"It's somewhat of a surprise. I know there's people that were critics of Ned, but from my standpoint, it's a solid baseball guy who has gotten us to the point of where we're at right now.

"There's a lot of organizations that try to do things to try to get things turned around like we have in the past few years and Ned is a huge part of that.

Agreed. Absolutely correct. Fact.

But the needs of the team have CHANGED Doug? Why do you repeatedly REFUSE to acknowledge that a manager appropriate for situation "A" is not appropriate for situation "B"?

Over and over folks keep telling me that "Hey, he was fine then. What's changed?"

Do people not work for living? Is everyone self-employed and not aware of how in a dynamic setting different skills are needed for different times, different goals, different strategies?

I remain baffled that such a large number of people can be so incredibly UNAWARE of something so OBVIOUS. That as a department, an organization evolves management must EVOLVE as well.

I have raised this point repeatedly and the responses that work to contradict my statements are never on point. They all go on some other tangent.

Just once. JUST ONCE I would enjoy seeing the counterpoint to my contention that management may remain static in a changing environment. It would either be incredibly stupefying in its blatant stupidity or amazing in its demonstration of twisted, tortured logic.

But I would enjoy seeing someone at least TRY.

As opposed to boring me with red herrings that have no relation whatsoever to my original contention.

That is the mission. Should anyone choose to accept it.

"Jump Start The Club" or "Jump The Shark"?

HW, I wouldn't take what Melvin is saying terribly seriously here. I've never heard a GM explain a mangerial firing by saying something like "seriously, did you see the way this guy managed the bullpen? Doesn't he know Brian Shouse is a lefty specialist? Dude had no idea what the hell he was doing." Doing so would be kicking a man when he's down, airing dirty laundry in public, burning bridges, and various other cliches. So instead, the GM will just figure out different ways to re-phrase the sentence "we just felt this was the right move to make at this time", until the press conference is over. I think that's all we're looking at here. There's nothing to be gained by sharing the real reasoning with the world, so, he doesn't.

DA:

But this has been Doug's message about Yost for three years. He has never once deviated from the mantra.

And I can tell you for a FACT that in selling Yost to ownership after 2007 Melvin wrapped it around the team being close and wanting Ned to see it to "the finish".

The Brewer beat writers have alluded to this several times in radio discussions, blog entries, etc. When it comes to Yost Doug is a "True Believer".

HW, I wouldn't take what Melvin is saying terribly seriously here. I've never heard a GM explain a mangerial firing by saying something like "seriously, did you see the way this guy managed the bullpen? Doesn't he know Brian Shouse is a lefty specialist? Dude has no idea what the hell he's doing." Doing so would be kicking a man when he's down, airing dirty laundry in public, burning bridges, and various other cliches. So instead, the GM will just figure out various ways to re-phrase the sentence "we just felt this was the right move to make at this time" until the press conference is over. I think that's all we're looking at here. There's nothing to be gained by sharing the real reasoning with the world, so, he doesn't.

To the delight of BTFers everywhere, however, the Sun-Times does not share this point of view.

I remain baffled that such a large number of people can be so incredibly UNAWARE of something so OBVIOUS. That as a department, an organization evolves management must EVOLVE as well.

Bill James made this same point, talking about Billy Gardner and the Twins in one of the Abstracts (1986, obviously). When Gardner took over the Twins, they were in the dumper, trying to rebuild a team whose pitching staff had all gotten old at the same time, and whose hitting prospects hadn't developed under Gene Mauch. Gardner took over for John Goryl with the Twins at 11-25, and they improved markedly in the second half of the season. In 1982, Gardner handed full-time jobs to Kent Hrbek and Gary Gaetti, moved prior ROY John Castino from 3B to 2B to make room for Gaetti, inserted 22-YOs Brad Havens and Frank Viola into the rotation, rode the storm for a year (60-102), and then saw improvement over the next three years. By 1984, the Twins spent 52 days in first place and finished second, three games behind the Royals (in a season that was in many ways similar to the Brewers' 2007 campaign). The lineup was young, the rotation was young, and the Twins looked positioned to compete for a long time. Then came 1985. The Twins won their first two games, then lost nine in a row. They straightened out for about a month, got within a game of the top, then dropped 10 in a row and 19 of 25 before Gardner was fired, replaced by Ray Miller, whose primary advantage was that he wasn't Billy Gardner.

