Ned Yost; Mediocre Manager

On Sunday, Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe brought us his ranking of Major League Baseball's managers. You can view the full article here. Here's what he had to say regarding the Royals commander and chief, whom he ranked as the 14th best skipper in the game.

"Management stuck with him through the tough times and Yost, with a ton of experience, is a stabilizing influence in the clubhouse. the Royals should be good for a while, and Yost is a solid choice to lead them."

For those of you that follow me on Twitter, you know that I am not a fan of Yost. I think tactically he is terrible. Of course, I also can't deny that last season's surge was impressive considering the depths from which the team had to climb from. I do think Yost deserves a great deal of credit  for preventing a young team from cashing it in after the wheels fell off in May. At the same time, the argument could also be made that he allowed a talented team's skid to snowball far too long early in the season.

Yost ranking 14th among active managers is as much of an indictment on the state of baseball management then it is on Cafardo's ranking. When you consider how far analytics have come in the front office, one has to wonder how long it will be before it has achieved widespread utilization in the clubhouse. Football coaches utilize cheat sheets to determine whether or not to kick the extra point, how long before managers are holding a run expectancy or a bullpen leverage cheat sheets?

Most of us feel as though there is no manager in the league worst than Ned Yost. Most of us also don't subject ourselves to watching the poor management decisions that run rampant throughout professional baseball on a given night. If Cafardo is right and Ned Yost really is middle of the road, think about the difference that is being made by the good managers.

Last season Terry Francona helped lead the Indians to a 92 win season, while his Royals counterpart guided the team to 86 wins. What would the records of the Indians and Royals have been if the managers swapped dugouts? Would the Royals have won 92, while the Indians just 86? Unfortunately, we'll never know the answer to this question.

Follow me on Twitter @Landon_Adams!

Below Replacement Level General Manager

Well obviously this hasn't gone to plan. After a 17-10 start, we were told repeatedly by Rex the Wonderdog that the Royals could simply play .500 the rest of the way and it would be a successful season.* Never mind the fact that .500 the rest of the way would result in only 84 or 85 wins, which likely won't be enough for a playoff berth. Instead, the Royals have went into a tailspin and have now won just 4 of their last 20 games.

* Considering how close Rex appears to be with all of the players on the team, you have to assume that a similar sentiment was being whispered in their ears. "Eric, don't worry about one loss. We just need to play .500 the rest of the way. Drive the bus, you stinky piece of cheese!" There's a winning culture for you.

Now given that most of us predicted the Royals to be a 78-85 win team, we all should have realized that there would be rough patches. However, I don't think any of expected a stretch like the one we are currently on.**

** Good thing the Royals acquired a stopper. It is almost humorous hen people say things like there won't be any long skids since the Royals have a stronger rotation. Well what people should realize, is that one win doesn't all of the sudden right a sinking ship. Just because the Royals haven't lost 12 in a row, doesn't mean they are incapable of two week long stretches of awful baseball.

At this point, it seems clear to me that the Royals need to make a change. I do not believe that an individual should lose their job due to poor performance over a 20 game stretch. However, I do think that a 20 game stretch can highlight deeper more sustaining problems. What seems blatantly obvious to me is that Ned Yost is ill-equipped to be a Major League manager.

The offense hasn't done Yost any favors, but that should not serve as a blindfold to the decisions that he has made. In virtually every way, he has shown an impotence when it comes to leveraging his talent in the ways to make this roster as successful as possible. There are the obvious things, like not utilizing platoon advantages in pinch hit situations, bringing in Bruce Chen with less than 2 outs and a man on third (a fireable offense in its own right, with a rested pen), and batting Chris Getz leadoff.

There are also other inefficiencies hat are not unique to Ned Yost, but an industry wide problem when it comes to managing (continuing to bat one of the team's worst hitters in the most important spot in the order, batting the team's best hitter's in one of the less important spots in the order, proper leveraging of the bullpen, etc.)*** Finally, there are the more frustrating aspects of Yost that come from just being an educated fan. The regular patronizing post game interviews and the excuses.

*** It has been ten years ago since Moneyball became a top-selling book. Since that time virtually every front office has been infiltrated by analytics and individuals with statistical backgrounds. At what point does this revolution hit the dugout? Joe Maddon of the Rays is already applying these principles with huge amounts of success, but even Maddon has a playing background. I'm talking about sabermetric types finding roles as bench coaches or even managers. This is a topic for another discussion.

Here is the problem with changing managers, Dayton Moore has in no way shown that he deserves the opportunity to hire a third manager. Since June 8, 2006, Moore's first official day as Royals General Manager, the Kansas City Royals are 487-636 (.434). Over 162 games, that is good for a 70-92 record. This is Dayton Moore's average performance over the course of his seven years at the helm. In the history of the Royals franchise, they have posted a lower winning percentage just twelve times. Three and a half of those have occurred in Dayton Moore's tenure.

