Jump to content

The benefits of a manager change...


NewMarketSean

Recommended Posts

The Nats under Acta were 26-61, good for a .298 winning percentage.

Since Riggleman took over, the Nats are 6-7, good for a .461 winning percentage.

The Nats have also won 4 in a row and 6 of their last 8 games.

It likely won't last for long, but a similar change in Baltimore could help avoid another epic collapse.

Your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply
The Nats under Acta were 26-61, good for a .298 winning percentage.

Since Riggleman took over, the Nats are 6-7, good for a .461 winning percentage.

The Nats have also won 4 in a row and 6 of their last 8 games.

It likely won't last for long, but a similar change in Baltimore could help avoid another epic collapse.

Your thoughts?

I think that the Nats stink regardless who the manager is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is always good to look at two weeks worth of baseball and make judgements based on that.

Don't we have like five "Fire Trembley" threads out there now?

It will be interesting to see how the Nats finish. It'll be tough for them to finish with a Win % of less than .300 like they had under Acta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nats under Acta were 26-61, good for a .298 winning percentage.

Since Riggleman took over, the Nats are 6-7, good for a .461 winning percentage.

The Nats have also won 4 in a row and 6 of their last 8 games.

It likely won't last for long, but a similar change in Baltimore could help avoid another epic collapse.

Your thoughts?

Well, sign me up if it means that kind of mind-blowing success!

Getting rid of Trembley won't equate to hardly anything - we have been losing for over a decade with several managers at the helm. It is not about the manager - it is about the organization as a whole. We are heading in the right direction - and with that; we need some leadership stability to demonstrate that we, as an organization, believe in the people we have.

Enough with cutting the manager already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nats under Acta were 26-61, good for a .298 winning percentage.

Since Riggleman took over, the Nats are 6-7, good for a .461 winning percentage.

The Nats have also won 4 in a row and 6 of their last 8 games.

It likely won't last for long, but a similar change in Baltimore could help avoid another epic collapse.

Your thoughts?

Okay so they bring in another manager. The team does good for awhile. Then anotehr collapse. Who do you beleive would be a good manager?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see how the Nats finish. It'll be tough for them to finish with a Win % of less than .300 like they had under Acta.

But that is because it is very unlikely that a team could be that HISTORICALLY bad.

I mean math, statistics, science. These are real things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anybody remember how Earl Weaver's last season as manager went. For those who don't know, the Orioles finished 14-42 in the last couple of months and finished in last. Now, do you think Weaver somehow forgot how to manage that last season? Now let's look at the great Joe Torre, winner of 4 out of 5 World Series in New York. Does anybody remember he was fired by the Mets, Braves and Cardinals. Or how so many people in New York thought Steinbrenner had lost his mind when he brought Torre in? What was the difference between Weaver in the 60s-early 80s and Weaver in '86? What was the difference between Torre before he got to the Yankees and Torre after he got to New York? THE PLAYERS

Now I'm not saying the manager doesn't matter at all but his importance is wildly exaggerated by most. Fire Hargrove, fire Mazzilli, fire Perlozzo, fire Trembley, fire the next guy. It's not going to matter until they put the players on the field, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nats under Acta were 26-61, good for a .298 winning percentage.

Since Riggleman took over, the Nats are 6-7, good for a .461 winning percentage.

The Nats have also won 4 in a row and 6 of their last 8 games.

It likely won't last for long, but a similar change in Baltimore could help avoid another epic collapse.

Your thoughts?

Yes, it is plausible, maybe even likely, that a drill sargent manager would drive the O's to more wins in 2009. Whether or not that's a good thing for the long-term goals of the Baltimore Orioles is another question. See Martin, Billy.

The O's are likely to get better anyway, since they're better than they've been recently playing. The Nats were never a .300 team. Nobody really is. That's basically replacement-level. They were overdue for some regression to the mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please tell me you are not drawing conclusions from the fact that the Nats have won 4 games in a row. 4 days ago, the Nats were 2-7 under Riggleman. I guess then you could have concluded that firing Acta was a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • Posts

    • I guess we were watching a different outing. 
    • You try to sign long term Gunnar and GR.  Wait and see on the others. As for Adley?   I would not sign him to a long term contract.  I hate to say it because I love the guy but he just does not seem worth what he is going to ask for imo.
    • I am not worried about Means AS LONG AS HE IS HEALTHY.   Big if.  But he knows what he is doing getting ready for what him is his spring training.  If he does this his first 2 starts or so?    Then I worry.
    • I had never seen him in a live at bat until I saw him at his first spring training at bat this year.  And I mean his very first at bat.   He struck out swinging on like 4 pitches and being honest looked completely over matched.  I remember thinking....."hmmmm that seems odd for a guy so highly touted".   He just seemed like he had no idea what he was doing.   But then I never really saw another live at bat from him again all spring training and he ended up doing pretty well.  However every at bat I have seen of him since he got called up?  Looked like that first spring training at bat.  He looks like my wife trying to hit a major league fastball.  He has no idea what he is doing. I have never seen someone so good against minor league players and yet so bad against major league players.  Just a huge discrepancy.   Has to be psychological.   He looks completely intimidated. 
    • And who is this somebody other than Means or Flarerty that would help us in the playoffs. Also remember Bradish and Grod did not help us in the Playoffs. So I guess It was unwise to wait on those 2. Plus Bradish is hurt and uncertain going foward( a la Means) Yeah you piled on.
    • I will say I am surprised at how utterly useless/helpless JH looks after he got called up.   Not just surprised. Stunned is a better word. This is not an 7th round pick who struggled for years in the minors.   This is the #1 pick from 2 years ago who has dominated his entire life in the game of baseball. Yet he looks like a player in 8th grade playing against seniors in HS.  He can barely make any contact and even his fielding and throwing is very iffy. It is like he took up the game of baseball within the last year.   A complete novice.   This has to be mental because even the worst of the worst can make more contact than he is.  He is FLAILING.   No way that is all physical.    At this point you send him down.   No questions asked.   I was more than willing to let him get through this if he SHOWED ANY SIGNS of life.  But he just doesn't.   He looks pathetic.    Manny Machado he is not.   Send him down for at least 3 months.   Bring up Mayo.  Or anyone really.  It is better than what he is offering.
    • DJ Stewart has a 1.031 OPS in 12 games.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...