Fangraphs National League Projection's for 2015

[Parade_Rain]

1. So its possible that Maddon is worth some wins.

2. Well considering the current prediction is 83 wins and you just mentioned 81, a difference of 2 wins makes it seem like you are being a bit dramatic about this forecast.

 

[brett05]

1. So its possible that Maddon is worth some wins.

2. Well considering the current prediction is 83 wins and you just mentioned 81, a difference of 2 wins makes it seem like you are being a bit dramatic about this forecast.

1. No. I clearly said managers win no games

2. My ceiling isn't a projection and my beef is making them fifth and so close to best

 

[Parade_Rain]

1. No. I clearly said managers win no games

If you think any manager would have had SF winning 3 WS in 5 years as Bochy has done, I have a bridge to sell you.

2. My ceiling isn't a projection and my beef is making them fifth and so close to best

Fifth is so close to best now? Let's be just a overly dramatic the other way and claim if you aren't first, you're last. You seem to be ignoring how it's easily believable the team could get 83 wins.

 

[SilenceS]

I know I posted a stat last year that Renteria was considered a -5 in coaching games last year. The stat was saying that Renteria cost the Cubs 5 games by his managing. I will poke around later and see what I can come up with but managers do have an affect on wins/losses more then some people think.

 

[Boobaby1]

I know I posted a stat last year that Renteria was considered a -5 in coaching games last year. The stat was saying that Renteria cost the Cubs 5 games by his managing. I will poke around later and see what I can come up with but managers do have an affect on wins/losses more then some people think.

I think it's safe to say that managers do indeed account for something. And if it isn't for wins, I don't know what it is?

When teams have respectable players, the first one to go if they aren't winning is.......the manager.

 

[JZsportsfan]

There was that article that went out a few days ago that said Maddon was the best move of the offseason. Ahead of any trade or FA signing any other team made.

Another good thing about singing a manager is that there is no regression due to age or loss of speed/skills/etc

 

[ChiSoxCity]

Come on, the Cubs would not have won more games with Maddon last year. Players win games, not managers, and the long list of managers hired and fired by the Cubs over the years illustrates this. The Cubs were a sub .500 team no matter who the manager was. At most, managers are responsible for losing a few games due to bad pitching changes. That's about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

I know I posted a stat last year that Renteria was considered a -5 in coaching games last year. The stat was saying that Renteria cost the Cubs 5 games by his managing. I will poke around later and see what I can come up with but managers do have an affect on wins/losses more then some people think.

No doubt they affect wins and losses. They enable the players to win but can't add to the winning. They can assist in the losing by making poor decisions.

 

[brett05]

If you think any manager would have had SF winning 3 WS in 5 years as Bochy has done, I have a bridge to sell you.

I never said that, but thanks for thinking as much. Don;t hurt your fingers with the straw you wield.

Fifth is so close to best now? Let's be just a overly dramatic the other way and claim if you aren't first, you're last. You seem to be ignoring how it's easily believable the team could get 83 wins.

Being 8 games behind the best team in the NL is close to first. Deny that all you want.
Just so you are clear as you are inferring things that just aren't there. Believable and projected are not to be confused as the same. It's believable that the Cubs have three to four guys competing for ROY in 2015, Two or three guys for MVP, and 1-2 guys for Cy Young. All of that happening and it's easily believable that they win 93+ games.

 

[brett05]

I think it's safe to say that managers do indeed account for something. And if it isn't for wins, I don't know what it is?

When teams have respectable players, the first one to go if they aren't winning is.......the manager.

Right, for poor decision making. Sometimes the managers get fired for poor play, but that isn;t the manager's fault, that's the players that they have and in many respects it's the GM's fault for providing a losing product (though in the case of the Cubs that can also be the manager's fault as by their own admission they at least at times give the MLB manager the right to call up players from the minors).

 

[Parade_Rain]

I think it's safe to say that managers do indeed account for something. And if it isn't for wins, I don't know what it is?

When teams have respectable players, the first one to go if they aren't winning is.......the manager.

The first one that goes is usually the hitting instructor.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Come on, the Cubs would not have won more games with Maddon last year. Players win games, not managers, and the long list of managers hired and fired by the Cubs over the years illustrates this. The Cubs were a sub .500 team no matter who the manager was. At most, managers are responsible for losing a few games due to bad pitching changes. That's about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What a Sox idiot you are. RR made so many awkward platooning moves at the start of the season, he cost at least 5 games. Players play the games. Managers win games by putting those players in the right place to win them.

 

[brett05]

What a Sox idiot you are. RR made so many awkward platooning moves at the start of the season, he cost at least 5 games. Players play the games. Managers win games by putting those players in the right place to win them.

Managers do not win games. Come on now.

 

[Thephoenix36]

I'll take it. I love looking at all the projections for the players too. Anthony Rizzo 33 HRs....leads the team.

