Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Primate Studies > Discussion
Primate Studies
— Where BTF's Members Investigate the Grand Old Game

Monday, July 17, 2006

Evaluating Managers, Part 2 of 2

In Part One of Evaluating Managers published here at Primate Studies, I discussed a system for evaluating managers I blundered into. It's based on looking at five components: how individual pitchers under/overachieve in a given season, how individual hitters similarly under/overachieve, pythag records, team runs scored vs. Runs Created estimated runs scored, and team runs allowed vs. RC estimations. I ran the numbers for the 192 men who managed at least 500 games from 1894-2001.

There were a few stupid errors in that piece, however, which I have fixed here. I discussed them in the comments section of Part One (see comments #1 and #3 in that thread), so I'll briefly describe them here. First, I did a double-check, forgot to save it, and didn't realize I hadn't saved it. Seven managers (Felipe Alou, Larry Dierker, Art Howe, Bob Lemon, Billy Martin, Hal McRae, and Birdie Tebbetts) were notably affected, and about 15-20 others also underwent minor changes. Second, there was a very minor change made to 1899 that affects managers from that year by about 0.10 runs. Finally, Part I went from 1894-2001, but I have since realized that the beginning point should be 1896, not 1894. To figure the individual hitter component for 1895, you need perform RC for 1893. There is no SH data from that year though. By tossing out those two years four managers (Anson, Buckenberger, McCloskey, and Irwin) fall under 500 games leaving the study with 188 managers.

These problems have been fixed here. If there's a difference in data between Part I and Part II, assume Part II is correct. These changes do affect the data from Chart I in Part I, but all the conclusions made from it remain valid. Here's a corrected chart:

Adjusted Chart I: Determining Managerial Impact


Category		2000s		1000s		500s		499s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual Hitters	+3.25/162g	+0.22		-0.23		-7.75

Individual Pitchers	+6.59/162g	+1.24		-3.21		-13.74

Pythag. ^1.83		+3.89/162g	-0.43		-1.39		-6.79

Team Offense		+1.98/162g	+1.30		-0.04		-6.91
	
Team Pitching		+2.25/162g	-0.08		-0.19		-5.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL			+17.96/162g	+2.25		-5.15		-40.21
So much for correcting the old. Now on to the new. This article is intended to go over some of the most important information which didn't fit into that article.

MOST CONSISTENT

Well, those are the main results. A few other points worth mentioning. Twelve men scored positive in all five components, and six were negative in them all. The good guys were Joe McCarthy (of course), Al Lopez, Casey Stengal, Buck Ewing, Billy Martin, Davey Johnson, Dick Williams, George Stallings, Mickey Cochrane, Joe Torre, Joe Altobelli, and the immortal Bill Shettsline. I never heard of Shettsline either. Altobelli is under +4 in two separate categories. The six are Jimmie Wilson, John McCloskey, Billy Meyer, Rogers Hornsby, Terry Francona, and Dan Howley. Wilson is in the bottom 16 in four of the five components.

FURTHER COMMENTS ON MANAGERS

Some managers I feel like making some additional comments on relative to this study.

Felipe Alou. He scored really well as long as the Montreal club fielded an actual team. He was over +100 as late as 1998, and was positive in five of his first six years, but it's tough to remain high when the front office quits trying to field a real major league team. His big drops have come with individual hitters and team runs allowed.

Joe Altobelli. He's one of the only men to score positive in all five components. His best strength may have been his ability to quickly wear out his welcome. He had great years in 1978 and especially 1983 when the Birds won it all. Usually that gives a manager a little bit of leeway to screw up so badly it drives his numbers down, but Altobelli got the axe very quickly with both teams.

Sparky Anderson. +484.91 with the Reds and +148.29 in Detroit. He peaked in 1988 with +794.42 as his then-career mark. Strangely, his strengths were different with both clubs. With the Reds he was +258 in pythag, and +237 in team runs allowed. In Tiger Town he was below zero in both of those categories but +245 with individual hitters.

Dusty Baker. Consistently negative with individual pitchers. Scores positively only once in the last eight years under study.

Bruce Bochy. I am surprised how high he charts with an overall mark of +215. That's inflated by the 2001 cutoff for this project. He scores very high for 2001, in part because those same players performed so badly for him in 2002 and 2003. If this project had a slightly different deadline, he'd be notably lower.

Lou Boudreau. The century's youngest manager comes away from his stint with Cleveland with a respectable score of +137.81, but aside from 1948 he was –16.75. After leaving Cleveland he was terrible, -303.87.

Dave Bristol. He got his start with the Reds where he pulled of the difficult task of consistently scoring poorly for a team that kept posting a winning record. He was -80.93 for a team that was always good. They fired him and immediately went to the Series while he bummed around the Brewers, Braves, and Giants proving those Reds teams won despite and not because of him.

Bill Carrigan. A good example of how it's hard to separate a manager from his environment. As Red Sox during their 1913-6 glory years he was +206.73. Returning a little over a decade to a team decimated by fire sales, he went –199.88 in three years. Maybe he just lost his touch over that decade. It's tough to stay good at this job for a long time. In part teams that are good at finding good on-field talent should be a little better at finding good managerial timber, but it's funny how good managers go to bad franchises and suddenly become bad managers. The only consistent part for him was that he was never that good with individual hitters.

Frank Chance. With the Cubs the Peerless Leader was +724.77. Everywhere else he was –124.14. He was especially bad in his half-season with the Red Sox in the 1920s. I don't know if this means anything, but almost every year he was with the Cubs the team allowed fewer runs than this system projects.

Fred Clarke. He scores badly with Louisville, about –90, and like most he trailed off a bit at the end of his managerial career. However, in his first 13 years in Pittsburgh he was +806. He was consistently effective with individual pitchers and only had one year worse than –20 runs. Aside from Louisville, he only had one year under –10.

Ty Cobb. His worst year with individual hitters was –1.78. Not bad. His best year with team runs allowed was +1.85. I put more stock in the former info.

Bobby Cox. One of the problems I have with this system is that it scores Bobby Cox too low. In part it gives him extremely low marks on individual hitters and surprisingly team runs allowed. On his first time with the Braves he get very low marks for individual hitters, -104. Shockingly, he's also –21 with individual pitches. I don't know why that would be. The team's ERA got better when he arrived and worsened when he left. My hunch is that it revolves around how Component ERA tries to separate pitching from defense. The '77 Braves had a horrible DER, but were about average in 1978. Their DER worsened again when he left. He did well with individual Blue Jays pitchers, but still not quite what one would expect. The 1985 Jays had one of the best DERs of the last quarter century. He's been over zero with individual pitchers every year from 1991-2001. This also gives him low marks for six of the last seven years with individual hitters, and in all but one of the last eight years with team runs allowed.

