Fire Everyone! - Eric Wedge (check)
by APV on Oct 1, 2009 12:13 AM EDT
in Analysis
Email
PrintThis is the 11th installment in a 12-part series. Notes from today's press conference are here.
Evaluating managers involves consideration of a paradox. On one hand managers are often held accountable for a team's poor performance. Disappointing season — fire the manager. Players underperforming — fire the manager. And yet in addition to this concept of accountability, it is widely regarded that managers have relatively little impact on the final outcome of a season if not an individual game. Systematic comparisons between "good" managers and "bad" managers show surprisingly few differences. There is a tendency to credit players for positive performances, and blame managers and coaches for poor performances. So which is it? Is Wedge responsible for the Indians rise from a 68-win team his first season to a 93-win near playoff team just two years later? Or is he responsible for the late season collapse that kept us out of that post-season? Is he responsible for the disappointing follow-up season in 2006? Or the statement-making 2007 season in which the 96-win Cleveland team was clearly (along with Boston) one of the best two teams in the league? Or is he responsible for the 3 consecutive losses that ended that playoff run prematurely? Or the disappointing follow-up 2008 season? Or the epic failure of this season?
Entering this afternoon's game Eric Wedge's career record as the Indians manager is 560-568, meaning he will finish his tenure just a few games under .500. He has managed the 4th most games as an Indians manager (behind Boudreau, Hargrove and Speaker) and has the 5th most victories (add Al Lopez to the previous list). He has coached one playoff team and won one (very memorable and satisfying) playoff series while losing a second (very memorable and painful) series. Just 35 when he was hired, he was and still is quite young, so his managerial days are quite possibly not over. Having come up through the Indians minor league managerial system Wedge was thought to be someone who would work well with the young and developing team that Shapiro & Co. were putting together in the post-Colon trade era.
Players have both succeeded and failed under Wedge. We have seen the development of an original new "core" set of players with guys like Sizemore, Peralta, Sabathia, Lee, Martinez and Hafner. And we have seen the beginning of perhaps a new core of talent with players like Cabrera and Choo. Several notable players have clashed and/or failed to develop - Milton Bradley, Brandon Phillips, Andy Marte. The discussions which have been going on since the collapse of 2005 will no doubt continue into the off-season. What effect has Wedge's parceling out of playing time had on the development of important organizational parts? Has Wedge used pitchers, particularly relievers, correctly? Can we blame Wedge for being out-coached by Francona in the 2007 playoffs? These are all legitimate discussions to have, but do not have much impact on my view of today's firing.
I am happy to see the Indians fire Wedge today and have a vocal history on this site for arguing he should have been fired back in May. My reasons largely reflect issues independent of the overall evaluation of Wedge's strengths and weaknesses or previous successes and failures. I think Wedge should have been fired because the Indians were going in the wrong direction back in May and had no other options to elicit change in the hopes of producing a different on the field result. Doubts about our starting pitching were obvious and well-voiced during spring training, but there was a sense that we had enough options to play mix-and-match with our depth until we found the right set of 5 guys for any given stretch. Injuries erased much of that depth and gave us few options for changing the cast of characters taking the ball every five days. I, like several others, had high hopes for our bullpen this season. The simultaneous blow-up of four of our top five relievers made alternative courses of action difficult. We did end up putting a shuffle of players together (Chulk, Veras, Herges, Aquino et al.)...but the results were not good. Our offense actually was not that bad, but given that, there was little hope of it suddenly performing so well that our deficiencies in pitching could be overcome. So our only path for success was to perform better with the players we had. And actually, to perform dramatically better. The failures were widespread, although focused on pitching, so simply changing out a coach or two did not appear to be a sufficient solution. The only reasonable solution was firing the manager and trying to inspire better performance out of the 25 guys going in and out of the team clubhouse everyday.
The Indians chose to do nothing. Until now. The decision to do nothing appears even more damning in retrospect. We now know, especially following the trades of Lee and Martinez, that the Indians were operating on a competitive and financial edge not just for this season but for 2010 as well. If this season failed, next season went down with it. The front office knew this by July 1st, which means they should have known it on April 1st. Reviving this season was critical for the trajectory of this franchise. Shapiro should have fired Wedge and whatever coaches he wanted to go with him because it was the only option for saving 2010, as well as salvaging this season. On May 14th the Indians were a very disappointing 8 games under .500 (14-22), but only 4.5 games out of the AL Central lead. Three consecutive losses to Tampa put them 11 games under and 7.5 games out of 1st place going into a May 18th, Monday off-day. Defcon 1 alarm bells should have been going off in the corridors of the Indians front office. I am quite certain the Indians have systematic analysis showing that teams that change managers mid-season do not generally do well. Mid-season firings are not the "right" choice. And I am quite certain I don't care about those results. This is one of those areas in which Cleveland really had nothing to lose by making the move and everything to lose by not making the change.
The Indians actually played with a degree of mediocrity (an improvement) over the remainder of May and first half of June, playing 4 games above .500 between May 19th and June 14th. Then came a devastating back-to-back pair of three-game interleague series, at Milwaukee and at Chicago, in which the Indians went 0-6, losing the first 5 games by 2 runs or less, and falling from 6 to 10 games out of first place. The Indians again had an off-day and again should have considered firing Wedge. At that point, June 22nd, I don't actually fault the Indians for keeping Wedge, but this is only because at that point the season was essentially done. The Indians had to win the AL Central to make the playoffs, were 10 games out of 1st with 4 teams ahead of them in the standings, and had a variety of injuries on the roster. Certainly, I would not have objected if the Indians had them fired him, but the time to make that decision was already in the past. Eric Wedge should have been fired on May 18th.
I am happy the Indians have fired Wedge. I don't know whether Wedge is a good coach or not, although I think there are probably a lot of better coaches out there. I am not sure what failures are properly assigned to Wedge. The decision to fire Wedge now is the right one, but it is in itself a failure, although it is a failure not of Wedge, but of Shapiro.
101 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Mid-season firings are not the “right” choice. And I am quite certain I don’t care about those results.
APV, I couldn’t agree more. My belief is that there are two reasons why we have been in anguish as Indians fans. The smaller of the two reasons is an Indians front office overly relying on the “right” choice, which is computed using technical stats voodoo. The larger reason is MLB owners and the players union allowing the system to get out of control (i.e. no salary cap/floor).
Whenever I feel the need to curse the Dolans, I have to remind myself that it isn’t because they’re cheap, but that they are sheep (when it comes to Shapiro).
Firing Wedge today was the only move they can make.
I don’t think it’s technical/stats voodoo, but I do think they have a certain code of professionalism and strict adherence to process that constrains their serious consideration of some options.
Don’t you think some poindexter there had a chart that said: Winning percentage of teams firing managers in mid-season: .465*? There have been 166* examples of teams removing managers during the season, and in 154* cases, winning percentage did not increase more than .05* percent. They obviously did “a study” that proved firing the manager during the season was not statistically efficacious.
What they needed was someone who could say, "Aw the hell with the study. I don’t care. He gone. "
(*Above numbers made up.)
You know, I threw out “poindexter” as a gentle nod to Chuck. I find the term offensive, and the reason I find it offensive is that it’s moronic, and it’s used to elevate moronic thinking. What, after all, does “poindexter” mean, except a person who is intelligent and serious about finding the right answer?
I find it embarrassing when intelligence and competence are run down in favor of the kind of hard-ass “competence” that is only successful in Jerry Bruckheimer films, not reality. I find it especially embarrassing coming from an educated and accomplished person — who obviously is overcompensating for something.
A quick image search of “Poindexter” yielded this:
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Oct 1, 2009 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hard-ass is the way of the world. You either get it done or you don’t. The fact of the matter is, probably the best GM we’ve had in the last 50 years was not Shapiro, or Hart, but Hank Peters – a guy with an impressive track record dating back to the Reggie Jackson Oakland “A’s” and later the Earl Weaver Orioles, but little, if any "analytical" skill.
Sorry, but clever glibness, political dexterity and an academic patina ain’t what we need right now. We need a FO that can identify young talent before in hits the professional ranks – Old School guys like Cy Slapnik and Hank Peters – and not a bunch of "analysts" whose only baseball experience comes from crunching stats.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Sorry to offend. As I meant it, it was a Felix the Cat reference. I see it as a hyperrationalist, overly precise, overly certain, overly scientific person. All of these conditions are humanly possible.
I don’t know who Jerry Bruckheimer is (some movie guy), so I don’t think I’m quoting anything he does or represents. I’m not calling for meatheaded gut-thinking. I’m just saying there comes a time when one looks out the window and relies on personal observation rather than on the graphs.
I have nothing against intelligence (really) or people who are scientific. But I recognize the limitations of science, if not intelligence. I’m not calling for more moronic thinking. I am saying that such a limited and restrictive Weltanschauung is also a form of moronic thinking.
As to my speculated overcompensation, I must apologize for revealing too much of myself.
Jerry Bruckheimer is an extremely successful producer. He does a lot of big-budget action movies and I think the CSI series on TV. He may not produce masterpieces, but he does produce movies and TV shows that people want to see.
Such studies are commonplace, and have been around for at least 40 years. David Gassko concluded that improvement is largely regression to the mean (teams that fire their managers in mid-season are underperforming by definition). Mark Newman, in the December 1987 Baseball Digest, claimed the improvement was 3 games on average (that’s the old school calculation before the smart guys took over).
Bottom line: it wouldn’t have made much deifference, but they probably should have done it anyway.
We find that, regressed, teams average 76.1 wins per 162 games before firing their managers, versus 75.8 after.
Glassko says he’s unsurprised, as most of us would be. My point is that, all binomial distributions aside, someone should have just said the hell with it.
There are different kinds of thinking. Mathematical thinking is only one of various ways to think. It is not exclusive to reason.
I agree with you. Understanding that firing the manager doesn’t tend to have much effect does not mean that you shouldn’t fire the manager. I agree with Adam’s take — something drastic had to change, and there was no other obvious option. I’ve made my own arguments that Wedge didn’t deserve to stay regardless.
My point is only that a good manager has those studies in hand to inform his/her decision-making. We face few enough decisions that are clear-cut based on the facts; ultimately, you do have to go with your gut. But if you don’t have the facts, you’re a damned fool. We should therefore value those who are talented and serious about getting the facts.
That’s a change I can believe in.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 30, 2009 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Everything you say here is right. And that’s not just in hindsight.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Sep 30, 2009 8:36 PM EDT reply actions
Just one question you’ve been dancing around for months: When exactly do you think he should have been fired?
by Brick. on Oct 1, 2009 9:33 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
IIRC, he’s been wanting him fired since mid-May at the earliest and definitely by the end of the Cubs series (which was in June, I think).
This is probably the first time in my life I’ve had a really firm opinion not just that a guy should be gone, but when he should be (or should have been) gone. I felt like sharing. And again, one of the reason’s I’m being so repetitive in this is not to criticize Wedge, but to criticize Shapiro. I think I probably deservedly have a reputation of being a Shapiro apologist, and true enough, I think he’s a great GM. But this was a huge mistake on his part and one worth repeating over and over in the hopes that such a mistake won’t be repeated. This is probably the most painful Indians season I can recall in my lifetime (there were lots of other moments of pain – but they were painful in the context of a lot of other success like the ‘94 season, the ’97 season, etc.). I would hope that it won’t be repeated anytime soon.
just to be clear, i really am just messing around. i have trouble remembering when my nieces birthdays are, but i don’t think i’ll ever forget that may 18th was adam’s wedge d-day. this says more about me, by the way, than anything else.
i think the biggest point i take is that ‘09 linked to ’10 point you made. it’s the most nuance to what you’ve said in my opinion.
The Indians window of opportunity with our ‘09 starting roster should have encompassed ’10, with the inclusion of Victor and Cliff on very reasonable 2010 contracts. Instead, because of how this season was played and has played out, it doesn’t, and both of those guys are in the playoffs with someone else. This is huge. And hugely frustrating from a fan’s perspective.
by APV on Oct 1, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
and just adding – I think this season presents a legitimate case for firing Shapiro. I certainly hope that doesn’t happen, but I don’t think such a move would be unjustified.
Oh here’s a case all right. For folks who think that process is everything, Shapiro’s a better than average GM – although many other GMs have caught up with him. For folks who believe that all that counts is product, his performance this year is certainly grounds for dismissal.
Aside from where we are in the standings I also believe that Shapiro’s inability to find talent before they turn pro is his Achilles heel. Now he may find help in compensating for this hole in his tool set, but it also maybe too late.
I give Shapiro no more than a 50/50 chance of being the Cleveland GM at the start or the 2011 season.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I don’t see why it should be discussed as all or nothing, process or results, relative success or absolute success. It’s pretty clear to me that all these factors are worth considering seriously.
I’ll take that bet re: start of 2011. Dolan clearly has re-upped on Shapiro for at least two more seasons, given that nobody expects success in 2010. The action next season will be played out on every level of the organization.
I am also wondering who else might still be fired or reassigned, particularly among the scouting group and minor league staff.
by Jay on Oct 1, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Keith Law chat today:
Brian (Brooklyn NY)
At what point does Mark Shapiro take some heat for the Indians issues? On the one hand the projections systems all liked the team he put together so it seems like a case of good process, bad outcome. On the other hand he had a solid core for a few years and never got consistent results.
Klaw (1:33 PM)
The impression I get is that the dissatisfaction with Shapiro is external, not internal. He’s a good guy with a sound overall philosophy, and that helps his cause. I’m also not sure how much responsibility to shift to ownership, as they do seem to underspend on the draft.
Jeff (Cleveland)
Keith, is there ANY reason for Carlos Santana to not start in Cleveland next year? Pretty clear that this team is not going to contend next year, why not get him in an get his feet wet? Seems like with Brantley, LaPorta, Santana, Cabrera, Sizemore and Choo they have the makings of a decent offensive club over the next few seasons? Thanks.
Klaw (1:21 PM)
Well, there was a concern that Wedge would play him once a week like he did with LaPorta, but I guess that’s gone.
by Roger Dorn on Oct 1, 2009 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
It’s not all or nothing, but a matter of emphasis. In the end, however, Dolan’s gonna be product driven because that’s what drives revenues. A great process only increases profits if the product improves.
So, it’s on. I say that by April 2011 the Indians will have a new GM. What’s the bet?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Anyway else find it ironic that such a “vehemently Yankee hating fan” judges GM’s in such a Steinbrenner-esque way?
In evaluating a GM, the emphasis needs to be on his process. All he controls is the quality of the process. He cannot control the outcome of that process. You evaluate the GM by evaluating his process.
Fortunately, none of the GM’s around the league have a process that is unique. In evaluating each process, we can compare other team’s processes to ours to explain whether the elements of our process are significantly different in a way that would result in poorer results.
So how can you tell if one “process” is superior to another “process”? Is there some algorythnm for this?
As you’ve noted in your post, " to explain whether the elements of our process are significantly different in a way that would result in poorer results." In the end only results determine whether one process is superior to another.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
The key is that no element of the process is unique. If we find any element that is deployed by other successful teams, it’s difficult to attribute that element as a part of the problem. If we find an element that is common to many teams that yield an inferior outcome, it is suspect.
Doesn’t leave much room for innovation, does it?
