There isn't. But this is from last year during the manager of the year debates. If we're trying to get at the relative value Farrell provides as a manager from year to year, the numbers are still relevant. I hope he does an update for this year.
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-should-we-evaluate-a-manager/
The problem for me is that I don't see why those variables define a manager, at all. Or at least be the biggest relevant factor, ahead of man managing, motivation, resting patterns, general boring day to day "looking after 25 overgrown millionaire kids" type stuff. It could be lazy get out thinking, but I have a hard time believing that that kind of stuff isn't more relevant. On top of that, what a SABR guy Thinks is best for the stuff noted below, I can't imagine that many managers would buck "tried and tested" ways, someone like Maddon might be a good recent example of someone who seems open to that kind of in game thinking. But how can that study take account of whether your best relivers were not available for a critical situation etc etc.
The article at least addresses that its probably error strewn and full of assumptions. I'd say it's nigh on impossible, but even if you just included "in game stuff" as here, you'd need to properly account for each situation one at a time, working out some kind of win probability added based on the Changes made, but I dont see how you could ever adjust for "off field" stuff affecting on field stuff
It would be interesting to see a year for year evaluation of the same managers to see if there's any actual trends.
I still Believe more in the "boring day to day human management" aspect (including irrational stuff like accounting for egos and unwritten rules of baseball regarding treating of different experience level players), and that feels also like its more likely to have a shelf Life, because people tend to get bored and/or fed up with each other after a few years (true for many people and jobs). Otherwise, the great managers would be around for ever, and also, its hard to Believe that there doesnt exist enough people who know all the stuff listed below so well as to have every team with access to a basically "optimum" manager.
As far as I, noted idiot, can figure, it’s these variables that define a manager:
- When he uses his best relievers.
- How rigid his approach to the bullpen is.
- Where he puts his best hitters in the lineup.
- How often he bunts with non-pitchers.