Rank your top 5 current managers

by The Cheat on Apr 3, 2008 11:09 PM CDT Comment 49 comments

Pretty simple one here.

Growing out of this piece in the Wall Street Journal and a brief exchange about new manager Manny Acta, who do you think are the top 5 active managers in baseball?

[Update by The Cheat, 04/03/08 11:09 PM CDT ]: Bumped to include this exchange:

With runners on first and third and one out in the top of 10th in Atlanta, Bobby Cox replaced pitcher Chris Resop with Royce Ring to pitch to Adam LaRoche. Resop moved to left field to replace Matt Diaz. After Ring struck out LaRoche, Resop moved back to the hill to face Xavier Nady. Gregor Blanco then entered the game as the new left fielder.

When the Sox were terrible last season, had .5 major league outfielder, and two bullpen specialists, I thought Ozzie should run Wassermann and Boone out there to do just this. Steal an inning of effective relief work, when it was in such short reply.

Oh and the Braves lost.

SouthSideSox is a community driven site. As such, users are able to express their thoughts and opinions in a FanPost, such as this one, which represents the views of this particular fan, but not necessarily the entire community or SouthSideSox editors.

2 recs | Comment 49 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

hmmm

i'll have to attach the usual caveats (especially the whole "some managers are better for certain teams than others") but these lists require a distillation so (not necessarily in order):

1. manny acta
2. ron gardenhire
3. ned yost
4. john gibbons
5. bruce bochy

there are probably eight current managers who i'd weight pretty much equally, largely because it's difficult to rank managers "skill" and also because it's somewhat hard to weight the skills each manager is better at against other skills. can throw in guys like piniella and cox into that mix.

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Mar 30, 2008 8:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

yost and gibbons

would make my bottom 5

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Mar 30, 2008 8:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

see?

this ain't exactly science. gibbons is a great in game guy. but he doesn't really understand pitch counts and stuff like that so worry if you're aj.

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Mar 30, 2008 9:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually there was something in one of our discussions last week

that almost tempted me to post this topic...

I think it would be a worthwhile task for a more widely reaching baseball site (BTF, BTB, or Tango) to take on...

I think the overall consensus would be interesting.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Mar 30, 2008 10:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree

the primary problem with assessing managers is that we're sort of at the point where we were with defensive stats a few years ago, and to a degree still are: you really have to watch the manager almost every game to make a good determination. and even then you might be wrong. i'll freely concede that my list is based on some of the nascent managerial stats out there and games i've watched, which is too few for me to be really confident. i'll also note that the guys who have looked into managers "skill" seem to think the difference between the best and worst is about four wins - which is a heck of a less than the difference between the best and worst regular player in baseball, which is on the order of eight or nine wins (maybe more, how bad was punto last year?).

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Mar 31, 2008 8:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Manny Acta?

What's his record?

Out-underacheiving the other guy.

by defensive indifference on Mar 30, 2008 10:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i imagine that's not hard to figure out

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Mar 31, 2008 8:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

.451

Do you think he lead a 65 win team to 73 wins last year? I just don't see how you can have him in the Top 5 managers in baseball.

Out-underacheiving the other guy.

by defensive indifference on Mar 31, 2008 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

first of all

as i pointed out below, the difference between the best and worst manager is very likely far less than 8 wins, and certainly not the 16 wins or whatever it is your post implies. setting aside long-term win benefits a team may derive from a manager developing players appropriately and not destroying pitchers arms, etc., a very good manager probably provides something like 2 wins more than your average manager. so if you're asking me whether i think manny acta was worth two more wins than an average manager, you bet your ass i do.

i recommend watching nationals games. you will not find a more aggressive, creative and forward thinking in-game manager. one area that manny is at the forefront of is utilizing the shift against lefthanders who pull the ball (think ryan howard and bonds). take a look at ryan zimmerman's DP totals and ask yourself if you find something interesting about them. his bullpen usage is also quite interesting and highly effective. i could go on but i don't have the time. i recommend reading christina's nationals entry in the BP annual which will elaborate further. i watched about fifteen nationals games last year and each time i found myself asking "why is manny doing x"? and after looking into it, i usually found an answer that surprised me but was dead-on accurate. i certainly do not find myself asking that same question nearly as often with most other managers.

