The benefits of a manager change...

[NewMarketSean]

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?

[Hank Scorpio]

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.

[SilentJames]

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?

[NewMarketSean]

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.

[OnTheBlack]

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.

[Tx Oriole]

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?

[srock]

A negative of a manager change: The Orioles continue to lack any sort of continuity or cohesiveness due to the constant personnel turnover.

[Left Field]

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?

I vote for this guy......http://theformofmoney.blogharbor.com/CoolHandLukeGuard.jpg

I can see Huff and Mora having to use the bathroom during the game and telling our new manager..... "I'm shaking it boss!!!!"

[Birds08]

Bring in Davey Johnson for the rest of the season. I think that would truly be a very wise move.

[SilentJames]

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.

[vab]

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.

[ShaneDawg85]

Did wonders for the team in 2005 and 2007. I mean, who can forget the epic and inspiring run they went on during those seasons.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

[Frobby]

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.

[ledzepp8]

Statistics are really dangerous things in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use them properly...

HAHAHAHAHAHA:rofl::rofl: