Would you be more willing to give a manager that has made a poor game decisions the benefit of the doubt if they have reached the World Series as opposed to a manager that made a poor decision that has never been?
BOD means Benefit of the Doubt.
Printable View
Would you be more willing to give a manager that has made a poor game decisions the benefit of the doubt if they have reached the World Series as opposed to a manager that made a poor decision that has never been?
BOD means Benefit of the Doubt.
depends on:
- if the team won the Series in spite of the manager
- what kind of poor game decisions are being made
- how often these poor decisions are being made
No. I evaluate managers based on their on and off-field decision-making. That is, both tactical and roster/lineup decisions. I also incorporate is clubhouse handling to a degree, but that is a lot harder to assess. Whether or not a manager's team gets hot in October is irrelevant to my assessment of him as a manager.
I am more inclined to give the manager that has been to the WS the benefit of the doubt because I do believe that not everyone is perfect while at the same time he has a proven track record (ie Joe Torre). But I also do believe a teams success in innings 1-6 is all on the players and not the manager whatsoever, but in the latter innings, its depends highly on the manager to come out with the win, whether it be bullpen, or defensive replacements.
And on upon how much one knows about the game - that's why I voted both BOD. They are pros after all, probably knowing more about how the game is played, than any of us here.Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
it's about track record moreso than WS appearance. If I think that manager has a track record of good decisions, I'd give him benefit of the doubt.
Case in point: Leyland has been to 2 World Series and I think he's a total *****.
m o r o n is starred out? are you kidding me??