User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.6187 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 30, 2012 at 09:19 PM (#4049971)"Master strategist" is notably absent.
If Ron Washington had made a poor tactical move in the postseason he'd be the 2 time reigning World Series champion manager. That being said, obviously he has strengths as a manager, but it is pretty clear that he is one of the worse tactical managers in MLB.
I second-guess Washington continually, but I also spent many years second-guessing Bobby Valentine and Buck Showalter – most of the time when there were 5,000 people in the seats and the Rangers were 20 games out of first place :)
So the four postseason series he won over the past two seasons were just part of the "once in a great while," or is the World Series a different kind of short series than the division and championship series?
If Nelson Cruz can take a big leaguer outfielder's route on a simple flyball to right, Wash already has one.
I can only imagine how devastated they were to hear about this extension.
"A" poor tactical move?
I know your schtick since the old rsb days is to be overly critical of statheads, Tom, but I don't see any virtue in that. Go re-watch Game 6 of the World Series, for starters, and identify how many times "a" poor tactical move was made by Washington. If he didn't blow the World Series, it's not possible for a World Series to be blown.
I think it's a very serious question for an organization. "Good" managers may be hard to describe or predict but they're probably very valuable.
I mean, sure the guy managed two consecutive WS poorly. On the other hand, he managed his team to two consecutive pennants. There must be some way to shore up the weaknesses without just firing him or humiliating him.
I think it's a very serious question for an organization. "Good" managers may be hard to describe or predict but they're probably very valuable.
I mean, sure the guy managed two consecutive WS poorly. On the other hand, he managed his team to two consecutive pennants. There must be some way to shore up the weaknesses without just firing him or humiliating him.
The answer would seem to be a bench coach with good tactical skills, that Washington respects, and can discuss moves with.
Eh, you're probably right. Much better to get a Bobby Valentine type, who employs all the proper game strategies but doesn't get the team anywhere near blowing a World Series.
That would be my thought, too.
Tactically speaking, Bob Brenly performed worse in 2001 than Wash did in 2011, and Brenly won.
Tactics have always been overrated, and few overrate them more than you. That's your schtick (well, one of them).
I'm no fan of Valentine, but he did get the Mets to the World Series in 2000.
And I have not, ever, argued that Valentine employs all the proper game strategies. (I don't recall ever discussing Valentine here, actually. I doubt if I've commented on him more than a handful of times, if that, in the past 25 years.)
Not that your comment addresses the point that was being made, which is that Washington is horrible tactically. If you think he's not as bad as being stated, or if you think his badness has limited negative effect or is outweighed by his other skills, that would be an actual argument. Major league talent is such that a team can get to - and even win - the World Series even with a horrible manager, as history shows. That doesn't provide an argument for why a horrible manager shouldn't be upgraded.
It's not that hard.
I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out a tendency for massive tactical blunders on the part of any manager, particularly when those happen on the World Series stage, but I generally agree with your main point. In-game tactics are a relatively minor part of the job compared to handling player relationships.
That would be my thought, too.
Except that the solution could very well negate why said manager is a good "player's manager" or what have you. Take for example Larry Dierker. Dierker was a guy that tried to make sound tactical decisions and there is strong evidence to suggest that he lost the team and his job because he chose make "correct" tactical decisions over connecting with his players.
Why?
Do players like losing games b/c the manager effs up?
I would think being a "player's manager" is mostly about how you relate to guys outside of the in game decisions. Treating them with respect, caring about them as people, being honest with them, etc.
That's probably the biggest part of it, yes.
The danger is if they interpret your correct tactical decisions as "disrespect".
I'm not sure what the correct answer is.
Just in recent years we have seen the tactics of Joe Torre considered bad, Terry Francona bad, Joe Girardi bad, and that's seven World Series titles right there. I'm not sure quite what my point is but when the most successful managers in the game are universally derided as being bad at this aspect of the job either that aspect doesn't matter as much as we think it does or maybe they aren't as bad as they appear.
Well, I think if you're actually a great communicator, leader of men, etc., it shouldn't.
Both.
Don't get me wrong. Wash (and TLR for that matter) made some really awful decisions in last year's playoffs, with Wash getting all the way up to a 7.3 on the Brenlymeter during the latter stages of the World Series. And they deserve to be criticized for such decisions.
But even with such questionable decision-making, Washington's team had numerous chances to win the series by simply performing their jobs per usual. And Brenly will forever be a World Series-winning manager, despite getting every major (and most minor) decisions wrong in 2001.
In the regular season, however, the complaints about tactics are really overblown. Managers must constantly balance today's game vs. tomorrow's, usage vs. rest, development vs. optimal choice at the moment, etc., a balance that makes the routine Game Chatterwauling very, very silly.
Of course. Still, easier said that done. And there are different degrees of being a "player's manager", if you will.
And let's not forget Tony LaRussa, who had a guy warm up to throw an intentional walk, yet is a no-doubt HOF with three championships under his belt.
I think manager criticism is terribly overrated, particularly among the saber community who fully acknowledge that a manager doesn't make a difference of more than a few wins per year.
Or maybe their competition sucks.
That said, I do think Torre had clear skills over other managers, at least for the postseason: he would try to win the game he was playing, and not obsess over saving relievers for future games or situations he might never get to.
Francona just sucks.
But apparently it's the new "it" thing to deride people for pointing out that managers are bad tactically. Tactical skills do impact games and series, especially close games such as Game 6 2011 WS that Wash effed up.
Well, if you can't do it, then you're not a good leader.
To make an analogy, George Patton was a great general b/c he could insist on shined shoes, and pressed uniforms, etc. that he knew built discipline and esprit de corps, and still have his men respect him and want to follow him. That's a great leader. They curse you, but they'll follow you.
A bad leader does the same superficial things, but get branded as martinet and ridiculed.
If Washington is, in fact, a leader of men, he should be able to sell changes that help the team win to his guys. If he can't, I think we have to re-evaluate the whole premise of him being this great "players" manager. Sometimes guys just get lucky.
Would Patton have been such an effective leader if he had a colonel by his side feeding him all his orders, potentially undermining his authority?
Why does Torre get credit for this, but not Francona? He was more than willing to bring in Foulke/Papelbon before the 9th, in tie games, and while behind.
Again, part of being a great communicator is the actions that you do. You can't simply brainwash every single person into believing and accepting every decision you make.
Have Patton feed his men to the meatgrinder in Lorraine for two or three years and see how his troops view him then.
How does that work exactly? He's not going to be doing anything radically different or new.
We're not talking about getting to cutting-edge "sabre managing", we're just talking about doin what competent conventional managers do. The players should barely notice.
Or, rather, if, instead of Patton, Eisenhower and Bradley you had Patton, Patton and Patton, would the war in Europe have gone as well? (honest question).
I don't mean to deride you, Ray. I think you're correct on most of the critiques you make on particular plays. I just think you can't say that a team/manager that wins the world series does so just because their competition sucks. There is no better competition. Perhaps that manager couldn't beat the platonic ideal of a baseball team but they don't have to. All managers have to balance a larger whole with play by play decisions. It's completely possible for the correct tactical decision to be the incorrect strategic decision.
Now, I happen to think you're right, that Wash made decisions that, had he made them differently, the Rangers likely win. But, as has been said, he also put them in a position where routine plays win the series. He may not be a great manager but that hardly boils down to "sucks". A particular decision, or series of decisions may suck. But win two pennants in a row and you do not suck.
THAT BALL WAS HAMMERED -- Harold Reynolds
geez, he got them within one strike twice in that game. seriously, what is the win percentage there? and really ... how can he be blamed for nelson cruz getting a bad jump? are you saying it should never have come to that? boy, tough crowd.
Wash did a good job, but any infield defense with Mark Ellis and Eric Chavez is going to look good.
Josh Hamilton doesn't, being a murderer and all.
Nolan Ryan: We want you to manage the Texas Rangers in the post-season.
Reggie Jackson: But the thing...the thing is uh...
Nolan Ryan: You don't know how to manage in the post-season?
Reggie Jackson: That's right.
Nolan Ryan: It's not that hard, Reggie. Tell him, Wash.
Ron Washington: It's incredibly hard!
Van Morrison was, is, and will always be awesome.
When a manager makes a move that you agree with and it works, it looks like just simple common sense, and those are easy to forget.
When a manager makes a move that you agree with and it doesn't work, then it's natural to assume he just got unlucky.
When a manager makes a move that you disagree with and it works, then it's natural to assume he just got lucky.
When a manager makes a move that you disagree with and it fails, then it's natural to think he's an idiot.
It's far easier for a manager to leave a negative memory than a positive one with his tactical manuevers.
Most of the work of done on tendencies is descriptive rather than judgemental. You can judge base on the descriptions, though.
I have only just begun to update this stuff based on 2012, but . . . .based on what I got, here's the tendencies of Washington & his teams:
He loves the sacrifice hit (that includes 2012). He also likes calling the hit & run. His staffs don't walk that many (that's the only other item that includes 2012 in it), but they also don't strike out many. His hitters strike out a lot. He normally leans heavily on his bullpen for innings. He also uses his bench players on offense more than most (I have no idea how much of that is due to injuries- I'm just going off of PA by his big 9 divided by team PA and cmopare that to other AL teams). His teams are a little younger than average - that's true of offense & pitchings. His offenses have been more static than dyanmic (rely more on walks and homers than steals and stuff like that). His teams have a good success rate in stolen base attempts. He doesn't do as good a job putting OBP in the #1 slot as most others do, but he's better at getting OBP from the #2 slot than others. His pitchers are more likely than most teams to have the platoon edge on opposing hitters.
