The Cubs’ Decision to Retain David Ross Will Set the Franchise Back

Probably not! What even would they be looking for besides different? Find someone who can win a WS with a Madrigal/Wisdom/Mastro making up 3B and (not a shot) Justin Steele as the staff horse? Find someone who would have  started Alex Canario or another favored callup? Find someone who goes deeper than Ross did with the 2023 roster but with (hopefully, if time hasn’t been wasted finding more management) a much better team? 

The Cubs need to, excuse the broism, nut up for once in this franchise’s history. The actual solution doesn’t have to be so overcomplicated (chasing new management, chasing unavailable players, chasing everyone but Ohtani just to say they didn’t pay Ohtani) and playing some blame game over the already forever spilled milk of 2023 (esp in the context of the majority - a vast majority - had one foot out of 2023 the entire time as Plan A) 

It blows my mind how many otherwise smart people have convinced themselves that not only is Ross bad, but that he's the problem.  Yes, he bunts more often than I would, but this is ultimately not a pass/fail criteria and he does so in strategic spots where one run is very influential or there's a particularly heavy risk/downside of GIDP.  This is not Dusty or Mike Matheny bunting the leadoff hitter to 2nd in the 1st or 3rd inning.

Otherwise the complaints I've seen from folks repeatedly seem to be:

• Not playing PCA more even though MLB pitchers carved him up and Tauchman rebounded from his August slump(126 wRC+ with PCA on the roster).  He was so anti-PCA that more than once he inserted him for Tauchman before the 7th inning, and he was used as a pinch runner even after multiple baserunning errors. A silly complaint on its face.
• Not playing Canario more even though he's a more marginal prospect.  I wouldn't have minded Canario getting another start or two against LHP, but people treated his lack of playing time and a willful misinterpretation of a Ross quote as the return of Dusty's preference for Neifi and Macias.  Tauchman had a 103 wRC+ with him on the roster(and didn't play against every LHP anyway), Wisdom was similarly league average while Canario was on the roster.  These are the types of things you can disagree with without thinking the manager is holding the team back, they're coin flips.
• Overworking the rotation.  This is a relatively new complaint, which is curious because Ross was consistent on his SP usage throughout the year.  In April and May it was 5 IP/GS, in June with the rotation pitching excellently and Hendricks back it was 6, in July it was 5.2, August was 5, and in September it was (wait for it) 5 IP/GS (all of these numbers exclude openers).  If Ross feels like he pushed SP too far, it's likely because he had to get innings from somewhere, and the team spent the better part of 3 months straight in must-win mode with no margin for error and an increasingly patchwork bullpen (more on this in a second).  In fact, he's been pretty progressive with this at times, one of the first articles here second-guessing his bullpen usage was only a concern because he pulled Taillon before the end of the 3rd of a game in early May.
• Mismanaging the bullpen.  This is a complaint of at least 28 MLB managers at all times, and while bullpen usage is obviously consequential, people treat it as a pass/fail test where they know the answers and that's just not remotely true.  Ross got a bunch of flak from some people down the stretch for not pressing buttons that did not exist.  The same fans that *howled* every time Alzolay, Leiter, or Merryweather were given more than one day's rest(if that) in June/July are the ones now saying that he should have had the foresight to rest them more.  In the 2nd half the Cubs had 8 different relievers throw more than 20 innings, and aside from Merryweather(the only consistently healthy late inning option in that period), all of them were between 22 and 28 IP.  Could he have added Luke Little to that circle of trust in late season desperation?  Sure, and that wouldn't have been wrong even though Little has extreme control issues that make his usage in leverage situations fraught.  Similarly, this is again a situation on the margins where 17 different factors converge in making the call and are not the sign of a manager asleep at the wheel or holding his team back.

Ultimately, the Steelers analogy is actually perfect.  It mistakes a personnel problem(the Steelers do not have a good player at the most important position on the field) as a coaching problem, and rolls that up with inevitable smaller disagreements on coaching decisions to come to a conclusion that a particular coach is the problem and must be fired.  I said it earlier in the year and I still think it's true, I don't watch enough of other teams to get a concrete sense of their quality, but I highly doubt there are 10 managers better than Ross.  He's not the problem whatsoever, and the energy spent on him is largely frustration about unavoidable outcomes/personnel failures.  Sometimes you're not good enough and that's not the manager's fault.

2 hours ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

It blows my mind how many otherwise smart people have convinced themselves that not only is Ross bad, but that he's the problem.  Yes, he bunts more often than I would, but this is ultimately not a pass/fail criteria and he does so in strategic spots where one run is very influential or there's a particularly heavy risk/downside of GIDP.  This is not Dusty or Mike Matheny bunting the leadoff hitter to 2nd in the 1st or 3rd inning.

 

Otherwise the complaints I've seen from folks repeatedly seem to be:

• Not playing PCA more even though MLB pitchers carved him up and Tauchman rebounded from his August slump(126 wRC+ with PCA on the roster).  He was so anti-PCA that more than once he inserted him for Tauchman before the 7th inning, and he was used as a pinch runner even after multiple baserunning errors. A silly complaint on its face.
• Not playing Canario more even though he's a more marginal prospect.  I wouldn't have minded Canario getting another start or two against LHP, but people treated his lack of playing time and a willful misinterpretation of a Ross quote as the return of Dusty's preference for Neifi and Macias.  Tauchman had a 103 wRC+ with him on the roster(and didn't play against every LHP anyway), Wisdom was similarly league average while Canario was on the roster.  These are the types of things you can disagree with without thinking the manager is holding the team back, they're coin flips.
• Overworking the rotation.  This is a relatively new complaint, which is curious because Ross was consistent on his SP usage throughout the year.  In April and May it was 5 IP/GS, in June with the rotation pitching excellently and Hendricks back it was 6, in July it was 5.2, August was 5, and in September it was (wait for it) 5 IP/GS (all of these numbers exclude openers).  If Ross feels like he pushed SP too far, it's likely because he had to get innings from somewhere, and the team spent the better part of 3 months straight in must-win mode with no margin for error and an increasingly patchwork bullpen (more on this in a second).  In fact, he's been pretty progressive with this at times, one of the first articles here second-guessing his bullpen usage was only a concern because he pulled Taillon before the end of the 3rd of a game in early May.
• Mismanaging the bullpen.  This is a complaint of at least 28 MLB managers at all times, and while bullpen usage is obviously consequential, people treat it as a pass/fail test where they know the answers and that's just not remotely true.  Ross got a bunch of flak for some people for not pressing buttons down the stretch that did not exist.  The same fans that *howled* every time Alzolay, Leiter, or Merryweather were given more than one day's rest(if that) in June/July are the ones now saying that he should have had the foresight to rest them more.  In the 2nd half the Cubs had 8 different relievers throw more than 20 innings, and aside from Merryweather(the only consistently healthy late inning option in that period), all of them were between 22 and 28 IP.  Could he have added Luke Little to that circle of trust in late season desperation?  Sure, and that wouldn't have been wrong even though Little has extreme control issues that make his usage in leverage situations fraught.  Similarly, this is again a situation on the margins where 17 different factors converge in making the call and are not the sign of a manager asleep at the wheel or holding his team back.

 

Ultimately, the Steelers analogy is actually perfect.  It mistakes a personnel problem(the Steelers do not have a good player at the most important position on the field) as a coaching problem, and rolls that up with inevitable smaller disagreements on coaching decisions to come to a conclusion that a particular coach is the problem and must be fired.  I said it earlier in the year and I still think it's true, I don't watch enough of other teams to get a concrete sense of their quality, but I highly doubt there are 10 managers better than Ross.  He's not the problem whatsoever, and the energy spent on him is largely frustration about unavoidable outcomes/personnel failures.  Sometimes you're not good enough and that's not the manager's fault.

Ross was not the problem. Sure, he does some thjngs I don’t agree with. But so do all managers. He is fine. Keeping him is not holding the team back. I am sure if they let him go, whoever replaced him would also be considered bad because he won’t always do what every fan thinks he should do. They just need more talent. 

Not gonna read the article but the headline is a touch melodramatic 

3 hours ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

It blows my mind how many otherwise smart people have convinced themselves that not only is Ross bad, but that he's the problem.  Yes, he bunts more often than I would, but this is ultimately not a pass/fail criteria and he does so in strategic spots where one run is very influential or there's a particularly heavy risk/downside of GIDP.  This is not Dusty or Mike Matheny bunting the leadoff hitter to 2nd in the 1st or 3rd inning.

 

Otherwise the complaints I've seen from folks repeatedly seem to be:

• Not playing PCA more even though MLB pitchers carved him up and Tauchman rebounded from his August slump(126 wRC+ with PCA on the roster).  He was so anti-PCA that more than once he inserted him for Tauchman before the 7th inning, and he was used as a pinch runner even after multiple baserunning errors. A silly complaint on its face.
• Not playing Canario more even though he's a more marginal prospect.  I wouldn't have minded Canario getting another start or two against LHP, but people treated his lack of playing time and a willful misinterpretation of a Ross quote as the return of Dusty's preference for Neifi and Macias.  Tauchman had a 103 wRC+ with him on the roster(and didn't play against every LHP anyway), Wisdom was similarly league average while Canario was on the roster.  These are the types of things you can disagree with without thinking the manager is holding the team back, they're coin flips.
• Overworking the rotation.  This is a relatively new complaint, which is curious because Ross was consistent on his SP usage throughout the year.  In April and May it was 5 IP/GS, in June with the rotation pitching excellently and Hendricks back it was 6, in July it was 5.2, August was 5, and in September it was (wait for it) 5 IP/GS (all of these numbers exclude openers).  If Ross feels like he pushed SP too far, it's likely because he had to get innings from somewhere, and the team spent the better part of 3 months straight in must-win mode with no margin for error and an increasingly patchwork bullpen (more on this in a second).  In fact, he's been pretty progressive with this at times, one of the first articles here second-guessing his bullpen usage was only a concern because he pulled Taillon before the end of the 3rd of a game in early May.
• Mismanaging the bullpen.  This is a complaint of at least 28 MLB managers at all times, and while bullpen usage is obviously consequential, people treat it as a pass/fail test where they know the answers and that's just not remotely true.  Ross got a bunch of flak from some people down the stretch for not pressing buttons down the stretch that did not exist.  The same fans that *howled* every time Alzolay, Leiter, or Merryweather were given more than one day's rest(if that) in June/July are the ones now saying that he should have had the foresight to rest them more.  In the 2nd half the Cubs had 8 different relievers throw more than 20 innings, and aside from Merryweather(the only consistently healthy late inning option in that period), all of them were between 22 and 28 IP.  Could he have added Luke Little to that circle of trust in late season desperation?  Sure, and that wouldn't have been wrong even though Little has extreme control issues that make his usage in leverage situations fraught.  Similarly, this is again a situation on the margins where 17 different factors converge in making the call and are not the sign of a manager asleep at the wheel or holding his team back.

 

Ultimately, the Steelers analogy is actually perfect.  It mistakes a personnel problem(the Steelers do not have a good player at the most important position on the field) as a coaching problem, and rolls that up with inevitable smaller disagreements on coaching decisions to come to a conclusion that a particular coach is the problem and must be fired.  I said it earlier in the year and I still think it's true, I don't watch enough of other teams to get a concrete sense of their quality, but I highly doubt there are 10 managers better than Ross.  He's not the problem whatsoever, and the energy spent on him is largely frustration about unavoidable outcomes/personnel failures.  Sometimes you're not good enough and that's not the manager's fault.

There's a lot of confirmation bias. Once someone has decided a manager stinks, there's never a shortage of things that don't go right to question the manager about.

I didn't read the article because of the melodramatic title, but one of the primary pieces of evidence I've seen is the actual vs pythagorean record in 2023. However, the team had a positive differential in 2020, 2021 and 2022. They were small positive variations, but if there were some critical failing in Ross' approach, it should show consistently.

19 minutes ago, Tim said:

There's a lot of confirmation bias. Once someone has decided a manager stinks, there's never a shortage of things that don't go right to question the manager about.

I didn't read the article because of the melodramatic title, but one of the primary pieces of evidence I've seen is the actual vs pythagorean record in 2023. However, the team had a positive differential in 2020, 2021 and 2022. They were small positive variations, but if there were some critical failing in Ross' approach, it should show consistently.

One thing that does show consistency is the Cubs failure in one run games and extra innings under Ross.

When the answer to the question for why a particular player is starting or brought in for a particular situation is that they are a veteran instead of being the best option, that is a failure of the manager. That is his main job. To make decisions that win close games. Ross fails at that.

Everyone agrees this is the best team Ross has managed, correct? It was still as horsefeathers in close games as the rest of his years.

4 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

One thing that does show consistency is the Cubs failure in one run games and extra innings under Ross.

Let's see by looking at one run games:

• 2023: 21-24, .467
• 2022: 26-27, .491
• 2021: 24-27, .471
• 2020: 10-9, .526

So...yes? Kinda? They're six under total across four years. That's pretty firmly within the range of variance instead of being indicative of some underlying factor. 

Extra Innings:

• 2023: 3-6, .333
• 2022: 7-12, .368
• 2021: 6-7, .462
• 2020: 3-1, .750

This one...yeah, they probably need to look at their strategies for extra inning games

2 hours ago, Cuzi said:

One thing that does show consistency is the Cubs failure in one run games and extra innings under Ross.

When the answer to the question for why a particular player is starting or brought in for a particular situation is that they are a veteran instead of being the best option, that is a failure of the manager. That is his main job. To make decisions that win close games. Ross fails at that.

Everyone agrees this is the best team Ross has managed, correct? It was still as horsefeathers in close games as the rest of his years.

I agree about extra-innings games, but Ross can't be blamed for a pen that lacked depth after the 3 late-inning guys that only solidified their roles in June, and a pen that was unable to hold close leads in 3 out of the 6 months of the year.  Some of that is injuries, but a lot of that is on Hoyer who failed to bring in enough quality late-inning pen arm help in the offseason and at the deadline.  Jose Cuas is fine but Cuas alone doesn't cut it.  Fulmer and Boxberger in the offseason doesn't cut it on a roster that didn't even have a closer.

One thing I'm worried about is the future health of Steele, Leiter, Alzolay next year. who were pushed hard because of the lack of quality pitching depth on this team.  Again, not exactly all Ross' fault given what Hoyer gave him, plus injuries.  Potentially sacrificing 2024 for 2023 is a bad idea.

IMO Ross is fine, and can't be compared yet to Maddon, who had 2 late-season collapses in a row and created a team that was poorly disciplined and unaccountable, not to mention terrible at baserunning.  2023 was a result of a lack of pitching talent and some inexplicably poor defense and clutch hitting down the stretch, which is mainly on the players.

^ The thing with all of Steele, Leiter, and even Alzolay’s usage is these aren’t what the youth might call “spring chickens.” They’re professional athletes in the late 20s, one with a TJ. The clock is ticking and the money is in being used.

Improve the offense, build a deeper bullpen, and that trio gets more room to breathe too! 

Ross is not a terrible manager. His teams generally play smart baseball and play hard. He’s done a lot with not at a lot of talent. But he’s not demonstrated any ability to shepherd young players breaking into the league. 
 

He’s a red ass (baseball term, look it up) manager for vets. He has trouble recognizing when a SP needs to be taken out and he rides the bullpen arms that are decent into fatigue by the end of the year. Perhaps, some portion of those issues are related to personal decisions made by upper management. But on the margins where a manager’s decisions are most important, he’s not a strong decision maker. In other words, he’s more than likely not going to win as many games as he will lose. As we saw this year, those games matter. 

He’s a middle of the road baseball lifer who’s not a guy I want managing the Cubs when the time comes that they actually have a good team. 

I think Ross's strength is fostering team culture and in house communication.  Now how many wins that gets you? impossible to quantify.

His strength is absolutely NOT in game strategy, and lineup/defensive construction, etc..   The counter to this opinion of mine is always that they have info we don't, these 100's of decisions are mostly 50/50 coin flips that the randomness of baseball typical renders these type of decisions and their overall effect on winning and losing very minimal.   While I understand and to some degree agree with that - I find a convenient response and honestly a bit of lazy and in this case don't agree with it Re: Rosse. 

We could list games and decisions and go case by case as we have so many times during the year and argue them and disagree and get nowhere.   But in my view to summarily dismiss Ross's overall performance in game/gameplanning/construction  issues as insignificant - I just can't sign off on that. 

So then the question becomes are there better options out there that could make us better on the margins therefore overall?  IMHO without question.  Could the Cubs get any of them, that I cannot answer, and we should not make a move unless we have an option we can get in our hip pockedt and we likely don't. 

However, the point is moot, he's going to be here for another year.  The good news is he can improve, experience and failure is always the best teacher  - he even stated he's going to look in the mirror.  I hope he does and I hope he sees the right things. 

My feelings on managers rarely change, and Ross is no different. Every manager is decided by fans to have poor in-game strategy because what fans really remember are all of the things that go wrong. When a manager does the right thing, the player gets the credit generally for performing. When a choice fails, many times it's on the manager (in the fans mind) because he put that player in a poor place. Many times choices with logic behind them are deemed to be "poor" choices because they fail. 

I think Ross makes some choices I wouldn't make from time to time, but most of the time, he's fine. I think the Cubs will be fine with David Ross, as well, because it's pretty obvious that David Ross and the Front Office are very much in agreement on how to use players. I don't think Hoyer tells Ross on a daily basis the lineup, or who should start. I do think they meet fairly regularly to discuss strategy, ideas, and generally who should be playing the bulk of the time. In that regards, if you want something to change, it'd have to be at the top, and likely, not from Ross, which seems like something that in no way will change. Their overall strategy on who plays the bulk of the time, which BP arms are used in high-leverage and others not used at all, probably doesn't come from David Ross to begin with, and those would be things that could really change outcomes. 

1 hour ago, 1908_Cubs said:

My feelings on managers rarely change, and Ross is no different. Every manager is decided by fans to have poor in-game strategy because what fans really remember are all of the things that go wrong. When a manager does the right thing, the player gets the credit generally for performing. When a choice fails, many times it's on the manager (in the fans mind) because he put that player in a poor place. Many times choices with logic behind them are deemed to be "poor" choices because they fail. 

I think Ross makes some choices I wouldn't make from time to time, but most of the time, he's fine. I think the Cubs will be fine with David Ross, as well, because it's pretty obvious that David Ross and the Front Office are very much in agreement on how to use players. I don't think Hoyer tells Ross on a daily basis the lineup, or who should start. I do think they meet fairly regularly to discuss strategy, ideas, and generally who should be playing the bulk of the time. In that regards, if you want something to change, it'd have to be at the top, and likely, not from Ross, which seems like something that in no way will change. Their overall strategy on who plays the bulk of the time, which BP arms are used in high-leverage and others not used at all, probably doesn't come from David Ross to begin with, and those would be things that could really change outcomes. 

Someone has to take responsibility for making or not making a decision and that person is the manager.  I agree that Hoyer, Ross, and Ricketts are a package deal and something significantly bad would have to happen for that deal to fall apart. They appear to be on the correct path given their own goals and tactics and self-imposed limitations on what they may and may not do. Let's hope it's a path that leads to lots of post-season appearances. 

I don't think having Ross as manager is going to "set the Cubs back" in any meaningful way. They aren't going back to the Theo days or the Tribune ownership.

1 minute ago, CubinNY said:

Someone has to take responsibility for making or not making a decision and that person is the manager.  I agree that Hoyer, Ross, and Ricketts are a package deal and something significantly bad would have to happen for that deal to fall apart. They appear to be on the correct path given their own goals and tactics and self-imposed limitations on what they may and may not do. Let's hope it's a path that leads to lots of post-season appearances. 

Someone takes responsibility, for sure, I don't mean to sound like it's a free-from-criticism position. What I do think is that many of the complaints levied at managers from fans are reactive when things don't work, without regards for the situational logic that went into a decision, and why I think if you look across the board, every fan base thinks their manager (on the whole) sucks at lineup construction, or BP management, or whatever, when they're probably just mad because it didn't work, not because the logic didn't sus out. There are times I wonder what Ross is doing on a micro-level with leaving a pitcher in too long, or a choice to bunt when I wouldn't have, etc, and those criticisms are always valid from everyone (as long as they explain their logic, of course). 

