Fangraphs National League Projection's for 2015

[ChiSoxCity]

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.

You're the idiot. Managers don't win games, players do. Get that thru your thick skull.

GMs deserve most of the blame for poorly constructed teams that lose. But a Manager can't go 0-4 at the plate, or make moronic base running mistakes. They can't get a critical strikeout with bases loaded, or drive in a go-ahead run, either. The quality of coaching and managing throughout the league is, for the most part, consistent. The players make the difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

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?

You and Parade are showing selective reading. I said managers can lose games but cannot win them for a team. Never changed that stance once.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I think it's awfully hard for to quantify what a manager means to a team, but I agree that it's easier to quantify losses than wins. To say a manager doesn't win games is correct but the manager instills a way of doing business that could lead to wins by how he motivates players, provides a good competitive atmosphere and runs his field operations, coaches, etc. In that way it's not all that different from any other business. Put a better structure in place and talented people will perform better than they would under a lesser structure.

 

[Parade_Rain]

You're the idiot. Managers don't win games, players do. Get that thru your thick skull.

GMs deserve most of the blame for poorly constructed teams that lose. But a Manager can't go 0-4 at the plate, or make moronic base running mistakes. They can't get a critical strikeout with bases loaded, or drive in a go-ahead run, either. The quality of coaching and managing throughout the league is, for the most part, consistent. The players make the difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL. Sox fans should be embarrassed. That same hitter could go 4-4 and the manager kept the starting in pitcher in too long to lose the game.

 

[brett05]

I think it's awfully hard for to quantify what a manager means to a team, but I agree that it's easier to quantify losses than wins. To say a manager doesn't win games is correct but the manager instills a way of doing business that could lead to wins by how he motivates players, provides a good competitive atmosphere and runs his field operations, coaches, etc. In that way it's not all that different from any other business. Put a better structure in place and talented people will perform better than they would under a lesser structure.

:clap: Excellent post! Exactly what I have been saying.

 

[Parade_Rain]

What was the Cubs record with Sveum and what was the Cubs record with Ricky the following season?

 

[SilenceS]

You and Parade are showing selective reading. I said managers can lose games but cannot win them for a team. Never changed that stance once.

It's not selective reading. I agree with tc and your stance. I just think you short changing some areas. That's it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ChiSoxCity]

LOL. Sox fans should be embarrassed. That same hitter could go 4-4 and the manager kept the starting in pitcher in too long to lose the game.

Every team plays what, 162 games? If the Manager mattered that much in the wins/losses column, there would be a wide deviation between the records of all the teams. Teams with superior Managers would never have bad seasons, and always be in the playoffs. Do you get where I'm going with this? The truth is, Managers may factor into a loss by not pulling a pitcher at the appropriate time, playing it safe or not safe enough with a roster move during a game. But over the course of a season, players dictate the # of games won by the quality of their play, as indicated by their individual statistics. Big league managers are all cut from the same cloth, so the quality of their day-to-day decisions is generally the same. Making ocassional errors in judgement is human nature. and every manager makes them. The notion that Maddon can win more games than Renteria with the same pathetic roster is absurd. Then again, Cubs fans aren't exactly known for their pragmatism, so I shouldn't expect this to make sense to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

I just think you short changing some areas. That's it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Short changing what areas?

 

[Parade_Rain]

Every team plays what, 162 games? If the Manager mattered that much in the wins/losses column, there would be a wide deviation between the records of all the teams. Teams with superior Managers would never have bad seasons, and always be in the playoffs. Do you get where I'm going with this? The truth is, Managers may factor into a loss by not pulling a pitcher at the appropriate time, playing it safe or not safe enough with a roster move during a game. But over the course of a season, players dictate the # of games won by the quality of their play, as indicated by their individual statistics. Big league managers are all cut from the same cloth, so the quality of their day-to-day decisions is generally the same. Making ocassional errors in judgement is human nature. and every manager makes them. The notion that Maddon can win more games than Renteria with the same pathetic roster is absurd. Then again, Cubs fans aren't exactly known for their pragmatism, so I shouldn't expect this to make sense to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is so much hot garbage in your post, I am going to ignore it all except to tell you baseball is a team sport. The better the talent, the better the team. Then again LA should have won the NL last season. That's why the games aren't played on paper and why managerial decisions/actions can positively or negatively impact the outcome of games.

 

[ChiSoxCity]

There is so much hot garbage in your post, I am going to ignore it all except to tell you baseball is a team sport. The better the talent, the better the team. Then again LA should have won the NL last season. That's why the games aren't played on paper and why managerial decisions/actions can positively or negatively impact the outcome of games.

Hot garbage? Maybe to a sofa king with stunted intellect such as yourself.

How does baseball being a team sport conflict with what I'm telling you? Coaches call plays in football which directly affect the outcome of the game--baseball managers don't call plays. At most, they set the lineups, which don't change all that much, from game to game, and make a few changes per game. Every manager in the league does the same things at about the same time. Pulling a starting pitcher after seven or eight innings is not unique, nor is it a manager's fault when said reliever can't do his job and blows a lead. If that was the case, every manager in the league deserves to be fired. So yeah, players win (or lose) games, not some guy sitting on a bench watching them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chibears55]

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.

You just answered how a better manager can win a few more games in your last sentence. .

Example : Renteria a lesser experienced manager made poor decisions that most likely cost them games..

Where Maddon who more experienced may not make such decision and they win those games...

Example : in a 10 game stretch Renteria made a bad decision in 5 of those games that cost the team a win and they go 5-5 in that stretch...
Where in the same 10 game stretch Maddon who more experienced and has a winning background may of made 2 bad decisions in that stretch that cost the team a win in those games and they go 8-2 in that stretch..

Maddon better decision making earned the team 3 more wins in that 10 game stretch. ...

That how maddon could help win more games this year then last year....


Noone suggesting Maddon going to be the difference between winning 80 games or 90 games because he sitting in dugout..
The difference between him and renteria is going to come with his experience and his success at making more right decisions over bad ones throughout the year. ...
That will be the difference of winning extra games, along with having a better roster. .

Plus there are managers who can get a little more out of players when needed, and that something that Maddon seems to be able to do..

 

[brett05]

More wins over Renteria maybe but not more wins. Every manager should by default make the right decision. By doing so they lose no games and win no games. When bad decisions are made the loss expectancy increases. Maddon May make better decisions than Rick. It means at best he costs the team to lose less than Rick. It's more than semantics

 

[Parade_Rain]

Hot garbage? Maybe to a sofa king with stunted intellect such as yourself.

How does baseball being a team sport conflict with what I'm telling you? Coaches call plays in football which directly affect the outcome of the game--baseball managers don't call plays. At most, they set the lineups, which don't change all that much, from game to game, and make a few changes per game. Every manager in the league does the same things at about the same time. Pulling a starting pitcher after seven or eight innings is not unique, nor is it a manager's fault when said reliever can't do his job and blows a lead. If that was the case, every manager in the league deserves to be fired. So yeah, players win (or lose) games, not some guy sitting on a bench watching them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL. Managers do call plays in MLB. This makes Mae wonder if you've even played past Little League.

 

[ChiSoxCity]

LOL. Managers do call plays in MLB. This makes Mae wonder if you've even played past Little League.

Telling someone to bunt or steal a base is not calling a play, and success or failure is determined by the player's ability, not the manager's.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

More wins over Renteria maybe but not more wins. Every manager should by default make the right decision. By doing so they lose no games and win no games. When bad decisions are made the loss expectancy increases. Maddon May make better decisions than Rick. It means at best he costs the team to lose less than Rick. It's more than semantics

I mean this is the crux of it isn't it? How can anyone say making the right decision in a game leads to a win? The goal is to win so making the right decision is in essence neutral while making a wrong call could actually lead to a loss. An example could be a pinch hitter. The situation calls for the manager to pinch hit, and he likely has 2 or 3 hitters to choose from. If he chooses not to pinch hit in a situation that by the odds obviously favors doing that ,he could very well lose the game for the team. Conversely just because he chooses the right guy who gets a hit and helps win the game doesn't mean the manager won the game with his decision. He simply made the correct choice. It's not a semantic argument at all when you look at it. There is no middle, there are no ties so you can't both subtract for a losing decision and give credit to a winning one. Think about it, that just doesn't fly from an sort of a statistical or logical standpoint.

Now in response to people asking why some managers are considered better than others well comes down to what brett05 and I have been saying, it comes down to managing, with a small m. A manager in business manages people, chooses the best talent mix and puts them in situations to succeed. The good ones see results. The same thing with baseball managers as they're the guys that works with their roster, determines how the players work together and builds an environment built to win. Of course they matter, but they matter because of how they run their team and conduct their business and, as in other sports, how they manage egos of multimillion dollar athletes. Again that's managing in a broad sense and that what makes good Managers in a baseball sense.

 

[ChiSoxCity]

I mean this is the crux of it isn't it? How can anyone say making the right decision in a game leads to a win? The goal is to win so making the right decision is in essence neutral while making a wrong call could actually lead to a loss. An example could be a pinch hitter. The situation calls for the manager to pinch hit, and he likely has 2 or 3 hitters to choose from. If he chooses not to pinch hit in a situation that by the odds obviously favors doing that ,he could very well lose the game for the team. Conversely just because he chooses the right guy who gets a hit and helps win the game doesn't mean the manager won the game with his decision. He simply made the correct choice. It's not a semantic argument at all when you look at it. There is no middle, there are no ties so you can't both subtract for a losing decision and give credit to a winning one. Think about it, that just doesn't fly from an sort of a statistical or logical standpoint.

Now in response to people asking why some managers are considered better than others well comes down to what brett05 and I have been saying, it comes down to managing, with a small m. A manager in business manages people, chooses the best talent mix and puts them in situations to succeed. The good ones see results. The same thing with baseball managers as they're the guys that works with their roster, determines how the players work together and builds an environment built to win. Of course they matter, but they matter because of how they run their team and conduct their business and, as in other sports, how they manage egos of multimillion dollar athletes. Again that's managing in a broad sense and that what makes good Managers in a baseball sense.

Most managers get blamed when an organization fails to achieve its goals by default, not because they necessarily did anything "wrong." Terry Francona got fired by the Red Sox despite being considered among the top 5 managers in the game. The team was awful, but he paid the price for it. You think he did anything different to "win" 92 games and AL Manager of the Year for Cleveland in 2013? Of course not. Good managers communicate, observe, evaluate, lead, and make one or two key decisions a game on average. They don't win or lose in an individual sense. Now, a leadoff hitter with a .290 OBP is clearly losing games for a team over the course of the season.

 

[chibears55]

More wins over Renteria maybe but not more wins. Every manager should by default make the right decision. By doing so they lose no games and win no games. When bad decisions are made the loss expectancy increases. Maddon May make better decisions than Rick. It means at best he costs the team to lose less than Rick. It's more than semantics

Isnt that what the discussion about or did i miss something ?

Maddon will help the cubs win a few more games this year then last year based on making better decisions then renteria because of experience

 

[Parade_Rain]

Telling someone to bunt or steal a base is not calling a play, and success or failure is determined by the player's ability, not the manager's.

You're shortchanging the game. There is a lot of stuff going on defensively that you either don't understand or don't want to acknowledge.

 

[ChiSoxCity]

You're shortchanging the game. There is a lot of stuff going on defensively that you either don't understand or don't want to acknowledge.

Again, all the "stuff" is the same "stuff" that every other manager and staff is doing and has been doing since the modern baseball era began.

There's not much complexity to situational adjustments. The pitcher still has to pitch, the batter has to hit or get on base, and the defense has to field. It is a childrens game played by incredibly skilled and talented grown men. Far more is demanded of football, basketball and hockey managers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk