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

    • Twenty people believe there’s a trade before the season that changed the offseason? Hmm I said it when Elias was hired. Nothing of any significance will change until there’s new ownership.  Actually, I questioned his ability to perform his duties with the current ownership. I’m still waiting for an impact signing. However, I think they may have a chance with the young guys. Of course, that assumes a big season from Adley, Gunnar and GrayRod and it’s likely at least one of that group has growing pains.    I also hope Hall gets a real shot as a SP. Too many people didn’t recognize the strides he made in season and he’s always been a starter. His stint in the pen was useful, but that kid has electric stuff.  Don’t get me wrong, Elias has been ok, but how much could he do if they loosened the purse strings? Yes, I know, the Frazier signing, but how bout that Gibson guy!  
    • The biggest development of the season will be the sale of the team.
    • We will be fortunate if GRod has a sub 4 ERA. I don’t see him as any more important than the rest of the starters.  If he is ever a true ace (and the odds are against that), it won’t likely be in 2023. The biggest development to this year will be revolved around all the young players, not just one. Everything about this team and the future success of this organization hinges on them. 
    • I'd say that is a yes. https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/service-time  
    • Unusual, in that Birds usually avoid both Fox and Wolf.
    • Why not keep Al and NL just make each have East and West Divisions. Al East is our current group plus Chicago WS and Cleveland plus an expansion in Charlotte-Nashville. AL west gets the rest NL east is that current group plus Chicago Cubs, Pittsburg, and Cincinnati. the west gets the rest plus an expansion in Vegas or wherever. You play your division 15 times (105 games) and the other division say 6 times (48 games). That gets you to 153, add a 3 game inter league to a close geographic rival (Gnats) you are at 156. Expand Playoffs so top 4 in each Division in. the top 2 advance to face the other geographic Division. league winners in WS
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...