Even if you don't blame Trembley...

[El Gordo]

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?

Your third reason is the same as my first. How else would he improve the team's record, but by getting a little more out of the same players, than another manager would? You seem to over value the impact of a manager, as many here do, IMO. The difference between the best and the worst isn't more than a few games either way. That only matters in contending situations. The difference of maybe a few extra wins, because you can't be certain that your management upgrade will actually be a fit with the team, woudn't be worth the interuption of the continuity, and planning, of a rebuilding effort.

[RShack]

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.

Well, if you bothered to stop and think about how these things are calc'd, you'd realize that the diff wouldn't normally amount to very much, especially at the extremes.

In the case at hand, if you do it using ERA+, you get essentially the same list, except that Davey and Oates are swapped and Hargrove gets bounced up several places.

So exactly where is the "highly misleading" part that you thought was so likely?

EDIT: I couldn't believe that it would make that much of a diff for Hargrove, so I went and looked. It doesn't.

I typed in a couple wrong numbers to begin with, so I got the wrong answer. In the ERA list Hargrove should be right below Earl. In the ERA+ list they swap places.

But this has nothing to do with the point.

That's what I call being "Drungowned".

That's what I call NMS demonstrating that he doesn't know what he's talking about yet again.

You'd think he'd learn, but I guess not...

[MarkF]

Since there are already two Fire Trembley threads, we don't need another one.

But here is a slightly off subject post for you guys and gals. I have a challenge for the psoters here, especially the people in the Fire Trembley camp. Google "Fire Girardi". Google "Fire Francona". Google "Fire Torre". Etc. What you will find is that for every manager there is a large number of people who want him to be fired. Some are managers of teams with poor records. Some are managers of teams with good records. It doesn't seem to matter.

I especially liked Googling Girardi. Before the All Star break it was impossible to differentiate Yankees fans critical of Girardi from Orioles fans critical of Trembley. The Yankees lacked fundamentals, ran the bases poorly, didn't hit strategically, etc. Girardi didn't know when to bunt, or not, or when to hit and run, or not. His lineups were bad. ETC.

After the All Star break the Yankees began winning. Gerardi became a great manager. (A-Rod's return is never mentioned. Hmmm.)

Dave Trembley is the least of our worries. He had about as difficult a challenge this year as any manager in baseball. How many rookies did he have to work into the system? While preserving their tender egos? While preserving their tender arms? While preserving their tender Achilles Tendons? While keeping the veterans content? While trying to win as many games as possible? While not letting the win/loss record dictate strategy?

IMHO, these discussions about Trembley are as important as discussing the arrangement of deck chairs on the HMS Titanic. What is the point? We seem to be off target here.

But that's just me.

Go on with your discussion.

[SteveA]

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...

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 ...

How do you define the crowd I'm in? I say: we do not have a manager under contract for 2010. Trembley's contract is up October 4, or October 31, or December 31, or however it works.

The 2010 job IS OPEN. We do not have a manager under contract for 2010.

I want MacPhail to choose THE BEST MAN for the job that he can get for it, and offer that person a contract. If that's Trembley, great. If it's someone else, great.

This has nothing to do with whether Trembley is "innocent until proven guilty" or if he has to "prove he deserves the job". It's a judgement call for our GM to decide, based on their various resumes and records ane experience, which of hundreds of available candidates is the best for the job. Trembley is one of those, of course.

I don't know why people feel so bad for Trembley being "treated" like he has to prove himself. That's baseball. Every player who isn't early in a multi-year contract has to do it every spring. Every year, Trembley himself will dash the dreams of some kid by cutting him in spring training in favor of someone Trembley feels is better for the job. Why is it so awful that a manager has to do the same thing a player does, earn a job by being the best of many qualified candidates?

[Leitch]

It's hard to make a really compelling case for him. I am not a big critic of DT, but whatever he's done, it hasn't really worked. If AM wants to try someone else, it's not going to offend me.

You could say this about almost any manager

[joldey]

No manager could get the current bunch on track. Trembley's without a paddle floating up a particular creek.

