[Malleus Dei]

No. Wrong. This is not just your opinion versus my opinion, no matter how hard you try to paint it that way. This is also your opinion versus the analysis of the greatest baseball analyst in history, and the only person ever to analyze the subject of managerial skill and to and write a book about it: Bill James.

So far you have presented trivial arguments against James' work. You think that Cox is not a great manager because he had talented teams - a factor that James corrects for - and that you personally could manage the Braves well. Frankly, I find both of these contentions laughable. You discount 1800 career victories when combined with twelve straight titles, alleging that this record is due to Cox's players. I find this really laughable - a lot of teams have had just as good a roster full of players as some that Cox has had over the years and have still found themselves without a good won-loss record and/or twenty games out, or have been so badly managed that they somehow finished second at the last moment (cough - Gene Mauch - cough).

Managing is a skill, and being able to manage well is a rare skill. A good manager can - and a number have - take a team that had a terrible record and turn them into contenders in short order without significant personnel changes.

If you can't find a better argument than what you have presented - which comes across as "I don't like Bobby Cox or you either, Malleus Dei" - then, yes, then let's do leave it at that. But this isn't simply you against me - it's also you against Bill James.