I think Tito should have won it, but I'm shocked Hyde didn't

As a born again Mets fan (thanks for pulling me back in, wife), Buck did NOT deserve it. He's fixed the culture of the organization, and put them/us on a path forward. But he didn't maximize the team's 2022 potential, which I presume is a major criteria for manager of "the year".

At the beginning of the season, his post game interviews were folksy. At the end, they were a bit uncomfortable.

He's fixed the culture of the organization, and put them/us on a path forward. But he didn't maximize the team's 2022 potential, which I presume is a major criteria for manager of "the year".

Frankly, the first half of what you say makes it sound like he DID maximize their potential.

That, and the team won 101 games after winning 77 the year before.

Two years later would have been more appropriate for Buck. He'd gotten it once a decade in years ending in 4.

I'm not a Buck fan, but it had to be him. Thomson's the only other realistic candidate.

A few good choices in the AL, but it's hard to argue against Tito.

Lots of good candidates this year I think. I don't agree with "had to be Buck" -- the turnarounds in Philly and Atlanta were amazing and the way Snitker (or the Braves) keep seamlessly working in the kids is impressive. All three of them were deserving. I'm happy to give Buck the tiebreaker under the assumption that he's old school enough that it probably was him not some algorithm that did the work. :-)

We probably should have just had an awards thread going this whole week so people can comment as it happens, instead of waiting for a new one to be posted each time. In a surprise to nobody, Alcantara wins the NL Cy Young. It's the first Cy Young for the Marlins who have had some decent pitching over the years. (also it was a former Cardinal who when the trade was made, I was one of the few people saying this was the biggest part of the trade and would most likely come back to bite us in the end... although I didn't know how good Zac Gallen was also going to be.

well--I always hope for Showalter to keep his MLB gig just to keep him off of ESPN

Moy is the hardest award to predict, you never know what the voters are going to go by. 5 different managers got first place votes in the NL alone. Oli who finished fourth, got 5 first place votes. This election for awards is probably the easiest ever to guess the top three, and to guess the eventual winner in at least AL Roy, NL Cy(Alcantara), NL MVP(Goldy)... with probably AL Cy and Al MVP being also predicted right (Verlander/Judge)

Moy is the hardest award to predict, you never know what the voters are going to go by.

MOY is actually a vote by the writers about themselves:"what team were we the most wrong about at the beginning of the season?" If a team finishes much better than predicted, it can't be that WE were wrong, it must have been the manager

Verlander wins, no surprises. Goldy wins tomorrow, I'm still in a toss up on Judge and Ohtani, I think Judge wins, I think Ohtani gets my hypothetical vote.

MOY is actually a vote by the writers about themselves:"what team were we the most wrong about at the beginning of the season?" If a team finishes much better than predicted, it can't be that WE were wrong, it must have been the manager

Oh please. Point to anybody in the baseball world - media, stathead, general fan - who was right about this year's Indians.

Oh please. Point to anybody in the baseball world - media, stathead, general fan - who was right about this year's Indians.

Isn't that in line with his point? The team that exceeded the most over our pre-season predictions gets the MOY.

Isn't that in line with his point? The team that exceeded the most over our pre-season predictions gets the MOY.

Not ours, theirs.

Isn't that in line with his point? The team that exceeded the most over our pre-season predictions gets the MOY.

that isn't "in line" with my point, it is EXACTLY my point

that isn't "in line" with my point, it is EXACTLY my point

Then you should have written that.

Then you should have said that.

ummm--I believe I kinda did...

To be fair, the tone of your post (could have been interpreted) implied that it was strictly the writers making mistakes, and to be fair Sosh was just pointing out that NOBODY saw the Guardians winning the division (Heck I just did a google of pre-season predictions and after about 20 or so, the best they finished in any of them was third, but almost all had them fourth or fifth)

To be fair, the tone of your post (could have been interpreted) implied that it was strictly the writers making mistakes,

It wasn't just the tone, it was the actual words. Unless the BBWAA is "we" now, he was talking about who the writers were wrong about.

OK then revise my post to say that the MOY award is a vote by he writers about which team EVERYONE was wrong about

but that doesn't change the point I was trying to make; WHY does a team projected by everybody to win 78 end up winning 95? I suggest (ladies and gemmin of the jury) that the manager has very little to do with it

First of all, I disagree with the premise. I think managers have a significant role in teams exceeding expectations.

But beyond that, what would you base MOY on?

players having breakout years, players having a dead cat bounce, new players acquired in FA or trades, rookies having good years and MANY other factors are >>>> more important than who the manager is

OK. Now what about the question?

I would eliminate the moy award (cop out)--OR I would have the BBWAA announce that their criterion is exactly what I said it was

we don't know who's a good manager but we sure as hell know when we were wrong

we don't know who's a good manager

I don't know about that. Some guys, no matter where they go, seem to win. Tito, Davey Johnson, Dusty..etc. Sure, sometimes you walk into a loaded roster, but these guys seem to last roster churn, different clubs, etc and they still win.

We know a cr*ppy manager when we see one, why shouldn't we be able to identify the good ones?

We know a cr*ppy manager when we see one, why shouldn't we be able to identify the good ones?

We really don't until they fail multiple times. Torre was a crappy manager until he wasn't. I think every Cardinal manager starting with TLR has been a good manager, yet others will say Matheny or others are crappy based upon their own preconceived notions of what makes a good or bad manager. The single number one skill, which is probably getting players to perform to their ability is not really able to be gauged as the players are playing or the seasons are going. The only real thing we can grade managers on is tactics, and it's probably the single least important part of their job.

And it's not like Dusty lit the world up in either Chicago or Cincy.

And it's not like Dusty lit the world up in either Chicago or Cincy.

Chicago, sure (at least the last two desultory years). But Cincy? The only success they've had in the last 30 years was with Dusty at the helm.

We know a cr*ppy manager when we see one, why shouldn't we be able to identify the good ones?

This goes for workplace bosses/supervisors too -- it is very hard to quantify the value a "good boss" provides, with employee retention being the only data point that seems to consistently track higher.

I know all the awards are based on the regular season, and are voted on (I believe) before the postseason even starts, but for Manager of the Year, this seems particularly silly. For guys like Dusty Baker and Dave Roberts, their job isn't to "exceed expectations by the greatest amount" or "improve on last year's win total by the most games" -- it's to shepherd their team into the playoffs and and then pull the right levers to win a World Series.

In fact, the Astros won 11 more regular-season games than they did the season before (Francona's team improved by 12); the Dodgers won 5 more despite knocking their heads on the ceiling.

Baker's team entered the postseason rested and ready, and he generally managed his pitching changes and lineups well en route to winning the World Series. He did have good talent, yes, but as noted in some previous threads, the pitchers in particular weren't highly rated as prospects and it wasn't a given that they would be uniformly excellent. I'm not sure how much credit Baker deserves for that (I suspect it's more of a coaching/organizational thing) but it seems to me he did his job as well as he could possibly do it.

I'm not saying he deserved MOY over Francona -- Francona is a great manager and had a great year -- but the whole concept is flawed if the managers with the best teams are eliminated from consideration.

I know all the awards are based on the regular season, and are voted on (I believe) before the postseason even starts, but for Manager of the Year, this seems particularly silly.

I love the fact that it's before the season, it emphasizes the season aspect of the awards and puts everyone on even footing. Baker gets the trophy, that is more than enough to cement his contentment of winning an award. If the moy included post season, it would almost always go to the winner of the world series barring some Massive Cinderella story.

but the whole concept is flawed if the managers with the best teams are eliminated from consideration.

I do agree there though, but it's not like they are ignored. Bobby Cox finished top five 15 times from 1990 to 2010, won it outright 4 times, he wasn't eliminated from consideration simply because he had a good team. Joe Torre finished top five 13 times from 1996 to 2010. Etc.

If the moy included post season, it would almost always go to the winner of the world series barring some Massive Cinderella story.

This is definitely true and I can see how it would make the award unfair.

However, managers' careers are largely judged on their postseason success (and cumulative wins), rather than on surprising performances in individual seasons -- Bruce Bochy has a much, much better shot at the Hall of Fame than Buck Showalter, for example, and he's won one MOY to Showalter's four.

If you look at career "MVP Share" I would bet it's a much better indicator of a player's career value/greatness than "MOY Share" (if such a thing exists) would be for managers.

I do agree there though, but it's not like they are ignored. Bobby Cox finished top five 15 times from 1990 to 2010, won it outright 4 times, he wasn't eliminated from consideration simply because he had a good team. Joe Torre finished top five 13 times from 1996 to 2010. Etc.

Yeah, fair enough. Though with a three-slot ballot, "top five" might sometimes mean "two third-place votes." In 1997, for example, Bobby Cox with his 101 wins finished fifth with 6 points; Gene Lamont with his 79 wins finished second (like his Pirates) with 92 points. I have no doubt that Bobby Cox was a better manager than Gene Lamont in 1997 and every other year of their careers.