Manager of the Year: Cox, Guillen

[Pogotheostrich]

Bochy deserves a few third place votes, at the very least.

+5 over the pythagorian record for the Padres was the best in the NL. Padres were also 29-20 in 1-run games. No one hit over 18 homeruns. One player hit over .300 (.301). One player got 500 at-bats. He actually did a lot (I know, barely over .500) with what he had.

+5 best in the NL??? Maybe you didn't see the D-backs Pythagorean record.

[davidmarver]

Bochy deserves a few third place votes, at the very least.

+5 over the pythagorian record for the Padres was the best in the NL. Padres were also 29-20 in 1-run games. No one hit over 18 homeruns. One player hit over .300 (.301). One player got 500 at-bats. He actually did a lot (I know, barely over .500) with what he had.

+5 best in the NL??? Maybe you didn't see the D-backs Pythagorean record.

Wow, I did not. Still, my argument was that Bochy deserves a few third place votes and I don't think the pythagorian record difference between first and second stops that.

[baseball6791]

those were definitely the obvious 2 for these awards....

Yup

[DK]

No surprises or complaints from here.

[NY Yankees Fan 2004]

Atleast no problems with this one

[rotterdam_82]

Bochy deserves a few third place votes, at the very least.

+5 over the pythagorian record for the Padres was the best in the NL. Padres were also 29-20 in 1-run games. No one hit over 18 homeruns. One player hit over .300 (.301). One player got 500 at-bats. He actually did a lot (I know, barely over .500) with what he had.

Pythagorian, shmythagorian. All that matters is winning. The job Bobby did rebuilding on the run and Guillen taking a decent, but not great team all the way like he did are the reasons they won.

Not some dodgy meaningless stat.......

(not knocking you david )

[Pogotheostrich]

Bochy deserves a few third place votes, at the very least.

+5 over the pythagorian record for the Padres was the best in the NL. Padres were also 29-20 in 1-run games. No one hit over 18 homeruns. One player hit over .300 (.301). One player got 500 at-bats. He actually did a lot (I know, barely over .500) with what he had.

Pythagorian, shmythagorian. All that matters is winning. The job Bobby did rebuilding on the run and Guillen taking a decent, but not great team all the way like he did are the reasons they won.

Not some dodgy meaningless stat.......

(not knocking you david )

If all that matters is winning should LaRussa won the NL award?
There is more than one way to judge a manager. Winning record vs. expected record seems as good as measure as I've seen.

[rotterdam_82]

Bochy deserves a few third place votes, at the very least.

+5 over the pythagorian record for the Padres was the best in the NL. Padres were also 29-20 in 1-run games. No one hit over 18 homeruns. One player hit over .300 (.301). One player got 500 at-bats. He actually did a lot (I know, barely over .500) with what he had.

Pythagorian, shmythagorian. All that matters is winning. The job Bobby did rebuilding on the run and Guillen taking a decent, but not great team all the way like he did are the reasons they won.

Not some dodgy meaningless stat.......

(not knocking you david )

If all that matters is winning should LaRussa won the NL award?
There is more than one way to judge a manager. Winning record vs. expected record seems as good as measure as I've seen.

I think LaRussa had a good shot at winning manager of the year yes, and I'm sure he was in the running. He did a great job too concidering all the injuries they had.

My main grip is, who decides how many games a team should win? I've looked at the 'theory' and it sounds like complete nonsence to me.

[Pogotheostrich]

My main grip is, who decides how many games a team should win? I've looked at the 'theory' and it sounds like complete nonsence to me.

Pythagorean standing aren't perfect but they are far from dodgy or nonsense. Year to year they are remarkably close to the actual standings.

Runs scored [squared] / (Runs scored [squared] + runs allowed [squared])

[rotterdam_82]

My main grip is, who decides how many games a team should win? I've looked at the 'theory' and it sounds like complete nonsence to me.

Pythagorean standing aren't perfect but they are far from dodgy or nonsense. Year to year they are remarkably close to the actual standings.

Runs scored [squared] / (Runs scored [squared] + runs allowed [squared])

Yeah, I know how it works. But there are far too many tangables in baseball. So for example, a team may win more close games than they should have, but how much of that is down to the manager/coaching staff getting the best out of their hitters, or bringing in the right relief pitcher at the right time? You know, the things you can't measure. Like taking your chance on rookies and getting them to perform......

Baseball isn't played on paper, thank god.....