PDA

View Full Version : Jerry Narron really, really stinks, except for ONE little thing....



Edskin
07-29-2006, 08:37 PM
I've been around this board for a long time. Over that span, I doubt anyone would characterize me as a "homer" or an "apologist." But I am totally baffled at the level of utter disdain for Jerry Narron. Actually, I'm disgusted by it.

I don't see things only in black and white. Just because we're leading the wild card doesn't mean the manager "must" be doing a good job. I understand sample sizes, coincidence, chance, etc....

But I've seen enough of Narron to realize one fairly important thing:

The Reds have been a whole lot better since he's been on board.

If it is simply because the roster has improved, then a manager is obsolete anyway-- if a manager is only as good as his roster, then the debate should end, and we should just save money and hire a monkey to manage the team.

I am not a huge fan of Narron's line-up construction and I wished he'd give EE some more playing time. Narron is a bit "old school" for me, but does seem to be pretty good at one thing that always gets overlooked at Redszone:

HE'S A GOOD LEADER

Yes, I understand things like leadership and clubhouse harmony are considered "hocus pocus" by many, but it appears to me that Narron has done an excellent job of keeping a team together that has traditionally crashed and burned by mid season for the past several years.

I really like the way Narron has handled the bullpen since "the trade"-- he has done a great job of re-inventing Coffey and putting him in place to succeed when his confidence had to be way down.

And there have been several times this year when I thought the Reds were absolute toast. Done. I had NO faith. Yet, the team has clawed back each time and suddenly, we're not only leading the WC, but slowly creating breathing room.

The mediocrity (or worse) of the NL certainly helps, however, this is simply a team with a different "feel" or culture since Narron has been on the bench.

I think Narron does and excellent job of handling the 25 guys on the roster all at once. And you know what? For as much as he gets ripped for playing RA so often and at clean-up, the guy has been pretty darn productive for us-- and he's come through in some big spots. As fans, we can be concerned with the longterm, but Narron's job is to win NOW. I wouldn't write-up the same line-ups he does on a daily basis, but I really don't have a problem with them either.

It's almost August and I'm pumped about Reds baseball. I think I'll hold off on my complaints for now.

RFS62
07-29-2006, 08:43 PM
Edskin. Voice of reason.

This has been one crazy year.


:beerme:

Red Thunder
07-29-2006, 09:20 PM
That's the reason I don't visit here regulary anymore.

Why did they trade for Arroyo?
Aurilla sucks
The Phillips pick up sucked
Narron sucks
Hysterical reactions about trade rumors
Not to mention some insane statements about Dunn

Controversial discussions are great, but it seems that halfway intelligent discussions have become a mental challenge for some here.

It has come to a point, where I personally enjoy a so far great season more without reading posts that seem to belittle or critizice every single move that is made. Sometimes I don't even have the impression to be among Reds fans anymore, with so much disdain spread at players (from Castro to Dunn)

The Reds are currently on pace to finish 15 games improved compared to last season (currently 87 wins projected).

They have a very good chance to claim the wild card (or even division title) and make the playoffs.

After 5 losing seasons in a row, this is the first time that the team will likely finsih above .500 again.

Boy, what a different turn this organization has taken compared for example to the Pirates.

To each his own; I just think it hasn't been so much fun watching the Reds for a long time.

paulrichjr
07-29-2006, 09:52 PM
I agree 110%. Narron deserves some credit for turning this thing around. Maybe Lou could have gotten us an extra couple of wins but Narron is a good manager who makes mistakes sometimes (leaving Milton in too long) but often makes decisions that lead to a win...

Mutaman
07-29-2006, 10:01 PM
People like to scapegoat and jump on the bandwagon around here. Not a lot of imagination.

Ltlabner
07-29-2006, 10:28 PM
Edskin,

Fantastic post.

People say, are you happy being only a little over .500 (meaning that another manager would absolutley have us WAY over .500). I say YES. Were we "a little over .500" 4 days from August in 2005? Were we talking about the possibilities of being in the race till the end any other time this century? Has ownership and Kriv made serrious inroads on the damage to the orginiziation inflicated by Schott, Linder, Bowden, Allen, Obrian, et al?

As of this point in the year, we are LIGHTYEARS ahead of where we were last year. That doesn't grant blanket amunity to BC/Kriv/Narron but some people seem to have a hard time giving any credit to the Reds. I've noticed a trend where some posters only grant credit to the other team. The reds didn't make a good play, the opposing batter just didn't hit the ball well. The reds pitcher didn't pitch well, the opposing team has a crappy offense. The Reds aren't in the WC hunt, all the other NL teams are horrible. It's a move to minimize anything positive on the Reds part and I just don't understand it.

Of course Narron does wacky things and makes mistakes. People should criticise his mistakes, so don't post a reply that says I want everyone to agree, don't want debate or drink the kool-aide. Of course the Reds have weaknesses and not everybody is going to argee on every move. But I just can't understand this refusal to admit anything good about Narron, and in some cases, the Reds as a whole. Why is beating a certian subject or player to death not acceptable, unless it's Narron?

Marc D
07-29-2006, 10:55 PM
It really comes down to how much credit you want to give Narron for the improved pitching. Thats the difference between this club and the ones we have seen the past few years imo. The lineups and bullpen usage are all vintage Boone and Miley. Give either one of them this years version of Arroyo, Harang and EZ and I'm sure they could fumble their way to .500ish ball.

Does that mean I'm not happy that we're having a good year for once? Nope. Make me not a "real" fan? Laughable, but someone will say it.

It just means I think this team wins in spite of Narron, not because of him. Personally I could care less how many fellow RedZoners that disgusts or how little imagination it shows.

Ltlabner
07-29-2006, 11:08 PM
Does that mean I'm not happy that we're having a good year for once? Nope. Make me not a "real" fan? Laughable, but someone will say it.

Marc, I don't agree with your assessment, but I do agree that it is silly for people to question anybodies "fan-ness". I assume all here are 100% reds fans. Other wise they are trolls or people who revel in being miserable - either way they are pretty sad.

But I don't doubt you or others fan-ness in any way.

redsmetz
07-29-2006, 11:18 PM
Last night when we were in Milwaukee, we got there early enough that the Reds were still taking batting practice. We were standing behind the dugout and some of the players would come in and we'd say something to some of them.

A few examples. Clayton's coming in, it's not his fault he got traded here, but I'm a fan and I want whoever is on the Reds to succeed (whether "career norms" say they will or not). "Hey, Royce, welcome to the Reds!" He looks up and says "Thanks".

Juan Castro and Javy Valentin are coming in and I'm actually please to have Juan back, I've always enjoyed him as a player. I know some disagree, but that's me. "Juan, glad to have you back!". "It's good to be back". Javy's jogging behind him and I added, "And, Javy, we're always glad to have you here." He laughed at that one.

Finally, Narron is walking by and we say hi and he nods. "You're doing a good job, Jer." He stops, turns, and says, "Thanks"

I know none of these folks are popular with some of the Zone's denizens, but they're with the Reds, I want to cheer them on, encourage them. Let's win some games and make the post-season.

redsrule2500
07-29-2006, 11:30 PM
Narron can manage, because he has beaten expectations and is in a playoff race. Everyone complains about lineups, not playing certain people, taking out pitchers - but the the bottom line is he is winning.

Marc D
07-29-2006, 11:57 PM
Narron can manage, because he has beaten expectations and is in a playoff race. Everyone complains about lineups, not playing certain people, taking out pitchers - but the the bottom line is he is winning.

Dusty Baker took the Giants to the WS in 2002. In 2006 he's sitting at the bottom of one of the weakest divisions in all baseball. If, as you suggest, a manager is judged on wins and losses alone, how do you reconcile that? Is Dusty good or bad?

BuckeyeRedleg
07-30-2006, 12:00 AM
It really comes down to how much credit you want to give Narron for the improved pitching. Thats the difference between this club and the ones we have seen the past few years imo. The lineups and bullpen usage are all vintage Boone and Miley. Give either one of them this years version of Arroyo, Harang and EZ and I'm sure they could fumble their way to .500ish ball.

Does that mean I'm not happy that we're having a good year for once? Nope. Make me not a "real" fan? Laughable, but someone will say it.

It just means I think this team wins in spite of Narron, not because of him. Personally I could care less how many fellow RedZoners that disgusts or how little imagination it shows.

Nailed it.

Johnny Footstool
07-30-2006, 01:05 AM
Narron can manage, because he has beaten expectations and is in a playoff race. Everyone complains about lineups, not playing certain people, taking out pitchers - but the the bottom line is he is winning.

The TEAM is winning, not Narron.

Funny how the manager gets so much credit for the team's performance, good or bad.

Cedric
07-30-2006, 01:06 AM
The TEAM is winning, not Narron.

Funny how the manager gets so much credit for the team's performance, good or bad.

Same way in every sport. Get's too much credit and blame.

jmcclain19
07-30-2006, 01:09 AM
Same way in every sport. Get's too much credit and blame.

Absolutely agree 100%. Which is why I never understand the wrangling around Redszone over the manager. You could substitute "Jerry Narron" for "Dave Miley" and "Bob Boone" in the Redszone archives and the posts have been about the same for years now.

I have a distinct feeling it's replicated across baseball.

paintmered
07-30-2006, 01:15 AM
Absolutely agree 100%. Which is why I never understand the wrangling around Redszone over the manager. You could substitute "Jerry Narron" for "Dave Miley" and "Bob Boone" in the Redszone archives and the posts have been about the same for years now.

I have a distinct feeling it's replicated across baseball.


Yep. This place has been griping about playing time and lineup cards since I've been here - and this is my 6th season at Redszone.

Cedric
07-30-2006, 01:16 AM
Absolutely agree 100%. Which is why I never understand the wrangling around Redszone over the manager. You could substitute "Jerry Narron" for "Dave Miley" and "Bob Boone" in the Redszone archives and the posts have been about the same for years now.

I have a distinct feeling it's replicated across baseball.

Most certainly is. Baseball is an "old school" game. Managers do things based on many things that make the average Redszoner pull their hair out.

I'm surprised that people are dismayed by the way Narron manages, it's not a shocking style in the least. I'm even more surprised that they actually are still baseball fans considering it should have driven them nuts about ten years ago.

Marc D
07-30-2006, 01:21 AM
. You could substitute "Jerry Narron" for "Dave Miley" and "Bob Boone" in the Redszone archives and the posts have been about the same for years now.

Yep because they are essentially the same guy making the same mistakes. Narron lucked into some pitching and a weak league.

A MLB manager is as good as the talent his GM gives him. His job is then to deploy those assets in positions that maximize their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses in order to give the team the best shot at winning.

If anyone here really thinks that Clayton at SS, RA at 3B, JR in CF while EE and either Deno or Freel sit, is putting the best team on the field then I don't know what else to say.

Cedric
07-30-2006, 01:23 AM
I don't think any of us think it's the best lineup. We've just come to realize that major league managers tend to think about less objective things over certain statistics.
Hence, Royce Clayton being a good fielder is the perception and reputation.

It's just old school baseball. It's slowly changing but nowhere near there yet. Just lately announcers are starting to talk more about ops and stats. It's gonna be awhile get used to it.

MWM
07-30-2006, 01:31 AM
That's one of the reasons I don't complain too much about Narron, and didn't complain much about MIley (Boone was another story :) ). The reality is the majority of the managerial crop in the big leagues are going to manage the game tactics pretty much the same. It's also why I don't really care that much if Narron is fired or if he stays. I don't think it will make much difference because the replacement will likely to the same things he does. The few exceptions might be organizations who follow a distinct ideology that comes from the front office and they hire a manager only if he buys into that ideology, or at the very least better conform or lose his job.

Cedric
07-30-2006, 01:33 AM
That's one of the reasons I don't complain too much about Narron, and didn't complain much about MIley (Boone was another story :) ). The reality is the majority of the managerial crop in the big leagues are going to manage the game tactics pretty much the same. It's also why I don't really care that much if Narron is fired or if he stays. I don't think it will make much difference because the replacement will likely to the same things he does. The few exceptions might be organizations who follow a distinct ideology that comes from the front office and they hire a manager only if he buys into that ideology, or at the very least better conform or lose his job.

Very few exceptions, but I totally agree.

And I honestly don't blame the managers. It's tradition and it's the way they have been brought up in the game. It's up to the general manager to force his ideology on the manager in at least some way.

I personally think lineup construction is rather unimportant.

I think a manager makes his money with the way he handles the team atmosphere and how he handles the bullpen. I doubt Jerry Narron has won or lost us five games either way.

The way he handles the bullpen would matter immensely considering the wear and tear on the arms.

Falls City Beer
07-30-2006, 01:35 AM
I agree that the firepower sent the manager's way is almost always better spent aimed at the FO/GM.

redsrule2500
07-30-2006, 01:52 AM
A Positive clubhouse is a thing that can't be viewed in the stats.

WVRedsFan
07-30-2006, 02:13 AM
That's one of the reasons I don't complain too much about Narron, and didn't complain much about MIley (Boone was another story :) ). The reality is the majority of the managerial crop in the big leagues are going to manage the game tactics pretty much the same. It's also why I don't really care that much if Narron is fired or if he stays. I don't think it will make much difference because the replacement will likely to the same things he does. The few exceptions might be organizations who follow a distinct ideology that comes from the front office and they hire a manager only if he buys into that ideology, or at the very least better conform or lose his job.

I think that's true with the majority of major league managers. You can go from game to game on EI and see the same stuff except when you watch the teams with the true gifted managers. You can name them all probably and this has been my argument for about 8 years now.

You can win with the Jerry Narrons of the world. We're living proof of that. But give Dave Miley this pitching staff and the lack of interferrence we've seen for years in tis organization and he'd be winning too. But, if you want to get to the next level and contend year after year no matter what players you have (Within reason), you need a Tommy Lasorda, Jim Leyland, Davey Johnson, or Sparky Anderson. The difference is dramatic in what happens on the field. Much has been made of Sparky's large number of lineups, but he had so much talent that produced, it really didn't matter. And he had an establlished powerhouse while today's team is a team in transition where youth is very important.

Matters not. Jerry is here for another two years and I'll let everyone give there judgement in the meantime--even if that winning record goes away. Which I hope it doesn't. I'm really enjoying this season.

Johnny Footstool
07-30-2006, 02:22 AM
A Positive clubhouse is a thing that can't be viewed in the stats.

You're right. The Reds have had a positive clubhouse since 1999. Sean Casey, Danny Graves, Griffey, Dunn, and Kearns were all great buddies and enjoyed playing for the Reds.

They didn't win many games, but the clubhouse sure was positive.

WVRedsFan
07-30-2006, 02:37 AM
You're right. The Reds have had a positive clubhouse since 1999. Sean Casey, Danny Graves, Griffey, Dunn, and Kearns were all great buddies and enjoyed playing for the Reds.

They didn't win many games, but the clubhouse sure was positive.

True. And since Sean, Danny and Kearns are gone, it's much better. No more crying on the press' shoulder when someone is traded. No more hiding chairs. No more lazy Adam Dunn (he stole another base tonight). And no more individual over team. Give Narron credit for that? Nah, that was all Krivsky. He's fashioning this team in the image he wants it. I'm guessing here, but Kearns and Lopez were eradicated because of attitude and no attention was paid to home runs. Expect more of that.

KronoRed
07-30-2006, 03:10 AM
Bob Boone played Adam Dunn as a rookie, Narron would have played Brady Clark instead

:devil:


J/K of course :D

GAC
07-30-2006, 07:29 AM
Does that mean I'm not happy that we're having a good year for once? Nope. Make me not a "real" fan? Laughable, but someone will say it.

I don't know where anyone has said that, or even suggested it?


It just means I think this team wins in spite of Narron, not because of him.

If the guy was as terrible a manager as some suggest, then this team wouldn't even be doing the above. ;)

It was posted on here a week or so ago by another poster (I think MWM, but not sure); but I totally agree with him..... Narron is probably no different, as far as his managing style/approach to the game, then a majority of the current crop of ML managers.

If you could "slide" Sparky, Lou, or Johnson in as manager of this current team, who were all pretty "old school", you wouldn't see much difference IMO.

Except maybe for a few more temper tantrums, ;)

As Casey Stengel once said (in reference to the talented roster he had, and not knowing who to play).... "The hardest part of my job is filling out the lineup card every day."

westofyou
07-30-2006, 01:02 PM
I don't see things only in black and white.

And that is exactly why you can't hate Narron, because baseball isn't a black and white issue.

Despite the constant screams that it is.

Ltlabner
07-30-2006, 02:19 PM
Geez WOY, are you insinuating that there's actually more to baseball than just figuring out who the best players statisically at any given moment, plugging them in and expecting a one way ticket to the world series?

Are you saying that there is more to consider when working with ball players than just saying, "on paper he's the best at XYZ position so he must be the best fit for our team"?

Are you hinting that ballpayers are actually humans too and that you have to figure out how all those pecies fit together? That there is more to it than just running a spreadsheet and saying, "this is the perfect team".

Wild man, just wild.

Falls City Beer
07-30-2006, 02:22 PM
Geez WOY, are you insinuating that there's actually more to baseball than just figuring out who the best players statisically at any given moment, plugging them in and expecting a one way ticket to the world series?

Are you saying that there is more to consider when working with ball players than just saying, "on paper he's the best at XYZ position so he must be the best fit for our team"?

Are you hinting that ballpayers are actually humans too and that you have to figure out how all those pecies fit together? That there is more to it than just running a spreadsheet and saying, "this is the perfect team".

Wild man, just wild.

I'll bite.

I'm saying that if you're using something other than statistics to determine who should be in your starting lineups every day, you better have a damn good reason for using it, whatever it is. And throwing darts at names on the wall doesn't count.

westofyou
07-30-2006, 02:29 PM
I'll bite.

I'm saying that if you're using something other than statistics to determine who should be in your starting lineups every day, you better have a damn good reason for using it, whatever it is. And throwing darts at names on the wall doesn't count.

Managing a baseball club is more than just lineups, period. Any implication that that is the main part of the managers duty is naive at best.

BTW chew on this while you're biting.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/sports/basketball/19score.html

Are the Mets Out of Order? It Doesn't Matter

By ALAN SCHWARZ
Published: March 19, 2006


For a player so seemingly perfect, David Wright is causing his manager some real headaches.

Wright, the Mets' 23-year-old third baseman, has done it all in his first season and a half in the majors, hitting for average (.302) and power (41 home runs), with speed (23 stolen bases) consistency and the plate discipline of a veteran.

Wright's versatility and aptitude suggest that he could hit anywhere in the batting order, his varied skills meeting every prerequisite.

The mounting debate among the news media and the fans has left Mets Manager Willie Randolph, who will make the decision, understandably chafed by rampant suggestions and theories from those who will not. Perhaps he will find some comfort in what the statistics folks have to say: It does not matter.

Randolph, a lifelong baseball man, retains a traditional image of what the top of his lineup should look like: A leadoff speedster (in this case, José Reyes), then a patient bat-control man (perhaps the new catcher Paul Lo Duca), then a veteran all-around hitter (Carlos Beltran), then the top slugger (the newly acquired Carlos Delgado).

This would push Wright — whom Randolph kept in the 7 and 6 holes most of last year to protect him from undue pressure — to No. 5 in the order, despite his growing reputation as the Mets' most potent offensive threat.

Randolph claims to be considering all his options, including having Wright hit as high as second.

"David saw more pitches than anybody on our team last year," Randolph said. (Wright's 3.98 pitches each plate appearance were the Mets' most.)

But for all the debate about where players should bat, deeper statistical methods have revealed that the order barely makes a difference — and the difference can be quite counterintuitive.

Mark Pankin, a financial adviser based in Lincoln, Va., has developed one of the most advanced computer models of lineup behavior, a method that simulates all the interactions among hitters and their tendencies to hit doubles, draw walks and more.

Using last year's statistics, Pankin turned it loose on the Mets and a half-dozen plausible batting orders.

Whether Lo Duca, Wright or Beltran batted anywhere from second to sixth, each order scored at rates of 4.82, 4.83 or 4.84 runs a game — which over a 162-game season would be a difference of merely three total runs.

"No matter how you look at it, switching hitters around only makes a difference in the second decimal place," Pankin said. "It basically doesn't matter."

This same conclusion has been reached by Bill James and dozens of other lineup empiricists.

And one irritated manager. In 1972, the Tigers' Billy Martin pulled names out of a hat to order his lineup against Cleveland, and wound up with the plodding slugger Norm Cash batting leadoff and the anemic shortstop Eddie Brinkman at cleanup. Deliciously, Brinkman wound up in the middle of the afternoon's key rally, doubling home the tying run and scoring the game-winner in the Tigers' 3-2 victory.

Many have posited over the years that putting batters in reverse order of overall skill — something the renegade manager Bobby Bragan tried a few times in the 1950's and 60's, including having the slugger Eddie Mathews bat leadoff — would produce the most runs, by virtue of those hitters getting more plate appearances over the course of a season. But Pankin's model demonstrated that it was not quite so simple.

Strangely enough, Pankin found that the most efficient lineup (assuming Reyes led off, an inevitability) featured Lo Duca second, then Delgado, Wright, Cliff Floyd and then Beltran; the worst had Wright batting second and Beltran third. (Even allowing Beltran to improve from last year's disappointing New York debut did not change matters much.) The reason, it appears, comes in how managers gear their lineups toward first-inning potency, at the expense of later innings.

A Reyes-Wright-Delgado start did enjoy the best first inning — but carried with it a 59.3 chance that the Nos. 4 or 5 hitters (Floyd and Beltran) led off the second inning, costing that frame more than the first inning had benefited. With Reyes-Lo Duca-Delgado-Wright-Floyd-Beltran, the best hitters (Delgado and Wright) usually came up with either runners on base in the first or led off the next.

"You weaken the first inning a bit, but you strengthen the second," Pankin said.

It appears as if Pankin is on to something. According to Stats LLC, over the past five seasons, more runs were scored in the first (1.16) than second (0.97) innings. But the average of those two (1.06) was still lower than any inning until the seventh — when relievers start taking over — suggesting that managers are indeed overplaying their first-inning hands.

So perhaps Wright's supporters should not worry so much about where he hits — as long as he hits.

"I really don't care," Wright said. "I'm still going to go up there with the same approach hitting second that I'd be hitting seventh or fourth."

In the end, when it comes to lineups, it's mind over doesn't matter.

Ltlabner
07-30-2006, 02:33 PM
I'll bite.

I'm saying that if you're using something other than statistics to determine who should be in your starting lineups every day, you better have a damn good reason for using it, whatever it is. And throwing darts at names on the wall doesn't count.


I agree totally FCB. I'm not real pleased with continuing to use RA in the 4th spot. Or even considering Jr somewhere else. You have to be real carefull using "your gut" without a good reason. I think Narron can usually rattle off a reason for using player A in a given situation that on the surface makes sense. But that reason is usally based in his experience and prejudices. It's when you dig deaper that you realize that the facts don't match up with the reasoning.

My point really was that just can't assemble the "statisically perfect" line up while ignoring the human element of managing a team. Some might poo-poo this by saying they don't care about keeping the players happy they just want results. That management style went out in the 1950s. If your employees aren't happy they aren't going to produce no matter how well the orginization looks on paper or how well they should produce "in theroy".

There really is more to managing a group of people than reading a text book and saying, "well, this is what the book says to do, so it must be right". That doesn't discount stats in the least (see the 1st para) but I don't think any manager of any orginization will ever be successfull by following either all stats (or all "instinct") all the time when dealing with their people. There needs to be a ballance.

Falls City Beer
07-30-2006, 02:35 PM
Managing a baseball club is more than just lineups, period. Any implication that that is the main part of the managers duty is naive at best.

BTW chew on this while you're biting.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/sports/basketball/19score.html

Are the Mets Out of Order? It Doesn't Matter

By ALAN SCHWARZ
Published: March 19, 2006

The funny thing is, I agree it's more than just statistics. But I'm not even sure that Jerry's got down the "human element", either. So far, under Narron's watch, we've heard frustration from EdE, WMP (last year), Kearns (last year), and I know there's more.

All I'm saying is if you're NOT using statistics, you better have a rationale for your lineups, roster, etc. Otherwise, you're playing the shell game, and that helps no one.

RANDY IN INDY
07-30-2006, 02:35 PM
And that is exactly why you can't hate Narron, because baseball isn't a black and white issue.

Despite the constant screams that it is.

:beerme: Great post! Right to the point.:beerme:

westofyou
07-30-2006, 02:39 PM
But I'm not even sure that Jerry's got down the "human element", either. So far, under Narron's watch, we've heard frustration from EdE, WMP (last year), Kearns (last year), and I know there's more.

25 players in the clubhouse, never, never is everyone happy, that's a world that doesn't exist. So I say tough, suck it up and play winning baseball, the rest wil take care of itself.

Talent is the final decider, not Jerry Narron.

Falls City Beer
07-30-2006, 02:41 PM
Talent is the final decider, not Jerry Narron.

I wish.

Ltlabner
07-30-2006, 02:43 PM
The funny thing is, I agree it's more than just statistics. But I'm not even sure that Jerry's got down the "human element", either. So far, under Narron's watch, we've heard frustration from EdE, WMP (last year), Kearns (last year), and I know there's more.

All I'm saying is if you're NOT using statistics, you better have a rationale for your lineups, roster, etc. Otherwise, you're playing the shell game, and that helps no one.

We've heard one article from EE where he said he didn't understand why he wasn't playing. It's a big leap to get to "he's frustrated in Cincinnati and with Narron". Kearns was frustrated last year alright...frustrated that he was overweight. Frustrated that the team demanded more from him. Frustrated that he was sent on a vacation to Louisville to get himself together. I don't see that as a real "Narron" problem. WMP's biggest frustration was trying to hit a major league pitch and catch a ball, again, I'm not sure you can lay that at Jerry's feet.

You don't think Dunn's happy that he's the everyday starter even though he had a horrible start to the year? Or that Phillips continues to start desipite some defensive struggles from time to time? Or that Hatte hasn't been discarded and is producing at a level way above his norms? Or that Ross has been given some consistant playing time and support?

westofyou
07-30-2006, 02:46 PM
I wish.
Patience is a big part of baseball and a small part of Redzone.

Falls City Beer
07-30-2006, 02:46 PM
Patience is a big part of baseball and a small part of Redzone.

We're still here, aren't we?

Random rules.

Ltlabner
07-30-2006, 02:48 PM
We're still here, aren't we?


Yep, finding disaster and implosion behind every lineup and play in the field. ;)

Falls City Beer
07-30-2006, 02:49 PM
Yep, finding disaster and implosion behind every lineup and play in the field. ;)


The opposite of love is indifference, not anger or frustration. :)

westofyou
07-30-2006, 02:50 PM
We're still here, aren't we?

Random rules.
I know you like to line dance, everything so democratic and cool.

Ltlabner
07-30-2006, 02:57 PM
The opposite of love is indifference, not anger or frustration. :)


Wow, I hope you don't "love" your kids like you "love" the Reds here on Redszone! hahahaha I'm just giving you greif FCB, I know you love the Reds.

I know what you're saying man. It is nice to be arguining over how to maintain the success we've had instead of how to get a taste of sucess in the first place!

pedro
07-30-2006, 03:57 PM
We're still here, aren't we?

Random rules.

I know that a lot of what I say has been lifted off of men's room walls.
Maybe I've crossed the wrong rivers and walked down all the wrong halls.

KronoRed
07-30-2006, 04:26 PM
..or walked into the wrong bathrooms

Johnny Footstool
07-30-2006, 05:17 PM
Patience is a big part of baseball and a small part of Redzone.

What does being impatient have to do with not liking Juan Castro hitting ahead of Jason Larue?

What does being impatient have to do with not liking Royce Clayton batting leadoff?

Or recognizing that Royce Clayton isn't neary as good on defense as his reputation suggests and as Krivsky and Narron insist he is?

Hmmm...maybe Krivsky/Narron should have been patient with Josh Hancock, Austin Kearns, and Felipe Lopez.

Are you saying we should be patient and accept obviously stupid choices? Sorry, but I won't do that.

westofyou
07-30-2006, 05:31 PM
Are you saying we should be patient and accept obviously stupid choices?

No, I'm saying that baseball is always been this way, every freaking move is lauded as an idiot move and it's tiresome.

The board often has no patience for the organic nature of the game, which includes a daily gripe about something, every game has one and everyone has one about every game, even me.

Marc D
07-30-2006, 06:03 PM
OK, someone enlighten me. Narron pulls the usual and leaves an obviously gassed pitcher in for one inning too long. He follows that up by giving away an out in the 9th, Castro, with the tying run on base. Most everyone here could see these were both bad moves before they happened, this isn't second guessing.

How does a warm and fuzzy clubhouse trump stuff like this?

RANDY IN INDY
07-30-2006, 06:06 PM
It's a long season.

Marc D
07-30-2006, 06:25 PM
It's a long season.

Which exposes all weaknesses regardless of wanting to see them or not.

Ltlabner
07-30-2006, 09:07 PM
OK, someone enlighten me. Narron pulls the usual and leaves an obviously gassed pitcher in for one inning too long. He follows that up by giving away an out in the 9th, Castro, with the tying run on base. Most everyone here could see these were both bad moves before they happened, this isn't second guessing.

How does a warm and fuzzy clubhouse trump stuff like this?

And where did anyone claim that "fuzzy clubhouse stuff" is the only measuring stick? Or that "fuzzy clubhouse stuff" is the only indicator of success.

Of course the guy makes mistakes, and some glaring ones. Nobody here is nominating Narron for the manager of the year award. Nobody here is saying he's beyond reproach. Nobody here is saying people can't criticise him. Nobody is saying he shouldn't be debated/disussed. So don't waste our time posting that I'm a Narron appolgist or that I think he can do no wrong.

The original poster was making the point (IMO) that Narron is not the source of all evil in the baseball universe. That despite all his faults, and all the critisim, that he does have some positives and ads some value to orginization. Obviously, some of you feel he can do nothing well and is a millstone dragging us into the baseball abyss. But just as silly it would be to say he can do no wrong, is it to say he can do no right.

RANDY IN INDY
07-30-2006, 09:32 PM
Which exposes all weaknesses regardless of wanting to see them or not.

And they all have 'em. Some more than others. Some weather the storm. Some get lucky. The long season is the beauty of the game.

It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone. You count on it, you rely on it to buffer the passage of time, to keep the memory of sunshine and high skies alive, and then, just when the days are all twilight, when you need it most, it stops." -A. Bartlett Giamatti

Edskin
07-30-2006, 10:09 PM
Read all the responses and I have a few things to add:

1. What is written (good or bad) on Redszone has NO effect on my enjoyment of Reds baseball. I love Redszone, I've always enjoyed all of the banter, etc.... even when I disagree or believe someone is foolish, I still respect their opinion and don't let it effect how much I enjoy baseball. I NEVER accuse anyone of being a "bad fan" or not a "real fan," etc... that's silly to me. If you hate Jerry Narron and want him fired, I do not believe it makes you any less of a fan.

2. The whole "a manager/coach" gets too much blame/credit argument doesn't totally fly with me. IMO, in football coaching is THE most important aspect of building a winner-- even more so than talent. I'll take an average roster with a HOF staff over the reverse anyday-- I think baseball and basketball are different-- talent means more. But this is an arguement for another day.

3. The whole "how much credit does Narron deserve" thing is a chicken-egg argument. Has the team pitched better under Narron than they did for Boone/Miley? Yes. Does Narron deserve credit for that? I'm not sure. But look at the Tigers-- that is a roster that is VERY similar to the one that they played with last year-- they made a few additions, but Jim Leyland has been the biggest. They have done EVERYTHING better since he's been there-- should he get all the credit for what those players do? Of course not, but on the other hand, it seems silly to chalk it up to coincidence.

Would Miley be winning if this staff was pitching exactly as they are now? Probably. But the question is........would the staff be pitching this way with Miley here? Who knows. I believe a good manager plants seeds early in spring training-- I believe he constructs his staff and guides them along-- he manages the roster and tries to look deep into what needs to be done to maximize his talent.

The team was HORRID prior to Narron being hired. Since then, we have been MUCH MUCH better. I feel it is simply logical to give Narron some credit for that turnaround.

4. I do not think Narron is a "great" manager. I'm not sure he's a ring-winning type manager. I don't like some of his decisions. And I would NOT have extended his contract when we did-- I would have at least waited until after this season.

But I do believe that he has done a solid job and that the outright bashing he takes on this board from some is unwarranted.

George Foster
07-30-2006, 10:20 PM
That's one of the reasons I don't complain too much about Narron, and didn't complain much about MIley (Boone was another story :) ). The reality is the majority of the managerial crop in the big leagues are going to manage the game tactics pretty much the same. It's also why I don't really care that much if Narron is fired or if he stays. I don't think it will make much difference because the replacement will likely to the same things he does. The few exceptions might be organizations who follow a distinct ideology that comes from the front office and they hire a manager only if he buys into that ideology, or at the very least better conform or lose his job.

I could not disagree more. The Tigers, White Sox, Braves, Angels, and ANYWHERE Jack McKeon manages, would disagree too. A Manager is very important to how a team plays. The above teams and their "turn-arounds" are perfect examples.

GAC
07-30-2006, 10:26 PM
The funny thing is, I agree it's more than just statistics. But I'm not even sure that Jerry's got down the "human element", either. So far, under Narron's watch, we've heard frustration from EdE, WMP (last year), Kearns (last year), and I know there's more.

And two of those three (WMP and Kearns) were also a huge source of frustration to the management and the fans (including yourself). You were definitely no fan of Kearns. ;)

And I have yet to read/hear where EE's "frustration" is anywhere near the level of what we saw by the other two. He seems to be carrying a pretty good attitude.

The difference is that EE has some justification for any frustration he may/may not be feeling because his performance (except somewhat on the defensive side) doesn't justify his lack of playing time, but just the opposite.

The other two did not. They pouted and whined about playing time, yet showed uneven performance when in there. And Kearn's commitment was justifiably questioned.

Cyclone792
07-30-2006, 10:37 PM
My disdain for Jerry Narron right now is pretty simple; Narron is doing one thing over and over again that is irritating the daylights out of me because it is inevitably going to cost this team wins over the final two plus months of the season. Wins that we may very well need to reach the playoffs. Even if it's only one or two wins, that's wins I do not want to throw away due to a simple managerial decision.

What is that simple managerial decision? Letting our best right-handed hitter sit on the bench for two out of three games since his return from the DL. If Narron continues this trend the remainder of the season, it's going to cost this team in the wins column.

Let me provide you guys with an example of a previous managerial decision that irritated the heck out of me.

Let's take a trip back to 1999. The now infamous season where a team full of players with career years rose out of nowhere, put together 96 wins, provided countless summer memories, but broke our hearts during the final series in Milwaukee and the one-game playoff against the Mets. Those fondly remembered 1999 Reds had a phenomenal season, but still, it was a phenomenal season that was simply one win short.

IIRC, I didn't have too many bones to pick with McKeon. In fact, they were few and far between, at least that I can recollect. We had an outstanding bullpen, and if my memory is correct, he seemed to use it pretty darn well. But there was one move he made over and over and over again that just irritated me to no end. One move that if it wasn't made, I do not believe that heartbreaking game against Al Leiter and the Mets even happens. I truly believe if this managerial decision was never made, we'd have slid right into the playoffs, and the Mets would have gone home early. No one-game playoff necessary.

That move was batting Pokey Reese leadoff for roughly half the season (76 games) and burying Mike Cameron in the bottom of the order those same games.

Mike Cameron had an on-base percentage of .357 in 1999. Not great, but certainly not terrible, and Cameron took 80 walks that season which was a nice figure. In the leadoff slot, Cameron had an on-base percentage of .366. Cameron took 45 walks in 82 games in the leadoff slot, and he did what leadoff hitters were supposed to do: get on-base, provide speed and steal a bag occasionally.

Pokey Reese, OTOH, had an on-base percentage of only .330 in 1999, and he took only 35 walks total all season. Reese had his career year in 1999, but his lack of plate discipline still served as a fundamental reason to not bat him in the leadoff slot. In the leadoff slot, Reese's on-base percentage was a paltry .316, which is an absolutely terrible figure for any hitter sans the pitcher, and it's magnified when it's placed in the leadoff slot. But McKeon batted Reese leadoff for 76 games, and in those 76 games Reese excelled at making outs. Pokey was loved by fans that season, but what fans didn't realize was that in 76 games in the leadoff slot, Pokey killed the team by walking only 20 times.

I sit back, and I wonder what could have been if McKeon would have just put Mike Cameron in the leadoff slot and left Pokey Reese and his lousy on-base percentage buried in the eight hole for the entire season. I wonder how the season would have unfolded had there been less outs made at the top of the order in front of Larkin, Casey (who had a great year in 1999), Greg Vaughn and Dmitri Young. I wonder what it'd have been like with more baserunners for those guys to drive in. I wonder how many more runs the 1999 Reds would have scored.

I wonder how many more wins the 1999 Reds would have won.

All it would have taken is one more win over 162 games. Just one more win in the first 162, and that one-game playoff against Al Leiter never occurs.

Just one more win.

Now I can go back and apply some statistical analyis to find out how many runs and wins that one move made by Jack McKeon likely cost us. But it's not necessary. All it would do is bring back a sour memory from an otherwise wonderful season. No, the 1999 Reds didn't make the playoffs, but the season sure as heck was fun. Despite a horrible managerial decision made in nearly half our games, I still have to look back at that season with fondness.

But still, buried back in my mind ... I remember Mike Cameron, I remember Pokey Reese, and I remember their respective on-base percentages at the top of the order in front of our big hitters. And I remember that one simple managerial decision that Jack McKeon made over and over and over that likely cost us more than people will ever realize.

That's why my disdain for Jerry Narron runs high with this one move and Edwin Encarnacion. I'm fearing the final week of the season approaching, occuring and ending with this team merely one or two wins short. I don't want to be left wondering how many more runs this team would have scored - and how many more wins this team would have had - if Jerry Narron had elected to play his best right-handed hitter every game in 2006.

Johnny Footstool
07-30-2006, 10:37 PM
I could not disagree more. The Tigers, White Sox, Braves, Angels, and ANYWHERE Jack McKeon manages, would disagree too. A Manager is very important to how a team plays. The above teams and their "turn-arounds" are perfect examples.

So you're giving the field manager credit for the success of teams with vast amounts of talent?

SunDeck
07-30-2006, 10:49 PM
Do I think Jerry should keep managing the Reds? Yes. Until a manager's team underperforms, he deserves to remain the manager. And I think we'd have a hard time finding any Reds fan who is actually dissappointed with where they are right now after witnessing the last five years of comic futility.

Secondly, I don't think Jerry made this team a winner. Or Wayne, for that matter.
Bob did.

Thank you, Bob.

Johnny Footstool
07-30-2006, 10:51 PM
So how much long-term damage is Narron doing to Edwin Encarnacion by not letting him play more than once a week? I thought young players needed playing time in order to develop.

George Foster
07-30-2006, 10:51 PM
So you're giving the field manager credit for the success of teams with vast amounts of talent?

What was the Tigers record the last two years combined? I don't think Lealand has a totally new 25 man roster does he?

How many division titles did the Braves win before Bobby Cox?

Trader Jack never had a losing season with the reds, and we have not had a winning season since. He went to the Marlins and had a pretty good year in 2003 I think?

Knowing when to manage a team and knowing when to let them play is what seperates let's say Jack McKeon from Bob Boone who had almost the same team, or Ray Knight from Jack McKeon who did have the exact same team. I don't see how this can really be argued. Managers matter...period.

If Joe Torre quit the Yankee's how long would it take for him to find another team, and what would be the bidding war? Managers don't figure into the success of the team??? really?

Falls City Beer
07-30-2006, 10:52 PM
I thought young players needed playing time in order to develop.


:pena:

KronoRed
07-30-2006, 10:52 PM
Excellent post Cyclone :clap:

Spring~Fields
07-30-2006, 10:53 PM
That's why my disdain for Jerry Narron runs high with this one move and Edwin Encarnacion. I'm fearing the final week of the season approaching, occuring and ending with this team merely one or two wins short. I don't want to be left wondering how many more runs this team would have scored - and how many more wins this team would have had - if Jerry Narron had elected to play his best right-handed hitter every game in 2006.

Yes, they can end up 1-3 games out of winning the Central or being the wild card because of those cumlative managerial mistakes, when they clearly could be in it at the end this season.

Everyone mentions Edwin Encarcion and they should as Edwin was well on his way to a fine offensive season especially RBI wise. Yet, Narron does the same thing in the catching, Ross clearly having a fine year at the plate and good enough to catch Arroyo while clearly out hitting Larue, they are not even close in hitting, yet few mention that differentiation. Earlier in the year Narron would overuse Weathers when he was struggling and was very predictable, like Majeski is now, those decisions cost games that are not necessary to lose. For a manager that preaches about giving the other team extra outs, he surely misses that he is doing something similiar himself by reducing his teams chances to score, or reducing the probability of hitter x producing over hitter y. IMO Narron would be wiser to use his best eight hitters at this time, whether they are having career years or not, I think he should play EE and Ross, continue the plattoon of Aurillia and Hattiberg. Also avoid that struggling pitcher until Hume can get the kinks worked out, don't keep sending one of them back out there or leave them in there too long to eventuate failure.

George Foster
07-30-2006, 10:57 PM
Yes, they can end up 1-3 games out of winning the Central or being the wild card because of those cumlative managerial mistakes, when they clearly could be in it at the end this season.

Everyone mentions Edwin Encarcion and they should as Edwin was well on his way to a fine offensive season especially RBI wise. Yet, Narron does the same thing in the catching, Ross clearly having a fine year at the plate and good enough to catch Arroyo while clearly out hitting Larue, they are not even close in hitting, yet few mention that differentiation. Earlier in the year Narron would overuse Weathers when he was struggling and was very predictable, like Majeski is now, those decisions cost games that are not necessary to lose. For a manager that preaches about giving the other team extra outs, he surely misses that he is doing something similiar himself by reducing his teams chances to score, or reducing the probability of hitter x producing over hitter y. IMO Narron would be wiser to use his best eight hitters at this time, whether they are having career years or not, I think he should play EE and Ross, continue the plattoon of Aurillia and Hattiberg. Also avoid that struggling pitcher until Hume can get the kinks worked out, don't keep sending one of them back out there or leave them in there too long to eventuate failure.

Great post....right on target!!!

Johnny Footstool
07-30-2006, 11:35 PM
What was the Tigers record the last two years combined? I don't think Lealand has a totally new 25 man roster does he?

How many division titles did the Braves win before Bobby Cox?

Trader Jack never had a losing season with the reds, and we have not had a winning season since. He went to the Marlins and had a pretty good year in 2003 I think?

Knowing when to manage a team and knowing when to let them play is what seperates let's say Jack McKeon from Bob Boone who had almost the same team, or Ray Knight from Jack McKeon who did have the exact same team. I don't see how this can really be argued. Managers matter...period.

If Joe Torre quit the Yankee's how long would it take for him to find another team, and what would be the bidding war? Managers don't figure into the success of the team??? really?

No organization has "the exact same team" year to year.

The Tigers have "the same team" as last season? No. Check the roster. Check the rotation and the bullpen. Verlander and Zumaya are new additions, and Bonderman clearly isn't the same pitcher he was last year. They're talented kids who are developing. But I suppose Jim Leyland sprinkled magic dust on them and suddenly made them good, huh?

Who did the Braves have on the field before Bobby Cox got there? Smoltz and Glavine were 24 and 23. They matured, and John Schuerholtz acquired Greg Maddux and drafted guys like Chipper Jones and Andruw Jones. Again, you want to give Bobby Cox all the credit.

BTW - Jack McKeon led the 1998 Reds to a 77-85 record. I guess he forgot how to manage that year, huh?

I'm not trying to argue that managers don't matter. The point is that managers get too much credit and too much blame for the performance of the team.

SteelSD
07-31-2006, 12:19 AM
And where did anyone claim that "fuzzy clubhouse stuff" is the only measuring stick? Or that "fuzzy clubhouse stuff" is the only indicator of success.

No one has said that. But then, Marc D didn't imply that clubhouse chemistry was the "only" measuring stick:

Posted by Marc D: OK, someone enlighten me. Narron pulls the usual and leaves an obviously gassed pitcher in for one inning too long. He follows that up by giving away an out in the 9th, Castro, with the tying run on base. Most everyone here could see these were both bad moves before they happened, this isn't second guessing.

How does a warm and fuzzy clubhouse trump stuff like this?

In that passage, Marc D noted specific examples of what were, in his opinion, managerial gaffes. He then asked how clubhouse chemistry would "trump" those mistakes. There's no absolutism in his post. He's questioning how the former overrides consistent glaring miscues. After all, that's what "trump" means. I'm not sure why you processed that information the way you did, but Marc D was not making the argument you claim.


Of course the guy makes mistakes, and some glaring ones. Nobody here is nominating Narron for the manager of the year award. Nobody here is saying he's beyond reproach. Nobody here is saying people can't criticise him. Nobody is saying he shouldn't be debated/disussed. So don't waste our time posting that I'm a Narron appolgist or that I think he can do no wrong.

The original poster was making the point (IMO) that Narron is not the source of all evil in the baseball universe. That despite all his faults, and all the critisim, that he does have some positives and ads some value to orginization. Obviously, some of you feel he can do nothing well and is a millstone dragging us into the baseball abyss. But just as silly it would be to say he can do no wrong, is it to say he can do no right.

Strawman alert.

straw man
Function: noun
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

I've bolded the strawman existing in your argument above. What you've done is create a non-existent position (i.e. that folks feel Narron can do no right) and then chopped it down. Unfortunately there's no value to debating a position that doesn't actually exist.

bottom_feeder
07-31-2006, 12:21 AM
Letting Castro hit today with 1 out in the 9th and the tying run on second was absurd. Narron pinch hits for Larue but not Castro? What is he thinking?

Cedric
07-31-2006, 12:26 AM
Letting Castro hit today with 1 out in the 9th and the tying run on second was absurd. Narron pinch hits for Larue but not Castro? What is he thinking?

Horrendous decision honestly. There's no excuse for it.

The only thing he was thinking about was the double earlier in the game. Still doesn't add up.

Falls City Beer
07-31-2006, 12:30 AM
I don't know; I actually have a whole lot less of a problem with Narron letting Castro bat in the ninth. In some weird way, I thought Castro's play in the field earned him a chance at playing hero.

But I'll go to my grave not understanding how he could have sent Aaron out in 7th, and even worse after giving up the lead-off hit that inning.

Krivsky's really going to have to give Narron a serious talking-to about how he handles his pitchers. Both Harang and Arroyo are on pace to throw a dangerously high number of pitches and innings.

Caveat Emperor
07-31-2006, 02:46 AM
But I'll go to my grave not understanding how he could have sent Aaron out in 7th, and even worse after giving up the lead-off hit that inning.

Maybe it's just as simple as Aaron telling him "I've got this, skip" and him believing his #1 starter.

We're talking about a guy who'd thrown 6 innings of 1 run baseball and thrown 110+ pitches in 5 of his previous 10 outings. He's no stranger to working deep into ballgames and with large pitch counts.

He went out and got hit in his last inning, it happens. If you want to throw blame around, blame whoever called for Kevin Mench to get a fastball when the dude was flailing about trying to hit a breaking ball in his previous AB.

Ltlabner
07-31-2006, 08:15 AM
In that passage, Marc D noted specific examples of what were, in his opinion, managerial gaffes. He then asked how clubhouse chemistry would "trump" those mistakes. There's no absolutism in his post. He's questioning how the former overrides consistent glaring miscues. To which I responded nobody had claimed that clubhouse chemistry issues trumped the manageral mistakes (nor do they in the examples given). I'm not sure why you processed that information the way you did, but I was not making the argument you claim.

When I point out that it appears that some people don't like anything Narron does you may want to check out this concept:

hy·per·bo·le
Pronunciation: hI-'p&r-b&-(")lE
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek hyperbolE excess, hyperbole, hyperbola, from hyperballein to exceed, from hyper- + ballein to throw -- more at DEVIL
: extravagant exaggeration (as "mile-high ice-cream cones")

Falls City Beer
07-31-2006, 10:00 AM
Maybe it's just as simple as Aaron telling him "I've got this, skip" and him believing his #1 starter.

We're talking about a guy who'd thrown 6 innings of 1 run baseball and thrown 110+ pitches in 5 of his previous 10 outings. He's no stranger to working deep into ballgames and with large pitch counts.

He went out and got hit in his last inning, it happens. If you want to throw blame around, blame whoever called for Kevin Mench to get a fastball when the dude was flailing about trying to hit a breaking ball in his previous AB.

Well, maybe it's just my hobby horse right now, but I've been very concerned about the wear and tear on Harang and Arroyo, and I guess I thought Wayne got bullpen help to ease off a little on having to run these two into the eighth inning every single bloody game they pitch in. So when I see a guy having already thrown 102 pitches (pretty difficult pitches) through 6 innings, my particular warning bells go off. But then I think I'm a bit more aware of his cumulative abuse than most on this board--and I'm not saying this to say, "hey, I'm great; I notice they're being abused," but only to say it's something that's been on my mind as a necessary thing to change about deploying Arroyo and Harang: it's time to ease off on those two, post-haste.

Ltlabner
07-31-2006, 10:09 AM
Well, maybe it's just my hobby horse right now, but I've been very concerned about the wear and tear on Harang and Arroyo, and I guess I thought Wayne got bullpen help to ease off a little on having to run these two into the eighth inning every single bloody game they pitch in. So when I see a guy having already thrown 102 pitches (pretty difficult pitches) through 6 innings, my particular warning bells go off. But then I think I'm a bit more aware of his cumulative abuse than most on this board--and I'm not saying this to say, "hey, I'm great; I notice they're being abused," but only to say it's something that's been on my mind as a necessary thing to change about deploying Arroyo and Harang: it's time to ease off on those two, post-haste.

Beyond yesterdays decison, I am in total agreement with you FCB. I'd rather see them error on the side of caution with these two. If one of them goes down our goose is cooked. And you have to wonder about the cumulative effect of the wear. If they are getting tired and they loose effectivness it sure isn't going to help our chances.

Cyclone792
07-31-2006, 10:15 AM
Harang is 4th in the majors in BP's Pitcher Abuse Points, and he's thrown the third most pitches in the majors. Arroyo is 8th in the majors in BP's Pitcher Abuse Points, and he's thrown the fourth most pitches in the majors (he'll likely move into second behind only Carlos Zambrano after Tuesday night's start).

Narron's abuse of Harang and Arroyo is most definitely a concern of mine also. Not playing Encarnacion will hinder the team in wins and losses in 2006, and has the potential to stunt his development. Abusing Harang and Arroyo may or may not hinder the team in wins and losses this season, but it sure as heck has the potential for serious longterm damage. If one or both those guys falters in the near future, our foundation for run prevention crumbles.

Protect thy horses, Jerry.

puca
07-31-2006, 10:28 AM
And it hasn't gotten better since Wayne traded a 1/4 of the starting lineup to shore up the bullpen. Narron is still riding his starters as though his option is bringing Burns, White or Hammonds into the game.

SteelSD
07-31-2006, 10:37 AM
To which I responded nobody had claimed that clubhouse chemistry issues trumped the manageral mistakes (nor do they in the examples given). I'm not sure why you processed that information the way you did, but I was not making the argument you claim.

No, you stated that no one claimed clubhouse chemistry to be the only measuring stick. Yet no one had suggested otherwise. If you're going to continue playing the "I didn't say that" game, it'd be best to point to things you actually didn't say.

If you meant something other than what you typed then just say, "I meant something other than what I typed".


When I point out that it appears that some people don't like anything Narron does you may want to check out this concept:

hy·per·bo·le
Pronunciation: hI-'p&r-b&-(")lE
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek hyperbolE excess, hyperbole, hyperbola, from hyperballein to exceed, from hyper- + ballein to throw -- more at DEVIL
: extravagant exaggeration (as "mile-high ice-cream cones")

Yes, I agree that your strawman of "...some people don't like anything Narron does..." also fits the definition of hyperbole. Strawman arguments often use hyperbole to create an indefensible opposing position that doesn't actually exist. But again, a strawman argument has no value (hyperbole-laced or otherwise) because when one creates a strawman they're not actually debating a real point.

Ltlabner
07-31-2006, 10:52 AM
Yes, I agree that your strawman of "...some people don't like anything Narron does..." also fits the definition of hyperbole. Strawman arguments often use hyperbole to create an indefensible opposing position that doesn't actually exist. But again, a strawman argument has no value (hyperbole-laced or otherwise) because when one creates a strawman they're not actually debating a real point.

Hey, thanks! I had just about forgoten about this whole "strawman" concept. Just when it's about to fade from my memory you are right there to remind us. Maybe you can have the mods post it as a sticky so we'll never forget it and it would save you on a bunch of typing.

There are some folks out there who obviously refuse to give Narron credit for anything other than a passing "I'm glad we are winning but....." followed by a laundry list of baseball sins real or imagined. Usually the one feint praise is surounded by many many posts about how horrible the guy is. And a lot of times those posts are laced with such reasoned thoughts as "I'd like to see Narron impailed". That is the reason for the hyperbole of "they don't think he can do anything right".

I don't like Narron's use of AH/BA, his timing on when to bring in the bullpen, or line up construction. I do like how he has kept juggling all the players, generally keeping them all happy and that he seeminly has the players respect. That does have some value whether you want to admit it or not. Unfortunatley, it's not enough "value" to lead us to long-term sucess year after year.

I am leaning towards the notion that Narron has done a good job, but woln't be able to do a great job. He's the guy to ride the heard durring a transition but not to take you to the postseason year after year.