Amazin' Avenue: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: USA Today / SB Nation Consensus MMA Rankings for October

Jerry Manuel vs Manny Acta: The Quotes

VS

Here's a little two-part challenge for everyone.

Part 1: Read the following quotes from two current big league managers -- Manager A and Manager B -- and try to figure out which is Jerry Manuel and which is Manny Acta (easy!).

Part 2: Try to make it through this whole post without shaking your head in utter disbelief and/or bemoaning the Mets' woeful managerial situation (hard!).

Star-divide

Manager A says:

"Bunting is pretty outdated. Everybody scores so many runs nowadays, it doesn't make sense to play for one run unless it's late in the game and it's close. I hardly ever bunt early in a game, unless it's with a pitcher. A big inning can win you a game. One run in the third inning can't, unless you have Pedro pitching."

Manager B says:

"We have to put a value on say, moving a runner over. We have to put a value on getting a bases on balls. We have to put a value on infield back, [getting a] ground ball that's sufficient to score a run. Those types of things have to be accented in order for us, in my opinion, to kind of get to the next level."

Manager A says:

"If I have enough data ... I can go by the stats, because they don't lie. I mean, it's been proven to me that a guy from first base with no outs has a better chance to score than a guy from second base with one out. That's been proven to me with millions of at-bats. So I don't like moving guys over from first to second unless there's a pitcher up or it's real late in the game. ... I'm telling you right now you're not going to be seeing me bunting guys from first to second in the middle of the games or early unless it's the pitcher. ... I'll be straight up to you guys, I'm not going to be running all over the place just so 20-25,000 people in the stands are saying that I'm aggressive while people are getting thrown out on the bases."

Manager B says:

"A lot of it is based on an ability to read individuals. To try to put them in situations that are best for them and then how does that fit in the context of winning"

Manager A says:

"I want to win. More than being statistically-inclined, I'm very open minded. If someone can show me things that I didn't already know, I am willing to change. I'm not stubborn. If the statistical evidence shows I'm wrong, and it helps me and my team win baseball games, then I would be a fool not to listen."

Manager B says:

"Well, I would hope that I'm more of a 'feel guy,' I try to be more of a 'feel guy.' The only time that I look at that particular data or history is if I know nothing about the particular player… But, for the most part, I try to read and learn our players and then try to learn the opposition. I use the statistics pretty much as confirmation as to the decision I made. I'll look back and say, 'At least it lines up with the stats,' and sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't."

Manager A says:

"You always learn things. I've been managing and coaching for many years, I managed for a long time in the minor leagues, and every year you run into things you had never experienced before that you learn from. And we're in a great era now too, since every year there is more to learn from a sabermetrics side. Every piece of knowledge I take in, I try to use it to our advantage, for myself as a manager and for the ballclub."

Manager B says:

"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."

Manager A says:

"I'm still learning [about PITCHf/x]. I think it's going to be a huge part of scouting, especially when it matures and is 100% accurate, and is integrated in the minor leagues and even in college. There are so many things you can learn that we could never know for sure. How good is this guy's slider, really? Why is it good? All of the conventional wisdom in scouting will be put to the test, and you'll see a whole new world in terms of data and information."

Manager B says:

"You don't see a lot of guys that have statistical numbers play well in these championship series. What you see is usually the little second baseman or somebody like that carries off the MVP trophy that nobody expected him to do. That's because he's comfortable in playing that form of baseball, so therefore when the stage comes, it's not a struggle for him."

Manager A says:

"I read Baseball Prospectus a lot too. Will Carroll writes some of my favorite stuff. I also loved Mind Game."

Manager B says:

"I don't like to rely on stats."

2 recs  |  Comment 146 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

More from Amazin' Avenue

Mets Managerial Musings

Oct 2009 by Eric Simon - 40 comments

Friday Hodgepodge

Sep 2009 by James Kannengieser - 26 comments

Mets Movie Of The Week

Aug 2009 by James Kannengieser - 27 comments

Comments

Display:

Gangsta!

We've got ourselves a ball club, the Mets of New York town!

by kingcritical on May 29, 2009 8:11 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Damn you, Eric

This is not what I need so early on a Friday morning.

Also, I had pretty much put that “statistical guys don’t play well in the postseason” quote out of my mind, so thanks for reminding me of that. Gangsta, indeed.

"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on May 29, 2009 8:14 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

That was so painful to read

The one that really got me was this:

I use the statistics pretty much as confirmation as to the decision I made. I’ll look back and say, ‘At least it lines up with the stats,’ and sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t."

Ouch.

by deadspy3 on May 29, 2009 8:29 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Sorry Meddler

Just read your fanshot now. Good flagging up.

by deadspy3 on May 29, 2009 8:40 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I saw the interview.

And its completely out of context.

by Outside Observer on May 29, 2009 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sure...explain?

If you’re right, great. But from what I’ve heard, I reallllllllly doubt it.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on May 29, 2009 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I believe it was jokey sidebar with Burkhardt?

He wasn’t taking it that seriously. And joked that when his gut is wrong he goes back to the statistics and checks his gut again!

He was trying to say that he gives the player a chance even though the stats may not suggest that the player is good enough.

Church, Murphy, Sheff (in the last year) plenty who benefit from the manager’s trust that they will improve and do better than their stats.

by Outside Observer on May 29, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nah. He wasn't joking. And it's in line with things he's said previously.

So that really was what he was trying to say, that stats aren’t as important as seeing a guy with your eyes and feeling him in your heart.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on May 29, 2009 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think it was jocular about questions from the internets.

eg

Would sheffs recent stats (last year and in april) justify putting him in at clean up? Without that gut feeling the Mets would have a record nearer to the Nats than competing for the pennant with the phils.

I am sure if you pinned him down he would say (as most managers) that its a bit of both. I prefer a ‘players’ manager than one who over relies on stats. But thats me.

by Outside Observer on May 29, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

But before finally breaking out in a big way, Sheffield's lack of production was just KILLING Wright.

He would get 0 pitches to hit (and still is). Do you see how many times he’s walked so far this year?

