Kelly had not pitched in 5 days. I'm not sure why you wouldn't try to get more than 29 pitches out of him. I liked the fact that he brought him in early. An unexpected change. I would have liked to see him try to get at least one more inning out of him.Originally Posted by MADSTORK
And I don't disagree with that.
And I'm sure you're not really intending to do this, but some of your statements leave the impression that once the game starts the manager can pretty much have a snooze.
didn't somebody actually fall asleep in the Nationals dugout just a few years ago? lol
Not so much a snooze, but a lot of the game is not in his control. Unless you think it's good practice to micromanage and make every pitch call from the bench and use a lot of offensive strategy such as bunting, hit and run, and base stealing to attempt to "make" things happen on the field. But even the most active in game managers still can't call for a home run swing or a strike out pitch or a double play ball or a slow chopper past the pitcher or a great catch in the outfield etc.
Yes and no. I was thinking more of who starts the game i.e, depending on their ability to hit certain pitchers or platooning and broad strategies such as that. Pinch hitting and other in game moves are much more of a crap shoot. It has to do with sample size and best utilizing the largest sample to get the most out of each player.
For Kimmi and others who don't want to throw managers on the ash heap of history, my earlier post was not intended to argue that we don't need managers--good managers--because in fact we do. If nothing else, management of the pitching staff--who to start, how long to keep them in, who relieves and when and for how long--is a big job all by itself. I'm sure some managers are better at that than others, but at the end of the day much depends on what those pitchers actually do on the mound in any given game.
Take yesterday's game in Chicago, a perfect example. It was Price's first start after missing most of two months plus ST and having just had to so-so outings at best for Pawtucket. I got the NESN feed on mlb.com and Remy was complaining for most of the 4th and all of the 5th inning that Farrell should have had someone warming up in the bullpen. But in fact Price just gave up that costly 3 run dinger in the 3d (after two walks) but otherwise had 4 scoreless innings, including the 4th and 5th, and only threw 88 pitches.
I thought Kelly was the right guy to bring in next because now the Sox had the lead, 4-3, and needed 4 scoreless innings. Unfortunately, Barnes gave up those 2 runs, but the first one came after a triple that was just a great swing because it was a curveball either low in the zone or below the zone that was semi-golfed down the RF line. And the next hit, a double, was an opposite field fly/drive down the same line. Plus let's give the White Sox player who scored from 2b on a Cabrera single that Rutledge fielded some credit--he gambled he could score and it worked. After those 2 runs, the Sox still had 2 innings to score, but of course were out of gas with just 4 hits total in the game.
Pitching changes are in-game moves as are defensive replacements, shifts, and other game strategy such as moving the runners and pinch hitting. It seem that there is a back-tracking by admitting that certain managerial game functions are significant while other decisions are deemed statistically insignificant. The conclusions as to what is insignificant and what is significant strikes me as somewhat random. Whether a manager uses his bullpen correctly and makes wise pitching changes seems just as hard to quantify as any other game decision.
The King of TalkSox has Spoken.
I actually think that "significant" doesn't often apply to any managerial decision because so much depends on that pitcher and/or that batter. That's why I cited the White Sox game yesterday because: 1) I thought leaving Price in for 5 innings made sense, ditto Kelly in the 6th, and Barnes in the 7th. Yes, Barnes gave up two runs, but the triple as a minimum was a surprise given where the pitch was thrown. I think you have to credit both Chicago batters who hit the triple and then the double, and the latter for scoring from 2b on a grounder fielded by Rutledge.
I do think Price blew it in the 3d when he first walked two guys, then had the hot Cabrera at bat and gave him a pitch right down the middle which he hammered. But overall I'm happy with his 5 innings.
What I'm trying to say that most of the time the manager's decisions are sensible and supportable, but either our guys don't do their jobs--yesterday it was hitting--well or the other team does their jobs better.
I do think that some managers are better at managing players--personalities--than others.
Some of the best managers were despised by their players.
The King of TalkSox has Spoken.
For each type of cancer, there are morbidity statistics. One thing is for certain. If you don't have a good Oncologist working on your case, the greater the chance you will die, but not everyone who goes untreated will die from the cancer. People have been known to go into spontaneous remission although it is rare. If you have the best Oncologist in the world, your chances of survival would increase, but even the best Oncologist loses patients (and even some that they are sure they can save). The morbidity statistics are the big sample size and give you the best indication of chances of surviving. No one would Google the survival stats and see a morbidity likelihood of 65% and conclude that the quality of the doctor doesn't matter.
The outcome of a game is much less certain than the outcome of a cancer case, but you give yourself the best chance of winning if you have a good manager who consistently makes the high percentage and smart moves. The additional games that the good manager will win for you as opposed to a dumb ass manager is very difficult measure with accuracy.
The King of TalkSox has Spoken.
Well even if there is nothing important about the job, and that is not at all what I'm saying, somebody has to do it. Somebody has to run the ship.
Managers have to deal with the media without creating a media circus at every turn (see Bobby valentine). A good manager will know how to get the best out of his players by the atmosphere that he creates in the clubhouse.
And no, I have not given them a pass on teaching smart baserunning and fielding. I just said that those fundamentals should already be well established by the time a player reaches the major leagues.
No, but the manager can pretty much kick back and just "sit and spit". LOL
Joking, of course.
Managers do have to make in game decisions. But often times, just letting the players do their thing is the best way to manage the game.
There is no evidence of any manager being able to repeat that skill.
Good management and supervision is important to the success of any business or industry. The only exception might be when you have a group of skilled and self motivated employees. That does not happen too often.
I can't think of any, but I also can't disagree because I don't know enough.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote