WSJ rates Baseball Managers

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:57 am

METHODOLOGY

Assessing managers is difficult, since their win-loss records are closely tied to the team's talent level. Because of that, we used three metrics designed to reveal a manager's acumen Ã³ performance in close games, "Pythagorean" win expectations and whether they got the most out of their players Ã³ then averaged each manager's ranking in those categories for a final score.

For the close-games category, we subtracted each manager's overall winning percentage from his winning percentage in games tied after the sixth inning, thus determining whether he performs better or worse in close games. The win-expectations chart 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 (also known as the team's Pythagorean expectation). The third category states how many additional games a manager won or lost for his team per season. David Gassko, a contributor to the Hardball Times Web site, arrived at those figures by comparing how players' statistics improved or declined under different managers (with adjustments for age and other variables).

The data for the first two categories is for the past five regular seasons and is from Baseball Info Solutions, a firm that provides statistical information. The data for the third category is from all of major-league history through the 2006 season. The 20 managers listed are current major-league skippers who managed a full season before 2007.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/ ... rt=overall

BTW - Oz is 6th by their criteria ...

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:29 pm

Saw this the other day somewhere. The methodology itself strikes me as flawed, they don't actually use any method of measuring what difference the Managers make. The difference in close and late or tight games can be just as much due to a great closer, clutch hitters or any other factor.
An interesting read, but completely meaningless.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:15 pm

We should have an IBC GM power rankings.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:28 pm

As has been point out in the past, that'd be a great way to start a fight.

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:35 pm

RedSox wrote:As has been point out in the past, that'd be a great way to start a fight.

So why haven't you undertaken them?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:38 pm

Twins wrote:
RedSox wrote:As has been point out in the past, that'd be a great way to start a fight.
So why haven't you undertaken them?

I was going to, I forgot.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:54 pm

RedSox wrote:As has been point out in the past, that'd be a great way to start a fight.

I know we've discussed it in the past.

I think we defered to an all-time worst list of GM's that are no longer in the league.

What about ranking teams farm systems, like last year?

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:02 pm

What about ranking lineups?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 4:09 pm

Dodgers wrote:What about ranking lineups?

Ranking lineups? Brilliant!

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:31 pm

Lineups? Yeah, Z! Where the fuck are those things!