The Death of a Franchise

[Dante Bichette]

Originally Posted by hiaspire

How about Joe Torre's first five years as a manager. Is Torre a loser for that worse record? It has a lot to do with talent, and usually much more so than whoever is sitting in the dugout.

We certainly need more talent, no argument from me there. We also need a manager to maximize those talents, and IMO Hurdle is not that guy. Five years is enough for me to figure this out. If you want to go ahead and believe that he is the next Joe Torre, then I wish you luck (and as a fan I hope you are right). But for every manager who rebounded from an early record of well below .500, there are ten or twenty managers that never saw any significant improvement in their record, or never even got another chance.

Of course, if Hurdle didn't have Mike Shanahan-esq. job security, we would probably never find out what he could do with more talent since I don't think another club would give him the chance. But then again, Buddy Bell is still managing, so you never know. My guess is that before it is all said and done Hurdle's record will look a lot closer to Bell's than Torre's.

[PurnGoldy]

Originally Posted by RMF

I've seen a few threads referring to Aspire as a scientist. When did this happen? Is this a joke? Is web development now considered a serious scientific discipline? Run on sentences and horrible punctuation doesn't make Aspire a scientist. Believe me, I know a thing or two about that.

Hiaspire has previously stated that he is a scientist and that is proof enough for me. More importantly, he displays it with his objective and balanced baseball writing.

A scientist looks at all the facts and forms a conclusion, not the other way around. You can't just choose the facts that support your preconceived notion. A scientifically-sound prediction is simply what is most likely to occur based on the all facts and evidence at hand. I'll give Heltonfan credit for noting this in a thread a few weeks ago.

A valid prediction is not what you hope will happen (wishful thinking), nor what you fear could happen (worst case/cry wolf). I could say more but this post will be deleted.

[hiaspire]

I'd say something about you too, RMF, but I'm sure it's not allowed for everyone.

You do make a good point about coming here for something "brainy", though. And I'm trying to stand up for that myself by speaking out for more of the intellectual approach to analysis here. By that I don't mean more formulas and math necessarily, but an objective and comprehensive examination of these situations fairly.

It certainly is allowed/encouraged to vent in anger at the manager or owners repeatedly (not sure about anything else - besides me possibly j/k), and even throw out criticisms with no supporting evidence behind the justification of releasing frustration. However, just being allowed doesn't make it "brainy". That's not objective analysis.

I come here for that too and wish there was more of it. I'll keep pushing for a more objective look at many of these issues and welcome you to join in that cause also. We make that decision every time we decide to type about a poster personally and click submit, or make convenient assumptions to pile upon unpopular figure rants because we are mad at the current scoreboard. Yeah it's fun to join in on that party, but it's not intelligently addressing the issues.

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

Their Pythagorean record coming into today's game was precisely the same as their real-world record: 8-13

It is interesting to look at, but any theory that relies upon run differentials for theoretical or expected win totals is flawed logic IMO. The last two games are perfect examples of that with extreme scores on both ends of the spectrum. Performance in 1-run games is a gigantic hole there, and that was a huge issue with this team in the early going. Such analysis doesn't take that into account very well. Final scores of games can also sometimes be quite misleading, and especially when just added up altogether out of context IMO. When reality doesn't match up to Pythagorean records, we usually assign some kind of "luck" to it, but it really is more like a flaw in the system IMO that it can't account for some of the things that contribute to real situation wins and losses.

Looking at April opposition records also has it's problems as discussed, despite that bringing better news about the team's performance.

I disagree that the schedule has been brutal, though. It's been mostly NL West, and in what I've seen they aren't all that scary as some make them out to be. For all the April pessimism, the Rox barely have a losing record against those teams even with some critical early season flaws that are primary reasons for so many close losses, and those issues have since been addressed in some ways. Our setup men probably aren't going to be quite as bad the next time around the division, and neither are our bats as likely to be as cold reasonably. To not take that into account and instead over-emphasize what happened in April to project ahead doesn't make sense IMO.

We know the Rockies have had some very specific reasons for many of their early season close losses. We also know that they have taken some steps to try to correct some of those things. There have been some recent positive results with many of those fixes, but we'll see if those patches hold out long enough to turn many of those close losses around in the months ahead.

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by Dante Bichette

We certainly need more talent, no argument from me there. We also need a manager to maximize those talents, and IMO Hurdle is not that guy. Five years is enough for me to figure this out. If you want to go ahead and believe that he is the next Joe Torre, then I wish you luck (and as a fan I hope you are right).

Just to be clear, I've said I wouldn't have given anyone in the organization an extension - including him. Mostly because I'd like to see a fresh start overall with brand new energy. I do think his criticism has become extremely exaggerated and unfair in many instances, though.

One of them involves the talent given to him when people rail on the overall record. Put Joe Torre with a bad team (as he has been multiple times) and he'll have a poor record. Put Joe Torre with the Yankees and he's a HOF manager suddenly. Managers aren't insignificant by any means and I believe strongly in many of the "intangibles" that most don't here, but talent is a bigger factor than the manager often in his record - especially in extreme examples such as a youth movement and massive payroll restructuring.

Has Hurdle not gotten the most out of the talent? We may disagree about the quality of the talent here for the last 5 years previously. There are examples on both sides, but overall it is hard to argue with the quality of the youth development at the big league level recently with several new young stars emerging IMO. That is the primary job in a youth movement, and they have done a very good job of that I think.

Has he not gotten the most out of Jeff Francis? Brian Fuentes? Matt Holliday? Atkins? Corpas? Maybe he hasn't gotten the most out of bottom-of-the-barrel elderly acquisition types or questionable AAAA talents destined to be backups whether here or elsewhere, but to me that is more a matter of personnel decision making in putting the team together. They've done very well, and perhaps as good as anyone in baseball, at turning many inexperienced but legitimate young talents into strong MLB contributors and big league assets for the organization.

We haven't had the talent really until recently. They did improve last year, and we'll see if that continues or not. But it's too soon now in April to arrive at a conclusion there for failure.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by Dante Bichette

We certainly need more talent, no argument from me there. We also need a manager to maximize those talents, and IMO Hurdle is not that guy. Five years is enough for me to figure this out.

Dante, you are very keen to have figured this out in five years, but in reality I think that I had Hurdle pegged as a below-average manager after about two years. The last 3+ years have simply reinforced what I already believed about him. The most disappointing aspect about The Cooler is that I haven't seen any real improvement in his managerial decisions with all the experience.

It's funny, but with all the other teams I've followed in my lifetime, a manager such as Clint Hurdle would never have gotten five years with one club. Charlie Finley changed his A's managers almost as often as he changed socks in the 60's and 70's, and there were far better managers than Clint Hurdle who were dismissed during that period. The Giants had the best "bridesmaid" manager in history in Herman Franks in the 60's, as his teams finished 2nd in a 10-team National League four straight years (from 1965 through 1968), and that was considered a failure as Clyde King replaced Franks in 1969.

I don't expect the younger Rockies fans who haven't watched the baseball that I've seen in my life to really understand just how bad Hurdle is. He's truly one of the worst I've ever seen, in all sincerity, and the fact that the Monforts don't see that, or don't care, is simply astonishing to me.

[DieHardRoxFan]

I read an article prior to the season starting that called Hurdle the worst manager in history. They went back over 120 years and no manager with as poor a record as Hurdle had ever lasted as long. There have been managers with worse single seasons but nobody with any club has ever failed more than the Cooler. I don't see that changing, no matter what kind of talent he's handed. If he ever gets canned here, I would bet he never gets another opportunity to manage unless it's with a franchise as incompetent as the Rockies.

[BigRapidsJackass]

I disagree that the schedule has been brutal, though. It's been mostly NL West, and in what I've seen they aren't all that scary as some make them out to be.

Well, maybe in a historical sense the NL West isn't all that strong, but my point is that 2 clubs are clearly well above average for the NL, and one club is probably somewhat above average. So even if the Rockies reach their lofty goal of "average-i-nesh" this year, it will take rather longshot alignment of the stars for this club to climb into contention.

So when I say that we should be looking toward '08, that's not being pessimistic. It's being realistic. And that's why I don't see much value in letting guys like Finley get a lot of playing time when it seems more valuable to figure out what guys like Spilborghs can do.

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

Well, maybe in a historical sense the NL West isn't all that strong, but my point is that 2 clubs are clearly well above average for the NL, and one club is probably somewhat above average. So even if the Rockies reach their lofty goal of "average-i-nesh" this year, it will take rather longshot alignment of the stars for this club to climb into contention.

So when I say that we should be looking toward '08, that's not being pessimistic. It's being realistic.

