Registered User
yankee hater and belial are the same person.Originally Posted by EVEN11323
He wins because of the players he has. He had the best hitter arguably who ever lived in Barry Bonds. His years in San Fran had more to do with Barry, than Dusty. But I do think Dusty is a good manager and I actually wish the Mariners signed Dusty instead of Bob Melvin ( i wish we didn't let him go ) and wish we signed him when Melvin was fired...(because of bavasi).
Banned
I happen to like Dusty, but I can see why HGM would be frustrated. He totally disregards proven stats like OBA and tends to say things that are inaccurate. I personally feel results are what matters and a manager can help a player reach his potential playing ability, but on pure strategy - he does make some boggling decisions.
In short, I was wrong for complaining about the threads, and I publicly admit that I was being a (insert self-defacing term here). The forum members (well most) don't seem to be bothered, and my opinion is on the record, so there we go.
o
Because, naturally, the manager is solely responsible for the wins his team has.
Nah, let's not mention that Dusty Baker had the pleasure of managing one of the greatest players of all time during the most ridiculous peak ever put up by a hitter.
Thank you.
Registered User
I fairness, you seem to want to make him solely responsible for the losses his team has.Because, naturally, the manager is solely responsible for the wins his team has.
o
How so? I don't think I've expressed such a notion at all. I do think that managers are more capable of making a team lose than they are making them win, but the overwhelming majority of games are decided by the players.
Registered User
I'm glad someone likes him, just glad chicago got rid of him before he ruined Zambrano like he did Pryor and Wood.
Banned
He did have some great players. He also had some crappy ones.
How else can we objectively judge managers other than winning pct, and titles, and manager of the years? I really no know of no other way. You're probably right, in that a manager can help lead to more loses than he can help get wins. Dusty helps his teams to losing only .475 of their games.
παραλία
It's even harder to judge a manager than it is to judge a player.
While a player's performance is influenced by that of his teammates, a managers' performance is his players' performance.
o
We really don't have any way to accurately judge a manager's performance. Winning percentage, etc. is not good because it is nearly entirely predicated on the players the manager has playing for him. It's incredibly difficult to separate the manager from the players.
Registered User
one way you could look at it is the Runs scored vs runs against.
Look at Bob Melvin last year.... I think he did something right, when things went bad, they went bad, when they won, they barely won...using your bullpen and bench in the right spots can lead to a win.
Lets see how Melvin will do this year
Banned
I was thinking of comparing 'good' managers to their teams +/- pythagorean record to see if there are some trends.
o
So...
"This guy is tough on lefties," Baker said. "[Adam] Dunn has been pretty good [against Maholm] and Griff hasn't. I'm just trying to find a way to get some right-handers in there. Griff will be back in there tomorrow. The guy tomorrow, [Zach Duke], has been tough on Dunn. Jerry [Hairston] and [Jeff] Keppinger are just getting their strokes together, and [so is] Edwin [Encarnacion]."
Dunn vs. Maholm - 3 for 22 (.136 avg)
Griffey vs. Maholm - 5 for 18 (.278 avg)
Dunn vs. Duke - 5 for 9 (.556 avg)
Griffey vs. Duke - 1 for 6 (.167 avg)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote