, you should be happy that Yost came out and said that if he had it to do over again, he would've summoned Cordero. At least you should feel good that he took something away from that game that will lead him to your camp. And I agree that Cordero was the best short-term option in that game. He gambled and lost. In hindsight, he probably got too cute, and it cost him.

You are 100% correct. The manager should play his best option all the time. I know your post was not directed at me, but I couldn't agree with you more. I simply believe his decision process in determining what his best option (for the current game and future games) is correct the vast majority of the time. Then there are several scenarios that could go either way. Unfortunately, many believe that these scenarios are actually cut and dry, black and white. That's where I have a difference of opinion. Here's a concession for the anti-Yost crowd. I have never liked how he refuses to PH for a catcher because he's only got one other catcher on the bench (and he wants his catchers to truly get a day off). That's the one pet-peeve I have. I thnk he is too steadfast in that rule. In general, I'd be OK with it, but he seems too insistent on never waivering from it. But, in the grand scheme of things, I'm willing to live with that. Because overall, I think he's good.

I'm sure one of the many sabermetricians on the board would be happy to point out one of the numerous articles on the subject. Or just google it. But, I assure you that this is not a matter of "my opinion". Or I can spend the 12 seconds and google it myself. Here's one. I haven't even read it, but I know what it'll say. Bunting by non-pitchers is not good, except in a select group of late inning scenarios. http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/07/empirical_analy_1.php If you don't like that article, google one of a thousand others. They all say the same thing. Judging from YOUR tone, I believe you are taking it a bit too personal. We should probably just drop this discussion. If the tone doesn't improve going forward, I just won't respond any further. You can interpret that as a victory, if you wish. That's correct. But, I never said managers don't have an impact on wins and losses. And forgive me for saying this, but I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself after having my statements mischaracterized. I said their GAME DECISIONS are waaayyyyyyy overrated as far as having an impact in the win/loss column. They can impact wins and losses in other ways - mostly in a negative fashion. Really, the 10 or 11 wins that can be argued for Yost in his 1st season is in comparison to Royster, which may not be a fair comparison. Because it's likely that Royster was just that bad, rather than Yost being that good. But, I believe that Yost is respected by the guys in his clubhouse. And to me, that makes a bigger impact than game management. Yet I still think his game management is mischaracterized, and scrutinized to an absurd level. Furthermore, I believe he makes the right game management decisions the vast majority of the time. Actually it is. I have no problem with either side of that argument really. You can make a good case for letting Hart hit away there. But, under the circumstances of it being our last AB of the game and an insurance run for Coco is huge, I don't hate the bunt call either. I think it provided a better chance to score one run in that situation, but a worse chance to score multiple runs. And that's my stance with most of these recent situations that are popping up. Unfortunately, you seem to believe that I think you're an idiot for believing that he made the wrong decision. I never said that. I never even implied that. I am simply frustrated with the fact that several of you who believe that the decisions were wrong, show absolutely no willingness to accept that there's a lot more gray area in those decisions than you're willing to admit. You guys are the ones stating that Yost is in idiot for not seeing what you're seeing (and implying that I am as well for seeing the shades of gray). All I'm saying is that Yost's logic in each scenario is not flawed. There is a reason for everything he does, and personally, I like his thought process 99% of the time. Having said that, I'm sure you've seen where Yost essentially said that if he had it to do over again, he would've thrown Cordero instead of Aquino. Even in that case, it's clear what he was trying to do. He was trying to steal an out to save Cordero. A gamble that didn't work because Aquino gave up a bases clearing hit. For the stretch run, he said that he'll likely ride Coco for every out he can get. If he comes to that epiphany one game earlier, we're probably not having that particular discussion.

