Sbee said:

the main issue with this team has been horrible starting pitching, we're 24th in ERA but we have 3 starters making about 72 million combined. That is simply not acceptable and I don't think that having someone in the clubhouse get in their face is going to change that. When your starters ERA's are 2.55, 4.71, 5.80, 5.91 and 6.28 you could have Jesus Christ himself manage this team and you'd be below .500

Click to expand...

Anything is possible with Jesus

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

byco42 said:

Or learning from a guy like Maddon. Or from Sparky Anderson, who hated advanced stats, but managed to apply them in principle, especially when it came to using relievers.



I don't second guess; I make opinions as circumstances change. Pulling Sanchez after 30 pitches and two 1-2-3 innings was ill-advised. Not making Price the G2 starter was plain dumb. Not knowing that Al Al who Ausmus said was "a sixth-inning guy and occasionally the seventh" during the ALDS had actually these splits in 2014: 6th - 7.2 innings, 7th - 20.2, 8th - 15.1, 9th - 10.2.

?Usually when we use Alby, it?s earlier in the game, sixth inning, occasionally seventh inning,? Ausmus said.

Agreed that players make a manager look better or worse, but Ausmus is not suited to manage at this level. These decisions likely cost the Tigers a playoff-round win. Nothing insignificant about them.

Click to expand...

Players win games, managers lose games, right?

Managers determine who bats where and who plays on what nights, brad should just let us set the lineups each night.

Sbee said:

Players win games, managers lose games, right?

Click to expand...

There are a lot of people that fall in love with the players. When the team fails they don't want to blame their idols so they blame the manager. It's easier that way.

tomdalton22 said:

There are a lot of people that fall in love with the players. When the team fails they don't want to blame their idols so they blame the manager. It's easier that way.

Click to expand...

also, it's a lot easier to change managers than personnel. You can't easily dump 80 million in payroll tied up in 4 underperforming pitchers, but you can get rid of a manager who's makes a sliver of that amount

Geno has a 1.000 winning % for 2016. LOL

Sbee said:

Players win games, managers lose games, right?

Click to expand...

You can change the conversation all you want; it will not obscure my opinion that Ausmus is a bad manager, who has made numerous decisions and non-decisions in his tenure that have hurt the team.

byco42 said:

You can change the conversation all you want; it will not obscure my opinion that Ausmus is a bad manager, who has made numerous decisions and non-decisions in his tenure that have hurt the team.

Click to expand...

That's fine, that's your opinion. I'd encourage you to read this. I'm sure it won't change your thinking though


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-managers-are-headed-to-the-hall-of-mediocrity/

Sbee said:

That's fine, that's your opinion. I'd encourage you to read this. I'm sure it won't change your thinking though


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-managers-are-headed-to-the-hall-of-mediocrity/

Click to expand...

I am well aware that a manager can directly influence only a handful of games in a season. Ten seems to be the going number. The question is, then, which way, because 10 games is "significant" to me.

byco42 said:

I am well aware that a manager can directly influence only a handful of games in a season. Ten seems to be the going number. The question is, then, which way, because 10 games is "significant" to me.

Click to expand...

10? are you saying a great manager is worth 10 wins? I've read that the absolute best will net you 2 wins, the worst will cost you 2.

Sbee said:

10? are you saying a great manager is worth 10 wins? I've read that the absolute best will net you 2 wins, the worst will cost you 2.

Click to expand...

No, it's what I have read.

You need to read Earl Weaver's one book. (I think he had 3). He says in there that a manager cannot win games, but he certainly can lose games. Of course, that is not looking at it as a game basis, but throughout the course of a season.

Regardless of the believe of whether a manager impacts win/loss totals, changing out coaches and/or managers can have a positive effect on a team and franchise moving forward. Sometimes you have to wipe the slate clean sort of speak.

Dick Williams did not lose G5 of the '84 WS, but his decision to pitch to Gibson certainly did not help the Padres. And that's another aspect of how a manager influences the outcome of a game.

Bunting is another example. When an out is traded for moving a runner, it almost always reduces (statistically) the offense's likelihood of scoring a run.

Rebbiv said:

You need to read Earl Weaver's one book. (I think he had 3). He says in there that a manager cannot win games, but he certainly can lose games. Of course, that is not looking at it as a game basis, but throughout the course of a season.

Regardless of the believe of whether a manager impacts win/loss totals, changing out coaches and/or managers can have a positive effect on a team and franchise moving forward. Sometimes you have to wipe the slate clean sort of speak.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised to see you quoting Earl Weaver since you tend to refute other people's points with hard facts. I get that he knows the game and there's wisdom there but it's hardly quantifiable. I figured you'd be looking at actual metrics vs speculation from someone who last managed in the majors in 1986. The game has changed drastically since then due to analytics.

Sbee said:

I'm surprised to see you quoting Earl Weaver since you tend to refute other people's points with hard facts. I get that he knows the game and there's wisdom there but it's hardly quantifiable. I figured you'd be looking at actual metrics vs speculation from someone who last managed in the majors in 1986. The game has changed drastically since then due to analytics.

Click to expand...

Weaver was perhaps the modern pioneer of leveraging stats to make decisions. He was a platooner, a lineup manipulator and a match-upper of pitchers and hitters. This was plainly evident to those who were around to witness his approach. EDIT: And he had a grasp of run expectation because he had no hit and run sign and over his career virtually abandoned the sac bunt, but so did many other teams.

I agree with the bunting. Pitchers or someone who bunts for a base hit (someone who is good at it) should be the only ones.

Mitchrapp said:

I agree with the bunting. Pitchers or someone who bunts for a base hit (someone who is good at it) should be the only ones.

Click to expand...

Bunting should be done close and late when one run makes a big difference. You score less when you bunt depending on the situation but it can increase your chance at scoring one run at the expense of a big inning.

Also, as much as I don't like bunting you have to do it enough to where it's at least in the infielders minds. Positioning matters and it's better to have infielders play in. Same goes with running. I don't want to have a slow runner steal but they should run enough to where you have to hold him on base and respect it.

byco42 said:

Weaver was perhaps the modern pioneer of leveraging stats to make decisions. He was a platooner, a lineup manipulator and a match-upper of pitchers and hitters. This was plainly evident to those who were around to witness his approach. EDIT: And he had a grasp of run expectation because he had no hit and run sign and over his career virtually abandoned the sac bunt, but so did many other teams.

Click to expand...

I get that weaver was ahead of his time but analytics can show that managers don't make nearly as much of an impact as people think. The effect Ausmus has on outcomes is completely out of proportion with much tiger fans talk about him.

Sbee said:

I get that weaver was ahead of his time but analytics can show that managers don't make nearly as much of an impact as people think. The effect Ausmus has on outcomes is completely out of proportion with much tiger fans talk about him.

Click to expand...

A manager can directly affect player performances. A case in point would be in Boston where the bullpen guys couldn't have given a shit and were drinking beer and eating fried chicken rather than having their heads in the game.

A manager can inspire his players to try hard for him/the team or have the opposite effect. Ausmus is obviously not the answer this team needs. I don't know who is, or may be; but I do know it's silly to keep him around. Get rid of him, promote Gene, or Lloyd, or someone in the interim, and maybe the team can regain some focus, or maybe not....but either way Ausmus needs to go.

Sbee said:

I'm surprised to see you quoting Earl Weaver since you tend to refute other people's points with hard facts. I get that he knows the game and there's wisdom there but it's hardly quantifiable. I figured you'd be looking at actual metrics vs speculation from someone who last managed in the majors in 1986. The game has changed drastically since then due to analytics.

Click to expand...

I have conceded a few times that I agree with your basic premise that a manager does not add much in the win total. Talent wins. But Weaver was probably the pioneer when it came to using statistics. He would sit Boog Powell against Mickey Lolich because he had gawd awful numbers. But Ausmus would still run him out there. That is where the differences lie. Just like there is a difference between losing because the other team is better and losing because you make too many mistakes or just mentally incompetent to make sound baseball decisions.

Ausmus DOES NOT play the better player. The Tigers lead all of baseball in Blown Quality Starts, by a lot. Which means he has no clue when to pull his starter. Since becoming the manager, DET relievers come into the game the least amount when the game is tied. And when they do come in, hardly do they enter at the top of the inning when ahead. All of this will stress even the best bull pen. The team continues to make bad baserunning mistakes. On and On I could go as to the bad baseball that the Tigers exhibit (with statistics for demonstration). This is the reflection of their manager, because he is making most of these decisions or he is not addressing the bad decisions by the players.

If I am Justin Wilson, there are big differences when I come into the game with the bases load and no outs, a man on first and one out and entering the game at the top of the inning. I might get out of the first time I am put into the high stressful role, but not day in and day out. If every time I pitch it is from the set (stretch), the stress adds up.

DET Inherited Runners Scored

2014 = 32.8 IS% (14th in AL, 28.7 was average)
2015 = 32.1 IS% (12th in AL, 30.1 was average)
2016 = 39.7 IS% (14th in AL, 28.9 is average)


Last 2 years

J. Wilson 18.3 IS%
M. Lowe 19.6 IS%

A. Alburquerque 31.1%

A. Wilson 42.9%

This year

A. Wilson 50.0 IS%
J. Wilson 50.0 IS%
M. Lowe 40.0 IS%

Clearly, DET brought in relievers who had success at stranding base runners and they immediately conform to the DET standard. Why? You could argue the pitching coach, but he isn't the one bringing them in the game, day after day, in high stress situations.