Hargrove and the managerial effect

by zagreusmd on Jul 16, 2006 5:11 PM PDT

Someone over at ussmariner raised an interesting point: on the one hand, it's a commonly-repeated claim that Hargrove has cost the Mariners four to six wins this year through bullpen mismanagement, etc., but on the other hand, it's standard wisdom among the statistically inclined that a manager has little influence over a team's fortunes -- maybe two or three games, tops, over the course of the season.

This raises an interesting question. Are we:

Seeing the spectacular implosion of the worst manager of all time;
Seeing a very bad run of managerial luck, that inevitably will swing back to the middle over the rest of the season;
Disproving that sabermetric thesis, and proving that managers have much more of an effect than it allows; or
Getting a little carried away and thinking that Hargrove is much more malignant than he actually is?

I don't like Hargrove as manager. I look forward to the day he's shown the door. But I tend to think that #4 is the closest to the truth. For instance, today's game: we're all pissed that Mateo was the pitcher used in the eleventh, while Putz caught up on his reading, but even if you use Putz there and he strikes out the side, the Mariners would still have been in a tie game on the road -- in most cases a losing scenario. It's easy to think, "Hargrove lost us that game!" but after the fifth we were never in the lead. Anger and frustration take a marginal point and make it seem definitive. Thus, while Hargrove certainly isn't good at his job, he's almost certainly not the primary reason that the Mariners are in last place.

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Specifically attributing a loss to Mike Hargrove

isn't sensible. But his job is to maximize the effectiveness of the team and do what gives us the best chance of winning. He's really really bad at that, and I think it's cost us at least 2 or 3 wins this year.

by Rollo Tomasi on Jul 16, 2006 5:18 PM PDT reply actions

Ahem

He holds out key players from situations where they can help us win a ballgame. He foregoes good pitchers for bad pitchers in key situations. He insists on keeping untested, talented hitters on the bench but will start lesser players and insist on continuing to not just start struggling hitters, but let them maintain key spots in the lineup.

There is a tangible detriment his actions have on this team's fortunes. And there are indeed 4-6 games where we lost and a clearly better decision could have won us the ballgame.

SWUNG ON AND BELTED! DEEP TO... shortstop....

by Gomez on Jul 16, 2006 5:38 PM PDT reply actions

speaking of which

did you ever hear back from corey brock or whoever you emailed? (I think it was you, either that or goose, i get you two confused)

by mariners124m on Jul 16, 2006 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions

Never heard back

I'm guessing the response at the TNT offices was something like 'grumble grumble USSM grumble ::delete::'

SWUNG ON AND BELTED! DEEP TO... shortstop....

by Gomez on Jul 16, 2006 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions

You get me and Gomez confused?

I'm not sure how to take that.....heh.

Fire Mike Hargrove!

by Goose on Jul 16, 2006 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions

Neither do I

Here's what you do. If the post says Die in a Fire, it's probably Goose :P

SWUNG ON AND BELTED! DEEP TO... shortstop....

by Gomez on Jul 16, 2006 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions

There's the rub.

"And there are indeed 4-6 games where we lost and a clearly better decision could have won us the ballgame."

"Could have" are the two critical words in that sentence. I agree, there are at least six games in which Hargrove seemed glued to the bench when Mateo was pitching, or appeared to have dozed off when Crazy Carl or True Grit was coming to the plate and better bats were available on the bench. But situations where we could have won the game are not the same as situations in which we would have won the game, had Hargrove made a different decision. If, for instance, Everett has a one-in-five chance of driving in the winning run against a southpaw, while Perez has a one-in-three chance, pinch-hitting Perez certainly increases your chances of winning, but the odds still favor the pitcher in that situation. In short, Hargrove's effect is often to make a bad situation worse, and you can't lose the same game twice.

Like I said before, I don't think he's a good manager and I'll lift a drink in celebration when someone else is Mariners manager. But Hargrove single-handedly destroying a good season? Until someone shows me the numbers, I don't believe that computes.

Pregnancy takes nine months, no matter how many women you put on the job.

by zagreusmd on Jul 17, 2006 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions

Anybody who doesn't think he has costed us wins

this year, is insane.

Fire Mike Hargrove!

by Goose on Jul 16, 2006 5:43 PM PDT reply actions

I suppose you could count

all the games that include everett playing, petagine or perez rotting on the bench, or mateo or woods pitching when in matters as a game that hargrove has lost for us, the players aren't the only ones losing the games, the manager having johjima bat behind everett is also losing them for us

by Aesop on Jul 16, 2006 5:53 PM PDT reply actions

Fun fact

Did you know that J.J. Putz was deemed "unavailable" today simply because he warmed up three times yesterday?

Read that again.

WARMED UP THREE TIMES.

In other words our number one relief pitcher on our roster was burnt out not by trying to keep us in the game but by simply preparing to close an inning?

In other words, as per ussmariner, Mariner bullpen pitched 11 innings and our awesome reliever saw ZERO, NONE, NADA, ZILTCH. Why? Because he's the closer. In Hargrove's mind, he's only there to protect a lead and send us home with a win.

