Two years later ...

[dogknot17@yahoo.co]

2D01090E0522150313600 wrote: Isn't the real question (from at least the fans perspective) is what prospects should the Pirates send the Red Sox to take Hurdle off of our hands? 



While the 2017 season was very disappointing, the decision to offer Clint a 4 year extension was the epitome of rubbing salt in an open wound.  Clint clearly seemed to be leading the team in going through the motions for much of the season.  I have no idea who would be better than him at this point, but I sure was hoping for a change.


This gives me hope that an entire rebuild is not going to happen. I don't want that. I think adding a few players can get the Pirates back to the Playoffs. A new manager for a small market might mean a total rebuild.



Watching the Playoffs and how other managers manage, I am not sure if there is someone significantly better. Its like managers don't have any more ideas. Boston fired their manager and rumor of Yankees firing theirs if they lost.

[SammyKhalifa]

Frankly, I think changing managers in baseball makes little difference and thinking otherwise is foolish. I'm sure there is some difference on the margins but for the most part it's scapegoating.

[dogknot17@yahoo.co]

467478786C5E7D74797C7374150 wrote: Frankly, I think changing managers in baseball makes little difference and thinking otherwise is foolish.  I'm sure there is some difference on the margins but for the most part it's scapegoating.


I believe in managing, but they all seem to do the same foolish things.

[SammyKhalifa]

If they all do it maybe there's a reason

[dogknot17@yahoo.co]

Yeah, but there is so much analysis and statistics that say they shouldn't do certain things.

[Bobster21]

I agree that most managers do the same things and therefore don't make a lot of difference. And a team like the Pirates that wants to be competitive with a consistently inexpensive roster needs an exceptional manager rather than an ordinary one. I believe Hurdle was an ordinary manager prior to this year and became below average with his emphasis on rest, constantly changing lineups and waiting too long to replace an ineffective Watson as closer. He, like others, manages by formula.



Formula managing is why most managers seem very much alike. It protects them from criticism because people just accept that they managed correctly. Fans and media accept that an effective pitcher should be replaced merely because he reached the magic 100 pitch count. They accept that an effective reliever should be replaced because the next inning is a different reliever's inning to pitch. If a manager strays from the formula and it fails, he's criticized. If he sticks to the formula and it fails, they say he managed correctly. 



Managers copy other managers. Not always for the best. The closer concept was initiated by Tony LaRussa when he had a strong bullpen headed by a nearly unhittable Dennis Eckersley. He decided that he had the pen to hold the other team in check and then shut them down in the 9th with Eckersley. It worked so every other team adopted the same strategy. But some didn't (and don't) have a strong enough pen to get to the 9th unscathed or a strong enough closer to be unhittable in the 9th. And it doesn't mean the previous strategy of using your best reliever to get out of jams instead of holding him for the 9th to pick up a save stat was wrong. It worked well for decades and some studies now indicate it is a better use of the bullpen than the accepted closer concept. The point is, what works for one team doesn't always work for others. But because managers accept formulas and run with them, we see the same types of decisions made from manager to manager even if it doesn't benefit that team.   

[IABucFan]

58535B575253480D0B7C455D545353125F533C0 wrote: Isn't the real question (from at least the fans perspective) is what prospects should the Pirates send the Red Sox to take Hurdle off of our hands? 



While the 2017 season was very disappointing, the decision to offer Clint a 4 year extension was the epitome of rubbing salt in an open wound.  Clint clearly seemed to be leading the team in going through the motions for much of the season.  I have no idea who would be better than him at this point, but I sure was hoping for a change.


This gives me hope that an entire rebuild is not going to happen.  I don't want that.  I think adding a few players can get the Pirates back to the Playoffs.  A new manager for a small market might mean a total rebuild. 



Watching the Playoffs and how other managers manage, I am not sure if there is someone significantly better.  Its like managers don't have any more ideas.  Boston fired their manager and rumor of Yankees firing theirs if they lost.




I still say to blow the whole thing up. Maybe I'm just salty from this season. I don't know...I haven't watched a single baseball game in about two months, even being an MLB.tv subscriber. But, as I look out at the landscape around MLB, I see the Dodgers having an endless money stream, the Cubs being young, and also having lots of resources, the Brewers being an up and coming team, the Cards being the Cards. And over in the other league, the Yankees are winning like a small-market team, with their best player being a rookie, plus having a top-three farm system, and also endless money. The Astros are young. I look at MLB and I don't see how the Pirates can compete. That's disheartening. Blow it up and try again in five years. Maybe things will have shifted by then.

[dogknot17@yahoo.co]

01090A3D2B0E2926480 wrote: Isn't the real question (from at least the fans perspective) is what prospects should the Pirates send the Red Sox to take Hurdle off of our hands? 



While the 2017 season was very disappointing, the decision to offer Clint a 4 year extension was the epitome of rubbing salt in an open wound.  Clint clearly seemed to be leading the team in going through the motions for much of the season.  I have no idea who would be better than him at this point, but I sure was hoping for a change.


This gives me hope that an entire rebuild is not going to happen.  I don't want that.  I think adding a few players can get the Pirates back to the Playoffs.  A new manager for a small market might mean a total rebuild. 



Watching the Playoffs and how other managers manage, I am not sure if there is someone significantly better.  Its like managers don't have any more ideas.  Boston fired their manager and rumor of Yankees firing theirs if they lost.




I still say to blow the whole thing up. Maybe I'm just salty from this season. I don't know...I haven't watched a single baseball game in about two months, even being an MLB.tv subscriber. But, as I look out at the landscape around MLB, I see the Dodgers having an endless money stream, the Cubs being young, and also having lots of resources, the Brewers being an up and coming team, the Cards being the Cards. And over in the other league, the Yankees are winning like a small-market team, with their best player being a rookie, plus having a top-three farm system, and also endless money. The Astros are young. I look at MLB and I don't see how the Pirates can compete. That's disheartening. Blow it up and try again in five years. Maybe things will have shifted by then.


The best team in the AL (2nd overall in MLB) and the second best team in the NL (4th) are out of the playoffs. Anyone can compete once you get to the Playoffs. 92 win teams and 91 win teams are still alive in the playoffs. The Pirates have enough talent to get back to that 90 win plateau in my opinion.

[dogknot17@yahoo.co]

5D707D6C6B7A6D2D2E1F0 wrote: I agree that most managers do the same things and therefore don't make a lot of difference. And a team like the Pirates that wants to be competitive with a consistently inexpensive roster needs an exceptional manager rather than an ordinary one. I believe Hurdle was an ordinary manager prior to this year and became below average with his emphasis on rest, constantly changing lineups and waiting too long to replace an ineffective Watson as closer. He, like others, manages by formula.



Formula managing is why most managers seem very much alike. It protects them from criticism because people just accept that they managed correctly. Fans and media accept that an effective pitcher should be replaced merely because he reached the magic 100 pitch count. They accept that an effective reliever should be replaced because the next inning is a different reliever's inning to pitch. If a manager strays from the formula and it fails, he's criticized. If he sticks to the formula and it fails, they say he managed correctly. 



Managers copy other managers. Not always for the best. The closer concept was initiated by Tony LaRussa when he had a strong bullpen headed by a nearly unhittable Dennis Eckersley. He decided that he had the pen to hold the other team in check and then shut them down in the 9th with Eckersley. It worked so every other team adopted the same strategy. But some didn't (and don't) have a strong enough pen to get to the 9th unscathed or a strong enough closer to be untittable in the 9th. And it doesn't mean the previous strategy of using your best reliever to get out of jams instead of holding him for the 9th to pick up a save stat was wrong. It worked well for decades and some studies now indicate it is a better use of the bullpen than the accepted closer concept. The point is, what works for one team doesn't always work for others. But because managers accept formulas and run with them, we see the same types of decisions made from manager to manager even if it doesn't benefit that team.   


I agree with most of this. A lot of copy cat. But you do need the talent to do certain things. I also feel when you lose, more is pointed out. I think a problem is that the manager has to answer questions to the media after every single game. If they did that once a week and weren't questioned so much, maybe they would manage differently. With that said, they shouldn't worry what the media thinks, but we know how every word gets twisted or remembered.

[Bobster21]

505B535F5A5B400503744D555C5B5B1A575B340 wrote: I agree that most managers do the same things and therefore don't make a lot of difference. And a team like the Pirates that wants to be competitive with a consistently inexpensive roster needs an exceptional manager rather than an ordinary one. I believe Hurdle was an ordinary manager prior to this year and became below average with his emphasis on rest, constantly changing lineups and waiting too long to replace an ineffective Watson as closer. He, like others, manages by formula.



Formula managing is why most managers seem very much alike. It protects them from criticism because people just accept that they managed correctly. Fans and media accept that an effective pitcher should be replaced merely because he reached the magic 100 pitch count. They accept that an effective reliever should be replaced because the next inning is a different reliever's inning to pitch. If a manager strays from the formula and it fails, he's criticized. If he sticks to the formula and it fails, they say he managed correctly. 



Managers copy other managers. Not always for the best. The closer concept was initiated by Tony LaRussa when he had a strong bullpen headed by a nearly unhittable Dennis Eckersley. He decided that he had the pen to hold the other team in check and then shut them down in the 9th with Eckersley. It worked so every other team adopted the same strategy. But some didn't (and don't) have a strong enough pen to get to the 9th unscathed or a strong enough closer to be unhittable in the 9th. And it doesn't mean the previous strategy of using your best reliever to get out of jams instead of holding him for the 9th to pick up a save stat was wrong. It worked well for decades and some studies now indicate it is a better use of the bullpen than the accepted closer concept. The point is, what works for one team doesn't always work for others. But because managers accept formulas and run with them, we see the same types of decisions made from manager to manager even if it doesn't benefit that team.   


I agree with most of this.  A lot of copy cat.  But you do need the talent to do certain things.  I also feel when you lose, more is pointed out.  I think a problem is that the manager has to answer questions to the media after every single game.  If they did that once a week and weren't questioned so much, maybe they would manage differently.  With that said, they shouldn't worry what the media thinks, but we know how every word gets twisted or remembered.


Good point about the frequent exposure to media. Managers seem to stick to the accepted formulas to avoid blame as much as possible when things go wrong and there's always someone from the media to ask them about it.