Article: The Merits of Mientkiewicz and Molitor

[TheLeviathan]

Your not suggesting that picking and choosing when to use SABR theories based simply on if they fit your already concrete opinions is antithetical to their success?

 

It's almost like you think you either embrace them or you don't, otherwise they do not do you much good.

 

I'm unclear what you're asking.  My point was that Nick's suggestion that SABR theories are more for GMs than Managers is not something I can get behind.  

[jay]

Anyone have a link to the interview where Dougie talks about his tactics?  I can't find it.

[nicksaviking]

I'm unclear what you're asking.  My point was that Nick's suggestion that SABR theories are more for GMs than Managers is not something I can get behind.  

 

No I agree, my sarcasm did not come across well.

[tobi0040]

Anyone have a link to the interview where Dougie talks about his tactics?  I can't find it.

 

Same here. 

 

On a side note, I mis-spelled Doug's last name so bad, that it took my third attempt for Google to offer a suggestion.

Edited October 3, 2014 by tobi0040

[Badsmerf]

To me, the biggest thing Doug has going for him is the winning attitude. That is as important if not more important than anything else. That is where I feel Gardy failed and failed miserably. You have to have a leader that wants to win so bad it rubs off on everyone else. I'm not sure Molitor has that, but I am sure Doug does.

 

The other parts of the debate lean toward Molitor. If Molitor does get the job, I would either like to see Doug go to AA or be the bench coach. Remember, Doug is still pretty young and a few more seasons as a manager in AA are not going to hurt him. If managers could be prospects, he would be one.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Link to interview

 

http://twinsdaily.com/topic/15519-nightengale-twins-interviewing-doug-mientkiewicz-today/?p=285400

 

Warning: after all the buildup, it's probably not going to be as meaty as you'd expect.

[Otto von Ballpark]

He was a finalist to take over for Kelly in 2001 before Gardenhire landed the job

Another "from afar" strike against Molitor: a guy strongly considered for the Twins manager job in 2001 doesn't strike me as someone who would be an innovator, barring other evidence of that trait (and Molitor doesn't have a whole lot).

 

I don't know anything much about Mientkiewicz as manager, but Molitor seems like a "safe" choice more than anything else.  And if I wanted a safe choice, I probably would have just stuck with Gardy for another year, maybe with a different pitching coach.

 

Really hope they take serious looks outside the org here.

[Nick Nelson]

Warning: after all the buildup, it's probably not going to be as meaty as you'd expect.

That won't stop anyone from drawing sweeping conclusions, evidently.

[Mike Sixel]

It is all the information we have......I guess we could just say "doug is younger, ergo a better candidate" since that is all we really KNOW at this point.

Edited October 3, 2014 by mike wants wins

[tobi0040]

 

I agree, but more sane options probably wouldn't throw the Twins front office under the bus if they got snubbed as it might come across as detrimental to future opportunities.  Guillen doesn't seem to have those kind of hesitations.

I agree completely. If he was engaged he would say whatever he thought. But it is that loose cannon trait that makes the team not call him and I don't blame them for that.

[Willihammer]

That won't stop anyone from drawing sweeping conclusions, evidently.

Nobody's pretending to know who the best candidate is. We all have a lot more questions than answers. But if you believe the next manager should be able to wield analytics to give his team an advantage on the field, as I and others do, then its a little discouraging to hear one of the candidates say:

 

"I have to admit that I'm not tremendously up to speed on the analytical side of it. I still believe in trust your eyes."

 

That is the exact quote. Seems pretty clear to me but I admit, I could be totally wrong and Doug Mientkiewicz could actually be an analytical genius.

[tobi0040]

Nobody's pretending to know who the best candidate is. We all have a lot more questions than answers. But if you believe the next manager should be able to wield analytics to give his team an advantage on the field, as I and others do, then its a little discouraging to hear one of the candidates say:

 

"I have to admit that I'm not tremendously up to speed on the analytical side of it. I still believe in trust your eyes."

 

 

 

Hopefully that came up in the interview.  That is beyond concerning.

[ashbury]

I don't hold Mientky's on-field fight against him forever.  But I would like to see him build up three more years on his resume with no further embarrassments to himself or his team.  That could be as a minor league manager, or as a major league coach.  Sitting at Gene Glynn's right hand side, for instance; they might team up well, I don't know.

 

But no, not as Gardy's immediate replacement.

 

And I agree with the comments that his being young doesn't preclude him from being considered old-school, if he views Getting After It as more important than talent for example.

[ashbury]

Why isn't Gene Glynn getting more consideration?

Maybe lack of public evidence of the fire in the belly for the job, which is what I also perceive to be what holds back Molitor from getting the nod without any need for further interviews.  Note that this is not the same as the fiery personality type, for which Mientkiewicz gets positive reviews. 

 

I think the ideal candidate hasn't surfaced yet. You want cool under pressure; you want the burning desire to win; you want an analytical mind who also trusts what he sees; you want youthful vigor and the wisdom that comes with age.  And so on.  And you want no red flags.

 

If after all this it eventually circles back to either Glynn or Molitor I think we will be OK.

[twinssouth]

My 3 candidates were Meint., Molitor and Martinez.  I'm going with Meint.

 

Watching him work with players in Spring Training, critiquing, pushing them, positive feedback and the way he relates with them, just seems to me the right choice.  I didn't see anywhere that he was a loose cannon, instead he had a good presence.  Sure he had talent to work with but he created a winning culture, getting the most out of each player to win a Championship, something no other Manager in system has done.  He stresses fundamentals and aggressive on the base paths, that's Dougie baseball.

 

I think he's the right guy for the youngsters coming up and he sure would create some excitement in Twins land. 

[Brandon]

SD Buhr nailed my thoughts, this came off as a Dougie pimping, Molly downplaying article. I'm really not sure this was the most fair presentation of the debate and certainly didn't fit the title. I'm ok with either of these guys, but I was hoping when I clicked on this to hear the actual merits of both candidates. I did not get that here until SD's comments.

 

So it appears to me that this is what each guy has going for him:

 

Molly

More open to SABR thinking, shifting, etc.

Our two best position prospects are vocal cheerleaders for him

Keen mind for the game

More of a "teacher" type of coach

 

Dougie

Has actual managerial experience (including winning baseball at his level)

More of a "motivator" type of coach

Younger and more identifiable with young players

Has more recent experience in other organizations

 

I can see the case both ways - maybe we can have both with one serving as the bench coach?

I was going to write that one should be manager and the other a coach.  But if that is the case then Molitor will be the manager and Mientkiewicz the bench coach.

[LaBombo]

At this point my choice basically boils down to 'whichever qualified candidate is least likely to give Goin crap and/or ignore him'.

[TheLeviathan]

And I agree with the comments that his being young doesn't preclude him from being considered old-school, if he views Getting After It as more important than talent for example.

 

And vice-versa - Molitor being older doesn't preclude him from being new school.  There seem to be a lot of sweeping conclusions being drawn based solely on age.

[Shane Wahl]

One has to also be aware of the fact that if the Twins pick Molitor, he will likely get the job for two years, even if 2015 is bad again. By then, Dougie could very well be managing another big league club.

[old nurse]

I'm unclear what you're asking.  My point was that Nick's suggestion that SABR theories are more for GMs than Managers is not something I can get behind.  

Dependends on what you call SABR theories versus Nick. Any descreption of a pitcher statistics wise in terms of ERA or projected or similar statistics in terms of what shows on a stat sheet is of little use to the manager in preparing the team. Now speed, location types of pitches and their movement, frequency and trends how they throw are of use. If you call those SABR because a lot of that data is collected with technology then you do not have as different of point of view. Similarly for hitters. Owar is of little use other than knowing the batters basic skill level. What pitches (location, speed and type) a batter has trouble with or not, a spray chart would be of use. Again, if the data is collected with technology you might consider it SABR where Nick might not. 

I have not paid attention to what Dougie Baseball has said. I would think that he does not have that good of access to data on the other team in A ball so he has to be a little more old school in his approach.

[TheLeviathan]

I have not paid attention to what Dougie Baseball has said. I would think that he does not have that good of access to data on the other team in A ball so he has to be a little more old school in his approach.

 

That would make a lot of sense....had he said that.  In any case, I don't put much stock into that interview, but I do think a manager needs to be comfortable using new school ideas.  One of the most irritating things with Gardy, for example, was his lineup construction and how antithetical it was to new wave ideas.

 

SABR ideas should be employed in roster construction and implemented in day-to-day play to maximize their advantage.  If Dougie is a guy that can do that - great!  He's just a bit more of a mystery on that than Molitor at this point.

[old nurse]

SABR ideas should be employed in roster construction and implemented in day-to-day play to maximize their advantage.  If Dougie is a guy that can do that - great!  He's just a bit more of a mystery on that than Molitor at this point.

SABR ideas should be put into play in roster construction. When the manager has too much influence that is how you get Delmon Young. WHat SABR ideas should the manager be using I already covered. If there is something you think should be done more I am all eyes as to the explanation of the benefit.

[SweetOne69]

One has to also be aware of the fact that if the Twins pick Molitor, he will likely get the job for two years, even if 2015 is bad again. By then, Dougie could very well be managing another big league club.

2 years is probably a low estimate, 5-6 is probably more accurate. If Molitor is the new manager, Doug should be the bench coach for training.

[TheLeviathan]

SABR ideas should be put into play in roster construction. When the manager has too much influence that is how you get Delmon Young. WHat SABR ideas should the manager be using I already covered. If there is something you think should be done more I am all eyes as to the explanation of the benefit.

 

"Too much influence" is a complete independent problem and I'm going to do my best to make the most sense out of this post that I can.

 

 Managers should be in control of what happens during games and there are a bevy of sabermetric ideas that can be employed from lineup construction, to matchups, to shifting, to the running game, and anything else the manager normally calls the shots on.  Sabermetric thinking isn't just referencing new fangled stats (that's part), it's really using any empirical evidence to make decisions rather than eye tests and gut feelings.

[old nurse]

"Too much influence" is a complete independent problem and I'm going to do my best to make the most sense out of this post that I can.

 

 Managers should be in control of what happens during games and there are a bevy of sabermetric ideas that can be employed from lineup construction, to matchups, to shifting, to the running game, and anything else the manager normally calls the shots on.  Sabermetric thinking isn't just referencing new fangled stats (that's part), it's really using any empirical evidence to make decisions rather than eye tests and gut feelings.

On empirical evidence in 2000 he Twins were sure stupid to let that guy playing 3B continue to play there. After 2 years, that guy they had in CF, on empiraclal evidence, should have been moved for someone else.  Why did they bother with Thome? Old and washed up. Dozier, Cuddyer. You make the right decisions you are a genius organization. Make the wrong ones, you are fired.

Edited October 5, 2014 by old nurse

[old nurse]

My guess would be you do not understand that you don't have the emperical evidence to play a player but you do anyway to develop them. That happened with Koskie, and Hunter. Sometimes you add a player off from a decline year in that you think they have another good year left.  They picked up Thome after a couple of down years.  It worked well for 2010 IIRC. Empirical evidence has a place, so doesn't thinking a player can do something because they pass your eye test.

 

[USAFChief]

My guess would be you do not understand that you don't have the emperical evidence to play a player but you do anyway to develop them. That happened with Koskie, and Hunter. Sometimes you add a player off from a decline year in that you think they have another good year left.  They picked up Thome after a couple of down years.  It worked well for 2010 IIRC. Empirical evidence has a place, so doesn't thinking a player can do something because they pass your eye test.

I agree there's a place for both. Baseball is hard to predict.

 

I will say it won't bother me if they shift the balance a bit more towards the empirical side though. Here's hoping the next manager is really good at both.

[TheLeviathan]

My guess would be you do not understand that you don't have the emperical evidence to play a player but you do anyway to develop them. That happened with Koskie, and Hunter. Sometimes you add a player off from a decline year in that you think they have another good year left.  They picked up Thome after a couple of down years.  It worked well for 2010 IIRC. Empirical evidence has a place, so doesn't thinking a player can do something because they pass your eye test.

 

Using empirical evidence doesn't preclude context or player development curves.  For example, there was empirical evidence to believe Phil Hughes would be better away from NY.  There was minor league empirical evidence to believe an investment of playing time in Koskie or Hunter was a wise idea.  Sometimes empirical evidence is contradictory and you need to weigh the pros and cons, sometimes it flies in the face of the eye test, and sometimes it supports it.

 

The key is that it is consulted and consulted heavily in decision making.  I don't need it to be the 100% reason for managerial decisions, but having it a major part is absolutely required.

[twinsfanstreif]

Either way I would like to see both of these guys on the major league staff, either as manager/1st or 3rd base coach/hitting instructor (only in Molitor's case)

[Monkeypaws]

If the Twins want an advanced stats guy they should name Perkins player-manager.