It's a universally understood fact around these parts that the #1 reason the Nationals lost 100 games two years in a row is that Manny Acta refused to argue with umpires.
Today, Jim Riggleman showed what a better manager he is than Acta. With the Nationals leading 4-1 in the 4th inning, Riggleman did his part to contribute to the victory by coming out to complain about how the home plate umpire was calling balls and strikes.
Because of Riggleman's excellent arguing ability, it became immediately obvious that the Nationals would win easily. In fact, I turned off the game right after he got booted because it was so obvious that the Phillies would never ever win a game when Riggleman did such a good job arguing with the umpires.
I can't believe that dummy Manny never realized that he could win more games if he'd just argue more. < /snark >
Monday, April 12, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
In fairness, the Nats really pulled together after the ejection. The power of clubhouse chemistry held the Phils to 6 runs going forward. No denying that's an improvement over the last Marquis-Hamels match up.
You're missing the point. It's McLaren's fault because as the team was getting beaten up, he just sat there. If he had run out and argued balls and strikes, that surely would have turned things around. Fire John McLaren!
Steven,
This is not the point. Manny would rather buy the umpires kittens for missing a call before he would stand up for his players and show off what a man he is.
Manny was too busy focusing in inspirational quotes from the latest FDR biography instead of teaching trash like Lastings Milledge fundamentals and how to bob your head aggressively side-to-side while yelling at the 1st-base umpire.
We would have won AT LEAST 70 games if that dunderhead Acta had taught and shown his players such amazing skills.
FJM? That has a nice ring to it...
3W and 4L with a win against the Phils.....I like the fact that guys know the plays...throw to the right bases and do not run into outs like the past Acta years. Time will tell but I can already see a huge difference in use of the Bull Pen....Acta would never have keep Clippard in the game and he would have put Saul in for the 7th yesterday.
Takes some time to have the effect of clubhouse chemistry and Riggs backing...so far huge improvement over the last two years in April.
Steven you don't get it. Read Zimmerman's comments about how players grumbled about Manny not standing up for them. It does have an impact, though obviously not the direct impact that you are setting up as a strawman for satirical purposes.
So if we shouldn't expect the ejection to result in better player peformance on the day of the ejection, when should we expect it? I'm just wondering when to start placing my bets for the Nationals.
Steven:
You are a douchebag you wouldn't have the balls to get thorwn out because your such a pussy.
Agreed - Steven, why dont you move to Cleveland so you and Manny can watch The Notebook together after every game
Sarcasm is a better weapon when it is used like a rapier rather than a cudgel. Look at the opposite tack-- what harm did Riggleman do in getting himself ejected to the team? The umpire was not giving a sinker ball pitcher the called strike on balls that hit the bottom of the zone. At what point do you risk your catcher having to take up for the pitcher or the pitcher himself completely unwinding on the umpire. Better for the manager to step in. OTH Marquis is showing himself to be a pitcher that has no out pitch if his sinker ball is denied.
What is disturbing is the Nats are showing themselves to be a one punch team. However, having 3 wins out of 7 at this point in the season is a nice distinction from past Aprils.
I don't understand how it's generally accepted that emotion plays a role in football, basketball and hockey and yet people love to argue that baseball is played by soulless robots who are unmoved by the ebb and flow of a game. I believe in statistical analysis, but I also believe Jason Marquis struck out Chase Utley and as a fan I'm glad Riggleman got tossed. The Acta alternative would be the manager staying in the dugout, but bringing in Saul Rivera to give up 4 more runs in the 8th.
Instead of snark and sarcasm let's be straightforward about this: Riggleman, a journeyman manager, had a winning percentage that was a good 15 points higher than Acta in the same season last year, and he needs to win 3 of the next 13 games to match Acta's best ever 20 game start.
Steven will never see it but the quality of fundamentals on this team is so much better. Guys know what to do when the ball is hit to them....Acta years....no clue what to do with a bunt or a 1 and 3rd...Even Dunn looks like he has learned how to play some 1st Base. Hard work plays off because it is not talent making these basic plays and throws.
