PDA

View Full Version : how great is LaRussa



cardinal27
06-23-2008, 12:27 PM
Fans seem to dis tony ever chance they get. Facts are facts 7 div titles
2 WS 1 WC. This year is the best job he has ever done with about 60 mil on the DL. He keeps this team focused. 10 rookies have made there debut this season.top pitchers,top hitter,closer all out. before that happened we were pick 5th by most experts and to lose 90 games. The guy makes me question some of his decisions, It seems to work out. I think his biggest flaw is loyality
keeps staying with guys who are not getting it done example(Izzy,Flores etc)
Look at what he has done with a below avg. pitching staff and line up. no doubt he has been pulling rabbits out of a hat.Just think Wain,carp,pujols will be back. Izzy comming around.

redbird89
06-23-2008, 01:54 PM
Here's a Bernie Miklasz article
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/berniemiklasz/story/800735D01610C76B86257471001374C6?OpenDocument

Vegasguy80
06-23-2008, 02:46 PM
Who disses Tony? They aren't true Cards fans is they do. The man won a World Series when he shouldn't have and he is taking this team places this year they aren't "supposed to be". He is one of the best ever. Quote that!

cardinal27
06-23-2008, 02:52 PM
He is one of the best ever.
just read blogs about the cards

Kyle man
06-23-2008, 03:21 PM
I've allways liked Tony, every other team is baseball doesn't seem to though. I think this year was one of his finest Jobs. I still think last year was his finet considering Hancock Died. But if we win the Wild Card or Dvison this year, than this year will be the best.

callmesir
06-23-2008, 03:46 PM
I've been a TLR hater for awhile. Some of the moves just don't seem to make any sense. I really believe sometimes he'll do three double switches just to see if he can confuse an ump and get fat albert an extra AB.

When he was first coming up, he was a baseball fundementalist's nightmare. But now he's kind of the standard....

Oh well, I still scratch my head every time he puts kennedy into the game, same for flores, but more often than not it ends up working out.

There's no denying that he's been able to win a ton of games and he'll probably be a first ballot HOFer....

That doesn't mean I don't get to think he's a crackpot.

redwhitenblue
06-23-2008, 04:58 PM
May not be popular thought, but I think Duncan has a much bigger impact on the Cardinals success/failure than TLR ever does

stlouisgto
06-23-2008, 05:21 PM
Who disses Tony? They aren't true Cards fans is they do. The man won a World Series when he shouldn't have and he is taking this team places this year they aren't "supposed to be". He is one of the best ever. Quote that!

There are alot of fans who still hate him for the way he forced Ozzy Smith into retirement.

natepro
06-23-2008, 08:16 PM
I think he is, like most managers, fairly overrated.

RiffRaff
06-24-2008, 12:38 AM
TLR is the best in the business. We are lucky to have him.

Schuyler_15
06-24-2008, 12:45 AM
I'm really glad he won a WS for a couple of reasons. Obviously, it was the second best day of my life, and even that's debatable. Secondly, I personally think that if he didn't win a WS here, and probably should have, with the little mini-sized regular season dynasties we had going for a few years, he wouldn't have been appreciated like he should be.

Overrated? Maybe. He's what-managed 4 teams to a WS. Two were sweeps, the other two lasted five games. He's a gambler, and sometimes overaggressive in the playoffs according to some. But I like him, I do. Tons of respect for him as a manager and a baseball man.

JayhawkWild
06-24-2008, 01:30 AM
May not be popular thought, but I think Duncan has a much bigger impact on the Cardinals success/failure than TLR ever does

I tend to agree. The Cards seem to often get more out of pitchers than their previous teams could.

cardinal27
06-25-2008, 12:18 PM
I think he is, like most managers, fairly overrated.

Tony makes lots of moves during a game. some of them make me cringe. but it seems to work. He has done more with less than most managers ever could.
not just putting same lineup out there every day. he instills never quit attitude
on his teams no matter how many hits they take. How many could keep his teams head above water. when they have lost so much. Injuries to key players, Deaths of two players. They just keep coming. I know he does not hit or pitch. But he instills heart and desire in his players. Look at 2006 free fall pulls it together wins World Series. Starts Reyes in game one he pitches game of his life. One of many examples of pulling the right strings.

natepro
06-25-2008, 09:06 PM
Tony makes lots of moves during a game. some of them make me cringe. but it seems to work. He has done more with less than most managers ever could.
not just putting same lineup out there every day. he instills never quit attitude
on his teams no matter how many hits they take. How many could keep his teams head above water. when they have lost so much. Injuries to key players, Deaths of two players. They just keep coming. I know he does not hit or pitch. But he instills heart and desire in his players. Look at 2006 free fall pulls it together wins World Series. Starts Reyes in game one he pitches game of his life. One of many examples of pulling the right strings.

Pulling the right strings... or getting lucky?

He also does things like puts one of the best players on the planet in left field when his shoulder is so messed up he can't even throw the ball, and instructs him to underhand the ball to the SS if it's hit to him... and this was, by the way, not a playoff game.

His team is currently at 68% when it comes to successful stolen bases, but for them to really help the team it needs to be over 75%.

And are there managers that have a "let's all quit and go home" attitude? Can you name them?

Plenty of teams get injured and keep winning, though. The Cubs seem to be doing it. The Angels have been doing it. It's good that they've been able to, but 1) other teams, in fact most teams do it and 2) How much of that to you attribute to the players simply playing well?

And he says some silly, and obviously untrue things like "The rule of thumb is that a pitcher should get some 400 innings of work in the minors before being called up."


One sort of "layman's" way I think you can show how managers in general are overrated is by looking at fantasy baseball. When do you see, "Player X moved from being managed by Manager Y to Manager Z this year, so he's going put up monster numbers now?" It doesn't happen.

A manger's job is basically to manage ego's, try to decide when the right time to yank a pitcher is, and try to put together a good lineup. So much of what actually happens on the field is completely outside of his influence and control, though, that I think it's almost impossible to put successes and failures to much in the lap of the manager.

RiffRaff
06-26-2008, 10:10 AM
Pulling the right strings... or getting lucky?

He also does things like puts one of the best players on the planet in left field when his shoulder is so messed up he can't even throw the ball, and instructs him to underhand the ball to the SS if it's hit to him... and this was, by the way, not a playoff game.

His team is currently at 68% when it comes to successful stolen bases, but for them to really help the team it needs to be over 75%.

And are there managers that have a "let's all quit and go home" attitude? Can you name them?

Plenty of teams get injured and keep winning, though. The Cubs seem to be doing it. The Angels have been doing it. It's good that they've been able to, but 1) other teams, in fact most teams do it and 2) How much of that to you attribute to the players simply playing well?

And he says some silly, and obviously untrue things like "The rule of thumb is that a pitcher should get some 400 innings of work in the minors before being called up."


One sort of "layman's" way I think you can show how managers in general are overrated is by looking at fantasy baseball. When do you see, "Player X moved from being managed by Manager Y to Manager Z this year, so he's going put up monster numbers now?" It doesn't happen.

A manger's job is basically to manage ego's, try to decide when the right time to yank a pitcher is, and try to put together a good lineup. So much of what actually happens on the field is completely outside of his influence and control, though, that I think it's almost impossible to put successes and failures to much in the lap of the manager.

Pulling the right strings ... there is no such thing as "luck".

What's the general practice? When a team does bad ... who gets fired ... the manager! So when a team under achieves it's the managers fault ... but when a team does well ... the success is not to be credited to the manager?

Your right about the manager X,Y,Z thing ... but that doesn't account for player X not getting the opportunity to start and/or bat in the best spot in the order for player X to suceed under coach Y or Z. Doesn't matter anyway, we are talking about real baseball, not fantasy leagues.

When LaRussa had egos to manage he did a great job. Even Rolen, in the '06 postseason, who was uncooperative and unproductive, was yanked against his will & got a tude about it. Meanwhile, Scott Spiezio promptly stepped in and did what the other Scott didn't do *hit* and when Rolen came back ... all of a sudden his bat came to life. I credit that to LaRussa ... he coached us to '06 post season success.

And now he uses playing time as a tool/reward to get the best out of these youngsters who only just want to play the game, he instills confidence in his team ... and it works. Do you read player comments? They love the guy. Do you watch the Cardinals play? LaRussa is piloting this ship ... no doubt ... it's completely obvious that his presence in the dugout is felt on the field.

I don't know if you are just down on the role of mangers in general or just LaRussa. But it really doesn't matter. I believe that if this thread was trending towards "How terrible is LaRussa?" you would be on the other side of the argument because that's just you.

If that OF with the bad shoulder was to hurt to play ... he didn't have to. If players aren't converting enough of thier steal attempts for LaRussa ... then they need to do a better job or he will find someone who will. No there are no mangers with the philosophy "let's pack it in and go home" but not many others have that same "hard 9" philosophy as LaRussa ... and if they do they aren't getting it out of thier teams like LaRussa does his. And maybe the Cubs are finally able to push through some adversity because they finally have a good manager ... LaRussa's buddy Lou.

If TLR isn't the best or close to it than who is?

natepro
06-26-2008, 08:33 PM
Pulling the right strings ... there is no such thing as "luck".

What's the general practice? When a team does bad ... who gets fired ... the manager! So when a team under achieves it's the managers fault ... but when a team does well ... the success is not to be credited to the manager?

Your right about the manager X,Y,Z thing ... but that doesn't account for player X not getting the opportunity to start and/or bat in the best spot in the order for player X to suceed under coach Y or Z. Doesn't matter anyway, we are talking about real baseball, not fantasy leagues.

When LaRussa had egos to manage he did a great job. Even Rolen, in the '06 postseason, who was uncooperative and unproductive, was yanked against his will & got a tude about it. Meanwhile, Scott Spiezio promptly stepped in and did what the other Scott didn't do *hit* and when Rolen came back ... all of a sudden his bat came to life. I credit that to LaRussa ... he coached us to '06 post season success.

And now he uses playing time as a tool/reward to get the best out of these youngsters who only just want to play the game, he instills confidence in his team ... and it works. Do you read player comments? They love the guy. Do you watch the Cardinals play? LaRussa is piloting this ship ... no doubt ... it's completely obvious that his presence in the dugout is felt on the field.

I don't know if you are just down on the role of mangers in general or just LaRussa. But it really doesn't matter. I believe that if this thread was trending towards "How terrible is LaRussa?" you would be on the other side of the argument because that's just you.

If that OF with the bad shoulder was to hurt to play ... he didn't have to. If players aren't converting enough of thier steal attempts for LaRussa ... then they need to do a better job or he will find someone who will. No there are no mangers with the philosophy "let's pack it in and go home" but not many others have that same "hard 9" philosophy as LaRussa ... and if they do they aren't getting it out of thier teams like LaRussa does his. And maybe the Cubs are finally able to push through some adversity because they finally have a good manager ... LaRussa's buddy Lou.

If TLR isn't the best or close to it than who is?

What are you talking about? Of COURSE there's luck in baseball. That's why we have stats like BABIP (Batting Average on Balls In Play) to tell us what players are having lucky or unlucky bounces, and show us trends that are going to either continue or reverse. Luck is all over the place in baseball. How is that not obvious?

I know we're talking about real baseball, but it doesn't change my point. Obviously when someone is moved around in the order it's going to affect things like their RBI totals and perhaps their steals and such, but productive players under Mike Hargrove are going to be productive players under McLaren and productive players under Riggleman. Three different managers, and yet Ichiro still has over 200 hits, still scores 100 runs, still steals more than 30 bases, still hits over .300. Three different managers, and Richie Sexson still sucks.

I'll gladly give LaRussa credit for handling Rolen as best he could. I don't think you can credit LaRussa with Spiezio coming in and hitting, just as you wouldn't fault him if he came in and didn't get a single hit, because Rolen wasn't playing well (wasn't he injured?) and should've been removed. It was the right move, either way.

Playing time? Can you name another manager that doesn't use his young players that way? If you play will, then you will see more ABs. If you don't, then you won't see as many ABs (unless your name is Gary Matthews Jr.). Isn't that how it works everywhere? Yeah, you'll have the idiot manager here or there that won't be able to handle his younger players in a productive way, but doesn't that seem like something that should be standard for a manager? Why does handling them making him one of the best, and not simply "a good manager" for being able to do what every other manager should be able to do, too?

The player's loving the manager doesn't make him great. I'm sure a lot of Mets liked Willie Randolph, a lot of M's liked McLaren, no doubt a like of Yankees liked Joe Torre. Being liked doesn't make you good, it just makes you liked.

I wouldn't say I'm "down" on the role of managers in general, but I think managers as a whole are fairly overrated. I think people put too much stock in what managers can do for a team, and I think very often managers end up over thinking things (or simply being flat-out wrong in what they believe to be a good idea) and can cost their teams more runs than they can add to them. I appreciate the personal attack, though.

It wasn't "an outfielder" with a bad shoulder, it was Albert-effin-Pujols with a bad shoulder. It's not that he didn't have to go out there, it's that he couldn't throw a baseball or risk losing his career, and yet he was still send out there. How does that seem like a good idea to anyone?

It isn't as simple as "finding someone else who will" convert 75% of his stolen base attempts, for two reasons. 1)You'd have to have someone in your organization who CAN convert that many, AND can field and hit well enough to play at the Major League level and 2)You have to believe (which I don't) that LaRussa knows and accepts the 75% number to be fact (which it is) and not accept anything less. That's not just LaRussa, though, that's most managers that wrongfully ignore that.

I'd love for you to point out a manager that isn't getting the "hard 9" out of his team. Any manager will do. Saying, "Hey guys, play a hard 9 innings today!" is not going to make Carlos Pena see a Joba Chamberlin fastball any better than if he didn't say that to them. Major League teams, as a general rule, do not give up. Good teams and bad teams have come-from-behind wins, have close wins, have late wins, and have all of those on the losing side too.

And maybe the Cubs are finally able to "push through some adversity" because they have a 3.77 team ERA this season compared to 4.04 team ERA last season, and because they have a .362 team OBP this season, compared to a .333 OBP last season. How do we know this has anything to do with Pinella? He couldn't work this magic in Tampa Bay, and yet Joe Maddon is down there now, and has them only a half game behind Boston and 4 games up in the Wild Card. Does that mean Maddon is better the Pinella? Since LaRussa was able to win in St. Louis but Torre wasn't, does that make LaRussa better than Torre? Torre won multiple World Series' when he had a team that could pitch and hit well, and didn't win them when he had teams that couldn't pitch hardly at all, and despite still being able to hit. So is he a good manager, or a bad one? Was he making the Yankees play a "hard 9" when they were winning, and decided to go with a "gentle 6 1/3rd" once the new millennium started?

Of course not.

And why didn't LaRussa's "hard 9" work against the Red Sox when the Cardinals were the top 2 teams in baseball a few years back? Simple. The Red Sox were hot, and their hot hitting and pitching carried them through the World Series. In the same way, the Cardinals were hot coming in against Detroit, and that same hot hitting and pitching carried them through that World Series. The champion Cardinals were arguably not as good a team as the Runner-Up Cardinals, so why could LaRussa win with one and not the other?

I say it's because LaRussa didn't have a whole lot to do with either one, and the real difference was in the level the team on the field was playing at the time.

natepro
06-26-2008, 08:34 PM
If TLR isn't the best or close to it than who is?

Sorry, forgot this last part.

If I had to name the best manager in the game, gun to my head or whatever, I'd probably have to go with Bobby Cox.

RiffRaff
06-29-2008, 08:27 PM
There is no such thing as luck, not only in baseball, but anywhere. If you have a positive attitude and approach, good things happen, if not, you get the opposite. The idea that some how the outcome of all our actions are pre-determined by "luck" is truly laughable. And the fact that you use a stat to prove the existence of "luck" in baseball and think that such a thing as "luck" could even be statistically measured even more so. BABIP is most commonly used to spot fluky seasons by pitchers, not measure thier "luck" ... lol @ you. However you implied that LaRussa as opposed to "pulling the right strings" was just "lucky". He sure has had a lot of "luck" over the last 20+ years.

I don't think you are talking about real baseball because in real baseball the manager is there to win ballgames not worry about player X and his fantasy numbers. When a manager fills out that line-up card he does what is in the best interest of the team ... so comments like this ...



One sort of "layman's" way I think you can show how managers in general are overrated is by looking at fantasy baseball. When do you see, "Player X moved from being managed by Manager Y to Manager Z this year, so he's going put up monster numbers now?" It doesn't happen.


... are pointless.


I'll gladly give LaRussa credit for handling Rolen as best he could. I don't think you can credit LaRussa with Spiezio coming in and hitting, just as you wouldn't fault him if he came in and didn't get a single hit, because Rolen wasn't playing well (wasn't he injured?) and should've been removed. It was the right move, either way.

At least you'll give him some credit. Are you sure his handling of Rolen wasn't overrated as well? Spiezio was swinging a hot bat and needed to be in the line-up, in the first game that he started he responded with a game winning hit. Meanwhile, Rolen's little stint on the bench got him fired up and he came back in the WS with the hot bat. He could have stuck with the all-star at third and put Spiezio in the outfield again, but he benched his @$$. He could have stuck with Spiezio in the next series but instead gave the slumping Rolen another shot ... in the WS no less ... and he responded by posting the teams highest batting average, while hurt. So Yes, I think LaRussa can be given some credit for the way things played out.

There are few if any managers out there that could do with this team what LaRussa has done this year, there are few to none that could have done what he did with that injury riddled team last year. And don't think for a minute that ball club that somehow pulled out the '06 WS is the same club w/o TLR at the helm ... it's likely they don't make the playoffs.

All of baseball has made a big deal about the fantastic job TLR has done with this young team. Where have you been? He instills confidence in them, and they play harder for him because he makes them believe this team can win. They say it in all the news articles, quotes from the team, quotes from opposing managers, do you read the post? Bernie just said something to that effect last week? I'm not the type to believe everything I read, but seeing is believing.

When you have a player the caliber of Pujols and a manager the caliber of TLR and that player says he is a "father figure" and consistently gives him credit for the team success ... that's special. Willie Randolph doesn't get that.


I'd love for you to point out a manager that isn't getting the "hard 9" out of his team.

Does Willie Randolph count now that he has been fired? How about Dusty Baker or any of the manager's who's team was predicted by all the "experts" to perform better than the Cardinals this year and have fallen flat on their face.

I'm sure Cubs fans are happier with Lou running that powerhouse team they got up there this year instead of Baker. Lou's team in Tampa wasn't nearly as talented as this years Rays (I live in FL. I get those telecasts) I'm certain Piniella would fare better there this year just as I'm certain TLR would have done a better job in Cinci had he went there as the rumors went. Just because two mangers coached the same team at a certain point, one having success and the other not doesn't make one better than the other.

Although the teams have the same name and play in the same city they are most likely two completely different ball clubs ... so don't be silly.

LaRussa says "play a hard nine" is his philosophy. Maybe not unlike similar philosophies laid out by other managers, but unique to TLR nevertheless ... and it seems to work for him. It's been talked about nationally during the playoffs, even back in '04 '05 they remarked about this team being well ahead in the standings all season still played every game like the pennant was on the line and crediting TLR for it. So don't be pretentious and pretend I'm saying he slaps a batter on the @$$, says "play a hard nine" and the guy can hit anybody.


The champion Cardinals were arguably not as good a team as the Runner-Up Cardinals, so why could LaRussa win with one and not the other?

Because at the times the Cardinals played them ... the Red Sox were a much better team than the Tigers. Duh.

Because you didn't see that Red Sox team until they came back from being 3 down to the Yankees in the ALCS and were unbeatable.

Because the Cardinals team that Detroit faced wasn't the team that TLR coddled all the way through the '06 regular season but rather more like the teams that won over 200 games the previous two seasons.





I believe that if this thread was trending towards "How terrible is LaRussa?" you would be on the other side of the argument because that's just you.


I appreciate the personal attack, though.

It's not a personal attack, it's just how you are. I read your posts and it's apparent you are a know it all. I can't help it you come off as a pompous @$$!*

*that was a personal attack.

RiffRaff
06-29-2008, 08:30 PM
Sorry, forgot this last part.

If I had to name the best manager in the game, gun to my head or whatever, I'd probably have to go with Bobby Cox.

Good call though ... if there was any manger out there better than TLR ... it would be good 'ol Bobby Cox.

But of course I am a bit biased ... I also think Pujols is the best player in the league.

natepro
06-30-2008, 09:00 PM
Good call though ... if there was any manger out there better than TLR ... it would be good 'ol Bobby Cox.

But of course I am a bit biased ... I also think Pujols is the best player in the league.

Am I supposed to argue this point about Pujols? :confused:

I agree with you, and have said on more than one occasion here that he should've been last year's MVP.

natepro
06-30-2008, 10:01 PM
There is no such thing as luck, not only in baseball, but anywhere. If you have a positive attitude and approach, good things happen, if not, you get the opposite. The idea that some how the outcome of all our actions are pre-determined by "luck" is truly laughable. And the fact that you use a stat to prove the existence of "luck" in baseball and think that such a thing as "luck" could even be statistically measured even more so. BABIP is most commonly used to spot fluky seasons by pitchers, not measure thier "luck" ... lol @ you. However you implied that LaRussa as opposed to "pulling the right strings" was just "lucky". He sure has had a lot of "luck" over the last 20+ years.

I don't think you are talking about real baseball because in real baseball the manager is there to win ballgames not worry about player X and his fantasy numbers. When a manager fills out that line-up card he does what is in the best interest of the team ... so comments like this ...



... are pointless.



At least you'll give him some credit. Are you sure his handling of Rolen wasn't overrated as well? Spiezio was swinging a hot bat and needed to be in the line-up, in the first game that he started he responded with a game winning hit. Meanwhile, Rolen's little stint on the bench got him fired up and he came back in the WS with the hot bat. He could have stuck with the all-star at third and put Spiezio in the outfield again, but he benched his @$$. He could have stuck with Spiezio in the next series but instead gave the slumping Rolen another shot ... in the WS no less ... and he responded by posting the teams highest batting average, while hurt. So Yes, I think LaRussa can be given some credit for the way things played out.

There are few if any managers out there that could do with this team what LaRussa has done this year, there are few to none that could have done what he did with that injury riddled team last year. And don't think for a minute that ball club that somehow pulled out the '06 WS is the same club w/o TLR at the helm ... it's likely they don't make the playoffs.

All of baseball has made a big deal about the fantastic job TLR has done with this young team. Where have you been? He instills confidence in them, and they play harder for him because he makes them believe this team can win. They say it in all the news articles, quotes from the team, quotes from opposing managers, do you read the post? Bernie just said something to that effect last week? I'm not the type to believe everything I read, but seeing is believing.

When you have a player the caliber of Pujols and a manager the caliber of TLR and that player says he is a "father figure" and consistently gives him credit for the team success ... that's special. Willie Randolph doesn't get that.



Does Willie Randolph count now that he has been fired? How about Dusty Baker or any of the manager's who's team was predicted by all the "experts" to perform better than the Cardinals this year and have fallen flat on their face.

I'm sure Cubs fans are happier with Lou running that powerhouse team they got up there this year instead of Baker. Lou's team in Tampa wasn't nearly as talented as this years Rays (I live in FL. I get those telecasts) I'm certain Piniella would fare better there this year just as I'm certain TLR would have done a better job in Cinci had he went there as the rumors went. Just because two mangers coached the same team at a certain point, one having success and the other not doesn't make one better than the other.

Although the teams have the same name and play in the same city they are most likely two completely different ball clubs ... so don't be silly.

LaRussa says "play a hard nine" is his philosophy. Maybe not unlike similar philosophies laid out by other managers, but unique to TLR nevertheless ... and it seems to work for him. It's been talked about nationally during the playoffs, even back in '04 '05 they remarked about this team being well ahead in the standings all season still played every game like the pennant was on the line and crediting TLR for it. So don't be pretentious and pretend I'm saying he slaps a batter on the @$$, says "play a hard nine" and the guy can hit anybody.



Because at the times the Cardinals played them ... the Red Sox were a much better team than the Tigers. Duh.

Because you didn't see that Red Sox team until they came back from being 3 down to the Yankees in the ALCS and were unbeatable.

Because the Cardinals team that Detroit faced wasn't the team that TLR coddled all the way through the '06 regular season but rather more like the teams that won over 200 games the previous two seasons.







It's not a personal attack, it's just how you are. I read your posts and it's apparent you are a know it all. I can't help it you come off as a pompous @$$!*

*that was a personal attack.

I assumed when I said "luck" that you would know I wasn't talking about

Luck:


1. the force that seems to operate for good or ill in a person's life, as in shaping circumstances, events, or opportunities: With my luck I'll probably get pneumonia.

But instead,

Luck:


2. good fortune; advantage or success, considered as the result of chance: He had no luck finding work.
3. a combination of circumstances, events, etc., operating by chance to bring good or ill to a person: She's had nothing but bad luck all year.


Clearly I was not saying that LaRussa has been lucky because he carries 20 rabbits' feet with him everywhere he goes and he makes each of the players keep a potted four leaf clover plant in their locker, because you can just as easily substitute "chance" or "fluke" or "break" for "luck" and what I'm saying still works. A positive attitude and approach... whatever. Maybe Pujols is just way more positive than Chris Duncan, and that's his problem! Yeah.

As a side note, BABIP is used for pitchers and hitters.

I'm pretty sure I said nowhere that the manager's job is to worry about fantasy numbers, and again you clearly can't see the forest through the trees. The point I am making is that things like the lineup (and not even so much the order as the people actually in it), the parks they play in, and the physical condition of the players have way more to do with how a team (and, in turn, an individual player) performs than whether the manager tells them to play hard for the entire game, instead of taking the 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 8th inning off to, I don't know, relax and focus their chi or something.

I guess you can count Willie Randolph if you want when it comes to that "hard 9," but that's not going to get you anywhere.

Randolph was fired on June 17th. Counting the game the day he was fired, that he did not coach, the Mets have played 12 games up until today, and have exactly a 6-6 record. Any idea what their winning percentage is so far this season?

.494.

The team is performing, in 12 games, .006 better than they had been before he was fired. It seems the change in manager has done exactly nothing for them so far. The only caveat here, of course, being that it's a ridiculously small sample size.

And it's great that Pujols calls LaRussa a "father figure." I don't know what Pujols' skill at hitting a baseball has to do with how much it matters that he thinks LaRussa is a "father figure," but okay. I personally doubt he'd be getting quite the "father figure" praise if the Cardinals hadn't been consistently winning over the last few years, though. Winning makes so many things much more rosey:


"This team is a reflection of Willie," Omar Minaya, the guy who hired him, said Thursday night. "He is a born winner."

And losing gets rid of that really fast:


Wilpon, discussing Randolph's three-year-plus reign, said, "It's all a matter of performance. Recognize, Omar gave Willie a chance to be in this position. He had never been a manager in the major leagues or minor leagues. I think Willie did a good job. The results of the last, say, 14 months were not up to what we thought it had to be."

Rolen and Spiezio... again, whatever. Rolen was being a bit of a child, and LaRussa did what he should've done and benched him. I think that saying Spiezio was swinging a "hot bat" might be going a little far, because most people would not consider a .235 AVG with a .316 OBP to be a "hot bat." I'm sure he was the clutchest clutch that ever did clutch, though. And yes, Rolen hit .421 in the World Series. Excellent for LaRussa and the Cardinals that it worked out that way. Ignoring the fact that 19 ABs is a stupidly small sample size, do you think LaRussa wouldn't have been second guessed if Rolen came in and whiffed his way through the Series? Of course he would've. Any manager would've.

Frankly, I don't care about "all of baseball" or what The Post says, because these are the same people that still believe RBIs matter when evaluating a player's season or W-L matters when talking about pitchers. They're the same people that talk about how "gritty" Eckstein was or how Jeter has "calm eyes." They are, in short, people that have no idea what the hell they're talking about.

This is getting tedious scrolling down to get to the next point, then back up to type, then back down, etc. Let's wrap this post up!

Dusty Baker = One of the worst managers on the planet.

Predictions = Worthless (unless we're talking about PECOTA). In 2006, 19 "experts" from ESPN predicted who would win the World Series. NONE of them were even right about who would MAKE it to the World Series.

You're right about the Cardinals team that faced Detroit not being the same as the teams from the two years before. They were, in fact, almost the exact opposite. Those teams were really good. The 2006 team was really, really decent. Since baseball went to a 162 game schedule, no team that won that few games has won the World Series. Are you going to tell me that LaRussa is SO GOOD that he PLANNED to barely make it into the playoffs, and then he went all "Hard Nine Guys!" on them once the playoffs started and they went, "Hey, that sounds like a good idea, we should try to play hard for the WHOLE game and not just the ones that have even numbers in them!" and that's why an 83-win team won the World Series? Of course not. You're simply in denial if you don't think the Cardinals had some very lucky bounces, and the Tigers just utterly melted down at the wrong time. The Tigers had 4 bad games, though, which can happen to any team and any time, and these 4 just happened in the World Series. Maybe they were intimidated by LaRussa's awesomeness, though. Hmm.

Two final things:

1. You simply can't make statements saying that Team A would do better if LaRussa was managing them, because you have NO way to prove it. I may as well say they would be a 100-loss team if LaRussa was managing them, because I have just as much lack of proof. There is, in fact, no evidence either way. A team winning, if you want to boil it down to it's most basic, comes down to two things: How well they pitch, and how well they get on base. The manager's influence over both of these things is so small that it's pointless to try to measure it. Just ask the Oakland A's, who seem to have a revolving door at the manager position and still compete year in and year out.

2. It's probably a good idea not to call someone a "know it all" and a "pompus ***" at the end of a lengthy post in which you're telling that person why you're right and they're wrong, and doing it with things like "lol @ you" and "Duh."

ehmiu
06-30-2008, 11:48 PM
For a while now, I've wondered why I was only able to capture one epic argument (and it wasn't even epic) in my time at PSD. It was the one where Duke22 came in but forgot to bring the puncuation with him.

Now I know.

It's because I don't want to read that much opinion. You two are in your own world now. I can't keep up with this.

Bravo, chums. :clap:

natepro
07-01-2008, 12:15 AM
Thinking back, I don't even know how much of my post made sense. Too much going on to post things that long and actually give them any focus. :laugh2:

RiffRaff
07-04-2008, 01:51 PM
Look at 2006 free fall pulls it together wins World Series. Starts Reyes in game one he pitches game of his life. One of many examples of pulling the right strings.


Pulling the right strings... or getting lucky?


Clearly I was not saying that LaRussa has been lucky because he carries 20 rabbits' feet with him everywhere he goes and he makes each of the players keep a potted four leaf clover plant in their locker, because you can just as easily substitute "chance" or "fluke" or "break" for "luck" and what I'm saying still works. A positive attitude and approach... whatever. Maybe Pujols is just way more positive than Chris Duncan, and that's his problem! Yeah.

Pulling the right strings ... or getting chancey? flukie? breaky? ... what your saying doesn't work no matter how many definitions of the same word you come up with. It's obvious that anyone who considers TLR's advantage or success the result of chance or a combination of circumstances is not thinking clearly ... face it ... the man is just good at what he does ... has been for years ... bottom line.



A positive attitude and approach... whatever. Maybe Pujols is just way more positive than Chris Duncan, and that's his problem! Yeah.

You may notice I used the word "approach" considering you quoted it? Either way ... other than the glaring difference in mere talent ... it is Albert's consistent and yes "positive" approach at the plate that makes a slumping #5 better than Duncan on his best day. Or is plate discipline over rated as well? Like LaRussa, Ankiel, the role of the manager ...



I wouldn't say I'm "down" on the role of managers in general, but I think managers as a whole are fairly over rated.

... stats you don't like or anything else you don't agree with.

And while on the subject of approach, Duncan and you being the utmost authority on what's over rated. Let me take this opportunity to credit Dave Duncan for his contributions, he has been intricate to TLR's success. This of course is your opportunity to tell us how over rated he is as well.



As a side note, BABIP is used for pitchers and hitters.


BABIP is most commonly used to spot fluky seasons by pitchers, not measure their "luck" ... lol @ you.

Did you not notice the phrase "most commonly"? And you say I'm the one who cannot see the forest through the trees.



I'm pretty sure I said nowhere that the manager's job is to worry about fantasy numbers ...

Then this statement is just flat out stupid ...



One sort of "layman's" way I think you can show how managers in general are overrated is by looking at fantasy baseball. When do you see, "Player X moved from being managed by Manager Y to Manager Z this year, so he's going put up monster numbers now?" It doesn't happen.


... how could a manager take credit or blame for an individual players production when they coach the team as a whole. Any impact they might have on a players "fantasy numbers" would be related to moves made in the best interest of the team and therefore incidental. In no way what so ever does looking at fantasy baseball show that managers are over rated.



I'd love for you to point out a manager that isn't getting the "hard 9" out of his team. Any manager will do.


Does Willie Randolph count now that he has been fired? How about Dusty Baker or any of the manager's who's team was predicted by all the "experts" to perform better than the Cardinals this year and have fallen flat on their face.


Dusty Baker = One of the worst managers on the planet.

??? ... Does this mean "any manager" won't do?:rolleyes:


I guess you can count Willie Randolph if you want when it comes to that "hard 9," but that's not going to get you anywhere.

Randolph was fired on June 17th. Counting the game the day he was fired, that he did not coach, the Mets have played 12 games up until today, and have exactly a 6-6 record. Any idea what their winning percentage is so far this season?

.494.

The team is performing, in 12 games, .006 better than they had been before he was fired. It seems the change in manager has done exactly nothing for them so far. The only caveat here, of course, being that it's a ridiculously small sample size.

What a dumb point to make.:clap:

Although the Mets payroll is probably too high for this team to be underachieving this season ... I assume this was just the last straw. I suspected his firing had more to do with their disappointing series loss to the Cards in the '06 NLCS and almost even more disappointing collapse in the NL east late last season. But those disappointments must just be over rated.

And just when I thought you couldn't possibly attempt to make a dumber point ...


"This team is a reflection of Willie," Omar Minaya, the guy who hired him, said Thursday night. "He is a born winner."


Wilpon, discussing Randolph's three-year-plus reign, said, "It's all a matter of performance. Recognize, Omar gave Willie a chance to be in this position. He had never been a manager in the major leagues or minor leagues. I think Willie did a good job. The results of the last, say, 14 months were not up to what we thought it had to be."

... the first comment came from the guy who hired him, of course he would have positive things to say about the guy he just hired. And the second comment came from ownership justifying why he was fired ... expressing disappointment without tearing the guy down.

That's not the same as consistent praise from your players, management opposing managers/players and sportswriters.



And it's great that Pujols calls LaRussa a "father figure." I don't know what Pujols' skill at hitting a baseball has to do with how much it matters that he thinks LaRussa is a "father figure," but okay.


"Tony is the best manager in the game, a Hall of Famer for sure,'' Pujols said. "He has a lot to do with this. He keeps the pressure off those young guys.''



Are you going to tell me that LaRussa is SO GOOD that he PLANNED to barely make it into the playoffs, and then he went all "Hard Nine Guys!" on them once the playoffs started and they went, "Hey, that sounds like a good idea, we should try to play hard for the WHOLE game and not just the ones that have even numbers in them!" and that's why an 83-win team won the World Series? Of course not.You're simply in denial if you don't think the Cardinals had some very lucky bounces, and the Tigers just utterly melted down at the wrong time.

Yes I'm telling you TLR wrote a dramitization out of the '06 regular season ...???... wtf are you talking about ... & there's that word again, "lucky". TLR did a fine job in the '06 playoffs but his finest work that season was just getting them there, they had so many injuries that the coaching staff was the only constant but they got healthier (I wouldn't say healthy) at the right time ... because ...


the Cardinals team that Detroit faced wasn't the team that TLR coddled all the way through the '06 regular season but rather more like the teams that won over 200 games the previous two seasons.

... but you right, the Cardinals don't deserve any credit at all, the Tigers probably just felt sorry for them because they have such a schmuck as a manager.



Frankly, I don't care about "all of baseball" or what The Post says, because these are the same people that still believe RBIs matter when evaluating a player's season or W-L matters when talking about pitchers. They're the same people that talk about how "gritty" Eckstein was or how Jeter has "calm eyes." They are, in short, people that have no idea what the hell they're talking about.

What a ****in' know it all ... you are a real piece of work. You got all the answers ... that's why I come to PSD because it's the only place I get to hear from natepro ... and we all know his word is gospel ... just ask him. I'm going to delete my MLB.com bookmark.

RiffRaff
07-04-2008, 02:06 PM
Am I supposed to argue this point about Pujols? :confused:

I agree with you, and have said on more than one occasion here that he should've been last year's MVP.

Point is, regardless what you thing of managers IMO we have one of the best, and apparently I'm not alone on that. IMO TLR is arguably the best with the only other viable option being Bobby Cox. But I am biased because I follow the Cardinals, I see the contribution.

Pujols is obviously one of the best and IMO the only player arguably better is A-Rod. However once again I'm biased because I follow St. Louis baseball, I've watched Albert play a lot and if someone asked me who is the best I say #5.

So random quotes and scenarios of mistakes TLR made along with declaring managers as a whole overrated doesn't do anything to change my opinion that year in and year out St. Louis is better off with LaRussa at the helm.

natepro
07-04-2008, 02:38 PM
Point is, regardless what you thing of managers IMO we have one of the best, and apparently I'm not alone on that.

Uh. Okay? Big deal? Whoopie do?

I'm not alone in thinking most, if not all, managers are overrated. It's quite simple, really.

Pitching and getting on base wins games. Players do these things. It is impossible to say the Cardinals are better with LaRussa than without, because they're not without him. What evidence do you have? None. I may as well claim they'd be better with an alien than a human manager.

I hope my disagreeing with you doesn't make you call me more names, though. Oh noes! :pray:

RiffRaff
07-07-2008, 07:11 PM
Uh. Okay? Big deal? Whoopie do?

I'm not alone in thinking most, if not all, managers are overrated. It's quite simple, really.

Pitching and getting on base wins games. Players do these things. It is impossible to say the Cardinals are better with LaRussa than without, because they're not without him. What evidence do you have? None. I may as well claim they'd be better with an alien than a human manager.

I hope my disagreeing with you doesn't make you call me more names, though. Oh noes! :pray:


I said it was my opinion, do you understand that word? Opinions are like natepros I mean @$$holes we all have'em. I know your opinion is that he doesn't do a damn thing for them ... and your entitled to it ... but ... and I know this is hard for you to swallow ... just because it's your opinion that doesn't necessarily make it so.

RiffRaff
07-07-2008, 07:13 PM
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54778

natepro
07-07-2008, 07:45 PM
Since I "hate LaRussa," let's do this.


Pulling the right strings ... or getting chancey? flukie? breaky? ... what your saying doesn't work no matter how many definitions of the same word you come up with. It's obvious that anyone who considers TLR's advantage or success the result of chance or a combination of circumstances is not thinking clearly ... face it ... the man is just good at what he does ... has been for years ... bottom line. This is proof of, or evidence of, nothing. I could just as easily say, "Anyone who thinks there is not some element of luck/fluke/chance/etc in baseball, both the playing of and the managing of, then they're just not thinking clearly. Face it, the man is overrated.

See how well that works?





You may notice I used the word "approach" considering you quoted it? Either way ... other than the glaring difference in mere talent ... it is Albert's consistent and yes "positive" approach at the plate that makes a slumping #5 better than Duncan on his best day. Or is plate discipline over rated as well? Like LaRussa, Ankiel, the role of the manager ...

Plate discipline and being positive have nothing to do with each other. Plate discipline is one of the single most important things a player can have. I guess if you want to call "swinging at good pitches and taking bad ones" a "positive approach," then I can go with it, but Pujols is one of the best baseball players on the planet because he's good at baseball, not because he's a more positive guy than Chris Duncan. Pujols doesn't see the glass half full and Duncan sees it as "probably half full, but it could also be half empty" and that's why he doesn't hit 40 HR a year. It's because one player has more talent then the other. No more, no less.





... stats you don't like or anything else you don't agree with.

And while on the subject of approach, Duncan and you being the utmost authority on what's over rated. Let me take this opportunity to credit Dave Duncan for his contributions, he has been intricate to TLR's success. This of course is your opportunity to tell us how over rated he is as well.

Pitching coaches are overrated too, but probably not as much as managers. A good pitcher is a good pitcher. Jeff Weaver is a great example of Duncan being overrated.

He had five good games in the postseason, and suddenly Duncan is a god amongst men. Ignoring for a moment that five is a stupidly small sample size that can basically show us nothing except how he did in five games, why does everyone ignore the fact that he was nothing short of mediocre during the regular season? His freakin' ERA+* was 86! He lowered his WHIP by 0.023, but everyone talks about how Weaver shouldn't have left St. Louis because of five games. Ugh.



Did you not notice the phrase "most commonly"? And you say I'm the one who cannot see the forest through the trees.





Then this statement is just flat out stupid ...



... how could a manager take credit or blame for an individual players production when they coach the team as a whole. Any impact they might have on a players "fantasy numbers" would be related to moves made in the best interest of the team and therefore incidental. In no way what so ever does looking at fantasy baseball show that managers are over rated.
[QUOTE=RiffRaff] Whatever, this is getting ridiculously off-topic.







[QUOTE=RiffRaff]??? ... Does this mean "any manager" won't do?:rolleyes: It means Dusty Baker is a terrible manager. It doesn't mean he doesn't get his players to play hard, it means he's a bumbling idiot who misuses his pitchers and doesn't want slower players getting on base, for the love of God. It has nothing, however, to do with his players playing hard all nine innings.




What a dumb point to make.:clap:

Although the Mets payroll is probably too high for this team to be underachieving this season ... I assume this was just the last straw. I suspected his firing had more to do with their disappointing series loss to the Cards in the '06 NLCS and almost even more disappointing collapse in the NL east late last season. But those disappointments must just be over rated. Calling something a "dumb point" and then doing exactly nothing to refute it doesn't help you much, sparky. The Mets have gotten exactly no better since firing Randolph. Now it's been 19 games since he was fired, and they're 10-9. I hope this point isn't too stupid for you to understand.


And just when I thought you couldn't possibly attempt to make a dumber point ...

... the first comment came from the guy who hired him, of course he would have positive things to say about the guy he just hired. And the second comment came from ownership justifying why he was fired ... expressing disappointment without tearing the guy down.

That's not the same as consistent praise from your players, management opposing managers/players and sportswriters.

Of course they're not the same! One of them is about a guy you like, and the other isn't. Managers are praised and criticized every day, by all kinds of people, but none of it means they're any better or worse than any other manager. The great majority of it is based on two simple things: Whether the team is winning, and how they're perceived. If they're a "smart" manager on a team that's winning, everyone loves them! That team's not doing so well, and the story changes (see: Tony LaRussa and the talk of him leaving after last season). None of this is rocket science, and none of it has anything to do with how good LaRussa, or any other manager, actually is.









Yes I'm telling you TLR wrote a dramitization out of the '06 regular season ...???... wtf are you talking about ... & there's that word again, "lucky". TLR did a fine job in the '06 playoffs but his finest work that season was just getting them there, they had so many injuries that the coaching staff was the only constant but they got healthier (I wouldn't say healthy) at the right time ... because ...



... but you right, the Cardinals don't deserve any credit at all, the Tigers probably just felt sorry for them because they have such a schmuck as a manager. Any team that wins the World Series gets lucky. Or has "lucky breaks," or "fluky things" happen in the favor, if those phrases don't make you so fussy. Eckstein was called "clutch" (he wasn't) in part because a Tigers OFer fell down on wet grass when going after his fly ball, and he ended up with (if memory serves) a run-scoring double on the play. Eckstein did not will the fielder to fall down. The fielder didn't fall down because he didn't take a positive approach to catch the ball. The grass was wet, and he felt. Lucky for the Cardinals, unlucky for the Tigers. It happens thousands and thousands of times every season. Again, this is not rocket science.

Also, once again, that earlier Cardinals team woudl've mopped the floor with the World Series team in a season series. You can't compare the team, because one of them was really good, and the other was the team that won the World Series with the fewest regular season victories in history. They got hot at the right time. Blind squirrels do find nuts. When it counted, they were the best team in the game, and they won. That's the way it works.





What a ****in' know it all ... you are a real piece of work. You got all the answers ... that's why I come to PSD because it's the only place I get to hear from natepro ... and we all know his word is gospel ... just ask him. I'm going to delete my MLB.com bookmark.

Okay. None of this has anything to do with the "baseball media" at large being utterly wrong about how to evaluate talent and, probably, more to do with some pent up anger you have because mommy didn't hug you enough or something, but, uh... okay.

*Definition of ERA+: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERA%2B

natepro
07-07-2008, 07:47 PM
I said it was my opinion, do you understand that word? Opinions are like natepros I mean @$$holes we all have'em. I know your opinion is that he doesn't do a damn thing for them ... and your entitled to it ... but ... and I know this is hard for you to swallow ... just because it's your opinion that doesn't necessarily make it so.

Oh noes, you called me a name! :cry:


Seriously though? Okay. Just because it's your opinion doesn't necessarily make it so, either. We've now accomplished exactly nothing in two posts.


Of course, things like math agree with me, but don't let that stop you.

natepro
07-07-2008, 07:48 PM
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54778

I saw it. I laughed. It's The Onion. It's funny. That's what they do.

RiffRaff
07-07-2008, 08:04 PM
Oh noes, you calld mee a name! :cry:


Seriously though? Okay. Just because it's your opinion doesn't necessarily make it so, either. We've now accomplished exactly nothing in two posts.


Of course, things like math agree with me, but don't let that stop you.

I never hesitate to say something is IMO ... read my posts ... you state your opinions as though they were fact while attempting to demean any and everyone else's. I don't even think you come here to talk baseball so much as just to argue and be a jerk to people that might know a little less than yourself about baseball ... a lot of what you say I agree with in respect to stats, roster moves and what not ... but you still do your best to come off as a complete @$$ whenever possible.

And where the hell did you use math to back up any of this about LaRussa and managers??? Nowhere. So that just isn't true.

natepro
07-07-2008, 08:08 PM
And where the hell did you use math to back up any of this about LaRussa and managers??? Nowhere. So that just isn't true.

Blah blah blah.


I didn't say posted any math anywhere.

RiffRaff
07-07-2008, 08:50 PM
This is proof of, or evidence of, nothing. I could just as easily say, "Anyone who thinks there is not some element of luck/fluke/chance/etc in baseball, both the playing of and the managing of, then they're just not thinking clearly. Face it, the man is overrated.

See how well that works?

No. You said a guy who has managed consistent winners for 20+ years and regarded as one of the best is "just lucky"



Calling something a "dumb point" and then doing exactly nothing to refute it doesn't help you much, sparky. The Mets have gotten exactly no better since firing Randolph. Now it's been 19 games since he was fired, and they're 10-9. I hope this point isn't too stupid for you to understand.

Wow. You are so dumb it's got to hurt. I'm sure your right ... him getting fired had nothing to do with '06 and '07. Whatever :rolleyes:



Of course they're not the same! One of them is about a guy you like, and the other isn't. Managers are praised and criticized every day, by all kinds of people, but none of it means they're any better or worse than any other manager. The great majority of it is based on two simple things: Whether the team is winning, and how they're perceived. If they're a "smart" manager on a team that's winning, everyone loves them! That team's not doing so well, and the story changes (see: Tony LaRussa and the talk of him leaving after last season). None of this is rocket science, and none of it has anything to do with how good LaRussa, or any other manager, actually is.

I don't dislike Willie Randolph, I just think a better job could have been done. But thanks for putting words in my mouth. LaRussa was a smart manager on a losing team last year and some even said it was some of his best work ever.



Okay. None of this has anything to do with the "baseball media" at large being utterly wrong about how to evaluate talent and, probably, more to do with some pent up anger you have because mommy didn't hug you enough or something, but, uh... okay.

It has to do with you thinking you know more than any and everybody else. Even those you so obviously do not.

And the rest of this crap isn't even responding to.

RiffRaff
07-07-2008, 08:56 PM
Blah blah blah.


I didn't say posted any math anywhere.

Oh ... that is very adult of you.


Seriously though? Okay. Just because it's your opinion doesn't necessarily make it so, either. We've now accomplished exactly nothing in two posts.

Of course, things like math agree with me, but don't let that stop you.

Then where does math agree with you, and if it does how is that pertinent here? Are you drunk?

natepro
07-07-2008, 10:20 PM
No. You said a guy who has managed consistent winners for 20+ years and regarded as one of the best is "just lucky"

I didn't say he was "just lucky." You're putting words in my mouth again. I did say he gets lucky, but I did not say or imply, as you are trying to make it seem here, that he is nothing but a big fuzzy ball of luck.



Wow. You are so dumb it's got to hurt. I'm sure your right ... him getting fired had nothing to do with '06 and '07. Whatever :rolleyes:

I said the Mets have gotten no better... and you talk about why he got fired? Are you sure you read my post?



I don't dislike Willie Randolph, I just think a better job could have been done. But thanks for putting words in my mouth. LaRussa was a smart manager on a losing team last year and some even said it was some of his best work ever.

I didn't put words in your mouth. LaRussa is a manager you like, no?

"Some" also said he should leave.

Hell, "some" even happen to agree with me:


But they don't call La Russa a genius for nothing. With the Cardinals threatening to gallop off toward a third consecutive 100-win season, he pulled just the right levers to help break their stride. When No. 2 starter Mark Mulder messed up his shoulder in late May (turned out to be a ripped rotator cuff) and began adding 75 points to his ERA with each outing, La Russa pretended not to notice and ran Mulder out there for another seven starts, six of which the Cardinals lost badly. He jerked promising rookie Anthony Reyes in and out of the rotation while ensuring that dysfunctional veteran Jason Marquis (league-worst 6.02 ERA) never missed a start. When closer Jason Isringhausen's arthritic hip flared up, La Russa wouldn't hear of disabling him, nor of spreading the save opportunities around; Is'hausen obliged by blowing 10 saves, a league high. And La Russa created hundreds of at-bats for reliable outmakers like So Taguchi, Aaron Miles and Timo Perez, to deprive the Cardinals of runs and wins.

But, we're getting nowhere.



It has to do with you thinking you know more than any and everybody else. Even those you so obviously do not.

And the rest of this crap isn't even responding to.

Yes yes, you're the guy who actually knows it all and I'm just the know-it-all... I'm the little kid hoping to be like you some day, blah blah blah. Feel better? Not so angry now? Or are you going to pull out more terribly creative things like "natepros, I mean a$$holes!!!11!!1!" LOL!

Oh boy.

natepro
07-07-2008, 10:42 PM
Here, let's look at what "some" others are saying!


The Cult of Tony LaRussa is almost as vexing to me as the cult of Joe Morgan. Here's Mark Kreidler's take:

Tony La Russa, a man with the gravitas to actually make the comparison, said this about Albert Pujols' home run: "It would be tied for first with the most dramatic home runs that have ever been hit."

Obviously unquantifiable, but...really? It was incredibly dramatic, but it won Game Five of an NLCS. Kirk Gibson? Bobby Thompson? Maz in the 1960 WS? Joe Carter? How about Hendu in 1986 -- that was a Game 5. Carlton Fisk? Jesus -- Bucky Dent?

Kreidler goes on to praise LaRussa for being stoic. Then he says this:

But in a roundabout way, maybe Pujols hits that home run because La Russa is who he is as a manager. Maybe the Cards don't panic, down 4-2 with two out in the ninth inning on the road against arguably the best closer in the game, precisely because Tony La Russa's emotional range as manager doesn't allow for free-form nervous expression.

I'm going to go ahead and say that in no way, shape, or form, does Tony La Russa's demeanor have anything to do with Pujols's HR. I think Pujols's HR is due to Pujols being the best hitter in baseball, and also due to Brad Lidge hanging a slider right over the middle of the plate.

If you want to see something almost as impressive as Pujols' home run, go back to the video and observe Pujols' expression during that at-bat. He stands in against Brad Lidge, and Pujols is just the embodiment of professional calm and concentration. His body barely moves at all. The swing on the home run is pure, of course, but it is also almost routine in its execution. Maybe Albert Pujols, as great as he is, also has a little La Russa in him. David Eckstein, too, for that matter.

There is no Tony La Russa in Albert Pujols. And to say that there is any "David Eckstein" in Albert Pujols (can we get through one article about the Cardinals without mentioning David Eckstein?), is to ignore the fact that Albert Pujols himself embodies all of the things that people praise David Eckstein for: hustle, determination, smarts, etc. Why does that mean there is "David Eckstein" in Albert Pujols? Did David Eckstein invent these things?

Plus, he fanatically studies video, researches the pitchers he is facing, and prepares for games better than anyone in the league. Which is why he hit that home run.

Also, Tony La Russa was being stoic, which totally helped him, I guess.

Those crazy know-it-alls!