Doug Melvin sums up half of the problems:

"In our situation [being a smaller-revenue team], when we make offseason decisions, we're not a club that can flip-flop and go somewhere in a different direction. You pretty well have to live with your offseason decisions."

So, because we're spending $10 million on the guy, we have no choice but to send him out there game after game to walk the bases loaded? ########.

This really does lend itself to a question appropriate to BBTF. Has Yost tenure been sufficient to determine whether he merits remaining as a big league manager? I am not asking about the actual QUALITY of work. Is five years, 800 plus games enough?

I do. I believe five years is MORE than sufficient time to ascertain whether someone has the skills necessary for the job.

When I ask this question folks always get caught up in the changing context for each individual season. And I wave my hand and say, "No. Is period X sufficient to know whether this person will have long-term success?".

Because if it had been a PLAYER there is no way on God's green earth somebody would have gotten five years from the time he reached the majors to prove he is worthy of a roster spot.

I say this as someone who doesn't follow the Brewers, really, at all - what is it that Yost is doing wrong? Making bad decisions re: pitching changes? Sticking with players who suck for too long?

jerry,

let me answer right quick here because i worry about harvey's blood pressure

yost he doesn't get to make real too many decisions about who plays where and when any more because he got zero sense and so now his real problem is that he has exactly ZERO idea how to manager pitchers/bullpen/pinch hitters

he really has no business being a ML manager.

Hm, so he's sort of like Terry Bevington, then?

Terry Bevington was dumber than ten Tommy Lasordas.

JRE:

Oh geez, where do I start?

Ok, let's start from the global view.

A good manager has responsibility for evaluating the available talent, coordinating the talent, motivating the talent, in-game tactical moves, pitching management (which I think is a distinct skill set), and balancing short-term vs. long-term needs.

Because of deficiencies discovered during his tenure Ned's role has been stripped down to motivating the talent, in-game tactical moves and pitching management. ALL OTHER DECISIONS are handled at an organization level with MINIMAL input from Ned. They pretend he participates but everything that can be gleaned from the various reports is that Melvin, Ash and Co. decide who is going to play, where and what the overall team approach is going to be. Ned is their on-field instrument. Period.

I hope that portion is clear.

Now, that being stated I will now work inside-out as that is how Ned's skill set undermines everything he is trying to accomplish.

Within a game Ned is a tactical nightmare. He couldn't anticipate a fart. He is repeatedly outwitted and outmaneuvered by the most pedestrian of managerial counterparts. I think Tony LaRussa's corpse could maintain the upper hand against Yost. Ned is faced with the same general late inning situations and time and again sees his moves fail be it pitching changes or double switches. Last year he took to removing Ryan Braun late to protect leads only to see the team end up in the ninth inning or extra innings without Braun's bat. This is but a microcosm of his tactical gap.

From those issues spring Ned's need to cast a wider net seeking solutions that end up reeking of either panic or assigning blame. Which clearly has to create doubt in the minds of the roster as to whether their manager really has a handle on things.

He will stick with some players forever. He left Geoff Jenkins in the lineup for four months in 2006 when Jenkins couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat. A previous fan favorite became a pariah after repeated rally-killing strikeouts and double plays. Derrick Turnbow has saw his 2006 disintegrate in similar fashion as Ned stuck with him even as Turnbow surrendered lead after lead before an infamous July series against San Fran where Derrick all but broke down on the mound crying.

Other players had better PRODUCE. A Corey Hart had to see Kevin Mench, of all people, run aground before seeing a chance in early 2007 and even during a 20 odd game hitting streak Yost spoke repeatedly about the need to get Mench back in the lineup. If a player has not been designated by management to PLAY then Yost has the latitude to do as he sees fit. And Hart didn't have a lot of believers in the front office. Hence, he was at the mercy of Ned's "whimsy".

The Brewers were a poor baserunning team when Ned arrived and if anything have regressed. Despite good athletes and some speed Brewer players repeatedly get picked off (Bill Hall is the worst offender) killing opportunities. A different manager might have been able to go to the front office in 2007 and declare, "Ryan Braun can't play third" or in 2006 state that "Rickie Weeks can't play second". But since Ned has proven he really doesn't KNOW about defense until it's obvious as the day is long the team endures the entire season before contemplating a change.

He is petty. He has held grudges at various times with players ranging from Scott Podsednik (deserved) to Bill Hall (undeserved). He is incredibly arrogant. Ned regularly mocks comments from the media about questioning some of his in-game decisions as if his move were the only logical recourse. That it blew up in his face with the heat of a 1000 suns is ignored.

Basically, he's a tactical train wreck coupled with a personality of someone who by association (Bobby Cox) THINKS he is a genius.

It's not a good mix. And you can just TELL the players know that when it's late and close the team is playing shorthanded.

Fatso Prince Fielder could get into better shape, lay off the cheese stuffed ravioli.

Guys within 50 games of 856, ordered highest to lowest career winning percentage:

Jimmy Collins .548 in 831 games.
Pie Traynor .530 in 863 games.
Eddie Stanky .518 in 902 games.
Joe Altobelli .518 in 844 games.
Bob Lemon .516 in 833 games.
Terry Collins .506 in 878 games.
Bob Scheffing .495 in 845 games.
Larry Bowa .490 in 855 games.
Jim Lefbrve .485 in 859 games.
Eddie Sawyer .480 in 813 games.
Ned Yost .463 in 856 games.
Nixey Callahan .462 in 852 games.
Hal McRae .458 in 872 games.
Bob Boone .455 in 815 games.
Del Crandall .437 in 833 games.
Harry Craft .426 in 845 games.
Preston Gomez .395 in 875 games.

#6 is a good read. As a Braves fan it's easy to just start subbing in names. Geoff Jenkins is Jeff Francouer. Derrick Turnbow is Chris Reitsma. Corey Hart is Marcus Giles to Kevin Mench being Keith Lockhart. Maybe Betemit for Podsednik, Kelly Johnson for Bill Hall.

I guess my point would be that all managers do stuff that doesn't make a lot of sense to the rest of us. I have no idea if Yost is really an overachiever in this aspect.

Garner racked up a .477 in 1181 games with the Brewers and has since been to the World Series. Not that I'm saying he's good or anything. It's just really hard to manage teams at the bottom end of the revenue spectrum.

I encourage people to read the article. As Harvey has mentioned it is an evenhanded account.

As the article points out there are a lot of fans who hate Yost. I don't necessarily think that makes him a bad manager.

I read another Brewers board, and even many people that hate Yost have admitted that tactical decisions have made little or no difference in the Brewers' season to this point.

Harvey, please list all the great tactical moves that your namesake Harvey Kuenn made in his tenure as Brewers' manager. I guess he remembered to start the Hall Of Fame Shortstop, and the Hall Of Fame third baseman. And the 1st baseman who hit .350 and drove in a 100 runs, and the catcher who should be in the Hall Of Fame, and the center fielder who led the league in home runs, and the left fielder who led the league in home runs. And he used the Hall Of Fame closer, and when they traded for a Hall Of Fame staring pitcher he used him too. Interesting in one case where he actually had a choice, right field, he played a .250 hitter with no power over another guy who had more hitting potential, which doesn't seem so smart, but whatever. And he didn't use Pete Ladd after Game 2 of the World Series, which might have been worth a shot instead of always going to McClure. But then Harvey Kuenn is a saint and Yost is the antichrist. I'm sure Yost was influencing Kuenn to make all of the bad decisions since he was in the clubhouse, right?

In all of the issues that you lay at Yost's feet, how many choices has he usually had? Was there an alternative to Turnbow in 2006 before Cordero arrived? Last year, what was the alternative to Braun? Play Counsell and Graffanino again?

