Winning a short series (was Re: TORONTO BLUE JAYS CLINCHED THE AL EAST!!!!!)

Winning a short series (was Re: TORONTO BLUE JAYS CLINCHED THE AL EAST!!!!!)

Post by Carl R. Gritt » Thu, 08 Oct 1992 05:05:36



Quote:
>ANYTHING can happen.  It's a short series.  Don't EVER woof in a short
>series.  Billy Bates and Billy Hatcher might jump up and bite you.

ANY team that makes it to the post season in MLB has a chance to win.
In the long run, the teams with most talent will win more often than
teams with less talent, but there are plenty of examples where the
team with the least talent (on paper) won.  The last glaring example
of this is the LA Dodgers in 1988.  They just got hot at the right
time.  One extremely hot pitcher (Herchiser) and a few hot batters can
get you thru.  Every MLB team has streaks where they win 3 or 4 in a
row so for a division winner with less talent to beat a division
winner with more talent in a 7 game series is not a stretch at all.

Thats why all this stuff about a team *** in the playoffs and the
like, is really a bunch of hogwash.  All it takes is one bad week,
which even the best teams in baseball have on occasion.  The problem
is that everyone remembers this bad week for years on end.

Quote:
>>Congratulations to the Jays in winning the AL EAST.

Yes, a great accomplishment.  Winning a division by playing better
than 5 or 6 other teams for 162 games is a great accomplishment.  It
doesn't happen to everyone (just ask the fans of the Expos, Indians,
Rangers, Mariners, etc.) and it should be appreciated a little more.
The fans in Toronto have seen 4 division winners in 8 years but won't
be happy if Toronto doesn't make it to the World Series.  Toronto may
have the edge in talent but their chances of winning a 7 game series
is probably at most 55-60%.  Why not laud the real accomplishment (a
division title) rather than frown if they fail as a 3-2 favorite (let
alone fire the manager -- don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Cito
replaced, but not making it to the series isn't the reason -- he's
simply not a good tactical manager).  Also, anybody who thinks that
Toronto is more or less likely to win this year because they failed
the last three times, needs to take a course in probability.

Carl

 
 
 

Winning a short series (was Re: TORONTO BLUE JAYS CLINCHED THE AL EAST!!!!!)

Post by Roger Mayna » Thu, 08 Oct 1992 06:29:15


Quote:
>The fans in Toronto have seen 4 division winners in 8 years but won't
>be happy if Toronto doesn't make it to the World Series.  Toronto may
>have the edge in talent but their chances of winning a 7 game series
>is probably at most 55-60%.  Why not laud the real accomplishment (a
>division title) rather than frown if they fail as a 3-2 favorite (let
>alone fire the manager -- don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Cito
>replaced, but not making it to the series isn't the reason -- he's
>simply not a good tactical manager).  Also, anybody who thinks that

This Cito bashing is getting just a little rediculous ain't it?  If
Cito was to take his team to victory in the WS you would still replace
him because he was not a "good tactical manager"?

Would the blue jays have a better record with a good tactical manager
than they have had with Gaston?  Hardly.  Gaston has a career mark of
350-262 which averages out to about 93 wins a year.  How many managers
can squeeze 93 wins a year out of any team year after year?  Not many.
There is a lot more involved in bringing a group of very competitive
people together to achieve a common goal than simple tactics.  Yeah
I wouldn't have White leading off neither but i don't see Gillick banging
on my door with a management contract.

rm

--
roger maynard                    


 
 
 

Winning a short series (was Re: TORONTO BLUE JAYS CLINCHED THE AL EAST!!!!!)

Post by Mike Jon » Thu, 08 Oct 1992 08:06:33


Quote:

>>alone fire the manager -- don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Cito
>>replaced, but not making it to the series isn't the reason -- he's
>>simply not a good tactical manager).  Also, anybody who thinks that
>This Cito bashing is getting just a little rediculous ain't it?  If
>Cito was to take his team to victory in the WS you would still replace
>him because he was not a "good tactical manager"?

Yep. I consider it entirely likely that the Jays might win a World
Championship in spite of their manager.

Quote:
>Would the blue jays have a better record with a good tactical manager
>than they have had with Gaston?  Hardly.  Gaston has a career mark of
>350-262 which averages out to about 93 wins a year.  How many managers
>can squeeze 93 wins a year out of any team year after year?  Not many.
>There is a lot more involved in bringing a group of very competitive
>people together to achieve a common goal than simple tactics.  Yeah
>I wouldn't have White leading off neither but i don't see Gillick banging
>on my door with a management contract.

If your players are good enough, you're more likely to hurt them with
"tactics" than help them. If your players are bad enough, there's little you
can do to help them. The only cases (IMHO) where a manager can make a
significant differences is with a good, but flawed, team. Take Earl Weaver,
for instance. Earl was one of the best ever at taking OK players with some
significant skills (John Lowenstein, John Shelby, Davey Johnson, etc.) and
putting them into situations where they were most likely to succeed. If you
have the '61 Yankees, you don't need tactics. If you have the '62 Mets, they
won't help. The best managers are the guys who know who the best players on
their team are in every situation, and manage to get them into those
situations. In this regard, Cito doesn't have a clue. Fortunately for him,
he's had enough good players that it hasn't mattered.


April 27, 1983: Nolan Ryan breaks Walter Johnson's record of 3508 career
strikeouts, fanning Expo Brad Mills.

 
 
 

Winning a short series (was Re: TORONTO BLUE JAYS CLINCHED THE AL EAST!!!!!)

Post by Roger Mayna » Thu, 08 Oct 1992 10:13:05


Quote:


>>>alone fire the manager -- don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Cito
>>>replaced, but not making it to the series isn't the reason -- he's
>>>simply not a good tactical manager).  Also, anybody who thinks that
>>This Cito bashing is getting just a little rediculous ain't it?  If
>>Cito was to take his team to victory in the WS you would still replace
>>him because he was not a "good tactical manager"?
>Yep. I consider it entirely likely that the Jays might win a World
>Championship in spite of their manager.

Do you have any evidence to back up this opinion?

Quote:
>>Would the blue jays have a better record with a good tactical manager
>>than they have had with Gaston?  Hardly.  Gaston has a career mark of
>>350-262 which averages out to about 93 wins a year.  How many managers
>>can squeeze 93 wins a year out of any team year after year?  Not many.
>>There is a lot more involved in bringing a group of very competitive
>>people together to achieve a common goal than simple tactics.  Yeah
>>I wouldn't have White leading off neither but i don't see Gillick banging
>>on my door with a management contract.
>If your players are good enough, you're more likely to hurt them with
>"tactics" than help them. If your players are bad enough, there's little you
>can do to help them. The only cases (IMHO) where a manager can make a

Can you give me an example of a team where "tactics" proved to be detrimental?

Quote:
>significant differences is with a good, but flawed, team. Take Earl Weaver,
>for instance. Earl was one of the best ever at taking OK players with some
>significant skills (John Lowenstein, John Shelby, Davey Johnson, etc.) and
>putting them into situations where they were most likely to succeed. If you

I think the secret behind Earl Weaver's "genius" might be gleaned if you
look over the list of CY award winners.

Quote:
>have the '61 Yankees, you don't need tactics. If you have the '62 Mets, they
>won't help. The best managers are the guys who know who the best players on
>their team are in every situation, and manage to get them into those

Don't you think you might be a tad guilty of generalizing here?  Isn't it
likely that the best managers have combinations of skills?  And that each
of any group of best managers would have differing combinations of
different skills?

Quote:
>situations. In this regard, Cito doesn't have a clue. Fortunately for him,
>he's had enough good players that it hasn't mattered.

Why do you feel Cito doesn't have a clue?  Can you give me examples of
situations that you feel Cito mishandled his personnel?

rm

--
roger maynard                    

 
 
 

Winning a short series (was Re: TORONTO BLUE JAYS CLINCHED THE AL EAST!!!!!)

Post by Carl R. Gritt » Thu, 08 Oct 1992 14:12:49


Quote:
>Can you give me an example of a team where "tactics" proved to be detrimental?

Yes.  Tom Runnells, Montreal's former manager, was a classic case.  He
over managed the team.  It seemed he made moves, sometimes just to
make a move, so as to show the team who's boss.  The effect was that
the players had no idea, how, when, or why they were playing.  The
irony was, that it was exactly the fact that he did these "control
moves" that showed he actually didn't have control.

Quote:
>Don't you think you might be a tad guilty of generalizing here?  Isn't it
>likely that the best managers have combinations of skills?  And that each
>of any group of best managers would have differing combinations of
>different skills?

Yes.  All great managers do not have the same combination of skills.
Also, the combination of skills that work are probably different from
team to team.  A good manager recognizes that there is a tradeoff
between taking strict control and "letting the players play".  The
balance between these two can vary from team to team and even from
player to player.  The great managers recognize what to do from
situation to situation.  Sometimes he needs to rule with an iron***
and other times he needs to let things go.

Quote:
>>situations. In this regard, Cito doesn't have a clue. Fortunately for him,
>>he's had enough good players that it hasn't mattered.

Yes.  My sentiments exactly.

Quote:
>Why do you feel Cito doesn't have a clue?  Can you give me examples of
>situations that you feel Cito mishandled his personnel?

Gaston is manager who lets the players play.  He has a set lineup and
tends to stick with it, not making alot of moves.  He has platooned
players in the past, but one gets the feeling he'd rather not do it
unless he's forced.  He leaves alot of room for "error" and doesn't
give up on someone very easily.  For some players, this will work well
but for others it won't.  

For great managers, I look at LaRussa, Leyland, and Kelly.  Each has
star players which they play everyday.  But they still use their
entire roster in the other spots of the lineup.  They know which
situations their players are most likely to succeed and use them in
these situations as much as possible ALL YEAR.  Then when the
situation becomes more critical (either during the stretch run or the
playoffs) they aren't afraid to continue using all their players and
the players are quite likely to continue to come through because
they've been doing it all year.  Also, each player tends to learn
and place importance on their role with the team, giving the team a
sense of togetherness and purpose.  The players gain confidence in
themselves and each other.  They learn what the manager will do in
certain circumstances and will prepare themselves phsyically and
psycologically.

When Gaston calls on his bench in the playoffs (maybe he just won't)
they'll have so little experience that its much less likely that
perform well.  It would be nice if Gaston could count on his bench to
pinch hit for players at the bottom of the order like Gruber, Borders,
Lee, and even Maldanado.  When players like White and Alomar get on
base, Carter and Winfield are there to drive them in and if a tough
right hander is facing them late in the game, you still go with them
because they're all stars and still have a good chance to come thru.
But when Carter and Winfield get on base and you have Maldanado,
Gruber, and Borders, facing a tough right hander late in the game you
would like to pinch hit for them.  But since the bench hasn't been
used very much all year, you can't expect them to come thru in such a
situation because they haven't had to all year (I'm generalizing here
but I think you get the picture).  You're also afraid to put these
subs in defensively.

But the situation is better than last year.  Last year, after Carter's
spot in the order, the Jays would simply have to wait an inning or two
for the top of the order to come around for another chance to score.
Thankfully, this year with Winfield and a much improved Maldanado,
Olerud, and Lee, the bottom of the order is actually reasonably
productive.  The dramatic increase in run production this year for
Toronto bears that out.

Carl

 
 
 

Winning a short series (was Re: TORONTO BLUE JAYS CLINCHED THE AL EAST!!!!!)

Post by Nelson » Thu, 08 Oct 1992 14:30:31


Quote:
>>Yep. I consider it entirely likely that the Jays might win a World
>>Championship in spite of their manager.

>Do you have any evidence to back up this opinion?

Like, very few fans in Cincinnati would consider, now, Lou Piniella a good
manager?  Yet he has a World Series ring.

Quote:
>>If your players are good enough, you're more likely to hurt them with
>>"tactics" than help them. If your players are bad enough, there's little you
>>can do to help them. The only cases (IMHO) where a manager can make a

>Can you give me an example of a team where "tactics" proved to be detrimental?

Like, letting Jay Bell bunt whenever a runner is on base?

Quote:
>I think the secret behind Earl Weaver's "genius" might be gleaned if you
>look over the list of CY award winners.

I think the secret behind the list of CY award winners might be gleaned if you
look over Earl Weaver's "genius." :-)  Usually, CY winners win a lot of games,
and thus must be on winning teams.

===============================================================================
GO CALIFORNIA ANGELS!
===============================================================================

 
 
 

Winning a short series (was Re: TORONTO BLUE JAYS CLINCHED THE AL EAST!!!!!)

Post by Todd Rad » Fri, 09 Oct 1992 02:09:28



%
%>
%>Do you have any evidence to back up this opinion?
%
%Like, very few fans in Cincinnati would consider, now, Lou Piniella a good
%manager?  Yet he has a World Series ring.

Actually, very few fans in Cincinatti should consider Pinella a manager at all.
I hear he either quit or was fired last night.  Anybody have details?

-todd

 
 
 

Winning a short series (was Re: TORONTO BLUE JAYS CLINCHED THE AL EAST!!!!!)

Post by Brian Curr » Fri, 09 Oct 1992 03:38:11

|> Actually, very few fans in Cincinatti should consider Pinella a manager at all.
|> I hear he either quit or was fired last night.  Anybody have details?

Lou met with Reds owner Marge Schott yesterday to discuss next season.
Lou's contract is up and he told Marge that he did not wish to return
to the Reds for 1994.  She tried to talk him out of it but failed.
He was NOT fired, and he didn't technically resign.  He just didn't
want to sign a contract with Cincinnati.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yogi Berra, New York Yankees catcher, after his wife said she'd been to see
 'Dr Zhivago':  "Oh?  What's the matter with you?"

 
 
 

Winning a short series (was Re: TORONTO BLUE JAYS CLINCHED THE AL EAST!!!!!)

Post by robert and stime » Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:17:16

Quote:


>|> Actually, very few fans in Cincinatti should consider Pinella a manager at all.
>|> I hear he either quit or was fired last night.  Anybody have details?

>Lou met with Reds owner Marge Schott yesterday to discuss next season.
>Lou's contract is up and he told Marge that he did not wish to return
>to the Reds for 1994.  She tried to talk him out of it but failed.
>He was NOT fired, and he didn't technically resign.  He just didn't
>want to sign a contract with Cincinnati.
>--

I find this story impossible to believe.  I think Lou wanted to come back, but
at best Marge was going to make him sweat over it.  She, in fact, did all year,
and when Lou had his scheduled discussion with her, there was probably no leaway
in the battle of stubborn personalities.
My guess is that Bob Quinn won't be back next year, though he has stated publicly
that he wants to return.

RStimets

 
 
 

Winning a short series (was Re: TORONTO BLUE JAYS CLINCHED THE AL EAST!!!!!)

Post by Brian Curr » Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:12:51



|> >
|> >Lou met with Reds owner Marge Schott yesterday to discuss next season.
|> >Lou's contract is up and he told Marge that he did not wish to return
|> >to the Reds for 1994.  She tried to talk him out of it but failed.
|> >He was NOT fired, and he didn't technically resign.  He just didn't
|> >want to sign a contract with Cincinnati.
|> >--
|> I find this story impossible to believe.  I think Lou wanted to come back, but
|> at best Marge was going to make him sweat over it.  She, in fact, did all year,
|> and when Lou had his scheduled discussion with her, there was probably no leaway
|> in the battle of stubborn personalities.

Lou confirmed yesterday that he would have returned to Cincinnati if Marge
had been willing to discuss his contract before season's end.  When she
didn't, he decided to leave.

|> My guess is that Bob Quinn won't be back next year, though he has stated publicly
|> that he wants to return.

Good guess:  Bob Quinn was fired yesterday.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yogi Berra, New York Yankees catcher, after his wife said she'd been to see
 'Dr Zhivago':  "Oh?  What's the matter with you?"

 
 
 

Winning a short series (was Re: TORONTO BLUE JAYS CLINCHED THE AL EAST!!!!!)

Post by T.. » Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:58:33

I think it was right for Pinella to give Schott his split finger!!!