The Curse of Jerry Hairston, Jr./Eric Hinske:
 

Saturday, October 7, 2017

NY Times: Joe Girardi, Upon Review, Offers a Rare Mea Culpa: ‘I Screwed Up’

Given a night of restless sleep — and after perhaps letting an excoriation from the news media (including from commentators on the YES Network, which is partly owned by the Yankees) sink in — Girardi ventured to the Bronx on Saturday, disassembled his standard defensive armor and offered up something unusual: a mea culpa.

“I screwed up,” he said.

“In hindsight, yeah,” he added. “I wish I would have challenged it.”

“Again, I screwed up,” he went on. “And it’s hard. It’s a hard day for me.”

In his decade as manager of the Yankees, Girardi has probably offered fewer such apologies than the number of pitching changes he made on Friday night. Typically, questions to him that call for self-reflection are dealt with dismissively. On Saturday, he responded with something approaching humility.

Yeah Joe, you really did screw up.  Frankly, this is arguably bad enough to justify not bringing Girardi back as manager next year.  I suppose that could change if the Yankees somehow do the unthinkable and come back to win this series.  But let’s put this into perspective.  If the Yankees had won last night, they’d have been around 49% to advance to the ALCS.  With yesterday’s loss, their odds sit around 12%.

It wasn’t Girardi’s only mistake last night, but it was the biggest one, and it probably ended the Yankees’ season.

--Posted at 7:31 pm by SG / 56 Comments | - (0)

Comments

Page 1 of 1 pages:

You’ll hate whoever they bring in next anyway so keep him, fire him, what’s the difference?

He’s a top 5 manager in baseball.

The silly thing is that he’s being no more forthright today than he was yesterday. He thought that what he had done yesterday was to accept the blame so as to avoid throwing the replay guy under the bus. When he saw that people thought that he had deflected blame, he doubled down on “It’s my fault. Blame me,” while still avoiding explaining what actually happened.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

I’m talking about the response from the media. He accepted blame last night while making up some nonsense reason to explain what happened (when the actual reason was as simple as “our replay guy told me not to challenge”) and the media ripped him apart. He came back, said the same thing, only now more pointedly, and now it’s treated as if he said something different.

I hope Mean Chad Green can bounce back after a long winter thinking about that grand slam

It should help him with his next employer.

5. He shouldn’t forget what he did all year (.7 .WHIP) and in the wild card game. Neither should we.

[52] last thread…


It would be nice if this season is like ‘95. Postseason run with youngsters and the start of a long, great era. You know what else happened after ‘95? A new manager (wink-face emoji).

Who are the managerial candidates for teams at the moment? I know the “joke” is Alex (which would be great) but I’m liking the idea of Manny Acta. I know he struggled previously, but he’s become a big SABR proponent since then and he’s always had a rep for being good with young players.

Alex Cora. Though I don’t know if firing Girardi is the best move. Haven’t wrapped my mind around it.

Actually he should’ve listened to the guy that was inches away and heard the sound. and let the umps sort out the slo mo replay. And if he’s wrong he loses one of his
TWO challenges.  And if he’s right strike 3, inning over , threat over. I’ll take that proposition any day.

Brian, so you’re saying that he spun a white lie the first time around, and now, as the white lie didn’t work, he’s coming out and lying bluntly, outright, to our faces, to back up the original, more oblique lie? And that while he would obviously LIKE to have called for a review, he still doesn’t believe he had any reason to challenge at the time?

[10] It is really shitty that he didn’t listen to Sanchez.  He had nothing to lose if he challenged it - if the replay guys somehow fucked it up, at least he could have used the delay for a couple minutes more of bullpen guys warming up, then he could stall and get Green out of there, as it was obvious as could be that Green was not fooling anyone.

I know its probably been beaten to death, and I have less problem with it than I did his missing the replay, but can someone explain how Girardi suddenly does not trust a veteran like CC, who has been getting easy outs over the last couple innings, to pitch to AT LEAST another batter or two (none of whom were the top 5 hitters on the team) with a five run lead? I was annoyed with that move at the time, but not screaming at the TV like I was when the replay didn’t happen.  I just don’t get it.  I mean CC was having fun in that game if you watched him closely - he got the feel for his pitches and was having his way with the Indians in those middle innings - smiling to his teammates.  How does a former catcher not notice this? 70+ pitches, yanked.  So strange.

[5] Hanging Chad Green.

[9] Don’t have to fire him, just don’t offer a new deal, that should ease folks minds.

Didn’t everyone want a short leash on CC before the game? Suggestions that he be limited to 4 innings and such?

The biggest problem with taking CC out was Sevvy’s short start, Green threw 42 pitches on Tuesday and DRob threw 51. If they hadn’t been so taxed sure take CC out and if it’s a one run game yeah but not so much for Friday but for the rest of the playoffs I’d want to use DRob and Green as little as possible.  And it’s not like CC wasn’t having a good year and couldn’t be trusted to hold a 5 run lead.

bebop, I understand the arguments for wanting length from CC after the Twins game. But reread the pregame comments - that’s not what anyone was saying about how CC should be treated in this game. And given that, it seems hard to criticize Joe G. too severely for doing what everyone here seemed to think he should have done before the game started.

Doesn’t mean I didn’t think he might have left him in longer, too, but it’s not a thing to be incensed about.

[15 & 17] Short leash on ineffective CC? Sure.  But unlike Girardi, we don’t have to make up our minds about pulling a guy after 5 innings “just because”.  Is he very effective? Yes.  Pitch count low enough? Yes.  Big lead where one or two more batters can’t hurt us? Yes.  Bottom of the order? Yes.  Why on earth would any reasonable person take him put at that point? The more you think about it, the more its seems to be a decision that is actually worse than the non-review.

At the time I was more troubled about not pulling Green earlier who just didn’t look like himself. My reasoning for pulling CC is pure hindsight so probably should be treated as second guessing because I didn’t think things through at the time.

Phil makes a good point at 18 except that the non review was the blunder of the night.

Brian, so you’re saying that he spun a white lie the first time around, and now, as the white lie didn’t work, he’s coming out and lying bluntly, outright, to our faces, to back up the original, more oblique lie? And that while he would obviously LIKE to have called for a review, he still doesn’t believe he had any reason to challenge at the time?

Yeah, basically (in the sense that he’s just doubling down on his initial lie just to avoid blaming “his guy”), except that I think that he does believe that Webber made a mistake in not asking for the challenge.

Taking CC out made perfect sense. There was no reason to believe Chad Green would suck out of nowhere. And Chad Green coming out of the bullpen, 99 times out of 100, is going to be more effective than CC facing batters in the 6th inning. Plus, since CC pitched well, having him throw more pitches didn’t make sense since they were probably going to have him pitch a theoretical Game 5, so better to keep him as fresh as possible.

Chad Green and David Robertson, the Yankees’ two best relievers this year, didn’t have it in Game 2, but logically, they should have had it.

Not challenging was a legit mistake. Going to Green was a fine move that just backfired horrifically. Same with having Robertson pitch the 8th. And pinch-running Toe. And going to Betances for a third inning.

Not going to Robertson for Lindor was at least debatable. The only evidence that Green was faltering was that Gomes and Chisenhall were fouling off a lot of pitches. He was still throwing hard. But I can see that being a debatable move that you could knock Girardi for. So that and the challenge.

The non-challenge, though, was such a major mistake that it stands out over everything else. It was a really, really big mistake.

According to the NYP, Girardi would only say “probably”when asked if Sanchez will start at C.

Maybe he could take the game off as manager.

(23)  The press conference video is on the YES website. Girardi’s response is a lot more clear without the narrative of the NY Post wrapped around it.

Why in the fuck would you listen to Sanchez over the guy looking at the replay?

Players wave safe on every even remotely close play at first.

(25) Finally another voice of reason. Is it not clear to everyone that the only thing that sells print better than winning is a controversy?  White lie at the press conference? Girardi is the man in the arena.

Game 2 NY post take aways: Girardi is an over energetic idiot who doesn’t trust his budding superstar catcher and blew the series in one fell swoop

Game 2 other take aways (not discussed): Offense put up 8 runs including 7 off their untouchable pitcher and are headed home where they have been very good and the energy is great for them. And they have their best pitcher lined up for one of them while the Indians used their game 4 starter on Friday.

Serious question - would anyone be surprised if we won two at home? Do you think Cleveland wants to take the field in a game 5 against this team after losing two straight?

Wait a minute that’s a terrible analogy and I was waiting to hear it. Sure runners wave safe on every close play and fielders wave out just the same but Gary actually HEARD something, it wasn’t just a feeling and he was inches away. I’d say that’s some strong incentive to challnge.If you’re searching for an analogy try the hitter who says check the ball for marks from his shoe shine after getting nicked on his shoe.

And it’s OK to be wrong, losing one of your two challenges is a minuscule penalty compared to squelching a threat.  The odds are overwhelming, the equity is overwhelming for challenging.

So he heard something… And?  The call was that it hit something.

And it doesn’t matter what Sanchez though he heard. The procedure after a challenge isn’t to ask Sanchez what he heard, the procedure is to check the replay. So again, why would you go against the person who was looking at the replay?

[28]
sd, because it may provide some reason for doubt.

Is there any upside to leaving bullets in the chamber?

if there’s any reason for doubt in a situation with substantial leverage and a key game, are you suggesting that it’s more important to listen to the replay guy than take a chance? After all, the replay guy shouldn’t be saying “don’t challenge,” he should be saying “I don’t think you’ll win this challenge.” Listening to him is no kind of win, right? Doesn’t get you anything.

Isn’t it true that if one team always listened to their guy, and the other tended to try increasingly less likely challenges the later in the game it was (and the higher the leverage of the situation), the second team would reap at least some rewards the first team would have missed?

From NYT “Girardi was told that Weber had found the replays available to him ‘INCONCLUSIVE’”  Comsidering the situation and even ignoring Sanchez inconclusive should mean a coin flip, heads inning over, threat over; tails lose a replay challenge.  It also appears Girardi did not know he had two replays “now, knowing that I had two challenges, in hindsight, Yeah, I wish I would have challenged it.”

Also, when runners wave “safe” at first base, their target audience is the umpire. Sanchez was talking to his manager.

You might still be right, but if you are, then they damn well ought to work out a code, like third base coach signals, so they can actually distinguish “I’m doing this for the benefit of the umpire” from “listen to me, this time I really mean it.”

What happens on inconclusive replays…

Yep, Pete it’s all about the equity. $100 to me to call in a poker hand with $500 in the pot and I need to hit a flush to win. I must call even thought roughly 75% of the time I will not hit my flush and will have lost another $100.  75% of the time I lose $100, 25% of the time I win $500. Play that hand out and over 4 hands I will have lost $300 but won $500.

32 It was inconclusive for Weber because he didn’t have the slo mo replay yet but it would not necessarily be inconclusive for the umps because they would have all the replays, Girardi needed to think on his feet and weigh losing a challnge against stifling a threat.

(32) call on field stands. So he loses one challenge. Big whoop. Seriously stupid move. Upside huge; downside tiny.

[27, 31] If you watch the press conference, you can see Girardi is referring to when players yell “check it” to the dugout after a close play, not some act to try to sway the umpire. I frankly don’t have a sense of how that should impact the decision - ie, does the player involved in the play have some usable additional info because of the feel of being tagged or touching a base before a throw, etc. My gut tells me it’s not reliable and that the process MLB teams use doesn’t rely on it.

[30] This is very clearly the issue. “Inconclusive” means it could go either way and Girardi is saying his process to make a decision was that he’d rather not lose the challenge and disrupt Green than take the chance of winning the challenge. That was a wrong decision. Francona’s comments indicate that he lets his team bring him information and he makes a judgment call based on all available information, include the context, which is what you should do.

That said - and I haven’t watched TV at all today - have any replay umpires surfaced with an assessment of whether or not the call would have been overturned?  Girardi perhaps expose a flaw in his managerial abilities, but that may not be the same as saying his decision cost them the game this time unless it’s clear that the call would have been overturned.

But it only looks like a horrible call because Green let up a grand slam.  If he doesn’t, are we talking about it?

It was a wrong call, but I they have one of the best replay men in the game so I can’t kill him for not going against him.  In the end, Green can’t let up a grand slam.  The player didn’t get his job done.

It also appears Girardi did not know he had two replays “now, knowing that I had two challenges, in hindsight, Yeah, I wish I would have challenged it.”

Oh FFS.

Now I remember why there is no point in talking about managers…

[38] they have one of the best replay men in the game

I’ve been thinking about this as well. I think this means that he is X% successful on challenges, and that ranks him high or perhaps highest among his peers.  But, that may not be the most meaningful metric. This scenario exposes that you’d need someway to determine if challenges could have been won that weren’t and, to make it even more complicated, challenges that were lost that resulted in a challenge not being available when they were needed.  In other words, you want maximum WPA output not just the best rate.

  The player didn’t get his job done.

Well this is clearly pile on Girardi day. Maybe there’s a social psychologist among us who knows why.

[39] Again, watch the press conference. That’s not clear from his statement.  He said “knowing I had two challenges” and it’s being interpreted as he realized he had two challenges the day after, a la Donovan McNabb not knowing the NFL rules for overtime.

[41] - Right.  I took it as

“now in hindsight, knowing that I had two challenges, Yeah, I wish I would have challenged it”

But people are going to hear/read what they want.  I don’t think there is any reasonable way to interpret that as he didn’t know how many challenges he had… maybe I’m just doing the same think and interpreting it the way I want though…

[42] Well, that’s the point.  The press has made this about Girardi. The press conference is so telling.

Just the questions are meant to provide material to feed the narrative. Question about him disregarding Sanchez. Sherman asked if this should be interpreted as a loss of confidence in Sanchez.  Then he answers the questions reasonably and his answers are picked apart. You can move commas around in that sentence and can gt completely different meetings.

Questioning taking out CC. Can you imagine if CC gave up a 3 run HR - he very well could have been 5 pitches away from such a thing - with Green hanging out in the bullpen?  I can only imagine the outrage.

Haven’t heard mention of Frazier’s error - and that’s probably fine.

Haven’t heard anything about Torreyes getting picked off of SECOND BASE during a bunt attempt. They’d have won the game if not for that.

Nobody’s denying that a ton of things went wrong in that game. (Obviously, a ton of things went wrong for Cleveland when the Yankees were going up 8-3 - was starting Kluber now a bad decision?)

But I think we differentiate player performance, which inherently varies, from managerial decision making, which can be organized and to consistently maximize what you get out of player performance.

Remember when Eagles fans were happy they fired Andy Ried?

I hope not.

I bet in a late inning, medium/high leverage situation if you’re right 5/10% of the time you’re making the right call and with 2 challenges the numbers are more extreme.

You know you’re still wildly irate about the non-challenge when even the Red Sox staring down the barrel of a sweep doesn’t bring any comfort.

I certainly don’t want the Red Sox to be swept. On the off chance that the Yankees do win two games at home, why go into game 5 knowing that the Astros have a maximally rested team waiting for the winner?

Because there’s no way the Yankees win this series and I at least want some juicy schadenfraude to enjoy?

Who ever thought Yankees fans would have second team syndrome?

51 I’m on board for the train to schadenfreude

I agree Girardi should be fired.  He choked.  Managers don’t have to do much in a game, and he screwed up a game-altering decision—several if we’re counting. 

Who else could manage this team?  I suggest there are probably a lot of good candidates.
The tough requirements are dealing with the press (which can be learned, Girardi did) and dealing with management.  Dealing with management is clearly a lot easier now than it was under George.

[53]  Toot toot!

[52] You look for your joy in the most likely places.

Page 1 of 1 pages:

Astros (101-61) @ Yankees (91-71), Wednesday, 10/18/2017, 05:08p ET
(269 Comments - 10/19/2017 1:32:02 am)

Yankees.com: Judge & fury: Yankees erupt late, tie ALCS!
(52 Comments - 10/18/2017 4:57:44 pm)

Astros (101-61) @ Yankees (91-71), Tuesday, 10/17/2017, 05:08p ET
(434 Comments - 10/18/2017 3:26:53 am)

Yankees.com: Yanks, Judge make Astros CC sick in G3
(48 Comments - 10/17/2017 2:39:18 pm)

Astros (101-61) @ Yankees (91-71), Monday, 10/16/2017, 08:08p ET
(213 Comments - 10/17/2017 9:43:42 am)

Yankees.com: Yankees fall on walk-off into 0-2 ALCS hole
(52 Comments - 10/16/2017 5:03:21 pm)

2017 Cubs vs. Dodgers NLCS Postseason Odds
(1 Comment - 10/16/2017 4:08:29 pm)

Yankees (91-71) @ Astros (101-61), Saturday, 10/14/2017, 04:08p ET
(314 Comments - 10/15/2017 12:42:52 am)

Yankees.com: Tanaka solid, but Yanks stifled in LCS Game 1
(11 Comments - 10/14/2017 10:41:28 am)

Yankees (91-71) @ Astros (101-61), Friday, 10/13/2017, 08:08p ET
(190 Comments - 10/14/2017 10:28:33 am)