Managerial Incompetence, Revisited

by jonfmorse on May 20, 2009 3:10 AM EDT

So we've all been over the same rocky ground before; Trey this and Trey that, stupid or just normal, fire him or get a grip. It's all good discussion, regardless of what our Eternal Hero might slur on the local news; we're fans, and when you get right down to it that's our job. We all know that letting The Professor pitch to ~~Babe Ruth~~Jim Thome was a bad idea, but this isn't about rehashing that.

No, this is about why we overreact.

Yesterday, Rany posted a new entry discussing some recent moves, as well as alluding to the Golf Course Incident. There was a paragraph in there discussing not Hillman's errors, but Dave Trembley's foolish decision to walk Jose Guillen to load the bases -- in order to pitch to Alberto Callaspo, who had about a 33% better chance of getting on base period and driving in a run that Guillen had to get a hit and drive in a run.

While reading this, it hit me: we all saw (or at least "saw") this happen, but we don't have 38 fan shots posted here, roaring about what a blithering idiot Dave Trembley is, do we? Obviously Trembley's blunder was arguably even more egregious than Hillman's mistake with Farnsy.

Now, I'm not suggesting we should have had a rash of "Ha-ha, Trembley's an idiot" posts, and realistically we should all wish for Trembley to have a long, fruitless career managing the Orioles so that the Royals have a better chance of stealing a game or two a year from them. But there is a decided difference between the rancor we express toward our own manager as opposed to the level of discussion, period, we engage in regarding the gifts given us by other skippers.

The reason, of course, is obvious when you think about it: as fans, any bad decision by the Royals manager is magnified, while bad decisions by opposing manager -- since they usually work out in our favor as fans -- are seen as good things. We see Dave Trembley do something stupid, and the Royals end up scoring a couple of runs as a direct result, and presto! Things went our way. Man, that Callaspo is awesome, coming through for us like that. (And that in itself is more fan bias on our parts, because Alberto driving in two runs is more important and more fulfilling to us as fans than a stupid decision which gave him the opportunity in the first place.)

Interestingly, there's a reverse thing in order here as well: I think that when Trey makes a good managerial decision, we're again more impressed by the players executing the plan; conversely, when another manager makes a canny decision against the Royals, we do discuss it at length but seem more often than not to chalk the result up to that decision rather than focusing on the "failure" of whatever Royal player got victimized by it.

Now, this is all observation, mind you. The basic rationale is obvious: we react differently to one set of circumstances precisely because it is "our" team rather than, well, not "our" team. The underlying thing, though -- the question of why we behave that way -- is beyond my ability to explain.

I do know one thing, though. While I still question the basic qualifications of a manager who'd let a right-handed power pitcher with a propensity for the long ball pitch to a left-handed power hitter who's victimized my team more than any other player in the entire history of the franchise... I've come to accept that we really could do worse.

And this is why "managers don't have that much impact" in the long run, because for every dumb move Trey might make there's some other manager who's going to give a game back to us with his own stupid moves (Baltimore's eventual win in that game notwithstanding).

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

There have been very few moves by Trey

That have been inexcusable. The vast majority of them, I at least have been able to see at the very minimum what he was thinking in doing what he did; whether I personally agree with the move or not.

BOOM! ROASTED!

by GoBabies!! on May 20, 2009 4:06 AM EDT reply actions

his grasp of English is much more horrifying than his managing

but after a big win, I won’t want to force the envelope any more than that.

I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at Driveline Mechanics.

by Matt Klaassen on May 20, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions

Did you watch the game? The IBB only came after the count was 3-1 on Guillen....

It’s not like Baltimore planned on walking Guillen all along….once Hill fell behind 3-1, then they walked Guillen. With a base open and a hitter’s count on Guillen, they opted to start fresh with Callaspo, as well as set up a force play anywhere.

In the game thread a few people mentioned that they’d have tried to fight back against Guillen than pitch to Alberto, but it wasn’t a rash of people. Personally, I don’t have a major issue with them walking Guillen in that situation. If you’re Rich Hill (in your first MLB start in nearly a year), do you want to have to groove your 89 MPH fastball on a 3-1 count to one of the Royals’ few legit HR threats? Probably not. Do you try and nibble with offspeed stuff and potentially throw a wild pitch (remember, this is Rich Hill we’re talking about) which would score a runner from third? No.

I see no problem with them walking Guillen. I’m not saying I would’ve done it, but it’s definitely not an “egregious” mistake in my book. And it’s miles away from The Daddy’s decision to throw Farnsy out there Opening Day (or in Texas for that matter).

by Fernando Vina School of Linguistics on May 20, 2009 4:50 AM EDT reply actions

At the time, I questioned it in the game thread.

But Fernando makes an important point about it already being a 3-1 count. Personally, I’d still throw to Guillen and hindsight shows the Orioles should have. But the other side is defensible in this situation.

If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.

by Warden11 on May 20, 2009 6:46 AM EDT up reply actions

No, I missed that game, unfortunately.

So in that specific instance, sure.

However… arguing about that specific call does sort of miss the point I was getting at with the post. There have been plenty of other times opposing managers have done dumbass things and we just sort of smile and nod and exult in another win (or some runs scoring, or someone grounding into an all-too-expected DP, or whatever).

(I suppose, however, there is an exception of sorts; when an opposing manager does something incredibly stupid which plays right into our collective issues with a Royal player, then we will harp on it; cf. John Gibbons intentionally walking TPJ instead of taking the guaranteed out.)

This space for rent.

by jonfmorse on May 20, 2009 7:40 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

You know what though?

If you go to sites that represent those teams, they don’t give those a pass.

As a fan, I really don’t care what other managers do. Only the manager of the Royals.

If you were thinking, you wouldn't have thought that.

by Warden11 on May 20, 2009 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions

But we all know that it matters not

who’s up there. Ballplayers are robotic automatons that will merely spit out the result of probabilistic game theory.

I hereby resign from this post.

by Home Run Tony Cogan on May 20, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs

That looks strangly like

Billy Butler…

I've got crazy flipper fingers!

by labbadabba on May 20, 2009 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions

HA!

That’d make him…..RoboBop! (Wish I knew how to PhotoShop that into being.)

However, this contraption probably runs faster than Billy…

Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel! - Homer Simpson

by aHorseWithNoName on May 20, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions

there are no words to summarize....oh wait

Rec’d

by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on May 20, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions

Sweet game theory rally pic

Of course if Jacobs keeps being Mr. Grit von Clutch, this might have to represent him as well as butler

by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on May 20, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions

nice post

Interestingly, there’s a reverse thing in order here as well: I think that when Trey makes a good managerial decision, we’re again more impressed by the players executing the plan; conversely, when another manager makes a canny decision against the Royals, we do discuss it at length but seem more often than not to chalk the result up to that decision rather than focusing on the “failure” of whatever Royal player got victimized by it.

I agree with this more than anything. Just throwing out a ballpark number, I would say that managerial decisions account for 10% of what happens in a game…the rest is up to the players. (I’m sure there has been a study of this that someone will correct me with but this is the Esteban school of Sabermetrics).

Let’s say we lose a game 3-4 where Ron Mahay gives up 2 runs in a rocky 8th. From what I’ve seen this season, most fans would blame Hillman for bringing/keeping him in for the 8th. They would say that he is an idiot and that he lost for the game for us. When in actuality, the main culprits would be: 1. Ron Mahay; for not doing his job 2. Billy Butler for going 0-3 with RISP over the course of the game, twice with less than 2 outs.

OK, hypothetical situations aside, I’m a big believer in critisizing players before managers unless it is blatantly obvious (Farnsy against Thome, game 1). But obviously, no matter what George Brett says, fans can critisize whatever they want.

by I need more Esteban on May 20, 2009 12:14 PM EDT reply actions

I don't think Brett

has an issue with the fans criticizing Hillman, unless I missed that part of it. What I think he really has a problem with is the incessant negativity about everything Royals, Chiefs, etc, specifically from Keitzman and Jack Harry (and I believe, to a lesser extent, Danny Clinkscale). I don’t even think so much it’s criticism. There is just a general negativity surrounding Keitzman, Harry, and Clinkscale that shows them to be bitter, petty, and jealous people.

I would respectfully submit that the ONLY reason many people listen to Keitzman’s show is because the alternative is so bad. I know that I personally listen to his show less and less each day, it just is old and tired at this point.

I hereby resign from this post.

by Home Run Tony Cogan on May 20, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Great post

I like the thought process of trying to even out our criticisms of a sports team

1) I agree with how little managers actually determine the out come (- the whole Professor thing)

2) I agree with; it needs to be the players ability to execute the idea the manager had in mind

3) We all need to criticize opposing teams managers and also celebrate their mis-guided moves more!!!!!!!!!

by MarioVanPeebles Republic of China on May 20, 2009 3:00 PM EDT reply actions

Damn Are We Gonna Look Stupid

in ten years when this ballclub has put together a string of late summer races and playoff appearances and even WS appearances and perhaps championships that make Hillman look HerzogHowserEsque.

Ten million years from now, when the sun burns out and the earth is just a frozen snowball hurling through space, nobody’s going to care whether or not I got this guy out.
—McGraw’s “Frozen Snowball” theory of pitching.

More on Tug, one of my favorite non-Royal characters along with Jay Johstone, all on his Wiki page…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tug_McGraw

Ninety percent I’ll spend on good times, women and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I’ll probably waste.
—When asked what he would do with the salary he was making as a pitcher.

I like it because it plays old music.
—When asked why he drove a 1954 Buick.

Ya gotta believe
—During the 1973 and 1980 pennant races.

October 21, 1980: In Game 6 of the 1980 World Series McGraw strikes out Willie Wilson giving the Phillies their first of two World Series Championship to date.

Didn’t Willie whiff like 13 times in the series? I thought Tug had a quote about that, saying that Willie was the best player the Phillies had in that Series. Can’t remember for sure, but point is…

When the earth is a giant frozen snowball, nobody’s gonna remember that we were screaming “Fire Hillman” after this season’s opening day in Chicago when Farnsy got hammered by Big Jim.

Yeah? From what I hear, you couldn't hit water if you fell out of a f@#%ing boat.

by BillyMojo on May 20, 2009 5:39 PM EDT reply actions

Willie and Porter

Bill James once commented on how Porter helped repay the Royals for losing the ’80 series by helping the Cardinals lose in ’85…

This space for rent.

by jonfmorse on May 20, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Agreed....

Thanks for writing this post. I have not lost faith in Hillman and believe he can be a great MLB Manager. I do believe Hillman is a stats type manager. He see’s the situation for the most part, dispassionately, calculates the probabilities, then makes his decision. To lay losses only at his feet is not right, or fair.

The bottom line is like any MLB manager, you have a set of 25 tools. You have to keep those tools in good shape and be able to rely on them when they are called upon. Period. Hillman expects his players to perform when the are called upon. To use an example from last night. Hillman should be able to rely on Wright to not get a called HBP and then turn around and throw 4 straight balls on the outside of the plate. Was that Hillmans fault? No, Wright had a poor outing.

by kd_in_kc on May 21, 2009 9:28 AM EDT reply actions