Manager Approval Poll - June 2013

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You determine what a "good job" is. Just be consistent in applying it.

 

 

Past Results:

 

May 2013 - 71% Yes - 28 votes

April 2013 - 95% Yes - 21 votes

Post 2012 - 96% Yes - 26 votes

August 2012 - 90% Yes - 31 votes

July 2012 - 85% Yes - 27 votes

June 2012 - 96% Yes - 26 votes

May 2012 - 96% Yes - 27 votes

April 2012 - 61% Yes - 28 votes

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If someone could just disabuse him of his loyalty to awful veteran relievers, I could go back to voting yes. Still love most of what he does.

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

I voted no simply because of that game vs. Pittsburgh when he had the perfect opportunity to piggyback Garza with Villanueva.

[Guest]

If someone could just disabuse him of his loyalty to awful veteran relievers, I could go back to voting yes. Still love most of what he does.

 

My thoughts exactly.

[SouthSideRyan]

He has no idea what he has in Villanueva and views him as a mopup/garbage man and it's maddening.

 

He could be one of the most valuable (WPA) pitchers in baseball, instead he faces about 4 batters per week.

[pitchcs]

If someone could just disabuse him of his loyalty to awful veteran relievers, I could go back to voting yes. Still love most of what he does.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

Pretty much my thoughts, but I'm still in the Yes column. Although I did have to think about it a bit longer this time.

[Guest]

If someone could just disabuse him of his loyalty to awful veteran relievers, I could go back to voting yes. Still love most of what he does.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

Pretty much my thoughts, but I'm still in the Yes column. Although I did have to think about it a bit longer this time.

 

Same.

[Sammy Sofa]

Easily "no;" I'm firmly of the belief that it's much easier for managers to lose games than it is for them to actively "win" them. My ideal managers are the ones where I forget they're there; Sweum was that for a while, but the bullpen management is just too glaringly obvious to miss and has likely cost them at least half a dozen games. Having a deeply flawed bullpen shouldn't be an excuse but an opportunity for a manager to show that they're actually capable. He's failing too spectacularly in that regard for me to vote "yes."

[jersey cubs fan]

Easily "no;" I'm firmly of the belief that it's much easier for managers to lose games than it is for them to actively "win" them. My ideal managers are the ones where I forget they're there; Sweum was that for a while, but the bullpen management is just too glaringly obvious to miss and has likely cost them at least half a dozen games. Having a deeply flawed bullpen shouldn't be an excuse but an opportunity for a manager to show that they're actually capable. He's failing too spectacularly in that regard for me to vote "yes."

 

In a black and white yes or no situation I see no way for anybody to honestly answer yes. In a more nuanced poll there's room for debate.

[Sammy Sofa]

Easily "no;" I'm firmly of the belief that it's much easier for managers to lose games than it is for them to actively "win" them. My ideal managers are the ones where I forget they're there; Sweum was that for a while, but the bullpen management is just too glaringly obvious to miss and has likely cost them at least half a dozen games. Having a deeply flawed bullpen shouldn't be an excuse but an opportunity for a manager to show that they're actually capable. He's failing too spectacularly in that regard for me to vote "yes."

 

In a black and white yes or no situation I see no way for anybody to honestly answer yes. In a more nuanced poll there's room for debate.

 

Definitely; in no way is my vote some kind of a meatball-y "HE NEEDS TO BE FIRED NAO"-type of response. He's done and does a lot that I like and hopefully he's fixable.

[Guest]

Easily "no;" I'm firmly of the belief that it's much easier for managers to lose games than it is for them to actively "win" them. My ideal managers are the ones where I forget they're there; Sweum was that for a while, but the bullpen management is just too glaringly obvious to miss and has likely cost them at least half a dozen games. Having a deeply flawed bullpen shouldn't be an excuse but an opportunity for a manager to show that they're actually capable. He's failing too spectacularly in that regard for me to vote "yes."

 

I agree...but one of the ways managers can actively take part in winning them is with defensive shifts. And Dale is a defensive shift wizard.

[Sammy Sofa]

Easily "no;" I'm firmly of the belief that it's much easier for managers to lose games than it is for them to actively "win" them. My ideal managers are the ones where I forget they're there; Sweum was that for a while, but the bullpen management is just too glaringly obvious to miss and has likely cost them at least half a dozen games. Having a deeply flawed bullpen shouldn't be an excuse but an opportunity for a manager to show that they're actually capable. He's failing too spectacularly in that regard for me to vote "yes."

 

I agree...but one of the ways managers can actively take part in winning them is with defensive shifts. And Dale is a defensive shift wizard.

 

Like I said, he does a lot of things I like, but since there's only two options there's not a lot of room for nuance. Given all of the convincing arguments as to how this team's record should be a lot better and given how many wins they've blown because of his inexplicable handling of the bullpen, that main negative is too glaring for me to overlook.

[Guest]

This is the first poll where I've had something legitimately bothering me about his managing that I thought needed "fixing". I don't think it outweighs the rest of what he's doing though, especially relative to all the other irritations that managers can offer. His bullpen management needs to improve, although he's had less bullpen depth than any Cubs manager I can remember so it's easy to get irritated when he never gets bailed out by his players. Still a solid Yes for me.

[Sammy Sofa]

His bullpen management needs to improve, although he's had less bullpen depth than any Cubs manager I can remember so it's easy to get irritated when he never gets bailed out by his players.

 

The bold part seems like a REALLY broad generalization that excuses the fact that very obviously sets himself up to "have" to use the more unreliable member of the bullpen.

[jersey cubs fan]

although he's had less bullpen depth than any Cubs manager I can remember

 

really?

 

Gregg, Russell and Villanueva are fairly decent pitchers, and he's had a conga line of lively arms at the back end. Marmol is a middle relief guy. I'm not sure depth is the problem.

 

He leaves starters in too long, allowing them to tire and let 2 guys get on base before turning to his relievers to bail out his starters, then utilizes those relievers about as poorly as he can.

[Guest]

Sure, that's what I'm saying, isn't it? He's not using guys like Villanueva and Russell enough, and it's compounded by the fact that the other guys he's using instead(Camp, Marmol) are prone to meltdowns of hilarious proportions, and there's guys he still (rightly) doesn't trust beyond that like Rondon and the AAA brigade(Dolis, Putnam, Parker). It'd still be a bad decision, but if he were using mediocre relievers(of which he currently has none because I don't know why Bowden is in Iowa) in those spots instead of bad ones, he'd luck into better results more often.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I basically agree with what TT is saying:

 

If we had a roster full of adequate pitchers, Sveum's worst flaw wouldn't even come up and we could all just bask in the glow of his shiftiness.

[jersey cubs fan]

I basically agree with what TT is saying:

 

If we had a roster full of adequate pitchers, Sveum's worst flaw wouldn't even come up and we could all just bask in the glow of his shiftiness.

 

So if he didn't only have a really good starting rotation but also a really good bullpen he would look better?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I basically agree with what TT is saying:

 

If we had a roster full of adequate pitchers, Sveum's worst flaw wouldn't even come up and we could all just bask in the glow of his shiftiness.

 

So if he didn't only have a really good starting rotation but also a really good bullpen he would look better?

 

Well, yeah, he's a manager. There's not awhole lot they can really do on a good team.

[jersey cubs fan]

I basically agree with what TT is saying:

 

If we had a roster full of adequate pitchers, Sveum's worst flaw wouldn't even come up and we could all just bask in the glow of his shiftiness.

 

So if he didn't only have a really good starting rotation but also a really good bullpen he would look better?

 

Well, yeah, he's a manager. There's not awhole lot they can really do on a good team.

 

So why then is the default answer that he's doing a good job? Shouldn't you have to earn a yes to this answer and not make up excuses to explain away the obvious no?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Is it the default? I voted no.

[Guest]

although he's had less bullpen depth than any Cubs manager I can remember

 

really?

 

Gregg, Russell and Villanueva are fairly decent pitchers, and he's had a conga line of lively arms at the back end. Marmol is a middle relief guy. I'm not sure depth is the problem.

 

He leaves starters in too long, allowing them to tire and let 2 guys get on base before turning to his relievers to bail out his starters, then utilizes those relievers about as poorly as he can.

 

He's got 3 decent to good relievers now, but Villanueva's only been in the pen for a couple weeks, we've only known Gregg was good for a week or two longer, and the other relievers we thought he could rely on have been injured(Fujikawa) or terrible(Camp, to a lesser extent Marmol). The back end of the pen anecdotally has been far more "waiver castoff" than "AAA guy earning his shot" as in years past, but that's really the weakest of those points.

 

As for the SP usage, there's been 7 games where a SP went beyond 110 pitches, and no SP has thrown more than 115. Only 3 of those 7 left with runners on base. Expand it to 100+ pitches and it's 8 games. I don't really agree that the SP usage is a problem, especially when we've had such good starting pitching and such terrible RP depth.

[Guest]

Yeah, the recent Shark game aside, I've been very pleased with his handling of starting pitching.

 

Where I'm a bit concerned (other than bullpen usage) is helping to teach hitters to command the strike zone. Admittedly, there's only so much a manager/hitting coach can do with guys bred to hack. But I was hoping to see some level of impact.

 

I've been a solid yes in every poll up until now. At this point, I'm a very weak yes. But still a yes. The strengths still outweigh the weaknesses for me.

[Guest]

after today, i am completely done with dale.

[Guest]

I'm for keeping Dale still, but he needs to be given an idiot proof bullpen.