clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:


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!