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on May 29, 2009 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

But using just last years stats and aprils

isn’t what “stat people” would do. That’s called a small sample problem. And really batting Sheff cleanup this past week is justified by the “stats” because there isn’t anyone better.

If you prefer ‘players’ managers than one who over relies on stats, that’s cool. But I don’t really know who you’re talking about. I know Charlie Manuel, Joe Torre (at least when he’s winning) and Art Howe are big players managers, but the only manager I can think of that “over relies” on stats is Tony LaRussa and even though I find him to be a douchbag I would take him over all the mentioned player managers. More on point, I was very upset when Acta left, I thought he did a great job in the inargural WBC and would love him to be our manager.

by Sokojoe on May 29, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

further

Jerry isn’t blind. He likely could see in batting practice that Sheff has bat speed still, and he sorta HAD to go to Sheff. He lost his other players to injury or they were stinkin’ up the joint and had no sustained track record to go on. Not sure that’s some example of gut winning out over stats.

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

A lot of analysts would disagree.

There were more doubters that Sheff could even do a job as a backup.

by Outside Observer on May 29, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Interesting.

I respect that you like Acta more than Jerry. If you had a choice between winning and having manager who you like and is your favourite, who would you choose?

If Acta took over the Mets and they started losing how long would you give him?

by Outside Observer on May 29, 2009 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think I'm missing the point of your reply

I mean if we were guarenteed to win, I don’t care who is manager,if Steve Phillips, a recently retired Chipper Jones or Carrot Top managing the Mets meant championship, sign me up.

by Sokojoe on May 29, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Carrot Top as manager

he’d all go out to argue a balk and be like “Hey ump! That wasn’t a balk, this is a balk!” and throw a rubber chicken at the umpire.

"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on May 29, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Haha

Any thread which discusses the idea of Carrot Top as Mets manager is a winning thread.

by James Kannengieser on May 29, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

And when the ump doesn't laugh

Carrot Top will say “What, no good?” And reach into the box he brought with him and bring out a gun with a cigerette stuck in it and say “Look it’s the smoking gun…Still nothing huh, how bout this one?” Pulls out metal corn and says “Look it’s Robo-Crop.” To which the ump would reply “You’re out of here you fucking hack!” The Mets would then come back to win 2 to -7 and the papers would write how Carrot Top inspired them by being ejected all while keeping the team loose.

by Sokojoe on May 29, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

unfortunately

Carrot Top is clearly ’roiding, which isa no-no these days:

http://www.lasnark.com/2008/06/07/carrot-top-is-on-steroids/583/

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with you that winning ia all that counts.

And the fact is we are winning with Jerry. If we weren’t then fine, lets look at other managers.

Acta hasn’t been winning so far. Why will that turn into success if he becomes the manager of the Mets? Faith?

And my point. Because he wouldn’t be coming into the club with a winning record, will the fans and players give him time to prove himself? Will it matter if he interviews better or comes across as more intelligent if he doesn’t win straight away?

by Outside Observer on May 29, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

With this logic

I suppose you also think D’Antoni went from being a good coach to a bad coach.

by Sokojoe on May 29, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

But they WOULDN'T be losing. That's the point.

Jeez.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on May 29, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why would they be losing?

They aren’t losing under Manuel and he has no clue what he is doing; he pinch-hits with two outs in the ninth inning down by one run with the bullpen catcher. Obviously they would only get better with a manager who knows what he is doing.

by JohnPeterson on May 29, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

like any other multi million dollar operation

you dont judge your success as a results based analysis. a good decision is a good decision whether or not the results pan out due to fores beyond your control.

i am convinced that acta > jerry. only an extraordinary amount of winning or losing with one or the other would convince me otherwise.

All of the mets fans hope that we will not see the bad news mets ever again.

by kendynamo on May 29, 2009 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Stats aren’t gospel, they’re just a tool to help you refine your level of understanding. Instincts are a huge part of everything, as cognitive beings we just don’t have the mental capacity to break everything down into its most essential units. But that doesn’t mean you should just ignore an obvious and useful tool that you have at your discretion.

And the quote wasn’t that out of context at all, Jerry may have laughed, but he was also saying something very calculated, as he always does. What bothers me is how he can be so calculated about what he says to Kevin Burkart, but he can’t use calculations when deciding to use Angel Pagan or Ramon Castro as a PH vs. LHP.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Meddler on May 29, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Probably

He’s currently 84.2% angry, 12.1% sad and 3.7% thinking about lunch. Though those percentages obviously are subject to a 3% margin of error and are indicative, not representative.

by deadspy3 on Jun 1, 2009 6:29 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

trade managers

now

All of the mets fans hope that we will not see the bad news mets ever again.

by kendynamo on May 29, 2009 9:06 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Read this again...
We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people.

Read it one more time…

We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people.

by TheBigStapler on May 29, 2009 9:18 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

No, baby Jesus always went with his gut

I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself into trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya

by itsmetsforme on May 29, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

that is literally meaningless gibberish

English, Jerry. Try it next time, even if you don’t have a point.

Somehow, a chain of events unfolded that put Steve Phillips in a professional broadcast booth Sunday night so he could rip Carlos Beltran. Try to explain that in any other terms.

by Greenpoint Ian on May 29, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

c'mon cut him some slack

it’s not like he was born and raised in an English speaking country. ::checks baseball-reference, sees he was born in Georgia. Slams palm into face::

by cjmulrain on May 30, 2009 2:25 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ugh!

Words cannot describe.

by Ohpityme on May 30, 2009 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Like I was saying before...

bad manager, good team. Good manager, bad team. It just doesn’t make sense…

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on May 29, 2009 9:32 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Very interesting

Acta definitely comes off as being the more intellectual manager while Manuel is . . . blech, a borderline neanderthal. Caveman Gangsta!

Yet, despite all of his progressive thought, his team has 13 wins on the season. Obviously, the disparity in talent between the teams has a lot to do with it, but this makes me curious. I hadn’t heard a whole lot about Acta as a manager. Is he one of the more progressive thinking managers? I mean, we all hear about Epstein and Beane, but is Francona sabermetrically minded?

by theflicker on May 29, 2009 9:34 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Unfrozen Caveman Manager

He used to be a caveman, now he is a manager.

“Your statistics frighten and confuse me, I’m just a caveman.”

by mets81 on May 29, 2009 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i dont know what this litle squiggles on your magic glowing box mean

i’m just a caveman and your fancy words frighten me. but if theres one thing i do know, its that because of omir santos’ grit and passion, he deserves no less than 50% of the playing time allocated to catchers on the mets this season.

actually i think agent might be a better profession for unfrozen caveman.

All of the mets fans hope that we will not see the bad news mets ever again.

by kendynamo on May 29, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think

that when Acta starts looking for a new job, Epstein and Beane will come calling.

by JohnPeterson on May 29, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Do you?

Epstein/Beane seem to prefer puppets. Why do they need Acta to think for himself — and yes, Saber-haters, he actually thinks! — when they can install a Howe or a Tito Francona and dole out orders?

by jasondg on May 29, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You can easily take quotes out of context and make anyone sound silly.

I look at the winning records. And Acta is not doing a good job. He has a team that is hitting very well. There is no reason why the Nats should be doing as badly as they are. The only intangible is poor management.

There are plenty of very very clever people on Wall street who still protest that the stats suggested there was very little risk in derivatives.

What is the quote? Lies, Damn Lies and statistics?

by Outside Observer on May 29, 2009 9:46 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

"There is no reason why the Nats should be doing as badly as they are"

So I’ll guess that you are not aware of the Nats’ so-called “relief” pitching.

"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on May 29, 2009 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hey, it's definitely a relief

to see those guys coming in if you’re a Mets fan…

by deadspy3 on May 29, 2009 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not to mention

their “starting” pitching

by Eric Simon on May 29, 2009 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The mets relief pitching was awful last year

But they still had a winning record. 89 games?

The point is not that they should be leading the league. Just that talent wise they should be better than 13-33 record.

They are very good offensively. That should have won them more than 13 games.

by Outside Observer on May 29, 2009 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's because we have Johan Santana. And Carlos Beltran. And Jose Reyes. And David Wright.

No one on the Nationals has even close to that many wins. And Jerry has lost us games too with his managing!

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on May 29, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

so does santana pitch every day?

santana won 16 games last year. Give Jerry some credit.

With the number of injuries the Mets have had Jerry has done an outstanding job.

by Outside Observer on May 29, 2009 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I sort of hear you

Their Pythagorean Record is 18-28, so something has gone wrong, be it luck, bullpen, moxie, grission, whatever. However, they also have 13 blown saves in 46 games. That projects to about 45 over the course of the season. For comparison, the 2008 Mets blew 29 saves. It’s tough for a manager to field a winning team when the ace reliever is Ron Villone, and best starter is a 24 year old who throws 88 mph and strikes out 4 guys every 9 innings.

by James Kannengieser on May 29, 2009 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

By the way

Jordan Zimmermann is actually their best starter, and not John Lannan like I implied. However, Zimmermann is 23 years old and has exactly 46 innings of major league experience so the idea still applies.

by James Kannengieser on May 29, 2009 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Zimmermann is pretty damn good though

St. Louis Cardinals... defying win expectancy since 2008

by vivaelpujols on May 31, 2009 3:12 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I accept that.

But actually what Jerry implies is not that far from what is taught at most business schools. I have a MBA from a top 10 school in the world.

Generally quantitative methods are used as an affirmation of strategy rather than an initiator. Or basically we could replace all managers with computers.

by Outside Observer on May 29, 2009 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

It wasn't meant as anything. so thanks for the sarcasm.

only that general management theory is quite a big topic and goes beyond baseball.

I don’t think Jerry vs Acta was meant to be gut vs stats. I think they both use a little of both.

I just think that a manager deserves a little credit when a team is winning with a ton of injuries to key players. And to suggest Jerry is somehow worse than a manger whose team has 13 wins is just over the top.

by Outside Observer on May 29, 2009 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

well

let’s try a counter-factual. What would the records be if manny managed the Mets and Jerry managed the Nats? Most likely, the records would be identical. As much as Manny uses stats, he goes with the players he has and what they produce. At the margins, he may be able to change the outcome of a game or 2 with what he has got. And Manny didn’t sign Nick Johnson and Adam Dunn. Presumably, the general manger is in some agreement with Manny Acta that walks are pretty important, as well as some homers from Dunn.

Unless Jerry was able to turn cabrera into a guy with control, the record would be pretty much the same.

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think the topic of process vs. results is a key point of this post

It’s possible to have success even without sound process. Likewise, failure occurs even with good process. Manuel’s team has a better record than Acta’s, but that fact alone does not mean Manuel is a better manager. I’d put Manuel in the “bad process” category, and Acta in the “good process” category.

by James Kannengieser on May 29, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Can it be a bad process if it achieves results?

Thats the ultimate aim. RESULTS. Not how you get there. If Jerry was losing I could understand a lot of the hostility. But he isn’t. Even though with the injury situation that was more likely.

by Outside Observer on May 29, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wierd

Imagine you had two pitchers and two hitters amongst the players in a baseball game (both pitchers are relievers).
Hitter A goes 0-4 hitting 4 screaming liners to the back of the warning track and hitter B goes 3-4 on 3 dribblers with eyes and a K. Pitcher A pitches a perfect inning giving up 3 screamers with eyes and pitcher B gives up 2 runs on a grounder with eyes and a pop-up homer to the 314 mark in right amidst 2 Ks and a groundout.

Who would you feel more comfortable with in the next game?
Results-based analysis is stupid.

I will not allow the denigration of the life essence

by GenJackRipper on May 29, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Or how about this:

Poker Player A calls a raise in No Limit Texas Hold ’Em with 8clubs-7clubs. There are five players to the flop, which is 10clubs-6clubs-2hearst, giving Player A an open-ended straight flush draw. There is a bet, a raise and a re-raise in front of him, so he pushes in all his chips. Two players call for all their chips. The turn is a 3hearts and the river a King of Spades. Player A loses all his money.

