12/21/24
October 21, 2003
Joe Torre backs up Grady Little: . . . in other news, Bugs Bunny calls Elmer Fudd a formidable hunter and Johnnie Cochran issues a press release stating "I am resigned to my fate of facing Lionel Hutz on the other side of the aisle for the rest of my legal career." Brer Rabbit was unavailable for comment on account of being thrown into a briar patch.
FWIW, I back Little too. I believe there was a case for leaving Pedro in, and if you could have polled people without the benefit of hindsight, many would have agreed. The point in Torre's comment though was not to defend Little's decision to leave in Pedro (because Torre sort of implies he agrees that was a shitty decision) but to evaluate Little's overall performance. And I again have to agree with Torre that Little did Sox fans proud in the grand scheme of things. Jesus Christ, Beantown...he got you 5 outs away from the big show. Doesn't that warrant another season? Also holden, it is possible of course that Torre believes what he is saying, that he thinks Little did an admirable job and it would be a shame if they fired him. I mean, we would never expect Torre to dis his managerial brethren, but I doubt he would outright lie if he didn't believe what he was saying. If you fire Grady after what he accomplished this year, then a curse is what you deserve, at minimum.
posted by vito90 at 11:17 PM on October 21, 2003
I believe there was a case for leaving Pedro in I'd love to hear the case (unless its just the 'pedros our best' I've heard over and over again. I've tried to look at the situation over again (after the freshness wore off) and I still can't come up with a solid reason for leaving Pedro in. How many hits did Pedro give up in a row? After he was tagged for a homerun in the 7th? How many runs did the bullpen give up in the playoffs? How many hits? When relief was finally brought in the yankees were shut down for the next two innings. Answer those questions and I fail to see how anyone could support Grady's decision. Pedro hasn't been the Pedro of old for a while now. He pitched 7 innings in as hostile an environment as one could pitch in and we expect him to go further than he normally does in a regular season game? The whole season Pedro was kept to 100 pitches. Check out how he did on pitches 101-123, pitches he should never have been allowed to throw. Why change the way you manage now? A tired Pedro, going beyond what he's done all season, under high pressure, with a bullpen that has been perfect. Of course, no managers or boston teammates are going to say he was outright wrong (they might be playing under him next season). I have heard support in the form of "Pedro was pitching just as well and just as hard as before the 8th inning". Regardless, he was getting hit and hit hard. Third time around the yankees had caught up to his fastball and seemed to have him pretty figured out. It was time for a new pitcher. if you could have polled people without the benefit of hindsight, many would have agreed. I'm sure a few were late to join the lynch mob, but I, and I know many others, were not. I would have taken Pedro out after the 7th, but certainly after Jeter's hit. And the next, and the next. Television, internet, radio, friends with whom I watched, friends who called, everyone was asking why Pedro was still pitching. It wasn't after the fact. This wasn't something that happened quickly. It wasn't a split second decision. It wasn't something like a 'why let him pitch to Jeter' and Jeter hits a homerun. It was batter after batter. Chance after chance to yank Pedro and he didn't. I don't think Grady should be fired over this one decision, and living in the south I didn't get to watch a whole lot of redsox games. But I wasn't impressed with what I saw in the playoffs, and I have friends and family in the New England area who doubted him the entire season. Hopefully they'll make the right decision. Hopefully Torre will not be in on that decision. (Torre pulled clemens in the fourth -- actions speak louder than words)
posted by justgary at 01:45 AM on October 22, 2003
I recommend that the future Sox manager carries the baseball prospectus with him. Batting averages against Pedro climb dramatically with his pitch count. And my apologies if this has been posted before. I read the previous thread and saw the tire marks on jerseygirl's back.
posted by usfbull at 07:03 AM on October 22, 2003
Yeah - Torre really took his time with Clemens. It is now completely impossible for Little to manage in Boston next year, right, wrong or otherwise - were I him, I'd resign if Epstein didn't fire me.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:27 AM on October 22, 2003
Lost in all of this is Joe Torre's own impressive managerial performance in game 7. He slights Giambi and Boone, and they come through. He pulls Clemens without hesitation. He brings in his big guns, Mussina and Wells, again without hesitation. (And it doesn't hurt to have Jeter, Williams, Matsui, and Posada batting in the bottom of the eighth.)
posted by cg1001a at 10:04 AM on October 22, 2003
Not to be pedantic, but he can't resign, nor can Epstein fire him. His contract has already expired. It's a manner of re-hiring him or finding someone else. Grady has already cleaned out his office at Fenway. The new Sox ownership inherited Grady Little, and it was unclear if they were sold on him from the get-go. They are likely to use his Game seven blunder as opportunity to put in someone who will tow the Bill James-style sabremetric line. Isn't that why the A's let Howe go?
posted by Jugwine at 10:15 AM on October 22, 2003
Pedro started 29 games this season ... you know how many times he threw more than 115 pitches? Five. Moneyball does a good job of explaining what your average manager is thinking. Like most people they are thinking "please don't let me embrass myself". Managers make moves not based on what is most likely to win games but what creates the smallest risk of embarassment. You doubt this ... look what at Dom Capers did with the Texans ... 4 inches from the goaline, final play of the game. You go for it you've got a 70-80% chance of a TD and winning vs. a 100% chance on a FG and a 50% chance in overtime. Now what gives you the best chance of winning? Going for it obviously, but how many NFL coaches make that call? Not many. Bottom line, Grady froze. It wasn't Pedro that he was afraid of offending ... he was afraid of looking foolish. It was easier for Grady to leave in the best pitcher in baseball than take him out. Or let me put it another way. Your worst MLB scrub pitcher has a 6.00 ERA. But that's still only 0.6666 runs/inning. Up three runs, putting in John Burkett and his atrocious 5.15 ERA probably wins the game. But what manager wants to pull Pedro Martinez for John Burkett?