Overall, I think Ross is what almost all other managers are; merely fine at his job. I don't think Davis Ross actively makes the Cubs worse or is a major reason why the season ended where it did. I do question some things, and I wish the Cubs would have done some things differently, but I think those things I question come more from the organizational philosophy as whole moreso than just David Ross (not enough where I think Hoyer needs to go, either). I don't think he's actively making the Cubs much better, but I think it'd be hard for any manager to do that considering the way the Cubs see the manager (as an extension of the FO rather than a truly independent entity). 

Going to disagree with the decisions being organizational. Hoyer was point blank asked about the bunting at some point and tried as delicately as he could to disagree with them and emphasize how important it was to "protect outs." That is just one example. I'm sure there is more.

There is clearly some disconnect between Hoyer's philosophy and Ross'. Problem is, Ross was hired as the friend and it's harder to let those go.

5 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Going to disagree with the decisions being organizational. Hoyer was point blank asked about the bunting at some point and tried as delicately as he could to disagree with them and emphasize how important it was to "protect outs." That is just one example. I'm sure there is more.

There is clearly some disconnect between Hoyer's philosophy and Ross'. Problem is, Ross was hired as the friend and it's harder to let those go.

 

I don't remember the exact situations (though I do remember hating the bunting), but was it 100% established to be a Ross call and not the player making the decision himself? Ross doesn't seem the type to throw his players under the bus in that situation (which is a positive). 

13 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Going to disagree with the decisions being organizational. Hoyer was point blank asked about the bunting at some point and tried as delicately as he could to disagree with them and emphasize how important it was to "protect outs." That is just one example. I'm sure there is more.

There is clearly some disconnect between Hoyer's philosophy and Ross'. Problem is, Ross was hired as the friend and it's harder to let those go.

 

I think David Ross makes those choices in-game, when I say decisions being organizational, I'm talking about things like playing time, what relievers are being used in which types of situations, general lineup constructions, the "big" organizational things. I expect in-game stuff is David Ross (and I don't think Hoyer calls in mid-game), but I also think they're pretty small things and they get fixed between the FO and the manager pretty quickly even if they disagree in meetings during the week. If there wasn't understanding and Ross was going way off script, I think Ross would be gone quite quick regardless of his situation within the organization or connections. 

to take this in a different direction, is it just me or did Ross seem much more pissy and short with the press this year than in this previous 3?  I did, and given how soft the media that covers the Cubs on a daily basis is relative to other big market teams I was a bit surprised by it.   Maybe getting his biggest dose of criticism from the fans this year he took it out on the press?

43 minutes ago, CubUgly said:

to take this in a different direction, is it just me or did Ross seem much more pissy and short with the press this year than in this previous 3?  I did, and given how soft the media that covers the Cubs on a daily basis is relative to other big market teams I was a bit surprised by it.   Maybe getting his biggest dose of criticism from the fans this year he took it out on the press?

He was known to be a prickly player. I see no reason why he wouldn't also be a prickly manager. But I think he's prickly in the players' favor, trying to take responsibility for whatever went wrong. He's good that way. 

1 hour ago, CubinNY said:

He was known to be a prickly player. I see no reason why he wouldn't also be a prickly manager. But I think he's prickly in the players' favor, trying to take responsibility for whatever went wrong. He's good that way. 

Oh, I know he backs/takes up for the players, I just thought having watched post game pressers for 4 years he seemed pretty at ease and good with the press in years 1-3 and seemed a bit short and snippy with them this year in comparison. 

If and when he decides he’s ready, I want Yadi Molina as the successor to David Ross. 

1 minute ago, Y2J said:

If and when he decides he’s ready, I want Yadi Molina as the successor to David Ross. 

Lol

3 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

Lol

Don’t laugh at my dreams.

On 10/8/2023 at 1:02 PM, jersey cubs fan said:

Not gonna read the article but the headline is a touch melodramatic 

On 10/8/2023 at 1:31 PM, Tim said:

 

I didn't read the article because of the melodramatic title, but one of the primary pieces of evidence I've seen is the actual vs pythagorean record in 2023. However, the team had a positive differential in 2020, 2021 and 2022. They were small positive variations, but if there were some critical failing in Ross' approach, it should show consistently.

Shame you guys didn't read the article. Maybe you would have seen the move coming!

4 hours ago, Brandon Glick said:

 

Shame you guys didn't read the article. Maybe you would have seen the move coming!