Sweeney or Bradley at DH: The Case For Sweeney (for now)
While we were waiting for Milton Bradley to get his head right and rejoin the team, there had been some discussion as to what the team should do with him when he got back. I think it's fair to say that the consensus is that he needs PAs, and he fits best at DH as the team looks to the future. I agree on both points. Milton Bradley is a talented hitter and throwing him to the wayside is a mistake on such an offensively challenged team, at least as long as we can still classify his attitude as "problematic" as opposed to "a problem." He fits in very nicely as a long-term DH solution because he is still relatively young (compared to Sweeney at least) and is under team control for 2011. But what about our immediate needs at DH? Who's the better fit right now? Who would I start tomorrow at DH now that Milton's back? If I were in charge, I would start Mike Sweeney and here's why:
Sweeney still has an above average bat. I don't think anyone here doubts that he can still hit the living bejeezus out of the ball. His current wOBA is sitting at a cool .395, but that's bound to change given that it is so early. It isn't so early as to not have made any affect on the projection systems, though. Sweeney's updated ZiPS projection calls for a very respectable .354 wOBA at season's end. I know small sample sizes often distort the truth, but the stats support the other information we have. He looks strong at the plate, like late 90s-early 2000s Sweeney (an impatient hacker, but one that hits the ball with authority). He had a monster spring training after showing up "in tremendous shape, lighter than [Wak has] ever seen him" (source). Our own Jeff Sullivan said in his liveblog "He was out ahead of that low 74mph curve and he still blasted it 410 feet. He can't field, and his eye sucks, and he gets hurt all the time, but Mike Sweeney is not a weak hitter." Agreed. Mike Sweeney's plate approach frustrates me as much as Loafie's, but he still hits well enough to be useful to a team looking to claw back into contention.
But Milton Bradley also has a useful, above average bat. So who's is better? Last year, Sweeney posted a wRC+ of 107, nearly identical to Bradley's 108. Sweeney did this while facing lefties 56% of the time. For most RHB, this would be an advantage. But Sweeney has a remarkable career-long reverse platoon split. All of the following are my own calculations based on information available at Baseball-Reference.com, insidethebook.com, and Fangraphs.com. Please help me out by pointing out results that are incorrect. Hat tip to Edgar for Pres for helping me find the necessary info. For his career, Sweeney's wOBA against righties is .378 and his wOBA against lefties is .356. This is an observed split of -6.14% for his career, compared to the league average of +6.1% for right-handed batters. I'm not saying he would necessarily have hit better last year if he saw more righties (though I have made that incorrect assertion in the past), but I am saying we shouldn't discount his production because he was in a platoon. I investigated this some more and found that, per The Book, Sweeney's estimated platoon skill is a +0.992% split. That is negligible and supports the idea that it really doesn't matter whether the pitcher is a righty or lefty. If we are comfortable starting him at DH against lefties, then he should be okay to start against righties as well.
It's definitely true that the last year Sweeney put together a star quality season was '05, which is further in the past (and less impressive) than Milton's '08. But last year? It's totally a toss up as to who was the better hitter. And both were distinctly above replacement level at the DH position. As for this year, Sweeney has hit better. I know it's a very small sample size, so I won't quote numbers at you again. But Bradley's struggles so far, particularly his abnormally high K-rate, have given some weight to the talk in ST that he has developed a hole in his swing by his hands. On the other hand, Sweeney's success so far implies that maybe his ST performance was less fluky than it seemed at the time. We can't make conclusions based on the numbers yet, but the 2010 numbers shouldn't be ignored entirely. I think recent performance suggests that we should be cautious about declaring Bradley an upgrade over Sweeney. It may be true, and I feel like it is likely, but we need to be aware of the possibility that Sweeney may be better than Bradley with the bat at this point.
A very important thing to take into account is that Milton has positional flexibility. This is one of the core arguments as to why Bradley should take Sweeney's roster spot. I see it as a reason to play Milton in the field while we can. The current lack of bench flexibility has hurt the team immensely. I absolutely agree that one of the DH twins has to go. I think that the Mariner's should do everything possible to make it Griffey. If that happens (or if management decides to keep them both), it becomes important for the sake of bench flexibility that Sweeney start at DH most days. Milton is an above average hitter, and he is an above average defensive outfielder for his career, though he's probably just average now. Sweeney can hit, but that's all. I think our best alignment has Sweeney starting at DH and Bradley out in left most days. When Sweeney needs an "old man day", Bradley should DH and Langerhans should start in left. I know that leaves Milton exposed to injuries in the field, but as long as we're playing for 2010, we need to keep Sweeney's bat in the lineup. If/when the time comes that we give up on this season, we should definitely start on our 2011 lineup. And I think that lineup for 2011 has Bradley at DH and Saunders in LF.
Personal note: To those LLers I got into it with last time we discussed Sweeney, I apologize. I did not keep a level head and I did not treat each conversation in the different threads as different conversations. To expect you to follow a train of thought that spans several threads and involves different people each time shows you a lack of respect, and I'm sorry.
91 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Baseball reference splits has all the info you could want
Sweeney is slightly better vs RHP over his career but its very slight.
by Edgar for Pres on May 23, 2010 12:20 PM PDT reply actions
Thanks, I'll check it out next time I have a chance.
by Jon S. on May 23, 2010 12:29 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Checked it. Thanks again for the tip.
I’ll update the post once I get to a desk and do my calculations.
by Jon S. on May 23, 2010 2:32 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
And add that info to the post.
Gosh, sbnation’s mobile interface does a great job of facilitating posting errors.
by Jon S. on May 23, 2010 12:32 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah...
I’m not to happy about the idea of sending Saunders down, but I think our best lineup has both Sweeney and Bradley in it. If Saunders can’t play every day, we’d be hurting his development. I don’t think that short term success for the team outwieghs our responsibility to Saunders as a gifted, yet still developing part of our long-term plans. Sadly, I think demoting him is best for the future of the team.
by Jon S. on May 23, 2010 1:01 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Hmmmm. After some thought, keeping Saunders may work.
What do you all think about Langerhans being the backup for Ichiro and Guti, while Saunders gets LF on Bradley and Sweeney off/injury days (with Bradley at DH when Sweeney is out). Would that set up give Saunders enough playing time? How many PAs would he get and how many is enough?
by Jon S. on May 23, 2010 1:14 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Saunders has to get more at bats.
If he’s not going to at least regularly start against RHPs, he has to go back to Tacoma.
Yeah, you're probably right.
In my scenario, I see Saunders starting half the time at most. Also, Wak doesn’t seem to trust Saunders against lefties. I think Saunders is better than a platoon outfielder, so maybe some time to work on hitting lefties in Tacoma would give Wak the track record he needs to trust Saunders against all-comers next year.
by Jon S. on May 23, 2010 2:16 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Saunders career minor league splits:
RHP: .274/.361/.451/.812
LHP: .284/.364/.423/.787
by Aaron Campeau on May 23, 2010 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Damn. That looks pretty good.
Why won’t Wak let him hit against lefties then? It seems silly not to.
Updated (and self calculated) numbers
Sweeney’s career wOBA vs LHP: .356
Sweeney’s career wOBA vs RHP: .378
observed split: -6.14%
regressed split: +0.992%
So, would it be more apt to call it "no discernable platoon split" than a reverse one, or do I overestimate regression?
I can't resist clicking "Rec" when I see a post with four [of them] already.
by thehemogoblin on May 24, 2010 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not entirely sure on that. I'm not as well versed in Sabermetrics as a lot of LLers, but...
I would say observed results can be used however, as long as it’s clear that we’re evaluating past performance. Once we start making projections or making inferences about talent, we have to properly regress our numbers to the mean.
Am I right on that? Experts….? Experts….? Bueller?
I am also glad you took the time to write this.
So many of the things that have happened around our DH position are frustrating for me. My preference would have been no Griffey or Sweeney on this roster and Bradley at DH. My reasoning is rather simple. Even though baseball does not require a player to be athletic to be successful, for me watching players who are not athletic is not fun. I can do that for free at any softball field in town. Paying thousands of dollars to watch broken men who can still swing hard feels like someone is mocking me.
I would have been okay with Sweeney being our main DH if Griffey were not on the team. Griffey however is on the team so then what? By also putting Sweeney on the roster we now have two guys with no defensive value. Yes I know he played 1B yesterday, but is that something you want to see with regularity? I just feel like the value you get from Sweeney’s bat is completely destroyed by the fact that he offers no value anywhere else.
I agree with you on that first part for sure. I'm not a really fan of the DH rule at all for that very reason.
