MLB Coaching Carousel

[Swaggs]

Looks like there are several managerial jobs open and the could potentially be a few more, so I thought this might be interesting to follow for those of us who will not have a stake in the postseason.

Here are the teams that already have openings:

Baltimore: Fired Lee Mazzilli in August. Interim manager Sam Perlozzo seems to be reasonably respected. Might look at Lou Pinella.

Detroit Tigers: Fired Alan Trammell. Looking to interview Jim Leyland. Coaches Bruce Fields and Juan Samuel will also be interviewed.

Tampa Bay: Lou Pinella and the team agreed to part ways after the season. New ownership is expected to take over soon, so the entire front office is unsettled right now.

Florida Marlins: Jack McKeon resigned yesterday, following the team's final game. Joe Girardi, Lou Pinella and Braves' hitting coach Fredi Gonzalez are expected to interview according to the Miami-Herald.

Pittsburgh Pirates: Fired Lloyd McClendon in September. Jim Leyland and Art Howe have both been mentioned. Dodgers' manager Jim Tracy, who has ties to the Pirates' GM and has an out clause that may be excercised this week, may be the favorite. A's manager Ken Macha, if his contract is not extended, may also be a favorite.

Three other teams that may change managers: Oakland Athletics, Los Angeles Dodgers, and Washington Nationals.

Any thoughts/rumors/hopes?

[johnnyshaka]

Would love to see Macha elsewhere...preferably with somebody else in the AL West division.

[Recoil]

Don Baylor stepped down as Mariners' hitting coach today. He'll probably be in the mix somewhere.

hxxp://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2179801

[Draft Dodger]

I am amazed that Lou "Quitter" Pinella has any cachet left to even be in the running for a job somewhere at the major league level.

I've always liked Jim Leyland, though. Would love to see him back somewhere, hopefully not in the black hole of Michigan.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

Would love to see Macha elsewhere...preferably with somebody else in the AL West division.

Wait, I thought Macha was just there not to screw up Billy Beane's plan... how can it be his fault they didn't win the West, he's not supposed to do anything.

[pennywisesb]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

Would love to see Macha elsewhere...preferably with somebody else in the AL West division.

Can I ask why? I think he did a hell of a job in Oakland this year and I hope they keep him around. I don't think there's alot of managers in the league that could have coached that many youngsters to a near-playoff run IMHO.

[Raiders Army]

They play baseball still?

[SackAttack]

Apparently DePodesta has said that Tracy's deadline to make his decision is Wednesday, so we could know in the next couple of days where LA is heading. Fred Roggin is reporting that the team has an interview scheduled with Eddie Murray.

[kcchief19]

The Royals let go of bench Bob Schaeffer and pitching coach Guy Hansen. Schaeffer may end up back in our organization in the minor leagues, but he has limited major league value. Hansen added quite a bit of luster to his star working in Atlanta, but a lot of that shine come off this year when Zach Greinke regressed. He's probably better with a veteran team that doesn't need much tinkering.

Billy Doran is rumored to be moving from first base to bench coach. Buddy Bell made a cryptic response about how they are some guys available now that prompted them to make the move, suggesting that they want someone who had a job who is either a free agent or has been let go somewhere else. Not sure who that would be at this point.

Personally, I'd be happier if the Royals jettisoned Allard Baird and Bell, but I don't think that will happen until next August. The Royals pitching coach position could be an attractive position for the right coach. With Greinke, Howell, Hernandez and some other youngsters, there's a ton of nice and misused talent here, and we probably have the best stable of promising young bullpen pitchers in baseball. They just need something to bring it together.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Wait, I thought Macha was just there not to screw up Billy Beane's plan... how can it be his fault they didn't win the West, he's not supposed to do anything.

Precisely, and he's still managed to screw it up. Not so much this year, but the last two years were a disaster...don't get me started.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by pennywisesb

Can I ask why? I think he did a hell of a job in Oakland this year and I hope they keep him around. I don't think there's alot of managers in the league that could have coached that many youngsters to a near-playoff run IMHO.

