Monitor: Manager of the Year and Fired?

[Oldgoat_MN]

 

Your chart does not account  for bunting and the prevention of a double play.  It does not prove that a sacrifice lowers the potential of scoring one run.

What it shows is that a team will score 26.8% of the time with a runner on first and no outs, but will score 26.5% of the time with a runner on second and one out.

What it doesn't show is the times a bunt is a popup out or a failed bunt where the lead runner is thrown out at second. Either case would reduce the odds of the team batting to score a run.

It shows exactly that a successful bunt lowers the odds of scoring a run when advancing a runner from first to second and incurring an out. This suggests league-average or greater hitters are doing the bunting, of course. Clearly if a terrible hitter is batting the bunt can become a reasonable choice.

[Thrylos]

 

Your chart does not account  for bunting and the prevention of a double play.  It does not prove that a sacrifice lowers the potential of scoring one run.

 

How exactly bunting can prevent a double play?  About the same possibility of a double play as a hit and run. Double plays coming in bunts, esp in bunts that stay in the air, or 2 strike bunts, or looking at a strike throw them out bunts.

[prouster]

How exactly bunting can prevent a double play? About the same possibility of a double play as a hit and run. Double plays coming in bunts, esp in bunts that stay in the air, or 2 strike bunts, or looking at a strike throw them out bunts.

Maybe it doesn't eliminate all double plays, but I think it's obvious that a sac bunt with a runner on first prevents a conventional 4-6-3/6-4-3/5-4-3 double play grounder. Any double play after that would have to be unconventional.

[old nurse]

 

How exactly bunting can prevent a double play?  About the same possibility of a double play as a hit and run. Double plays coming in bunts, esp in bunts that stay in the air, or 2 strike bunts, or looking at a strike throw them out bunts.

The article took that into consideration. The title was not successful sacrifice bunting.

[old nurse]

 

What it shows is that a team will score 26.8% of the time with a runner on first and no outs, but will score 26.5% of the time with a runner on second and one out.

What it doesn't show is the times a bunt is a popup out or a failed bunt where the lead runner is thrown out at second. Either case would reduce the odds of the team batting to score a run.

It shows exactly that a successful bunt lowers the odds of scoring a run when advancing a runner from first to second and incurring an out. This suggests league-average or greater hitters are doing the bunting, of course. Clearly if a terrible hitter is batting the bunt can become a reasonable choice.

I really could look up the article. I have done it in the past but the same people post the same things all over again so why bother. . When the study did the outcome of sacrifice bunting, the negatives which you post would be in that. They came up with the numbers.  Note that I did not say that it was successful sacrifice bunting. just sacrifice bunting.

[DaveW]

My problem is: Molly has done his job and has earned an extension, if he's not extended its clear that the new FO had zero and I mean zero intention in retaining him, if that's the case, why on earth did they let him manage at all this year? Dumb.

[Monkeypaws]

As I see it, one thing only will get Molitor fired at this point: losing that Wild-Card spot, and even that is iffy.

 

How the team responds to ANY adversity as they try to seal the deal, I think therein lies Molitor's future.

 

It would take balls of steel to fire the first guy to lead a 100 loss team to the postseason the very next year, especially a pretty popular hometown guy and HOF laureate. 

[Twins33]

My problem is: Molly has done his job and has earned an extension, if he's not extended its clear that the new FO had zero and I mean zero intention in retaining him, if that's the case, why on earth did they let him manage at all this year? Dumb.

They were forced to keep him. Pohlad said they couldn't fire him, he was going to be the 2017 manager no matter what. Whether they would have fired him or not, we may never know.

[DocBauer]

Just a thought/observation:

 

As of today the Twins have 82 wins with 6 to play. They split, they have 85 wins after the debacle/nightmare that was 2016.

 

Indians have 98 wins and will probably hit 100 or just over. Astros have 95, probably won't hit a 100 but you never know. Boston has 91, NY 87.

 

Replacing Molitor gives us a potential 5-10+ more wins??? Is that even feasible???

 

This remains a mostly young team just coming in to it's own who needs another quality SP, probably one proven bullpen arm, arguably an upgrade at DH, and some more young players and pitchers to step up.

 

And those improvements will hopefully come this off season, regardless of who manages the club. But it would seem to me with the growth and improvement of this team and a couple more additions, this team should be even better next season. But replacing Molitor with someone else would seem to greatly pale compared to said roster tweaks.

[twinsnorth49]

The kind of amusing part of this to me is that Falvey was pretty much feeding Molitor to the wolves when they got rid of Kinzler and Garcia and did nothing to bolster the team, in essence waving the white flag on the season.

 

But despite making his job even more difficult, the team rallies and sits on the cusp of a playoff spot. That wasn't supposed to happen and puts them between a bit of a rock and a hard place.

 

I don't love his decision making a lot of the time and I don't think he's the manager to take this team to the next level, but firing him after what the team has managed to accomplish, with the deck being stacked against them, would seem pretty asinine. 

[Craig Arko]

The kind of amusing part of this to me is that Falvey was pretty much feeding Molitor to the wolves when they got rid of Kinzler and Garcia and did nothing to bolster the team, in essence waving the white flag on the season.

 

But despite making his job even more difficult, the team rallies and sits on the cusp of a playoff spot. That wasn't supposed to happen and puts them between a bit of a rock and a hard place.

 

I don't love his decision making a lot of the time and I don't think he's the manager to take this team to the next level, but firing him after what the team has managed to accomplish, with the deck being stacked against them, would seem pretty asinine.

 

I imagine they’ll ask Jim Souhan, and then do the opposite.

[h2oface]

I vote to not renew or extend him. His contract is up. The agreement has been kept. The players are young. It is time.

 

MOY. Certainly premature supposition. Plus, he is starting Colon again instead of skipping him. That's on the manager. That is enough to end this chapter right there.

[IndianaTwin]

 

What it shows is that a team will score 26.8% of the time with a runner on first and no outs, but will score 26.5% of the time with a runner on second and one out.

What it doesn't show is the times a bunt is a popup out or a failed bunt where the lead runner is thrown out at second. Either case would reduce the odds of the team batting to score a run.

It shows exactly that a successful bunt lowers the odds of scoring a run when advancing a runner from first to second and incurring an out. This suggests league-average or greater hitters are doing the bunting, of course. Clearly if a terrible hitter is batting the bunt can become a reasonable choice.

 

It also doesn't show...

• the times when the defense goes for the out at second and doesn't get it
• the times when the batter beats it out for a hit
• the times when the defense commits an error 

 

[Kwak]

 

The kind of amusing part of this to me is that Falvey was pretty much feeding Molitor to the wolves when they got rid of Kinzler and Garcia and did nothing to bolster the team, in essence waving the white flag on the season.

 

But despite making his job even more difficult, the team rallies and sits on the cusp of a playoff spot. That wasn't supposed to happen and puts them between a bit of a rock and a hard place.

 

I don't love his decision making a lot of the time and I don't think he's the manager to take this team to the next level, but firing him after what the team has managed to accomplish, with the deck being stacked against them, would seem pretty asinine. 

They got Colon.  Somehow, Molitor stopped using his "travel day" line-up when Gibson started.  If the Twins kept Garcia in the rotation--would he have been "effective"?  Or a BP pitcher?  

[twinsnorth49]

They got Colon. Somehow, Molitor stopped using his "travel day" line-up when Gibson started. If the Twins kept Garcia in the rotation--would he have been "effective"? Or a BP pitcher?

I dont think they got rid of Garcia because they were worried about his effectiveness. That's hindsight and not the point.

 

Got Colon..... lol, good one.

[Dave The Dastardly]

Interesting comments on both sides of the question. Obviously a lot of intelligent baseball guys on TD. Except for me of course.

 

Having thrown myself on the Sword of Ignorance, I still have the temerity to make two observations; if the FO wants to replace Molly because he doesn't worship at the Altar of Analytics, they are letting the tail wag the dog. If their goal is to win games. On the other hand if their goal is to prove themselves gurus, Molly's toast.

 

Secondly, if the FO is taking everything into consideration, not just the use of analytics, they have a 50/50 chance of hitting a homerun or striking out regarding Molly. Careful analysis may tell them they need to fake a bunt.

 

My choice has always been Dougie. But that bridge has been burned.

[Kwak]

 

Interesting comments on both sides of the question. Obviously a lot of intelligent baseball guys on TD. Except for me of course.

 

Having thrown myself on the Sword of Ignorance, I still have the temerity to make two observations; if the FO wants to replace Molly because he doesn't worship at the Altar of Analytics, they are letting the tail wag the dog. If their goal is to win games. On the other hand if their goal is to prove themselves gurus, Molly's toast.

 

Secondly, if the FO is taking everything into consideration, not just the use of analytics, they have a 50/50 chance of hitting a homerun or striking out regarding Molly. Careful analysis may tell them they need to fake a bunt.

 

My choice has always been Dougie. But that bridge has been burned.

I was with you until, "Dougie".  So close.

[peterb18]

I have watched Moilter play baseball since his days at the U of M. My cousin was on the same team. He is considered one of the most instinctive players in the history of the game. I also think that he should be retained as manager. The bullpen issue is not his fault. Nothing to work with outside of a few. It will be greatly improved next year with better players. And Tom Kelly really appreciates him as a manager.

And I also like his philosophy on bunting and lineup construction. At times very creative. Plus the players

really seam to respect him. Look at the results.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Fire him. He can't manage a bullpen and is way over his head.

What bullpen?

[jorgenswest]

If they can do better than Molitor, it is their responsibility to replace him. If they see Molitor as a better than average manager but have someone in mind they believe will be among the best, they have to make that move. Don't they?

[Han Joelo]

They'll keep him.  If they keep winning next year, what difference does it make.

 

If they don't, they've got a ready-made fall guy.  Can you imagine if they let him go, put one of "their" guys in place, and then the team falls back next year?  Who's to blame then?

[twinsnorth49]

I vote to not renew or extend him. His contract is up. The agreement has been kept. The players are young. It is time.

 

MOY. Certainly premature supposition. Plus, he is starting Colon again instead of skipping him. That's on the manager. That is enough to end this chapter right there.

Wait...we get a vote?

 

Starting Colon again is hardly enough to end this chapter with Molly, that's a little overdramatic, don't you think?

[Oldgoat_MN]

I actually like Molitor except for the bunting issue.

If I were Falvine (not that difficult to imagine, as multiple personalities is inherent in me) I would send him home to read a few stats about bunting and them have a conversation about bunting. If he refused to learn anything I would let him go. If he were willing to embrace the facts I would keep him.

 

For me it's really that simple.

 

I don't dislike the guy. I just cannot deal with the arrogant dismissal of facts.

[Oldgoat_MN]

 

 

It also doesn't show...

• the times when the defense goes for the out at second and doesn't get it
• the times when the batter beats it out for a hit
• the times when the defense commits an error 

 

Actually, it does.

The stats don't say, "if everything went right for the defense". They point to exactly how many runs were scored by the team at bat. That would include times where errors, successful bunts and hits happened.  That's what it is measuring. 

I don't know how the numbers could be more clear, so I'll stop now.

[The Wise One]

 

Actually, it does.

The stats don't say, "if everything went right for the defense". They point to exactly how many runs were scored by the team at bat. That would include times where errors, successful bunts and hits happened.  That's what it is measuring. 

I don't know how the numbers could be more clear, so I'll stop now.

Your chart shows the probability  of runs with a plural scoring  Withing that probability  there are separate probabilities of 1 run, 2 runs three runs, four runs etc. The probability of scoring multiple runs goes down with one man out and runner on second but scoring exactly  one run increases   https://www.athleticsnation.com/2013/8/7/4590940/a-statistical-defense-sort-of-of-the-sac-bunt

[h2oface]

Wait...we get a vote?

 

Starting Colon again is hardly enough to end this chapter with Molly, that's a little overdramatic, don't you think?

Ha. It's just the last straw. The last thing that tips the mousetrap. Seriously. 4 games in a row and a 9.17 era. And he starts him again. Makes me vomit.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Ha. It's just the last straw. The last thing that tips the mousetrap. Seriously. 4 games in a row and a 9.17 era. And he starts him again. Makes me vomit.

Why skip anyone at this point? The Twins could close out the season 0-6 and they’re still nearly guaranteed a postseason spot.

 

If anything, I want to see more Colon/Gee/garbage over the next week to give the guys who matter a breather.

[Dozier's Glorious Hair]

 

Ha. It's just the last straw. The last thing that tips the mousetrap. Seriously. 4 games in a row and a 9.17 era. And he starts him again. Makes me vomit.

 

He's struggled in his last three starts (one of which he still completed six innings), yet in his previous 8 he was 4-2 with a 3.42 ERA (and averaging 6 2/3 IP per start).

 

You don't just give the hook to guys who are going through a small rough patch, particularly when they've been so effective for you previously. What kind of message would that send to the team? I bet every one of those players consider Colon one the guys who got them to where they are now. How deflating would it be to see their manager now just toss that guy aside? Nope, not a smart move for a manager to make, not when they should be riding high and feeling good about being on the brink of the postseason.      

[nytwinsfan]

Nope, just fired. 

[laloesch]

 

My problem is: Molly has done his job and has earned an extension, if he's not extended its clear that the new FO had zero and I mean zero intention in retaining him, if that's the case, why on earth did they let him manage at all this year? Dumb.

 

if I remember correctly the Pohlads said that the team would honor his contract through conclusion but after that it was up to Falvey and Levine.