Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Zim (For all Don Zimmer haters)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by EvanAparra
    And still the sox finished 3 games above their pyth. record.

    Fact of the matter is that a manager doesnt have anywhere NEAR the impact that the players do. I dont attribute a win to the manager and 99% of the time I wont attribute a loss to a manager.
    In his book on managers, Bill James points out why comparing a team's record to its pythagorean projection is not helpful in evaluating managers. His point could be paraphrased as, "Does the comparison tell you whether he kept a doghouse for pitchers he didn't like? Does it tell you whether he's a competent judge of talent?" Certainly the games that are won and lost by strategic manoeuvers, rather than the chance outcome of these manoeuvers, are few indeed. The talent wins the games, not the manager. However, if a manager can't figure out who's going to win for him, he has a tremendous impact on the team's won-lost record. And it's not going to show up in the pythagorean comparison.
    The ball once struck off,
    Away flies the boy
    To the next destin'd post,
    And then home with joy.
    --Anonymous, 1744

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sliding Billy
      In his book on managers, Bill James points out why comparing a team's record to its pythagorean projection is not helpful in evaluating managers. His point could be paraphrased as, "Does the comparison tell you whether he kept a doghouse for pitchers he didn't like? Does it tell you whether he's a competent judge of talent?" Certainly the games that are won and lost by strategic manoeuvers, rather than the chance outcome of these manoeuvers, are few indeed. The talent wins the games, not the manager. However, if a manager can't figure out who's going to win for him, he has a tremendous impact on the team's won-lost record. And it's not going to show up in the pythagorean comparison.
      I don't really see where he actually shows us that it's not helpful.

      I dont think its really all that great either, but like I said before I dont like to attribute much to managers anyway, so i'm not going to get into it. Nowadays, with all the advanced scouting reports and what not, if managers don't know who the best player for the situation is, there's something really wrong.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by EvanAparra
        I don't really see where he actually shows us that it's not helpful.

        I dont think its really all that great either, but like I said before I dont like to attribute much to managers anyway, so i'm not going to get into it. Nowadays, with all the advanced scouting reports and what not, if managers don't know who the best player for the situation is, there's something really wrong.
        Here's the quotation, which comes on the heels of his critique of another scholar's analysis that erroneously claimed Joe McCarthy's teams "consistently lost more relatively close games than they won":

        I could have repeated the study with a better formula, I suppose, but I decided to pass. The theory [that you can rank managers by comparing their won-lost records to those expected on the basis of runs scored and allowed] is just too speculative. It measures the manager against the individual accomplishments of his players, when in the real world, a manager has to work through the talent he's got. Let's take something really stupid that a manager might have done. Jack McKeon in 1974 with the Kansas City Royals

        a) didn't think George Brett was ready to play in the majors and kept wanting to play Paul Schaal, and

        b) ruined Steve Busby's arm by having him throw about 200 pitches in a game one time when his catcher was telling him Busby wasn't right.

        The mistake on Busby, the best young pitcher in baseball at that time, cost the Royals dozens of wins over a period of years, and the mistake on Brett (and Frank White--McKeon didn't think he could play either) could have cost the Royals countless runs. But how would either of these things have altered the ratio between runs scored, runs allowed, and wins?

        If a manager does a good job of keeping his team focused on winning, how will that cause them to have a bettter ratio of wins to runs scored/runs allowed? It's hard to see. If he tears the team apart with petty battles over irrelevant rules, how will this be reflected in the wins versus expected wins? I can't see it. The theory is just too much of a reach.
        Bill James Guide to Baseball Managers, p. 147. (His italics, my boldface)

        All that being said, James was repeatedly agnostic in his book about ranking managers, and I believe a study in Between the Numbers shows little influence by managers on teams' won-lost record in the long run.

        And to be fair, for me and many other fans in Boston, Zimmer was the point man on the wrong side of a cultural clash and thus an attractive candidate for the inevitable Boston scapegoat. But still . . . Bernie Carbo? Bob Bailey?
        The ball once struck off,
        Away flies the boy
        To the next destin'd post,
        And then home with joy.
        --Anonymous, 1744

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Sliding Billy
          Here's the quotation, which comes on the heels of his critique of another scholar's analysis that erroneously claimed Joe McCarthy's teams "consistently lost more relatively close games than they won":



          Bill James Guide to Baseball Managers, p. 147. (His italics, my boldface)

          All that being said, James was repeatedly agnostic in his book about ranking managers, and I believe a study in Between the Numbers shows little influence by managers on teams' won-lost record in the long run.

          And to be fair, for me and many other fans in Boston, Zimmer was the point man on the wrong side of a cultural clash and thus an attractive candidate for the inevitable Boston scapegoat. But still . . . Bernie Carbo? Bob Bailey?

          Thanks for the info, I have YET to buy a Bill James book -- I REALLY need to.

          What could have been the alternatives to Carbo? He had a pretty good '77, and from what I can see (bear with me, I wasn't alive in '78) he wasn't terrible there either. The thing I do see, however is that in that play-off game, the Sox outhit the Yanks 11-8 and lost by a run, it's truely amazing that, in order, Burleson gets 1 hit, Remy has 2, Rice has 1, Yaz has 2, Fisk has one, Lynn has one, Hobson has 1, and Scott has two.... I wonder if Zimmer made a bad decision in the 8th when they were trying to stage a comeback?

          All in all, i'd rather give the loss to the guys playing the game, like Torrez giving up the HR, or Rice and Yaz not bringing in Burleson in the 9th when he was in scoring position.

          Comment


          • #20
            I blame Zimmer. His personal dislike of Lee was the main reason '78 happened. There never would have been a playoff if Zimmer hadn't been a IDIOT and pitched Lee. Yaz BEGGED him to, but Zimmer told him in so many words he'd rather lose than use Lee.


            What's sad is that I know people who blame '78 on Lee...their rationale is that Zimmer had to put Lee in his place and if that meant blowing the AL East, so be it. They said Lee's pot smoking was why the Sox lost :noidea
            sigpicMan, do I *HATE* the Yankees!!!!!!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by EvanAparra

              All in all, i'd rather give the loss to the guys playing the game, like Torrez giving up the HR, or Rice and Yaz not bringing in Burleson in the 9th when he was in scoring position.
              Yeah, bad as I hate to say it, they lost because they didn't play well enough to win.
              The ball once struck off,
              Away flies the boy
              To the next destin'd post,
              And then home with joy.
              --Anonymous, 1744

              Comment

              Ad Widget

              Collapse
              Working...
              X