Geren's report card?

by UncleLeo on Sep 30, 2007 12:36 PM PDT

How would you assess Bob Geren's performance as manager this year? Now that the season is over (or will be over in a few hours).

First losing record in many years aside, I must say that I am pleasantly surprised that the team did as well as they did, and I give alot of the credit to Geren and his juggling of the line-ups, and in-game moves, and ability to work with what he had. Was he perfect? Hell no, of course not, and there is some room for growing. But, he was working with a AAAA team most of the time, and also had a few players who couldn't get a clutch hit against a T-ball team.

It's a qualified endorsement, to be sure, but given what he had to work with, I think he did pretty damn good. I still reserve judgement for next season, though.

Grade: B

Side question: In your opinion, how would Ken Macha have done had he been retained? Better? Same? Worse?

Poll

Geren's grade for first season?

A

5 votes

B

87 votes

C

44 votes

D

15 votes

F

7 votes

158 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

seems like a nice guy

rather than a sour blowhard like tony larussa. but maybe the only difference between him and macha being manager is that i didn't have to listen to macha's tv on demand radio commercials ("i'm a golf nut") or mumbling after game interviews, and for that i'm grateful.

i agree with billy beane: i don't really care who is managing. and i don't blame geren for things like kendall or kotsay or crosby or kennedy. he went to war with the army he had, not the army he wished he had.

Hi ho.

by danh on Sep 30, 2007 2:15 PM PDT reply actions

I dont really know.

He's done a good job keeping an even-keel in the locker room, but I think maybe he has been too relaxed at some points. There was a period of dissention in news reports but that seems to have quieted down, but the collapse the team suffered after the Bradley trade marked the beginning of the end for the season and possibly there couldve been something done to keep the focus on games rather than any possible conflicts within the locker room. I gave him a C

"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin, Seattle Mariners

by Helloooo 1st on Sep 30, 2007 2:46 PM PDT reply actions

Macha would have alienated someone

with all of the injuries and new players wandering through. It's safe to say Geren did better than he would have.

I'd give him a B+, as his only real weakness was some puzzling bullpen decisions which likely led to the A's huge number of blown saves.

by PaulThomas on Sep 30, 2007 3:26 PM PDT reply actions

He deserves a B- IMO. I think it's unlikely that

any other manager would have squeezed out many more (if any) victories with this depleted team. He actually ran the bullpen better than Macha but I agree with Paul Thomas that there were still some puzzling decisions along the way too.

His best asset was shuffling the lineup based on performance, which was a somewhat refreshing approach after Macha. How can you blame the guy for our abysmal numbers with RISP? We had plenty of guys on base all year but our team just couldn't get the key hits. Hopefully we can add a small piece or two to our offense next year but I feel much better now about it then I did earlier in the season.

"If he raced his pregnant wife, he'd finish 3rd." -Lasorda on Mike Scioscia

by ohtobe21likehuston on Sep 30, 2007 6:17 PM PDT reply actions

Major difference between he and Macha:

He tried.

That is, if something wasn't working, he tried to find a way for something else to take its place.

Macha would just run out the clock until his hand was forced.

I give him a solid B. First season as boss is always toughest, but with this kind of roster and injuries... man, this was a baptism of fire, and he handled it mostly okay.

The Chavez Shift: 6 infielders and 2 catchers.

by Ozzz on Sep 30, 2007 6:49 PM PDT reply actions

I'm not convinced managers are all that relevant

There are some really bad managers that become a problem, and a few in the history of baseball who are good enough to add wins, but overall managers are a sea of mediocrity. Geren fell comfortably in that group, so as long as everyone's getting along, he's doing fine.

by MrIncognito on Sep 30, 2007 9:06 PM PDT reply actions

I think C for average is good.

When you have a small pay roll with a lot of youth and win, you're the Oakland A's. When you lose, you're the Kansas City Royals. We played a little better than the Royals.

I don't like comparing him to Macha either because Macha was gone. I think comparing him to Wash is more accurate (he beat Wash out for the job) and in that comparison, I think Wash wins. Wash took a young team (after the trades and injuries in Texas) without our superior pitching and had the same season we had. That and Wash would’ve turned our makeshift left side into far better fielders than they were this season.

So "C" is my vote. Nothing special, nothing horrible. However, Wash would get a B for Texas and I wouldn’t be surprised to see them have a Seattle type season next year which means we really better be on our game.

"Baseball is like a church. Many attend, but few understand." - Wes Westrum

by oaklandfan40 on Oct 1, 2007 9:55 AM PDT reply actions

Would Wash have had the time...

...to work with the infielders as Manager? Some, sure, but not anywhere near the time and attention he had previously given when that was his primary responsibility. I think there still would have been a drop-off.

by UncleLeo on Oct 1, 2007 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions