The Casey Stengal discussion got me thinking, but are there any Managers today or in the past, that really managed according to stats like OPS and WAR more than other managers?
The only thing I really know is Trey Hillman doesnt.
Printable View
The Casey Stengal discussion got me thinking, but are there any Managers today or in the past, that really managed according to stats like OPS and WAR more than other managers?
The only thing I really know is Trey Hillman doesnt.
I'm sure there are lots of managers using OPS...but I think the FO has a big influence on their managers, unless they inherited them. I'd say if the FO has shown an understanding of advanced metrics than the managers probably have these things in mind. However, I don't think you'd be thinking about WAR when managing a game. It's more of a way to look at past performance.
I see, I guess what Im trying to find out is if youre managing a bad team, if really paying attention to these kind of stats, instead of managing with the heart or whoever is on a hot streak, can get you a few more wins in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
Like Stengel for example, 40 wins with the Mets, if using stats (not saying he didnt, just hypothesizing here), could he garner say 50 wins?
Using a 6 foot tall, 2 foot wide brick wall at shortstop would probably give the Royals a couple more wins than the continued use of Yuniesky Betancourt...but you don't need advanced stats to tell you that!Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
lol for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Possibly, but very rarely do you see an inferior player starting over the better one. A lot of the times that happens it's generally on a bad team too or it's the FO's fault for bringing in somebody and then having to play them because of their contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
In the end, unless we're talking about the extreme bad manager, it's probably not gonna make much difference.
So basically would you guys say, unless a manager is brain dead, they really dont factor that much into a success of a team?
No, very likely not. There's only so much optimization can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
A couple wins a year, in either direction, at most, I'd say.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Just using manager salaries as a benchmark - teams are willing to pay roughly $3.5 - $4million per win. If the best managers were identifiable, and contributed more than about a win per year above replacement level, they would get paid a lot more than they currently do.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
The front office defines the players a manager has to work with - and few have real important lineup decisions to make. Ordering the lineup in any reasonable way doesn't have a huge impact on runs scored. The one place that a manager might be able to affect the team is through management of the pitching staff - but I doubt there is much there.
I don't think we can use wins/salary to define the impact of a manager because the best GMs in baseball don't make 20+M per year even though they basically shape the roster and they're much easier to identify.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
Salary doesn't identify skill exactly, but for both managers and GM's, I think that it does provide a basic indication that their impact is relatively small - and probably far smaller than is commonly talked about.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
You think a GM has a small affect on a club even though they are the decision makers and have a hand in bringing in every player regardless of if it's coming through the draft/ trade/ or free agency?Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
Go look at Kansas some time. Dayton Moore has had a huge affect on that team.
Well losing wise he has. lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
With managers, yes, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
With GMs, I share 200tang's confusion.
I'd say that overall, having a really bad manager will hurt a team more than having a really good manager will help, and that the impact of the manager on a MLB is less--generally a lot less--than the impact of the head coach on an NFL team.
Also, a manager who is good for one team may be bad for another. For example, a manager who is good with veterens may be fine with a mature, contending team, but a disaster with a rebuilding project. Or a manager who likes to platoon and pitch hit a lot for the platoon advantage probably isn't suited to a team with great front-line talent but a weak, shallow bench.
Good points. Agreed on all counts.
And I would suggest that Dayton Moore is the definition of a below-replacement level GM. The distinction isn't between Billy Beane (or your other favorite GM of the day) and Dayton Moore. It is between Billy Beane and the guy that the A's would hire if Beane were no longer there. And that isn't Dayton Moore. The only real question in Kansas City is why Dayton Moore still has a job.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
As with managers, I would argue that the distance between the top and the replacement level is not that big, but that teams stick with managers and GM's that are far below replacement level for too long. As an example, how big is the difference between Beane and a guy like Alex Anthopolous in Toronto, or Jack Zduriencik in Seattle. Both those guys were available as GM's (Zduriencik as of a little over a year ago, Anthopolous maybe a few months ago), so they were essentially the replacement level. I'm not sure who it is now, but I'm sure there is somebody out there that is not currently a GM, that would take the job and not do significantly worse than Beane. That is the alternative, and that is why Beane doesn't make a ton of money.