It still amazes me that Girardi is getting blame for injuries to pitchers.

 

And TONS of managers bunt in the first inning. Do I agree with it? No, its retarded, but lets not act like Girardi bunting runners in the first inning was a rarity in baseball.

 

Again, I find myself in the same raft as Polo, when he declares that Girardi will be around a lot longer than Fredi.

 

Fredi is simply too soft.

girardi >>> fredi

 

yeah, girardi's a pompous a-hole, and who tells their boss to shut the f*** up? but he's a much better manager. everybody is a better game manager than fredi, and girardi proved that he's one of the best at motivating young players and keeping them crisp. and 11-31 -> 67-53

 

my other huge issue with fredi, as silly as this may seem (but i think it demonstrates his loser mentality), before a game recently with minervini he was asked about the team's defensive struggles. and fredi actually had the nerve to compare the numbers from 2006 and explain that they're basically on the same pace at this point in the year, if not a little better, from then --- apparently fredi is unaware of that little 11-31 learning curve we went through in which i'm sure we made errors at a much greater pace than we did while we went 67-53. but in fredi's mind, it's perfectly fine that under his leadership they have regressed back to the shoddy defense they played in the early part of 2006.

 

i know you can't really blame fredi for the defense because of the loss of such a great coach as perry hill, but it's fredi's loser mentality about everything that i can't stand. girardi is much more of a winner.

apparently fredi is unaware of that little 11-31 learning curve we went through in which i'm sure we made errors at a much greater pace than we did while we went 67-53. but in fredi's mind, it's perfectly fine that under his leadership they have regressed back to the shoddy defense they played in the early part of 2006.

 

i know you can't really blame fredi for the defense because of the loss of such a great coach as perry hill, but it's fredi's loser mentality about everything that i can't stand. girardi is much more of a winner.

and there's no learning curve from year 1 to year 2?

 

how is Girardi more of a winner than Fredi?... that's utter BS (one way or the other)

Not solely using Jack that way. Just popped into my head and because of the winning records and Championship he brought us. I believe Leyland was also alot more into gut feelings than just following stats. Maybe it's just an old school vs new school thing.

And again, missing the point of the original post. Over analyzing a play or series of plays after the fact. I made an observation and pointed out other stats that weren't brought into the thinking and everyone went haywire. Presumably because I refused to recognize their self appointed genius of arm chair managing. Even back handedly comparing me to NYY fans.

 

Explain to me what your point was, then.

 

"Did you figure out all these stats when he hits indoors vs outdoors?

Day games vs night games?

Per state and then by team?

For each pitcher he has faced?

For each starting pitcher he has faced?

For each pen pitcher he has faced?"

 

What does that have to do with the original point, which was that Fredi should have had Olivo bunting despite the fact that Olivo isn't extremely likely to hit into a double play. Your post was simply put there to ruffle people's feathers, and you can't deny that. Saying things like "You stat guys are something else. LOL" is a pointless and unnecesary statement, as was your whole post. Did you honestly expect people to let that go? You came off as condescending and you didn't add anything to the convseration other than to put people down.

Over analyzing after a game. Funny stuff. Using stats like players are machines for posters to show they know more than a manager. Just for kicks throw in it's the managers fault for making bad decisions when we lose and all on the players when we win.

Threw those scenarios in because if "you" are going to be a "Monday morning armchair manager" at least throw all the variables in there and not just ones that show "you" are some kind of managerial god or goddess.

And I stick by that "You stat guys are something else. LOL" I find it funny. That's condencending? Not in my opinion. And we are talking opinions. Nothing more.

apparently fredi is unaware of that little 11-31 learning curve we went through in which i'm sure we made errors at a much greater pace than we did while we went 67-53. but in fredi's mind, it's perfectly fine that under his leadership they have regressed back to the shoddy defense they played in the early part of 2006.

 

i know you can't really blame fredi for the defense because of the loss of such a great coach as perry hill, but it's fredi's loser mentality about everything that i can't stand. girardi is much more of a winner.

and there's no learning curve from year 1 to year 2?

 

how is Girardi more of a winner than Fredi?... that's utter BS (one way or the other)

I don't think the poor defensive play has anything to do with a learning curve from year 1 to year 2.

 

I think it has a lot to do with guys who are not gifted defensive players playing for a manager who hides his head in the sand when the poor play occurs and the result is the incredible number of unearned runs we're allowing.

I love how you make it an either/or thing. Like we're either scouring the internet for stats OR we're watching the games. Maybe you don't realize it, but we watch the games too. However, we're not arrogant enough to think that we can formulate a complete opinion based solely on our observations. You go to the games and watch these kids progress. Congratulations! So do the stat heads...

Actually I wasn't making it an eithor or thing. You are just taking it that way. Read on and maybe you will see.

Here's exactly what you wrote (Emphasis added):

You keep right up with those stats. I need a good laugh every morning. I'll just keep going to the games and watch these kids progress. Alot more is seen that way than just watching the stats and complaining certain players aren't helping your fantasy team.

How that can be construed as anything other than an either/or thing is beyond me. However, you seem to disagree; so, just how am I supposed to interpret a phrase like "Alot more is seen that way that just watching the stats?"

 

I think someone else kinda answered that. But I'll try. There are things going on that just can't be seen from the comfort of your living room. Things that take away the players are machines type attitude that going strictly by stats would have to mean.

Stats are fine in context. But to manage a game strictly by stats, or in this case using stats to show why a manager sucks because we lost a game or two (or 3 or 4 LOL) is not doing anything at all. I think most managers will sometimes throw the stats out the window and go by their gut feelings. Sometimes it works, sometimes it dosen't. However, when it works it's all the player and when it fails it's all on the manager to the common fan.

I don't mind stats to some degree. But to overanalyze a manager's decision after the fact strictly by using stats isn't the best way to do things either. And this is a Fredi bashing thread.

apparently fredi is unaware of that little 11-31 learning curve we went through in which i'm sure we made errors at a much greater pace than we did while we went 67-53. but in fredi's mind, it's perfectly fine that under his leadership they have regressed back to the shoddy defense they played in the early part of 2006.

 

i know you can't really blame fredi for the defense because of the loss of such a great coach as perry hill, but it's fredi's loser mentality about everything that i can't stand. girardi is much more of a winner.

and there's no learning curve from year 1 to year 2?

 

how is Girardi more of a winner than Fredi?... that's utter BS (one way or the other)

I don't think the poor defensive play has anything to do with a learning curve from year 1 to year 2.

 

I think it has a lot to do with guys who are not gifted defensive players playing for a manager who hides his head in the sand when the poor play occurs and the result is the incredible number of unearned runs we're allowing.

But losing a fielding guru like Perry Hill certainly takes it's toll... (and this has nothing to do with Hermida, before anyone jumps on that ship... not saying you were going to Polo, but someone was)

the only real problem I have with Fredi (besides the fact they are giving Hermida the Milledge treatment) is that he is way too intimidated by the media

 

I had lunch with someone today who said that really is the only thing the FO is put off about right now

 

Fredi is used to coaching minor leaguers and in the minors you don't really go to the media or throw blame around

 

up in the show is a different story

 

See your point. And it's nice to get back on topic. Fredi seems to look comfortable talking to the media. Has since his hiring and FanFest. But I suppose that could be the personna(sp) that he wants to project.

However, I do disagree with the way you ended the thought. I don't think at any level do you throw a player/collegue to the wolves. At least that's what it looks like you are saying. I prefer things handled in house and damn the media.

I meant instead of saying "things will work themselves out with the strikeouts".... saying something like "yea, the strikeouts are a problem and it's something we need to work on"

 

(not that I am turning this into a debate on strikeouts)

 

Get your point. It's how he words things that bothers you. You want him wording things to appease the fans better instead of saying things that may make fans think he is doing nothing about a certain problem, whatever that problem may be. I can understand that. And in that case I would have to agree it is something Fredi needs to work on. Fredi seems to be pretty articulate and knowledgable. I would think it is something that he may get better at in the future. It's also just one of those things that I would expect from a rookie. Meaning, having to read between the lines to get his exact meaning at times.

It still amazes me that Girardi is getting blame for injuries to pitchers.

 

And TONS of managers bunt in the first inning. Do I agree with it? No, its retarded, but lets not act like Girardi bunting runners in the first inning was a rarity in baseball.

 

Again, I find myself in the same raft as Polo, when he declares that Girardi will be around a lot longer than Fredi.

 

Fredi is simply too soft.

 

I don't like the swinging door for managers. I don't really blame GI Joe for anything that has happened to our pitchers this year either. I was for his firing simply because he couldn't or wouldn't get along with his bosses. Not for anything in particular a rookie manager tried to do or didn't do.

I can't blame Fredi for much of what is happening this year. Perry retireing right near the end of ST was the biggest thing to hurt us IMO. I question alot of things he does even if they do work out. Just like we all have done with every manager ever to don any uniform at ay level. But my gut feeling is that he will be here next year. And I think he should.

As far as who will have the longer career? Beats me. If Fredi learns and changes a few things he should be around quite a while. I'm not so sure Girardi can change his hard headedness and decide to swallow his pride enough to at least coexist with his bosses. It's going to be interesting to see. Especially what job GI Joe decides to take. Yankees?? Cubs?? Either one of those could be detrimental to his long term job status. Does it matter if Fredi holds onto jobs longer and Girardi jumps from job to job with a year or two hiatis in between?

apparently fredi is unaware of that little 11-31 learning curve we went through in which i'm sure we made errors at a much greater pace than we did while we went 67-53. but in fredi's mind, it's perfectly fine that under his leadership they have regressed back to the shoddy defense they played in the early part of 2006.

 

i know you can't really blame fredi for the defense because of the loss of such a great coach as perry hill, but it's fredi's loser mentality about everything that i can't stand. girardi is much more of a winner.

and there's no learning curve from year 1 to year 2?

 

how is Girardi more of a winner than Fredi?... that's utter BS (one way or the other)

I don't think the poor defensive play has anything to do with a learning curve from year 1 to year 2.

 

I think it has a lot to do with guys who are not gifted defensive players playing for a manager who hides his head in the sand when the poor play occurs and the result is the incredible number of unearned runs we're allowing.

But losing a fielding guru like Perry Hill certainly takes it's toll... (and this has nothing to do with Hermida, before anyone jumps on that ship... not saying you were going to Polo, but someone was)

 

Unearned runs are killing us. We top MLB with 60 so far (I think I read KC is second with 54). That's on pace to set a new Marlins record at 95.

The IF would most definetly be better under Perry, IMO. The OF he had no real say in. But I do have to say that Hanley has been playing better and so has Jake. Jake won't be a GGer anytime in the near future but I can see Hanley earning it. Miggy is Miggy. Slow and lazy at times, other times he amazes on plays. Inconsistant is a nice PC term. And Uggla is consistent. Not what we are used to in Castillo but at least serviceable for a MLB team.

I do have to say I see alot of difference in Hammer. He is backing up the CFer alot more than he ever used to. And I at least no longer cringe EVERY time a ball flies out his way. He still needs some work on certain angles but I'm beginning to think that will also come around. Jeremy I'm just the opposite on. I'm starting to lose what confidence I had in him. He rarely backs up the CFer and at times has that lackadaisical approach that I dislike so much.

apparently fredi is unaware of that little 11-31 learning curve we went through in which i'm sure we made errors at a much greater pace than we did while we went 67-53. but in fredi's mind, it's perfectly fine that under his leadership they have regressed back to the shoddy defense they played in the early part of 2006.

 

i know you can't really blame fredi for the defense because of the loss of such a great coach as perry hill, but it's fredi's loser mentality about everything that i can't stand. girardi is much more of a winner.

and there's no learning curve from year 1 to year 2?

 

how is Girardi more of a winner than Fredi?... that's utter BS (one way or the other)

 

come on. you know it is not. how many world series did girardi win with the yankees? how many years was he a part of a winning organization with a winning attitude? how long did he study what to do in specific situations? there is absolutely no doubt girardi is more cerebral than fredi. i think swift said before how girardi went by the book and fredi goes by misguided guts; very good characterizations. from what has transpired thus far, it's safe to say that bobby cox didn't rub off on fredi too much.

 

and i'm not saying joe girardi is the ultimate winning manager. i'm saying in his one season he proved that he is better than loser fredi gonzalez has shown.

 

and polo's comment: "I think it has a lot to do with guys who are not gifted defensive players playing for a manager who hides his head in the sand when the poor play occurs"

 

could not agree more with that

and concerning the learning curve from year 1 to year 2. the team should still improve and not regress year to year. and regardless of that, i think its ridiculous and takes a lot of nerve from fredi to compare this season to last, including the 11-31 disaster we began with. it was a team of rookies last year, most who had never played in any of the major league stadiums, and were adjusting to major league life, let alone major league play. i know now it's a team of 2nd year players, but they have loads more experience (not that they have a lot, but much more than in 06). i think the learning curve would have been decreased if they had a better person to learn from (girardi), just imo.

apparently fredi is unaware of that little 11-31 learning curve we went through in which i'm sure we made errors at a much greater pace than we did while we went 67-53. but in fredi's mind, it's perfectly fine that under his leadership they have regressed back to the shoddy defense they played in the early part of 2006.

 

i know you can't really blame fredi for the defense because of the loss of such a great coach as perry hill, but it's fredi's loser mentality about everything that i can't stand. girardi is much more of a winner.

and there's no learning curve from year 1 to year 2?

 

how is Girardi more of a winner than Fredi?... that's utter BS (one way or the other)

 

come on. you know it is not. how many world series did girardi win with the yankees? how many years was he a part of a winning organization with a winning attitude? how long did he study what to do in specific situations? there is absolutely no doubt girardi is more cerebral than fredi. i think swift said before how girardi went by the book and fredi goes by misguided guts; very good characterizations. from what has transpired thus far, it's safe to say that bobby cox didn't rub off on fredi too much.

 

and i'm not saying joe girardi is the ultimate winning manager. i'm saying in his one season he proved that he is better than loser fredi gonzalez has shown.

 

and polo's comment: "I think it has a lot to do with guys who are not gifted defensive players playing for a manager who hides his head in the sand when the poor play occurs"

 

could not agree more with that

 

Oh come on now, Fredi was with the Braves. Hard to be much more of a winner than that.

apparently fredi is unaware of that little 11-31 learning curve we went through in which i'm sure we made errors at a much greater pace than we did while we went 67-53. but in fredi's mind, it's perfectly fine that under his leadership they have regressed back to the shoddy defense they played in the early part of 2006.

 

i know you can't really blame fredi for the defense because of the loss of such a great coach as perry hill, but it's fredi's loser mentality about everything that i can't stand. girardi is much more of a winner.

and there's no learning curve from year 1 to year 2?

 

how is Girardi more of a winner than Fredi?... that's utter BS (one way or the other)

 

come on. you know it is not. how many world series did girardi win with the yankees? how many years was he a part of a winning organization with a winning attitude? how long did he study what to do in specific situations? there is absolutely no doubt girardi is more cerebral than fredi. i think swift said before how girardi went by the book and fredi goes by misguided guts; very good characterizations. from what has transpired thus far, it's safe to say that bobby cox didn't rub off on fredi too much.

 

and i'm not saying joe girardi is the ultimate winning manager. i'm saying in his one season he proved that he is better than loser fredi gonzalez has shown.

 

and polo's comment: "I think it has a lot to do with guys who are not gifted defensive players playing for a manager who hides his head in the sand when the poor play occurs"

 

could not agree more with that

 

Oh come on now, Fredi was with the Braves. Hard to be much more of a winner than that.

 

and it is for most mlb teams. the yankees aren't most teams.

come on. you know it is not. how many world series did girardi win with the yankees? how many years was he a part of a winning organization with a winning attitude? how long did he study what to do in specific situations? there is absolutely no doubt girardi is more cerebral than fredi. i think swift said before how girardi went by the book and fredi goes by misguided guts; very good characterizations. from what has transpired thus far, it's safe to say that bobby cox didn't rub off on fredi too much.

 

and i'm not saying joe girardi is the ultimate winning manager. i'm saying in his one season he proved that he is better than loser fredi gonzalez has shown.

 

and polo's comment: "I think it has a lot to do with guys who are not gifted defensive players playing for a manager who hides his head in the sand when the poor play occurs"

 

could not agree more with that

 

Ah, of course. It was Girardi's 4 years as an awful player on the Yankees that made him the mediocre manager he is today. I get it.

 

Why wouldn't the 10 years he spent with Colorado and Chicago negate the "winning Yankees attitude" factor?

what does being a terrific or an awful player have to do with being a winning manager?

and the losing negating the winning attitude. you're just arguing for the hell of it.

and i can actually carry on a debate without calling the people who disagree with me "arrogant pricks who don't know anything."

Most of all, remember that there's not a statistic out there that will tell you who the best pitcher/batter is.

False.

 

WARP3 is a great "catch-all" tool that can tell you have many wins above a AAA player a player has been worth in any given year. Win Shares is another one. Good old OPS+ can do a pretty good job of telling you who the best hitter is.

 

If a pitcher has a low era and a high WHIP that doesn't mean he's not having a good year, it just means that he's due to see his ERA rise.

To measure offense you may want to stick to OBP, SLG, RISP OBP, RISP SLG and then throw in a touch of games played and / or PAs to take durability into account.

 

You don't need to go into these ridiculous stats with really cool names that don't really measure what the really cool names say they do. Look past the really cool names and look at the damn formulas.

 

Two of the stats you mentioned don't matter because they are based on really small sample sizes that are subject to fluctuation year to year.

 

WARP3 takes into account everything a player does on offense (Singles, Doubles, Triples, Homers, Sac flies, Double plays, stolen bases, caught stealing, etc.) and defense, and then calculates each part's value based on how many runs each one gives you. It is then converted into a format that gives you a pretty good indicator of how many wins above a AAA replacement player (Todd Linden) a given player is worth.

 

How does this not measure what it says it measures? Did you even look up WARP3 before posting that response?

what does being a terrific or an awful player have to do with being a winning manager?

 

Apparently, everything.

 

"come on. you know it is not. how many world series did girardi win with the yankees? how many years was he a part of a winning organization with a winning attitude?"

 

The answer to all these questions are 3 and 4. He won 3 world series and was part of a winnning organization with a winning attitude for 4 years. What the hell does that have to do with being a good manager? You brought it up, man.

 

And learn to use the edit button, please.

Most of all, remember that there's not a statistic out there that will tell you who the best pitcher/batter is.

False.

 

WARP3 is a great "catch-all" tool that can tell you have many wins above a AAA player a player has been worth in any given year. Win Shares is another one. Good old OPS+ can do a pretty good job of telling you who the best hitter is.

 

If a pitcher has a low era and a high WHIP that doesn't mean he's not having a good year, it just means that he's due to see his ERA rise.

To measure offense you may want to stick to OBP, SLG, RISP OBP, RISP SLG and then throw in a touch of games played and / or PAs to take durability into account.

 

You don't need to go into these ridiculous stats with really cool names that don't really measure what the really cool names say they do. Look past the really cool names and look at the damn formulas.

 

Two of the stats you mentioned don't matter because they are based on really small sample sizes that are subject to fluctuation year to year.

 

WARP3 takes into account everything a player does on offense (Singles, Doubles, Triples, Homers, Sac flies, Double plays, stolen bases, caught stealing, etc.) and defense, and then calculates each part's value based on how many runs each one gives you. It is then converted into a format that gives you a pretty good indicator of how many wins above a AAA replacement player (Todd Linden) a given player is worth.

