Jump to content

DumberAndLeaner

Gardenhire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ausmus

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LooseGoose said:

My opinion of a manager's job:

15% - deflecting press attention from players

25% - not filling out boneheaded lineup cards.

60% - maintaining a harmonious clubhouse.

 

 

 

You forgot miscellaneous ad hoc duties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LooseGoose said:

My opinion of a manager's job:

15% - deflecting press attention from players

25% - not filling out boneheaded lineup cards.

60% - maintaining a harmonious clubhouse.

 

 

 

Step back from the detail though and look at this from the 35000 ft view for a minute. We all know that in *any* kind of organization, the best managers let their people work to their capabilities, and the worst ones tie their departments up in knots. This is universal and I'm sure it applies to Baseball just as surely as it applies to Department Store staff. Bottom line, I'm forced to conclude that a good manager's team is exactly as good as his players, and a bad manager can certainly be a monkey wrench in any potential success a team might otherwise be capable of achieving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DumberAndLeaner said:

There's gotta be some reason why under performing teams are so prone to replacing their manager, and I don't believe its just because everybody loves a scapegoat.  

You can't fire 25 players.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gehringer_2 said:

Step back from the detail though and look at this from the 35000 ft view for a minute. We all know that in *any* kind of organization, the best managers let their people work to their capabilities, and the worst ones tie their departments up in knots. This is universal and I'm sure it applies to Baseball just as surely as it applies to Department Store staff. Bottom line, I'm forced to conclude that a good manager's team is exactly as good as his players, and a bad manager can certainly be a monkey wrench in any potential success a team might otherwise be capable of achieving.

So, why do we have managers? xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

 We all know that in *any* kind of organization, the best managers let their people work to their capabilities, and the worst ones tie their departments up in knots. This is universal and I'm sure it applies to Baseball just as surely as it applies to Department Store staff.

Sounds like a recipe for anarchy to me. Guys,....don't forget your Poor Old Aunt Clara.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

So, why do we have managers? xD

For sorting laundry tags and entertaining umpires, evidently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tiger337 said:

So, why do we have managers? xD

Just from the fact that their potential impact is mostly negative it does not follow that they do not have a necessary function. Again, this is true for 'bosses' in all fields pretty universally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

 the best managers let their people work to their capabilities, and the worst ones tie their departments up in knots. 

Such as allowing a head-strong Rich Gossage to pitch to Kirk Gibson in game 5 of the '84 WS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DumberAndLeaner said:

Such as allowing a head-strong Rich Gossage to pitch to Kirk Gibson in game 5 of the '84 WS?

Indeed. In fact a good case of why a manager is useful. Lets say you wanted to play without managers, and just sort of let the team make decisions by consensus and have a captain that relayed that to the umps. A lot of it would probably be obvious and go fine - filling out the LF hitting line-up against the righty slider pitcher, clear cut left/right pinch hit situation, calling in the best reliever in the highest leverage situations ..( oh, wait.....)

But anyway - in a situation like Gossage/Gibson, you know none of his teammates wants to tell Goose he's not up to it - it would be bad for team morale even if it was the right choice. The manager can take on the burden of being the heavy even when the call is pretty obvious but it's not in the interest of any team mate to say it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, LooseGoose said:

My opinion of a manager's job:

15% - deflecting press attention from players

25% - not filling out boneheaded lineup cards.

60% - maintaining a harmonious clubhouse.

That sounds about right, but I would maybe go 10% / 40% / 50%.

I include as part of the 40% value in filling out line-up cards as managing the pitching staff / bullpen.  I would term it game management, but not filling out boneheaded line-up cards gets to the heart of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

Step back from the detail though and look at this from the 35000 ft view for a minute. We all know that in *any* kind of organization, the best managers let their people work to their capabilities, and the worst ones tie their departments up in knots. This is universal and I'm sure it applies to Baseball just as surely as it applies to Department Store staff. Bottom line, I'm forced to conclude that a good manager's team is exactly as good as his players, and a bad manager can certainly be a monkey wrench in any potential success a team might otherwise be capable of achieving.

