Article: So, What Exactly Makes Craig Counsell So Much Better Than David Ross?

[Stratos]

23 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

I could not care less about a Pythagorean record.

It was simply another way of wording the difference between the Cubs and Brewers, because saying the Brewers won 9 more games with a team that was worth less WAR with position players and pitching wasn't getting the point across.

Our pen couldn't hold down leads for 3 out of the 6 months out of the season.  I didn't like some of Ross's pen decisions in April and May, and a few in Sept, but it's not Ross' fault guys got hurt and the FO didn't give him much late-inning pen options or depth or even a clear closer option, or much pen help at the deadline. 

Anyways, I do think manager decisions matter over the course of 162 and especially in close games, I think it can absolutely be the difference in a handful of games.  It's possible Ross cost them a few games but I don't think he's responsible for the 9-win gap with the Brewers.  The Brewers had a fantastic pen to turn tight leads into wins, they didn't need to blow teams out.

Edited November 8, 2023 by Stratos

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Counsell will make 5.5 million more than Ross after signing as a free agent.  The Cubs are paying almost three times that to a collection of players to *not* play for them next year.

[Cuzi]

12 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Our pen couldn't hold down leads for 3 out of the 6 months out of the season.  I didn't like some of Ross's pen decisions in April and May, and a few in Sept, but it's not Ross' fault guys got hurt and the FO didn't give him much late-inning pen options or depth or even a clear closer option, or much pen help at the deadline. 

Anyways, I do think manager decisions matter over the course of 162 and especially in close games, I think it can absolutely be the difference in a handful of games.  It's possible Ross cost them a few games but I don't think he's responsible for the 9-win gap with the Brewers.  The Brewers had a fantastic pen to turn tight leads into wins, they didn't need to blow teams out.

Both teams had injuries. I seem to recall the Brewers pitching rotation getting decimated by injuries early in the year. Brandon Woodruff pitched only 67 innings.

Regardless of injuries, more WAR is more WAR. The Brewers were closer to a replacement level team than the Cubs and the Cubs won 9 games less. A gap like that is the difference of Ross blowing 4 games and Counsell not.

Edited November 8, 2023 by Cuzi

[Stratos]

8 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Both teams had injuries. I seem to recall the Brewers pitching rotation getting decimated by injuries early in the year. Brandon Woodruff pitched only 67 innings.

Regardless of injuries, more WAR is more WAR. The Brewers were closer to a replacement level team than the Cubs and the Cubs won 9 games less. A gap like that is the difference of Ross blowing 4 games and Counsell not.

The Brewers had the best ERA in the MLB, and had good defense.  Their bullpen was ridiculous.  It had three sub-2 ERA guys, plus the ERA equivalents of 2 Alzolay's and a Merryweather.  If you can convert virtually every lead after 5 IP into a win you're going to outperform your WAR and run differential.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

8 minutes ago, Stratos said:

The Brewers had the best ERA in the MLB, and had good defense.  Their bullpen was ridiculous.  It had three sub-2 ERA guys, plus the ERA equivalents of 2 Alzolay's and a Merryweather.  If you can convert virtually every lead after 5 IP into a win you're going to outperform your WAR and run differential.

(Actually there's not a ton of correlation between bullpen quality and pyth differential. Good bullpens keep one-run losses from being multi-run losses, bad bullpen turn big wins into close wins.  It really is mostly luck)

[CubUgly]

7 hours ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

(Actually there's not a ton of correlation between bullpen quality and pyth differential. Good bullpens keep one-run losses from being multi-run losses, bad bullpen turn big wins into close wins.  It really is mostly luck)

yeah, we can all deep dive into all the geek stats and probably make a good case for whatever our opinion in this scenario. 

Bottom line is we'd have to get in the DeLorean - go back to the start of last year, put Rossi on the Brewers and Counsel on the Cubs and see what happens to really know if and how much of difference it is.

In my opinion it would make a fairly significant difference in the positive for the Cubs.  Some here feel it would not make much of a difference if at all.  Personally, I'm ecstatic about the move.  I think it's in upgrade in that position and signals we are going for it, to our fans, the organization and to the rest of baseball.  I don't think Counsell signs here unless he felt very good the Cubs are going to do so and gave assurances of that.  

[squally1313]

It's always the games Ross (not the players) blew. It's never the games we came back and won, or the leads we held onto. I get that that's just the way we remember things, and it's a mostly thankless job, but Hoyer signed two starters who struggled significantly and went into opening day with a bullpen that was by all measures bad, and that was before Hughes and Boxberger gave us 33 innings total. 

Like Kyle said, every single team in baseball had the opportunity to offer him $10m a year, and chose not to. If you're going to make the argument of like 'well Jed clearly thinks this is a good move', go for it. Every other GM absolutely had the financial opportunity to beat it and didn't. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

10 hours ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

But given that the league is overrun with ivy League analysts trying to squeeze every last win per dollar advantage they can find, and we just made counsell the highest paid manager in the league with a salary that will buy you a decent veteran utility infielder, I feel confident that the actual impact of a manager is measured in fractions of a win.

I think it's probably more likely that managers are worth a lot more than that, we just have no idea how to measure it, which makes analytical teams hesitate to throw money at hunches.

[squally1313]

5 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I think it's probably more likely that managers are worth a lot more than that, we just have no idea how to measure it, which makes analytical teams hesitate to throw money at hunches.

What makes you say that

[Brock Beauchamp]

4 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

What makes you say that

I think a manager's presence in the clubhouse has a ton of value over 162 games. I also acknowledge we have absolutely no horsefeathers way to measure whether that is true or not.

[fromthestretch]

2 hours ago, CubUgly said:

signals we are going for it, to our fans, the organization and to the rest of baseball

For me, it's this moreso than the hire itself. On the surface anyway, it seems that the Cubs are out in front of the off-season for once, which I like to see.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I think it's probably more likely that managers are worth a lot more than that, we just have no idea how to measure it, which makes analytical teams hesitate to throw money at hunches.

This is 100% wishful thinking.  If managers had a large impact it would be trivially easy to measure.

 

Pull up every manager who switched teams, see if their new team performs closer to their old team or closer to the new team's previous standard.  We have enough of a sample throughout history that if there's a meaningful impact, it would show up.

Edited November 8, 2023 by Hairyducked Idiot

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think it's probably futile to try to convince people that something fun to believe isn't true.

Given that believing in the strategic side of baseball is fun and the cubs just made a big splash managerially, there's going to be a lot of motivation to believe that the manager is a big-impact position no matter how untrue it is.  Most people would rather believe what's fun than what's true.

[Cuzi]

4 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

I think it's probably futile to try to convince people that something fun to believe isn't true.

Given that believing in the strategic side of baseball is fun and the cubs just made a big splash managerially, there's going to be a lot of motivation to believe that the manager is a big-impact position no matter how untrue it is.  Most people would rather believe what's fun than what's true.

While the rest want to believe the Cubs wasted money on a worthless position and didn't upgrade the clubhouse.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

2 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

While the rest want to believe the Cubs wasted money on a worthless position and didn't upgrade the clubhouse.

Not really.  It's the same money as a backup infielder or second-tier reliever.  I'm perfectly fine with the rather meaningless move.

[Cuzi]

2 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

Not really.  It's the same money as a backup infielder or second-tier reliever.  I'm perfectly fine with the rather meaningless move.

Think of all the money they could save for what matters if they just let the players decide with rock-paper-scissors!

[Rcal10]

I really don’t understand the naysayers of this move. I feel most were saying Ross was ok, but not a great manager. I get it when the argument is any move that doesn’t work Ross got blamed for it but when it did work it was the players. That is no different than any fan base with its manager. Everyone has a different opinion. And just because Ross didn’t go with the opinion of the poster doesn’t mean if he did what the poster suggested that would work either.no get all that. That will also happen next year with Counsell. So are those suggesting this is no big deal saying they would rather just stick with Ross? I will not pretend to know exactly how much of a difference a manager makes as far as wins and loses. But for the most part Counsell was industry wise considered the best in the business. And the Cubs for him. Good for them. This isn’t a knock on Ross. This is a cheer for the Cubs going out and getting the best manager they could at this time. And with that move I also expect the Cubs to be aggressive.

so, are there those here who feel we were better off with Ross? That is my only question. 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

6 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

I really don’t understand the naysayers of this move. I feel most were saying Ross was ok, but not a great manager. I get it when the argument is any move that doesn’t work Ross got blamed for it but when it did work it was the players. That is no different than any fan base with its manager. Everyone has a different opinion. And just because Ross didn’t go with the opinion of the poster doesn’t mean if he did what the poster suggested that would work either.no get all that. That will also happen next year with Counsell. So are those suggesting this is no big deal saying they would rather just stick with Ross? I will not pretend to know exactly how much of a difference a manager makes as far as wins and loses. But for the most part Counsell was industry wise considered the best in the business. And the Cubs for him. Good for them. This isn’t a knock on Ross. This is a cheer for the Cubs going out and getting the best manager they could at this time. And with that move I also expect the Cubs to be aggressive.

so, are there those here who feel we were better off with Ross? That is my only question. 

I would have been 100% fine with sticking with Ross.  I'm fine with firing him.  It really doesn't matter.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Just now, Rcal10 said:

I really don’t understand the naysayers of this move. I feel most were saying Ross was ok, but not a great manager. I get it when the argument is any move that doesn’t work Ross got blamed for it but when it did work it was the players. That is no different than any fan base with its manager. Everyone has a different opinion. And just because Ross didn’t go with the opinion of the poster doesn’t mean if he did what the poster suggested that would work either.no get all that. That will also happen next year with Counsell. So are those suggesting this is no big deal saying they would rather just stick with Ross? I will not pretend to know exactly how much of a difference a manager makes as far as wins and loses. But for the most part Counsell was industry wise considered the best in the business. And the Cubs for him. Good for them. This isn’t a knock on Ross. This is a cheer for the Cubs going out and getting the best manager they could at this time. And with that move I also expect the Cubs to be aggressive.

so, are there those here who feel we were better off with Ross? That is my only question. 

I haven't seen anyone "naysaying" the move.  I've been among the closest to that of anyone, so my point of view can be summarized as this:
 

• Ross was fine and probably better than fine.  The vast majority of Ross criticism falls into one or more of these buckets: wrong on the merits, not his fault, or coin flip decisions that are not pass/fail or super consequential.
• Managers do not make an enormous difference.  Even the 'mild' assumption that Ross to Counsell is a 4 win upgrade is a massive assumption that I don't see any real backing for.
• I'm pleased with this move mostly because Jed was willing to do something out of character because of how much conviction he had that it was worth it.  And because that even though it might not lead to a "screw it sign everyone" offseason, it should(won't, but should) quiet those who were worried that the team wasn't going to make another step up in payroll.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

MLB teams when a player worth five wins a season is available: "would a quarter of a billion dollars be enough?"

 

MLB teams when a manager apparently worth five wins a season is available: "wellllll, it's kind hard to measure, best we can do is a few million"

 

Yep, that's totally what happens.

[squally1313]

It's a fun story and a team as big as the Cubs should have one of the widely considered best managers out there on a yearly basis, so definitely not against the move. But like, the title of the thread is 'so what exactly makes Craig Counsell so much better than David Ross'. And the supposed 'naysayers' here are just saying: there isn't anything exactly, because he's not. 

[Cuzi]

Acting like managers are equal and make very little impact on a team is a hilariously dumb take. They all need good players to win, but the best managers win with those players when they have them. Every sport has those legendary managers/coaches that have dominated their sport.

Joe Torre

Tony LaRussa

Terry Francona

Andy Reid

Phil Jackson

Pep Guardiola

If it was so easy to replicate, then Dave Roberts would have 3 or 4 rings by now instead of the 1 he has in a shortened season, because the Dodgers have had arguably the best team in baseball for a decade now.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

2 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Acting like managers are equal and make very little impact on a team is a hilariously dumb take. They all need good players to win, but the best managers win with those players when they have them. Every sport has those legendary managers/coaches that have dominated their sport.

Joe Torre

Tony LaRussa

Terry Francona

Andy Reid

Phil Jackson

Pep Guardiola

If it was so easy to replicate, then Dave Roberts would have 3 or 4 rings by now instead of the 1 he has in a shortened season, because the Dodgers have had arguably the best team in baseball for a decade now.

"It can't be true because I listed some names and if the best team doesn't win it must be the manager"

 

That's your entire argument. Think about that.

Edited November 8, 2023 by Hairyducked Idiot

[JHBulls]

21 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

MLB teams when a player worth five wins a season is available: "would a quarter of a billion dollars be enough?"

 

MLB teams when a manager apparently worth five wins a season is available: "wellllll, it's kind hard to measure, best we can do is a few million"

 

Yep, that's totally what happens.

The day MLB managers start valuing themselves at a quarter of a billion dollars on the open market is the same day that MLB clubs start hiring people from this forum to manage the team. 😛

[Cuzi]

Just now, Hairyducked Idiot said:

"It can't be true because I listed some names and if the best team doesn't win it must be the manager"

 

That's your entire argument. Think about that.

You don't even have an argument. Think about that.