Friday, July 22, 2005

Idiom Wind

"Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth.
You're an idiot, babe,
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe."

--Bob Dylan, "Idiot Wind"

Because of. In Spite of. Two of America's favorite idioms, they have practically opposite meanings. This team has won 3 in a row. 6 of 8. 9 of 11. And 19 of 24. Which one of these two idioms more accurately describes our manager, Captain Dipshit? You get two guesses.

Good guess.

The genius once again exhibited that he has no idea how to turn out a lineup or manage a bullpen. If he did, Ginter wouldn't be in there, ever. But for some reason, Macha thinks Ginter's .414 OPS vs. lefties (not a typo) is just too lethal to leave on the bench. Shockingly, Ginter went 0 for 3 last night with 2 strikeouts. Now batting .169, it's a wonder why Macha just doesn't have the guy hit cleanup.

And when you go to the bench for a pinch hitter in a 1-run game with the bases loaded, do you go with the guy with the .614 July OPS, or with the guy with the .867 July OPS? What? Oh yeah, they're both left-handed. You'd go with the .614 OPS guy, you say? Yeah, that's what Ken did, too. I can see how that'd be a tough decision. Not that Hatteberg's weak pop-up to second wasn't impressive or anything, it's just that well.....ok, it was unimpressive. Could have blown the game wide open, and Macha goes with the worst option off the bench. What were you saving Johnson for, Ken? An important spot in the game? Fucking Christ you're dumb.

And, oh yeah. Going with Kennedy for a second inning, when he wasn't particularly sharp in his first? Brilliant. Kennedy threw 46 pitches, and only 25 for strikes. Yeah, he was totally on his game. I mean, only 9 of the 10 batters he faced were right handed, so that whole situational matchup thing went real swell for you, Ken. Why bring in Kiko Calero and his .103 BAA in July when you can make another stupid move? And why is Calero in the doghouse all of a sudden? When's the last time he pitched, 1973? I hate you so much, Macha.

Homer : [from croud] Hey, Flanders! You're the worst coach this team has ever had!
Marge : He's the only coach this team has ever had... and the season hasn't even started yet!
Homer : Yeah, well ... he's wearing that hat like an idiot.
Marge : You know, Homer, its very easy to criticize.
Homer : Fun, too.
And nice work with that hat, Ken. It looks great. It's completely straight and everything. Good luck in the Special Olympics. You'll need it.


The boys in green and gold won again last night. They're playing extremely well right now. And winning is becoming commonplace.

In Spite of Ken Macha.

15 Comments:

Anonymous smac said...

haha

Blez disagrees:

"The A's pen was used nearly to perfection tonight as well."

Friday, July 22, 2005 12:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope you don't hurt yourself when you think of these inane ramblings. Maybe you need to take a more holistic view of Macha as opposed to just taking every individual move and isolating it toward advancing your overall agenda.

Prior to the series in Texas, Macha clearly stated that he was going to give his players some time off due to the excessive heat in the Arlington area. Thus he moves Chavez to DH, leaving Ginter as the remaining option in the field.

Another thing you seem to fail to grasp (beyond your obsession with attacking each individual move) is Macha's interaction with the players. His confidence in using Hatte over DJ as a PH might seem stupid if you only look at the numbers, but maybe Hatte (who has come through in times like that before) feels that his manager still has confidence in his abilities and thus his future performance is not adversely affected.

While I'm sure you would like to think that the A's turnaround was accomplished in spite of Macha, lets take a different view. Maybe when the team was struggling, Macha's cool demeanor allowed the guys to relax and eventually start to feel confident in their abilities, as opposed to a manager who jumps all over the team and benches every underperforming star (ie Chavez, Kendall).

In conclusion, I find your comments lacking any significant value or insight. Its these types of close minded attacks that gives Monday Morning QBing a bad name. You might want to look for a career in the NY media.

Friday, July 22, 2005 2:08:00 PM  
Blogger Roman said...

In conclusion, I find your comments lacking any significant value or insight. Its these types of close minded attacks that gives Monday Morning QBing a bad name. You might want to look for a career in the NY media.

LO!!!

OWNED!!!

Friday, July 22, 2005 2:41:00 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

Individual moves by managers are what win and lose games. If you think Macha having confidence in a guy who clearly represents the lesser option makes up for that being the wrong move, then maybe you oughta move about 400 miles south and start listening to Rex Hudler call a game.

Macha's "cool demeanor?" Laugh out loud, man. You need to get laid.

Friday, July 22, 2005 3:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that individual moves are important to winning, especially in the postseason, however, over the span of a 162 game season there are other factors than just what the numbers suggest. Your analysis fails to account for that.

The A's regular season record over the last 5 years is nearly unmatched. Are you really saying that if the A's had a better manager (say Joe Torre) during that time that our win totals would be considerably higher? Wouldn't a "smart" manager make some mistakes over that same time period, thus costing them some wins? The fact is that I doubt that a change in the manager would have seriously altered the A's regular season win/loss record over the last 5 years or their position in the standings.

Friday, July 22, 2005 4:33:00 PM  
Blogger Roman said...

The fact is that I doubt that a change in the manager would have seriously altered the A's regular season win/loss record over the last 5 years or their position in the standings.

You gotta be fucking shitting me.

If Macha isn't managing the club last year, we win the division. Of this, I am certain.

Hell, if Macha isn't managing the club THIS year, we're within 2 games of first place. His refusal to shake up the line-up earlier in the season and his piss-poor bullpen management has cost us AT LEAST half a dozen wins. And I'd wager it's closer to 10.

Friday, July 22, 2005 5:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Macha isn't managing the club last year, we win the division. Of this, I am certain.

How certain? How many games did the
A's lose solely because Macha made a bad decision? How many games did they win because of a good decision Macha made? How many games did the Angels lose solely because of a mistake of Sciossa? You're argument is too small and based on too little information to reach that conclusion.

If were going to argue strictly numbers and the manager's affect on it, lets try this. Since the '00 season (not counting this season), the A's have won 483 games. During the same time, the Yankees have won 487 games. Most people would probably argue that the Yankees had more talent on their roster (top to bottom) than the A's, but lets say for the sake of argument that both teams were equally talented. I think, based on the information from this site, that you believe Torre is a far superior manager than Macha or Howe. So lets assume that is true.

So basically for two equally talented teams the difference between a good manager and a bad manager is FOUR FUCKING GAMES over 5 seasons. This blog was created to whine about 4 of 810 games? Jesus H. Christ! I thought I had seen it all.

I will agree with you that the A's managers have probably hurt them in the postseason. I thought the same thing when La Russa was in Oakland, great manager during the regular season, but couldn't coach his way out of paper bag once the playoffs started. But the fact is, the A's are no worse off with Macha in the dugout than anyone else during the regular season.

Friday, July 22, 2005 5:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll take the opening that Mr. Anonymous left as bait:

"Are you really saying that if the A's had a better manager (say Joe Torre) during that time that our win totals would be considerably higher? Wouldn't a "smart" manager make some mistakes over that same time period, thus costing them some wins?"

Anonymous has as such admitted that Macha has made mistakes, contradicting his earlier statement that Macha was doing what he did by design. All that needs to be shown now is that Macha is no-damn-where near a Joe Torre, or a Sparky Anderson, or an Earl Weaver, etc.

And actually, theres just no point in arguing with someone that will contend there is no qualitative or quantitative difference between Macha and those other managers. For sanity's sake, I will just take it as a given; sure its an assumption, but it is an extremely strong assumption dont you think Mr. Anonymous?

So, if you admit that Macha has made mistakes, and you accept the assumption that Macha is no Joe Torre, or Sparky Anderson, etc, then there is absolutely no validity in supposing that a good manager's mistakes (like Joe Torre) would cost their team just as many or more wins as a lesser manager's mistakes would (like Macha's).

It is far more probable that Macha will cost a team more wins than a better manager will.

dsimo04

Friday, July 22, 2005 5:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Anonymous:

Your statistic may be correct, but it does not apply to number of wins a manager costed their team.

There is a difference between the number of wins a team had, and the number of wins a team might have had, if only their numb nuts manager not made dumbass moves.

dsimo04

(goddamn, this guy's logic is worse than stewie's)

Friday, July 22, 2005 5:55:00 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

I like how "anonymous" makes up his own criterion for evaluating managers, and then argues using those points.

First, Macha's calm cool demeanor and confidence in underperforming liabilities is responsible for the turnaround. Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

Then, he brings Torre and Scioscia into the discussion as if that has any relevance whatsoever. If the Yanks or Angels lose games because of their manager, what does that have to do with whether or not the A's are losing ground because of theirs? What difference does it make how many games we've won under Macha? The only thing that matters is how many games Macha costs us. And that's the public service we're providing for you here at FireMacha.com. You can thank us later.

Seriously, dude. The "4 games out of 810" is quite possibly the most easily refuted "theory" since Ptolemy's geocentric theses. Just go back to posting at AthleticsNation. There might be a great thread on Huston Street's ass that you don't want to miss.

Friday, July 22, 2005 5:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My point in bringing up the Yankees and Torre is simply that the overall results of a good team with a good manager is no different than the results of another good team with your "bad" manager.

As a Yankee fan living in NY I see this shit all the time. Analyzing every move Torre makes and second guessing him. Calling him an "idiot" when the moves go wrong. Its almost funny, the same with this site. They almost forget how bad we were for over 15 years.

You guys need to start looking at the big picture. You've had enormous success the past 5 years and I seriously doubt a "better" manager would have improved upon that success.

Good luck to you guys this season.

Friday, July 22, 2005 6:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Roman said...

Your points are invalid because:

1) Macha hasn't been the manager since 2000.

2) Torre and Scioscia aren't responsible for a single one of the A's losses.

3) Not once have I said that the team with the most wins has the best manager.

4) Your argument that the A's and Yankees have been equally talented is completely false. Last year the Yankees had a former All-Star at every position. They also had a couple of future Hall of Famers on the left side of their infield.


How certain? How many games did the A's lose solely because Macha made a bad decision?

100% certain and, conservatively, I'd say that Macha was responsible for at least 15 of the A's losses last season. He can't manage a bullpen. We had 28 blown saves last season. Five were by Arthur Rhodes. Six were by Octavio Dotel. So I won't blame those 11 on Macha. That leaves 17 times when we HAD THE LEAD, but lost it when Macha made a call to the bullpen. We lost the division by ONE game.

Admitting you're a Yankee fan says it all. You don't follow the A's as closely as Greg or I. We have had to suffer through Macha the moron and his idiotic moves for several years now. In this time it has become clear that Ken Macha is not qualified to manage this team. Thank God we have Billy Beane or we'd be in some deep shit.

Friday, July 22, 2005 6:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank God we have Billy Beane or we'd be in some deep shit.

okay, one last post before I leave you guys alone.

I agree that Billy Beane appears to be a pretty damn good GM, especially considering what he's got to work with. But isn't Beane the one who makes the decision as to who the manager will be? Isn't Macha there because Beane wanted him there? Why hasn't your hatred for Macha spilled over into Beane? Just curious.

Friday, July 22, 2005 7:23:00 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

No A's fan will ever say Beane is perfect. His selection process for managers is, in a word, terrible.

But, just like you wouldn't call for the benching of all-star because he fails to reach base 6 times out of 10, we know and appreciate what we have in Billy.

If Macha did many things well and only one or two things poorly, this site wouldn't exist. But Macha does nothing well. And he needs to go.

Friday, July 22, 2005 7:33:00 PM  
Blogger Roman said...

If Macha did many things well and only one or two things poorly, this site wouldn't exist. But Macha does nothing well.

That's not true.

He chews a mean stick of Juicy Fruit.

Friday, July 22, 2005 7:37:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home