Fire Gibbons?

[shortstop]

tdott,

 

it's a flawed team/organization...my sense is the team needs an philosophical shift & new blood everywhere...but usually, in most markets, it's only after an epically terrible season or usually, X # of yrs of mediocre baseball & then finally a really terrible year, that the political winds allow for a complete rebuild...i'm sure it's been done, with the most recent example being Miami when the city/fans weren't ready for it, when the team starts over, but by and large, it's rare imo...and yeah, how's that Marlins team & future looking now?! but yeah, politically, huge risk for mgmt to recommend a total rebuild before it's politically acceptable...

 

and winning solves a lot of issues & leads to more positivity...AA is definitely feeling the heat & while imo, think he's good for next year, he'll be praying the team doesn't choke & have a brutal season again...

 

as bad as this team has been, still imo wasn't bad enough to justify the sacking of anyone & everyone...hate to say that & wish/hope I'm wrong b/c I'd love a complete rebuild from top down/bottom up...so all we got is 'hope' for next year with essentially most of the same characters, short of an unexpected decision from Rogers who imo, won't damage their brand/take on the risk of a complete rebuild right now...

[Vincent]

Fair enough. I honestly don't know what another manager couldve done with this team, and I don't buy the tactician stuff because in this day and age, it comes from a bench coach holding a binder with numbers. Whats obvious is that Gibbons hasn't won with this team despite the payroll. I agree that Beeston and AA should go, and if they do, Gibbons is gone.

 

OK but Gibbons not winning with "high pay-roll team" has nothing to do with Gibbons, AA has over-valued and over-paid for players.

[KingKat]

Lol

 

Care to elaborate?

[Vincent]

Their literally should be a computer telling managers what to do. With the manager having a veto if the guys arm is fallen off, is high, drunk etc

 

This is actually a good idea except that the manager would never do this because he'd be putting his job in jeopardy.

[CHRIS]

Their literally should be a computer telling managers what to do. With the manager having a veto if the guys arm is fallen off, is high, drunk etc

 

You understand that this game is played by humans, right? Humans who react to decisions and situations in a human way?

 

It's all well and good to say, for example, that a manager should bat his best hitter second in the lineup because there's evidence to support that decision, but it's another thing to do it and get a player to buy into it. Whether we like it or not, the "best" decisions in theory may not always be the same in practice, in part due to human behavior.

 

For example, would you rather have a sulky Bautista hitting second who is unhappy because he thinks he filling a slap hitters role, or would you rather have a confident Bautista who is proud of hitting in the spot that many think is reserved for the best hitter on the team?

 

I think a good manager in today's game needs to provide a balance between the archaic Jim Leyland type guys at one extreme, and the computer toting guy at the other extreme. In my opinion Gibbons does a pretty decent job of finding that balance. I would keep him personally. While I think there's a chance they could find somebody better than Gibbons, I feel like they are more likely to find someone far worse.

[KingKat]

I think a good manager in today's game needs to provide a balance between the archaic Jim Leyland type guys at one extreme, and the computer toting guy at the other extreme. In my opinion Gibbons does a pretty decent job of finding that balance. I would keep him personally. While I think there's a chance they could find somebody better than Gibbons, I feel like they are more likely to find someone far worse.

 

I would agree with this. Gibson isn't a sabermatrician. He's really an old school guy but from the Earl Weaver school more than the Whitey Herzog school and that's fine. It's about as good as you can hope for without running so afoul of baseball culture that you alienate people. There may be a few managers more progressive than Gibbons out there (Maddon, Acta) but there's probably a lot more Herzog types. When you evaluate Gibbons as a tactician, you have to grade on a curve. I really didn't love a lot of his decisions vis-à-vis pitching substitutions (neither in this term or the last one) and his seeming obsession with the 100 pitch count as an arbitrary turning point doesn't seem to serve him very well but overall, he's a "good" tactician if you accept the necessary, inevitalbe caveats that you have to conceed when discussing managerial strategy.

[CHRIS]

If something like that actually affects play, then that player is very dumb if the manager just tells them 2 spot is where he puts his best hitter. Anyways, that part can be in the manager veto of the system. The computer should be giving optimal suggestions and mangers can alter if they have good reason.

 

There are lots of dumb players playing major league baseball. No manager will be able to avoid having to deal with dumb players. It's unlikely that anyone would be able to construct of competitive team of only non-dumb people. Communicating with dumb people is hard.

 

Telling a player that the 2 spot is now the place where we put the best hitter is far easier said than done. Who is the best hitter going to believe, a computer-toting manager who's never played major league baseball, or David Ortiz as they stand around the batting cage discussing why the best hitter doesn't hit in the same spot as David Ortiz? What if you do get the best hitter to embrace hitting in the 2 spot, and then the guy who was hitting in the 2 spot gets mad because he's no longer in the table setting position that he covets?

 

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong in what you're suggesting, just that it's harder than you think to manage 25 people of varying personalities, levels of ability and levels of intelligence.

[KingKat]

There are lots of dumb players playing major league baseball. No manager will be able to avoid having to deal with dumb players. It's unlikely that anyone would be able to construct of competitive team of only non-dumb people. Communicating with dumb people is hard.

 

Telling a player that the 2 spot is now the place where we put the best hitter is far easier said than done. Who is the best hitter going to believe, a computer-toting manager who's never played major league baseball, or David Ortiz as they stand around the batting cage discussing why the best hitter doesn't hit in the same spot as David Ortiz? What if you do get the best hitter to embrace hitting in the 2 spot, and then the guy who was hitting in the 2 spot gets mad because he's no longer in the table setting position that he covets?

 

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong in what you're suggesting, just that it's harder than you think to manage 25 people of varying personalities, levels of ability and levels of intelligence.

 

FWIW, Bill James has flat out come out and said that the benefits of running an optimal lineup don't justify the hassle it would cause with players. You have to pick your battles and optimal lineups isn't one of them especially since optimal lineups rely on projection and conjecture anyways. You can only know retro-actively what the optimal lineup would have been. A good example of that was Marco Scutaro in 2009. All the projection models said he should bat 9th that year but Cito batted him leadoff and he ended up outperforming all his projections anyways. The benefit of optimal lineup construction is largely illusory because for it to really payoff (I think the maximum possible benefit is around 2 wins), you would have to be 100% accurate on your projected lineup's production. There's too much uncertainty in baseball to make optimal lineups even remotely worth fighting for.

Edited September 18, 2014 by KingKat

[KingKat]

I'd like to change my vote to let him stay. He is guaranteed money for next year. Firing him isn't really firing, it's paying the rest of his contract and letting him sit at home (Wells). Then you have to pay a new manager. Managers get paid way too much and the money "saved" is probably the most valuable. Unless the new manager is interim.

 

Given the nature of Gibbons contract does that mean he gets to be manager forever or should his job review come up as soon as funds allow?

[shortstop]

way I read it, he was already guaranteed for the 2015 season on January 1, 2014.

 

On January 1, 2015, his 2016 season will become guaranteed.

 

Pretty fair & respectful.

[closetjaysfan]

Gibbons is AA's insurance policy. If the beginning of the season had gone poorly, I think you would have seen him fired at the all-star break. But that June surge bought AA (and Gibbons) some time. Im 90% sure he will be fired in the offseason. His use of replay (ie: throwing a challenge before he gets the heads up on gut instinct), BP management (ie: remember the time he killed Wagner's arm?), s***** platooning and bad record across two seasons would be enough to get a lot of managers fired... but that's not why he will get fired: its to save AA's skin.

[baubau]

His use of replay (ie: throwing a challenge before he gets the heads up on gut instinct)

 

I have always seen Gibby take his time and go to the umps. Hell because he took his time and was so slow Maddon protested the game. He has certainly made the "gut" calls and that was mostly either due to the 1st base coach's opinion (Ryan Goins beating out the tag a few games ago and the 1st base coach stated he was likely in), challenging at home plate when players are stated to be out but aren't (Melky in Okaland on the phantom tag and Melky again when he was blocked at home vs CWS).

 

Those "gut" reasons are usually due to the players having a feeling that the call is wrong. There is no issue with him making those calls as most managers would.

 

BP management (ie: remember the time he killed Wagner's arm?),

 

Wagner's arm injury could have resulted regardless if Gibby put him out longer than he should have. I will agree that Gibby certainly needs to be better in managing them (bring Loup in situations he shouldn't, letting Casey/Santos pitch in games he probably shouldn't have gone to them and the occasional McGowan f*** up) but overall he can't keep on using the same guys over and over each game. This is certainly a area that I agree needs assessment but not for the reason you are stating.

 

s***** platooning

 

This I disagree with. He usually platoons quite well. When a certain pitcher is announced to the game he knows to switch out certain players for others given their splits. This has arguably been one of Gibby's better strengths this season. It just sucks that the players he has on the left are high power strike out guys (I.e. Rasmus, Franny) and his depth of righty hitters that can hit lefties recently improved as it was mostly Tholleson before.

 

and bad record across two seasons

 

Again, I'd argue that even if you swapped Gibbons with any other manager in the league, this team would still have such a record. He wasn't the reason players kept on making errors last season and as much as the media loves to throw the term "fundamental baseball" that is something players should already know how to do from the minors up.

 

would be enough to get a lot of managers fired... but that's not why he will get fired: its to save AA's skin.

 

I agree on this as well. Gibby is going to be the scapegoat as undeserved as that is. For everything you listed I could list against AA (terrible trades: Jomes for Rogers, Happ trade, Dickey trade), raising payroll for 2 consecutive years and potentially 3 and likely missing the post season all 3 of those years, unable to find a starting 2nd baseman, holding too long to assets to lose them for free (should have traded Jansen last year), etc.

[Vincent]

...(terrible trades: Jomes for Rogers, Happ trade, Dickey trade)

 

The Gomes trade, yeah it looks awful now, but at the time it seemed more or less fine.

 

The Happ trade actually looks decent right now even though it's still too early to tell.

 

But those were not his worst. These were:

 

Marlins trade (epic bad)

 

Dickey trade (stupid)

 

Napoli for Francisco (yikes)

 

Aaron Hill and John McDonald for Kelly Johnson (god f***)

 

Travis Snider for Brad Lincoln (senseless)

[GD]

The Gomes trade, yeah it looks awful now, but at the time it seemed more or less fine.

 

Not really. Two decent UTIL depth guys for a sucky reliever.

[GD]

Aaron Hill had -1.1 WAR with us that year and only 1.1 WAR the year before.

Kelly Johnson had 1.1 WAR that year and was coming off a 5.4 WAR season.

 

.196 and .242 BABIPs lol

4.2% and 4.0% HR/FBs lol

[GD]

HR/FB stabilizes in around 240 PA for a batter. Not an indicator of luck really.

 

So the BABIP is kind of important too

 

Juuuuuuust a bit low

[Frenchsoup]

Kratz for Valencia.....ugh I hate AA

[RealAccountant]

Kratz for Valencia.....ugh I hate AA

 

Kratz is going to start a playoff game :-)

[G-Snarls]

The Gomes trade, yeah it looks awful now, but at the time it seemed more or less fine.

 

The Happ trade actually looks decent right now even though it's still too early to tell.

 

But those were not his worst. These were:

 

Marlins trade (epic bad)

 

Dickey trade (stupid)

 

Napoli for Francisco (yikes)

 

Aaron Hill and John McDonald for Kelly Johnson (god f***)

 

Travis Snider for Brad Lincoln (senseless)

 

EVERYONE thought Aaron Hill was done being any good

 

Brad Lincoln got turned in to Erik Kratz, and Snider has done nothing in Pittsburgh (1.5 WAR in 3 seasons)

[G-Snarls]