Quantitatively rating baseball managers

[Senser81]

I don't know if there is any metric or statistic to quantitatively rate baseball managers...all I know is that you have people who are regarded as "good" managers and "bad" managers, but I don't really know why. For instance, Joe Torre won a lot at New York, but he had the best players, so I don't know what he did stratigically/tactically that made him a "good" manager. Dusty Baker has also had a pretty good won-loss record, but I remember him being an idiot on the Cubs, basically ruining Prior and Wood by having them consistently throw 140-pitch games and also having one of the worst baserunning teams I've ever seen.

I formed my opinion of Baker because I watched him and his teams, but is there a way to properly rate baseball managers without having seen them manage?

Take Ozzie Guillen...up until this year he was regarded as a good manager, but I never really knew why. Sure, he won a world series, but that is more like the end result....it doesn't really tell us why he's a good manager. I've never watched him manage, but I've always regarded him as a clown. This year, I've watched him, and his inability to manage his bullpen during April/May put the Sox in a big hole. He insists on batting Adam Dunn high in the lineup. His outfield has two starters who are worse (according to WARP) than Triple A players. He has utilized an injured Jake Peavy way too often.

I am just amazed at how idiotic Guillen is, yet he is still employed and still has his world series ring. It makes me wonder if there just isn't a way to properly rate managers.

[spiker]

All of these assessments of Guillen are true, sadly. Ozzie has carte blanche because he won a WS but even that goodwill is wearing thin these days.

As far as rating managers goes, I don't have a theory but I would be interested to see a metric that rates managers. With metrics for everything in baseball these days, it makes me wonder why there isn't one yet...

[Warner2BruceTD]

Baseball Prospectus does wacky manager metrics, but, like most of the drivel Baseball Prospectus spews, it's based on fuzzy math and usually comes to obvious conclusions anyway (just like their yearly player projections, where they conclude things like "Posey is a young player on the rise, expect a jump in production" or, "Crawford is on the wrong side of 30, his SB rate should drop"...thanks!).

[Slateman]

I don't think you can. I think baseball is probably the most individualist sport. When a batter comes up to the plate, its him all by himself. Its him against the other pitcher. I can't think of another sport where a player is so isolated. There is nothing a coach or manager can do the moment a player steps up to the plate to affect the outcome.

[Senser81]

Baseball Prospectus does wacky manager metrics, but, like most of the drivel Baseball Prospectus spews, it's based on fuzzy math and usually comes to obvious conclusions anyway (just like their yearly player projections, where they conclude things like "Posey is a young player on the rise, expect a jump in production" or, "Crawford is on the wrong side of 30, his SB rate should drop"...thanks!).

If Pujols gets injured, the Cardinals might not win the NL Central.

[Senser81]

I don't think you can. I think baseball is probably the most individualist sport. When a batter comes up to the plate, its him all by himself. Its him against the other pitcher. I can't think of another sport where a player is so isolated. There is nothing a coach or manager can do the moment a player steps up to the plate to affect the outcome.

But why are some managers called "good", and others are called "bad"?

[Slateman]

No idea. Perhaps some are better at motivating players in the offseason or getting them off losing streaks. I don't know how you would statistically rate that. Maybe you can't. Maybe its one of those things that you have to do in an unscientific way.

Think about it, how would you rate a manager in a service that sells no matter what? Like video games. If you're a game designer, you're going to get a job simply because, despite the recession, video games are still doing well. So how do the higher ups rate management?

[Buzzman]

A lot of people keep saying Jim Leyland is a "good" manager yet hes below .500 as the Tigers manages since the 2nd half of 06 until now. He keeps terrible players in the lineup and relies too much on pitch count and the lefty right scenarios and we are a dreadful baserunning team. He too seems to be living off that 06 season and since we made the World Series most people overlook the fact that the Tigers collapsed at the end of the year and didnt even win the division.

[Senser81]

Think about it, how would you rate a manager in a service that sells no matter what? Like video games. If you're a game designer, you're going to get a job simply because, despite the recession, video games are still doing well. So how do the higher ups rate management?

My work is much like that. The money comes in pretty much on its own, with no relation to sales people or marketing or whatever. So I always find it funny when the higher-ups say things like "we need more sales people" or "we need to spend more money in promotions"....because there is no correlation. Its like thats all they know how to do.

[Senser81]

A lot of people keep saying Jim Leyland is a "good" manager yet hes below .500 as the Tigers manages since the 2nd half of 06 until now. He keeps terrible players in the lineup and relies too much on pitch count and the lefty right scenarios and we are a dreadful baserunning team. He too seems to be living off that 06 season and since we made the World Series most people overlook the fact that the Tigers collapsed at the end of the year and didnt even win the division.

It seems like in baseball, a manager can "live" off an unexpected good season for years. Its strange. In football, a coach can have three good years in a row but after one subpar season he's on the hot seat (or fired).

[Warner2BruceTD]

When I look for good managers, I look at guys who found a way to win at every stop, or stayed at one place a long time and won with a different cast of characters in different decades.

Billy Martin is a good example of the former. He managed the Twins, Tigers, Rangers, Yankees, and A's. He finished in first place at least one season at every stop, except for Texas, where in his only full season he led them to second place following a sixth place finish the prior year. When he came back to the Yankees after his stint with Oakland, he won over 90 games and finished third.

Tommy Lasorda is a good example of the later. He won in the 70's, then the early 80's, then again in the late 80's, and again in the mid 90's. He rarely had bad teams, and when they were bad, it didn't last long.

You mention Baker, a popular whipping boy, yet he's had success with three different teams. Managed the Giants for 10 seasons and finished first or second 8 times. Came to the Cubs, won a division, then won 89 games, before it fell apart. Reds were a disaster for a decade, and he had them back in the playoffs in his third season. I watch the Reds every day, I feel like he does a good job. He had two young pitchers who were injury prone, so he gets a bad rep for that (Zambrano was used in a similar fashion as Wood & Prior, but he's still going strong. Sometimes, guys just get hurt). Take that away, there isn't much to be critical of.

It's hard to get a handle on guys unless you watch them daily. And even then, it comes down to what style you prefer. Some people think Joe Madden is nuts, but others like his unpredictable style. I just look at the record. If you win in different places or in different eras, you must be doing it right.

[NAHSTE]

The truth is it really doesn't matter. I forget where this comes from but I have read that the difference between the most optimized lineup and the least optimized lineup will still only be about 3 wins over the course of 162 games.

So even if a trained monkey were filling out the lineup and handling the bullpen at random, a team would likely play to within 1-3 games of its true talent level anyway.

Look at the fucking Braves for instance. Fredi Gonzalez is a TERRIBLE manager, much worse than Bobby Cox, and the Braves have nearly an identical record through 82 games.

[FirstTimer]

You mention Baker, a popular whipping boy, yet he's had success with three different teams. Managed the Giants for 10 seasons and finished first or second 8 times. Came to the Cubs, won a division, then won 89 games, before it fell apart. Reds were a disaster for a decade, and he had them back in the playoffs in his third season. I watch the Reds every day, I feel like he does a good job. He had two young pitchers who were injury prone, so he gets a bad rep for that (Zambrano was used in a similar fashion as Wood & Prior, but he's still going strong. Sometimes, guys just get hurt). Take that away, there isn't much to be critical of.

Zambrano wasn't used anywhere nearly as similar as Wood and Prior. Zambrano pitched a few games with larger pitch counts but Dusty road Wood and Prior like mules when they pitched.

On top of that he has some of the oddest game management I have ever seen and him winning in Frisco IMO had more to do with Bonds and the Giants as a team then it did with Baker. I can't really point to anything Baker has ever done as a manager that makes him "good" other than riding good players during his time there.

In Chicago Baker rode Sosa's last few good seasons and career years by Wood and Prior to do what he did. His last few seasons when he was actually forced to manage the team and make calls it was atrocious. Plus Baker was an absolute ass clown about his firing and pretty much calling Chicago racist and bringing his kids to press conferences for sympathy to try and avoid tough questions being asked. He completely lost control of that team. His last seasons were a joke.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Zambrano wasn't used anywhere nearly as similar as Wood and Prior. Zambrano pitched a few games with larger pitch counts but Dusty road Wood and Prior like mules when they pitched.

On top of that he has some of the oddest game management I have ever seen and him winning in Frisco IMO had more to do with Bonds and the Giants as a team then it did with Baker. I can't really point to anything Baker has ever done as a manager that makes him "good" other than riding good players during his time there.

In Chicago Baker rode Sosa's last few good seasons and career years by Wood and Prior to do what he did. His last few seasons when he was actually forced to manage the team and make calls it was atrocious. Plus Baker was an absolute ass clown about his firing and pretty much calling Chicago racist and bringing his kids to press conferences for sympathy to try and avoid tough questions being asked. He completely lost control of that team. His last seasons were a joke.

Here's what I don't understand about the Dusty "pitcher killer" thing.

By the time he got to Chicago, Wood already had an injury history and was 26 years old. He threw more CG's under Riggleman & Baylor then he did under Baker. He missed a full season 2 or 3 years before Baker ever got to Chicago. But Dusty "killed" Wood, not Riggleman or Baylor. Huh? Total nonsense.

And Zambrano pitched more innings than either Wood or Prior, but never got hurt. And he was younger than Wood and the same age as Prior.

There is basically no evidence that Dusty kills arms. Not in SF, not in Cincy. Reputations are hard to shake, but Dusty basically has a bad rep in that regard because Mark Prior is softer than bread. Prior would have gotten hurt under any manager. It's all so silly.

[Senser81]

Billy Martin is a good example of the former. He managed the Twins, Tigers, Rangers, Yankees, and A's. He finished in first place at least one season at every stop, except for Texas, where in his only full season he led them to second place following a sixth place finish the prior year. When he came back to the Yankees after his stint with Oakland, he won over 90 games and finished third.

Martin is an interesting case. His players basically hated him. IIRC, he managed the Twins for one season before getting fired. He managed the Rangers for a season and a half before getting fired. He managed the A's for a couple years before getting fired (and in the process ruining the most promising pitching staff in baseball with an absurd amount of complete games).

That said, he usually could get his players to perform well for at least a short period of time. But, like how Mike Martz is an offensive genius yet few teams will hire him, its interesting how many times Martin was fired in short order.