Farrell

[a700hitter]

You tried to make it look like Zimmer had something significant to do with Torre winning championships. But you failed to mention that Torre did not win another championship after 2000 with Zimmer still on the bench until 2003. So he stopped winning championships for 3 years before Zimmer left.

He never made it to the World Series without Zimmer. So yes, Torre achieved very little without Zimmer on the bench. I am asserting that. In 2001, they got to the 9th inning of the 7th game of the World Series. In 2003, they ran into a hot Josh Beckett.

[Kimmi]

I was reading an article that made a very good point that managerial impact is very similar to clutch hitting. It is not a repeatable skill. Five areas of managerial impact were looked at:

 

1. In game strategies like IBBs, bunts, stolen bases

2. Team wins and losses relative to run differential or expected wins and losses

3. Playing time distribution

4. In game substitutions, including relief pitchers

5. Coaching of players

 

There was no evidence of repeatable skill in any of those areas. In other words, individual performances of managers varied so much in each category that their results are likely due more to - wait for it........ - randomness, than anything else.

[Kimmi]

Personally I don't think Kimbrel warming up with a 4 run lead is panicky. A 4 run lead in Fenway can vanish in about 5 minutes.

 

Not only that, but Kimbrel hadn't pitched in forever. He needs some work.

[Kimmi]

OB + Lyons = me changing the channel

 

The biggest mistake of the past few years was getting rid of Orsillo. That includes the garbage contract signings and terrible trades. At least Don and Jerry could make a boring game interesting at times.

 

Don and Jerry were the best.

[Kimmi]

Being responsible is not the same as having control of player performances that take place in each game. Farrell can prepare his players to succeed, but he can't make them succeed. Managers are more often fired as scapegoats than they are actually directly responsible for team performance. Only obvious buffoons like Bobby Valentine get themselves fired by drawing negative attention to themselves. The rest are mostly at the mercy of the talent they are given to work with. Most of the so-called good and great managers have had their share of losing records.

 

GM's are most responsible for the talent of the team that is on the field, but not as often fired as a result of poor performance.

 

That's the bottom line. For the most part, if a manager has good players, he will win games. If he doesn't, he won't.

 

You made another good point in another post. Sometimes a manager makes the absolute right decision and it doesn't work out, or vice versa.

[a700hitter]

I was reading an article that made a very good point that managerial impact is very similar to clutch hitting. It is not a repeatable skill. Five areas of managerial impact were looked at:

 

1. In game strategies like IBBs, bunts, stolen bases

2. Team wins and losses relative to run differential or expected wins and losses

3. Playing time distribution

4. In game substitutions, including relief pitchers

5. Coaching of players

 

There was no evidence of repeatable skill in any of those areas. In other words, individual performances of managers varied so much in each category that their results are likely due more to - wait for it........ - randomness, than anything else.

You make a strong argument for paying managers minimum wage or having no field manager at all.

[Kimmi]

I hope that no one thinks that calling for a sacrifice, a pickoff, or a hit and run is comparable to someone thinking that they can call for a homer or a strikeout. i do appreciate what you are trying to say but I don't see the manager of a baseball team in the same light as i do the CEO of a large corporation. You have separated two approaches that I don't think can be separated. The manager of a team obviously gets a lot of help but he is ultimately responsible for all things that happen on the field.

 

In 33 years of baseball studied, only 6 teams have improved their win expectancy in any one season by employing sacrifices, stolen base attempts, and intentional walks. In other words, a manager should mostly just let the players play.

[Kimmi]

You make a strong argument for paying managers minimum wage or having no field manager at all.

 

A manager's most important job is managing the clubhouse, as I've said before.

[Kimmi]

To quote my man MGL, "It takes around 50 to 200 bad manager decisions (bullpen, pinch hitter, IBB, bunt, etc.) before he costs his team ONE win."

[Kimmi]

Most decisions differ in win expectancy over another decision by .01 or .02.

[a700hitter]

A manager's most important job is managing the clubhouse, as I've said before.

And that is worth what a good Babysitter would get. The players largely make their own clubhouse atmosphere. If the players know how to play when they get to the majors and lineups don't matter and in game management has meant a hoot in 33 years, the clubhouse is a weakassed excuse to pay millions for a manager.

[Kimmi]

And that is worth what a good Babysitter would get. The players largely make their own clubhouse atmosphere. If the players know how to play when they get to the majors and lineups don't matter and in game management has meant a hoot in 33 years, the clubhouse is a weakassed excuse to pay millions for a manager.

 

I have never been one who has advocated for managers to get paid the big bucks, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

That said, managers do serve a purpose and are needed. All I said was that their in game decisions do not have as big an impact on the game as most people believe they do.

[Bellhorn04]

I was reading an article that made a very good point that managerial impact is very similar to clutch hitting. It is not a repeatable skill. Five areas of managerial impact were looked at:

 

1. In game strategies like IBBs, bunts, stolen bases

2. Team wins and losses relative to run differential or expected wins and losses

3. Playing time distribution

4. In game substitutions, including relief pitchers

5. Coaching of players

 

There was no evidence of repeatable skill in any of those areas. In other words, individual performances of managers varied so much in each category that their results are likely due more to - wait for it........ - randomness, than anything else.

 

It really is hard to accept that there's no variance in relief pitching deployment. That would suggest that it's hogwash that Francona did a great job with his use of Andrew Miller last year. But we're told that the 'relief ace' concept has great merit. What are we supposed to believe?

[a700hitter]

I have never been one who has advocated for managers to get paid the big bucks, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

That said, managers do serve a purpose and are needed. All I said was that their in game decisions do not have as big an impact on the game as most people believe they do.

I am not saying that you advocate for big bucks for managers, but if what you say is true there is a strong case to make that they are not needed at all. I'd hire a visiting motivational speaker to come to the clubhouse once or twice a week. The GM could make the lineup and let the players play.

[S5Dewey]

I am not saying that you advocate for big bucks for managers, but if what you say is true there is a strong case to make that they are not needed at all. I'd hire a visiting motivational speaker to come to the clubhouse once or twice a week. The GM could make the lineup and let the players play.

 

The GM doesn't need the added responsibility. Let the players show up at the game and draw the lineup out of a hat.

[Northern Star]

I have never been one who has advocated for managers to get paid the big bucks, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

That said, managers do serve a purpose and are needed. All I said was that their in game decisions do not have as big an impact on the game as most people believe they do.

 

Over the course of a season a bad manager will probably cost five wins. Not sure how many extra wins a great manager picks up. We need WAR for managers.

[a700hitter]

the gm doesn't need the added responsibility. Let the players show up at the game and draw the lineup out of a hat.

lol!!

[a700hitter]

Over the course of a season a bad manager will probably cost five wins. Not sure how many extra wins a great manager picks up. We need WAR for managers.

Kimmi might disagree about those 5 games.

[sk7326]

And that is worth what a good Babysitter would get. The players largely make their own clubhouse atmosphere. If the players know how to play when they get to the majors and lineups don't matter and in game management has meant a hoot in 33 years, the clubhouse is a weakassed excuse to pay millions for a manager.

 

oh i don't know. it's more like a boss in a real job. Managing assignments, removing obstacles for getting the work done - fostering a good atmosphere, supervising the assistant coaches, communicating with the C-level folks. That is a lot more than a babysitter can do.

[S5Dewey]

I have never been one who has advocated for managers to get paid the big bucks, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

That said, managers do serve a purpose and are needed. All I said was that their in game decisions do not have as big an impact on the game as most people believe they do.

 

Yeah. It's probably things like Jim Leyland running relief pitchers out against the sox in the playoffs until he found one who couldn't do the job, Buck Showalter not using Zach Britton in the playoffs last year or John Farrell successfully using two PH's in one inning last night that give 'most people' that screwed up idea.

[a700hitter]

oh i don't know. it's more like a boss in a real job. Managing assignments, removing obstacles for getting the work done - fostering a good atmosphere, supervising the assistant coaches, communicating with the C-level folks. That is a lot more than a babysitter can do.

Who does a field manager have to coordinate with and what obstacles can he remove for a player that are not in the purview of someone else in the organization with well defined responsibilities. It is not like the players are being assigned projects where they need to interface with people in a massive organization or need to deal with budgetary requests. I don't see the parallels to a boss. I think it is a poor analogy.

[Spudboy]

Don and Jerry were the best.

 

Yes they were.

[Bama Boy]

Don and Jerry were the best.

 

Why did they get rid of Orsillo?

[Spudboy]

Why did they get rid of Orsillo?

 

No official word was given. The one thing that did leak out is that about a year before they did not renew DO they hired a new VP who did not like DO and that was the end for DO.

 

They made up a really dumb excuse saying that they had the opportunity to keep a really good baseball guy in OB so they had to make a decision. They then offered DO the radio gig. Lol.

[Bellhorn04]

A manager's most important job is managing the clubhouse, as I've said before.

 

How many wins can a good clubhouse manager add?

[cp176]

In 33 years of baseball studied, only 6 teams have improved their win expectancy in any one season by employing sacrifices, stolen base attempts, and intentional walks. In other words, a manager should mostly just let the players play.

 

I am not arguing at all how much of an impact good or bad managers can have on a team. I don't need to. I have seen both sides and have been on both as well. It might seem odd to some but I really do think that there are and will continue to be situations where bad managers screw up good players and good managers are able to win with lesser talent. But - hey - I know that I am on an island here because I do believe there are still times that things like stolen bases, and sacrifice bunts should be utilized.

[cp176]

What specifically do you think the analytics get wrong?

 

I think there is little that the manager can "control" that directly effects actual game outcomes even though it can have an indirect influence on the outcomes. For example, bringing in a reliever. The time to bring one in is not always clear cut. Then, even if you make what is considered the "right" move, the reliever still has to execute. And the opposing manager can counter with a pinch hitter. The final result is somewhat removed from the initial managerial decision.

 

And you also have to consider that some managerial moves have no impact on the final outcome. You can call a bunt to get a runner to second, but you can't call for the following hitters to knock him in. And you have most likely sacrificed an out to accomplish this. so now you only have two outs to work with to drive in the run. Many of these in game micro moves are just an illusion of managerial control.

 

Here is an interesting article addressing managerial influence on performance:

 

most-managers-are-headed-to-the-hall-of-mediocrity

 

My response would be I guess to say that I have never really said that the analytics whoever they might be get things wrong. Regardless though of the copious studies that they do (I guess) I probably will continue to believe that old school worn out refrain that the quality of the people in charge still can (didn't say always) play quite a role in the performance of a team whether that team is talented or not. Now - one last thing - If Chris Sale was on the mound, and my team was not hitting, my thinking in that situation might be that we needed to score a run anyway we could. If I had a runner on first, with a good handler of the bat at the plate, i very well might try to move that runner up and take my chances that that next hitter might be able to hit a ball over the second baseman's head and score that runner who quite possibly moved up on the bunt. Strategy doesn't always work. but it would be tragic not to try and do something.

[Bellhorn04]

I have never been one who has advocated for managers to get paid the big bucks, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

That said, managers do serve a purpose and are needed. All I said was that their in game decisions do not have as big an impact on the game as most people believe they do.

 

Maybe making good in-game decisions also has a positive impact on the clubhouse, by suggesting to the players that their manager isn't a complete nitwit.

[cp176]

Maybe making good in-game decisions also has a positive impact on the clubhouse, by suggesting to the players that their manager isn't a complete nitwit.

 

Is that something that can be quantifiably measured? Just a little joke there - if it can - I don't care!

[devildavid]

oh i don't know. it's more like a boss in a real job. Managing assignments, removing obstacles for getting the work done - fostering a good atmosphere, supervising the assistant coaches, communicating with the C-level folks. That is a lot more than a babysitter can do.

 

I agree. Although sometimes managers can appear to be just figureheads. As long as they are not having a negative impact they do serve an actual function. Bad bosses are everywhere and none are worth paying at all. It's hard for us to say what kind of manager that Farrell is in the big picture. Judging on in game moves is very subjective and mostly done in hindsight. His style is bland and low key, but that doesn't necessarily reflect on his baseball IQ. Managers who micromanage games aren't always helping their teams. You have to look at how the players are performing. If you think they are performing at their very best, some of this may be attributable to a good manager.