Jump to content

Even if you don't blame Trembley...


Frobby

Recommended Posts

Trembley over 2 1/2 seasons has not shown that he brings anything above average to the manager's chair. Changing the manager isn't going to hurt, that's for sure, and it may help.

I am not advocating this position, but how do we know that DT isn't Torre-like in that he is capable of being an excellent manager for a good team while capable only of being a middling manager for a poor team? I know there is no easy way to argue for that - I just have a feeling that for the first time in quite a while, if we let our manager go, he will get anoher shot elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I am not advocating this position, but how do we know that DT isn't Torre-like in that he is capable of being an excellent manager for a good team while capable only of being a middling manager for a poor team? I know there is no easy way to argue for that - I just have a feeling that for the first time in quite a while, if we let our manager go, he will get anoher shot elsewhere.

Not sure what your getting at here. I think almost anyone can manage a "good" team. I put Torre in that category in that I don't know how good of a manager he really is. Looking for a manager that gets the MOST out of the talent he has is what anyone should want for their manager. Girardi has now shown he can be successful with a young team that had little expectations and a rich team that has a ton of expectations. Are there any managers available with that track record?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not advocating this position, but how do we know that DT isn't Torre-like in that he is capable of being an excellent manager for a good team while capable only of being a middling manager for a poor team? I know there is no easy way to argue for that - I just have a feeling that for the first time in quite a while, if we let our manager go, he will get anoher shot elsewhere.

We don't, but who has the burden of proof?

From my point of view, the guy's had 400+ games to make a case for himself, more than most of the managers in the history of the Orioles as was pointed out earlier.

The point's been beaten to death that it's not fair to judge him on wins and losses though, ultimately that's what everybody in professional sports in judged on.

Bottom line is, he's lucky I'm not the one who has to decide his fate, because from my distant view it's time for a change. I'll echo what a number of other posters have already said by stating that I trust Andy MacPhail to make the right decision based on all the available info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trembley has been worse than Perlozzo, Hargrove, and Robinson, and I don't think anyone can really argue the talent Trembley has had was worse than the talent they had. He's also been worse than Miller and Regan, who I think had better talent and were terrible managers. And he's been worse than Mazzili, who had better talent but who also got set up to fail.

Sure you can.

Now, I realize that people just say stuff without thinking about it.

I also realize that it's a waste of time to point out facts because some folks (not talking about you) will just ignore them.

But to say that DT hasn't had the worst talent is kinda silly. This is true if we simply look at the pitching and nothing else.

This is where the team's pitching ranked in the AL by team ERA:

  • Trembley-2009: Last (14th)
  • Trembley-2008: Next to last (13th)
  • Trembley/Perlozzo-2007: Next to last (13th)
  • Perlozzo-2006: Next to last (13th)
  • Perlozzo/Mazzilli-2005: 10th
  • Mazzilli-2004: 7th
  • Hargrove-2003: 10th
  • Hargrove-2002: 7th
  • Hargrove-2001: 5th
  • Hargrove-2000: 3rd
  • Miller-1999: 11th
  • Miller-1998: 7th
  • Davey-1997: 2nd
  • Davey-1996: 9th
  • Regan-1995: 2nd
  • Oates-1994: 3rd
  • Oates-1993: 7th
  • Oates-1992: 5th
  • Oates/Frank-1991: Last-14th
  • Frank-1990: 9th
  • Frank-1989: 8th
  • Frank/Cal Sr.-1988: Last-14th
  • Cal Sr: 1987: Next to last-13th
  • Earl-1986: 11th
  • Earl/Altobelli-1985: 8th
  • Altobelli-1984: 2nd
  • Altobelli-1983: 2nd

I realize this methodology is imperfect, it's just quick-and-dirty, but if we simply take the average of the where the pitching ranked in the league for each manager, and simply assign half-seasons when we had 2 managers, here's how it looks, from worst to best, in terms of the pitching the guy had:

  • Trembley: 13.4
  • Cal Sr: 13.3
  • Perlozzo: 12.25
  • Frank: 10.3
  • Earl, round 2: 10
  • Miller: 9
  • Mazilli: 8
  • Oates: 6.28
  • Hargove: 6.25
  • Davey: 5.5
  • Altobelli: 3.2
  • Regan: 2

So, yeah, I think you can say that DT had less to work with than the other guys did. The only guy who was close to having that little to work with was Cal Sr.