I think you may be taking this a bit too personal, my friend. I was not being condescending with that comment. I was merely pointing out that we've had bad managers that make bad decisions. There was a time when I felt that the most important part of the managers job was his game time decisions. I simply don't believe that any longer. Davey Lopes made many bad decisions, and I was all over him to anybody that would listen. And in hindsight... I don't think it even mattered that much. On the other hand, he was followed by Jerry Royster who completely lost that team. They ended up winning 56 games. You don't lose 106 games by accident. The following year Yost came in with the same talent (if not worse) and improved the win total by 10 or 11 games. IMO that's the impact of having a guy that you respect in clubhouse. In hindsight, I doubt that Lopes would've lost 106 games that season. Having said all of that, that doesn't turn an 85 win club into a 95 win club. But, it is more important (again IMO) than the relatively few critical chances that a manager has to make a difference over the course of the season. It's just not magnified by everyone screaming on a message board and on talk radio about it. And I think Yost makes the right choice the vast majority of the time -- recognizing that there are a lot of people that view that differently than I do.

Well... there's little chance of a good throw coming from Houston's outfield. With Braun's speed, I'd take my chances.

Nope... not in my book. It's perfectly legit to complain about a move at any point - win or lose. If you don't like the bunt in the 8th, I'm OK with that. I'm torn on that one as well. Although, I'm confident that if that situation arose any time prior to the 8th, we wouldn't have seen a bunt. The Astros only had one more AB to work with. An extra run there is huge. A bunt brings a sac fly into play, but it also brings an Estrada AB / dp potential into play as well. So what do you have a better chance of getting... a) a fly ball or a hit from Estrada, or b) a base hit from either Jenks or Hart. I'd lean towards getting the fly ball or better from Estrada, but that's mitigated by virtually eliminating the chance of a big inning. On the other hand, all you really need to feel good about winning with Coco is one more run. Again... close call.

You've just made my complete argument all wrapped up with one nice little bow. You consider Scoscia a better game manager than Yost, in spite of the fact that he hands outs to his opponents like candy. You claim Scoscia doesn't make the same dumb mistake 2, 3, 4 , 15 times, yet I will not have much problem finding him giving up ABs 2, 3, 4, 15 times by bunting in the early and middle innings (any time prior to the 8th). I think it's been proven with some pretty sound evidence that early game bunting is a complete waste -- noting that there are late game scenarios that make sense to do so. Scoscia has never gotten that memo apparently. But, you'd be OK with that type of game management. Furthermore, you claim that because he has a World Series ring that validates his poor game management. I'll stick to my argument that players win games, not a manager's decisions. Although, I'm sure Scoscia is a very qualified leader -- which is the most important role that a manager plays. One that Yost fills quite nicely, IMO.

I'm pretty sure they booed well before it was known that Aquino was the one coming in.

Do you really think he thought that??? Or did he possibly think, " boy, all my options suck here... Jenkins can't hit his way out of a paper bag for the last week and a half, so I might as well give Mench a shot", and "Pence pounds lefties, so I want to get Shouse out, but try to save Cordero for the 9th" You can disagree with the decision, but to act like there is no justification for every move that backfires, is short-sighted. IMO, he did a better job managing yesterday's game than Cooper did, but - as is most often the case - the manager has very little to do with the outcome. If Turnbow holds a lead, or Aquino gets an out, or Loretta doesn't make a fantastic play, or... on and on and on. The players win and lose the games. There is no manager in the game that is going to make every move you would like to see. Mike Scioscia gets all the credit in the world around the league, yet he gives up more outs in a week than Yost gives up in a year -- and he manages in the freaking AL. Even LaRussa who I generally like as a game manager (though he really irritates me in some unexplainable fashion), hits the pitcher 8th on occasion, which I see no benefit to doing. It just doesn't matter. But, if it makes you guys happy to fire Ned Yost, and bring in the next guy that the Brewers will win in spite of, I'll still be a Brewer fan.