Henry Craft. Bill James's book on managers mentions that he was likely a very good manager. His career won/loss mark was a pathetic .426, but he got stuck managing the KC A's, and expansion Colt 45's. In –15.32 is a fantastic score for someone with such a horrible winning percentage.

Roger Craig. The prophet of the split-finger fastball only has a +71.32 for his career with individual pitchers, but that's because he trailed off badly at the end of his career. He was above average in all but one of his first eight years, and his career mark peaked at this component at +187.27.

Joe Cronin. In the team runs allowed component (AKA the part using two degrees of estimator for pre-1960 baseball) his teams come off above average in all but two years, and never worse than –5.5. He had great success with individual hitters during WWII. +107 of his +137 career mark comes from the war years.

Al Dark. The trick to coming off like a good manager is to replace a really horrible manager. Al Dark came to Cleveland after the failed Joe Adcock experiment and scored +90 for that year. Over the rest of his career he was –235.64.

Patsy Donovan. Usually men get good scores when managing good teams and low scores with bad teams. When this doesn't happen it's usually a sign you've got a really good manager, like Bill McKechnie and Casey Stengal with the Braves, or a really bad one, like Dave Bristol with the Reds. Donovan did both. He first went +38.11 for some wretched Dodger clubs, and then went –75.16 with some OK Red Sox teams.

Charlie Dressen. He went +355.03 with the Boys of Summer, and –339.77 the rest of his career.

Leo Durocher. A few years ago I read his autobiography back-to-back with another book, Jocks, by Jim Bouton's Ball Four co-author. Not a great book, but it had a brilliant section on the Big League Manger, a biting composite of several managers. The BLM was a man who had been fired twice, and told everyone he was in it for the love of the game, but in reality it was the only way he could afford his snappy clothing, multiple mistresses, and pleasant lifestyle. He didn't think much of the kids these days because they didn't have the heart he did. Despite that he didn't bother pressing his players too hard. I couldn't help but think of Leo Durocher the entire time I read it. As a New York manager Durocher pulls off a fantastic +631.56. After his decade-long stint away from coaching, he came back with the Cubs and went for –213.74 for a team that got better under his tutelage. Even if you take out 1966, when the Cubs tied a franchise record with 103 losses, he's still –61.55. He did badly with individual pitchers, hitters, and pythag in those years. The Cubs have made it a habit to hire past- their-prime managers for the last several decades, and I always thought Durocher was an example of that.

Jimmy Dykes. Much to my surprise, he comes off fantastic with the Chicago White Sox. They never finished higher than third, and usually lower than that, but he scored a +226.56 while there. Not bad for a team that was 41 games under .500. In 1940 he wrangled a 82-72 record out of a team whose line up was Joe Kuhel at first, Skeeter Webb and Luke Appling up the middle, a 19-year-old Bob Kennedy at third, an outfield of Taffy Wright, Mike Kreevich, and Moose Solters, with Mike Tresh serving as the backstop. Their pitching staff relied largely on six pitchers: a 39-year-old Ted Lyons, Johnny Rigney, Eddie Smith, Thornton Lee, Jack Knott, and Bill Dietrich. They finished in a tie with a Red Sox squad containing Ted Williams, Joe Cronin, Bobby Doerr, Jimmie Foxx, and Lefty Grove. That's pretty damn impressive. In the rest of his career he scores far worse, -275.37 runs.

Art Fletcher. This guy deserves a place in the worst manager conversation with Jimmie Wilson, Don Baylor, and Buddy Bell. What's impressive is not that he was – 519.48 in barely enough games to qualify for this study. What's impressive is how he got there. His score is propped up by the most suspicious component of them all, team runs allowed. Take that out and he's –573.75 with low marks everywhere. Best of all, he was –372.16 with individual pitchers. That's about ten losses a year. I don't care how bad the Phillies were, that's pathetic.

Lee Fohl. A sign that bad franchises attract overrated managers. He scored alright for Cleveland in the 1910s, but they got better when they replaced him with Tris Speaker. The Browns got considerably better under him, but he had negative marks in the process. Then he came to the worst club in the AL, the Red Sox, and was horrifyingly bad. The – 339.80 he posted in three years there overstates how bad he was as that club was a death house for hope in the 1920s, but he wasn't as good as his previous teams. .

Herman Franks. According to this, he did a great job with individual pitchers in both San Francisco, and Chicago.

Frankie Frisch. I hoped he'd do terrible, just because of all those atrocious VC picks to Cooperstown, but he comes off a very good manager until the end of WWII. I don't know quite what to make of the war years, as all the real players went off. I think it helped Frisch because the older he got the crankier he got, and the war sent all the kids off. By the end of 1945, he was a little of +400, and over –300 after the kids came back.

Phil Garner. I was surprised how well he did, +162.16 despite a career mark well under .500. He strikes as a mini-Billy Martin who kicks the team in the pants upon arrival and they suddenly get better. His first year in Milwaukee was the only time they won 90 since the Cecil Cooper era. His first year in Detroit was their best season between 1993 and now. Those two years combine for +161.84. The Astros also got much better the moment he showed up. Incredibly, aside from 1992, and 2000, he's still over zero despite a won/loss record of 537-643 in the remaining years under consideration. The hell? He got good scores in his 2001 Tigers season, because they became considerably worse after he left.

Cito Gaston. When Phil Birnbaum gave his presentation in Toronto last year, he said the Blue Jays 1995 season was one of the most underachieving squads of all-time. Take that season out, and Gaston's over .500. But that season exists, and there's no excuse like the Huzienga fire sale, or any Darryl Kile effect to excuse it.

Clark Griffith. Prior to taking over the Senators, the only thing he'd done notably bad at was the highly questionable team runs allowed component. The only thing he'd scored well at was pythag records. He was middling with pythag in Washington but successful with individual pitchers.

Charlie Grimm. You don't expect a really good manager to be nicknamed "Jolly" but Grimm apparently was one. He scored great with the Cubs in his first go-around as manager. He did well in his second go-around with the club, though he did falter toward the end. Then he did a good job with the Braves. He was above average in 8 of his 12 full seasons according to these numbers.

Fred Haney. The good news is that this system says he was a terrible manager. The bad news is that it like the job he did with the Braves. However, his best score was the ever-troublesome team runs allowed. Bill James made a pretty convincing case in his book that Haney was an idiot, and I'd agree. Ah well, even James's numbers in his book listed Haney as a good manager.

Ned Hanlon. The man who taught John McGraw how to manage, Hanlon scores well over +500 with the Orioles, establishing a tradition of great Boston managers. Away from there he was –200.

Bucky Harris. This has him peaking at the beginning of his managerial career and that sounds right to me. He was +384.10 in his first go-around with the Senators and a journeyman after that.

Whitey Herzog. Around +130 while with the Royals, largely due to his score with individual pitchers. With the Redbirds he continued to score well with individual pitchers, and also did well with team runs allowed, and pythag.

Rogers Hornsby. The consummate hack manager. He was bad everywhere. It's incredible how many opportunities he got to prove he shouldn't be given these opportunities. Maybe it was his dazzling personality that won management over. . . .

Dan Howley. I wonder what his story was. He did a good job managing the Browns just before they collapsed. He came to the Reds and for three years was at around –100 runs each season. Normally I'd say it was an historically bad franchise, but they weren't that bad, and never lost more than 96 games while he ran them. They lost 88 before he came and lost 94 and 99 in the years after he left. Looking at it more closely, he was about even in the coaching elements – individual hitting and pitching – but over –100 in both team runs scored and team runs allowed.

Miller Huggins. The Browns finished 70 games under .500 while he managed them, but he came out +34.52 with success with individual hitters and pythag record. Not surprisingly, he did much better with the Bambino, while continuing to do very good in those two categories.

Dave Johnson. He comes out over +100 runs with Baltimore, Cincinnati, and over +300 with the Mets, but worse than –100 with the Dodgers.

Tom Kelly. He's the ultimate study in contrasts. He was terrible as a coach. Individual hitters and pitchers scored –336.74 under his tutelage. Yet his teams confounded runs created, betting their expected runs allowed and scored totals by +277.25 runs. He couldn't work with the parts, but he was great at making the team more than the sum of its improperly functioning cogs. After normalizing Birnbaum's info to zero, Kelly's teams allowed fewer runs than RC says they should've all but two times, and had eight consecutive seasons in the 1990s scoring more than they should have.

Tony LaRussa. His strengths have changed over the years, either a sign of his adaptability or this methodology's limitations. With the Sox, his team scored more than it should have and his individual pitchers performed well. Meanwhile, they also allowed more runs, and hitters did a little worse than this system pegs them. As the A's pilot, they continued to score far more runs than RC thinks they should, while still allowing more runs. Aside from runs scored, he also broke +100 runs with his pythag record, and production from his hitters. Altogether, he was +416.16 there. As Cards manager up to 2001, both individual hitters and pitchers have done very well for him, while his teams score and allow about as many runs as RC says they should.

Tommy Lasorda. Every time his name gets mentioned on this site, 15 people post that he's just an overrated loudmouth famewhore. Given that this system pegs him as a bad manager, I guess I could declare victory for confirming people's suspicions. Alas I disagree with both conventional primer wisdom and my own numbers. The two components I feel the manager has the strongest influence over are individual pitchers and hitters, and Lasorda posts a total +375 runs in these categories. That's the tenth best of any manager. Every other manager in the top 36 when combining individual hitters and pitchers scores positively for their career.

Also, what I find especially impressive about his career is the quality of teams he won World Series with. Every World Series winner from 1903-80 has at least one Hall of Famer. The '81 Dodgers don't and aren't likely to. Their best candidates are Steve Garvey and Fernando Valenzuela. Talk about weak VC picks all you want, but almost every one of those teams had at least one no-brainer Immortal. The teams with the weakest Hall of Famers include the 1914 Braves (Evers and Maranville), 1919 Reds (Roush), 1925 Pirates (Traynor, Carey, and Cuyler), and 1940 Reds (Lombardi). That's one miracle, a team that won because the opposition threw the Series, and two Bill McKechnie teams. These four teams have a common denominator – great managers. Also, with the possible exception of the 1940 Reds, they all have at least one person playing a key role with a better claim to Cooperstown than any members of the 1981 Dodgers. A few other late twentieth century teams have also won it all without any currently inductees nor any obvious first balloters, but again these squads almost all have more star power than the 1981 Dodgers. The '84 Tigers had Trammell, Whitaker, Evans, and Morris. The 1990 Reds had a weaker team, but even they had Barry Larkin. The 1997 Marlins had Kevin Brown and Gary Sheffield.

Lasorda's other championship team makes that Dodger club look like the '27 Yanks. The '88 Dodgers would have one of the weakest line-ups ever for a World Series team even if Gibson and Marshall were healthy for all of it. Their best player was Orel Hershiser and I don't like his odds to get into Cooperstown. . In all baseball history only Bill McKechnie and Tommy Lasorda managed to win two rings without any first-tier stars. I can't believe that anyone who could do that was a bad manager.

Jim Leyland. I already covered him and individual pitchers, but what's really incredible about his score is that he earned a –2.67 for guiding the Marlins to the World Series title. Pretty impressive considering the team had a losing record in every surrounding season. Maybe it was all the free agent signings. . . .

Al Lopez. He was above average for fifteen consecutive seasons, one of only two managers in baseball history who can make that claim. Joe McCarthy of course is the other. Had he not come back in 1968/9, he would've never had a bad year according to this and ended up over +1000 runs.

Connie Mack. Richard Nixon once said that you need to be at the very bottom of the valley to appreciate what it's like to be at the top of the mountain. He meant himself but he could've been referring to Connie Mack. He went +123.48 with Pittsburgh in the 1890s. From 1901-14 he went +593.35 before having to sell his good players and buy discount dregs on the open market. From 1915-24 he went –940.37 before getting his second wind. From then until 1932 he went +632.45. After his second great sale his last 18 teams combined for a mind-numbingly bad –1300.54. He was the anti-Joe McCarthy. In his good years, his strength was individual pitchers, going +440 runs with them.

Billy Martin. Nor surprisingly, Martin scored well with every club he ever managed. Earlier I partially defended Jim Marshall for his woeful performance with the 1979 A's, but Billy Martin walked into that same environment and immediately transformed it from a team that lost two-thirds of its games to half.

Gene Mauch. His Phillies lost a little over half their games, but he pulled in a +78.41. The expansion Expos lost 128 more games than they won while he was there, but he only hit for –18 runs. The Twins went 16 games under .500, but he went +93.91. He finally caught on with a winner in California and went +282.87 for a team that finished 52 games over .500. He was constantly better than the teams he ran. This system pegs him as the 24th best manager ever, but he was better than that.

Joe McCarthy. Much to my surprise, he did actually have two negative years in his near quarter-century of managing – 1940 and 1945. He was only –5 runs in 1940. With the Cubs he was +446. He became the first manager to break +1000 for his career in 1937. He went +1280 runs while in pinstripes, and +70 with the Red Sox. From 1934- 46 his individual hitters scored worse than –3 runs only once.

Bill McKechnie. Not surprisingly, the first man to take three teams to the World Series did very well with multiple teams. He was +24 in the Federal League, +228 with Pittsburgh, +85 for the Cards, +151 for Braves teams who went 560-666 with him, and +388 in Cincinnati. In 1944 he cracked +1000 but immediately went under it the next year. On all his teams individual pitchers did better than were supposed to, but Reds pitchers were +272 under him. You never here much about him, but he was one of the greatest managers of them all. What makes his score even more amazing was that he the manager of the 1935 Braves. After normalizing the Birbaum database, that club is biggest underachieving team of the twentieth century at –320 runs. Aside from that one horrible year he was +1198.

Billy Meyer. Not as bad as his overall numbers, but certainly not particularly good. In 1952 the Pirates score at –264.52, and prior to that year he was "only" –190.

Pat Moran. In nine years as a manager his individual pitchers exceeded expectations eight times. The other year they were –1.88 runs. I never even heard of this guy before, but he could sure manage.

Joe Morgan. Without normalizing Birnbaum's numbers, the Red Sox have the worst overall totals since 1960. Normalize it and they're better than the Cubs. That's a pretty impressive achievement for a team that's had so many good years since the Eisenhower administration, and Joe Morgan exemplifies it better than anyone else. He comes out around –150 despite managing teams that won almost 40 more games than they lost. Neat trick.

Danny Murtaugh. From 1960-71, every team he managed save one allowed fewer runs than the normalized runs created program expects them to. Granted, he wasn't managing every year in that stretch, but that's pretty impressive.

Tony Muser. Given his teams' woeful record in one-run games I expected him to score miserably in the pythag component, but their 1998 overprojection saved him that fate. I always found it interesting that Sammy Sosa really blossomed as a hitter the year this former Cubs hitting coach spent the full year in KC.

Lou Pinella. I think this system must underrate him because anyone who could get a title out of that 1990 Reds team must have some idea what he's doing. He gets +125 with the Reds, but from 1993-2000 the Mariners score out as –406. Then the 2001 Mariners come along and, at +297.17 are the biggest overachieving team ever according to the Birnbaum database. He wasn't as good as his high moments or as bad as the low ones. Personally, I'll shade towards his record with the Reds and '01 Mariners over what's between. One consistent is that his teams have nearly always scored fewer runs than they should.

Paul Richards. He went +245.44 in his first turn with the White Sox. Then he went +244.45 with the Orioles. That's some pretty impressive symmetry. Prior to his comeback he always got good production out of his pitchers. He only had one year below zero in that regard, and that was only –15.

Frank Selee. With the Braves from 1894-onward, he was +350 runs. With the Cubs he was over +110 before being put out to pasture. He had notable success with pitchers at both stops, going well over +100 on both clubs.

Luke Sewell. Hitters exceeding projection in his first year with the club, but only once in the next eight seasons afterwards.

Burt Shotton and Jimmie Wilson. I'm doing these two together because they are like two long-lost brothers. Both got started with the Phillies. Shotton ran them for six dreary years in the 1920s and early 1930s before getting fired. Wilson was his replacement and lasted five years. Shotton earned a –634.47 while there. Wilson went – 630.93 in his five years. Both had horrific pitching, woeful pythag underperformances, and scored less than runs created expected. In the 1940s they both got a chance at redemption with other NL clubs. The similarities end there. Shotton made the most of his and led the Dodgers to 2 World Series appearances in three years. He did well in all five components and went +275.43. Jimmie Wilson continued to do terrible for the WWII Cubs, -210 in three years.

These two show a good example of how hard it is to separate a manager from the franchise he's working for. Anyone would be bad for those Phillies, but these two men put up the same mark, and had wildly divergent records afterwards. I really don't know if Shotton was any good as a manager. He took a young team with Jackie Robinson, Pee Wee Reese, Gil Hodges, Roy Campanella, and Duke Snider and won with them. Is this really an achievement? Well, he didn't get in the way at least. However, anyone put in the same situation as Jimmie Wilson and can't outpace him . . . there's something wrong there. Wilson can't blame his failure with the Cubs on the franchise. They won the pennant three years before he came and again two years after he left.

To be fair, Shotton's record in Philly was a bit better. He did have the extra year to further lower his mark. The Phillies went from horrible to bad under him, and even had their only winning season between Old Pete and Robin Roberts under him. The club got worse under Wilson. Branch Rickey did hire him to manage, which should be a mark in his favor, but Rickey also hired Fred Haney to manage the Pirates.

Billy Southworth. From 1941-51 he had only one bad season, -11 runs in 1949. Meanwhile he had 8 years over +70 runs, including five straight over +90 from 1941-5. He's probably the best eligible manager not in the Hall of Fame.

George Stallings. Before coming to the Braves his teams were 1 game under .500 but he was +155 runs. He was +220 with the Braves while they were generally under. 500. It's amazing how much success the Boston Braves had in identifying good managers while never quite figuring out how to find players.

Casey Stengel. Another good manager for the Boston Braves. He only had one winning season in the majors before coming to the Yanks, and that was only a 77-75 season in Boston, but he'd compiled a mark of +99.90 runs according to this. That's +28 with the Dodgers, and +72 with the Braves while those clubs finished 161 games under .500. With the Yanks he only had one bad year (1959) and broke +90 in nine separate seasons. In 1958 he peaked with a career mark of +1077.80 and was still comfortably over 1000 when he went to the Mets. In 580 games he scored –532 runs, probably the worst stretch in baseball history. Based on his pre-Met days, I'd rank him as a near equal to McCarthy. The main difference between the two is that the first two clubs to hire Stengal were dogs, while McCarthy always landed with rising clubs.

Chuck Tanner. Maybe the most derided manager to last over 2000 games, and he's taunted with good reason. He actually comes off really good in the 1970s. Employed for one team or another for almost the entire decade, he garnishes +313.93 for the decade. He began by presiding over the resurrection of a White Sox club that lost 106 games in 1970, before moving to Oakland one year before it all fell apart. He had the knack for landing with the right team at the right time. Normally I'd assume there was some managerial impact, but it's Chuck Tanner. He scored +45 for teams that finished an aggregate four games over .500 before going to Pittsburgh in 1977. A team that had been winning about 90 games a year now starting winning about 95 and won it all. His mark predictably peaked in 1979. His lax (to put it nicely) clubhouse atmosphere and tacit endorsement by silence of the team's drug intake led to the Pirates demise as a power in the 1980s. He fell under zero before leaving and had his numbers completely fall apart in Atlanta. Working with pitchers was never his strongpoint.

Zach Taylor. Had it not been for his 30 games managing the Browns in 1946, he would've been below average in all five components. From 1941-1995 the Browns/Orioles franchise had only four seasons where the team ERA was over 5.00. They were 1948, 1949, 1950, and 1951 – the only years Taylor managed them for the entire season. The other 15 teams in baseball combined for two such seasons during his reign. This makes Ned Garver's 20 win season in 1951 that much more impressive.

Jeff Torborg. I doubt he's as good as his numbers. Ex-White Sox GM Larry Himes had a fantastic run drafting players with four consecutive number ones going on to not only make the club but star (Jack McDowell, Alex Fernandez, Robin Ventura, and Frank Thomas). All but Fernandez made all-star teams. Torborg was the man on duty when they arose. He got +164 for 1990. Give him credit for not screwing it up, but before giving him too much please realize he was –278.31 in his other 1190 games.

Joe Torre. Not many men go from being over 100 games under .500 to more than 200 over, but Torre's one. Despite being 894-1003 before coming to New York, he scores here at +2.30, an admirable achievement. His strongest trait before the Yanks, team runs allowed, has been his weakest in New York. He's been at his best with individual pitchers in New York.

Bobby Valentine. He was at –120.86 with Texas, but exploded with the Mets, scoring +412.84 through 2001. He actually scored positive in all five categories in those years, and was above average every year from 1997-onward. If there's one thing I learn going over this, it's that thinking of managers solely as "good" or "bad" is often far too simple. Men have their strengths and weaknesses and can shine in one situation and collapse in another. I still often refer to them as good or bad because that is their record, it's easy, and frankly I'm a little lazy.

Bill Virdon. Not too often that a man wins 96 games and doesn't finish the next season. I guess that's what happens when you inherit a team that won the World Series the year before you got there. His strong point was always working with pitchers. Even in Montreal where his scores aren't very good, his marks with starting pitchers aren't as bad as the rest of his marks. His teams in Montreal finished almost exactly at .500 during his time there, but his overall score with Montreal was –127.

Earl Weaver. From 1969-1982 he only had one negative season. During that time he only had one season where his individual hitters were worse than –20,and one where his pitchers were worse than –30. Few managers can make any of those claims, let alone all three at the same time. The only thing he was bad at was runs scored versus RC, which he underachieved at 12 times in 17 years. I guess he didn't have enough productive outs. At his first retirement he was at +750.53.

Dick Williams. Like Billy Martin, Williams did well almost anywhere he went. He was +88.89 with Boston, +109.00 in Oakland, +32.40 with California, +96.55 with the Expos, and +255.08 with the Padres. Unlike Martin, he finally went to one franchise too many, and pulled a –104.45 in Seattle. In fact, prior to coming to the Mariners he only had 3 bad seasons by this system, 1969 with the Red Sox, his partial season with the 1974 Angels, and the 1978 campaign in Canada. His strong point was Weaver's weak point –team runs scored. Before Seattle, he was above average everywhere except Montreal, where he was only –4 runs.

Ted Williams. It's funny, there's a bunch of great hitters turned managers on the leader board for best with individual hitters, but the one I half-expected to see there isn't. The team's AOPS was 98 before he showed up, and 110 in his rookie season at the helm. That's the beginning of something great. Sure enough the Birnbaum system gives him +83 runs for that one component, a great score for a full score for one year let alone just one component. After that, the Senators AOPSs fell to 98, 91, and in his final year 83, the worst in the AL. He doesn't score all that badly in any single season by this system, but his scores do fall and end at +46. Meanwhile, he wasn't doing that good at anything else.

Don Zimmer. Never known as a particularly brilliant manager, his score of +119 was a big surprise to me. (Well, actually it's +133 because of a month where he filled in for Torre in New York). His positive score is entirely because of the 1989 Cubs, which rode fluke seasons from Les Lancaster, Jerome Walton, Dwight Smith, Mike Bielicki and others to an unlikely division crown. Zim scored a +145.14 for that year. It was a great fluke season all-around. My favorite anecdote was that at one point the Cubs successfully called about a dozen pitch outs where they got the runner. Things worked so well that even Bill Lee gave an interview complimenting his handling of the staff that year. To be fair, that wasn't his only good year. As Red Sox manager he went +44 during those years. Still, when a team finishes 107 games over .500 the manger should be doing an awful lot better than +44. Not surprisingly, they won despite him, not because of him. The most striking thing in his career is his success at team runs allowed. In the fourteen years he helped manage a team his teams finished positive in that category eleven times. In a twelfth season he was –2.55, and –10.05 in a thirteenth. I have no idea what might cause a team to do especially good in this category other than luck, but if there is something to it, Don Zimmer had it. That's wildly unexpected.

Now, at last, here's the final chart for all managers with at least 500 games from 1894- 2001 and their numbers from those years.


Gms	Indiv H	Indiv P	Pytha	Team H	Team P	FINAL	Mngr
1409	-120.88	131.57	53.4	-56.19	-151.59	-143.69	Alou
3653	16.03	456.44	259.76	155.95	-160.84	727.34	Alston
844	103.3	3.7	77.81	3.76	51.52	240.09	Altobelli
4028	257.57	23.06	202.93	-84.55	234.18	633.19	Anderson, S
544	-143.12	-73.05	16.56	22.37	37.27	-139.97	Anson
729	2.66	2.94	119.89	-65.19	60.46	120.76	Armour
1394	160.82	-116.85	182.3	-17.97	-64.79	143.51	Baker
779	-132.14	99.73	-23.12	-38.11	49.91	-43.73	Baker, Del
936	-43.79	-40.91	-11.16	-43.58	11.5	-127.94	Bamberger
574	27.55	-48.95	9.78	-24.02	-51.71	-87.35	Bancroft
630	57.03	17.54	-92.28	25.17	76.05	83.51	Barrow
1138	129.51	19.9	-50.17	92.58	24.96	216.78	Bauer
1232	-84.56	-498.58	59.59	-23.91	40.95	-506.51	Baylor
785	-29.64	-121.73	-208.95	93.04	-8.64	-275.92	Bell, B
928	-80.88	59.77	73.15	54.92	15.24	122.2	Berra
769	109.68	1.19	140.38	-14.74	-108.37	128.14	Bluege
1116	122.6	-0.54	83	126.39	-116.77	214.68	Bochy
549	-74.22	54.07	-46.34	8	-33.52	-92.01	Boone
2386	50.08	32.09	-46.47	-210.27	8.51	-166.06	Boudreau
921	50.94	15.88	-203.76	31.62	158.57	53.25	Bragan
760	88.11	-131.91	22.26	55.26	-130.34	-96.62	Bresnahan
1421	-145.29	-228.8	13.59	110.95	-68.77	-318.32	Bristol
586	2.37	-214	31.72	-4.98	134.76	-50.13	Buckenberger
1036	-77	78.41	-23.96	129.59	-165.89	-58.85	Bush
852	27.58	-18.79	73.26	-77.12	-81.13	-76.2	Callahan
989	-53.82	-64.99	141.32	-35.01	19.35	6.85	Carrigan
1594	-77.56	223.77	63.13	273.56	117.73	600.63	Chance
2782	-7.44	394.78	-141.34	236.8	150.15	632.95	Clarke
923	167.48	-19.26	-39.8	2.14	-85.26	25.3	Cobb
598	115.33	48.4	41.43	94.63	74.1	373.89	Cochrane
831	-18.25	51.53	22.01	45.17	-123.82	-23.36	Collins, J
878	-21.34	-71.84	52.52	81.34	84.91	125.59	Collins, T
1206	-34.57	-98.21	-56.65	87.15	-122.09	-224.37	Corrales
3049	-224.05	423.82	268.74	45.3	-185.2	328.61	Cox, B
845	6.01	51.92	69.74	8.97	-151.96	-15.32	Craft, H
1475	-11.05	38.82	-105.49	72.54	25.52	20.34	Craig
833	0.49	-83.21	-70.43	6.92	22.78	-123.45	Crandall
2291	137.22	55.99	82.92	-22.31	223.49	477.31	Cronin
606	-87.56	59.39	-99.3	-62.89	-5.85	-196.21	Dahlen
1948	-88.6	-44.1	-53.75	78.63	-37.38	-145.2	Dark
783	114.17	125.12	-155.44	-4.17	47.62	127.3	Dierker
1563	138.25	-98.41	43.33	-162.86	-164.27	-243.96	Donovan, P
762	-75.38	-84.64	93.61	53	92.7	79.29	Dooin
1981	58.64	-158.86	115.31	75.59	-75.42	15.26	Dressen
1206	-84.3	0.47	-236.03	151.87	-83.71	-251.7	Duffy
3717	170.18	86.2	-98.67	329.56	-23.1	464.17	Durocher
771	-69.5	86.38	-5.67	61.85	125.54	198.6	Dyer
2947	-271.81	114.22	173.42	104.36	-169	-48.81	Dykes
538	-70.55	-118.85	-86.98	-5.57	74.32	-207.63	Elia
753	36.89	157.94	136.69	72.22	150.02	553.76	Ewing
620	-89.55	-371.77	-87.5	-22.61	52.3	-519.13	Fletcher, A
1505	-94.43	48.5	-48.89	-104.8	-167.56	-367.18	Fohl
748	79.3	-68.7	-37.98	9.9	-124.64	-142.12	Fox, C
648	-75.58	-92.64	-16.17	-29.92	-14.81	-229.12	Francona
1126	-19.61	176.78	147.22	74.8	-209.98	169.21	Franks
2122	-9.53	43.98	-82.88	41.52	-85.44	-92.35	Fregosi
610	-12.76	-18.86	101.22	-43.53	74.37	100.44	Frey
2216	-5.33	-111.12	51.91	182.37	-43.36	74.47	Frisch
618	43.32	-58.2	130.19	28.15	-93.35	50.11	Garcia
747	-95.24	-80.38	-51.76	-17.94	61.81	-183.51	Gardner
1504	-25.59	54.68	-135	144.15	123.92	162.16	Garner
1352	-93.93	130.18	-21.81	-86.38	-38.32	-110.26	Gaston
757	-28.55	111.46	199.87	-56.74	-81.92	144.12	Gibson, G
756	-4.81	13.68	72.83	11.66	21.58	114.94	Gleason, K
875	-30.01	-31.37	-202.89	-41.8	93.09	-212.98	Gomez, P
613	37.11	17.05	-16.77	65.53	2.45	105.37	Gordon, J
932	55.99	-43.05	-151.2	52.27	38.55	-47.44	Green, D
2858	-20.02	148.56	218.58	-12.55	-95.85	238.72	Griffith
2354	-98.56	118.62	-7.19	24.63	413.31	450.81	Grimm
1386	-92.18	-231.26	-46.15	-1.39	84.96	-286.02	Haney
1968	110.02	280.06	-97.32	-130.12	177.82	340.46	Hanlon
1635	-4.63	37.47	140.85	-71.23	72.9	175.36	Hargrove
4375	153.91	215.92	-328.68	187.63	-151.07	77.71	Harris, B
954	24.6	-45.87	187.66	-83.18	15.18	98.39	Harris, L
1048	4.36	147.23	-48.52	-27.48	-152.77	-77.18	Hendricks
2406	-28.84	250.84	142.87	64.95	65.07	494.89	Herzog
1116	81.98	-24.21	21.34	-83.18	4.04	-0.03	Higgins, P
535	-110.7	-58.09	-32.11	-5.38	46.65	-159.63	Hitchcock, B
1413	0.56	100.91	72.75	23.24	-100.49	96.97	Hodges
1513	-100.49	-211.37	-62.25	-65.53	-0.12	-439.76	Hornsby
3150	59.42	45.76	226.33	-67.27	12.64	276.88	Houk
1781	0.14	-68.41	78.37	109.92	5.51	125.53	Howe
921	-22.56	-29.56	-54.49	-37.9	-77.54	-222.05	Howley
932	139.67	47.96	200.02	-70.4	-28.69	288.56	Howser
2547	213.9	37.42	240.41	-22.9	208.82	677.65	Huggins
1657	-66.71	-186.01	136.71	-36.07	-18.55	-170.63	Hutchinson
529	197.91	-68.3	-11.02	-107.96	-33.42	-22.79	Irwin
2179	-23.94	-49.09	196.74	39.62	-60.86	102.47	Jennings
1062	-5.26	-170.63	16.94	-25.51	101.32	-83.14	Johnson, Dr
2036	257.38	50.84	123.44	12.77	0.24	444.67	Johnson, Dv
961	-97.09	158.75	74.2	55.27	-30.67	160.46	Johnson, W
1265	6.17	44.93	-70.44	154.76	33.63	169.05	Jones, F
640	32.16	-77.04	47.87	2.66	32.41	38.06	Kasko
748	56.32	76.66	-54.73	-10.03	13.47	81.69	Keane
659	33.34	28.47	-223.64	85.31	89.45	12.93	Kelley
2384	-90.01	-246.74	53.33	79.77	197.49	-6.16	Kelly
542	56.87	-21.28	25.88	-66.71	37.21	31.97	Kennedy, B
582	75.38	-141.57	82.57	35.01	-47	4.39	Kennedy, K
1147	-71.84	-156.13	13.47	79.75	52.49	-82.26	Killefer
977	-63.53	69.21	-35.07	-69.43	56.56	-42.26	Lacheman
