Piniella has to be canned

[PcB]

<!--quoteo(post=47688:date=Jul 2 2009, 02:25 PM:name=Sandberg)-->QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 2 2009, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=47664:date=Jul 2 2009, 12:40 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 2 2009, 12:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=47662:date=Jul 2 2009, 12:28 PM:name=Sandberg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 2 2009, 12:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=47621:date=Jul 2 2009, 09:16 AM:name=Coldneck)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coldneck @ Jul 2 2009, 09:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=47620:date=Jul 2 2009, 10:12 AM:name=Sandberg)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sandberg @ Jul 2 2009, 10:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=47604:date=Jul 2 2009, 06:46 AM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Jul 2 2009, 06:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=47591:date=Jul 1 2009, 11:27 PM:name=PcB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PcB @ Jul 1 2009, 11:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->So, Piniella showed his "fire" and "passion" tonight by getting tossed. Does that help the people that want him canned?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After the stats BT listed, I don't think there should be a camp that wants him canned (even though I was part of that clan).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I still think he should be canned. You have a bunch of teams that were horrible (the vast majority of teams that change managers) with a few who were under performing. What if there were only 10 teams that were favorites to either win or content for their division/league title and 7 teams that turned it around were part of that group? Then you have a 70% chance of turning it around. (Obviously I'm making that up, but the story was used to show that the stat as given is almost irrelevant)

The point is, if a competent replacement is found, would we really be worse off? I don't think so.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Please tell what competant replacement could be found at mid-season. If your answer is Ryno, please explain why he would be a good choice because I'm not sure that he is.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I should have said, "I still think he should be canned if they can find a competent replacement." Who would that be? No idea. My main point was that the stat given doesn't really prove anything.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The fact that canning the manager didn't result in a playoff run ONE HUNDRED AND TWELVE TIMES out 119 doesn't prove anything? What in God's name would constitute "proof" in your view?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a spectrum of talent on baseball teams. But let's put them into 3 buckets of shitty talent, average talent, and above average talent. I would assume that the vast majority of the teams changing their manager in the middle of the season fall into the shitty talent bucket. They are skewing the results.

The Cubs, on the other hand, have above average talent. This likely constitutes a very small percentage of teams that change managers in the middle of a season.

For the statistic to be meaningful, you would need to analyze the number of above average talent teams that changed managers in the middle of the season and then see how many of them made the playoffs. Otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I actually completely agree with this, although I still don't want Lou canned.