Sandberg interview

[TruffleShuffle]

but really, dusty baker almost took the giants to a title and almost took the cubs to the world series, and he's completely incompetent. unless the cubs get better players, we don't really need to worry about sandberg mismanaging the team into the ground because this team couldn't go anywhere with earl weaver at the helm. hopefully they get players who don't suck so we can wonder why how many games the manager is costing them.

[scarey]

My point was Lou has been managing an NL team and had comparable sac bunt numbers to Trammell who was managing an AL team.

 

I don't know why you're getting hung up on total sac bunt numbers. The point with the Sandberg incident isn't the general use of a sac bunt as opposed to who he was having sac bunt and what were the circumstances. You keep approaching this like people here are denouncing the sac bunt as some kind of baseball kryptonite. It's just one part of the game and it can be used well. The hit and run can also be used well, but it can also be used very poorly, as we've seen with Lou.

 

 

I understand we don't know the context of the situations Trammell used sac bunts in during his tenure as the Tigers manager (unless anyone here is a closet Tigers fan?). However, you have to admit that an AL manager having a comparable amount of sac bunts to an NL manager, given an AL manager only has to have a pitcher bat in a handful of games, may indicate that said AL manager may sac bunt inappropriately. Right? I mean, I don't have dew for a first hand testimonial or anything, but you can see why I might jump to that conclusion?

[scarey]

but really, dusty baker almost took the giants to a title and almost took the cubs to the world series, and he's completely incompetent. unless the cubs get better players, we don't really need to worry about sandberg mismanaging the team into the ground because this team couldn't go anywhere with earl weaver at the helm. hopefully they get players who don't suck so we can wonder why how many games the manager is costing them.

 

This is where I'm at really. Nail biting about Sandberg as manager is overblown in my opinion.

[scarey]

He sac bunted with his 3 hitter after the first two guys reached base. In the top of the 1st.

 

When did this actually happen? I feel like it was hyperbole thrown out by someone at some point and has turned into the definitive proof that he would be a terrible manager. Hell, even if that's what the box score actually reads, we don't even know if in that particular situation the number three hitter was someone that had decent speed and thought he could reach by sneaking in a bunt that turned into a SH.

It happened at least once last year and I was AT the game in Jackson TN. At another game he was kicked out while making a pitching change in the 3rd inning.

 

You should read the minor league threads. You can feel whatever you want, Sandberg is a moronic manager.

 

There's no way I could tell for sure, but I would make a healthy wager that I spend more time in the minor league forums than you do. Not that it even means anything in terms of this discussion.

[Tracer Bullet]

but really, dusty baker almost took the giants to a title and almost took the cubs to the world series, and he's completely incompetent. unless the cubs get better players, we don't really need to worry about sandberg mismanaging the team into the ground because this team couldn't go anywhere with earl weaver at the helm. hopefully they get players who don't suck so we can wonder why how many games the manager is costing them.

 

This is where I'm at really. Nail biting about Sandberg as manager is overblown in my opinion.

 

really? because it seems like you're actually in "i'm going to defend Sandberg against all comers" territory.

[scarey]

but really, dusty baker almost took the giants to a title and almost took the cubs to the world series, and he's completely incompetent. unless the cubs get better players, we don't really need to worry about sandberg mismanaging the team into the ground because this team couldn't go anywhere with earl weaver at the helm. hopefully they get players who don't suck so we can wonder why how many games the manager is costing them.

 

This is where I'm at really. Nail biting about Sandberg as manager is overblown in my opinion.

 

really? because it seems like you're actually in "i'm going to defend Sandberg against all comers" territory.

 

I think you're trying to set me up as a blind Sandberg supporter. That, I am not. I find it foolish to dig for reasons to not like him much in the same way that it is foolish to want him as manager simply because he's Ryne Sandberg. I think there's a handful of people that actually know what kind of manager he is (and I don't think anyone on this forum is included in that handful except for maybe a select few people that spent a season(s) going/listening to a majority of his teams games). Everyone else is speculating, but some seem to talk as if they do in fact know.

 

So, I'll ask that you excuse me if you disagree with the idea that I find it fair to see what kind of manager he actually is before condemning him. That's all. It has nothing to do with defending Sandberg because he's Sandberg, but with defending a manager candidate.

[davell]

What I think WILL happen, in the end, is Sandberg will be our manager in 2011(whether we like it or not). I'm just figuring that Ricketts will cater to the majority of Cub fans, in this case. I think about the only way it doesn't happen is if by some chance Torre is an actual option for us.

[Tracer Bullet]

but really, dusty baker almost took the giants to a title and almost took the cubs to the world series, and he's completely incompetent. unless the cubs get better players, we don't really need to worry about sandberg mismanaging the team into the ground because this team couldn't go anywhere with earl weaver at the helm. hopefully they get players who don't suck so we can wonder why how many games the manager is costing them.

 

This is where I'm at really. Nail biting about Sandberg as manager is overblown in my opinion.

 

really? because it seems like you're actually in "i'm going to defend Sandberg against all comers" territory.

 

I think you're trying to set me up as a blind Sandberg supporter. That, I am not. I find it foolish to dig for reasons to not like him much in the same way that it is foolish to want him as manager simply because he's Ryne Sandberg. I think there's a handful of people that actually know what kind of manager he is (and I don't think anyone on this forum is included in that handful except for maybe a select few people that spent a season(s) going/listening to a majority of his teams games). Everyone else is speculating, but some seem to talk as if they do in fact know.

 

So, I'll ask that you excuse me if you disagree with the idea that I find it fair to see what kind of manager he actually is before condemning him. That's all. It has nothing to do with defending Sandberg because he's Sandberg, but with defending a manager candidate.

 

of course it's speculation to some extent. trying to determine what any manager will do in the future requires some speculation (even if they've been an MLB manager for 20 years). but you take what you know of a person, and there's a fair amount out there about Ryno, mostly directly from him in terms of his HOF speech and his Y! sports article(s), and you make your best guess as to how they will manage. When you add the things he's said and written to his decision to have a cleanup hitter bunt in the first inning, you're going to scare some people on this board.

 

Does that mean Ryno will necessarily manage the Cubs that way? No, but it's not unreasonable to draw logical conclusions about future events based on the evidence you have in front of you.

[jersey cubs fan]

of course it's speculation to some extent. trying to determine what any manager will do in the future requires some speculation (even if they've been an MLB manager for 20 years). but you take what you know of a person, and there's a fair amount out there about Ryno, mostly directly from him in terms of his HOF speech and his Y! sports article(s), and you make your best guess as to how they will manage. When you add the things he's said and written to his decision to have a cleanup hitter bunt in the first inning, you're going to scare some people on this board.

 

Does that mean Ryno will necessarily manage the Cubs that way? No, but it's not unreasonable to draw logical conclusions about future events based on the evidence you have in front of you.

 

But Dusty Baker never cared about a guy's stats before he got a chance to coach him, he had to see it with his own eyes.

[scarey]

but you take what you know of a person, and there's a fair amount out there about Ryno,

 

 

This is where we are going to disagree. I don't think one party is going to convince the other party otherwise so... agree to disagree?

[jersey cubs fan]

but you take what you know of a person, and there's a fair amount out there about Ryno,

 

 

This is where we are going to disagree. I don't think one party is going to convince the other party otherwise so... agree to disagree?

 

This, I do not understand. It's not like he's been an accountant working in Wyoming. He's been managing Chicago Cubs farm teams, interviewed several times, and his message has been very clear, and very consistent.

 

I for one don't really care as much as others about Ryno's future, as all my concerns are about the players, or more specifically the man charged with acquiring those players. Because Hendry has been terrible.

[Sammy Sofa]

My point was Lou has been managing an NL team and had comparable sac bunt numbers to Trammell who was managing an AL team.

 

I don't know why you're getting hung up on total sac bunt numbers. The point with the Sandberg incident isn't the general use of a sac bunt as opposed to who he was having sac bunt and what were the circumstances. You keep approaching this like people here are denouncing the sac bunt as some kind of baseball kryptonite. It's just one part of the game and it can be used well. The hit and run can also be used well, but it can also be used very poorly, as we've seen with Lou.

 

 

I understand we don't know the context of the situations Trammell used sac bunts in during his tenure as the Tigers manager (unless anyone here is a closet Tigers fan?). However, you have to admit that an AL manager having a comparable amount of sac bunts to an NL manager, given an AL manager only has to have a pitcher bat in a handful of games, may indicate that said AL manager may sac bunt inappropriately. Right? I mean, I don't have dew for a first hand testimonial or anything, but you can see why I might jump to that conclusion?

