Now Firmly in the Larry Dierker for Manager Camp

[Outshined_One]

http://blogs.chron.com/larrydierker/2006/09/little_ball.html

 

My man love for Dierker just went up exponentially.

[UK1679666180]

Man, I would love to have Dierker running the offense. My only question whatsoever with him is his use of pitchers.

 

Considering Dierker's career as one of the few managers that was a former pitcher, it is true yet ironic.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Some of that blog just needs to be quoted!

 

Statistically, you have a 41 percent chance of scoring a run with a man on first and nobody out. With a man on second and one out, your odds go down to 40 percent. In other words, if you are 100 percent successful, your odds of scoring one run will be about the same. But, of course, you are not going to succeed every time. When I was pitching, I was delighted when the hitter squared to bunt -- especially if he was a decent hitter. I'll take an man on second with one out any day. And many times it worked out even better for me because the hitter either made a bad bunt and we got the force play at second, or he went back to hitting with two strikes in t

 

If you watch carefully, you will find that the hit-and-run is most often used with a slow runner at the plate and and ground ball pitcher on the mound. The manager is hoping that the slow runner gets a hit and advances the runner to third base. But what he is more concerned with is the batter hitting into a double play. If you hit- and-run, a double play grounder can advance a runner to second base. "If it's such an aggressive play," I said. "Why don't you use it with two outs?" The answer was that with two outs there is no incentive to avoid the double play. I rested my case.

[NorthsideAvenger]

Some of that blog just needs to be quoted!

 

Statistically, you have a 41 percent chance of scoring a run with a man on first and nobody out. With a man on second and one out, your odds go down to 40 percent. In other words, if you are 100 percent successful, your odds of scoring one run will be about the same. But, of course, you are not going to succeed every time. When I was pitching, I was delighted when the hitter squared to bunt -- especially if he was a decent hitter. I'll take an man on second with one out any day. And many times it worked out even better for me because the hitter either made a bad bunt and we got the force play at second, or he went back to hitting with two strikes in t

 

If you watch carefully, you will find that the hit-and-run is most often used with a slow runner at the plate and and ground ball pitcher on the mound. The manager is hoping that the slow runner gets a hit and advances the runner to third base. But what he is more concerned with is the batter hitting into a double play. If you hit- and-run, a double play grounder can advance a runner to second base. "If it's such an aggressive play," I said. "Why don't you use it with two outs?" The answer was that with two outs there is no incentive to avoid the double play. I rested my case.

 

Has any consider that Dierker may not want to return to managing, and that he likes his current job? Besides what kind of selling job would the Cubs have to do, to even get him to consider the Cubs job? If the Cubs can land him, fine, but my gut feeling is...Dierker may not be available.

[Magnetic Curses]

Some of that blog just needs to be quoted!

 

Statistically, you have a 41 percent chance of scoring a run with a man on first and nobody out. With a man on second and one out, your odds go down to 40 percent. In other words, if you are 100 percent successful, your odds of scoring one run will be about the same. But, of course, you are not going to succeed every time. When I was pitching, I was delighted when the hitter squared to bunt -- especially if he was a decent hitter. I'll take an man on second with one out any day. And many times it worked out even better for me because the hitter either made a bad bunt and we got the force play at second, or he went back to hitting with two strikes in t

 

If you watch carefully, you will find that the hit-and-run is most often used with a slow runner at the plate and and ground ball pitcher on the mound. The manager is hoping that the slow runner gets a hit and advances the runner to third base. But what he is more concerned with is the batter hitting into a double play. If you hit- and-run, a double play grounder can advance a runner to second base. "If it's such an aggressive play," I said. "Why don't you use it with two outs?" The answer was that with two outs there is no incentive to avoid the double play. I rested my case.

 

Has any consider that Dierker may not want to return to managing, and that he likes his current job? Besides what kind of selling job would the Cubs have to do, to even get him to consider the Cubs job? If the Cubs can land him, fine, but my gut feeling is...Dierker may not be available.

 

broadcasting jobs held by non-broadcasters are usually managers-in-waiting, used by former players to stay close to the game while awaiting their next offer. i've assumed that's what brenly is doing, and that's also what i assume dierker's been doing.

[Big Fergie J]

I suppose I'm distinctly in the minority in this thread but Larry Dierker is in no way, shape or form the solution to the Cubs problems. Wish upon a star if you want but Larry Dieker ceratinly isn't it.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I suppose I'm distinctly in the minority in this thread but Larry Dierker is in no way, shape or form the solution to the Cubs problems. Wish upon a star if you want but Larry Dieker ceratinly isn't it.

 

Dierker wouldn't solve all our problems, but we'd be better off with him than without him.

[Outshined_One]

I suppose I'm distinctly in the minority in this thread but Larry Dierker is in no way, shape or form the solution to the Cubs problems. Wish upon a star if you want but Larry Dieker ceratinly isn't it.

 

I'm curious; why?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm thinking it would be nice to have a manager who can utilize a run expectancy chart and have some idea on how to judge a valuable offensive player.

[RichHillIsABeast]

I'm thinking it would be nice to have a manager who can utilize a run expectancy chart and have some idea on how to judge a valuable offensive player.

 

It's not going to make that big of a difference. The players you have make the lion's share of difference, not the manager. Batting order is largely inconsequential anyway. The GM, ownership, and talent acquisition departments judge the worthiness of an offensive player, not the manager.

 

I doubt Dusty cost us 5 games this season.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm thinking it would be nice to have a manager who can utilize a run expectancy chart and have some idea on how to judge a valuable offensive player.

 

It's not going to make that big of a difference. The players you have make the lion's share of difference, not the manager. Batting order is largely inconsequential anyway. The GM, ownership, and talent acquisition departments judge the worthiness of an offensive player, not the manager.

 

I doubt Dusty cost us 5 games this season.

 

I may be wrong, but it appears, that at least with Dusty, Hendry gives his manager some input with roster moves and decisions. If so, I think Dierker would have a greater input than we might imagine on face value.

[RichHillIsABeast]

I'm thinking it would be nice to have a manager who can utilize a run expectancy chart and have some idea on how to judge a valuable offensive player.

 

It's not going to make that big of a difference. The players you have make the lion's share of difference, not the manager. Batting order is largely inconsequential anyway. The GM, ownership, and talent acquisition departments judge the worthiness of an offensive player, not the manager.

 

I doubt Dusty cost us 5 games this season.

 

I may be wrong, but it appears, that at least with Dusty, Hendry gives his manager some input with roster moves and decisions. If so, I think Dierker would have a greater input than we might imagine on face value.

 

Have you heard Hendry and our scouting department on the value of bunting, stolen bases, and walks? Dierker would be talking to a brick wall. They all think they know more than he does about baseball. After all, all you have to do is watch the game and you'd know that sabermetrics garbage is for fantasy geeks. (heavy sarcasm)

 

1) Dierker will never be hired by the Cubs. 2) If Dierker was hired, no one in the baseball operations department would pay attention to him.

 

It's going to take a change of upper management, including Hendry and MacPhail for there to be any serious impact on this organization.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm thinking it would be nice to have a manager who can utilize a run expectancy chart and have some idea on how to judge a valuable offensive player.

 

It's not going to make that big of a difference. The players you have make the lion's share of difference, not the manager. Batting order is largely inconsequential anyway. The GM, ownership, and talent acquisition departments judge the worthiness of an offensive player, not the manager.

 

I doubt Dusty cost us 5 games this season.

 

I may be wrong, but it appears, that at least with Dusty, Hendry gives his manager some input with roster moves and decisions. If so, I think Dierker would have a greater input than we might imagine on face value.

 

Have you heard Hendry and our scouting department on the value of bunting, stolen bases, and walks? Dierker would be talking to a brick wall. They all think they know more than he does about baseball. After all, all you have to do is watch the game and you'd know that sabermetrics garbage is for fantasy geeks. (heavy sarcasm)

 

1) Dierker will never be hired by the Cubs. 2) If Dierker was hired, no one in the baseball operations department would pay attention to him.

 

It's going to take a change of upper management, including Hendry and MacPhail for there to be any serious impact on this organization.

 

I agree that Dierker likely would never be hired. That difference in philosophy is why I want Hendry gone.

 

On the other hand, Dierker has had success as a manager and is a former player. That could help him in Hendry's eyes. I don't think Dierker will get hired, but I highly think he should be hired. Until a manager replacement is named, I'll keep making that point and touting my reasons for it.