The Tigers probably should have just thrown in the towel last year too before the season started "realistically". That's not why we play sports, though, and there are surprise stories just about every year outside of the realistic projections of experts.

The Rox can't really be accused much of not playing the youngsters when they probably have played as many of them in recent years as anybody, and new youngsters get sprinkled in all the time as the need emerges. Many will come up no matter how well the Rox are doing this year and will get some opportunity. But there will also be plenty of time to "focus on 08" even more so IF and when they seriously do fall out of contention. Usually there is plenty of time for games after that.

It's April, though, and things are just getting started. I can't blame the Rockies for trying to win some games instead of delaying things further and telling everybody to wait again. Let's focus on 07 a bit more before having to resort to throwing in the towel and focusing on next year ALREADY.

The NL West isn't that tough. It is somewhat improved on paper and maybe in spreadsheets, but it hasn't really played out that way in reality. People are so insistant about how horrible the Rockies have been, but none of those "better" teams have separated themselves from us and we've fixed more of our problems that have lead to so many close losses than any other team in the early going. Most of those so-called strong teams have their own flaws and are no sure things by any stretch of the imagination. The D-Backs are much like ourselves with young talent, and we've played them straight up even in blowing 3 games late due to bullpen failure that has since been modified. Many of the division big acquisitions haven't worked out as well as hoped like Schmidt's health or Maddux getting beat by Hirsh and our "crappy" offense every time out. People pump up these divisional teams, but the Rox have played them close for the most part and shouldn't live so much in fear of them that they call off the season and prepare for next year.

If the Rox give it their all through the all-star break and are hopelessly out of it, then it seems more reasonable to shift focus as often teams do. Not in April, though, or else we might as well not even field a team if we aren't going to try. The Rox have more raw talent on the field than they have in years, and we'll see how they do in the coming months. But let's not assume that they can't get the job done either and forget about this year entirely. There is too much good baseball ahead to just call it an extended spring training for 08.

[DieHardRoxFan]

I'm not going to look at 08 since some of the young core group may not be here. Holliday is probably looking at 7 million in arbitration, How about Atkins, is he eligible( 4 million), Cook, Fuentes. Is Helton due 18 million next year? Ownership is going to have to spend some more money.

[RMF]

By that I don't mean more formulas and math necessarily, but an objective and comprehensive examination of these situations fairly.

If you take the complex fraction and FOIL it you would find that the ratio is close to its derivative. But that's only when x does not equal -2.

[RMF]

The sock was actually red and had bleach spilled on it.

[rockieprogress]

Roxpert, Herman Franks?

You may have just made BB history as the first person to write his name anywhere on the internet.

Hiaspire, can you please define why a game won in April is less important than a game won in June, or August? To be "in it" in September, you have to have a winning record. April games are equally important in achieving that.
Do you remember the Tigers going 35-5 to open the season?

When it happened, a writer pointed out that if they played .500 the rest of the way, they would win 96 games. That gets the team into the playoffs just about every year...

April games can define your season. I'll take April wins over needing Hurdle to lead the team through 2 or 3 hot streaks to make up for the deficit because the team didn't start hot.

April 21, 2007. The day I would've fired Hurdle.

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by rockieprogress

Hiaspire, can you please define why a game won in April is less important than a game won in June, or August?

Who says it is??

The point is that odd things can happen in small samples that shouldn't be over-reacted to. A month of games right out of spring training is a small sample. April also involves a feeling-out process for a lot of teams where off-field winter decisions sometimes need to be adjusted when they don't look the same on-field as expected, and usually involves the worst weather conditions and many players who gradually work up to their full capacity as the season gets started.

In June or August there isn't the same unnatural spike in numbers that you get with a small sample in April. If a guy sucked all year but had a fantastic August, there isn't going to be the same kind of recognition of his overall numbers as you'd get with a player who had a fantastic April and no other numbers on the year to balance that out toward more realistic performance measurables.

I remember a lot of April over-reactions in history, for both players and teams when fans freak out about something but months and months later realize something entirely different when a larger sample of data is looked at versus basing everything on a couple of weeks only.

[GerryInCS]

There's the old baseball adage that goes something like this "You can't win the pennant in April, but sure as heck can lose it." Historically, if you get off to a bad start in April, your chances of making the playoffs/winning the pennant are dramatically lowered.