Jump to content
North Side Baseball
  • Cubs News & Analysis

    So, What Exactly Makes Craig Counsell So Much Better Than David Ross?


    Matthew Trueblood

    Stealing the long-time, highly successful manager of a division rival is unavoidably exciting, but the news shockwave the Cubs created Monday had another layer to it, too. This deal was wholly proactive. The team already had a skipper, and they pushed him aside. Here's why they did it.

    Image courtesy of © Michael McLoone-USA TODAY Sports

    Cubs Video

    I don't think the Cubs viewed David Ross as a problem. Never take an organization's public remarks, especially about something like personnel status, at face value, but when both Jed Hoyer and Tom Ricketts voiced support for Ross at the end of the regular season, I think they were both being truthful. That's an important note with which to lead off, here, because (as I've made clear several times before) I don't agree, but knowing it is important when evaluating the choice the team just made.

    If the Brewers and Cubs had swapped managers before 2023, the Chicago Cubs would have won the NL Central this past season. That sounds like a grandiose statement, given the nine-game edge Milwaukee held by the end of the year, but this was an exceptional season. The Brewers, with a sturdy bullpen and plenty of good luck but also with Counsell ensconced in the dugout, won one-run games at a remarkable clip. By contrast, the Cubs struggled mightily in close games. Those are the contests where a manager can make the most visible difference, and in them, the Brewers had a huge advantage over the Cubs.

    Of course, most of the impact a manager makes is much less visible. There are games that end up being decided by six or seven runs, but which a manager could have steered back toward being close with different moves early. There are also considerations that go far beyond sheer game management, to the maintenance of clubhouse culture and the careful calibration of daily intensity necessary to play consistent baseball as a team. Counsell excels in that regard, too. His teams snap out of slumps more quickly than most, and they sustain hot streaks better than most.

    Ross's tenure as manager, meanwhile, was marred by long periods during which his teams played sloppy and uninspired baseball. As good as Ross was at being the same guy every day over the latter part of his playing career, he wasn't able to transmit that capacity to his teams from the manager's office. He also failed to adequately manage the grind of the long season. At times, the Cubs would look tired, for days at a time, as though they badly needed not just a day off, but an entire weekend. That's normal. It's only human. Alas, MLB is a game that has to be played by abnormal, almost superhuman athletes who find the energy to bring tenacity and focus to the diamond every day.

    Self-imposed payroll constraints kept the Brewers from making major outside additions for most of the time Counsell spent at the helm. There were notable exceptions, but the rule was that the team thrived or floundered on the strength of its young players, either homegrown or acquired at a low ebb in value. Counsell proved to be adept at that vital skill: he empowers and develops young players well. He does it without being exceptionally enthusiastic about those youngsters; he takes a terse and value-focused tone. Ultimately, though, he brings them along successfully. The same can't be said for Ross, whose inability to smoothly integrate some of the rookies the front office gave him as tools throughout 2023 contributed to the team's failure to make the playoffs.

    Managers have to make dozens of complicated, multilayered decisions every week. They need to think in paragraphs and pages, not simple sentences. Ross never demonstrated the ability to keep all those plates spinning at once. Counsell has done so masterfully, often at the Cubs' expense, for almost a decade. Even though the Cubs believed in Ross enough to retain him a month ago, they felt this was a big enough upgrade to pay the transaction cost of firing a manager, as well as the actual monetary cost. For all the above reasons, it was the right decision.

    I jumped on the Wrigleyville Nation podcast to talk about this huge news, as well as the other early offseason happenings in Cubdom. Check it out:

    What specific things do you hope Counsell will do better than Ross? What concerns do you have about him? Let's get into the nitty-gritty on the new man in charge.

    Follow North Side Baseball For Chicago Cubs News & Analysis

    Recent Cubs Articles

    Recent Cubs Videos


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    Hairyducked Idiot

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Cuzi said:

    You don't even have an argument. Think about that.

    I made a very clear and specific argument that you lack the understanding or ability to rebut.

    Like I said, there's a certain amount of futility to this because you can't convince old boomer mentality that something isn't true if they gain an emotional boost from believing it's true.  Might as well be talking to a flat-earther.

    • Like 1
    squally1313

    Posted

    Andy Reid is such a funny example to cite because he made the playoffs 9 times with the Eagles and never won, lost 4 more times with Alex Smith as his QB, and then put in Mahomes and won 2 SBs (while losing in the playoffs 3 more times). Coincidentally, Andy Reid makes $12.5m and Pat Mahomes makes $56m. But yes, go Andy!

    Cuzi

    Posted

    Just now, Hairyducked Idiot said:

    I made a very clear and specific argument that you lack the understanding or ability to rebut.

    Like I said, there's a certain amount of futility to this because you can't convince old boomer mentality that something isn't true if they gain an emotional boost from believing it's true.  Might as well be talking to a flat-earther.

    You haven't made a clear argument for anything.

    Your argument is Donald Trump leaning into the mic and saying, "Wrong." And you back it up with "I don't care. It doesn't matter."

    Cuzi

    Posted

    Just now, squally1313 said:

    Andy Reid is such a funny example to cite because he made the playoffs 9 times with the Eagles and never won, lost 4 more times with Alex Smith as his QB, and then put in Mahomes and won 2 SBs (while losing in the playoffs 3 more times). Coincidentally, Andy Reid makes $12.5m and Pat Mahomes makes $56m. But yes, go Andy!

    Chiefs fans were flying banners and blacking out their stadium the year before Andy Reid came along and he took a reject 49ers QB and won 11 games with a team that was 2-14 the year before. Don't try and act like he's not a winning coach.

    squally1313

    Posted

    Joe Torre managed the Mets, Braves, and Cardinals for 14 total years and won 0 playoff games, and then went to the Yankees and won immediately. Probably all due to him!

    Hairyducked Idiot

    Posted (edited)

    4 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

    You haven't made a clear argument for anything.

    Your argument is Donald Trump leaning into the mic and saying, "Wrong." And you back it up with "I don't care. It doesn't matter."

    I have made two extremely clear and specific arguments 

    1) baseball teams have established a clear connection between spending and expected wins, and the amount they are willing to pay for managers implies an expected return of less than one marginal win per season.

    2) it would be trivially easy to prove any of these things you want to attribute to managers is actually due to managers:  we just have to measure them and check if they persist year to year independent of other changes.  If managers have a special ability to make their teams outperform their war, we should be able to measure that fairly easily.   But they don't.

     

    The difference between you and me is that if you can come up with such a correlation and it holds up mathematically, I *will* believe it.  But when it doesn't (and it doesn't), you're not going to change your beliefs. You're going to pivot to some new reason why you were never wrong.

     

    You have neither addressed nor rebutted either of these arguments, and instead persisted in Gish galloping to equally bad logical assertions.

    Edited by Hairyducked Idiot
    squally1313

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

    Chiefs fans were flying banners and blacking out their stadium the year before Andy Reid came along and he took a reject 49ers QB and won 11 games with a team that was 2-14 the year before. Don't try and act like he's not a winning coach.

    And then lost in the playoffs, repeatedly, which was famously his reputation until he ended up getting the best player in football.

    This is setting aside the obvious: Andy Reed designs and chooses from hundreds of different plays a hundred times a game. Baseball managers make like 4 decisions a day. 

    Brock Beauchamp

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

    This is 100% wishful thinking.  If managers had a large impact it would be trivially easy to measure.

    Pull up every manager who switched teams, see if their new team performs closer to their old team or closer to the new team's previous standard.  We have enough of a sample throughout history that if there's a meaningful impact, it would show up.

    How?

    Honest question. There are so many variables in a team year over year that the data is noisy. What part of it is the manager? What part the front office? The players themselves?

    Craig Counsell has a long history of beating the team pythag, yet people question whether that's a skill he has or just the team around him. Seems like if it was that easy to measure, we'd see lengthy studies proving or disproving it. I certainly haven't ever seen a study that's conclusive in any way but if you have, please share it.

    Rcal10

    Posted

    1 hour ago, squally1313 said:

    It's a fun story and a team as big as the Cubs should have one of the widely considered best managers out there on a yearly basis, so definitely not against the move. But like, the title of the thread is 'so what exactly makes Craig Counsell so much better than David Ross'. And the supposed 'naysayers' here are just saying: there isn't anything exactly, because he's not. 

    The issue is there is nothing anyone can show the other side to make them thjnk differently. As I have said before, IMO, Ross was ok. I don’t blame the collapse all on him. And I realize a lot of his criticism was result bias. I also know that will happen with Counsell too. Probably by the guys who feel this was a no big deal move. As far as proving Counsell is the best you can look to his rosters the last $ years and the success he had with basically average players, to below average. To me that shows he does something right. To me that shows he wins with little and get the most out of what he is given. I can respect others not seeing it that way. But if I was asked who I would rather be managing my team, Ross or Counsell, I would pick Counsell because I think he gets more out of guys for some reason. For those who see no difference, I am fine with that. 

    Soul

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

    The issue is there is nothing anyone can show the other side to make them thjnk differently. As I have said before, IMO, Ross was ok. I don’t blame the collapse all on him. And I realize a lot of his criticism was result bias. I also know that will happen with Counsell too. Probably by the guys who feel this was a no big deal move. As far as proving Counsell is the best you can look to his rosters the last $ years and the success he had with basically average players, to below average. To me that shows he does something right. To me that shows he wins with little and get the most out of what he is given. I can respect others not seeing it that way. But if I was asked who I would rather be managing my team, Ross or Counsell, I would pick Counsell because I think he gets more out of guys for some reason. For those who see no difference, I am fine with that. 

    Yes. I'm with you but not really against anyone to the contrary.  We'll just have to see.  What do I like most about this move?  It's out of character for how the Cubs have been doing things and it feels like the Maddon move in that the Cubs followed it up with better personnel moves.

    But Jed is no Theo.  That gives me pause for sure.

    I came up with the Bochy example.  Obviously it's not a slam dunk.  I want this to work out but who knows, 5 years from now I might be saying I was stupid for thinking it was a good move.

    • Like 1
    Hairyducked Idiot

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

    How?

    Honest question. There are so many variables in a team year over year that the data is noisy. What part of it is the manager? What part the front office? The players themselves?

    Craig Counsell has a long history of beating the team pythag, yet people question whether that's a skill he has or just the team around him. Seems like if it was that easy to measure, we'd see lengthy studies proving or disproving it. I certainly haven't ever seen a study that's conclusive in any way but if you have, please share it.

    Running correlations to see if there's any effect is pretty trivial. Identify an area you think a manager *might* make a difference.  Split the managers into two groups for year N, the ones who appear to be good at it and the ones who appear to be bad at it.  If there's a real effect at work, the first group will outperform the second on average in year N+1.   

    A minute ago you said measuring managers' impact was fuzzy and difficult. Now you're asserting that it's easy and we just have to look pyth variance.  

    Which brings us back to: if it's that easy, why didn't MLB franchises notice and pay accordingly?

    (Incidentally, counsell's career average pyth difference as a manager is +1.4 and he's been within 2 wins in 75% of his seasons. Hardly a convincing margin).

     

    squally1313

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

     

    Craig Counsell has a long history of beating the team pythag, yet people question whether that's a skill he has or just the team around him. 

    Craig Counsell, per ESPN EXWL, which I'm 99% sure is just pythag, has been a cumulative 3 games above their pythag in the last 4 years. Most people cite his record in 1 one games, which has been proven pretty definitively to not be predictive.

    Hairyducked Idiot

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

    The issue is there is nothing anyone can show the other side to make them thjnk differently. 

    Yes, there is.  I would absolutely think differently if given convincing evidence that managers have a strong impact.

    All I need is two things:

    1) a repeatable measure of managerial impact that shows year to year correlation.

    You know how I know (mathematically, not intuitively) hitting home runs is a skill?  Because if I split players into two groups, "good at hrs this year" and "bad at hrs this year", then historically it is overwhelmingly likely that the "good" group will be good at it next year.  Even if they switch home parks or managers or get older, the skill persists.

    You wanna assert that a manager is responsible for the difference between his team's war and their records? Sure, that's a hypothesis.  And it's one that's *really* easy to test.  Split the managers up into good/bad groups each year throughout history and see if the good/bad groups persist.

    This isn't some incredibly esoteric and hard to measure voodoo. Sabr mastered this horsefeathers 50 years ago.

    Once you have that correlation, you've gone most of the way to changing my mind.  All you need now is 

    2) a compelling, logical reason why the highly analytic, extremely dollar-efficiency obsessed world of modern front offices isn't taking advantage of this gigantic market inefficiency.  A marginal win still costs about $10m on the open market last I checked. A 10-win swing should be a $100m value going for a marginal investment of a few million dollars per year.  

     

    If those two things existed, I would *absolutely* believe that managers have a large impact.  

     

    Brock Beauchamp

    Posted

    18 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

    A minute ago you said measuring managers' impact was fuzzy and difficult. Now you're asserting that it's easy and we just have to look pyth variance.  

    I wasn't trying to say that at all, only pointing out that one of the few indicators we have that MIGHT be correlated to the manager is discarded by many. Personally, I'm skeptical of what pythag means over the long run and am not ready to wholly attribute it to the manager.

    Brock Beauchamp

    Posted

    22 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

    Craig Counsell, per ESPN EXWL, which I'm 99% sure is just pythag, has been a cumulative 3 games above their pythag in the last 4 years. Most people cite his record in 1 one games, which has been proven pretty definitively to not be predictive.

    I ignore one-run games, I just don't see any way to parse that into anything meaningful.

    As I mentioned above, I think tying pythag too closely to the manager has its own problems, I was only trying to point out it's one of the few metrics we have that might have ANYTHING to do with the manager in a way we can measure.

    Jason Ross

    Posted (edited)

    I'm a very "analytical" person when it comes to baseball and I love using data every chance we get. I do think managers have some impact, but I don't think it's really that possible to attribute. For example, comparing the Cubs 2023 to the Cubs in 2024 seems unfair: if the Cubs get, say Shohei Ohtani and are significantly better because they added a hitter who had a 180 wRC+ last year...well that's not because of Craig Counsell. If Craig Counsell puts Luke Little into a game in the 7th, it's impossible to say if David Ross will or not. It's also really hard mid-season. Did a manager make a hitter get hot? Probably not. So when Mike Schlidt and the Cardinals got hot a few years ago, how much of that was simply...regression to the mean? How much was because Schlidt? There's so many impossible things to track, chart and note. We can't know many things. Especially as fans.

    What I'll say is this: I trust that the Cubs think Craig Counsell is an upgrade and will make a difference. It doesn't have to make a huge difference, but any difference is good. The Cubs know how David Ross' brain works better than any of us, if they think Counsell is more in step with what they want, that's something we can't track or have data on. MLB teams, as well, are learning new things and how they matter constantly. It may not be a revolution, but good teams win on the margins where and when they can.

    Edited by 1908_Cubs
    • Like 1
    WhyCantWeWin

    Posted

    I think some of yall would take a bullet for Ross

    Rcal10

    Posted

    56 minutes ago, WhyCantWeWin said:

    I think some of yall would take a bullet for Ross

    I think Ross was fine. I do think he got more heat here than he deserved. However, I do feel Counsell is a better manager. I also feel this gives the Cubs one less excuse if they falter next year. Which is why I think they will do more this off season to put a solid team on the field with Counsell as manager than they would if Ross was still in charge. 
    I can’t put a number on it as to how many wins Counsell is worth. Frankly no one can. I just happen to think he wins with less talent on the field than the Cubs put on the field. To me that says he gets the most out of his players. 

    • Like 1
    tenderdracula

    Posted

    I'm surprised you guys were so pro Ross, I thought he was terrible.  My biggest concern was him playing rookies, the organization doesnt have any slam dunk college batting champions like Kris Bryant, its a huge collection of flawed guys who could be very valuable in the right spots.  I dont think Ross was the guy to figure that out.  

    Rcal10

    Posted

    12 minutes ago, tenderdracula said:

    I'm surprised you guys were so pro Ross, I thought he was terrible.  My biggest concern was him playing rookies, the organization doesnt have any slam dunk college batting champions like Kris Bryant, its a huge collection of flawed guys who could be very valuable in the right spots.  I dont think Ross was the guy to figure that out.  

    I wouldn’t say I was pro Ross. I am saying he got a bad rap here at times. I think he was an ok manager. But I am happy they hired Counsell for the reasons I originally stayed. 

    ToolDRT

    Posted

    Yeah, I’m with the group that doesn’t see this as much (if any) of a needle mover. It seems the area Ross took the most criticism was his bullpen usage. But that wasn’t a good bullpen and I don’t think any manager could have done substantially better with it. 
     

    Also, while I know this move doesn’t impact payroll, the extra money spent on Counsell is coming from some portion of the baseball ops budget. Do we really want to be setting the record for managerial salaries when we have an owner willing to toss away Yu Darvish due to his salary? Just makes me nervous. 

    Stratos

    Posted

    20 hours ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

    (Actually there's not a ton of correlation between bullpen quality and pyth differential. Good bullpens keep one-run losses from being multi-run losses, bad bullpen turn big wins into close wins.  It really is mostly luck)

    Have a link?

    Bad bullpens also turn close leads into losses.  We saw it directly last year in April, May, and Sept.  Relievers are used based on the score and leverage, so overall pen ERA isn't as relevant as how well your top 4 or so pen arms can hold leads.  Winning by 4-3 or 8-3 is irrelevant, just like losing by 8-6 or 8-1.

    JHBulls

    Posted (edited)

    I don’t find it surprising that there are Cubs fans who are pro-Ross and would be upset by this. This is a guy who hit a franchise changing home run in Game 7 and went on to win the World Series in large part because of that home run. If that never happened, this sacking would just be seen as just a former player getting sacked. Instead of the sacking of a Chicago Cubs hero.

    Edited by JHBulls
    Rcal10

    Posted

    55 minutes ago, JHBulls said:

    I don’t find it surprising that there are Cubs fans who are pro-Ross and would be upset by this. This is a guy who hit a franchise changing home run in Game 7 and went on to win the World Series in large part because of that home run. If that never happened, this sacking would just be seen as just a former player getting sacked. Instead of the sacking of a Chicago Cubs hero.

    I think more than 1 thing can be true. People can love Ross for his Cubs history, think he was an ok manager and still like the move to Counsell. Basically that is where I am. I think he took too much heat for every move he made that didn’t work. But overall I thought he was fine. I just think Counsell is better. I also think his way of managing aligns more with Hoyer. I also feel by signing Counsell they have made a statement that 24’ matters. I think with Counsell as the manager they Cubs will be more aggressive in the off season. 

    • Like 1
    JHBulls

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

    I think more than 1 thing can be true. People can love Ross for his Cubs history, think he was an ok manager and still like the move to Counsell. Basically that is where I am. I think he took too much heat for every move he made that didn’t work. But overall I thought he was fine. I just think Counsell is better. I also think his way of managing aligns more with Hoyer. I also feel by signing Counsell they have made a statement that 24’ matters. I think with Counsell as the manager they Cubs will be more aggressive in the off season. 


    Same here. Upgrading is never a bad thing. 
     

    Ross made mistakes and Counsell will make mistakes. That’s the human element of sport. But it’s an upgrade, so I like that part of it. 

    • Like 1



    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...