James argued that once the Twins moved from developing team to contender, the needs of the team changed - and Gardner didn't change with them. James wrote something about the way that Gardner handled Ron Davis, IIRC, vs what Miller did, and looking at Davis before and after there was a dramatic improvement in his performance.

-- MWE

Mike:

I certainly do not consider my statements to be that original. Anyone with any familiarity with people know this to be the case.

It's just silly to argue that in fluid circumstances the leadership should remain constant. Particularly when the results are unsatisfactory.

I wonder, HW, if anyone here is seriously arguing the contrary of your position. Sometimes people like to tweak a person, and you are eloquent when so tweaked.

Doc:

These discussions have taken place several times over the years. If I was the foil such is life.

One of the problems with trying to acknowledge that managers are good at different things, and that the right manager at one point is not the right manager at another, is the definition of success. Managers (and coaches in other sports) are judged by whether they win championships. Do that, and you get huge contracts, public adulation, and the opportunity to trademark "Threepeat." Those that are good at building young talent into a team that's competitive, but can't get them to the next level, are derided as losers. If the team they built goes on to win titles under their successor, it's worse: they are considered to be underachievers, since it's clear that the talent was there. Success followed in the wake of Doug Collins, but he doesn't get any of the credit from most people for the NBA Championships that followed.

I don't even read any more, man. I just come to this site and see what Harveys has to say today.

Gluey shortporch treatment by Melvin?

I finally get one.

Brewers dismiss another manager.

HW isn't going to like this one, either.

-- MWE

AP: This just in....Ben Sheets shot to put a little spring in Brewers step....

Sweetswing

Mike:

Sigh. That is just plain dumb.

They give Ned 6 years with modest success and Frank wins at all levels, has one bad season and is fired??

It's illogical. As well as being incredibly short-sighted, rude and foolish.

Good grief....

Newsblog: Melvin: Yost Fired To "Jump Start The Club"
(15 - 7:03pm, Sep 16)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

How could you not click that link?

Well, yeah, Harvey, but you were saying fire Ned 2-3 years ago when they were still the young, developing team he was supposed to be good for.

And I would argue with your comparison of running a baseball team to running a business. At least middle managers have some say in whom they hire to work (play) for them, whereas according to you Ned had no input on personnel. Secondly, talking about accountability, there's a lot more variance in the performance of baseball players than in the performance of, say, CPAs or MBAs. A baseball player can and does get away with a bad year or an injured year, while the office drone has no such luxury, really. Not to mention that most people in the real world are employed "at will." That's about all the motivation most people need to do a good job.

Sure, the manager is ultimately accountable on some level. The fans can only go on what we can see - the in-game strategy and lineup decisions we scrutinize so closely - but I still think the essence of what a manager does is largely unmeasured, except that you kind of know it when you see it.

HSF:

Because I anticipated what was evolving and wanted to be proactive versus reactive. Akin to trading a seemingly productive veteran player under the maxim of better a year early than a year late.

And I completely disagree with the assessment of an office environment. You have folks living off past achievements, #ss kissers who stay around thanks to a boss who enjoys their "affection", folks who are content to just get by so are nonthreatening and a few go-getters who get things done. You need new management at times to flush out the chaff and shake things up.

While there are no direct or "perfect" comparisons management principles have lots of crossover impact between settings.

Or why is it that every company around pays big bucks to hear various coaches opine on "how to win"?

Good effort there. Far superior to the usual drivel from others. You must be eating your Wheaties.