How good is Terry Francona??

[Dojji]

Yeah, you'd said it before a few times. However, you seem to be unaware that repeating an inaccurate statement does not make it any more accurate.

 

The playoff is NOT a crapshoot. That's an excuse for big market teams whose bought-and-paid-forplayers fail to deliver an expected crown. And Tito is not as bad as you seem to believe.

[TheKilo]

I read all right.

 

And that's exactly what started the argument.

 

I've said it before.

 

The post-season is a crap-shoot, and Francona is a failure as a strategist.

 

I don't agree with this. Francona does his best work in the playoffs. Yeah, he f***ed up game 2 last season, but that's his only real blemish.

[jsc1973]

Is Terry Francona a good manager or does the players the red sox have make him look good??? Im really getting kinda pissed about how hes been coaching the last couple of years and lets face it' date=' he was crap in phili. What do you all think??[/quote']

 

With very few exceptions, a manager is not either absolutely "good" or "bad." Different managers have different strengths. Terry Francona is a good manager for the Boston Red Sox because he excels in areas that a manager of the Red Sox needs to excel in. He is good at keeping players motivated without coddling them, he handles big egos well, and he's good with the media, which is very important with the Sox.

 

As a tactician, he's probably in the middle of the pack. I don't question his handling of the bullpen; he uses them a lot, and in ways I might not, but they don't come up with sore arms. When your relievers get to September and are still throwing well, the manager did something right.

 

I don't think he was bad in Philly at all. Remember, he managed there when they were in transition. He got them after the guys from the '93 NL champs were all gone and left before Howard, Rollins, Utley, Hamels et al. were there. For three of his four years there, his third-best hitter was Rico Brogna, for crying out loud. Curt Schilling was his ace pitcher, but his No. 2 was Mark Leiter ('97), an old Mark Portugal ('98) and then a young Paul Byrd in 1999 and 2000. The rest of the rotation was total crap. Does that sound like a team that would win more than 70 games, even in a good year? Tito got 75 out of them one year and 77 in another.

[Dipre]

Yeah, you'd said it before a few times. However, you seem to be unaware that repeating an inaccurate statement does not make it any more accurate.

 

The playoff is NOT a crapshoot. That's an excuse for big market teams whose bought-and-paid-forplayers fail to deliver an expected crown. And Tito is not as bad as you seem to believe.

 

THIS is an innacurate statement.

 

The 2006 Cardinals , 2002 Angels and a plethora of other overachieving teams would agree.

 

Plz refrain from the discussion if you'll be a hypocrite, you've been known to cry because of Tito's mishaps in GTs.

 

Thanks.

 

I don't agree with this. Francona does his best work in the playoffs. Yeah' date=' he f***ed up game 2 last season, but that's his only real blemish.[/quote']

 

Still, had he not f***ed those 2 games with mistakes more suited to a rookie manager, a 3rd WS would have probably been wrong.

 

I'll say it again:

 

He's a good manager, but even winning a 3rd WS doesn't put him in the top echelong on managers because of his awful in-game strategies, stop being fanboys.

[example1]

 

I'll say it again:

 

He's a good manager, but even winning a 3rd WS doesn't put him in the top echelong on managers because of his awful in-game strategies, stop being fanboys.

 

Stengel

McCarthy

Mack

Torre

Alston

McGraw

Huggins

Anderson

 

 

8 managers with at least 3 WS victories. All of them HOF managers. I would call that the top eschelon of MLB managers.

 

1) What were the particular strategy skills of Miller Huggins and John McGraw and Walter Alston and Connie Mack? (without looking them up).

 

 

2) Would you rather have a manager who knows when to bunt or make a double switch than a manager who believes that OBP is the most important aspect of an offensive baseball team? I'm willing to bet that you would exhault managers who would bunt with a man on first 90% of the time over Francona, even though you actually know that bunting isn't the way to go.

 

I believe it is a faulty premise that being a top strategist is the main qualification for being a top manager, especially when the best way to manage a team actually involves very little bunting, very little stealing, few hit and runs, taking lots of pitches, no leeway with letting pitchers go much above 120 pitches, etc.,

 

 

 

The playoffs are a crapshoot NOT because anything can happen, but because with some variation in any particular short series the better team can lose.

 

If they were a complete crapshoot then there would be no way to explain why the Yankees would win 4 WS in a row in the 30's, or their success in the 90's. Good teams who don't blow it and whose managers manage appropriately win in the playoffs.

 

The crapshoot phrase is an easy one to latch onto, because sometimes good teams lose when they shouldn't. However, if it were completely random then there would be no way to explain teams that win multiple championships in a row without using luck as the main variable, thus making 4 championships in a row an extremely unlikely event. Those Yankees teams won because they were the best teams, that isn't debatable.

[Dipre]

Stengel

McCarthy

Mack

Torre

Alston

McGraw

Huggins

Anderson

 

 

8 managers with at least 3 WS victories. All of them HOF managers. I would call that the top eschelon of MLB managers.

 

1) What were the particular strategy skills of Miller Huggins and John McGraw and Walter Alston and Connie Mack? (without looking them up).

 

 

2) Would you rather have a manager who knows when to bunt or make a double switch than a manager who believes that OBP is the most important aspect of an offensive baseball team? I'm willing to bet that you would exhault managers who would bunt with a man on first 90% of the time over Francona, even though you actually know that bunting isn't the way to go.

 

I believe it is a faulty premise that being a top strategist is the main qualification for being a top manager, especially when the best way to manage a team actually involves very little bunting, very little stealing, few hit and runs, taking lots of pitches, no leeway with letting pitchers go much above 120 pitches, etc.,

 

 

 

The playoffs are a crapshoot NOT because anything can happen, but because with some variation in any particular short series the better team can lose.

 

If they were a complete crapshoot then there would be no way to explain why the Yankees would win 4 WS in a row in the 30's, or their success in the 90's. Good teams who don't blow it and whose managers manage appropriately win in the playoffs.

 

The crapshoot phrase is an easy one to latch onto, because sometimes good teams lose when they shouldn't. However, if it were completely random then there would be no way to explain teams that win multiple championships in a row without using luck as the main variable, thus making 4 championships in a row an extremely unlikely event. Those Yankees teams won because they were the best teams, that isn't debatable.

 

Repeating the same form of failed thought doesn't make it right.

 

11 WS wins won't make up for the fact that he's a terrible tactician.

 

That so hard to understand?

[Dojji]

Repeating the same form of failed thought doesn't make it right.

 

Indeed.

 

That so hard to understand?

 

Apparently.

[rhet]

It's all relative. You can't intelligently comment on a manager's strategic ability without seeing a lot of his games. People who see LaRussa, Torre and others every day criticize them too.

 

Tito is a better strategist than Grady Little, Jimy Williams, Kevin Kennedy, Butch Hobson, Joe Morgan, John McNamara, Ralph Houk, Don Zimmer, Darrel Johnson and Eddie Kasco.

 

Therefore, overall, I think he's a pretty good strategist.

[The_Destroyah]

but his point is that it seems to be that every other manager with that lvl of success is either in or bound for the HOF, for a manager you are judged by success, I dont care if you are a world class strategist, if you stay with the Pittsburgh Pirates for 15 years and your success is winning 80 games one year instead of 70 you are still a failure. BTW im kind of playing devils advocate, I have mixed emotions on this subject and I do belive that this subject is debatable and neither side is clearly right.

[jacksonianmarch]

As a tactician, he's bottom of the barrel. As the coach of the red sox and their wealth of talent, he's a HOF caliber manager.

[Dojji]

Tito makes a difference in exactly the areas he most needs to in order to shepherd a talented roster to the World Series. He is a master of handling the media, deflecting pressure from individual players, smoothing conflicts between players, and holding the clubhouse together. He is also, at the very worst, not so bad a strategist that it negates his other advantages.

 

In short he's got just about exactly the same managerial skillset as Joe Torre.

[YAZMAN]

Francona is great...

 

at cribbage.

[example1]

Repeating the same form of failed thought doesn't make it right.

 

11 WS wins won't make up for the fact that he's a terrible tactician.

 

That so hard to understand?

 

I think you are avoiding the substance of my post, which addresses a number of points beyond simply WS victories.

 

I don't agree that he's a terrible tactician. That's something you've said repeatedly and apparently it isn't convincing enough, given both the results on the field and his continued employment on a team that wouldn't tolerate a s***** manager.

 

Your argument is apparently that being a HOF manager isn't top eschelon. Is your argument that Casey Stengel and those others are not top managers? I bet that Tony LaRussa would disagree with you.

 

How can you call someone a terrible tactician when he does so many things that we agree are the right thing to do (not bunt a man to 2nd) which other managers who were clearly in the top eschelon did all the time? How could a manager who platoons regularly, doesn't steal bases all the time (because it is a failed strategy) and all of the other things that make up the Red Sox philosophy, be a terrible tactician, when so many HOF managers and even managers who you would certainly praise, did all the time?

 

Would you commend a manager who allows his star pitcher to throw 160 pitches? How about one who doesn't use relief pitchers, platoon hitters, steals bases at every turn, bunts guys to second whenever he can, etc.,?

 

I think you were afraid to actually address my points because you don't know how to argue against it.

 

Apparently you disagree with the OBP/not wasting outs philosophy which Francona (more than just about every other manager in baseball) understands and practices. I think your argument is ********, whether or not you agree that WS victories matter.

 

Take any measurement that might be used to qualify "top eschelon" managers (a term you used), then look at their philosophy about baseball. How many of them agree with what the Red Sox (under Terry Francona) currently do. He has a unique strategy which many of them didn't, and it clearly works and is being replicated more than eschewed.

[Dojji]

In Dipre's lexicon, a move that doesn't work is always, automatically a legendarily bad move. Whether it was the right thing to try at the time or not.

 

Ask him about last night when Tito pushed all the right buttons and it worked out well? Punk got lucky, he still sucks.

 

Any argument he makes is an exercise in justifying his prejudices.

[example1]

As a tactician' date=' he's bottom of the barrel. As the coach of the red sox and their wealth of talent, he's a HOF caliber manager.[/quote']

 

How, as a tactician, is he bottom of the barrel? What does this mean?

 

Do you believe that mangers who bunt players to second, or who waste an out in just about any way, are good tacticians?

 

I don't think you do.

 

Baseball has changed, and strategy has changed. Francona is not left behind on that strategy, he's on the cutting edge--hence his employ with one of the most cutting-edge franchises throughout nearly the duration of Theo Epstein's tenure.

 

You guys are outthinking yourselves. Jacko, I think you are right that he's a HOF caliber manager. I think you are putting too much weight on so-called tactics. There are few tactics to use if you actually understand how the game is played--that's one of the lessons Bill James espouses. You don't waste outs, ever. You don't abuse pitchers, ever. You platoon when the numbers back up platooning, and don't when they don't. Francona does all of these things. That's the crux of this argument.

 

There are few tactics that are actually used in baseball managing. Have his lineups led to poor results? No. Have his pitchers regularly ended up injured? No. Have new acquisitions failed to thrive in a difficult environment? No. Have players avoided going to Boston because they didn't want to play for Tito? No, in fact Tito was a main reason that Schilling went to Boston.

[example1]

In Dipre's lexicon, a move that doesn't work is always, automatically a legendarily bad move. Whether it was the right thing to try at the time or not.

 

Ask him about last night when Tito pushed all the right buttons and it worked out well? Punk got lucky, he still sucks.

 

Any argument he makes is an exercise in justifying his prejudices.

 

Last nights game was LITERALLY won with 3 s***** shortstops contributing when nobody else would have thought they could. Lowrie got a key single (could have been a game winning double). Green got a key walk (thanks ump, thanks Tito for hitting him for Kotchman). Gonzalez got a bloop base hit. The first two moves had me groaning, yet this team won, again, and that win may have cemented their playoff birth. I imagine the Rangers watching that game in their clubhouse and hanging their heads.

[Dipre]

As a tactician' date=' he's bottom of the barrel. As the coach of the red sox and their wealth of talent, he's a HOF caliber manager.[/quote']

 

This.

 

Francona is great...

 

at cribbage.

 

This.

 

In Dipre's lexicon, a move that doesn't work is always, automatically a legendarily bad move. Whether it was the right thing to try at the time or not.

 

Ask him about last night when Tito pushed all the right buttons and it worked out well? Punk got lucky, he still sucks.

 

Any argument he makes is an exercise in justifying his prejudices.

 

In Doiji's lexicon, Rainbows and unicorns are a standard of realism.

 

Like i've said may a times before, he's a good overall manager whose tactical skills are questionable.

 

Stop putting words in my mouth, troll.

 

Last night= Biggest.Sample.Size.Ever.

[Dipre]

How, as a tactician, is he bottom of the barrel? What does this mean?

 

Do you believe that mangers who bunt players to second, or who waste an out in just about any way, are good tacticians?

 

I don't think you do.

 

Baseball has changed, and strategy has changed. Francona is not left behind on that strategy, he's on the cutting edge--hence his employ with one of the most cutting-edge franchises throughout nearly the duration of Theo Epstein's tenure.

 

You guys are outthinking yourselves. Jacko, I think you are right that he's a HOF caliber manager. I think you are putting too much weight on so-called tactics. There are few tactics to use if you actually understand how the game is played--that's one of the lessons Bill James espouses. You don't waste outs, ever. You don't abuse pitchers, ever. You platoon when the numbers back up platooning, and don't when they don't. Francona does all of these things. That's the crux of this argument.

 

There are few tactics that are actually used in baseball managing. Have his lineups led to poor results? No. Have his pitchers regularly ended up injured? No. Have new acquisitions failed to thrive in a difficult environment? No. Have players avoided going to Boston because they didn't want to play for Tito? No, in fact Tito was a main reason that Schilling went to Boston.

 

*SIgh*.

 

I give up.

[Dojji]

This.

 

 

 

This.

 

 

 

In Doiji's lexicon, Rainbows and unicorns are a standard of realism.

 

Like i've said may a times before, he's a good overall manager whose tactical skills are questionable.

 

Stop putting words in my mouth, troll.

 

Last night= Biggest.Sample.Size.Ever.

 

I can't be accused of putting words in your mouth when in an attempt to refute those words you wind up saying the exact same thing.

[Dipre]

I can't be accused of putting words in your mouth when in an attempt to refute those words you wind up saying the exact same thing.

 

Again, you need to read before stating your opinions.

 

Dipre says:

 

"Francona's a good manager, who has the flaw of being a bad tactician, therefore even if he wins the series this year, he's not up to the standards of a Tony LaRussa."

 

Doiji:

 

"Dipre hates Francona. He hates everyone". *Cries*

 

Call the Waaaaaaaaambulance plz.

[Dipre]

I think you are avoiding the substance of my post, which addresses a number of points beyond simply WS victories.

 

I don't agree that he's a terrible tactician. That's something you've said repeatedly and apparently it isn't convincing enough, given both the results on the field and his continued employment on a team that wouldn't tolerate a s***** manager.

 

Your argument is apparently that being a HOF manager isn't top eschelon. Is your argument that Casey Stengel and those others are not top managers? I bet that Tony LaRussa would disagree with you.

 

How can you call someone a terrible tactician when he does so many things that we agree are the right thing to do (not bunt a man to 2nd) which other managers who were clearly in the top eschelon did all the time? How could a manager who platoons regularly, doesn't steal bases all the time (because it is a failed strategy) and all of the other things that make up the Red Sox philosophy, be a terrible tactician, when so many HOF managers and even managers who you would certainly praise, did all the time?

 

Would you commend a manager who allows his star pitcher to throw 160 pitches? How about one who doesn't use relief pitchers, platoon hitters, steals bases at every turn, bunts guys to second whenever he can, etc.,?

 

I think you were afraid to actually address my points because you don't know how to argue against it.

 

Apparently you disagree with the OBP/not wasting outs philosophy which Francona (more than just about every other manager in baseball) understands and practices. I think your argument is ********, whether or not you agree that WS victories matter.

 

Take any measurement that might be used to qualify "top eschelon" managers (a term you used), then look at their philosophy about baseball. How many of them agree with what the Red Sox (under Terry Francona) currently do. He has a unique strategy which many of them didn't, and it clearly works and is being replicated more than eschewed.

 

Nope, i'm not addressing your points because they're ridiculous, honestly.

[Dojji]

http://www.3simplerules.com/images/digging.jpg

 

Keep digging.

[The_Destroyah]

Nope' date=' i'm not addressing your points because they're ridiculous, honestly.[/quote']

 

well you could atleast give valid points on why they are ridiculous, he has points worth adressing...

[Dipre]

well you could atleast give valid points on why they are ridiculous' date=' he has points worth adressing...[/quote']

 

Points already stated.

 

Francona is not an "Awful, awful manager *cries*" as Doiji says i said.

 

It's as simple as this:

 

How can you compare LaRussa's 2500+ wins to Terry Francona's 841 in all seriousness?

 

Simple as that.

 

Answer me that in a simple, concrete manner without "He'll win 3 WS" arguments.

 

Also, Francona's tactical ineffectiveness is palpable.

 

If i'm making it up, please call me out on it with a convincing argument.

[Dojji]

I read all right.

 

And that's exactly what started the argument.

 

I've said it before.

 

The post-season is a crap-shoot, and Francona is a failure as a strategist.

[Dipre]

http://www.3simplerules.com/images/digging.jpg

 

Keep digging.

 

Images with macros?

 

As per the new rules, these are not permitted, just like your obvious baiting attempts in a discussion that didn't feature you in the first place.

 

Who's digging?

[Dipre]

The post-season is a crap-shoot' date=' and Francona is a failure as a [b']strategist[/b].

 

Reading is fun.

[Dojji]

Strategy is not the same thing as tactics. Tito's strategy (general policy on how to run a season) is excellent and generally leaves us in great shape for the postseason.

 

The only thing you can even criticize is his tactics, which are average.

[Dipre]

They might just be the least important.

 

Anyone can learn or be helped in managing a bullpen, not anyone can handle the Boston media with the blunt honesty and patience that Terry Francona does, while never throwing any of his players under the bus and always helping them and supporting them. The media sees as a straightforward gamer who always has a solid explanation for his moves, and the players see him as a friend and father figure who always has their backs.

 

Those characteristics are invaluable.

 

If you don't believe it, ask Joe Girardi.

 

Since we're quoting.

 

This is my original take on Francona.

 

I never said he was not a good manager as Doiji would have you believe with his word-twisting machine.

 

And in-game managing is not the most important facet of the game.

 

However, when saying a manager is as good as another, one, he has to be as good in every aspect of the game.

 

Again, how can you compare Francona to LaRussa with a straight face?

 

It baffles me.

[Dipre]

Strategy is not the same thing as tactics. Tito's strategy is excellent and generally leaves us in great shape for the postseason.

 

The only thing you can even criticize is his tactics, which are average.

 

Please spell the differences, Doiji.

 

And again, would you consider LaRussa's tactics "average"?