How Many Wins Is Kirk Gibson Worth?
Former major leaguer Steve Sax recently said that he thinks a good manager is worth an extra eight to 10 victories a year for his team. When it comes to Gibson, a former teammate of his with the Dodgers, Sax says that number could be higher - even though this is only Gibson's first full year as a manager. "You take somebody like Kirk Gibson and he might be a 15-game difference," Sax said. "And I say that because this guy is pretty dynamic. You're talking about one hell of a tenacious guy who knows how to win."
-- Arizona Republic
I'd be curious to hear details of the logic here. Why is is 9-10? Why not 4-6, or 12-15? Is there, in fact, any actual logic here, or is this simply a gut feeling?
In the modern (post-1950) era, the manager with the best W-L record is Al Lopez, who pips Earl Weaver by .001. Between 1951 and 1969, he went 1410-1004, a win % of .583. That works out to 94 wins over a 162-game season. The best among those currently active is Joe Girardi, who is at .563, which is 91 wins, with the #2 Bobby Cox (.556, 90 wins), which would seem to support Sax's view. Here the list of the top and bottom five, among active managers (min 320 games).
| Mgr | Yrs | From | To | Gm | W | L | W-L% |
| Joe Girardi | 4 | 2006 | 2010 | 648 | 365 | 283 | .563 |
| Bobby Cox | 29 | 1978 | 2010 | 4508 | 2504 | 2001 | .556 |
| Charlie Manuel | 9 | 2000 | 2010 | 1382 | 764 | 618 | .553 |
| Ron Gardenhire | 9 | 2002 | 2010 | 1459 | 803 | 656 | .550 |
| Mike Scioscia | 11 | 2000 | 2010 | 1782 | 980 | 802 | .550 |
| Jim Riggleman | 11 | 1992 | 2010 | 1412 | 624 | 787 | .442 |
| Trey Hillman | 3 | 2008 | 2010 | 359 | 152 | 207 | .423 |
| David Trembley | 4 | 2007 | 2010 | 470 | 187 | 283 | .398 |
| Manny Acta | 4 | 2007 | 2010 | 572 | 227 | 345 | .397 |
| John Russell | 3 | 2008 | 2010 | 485 | 186 | 299 | .384 |
Interesting to note Joe Torre and Tony LaRussa, names I'd reckon would generally be reckoned among the "best" managers, aren't mentioned, falling outside in the top five (at #7 and #8 respectively). However, the obvious question is, how many of those victories can we really ascribe to the manager? It's certainly hard to deny that Girardi's sterling record is at least partly due to the fact that he has managed the New York Yankees for three of the four seasons. Really, if you can't be above .500 with a $200 million payroll, averaging $55 million more than the #2 team...well... I note Girardi's record when he managed the Marlins was a pretty mediocre 78-84.
There's another uncomfortable fact Gibson's boosters need to explain. A.J. Hinch's record as a manager was 89-123, a W% of .420. Gibson's record is currently 34-49 - a W% ten points less. Even if you take the same time-frame, and cover only Hinch's first 83 games, the gap actually expands, as his W% there was .458. This is not to say that Hinch is "better" than Gibson - just that, at the very least, there doesn't seem much evidence to support Sax's claim, as far as any immediate improvement goes. And I'm not sure how much we can ever get: the radical roster overhaul makes future comparison, without other factors muddying the waters, almost impossible.
But I think it's notable that baseball managers are paid a lot less than their counterparts elsewhere. A 2007 study showed they were paid an average of $1.3 million, one-third of the average for an NBA coach. That probably gives you as good an idea of a typical managers' "worth" as anything - apparently about the same as a first-year arbitration player.
For more on the topic, see this interview with Chris Jaffe we did last year, regarding a book he wrote on the topic, Evaluating Baseball's Managers.
34 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Steve Sax?
I heard some guy got killed in New York City and they never solved the case. But you wouldn’t know anything about that now, would you, Steve?
Bad doormat! No stock options!
by Clefo on Mar 22, 2011 1:36 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
I don't know how "they" would measure
the WAR for a manager, but I see 2 broad categories for measuring performance:
1) In-game: setting lineups, pinch hitters, bullpen, signals, etc.
2) Clubhouse: motivating the team through the grind of a season
- is easier to measure, but the performance difference for this category between most managers is probably negligible. If Gibson has a positive effect on the team this season, category #2 is where his potential lies.
At a minimum, we’re not attempting the same old thing this year and expecting different results. 2010 started with a young rookie coach and a bunch of young players. 2011 starts with an older coach (with lots of bench coach experience) and a mix of young and veteran players. We probably won’t be a first place team, but I don’t see us losing 90+ games again either.
Setting lineups is more pre-game/daily duties.
Mostly, I think most people overvalue 2 to the detriment of 1. I can’t say this enough, baseball is not football.
No Julio Franco, no peace.
by Reynolds rapper on Mar 22, 2011 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions
for what it's worth
Joe Girardi and Charlie Manuel both make terrible/negative contributions to point 1 in your comment. and they make these decisions a lot. and yet they have two of the top three win percentages in the above chart. so i guess i agree that 1 is pretty negligible between most managers.
2 is where the potential lies. but it’s also pretty negligible relative to other factors (talent on the field, brains in the FO)
by blue bulldog on Mar 23, 2011 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Kirk Gibson is
worth eleventy wins.
If you'd have been a dog.....
They would of drowned you at birth.
was thinking
eleventy one. But billions work.
If you'd have been a dog.....
They would of drowned you at birth.
First of all,
I would love for Steve Sax to be right.
Second of all, I think Steve Sax is completely wrong.
by Azreous on Mar 22, 2011 3:10 PM EDT reply actions 5 recs
I think this comment amuses me more than it should
and also, I agree with you.
I don't let facts get in the way of my opinion.
Gibson gives reason for optimism
I think a big issue with this team last year was the attitude. Sure, they still don’t have a ton of talent, but bringing in a guy like Kirk Gibson gives reason to believe that the D’Backs will be a more consistently competitive team. Attitude goes a long way in baseball.
2guys1football.com
mockingthedraft.com
by Matthew Fairburn on Mar 22, 2011 3:15 PM EDT reply actions
I tend to think that
baseball is more like golf/track and field/any other non-contact sport. Calm is more important than intensity.
Gibson proponents tend to think people should live and die on every strike.
No Julio Franco, no peace.
by Reynolds rapper on Mar 22, 2011 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
It Still Is
Up to the players to perform. Run hard on infield grounders and have productive outs. I think that will change from last year. If this coaching staff can’t get above 500 then the underachiers need to go.
Silly people
you can’t measure fiery!
Mustache hairs, maybe, but not fiery.
No Julio Franco, no peace.
by Reynolds rapper on Mar 22, 2011 4:57 PM EDT reply actions
Basically 58% of the board thinks
Gibson gives you far less than a “good” manager. Meanwhile, 100% of AZCentral posters pick their noses.
No Julio Franco, no peace.
by Reynolds rapper on Mar 22, 2011 4:59 PM EDT reply actions
I think there's two separate questions here
First is, do you really think that a good manager is worth 8 extra wins?
"What everybody needs to do is calm down, take a deep breath, and prepare their bodies for the Thunderdome. That is the new law."
To be fair
I voted with respect to what Hinch gave us.
http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/
by Dan Strittmatter on Mar 22, 2011 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Measuring Managerial Impact
Managers have very little effect on the outcome of most games. In particular, if the game is decided by more than 3 runs you can pretty much assume the result would have been the same regardless of who was managing. That’s why Girardi looks so good; the Yankees don’t just win, they win big.
The closer the game, the greater the potential impact of the manager. So, if you want a quick-and-dirty assessment of a manager, subtract his winning percentage in one- or two-run games from his percentage in games decided by 4 or more.
Of course, if the team doesn’t have a closer, they will have a lousy record in close games, no matter what the manager does.
Less than nil
Quite simply, none. 99.9% of moves managers make are common sense and pretty much what any baseball fan would do in the very same situation.
GDB!
isn't steve sax
some sort of dick by most people’s standards ?
If you'd have been a dog.....
They would of drowned you at birth.
But I think it’s notable that baseball managers are paid a lot less than their counterparts elsewhere. A 2007 study showed they were paid an average of $1.3 million, one-third of the average for an NBA coach. That probably gives you as good an idea of a typical managers’ “worth” as anything – apparently about the same as a first-year arbitration player.
NFL coaches and NBA coaches (no idea about NHL coaches, but I assume it’s similar) run “systems”, legitimately changing the play on the field. There’s a reason MLB managers are just called that. The system is, “swing the bat, score runs, throw pitches, don’t let the other guys score runs”. Any more than that is determined by the GM, not manager. Deciding whether or not to steal bases, bunt, etc. aren’t really the hallmarks of a true “system”.
Part of that is just how structured the game of baseball is compared to other sports, which is also why baseball translates much more easily to radio than other sports. Statistics, too.
Mr. Science Boy
I'm going to assume
he’s an average manager until he proves otherwise. So, zero.
Leads/ties blown by the Diamondbacks bullpen in '10: 41
Considering his stint in Detroit
I’m going to assume below-average until he proves otherwise. Is the Gibson/Trammell management duo really any different than the Trammell/Gibson pairing was in Detroit?
DbackSkins-
The “similar point” you made- it wasn’t in this thread, was it? (I hate inadvertently repeating someone else’s comment, so if I did, I apologize.) Secondly, since I can’t find your other post, please explain HOW it is different.
Nope, it wasn't in this thread.
Found it: http://www.azsnakepit.com/2011/3/15/2053072/where-will-they-be-at-end-of-season#61601887
Actually, it wasn’t too similar, after all. Just mentioned Trammell’s managerial record while helming the Tigers.
Mr. Science Boy
by DbacksSkins on Mar 23, 2011 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions
I think
If the movie “Little Big League” is the best evidence of a manager having a profound effect on the team then you’re in trouble…
Bad doormat! No stock options!

by 





















