Wall Street Journal Rates Gibbons Sixth Best Manager (Seriously)
Eat fucking shit all you clueless, pecker-faced, opinionated, wrong-headed, smarmy, insufferable, rage-blinded, whiny, arrogant, ass-faced, uninformed, dipshit, group-thinking, small-penised, Gibbons-hating fucks!
OK... that might be a little harsh. But still! Apparently the Wall Street Journal decided to rank the 20 major league managers who had managed at least one full season prior to 2007 (mostly, it seems, to justify some petty grudge with Joe Torre), and guess who was the fifth fucking runner-up?
The system they used appears to be all science-like, with stuff like a "methodology" and "results" that most of us laymen would probably have a hard time understanding, but fortunately they also provided a handy chart. . . And there Gibbers is, his name way up in sixth, tied with Ozzie Guillen.
"We used three metrics," the Journal explained, "designed to reveal a manager's acumen — performance in close games, 'Pythagorean' win expectations and whether they got the most out of their players — then averaged each manager's ranking in those categories for a final score."
Gibbons fared poorly (18th) in the Pythagorean win expectations category-- which "compares the number of games each manager's team won versus how many it should've won based on how many runs it scored and allowed"-- but he made up for it by being the top ranked manager in close game situations (seriously?), while also ranking 7th in some convoluted and most likely bullshit system of figuring out how much a manager gets out of his players.
Ron Gardenhire was first, but, uh... obviously the interesting thing to us is the close game category that Gibbers topped. (Seriously?)
The Journal says that, to determine the ranking, they "subtracted each manager's overall winning percentage from his winning percentage in games tied after the sixth inning."
And Gibbers placed first. Seriously.
Thanks a bunch to Christopher for the tip!
Posts
33 comments:
I've never thought Gibbons was a bad manager. This is no cliche, but I think almost every team's fans thinks there manager is a fucking moron at least some of the time. Tactically Gibbons does some good things, and some bad. Also, you never know things going on behind the scene. That being said, my main criticism with Gibbons is that he seems sort of lacksadasical and doesn't fire up his team that much (look at the wretch away record the last two years). But I don't know 70% of the situation so...
Here's a god damn problem I have! Why the fuck can't we win more than 3 games in a row more than than 3 or 4 times a year, and why cant we ever win 8 or 9 in a row? Ever.
I don't know but most other teams that play over .500 ball go through long stretches of success throughout the season and we need to do that to get over 90 wins and contend for the god damn playoffs. I don't Gibbons but FUCK! Jesus fucking Christ!
"I just want to jump in that little hot dog box right there; it looks warm"
...and so it begins
Close and late games are usually determined by how good the bullpen is. So it's not really that surprising with a late inning trio of Janssen, Downs & Accardo last year that Gibbons is tops in close game situations.
I don't think he's a bad manager, and one of his strengths in close games is bringing in the closer before the 9th. Several times in key games vs. NYY & the Red Sox Gibby brought in Accardo or BJ (in 06) when it was the 8th and Ottiz/Ramirez were up with tying/go ahead run to come in. That's where he shines as manager, IMO, because too many managers ignore the closer till it's the 9th and you're up by 3 or less...
Where I have a problem is when we're up by 6 or more against the Royals or some nonsense and Janssen/Downs are coming in against the bottom of the order in the 9th, when they pitched the day before that. That's where Frasor, the guy who pitched maybe 1/3 of an inning over the last 2 months, would be a better fit.
Twitchy.
And there he is, his name way up in sixth, tied with Ozzie Guillen.
Maybe not the best thing to brag about...
As for the non snarky asshole part of my comment, I don't particularly dislike Gibby. It's just a bit irritating that he seems to leave our young starters in for so long, especially in games that don't matter. Do we need to see consistent 120+ pitch counts from McGowan etc?
Now, I have absolutely no "stats" or "evidence" to back that criticism up, so I'm going to head back to my whisky and say good night to you, sir.
It's a pretty useless table. The first 2 columns could be affected by the manager but some of these guys are playing with a loaded deck. The Twins have had a lights out bullpen since 2002, which happens to be when this analysis starts for late game performance. Basically blaming the manager for the difference in the Pythagorean results vs real results is pretty dumb.
This table doesn't take into account pitch counts and it doesn't even include strategy. Mike Scioscia and Clint Hurdle's strategies seem to reflect negatively on these scores. But, why again are we going to the Wall Street Journal for our baseball analysis?
Hey this is off-topic big time but I've seen people talk about the Rap's on here before.
I tuned into 590 when I got off work and they were doin the postgame and Eric Smith was gettin super defensive as some callers were apparently trying to give him a hard time about something.
Anyone know what it is cause they didnt say... and I'm curious!
I'm not trying to say this is the gospel or anything, just trying to help dispel the notion that the guy is terrible. Most of you here seem to not have difficulty with that though. I think it's more a thing with more casual fans. And yeah, it's bullshit.
The guy is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't-- any manager is-- and I do take a kind of special enjoyment from pointing out stuff like this, because so many people are so quick to judge everything Gibbers does with the benefit of their own hindsight, and always remember the bad calls and not the good, which is really unfair. A lot of the frustration with Gibbons, I think, is misplaced frustration with the team in general for not meeting expectations, which have generally been too high.
I said a lot last year that, if you were going to blame Gibbons for not "lighting a fire" under the hitters, or getting them to be at their best-- if you really think a manager has that much sway-- then you have to give him total credit for how the pitchers pitched completely over their heads. You can't have it both ways. But a lot of people who are hellbent on hating Gibbers won't even accept that simple truth. They see what they want to see.
Now, a few of you brought up the bullpen stuff, saying that's the only reason why he (and Gardenhire) look so good, but, um... did you actually take a look at the rest of that column? Scioscia's had some pretty terrific pens, no? And I don't think Manuel, Yost or Melvin have had particularly great ones (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
What I do notice, actually, is that a lot of the more experienced guys are lower down the list-- as in, maybe as the sample size gets bigger, the percentages come more in line with the career averages. Leyland, Piniella, Torre and LaRussa are four of the bottom five.
So, OK, this little analysis almost certainly poses more questions than it answers, but it's interesting nonetheless, I figure.
Jay, as for Guillen, I know what you're saying, but in his short time managing, he's done well for himself.
Best Regards,
Stoeten
I have no problem with Gibbons, and I would take him any day of the week (and twice on Sundays) over Dusty Baker or Tony LaRussa, but I don't take any of this stuff seriously. The Wall Street journal arbitrarily decided which categories to judge managers upon and how to weigh these categories.
I think Gibbons did an excellent job last year with pitchers, and he had a lot of injured hitters, especially among his big bats (Wells, Glaus). And why doesn't he get any credit for Matt Stairs' ridiculous season, or Rios' continued trek towards super-stardom?
When you expect too much it's easy to blame the manager. This year, 90 wins would be a solid season. It probably wouldn't mean playoffs, but the Jays have to be considered an outside playoff shot anyways, a lot has to break right, unlike Rolen's finger. If the Jays make the playoffs, fantastic, but if not then it's not necessarily Gibbons' fault. No matter what he does he can't make the pitchers pitch better or the hitters hit more homeruns.
All that said, if the Jays ever did replace Gibbons I do hope the new guy is a little more A-list. With pitching excellentlya $100 million payroll I don't think they have to pull them off of other team's AAA clubs. Just please never Dusty Baker.
- Colin
Gibbers is the best.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080328.WBbaseball20080328172007/WBStory/WBbaseball/
Just think...if one of those categories was "handsomeness of tummy", Gibby would have shot up even higher in the rankings.
stoeten - Yost is a horrible manager. He abused his pen and it showed in the second half splits of his RP. He wore them out, and that's a significant reason why the Brew Crew lost to the Cubs towards the end. There was a good article on Hardball times taken from some other site that showed how Yost's BP management cost the team the playoffs because of how rigid he was in his management, and how often he'd overwork them.
Scoscia - His pen last year wasn't very good. The Angels pen was 20th in the majors last year in ERA. So it didn't do him any favours.
Melvin - He's the D-Backs right? His bullpen management was so great last year, that it's my belief that it's how they exceeded their pythag. Apparently the bullpen leverage stats or whatever says that he used his best relievers in the most crucial situations. He's a pretty damn good manager, and he had a wicked pen last year even if they overpeformed...
Anytime you look at close/late stats it always has to do with the bullpen. And Gibbons was pretty good with his late inning trio of relievers.
Twitch.
Like this wonderful game needed any more convoluted, pointless statistics ...
It's so easy to get lost in stats and forget the game is still hitting, catching and throwing a ball.
Twitch, I'm not sure what you're arguing here exactly. Yost is high in this list despite (supposedly) terrible management, Melvin is high because he got his bullpen to over-perform, and Gibbons is high because he has good players. So... is there really a common thread?
Also, it takes into account the manager's career, so I figure Scioscia's poor pen last year probably doesn't undo the benefit of the great pens he's had in the past.
Or maybe his great pens are just a figment of my imagination. I don't really want to look too deep into this, because, yeah... quantifying a manager's entire contribution to a team is pretty impossible. There's a whole people-managing factor that, I feel, can skew just about anything. For example, how much are Burnett's high pitch counts last year a product of Gibbons being an idiot and running him into the ground, and how much did they have to do with trying to handle AJ in a way that puts him in a mental state where he can get the most out of himself?
Anyway... I just thought this was an interesting piece, is all. I don't really want to come off like I'm completely defending it. It is, after all, the Wall Street Fucking Journal.
in a generalist statement, the manager's role is to, with his roster, produce the most wins possible. Question I pose, with the injuries...AND very good fill ins (so the difference b/w the fill in guys seasons and the normal rate that a healthy overbay for example), did gibbons over perform with this team, perform to par or under perform?
Produce? Perform? ... No, the players have to do that. I know what you mean, but a manager can only do so much.
I do think that, considering all the injuries, the record the Jays had last year was a genuine achievement. What would we have thought at the start of the year if we were told: Ryan would miss the season, League would miss the season, Wells would play through a shoulder injury and have the worst season in his career, Halladay would miss a month, Burnett would miss at least that much, Reed Johnson would miss a ton of time and the come back and suck, Glaus and Zaun wouldn't crack 400 ABs and Overbay would only manager 425, Chacin would miss the year, and three of your starting rotation would be straight out of Syracuse.
Seriously. That's fucked. How the hell did they even manage 83 wins?
Who the Hell said the Jays game was on a free preview today on mlb.com? WHoever you are , your a lying scum bag piece of %$$*!
Stoeten, i made the point concerning the call ups and the fill ins. No one, even the organization (which is troubling but to be expect witht he guy who forced to pass over some SS in colorado) so these guys playing like this. These guys refering to Stairs, Lamb Chops, the Bull dog (marcum), and chubby chase (litsch). So they filled in and what would have been the difference with a normally healthy lineup. Which for some reason is impossible...its vodoo by Selig b/c we aparently were the reason Clemons did steroids with our devilish trainer
See... I hear Bob McCown make the point about the replacements a lot, as a way to try to say that JP has no vision and that he walked ass backwards into good pitching last year. I think it's bunk. It was very much the plan to throw Ohka and Zambrano at the wall to see if they'd stick, while not putting the huge expectations on guys like McGowan/Marcum/Janssen by making them Opening Day members of the rotation with very little behind them to fall back on. The way the pitching worked out last year is, with a little bit of luck thrown in, pretty much an illustration of good planning by Ricciardi, considering the resources. I think they definitely saw it was possible, but they'd have been stupid to base their plans on those guys being as successful as they were. And there was definitely no replacement at 3B, of CF, or C or LF on the days Stairs played first. The McCown point is complete bunk.
Good for the Bobcat and Brunt for getting the exclusive, biggest story in the sports world this week, though. That's pretty awesome.
Hill just hit a HR to tie it up at 3 in the 4th (after Thomas struck out looking on a TERRIBLE call, and Rios made a BRUTAL baserunning error, trying to go from second to third on a soft grounder to short... though Stewart did score on the play).
try myp2p.eu for a link to watch in sopcast
Baserunning killed the Jays last season in a few games. I don't know who coaches the baserunners, but they make some peewee mistakes all too often.
Rod Black just made a joke about the Leafs not winning the cup since '67. Can't I escape hockey and the Leafs for just a few hours on TSN? Do they have a mandate that hockey and/or the Leafs have to be mentioned at least once an hour or something?
I remember watching TSN back when it was still Pay TV and my next door neighbours had it. I always thought it was pretty good for a long time (even after Off The Record started), but somewhere along the line, it really turned into a serious piece of fucking shit.
Probably right around the time the four-letter bought it out and stucky its big, greasy, branded thumbprint on it.
stoeten
The gravitational pull of Bob McKenzie's jovian head sucks all the good out of TSN. Sportsnet is just as bad.
I always sort of thought that when they had the Sportsnet personalities rotate around on the Bullpen show with Mike Hogan on the Fan, that it really helped me not think they were all complete douche bags. Now it's perma-Toth and much more difficult to listen to.
I bet Lloyd's right about the four-letter being the turning point for TSN.
Heh ... I was reading this article and thought “I wonder if DJF has seen this?”
Yup.
I will admit … while I harshed on Gibby for some of this tactics during the summer I was impressed the focus the club showed in September when it would’ve been easy just to mail it in and get the season over with--after all the disasters of ‘07 it would have seemed justifiable.
Although I doubt he gives a rip--it bought him some more time with yours truly and I’m anxious to see how he handles things in 2008.
Best Regards,
Stoeten
I should hope so!
Best Regards
John
As a pseudo-writer, I can't help but love Gibbers as an awesome character. We need him!
“As a pseudo-writer, I can't help but love Gibbers as an awesome character. We need him!”
I consider you guys the real deal. I don’t judge writers by where they write but what (and how) they write. You’ve got a wide readership solid insights and are cited frequently. I’m sure if you decided to write for pay and put in the necessary time that you’d find somebody willing to employ you.
I mean, there are a lot of guys out there in the MSM that do little more than wipe their keester and send it in to their editors--if that’s the baseline for what is constituted a writer then I think you’re comfortably above it.
Just my $0.02 cdn--but don’t let it go to your heads or you’ll end up dropping 15,000 words when somebody asks you what Jason Phillips should do with men on and none out. (cough cough)
Best Regards
John
Hello I just entered before I have to leave to the airport, it's been very nice to meet you, if you want here is the site I told you about where I type some stuff and make good money (I work from home): here it is
Nice to meet you too, Barb
Anal?
Damn you Kevin, now I have to leave Barb's comment here.
Hilarious though.
Oh, and thanks John...
No problemo.
BTW ... that's the best way to deal with spammers--they're the paparazzi of the web.
Best Regards
John
Post a Comment