Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Manager Charlie Manuel

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

  • Originally posted by LP fan View Post
    some facts:
    Leyland winning percentage as manager: .497
    LaRussa: .535
    world series rings: LaRussa: 2, Leyland 1

    manager of a team that won 54 games and lost 108: Leyland 1, LaRussa 0

    do you have any facts to support your choice? or is it just a gut feeling?
    You know, this is the same kind of simplistic argument that says Cardinals fans are better, more knowledgable, whatever, than Phillies fans. Like that argument give me ownership that does WHATEVER it takes to win and you'd see a whole different side of Phillies fans. Just once, in 135 years.

    A similar argument to this was made by someone trying to explain what a great manager Charlie Manuel is because his Indians teams finished high up for a number of years. Irrelevent I guess is the massive amount of talent those teams had and the fact that they never did reach their ultimate potential. In the case of your comments, Leyland was saddled with even more inept management in Pittsburgh than we typically have here in Philly. I'll take Leyland, You can have LaRussa. As far as I'm concerned, it's not even debatable. Not even close.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by johncap View Post
      You know, this is the same kind of simplistic argument that says Cardinals fans are better, more knowledgable, whatever, than Phillies fans. Like that argument give me ownership that does WHATEVER it takes to win and you'd see a whole different side of Phillies fans. Just once, in 135 years.

      A similar argument to this was made by someone trying to explain what a great manager Charlie Manuel is because his Indians teams finished high up for a number of years. Irrelevent I guess is the massive amount of talent those teams had and the fact that they never did reach their ultimate potential. In the case of your comments, Leyland was saddled with even more inept management in Pittsburgh than we typically have here in Philly. I'll take Leyland, You can have LaRussa. As far as I'm concerned, it's not even debatable. Not even close.
      The Charlie Manuel record with the Indians is of no matter, as it is a small sample size of only 2+ years....however, LaRussa has been managing, for what, about 20 years or more already? his .535 win percentage is meaningful as the large sample size effectively negates things as...he just had teams with lots of talent, as, over 20+ years, that stuff will level off....I mean, he managed the white sox for 8 years....those numbers are thrown into the mix.....you are right, it isn't even close....Tony's the better manager...the head to head in the world series should be a tip off to you....he won hands down with a team with much less talent that had no business being there at all against a leyland led team that won about 100 games......he fried him like a bad hot dog....there are good managers, but then, there are also great managers...hall of fame managers, and Tony is one of those.....the longevity and the numbers say so

      Great Ball Teams: Tigers '68, Phils '80, Tigers '84

      Comment


      • Originally posted by LP fan View Post
        The Charlie Manuel record with the Indians is of no matter, as it is a small sample size of only 2+ years....however, LaRussa has been managing, for what, about 20 years or more already? his .535 win percentage is meaningful as the large sample size effectively negates things as...he just had teams with lots of talent, as, over 20+ years, that stuff will level off....I mean, he managed the white sox for 8 years....those numbers are thrown into the mix.....you are right, it isn't even close....Tony's the better manager...the head to head in the world series should be a tip off to you....he won hands down with a team with much less talent that had no business being there at all against a leyland led team that won about 100 games......he fried him like a bad hot dog....there are good managers, but then, there are also great managers...hall of fame managers, and Tony is one of those.....the longevity and the numbers say so
        Baseball is a VERY VERY VERY subjective game. This modern mentaility that everything is reduced to numbers without determing what factors influence those numbers is what leads to the likes of Cal Ripken being in the HOF (that's a subject for another day).

        Hey, when I buy a team I'll hire Leyland. You can have Tony.

        Comment


        • I'll take Leyland too. LaRussa's a good manager but who couldn't win with Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Dave Stewart, Bob Welch, Dennis Eckersley, etc. & the good team he had in St. Louis all these years. Leyland had good players but with Florida, he had a limited window to win. Leyland then took a good Tiger team to the playoffs in the second year they became a good team. It didn't take him a decade to get to the WS like it took LaRussa.

          Most of the time, the players around the manager should get credit for the manager's success because neither manager would have been as successful if they didn't have good players.

          Comment

          Ad Widget

          Collapse
          Working...
          X