[besson3c]

Interesting news, not sure I follow the logic, but then again I don't know much about him. Any Mets fans want to comment?

[Dork.]

From what I can gather from the media, he's got a very unique personality. Not many people who've worked with him have a neutral opinion: they either love him or they hate him. I think he might be just a tad overbearing. He has been a big hit in Japan, but Japanese teams are much more structured and maybe his personality fits there better.

I'm surprised he's taking a managerial job again, I always thought if he left his ESPN gig (and his day job as Public Safety Director for Stamford, CT), it would be to be a GM.

Actually, did Boston ever name a GM? Maybe he's taking both roles.

Oh, I see, they hired another young guy as GM. I wonder if this guy knows what he's getting into. I think Bobby will have a lot of "advice" for the new GM going forward.

Of course, the thing everyone remembers is the time he got ejected from a game, then came back into the dugout with a change of clothes and a horrible disguise.

[besson3c]

That's just the thing, I don't really understand the philosophical direction of the team. Why trade one veteran manager for another, particularly a manager like this that would have to massage a whole lot of egos?

[Dork.]

Maybe when you have a team full of egos, the thing to do is go get a manager with a bigger ego than all of them put together.

[besson3c]

Yeah, I guess that argument could work either way.

Maybe on a team with a bunch of vets a vet manager is not a bad thing. Is Valentine a forward thinking manager, into modern stats and unconventional ways of thinking and stuff, or is he more of an old-timey manager?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah, I guess that argument could work either way.

Maybe on a team with a bunch of vets a vet manager is not a bad thing. Is Valentine a forward thinking manager, into modern stats and unconventional ways of thinking and stuff, or is he more of an old-timey manager?

I don't remember him doing anything particularly innovative, but he's tuned into sabremetrics as much as any other managers are these days, I think. A lot of that stuff has become pretty conventional.

Edit: someone else has written a lot more words: http://www.amazinavenue.com/2011/11/...tine-true-sabr

[besson3c]

Cool, I'll read that SpaceMonkey!

I'd argue that there are some managers that are not tuned into these sorts of stats though, or even stats in general it seems.

I've seen managers ignore lefty/righty splits, and giving certain players benefit of the doubt in the roles they have been assigned to despite underperforming and there being players on the team that statistically have performed better in these areas.

Maybe this is not so much a case of being oblivious to the stats as wanting to cater to a more psychological approach in plugging in players in ways that puts them in the best place to succeed from a mental standpoint rather than plugging them in like robots that will put up numbers regardless of setting or context?

In any case, it can be very hard to create distinctions between the two as fans.

[Jawbone54]

I love it.

The Sox are struggling from a severe lack of personality. This hire will at least inject some life into them.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Cool, I'll read that SpaceMonkey!

I'd argue that there are some managers that are not tuned into these sorts of stats though, or even stats in general it seems.

I've seen managers ignore lefty/righty splits, and giving certain players benefit of the doubt in the roles they have been assigned to despite underperforming and there being players on the team that statistically have performed better in these areas.

Maybe this is not so much a case of being oblivious to the stats as wanting to cater to a more psychological approach in plugging in players in ways that puts them in the best place to succeed from a mental standpoint rather than plugging them in like robots that will put up numbers regardless of setting or context?

In any case, it can be very hard to create distinctions between the two as fans.

I think it is a combination of deference to player psychology and being cautious about small sample size with respect to underperforming players. If you had an established player and decided, based on his past performance, that he fit a certain role in your starting lineup, what's the appropriate leash if he starts to stink? For a player in his prime, even half a season is a pretty small sample size compared to his career numbers.

The impact of sabermetrics on actual decision-making is more apparent at the GM level, anyway. Managers have a say, but they are largely dealing with the cards they are dealt, and usually it's not like they have a ton of bench talent to be messing around with. I think studies have shown that usually the "traditional" line-up is just a handful of runs short of the "ideal" line-up over the course of a season.

[besson3c]

Bobby Valentine Hiring Reactions: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com