SB Nation User Blog: billexgordler

One of the very best baseball men in a generation

billexgordler — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:21:42 -0000

This quote by Dayton Moore about Trey Hillman was met with honest to goodness howling by anyone who follows the Royals but who isn't employed by the team. It seems ludicrous on the face of it, but is there anything in Hillman's record that would seem to preclude him eventually earning a reputation as one of the very best baseball men in a generation? I thought I'd take a quick look at the early records of some men who could be considered the very best of their generations to see if Hillman's record in any way disqualifies that possibility.

"You know how Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" Calvin, Calvin and Hobbes

First let me say that whatever the outcome of this analysis, I'm not suggesting that by performing as poorly as other great managers have, Trey Hillman will somehow end up a wonderful manager. There are only two possible conclusions from this study: 1) Based on two-season samples from historically great managers, Trey Hillman is not and will never be one of the very best baseball man of his generation, or 2) Despite the titanic tone-deafness of Moore's quote, it is far too early to say that without a doubt Trey Hillman will not be one of the very best baseball men in a generation.

Manager	First	Worst	Total %	Total Wins	1st Worst?
Casey Stengal	.462	.282	.508	1905	No
Joe McCarthy	.544	.533	.615	2125	Yes
Tony LaRussa	.471	.460	.536	2545	Yes
Sparky Anderson	.559	.389	.545	2194	No
Earl Weaver	.670	.484	.583	1480	No
Walter Alston	.617	.456	.558	2040	No
John McGraw	.537	.467	.586	2763	No
Connie Mack	.525	.246	.486	3731	No
Joe Torre	.398	.398	.540	2236	Yes
Bobby Cox	.419	.419	.556	2402	Yes
Trey Hillman	.433	.433	.433	132	?

What this chart shows is the Manager, his winning percentage in his first two full seasons, his winning percentage in his worst two full seasons, his career winning percentage, and whether or not one or both of his first two seasons were among his worst two seasons. Only Joe Torre and Bobby Cox's first two seasons were also their worst two seasons. (Note: For simplicity's sake, I only used full seasons. I simply ignored partial seasons in both the "First" and "Worst" columns)

Things of note in this list include: Earl Weaver really hit the ground running, eh? Connie Mack managed some horrible teams. Casey Stengal's career record was dinged pretty badly by the early Mets teams.

As for what it says about Hillman, not much. Two of the winningest managers of the current generation fared worse than Hillman has in his first two seasons. And if his first two seasons end up being his worst, Hillman wouldn't look terribly out of place on this list.

Now, this list doesn't tell us all that much. What would be interesting is to see how the teams of these managers fared prior to their arrivals. Did these all-time baseball men improve their teams right off the bat?

Manager	Prior to arrival	First Two	Difference
Casey Stengal	.476	.462	-.014
Joe McCarthy	.485	.544	.059
Tony LaRussa	.502	.471	-.031
Sparky Anderson	.530	.559	.029
Earl Weaver	.539	.670	.131
Walter Alston	.653	.617	-.036
John McGraw	.667	.537	-.130
Connie Mack	.564	.525	-.039
Joe Torre	.519	.398	-.121
Bobby Cox	.404	.419	.015
Trey Hillman	.404	.433	.029

This chart shows the manager, the winning percentage of the team he first managed in the two seasons prior to his hire, his winning percentage from his first two full seasons, and the difference. (Note: as in the first chart, partial seasons are not included. If the manager managed a partial season, then the two seasons before his first partial season is used to calculate the "Prior" column.)

This surprised me. Only McCarthy, Sparky, Weaver, Cox and yes, Hillman managed to improve their teams' records in their first two seasons. Clearly, this is over-simplified, because it doesn't take players into account, but I think it shows pretty clearly that even the most successful managers take a while to find their stride.

Conclusion: Based on early-career records of the winningest baseball managers of all-time, it's far too early to say that Trey Hillman will not be one of the very best baseball men in a generation. Of course with the bar set this low, such a thing could be said about virtually any ML manager and signify just as much, i.e., zilch. I for one, have exactly no idea whether Hillman is a good manager or not. I think that he's shown the ability to learn on the job--most notably with Soria's 6-out saves and his quick hook on Jacobs at first base--which is promising. He's managing a terrible roster, though, and until that changes, it's unlikely that he'll ever get the chance to earn the reputation that Dayton Moore has so boldly predicted for him.

Fangraphs on Greinke

billexgordler — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:53:02 -0000

Fangraphs on Greinke

"If you use Bill James' Game Score as a reasonable summarizing metric, then the start registers as a 78, good for (Greinke's) fifth best start of the year. Yes, fifth best."
"This is one special season"

Goldstein on Gordon

billexgordler — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:33:44 -0000

Goldstein on Gordon

It's an insider article, and I don't feel comfortable posting the whole thing here, but the gist of it is that no one has any idea why Gordon's struggled so much. Some opinions: Never adjusted to wood bats, not enough minor league PAs, doesn't take coaching well, whines too much to the umps, the Royals screw up every prospect...

The final analysis is that he could still be a good player, though probably not a superstar.

The coolest thing you'll see this month

billexgordler — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:29:24 -0000

The coolest thing you'll see this month

Giddy with anticipation...

Gordon Goes Yard in first rehab game

billexgordler — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:50:07 -0000

Gordon Goes Yard in first rehab game

Just saw this and didn't see it anywhere else on the site. Alex Gordon played in his first rehab game last night in AZ and went 1-2 with a walk, HR and 3 RBIs. He flew out twice, one of which was a sac fly.

Destiny, or how I reconcile The Farnsworth Principle

billexgordler — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:21:09 -0000

I wanted to write this after game 1 after reading Hillman's defense of Farnsworth because his comment illustrated perfectly the difference between performance analysts and scouts. Unfortunately, I have another opportunity to write about it today, following an equally heartbreaking and damaging loss.

Recall Hillman's (approximate) quote after Thome's HR on opening day: The problem wasn't the pitch, the problem was the location. Well, we all pretty much agreed that that analysis was pretty much worthless, which is fine. Hillman has zero obligation to criticize his players or share his unvarnished thoughts to the media. In fact, it's counterproductive. It does no good to rip on players in the media. But what has made the whole Farnsworth signing and subsequent conflagrations so frustrating is just how damn predictable it has been.

My point: Most of us reading and posting on this website are performance analysts out of necessity (we have the tools to analyze stats, but very few of us have the tools to scout), and though we deny it, we view PECOTA (or CHONE or MARCEL etc) as destiny. We all know in our core that Kyle Farnsworth will always be flammable because that's what he's almost always been. On the other hand, the Royals braintrust are scouts and as such they don't believe that projections are destiny or that past performance guarantees future results. They believe that with coaching and with patience players with tools can be turned into players with skills.

Sometimes this approach works beautifully: The Gil Meche signing was viewed as an abomination by any performance analyst worth his pocket protector. The trade for Kyle Davies was widely viewed as a huge disappointment based mainly on Davies' peripherals as a Brave. Those two pitchers are now cost-effective parts of this team's cornerstone for the next three years and they never would have been acquired by a less tools-savvy organization.

Sometimes it works poorly: Joey Gathright was a bust (although it's important to note that JP Howell seems to be a fungible commodity at this point). Jose Guillen is vastly overpaid. And of course, Farnsworth is proving to be what he's always been, combustible.

Anyway, that quote above by Hillman is incredibly instructive. Baseball Men (BM) will say that if only Farnsworth would locate his pitches better, he would be a dominant pitcher. And that's certainly true. BM argue that Farnsworth can be taught to locate better either by landing on his toe or by clearing his hips or rotating his shoulder or whatever. And maybe they're right. Maybe there is some mechanical fix that can turn Farnsworth into something more than he's been for the last 5 years. (Incidentally, this is also the defense for Farnsworth's usage. The Royals think that Farnsworth can be a dominant reliever so of course it makes sense to use him in game-critical situations.) But from where I sit PECOTA is destiny. Farnsworth can't locate better. He simply can't. He is what he's always been. And that it seems so obvious from the outside looking in makes the whole deal triply frustrating.

The Royals under Dayton Moore will continue to make these kinds of mistakes. That's the cost of doing business in this way. Farnsworth, Guillen and Jacobs are the cost of Meche, Davies and Callaspo. Maybe it's worth it. Today it doesn't feel like it.

Mr. Glass should buy Mr. Moore a handsome bouquet.

billexgordler — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:12:29 -0000

Greinke has single-handedly recouped nearly all of that money Moore blew on Farnsworth. If Moore had waited to make the extension offer until after the season started (like how he did it with Soria) the numbers would have likely been significantly higher. $1M/year? $2M/year? In any event, by getting the Greinke extension done this off-season, Moore saved Glass a boatload.

One other thing: I bought my Greinke jersey in 2004. He's my favorite Royal. Last night's game made all of his frustrations and fits and starts worth it. That was one of the most entertaining games I've ever seen, and certainly one of the most satisfying.