Even if you don't blame Trembley...

[RShack]

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.

Oh, I completely agree that anybody looking for fairness and justice in their career path should pick a job other than being a manager. Nothing new about that...

IMO, one big diff between how much time Cal Sr had vs. how much time DT has had is that Cal Sr was manager before it dawned on everybody that the Oriole Way (which Cal Sr played a big part in implementing) had been thoroughly destroyed via neglect from above. Before the internet, it was about impossible to know what the talent pipeline was like. Now, everybody can monitor it day by day. Back then, everybody was still acclimated to the team being good all the time and still thought that Oriole suckitude was just some temporary anomaly. People thought we oughta have a good team right away. Now, people who actually pay attention know better...

[El Gordo]

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.

You picked a bad example. The Yankees and Torre would have proved your point, which has little to do with the O's current situation, more effectively. Fairness isn't the issue in the O's case, it's suitability to AM's current needs and plans that matters, and only he knows what they are.

[geschinger]

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.

I think there is a difference between talent and results. Determining how much talent a player/team has is a subjective excercise.

[Boy Howdy]

You picked a bad example. The Yankees and Torre would have proved your point, which has little to do with the O's current situation, more effectively. Fairness isn't the issue in the O's case, it's suitability to AM's current needs and plans that matters, and only he knows what they are.

Based on the vast majority of your posts and your last sentence above, I think we pretty much agree.

I remain "pro-Trembley" as long as he's on the job, but I've reached the point personally where I'd probably choose not to bring him back (Lucky for him I have zero say).

As for fairness, I get the sense that it's driving a lot of the keep Dave sentiment. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that way to me, and I agree with you that it isn't an issue that's going to sway MacPhail's decision.

[geschinger]

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.

I agree with everything you say here other than the 1st sentence. I believe he'll take in as much knowledge in as he can but when it comes down to decision time it'll be a gut call based on all of that information.

[El Gordo]

I agree with everything you say here other than the 1st sentence. I believe he'll take in as much knowledge in as he can but when it comes down to decision time it'll be a gut call based on all of that information.

I think he has already made his decision. IMO there are two reasons to make a change. One woud be if you thought the team was a few games away from the WC, and the difference between DT at that genius manager everyone seems to believe is out there, would nail it down, or that you needed a big PR splash to keep up fan interest, because you knew you were going to do little to improve the team in the off season. I don't think either is the case.

[RShack]

Based on the vast majority of your posts and your last sentence above, I think we pretty much agree.

I remain "pro-Trembley" as long as he's on the job, but I've reached the point personally where I'd probably choose not to bring him back (Lucky for him I have zero say).

As for fairness, I get the sense that it's driving a lot of the keep Dave sentiment. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that way to me, and I agree with you that it isn't an issue that's going to sway MacPhail's decision.

If it turns out that AM decides to not re-up DT, it will be interesting to see if his commentary about it drops any clues about when he actually decided. I say this because I fully agree with AM that decisions quite often are best made as late as possible. But that's hard to do. So, while I agree with it in principle, I myself have assumed that AM actually made up his mind way before his announcement is due. If we get hints that he really, really refrained from deciding until very close to the end of the season, that will say something about AM's own internal sense of discipline.

[DrungoHazewood]

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)
  ...
  ...

You do realize that one of your biggest underlying assumptions is that the manager has zero impact on team performance, right? And that a heavily-context dependent stat like ERA is probably one of the worst metrics to pick if you're trying to get a handle on pitching talent.

Quick and dirty is often good enough. But unless you happened to get lucky this is probably quite misleading.

[NewMarketSean]

DT can't be held accountable for a lot of things considering the stuff he's had to deal with over his time here, but one thing that keeps bugging me is the continuously decreasing W-L record. The Orioles have gotten worse under Trembley. I am not saying that DT should have willed the Orioles to the playoffs or to a winning record, but when you take into account that the team has gotten worse each season under Trembley, I just can't jump up and say he needs to be back in 2010.

Each year the expectations were to improve upon the year before. It should have happened during DT's time here, even with some of the problems he's faced. We're not talking about winning 75 games, even. Just getting better. Trembley's teams haven't.

[geschinger]

I think he has already made his decision. IMO there are two reasons to make a change. One woud be if you thought the team was a few games away from the WC, and the difference between DT at that genius manager everyone seems to believe is out there, would nail it down, or that you needed a big PR splash to keep up fan interest, because you knew you were going to do little to improve the team in the off season. I don't think either is the case.

I disagree that there are only being two reasons. A third one is that if you thought there was a person out there who could get more out of the roster he is given to work with. If he has such a candidate in mind you honestly think he shouldn't do it because the team is not a few games away from the WC?

[RShack]

And that a heavily-context dependent stat like ERA is probably one of the worst metrics to pick if you're trying to get a handle on pitching talent.

Quick and dirty is often good enough. But unless you happened to get lucky this is probably quite misleading.

For a particular P for 1 season, sure. For a team over a stretch of a few games, sure.

Over a whole team for a whole season? I doubt it. It might not be exact, but I bet it's not misleading.

I'd be interested in some evidence demonstrating that looking at a whole team for a whole season is "probably quite misleading".

I bet there isn't any. I bet whatever examples there might be are anomalies, not typical. I bet you made this up based mainly on anti-std-stat bias.

[RShack]

You do realize that one of your biggest underlying assumptions is that the manager has zero impact on team performance, right?

You do realize that's not true, right?

The underlying assumption is that the manager doesn't change things greatly.

Maybe the manager makes a diff of a few game per season, but not many. Same thing here: the manager might make a small diff, but not much of one.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. I bet you don't have any. But I could be wrong...

[DrungoHazewood]

For a particular P for 1 season, sure. For a team over a stretch of a few games, sure.

Over a whole team for a whole season? I doubt it. It might not be exact, but I bet it's not misleading.

I'd be interested in some evidence demonstrating that looking at a whole team for a whole season is "probably quite misleading".

I bet there isn't any. I bet whatever examples there might be are anomalies, not typical. I bet you made this up based mainly on anti-std-stat bias.

No, I really just made an assumption that since ERA is a slipshod way of measuring pitcher performance it was probably a poor way to measure the true talent a manager has on hand.

Park effects can make a very good team in run prevention look quite bad. For example, this year the White Sox are 5th in the league in ERA, but 1st in ERA+.

Team defense can make a good pitching team look bad, or vice versa. The Rays had much of the same pitching talent in 2007 when they allowed 944 runs as they did in 2008 when they allowed 671.

A manager who is very poor at managing pitcher workloads can make a good team look bad, or vice versa.

As everyone here should certainly be well aware I'm very accepting of any and all types of stats that have some kind of logical and systematic foundation. I'm not as accepting of stuff like the 17-player theory or using ERA as a proxy for team talent.

[NewMarketSean]

As everyone here should certainly be well aware I'm very accepting of any and all types of stats that have some kind of logical and systematic foundation. I'm not as accepting of stuff like the 17-player theory or using ERA as a proxy for team talent.

That's what I call being "Drungowned".

[DrungoHazewood]

You do realize that's not true, right?

The underlying assumption is that the manager doesn't change things greatly.

Maybe the manager makes a diff of a few game per season, but not many. Same thing here: the manager might make a small diff, but not much of one.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. I bet you don't have any. But I could be wrong...

I don't have any evidence that an average manager moves a team's W/L record more than a few games a season. But I'm also not making the assumption that you can use ERA as a proxy for talent on a team. For that to be true you'd have to be assuming that the manager's influence on said talent is negligible.

You have to see that when you're trying to get to the root of a manager's blame or blamelessness, you can't use a metric that can certainly be influenced by the manager himself. As well as any number of other things unrelated to talent or the manager.