Puzzling basis for the decision

by doolindalton on Oct 4, 2006 10:43 PM CDT

From TR Sullivan:

Whoever it is, the Rangers will look for someone who has strong communication skills with players. In the end, Showalter lost his job because, Hicks said, the players had stopped listening to his message and had tuned him out.

"It was just our belief that Buck was unable to be as effective with the players as he had been a few years ago and needed to be in order to win," Hicks said. "The thing about sports is, in the end, the win-loss record is staring at you every day.

"In the end, J.D. was very persuasive that with the nucleus of players, if we were going to win, we needed a fresh approach. Most managers or coaches, whatever the sport, there is a period of time where your message is effective."

I believe Daniels stated in his press conference he didn't talk with the players. So how did he arrive at the conclusion the players "had tuned Showalter out?" Showalter's departure by itself is not of great concern, except for the fact the Rangers are going to spend $6 million over the next three years to pay off his contract. The standard excuse for not expanding payroll is the Rangers cannot afford it.

Showalter stated in Sullivan's article the only player to complain to him was Blalock who didn't like being benched against left handers, (even though he was awful against them.) Daniels stated his expectation was the team was capable of winning 85 to 90 games. So Showalter is being fired because the Rangers lost five games more than they should have?

Daniels acknowledged Oakland was a better team than Texas, so is Ken Macha the reason Oakland is better or could it be that Billy Beane is a better general manager? Like other Daniels decisions, firing Showalter was a kneejerk reaction to a disappointing finish and a waste of money. There may be better managers out there than Showalter, but finding him isn't going to significantly close the gap between Oakland and the Rangers.

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Man

Your opinion is just as valid as mine obviously, but I just think you are off your rocker with all of this Daniels stuff. Daniels has been a part of the front office since Buck was hired, and he was very present this year, so he knows as much as anyone about Buck's relationship with the team, personality and job performance. On the flip side, he's been in charge for one year, while Buck has for four. So saying that Buck/Macha vs Beane/Daniels is equatable is just crazy.

by Brett Perryman on Oct 4, 2006 10:45 PM CDT reply actions

It's called

Re arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

by Sharky on Oct 4, 2006 10:50 PM CDT reply actions

Oakland vs. Texas

I'm not sure there is a gap between Oakland and Texas. As I've mentioned before, the Rangers had a better Pythagorean record than the A's. Oakland outperformed their expected record by more than any other team in the majors.

When a team underperforms, the manager usually gets the blame. It's not always right, but that's the reality of the situation.

As for Daniels' statement that he "didn't talk to the players," I'm pretty sure he was referring to the decision to fire Buck. That doesn't mean he hasn't talked to them previously...

by RCCook on Oct 4, 2006 10:57 PM CDT reply actions

Why

do they call it the pythagorean won/loss when Pythagoras was dead for many, many, many years before the invention of baseball? Other than having an invalid name can anybody figure out why it is an invalid hypothesis? Could it have something to do with not accurately predicting the actual outcome? If your model doesn't accurately predict actual events then you have to scrap the model.

by gp on Oct 4, 2006 11:47 PM CDT up reply actions

Pythagorean

It's called that because the formula is calculated similarly to the Pythagorean Theorem.

Here's a good explanation of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_expectation

by RCCook on Oct 5, 2006 12:09 AM CDT up reply actions

Formula

After looking at the formula, it would appear that if a team underperforms, it would due to a large number of lopsided wins. On the flip-side, if a team overperformed, it would appear to be due to a large number of low margin wins.

Oakland won a lot of one-run games and Texas had its share of lopsided wins. So in this case, the data seems to fit.

by T Coleman on Oct 5, 2006 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions

fairly accurate

actually, it's just that we talk about the exceptions far more than the teams that fit. There are several teams that don't fit the theorem every year, but over the long term it's a pretty fair predictor of won-loss records.

by t ball on Oct 5, 2006 8:40 AM CDT up reply actions

Main Page, Top Thread

"BBTN video of Gammons talking about the Buck firing
By Adam J. Morris
Posted on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 12:19:15 PM CST

Over at ESPN, there is video of the BBTN segment on the firing with this article.

Gammons laments Buck's firing, saying he thought it was possible but that it wouldn't ultimately happen, and talks about how Buck wants things done "right," and how he's gotten the Rangers on the right track.

Ravich says, in that video, that Buster Olney says that several prominent players, via their agents, let management know that they weren't interested in being back with Texas in 2007 if Buck was back.

Entry Link :: 30 Comments"

Six key Rangers are represented by Scott Boras. I don't know this, but would presume that management has an ongoing pulse taking without even asking for it.

by Ed Coffin on Oct 4, 2006 11:30 PM CDT reply actions