Weaver more likely than Flaherty. Mozeliak referenced the "roster situation" when asked about Flaherty this other day. Now, he's pitched well enough that they Cardinals could rethink that, like they did Wacha. But they're also going to remember the bind they've gotten themselves in with Marco Gonzales because of the swift promotion.
That's an interesting question. I honestly don't know. It is his dream. He did talk openly about it. So, probably, yes, he would. But the physical toll of it would be a lot, and the team and Oquendo would have to take that into account.
He has not. He is still recovering but doing so at home in Florida. He's a month or so away from having a conversation about his next step with baseball.
Any team would miss the best pitching coach in the game's history. He should be in Cooperstown.
OK. The Cardinals need more. That's clear.
You are the first one that I've received in the chat. There are no others. Ironic.
The number probably changes based on who you ask. There have been several attempts to isolate on this, including Camden Depot's study that compared expect PECOTA records with actual records and used that as a reference of what a manager was able to add over time to the team. In the study that was done several years ago, Tony La Russa proved to be worth 5.0 more wins over a 162 game schedule ahead of the expected production of the team. There have been other -- strong -- attempts to study manager's through the use of their bullpens and how often the decisions on who to use when maximizes the team's win probability -- and also the other side of that, how often the manager's choices decrease the team's win probability. What most of these studies have found is that the numbers vary from year to year like one-run games or, say, absurdly high RISP batting average. One number that some folks to for a sense of the manager over time is Pythagorean Record. That's readily available on Baseball-Reference.com, and it calculates what a team's record ought to be with its run production and its run prevention. If the team is below that -- it underperformed. Above -- it over performed. During Matheny's time, here's how it looks:
2012 Pyth 93-69, Actual 88-74 ... minus-5
2013 Pyth 101-61, Actual 97-65 ... minus-4
2014 Pyth 83-79, Actual 90-72 ... plus-7
2015 Pyth 96-66, Actual 100-62 ... plus-4
2016 Pyth 88-74, Actual 86-76 ... minus-2
2017 Pyth 36-38, Actual 34-40 ... minus-2
That's a minus-2 overall through five-plus-season. That 2014 stands out as a team that, in the end, was greater than the sum of its parts and way outperformed the expectation.
Sorry that it's taken me so long to answer this question, but I wanted to search around and bring you a sampling of the stuff that is out there, not just the lists or subjective rankings, but the stats. My feel, watching these games through the years and talking with managers and players, is that it's the player who win the games, and the players who ultimately lose the games -- and it is the manager who attempts to put them in the position to give them the best chance at winning. A manager struggles when he cannot control games (losing tomorrow's by moves made today) and when he routinely puts players in a position they can only lose, a bad matchup that seems to rely on faith and hope not the player's skill.
I'd be for it. Get the pitcher further away from the best hitters. That's the idea.
Not today. Not this year. That bat has to come with a reputation and production -- at the major-league level. He is going to have to hit a pitch first, not just be hit by one.
Alright, it's time to relocate. I'll take the chat on the go here, and we'll have updates from the ballpark while I continue to answer questions.
Gotcher lineup right here too:
Luke Voit gets his first MLB start.
The guy out West has already won, no?
Um, well, teams cannot trade draft picks other than competitive balance picks, so ... that sounds like another example of the NFLing of MLB rumormongering.
Maybe. It could also lead to teams dumping early pucks to avoid spending the bonus and really spoil the purpose of the draft to have the best players go the earliest to the teams with the worse record. Your suggestion had a better chance of working before the spending limits put in place and tied to draft order. Like, back when Bush was first overall. Padres could have moved that pick to a team that could afford the best player and get a MLB player in return. Now that doesn't really work.
Springfield is as close to the majors for him as Memphis would be. He does not need to meet some kind of AB number at Memphis as a prerequisite.
It's a good question. Usually it's the roster rules, like options and rule 5 and 40 man. Flaherty is a good example. He did not need Rule 5 protection this season so he's not on the 40 man. The moment he goes on --- then he has to stay. And he must be optioned out of the majors. So if the stay is brief, and this time the stay is brief, then why burn an option and a valuable spot on the roster for him when there's no need? That's what Mozeliak has to consider that fans don't. It's asset management, not just statistics.