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

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.

don't know either, just saying that on general principle the correlation is most likely to show the most deviation at the limits so the mismatch might not be as significant as it would be for team with a smaller run differential. Trying to think of a quick and dirty check that might work short of rehashing a whole bunch of data. Maybe take the quintile of teams with the highest ERA+ and check to see if their pythagorean's are either over or under prediction a disproportionate percentage of the time......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be more clear, how many times this year was a reliever (or even a starter) left in to completely self destruct, while a reasonable option sat on the bench, or was unavailable because he threw 40 pitches with a 4-run deficit the day before. The team had plenty of decent relievers to use through the middle of the season. Wilson, Hardy, Soria, even Al was excellent (borderline dominant) from late April to mid-August.

Relievers are very hit and miss. They can be absolutely terrible at times and you have to know when to pull them. Continually leaving them in too long can have a huge impact on their ERA's. At times Brad very well may have had no other option, but I'm not convinced that was often enough to have not had an impact on team ERA. Not saying it for sure did, but I think it's entirely plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a "no" as well. I would hope the Tigers could draw a GREAT manager with all the talent and money they have in Detroit. I don't think Gardenhire is a bad manager, but I don't think he is what the Tigers need to get them over the edge. I think I'd rather have Ausmus around another year than hire Gardenhire right now.

The problem is, who are these great managers? Baseball's old school ways has created an environment full of mediocrity. Managers seem afraid to experiment, for whatever reason. Shifting didn't get big until what, 6 years ago? Until managers begin stepping out of the box more often, there won't be many great managers. Just a bunch of paint-by-numbers guys. And not the good kind of numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But those innings still had to be pitched by someone and in every case it would have been a bad pitcher because the few good pitchers they had reached their quota of innings. Like I said befoe, even if Ausmus' mismanagement cost them 50 runs which is a ridiculous amount, they still would have had the second worst ERA in the AL. I don't see how any kind of management could have prevented this staff from giving up a ton of runs. Like Shelton said, maybe he could have squeezed out 2-3 extra wins with better management but there was no way he could have stopped this staff from being horrible.

Well, 2-3 wins before the all-star break means they probably don't trade Cespedes, Price, and Soria, which means the 5 WAR they've accumulated since the trade makes it 7-8 more wins. One of those wins probably comes against Texas, which means our 9.5 game deficit is actually a 0.5-1.5 game deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to be more clear, how many times this year was a reliever (or even a starter) left in to completely self destruct, while a reasonable option sat on the bench, or was unavailable because he threw 40 pitches with a 4-run deficit the day before. The team had plenty of decent relievers to use through the middle of the season. Wilson, Hardy, Soria, even Al was excellent (borderline dominant) from late April to mid-August.

Relievers are very hit and miss. They can be absolutely terrible at times and you have to know when to pull them. Continually leaving them in too long can have a huge impact on their ERA's. At times Brad very well may have had no other option, but I'm not convinced that was often enough to have not had an impact on team ERA. Not saying it for sure did, but I think it's entirely plausible.

I don't think it's very likely at all that it impacted their team ERA enough to pull them out of the bottom two in the league and that's pretty awful. Do you think it cost them more than 50 runs? Remember somebody still has to pitch those innings. If you say that Wilson should have been used in game x instead of game y, then you have to plug some crappy pitcher into game y.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But those innings still had to be pitched by someone and in every case it would have been a bad pitcher because the few good pitchers they had reached their quota of innings. Like I said befoe, even if Ausmus' mismanagement cost them 50 runs which is a ridiculous amount, they still would have had the second worst ERA in the AL. I don't see how any kind of management could have prevented this staff from giving up a ton of runs. Like Shelton said, maybe he could have squeezed out 2-3 extra wins with better management but there was no way he could have stopped this staff from being horrible.

You don't have to squeeze more innings out of the good pitchers, you just have to use them when the time is appropriate. Over half of Wilson and Hardy's innings were when the team was losing. Cut their appearances down and use them for multiple innings when you actually have a lead. Teams used to actually do this, it's not unheard of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a "no" as well. I would hope the Tigers could draw a GREAT manager with all the talent and money they have in Detroit. I don't think Gardenhire is a bad manager, but I don't think he is what the Tigers need to get them over the edge. I think I'd rather have Ausmus around another year than hire Gardenhire right now.

Hmmmmm......

Who are the managerial free agents after next season? Is that a possible consideration? Keep Ausmus around for next season and then cast a line before 2017 rather than bring in a retread on a 3 year deal with not much better direction until 2018 or 2019?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't have to squeeze more innings out of the good pitchers, you just have to use them when the time is appropriate. Over half of Wilson and Hardy's innings were when the team was losing. Cut their appearances down and use them for multiple innings when you actually have a lead. Teams used to actually do this, it's not unheard of.

Leyland's winning and losing bullpens? True, it isn't unheard of. But a bullpen of only three solid relievers to match with a rotation of only two solid starters per turn through the rotation isn't going to win a division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good example, one of my favorite uses of a reliever ever, 2006 Joel Zumaya had no role. The majority of his appearances were more than an inning. Just 14 times out of 62 appearances did he enter them game with a deficit, and most of those were 1 run. Go look at all the huge deficits Wilson pitched in this year. Granted the 2006 team had more leads to work with (in the first half anyhow), but he was maximized to his full potential, and stranded a LOT of baserunners that were let on ahead of him. That is how guys like Wilson and Hardy should have been used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for this perspective, it seems like some fans hold writers to too high a standard these days.

I disagree somewhat and agree somewhat.

It's true that journalists can't get away with as much as they used to. The team doesn't need them anymore, and really doesn't owe them anything either. I'm always surprised when some journalist complains about not being given enough access. The journalists need the team more than the team needs them. That wasn't always the case.

Baseball is more a regional game than a national game now. It has probably always been that way. Teams needed the local media to keep them in the spotlight when access to news was harder. It wasn't too long ago where the only way to find out how the team did was to open the paper or tune in to the local news. I still remember putting on Headline News in the morning because it had a ticker and I needed to know the score of a late game.

So I do understand why journalists seem more soft these days. They don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. I don't particularly feel like the writers need to be tougher or act like *******s or betray a confidence. But I do think they need to ask better questions or try to actually uncover some news.

It pains me to say it, but at least that hack Tony Paul interviewed Avila and provided some actual news for once.

Anyway, I guess my point about henning not stirring things up is merely that. It's not a complaint that he doesn't. I get it. He makes a living opining on the state of the team. He isn't going to stir things up these days because he's a huge homer and would be devastated if he was ever shut out. He's a mouthpiece.

That's one reason why I don't get bothered by a place like the DSR posting a rumor that people find surprising. I'm not immediately skeptical of it because they don't rely on daily access to get their scoops. They aren't even about scoops for the most part. They are just angry fans. But they also won't look good if their few scoops turn out to be wrong. They tell it like is more often than not, and far more often than he vanilla snark you get from guys like Iott and Beck and Mowery, who mostly trade on concern trolling and telling people what they already know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leyland's winning and losing bullpens? True, it isn't unheard of. But a bullpen of only three solid relievers to match with a rotation of only two solid starters per turn through the rotation isn't going to win a division.

Don't think anyone said the difference would be enough to win the division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it's very likely at all that it impacted their team ERA enough to pull them out of the bottom two in the league and that's pretty awful. Do you think it cost them more than 50 runs? Remember somebody still has to pitch those innings. If you say that Wilson should have been used in game x instead of game y, then you have to plug some crappy pitcher into game y.

That's fine because they were already losing game y. The chances of coming back late in a game are next to none even with good pitching. I'm fine with that.

edit - and to answer the question, do I don't think it cost quite that much, and I've tried to be pretty clear that I don't know what the result would have been, just that I don't think it would be negligible. One day when I have time I want to go back and look at the first 4 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, 2-3 wins before the all-star break means they probably don't trade Cespedes, Price, and Soria, which means the 5 WAR they've accumulated since the trade makes it 7-8 more wins. One of those wins probably comes against Texas, which means our 9.5 game deficit is actually a 0.5-1.5 game deficit.

I don't know if 2-3 wins would have prevented them from selling. I think selling had as much to do with their lack of trading chips as their closeness in the race. I also don't know if we can assume Cespedes would have gone nuts if he stayed with the Tigers. Your scenario is certainly reasonable though.

It's a different argument from the one I'm having with Yoda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't think anyone said the difference would be enough to win the division.

True. That's why I am more interested in the pitching being turned over than just firing Ausmus. Accomplishing one of those items gives this team a chance to win next season. The other by itself does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, 2-3 wins before the all-star break means they probably don't trade Cespedes, Price, and Soria, which means the 5 WAR they've accumulated since the trade makes it 7-8 more wins. One of those wins probably comes against Texas, which means our 9.5 game deficit is actually a 0.5-1.5 game deficit.

Agree in part.

I agree that a few more wins before the deadline probably means we hold those guys. But I think everything that has happened since would still have is far enough back that we wouldn't have a good chance at the playoffs. You could swap boyd for price one for one. But we'd still be relying on farmer, Ryan, wolf(?) for too many starts. Sanchez still gets hurt. Simon still sucks. Then pen is hardly better, even with soria. Cespedes's is an obvious upgrade over rajai and Collins. But does he have the same magic here that he has had in New York? Probably not.

I don't think we'd be five post deadline wins better if we had heals them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit - and to answer the question, do I don't think it cost quite that much, and I've tried to be pretty clear that I don't know what the result would have been, just that I don't think it would be negligible. One day when I have time I want to go back and look at the first 4 months.

You won't. :classic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True. That's why I am more interested in the pitching being turned over than just firing Ausmus. Accomplishing one of those items gives this team a chance to win next season. The other by itself does not.

Fair enough.

You won't. :classic:

Correct. But it would be interesting I think. There's probably a quick way to break down the box scores by games they were leading after 6 or 7 innings but I'm not sure how to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we had a Joel Zumaya in the bullpen I think the team would have been better.

Wilson is having a better year than Joel did in 2006.

edit: ok maybe not better. ERA a tad higher, but whip is better. FIP is pretty much even. Anyhow, Zumaya wasn't much better if he was at all. Wilson's been really good. Maybe luckier, but effective anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's fine because they were already losing game y. The chances of coming back late in a game are next to none even with good pitching. I'm fine with that.

edit - and to answer the question, do I don't think it cost quite that much, and I've tried to be pretty clear that I don't know what the result would have been, just that I don't think it would be negligible. One day when I have time I want to go back and look at the first 4 months.

They did won some of those games in which hardy and Wilson pitched when the team was down. So using your logic those would have been losses. So start -4 wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They did won some of those games in which hardy and Wilson pitched when the team was down. So using your logic those would have been losses. So start -4 wins.

How does my logic state they would have lost those games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does my logic state they would have lost those games?

You propose using a worse pitcher in games they are losing since they're losing that game anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You propose using a worse pitcher in games they are losing since they're losing that game anyway.

Using a worse pitcher doesn't guarantee they don't still come back and win the game though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Using a worse pitcher doesn't guarantee they don't still come back and win the game though.

Pitching Wilson and Hardy in games they are winning doesn't guarantee they hold the lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wilson is having a better year than Joel did in 2006.

edit: ok maybe not better. ERA a tad higher, but whip is better. FIP is pretty much even. Anyhow, Zumaya wasn't much better if he was at all. Wilson's been really good. Maybe luckier, but effective anyhow.

I think if any manager had 2006 Zumaya and 2015 Wilson on the same team, they would view them a lot differently. Zumaya has the type of stuff that managers want to see in high leverage situations. Wilson is having a good year, but he's not the type of pitcher most managers would want in the setup role. I would say by June it was apparent that he was better than anyone else they had though.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...