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Mar 31, 2008 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

of your guys, Yost is at the bottom for me because of how poorly he managed (especially his bullpen management) down the stretch last year blowing the lead to the Cubs... A competent in-game decision manager, like a wedge, would have had Millwaukee in the playoffs after that start.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Mar 31, 2008 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i will admit

that i didn't really care about the nl central so i wasn't watching them much down the stretch. i personally stopped thinking the brewers had a chance to hold off the cubs when they failed to acquire rotation help at the deadline.

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Mar 31, 2008 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you sure your objectivity is not clouded slightly

by the fact that Yost's failure allowed the hated CUBS a slice of glory? If Houston had benefitted would Youst be spared the rod ever-so-slightly?

I took the "under".

by winningugly on Mar 31, 2008 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

is cheat a big cubs hater?

i thought he was like me in the largely don't care attitude about the cubs.

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Mar 31, 2008 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hazarding a guess (hopeful)

It's a virgin season - need to build some animosity this year, since everyone and their Mother is handing the Cubs the pennant before a game has been played.

I took the "under".

by winningugly on Mar 31, 2008 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No -- it was terrible managing

but his crappy managing would have flown under the radar if it was in favor of the Astros. I simply wouldn't have been paying attention.

So I guess it has influenced me in that way, but not objectively.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Mar 31, 2008 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Generally speaking

1. Bobby Cox
2. Jim Leyland
3. Tony La Russa
4. Mike Scioscia
5. Ron Gardenhire

I'd feel comfortable giving the top three any roster in baseball. Scioscia and Gardenhire don't exactly know how to develop and manage power hitters, but they can handle starters and a bullpen with the best of them and always seem to get maximum effort.

I like the cut of Acta's jib, but I'd like to see what he does in a race before giving him a boost above the second tier.

Sox Machine

by Sox Machine on Mar 30, 2008 9:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

tony used to merit such a ranking

the man has slipped recently.

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Mar 30, 2008 9:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I mostly agree

He's taken the "insufferable d-bag" factor up a notch, and if the Cardinals flatline this year, he's off the list. I just don't see anybody who can take his title away.

Sox Machine

by Sox Machine on Mar 30, 2008 9:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

based on your list

i'd probably push bochy on you. west coast guy who doesn't manage in LA so he doesn't get quite the attention he deserves. his SD years were pretty masterful, in my opinion. being in san fran likely won't help his rep.

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Mar 30, 2008 9:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

everyone loved Bochy while I was in SD

and if he was good enough for Kevin Towers for that long, I think that says a lot. I was too young to really know, young enough that a couple of my friends played soccer with his kids.

dude, that was totally not swish you saw on rush street last night. swish was at home playing xbox.

by colintj on Mar 31, 2008 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I walked away from this discussion

because I'm still catching up with the A&E version of the Sopranos

But this is pretty much my list... I'd drop Gardy, but I think he's top 10 or so.

I have a tough time with after 4. Lots of good managers who aren't without their flaws (Ozzie-Gardy types)

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Mar 30, 2008 10:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

a rough list

1. Cox
2. Scioscia
3. Leyland
4. LaRussa
5. Tito

Then it's 5-6 interchangeable guys that includes Ozzie, Gardy, Black, Bochy, Torre... followed by a few new guys who I think are gonna be good Girardi, Acta, Hillman, but I need to see them in action... followed by those who I'm indifferent towards Wedge, Manuel, Maddon

The rest are guys who I think are poor (Baker, Yost, Gibbons, McLaren) Geren (who is a do nothing puppet) and some guys I just don't really know anything about..

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Mar 30, 2008 10:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I missed the crosstown guy

I think he's good. You can put him in Ozzie, Gardy, Torre territory

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Mar 30, 2008 10:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hated LaRussa when he managed the Sox

and haven't changed my opinion over the years. I vividly remember him sac-bunting w/nobody out in the 1st inning at Fenway (fer crying out loud)! And don't even get me started on Mike Squires...

Next time, Bhoov, do some research.

by Chiburb on Mar 31, 2008 8:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ranking them into tiers

1. Old masters: Cox, Leyland, La Russa.

Guys I'd give any 25-man roster to and expect results.

2. Missing something: Scioscia, Gardenhire, Torre, Piniella, Guillen, Bochy

At least one glaring flaw, but usually can make up for it with other skills.

3. Young martinets: Willie Randolph, Joe Girardi

Scott Skiles types -- short-term results, but high burnout factors.

4. Great personalities, odd strategies: Wedge, Baker, Hurdle, Manuel, Francona, Melvin, Black

Players' managers. Can keep a team together well, but won't make any revolutionary changes if needed.

5. Saying the right things: Acta, Gonzalez, Hillman, Maddon

So far, so good, but teams are too bad to gauge anything.

6. Unclear vision: Yost, Gibbons, McLaren

Guys who don't quite seem to stick to any strategy, and say or do things that confuse me.

7. No idea: Trembley, Cooper, Washington, Geren, Russell.

Geren doesn't quite fit, but I can't say I have much of an idea of his capabilities, considering all the injuries.

Sox Machine

by Sox Machine on Mar 30, 2008 10:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Finally a mention of Gonzalez

I'm pretty sure I saw a quote from him that was pretty much straight from the 'Sabermetric Bible' about stolen bases and how it's usually not worth the risk. Then again, Jim putting him under the "Saying the right things" certainly seems fair. He'll also be a tough one to gauge seeing that the Marlins won't be competing for at least two-three seasons (perhaps more).

by CWSKeith on Mar 30, 2008 11:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's hard to judge managers

If they do their jobs right they're barely noticeable. Their strategic decisions are kind of irrelevant, probably the greatest impact is getting the right players on the field - and how do you know they're putting the right player out there if the better player is on the bench? Usually you don't know that until the player is traded or released. I'd say it's Cox #1, and then a big dropoff below him to the next level.

by ChicagoPete on Mar 31, 2008 6:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

the problem i have with ranking cox so highly

is that i wonder how much of his success is really leo mazzone's success. now, obviously, having the smarts to hire a guy like mazzone should reflect on a manager. but what's happened since mazzone left? of course, on the other side, one can point to how orioles pitching wasn't fantastic. so then you go to how much of their success was having the great pitchers in their prime that literally no one else did. there are a lot of questions about how to gauge success and separate it from other aspects and i think cox is poster child #1 for this. i have this analysis on the leo mazzone effect from a few years ago; i think the analysis has been revisited since but for what it's worth.

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/03/the_mazzone_eff_1.php

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Mar 31, 2008 8:46 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Outside of the pitching staff, he's the best in the

game at mixing in young players with his core, adjusting on the fly during the season.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Mar 31, 2008 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cox, absolutely

The fact that he brought in last year's team to a very competitive place after being all but given up for dead at the start of the season, and without the aforementoned Mazzone, was almost Herculean. (Though it did help to have one of the best talent evaluators in the game as your GM.)

SoxMachine said it best - Leyland, LaRussa (save the drunk/drug norm that appears to have permeated the organization), and Cox are the top 3. Gardy's close behind, though again his GM was extremely talented.

I'd hold off on anointing Acta just yet - a few years ago everyone wanted Tony Pena, Sr. after his one year miracle with the Royals.

I took the "under".

by winningugly on Mar 31, 2008 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

did you just compare acta to pena

er, no. slightly different argument.

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Mar 31, 2008 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why?

Because of this?

He led the Kissimmee Cobras to a Florida State League championship in 1999.

Or because he didn't make the majors? Or becuase Pena was AL manager of the year in 2003?

I see that Acta has pled his trade since 1991 in the minors until 2006, so perhaps he has a great minor league pedigree. Why the hate for Pena? I'm just saying Tony had a great year, was hailed as the NEXT big manager, and flamed out. Acta may be an up-and-comer but he's not got any pelts on his wall yet.