[Mike B]

We went 19-36 through July and August when we had our full complement before we went 6-16. The excuses have to stop sometime.

Trembley simply is not a good manager and is not the right guy to take this team to the next level.

I am to the point now where I expect a change and I think it may be wise to bring a fresh guy in to set a new structure for all the young kids that will dominate the OD roster for next year. As for a full complement, get real....our full compliment was 50% of what was needed to compete. We have had either retreads or raw rookies playing key roles all year. IMO anyone blaming DT for this year either does not know what they are talking about or is promoting their own agenda's.

IMO, DT took the bullets the last 2 years. If this thing gets turned around in the next year or two someone will get a lot of credit, and we will have a few experts n here saying it is because the new guy does not mismanage the BP, rotation, lineups, gives a guy 2 more days off a year etc. but IMO all that is a lot of BS and the real reason will because we made a few key additions and the calvary finally matured. DT has been a care taker of the kids and has handled them with care.

[Roll Tide]

I am to the point now where I expect a change and I think it may be wise to bring a fresh guy in to set a new structure for all the young kids that will dominate the OD roster for next year. As for a full complement, get real....our full compliment was 50% of what was needed to compete. We have had either retreads or raw rookies playing key roles all year. IMO anyone blaming DT for this year either does not know what they are talking about or is promoting their own agenda's.

IMO, DT took the bullets the last 2 years. If this thing gets turned around in the next year or two someone will get a lot of credit, and we will have a few experts n here saying it is because the new guy does not mismanage the BP, rotation, lineups, gives a guy 2 more days off a year etc. but IMO all that is a lot of BS and the real reason will because we made a few key additions and the calvary finally matured. DT has been a care taker of the kids and has handled them with care.

Here's my problem ... Trembley gets 5 innings from Berken & enters the 6th with a 1 run lead. Trembley brings in Bass (a Middle multiple inning reliever). Bass pitches a easy low pitch 1-2-3. Then in the 7th Trembley brings in Albers , Meredith , McCrory, Henn, & Johnson.

1st Bass made the 1st inning look easy. Second the odds say that if you bring in 5 or more relievers somebody isnt going to have it.

The result in the scenario is Albers walks a guy & serves up a gopher ball. Why pull a reliever who's pitching well?

I know someone will argue matchup & stuff ...But Jeez are we really playing match ups with McCrory & Henn? I dont get the need to use every reliever in the penn every night. How many games have we seen that this year?

[BaltimoreTerp]

Since there are already two Fire Trembley threads, we don't need another one.

But here is a slightly off subject post for you guys and gals. I have a challenge for the psoters here, especially the people in the Fire Trembley camp. Google "Fire Girardi". Google "Fire Francona". Google "Fire Torre". Etc. What you will find is that for every manager there is a large number of people who want him to be fired. Some are managers of teams with poor records. Some are managers of teams with good records. It doesn't seem to matter.

I especially liked Googling Girardi. Before the All Star break it was impossible to differentiate Yankees fans critical of Girardi from Orioles fans critical of Trembley. The Yankees lacked fundamentals, ran the bases poorly, didn't hit strategically, etc. Girardi didn't know when to bunt, or not, or when to hit and run, or not. His lineups were bad. ETC.

After the All Star break the Yankees began winning. Gerardi became a great manager. (A-Rod's return is never mentioned. Hmmm.)

Dave Trembley is the least of our worries. He had about as difficult a challenge this year as any manager in baseball. How many rookies did he have to work into the system? While preserving their tender egos? While preserving their tender arms? While preserving their tender Achilles Tendons? While keeping the veterans content? While trying to win as many games as possible? While not letting the win/loss record dictate strategy?

IMHO, these discussions about Trembley are as important as discussing the arrangement of deck chairs on the HMS Titanic. What is the point? We seem to be off target here.

But that's just me.

Go on with your discussion.

The (rational) discussion here isn't over whether to fire him from his current contract, it's over whether to bring him back for a new one.

Big difference.

[JTrea81]

"I don't feel sorry for myself. We do the very best we can. My responsibility is to prepare them to play hard, be professional. Put guys into situations where I think they can be successful. And if anybody would have the guts to step up and tell me I haven't done that, I'd tell them [you're wrong]."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=290928130

Guess what Dave? You batted Markakis cleanup for just about the entire month until tonight. Did you even look at his stats in the cleanup role, or do you remember what happened when you put another player that wasn't a cleanup hitter there?

And look what happens when Markakis is returned to a higher spot: 1-2 with a 2B and 3 BBs.

Here's the problem Dave, you may think you are putting players in roles where you think they'll be successful, but you are wrong, and that's why it's time for your tenure as Orioles manager to end.

You don't seem to know your own player's strengths and weaknesses. And that's poor preparation on your part IMO.

[RShack]

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.

Who said I was solving the puzzle of a manager's blame or blamelessness? This was nothing but a response to the unsupported claim by others that the team has sufficient talent that it should have performed better. I should have known that any effort to look at whether he's actually had much talent compared to his predecessors would be a big waste of time, simply because snipers would take pot shots while contributing nothing. Silly me for bothering. But, foolish though I was, here's what I did claim: that DT's had worse pitching than any Oriole manager in recent memory. So, howsabout if you quit changing the subject with every post, and let's see if we can stick to that.

As it turns out, the actual performance of the pitching staff supports that claim. And, surprise, surprise, you see that same result regardless of whether you look at team-ERA or team-ERA+. Now, since you thought that looking at team-ERA would be "highly misleading", perhaps you think ERA+ is also highly misleading since it shows exactly the same thing. Personally, I find it not at all surprising that ERA and ERA+ show the same thing, nor do I think anybody who is familiar with how the numbers really work would be surprised by that either. In fact, I would guess that the net finding comes as no surprise to those who are familiar with this team. This year's pitching appears to be about as weak as the staff that won a measly 54 games 21 years ago. Now, if you have some basis for claiming that the pitching staff is stocked with talent that should have performed better than they actually did, I'd love to hear it. I'm guessing you don't have any.

[Hank Scorpio]

We went 19-36 through July and August when we had our full complement before we went 6-16. The excuses have to stop sometime.

I don't think Trembley's much worse of a manager than the next guy will be.

But I do agree that at some point, you just get tired of hearing the excuses.

[NewMarketSean]

I am at the point now where I don't want Trembley back. Or any of the coaches. And half the roster.

[DrungoHazewood]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=290928130

Guess what Dave? You batted Markakis cleanup for just about the entire month until tonight. Did you even look at his stats in the cleanup role, or do you remember what happened when you put another player that wasn't a cleanup hitter there?

And look what happens when Markakis is returned to a higher spot: 1-2 with a 2B and 3 BBs.

Here's the problem Dave, you may think you are putting players in roles where you think they'll be successful, but you are wrong, and that's why it's time for your tenure as Orioles manager to end.

You don't seem to know your own player's strengths and weaknesses. And that's poor preparation on your part IMO.

Thank GOD we don't have a manager who obsesses over tiny splits and one-game samples to make decisions on trivial lineup positioning. Of all the reasons to fire or keep Dave Trembley this one is about #47,995, just below "it creeps me out that he sometimes eats cream cheese instead of lox on bagels."

[JTrea81]

Thank GOD we don't have a manager who obsesses over tiny splits and one-game samples to make decisions on trivial lineup positioning. Of all the reasons to fire or keep Dave Trembley this one is about #47,995, just below "it creeps me out that he sometimes eats cream cheese instead of lox on bagels."

If you had seen his cleanup stats before September, you'd know that he does his best in the #2 spot and not in the #4 spot.

You may not believe that it matters where players bat in the lineup, but over the past two years, players like Millar and Markakis have proven that where they bat does matter IMO.

Players seem to approach how they bat differently based on where they are hitting IMO. And for Millar and now Markakis, batting 4th completely screwed them up IMO because neither was that type of hitter, and they tried to become one and got away from what gave them success in the first place.

That's called putting your players in a place where they won't succeed. As manager, Trembley fills out the lineup card, so that's his responsibility to know those trends of his players. And that's extremely important.