From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Blue Jays-Gillick
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:24:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.155127.10035@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.032238.9715@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:

>>Some of us understand that the only true measure of quality is merely  
>>the measure of a team's success.  Others feel that success is incidental
>>to quality. 

>And the truth lies somewhere in between.  The best manager in the
>world isn't going to help the Mets win next year, and even with the
>worst (Jimy Williams?), the Blue Jays would be an above-average team.

Actually, while I agree with the sentiment, I think you chose a bad
example.  I think the Mets are the perfect example of a team which a
good manager *could* help win.

They have *some* really good players, and some major holes, in a weak
division.  If their manager can really figure out which ones of his
players are good and which ones aren't, and plays them accordingly, they
have a shot at winning.

If they lead off with Vince Coleman or Tony Fernandez, they won't win.  
If they play Ryan Thompson full time, simply to justify the Cone trade,
they won't win.

Actually, never mind.  The more I think about it, the less likely it is
they could win.  They only have 2 good hitters (Bonilla, HoJo) and a few
average ones (Fernandez, Murray) in the lineup.  And their best pitcher
is in Kansas City.  Never mind.

>There is a reason why the players are paid umpteen times more than the
>managers.  It's because there are probably 15-20 players each year who
>have more impact on the success or failure of the team than the
>manager does.  It is silly to give even a great manager credit for
>more than half a dozen wins a year.  The game simply doesn't work that
>way.  Making it difficult to tell the difference between a less
>talented team with a great manager and a more talented team with an
>idiot manager, if all you look at is the W-L record.

Hell, the 25th player on the team probably makes as much as some managers.

>Cito Gaston has a very short managerial record, and has *never*
>managed a team that is short on talent.  Let's see how he does with
>the 1993 Jays (which looks like it will be the worst Jays team since
>he took over) before we induct him into the HOF.

He hasn't shown anything special so far.  Let's see if he's dumb enough
to stick with Devon White leading off when he has *2* better candidates.

Let's see which of his pitchers get the innings.  Is it Guzman, or
Morris or Stewart?  Actually, let's see who his 5th pitcher is.

Let's see whether he plays Ed Sprague or Darnell Coles at third.  

>>>I'll take Cito, thank you very much.

>>So should every team in baseball.  At least in '92.  Because the team he
>>managed won it all and that's all there is to win...

>That is the most ridiculous statement I've seen in ages.  And I'm not
>even taking it out of context!

>I'll take Alfredo Griffin, thank you very much.  "So should every team
>in baseball.  At least in '92.  Because the team he played for won it
>all, and that's all there is to win...".

>It is a stupid statement because it says nothing of interest.  Was
>Cito the most successful manager in 1992?  Of course.  Was he the
>best?  Not by any normal definition of "best".  (I know.  You prefer
>your own dictionary, in which "best" and "most successful" are
>synonyms.  Why don't you just accept that the rest of the world
>defines the terms differently?)

Exactly.  Who was it who said "I've been lucky enough to play for Casey 
Stengal before and after he was a genius?"

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina