Padres Take First Step Toward Selling, Fire Bud Black

The Padres fired their manager Monday, saying goodbye to Bud Black, who’d been around since 2007. It’s not that the Padres blamed Black for what they’ve considered to be a disappointing start. That’s always the idea whenever any coach gets the axe, but that’s a gross oversimplification. It’s not that Black was the whole problem. It’s that the Padres thought Black was *a* problem, the kind of problem they might be able to fix midseason. Easier to do that than to find a whole new front office, or a whole new group of players.

As we all observed, the Padres put together a roster they thought could win in 2015. It hasn’t happened yet, not consistently, and with the trade deadline a month and a half away, A.J. Preller might be thinking about the pieces he has to sell off. There’s still plenty of time for the group to turn it around and mount a charge toward the playoffs, but if the Padres do end up a midseason seller, this would be the first step toward admitting the plan didn’t work out. The first step, that is, if you don’t count losing as often as you win.

With Black let go, baseball men everywhere are insisting that Black is a good baseball man. We have to take them at their word. Consensus appears to be that Black won’t be out of a job for long, and he might currently be the best available managerial candidate. It seems the Padres first discussed letting Black go last summer, and while he survived that conversation, it’s not a shock the Padres lowered the axe when they did. He was on thin ice, organizationally, and running a team to a 32-33 record provided sufficient reason. It’s impossible to know for how much Black was responsible.

We know he lasted a while with the Padres, and he was well respected. He was said to be good at bringing people together, and that’s not the kind of trait that just leaves a person, but for all we know, Black was cut out for an old kind of Padres clubhouse, and he’s not the best fit for this new variety. The Padres obviously went in a new direction last winter, and maybe they need a different voice. That they talked about this last year, before the spending spree, makes one wonder, but we’re left to just wonder about everything. When a manager gets fired, there are precious few known facts.

One fact we do know: while the Padres might be underachieving internal expectations, they’re not that far off from what they were projected to be. The Steamer and ZiPS projections never completely bought into the Padres, and here’s a comparison of actual winning percentage and preseason projected winning percentage. In the plot, the latter is subtracted from the former.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

win-projected-win-percentage

Yeah, the Padres are negative, so they are technically underachieving, but it’s not by much. One or two games. Doesn’t seem sufficient for a dismissal. At least, not just based on performance. On the other hand, this might be more interesting, or at least as interesting — here’s preseason projected winning percentage, subtracted from current BaseRuns winning percentage:

baseruns-projected-win-percentage

By BaseRuns, the Padres have been bad. By BaseRuns, they’re lucky to have as good a record as they do. They’ve had a below-average offense, a below-average rotation, a below-average bullpen, and a below-average defense. Maybe, based on this, a dismissal is justified. On the other hand, some people like to say that over- or under-performing BaseRuns is evidence of managerial skill. That would make Black look good. Kind of bad and good, at the same time.

Pretty clearly, it’s tough to blame Black for what’s taken place on the field. Get into the details, and it shouldn’t be Black’s fault that Matt Kemp has sucked. Everyone understood the defense would be an adventure. It’s not on Black that the Padres bid farewell to quality catcher defense. It’s challenging to evaluate the impact that’s had on the pitching staff, which to this point has allowed way too many home runs. Maybe that’s on the pitchers. Maybe that’s luck. Maybe that’s on pitch-sequencing. Maybe the pitchers are trying to be too fine, knowing the defense they have behind them. Why has James Shields given up 16 dingers? Why has Ian Kennedy given up 13? Why has Andrew Cashner given up 12?

Could be, that’s looking too closely, though. Perhaps, more broadly, the Padres just haven’t had the right vibe. Maybe they haven’t had the right leadership. Maybe that could improve if they hire, say, Mark Kotsay, or Pat Murphy, or whoever. The next part is the most important part.

What lies ahead? How might the Padres expect to do, now that they’re replacing their manager in-season? Back in February 2008, David Gassko couldn’t find an improvement effect. Let’s look at it a little differently. I’ve noted before I have preseason team projections stretching back to 2005. So, let’s consider the window between 2005 – 2014. I identified 22 cases where a team hired a new manager during the year, and the new manager was in place for at least 40 games.

At the time of the original manager’s departure, those teams had an average winning percentage of .405. That’s bad — that would be a 66-win season, over a full year.

Over the rest of the seasons, though, those same teams had an average winning percentage of .468. That would be a 76-win season over a full year, so that’s a step forward. More wins under new managers.

But, you could probably guess this part. Those teams had an average preseason projected winning percentage of .480. That would be a 78-win season over a full year. The teams underachieved with the original managers, and then after the fact, just like you’d expect, they regressed to the mean. It’s a perfect example of bias, where the only teams that fire their managers during the year are teams who are perceived to be underperforming. Those are teams that, as a sample, are unlucky. You expect them to be not unlucky moving ahead.

That’s the actual explanation for the honeymoon period. Maybe it’s not all regression. Maybe those same teams wouldn’t have regressed to the mean under the original managers, because, I don’t know, the clubhouses were too toxic. Could be things would’ve spiraled out of control. But as the Padres look ahead to the remainder of 2015, they know what they’ve been, and we can see what they should be expected to be. Right now, over the remainder, the Padres have a projected winning percentage of .513. That would leave them with an 82-80 record. They’d be about five games out of the second wild card. They’re four games out now.

When a team falls short, the explanation is usually that it just wasn’t good enough. Now that Black is gone, the Padres will need to seriously evaluate what they really are. It seems likely they’re more or less what Bud Black made them.





Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.

26 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Igloo
11 years ago

It’s funny to think that a team who plays half of their games in Petco Park could have the 2nd highest HR/FB% at 14.1.

As a Brewers fan, though, it’s more funny that the Brewers’ team xFIP is actually pretty good especially considering their ballpark.

Rick Thurman
11 years ago

The Padres trades with the Braves were good. Every other team fleeced Preller.

Justin Rodriguez
11 years ago
Reply to  Rick Thurman

Hindsight

Sandra Bullock
11 years ago

Blindside

schlomsd
11 years ago

I’m not sure it was hindsight – I think most people thought the Kemp trade was awful for the Padres.

I have never posted as Ruben Amaro... before today
11 years ago
Reply to  schlomsd

Kemp in 2014: 89 RBI
Grandal in 2014: 49 RBI

Considering that Kemp is also much more clutch, he’s a 10 win upgrade over Grandal according to my calculations.

Tramps Like Us
11 years ago
Reply to  schlomsd

Many, many Dodgers fan were livid about “giving away” Kemp. Those who weren’t were convinced he was a bad clubhouse guy (which is contrary to what the people who knew said). But for those Dodger fans going strictly by the numbers, the loss of Kemp in that deal was greeted with a collective gasp.

Vslyke
11 years ago
Reply to  Rick Thurman

As a Braves fan, I would call the Justin Upton deal a fair deal for both sides. On the other hand, I think AJ got fleeced on the Kimbrel/Maybin/Melvin Upton deal. The Braves saved money, got prospects, and have gotten the most production thus far.

Pat's Bat
11 years ago

At least they became watchable and relevant for a while. That’s more than any other recent Padres team can claim. Their average attendance is 31,418, 12th in the bigs. Last year: 27,103, 20th in MLB.

Phil
11 years ago
Reply to  Pat's Bat

I’m not sure that’s a sign of watchability. Rather, I expect that a lot of that is the result of an early and pre-season boost in sales as a result of heightened expectatons. If this team doesn’t start winning more, the attendance will start to decrease as it always does when teams don’t win.

Larry Faria
11 years ago
Reply to  Phil

No, they’re still much more watchable than last year. You have no idea what having one of the worst offenses in MLB history is like to watch. Last year, a 3 run deficit after the third inning was Mount Everest, and two runs down after seven was certain doom. The team is much more watchable this year, but they look dead in their many shutouts and single-run-scored losses.

Bud has been known as “Mr. Freeze” as a player and manager. He’s cool and collected and unflappable, and that works with the talent and experience deficient teams he’s had. The owners bumped up the payroll and talent/experience level, and wanted to see the team show some fire on the field, and wanted the manager to light that fire, but all Bud could give them was ice. That’s the major reason Bud was let go. Bud will be a great choice for a team that’s exhausted by a rah-rah type manager, but the rah-rah type is what the owners and Preller think the Padres need.

Za
11 years ago
Reply to  Larry Faria

how long until we see Black in Miami?

Lukas
11 years ago
Reply to  Phil

Trust me, they are way more watchable this year. Unless you are a Padres fan who watches them everyday you will never understand how unbearable it was to watch them last year, even if they are only slightly better it is so much more exciting to watch them this year.

john
11 years ago

This was a calculated play by preller. Firing Black at the beginning would have left him no scapegoat in the case of what has just happened. Its almost unimaginable that a team going through this much turnover would immediately gel. Now a new guy comes in, and lightning strikes, they make a run. If not, Preller sells.

Either way i applaud the audacity of what he has tried.

Managers are a dime a dozen and Black hasn’t done anything.

Arthur John Preller
11 years ago
Reply to  john

Shhhh.

Lukas
11 years ago

As a Padres fan I will tell you this. Black is a terrible manager, he leaves pitchers in way too freaking long and is an absolutely terrible ingame decision maker. I’ve wanted him gone for about 3 years now, it has nothing to do with this season.

jayman4Member since 2018
11 years ago

As a Padres fan, I have been fine with him. He has his quirks that annoy me (e.g. fondness for playing small ball late in the game) but generally pitchers thrived under him and Balsley.

Last year was brutal when the team looked to be in contention, then stopped hitting. Preller’s trades have been horrible. If you believe WAR, he has received less back than what he dealt, took on big salary and shipped off most of the best pieces of the farm. I have never seen such an incompetent series of trades as a Padres fans aside from the grotesque sell off in the early 90s.

I personally wish the would send Preller back to Texas and fire Mike Dee. Hopefully the next manager will be a decent one but even Buck Showalter cannot manage past inept upper management.

FeslenR
11 years ago

proves once again on paper the Padres looked awesome. When it comes to actual play…

Anyway, you Padres fans want Terry Collins? Just saying. Every manager, no matter how good they are or are perceived, has their flaws and pluses.

JayT
11 years ago
Reply to  FeslenR

They looked awesome on paper? Did you happen to read this article that pointed out that they were expected to be basically a .500 team going into the season?

Paul G.
11 years ago
Reply to  JayT

The names sounded really awesome.

Dr. Obvious
11 years ago

Below average defense…

That’s like saying the sun is above average hot

mcbrown
11 years ago

It’s just too bad they didn’t wait a few more days until the Red Sox are ready to ditch Farrell (seems like more a “when” than an “if” at this point…). Then we might have seen baseball’s first managerial change-of-scenery trade!

Long Suffering Tribe Fan
11 years ago

Look up Joe Gordon and Jimmy Dykes and you’ll see why Frank Lane was called “Trader Lane”

Dave P
11 years ago

“Bud Black is a good baseball man” is a refrain that has been repeated throughout the media but I am not sure exactly what that means. I would agree with “Bud Black is a good man” as he has a sterling reputation of being a sincerely nice person. Black also seems to be a pretty likable guy in the clubhouse. That said, his baseball strategy and managing skills seem to be substandard. Many people will credit Black with being consistent – which is accurate. However I would describe stubbornness as a form of consistency. He was so predictable with his decisions that he was nicknamed “Bud-Bot” in San Diego. If a manager always chooses the same strategy independent of unique matchup information, why do you need a multi million dollar manager? One of Black’s predictably poor decisions was to bunt runners over in 9th inning situations when they trailed by 2 runs and had runners at first and second. When reporters asked why he would do that, he would look confused by their question and respond in a way like “that is what you do in that situation”. I wish Bud well and hope the best for him but won’t miss him as Padres’ skipper.

randplaty
11 years ago

Why is the manager being compared to the projected win percentage? As if the manager has nothing to do with setting the projected win percentage in the first place? Managers have a lot of say in personnel meetings and they’re always consulted in trades… especially Bud Black.

Furthermore, projected wins are based on past performance by players, which Black was also involved in. If a player is a career underperformer, his projection is going to be low, but Black could very well be responsible for the player’s career underperformance.

Third point, I know that one of the things Black was specifically poor at managing is coaching a player through injuries and identifying players who are “playing hurt”. You could argue that it’s up to the player to be honest with the manager, but that’s never the case. It’s up to the manager to tell who is hiding an injury and Black has been notoriously poor at that. The Padres always have three or four players who “played through injuries” but you never knew or heard of it until he got surgery at the end of the year. It’s not on Black that they get injured in the first place, but it is on him that he can’t tell their swing is messed up due to injury and he keeps letting them play, making the injury worse.

Tanned Tom
11 years ago

Having a calm exterior does not mean he’s a good manager. Black should have been let go in the off season to set an different tone right away.