This is a tremendous leap in logic. You really have no fact to base it on -- just a wild theory. I have never seen any shred of evidence, or the slightest speculation from anyone inside or around the organization, that suggests that Attanasio has ever told Melvin to do something that he doesn't want to do. The only thing I ever heard was that Attanasio made it clear that we didn't want to be in a position where we didn't have enough major league quality pitchers to cover for injuries. That's a very general direction. And nobody ever suggested that Attanasio told him to go out and get Suppan. Just because he did his part to help lure him, doesn't mean that he brought him in against Melvin's wishes. And just because a budget strapped Melvin never spent money on FA pitchers in the past, doesn't mean he wouldn't want one if given the cash to do it. Am I happy with the Suppan signing??? That depends on if it costs us a better player down the road (possibly Sheets). If it doesn't, I'm fine with the signing.

I still believe that the Brewers have better players than the Cubs. And I still believe that players win games. So... I still believe that the Brewers will win the division. We do need our starters to be able to go deeper into games, though. I think we've got a good bullpen, if we don't need to use everyone virtually every game. If we continue to have to pitch (or even warmup) all of our main guys 4-5 times a week, August will be a very scary month.

I heard that as well, although I don't believe that Haudricourt said that YOST told him. But he said he knew who it was and couldn't print it. Since Hardy and Villanueva were the only two guys mentioned in the article in a fashion where it "should be easy to figure out", I have to agree that it was Hardy. In response to the post that claims any criticism at Hardy was misdirected... well, if true, that would go a long way towards explaining the close-to-violent defense from his teammates.

Here's my vent... The vent thread is almost exclusively filled with disgust and venom -- which is what it's intended for. Yet the silver lining thread is peppered with sarcasm and backhanded "silver linings" like "at least we won't have to buy playoff tickets" and "player X is doing well, too bad everybody else sucks". Why bother even having that thread? Reminder... for the first time in a looooooooooong time, we've got a team in a legitimate pennant race at the trade deadline. And, oh by the way, they're still in 1st place with the 2nd best record in the NL. And the team challenging us is still the Cubs. I'm old enough to remember those teams in my childhood from '78-'83. Every single one of those years was a blast to follow a team that you knew could win every night out. Those are the teams that made me a Brewers fan. I believe this team comes much closer to resembling those teams than the one-year wonders of '87 and '92. This team is legit. And this manager is not Buck Rodgers. My advice... some of you guys need to enjoy the journey a little bit more than it appears that you are.

Balfour didn't cost us this game. This game was lost because we couldn't touch Harang, and blew a golden opportunity in the 11th with bases loaded and nobody out. He's no more to blame than Johhny Estrada for his AB in the 11th, or JJ for not busting it and ending up on 2nd on Lopez' error (he could've scored on Braun's follow-up single). But, rather than placing blame, I'd rather tip my cap to Aaron Harang. The guy was very tough last night. I don't expect similar pitching performances from the Reds for the rest of this series.

There is another thread around here discussing whether or not the Suppan signing was worth it. As I said there, I thought the Suppan signing was fine, but we'll have to see what we lose down the road because we spent the money on Suppan. If that signing keeps us from re-signing Sheets, then I'd be very disappointed.

I don't believe he's any different than he has been with the exception (as others have stated) that he's shifted his focus in the last year or two towards production over development. But, he's the same guy. More importantly, the team's win totals have much more to do with talent and execution, than with strategy and in-game management. I'll say it unitl I'm blue in the face. Ned Yost's - or any manager's - impact on this team is much greater in the locker room than on the field. I laugh when managers get credit or blame for a particular win/loss. And I laugh harder when they try to attribute one isolated decision as an example of how good/bad a manager is. I think Yost is a good manager. I think he's a good leader. Guys seem to want to play for him. He has the respect of his team. But in the end, the players win or lose the games.

This sounds ridiculous and short-sighted to me. Unless it has become some kind of security issue --- that, by the way, never existed for the last several years. I don't get it. But, personally... I miss Vasgersian much more than Sutton. At least I can catch him doing some NFL games, and the occasional poker tournament now. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif The guy still kills me. If the Padres games were part of the MLB Extra Innings package, I'd probably buy it just to hear him break out in some obscure song when his team hits a long ball. Sutton? meh... he was OK.

Does anyone have a ballpark figure of what kind of revenue the team generates from a sold-out house -- tix/parking/concessions? I have no idea what the Brewers cut is on non-ticket revenue. It would be interesting to get an idea of what kind of increase to the bottom line there is given an extra two or three or ten sold out home games in October. I'm doing some mental juggling to see if we can afford Ben's next contract. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

Personally, I don't have a huge problem with the signing. He has not pitched well since May 1 (with the exception of his last start), but there's time to get that straightened out. The fact is, the only way to judge the signing is to measure it's opportunity cost. Who are we going to lose in the next couple of years because we spent the 8-figures on Suppan? If the answer is "nobody", then I have no issues with the signing whatsoever. The world needs mediocre innings-eaters, too. And he's even better than that, if he gets back to anywhere near where he's been since he joined the NL.

I know it's easy to say that our infield sucks defensively, but are there actually range metrics that support that argument? I watch the team and I feel like they've got decent range as a group. Yes... they make some errors, but that's not going to directly hurt a pitcher's numbers (ERA). I just think it might be blown out of proportion a bit. But... I'm sure it won't take somebody long to prove me wrong. (or to mention the 137 indirect affects of an error)

That's exactly right. If Cappy gets thru the inning with no additional damage after the home run, there wouldn't be a single post calling it a bad decision to leave him in. It's an argument that Yost simply can't win in hindsight. And it's an argument that would never be made if the results were different. Yet Cappy wouldn't have been any more or less tired regardless of the outcome. So since some are clearly choosing to bash his bullpen management based on the results of a particular decision, wouldn't it be more beneficial to judge his results over a series of decisions? Perhaps a season's worth of decisions? Judge him by how the team (or in this case the pitching staff) performs to expectations over time. You guys are gonna have a brain hemhorrage nitpicking every decision the guy makes. I don't agree with every decision the guy makes, either. But, overall, I think he's a pretty good manager - as far as managers go. In general, I don't think managers win or lose ballgames. They just need to captain the ship, and keep it moving in the right direction. As long as the manager isn't a complete incompetent (which I clearly don't believe Yost is) the players will win and lose the games.

His numbers for Prince are almost spot on in 2007. Of course, Prince still has another 1/2 season to play.

Herm Edwards is a football coach. Managing a team in football is completely different than managing a team in baseball. You don't always necessarily make decisions based on what's best to win the game at hand in baseball, like you would in a 16 game NFL season. Don't take that to mean that I think Ned should've left Cappy in as long as he did with the ASB coming. I'm just saying there's a night and day difference in the managing philosophies involved between the two sports.

Estrada spent a lot of time hitting in the 5-hole until recently. Somehow we managed to amass the 2nd best record in the National League while Billy has been pretty pedestrian at the plate thus far. The Brewers lineup with or without Hall will be better than the opponents lineup for the vast majority of the teams that they're going to play. We're comfortably above average at 1st, SS, 3rd, LF, and RF. We're probably about average at C and 2nd. I just don't see a reason to believe that we'll all of a sudden stop scoring runs just because Billy's going to be out for a bit. I figure it's more of a longshot that the Brewers DON'T make the playoffs than the other way around.

I tend to agree with those that feel TGJ will not amount to much more than a 4th or 5th OFer. But, I do find a delicious bit of irony in the fact that some of the very same people that were saying the very same things about Bill Hall a couple of years ago (ironically also based on results thru the age of 24) are now fretting the fact that Hall may be getting replaced temporarily by Gwynn. It's possible (though I admit not all that likely) that Gwynn could continue to improve his skills to a level of at least being an average to slightly above average major league CFer. That would probably require him to get on base at about a .380 to .400 clip because it doesn't look like he'll hit for any power. But... he's shown steady progression, and at 24 he may not be done yet. I think its a bit early to write him off completely. Having said all of that... I don't really want to see him in the lineup everyday batting 1st or 2nd. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif