Manuel on the State of the Mets

I don't imagine too many of you will find this encouraging. Here is the relevant quote: "You get so many statistical people together, they put so many stats on paper, and they say, well, if you do this and you score this many runs, you do that many times, you'll be in the playoffs,"

"That's not really how it works, and that's what we have to get away from. And that's going to have to be a different mind-set of the team in going forward. We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people. We have to win because we have baseball players that know and can understand the game."

9 months ago Shomov Comment 38 comments 1 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Winning isn't every word. It's the only word.

Apparently Omar and Jerry are 100% agreed on the direction this team needs to take: more meaningless repetition of the word “win.” Win win win win win. We want to be a winning team, and a winning team has winning players, players who know how to win.

by anonymous on Oct 5, 2008 1:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

ugh

i guess i shouldn’t be surprised. most managers/coaches are like that.

by gogomets on Oct 5, 2008 4:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Interesting

According to the Jerry Manual Postulate, the Mets have tanked in each of the last two Septembers for the following reasons, in order of decreasing causality:

1) Crushing pressure exerted on the Mets by the Baseball Prospectus Playoff Odds Report
2) Numbers in general
3) Bad pitching
4) Not winning enough

This is going to be a long tenure if Manuel’s first statement since the interim tag was removed from his title is blaming a stat-based baseball culture for his team’s failings. Numbers don’t swing bats, but nor does Jerry Manuel’s gut. Stats are tools that can and should be used — along with other tools — to help a team, and by extension its manager, make informed baseball decisions.

by Eric Simon on Oct 5, 2008 7:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Oy!

I sense an off season full of scrapy acquisitions.

by Reg Dunlop on Oct 5, 2008 7:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I smell Eckstein!

Oh wait, you said ‘scrapy’. What players are good with knives?

by BobbyV_Incognito on Oct 6, 2008 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In the quote I read

He also mentioned building like the Angels. Which I’m definitely excited about…

by Gina on Oct 5, 2008 7:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well

There are two sides to that coin. If he means that he wants to build his team around good-to-great pitching, that sounds like a solid plan. If he wants to build it around scrappy players who have terrible plate discipline (the Angels were 25th of 30 teams in walks), meh, not so much.

Of course, since 2002, building a team like the Angels have doesn’t guarantee anything (it hasn’t for the Angels, anyway).

by Eric Simon on Oct 5, 2008 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Angels records since 2002:

2002: 99-63 (won World Series)
2003: 77-85
2004: 92-70 (playoffs)
2005: 95-67 (playoffs)
2006: 89-73
2007: 94-68 (playoffs)
2008: 100-62 (playoffs)

I know their SABR numbers aren’t impressive, but I’d take 5 playoff appearances and a World Series title over the next 7 years.

I think a balance needs to be struck. I don’t want to see the Mets completely ignore the modern stats trend; to do so would be foolish, especially in light of what the Red Sox have done the past few years. At the same time, I still believe there’s a lot to be said for having the right types of players on a team, the “clubhouse leader” types that the SABR crowd despise. After all, the Angels have outperformed their pythagorean record every year since 2004, so maybe there is something to be said for having those “gritty” players?

by cjmulrain on Oct 6, 2008 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who the fuck

1. Who the fuck despises the clubhouse leader type? Don’t put words into the sabr community’s mouth. Especially stupid words.
2. The Angels didn’t outperform their pythag record because of grittiness: but because of a stellar bullpen.