Once you get past the guys who really can't handle the job like Jerry Royster, I don't think managers make a whole lot of difference. And yes, the Brewers might just has well have been an expansion team before the current regime came in. The talent in the system was that bad. This is an organization that hasn't produced a relief pitcher of consequence - someone as good as Kyle Farnsworth, say - for the last 10 years. Ridiculous. That leads to Melvin having to do patch jobs on the pitching staff all of the time, which limits the team's options. That's a lot more important than Ned Yost.

Maybe my favorite manager is Harvey Kuenn, since he never had to make any decisions. I like managers who don't have to make decisions because their players are good enough. I would trade Yost or LaRussa or any manager for a good player in a heartbeat. Managers simply don't have that much influence.

Yost must really be a special guy to garner so much attention when there are other obvious flaws of the team or organization...

Post 10:

Your post is what makes this site somewhat troubling. At no time have I touted the virtues of Harvey Kuenn. That is a connection by you and you alone. If you search through the archives, ask other posters, or asked ME you would know this. Instead, you make a leap that I am a Kuenn "advocate" versus Ned Yost. Which is completely and utterly preposterous.

My other issues with this post and previous posts under your moniker:

Your refusal to acknowledge that I have recognized Yost's strengths as a manager

Your refusal to consider anything outside the confines of this season

Your refusal to acknowledge that OTHER managers with OTHER teams HAVE accomplished MORE in less amount of time.

Your refusal to acknowledge the common themes endemic to a Yost-managed team: the bullpen challenges, the second half swoons, the inability to see improved performance around what some term "the fundamentals"

I am more than willing to engage anyone in a discussion about the Brewers. But you always want the discussion framed by YOUR constraints which obviously create such an incredibly narrow and limited view that ANY manager, no matter what, would appear as competent or at worst merely an innocent bystander.

Chris:

Thanks for fleshing out the list. I just did a quick looksee.

Separate note;

As others may have noticed, I resent being portrayed as some rube fan with an axe to grind. As any long-time posters can attest, I PREDICTED these outcomes with Yost several YEARS ago. I saw where this was headed based on his performance in 2003-2005.

To suggest I am reacting in the short-term is completely at odds with the facts. And if some folks checked they would know that.

But having written that I am sure to receive a personal attack claiming that I am a liar, stupid and "hate" Yost.

So much to look forward to.

For sh1ts & giggles, other managers when they were around-ish 856 games:

Leo Durocher (492-347) .586 in 839 games.
Felipe Alou (470-399) .541 in 869 games.
Dusty Baker (472-436) .526 in 908 games.
Tom Kelly (437-396) .525 in 833 games
Lou Piniella (450-407) .525 in 857 games.
Bruce Bochy (409-383) .516 in 792 games.
Tony LaRussa (411-395) .510 in 806 games.
Lou Boudreau (464-450) .508 in 914 games.
Chuck Dressen (407-399) .505 in 806 games.
Jack McKeon (442-431) .505 in 873 games.
Roger Craig (414-413) .501 in 827 games.
Pat Corrales (397-398) .499 in 795 games.
George Bamberger (387-397) .494 in 784 games.
Jim Leyland (398-410) .493 .493 in 808 games.
Wilbert Robinson (400-418) .489 in 818 games.
Jimmy Dykes (440-462) .488 in 902 games.
Bill Rigney (406-430) .484 in 836 games.
Art Howe (392-418) .484 in 810 games.
Dave Bristol (442-474).483 in 919 games
Phil Garner (437-469) .482 in 906 games.
Branch Rickey (440-476) .480 in 916 games.
Jim Fregosi (430-475) .475 in 905 games.
Bobby Cox (433-480) .474 in 913 games.
Terry Francona (383-427) .473 in 810 games.
John McNamara (411-459) .472 in 870 games.
Gene Mauch (365-426) .461 in 791 games.
Fred Hutchinson (387-455) .460 in 842 games.
Casey Stengel (413-501) .452 in 914 games.
Clint Hurdle (352-436) .447 in 788 games.
Hugh Duffy (399-499) .444 in 898 games.
Jimmy McAleer (392-791) .444 in 883 games.
Joe Torre (375-493) .432 in 868 games.
Buddy Bell (345-462) .428 in 807 games.
Gil Hodges (394-533) .425 in 927 games.
Burt Shtton (370-549) .403 in 919 games.
Fred Haney (288-526) .354 in 814 games.

