Grading the Manager

by CCTwinsFan on Mar 29, 2008 12:32 AM EDT Comment 6 comments

Over on John Sickels' Minor League Blog site is a FanPost grading the manages. I am technologically challenged to actually link to it but find the results contrary to what my eyes tell me. Please check it out and let me know if you agree or disagree with the way they rank them and the results.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Saw the headline...

...on the front of WSJ Weekend section, the intent of the story -- for those who don't read that paper - being to examine whether Joe Torre deserved the money.

I assumed the story, that was continued to an inside page, would rank all the managers, and I assumed Gardenhire would rank near the top.

Upon having my thoughts confirmed by turning the page, I expected news of the piece would trickle in here, and result in some entertainment as detractors picked and chose their arguments to align with their biases,

I'll be particularly interested to see how those who base so much of their player evaluation on stats will squirm away from formulas on this one.

Oh. Invoking "it's hard to evaluate managers with numbers" is an unacceptable easy out.

And of course we'll have someone present Nick Punto's name on the roster as an example of bad managing, which is like saying Sinatra was a lousy singer because he insisted on lame comic Tom Driessen as an opening act.

"Man, the past is a long and twisty road." -- Satchel Paige.

by Firpo Marberry on Mar 29, 2008 1:10 AM EDT reply actions

Thanks Firpo

Once again you have managed to extend no opinion or vulnerability, yet degrade or deride someone else for their opinion(s).

This time you have managed to do so prospectively, before anyone has even posted anything.

Sad.

by montanatwinsfan on Mar 29, 2008 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Not a problem

>>Once again you have managed to extend no opinion or vulnerability,

My opinion is clear: Gardenhire's a pretty good manager.

>>This time you have managed to do so prospectively, before anyone has even posted anything.

Yeah. Be a shame to preempt another tiresome TwinkieTown Gardy bitchfest.

"Man, the past is a long and twisty road." -- Satchel Paige.

by Firpo Marberry on Apr 2, 2008 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions

I got to thinking, dude

Oh. Invoking "it's hard to evaluate managers with numbers" is an unacceptable easy out.

I'm sure there are ways to use stats to quantitatively analyze managers but I can't really think of anything off the top of my head. Does anyone else have any ideas about how one would do this? Does anyone know of any good articles anywhere that try to do this?

"I don't care about feelings." - Lou Piniella

by natetheskate on Mar 29, 2008 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions

It can be good to think

>>I'm sure there are ways to use stats to quantitatively analyze managers but I can't really think of anything off the top of my head.

That is the aim of the WSJ article. Bill James also has attempted this. Both efforts are qualified with the obvious: you can't objectively conclude who "the best" manager is, but you can develop criteria in an effort to objectively conclude who the "most successful" manager is.

If someone has a better formula, or wants to examine the WSJ and James criteria (easily located through Google) and refute them, go to it.

But invoking "Nick Punto's on the team, enough said," or "Gardy is keeping Jason Kubel from the Hall of Fame" is a lazy, subjective, irrelevant response to an intelligent, industrious, objective effort to categorize the success of managers.

"Man, the past is a long and twisty road." -- Satchel Paige.

by Firpo Marberry on Apr 2, 2008 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions