Fangraphs National League Projection's for 2015

[Parade_Rain]

:aj:

 

[SilenceS]

What is going on here? Of course, players are the physical part of the game. They take the at bats, run the bases, field, and pitch. But, managers have a say in the outcome of a game. The manager is supposed to put his team in the best position to succeed in situations. They come up with the game plans. They come up with the attack plans. They make the decisions who faces who. They make the decisions on who sits. They make the decisions on defensive shifts. They handle the innings pitched by their players. They are the definition of a manager. Without a good manager, a team is very unlikely to succeed. They are the chief and ballplayers are the Indians and whenever that gets distorted. Problems occur and teams dont play together.

This whole they can lose it, but not win it makes little sense. Physically they can not. Mentally they very much can. But, lets put it in perspective. People believe managers only affect about 5 to 10 games a season with in game coaching. That can be very significant when it comes to the playoff hunt. Now, if we start talking about everything. Managers can have a huge affect on a team. Maddon has proven he can take young players and grow them into stars. He has shown he can take less talent and make them competitive by playing fundamentally sound ball. Maddon is 10x the coach Renteria is right now presently. Not a knock on RR. Maddon just has the track record to prove it.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

As near as a I can tell there is only one poster in this thread that seems to think a manager makes no difference and that's absurd so I'm not paying him much mind. The rest of us are just arguing on how he makes a difference. Most hardcore stats guys tell me that a manager make a +/- 2 game difference give or take, some go as high as 3, and frankly what I've been saying is that I don't think they're entirely wrong, they're just looking at it way too narrowly. Listen I'm ecstatic that Joe Maddon is in Chicago, I think this guy is one of the best in the game and, sure, part of that is innovation in terms of shifts and what not, but his real strength is that the guy can clearly manage people. He doesn't tell his guys not to come to the park 4 hours early to sit around, or hang around for hours after a game just because, he does it because he thinks that behavior detracts from performance. Other managers have other things that set them apart. Managing people is hard and takes a lot of experience, Rick Renteria didn't have a lot of that even though he had been in the game a long time. It's the difference between knowing what motivates one guy and maybe not the guy in the locker next to him or knowing your guys well enough that sitting one guy for a game or two will allow him to get some rest and benefit his game while doing it with another guy could crush his spirit and hurt his development. Oh and let's not even talk about the differences between managing a guy who makes $500K vs the guy who makes $11 million. It's in these ways that Joe Maddon will make his mark. You can't win without talent but you can certainly lose early and often if the talent isn't managed correctly. Managers matter, you just have to look at the bigger picture.

 

[brett05]

What is going on here? Of course, players are the physical part of the game. They take the at bats, run the bases, field, and pitch. But, managers have a say in the outcome of a game. The manager is supposed to put his team in the best position to succeed in situations. They come up with the game plans. They come up with the attack plans. They make the decisions who faces who. They make the decisions on who sits. They make the decisions on defensive shifts. They handle the innings pitched by their players. They are the definition of a manager. Without a good manager, a team is very unlikely to succeed. They are the chief and ballplayers are the Indians and whenever that gets distorted. Problems occur and teams dont play together.

So far I am in 100% agreement with you.

This whole they can lose it, but not win it makes little sense. Physically they can not.

And that's it. Stop right here. Nothing they can do to win physically. The game is only won physically.

Mentally they very much can.

there are no mental wins. Just physical ones.

But, lets put it in perspective. People believe managers only affect about 5 to 10 games a season with in game coaching. That can be very significant when it comes to the playoff hunt. Now, if we start talking about everything. Managers can have a huge affect on a team. Maddon has proven he can take young players and grow them into stars. He has shown he can take less talent and make them competitive by playing fundamentally sound ball. Maddon is 10x the coach Renteria is right now presently. Not a knock on RR. Maddon just has the track record to prove it.

I totally am with this. Look I wanted Maddon too on the South Side so in case someone thinks I am downing Maddon, I am not. That said, he minimizes mistakes and helps cultivate the best out of his team. That is what managing is all about. If you do it right, there are no losses attributed to the manager. Each mistake from that ideal is a step toward increased losing. Maddon probably does make less mistakes than Renteria. No debate there. Thus he minimizes the losses contributed to managing.

Worth stating one more time. But since he can do nothing physically that will allow the team win, he's at best neutral which is what every team wants.

 

[brett05]

As near as a I can tell there is only one poster in this thread that seems to think a manager makes no difference and that's absurd so I'm not paying him much mind. The rest of us are just arguing on how he makes a difference. Most hardcore stats guys tell me that a manager make a +/- 2 game difference give or take, some go as high as 3, and frankly what I've been saying is that I don't think they're entirely wrong, they're just looking at it way too narrowly. Listen I'm ecstatic that Joe Maddon is in Chicago, I think this guy is one of the best in the game and, sure, part of that is innovation in terms of shifts and what not, but his real strength is that the guy can clearly manage people. He doesn't tell his guys not to come to the park 4 hours early to sit around, or hang around for hours after a game just because, he does it because he thinks that behavior detracts from performance. Other managers have other things that set them apart. Managing people is hard and takes a lot of experience, Rick Renteria didn't have a lot of that even though he had been in the game a long time. It's the difference between knowing what motivates one guy and maybe not the guy in the locker next to him or knowing your guys well enough that sitting one guy for a game or two will allow him to get some rest and benefit his game while doing it with another guy could crush his spirit and hurt his development. Oh and let's not even talk about the differences between managing a guy who makes $500K vs the guy who makes $11 million. It's in these ways that Joe Maddon will make his mark. You can win without talent but you can certainly lose early and often if the talent isn't managed correctly. Managers matter, you just have to look at the bigger picture.

It's what I have been saying all along. I said if the managers make the right decision it's in the players hands to win. If they lose while the manager makes the right calls it's the GM's fault. If the manager makes some mistakes, the team can win, it's just less likely. The affect of a perfect manager is zero on wins with each wrong decision detracting from the talent on the field to overcome.

 

[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 ...

Completely agree

 

[Parade_Rain]

A manager does physically impact game day, unless you think signaling a shift and moving the player into proper defensive position is just mental, which it isn't. A manager impacts the outcome of each game positively and negatively. Neutral isn't the start. Neutral is 100 and then every missed opportunity after that. Which manager is the 100%? Is there a sliding scale? Neutral to outcome makes zero sense.

 

[brett05]

A manager does physically impact game day, unless you think signaling a shift and moving the player into proper defensive position is just mental, which it isn't. A manager impacts the outcome of each game positively and negatively. Neutral isn't the start. Neutral is 100 and then every missed opportunity after that. Which manager is the 100%? Is there a sliding scale? Neutral to outcome makes zero sense.

It makes perfect sense since the manager even with the shift does not hit, pitch, or field the ball. With today's info the shift is good unless they misread or overplay the shift. Than it has a negative affect. Your hope is that the team does not lose because of managerial mistakes. that is not winning. The shift causes no runs to cross the plate. That is why the manager physically does nothing to a team's win.

 

[ChiSoxCity]

Cubs fans have an amazing ability to forget the past. Look how many managers the Cubs have had the past 10 years. All of them, with the exception of Pinella, got fired because the teams weren't winning games. People who know baseball will tell you the reason the Cubs weren't winning is they had bad players with bad contracts. This has been the story with the Cubs for a long time. So we have yet another manager come here, and everyone expects him to do something that no manager has ever done; turn the Cubs into a winning team. Well, that may happen, and I hope it does honestly. But it won't be because of Joe Maddon's amazing "shifts" or his lineup cards. It will happen only if the FO does whatever is necessary to put championship caliber players on the field at Maddon's disposal, and said players play the game the right way, i.e. no stupid base running, lousy at bats, mediocre pitching, and everything else I've seen since I was 10 years old. The fucking Cubs haven't won anything since 1908, and that is a disgrace. The FO should not be sitting around waiting for bunch of prospects to develop into everyday mlb players. Managers are important, but no manager can win with lousy players.

 

[SilenceS]

Cubs fans have an amazing ability to forget the past. Look how many managers the Cubs have had the past 10 years. All of them, with the exception of Pinella, got fired because the teams weren't winning games. People who know baseball will tell you the reason the Cubs weren't winning is they had bad players with bad contracts. This has been the story with the Cubs for a long time. So we have yet another manager come here, and everyone expects him to do something that no manager has ever done; turn the Cubs into a winning team. Well, that may happen, and I hope it does honestly. But it won't be because of Joe Maddon's amazing "shifts" or his lineup cards. It will happen only if the FO does whatever is necessary to put championship caliber players on the field at Maddon's disposal, and said players play the game the right way, i.e. no stupid base running, lousy at bats, mediocre pitching, and everything else I've seen since I was 10 years old. The fucking Cubs haven't won anything since 1908, and that is a disgrace. The FO should not be sitting around waiting for bunch of prospects to develop into everyday mlb players. Managers are important, but no manager can win with lousy players.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Cubs fans have an amazing ability to forget the past. Look how many managers the Cubs have had the past 10 years. All of them, with the exception of Pinella, got fired because the teams weren't winning games. People who know baseball will tell you the reason the Cubs weren't winning is they had bad players with bad contracts. This has been the story with the Cubs for a long time. So we have yet another manager come here, and everyone expects him to do something that no manager has ever done; turn the Cubs into a winning team. Well, that may happen, and I hope it does honestly. But it won't be because of Joe Maddon's amazing "shifts" or his lineup cards. It will happen only if the FO does whatever is necessary to put championship caliber players on the field at Maddon's disposal, and said players play the game the right way, i.e. no stupid base running, lousy at bats, mediocre pitching, and everything else I've seen since I was 10 years old. The fucking Cubs haven't won anything since 1908, and that is a disgrace. The FO should not be sitting around waiting for bunch of prospects to develop into everyday mlb players. Managers are important, but no manager can win with lousy players.

Please leave here and go to the Sox forum.

 

[Parade_Rain]

It makes perfect sense since the manager even with the shift does not hit, pitch, or field the ball. With today's info the shift is good unless they misread or overplay the shift. Than it has a negative affect. Your hope is that the team does not lose because of managerial mistakes. that is not winning. The shift causes no runs to cross the plate. That is why the manager physically does nothing to a team's win.

 

[brett05]

you misunderstood and I can see how you read it the way you did. Let me rephrase. The shift actually causes no one to score a run which is what is needed to actually win the game. It does not pitch, catch, or hit the ball. It may provide a better opportunity to get an out, but it's the players that are doing that, not the manager. The manager puts the play in but the players must execute it.

 

[Parade_Rain]

And if he didn't put the play in the other team may have gotten a hit. Your position on scoring indicates that American League pitchers can only be neutral or account for losses, as nothing they do scores runs.

 

[chibears55]

Cubs fans have an amazing ability to forget the past. Look how many managers the Cubs have had the past 10 years. All of them, with the exception of Pinella, got fired because the teams weren't winning games. People who know baseball will tell you the reason the Cubs weren't winning is they had bad players with bad contracts. This has been the story with the Cubs for a long time. So we have yet another manager come here, and everyone expects him to do something that no manager has ever done; turn the Cubs into a winning team. Well, that may happen, and I hope it does honestly. But it won't be because of Joe Maddon's amazing "shifts" or his lineup cards. It will happen only if the FO does whatever is necessary to put championship caliber players on the field at Maddon's disposal, and said players play the game the right way, i.e. no stupid base running, lousy at bats, mediocre pitching, and everything else I've seen since I was 10 years old. The fucking Cubs haven't won anything since 1908, and that is a disgrace. The FO should not be sitting around waiting for bunch of prospects to develop into everyday mlb players. Managers are important, but no manager can win with lousy players.

Is this that salami character?

 

[ChiSoxCity]

No, what he does is minimize mistakes. Managers don't win ball games. It's a myth you need to stop.

You're not telling me anything. What specifically did I "gloss over?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

And if he didn't put the play in the other team may have gotten a hit. Your position on scoring indicates that American League pitchers can only be neutral or account for losses, as nothing they do scores runs.

Any movement of the ball directly by a player is contributing to a win

 

[brett05]

You're not telling me anything. What specifically did I "gloss over?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think we are disagreeing

 

[Parade_Rain]

Any movement of the ball directly by a player is contributing to a win

Wrong. That movement could be a passed ball or a wild pitch or a wild throw on a bunt that wasn't fielded properly. A pitcher can come into the game in relief, put a man on base, get replaced by a different relief pitcher and that runner not score. That first relief pitcher had no effect on the won or the loss. Neutral move by both the manager and the player.

 

[brett05]

Wrong. That movement could be a passed ball or a wild pitch or a wild throw on a bunt that wasn't fielded properly. A pitcher can come into the game in relief, put a man on base, get replaced by a different relief pitcher and that runner not score. That first relief pitcher had no effect on the won or the loss. Neutral move by both the manager and the player.

Oh boy....