Robideaux

Ok, I'll bite. If he understands platoon splits why did he leave Mench in to hit against a righty? Backupcatcher, That's not an objective right/wrong situation. That's simply a gut feeling. There is no objective right/wrong in that situation. There has to be an alternative that is clearly better (in my mind) to rightly criticize a manager. Otherwise it's simply second-guessing.

Every manager makes moves that look "blatantly dumb" in hindsight. I don't expect a manager to have the ability to look into a crystal ball to divine the eventual outcome of every move. Where Ned drives me crazy is when the move he makes in inexcusable prior to the outcome (see Mench/Jenkins Cubs game). The manager's job is to make the move that gives the team the best opportunity to win. Ned hasn't always done that; sure some other managers fail at times in this regard, but most good one's understand platoon splits.

I'm solidly on the "Ned Yost should have been fired last year" bandwagon, but I think we should probably wait to hang him in effigy until he actually does something blatantly dumb. Given his track record, it is bound to happen sooner or later. Blaming him for nebulous things like pressing/stifling a team playing .600 ball just undermines the legitimate gripes that are sure to come. You know the whole "Cry Wolf" thing.

I understand how money/options work into the mix, but I think it would be borderline masochistic for a team in the midst of a pennant race to send down arguably their 2nd or 3rd best pitcher because they are worried about losing someone like Seth McClung. Sure, McClung can hit triple digits, but he is simply not a major league caliber pitcher. It would be one thing if he was 21, but I am willing to go out on a limb and fortell that those waiting for McClung to shake free the bonds of his 6+ ERA chrysalis and emerge a dominant reliever/butterfly are going to be sorely disappointed. McClung is not good. The end. As for Cameron's triumphant return--I say cut Kapler. One week does not an all-star make. By the time Cameron is set to return, Kapler will once again be a pumpkin. (apparently a lack of sleep brings out the cheezy methapors in me)

Stat guys say that Glaus isn't any good? That doesn't sound right. Low batting average, decent walk rate, power--that seems like the type of guy who is generally undervalued by fans who mostly use triple crown statistics as a gauge of talent. With Eckstein, its not that people say he's bad, rather that the glorification of his scrappyness/grittyness/intagibles is a bit overblown. Pierre? Yeah, he was actually pretty good there for a few years in Florida and Colorado, but he's now a singles-hitting out machine. I think your on to something with the quickness to change. I think baseball is so steeped in tradition that a certain segment of fans, managers, and execs, are simply resistant to change (regardless of the form).

Yeah, Gagne got squeezed a bit, but that's what happens when you are really wild--the umps are in default ball mode and unless you show you can throw a strike, you're not going to get the close ones. Those definately would have been strikes for Maddux (circa 1995). I think the same thing happens to hitters with great eyes at the plate, Bonds or Thomas or Williams was going to get the called ball on the corner more than Johnny Estrada because they have shown good knowlege of the strike zone.

I don't think that Gwynn is very good, but if he can put up a stat line like he did in AAA in 2006 (.300/.360/.396) this season, with his defense he is not a total 0. The thing that scares me is that .300 batting average might confuse people in the organization into thinking that he is a good hitter and deserving of more PT.

RyDog, Hanley >>> Renteria Fielder > Lee Sheets =/> hurt Beckett (or at least even--look at beckett prior to last season) I'd do it in a heartbeat. Lee can at least come close to Fielder's stats (maybe a little less power, but the average and the potential SB's will close the gap). Hanley might be the second best player in fantasy baseball, and I'll take a healthy Sheets over a hurt Beckett. In my opinion Beckett was overrated this year anyway. He was good last year, but his career has been good, but not great (postseason excepted).

I was reading the thread about Neyer's 50 best players over the next 5 years and came across a few digs at ESPN. This isn't the first time I've come across this...here and at other sites. I was just wondering why those of you who hate ESPN feel that way. I've got no reason to defend them; I am simply curious. It seems like Red Sox fans hate ESPN because all they do is hype the Yankees. Yankee fans hate ESPN because they overhype the Red Sox. And fans of every other team hate ESPN because all they do is cover the Yankees and the Red Sox. Do I ever get annoyed at ESPN? Sure. That whole "Who's NEXT" thing was pretty obnoxious. Some of their weekday programming is a bit too much entertainment and not enough sports (ie. around the horn and that annoying Skip Bayless guy) , but overall it's probably the television channel that I watch more than all others. I like sports and its a channel devoted to them. ps. in my opinion Rob Neyer is generally fairly competant about baseball, but the list he made was not his best work. Melky? C'mon.

pogo, I'm interested. I sent you a pm.

At the risk of getting a bit off topic, Phil Jackson won 9 championships prior to the Gasol trade--including 3 during his "average" stint with the Lakers. LaRussa made it to 3 straight World Series with the 1988-1990 A's. He won the championship in 1989 (though he probably should have won at least 2 with those teams). Prior to moving to St. Louis, he had been named manager of the year three times and had a video game named after him. Even though your examples (aside from Belichick) aren't the best, your point is well taken...good players make managers look good and bad players make them look bad. I think that a bad manager can win a championship (Ozzie Guillan) and a good manager will lose big games and series with good players (take your pick). I would argue that we should judge Yost not only on the results (W/L, whether a specific move works), we should judge him on the logic (or lack thereof) underpinning his decisions. If he is making the right moves and he is just getting unlucky--well that should even out--but if he is making patently incorrect strategic decisions, then that is less likely to change for the better. P.S. I can't wait until Ned Yost Baseball 2008 hits stores! It's a baseball sim where you accrue points for making strategical dubious baseball decisions and polarizing the fanbase with your stubborn insistence that everybody is just second-guessing you.

colby, I understand what you're saying--I don't mean to criticize the job that Jack Z. and Co. have done. Regardless of the resources that they have been given in terms of allocable money to spend on draft picks, they have been brilliant in terms of player evaluation in the draft. I'm more talking about the general mindset behind the draft/farm system. I would argue that an extra $3 million tossed into every draft would ultimately be better spent than $2-3 million spent on the 24th player on your major league roster-- say, someone like Mota or Vargas. You're telling me that in a perfect world you wouldn't rather have had Doug Melvin non-tender Estrada and throw Mota's salary into the draft? Sure every over-slot guy won't pan out, but if in every draft you take a late 1st round guy who would have gone earlier or a 2nd rounder who would have gone in the 1st if not for fiscal responsibility, given Zduriencik's track record, don't you think the Brewers would benefit in the long run? Ultimately, where in the entire baseball operation, from players to scouting to stadium upkeep, do you want to see that last $3 million invested? I say skimp on the 24th or 25th man, use minor leaguers or guys making the minimum who will probably be just as good as your worst 2-3 million dollar bench players. I understand the reality of the situation--commissioners office putting pressure on teams to pay only slot money--but since there is no real penalty, isn't it foolish to let our rivals exploit the system while we sit idly by and bemoan the fact that the rich clubs are getting richer through a flawed system. We can't compete with the Mets or the Cubs for free-agents, but we could compete for draft picks.

