Comments on: Happy Gardy Day!

By: sirsean

sirsean — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:45:28 +0000

That’s exactly what blogs are for, and I agree that the sportswriters take a lot of heat for the way they vote. And they shouldn’t, even when they’re wrong (this is not really an example of that — voting for Webb over Lincecum or Hamilton over Mauer would be).

I think it should be more like real voting — ie, the ballots are secret but you can reveal who you voted for if you want to. The point is that it’d be up to the voter, not just public by default.

By: FunBobby

FunBobby — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:18:23 +0000

I’m not sure if they should make these award ballots puclic. I’m not a huge fan of sportswriters, but sports fans might be the craziest breed of human out there. Why subject this guy to the idiotic rants of some guy who has been a rays fan since august? Just show us the finaly tally, if someone has a problem, they can start a blog and complain. Isn’t that what blogs are for?

By: sirsean

sirsean — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:07:36 +0000

"Since when is a managers ability to outperform sportswriter’s projections an indication of his managerial skill?"

Awesomest comment ever? Maybe.

And I don't think very many "experts" picked the Rays to make the playoffs this year. We were both supposed to be third or fourth place teams. It's just that their team was better, and therefore exceeded expectations by more.

("Experts" are unaware that talent and payroll and market-size are not synonymous, or that having a lot of television viewers doesn't actually help you win games. Wait, why are they experts?)

By: FunBobby

FunBobby — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:56:27 +0000

I agree. I looked at the past AL manager of the year winners (specifically years in which Gardy finished second) and it looks like there was always someone just a little bit better. The two that really stress my point are Joe Maddon this year, and Mike Scoscia (despite apparently dying of radiation poisoning) in 2002. Scoscia and the Angels were great that year, just as Maddon and the Rays were great this year. I don't think the manager of the year should go to the manager whose team was expected to suck, but turns out to be halfway decent. One exception is Tony Pena in 2003 with KC, they were in first place for most of the year and I think I was on their roster. So people saying "lots of 'experts' picked the rays to make the playoffs, while nobody picked the Twins" is not a reason for giving Gardy the award over Maddon. How is meeting expectations a bad thing?

I agree with not taking into account October (and november). Short playoff series involve some level of luck. A managers true skills show over the course of the 162 games we play from April to September.

In the NL, I'd say Lou deserved it. The same reasoning applies. Just because the Cubs were supposed to win the division and did isn't a reason Lou shouldn't get the award. That logic never has made sense to me. Since when is a managers ability to outperform sportswriter's projections an indication of his managerial skill?