Overall not a pretty picture, but Mauch, Hutchinson, Hurddle, Torre, & Hodges all went on to success with a lower W/L record. Franona and Cox were a littel bitter.

Milwaukee needs to fire him, but in a few years he might be worth another team taking a flyer on, especially if they have a bunch of young plyaers coming up.

Robert in Redondo Posted: May 23, 2008 at 02:52 PM (#2792110)

Garner racked up a .477 in 1181 games with the Brewers and has since been to the World Series.

- robert,

kindly do not include phil garner as a good manager just because he inherited a team with 3 super ace pitchers, one pitcher who was nails during playoffs and an absolutely lights out closer (well, until september, that is) and a great 7th and 8th inning guy (who both unfortunately chose the WS to suck)

- phil was a very poor tactical manager and it was painful to watch TLR outmanage him all the time

Companies change CEOs, presidents, vice-presidents, directors, managers and the annoying guy in cube 5402 all the time because the needs of the company change.

The Brewers have evolved.

The manager has not.

Evaluation of a manager probably has to be done within the proper context of a) how much input the manager has on decisions, b) overall talent-level of team, c) analysis of a significant number of in-game situations and lineup-card tendencies, and d) number of egos on the roster.

Otherwise, one could argue that Terry Francona suddenly became a great manager, that Art Howe is responsible for the A's modest success this year, etc...

#10 - Jay Z:

I just wanted to jump in here unsolicited to say that, as someone who has been reading Harveys' posts on the Brewers and Yost for several years now, I can vouch for the fact that he has actually been quite evenhanded with respect to him. He has praised him in due measure for his good qualities (his open-mindedness to new statistical approaches, his work with young players), just as he has criticized his failings. HW has merely concluded, like many of us, that Ned's failings are significant and outweigh his positives, especially given the needs of the team he's got right now. Perhaps he's become more emphatic about it lately, but that's because of the facts on the ground right now: the Brewers are sitting in last place after being projected to compete for first place, and this after their ignominious collapse last year. Yost has been in the news a lot recently, what with rumors of his impending doom and cries of agony emanating from the fans. Thus Harveys is hitting on his points more frequently simply because there are more venues for him to do so. And, frankly, because everybody at BBTF really values his thoughfulness, insight, and occasional inside dish.

Hate? Nah. Life's too short for hate. Well, except Michael Moore. I really hate that fat bastard. But that's about it.

By the way, Kuenn's single biggest attribute was NOT being Buck Rodgers.

The next guy will just need to be breathing to have an advantage over Yost.

He couldn't anticipate a fart.

Possibly the best summation of Ned's managerial failings I've ever read.

- robert,

kindly do not include phil garner as a good manager just because he inherited a team with 3 super ace pitchers, one pitcher who was nails during playoffs and an absolutely lights out closer (well, until september, that is) and a great 7th and 8th inning guy (who both unfortunately chose the WS to suck)

Doesn't my original post specifically say that I'm not saying Garner is good? What else was I supposed to do there?

Who:

Glad you liked it.

I believe another "turn of a phrase" with respect to Ned that received generous reviews was when I compared his bullpen management to a man in a body cast trying to pleasure himself. Lots of activity and concerted effort but ultimately abject failure.

