What Makes Bruce Bochy and Joe Maddon Great?
With the Cubs in San Francisco to face the team just behind them in the wild-card race, it makes sense to compare the two managers. After all, they both ended up within the top five in a recent ESPN.com survey, and their teams have both found success in recent years. Though they were born just a year apart, their styles are different enough that they seem to be a study in contrasts.
Who better to ask about what makes them great than their own players and coaches and beat writers? Well, maybe unbiased observers can be more critical than our sample, but the task at hand is to delineate the managers’ strengths.
So, what makes Bruce Bochy great? What makes Joe Maddon great?
*****
Bruce Bochy
Tim Lincecum: He gives us the freedom to play. He’ll let us police ourselves for the most part. He’ll make things known to the team if we run into some skids and whatnot, and he does a good job knowing what’s going and keeping the faith up. Other than that, he’s basically a bench coach that knows a lot more. He’s very meticulous in how he handles his bullpen, he knows really well how to handle the guys on the bench. Never tries to put anyone in a position they aren’t comfortable in. An easy-going guy, for the most part, even if he has his moments like any of us. You never really feel like he’s there as a coach, he’s more there as support. I remember in my first no-hitter in San Diego, I remember coming down into the tunnel and he said “you’re the best I got, you gotta keep this going,” to encourage me and keep me going. And I’ve also had some run-ins with him on the mound when I wanted to stay in the game — not so much lately. Just a real personable coach that allows himself to be available, without overstepping boundaries and making it seem like you’re being watched too closely.
Tim Hudson: His ability to think ahead in the game, those moves late in the game, that’s what he’s really good at. Managing his team, managing his players, trying to put them in a position to be successful. He’s pretty even keel in the dugout. You can tell when he gets emotionally involved sometimes. Not a lot of panic.
Gregor Blanco: What really makes him a great manager is that he gives everybody opportunity to be a part of this team, everybody opportunity to be a hero on this team. I think he really believes that it’s 25 guys that win a game, not only two or three guys. That’s huge. He gives guys a chance — like Joe Panik, Matt Duffy — and he never loses faith in his players. I’m not a guy that’s an everyday player here, but all of a sudden I find myself playing in the World Series. That’s a manager that really believes in us.
Hunter Strickland: He leads by example, he’s a quiet leader until he needs to say something. Lets us do our thing until we need him to get on us. He’ll come up to me and encourage me, he did throughout the playoffs, he said “we got you, we’re going to take care of you, keep competing and have fun with it.” I was a rookie coming up and he was giving me the opportunity. He won’t give up on us.
Brandon Crawford: He’s a good manager of the game. It seems like he knows what’s going to happen a couple innings before they happen. And he’ll have something planned already. He doesn’t get all mad or frustrated or worked up very often, which is nice. For the most part pretty calm. If he does get worked up, it’s something big. I don’t think I’v ever seen a manager as good at seeing something before it happens. He’s gotten better with the rest thing, too.
Chris Haft: He rarely puts people in a position to fail. He puts people in a position to succeed. That sounds basic, but sometimes a manager will send a guy up to bunt who’s got no business bunting. Bruce won’t do that. He knows his players’ limitations, and he never criticizes them in print. That’s another thing that sounds like something that most normal people wouldn’t do, but he just doesn’t do it. He may rip guys off the record, but it stays off the record. I don’t think it affects the way he uses them, either, he may come back with them the next day.
People say he’s a master of the bullpen. Master is kind of a strong term, but relievers don’t like getting up to warm up and then not go into the game. That rarely happens here. He’s not perfect with that. As a postseason manager, he understands a sense of urgency. Where other managers might stick with a starter for a little bit longer because that’s just what they do, well no, look at Game Seven last year, Hudson’s gone after four outs, five outs. He didn’t mess around.
He likes to gamble, in low doses. He has an uncanny knack for knowing when to gamble with a player, even when — and this might sound corny — it’s up to them to make it work. When he started out, after a tough loss, he would sit in his office and yell obscenities, you could hear it ringing throughout the clubhouse. Guys got a sense of how intense he was. Now — and of course winning three World Series will do this for you — it seems like he’s in a good mood every day.
*****
Joe Maddon
Dexter Fowler: He keeps us loose. That’s basically it. He has fun. He’s the man.
Kris Bryant: He’s so personable. He’s really laid back, and he’s the type of manager that’s not hard on you. He’s not a drill sergeant. That brings out the best of you as a player. You’re not scared to make a mistake or scared to do something wrong, you’re not walking on eggshells. If you’ve got a problem, you can talk to him. He’s taught me so much already, I’m looking forward to the relationship that we have to come. In spring training, when I got sent down, he was great, and that springboarded us into talking a lot when I’m struggling and when I’m doing great. He’s really easy-going.
Henry Blanco: The way he goes about his business. He gives players responsibilities. The way he is, he keeps them loose and does his thing, you know him. That helps the momentum keep going. He puts them where they need to be to play the game the right way. He’s probably one of the best managers in the National League. He’s a quiet guy, but he likes to do some crazy stuff to get the guys going, and I’m pretty sure that makes a difference here.
Dan Haren: The non-game stuff that he does, the fun stuff, it helps keep the team looser than the places I’ve been. Not as much attention to things like batting practice and drills, he tries to cut a lot of that stuff out. He gives players a lot of leeway, but he expects a lot back. Managing a game, he’s a little bit of an older guy, but he’s really embraced some new school stuff, the analytics. I’ve taken a look at his lineup card, and I know my stuff a little, but I don’t understand what he has written on there, some crazy stuff, it’s not as easy as left/right splits any more. He’s really embraced that, and he tries new things, like the pitcher hitting eighth, and I try to understand it, and he explains it to me, and I still don’t understand it. But when a guy like him, who has had so much success, you question less the stuff he does in game. And there’s a respect for the players, too.
Patrick Mooney: He’s been the right guy at the right time. They couldn’t have found a better guy to appeal to the young players, fuse the organization together, and deal with a lot of the Wrigleyville nonsense that comes around. He’s a great communicator, and he definitely deflects pressure and attention away from these kids, who have been really talked about from the moment they were drafted as the next big things. For all these players, it’s huge just to have that stability, too — I think it’s five managers in six seasons now. The team has been methodical in signing pieces and Maddon is about as good as it gets when it comes a manager in this day and age.
With a phone full of pictures of pitchers' fingers, strange beers, and his two toddler sons, Eno Sarris can be found at the ballpark or a brewery most days. Read him here, writing about the A's or Giants at The Athletic, or about beer at October. Follow him on Twitter @enosarris if you can handle the sandwiches and inanity.
who says Joe Maddon is the best?
Guy has under performed his projected win total more times than not.
“Disappointment” is a word that comes to mind when thinking about Joe’s teams
Fredi Gonzalez’s teams have outperformed their preseason projected win totals more often than not. Does this make him a good manager? If you have to think about the answer that question, you haven’t watched many Braves games. There are lots of things that influence whether or not a team outperforms it’s projected win totals, and the manager is only one of them, and far from the most important one. Trying to evaluate managers this way is decidedly irrational, bc there is just way too much noise.
If this year’s braves squad maintains its current pace, they will fall 3.5 wins short of their over/under, bringing Fredi’s 5-year record down to +8 total, with three teams better than expected and two teams worse.
In his three full years in Florida, Gonzalez was a fairly stunning total of 19 games better than the Vegas lines, with two “winning” seasons and one losing.
Perhaps we should simply swallow our gall, and consider the possibility that Gonzalez is at least a solid MLB manager. So often when evaluating in-game tactics, we grade managers against the Platonic Ideal, rather than against one another. Maybe Fredi, whatever his warts, is better than we think — compared to other managers.
With pythag, if a manager lets a pitcher get hammered in mop-up work, it “lowers” his expected wins. So trailing by 4 in the 9th and using a known pitcher and losing 5-1 is “better” than letting someone “take one for the team” and losing 8-1? Using position players as pitcher etc.
Just saying there is probably a small element of managerial style that may impact the formula while not impacting wins. Also, collapsing in Sept 3 of 4 years may not show up in pythag, but it does deserve consideration if a managers teams consistently play better early or get better as the season progresses.
So,who knows,, but in postseason, give me Botchy over “Kimbrel can only get 4 outs, not 5” any day.
“Botchy” is downright Freudian.
Who says that’s the correct way to determine who the best manager is? As far as I can tell, there is no reliable, definitive way to even measure that.
I have not yet seen a measure of manager performance that I trust. I thought the fact that both were well-regarded was enough to ask the players and writers why that might be.
If I had to pick the two managers currently managing that seem most likely to be adding value, it would be these two guys.
Fair enough; I just think a manager that outperformed his projected win totals at the sportsbooks – or via baseball prospectus – does matter. Obviously there is a lot that goes into a baseball season, but if we can’t assess a manager based on expectations vs results, than how can we evaluate them?
Perhaps the expectations were wrong…
a manager [whose team] outperformed [its] projected win totals
Didn’t we just have an article yesterday about the frailty of such projection systems? (Besides, sportsbooks aren’t predicting talent; they’re predicting betting). So not only is the connection between manager performance and that measure of team performance tenuous, that very measure itself is probably too volatile right now for us to distinguish signal from noise with much confidence.
They are not predicting betting. jfc.
For analytically minded people the amount of clueless in regards to the betting market is baffling.
They are setting the MOST EFFICIENT number out there – the market is set by sharps, not your average joe next door. There is no way to “balance” action. There is also no need to balance action.
A sportsbook is not looking for 50/50 action on every play, they are merely looking for balanced action over a million plays. The only way to obtain balanced action is to post the most efficient and accurate number. IDK why this is so difficult for people to grasp.
I have put a dagger in the ignorance of 50/50 action 100 times on this site. I have broken it down mathematically – you would be giving money away by buying back to get equal action. Books charge 10% on every bet, for the most part, to begin with. Their goal then is to set an opening number that is accurate because very smart modelers would destroy them and the market if the numbers weren’t set with efficiency.
Well, clearly we aren’t as smart as you…so that may be why we all have such a hard to grasping ideas that are so simple to you.
It’s interesting that you wore yourself out responding *only* over the trivia that was in parenthesis rather than, well, anything directly relevant to your original point.
I’ll bite, though, since this –
There is no need to balance action.
they are looking for balanced action [over a million plays].
– is so much fun.
The only way to obtain balanced action is to post the most efficient and accurate number.
Balanced action – that thing that sportsbooks DON’T NEED, DUMMY! (But also totally want, dummy!) – can only be obtained by posting the most “efficient” (weasel word) and accurate number?
That seems obviously false, but I’ll wait for you to show your work before continuing.
There is a difference between balancing action on individual events – meaning adjusting your number to an inefficient number to draw in money, or buying out of your position elsewhere by laying 10%, and setting THE CORRECT number the majority of the time allowing for you to take balanced action.
Once again, you clearly do not gamble if you don’t understand the difference.
As has been posted 100 times, I model baseball for betting purposes with a larger group. Sportsbook odds are set by the modelers/sharp bettors, not by the bookmakers. If you take in a lot of public money, and decide to move the number off it’s correct position, you will bring about sharp money that will hit you 10 times harder than your average joe betting for fun.
You seem to think a books goal is to have EQUAL action on every single event, when not only is that not mathematically feasible, but it’s not good business and actually will cost a sportsbook 4-5% of their 10% hold.
You said they set a number to get equal action – that is WRONG. they set the most efficient number regardless of expected action on an individual event.
Based on your comments, a book would buy out of it’s position if it gets lobsided action, which is just wrong and deceiving.
You are setting the most accurate number, because the most accurate number PAYS THE MOST. You are not setting some number trying to entice gamblers to bet each side of a game, because that opens you up to vulnerabilities.
What’s funny is you think you made a point. What’s also funny is when a bunch of analytical people can’t grasp the simple concept that THE MOST EFFICIENT AND ACCURATE predictive system in the world is a sportsbook like because it is set by investors which makes it a combination of every modelers data.
It’s more fun when you pretend like you have a clue about an industry that is my job though; so keep spewing nonsense. It’s more fun that way.
You asked for the math, these are the words of someone I now work with (a former bookmaker) but he can break it down for you:
Here is where you are mathematically WRONG. You view each
GAME as a independent event. Smart bookmakers, with large enough bankrolls, view each game as 1 part of a larger series, forming “the long run”. The bookmaker will win exactly 50% of those imbalanced games, and therefore, it
plays out mathematically just as though he had EVERY game balanced…but, by not moving the number, he has collected for himself 4-5 times the amount of PROFIT (vig) than he would have given away using your Method of balancing
EACH AND EVERY GAME!
THE WRONG WAY (with a two game scenario)
$10,000 on BAltimore +3
$90,0000 on INDY-3
YOUR WAY suggests that it is smart for the bookmaker to call off (move line, or bet elsewhere to balance action) 80,000 of his action, and “guarantee” himself ($1,000 profit), I say guarantee as if we are talking about post up
money.
GAME 2
90,000 on Denver-4.5
10,000 on Miami +4.5
YOUR WAY again suggest calling off 80,000 (80% of your action, you’ve generated by advertising, promoting, and earning a solid reputation) in order that you GUARANTEE yourself $1,000 profit.
So, your way, we have NO RISK and guarantee a grand total profit of $2000 of
220,000, a hold of 1%…wooooo hooooo.
THE SHARP BOOKMAKERS WAY(given a large enough bankroll)
GAME 1
$10,000 on BAltimore+3
$90,0000 on INDY-3
GAME 2
90,000 on Denver-4.5
10,000 on Miami +4.5
THE MATHEMATICALLY SAVY bookmaker keeps it all, expecting to win 50% of all decisions, regardless of how heavy or unbalanced the sides are…He splits here, losing 79,000 on the Indy game and Winning 89,000 on the Miami
game..for a NET PROFIT of 10,000 of of 220000 (net hold of 4.54%), the mathematically expected vig earned by a good bookmaker
So, unless you just plain DON”T believe in math, you’re way is WRONG! Take these two examples and do the calculations over 2000 games and see which results you like best, and stop calling sharp bookmakers, idiots, Please!
The ONLY WAY to win 50% of your outcomes, is to set an efficient/correct number.
THE MATHEMATICALLY SAVY bookmaker keeps it all, expecting to win 50% of all decisions, regardless of how heavy or unbalanced the sides are
The whole POST was a DELIGHTFUL walkthrough of arguably the least illustrative thought experiment of ALL time.
Since you weren’t able to identify the single premise on which your entire argument turns, I’ve done it for you above.
There are two critical issues here:
1) The stability of the assumption that your “correct”* line will “win” 50% of the time.
*Earlier, you said the play needed to be “efficient and accurate, as if they were not synonymous. Now it seems like you just can’t keep track of your own diction and those words and the word “correct” are interchanged randomly.
2) The balance of the betting in each of your individual wins and losses is trivial.
The first one is debatable – and variable from one oddsmaker’s projection system to the next.
The second one is very obviously false. The distribution of wagers in wins and losses is in fact largely determinative of your final bottom line.
Rounding it off for the rest of us whose handles are not ironic: my casual paranthetical statement several comments ago was inaccurate to the extent that it suggested soliciting even betting was the *only* priority of a sportsbook. It certainly isn’t. But it is a *high* priority because of risk tolerance and fundamental variance in sports.
The less you factor in balance, the greater your exposure to that risk. The greater you factor in balance, the closer you are to guaranteed profits.
If we’re being honest, where exactly on that spectrum a majority of sportsbooks fall is probably not knowable. But there is a strong consensus in the industry built around them that balanced betting is a high priority – and unlike your wandering tirades, the reasoning behind that is clear and straightforward.
Why would a bookmaker need to manage risk?
Assuming he sets the correct number, and wins 50% of the time, in the long run he gets 10% hold. A bookmakers job is not to manage risk, it is to set the correct number – regardless of expected bet balance.
Yes, my example by the gentleman who used to run Pinnacle Sports book – a book that grosses billions a year, and is by far the biggest in the world – is wrong and off base, but the fangraphs commentator knows more.
You don’t balance action – you are looking for balanced results, meaning winning 50% of your games.
A winning gambler needs to win 52.4% of his bets just to break even – assuming you set the proper number, there is no risk management for a large operation.
ONLY underfunded shops balance action, and that’s why they go out of business. No big shop – the pinnacles, bookmakers, 5dimes and the likes will balance action. period.
arc *and* Rational Fan? Someone get a ruler!
This is the least amount of power I’ve ever seen someone trip over.
When did Maddon underperform his projected win total? Certainly not in 2008, 2011, and it’s certainly not looking like it this year.
I’d be shocked if he wasn’t net positive versus his teams win projections, but perhaps you have data that says otherwise?
Don’t know if this will appear where intended, but this response is directed to Stefan.
Maddon was in fact 5-3 versus the Vegas over/under line during his last 8 seasons in Tampa. (I don’t have the betting line for 2006.)
Moreover, Maddon was a total of 24.5 wins better than predicted, for an annual tally of +3 wins per year. That’s an excellent outcome, and probably a better current average than any active manager except Matheny and perhaps Showalter. I kind of doubt that Bochy’s regular season numbers are quite that strong, but I could be mistaken.
Come to think of it, if you include his San Diego stint Bochy’s regular season numbers are probably very comparable to Maddon’s. Maybe even better.
Meant to also include this detail:
Maddon’s Rays underperformed their Vegas line in 2007 by 1 game, in 2009 by 5.5 games, and in 2014 by 11.5 games.
Interesting that a “pro gambler” such as Rational Fan, thinks books have a 10% hold in sports. This is not true overall and not even remotely close to being true in baseball, where the juice is much less than in other sports.
That really makes no sense. I read seasonal projections and get a good laugh at them. There are way to many inter- and intra- seasonal variables for them to be more than pseudo-rigorous wild-ass-guesses.
You have as good, if not better, chance of being right if you just say ‘same as last year.’ And it saves a lot of effort!
As for sports books. That’s just balancing the sports-book to the expectations of the gamblers who are, as a mass, completely incapable of predicting season records or who will win on any given day.
Here, top-10 projected Sports Book finishes (2015):
Orioles 84.5 <– Could reach 84 wins. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Giants 85 <– Need to finish out 17-18 to make 85 wins. Likely.
Mariners 85 <— 10 games under .500. It ain't gonna happen barring a miracle finish.
Pirates 85.5 <– Should easily exceed this total.
Red Sox 86 <– Troll lol lol lol lol lol… Volume all the way up to 11!
Tigers 86.5 <– See Red Sox… But volume at 10.
Angels 87.5 <– Need to finish 23-12 to hit 88 wins. Could happen. Probably wont.
Cardinals 87.5 <– Best record in MLB. Would take an epic collapse to not exceed this.
Dodgers 91 <– Need to finish 21-15. Could happen. Probably wont.
Nationals 93 <— See Red Sox, but turn the volume down from 11 to 9…
Where are the Cubs? Royals? Yankees? Mets? Blue Jays? Astros?
Now, why have these teams either exceeded or failed to meet expectations? Was it managers? Or was it players? I vote players for 90+ percent of it.
For example, when the Red Sox signed Sandoval, they had no idea he'd turn into the worst starting 3rd basemen in the majors. The Giants had no idea that Matt Duffy would play 3B and be a legitimate (though recently fading) ROY candidate at 3B.
Or that he'd be anything more than a stop-gap solution. If they had, they wouldn't have suffered through "Double-Play" McGehee until they were forced to make a change.
Does Bochy get credit for recognizing Duffy? If so, then shouldn't he be penalized for sticking with McGehee for so long?
And don't get me wrong, I'm a big Bochy fan. The Giant's early-season suffering because of McGehee's failure to perform is the flip-side of the coin that makes him a great manager. He gives his veterans respect and doesn't yank them at the first sign of trouble or when they're in a slump. Rather, he encourages them and lets them play through it until there's no other realistic choice.
And while we can't directly prove that it works. It seems to because his teams generally seem to exceed the base-talent. Especially when times are grim.
Angry White Sox fan trolling alert!
its so much more complicated then that and if thats how you determine what makes a manger a good or bad one then i just don’t know what to tell you.
you may think that i am biased because i am a cubs fan and all that but its simple i know i can’t decide if a manger is good or bad if i don’t know enough about the situation.. there is so much that goes into it other than beating projections or not.. there is health, luck, production, ect.
joe maddon has led the cubs to a 73-51 record.. the cubs were projected 82.5 wins this year and if you told me they would (safe assumption) easily surpass that mark with Starlin Castro and Jorge Soler having negative WAR then I would be very confused. This Cubs team has gone 21-4 and have been one of the hottest teams in baseball since the end of July and might I say their worst 2 players since then have been trade deadline acquisitions..
he brings his teams a breathe of fresh air, he always knows exactly what to say, and the players respect/trust him.
Joe Maddon is going to be the first manager to lead a team with 3 everyday rookies to the playoffs. There is a something to be said about that.. and thats that he’s a great manager.
Maddon has done a great job this year. But his superrookie quartet of Bryant, Schwarber, Russell and Soler has only been worth 2 bWAR more than the St. Louis rookie foursome of Grichuk, Piscotty, Cooney and Socolovich.
The big difference between these groups is that all 4 Cubs were Baseball America top 20 overall prospects — and 3 of the Cardinals weren’t even top 100. (Piscotty at #70 was by far the highest rated.)
So if an N.L. Central manager deserves credit for getting the most out of his rookies this year, it’s probably Mike Matheny. Which partly explains how his squad is on pace to finish 9 games ahead of the Cubs, rather than the 4 games predicted by Fangraphs, or the 6 games forecasted by Vegas.
This year, relative to the preseason expectations of B-Pro, Clay Davenport, Fangraphs, or anybody else, it’s Maddon great, Hurdle greater, Matheny best.
I can’t wait to see how Matheny shits the bed in the playoffs this year. Criminal charges could have been filed against Bochy for the abuse he inflicted on Mikey boy last October.
Exactly.
Matheny’s career playoff record is in fact superb. He has been the betting underdog in 6 of his team’s 8 series, and led them to victory 5 times.
He’s been outmanaged in the playoffs by Bruce Bochy — as has every single manager Bochy has faced since he arrived in San Francisco. (Bruce was just 8-16 as a Padres skipper in October.)
Yeah, I remember Bochy “outmaneuvering” that rube Matheny, and sending Juan Perez to the plate for one of the season’s most critical at-bats. It was the 10th inning, game 3. Winning run on first base, none out.
Perez, a simply terrible, terrible player who hit .170 during the regular season and somehow accrued -1.0 WAR in just 109 plate appearances, found himself with a bat in his hands. Dreadful hitter, winning run on 1st, you bunt. Right? Nope, Bochy had him swing. (Perez had 2 reg. season sac bunts and 3 GIDPs in 100 AB’s, in case you were wondering.) Insane, having him swing.
And of course Perez got the big hit, basically clinching the game.
The guy who was one of baseball’s worst players during the regular season, and who certainly had no business on the postseason roster, got one of the biggest hits of the playoffs. Bochy brilliance? Of course not. But sometimes crazy moves pay off anyway.
F uck Maddon overrated
I would like to see the evidence that Joe Maddon’s teams have “underperformed” their projected win totals more often than not.
Link?
From ’09-’14 his Tampa teams averaged 88 wins, which while not great, was very good considering their A.L. East competition. I would bet that the average projection (or Vegas over/under) was between 84 and 86 wins per year over that 6-year stretch. (And I mean that literally. I would bet it.)
Maddon’s 5-9 playoff record since 2008 may be worthy of scrutiny, however — especially in light of his very odd and un-Maddonlike back-to-back managerial misfires in the 2013 postseason.
Okay, I checked. Maddon’s final 8 Tampa teams were 5-3 v. the Vegas over/unders. (I couldn’t find a Vegas number for his debut 2006 season.)
From 2007-2014, Joe was a total of +24.5 wins, or 3 victories per year on average. I’d call that a very big success.
Is that even true?
Thanks for gathering this Eno. I understand and agree with most of what the players said. Where I have a disconnect is on point of differentiation. Honestly the soft skills that were mentioned are qualities I would expect a manager to have. Do other managers not have these qualities? If so is this a failure of ownership to find the right people or are these qualities just hard to find in MLB?
There must be a difference in opinion. Think of Terry Collins. He’s nothing like these guys.
Joe Maddon is not great. As Rational points out, he’s frequently much worse than his image suggests. He’s the king of goofy gimmicks that, if they work he’s a #genius, if not nobody remembers. Here’s a guy who, in a playoff elimination game (2013 ALDS) pitched 9 guys for one inning each, never giving any of them a chance to show that he had good stuff and essentially conceding the game if it went to extra innings. A complete gimmick, given that without even looking at the box score you’d have to figure that there would be situational match ups that would dictate one guy going 1.2 IP or another guy going 0.2 IP. And let me remind you that this was an elimination playoff game. If it worked — HOO BOY! — we’d still be hearing about it from the national play-by-play guys. But it didn’t work and it was literally a disgrace to the game and to his team and fans. But he skated, like he always does. BECAUSE HE’S SO DAMNED FUN!!
The above description of the 2013 game is NOT true – the pitchers did not pitch 1 inning each. multiple pitchers pitched more than one inning (Moore, Torres, Peralta) and multiple pitched less than one inning (McGee, Archer, Rodney W. Wright) only 2 pitchers pitched exactly one inning – J Wright and Hellickson) and actually Hellickson was pitching the 2nd but could not get an out as he let the first 3 batters reach. Then Wright started the 3rd with a walk and in came Moore for a lefty lefty match up with Elsbury (and got a double play) – I’m pretty sure he played matchups and was not going to let anyone go more than 1 time through the order.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TBA/TBA201310080.shtml
How many runs did the Red Sox, the eventual WS champs and a team that scored 50 more runs than the second-best offense in baseball in 2013, score in that game, again? 3? Yeah, three, and that was after the Sox scored 12, 7, and 4 runs in the first three games of the series. How did Maddon’s strategy not work in that game? The Rays lost that game bc they couldn’t score, not bc they pitched poorly. When you use anecdotes that directly contradict your point it makes your attempts at constructing a convincing argument seem like the gimmick.
Maddon’s sort of the Derek Jeter of managers; excellent and overrated at the same time.
After Tampa’s tremendous run to the 2008 World Series, Maddon’s final 6 Rays teams averaged 88 victories and never won a playoff series.
And I’m pretty sure there’s never been another manager who left his starting pitchers in to allow 7 earned runs in back-to-back playoff games, as Joe did in 2013. Any other manager in baseball does that, and the press would be on him like piranhas. Still waiting on the rationalization for that bizarre double-gaffe — or at least some public acknowledgment from Joe’s more ardent fans.
Hahaha, people are trying to accuse Maddon, in the same comment thread, of both not using his pitchers long enough and using his pitchers too long
I personally haven’t said anything about Maddon pulling any pitchers too soon. But I do question quite fervently his leaving two starters in to allow 7 earned runs in back-to-back *playoff* games.
Analysts of managers rightly point out that postseason games must be managed with a far greater sense of urgency that games in May. And with so many off days, this urgency almost invariably manifests as a more aggressive usage of bullpen arms.
And yet, Maddon, October 2013. I realize I’m belaboring this point, but I honestly don’t know if I’m overlooking some truly unprecedented extenuating circumstance — I did not see the two games, nor am I a Rays fan.
Blanco: “I’m not a guy that’s an everyday player here, but all of a sudden I find myself playing in the World Series”
Except you should be an everyday player, certainly over Pagan. Sounds like when Draymond Green praises Mark Jackson for having played someone like him 20 mpg when Jackson really should have been playing him 30+.
Giants have a problem with writing off big contracts and moving forward with replacement talent. Just look at Barry Zito’s Giants’ career. Never an ERA under 4.0. Three years over 5.0. Yet they kept putting him out there despite his inability to perform up to his remuneration.
To the point where someone like myself would have just cut the cord and written it off as a bad sunk cost. But the Giants… They wanted to suck every bit of juice out of that lemon. Even if it was a glass-filled lemon…
And Zito’s not the only one. He’s just the biggest and most obvious.
i thought dan haren was smart but is it really so hard to understand why it makes sense to have a real hitter bat 9th, before the leadoff guy?
I was thinking the same thing,lol.
Can someone show me one metric that shows that batting the pitcher 8th is smart?
Can you explain why it’s obvious to do so?
Batting the pitcher 8th is idiotic beyond description – although pinch hitters will negate this somewhat, every batting spot is worth about 15 PA’s a year. You are in turn giving a hitter more plate appearances than an everyday player. That is not smart. The double lead off hitter theory honestly might be the dumbest theory in baseball – if the guy batting 9th is good enough to be a double leadoff hitter, he should be hitting 1st or 2nd lol.
The pitcher batting 8th has absolutely no statistical backing – if you can disprove that, I’m all ears.
Hi! You must be new here. You might be interested in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Book-Playing-Percentages-Baseball/dp/1494260174/
Here’s what cracks me up… first, you think you just posted a point, when in reality you posted nothing.
I am asking for actual statistical evidence that states that this is a good idea – not theory, but actual evidence.
There are plenty of people I know, throughout the game, who are analytically minded people who don’t agree/have data to the contrary.
That is a very good book – a TOOL – as are all of Bill James’ titles. It certainly doesn’t shut the door on the pitcher hitting 8th debate, and the people here who seem to think it’s been decided crack me up.
and i feel like i’ll be waiting all day for definitive data set that shows that batting the pitcher 8th increases run expectancy because it doesn’t exist. have a good one.
You’ll be waiting all day because it’s not important to anybody whether you believe it or not. There’s been countless articles on the subject. If you really want to know, you’ll educate yourself. I don’t give a shit if you don’t believe it.
You’ll be waiting all day because no on wants to engage with possible the worst poster on this site. Go back to ESPN.
haha how many people need to chime in to tell you guys that there is no date that says it’s the right choice – there is data that says it’s a break even choice, for the most part, but none that says it’s the obvious right decision.
What’s hilarious is that we have now had two guys from fangraphs chime in with the same thought process/belief and while I am a bit more abrasive, I am being told to go back to ESPN lol.
again its what makes him a great manager.. the statistical advantage is minuscule but its about more than that.. its about allowing your players to believe that your way is unique and better. mental advantage.
I was under the impression that most analyses showed that there’s almost zero difference between pitcher 8th vs 9th.
I would guess the difference is small – according to the dopes here though, it’s clear and cut that the pitcher should hit 8th because of the dumb two leadoff theory; a theory that makes no sense, because if you’re 9th hitter was good enough to be considered a second leadoff hitter, you’d be an absolute buffoon to give a pitcher more plate appearances than him.
Dude stfu. Youre annoying. Whatever babble you have to say is only to make your ego even more inflated. No one gives a fuck. It was an article based on the players opinions.
This guy, if he’s even real, has also repeatedly claimed that someone else is posting as him. So, I just ignore his posts now.
Russel Carleton looked at this for JABO earlier this season, and found that there wasn’t really much of a difference. Specifically, he found an increase of 0.004 runs per game for batting the pitcher 8th, or an increase of about 0.6 runs over the course of an entire season. http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/pitchers-batting-eighth-joe-maddon-tony-larussa-national-league-problems-041615
Even if there is a very slight advantage, I don’t get the initial question of “why is it so hard to understand?” because as far as I can tell, there’s not a simple explanation other than “the numbers say so”.
Yes, and I felt those simulations didn’t account for the pitcher coming up a few times, late in a game, with runners forcing him out of the game earlier than he should – therefore increasing the opposing teams expected runs. Although, with the advancements of bullpens, this would really only impact the games top 10% of pitchers who show an ability to be better than their bullpen replacements the third time through an order.
I think it’s closer to even, and feel that you should limit the pitchers AB’s/pinch hit opportunities as much as humanly possibly in a season; all things being equal.
Also, if I remember correctly those simulations assumed the pitcher would swing away every at bat.
FWIW, Maddon talked about this a little before the game and talked more about xs and os than runs. He said he liked having the pinch hitter come in closer to good hitters earlier in the game. He also said that the 8 spot is the worst place to put a young hitter, which is right.
Of course the simulations accounted for who was at the plate in each PA. What do you think they were simulating? A game of checkers? Moron.
And if you think an average starter facing the order for the third time is BETTER than an average bullpen arm, just keep living under that huge rock. Moron.
Herp, you clearly didn’t understand my point as the article itself states that it does not account for that and it accounts for the pitcher swinging away every single time.
Eno – I view that as “overthinking” and over tinkering. There are some things that analytics should have, and has changed, about the game – most noticeably, fielding alignments and etc.
Batting the pitcher 8th is just an I’m smarter than you tactic without any actual meaningful statistical backing. LaRussa did it to show he was smarter than everyone – he’s not – and some coaches have followed suit. I’m not a fan of it.
I agree you don’t put a young guy 8th for whatever it is worth.
This comment thread is spectacular. “Rational Fan” (that has to be the most Orwellian moniker on this site) asks for evidence supporting “The Book’s” argument on batting the pitcher 8th and when provided the evidence he asked for, he proclaimed that he didn’t care for that evidence because it didn’t fit the methodology he liked. In other words, the conclusion contradicted his preconceived notions, therefore the methodology was bad.
Have it your way. You’re smarter than everyone else here.
the average on base percentage of a player is .320. So, if you play the averages, out of every six batters about 2 will get on base. This sets up more situations where the pitcher gets the third out of the second inning and you can have someone competent leading off the third vs. having the pitcher bat to lead off the third. It is true that a spot up in the lineup is about 17 extra plate appearances a season but in a late game situation, the pitcher will either be throwing a gem or just be taken out for a pinch hitter.
It’s the players.
Say what now?
Strategy
Always cool to hear the players perspective on things but I have to wonder if they are the best guys to really ask about what makes a good manager. Their viewpoint is going to be alot more personal/self serving (not in a bad way) then someone outside the team who takes a more big picture approach.
Lincecum’s comments are a good example. He states that Boche is a good manager because he left him in during a no hitter. That’s good for Tim Lincecum but is it really good for the team overall? Maybe the bettter decision would have been to take him out (this is all hypothetical as we dont really know the details of this conversation etc etc).
On the flip side a part time player might think a manager is a “bad manager” simply because he thinks he deserves more playing time. Even though not giving him playing time is the better choice for the team.
TL; DR version; Players are likely to going to be heavily influenced by their own personal best interests when it comes to a “good” manager vs. a “bad” manager rather then an objective opinion.
It seems like players just want a manager that’s not a dick and knows how to use every guy on the team. Makes sense, since this isn’t football and yelling at baseball players isn’t the same as screaming in a D-lineman’s face.
I think it all comes down to respect, in any leadership capacity. If you respect others, you command respect from others. Many of the ways Bochy and Maddon are great are due to things that will never be reported in the press, and, honestly, that’s another reason they are respected- they’re not out for their own gain. They don’t broadcast things they’re doing to garner respect, they’re just doing them. As a Cubs fan, I cannot remember a manager making such a difference. Yes, our players are better, but this team’s record is performing at levels I never expected this year. You may not be able to quantify how much impact Maddon has had, but, qualitatively, I’m beyond happy to have Joe Maddon in the dugout each and every day.
I don’t know if Fowler and Addison (@2b) are defensively positioned by Madfon but that seems like a few wins right there.
I think that what makes Joe Maddon such a good manager is that he’s both a thinker/tinkerer and a great psychologist.
Regarding his ability to think outside the box: Joe was the first manager, about 5 years ago, to realize that the best way to neutralize John Danks’ awesome changeup was to load the lineup with left handed batters. LHBs vs. a LHP? That goes against all baseball orthodoxy, but it worked.
I’m also sure that, at least in the AL East, Joe was the first to put on a shift against Jose Bautista. Now, shifts against certain LHBs have been around for a long time, well before they reached the current saturation levels. But a right handed batter? That was new and others quickly followed suit.
As for the psychology part, who wouldn’t want to play for a manager who introduces small penguins or pythons into the clubhouse when a team is in a slump? Joe did that in Tampa Bay. Sounds like a great and unusual way to diffuse the tension and keep everybody loose.
“Laid back, respect for players, putting everyone in a position to succeed,” sounds like 80% of all managers in history. Interesting what they have to say, but, yes, it is true that beyond some of the in-game strategy skills, we have no idea what makes for a good manager. None whatsoever. It is mathematically clear that there are so many things that go into team success, the number one thing being team talent of the players on the field, and the number two thing being randomness, that it really muddies the waters and creates lots of cognitive illusions, the main one being that a manager of a successful team or teams must be good and if the team is bad the manager likely is bad, or that if the team over or under-performs expectations that is a reflection of the manager (it might be, but the noise is MUCH greater than the signal, so we can’t tell).
Yeah this is why I asked because man I can’t tell how to measure a good manager. I have been in a few clubhouses, though, and the ones with good people persons at the head are more relaxed. That’s just feel, I know, but feeling good has been linked to better outcomes in psychology research, calling back to my old degree.
Managers do add value, if you evaluate them using Matt Williams as your replacement level.
And how about Scoscia? What do we all think of him?
He’s clueless.
Have you read Chris Jaffe’s book on managers? Curious what your take would be.
Sorry; the previous question was directed toward MGL — but Eno or anyone else in this thread should please feel free to chime in!
Bochy gets a lot go credit for the Giants three World Series titles and he should. But if one looks at Bochy’s tenure in San Deigo in context he also did a remarkable managerial job there as well. He had a 951-975 W-L (.494) record in San Diego. Given the Padres’ historical ineptitiude this is impressive IMO. Bochy won 4 NL West titles and 1 NL pennant in San Diego. The Padres were only really awful in 2002-03 (96 and 98 loss seasons). I think Bochy really showed his manageruial skills in 2005-06. The 2005 team won the NL West title with an 82-80 W-L record. But they had a -42 run differential. Granted the NL West was pretty bad in 2005 but how does a team with a -42 run differential have a winning record. I’m pretty sure this is the worst run differential for a division winner ever. I think Bochy should get part of the credit for this. The Padres were better in 2006 winning another NL West title (+52 run differential) and having the second best record in the NL that season. I think the how the 2005-06 Padres outperformed their expected record is partly due to Bochy.
Chris Jaffe’s landmark book on managers rated Bochy quite highly, and this was BEFORE any of his championships in his city by the Bay. (Apologies to Tony Bennett.)
How do the manager’s teams perform versus the consensus of expectations, over a lengthy period of time — say, at least 3-4 full seasons. That’s the best measure to me. Because the manager is expected to win right now, but without pulling a Billy Martin (i.e., undermining the team’s ability to win next year and beyond, by burning out his pitching staff).
Of course there’s always and forever a blend of both signal and noise, just as with individual players and batting average. But if batter A hits .300 for 3 or 4 full years, while his teammate batter B is hitting .280, we can conclude that A was better than B at hitting for average. Not a lot better, but better.
I recommend that you all have sons so that you can coach their little league teams. I learned a lot of things, like the game seems way faster from the bench- your pitcher loses it faster than you think about replacing him. And if you’re uptight about decorum– yelling at the kids to stop eating fried chicken and drinking beer– you forget to manage the game. The player’s entourage (we call ’em parents) and your bosses (the power besotted board of directors) can get you distracted and, as I said, the game flies by.
It’s mostly different, duh, but you the Little League Manager will feel a little closer to those managers and what they struggle with and why Billy Martin and Dick Williams wouldn’t fly today while Bochy and Maddon do.
P.S. For the full manager experience, read Weaver’s On Strategy and listen to “Earl Weaver Manager’s Corner” (with loud profanity). Like Right now, I’ll wait.
That’s a champion display name. King of the Byelorussian Square Dancers. Awesome!
A lot of what Joe Maddon does is experimentation. Which is good for baseball. I wouldn’t be surprised if he batted his pitcher cleanup.
He may not have batted pitcher cleanup – but he did bat Andy Sonnanstine third
Hit me cleanup for 20 games this year. That may not be genius, but it sure is creative!
WTF!??! Where’s Donny Baseball?
Presently? Cincinnati.
Joe Maddon is an inspiraytion. His players are clearly overjoyed. He does an arayzing job. Check out this video from last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IbQILnOwY
IMO, the two best managers are Bochy and Terry Francona. I appreciate what Maddon brings to the table, and do think he’s a good manager, but really it’s very difficult to pinpoint who is a good manager vs just an average one. I think most would agree that Matt Williams is a bad manager. But apart from the obvious ones, I just think it’s challenging to say how much a manager contributes to winning or losing. Look at a guy like Torre for ex – was he an awful manager back in the days before the Yankees and suddenly became a great manager? It’s a cliche but true in this case – the manager often gets too much credit when the team is going good and too much blame when the talent sucks.
This has been a real bad year for Francona (the Tribe was picked by more ESPN experts [54 of 88] to win the A.L. Central than picked St. Louis to win the N.L.C. [48]).
But I’d still probably put Terry in the 2nd tier with Maddon, Matheny, Showalter and Girardi. Bochy gets his own tier, just above.
Then the next group would be Hurdle, Scioscia, and Bob Melvin.
Those are the only nine guys I feel absolutely sure are above average.
IIRC Sports Illustrated predicted Cleveland to win the World Series, FWIW.
If you’re going to go by the team’s record when evaluating the effectiveness of a manager, then what about Tito when his Sox won the WS? I mean, if you’re going to ding him for failing to meet expectations this year, then are you saying he managed more poorly this year than in the one the Sox won it all? And btw, Scioscia is not a good manager IMO. He abhors analysis.
Ovaltine!
Maddon got there right when the young talent in Tampa was starting to produce. And as soon as that team started to decline, he jumped to the next club with boat loads of young talent. That, I’m sure, has a lot to do with why he is so great.
That’s a bit unfair, I think. Maddon’s first two Devil Rays teams lost a shitload of games. (Apologies to Slim Pickens.) And when they began to win, they did win a bit more often than they were supposed to.
On balance, I’d say the same about Maddon that I would about Girardi or Matheny: the only guy I’d replace him with would be Bruce Bochy.
Anyone who doesn’t think Maddon is an excellent manager (or Matheny, Girardi, Showalter) should try naming 6 or 8 guys they’d prefer.
Good stuff Eno, I plan to apply some of this to my management style
I don’t think anybody has mentioned the old adage that a great manager can’t do much to win games, but a bad manager can sure lose a lot of them. From a Cubs fans’ perspective, we’ve got recent memories of A-list managers like Baker and Pinella that started off hot, then proceeded to screw up grade-A roster talent, and then seemed to actively sabotage the team’s chances for a couple of years, behaving like bored, petulant little kids once the talent stopped winning in spite of them.
I like what I hear from Maddon in post-game interviews – he doesn’t say stupid things or get bent out of shape about a loss. He can explain his decisions (regardless of success or failure) based on methodologies rather than getting defensive or deferring to the almighty old-school baseball playbook. Anyhoo, Maddon seems like the right guy for this Cubs team.
Maybe a little harsh on Sweet Lou; wasn’t his mom sick at the end of his time? And Dusty, well he got them farther in the playoffs than anyone since Zimmer. But he did destroy Prior’s arm, didn’t do Wood or Zambrano any favors either. So, yeah, the toothpick sucks.
Good stuff as always. The fact that something is difficult to quantify doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an impact, and the ways Maddon and Bochy manage games suggests they have impact beyond the ability of their rosters.
I’ve been quantifying team mistakes for quite some time, and I’d link to it if I thought it would look good or make sense, but Joe Maddon’s teams, both in Chicago and Tampa Bay, tend to make fewer mistakes than their opponents. This can’t all be credited to Maddon, but I’m a firm believer that effective coaching can cut down on baserunning mistakes, errors, bad bunts and the like. Like anything, it doesn’t explain everything, but it’s hard to miss that, generally speaking, teams that make fewer mistakes have more success. That’s what Maddon seems to have brought to the Cubs this year.
https://public.tableau.com/views/2015MistakeIndex/TeamMistakes?:embed=y&:display_count=yes&:showTabs=y
There is another team in the NL that is grossly overachieving, has had numerous injuries, is constantly singled out as winning more than it should and is constantly projected by Fangrtaphs to have a winning percentage lower than an couple of other teams in its division. Yes, the hated Cardinals.
This choices would seem to be this. 1) The team is just plain consistently lucky. 2) Fangraphs really doesn’t measure what it takes to produce wins. 3)The “best fans in baseball” really do make a difference. Or 4) the manager might be really, really good.
5) Satan actually does exist and we now know where “Cardinal Nation” will be spending eternity.
Rational fan is right about bookmaking.He didn’t articulate it as well as well as he might have,but he basically nailed it.
Easily the best comment thread in Fangraphs history. Long live Rational Fan.
Many of the difficulties measuring manager performance it seems like apply to measuring managerial/executive performance generally. Is there any literature applying the literature of manager/executive performance measurement to baseball manager performance measurement?
Please ask the White Sox players why Robin Ventura is so bad. The guy cannot even execute a challenge without significant chance of misfire.