PDA

View Full Version : First Annual Jerry Manuel Award goes to....


hose
10-07-2003, 07:26 PM
A's manager Ken Macha for pinch hitting Adam Melhuse, a 31 year old career minor leaguer, for Jermaine Dye and hoping the Red Sox would walk him.

Here is a partial story from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2003/10/07/SPGLE26QHV1.DTL :
Oakland had rallied from the edge of winter (a 4-1 deficit to Pedro Martinez in the sixth inning ) to come to 4-3 going into the bottom of the ninth. Boston manager Grady Little brought on his closer du jour (because that's how long they usually last), Scott Williamson, and Williamson responded by walking both Scott Hatteberg and Jose Guillen. Little replaced Williamson with Lowe, and Ramon Hernandez bunted over both runners, with Dye, the team's most expensive and most likely flyball hitter, due up.

Except that Macha replaced the veteran Dye with the rookie Melhuse, saying, "I was thinking perhaps they'd walk him, then I'd have Chris (Singleton) hitting with one out, and he has some speed, so the chance of a double play is diminished a little bit.''

The decision was jaw- slackening. The explanation was worse. Playing for a walk? With Singleton and either Frank Menechino (who was in the game) or Long (who ultimately batted for Menechino) due up? It falls somewhere short of incomprehensible, but well past, "What?!''

So, of course it ended as it had to end. Lowe fell behind Melhuse before coming back and locking him up with that hellish 91-mph sinker for strike three. Lowe fell behind Singleton and ultimately walked him, but Long, who has been in mothballs for most of the second half of the season, got the same thing at the same speed in the same place.

FarWestChicago
10-07-2003, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by hose
The decision was jaw- slackening. The explanation was worse. Playing for a walk? With Singleton and either Frank Menechino (who was in the game) or Long (who ultimately batted for Menechino) due up? It falls somewhere short of incomprehensible, but well past, "What?!''I think this may be taking this whole plate discipline thing a little too far. :D:

soxtalker
10-07-2003, 08:28 PM
Both of these teams are run according to philosophies similar to that espoused in Moneyball. Oakland is further along, but Boston is at least heading that direction. So, a couple of things don't make sense to me about that 9th inning.

First, why did Ramon Hernandez bunt over both runners? They make a big deal in Moneyball about Beane chewing out anyone who lays down a sacrifice bunt.

Second, Beane doesn't like walks. Period. Putting a runner on first base increases the chances that there will be run forced in. So, Oakland, knowing that Boston may be looking at things in a similar way to them, should realize that the Red Sox will be very reluctant to issue an intentional walk. Maybe they'll do it to avoid Dye, but that's not even certain.

I haven't watched Oakland during the season, so maybe Macha has managed in a manner very different than that discussed in Moneyball. But it would surprise me. I wonder what the conversations between Billy Beane and Ken Macha will be like.

ode to veeck
10-07-2003, 10:19 PM
A's fans are still dumfounded today why Jermaine Dye was replaced with the PH who horribly swung at two realy bad pitches after they showed great plate discipline early in the inning ... I don't think JM could have pulled this boner any better


On the other hand, why would anyone bring in Alan Embree in any critical game situation is beyond me. In this case he actually got the 1st two outs, whereas the other night he gave up the tie in eventual Wrong Sox loss in longest DLCS game ever

RichH55
10-08-2003, 05:39 AM
Dye has been terrible this year as well.

Long, Singleton, and Dye as a potential OF? Not good times

hose
10-08-2003, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
A's fans are still dumfounded today why Jermaine Dye was replaced with the PH who horribly swung at two realy bad pitches after they showed great plate discipline early in the inning ... I don't think JM could have pulled this boner any better


On the other hand, why would anyone bring in Alan Embree in any critical game situation is beyond me. In this case he actually got the 1st two outs, whereas the other night he gave up the tie in eventual Wrong Sox loss in longest DLCS game ever


Good call.

When I seen Embree come running in I was shocked. Then when he got the job done I was even more shocked.

Embree's mojo must have been transfered to Williamson.

Dadawg_77
10-08-2003, 10:09 AM
Embree has been pretty good with the Red Sox the past two years.

