I'm predicting Hyde will resign soon

[HowAboutThat]

On 8/26/2021 at 2:29 PM, Ohfan67 said:

To be honest, your confusion made it a lot more fun for me. 

For what it’s worth, I laughed too. Thank you for some sunshine in a dreary season.

[HowAboutThat]

Speaking of continuity and managers, it can be argued that history’s best manager was Eddie Stanky. He was hired by the Rangers, managed one game, won, and then quit.

 

[sportsfan8703]

5 hours ago, Frobby said:

So he’s already outlasted Porter!

Honestly, I have no  idea whether Hyde is a good manager or not. I don’t think the team will contend next year regardless of who the manager is, but could a different manager eke 5-10 more wins out of them?   I don’t know.  

There’s a big part of me that feels that if you are going to make Hyde suffer through the lean years where the talent is very thin, you ought to reward him by giving him the chance to hang around until the roster is competitive.  But that only goes so far.   To do that, you have to believe he’s at least decent at his job.   

One thing I’ll say for him, there’s been very few public clubhouse problems during his tenure.  The players still seem to like him and the effort level is pretty good.   So, I lean towards keeping him.  

 

I hear ya, but remember that Hyde was hired very late in the process.  Managers have a their own coaches they want to bring in. For that reason, I think Hyde stays one more year. He toes the company line well. He doesn’t criticize Elias. He obviously doesn’t push back on any of their analytics. I’m betting he’s probably the lowest paid manager in MLB. With us he is basically a PR mouthpiece. He’s under control. Doesn’t lose his cool. He’s babysitting well. 
 

But when will we try and win games though?

[spiritof66]

7 hours ago, Frobby said:

So he’s already outlasted Porter!

Honestly, I have no  idea whether Hyde is a good manager or not. I don’t think the team will contend next year regardless of who the manager is, but could a different manager eke 5-10 more wins out of them?   I don’t know.  

There’s a big part of me that feels that if you are going to make Hyde suffer through the lean years where the talent is very thin, you ought to reward him by giving him the chance to hang around until the roster is competitive.  But that only goes so far.   To do that, you have to believe he’s at least decent at his job.   

One thing I’ll say for him, there’s been very few public clubhouse problems during his tenure.  The players still seem to like him and the effort level is pretty good.   So, I lean towards keeping him.  

 

I look at it the other way around. There seem to be a lot of posters acknowledging that Hyde is not the kind of thoughtful, innovative, value-adding field manager you want to have when the team gets competitive or good or contending (and people probably mean different things about what that means and hen it will happen). I agree completely with that. But many of them also say Hyde is just fine for this low-talent losing team. After all, how any games can his bad in-game decisions and limited input be costing? One or two or five a season? It just wouldn't move the needle to get a better manager now (or at the outset of last or this season).

I think that misses the point. You should go out and get the best ballplayers you can, subject to your budget and other spending priorities and concerns about blocking or spending when you've got young guys you want to put on the field. The same should be true of managers. If you're the Orioles, you identify the best available manager to lead a young team, evaluate talent and potential in inexperienced players, assemble a coaching staff that will help them improve, drill sound fundamental baseball into their heads, and teach them how to win and how to learn from losing. You get that guy on board as soon as you can, so he can see the current roster as much as possible, help evaluate which ones are worth keeping on the 40-man and should get playing time, and so he'll experience the crappy seasons with the guys who are still around as things get better.

I can think of only three reasons not to have the "real" Orioles manager in place at the outset. One would be that Hyde has some talent, like an ability to work with young players, including those with limited talent, that's useful now but won't be as useful to a more talented team. I don't think that's the case, and can't recall that it's even been suggested. The second is that the Orioles prefer to save money on their manager, and Hyde works a lot cheaper than a really good manager. The third is that Elias doesn't want a skilled, effective manager whose input will be constructive, and his priority is a guy who will keep his mouth shut and do as he's told.  If it's the second or third, that's a real problem, in my opinion -- maybe 30th or so on the list of Oriole problems. (I'm tempted to say "the Orioles' problems are worse than the national media say they are," but that wouldn't mean anything. )

 

 

[Frobby]

36 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

I look at it the other way around. There seem to be a lot of posters acknowledging that Hyde is not the kind of thoughtful, innovative, value-adding field manager you want to have when the team gets competitive or good or contending (and people probably mean different things about what that means and hen it will happen). I agree completely with that. But many of them also say Hyde is just fine for this low-talent losing team. After all, how any games can his bad in-game decisions and limited input be costing? One or two or five a season? It just wouldn't move the needle to get a better manager now (or at the outset of last or this season).

I think that misses the point. You should go out and get the best ballplayers you can, subject to your budget and other spending priorities and concerns about blocking or spending when you've got young guys you want to put on the field. The same should be true of managers. If you're the Orioles, you identify the best available manager to lead a young team, evaluate talent and potential in inexperienced players, assemble a coaching staff that will help them improve, drill sound fundamental baseball into their heads, and teach them how to win and how to learn from losing. You get that guy on board as soon as you can, so he can see the current roster as much as possible, help evaluate which ones are worth keeping on the 40-man and should get playing time, and so he'll experience the crappy seasons with the guys who are still around as things get better.

I can think of only three reasons not to have the "real" Orioles manager in place at the outset. One would be that Hyde has some talent, like an ability to work with young players, including those with limited talent, that's useful now but won't be as useful to a more talented team. I don't think that's the case, and can't recall that it's even been suggested. The second is that the Orioles prefer to save money on their manager, and Hyde works a lot cheaper than a really good manager. The third is that Elias doesn't want a skilled, effective manager whose input will be constructive, and his priority is a guy who will keep his mouth shut and do as he's told.  

I personally don’t believe any of this.  I’m definitely not going to say Hyde is some mediocrity who’s just here to babysit an untalented roster until the team gets serious about winning.   I think he was selected because he had a philosophy Elias liked and the patience to make it through the lean years.  Whether he’d be a good manager for a good young team is unknown and perhaps unknowable.  

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I personally don’t believe any of this.  I’m definitely not going to say Hyde is some mediocrity who’s just here to babysit an untalented roster until the team gets serious about winning.   I think he was selected because he had a philosophy Elias liked and the patience to make it through the lean years.  Whether he’d be a good manager for a good young team is unknown and perhaps unknowable.  

And a willingness to work cheap!

[Frobby]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

And a willingness to work cheap!

Most first time managers do.  

[Ohfan67]

7 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

I look at it the other way around. There seem to be a lot of posters acknowledging that Hyde is not the kind of thoughtful, innovative, value-adding field manager you want to have when the team gets competitive or good or contending (and people probably mean different things about what that means and hen it will happen). I agree completely with that. But many of them also say Hyde is just fine for this low-talent losing team. After all, how any games can his bad in-game decisions and limited input be costing? One or two or five a season? It just wouldn't move the needle to get a better manager now (or at the outset of last or this season).

I think that misses the point. You should go out and get the best ballplayers you can, subject to your budget and other spending priorities and concerns about blocking or spending when you've got young guys you want to put on the field. The same should be true of managers. If you're the Orioles, you identify the best available manager to lead a young team, evaluate talent and potential in inexperienced players, assemble a coaching staff that will help them improve, drill sound fundamental baseball into their heads, and teach them how to win and how to learn from losing. You get that guy on board as soon as you can, so he can see the current roster as much as possible, help evaluate which ones are worth keeping on the 40-man and should get playing time, and so he'll experience the crappy seasons with the guys who are still around as things get better.

I can think of only three reasons not to have the "real" Orioles manager in place at the outset. One would be that Hyde has some talent, like an ability to work with young players, including those with limited talent, that's useful now but won't be as useful to a more talented team. I don't think that's the case, and can't recall that it's even been suggested. The second is that the Orioles prefer to save money on their manager, and Hyde works a lot cheaper than a really good manager. The third is that Elias doesn't want a skilled, effective manager whose input will be constructive, and his priority is a guy who will keep his mouth shut and do as he's told.  If it's the second or third, that's a real problem, in my opinion -- maybe 30th or so on the list of Oriole problems. (I'm tempted to say "the Orioles' problems are worse than the national media say they are," but that wouldn't mean anything. )

 

 

There was zero chance that a hot managing prospect was going to take the Orioles job when they hired Hyde. The Orioles did not have the pick of the litter. Heck, even Buck Showalter was not Angelos’ first choice. The Orioles have been turned down by manager candidates in multiple searches and that was when the roster and budget were better. 

[Il BuonO]

Well, I suppose I’ve put off commenting on this long enough. Hyde has always been a place holder to me. Of course, he doesn’t have a lot to work with, but he doesn’t do much with what’s there. 

Tonight was another example. Wells is their best reliever. Why work him in only closing situations on a team which is rarely in a situation to win at the end of games. I’ve never liked the idea of assigned roles out of the pen, but on a bad team it’s even worse.

Hyde isn’t good with in game decisions. Another example was vs the Angels in SoCal when he didn’t walk a hitter (I think it was Walsh or Gosselin) to get to Luis Rengifo, a .180 hitter, on deck. The guy he didn’t walk got the game winning hit. 

Mainly, it’s his bull pen usage. Catching is another area where I think he’s hurt them. Severino has been hot with the bat lately, but he's a hot mess behind the plate. For a former catcher, you’d think Hyde would give more credence to defense. A good catcher can make it easier on a young staff. Wynns isn’t great, but Severino is awful. Hyde makes out the line up card. 

[Frobby]

32 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

Catching is another area where I think he’s hurt them. Severino has been hot with the bat lately, but he's a hot mess behind the plate. For a former catcher, you’d think Hyde would give more credence to defense. A good catcher can make it easier on a young staff. Wynns isn’t great, but Severino is awful. Hyde makes out the line up card. 

The O’s have played .357 ball when Severino starts, .214 when Wynns starts.   And you want Wynns to play more?

The team has a 5.35 ERA when Severino catches, 7.30 when Wynns catches.   And you want Wynns to play more?

Severino has a .681 OPS (.810 since the all star break), Wynns has a .499 OPS (.450 since the all star break.   And you want….oh, never mind.

I’m sorry, but it is in no way Brandon Hyde’s fault that his options at catcher are so terrible.   I’m just glad he’ll have a much better option this time next year.   

[Il BuonO]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

The O’s have played .357 ball when Severino starts, .214 when Wynns starts.   And you want Wynns to play more?

The team has a 5.35 ERA when Severino catches, 7.30 when Wynns catches.   And you want Wynns to play more?

Severino has a .681 OPS (.810 since the all star break), Wynns has a .499 OPS (.450 since the all star break.   And you want….oh, never mind.

I’m sorry, but it is in no way Brandon Hyde’s fault that his options at catcher are so terrible.   I’m just glad he’ll have a much better option this time next year.   

That was a roundabout way of telling me how CERA and catcher winning percentage are relevant. What’s the sample of who’s catching who? Are you telling me you’d rather have Severino catch as often as possible? Come on. Are you saying that if they both had equal time with the same pitchers you’d prefer Severino? 

I know Hyde’s options there are bad and worse, but Severino is a bat first catcher who didn’t hit for the first half of the season. He’s in the lower percentile of framing and passed balls and wild pitches. Wynns can’t hit and I never argued he could, but at least he’s good against the running game and keeps the ball in front of him. 

And you want....oh, never mind.

You’re right about next year. At least we won’t be having this disagreement.

[Il BuonO]

Just to expound on the inconsistencies of CERA or winning percentage depending on who the battery is @Frobby, Severino has caught Means a total of 13 times including yesterday’s game. Wynns? Three times. Pretty sure catching the guy almost everyone agrees is their best pitcher more than not is going to skew the numbers for Severino. 

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Il BuonO said:

Just to expound on the inconsistencies of CERA or winning percentage depending on who the battery is @Frobby, Severino has caught Means a total of 13 times including yesterday’s game. Wynns? Three times. Pretty sure catching the guy almost everyone agrees is their best pitcher more than not is going to skew the numbers for Severino. 

John Means: 2.90 ERA Severino (13 starts)/6.98 Wynns (3)

Matt Harvey: 4.46 (17)/9.13(6)

Jorge Lopez: 6.03 (15)/7.00 (9)

Keegan Akin: 6.75 (14)/11.74 (3)

Those are the four pitchers who’ve thrown the most innings and made the most starts on our staff.   The next two years in terms of starts are Zimmermann and Kremer, both of whom did better with Wynns but he only caught them once each.   

I’m not saying these are great stats, but it’s all there really is.  And if they don’t prove Severino is better, but they sure as hell don’t suggest the team would do better if Wynns were behind the dish more.   
 

[Il BuonO]

41 minutes ago, Frobby said:

John Means: 2.90 ERA Severino (13 starts)/6.98 Wynns (3)

Matt Harvey: 4.46 (17)/9.13(6)

Jorge Lopez: 6.03 (15)/7.00 (9)

Keegan Akin: 6.75 (14)/11.74 (3)

I’m not saying these are great stats, but it’s all there really is.  And if they don’t prove Severino is better, but they sure as hell don’t suggest the team would do better if Wynns were behind the dish more.   
 

No, they’re not. Wynns wasn’t even on the team when Severino was catching good Matt Harvey who turned into bad Matt Harvey before Wynns got there. Guess who Wynns caught five times in June when he was already trending down. Did Wynns make him pitch worse, or was he already pitching bad when Wynns got there? 

Catching ERA stats are not representative of much more than opportunity. Severino’s numbers in every defensive metric don’t support the idea he’s a good option. The best thing I can say for him Is he’s provided positive rWAR (0.9), but with -8 DRS it ain’t because of defense. 

 

 

[HowAboutThat]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

John Means: 2.90 ERA Severino (13 starts)/6.98 Wynns (3)

Matt Harvey: 4.46 (17)/9.13(6)

Jorge Lopez: 6.03 (15)/7.00 (9)

Keegan Akin: 6.75 (14)/11.74 (3)

Those are the four pitchers who’ve thrown the most innings and made the most starts on our staff.   The next two years in terms of starts are Zimmermann and Kremer, both of whom did better with Wynns but he only caught them once each.   

I’m not saying these are great stats, but it’s all there really is.  And if they don’t prove Severino is better, but they sure as hell don’t suggest the team would do better if Wynns were behind the dish more.   
 

You raise some very interesting points. If Severino continues to hit very well, I am willing to endure his wretched catching until December, but only just.

I don’t know who has caught Watkins in his previous starts, but Wynns is catching him today. I really want a good game from Watkins today, we have a few bright spots this season, and for some reason I am invested in Watkins turning out to be one of them.