posted by Mike McD at 10:22 AM on October 22, 2003
Would this Moneyball be a decent read for a non-baseball fan? Its frequent appearance has my interest peeked.
posted by garfield at 10:28 AM on October 22, 2003
Moneyball is a good read for anyone. Michael Lewis isn't a baseball writer. Lewis' previous books were about his experience at Salomon Bros. and Jim Clark's experience at Silicon Graphics and Netscape.
posted by Mike McD at 10:50 AM on October 22, 2003
The new Sox ownership inherited Grady Little Not to be pedantic back at you, but they inherited Joe Kerrigan and tossed him overboard just before spring training last year and hired Grady. Michael Lewis' Liar's Poker (the Salomon Bros. one) is also a terrific book. He's a good writer. Moneyball just happens to be about baseball. Kinda like Tracy Kidder, I guess.
posted by yerfatma at 11:04 AM on October 22, 2003
The book about his time at Salomon Brothers was a really good read.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:05 AM on October 22, 2003
The book about his time at Salomon Brothers was a really good read. Liar's Poker. I give it 4.5 out of 5 stars.
posted by vito90 at 11:16 AM on October 22, 2003
thanks folks.
posted by garfield at 11:50 AM on October 22, 2003
they inherited Joe Kerrigan and tossed him overboard just before spring training last year and hired Grady. I stand corrected. It was Theo who inherited Grady, not the ownership. In any case, my original point still stands. If Epstein was sold on Grady from the beginning, he might have been more inclined to sign him after they made the playoffs.
posted by Jugwine at 11:51 AM on October 22, 2003
Fair point. Gotcha. I hope if Theo held a job interview with someone else who talked like Forrest Gump, he'd have the sense to not hire him. "Baseball's like a box o' chocolates. And I like chocolates."
posted by yerfatma at 12:10 PM on October 22, 2003
The new Sox ownership inherited Grady Little, and it was unclear if they were sold on him from the get-go. They are likely to use his Game seven blunder as opportunity to put in someone who will tow the Bill James-style sabremetric line. Isn't that why the A's let Howe go? I don't think Beane hired Howe, but Howe did manage the A's for several years before Beane allowed the Mets to offer him a contract. Howe seemed willing to play Beaneball, but perhaps Macha bought into it more - at a fraction of Howe's salary with the Mets.
posted by mbd1 at 12:27 PM on October 22, 2003
Sandy Alderson hired Art Howe back in '97 with the idea that he would be a figurehead (if you believe what you read in Moneyball). Beane was never much impressed with him and strung him along with one-year contract extentions while Beane himself was locked in until '08. Macha, on the other hand, got a three-year deal as soon as Howe was out the door.
posted by Jugwine at 02:13 PM on October 22, 2003
The New York Times Magazine cover story on Beane made it sound like any A's manager is just a puppet. Many of the decisions you'd normally expect a manager to make are dictated by Beane's office. There's no case to be made for Little's decision to keep Martinez in for hit after hit after hit. There's nothing cursed about firing a manager who put sentimentality over the sound baseball decision of pulling a star pitcher who's completely out of gas.
posted by rcade at 02:30 PM on October 22, 2003
There's no case to be made for Little's decision to keep Martinez in for hit after hit after hit. Grady certainly tried one though. Although it seems fairly evident that the fans have stated their desire and not picking up his option is perfectly sensible, the front office will make the final decision. What they need to focus on is finding a better manager.
posted by YukonGold at 03:19 PM on October 22, 2003
The New York Times Magazine cover story on Beane made it sound like any A's manager is just a puppet. It's an Oakland thing, dude.
posted by billsaysthis at 04:09 PM on October 22, 2003
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/simmons/031020.html "Speaking of Grady, after he was barbecued by the press on Friday, there's been a reversal this weekend, as some media guys are defending him now -- a classic sportswriting ploy, where you argue the opposite point of view no matter how stupid and ignorant it is. (Then again, you could be Peter Gammons, who somehow managed to defend and criticize Grady in the same column -- only the Guru could pull that off.) Anyway, there's no defense. Grady blew the game. End of story. It's not an argument." And I still, even in this thread, have yet to hear a reasonable one. Also lost in the Pedro-Grady fallout: Once Rivera was spent, the Yanks had Contreras, Weaver and White left in their bullpen. Not exactly a murderer's row. If Grady had brought in Williamson in the 10th and 11th like he should have -- as much as I love Wakefield, you can't bring in a knuckleballer when the other team has last ups in a tie game, not when he's always one hanger away from doom -- then followed with Lowe in the 12th, then saved Wakefield for extra-extra innings, I think the Red Sox would have had an advantage as the game kept dragging on. Alas, we'll never know. Which I pointed out in the 'curses' thread. Just another bad decision. Yet the first one was so awful the second one is basically ignored.
posted by justgary at 12:57 AM on October 23, 2003
I love a manager with such a deceptive sense of humor.