Managers and their effects upon game outcome

[Migrant Redbird]

I have generally argued that the effects of managerial decisions and managerial influence on game outcomes are difficult and often impossible to ascertain. I'm not denying that a manager does affect games, just that we generally can't isolate and identify the manager's influence, much less characterize or quantify it accurately. That doesn't keep writers and fans from developing elaborate explanations of how a manager affected a game's outcome, but it does make it impossible to validate most of those explanations. (Many fans do validate those explanations in their minds and it then becomes established gospel to them, just as analogous beliefs become embedded in the dogmas of all the world's different religions.)

However, last night's game between the Cardinals and Rockies contained an unusual example where a manager's personality led directly to the proximate cause of a lost game.

After 7 innings, the Cardinals and Rockies still had not scored a run. Lohse strong, Cardinals can't hold on, Bullpen surrenders two runs in the eighth inning

After seven shutout innings by starter Kyle Lohse and two relievers, Ryan Franklin was touched for two runs and took the loss, though neither tally was earned.... Franklin got into trouble immediately in the eighth. Troy Tulowitzki singled to center to lead off the inning, and Todd Helton doubled into the corner in right to put men on second and third.... The Cardinals nearly stemmed the tide even so. Matt Holliday hit a grounder to third base, and Troy Glaus' errant throw home allowed the tying run to score. Glaus had a chance to make the play, but his throw sailed well out of Molina's reach.

"Bad throw," Glaus said. "[if I make a] good throw, it's an easy play. We had a lead, and I blew it. I made a bad throw."

Franklin walked the bases loaded before he was relieved. Randy Flores came extremely close to escaping with the score still tied, striking out the first two batters he faced. But he walked Jayson Nix with two outs, bringing home the tiebreaking run and making Franklin the losing pitcher.

In fairness to Glaus, it wasn't an easy play. He had to charge the ball and make an accurate throw without having time to straighten up, a difficult task for such a big man. The throw sailed into the base runner's path and hit Tulowitzki in the back, allowing the tying run to score.

Rolen probably makes that play, most of the time. Maybe Glaus even makes it most of the time. I feel safe in saying that Rolen will make the play successfully more often than Glaus will, but I can't quantify how much more often, much less insist that Rolen would have made the play last night.

But the breakdown in the relationship between Tony La Russa and Scott Rolen led directly to a mediocre defender playing 3rd base, in place of a gold glover. Over the course of their careers, Glaus made about 6-7 more errors per 162 games than Rolen has. Not all of those errors result in the loss of a game; in this particular case, the error was the proximate cause of the loss because it allowed 2 unearned runs to eventually score.

We can't assume that Rolen would have made the play, but the odds are better that he could have executed it successfully than for Glaus. We know that Rolen wouldn't have broken his finger playing on the Blue Jays practice infield if he hadn't been traded to Toronto, but we don't know that Rolen would have remained healthy through spring training regardless -- the odds are that he would, despite a growing reputation for being injury prone -- but we don't know.

We also know that the course of the game up to that point would have been a little different if it had been Rolen in the lineup instead of Glaus, but Glaus hadn't accomplished anything offensively, so it's reasonable to assume that all the factors affecting the outcome of the game could have been the same. Which brings us down to a single play which ended up being decisive to the outcome of the game.

Managerial strategies would have been different if the Rockies had been trailing with 1 out in the top of the 8th, with runners on 1st and 3rd, instead of being tied with nobody out and runners on 2nd and 3rd. As it happened, the winning run scored on a bases loaded walk after Randy Flores succeeded in getting the first 2 outs of the inning, so they wouldn't have gotten to that point if the error hadn't occurred and everything else played out the same.

Hurdle would have been playing to get the tying and winning runs on base in the top of the 9th instead of trying to score insurance runs, and La Russa would have been trying to get the insurance runs instead of playing catch up, but neither team did score in those last 1-1/2 innings, so it's not at all unreasonable to assume that the 1-0 lead could have stood up without the error. That's why I cite the error as the proximate cause of that loss.

But Glaus was playing third because La Russa has problems in his relationships with many of his players, so it's not a stretch at all, in my opinion, to assign a significant connection between La Russa's personality and the loss of this game. It's rare that such a connection can be drawn so clearly, and especially for it to occur in the first game of the season. There will be additional errors by Glaus this season and some of them may lead to the loss of games, but there will also be games where the hitting of Glaus results in wins.

Only when the 2008 Win Shares are posted will it be possible to estimate approximately the net impact of the Rolen-Glaus trade on the Cardinals won-loss record.

Of course, among the die hard supporters of La Russa on Cardinals forums, I'm being told that my analysis is all wet.

St. Louis Sports Forum, game thread, page 4

[PaulFolk]

Of course, among the die hard supporters of La Russa on Cardinals forums, I'm being told that my analysis is all wet.

It is all wet. I know you're fiercely anti-La Russa, but this is going overboard. At this point it seems like you're just looking to blame him for anything and everything.

If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that La Russa is to blame for the loss because he didn't get along with Rolen, which led to Rolen being traded for Glaus, which led to Glaus committing a costly error. That's an incredible reach. Why not blame the GM who traded Rolen for Glaus? Why not blame Rolen for not being able to co-exist with La Russa? Why not blame-- gasp-- Glaus?? Why not blame every hitter on the Cardinals, who failed to score more than one run the entire game? Why not blame Albert Pujols, just for the heck of it? Baseball is a team game, and it's silly to even put the blame on one player, let alone put the blame on a manager whose disagreements with a different player indirectly led to the presence of a current player who may have been partially responsible for a loss.

I mean, I don't particularly like La Russa, but this argument strikes me as absurd.

[backwardsk]

I'm not sure if Rolen does make that play, being on the DL and all.

Determining a manager's effect on a particular game is difficult. There's too much second guessing involved. Execution by the players plays too much of a role. However, you can place blame on a manager when their bullpen is shot because of mis-use, a starter goes through a period of ineffectiveness because they were overused for weeks, or the catcher's production goes down the drain because they don't get any days off in the late summer heat.

[Migrant Redbird]

If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that La Russa is to blame for the loss because he didn't get along with Rolen, which led to Rolen being traded for Glaus, which led to Glaus committing a costly error. That's an incredible reach.

That's not precisely correct. What I said is that there is a direct link from the feud between La Russa and Rolen to the proximate cause for the loss of that game.

(1) It's impossible to dispute that the feud led to Glaus being at 3rd base last night.

(2) It's equally impossible to dispute that the error resulted in 2 unearned runs for the Rockies.

(3) The Rockies beat the Cardinals 2-1.

But the feud is not the only reason the Cardinals lost the game, nor is it certain that Rolen would have made the play. Neither is it certain that the Rockies wouldn't have scored without the error.

However, I used my terminology very carefully. I said that the error was the proximate cause of the loss, which would be difficult for any knowledgeable, logical person to dispute. The definition of "proximate" is "immediately preceding or following (as in a chain of events, causes, or effects) ".

Saying that the error was the proximate cause is not quite the same as saying that "La Russa is to blame for the loss". La Russa shares that blame with every player who took the field for the Cardinals; he just deserves a far larger share of the blame in this particular case.

There are several reasons the Cardinals lost that game, to include their batters being stifled for 7 innings by a 17-game loser who was so terrible for the Cards last year that they didn't consider bringing him back. The error by Glaus is only one of the many causes, but it is the most proximate.

Why not blame the GM who traded Rolen for Glaus?

Because he had no practical choice. La Russa was rehired before Mozeliak was named GM.

Why not blame Rolen for not being able to co-exist with La Russa?

Certainly Rolen shares some of that responsibility, which he's acknowledged in his sparse public comments since the trade. However, La Russa has a long history of problems with allowing "clubhouse leaders" on his team, ranging from Ozzie Smith to Brian Jordan to Will Clark to Scott Rolen, and now possibly including even Albert Pujols, whose public statements make it appear as though he's trying to walk on eggshells to avoid creating issues with La Russa.

Why not blame-- gasp-- Glaus??

Glaus is what he is, an indifferent fielder. He's been around long enough that there are few surprises hidden in his glove. I'm just grateful that we were able to get someone back for Rolen who may contribute to the Cardinals offense with his bat, while not blowing too many games for us with his defense. The acquisition of Izturis will mitigate to some degree the loss of Rolen's range.

Why not blame every hitter on the Cardinals, who failed to score more than one run the entire game?

As I pointed out above, the Cards hitters struggled against a guy they released because he lost 17 games for them last season. However, I did predict that prior to the game.

[PaulFolk]

Saying that the error was the proximate cause is not quite the same as saying that "La Russa is to blame for the loss". La Russa shares that blame with every player who took the field for the Cardinals; he just deserves a far larger share of the blame in this particular case.

But why? That's absurd. Are you saying that La Russa deserves more blame than even Glaus himself? Because he may have been indirectly, partially responsible for setting in motion a series of events that put Troy Glaus on the field for the Cardinals in the 8th inning? That holds more weight than the guy on the field who actually booted the ball? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense, and is an extreme example of your anti-La Russa sentiment affecting your judgment.

Because he had no practical choice. La Russa was rehired before Mozeliak was named GM.

Of course he had a choice. As far as I know, La Russa didn't force him to trade Rolen for Troy Glaus. Unless La Russa specifically requested Glaus (you'd know more than I would about that).

As I pointed out above, the Cards hitters struggled against a guy they released because he lost 17 games for them last season. However, I did predict that prior to the game.

There you go. That's the crux of the loss, to me. Glaus's error may have been the most noteworthy single moment, but the Cardinals never would've been in that position to begin with if they'd just knocked around the scrub pitcher like they should have.

For any single game, you can literally point to a hundred moments and say, "If that play/at-bat/pitch had turned out differently, the whole game would've had a different result." Chalking the loss mostly up to Glaus's error is unfair, and chalking the loss up to La Russa's spat with Rolen is out of this world.

[Mackus]

What the hell is he doing pitching to Matt Holliday in the 8th with 1st base open anyways? He wasn't the tying or go-ahead run. Pitch around the best hitter, set up forces everywhere and the DP possibility. Seems like you'd have an easier time arguing that then your Rolen-based argument, which seems like a major reach.

[Frobby]

I'd say its all the GM's fault, for (1) failing to resolve the LaRussa-Rolen rift, (2) giving in to LaRussa and trading Rolen, or (3) trading Rolen for Glaus in particular. Fire him NOW!

Or, maybe it's the owner's fault for firing Walt Jocketty, or not hiring a better GM to replace him.

[Migrant Redbird]

I'd say its all the GM's fault, for (1) failing to resolve the LaRussa-Rolen rift, (2) giving in to LaRussa and trading Rolen, or (3) trading Rolen for Glaus in particular. Fire him NOW!

By the time Mozeliak was named GM, the situation was non-resolvable. I did think for a while that the Cardinals might try to bring Rolen back, after they resisted trading him within division to the Brewers, but it would have made for an extremely tense clubhouse.

Or, maybe it's the owner's fault for firing Walt Jocketty, or not hiring a better GM to replace him.

The owner had no choice but to fire Jocketty at that point. You don't retain a GM who's sowing dissension within the organization and encouraging media speculation that he's about to leave the job.

The owner's apparent first choice, Indians assistant GM Chris Antonetti, reportedly turned down the job. Antonetti apparently was concerned about accepting a job in an organization where his three principal subordinates were strongly entrenched.

(1) It was the appointment of Jeff Luhnow as director of the farm system over Jocketty's opposition which led to his departure.

(2) La Russa was given a 2 year extension by the Cardinals about the time that Antonetti interviewed. One would expect a new GM to be involved in that decision.

(3) Mozeliak had been promised by the owner that he could return to his job as assistant GM if not selected for the position.

The owner's biggest mistake was in bringing La Russa back on a 2 year contract, prior to choosing his GM, but promising Mozeliak his old job back was wrong too. DeWitt should just have offered Mozeliak a years severance pay if he didn't get the job.

However, I'm cautiously optimistic about Mozeliak now, after joining in deriding him as "Jocketty - Lite" for the initial transactions he made. None of them were particularly bad; they just seemed to be more of the same kinds of deals that had been turning sour for Jocketty recently.

[orayole]

Obviously it's all Tejada's fault.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I've always wondered if there was a way to quantify the contributions of managers, using win shares or maybe the difference between real and Pythagorian winning percentage or something.

But, um, not like this

[JTrea81]

See Perlozzo, Sam...

[RShack]

Isn't this kinda like blaming Earl Weaver for Blair getting beaned and never being quite the same again? Because if Earl hadn't put him in the 5-slot, that pitcher wouldn't have thrown that particular pitch to Blair on that particular day at that particular moment. Or maybe it was the Angel's catcher's fault for calling for a FB instead of a curve. Or maybe it was Angel's manager's fault for bring in Tatum out of the BP instead of some other guy. Seems like the same basic thing to me.

Except you're mad at LaRussa, so you're looking for it. Not saying you're supposed to like LaRussa, but I think it's affecting the way you add things up.

[Mad Mark]

Or...

Was Glaus likely to hit in the next two innings? If not, do the Cardinals not have a glove man sitting on the bench for situations like this?

I'm asking because 1) I didn't watch the game, and 2) don't really follow the Cardinals at all.

[Migrant Redbird]

Isn't this kinda like blaming Earl Weaver for Blair getting beaned and never being quite the same again? Because if Earl hadn't put him in the 5-slot, that pitcher wouldn't have thrown that particular pitch to Blair on that particular day at that particular moment.

It's not at all analogous, unless there was a valid reason -- related to the vulnerability -- that Earl shouldn't have put him in that position.

La Russa didn't cause the error. He caused the situation that resulted in the downgrading of the 3rd base defense. That would result in an estimated 6-7 additional errors per season, some of which might result in additional lost games. What was unique in this case is that the connection was so direct and it occurred in the first game of the season.

Your analogy could be valid if the Rolen-Glaus trade had not been the result of the manager's inability to get along with his players. Rolen had 3 years left on his contract with full no-trade protection, but he was so unwilling to continue playing for La Russa that he was even willing to OK a trade back to the Phillies (where he probably would have been crucified by the phans).

When the Phillies were trying to trade Rolen (after he turned down a 10 year, $140M extension), he handicapped that process by emphasizing that any trade partner would only get a 2 month rental until he became a free agent. With a few weeks after the trade, Rolen signed a $90M, 7 year extension with the Cardinals, which implies that he and the Cardinals reached tacit agreement before the trade was completed. (It's unlikely the Cardinals would have done the trade without confidence Rolen would sign an extension.) That Rolen would accept a trade back to the Phillies, or to an AL team with artificial turf in their home park, emphasizes how unwilling he was to coexist with La Russa.

Except you're mad at LaRussa, so you're looking for it. Not saying you're supposed to like LaRussa, but I think it's affecting the way you add things up.

I'm not "mad" at La Russa; I just don't believe he belongs in a class organization. In my opinion, Joe Torre is the epitome of "class". Remove the first 2 letters from "class" for my opinion of La Russa.

If the problem were only the relationship with Rolen, I'd accept the thesis that Rolen was possibly more to blame than La Russa, but there has been a long history of issues between La Russa and many of his players in St. Louis. I've also been informed by someone who interviewed some former members of La Russa's Oakland squads that none of them had anything positive to say about their former manager. They weren't openly critical; it was more like a "no comment" with negative connotations.

Hey, La Russa is kind to animals. I might like him as a person. I do like some of the things he does, like very proactively defusing the Brandon Phillips / Albert Pujols flap last summer. La Russa is not a "bad" person; he just shouldn't be managing a baseball team. Neither should I be, for that matter, even if I had La Russa's expertise.

I've always wondered if there was a way to quantify the contributions of managers, using win shares or maybe the difference between real and Pythagorian winning percentage or something.

No, it's impossible. There's no way to normalize adequately all the varying factors from one manager to another. Payroll? That tends to run in cycles. For example, La Russa got fantastic value for the dollar from the approximately $1.5M it cost the Cardinals for the first 3 years of Albert Pujols. Even if you normalized payroll by average player seniority, how would you factor in varying player abilities and injuries?

]Or...

Was Glaus likely to hit in the next two innings? If not, do the Cardinals not have a glove man sitting on the bench for situations like this?

Now you're getting into managerial game decisions, which I usually don't comment on because of the impossibility of identifying which ones are "good" decisions that failed to work and which ones are "bad" decisions which succeeded in spite of the manager's poor judgment.

Last night, for example, Dusty Baker directed Encarnacion to sacrifice the tying base runners into scoring position. Encarnacion failed twice to execute the bunt, then proceeded to hit the winning home run. Would it have been a good decision for Dusty to have told him to go for the home run from the beginning, whether it succeeded or not?

[Mad Mark]

Originally Posted by Migrant Redbird

Now you're getting into managerial game decisions, which I usually don't comment on because of the impossibility of identifying which ones are "good" decisions that failed to work and which ones are "bad" decisions which succeeded in spite of the manager's poor judgment.

I was wondering in the strategic, as well as the tactical sense: knowing your starting 3B is mediocre defensively, do you make sure to carry a utility guy who can flash a good glove at 3B, and if so, is now the proper time in the game to put him in?