Industry wide, just two teams have won fewer games than the Kansas City Royals since June 8, 2006: the Houston Astros and the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Astros have intentionally hit rock bottom over the last two plus seasons. The Pirates appear to finally be getting it together. In fact, it isn't unreasonable to suggest that by the end of May, the Royals could have the worst record in all of baseball since Dayton Moore took the helm. Does this sound like a guy who deserves to hire a third manager?

Despite the poor performance on the field, Dayton Moore is the ninth longest tenured general manager in the game. The only general manager with a longer tenure than Dayton Moore and a lower winning percentage since Dayton Moore was hired, is Dan O'Dowd of the Colorado Rockies who in his 8th full season took the Rockies to the World Series.

This brings me back to my final thought, Dayton Moore is under contract through 2014, which would be his 8th full season in charge. As unfortunate as it is, I have a hard time imagining him not at least being given this season to show improvement. Quite frankly, all signs seem to point to 2014 as the year of final judgement. If things don't come together by that time, Dayton will have no one to blame but himself as he was the one who honed in on a two year window when he acquired James Shields from Tampa Bay.

I don't believe that Dayton Moore was a useless general manager. I also don't feel as though Kansas City has tread water for seven years or has taken a step back. I believe that Dayton Moore did a fine job of improving the infrastructure and rebuilt a farm system through the aggressive acquisition of high end talent. The development of that talent and Major League roster construction has been a huge problem.

For me, Dayton Moore is now a replacement level general manager. The Royals are at a point, where that potential needs to be turned into talent and where roster construction has to be a strong skill of the individual in charge. Since neither of these areas are strengths of the current administration, I see no risk in the opportunity to bring in a new GM. In fact, I would be incredibly excited to see what a forward thinking General Manager could do with the talent that is currently in the organization. Until that time, the Royals will be below replacement level at third base, second base, right field, in the dugout and in the front office. Fortunately, for the front office they won't even realize it.

Royal Rewind Wrap Up (10-22-12)

Yesterday as I was flipping through channels and trying to ignore the "must watch" TV of the third and final Presidential Debate, I came across "Royal Rewind" on Fox Sports Midwest.  It had already been going on for a half hour or so, but I caught most of the last half.  Here are some thoughts by a few Royals personnel from the Royal Rewind.  I am only paraphrasing what they said.

Ned Yost

• Losing Paulino and Duffy hurt the most. Rotation would hinge around those guys and both were doing great at time they got hurt.

Although Felipe Paulino was pitching like an "ace" before he got hurt, Danny Duffy wasn't pitching exceptional.  Obviously, losing those two pitchers hurt the rotation badly, but one could also make an argument that losing Lorenzo Cain and Salvador Perez for the first half of the season was just as devastating. Oh and we were playing Yuniesky Betancourt.

• Moose has improved, gold glove caliber third baseman. Production was pretty good for first full year in big leagues.

Mike Moustakas has improved, especially on defense.  He led all 3B in UZR in 2012 at 16.8. This mark put him ahead of the likes of David Wright, and Adrian Beltre.  Moose was also 2nd among 3B in the Majors in UZR/150 at 15.2 only behind David Wright at 16.8.  Moose was hot the first half of the season where he slugged .490 and hit 15 long balls.  Post All-Star Break he was awful. He had an OPS of .586 with a putrid 5 homers.  Don't get me wrong, I love Moustakas, and I still think in terms of his first year he had a real solid year overall.  But if the Royals want to compete for division championships Moose (or Hoz) will both have to be All-Star caliber players in my opinion.

• Hoz really struggled

Boy did he.  Eric Hosmer was incredibly tough to watch most of the year; and not just at the plate.  He was hard to watch on defense as well, thanks to his windmill digging style and the tendency to fling the ball across the field.  Like Moustakas, Hosmer will have to become an All-Star caliber player in order for the Royals to compete year in and year out.

• Ryan Lefebvre asked Ned something along the lines of it was as simple as starting pitching for the Royals to become a contender.
• Ned: "It's that simple really" Experience is extremely valuable and core is set on the field (lineup).
• Bullpen is efficient, need a couple starters and we should be in good shape.

Is it as simple as SP? Well in some ways yes it is.  We desperately need 2 or 3 starters that can pitch somewhat like Jeremy Guthrie did for the Royals, or even Luis Mendoza.  Luke Hochevar should not be in the rotation next year. Period.  I know I'm not the only fan who is saying this, in fact, its most likely a choir of Royals fans saying this.  I still think there is more to the Royals competing, and that is what I said earlier: Moustakas and Hosmer living up to star potential. Or at least one of them.

Steve Physioc

• Holland was fantastic and has makeup and mentality to be a closer

I agree, he looked great. Love his strikeout ability.

• Guthrie raised the entire rotation up, Mendoza pitched better (when Guthrie came) and Chen pitched better too.

Guthrie raised the rotation up because he pitched very well, Mendoza was consistently slightly above average and Bruce Chen was terrible for the most part, I don't get the love for Chen.

Rex Hudler

• Bruce Chen set the tone for rotation
• Led the entire season
• "Raise the Roof in 13"

Oh Rex. Chen really led the staff all year with his 5.07 ERA and becoming the human launching pad by giving up 33 dingers on the year. You amaze me Rex.

When to Pull a Starter Ned Yost Style

On the pregame today, Ned Yost said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that one of his strategies on how long to let a starter go is to not let his starter have the opportunity to lose a close game after six innings. That's all fine and well and when you have a great bullpen, which the Royals seem to do the strategy makes a fair bit of sense.

Here is my thought though, if a starter is dealing why would you pull him just because you want to ensure he doesn't blow his own win opportunity? Do teams pull Roy Halladay, Justin Verlander, or other starters just because the going gets tough and they could lose the game? Obviously, the Royals don't have any starters of this caliber, but will the strategy change one they do? (fingers crossed)

If you aren't comfortable allowing your starters to pitch deep in close games just because their win is at stake, you aren't doing your bullpen any favors. Sure Kansas City's pen is strong and deep at the moment, but they lead the Majors in innings pitched and it isn't uncommon at all for pens to lose steam as a result of logging to many innings.

The strategy may make sense with the current roster, but I'm not sure if I'm a fan of instilling a 6 inning mentality among the starters. In my opinion if a pitcher is on a roll and isn't showing signs of slowing, the length of his outing shouldn't be determined by the offense's performance. This team severely needs an innings eater and it is hard to do that if anytime the game is close after 6 the pitcher is likely to be pulled.

An Ominous Sign?

Last night the future became today for Royals fans. For eight and a half innings we were able to daydream about the future by witnessing the present. Johnny Giavotella hit a triple to the gap. Salvador Perez was dominating the Rays' running game. Felipe Paulino gave up just one run in 5 innings.

The telecast even asked the viewers which Royals player was going to win a Major award first: Salvador Perez, Johnny Giavotella, Mike Moustakas, or Eric Hosmer. (As if it was a given that all of these guys would develop into star caliber players.)

When Melky Cabrera hit a three run home run in the top of the ninth it was an awesome way to cap off the evening. Aaron Crow was then rushed in from the bullpen and we he took the mound he was surrounded by five other players that hadn't yet turned twenty-five.

But then the Royals collapsed. For a team that had for eight and a half innings had looked an awful lot like the fabled 2014 World Series Champion Royals, they looked an awful lot like the 2004, 100 loss Royals in the bottom of the 9th.

To start the inning Ned Yost rushed Aaron Crow to the mound for one reason: a statistic. Remember that mantra "You play to win the game." Well in baseball, Managers play to build up statistics. I don't want to get deep into my feelings on how the modern bullpen is operated, but when Soria was already warmed up and ready to go he should have been put into the game. It isn't as if he has been over used lately.

Instead when the Royals took the four run lead, Ned Yost frantically had to alter his plans because Soria had no place pitching in a non-save situation. So the route Yost took was to rush in a pitcher that hasn't had his best stuff since the All Star break. Sure we learned he was pitching through some ailments. But even if those have recovered, the stuff hasn't.

For a guy that has lacked crispness since the break, rushing in from the bullpen was a recipe for disaster. Two batters later Yost was pulling Crow from the game and calling for his closer. Soria by the way had already warmed up once, sat back down and then as quickly as Crow was forced to warm up for the 9th Soria was asked to rewarm up to relieve Crow.

A few hitters, some shoddy defense, a throw that bounced off a base runner, no one backing up third, and five runs later the Royals were exiting the field without the opportunity to shake hands in the middle of the diamond.

I was an extremely frustrating finale to an otherwise awesome night. It sure felt like 2004, and until this team can put together 9 quality innings on an everyday basis there will be other gmes when we are reminded of the past as well.

But for now we'll try to write this off as a growing pains, a common problem for young teams. Let's just hope we can get them out of our system fast, because I don't know if Royals fans can handle much more bad baseball when the light at the end of the tunnel is supposed to be blinding.

The Take Sign

Last night Yost caused a bit of discussion when he immediately through Eric Hosmer under the bus talking about how he should have known to take on the first pitch in his final at bat. It is true that Hosmer should have known that with Dyson on first, the first pitch should be took in order to get the winning run into scoring position, but I have one question. How long does it take to flash the take sign?

I am not blaming Yost for Hosmer's decision to swing when he clearly shouldn't have, however I do have a problem with Yost immediately putting the entire thing on Hosmer and accepting no responsibility. Isn't it the manager's job to manage?

I mean using the argument of Hosmer's should have known, then why even give signs in certain situations? Seriously, how long does it take to give the rookie the take sign? You know just to be sure that the ROOKIE is on the right page and understands.

I just don't buy into the argument that because Hosmer should have known, there is no reason to tell him. I think it is lazy and I think it is a cop out for defenders of Yost and Yost himself. At the very least if you are going to assume the rookie should know and he doesnt, keep the issue internal and use it as a learning tool. Don't immediately put it on the rookie when your job description is to manage the team.

Whether or not it was Hosmer's fault or not, it still wasn't even the first mistake made in the 9th last night. The first came when Chris Getz decided it was a good decision to steal third with two outs. Yes he made it to second. But if you are going to steal third in that situation, you better make it without a throw or at least be there with ease.

Little things ladies and gentlemen. Little things.