Book Review: Evaluating Baseball's Managers

Evaluating Baseball's Managers: A History and Analysis of Performance in the Major Leagues, 1876-2008
by Chris Jaffe
c. 2009

If you read The Hardball Times as often as I do, you are very familiar with Chris Jaffe. Now, Jaffe has a book out called Evaluating Baseball's Managers. (which can be purchased here...). As a baseball history buff and an amateur stat nerd, this book is right up my alley.

Now, I only received excerpts of the book that related to Baltimore franchises but the taste I got was more than enough to peak my interest.

For instance, having just read Weaver on Strategy this fall and The Bill James Guide to Baseball Managers in the past year, I didn't think there was anything new that I could learn about the managerial habits of Earl Weaver. I was wrong.

Sure, I knew that Weaver's teams tended to improve as the year went on and that they had never had a losing September but only Jaffe delves in to determine why. Was it luck? After exploring that idea for awhile, Jaffe gives us this great insight:

As was the case with his pitchers, it does not appear that Weaver benefited from having a large collection of men who just happened to improve as the season wore on.His hitters improved on the whole, but not enough to explain Baltimore’s annual surge.

That leaves one obvious variable: Weaver himself. One of Weaver’s hallmarks as manager was compiling as much information so he could put his players in the game at the most opportune circumstances....That was exceptionally difficult because it required gathering and mastering those details, and then also staying on top of how they change from year to year and week to week...He learned and as the season went on had an ever-improving sense of exactly where to put all his players.

The Weaver excerpt is fascinating as you can imagine and offers several original insights about his career.

There's a ton of interesting facts in there.

Ned Hanlon, hailed as a pioneer during his days managing the old National League Orioles, had the game pass him by at the relatively young age of 46. Except that 46 was actually exceptionally old for a manager at the turn of the century with only two other NL managers over 36 when he lost his touch.

Frank Robinson, win-loss record aside, was actually a really good manager but no manager managed so long with so little talent.

How was Johnny Oates so effective as a manager? He was exceptionally good at building bullpens, especially middle relievers (see Todd Frohwirth and Alan Mills).

How does Jaffe determine all this? Using devices like the Birnbaum Database, the Tendencies Database and Average Opponent Winning Percentage (AOWP), among others. There's no sense in me trying to explain all this here but you can get a good overview from this FAQ.

There's just a ton of information even in the small excerpts I was given. I haven't even talked about the examination of the career of Paul Richards.

I'm no expert but I would consider this book an essential reference for the amateur (or professional) baseball historian. And I say that even though Jaffe is completely wrong about the Hall of Fame worthiness of Willie Keeler.

As soon as Christmas is over, I'm going to get me a copy.


To order a copy of Evaluating Baseball's Managers, go here.

Book Review: Palmer and Weaver: Together We Were Eleven Foot Nine

Palmer and Weaver: Together We Were Eleven Foot Nine

by Jim Palmer and Jim Dale

c. 1996

I hadn't picked this book up in over ten years but after reading "Weaver on Strategy", I wanted to read this book with different eyes. In "Together We Were Eleven Foot Nine", I found that Jim Palmer's remembrances of his career actually made a nice compliment to Weaver's book.

Palmer takes you through his Hall of fame career (which, by the way is amazing. He has been in the booth so long that you sometimes forget what a dominant pitcher he was.) but spends almost as much time on Earl Weaver. The battles between these headstrong competitors were legendary and Palmer takes pains to make sure you get his side of the story.

Palmer was there for all the Orioles' World Series appearances including the wins in '66, '70 and '83 and offers a good perspective on each one. Through Jim's eyes you see the careers of Rick Dempsey, Elrod Hendricks, Mike Flanagan and the fascinating road to professional baseball of Dave Leonhard (probably the best story in the book).

But this is ultimately a book about Palmer, by Palmer and he chronicles his playing days with anecdotes and a virtual blow by blow of each season he pitched. Highlights include the near end of Palmer's career in 1968 due to fragile arm, the various World Series appearances...and his philosophical differences with Earl Weaver.

And about the Weaver stories. Palmer, at least early in the book, is merciless, painting Weaver as a tiny tyrant, a drunk, a manager who didn't understand his players one iota and laying out the case that the Baltimore pitchers he managed succeeded in spite of Earl rather than because of him. While some of the stories are quite amusing, the number of stories and the apparent viciousness leaves you with the impression that Palmer is relishing kicking a guy who can no longer have the last word.

What tempers this vitriol are the later stories in which Palmer admits that, sometimes, he was clearly wrong and that Weaver actually had handled certain situations completely appropriately. Most of these capitulations regard Palmer spouting off to the media, notably griping about his contract and his war-of-words with Oriole third baseman Doug DeCinces. Palmer gives Weaver his due, eventually, and concedes that Earl probably actually knew what he was doing. Palmer comes off as a wiser, more mature player at the end of the book and even a bit apologetic for some of his behavior. Although he won't say it explicitly, he eventually gives Earl his due as integral to the success of the team.

Surprisingly, his recounting of Weaver's farewell at Memorial Stadium and his own retirement are well-told, heartfelt and I did find myself getting a bit misty reading those passages.

How is the book overall? There are a lot of good stories. Are they as good as Palmer seems to think they are? Not always. (Although the story about Jim and Earl starring in the same Jockey underwear ad is pretty hysterical.) But it is an entertaining read for the diehard Oriole fan and did indeed make a good companion piece for the unmissable "Weaver on Strategy". After all, Palmer was the only Oriole to play for all 6 World Series teams and there's something valuable to his account of the glory days of Baltimore baseball.

The book is out of print but can be found used on Amazon.com and Half.com. Worth a read if you can pick it up cheap.

Book Review: Weaver on Strategy

Weaver on Strategy: The Classic Work on the Art of Managing a Baseball Team

by Earl Weaver with Terry Pluto

c. 1984 (revised 2002)

Former Baltimore Orioles manager Earl Weaver was best know for losing his head on the field with the umpire. But what "Weaver on Strategy" reveals is that Weaver used his head far more than he lost it.

As you read Weaver's tome on baseball strategy, you begin to realize what amazing foresight he had on the direction the game was heading and simultaneously begin to shake your head that many managers (and organizations) still haven't picked up the hint 25 years after it was first published.

Earl has his opinions. Baltimore fans are probably well aware of them and they are best summed up by the phrase "Pitching, defense and the three-run homer". That's not just a catchy slogan; Weaver had very specific reasons for the methods he chose and lays out the arguments for his strategies in great detail and does so in very common sense terms.

It makes all the sense in the world. Yes, 27 outs are a team's most valuable offensive possession. Yes, the bunt makes little sense unless you're playing for one run. Yes, job security can be achieved with a .583 career winning percentage.

And I haven't seen on base percentage and walks discussed so often since I read Moneyball.

Weaver touches on every aspect of the game from spring training to the playoffs, from defense to hitting, from lineup formation to in-game strategy. You'd better enjoy "inside baseball" if you want to read this book but Weaver make even the more mundane parts of the game interesting with humor and anecdotes.

For example, spring training is boring. So how do you keep bored beat writers at bay? With Weaver's Cliches of Spring:

1. The hitters are ahead of the pitchers. You use this one after your staff get pounded for fourteen runs early in the spring. After all, maybe the hitters are ahead of the pitchers at this point? Who's to say which group develops faster?

2. The pitchers are ahead of the hitters. The opposite of number 1, so it should be used when you get shut out by three rookie pitchers nobody's ever heard of.

You can get the gist of Earl's philosophies just by reading the chapter and sub-section titles. "The Bunt: Rarely Worth the Trouble", "The Base on Balls or Why I Played Glenn Gulliver", "Clubhouse Meetings: A Real Waste of Time", "Winning and Losing Players: Baseball's Myth" and "The Offense: Praised Be the Three-Run Homer!"

Many of Earl's philosophies are considered standard practice today. Hit charts on opposing batters, pitching charts on opposing pitchers, hitting/pitching splits for Baltimore and opposing players, breaking in rookies in long relief, the eschewing of the steal and the hit and run (Earl didn't even have a hit and run sign and considered it the worst play in baseball) and valuing skills beyond batting average (OBP and slugging). Earl would have loved the integration of the computer and the internet in baseball!

One Weaver philosophy that has fallen by the wayside is the four man rotation. In this 2002 revision, Earl admits that a four man rotation would not work today. He believes it could if players were developed through a system that prepared them for that kind of workload but admits that you would have a hard time selling it to potential free agents who are more concerned about their health than their complete game total.

Other Earl philosophies:

Earl hated the intentional beanball and never called for one. He considered it dangerous and counter-productive. Throwing inside was fine but he didn't think there was ever an excuse to try to hurt somebody with a pitch. Weaver seemed to be way ahead of his time on this subject.

Earl believed that sign stealing was a part of the game but that it was overrated:

Say you find out a runner is stealing on a 2-2 pitch. The manager calls for a pitch-out and nabs him. Well, the guy in the other dugout isn't stupid. He'll see what happened and change his signs.

Earl said that you should never curse an umpire. That's right. Read that again. You should curse the call but not the umpire. OK, Earl.

And this was interesting...on cheating.

Every year there are whispers about certain players. The word is that a hitter who is suddenly having a good year is doing more than singing a good bat...

What is this? Steroids? HGH?

...he's swinging a loaded or corked bat.

Not nearly as sexy or shocking as steroids but it does raise a couple of interesting points.

First, if there were whispers about corked bats in the 60's-70's-80's, how can players look the public straight in the eye and claim nobody ever suspected anything during the steroids era? Of course, they can't.

Secondly, Weaver makes this statement:

I've managed pitchers who have used the spitter, and I've seen some corked bats lying around.

Since Earl came up managing in the Oriole organization, the odds are very good that Baltimore Oriole players were using the spitball and corked bats during their glory days. To put it more harshly, they were cheating!

Just something to keep in mind before getting all spun up about steroids.

And Earl admitted to using a corked bat in the minors. Not that it helped much.

In addition, Weaver goes into a detailed description of his scouting techniques including visuals of the index cards he kept on opposing players, hit charts, pitching charts and defensive charts. Chapter 11 is a detailed breakdown of the preparation for and the playing of the 1st game of the 1979 ALDS against the California Angels. There are charts showing all the managers fired during Weaver's tenure, various breakdowns on how many times he was ejected (and by umpire) and a epilogue from 2002 where Earl revisits Weaver's 10 Laws of baseball and finds that nearly all still apply.

This is an essential book for any Oriole fan and is also a must read for any baseball fan. It's a fascinating look inside the mind of one of the brilliant baseball minds of the modern era. It has to be in your baseball library.

Q&A With MLB.com Writer Jonathan Mayo About His New Book, "Facing Clemens"

This is kind of a book review but with a different twist. The book is called "Facing Clemens" by Jonathan Mayo. No, it's not a rehash of the whole steroid mess. It's a look back at Roger Clemens' career between the lines...told by the hitters who had to face him.

What's the Oriole connection? Well, Cal Ripken, Jr. faced Clemens more than any other batter during his career and he sat down with for a very in depth interview about what it was like facing arguably the best pitcher of his generation.

Jonathan Mayo is a senior writer for MLB.com. He joined Major League Baseball’s official website in April 1999 and has covered every facet of the game. More recently Jonathan has focused his efforts on covering minor league baseball and, notably, the baseball draft. Mayo worked on the broadcast team assembled for ESPN’s coverage of the first televised baseball draft in 2007, interviewing draftees after their selections.

Jonathan was kind enough to participate in a Q&A about his book. Here it is:

Dempsey's Army: Examining a great pitcher’s career through the eyes of the opposing batters seems to be a pretty unique format for a baseball book. Where did you get the idea to write about Roger Clemens from this angle?

Jonathan Mayo: To give credit where it’s due, it was the publisher’s idea. They had done a pair of boxing books – “Facing Ali” and “Facing Tyson” – and felt the format would translate well to baseball. Clemens seemed to be the perfect subject at the time due to the length of his career and the level of his success.

DA: This book does not focus on steroids or the Mitchell Report. Indeed, you must have been in the middle of some of these interviews when the Mitchell Report was released. Did the report change the tone of the book at all or were you able to keep it strictly between the lines?

JM: Actually, the book was completely done before the Mitchell Report came out. So while there was a little helplessness when everything happened, there also was nothing I could do. Looking back, it’s sure been interesting timing, but I’m glad in a way that it is what it was meant to be: just a simple, pure baseball book.

DA: Cal Ripken, Jr. did not hit particularly well against Clemens during his career and he struck out against him more times than against any other pitcher (17 times). Ripken is known to be a standup guy but he couldn’t have been excited to sit down and talk about his struggles against Clemens. How did you talk him into it?

JM: I asked. Seriously. I had had the opportunity to do an interview with him for MLB.com when the NY-Penn League All-Star Game was in Aberdeen. That went really well and I think that helped pave the way. I think – or at least hope – that he liked the concept of the book. His recall for their matchups was uncanny and I think it’s the strongest chapter in the book as a result.

DA: Ripken said, “He was just a serious competitor. I know that some pitchers pride themselves on being a little intimidating, where they’ll move you off the plate. Certainly Roger had that ability to move you back and move you off the plate, but to me, he was a consummate professional and under control at all times.” Was this just a very nice way of saying Clemens would fire one in at your hip without batting an eye? Were other players you interviewed for this book so diplomatic?

JM: I think the thing Ripken appreciated was that while he could knock you off the plate, he was never a guy looking to hurt you, at least in his opinion. He always knew where the ball was going. That’s one of the things that makes his early career so amazing. He was a pure power pitcher, but with command. It was an amazing combination of skills at the time and I think Ripken had a lot of respect for what he could do. Other players did tend to take that aspect of things in stride. Maybe it’s old school thinking now, but a lot of players felt that getting knocked down was just a part of the game. In some ways, it was a badge of courage to get knocked down by Clemens.

DA: You have an impressive list of players that you interviewed for this book. Who surprised you as an interviewee? Is there anyone you would have liked to talked to but couldn’t?

JM: For obvious reasons (think 2000 World Series), I really wanted to talk to Mike Piazza. But he wasn’t interested. I had thought Spike Owen would’ve been a good one – he played with Clemens at Texas, then was on the Mariners team that struck out 20 times against him in 1986, only to get traded to Boston for the postseason run that season. But I never was able to connect with him. Surprises? All were good, really. I’d never really spoken with Chipper Jones at length before this and he was simply amazing and had Ripken-like recall. Maybe the most surprising was Koby Clemens. I thought that would make for a nice little chapter and we had such a good and interesting conversation that it turned out much better than I anticipated.

DA: You interviewed Phil Bradley who was the 20th strikeout victim during Clemens’ dominating game versus Seattle. Ripken struggled against Clemens most of his career but recalled a three-run homer against Clemens on Opening Day in 1989 as one of the few times that he got the best of Roger. How ironic is it that Phil Bradley was one of the men on base when Ripken hit that shot?

JM: That’s the beauty of baseball, isn’t it? Even within that 20-strikeout game, Bradley pointed out that the Mariners weren’t even totally aware of what was going on because they were leading for much of it and they were really focusing on getting the win. Imagine what the reaction would have been had Clemens set that record and actually lost the game!

DA: So after all this research, what’s the best way to get a hit off of Roger Clemens?

JM: Swing early, I guess. The one common theme, even as he evolved as a pitcher, was to get him early in the count. Especially after he added that splitter, if you fell behind, you were in big trouble.

DA: OK, I’m going to pick your brain about the Orioles’ prospects. True or False: Adam Jones will be a star player.

JM: True. Give him some time. He’s learning on the job. When all is said and done, you’ll be quite happy.

DA: Excepting Matt Wieters, what Oriole farmhand will be the next regular contributor for the big club?

JM: Next? Instead of going with someone who’s close – literally the next – I’ll stay there in Frederick. I think Jake Arrieta’s going to move pretty quickly. Heck, might as well just keep him and Wieters together. Seems to be working so far, doesn’t it?

DA: The farm system has been strengthened by the offseason trades and the 2007 draft but still has a long way to go. What player do you expect Baltimore to draft in the 2008 amateur draft?

JM: There are several players that could fit into the O’s plans with the No. 4 pick. In my first crack and projecting the top 10 picks, I had them taking University of San Diego lefty Brian Matusz, who’s much more than a pitchability college southpaw. He’s got some serious stuff and could be a top of the rotation type quickly. If they wanted to go bat, they could go with University of Georgia shortstop Gordon Beckham or maybe South Carolina first baseman Justin Smoak.

Jonathan Mayo's book "Facing Clemens" can be purchased here on Jonathan's website.

http://www.jonathanmayo.net/

Book Review: The Bill James Guide to Baseball Managers

The offseason is when I usually do my baseball reading so I figured it would be interesting to write my Oriole-centric observations of these books. Got it? Good.

Bill James breaks the book down into decades and determines the best managers of each decade and then tells you about their styles, tendencies, innovations and the like. There were really great writeups on two Oriole managers: Ned Hanlon and Earl Weaver.

Everybody knows Earl Weaver but do you know Ned Hanlon? Ned Hanlon managed the great Oriole teams of the 1890's, back when the O's were still a National League team and winning pennants like mad.

Anyway, James details how Hanlon's influence is still felt in the game today and can trace the lineage of influence back from current mangers to Hanlon. For instance, Tony La Russa played for Dick Williams, who in turn played for Walter Alston, who played for Frankie Frisch, who played for John McGraw, who played for Ned Hanlon on the old Baltimore Orioles.

Furthermore, you can trace the "lineage" of many Oriole managers of the modern era back to Hanlon and the Baltimore Orioles of the National League. Earl Weaver, Paul Richards, Hank Bauer, Joe Altobelli and Davey Johnson all spring from Hanlon's disciples. It a tangible link between the Orioles of the 19th century and the club that was reborn in 1954.

The analysis of Earl Weaver is one of the most entertaining reads I've had in awhile. Weaver was dedicated to the idea of platooning players, this we all know. What I didn't know was after the advent of the DH, Weaver would routinely carry only 9 pitchers on the roster so he could carry 16 hitters to fuel his various platoons!

To Weaver, it was all but impossible to get every situation covered with just 25 men on the roster. It wasn't a question of having 25 men and only 18 of them playing; if he'd had 30 men, he'd have started pinch hitting in the 4th inning, and he'd have used all 30.

Truer words were never written.

Weaver was also a huge proponent of the big inning and hated giving up outs. His success in this area drove the sacrifice bunt to near extinction in the American League.

But my favorite assessment was this:

Weaver wasn't interested in what a player couldn't do. He was interested in what a player could do. If he can't hit a breaking pitch, you don't play him against Bert Blyleven. If he can't run, you pinch run for him-but you don't let that stop you from developing what the player can do. It's the things that a player can do that will win games for you.

Isn't that great? It's this characteristic that I see in Dave Trembley. Sam Perlozzo used to worry about his player's flaws or the type of player he felt was missing from the lineup. Trembley isn't like that. He needed a cleanup hitter and turned to Kevin Millar, not because he is a classic cleanup hitter but because he was the best suited for the job of the players on the roster. He didn't worry about Corey Patterson's strikeouts and low OBP, he saw his speed and bunting ability and stuck him in the 2 slot to good effect.

Anyway, I recommend the book to anybody. A great read and an interesting look at how the game has evolved over the last 120 plus years.