Here’s one: Dmitri Young picked up hits on 3 of his 5 swings up to that point. He was seeing the ball well. The Tigers had a 2 run lead and there was one out and no one on. The Tigers didn’t stand a good chance to score that inning anyways. I won’t argue that Thames was a better matchup, but for the additional 1 in 5 times that Thames may have succeeded over Young it didn’t seem worth removing Young from the game. If it was a better scoring situation, or if the Tigers were trying to come from behind it’s a different story.

I don’t mind projecting numbers based on sound methodology. But because you disagree with a decision and assume that your decision would have provided not only a different, but more favorable result each time, doesn’t strike me as sound methodology. And I don’t mean any offense by that. By the same token what is your baseline for wins? You’ve said that the Tigers lucked into many wins - do those get accounted for in the baseline? And what about the decisions that Leyland makes that are incorrect, but work out anyways? Are those in the baseline as well?

I’m not opposed to criticizing Leyland, as I’ve done it a number of times here this season. I also don’t think he should get a free pass because a decision, even if flawed in concept, works out for the best. I’m not of the school of thought that the result should validate a decision.

At the same time I don’t think you can break every single decision down to the probabilities. Those should be used as guiding principles to be employed over the long haul. But in singular situations they should be just a part of the story.

No, I think he knew. He decided to go with his gut. Wrong decision.

I have to stress again that it’s impossible to be certain that it was the wrong decision.

- In the shortest term, it was the wrong decision, because DY didn’t get a hit.
- In the short term, it wasn’t the wrong decision, because we won the game.
- In the medium and long terms, we won’t know until we see how DY, MT, and the team do over the next couple weeks/months.

Jeff, Leyland is not an amalgamation of baseball knowledge encompassing both everything I know and everything he’s ever learned.

Granted. He has an imperfect knowledge of the game. Though I would contend, without knowing anything about you personally, that the sum of what he knows that you don’t vastly outweighs the sum of what you know that he doesn’t.

He is a guy who probably refuses to believe the numbers in a lot of cases, dismissing them as secondary to his “gut feeling”. Go do some research on this, and I’m sure you’ll find many references to this being Leyland’s style of managing.

It is well-documented that he values his instincts, but I would be careful using words like “refuse” and “dismiss”. I have heard him say on numerous occasions that he made a certain decision because “[insert player here] hasn’t had much success in/against [insert situation/opponent here]“. While he may not come on TV and spout off statistics, it does sound like he’s mindful of them, even if he doesn’t value them as highly as you seem to.

Good point on the quotes by both me and Billfer there. I stand corrected.

I appreciate the acknowledgement. As I mentioned before, a lot of us disagree with some of your vocal positions, but we really do realize that you’re not just a loudmouthed crackpot.

Jeff, Leyland is not an amalgamation of baseball knowledge encompassing both everything I know and everything he’s ever learned. He is a guy who probably refuses to believe the numbers in a lot of cases, dismissing them as secondary to his “gut feeling”. Go do some research on this, and I’m sure you’ll find many references to this being Leyland’s style of managing.

Good point on the quotes by both me and Billfer there. I stand corrected.

I know you’re relatively new here, but please be mindful that most of us, especially Billfer, choose our words carefully. He did not use the word “everyone”, so it is disingenuous to respond as if he did.

It’s in most people’s best interest to suggest that everything is subjective, since that way they won’t ever have to truly back anything up.

You’re right that this is a common cop-out, but it has some validity in this case. You’re right that the short-term consequences of the move (or lack thereof) are easy to quantify, but the long-term consequences cannot be quantified, because we can’t rewind the tape and observe all the different permutations. As we get closer to the finish line, the long-term consequences become less and less important, but we’re at least four weeks away from that point.

he point remains that until someone starts using his head in these situations, we’re going to drop runs we never even realized we had coming.

Do you honestly believe he didn’t think about it? Do you think he forgot (or didn’t know) that DY’s numbers from the right side are below average? Do you think he forgot (or didn’t know) that Thames is having a very good season at the plate?

Okay Billfer, go ahead and make a decent argument as to why sending Young up there was a good idea. If it has to do with the psychological makeup of DY (something that should permanently be in question at this point, no matter the circumstances), then save it. We’ll agree to disagree.

Projecting numbers based on decisions made, as long as it’s grounded in sound methodology, is not just as subjective as anyone else, Billfer. So you seriously don’t believe that numbers can be adjusted and normalized based on concrete information?

It’s in most people’s best interest to suggest that everything is subjective, since that way they won’t ever have to truly back anything up. It doesn’t matter that Young hasn’t hit lefties well for years, and it doesn’t matter how persuasive the argument is made. If we jsut say that everything is subjective, we can all just spout whatever we want and perpetually disagree with eachother, getting nowhere.

If you disagree, well, then go ahead and make your argument.

In the meantime, I think my argument is a strong one. Young sucks against lefties. Period. It was late in a close game against a very strong ball club, and Young was the DH. If you’d rather see him in there, please provide some sort of insight as to why.

Sorry to belabor the point. It was only one batter, so replacing him only marginally increases the chances that something good happens. The point remains that until someone starts using his head in these situations, we’re going to drop runs we never even realized we had coming.

Just kidding.

I can get pretty fired up with these posts as well, but thread hasn’t been cool.

good luck to the tigers tonight.

I just want to say that I understand that you said that you don’t agree with the logic. So don’t feel that I am yelling.

keep in mind also that you cannot go by monroe’s game by game contributions because you cannot factor in the atbats he has had with me on third and less then two outs where he has shown a lack of plan and failed to get the run in from 3rd. He has done that alot. last year he at least lead the league in sac flies. he doesnt even do that any more. if you are going to point to the times he has won a game, then you have to also point out the times he has failed to do his job and maybe that cost us the game as well.

Monroe isnt a magic man that has won games for us at a clip that puts Thames on the bench.

Geoff Blum won a world series game for the white sox last year with a homer. Does that mean he is a better player because of it? No he is still garbage.