Poker Player B calls a large pre-flop raise with Jack of Hearts and 8hearts. There are two players to the flop, which is the Ace of Spades, the King of Hearts and the 4hearts. The first player pushes in all his chips for a bet that is 10 times the size of the pot. Player B calls for all his chips and catches a six of hearts on the river, beating the other guy’s set of kings. Player B doubles his money.

Who made the better play?

by JohnPeterson on May 29, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm confused

10-8-7-6 of clubs is an inside straight-flush draw, not open-ended. Only the 9c makes that hand. Also, in the first scenario, with the two opponents, there is the potential that at least one of them has a four-flush as well (probably drawing to a higher flush), leaving him w/just the four nines as outs. Seems like an awful play.

Hold on, this is a baseball forum, right?

by Zwill on May 29, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes!

Of course it can be a bad process even if it achieves good results. It’s called dumb luck.

See the comments from Meddler’s recent fanshot in which the poker analogy is very apt. Or look at Putz’s save against Boston last week in which he gave up a walk and three scorched balls that resulted in outs.

by Reg Dunlop on May 29, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I kind of hated that fanshot

only because, by relating poker to baseball, I can now sort of relate to why Phil Hellmuth gets so pissed off at amateur players in big tournaments.

"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on May 29, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I could always relate to that

I get pissed off when I lose to bad beats on my Iphone Hold ’em app.

by Reg Dunlop on May 29, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Except that

Phil Hellmuth really isn’t that good and gets upset at the internet pros who are better than him.

by JohnPeterson on May 29, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

one step further

Sometimes hard to even know if a scorched ball, even 3 in a row, is from bad pitching. Putzie may be a bad example, but Santana, gets squeezed it seems, and next day box score shows a buncha walks and Dunn homer. But he always gives up some fly balls. Dunn caught one and gave it a ride.

Was Johan any better or worse than always? perhaps not.

Not disagreeing with you at all, but it shows how much luck can play into things. And don’t confuse the two.

sabremetrics is also results based, but repeatable results over time. What result is more likely over time.

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

exactly, process v results

how do i rec this. i was trying to make this point earlier.

so what if the mets win with jerry? if hes not helping than hes not helping. acta would do a better job based on mountains of evidence. jerry + winning = coincidence, not causality, and likewise acta + losing.

this topic is beat to death. if you can bring to light NEW evidence of how jerry is a better manager than do it, otherwise skip the “well were winning with him, therefore hes helping us win” horsecrap.

All of the mets fans hope that we will not see the bad news mets ever again.

by kendynamo on May 29, 2009 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Right. If the MBA from top ten school thing wasn't meant as anything, why bring it up?

He deserves credit for keeping the team going with all of the injuries, sure. But even leaving aside the issue whether or not Jerry is partly to blame for the injuries (I won’t get into that), the team’s talent makes up 99.9999% of the reasons they win. But Acta deserves even more credit for actually understanding and utilizing stats. That’s like saying that if a guy who comes from a rich family gets dozens of hours of SAT prep and still guesses on part of his SATs by filling in bubbles randomly and gets a great score by pure luck and his fortunate background, he’s definitively better than the guy who studies and just doesn’t do as well because he has a younger sister with a mental handicap he had to take care of the night before because his single mother had to work two jobs, so he got only 4 hours of sleep before hand.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on May 29, 2009 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Because it was to backup that the topic is not simple

And there is a debate between different types of management both theoretically and practically. It is a serious subject on how to be a better manager. It is on-going business theory argued academically around the world.

I was not defending Jerry on whether it is better to work hard over someone who can get the answers from ‘gut feeling’. Some people can articulate their thought process well and others mumble like Jerry. But that doesn’t mean that logical thought has not gone into making decisions. You cannot be successful over years from guessing.

And trust me you don’t become the manager of the Mets without hard work, a lot of thought and being more right than wrong in your baseball decisions.

by Outside Observer on May 29, 2009 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

and

sidling up to Omar now and then and saying “ya know, Willie has lost the players.” Just kidding. Kinda.

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

you mean

because you were making a desperate appeal to authority because your position on the argument is wrong?

All of the mets fans hope that we will not see the bad news mets ever again.

by kendynamo on May 29, 2009 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

let me guess the school

Lesse,

Harvard
MIT (Sloan?)
Penn (Wharton)
Chicago

Likely all in top 5? Would you have said top 5 if one of those?

Who else? Depends on the criteria.

Stanford next?
Tuck
Kellogg
Stern
Darden
Yale
Fuqua
Columbia

In the running, I guess.

Would like to say Kenan Flagler, since I was a Carolina undergrad.

Likley a Mets fan

I will go with Stern or Columbia.

OK. Pin me down. Stern.

Say hello to Nouriel Roubini for me.

Seriously, my borther-in-law teaches there.

Just joking with you. Was I close?

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

London Business School

It was not meant as any form of validation. Just that people think that management is the same as giving interviews to the media.

It is not. Jerry is very underestimated.

by Outside Observer on May 29, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

oh

I ws thinking US. Did Mick jagger go there? No, that was London School of Economics, no?

I was just teasing. No big deal. What would Michael Jensen make of Jerry’s management techniques?

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

LBS is real and legit

but i dont know what kind of management theory they teach there nor do i care to.

All of the mets fans hope that we will not see the bad news mets ever again.

by kendynamo on May 29, 2009 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

P.S.

I don’t think computers would have invented mortgage backed securities. So +1 for technology over humans!

by James Kannengieser on May 29, 2009 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

well only computers can even track them

actuaries find them impossible to unravel. so +2 to statistics.

by Outside Observer on May 29, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Mazal tov!

"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on May 29, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Go Double O

I’m with you man, manager bashing is cliche, and if a manager is running to the book every other pitch then what’s his brain for? If you don’t like Jerry’s brain that’s fine, but baseball is not a beautiful game because it can be quantified a million different ways by using numbers.

by HoJoHeff on May 29, 2009 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

it's a beautiful game

and that’s how most stat heads got into learning about the stats anyway, because they love the game. I believe we are all aware these are some amazing athletes doing incredible things (and often failing) that generate the stats.

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's actually why it's such a great game.

It’s an individual game masquerading as a team game. So you’re allowed your opinion, but I’ll promise you bashing statistics will only end in you looking kinda stupid.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on May 29, 2009 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

yeah

which is why “chemistry” matters a little bit in football maybe, and basketball, but not as much in baseball, just to speak in complete generalities. But i don’t play fantasy football or hoops, so I am sure i can be disabused of that notion, but just looking at it, the interaction of players is a little more important in those sports than in hoops, say.

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Honestly,

I would rather ManageTron 1000 than Jerry Manuel.

by JohnPeterson on May 29, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The problem is

managers (like most people) lack the ability to utilize all the information they have to make the best decision. They may know more about the matchups, how the batter/pitcher is feeling that day, how the batter hits curves, etc. However, they generally don’t have the ability to weight that information properly and derive the best course of action. In that regard, given all of the information that a manger has, a computer would be better.

St. Louis Cardinals... defying win expectancy since 2008

by vivaelpujols on May 31, 2009 3:14 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

So I'm sorry. It's Acta's fault that his pitching literally consists of all Double A players?

And they ARE doing better than a lot of people thought. They’re like 3rd in the NL in runs scored. Statistics may not tell the whole story, but they’re absolutely on the mark here. And this isn’t even remotely comprable to Wall Street, that’s just a bad comparison.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on May 29, 2009 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

if only willie got fired after 2006

maybe the Mets would have Acta as manager.

Of course, hard to fire Willie after just barely losing the pennat.

And Manny would likely already be gone too. The bullpen implosion would have led to the same results, and the press would be “he’s all stats, can’t motivate the players” on him if the same results had happened.

Then again, maybe correct use of players based on their stats might have gotten another win last year.

Oh well.

I have to say, though, I don’t hate Jerry. On the margins, he is clueless, (feliciano stays in for Diaz), but we don’t know what goes on in the clubhouse, what the pitchers say to him, rightly or wrongly, about pitching to castro or santos. Yeah, some of managing should be telling players “I make the line-up, not you.” And all of this is speculation on my part. he certainly just seems to hate castro and Church. That’s an aspect of him I don’t like either, and i am not seeing the positive otivational results, if that is what he is up to.

I am sure in the big picture, though, jerry understands, David Wright and beltran are my best players. Jose reyes is also excellent, if a little less consistent year in year out as those two, delgado isa big bopper, we are better when he is hitting well, etc. He likely wishes Pelf miss a few more bats now and then, while paying lip service to the hoary “a groundout is as good as a strikeout.”

But what I like about Jerry, as a human, is he does not seem defensive. He shows some humor. he is loose. He seems, and i can only go by what I see, like he is fairly genuine. Warts and all, you are getting him fairly unvarnished. I can only guess that he is more enjoyable to play for (maybe not for castro and church) than Willie was, and maybe the team is looser for it.

Not that such in any way makes up for not knowing how teams really go about scoring runs and preventing them. For that, Acta obviously is superior, and I am sure Acta knows all about fundamentals and clubhouse atmosphere, etc, as much as he has been around the game.

It is a shame about the natinals pitching. They have created a pretty good batting order, albeit Dukes is out. And at least the pitchers are young. Zimmermann is talented, Martis may improve (he has been pelfrey-esque lucky-not to rag on Mike, since he shows such promise himself), lannan is at least middling, if not an ace by a long shot.

It’ll certainly make a lot of teeth gnash around here if the Mets win the series this year with Jerry at the helm.

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I like Jerry too. I think he's a nice, likeable guy.

I just don’t think he’s that great of a manager.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on May 29, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

agreed

not the worst manger, but no the best.

The gut versus stats debate does remind of something on wall street: fundamental analysis versus technical analysis in making investment decisions.

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

fundamental analysis vs. technical analysis

To expand on that thought:

It isn’t really fair to say t/a is more like going by gut, because it is stat based.

But, in general:

Fundamental analysis involves making a decision about whether a stock is over or undervalued by estimating tha present value of future positive free cash flows of a business, estimating growth, a terminal value and a discount rate.

Technical analsyis looks more to supply and demand for shares and looks sometimes to historical chart patterns to see if a stock is gathering support, or if institutions are bailing, weak hands shook out, etc. Much more to it then that, but it looks to a stock as a commodity like anything else, and yes, fudamentals play, but price to earnings etc. not as important as buying and selling at the right time. The belief would be that humans and herds act the same way in repeated patterns and you can learn and recognize these patterns and profit therefrom.

Outside observer would also be familiar with quantative analysis, which also looks to patterns, reversions to mean, arbitrage opportunities, leverage, etc. Kinda almosta hybrid, and the best and brightest seem to go that way. The investment baks have gone for the rocket scientist quant jocks since the ’80s.

Likely most folks here have read Moneyball and Liar’s Poker.

Fundamental analysis. Ben Graham, Buffett. Stocks in the short run are a voting machine. long run a weighing machine. In other words, a popularity contest, but value ultimately outs.

This is sort of akin to going with the hot hand against going with history and probability. Santos is hot, i will ride him, or Emilio bonafacio being a great example from this season. Obviously, a lot of differences. Emilio Bonafacio can’t attract attention and stay hot by mere virtue of the fact he is popular, a la, say a hot stock, like Crox a few years ago.

Fundamental analysis is hal Holbrook in Wall Street . Folks don’t like gettin’ rich the boring slow way.

OK, my analogy machine has broken down. But i have always liked the comparison.

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Fundamentals, Technicals, and Instinct

In this case, the stats guys would be into TA. The old school guys would be into fundamentals. The best approach is to use both.

There’s nothing wrong with being a fundamentals guy, in my view, I just don’t think Jerry is a particularly good one. There are lots of things a guy who really knows baseball can look at that might be difficult to quantify in stats. All sorts of baseball fundamentals from how well does a guy know where to position himself, to how good his approach is at the plate, to swing mechanics, to situational hitting, to how well a catcher calls a game.

Some of these things can be found in stats now, but even when they are, the stats don’t always tell you why something is what it is. If you can understand the “why”, you can make adjustments and get better stats.

A good baseball guy may take all of this detailed knowledge into account, and let it inform his decisions. Because he’s not writing it all down on paper, and quantifying it, it gets called a “gut” decision. But that doesn’t mean it’s arbitrary or inexact.

If you go find someone in some foreign country, who has never heard of major league baseball, and ask them to pick the likely playoff contenders this year, and give them no other information, they are going to give you completely arbitrary answers. Their “gut” decisions will be based on the only information they do have, which might be as arbitrary as which team names they like.

But ask the same of a guy who watches 10 baseball games a week and knows every roster and seen every player play, and you will get a more informed “gut” instinct. If the guy happens to look at stats as well, his gut instinct will probably get even better.

Some human beings happen to be pretty good at making these kind of complex decisions from volumes of data without consciously calculating how they are putting all of the information available together. Heck, this is why some guys can hit a baseball. Somehow, without being consciously aware of it, your mind is taking the input from your eyes, and is calculating angles, spin, trajectory, speed, and making a very quick decision. Even if you aren’t conscious of it, there’s a lot of math going on in that big computer between your ears when you make this instinctive decision.

So I have no problem with a manager who relies on gut instincts. My problem with Jerry is his instincts don’t seem to be particularly good. The Mets have had 3 great managers in their history, in Hodges, Johnson, and Valentine. I want another guy like that who is a good strategist; I don’t care how he arrives at it.

by acerimusdux on May 29, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

+a bajillion

I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself into trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya

by itsmetsforme on May 29, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

agree with you mostly

only problem being that technical analysis is about as provable as phrenology. No stats really back it up. Buffett has huge piles of billions to back him up. Which also calls into question efficient market theory.

But, the analogies can’t be perfect anyway. Jesse Livermore likley new fundamentals and had a good gut as a trader.

As for managers. I liked Bobby V. But he COULD go pretty old school on you. Ask pete harnisch, who was having a bit of a breakdown and Bobby V. challenged his manhood.

And he ws a great manager in general.

What would Hodges have done to Fernando? he couldn’t walk out to the outfield and pulled him from the game. Wouldn’t make sense. :)

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

ah no please no efficient market theory discussion

i will dive through the internets and beat with your monitor/laptop!

by meigs1414 on May 29, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

speaking of the internets

i gotta learn to encapuslate better for the forum. I am like my mom on an answering machine.

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

+1

for the analogy

by SupT on May 29, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You can't teach an old dog new tricks

Manuel is a veteran and a total pro so his “feel” is informed by many valuable years of on-field experience. I trust that his evaluations of players and situations are pretty good ones.

His enormous flaw has less to do with him trusting his feelings over stats but, rather, his utter unwillingness to learn anything new about the game. Here, Acta talks about using all available baseball knowledge, pitch f/x, etc. and it’s very impressive. Manuel’s instincts, on the other hand, have developed over the years but only upon a narrow foundation.

by TheBigStapler on May 29, 2009 9:58 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Bingo

You’ve distilled the disparity between these two managers down to its essence. This is not — and has never been — a question of stats versus feel, or whatever. The point of any job, baseball manager or otherwise, is to consider all relevant information available in order to make the most informed decisions possible. Statistical numbers are neither the beginning nor the end of the discussion, but they are a huge piece of the puzzle and ignoring them out of laziness, stubbornness or anything else is irresponsible, reprehensible, and just downright ridiculous.

by Eric Simon on May 29, 2009 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

uh huh

I should have read ahead.

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i'd agree except for one thing

if you can’t or haven’t mastered them, you can know just enough to mislead yourself, devaluing non-preferred approaches, and becoming extremely defensive at the suggestion that other factors may contribute to success. So if Jerry learned just enough karate to get himself killed, instead of say, beaten to a pulp, perhaps he should stick to using his blade.

I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself into trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya

by itsmetsforme on May 29, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good point

Excellent analogy too, the sentiment is certainly and important one. But if you have a few million blackbelts at your disposal, is it not worth it to at least pick their brains? The risk of misleading yourself may exist, but the reward is that you may learn to use the blade more properly as well, or at least learn a new way of using it that has a purpose and function. For example, if you run into a jiu jitsu master capable of disarming you, perhaps you’ll have a shot at countering his counter.

My point is when you’re trying to do something at the highest level, regardless of risk, its silly to cut yourself off from a useful set of information or limit yourself to a particular method. Even if you’re not entirely comfortable using every single method that exists, its important to be flexible and adaptive, and the way to do that is to familiarize yourself with whatever methods are at your disposal and that you are capable of understanding, or perhaps more importantly, whatever methods your confident in your ability to understand. In this case, if you’re not confident in your ability to understand statistics and their meaning on some level, you probably shouldn’t be in charge of a major league baseball team. With the progress statistical analysis has made in the world of baseball, if you cut yourself off from them too much, at this point you’re just going to find yourself getting more and more outclassed.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Meddler on May 29, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

+2

One for Stapler and one for Eric. I just posted the same sentiment in a reply to another comment in this thread.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Meddler on May 29, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

This was good.

Right herrrrrr.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on May 29, 2009 10:04 AM EDT reply actions   1 recs

Oh!

Cerrone likes your work.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on May 29, 2009 10:13 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I feel bad now

for saying he was really a robot.

by deadspy3 on May 29, 2009 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's like

Cerrone almost gets it, but not quite.

by mets81 on May 29, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Who does AmazinAvenue hate more?

Omir Santos or Matt Cerrone?

"I used to be legit. I was too legit. I was too legit to quit. but now I'm not legit. I'm unlegit. And for that reason, I must quit."

by jaronson5 on May 29, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Cerrone

No one hates Omir Santos. I wouldn’t say I hate Cerrone either; I’m sure he’s a terrific guy, blue button down shirt aside. I just think Metsblog — specifically, his analysis — is useless.

by jasondg on May 29, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

good call. i was just joking around, but..

hate is a strong word and should be stricken from my internetz verbage

"I used to be legit. I was too legit. I was too legit to quit. but now I'm not legit. I'm unlegit. And for that reason, I must quit."

by jaronson5 on May 29, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree

thats what I was kind of getting at. Its frustrating that he would link to this post, explain that the post shows the differences between Manuel and Acta, then comment that he would be interested to see what Acta would do with more talent, then abruptly end his post.

by mets81 on May 29, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Acta with talent

would do better than Acta with the Natinals. Pretty goddamn obvious.

by jasondg on May 29, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

That was a interesting article, thanks for the link

by TheBigStapler on May 29, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I liked that article.