 

I suppose, but Trammel didn't just manage an AL team; he managed a REALLY bad AL team.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I also want to point out that people seeking salvation in Trammell may be in for a disappointment. In his three years managing Detroit, Trammell averaged only sightly less sac bunts per year than Piniella did the last three years as a Cub for an NL team. If Trammell is bunting that much with a DH, I have to figure he'll be bunting at a Dusty Baker like rate.

Trammell's numbers are a little skewed because of his first season when the team was desperately trying everything they could to score runs, but it is true that his teams were near the top of the league during his tenure in sac bunts. I don't know how he would handle more talented teams than the ones he had so I think the book might still be out on him. The one advantage I see with Trammell over somebody like Lou is that Trammell seems to be genuinely interested in developing younger players. Oh, and he actually watches the ball games.

 

Whether or not he would be better than Sandberg, I have no idea. For me, it all starts with the quality of players put on the roster. If there were a GM in place who was doing a better and more consistent job, I really don't care who the manager is as long as he has some sort of sense on how to manage the entire pitching staff or at least defer to Larry. Hell, load the roster and let Larry run the show.

[scarey]

I also want to point out that people seeking salvation in Trammell may be in for a disappointment. In his three years managing Detroit, Trammell averaged only sightly less sac bunts per year than Piniella did the last three years as a Cub for an NL team. If Trammell is bunting that much with a DH, I have to figure he'll be bunting at a Dusty Baker like rate.

Trammell's numbers are a little skewed because of his first season when the team was desperately trying everything they could to score runs, but it is true that his teams were near the top of the league during his tenure in sac bunts. I don't know how he would handle more talented teams than the ones he had so I think the book might still be out on him. The one advantage I see with Trammell over somebody like Lou is that Trammell seems to be genuinely interested in developing younger players. Oh, and he actually watches the ball games.

 

Whether or not he would be better than Sandberg, I have no idea. For me, it all starts with the quality of players put on the roster. If there were a GM in place who was doing a better and more consistent job, I really don't care who the manager is as long as he has some sort of sense on how to manage the entire pitching staff or at least defer to Larry. Hell, load the roster and let Larry run the show.

 

I think keeping an open mind is probably the most level headed idea if Sandberg or Trammell get the job. I only pointed out Trammell's numbers because they are less speculative than what's being said about Sandberg in my opinion.

 

And Nuts & Gum, I agree. Trammell's horrible team should be taken into account relative to his baseball philosophy.

[biittner77]

Sandberg's love affair with the sac bunt in the minor leagues may have more to do with instruction than an indication of his philosophy. However, his tendancy toward using the hit and run shows that he is the type of manager that tries to make things happen. As a general rule I hate those types of managers.

[CUBZ99]

Sandberg's love affair with the sac bunt in the minor leagues may have more to do with instruction than an indication of his philosophy. However, his tendancy toward using the hit and run shows that he is the type of manager that tries to make things happen. As a general rule I hate those types of managers.

 

People say this like it is true. Once again, the numbers in 2009 showed that his team sac bunted about the same amount of times as every other team in his division. We get one person that went to a couple of games and complained about Sandberg getting thrown out while making a pitching change, and witnessed a sac bunt in person. :shock: Hardly evidence that he has a love affair with the sac bunt.

 

If he truly did love to sac bunt, wouldn't the numbers at least play that out? That game log that was posted doesn't prove anything other than Wright got credited with a sac bunt in a situation where it made absolutely no sense to sac bunt. Mistake of a very green minor league ballplayer or Sandberg?

[Sammy Sofa]

Why the hell would a young player in that position take it upon himself to sac bunt?

[jersey cubs fan]

Sandberg's love affair with the sac bunt in the minor leagues may have more to do with instruction than an indication of his philosophy. However, his tendancy toward using the hit and run shows that he is the type of manager that tries to make things happen. As a general rule I hate those types of managers.

 

As a general rule, most of them are that type of manager. Their job isn't worth near as much as their paychecks, and the media will criticize doing nothing much more than they will criticize trying to make things happen. They feel the need to make an imprint on the game. The key is having the best players so you can win despite a manager trying to screw things up.

[Sammy Sofa]

Sandberg's love affair with the sac bunt in the minor leagues may have more to do with instruction than an indication of his philosophy. However, his tendancy toward using the hit and run shows that he is the type of manager that tries to make things happen. As a general rule I hate those types of managers.

 

As a general rule, most of them are that type of manager. Their job isn't worth near as much as their paychecks, and the media will criticize doing nothing much more than they will criticize trying to make things happen. They feel the need to make an imprint on the game. The key is having the best players so you can win despite a manager trying to screw things up.

 

Yes, this, though I think it comes in handy to have a manager that won't necessarily feel "overly motivated" to make the team their own (usually due to ego) through over-management. Sandberg, to me, just screams of being that type of manager.

[CUBZ99]

Why the hell would a young player in that position take it upon himself to sac bunt?

 

He could have been trying to bunt for a hit? As long as the runner moves over it still counts as a sac bunt. He could have missed a sign?

 

The problem with the "Sandberg is in love with the sac bunt" argument is that the numbers don't support it. Even this year, Iowa has about as many sac bunts as the rest of the teams in the PCL. Does he just love it in bad bunting situations?

[jersey cubs fan]

Why the hell would a young player in that position take it upon himself to sac bunt?

 

He could have been trying to bunt for a hit? As long as the runner moves over it still counts as a sac bunt. He could have missed a sign?

 

Or maybe he's heard his manager talk about the value of sac bunts so much that he got it into his head that it would be a good idea.

[Sammy Sofa]

Why the hell would a young player in that position take it upon himself to sac bunt?

 

He could have been trying to bunt for a hit? As long as the runner moves over it still counts as a sac bunt. He could have missed a sign?

 

The problem with the "Sandberg is in love with the sac bunt" argument is that the numbers don't support it. Even this year, Iowa has about as many sac bunts as the rest of the teams in the PCL. Does he just love it in bad bunting situations?

 

You keep trying to spin this being only about sac bunts. It's not. It's about Sandberg's general philosophy towards the game based on what he himself has said and how he manages. He loves himself the small ball and the "gritty" play "the right way." Pass. If the Cubs had a stacked team that could overcome that philosophy, great, but given how things are shaping up for the next season or two he's a terrible option. Let him go manage the O's and then he can come back after Hendry is gone and the team is actually good.

[CUBZ99]

Why the hell would a young player in that position take it upon himself to sac bunt?

 

He could have been trying to bunt for a hit? As long as the runner moves over it still counts as a sac bunt. He could have missed a sign?

 

Or maybe he's heard his manager talk about the value of sac bunts so much that he got it into his head that it would be a good idea.

 

That is surely a possibility. But in that case it shows the I.Q. of the player more than the manager.

[CUBZ99]

Why the hell would a young player in that position take it upon himself to sac bunt?

 

He could have been trying to bunt for a hit? As long as the runner moves over it still counts as a sac bunt. He could have missed a sign?

 

The problem with the "Sandberg is in love with the sac bunt" argument is that the numbers don't support it. Even this year, Iowa has about as many sac bunts as the rest of the teams in the PCL. Does he just love it in bad bunting situations?

 

You keep trying to spin this being only about sac bunts. It's not. It's about Sandberg's general philosophy towards the game based on what he himself has said and how he manages. He loves himself the small ball and the "gritty" play "the right way." Pass. If the Cubs had a stacked team that could overcome that philosophy, great, but given how things are shaping up for the next season or two he's a terrible option. Let him go manage the O's and then he can come back after Hendry is gone and the team is actually good.

 

I'm not spinning anything. Look through this thread and you will see many references to his supposed love of sac bunts. People are now stating that he "loves sac bunts" like it is a fact. The facts show that his team sac bunts about the same amount of times as every other team in the league.

 

Now you want to move the discussion to more abstract issues like "small ball" and grit, etc. What is your method of measuring his tendencies to play small ball or to have his teams play "grittier" than other teams? Does he require all his players to run out every ball put in play? Does hit and run or steal more than the other clubs?

[scarey]

I'm a bit confused. I thought "gritty" was how people try to explain why they like a player that is not very gifted but hustles. Are you saying you think Sandberg will want to stock the team with Theriot's? Or are you describing "gritty" and "playing the right way" as some thing different?