The 5.5 Hole

Most off-seasons are headlined by free agency.  This one is no exception.  The difference this season lies with the managers.  There are three vacancies at the helm of some high-profile clubs.  Unlike other managerial hunts for teams like the Nationals, Marlins, A's, and Astros, this hunt features some of the most coveted positions in baseball.

The Chicago Cubs, The St. Louis Cardinals, and the Boston Red Sox are all looking for new managers.  The Cubs just fired Mike Quade today.  Tony LaRussa announced his retirement Monday.  Terry Francona left Boston shortly after the Red Sox implosion at the end of September.  Three big name ball clubs are now searching for replacements.

The Cubs and Theo Epstein announced their next manager would need to have prior coaching or managerial experience on the big-league level.  Whether this will be the case when the new manager is ultimately hired remains to be seen.  People say things all the time, then change their minds.  However, limiting the search to people with Major League experience is the right move for Chicago.  The emotional, fan-driven reaction would be to hire Ryne Sandberg.  Sandberg is a fan favorite and is currently managing in Triple-A, but he is wrong for Chicago with Theo Epstein as the team President and Jed Hoyer as the GM.  Theo Epstein knows what type of manager he wants.  Jed Hoyer knows what type of manager can get the best out of the talent currently available.  Theo worked with Terry Francona, and together they saw unparalleled success in Boston.  Jed Hoyer watched Bud Black lead the Padres, with no real contributors outside Adrian Gonzalez, to 90 wins in 2010.  He followed that up to a decent 2011 considering this team didn't even have Adrian Gonzalez.  The Cubs don't need a rookie at the big-league level leading the club.  They need someone with experience who can coexist with Epstein's and Hoyer's player-evaluation methods, out-of-the-box thinking, and potential meddling.  Sandberg is not that person. 

Sandberg may, however, be the person to take over St. Louis.  Reports started popping up today that the Cardinals had asked the Phillies (the host club of the Minor League affiliate Sandberg manages) if they could interview Sandberg.  Perhaps these reports were designed to drive Cubs' fans crazy after they heard Epstein all but shoot down the idea of Sandberg ever coming to Chicago.  Perhaps they are legitimate.  Either way, Sandberg is a better fit in St. Louis.  The club is already built for success, even without Pujols.  In fact, should Sandberg take of and Pujols sign elsewhere, Sandberg would have a built in safety net for expectations of the 2012 season.  If they don't succeed, 'Hey, Sandberg is new and he didn't even have Pujols.'  If they do succeed, 'Hey, this Sandberg guy can even win without Pujols.'  Obviously the dynamic changes a bit if Pujols returns, but Sandberg would be a good fit in St. Louis regardless. 

The Red Sox remain the mystery.  All three of these clubs have been linked to the same available names and faces.  Yet, the Red Sox have not even hinted what direction they may go.  Filling Francona's shoes will be difficult.  He won two World Series, made the play-offs five times, and was a well-liked manager in Boston.  Whoever takes over will have his work cut out for him.  The Red Sox are dealing with drama from all angles.  They will have to rebuild from more than just a personnel standpoint.  Clubhouse cohesiveness will need to be addressed.  This may not be the most desirable job out there.

Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder may dominate the off-season headlines, but filling managerial openings with these three clubs could be bigger news.  The Cubs are on a quest to overwrite history and win a World Series.  The Cardinals are looking to turn the page.  And the Red Sox are just trying to recover.  One of the more interesting off-seasons in recent memory is ahead of us following one of the more interesting postseasons. 

Baseball is good. 

A few weeks ago I wrote about my desire to find an objective way to evaluate managers. There has to be a better way than simply looking at wins and losses. I have neither the skill nor resources to work with advanced algorithms necessary for some of the managerial computer models. These simulations help rate managers just fine, but are well outside my realm of comprehension. What I'd like to do is rate a manager objectively by assigning point totals for success in specific categories and docking points for failures in other categories. The first category we'll explore is postseason wins.

Tony LaRussa is, perhaps, the best manager of his generation, maybe one of the best all-time. But I'll let every other site you read shower him with praise and thank him for 30+ years of baseball service. In this article he will simply be used as a tool in our experiment for rating managers. LaRussa has had his fair share of postseason success, so he makes a perfect example.

Tony LaRussa won 68 postseason games out of 123 postseason games managed. That equates to a postseason winning percentage of .553. For the sake of our evaluation we need the numbers expressed as ratios in order to keep our final managerial rating as a ratio expression. Doesn't a manager rating of .597 sound so much better than a rating of 1,457? Those are arbitrary numbers obviously, but I think the ratio is easier on the eyes.

Unfortunately even this statistic is skewed over the short-term. A manager with only one trip to the post season may have a record of 0-3 or 1-3 or 2-3 if knocked out in the division series. Therefore, the other evaluation categories will become increasingly important, and one may have to discredit certain stats based on a limited sample size.

Going forward, we will look at other categories to use in our manager evaluation with the eventual end goal of being able to rate any manager out there.

The St. Louis Cardinals have won two championships they had no business winning. Don't get me wrong, they played well and earned both championships once they were in the play-offs. The regular season is the focus here. The 2006 Cardinals won a terrible NL Central with only 83 wins. This year's team required a mammoth collapse by the Braves coupled with their own hot streak at the end of the season to get in. But the Cardinals are hardly the only team to win a World Series over teams who, on paper, appear to be much better.

In 2010, the Giants won 92 games, narrowly outpacing the San Diego Padres for the NL West crown. It took a Padres ten-game losing streak in August to help the Giants even make the play-offs. In 2008, the Phillies beat out four other teams with a better record, including a 97-win Rays. In 2003, the Marlins won just 91 games to clinch the Wild Card but managed to beat the 101-win Yankees for the World Series crown. Even the powerhouse Yankees won the World Series in 2000 after just 87 wins during the regular season.

You'll notice, these "upsets" all happened after the advent of the Wild Card. Yet, ever since the play-offs expanded to more than just the World Series, there have been teams winning over supposedly better teams. The 91-win Reds over the 103-win A's in 1990. The 85-win Twins over the 95-win Cardinals in 1987. The 90-win A's over the 102-win Dodgers in 1974.

Upsets are part of sports, but it seems in baseball more than any other sport, the best team on paper usually isn't the one being crowned when it's all said and done. And that makes baseball great. Like the NCAA basketball tournament, anyone can get hot at any point. More teams in the postseason doesn't make it worse. It makes it more interesting.

How much would we all care if the Yankees won their 28th Championship? There's no storyline there. No drama. No intrigue. No heroes and no villains. The shocking wins amplify the mystique that is Major League Baseball.

Congratulations Cardinals, and congratulations underdogs everywhere.