How good is Terry Francona??

[The_Destroyah]

Exactly.

 

Anyways, the definitions given to me by T_D are business-administration specific.

 

I'm still fairly certain strategy and tactics are the same thing, specially in military terms, either that, or the significance varies between spanish and english.

 

E-Mailed a friend of mine who is currently taking a Military History class and he said that the same philosophy applies to Military history, and I do remember some of that from Boot Camp. They are different, Strategy is your philosophy over the longterm and tactics are how you deal with day-to-day situations.

[Dojji]

In baseball terms, then, strategy is planning and executing a big-picture plan to ensure that everyone has enough rest and enough work and is being used right so that the team makes the playoffs and is healthy enough to make noise once they get there.

 

Tactics is in game moves designed to pull off an individual game or series win. And there's probably some things stuck in the middle, like bullpen and bench management, that have both strategic and tactical elements.

 

Tito is an excellent long term strategist who has proven himself very willing to forego short term gain for long term benefit. He manages the tactical aspects of the bench and bullpen reasonably. Most of the areas you can fault him fall under not going for the best chance to win any individual game. His strategic strength and his tactical weakness are the same thing.

[Emmz]

I never read anything about the differences between them, and to be honest, people use the words interchangeably every day

[Dipre]

E-Mailed a friend of mine who is currently taking a Military History class and he said that the same philosophy applies to Military history' date=' and I do remember some of that from Boot Camp. They are different, Strategy is your philosophy over the longterm and tactics are how you deal with day-to-day situations.[/quote']

 

Ah yes, language difference, i asked my mother (who's a spanish teacher and linguist) and the difference lies in the fact that in spanish tactics and strategy are perfect synonyms, and for the word you refer to as tactics, we use "Planeamiento militar" in military issues, which roughly translates as "military planning".

[Dojji]

So the language barrier was a bigger issue than I thought it should be.

 

I apologize for being a jerk about it then. You had a reason to be confused that I wasn't seeing.

[Dipre]

In baseball terms, then, strategy is planning and executing a big-picture plan to ensure that everyone has enough rest and enough work and is being used right so that the team makes the playoffs and is healthy enough to make noise once they get there.

 

Tactics is in game moves designed to pull off an individual game or series win. And there's probably some things stuck in the middle, like bullpen and bench management, that have both strategic and tactical elements.

 

Tito is an excellent long term strategist who has proven himself very willing to forego short term gain for long term benefit. He manages the tactical aspects of the bench and bullpen reasonably. Most of the areas you can fault him fall under not going for the best chance to win any individual game. His strategic strength and his tactical weakness are the same thing.

 

Grasping at straws.

 

So, by your account, his weakness in game-to-game "Tactics" are not a very recognizable flaw?

 

Besides, how about his "Tactic" of not PH for Varitek when he was mired in his slump during crucial situations, specially on days Drew was ready from the bench and the LHP was out of the ballgame?

 

How about his "Tactic" of leaving a SP or RP after it's clear he has nothing on the ball. This i cannot stress enough.

 

How about the "Tactic" of constructing completely "B" lineups when he could space out rest between regulars more evenly. (Last night being the exception.)

 

How about his "Tactic" of never playing small-ball to manufacture a run when needed, i nearly crapped my pant's watching last night's game because of it.

[The_Destroyah]

Ah yes' date=' language difference, i asked my mother (who's a spanish teacher and linguist) and the difference lies in the fact that in spanish tactics and strategy are perfect synonyms, and for the word you refer to as tactics, we use "Planeamiento militar" in military issues, which roughly translates as "military planning".[/quote']

 

understood, and they are very similar. Sun Tzu (author of the famous "Art Of War") says there can be tactics without Strategy but their cannot be Strategy without Tactics.

 

as far as how it translates to baseball I dont know, but If we use the words Long term Strategy and In Game Strategy it should cut down on confusion.

[Dipre]

understood, and they are very similar. Sun Tzu (author of the famous "Art Of War") says there can be tactics without Strategy but their cannot be Strategy without Tactics.

 

as far as how it translates to baseball I dont know, but If we use the words Long term Strategy and In Game Strategy it should cut down on confusion.

 

This is exactly how i feel.

[The_Destroyah]

as far as that goes I feel that his Long Term Strategy is above par and his In Game Strategy for the most part under par, although I think some (key word here is SOME) of that is overrated and not responsible for very many tallies in the Loss Column.

[rhet]

Look, this is all just opinion. Just because Dipre and some others think he's a s***** strategist/tactician doesn't make it so. And it doesn't matter how stupid they think those who disagree with them are. They're not changing any minds by calling people names.

 

I happen to think they're wrong, but I respect their right to their flawed opinions. -g-

[The_Destroyah]

I however feel that his lack of In-Game Strategy hurt his performance in the NL (Phillies)

[The_Destroyah]

Look, this is all just opinion. Just because Dipre and some others think he's a s***** strategist doesn't make it so. And it doesn't matter how stupid they think those who disagree with them are. They're not changing any minds by calling people names.

 

I happen to think they're wrong, but I respect their right to their flawed opinions.

 

although he has shown a lack of ability to make good moves in certain situations, he isnt among the worst managers in this area (IMO) and I still think he is among the better managers in the league overall and has shown his ability to win with this team and its philosophy.

[Dipre]

Look, this is all just opinion. Just because Dipre and some others think he's a s***** strategist/tactician doesn't make it so. And it doesn't matter how stupid they think those who disagree with them are. They're not changing any minds by calling people names.

 

I happen to think they're wrong, but I respect their right to their flawed opinions. -g-

 

Well i respect your right to a flawed opinion too, and i'm not calling you nay names.

 

Besides the fact that you miss the point of the argument, my good sir, so stick to it.

 

Is Terry Francona as good a manager as Tony LaRussa?

[The_Destroyah]

Well i respect your right to a flawed opinion too, and i'm not calling you nay names.

 

Besides the fact that you miss the point of the argument, my good sir, so stick to it.

 

Is Terry Francona as good a manager as Tony LaRussa?

 

probably not but I think he still has a lengthy career ahead of him and direct comparisons inbetween managers is hard to do, especially when a manager is hired because of how he fits with the said team not JUST because of certain success in teams with differing philosophies, and I happen to believe Tito is a better manager for Boston than LaRussa is and Vice Versa.

[Dipre]

probably not but I think he still has a lengthy career ahead of him and direct comparisons inbetween managers is hard to do' date=' especially when a manager is hired because of how he fits with the said team not JUST because of certain success in teams with differing philosophies, and I happen to believe Tito is a better manager for Boston than LaRussa is and Vice Versa.[/quote']

 

This is sensible.

[YAZMAN]

I however feel that his lack of In-Game Strategy hurt his performance in the NL (Phillies)

 

By design, the NL managers have to be better, they have far less talent to work with.

[example1]

If we're talking about "in game" decisions, I would rather have a manager who manages like Francona than one who sacrifices and sends runners all the time. LaRussa may not do those things every time, but plenty of all-time-great managers did. It is poor decision making both in theory and in retrospect and is something that Francona deserves credit for, even if it lies below the surface more than 'active' managing does.

 

In order to be as good as someone else I don't believe that one needs to be as good or better in all areas that can be measured. Perhaps LaRussa is better at choosing when to bunt or when to send the runner or pull the double switch. I think Tito is possibly better with sticking to a proven and sabermetric approach to the game, picking guys for particular situations and getting good matchups in big games.

 

They both have dealt with egos well (though I contend that Tito has done it in a more difficult setting than LaRussa over the past 5 years), but they're in different environments.

 

Dipre, if you weren't such a sharp guy and an overall good poster I would have tolerated your "lol, no" comment. I responded because I wanted to be convinced otherwise and I know you have the knowledge to do it. I think we can agree to disagree at this point, but my desire for more of your opinion was based on respect for your knowledge of the game, not because I wanted to pick on you or be an attention whore. I find it frustrating to get curt "duh!" kind of answers when it is a topic that is both subjective and clearly debatable. To me, the discussion was much more akin to "who's better, Pedro in his prime or Walter Johnson in his prime?" than it is to "which is the more accomplished franchise, the Yankees or the Rangers?".

 

The first is something that can lead to discussion, the second is just stupid. Clearly, this discussion came from someplace and I have appreciated it greatly. No hard feelings, I hope. :thumbsup:

[example1]

probably not but I think he still has a lengthy career ahead of him and direct comparisons inbetween managers is hard to do' date=' especially when a manager is hired because of how he fits with the said team not JUST because of certain success in teams with differing philosophies, and I happen to believe Tito is a better manager for Boston than LaRussa is and Vice Versa.[/quote']

 

As Dipre said, this is sensible. If Francona manages in Boston for 20 years I expect that he would have more WS titles, more playoff appearances, a better win %, a better W-L record and more career wins than LaRussa has. He may not have done as well in St. Louis or in the NL with a team that liked "small ball", and LaRussa may not have done as well as Francona in a media frenzied town like Boston.

[Dojji]

Boston seems to love its softspoken coaches. All of Doc Rivers, Tito, Claude Julien, and even Bill Belichick are guys who are better known as quiet workdoers than as bombastic Lou Pinella types.

 

I wonder if there's a reason for that beyond coincidence.

[The_Destroyah]

Boston seems to love its softspoken coaches. All of Doc Rivers, Tito, Claude Julien, and even Bill Belichick are guys who are better known as quiet workdoers than as bombastic Lou Pinella types.

 

I wonder if there's a reason for that beyond coincidence.

 

especially since it seems to be the opposit philosophy the fanbase has with players lol.

[Dojji]

especially since it seems to be the opposit philosophy the fanbase has with players lol.

 

Maybe that's partly why. A good Boston coach makes it all about the team, not all about him.

[TheKilo]

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.

 

The 2002 Angels were a damn good team. Their pythagorean W-L was 101-61 and they won 99 games. Not even close to an overachieving team.

 

 

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.

 

He messed up Game 2. What other game did he mess up? No one wins every time in the playoffs. How many times has LaRussa failed?

 

And if you could knock down the condescending attitude a notch or two that'd be awesome, too.

[The_Destroyah]

Maybe that's partly why. A good Boston coach makes it all about the team' date=' not all about him.[/quote']

 

It makes sense...although Belicheck and Rivers mean more to their team than any manager does to a baseball team, Baseball Managers while they serve a purpose are probably the most useless coaches in any of the professional sports, dont get me wrong a good manager is a blessing but a good FB or basketball coach is a must for most championship teams.

[TheKilo]

*SIgh*.

 

I give up.

 

He's not wrong. Name all of the strategies Francona can use.

 

OOOH THE DOUBLE SWITCH!!!1

[Dojji]

It makes sense...although Belicheck and Rivers mean more to their team than any manager does to a baseball team' date=' Baseball Managers while they serve a purpose are probably the most useless coaches in any of the professional sports, dont get me wrong a good manager is a blessing but a good FB or basketball coach is a must for most championship teams.[/quote']

 

They ARE that important, but do they ACT as if they were? Ask him about a good play on the field, the first thing any of our coaches will do is praise the player. the second thing they'll do is praise the player.

[The_Destroyah]

They ARE that important' date=' but do they ACT as if they were? Ask him about a good play on the field, the first thing any of our coaches will do is praise the player. the second thing they'll do is praise the player.[/quote']

 

yeah, but that should be the philosophy of most coaches, coaches should rest praise on the players shoulders and blame on theirs (atleast in public) and then leave the critisism behind closed doors.

[Dojji]

It's the hallmark of good coaches. Not of all coaches.

[The_Destroyah]

It's the hallmark of good coaches. Not of all coaches.

 

yeah thats why I said Should, unfortunately there are some that dont have this mentality.

but then again there are those like Singletary, who I feel will be a great coach, that dont necisarrily have that attitude.

[Dojji]

I don't think a guy like that could survive in the Boston fishbowl.

[Dipre]

If we're talking about "in game" decisions, I would rather have a manager who manages like Francona than one who sacrifices and sends runners all the time. LaRussa may not do those things every time, but plenty of all-time-great managers did. It is poor decision making both in theory and in retrospect and is something that Francona deserves credit for, even if it lies below the surface more than 'active' managing does.

 

In order to be as good as someone else I don't believe that one needs to be as good or better in all areas that can be measured. Perhaps LaRussa is better at choosing when to bunt or when to send the runner or pull the double switch. I think Tito is possibly better with sticking to a proven and sabermetric approach to the game, picking guys for particular situations and getting good matchups in big games.

 

They both have dealt with egos well (though I contend that Tito has done it in a more difficult setting than LaRussa over the past 5 years), but they're in different environments.

 

Dipre, if you weren't such a sharp guy and an overall good poster I would have tolerated your "lol, no" comment. I responded because I wanted to be convinced otherwise and I know you have the knowledge to do it. I think we can agree to disagree at this point, but my desire for more of your opinion was based on respect for your knowledge of the game, not because I wanted to pick on you or be an attention whore. I find it frustrating to get curt "duh!" kind of answers when it is a topic that is both subjective and clearly debatable. To me, the discussion was much more akin to "who's better, Pedro in his prime or Walter Johnson in his prime?" than it is to "which is the more accomplished franchise, the Yankees or the Rangers?".

 

The first is something that can lead to discussion, the second is just stupid. Clearly, this discussion came from someplace and I have appreciated it greatly. No hard feelings, I hope. :thumbsup:

 

Lol , this discussion was long and interesting enough to wash away any feeling of anger i may have had.

 

If spark discussion was your intent, well done.