You mean like in "Johnny Get Your Gun?" :D

Jay-Z's point was not that Harveys is a Harvey Kuenn supporter; it was that team talent trumps managerial acumen every time. To say that the Brewers have not produced the talent necessary to win during Yost's tenure does not in any way absolve Yost of his failings, just as the success of the 1982 Brewers says nothing about Harvey Kuenn's skill as a manager. If a few things had broken differently over the past 2-3 years - Weeks had performed as expected; Cap, Bush, and Turnbow hadn't blown up, just to name a few - Ned Yost's managerial history would been written much differently. I think way, way too much time has been wasted talking about how dumb Ned Yost is or isn't. Ned Yost has been part of the problem in Milwaukee, and firing him probably will have a positive effect - just because - but he is way down the list of reasons this team has not succeeded.

HSF:

Way down the list?

Son you need to get into rehab. That crack habit has you talkin' crazy talk. Ha!

#9...
how has Cox screwed Kelly over?
He gave him a pretty long rope in 06 he was called up and just stood there taking pitches, going 1-40 or something. He started him in 140-something games last year and all but a couple games this year.
If you are making the Bill Hall comparison because of position switches that doesn't really work either. Kelly was moved to the OF in the minors after some injury issues, and the belief that he out grew the middle IF, and Cox actually took a chance on him in letting him show he could play 2b when he was generally thought of as an LF and maybe 3b if his arm rebounded from TJ surgery.
And that ONE move from LF to 2b has helped the Braves and Kelly.

The Marcus thing I can kind of understand, except for 2003. In 2003 Giles didn't deserve the job over Lockhart. He was really stinking the joint up and struggling with family issues and at least Lockhart delivered some really nice D.

And I certainly don't see the problem in sticking with Francouer. I guess your complaint is that Cox played Francoeur everyday in 06 despite his sophomore slump. I don't see the problem in it. He is a hugely talented player and just the year before he was instrumental in taking you to the postseason. Why not let him learn through his struggles. If he had benched Francouer then you'd hear the typical complaints about the manager not playing/believing in the young talent.
I can buy the argument that maybe instead of half-Diaz, half-Langy in LF and all Frenchy in RF it should have been a rotation of the 3 between the two spots but that is a minor quibble and with Francoeur's clear talent advantage I think it was reasonable to give him a full-time job and bank on the chance that he would get his game back together and go on another tear.

MM1f:

See, you seem to be looking at Cox as an outsider, whereas Robert is criticising him as a Bravos fan. We all tend to be more highly critical of our own favorite teams and their management.

That said, I think what's highly telling about the Yost situation is that's it's not only Harveys, NTNgod, me, other Brewers fans... it's LOTS of people, fans all over the league. The Cubs fans, cardfanboy, BBC -- you know, divisional rivals -- are adamant in wanting Yost to stay! Of course, it's because they can see his shortcomings all too well. ;)

MM1f: Lotta good points in there. Although I'll never give in on Francoeur. He's never hit enough, he's not improving and yet he continues to play every stinking game. Kelly's been jerked around his whole career. Up and down the order, around the diamond, in and out of the lineup. Even now he has a 127 OPS+ and Bobby is determined platoon him with the legendary Omar Infante.

#26,
No, I'm definitely a big Braves fan and I have been since the early 90s (because of age, not because I'm a bandwagoner). If we had a crap manager maybe I would instinctively think the worst of a move, because a bad manager maybe hasn't earned me thinking otherwise, but Bobby Cox has CLEARLY earned the benefit of the doubt. So when he does something questionable any fan should take a deep breath and think about ALL of the reasons Cox might be doing what he is doing.
And usually his moves work out (like moving Johnson to 2b, or keeping the faith in Frenchy or LaRoche, or giving Charles Thomas 70 starts in LF, giving Jorge Sosa 20 starts, giving Yunel a chance).

Hell, remember when Ken Ray made the team out of spring training? His final stats don't look more than mediocre but until about August he was a real good setup man.