Uhmm...Bobby Cox seemed to do an OK job at it and so did Eric Wedge.

You're right, Macha did a pretty good job this year with the youngsters but he could've done better. He routinely left pitchers, especially young pitchers, in WAY too long and rarely used his bench to give some of the ailing regulars routine days off...sure would've been nice to have a healthy Crosby, Kotsay, and Chavez for the last month of the season. Were the A's supposed to be this good this year, probably not. Was the reason they were this good because of Macha, probably not.

Now, 2003 he throws a rookie fireballer, Rich Harden, into the fire against one of the best hitting lineups, ever, in the playoffs and expects him to shut them down...are you kidding me??? After they squandered a two game lead he decides to pinch hit for Dye and sends up our rarely used backup catcher to try and save the day...are you friggin' kidding me???? That team had WS written all over it and Macha mismanaged his way out of it before he even knew what hit him.

And last season, again, you have arguably the best starting staff in baseball with Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Harden, and Redman and you can't get to the playoffs?? Most nights, all you have to do is figure out a way to score 3 or 4 runs and you'll be laughing...but no, he leaves the starting pitchers in WAY too long so that an already underpowered offense has to score even more runs to pull his fat from the fire. The A's were lucky to even have a lead in the West last year with 2 weeks to go and they couldn't hold on...I wonder why?? Maybe the starting rotation was out of gas...

The A's have been a good team for the last 6-7 years but just haven't been able to get over the hump and win a playoff series...any idea why?? No?? I'll tell ya, they've been out managed every bloody time. First Art Howe and now Ken Macha...both of these guys haven't been able to take great teams to that next step and now it's time for the next guy to get a chance.

[st.cronin]

When Eddie Murray was a player I never in a million years would have imagined that he could ever be a manager.

[st.cronin]

dola

I really wish somebody would hire Rickey Henderson as a bench coach.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

dola

I really wish somebody would hire Rickey Henderson as a bench coach.

I think he'd agree, as long as you let him play left field and leadoff, too.

[TazFTW]

Jim Tracy is out.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2180309

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by TazFTW

Jim Tracy is out.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2180309

I would say he will almost certainly be the next manager of the Pittsburgh Pirates then. He and David Littlefield, the Pirates' GM, were both in the Montreal organization together and he was a finalist when McClendon was hired. I was hoping for Leyland, because I think he is the only one, that I have heard mentioned, with the personality and credentials to stand up to the inept front office.

What type of manager is Tracy?

[Vince]

I really wouldn't be very disappointed if the Giants dumped Alou, and went after someone like Trammell.

[oykib]

Why the hell would anyone leave LA for Pittsburgh?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by oykib

Why the hell would anyone leave LA for Pittsburgh?

"Philsophical differences."

Which is front-office speak for "I wanted my own guy in there, but I couldn't kick Tracy to the curb last year after he won the West, but a 71-91 season is a perfect excuse."

As far as what kind of manager he is...decent manager of egos, fairly poor situational manager. Be prepared for inexplicable bunts and late hooks.

[MrBug708]

Kevin Kennedy has been lobbying for the Dodgers job for about 5 years now, it was evident on his shows out here that he was trying to prove that he can be the Dodgers manager. Of course, he isn't the yes man that the Dodgers want. Terry Collins might be a serious candidate

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Kevin Kennedy has been lobbying for the Dodgers job for about 5 years now, it was evident on his shows out here that he was trying to prove that he can be the Dodgers manager. Of course, he isn't the yes man that the Dodgers want. Terry Collins might be a serious candidate

Kevin Kennedy was Kevin Malone's original choice for the job, but Malone screwed it up somehow and ended up picking Tracy to save face.

Just offer Hershiser the manager's job. He'd be good with the pitchers, and he always could swing the bat a little bit, too. Maybe he can shame the offense into better production.

[Swaggs]

What about Bobby Valentine for the Dodgers?

If I recall correctly, he was a Lasorda favorite and has LA ties.

[MrBug708]

Depends on what Depo's computer thinks

[TazFTW]

Ken Macha is now gone from Oakland.

Jim Leyland's press conference was interesting. He was saying he doesn't know about the team. He doesn't know the AL. Real promising...

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

What about Bobby Valentine for the Dodgers?

If I recall correctly, he was a Lasorda favorite and has LA ties.

Isn't he still in Japan?

[Young Drachma]

Can Cito Gaston get a job already?

Probably not. But seriously, who the hell did this guy kill?

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by TazFTW

Ken Macha is now gone from Oakland.

Boy, I was jumping for joy after a couple of birdies during a windy round of golf today...and now this...WOOHOO!!!!

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

I am amazed that Lou "Quitter" Pinella has any cachet left to even be in the running for a job somewhere at the major league level.

Wow, that's pretty harsh. Lou was fired in New York. He worked for Marge Schott in Cincinnati which was enough to drive anyone batshit crazy. He stayed 10 years in Seattle before growing frustration with an ownership group that failed to capitalize on a talented roster with bold mid-season trades and a family situation (his father-in-law in failing health) prompted him to want to manage closer to his home. He put up with piss-poor support in Tampa until the failure of their promise to boost payroll finally pushed him over the edge.

Piniella is a fiery guy, not one to keep his opinions well-hidden. That doesn't always endear him to upper management, but as much as most managers out there he has the ability to change the culture of a franchise and turn them into winners.

I don't think most managers matter nearly as much in terms of wins and losses as they are given credit/blame for, at least in terms of actual game decisions, lineups, pitching maneuvers, etc. I think they're biggest impact is in the clubhouse - how they interact with their teams and drive all those egos toward a common goal. Piniella rates highly in this regard.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

Boy, I was jumping for joy after a couple of birdies during a windy round of golf today...and now this...WOOHOO!!!!

I think you're seriously overestimating the manager's impact on the win/loss column, and seriously underappreciating how well the A's have done given their limitations. The ultimate success of the A's rests primarily on the shoulders of Billy Beane, regardless of who he chooses as manager.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Wow, that's pretty harsh. Lou was fired in New York. He worked for Marge Schott in Cincinnati which was enough to drive anyone batshit crazy. He stayed 10 years in Seattle before growing frustration with an ownership group that failed to capitalize on a talented roster with bold mid-season trades and a family situation (his father-in-law in failing health) prompted him to want to manage closer to his home. He put up with piss-poor support in Tampa until the failure of their promise to boost payroll finally pushed him over the edge.

Piniella is a fiery guy, not one to keep his opinions well-hidden. That doesn't always endear him to upper management, but as much as most managers out there he has the ability to change the culture of a franchise and turn them into winners.

I don't think most managers matter nearly as much in terms of wins and losses as they are given credit/blame for, at least in terms of actual game decisions, lineups, pitching maneuvers, etc. I think they're biggest impact is in the clubhouse - how they interact with their teams and drive all those egos toward a common goal. Piniella rates highly in this regard.

Have you not seen any Tampa highlights over the last couple of years?? The guy is always shaking his head and swearing his ass off after a bonehead play by a young, inexperienced team...how is that being a "clubhouse" guy?? I mean, the guy who dropped the routine popup already feels like an idiot as it is, like he needs his manager carrying on like a 2 year old the bench to make him feel even smaller than he already does.

I also don't agree about how little you think a manager has on the outcome of a game. Most managers don't just sit on their fat asses and watch a ball game, no siree, Bob. Some of them call pitches and location, I'd say that would probably have a pretty big impact on how the game unfolds, wouldn't you?? How about giving signs to batters and baserunners...wouldn't that have an impact on the outcome?? Or situating players in the field?? Sounds to me like they DO have a pretty big impact on how the game plays out.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I think you're seriously overestimating the manager's impact on the win/loss column, and seriously underappreciating how well the A's have done given their limitations. The ultimate success of the A's rests primarily on the shoulders of Billy Beane, regardless of who he chooses as manager.

Regardless of their limitations, losing in the first round of the playoffs or finishing a couple of games out of a playoff position is getting a little old already. Sure, as an A's fan, it's great to see your team contending for a playoff spot but it definitely gets frustrating when they come up short year after year. Is that the manager's fault?? Yes, to an extent, I think it is.

Players are the biggest factor in how a game is played. BB is responsible for getting those players. But, it's up to the manager to know when a player should be out there or on the bench...and that it what Macha just couldn't figure out. You can't blame BB for Macha bringing in Rich Harden, a rookie, in extra innings against the Redsox...that was all Macha. You can't blame BB for Macha pinch hitting for Dye with Melhuse.

[Young Drachma]

I think baseball managers are largely misunderstood, because it's not like other sports where the role of the head coach seems largely defined. People for that real think that manager just sits there the whole game and doesn't do much.

But the difference is what? That football coaches stand there the whole game? It's not like pitching coaches manage pitch counts or the entire offense, the manager is the defensive coordinator, offensive coordinator and all that. And given the duration of the season, it's not like they don't earn their keep.

[CraigSca]

This thread is interesting. The margin of error in baseball is so small from game to game that you'd think the impact of a field manager would therefore be greater and thus easier to quantify.

Personally, I think a manager's main job is to keep the players happy and defined in their roles. Joe Torre comes to mind here. Though his teams have the best players, he has done a fine job keeping all that talent moving towards the same goal.

Getting back to the managerial impact piece - I guess if you can show me a manager that has consistently made his players better (and thus he DOES have a huge impact) - then I'll begin to believe that this constant merry-go-round of hirings and firings make sense.

[oykib]

Actually, Craig, Bill James has a formula to determine how much a team performs win-wise over expectations.

expected WLP = (last year's record * 4) + (.500 team's record * 2) + ( last two previous years)

To calculate expected wins for, say, the 2004 Braves, we need their records from 2001-2003: The Braves went 88-74 in 2001, 101-59 in 2002 and 101-61 in 2003, so expected wins for 2004 are:

EWLP = (101-61 * 4) + (81-81 * 2) + (101-59 + 88-74) = 404-244 + 162-162 + 189-133 = 755-539 = .583 = 95-67

In a 162-game season, we would expect the 2004 Braves, given their recent records, to go 95-67 in 2004. They went 96-66, a game over expectations, so Cox would have +1 added to his record. Here are the top 10 in this method through 2004:

Name	

ExpW
Cox	

+151
Joe McCarthy	

+126
John McGraw	

+116
Billy Martin	

+98
Dick Williams	

+92
Billy Southworth	

+74
Fred Clarke	

+72
Tony LaRussa	

+69
Miller Huggins	

+68
Leo Durocher	

+64

[CraigSca]

That's a pretty nifty formula, and I'm sure Bill James put a lot of work into it (as he usually does). However, this doesn't necessarily prove a manager's value. The number of wins over expected wins could be due to

a) a faulty equation (though I doubt this is the reason)
b) we're measuring total performance of a team. Hidden in that noise are a number of factors, only one of them being field management.

But - let's take that chart at face value and assume that all those victories above normal are purely the work of the manager. Tony LaRussa has contributed 72 wins than expected over a 26 year career. That's ALMOST 3 wins a year - and that's, according to the chart, from the 8th best manager in the history of baseball. IF he's solely responsible for those 3 wins, that means that a "great" manager is worth roughly the difference between having a guy with an OPS of about .800 (usually equal to 30 runs a year) vs. a AAA capable player.

Is the carousel worth that much? Sure, a team will look for every advantage it can get, but it seems to make more sense to look for one more good player to find those 3 extra victories a year rather than rolling the dice with managerial candidate #762.

[oykib]

But, Craig, you're missing the fact that most managers are negatives overall. You've got to remember that overall the record of all major league teams is .500. So just taking Cox, La Russa, and Torre, you've reached about 1000 games over .500 and 250 games over expectations.

That means that there have to be about twenty two and a half season Lloyd Mclendon types to make up for it. Also, you've got to consider that there is also a lot of political nonsense and poor evaluation. So some truly effective managers never get another shot or, at least, not as many as they should.

Why is Bobby V. still here in Japan? Why can't Larry Dierker find a job? Why do half of the Atlanta Braves fans hate Bobby Cox? Buck Showalter took an awful long time to get hired as well. Davey Johnson, anyone?

Then we have the development issue. Dusty Baker wins. But eventually he's gonna kill enough Cubbie arms to be shown the door. Or time wil pass him by like most managers.

The truth is that many managers are actually positives for a time and then get crappy as time goes on. It's an observed phenomena for both managers with single teams and over time with multiple teams. Only the great managers tend to avoid it.

But GMs know that manager A won in the past with team X and so they hire him for team Y seven years later, where he tends to regress to the mean and give back all the wins above expectation.

But, really, the main point is that it behooves all orginizations to change managers every few years becuase, unless you've got an all-time great, the team will underperform if the same skipper is kept around too long. Of course, there are a limited number of guys who have the 'qualifications' to manage, so they tend to rehash the same guys. That I do disagree with for some of the reasons stated above.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Tampa Bay: Lou Pinella and the team agreed to part ways after the season. New ownership is expected to take over soon, so the entire front office is unsettled right now.

A good friend of mine from college was named president of the D-Rays this morning.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by oykib

But, Craig, you're missing the fact that most managers are negatives overall. You've got to remember that overall the record of all major league teams is .500. So just taking Cox, La Russa, and Torre, you've reached about 1000 games over .500 and 250 games over expectations.

That means that there have to be about twenty two and a half season Lloyd Mclendon types to make up for it. Also, you've got to consider that there is also a lot of political nonsense and poor evaluation. So some truly effective managers never get another shot or, at least, not as many as they should.

Why is Bobby V. still here in Japan? Why can't Larry Dierker find a job? Why do half of the Atlanta Braves fans hate Bobby Cox? Buck Showalter took an awful long time to get hired as well. Davey Johnson, anyone?

Then we have the development issue. Dusty Baker wins. But eventually he's gonna kill enough Cubbie arms to be shown the door. Or time wil pass him by like most managers.

The truth is that many managers are actually positives for a time and then get crappy as time goes on. It's an observed phenomena for both managers with single teams and over time with multiple teams. Only the great managers tend to avoid it.

But GMs know that manager A won in the past with team X and so they hire him for team Y seven years later, where he tends to regress to the mean and give back all the wins above expectation.

But, really, the main point is that it behooves all orginizations to change managers every few years becuase, unless you've got an all-time great, the team will underperform if the same skipper is kept around too long. Of course, there are a limited number of guys who have the 'qualifications' to manage, so they tend to rehash the same guys. That I do disagree with for some of the reasons stated above.

Correct - most managers are bad overall - just like any position. However, how are managers good one year and then bad the next? And, how much impact do they truly have? Even with that study posted earlier, at most a manager can influence 3 wins a year. The whole carousel is based on faulty information. A team plays 30 games over .500 one year, doesn't change personnel and due to the natural regression towards .500 of EVERY team, wins 85 games the next year. BOOO! The manager stinks now - fire him! It's garbage! There are so many other influences out there that will impact a team's win/loss PCT much more than a field manager.

Mind you, I am an O's fan and I've seen this absolutely retarded merry-go-round of managers when the fact is - the team sucks. Lee Mazzilli, Sam Perlozzo, whoever it may be - once they're out the door the stories begin to spread on how the guy was a loser, didn't have the guy's respect, etc. Then, they hire Phil Regan or some other doofus and the fans (for whatever reason) think Sidney Ponson is going to change his drink of choice to Diet Coke and start throwing the ball down in the zone and be able to nip the corners. It's garbage.

An ideal manager is a people manager - not a tactician. Almost every possible state of the game in baseball has been analyzed, quantified, etc., so rational and effective decisions can be made with a limited amount of tactical thinking. The real people that impact the team are the owner and GMs and then, ultimately, the players (duh). Managers are, 9 times out of 10, innocent bystanders to what's happening on the field.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

That's a pretty nifty formula, and I'm sure Bill James put a lot of work into it (as he usually does). However, this doesn't necessarily prove a manager's value. The number of wins over expected wins could be due to

a) a faulty equation (though I doubt this is the reason)
b) we're measuring total performance of a team. Hidden in that noise are a number of factors, only one of them being field management.

But - let's take that chart at face value and assume that all those victories above normal are purely the work of the manager. Tony LaRussa has contributed 72 wins than expected over a 26 year career. That's ALMOST 3 wins a year - and that's, according to the chart, from the 8th best manager in the history of baseball. IF he's solely responsible for those 3 wins, that means that a "great" manager is worth roughly the difference between having a guy with an OPS of about .800 (usually equal to 30 runs a year) vs. a AAA capable player.

Is the carousel worth that much? Sure, a team will look for every advantage it can get, but it seems to make more sense to look for one more good player to find those 3 extra victories a year rather than rolling the dice with managerial candidate #762.

So you don't think a manager is that useful? Or has that much of an impact, versus say, head coaches in other sports?

[Ksyrup]

Not necessarily coaching changes, but the D-Rays new owner took over and cleaned house in the front office. LaMar and Bonifay are gone. You know your organization sucks when it has finished last every year but one of its existence, the GM has been there the whole time, AND was allowed to bring Cam Bonifay into the fold and still live to tell about it for another several years. I wonder if they have Tony Muser stashed away somewhere in that organization...

On the Tracy firing (or whatever it was), I was in LA on Tuesday and the newspapers were exceptionally harsh on Depodesta/McCourt for letting Tracy go. It's like they couldn't be more anti-Moneyball/Billy Beane if they tried. It was really sickening to read, actually. Not so much because I think Moneyball has some merit, but because the articles were so slanted it was terrible journalism, IMO. The entire argument they made was that McCourt loves Moneyball because it gives him an excuse to be cheap, and completely discounted its application to baseball on the basis that the A's, Blue Jays, and Dodgers had not made it very far in the playoffs.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

Have you not seen any Tampa highlights over the last couple of years?? The guy is always shaking his head and swearing his ass off after a bonehead play by a young, inexperienced team...how is that being a "clubhouse" guy?? I mean, the guy who dropped the routine popup already feels like an idiot as it is, like he needs his manager carrying on like a 2 year old the bench to make him feel even smaller than he already does.

I'm not a Tampa Bay resident or fan, so no. However, I'm a Seattle resident and fan and so I have 10 years of watching Piniella. There's no question he's a hot-head. He'll jump all over a player that makes a boneheaded play. What the cameras don't show is how later he'll come back to that player after the emotion has worn off and explain why what he did was wrong and give him encouragement for the next time. But thanks for the shallow analysis on your part.

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

I also don't agree about how little you think a manager has on the outcome of a game. Most managers don't just sit on their fat asses and watch a ball game, no siree, Bob. Some of them call pitches and location, I'd say that would probably have a pretty big impact on how the game unfolds, wouldn't you??

It has much less of an effect than you seem to imply. Pitchers still have to execute on pitch calls and location.

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

How about giving signs to batters and baserunners...wouldn't that have an impact on the outcome??

Again, execution by the players is much more important than the signs they're given.

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

Or situating players in the field?? Sounds to me like they DO have a pretty big impact on how the game plays out.

Situating fielders is mostly the work of advance scouts and those that track hitters tendencies. Usually the manager is just relaying information others provide, so the identity of the manager in this case is usually a minor factor.

Bottom line is players have to execute. The game-time decisions a manager makes ultimately don't have a lot of effect on the overall results of a team. Sure, you can always point to a particular time when a manager made a dumb decision that didn't work out, but what about all the times the manager makes a dumb call that does work out, or he makes a good call that doesn't work out? These kinds of things even out over the course of a season.

Yet fans focus on these specific incidents to the exclusion of every other situation that didn't end up failing. This is natural, but you have to understand that this is what's happening - you focus on the failures and you tend to forget all the things that went right. Hindsight is always 20-20, so fans will bitch about anything that goes wrong in an in-game decision and remember those times the most. All this adds up to fans placing much greater importance on these decisions than they ultimately deserve.

Yes, there are truly bad managers out there that make enough bad decisions on a regular basis to cost their team wins. These guys tend to get weeded out though (see: Lloyd McClendon, Tony Muser, etc.). For the rest, the biggest impact they have on a team is about managing personalities. You can point out specific dumb moves made by Piniella in his long career as a manager, but he also firmly establishes a culture of winning as the paramount goal with his teams. His style doesn't work with all players, but most respond well to him and he's highly regarded by most of his former players. If Piniella had been given more support by his front office in Tampa, I have no doubt he'd turn that team into winners - not because of his lineup decisions or in-game decisions, but his force of personality and his passion for winning and his ability to get his teams to buy into that mentality.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

So you don't think a manager is that useful? Or has that much of an impact, versus say, head coaches in other sports?

I think something Craig may be overlooking is the psychological aspect involved. While I would agree that in-game decisions have much less of an impact than many think (i.e. most managers don't deviate that much from the average decision made in any particular situation to make this a significant factor) I do think they have an influence on the attitude and personality of a team. I think that sometimes simply a change of pace in personality style can be a good thing. If you have a team that has played for a relaxed, "players" manager for a while, it might not be a bad idea to shake things up by bringing in a fiery guy. After that guy's act gets stale, you may need to bring in a more moderate guy.

I think the same thing happens in every sport to a certain extent. A great example was at Washington when Rick Neuheisel replaced Jim Lambright as coach. Lambo was a tough-as-nails, old-school coach who brooked no bullshit and had a team full of guys he tried to mold in his image. Unfortunately he didn't seem to be a great motivator. When Neuheisel came in with his much more relaxed, "let's make this a fun experience" attitude and his excellent motivational skills, it took a hard-nosed team and gave them belief in themselves. That marriage worked for a couple of years, but then as the team was transforming into more of Neuheisel's style, the success started to fade - Neuheisel lacked the ability to coach a "tough" team and it cost him.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I think something Craig may be overlooking is the psychological aspect involved. While I would agree that in-game decisions have much less of an impact than many think (i.e. most managers don't deviate that much from the average decision made in any particular situation to make this a significant factor) I do think they have an influence on the attitude and personality of a team. I think that sometimes simply a change of pace in personality style can be a good thing. If you have a team that has played for a relaxed, "players" manager for a while, it might not be a bad idea to shake things up by bringing in a fiery guy. After that guy's act gets stale, you may need to bring in a more moderate guy.

I think the same thing happens in every sport to a certain extent. A great example was at Washington when Rick Neuheisel replaced Jim Lambright as coach. Lambo was a tough-as-nails, old-school coach who brooked no bullshit and had a team full of guys he tried to mold in his image. Unfortunately he didn't seem to be a great motivator. When Neuheisel came in with his much more relaxed, "let's make this a fun experience" attitude and his excellent motivational skills, it took a hard-nosed team and gave them belief in themselves. That marriage worked for a couple of years, but then as the team was transforming into more of Neuheisel's style, the success started to fade - Neuheisel lacked the ability to coach a "tough" team and it cost him.

In response to Dark Cloud - yes, I think a baseball manager has less of an influence on his team than a football coach does.

Dawg - I posted earlier that I think a baseball manager is more of a people manager than a true tactician. Now, while I do agree that the switch in personality of a manager may have an impact, how big of an impact can it have? Obviously, the same occurs in the everyday workplace when a manager is changed (either from fiery manager to "your best friend" manager or vice versa). I agree psychologically this can have an impact, but all this says to me is - if a team gets overly-complacent bring in the fiery guy or, if a team is too uptight, bring in the best-friend guy. That all SOUNDS nice and good and it's what we believe, but is really true? And, if it's true then if must be quantifiable.

And...this doesn't explain to me that there are good managers and bad managers, just different personalities and therefore the best method is to flip-flop your manager's personalities every 2-3 years. I really think this may be the policy if you manager is deficient, and his only outstanding quality is his "fiery" or "friendly" personality.

Overall, there is just too damned much credit or blame placed on the field manager. If he's an outright jerk and the team is in the midst of mutiny, yes, by all means let the guy go. But, if he's a guy like Alan Trammell, it's downright laughable that he's to blame that the Tigers didn't go from 54 to 90 wins within two years. Or, if he's Lee Mazzilli, you can't blame him for management wanting a big bat and name player in the lineup who already was in the waning years of his career.

[Swaggs]

I think the Pirates will almost certainly hire either Jim Tracy or Ken Macha. Tracy is more likely, but I think I would much prefer Macha, who has been a little more successful with less (in my opinion) and has a little more loyalty to the team/area, since he is from nearby.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Dawg - I posted earlier that I think a baseball manager is more of a people manager than a true tactician. Now, while I do agree that the switch in personality of a manager may have an impact, how big of an impact can it have? Obviously, the same occurs in the everyday workplace when a manager is changed (either from fiery manager to "your best friend" manager or vice versa). I agree psychologically this can have an impact, but all this says to me is - if a team gets overly-complacent bring in the fiery guy or, if a team is too uptight, bring in the best-friend guy. That all SOUNDS nice and good and it's what we believe, but is really true? And, if it's true then if must be quantifiable.

Here's the problem though - such an effect is going to be damn near impossible to quantify, as the parameters we're talking about are so tricky to identify and there are so many other factors playing a role to weed out. This is an area where non-quantifiable observation is probably the best observation we've got, where someone with some knowledge of particular manager situations can create case studies and compare various results to see if there's an observable trend.

Originally Posted by CraigSca

And...this doesn't explain to me that there are good managers and bad managers, just different personalities and therefore the best method is to flip-flop your manager's personalities every 2-3 years. I really think this may be the policy if you manager is deficient, and his only outstanding quality is his "fiery" or "friendly" personality.

I agree that this doesn't necessarily help the "good managers/bad mangers" argument, but if you agree with the premise that most managers don't make a big different on results either way, then this personality factor (if true) might be a tipping point, and justification for a move increases, if for no other reason than to shake up the personality of your clubhouse. This is assuming things aren't going as well as the upper management thinks it should.

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Overall, there is just too damned much credit or blame placed on the field manager. If he's an outright jerk and the team is in the midst of mutiny, yes, by all means let the guy go. But, if he's a guy like Alan Trammell, it's downright laughable that he's to blame that the Tigers didn't go from 54 to 90 wins within two years. Or, if he's Lee Mazzilli, you can't blame him for management wanting a big bat and name player in the lineup who already was in the waning years of his career.

I agree with the above. I hardly think it's Trammell's fault the Tigers haven't won more games under his tenure given the composition of the roster. That said, I also think it's important that GM's and managers have a good rapport, and while there may not be anything particularly wrong with Trammell as a manger, if he and Dombrowski don't see eye to eye (and I have no idea if this is the case or not) then there is some logic behind bringing in a guy that Dombrowski feels more comfortable with. Ultimately the bulk of the responsibility for the success of a team relies with the GM anyway, so this decision is yet another metric by which to judge his performance.

[Swaggs]

According to radio sources around Pittsburgh, it sounds like the Pirates will name Jim Tracy their next manager.

Another brilliant PR move by the Bucs. Between the MNF game and Big Ben's injury, this news will probably appear on the third page of the Pittsburgh papers.

[Fouts]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

According to radio sources around Pittsburgh, it sounds like the Pirates will name Jim Tracy their next manager.

Another brilliant PR move by the Bucs. Between the MNF game and Big Ben's injury, this news will probably appear on the third page of the Pittsburgh papers.

Done deal. I wonder what the odds are of Tracy getting them to the playoffs before being fired. They do have some young studs.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Fouts

Done deal. I wonder what the odds are of Tracy getting them to the playoffs before being fired. They do have some young studs.

Bay and ?

[stevew]

Phillies fire Ed Wade, while he isnt a coach, he is the douchebag responsible for making the worst 90+ million dollar team in recent memory(sans the orioles). In 5-6 years, the payroll has tripled, and we've gone from 86 to 89 wins. Good riddance.

[Eaglesfan27]

I hope the Yankees fire Cashman (or he chooses to leave) so the Phillies can hire him.