PDA

View Full Version : Pick the NL Manager of the Year (Official winner tba @ 2 pm est on Nov. 16)



redsfandan
11-07-2011, 09:48 AM
Voting was conducted at the end of the regular season.

marcshoe
11-07-2011, 09:56 AM
Cards were dead in the water. Even before their playoff and WS wins, Larussa gets this.

muddie
11-07-2011, 10:05 AM
Wainright out for the year as well. Definitely La Russa.

I'd give Gibby runner up.

reds1869
11-07-2011, 10:05 AM
It can't be anyone other than TLR.

redsmetz
11-07-2011, 10:15 AM
I based mine on the fact (I believe) that voting occurred before the WS was played. I agree Gibson should be a strong contender, but I think LaRussa gets overlooked for just getting the Cards into the playoffs (with the 20/20 view of a WS win) and it goes to Roenicke who had the Brewers playing full tilt most (if not all) of the season.

Mario-Rijo
11-07-2011, 10:45 AM
I give it to Gibby hands down, Roenicke as a runner up. LaRussa did a good job but I give alot of the credit for getting there to Mozeliak assuming it was his idea to sign Berkman/trade for Dotel, Rzepczynski and Jackson. Who thought Arizona would do what they did? And it's mostly because Gibson demanded better out of his guys.

AtomicDumpling
11-07-2011, 03:26 PM
Why give it to the manager of a second-place team?

crazybob60
11-07-2011, 03:44 PM
Man, it pains me to write this, but it has to be TLR. My heart says Gibson, but my mind is telling me TLR.

vic715
11-07-2011, 04:02 PM
Gibson wins easy.Last to first is a no brainer if I was a voter.

dougdirt
11-07-2011, 04:16 PM
Why give it to the manager of a second-place team?

The same reason you can give the MVP to a player who doesn't go to the playoffs. Things aren't created equally. The managers all have different quality of players and can only do so much with what they have.

oneupper
11-07-2011, 05:00 PM
Gibson.
Last to first is rare in baseball.

MikeThierry
11-07-2011, 08:15 PM
As much as I would love for it to go to TLR, I have to give it to Gibson. What TLR did down the stretch was historic however Gibson was consistent all year long and taught that young team how to win. I kind of feel bad for the Diamondbacks because they seemed to always be on the back burner of MLB headlines. What happened there was truely remarkable. This is the one award where I wouldn't be disappointed with the outcome though.

MikeThierry
11-07-2011, 08:18 PM
The same reason you can give the MVP to a player who doesn't go to the playoffs. Things aren't created equally. The managers all have different quality of players and can only do so much with what they have.

I agree with this. I also don't think people should look at it in the context of "giving it to the second place team". Whether some like it or not, the Wild Card is now a staple in the MLB Playoffs. You have to judge a team by the rules baseball has set. If a team is fortunate enough to make the playoffs, they should be recognized for it, not looked down upon as just a "second place team".

AtomicDumpling
11-08-2011, 06:21 PM
I agree with this. I also don't think people should look at it in the context of "giving it to the second place team". Whether some like it or not, the Wild Card is now a staple in the MLB Playoffs. You have to judge a team by the rules baseball has set. If a team is fortunate enough to make the playoffs, they should be recognized for it, not looked down upon as just a "second place team".

I think it cheapens the accomplishments of a hundred years' worth of truly great teams that won the World Championship to be lumped in the same category with teams that proved over the course of 162 games that they were not even good enough to win their own little division. It used to be that the World Series winner had a rock solid claim to being the best team in baseball that year, nowadays we have mediocre teams winning the Series on a regular basis. It used to be that only great teams earned the honor to be in the World Series, nowadays the strategy is to squeak into the playoffs somehow and hope for a miracle. It cheapens the accomplishment and the sport.

AtomicDumpling
11-08-2011, 06:27 PM
Which is more impressive: leading a team full of star players (including the best player of this generation) to a distant second-place finish; or leading a team full of no-name players that everyone picked to finish near the bottom of the league to a first place finish?

dougdirt
11-08-2011, 06:28 PM
I think it cheapens the accomplishments of a hundred years' worth of truly great teams that won the World Championship to be lumped in the same category with teams that proved over the course of 162 games that they were not even good enough to win their own little division. It used to be that the World Series winner had a rock solid claim to being the best team in baseball that year, nowadays we have mediocre teams winning the Series on a regular basis. It used to be that only great teams earned the honor to be in the World Series, nowadays the strategy is to squeak into the playoffs somehow and hope for a miracle. It cheapens the accomplishment and the sport.

Well if we are going that route, I would venture to say that any World Series won prior to 1960 or so shouldn't be looked upon in the same light given that teams were still not placing the best players on the field because of the color of their skin (at least across the board).

AtomicDumpling
11-08-2011, 06:37 PM
Well if we are going that route, I would venture to say that any World Series won prior to 1960 or so shouldn't be looked upon in the same light given that teams were still not placing the best players on the field because of the color of their skin (at least across the board).

We should allow inferior teams a chance to win the World Series Championship today because racist policies excluded black players in the early decades?

Yes the quality of baseball across the board in those olden days would have been much higher if black players were spread throughout the league, no question about it. But even so, the World Series winner was one of the two best teams in the league every year -- never once did a second-place team win. Nowadays we can only say the champion was somewhere in the mix of the 8 best teams. Not very satisfying. The World Series title means a lot less than it used to. Now you can only say you won the post-season tournament -- you can't say with any certainty that you were the best team in baseball that year. In fact, the best team rarely wins the World Series anymore.

redsfandan
11-08-2011, 06:59 PM
I think it cheapens the accomplishments of a hundred years' worth of truly great teams that won the World Championship to be lumped in the same category with teams that proved over the course of 162 games that they were not even good enough to win their own little division. It used to be that the World Series winner had a rock solid claim to being the best team in baseball that year, nowadays we have mediocre teams winning the Series on a regular basis. It used to be that only great teams earned the honor to be in the World Series, nowadays the strategy is to squeak into the playoffs somehow and hope for a miracle. It cheapens the accomplishment and the sport.
Todays game doesn't prevent a 95+ win team from winning the World Series. If that team with a ton of wins is really that 'great' they shouldn't have a problem dealing with a team that squeaks into the playoffs. If they're really that great they'll be able to overcome any miscues and 'miracles' that happen in the short series that we see in the playoffs.

Which is more impressive: leading a team full of star players (including the best player of this generation) to a distant second-place finish; or leading a team full of no-name players that everyone picked to finish near the bottom of the league to a first place finish?

I can agree with you on this point though.

dougdirt
11-08-2011, 07:01 PM
Todays game doesn't prevent a 95+ win team from winning the World Series. If that team with a ton of wins is really that 'great' they shouldn't have a problem dealing with a team that squeaks into the playoffs. If they're really that great they'll be able to overcome any miscues and 'miracles' that happen in the short series that we see in the playoffs.
Even great teams lost 3 out of 5 games throughout the season. In a four game series during the season I bet that every team in history has lost multiple times in at least three of them.

redsfandan
11-08-2011, 07:06 PM
Even great teams lost 3 out of 5 games throughout the season. In a four game series during the season I bet that every team in history has lost multiple times in at least three of them.

The playoffs is put up or shut up time. You want to make a claim that you're the best team ya gotta prove it. A team can win 110 games in the regular season but once the playoffs start the slate wipes clean. It's always been that way.

MikeThierry
11-08-2011, 07:07 PM
We should allow inferior teams a chance to win the World Series Championship today because racist policies excluded black players in the early decades?

Yes the quality of baseball across the board in those olden days would have been much higher if black players were spread throughout the league, no question about it. But even so, the World Series winner was one of the two best teams in the league every year -- never once did a second-place team win. Nowadays we can only say the champion was somewhere in the mix of the 8 best teams. Not very satisfying. The World Series title means a lot less than it used to. Now you can only say you won the post-season tournament -- you can't say with any certainty that you were the best team in baseball that year. In fact, the best team rarely wins the World Series anymore.

I think the current structure makes it a more valid winner because it takes more to win it now than it ever did. I said in a previous thread, if there was a Wild Card system in place in the 1950's and it takes 11 wins to win the World Series, the Yankees more than likely do not have won half of the championships that they did that decade. It could be argued that they don't even win half of the 27 championships that they currently have if the Wild Card system was in place from day one. With the system that was in place, a team with a stacked, high price roster was more likely to win it than now. The 2011 playoffs is a perfect example. The Phillies had one of the best pitching staffs since Glavine, Maddox, and Smoltz but ran into a hot team. Back 50 years ago, a team like the current Phillies would have probably steamrolled their way into winning a championship. I have a feeling that your opinion would change on this if the Reds were to some how make the Wild Card and run the table. In my opinion, it is just a more exciting and unpredictable game with the current system. It gives small market teams a chance to be competitive and win, unlike a system prior to the Wild Card.


