5F7D6A7579764C776F766B707168180 wrote: Bobster, all managers stick to formulas.
Yes, I believe I pointed that out when I said, "I've often said he's basically an average manager inasmuch as he likes to stick to formulas... Managers of very talented rosters can get away with this strategy because of depth. Hurdle doesn't have that luxury but manages as if he does. The Pirates need an excellent, creative, thinking outside the box manager who will make decisions on what is best for that particular game. Hurdle doesn't do that often enough and too often does not put his team in the best position to win." I guess you didn't read that part of my comment.
I said that the Pirates, due to Nutting's financial constraints and less talent on the roster than many other teams, need a better than average manager who can be creative and think outside the box to maximize whatever talent he has instead of plugging names into a formula. I hope you're not satisfied with Hurdle simply because he follows the herd when, clearly, more is called for.
Hurdle
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
JollyRoger
- Posts: 1469
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:31 pm
Hurdle
253D3F38382F3E39242533560 wrote: As I have said in past posts; I am a Hurdle supporter. PMike makes some solid comments regarding Hurdle. I’m sure Skinny will soon chime in to tell us why Hurdle is a moron. I share Skinny’s frustration; but it is not with Hurdle or NH but with Nutting.
As PMike pointed out, Clint tries not to get too high or too low which is important in a long baseball season. With all the tootblans and mistakes the players have made he keeps a calm demeanor. Some will say that Hurdle and his coaches are responsible for making sure those mistakes are not made. I say these players have been playing ball since a very young age at a high level. They should not me making mistakes that a little leaguer would know better than.
One big reason I like Hurdle is the life experiences he brings to the table. As people know, he was the anointed the next superstar in MLB. He pissed it away and never lived up to the hype. He has had to endure personnel strife within his family. He can pass on life experiences to younger players that can be used for motivation.
Bottom line however is that Clint has to manage the players that are given to him by the front office. As we all know; because of Nuttings spending habits; Clint has zero margin for error
Hurdle should stick to philosophy cause he sure can't manage a baseball team. We all get excited when we play above .500 baseball, but we forget what's inevitably coming. This team will hit a very rough patch and Hurdle will manage with his little formula's as nothing wrong and continually put this team in bad situations cause he wants to stick with the formula. This team can't win with a average manager (good guy), this team doesn't have the resources of LAD, NYY, Cubs, and on and on. That means we have to excel in other ways. I'm so tired of excuses for why we can't win. Managers aren't the biggest financial expense of any team, but they can have the biggest impact on a team. It happens time and time again in sports where a team hires the right guy and he turns a organization around. CH is one of the longest tenured managers and we have nothing to show for it. Excuses for batting guys like Cervelli 3rd for 4 weeks with nothing to show for it, batting Josh Bell 4th virtually all last year with 10 home runs, continually running out SRod to play 4 or 5 games a week, putting Watson in game situations after blowing 5 or 6 games in a row.
You say Hurdle is one of the longest tenured managers with nothing to show for it. The facts do not agree with you. Let’s look at past Pirate Managers and judge them by playoff appearances as that is what ultimately counts.
Danny Murtaugh 14 Years, 5 Playoffs=36%
Chuck Tanner 9 Years, 1 Playoff=11%
Jim Leyland 11Years, 3 Playoffs=27%
Gene Lamont 4 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Lloyd McClendon 5 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Jim Tracy 2 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
John Russell 2 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Clint Hurdle 8 Years, 3 Playoffs=38%
Now, you can argue that Murtaugh and Tanner won World Series. Bottom line however is that Hurdle has the highest post season average.
As PMike pointed out, Clint tries not to get too high or too low which is important in a long baseball season. With all the tootblans and mistakes the players have made he keeps a calm demeanor. Some will say that Hurdle and his coaches are responsible for making sure those mistakes are not made. I say these players have been playing ball since a very young age at a high level. They should not me making mistakes that a little leaguer would know better than.
One big reason I like Hurdle is the life experiences he brings to the table. As people know, he was the anointed the next superstar in MLB. He pissed it away and never lived up to the hype. He has had to endure personnel strife within his family. He can pass on life experiences to younger players that can be used for motivation.