Here is the thing with bunting, in the ninth inning when you need at least one to stay alive it may make sence to bunt people over. But in innings 1-7 it doesn't make a whole lot of sence to give up outs. In this situation you put the tying run at third and the go ahead run at second. A base hit could score both and you have two outs to play with.

soxtalker
10-08-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Embree has been pretty good with the Red Sox the past two years.

Here is the thing with bunting, in the ninth inning when you need at least one to stay alive it may make sence to bunt people over. But in innings 1-7 it doesn't make a whole lot of sence to give up outs. In this situation you put the tying run at third and the go ahead run at second. A base hit could score both and you have two outs to play with.

Let me elaborate on my earlier post concerning my surprise on the bunting tactic. It wasn't so much that I disagreed with it. (I'm not leaning one way or the other right now.) Rather, I was simply surprised that Oakland employed it, given Beane's strong opposition to it.

SoxOnTop
10-08-2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by soxtalker
Let me elaborate on my earlier post concerning my surprise on the bunting tactic. It wasn't so much that I disagreed with it. (I'm not leaning one way or the other right now.) Rather, I was simply surprised that Oakland employed it, given Beane's strong opposition to it.

I'm not quite as surprised, since Beane's philisophy is based on a 162 game sample size. In the course of a 162 game season, the statistics will even out and not giving away a sacrifce bunt will add runs to your total. In a 5 game series, however, you can't bank on the percentages evening out since you will at most play 5 games. Hence, you need to take chances and hope it pays off in the short run, since there is no long run.

If I were Beane, I would have fired Macha already. Dye goes 3-4 the night before including a clutch 2 run HR and you pinch hit for him hoping for a WALK?! :o:

I must say, watching Little and Macha out there the last week almost makes Manual look like a good manager.

Dadawg_77
10-08-2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by soxtalker
Let me elaborate on my earlier post concerning my surprise on the bunting tactic. It wasn't so much that I disagreed with it. (I'm not leaning one way or the other right now.) Rather, I was simply surprised that Oakland employed it, given Beane's strong opposition to it.

I was saying why Beane in that situation would approve of the bunt tactic. What the A's hate is bunting to move a runner over in the early part of the game.

voodoochile
10-08-2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I was saying why Beane in that situation would approve of the bunt tactic. What the A's hate is bunting to move a runner over in the early part of the game.

That is stupid. You are much better off playing for big innings early in the game. Bunting a man to second with nobody out actually reduces your odds of getting him home. However, I would bet that bunting a guy from second to third with no one out increases your odds of getting them home.

Anyone know those stats?

faneidde
10-08-2003, 12:43 PM
Pinch hitting for Dye may have been the worst managerial move in baseball history. He had been swinging a lot beter latley and absolutley crushed a ball in game 4. If the A's don't pinch hit Dye, I'd bet anything they'd be playing the Yankees now and not Boston.

MarkEdward
10-08-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
That is stupid. You are much better off playing for big innings early in the game. Bunting a man to second with nobody out actually reduces your odds of getting him home. However, I would bet that bunting a guy from second to third with no one out increases your odds of getting them home.

Anyone know those stats?

Here you go:
http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/050221.html

The NERV chart should help you out.

poorme
10-08-2003, 01:24 PM
note that those numbers don't tell you the odds of scoring exactly one run . it tells you how many runs would be expected to score, given different situations.

Jerko
10-08-2003, 02:00 PM
I think JM was bad enough to make this a weekly, not an annual, award.

Dadawg_77
10-08-2003, 02:07 PM
The folks over at BP say a runner have a 64% chance of scoring from Second with no out and a 69% chance of scoring from Third with one out.

gosox41
10-08-2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by SoxOnTop


I must say, watching Little and Macha out there the last week almost makes Manual look like a good manager.


Should the part about Manuel be in teal?

Bob

pudge
10-08-2003, 03:16 PM
In Jerry's defense, I don't think even he would have made that move...

Wow, the A's blew that series more than any play-off team I've seen ever... those running gaffes in Game Three were unbelieveable... I would be so PO'ed at my team if I were an A's fan...

FarWestChicago
10-08-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by pudge
Wow, the A's blew that series more than any play-off team I've seen ever... those running gaffes in Game Three were unbelieveable... I would be so PO'ed at my team if I were an A's fan... :keith

Hey, don't forget about me!