Fangraphs National League Projection's for 2015

[Parade_Rain]

Wins Above Replacement

I love WAR, so why not a WAR-based approach? By Baseball-Reference's WAR, a replacement level team has a winning percentage of .320 (52–110). If all players on the team totaled 40 WAR, then that team should be expected to win 92 games. But what if they win 96? Let's give those wins to the manager. If they win 88? Take those wins away from the manager.

Here are the top 25 managers of all time, by Wins Above Expectancy (based on WAR):

84.1 Wilbert Robinson
80.7 Mike Scioscia
67.9 Connie Mack
67.4 Bruce Bochy
62.4 Bobby Cox
53.4 John McGraw
53.0 Sparky Anderson
52.8 Felipe Alou
51.5 Al Lopez
50.0 Frank Chance
44.6 Ossie Bluege
43.4 Bill McKechnie
41.7 Ralph Houk
40.7 Fred Clarke
37.5 Jimmy Dykes
37.4 Lou Boudreau
35.2 George Gibson
33.6 Pat Moran
32.3 Joe Cronin
31.0 Dick Howser
30.9 Tony LaRussa
29.3 George Stallings
29.1 Jim Tracy
29.0 Miller Huggins
28.1 Earl Weaver
And the bottom 12:

-63.1 Gene Mauch
-52.2 Eric Wedge
-47.0 Mike Hargrove
-45.0 Lou Piniella
-39.9 Buddy Bell
-38.6 Chuck Tanner
-36.7 Cito Gaston
-32.5 Stan Hack
-31.6 Tom Kelly
-28.8 Billy Meyer
-27.2 Phil Garner
-26.4 Walter Alston

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2012/3/28/2908044/manager-wins-above-expectancy

 

[ChiSoxCity]

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

Yeah, cuz everyone knows managers win games, right? And we all know the FO is not competent enough to spend money on great players and cannot be trusted with a big payroll. Conventional wisdom serves those who are unable or unwilling to think for themselves. Kind of like the financial advice I gave you two months ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SilenceS]

Yeah, cuz everyone knows managers win games, right? And we all know the FO is not competent enough to spend money on great players and cannot be trusted with a big payroll. Conventional wisdom serves those who are unable or unwilling to think for themselves. Kind of like the financial advice I gave you two months ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have no idea who you are so, I doubt you gave me financial advice. Keep chugging my little engine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

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).

That may work in cs but does not necessarily work elsewhere. This is a two choice system where the two choices are losing and neutral. Not losing or winning.

 

[brett05]

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2012/3/28/2908044/manager-wins-above-expectancy

War doesn't work that way

 

[brett05]

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.

Never said it was...I refuted your point of bad decision making with good results means good managing.

Yes managers are playing the odds. They at times goo against those odds but they play the odds. None more so maybe in the history of baseball than Maddon himself. Listen to his intro speech again for that proof. It's not their only value however

 

[Jntg4]

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

Sure, but obviously the Cubs have had way more managers than, say, the Arizona Diamondbacks (established 1998).

 

[Parade_Rain]

War doesn't work that way

In your opinion it doesn't.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Never said it was...I refuted your point of bad decision making with good results means good managing.

You didn't refute crap. you used a game of chance in an argument regarding a game of skill.

Yes managers are playing the odds. They at times goo against those odds but they play the odds. None more so maybe in the history of baseball than Maddon himself. Listen to his intro speech again for that proof. It's not their only value however

I don't need to listen to his intro speech again. I've personally talked with players who played for him already.

 

[Boobaby1]

Interesting take from last year in comparison to two managers.


[

B]Joe Maddon vs. Robin Ventura[/B]

Tampa Bay Rays manager Joe Maddon has a reputation of being one of the smartest men in baseball, and it's well-deserved. He manages to squeeze a lot of wins out of generally undermanned ballclubs, and he does that by making good use of a very deep bag of tricks.

Chicago White Sox manager Robin Ventura is a little different. He's a players' manager and a good communicator like Maddon, but he doesn't take the same kind of hands-on approach that Maddon does.

This is especially evident in the two managers' use of infield shifts. Though the exact numbers are hard to come by (I would love a heads up as to which site tracks shift numbers, percentages, etc.), John Dewan of BillJamesOnline.com published a piece in the middle of May that showed that the Rays were shifting more than any team in baseball by a wide margin.

Maddon has won the AL Manager of the Year award twice already.

Per Dewan, the Rays had shifted 171 times by May 16. They had played 38 games by then, meaning they were shifting 4.5 times per game. That sounds about right to me.

The White Sox, on the other hand, had zero shifts at that point. None.

Conventional defensive numbers suggest that there's no reason for Ventura to shift his defense. Per ESPN.com, the White Sox rank first in all of baseball in fielding percentage, and they've made fewer errors than any team in baseball. They've only allowed 14 unearned runs all season.

The Rays, meanwhile, have made 67 errors this season, second-most in baseball. Their fielding percentage is .979, also second-worst in baseball. All those shifts don't seem to be doing them much good.

Think again. The Rays have allowed 40 unearned runs this season, but they've balanced things out by only allowing 303 earned runs, 16 fewer than the White Sox have allowed.

Much of the credit for that is owed to Tampa Bay's pitching staff, which is deeper than Chicago's. But the infield shifts have made a difference, and that difference shows up in the advanced defensive stats.

According to FanGraphs, the Rays rank second in baseball with a DRS (defensive runs saved) of +40. That's a figure that more or less counterbalances the amount of unearned runs they've allowed, as it shows that the Rays have managed to save a lot of runs when they've been able to avoid booting the ball.

Robin Ventura has worked wonders for the White Sox this season, but he qualifies as a "hands off" manager.

The White Sox have a DRS of -1. They're not quite as good defensively as their fielding percentage would lead you to believe.

If that doesn't convince you that infield shifts make a difference, perhaps another set of numbers will: batting average on ground balls.

Per Baseball-Reference.com, Rays opponents are hitting .230 when they hit the ball on the ground. For the White Sox, Baseball-Reference.com tells us that opponents are hitting .239 when they hit the ball on the ground.

That's a big disparity. Too big to be a coincidence.

There are more factors in this discussion than just infield shifts, but the reality is too hard to ignore. Baseball's most shift-happy team is saving more runs than 28 other ballclubs. Baseball's least shift-happy team isn't saving any runs.

It's worth noting that the Rays have won one more game than their Pythagorean record says they should have. The White Sox, on the other hand, have won two fewer games than their Pythagorean record says they should have.

Now, tell me if you ran the Cubs, would you have Maddon running the show, or Rick Renteria, Dale Sveum, or Mike Quade? Then ask yourself why if it doesn't mean anything? :shrug:

 

[ChiSoxCity]

Interesting take from last year in comparison to two managers.


[

Now, tell me if you ran the Cubs, would you have Maddon running the show, or Rick Renteria, Dale Sveum, or Mike Quade? Then ask yourself why if it doesn't mean anything? :shrug:

So what precisely are you trying to prove with this quote? It clearly mentions that Tampa Bay had a deeper pitching rotation, which accounts for the slight difference in earned run average. There's nothing here that conclusively proves Maddon's shifts positvely impacted the outcome of the games. The league leading errors and lowest fielding percentage could perhaps support the claim that the shifts had a negative impact on his team, all things being equal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SilenceS]

:crazydance:

 

[brett05]

In your opinion it doesn't.

Oh boy....I don't know why admitting you are wrong is so hard for you but it's your phobia

 

[brett05]

Interesting take from last year in comparison to two managers.


[

Now, tell me if you ran the Cubs, would you have Maddon running the show, or Rick Renteria, Dale Sveum, or Mike Quade? Then ask yourself why if it doesn't mean anything? :shrug:

That went right to my main point and the sub point that Parade brought in. Managers do their best to minimize mistakes. It's an odds game from the bench to help do that.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Oh boy....I don't know why admitting you are wrong is so hard for you but it's your phobia

Other people in this forum are disagreeing with you, as well. You will be ignored from this point forward.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

That may work in cs but does not necessarily work elsewhere. This is a two choice system where the two choices are losing and neutral. Not losing or winning.

Say what? Set theory works in any set where there are two outcomes, not choices. It works in any kind of two outcome situations.

 

[brett05]

Other people in this forum are disagreeing with you, as well. You will be ignored from this point forward.

Ok. I have corrected the others too. You add the war up and look what happens...it doesn't relate to team wins. When you were sensible it was nice talking with you

 

[brett05]

Say what? Set theory works in any set where there are two outcomes, not choices. It works in any kind of two outcome situations.

The outcomes are neutral and increasing losing

 

[ChiSoxCity]

Say what? Set theory works in any set where there are two outcomes, not choices. It works in any kind of two outcome situations.

Set theory has very little use in the real world; for that we use statistics. Failing to reject a hypothesis in stats does not mean that you are accepting it. It just means there is not enough evidence to reject it. Statistics quantifies probability and distributions in the real world, which is much more accurate and useful than what you are proposing. It takes into account other possibilities which may have not been considered.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

The outcomes are neutral and increasing losing

Not sure if you know this but there can't be a neutral, baseball games can't end in a tie. You're making up subjective measurements to confirm a bias.

You are trying to argue that there never exists a chance for a manager to create a run through positioning or take away runs. We have seen that through defensive shifts that averages throughout the league have drastically decreased for those types of hitters (an average of 15 percentage points).