Red Mosquito

numbers wrote:Those two are not comparable. Williams managed one team for two years and never won a playoff series. Baker has taken three different teams to the playoffs, and went to the LCS with two of them and the WS with one.

I think if you look at any manager, you'll find their success or failure is directly related to the quality of players on the team. Any manager's influence is likely very small.

Take a guy like... um... Dusty Baker.

The 1996 San Francisco Giants won 68 games. The 1997 San Francisco Giants won 90 games.

Do you think one of those seasons is more indicative of his abilities of a manager than the other, or do you think they added JT Snow and Jeff Kent and Bill Mueller and Shawn Estes and Kirk Rueter and Rich Rodriguez?

To be fair, I think the negative impact of a manager is vastly overstated as well in all but the most extreme examples.

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Those two are not comparable. Williams managed one team for two years and never won a playoff series. Baker has taken three different teams to the playoffs, and went to the LCS with two of them and the WS with one.

I think if you look at any manager, you'll find their success or failure is directly related to the quality of players on the team. Any manager's influence is likely very small.

Take a guy like... um... Dusty Baker.

The 1996 San Francisco Giants won 68 games. The 1997 San Francisco Giants won 90 games.

Do you think one of those seasons is more indicative of his abilities of a manager than the other, or do you think they added JT Snow and Jeff Kent and Bill Mueller and Shawn Estes and Kirk Rueter and Rich Rodriguez?

To be fair, I think the negative impact of a manager is vastly overstated as well in all but the most extreme examples.

Do you think the 2015 Jays are a playoff team with Farrell as manager instead of Gibbons?

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Those two are not comparable. Williams managed one team for two years and never won a playoff series. Baker has taken three different teams to the playoffs, and went to the LCS with two of them and the WS with one.

I think if you look at any manager, you'll find their success or failure is directly related to the quality of players on the team. Any manager's influence is likely very small.

Take a guy like... um... Dusty Baker.

The 1996 San Francisco Giants won 68 games. The 1997 San Francisco Giants won 90 games.

Do you think one of those seasons is more indicative of his abilities of a manager than the other, or do you think they added JT Snow and Jeff Kent and Bill Mueller and Shawn Estes and Kirk Rueter and Rich Rodriguez?

To be fair, I think the negative impact of a manager is vastly overstated as well in all but the most extreme examples.

Do you think the 2015 Jays are a playoff team with Farrell as manager instead of Gibbons?

Absolutely.

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Those two are not comparable. Williams managed one team for two years and never won a playoff series. Baker has taken three different teams to the playoffs, and went to the LCS with two of them and the WS with one.

I think if you look at any manager, you'll find their success or failure is directly related to the quality of players on the team. Any manager's influence is likely very small.

Take a guy like... um... Dusty Baker.

The 1996 San Francisco Giants won 68 games. The 1997 San Francisco Giants won 90 games.

Do you think one of those seasons is more indicative of his abilities of a manager than the other, or do you think they added JT Snow and Jeff Kent and Bill Mueller and Shawn Estes and Kirk Rueter and Rich Rodriguez?

To be fair, I think the negative impact of a manager is vastly overstated as well in all but the most extreme examples.

Do you think the 2015 Jays are a playoff team with Farrell as manager instead of Gibbons?

Absolutely.

are the 2015 cubs with Renteria instead of Maddon?

Chris_H_2 wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Those two are not comparable. Williams managed one team for two years and never won a playoff series. Baker has taken three different teams to the playoffs, and went to the LCS with two of them and the WS with one.

I think if you look at any manager, you'll find their success or failure is directly related to the quality of players on the team. Any manager's influence is likely very small.

Take a guy like... um... Dusty Baker.

The 1996 San Francisco Giants won 68 games. The 1997 San Francisco Giants won 90 games.

Do you think one of those seasons is more indicative of his abilities of a manager than the other, or do you think they added JT Snow and Jeff Kent and Bill Mueller and Shawn Estes and Kirk Rueter and Rich Rodriguez?

To be fair, I think the negative impact of a manager is vastly overstated as well in all but the most extreme examples.

Do you think the 2015 Jays are a playoff team with Farrell as manager instead of Gibbons?

Absolutely.

are the 2015 cubs with Renteria instead of Maddon?

I can't imagine any manager turning the 2015 Cubs team into a non-playoff team.

philpritchard wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Those two are not comparable. Williams managed one team for two years and never won a playoff series. Baker has taken three different teams to the playoffs, and went to the LCS with two of them and the WS with one.

I think if you look at any manager, you'll find their success or failure is directly related to the quality of players on the team. Any manager's influence is likely very small.

Take a guy like... um... Dusty Baker.

The 1996 San Francisco Giants won 68 games. The 1997 San Francisco Giants won 90 games.

Do you think one of those seasons is more indicative of his abilities of a manager than the other, or do you think they added JT Snow and Jeff Kent and Bill Mueller and Shawn Estes and Kirk Rueter and Rich Rodriguez?

To be fair, I think the negative impact of a manager is vastly overstated as well in all but the most extreme examples.

Do you think the 2015 Jays are a playoff team with Farrell as manager instead of Gibbons?

Absolutely.

are the 2015 cubs with Renteria instead of Maddon?

I can't imagine any manager turning the 2015 Cubs team into a non-playoff team.

matt Williams?

Chris_H_2 wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Those two are not comparable. Williams managed one team for two years and never won a playoff series. Baker has taken three different teams to the playoffs, and went to the LCS with two of them and the WS with one.

I think if you look at any manager, you'll find their success or failure is directly related to the quality of players on the team. Any manager's influence is likely very small.

Take a guy like... um... Dusty Baker.

The 1996 San Francisco Giants won 68 games. The 1997 San Francisco Giants won 90 games.

Do you think one of those seasons is more indicative of his abilities of a manager than the other, or do you think they added JT Snow and Jeff Kent and Bill Mueller and Shawn Estes and Kirk Rueter and Rich Rodriguez?

To be fair, I think the negative impact of a manager is vastly overstated as well in all but the most extreme examples.

Do you think the 2015 Jays are a playoff team with Farrell as manager instead of Gibbons?

Absolutely.

are the 2015 cubs with Renteria instead of Maddon?

I can't imagine any manager turning the 2015 Cubs team into a non-playoff team.

matt Williams?

Probably. The Cubs finished 13 games ahead of the Giants. Do you think, all else being equal, Joe Maddon adds 13 wins to a team over Williams?

philpritchard wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:

philpritchard wrote:

numbers wrote:Those two are not comparable. Williams managed one team for two years and never won a playoff series. Baker has taken three different teams to the playoffs, and went to the LCS with two of them and the WS with one.

I think if you look at any manager, you'll find their success or failure is directly related to the quality of players on the team. Any manager's influence is likely very small.

Take a guy like... um... Dusty Baker.

The 1996 San Francisco Giants won 68 games. The 1997 San Francisco Giants won 90 games.

Do you think one of those seasons is more indicative of his abilities of a manager than the other, or do you think they added JT Snow and Jeff Kent and Bill Mueller and Shawn Estes and Kirk Rueter and Rich Rodriguez?

To be fair, I think the negative impact of a manager is vastly overstated as well in all but the most extreme examples.

Do you think the 2015 Jays are a playoff team with Farrell as manager instead of Gibbons?

Absolutely.

are the 2015 cubs with Renteria instead of Maddon?

I can't imagine any manager turning the 2015 Cubs team into a non-playoff team.

matt Williams?

Probably. The Cubs finished 13 games ahead of the Giants. Do you think, all else being equal, Joe Maddon adds 13 wins to a team over Williams?

i've always been of the mindset that managers can do little to make teams win games where it's actually reflected in the standings, but can do certain things that, over the course of a season, eventually catches up with them and leads to teams losing some games. managers' terrible decisions in handling their bullpens, allowing starters to face opponents 3 or 4 times through the batting order, stubbornly slotting specific pitchers into specific innings, or batting players out of order all can contribute. while, to be sure, matt Williams was really, really good at making all of these horrible, horrible decisions, he probably wasn't good enough to prevent the cubs, strictly from a statistical standpoint, from making the playoffs.

where maddon has always shined (and this season was no exception) is his understanding of players, what they need to succeed, and making sure they're put in the best possible situations to succeed.

Chris_H_2 wrote:i've always been of the mindset that managers can do little to make teams win games where it's actually reflected in the standings, but can do certain things that, over the course of a season, eventually catches up with them and leads to teams losing some games. managers' terrible decisions in handling their bullpens, allowing starters to face opponents 3 or 4 times through the batting order, stubbornly slotting specific pitchers into specific innings, or batting players out of order all can contribute. while, to be sure, matt Williams was really, really good at making all of these horrible, horrible decisions, he probably wasn't good enough to prevent the cubs, strictly from a statistical standpoint, from making the playoffs.

where maddon has always shined (and this season was no exception) is his understanding of players, what they need to succeed, and making sure they're put in the best possible situations to succeed.

I wouldn't say I disagree with any of that. I also love that Maddon is willing to be creative rather than sticking with prescribed baseball "wisdom".

I could see the difference in a really good and really bad manager being something like a few wins. If someone thinks Maddon vs. Williams could be the difference in the Cubs making or missing the playoffs, though... that just seems crazy. The would mean that, for the Nationals, replacing Williams with Maddon would have a similar effect on the team as replacing Yunel Escobar and Michael Taylor with Josh Donaldson and Mike Trout.

You have to take the clubhouse element into account. It's hard to quantify this, but Maddon, as much as I dislike him, seems to always have great clubhouses. Williams, for example, oversaw a toxic one. That can be worth more than just a couple win, I think. Now, I understand that there's a big difference between keeping a young clubhouse happy and one filled with high priced veterans, but I still think that can be a huge factor.

numbers wrote:You have to take the clubhouse element into account. It's hard to quantify this, but Maddon, as much as I dislike him, seems to always have great clubhouses. Williams, for example, oversaw a toxic one. That can be worth more than just a couple win, I think. Now, I understand that there's a big difference between keeping a young clubhouse happy and one filled with high priced veterans, but I still think that can be a huge factor.

And, as with everything else surrounding manager evaluations, it's impossible to assign blame/credit. You can have a manager what runs a tight ship and keeps everyone happy and in line, then Jonathan Papelbon comes in and starts choking guys and all hell breaks loose. If a manager lets the players police themselves, that can be a positive or a huge negative, depending on the players.

is that kelly johnson grabbing aybar's dick?

I believe the dick belongs to Denard Span.

when did he play for the angels?

Oh, right. The gif was in a bit about Denard Span, so I just assumed.

Is that Aybar?

further proof that numbers is a chud second account

spike wrote:further proof that numbers is a chud second account

I didn't want my real accounts' post count to get embarrassing.

numbers wrote:

spike wrote:further proof that numbers is a chud second account

I didn't want my real accounts' post count to get embarrassing.