In-season managerial changes a risk, BUT

[Eminor3rd]

I very strongly disagree with the concept that you should not judge the GM based on the results of their decision rather than how the decision looked at the time. It's an excuse that leaves us with a losing franchise.

 

If a person makes decisions that constantly look correct at the time and blow up in their face every single time...then it is absolutely time to reevaluate that decision making process and that's where we are right now. The assumptions behind those moves are simply incorrect.

 

We're ignoring defense. We're ignoring fundamentals. We're continuing to push people too aggressively. We thought we had a team (both this year and in 2013) that was ready to compete and we spent a whole lot of money based on that assumption. We are totally failing to understand this roster, this team, or how to build a competitive team.

 

If every decision looks fine and they completely implode, then we need to reevaluate how we're judging these decisions.

 

Either that, or every decision we made did work out, and the coaching staff completely failed in their job of getting those players ready to go. Take your pick. I'm going with "both". neither is not an option unless you're ok with winning 45% of your games.

 

I just don't agree with most of your premise. I'm not firing someone for making good calls that turned out badly in a game where that simply happens all the time. You let him go when you don't think he's the best one for the job anymore. Obviously everything needs to be re-evaluated when an outcome is undesirable, but the results of that re-evaluation can very well be "we did everything we could, it just didn't work out." It's just not true that the only explanations for failure are bad roster construction or bad coaching. One can be both capable and prepared for success in sports and still fail.

 

If you want to make a criticism that he didn't put players on the field capable of passable defense, I think that's fair. But making decisions based solely on outcomes is a recipe for disaster in nearly, if not every, industry. There's just no argument at all to ignore context. It makes no sense.

[iamshack]

Balta, I love you man, but this response completely missed the entire point of the part you bolded in my post.

 

When it comes to roster moves, a GM makes his money by making predictive decisions. The reality is that every decision you make that is predictive needs to be viewed, essentially, as a probability. For example, every player in baseball, in a given season, comes with a small chance of becoming the best player in the entire league. They also come with higher likelihoods of being average or whatever, but there's no way to prognositcate what is going to happen ahead of time. It's all a deal from the deck, and the GM's job is to stack that deck in his favor as much as possible.

 

So let's take Chris Sale, who has posted a 4.29 ERA so far. Heading into this season, we could expect that there's a tiny chance he'd bust and be the worst pitcher in the league, a larger but still small chance he'd win the CY Young, a larger chance he'd hit the DL for the whole year, a and so on with other outcomes -- but the most likely single outcome was that he'd put out a star-level season as one of the top 20 or so pitchers around. That is the outcome that Hahn expected and should be judged on putting out. Unless you think Chris Sale is a true talent 4.29 ERA pitcher and shouldn't have been considered the ace of a contender, you have to be comfortable with Hahn expecting more.

 

Yet, here we are. Our ace has, on average, pitched like a #4 guy. That's how the cookie crumbles, though, there was ALWAYS a chance that would happen.

 

When you look around the roster, you see a LOT of that to varying degrees. A ton of dudes who are performing below what consensus expected. But the only thing strange about is that it's all happening at once. Individually, they're all realistic, if not necessarily the most likely outcome. And then, when you look around the league and realize that half the teams have to lose every day, even that it's all happening at once doesn't seem strange. Yes, it MIGHT be a coaching problem or a player dev problem or something else that is theoretically fixable -- but from where you and I sit, we have NO evidence to suggest that or anything else in particular. Occam's Razor demands that the most likely outcome is the dudes are just s***ting the bed. Half the guys in the league do it every year.

 

I disagree strongly with the desperation that everyone is feeling regarding the roster. If you look at the preseason predictions thread, you'll see me predicting a roughly .500 record, and yet I adored the offseason that Hahn had. This is because I think he did an EXCELLENT job of balancing short and long-term interests. When I look at the 25 man, the only boat anchor I see is John Danks. I see a team that's due for some bounceback in a lot of areas and is going to retain long-term flexibility in others. Yeah, Samardzija is likely not going to provide value going forward, but that's the cost of doing business. There's no point in running a team if you aren't going to try to win, and the cost was very reasonable. Again, I think we can all agree that the most likely outcome for Semien was much worse than reality and the most likely outcome for Samardzija was a much better one -- but there was ALWAYS a chance it would turn out this way. He traded a guy with a 10% chance of hitting like a star for a guy who had maybe a 50-60% chance of remaining one. Those are rough, oversimplified estimates, but you get my point.

 

If you want to claim the GM failed, you have to judge him on the decisions he made at the time he made them. When the outcomes all fall in the realistic range, sometimes it's just the luck of the draw. You can make a claim about a systemic problem with coaching or scouting, but you need some real good evidence to back it up, and it's very difficult to come up with any from where you and I sit.

I agree with most of your points as usual.

 

I have no problem with what Hahn has done. The crying about the roster is ridiculous. The roster is fine.

 

I do have a problem with what Robin has done, or perhaps what he hasn't done.

[LDF]

The players are at fault. Firing Robin or firing Hahn isn't going to make them play better. It would be like firing the guy painting your house because you don't like what the landscaper did to your bushes.

 

you can't fire the whole team, nor dismantle or fire sale or rebuild. and then you want to risk another season of well it is still not RV fault. come on.

 

btw a weak analogy on the landscaper.

 

 

[LDF]

The players have talent. They haven't played up to the talent. Most likely they will at some point. But fire, fire, fire. That's a meathead approach.

 

that has always been the baseball way, esp if the manager is not getting it done.

[LDF]

One thing I read yesterday that was interesting, but it was Cowley so who knows if it really is true, that in 2011 KW fired Walker after Walker had to be restrained from going after him, and before Ozzie fled to Miami, KW fired him as well. JR vetoed both.

 

interesting, any other info on why walker went after KW.

 

wait a min. was that when KW and ozzie was having a huge argument and walker was there and went after kw.

[LDF]

Balta, I love you man, but this response completely missed the entire point of the part you bolded in my post.

 

When it comes to roster moves, a GM makes his money by making predictive decisions. The reality is that every decision you make that is predictive needs to be viewed, essentially, as a probability. For example, every player in baseball, in a given season, comes with a small chance of becoming the best player in the entire league. They also come with higher likelihoods of being average or whatever, but there's no way to prognositcate what is going to happen ahead of time. It's all a deal from the deck, and the GM's job is to stack that deck in his favor as much as possible.

 

So let's take Chris Sale, who has posted a 4.29 ERA so far. Heading into this season, we could expect that there's a tiny chance he'd bust and be the worst pitcher in the league, a larger but still small chance he'd win the CY Young, a larger chance he'd hit the DL for the whole year, a and so on with other outcomes -- but the most likely single outcome was that he'd put out a star-level season as one of the top 20 or so pitchers around. That is the outcome that Hahn expected and should be judged on putting out. Unless you think Chris Sale is a true talent 4.29 ERA pitcher and shouldn't have been considered the ace of a contender, you have to be comfortable with Hahn expecting more.

 

Yet, here we are. Our ace has, on average, pitched like a #4 guy. That's how the cookie crumbles, though, there was ALWAYS a chance that would happen.

you made an excellent post. if i remember correctly many posters had this team on or close to the 80 game win. i was over with over 90 game.

 

even if this team goes 50% the rest of the way, it will be close to high 70's . the point is, and this is my assumption, many had higher hopes of doing better, or at least not as bad coming out of the gate.

 

[LDF]

I very strongly disagree with the concept that you should not judge the GM based on the results of their decision rather than how the decision looked at the time. It's an excuse that leaves us with a losing franchise.

 

If a person makes decisions that constantly look correct at the time and blow up in their face every single time...then it is absolutely time to reevaluate that decision making process and that's where we are right now. The assumptions behind those moves are simply incorrect.

 

We're ignoring defense. We're ignoring fundamentals. We're continuing to push people too aggressively. We thought we had a team (both this year and in 2013) that was ready to compete and we spent a whole lot of money based on that assumption. We are totally failing to understand this roster, this team, or how to build a competitive team.

 

If every decision looks fine and they completely implode, then we need to reevaluate how we're judging these decisions.

 

Either that, or every decision we made did work out, and the coaching staff completely failed in their job of getting those players ready to go. Take your pick. I'm going with "both". neither is not an option unless you're ok with winning 45% of your games.

 

you are correct. someone can sell a eskimo ice cream in winter, it is not good salemanship but a personality to make that sale. that is why they have a something called reevaluation. to see if the trade, or sale was correct.

[LDF]

Rumor has it he doesn't have the control like most GMs. These things you mention are similar to KW running the show.

 

more likely, KW has the final input on decisions.

[Y2Jimmy0]

more likely, KW has the final input on decisions.

 

 

Hahn is the GM. He wouldn't have taken the job otherwise.

[southsider2k5]

more likely, KW has the final input on decisions.

 

No GM operates with complete autonomy.

[LDF]

Hahn is the GM. He wouldn't have taken the job otherwise.

 

yes he would, just like anything else, he will have parameters to live by, if not, he would still be looking for a job. remember he tried for several yrs to hook up with another team, and didn't get the job.

 

btw ....... how would you know the inner makings of the politics of the sox FO??

[southsider2k5]

yes he would, just like anything else, he will have parameters to live by, if not, he would still be looking for a job. remember he tried for several yrs to hook up with another team, and didn't get the job.

 

btw ....... how would you know the inner makings of the politics of the sox FO??

 

Actually he didn't. He turned down multiple interviews. Houston comes to mind as one for some reason.

[LDF]

Actually he didn't. He turned down multiple interviews. Houston comes to mind as one for some reason.

 

dang, i was wrong. i remembered it differently.

[Balta1701]

Actually he didn't. He turned down multiple interviews. Houston comes to mind as one for some reason.

Which we're regretting to this day. He needed to take the Houston job then trade us their best prospect or two for an average player right before we hired him back.

[ptatc]

Torre, Cox, LaRussa, Ventura

 

Somehow, one of them doesn't quite belong in the same conversation.

 

If Ventura goes on to a 30+ year managerial career and enters the Hall of Fame, I'll eat my hat.

Joe Torre was a well below .500 manager for his first 3 jobs and about 14 years in the MLB.

 

Bobby Cox was a well below .500 mangaer for his first 6 years in the MLB.

 

So in your current scenario neither of these managers would have had the opportunity to become the HOF managers they eventually were.

[caulfield12]

Joe Torre was a well below .500 manager for his first 3 jobs and about 14 years in the MLB.

 

Bobby Cox was a well below .500 mangaer for his first 6 years in the MLB.

 

So in your current scenario neither of these managers would have had the opportunity to become the HOF managers they eventually were.

 

 

Do you honestly see Ventura as a "baseball lifer" who will stick at this managing thing for that long?

 

None of those guys made so much in the playing days (well, probably Torre) that they were set for life to the point where they could set their family up for a lifetime without managing during their "second lives" in the game.

Edited May 28, 2015 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

And seeing the mess of the Bulls, all but cements the fact that Robin Ventura will be the manager here for quite a while longer.

[Dick Allen]

Do you honestly see Ventura as a "baseball lifer" who will stick at this managing thing for that long?

 

None of those guys made so much in the playing days (well, probably Torre) that they were set for life to the point where they could set their family up for a lifetime without managing during their "second lives" in the game.

What does that have to do with it? They were HOF managers who lost games, something you claim proves Ventura is an idiot.

[LDF]

this is not meant for blasting the owners group. the thing is, this was, maybe a failed experiment. they really didn't do RV nor the org any favors by getting RV to coach. RV was always a good guy and he is still one, but now with this managing fracaso is not going to help.

 

i really feel bad for RV to put up with this

Edited May 28, 2015 by LDF

[ptatc]

Do you honestly see Ventura as a "baseball lifer" who will stick at this managing thing for that long?

