Fangraphs National League Projection's for 2015

[Boobaby1]

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).

If the manager doesn't account for wins, why did the Cubs pay 5 million for Joe Maddon? Surely they could have saved money and just had Renteria fill out the line-up card.

Watch and see what happens to the manager if the Sox don't make huge leaps forward. Part of winning is players liking who they play for, and that in return results in more wins if said team doesn't click, or the manager may be too much of a disciplinarian for example.

There is a bounty of decisions made by managers. Hit and runs, defensive shifts, squeezes, taking pitches, sacrificing, knowing oppositions tendancies at the plate, double steals, pulling pitchers, putting players in the best position to succeed like Maddon did in Tampa.

It is far more complex than the pitcher pitching, the batter swinging, and the defense making a play.

As someone mentioned before, San Francisco more than likely does not win the WS 3 times without Bochy, and I would probably hazard to guess that the Cardinals don't win without LaRussa, the Red Sox without Francona and Harrell, and I would also bet that the Orioles don't make the playoffs without Showalter running the show, or Tampa isn't as good without Maddon being there. Just my opinion.

 

[ChiSoxCity]

Trivia question: Which major league basebaal team has hired and fired the most managers in franchise history?


Answer: The Cubs have had 56 managers since 1876, the most in the history of any franchise. They've only had 13 GMs since 1876. lol [emoji38]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TC in Mississippi]

If the manager doesn't account for wins, why did the Cubs pay 5 million for Joe Maddon? Surely they could have saved money and just had Renteria fill out the line-up card.

Watch and see what happens to the manager if the Sox don't make huge leaps forward. Part of winning is players liking who they play for, and that in return results in more wins if said team doesn't click, or the manager may be too much of a disciplinarian for example.

There is a bounty of decisions made by managers. Hit and runs, defensive shifts, squeezes, taking pitches, sacrificing, knowing oppositions tendancies at the plate, double steals, pulling pitchers, putting players in the best position to succeed like Maddon did in Tampa.

It is far more complex than the pitcher pitching, the batter swinging, and the defense making a play.

As someone mentioned before, San Francisco more than likely does not win the WS 3 times without Bochy, and I would probably hazard to guess that the Cardinals don't win without LaRussa, the Red Sox without Francona and Harrell, and I would also bet that the Orioles don't make the playoffs without Showalter running the show, or Tampa isn't as good without Maddon being there. Just my opinion.

See I think the in game stuff is mostly the manager not making bad decisions at key times. It's important, but not easily quantifiable. This is the key though; "putting players in the best position to win like Maddon did in Tampa". I mean that's it. I also agree that those managers played a huge part in their team's successes, but how much of that was proactive in game management that can be quantified? I'd argue very little but instead the product of how these men run their organizations.

 

[brett05]

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.

Sure it is

 

[brett05]

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

Lose less perhaps not win more

 

[Parade_Rain]

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

SMH. Players do the same thing, too. They hit, throw, catch and run, yet some are better than others, just like some managers are worth having in the dugout more than others because they put their players in a position to succeed and that goes much deeper than making out a lineup and being a rah rah guy.

 

[chibears55]

Lose less perhaps not win more

If their not losing their winning ... right


You give them crediit for going from 90 losses to 85 but not for going from 72 wins to 77....

 

[ChiSoxCity]

Sure it is

Defining what a play is or isn't is moot. The point is, the player must perform. It's not the Manager's fault if someone gets tagged out attempting to steal in a situation that warrants it. You can't credit a win to a Manager for making an adjustment during the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ChiSoxCity]

SMH. Players do the same thing, too. They hit, throw, catch and run, yet some are better than others, just like some managers are worth having in the dugout more than others because they put their players in a position to succeed and that goes much deeper than making out a lineup and being a rah rah guy.

How do Managers put players in a position to succeed in baseball?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

If their not losing their winning ... right


You give them crediit for going from 90 losses to 85 but not for going from 72 wins to 77....

No you and parade and others keep thinking it is a semantic argument and its NOT. Unless the manager is a player manager, they can only increase the chances of losing not of winning.

Let's try it this way. A manager can make every single right move and still not win. But each mistake increases the chance of losing. As had been said the manager does not hit pitch or field. The moves a manager makes helps to get them to neutral not increase the winning

 

[Jntg4]

Trivia question: Which major league basebaal team has hired and fired the most managers in franchise history?


Answer: The Cubs have had 56 managers since 1876, the most in the history of any franchise. They've only had 13 GMs since 1876. lol [emoji38]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dating back to 1870 in the NABBP, the Cubs are actually the oldest professional sports franchise in North America that still exists today, so it isn't shocking. And don't date GMs back that far, they didn't ever have one until 1934 (and by my count it is 15 anyway).

(The Cincinnati Reds have no connection to the 1869 team that actually dates back even further as an amateur team. That team folded after the 1870 season and has closer connections to the Atlanta Braves. The modern Reds franchise can be dated back to either 1882 or 1876 depending on how one unfolds the events between 1880 and 1882. The Braves are the oldest continuous franchise as the Cubs suspended operations for the 1872 and 1873 seasons after the Great Chicago Fire).

 

[Parade_Rain]

No you and parade and others keep thinking it is a semantic argument and its NOT. Unless the manager is a player manager, they can only increase the chances of losing not of winning.

Let's try it this way. A manager can make every single right move and still not win. But each mistake increases the chance of losing. As had been said the manager does not hit pitch or field. The moves a manager makes helps to get them to neutral not increase the winning

I meant to quote your post, not like it. When I get back to my laptop I will remove my thanks. It isn't semantics. Based upon a manager making a wrong move a team could overcome it, too, just less often. Also, if the "right" move was to pinch hit and it was an unsuccessful AB, it wasn't the right move. I have made plenty of "right" moves as a manager that either weren't successful or blew up in my face. In hindsight, many of those moves that could have easily been defended as the "right" moves simply weren't.

 

[brett05]

Good history JNTG

 

[brett05]

I meant to quote your post, not like it. When I get back to my laptop I will remove my thanks. It isn't semantics. Based upon a manager making a wrong move a team could overcome it, too, just less often. Also, if the "right" move was to pinch hit and it was an unsuccessful AB, it wasn't the right move. I have made plenty of "right" moves as a manager that either weren't successful or blew up in my face. In hindsight, many of those moves that could have easily been defended as the "right" moves simply weren't.

You don't seem to grasp odds. The move may succeed our may not. That does not dictate whether it is right. Your logic is wrong.

Let me show this to you. In the game blackjack the dealer shows a four. You have sixteen. You hit and draw a four. You now have 20. You made the wrong move. It will always be the wrong move but in this case you succeeded.

I hope you can now see it

 

[Parade_Rain]

You don't seem to grasp odds. The move may succeed our may not. That does not dictate whether it is right. Your logic is wrong.

Let me show this to you. In the game blackjack the dealer shows a four. You have sixteen. You hit and draw a four. You now have 20. You made the wrong move. It will always be the wrong move but in this case you succeeded.

I hope you can now see it

Baseball isn't blackjack. Unless Ive missed something, blackjack isnt a team sport. Yes. Odds are pitcher x against hitter y has a certain outcome. Of course there has to be a sample size that matters. Defensive stats are changing the way the game is played. From extreme shifts to only playing corners in when previously perhaps the route to go was all IF in, etc. Knowing all this, how is it Maddon was worth firing RR? I mean if it is as simple as playing odds, a computer should be running the ballgame once the first pitch is on its way.

 

[ChiSoxCity]

Dating back to 1870 in the NABBP, the Cubs are actually the oldest professional sports franchise in North America that still exists today, so it isn't shocking. And don't date GMs back that far, they didn't ever have one until 1934 (and by my count it is 15 anyway).

(The Cincinnati Reds have no connection to the 1869 team that actually dates back even further as an amateur team. That team folded after the 1870 season and has closer connections to the Atlanta Braves. The modern Reds franchise can be dated back to either 1882 or 1876 depending on how one unfolds the events between 1880 and 1882. The Braves are the oldest continuous franchise as the Cubs suspended operations for the 1872 and 1873 seasons after the Great Chicago Fire).

The Cubs are where good managers go to die. Being the oldest franchise by a few years doesn't change facts. The Cubs have been so bad for so long that, at some point, you have to stop firing managers and start looking at your organization from the top down. I'm pretty sure they've had the most managers since the 20th century. Connie Mack could be the Cubs manager and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. It's all about the quality of your players, the commitment of your owner, and the evaluation skills and business acumen of your GM. The baseball manager manages resources, that's it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JP Hochbaum]

No you and parade and others keep thinking it is a semantic argument and its NOT. Unless the manager is a player manager, they can only increase the chances of losing not of winning.

As a computer science major one of the things I learned in logic class is that if you are increasing the chances of not losing you are increasing the chances of winning. It is set theory, that if one item is not in the first set (not losing, otherwise called winning), then it must necessarily follow that it is in the second set (not winning or called losing).

 

[SilenceS]

The Cubs are where good managers go to die. Being the oldest franchise by a few years doesn't change facts. The Cubs have been so bad for so long that, at some point, you have to stop firing managers and start looking at your organization from the top down. I'm pretty sure they've had the most managers since the 20th century. Connie Mack could be the Cubs manager and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. It's all about the quality of your players, the commitment of your owner, and the evaluation skills and business acumen of your GM. The baseball manager manages resources, that's it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You do realize that is what this whole regime is trying to do. Hence, why the Cubs are considered to still have the best farm after promotions alcantara, soler, and baez. Past gm's, past owners means absolutely nothing now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ChiSoxCity]

You do realize that is what this whole regime is trying to do. Hence, why the Cubs are considered to still have the best farm after promotions alcantara, soler, and baez. Past gm's, past owners means absolutely nothing now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since you have taken us off-topic yet again, I'll comment, then re-direct.

Considering the fact that the Cubs haven't won a championship since 1908, I wouldn't give two shits what some website says about the stupid farm system if I were a still a Cubs fan. Until you have the best big league team on the planet, you have nothing to feel good about. Cubs fans let the organization off the hook so easily, it's pathetic. Your attitude toward Epstein and Ricketts should be, "win something, then talk to me about the future". The payroll for this team should have been tripled, and the absolute best players available should have been brought in to put out that raging dumpster fire on Addison and Clark.

Now, back on topic. Re-read the last sentence in my previous post. Managers are custodians, nothing more, nothing less. Players win games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SilenceS]

Since you have taken us off-topic yet again, I'll comment, then re-direct.

Considering the fact that the Cubs haven't won a championship since 1908, I wouldn't give two shits what sime website says about the stupid farm system if I were a still a Cubs fan. Until you have the best big league team on the planet, you have nothing to feel good about. Cubs fans let the organization off the hook so easily, it's pathetic. Your attitude toward Epstein and Ricketts should be, "win something, then talk to me about the future". The payroll for this team show have been tripled, and the absolute best players available should have brought in to put out that raging dumpster fire on Addison and Clark.

Now, back on topic. Re-read the last sentence in my previous post. Managers are custodians, nothing more, nothing less. Players win games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This post shows your lack of baseball knowledge. I suggest other people ignore you because you are extremely dumb


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk