Fire Dusty Baker!

[MarquisDeSade]

This is mathematically, proven, objectively bad strategy. Matt Williams used steroids, but ironically, Dusty Baker is Matt Williams on steroids.

Somewhere in Kansas City this guy shakes his head at you. 

[HalfSmokes]

You realize they've moved the fences in at Petco a couple of times now, right?  Obviously not enough but they have moved them in some. 

his biggest successes, bell, adams, Gregorson, a 40 year old Hoffman, were products of the old petco fences- just scrolling through baseballreference, it looks like the absurd bullpen numbers went away the same time the fences came in

[BeltwayBaseball]

Throw in the awful bullpen (current status: awful) and I don't see where Dusty or Bud Black are going to have an impact one way or the other.

If somehow the holes do get patched up, then I think it's clear where it could make a difference. Assuming some don't, but there's still a way the team can contend, that means the manager will make an even bigger difference - in a situation where he actually can make a difference, the manager who makes the right decision has a better chance of coming out on top. If the team loses the division by one game, and there's that one game where Dusty put Blake Treinen in the bottom of the 13th vs a slew of lefties because "I can't go to (closer) on the road," it'll be that call right there. You can find as many games that Matt Williams affected this year. Had the Nats won four of the six they lost to the Mets in those dual sweeps (and of those six, you could find at least four that Williams screwed up, I think everybody remembers Felipe in extras, Joe Ross in the 7th, Max Scherzer in the 6th etc etc) they would have been the division champs.

Go get some air.

I will be soon

[HalfSmokes]

As for objective standard, it's pretty simple. It's mathematically measured.

so what is the standard- you gave a bunch of maxims, but you said there was an objective standard, and now a mathematically measured objective standard, that implies the existence of an actual standard, I would love to see a link to that formula

[BeltwayBaseball]

Somewhere in Kansas City this guy shakes his head at you. 

(Image removed from quote.)

For Yost's mistakes (Putting Yordano in relief in the WC game last year) he does understand that playoff managing is different than regular season. And he can see that even though Alcides Escobar as crappy OBP, he's a catalyst. Even Bryan Kenny conceded, when you looked at the lineup when Escobar lead off and when he didn't, the Royals did better with him at the top with a big sample size.

[BeltwayBaseball]

so what is the standard- you gave a bunch of maxims, but you said there was an objective standard, and now a mathematically measured objective standard, that implies the existence of an actual standard, I would love to see a link to that formula

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/why_does_17obpslg_make_sense/

That is one link (including formulas) that tries to go into the depth of why OBP is so important. Dusty disregards it for no reason. That is only one facet but such a glaring one I think it automatically disqualifies him. I am sure if you do some googling you can find articles about bullpens and win probability added, and bunts and win probability added.

Edit: Have some more

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902event.html
http://www.hardballtimes.com/the-one-about-win-probability/
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/all-that-ned-yost-bunting-has-helped-the-royals/
http://www.hardballtimes.com/10-lessons-i-have-learned-about-win-probability-added/
http://www.camdenchat.com/2014/6/5/5781486/evaluating-orioles-bullpen-usage-using-leverage-index
http://www.blessyouboys.com/2015/6/13/8771935/detroit-tigers-ausmus-bullpen-evaluation

[MarquisDeSade]

For Yost's mistakes (Putting Yordano in relief in the WC game last year) he does understand that playoff managing is different than regular season. And he can see that even though Alcides Escobar as crappy OBP, he's a catalyst. Even Bryan Kenny conceded, when you looked at the lineup when Escobar lead off and when he didn't, the Royals did better with him at the top with a big sample size.

So, your point is what exactly - there is no standard? 

[HalfSmokes]

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/why_does_17obpslg_make_sense/

That is one link (including formulas) that tries to go into the depth of why OBP is so important. Dusty disregards it for no reason. That is only one facet but such a glaring one I think it automatically disqualifies him. I am sure if you do some googling you can find articles about bullpens and win probability added, and bunts and win probability added.

For Yost's mistakes (Putting Yordano in relief in the WC game last year) he does understand that playoff managing is different than regular season. And he can see that even though Alcides Escobar as crappy OBP, he's a catalyst. Even Bryan Kenny conceded, when you looked at the lineup when Escobar lead off and when he didn't, the Royals did better with him at the top with a big sample size.

if the standard is objective (I'm not seeing how OBP being a good thing is actually a standard for evaluating a manager any more than saying home runs are good) then the concept of batting a low OBP catalyst first makes no sense, unless, like most things in baseball, it's actually something that's subjective and there really is no mathematical based standard

[BeltwayBaseball]

So, your point is what exactly - there is no standard?

No, that you need to look at the numbers. Sometimes numbers go against eachother. Conventionally, higher OBP needs to be at the top of the order. However, looking at the numbers, for some reason when they didn't put Escobar up top, they played like crap. That's all the correlation you need: look at the numbers, find out what you did that gave you good numbers and what you did when you played like crap, and do whatever made you win instead. Given a large sample size and the numbers, go with whatever gives you the best result. I have a strong feeling Michael A Taylor at the top of the lineup did not help the Nats like Escobar did with the Royals.

It doesn't help to be a slave to the numbers, but it doesn't help to be ignorant of them and just go by feel all the time either.

[MarquisDeSade]

No, that you need to look at the numbers. Sometimes numbers go against eachother. Conventionally, higher OBP needs to be at the top of the order. However, looking at the numbers, for some reason when they didn't put Escobar up top, they played like crap. That's all the correlation you need: look at the numbers, find out what you did that gave you good numbers and what you did when you played like crap, and do whatever made you win instead. Given a large sample size and the numbers, go with whatever gives you the best result. I have a strong feeling Michael A Taylor at the top of the lineup did not help the Nats like Escobar did with the Royals.

It doesn't help to be a slave to the numbers, but it doesn't help to be ignorant of them and just go by feel all the time either.

This is a troll account, right?  What you just posted made so little sense I'm starting to believe that you're PowerBoater69.

[BeltwayBaseball]

This is a troll account, right?  What you just posted made so little sense I'm starting to believe that you're PowerBoater69.

http://www.pinetarpress.com/no-explanation-needed-royals-succeed-with-escobar-leading-off/

Sometimes, it just works. Other times, you need to look at the numbers. You need a manager willing to do both. We have a manager unwilling to look at the numbers.

[houston-nat]

This is a troll account, right?  What you just posted made so little sense I'm starting to believe that you're PowerBoater69.

That reminds me, did we ever figure out who ExposFan was?

[BigMeech]

That reminds me, did we ever figure out who ExposFan was?

Justin Trudeau.

[skippy1999]

Justin Trudeau.

 

[HattoriHanzo]

http://www.pinetarpress.com/no-explanation-needed-royals-succeed-with-escobar-leading-off/

Sometimes, it just works. Other times, you need to look at the numbers. You need a manager willing to do both. We have a manager unwilling to look at the numbers.

The Lerners/Rizzo refuses to hire sabermetric managers when everyone in the league is going that route. 

[zimm_da_kid]

I like the hire.  I'm not going to bother trying to defend it though against the people here.

[Ray D]

Well, if Rizzo is smart, he'll trade Michael Taylor, so we won't have to deal with him leading off.

[wpa2629]

Are we sure Dusty is the manager? If I wake up tomorrow will it be someone else??

[NJ Ave]

I mean, I think the notion that Dusty Baker - a man with a career 9.5 BB% - is a poor manager because of some quote he made 7 years ago is pretty silly. Focusing on the "clogging the bases" part of it is humorous, but lacks the context of the whole quote:

“I’m big on driving in runs and scoring runs,” Baker said. “Guys in the middle should score about close to equal to what they drive in. On-base percentage, that’s fine and dandy. But a lot of times guys get so much into on-base percentage that they cease to swing. It’s becoming a little bit out of control.

“What you do is run the pitcher’s count up, that helps,” Baker said. “You put him in the stretch, that helps. But your job in the middle is to either score them or drive them in. The name of the game is scoring runs. Sometimes, you get so caught up in on-base percentage that you’re clogging up the bases.”

I think the bolded section is the important section. It's not so much the guys already on base that are "clogging the bases" but it's the guys who passively look for walks with men on second and third instead of looking for pitches to drive in runners.

I'm not sure as a stats guy that I agree with the contextualized sentiment either, but it's not an uncommon way to think in baseball. Being a strong believer in situational hitting is far different from "not believing in OBP" or whatever nonsense this quote has become.

