adambr2

Original post was from 2/19/85?? Man, you've been waiting awhile for an answer on this one, huh? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif But nah, haven't seen them yet, looking forward to it, though.

I don't have a problem with most of them. Cashman in the top 5 is a joke, though.

He did the same thing with JJ Hardy earlier that week too, I remember being irate about that. I remember that whole week. The reason that he did that, it might have been in the same week, even, is that he did it earlier with a position player, and it actually worked, they put it in play with 2 strikes. Everyone was surprised, and Ned sat there with a "I'm such a genius" smirk on his face in the dugout. Statistically, bunting with 2 strikes with anyone but the pitcher is pretty much always an awful idea, but I was willing to give him a pass based on the fact that it at least worked. Until that made him decide that it because it worked once, so heck, it's a good idea. That was the point where most sensible, logic-using MLB managers can realize, "Hey, I went against the grain, gambled, and it worked. It wasn't conventional, but I caught them off guard. No sense making a habit of it, though." That's sensible logic. Ned's logic was, "It worked for me before, so by God, it'll work again." Well, the law of averages caught up with him. And RoseBowl, I don't really understand where Jeff Suppan having a sacrifice bunt earlier in the game ties into all this. Pitchers have sacrifice bunts all the time because they're bunting in every sacrifice situation, and they're the only ones that you can have bunting with 2 strikes without looking foolish. In the example of Turnbow, we have a pitcher that we've had the entire year to see what his best situations are. He excels when he starts an inning. If you bring him in during an inning, with inherited runners, he stinks up the joint. Plain and simple, Yost knew this, decided to roll the dice, and gambled that this wouldn't happen this time, knowing that he'd be grilled for it if it didn't work, and rightfully so. Well, it didn't work. Yost knew the risk he was taking. He brings up splits and stats all the time, I would hope he knew the situation. I respect your position about the players being accountable for their own performances, I just don't entirely agree with it. I think the players should be accountable for their own performances if they are put in positions to be successful. That's the job of the manager, to put them in a position to succeed. If he doesn't do that, you don't really need a manager, you may as well just have a guy who sets lineups every day.

I respectfully think you're missing a few points here. #1, using splits at Miller Park in 2007 is not a good split to use. That's an extremely small sample size. We can't assume that Pujols gets on base 56.1% of the time just because he did in a small handful of AB's at Miller Park last year. We can assume he gets on base about 42% of the time, his career average. Miller Park is not a pitcher friendly or hitter friendly park, it is fairly neutral. So it's fair to use career stats here. Small sample sizes are what allows Tony Gwynn Jr. to be hitting over .400 in late April despite not actually being a .400 hitter. Secondly, if you cannot evaluate a manager on how his players perform, you cannot evaluate a manager. Since Yost won't be taking the field anytime soon on the team's behalf, you can always claim the player screwed up, not Yost. Is there a purpose to the manager if he cannot be held accountable for his player's actions? If Yost brings Bush in to pinch hit in the 9th inning of a 1 run game, he probably won't come through. I could easily say, "Not Ned's fault that Bush couldn't come through." After all, I can't blame the manager for how the player's perform. Except it's not that simple. The manager needs to put his players in a situation to succeed. It's all about situations, like I mentioned with the Turnbow example, who had proven time and time again that he performed poorly in his given situation. If Shouse comes in with 2 outs and the bases loaded in the 7th to retire a lefty, and that lefty spanks a 3 run double, you bet that's on Shouse. If Shouse comes in with 2 outs in the 7th to face a righty who hits .330 against LHP, and he spanks a 3 run double, I think where the responsibility lies on Yost is fairly obvious.

Here is my problem with that: No, I do not blame Yost for the fact that Turnbow is a head-case who often loses his mind with runners on base. That's Turnbow's fault. I blame Yost for putting runners on base for the pitcher who has proven he is a head-case who often loses his mind with runners on base. That's his fault. And no, we are not happy if Pujol's only gets to 1st in a one run game with the bases empty, because 60% of the time, he should be recording an out in some way and heading back to the dugout. That's like saying I'm not happy if Prince only gets to 1st in a 1 run game, nobody out, and the bases empty. Of course I'm happy with it.