Now, just watch somebody try to blame the manager for how bad the pitching was. If you're gonna do that for DT, then you gotta do it for Cal Sr too...

ps: There's only one real mystery to me in there, and it's how Regan did. I don't see how he managed to have losing record with the league's 2nd best pitching and almost-league-average hitting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, this is the kind ridiculous thought process that's mind boggling. do you have any idea of what's going on? The Orioles are in a full force rebuilding process that AM has performed very slowly and methodically. AM traded his best reliever and his top hitter from a year before. The Orioles had four rookies make eight or more starts. We have a bullpen with one reliever with an ERA under 5.00. We lost our left fielder and center fielder, and our current third baseman has a .671 OPS in over 465 PAs.

We have one hitter with more than 20 home runs. We play in the toughest Division in baseball.

Despite all of this, you are looking for wins? Really? This team is currently pitiful. Our pitching staff is decimated or filled with terribly inconsistent relievers.

Judging Dave Trembley by wins and losses is ridiculous.

I'm not asking him to be judged on his past W's and L's. I'm saying that at this point in our evolution, we'll probably start looking more at wins and losses next year...and that increse in expectations may cause AM to be more selective in who is at the helm. Does that make sense? I'm also saying (and anyone can chime in) that I don't think that Dave has done anything (period) that will compel AM to pick up his option. I like what I see of Dave; he's smart, respects the game, and definitely appreciates being a Baltimore Oriole. Do these things or anything else mean that he should be renewed?

People tend to pontificate on reasons why he shouldn't be blamed for our record. That's fine. Give me some reasons why he should be brought back versus going in a different direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure you can.

Now, I realize that people just say stuff without thinking about it.

I also realize that it's a waste of time to point out facts because some folks (not talking about you) will just ignore them.

But to say that DT hasn't had the worst talent is kinda silly. This is true if we simply look at the pitching and nothing else.

This is where the team's pitching ranked in the AL by team ERA:

  • Trembley-2009: Last (14th)
  • Trembley-2008: Next to last (13th)
  • Trembley/Perlozzo-2007: Next to last (13th)
  • Perlozzo-2006: Next to last (13th)
  • Perlozzo/Mazzilli-2005: 10th
  • Mazzilli-2004: 7th
  • Hargrove-2003: 10th
  • Hargrove-2002: 7th
  • Hargrove-2001: 5th
  • Hargrove-2000: 3rd
  • Miller-1999: 11th
  • Miller-1998: 7th
  • Davey-1997: 2nd
  • Davey-1996: 9th
  • Regan-1995: 2nd
  • Oates-1994: 3rd
  • Oates-1993: 7th
  • Oates-1992: 5th
  • Oates/Frank-1991: Last-14th
  • Frank-1990: 9th
  • Frank-1989: 8th
  • Frank/Cal Sr.-1988: Last-14th
  • Cal Sr: 1987: Next to last-13th
  • Earl-1986: 11th
  • Earl/Altobelli-1985: 8th
  • Altobelli-1984: 2nd
  • Altobelli-1983: 2nd

I realize this methodology is imperfect, it's just quick-and-dirty, but if we simply take the average of the where the pitching ranked in the league for each manager, and simply assign half-seasons when we had 2 managers, here's how it looks, from worst to best, in terms of the pitching the guy had:

  • Trembley: 13.4
  • Cal Sr: 13.3
  • Perlozzo: 12.25
  • Frank: 10.3
  • Earl, round 2: 10
  • Miller: 9
  • Mazilli: 8
  • Oates: 6.28
  • Hargove: 6.25
  • Davey: 5.5
  • Altobelli: 3.2
  • Regan: 2

So, yeah, I think you can say that DT had less to work with than the other guys did. The only guy who was close to having that little to work with was Cal Sr.

Now, just watch somebody try to blame the manager for how bad the pitching was. If you're gonna do that for DT, then you gotta do it for Cal Sr too...

Unless you think a manager / coaching staff has absolutely no impact on the performance of players I'm not sure this is a good way to look at it. A manager that gets the most out of his players - a team that overachieves may look like it has more talent than the inverse. I don't looking at the talent level that this is the worst of the Orioles teams as I do think this team underachieved. I know not all or even most of the reasons can be pinned on on the coaching staff for why certain players and the team overall underachieved but I do not think they have no impact either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you think a manager / coaching staff has absolutely no impact on the performance of players I'm not sure this is a good way to look at it. A manager that gets the most out of his players - a team that overachieves may look like it has more talent than the inverse. I don't looking at the talent level that this is the worst of the Orioles teams as I do think this team underachieved. I know not all or even most of the reasons can be pinned on on the coaching staff for why certain players and the team overall underachieved but I do not think they have no impact either.

That's why it's a waste of time to try to provide people with some perspective:

No matter how you do it, no matter how much effort you put in to it, somebody can type something in 3 seconds blowing it off.

Which is why I picked a quick-and-dirty method: better to get blown off wasting 15 minutes than wasting an hour...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why it's a waste of time to try to provide people with some perspective:

No matter how you do it, no matter how much effort you put in to it, somebody can type something in 3 seconds blowing it off.

Which is why a picked a quick-and-dirty method: better to get blown off wasting 15 minutes than wasting an hour...

Things like that are really unmeasurable - it is going to be subjective just like whether or not DT gets handed an extension is probably going to be based on AM's gut feeling of whether or not he's the right guy for next year and maybe beyond. Maybe they have some secret formula for evaluation a manager that I'm not aware of but if not it's going to be a subjective decision and all we are doing on here is debating our subjective opinions on what we think AM's subjective opinion should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you think a manager / coaching staff has absolutely no impact on the performance of players I'm not sure this is a good way to look at it. A manager that gets the most out of his players - a team that overachieves may look like it has more talent than the inverse. I don't looking at the talent level that this is the worst of the Orioles teams as I do think this team underachieved. I know not all or even most of the reasons can be pinned on on the coaching staff for why certain players and the team overall underachieved but I do not think they have no impact either.
Which team would that be? The one with a strating rotation of Guthrie, Eaton, Hendrickson, Simon, and Koji; the one with Guthrie. Hendrickson, Bergy, Hill, and Koji; the one with Guthrie, Bergy, Koji DH and Berken; the one with Guthrie, Tillman, Matusz, DH and Berken or the current one of Guthrie, DH, Berken, Hendrickson and :eek:? For the team to improve signifacantly next season, Marakakis, Guthrie, Jones, Wieters, Pie, Matusz, Tillman, DH, and Berken will have to step up their game. What can Leyland, Cox, LaRussa, etc., do to make that happen, that DT can't?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, just watch somebody try to blame the manager for how bad the pitching was. If you're gonna do that for DT, then you gotta do it for Cal Sr too...

I'm not the somebody who's gonna do that, but it's worth pointing out that Cal, Sr. lost his job after just 168 games, while Trembley's already lasted over 400.

Not saying that's right, as I think Cal, Sr.'s ouster a mere six games into the '88 season remains one of the most embarrassing episodes in club history, but he did pay for the lack of performance with his job.

Fairly or unfairly, that's how it works in professional sports. Baseball managers are not popes or government employees who get to stay on the job no matter what. Thank goodness for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things like that are really unmeasurable - it is going to be subjective just like whether or not DT gets handed an extension is probably going to be based on AM's gut feeling of whether or not he's the right guy for next year and maybe beyond. Maybe they have some secret formula for evaluation a manager that I'm not aware of but if not it's going to be a subjective decision and all we are doing on here is debating our subjective opinions on what we think AM's subjective opinion should be.
Wahtever AM's judgement turns out to be, I am pretty certain it will not be based on his gut. It will be based on an in depth knowledge of how DT manages a team, from the way he organizes a ST routine. drills, etc, to clubhouse management and dealing with players on a personal level, motivating them, disciplining them, preparation fo games, planning, evaluation of personell, and in game management philosophies, skills and strategies, among others. He will compare this knowledge to what he knows of other manager options available. These are all things we know next to nothing about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things like that are really unmeasurable - it is going to be subjective just like whether or not DT gets handed an extension is probably going to be based on AM's gut feeling of whether or not he's the right guy for next year and maybe beyond. Maybe they have some secret formula for evaluation a manager that I'm not aware of but if not it's going to be a subjective decision and all we are doing on here is debating our subjective opinions on what we think AM's subjective opinion should be.

Of course it's gonna be subjective. So what? I wasn't saying otherwise.

I was simply pointing out that people just make up this idea about how much talent DT has had, and its based on nothing.

If you're gonna say DT had way more talent than last place, then you oughta have some basis for saying that.

What people are doing is just making up bogus claims out of thin air, and pretending that they're somehow insightful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not asking him to be judged on his past W's and L's. I'm saying that at this point in our evolution, we'll probably start looking more at wins and losses next year...and that increse in expectations may cause AM to be more selective in who is at the helm. Does that make sense? I'm also saying (and anyone can chime in) that I don't think that Dave has done anything (period) that will compel AM to pick up his option. I like what I see of Dave; he's smart, respects the game, and definitely appreciates being a Baltimore Oriole. Do these things or anything else mean that he should be renewed?

People tend to pontificate on reasons why he shouldn't be blamed for our record. That's fine. Give me some reasons why he should be brought back versus going in a different direction.

This really all comes down to two sides of the story.

The "show me" crowd - like yourself, they feel DT's job security should be dependent on what he has shown with the current team, despite the fact that there was a lot of upheaval with the roster this year (playing Eaton, trading away Huff/Sherril, bringing up all the rookies, etc.).

The "innocent until proven guilty" crowd - this is where I tend to fall; they recognize that DT was given a roster with some pretty big holes this year and that nobody could've managed them to a .500 record. Next year, when he has a big majority of what the roster will (hopefully) be for the next several years, that's when he will truly be able to show what he is as a manager. I think of it as a carpenter being given a job and yet only being half of the tools he usually has/needs to finish the job.

Can you truly judge someone's performance when they weren't given the tools (players) they needed to succeed?

I also don't think having change for the sake of change is a good thing when it comes to managers and that continuity is a good thing. If, once given a roster that can compete, DT continues to provide lackluster results, then you make a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not the somebody who's gonna do that, but it's worth pointing out that Cal, Sr. lost his job after just 168 games, while Trembley's already lasted over 400.

Not saying that's right, as I think Cal, Sr.'s ouster a mere six games into the '88 season remains one of the most embarrassing episodes in club history, but he did pay for the lack of performance with his job.

Fairly or unfairly, that's how it works in professional sports. Baseball managers are not popes or government employees who get to stay on the job no matter what. Thank goodness for that.

Comparing the O's at a time when Wiliams/Jacobs were the disfuntional owners, with now is silly. That is definitely not the way it is in professional sports, for the most part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing the O's at a time when PA was calling all the shots, with now is silly. That is definitely not the way it is in professional sports, for the most part.

PA wasn't calling any shots in 1988, as it would be several years before he purchased the team.

Cal, Sr's early season firing was atypical, I'll grant you that. He'd lost the confidence of the brass however and had a losing ballclub and found himself out of a job. That part's not atypical at all. It's a story as old as dirt.

EDIT - I see you caught your own Angelos typo, but I stand by the rest of the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...