paulpressey25 wrote:Epi, when they first fired Narron, you made a comment on here about how it would make no difference to how the team played and tied it into our crazy beliefs about Stotts. The replacement of Narron has made a difference.....clearly. And it is basically the same team that is playing better now. We don't have to account for a drastically different roster or some crazy "historical comparison" factor about how the players will perform differently in 2007 versus 2008 because the earth's gravitational pull on the baseball will be slightly different, making any year to year comparison of managerial performance invalid.
Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows if the replacement of Narron caused or facilitated the improved record. So many other variables exist. I am not going to explain any further, as I firmly believe it is impossible for you to understand anything beyond univariable causation.
I do know that every loss the same persons on Cincy forums accuse him of the same things they accurse Narron. And I do know that statisticans do predict some short term gains from a managerial change, but they also don't know why it occured.
Now, will that last the rest of this season? Will it carry into next season? Who knows. But for some reason or reasons the Reds are playing much better.....and the players are speaking out in favor of the new manager.....
A .500 team is progressing towards a .500 seasonal record (don't think they'll make it, but maybe they will--no matter, so what?) . Players always speak out in favor of the new manager. They did when Narron took over midseason. They did when Boone took over in midseason. And the Reds largely end up playing mediocrily once the interim becomes the permanent manager. The cycle rolls on. At least this time, the Reds didn't do the incredibly stupid change of promoting a coach to interim manager.
There is a metaphysical dimension to sports.......you can't ride it for multi-year stretches with the same players and coach, but some guys just have "it". And there are also certain managers and coaches who don't have "it" but also have a negative "it" where performance of the team is worse than what might be predicted.
And the mob screaming for scalps are often wrong--they don't have it, but it doesn't sto them from dreaming they do. In my lifetime, Ed Jucker would have been fired within the first month of his taking over from George Smith. but he wasn't and the Bearcats won two straight NCAAs, right after the depature of O. Many other cases, Sparky was unwanted by the mob and booed early in his first season. But the mob was excited getting that Shula boy (good bloodlines) and every Bengal midterm interim was cheered by the mob and then turned on.
