Buddy Bell Falls to 200 games below .500

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 13, 2007 11:57 PM EDT

This week Buddy Bell fell to 200 games under .500 for his career.

40% of the time my moves work every time

Other managers 200 under:
Connie Mack
Jimmie Wilson
John McCloskey

Hey, that's one Hall of Famer!

Congrats Buddy!

Chris Jaffe: The Dance of Buddy Bell

Only a handful of men ever fell 200 games under - John McCloskey, Patsy Donovan (aside from the appropriate first name for a losing manager, he's the only one to recover and end up with less than 200 losses for his career), Jimmie Wilson, and Connie Mack. The last to lose this dance was Mack, fifty-seven years ago. Do you realize how long a period of time that is?

* America only had 48 stars on its flag when it last happened.
* A handful of Civil War veterans were still kicking.
* The US still occupied Japan back then.
* Charles Schulz was trying to find a distributor for a new comic strip he had called "Peanuts."
* The Korean War was barely two weeks old when Mack fell that far under.
* Sister Mary Theresa hadn't yet begun charity work in Calcutta, let alone become known as Mother.
* William Randolph Hearst still breathed.
* Humphrey Bogart was a big star. Marlon Brando and Montgomery Clift were nobodies.

0 recs | Comment 40 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

good picture

he looks like a buddy in this picture. here boy. sit. good boy.

over the line smokey

by saintalfonzo on Sep 13, 2007 5:16 PM EDT 0 recs

I'm Buddy Bell?

by djk royal on Sep 13, 2007 5:27 PM EDT 0 recs

I feel so...so... very sorry for you.

Did your mother drop you when you were a child?

by grudz69 on Sep 13, 2007 6:07 PM EDT up 0 recs

Here is the mystery to me

How does Buddy keep getting hired to manage teams? Perhaps this is a post for the entire community? Please keep the response clean - no blackmail comments or stuff like that.

It must be something besides his skill in planning the starting lineup and his fondness for gritty veterans.

by daveyork on Sep 13, 2007 6:08 PM EDT 0 recs

Because he is an average, traditional manager

He makes the moves that most managers make. His players say good things about him. They play hard for him. Of course he makes mistakes. Most of the things he gets bashed for by Royals fans are things that the vast majority of managers do. We can all pretend that he's amazingly horrible in a way that baseball has never seen before. In reality, he's just like most managers. Bell isn't even the worst of the last three managers the Royals have had. He's the best of the three...because he's mediocre and they were genuinely awful.

Anyone who looks at his W/L record and says that proves that he's a bad manager is ignoring the importance of players. And, as it turns out, the talent of the players accounts for about 99% of those wins and losses.

by NYRoyal on Sep 13, 2007 6:30 PM EDT up 0 recs

Do you think if he had the talent of the Red Sox

or Yankees that he would get the same results? Joe Torre was deemed an average/below average manager until the Yankees. Now, he is a HOFer. How would Buddy fare if his talent level was average or slightly better?

by daveyork on Sep 13, 2007 6:34 PM EDT up 0 recs

Good question

That begs the question...how good is Joe Torre? Was he a poor manager when he had bad team and suddenly became a good manager when he had the best talent in baseball? I think wins follow talent, not managers.

Long story short, I think if Bell were the manager of the Yankees, he'd have a very similar record as Torre. I'd say, +/- 5 wins.

by NYRoyal on Sep 13, 2007 6:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

i think torre's pretty bad actually

his bullpen use is weak and his handling of his bench... bad too

by royalsreview on Sep 14, 2007 12:44 AM EDT up 0 recs

I agree

I wish everyone on this site would get beyond "look at Manager X's W/L record. That proves that he's a good/bad manager!" That kind of analysis doesn't get you very far.

by NYRoyal on Sep 14, 2007 1:17 AM EDT up 0 recs

Of course it doesn't...

but it is all we got.

I still think Pena was a better or at least equal manager when compared to Bell. We don't have much to go on to say one way or another except by W/L record.

