ummm, u all do relize that Pujols just won a championship in 2006? That technically means he WON.

 

And there can be Winners. Without Derek Jeter, the Yankees have a lot less WS championships. The D-Backs do not win the WS in 2001 without Johnson and Schilling, and in 2003 the Marlins don't win without Beckett.

 

Without Mariano Rivera, the Yankees have a lot less WS championships, as well. It took the majority of those 25 guys to get the championship...not one player.

 

Same with Beckett, here. Beckett might've been the best player in those playoffs...but he certainly wasn't the only one. Without the emergence of Dontrelle Willis & Miguel Cabrera the Marlins don't make the playoffs, period. etc., etc., etc.

 

Players don't win championships. Teams do. Players just happen to be part of the team.

The problem you have making your argument is that you are naming players who happen to be very good or have been very good.

 

The guys you want to be mentioning as "winners" are guys like David Eckstien and Craig Counsell.

 

 

Well...he mentioned Jeter.

For what it's worth, on the Manny Ramirez thread...you'll see the names Jose Vizcaino and Luis Sojo in my first post.

This thread is overrated.

 

 

Yet, you're here, right? What does that make you?

Don't like it...don't read it.

 

Other people are discussing, and in total...it's gotten about 20+ posts. I guess people like "overrated."

 

 

 

I didn't say I don't like the thread--I said it's overrated. That's my opinion. Don't like it? Don't reply to it.

 

:sleazy

This thread is overrated.

 

 

Yet, you're here, right? What does that make you?

Don't like it...don't read it.

 

Other people are discussing, and in total...it's gotten about 20+ posts. I guess people like "overrated."

 

 

 

I didn't say I don't like the thread--I said it's overrated. That's my opinion. Don't like it? Don't reply to it.

 

:sleazy

 

Who said I didn't like it?

This thread is overrated.

 

 

Yet, you're here, right? What does that make you?

Don't like it...don't read it.

 

Other people are discussing, and in total...it's gotten about 20+ posts. I guess people like "overrated."

 

 

 

I didn't say I don't like the thread--I said it's overrated. That's my opinion. Don't like it? Don't reply to it.

 

:sleazy

 

Who said I didn't like it?

 

You replied to it in what seemed like a negative way, so that led me to believe you didn't like it.

:thumbup

You forgot the easiest one - Chemistry. No such thing as chemistry making a difference in baseball.

Managers provide leadership more than anything. We outsiders tend to think that they're hired mainly for game management, but that's not true. They're hired mainly to bring cohesion to the group of players. I'm sure most of us here could handle the strategy and game theory aspect of the game very well, but I'm more than sure that 99% of us would not handle well the 'personalities' and what-not in the locker-room and behind the scenes. I may sometimes like to think of performance not being influenced by emotions, but suppose a guy is very angry one day, and he's up to bat. All he needs is a hit yet he wants to launch the ball into space, and he strikes out. A manager is able to handle this situation before letting it arise. It's called 'people skills'.

You forgot the easiest one - Chemistry. No such thing as chemistry making a difference in baseball.

 

You can't tell me chemistry hasn't had at least something to do with the Rays succuess this year.

 

I don't care what anybody says, and it's impossible to measure how much of an effect it has had, but chemistry has had an effect on that team.

Ned Yost was a bad manager. Dusty Baker too.

Ned Yost was a bad manager. Dusty Baker too.

 

 

Ned Yost' team was tied for the wildcard lead, when he got fired.

You can't tell me chemistry hasn't had at least something to do with the Rays succuess this year.

 

 

 

 

Actually, I agree with The_Godfather here, as well.

I don't believe chemistry has had much to do with anything.

 

There have been plenty of teams who have had horrible chemistry...and still went on to win the World Series.

 

So yes...chemistry is overrated.

I don't know in professional baseball but anybody who's played or coached baseball at most other levels can tell you there are good in-game managers and bad ones.

Ned Yost was a bad manager. Dusty Baker too.

 

 

Ned Yost' team was tied for the wildcard lead, when he got fired.

 

That doesn't make him a good manager. He's a terrible manager.

Yep...a good manager doesn't make a good team bad or a bad team good. But they can cost you a few wins over a season, or gain you a few wins over a season. And Yost has costed his team wins the past several seasons.

Yep...a good manager doesn't make a good team bad or a bad team good. But they can cost you a few wins over a season, or gain you a few wins over a season. And Yost has costed his team wins the past several seasons.

 

 

 

Where's the proof for this?

It's not Yost fault that Eric Gagne was a bust, if that's what you mean.

I would say Billy Martin.....he took a Texas Rangers team that constantly lost 100 games in the early 70s and in his first year they won like 85 games and finished 2nd, that was his trademark....sort of like Parcells....

In basketball...one star can make a team win, but in baseball, everyone has to put their part.

It's not Yost fault that Eric Gagne was a bust, if that's what you mean.

 

No, that is not what I mean.

 

His tactics were horrible.

It's not Yost fault that Eric Gagne was a bust, if that's what you mean.

 

No, that is not what I mean.

 

His tactics were horrible.

 

Like?

http://www.amazon.com/BILL-JAMES-GUIDE-BAS...S/dp/0684806983

 

You can read that if you want to read up on that kind of stuff.

http://www.amazon.com/BILL-JAMES-GUIDE-BAS...S/dp/0684806983

 

You can read that if you want to read up on that kind of stuff.

 

I have to buy this?

You forgot the easiest one - Chemistry. No such thing as chemistry making a difference in baseball.

 

You can't tell me chemistry hasn't had at least something to do with the Rays succuess this year.

 

I don't care what anybody says, and it's impossible to measure how much of an effect it has had, but chemistry has had an effect on that team.

 

 

Sorry I didn't see this earlier but Yes, IMO chemistry had absolutely nothing to do with the success of the Rays this season. Nothing. Can you give an example of one game, one play, that the great chemistry between teammates made a difference in results? You admit that you can't quantify how much of an effect it had, but to make a statement that it has an effect, IMO you have to at least be able to give examples.

http://www.amazon.com/BILL-JAMES-GUIDE-BAS...S/dp/0684806983

 

You can read that if you want to read up on that kind of stuff.

 

I have to buy this?

http://www.amazon.com/BILL-JAMES-GUIDE-BAS...S/dp/0684806983

 

You can read that if you want to read up on that kind of stuff.

 

I have to buy this?

 

 

That was everyone's gesture on this board, after seeing your comments on .OPS. I'm still laughing, really.

1. THE CURSE!

(Curses don't exist.)

 

2. "Winners"

(Players aren't "winners" if they have plenty of championships...it just means they have been at the right place at the right time).

 

3. "Losers"

(The opposite of #2)

 

4. Good "In-Game" Managers

(Good managers don't exist. Good players executing to make a manager look good does exist).

 

5. Bad "In-Game" Managers

(Bad managers don't exist either. This is for those who say Fredi Gonzalez is bad...when he's just like every other manager. Notice how he got a lot better this year as Daniel Barone and Chris Seddon were replaced by a healthy Josh Johnson, Chris Volstad...and a healthy, much improved Ricky Nolasco...I could manage that staff).

Eric someday I am gonna treat you to a baseball game but please plz leave ur pocketprotector and blackberry home.

No,,, you can't bring your laptop either. No playing WOW at the ballgame!

Just my two cents on Erick's one through five there and I'm not going to go any further into it then what follows:

 

1) Curses - Yeah, maybe there's no curse, but it's fun, it may be over sensationalized by some of the media but it's part of the story of baseball. You can't take "curse" in a literal sense if you don't have to... it can be synonymous with futility if you want. Whatever... it's just a fun thing like "Did Ruth call his shot?"

 

2/3) Winners/Losers - I agree that players shouldn't be labeled as winners or losers. Sure some players are on better teams but ultimately every player wants to win, there's no "aura" that surrounds a player that makes him more likely to win outside of talent and luck. Some players have good luck, some have bad luck.

 

4/5) In Game Managers - There ARE good "in game" managers and bad "in game" managers. Managers that consider splits and see that Joe PinchHitter has a .400 OBP in 40 ABs vs a pitcher are much better than managers who "feel" like somebody's "due". Manny Acta, despite the poor talent he has is a very intelligent manager. Dusty Baker frowns on taking walks because it "clogs the bases" and the only thing walks are good for is "making the pitcher pitch from the stretch". There are good managers and bad managers and over the course of a season, the difference affects about 2-3 wins, doesn't sound like much but in the end it matters.