"I got my pregnant wife (the Yankee fan) with me. Hoping my kid learns to kick her everytime the Mets score." -Schifftis-

by future on Oct 6, 2008 1:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Act civilly

Disagreement and anger are not mutually inclusive.

by Eric Simon on Oct 6, 2008 1:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Clubhouse leader" types

To say that SABR folks despise “clubhouse leader” types is missing the point entirely. Given the choice, everyone would rather have a team comprised of great character guys, leaders, etc. The problem arises when you’re given the choice between a superior player who may not be considered a “leader” (or whatever), and an inferior player who happens to have played on a championship team or two. Experience/leadership is a nice thing to have, but it’s no replacement for talent.

by Eric Simon on Oct 6, 2008 1:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

fair enough

that’s why I say a balance is needed. I’m not suggesting replacing a bunch of surly 1.000+ OPS guys with a bunch of .600 OPS guys who hustle and bunt. What I’m suggesting is I’d rather have a .780 OPS guy who plays great defense and is a “gritty” player than an .820 OPS guy who sulks on the field and in the dugout and doesn’t hustle, etc. Basically, I’d trade Castillo for Eckstein, but obviously not Beltran for Eric Byrnes.

I may have overstated my case with the “despise” comment, but I also think that many of the SABR community understate the importance of team chemistry. Look at the late 90’s/early 00’s Rangers or the Yankees of recent years. They were built like fantasy squads, with all-stars at pretty much every position (Chan Ho Park was an all-star the year before the Rangers signed him…I swear, you can look it up!), but ultimately they weren’t great teams. The Red Sox get a lot of credit for being one of the teams built around Sabermetrics, but they had guys like Bill Mueller and Kevin Millar on the ’04 team and are now building around guys like Pedroia and Ellsbury, not to mention their frequently recognized clubhouse leader Jason Varitek.

Basically, my long-winded point is that there needs to be a balance. You might be surprised to find out that I’m actually mostly a “stats-guy.” I’ve read just about everything Bill James has written, I value OBP and K/BB ratios more than BA and Wins, and I know that it would be a lot easier to build a good team if your GM valued those things as well. But I also recognize that baseball players are human, and humans perform better when they are in a good atmosphere. The Mets clubhouse can’t have been a very good place to play the last two Septembers, no matter what the collective OBP’s of it’s members were. In situations like that, I think it’s good to have a vocal leader or two (who also don’t suck at baseball) to help keep things loose.

by cjmulrain on Oct 6, 2008 2:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with your main point

I’m sure that, like with any job, it’s easier and more fun to work when you like your boss and your co-workers.
However, until someone can, A) Prove that team chemistry does in fact lead to more wins, and B) create a valid way off assessing who is a good character player, I think you should put as many of the best players on the field as possible.

How do we really know who is a good character guy? Do we trust the media accounts? Interview their teammates and coaches? What if what one group of people considers good leadership alienates another group of people?

I just think it’s too hard to truly determine what makes a “good character guy” especially in a sport that is as individual as baseball. Just put the best players out there and chances are they will win more often than not.

by Reg Dunlop on Oct 6, 2008 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

I don’t think that most work environments are analogous to to a baseball team. First, employers in most other professions don’t have publicly available statistical evidence to assess the output of their current and prospective employees. Second, and more importantly, such evidence in most fields would not even be helpful. In most other professions, there are literally thousands of other people who have the skills to do the job equally well. This is not the case in baseball. Whereas there is a only one Albert Pujols, there are thousands of people who have the skills to do the job of the most qualified first year associate at a law firm (for instance — plug in what you like, bartender etc) with little discernible drop in productivity. Under such circumstances, the candidate’s personality and how will she fit into the workplace’s culture takes on much greater importance than it does on the ball field.

"Since we became accelerated readers, we never leave the house." - Los Campesinos

by Shomov on Oct 6, 2008 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

First of all

You’re right that there’s only one Albert Pujols, but there’s also only one Antonin Scalia. I seriously doubt that their are thousands of people who could be as valuable to a constitutional law firm as Scalia or to a criminal defense firm as Johnny Cochran, and so on and so forth. There are thousands of people who could step in and play professional baseball at its lowest levels, they’re called minor leaguers.

Second, it’s true that there’s no statistical research to show that team chemistry has any effect on winning, b/c there’s no way to statistically measure team chemistry. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. You can’t statistically measure love or friendship either. Doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Human emotion and interactions are inherently unpredictable. I think to suggest that baseball players aren’t affected by the same thoughts and emotions as the rest of us is frankly naive and puts them on a strange pedestal where they become something more than human.