It sounds like you’re assembling a Lego kit. One from column A, two from group B, etc. etc. I can’t think of a stronger indictment of how American business management has failed than this. You’re not really Michael Moore are you?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Innovation occurs, but is quickly copied by other businesses who refuse to fall a step behind. This is why it’s so difficutl for any team with innovative ideas and less resources to keep up with teams that have more resources. The teams with more resources quickly adopt the great new ideas and the edge disappears.
Here’s my point: the Indians shouldn’t be looking around to see if their doing all the things that the other sucessful teams are doing. This puts us in the standard American 2009 lemming management model. We need to be innovative again, like Hart when we started the fad of locking up near FA year players for an additional 3 or 4 years.
Again, we need to understand who we are, what are limitations are and how to exploit other teams needs. Shapiro did an admirable job of this when he fleeced the Expos and the Brewers. But they’re on to us. We need to change the fundamental way we do business. More on this later after I get some real work outta the way.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
You’d be right if process was everything. Process is not everything.
by Jay on Oct 2, 2009 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions
The process is an outgrowth of the mission.
There’s judgment.
by Jay on Oct 3, 2009 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Well kinda. The product should reflect the mission. The process is merely a tool, not the goal.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
And the person wielding the tool is more important than the tool.
by Jay on Oct 3, 2009 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions
You two are dangerously close to agreeing on something.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Oct 3, 2009 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d be interested to see other people’s thoughts on whether trading them in 2009 was realistically more advantageous than dealing both of them in 2010 if the team was non-competitive.
"You just gotta roll with the ounches." - Clemson58YearOldMan
We would have gotten less quality prospects if the team acquiring those guys would only have them for half a year.
That may be true, but why I am not so sure?
"You just gotta roll with the ounches." - Clemson58YearOldMan
I disagree, based on the returns.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Oct 1, 2009 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Great post, Adam, though I’m having trouble separating my thoughts about Wedge’s dismissal from my own general malaise. I joked in the firing thread that Wedge must feel relieved that he doesn’t have to watch this baseball team any more. It’s not really funny to me today. This season wore me out.
by fleerdon on Oct 1, 2009 5:56 PM EDT reply actions
What kind of fans are these who are worn out by a crappy season? In a few days the lights go out and we have an entire winter of no baseball. Who could ever be tired of baseball? Who could ever be tired of watching the Indians?
by odradek on Oct 1, 2009 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly. Athough we older guys got spoiled – at least we had the entertainment value of Oscar Gamble’s afro and Boog Powell in the red softball uni (the Big Bloody Mary).
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Oct 1, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Seems to me being worn out by this season and being tired of baseball are different; but, then again, I don’t really see the need to defend my credentials as a fan.
by fleerdon on Oct 1, 2009 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions
It isn’t just the crappiness, it’s the depth of disappointment. We were favored to win the division, and not only are we in last place, but we’ve tanked next season as well. I don’t think anything in the 70s and 80s quite prepared us for this.
I don’t think anything in the 70s and 80s quite prepared us for this.
You’re probably right. No one seriously believed Brook Jacoby was going to take the Tribe to the World Series. But there are things the 1970s and 1980s prepared us for: Always expect the worst. Don’t get your hopes up. Enjoy the small victories.
Even small victories were in awfully short supply this season. Even our fire sale somehow ended up disappointing.
I agree. The past few weeks have been brutal. There have been so few encouraging signs. Nothing much to hang your hat on for the future. The offense has been terrible—excepting Cabrera, Choo and LaPorta—but the biggest disappointment has been the starting pitching. Masterson, Carrasco (!), Knapp. The firesale toys to date have not lived up to the billing on the packages. Just because Shapiro has done so well in the past in such trades doesn’t mean these guys won’t all be washouts.
In past deals, relatively few pitchers have been acquired as key pieces in these deals. There’s much more chance that they’ll all be washouts for that reason alone — they’re pitchers, the attrition rate is higher. It’s a high-risk strategy in that sense, but we frankly did not need more young position player talent. I share your fear that every single “high ceiling guy” we acquired could wash out.
Having said that, there’s no reason at all to think that any pitcher is going to “live up to the billing” over a handful of starts. Our “not living up to the billing” problems this year aren’t Carrasco and Masterson, but rather Westbrook and Carmona. Last year, too.
Trying to remember pitching prospects who have been key prospects in past deals.
The obvious ones are Cliff Lee and Billy Traber.
Beyond that, we got Ricardo Rodriguez and Francisco Cruceta for Paul Shuey … I’m not sure how seriously to take either guy as a “key piece.” Maybe Rodriguez but not Cruceta. Guys like Andy Brown, Tom Mastny, Zachson and Bryson and Meloan, they were basically throw-ins.
Compare that against the list of significant position player prospects, there are more than a dozen. Escobar, Phillips, Sizemore, Crisp, Gutierrez, Cabrera, Choo, Valbuena, Marte, Shoppach, LaPorta, Brantley, Santana. Just off the top of my head.
Yes, the diciness of pitchers is a concern. Carrasco and Masterson didn’t show virtually any signs of promise. The pitched like Jimmy Gobble. I’m with you on the greater issue being Fausto and Jake, but it would have made the offseason a little more palatable if there had been a couple of starts that suggested some potential. Carrasco seems a couple of years away, and when you look at his minor league numbers you see a lot of mediocrity mixed in with a few attention-grabbing performances. Masterson has looked worse (until his last start, which seemed as if it were an exhibition game) since he came over. Marson has a nice arm. What else do we have?
From Hoynes:
Carrasco (0-4, 8.87) allowed three runs on nine hits in 3 1/3 innings. Just what the Indians have in the 22-year-old right-hander remains a mystery. In five starts for the Tribe, Carrasco has allowed 22 earned runs in 22 1/3 innings. The damage includes 40 hits, 11 walks and an opponents batting average of .400 (40-for-100).
Ordinarily, I would say that if we don’t see some signs of quality from Carrasco next year, then we probably won’t ever, because he’ll be 23, and he’s been trying to master Triple-A for two years already. It is possible that he’ll gain a little more velocity, but stuff doesn’t seem to be the issue with him. Maturity is the issue, or at least, that’s what “they” say. That being the case, I guess we should be glad to have three option years on him. He is still very young.
by Jay on Oct 2, 2009 7:58 AM EDT up reply actions
I guess I’ll say, it’s interesting to me that even in their bad outings, the new guys seem to get strikeouts. I don’t have any in-depth commentary on that, but it’s intriguing.
As to Carrasco specifically, if there’s anything good to say, it’s that he can’t possibly have embarrassed himself much more than he has in this stint. In college, I used to start my presentations with an intentional awful joke and/or Knight Rider reference just to get over myself. I do have some concerns that C.C. is the pitching version of Marte, but then, that’s why we traded for 9 pitchers.
by fleerdon on Oct 2, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Kinda lost in the focus on Wedge is the other piece of this news. Willis is gone – Skinner too. Maybe Soloff and his bunch as well.
So all of those shinny trophys for Manager of the Year – and GM of the Year and rave reviews about the “Best Training Staff in Baseball” too – are like the Silver Slugger and Gold Glove Awards, barely proof of competense, let alone outstanding performance.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
You’re being harsh. The Best Training Staff in Baseball invented the concept of the regularly scheduled setback.
I think the Silver Slugger is pretty legitimate. I am little bothered to see Shelton go. I’m not even sure how to quantify his contribution, but he at least talked to the players.
It sure sounds like the new manager will be free to re-hire Shelton. It may also be that Shapiro will re-hire one or more of these guys in some other role in the organization. Luis Isaac is painting his house right now, just for one example.
by Jay on Oct 2, 2009 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- 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
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