 

None of those guys made so much in the playing days (well, probably Torre) that they were set for life to the point where they could set their family up for a lifetime without managing during their "second lives" in the game.

I have no idea. I have not been in the clubhouse with Ventura to judge these things.

 

The point isn't that he will stick with it. The point is that the HOF managers you listed had worse records than Ventura in the early years. So if you think Ventura is awful and should be out of the game, these HOF managers should have been in the same scenario and wouldn't have had the chance to grow into the managers the became.

 

I'm not saying Ventura is a great or HOF manager. He has a number of players that are not playing to their previous levels. Could this be on Ventura? Sure. Could it be that they are just having bad years? Sure. Players have bad years. Either way the team has underachieved so far and if it continues Ventura will be gone at the end of the year, mostly because the front office really can't do anything else.

[LDF]

I have no idea. I have not been in the clubhouse with Ventura to judge these things.

 

The point isn't that he will stick with it. The point is that the HOF managers you listed had worse records than Ventura in the early years. So if you think Ventura is awful and should be out of the game, these HOF managers should have been in the same scenario and wouldn't have had the chance to grow into the managers the became.

 

I'm not saying Ventura is a great or HOF manager. He has a number of players that are not playing to their previous levels. Could this be on Ventura? Sure. Could it be that they are just having bad years? Sure. Players have bad years. Either way the team has underachieved so far and if it continues Ventura will be gone at the end of the year, mostly because the front office really can't do anything else.

not at this time, but my problem is, if the sox org will still keep him here next yr, i don't want to waste another yr for this experiment.

[caulfield12]

I have no idea. I have not been in the clubhouse with Ventura to judge these things.

 

The point isn't that he will stick with it. The point is that the HOF managers you listed had worse records than Ventura in the early years. So if you think Ventura is awful and should be out of the game, these HOF managers should have been in the same scenario and wouldn't have had the chance to grow into the managers the became.

 

I'm not saying Ventura is a great or HOF manager. He has a number of players that are not playing to their previous levels. Could this be on Ventura? Sure. Could it be that they are just having bad years? Sure. Players have bad years. Either way the team has underachieved so far and if it continues Ventura will be gone at the end of the year, mostly because the front office really can't do anything else.

 

 

Leading to the next obvious question...what organization, outside of the White Sox, would give him another chance?

 

Would he be willing to spend time in the minors honing his craft? To be a bench coach or 3B coach?

[South Side Fireworks Man]

Joe Torre was a well below .500 manager for his first 3 jobs and about 14 years in the MLB.

 

Bobby Cox was a well below .500 mangaer for his first 6 years in the MLB.

In 2012, the Sox weren't in a position to hire a manager that would take 6 to 14 years to become a good manager. Back when they hired LaRussa, they were an organization that wasn't going anywhere and gave him a shot after he managed a couple of years in the minor leagues. He became a good manager after a few years, and teams that hired him after the Sox got themselves an established manager.

 

The Sox hired Ventura without having any previous managing or even coaching experience. Sure, it's possible he may become a good manager after 6 - 14 years but can the Sox afford to find out? Rather than trying to develop a manager they should have tried to hire a manager that was ready.

[greg775]

Robin is so blah to lousy he's had some people on this board actually say they'd rather have Ozzie. Ozzie's come a long way in that he was despised the day he left the team for good.

[ptatc]

In 2012, the Sox weren't in a position to hire a manager that would take 6 to 14 years to become a good manager. Back when they hired LaRussa, they were an organization that wasn't going anywhere and gave him a shot after he managed a couple of years in the minor leagues. He became a good manager after a few years, and teams that hired him after the Sox got themselves an established manager.

 

The Sox hired Ventura without having any previous managing or even coaching experience. Sure, it's possible he may become a good manager after 6 - 14 years but can the Sox afford to find out? Rather than trying to develop a manager they should have tried to hire a manager that was ready.

Possibly. But that wasn't the point. The point was that Ventura is not the manager these HOF managers are. The fact is that at the same point in their respective careers, Ventura has more wins than they did. So if those managers were treated as he wants Ventura treated, they would not be HOF managers.