There is no chemistry in baseball.

Every decision could be made by computer and probably made better without human biases.

Say what you want baseball managers should be replaced by a computer or just a figurehead who does whatever the computer says but just does not tell the public that is how he is managing.

Im out.

Tony LaRussa would dissapprove of this thread,

Seeriously though, look at the Cardinals lineup (Im a Cubs fan and hate the Cards), but how does he do it. I dont recognize one name on their team except for Pujols, yet every year the man is a winner. Any computer would go 50-112 with his lineup.

 

Originally Posted by JayAces

Tony LaRussa would dissapprove of this thread,

computers can't argue with umpires

OP has obviously never played competitive baseball.

 

Originally Posted by maxgridlock

 

Originally Posted by JayAces

Tony LaRussa would dissapprove of this thread,

Seeriously though, look at the Cardinals lineup (Im a Cubs fan and hate the Cards), but how does he do it. I dont recognize one name on their team except for Pujols, yet every year the man is a winner. Any computer would go 50-112 with his lineup.

Bah, these baseball romanticists (like Costas) love to talk about LaRussa and what complicated decisions they make. If you look into more most baseball decisions are fairly straightforward.

Put LaRussa on the Pirates, and they still will be horrible. Give Belichick control on the Bengals and they will be playoffs contenders right away and championship contenders in a couple years.

Im out.

You said you were out the first time...

 

Originally Posted by DaVols

computers can't argue with umpires

obviously you need a figurehead.

what good has an argument with an umpire ever done for a team??

and LaRussa had the best one two combo in the league in Pujols and Ludwick last year and they did not win shit.

Yep. I mean Joe Torre obviously didn't make the richest team in sports any better. Obviously.

 

Originally Posted by JayAces

 

Originally Posted by maxgridlock

 

Originally Posted by gamma21

OP has obviously never played competitive baseball.

and exactly how many wins do you think a good manager is worth over an average manager (my guess is a game or two at most)

and no i dont want to fit in with this idiot crowd im merely trying to educate.

One to two games?!?!?! You have no clue OP. A bad manager could cost you 20-30 games a year, while I agree a manager does not desreve the credit with every win, a great manager can make the difference in 15-20 games a year. That is the difference between first and last in most races.

Now stay out for good. ktkxbye.

ha ha ha you are one of the dumbest men alive you think a manger can have a 50 game swing on a season ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

just look at Pat Kelly's managerial career. He was a young genius with Kirby Puckett and the boys same guy same city 10 years later he never won anything again.

fwiw the op is probably right despite being a moron / douche

 

Originally Posted by Appst08

el oh el.

most ignorant baseball anaylsis ever

people love to romanticize about baseball. but when it comes down to it, its a game purely of numbers and its an individual game.

 

Originally Posted by maxgridlock

 

Originally Posted by Appst08

el oh el.

most ignorant baseball anaylsis ever

people love to romanticize about baseball. but when it comes down to it, its a game purely of numbers and its an individual game.

Sigh...you're still here. You said you were gone twice now. We all were excited.

 

Originally Posted by 2Slick4u

meh there IS chemistry in baseball and some managers are clearly better than others at getting W's.

Although Atlanta had very strong pitching for a lot of years, I doubt the Braves would have strung together more than a dozen straight division titles without Cox as manager.

ive seen zero proof of this. while ive sighted like 4 examples of mangers not matter and for the record im out means im done with this current post.

pocketfives biggest collection of idiots on the net.

i generally agree that a computer could do a better job, but mainly because i think MLB managers have fallen into some terrible habits (closers)

 

Originally Posted by maxgridlock

 

Originally Posted by ImSoMucked

i generally agree that a computer could do a better job, but mainly because i think MLB managers have fallen into some terrible habits (closers)

agree 100 percent as if you look at a team like the Indians they obviously had a huge weakness in the bullpen and adressed it by spending 11 mil on Kerry Wood (probably 1/7 their payroll) its a pretty bad move because the bullpen outside of him has been the worst in baseball and with his injury history he can't pitch more than one inning. obviously this is more a front office thing, and in general the Indians, are a pretty well run team. However, this is obv, a questionable decision.

well, its more so the fact that managers almost always use their best bullpen arm only in the 9th inning, which is completely retarded. I'm sure if a computer went through and did millions of simulations, it would manage the bullpen arms completely different and use the best pitcher in a number of different situation.

managers have fallen into this norm of how to manage a team and it is really inefficient, but they are afraid to change. a computer wouldn't make the same mistakes