I have said several times that if the Mariners want to win they have to keep the game OUT of Hargrove's hands. So far, in this month alone, they've had to rely on Hargrove's management skills at least THREE TIMES. We've lost all of those games.

Hargrove is not right for the team. Heck, I don't know if he even should be managing anymore. This is a good team but it's not idiot-proof. We desperately need a manager who knows how to handle our roster. We have a strong bullpen when used correctly. We have a potent lineup when managed correctly. Really, the only weakness is starting pitching (and Carl Everett).

We've got plenty of people in the Mariner blogosphere who believe a manager's effect on a team is negligable. Even those people want Hargrove fired.

by ThundaPC on Jul 16, 2006 6:25 PM PDT reply actions

Hargrove has cost us games simply by:

Giving 124 AB's (over 50 games) to a guy with a grand total of 7 rbi's (while 'slugging' .290).
Playing a guy who hits .164 versus lefthanded pitching while sitting a guy who hits .330 against lefties.

Every time he does either #1 or #2 he's putting us in a position to lose.

"I cussed him out in Spanish, and he threw me out in English." Lou Piniella

by Mike Schooler on Jul 17, 2006 12:55 AM PDT reply actions

I hate trying to put numbers on Hargrove losses

b/c he has probably won us some games that a different manager would have lost. I am not defending him, but those two games where Everett hit walk-off HR's come to mind.

I think it boils down to what Jeff and a lot of other (read: smarter than me) people have said. This isn't a great team and so it's terribly important to maximize the output of these players.

We have some veterans who have gotten almost no time off and will probably fade down the stretch. We have had opportunities for the bench to contribute but have not used them.

It's not always about bringing in one certain player in one situation, necessarily, but it is the small things added up that have and will continue to sap this team's potential.

Here ends my rambling and somewhat incoherent $0.02.

by jtopps on Jul 17, 2006 10:43 AM PDT reply actions

I'm curious...

b/c he has probably won us some games that a different manager would have lost.

Yeah, you used "probably" in there, but really -- I'm honestly curious if someone can come up with a list of decisions by Hargrove that have a)positively affected the outcome of a game and b)would've been a unique decision that another manager would not have made.

So, I'm not just addressing this to you, really, jtopps. I'm using your comment to ask the larger community.

Free George Sherrill. And Dan Rohn.

by PositivePaul on Jul 17, 2006 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions

damn you

and your follow-up questions! ;)

I wasn't thinking of specific decisions, but rather generally. Every manager will make some good decisions along with the bad, whether by skill or just pure chance. But you asked, so I shall do my best.

Perhaps a different manager doesn't go to Putz before the ninth in a close game. Hargrove has shown a willingness to do this at times.

While the long-range plan is no good, leaving guys like Raul, Ichiro, Johjima and Betancourt out there every day have probably won us a few games up til this point, since their replacements would have been a significant drop-off, either defensively or offensively.

That's all, just off the top of my head. There are some things we will probably never know, like another manager may have stuck with Eddie longer, or gone to a less effective, closer-by-committee approach once Eddie did get the boot.

by jtopps on Jul 17, 2006 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions

Hmm

You're crediting Hargrove for two instances where Carl just happened to get good wood on a pitch from a team's #5 reliever? Hargrove's not gonna pull his veteran DH (as he's shown), even if said veteran DH is hitting .230 and spent his first 4 ABs waving at pitches.

Another manager probably wouldn't have started Carl in the first place (and might have even asked the front office to release him), and the team might've scored an extra run or two, enough runs to win in regulation, thus not necessitating the need to hit walk-off extra inning HRs.

SWUNG ON AND BELTED! DEEP TO... shortstop....

by Gomez on Jul 17, 2006 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions

that's why I don't like specific examples

b/c you end up with the Back to the Future scenario. If we had a different manager, we would pushed for Heep Seop Choi and Carlos Pena and they certainly would have outperformed Everett, thus negating the game going into extra innings. Hargrove did stick with Everett in those cases, and it paid off.

I really don't like Hargrove, so I hope I can get out from defending him sooner rather than later. I was just trying to say that all managers do dumb things sometimes and get lucky sometimes.

I guess I was reacting to people who said, if we had a different manager, we would have won all these games that were close. That may be true, but we might have also lost some (with our new manager) that Hargrove may have helped to win.

That said, Fire Mike Hargrove! (There, that feels better).

by jtopps on Jul 17, 2006 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions

Ah, I see

Those are good things to point out.

SWUNG ON AND BELTED! DEEP TO... shortstop....

by Gomez on Jul 17, 2006 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions

Shocker Collar

Put a shocker collar on Grover and give the controls to Bavasi...every poor decision gets him shocked....kind of like installing an M (manager) chip in him, but without the surgical cost....

Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser period, someone who didn't try hard enough - Ted Williams

by Dollar97 on Jul 17, 2006 10:49 AM PDT reply actions