The benefits of a manager change...

[TJ Wrangler]

If the starting rotation is better then the bullpen gets less work.

See because the starters are better and going deeper into games, more consistently.

The basepath errors might also go down. Players don't feel the need to try to go to home and get that extra run right there because the pitching is better. Everyone relaxes and stops trying to do too much which leads to a lot of those baserunning mistakes. Hit and run calls probably go down because we don't feel the urgency to get every last run because, once again, the pitching is better.

You honestly think Trembley CHOOSES to go to the pen in the fifth and sixth innings half the time?

He chose to go to the pen when Berken was at 88 pitches through the 6th last night. No need to pull him there and drain your bullpen by forcing yourself to use another guy in the 7th.

[SilentJames]

If Trembley is fired, it tells the players, what he and they were doing was unacceptable. To keep him on, tells them the exact opposite IMO.

Jauss would be an interim guy, that's true, but who cares who manages the team really, the season is already lost. It just can't be Trembley because he is the status quo.

If you want to send a message to players, you fire DT.

If the season is already lost and it DOESN'T MATTER then why go through the embarrassment and controversy of doing it now, and just evaluate at the end of the season.

Or does that make too much sense?

[JTrea81]

If the season is already lost and it DOESN'T MATTER then why go through the embarrassment and controversy of doing it now, and just evaluate at the end of the season.

Or does that make too much sense?

Why let the players tank the rest of the season and be protected? If you fire DT now, perhaps a message will be sent to make this team perform better.

[TJ Wrangler]

If the season is already lost and it DOESN'T MATTER then why go through the embarrassment and controversy of doing it now, and just evaluate at the end of the season.

Or does that make too much sense?

I do agree here. Trembley needs to be replaced, but now isn't the time to do it. You accomplish nothing by doing it now and going with Jauss for the rest of the year. I'm sure Jauss was chosen by Trembley because he is similar in thought to Trembley. Fire Trembley once you have the opportunity to replaced him with someone different.

[SilentJames]

I don't want to say that a good in-game manager would have won last night, but Trembley did a lot of things I disagreed with last night in the last inning. He pinch ran Pie, but then called for a bunt with Izturis. Izzy struck out. I would have pinch hit for Izturis with either Wigginton or Zaun, who has been hot of late, and then let the top of my lineup try to score. The game ended with Pie getting forced out at second. The small ball game and moving the runners over failed for Trembley last night. A different game plan could have changed the outcome. We still could have lost, but at least it would have been on the players to take their 3 outs to get a run in, not by giving one up.

Now I can understand that a good in game manager likely only adds 3 wins or so, but it puts the team in a better position to win many more than that. A good manager also puts the players in the best position to succeed and get the team a win. That doesn't always amount to a win and won't show up in the stats. That is what gets the players to respect you and trust your decision making. Maybe I'm stupid, but I'll take the likely 3 extra wins and a better chance to win many more games while the team respects and trusts the manager's decision making and likewise play to win when given the opportunity over a less than stellar in game manager that doesn't increase our chance of winning by failing to make astute and strategic in game decisions any day of the week.

But was it a bad decision? or was it just a decision that didn't work out?

There is a difference.

Izzy bunting isn't necessarily a sacrifice, he can run. Then you have one out and a man in scoring position for the top of your order and a slim chance of a double play.

There is logic in what Trembley did it wasn't a weird move, it wasn't a bad move, it wasn't a brilliant thinking outside the box move - it was a move that didn't work.

As for Berken.

I disagreed with taking Berken out, but I get the thought that you want to get him a win. He has been struggling up here and he finally has a shot at the win. I get why Trembley brought him out, don't agree with it but its not a hell-worthy trespass.

Besides, it was Johnson in the eighth (who would have come in anyway in a close game most likely) that screwed the game up.

[SilentJames]

Why let the players tank the rest of the season and be protected? If you fire DT now, perhaps a message will be sent to make this team perform better.

Or perhaps people get pissed off and start demanding trades.

[JTrea81]

Or perhaps people get pissed off and start demanding trades.

I doubt the players are that attached to DT as much as some fans are. elsid has already said there are some that don't like him at all...

By keeping Trembley, Andy MacPhail is not holding him accountable for his performance as he would be continuing to let Trembley manage despite the results. And if MacPhail isn't holding Trembley accountable, then why should the players feel they have to hold themselves accountable? They can just coast to the finish line, because their manager isn't getting results and he's still employed. It's not like they won't get a paycheck...

[ledzepp8]

If Trembley is fired, it tells the players, what he and they were doing was unacceptable. To keep him on, tells them the exact opposite IMO.

Jauss would be an interim guy, that's true, but who cares who manages the team really, the season is already lost. It just can't be Trembley because he is the status quo.

If you want to send a message to players that their play has been unacceptable, you fire DT, because he is ultimately responsible.

In what world do you think these guys think that losing is acceptable or that they would be okay with that?

What is this holding players accountable crap? You don't punish guys for slumping. You can't make somebody hit better.

These same talking points get beat into the ground.

-Roberts doesn't hustle

-Roberts sulks

-Markakis and Roberts aren't motivated

Those are the whipping boys this year, I believe it was Mora last year.

Like I said in another thread, I seriously can't wait for the Orioles to start winning so all these ridiculous threads might stop.

[SilentJames]

These same talking points get beat into the ground.

-Roberts doesn't hustle

-Roberts sulks

-Markakis and Roberts aren't motivated

Those are the whipping boys this year, I believe it was Mora last year.

It was Tejada the year before that.

I love how a guy that doesn't hustle is, statistically, one of the best leadoff hitters in baseball

[SilentJames]

I doubt the players are that attached to DT as much as some fans are. elsid has already said there are some that don't like him at all...

By keeping Trembley, Andy MacPhail is not holding him accountable for his performance as he would be continuing to let Trembley manage despite the results. And if MacPhail isn't holding Trembley accountable, then why should the players feel they have to hold themselves accountable? They can just coast to the finish line, because their manager isn't getting results and he's still employed. It's not like they won't get a paycheck...

So you are saying that the Orioles should have been competing for the playoffs this year?

[ledzepp8]

He chose to go to the pen when Berken was at 88 pitches through the 6th last night. No need to pull him there and drain your bullpen by forcing yourself to use another guy in the 7th.

Berken had lost 8 straight decisions. Perhaps Trembley was trying to not let Berken ruin his good start by allowing him to pitch himself into a loss with another inning. If Dave had put him out there for the 7th and Berken gives up 3 runs, then the same people would be complaining that he shouldn't have been out there. Every manager the Orioles ever have is in a lose lose situation. They are constantly be second guessed.

[fansince71]

Yeah because Colorado is similar to the Orioles.

Forget the fact that the Rockies are 2nd in the NL in runs scored and OPS, 5th in OPS+, 9th in ERA (4.26) and 6th in ERA+.

The Orioles on the other hand are 11th in the AL in runs scored, 10th in OPS, 9th in OPS+, 13th in ERA (4.95) and 12th in ERA+.

But yeah, they're basically the same situation. All that's missing is **** canning the manager.

And what were the stats for the Rockies before Tracy took over??

[TJ Wrangler]

But was it a bad decision? or was it just a decision that didn't work out?

There is a difference.

Izzy bunting isn't necessarily a sacrifice, he can run. Then you have one out and a man in scoring position for the top of your order and a slim chance of a double play.

There is logic in what Trembley did it wasn't a weird move, it wasn't a bad move, it was a brilliant thinking outside the box move - it was a move that didn't work.

As for Berken.

I disagreed with taking Berken out, but I get the thought that you want to get him a win. He has been struggling up here and he finally has a shot at the win. I get why Trembley brought him out, don't agree with it but its not a hell-worthy trespass.

Besides, it was Johnson in the eighth (who would have come in anyway in a close game most likely) that screwed the game up.

I don't think it was a brilliant outside the box move considering it's what baseball has evolved to these days and most managers would have done the same thing. If you play for one run, that is all you'll get...if you get it. I think my idea would be more outside of the box by today's standards.I also think it shows more trust in the team when you don't take the bats out of their hands to attempt to sacrifice a guy over.

Guess it's just me, but I don't see the undeniable logic and brilliant outside of the box thinking there. To me, it seems like a manager who played for one run and got bit in the behind for taking the bats out of his players hands and put them in a less favorable position to win.

[JTrea81]

So you are saying that the Orioles should have been competing for the playoffs this year?

I'm saying there has been such a lapse in fundamentals and overall judgement and nobody has been taken to task for it. Trembley has protected all his players publicly with the exception of Pie, and what ever closed door stuff he's done just hasn't worked.

Noboby expected this team to compete this year, but we did expect to see MLers play. A lot of the losses this year have been due to poor decisions and execution that you wouldn't see Little Leaguers make.

And if Trembley is not held accountable for not holding others accountable, then the uninspiring play will continue IMO, and the games only get tougher...

[SilentJames]

I'm saying there has been such a lapse in fundamentals and overall judgement and nobody has been taken to task for it. Trembley has protected all his players publicly with the exception of Pie, and what ever closed door stuff he's done just hasn't worked.

Noboby expected this team to compete this year, but we did expect to see MLers play. A lot of the losses this year have been due to poor decisions and execution that you wouldn't see Little Leaguers make.

And if Trembley is not held accountable for not holding others accountable, then the uninspiring play will continue IMO, and the games only get tougher...

So you are advocating that a manager routinely call his players out in the media.