I never understood why Cito never got a shot between the time Toronto fired him and then brought him back. He was a solid manager and the collapse of the Blue Jays seemed more to do with the team no longer investing in FAs at the same rate.
Joe - Always love your Browns recaps esp when you blend in stories of your youth in Cleveland. If you ever wrote that book, I’d be first in line for a signed copy.
I watched Browns-Niners game last Sunday and kept waiting for Brownies to crumble which they very nearly did several times esp w/ poorly executed near pick of Walker throw in SF end zone. All I could think of was “Here we go again.”
But what I really wanted to ask you is whether you saw Fox “tribute” to Browns late in 1st half which consisted of head shot photo composite of Browns players over the years. A nice thought but on closer inspection, there were 4 pics of Joe Thomas, 3 of Brian Sipe, 2 of Lou Groza, 2 of Paul Brown, and 2 of some guy in a Redskins helmet. Talk about damning with faint praise. Hard to believe Fox couldn’t come up with enough photos of different Browns players to fill this composite. My buddy thinks I’m too sensitive and should get over it. I think Fox should be embarrassed and apologize to the Browns, it’s fans, and city of Cleveland.
I am a fan of Davey Johnson getting in as well. Did you know he has the highest winning percentage of any manager with over 1000 wins since integration? He didn't do it with just one high spending team like Dave Roberts (who will probably take over that title in 4 or 5 years), he managed 5 teams.
One of my favorite toys with managers is to take their tenure with a team, and look at how the teams did before and after he got there. For instance, if a guy manages somewhere for 4 years (648 games) I look at the 324 before he arrived, and the 324 after he left. It is usually not so simple, as managers get hired and fired in mid season, and in Johnson's career shortened seasons come into play. I often have to do partial seasons. However, he had a .562 winning percentage in his career. (About 91 wins per 162) The teams before and after he left had a .477 winning percentage (about 77 wins per 162) over the same number of games. it is obvious he was a difference maker.
Some more thoughts on Paul Sewald. I posted a comment in another of Joe's blog that he had been a good closer for my beloved Mariners in 2021-2022 and again in 2023 until traded at the deadline. That was despite the fact that he did not throw as hard as about a half dozen of our other relievers. The back story is even more interesting. Paul debuted with the Mets as a 27 year old. He was there for four years with 1-14 WL record and an ERA of 5.50, ERA+ of 74. His WAR was -1.1 when he was released. The Mariners signed him to a minor league contract and he made the 25 man roster after pitching in 2 AAA games for Tacoma. He became the primary closer after Kendall Graven was traded to the Evil Empire at the deadline in 2021. His Seattle numbers over most of 3 years as 18-8 WL with an ERA of 2.88, ERA+ of 137. His WAR during that time was 4.0.
Taking out a pitcher that is dealing to prevent them seeing the order the 3rd time has become commonplace. Part of this is that it has seeped into the mindset of fans (and managers), that this is a thing, so that it is easier for them to do it. They might get a question or two now if the bullpen gives it up, but they can point to that, and are quickly forgiven. But if they leave a pitcher in, and he gets hit, everyone will be on their ass. The press, social media, etc. and it will last.
I felt the same way about the rise of the one inning closer when that happened. It got to where if you didn't have a designated guy, you were going to get raked over the coals if anything happened late. If you did, you could just shake your head and say "I had my best guy out there." It didn't change the number of blown leads or the percentage of runs that scored in that inning. (Many years ago, Joe wrote a big article about this comparing eras) But it just made it easier for a manager to point out he did the "right thing", it just turned out wrong.
The funny thing is, the inability to do this is a self fulfilling prophecy. Kind of like pitchers going into the late innings or getting their pitch count up. The first 3 years they counted pitches, and recorded stuff like 3rd time through, pitchers had a 106 OPS+ against (compared to the average other situation) the third time through, and they let virtually every crappy pitcher go through the third time through.
The last 3 years it has been 114, (while picking and choosing their times) and I think part of that (just like it was for the 7th inning for awhile, and then the 6th) is that pitchers now expect to be taken out, and they are surprised when they are not.
Fans don't expect it now either, even the ones who pine for the old days, and if the negative thing happens, they are enraged as a group. Claiming after the fact that the manager left a pitcher in to long is pretty much the easiest and laziest thing a fan or the media can do. (Other than going back to a draft 7 years later, cherry picking the guy in the first round that did the best after their teams pick, and saying "They should have taken that guy!") It is unassailable, even if by all logic it was the right thing to do. The ultimate baseball QED.
I think you’re 100% correct. This kind of insecure group-think is common at the higher levels of team sports. The innovators seem to be at the high schools and small colleges. Maybe that’s normal. But you made me think of the evolution of 4th down in the NFL. The top coaches are pretty smart. At least intuitively they had to suspect that going for it on fourth down, in many situations, was the right thing to do. But for years it almost never happened. For pretty much the same reasons that you outlined above. There was no political cover for it. Being right doesn’t matter if no one believes you, I suppose.
The 4th down thing is a good example. I have been saying that NFL teams should go for it on 4th down more for 30 years. In addition to the numbers backing it up, I felt playing an aggressive game passively was counter intuitive.
With the rise of analytics, some teams (not all - there are still teams and coaches that are too conservative) have now gone too far the other way, but most of the public (and the announcers) will say they are following analytics even in situations there they are not.
I'm surprised that as a native of Cleveland and a baseball fan, Joe doesn't seem to know more about Hank Peters. After leaving the Orioles, he came back to the Indians as their GM. He built the foundation of their great teams of the 90's via trades and convincing ownership to invest heavily in the farm system. While John Hart gets most of the credit, he began under Peters and built on that foundation. I'm sure, or hope, that he would tell you that it was Peters who was primarily responsible for reviving baseball in Cleveland and possibly saving the franchise.
Thanks for the link. In support of what you say, 6 of the top 8 ejectors started their careers prior to the start of WW I. I meant the ejection stat as a tongue in cheek comment. As noted after that, Joe was voted one of the five worst umpires in 2010 in a player poll. And the other umpire in the top 8 ejectors was Bob Davidson, also one of the five worst in the 2010 vote. If you look at Wikipedia you can find out more about Joe's reputation (some good, mostly bad). Apparently some of the polls asked the players to submit separate votes for a best list and a worst list. In one of those Joe was voted 9th best but also voted 4th worst. Appears players struggle with consistency just as do umpires.
Aren't the best umpires usually the ones that casual fans don't know their names? All the umpires I can name are almost exclusively really bad in general or have had famous blown calls. Unfortunately, many fans know Joe West's name but for all the wrong reasons.
And back to Joe West. The top 5 umpires for ejections are.
Bill Klem 251
Cy Rigler 192
Hank O'Day 185
Bob Davidson 156
Joe West 151
Klem and O'Day are in the Hall of Fame. Let's be honest, what's more fun than an ejection and the player or manager goes bezerk? That was a big part of watching Lou Piniella with the Mariners. Rumor has it that there was over/under betting on estimated distance of hat throws and number of bases removed and tossed.
On the other hand, an anonymous poll of players in 2010 named the bottom five umpires for the year.
1. Angle Hernandez
2. C.B Bucknor
3. Joe West
4. Marty Foster
5. Bob Davidson
That same poll chose Jim Joyce as the best umpire of the year, despite his famously bad call that cost the Armando Galarraga a perfect game.
Regarding the ejections stat, you're comparing across eras. Baseball was a bit like the wild west in the old days and ejections (on a per game basis) were much higher than they were in West's time. Of course, Cowboy Joe may have had nostalgia for the Old west- maybe that's why his ejections were so high.
Haven't read all the comments yet but just a quick note on Lou Piniella. Lou's Mariners in his last three years won 91, 116, and 93 games. He left the Mariners after 2002 to take over the moribund Tampa Bay Devil Rays (the name wasn't changed until 2007). There didn't seem to be much sense to the change. Yes, he was from the Tampa Bay area and yes, he may have had issues with Mariner GM and owners over the roster but the likely real reason was simpler. His father was seriously ill. He would pass away in 2005. Lou had made criticisms of Tampa Bay management (the team was last or nearly last in payroll every year). He finished the 2005 season and then opted out of the last year of his four year contract. Take away his 3 miserable years in Tampa Bay endured for family, not baseball, reasons and his overall record would have been a winning percentage of .534
I hate the "take away the bad things and it would be better" approach. Take away the 3 good years you mention and he is at .501. I can see it with a player if you are trying to maybe isolate the prime of a guy who played too long or something. But a manager record is what it is.
What you say has great merit, but I'm a sucker for someone who chooses family over career in making a decision. Lou could have stayed in Seattle and padded his resume or go to a hapless situation that let him be near his ailing father. I find his choice to be laudable.
That's true, though there did seem to be a cult who believed in Jim McMahon as a quarterback... The Ravens certainly didn't believe in Dilfer- they released him after the season.
But that cult was judging by notoriously low Bear QB standards. Let's face it, the competition wasn't very stiff since most in that cult weren't born when Sid Luckman retired in 1950.
I don't disagree- I just remember with amazement the media attention given to McMahon's winning percentage when he joined the Eagles...like that was a more important indicator than his actual performance...
Hey man, there is something to be said for winning. Yes, he played for a great team with a great defense for most of his starts, but he was injured a lot and other people made starts virtually every season he played with them.
He was 46-15 with the Bears, a .754 winning percentage. Other QBs making starts in the same years were still winners at 27-16. (.628) This means he won 8 more games in his starts than other QBs would have. That is actually a significant amount.
He started sparingly the rest of his career, but had a .583 winning percentage the years he had starts on teams that went .523 without him.
I never understood why Cito never got a shot between the time Toronto fired him and then brought him back. He was a solid manager and the collapse of the Blue Jays seemed more to do with the team no longer investing in FAs at the same rate.
Joe - Always love your Browns recaps esp when you blend in stories of your youth in Cleveland. If you ever wrote that book, I’d be first in line for a signed copy.
I watched Browns-Niners game last Sunday and kept waiting for Brownies to crumble which they very nearly did several times esp w/ poorly executed near pick of Walker throw in SF end zone. All I could think of was “Here we go again.”
But what I really wanted to ask you is whether you saw Fox “tribute” to Browns late in 1st half which consisted of head shot photo composite of Browns players over the years. A nice thought but on closer inspection, there were 4 pics of Joe Thomas, 3 of Brian Sipe, 2 of Lou Groza, 2 of Paul Brown, and 2 of some guy in a Redskins helmet. Talk about damning with faint praise. Hard to believe Fox couldn’t come up with enough photos of different Browns players to fill this composite. My buddy thinks I’m too sensitive and should get over it. I think Fox should be embarrassed and apologize to the Browns, it’s fans, and city of Cleveland.
Otto Graham and Marion Motley on Line 2.
I am a fan of Davey Johnson getting in as well. Did you know he has the highest winning percentage of any manager with over 1000 wins since integration? He didn't do it with just one high spending team like Dave Roberts (who will probably take over that title in 4 or 5 years), he managed 5 teams.
One of my favorite toys with managers is to take their tenure with a team, and look at how the teams did before and after he got there. For instance, if a guy manages somewhere for 4 years (648 games) I look at the 324 before he arrived, and the 324 after he left. It is usually not so simple, as managers get hired and fired in mid season, and in Johnson's career shortened seasons come into play. I often have to do partial seasons. However, he had a .562 winning percentage in his career. (About 91 wins per 162) The teams before and after he left had a .477 winning percentage (about 77 wins per 162) over the same number of games. it is obvious he was a difference maker.
Some more thoughts on Paul Sewald. I posted a comment in another of Joe's blog that he had been a good closer for my beloved Mariners in 2021-2022 and again in 2023 until traded at the deadline. That was despite the fact that he did not throw as hard as about a half dozen of our other relievers. The back story is even more interesting. Paul debuted with the Mets as a 27 year old. He was there for four years with 1-14 WL record and an ERA of 5.50, ERA+ of 74. His WAR was -1.1 when he was released. The Mariners signed him to a minor league contract and he made the 25 man roster after pitching in 2 AAA games for Tacoma. He became the primary closer after Kendall Graven was traded to the Evil Empire at the deadline in 2021. His Seattle numbers over most of 3 years as 18-8 WL with an ERA of 2.88, ERA+ of 137. His WAR during that time was 4.0.
Re Bill White...I'll always remember him for "DEEP TO LEFT!"
Taking out a pitcher that is dealing to prevent them seeing the order the 3rd time has become commonplace. Part of this is that it has seeped into the mindset of fans (and managers), that this is a thing, so that it is easier for them to do it. They might get a question or two now if the bullpen gives it up, but they can point to that, and are quickly forgiven. But if they leave a pitcher in, and he gets hit, everyone will be on their ass. The press, social media, etc. and it will last.
I felt the same way about the rise of the one inning closer when that happened. It got to where if you didn't have a designated guy, you were going to get raked over the coals if anything happened late. If you did, you could just shake your head and say "I had my best guy out there." It didn't change the number of blown leads or the percentage of runs that scored in that inning. (Many years ago, Joe wrote a big article about this comparing eras) But it just made it easier for a manager to point out he did the "right thing", it just turned out wrong.
The funny thing is, the inability to do this is a self fulfilling prophecy. Kind of like pitchers going into the late innings or getting their pitch count up. The first 3 years they counted pitches, and recorded stuff like 3rd time through, pitchers had a 106 OPS+ against (compared to the average other situation) the third time through, and they let virtually every crappy pitcher go through the third time through.
The last 3 years it has been 114, (while picking and choosing their times) and I think part of that (just like it was for the 7th inning for awhile, and then the 6th) is that pitchers now expect to be taken out, and they are surprised when they are not.
Fans don't expect it now either, even the ones who pine for the old days, and if the negative thing happens, they are enraged as a group. Claiming after the fact that the manager left a pitcher in to long is pretty much the easiest and laziest thing a fan or the media can do. (Other than going back to a draft 7 years later, cherry picking the guy in the first round that did the best after their teams pick, and saying "They should have taken that guy!") It is unassailable, even if by all logic it was the right thing to do. The ultimate baseball QED.
I think you’re 100% correct. This kind of insecure group-think is common at the higher levels of team sports. The innovators seem to be at the high schools and small colleges. Maybe that’s normal. But you made me think of the evolution of 4th down in the NFL. The top coaches are pretty smart. At least intuitively they had to suspect that going for it on fourth down, in many situations, was the right thing to do. But for years it almost never happened. For pretty much the same reasons that you outlined above. There was no political cover for it. Being right doesn’t matter if no one believes you, I suppose.
The 4th down thing is a good example. I have been saying that NFL teams should go for it on 4th down more for 30 years. In addition to the numbers backing it up, I felt playing an aggressive game passively was counter intuitive.
With the rise of analytics, some teams (not all - there are still teams and coaches that are too conservative) have now gone too far the other way, but most of the public (and the announcers) will say they are following analytics even in situations there they are not.
It's always been easier, safer and cya's you better for a manager to go by the book. Pretty much only the veteran, secure manager has gone against it.
It's just a different book.
I'm surprised that as a native of Cleveland and a baseball fan, Joe doesn't seem to know more about Hank Peters. After leaving the Orioles, he came back to the Indians as their GM. He built the foundation of their great teams of the 90's via trades and convincing ownership to invest heavily in the farm system. While John Hart gets most of the credit, he began under Peters and built on that foundation. I'm sure, or hope, that he would tell you that it was Peters who was primarily responsible for reviving baseball in Cleveland and possibly saving the franchise.
Thanks for the link. In support of what you say, 6 of the top 8 ejectors started their careers prior to the start of WW I. I meant the ejection stat as a tongue in cheek comment. As noted after that, Joe was voted one of the five worst umpires in 2010 in a player poll. And the other umpire in the top 8 ejectors was Bob Davidson, also one of the five worst in the 2010 vote. If you look at Wikipedia you can find out more about Joe's reputation (some good, mostly bad). Apparently some of the polls asked the players to submit separate votes for a best list and a worst list. In one of those Joe was voted 9th best but also voted 4th worst. Appears players struggle with consistency just as do umpires.
8:23 pm, Friday night: As if Joe didn't say enough about Altuve. Goddamn.
Ravens defense got a SB ring for Trent Dilfer.
Trent.
Effing.
Dilfer.
Absolute proof that if they cannot score, they cannot beat you - no matter who is under center. Browns D is kinda looking THAT good so far.
Play PJ Walker!
Well, Game 5 has certainly has livened up the ALCS a bit.
Aren't the best umpires usually the ones that casual fans don't know their names? All the umpires I can name are almost exclusively really bad in general or have had famous blown calls. Unfortunately, many fans know Joe West's name but for all the wrong reasons.
And back to Joe West. The top 5 umpires for ejections are.
Bill Klem 251
Cy Rigler 192
Hank O'Day 185
Bob Davidson 156
Joe West 151
Klem and O'Day are in the Hall of Fame. Let's be honest, what's more fun than an ejection and the player or manager goes bezerk? That was a big part of watching Lou Piniella with the Mariners. Rumor has it that there was over/under betting on estimated distance of hat throws and number of bases removed and tossed.
On the other hand, an anonymous poll of players in 2010 named the bottom five umpires for the year.
1. Angle Hernandez
2. C.B Bucknor
3. Joe West
4. Marty Foster
5. Bob Davidson
That same poll chose Jim Joyce as the best umpire of the year, despite his famously bad call that cost the Armando Galarraga a perfect game.
What are other metrics we can use for umpires?
Regarding the ejections stat, you're comparing across eras. Baseball was a bit like the wild west in the old days and ejections (on a per game basis) were much higher than they were in West's time. Of course, Cowboy Joe may have had nostalgia for the Old west- maybe that's why his ejections were so high.
For more information on ejections: https://retrosheet.org/Research/SmithD/EjectionsThroughTheYears.pdf
Shout out for the Hitchcock reference, and in such an utterly apt place. Bravo!
Haven't read all the comments yet but just a quick note on Lou Piniella. Lou's Mariners in his last three years won 91, 116, and 93 games. He left the Mariners after 2002 to take over the moribund Tampa Bay Devil Rays (the name wasn't changed until 2007). There didn't seem to be much sense to the change. Yes, he was from the Tampa Bay area and yes, he may have had issues with Mariner GM and owners over the roster but the likely real reason was simpler. His father was seriously ill. He would pass away in 2005. Lou had made criticisms of Tampa Bay management (the team was last or nearly last in payroll every year). He finished the 2005 season and then opted out of the last year of his four year contract. Take away his 3 miserable years in Tampa Bay endured for family, not baseball, reasons and his overall record would have been a winning percentage of .534
I hate the "take away the bad things and it would be better" approach. Take away the 3 good years you mention and he is at .501. I can see it with a player if you are trying to maybe isolate the prime of a guy who played too long or something. But a manager record is what it is.
What you say has great merit, but I'm a sucker for someone who chooses family over career in making a decision. Lou could have stayed in Seattle and padded his resume or go to a hapless situation that let him be near his ailing father. I find his choice to be laudable.
I watched a lot of Chiefs teams with strong defenses and little offense. They often made the playoffs but never won much
There is that Ravens team that turned Trent Dilfer into a superbowl winning quarterback, though.
Jim McMahon on the Bears falls into that category too.
That's true, though there did seem to be a cult who believed in Jim McMahon as a quarterback... The Ravens certainly didn't believe in Dilfer- they released him after the season.
But that cult was judging by notoriously low Bear QB standards. Let's face it, the competition wasn't very stiff since most in that cult weren't born when Sid Luckman retired in 1950.
I don't disagree- I just remember with amazement the media attention given to McMahon's winning percentage when he joined the Eagles...like that was a more important indicator than his actual performance...
Hey man, there is something to be said for winning. Yes, he played for a great team with a great defense for most of his starts, but he was injured a lot and other people made starts virtually every season he played with them.
He was 46-15 with the Bears, a .754 winning percentage. Other QBs making starts in the same years were still winners at 27-16. (.628) This means he won 8 more games in his starts than other QBs would have. That is actually a significant amount.
He started sparingly the rest of his career, but had a .583 winning percentage the years he had starts on teams that went .523 without him.