Fire Lou

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=99314:date=Jun 1 2010, 09:11 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jun 1 2010, 09:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->This isn't a big deal, but I'm just a little surprised that we are debating what an expression means in the context of this discussion. You can be "out to lunch" either a) because you don't care or b ) because you have lulled yourself into a state of ignorance. I think the latter is the case for Lou. He is old.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You're belittling the fact that I want to know where you stand on the topic at hand? I was trying to understand what you were saying. It's not as if you brought up the expression out of the blue and I argued about the meaning of it. It is within context of the conversation and I'm trying to sort out the meaning. In the grand scheme of things I guess it isn't a big deal. But in the same way, neither is the 2010 draft, Ryan Theriot being benched, John Grabow continuing to suck, and every other topic we discuss here.

Now, if there is a difference between "don't care" and "lulling yourself into a state of ignorance" I'm not sure what it is but I'll go with it. Are you meaning that his age has put him into a stupor where he's mentally unable to perform his job anymore?

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=99316:date=Jun 1 2010, 09:18 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jun 1 2010, 09:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I didn't really want to look it up, but I did anyway. <b>How is a paralyzed and/or exasperated person not any of the following? </b>Why can't he be all of the above?
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/out+to+lunch
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->2. and out of it Fig. not alert; giddy; uninformed. Bill is really out of it. Why can't he pay attention? Don't be out of it, John. Wake up! Ann is really out to lunch these days.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

A paralyzed/exasperated person <i>can </i>be those things, but I don't think that definition has anything to do with those adjectives directly.

BTW, now we actually ARE arguing about the expression out of context.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=99318:date=Jun 1 2010, 09:26 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Jun 1 2010, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99314:date=Jun 1 2010, 09:11 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jun 1 2010, 09:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->This isn't a big deal, but I'm just a little surprised that we are debating what an expression means in the context of this discussion. You can be "out to lunch" either a) because you don't care or b ) because you have lulled yourself into a state of ignorance. I think the latter is the case for Lou. He is old.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You're belittling the fact that I want to know where you stand on the topic at hand? I was trying to understand what you were saying. It's not as if you brought up the expression out of the blue and I argued about the meaning of it. It is within context of the conversation and I'm trying to sort out the meaning. In the grand scheme of things I guess it isn't a big deal. But in the same way, neither is the 2010 draft, Ryan Theriot being benched, John Grabow continuing to suck, and every other topic we discuss here.

Now, if there is a difference between "don't care" and "lulling yourself into a state of ignorance" I'm not sure what it is but I'll go with it. Are you meaning that his age has put him into a stupor where he's mentally unable to perform his job anymore?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He doesn't appear to be mentally fit for the job any longer at his age, no. I don't think Lou will ever not care about winning or losing, because that's just his makeup, but there <i>are</i> degrees of caring. There were several times over the weekend where Lou should have argued calls or done something to shakeup the lineup, even after he implied he would publicly, yet he did nothing. Where is his head at?

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=99322:date=Jun 1 2010, 09:38 AM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jun 1 2010, 09:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99318:date=Jun 1 2010, 09:26 AM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Jun 1 2010, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99314:date=Jun 1 2010, 09:11 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jun 1 2010, 09:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->This isn't a big deal, but I'm just a little surprised that we are debating what an expression means in the context of this discussion. You can be "out to lunch" either a) because you don't care or b ) because you have lulled yourself into a state of ignorance. I think the latter is the case for Lou. He is old.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You're belittling the fact that I want to know where you stand on the topic at hand? I was trying to understand what you were saying. It's not as if you brought up the expression out of the blue and I argued about the meaning of it. It is within context of the conversation and I'm trying to sort out the meaning. In the grand scheme of things I guess it isn't a big deal. But in the same way, neither is the 2010 draft, Ryan Theriot being benched, John Grabow continuing to suck, and every other topic we discuss here.

Now, if there is a difference between "don't care" and "lulling yourself into a state of ignorance" I'm not sure what it is but I'll go with it. Are you meaning that his age has put him into a stupor where he's mentally unable to perform his job anymore?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He doesn't appear to be mentally fit for the job any longer at his age, no. I don't think Lou will ever not care about winning or losing, because that's just his makeup, but there <i>are</i> degrees of caring. There were several times over the weekend where Lou should have argued calls or done something to shakeup the lineup, even after he implied he would publicly, yet he did nothing. Where is his head at?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Do you feel his level of caring was appropriate during the 2008 season? And do you think he's aged/changed that much in less than two years?

And just to add, I'm really truely sorry I upset you Rok.

[Butcher]

I have no idea what to make of this team. Nothing seems to add up. Oddly enough, I can't bring myself to get all that worked up about it, when in the past I would be at my wit's end right now.

Perhaps I'm out to lunch.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=99324:date=Jun 1 2010, 09:44 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jun 1 2010, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I have no idea what to make of this team. Nothing seems to add up. Oddly enough, I can't bring myself to get all that worked up about it, when in the past I would be at my wit's end right now.

Perhaps I'm out to lunch.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I feel out to lunch myself and have since the beginning of the season. Maybe that's why I'm coping so well with the results so far?

Speaking of, let's <b>do </b>lunch! Maybe next week some time at the Tilted Kilt?

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=99325:date=Jun 1 2010, 09:49 AM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Jun 1 2010, 09:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99324:date=Jun 1 2010, 09:44 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Jun 1 2010, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I have no idea what to make of this team. Nothing seems to add up. Oddly enough, I can't bring myself to get all that worked up about it, when in the past I would be at my wit's end right now.

Perhaps I'm out to lunch.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I feel out to lunch myself and have since the beginning of the season. Maybe that's why I'm coping so well with the results so far?

Speaking of, let's <b>do </b>lunch! Maybe next week some time at the Tilted Kilt?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I need to be in on this soon as well.

And don't worry about offending me, Scarey, it's nothing. I can be an ass at times too, as I'm sure was the case this morning, so sorry as well. It's been a tough morning for me so far.

[BT]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->What sort of value is he adding in your opinion?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I could write a short novel on this stuff, but I'll try to keep it brief.

I grew up playing Strat-O-Matic Baseball as a kid. It taught me a LOT about baseball, but the main lesson I took from it was that you could hit and run at exactly the right time, bunt during the perfect situation, and rearrange your lineup as well as Connie Mack. And none of it mean shit if you didn't have good players or your good players didn't perform (in the Strat world, that meant if you didn't "roll the dice" well).

This, along with studies I've looked at over the years, lead me to believe that a manager, in a macro sense, has shockingly little to do with a team's record. I don't think managers are completely useless, and I do think they can add value, but I don't think a really really good manager is going to make an 80 win team into a 90 win team. I do think a terrible manager can have a large negative effect on a team, but I good manager cannot overcome a lack of talent/production from his players.

I think Don Baylor was a bad manager, but that is because I disagreed with his fundamental philosophy that bunting in the first inning was a good idea. I think Dusty was a decent manager who had some very big flaws, many of which were exposed in the 2003 playoffs. I think Lou is a good manager who is hamstrung by the core of his team under performing. So I would not shed a tear if Lou is let go, and I would have no problem with Trammel taking over. But if Lee and Ramirez were to then get hot, I would have no illusions that Trammel somehow sprinkled magic pixie dust on them to make them great.

In summary, my first impulse is to blame the players when things go bad. I would say a vast majority of sports fans prefer to blame the ownership/general manager/manager first. All 3 of those can contribute to a bad team, but I don't think any of them can overcome players sucking.

[BT]

and i'm in for lunch.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=99336:date=Jun 1 2010, 12:06 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jun 1 2010, 12:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->What sort of value is he adding in your opinion?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I could write a short novel on this stuff, but I'll try to keep it brief.

I grew up playing Strat-O-Matic Baseball as a kid. It taught me a LOT about baseball, but the main lesson I took from it was that you could hit and run at exactly the right time, bunt during the perfect situation, and rearrange your lineup as well as Connie Mack. And none of it mean shit if you didn't have good players or your good players didn't perform (in the Strat world, that meant if you didn't "roll the dice" well).

This, along with studies I've looked at over the years, lead me to believe that a manager, in a macro sense, has shockingly little to do with a team's record. I don't think managers are completely useless, and I do think they can add value, but I don't think a really really good manager is going to make an 80 win team into a 90 win team. I do think a terrible manager can have a large negative effect on a team, but I good manager cannot overcome a lack of talent/production from his players.

I think Don Baylor was a bad manager, but that is because I disagreed with his fundamental philosophy that bunting in the first inning was a good idea. I think Dusty was a decent manager who had some very big flaws, many of which were exposed in the 2003 playoffs. I think Lou is a good manager who is hamstrung by the core of his team under performing. So I would not shed a tear if Lou is let go, and I would have no problem with Trammel taking over. But if Lee and Ramirez were to then get hot, I would have no illusions that Trammel somehow sprinkled magic pixie dust on them to make them great.

In summary, my first impulse is to blame the players when things go bad. I would say a vast majority of sports fans prefer to blame the ownership/general manager/manager first. All 3 of those can contribute to a bad team, but I don't think any of them can overcome players sucking.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I overwhelmingly agree with this.

[Butcher]

I believe a bad manager can have a far greater impact (in a negative way, obviously) than a good manager can have (in a positive way).

All I ask from my manager is they put the team in the best position possible to win and not make idiotic decisions. Lou has been making some shockingly bad decisions this season. Of course -- if Lee and Ramirez were hitting, it would mask some of those decisions. But with our offense, there is a much smaller margin of error and Lou's mistakes get magnified.

[Clapp]

<!--quoteo(post=99342:date=Jun 1 2010, 11:50 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jun 1 2010, 11:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I believe a bad manager can have a far greater impact (in a negative way, obviously) than a good manager can have (in a positive way).

All I ask from my manager is they put the team in the best position possible to win and not make idiotic decisions. Lou has been making some shockingly bad decisions this season. Of course -- if Lee and Ramirez were hitting, it would mask some of those decisions. But with our offense, there is a much smaller margin of error and Lou's mistakes get magnified.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=99342:date=Jun 1 2010, 12:50 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jun 1 2010, 12:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I believe a bad manager can have a far greater impact (in a negative way, obviously) than a good manager can have (in a positive way).

All I ask from my manager is they put the team in the best position possible to win and not make idiotic decisions. Lou has been making some shockingly bad decisions this season. Of course -- if Lee and Ramirez were hitting, it would mask some of those decisions. But with our offense, there is a much smaller margin of error and Lou's mistakes get magnified.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


See, that's sort of my point. Your idea of idiotic decisions, is, by default, entirely subjective. You'll note, I'm not saying your view of those decisions is wrong, just that it's YOUR view. Lou has reason for what he does. Reasons you might know, reasons you might not know. For example:

Look back, I don't know if it's this thread or not. People are terribly upset that Lou hasn't found a way to work Colvin into the lineup. Forget for a moment that the 3 OF's we have really haven't given him a reason to work Colvin into the lineup, just realize that many on this board this Lou is an idiot for not putting him in. Now, in the SAME thread, someone calls Lou out for pinch hitting for Soto in the 9th inning of a 1 run ball game. They (logically) explain how Lou is an idiot for taking out a guy with a good OBP when we badly need baserunners. So Lou is an idiot for taking out Soto. Unsaid in the thread is that Lou pinch hit a lefty to face a right handed pitcher. Now if he hadn't done that, and Soto made an out, I am certain many would feel Lou was an idiot for not pinch hitting a lefty. But more than that, the lefty he used off the bench? Tyler Colvin. So in the same thread, Lou was an idiot for NOT using Colvin and was an idiot FOR using Colvin. The only way he would not have been an idiot was if the players had come through, and won the game. At which time exactly ZERO guys on this board would credit Lou for making the right decisions. Which goes back to my original argument. By the way, I'm not criticizing anyone for making arguments about Colvin one way or another. They were logical arguments. It's just that essentially the manager is blamed when players don't perform, and gets no credit when they do perform. The pinch hitter who strikes out is always the wrong guy. The reliever who lets up the winning run is always the wrong reliever. It's the nature of fandom.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=99342:date=Jun 1 2010, 12:50 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jun 1 2010, 12:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I believe a bad manager can have a far greater impact (in a negative way, obviously) than a good manager can have (in a positive way).

All I ask from my manager is they put the team in the best position possible to win and not make idiotic decisions. Lou has been making some shockingly bad decisions this season. Of course -- if Lee and Ramirez were hitting, it would mask some of those decisions. But with our offense, there is a much smaller margin of error and Lou's mistakes get magnified.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I also can't separate Lou from Hendry as far as team construction is concerned. The roster is absolutely underperforming in certain areas, but this is also the team that Lou wanted. He has wanted some really strange things since the 2008 playoffs, and has made several knee-jerk reactions (obsession with handedness being one thing that jumps out as well as relying on an unproven bullpen this season) and we are paying much of this still. The roster is very inflexible at this point, so I will admit that changing managers won't solve our problems, but management deserves most of the blame for putting this team together. I have a hard time believing that even if Lee and ARam were performing up to their career averages, this team would be that much better though. It seems that right now, the entire team is slumping, not just our #3 and #4 hitters, and it was unrealistic to expect Theriot/Soriano/Soto/Fukudome/Byrd to be hitting in the mid .300s as they were through the first month of the season. Things evened out, as should have been expected, but I have no idea how much better this team can become even if players do what is reasonably expected.

[ruby23]

If you don't think Lou's lackadasical attitude is refleted in the way this team plays and has played for the past 2 years, I don't know what to tell you. I don't care if changing managers guides the team to more wins or not, I just don't want to sit here and question every fucking thing he does because it seems wrong. Just fill out a lineup properly, make picthing changes that make sense, and don't double switch just because you can. That's all I ask, that's all I want, and I'm not getting it.