Well, MM1f, that's why I said you seem to be looking at Cox as an outsider. You did a good job hiding your bias, and I didn't want to make any assumptions. ;)

I think you're right. Cox has proven himself a very capable manager (to say the least, maybe). Of course he probably has some blid spots, he's human. He's leagues better than Ned Yost, in any case.

HW,

In response to your question of how long until we can judge a manager ... good question. Certainly the Brewers organization should have enough information to judge him by now. And even if they don't, they ought to be able to make a good guess. Unfortunately that leaves us with the question of why they haven't made a move. As for us fans, we can judge things after 80 games or sometimes even 8 innings. :-)

But I'd have to quibble with one thing. Obviously the talent/payroll situation has to be taken into account. Evaluation of a manager clearly has to come against some sort of "expected output under an average manager." Now I'm pretty sure Yost still fails that test, but it is more complicated than looking at a record.

Still, even if I was uncertain, were I Milwaukee's management, he'd be gone. We do have enough games to say that there's almost no chance that Yost is going to be a positive difference maker.

Also ... while I am in the "manager doesn't count much" camp, I am like you in that I think bad ones can have an effect. And more precisely that there comes a time when bad managers simply lose their team -- through pettiness or playing favorites or dumb decisions or not communicating or not making sure there are consequences for bad play. Once a team is lost, things get very bad. The Brewers aren't there yet but I get the feeling the will be there later this year or next.

It even happens to OK managers like Dusty Baker. And he lost the Cubs not in the sense that they turned on him but in the sense that he was such a player's manager (except for his annual scapegoat) that they knew they could basically get away with whatever. The Cubs under Baker were an awful fundamentals team ... and yet they'd find Baker defending them in the press. That can have a positive effect for a while but eventually it sends the message that there's no accountability. By 2006, Baker really had no control over that team.

(An early lesson I learned about teaching -- if you're a disciplinarian at the beginning of the semester, you can be a nice guy later; if you're a nice guy at the start, you'll never be able to get control later.)

Beyond that, the area where I think managers make the most difference is in getting the right players on the field. Now almost all managers do a fine job of that (given what they're provided) when it comes to position players and the starting rotation -- those decisions are usually just incredibly obvious. There are examples and some managers play their bench more/less than they should and few these days run good platoons, but for the most part I'd guess the difference between the best and the worst is about 1-1.5 wins. In-game tactical hitting decisions will end up making little difference over the year -- almost everybody sucks as a pinch-hitter and the difference between 50 PAs from your crappy-hitting SS and your best available PH is gonna be trivial.

Where I think managers really differ in putting the right players on the field is bullpen management and this is more critical than it's ever been. We're up to 12 (sometimes 14!) man staffs, starters are often now in for only 5-6 innings. If the manager can't keep his pen fresh, can't recognize high/medium/low leverage, can't get the right relievers in at the right time, can't recognize the differences among average relievers, good relievers going through a slump, and poor relievers on a hot streak -- then they are going to substantially damage their team's chances of success.

And Yost really sucks at bullpen management. And he doesn't appear to be any better (and probably) worse than average in the other areas.

I think you'd agree though that some of the blame lies with Melvin et al too. Good farm system, pretty lousy job of filling in around that talent. True, a stronger manager might have forced a Braun move earlier, but a good GM would have anticipated that fart and maybe traded (oh) Jenkins for a decent 3B option before he tanked. If what you say about personnel decisions being almost totally out of Yost's hands, then it's Melvin et al who lacked faith in Hart, moved Hall all over the place, keep Weeks at 2B, etc. Melvin seems to be quite good at many of the areas a GM needs to be good in -- draft/development and the financial side -- but he has done a fairly poor job with supplemental talent and he doesn't seem to recognize how to put together a bullpen. And unless your name is Bill Hall, he seems a little stubborn on position switches.

And we have to question his ability to evaluate his manager. :-)

Walt:

I could quibble on points but agree with the gist.

