Cox, LaGenius, Garner. NL Manager of the year voting.

[T. J.]

The Link

No surprises here.

[cougar]

Garner getting no first place votes and finishing third behind LaRussa is fuckin' rediculous.

[astro pete]

Quote:
Garner getting no first place votes and finishing third behind LaRussa is fuckin' rediculous.

Why? LaRussa managed a banged up team to 100 wins.  After watching the NLCS, I was shocked the Cards won as much as they did.  They looked nothing like the team that owned us earlier in the season.  Of course, neither did we.

[T. J.]

Quote:
Garner getting no first place votes and finishing third behind LaRussa is fuckin' rediculous.

I would've been shocked if Garner got any first place votes.  Cox was the manager of the year and should've gotten all the first place votes.  No question.  (And I hate the fucking Braves.)

[homer]

Quote:
Why? LaRussa managed a banged up team to 100 wins. After watching the NLCS, I was shocked the Cards won as much as they did. They looked nothing like the team that owned us earlier in the season. Of course, neither did we.  

15-30 with hardly any offense ... all the way to the World Series seems to be more difficult. Garner was pulling rabbits out of his hat daily.

LaRussa had injuries, but the team was third in runs scored and first in ERA. I am not discounting what LaGenius did (or Cox did), but Garner did more with less.

[astro pete]

Quote:
15-30 with hardly any offense ... all the way to the World Series seems to be more difficult. Garner was pulling rabbits out of his hat daily.

LaRussa had injuries, but the team was third in runs scored and first in ERA. I am not discounting what LaGenius did (or Cox did), but Garner did more with less.

I'm not saying Garner wasn't more deserving than LaRussa.  What I am saying is that LaRussa's finishing second isn't as ridiculous as was suggested.  I also don't understand the fascination with what Bobby Cox did.  He had very good frontline pitching, a solid core of veteran hitters (one of whom is a top MVP candidate), and some excellent young players.  He's going to take this same team next year and contend for a World Series title, IMO.

[Froback]

Quote:

but Garner did more with less.

Compared to the gym teacher, I agree, Garner did more.  Compared to Cox... I have to disagree.  Cox had only one pitcher he could rely on (Smoltz), had injuries to his other 3 starters, and a mental meltdown by his 5th.  He had 0 trust in that bullpen, which was so bad, Kyle Farnsworth was considered a savior of sorts.
He had only 3 position players make it through the whole season without having to miss major time or platoon (Andruw, Furcal, Giles).

I think what Garner did was amazing.  I think what Cox did was unbelievable.  I think we take it for granted since the Braves have won so much, that they are just going to keep on winning.  It makes me sick how lucky/good they are each and every year.  Just ONCE I would like to not have to play them in the first round.... wait, last time that happend weird freaky things happend and the Padres made the World Series... hmmm, not liking that trend.

[SoonerJim]

Quote:

Quote:
Why? LaRussa managed a banged up team to 100 wins. After watching the NLCS, I was shocked the Cards won as much as they did. They looked nothing like the team that owned us earlier in the season. Of course, neither did we.  

15-30 with hardly any offense ... all the way to the World Series seems to be more difficult. Garner was pulling rabbits out of his hat daily.

LaRussa had injuries, but the team was third in runs scored and first in ERA. I am not discounting what LaGenius did (or Cox did), but Garner did more with less.

Doesn't the voting occur just before the playoffs? If so, the playoff performance has nothing to do with the awrd.

[T. J.]

Quote:
Doesn't the voting occur just before the playoffs? If so, the playoff performance has nothing to do with the awrd.

Yep.  Voting is done before the playoffs.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Quote:

Quote:

but Garner did more with less.

Compared to the gym teacher, I agree, Garner did more.  Compared to Cox... I have to disagree.  Cox had only one pitcher he could rely on (Smoltz), had injuries to his other 3 starters, and a mental meltdown by his 5th.  He had 0 trust in that bullpen, which was so bad, Kyle Farnsworth was considered a savior of sorts.
He had only 3 position players make it through the whole season without having to miss major time or platoon (Andruw, Furcal, Giles).

I think what Garner did was amazing.  I think what Cox did was unbelievable.  I think we take it for granted since the Braves have won so much, that they are just going to keep on winning.  It makes me sick how lucky/good they are each and every year.  Just ONCE I would like to not have to play them in the first round.... wait, last time that happend weird freaky things happend and the Padres made the World Series... hmmm, not liking that trend.

And he didn't beat any women or get arrested for driving drunk or anything. God bless ol' Bobby, he's a good man, he didn't mean to, officer.

[cougar]

Quote:

Quote:
Garner getting no first place votes and finishing third behind LaRussa is fuckin' rediculous.

Why? LaRussa managed a banged up team to 100 wins.  After watching the NLCS, I was shocked the Cards won as much as they did.  They looked nothing like the team that owned us earlier in the season.  Of course, neither did we.

You got me pete.  My blatant homerism showed through in my knee jerk reaction to this news.  Oh well.

LaGenius won with a team that was widely regarded as one of the best in the NL and therefore was supposed to win.  Garner won with a mostly popgun offense, a strong 1-3 starting pitching staff, and a lot of question marks at the beginning of the season.  The 15-30 start has been beaten to death so I won't even bring it up.  Except that I just did.