MLB 2010 Thread
- Thread starter shayd
- Start date
I'm glad Hamilton is doin better finally. He's a Christian and a nice guy all around. Congrats to him.
Guy is on another planet right now. Almost a 1.400 OPS for the month.
I know I'm going to catch some shit for this, but when you refer to the fact that Torre has been "horrid with bullpen management" for the length of his career, it makes me start to think about an argument that I used to make once a week in that AL managers don't really manage anything. No real in-game decisions to make except how to manage the bullpen. I don't think that takes any real skill. And to top it off, the fact that Torre is such an "acclaimed" manager, I always have to ask: why? There are no real pinch-hitter situations, or decisions regarding removing a pitcher in the offensive lineup to try and manufacture a run while considering how well the pitcher has pitched or how much he has left in his arm for a given game. All the manager has to do is gauge (with the help of the pitching coach) when a pitcher is done, and bring in the guy from the bullpen that is situationally pre-dertermined. I don't really see any significant managerial decisions that AL managers have to make. Am I wrong here? I know a few (potetntially more depending on the crowd) people out there will tell me that I am, I'm just wondering if anyone out there actually has a valid argument as to what AL mangers actually DO on the field, or during a game? I'm in favor of getting rid of the AL manager of the year award altogether, anyone else with me?
You're not going to catch shit from me. You're right, but that's also true of NL managers. Bill James and Baseball America both often publish research findings about the true value of managers, and in the end, it's almost impossible to prove that managers do provide any positive value, however they can provide negative value. There are people claiming all the time that team A, "got really good as soon as they fired their manager and got a new one" not realizing that when the first manager was around, all of their players were playing on the lower half of their average, and were bound to rebound. Jim Tracy is a perfect example of that in his tenure with the Rockies. People I'm sure will argue that managers are valuable, however the vast majority of the evidence is overwhelmingly in opposition to that conclusion.
Decisions within the game? Maybe you can quantify in some way how he's a below-average manager in that regard, but the real key to Joe Torre being an incredible manager was the way he handled dealing with the push and pull of Geroge Steinbrenner, Brian Cashman, and the myriad of big name personalities and characters that came through his clubhouse. He had to manage all of the little stuff none of us get to see; for a tyrant boss, a GM trying tiptoe a fine line in the largest sports market in the America, and players making four times his salary (each who felt they deserved special treatment).
It was never about his bullpen use (see: Scott Proctor, Kyle Farnsworthless, Paul Quantrill) but the fact that his teams consistently made the playoffs, as well as the little we heard about problems in the clubhouse, speaks volumes as far as I'm concerned.
Man, you totally suck the fun out of it for me. Mike Scioscia is good for at least 5 wins alone. And Bobby Valentine is a golden god.
Point taken, but I really can't reconcile giving a "manager of the year" award to a manager that creatively and effectively deals with an off-field situation that is perpetuated by the team's own infalmmatory management. Just because he puts up with a dick boss and overpaid superstars behind the scenes doesn't really speak to any useful knowledge of the game, or application of such during any actual contest. I see your point, and I'm not saying that he's not a good manager, of people and personalities, but as far as actually having a direct, on-field influence on how a game is adjudicated there is very little that is included in the actual thought process as it relates to how the game is conducted, especially in the American League. And consistently making the playoffs should be expected with the astronomical payroll, and wealth of talent that the Yankees employ on a yearly basis.
Yes, in a way, effectively managing personalities and balancing the tremendous expectations placed on an individual by management has an indirect effect on a player's performance, but the actual decision making process within a game is minimal. By your logic, an executive of any major company (individuals who also manage high profile personalities and deal with, at times, unrealistic expectations from management/ownership), with even a casual knowledge of baseball, could succeed in that situation.
A manager would have to really truly suck to somehow not constantly win a lot with the teams he had in New York. I don't really give him that much credit for that. Torre was just the right person at the right time.
As far as managing personalities that might very well be a useful skill for any coach or manager or a sports team, but at some point the benefit, while relieving a lot of annoyance, has only a marginal effect on the field.
I agree with the people that say for the most part good managers (At least in baseball because in other sports I do think the coaching staffs do make a moderate difference, especially in football.) are good not for great things they come up with, but because they don't make the dumb decisions that can hurt there team. If they don't do things like neglect to send in a closer in the later part of the game at the most critical time of it because they are waiting for a save situation, wanting to get LOOGYS (lefty one out guys) on the mound and on the team to exploit marginal left/right match ups instead of having the best pitcher, steal unless the player is very highly proficient at doing it (having a success rate 70% and over), bunting to sacrifice the runner into scoring position in anything but a very small and limited number of situations that might actually be worth it, or other things that help their team lose then that's what makes them good. Even when a team has to make the right decisions on which pitchers to pick up for situational duty or which person to send out in platoon duty a lot of that is more the general managers work than the guy in the clubhouse. Maybe one of a managers most important jobs is to monitor pitcher usage, but even than most of the time they have somebody either helping them with it or doing it for them.
Unlike in other sports, because of the nature of the game, there isn't any overall strategy or scheme a manager can come up with that's going to help them win. The best thing they can do is not screw up.
I think you just made your own point and my point.
For a relevant example see: George Steinbrenner buys the New York Yankees in 1973, micromanages until the cows come home, wins 7 titles, makes it to the big dance 11 times, and helps his franchise become the most successful business model for baseball teams. What the hell did Steinbrenner know except how to build ships and run a business?
Joe Torre knows as much baseball as the next ex-pro, but his demeanor is what made him successful. Nowhere did I say Torre was a brilliant baseball mind - half the time I thought he was sleeping during the games, leaning on Jeter's bat as a pillow. His calm attitude was what this team needed in a manager; the polar opposite of "The Boss" and their nervous GM. Managing in the AL isn't about baseball, it's about people.
I agree with, and respect that point 100%. All my original post was getting at (using Torre as an example) was exactly what you just said, "Managing in the AL isn't about baseball..."
You're reversing causation. The Yankees being good made Torre look good, not the other way around. Torre got lucky that Steinbrenner was willing to spend absurd amounts of money to win right as he got there, and it kept up until he left. There is absolutely zero way for anyone to show that Torre, or any manager for that matter, produces a positive effect in his team's ability to perform.
And with regard to the clubhouse, if Torre did such a good job of keeping all of the idiocy behind the scenes under wraps, how did the Yankees clubhouse dramas become back page fodder for the New York Daily News? Literally every time the team struggled, Steinbrenner let the entire world know. From Kevin Brown to Randy Johnson, to the love lost between Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter, to the strain between Torre and Rodriguez. Torre wasn't good at keeping anything together, he just had good players, period.
:1orglaugh :thumbsup:
Mike Scioscia has benefited from a team that's been unworldly lucky. When your four best players average a BABIP of nearly .360 in your best years, you're going to win a lot of games. He's had some good players, and for the most part they've performed well outside of his regime. And Bobby Valentine? As in the guy with the .510 winning percentage?
Mauer is king of the world and third all time in vote getting for one year. Hats off :hatsoff:
Well better get to voting for the Final Vote. I sure as heck hope he gets in by hook or by crook. I gotta say does the NL Central have the best collection of 1st basemen in all of baseball? Votto, Pujols, Berkman, Lee, and Fielder. Are the Pirates still in baseball? Um, Alvarez in a couple of years.
He didn't really get voted in over Votto, per se, but it boils down to the All-Star game being an absolute joke. Fan voting needs to be 100% removed from the All-Star game, it does absolutely no good.
I have thought this for a loooooong time. It's an effing popularity contest and it's a disgrace. Merit - it should be based on merit.
Absolutely, the problem is, you've got a bunch of large market teams crying about not getting the players in that they should. There's no reason that the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox take up as many spots as they do, they just don't have that many All-Star caliber players.
