Fangraphs: How Should We Evaluate a Manager?

[Can_of_corn]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-should-we-evaluate-a-manager/

As far as I, noted idiot, can figure, it?s these variables that define a manager:

When he uses his best relievers.

How rigid his approach to the bullpen is.

Where he puts his best hitters in the lineup.

How often he bunts with non-pitchers.

Not going to quote the whole thing but this is interesting. For all of us who question Buck's lineups... he finishes in fourth in correlation of actual to ideal lineup.

[Spy Fox]

Interesting stuff in there.

Buck is a defensible Manager of the Year candidate again this year, but I bet it goes to Bannister because the Rangers had the best record in the league and won a lot of one-run games.

[sportsfan8703]

LOL nats. Dusty is dead last in bullpen management.

[Aristotelian]

My system is to make a knee jerk reaction in the heat of the moment, then post on OH to call for the manager to be fired or given the keys to the city for life. Usually fired.

[brianod]

I actually don't think in game moves are all that important in evaluating a manager. What I believe is extremely important is managing 30 plus people over six months in order to get the maximum performance given the talent level. That isn't measurable but it is where I think Buck excels

[crawjo]

I think managers are also important for the kind of culture they create in the clubhouse. People can blast away at Dusty Baker all they want but everywhere that guy has managed, his teams have won. Four different teams he's now taken to the postseason.

[pastorfan]

I actually don't think in game moves are all that important in evaluating a manager. What I believe is extremely important is managing 30 plus people over six months in order to get the maximum performance given the talent level. That isn't measurable but it is where I think Buck excels

I agree. It is about keeping these guys into it mentally. Though I hate the Patriots, that is what makes Bellicheck so good.

[atomic]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-should-we-evaluate-a-manager/

Not going to quote the whole thing but this is interesting. For all of us who question Buck's lineups... he finishes in fourth in correlation of actual to ideal lineup.

Unless I am missing something they are evaluating managers on what they think should be done in certain situations. That would mean they think they would be the ideal managers.

[brianod]

Unless I am missing something they are evaluating managers on what they think should be done in certain situations. That would mean they think they would be the ideal managers.

The stats folks like measurables. Intangibles don't fit into the equation so they are discounted as meaningless. Like all simplistic assumptions, that is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. When it comes to managing, I believe it is very wrong. In fact, more wrong then when it comes to managing than players. The stats folks want you to believe that managers only make 3-5 games difference in a teams performance. But, you have to ask yourself why the O's continue to outperform their expected outcome despite some very boneheaded in game moves by Buck. Leaving Miley in the other day was an abysmal decision, yet there was Buck yesterday getting splashed with champagne. Dusty Baker takes over for Matt Williams down the road and they have a great year. Is Dusty a great in game manager? I don't think so. It's the ability to manage people that elevates average teams imho.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think managers are also important for the kind of culture they create in the clubhouse. People can blast away at Dusty Baker all they want but everywhere that guy has managed, his teams have won. Four different teams he's now taken to the postseason.

While its possible for a manager to badly mismanage a bullpen, otherwise his most important traits are keeping the clubhouse happy and motivated. A top soft-skills manager can bunt all day long and bat a .294 OBP guy leadoff and still win.

[Can_of_corn]

Unless I am missing something they are evaluating managers on what they think should be done in certain situations. That would mean they think they would be the ideal managers.

The title and content are Fangraphs. The only thing I did beyond sharing it was making the comment on lineup construction.

[atomic]

The title and content are Fangraphs. The only thing I did beyond sharing it was making the comment on lineup construction.

I mean it is things like optimal line-up according to them. So they are evaluating the manager on how fanagraphs would create a line-up. Seems pretty silly way of evaluating a manager. You have non-managers basically saying they would be better than an actual manager but these guys come closest to being as good as we would be.

[Can_of_corn]

I mean it is things like optimal line-up according to them. So they are evaluating the manager on how fanagraphs would create a line-up. Seems pretty silly way of evaluating a manager. You have non-managers basically saying they would be better than an actual manager but these guys come closest to being as good as we would be.

This isn't accurate. It is creating a lineup in such a way that it will score the most runs. It isn't subjective. Unless of course you are convinced that players will significantly alter their approach depending on where they hit in the lineup and I've never seen compelling evidence that happens.