Let's take this example - men on second and third with one out. Your AVERAGE run expectancy in that situation is 1.38 runs. If your hitter takes a walk to load the bases, your AVERAGE run expectancy goes up to 1.545 runs. That's a 12% increase in run expectancy - so easy decision right?

But what if the hitter who walks is a significantly better hitter than the one who follows? What if it's Bryce hitting 3rd and Yunel hitting 4th? What if it's the 8 inning and you're down a run, rather than the 4th inning up 3 runs?

Anyways, I just think it's possible that Dusty Baker isn't as stupid as he's made out to be.

[Ray D]

I mean, I think the notion that Dusty Baker - a man with a career 9.5 BB% - is a poor manager because of some quote he made 7 years ago is pretty silly. Focusing on the "clogging the bases" part of it is humorous, but lacks the context of the whole quote:

“I’m big on driving in runs and scoring runs,” Baker said. “Guys in the middle should score about close to equal to what they drive in. On-base percentage, that’s fine and dandy. But a lot of times guys get so much into on-base percentage that they cease to swing. It’s becoming a little bit out of control.

“What you do is run the pitcher’s count up, that helps,” Baker said. “You put him in the stretch, that helps. But your job in the middle is to either score them or drive them in. The name of the game is scoring runs. Sometimes, you get so caught up in on-base percentage that you’re clogging up the bases.”

I think the bolded section is the important section. It's not so much the guys already on base that are "clogging the bases" but it's the guys who passively look for walks with men on second and third instead of looking for pitches to drive in runners.

I'm not sure as a stats guy that I agree with the contextualized sentiment either, but it's not an uncommon way to think in baseball. Being a strong believer in situational hitting is far different from "not believing in OBP" or whatever nonsense this quote has become.

Let's take this example - men on second and third with one out. Your AVERAGE run expectancy in that situation is 1.38 runs. If your hitter takes a walk to load the bases, your AVERAGE run expectancy goes up to 1.545 runs. That's a 12% increase in run expectancy - so easy decision right?

But what if the hitter who walks is a significantly better hitter than the one who follows? What if it's Bryce hitting 3rd and Yunel hitting 4th? What if it's the 8 inning and you're down a run, rather than the 4th inning up 3 runs?

Anyways, I just think it's possible that Dusty Baker isn't as stupid as he's made out to be.

I agree, and the quote seems quite thoughtful.  The "clogging" part is unfortunate.  He could have left that out, and if he did, lots of critics would have nothing to quote, and the whole view of him might be quite different.

[BeltwayBaseball]

Anyways, I just think it's possible that Dusty Baker isn't as stupid as he's made out to be.

I don't think he's stupid, just out of date and stubborn, like Williams. At least he'll be a better communicator, if his decision making doesn't bury the team.

[HalfSmokes]

Well, if Rizzo is smart, he'll trade Michael Taylor, so we won't have to deal with him leading off.

Williams did it with Taylor for 39 games vs 70 batting 8th.  Nyger being fast was Acta's excuse, the 2012 team won with Desmond hitting there 38 times, Lombardozzi 58 times, even espinosa got 26 games there. I'd expect to see Taylor starting the season there (especially if turner is in AAA) because fast which seems to be the default logic too many times - not really sure who should lead off looking at the roster, probably werth or escobar?

[skippy1999]

Are we sure Dusty is the manager? If I wake up tomorrow will it be someone else??

[wpa2629]

Much of the Dusty hate is way overblown - the more I read about him the less I think he'll be awful. Handling prickly clubhouses seems to be a forte, that could be very useful - who knows.

Seems silly to think one shortened quote taken out of context could be a life long meme

Stranger things have happened, I guess.

The real issue here  to me is how all this went down - I'm so over DC Sports Clown Shows - it's tiresome

[NJ Ave]

I agree, and the quote seems quite thoughtful.  The "clogging" part is unfortunate.  He could have left that out, and if he did, lots of critics would have nothing to quote, and the whole view of him might be quite different.

Right, or how does the quote change if he said "Sometimes, you get so caught up in on-base percentage that you’re clogging up the bases instead of clearing them.”

The original quote was interpreted as him not liking guys being on base (which is obviously idiotic) but I think he was basically saying that guys should be more aggressively trying to drive in runs when there were runners on base, which still is arguable but is not ridiculous at all and is probably the opinion of most of the managers in MLB.