 

How does this not measure what it says it measures? Did you even look up WARP3 before posting that response?

 

Plus, that argument sounds familiar to the dismissing of OBP a decade ago. BA, RBI, HR's and K's are all you'll need, right?

what does being a terrific or an awful player have to do with being a winning manager?

 

Apparently, everything.

 

"come on. you know it is not. how many world series did girardi win with the yankees? how many years was he a part of a winning organization with a winning attitude?"

 

The answer to all these questions are 3 and 4. He won 3 world series and was part of a winnning organization with a winning attitude for 4 years. What the hell does that have to do with being a good manager? You brought it up, man.

 

And learn to use the edit button, please.

 

apparently everything? what does that mean?

 

you said girardi wasn't a good player. fredi wasn't a good player, either. what's your point?

 

what the hell does having a winning attitude have to do with managing???????????

 

a lot more than a guy's talents as a player, which you say is apparently everything, with no reasoning or support.

 

and i know how to use the edit button. thanks.

 

p.s. i just edited out the part where i called you an arrogant prick. no not really, i have a little too much intelligence to name call people i've never met over the internet

I don't see the difference in Girardi's background with the Yankees and Fredi's with the Braves

apparently fredi is unaware of that little 11-31 learning curve we went through in which i'm sure we made errors at a much greater pace than we did while we went 67-53. but in fredi's mind, it's perfectly fine that under his leadership they have regressed back to the shoddy defense they played in the early part of 2006.

 

i know you can't really blame fredi for the defense because of the loss of such a great coach as perry hill, but it's fredi's loser mentality about everything that i can't stand. girardi is much more of a winner.

and there's no learning curve from year 1 to year 2?

 

how is Girardi more of a winner than Fredi?... that's utter BS (one way or the other)

 

come on. you know it is not. how many world series did girardi win with the yankees? how many years was he a part of a winning organization with a winning attitude? how long did he study what to do in specific situations? there is absolutely no doubt girardi is more cerebral than fredi. i think swift said before how girardi went by the book and fredi goes by misguided guts; very good characterizations. from what has transpired thus far, it's safe to say that bobby cox didn't rub off on fredi too much.

 

and i'm not saying joe girardi is the ultimate winning manager. i'm saying in his one season he proved that he is better than loser fredi gonzalez has shown.

 

and polo's comment: "I think it has a lot to do with guys who are not gifted defensive players playing for a manager who hides his head in the sand when the poor play occurs"

 

could not agree more with that

 

 

that wasn't my point; the braves didn't rub off on fredi as much as the yankees did on girardi.

apparently fredi is unaware of that little 11-31 learning curve we went through in which i'm sure we made errors at a much greater pace than we did while we went 67-53. but in fredi's mind, it's perfectly fine that under his leadership they have regressed back to the shoddy defense they played in the early part of 2006.

 

i know you can't really blame fredi for the defense because of the loss of such a great coach as perry hill, but it's fredi's loser mentality about everything that i can't stand. girardi is much more of a winner.

and there's no learning curve from year 1 to year 2?

 

how is Girardi more of a winner than Fredi?... that's utter BS (one way or the other)

 

come on. you know it is not. how many world series did girardi win with the yankees? how many years was he a part of a winning organization with a winning attitude? how long did he study what to do in specific situations? there is absolutely no doubt girardi is more cerebral than fredi. i think swift said before how girardi went by the book and fredi goes by misguided guts; very good characterizations. from what has transpired thus far, it's safe to say that bobby cox didn't rub off on fredi too much.

 

and i'm not saying joe girardi is the ultimate winning manager. i'm saying in his one season he proved that he is better than loser fredi gonzalez has shown.

 

and polo's comment: "I think it has a lot to do with guys who are not gifted defensive players playing for a manager who hides his head in the sand when the poor play occurs"

 

could not agree more with that

 

 

that wasn't my point; the braves didn't rub off on fredi as much as the yankees did on girardi.

How can you know that though?