Joe Torre and the fallacy of managerial labels

nyy26wc · 04-19-2002, 02:26 PM

JOE TORRE AND THE FALLACY OF MANAGERIAL LABELS

According to former Brewers manager Davey Lopes, "I have no gripes. I did what I was supposed to do".

The team certainly did what it was supposed to do. The Brewers are a last place caliber team. A last place team loses a lot of games.

Officially, they were a 4th place team last year, but the fact remained that they were a last place caliber team. They just got away with avoiding the cellar last year, by having the luck of the draw of having a couple of other last place caliber team in their division, who played a little worse. In the first weeks of this year, they haven't been so lucky.

Lopes also correctly stated, "I don't care who you put in this seat -- you can put Joe Torre in this seat, you can put Dusty Baker in this seat -- it doesn't matter. You are going to get the same results. I have no doubt about it."

One thing I can't stand is the mislabeling of managers as good and bad, based on how many games the players on the team win.

If a manager is legitimately good, he would raise the W-L record of his team. If a manager is legitimately bad, he would lower the W-L record. If a manager has little effect on the record, then he's a neutral, non factor.

A perfect case study is Joe Torre.

If you believe that Torre is a good manager, then he would raise the W-L record of his team. So, the real talent level of the team would be lower than the W-L record indicates and then his managing would raise the team's performance. On the other hand, if he's a bad manager, he would reduce the W-L record of the team, meaning their real talent level would be higher than the record indicates and his managing would thus reduce the record.

Prior to coming to the Yankees, Torre was considered an idiot. Any Yankees fan who can't recall the "Clueless Joe" headlines when he was hire either has repressed the memories or is one of those fair weather fans who just never followed the team until it was time to jump onto the championship bandwagon. During his time in pinstripes, the "Clueless Joe" reputation has been displaced by the "Hall of Fame brilliance" reputation.

Now, let's look at what happens when we apply those labels. I'm going to limit the discussion to his Mets teams, from 1977-81, and his Yankees teams, from 1996-2002. While he also managed the Braves and Cardinals, the New York teams were where we really solidified those contradictory reputations.

Torre's Mets teams (notice the language, I'm talking about the "teams" record, not "Torre's" record) had a 286-420 record. That's a .405 PCT, which is an average of 66-96 record per season.

Torre's Yankees teams currently stand at 591-394. That's a .600 PCT, which is an average of 97-65 per season.

Since his original reputation was an idiot, let's start with that premise. If we apply that premise to the 1977-81 Mets, we'd have to conclude that they were really were a little bit better than a 96 loss per year team, but Torre brought them down to that level. So, maybe they were really a 92 loss team, but the idiot had a noticeable obvious negative effect on the record and brought them down to 96 losses.

Since Torre's current reputation is a genius, let's look at how that premise affects the Yankees. If he's really having a clear, noticeable impact on the team, we'd have to conclude that the Yankees have been a little bit worse than a 97 win team, but Torre's brilliance raised them to that level. So, maybe they've really only had 92 win level talent, but Torre is as good as his reputation and really has given the team as big a boost as someone with his reputation would have, if the reputation was in fact genuine.

So, let's take another look at his years with the Mets.

There is no reason why a genius manager can't have terrible records. A team can have a superstar like Alex Rodriguez and still have a terrible record, because of the surrounding talent. Rodriguez still noticeably improves the Rangers, but because of the deficiencies of others, the end result is still lousy. There is no logical reason to say that's true with players, but not managers.

If Torre really is an excellent manager, then it would mean his Mets teams weren't really as bad as their 96 loss average showed, they were actually worse. They could have been a 100 loss a team talent level, but Torre's brilliant managing spared them those extra few losses a year.

Let's also reevaluate what's happened with the Yankees.

The reigning World Champions won the title in spite of having a .307 OBA/.652 OPS/-23 RCAA liability in the leadoff spot. A team can have great success, despite a clear liability, but in order to do so, the other players have to pick up the slack. So, while Tony Womack dragged the team's record down, the contributions of everyone else was sufficient to still enable the team to win.

There's no reason to believe that's not true for managers.

