Should a manager look after the interests of the team or an individual player?

[BiZmaRK]

If you were a manager and your starting pitcher was holding a lead in the fifth inning but was getting hit hard, would you remove him?

A good example can be found in last night's Giants-Diamondbacks game.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore?gid=290610129&page=plays

[redban]

If your team is in the post-season hunt, then look after the interests of the team.

But if the team is out of contention, then look after the interests of the player.

[JDD]

If you don't look out for each player, then the team suffers indirectly. For 21 hours a day, the brass seems to manage the personalities. The other three will be for the game, or so it seems nowadays.

The player first attitude seems to be running wild in the NBA right now. Coaches are getting fired if they cannot get along with the team's best player.

[gman5431]

Other - i cant answer this question with a simple yes or no. If its a rookie pitcher out there, i think most managers will give him less rope. You want the kid to get the win but not to the point where you cost the team the game. If its a veteran out there, a lot of managers may give him more leway, especially if the alternative, the bullpen, isnt going to be a better solution in the end. Also, the score comes into play. If its 4-3 and not 11-0, then the pitcher will get a lot less wiggle room i expect.

G Man

[BiZmaRK]

What I don't quite understand is since the pitchers win is somewhat of an arbitrary stat and it is highly dependent on things the pitcher has almost no control over (how many runs his team scores), why is it important to ensure he gets the W?

[JDD]

Tommy Lasorda used to get a lot of heat for stuff like this. When Fernando was near the end, he would often leave him in to finish the fifth (when he was struggling) just to try to get him a Win.

I think it is less about the manager rooting for this to happen, and more about the manager not wanting the starting pitcher to throw a fit if he is taking out half way thru an inning of a tie game.

[BiZmaRK]

Tommy Lasorda used to get a lot of heat for stuff like this. When Fernando was near the end, he would often leave him in to finish the fifth (when he was struggling) just to try to get him a Win.

I think it is less about the manager rooting for this to happen, and more about the manager not wanting the starting pitcher to throw a fit if he is taking out half way thru an inning of a tie game.
Why is a pitcher so concerned about his W-L record when he doesn't have any control over how many runs his team scores?

[JDD]

$$$$$$$

Because his won lost record will often determine how much he is paid in the future. It is brought up all the time in contract negotiations. That and the workload (innings pitched). If you don't allow a pitcher to work through a tough inning, he may see it as a lack of confidence from the manager and an inability to pitch his way out of the inning.

Remember, if you leave in the middle of an inning and the score is tied, there is no way for you to pick up the win. And if you leave runners on base, the only decision you can take is a loss.

It's all about contract:flow:

$$$$$$$

[BiZmaRK]

$$$$$$$

Because his won lost record will often determine how much he is paid in the future. It is brought up all the time in contract negotiations. That and the workload (innings pitched). If you don't allow a pitcher to work through a tough inning, he may see it as a lack of confidence from the manager and an inability to pitch his way out of the inning.

Remember, if you leave in the middle of an inning and the score is tied, there is no way for you to pick up the win. And if you leave runners on base, the only decision you can take is a loss.

It's all about contract:flow:

$$$$$$$
How could an owner be stupid enough to base his contract offer to a starting pitcher on the pitcher's W-L record?

Let's say you were considering two pitchers to sign. One has a 0-20 record with a 2.00 ERA pitching for a team that usually scores only about .5 runs per game, while another has a 20-0 record with a 10.00 ERA pitching for a team that usually scores about 15 runs per game.

I know I'm stretching things with the numbers, but why would you pay the 20-0 pitcher more than the 0-20 pitcher?

[Mattingly]

If you were a manager and your starting pitcher was holding a lead in the fifth inning but was getting hit hard, would you remove him?

A good example can be found in last night's Giants-Diamondbacks game.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore?gid=290610129&page=plays
All depends upon whether my team had a lead or not. If so, how big a lead? Was the bullpen fresh? Are the guys available highly reliable?

Is getting hit hard allow 2 runs and a 1B runner with 2 outs? Or walking in a run? Giving up an RBI double to the weak-hitting NL pitcher?

[dominik]

I wouldn't give a **** on individual stats. All that matter is team stats. I wan't to reach the POs and don't care how many wins a pitchers gets or how many HRs a player hits.

(An exeption would be when the season is nearly over, there is no PO race, and a player approaches a season or career milestone (like 20 wins...). In the first 2/3 of a season I wouldn't care about individual stats.

Another thing would be injury of course. When it comes to a players health this comes even before the teams interests.

[Rich the Giants fan]

So you are presuming that Zito was left in simply so he could qualify for a win, and that's a dangerous assumption to make. In this case, I think you are wrong. Zito had pitched very well the first four and a third innings before running into trouble and he was able to pitch out of it. He gave up a few straight hits but wasn't necessarily done at that point. I still felt he could get guys out.

Bochy showed confidence in his pitcher, which may sometimes appear to run contradictory to the team's best interest in the short-term, but in reality can be much better for the team's best interest in the long-term.

And the Giants were also on the third leg of a roadie during which they endured long rain delay's and a doubleheader, meaning they had a tired bullpen.

Things are not always as cut and dried as people want to make them and with baseball, that is almost always the case.

[Rich the Giants fan]

How could an owner be stupid enough to base his contract offer to a starting pitcher on the pitcher's W-L record?

Let's say you were considering two pitchers to sign. One has a 0-20 record with a 2.00 ERA pitching for a team that usually scores only about .5 runs per game, while another has a 20-0 record with a 10.00 ERA pitching for a team that usually scores about 15 runs per game.

I know I'm stretching things with the numbers, but why would you pay the 20-0 pitcher more than the 0-20 pitcher?

And of course that's going to happen a lot, isn't it? I know you think W-L record is meaningless but I think you are wrong. It is overrated but it's hardly meaningless. It becomes less so as the sample size grows, as well. Pitchers don't get to 300 wins unless they have a lot of talent, and likewise pitchers don't go 50 games under .500 for their career unless they have no clue how to succeed.

Can a pitcher's W-L record be misleading based on a season or two? Of course, a prime example being Matt Cain over the past two seasons (15-30). But over the course of 15-20 seasons, water will find its level.

Also, given your improbable scenario, I doubt any team wouldn't recognize that the pitcher with the 0-20 record actually pitched better than a guy with a 10.00 ERA.

[bluezebra]

The whole idea of professional sports is WINNING.

Bob

[BiZmaRK]

And of course that's going to happen a lot, isn't it? I know you think W-L record is meaningless but I think you are wrong. It is overrated but it's hardly meaningless. It becomes less so as the sample size grows, as well. Pitchers don't get to 300 wins unless they have a lot of talent, and likewise pitchers don't go 50 games under .500 for their career unless they have no clue how to succeed.
To get to 300 wins, a pitcher needs to stick around a long time. And to stick around a long time, the pitcher needs to be talented. Likewise for a pitcher to get to 50 games under .500. Without knowing anything more, do you think a pitcher who went 100-150 over his career had a better career than one who went 15-10?

Can a pitcher's W-L record be misleading based on a season or two? Of course, a prime example being Matt Cain over the past two seasons (15-30). But over the course of 15-20 seasons, water will find its level.
Can you explain why Zito should be hurt in the W-L column because his team produces only about half as many runs as they do for Lincecum or Cain?

Also, given your improbable scenario, I doubt any team wouldn't recognize that the pitcher with the 0-20 record actually pitched better than a guy with a 10.00 ERA.
Perhaps you aren't familiar with the concept of an illustration. Illustrations don't represent reality. They are there to illustrate a point.

[Rich the Giants fan]

To get to 300 wins, a pitcher needs to stick around a long time. And to stick around a long time, the pitcher needs to be talented. Likewise for a pitcher to get to 50 games under .500. Without knowing anything more, do you think a pitcher who went 100-150 over his career had a better career than one who went 15-10?

While it is true that a pitcher must possess some talent in order to stick around to receive 250 decisions, it doesn't mean that someone didn't think too much of his talent, or that he was the best pitcher on a team full of bad pitchers for a long time (although I would like to see you show me someone with at least 250 decisions that is under .500).

Take for instance, though, Matt Young who was 55-95 in his career, nearly 50 games under .500 (and chosen completely at random from pitchers with near 100 career losses). Aside from his rookie season, Young was not a very good pitcher, yet he hung around parts of ten seasons despite never being able to recreate the success that saw him make the all-star squad as a freshman. He pitched mostly for sub-.500 teams although when he was on winning teams, he still pitched poorly.

To attempt to answer your question, my first guess would be the pitcher who won 100 games as opposed to the pitcher who won 15, however there is hardly enough data to say for certain. The pitcher with 15 wins could have been injured and never pitched again. It could be he was a short, soft-tosser that no Major League team had any confidence in and who never received a true chance. Either way, there is far too little information to really answer your hypothetical question.



Can you explain why Zito should be hurt in the W-L column because his team produces only about half as many runs as they do for Lincecum or Cain?
Because those are the rules of baseball and have been for well over 100 years. Tough luck is part of the game, as much so as good luck.


Perhaps you aren't familiar with the concept of an illustration. Illustrations don't represent reality. They are there to illustrate a point.

You're illustration failed to illustrate its point.

[sturg1dj]

I think being a manager is a constant balancing act and the options available on this poll do not do it justice.

there are instances where looking out for the individual is also looking out for the team. Right now Rick Procello has like a 85-90 pitch count. Leyland is looking out for Porcello, but he is doing so because if done right they could have a top pitcher for years to come. So that both helps the player and the team.

Another example of the potential balancing act is a game where the team has a 15-0 lead in the 6th. If the bullpen has been used too much lately then you leave the pitcher in for the rest of the game so you can rest the bullpen which helps the team and the relief pitchers. If your bullpen has been well rested then you can put in your long reliever and save the arm of the starter since he is no longer needed.

[KevinWI]

I was the guy who voted for "No - the interests of the pitcher come first", but I don't think I really understood the question. :ughh

[rockin500]

The whole idea of professional sports is WINNING.

Bob

yes. but by winning today, you can lose tomorrow. a smart manager, just like a smart coach or general knows that sometimes you have to lose to win.

Say the bullpen was taxed the previous day, trying to get the starting pitcher through 5 is absolutely essential to the team's success, especially if they have a starter the next day who tends not to go deep in games.

All that being said, the only time an individual player's interests should come over the team's is if it could benefit the team (like in my example) big picture wise or if its an off field personal issue.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I was the guy who voted for "No - the interests of the pitcher come first", but I don't think I really understood the question. :ughh

The club meets every Wednesday.

[sturg1dj]

yes. but by winning today, you can lose tomorrow. a smart manager, just like a smart coach or general knows that sometimes you have to lose to win.

Say the bullpen was taxed the previous day, trying to get the starting pitcher through 5 is absolutely essential to the team's success, especially if they have a starter the next day who tends not to go deep in games.

All that being said, the only time an individual player's interests should come over the team's is if it could benefit the team (like in my example) big picture wise or if its an off field personal issue.


*cough* Pete Rose *cough*


he may have bet on his own team, but not every day. So a win one day was more important than another.

[Rich the Giants fan]

*cough* Pete Rose *cough*


he may have bet on his own team, but not every day. So a win one day was more important than another.

Pete Rose revealed Wednesday that he bet on the Reds "every night" while he was manager of the team and that the Dowd Report was correct when it said he did so.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2798498

[sturg1dj]

Pete Rose revealed Wednesday that he bet on the Reds "every night" while he was manager of the team and that the Dowd Report was correct when it said he did so.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2798498


even that could be bad for the team. I doubt they will admit it, but I am sure there are times when managers know they have lost a game and all they do for the remainder is make sure their best players are ready for the next game. An example would be when Jim Leyland would pull Magglio or Carlos Guillen when the Tigers were losing by a good margin. Would Rose do this if he had money riding on the game?

[Rich the Giants fan]

even that could be bad for the team. I doubt they will admit it, but I am sure there are times when managers know they have lost a game and all they do for the remainder is make sure their best players are ready for the next game. An example would be when Jim Leyland would pull Magglio or Carlos Guillen when the Tigers were losing by a good margin. Would Rose do this if he had money riding on the game?

I agree. Rose may have wanted to win that night's game badly enough to employ an overworked, but vital, reliever who then suffers a season ending injury, reducing the team's chances of reaching the playoffs.

Betting on baseball is forbidden for a reason.