SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
John Henry/Sox ownership/direction
asm18
Veteran
Posts: 3,411
Member is Online
|
Post by asm18 on Jul 13, 2024 13:49:12 GMT -5
Objective metrics of a manager seem quite hard to come by. I mean, sure you can go by win-loss record - but does a 75 win team that a manager helped squeeze several additional wins through savvy moves/motivation/handling injuries and playing time/name one of dozens of things managers do) suggest a worse job than a team that won 85 games that had a much higher base level of talent?
With that said… if you actually believe Cora (or “Manager X” if you’re on the anti-Cora side) benefits your team by at least several wins a year, isn’t what 5/40 as Counsel got a good investment for the organization? Like in contrast, Lucas Giolito is going to make 40 million dollars over the course of two years to rehab from Tommy John and maaaaaybe be an okay pitcher? If there was a player who was several wins over replacement available for 5/40 and you didn’t have to worry about that guy spraining a ligament, AND that person’s salary has no impact on luxury tax implications, wouldn’t you be all over that person?
|
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 13, 2024 14:03:48 GMT -5
This might be unpopular but I would love it if Cora went to the Yankeees. I find managers relatively easily replaceable and that would really reignite some rivalry feelings To asm18's point... How many wins do you think the best managers are worth to their teams? If the answer is as few as 2 wins/year, then something like Counsell's contract would be a bargain, if you apply the usual WAR calculation.
It seems plausible to me that they are worth at least 2 wins. It also seems essentially impossible to quantify. But that could actually be to the advantage of a smart team - in an age where every team is seeking to maximize every quantifiable metric, maybe finding a good manager becomes a market inefficiency precisely because their value is hard to quantify; maybe clubhouse vibes is the new moneyball. Plus their salary doesn't count against the LTT, so it is an actual case where it's "just John Henry's money."
(I say all this while being pretty agnostic about Cora specifically. I think he's fine but also his general low-energy effort last season and the late season collapses in 2022 and 2023 were not great looks.)
|
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 13, 2024 14:15:15 GMT -5
I think that managers can/do affect multiple wins per year, but for the most part not in a repeatable/predictable way.
The exception is that managers should always follow the analytics in every situation no matter what (and before people start throwing exceptions at me, proper analytics account for all of them) and if they do that overtime win differences will add up. It should be easy to find a guy who will do that.
The soft / player relation part does matter, but that’s my earlier point that I just don’t know that that’s repeatable, I don’t know how hard it is to find a guy who can do it, and I don’t know if Cora is particularly great at it.
Add: to be clear if Breslow does think Cora will create two more wins per year than whoever they replace him with I agree he should pay top of market to keep him. I just doubt that is the situation
|
|
asm18
Veteran
Posts: 3,411
Member is Online
|
Post by asm18 on Jul 13, 2024 15:04:52 GMT -5
I think that managers can/do affect multiple wins per year, but for the most part not in a repeatable/predictable way. The exception is that managers should always follow the analytics in every situation no matter what (and before people start throwing exceptions at me, proper analytics account for all of them) and if they do that overtime win differences will add up. It should be easy to find a guy who will do that. The soft / player relation part does matter, but that’s my earlier point that I just don’t know that that’s repeatable, I don’t know how hard it is to find a guy who can do it, and I don’t know if Cora is particularly great at it. Add: to be clear if Breslow does think Cora will create two more wins per year than whoever they replace him with I agree he should pay top of market to keep him. I just doubt that is the situation On the analytics point - this is assuming a manager has correct and full data for every decision he/she can make. And in many cases it’s easy (Devers hits better than Bobby Dalbec). But take like an example of Yoshida getting injured earlier in the year. If he plays through the injury… is there a precise number that “Thumb Injury X” has to project performance? Maybe someone has that, but I’m not aware of an algorithm for “if he’s in this much pain he’ll hit .290 - but if he’s in THIS much pain he’ll hit .250.” You know what I mean? And in respect to the soft stuff. That includes but is not limited to: -managing players (discipline, schedules, expectations, morale, playing time, game preparation) -managing the coaching staff (ensuring folks are on the same page, handling disputes over strategy/philosophy/etc, ensuring they are working with players optimally) -coordinating with the front office on roster moves, usage, short and long term planning -receiving and communicating information from the analytics team for both in-game use and conveyance to the players -processing intake from the training and medical staff for the health of 26+ players for the purposes of planning for 162 individual games -publically communicating to fans and media (especially in a psychotic Boston market) - all of which is being consumed by your players and front office and your billionaire owners as well If anything, the soft stuff is probably the hardest. I feel like the “I’ll play this guy because he’s better than that guy” stuff is probably one of the easier things he gets to do each day haha |
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 13, 2024 15:13:24 GMT -5
yeah of course there isn’t data available in every situation, absolutely. Just have to make the best decision you can with the information you have. But I’m not sure how to know who is better at those calls, and my guess is it’s mostly random, so I wouldn’t really want to pay for a hunch that maybe Manager X is a little better at it than Manager Y.
I also agree that the soft stuff is difficult, never disputed that. I just think who is going to be good at it is going to vary a lot year to year based on their own life, the players on the roster, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by rickasadoorian on Jul 13, 2024 15:14:25 GMT -5
This might be unpopular but I would love it if Cora went to the Yankeees. I find managers relatively easily replaceable and that would really reignite some rivalry feelings To asm18's point... How many wins do you think the best managers are worth to their teams? If the answer is as few as 2 wins/year, then something like Counsell's contract would be a bargain, if you apply the usual WAR calculation.
It seems plausible to me that they are worth at least 2 wins. It also seems essentially impossible to quantify. But that could actually be to the advantage of a smart team - in an age where every team is seeking to maximize every quantifiable metric, maybe finding a good manager becomes a market inefficiency precisely because their value is hard to quantify; maybe clubhouse vibes is the new moneyball. Plus their salary doesn't count against the LTT, so it is an actual case where it's "just John Henry's money."
(I say all this while being pretty agnostic about Cora specifically. I think he's fine but also his general low-energy effort last season and the late season collapses in 2022 and 2023 were not great looks.)
Somoene (I think Rob Neyer?) tried to do this in the 00s. For managers, he compared actual record to expected record (based off RS vs RA). He found that a few managers did outperform year after year. I think Dusty Baker was one , which he didn't like because Dusty Baker was known for pitcher abuse. It would make sense though. |
|
|
|
Post by bishop on Jul 14, 2024 0:38:57 GMT -5
With that said… if you actually believe Cora (or “Manager X” if you’re on the anti-Cora side) benefits your team by at least several wins a year, isn’t what 5/40 as Counsel got a good investment for the organization? Like in contrast, Lucas Giolito is going to make 40 million dollars over the course of two years to rehab from Tommy John and maaaaaybe be an okay pitcher? If there was a player who was several wins over replacement available for 5/40 and you didn’t have to worry about that guy spraining a ligament, AND that person’s salary has no impact on luxury tax implications, wouldn’t you be all over that person? Of course, but I don't think any MLB manager does vs that elite pool, do you? I do think Andrew Bailey might be worth 2 or more wins though... |
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 14, 2024 8:26:25 GMT -5
I think if you're looking to hang a WAR like number on a manager, it's not going to really work when it comes to evaluation.
I mean if we're going to try to use numbers like pythagorean record versus real record or something like that, I dont think that'll be accurate. So if Cora's team has a solid 7-0 lead in the 6th inning and opposing manager puts white flag pitcher in who gets bombed and the Sox win 16-1, it's going to potentially look like the Sox are underperforming their pythagorean projection, making Cora look worse.
I just think it's one of those things that is subjective. How many times are you (and everybody is evaluating the manager against their own 100% expertise, lol) complaining about him making a decision that makes no sense to you? For example, how many of us before the damn inning even played out, were wondering why the hell Grady Little is sending out Pedro for the 8th inning? Then there were others of us who could rationalize it up until Matsui came to the plate with a run in, representing the tying run.
So you have game level decisions in which there are many impacts but nobody has the 100% correct answer key.
Then there are roster usage decisions. Is Cora postponing at this position or will he play his player against lefties, too? How does he handle the pitching staff workload? Who out of a group of middleman relievers does he designate leverage situations? Again, no answer key.
Keep in mind decisions that have been impactful. Like taking Ortiz off the bench and letting him play every day. Despite Hillenbrand's trade, Ortiz still languished on the bench and only Jeremy Giambi's injury gave Ortiz the chance. If not for that, would Little have played him?
When Joe Morgan took over for McNanara, he switched Dwight Evans and Todd Benzinger defensively moving Dewey back to RF and installed Jody Reed at SS, which McNamara hesitated to do.
Again, no answer 100% answer key,but these decisions are even more critical than the game level decisions.
Then there's the really can't hang a number stuff with interpersonal relationships. All you have to do is remember the dour reign of John McNamara or the chaotic miserable season of Bobby Valentine whom his own players wanted fired by April, his first month managing in Boston. Contrast that with how players felt playing for Terry Francona. Can't prove it but playing for Morgan and removing McNamara must have felt like a breath of fresh air for the players who won 19 of 20. A return to normalcy in 2013 probably helped to propel that team. I sincerely doubt Valentine pilots that team to ultimate victory.
Likewise, if that Billy Martin circus soap opera in the Bronx had continued throughout the 1978 season I don't think the Yankees would have caught the Sox. The players relaxed under Bob Lemon.
I think these kinds of impacts are temporary for the most part as players play better when the previous manager is removed and the controversy is removed but then different problems set in under the new regime. Of course the opposite can happen when a respected manager is removed and that move is unpopular in the clubhouse like when the Duquette dumped Jimy Williams for Joe Kerrigan and the Sox collapsed under a guy they didn't care for. And we saw the Valentine disaster.
Is Cora irreplaceable? No. Are the odds are that he's so interchangeable with other guys it won't matter when he's gone? I doubt it. I think theyd have to make a fantastic hire because what I'm left with is my opinion of Cora and I think overall he's a damn good manager.
I think I've questioned his strategies a number of times but am surprised by the success he's had when my opinion differs from his. I've had differing opinions with all managers in my time but I've never had as many variances in which what he did worked out, like pinchhitting for Devers with Nunez in Game 1 of the Series. I lambasted the move and Nunez whacked a 3 run HR.....maybe this Cora guy DOES know something, lol.
I think he makes pretty good decisions with his roster when he has decisions to make. He doesn't get too stubborn or too wishy washy. I think the roster management was really tough to do when Bloom was around. He didn't exactly do Cora any favors, at times leaving him without a viable 1b or a viable RF or enough starting pitching which created all those damn pen draining bullpen games.
I think that Cora clashed with Bloom and that lead to a managing malaise that impacted the team the past 2 seasons, which is on Cora, too. I think Cora has come in with a reinvigorated attitude, similar to what he came in with in 18 and 21. I think his pitcher usage in the post season caught up to him in 19 and doomed the season but ultimately I do think it was worth it as I'd never give back that 18 title and they might not have won in 18 if not for those moves
I think if you ask his players they love playing for him but he'll only put up with so much as Verdugo found out. And in the case of Cora vs Verdugo is there anybody that thinks Verdugo was right? Didn't think so, lol.
So my long winded conclusion is that I think and can't prove that Cora is an excellent manager making the team better and they will be hard pressed to replace him with somebody as good and a rich franchise, if they want excellence and stability, should give Cora his market's worth, or else theyll get a subpar replacement or they'll get a good replacement who has success and will eventually want their market's worth as well and if Sox ownership is against that they'll never have the stability they say they seek and it could undermine a potential era of prosperity.
|
|
|
