Options
Analytics and Baseball Managing
PaulMaul
Posts: 4,707 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Has anyone ever come up with a way of rating a baseball manager's performance that's more sophisticated than just using wins/losses?
0
PaulMaul
Posts: 4,707 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
one addition might be to look at his "tree" like fans love to do with NFL HC's. where do his Assistant Coaches end up and how do they affect the Sport??
I've only looked at a few managers so this "metric" is far from proven, but in the case of Billy Martin it either proves he was a great manager, or I have discovered the greatest coincidence in the history of the universe:
1968 Twins: 79-83 7th in AL
1969 Twins: 97-65 1st in Division
1970 Tigers: 74-88 4th in Division
1971 Tigers: 91-71 2nd in Division
1973 Rangers: 57-105 6th in Division
1974 Rangers: 84-76 2nd in Division
1975 Yankees: 83-77 2nd in Division
1976 Yankees: 97-62 1st in Division
1979 Athletics: 54-108 7th in Division
1980 Athletics: 83-79 2nd in Division
1982 Yankees: 79-83 5th in Division
1983 Yankees: 91-71 3rd in Division
1984 Yankees: 87-75 3rd in Division
1985 Yankees: 97-64 2nd in Division
In case it isn't apparent, the top row in each couplet is the record of a team the year before Martin became their manager, and the second row is their record in their first year under Martin. Every time Billy Martin took over as manager the team improved a minimum of 10 games, and an average of 18 games, and an average of 2.5 places in the division standings. He took bottom half teams to the top half, every single time, and he took the only top half team he inherited to a pennant and a World Series win (probably would have with the Yankees in his last stint, but was fired before he could).
Billy Martin was, in my opinion, the greatest manager in baseball history, and I think this provides pretty much all the evidence I need to see.
The other manager that jumps to mind as greatest ever is Casey Stengel, who, from 1949 to 1960, managed the Yankees to a bunch of titles and an overall W/L of .624. The thing is, though, that when Ralph Houk took over from 1961-1964 he took the Yankees to the WS each year, winning two, and had a W/L of .630. I'm pretty sure I could have managed the Mantle-era Yankees to quite a few WS wins; I could not have come close to accomplishing what Martin accomplished.
the question with Billy Martin would be did players respond like that because he was a great manager of talent or because they were afraid he'd beat the crap out of them if they failed?? calling him "the greatest manager in baseball history" is something that can be supported by these small statistics, but why was he never kept on anywhere?? and what happened in 1972, 1977-78 and 1981??? the fact that he was moderately successful in NY can be explained by the fact that his personality played well there with Steinbrenner, but not even that blowhard could take Billy's BS for very long.
my sense is that Billy Martin was "old school" playing in an era that had passed him by. gone were the days when you could be a drunk(or act like one) and bully everyone in sight. by the time he was with the Yankees the times had changed and players were well on their way to taking power away from the manager. guys need to be able to motivate in a different way in today's game. perhaps the last of that genre was Tommy Lasorda.
all you really need to see is the way guys look in the clubhouse now when things get dicey, they keep their cool and rarely explode. I think part of the Yankees late season success this year was a few times when Girardi freaked out and got ejected. managers don't play the tantrum card very often anymore, with Billy Martin it was standard operating procedure. he had some of the greatest ejections in the history of the game. thanks to Youtube we can still watch them!!!
I agree about Billy Martin being great, though obviously flawed. Rod Carew credited him for helping him reach his potential, and was only coached/managed by him for a couple of years I believe.
I managed to analyze baseball and its too damn slow.
My favorite part of baseball is the season is so short. Starts in Oct and ends pretty much in October
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
What used to be so enjoyable about baseball was following your team, being familiar with the players long term, and just enjoying a standalone game. I think sports has really suffered from annual roster reshuffling and making winning a championship the be all and end all.
Baseball is slow. Football is slow...with maybe six plays an entire game that are interesting, and there is more action going from the huddle and lining up than the subsequent boring one yard pile up. Basketball, hockey, and soccer have almost non stop movement, but it doesn't mean it is compelling movement...the old saying of, "all you need to watch is the last two minutes of a basketball game" is really pretty accurate.
Baseball is slow, but it is unmatched when there is drawn out suspense late in the game. Other sports have suspenseful moments late in the game, but the clock makes them end. I could watch the Kirk GIbson home run every day, and still get goosebumps...and that happened almost 30 years ago, and I know the outcome, but yet it is still more compelling and suspenseful than any football game I could watch today, or the rest of the year.