Even if he doesn’t eventually manage the Mets, I wish Acta well.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on May 29, 2009 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

it really is quite intuitive, the thing about good managers starting out on bad teams

a guy who’s never managed before doesn’t generally just get hired to manage an awesome team, they get hired by a team that’s rebuilding/looking to go in a new direction. it’s only natural that a lot of managers will have crappy records early on in their managerial careers.

by JoshNY on May 29, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree

I think Acta would fit well in an organization like Boston or Oakland where stats are weighed heavily.
I don’t think it is a question of whether or not he is a good manager…it’s more of a question of what he is doing with the talent he currently has. Right now, the Nats are terrible. Yes, they can hit…but when your pitching constantly puts you behind in games there really isn’t much that you can do as a manager.

I would really like to see him get a shot with a better team, just to see if his philosophy works.

by metsman07 on May 29, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Things would be very different if the Nationals had drafted Aaron Crow last year

It’s depressing that they failed to sign him. With Strasburg coming soon, they would have an exciting generation of young pitchers on the heels of Zimmermann.

by TheBigStapler on May 29, 2009 10:17 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I just threw up a lil bit in my mouth

Seeing all of that at once was a bit too much. Maybe we can get Acta as a throw in if we acquire Johnson…

by JDizzzy on May 29, 2009 11:39 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

"Game Simulations Answer Baseball’s What-Ifs" - NYTimes article

About the use of stats and the Mets bunting. Link

Forgive me if I quote too much, but I really enjoyed this article.

As for the science of baseball strategy, one game teaches precious little. A well-timed sacrifice bunt can backfire and lose the game; a foolish steal can appear brilliant.
"Computer simulations work pretty well in baseball for two reasons," said Carl Morris, (…) "In general, they allow you to study fairly complicated processes that you can’t really get at with pure mathematics. But also, sports are great for simulations — you can play 10,000 seasons overnight."
"We can run the experiment in the simulation environment and think we’re measuring the effect of a great defense on a pitching staff, but it might tell us more about how we modeled defense," said Tom Tippett, who wrote the original Diamond Mind code in the early 1980s. "The simulation is real close to real-life baseball, but in the end it isn’t real-life baseball."
As Mr. Tippett suggested, however, simulations have inherent limits, and probably will not ever model baseball’s vicissitudes of fate — how scrubs morph into all-stars and some teams just collapse. (Indeed, fans of the recent New York Mets would be relieved that some things defy re-creation.)Tony La Russa, the Cardinals’ manager, who is a sure bet for the Hall of Fame, said the value of computer simulations in baseball tended to stop at the dugout entrance.

"There’s way too much importance given to what you can produce from a machine," he said. "These are human beings, and I don’t think any computer is going to model that close to what we deal with at this level."

Discussing stats x gut feeling is pointless, as they are not mutually exclusive. This is about better understanding the game, knowing the limitations of the tools you use (stats have limitations, gut feeling has limitations).

The sacrifice bunt. Is it worth making an out intentionally to move a runner from first to second? Forcing a team that hated that maneuver (the 2005 Boston Red Sox) to do it a lot cost them 19 runs per season. But making a bunting team (the 2008 New York Mets) avoid it also cost them — by 15 runs on average — suggesting that the Mets’ managers, Willie Randolph and Jerry Manuel, used it quite intelligently.

Fans (myself included) usually hate when the Mets (*cough*Castillo*cough*) keep showing bunt. What fans want to see is HR, RBI-hit or SB from our players. The fans (myself included again) need to recognize there is more baseball than hitting HRs.

While I was browsing, I found another article bunt-related. Link

Besides the usual jokes, sometimes we fans need to humbly acknowledge our ignorance, that we don’t know everything, and to think twice before calling someone “dumb”.

Mets solution: get Tokuchi Toua (ace starting pitcher, 1B, cleanup hitter AND manager).

by Michkin on May 29, 2009 2:37 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

the last part

i’d just like to see how they made the mets “avoid the bunt.” did they have them stop bunting completely? did they let pitchers bunt? castillo bunt? there’s a big difference between the way the 2005 red sox in the american league and the 2008 mets in the national league bunted. and we didn’t make the playoffs because our bullpen stank, not because of bunting, anyway.

When asked why I was a Mets fan, I responded, "pain is my lifeblood."

by wrightHOF on May 29, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Simulation: Mets bunting less than they usually do

It’s simply that the Mets would score 15 less runs if they bunted less, according to their simulation.

The article never mentioned to not making the playoffs because of the bunt. If anything else, if the Mets had bunted less, they would be 2,5 games away from the playoffs and instead of 1 game.

Mets solution: get Tokuchi Toua (ace starting pitcher, 1B, cleanup hitter AND manager).

by Michkin on May 29, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

padres bullpen

They seem to find guys. Mike Adams last year. Heath Bell from Mets (Adams was a Met too). Gregerson from Cards. Mujica (Indians?). I know they mess up too (Duaner). Omar doesn’t seem to find these guys.

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 4:25 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

meant that

as a reply to wrighthof.

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

About the 1st Manny quote
“Bunting is pretty outdated. Everybody scores so many runs nowadays, it doesn’t make sense to play for one run unless it’s late in the game and it’s close. I hardly ever bunt early in a game, unless it’s with a pitcher. A big inning can win you a game. One run in the third inning can’t, unless you have Pedro pitching.”

In 46 Mets games, the game was decided by 1 run in 17 of them (37%). The Mets won 8 and lost 9 of them. The Mets have been in close games often.

Mets solution: get Tokuchi Toua (ace starting pitcher, 1B, cleanup hitter AND manager).

by Michkin on May 29, 2009 4:47 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Are you arguing against what Acta's saying?

Bunting and giving away outs often costs you runs; that’s the point.

by jasondg on May 29, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

For the most part I generally agree that bunting is dumb

But the leverage value of outs and runs are not linear. If bunting can increase your chances of scoring just one run, there are situations where the value of that run trumps the value of the out by enough of a margin to justify exchanging the out even if the run is guaranteed. For example, in the 9th inning of a home game. With a runner on second and no outs, especially with a weakish hitter up, getting that run wins the game. So a successful bunt here is a positive value play. That’s obviously the most extreme example, I’m not sure exactly where you draw the line, but its certainly somewhere late in the game and has to do with the value of the hitter(s) you have due up. Bunting in the fourth inning of a tie game with a runner on first and no outs, that’s just plain dumb. There, the value of one run and the increase in your chances of scoring it do not even come close to justifying giving away an out.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Meddler on May 29, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oops
even if the run is guaranteed

Should read even if the run isn’t guaranteed

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Meddler on May 29, 2009 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

maybe

if you are facing Walter Johnson in his prime, and your line-up is fulla scrubs, bunting in the 4th inning of a tie game makes sense. I am grasping at straws.

by wobatus on May 29, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

"and your line-up is fulla scrubs"

2009 Ramon Martinez AVG/OBP/SLG .121/.143/.182

Mets solution: get Tokuchi Toua (ace starting pitcher, 1B, cleanup hitter AND manager).

by Michkin on May 29, 2009 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hence

it “often costs you runs.” Not always. I think Acta’s quote is pretty much on the money.

by jasondg on May 29, 2009 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah I know

I’m just nitpicking for the sake of discussion, I didn’t actually think I was saying something necessarily in contradiction to what you said.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Meddler on May 29, 2009 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with him. My point is, the condition he set for bunting is happening often for the Mets.

1)" it doesn’t make sense to play for one run unless it’s late in the game and it’s close"
2)“The Mets have been in close games often.”

So, the Mets bunting in late and close games makes sense.

Mets solution: get Tokuchi Toua (ace starting pitcher, 1B, cleanup hitter AND manager).

by Michkin on May 29, 2009 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Diamond Mind simulation suggests Mets have been using the bunt effectively
The sacrifice bunt. Is it worth making an out intentionally to move a runner from first to second? Forcing a team that hated that maneuver (the 2005 Boston Red Sox) to do it a lot cost them 19 runs per season. But making a bunting team (the 2008 New York Mets) avoid it also cost them — by 15 runs on average — suggesting that the Mets’ managers, Willie Randolph and Jerry Manuel, used it quite intelligently.

Link again.

Mets solution: get Tokuchi Toua (ace starting pitcher, 1B, cleanup hitter AND manager).

by Michkin on May 29, 2009 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Misses the point

That the Mets have been in close games doesn’t mean they’ve bunted only in late and close spots.

That article’s about last year; we can all see Jerry’s used the bunt plenty early in games.

by jasondg on May 29, 2009 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

About bunting early in the game

So you would rather see Ramon Martinez swinging when a pitcher has better numbers than him? Not only him, but with so many injured, the Mets are playing with sub-replacement players.

Anyways, it’s not like Dub, Shef or Voltron are bunting.

Mets solution: get Tokuchi Toua (ace starting pitcher, 1B, cleanup hitter AND manager).

by Michkin on May 29, 2009 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

How much does this take into account the decisions teams make after a bunt?

I.E. A player get bunted over to second, and a player get intentionally walked to set up a double play.

I think too often what managers fail to consider when deciding to bunt in late game situations is that sometimes it can create conditions that make scoring a run less favorable. And sometimes the possible outcomes that can make scoring one run more favorable, can be offset by conditions, that normally would not have occurred, that make scoring a run less favorable.

I not sure how clear my point is and I don’t want to go through a whole list of situations so Ill try to highlight it with this situations.
A player is on 2nd with no outs. If you don’t bunt, the next three batters have a chance to get hits and drive in the run. If you do bunt, you have taken away one opportunity to drive in a run. The hitter with two out is going to need to hit safely anyway. So only the one out batter can produce a run without hitting safely. (I’m excluding balks and WP’s) Basically what you have done is wasted one at bat where there is no possibility of a run scoring, to create a situation in which the only additional run scoring outcomes are a deep fly ball, or a well placed ball on the infield.

Now a lot of the decision to bunt or not has to do with who you have coming up in the order. My point is, it shouldn’t be automatic to play for one run in a late game situation.

by Reg Dunlop on May 30, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

What are "statisical numbers"?

St. Louis Cardinals... defying win expectancy since 2008

by vivaelpujols on May 30, 2009 11:41 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Start posting about the Mets »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

The_buddha_by_lord_karsus_small
2009 Mets Gangsta and Grission Awards
Buckner_small
The robcast Mets Offseason Plan
Hamheadshot__1__small
Poem: There's Only One October Wish

Recent FanPosts

Mwsos8pj_1__small
How Would Other Teams Do in 2009 With The Mets Injuries?
Small
Gonzalez over Davis?
Small
Off-season reading: the best baseball books
Small
Thoughts on Yankees vs. Phillies
43cd0dee9d920fd72b0a2b2bce4f8a00-getty-90957610bb021_los_angeles_k_small
Just curious as to why Met fans "hate" the Phillies
Small
It All Started With Torrealba...
Metseyes_small
'10 Mets Sep-Oct Schedule: Advantage Mets

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

Pricks Beat Douchebags to Win World Series

Recent FanShots

Scouts opinions and grains of salt
Hustle, Dedication, Intelligence, and Teamwork
Myers done with Phillies
Chapman likes New York
White Sox Buy Out Dye's Contract
BA Mets Top 10
Carlos Gomez dealt to the Brewers for JJ Hardy
Hit-and-run victim outside Phillies game dies from injuries
Bill James sez:
Red Sox acquire Jeremy Hermida

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

Sponsors


THE BIG GUY

Aa_avatar_small Eric Simon

THE INCREDIBLES

Blackfish2_small Alex Nelson

Cj_small Sam Page

Best_infield_ever_small James Kannengieser

THE NEWS GURU

Wrightfront_small Joe Budd

POET LAUREATE

Hamheadshot__1__small Howard Megdal