Porter was a dead man walking from day one. He was given less than nothing to work with and expected to transform chicken ***** into chicken salad through the magic of "Analytics". The final straw was when he refused to prop up the "narrative" that Crane & Lunhow have been spinning to justify destroying what used to be a MLB franchise.
I like and support all Houston teams. I don't cheer for other teams especially our rivals like some of your cronies probably do. Hopefully Houston's future holds better, but we've either sucked or underachieved for 60 years.
Blah blah blah. They didn't expect Porter to win a lot of games. What the did expect was him to be on somewhat the same page as the front office. He wasn't and hasn't been. He repeatedly did not rely on analytical information, and when he followed his gut, he was more often wrong than right. The last straw was telling the owner of the team he couldn't work for Luhnow. He is no real loss.
I agree it's no real loss. I don't think Porter is a very good field manager. However, it sure sounds as if Luhnow wasn't up front with what he wanted from Porter. Luhnow wants a guy to read his charts and graphs and do what they tell him to do. It sounds like Porter wanted to be his own man which obviously is not the Astros program.
I don't have time to honestly, it just isn't worth it to me. If you watched the games you would notice. You can ask Bobrek about it as well... From not putting Marisnik in centerfield, to not playing the percentages with the bullpen... there have even been articles written about his odd moves. I don't hate Bo Porter, just could see the writing on the wall.
I don't think the Astros expected him to follow their charts/graphs all the time. I think they wanted a balance, where IS that balance? I don't know. However the narrative appears to be be he seldom followed their graphs/charts, and when he went and did his own thing, he didn't have great success. It wasn't a good fit. Porter fought for his guys which is important, but he appeared to not be flexible and I am sure whoever they get next will be more open to advanced analysis. The Cubs went through this same thing a year ago. It isn't a big deal, but it is still a failing of the GM to not pick the right guy the first time, but how often does that happen?
This really bugs me... why did Luhnow hire him to begin with? He seemed like a bad fit from the start. So either... A.) he made a colossal error in judgment in that Porter was not only not going to be receptive to front office suggestions, but he was apparently downright defiant (very unlike Luhnow to make that sort of mis-calculation), or B.) Firing Bo was always inevitable. The team was designed to be bad, and they were going to need a manager to absorb some of that badness (and also one bad enough to where there would be close to zero chance that a team of mis-fits would play significantly above where their numbers told them to). Hell, the last thing Luhnow would want would be an old-school Lou Brown-like manager coming in here and getting a bunch of nobodies all the way to the ALCS! But in all seriousness, hiring Porter was a mistake from the very beginning, and it was only a matter of time before the front office attempted to correct that mistake.
People bashing the analytical approach as being something managers will hate are just wrong. Local media has biased you. Girardi for the Yankees is very analytical, even getting mocked routinely for the use of his binder. The Red Sox have been known for years to require their manager to take analytical advice, with theo going as far to write lineups at times.
No one is knocking analytics. They are knocking a ****ty ball club that's been ****ty for 3 years now under this regime.
justtxyank, the analytical approach has been around for a while now...and it's been employed by all sorts of teams. This is different...different enough that others within baseball pick up on it and talk about how different it is. The Astros have taken an all-in approach with analytics that seems to be far more radical than what we've seen from it with other franchises in the past.
An analytical approach that values only statistics and ignores any and all intangibles like clubhouse chemistry or leadership is IMO short sighted.
If that was the case Porter was right you can't go off some chart and manage a game a real ballplayer would know that Luhnow should have just let him manage the game .
Bring back Dierker I am sure he understands SABR thinking. Or we could hire Biggio and all take bets on how many weeks til he strangles a reserve outfielder for not running out a ground ball.
Any manager would have a hard time winning here if they had to deal with the Astros bullpen. Need better arms in the bullpen!
Well, 2/3'ds of their intended core bullpen pulled up lame at the beginning of the year (although I hear Albers still is trying to make a go of it... Crain was just never healthy and definitely reminds me of how the Astros waited forever for Doug Brocail to get healthy). That being said, the club did go out and re-acquire Veras (who's been ok), and Josh Fields has been serviceable. Porter also just kept Folty there doing nothing, and not sure if that was a FO call or a Porter call. Tony Sipp has been great, but Porter liked to use him more against lefties only (and often only got 1 or 2 outs out of him, which was usually a waste). And lastly, Qualls has been great against all teams except Oakland... but Porter would also use (or not use him) in bizarre ways throughout the season. Most "good" managers figure out pretty soon who their best bullpen guys are, and they figure out their roles. Porter seemed to not want to do that early... then he wanted to do it... then he did things like make Jerome Williams a closer for one game. He was all over the place in regards to the bullpen... a sure-fire way to tell that he had a ways to go in the "smarts" of managing a team. Sure, they could always use more arms/talent back there (which they'll likely be able to promote plenty of within)... but they also needs somebody who knows how to use it.
Porter was set up for failure, but he got the rare opportunity to manage a big-league team, so he took it. He was brought in as a guy to motivate young kids and keep them fighting despite the piling losses. I thought he handled that part OK. However, his baseball IQ seemed below average, and I just don't think he did much to distinguish himself. I hope the water is not poisoned with all the bad press the Astros have been getting lately. The next manager actually has some legitimate opportunity to turn this team with young but unproven talent into a contender in the next 2-3 years. Let's hope the Astros can convince that person to come here.