686	26.5	66.28	-10.08	-111.45	75.12	46.37	Lajoie
1115	91.91	128.37	-103.93	4.99	-66.41	54.93	Lamont
3474	202.3	421.04	82.81	226.75	-157.86	775.04	LaRussa
3038	73.2	298.69	-197.87	-76.2	-220.99	-123.17	Lasorda
655	-118.4	-130.99	-49.17	29.94	-71.57	-340.19	Lavagetto
859	8.69	12.1	-7.44	-61.2	9.19	-38.66	Lefebvre
833	179.11	45.19	-67.06	14.69	16	187.93	Lemon
2200	5.13	-380.54	-0.57	23.34	126.43	-226.21	Leyland
537	30.07	42.08	-24.26	4.01	-89.19	-37.29	Lillis
552	47.74	-68.82	27.06	-56.98	-116.51	-167.51	Loftus
2414	132.19	464.13	202.4	18.31	174.88	991.91	Lopez, A
715	-106.42	73.35	73.5	-51.44	19.99	8.98	Lucchesi
7679	-316.49	-325.79	66.16	-147.33	-168.18	-891.63	Mack
647	30.8	5.22	123.24	54.71	-62.26	151.71	Manuel, J
728	-69.07	45.29	-62.38	-30.73	25.11	-91.78	Marion
555	-120.27	-291.43	136.95	38.53	-7.02	-243.24	Marshall, J
2266	108.16	234.52	181.69	68.93	53.57	646.87	Martin, B
3939	301.44	62.05	-65.1	74.62	64.16	437.17	Mauch
1624	-30.04	-41.49	-82.82	-39.65	65.12	-128.88	McAleer
3458	565.92	641.81	90.05	189.52	310.94	1798.24	McCarthy, J
607	-87.67	-7.78	-46.81	-120.21	-222.09	-484.56	McCloskey
4711	331.93	394.84	-90.58	86.04	232.64	954.87	McGraw
3619	-144.88	400.46	240.2	168.97	212.8	877.55	McKechn
1503	-81.51	137.19	110.93	-29.53	58.74	195.82	McKeon
2415	-81.96	-227.4	73.96	-52.84	71.12	-217.12	McNamara
711	-144.22	136.33	51.9	20.27	-38.98	25.3	McRae
960	-81.26	118.46	-134.88	12.99	-67.36	-152.05	Mele
769	-102.36	-180.48	-19.37	-67.19	-85.16	-454.56	Meyer
563	53.31	-106.38	-101.46	-86.91	31.64	-209.8	Miller, R
1037	-46.62	49.48	-91.95	48.92	54.31	14.14	Mitchell
1334	-67.12	269.53	94.39	140.32	3.6	440.72	Moran
563	46.17	-41.9	6.51	-105.33	-55	-149.55	Morgan, J
2065	118.65	146.01	-85.57	-49.97	197.68	326.8	Murtaugh
725	-6.08	-75.43	-99.77	91.94	-12.94	-102.28	Muser
578	-75.53	-50.7	-105.84	18.19	-104.56	-318.44	Nixon
1543	58.65	11.59	157.51	-92.74	72.03	207.04	Oates
1861	30.24	67.47	12.84	16.64	-69.41	57.78	O'Neill
994	174.21	-138.95	-122.08	35.55	21.6	-29.67	Ott
1160	167.87	-30.92	-2	-52.65	111.73	194.03	Ozark
991	76.77	-121.31	55.24	-57.02	163.24	116.92	Peckinpaug
2292	148.1	-57.99	32.7	-195.76	84.63	11.68	Pinella
567	47.59	-2.46	-59.6	-84.3	-69.64	-168.41	Quilici
805	-98.3	84.91	-136.09	8.95	57.39	-83.14	Radar
1824	-3.67	341.58	167.49	-51.71	-98.32	355.37	Richards, P
1261	107.83	-42.37	-13.05	-170.67	41.57	-76.69	Rickey
1084	-94.96	53.44	-220.62	76.73	50.13	-135.28	Riggleman
2560	-54.83	58.63	58.8	-1.27	-26.64	34.69	Rigney
1431	136.88	-186.73	62.89	5.54	77.31	95.89	Robinson, F
2797	-192.24	51.03	237.39	-132.64	-63.51	-99.97	Robinson, W
1557	-119.42	180.12	62.83	18.92	63.35	205.8	Rogers, B
534	9.94	18.93	53.75	-19.23	-30.11	33.28	Rolfe
785	63.23	-1.34	130.81	22.99	-39.85	175.84	Rose
586	-16.26	49.33	-135.09	84.27	15.74	-2.01	Rowland
813	-52.41	146.34	52.7	-32.58	-52.55	61.5	Sawyer
845	48.66	-22.1	-89.63	9.59	-9.81	-63.29	Scheffing
1996	-131.09	162.81	-22.16	-40.68	-46.75	-77.87	Schoendiest
1596	-139.36	310.63	102.83	298.61	-104.21	468.5	Selee
1250	-135.83	-62.84	-94.74	111.47	105.15	-76.79	Sewell
670	46.94	17.69	145.11	4.43	3.1	217.27	Shettsline
1461	45.72	-362.39	-76.02	-60	106.4	-346.29	Shotton
1067	178.91	6.43	-26.44	-42.59	-32.25	84.06	Showalter
1274	31	41.4	17.9	20.12	-112.77	-2.35	Smith, M
1748	308.44	380.12	55.18	-60.52	78.35	761.57	Southworth
1137	204.86	115.83	-102.51	-4.05	-1.49	212.64	Speaker
533	-15.47	50.01	-25.2	71.18	7.19	87.71	Stahl
1777	211.05	62.39	15.55	39.11	47.96	376.06	Stallings
902	45.88	119.35	-44.04	-32.4	9.37	98.16	Stanky
3747	242.05	73.06	40.69	135.07	143	633.87	Stengal
689	-23.83	41.73	-8.85	-30.18	-18.13	-39.26	Stovall
697	78.23	-55.99	-57.02	87.36	135.18	187.76	Street
2733	59.8	-111.75	-60.94	-128.19	83.34	-157.74	Tanner
645	-41.75	-307.5	-32.61	6.44	-2.63	-378.05	Taylor
1453	28.91	-8.37	21.86	-32.93	23.19	32.66	Tebbetts
910	-98.51	42.15	46.82	67.27	47.74	105.47	Tebeau
604	-53.29	-248.39	41.18	-50.28	-121.96	-432.74	Tenney
1484	-62.82	-13.67	40.47	35.72	201.87	201.57	Terry
612	29.69	149.01	-113.54	-15.9	-71.99	-22.73	Tinker
1151	-9.18	-33.84	-89.55	114.38	-96.04	-114.23	Torborg
2830	68.4	140.92	60.08	40.05	23.53	332.98	Torre
863	-36.4	58.17	11.15	-92.54	-95.04	-154.66	Traynor
932	-44.19	58.48	-80.85	167.46	-34.77	66.13	Trebelhorn
2028	72.67	127.51	269.63	-45.09	-132.74	291.98	Valentine
1916	-9.89	167.52	-61.35	-123.85	-31.11	-58.68	Virdon
1234	-45.65	11.05	-75.95	20.22	174.31	83.98	Walker, H
646	-24.41	-52.86	-18.28	35.3	26.44	-33.81	Wathan
2540	140.8	406.33	175.72	-73.37	51.13	700.61	Weaver
626	-51.38	-95.38	67.41	19.79	-23.37	-82.93	Westrum
3022	58.48	47.49	50.12	215.87	73.09	445.05	Williams, D
1288	58.53	248.21	-125.9	-104.22	-51.88	24.74	Williams, J
637	46.04	-37.5	-82.79	29.19	30.2	-14.86	Williams, T
1228	-82.59	-314.19	-321.54	-93.62	-33.98	-845.92	Wilson, J
1779	23.1	-161.14	177.37	-52.24	146.33	133.42	Zimmer
Chris Jaffe Posted: July 17, 2006 at 09:42 AM | 11 comment(s)
  Related News: Sabermetrics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages
   1. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 17, 2006 at 10:16 AM (#2102194)
After his second great sale his last 18 teams combined for a mind-numbingly bad –1300.54. He was the anti-Joe McCarthy. In his good years, his strength was individual pitchers, going +440 runs with them.