Bottom line however is that Clint has to manage the players that are given to him by the front office. As we all know; because of Nuttings spending habits; Clint has zero margin for error
Hurdle should stick to philosophy cause he sure can't manage a baseball team. We all get excited when we play above .500 baseball, but we forget what's inevitably coming. This team will hit a very rough patch and Hurdle will manage with his little formula's as nothing wrong and continually put this team in bad situations cause he wants to stick with the formula. This team can't win with a average manager (good guy), this team doesn't have the resources of LAD, NYY, Cubs, and on and on. That means we have to excel in other ways. I'm so tired of excuses for why we can't win. Managers aren't the biggest financial expense of any team, but they can have the biggest impact on a team. It happens time and time again in sports where a team hires the right guy and he turns a organization around. CH is one of the longest tenured managers and we have nothing to show for it. Excuses for batting guys like Cervelli 3rd for 4 weeks with nothing to show for it, batting Josh Bell 4th virtually all last year with 10 home runs, continually running out SRod to play 4 or 5 games a week, putting Watson in game situations after blowing 5 or 6 games in a row.
You say Hurdle is one of the longest tenured managers with nothing to show for it. The facts do not agree with you. Let’s look at past Pirate Managers and judge them by playoff appearances as that is what ultimately counts.
Danny Murtaugh 14 Years, 5 Playoffs=36%
Chuck Tanner 9 Years, 1 Playoff=11%
Jim Leyland 11Years, 3 Playoffs=27%
Gene Lamont 4 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Lloyd McClendon 5 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Jim Tracy 2 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
John Russell 2 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Clint Hurdle 8 Years, 3 Playoffs=38%
Now, you can argue that Murtaugh and Tanner won World Series. Bottom line however is that Hurdle has the highest post season average.
-
skinnyhorse
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:19 am
Hurdle
597C7F7F6A417C747661130 wrote: As I have said in past posts; I am a Hurdle supporter. PMike makes some solid comments regarding Hurdle. I’m sure Skinny will soon chime in to tell us why Hurdle is a moron. I share Skinny’s frustration; but it is not with Hurdle or NH but with Nutting.
As PMike pointed out, Clint tries not to get too high or too low which is important in a long baseball season. With all the tootblans and mistakes the players have made he keeps a calm demeanor. Some will say that Hurdle and his coaches are responsible for making sure those mistakes are not made. I say these players have been playing ball since a very young age at a high level. They should not me making mistakes that a little leaguer would know better than.
One big reason I like Hurdle is the life experiences he brings to the table. As people know, he was the anointed the next superstar in MLB. He pissed it away and never lived up to the hype. He has had to endure personnel strife within his family. He can pass on life experiences to younger players that can be used for motivation.
Bottom line however is that Clint has to manage the players that are given to him by the front office. As we all know; because of Nuttings spending habits; Clint has zero margin for error
Hurdle should stick to philosophy cause he sure can't manage a baseball team. We all get excited when we play above .500 baseball, but we forget what's inevitably coming. This team will hit a very rough patch and Hurdle will manage with his little formula's as nothing wrong and continually put this team in bad situations cause he wants to stick with the formula. This team can't win with a average manager (good guy), this team doesn't have the resources of LAD, NYY, Cubs, and on and on. That means we have to excel in other ways. I'm so tired of excuses for why we can't win. Managers aren't the biggest financial expense of any team, but they can have the biggest impact on a team. It happens time and time again in sports where a team hires the right guy and he turns a organization around. CH is one of the longest tenured managers and we have nothing to show for it. Excuses for batting guys like Cervelli 3rd for 4 weeks with nothing to show for it, batting Josh Bell 4th virtually all last year with 10 home runs, continually running out SRod to play 4 or 5 games a week, putting Watson in game situations after blowing 5 or 6 games in a row.
You say Hurdle is one of the longest tenured managers with nothing to show for it. The facts do not agree with you. Let’s look at past Pirate Managers and judge them by playoff appearances as that is what ultimately counts.
Danny Murtaugh 14 Years, 5 Playoffs=36%
Chuck Tanner 9 Years, 1 Playoff=11%
Jim Leyland 11Years, 3 Playoffs=27%
Gene Lamont 4 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Lloyd McClendon 5 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Jim Tracy 2 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
John Russell 2 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Clint Hurdle 8 Years, 3 Playoffs=38%
Now, you can argue that Murtaugh and Tanner won World Series. Bottom line however is that Hurdle has the highest post season average.
It's pretty obvious your okay with finishing 4th or 3rd every year, but I'm not and I hope no one else here is, if so I'm not sure why. The use of those stats obviously aren't serious. Comparing JR's record with CH when JR and Jim T, only was here 2 years Hurdles 1st 2 years were pretty comparable to CH 1st 2 years or trying to compare Danny M. in an era where there were 2 teams and not 12 teams qualifying for post season. Anyone who is okay with a manager who would do the things I sited in my previous post and there are many many more examples, I can't understand that position and in my opinion is indefensible. I'm excited about where we are today but I know from history with CH, he is going to throw away critical games and break the will and optimism of these players.
As PMike pointed out, Clint tries not to get too high or too low which is important in a long baseball season. With all the tootblans and mistakes the players have made he keeps a calm demeanor. Some will say that Hurdle and his coaches are responsible for making sure those mistakes are not made. I say these players have been playing ball since a very young age at a high level. They should not me making mistakes that a little leaguer would know better than.
One big reason I like Hurdle is the life experiences he brings to the table. As people know, he was the anointed the next superstar in MLB. He pissed it away and never lived up to the hype. He has had to endure personnel strife within his family. He can pass on life experiences to younger players that can be used for motivation.
Bottom line however is that Clint has to manage the players that are given to him by the front office. As we all know; because of Nuttings spending habits; Clint has zero margin for error
Hurdle should stick to philosophy cause he sure can't manage a baseball team. We all get excited when we play above .500 baseball, but we forget what's inevitably coming. This team will hit a very rough patch and Hurdle will manage with his little formula's as nothing wrong and continually put this team in bad situations cause he wants to stick with the formula. This team can't win with a average manager (good guy), this team doesn't have the resources of LAD, NYY, Cubs, and on and on. That means we have to excel in other ways. I'm so tired of excuses for why we can't win. Managers aren't the biggest financial expense of any team, but they can have the biggest impact on a team. It happens time and time again in sports where a team hires the right guy and he turns a organization around. CH is one of the longest tenured managers and we have nothing to show for it. Excuses for batting guys like Cervelli 3rd for 4 weeks with nothing to show for it, batting Josh Bell 4th virtually all last year with 10 home runs, continually running out SRod to play 4 or 5 games a week, putting Watson in game situations after blowing 5 or 6 games in a row.
You say Hurdle is one of the longest tenured managers with nothing to show for it. The facts do not agree with you. Let’s look at past Pirate Managers and judge them by playoff appearances as that is what ultimately counts.
Danny Murtaugh 14 Years, 5 Playoffs=36%
Chuck Tanner 9 Years, 1 Playoff=11%
Jim Leyland 11Years, 3 Playoffs=27%
Gene Lamont 4 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Lloyd McClendon 5 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Jim Tracy 2 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
John Russell 2 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Clint Hurdle 8 Years, 3 Playoffs=38%
Now, you can argue that Murtaugh and Tanner won World Series. Bottom line however is that Hurdle has the highest post season average.
It's pretty obvious your okay with finishing 4th or 3rd every year, but I'm not and I hope no one else here is, if so I'm not sure why. The use of those stats obviously aren't serious. Comparing JR's record with CH when JR and Jim T, only was here 2 years Hurdles 1st 2 years were pretty comparable to CH 1st 2 years or trying to compare Danny M. in an era where there were 2 teams and not 12 teams qualifying for post season. Anyone who is okay with a manager who would do the things I sited in my previous post and there are many many more examples, I can't understand that position and in my opinion is indefensible. I'm excited about where we are today but I know from history with CH, he is going to throw away critical games and break the will and optimism of these players.
-
Roberto218
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 5:55 pm
Hurdle
In the moneyball era, many strategic decisions are determined in advance through analytics. The manager's job is still important: 1. Assembling a staff which can teach, coach and improve players; 2. Figuring out when a player's capabilities have fundamentally changed; 3. Adapting strategies to player's abilities and idiosyncrasies; and 4. Communicating to player's their role and their opportunities to expand their role.
Basically, I think that Clint is a good people person, but at times is reluctant to give young players a fair shot. Sometimes he sticks with a good paper strategy too long when the player isn't suited to it. Example: playing Cutch shallow in CF when he is better coming in than going back.
Basically, I think that Clint is a good people person, but at times is reluctant to give young players a fair shot. Sometimes he sticks with a good paper strategy too long when the player isn't suited to it. Example: playing Cutch shallow in CF when he is better coming in than going back.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Hurdle
How many teams were there though? And much more importantly how many Hall of Famers were on Murtaugh's WS teams? Jim Leyland lost a whole lot of games before the key players came up. Chuck Tanner has a losing record as a manager (not really his fault though).
Clint Hurdle isn't Danny Murtaugh but even he had like a .540 W%, the more years go by the more you'd think he was 25 feet tall and ate rocks for breakfast and destroyed the other baseball teams with mind beams.
-
Bobster21
Hurdle
406566667358656D6F780A0 wrote: As I have said in past posts; I am a Hurdle supporter. PMike makes some solid comments regarding Hurdle. I’m sure Skinny will soon chime in to tell us why Hurdle is a moron. I share Skinny’s frustration; but it is not with Hurdle or NH but with Nutting.
As PMike pointed out, Clint tries not to get too high or too low which is important in a long baseball season. With all the tootblans and mistakes the players have made he keeps a calm demeanor. Some will say that Hurdle and his coaches are responsible for making sure those mistakes are not made. I say these players have been playing ball since a very young age at a high level. They should not me making mistakes that a little leaguer would know better than.
One big reason I like Hurdle is the life experiences he brings to the table. As people know, he was the anointed the next superstar in MLB. He pissed it away and never lived up to the hype. He has had to endure personnel strife within his family. He can pass on life experiences to younger players that can be used for motivation.
Bottom line however is that Clint has to manage the players that are given to him by the front office. As we all know; because of Nuttings spending habits; Clint has zero margin for error
Hurdle should stick to philosophy cause he sure can't manage a baseball team. We all get excited when we play above .500 baseball, but we forget what's inevitably coming. This team will hit a very rough patch and Hurdle will manage with his little formula's as nothing wrong and continually put this team in bad situations cause he wants to stick with the formula. This team can't win with a average manager (good guy), this team doesn't have the resources of LAD, NYY, Cubs, and on and on. That means we have to excel in other ways. I'm so tired of excuses for why we can't win. Managers aren't the biggest financial expense of any team, but they can have the biggest impact on a team. It happens time and time again in sports where a team hires the right guy and he turns a organization around. CH is one of the longest tenured managers and we have nothing to show for it. Excuses for batting guys like Cervelli 3rd for 4 weeks with nothing to show for it, batting Josh Bell 4th virtually all last year with 10 home runs, continually running out SRod to play 4 or 5 games a week, putting Watson in game situations after blowing 5 or 6 games in a row.
You say Hurdle is one of the longest tenured managers with nothing to show for it. The facts do not agree with you. Let’s look at past Pirate Managers and judge them by playoff appearances as that is what ultimately counts.
Danny Murtaugh 14 Years, 5 Playoffs=36%
Chuck Tanner 9 Years, 1 Playoff=11%
Jim Leyland 11Years, 3 Playoffs=27%
Gene Lamont 4 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Lloyd McClendon 5 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Jim Tracy 2 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
John Russell 2 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Clint Hurdle 8 Years, 3 Playoffs=38%
Now, you can argue that Murtaugh and Tanner won World Series. Bottom line however is that Hurdle has the highest post season average.
Ok, so by these stats Hurdle is more successful than Murtaugh. Murtaugh won 2 World Series. Tanner won 1 World Series. Leyland went to 3 consecutive NLCS and was 1 game away from the World Series in 2 of them. After those 3, Hurdle has the next most years as a Pirate manager. His accomplishment is going to the Wild Card game 3 times in a row, winning once and then losing the Division Series before getting to the NLCs and not getting past the WC game the other 2 years. By the way, all those managers you're comparing him to never had an opportunity to be 1 of 2 Wild Card participants. In fact Murtaugh finished 2nd in 1958. Too bad. No Wild Card game for you! That makes him worse than Hurdle by your reasoning. And you noted it yourself that Russell, Tracy, McClendon and Lamont had fewer years to achieve playoff appearances, even if the rules had been changed for them to add a 2nd WC team.
You talk about "post season average" by creating your brand new stat of appearances vs seasons. So success vs failure doesn't matter. But how did they do when they got there? Murtaugh, who didn't get to go to a Wild Card game after finishing 2nd in 1958 had a WS win (4-3) in 1960, lost 0-3 in a playoff in 1970, had playoff off wins of 3-1 in 1971 and a WS win of 4-3, and a playoff loss of 0-3 in 1975. So if we can go beyond playoffs vs years, we see Murtaugh had a post season record on 11-13 or 45.8% wins. Leyland was 8-12 in 3 playoffs for a pct of 40.0 Hurdle went 3-5 in his 3 playoff years for a pct of 37.5. It's ok if you like Hurdle but cherrypicking such obscure stats to try to say he's better than other Pirate managers who had much greater success defies belief.
As PMike pointed out, Clint tries not to get too high or too low which is important in a long baseball season. With all the tootblans and mistakes the players have made he keeps a calm demeanor. Some will say that Hurdle and his coaches are responsible for making sure those mistakes are not made. I say these players have been playing ball since a very young age at a high level. They should not me making mistakes that a little leaguer would know better than.
One big reason I like Hurdle is the life experiences he brings to the table. As people know, he was the anointed the next superstar in MLB. He pissed it away and never lived up to the hype. He has had to endure personnel strife within his family. He can pass on life experiences to younger players that can be used for motivation.
Bottom line however is that Clint has to manage the players that are given to him by the front office. As we all know; because of Nuttings spending habits; Clint has zero margin for error
Hurdle should stick to philosophy cause he sure can't manage a baseball team. We all get excited when we play above .500 baseball, but we forget what's inevitably coming. This team will hit a very rough patch and Hurdle will manage with his little formula's as nothing wrong and continually put this team in bad situations cause he wants to stick with the formula. This team can't win with a average manager (good guy), this team doesn't have the resources of LAD, NYY, Cubs, and on and on. That means we have to excel in other ways. I'm so tired of excuses for why we can't win. Managers aren't the biggest financial expense of any team, but they can have the biggest impact on a team. It happens time and time again in sports where a team hires the right guy and he turns a organization around. CH is one of the longest tenured managers and we have nothing to show for it. Excuses for batting guys like Cervelli 3rd for 4 weeks with nothing to show for it, batting Josh Bell 4th virtually all last year with 10 home runs, continually running out SRod to play 4 or 5 games a week, putting Watson in game situations after blowing 5 or 6 games in a row.
You say Hurdle is one of the longest tenured managers with nothing to show for it. The facts do not agree with you. Let’s look at past Pirate Managers and judge them by playoff appearances as that is what ultimately counts.
Danny Murtaugh 14 Years, 5 Playoffs=36%
Chuck Tanner 9 Years, 1 Playoff=11%
Jim Leyland 11Years, 3 Playoffs=27%
Gene Lamont 4 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Lloyd McClendon 5 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Jim Tracy 2 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
John Russell 2 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Clint Hurdle 8 Years, 3 Playoffs=38%
Now, you can argue that Murtaugh and Tanner won World Series. Bottom line however is that Hurdle has the highest post season average.
Ok, so by these stats Hurdle is more successful than Murtaugh. Murtaugh won 2 World Series. Tanner won 1 World Series. Leyland went to 3 consecutive NLCS and was 1 game away from the World Series in 2 of them. After those 3, Hurdle has the next most years as a Pirate manager. His accomplishment is going to the Wild Card game 3 times in a row, winning once and then losing the Division Series before getting to the NLCs and not getting past the WC game the other 2 years. By the way, all those managers you're comparing him to never had an opportunity to be 1 of 2 Wild Card participants. In fact Murtaugh finished 2nd in 1958. Too bad. No Wild Card game for you! That makes him worse than Hurdle by your reasoning. And you noted it yourself that Russell, Tracy, McClendon and Lamont had fewer years to achieve playoff appearances, even if the rules had been changed for them to add a 2nd WC team.
You talk about "post season average" by creating your brand new stat of appearances vs seasons. So success vs failure doesn't matter. But how did they do when they got there? Murtaugh, who didn't get to go to a Wild Card game after finishing 2nd in 1958 had a WS win (4-3) in 1960, lost 0-3 in a playoff in 1970, had playoff off wins of 3-1 in 1971 and a WS win of 4-3, and a playoff loss of 0-3 in 1975. So if we can go beyond playoffs vs years, we see Murtaugh had a post season record on 11-13 or 45.8% wins. Leyland was 8-12 in 3 playoffs for a pct of 40.0 Hurdle went 3-5 in his 3 playoff years for a pct of 37.5. It's ok if you like Hurdle but cherrypicking such obscure stats to try to say he's better than other Pirate managers who had much greater success defies belief.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Hurdle
6D404D5C5B4A5D1D1E2F0 wrote: As I have said in past posts; I am a Hurdle supporter. PMike makes some solid comments regarding Hurdle. I’m sure Skinny will soon chime in to tell us why Hurdle is a moron. I share Skinny’s frustration; but it is not with Hurdle or NH but with Nutting.
As PMike pointed out, Clint tries not to get too high or too low which is important in a long baseball season. With all the tootblans and mistakes the players have made he keeps a calm demeanor. Some will say that Hurdle and his coaches are responsible for making sure those mistakes are not made. I say these players have been playing ball since a very young age at a high level. They should not me making mistakes that a little leaguer would know better than.
One big reason I like Hurdle is the life experiences he brings to the table. As people know, he was the anointed the next superstar in MLB. He pissed it away and never lived up to the hype. He has had to endure personnel strife within his family. He can pass on life experiences to younger players that can be used for motivation.
Bottom line however is that Clint has to manage the players that are given to him by the front office. As we all know; because of Nuttings spending habits; Clint has zero margin for error
Hurdle should stick to philosophy cause he sure can't manage a baseball team. We all get excited when we play above .500 baseball, but we forget what's inevitably coming. This team will hit a very rough patch and Hurdle will manage with his little formula's as nothing wrong and continually put this team in bad situations cause he wants to stick with the formula. This team can't win with a average manager (good guy), this team doesn't have the resources of LAD, NYY, Cubs, and on and on. That means we have to excel in other ways. I'm so tired of excuses for why we can't win. Managers aren't the biggest financial expense of any team, but they can have the biggest impact on a team. It happens time and time again in sports where a team hires the right guy and he turns a organization around. CH is one of the longest tenured managers and we have nothing to show for it. Excuses for batting guys like Cervelli 3rd for 4 weeks with nothing to show for it, batting Josh Bell 4th virtually all last year with 10 home runs, continually running out SRod to play 4 or 5 games a week, putting Watson in game situations after blowing 5 or 6 games in a row.
You say Hurdle is one of the longest tenured managers with nothing to show for it. The facts do not agree with you. Let’s look at past Pirate Managers and judge them by playoff appearances as that is what ultimately counts.
Danny Murtaugh 14 Years, 5 Playoffs=36%
Chuck Tanner 9 Years, 1 Playoff=11%
Jim Leyland 11Years, 3 Playoffs=27%
Gene Lamont 4 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Lloyd McClendon 5 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Jim Tracy 2 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
John Russell 2 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Clint Hurdle 8 Years, 3 Playoffs=38%
Now, you can argue that Murtaugh and Tanner won World Series. Bottom line however is that Hurdle has the highest post season average.
Ok, so by these stats Hurdle is more successful than Murtaugh. Murtaugh won 2 World Series. Tanner won 1 World Series. Leyland went to 3 consecutive NLCS and was 1 game away from the World Series in 2 of them. After those 3, Hurdle has the next most years as a Pirate manager. His accomplishment is going to the Wild Card game 3 times in a row, winning once and then losing the Division Series before getting to the NLCs and not getting past the WC game the other 2 years. By the way, all those managers you're comparing him to never had an opportunity to be 1 of 2 Wild Card participants. In fact Murtaugh finished 2nd in 1958. Too bad. No Wild Card game for you! That makes him worse than Hurdle by your reasoning. And you noted it yourself that Russell, Tracy, McClendon and Lamont had fewer years to achieve playoff appearances, even if the rules had been changed for them to add a 2nd WC team.
You talk about "post season average" by creating your brand new stat of appearances vs seasons. So success vs failure doesn't matter. But how did they do when they got there? Murtaugh, who didn't get to go to a Wild Card game after finishing 2nd in 1958 had a WS win (4-3) in 1960, lost 0-3 in a playoff in 1970, had playoff off wins of 3-1 in 1971 and a WS win of 4-3, and a playoff loss of 0-3 in 1975. So if we can go beyond playoffs vs years, we see Murtaugh had a post season record on 11-13 or 45.8% wins. Leyland was 8-12 in 3 playoffs for a pct of 40.0 Hurdle went 3-5 in his 3 playoff years for a pct of 37.5. It's ok if you like Hurdle but cherrypicking such obscure stats to try to say he's better than other Pirate managers who had much greater success defies belief.
Okay, and there's no doubt you're right that those guys are better and have better success, but I'd argue that if Hurdle managed the '79 or '90s Pirates he'd do just about the same as the managers we had. I mean I love Cutch, but he's not Clemente or Stargell or Barry Bonds.
As PMike pointed out, Clint tries not to get too high or too low which is important in a long baseball season. With all the tootblans and mistakes the players have made he keeps a calm demeanor. Some will say that Hurdle and his coaches are responsible for making sure those mistakes are not made. I say these players have been playing ball since a very young age at a high level. They should not me making mistakes that a little leaguer would know better than.
One big reason I like Hurdle is the life experiences he brings to the table. As people know, he was the anointed the next superstar in MLB. He pissed it away and never lived up to the hype. He has had to endure personnel strife within his family. He can pass on life experiences to younger players that can be used for motivation.
Bottom line however is that Clint has to manage the players that are given to him by the front office. As we all know; because of Nuttings spending habits; Clint has zero margin for error
Hurdle should stick to philosophy cause he sure can't manage a baseball team. We all get excited when we play above .500 baseball, but we forget what's inevitably coming. This team will hit a very rough patch and Hurdle will manage with his little formula's as nothing wrong and continually put this team in bad situations cause he wants to stick with the formula. This team can't win with a average manager (good guy), this team doesn't have the resources of LAD, NYY, Cubs, and on and on. That means we have to excel in other ways. I'm so tired of excuses for why we can't win. Managers aren't the biggest financial expense of any team, but they can have the biggest impact on a team. It happens time and time again in sports where a team hires the right guy and he turns a organization around. CH is one of the longest tenured managers and we have nothing to show for it. Excuses for batting guys like Cervelli 3rd for 4 weeks with nothing to show for it, batting Josh Bell 4th virtually all last year with 10 home runs, continually running out SRod to play 4 or 5 games a week, putting Watson in game situations after blowing 5 or 6 games in a row.
You say Hurdle is one of the longest tenured managers with nothing to show for it. The facts do not agree with you. Let’s look at past Pirate Managers and judge them by playoff appearances as that is what ultimately counts.
Danny Murtaugh 14 Years, 5 Playoffs=36%
Chuck Tanner 9 Years, 1 Playoff=11%
Jim Leyland 11Years, 3 Playoffs=27%
Gene Lamont 4 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Lloyd McClendon 5 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Jim Tracy 2 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
John Russell 2 Years, 0 Playoffs=0%
Clint Hurdle 8 Years, 3 Playoffs=38%
Now, you can argue that Murtaugh and Tanner won World Series. Bottom line however is that Hurdle has the highest post season average.
Ok, so by these stats Hurdle is more successful than Murtaugh. Murtaugh won 2 World Series. Tanner won 1 World Series. Leyland went to 3 consecutive NLCS and was 1 game away from the World Series in 2 of them. After those 3, Hurdle has the next most years as a Pirate manager. His accomplishment is going to the Wild Card game 3 times in a row, winning once and then losing the Division Series before getting to the NLCs and not getting past the WC game the other 2 years. By the way, all those managers you're comparing him to never had an opportunity to be 1 of 2 Wild Card participants. In fact Murtaugh finished 2nd in 1958. Too bad. No Wild Card game for you! That makes him worse than Hurdle by your reasoning. And you noted it yourself that Russell, Tracy, McClendon and Lamont had fewer years to achieve playoff appearances, even if the rules had been changed for them to add a 2nd WC team.
You talk about "post season average" by creating your brand new stat of appearances vs seasons. So success vs failure doesn't matter. But how did they do when they got there? Murtaugh, who didn't get to go to a Wild Card game after finishing 2nd in 1958 had a WS win (4-3) in 1960, lost 0-3 in a playoff in 1970, had playoff off wins of 3-1 in 1971 and a WS win of 4-3, and a playoff loss of 0-3 in 1975. So if we can go beyond playoffs vs years, we see Murtaugh had a post season record on 11-13 or 45.8% wins. Leyland was 8-12 in 3 playoffs for a pct of 40.0 Hurdle went 3-5 in his 3 playoff years for a pct of 37.5. It's ok if you like Hurdle but cherrypicking such obscure stats to try to say he's better than other Pirate managers who had much greater success defies belief.
Okay, and there's no doubt you're right that those guys are better and have better success, but I'd argue that if Hurdle managed the '79 or '90s Pirates he'd do just about the same as the managers we had. I mean I love Cutch, but he's not Clemente or Stargell or Barry Bonds.
-
Bobster21
Hurdle
192B27273301222B26232C2B4A0 wrote:
Okay, and there's no doubt you're right that those guys are better and have better success, but I'd argue that if Hurdle managed the '79 or '90s Pirates he'd do just about the same as the managers we had. I mean I love Cutch, but he's not Clemente or Stargell or Barry Bonds.
Sammy, what would really be interesting is how today's magisterial strategies would have worked out in those other eras. For instance, holding starters to 100 pitches, basically eliminating CGs (even if the starter was cruising), reserving save situations for 1 reliever instead of using the best as a fireman, not routinely restricting relievers to 1 inning. Murtaugh, Tanner, Leyland and the other MLB managers didn't operate that way. I wonder if results would have been significantly different with different philosophies. A different result in a game here or there could have been the difference between 1st and 2nd place. I know that doesn't really address your point because if Hurdle had been managing in those days he would have managed the way that was common to all managers back then. And he would have had the talent those other Pirate managers enjoyed. It just makes me wonder how different things might have been for all teams if the games then were managed as they are now.
Okay, and there's no doubt you're right that those guys are better and have better success, but I'd argue that if Hurdle managed the '79 or '90s Pirates he'd do just about the same as the managers we had. I mean I love Cutch, but he's not Clemente or Stargell or Barry Bonds.
Sammy, what would really be interesting is how today's magisterial strategies would have worked out in those other eras. For instance, holding starters to 100 pitches, basically eliminating CGs (even if the starter was cruising), reserving save situations for 1 reliever instead of using the best as a fireman, not routinely restricting relievers to 1 inning. Murtaugh, Tanner, Leyland and the other MLB managers didn't operate that way. I wonder if results would have been significantly different with different philosophies. A different result in a game here or there could have been the difference between 1st and 2nd place. I know that doesn't really address your point because if Hurdle had been managing in those days he would have managed the way that was common to all managers back then. And he would have had the talent those other Pirate managers enjoyed. It just makes me wonder how different things might have been for all teams if the games then were managed as they are now.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Hurdle
Yeah, I wonder if you dropped a "modern" management team and how they operate into a time machine to compete with those guys, like you said. Would they would take the league by storm or fail miserably? Would the players listen to their strange idea? Not only the bullpen side but taking more pitches and caring about OBP more, shifts, etc.
Hurdle
0C3E32322614373E3336393E5F0 wrote: Yeah, I wonder if you dropped a "modern" management team and how they operate into a time machine to compete with those guys, like you said. Would they would take the league by storm or fail miserably? Would the players listen to their strange idea? Not only the bullpen side but taking more pitches and caring about OBP more, shifts, etc.
Speaking from what I remember in the 1970's (I started following in 60's but don't remember anything other than players names before 1969) I think a modern management team would have a hard time with players.
Maybe the players would adjust eventually. But roster construction would be different, I don't think any team carried more than 10 pitchers throughout the 1970's. As far as getting batters to take more pitches I think with most pitchers that would have been a failing strategy as hitters would be behind in the count. Players probably could have been convinced pretty easily about obp being important.
Probably convincing starting pitchers to pitch less would be the most difficult change. I think there was a lot of pride involved and those that could pitch 300 innings a year wanted to do it. Now if there would be stats to show them about injuries and how those might be reduced by pitching less that could have helped change their thinking.
In Christy Mathieson's book he talks about saving stuff for later in the game and for the best hitters. Trying to get the weaker hitters out quickly, and about finding out which players were "yellow" (could be intimidated and then become easier outs). A lot of that pitching philosophy still existed in the 1970's.
Speaking from what I remember in the 1970's (I started following in 60's but don't remember anything other than players names before 1969) I think a modern management team would have a hard time with players.
Maybe the players would adjust eventually. But roster construction would be different, I don't think any team carried more than 10 pitchers throughout the 1970's. As far as getting batters to take more pitches I think with most pitchers that would have been a failing strategy as hitters would be behind in the count. Players probably could have been convinced pretty easily about obp being important.
Probably convincing starting pitchers to pitch less would be the most difficult change. I think there was a lot of pride involved and those that could pitch 300 innings a year wanted to do it. Now if there would be stats to show them about injuries and how those might be reduced by pitching less that could have helped change their thinking.
In Christy Mathieson's book he talks about saving stuff for later in the game and for the best hitters. Trying to get the weaker hitters out quickly, and about finding out which players were "yellow" (could be intimidated and then become easier outs). A lot of that pitching philosophy still existed in the 1970's.