Jump to content

Congrats to Buck on becoming the 2nd-winningest manager in modern Oriole history


Frobby

Recommended Posts

Buck is sitting at 48 wins behind Earl Weaver after the 3-0 start.  Of course, he already has 255 more losses than Earl Weaver.

My personal favorite managerial stat is # of games above .500, as I've stated before.  Buck has climbed to 45th all time in this regard (+117) and could find his way past the likes of Jimmy Williams, Dick Williams, Lou Piniella and Clark Griffith this season.  Weaver incidentally is 7th all time (+420).

Showalter probably doesn't make the Hall of Fame unless he manages past his current contract, which I don't think he will do.  He'll be close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 4/8/2017 at 1:13 PM, OFFNY said:

o

 

25 years ago yesterday, William Nathaniel Showalter III managed his first game ever in the Major Leagues, for the New York Yankees.

Showalter's team won that game, a 4-3 victory over the Boston Red Sox at Yankee Stadium.

 

On his 25th Anniversary of Major League managing yesterday, Showalter's team again won the game, beating ........ the New York Yankees.

 

 

Showalter Celebrating His 2th Anniversary as a Major League Manager

(By Roch Kubatko)

http://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2017/04/showalter-celebrating-a-baseball-anniversary.html

 

o

o

 

Also, in regard to Showalter's first job as a Major League manager ........ 

 

In my rat's ass of an opinion, Joe Torre walked in on the coattails of what Gene Michael and Buck Showalter had built prior to him getting there. And the Yankees' exorbitant payroll, which topped the Major Leagues throughout the first decade of the new century played a large part in allowing them to remain perennial contenders after they stopped winning World Series in 2000.

After Gabe Paul (the Yankees' G.M from 1973-1977) rebuilt the Yankees back into a power (2 World championships, 4 Pennants, and 5 division titles from 1976-1981), George Steinbrenner's insane temper and compulsiveness with BOTH his managers AND his players drove the Yankees back into a pretty good but no longer great franchise from 1982-1988 (7 out of 8 winning seasons, but no playoff appearances), and finally a bad franchise (4 straight losing seasons from 1989-1992.) It wasn't until Fay Vincent gave Steinbrenner the boot for 2 years in July of 1990 that the Yankees were able to rebuild themselves back into a power again under the guidance of General Manager Gene Michael (1991-1995) and Manager Buck Showalter (1992-1995.) And then along came Torre in 1996, who was a good enough manager not to screw up the great thing that he had in front of him.

 

o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.
    • What if they don’t want to be extended?
    • I don't want the O's to lose much, but I do want there to be a massive streaming deal with Amazon or some other company the O's are left out of.  This blackout nonsense is bullsh!t. 🤬
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...