Comments on: An insight into Girardi’s managerial style

By: misterd

misterd — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:30:38 +0000

Part of the problem we’re going to have with this argument is that we don’t have Girardi’s reports, and they aren’t going to give them away for free.

Girardi said that DRob’s fastball looked lacking, and his stuff didn’t match. That’s what he saw, and what he chose to focus on. We saw a pitcher who had been successful recently and was pitching well again. What do you trust? Do you trust DRob to overcome the matchup and a fastball that may not be up to par that day? I probably would. I’m not sure I can damn Joe for choosing otherwise, especially when Ace has done well for us this season.

I am more baffled by him bringing in Marte and Coke. Now, I am all for getting Marte out as quickly as possible, but in this case I don’t se why he didn’t just bring in Coke in the first place.

However, if we compare this to other moves he made like bringing in Mo early, or subbing Hairston in game 2, or starting CC on short rest, I think the balance is still heavily in Joe G’s favor.

By: misterd

misterd — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:24:58 +0000

Actually the argument is statistically indisputable IF you believe that there is a pitcher in the pen who doesn’t “have it” that day. It is essentially the same as saying if you have a bag with 6 white and 1 black marble, the more marbles you draw, the more likely you are to pull the black marble.

Now, the big IF there is, again, if there is a player that isn’t going to be able to perform that day. That’s a pretty big IF to assume, but given the guys who often sit in bullpens (Veras, Marte, Farnsworth) it is also not an unreasonable one.

By: misterd

misterd — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:19:19 +0000

Oldest story in the book – when the moves work,he’s a genius, when they don’t, he’s an imbecile.

I would argue Joe G has handled his bullpen as well as anyone over the last two seasons- and remember, outside Mo and Marte, these are mostly kids going out on the mound, not Wetteland, Stanton and Nelson. It seems awfully presumptuous of us to sit back here and claim that in the postseason he’s just been lucky.

By: andrew

andrew — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:45:54 +0000

So far none of our pinch runners have had an impact, if Gardner or Guzman gets to 2nd base with no outs, a lot of those games end earlier than they would have otherwise. The holes in the lineup won’t be there when they are celebrating at home plate after Gardner scores the winning run.

By: tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:40:06 +0000

In fact, you can make a strong argument that he is the WORST manager of ANY playoff manager: LaRussa and Torre are Hall Of Famers, Francona stands a chance, Manuel and Scioscia are World Series winners and Gardenhire proved how good he is (Getting the Twins in the playoffs WITHOUT Morneau).

All of those are horrendously retarded ways of evaluating who is the best manager.

By: tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:39:06 +0000

Agreed.

By: Tank Foster

Tank Foster — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:11:11 +0000

Maybe this sounds stupid, but I’m not sure you can judge the merit of a managerial move by the result. The result is far more dependent on execution of the player. To connect the two, you have to look at more than 8 or 9 games, and you have to compare it to a proper standard. In this case, the proper standard is the typical level of excellence of winning playoff teams. If you take playoff series winners through the years, you are going to see some pretty good bullpen numbers. The winners are the guys executing, so they have good stats.

I realize it’s a chicken-egg argument…could they be executing because Girardi is using them in the situations where they are most likely to succeed? I don’t think so. At least I wouldn’t conclude this based on short series stats.

I think Girardi is good – no, excellent – at long-haul, season-wide management of pitching staffs, but his in-game decisions sometimes seem wrong to me.

To use a military analogy, his strategy is excellent, but his tactics are sometimes questionable.

By: Esteban

Esteban — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:08:12 +0000

that website is great

By: Januz

Januz — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:57:55 +0000

The Phillips and Letterman cases are ugly and honestly do not belong in a baseball discussion (The Yankees have had plenty of moral stains as well (Including Leyritz, steroids, and the Peterson and Kekich wife swapping incident years ago)). In addition, I am the first on to agree that Phillips is an awful announcer and a worse commentator (Although not as bad as John Kruk). But again the Yankees have Sterling and Waldman (Not exactly Vin Scully in the broadcast booth). All I care about is seeing the Yankees join my Steelers and Penguins as Champions. The lack of morals and abilities of Phillips should be of little interest to Yankee fans, when we are FIVE wins away from Title 27.

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:36:04 +0000

I agree that “I” would have liked to see Robertson longer. However there was a valid reason why he made the move. He felt that Aceves soft stuff would work better than Robertson’s hard stuff. We can disagree with the move – but it was well thought out beforehand.

As for the other innings – Girardi is not thinking about those innings – he is just worrying about surviving this inning & then going for the win now.