Thank you, now we can all stop thinking that maybe it was just a ball that got away from McClung.

I really got a kick out of those comments by Ned. He says he'd do anything for his players -- does he realize that he hung McClung, a kid who may never even make it in the MLB, completely out to dry? Seth would never admit it, but I bet he doesn't feel Ned did much looking out for his needs. The "real life" aspect of the 25 players goes beyond the scope of the 3 hour game, and Yost did a lot more harm to McClung and his own team's playoff hopes by plunking Pujols than he would have by trying to back his team up by putting the importance of the win first. I'm really struggling to see how Yost really proved himself and made his point and really accomplished anything. There is a time and a place and a player for that crap, and none of the above were right for the situation. I know Ned doesn't have much experience with a playoff race, but in that situation, you find another way to stick up for your players. You confront LaRussa or Thompson after the game. You do something in the first game next year. You DO NOT let it interfere with your playoff race, period. That comes first. There are other ways to defend your players other than sending one of your kids out there to throw a fireball at their best player, Yost. Get creative. Figure it out. Yost's players may always love him, but I want a manager who is more worried about winning the game than how to get back at TLR when my team has a 1.5 game deficit in the division with 5 games to play. If he's looking for "respect" for what he did, he can look elsewhere.

I suppose the hitch would be that he aimed his arm towards Pujols and beaned him with the baseball on his first thrown pitch. Other than that, I can't imagine some kind of way to prove by his delivery that it wasn't intentional. Seriously, I guess I'm impressed with Ned that he has some people doubting, but this is open and shut. If Turnbow isn't warming at the time, or Turnbow starts the inning and beans him with the first pitch, there MIGHT be some doubt. I know Ned is a bit smug at times, but there is no way he or McClung is coming out after the game, looking into the camera, and saying, "I sure did. He had it coming!"

Yes, I read the recap. No, it doesn't mean anything at all. LaRussa basically even makes it a point to subtley call Ned a blockhead by saying that being down 1 run is a terrible time to do that. It's all part of the show.

Well: - McClung was brought in for Turnbow's 8th inning in a 1 run game, McClung was seldom used. - McClung hit Pujol's immediately - It just happened to be Pujols', their star player - Our star player was beaned earlier that game - Turnbow was already warming That's more evidence than you'll see in almost any beanball case. That's like being caught at the murder scene holding a bloody knife over a body but maintaining your innocence based on the fact that you weren't seen doing it. No, short of having bugged the dugout, there's no way to prove Yost's intentions, but I think it's pretty generally accepted that it was intentional.

The bottom about the beanball game to me, is that we were in a pennant race. We would have been 1 game out of the division lead with a win that day going into the final series. I know it's tough to recall the environment, but at the time, it was an absolutely crucial game. So as a fan who hasn't seen my team make the playoffs in over 25 years, I'm not going to just excuse the fact that Yost decided that proving that his nuts were bigger than LaRussa's was more important than doing everything necessary to win the game. LaRussa was in an entirely different position, that being eliminated from playoff contention. Had we also been out of playoff contention, the decision wouldn't have fazed me in the slightest. I'm not questioning that Yost was heavily scrutinized last year, sometimes unfairly. Just as he will be even more scrutinized this year, sometimes without cause. That comes with the terrority, even in a small market. However, I also believe that Yost is in one best situations that any manager could be in. He took over a rebuilding franchise with no expectations which hadn't had a winning season in ages. Suddenly, the draft talent emerged into stars like Braun and Fielder, semi-stars like Hart and Hardy, and potential stars like Gallardo and Weeks. Suddenly, the Brewers got an owner willing to spend $90 million dollars on payroll. So now, any success that the Brewers have reflects well on Yost, because the franchise and fans are so conditioned to a losing Brewers franchise that they don't expect success even with the current talent level of the team. If they lose, he can cite a young team, act like the team is still taking baby steps, and remind us that hey, at least this is better than the Brewers of the 90's and early 00's, because we cracked .500 again. Meanwhile, the service time of Fielder, Braun, Hart, Hardy, Weeks, and Gallardo continues to tick.

.048 is almost nothing, so I doubt it's a misprint. Plus the article specfiically says he was 6 times the legal limit, and .048 is barely even half the legal limit. .480 is pretty unreal. But it is possible. The highest ever BAC known to man is actually from a Bulgarian man, at .914. If you can get a BAC to .480, you have a problem. So pretty clearly, he does.

I also don't understand why Ned is looked at in a negative light for the beanball situation while it was completely ok for LaRussa to act like he did... Is it because we ended up losing a game because of it? I would honestly like to know on this one because I guess I don't see the difference in what LaRussa did to Hart and Fielder earlier in that series and what Yost did to Pujol other than the fact that Turnbow couldn't get out of the inning and the St. Louis pitchers could. Maybe I am missing something about the situation that makes it "inexcusable" and a reason for Nedly to lose his job. Where do I start? Okay, first of all, what LaRussa does is a moot point. No one ever said it was okay for LaRussa to act like he did, but since he is not the manager of the Milwaukee Brewers, what he does is not our concern. Really, all LaRussa did was lay the bait, and Yost gobbled it right down. Secondly, there's an enormous difference to the situations because Yost was in a pennant race, LaRussa was not. If we would have been 10 games under .500 and eliminated from the playoffs when it was done, it wouldn't have been a big deal at all, and no one would care. The fact that he let his personal vendetta distract him from his team's playoff race is the inexcusable part.

I agree with a lot of the mentioned reasons why I'm not a Yost fan. I don't know if I've ever heard him admit to a poor decision or confess a mistake. That makes me feel like he's more apt to keep trying to pound the square peg into the round hole rather than step back and see what's not working and why. I think he absolutely overanalyzes extremely small sample sizes and misleading statistics to a point where he confuses himself. He'll take a 2.00 ERA lefty reliever out of the game for a 6.00 ERA righty reliever and then explain later that the batter at the plate hits .290 against lefties and .265 against righties. He'll seemingly forget how the first pitcher came to get a 2.00 ERA and the second came to get a 6.00 ERA. I think what annoys me just as much as anything about him is his subtley conceited attitude. More than once, when he's been criticized by fans, he has essentially reacted with, "Silly fans. If only they understood the game as well as I." Or in a post game press conference after a loss with some very questionable moves, he'll react to being second-guessed with smirks that say, "I don't care what you think about it, I would have done it the same way 50 times." He doesn't seem to be able to take constructive criticism without interpreting it as a personal attack.

Doesn't mean much, but at this rate Yost is going to manage as long as Bobby Cox, only without the whole winning baseball games tradition thing.

I believe at one point in the season, Mench actually had a lower OBP than batting average. (Yes, it is possible). He didn't seem to have any remote awareness of the strike zone or situation all season.

You poor babies, Charter doesn't even offer FSN HD in my area in Wisconsin Rapids!!! The only HD Brewer games I got were the couple that were shown on ESPN HD. Just giving you crap, guys. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Maybe I get lucky and they do this year!!

The teams I was refering to were NYY, CIN, SEA, and OAK.(so I guess I should have said 4, I also know that some of those teams changed managers over the year, but their closers didn't show much different use when the manager changed) They were the only ones who used their closer more than an inning any significant amount of the time. Chicago got somewhat lucky that they had a younger player who could be stepped over for the closer's role. Saves are about money. You have to have either an inexperienced young guy you can pass over or a guy new to the team if you want somebody else as the closer. So it almost sounds to me like you think that the conventional wisdom managers generally use is wrong as well, but since closers are paid by the save and are paid in accordance to how many saves they have, it almost forces the hand of MLB managers to maximize their save opportunities. Which does make sense, but doesn't seem to be a good thing for baseball. And also reinforces my belief that the save is a very overrated stat.

That is a pretty flimsy arguement to use against a manager as I would say all but 2 or 3 managers stick to that. If you want a different bulpen management you have to change the GM as well. I can almost guarantee you that the next manager does the same thing. As I said before, if we looked as closely at other managers as we do at Yost we would easily find each costing his team 2-3 wins a year. That's a separate argument in itself, but speaking of that method of bullpen management, I do hate it, and the fact that it's just become "conventional wisdom." Talent in the bullpen is great, but it has to be utilized the right way, too. You said 2-3 other teams don't follow that rule, notice that one of those teams won our division last year, and had a very successful bullpen down the stretch. Notice that their best reliever (Marmol) was not the closer, but rather brought in during the most crucial gametime situations. I'd much rather have a closer by committee situation like they had rather than the seemingly daily disasters that we had in the bullpen and the extraordinary amount of 3+ run leads that were blown with the use of our "conventional wisdom."

I know that's the conventional line of thinking, but from having watched almost 162 games, I am fairly confident that that is not the case, or at least wasn't in 2007. Sometime when I'm really bored at work I'll try going reviewing some of the instances on both sides last season.

I know I'm in the minority, but I've always felt that outfield defense was a bit overrated. I can't imagine there being 3 specific losses this season that become wins because Cameron makes a play after being brought in or moved as a defensive switch that wouldn't have been made by the player he replaced.

I agree, a different manager isn't going to make a huge difference. Maybe 2-4 games over the course of a season. However, divisions are usually won or lost by 2-4 games. I promise you that there were at least 2-4 instances last season where a very questionable Yost decision either costed us a victory or kept us from getting a chance at victory, beyond the normal "hindsight is 20/20" type decisions that you see throughout the season.

Well, there's a difference (at least usually) between a team that has a chance at the playoffs and a team that has a chance at a winning record. From what I remember, we did have a plan for 3B going into last season pretty well laid out....platoon Counsell and Graffy, and tread water with that until it was late enough to bring up Braun. It didn't really work out the way we wanted it to, but I don't think it was a bad plan. That was really the only reason we signed Counsell. I hardly think we should feel sorry for the 3B situation we left for Yost because his ROY who hit around .325 35 100 in 4 months didn't field well. As far as the pen, if you would have asked most of us last year, I don't think we would have thought the bullpen was a huge concern going into the season. We had Cordero to close, we had Turnbow as a setup man rather than closer, we had a respectable LOOGY in Shouse, we had a previously reliable 7th inning man in Wise, and we had Villy as our long man. We also had Capellan, Balfour, Bray, and others for depth in AAA. If you could go back to late March last year, I don't think there was a panic at all about the pen, I sure wasn't. I don't have a major problem with Yost getting a shot in '08, but if he doesn't get it done, I do think we've given him ample time at this point to put a playoff team on the field.

I would assume that the Fielder thing is a joke. I hope. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif I agree there is no need to bat Kendall 2nd. I think Gross will get most of Cameron's starts the first 25 games, and I think he should be batting 2nd. I'm not huge on the idea of Cameron batting 2nd, mostly because of his difficulty putting the ball in play. If Jenkins drove you nuts with his swings at strike 3 in the dirt, you're going to hate watching Cameron do it 150 times next year. Hardy batting 2nd isn't a thrilling concept, but I think it's the best option we have. Weeks/Hardy/Fielder/Braun/Hart as the 1-5 is fine with me.

I guess the question would be "why is Yost on the hot seat?" He has only had one good team to work with in 5 years. I guess I don't really agree with that. It depends what you mean by "good." I think he had a good team in '05. He had a good team in '06, although I understand that injuries bombarded that team. He definitely had a playoff-caliber team in '07, and instead, they ended up in familiar terroritory around .500. I don't think there's any question that the talent is on this team, the mix of young guys and vets is there, the big bullpen names are there to help remedy last year's problem, and the starting rotation is deeper than perhaps at any time in franchise history. I know we're not used to it, but there really aren't very many holes on this team. Cameron and Kendall are probably our two weakest links, and even both of them are established veterans who have had solid, successful careers. The payroll isn't even there to blame any more, they've gotten to throw around some cash this off-season. It's not like he's been asked to build this thing from the ground up in 2 years. He's had 5 years already, and been given an unprecedented payroll and plenty of talent. Even if we lost in '08 and it wasn't his fault entirely, there just comes a time in plenty of professional franchises after enough unsuccessful years where you just say, "You know, this just isn't working anymore", and you move on and try another plan. I promise you that Braun, Fielder, Gallardo, Hardy, Hart, and Weeks aren't going to be playing on the same team for their entire careers, and as a fan, I'd much rather at least give another plan a shot rather than continue to wait and wait to see if Yost can really lead a playoff baseball team.