So, here's the thing:

We have several seasons of data to compare W/L record between the two on teams that are fairly comparable (actually, Bell has had a bit better of a team), so they should be fairly equal. Obviously, this isn't a great way to compare...but at least it is some evidence and not just an argument by a random arbitrary "look" at the team. In both of the manager's royals coaching career, Pena has a slight lead in winning percentage compared to Bell with a worse team. I would say that this gives me the ability to say that Pena is on the same level as Bell in managerial skill...which is to say below average.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 14, 2007 8:40 AM EDT up 0 recs

But it's all we got

If the data doesn't reliably tell you how good a manager is, then it is useless. Just because it is "all you've got" doesn't mean you should rely on it. If the only piece of data you had on a player was how well he hits when there is a full moon, it wouldn't make any sense to draw conclusions from it just because it was the only data you had.

The way you are attempting to use the W/L record is full of assumptions and logical leaps of faith. Teams that were "fairly comparable"? Maybe they were fairly comparable and maybe they weren't. The 2003 team played over their head for most of the season. Did Pena magically make that happen? If he showed that magic in other seasons, then I'd be willing to go along with that argument. He didn't. He was the beneficiary of a fluke.

Wins and losses are determined by talent. Bad talent leads to bad records. Bell has had bad talent on every team he has managed. What W/L record should one expect?

by NYRoyal on Sep 14, 2007 11:54 AM EDT up 0 recs

Assumption and logical leaps?

You are trying to tell everyone here the Bell is an average manager based on what exactly? There is NOTHING anywhere that would validate that claim...at least I'm working with the only data that we have when I say that he's below average. You, however, are just saying that he's average and then expecting everyone to believe it despite there being no evidence to the contrary.

My point with Pena isn't that Pena magically made the 2003 team better. My point is that both are below average managers...Pena won games with less talent (look at the total VORP of his teams versus Bell's teams to see the talent difference), but you consider him worse than Bell. Why? What makes you think that? There isn't anything that should. There isn't ANY real measure to decide anything other than the results...so that's what we have to go by. Otherwise, you're just making wild opinions.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 14, 2007 1:53 PM EDT up 0 recs

Whoof, Whoof, Whoof....

Go dejackso.....

by grudz69 on Sep 14, 2007 2:07 PM EDT up 0 recs

No, there is no reliable data here

No, there is no good data to support either of our positions. You are using something that is countable, but it is something which tells you nothing about the manager. Again, just because it is the only data doesn't mean that it is meaningful data.

My opinions on Bell and Pena (and all other managers) are subjective based on my observations. Yes, my opinions are as wild as everyone else's. But your reliance on data which says nothing meaningful about a manager isn't moving the analysis forward. Meaningless data is no better than subjective opinions.

by NYRoyal on Sep 14, 2007 3:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

I think that's going a little bit too far...

the data isn't meaningless, it just has a high variance based on other factors. That doesn't mean there still isn't manager influence in there.

The fact is that there hasn't been any good, reliable analysis on a manager's impact on a team and their W/L record. There is a lot of speculation (probably true) that there isn't a lot of difference between a good manager and an average one. However, there can alse be a logical argument that a bad manager can have a larger impact. Bell's W/L record is lower than others who have coached with similar or worse teams. Is that luck? Maybe, but Occam's razor suggests that we might have to consider that he is a below average manager.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 15, 2007 8:33 AM EDT up 0 recs

I couldn't disagree more

the data isn't meaningless, it just has a high variance based on other factors. That doesn't mean there still isn't manager influence in there.

Exactly. Perhaps it is better to say that the data isn't meaningless; it is just that we have no idea what it means with regard to managers. If one manager has a bad record and another manager has a good record, does that mean that the first manager is worse than the second? Certainly not. There are so many other variables that we really don't know how good either manager is.

It is possible that a bad manager could have a larger impact. Or it could have just as little impact as the difference between a good manager and an average one. But, as you said, there has been little good research on the true value of a manager and the difference between good, average and bad ones. We really don't know.

Bell's W/L record is lower than others who have coached with similar or worse teams.

This is where you start taking the available "data" and make huge leaps beyond that data. You take extremely important variables like how good these teams were and just kind of eyeball it and say "hmmmm, they were similar." Can one draw good conclusions from that kind of guesstimating?

Also, with Pena I think you have too little of this questionably meaningful data to work with. He had one (in my opinion) aberrational season and that skews his "data".

Is that luck? Maybe, but Occam's razor suggests that we might have to consider that he is a below average manager.

In my opinion, this is a horrible misuse of Occam's razor. You are not proposing the simplest explanation. You are picking one variable and assuming that must be the operative one. My problem is that there are so many variables at work here and the available data is not helping us sort out which ones are the most important to getting to those wins and losses.

We do indeed have to consider that he is a below average manager. He may well be. Certainly the data we have doesn't show that. It suggests that to you. But it is exceptionally poor evidence.

In my subjective opinion, I think Bell was better than Pena. But probably not a lot better. I don't think any of us have reliable data to which we can ascribe anywhere near a clear meaning with regard to which was better or by how much.

by NYRoyal on Sep 15, 2007 12:23 PM EDT up 0 recs

Torre used to be good

he's stagnated now, I think. He hasn't already been this bad at using the bullpen, but he's definitely subpar now.

"True friends stab you in the front."-Oscar Wilde.

by NHZ on Sep 14, 2007 10:28 AM EDT up 0 recs

i seriously doubt

that most managers would still be sticking to the larue platoon, or be using their best power guy as a defensive replacement only

i seriously doubt that any other manager would, with a team like this, still be playing guys that have no chance of being here next year in favor of guys who could contribute in the future

i also don't believe that he has handled the pitching staff well as most people believe, i think the credit on that one should be placed squarely on mclure's shoulders, one of the only guys on buddy's bench that actually seems to have a clue

i just don't see buddy as an average manager, his players like him and play for him, but some of the moves he makes are questionable at best

Ah to spend a day in Buddy's thought process...

by fats on Sep 13, 2007 6:41 PM EDT up 0 recs

I disagree

Larue plays too much, but do you know how often a #2 catcher usually plays? I think the vast majority of managers would play Larue that much, which isn't much less than he's playing now. You may want to play Buck everyday, but no manager in baseball would do that.

The only player who is playing right now who "has no chance of being here next year" is Emil Brown. Gload will be back. Sweeney may be back (I think it is more likely than not that he'll be back). And we may want Bell to turn September into a second Spring Training and play as many young guys as possible, but no manager in baseball would do that. Most managers value vets over young guys. Most managers try to maximize wins. Do any managers give non-top 10 prospect September call ups (like Brazell and Huber) significant at bats? I can't remember that every happening.

Bell has done a great job with the pitching staff. Buddy decides who is in the bullpen and who is in the rotation, not McClure. Bell decides who pitches win, not McClure. If Bell gets blame for other things, he deserves credit for this.

I fully agree that some of the moves he makes are questionable at best. That can be said of every manager. Why does Jim Leyland like to bat the horrible Timo Perez third? Good talent masks bad managing moves.

by NYRoyal on Sep 13, 2007 7:16 PM EDT up 0 recs

Also should be added

That Bell was the person who brought McClure to Kansas City after a revolving door of pitching coaches.

by jbrocato on Sep 13, 2007 10:11 PM EDT up 0 recs

Yin/Yang

Yin---

(1) Is the team better now than it was when he became manager? Unquestionably yes.

(2) Did the team ever quit?---really just stop trying---despite three and a half very tough seasons, the subjective answer to this is no.

(3) Most powerfully in his favor, he did NOT ruin young arms in an attempt to improve his W/L percentage for one year. See: Billy Martin, Dusty Baker, Don Baylor, Dallas Green, Bob Boone, Joe Girardi.

Yang---

(1) The sheer sample size of the guy's ineptitude at some point has to weigh against him. He hasn't just lost, he has always lost. A lot. Everywhere he's been. We're talking over eight seasons worth of games here. That can't just be wished away.

(2) By any fair measure he is an historic loser as a manager. Among ML managers of the live ball era with at least 1,000 games he has the second worst winning percentage. None of the other managers 200 games under for their careers managed exclusively in the live ball era. Startling.

(3) The team's record in one run games during his tenure was abyssmal until this year. Having a roster thin on talent means you win fewer games easily and get blown out more often. But consistently losing one run games at some point has to reflect to some extent on the manager. Even this year with his first bullpen that could even be called decent he has frequently failed to leverage pitchers properly.

Conclusion: He certainly cannot be said to have been a good manager. But in the most important respects, allowing young players to develop especially pitchers, he was not nearly so bad as other managers who have won more games.

PS A stand up guy on and off the field. That matters.

by howserfan on Sep 14, 2007 12:48 AM EDT up 0 recs

You can do better than that, can't you?

On the negative side, (1) and (2) are the same thing. He's got a bad W/L record. As you say, "that can't be just wished away." Well, those teams have had poor talent. With that kind of talent, what kind of record would you expect for him or any manager to have? Do you really think that a good manager takes a bunch of stiffs and turns them into a winning team by the sheer force of his will and brilliance? Good lord no. Conversely, if you take a manger who is mediocre (Torre) and give him the best talent in the game, suddenly his poor career winning record suddenly turns good. So, was he a bad manager when he had a poor W/L record, but suddenly turned good when he got to the Yankees with great talent? Maybe, just maybe the talent is what determines the record...not the manager.

by NYRoyal on Sep 14, 2007 1:21 AM EDT up 0 recs

you are absolutely right

players are what makes a team, if you dont have talent you dont win, the problem i have with bell is his constant change of lineups and never developing roles for players, i have seen so many different lineups with so many combinations how can any player really know what his role with the ball club is, dayton moore in his chat said he wanted to see what huber could do, but the kid hasnt had a chance, why does bell do this, one final question to you "would you hire buddy bell to run your ballclub"

by smarsh on Sep 13, 2007 10:29 PM EDT up 0 recs

Multi-lineups = worst argument against Bell

Who ever said that a guy needs to be batting 4th every game, or 2nd every game or 8th every game? I mean really, other than some fans on this site, since when is this the obvious best way to develop hitters? For those of you who enjoy modern baseball analysis and sabermetrics, have you ever read anyone on BP or any serious, intelligent baseball writer or analyst say that consistent lineups is better for run scoring or hitter development? Anyone....ever?

In my opinion, being consistently the #4 hitter means nothing. That doesn't give you a consistent role. That is because no matter where you are hitting in the lineup, you've got a different role in every plate appearance because the situation is different in every plate appearance. If you are in the 4 spot in the lineup, you could come up with runners in scoring position and 2 out, you could come up first in the inning with no one on and no out, or any and every other possibility.

Hitters at any level don't need a "role" as determined by their lineup position. They need to be able to handle every situation, because any and every situation could come up in any plate appearance, and it usually does.

by NYRoyal on Sep 13, 2007 10:38 PM EDT up 0 recs

Who will you defend after the 30th?

by grudz69 on Sep 13, 2007 11:33 PM EDT up 0 recs

I will continue to defend logic and reason

What will you bitch about? I'm going to guess, more complaining about Bell for months and months to come. I would suggest you actually think about Bell and the role of a manager instead of.... oh, forget it. Just do your sunflower seed schtick. Keep up the good work, Grudz.

by NYRoyal on Sep 14, 2007 1:22 AM EDT up 0 recs

Logic and reason

and Alex Gordon's specious claims about Buddy Bell helping him through his slump.

by Moose Tacos on Sep 14, 2007 5:31 AM EDT up 0 recs

What's specious about Gordon's claim?

FACTS:

Gordon had an atrocious start.
Bell stuck with Gordon during his rough start, and apparently was the person most opposed to sending him to Omaha.
Gordon has played well since the start of interleague play.

Shouldn't Bell get some credit?

by jbrocato on Sep 14, 2007 6:32 AM EDT up 0 recs

post hoc, ergo ...

I think I will take this argument over to the other thread.

by Moose Tacos on Sep 14, 2007 3:31 PM EDT up 0 recs

Specious claims

If I were saying that Bell helped Gordon, it wouldn't be worth much. However, it is Gordon that is saying that. Doesn't Gordon know more about what helped him than you or I do?

by NYRoyal on Sep 14, 2007 4:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

What's Real For Alex

Is real for Alex.

Being a fan is irrational, but what is the alternative?

by philofthenorth on Sep 15, 2007 12:40 AM EDT up 0 recs

I will and you too.

My complaining about Fuddo will stop abruptly on the 30th at which time Mr. Buddy Bell becomes a past manager of the Royals. He then will be a non entity and will not be thought of by me. After the 30th I won't care what he did this season, I will be thinking of next year and the future Royals.

But, until then he is fair game. So, buck up there NYR and don't take things so seriously. You need to mellow out dude....LOL

by grudz69 on Sep 14, 2007 1:44 PM EDT up 0 recs

i dont mind the multi lineups

or the batting orders

i just wish he's stop wondering is Teahen should hit 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, or 7th and maybe wonder about why John Buck stopped hitting after he became a half-time player, or maybe why PHing for TPJ instead of Buck is a good idea...

by royalsreview on Sep 14, 2007 12:48 AM EDT up 0 recs

My thoughts exactly.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 14, 2007 10:00 AM EDT up 0 recs

If his record is based on poor talent

Why does he keep taking such crappy jobs?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 14, 2007 10:01 AM EDT up 0 recs

Bell and Our Dreams

Yes, Buddy is basically in that great swath of generic, by the book, industry-friendly ex-players who are safe, acceptable choices for an org to go with.

Honestly though, if we can't at least dream of something better, of someone innovative (or at least half-way willing to operate according to some consistent thinking) then whats the point of caring at all?

by royalsreview on Sep 14, 2007 12:47 AM EDT 0 recs

Dreaming of an innovator

I dream along with you. And it might even happen. But this is the source of my frustration. Most of the Royals fans here complain about Bell for doing what that "great swath of generic, by the book, industry-friendly" managers does...and then they suggest no innovators to replace him. They call for Girardi or Showalter or some complete unknown quanitity, not because they are innovators, but because they are...someone else. This is why I think we'll see the same complaints, or just slightly different ones next year...as long as the team's record is below .500. Very few managers are innovators. Most follow the traditional ways and conventional wisdom. Bell did. The next guy probably will. And we'll see more complaints about how horrible this manager is...and little recognition that he's like pretty much every other manager. My kingdom for some perspective!

by NYRoyal on Sep 14, 2007 1:27 AM EDT up 0 recs

Managers With Losing Records

Coaching bad teams and pitchers who lose 20 games on bad teams have at least one thing in common; they were good enough to keep on trotting them out for the next futile effort. Orlando Pena might have been a 20 game winner with a good team.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/penaor01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/KCA/1963.shtml

Being a fan is irrational, but what is the alternative?

by philofthenorth on Sep 14, 2007 1:33 AM EDT 0 recs

Not a Joke

Excerpt from Bell's Book:

"Oral Herscheiser...believed his natural talent was secondary in his development as a major league pitcher. It was his smarts and know-how that made the difference."

Chapter titles in the book:
"Savvy, Know-How, Smarts"
"Instinct, Intuition, Hunches, and Gut Feelings"
"Competitive Drive"

Smarts, know-how, hunches. That's what wins games according to Bell. And a competitive drive that has not manifested itself in a single postseason appearance in his professional baseball career.

by BlueEyesAustin on Sep 14, 2007 9:11 AM EDT 0 recs

lineup changes...

The reason why BP and other baseball analysts haven't ever argued for or against lineup stability is because it is unquantifiable. This is statistical analysis's greatest flaw: it can't account for psychology. Just yesterday Nate Silver argued that optimizing bullpen usage was the greatest challenge for baseball analysts. BP's argued for years that the best closers should be used in the highest leverage situations. It seems like an unassailable point, but it completely discounts the idea that players are humans and like most humans they thrive when they are comfortable when they have firmly established roles. (and they would absolutely roll their eyes at the previous sentence. and i would roll my eyes at them. and so on...)

It doesn't seem outlandish to me that players would benefit by batting in the same spot in the order, surrounded by the same players in the lineup, nearly every day. The problem, of course, is that I can't back up this supposition with any data.

Imagine coming to the office every day and having to sit at a different desk. It's not the worst thing in the world, and you'd deal with it, but don't you feel like you'd be more productive, a better worker, if you didn't have to think about where you were sitting that day?

by Billex Gordler on Sep 14, 2007 9:42 AM EDT 0 recs