Bill James on Dave Trembley

[BaltimoreTerp]

Did he? In his first two seasons? And how much were his flaws hidden by a talented squad while he learned on the job?

The O's don't have advantages right now. We're talking about creativity to form a salve. And that's a risky thing.

We're talking about a manager starting to improve so that it's one less thing we have to worry about when we are ready to contend.

Remember, we're coming up on two full seasons for Trembley in the next month. Shouldn't we have seen things change by now in how he manages?

[BaltimoreTerp]

How do we know this is still true? And, if it is, how many more bad hit and run calls and questionable bullpen calls that put games out of reach is it going to take before it isn't true anymore? They may respect him as a man (I'm sure they do) but there has to come a time when they question his baseball knowledge and doubts start about him being the right guy for the job.

Great point.

[Lucky Jim]

We're talking about a manager starting to improve so that it's one less thing we have to worry about when we are ready to contend.

Remember, we're coming up on two full seasons for Trembley in the next month. Shouldn't we have seen things change by now in how he manages?

Not if he doesn't have the parts he needs to manage accordingly.

[TGO]

Did he? In his first two seasons? And how much were his flaws hidden by a talented squad while he learned on the job?

The O's don't have advantages right now. We're talking about creativity to form a salve. And that's a risky thing.

Indeed, Earl's legend was earned in the late 70s and early 80s after the dawn of free agency (a market in which the team initially declined to participate). The Orioles of that time period were still good, he just made them really good with some of the things we talk about now like platoons.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Not if he doesn't have the parts he needs to manage accordingly.

Every time someone responds to my posts with something about "parts" or "pitchers" I knock their opinion down a couple levels because it means they haven't read anything I've said.

If you can defend the moves you make with logical arguments, it doesn't matter if they players don't perform because you at least know what you are doing.

If you bring in George Sherrill to face Jeter, Damon, Teixiera and Rodriguez in the ninth inning of a one-run game (as a scenario) because he's your "closer", that's not a logical decision.

If you do a hit-and-run with Roberts and Jones, and it fails, it can still be a logical decision. If you do it every time up or with a bunch of other players who are not as good on the bases or at making contact, it likely isn't that logical.

Just like a team will often evaluate a player on how they are approaching and working in their at-bats even when they aren't getting hits, we can analyze Trembley based on how and why he makes his decisions instead of ignoring judgement because of the quality of talent.

[Lucky Jim]

Every time someone responds to my posts with something about "parts" or "pitchers" I knock their opinion down a couple levels because it means they haven't read anything I've said.

If you can defend the moves you make with logical arguments, it doesn't matter if they players don't perform because you at least know what you are doing.

If you bring in George Sherrill to face Jeter, Damon, Teixiera and Rodriguez in the ninth inning of a one-run game (as a scenario) because he's your "closer", that's not a logical decision.

If you do a hit-and-run with Roberts and Jones, and it fails, it can still be a logical decision. If you do it every time up or with a bunch of other players who are not as good on the bases or at making contact, it likely isn't that logical.

Just like a team will often evaluate a player on how they are approaching and working in their at-bats even when they aren't getting hits, we can analyze Trembley based on how and why he makes his decisions instead of ignoring judgement because of the quality of talent.

I don't care if you knock my argument down a few pegs.

My point is that you don't judge the strategic acumen of someone operating at a deficit.

This is because we've got a team that should lose. High risk moves by teams that are likely to lose are common. And strategically wise.

But they also backfire.

The point is, he'll be operating with a different kind of risk calculus when the team has more talent.

So, apply your one-size-fits-all logic all you want. That's fine.

Those of us who realize that different kinds of logic fit in different situations will feel free to knock their opinion of your posts down a peg or two.

All's fair, right?

[Cavspider]

I agree with those who think calling a manager bad is hard to quantify objectively.

I think all could agree objectivelly certain things would make Trembley a bad manager...like:

Playing Pie full-time in CF and depositing Jones to the bench for the rest of the season because we know what he can do and we need to find out about Pie.

Permanently benching Markakis to find out about Reimold.

Deciding the throw to second is too far for Zaun, so we make him a starting pitcher because he makes just as many throws as a pitcher so whats the difference if we reverse the field.

Making Jamie Walker the starting shortstop because he cant get anyone out and we could use another lefty bat in the lineup.

Stuff like that would be objectively bad...

Basically, Trembely uses the guys he has in the manner they should be used. Saying you disagree with the minutia of in-game management is just silly unless he does something really out of the ordinary. If the players perform in their expected roles, all is well. But even Mariaro Rivera has an era over 0. Arod doesnt always hit homeruns when at bat. All players have a failure rate. When managing you try and put them in positions to succeed knowing they will fail sometimes. Over the course of a season, you try and use everyone in very complicated interrelated ways and success or failure usually is determined by the players performance which is out of control of the manager once they take the field.

Nitpicking on leaving some pitcher in one batter too long or whatever is just that, nitpicking. You all bemoan pitchers not going long enough because of the wear on the BP, but when he tries to stretch someone, you castigate him for it. If he got the BP up every inning from the 5th on, youd rightfully say he was wearing them out without even using them. He cant win.

I am sure Dave would like to rest people more but people have been hurt and he is trying to win some games now. Pitchers have underperformed.

I do not think he is a bad manager. Would I do things differently from time to time, sure. Does that make Dave wrong when he does something and the players dont perform as hoped? No. Am I right because I woudl have done soemthing differently....No. WHo knows what would have happened.

I think that the a managers in game management is probably only important to the extent the players think they are being used correctly and the manager maintains respect from the players so they continue to play hard. The actual maneuvers probably dont matter too much. A 350 hitter is still gonna be out the vast majority of the time. A pitcher with a 350 BAA is still gonna get most of the opposing players out. Even in these extreme examples, a manager is probably going to be "right" using the players he has most of the time.

As long as the players will play hard for him, Dave is a good manager.

He just needs better players.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I don't care if you knock my argument down a few pegs.

My point is that you don't judge the strategic acumen of someone operating at a deficit.

This is because we've got a team that should lose. High risk moves by teams that are likely to lose are common. And strategically wise.

But they also backfire.

The point is, he'll be operating with a different kind of risk calculus when the team has more talent.

So, apply your one-size-fits-all logic all you want. That's fine.

Those of us who realize that different kinds of logic fit in different situations will feel free to knock their opinion of your posts down a peg or two.

All's fair, right?

High-risk moves should still make sense and be defendable. Do you really think the potential scenarios I mentioned are defendable?

I'm just wondering why you think we should wait until our manager is blowing games we should win to worry about the moves being made. Do you believe we shouldn't be looking for bullpen help because we aren't in a position to win anyway so it doesn't matter yet?

[BaltimoreTerp]

I agree with those who think calling a manager bad is hard to quantify objectively.

I think all could agree objectivelly certain things would make Trembley a bad manager...like:

Playing Pie full-time in CF and depositing Jones to the bench for the rest of the season because we know what he can do and we need to find out about Pie.

Permanently benching Markakis to find out about Reimold.

Deciding the throw to second is too far for Zaun, so we make him a starting pitcher because he makes just as many throws as a pitcher so whats the difference if we reverse the field.

Making Jamie Walker the starting shortstop because he cant get anyone out and we could use another lefty bat in the lineup.

Stuff like that would be objectively bad...

Basically, Trembely uses the guys he has in the manner they should be used. Saying you disagree with the minutia of in-game management is just silly unless he does something really out of the ordinary. If the players perform in their expected roles, all is well. But even Mariaro Rivera has an era over 0. Arod doesnt always hit homeruns when at bat. All players have a failure rate. When managing you try and put them in positions to succeed knowing they will fail sometimes. Over the course of a season, you try and use everyone in very complicated interrelated ways and success or failure usually is determined by the players performance which is out of control of the manager once they take the field.

Nitpicking on leaving some pitcher in one batter too long or whatever is just that, nitpicking. You all bemoan pitchers not going long enough because of the wear on the BP, but when he tries to stretch someone, you castigate him for it. If he got the BP up every inning from the 5th on, youd rightfully say he was wearing them out without even using them. He cant win.

I am sure Dave would like to rest people more but people have been hurt and he is trying to win some games now. Pitchers have underperformed.

I do not think he is a bad manager. Would I do things differently from time to time, sure. Does that make Dave wrong when he does something and the players dont perform as hoped? No. Am I right because I woudl have done soemthing differently....No. WHo knows what would have happened.

I think that the a managers in game management is probably only important to the extent the players think they are being used correctly and the manager maintains respect from the players so they continue to play hard. The actual maneuvers probably dont matter too much. A 350 hitter is still gonna be out the vast majority of the time. A pitcher with a 350 BAA is still gonna get most of the opposing players out. Even in these extreme examples, a manager is probably going to be "right" using the players he has most of the time.

As long as the players will play hard for him, Dave is a good manager.

He just needs better players.

So because he's not an absolute frickin' moron he's a good manager?

Cripes, most of us around here can qualify, then :laughlol:

[Lucky Jim]

High-risk moves should still make sense and be defendable. Do you really think the potential scenarios I mentioned are defendable?

I'm just wondering why you think we should wait until our manager is blowing games we should win to worry about the moves being made. Do you believe we shouldn't be looking for bullpen help because we aren't in a position to win anyway so it doesn't matter yet?

I don't think I said that.

I said I didn't want to make determinations based on a shoddy starting staff, insufficient talent on the bench, and a poor bullpen. When he has the parts to make even-keeled decisions, that's a different story.

Like I said, I'm looking forward to what he does the second half of the season, when the parts are in place. That's it. I'm not giving him all the time in the world.

[Cavspider]

So because he's not an absolute frickin' moron he's a good manager?

Cripes, most of us around here can qualify, then :laughlol:

Most on here could do the X's and Os, its not that hard, but would you have the respect of the players?

Probably not....

You missed this part about why I think he is a good manager and it is not because he isnt an absolute frickin' moron...."As long as the players will play hard for him, Dave is a good manager."

He'd be a better manager in the eyes of most if we had better players IMO.

[Can_of_corn]

As long as the players will play hard for him, Dave is a good manager.

He just needs better players.

Do you think the players quit in September of '07 and '08?

I do

[Fan4Life]

High-risk moves should still make sense and be defendable. Do you really think the potential scenarios I mentioned are defendable?

You and LJ both have good points. I'm not sure how you think high risk moves can be defended. Typically such moves go against conventional thinking which makes their success rate less. And then when they fail, was it necessarily the wrong thing to do? Sometimes doing what the opposition doesn't expect is the right thing to do whether it succeeds or not (obviously not taling about pitching here). I do agree that DT has some rigid methodolgy that doesn't play well in his circumstances. He should be more flexible in his approach.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I don't think I said that.

I said I didn't want to make determinations based on a shoddy starting staff, insufficient talent on the bench, and a poor bullpen.

Well, none of us are saying that.

When he has the parts to make even-keeled decisions, that's a different story.

I think we're really just disagreeing on what you need to make even-keeled decisions. I think if you are making decisions based on logic (which isn't just stats or scouting, by the way: you can do some experimenting within logic), you are always on OK ground.

Like I said, I'm looking forward to what he does the second half of the season, when the parts are in place. That's it. I'm not giving him all the time in the world.

And I'm willing to give him time. I just think we should be seeing improvement soon, and that we should be willing to point out mistakes in a reasonable manner both without a reactionary attitude or an attitude that the complaints are reactionary. Both sides go too far.

[Knife_Dixon]

Save for ElSid's cryptic rumors.

IMO, struggling players are not rational in their evaluation of coaching. Particularly if it affects how the player is used in comparison to how the player feels he should be used.