The 5.5 Hole

With the postseason awards just around the corner and discussions about Manager of the Year springing up, I began thinking about how we judge managers. There is so much quantitative data out there allowing us to objectively evaluate players, yet managers are still evaluated based on the "eye test."

The fact is, managers are often overpaid, underpaid, overvalued, or undervalued because there is not a concrete way to properly evaluate their contributions to the bottom line (in baseball's case this would be wins and losses). Generally speaking, businesses will make personnel decisions based on results. These results will be both quantitative and qualitative. In many cases specific metrics are used to evaluate contributions. In baseball, this is done with managers to a certain extent, but much of the information is flawed.

For example, if Joe Girardi was fired in the off-season and the Yankees replaced him with me, I'm confident that Yankees team would still finish over .500 and that team might still make the play-offs. Do I get credit for that? I managed the team, and regardless of my inexperience or my naive baseball strategies that I would surely employ, the team finished above .500. Forget the fact that this team is built up of multiple-million dollar star athletes who know how to win. Yet, in our current system I would get credit for their on-field results.

It's clear that the traditional methods for a manager's evaluation don't account for things beyond the manager's control (i.e. Payroll, free agent signings, trades, inherited players, etc). Currently, there is no better way to rank managers than on-field accomplishments, but that doesn't mean there can never be new evaluative methods.

I don't have those methods yet, but over the course of the off-season I'll explore new ways to judge managers. Feel free to provide your input as well.

I'm not sure Ian Kennedy hates advanced metrics, but if he cares about personal accomplishments and off-season award, he probably wishes it were three years ago. Over the course of the last couple years, baseball writers have put more stock in advanced metrics when voting during awards season (see Felix Hernandez Cy Young with 13-12 record). Unfortunately for Kennedy, these advanced, more accurate, stats will probably preclude him from real Cy Young candidacy.

When have you heard anyone in the media talk about Kennedy for Cy Young? Never? All the talk is about Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, and Clayton Kershaw in the National League. But the truth is, three years ago a 20-4 season with a sub 3.00 ERA would have all but guaranteed a pitcher the Cy Young. Now, I'm on board for Halladay, Lee, or Kershaw taking home the award, but I'll admit, I still marvel at 20+ wins. I agree wins are less meaningful than we all previously thought, so I resist the urge to crown a Cy Young based on a 20 win season. So just how good is Ian Kennedy then?

Kennedy ranks 7th in the NL in pitching WAR, 13th in FIP, 15th in BB/9, and 15th in K/9. These results do not scream Cy Young Candidate. So, let's look at some of the traditional metrics.

Kennedy ranks 1st in wins, 5th in innings pitched, 9th in ERA, and 6th in strikeouts. These numbers and rankings would be more indicative of a Cy Young season. However, combined with some of the advanced metrics, Kennedy's season pales in comparison to that of Halladay or Lee or Kershaw.

20 wins will always be a milestone in baseball, but no longer will it be a jumping off point to Cy Young conversations. Three years ago I may have told you Ian Kennedy was the best pitcher in the league. But three years ago I was not paying as much attention to alternative and additional evaluation methods. Ian Kennedy is having a really good year, but I don't think there's any question that Halladay, Lee, or Kershaw are having a great year.

While the world (myself included) focuses on the Rays and their pursuit of the Red Sox, the Cardinals and Giants have made things very interesting in the National League. The Braves, much like the Red Sox have struggled to win in September. Since September 1st, Atlanta has gone 7-11, and their road doesn't get much easier with only the last three games of the season (against the Phillies no less) at home. That leaves six straight road games though. So let's look at both the Cardinals' and Giants' roads the rest of the way.

St. Louis:

The Cardinals have 10 games left and sit 3.5 back of the Braves. Six of those games are at home, and all but tonight's game against the Phillies are against sub-.500 teams.

With Chris Carpenter pitching like his former Cy Young self, Albert Pujols being Albert Pujols, and a top flight offense like the Cardinals have, the Braves may need to start panicking.

San Francisco:

All but dead a couple weeks ago, the Giants have resurrected themselves. All the sudden, the Giants find themselves just four back of the Braves. Most of the momentum is coming from the Kung-Fu Panda himself, Pablo Sandoval. After an up and down season, Sandoval is mashing the ball and even got himself a cycle at the end of last week. The Giants have a tough hill to climb though. Six of their last nine games are on the road, with three of those games at Chase Field against the Diamondbacks.

The Giants will need to rely on their pitching like they did in 2010. Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, and Madison Bumgardner will have to carry this team if they want to return to the postseason.

The last 10 games of the season should be terrific baseball. With multiple races, each game feels like October already.