It's quite possible that Joe Torre is as bad a manager as his original reputation indicates and the Yankees are still winning. They could be putting 100 win a year talent on the field, with the 97 win average being a result of that talent being brought down by a bad manager.

If these labels were accurate, it means the 1977-81 Mets used to be a 92 loss caliber team, which was driven down to a 96 loss level by a clueless manager, but they have retroactively become a 100 loss caliber team, which was raised to a 96 loss level by a good manager who was merely in circumstances where his skills were camouflaged by the lack of talent on the roster.

So, in effect, Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter, Andy Pettitte, Roger Clemens, Mariano Rivera, et al get to change what we can say about those lousy Mets talent. That's a stupidity award level mindset if I ever saw one.

Meanwhile, what if, by an accident of fate, first managed the dynasty Yankees and then managed the mediocre Mets. If he did that, we'd hear plenty of talk about how he really wasn't a managerial genius, but rather a manager who lucked into a great roster and he's really a clown.

So, by twisting the calendar, it would mean the 1996-2002 Yankees were once a 92 win team, raised to the level of a 97 win team, but now should be looked at as a 100 win roster, which still overcame bad managing to win, but still had the manager drop them to a 97 win level.

So, in effect, players like Doug Flynn, Frank Taveras, Nino Espinosa, Pete Falcone would be able to change what was the real talent level of the Yankees's championship teams. That's another bunch of crap.

Using a team's win-loss record as a proxy for whether their manager is any good is a deeply flawed concept. It's time for it to go.

SmedIndy · 04-19-2002, 02:42 PM

Lee -

Excellent analysis. Managers get too much credit or blame. Only in certain circumstances can they truly change the outcome of where a team will finish (and mostly, I think, it's detrimental).

Torre is a good manager because he writes out the right guys on the lineup card. He's not playing Clay Bellinger and Luis Sojo every day, just because.

Slippery Pedro · 04-19-2002, 02:42 PM

Lee - could one use the run^2 thing to predict wins and then use that v. reality to judge a MGR?

BuzzBuzzard · 04-19-2002, 02:49 PM

Lee - I mean no disrespect, but can I call you Master of the Obvious?

All kidding aside, your analysis shouldn't really surprise people. Whether folks conceptually get as granular as you did, the end result is the same. The best ever example I can think of when applying the rule is the NBA's Phil Jackson. I could be coaching the Lakers or the Bulls at the same time he did and that would mean I was a genious hoops coach. Hey. maybe I'll start promoting myself that way.

BuzzBuzzard - a genious hoops coach! Nah - I like NetShrine's Conscience better.

Skip · 04-19-2002, 02:54 PM

Lee -
I much prefer your mailings like this (i.e. with the news separated from the editorial/analysis). I appreciate hearing your opinion/analysis, but when it is mixed in with the news, I appreciate it less. JOMO.

moose · 04-19-2002, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Slippery Pedro
Lee - could one use the run^2 thing to predict wins and then use that v. reality to judge a MGR?

The problem w/ pythagorean w-l is that it is based on runs scored and runs allowed, which are affected to a degree by roster choices, substitutions, etc etc.

I wholeheartedly agree w/ Lee, but I wonder aloud whether we could ever truly (objectively) measure a manager's ability...

Craig S. · 04-19-2002, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by moose
I wholeheartedly agree w/ Lee, but I wonder aloud whether we could ever truly (objectively) measure a manager's ability...

I don't think we really can, at least not with much in the way of statistical analysis. It will almost always be based on factors like winning championships, relations with the media, etc.

I think Lee has written an excellent piece here.

KCBOOMER · 04-19-2002, 05:28 PM

It is really hard to discern exactly what a manager contributes other than leadership (which is not inconsequential but difficult to measure).

The calendar twisting can get interesting. Age permitting suppose Casey had managed the Mets first and then the Yankees. Would he have went from goofus to genius? Well as a matter of fact he. You do recall his stint with the hapless Dodgers in the early 1930's and the Boston Braves in the late 1930's don't you.

I think Torre, who is a good man, manages according today's receipe. Platoon the one position he doesn't have a solid regular and use Rivera in the ninth when ahead.

