It is conceiveable I guess to think that Tito might not have had the balls to call a fool a fool in the end.Originally Posted by moonslav59
It is conceiveable I guess to think that Tito might not have had the balls to call a fool a fool in the end.
Who said they were favorites? I mean - realistically the postseason and perception of the team is not different from 2013. People thought the Rays were dangerous. And then they thought the Tigers had that sort of starting pitching which was impossible to upend.
Vegas had the Astros as slight favorites against the Red Sox. Deservedly so, I think, based on their superior run differential.
I think it was reasonable. Going to 2013 the Tigers were also slight favorites iirc for the same reasons. (great starting pitching, won the pennant the year previous)
Bernie Williams has four rings, Ted Williams has zero. Eli Manning has two rings, Dan Marino has zero.
Vegas and maybe more than half the posters here.
I've been trying for a while now to make this point but I don't think that anyone is listening. lol
It's all about the rings I guess. Whatever, this season is and has been very successful regardless of what is coming up. My prediction of course is the good guys on the correct coast are going to win.
Judging individual MLB "greatness" when it comes to players, requires a far different metric than judging managers, who must bring talent together to perform as a unit striving to achieve the same goal.
Saying one player is "less great" than another based on rings is of course ridiculous, as alluded to above. Managers? OF COURSE require a completely different metric for good reason. Lots of managers have incredible talent. Few take teams of relatively equivalent talent all the way. NO doubt there are great managers who never get a team with great talent. There is really no good way to measure this, unless you use the "sucked less than they should have" metric.Using the same, "what about the rings" metric to judge individual PLAYERS IS of course ridiculous! Using it to discredit that argument with managers is likewise ridiculous.
At this point, we have a great little microcosm to study. THE 4 BEST TEAMS by all accounts. Cora & Red Sox Players have defeated THE 2 BEST. If Cora and crew are victorious over the Dodgers, a TRULY formidable team, it's fair to say Cora got the best out of this Red Sox team!
That is a great manager!
Like it or not, managers ARE JUDGED by their ability to get their team to win. Many managers get their teams all the way there with roughly equivalent talent. More often than not, "the better team wins." What is behind the players stepping up & performing is too complicated & enmeshed to boil it down to being all about the manager. Still, it's the best we can come up with. If you've got a great team that wins with a great manager, the manager of course gets a good deal of the credit.
Last edited by Sox75; 10-21-2018 at 05:26 PM.
As I noted - fair, but since this is baseball any version of favorite really doesn't amount to much.
The ring argument is always dumb, especially when comparing different eras.
I was responding to someone who said that "on paper" we were expected to win. I mentioned many felt otherwise.
I did think we were going to win, in part because we have Cora, so in my mind we were the faves.
Besides, this isn't the reason I view Cora as the best.
Cora is arguably having the best season of any Sox manager. I won't argue that.
Does sustained success mean anything in terms of being the best all time manager?
What if the Sox don't win the World Series? What if the Sox end up winning 80 games next year and missing the playoffs? Is Cora still the best all time manager?
He has done a terrific job managing the team. Tactically he is pretty good. What is weird is comparing him tactically to Francona when there isn't a ton of evidence of anything different. Neither guy sacrificed much. Francona ran when he had players who could run. Both guys handle pitching staffs well. The differences in defensive positioning are typical for the two different time frames in which they managed.
Cora has shown certain strengths in a year. Francona did that and then kept the team in good shape while the key players changed. Francona was outstanding with young players, and Cora has certainly shown some goods there. (though his young players had more certainty - 2006 Dustin Pedroia sure did not look like a big league player) Francona will always have 2011 held over him - and he deserves some of the blame sure. But 2010 was one of his best managing jobs. And of course Cleveland has been excellent throughout.
I’m sure there were. But how many people mentioned Cora and/or Tito?
Count em up for me notin will you - need to get my beauty sleep.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote