Is Jim Leyland the Tigers' biggest inefficiency?
by Kurt Mensching on Feb 1, 2012 11:27 AM EST
in Detroit Tigers Analysis
Email
Print
(Note: This is less about Leyland, more about inefficiencies So I do hope you'll read it and not skip to the comments.)
Anyone familiar with Moneyball knows about market inefficiencies. Playing "Moneyball" didn't mean that Billy Beane and the Oakland A's were targeting on-base percentage specifically. It meant that he A's were trying to find good players that the free agent or trade markets just didn't value nearly as much as their on-field contribution should have been worth.
So first there was the search for on-base percentage. That made sense because not making outs extends the inning and leads to more runs. More recently, defense has been a market inefficiency. (The Tigers were ahead of the curve on this one when they went into 2009 after signing the maligned Adam Everett. They also quickly jumped off of that curve soon after.)
So what market inefficiencies exist today? Smart baseball front offices are trying to figure the answer to that question out right now. They're hiring people to gather databases of stats and create new ones. They're combing through data looking for any advantages they can find. But what happens when all of that is said and done, and the team takes the field?
Thus, a thought put forth this week by Baseball Prospectus' Ben Lindbergh is that the way teams are managed and coached might be an area where teams can find additional gains. After all, managers and coaches are typically paid a handful of coins compared to most players on the team -- Tampa Bay Rays excluded. But they can play an important role in the players' developments and how games are played on the field.
It's easy to overstate how many games a manager and staff wins or loses, and in the heat of the moment fans go bonkers doing so. Lindbergh surveyed some general managers and found the consensus to be that a great manager who does everything perfect tactically might win 3 more games than if he was average. I guess you could take it the other way and find a below-average manager might lose a couple extra. Of course in many division races, this could be the difference between making the playoffs or watching from home. (Detroit, 2009. Boston, 2011. etc.)
The real interesting part is when you think about how much a team would be expected to pay a player to add those three (or four or five) wins. The typical statement people make is that a "win" -- measured by WAR or your choice similar stat -- is worth about $5 million. I think that's more of a floor than a ceiling and agree with people who say that it's probably worth more and that it's more of a sliding scale than a set figure. But for argument's sake, let's say a win is worth $5 million. A manager whose decisions are worth three more wins than average should be worth $15 million to his team, right? Yet the available figures -- some a few years old -- suggest most managers are paid $3 million or less for a season. In 2007, many were paid less than $1 million. It appears there's a glaring market inefficiency there.
Any managers out there should like that point.
Lindbergh goes further than that and posits that coaching staffs as a whole should be overhauled and that teams might be wise to hire a strategist who is familiar with the "best practices" of lineup construction and run expectancy, as it were. That way a manager like Jim Leyland, known for being superb behind the scenes and generally questionable between the lines, doesn't have to be a jack-of-all-trades. After all, he has a hitting coach, he doesn't do that himself. (Yeah yeah, I know what some of you are going to say here.) He has a pitching coach, he doesn't do that himself. Why not hire a strategy coach so Leyland can concentrate on what he does best: managing people.
Lindbergh writes:
Just as it once might have seemed unthinkable that a manager would outsource most of his hands-on coaching to a group of subordinates, it seems far-fetched now that one might not make all of his team's tactical moves. But in a business as competitive as baseball, potential advantages don't stay unexploited for long. Teams are spending more and more money to acquire both data and the teams of executives qualified to distill it into actionable information.
Often in sports, it is easier to stick to incorrect group-think than to take a risk and have it go against you. Football coaches that should go on fourth-and-short punt because turning the ball over could result in turning their job over -- even if it's more likely they'll get that extra foot they need than that they won't. Yet even in football, coordinators are making a lot of the small tactical (read: play-calling) decisions while the head coach sees the big picture.
Lindberg concludes:
If teams are aiming to make "decisions based on the best and most timely pieces of information that you can have at your fingertips," how much longer will they entrust that information to someone liable to go with his gut?
Teams will have to make a concerted effort to groom and hire managers who are comfortable with statistical analysis and with having a seconds-in-command who might not approach the game the same way as it was a few decade ago. They'll also have to find the right people to analyse situations in their head at the thick of the moment and make the right choice. But before all that, they'll need their front-office people to create the tools necessary to gauge the impact of decisions. With computing power, time, brains and historical run expectancy, that step shouldn't be too difficult.
I don't think teams will trust manager's guts forever. But it will probably take another baseball generation before changes like Lindbergh suggests are closer to being accepted on a larger scale.
69 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I only read the headline
and I say yes based on that…maybe after I read the article I’ll understand what you are actually talking about and will have a real opinion
by WorldSeriesTiger on Feb 1, 2012 11:47 AM EST reply actions
hmm interesting article Kurt
the concept discussed here is pretty intriguing.
personally, I’m a big Leyland supporter. last year in the middle of the year a lot of people wanted to see JL fired. I think that would have been a huge mistake… and honestly I don’t think we go on that 12 game streak or possibly even made the playoffs if we had fired him during the season last year.
Did we really just sign Prince Fielder? Holllllllllly sh*t.
Coaching Staffs Do More
than most people see behind the lines. They have many meetings together behind closed doors and share opinions on when it is best to make tactical decisions. Just because the fans don’t see or hear those discussions, doesn’t mean they don’t happen. I coach a few different sports and we spend a considerable amount of time planning our moves. The action a manager takes in a game is the culmination of his tactical research team: his coaching staff.
You can hire someone else and call him a “strategist,” but teams already have many of those. The real change is already happening. As these assistant coaches get their hands on more information, they become more informed strategists. And as that happens, the head coach or manager is better able to make decisions with his gut based on statistics and analysis.
think of it like this
More goes on than people see in every profession, but some people are still better than others at those professions.
I think you would disagree with the notion that coaching staffs are irrelevant, right? That is, like any other profession, you’re going to find people who are better at it and worse at it than other people.
Can you then create and use tools to assess what individuals and staffs are better than others? I believe yes, as statistical analysis has many applications, from science to business and beyond. So we should then be able to evaluate who is better and who is worse at managing a baseball team.
Can teams who create these tools to find a better manager (or way of creating a coaching staff) use them to save money while creating a better team? That is, adding wins through the relatively lower-paid coaching staff rather than higher-paid acquisitions? The answer ought to be yes.
by Kurt Mensching on Feb 1, 2012 12:21 PM EST up reply actions
I look at the Tigers this way
- Jim Leyland gets maximum effort out of his players on a daily basis. They rarely quit on him, and they’re not around very long when they do. Every player knows who the boss is and what their role on the team is.
- Leyland hires coaches who work at teaching Leyland’s methods- or roles- to the sub group of players that they are assigned to work with. His coaches are not the best in the business at implementing particular techniques, such as correcting a flaw in a pitcher’s delivery or a hitch in a player’s swing. What they do is make sure that everyone knows their job, and they might point out something from time to time. They’re there because they work well with Leyland.
- What fans see on a daily basis is what happens on the field. We see the tactics and the strategic moves. We see the lineups, and these are the things that fans tend to grade a manager’s performance. I don’t think that’s the biggest difference in managers. 90% of managers will make the same move in 90% of situations. Even some of those get criticized (by myself included). That’s why Leyland might get a bum rap.
- If the Tigers could get a Dave Duncan to work with Rick and Max, he’d be worth a bundle of money to impart his wisdom, IMO. Money that would be better spent than it would on upgrading the middle relief corps in the bullpen.
But in terms of allocating resources to the latest statistical analysis, the Tigers are pretty old school. In that respect, Leyland doesn’t know his ass from third base.
"King of Minutiae"
Leyland
I have to admit that I don’t think of things Leyland does and give critical analysis to them. I’m kind of old school in the way that I trust the manager… critisize me if you will. I will agree with Kirk that we need to implement better angles on the market as they enter, but I stand with my point that we do that the best we can already. A strategist is just a fancy name for a member of the staff who tries to find statistics and use them to the team’s advantage. I wouldn’t doubt that every professional and amateur team does that already. The guys who can look at stats and analyze them have jobs in baseball.
by ottisfranklin on Feb 1, 2012 1:16 PM EST up reply actions
Great topic!
I don’t think anyone would accuse the Tigers of taking advantage of “market inefficiencies”.
"King of Minutiae"
General Managers are the biggest market
inefficiency. They make similar money to that of managers, yet can you say there is only a few million dollars difference between Brian Sabean and Andrew Friedman?
If this tigers were built differently, then I would say yes
But having all of those personalities and and types of players they do have, then I think they could do much worse than leyland.
Yes his lineups can drive us bonkers and he is completely unaware if OBP as a stat, but he does an amazing job of handling the clubhouse and his guys love him. He keeps morale high and understands the game. Face it; The Tigers aren’t a small ball team and shouldn’t be managed as such. He knows his players, what they are capable of, and for a power house team, he is the perfect guy to manage this team.
And as far as his situational IQ goes, let’s not forget he outfoxed Ozzie guillen towards the end of the season, and other than the ‘06 world series, you can’t really say the team has lost big/high impact games due to leyland being ‘out managed’
Tired of generic music??? Exterminate All Rational Thought is here to help!
Cabrera leads off with a double . . .
. . . you think Fielder shoudl get the bunt sign?
by rea on Feb 1, 2012 1:21 PM EST up reply actions
Clearly not...
but tell me who does? How many bases did we steal last year as a team? How many times did we see a guy on third with one out and watch 2 strikeouts in a row when a well placed bunt up the first baseline scores a run?
And on the other foot
There were even more times when he did bunt and people threw a fit.
Tired of generic music??? Exterminate All Rational Thought is here to help!
Scoring one run at a time is a real good way to score one run.
My degree is worthless
by Godd Till on Feb 1, 2012 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Profound
And true. Rec’d!
The other sports are just sports. Baseball is a love. ~Bryant Gumbel, 1981
who would u like to see steal bases?
It’s not on Leyland that the team is slow… Id rather play station to station than have our guys thrown out consistently which what would happen if we ran more
by syper17 on Feb 1, 2012 3:15 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
Several things:
First— the Angels were a small-ball, run-manufacturing type team. Would you prefer them to the Tigers?
Second— the Angels lineup is designed for small ball. They have fast players that run bases well.
Third— the Tigers are not. Boesch, Cabrera, Peralta, Fielder, Avila, Delmon, Raburn aren’t exactly Carl Crawford-like baserunners. They have one legitimate base stealing threat in Austin Jackson, and even he is still learning that stealing a base is more of an art, and not just being very fast.
I would still take Detroit’s offense.
If your ball team plays its games in Iowa in a cornfield
Then advancing runners and scoring runs “one at a time” makes perfect sense.
Otherwise? Not so much.
If your parents didn't have any children, chances are you won't either
Yeah
A surprise bunt for a base hit with a speedy runner that doesn’t swing the bat very well, or a situation where one run means as much as multiple runs, such as a tie game in the ninth. That’s about it. Otherwise, it doesn’t pay to give away outs.
"King of Minutiae"
'Why not hire a strategy coach"
We sort of had that, back in the day, with luis Pujols being the manager and Felipe Alou his bench coach. They still managed to bat out of order, though.
Leyland constantly played guys who should have sat,
How much help did we get from Jackson at the end of the year? He lead off regardless. How great was Raburn at 2nd base all year? He played daily and a real 2nd baseman rode the pine. How many times could dead people see Benoit was gonna blow the game? Leyland was the only one stupid enough to keep him in. I think Jimmy is losing it. The last 2 years he’s made move that make me scream NOOOOO and sure enough, there goes the game. I’m hoping the Tigers are picking up enough quality players that there is no possible way for him to screw it up.
Really?
Who leads off instead of Jackson? How do you know they’d do better? How do you know the line-up AS A WHOLE isn’t made worse from that one switch?
How can you judge the difference in Raburn’s bat vs. perceived bat of a whole year of Santiago and then the # of runs saved by Santiago’s glove vs. Raburn’s and think that it is so far off that there was a clear answer to which was a better option? As well, how can you know what inserting Santiago into the line-up and removing Raburn’s bat does to the line-up AS A WHOLE?
Benoit? Really?!? JL stuck with him through the bumps at the beginning of the year and was paid off handsomely June-PostSeason, especially the postseason.
Please take your JL hate to MLive.
Baseball is like a poker game, nobody wants to quit when he's losing: nobody wants you to quit when you're ahead. ~Jackie Robinson
by LittleLeagueTiger on Feb 1, 2012 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
You seem to be a reactionist
Benoit blows two leads; cut the guy. Raburn batted .167 in April; bench him.
