Baseball

yeah after Abbreu was in the derby last year his numbers started to suck, on ESPN they had the stats and they were like .315 with like 18 HR, .283 average with 12 HR's since (those are estimations FYI)

Leyland is the difference with that ball club. I remember last year when people were waiting for the White Sox to fade which never happened.

Jim Leyland MIGHT be worth two wins to that club over the first half of the season. Managers in baseball matter very little.

The Tigers are a good team because of a healthy Magglio, a healthy Guillen, a full season of Shelton, Granderson, and Thames, outstanding pitching by the youngsters (Verlander, Bonderman, Robertson) and the old man. (Rogers)

I disagree. Jim Leyland makes chicken salad outta chicken sh1t everywhere he goes. I was hoping the Phillies would have gotten him a few years ago. In my opinion Jim Leyland makes a 81-81 team a 94-68 team. Just my opinion.

The Tigers have pretty much the same roster as last year. They just needed a manager who will say losing will not happen here.

This maybe a stupid question,, but how are the Brewers doing this year?

There's alot of research being done to quantify just how many wins/losses a manager is worth. Here's one example.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/fil ... rt_1_of_2/

I think that to say Jim Leyland, or any other manager, can turn an 81 win team into a 90+ win team is greatly overstating a manager's worth. An MVP type performance from a player is typically worth 6-7 wins above a replacement player. I can't imagine any single manager having more value than a MVP type player - especially Jim Leyland, a manager with a career record below .500.

What a bunch of bull. Just look at the man's career. So you are saying a great manager is worth MAYBE 5 games, if that? Why are the same managers successful year after year. If you think managers don't have a big impact on startegy during the game how about attitude, game preparedness, discipline, team chemistry etc. Looking at a man's history of success is more effective than some primate statistician.

The Detroit Tigers are just the latest example of what a great manager can do.

You can hold on to that sorry memory when the White Sox are in the World Series again cubbie boy.
Hahahahaaaaaaaa....

JAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACKED!

And AJ just backstepped....cuz he knew the score. MB woulda rocked him some more.

There are so many ways to debunk this arguement that I don't even know where to start. How about with your premise of "looking at a man's history of success?" Doing just that, you will see that Jim Leyland's "history of success" is quite the opposite. In fact, as I stated earlier, he has lost more games in his history than he has won.

As to why the same managers are successful year after year, that is simply not true. The only managers who have consistently made the playoffs throughout the past decade are Bobby Cox, Joe Torre, and Tony LaRussa. You could probably throw Lou Pinella in there as well, though he did not fare well in Tampa. Those are probably the 4 best managers in the game and are still only worth no more than 5 wins per season. The main reason they consistently make the playoffs is because of upper management's willingness to spend money and wise decisions with the money they spend. Even Dusty Baker won while he was in San Francisco.

As for team chemistry, attitude, and all the other intangibles you cite, not a single one of them has ever been shown to have any correlation with winning. Things like that make for a good article in SI, but nothing more.

And for the life of me I can't figure out why some people have such disdain for statistics and "primate statisticians" as you put it. It's not as though these statistics are made up out of the blue. Statistics are simply a recorded account of what happened in a sporting contest. Why is that a bad thing? Why would someone ignore such data?

Some people argue against statistics saying "statistics don't cover evertything." While that may be true, (although I believe most unquantifiable attributes would surely show up in the statistics is some way or another) it's certainly not an arguement against the use of statistics. It's actually a better arguement for the MORE statistics.

This new "sabermetric" philosophy is rapidly infiltrating the world of baseball and I suggest you get used to it. It won't be long until the NFL and NBA is running rampid with staisticians or "statgeeks" as well. But don't take my word for it. Check out these sites.

http://footballoutsiders.com/

http://82games.com/

http://www.thefootballscientist.com/

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080475 ... e&n=283155

P.S.

Sorry if I come off a little defensive. I'm not trying to aim this rant directly at you. It just bugs me that people will throw new, researched evidence out the window in favor of "the way things have always been." There's always more to learn, and that includes sports too.

That is because it does not matter if the Cubs catcher is suspended for 10 games or even 100. They are not going anywhere.

By the way... here is the real score.
White Sox... 57-31 and defending world champions.
Cubs...........34-54 and trying to stay in front of the Pirates and Royals for worst record in baseball.

Hahahahhaaaaaaaaa....... losers!

I think we are talking about two different things. My point was that Jim Leyland has the ability to make "Chickensalad out of chickensh1t". By that I meant that he could take a team of nobodies from a low revenue franchise and make them contenders for the World Series. This is the third time he has done it. Just look at what he did in Pittsburgh, Florida and now Detroit.

I know Leyland has "lost more games than he has won" but that is because of the places he has managed. Your statistics don't take that into account. Not one New York/LA/Atlanta type job. His job was to take young nonames and get them to win as soon as possible before they earn a big paycheck and have to be traded away. Which is what happens as soon as he is successful. Again, your statistics don't take that into account. To blame him for this would be the same as blaming TT for having a .250 winning % so far as a GM. Look at what he was given to start with and then look where he takes them. TT doesn't have a history to judge yet but Jim Leyland does and if you ask any "baseball person" knowledgable to the game to name the top 3 managers in the league over the past 20 years Jim Leyland's name will surely be there.

I'd say that they're just the latest example of what an outstanding pitching staff can do, but I take your point about the manager having an important role in baseball.

44-46 so far and only 5.5 games outta first place in the NL Central.

Remember, AJ did the right thing and walked away.

DePack,

Agree to disagree?

no, he got rocked away, and then did the right thing and did nothing back.

Cool.

I love how that got Barrett a TEN GAME Suspension as well.

yep, he deserved it

Now, i'll be honest. When I found out that Barrett's 10 game suspension was upheld by MLB, I laughed as hard as I could.

I still think I'm the only person on here who is a mets fan...But they are doing good,just took 2 out of 3 from the reds. :beersign:

I laughed when I found out that he would serve it while he was also hurt, so he would recover while serving it...then he came back and did well..

and is hitting over .330 and had 1st inning RBI and a HR today...awww

and AJ is starting trouble with other players...he bumped somebody yesterday after he hit a grand slam. hes a douche, and the more punches he gets, the better.