The Mike Scioscia +/- for 2013

[Docwaukee]

I don't know how long it will last considering it will take a lot of intestinal fortitude but I think it would be interesting to keep track of a few managerial decisions per game and get a board consensus by voting as to what people though were important moves, if they worked out or not and how much value should be assigned to said move in a positive or negative direction. 

 

For instance:

 

Bringing in Richards first and saving Burnett.  from -2 to +2, what would you value that?

 

or Having Shuck ph instead of bourjos

 

or letting Harris ph where he did.

 

Maybe we could pick up to 5 critical moves per game.

 

Thoughts?  Too laborious? 

[Brent Maguire]

I like the idea but it would get very complicated. Some people will completely agree with certain moves while others despise the move. 

[Reilec14]

The handling of the bp today was a +2, imo.

[Docwaukee]

I like the idea but it would get very complicated. Some people will completely agree with certain moves while others despise the move. 

True, but we could have a vote as to what the important moves were and how much they were worth

[tomsred]

I think you are way too focused on the importance of managerial moves in the course of a game.  If the process is expected to reveal whether a managerial change should be made or not, that will depend on far more factors than game strategy.  Unfortunately a lot of Mike's effectiveness will be judged on factors the public does not necessarily see.  Examples like how he works with DiPoto, and his communication and clubhouse leadership with his players.  Another example is how he works with the front office in moving players on and off the 25 man roster, and how he works effectively or ineffectively with his coaches.  I doubt that DiPoto or anyone else in the organization keeps a little "book" on the in game moves that Mike makes each game.  That's something that fits the style in Oakland, but not many other teams.  In the corporate world that's called "micro-managing."  And it usually creates more problems than providing positive results.  But hey, this is a game, anything that falls into being fun I'd be all for, but this just does not seem fun to me.

[Docwaukee]

I think you are way too focused on the importance of managerial moves in the course of a game.  If the process is expected to reveal whether a managerial change should be made or not, that will depend on far more factors than game strategy.  Unfortunately a lot of Mike's effectiveness will be judged on factors the public does not necessarily see.  Examples like how he works with DiPoto, and his communication and clubhouse leadership with his players.  Another example is how he works with the front office in moving players on and off the 25 man roster, and how he works effectively or ineffectively with his coaches.  I doubt that DiPoto or anyone else in the organization keeps a little "book" on the in game moves that Mike makes each game.  That's something that fits the style in Oakland, but not many other teams.  In the corporate world that's called "micro-managing."  And it usually creates more problems than providing positive results.  But hey, this is a game, anything that falls into being fun I'd be all for, but this just does not seem fun to me.

 

I agree with what you are saying and my intent for tracking such is as much to emphasize that many good moves that get made are forgotten or even expected while those that don't work out are totally magnified.  So much focus is applied to Mike's in game managerial moves that I though it would be interesting to make an attempt to actually quantify it.  Not saying it's actually worth anything and probably an exercise in futility that will get washed aside as the season drags on so it's unlikely to amount to much.

[tomsred]

I agree with what you are saying and my intent for tracking such is as much to emphasize that many good moves that get made are forgotten or even expected while those that don't work out are totally magnified.  So much focus is applied to Mike's in game managerial moves that I though it would be interesting to make an attempt to actually quantify it.  Not saying it's actually worth anything and probably an exercise in futility that will get washed aside as the season drags on so it's unlikely to amount to much.

Hey, it's worth a shot.  Is the idea to grade certain game moves, or all of them in their totality?  Are you looking for a total score of between -2 and +2 for each game?  Or you could rate certain categories, like handling of relievers, hitting substitutions, defensive changes, and starter management.    For example, I would say regarding tonight's game:

 

Starter Management:  +2

Relief Management:  +2

Hitting Substitutions:  +1

Defensive Management:  +1

 

And then provide any comments I might like to make to support any of the categories.  My prediction is that he will look great when they win, and crappy when they lose.  Or he may score real poorly overall because I believe the people who want to post the most often will be those that was him dead and gone.  Message boards are generally full of critical posters.

[desiderata]

This is probably going to sound weird (and maybe not make any sense), but a big part of managing that this may overlook is a successful "non-move."  By "non-move" I mean that there will be numerous times during the season that a move could have been made, but it may not necessarily be apparent that is the case.  It's somewhat easier to point out when a "non-move" does not work.  For example, it is easier to point out that a pitcher should have been pulled from a game after inning X when it appears said pitcher does not have his "stuff" that day and said pitcher gets rocked, but the situation which, for the sake of argument, is identical, but for whatever reason said pitcher does pull through, is successful and provides rest for various bullpen arms is not as readily obvious as a good "non-move."  That does not even go into the fact that, while the team would like to win every game, there will be times where a good manager may have to sacrifice not removing said pitcher even when the manager thinks he will get "blown up" for the sake of the longer term health and success of the team.

 

On a semi-related note, I believe I have heard of a study showing how most managers over-manage and actually cost their teams runs (think contact play, ALL DAY ERRRRY DAY) and that better managers, in fact, do less managing.  If that study actually exists, and someone here knows about it, I would love to read it.  I'd google myself right now and try to find something similar, but I'm at work, and its almost 1:00 A.M. 

[shellback]

attempts are made to quantify everything else in mlb, why not managerial decisions? sure, this may be mostly subjective but looking at game totals would sure generate some good discussion. how about some permanent, distinct criteria- may i suggest:

lineup management

starting pitching management

in game position replacement

baseruning and offensive strategy

bullpen management

 

Great idea Doc!

[Stradling]

Asking this board to grade Scioscia on his decisions during the game is not a great idea. Here's how it will work. Scioscia makes a decision that works, +2, Scioscia makes the same decision the next day against the same team and it doesn't work, -2000. Am I right FF?

[stormngt]

your right!

Asking this board to grade Scioscia on his decisions during the game is not a great idea. Here's how it will work. Scioscia makes a decision that works, +2, Scioscia makes the same decision the next day against the same team and it doesn't work, -2000. Am I right FF?

[stormngt]

Grading is simple.  If the team wins, the manager is a genious, if the team loses the manager sucks!

[stevestevens]

The only questionable move yesterday was putting in Shuck.  I know some people thought not PR PB for Trumbo was a bad call but in the NL if you have already burned some subs to PH you can't burn a sub to PR when the game is tied and extra innings are possible.  If they were down by one or playing in the AL and the pitcher was not hitting then it is a no brainer but it was tied and he made the right decision.

 

He managed a solid game yesterday. 

[Stradling]

Grading is simple. If the team wins, the manager is a genious, if the team loses the manager sucks!

Almost. If the team wins, the players did their job. If the team loses its the managers fault.

[Stradling]

As for last nights game the only decision I didn't like was not pinch running Peter for Trumbo late in the game. But that seem to work out well.

[laagamer]

I don't know about placing a specific numeric value to his decisions, simply because of dissenting opinions, but simply creating a game-by-game thread to post our thoughts on them isn't bad. 

 

For instance...

 

I thought that Sosh's choice to make Howie bunt in the 7th was just as bad as Dusty's later in the game. 

 

We have a .280 hitter at the plate & proceed to take the bat out of his hands. Because everyone would rather have Callaspo up in a pivotal situation.

[tennischmp]

bump

[tennischmp]

-1000 for last night?

[robblin17]

I thought for sure this would be a +/- for how many games Scioscia will last. 

[fan_since79]

Falling asleep in the dugout while Jepsen was imploding on the mound, -1000

[nando714]

Passed out drunk. Itching his balls. Jimmy Dugan style

+1

[Angel Oracle]

Wouldn't almost every other manager have replaced Jepsen after the Jaso HR?