Great, so then it's settled. So... who replaces Yost - Simmons? An outside candidate? Someone else?

Frank Kremblas.

As in you think he'd be chosen or he'd be your pick? (Speaking ignorantly, he makes sense to me. It seems like he's done a nice job w/ Nashville and obviously has worked with much of your young core. IIRC, a lot of the guys at brewerfan.net like him too.)

And another thing to consider is that managerial talent isn't the same as a player's talent. Managers change over time, and their success depends hugely on context. As Harvey has said, managing the 2003 Brewers is a completely different job from managing the 2007 team. And being a first year manager is different from being one in his sixth season.

I'm not always sure that Yost is doing as bad a job as Harvey portrays, but from an outsider's perspective, I have to agree that he falls under the heading of "not good." He is definitely a square peg/round hole guy, and way too rigid. Once a player starts to slip, you can generally have some confidence that the slippage will accelerate. Overall this is not a pretty picture.

I think if the Brewers had not engaged in what appeared to be progress in 2007, he would have been fired. The disappointing start this season has to seal the deal on him. His contract is effectively over after this season. Unless things pick up (and they may well), he is toast, probably before the season ends. They might as well get it over with and fire him now, hoping that a honeymoon manager gets the team back on track.

My original point is that Yost might do a good job in different circumstances. But in his current job, he's King Midas in reverse.

Der:

He would be my pick. Alas, IF the club makes a change it will be some poor choice like Dale Sveum. Sigh.

Ya'know, if you look back at the 1982 Brewers there are some remarkable similarities. Main power guy scuffling. Gorman Thomas was hitting .219 with 8 homers and all of 12 extra base hits through the first two months. He got an owie at the end of May but up to that point had been awful. Ted Simmons was hitting .220 with a .360ish slugging percentage. The back end of the rotation was Randy Lerch and Bob McClure and both those guys were more very bad than competent in the early going. Paul Molitor was just ok.

The game they lost 5-4 to Seattle that pretty much sealed Buck's fate Gaylord Perry went 10 1/3 innings. Guy was 113 by then and hung in there for 10 plus innings. Go figure.......

By the way, I note how all the folks who focus in on "just 2008" don't talk about how Jason Kendall is being worked like a d*mn mule. Or that he has decided to platoon Bill Hall, good idea, with Craig Counsell, bad idea. He couldn't ask Doug Melvin to bring up Branyan? Or even Gamel? Or that two months into the season multiple relievers have hit the DL. Which I am sure is all mere chance. Just because the Brewers have had to jerk guys in and out of the minors now three years running for bullpen help is all just one huge conspiracy against Yost.

Just because the Brewers have had to jerk guys in and out of the minors now three years running for bullpen help is all just one huge conspiracy against Yost.

To be fair, every team does this (unless they're having a lucky season). The average team must be using about 20+ pitchers a season now. The average team throws 490-500 relief innings using 7 bullpen slots, meaning they need an average of 70 per slot. Yet last year only 43 relievers in all MLB had even 70 IP, 87 threw 60+. Those are typical numbers these days. Clearly all teams are cycling guys through those last few spots in the pen.

Walt:

But with the Brewers it isn't the last few spots. Save for Cordero and Shouse who had/have very defined and limited roles Yost chews through guys like a conehead with a sandwich.

By the way, Yost gave an interview with BPro where he sounds eminently reasonable. If Yost's actions ever really represented his words I would sit in my corner quietly.

Clever of him to take a swipe at fan intellect by talking about his virtue of sticking with guys when folks are looking to see guys replaced.

I thought it was reasonable for the fan to voice displeasure with Wes Helms playing and batting fourth on occasion with a .360 slugging percentage.

I thought it was reasonable to get Turnbow out of the closer role in mid-2006 when other guys were at least getting hitters out.

Ned disagreed.

And it's pretty clear by the passage in question if he had to do it all over again he would do the same thing.