For example, David Ortiz is a fat load. I could never be a fan of his because all he does is swing the bat real hard. I know that if I kicked him in the shin and ran away, he could never catch me because I’m more of an athlete than he is. But even though I’m not a fan of the DH, I’d gladly support the team using it if it helps us win. I’m not really a Sweeney fan, either. I just think that he brings something (offensive competence) to the table that this team really needs. To borrow a metaphor from Dave at USSM, if I saw a Sweeney laying around on the side of the road, I would totally throw him in the back of my truck.
I also agree that moving forward with both Sweeney and Griffey on the team will be hard from a flexibility standpoint. If we can assume that Griffey is uncuttable/DL-able and will not walk away on his own, I’m not sure how the team should proceed. Sweeney’s bat is useful, and there’s a way to get him in the lineup without putting him in the field. The essential question here is; can Sweeney hit well enough to provide more value than Saunders + some extra bench flexibility will give us? I don’t really know the answer to that. I’m a pretty big fan of Saunders, but he’s an unknown quantity as far as how he will produce over a full season in the majors. As long as we stil have hope for this year, I think (but am not sure) we’re better off sticking with Sweeney at DH. I would love to be proven wrong, because that means Saunders plays well at the ML-level much sooner than I could have hoped for and that Bradley returns to form. As a Mariners fan, both of those thing would make me very happy.
That is a wonderful description of how fat David Ortiz is.
Good and interesting article too!
Right now I'm dreaming of Carl Crawford. Maybe next year...(or this year at the trade deadline)...
Don't get fooled by small sample sizes, be it this season or a reverse split
Mike Sweeney has been a mediocre hitter for a long time, he’s not just going to turn it around at age 36 with a bad back. He’s an average/ slightly below average bat, attached to a completely lack of defense, and little ability to stay in the lineup. That is not a very good player. In fact it wouldn’t be surprising if Michael Saunders was a better hitter than Sweeney right now, he’s certainly a better player, As for Bradley, he runs crazy routes and he can’t make up for it with his speed anymore, he defense is a negative. Not only that, but he is very prone to nagging injuries so keeping him off the field is for the best.
by Poochie on May 24, 2010 8:32 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Saunders is probably the better player, but better bat? I'll believe it when I see it.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d really like to have Saunders be a ++ bat out there in left. I’m just not sure he’s adjusted to major league pitching to the point where he can outproduce Sweeney.
Both Sweeney and Bradley’s injury histories worry me. I know they will both miss time, but I think they can stay healthy enough to produce better than the alternative (which is likely what we’ll see anyway when either of them hits the DL). I just hope it’s not an unending series of “day-to-day” type injuries, because that’s when the team suffers: Injured players on the bench with not enough time missed to justify bringing in reinforcements.
The question it comes down to is this;
do you believe that Sweeney at DH and Bradley in LF is a better combination that Bradley at DH and Saunders in LF? On true talent? If the answer is no, then Sweeney shouldn’t be in the starting lineup. If the answer is yes, well, okay then, but I see no reason to agree.
by Aaron Campeau on May 25, 2010 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions
This is exactly right. Bradly at DH, Saunders in LF and I see no place for Sweeney.
by TrustBaseball on May 25, 2010 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, we've gotten a look at "Sweeney, 1st baseman" over the past few days.
What are everyone’s thoughts on that? He’s no Kotchman with the glove, but at least he’s no Kotchman with the bat either.
My take: this could work. A lineup with Bradley, Sweeney and Saunders in it every day gives us a real chance to score some runs on a regular basis. As long as Sweeney continues to hit well enough to offset his relatively poor defensive play, why not stick him at first? As much as I want Kotchman to succeed, we kinda don’t have room in the lineup for more offensive ineptitude while he tries to figure it out.
by Jon S. on May 26, 2010 7:11 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Good. Hilarious is better than kick-a-hole-through-your-tv b
What are the chances he brings positive value to the team at first base? His thwomp stick outweighed his frying pan tonight, but do you all think he could be better for the team than Kotchman over the course of the season?
by Jon S. on May 26, 2010 9:42 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Doubtful
I don’t think his true talent level as a hitter is anywhere near this hot streak and I don’t think he’s within 20 runs of Kotchman with the glove
by seattlebruin on May 27, 2010 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not convinced Sweeney is all that bad for this team anymore
he’s pretty annoying because it’s horrible process, he hacks at everything and he’s not going to wOBA .423 for the year, but even if he regresses to something like a .375 wOBA, he’s still a perfectly valuable player at DH
by seattlebruin on May 27, 2010 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions
It's Griffey and Lopez's hitting that's the real problem
well and Figgy too
by seattlebruin on May 27, 2010 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions
He's definitely a giant ball of cheese.
Although that doesn’t make me dislike him per se. I do find that particular aspect of his personality obnoxious.
I did too. But it was so far out there that I'd like to think
that he was self-parodying a bit. Also the part of that Espn story about Milton where Bradley ceaselessly has his back makes me think there’s a legit, decent human being in there. People don’t respond that well to fake nice.
That is THE question isn't it.
On true talent? That’s a very tough question, and I don’t think I know enough to answer it.
As for production levels for the rest of the season, I think that Sweeney+Bradley outproduces Saunders+Bradley. I’m a big believer in Saunders, but projecting his level of production is hard. ZiPS doesn’t like him very much, and I believe he will do better than a .314 wOBA from here on out but I don’t know how much better. And as far as defensive production goes, how much better than Bradley (aka average) is Saunders? I don’t know the answer to that either. Maybe if I had a better idea of Saunders’ true talent level, I could be of more help answering those questions.
When we are trying to fight our way back into the division race, I feel like we have to know that we are putting our best foot forward. Saunders+Bradley may be our best option in the end. But I think there’s little doubt that Bradley+Sweeney is a very solid option on a team sorely lacking in solid options at the plate.
But to continue dancing around your point like a fairy princess, I kinda like this Plan C the Mariners ran out there today. We get Saunders in LF, Bradley at DH AND we get to keep Sweeney’s bat in the lineup. If Sweeney hurts himself out there in the field, we plug Kotchman right back in and we get Plan A again.
by Jon S. on May 26, 2010 7:53 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Kotchman has a better chance of being a better player at 1B going forward, unless you think he's totally done as a player.
If you figure Kotchman’s true talent ~1.5 WAR (below average 1B), Sweeney’s beaten that exactly twice since 2002 (and in neither case was it by much).
You basically have to think Kotchman’s pretty terrible and that Sweeney will stay healthy all year playing regularly at 1B to think this is going to work.
by eponymous_coward on May 27, 2010 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions
he hasn't? he put up good numbers in 2005 and then struggled with injury for a few years before becoming a part-timer last year.
… by looking just at numbers, it is hard to discern exactly where he “lost it” and went from all-star hitter to what you earlier termed as a “below average” bat. How do we know that his true skill set has really declined to replacement level?
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
Griffey was a good hitter in 2005! We should TOTALLY play him!
See the problem here?
by eponymous_coward on May 27, 2010 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Mike Piazza hit .283/.342/.501 in 2006! Even more recent!
by eponymous_coward on May 27, 2010 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions
do you guys just make shit up?
… because I never suggested 2005 was recent. I just asked the same question that Jon S. repeats below. How do we really know how much of his declines in 2006, 07, 08 were injury vs skill decline? Its a question, not a conclusion.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
Well, he's in his mid-30's
Players get worse as they age. And if you want to blame injuries, well, backs and knees don’t get better.
by Jeff Sullivan on May 27, 2010 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions
To be fair, you did post your statement about 2005 as a reply to someone saying he hadn't been a good hitter in a long time.
It’s not that big of a jump for people to have made.
I think the answer to your question is in your first statement
He put up good numbers in 2005. In 2005 he was 32. He’s now 37 and coming off, as you say, years worth of injuries. I think it can be safely assumed that his true skill set is what you’ve seen this year – good and bad. What you’re seeing now won’t last, but he’s still serviceable.
I answered your question with a question.
Totally legal maneuver. Plus, when you have been injured as much as Sweeney I consider the likelihood of getting hurt and being useless as part of his skill set.
"He's listing lazily to the left!!"
“Boy, this guy knows some maneuvers.”
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on May 30, 2010 3:54 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Green lizards are the number one killer of domestic cats.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on May 27, 2010 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
You are assuming that injuries don't affect skill and value.
If I’m a 5 WAR player, but I can only stay in the lineup 30 minutes at a time before 3 month DL stints, the fact that I am a 5 WAR player is mostly irrelevant to my value. You can’t add value to your team through performance when you’re on the DL.
Injury, skill and value are rather correlated. Measures like WAR look at “how much did this player add to our team”, and that’s what we’re using to gauge Sweene, Bradley and Griffey. My thesis is that expecting a player who’s been in the sub-1 WAR range for 5 years, AND who’s in mid late 30’s, AND who has continuing injury problems, to be a significant contributor to a team isn’t reasonable. Sure, it could happen. And I could win the Powerball this week.
by eponymous_coward on May 28, 2010 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Hang on a second, isn't WAR an accumulated value, not a measurement? I'm lacking the stat vocabulary to do this properly.
But wouldn’t a 5 WAR player be worth 5 WAR? Not “he’s potentially a 5 WAR player but he gets hurt a lot”?
I’m seriously asking as I might be looking at WAR completely wrong.
This is worded terribly and is rather frustrating.
If a player is worth 5 WAR and only plays in limited time due to injury, he’s still 5 WAR. I guess you have to take into account the measure of his replacement, but that’s not what was being addressed here. It was the value of the player.
Maybe I should go and re-read some comment threads on WAR and how it’s being used or used improperly. If anyone has read some good ones and remember what blogs and such, they could take a moment and post a link.
In this case, what epo is talking about is the potential of a given player.
A player can have a 5 win true talent level without actually producing 5 wins on the field, for a variety of reasons.
Yeah, this.
The idea is WAR is a “this what he did done” stat, but it’s also tossed around as a “this is what you can expect in value” stat, too.
In this case, Sweeney’s not returned substantially over replacement value very recently, so saying he can be a good DH (2 WAR) is basically ignoring his recent performance/injury history.
I’m pretty irritated with the idea that we’re well served with Saunders collecting dust on a MLB bench while we assume Sweeney’s a good player again like he was in the early part of the last decade. This happened last year, too.
by eponymous_coward on May 29, 2010 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Sorry about the confusion, it was all in my head.
Thought my understanding of a fairly simple concept was topsy turvy and it caused a brief moment of panic. Weird.
Yeah, Saunders. When people say his name, the word “languishing” always pops up in my mind. Michael Saunders, languishing on the bench. Thanks Don.
I think we start getting into trouble when we try to define "recent".
I agree that 2005 was not “recent”. But what about 2008? That was the last time Milton was really good, and I would hesitate to call that “recent”. Drawing the line on that is tricky. This really causes me problems when trying to assess talent level. How far back can you go before the information you have isn’t relevant to the player he is right now? How far back do you have to go in order to steer clear of SSS issues? How do you take into account things like injuries and fitness levels?
by Jon S. on May 27, 2010 10:14 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Well, those questions weren't supposed to look so rhetorical.
There’s more than a few of you who know more than me and can probably answer those questions. Please do.
by Jon S. on May 27, 2010 10:18 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Usually on younger players you can do three years averages weighing them 5-4-3
Even though he struggled last year, Bradley was one of the best hitters in baseball from 2007-2008. His three year average was something like .285/.400/.480.
Milton's not really "young", but the weighted 3-year average seems solid.
2008 = recent enough. Thanks.
We know this isn't his true skill set because he's doing something he's never been recorded doing before.
His HR/FB rate right now is 20%, nearly twice his career rate of 11.2% and significantly higher than his best year which was 14.5%. He’s on pace to hit 46 home runs over roughly a full season which would obliterate his previous best of 29.
As far as discerning where he “lost it” at I’d say it’s pretty easy. From his age 26 season to his age 29 season he averaged a wOBA of ~.400. From his age 30 to his age 32 season he average a wOBA of ~.365. From his age 33 season to his age 36 season he averaged a wOBA of ~.330 over dwindling playing time. Theres no mystery about where he went from all star to average, Sweeney got old.
You're right. I didn't account for aging at all.
If anyone has a preferred source for info on how to calculate expected age related decline, link to it here and I will use it as best I can.
As for using sample sizes that are too small, could you be more specific? I’m not sure which part of the post is the issue.
Mike Sweeney isn't a part of our future.
Saunders is.
Sweeney DH / Bradley LF is, if at all, very marginally better than Bradley DH / Saunders LF.
The season is pretty much over anyway, in terms of playoff hopes.
Saunders is more exciting anyway.
Bradley is a part of our future, at least in 2011, and playing him in the field gives him extra injury risk that could affect next year.
Those are my bullet-point thoughts.
If it's time to start playing for next year, I agree 100%
There is no reason at all to keep Sweeney around if this year is a lost cause.
by Jon S. on May 26, 2010 7:53 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
There's always a balance between now and the future.
