Evaluating Managers

Given our discussion yesterday on this subject, I this was an interesting read. It is a method of evaluating managers on a 0-to-100 scale. Pretty interesting read. Where does TLR rank all-time according to this tool? Well, dear reader, click on the link and find out!

over 2 years ago bgh 2 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting read for sure

I hate to say this, but I have to discount any manager who managed the Yankees prior to 1965. It just isn’t fair by his rules — there’s no way the Joe McCarthy was a better manager than John McGraw, he just had much, MUCH better players.

The most HOF players that McGraw ever had was on his 1922 title team when he had 5, but only 4 of those played any significant time. Contrast that with McCarthy, who had no fewer than 5 HOF players on every single team he ever managed, discounting the war years of course, and McCarthy really struggled to win games in 1944 and 1945 when all the great talent was off fighting in WWII.

Seriously, give me 5 HOF players and I’ll show you a shitload of wins every year.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Jun 23, 2009 6:24 PM EDT reply actions

I agree

However (and this is without re-reading the article), I believe this was a measuring stick for HOF managers; that is, a way of looking at just what makes a HOF manager. And his rating system seems to be pretty accurate at quantifying just what the voters deem HOF managing. Nonetheless, the formula is interesting and could be a starting point. Do you punish managers for having too many HOFers? What would the cutoff be? It’s an interesting question. Also, pythag is not used in it.

"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."

--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS

by bgh on Jun 24, 2009 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions