THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I don’t know whether MGL’s head will explode, but his reaction should be entertaining.

This reminds me of a couple years ago in the NFL, when the New Orleans Saints had a great run the season following Katrina.  All of the analysts and announcers were claiming that they were winning because they were destined as America’s team.  Well, that, or the fact that they had just gotten Drew Brees, had an amazing running back combo of Reggie Bush and Deuce McCallister, saw Marques Colston emerge as a beast receiver, complimented nicely by Devery Henderson and Joe Horn, and recovered health-wise defensively.

But no, they were winning because they were America’s team.

Maddon may have done some stuff right during the season, but PECOTA and Marcel and MGLs projections didn’t peg them to win 85-88 games entering the year because they had a genius manager.

I don’t expect MGL to implode, at all. The article essentially says that, despite any shortcomings in game strategy, etc., Maddon excelled so much in the other aspects of managing that the net result was superb.

MGL has typically steered clear of posting a strong opinion on the impact of the non-game strategy aspects of manager performance.  And wisely so.

David is right, my head would only explode if someone wrote how brilliant Maddon was with his in-game and lineup decisions during the post-season.

But this author says that Maddon was brilliant, not withstanding whatever opinion you might have on his strategic prowess.

And the evidence for Maddon’s brilliance?

Nothing.  Zero.  Nada.  Absolutely nothing.

Given each player on the Rays who played this season and their playing time, they “should have” won 86 games.  Contrast that with the players and BPro’s estimated playing time before the season started.  That was also 86 wins, so neither Maddon nor the front office did ANY “juggling” of the rosters or playing time that improved their chances.

Their pythag record was 92, which was 6 games above their “expected” record given each player’s 2008 projection and their playing time.

They actually won 97 games, so they outperformed their pythag record by 5 games and outperformed their “expected” pythag record by 6 games.

If you want to anoint Maddon a genius by virtue of that, be my guest.  The problem with that is that you will find little or no correlation with those things and managers, at least not on a year to year basis, and you will be forced to anoint literally almost every manager a genius because virtually every year, a whole bunch of managers (and not the same ones each year) do the same damn thing.

In fact, this year alone, 8 other teams’ pythag records exceeded their expected win/loss records, given their players’ pre-seasons projections and actual playing time, by at least 6 wins, like Maddon.  So if Maddon is a genius, so are Gonzalez, Manuel, Piniella. LaRussa, Scioscia, Gardenhire, and Gibbons.  And Francona and Ozzie are near geniuses, as their pythag w/l record exceeded their “expected” w/l record by 5 games.  So lots of geniuses this year.

This article is garbage because it gives not a shred of evidence, even bad evidence, that Maddon is anything.

The reason that ignorant people think that Maddon is a genius is because those same ignorant people thought the Rays were “supposed” to win 72 games this year, and those same ignoramuses think that getting to the World Series (as opposed to, say, getting knocked out the first round) is a test of heart, character, great managing, and other stupid things.  And these same ignoramuses think that because a team was in the cellar for 10 straight years and then makes it to the World Series, somehow that must be because the manager “willed” their players to victory.

Dumb-**s article.  Dumb-a** concept (that Maddon must be a genius or even a good manager, because of the Rays results this year.) Really dumb.

I am not saying that Maddon is or is not the greatest motivator in the world. Maybe he is and maybe he isn’t.  And maybe motivation by a manager doesn’t mean squat.  And maybe it does.  We do know one thing.  Teams that have 85+ win talent before the season starts tend to win a lot of games no matter who the manager is (which the Rays were and did) and teams that don’t have a lot of talent tend to not win a lot of games, no matter who the manager is.

Isn’t this the same Maddon who led his team to 66 wins last year and 61 the year before?  Before we crown a person as a managing genius, can we at least wait until he has more than ONE winning year in his managing career?!

Now, if someone wants to follow Maddon around for an entire season and actually see him interact with players on a daily basis and interview those players on a daily basis, then, MAYBE I’ll listen to their opinion on that manager’s qualities, good or bad.  Maybe.  But everyone else can just shut up.  O.K.?

Totally agree. Everyone knows Maddon had nothing to do with it.

Don Zimmer, on the other hand, is without a doubt the greatest “Senior Baseball Advisor” of all time, and was probably worth 3 wins by himself.

Totally agree. Everyone knows Maddon had nothing to do with it.

Don’t know if you are being sarcastic or not (which is OK), but I don’t know whether he did or didn’t.  That is my point.  None of these sportswriters knows either. They have no idea what influence if any Maddon had on the team as opposed to any other manager they might have had.  None whatsoever.

“To attribute that which you have no idea from whence it came, to someone or something, is the province of the dullard - or the deeply religious...” MGL’s rule #…