Good hire by Chicago. As a Pirates fan I'll see him a bunch.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

Damn.  Really want the Braves to get rid of Fredi and go for Maddon. 

 

PIPE DREAMS!!!!!!!

---

Thank you, God! I've been praying for this, they've got the hitters, the manager, now let's go spend a few bucks and sign a pitcher or two.

---

The Cubs will never compete until they rid themselves of the tradition.

 

Regards.....................the Chiefjag

---

I wish I could go back to the beginning of the season and put some money on the Cubbies!

---

I will be interested to see how he handles media and fan pressure that he never had to deal with in Tampa.

 

I think he is a heck of a manager but the lights are on in Chicago.

---

Of the 4 major sports (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL), does the manager of an MLB team have the least impact.

 

I'll rank in order of importance:

1-NFL

2-NBA

3-NHL

4-MLB

---

Of the 4 major sports (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL), does the manager of an MLB team have the least impact.

 

I'll rank in order of importance:

1-NFL

2-NBA

3-NHL

4-MLB

Ehhh I'm not so sure about that.

---

Of the 4 major sports (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL), does the manager of an MLB team have the least impact.

 

I'll rank in order of importance:

1-NFL

2-NBA

3-NHL

4-MLB

 

Good point. I think it's generally assumed that a manager can win, or lose, a handful of games a year.

 

I am curious about how Maddon will find NL ball. It's different than what he's used to. OMG! - the double switch.

 

Who will be his pitching coach?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

MLB managers aren't as important as most people think, but getting one of the best can't hurt.

---

If you think MLB managers have little impact you need to read Tony LaRussa's book, One Last Strike.

 

Regards.......................the Chiefjag

---

If you think MLB managers have little impact you need to read Tony LaRussa's book, One Last Strike.

 

Regards.......................the Chiefjag

 

I know you are an old timer, so I'm sure you preach traditionalism. The sabermetrics world strongly believes that MLB managers account for a relatively small amount of wins/losses each season (0-5ish). There are many statistics available that confirm this. You don't have to be a statistician to understand the value of Wins Above Replacement.

---

I know you are an old timer, so I'm sure you preach traditionalism. The sabermetrics world strongly believes that MLB managers account for a relatively small amount of wins/losses each season (0-5ish). There are many statistics available that confirm this. You don't have to be a statistician to understand the value of Wins Above Replacement.

 

Then that would make Theo Epstein's decision to pay 5 million dollars a year to Maddon a curious one right?

---

Then that would make Theo Epstein's decision to pay 5 million dollars a year to Maddon a curious one right?

 

Not at all. First, I've already said that getting one of the best can't hurt. Having positional advantages is never a bad thing. Second of all, if you care to look at this objectively, take some time and read this:

 

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/B..._fired.pdf

 

"Though the estimated impact of managers on improving clubs directly through winning is small, changing managers may still benefit a team by sending a signal to fans that the team will improve. It is possible that managers are paid handsomely as compensation for serving as a potential scapegoat and the reputational damage that might occur after a firing. Estimates from the 2000s indicate that new managers boosted attendance by approximately 1,000 fans a game, though this effect was not observed in the two prior decades.

 

....The results do not mean that managers play no role on baseball clubs. To the contrary, no team could operate without the aid of a manager. Organizing players, settling disputes, and controlling the media are managerial duties that must be handled, and have the potential to be handled poorly. The results of this study indicate that managers who have served at the major-league level do not differ greatly from one another in their ability to handle these important responsibilities in a way that improves or dampens player performance."

---

If you watch a baseball game you will see the catcher look over at the manager on every pitch. He is getting the pitch instruction from the manager which means the manager is involved with every play. The manager also sets the lineup daily to match the best hitters against the current pitcher. He also manipulates the order of the hitters to maximize their run potential. He sets the defense, their position on the field for each batter and each pitch situation. He instructs his pitchers when to throw to first. He selects when to bunt. He chooses when to steal, when to double steal, when to hit and run, when to swing, when to take a pitch. He decides when to bring in a reliever and which one. He brings players up from the minors and sends others down.

 

The manager has much more impact than the casual fan understands. Again, read Tony LaRussa's book. Also, if a manager only affects 5 games as purported, those 5 games would have changed 5 playoff teams. That's huge.

 

Regards......................the Chiefjag 

---

I am far from a "casual fan". I'm well aware of the in game decisions a manager makes, and I don't need LaRusa's book to know that. That isn't the point, though. The point is that the difference between having manager A and manager B is very minimal. This is a concept that is widely accepted in the sabermetrics world. I'm confident that you didn't read Bradbury's report I posted, but the statistics are there for you to look over.

---

When a manager is involved with every pitch of a game it's impossible for me to believe he has less impact on his team's success than NBA or NHL coach.

 

Regards......................the Chiefjag

---

Also, I'll add this. I read all about Sabermetrics when it first came out about 8 or 10 years ago. What it tells you is stats over a prolonged period. What it doesn't tell you is situational events occurrences. This is where a manager overcomes sabermetrics.

 

For instance: Sabermetrics tells you that bunting a runner over to second and sacrificing an out will NOT yield more runs than if you save the out and keep the runner on first. However, in a particular situation, a one run game, a manager could bunt a runner to second to force the opposing manager to pull his starting pitcher to bring in a reliever to get his right-vs-left matchup. In this case the manager overcame the sabermetrics to force a situational change in the game. Also, he could bunt a runner over to second because the upcoming batter has a .500 BA against this particular pitcher knowing they will intentionally walk him putting another runner on base increasing the chance for a big inning.

 

Sabermetrics won't give you that information.

 

Regards...........................the Chiefjag

---

We aren't going to see eye to eye on it, and we are both very educated baseball fans, so we should really just agree to disagree.

 

1. Most managers will handle a lot of situations the same as others. If the 8 hitter leads off an inning with a single, I can't think of many managers that will have their pitcher swing away. In those cases, it is statistically better for the pitcher to bunt. While this is a very obvious situation, the same concept can be applied to other in-game situations.

 

2. You don't "beat" sabermetrics. Sabermetics provides tools in baseball decision making. It isn't something you beat or lose to.

 

3. Sabermetrics emphasizes focusing on large sample sizes, not individual occurrences. If I had a six-side die and gave you 1:1 odds on rolling a 6, would it be a smart decision to take that bet? No. Let's say you took the bet and I rolled a 6. Was it a smart bet now? The answer is still no. If someone pops up 90% of their bunts, do you still have him sac bunt? No. If you did have him sac bunt 10 times, and the 10th time was successful, does that make it the smart decision? Still no.

 

4. Using individual situations and hindsight is going to result in nothing more than confirmation bias. What if the player had hit a game winning home run, but instead gave up an out? What if the reliever comes in and strikes out the side? What if the gassed starter would have given up an RBI double instead? Because of these uncertainties, it's almost always the correct decision to go with the odds. 

 

 

Again, neither of us are going to change our mind, so I just suggest we agree to agree.

---