Bucky Rules

Well... I guess that could be technically true. But, in your scenario you have one less bullpen guy to spread the other innings over. And if you get TWO guys (Sheets and Sabathia) to consistently go 7,8,9 innings, you really don't have many problems anyway. Unless of course, you don't have enough reliable relievers to handle even those few innings we're talking about - which is the case with the Brewers. But, that's probably a different topic altogether.

We need to add Dusty Baker to this list when he bunted a guy to 3rd with nobody out in the 1st inning on Friday. These are things that I've (and we all have) witnessed just in the last couple of weeks. If Yost had done any of these things he'd be absolutely roasted (and deservedly so). This list will probably grow with every series we play. Which is why I'll continue to believe that even though he gets roasted on a regular basis for in-game management decisions, he's no worse than average, and probably a lot better.

Is there evidence of that? Did he take fewer pitches early in his MLB career and his minor league career when he wasn't leading off? (serious question)

Weeks is the only guy on the team - with the exception of Prince - that has shown the ability to get on base at a .370 clip. He's the best chance we have for a legit leadoff hitter. I'd wait it out a bit longer. He had a pretty good week. Who knows... maybe this is where it'll turn around.

Why do some continue to get so upset about the fact that he doesn't throw his guys under the bus to the press? He's not going to do it. Personally, I think it's nothing but a positive thing. (I assume) you don't have any idea what he says to them outside the press room. Since he rarely criticizes guys to the press, yet he has dealt with problems almost immediately following a "vote of confidence" in the past, you really have to take his sound bites with a grain of salt. When he does actually throw a guy under the bus (that isn't simply a byproduct of defending another player), then you've got a story.

If he goes decaf now, he'll crash for 20 years. Ned Van Winkle. EDIT: ... allow me to beat some to the punchline... "we can only hope" or... "so, exactly how would that be different from now?"

I'm glad I actually opened the thread prior to letting out a primal scream in my office. That could've been embarassing.

As I said, it MAY be. Maybe there has been no improvement. Maybe the something different I point out is less coffee. What are you saying? It doesn't matter. If Simmons gets credit for helping Ned make better decisions than when Sveum was the bench coach, I'm good with that. If that's the case, Ned deserves credit for bringing Simba in. If you want to credit Melvin with bringing Simba in, then Ned deserves credit for being one of the few guys in the league that Simmons would've worked for in this capacity. Any way you look at it, Ned should come out of it OK. (cleaned up quote and shortened it slightly --1992)

If Bush and McClung can continue to pitch as they have so far, theoretically it really wouldn't be that difficult to send Parra to the BP when Suppan comes back. Of course, in the middle of a pennant race, it becomes much more difficult to pull the string on a move like that knowing that you're probably not sending your five best to the mound every rotation. But there is enough depth there in this scenario to make it happen.

Late in the game, he has done that. That's true. I'm not convinced that in certain situations that this is such a terrible idea. At least with JJ (with boppers to follow). And i think Hart bunts a lot on his own. So, it's hard to tell (unless you've seen something that I haven't) if those situations are Ned's call or Hart's. Ned could certainly tell him not to if the situation arose.

This might be one of the fairest critiques that I've seen of Yost. I would only differ from it significantly in your assessment that he is well-below average in terms of in-game adjustments. Not that it's not fair to criticize that he makes in-game mistakes. Just that he's "well-below average". My exposure to ALL managers is limited (as is almost everybody else's), but from what I see, I don't think he's any worse than average (possibly better than average). He doesn't do things like bunt a runner over (with a non-pitcher) in the 1st 3 innings (Cecil Cooper) or remove your #3 hitter in a double switch in the 4th inning (Bob Melvin) that I've seen elsewhere in the last couple of weeks. Keep in mind that my definition of "average" here is grading on a curve with other current managers, not as a flat rate grade against perfection. I'd give him a solid B+. Public relations is certainly not his strong point (probably D to D-) -- and it is to at least some degree, part of the job. Other than that, I think he is performing anywhere from average to excellent in every other aspect (that I can think of). Also note my criteria includes much more weight on things that I would consider leadership qualities rather than any in-game management issues. (pared back quoted material --1992)

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!! I had convinced myself that was just a bad dream. Please don't ever mention those names (among many others) again.

If that's the best case scenario, why would anyone do it? If we were out of it, and Sheets was a sure thing to test FA (which he apparently is), I would definitely feel good about LaPorta + in return -- assuming that I knew what kind of prospect he was. I was happy when we got JDLR from Arizona and Capellan from Atlanta. If we're out of it, and the player you own the rights to is unlikely to come back without a bidding war, then what's the down side? If you want to get in on the bidding war, you can still do so after the season is over. You just have to make sure that you're getting better value than what the compensatory picks would likely get you. I think it's hard to argue that LaPorta doesn't give you a better chance than those picks. Anything else is the cherry on the icing on the gravy.

