Blasphemy?

by Blez on Oct 17, 2006 10:09 AM PDT in News

I know it's probably blasphemy to many to say things like LaRussa as a genius is a myth and Jim Leyland is overrated, but for once I tend to agree with Marcos Breton. I think sports fans and media tend to overrate the impact that a manager can have on a team.

Obviously you can't have someone like Macha running things when apparently the majority of the clubhouse says that they lost all respect for their leader.

But I tend to believe that we harp on the manager too much when in reality, his role and impact is pretty minimal on the ultimate success of a team. Typically teams that have a lot of talent and good players win and teams that don't, well, don't. Jim Leyland looks a lot better this year because of the signing of Kenny Rogers, the addition of Verlander and Zumaya in key roles and a healthy Magglio Ordonez. The Yankees lost in the first round because they faced a much better pitching staff. And pitching always beats good hitting...even the Yankees fearsome lineup. They didn't lose because of Torre. The A's lost because their offense was miserable, but that's also because they faced the best pitching staff in baseball (statistically-speaking) and the A's starting pitching couldn't match them. Macha could've made a few better decisions, but for the most part, the A's fate was sealed because of Rogers, Bonderman and Zito and Loaiza.

Any way, I know for many old schoolers saying that the manager has very little to do with a team's success is blasphemy, but that's how I view things. So regardless of whoever fills Macha's shoes, the A's will either win or lose next year based on the players they have on the field (injuries included).

By the way, I'd like to ask that you take 5 minutes and fill out this survey. We're trying to figure out who reads our SB Nation sites and would appreciate just five minutes of your time. Please help us out if you can. Thank you!

0 recs | Comment 262 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

You're mostly correct

The fact that the A's won 93 games with a terrible manager like Macha shows how important a manger is. I do believe that a good manager could be worth 5 or 6 games in the right situation, and I think a good manager could mean the difference of 1 game in a short playoff series. On the margins, then, a manager can make a huge difference.

I still think the Big Hurt kicks ass.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 17, 2006 10:09 AM PDT 0 recs

That's only if they make

tremendously horrific mistakes, IMHO.

by Blez on Oct 17, 2006 10:10 AM PDT up 0 recs

Pitching Street in 5 straight games:

One of which when trailing by three runs was a horific decision that could have cost the team 5 games over the course of the season itself!!!

"I think we just feel that now is our time." - Nick Swisher

by saint on Oct 17, 2006 10:11 AM PDT up 0 recs

When exactly was that??

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Oct 17, 2006 4:57 PM PDT up 0 recs

Here is where we disconnect: :)

If a Good manager is a +6, an average manager is break even and a bad manager is -6, that is a 12 game swing.

"I think we just feel that now is our time." - Nick Swisher

by saint on Oct 17, 2006 10:11 AM PDT 0 recs

Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and...Dodge

If you catch the ball, the other person is out and one your players comes back in. It's what we call a double switch!

by Leopold Bloom on Oct 17, 2006 11:13 AM PDT up 0 recs

Blez.....

i agree with you to a certain extent. But, I would like someone to explain to me a team like the Marlins this year and Joe Girardi. Do you think that he made a team of underachievers better with some kind of motivational techniques, or related to the players in some kind of way that made them perform better than expectations? Things like this make me curious about how much a manager matters. I would like to have others share their opinions on a team like this years Marlins, who were picked to win like 60 games, and won around 80.

KGrand

by bigmacattack on Oct 17, 2006 10:14 AM PDT 0 recs

Marlins are not a good example

The Marlins were dismissed by "experts" because the didn't have proven veterans like Neifi Pere and Darin Erstad on their team. What they did have were a bunch of talented but young players. Their pitching staff was as talented as any team in the National League, and is likley to be one of the best in baseball over the next 5 years or so. Thus, Girardi gets too much credit in my opinion. Because the Marlins are a young team, and young players are very unpredictable, it would not surprise me if the Marlins have a bit of a regression next year. People will attribute that regression to the loss of Girardi, but I think that would be incorrect.

I still think the Big Hurt kicks ass.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 17, 2006 10:23 AM PDT up 0 recs

Exactly

Beinfest should be getting the credit instead of Girardi. In fact Girardi wanted to play crappy veterans instead of the rookies that Beinfest recommended.

The Marlins also collapsed down the stretch. I saw Giradi manage against the Mets in a big series and he tactically horrific. He had Hanley ramirez bunting with 2 strikes and was giving away outs all over the place. Girardi is by the most overrated manager in the game right now. The top notch Marlins braintrust couldn't fire this guy fast enough.

by DKNJ on Oct 17, 2006 10:26 AM PDT up 0 recs

so maybe..........

is it somewhat safe to say that maybe the players connected better with Girardi because he was a first year manager? I just think of some teams that had much more talent than the Marlins and ended up with a worse record. I know they obtained a lot of good young prospects from many teams, but I was surprised to see them play so well.

KGrand

by bigmacattack on Oct 17, 2006 10:32 AM PDT up 0 recs

A team of

replacement level, triple A players would win 55 games. Beinfest loaded the Marlins up with premium prospects up and down the lineup. They did a great job winning 75 games in a very weak NL, but I think that someone is going to overpay for Girardi. He basically told his boss to shut up.

Girardi did a nice job getting the youngsters to play hard, but his in game moves made Bob Brenly look like Miller Huggins. He doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of the A's philiosophy of preserving outs.

by DKNJ on Oct 17, 2006 10:43 AM PDT up 0 recs

I think Girardi mostly stayed out of the way

Girardi did a good job of letting the young guys play and make mistakes. A manager such as Dusty Baker or Lou Piniella probably would have destroyed those young players. I disagree that other teams in the National League had more talent, but had worse records. I would take the Marlins starting rotation over any team in the National League, and Cabrera is one of the best players in baseball. Throw in underrated players like Uggla, Winningham, Jacobs and it should not have surprised people that the Marlins were respectable.

I still think the Big Hurt kicks ass.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 17, 2006 11:10 AM PDT up 0 recs

no one......

saw Uggla having the season that he had. I ask this question: prior to the season would you take the Marlins rotation over ANY National League team? I would not thank so. I mean come on the Marlins had a better record than the Astros for a majority of the season, and you mean to tell me before the season you would have taken the Marlins rotation over Oswalt, Petitte, and Clemens? I think not. The Marlins over-achieved; whether or not Girardi had something to do with it is what's in question. It would have been hard to predict that Sanchez and Johnson, etc. were going to be this good this soon.

KGrand

by bigmacattack on Oct 17, 2006 12:34 PM PDT up 0 recs

Performance vs talent

Based on talent alone, I would have taken the Marlins rotation over any other in the National League. Anyone who pays attention at all to prospects knew that the Marlins had an amazing collection of young talented pitchers (arguably the best of any team ever when considering quality and quantity) and several young talented hitters. Uggla was a surprise to everybody but his mama, but he did light it up in the AFL, so it's not a total surprise that he did well. I would not have been surprised to see the Marlins win 90 games, and I would not have been surprised to see them lose 90 games. They were a huge unknown given how young they were. IMO Girardi's presence during their mostly successful year was more correlation than causation.

I still think the Big Hurt kicks ass.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 17, 2006 12:45 PM PDT up 0 recs

many good points there--

there is so much uncertainty with a young team that is just hard to figure out if they were influenced in a certain way that they responded to. i did know of their many prospects and i did know that they received top prospects from the red sox, mets, cubs, and twins. The Marlins will prob. win the world series in 2009. Now it looks like the Rangers will win the 2007 World Series.

KGrand

by bigmacattack on Oct 17, 2006 1:09 PM PDT up 0 recs

exactly my point

I don't know that Girardi is not a great manager, he might well be if he can learn to play nice with his next owner and GM. I just think it is silly that the media portrayed the Marlins as some talentless downtrodden bunch of stiffs who were led to new heights by the great Joe Girardi. Girardi will get another chance to manage, and we'll see how he does.

I still think the Big Hurt kicks ass.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 17, 2006 1:18 PM PDT up 0 recs

you seem like a fair and balanced fan..........

whom, or what kind of manager do you think the A's will respond better to? Is there a candiate you have in mind, or should it be one of the few internal candiates??? I like Washington a lot, and a little more aggressiveness would not hurt the A's, but I am not convinced he is the answer.

KGrand

by bigmacattack on Oct 17, 2006 1:35 PM PDT up 0 recs

I like Washington and Geren

Washington as first choice, but I think Geren is better than other AN folks give him credit for. I agree with your reservations about Washington. He is a wild card, in that he has never managed. I would take the chance on Washington if I were Billy Beane.

I still think the Big Hurt kicks ass.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 17, 2006 1:43 PM PDT up 0 recs

I kind of find it interesting that Macha was fired

after doing his best managerial job to date, in my opinion. The team had so many injuries through out the season, and the team at times opened up a pretty sizable lead down the stretch. Maybe I read into things too much, but I think Beane senses a new era ahead of us. An uphill battle has started and we must now pass by an Angels team that is going to be a very, VERY formidable opponent for years to come, and we will be the Oakland "Zito-less" A's, too. I hope the A's make a play for Randy Wolf to "replace" him.

KGrand

by bigmacattack on Oct 17, 2006 2:07 PM PDT up 0 recs

Old Schooler

Every player from the Oakland A's World Champions of the early 70's when asked say that having a great manager makes a big positive difference on a ballclub and means more wins if you want to count wins and losses. These are guys who played the game through all kinds of high pressure playoffs and world series, and they have no reason to lie.

by Salvatore on Oct 17, 2006 10:19 AM PDT 0 recs

Yes, but those were the days

before free agency and multi-millionaires in the dugout. Evidently Macha didn't feel comfortable setting a curfew during the 2003 ALDS in Boston, which might have prevented Hudson's midnight barroom injury. Was this because Macha didn't lead -- draw the line at a very important time -- or because the modern millionaire player culture won't put up with such old-fashioned things as curfews?

The score is _always_ 0-0 until the final out. Each pitch is a new ballgame.

by FanSinceKC on Oct 17, 2006 12:31 PM PDT up 0 recs

Well, I don't know.

But , I go back yo old Jim Leyland, again. He'd spit in the face to any kind of modern millionaire culture trip any player of his would try to lay on him.

by Salvatore on Oct 17, 2006 1:01 PM PDT up 0 recs

I like Leyland.

But spit in the face of a player? AFAIK, Leyland for the most part is a players manager.

On Sunday, Minaya ticked off a list of candidates to join the rotation, and for once this season, none of them was Jose Lima.

by rfloh on Oct 18, 2006 7:53 AM PDT up 0 recs

Read what I wrote again

a bit more carefully. Leyland would spit, (metaphorically), at the face of any millionaire ballplayer culture that was a negative force to deal with. Now, I know how poor o'l Jesus of Galillee in the New Testament feels when his words are taken out of context.

by Salvatore on Oct 18, 2006 9:20 AM PDT up 0 recs

I've said for YEARS:

Give me Leyland and I'll give you a Championship. Now look. Even his players call him the MVP of thier team.

I'll take thier word over some "stat nazi"* any day. :)

Not inplying that you are such.

"I think we just feel that now is our time." - Nick Swisher

by saint on Oct 17, 2006 10:22 AM PDT 0 recs

Stat nazi?

Wow. Referring to people as nazis is a new low, even for you.

Some are sabermetricians.

by andeux on Oct 17, 2006 10:28 AM PDT up 0 recs

HAHAHA!!!

Sorry to laugh if you are truly offended. That's what I get for reading Halos Heaven. I thought it was the term used for the guys who never played above Little League and think they can get all of thier info from numbers and formulas.

What is the term for that?

"I think we just feel that now is our time." - Nick Swisher

by saint on Oct 17, 2006 10:38 AM PDT up 0 recs

BTW...Screw PC'ness...This IS America:

"I think we just feel that now is our time." - Nick Swisher

by saint on Oct 17, 2006 10:38 AM PDT up 0 recs

The term for that person is "straw man."

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Oct 17, 2006 10:40 AM PDT up 0 recs

Isn't that what they burn at Burning Man?

"I think we just feel that now is our time." - Nick Swisher

by saint on Oct 17, 2006 10:42 AM PDT up 0 recs

No, that's the term

that's used when you misrepresent the position of others to strengthen your argument.

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Oct 17, 2006 10:49 AM PDT up 0 recs

Hey Man:

I'm coming to the East Coast for the Mets and Yankee Series next year.

Do you know if Boston is in town at that time?

"I think we just feel that now is our time." - Nick Swisher

by saint on Oct 17, 2006 10:54 AM PDT up 0 recs

Found the schedule:

They play the Rangers that Friday.

Looks like the A's vs Mets on the 23rd, Yanks mid week and the Sawx on the 29th of June

"I think we just feel that now is our time." - Nick Swisher

by saint on Oct 17, 2006 11:02 AM PDT up 0 recs

Swing by Boston

and we'll get a beer (or, barring that, I may come down to NY to catch the A's play in the Stadium).

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Oct 17, 2006 11:06 AM PDT up 0 recs

My family, The St.Martin's, are still in Boston:

I want to swing by and see them and also visit Fenway. It's looking like we'll be there for atleast three days.

The Ranger Game on the 29th looks like the best game to catch.

"I think we just feel that now is our time." - Nick Swisher

by saint on Oct 17, 2006 11:11 AM PDT up 0 recs

So who's more important to you,

me or the St Martins?

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Oct 17, 2006 11:13 AM PDT up 0 recs

The one makes having a beer with the other:

Possible!!!

"I think we just feel that now is our time." - Nick Swisher

by saint on Oct 17, 2006 11:15 AM PDT up 0 recs

Hey Saint...

Jackie and I are going to NY for those series too.....

by BleacherDave on Oct 17, 2006 11:12 AM PDT up 0 recs

Are you staying the week?

If so we should update eachother on deals we score. I'm gonna speak to the Boosters about getting tcikets ahead of time.

"I think we just feel that now is our time." - Nick Swisher

by saint on Oct 17, 2006 11:16 AM PDT up 0 recs

Yes.

You're all over it. Haven't even begun to plan yet. But, you're right. Keep an eye peeled for deals. We'll do the same.

by BleacherDave on Oct 17, 2006 12:00 PM PDT up 0 recs

Is it a booster trip?

I always try to score a front row CF bleacher seat for one game at each stadium.

by BleacherDave on Oct 17, 2006 12:01 PM PDT up 0 recs

Mr. Sabermetric Spork

Like so:

Eternal Springs™: The official 2007 bottled water of your Oakland Athletics

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Oct 17, 2006 10:53 AM PDT up 0 recs

Come now

Reasonable people do it all the time

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Oct 17, 2006 10:39 AM PDT up 0 recs

HAHAHAHA!!!

That is where I read it first!!! Too, funny...Not to laugh at Andeaux's espense. Seriously.

"I think we just feel that now is our time." - Nick Swisher

by saint on Oct 17, 2006 10:43 AM PDT up 0 recs

Good Managers help... a lot.

I think Billy had a little something to do with our resurgence in 1980, don't you think? Or how about La Russa's decision to turn Eck into a closer when he came over and automatically stick Stew in the starting rotation when he wasn't a very good pitcher when he came to us. A lot of times a manager's vision helps. I'm not saying he's totally responsible for things -- but a good one sure helps. Macha wasn't that good...period. Then couple that with his inabality to communicate with the players... recipe for disaster -- and that's exactly what we got.

by Rick on Oct 17, 2006 10:24 AM PDT 0 recs

so basically

we have the best clubhouse chemistry in the history of sports, except for the manager, wow.

That Slusser article was amazing, unique insights I didn't expect to get.

I think that given the situation, if they hire Wash we have a very very great shot at bringing home the hardware next fall.

Thank you Athletics and AN for a magnificent 2006 to remember ... only 121 days until pitchers and catchers report

by emperor nobody on Oct 17, 2006 10:25 AM PDT 0 recs

shouldn't that be "Blezphemy"?

I'm in 100% agreement with you and Breton, Blez. Yes, there are things a manager has to do, and yes there things a manager can do to screw the pooch, but overall ... meh. Give me a team with Bradley, Sheffield, Frank Thomas, Barry Bonds, Kenny Rogers, A-Rod, John Rocker (during those 2 years when he was lights-out), AJ Pierzynski <washes hands furiously after typing that; defenestrates keyboard; washes hands again>, and I honestly don't care who the manager is.

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Oct 17, 2006 10:26 AM PDT 0 recs

How it Went Down with Macha

1.    Beane essentially fired Macha last year but blamed it on the money disagreement. He thought there was a 0% chance of Macha ever taking the offer.
2.    Wolff intervened and called Billy on the deal. When Macha accepted the offer, Billy was trapped because he said it was about money, not competence.
3.    Macha now had some control because of the three year contract and the prospect of a dismissal was more tenable to him. He didn't need to be on best behavior anymore.
4.    Macha took his frustrations out on his coaches and players because he couldn't take it them out on the GM or owner.
5.    Management never coached Macha on how to deal better with the players because they wanted an excuse to let him go.

This was a lot like the Bill Callahan situation in his last year with the Raiders, when his frustration with Al Davis led to disengagement with the team. History repeats itself in Oaktown.

by scarr1 on Oct 17, 2006 10:31 AM PDT 0 recs

Macha was average

but it's crazy not to think he had a hand in some of the victories and losses. It's amazing to me that everyone on the team is talking crap about him after the firing. If I was a co-worker of half of these guys than I would consider them some of the least professional people with which I've ever been associated.

I thought Billy actually ran this team? If they lose everyone gives him excuses as to why it happened. If they win everyone gives him all of the credit. I wonder which "little bitch"
BB is going to hire this year?? He obviously has some self esteem issues that won't allow him to get an above average manager... so it's kind of irrelevant IMO.

"A's Brand Baseball: The worst best baseball you've ever seen!" -Chavvy

by ohtobe21likehuston on Oct 17, 2006 10:32 AM PDT 0 recs

depends on the players

a manager can help create a good environment in the clubhouse to the point that the team plays a little harder than normal for him. but if they are already highly motivated, top-notch guys, you're talking about a few wins over a season. managing a game well and adjusting to your opponents (bullpen, hit and run, smart baserunning, lineup, etc.) can also probably net a few wins. so, yes, probably not huge. however, 4-5 wins a year could make a huge difference in making the playoffs or not. but, if you're already a team with talented professionals, a great manager won't make a huge difference - well, probably not one worth shelling out a few extra million dollars for (see: pinella, lou)

"welcome to ME, motherf*^*er!" - tim hudson

by guy incognito on Oct 17, 2006 10:36 AM PDT 0 recs

I just think baseball fans

spend way too much lamenting over a manager. What we should be discussing right now is how to make sure that the starting pitching improves next year despite losing Zito and how to get the offense to be better because I guarantee that those two things will have a bigger impact on whether the A's make the playoffs in 2007 than who sets the lineups.

by Blez on Oct 17, 2006 10:43 AM PDT 0 recs

Get the offense to be better

by getting a manager that inspires self-coincidence with RISP....

by BleacherDave on Oct 17, 2006 10:44 AM PDT up 0 recs

How about a manager....

that can actually get Swisher to act on the notion that "a single is OK sometime" rather than one that consistenly tells it to the press, but can't his player to buy in.

Either shut up, or get Swish to trust you.

by BleacherDave on Oct 17, 2006 10:46 AM PDT up 0 recs

The offense will be better if we take advantage:

Of Kendall's strengths.

Bat injured Chavy lower in the line-up, where the pressure is off and he actually hits better.

Steal more bases with our team speed.

Hit behind runners.

Crosby returns and replaces Scoot.

"I think we just feel that now is our time." - Nick Swisher

by saint on Oct 17, 2006 10:46 AM PDT up 0 recs

I'd lament more

of the GM of this team, and I do.

by Salvatore on Oct 17, 2006 10:47 AM PDT up 0 recs

even more important

getting a top notch training staff in place throughout the system, and getting players on some routines in the offseason (specifically guys like crosby [train w/ kotsay], blanton and kennedy [hello cardio, goodbye beer guts], chavvy [get the shoulder scoped and be done with that problem], harden [train those obliques, add just a little bit more body fat]). to have so many injuries in the whole organization is a failure of some kind - and those minor league injuries were horrible because they basically killed a year or so of development for basically all our top prospects.

"welcome to ME, motherf*^*er!" - tim hudson

by guy incognito on Oct 17, 2006 10:52 AM PDT up 0 recs

You're the man of the Silver Mountain...salarycap.

Great idea.

by Salvatore on Oct 17, 2006 10:58 AM PDT up 0 recs

It is precisely because...

there are so few opportunities for managers to make a difference, that they make those opportunities count.

For Macha to say that they forgot to go over 2b coverage with Jimenez because Crosby had "handled it" all year, is a firing offense. It didn't make a difference, but it could have.

Too often managers are judged on the outcomes of their moves, rather than the reasoning that went into them.

Creating a positive environment for success is the most important job of any leader.

by BleacherDave on Oct 17, 2006 10:44 AM PDT 0 recs

And that's where I agree with you

A manager needs to have strong communication skills above all else. From all reports, Macha was channeling all of his communications through Eric Chavez.

by Blez on Oct 17, 2006 10:45 AM PDT up 0 recs

the most telling comment

was Zito's. It always seemed obvious that Macha was kind of a cranky, curmudgeonly, glass-half-empty kind of guy, and in the long grinding season that can add to the grindiness. Leadership doesn't dwell too long on all that can go wrong because its too busy formulating and implementing what can go right.

The more I hear what the players seem to want and value, the more I think Wash is the guy.

Thank you Athletics and AN for a magnificent 2006 to remember ... only 121 days until pitchers and catchers report

by emperor nobody on Oct 17, 2006 11:00 AM PDT up 0 recs

I agree with this a lot:

It is precisely because there are so few opportunities for managers to make a difference, that they make those opportunities count.

Ho hum. Just another day for the OAKLAND ATHLETICS OF AWESOME! ~Kyli

by baseballgirl on Oct 17, 2006 10:49 AM PDT up 0 recs

Creating conditions for success

I think that's true, but even there, the manager's role tends to be grossly overstated. One need look no further than our own '06 A's, who (to hear Kotsay tell it) created their own positive environment for success despite Macha, not because of him.

Eternal Springs™: The official 2007 bottled water of your Oakland Athletics

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Oct 17, 2006 10:55 AM PDT up 0 recs

To hear Zito tell it...

it wasn't that positive. The September fades of the last few years seem to be a symptom.

by BleacherDave on Oct 17, 2006 12:04 PM PDT up 0 recs

Evaluating a manager

It's helpful to seperate the manager's job into components. I see three large areas under a manager's control:

Roster Management - this encompasses a manager's ability to get maximal value from a given roster. Is the best reliever in the game during the highest leverage situations? Was the closer forced to go 5 dys in a row? Are the backups getting enought at-bats to keep both the backup and regular players fresh? Are those at-bats timed to maximize value (i.e. is Kielty getting his ABs against lefties). This is long term planning.
Tactics- There is a lot of interaction between tactics and roster management. Sometimes a manager is forced to employ sub-optimal tactics to keep a particular player rested, for example. Tactics is a different sort of decision making, though. It involves short term decision making. To bunt or not to bunt?
Personell management- keeping players happy. Making sure a clubhouse atmosphere contributes to performance. Etc.

We aren't in the clubhouse, so it's hard to evaluate the 3rd category, but if the quotes in the paper are anything close to accurate Macha clearly failed at that part of his job.

In terms of tactics, I thought Macha did a good job. We didn't give up many outs to bunts. When a particular pitcher or catcher was vulnerable, the A's stole some bases. Generally, he evaluated his bullpen well.

It was in roster management that I think Macha had some serious shortcomings. Perez and Ginter's careers may both have been ruined by Macha's refusal to play them more. Street was overworked. Many of the regulars were clearly worn down over the course of the season. Macha didn't seem to do much planning ahead.

by MrIncognito on Oct 17, 2006 10:47 AM PDT 0 recs

presuming managerial talent ...

... is distributed similarly to (though likely less efficiently than) on-field talent, then we've got to figure that there are maybe 1-2 absolutely elite, difference-making managers in the majors, and maybe 2-3 second-tier subgeniuses, with all of the rest being essentially "replacement-level."

Which is to say that for 90% of the managers, it ain't gonna make any difference which one you pick. And even the elite ones ain't gonna give you that much of an advantage.

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Oct 17, 2006 10:49 AM PDT 0 recs

we need a Subgenius manager

AND I VOTE FOR BOB DOBBS

Thank you Athletics and AN for a magnificent 2006 to remember ... only 121 days until pitchers and catchers report

by emperor nobody on Oct 17, 2006 10:52 AM PDT up 0 recs

A living God who walks Earth in huckster's shoes

Sounds like Bobby Valentine to me.

Eternal Springs™: The official 2007 bottled water of your Oakland Athletics

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Oct 17, 2006 10:59 AM PDT up 0 recs

separated at birth?

Thank you Athletics and AN for a magnificent 2006 to remember ... only 121 days until pitchers and catchers report

by emperor nobody on Oct 17, 2006 11:03 AM PDT up 0 recs

Agree to a point.

As I've said before, the primary job of the manager is to "first do no harm." I believe there are a number of managers who are not good at this primary function and are net drags on their team; Buck and Dusty are examples. This is the lowest tier of managers, and they can cause a team to play very poorly and below its talent level.

So I would amend your structure:

Elite (0-2): by virtue of clubhouse psychology and in-game tactics, cause team to player several games better than its true talent.
Subgenius (2-3): can add 1-2 wins per year based on in-game strategy (bullpen usage), coaxing better-than-average performance from average performers (work ethic), or personnel management (platoon).
"Replacement Level" (most): Don't do any harm; team generally plays to talent level.
History's Greatest Monsters: as described above.

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Oct 17, 2006 11:00 AM PDT up 0 recs

wow, now I'm confused

I thought Stat Nazis were "history's greatest monsters."

Seriously, though, I do agree with you, Sal -- I was hinting at somewhat the same conclusion with my caveat that managerial talent isn't distributed as efficiently as playing talent.

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Oct 17, 2006 11:30 AM PDT up 0 recs