Just looking at results. I don't pretend to know Acta, but I'm a peripheral observer. Give me a series of successful ML seasons and I'll say he belongs. Guillen was THE MAN in '05 (and he did push a lot of correct buttons) and now is called "one of the 5 worst" by some folks on this site.

That's why I'll take the consistent body of work by Cox/LaRussa/Leyland/Gardy.

I took the "under".

by winningugly on Mar 31, 2008 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's different

because pena didn't do anything special. he was an average or below average manager. he had a team that did much better than it did the year before. you get awards for that. doesn't mean the manager had much to do with it. he flamed out in perception, not reality.

i'm fairly certain there aren't many people calling manny acta the next big manager.

i would think it's fairly obvious that ranking a manager on win-loss records alone is even worse than ranking pitchers on win-loss records.

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Mar 31, 2008 7:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

THERE you are

I was just using an example of a one-hit wonder, I like to see a track record before investing.

I took the "under".

by winningugly on Mar 31, 2008 7:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's too late by then

and i'm not sure what kind of track record you're expecting. the nationals will likely suck for at least the next couple years. if you're just looking at wins, you're missing a lot.

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Mar 31, 2008 7:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm looking at alpha -

wins above expected return. Wash. has some decent players, si? Starting to spend some dough? New stadium? I'd expect they'd hire an aggressive, young guy on the cheap who can bring a young team to .500. Same as the Rays. Same as Girardi at FL who parlayed it to the best gig in sports (well, highest profile, perhaps).

I took the "under".

by winningugly on Mar 31, 2008 7:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

and how does one measure that?

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Mar 31, 2008 7:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Helluva question

I don't know. But a great question that speaks to this whole post - how do you quantify "performance"?

You are better versed than me in these postulations (numerically/empirically, especially) so I'd defer to you on that one.

I took the "under".

by winningugly on Mar 31, 2008 7:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well

i may have pittered around it on this thread but i don't really know either.

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Mar 31, 2008 8:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And the track record isn't necessarily

W/L - it's a consistent history of outperformance within the context of expected return. I thought Girardi did such a fantastic job with admittedly talented kids that he deserved at least a shot at a position where someone would actually try and field a competitive team annually.

I took the "under".

by winningugly on Mar 31, 2008 7:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

managers

gardinhire
scosia
cox
leyland
pinella

I doubt I spelled any right except cox but I think Torre is over rated, Larussa is past his prime (great hire back in 1981 though) and we'll soon see if pinella is past his prime as well.

by spadog on Mar 31, 2008 8:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Cocks? Leiland?

Now it's perfect.
;)

I took the "under".

by winningugly on Apr 1, 2008 5:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Easy

1. Dusty Baker
2. Dusty Baker
3. Dusty Baker
4. Dusty Baker
5. Ozzie

"P.S. if Cintron gets traded or released I will buy drinks for the whole board" - tubesox 6/24/07

by mjthor on Mar 31, 2008 10:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

dusty ain't second to no-one!

by The Wizard on Apr 1, 2008 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A good manager

A good manager in my book makes decisions that I agree with, almost always. And if I disagree with the decision, it better turn out well. I have not seen a good manager ever.

by boyonthedock on Apr 3, 2008 2:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

that

is an excellent post.

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Apr 3, 2008 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i'm sure no one will read this

but this is part of the reason why i don't think scioscia is that good of a manager.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7311

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Apr 3, 2008 7:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'll read it, later

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Apr 3, 2008 11:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's not that exciting

just talks about his odd choice of lineup, something i've noticed in the past. i'm the first to point out that lineups really aren't that important. but if a guy is going to be ranked by some people as one of the top couple three managers in baseball, well, i'd expect that guy to be squeezing just about every advantage out of his team. maybe there's some front office pressure there, who knows. i do like a lot of things about scioscia, such as his aggressive approach to baserunning.

the law of conservation of masset: no matter how much masset you use up, there is always masset in your system.

by larry on Apr 4, 2008 9:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs