FanPost

What Is a Good Manager, And Is Ken Macha One?

There are a lot of different kinds of good managers. I'd break them down into five categories.

(1) The Baker: the kind who know how to work with and relate to players, who provide unconditional support and empathy, Great Communicator types;

(2) The Martin: the strategic genius, the guy who knows how to run a game, put together a line-up, get the right match-up, and get in the other team's head.

(3) The Torre/Cox:  the authority figure who commands loyalty from a great coach and measured respect from the players, who is professional, expects his players to be the same way, and deals with it quickly if they're not.

(4) The Piniella: He's intense, he demands all-out effort all the time, and he's intolerant of anything short of that goal.

(5) The Manual: the genial, hey-no-pressure-here-let's-win-and-go-pound-some-Budweiser guy.

Different kinds work with different teams.

What kind is Ken Macha?

The Baker: Well, Macha clearly isn't this kind. His tenure as manager is replete with public failures of communication, of players assigned roles which are then ignored, of players asking reporters what Macha wants because they aren't told and can't figure it out. No one comes to play in Oakland and gives an interview saying, "Hey, a bunch of teams offered me about the same amount of money, but how could I pass up the chance to play for Ken Macha?"

The Martin: Leaving aside the notion of Jason Kendall batting third, which would have Martin rolling over in his grave and Earl Weaver laughing derisively, Macha doesn't apparently believe in platooning, is virtually void in in-game strategizing (the A's don't much H&R, bunt, squeeze or steal), and hasn't managed to put together line-ups that look elegant or "right" in any particular way. Macha has also failed to use previously overlooked players in roles that allow them to shine, practically a hallmark of the really good strategic manager. Nor has he shown any particular ability at putting bullpen guys into roles that allow them to succeed, or using his bullpen to get good match-ups.

The Torre/Cox: By all accounts, Rick Peterson is one of the best pitching coaches in baseball, or at least one of the guys in that conversation. (Leo Mazzone, Mel Stottlemyre and Ray Miller are some other names you'd throw in there.) Peterson is a profound asset to any organization. By most accounts, Macha couldn't work with him and was a proximate cause of Peterson leaving to go work with Art Howe and the Mets. What about the rest of the Torre/Cox profile: do his players look at Macha and say, "Hey this guy is worth trusting. He knows more about the game than I do, he understands players, and he'll get it to work out"? The answer to that is pretty clear: Macha is not the decisionmaker in terms of how the A's play (that would be Beane, of course), and he's not the guy players talk about when they talk about management helping them out. (Right or wrong, that would be Ron Washington.)

The Piniella: It wouldn't be fair to say that Macha doesn't care, but it would be more than fair to say he doesn't care in any observable way. He doesn't stand up for or to his players and his teams rarely seems focused or intense, as per last September. The most obvious way this manifests itself is when a blown call goes against the A's: Macha kind of wanders out, says a few words, looking defeated from the get-go, then kind of wanders back to the dugout. Moreover, the A's never seem to improve in certain areas that are open to improvement through practice and managerial will: baserunning, cut-off throws, etc.

The Manual: It's a well-established practice in the sporting world to bring in a laid-back coach after you have someone who's too intense; the shift from a Joseph Stalin to a Jerry Garcia can let a thousand talents bloom. (That's what the Phillies are counting on this year.) These managers are often derided as caretakers, but you try keeping laid back with a sense of humor and a smile on your face while doing your job in public for six months in a row with no days off, getting on a plane every three to seven days, and everywhere you go there's a guy sticking a microphone in your face asking you in so many words why you're such an idiot. Art Howe was though of as a Manual-type; Macha was brought in to tighten the ship. From the clubhouse - still considered a frat party with uniforms - to the on-field demeanor - still wrapped too tight when it counts - Macha hasn't appeared to have any kind of effect at all, or at least certainly not a Manual-type effect.

He's not one of those five guys, that's for sure. Rather, he appears to be his own type: he's cheap, available and takes orders without complaint from Billy Beane. He has no leverage in the relationship with Beane at all.

I guess I blame Beane more than Macha for this; I know I wouldn't turn down the job of A's manager under those conditions. Hardly anyone would. But I can't think of any reason why a serious baseball team would want Macha as it's manager, and I think it's time that the evaluation of Beane's strengths and weaknesses begin to include his apparent inability to work with managers who come in as their own men, with their own way of doing things and an established record of success. With the exception of getting a good first baseman, or another good starting pitcher, I can't think of anything the A's could do to improve themselves more than firing Macha and bringing in a manager who has an idea of the direction in which he wants to take the team.