 

[Parade_Rain]

I never said that, but thanks for thinking as much. Don;t hurt your fingers with the straw you wield.

If you've never said that then you're just being a clown who isn't involved in sincere discussion. That isn't a strawman in the least. You claim a manager doesn't win ball games, yet you have this response WRT Bochy's presence in the SF dugout.
:aj:

Being 8 games behind the best team in the NL is close to first. Deny that all you want.

83 wins isn't close to being first. It never has been. It can get you in the post-season squeaking in as a WC where anything can happen though.

Just so you are clear as you are inferring things that just aren't there. Believable and projected are not to be confused as the same. It's believable that the Cubs have three to four guys competing for ROY in 2015, Two or three guys for MVP, and 1-2 guys for Cy Young. All of that happening and it's easily believable that they win 93+ games.

Wrong, Mr. Strawman. The projection of 83 wins is believable. What you've posted is Flying Spaghetti Monster stuff. Instead of using your sox brain on how the projections must be off regarding the Cubs, you may actually want to direct your sox-brain to the best in the NL and how they are taking the Nationals from 96 wins to 87 and the best team in the NL (LA) will only have 91. Perhaps those numbers indicate the formula is off, but your sox-brain would rather lead you astray and bash the Cubs projection.

 

[brett05]

If you've never said that then you're just being a clown who isn't involved in sincere discussion. That isn't a strawman in the least. You claim a manager doesn't win ball games, yet you have this response WRT Bochy's presence in the SF dugout.

So If I say that I never said "If you think any manager would have had SF winning 3 WS in 5 years as Bochy has done" I am a clown. In your world, I am a clown as I have never thought or said this. Since I have never said that it is your strawman that you are attempting to build. You really need to look at this...what a strawman is.

83 wins isn't close to being first. It never has been. It can get you in the post-season squeaking in as a WC where anything can happen though.

It's 8 games worse than the best record projected for 2015. That's close.

Wrong, Mr. Strawman.

You are the one strawmanning. I leave you with your own name that you have claimed by your own post(s)

The projection of 83 wins is believable.

I said it was unbelievable? Where?

What you've posted is Flying Spaghetti Monster stuff.

You'll need to do a ton and ton of explaining on that one. I suggest you not bother.

Instead of using your sox brain on how the projections must be off regarding the Cubs, you may actually want to direct your sox-brain to the best in the NL and how they are taking the Nationals from 96 wins to 87 and the best team in the NL (LA) will only have 91. Perhaps those numbers indicate the formula is off, but your sox-brain would rather lead you astray and bash the Cubs projection.

I know you personally attacking here and I ask the mods that even though Parade is breaking the rules that he not get a ban.

That said, I made it quite clear how the projections are off. I could also make comments in depth...again...why the Cubs being projected to 83 wins is unrealistic. But I am not. No need to clog this up more than you already have.

 

[Parade_Rain]

So If I say that I never said "If you think any manager would have had SF winning 3 WS in 5 years as Bochy has done" I am a clown. In your world, I am a clown as I have never thought or said this. Since I have never said that it is your strawman that you are attempting to build. You really need to look at this...what a strawman is.

I'm well aware of what it is. I've never changed my position from a manager can account for wins.

It's 8 games worse than the best record projected for 2015. That's close.

Way to not read the entire post before posting. You're typing too fast.

You are the one strawmanning. I leave you with your own name that you have claimed by your own post(s)

I said it was unbelievable? Where?

You'll need to do a ton and ton of explaining on that one. I suggest you not bother.

You can't parse text and take it out of context. Well, you can and you have.

I know you personally attacking here and I ask the mods that even though Parade is breaking the rules that he not get a ban.

Wrong again. This is not a personal attack. I tried to lead your sox-brain to water. I can't be held accountable for you not seeking the truth when it's right in front of you.

 

[brett05]

I'm well aware of what it is. I've never changed my position from a manager can account for wins.

You still don't get it. Changing your position has nothing to do with strawmanning. That is called Waffling.

I can't be held accountable for you not seeking the truth when it's right in front of you.

If it helps you out, go ahead and have the last word. Otherwise feel free to post "truth" at some point.

 

[Parade_Rain]

I haven't changed my argumentative position nor the representation thereof. A manager accounts for wins and losses based upon leadership, lineups, strategies, pitching matchups, etc. Players hit, run, throw and catch. There is a lot involved in the game that goes beyond the athletes on the field.

You can't handle the truth. I even gave you a path of cookie crumbs.

 

[SilenceS]

No doubt they affect wins and losses. They enable the players to win but can't add to the winning. They can assist in the losing by making poor decisions.

What? They absolutely can win or lose a game by their moves. So, you are saying that Ventura had nothing to do with any of the White Sox losses last year?