For the love of all that is holy (Mike Trout), please fire Mike Scioscia

[Stradling]

14 minutes ago, mp170.6 said:

This is Scioscia's career with the Angels

Sorry but you are so full of shit.  Or you are between the ages of 9-15

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, mp170.6 said:

I knew it, the 2002 card would be used here.

When you look back at the last 18 years, there has been ZERO consistency whatsoever from year to year.  Some years we win, some we lose, some the offense or pitching is great but hardly ever in consecutive seasons.  This is not the fruit of an organization that understands why we win or lose. 

He used a 2002 reference based on you being really stupid so I’ll accept it.  

[mp170.6]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Sorry but you are so full of shit.  Or you are between the ages of 9-15

You are so full of an emotional attachment to Scioscia that you can't evaluate him objectively. 

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, mp170.6 said:

You are so full of an emotional attachment to Scioscia that you can't evaluate him objectively. 

I can’t evaluate him objectively?   Look in the mirror dude.   You called his tenure a dumpster fire.   That is really fucking stupid.  

[Troll Daddy]

24 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I’m defending against shitty logic.   The organization gains zero from firing Scioscia 50 games before the end of his contract, nothing, nada, zilch.  All it does is give Mike Trout fans a misguided fan erection.  

 

[mp170.6]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

I can’t evaluate him objectively?   Look in the mirror dude.   You called his tenure a dumpster fire.   That is really Facking stupid.  

I've posted statistics on here for years trying to evaluate the Angels objectively relative to other teams.  You attack me almost every time for it. 

Meanwhile, your defense of Scioscia is entirely emotional.  Nothing to back it up.  No numbers.  No facts. 

 

[fan_since79]

35 minutes ago, mp170.6 said:

Stradling is still defending Scioscia.  LOL

Well, somebody's got to do it, in the interest of fair play.

Not everyone here thinks Scioscia is awful.

[Stradling]

Just now, mp170.6 said:

I've posted statistics on here for years trying to evaluate the Angels objectively relative to other teams.  You attack me almost every time for it. 

Meanwhile, your defense of Scioscia is entirely emotional.  Nothing to back it up.  No numbers.  No facts. 

 

.537 winning percentage.  I don’t have the exact stat but I’d assume that puts him top 25 or so for a manager with a long career.  I’m not sure where you got your Dumpster Fire Above Replacement Stat but I’d be interested in reading it, hypocrite.  

[Stradling]

Don’t get me wrong there is a HUGE difference between being ready for a change (I’m in that group) and thinking he’s been a bad manager.  

[Blarg]

Look, if you don't like the Tilt A Whirl ride then don't get on it. That is baseball, it's not the easiest to endure 162 game season when the team is the Astros of 5 years ago. Regardless of who is managing the game tonight this team isn't going anywhere right now.

So man the fuck up and ride it out, next season you'll have Josh Paul or someone else to rag about missmanaging the lineup card and bullpen. 

[mp170.6]

5 minutes ago, Stradling said:

.537 winning percentage.  I don’t have the exact stat but I’d assume that puts him top 25 or so for a manager with a long career.  I’m not sure where you got your Dumpster Fire Above Replacement Stat but I’d be interested in reading it, hypocrite.  

Why are you in such a cranky mood today?

I've never been fond of that statistic because it doesn't tell the whole story.  Sort of like RBI's.  I'll give you an example of why it sucks.  Nobody who manages a team like the Marlins has a winning percentage of .500 but that doesn't necessarily make them a bad manager.  The team's ownership sucks. 

In other words, there are many factors that go into a winning percentage under each manager's tenure.

[Troll Daddy]

We all know in our hearts that Mike Scioscia is the greatest manager in Angels history. There's nothing wrong about wanting a fresh face at the helm  ... just don't expect better results unless the team stays healthy and acquires better players. 

 

[Roy Hobbs]

3 minutes ago, mp170.6 said:

Why are you in such a cranky mood today?

I've never been fond of that statistic because it doesn't tell the whole story.  Sort of like RBI's.  I'll give you an example of why it sucks.  Nobody who manages a team like the Marlins has a winning percentage of .500 but that doesn't necessarily make them a bad manager.  The team's ownership sucks. 

Jack Mckeon disagrees .522 winning percentage

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, mp170.6 said:

Why are you in such a cranky mood today?

I've never been fond of that statistic because it doesn't tell the whole story.  Sort of like RBI's.  I'll give you an example of why it sucks.  Nobody who manages a team like the Marlins has a winning percentage of .500 but that doesn't necessarily make them a bad manager.  The team's ownership sucks. 

In other words, there are many factors that go into a winning percentage under each manager's tenure.

and nobody that manages the Marlins manages them for 5-20 years.  That is why Girardi isn't judged by his tenure there he is judged by his tenure as a Yankee where he was for years.  Read your initial post.  "Hey I don't come on here much but let me call out stradling, because"  I'm not grumpy, I am perfectly fine, but when you hypocrite all over the place and it is directed at me, I will tell you that you are being a hypocrite.  You tell me I am emotional and not objective, yet you use words like dumpster fire, that isn't a stat and that isn't being objective.  It is the equivalent of me telling you, "don't fucking cuss asshole" (I don't think you are an asshole, just making a point).  

[mp170.6]

7 minutes ago, Stradling said:

and nobody that manages the Marlins manages them for 5-20 years.  That is why Girardi isn't judged by his tenure there he is judged by his tenure as a Yankee where he was for years.  Read your initial post.  "Hey I don't come on here much but let me call out stradling, because"  I'm not grumpy, I am perfectly fine, but when you hypocrite all over the place and it is directed at me, I will tell you that you are being a hypocrite.  You tell me I am emotional and not objective, yet you use words like dumpster fire, that isn't a stat and that isn't being objective.  It is the equivalent of me telling you, "don't Facking cuss asshole" (I don't think you are an asshole, just making a point).  

Over the years I've pointed to countless stats that back up the notion of mediocrity under Scioscia's management.  Many others have too.  You choose to reject nearly everything we say because you love Mike Scioscia, the person, so much. 

I almost wish you were my uncle or something because you love Scioscia unconditionally, no matter how badly he fails.  Really, that's great and a good human characteristic to have.  It just sucks in the business world when you can't see something for how good or bad it is.

[hangin n wangin]

And here we go....

Cleared for take off.

[Stradling]

Just now, mp170.6 said:

Over the years I've pointed to countless stats that back up the notion of mediocrity under Scioscia's management.  Many others have too.  You chooseto reject nearly everything we say because you love Mike Scioscia, the person, so much. 

I almost wish you were my uncle or something because you love Scioscia unconditionally, no matter how badly he fails.  Really, that's great and a good human characteristic to have.  It just sucks in the business world when you can't see something for how good or bad it is.

Cool story bro.  You and providing stats yet I give you a stat and you immediately dismiss it because "I don't like it".  Just go back to quoting other people.  You obviously don't like what I have to say.  This is such a predictable post from someone who hates Scioscia.  If you defend him then you must love him.  Such a tired response.  

[mp170.6]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Cool story bro.  You and providing stats yet I give you a stat and you immediately dismiss it because "I don't like it".  Just go back to quoting other people.  You obviously don't like what I have to say.  This is such a predictable post from someone who hates Scioscia.  If you defend him then you must love him.  Such a tired response.  

Any smart person can see that a manager's winning percentage statistic is not the greatest metric.  It's not because I don't like it -- that number just isn't very helpful. 

There are lots of decent managers with sub .500 winning records.

[stormngt]

42 minutes ago, mp170.6 said:

I knew it, the 2002 card would be used here.

When you look back at the last 18 years, there has been ZERO consistency whatsoever from year to year.  Some years we win, some we lose, some the offense or pitching is great but hardly ever in consecutive seasons.  This is not the fruit of an organization that understands why we win or lose. 

You said tenure.  Of course 2002 and 2004-2009 would be brought because its during Scioscia tenure.  Tenure means his whole career in its entirety! And winning 5 division titles within 6 years is not inconsistent.  

Go back to 2001 and ask real angel fans what they would give for  a WS and 5 division titles in 6 years? I doubt any would love to trade "ten years without a playoff win".

[Stradling]

Just now, mp170.6 said:

Any smart person can see that a manager's winning percentage statistic is not the greatest metric.  It's not because I don't like it -- that number just isn't very helpful. 

There are lots of decent managers with sub .500 winning records.

yes and there is a good manager with a winning percent of .537 that you have decided is a dumpster fire.  Sorry if I don't hold your opinion on the matter in the highest regard.  I don't expect you to hold mine that high either.  Have a nice day.  See you when you quote me again.

[stormngt]

35 minutes ago, mp170.6 said:

I've posted statistics on here for years trying to evaluate the Angels objectively relative to other teams.  You attack me almost every time for it. 

Meanwhile, your defense of Scioscia is entirely emotional.  Nothing to back it up.  No numbers.  No facts. 

 

Learn the definition of tenure!

[stormngt]

30 minutes ago, mp170.6 said:

Why are you in such a cranky mood today?

I've never been fond of that statistic because it doesn't tell the whole story.  Sort of like RBI's.  I'll give you an example of why it sucks.  Nobody who manages a team like the Marlins has a winning percentage of .500 but that doesn't necessarily make them a bad manager.  The team's ownership sucks. 

In other words, there are many factors that go into a winning percentage under each manager's tenure.

Winning  is a false stat??????

[mp170.6]

3 minutes ago, Stradling said:

yes and there is a good manager with a winning percent of .537 that you have decided is a dumpster fire.  Sorry if I don't hold your opinion on the matter in the highest regard.  I don't expect you to hold mine that high either.  Have a nice day.  See you when you quote me again.

Do the In-N-Out restaurants you manage do well because of you, or for many other reasons put together?   In other words, should their "winning percentage" be attributable to you personally?  

You're silly if you think the .537 is all about Scioscia, or even speaks to his managing ability.   I think that metric sucks.

 

[Dick B Back]

[stormngt]

15 minutes ago, mp170.6 said:

Any smart person can see that a manager's winning percentage statistic is not the greatest metric.  It's not because I don't like it -- that number just isn't very helpful. 

There are lots of decent managers with sub .500 winning records.

How many crappy managers above 500?