Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been watching & playing baseball since 1955. (I'm an old coot) In the past ten years or so most managers are the push button type, they never deviate from the "mythical" book. It doesn't matter if the starting pitcher is pitching a perfect game with every pitch a strike these types (Kirk Gibson & Jim Leyland are the worst) bring in their setup man in the eight & their closer in the ninth. Gibson brought in so many bum relievers that the Diamondbacks led the majors in blown saves with 29 yet he continued trotting them out there, game after game, just as the book decrees.
Last nights game between the Tigers and Red Sox is just the latest example, for the 10,000th. time. Scherzer was masterful, had allowed the Sox just one run in seven innings. Yet, in the eigth, in came the set up man. Can't defy the book it seems. Then, in a burst of rare insight, Leyland brought in his so-called closer BenWa after the relievers gave up a hit and walked two, and on the first pitch he gave up a grand slam, tying the game. Why not let the starting pitchers pitch until they need a reliever? And the 100 pitch count is a joke.
I guess I remember the masters of the past - Billy Martin who drew the lineup out of a hat after a long Tiger losing streak. It had Eddie Brinkman, the shortstop hitting .180 batting clean up and guess what? The Tigers won. Billy used the triple steal, double steal, bunts, and loads of other things modern managers seem unaware of.
Another was Mayo Smith, who benched his starting shortstop (Ray Oyler) for the WORLD Series. He put his center fielder at short, put Kaline in the outfield, and guess what? The Tigers won.
I can't imagine these by-the-book types ever doing anything out of the expected.
Billy used the triple steal, double steal, bunts, and loads of other things modern managers seem unaware of.
If you study what Martin did as a manager, you would note that he only employed the above tactics when he had teams which had the skills to execute them. When managing the Oakland A's, Martin had them running a lot. When managing power oriented teams, Martin did not use those tactics in any abnormal manner.
What Martin always did was to figure out a way to win with what he had, not remake each team into some tactical surprise specialists.
Among the reasons that there seems to be more push button managers is that there is a great deal more push button information available these days with regard to the precise odds involved in strategy decisions. And it probably isn't any more push button than it ever was, what is different is that previously managers mirrored one another based on conventional wisdom rather than actual knowledge.
That is why in the past lineups were always constructed by putting the speedy base stealer at the top of the order, regardless of his ability to reach base. Batting second would be the bat control artist who could execute bunts, hit and run plays and take a pitch so that the leadoff guy could steal. Again, this selection was based on tradition, not on how well suited the guy might have actually been for hitting in so high a spot in the order.
Back when four man rotations were the norm, every manager used a four man rotation. Back when bullpens were filled by deciding who wasn't good enough to be a starter, bullpens all got used the same way....long man, short man, mop up guy.
The Earl Weavers and Billy Martins were the guys who were different back then, but most everyone else followed conventional wisdom. If pressed to explain the difference in strategic thinking between Sparky Anderson and Chuck Tanner, you would not find much help by examining their records.
Max isn't a big innings guy .... he puts a lot of work into his outings and doesn't go all that long ..... by his own admission last night "I was done - you can write that"
Last year the tigers led MLB in complete games in part because of how players were pitching
Scherzer isn't a big innings guy .... he kicked up to 6.7 innings per start this year, last year was 5.85. the year prior 5.9, prior to that 6.3 and his lone full season in Arizona was 5.7 ....... he's becomming more efficient, but he's a power guy that labors through his starts and strikes out a ton
Sanchez isn't either - he averaged 6.1 in 2010, 6.13 in 2011, 6.3 in 2012 and 6.3 this year ... he's actually getting in slightly more work in Detroit than he did in Miami
For that same period Fister averaged 6.1, 6.7, 6.2 & 6.5 ..... the years he pitched more per start are the years he has played better and allowed himself to be kept in games
Verlander this year posted the highest WHIP amongst the starting staff and put up 6.4 per start ..... last year was 7.2, the year prior when he won the MVP that jumped to 7.4 .... 14 of his 34 starts went 8 innings plus .... last year it was 15 or 33 above that mark .... this year he finished 8 innings twice in 34 starts ..... the managing didn't change, his performance and how that impacts decisions did
you have a large lead against a team that hasn't hit you over 16 innings .... a pitcher that isn't an innings eater who has hit his mark and admitted to being done ..... not a horrible idea to go to the pen in that situation .... it just didn't work out
I thought Tiger Manager Jim Leyland may be guilty of over-managing his pitching last night. Scherzer was doing fine for a full 7 innings, giving up only two hits and one run in all those innings. Even though ahead 5-1, Leyland pulled Scherzer for the bottom of the 8th inning and used FOUR relievers who allowed Boston to score four runs and tie the game 5-5. In the bottom of the 9th, the 5th Tiger reliever gave up the winning run to Boston. It was my hunch that Leyland tried to hard to outsmart the Red Sox and ended up outsmarting himself. Whether or not he's a push-button automaton is anyone's guess, but I still think he blew the game.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Perhaps the reason these pitchers only averaged 6 or 7 innings was due to managers "playing by the book" and bringing in their relievers no matter how well the starter is pitching. Gibson seems to have a phobic abborance to complete games.
Only 4 teams threw more complete games than the diamondbacks this year .... the year prior they were in the middle of the table with the bulk of other teams - no more, no less
If you look at the performances over the season you are oversimplifying things a lot
I thought Tiger Manager Jim Leyland may be guilty of over-managing his pitching last night. Scherzer was doing fine for a full 7 innings, giving up only two hits and one run in all those innings. Even though ahead 5-1, Leyland pulled Scherzer for the bottom of the 8th inning and used FOUR relievers who allowed Boston to score four runs and tie the game 5-5. In the bottom of the 9th, the 5th Tiger reliever gave up the winning run to Boston. It was my hunch that Leyland tried to hard to outsmart the Red Sox and ended up outsmarting himself. Whether or not he's a push-button automaton is anyone's guess, but I still think he blew the game.
Scherzer needed 108 pitches to get through his seven innings. Scherzer had zero complete games this season and pitched 8 innings in a game only seven times in 32 starts. Leyland managed Scherzer in this game just as he managed him all year. What had been successful during the season didn't work in this one post season game, but I do not see that this one failure negates the earlier success.
It brings to mind the Cardinals, and Matheny's aversion to the Stolen Base. The Cardinals are first in the league in two departments: Grounding into double plays with a runner on first, and getting a base hit with a runner on second. With numbers like that, even a 50% SB success rate would increase their scoring probability.
With a .330 BA with RISP, that rises to a 55% chance that a runner on second will be driven home by one of the next two batters. If none out, a 70% chance of the next three batters delivering. So a SB success rate would only need to be 30 or 45% to be fruitful, not even taking into account the chance that the runner on first would be erased in a DP anyway if he didn't steal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