Jim Callis answered a question in a chat on ESPN.com about draft slot money: Jim, you mentioned Coomley would not be afraid to go over slot now that he is with a club. If that happens, what is stopping every other team from ignoring slot recommendations? If the person that was in charge of coming up with those guidelines is not going to follow them, why should anyone else? Jim Callis: Coonelly didn't come up with the guidelines . . . I think Sandy Alderson did. Coonelly's job was ot enforce them. But yes, there are more teams asking that question. Not just because of Coonelly's comments but because of seeing two over-slot guys be the key to the Cabrera/Willis trade and the Red Sox and Yankees build up their farm systems by being aggressive. I've said this many times, but it's silly not to go over slot in the draft. The way the system works, good players will fall to you. And by investing $7 million or $8 million in the draft, as compared to the average of $5 million, you can rake in a disproportionate amount of talent. Just silly not to do that, especially for non-contenders. Most teams can't compete with the Mets, Red Sox and Yankees for free agents, but everyone can compete with them for draftees. I've always been puzzled by teams like the Brewers passing on talented players because they won't sign for "slot" value. It seems like you put yourself at a competitive disadvantage because you are trying to save a couple million dollars--which is peanuts in today's baseball marketplace. If you throw an extra $3 million into the draft to "reach" for a couple talented players who happened to drop for sign-ability reasons all you need is one out of 3 of your reaches to pan out to make it financially advantageous. The only way for small-market teams to be competitive these days is to have the perfect storm of prospects come up together and all be playing on their rookie/early arbitration contracts. Any thoughts?

You're right, he would, but not necessarily by virtue of his talent. If he was Jeff Suppan, $800,000 starting pitcher extraordinaire, he might be on the outside looking in. Of that 5 who is he clearly better than?

I'd give up Villanueva, Bush or Capuano, TGJ, and 1 of: (escobar, gillespie, ford, or other prospect not named LaPorta, Parra, or Gamel). I don't know if the Orioles would do that, but that rotation would be sick: Sheets Bedard Gallardo Bush or Capuano (the one they didn't want) Parra

This is my top 20--though I'm sure I probably left somebody off. I generally went with career value with the Brewers (as opposed to 1 o 2 big seasons--Vuchovich, Sutton, etc.), though I didn't include the Wegman's and Haas' of the world who were simply ok for a long time. I thought about leaving Gantner off because of his mediocrity. but I couldn't because of his longevity. I didn't really rank them all per se, but I did try to seperate them into tiers (but to be honest I didn't spend much time on this and there are a few guys in tier 3 who could easily be in tier 2). I left off Fielder, but if he retired tommorow because of some crazy situation, I'd probably bump somebody like Nilsson for him. Yount Molitor ------- Cooper Higuera Sheets Jenkins ------ Sexson Cirillo Oglivie Fingers Thomas Simmons Scott Money Caldwell Plesac Burnitz Bosio Gantner Nilsson

I got in to a debate with Tangotiger over at The Book about this subject. His claim was that relative to contract, over the next 5 years Tulo will be the "most valuable young player" in baseball. I realize that Tulowitzki's defense, according to most metrics, is beyond reproach, but I just can't get past his huge home/road splits. Career at Coors: .317/.382/.527 with a .370 BABIP Career on the Road: .250/325/.381 with a .294 BABIP Even if we allow that his road BABIP might be somewhat unlucky, even if it was more like .310 on the road, he is not the offensive juggernaut that he appears to be. I guess my question for those more statistically inclined than myself is this: Is is fair to simply double his road split and theorize that that is his normative offensive baseline up to this point? Is that overcompensating? Thanks. Not sure what happened with the formatting? ------------------------ (Formatting fixed, I think. --1992)

I was pretty indifferent on Ned heading in to last season--probably more positive than negative overall. Probably because I never really felt that a baseball manager has a really big influence on wins and losses and I thought the players generally liked him and played hard even down the stretch in losing seasons. Last year changed my mind. There was a pattern of questionable to bad decisions that eventually wore out my patience. I have to say that the Cubs game (you know the one) was the absolute last straw for me. I am not sure that I have ever witnessed an equally horrible, completely inexplicable strategic decision in a crucial moment of a baseball game. It was indefensible--and still is to this day. Before Mench swung (in between an expletive filled rant aimed at the television) I turned to my friends and said that if I was Mark A., I would fire Yost right after the game win or lose (unless Jenks was hurt, or ill, or something of that ilk). Why? Because results matter, but a manager should also be judged on his decision making process--and that game demonstrated that Yost's decision making process is seriously flawed. It's not that we lost that game (odds are that we still would have lost even with Jenkins at the plate), it's that we have no reason to have faith in Ned to make the right decision next time or the time after that. For the 12 people out there not related to Ned that still think he is the best manager available to the Brewers, I most concede that he has been unfairly blamed for many many things that are not his fault. If a manager makes a decision that is somehow defensible (essentially a coin flip statistically) and it doesn't work out, he shouldn't be bashed. Those criticisms are results-based as opposed to a criticism of his decision making process. I'm not saying that results do not matter--of course they do--in baseball just like any other business, but in a sport where the best teams lose 40% of their games, trying to divine a manager's results based on one game or one play in one game is akin to bashing the CEO of a company if the stock value dips by half a point on one given day. You need a longer span of time to make a results-based criticism of a manager. I am not saying his results are good (or bad necessarily), but I do understand how tiresome it can get to hear people reflexively bash him for decisions that are only clear with the benefit of hindsight. That being said, when your manager makes decisions that don't require hindsight to determine that they are wrong, that when I think its time for him to go... I would fire Yost tonight if it was up to me, but unless the ax falls within the first few weeks of the season, I don't want to see Yost fired during the season--for the simple reason that if he is fired mid-season, it probably means that the team is out of the playoff hunt and nobody wants that. I'm just going to cross my fingers and hope that Doug made Ned do some summer reading or sit down in a room with a "nerd" to learn how to exploit the platoon advantage.

Relative run value: HR:10 Triple: 8 double:6 single:4 walk: 3 steal: 1 By the way: can you really do a relative offensive value for a successful stolen base without somehow taking into account the risk of getting caught stealing? Entertainment: Inside the park home run: 10 home run: 9 triple: 8 double: 6 steal: 4 single: 3 walk: 2

No rumor or anything, just a question. Would you trade Bill Hall straight up for Reggie Willits? Now that LAA picked up Hunter, they have glut of outfielders. They could potentially be interested in Hall as an infielder. Willits, thus far in his major and minor league career, has been an on-base machine(~.400). Plus, although I haven't looked at any stats, I have got to imagine that he is better in CF than Hall. On the down side, Willits has Tony Gwynn Jr-esqe power. Hall could outhomer him by 30 next year (if Hall hits 30 HRs). That makes me question if Willits on-base is sustainable long term. I have to say, I wouldn't mind a fast guy who gets on-base 40% of the time at the top of the line-up (plus, we wouldn't be subjected to Kendall in the 2 hole). Potential Lineup: CF Willits 2B Weeks 3B Braun 1B Fielder RF Hart LF Unknown SS Hardy C Kendall

Barrett's arm is no better than Estrada's. Career CS%: Estrada: .239 Barrett: .226 2007 CS% Estrada: .131 Barrett: .163 I'm not a big Estrada fan, and I wouldn't mind taking a chance on Barrett if the price is right, but if you're going out to get Michael Barrett it ain't because of his throwing arm--its because you hope he puts up an OPS north of .800 again.

Could we get that package for sheets?

After starting over about 10 times, I finally got on a hot streak and made it up to 43--and then promptly missed 3 out of the 4 and quit. I always get stumped by the fauna/flora/horse-head armor ones. Apparently I didn't pay enough attention during Biology as a kid.

I don't know that much about their projection methods, but I know some people use them as a tool. Thought some might find them interesting. www.baseballthinkfactory.org Activated link - b19

Why? I can see a few arguments in favor of that. 1. Winn will outproduce Gross/Mench (I think that is unlikely) 2. Winn's defense makes us for a potential slight downgrade in offense? (I haven't looked at the numbers) 3. Yost doesn't know how to correctly platoon players, and Winn would save us all from 100+ largely unproductive ABs by Mench against RHP 4. You don't like platoons I am skeptical of 1 & 2. Argument #3 worries me (I'm still bitter about the Cub's game). Four is a pretty facile argument, but one that many hold.