We can always send Sheeter to the derby. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

I do NOT want to play Arizona in the playoffs. They're pitching is off the charts. I'll take my chances with Philly, and I'm rooting for the Dodgers to win the West. Would you rather part II: In the 7th game of the WS would you rather send Ben or CC to the mound???

Am I off my rocker, or was somebody somewhere reporting that we would be getting two low-level prospects along with CC in this deal for the above mentioned four guys? I swear I saw that somewhere. Sorry if that's already been addressed on this thread -- I went back a couple of pages and didn't see it.

All of that is dead on. And it's a big reason that I despise having to defend Yost on a regular basis for in-game decisions. There's a ton of gray area that I don't think is given enough consideration. It just seems to me that Yost takes a lot of grief for not making the "statistically correct" decision, and then defending it in a manner that makes him look like he doesn't have an understanding of how to evaluate a situation statistically. I'm wondering why the heck would any team leave that sort of analysis up to any coach currently in the dugout. Certainly they can add one more guy in the dugout to analyze situations and bring the manager up to speed of his options and the likely ramifications. That's sort of the proposed role of a bench coach. I just don't see the current crop of bench coaches as qualified to analyze things in this fashion. It's just like any other line of work. An analyst is rarely the person that makes a decision, but often provides pertinent and timely information to those that do make the decisions. In MLB there doesn't appear to be an analyst there when the decisions are being made.

Naivin -- we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I absolutely believe that Ned is handling the pen differently than he has in the past. He seems to have a schedule of off days for guys after they've pitched (or warmed up) in consecutive outings -- three days on, needs two days off (or something to that effect). He's pitching guys more than one inning. He's using his closer to get more than three outs. It's just different than what he's done in the past. Yes, the personnel is different -- though I'm not convinced better -- but, there's more to it than that.

I know they're there. And I know they pump a lot of information to guys that can use it. The pitcher in the 8th spot was suggested because the "stat guys" thought it would add about 30 runs over the course of the season (iirc). But, to my knowledge they're not in the dugout during games analyzing in-game situations. It seems to me someone like that could be useful, rather than relying on guys that wouldn't know a standard deviation from an STD to arrive at the proper conclusion. Yet, to my knowledge, nobody is doing this.

Not necessarily due to... but maybe they're/we're a contributing factor. You scream loud enough, long enough, and then someone starts to listen/question what's going on. It's possible -- although I admit not likely. But there has definitely been a change, and it had to have originated somewhere. The more likely scenario is that DM had discussions with him in last season's post mortem and gave him some ideas to ponder on how to handle certain scenarios differently. The handling of the bullpen is the most noticeable change -- probably due to the realization that they were burnt out last year. I have to believe resting patterns and the effects on future results is a pretty easy study to complete for a major league operation.

I can't even believe that I opened this thread. I'm probably going to have sympathy pains for a month. God! I'm an idiot.

Actually, I'm glad you brought this up. What is up with that? Hudson out in the 4th... Drew out by the 7th. When Conor Jackson made the last out in the 7th, I was half-expecting him to get double-switched. I haven't paid that much attention to how Bob Melvin manages. But if that's the norm, I don't even want to think about the length of the "Designated Bob Melvin" thread, had we actually hired him instead of Yost. Which begs the questions... do the D-Back (or other) fans scrutinize Melvin ( /their manager) in the same fashion that we scrutinize Yost? If not, is it because we're more passionate about the Brewers than fans of other teams? or more informed than many other fans (possibly partially due to a community web-site such as this one where the content is something more than superficial)? Is any of this a good thing? I don't know. But, I do know that there is a discernible change in several of Yost's in-game management decisions this season. Who knows? Maybe an 85-page thread screaming Yost-must-go is a contributing factor in those changes. Wouldn't that be something? by the way... as marginal a difference that some decisions can make over the course of a season, it has been argued that there is a statistically right/wrong choice to make virtually every step of the way (within a game). Personally, I think it's a little more gray than some, BUT... let's accept that premise. Why is it that every bench coach in the game is some guy who played the game 20+ years ago that likely doesn't know the first thing about statistical analysis? Why wouldn't a GM insist on putting a stat guy in uniform to crunch probabilities (and even more importantly not leave the interpreting of these probabilities up to someone who is not an expert) as they are happening in the dugout? -- or maybe this is already being done, and I'm just not aware of it. sorry for the multi-topical post, but I was just sort of thinking out loud, and kept going.

Amen! The object is still to score runs, right? Does it matter when they come or how they come?

Riske got two guys easily and then gave up a 390' out. Maybe he becomes our best option to get to Torres soon, but that whole part of the bullpen is still a mess. If Mota's outing yesterday causes him to be one step closer to not being the "8th inning guy," then I'm fine with it. After all, no harm was actually done.

Taking Yost's words out of context and drawing a conclusion that he's an idiot for believing it is a straw-man argument. The sky is green comparison is another form of a straw man argument. But, they both are. I agree. That was my point in the first place. The Ned shots belong somewhere else. And now I've become guilty of this same offense. So, I'll shut up now or send a PM.