TimmyB · 05-01-2002, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KCBOOMER

The calendar twisting can get interesting. Age permitting suppose Casey had managed the Mets first and then the Yankees. Would he have went from goofus to genius? Well as a matter of fact he. You do recall his stint with the hapless Dodgers in the early 1930's and the Boston Braves in the late 1930's don't you.

I think it was Warren Spahn, who played for Stengel both in Boston and with the Mets who said, "I had the privilege of playing for Casey Stengel both before and after he was a genius."

YankeeLinks · 05-03-2002, 12:40 AM

Casey himself used to downplay the skills of a manager. I remember when he said:

The most important thing a manager has to do is keep the 5 guys who hate him away form the 5 guys who aren't sure.

05-03-2002, 11:22 AM

I agree.

I've been a Yankee fan since 81. Joe Torre, in my opinion, is neither a genius, nor a horrible manager. I've seen him make some good decisions, but I've also seen him make some very questionable calls. Does Joe Torre get too much credit because he's managing a dynasty that Showalter and Watson put together? Yes. Is he a bad manager? No. Did he cost the Yankees a championship by not having the middle infield at double-play in the 9th of Game 7 with 1 out like he did in game 5? Possibly. It was a tie score at the time, so we'll never know what really would have happened.

Not that I'm bitter about that. I've enjoyed being a Yankee fan the past 6 years. It's the 15 before it I'm still trying to forget.

Slippery Pedro · 05-03-2002, 11:44 AM

Quick sidebar - Long John - RJ, welcome to the forum!

TGwynn19 · 05-03-2002, 11:45 AM

Long John welcome to the forum!

05-03-2002, 01:34 PM

Appreciate the warm welcome.

We use V-bulletin for our message boards over at Rotojunkie (RJ), so I'm familiar with the layout already. Makes it easier to reply.

Found out about this place while glancing through this week's Baseball Weekly (John Hunt's mention of Will's injury reports) online.

Pretty interesting place. There's a lot of info here and it's almost entirely about baseball, so how bad it could it possibly be!!

04-19-2002, 02:26 PM	#1
nyy26wc NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: NJ Posts: 14,584	Joe Torre and the fallacy of managerial labels JOE TORRE AND THE FALLACY OF MANAGERIAL LABELS According to former Brewers manager Davey Lopes, "I have no gripes. I did what I was supposed to do". The team certainly did what it was supposed to do. The Brewers are a last place caliber team. A last place team loses a lot of games. Officially, they were a 4th place team last year, but the fact remained that they were a last place caliber team. They just got away with avoiding the cellar last year, by having the luck of the draw of having a couple of other last place caliber team in their division, who played a little worse. In the first weeks of this year, they haven't been so lucky. Lopes also correctly stated, "I don't care who you put in this seat -- you can put Joe Torre in this seat, you can put Dusty Baker in this seat -- it doesn't matter. You are going to get the same results. I have no doubt about it." One thing I can't stand is the mislabeling of managers as good and bad, based on how many games the players on the team win. If a manager is legitimately good, he would raise the W-L record of his team. If a manager is legitimately bad, he would lower the W-L record. If a manager has little effect on the record, then he's a neutral, non factor. A perfect case study is Joe Torre. If you believe that Torre is a good manager, then he would raise the W-L record of his team. So, the real talent level of the team would be lower than the W-L record indicates and then his managing would raise the team's performance. On the other hand, if he's a bad manager, he would reduce the W-L record of the team, meaning their real talent level would be higher than the record indicates and his managing would thus reduce the record. Prior to coming to the Yankees, Torre was considered an idiot. Any Yankees fan who can't recall the "Clueless Joe" headlines when he was hire either has repressed the memories or is one of those fair weather fans who just never followed the team until it was time to jump onto the championship bandwagon. During his time in pinstripes, the "Clueless Joe" reputation has been displaced by the "Hall of Fame brilliance" reputation. Now, let's look at what happens when we apply those labels. I'm going to limit the discussion to his Mets teams, from 1977-81, and his Yankees teams, from 1996-2002. While he also managed the Braves and Cardinals, the New York teams were where we really solidified those contradictory reputations. Torre's Mets teams (notice the language, I'm talking about the "teams" record, not "Torre's" record) had a 286-420 record. That's a .405 PCT, which is an average of 66-96 record per season. Torre's Yankees teams currently stand at 591-394. That's a .600 PCT, which is an average of 97-65 per season. Since his original reputation was an idiot, let's start with that premise. If we apply that premise to the 1977-81 Mets, we'd have to conclude that they were really were a little bit better than a 96 loss per year team, but Torre brought them down to that level. So, maybe they were really a 92 loss team, but the idiot had a noticeable obvious negative effect on the record and brought them down to 96 losses. Since Torre's current reputation is a genius, let's look at how that premise affects the Yankees. If he's really having a clear, noticeable impact on the team, we'd have to conclude that the Yankees have been a little bit worse than a 97 win team, but Torre's brilliance raised them to that level. So, maybe they've really only had 92 win level talent, but Torre is as good as his reputation and really has given the team as big a boost as someone with his reputation would have, if the reputation was in fact genuine. So, let's take another look at his years with the Mets. There is no reason why a genius manager can't have terrible records. A team can have a superstar like Alex Rodriguez and still have a terrible record, because of the surrounding talent. Rodriguez still noticeably improves the Rangers, but because of the deficiencies of others, the end result is still lousy. There is no logical reason to say that's true with players, but not managers. If Torre really is an excellent manager, then it would mean his Mets teams weren't really as bad as their 96 loss average showed, they were actually worse. They could have been a 100 loss a team talent level, but Torre's brilliant managing spared them those extra few losses a year. Let's also reevaluate what's happened with the Yankees. The reigning World Champions won the title in spite of having a .307 OBA/.652 OPS/-23 RCAA liability in the leadoff spot. A team can have great success, despite a clear liability, but in order to do so, the other players have to pick up the slack. So, while Tony Womack dragged the team's record down, the contributions of everyone else was sufficient to still enable the team to win. There's no reason to believe that's not true for managers. It's quite possible that Joe Torre is as bad a manager as his original reputation indicates and the Yankees are still winning. They could be putting 100 win a year talent on the field, with the 97 win average being a result of that talent being brought down by a bad manager. If these labels were accurate, it means the 1977-81 Mets used to be a 92 loss caliber team, which was driven down to a 96 loss level by a clueless manager, but they have retroactively become a 100 loss caliber team, which was raised to a 96 loss level by a good manager who was merely in circumstances where his skills were camouflaged by the lack of talent on the roster. So, in effect, Bernie Williams, Derek Jeter, Andy Pettitte, Roger Clemens, Mariano Rivera, et al get to change what we can say about those lousy Mets talent. That's a stupidity award level mindset if I ever saw one. Meanwhile, what if, by an accident of fate, first managed the dynasty Yankees and then managed the mediocre Mets. If he did that, we'd hear plenty of talk about how he really wasn't a managerial genius, but rather a manager who lucked into a great roster and he's really a clown. So, by twisting the calendar, it would mean the 1996-2002 Yankees were once a 92 win team, raised to the level of a 97 win team, but now should be looked at as a 100 win roster, which still overcame bad managing to win, but still had the manager drop them to a 97 win level. So, in effect, players like Doug Flynn, Frank Taveras, Nino Espinosa, Pete Falcone would be able to change what was the real talent level of the Yankees's championship teams. That's another bunch of crap. Using a team's win-loss record as a proxy for whether their manager is any good is a deeply flawed concept. It's time for it to go. __________________ Lee Creator, Complete Baseball Encyclopedia. It's powerful, yet extremely easy to use. Features extensive sorting and stat display options. The CBE has many features that are not available in online and printed sources. Has 2006 stats and daily update service for 2007. Last edited by nyy26wc : 04-19-2002 at 02:33 PM.

04-19-2002, 02:42 PM	#3
Slippery Pedro NetShrine Creator & Curator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NetShrine WHQ Posts: 999	Lee - could one use the run^2 thing to predict wins and then use that v. reality to judge a MGR? __________________ Steve, Forum Administrator PLEASE READ: Community Standards . : ~ : PLEASE SHOP: Our Stuff! : ~ : HOW CAN YOU: Help? : ~ : BE NICE: To Your Fav Baseball Person. : ~ : ARE YOU: Posting Correctly?

04-19-2002, 02:49 PM	#4
BuzzBuzzard NetShrine's Conscience Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The bowels of Shea Posts: 3,062	Lee - I mean no disrespect, but can I call you Master of the Obvious? All kidding aside, your analysis shouldn't really surprise people. Whether folks conceptually get as granular as you did, the end result is the same. The best ever example I can think of when applying the rule is the NBA's Phil Jackson. I could be coaching the Lakers or the Bulls at the same time he did and that would mean I was a genious hoops coach. Hey. maybe I'll start promoting myself that way. BuzzBuzzard - a genious hoops coach! Nah - I like NetShrine's Conscience better. __________________ Buzzard You Gotta Believe

04-19-2002, 05:28 PM	#8
KCBOOMER NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Home of the T-Bones Posts: 11,116	It is really hard to discern exactly what a manager contributes other than leadership (which is not inconsequential but difficult to measure). The calendar twisting can get interesting. Age permitting suppose Casey had managed the Mets first and then the Yankees. Would he have went from goofus to genius? Well as a matter of fact he. You do recall his stint with the hapless Dodgers in the early 1930's and the Boston Braves in the late 1930's don't you. I think Torre, who is a good man, manages according today's receipe. Platoon the one position he doesn't have a solid regular and use Rivera in the ninth when ahead. __________________ KCBOOMER *Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball*

05-03-2002, 11:44 AM	#12
Slippery Pedro NetShrine Creator & Curator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NetShrine WHQ Posts: 999	Quick sidebar - Long John - RJ, welcome to the forum! __________________ Steve, Forum Administrator PLEASE READ: Community Standards . : ~ : PLEASE SHOP: Our Stuff! : ~ : HOW CAN YOU: Help? : ~ : BE NICE: To Your Fav Baseball Person. : ~ : ARE YOU: Posting Correctly?

04-19-2002, 02:42 PM	#2
SmedIndy NetShrine's Historian Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Zionsville, IN Posts: 10,569	Lee - Excellent analysis. Managers get too much credit or blame. Only in certain circumstances can they truly change the outcome of where a team will finish (and mostly, I think, it's detrimental). Torre is a good manager because he writes out the right guys on the lineup card. He's not playing Clay Bellinger and Luis Sojo every day, just because.

04-19-2002, 02:54 PM	#5
Skip NetShrine Vagabond Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Louisville Posts: 7,866	Lee - I much prefer your mailings like this (i.e. with the news separated from the editorial/analysis). I appreciate hearing your opinion/analysis, but when it is mixed in with the news, I appreciate it less. JOMO.

05-03-2002, 12:40 AM	#10
YankeeLinks NetShrine All-Century Team Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Home of 27 World Championships Posts: 2,862	Casey himself used to downplay the skills of a manager. I remember when he said: The most important thing a manager has to do is keep the 5 guys who hate him away form the 5 guys who aren't sure.

05-03-2002, 11:22 AM	#11
Long John - RJ Posts: n/a	I agree. I've been a Yankee fan since 81. Joe Torre, in my opinion, is neither a genius, nor a horrible manager. I've seen him make some good decisions, but I've also seen him make some very questionable calls. Does Joe Torre get too much credit because he's managing a dynasty that Showalter and Watson put together? Yes. Is he a bad manager? No. Did he cost the Yankees a championship by not having the middle infield at double-play in the 9th of Game 7 with 1 out like he did in game 5? Possibly. It was a tie score at the time, so we'll never know what really would have happened. Not that I'm bitter about that. I've enjoyed being a Yankee fan the past 6 years. It's the 15 before it I'm still trying to forget.

05-03-2002, 11:45 AM	#13
TGwynn19 Guest Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Naples, FL Posts: 2,087	Long John welcome to the forum!

05-03-2002, 01:34 PM	#14
Long John - RJ Posts: n/a	Appreciate the warm welcome. We use V-bulletin for our message boards over at Rotojunkie (RJ), so I'm familiar with the layout already. Makes it easier to reply. Found out about this place while glancing through this week's Baseball Weekly (John Hunt's mention of Will's injury reports) online. Pretty interesting place. There's a lot of info here and it's almost entirely about baseball, so how bad it could it possibly be!!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: