3 Responses to “Managerial Autopilot”

1. Rich Says:
   February 16th, 2010 at 10:25 pm

   Is there an easy way to search for teams that also only used one pitcher in the game? It'd be the very definition of a manager doing nothing at all.

2. Tomepp Says:
   February 17th, 2010 at 2:34 pm

   Rich: I would start by checking out the CGs. The AL had only 76 CG, with no team having more than 10.

   As to the manager doing nothing at all, he still had to decide not to make any changes - that's what managers "do." On field, managers don't "do" anything anyway, they are hired for their decision making process, whether the decision is to make a change or to stand pat. I'd wager a guess that in a number of those CGs (even those with no lineup changes), the manager still took a stroll or two to the mound, and still considered changing a batting matchup or two...

3. Tomepp Says:
   February 17th, 2010 at 4:38 pm

   Cool list, Raphy. What I found interesting was to compare each team's W-L% with a static lineup with their overall W-L%. Overall the teams did better when they had a fixed lineup than when they made changes. All AL teams together were 420-382 (.524) with a fixed lineup, and 727-741 (.495) in games in which they made changes. (These don’t add up to .500 because the AL had a winning record against the NL in 2009 and posted a .505 overall winning percentage.) This is not a surprise, as managers are more inclined to leave things alone when their team is winning, and more likely to make changes when their team is losing.

   The Angels did the best “over their average”, going 49-20 (.710) when not changing their lineup, but only 48-45 (.516) when making changes. That translated to +8 extra wins over what they would have achieved in those 69 games had they won at their overall clip. Had they been able to win all their games at their “no changes” rate, they would have won 18 more games for an impressive 115-47 record!

   On the other end of the spectrum were the hapless Royals. While only managing a 54-62 (.466) record in games in which they made lineup changes, they were an even more pathetic 11-35 (.239) record in games in which they did not make any changes. That cost them 7 extra losses over those 46 games. Had they played all their games at their “fixed lineup” rate, they would have lost 26 more games than they actually did, for a paltry 39-123 record – blowing Cleveland out of the competition for cellar-dweller distinction.

   The White Sox and Tigers finished with virtually identical win-loss rates whether they made changes or not. The ChiSox were 24-25 (.490) when not making changes and 55-58 (.487) when they did make changes. The Tigers were 18-16 (.529) when not making changes and 68-61 (.527) when they made changes.

   Better teams seemed to fare even better with a “static” lineup, while worse teams generally did even worse in those situations. Of the eight teams with winning records overall, five had better records when making no changes, two had worse records, with the Tigers remaining virtually the same. Of the six teams with losing records overall, two had better records when making no changes, three had worse records, with the ChiSox remaining virtually the same.

   You might rationalize that by figuring that when a team is winning, the manager leaves the lineup alone, but once they fall behind, they start to make changes. The good teams would have more such winning games, and boost their “static” winning percentage. Losing teams, on the other hand, would be making changes more often, pulling better hitters for situational matchups which might not pan out later in the game. That would seem to make sense, until you see that many of the teams with the fewest “static lineup” games were among the winningest teams. The Yankees, Tigers, and Rays – on the bottom of the “static lineup” games played list – were all winners, with the Yanks winning their division and the Tigers losing theirs in a one-game playoff. Divisional winner Minnesota was also below the average and the Angels were only a little above average in number of games played with a fixed lineup. With the exception of the Indians, the cellar-dwellers aren’t at the bottom of the list as you might expect, either. The Orioles, A’s and Royals are all in the middle to lower-middle of the list in number of games played with a “static lineup.” And Cleveland – tied with Kansas City for the ALC basement – had the second most fixed lineup games.

   What does all this mean? Who knows. Maybe Mie Scioscia (LAA) and Devid Trembley (BAL) should have left well-enough alone, while Trey Hillman (KCR) and Bob Geren (OAK) should have taken a more hands-on approach. Or perhaps it just means that sometimes you win with what you’ve got, sometimes you lose with what you’ve got, sometimes changes work out, and sometimes they don’t.