I was just thinking, Chris - have you thought to see if there are any aging patterns for managers? It'd be interesting to see if managers in their 40s are getting more out of their teams than when they're in their 70s. Of course, there are sample problems considering the haphazard "careers" that managers have.
   2. Dag Nabbit Posted: July 17, 2006 at 11:35 AM (#2102236)
Haven't thought of doing that Dan. Off the top of my head, I know that the data says managers are terrible at age 87.
   3. fra paolo Posted: July 17, 2006 at 11:47 AM (#2102242)
I very much enjoyed these two articles, and wish I could have been in Seattle to see the data presented on an overhead projector.
   4. Dag Nabbit Posted: July 17, 2006 at 12:23 PM (#2102278)
I very much enjoyed these two articles, and wish I could have been in Seattle to see the data presented on an overhead projector.

It made a much better read than a presentation. And I used powerpoint this time.
   5. Dag Nabbit Posted: July 17, 2006 at 01:23 PM (#2102319)
Looking over it, I notice a snafu. It's in the Bobby Cox comment. When I first wrote this in May I improperly thought Component ERA had some sort of defensive adjustment. Er, no, it's nothing Voros-esque. I submitted a fixed & corrected version of this article to Szym in late June, but I must have missed that error when I fixed it up. Sorry for that.
   6. Dag Nabbit Posted: July 17, 2006 at 01:45 PM (#2102346)
One other screw up I caught:

Hanlon scores well over +500 with the Orioles, establishing a tradition of great Boston managers. Away from there he was –200.

Er, Boston? The O's then and always played in Baltimore, and they had on great managerial tradition until Paul Richards showed up. I must have confused him with Frank Selee, 1890s Beaneaters managers who predated George Stallings, Bill McKechnie, Casey Stengal, and Billy Southworth there. He didn't establish a tradition however, as Harry Wright predated him as Boston manager. Ah well. . .

. . . Looking over the article, that's all the screw ups I can see. I don't spell Stengal's name wrong, everyone else does.
   7. Mike Emeigh Posted: July 17, 2006 at 02:04 PM (#2102368)
One other small nit:

Miller Huggins managed the Cardinals, not the Browns.

-- MWE
   8. Bizarro ARod Posted: July 17, 2006 at 02:28 PM (#2102397)
I see Alan Trammell is just below the cutoff, could you post his numbers?
   9. Dag Nabbit Posted: July 17, 2006 at 02:36 PM (#2102403)
Miller Huggins managed the Cardinals, not the Browns.

Oops. Well, they still finished 70 games under .500 (actually 69) so I got the rest right.

I see Alan Trammell is just below the cutoff, could you post his numbers?

The Birnbaum database ends in 2001, so I got nothing on him.

One manager who does miss the cutoff who does come off absurdly bad is Doc Pothro. He'd be easily inside the Worst 10 of all-time list based on how the Phillies did in his 3 years there.
   10. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: July 19, 2006 at 06:37 AM (#2104444)
it's funny how good managers go to bad franchises and suddenly become bad managers

If this is true, doesn't it serve to sort of undermine your conclusions regarding the managers themselves?
   11. jmac66 Posted: July 20, 2006 at 10:41 AM (#2104764)
Harry Craft, not "Henry"
Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

<< Back to main

Support BBTF

donate

My Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Starting Rotation Analysis
(52 - 3:11pm, Jan 02)

Zito in Line for a Big Payday
(32 - 9:01pm, Nov 27)

Evaluating Managers, Part 3
(30 - 2:54pm, Oct 30)

Evaluating Managers, Part 2 of 2
(11 - 10:41am, Jul 20)

April 8, 2001
(3 - 8:27pm, May 04)

JoelW: Predicting UZR
(45 - 2:27pm, Feb 02)

Earl Weaver's Rookie Season
(20 - 6:10pm, Nov 16)

BTF Awards - 2005 NL MVP
(49 - 2:35pm, Nov 16)

Page rendered in 1.6796 seconds
57 querie(s) executed