As fans, I think it’s our nature to react to poor play, especially for what we may deem an extended period of time. However, over the course of a long season, every player will slump and get hot. Leyland is smart enough to know that sometimes slumping players need to work through their slumps by getting reps. That roster dries up pretty quickly when players start losing their spots due to an ineffective week or two. I’m also guessing that the clubhouse isn’t that fun of a place to be when you’re worried about getting benched every time you go 1 for 12 over three games.
The other sports are just sports. Baseball is a love. ~Bryant Gumbel, 1981
baby steps
at least Raburn was spelled properly
"I'm a simple man. I like pretty, dark-haired women and breakfast food" - Ron Swanson
by rock n rye on Feb 1, 2012 4:35 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Leyland gets crush for playing the had he is dealt.
We sometimes seem to forget that Leyland doesn’t get to choose the makeup of his team. In sure he’d like a guy to lead off that doesn’t swing and miss as much as Jackson, but who on our roster would work? Dirks (not a starter), peralta (career year, better suited at 2,6,7), Avila (let’s not get cute).
As for the strategy coach, isnt that what Ron Washington does? I remember hearing that during the post season.
by syper17 on Feb 1, 2012 2:21 PM EST via iPhone app reply actions
Leyland
When Jackson leads off a game with a double, and Rhymes sacrifices him to third, I cringe. When Thomas bats third, I can’t imagine the logic. When a reliever throws 10 pitches, 9 strikes, and goes 1-2-3 through the order, but gets yanked; his successor does the same and gets yanked; then the next in order gives up 7 hits, I really wonder. When Leyland pinch hits for a guy who is .462 career against a pitcher to bring in another who is hitless in 9 trips, just to get the righty/lefty matchup, I can’t imagine what he’s thinking. Were there worse defenders last year than Magglio in right, Betemit at third, Raburn at second, Young in left?
To be sure, players like Leyland, and that’s a huge plus. Leyland has this sixth sense about who is tired, who needs replacing, and that’s because he knows his players so well.
Yet Leyland eschews modern statistical analysis, as if he’s better than the numbers. Yup, sometimes he is, but he needs to get with the game. It passed Sparky by, and I would say
is almost there for Leyland.
Betemit? Really?
I suppose you would have batted Inge with mono and have him bat .179 than have Betemit at third? Problem was that we didn’t have a natural third baseman other than Inge. Betemit was an emergency. Or have Kelly play third? He wasn’t terrible but he wasn’t much better than Betemit. And Young? The guy hit most of the time. What else could Leyland do? DH everybody that doesn’t play great defense and magically have 3 good defenders play all 9 spots. Really, be sensible.
by ottisfranklin on Feb 1, 2012 3:24 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not sold on the premis of this article
How can hiring a strategist change things? First, managers have all the updated information on their players and their opponents. Heck, they keep a damn book that has player stats vs. each pitcher.
Now what happens if you hire a strategist and he messes up games. Say Raburn is tearing it up, does a strategist take him out for a game if the stats back another player vs the starting pitcher or does he ride the streak?
Putting a dollar value on wins is tricky.
How many wins does a replacement level team win over the coarse of a season? This replacement level is actually greater than 0. Even a 0 WAR team will win 40+ games in a season. WAR is not wins alone, but it’s wins above replacement. If a full-time replacement level player is worth 3 wins (that’s just a ballpark estimate). That would make a 1 WAR player worth 4 wins.
If I were to put a dollar value on that, then the 1st 3 wins or replacement level is worth $480k or the MLB minimum. Each additional win is worth market value or $4.5M.
1 WAR or 4 wins is worth about $5 Million ( $480k + $4.5M = $4.98 M).
2 WAR or 5 Wins is worth $9.5 M
3 WAR or 6 wins is worth about $14 M
4 WAR or 7 wins is worth about $18.5 M
5 WAR or 8 wins is worth $23 M
6 WAR or 9 wins is worth $27.5 M
7 WAR or 10 wins is worth $32 M
Your football analogy confuses risk/ reward with probability - they are completely different. For example if the chances of “losing” at russian roulette were 1 in 10 and the payoff was $1M would you do it? I expect most people would forgo the $1M despite the 90% probability of “winning”.
I don't think the game has passed Leland by
sometimes his lineups drive me crazy but I don’t hold his not following some new stat all the time against him because he does pull one out his ass regular but not always, like going with stats only different.
I have a hard time with using the moneyball approach to evaluating a manager.
