danthemjfan23 Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 he's great, no doubt about it, but gardenhire of the twins would get my vote as the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamitekid Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 gardenhire has done more with less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis Posted February 28, 2010 Author Share Posted February 28, 2010 Gardenhire hasnt done more but he definitely has had less to work with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forgeagain Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 I think a computer or a stat database could be a better in-game manager than any of the 30 current MLB managers. They make too many bad decisions on the aggregate. Mostly involving how to structure a lineup (highest OBP to lowest with the most power around 3-5), who to put in the lineup in the first place, over-using pitchers, under-using hitters, etc. Sure, maybe a human manager can "get more" out of his players, but in a long season, making moves on hunches costs you wins. Ozzie is hilarious. I'm a Cubs fan, but even I like Ozzie. Terrible manager, hilarious dude. Definitely looking forward to his tweets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flood Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 I think a computer or a stat database could be a better in-game manager than any of the 30 current MLB managers. They make too many bad decisions on the aggregate. Mostly involving how to structure a lineup (highest OBP to lowest with the most power around 3-5), who to put in the lineup in the first place, over-using pitchers, under-using hitters, etc. Sure, maybe a human manager can "get more" out of his players, but in a long season, making moves on hunches costs you wins. . or as the recent super bowl taught us... making moves on hunches wins championships. Computers just run on statistics.. and stats aren't the whole picture. No amount of figuring can tell you what any given player is capable of in one given moment. Its why they play the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mediocore Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 I think a computer or a stat database could be a better in-game manager than any of the 30 current MLB managers. They make too many bad decisions on the aggregate. Mostly involving how to structure a lineup (highest OBP to lowest with the most power around 3-5), who to put in the lineup in the first place, over-using pitchers, under-using hitters, etc. Sure, maybe a human manager can "get more" out of his players, but in a long season, making moves on hunches costs you wins. . or as the recent super bowl taught us... making moves on hunches wins championships. Computers just run on statistics.. and stats aren't the whole picture. No amount of figuring can tell you what any given player is capable of in one given moment. Its why they play the game. Football =/= Baseball And I don't think forgeagain is saying there isn't a time/place for ballsy decisions (i.e., one game for all the marbles). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgoodcore Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 I think baseball is one of the few sports where stats can get you enough of a picture to be a better, over a long season, manager. Generally, regular season games don't include things like pressure on other performance-changing non-computable variables. Its when those intangibles are involved - and for sure the media makes more of those times than there actually is - when a human does better than a stats-crunching computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis Posted March 4, 2010 Author Share Posted March 4, 2010 So I guess the Dodgers signed Garret Anderson to a minor league deal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flood Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 twins are possibly really screwed, their closer might need tommy john surgery... mad shitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfreliable Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Whats really shitty is that he is thinking of playing through it if he feels better in a week or two. Nathan is the most underrated closer out there, better than the likes of Mo, but he needs to take the surgery and hope for next year cause damaging the arm worse is just going to screw him and his team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flood Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 yeah but its the year they're opening a new stadium, coming off an amazing year last year.... they were counting on being super competitive.. and losing him for a year, with not knowing if he can come back from it, especially at his age.... it makes you wonder if he's gonna pitch or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfreliable Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Isnt Nathan in his early 30's if not turning 30? Having a shitty year of him pitching (which will happen if he needs TJ and doesnt get it) to try and stay competitive for one year is crazy. If he goes out now, they got all of ST to find another suitable closer. Hell put Liriano there and free up the 5th spot in the rotation. Closers can be pretty easy to come by for a year. Rest him and know that TJ return rate is alot better than it was even 5 years ago. Look at all the minors that have gotten it already and making impact in the majors now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamitekid Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 he would be stupid to pitch through it. if he does, he'll end up like Rob Nen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flood Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 nathan's like 36 boss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis Posted March 9, 2010 Author Share Posted March 9, 2010 Angels should dump Fuentes on the Twins. Id be fine with letting Jepsen and Rodney close games instead of Fuentes. I heard Liriano is looking really good so far but I havent seen him play at all yet. If he can come back and be like he was that would help that staff a ton. If not maybe he can go Smoltz style and hit the pen and be effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfreliable Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Angels should dump Fuentes on the Twins.Id be fine with letting Jepsen and Rodney close games instead of Fuentes. I heard Liriano is looking really good so far but I havent seen him play at all yet. If he can come back and be like he was that would help that staff a ton. If not maybe he can go Smoltz style and hit the pen and be effective. Word is he is the front runner for the 5th rotation spot. Given the past two years of performance by him, its going to take alot to get back to what he showed in his rookie year. The year off and surgery just did not go well with him. Id love to see him succeed because he was incredible in the minors and that first year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamitekid Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 nathan's like 36 boss 34. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamitekid Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I just saw this on cnnsi. Very outside the box but it avoids the real problem. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/tom_verducci/03/09/floating-realignment/index.html?eref=sihp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfreliable Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I think it was mlb.com that had an article about this over the weekend where there was talk of moving the Yanks to the NL to get them and Boston to stop overspending and the game of one-up, plus it would put the mets/yanks rivalry in better mode. Still though, as you said, it avoids the problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flood Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 nathan's like 36 boss 34. he was born in 74, he turns 36 this year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flood Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I just saw this on cnnsi. Very outside the box but it avoids the real problem. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/tom_verducci/03/09/floating-realignment/index.html?eref=sihp they need to institute a minimum payroll. that's honestly the biggest problem. You can compete with smaller budgets if you're management team doesn't have its head up its ass.. the twins have proven that year in and year out, having some of the best baseball minds making the decisions. Or look at what the marlins or rays did. I do very much agree with the rotating divisions.. altho i don't like the "we're not gonna bother to compete, but give us a bunch of games against teams like the yankees who put asses in seats so we can make some cash" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfreliable Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 34. he was born in 74, he turns 36 this year He turns 36 in November so for all intents and purposes, this is his age 35 season. still sit out this year and have another 4-6 year of dominating pitching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew13 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 the Bucs should be out of the central, that's for sure. there isn't a team we play within 4 hours of pittsburgh and all the other teams pretty much are in the central time zone. bucs/phils/nats would be good rivalries. right now there's noone in the central i consider a rival Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamitekid Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 The only thing that would be weird if a team like...the Cubs for instance were competing in the NL West. None of those teams are even close to Chicago. That's more of a spacial problem. Idea wise, I don't like it because you are basically conceding that the Yankees and/or Red Sox will make the playoffs every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forgeagain Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Division re-alignment makes little sense until they add 2 more teams to the league. At that point, 8 divisions of 4 or 4 divisions of 8 would work best. The idea of floating divisions based on whether a team plans to contend or not would destroy the league. The "non-contending" division would end up getting contracted because nobody would ever go to the games if a team gave up before the season even started. Are we doing fantasy baseball again this year? Did I miss a post somewhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.