A thread on lousy managers and no mention of Jim Tracy?

vr

Xei

That's a joke, right? Even in a sports city that can't support a pro football team and indiscriminately renames one of its baseball clubs every few years, you must know that Tracy has never had a losing record and just won the division last year.

One thing we are certain of, Buddy does not put much stock in his career managing numbers - perhaps he can get them on a pace not to exceed the 62 Mets...

Is there any chance he would want to acquire a Third Baseman that shares the same DNA?

We can only hope.

Jim Tracy has terrible managerial skills. Jim Tracy continues to use outdated and sabermetrically proven wrong in game strategies. He lowers the Dodgers win expectancy in almost every game, and often more than once per game. Take a look at his game mismanagement in tuesday nights loss against the Cubbies.

vr

Xei

Here is an example of his idiocy.

Of course, what he does with what he has can be questioned at times, too. After Jayson Werth drew a leadoff walk in the bottom of the ninth, Tracy ordered No. 3 hitter J.D. Drew to try to bunt Werth over. Drew tried twice and failed, then had to swing away. Then, after Antonio Perez was hit by a pitch to begin the bottom of the 10th, Tracy had Hee-Seop Choi - mired in an 0-for-22 slump but a power hitter nonetheless - to bunt Perez into scoring position for Rose and Saenz.

"You have to get to Olmedo Saenz," Tracy said. "I'm not going home without the opportunity to get him to the plate. If you let Choi swing the bat, and he hits a (double play) groundball, it wipes out the inning, and instead of having Olmedo Saenz up there with a runner in scoring position, he has to hit for Mike Rose with two outs and nobody on."

Xeifrank, please provide further explanation. What's wrong with the bunt in those situations, when the Dodgers needed just 1 run?

First off, there is statistical proof (Win Expectancy Finder) that a bunt in that situation lowers your win expectancy. Secondly, you are asking people to bunt who have a tendancy to get on base. Both Drew and Choi walk alot. Not only that, but both of them have very good power and an extra base hit could very easily win the game. Choi was asked to bunt with a 2-0 count, right after the pitcher had just clunked a batter in the head. Choi probably would've drawn a walk, then you'd have the tying run at second base but with no outs. Then Tracy goes on to explain his rationale for the Choi bunt with not wanting to have Choi hit into a double play. And also that he wanted to give Saenz a chance to bat with a runner in scoring position, yet with one out he had a very weak hitting catcher (automatic out) coming to the plate. Tracy has made a terrible habit out of doing these sorts of things. He will bring in one of his worst pitchers to pitch the most important stretch of a game and will only bring Gagne in in a save situation or a tied game in the top of the 9th. Sure, there are other managers who may be just as bad, but I don't follow those teams as closely, so I can only speak for Jim Tracy.

vr

Xeifrank
http://www.FireJimTracy.Com/

Xeifrank,

OK, first the proof that this is a bad move in general is shaky. The difference between a game tied in the bottom of the ninth with a man at first and no outs to a man on second with one out is negligible (.714 to .703). Data for the 10th is unavailable from Win Expectancy Finder, but plugging in for the ninth with a run differential of -1 and the same scenarios as before gives a slightly larger edge to not bunting (.315 to .278). However, the issue comes down to the players involved, their bunting ability, their tendency to hit into a double play, the players hitting behind them, etc. Maybe he was afraid of Choi's 0-for. I wouldn't have done it myself, but there is far from solid sabermetric proof that it's inherently a bad move.