Billy Butler And David DeJesus Driving Royal Offense Under Yost

I see the header saying “Offensive Regulars” and then I see Maier’s name. I don’t follow.

.256 OBP. .279 OBP on the year.

Remember when we might have been wrong about him?

not bad

Many hits in recent weeks have been huge, with two outs, with runners in scoring position, etc.That’s something we weren’t seeing before. It’s a mark of a better team mentality, a cohesiveness, a confidence. Yet each of those hits shows up as just that: one hit apiece. You can’t discern from these stats an overall picture of how the team has been playing.

Is slugging 56 points less than David Eckstein over the same period. And less than Juan Pierre as well.

Luckily his leadership makes up for it

How many more wins would Yost have if Callaspo hadn’t fallen into a funk? If Guillen didn’t have the boo boo? And so on.

And the main reason for my Yostisfaction is simply that he’s not Trey. I despised Trey. I think how you view the new guy now depends, somewhat, on how much you loathed the old one.

DDJ .379
Butler .376
Guillen .349
Pods .326
Aviles .323
Callaspo .316
Maier .312
Kendall .28
Yuni .284
Getz .275

http://www.facebook.com/cmonchen

but it seems like there is some sort of consensus that the improvement in play cannot and should not be attributed to yost. right? is that what everyone is arguing?

this seems like a questionable argument, as the only suggested explanation is, i guess, that magically everyone seems to have gotten their shit together.

is there really any credibility in arguing that a host of players have magically gotten their shit together, opposed to suggesting that the change in leadership and decision making has had a tangible impact?

refutation is nice, and often necessary, but i think it is most effective when you have an actual, credible, and legitimate fall back explanation. and magical shit togetherness doesn’t sound that credible.

Isn’t the better record under Yost really pretty much attributable to decent relief from Marte, Farnsworth and Tejeda that was non-existent earlier in the year. So the meager runs scored now are enough to win some games.

lose the right to mock Dayton Moore’s “18-11!!!” nonsense from last season.

… and this is some kind of BAD thing? what? this is normal … you bitching about Yost? what? I don’t get it …

th eman’s doing a decent job, leave it at that and be glad he’s not screwing things up like Hillman

but i think it’s obvious that the talent of a team is the most important factor in how they perform…better players=better record.

however, having been a part of numerous organizations, i strongly feel that there is something very real yet unquantifiable (unless looking at the end result) in leadership, even for baseball, which is mostly an individual sport.

i’m a cpa, and while we work as teams on a lot of projects, it’s a lot of individual performances that bring together a successful finished product. one talented and experienced manager can make a large difference in the success or failure of that project…up the line, our department heads are responsible for making sure our year is successful, while our managing partner is responsible for the overall long-term success of the firm.

at each level, there has to be competent management that can effectively utilize the resources at their disposal, and be able to get their staff to give what’s called “discretionary effort”, that which is above and beyond what that person’s average performance otherwise would be.

personally, i think it’s more a matter of having a group of people all “rowing in the same direction” or buying into the process (sorry), kind of what joe po alluded to about chemistry on a baseball team not being about the individuals getting along, but an organization that has a clear direction and people on board that buy into that direction, followed by foot soldiers that are capable of executing what the leaders’ vision is.

as far as tangible evidence of exactly WHAT Yost is doing, there’s not a lot…bunting much less, his treatment of hochevar during the chicago game, his “talk” with farnsworth, and those are just the things we see.

i think the most likely reasons for the improvement thus far are (in order) an improved bullpen, chen/lerew providing unexpectedly competent performance, players “relaxing” or “focusing” better under yost (due to more defined roles, more respect for him vis a vis hillman, being a better fit with the personnel), a slightly weaker schedule, and random variation.

so, i do think leadership makes a difference, but it matters more the further up the chain of command you go. i know i would have HATED to work for a micromanager like allard baird, and i probably would have quickly lost respect for hillman-his lack of confidence was more transparent than air.`