Bobby Cox gets 1800th win

[Malleus Dei]

Originally posted by [WWBL]Batboy


Maybe you hit the nail on the head as to why every Oct. Cox makes me bang my head against the wall.

You and me both.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally posted by Red Blow
Bobby Cox? Earl Weaver? Cito Gaston?

Yes, fine managers. But the best?

I suppose no one here has ever heard of Joe Schultz?

Now... let's go pound some Budweiser....

Bill James called him the greatest manager in baseball *today*. Not in the 50's, not in the 30's, not in the 70's, not in the 1870's... I don't think anyone here is arguing that Cox is the greatest of all time (that honor would likely go to Stengel or Weaver, altho there are others who were great) just that, among current managers, he's tops. I could probably put together a good argument challenging that assertion, but no matter what anyone thinks he has the resume to back it up.

If anyone would like to debate my belief that Larry Bowa is the worst manager in the history of baseball, we could continue this thread along that route. I bet Malleus could win 90 games with this year's team.

Jason

[Cooleyvol]

Mal,

I merely meant that if you had not agreed that Cox was the best of alltime, you'd be arguing the point just as I am. How does that make it personal? It doesn't.

Why does it have to be a "current" manager? We're talking all time, aren't we?

As for the numbers, you make my point. His numbers are inflated by having such good squads. My reason for arguing this point.

Not sure what you mean by personal stuff, but I'm not making this personal. I merely stated an opinion that differed from yours, and we all know that brings your ire quicker than anything else.

I think you were right earlier, you do need a break.

Skip it as its a dead horse. Let's don't beat it.

I will make one more point--James bases most of his statements on stats. Ok, baseball is a game of stats, but my point in all of this is that Cox's numbers are inflated b/c of the players he had the pleasure of managing.

I forgot that this forum is yours to roam since you hate the Off Topic forum (I agree with you on that), but just b/c I don't agree with you doesnt mean I'm making it personal, it means you're TAKING it personal!

[Malleus Dei]

Cooley, borrow/check out/get a copy of the book. James adjusts for team quality.

Yes, I was talking current.

This forum is yours to roam, mine to roam, and Specs to roam, etc...what has that got to do with anything?

[Cooleyvol]

I meant that I strongly think that you believe this forum was put here b/c you bitched about the off topic forum so much. That's the meaning of the "yours to roam" comment.

Skip it Mal, its an opinion statement and as we all know, everyone has two things, one of which is an opinion.

Mine is that Cox isn't the best manager today; yours is that he is.

Let's leave it at that.

[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.

[Red Blow]

This is rapidly becoming a Jim Rome thread, but it is *much* better than Cooley v JBlaze.

I haven't read the book Malleus is referencing. I like Bill James, but I sometimes wonder if he tries to over-quantify baseball. Range factor, for example, is sometimes nothing more than being in the right place at the right time. That may not be a good example of what I am implying about James. It's obvious Malleus thinks the world of this guy (or is related...or... he *is* Bill James). James is considered an expert on baseball, but he is by no means the only expert on baseball.

All joking aside, Bobby Cox is a great manager. I detest the Braves, but wouldn't mind having Cox as a manager of a team I liked.

I still haven't seen anyone refute the Joe Schultz remark. Next on everyone's reading list: Ball Four.

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by 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.

For the first time that I can possibly recall, Im going to have to agree with Malleus here. The sheer magnitude of Cox's achievements are such that the standard "joe schmoe could win with em" doesn't apply. Lets put it this way; every year of the last 12, who has been the most talented team in baseball, or had
the best players ? Can you name the Braves each year ? doubtful. Im also a big fan of James (though I think win shares is an iffy system at best; some of his explanation makes no sense), but Cox consistently wins more games than his expected wins total; a streak like this tends to indicate lurking variables such as good management.

[Cooleyvol]

Originally posted by 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.

A couple points here:
1) You say that I think Cox is not a great mgr, but a few posts back I stated that he WAS a good mgr.

2) You say that this is my opinion vs your opinion AND Bill James analytical skills--Get a life, Mal. This is nothing other than MY opinion being stated--just as you did. I could care less what Bill James or you say. I don't think he's the best manager in the bigs right now. He's good, but not the best, IMO. And that's as far as all this goes. IMO
Its not against you OR Bill James. Its what I think, which is worth just as much as what you think--or what Bill James thinks.


Get a grip dude. Just b/c someone doesnt share your opinion doesnt mean they are attacking everything that you OR Bill James stands for.

This question isnt worth the space on the web its taking up, so I'm through with it. Spout off all you want about what and why I stated my belief, but in the end, that's ALL I did. State my opinion!

You need Paxil, dude.

[Malleus Dei]

You need to stop with the personal insults, dude.

[Malleus Dei]

Personal insults aside, you still have zero argument.

[toanstrom]

Originally posted by Cooleyvol
I could put a winner on the field if given that squad.

What you mean a Javy Lopez who cant hit at catcher, Julio Franco at First, Keith Lockhart at Second, and Vinny Castilla at third? The weak bench or the bullpen scrapped together from other teams castaways like Chris Hammond? This isnt the Yankees this is brilliant managing. He's also kept Shef sane and happy, no small task. Cox is a great manager who always gets more out of his team than the talent allows for. It's time people realized that about him.

[Cooleyvol]

Originally posted by Malleus Dei
Personal insults aside, you still have zero argument.

Im not "arguing" the point. You can't argue opinions.

I stated my opinion. One that differs from yours. That's what tees you off.

Drop it dude. You think he's the best. Bill James thinks he's the best. I don't think he's the BEST. I've stated all along that he's a damn good manager, just not, IMO, the best.

Leave it be, Mal. Its just opinions. You, nor I, have any hard facts that can PROVE either opinion correct.

Now, find another soapbox. This one's through for me as I've stated what I thought.

[jjmac69]

Originally posted by Cooleyvol



Im not "arguing" the point. You can't argue opinions.

Can't argue opinions ? ever see a political debate?

[Modern Relic]

I don't think he's the BEST. I've stated all along that he's a damn good manager, just not, IMO, the best.

I'm just curious. Who do you think is the best, Mark?

If you stated who earlier in the thread, I missed it.

Mal, it appears that you're letting your animosity for Cooley get in the way of an honest debate here. I'm not saying that Cox ISN'T the best. I tend to respect Bill James's opinion as well. But just because Bill James says something doesn't necessarily make it so. I know for a fact that there are plenty who find his opinions off-base.

Certainly there's room for disagreement and debate among intelligent people.

[Specs]

You like Sabermetrics, correct Malleus?

Here are a few stats I devised:

NKWTSU-index*
Career Leaders
99.9 Malleaus Dei
99.8 aec4 -- you don't know him, but trust me
99.7 HornsManiac (t)
99.7 RWBL Kevin (t)
91.3 jblaze03fuel
81.2 jor31
74.3 YankeePride
...
65.4 twins15
51.6 Rizon
43.2 Big Johnston (DNA?)
...
23.1 Draft Dodger
19.6 AnotherAlias
...
14.1 LivnLegend
...
10.0 ScottVib

TSTTIBAADIPIOSOOBTSOCP**
2002 Season Leaders
100.0% HornsManiac
93.1% Malleus Dei
49.4% jblaze03fuel
13.2% Dokken
13.1% Dxgarnett
11.2% YankeePride

*Not Knowing When To Shut Up Index
**Threads Started That Turned Into Big Arguments And Devolved Into Personal Insults Or Showing Off Of Beta Testing Since OOTP1 Credentials Percentage

[Red Blow]

Specs... that was funny.

The NKWTSU Index accurately measures what I affectionately call a Jim Rome thread. The original intent of the thread is lost as two guys battle back and forth trying to get the last word.

[Cooleyvol]

I never make any lists.

[Malleus Dei]

Specs, keep that crap in Off Topic. That had no place here, was personally insulting, and was despicable and disgraceful to boot. Grow up.

[Modern Relic]

Yeah Specs, your post caused everyone to ignore MINE!

Mark, still wondering who you prefer as a manager...