I guess Maddon can blame deep stats for getting badly out-managed in the playoffs last season. I think Maddon is all the rage because of the aesthetic. He's hip and portrays himself as outside the box. He's a good manager, but so are a lot of other guys. This year, Maddon is an idiot if he tries to "manage" at all. The only thing he needs to worry about is whether or not the ump can read his handwriting on the line-up card.Originally Posted by bravos4evr
IMO, he is by far the most overrated manager in baseball. He has great talent to work with and doesn't get in the way of it.
Buck, on the other hand, has gotten limited teams to play above their heads in Baltimore.
I wouldn't say Maddon is overrated. He's good, but he's also the flavor of the decade. He did a really good job in Tampa Bay, but I think he just tinkers to tinker to some extent. It's interesting to note that he has done a whole lot less tinkering since he took over in Chicago.
Boy if Folty has turned the corner, that could be yuuuuuge. Cautiously optimistic.
cajunrevenge (05-31-2016), nsacpi (05-31-2016)
They're still pitching after they get sent down.
I still think Scioscia is more overrated than Maddon.
I think Maddon did more in Tampa than Scioscia has in LAA since winning the WS.
Forever Fredi
the truth is the difference between a great manager and an avg manager is probably around 3 games a year..... but the game is more pleasing to watch when the manager isn't making the same dumb mistakes every other manager makes over and over.
did you know the standard batting order theory is based on the dead ball era??? this is how wedged in antiquated thought the game is.
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"- Tom Waits
I am about 1000% more optimistic about next year now that Folty has shown signs of life.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
Hold on thar! I don't watch mlb tv very much, but there was an exchange the other day about all the different-looking line-ups that seem to be cropping up this season and Rosenthal attributes it to advanced stats. He could be wrong, but given it was Rosenthal, I hardly think so.
This brings me to what I consider to be an hilarious observation. Ten years ago, the stat community was talking about how batting order didn't matter. Traditionalists said it did. Now, advanced stats is somehow backing up the traditionalist stance. I just find it funny.
well the evidence seems to say that there is such a thing as an optimized lineup, HOWEVER, the difference between this lineup and a totally random one works out to like ten runs a year..... which isn't really that much difference. The beef is that you want a manager who gives his team the best chance to succeed and a decent lineup is part of that. Optimal might be a stretch, but some of the lineup cards Fredi made would've baffled John McGraw.
the better the offensive players, the less lineup matters too
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"- Tom Waits
I am not sure if the advanced stats position has changed all that much concerning batting order. It's still viewed as being an immaterial argument as long as you aren't doing something wacky like batting your best hitter 8th, pitcher at lead off, etc.. The difference is Twitter, where instant analysis of everything (big or small) has to take place and everyone feels qualified to second guess every move a manager makes.
As for the overarching principle at play, I would hope that the advanced stats community would be willing to change their mind on things. The issue with the traditional side is the unrelenting stubbornness to embrace fresh ideas. To be fair though, the advanced stats community has this tendency to not consider "antiquated" ideas.
Have the statistical findings changed. I think the received wisdom was that an optimized lineup might get you an extra win or two. The difference is that one or two wins in the past was dismissed as nothing. And now it is viewed as something.
I think there is just an increased appreciation of how doing a bunch of little things right adds up. Getting the lineup right will get you 1-2 wins. Shifting in a systematic manner gets you 1-2 wins. Getting as much of the platoon advantage as possible might be worth 1-2 wins. Having a manager who is good at handling the pen might be worth 1-2 wins. It adds up doesn't it.
Braves1976 (05-31-2016), bravos4evr (05-31-2016), JohnAdcox (06-01-2016)
I'm just going on what Rosenthal said. I don't think line-up matters all that much (and having a lot of good hitters in a line-up certainly makes it far less important), but then why do we see more "pitchers hitting eighth" if it doesn't matter? Is it just something managers now do to be en vogue? There are some pretty basic rules-of-thumb that have governed line-up construction over the years and they still stand on their own pretty much. The game has changed a ton in my lifetime and those changes have had a large bearing on balancing left/right and platooning, but you try to get your best guys as many ABs as you can and try not to put a base-clogger in the middle of your run producers.
I think having good hitters following guys who can find a way to get on base is pretty tried and true as well.
I really think the P hitting eighth helps when you have more table setter type guys than you can really put at the top of the lineup. After first inning, you don't really know who will lead off an inning, so having more than one guy with lead off type on base skills ahead of your best hitters is a good move.
I hear all of the "doesn't make much difference" discussion, and over the course of a season it probably evens out some, but the traditional wisdom is not all wrong, and if it helps a little, then why not?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
