Jump to content

ROMAD1

Why not hire Gardenhire?

Should Ron Gardenhire be the next Tigers manager?  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Ron Gardenhire be the next Tigers manager?

    • Yes
      12
    • No
      12
    • Only if all better options are exhausted (explain)
      10


Recommended Posts


I don't get that barometer either. Are they supposed to bring in some crappy pitcher if they are losing 5-4 in the sixth inning? When you have a poor starting rotation, you can't just have a closer and setup man, you need good middle relievers too and they didn't have that. There is no way they could have avoided giving up a ton of runs this year. Even if Ausmus's mismanagement cost them 50 runs (which seems like an absurd total), they still would have had an ERA of 4.38 which would have been 14th out of 15 AL teams.

I would say yes, they should bring in the crappy pitcher when they are trailing. Odds are that even with the good pitcher you are going to lose. In a one run game of course it's more defensible than a two run or three run deficit.

Will the overall era change? No. But you might squeeze out a few more wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say yes, they should bring in the crappy pitcher when they are trailing. Odds are that even with the good pitcher you are going to lose. In a one run game of course it's more defensible than a two run or three run deficit.

Will the overall era change? No. But you might squeeze out a few more wins.

I agree it's possible they could have won a couple more games with better bullpen management. Getting back to the main argument of this thread, Yoda seemed to be saying that the reason they gave up so many runs was because of Ausmus's mismanagement. I didn't agree with that. I think they were going to lead the league in runs allowed regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree it's possible they could have won a couple more games with better bullpen management. Getting back to the main argument of this thread, Yoda seemed to be saying that the reason they gave up so many runs was because of Ausmus's mismanagement. I didn't agree with that. I think they were going to lead the league in runs allowed regardless.

Yeah, I don't agree with yoda about that. Maybe they give up fewer runs if they used joba less, but it wouldn't have been that many relative to whatever replacement we would have had. Maybe we give up fewer runs if brad pulled his starters a bit earlier. But definitely not enough to make a big difference or change the course of the season.

The biggest change could have happened with more efficient use of the good relievers, but probably not more than a few games. It's all theoretical of course. Nothing Brad could have done would have made this team a contender this year, so I'm not bothered by it. If he was going to return next year, then I'd be a bit more invested in the whole thing. Seeing as he will be fired, that's a problem for whatever poor team hires him as a bench coach and then promotes him to manager in a few years. But maybe he will actually learn something along the way.

In hindsight, I can't believe we hired a guy with no coaching experience beyond managing team israel for a couple weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he can be a good manager in the right situation. The Twins team and ballpark were perfectly designed for small ball. The Tigers are not, so I could see him having the same kinds of problems that Ausmus is having trying to force them to be a running team. Then again, I'm a big believer that managers don't matter too much and that players win games, so I won't get upset too much either way.

This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWIW, the Tigers record is 4 games better than their Pythagorean estimate.

I don't think that's worth all that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The grumpy old man 'my way or the highway' type attitude is hit or miss. I think the managers personality and people skills are more important than the x's and o's. I know they are different teams, but it is all we have to work with. The Tigers team had a string of success with the grumpy old man type manager as opposed to the young/lackadaisical type manager we have now.

I am not screaming at the roof tops that Ausmus needs to be fired. Do not misinterpret what I am saying. If he came back next year I would not be devastated because I think a good portion of this mess this year was not really his fault, but since the writing is on the wall and it seems inevitable we will have a new coach. Gardenhire kinda has that grumpy old man personality. What is Leyland up to these days? I wonder if he got the itch back or got sick of spending so much time with his family? lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brad Ausmus was the test case for what happens when you hire a guy with no previous management experience and slap him on a championship potential baseball team. If we ran 1000 additional simulations the outcomes would show that the machine probably breaks differently with slight variations in bench coach and injury. Its probable that winning the 2014 ALDS might give him more credibility and lead to a better 2015 but his bullpen management in those games was a contributing factor as well. Eventually unless he's blessed with incredible luck and no injuries: the machine crashes.

Lets try putting an experienced pilot in the aircraft now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, but who does he go to then? If there were guys that were better than Rondon and Alburquerque in the upper minors, they'd be in Detroit by now.

Perhaps Avila has a different bullpen philosophy. Dombrowski's fascination with high walk rate/big arm guys is part of the reason this bullpen has been mediocre for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps Avila has a different bullpen philosophy. Dombrowski's fascination with high walk rate/big arm guys is part of the reason this bullpen has been mediocre for years.

I would call it something even greater than a fascination...I think it was like a religion or something with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't either - just thought it was worth noting.

Given the runs allowed, this team was boned any way you slice it.

Correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if he brought in Wilson first and Wilson did OK and then the other relievers blew the game? That might be better management aesthetically, but they still would have give given up a ton of runs and lost almost all those games. You need about 1,450 innings and Wilson can only pitch 70 of those. Don't forget that their starting rotation was as bad as their bullpen this year. I think a better case can be made that Ausmus hurt the team last year than this year. A manager doesn't matter that much until he has talent with which to work.

This is, of course, true. But you and many others (myself included) have argued on here ad nauseum that managers who save their closers for a save situation instead of using them in the 7th or 8th inning when they really need some critical outs are doing it all wrong. So if you believe that, then it would follow that Wilson should have been used primarily in games we were winning. After all, he is and has been our best and most consistent reliever.

But I agree that our relievers overall have been so bad that it's sort of a pick your poison deal. Do you want to lose in the 7th inning or the 9th inning? Still, had he used Wilson in critical situations while we still HAD the lead, I think we would have won at least a couple more games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWIW, the Tigers record is 4 games better than their Pythagorean estimate.

But I think that can easily happen when you get blown out as much as we have. When your pitching/runs allowed become extreme, and ours is on the way there, it becomes an outlier wrt the rest of the league, and the assumptions of fit of the Pythagorean correlation are going to start getting challenged. Basically you can end up where your team is moving outside the population sample for the correlation. Any any kind of linearity assumptions are usually the weakest at the extremes of a data set.

Edited by Gehringer_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do think he was too slow with the hook in general.

I guess I don't know about this one. Its tough to be quick with the hook when there is nothing else other than more question marks to bring out of the bullpen.

I understand the argument for using Wilson and Hardy more often, or different situations. And perhaps you can lump Soria in there for earlier game usage if/when the situation calls for (middle of the lineup due up in the 8th, go to him, and then figure out the 9th later on). I don't think bringing Chamberlain back was necessarily an issue, but he should've been cut loose earlier than he was once the figured out the good 2014 Chamberlain was the mirage, not bad 2014 Chamberlain.

It was a tough bullpen to manage. I'm not sure anyone would've been up for it. Even Gardenhire and his satchel of magic pixie dust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ausmus objectively handled the bullpen poorly. I don't think anyone even argues this.

But the idea that better bullpen management was going to turn a very bad pitching staff into a merely bad pitching staff seems unlikely to me.

True on both statements.

It seems that the conversation is a bit at cross - purposes though. The fact that with a different manager the team would not have won enough additional games (given the poor raw material) to make a difference it not the one that matters regarding whether he should be retained, it the first fact that he handled the bullpen (and the running game!) poorly.

We want to work under the assumption that we can field a more competitive team in the future, at which point the few games a manager can influence will matter again if even they didn't this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brad Ausmus was the test case for what happens when you hire a guy with no previous management experience and slap him on a championship potential baseball team. If we ran 1000 additional simulations the outcomes would show that the machine probably breaks differently with slight variations in bench coach and injury. Its probable that winning the 2014 ALDS might give him more credibility and lead to a better 2015 but his bullpen management in those games was a contributing factor as well. Eventually unless he's blessed with incredible luck and no injuries: the machine crashes.

Lets try putting an experienced pilot in the aircraft now.

This is a good metaphor. The wings came off the damn plane, and you guys are complaining about a few minor adjustments the pilot made that "might' have made a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True on both statements.

It seems that the conversation is a bit at cross - purposes though. The fact that with a different manager the team would not have won enough additional games (given the poor raw material) to make a difference it not the one that matters regarding whether he should be retained, it the first fact that he handled the bullpen (and the running game!) poorly.

We want to work under the assumption that we can field a more competitive team in the future, at which point the few games a manager can influence will matter again if even they didn't this year.

I agree with this. They did not have the talent to win this year regardless of the manager. However, if they acquire enough talent, then the choice of manager becomes more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a good metaphor. The wings came off the damn plane, and you guys are complaining about a few minor adjustments the pilot made that "might' have made a difference.

Use the metaphor but don't get it twisted. He broke the plane because he didn't know how to fly it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Use the metaphor but don't get it twisted. He broke the plane because he didn't know how to fly it.

The plane was already broken. He crashed it into a mountain instead of a forest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plane wasn't already broken. It was just poorly designed without enough failsafes that when it broke down, there wasn't much that could be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I think that can easily happen when you get blown out as much as we have. When your pitching/runs allowed become extreme, and ours is on the way there, it becomes an outlier wrt the rest of the league, and the assumptions of fit of the Pythagorean correlation are going to start getting challenged.

Does history suggest suggest teams that get blown out a lot typically outperform Pythagorean estimates - and - did the Tigers get blown out a lot more than expected given the number of runs they have allowed?

I don't know the answers to either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The plane wasn't already broken. It was just poorly designed without enough failsafes that when it broke down, there wasn't much that could be done.

As usual, you came up with the right analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,686
    • Total Posts
      2,987,248
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...