Jump to content

Ken Macha fired as A's Manager


Fred T. Jane

Recommended Posts

Absolutely rediculous. You run a team of underpaid, unproven, and yuoung guys all the way to the ALCS and they still fire you? Im truely disgusted.

it was obvious that Macha was too laid back for the job....i don't think that it was his management that brought them to where they are, rather Billy Beane's continued great job as a GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely rediculous. You run a team of underpaid, unproven, and yuoung guys all the way to the ALCS and they still fire you? Im truely disgusted.

Who cares if you're underpaid and unproven when you have the talent?

Payroll and how many years you have under your belt don't win you championships. Ask the Yankees and Giants. It's all about talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Billy Bean's world the manager doesn't mean much. I think he wants a manager he can control a little bit.

I still dont think Money Ball is that great. Do you see a World Series trophy from this era on their mantle. Nope!

There has to be something to it though, as the team has been pretty consistent over a long stretch while spending nominal amounts of money compared to the Yankees, Braves, etc.

That said though, firing Macha's unfortunate. This guy's a low-key, but good manager, and didn't deserve to get the axe just because the A's missed the World Series. Again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Billy Bean's world the manager doesn't mean much. I think he wants a manager he can control a little bit.

I still dont think Money Ball is that great. Do you see a World Series trophy from this era on their mantle. Nope!

Moneyball eschews championships because to sabermetricians, playoff series are too unpredictable to make concrete assessments in order to build a team to succeed there. So to Moneyball acolytes, it's all about generating long term success (read: regular season success), because the playoffs are too much of a crapshoot to try to succeed in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Billy Bean's world the manager doesn't mean much. I think he wants a manager he can control a little bit.

I still dont think Money Ball is that great. Do you see a World Series trophy from this era on their mantle. Nope!

The basic philosophies of the Moneyball written about in the book were used by the Athletics in the late 80s, the Yankees in the late 90s and most recently the 2004 Red Sox.

I count 6 championships "stat geek" philosphies have won in the last 20 years. If you want to go further back the Dodgers were very stat friendly in the 50s aswell. (These are the clubs I know of.) Although Billy Beane is now using exploiting the defensive market and not so much the offensive.

Play-offs are a crapshoot anyway, as the fellow Marlins fan above me stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont understand this move he got them to the ALCS.

...but not the World Series. At least 3 trips to the playoffs, right? This is the first trip to the ALCS, and the A's got swept. A team that has that much playoff experience shouldn't be getting swept that late in the playoffs, in theory (how bout them Tigers!).

From what I've read, Macha has also fostered callous relationships with injured players on the team. He may be laid back, but it sounds like he really didn't have much control of the team, and this is probably a big reason why there will be no ring ceremony in Oakland next season, or any season since the late 80's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Billy Bean's world the manager doesn't mean much. I think he wants a manager he can control a little bit.

I still dont think Money Ball is that great. Do you see a World Series trophy from this era on their mantle. Nope!

The basic philosophies of the Moneyball written about in the book were used by the Athletics in the late 80s, the Yankees in the late 90s and most recently the 2004 Red Sox.

I count 6 championships "stat geek" philosphies have won in the last 20 years. If you want to go further back the Dodgers were very stat friendly in the 50s aswell. (These are the clubs I know of.) Although Billy Beane is now using exploiting the defensive market and not so much the offensive.

Play-offs are a crapshoot anyway, as the fellow Marlins fan above me stated.

The Yankees of the late 90's were not a money ball team. Sure they were a veteran team who were patient and high on base percentages but they were also a small ball team that moved runners over by hitting and running and bunting. Moneyball for the most part doesn't include bunting because you give up an out. If you go back and watch the 2001 series between the A's and Yankees you can hear the annoucners talk about the differences in philosphy between the 2 teams. The current Yankees are more moneyball than the Championship teams.

As for the playoffs being random, that's BS. Sure there might be an upset here or there but there is nothing random about the playoffs. The team with the best pitching wins period. The Tigers are in the World Series this year because of pitching, White Sox last year because of pitching, Red Sox- pitching ect. Go back through the years the team with the best pitching wins.

I remember in middle school my math teacher would at World Series time give s this formula that usually accuratly predicted the World Series winner. It was quite simple the team with the lower ERA in the regular season usually won. If ERA's were within a certian amount of each other then the team with the most triples usually won. I forget the actual statistics on how often it was right but I do remember that it was rarely wrong. However it points to the key things to win in the postseason pitching is most important. Secondary is speed and baserunning because you can then better create runs against good pitching and not have to wait for home run that may never come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the playoffs being random, that's BS. Sure there might be an upset here or there but there is nothing random about the playoffs. The team with the best pitching wins period. The Tigers are in the World Series this year because of pitching, White Sox last year because of pitching, Red Sox- pitching ect. Go back through the years the team with the best pitching wins.

Not to Sabermetricians. They would point to the Twins getting swept this season, the Yankees' collapse in 2004, the 2002 World Series, 1997 Playoffs, and ad nauseum to their theory that playoffs are a crapshoot. After all, Sabermetricians get hernias all the time trying to figure out statistically why Jim Leyritz or Graig Counsell were such clutch guys in their playoff careers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Billy Bean's world the manager doesn't mean much. I think he wants a manager he can control a little bit.

I still dont think Money Ball is that great. Do you see a World Series trophy from this era on their mantle. Nope!

The basic philosophies of the Moneyball written about in the book were used by the Athletics in the late 80s, the Yankees in the late 90s and most recently the 2004 Red Sox.

The Red Sox were hardly a moneyball team. The only place it really came in place was in not sacrificing outs. At most, Theo just applied some Moneyball principles to the second highest payroll in the League.

Billy Beane has drafted good pitchers. That's it. Any theory works when you have three great pitchers at any time. However, the fact that he hasn't yet won says a LOT.

This is a guy who had three Cy Young caliber pitchers and couldn't get out of the first round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, a manager or coach winning or leading a team to a championship, or a post-season berth only to be fired soon after is hardly unprecedented.

Casey Stengel was fired after the 1960 World Series defeat to the Pirates.

Jimmy Johnson after leading the Cowboys to back to back Super Bowl VICTORIES (I'm STILL scratching my head over this one).

Ken Macha seems like a very laid back, nice gent, and for whatever reasons, the team didn't like that, or his communications skills, or lack thereof. Why this wasn't discovered when he was first named manager is beyond me. But I'm just a working grunt after all, still it is very unfortunate, but that's the nature of the beast. The A's, Padres, & Cardinals are to these recent post-seasons what the Atlanta Braves have been to the post-season from 1991-2005, they get there, and only go so far, and never win, while Detroit, Florida, Houston, Mets, Giants, Red Sox & Angels all advance to the World Series (All 7 of whom were wild card teams to boot).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Billy Bean's world the manager doesn't mean much. I think he wants a manager he can control a little bit.

I still dont think Money Ball is that great. Do you see a World Series trophy from this era on their mantle. Nope!

The basic philosophies of the Moneyball written about in the book were used by the Athletics in the late 80s, the Yankees in the late 90s and most recently the 2004 Red Sox.

The Red Sox were hardly a moneyball team. The only place it really came in place was in not sacrificing outs. At most, Theo just applied some Moneyball principles to the second highest payroll in the League.

Billy Beane has drafted good pitchers. That's it. Any theory works when you have three great pitchers at any time. However, the fact that he hasn't yet won says a LOT.

This is a guy who had three Cy Young caliber pitchers and couldn't get out of the first round.

Read my post again, what you said is what I said.

The 2004 Red Sox were a high on-base, power hitting, sub par defensive team, exactly like the Oakland A's of the early 2000s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.