I liked Acta too. But his style did not mesh with last year's team nor do I think he would have done well with this team. I agree with Steven's (and by extension Acta's) that getting thrown out is overated. But Riggleman was not about firing up his team but abut trying to get a calls from an Ump. Marquis needed to make an adjustment and couldn't. That is what is disturbing. And Steven you are seeing an improved performance, worth about 75 wins (still 87 losses).
@204-H-7: remember, I was in favor of moving on from Manny. I just think it's wrong to think that arguing with umps and getting yourself ejected is helping or that Manny's p"problem" was a failure to lose his composure often enough.
Someone else asked "what's the harm?" For one, umps don't like being challenged or shown up. They are far more likely to respond to an argument like that by squeezing our pitchers MORE. If you doubt it, go start an argument with a cop, and see whether they become more or less amenable to your point of view. Second, a good manager presumably provides at least some value with his n-game decisions. Whether to steal, bunt, defensive alignments, pitching changes... The manager is by definition supposed to be the person BEST able to make those judgments in different game situations. Its posible that this isn't true of Riggleman, that any old retread bench coach could do as we'll or better than Riggles, but if that's true, it's an indictment of Jim, raising basic questions about why he's the guy in charge at all.
Umpires are human and you are right that they likely change their behavior in response to another man yelling at him in front of 40,000 people. That is a cost, the benefit, it is argues, is the players playing harder "for their manager." Whatever, both suppositions are a subjective and probably not really measurable. Over time, if the manager only argues when it is clear the umpires made a series of BIG mistakes in one game, my guess is that they will not hold it against him. Let's flip it. How do umps respond to a seemingly indifferent manager? We know how many players respond.
Stop with the strawman arguments. Why not just go back to bashing good Bowden moves like the Willingham deal. It's not surprising that you aren't talking about those "young and improving" players like Bonifacio, Galarraga, and Smolinski the Nats had to give up to get Soriano or Willingham, a guy who deserved to make the all-star game last season.
Steven, I disagree with your comment that umpires are more likely to squeeze the pitcher more if the manager argues. In fact, umpires are not looking for arguments. They want the game to move as quickly as possible. If one manager comes out and argues, he will try to avoid conflict by giving him a few more calls. But he also does not want the opposing manager to argue. It is a balancing game.
I am sure Riggleman has a good relationship with many of the umpires. Whoever the plate umpire was yesterday probably understands that Riggleman felt like his team was not getting the best calls. I think everyone should understand it, and the umpire shouldn't be embarrassed or feel challenged.
I don't think anyone argued that the main thing that Manny did wrong was not get thrown out of games enough. But it was part of his extremely rigid, paint by the numbers managing style. He made it a point to *never* argue with the umps, much less get thrown out of the game. He sat impassively on the bench while his players were treated poorly. He almost never let a reliever go more than an inning. He was unwilling or unable to change much of anything as his team's season slowly and inexorably went down the toilet.
I'm not a fan at all of histrionics at the drop of the hat, nor was I all that excited about Riggleman being rehired, but I like the fact that yesterday he saw the game getting away from his team and decided to try to do something about it. Maybe his standing up to the ump might inspire and fortify Marquis, maybe it would get the ump to look at himself in the mirror between innings and say, "yeah, I botched that call on the 1-2 pitch to Howard, better give them a little break to make up for it." Who knows? It didn't pan out, but then again, we were facing the #2 pitcher for the best team in then National League.
Riggleman is engaged in each game in a way that Manny never seemed to be. So I think it's a little unfair to roll out the snark like this. How long did it take the Nats to win 3 games last year?
I don't think anyone argued that the main thing that Manny did wrong was not get thrown out of games enough.
Really? The argument that Manny didn't lose his temper enough (fighting with umps, yelling at players, whataver) was by far the most common reason commenters here and across the NatRoots wanted Manny fired, far more than the reasons I thought it was best to fire Manny--his bullpen management and the fact that after 200 losses in 2 years ANY manager would lose the team.
If people think that the problem with Manny was that he didn't lose his temper enough, then you should be able to provide some evidence that managers who do lose their temper more often do better. I understand that the perception, especially on TV, might be that managers who yell are inspiring and more effective. But is that true?
Yesterday, we got one tiny, totally statistically insignificant data point. The Nationals were winning, Riggleman got himself ejected, and things almost immediately went completely 180 in the toilet. Is that a coincidence? I think so, but then I'm the guy who doesn't think managerial temper tantrums make a difference. People who DO think this kind of thing helps should explain why it seemed to have had the exact opposite effect yesterday
Let's look more broadly. In Mind Game, Baseball Prospectus looked at whether there's any evidence to support the widely held belief that Jason Varitek's face-grabbing of ARod sparked Boston to win that year. If these kinds of fights, arguments do actually inspire players and bond teams, then there should be some pattern of teams playing better after fights or other emotional wins.
Guess what? There isn't. It's a media narrative that sells papers, but there's just no evidence at all that fights, ejections, etc. help teams win.
As one who likely hated the job Manny did here more than anyone, let me say you are wrong again.
What I blame Acta for is a team that had no idea what to do when the ball was hit to them and how to run the bases or play basic baseball 101. After that his paint by the numbers use of the Bull Pen was the next biggest problem. After that was his failure to call out players in private for poor play or lack of hustle. His bromance with Kearns and Saul were higher on the list of problems with Manny than is lack of getting kicked out of games.....It was just one small part of a huge body of work that all added up to LOSER!
@JayB--So we're in agreement. It was never a problem in the slightest that Manny didn't fight with umps or get himself ejected. I'm glad I was finally able to bring you around. I'm sure now I'll never hear anyone say anything about how Manny didn't get ejected enough or how great it is that Riggleman fights with umps. Yay for me winning the debate.
Maybe next I can persuade you that name-calling and ad hominem attacks aren't the least bit interesting or persuasive?
This is a problem I run into a lot with your thinking, but how is this different from somebody blaming a loss on Acta not getting ejected, or not sacrificing, etc.? You're so dogmatic about it all you blame Riggleman for a "mistake" that he was lucky not to lose a win for, and a mistake that caused a loss without considering that there were ample chances to make the exact same arguments in the opposite against Acta.
@Mark--are you talking to me? I didn't use the word "mistake." I said it was a coincidence that he got ejected and then the team went in the crapper. I'm disagreeing with the people who say that Manny should have argued with umps more and gotten ejected more. Case in point: You now have a guy who argues with umps and gets ejected, and it's not providing evidence to support your argument.
I guess we just disagree about whether the slowly increasing number of Manny criticizers a year ago were focused on his failure to get thrown out of games. I wanted him fired at least two months before he left, but it wasn't for that, it was for myriad other reasons -- in particular, Kearns starting in right field, the bullpen, Kearns, his general stoicism and refusal to ever leave the bench to argue a call and support his players (which is related to not getting tossed, but definitely not the same thing), Kearns, the weird excuses he made for terrible play (remember when the cut of the grass caused Hernandez to boot an easy grounder?), and Kearns. Did I mention Austin Kearns?
I don't think you won the argument here because you set up a strawman to begin with. But it did inspire an entertaining discussion, which is a good thing on a rainy off day.
"It was just one small part of a huge body of work"...does not equal not a problem what so ever Steven, but you are never one to let an opertunity to take a point to an useless extreme ...Acta's failure with umpires does equal a small part of a huge overall problem that was Manny Acta the Manager....I had Blocked the all the excuses and that dopey teach and preach junk out of my head.... he really blame the cut of the grass in explaining why Anderson Hernandez sucks didn't he?
Well the Indians have him now and a 2 and 5 record as well as Kearns, Saul and Anderson.
When the umpire is clearly tipping the scales against your player as was the case yesterday something should be said. The choices are: your pitcher, your catcher or the manager. You do not want your pitcher or catcher to start the conversation because that will have a more telling affect on the game when one of them gets expelled. By default, the manager has to say something or in the case of Manny Acta nothing gets said.
I really do not know how accurate the pitchtrack box is on the television but there were definitely calls that Hamels was getting that Marquis was not. Perhaps subconsciously the ump was favoring Hamels' strike zone over Marquis. I believe that Riggleman was correct in getting his point of view into play.
Pitch-track is a joke--it's done by a guy in the truck with a mouse click. Try MLB gameday. Much better.
Steven I think you are making a mistake in ignoring (or dismissing) the issue of clubhouse morale and whether players believe that the manager has their back. Whether a manager stands up for his guys or not matters to players. Zimmerman said as much. And over the course of a very long season it can make a difference in their effort on the field, whether that seems rational to you, or not.
I don't dismiss clubhouse morale at all--that was the whole premise of the chapter in Mind Game about emotions wins and brawls leading to better performance. I just don't see evidence that arguing with umps and getting ejected = better clubhouse motivation.
On the Zimmerman comment, I love Zimmy as much as anything, but his quotes are pure rote. The team fires the manager, he says he thinks the team did the right thing. The team doesn't fire the manager, he says the team did the right thing. The team moves to Bangkok and signs the dancing midget from Twin Peaks to pitch on opening day...
Point is, don't try to read too much into what Zimmerman says. He's very good at saying a lot of words that mean nothing.
Steven, you are looking at this wrong. Acta didn't really have the players back (Zimmerman quote). There is probably evidence that it doesn't matter, but to the players it does. That can lead to a lot of clubhouse issues. Another example is that Nats player would get hit by pitchers often and no retaliation was called by Acta. Frank Robinson would never have stood up for some of the stuff the Nats had to take the last few years.
Frank Robinson was the worst manager in baseball. Let's not go there.
Steven says..."Frank Robinson was the worst manager in baseball."
Data shows he was .500 in 2005 with at team that had no right to play that well based on talent....There is the Data....Steven only cares about data that shows what his view point is....Still I love this site...just have to take Steven with a grain of salt sometimes.
Steven, Robinson was an awful manager, but somehow he took 2 teams with talent worse than either of the past 2 Nationals teams to 81-81 and 71-91. He would actually tear into underperforming guys like Austin Kearns instead of encouraging them and starting them everyday ahead of young guys who not only are better, but have more potential/upside. You didn't see teams hit 2 or 3 Nationals in a game with Robinson at the helm. Certainly you can fault some of managerial acumen (I.E: Letting Guzman and Vidro destroy a first place team), but he had the players back.
Steven, this is unrelated to Riggleman's ejection, and you might have already read this, but since we're talking about his "style" of managing:
http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search?q=riggleman
If that kind of stuff is not alarming, I don't know what is. But hey, he's a good baseball guy...
Ha ha ha! Looks like Manny might have learned something:
"Manny Acta, in his first extensive argument as Indians manager, stated his case to plate umpire Jim Joyce for several minutes, but Valbuena never moved from third base. When play resumed, Dustin Nippert retired Asdrubal Cabrera on a grounder to second to end the first and only appearance by the Tribe's offense.
"That's not a ground-rule double," said Acta. "It's a judgment call. My judgment was with two out and a runner on first base that is not being held by the first baseman, a double down the right-field line, I thought he was going to score easy."
http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2010/04/rangers_defeat_indians_6-2.html
Yep, and it really ensured that the Indians would win that game. Wow, why didn't I ever realize that fighting with umps is the silver bullet to an undefeated season?
Steven, your continued insistence that the only justification for a manager arguing calls would be a direct, provable correlation with winning that specific game demonstrates how much there is about the game that you do not appreciate.
CIL,
It is a lost cause...if Steven can't make it a number in a spreadsheet it does not exist to him. I kind of question if he likes baseball as I know it....Steven how many games to you go to a year and how many do you sit down and watch?
It doesn't have to correlate with winning that game. It should correlate with something that exists in the real world, not just in JayB's overheated imagination.
Post a Comment