THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Manny Acta isn’t related to ACTA Sports, is he?

When (if?) the Nats turn around and some national writer does a feature on how sabermetrically-inclined managers are the next big trend, will the buzzword switch from Moneyball to Actavision?

Yes, Johnson was +37 per 150 in 610 PA and Soriano was +27 per 150 in over 700 PA.

I’m, not sure I am ready to annoint Acta as the official “Manager of the Book” yet.  He does seem to be somewhat analytical, as we knew or suspected before.

#2: The buzzword will be managerial Actavism.

How the Mets, choosing between Acta and Willie Randolph, chose Randolph, is beyond me.

I thought it was the same way they chose Church over Milledge.

---"How the Mets.....chose Randolph is beyond me.”

Why? Given his lack of pop (pitchers not afraid to throw strikes), Randolph’s BB rate was one of the best ever, I think. He stole bases at a very good percentage for his era. He was a solid defender, knew how to play the hitters. From all of this, he played the game with intelligence and got the most out of his ability. Why does he not rate as a promising managerial candidate to a sabermetrically inclined team or observer?

Whether he has actually turned out to be a good manager is a different matter.

Maybe the historical precedent of the rich man’s version of Randolph, Joe Morgan? 

It would be enlightening to sit in on a managerial interview to see how much talk there is about strategy and philosophy of the game as opposed to leadership, chemistry, and the like.

I think the better question, though, is how you end with Manny Acta as your manager and Jim Bowden as your GM.

Based on reports from the Yankee managerial interviews, there seemed to be a lot of talk about game strategy and evaluation. Girardi occasionally slips something into a conversation that lets us see that side of him. For instance, he talked about Jeter’s lack of range several times on the air last season.

You might also note that Acta is very good about not giving away outs.  He steals rarely and sacrifices even less.

One, I think there are few, if any, managers or potential managers that have more than a rudimentary knowledge of ANY sabermetric princicples (rudimentary = OBP is important, you don’t give away outs, and that’s about it).  Two, while there may be SOME potential and current managers who would be willing and capable of embracing sabermetric principles, I think that for almost ALL teams, that kind of thing is far, far down on the list of qualifications for a manager. I mean what team is even capable of asking the right questions if they they wanted a sabermetrically oriented manager?  CLE, BOS, OAK, maybe SD, and that’s about it.

The larger (or at least interesting) question is, who would do better - an “old school” manager who is good at motivating and teaching players, or one who was perfect sabermetrically, but who had the respect and personality of, say, someone like me?  (No snark answers please!)

I was wondering if Manny Acta is going to be the manager of the Book, whether Brian Bannister can be its ace. I was truly surprised by the answer he gave regarding BABIP here:
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/01/brian-bannist-2.html

Pretty impressive if you ask me.