Backman turned down by Mets for AA job

[Guest sharpie]

Part of the job of being a manager, especially in New York, is dealing with media, doing public relations, etc. Could Backman have been effective that way? I don't know, but Randolph did know the territory and for the most part handled himself pretty well in that arena. Torre's mastery of that aspect of his job has as much to do with his still being there as winning those 4 World Series.

[Guest Mark Healey]

sharpie wrote: Part of the job of being a manager, especially in New York, is dealing with media, doing public relations, etc. Could Backman have been effective that way? I don't know, but Randolph did know the territory and for the most part handled himself pretty well in that arena. Torre's mastery of that aspect of his job has as much to do with his still being there as winning those 4 World Series.

Having spoken to the man, and my partner having covered him when he was a Met, he'd be fine. No woirse than Willie, that's for sure.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

So if Willie isn't a "blood and guts" manager does that make him a "no opinion suit" or yet another category?

I don't believe WWSB is an automaton doing Omar's bidding, partly because I don't give Omar credit for being that calculating and partly because it was obvious WWSB demonstrated he was freewheeling enough to make his own wobbly decisions.

And while I can see not being a cheerleader, I don't get all the Morganesque hostility toward Beane. Change in baseball is glacially slow and fans ought to be happy a different approach is even being explored. Writers at one time railed against the home run and integration too.

Folks who want a managerial change in Metland have to realize that Willie can screw up game decisions all day long but isn't going anywhere unless or until Pedro or Beltran says he oughta. Mientkiewicz bitching obviously isn;t going to be enough.

[MFS62]

"And while I can see not being a cheerleader, I don't get all the Morganesque hostility toward Beane. Change in baseball is glacially slow and fans ought to be happy a different approach is even being explored."

To me, Morgan is an example of the reticence to change that you mention among baseball "traditionalists". (For lack of a better word) In the case of Beane, they are waiting to see if his theories produce a world series winner and sunsequent winning tradition, however they will measure that. One would guess that if the A's begin to be highly successful, those writers will begin writing tons of articles about how the rest of baseball should start emulating him.

You're right. From reading posts on various sites, it seems like the fans, and especially the ones comfortable with new player performance measures, have begun to have a higher degree of appreciation for his theory. But he isn't only about stats. His approach still incorporates a good deal of traditional thinking, especially in terms of scouting skills as well as tools. But many of the writers, like Morgan can't seem to get by the stats part, and base their opinions only on that. Its just my gut feel.

Later

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

What most folks don't fully appreciate is Beane's strategy was borne of economic pressures and that succeeding in the face of them meant attacking weaknesses in traditional practices to exploit underlying value; not merely for the sport of it.

The "win a World Series standard" is impossibly high and by that measure, every strategy is a failure. Beane's teams have averaged 93.7 wins a year over the last 7 years -- only the Yankees (680 wins) and Atlanta (674 wins) have won more games since 1999 than Oakland (656).

[Frayed Knot]

btw ... if the ChiSox get credit for hiring the 'rough-and-tumble' Guillen do they also get demerits for rejecting Backman?
Wally, IIRC, was not only passed over but was none too happy about the way it went down considering the success he had had with that organization.

[Guest Edgy DC]

In many ways, I'm sure teams will fashion their attitude toward the results based on their early conclusions.

Beane has succeeded, and succeeded consistently. No, he hasn't produced a Series winner. But a lot has to break right for that to happen also, particluarly with a team with a craptastic budget. It's a tough standard to hold him... Oh crap, I'm scrolling down now and seeing that Dickshot has already said all this. What a Dickshot.

Frayed Knot, send me a PM with a number from one to 500.

[Guest Mark Healey]

]So if Willie isn't a "blood and guts" manager does that make him a "no opinion suit" or yet another category?

I think Willie is a feel manager who has no clue how to manage a pitching staff, which is why the Mets had RP running that group last year. He's certainly has gone out of his way to state he's not a "stats guy".

]I don't believe WWSB is an automaton doing Omar's bidding, partly because I don't give Omar credit for being that calculating and partly because it was obvious WWSB demonstrated he was freewheeling enough to make his own wobbly decisions.

Agreed, but I never said he was.

]And while I can see not being a cheerleader, I don't get all the Morganesque hostility toward Beane. Change in baseball is glacially slow and fans ought to be happy a different approach is even being explored. Writers at one time railed against the home run and integration too.

Ultimately, it's Beane's arrogance and disdain for "media", and his contention that "luck" is why his teams don't win playoff rounds, is what that gets him in trouble with writers.

]Folks who want a managerial change in Metland have to realize that Willie can screw up game decisions all day long but isn't going anywhere unless or until Pedro or Beltran says he oughta. Mientkiewicz bitching obviously isn;t going to be enough.

I've said that plenty of times myself, but I also think that a high payroll complicates that dynamic a bit.

[Guest Mark Healey]

="Johnny Dickshot"]What most folks don't fully appreciate is Beane's strategy was borne of economic pressures and that succeeding in the face of them meant attacking weaknesses in traditional practices to exploit underlying value; not merely for the sport of it. The "win a World Series standard" is impossibly high and by that measure, every strategy is a failure. Beane's teams have averaged 93.7 wins a year over the last 7 years -- only the Yankees (680 wins) and Atlanta (674 wins) have won more games since 1999 than Oakland (656).

How about winning a playoff round? You can only blame bad luck so many times.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I haven't blamed bad luck even once yet. Beane's underlying point is that even the best teams are capable of losing any 3 of 5. Which is true and not all that controversial.

I'll agree Terrence Long & Jeremy Giambi's screwups were bad plays and not necessarily bad luck, but otoh it's not as if having Foulke on the mound with a one-run lead in a closeout game is evidence of poor design.

[Guest Mark Healey]

]I haven't blamed bad luck even once yet. Beane's underlying point is that even the best teams are capable of losing any 3 of 5. Which is true and not all that controversial.

I never said you did. Beane does, all the time.

]I'll agree Terrence Long & Jeremy Giambi's screwups were bad plays and not necessarily bad luck, but otoh it's not as if having Foulke on the mound with a one-run lead in a closeout game is evidence of poor design.

Good point.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I get a lot more media contempt of Beane than Beane contempt of the media.

For what it's worth, Joe Frazier won five pennants in 10 years managing in the minors. He was reportedly deprived of a sixth by less than one percentage pont, because of a rainout that wasn't made up. (Not like his team was guaranteed to win that.) That doesn't mean much because I don't really have much against Frazier as few managers have ever had a carpet pulled out from under them as he did in 1976. Nonetheless his tenure is largely (but not exclusively) regarded as a failure.

These types of discussions are maddeningly unresovleable because folks never agree on what is a fair standard on which to judge a manager. Did Casey Stengel make Mickey Mantle and company better, or did Mickey Mantle and company just make Casey look good?

Until one of us lands a fat grant, I don't think those eggs are about to be unscrambled.

[Guest Mark Healey]

Edgy DC wrote: I get a lot more media contempt of Beane as Beane contempt of the media. For what it's worth, Joe Frazier won five pennants in 10 years managing in the minors. He was reportedly deprived of a sixth by less than one percentage pont, because of a rainout that wasn't made up. (Not like his team was guaranteed to win that.) That doesn't mean much because I don't really have much against Frazier as few managers have ever had a carpet pulled out from under them as he did in 1976. Nonetheless his tenure is largely (but not exclusively) regarded as a failure. These types of discussions are maddeningly unresovleable because folks never agree on what is a fair standard on which to judge a manager. Did Casey Stengel make Mickey Mantle and company better, or did Mickey Mantle and company just make Casey look good. Until one of us lands a fat grant, I don't think those eggs are about to be unscrambled.

Very true.

[Frayed Knot]

On the semi-related topic of 'Moneyball' bashing, the Sporting News chips in this week with a headline that reads;
'Who are the suckers now? White Sox & Astros prove teams don't need Moneyball or power to be successful'

(umm, who ever said that you did?)

... and then go on to write an article which claims a lot, backs up little, uses individual examples as a substitute for proof, and continues to mis-state what the book was all about.

... [in 'Moneyball'] "legions of folks piled up evidence that defence, steals and bunts are for suckers"
No. They. Didn't.

[small ball is] "the way baseball should be"
Oh really? What stone tablet did that come down on?

They then go on to offer a bunch of stats which are often in direct contradiction to their point. I mean I wonder if it occured to them that pointing out that the two WS teams were;
- each 3rd in their respective leagues in SBs;
- 1st + 2nd in caught stealing;
- 1st & 4th in Sac hits;
- 12th and T12th in OBA;
had anything to do with the fact that they were 9th & 11th in runs scored, or even that being below average in runs scored is a bad thing?
Like maybe if the two teams weren't getting runners erased at a 30% clip whenever they set them in motion that those runs scored ranks wouldn't be as low.


And just maybe the teams each being 2nd in team ERA had something to do with the winning thing?

[metirish]

IIRC Frayed Knot Ken Willimas got bashed a bit in "Moneyball", or at least came accross as if he got duped by Beane...

[Frayed Knot]

The only hit I remember Williams taking in the book was when he (inexplicably in Beane's mind) drafted (reliever) Royce Ring ahead of (starter) Joe Blanton.


And I don't bring this topic up to bash Williams. Now is certainly not the time to be doing this as it's obvious that Williams had himself a helluva year.
It's just that the media in general is in love with "small ball" and seem to go out of their way to "prove" it's the right choice, often by selectively picking only those stats which back their point while ignoring others (like neglecting to mention that the 'small ball' Sox were 4th in AL HRs).
In other words, it's the classic case of choosing the conclusion first and then building a story around that. And in this case, 'The Sporting News' didn't even do a very good job of that.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Well, the best defense for small ball in this context is that, if you're going to be 9th and 11th in run scored, small ball (as if that's a monolith ---- "moneyballers on this side and small-ballers on that") can help you score those fewer runs at the right time.

The funny thiing to me is that a key to the moneyball strategy --- valuing guys who can get a walk --- used to be a key to the small ball strategy (at least as I understood it), until these stupid lines got drawn. Backman and Randolph were certainly good at working walks.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Again, it's not so much about deciding upon the one true religion, but the most economicly feasible strategy.

Beane eschewed SBs and selected for walks not necessarily because they were superior strategies (even tho they probably are) but becaiuse they were superior strategies given the market.

Walks were trading at a lower multiple of earnings than Stolen Bases, so he bought Walks and outfitted a strategy around them.

[nymr83]

]And just maybe the teams each being 2nd in team ERA had something to do with the winning thing?

bingo!