As for preditions - I predict Washington will make in-game tactical errors at the same rate he has in the past.
(scurries away)
as Rocky Bridges said
"There are three things the average man thinks he can do better than anybody else : build a fire, run a hotel and manage a baseball team."
No, by "their competition" I was referring to opposing managers, not opposing teams. The comment I was responding to was "Maybe Girardi and Francona aren't really as bad as they appear" and I just pointed out that since most managers suck tactically, it's not exactly an achievement to look good compared to them.
We know that World Series can turn on a single hit. Game 7 2001 the Diamondbacks get a flare off of Rivera to win it. Is a good manager's tactical decisions over the course of a series worth at least as much as a hit or a flare over a bad manager's tactical decisions? I don't see why not. And that's all it would take to win or lose a close World Series.
QFT.
QFMFT.
My impression is that in 2010 Wash jump-started the "claw-and-antler" stuff a lot more than in other years I've watched him: that year, there seemed to be more scrambling on the basepaths, taking chances that may have been low-percentage but could catch a defense napping. In '11 either the league wised up, or the Hamilton injury early on just such a play sobered everyone up. But he did have success in 2010 at pressing the advantage all the time. It worked.
As far as pitching moves, he's pretty much by the book till he gets into the playoffs, but isn't that true of every manager? You have to start using a staff differently when there are lots of off-days and no tomorrow. Sometimes the staff does a great job under the different circs ('10 Giants) and sometimes they don't ('11 Rangers). He and Mike Maddux have done a superb long-haul job with their pitchers.
The oddity about Wash's lineups, to me, and if you can really call it that, is a sort of patient unpredictability, if that makes sense. He gives everyone playing time carefully and consistently in terms of days on and off, but it might be at an odd position: Young at 2B sometimes in '11, Torrealba at DH, that sort of thing. He uses little lineup variations to keep everyone contributing and sharp. I admit I scratch my head when both catchers are in the lineup, and the weaker hitter of the two is DHing, but it seems to work for the players. They don't develop rust or malcontent, and they aren't stretched beyond what they feel they can do (even if I might feel Young should ever play 2B again, or that Josh Hamilton should stick to LF henceforth).
It appears to me that you are saying the average manager sucks. I guess you are using the mean rather than the median but I don't think that makes sense.
No one is arguing that a single play can't change a game or series. But when you start making statements that the most successful managers all "suck" then it seems to me that you are engaging in a "David Ortiz is a lousy player because he doesn't steal bases" type of argument. It is entirely possible for both of these statements to be true;
Ron Washington is a poor tactical manager
Ron Washington is a good manager
Because the job encompasses a hell of a lot more than Strat-o-matic decision making. I think Chris' comment that it is easier for a manager to leave a bad memory than a good one was a really good one.
You can use that for almost everything, except for the super-crazy-hunches that work, like Tommy Lasorda using "Hobblin'" Kirk Gibson in Game 1 of the 1988 World Series, or (more recently) Joe Maddon using Dan "OPS+ 11" Johnson in the 9th inning of game 162.
What other crazy hunches have worked like that in the playoffs?
Ron Washington is a poor tactical manager
Ron Washington is a good manager
Because the job encompasses a hell of a lot more than Strat-o-matic decision making. I think Chris' comment that it is easier for a manager to leave a bad memory than a good one was a really good one.
Agree 100%.
My disagreement is with the idea that Washington (or any other "players' manager") can't improve their tactical decision making and still be good at the other, more important, parts of his job.
It's as if some people believe that poor tactics is a necessary for good "people management", as opposed to a price you may have to pay in some cases.
I wish there were some way to measure this as a managing skill, because on its face, it seems like it could have a real effect on team performance. Finding a way to make personnel decisions that balance the chances of winning today vs. winning tomorrow vs. the next day, etc. seems like the most complicated part of managing a baseball team. Anecdotally, I've always felt this was Jim Leyland's most important skill. His bench guys always "seemed" to be ready to go when he was with the Pirates and his successes with the Marlins and Tigers point in that direction as well.
Starting AJ Burnett in a must-win situation.
Going way back, Mayo Smith moving outfielder Mickey Stanley to shortstop - a position he had played just nine games at during the regular season - for the 1968 World Series because regular shortstop Ray Oyler was such a weak hitter.
General Trujillo.
David Price called on to get last 4 outs in game 7 of '08 ALCS?
Is that really a crazy hunch, though? All of the other starters pitched in either game 5 or 6....
I agree in general, but the fact that it doesn't seem to happen much makes me think it's not as easy a matter as it seems like it should be.
Tim Wakefield had only pitched a few innings of relief in the series, was the superior pitcher during the season and had become perceived as a bit of a "Yankee killer" in the eyes of many going 6-2, 3.55 against them the last two years (playoffs included). I remember a Yankee fan co-worker at the time being completely resigned to defeat everytime Wake pitched those couple of years. That couldn't have been an easy decision.
Yeah, that's pretty much indefensible. As well as potentially alienatiing to your best player.
If he's horrible at the things we can see and measure, I don't know why people would assume that he is great at the things we can't see and measure.
There is a huge logic fail there.
I object to the premise that he's great at all these other things.
I'll have to agree with Ray here. There are a lot of comments like "He got them to the Series." and "They were great in the regular season under him." Why is it a given that his managerial skills are one of the causes of that? Who's to say that they don't win more games under a different manager? I'm not saying that they would have, but how can you just assert that he's great at the unmeasurables?
Well Wake pitched 3 innings at the end of Game 5, so he wasn't all that rested 2 days later. I guess I'm just nit-picking, but it doesn't seem like a hunch move when it's choosing 1 of your 2 reasonable options.
Speaking strictly for myself, I don't assert that.
All I assert is that the measurables, the stuff that gets Ray all worked up and throwing around phrases like "he failed his team," are of little significance in terms of overall managerial performance. Yes, it would be nice if he improved in that area (or they found a good voice in the clubhouse to give him direction), but doing so would only marginally improve his performance (regardless what that baseline happens to be).
But if I'm the Rangers brass, I figure the club has improved its regular season performance every season under him and achieved the only postseason success in franchise history with Wash at the helm. Given that, I'm going to need more than he bats Mike Napoli* eighth to be convinced that Texas needs a new skipper.
* That would be the Mike Napoli who just turned in the best season of his career under Wash.
I don't think anyone has said you can't question his competence. But you are taking what I consider too black and white a view. Washington makes a mistake on a big stage and therefore "he sucks." You are making definitive statements about Washington's ability based on a series of randomly selected data points, not the whole body of work. In the last two years Washington has made the move to put successful relievers CJ Wilson and Alexi Ogando into the rotation where they had success.
I don't object to you being critical of Washington's decisions (or any other manager). What I object to is the conclusion ("he sucks") rather than an opinion of the matter at hand ("batting Napoli 8th was stupid").
Fortunately for my argument, there's more.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't his decision alone. It's more likely wasn't his decision at all, than it was primarily his.
Does Mack starting Ehmke count as a "hunch"? Because that was awesome.
Less awesome, but still awesome.
My general impression is that a baseball manager is somewhat like a film director. He's in charge, he's got the primary responsibility and visibility, and yet many things are decided for him, or someone else's idea (maybe not even an idea he gets to amend or ratify). And so if you like the results, or just like the director/manager, you attribute good things to him (her); if you don't, or think you've spotted a revealing pattern ("bad" director seems to be teamed with great special-effects crew or awesome star, "bad" manager has Barry Bonds in LF), you attribute all the good stuff to somebody else. The truth is much more collaborative and synthetic, and harder to define.
That's why I've been judging Wash by the results. All y'all who saw the Rangers for 12 games the last two Octobers saw a futile, overmatched guy who bounces up and down a lot. I have seen the Rangers daily for 23 years, and they've had exactly two managers (then or before) who ever won anything at all. Having seen so many managers come up worse, it's hard to imagine someone doing very much better than Oates or Washington have done here. But of course I can't prove that, because we can't replay those years with Lou Piniella or Gene Mauch or Kindly Old Burt Shotton or whoever instead of them.
I think the criticisms are as valid as those that A-Rod chokes in the post-season.
No, they're apples and oranges.
If you're asked what 2+2 is 10 times and you say "6" one time and "8" another time, you suck at math even if you answered "4" eight times.
Batting Napoli 8th is not a sample size issue.
Nor was it necessarily a tactical decision.
Getting back to this, there is one way to measure things: How do his teams do compared to how his teams were expected to do?
I looked at RLYW's Diamond Mind Projection Blowouts (since they're easy to find) every year since 2007, when Wash was hired by the Rangers. Here's how his teams did in terms of Projected Wins vs. Actual Wins:
Year PW AW Difference
2007 79 75 -4
2008 72 79 +7
2009 72 87 +15
2010 84 90 +6
2011 88 96 +8
Total +32
Now that's just one system. Vegaswatch provided the aggregate projections for many major forecasters in 2009 and 2010. Wash's teams exceeded expectations by a little more than 7 games in those two years (And it's probably a safe assumption that the aggregate forecast did not have the Rangers' winning 90 and 96 the last two seasons).
Does this prove that Washington is a good manager? No. But if the argument is that Wash is a lousy one who is costing his team games, then the fact that his Ranger clubs have pretty consistenly outperformed expectations is a significant hurdle those making that argument have to overcome, in my estimation.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main