Which is more impressive: leading a team full of star players (including the best player of this generation) to a distant second-place finish; or leading a team full of no-name players that everyone picked to finish near the bottom of the league to a first place finish?

That is why I picked Gibson as my manager of the year. That said, because the Cards did literally pull off something historic, I wouldn't be that appalled if TLR wins it.

dougdirt
11-08-2011, 07:08 PM
The playoffs is put up or shut up time. You want to make a claim that you're the best team ya gotta prove it. A team can win 110 games in the regular season but once the playoffs start the slate wipes clean. It's always been that way.

Sure, but it used to be a 7 game series, where one game isn't as easily able to break your chances. I get both sides of the argument though.

AtomicDumpling
11-08-2011, 07:43 PM
I think the current structure makes it a more valid winner because it takes more to win it now than it ever did. I said in a previous thread, if there was a Wild Card system in place in the 1950's and it takes 11 wins to win the World Series, the Yankees more than likely do not have won half of the championships that they did that decade. It could be argued that they don't even win half of the 27 championships that they currently have if the Wild Card system was in place from day one. With the system that was in place, a team with a stacked, high price roster was more likely to win it than now. The 2011 playoffs is a perfect example. The Phillies had one of the best pitching staffs since Glavine, Maddox, and Smoltz but ran into a hot team. Back 50 years ago, a team like the current Phillies would have probably steamrolled their way into winning a championship. I have a feeling that your opinion would change on this if the Reds were to some how make the Wild Card and run the table. In my opinion, it is just a more exciting and unpredictable game with the current system. It gives small market teams a chance to be competitive and win, unlike a system prior to the Wild Card.


Exactly, which is why the best team rarely wins anymore. The Yankees were clearly the best team those years. Adding in a chaotic, random system full of luck and hot streaks only serves to make it unlikely that the best team is going to win.

The reason they instituted a 162 game season was to guarantee that by the end of that grueling schedule the league would be able to send their proven best representative to give their league the best chance of taking home the World Series championship. The regular season was the focus, the Fall Classic was a showcase between the league champions. Now we have a system where there is no reason to play 162 games. Why spend 6 months playing games if all that matters is a postseason tournament? Why struggle for 6 months to prove yourself as the best team in the league if you earn the exact same reward as a bunch of inferior teams? Where the team that proved itself as the best in the league gets no advantage? It is a perversion of what baseball was for a century.

In other sports geared toward people with shorter attention spans they play fewer games and invite half the league into a post-season tournament. The regular season is merely a warm-up for the playoffs. Now baseball has sunk into being just like all the other sports by following the same formula as everyone else. To make matters worse the league champion in baseball gets no post-season advantage. At least in the NBA and NFL the best teams get a bye in the first round or get matched up against the weakest opponents. How long before baseball ends up like NCAA March Madness? Let's just invite everyone to the "playoffs" and have a single-elimination sudden-death game in each round. No sense in having series, just one high-stakes game where you have to lay it all on the line every round. Wouldn't that be exciting? Yes it would -- but that is not baseball.

MikeThierry
11-09-2011, 12:43 AM
Exactly, which is why the best team rarely wins anymore. The Yankees were clearly the best team those years. Adding in a chaotic, random system full of luck and hot streaks only serves to make it unlikely that the best team is going to win.

Is that a good thing though? The "best team" generally means the team that spends the most money in the off season. Are you saying that a team like Rays not having a chance to win in the playoffs is good for baseball? I'm all for no salary caps and the Yankees spending all the money they can but it should be balanced out with the unpredictability of a post season where the little guy can have as much of a chance to win as the "best team in baseball" who has a payroll at least five times greater.

I think there needs to be some tweeks in the wild card structure such as giving the wild card team a disadvantage in pitching matchups, etc but overall it is good for baseball.

I also believe you over exaggerate a bit when you use the slippery slope argument about letting all the teams in. Getting into the post season in baseball is still one of the most difficult things to do in all the North American sports. There is still a small percentage of teams who make it in.

Ron Madden
11-09-2011, 02:58 AM
Sure, but it used to be a 7 game series, where one game isn't as easily able to break your chances. I get both sides of the argument though.

The popular belief is that a truly great team should have no problem defeating an inferior club in the play offs.

But it aint necessarily so, the 1973 Mets beat the Reds 3 games to 2 to advance to the World Series.

Ya never know.

.

RANDY IN INDY
11-09-2011, 11:27 AM
As much as I don't like him, I voted Larussa.