Do you think Sweeney’s bat and Bradley’s defense is better than Saunders’ bat + Saunders’ defense? I can see where you would think it’s close, but is it enough to not consider next year at all?
I do think that Sweeney's bat + Bradley's glove wins us more games than Saunders.
But that’s just my opinion. I see where you’re coming from, and for the most part I agree. The future is important. I just feel that we can put off the future for a while in order to put our absolute best team on the field as long as there’s a chance to claw back into this race. The balance in my mind is still leaning towards the here and now. At least for the time being.
by Jon S. on May 27, 2010 9:58 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
There's almost no chance that Bradley willl stay healthy if he plays the field on a regular basis.
So what you’re really comparing is the difference between Saunders/Bradley and Sweeney/whoever replaces Bradley when he gets hurt.
The potential “upside” of Sweeney and Bradley both in the lineup is so marginal that it’s not worth the downside risk of Bradley sustaining a serious injury.
Let's just break it down component by component.
Hitting:
Sweeney: .344 RoS wOBA
Saunders: .315 RoS wOBA
Sweeney is about 18 runs better than Saunders over 700 PAs.
Fielding:
Bradley: 0 to -5 runs above average
Saunders: 10 to 15 runs above average
So we’re talking 3 runs over the course of the entire rest of the season with pretty much no upside.
7.5 games out of first with about a 5% chance of making the playoffs is precisely the kind of time where you want to maximize upside. In this case, you would take Saunders over Sweeney every time.
by lailaihei on May 28, 2010 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Mike Sweeney has done well this year but that does not mean he is currently good
Even I am guilty of probably thinking he is better than he is now. If you go to fangraphs and look at the best hitters so far this season the guy right above Mike Sweeney (who ranks pretty high) is Marcus Thames. Marcus Thames is not a good hitter. Mike Sweeney is not a good hitter. He is better than Griffey and I love how he has performed but I’m not gonna let him trick me.
I can live with him as the platoon partner to Kotchman at 1B, but that's about it.
And even then, it’s sort of a “WTF, Wak? How many DHs do you need?” sort of thing.
by eponymous_coward on May 27, 2010 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Not really.
The reason why Sweeney is on the team in the first place is Wak asked for him, having gotten a firsthand look at Sweeney’s magical clubhouse-enhancing abilities in Oakland as a coach.
I suppose you could say GMZ could tell Wak “No, you can’t load your roster with aging DHs”, but I get the impression that GMZ isn’t Billy Beane and micromanaging the roster, and basically using the manager STRICTLY for in-game decisionmaking and giving baseball cliches during postgame interviews.
by eponymous_coward on May 28, 2010 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions
GMZ's job is to build a roster and Wak's job is to manage the team
If Wak dictates roster decisions which reduce the chance that the team wins then its GMZ’s fault. If this is the case then GMZ needs to grow a pair and tell Wak no.
by Edgar for Pres on May 28, 2010 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, you're basically saying Wak has no business evaluating who belongs on the MLB roster, then.
Which is basically Billy Beane’s approach, if you read Moneyball- the book makes it very clear that Beane’s managers basically get to decide what to do in game, and that’s about it- they are complete figureheads when it comes to the roster. That may not be how GMZ and Wak approach it, though.
by eponymous_coward on May 28, 2010 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm fine with Wak having input but at the end of the day everything is GMZ's decision
Because GMZ has the responsibility, he also takes the blame. I have read Moneyball and don’t think that you need that much of a clean cut responsibility hierarchy but I just can’t see how you blame Wak for roster construction when it isn’t Wak’s job to construct the roster.
by Edgar for Pres on May 28, 2010 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Because he ASKED for the guy. Sure, GMZ said yes.
But the thing is, if you think your manager’s a moron and can’t make the right decision, and the GM needs to push the buttons here, I think you have the wrong manager.
by eponymous_coward on May 29, 2010 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree with what you said. Right now in my mind
Wak is getting 20% blame and GMZ is getting 80% blame. You probably have those two percentages flipped which is fine. I want to blame the guy who signed off on the decision and you want to blame the guy who pushed for the decision.
by Edgar for Pres on May 29, 2010 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I think the roster makeup is at least 80% GMZ's responsibility.
It probably should be more. Any choices Z’s underlings make is a choice Z is responsible for and has the ability to override.

by 



