Too many thing affecting a team’s results are outside a manager’s control. A manager is hired to do a lot of things, including managing the egos of highly paid 20- and 30-something athletes, making situational judgment calls (bunt, steal, intentional walk, defensive alignments), trying to avoid doing something that may lead to injuries or fatigue and dealing with the same when they occur, putting together and tweaking lineups from game to game based on matchups, etc. I do not know how much Gardenhire, Madden, Washington, Acta, Leyland or any other of the well-known managers are paid, but I am certain that their value to their respective teams is not accurately reflected in any numerical measurement. Frankly, a lot of a manager’s value depends on a match between ownership’s preferences, as reflected in roster, and a manager’s approach. If ownership wanted to build a team on speed, JL would not be a good fit, because he does not manage that way.
Leyland is not the Problem
His coaching staff leaves a lot to be desired though. I was hoping his 3rd base coach was headed to Boston. His hitting coach is still licing on his Little League World Series games. I still don’t know what to think of his Pitching coach. Brookens is ok at 1st. So all of that being said I wish Mr I and DD would take a look at upgrading the coaches.
but they are Leyland's coaches
I don’t think Dombrowski hires the coaches for him. I mean, they’re his Pitttsburgh buddies.
by Kurt Mensching on Feb 2, 2012 12:17 AM EST up reply actions
Agree Kurt
I know DD doesn’t pick the coachs but I can’t help but think his Pittsburgh buddies have not been good at times and like Wilsonm24 states Lloyd has probably helped Avila. I don’t think he had much to do with Vmart or Peraltas year though. They came in as good hitters. All of that being said I cringe every time I see a runner being waved in coming around 3rd base>
They're definitely Leyland's guys...and as for Lloyd...
Look at what Granderson did this year in NY….obviously the production was skewed due to the stadium he played in and his strike-outs were still up. But, if you watched him play, you noticed a subtle difference in his swing as it has become more compact. Obviously one tweak won’t improve a guy’s numbers in a huge way (maybe for Bautista)—he’s still going to have the same eye and the propensity to chase pitches—but it bothers me Lloyd didn’t see what NY’s hitting coach saw and didn’t adjust Grandy’s swing in a similar fashion while he was in Detroit.
Look at Grandy
Then look at Peralta, Avila, and Vmart. All of them had career years. Since you want to blame Loyd for not fixing Grandy, make sure you “blame” him for fixing them as well.
Agree to a point Wilson
I think Lloyd may have helped Avila. However Vmart and Peralta came in a s good hitters. No Lloyd it seemed couldn’t help Grandy for whatever reason but there are also players like Raburn, Inge, Santiago and Jackson. Are they uncoachable as well?
You can only teach so much
If the player doesn’t have the skills to be a good hitter then he isn’t going to be a good hitter, no matter who the coach is. Santiago and Inge just don’t have the talent to be all that good. Inge, in particular, has a reputation of being fairly stubborn when it comes to being coachable at the plate.
For Vmart he was above his career numbers in BA, OBP, and SLG last year. For a player that is past his prime (age wise) that is quite and accomplishment.
Peralta also posted the highest BA of his career, the second highest OBP, and second highest SLG of his career. While I have been a huge proponent that some of that is due to Jhonny being moved back to SS where he is more comfortable, that is still a pretty large accomplishment.
For Santiago, he had numbers at or exceeding his career averages for BA, OBP, and SLG as well. The emergence of Brennan Boesch from little known fringe prospect two years ago to a middle of the order bat shouldn’t go un-commented on as well (he also showed large advances in all three major offensive catagories last year). There is deffinately more good advancement from the Tigers at the plate this last year then there is decline and part of that needs to be attributed to Lloyd.
I don't think Lloyd did much
I didn’t see a difference in Peralta or VMart’s swings. I think a big reasons for VMart’s increased BA, OBP and SLG was spacious outfield in Comerica—as he is a gap hitter. As for Peralta, his swing was still largely the same, I think the big reason for his increased production was the fact that he had worked harder in that offseason then he ever had. He always had potential, he just seemed to not care about improving while he was in Cleveland. As for Avila, obviously Lloyd helped him, but he’s also just a young hitter who any hitting coach should be able to help…and, if memory serves me correct, it was VMart that suggested Avila should use a heavier bat, so that his “flip” style of swing would be more powerful and effective, and lead to less intermediate fly-outs.
On the other hand, look at Jackson, he has a ton of movement pre-swing, and a lot of times he’s late on fastballs because he is late getting his foot down after his large kick. Granderson, while not as exaggerated, also was not very still pre-swing and had a more open stance. Now, in NY, you’ll notice that he has shortened his pre-swing routine/stance and become more still, which allows him to have a more compact swing.
Obviously I’m not a hitting coach, but if even I can recognize what is causing Jackson to be late a lot of the time, then I’m sure every hitting coach can. The question is why Lloyd doesn’t feel the need to force them to make an adjustment? I know he knows its a problem, and I’m sure he recognized Grandy’s issue as well…yet it seems like his philosophy, similar to Jim’s, is more old-school and hands-off, a kind of “no reason to fix what isn’t broke” approach, or “it’ll only mess with their head.” And while these players have been successful, I think if there is room for improvement, you should always work towards that goal—which relates to the theme of this article, that our coaching staff is inefficient.
Defense on the Jackson issue
Lloyd’s philosophy is that you don’t gut a swing during the season. Sure, you can put time in the cages and try to make minor adjustments, but Lloyd feels, and I agree, that you don’t make major overhauls when you’re playing everyday in a results-focused league.
With that known, the only time to “fix” Jackson so far would have been between his rookie and sophomore seasons. And you don’t go gutting the swing of a guy that just finished a .293 / .345 / .400 season and finished second in ROY voting.
Yes, Jackson’s swing has problems, but I don’t blame Lloyd one bit for not fixing it last winter or in-season.
The other sports are just sports. Baseball is a love. ~Bryant Gumbel, 1981
Okay....so do you fix it after he goes .249/.317/.374 w/ 181 SO's?...
..because I would be willing to bet that on opening day he still has the same exaggerated leg-kick…i hope I’m wrong
And, i completely agree that you don’t seriously mess with someone’s swing in season…i apologize for not clarifying that. However, Lloyd has had two offseason’s to help him to shorten that leg-kick and hasn’t. I wont argue that he wasn’t successful his first year—he was. But, his BABIP was way above league average and he still had 170 SO’s. A good hitting coach would have looked past the numbers you put in your post—a coach that actually uses such statistics—and realized that A-Jax was destined for a season like he had this year, unless he somehow luckily kept his BABIP where it was. Which is the point I am trying to make. I get it, Lloyd is old school—if it aint broke don’t fix it old school—but when a guy has a glaring issue likely Jackson and the numbers strongly suggest he has room for improvement, I want my hitting coach making the necessary adjustments and not just letting him “work through it.”
It was reported around the time of the trade
one of the reasons the Yankees were so open to dealing him was the leg kick and strikeout problem. they tried to change him and it didn’t quite work. I think the tigers knew what they were getting and at this point there’s not going to be any radical changes.
by Kurt Mensching on Feb 2, 2012 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
I hear what you're saying
Lloyd should have known it was coming in 2012. It’s like not grabbing an umbrella when the sky is cloudy and you can hear the thunder (but it was so nice yesterday!)
That being said, Lloyd was in a tricky spot. If you gut his swing after 2011 and he has a miserable 2012 (that was coming anyhow) you’re the one to blame. I guess it doesn’t make it right – just a tricky situation.
And I’m in Kurt’s camp here, sort of. I think he’ll keep on whiffing, but I think it will improve slightly and I’m also hopeful that BB% will rise a bit and power will increase. That makes the K’s more tolerable.
The other sports are just sports. Baseball is a love. ~Bryant Gumbel, 1981
Ya I agree
And, I was wondering the same thing, because, normally, the Yankees’s staff will figure out how to fix something like that.
And, I know its a tricky situation. My issue is that, when faced with such a situation, Lloyd will always take “work through it” approach, which I don’t think is always best (not just talking about A-Jax here).
So what you are saying is
That all the bad things are squarely on Lloyd, but none of the good things can be attributed to him?
got it.
i expect good things from a hitting coach and you should too
Obviously he helps his players, he’s a big league hitting coach…Lloyd’s just not a very good one.
And he gave you good things
Career years, or above career averages, for at least 5 of the batters in the order. At averages for two of the batters (one [Miggy] could technically be above career averages as well but yeah). And two batters below career averages, one who is known to be difficult to coach and one that is coming off a rookie of the year quality year.
If you expect your batting coach to generate career years out of every batter in the line-up you will never find one up to your standards…sorry to disappoint.
Also, when VMart is making suggestions to Avila that work,
which Lloyd did not think of in 2 years, its safe to say there are better options out there that can better serve our team.
I am sure that is the only thing that lead to Avila havign the year he had...
Can we do sarcasm font in the title?
clearly your missing the point
If you really think Lloyd is responsible for those players career years and he isn’t a subpar hitting coach so be it. But again I point to the change in mechanics in Granderson’s swing upon his departure as objective evidence that Lloyd simply isn’t doing everything he can to help his players.
While you point that out
you are clearly ignoring the improvement that the players on the roster had, or are attributing it to anything but Lloyd.
Granderson completely re-worked his swing. He is now keeping two hands on the bat almost completely through his swing (which is what is making it more compact and increasing bat speed not the pre-swings jitters), this allows him to stay inside longer, especially against left handers which is the drastic improvement that turned him around.
the problem with your argument is that you don’t know if Lloyd approached him about this and tried to correct it and Granderson told him he didn’t want to change. You are making assumptions that Lloyd just sat around in the dugout and watched people flail around and just kinda snickered and didn’t care. He may well have tried to adjust peoples swings and they told him to get lost.
Look I get it, you don’t like Lloyd and that is obviously skewing your view. Whatever makes you happy. I don’t think he is particularly good either, but you can’t blame him for all the bad and then ignore the good that the hitters have done. The two go hand in hand.
How am i skewing my view?
He didn’t watch people fail around, he knew Granderson was a good player and didn’t want to mess with his swing. Obviously he cares, its his job. He’s not snickering in the dug-out, he’s just not actively pursuing different options. And again, if you think he tried this with Granderson, who said no way, then why when Granderson suddenly came under the help of a different hitting coach did he change his swing?
Its not that I don’t like Lloyd—i don’t agree with his, or our entire staff’s, old school philosophy, which is exactly the purpose of this post.
ooop
That was suposed to say LIVING on his Little League World Series games. ( Stinking Fat Fingers). Another thought on Leyland, I should have said other than his fixation with Inge and Raburn, I think he is a good manager.
Can't have manager who doesn't control the lineup.
Hi all, longtime reader, first time writer.
I don’t think you can have a manager who’s a great “people person” who doesn’t control the lineup, or even make it out on a regular basis. The thing with Jim that players love is that he makes you accountable to no one but him and the team. You’re not accountable to the fans, or the media, or even to other individual players, you’re accountable to him. Keep the skip happy, and you’ll play. You think Don Kelly got all that playing time because of his bat? Don Kelly plays because he’s versatile and a club guy. Kelly plays hard, stays focused, and does what the team asks him to do. Now, you have to produce and win games, and the team knows that, but what gives Jim the ability to handle so many big personalities and players is that he makes it a simple relationship, keep him happy, and you’ll play, and he’ll have your back. Take the lineup card out of his hands and he’s essentially now the team counselor, and maybe if you play hard he’ll “put in a good word for you” with the team strategist. In my opinion, that just doesn’t have the same influence."
by james.mcrae1 on Feb 2, 2012 4:13 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
His time has passed
Leyland was a great manager in his day but the game has changed. Most teams play small ball now a lot of stealing and movement. He still relies on the old way to generate runs of set them up and knock them in with the big bats. Well now they just pitch around your big bats and your plan is neutralized. He has to be more creative and take chances and I think that is outside of his confort zone. That will hold him and the Tigers back.
Leyland's coaches are overall inefficient
It’s fun to watch your manager out-manage the rival team manager during games. Leyland and Dombrowski put together a roster that allowed multiple changes during games. It allowed mix & match reliever specialists. BUT – can Jim do it back-to-back? He hasn’t pushed the right buttons two seasons in a row.
Now Jim appears to have limited his roster flexibility already for 2012, by having Laird on the bench and unavailable for anything but very limited catching - probably only 40 games. That means the batting spot on the Tigers bench goes unused for 121 games. Same with Inge, who only plays 3B these days and won’t be expected to play more than 60 games. That’s another batting bench spot going unused for 101 games. We surely don;t want to see either Laird or Inge pinch-hitting.
by TheeMotownWebGuy on Feb 4, 2012 8:50 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bless You Boys
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