Reg, I’m not saying that Omar should go out and get nothing but great “character guys” who can’t hit. What I’m saying is that like any good boss, he and Manuel should have a feel for the players in their clubhouse/workplace, and should look to find the best possible players to fit in that clubhouse/workplace. Statistics should be a MAJOR part of that evaluation, b/c they have wonderful statistics that can fairly accurately predict how players will do, but they should also determine on every individual basis how that player will fit into the team structure. In some cases, the talent of the player may be so overwhelming that it doesn’t really matter what kind of guy he is or how he’ll fit in (see Bonds, Barry & Ramirez, Manny), but those cases are fairly rare. Usually it’ll be something more along the lines of deciding between Luis Castillo and David Eckstein. That’s all I’m (very long-windedly) saying…

by cjmulrain on Oct 7, 2008 1:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

2 Things

1) I was not talking about high level trial lawyers or Supreme Court Justices; I was talking about the more quotidian jobs people analogize to when they say a baseball player is similar any other job. Scalia and Choran are perfect examples to prove my point — they are both exceedingly talented and don’t have (had) their jobs primarily because they are fun to be around. (They also demonstrate that you can know someone is very talented without having reams of data to back up your contention — I don’t contest that.) Again, I am talking about anonymous employees who are not house hold names.

2) I admit I stacked the deck when I mentioned Pujols, but I was also not talking about minor leaguers. I was talking about players who can make a material impact on a MLB team with playoff aspirations. I don’t think there are thousands of people who can step in immediately and do that job equally well.

3) I am not saying players are not affected by emotion. I am simply saying that things like character become more important when there is less variation in skill level across the population as a whole.

"Since we became accelerated readers, we never leave the house." - Los Campesinos

by Shomov on Oct 7, 2008 7:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

being that Johnny Cochran is dead, I don’t think he has much value to a criminal defense firm at this point.

by JoshNY on Oct 7, 2008 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh

and we had a clubhouse leader type: his name was Marlon Anderson.

Unfortunately, he sucked balls.

"I got my pregnant wife (the Yankee fan) with me. Hoping my kid learns to kick her everytime the Mets score." -Schifftis-

by future on Oct 6, 2008 1:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. Marlon sucked huge balls.

No amount of hustle, grit, and personality could overcome how much he sucked.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Oct 6, 2008 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

his career OPS+

before this season was 86, coming off two straight 100+ seasons. Nobody’s gonna confuse him with Rogers Hornsby, but he looked like an adequate 25th man coming into the season: a guy who can play multiple positions, had a tiny bit of pop and some speed. But yes, he did suck giant balls this season.

by cjmulrain on Oct 7, 2008 1:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

by JoshNY on Oct 7, 2008 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe adequacy wasn't too much to ask for.

But Marlon is/was symptomatic of the Mets’ ~~bigges problem~~. Okay, second biggest, after the bullpen. A disturbing over-reliance on aging veterans making too much money.

Marlon did post OPS+ of 123 and 107 in 2006 and 2007. But he’d never posted an OPS+ above 97 during the course of a full season. As a matter of fact, he’d only posted about 90 twice. And his 107 in 2007 came in just 95 ABs. For half of that season, he was downright awful, to the point that the Dodgers released him. Add in that he turned 34 in January, and it looks like were weren’t going to get very much value for our 1.05 million.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Oct 7, 2008 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't disagree with any of this

but it’s not like we were paying him $5 million or something. I mean, sure, we could have gotten better production from rookies making league minimum (and ultimately did), but wasting a $1 million investment isn’t so bad. The real crime here isn’t the contract, it’s the amount of ABs he got. He shouldn’t have been in anything close to half of the games this season, once it was obvious he was washed up.

Another thing I forgot to mention is that in his 2 prior stints with us he had proved to be a very good pinch hitter…I’m not sure if that’s really a “skill” or not, but it’s certainly nice to have from one of your bench guys. So again, a $1 million investment in him, I can live with. Investing in Alou, El Duque, Castillo, etc., that’s what I can’t live with.

by cjmulrain on Oct 7, 2008 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good point.

It’s not the money, it’s management’s refusal to see that he was a lost cause this season. It was more that anyone could see he was doing horribly, and all Willie and Jerry did was keep sending back out to kill us in key situations. $1 million isn’t a lot in baseball. But $1 million for a pinch-hitting specialist who can’t hit at all anymore, and can barely play any defensive position is a waste. Omar should have cut his losses by June and called up someone from AAA who might actually have hit the ball.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Oct 7, 2008 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget

We have Marlon for one more year.

by Reg Dunlop on Oct 8, 2008 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

awesome!

i guess that takes care of our grittiness quotient in the clubhouse.

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Oct 8, 2008 7:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought

Only small, white players could be gritty?

by Reg Dunlop on Oct 8, 2008 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe "grittiness" was a poor choice of word

but Marlon brings that certain unquantifiable intangible to the clubhouse that can’t be explained or described. His value goes beyond his .210 batting average and his 42 OPS+ and he needs some word to describe this.

How about . . . “grumilitude”?

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Oct 8, 2008 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like it!

by Reg Dunlop on Oct 8, 2008 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am skurred

The ignorance of his half-truths is amazing.

I do agree, the batters need to do the little things right, they need to be better at situational hitting.

But there are a lot of things wrong with this team that have nothing to do with stats or sabermetrics. I’m pretty sure stats are not what caused our bats to choke when men were on base.

"I got my pregnant wife (the Yankee fan) with me. Hoping my kid learns to kick her everytime the Mets score." -Schifftis-

by future on Oct 5, 2008 8:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

jerry manuel is a piece of shit

by kendynamo on Oct 5, 2008 9:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

NOW THAT'S A STAT!

" NOT WORTH A CONTINENTAL ! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Oct 6, 2008 3:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did the Sarah Palin camp put that meandering non-sense together?

Jerry’s statement has the grammatical syntax of an eight year old child.

Let’s take a look at part of what he said again and determine why it sounds like gibberish:
" …We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."

Wh-wha-what?!!! O.K. Jerry. “We must win.” O.K., I’m w/ya. “We must know how to win.” Alright, keep it coming. “…Rather than win.”

Hmmm. So, based on your child like command of English, what I gather is: Rather than winning, we must know how to win?

Screw it.

Can I turn in my official Mets fan privileges right now?

" NOT WORTH A CONTINENTAL ! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Oct 6, 2008 3:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Jerry could learn a thing or two about public speaking from the fella below.

Not that I agreed with much of what he said, but this fellow (William F. Buckley) had splendid command of the English language and his erudition on most topics was almost second to none.

" NOT WORTH A CONTINENTAL ! "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Oct 6, 2008 3:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WFB would be all about Sarah Palin.

by JohnPeterson on Oct 6, 2008 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

meh

A lot of old baseball guys talk like that. I bet you could get Terry Francona to say a similar thing. It doesn’t really matter since Manuel doesn’t put the team together. If Minaya gave him Adam Dunn, Russell Branyan, and Jack Cust, Jerry would have to play them. And in all honesty, he seems to have a superior grasp of baseball strategy (Daniel Murphy battting 2nd) that Randolph ever did.

As long as Omar doesn’t start spewing crap like this, I’m not going to worry about it. Whether Jerry likes it or not, he has 3 of the top 15 guys in the majors in VORP, and that’s a good thing to start re-tooling around.

Vote change: DePodesta/Acta in 2009!!!

by Greenpoint Ian on Oct 6, 2008 10:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sure Murphy was batting second so much as because of a superior grasp of baseball strategies as it was that his hand was forced by injuries to Castillo and A. Reyes and Chavez being offensive blackholes. He did put all 3 of them in the 2 hole a number of times and when Castillo first came back, before we went on the skid, he said he was our #2 hitter.

by Gina on Oct 6, 2008 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs