MLB Managers

[ragecage]

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.

[200tang]

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.

[ragecage]

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.

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?

[HoustonGM]

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.

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!

[ragecage]

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!

lol for sure.

[200tang]

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.

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.

In the end, unless we're talking about the extreme bad manager, it's probably not gonna make much difference.

[ragecage]

So basically would you guys say, unless a manager is brain dead, they really dont factor that much into a success of a team?

[HoustonGM]

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?

No, very likely not. There's only so much optimization can do.

So basically would you guys say, unless a manager is brain dead, they really dont factor that much into a success of a team?

A couple wins a year, in either direction, at most, I'd say.

[kenny1234]

A couple wins a year, in either direction, at most, I'd say.

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.

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.

[200tang]

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.

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.

[kenny1234]

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.

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.

[200tang]

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.

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?

Go look at Kansas some time. Dayton Moore has had a huge affect on that team.

[ragecage]

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?

Go look at Kansas some time. Dayton Moore hasn't had a huge affect on that team.

Well losing wise he has. lol.

[HoustonGM]

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.

With managers, yes, I agree.

With GMs, I share 200tang's confusion.

[dps]

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.