Bill James on Dave Trembley

[Fan4Life]

I think you need it to be more than just "unexpected" for it to be OK. It would depend on the situation.

In what you are asking about, I think that if it's done sparingly it can be effective (although I've always been a little wary of Mora's baseball IQ, so he might not be the guy you want when he HAS to make contact). Ernie Lombardi was a catcher from the 1930s and '40s and may have been the slowest runner in the history of the sport, but he would steal a base every few years because he would just take off and the catcher would freeze or no one would cover second or something like that. That can be a logical, defensable move.

If you start doing it regularly though, or with the wrong type of players, then it's really no longer "unexpected" and just poor strategy.

Fair enough. So you think Dave is doing the latter?

[BaltimoreTerp]

Fair enough. So you think Dave is doing the latter?

I think that unless we're willing to pin the baserunning errors that consistantly get made completely on the players, yes.

That doesn't mean he can't get better at it, though, which is what I really want to see.

[primetime]

Just a general observation, but this discussion is sort of like criticizing play calling by an NFL head coach or offensive coordinator.

As an example, if it's 3rd and 1 at the 50 yard line and you line up in the I formation with 2 TEs and 1 WR and run play action and heave a pass down the sideline, if it falls incomplete, fans scream about bad play calling. However, if the WR runs a good route, the line blocks well and the QB is accurate, it's a great play call.

This is being a bit over simplistic, because of course there are situations where a manager makes a poor decision but more often than not, a poor coaching decision is the result of, or magnified by, poor execution by the players.

[Frobby]

Im nearly 99% certain that each of Brob's pickoffs have been counted as CS this year.

And I'm 100% sure you are wrong. See for example this box score from the Sunday game. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=290517107 It shows that Huff was caught stealing for the 3rd time this year, but there is no notation that Roberts was caught stealing. It shows he was picked off (no number given). Also on April 22, the box score shows Roberts was picked off. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=290422101

Now look at Roberts' game log. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?playerId=4773 It shows no caught stealing in Sunday's game, or the 4/22 game, but it shows a total of 4 CS, on 4/7, 4/8, 4/26 and 5/20. So clearly the 4 CS on Brian's record this year don't include the pickoff from Sunday or the one from April 22. And those are just the ones I remember, there might have been 1 or 2 more.

[Sports Guy]

And I'm 100% sure you are wrong. See for example this box score from the Sunday game. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=290517107 It shows that Huff was caught stealing for the 3rd time this year, but there is no notation that Roberts was caught stealing. It shows he was picked off (no number given). Also on April 22, the box score shows Roberts was picked off. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=290422101

Now look at Roberts' game log. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?playerId=4773 It shows no caught stealing in Sunday's game, or the 4/22 game, but it shows a total of 4 CS, on 4/7, 4/8, 4/26 and 5/20. So clearly the 4 CS on Brian's record this year don't include the pickoff from Sunday or the one from April 22. And those are just the ones I remember, there might have been 1 or 2 more.

Its possible they changed scoring but I know that BRob has been picked off this year and they counted it as a caught stealing at first because Thorne and whoever else were talking about how dumb it is to score it that way.

[TGO]

Its possible they changed scoring but I know that BRob has been picked off this year and they counted it as a caught stealing at first because Thorne and whoever else were talking about how dumb it is to score it that way.

The Danks pick off was initially scored as a CS and I recall the comments from Thorne you're talking about, but it was changed to a PO before the game was even over. I remember this because it's one of the few games I've gotten to watch this year.

[Frobby]

Its possible they changed scoring but I know that BRob has been picked off this year and they counted it as a caught stealing at first because Thorne and whoever else were talking about how dumb it is to score it that way.

I have figured this out after further review. I believe the rule is that if the pitcher catches the runner napping and throws to 1st, and the runner takes off for 2B, they treat it as a PO and a CS. For example, BRob's first CS this year. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=290406101 But if he dives back to 1st its only a pickoff and not a CS. It's pretty stupid because if what you want to know is, how many total times did the runner make an out on a PO or a CS, you can't figure it out without going back through box scores like I just did. Pickoff stats are hard to find, and once you find them, you still don't know how many of the POs were also counted as CS unless you see the box scores.

In any event, BRob has been caught stealing or picked off at least 6 times. Of his 4 credited CS, one was on a pickoff, the other 3 were on throws by the catcher. And he has been picked off at least 2 other times that were not treated as CS.

By the way, in the famous game where Tippy Martinez picked off three runners in the same inning, 2 of them were treated as straight pick-offs, while the third was a PO/CS. http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BAL/BAL198308240.shtml

[SteveA]

This just popped into my head - I propose that we define a kind of replacement level for managers: nobody. What would the team have done, or the outcome have been, if no one was managing this team? I think anything above that probably has some value, and anything below that is obviously a negative.

We won a World Series in 1983 with nobody managing the team.

Those guys managed themselves. Altobelli stayed out of the way.

[SteveA]

This is a cop out.

He has good players now...He doesn't have to play Mora and BRob everyday when he can use Wigginton as a sub at times.

He doesn't have to run his everyday players into the ground and then wonder why the teams fades at the end of the year.

At the beginning of last year, DT acknowledged that he ran his regulars into the ground too much the year before...Said he felt that was a reason why they struggled down the stretch..He said he would fix that so it didn't happen again...Guess what, he didn't do what he said and it happened again.

So, he knows he does it yet does nothing about it.

That's poor IMO.

I agree 100%. And I am one of the folks on here old enough to remember Earl. Earl would get all 25 guys involved in games on a frequent basis starting in April so that they would be ready to contribute when needed....and they always did and they always were. Weaver teams were famous for "slow starts" but they always finished strong. It's been the exact opposite with Trembley.

And Earl would demand having players with usable talent on his bench. We have had some of the most pathetic benches in Orioles history the past few years before this (and even this year, we are the only team in the frickin' majors without a pinch hit).

He handles the pen so bad at times...I mean, how on earth do you not have someone warming up to start the 7th inning the other night? That is complete common sense..Instead, you rush a guy to get him in the game.

Exactly. And he insists on using many relief pitchers for one inning or less each. Hell, if a guy is "on" that night, leave him in for two innings. Maybe you will find you can "survive" with a 11 man pitching staff if you do that.

I'm not going to criticize him for sticking relievers in "roles" and forcing their use in those roles regardless of game situation, or slavishly bowing down to the save rule, or not using his best pitchers inhigh leverage situations -- because just ab out every MLB manager fails in that regard. But he insists on 12 or even 13 pitchers, then he uses the same 4 or 5 guys too much and buries guys in the back of the pen because he doesn't trust them. All so we have a thin bench and have pinch hit for about a .150 average for his tenure (or is it worse?)

He lost me the other weekend when Eaton had that big lead. We led that game 12-2 and then Eaton started to give it back. Who did he use to finsih that game? Johnson, Baez, and Walker....three of our better relivers. WHen you lead 12-2 you finish that game with the likes of McCrory and Bass and save the best for the next day. THe next day Baez couldn't pitch, and Johnson was on his 2nd day in a row of work (where he struggles, and he did) and we lost on Mother's Day Massacre 2.

Inexcusable. Using guys as good as Johnson and Baez to win a game you lead 12-2 in so you don't have a strong bullpen for a close game the next day.

[Lucky Jim]

I agree 100%. And I am one of the folks on here old enough to remember Earl. Earl would get all 25 guys involved in games on a frequent basis starting in April so that they would be ready to contribute when needed....and they always did and they always were. Weaver teams were famous for "slow starts" but they always finished strong. It's been the exact opposite with Trembley.

And Earl would demand having players with usable talent on his bench. We have had some of the most pathetic benches in Orioles history the past few years before this (and even this year, we are the only team in the frickin' majors without a pinch hit).

Not sure how this is DT's fault.

[SteveA]

Good points. I cringe just thinking about all those 1st-inning sacrifice bunts! :cussing:

My favorite was when we were tied in the bottom of the 9th of a game, got a man on, and Perlozzo had Brian Roberts bunting, with Ramon Hernandez, who was hitting about .230, on deck. Roberts bunted, Hernandez popped out or something, the next guy got out, we go extra innings.

11th inning, same thing. Roberts bunts, Hernandez gets out, next guy gets out. We lose later on in extra innings.

I'll say that for Trembley, he lets his hitters hit.

[SteveA]

Not sure how this is DT's fault.

I believe his insistence on having at least 12, sometimes even 13 pitchers, combined with an over-emphasis on defensive bench players, in his years as manager, has led to our having some horrible benches the past couple years. I believe the Paytons and Fahey's and Luis Hernandez's of the world have been on our bench primarily because of Trembley.

[Lucky Jim]

I believe his insistence on having at least 12, sometimes even 13 pitchers, combined with an over-emphasis on defensive bench players, in his years as manager, has led to our having some horrible benches the past couple years. I believe the Paytons and Fahey's and Luis Hernandez's of the world have been on our bench primarily because of Trembley.

You'll need to show me evidence that this is DT's "insistence." And the second part seems kind-of crazy to me.

You're blaming DT for both managing and general managing. There's not a shred of evidence supporting that.

[SteveA]

You'll need to show me evidence that this is DT's "insistence." And the second part seems kind-of crazy to me.

You're blaming DT for both managing and general managing. There's not a shred of evidence supporting that.

Perhaps my recollection is faulty, but every quote I've ever seen about us "needing" 13 pitchers has come from Trembley. I don't recall MacPhail ever making such statements. And if you listen to him daily at his press conferences and read his interviews with the paper, he clearly emphasizes defense in bench players. Bench players are on the bench because they aren't good enough to start. You aren't likely to get a bench player who both hits and fields well. So it is somewhat of a zero sum game....you emphasize bench defense and you are sacrificing benchg offense. And our results pinch hitting the past few years are so far below any other team in the majors it is laughable. Why do the Scott Moore's, Jon Knott's, and so forth not get a chance? I believe Trembley has a lot to do with it. In the months leading up to the 2008 season when we handed the SS job to Luis Hernandez, it was Trembley, not MacPhail or anyone else, that talked Hernandez up the most.

Basically, that is my opinion based on 2 years of listening to what Trembley says in his media interviews and press conferences and seeing the results on the field. Sorry if my opinion doesn't live up to your standards of a "shred of evidence" but it is, nonetheless, my opinion.

[Lucky Jim]

Perhaps my recollection is faulty, but every quote I've ever seen about us "needing" 13 pitchers has come from Trembley. I don't recall MacPhail ever making such statements. And if you listen to him daily at his press conferences and read his interviews with the paper, he clearly emphasizes defense in bench players. Bench players are on the bench because they aren't good enough to start. You aren't likely to get a bench player who both hits and fields well. So it is somewhat of a zero sum game....you emphasize bench defense and you are sacrificing benchg offense. And our results pinch hitting the past few years are so far below any other team in the majors it is laughable. Why do the Scott Moore's, Jon Knott's, and so forth not get a chance? I believe Trembley has a lot to do with it. In the months leading up to the 2008 season when we handed the SS job to Luis Hernandez, it was Trembley, not MacPhail or anyone else, that talked Hernandez up the most.

Basically, that is my opinion based on 2 years of listening to what Trembley says in his media interviews and press conferences and seeing the results on the field. Sorry if my opinion doesn't live up to your standards of a "shred of evidence" but it is, nonetheless, my opinion.

I'd wager that bench defense saves more runs over the course of a year than bench hitting gains. The number of times a PH is required should be negligible, on a properly constructed team.

Second, AM doesn't talk much about roster construction. Decisions seem to be made by the organization, not necessarily by DT. That DT talks about them seems more likely a function of greater access, no?