Jump to content
Tony-OH

Mazzone let go

Was firing Mazzone a good thing?  

191 members have voted

  1. 1. Was firing Mazzone a good thing?

    • Yes
      128
    • No
      63


Recommended Posts

Don't worry...If Murton was an Oriole and Markakis was a Cub, Dave would be saying the comparison is absurd.

Dave operates with a double standard...That is why i have him on ignore...It just gets old.

No question about this. Anybody who makes an argument that Murton is at the same level as Markakis is....biased. Or that person does not take into account half the game, defense.

But make no mistake about it, Murton is a good player. I would love to have Murton as our LFer next year. I would say that Murton, Pie and Theriot would be a fair trade for Miggy and Fiorentino. Pie is a risk, with a high ceiling. Theriot is not exactly high ceiling. Murton is a sure thing, though he will never be an all-star caliber player. I want no part of Cedeno. He has almost zero value to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I the only one who doesn't really care that Mazzone is gone?

I won't vote either way since I'm pretty indifferent.

I echo Clapdiddy, I don't blame the problems on Mazzone and I think it's good that Trembley's gonna pick his own staff.

IMO, it wouldn't have been a big deal if we kept him...I also don't think firing him is a big deal, either.

Actaully, I am kind of happy about it. If we are to have a youthful team we need some upbeat people, which Mazzone is not. This off-season will have intrigue for sure. Hopefully they see the value in a total re-build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this got turned into a poll....I voted yes but only because i think DT should be able to pick his own coaches.

I didn't want Mazzone gone but if DT and AM believe this to be the right move, then i will back them on it for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am OK with DT picking his staff. However unless there were real problems between the two, I question his decision and I hope he is held accountable for it. Leo is a proven winner, the only coach on last years staff that can say that. It is my opinion that one of the things that make great Managers/Head Coaches is surrounding yourself with winners. So I would like to have more info before I simply said it was a good or bad move. If DT thought it would be hard to work effectively with Leo then I can support his choice, but it will be hard to find anyone to replace Leo that has the qualifications that Leo brings to the table. Hopefully DT has made the right choice, but I do fear he has not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am OK with DT picking his staff. However unless there were real problems between the two, I question his decision and I hope he is held accountable for it. Leo is a proven winner, the only coach on last years staff that can say that. It is my opinion that one of the things that make great Managers/Head Coaches is surrounding yourself with winners. So I would like to have more info before I simply said it was a good or bad move. If DT thought it would be hard to work effectively with Leo then I can support his choice, but it will be hard to find anyone to replace Leo that has the qualifications that Leo brings to the table. Hopefully DT has made the right choice, but I do fear he has not.

There is a lot of truth to what you say here.

I am willing to back DT and AM on this right now....But this could easily be just another poor decision in the long line of poor decisions by this organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It makes me wonder what the motives were to hiring him in the first place considering his program wasn't implemented system wide. The franchise is going to look even more foolish a couple of years from now after he goes somewhere else where they buy into what he has to offer. Yet another squandered opportunity.

Ditto! This about sums up my view.

I think it's wrong to characterize Mazzone as a poor communicator. If he's so gruff and blunt about expressing himself, then his problem isn't making himself clear. Sounds to me like he's communicating too well for some people's comfort if anything.

One obvious example of a successful communicator that wasn't exactly holding hands with his players and talking about their feelings was the great Earl Weaver himself. Ex-Cardinals pitching coach Hub Kittle -who worked over six decades in professional ball- left behind a legacy of stories about his booming voice echoing throughout stadiums as he screamed at his pitchers about what they needed to do.

The O's may not have been the right fit for Mazzone, but the posters acting like he should never work in baseball again because of his communication issues are really missing the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You look at each player's OPS for their careers and you say you have a case.

You look at everything else and Markakis has a clear advantage.

Age - Markakis is 2 years younger

Production - Markakis, last year in a full season put up better numbers than Murton has the last two years...again, at 2 years younger.

Projection - Markakis is projected to be an all-star caliber player. While he is currently the better player, he is still projected to get better. His body has more room to fill out. Murton is what he is. A solid player with limited upside.

Also, Murton's second half came in 112 ABs over 2 months. Markakis' second half came in 319 ABs in over 3 months.

The splits are a much bigger issue when 500 of your PAs come against right handed pitchers as an everyday player.

It also seems like over his career, the Cubs have played him against almost all lefties and mostly the hittable right handers. Markakis played against EVERY single LHP, no matter how difficult the match-up.

Murton is not on Markakis' level unless you want to look at it in the simplest of terms. And next year, you won't even be able to do that.

The mistake you make is to hold Murton's lack of opportunity against him. He doesn't fill out the lineup card or decide on the roster, so his small number of ABs is completely outside his control.

You compound that error by assuming that a smallish number of ABs is indicative of a talent deficit or a modest ceiling or "he is what he is" or whatever. No such conclusion is warranted.

Look, Markakis was in a much better situation than Murton in 2007 -- Markakis got regular ABs all year and didn't have to deal with being in and out of the lineup, up and down from AAA, pinch-hitting, etc.

Not surprisingly, Markakis blossomed while Murton stagnated.

How would Murton have done in Markakis' situation (or visa versa)? Impossible to know exactly, but I'd sure be curious to know. It's hardly a stretch to say Murton would've done just as well as Markakis did, considering that's exactly what happened in 2006: under similar circumstances, the guys put up nearly identical numbers.

Looking ahead to 2008, how will things turn out if the Cubs are smart enough to make Murton their everyday RF? Your guess is as good as mine, but you'd be foolish to think there's good reason to believe one guy will hit significantly better than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the comparison is a fair one. Here is two reasons I would much rather have Markakis than Murton:

1. He is two years younger. I believe Markakis will spike to a .900 OPS and Murton will top out at about .875, but even if they stay comparable Markakis is likely going to keep his OPS high for a longer period of time.

2. Markakis is a better defender. If there was justice in the world Markakis would win a GG this year. He was incredible in RF. Murton is probably a little above average, but Markakis is incredible out there.

Markakis is a much superior OF. That much is indisputable.

The projection thing is easy to argue either way. Markakis is younger, but he's been a regular for 2 years now, getting consistent ABs all along the way.

Murton is only 25, and has plenty of room to grow if he'd just get that same chance at consistent ABs.

FWIW, I think both guys will settle in as mid-800 OPS guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mistake you make is to hold Murton's lack of opportunity against him. He doesn't fill out the lineup card or decide on the roster, so his small number of ABs is completely outside his control.

You compound that error by assuming that a smallish number of ABs is indicative of a talent deficit or a modest ceiling or "he is what he is" or whatever. No such conclusion is warranted.

That sounds like the Orioles FO method of evaluating our MiL free agents this year. :P

Ok, so I'm disappointed in Mazzone being kicked, even though I understand the desire to let Trembley pick his own coaches. I'm not convinced about the knocks on Leo... some are saying his flaw is not working with the bullpen thus leading to our bullpen's poor performance. (But then we commiserate about how difficult it is to find consistent bullpen arms). Some say he doesn't work well with young pitchers (and then we see a list of young arms he had success with in Atlanta). Some say he works well with talented pitchers but not regular guys (and we see the list of "Mazzone effect" projects in Atlanta). Some say he didn't have any success here (but then there's Bedard, Guthrie, and some work with Loewen). And no, I don't believe the rash of injuries can be put solely at Mazzone's feet as there was not a similar string of injuries in all those years with the Braves.

So anyway, I get it. It's a bold move, and there at least is some "traditional" thinking to justify it. I'm just not sure whoever replaces Mazzone is going to be any better. (And I find it funny that people are constructing the "NOW Cabrera might get better" bandwagon already. He is what he is. His upside is dead, IMO). Nothing for us to do but to see what happens. And then of course, the obligatory "give them time to improve" excuse to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I find it funny that people are constructing the "NOW Cabrera might get better" bandwagon already. He is what he is. His upside is dead, IMO.

Hey, it might be a pipe dream, but maybe a new PC will click with Cabrera in a way that others have failed to do. It's certainly in the realm of possibilities. I've said before that Cabrera may do better with a different pitching coach, and that I'd like to see him out there next season over bringing in a veteran pitcher if we can't get a significant return for him. To bank on him showing said improvement would be silly, but at this point, after this season, why not put him out there anyway?

I'm not saying to hand him a spot in the rotation. If other guys step up in ST and earn a spot over him, put him in the bullpen. I'm sure someone will be injured at some point next year, and DCab can take his spot and at least eat some innings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Davis and Dave Johnson were talking about Leo this morning. Davis said Leo was going to be fired in the middle of last season but Perlozzo went to Angelos to stop it. Johnson heard from people he talks to that Leo was a "bad guy".

I for one think the firing is a good thing. I think Leo is a good pitching coach but you can't have it both ways. If you want an organization to do things the right way then they have to be able to fire people even with a track record if they think the move will be in the teams best interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... i think DT should be able to pick his own coaches.

I didn't want Mazzone gone but if DT and AM believe this to be the right move, then i will back them on it for now.

My thoughts exactly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry Leo was let go. I am, however in complete support of Dave.

I want to blow it up and I think we will now.

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.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • I don't think Schilling is a deranged lunatic.  He has some unpopular opinions that he does a poor job of expressing.  IMO, a deranged lunatic is someone who's dangerous to himself and others in society, I don't see Schilling being that guy. That said, I'd gladly have whatever "stain" Schilling has over Davis.  I'd take 26 Ty Cobbs (cue @DrungoHazewood "He wasn't that bad of a guy!  The Al Stump book was lies!") on this team if it meant we would win.
    • No but it was short lived.  He didn’t really become the obvious HOF pitcher (it’s absurd he isn’t in) until his late 20s. Finley was good but you don’t regret losing him or Harnisch.     And let’s not forget, Glenn Davis was really good for several years before we got him.
    • I voted Glenn, but honestly didn't think through SG's point of likely failed development.  I still think its Glenn though.  We could have been a much different team heading into the mid 90s.  The Chris Davis contract shouldn't be as big of a deal as it is.  In modern MLB, you've got to be able to mitigate or fix these mistakes, and be willing to eat all/some of the costs.    While the contract itself was a disaster and a waste (I think most said that at the time), the team should have moved on in any direction at this point but we are a cheap, poorly run franchise who values staying afloat rather than building a competitive team.  
    • Schilling wasn't terrible in Houston the one year he was there.  3.81 ERA, 2.87 FIP.  
    • I'm not sure I agree here.  They developed Mussina just fine, but he was pretty polished coming out of Stanford.  Gregg Olson was a high pick that was fantastic.  Ben McDonald didn't turn out to be the guy anyone thought he would be, but he was still effective.  Harnisch had improved from 1989 to 1990. I don't think Schilling was regarded in that class of those first three guys.  I don't know if they would have developed Schilling to what he became but I think he'd have had a chance to become good here.  He was good in 1990, albeit in a small sample size.
    • Not second guessing.  I said at the time that keeping Cruz should have been a no brainer.  He was during his career,  an RBI machine with a decent BA. A guy like that you have to keep until he shows real evidence of losing it.  He did not show that when they let him go.   
    • That's where I am.   Schilling didn't make it in Houston, what makes anyone think he would have made it here?  And we were able to recover from the Glenn Davis deal and still be one of the best teams in baseball for two seasons, five years later. We will be hitting the 5 year anniversary of the Chris Davis deal and -- spoiler alert -- we will not be one of the best teams in baseball on that anniversary.  
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...