Another way of saying it is a bad manager can ruin a good team but a good manager cannot save a bad team.

Also, I would suggest it is easier to screw someone up than coach them up.

Neither of these observations mean a manager is unimportant as badly as D&L wants to create that strawman.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The position of manager in baseball has evolved a lot in the last 10 years as well....

In the old days they were babysitters and had to worry about curfews and rules, etc.  Now the players are walking corporations with a team of advisors to manage their affairs.  They take care of themselves.  There's an army of front office people producing information.  More and more a manager's job is going to become how to communicate that to the players and manage that side of it.

Also the position of manager in baseball is not the same as in other sports simply because there's no 'schemes' so to speak.  It's not as much about "coaching".  They don't run daily practices.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Oblong said:

  They don't run daily practices.

 

Of course major league players 'practice' very little at all once the season starts. You may have individual coaches working with a player on something before games, and there are the pregame warm-ups and hit-around of course, but that is about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's important to have a manager to make in-game decisions, but I don't think there is a great deal of variation between the types of decisions that managers make during a game.  So, that aspect is theoretically important but doesn't result in a big impact on wins ans losses.  I don't believe there is much need to motivate players or to teach them how to play the game right, not at the major league level. 

I think most of the value is off the field such as managers have to deal with the media and keep a harmonious clubhouse (which is where I think the potential to screw up is greatest).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

I think most of the value is off the field such as managers have to deal with the media and keep a harmonious clubhouse (which is where I think the potential to screw up is greatest).

This is probably where we disagree, but I think there is such a thing as a manager with no level of what I might call the  6th sense for managing pitchers - and I would say Trammell and Ausmus were pretty high on that list. 

to expand on that a little take the analog to people who know when other people are lying. Research has shown pretty clearly that some people have a much higher subliminal level of awareness of other people, reading their mico-body language and other subtle cues in ways they are not even aware of, that allow them to form a relatively accurate idea of whether the other person is being truthful for instance. I would believe that same thing must be true in athletics - that some managers just have better (or worse) innate abilities to judge the pre-game status and in game performance properties of players that others lack. Those on the bottom of this scale would be the guys that seem to constantly make (or fail to make) moves that backfire.

The problem in team sports, and especially baseball, is that as we all talk about ad infinitum, the random noise signal in a baseball team's results is so loud and the overall variable space so complex, that the effect of any single input can be nearly impossible to discern clearly - but of course that does not mean it isn't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

That sounds about right, but I would maybe go 10% / 40% / 50%.

I include as part of the 40% value in filling out line-up cards as managing the pitching staff / bullpen.  I would term it game management, but not filling out boneheaded line-up cards gets to the heart of it.

 

This might be a better breakdown, I probably shorted game/bullpen management a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

It's important to have a manager to make in-game decisions, but I don't think there is a great deal of variation between the types of decisions that managers make during a game.  So, that aspect is theoretically important but doesn't result in a big impact on wins ans losses.  I don't believe there is much need to motivate players or to teach them how to play the game right, not at the major league level. 

I think most of the value is off the field such as managers have to deal with the media and keep a harmonious clubhouse (which is where I think the potential to screw up is greatest).

I agree with this.  Leyland said once the game started his job was to manage the bullpen.  That's why he said the NL was easier to manage because the lineup dictated your moves a lot of the time.

As for the clubhouse stuff.... I'd like to know how often a manager really talks to his players?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Oblong said:

I agree with this.  Leyland said once the game started his job was to manage the bullpen.  That's why he said the NL was easier to manage because the lineup dictated your moves a lot of the time.

As for the clubhouse stuff.... I'd like to know how often a manager really talks to his players?

 

I have zero inside knowledge but I wasn't thinking so much team wide meetings as the words of encouragement, talking to the veterans/team leaders to keep things harmonious, etc, etc.   I imagine very little of the team building/guiding stuff is done formally but mostly through small daily interactions with individuals or maybe small groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Whitey's book, he claimed he made a point of speaking to each of his players individually at least once a week and made a point to know about their spouse, family, interests outside of baseball, etc.  He basically tried to have a non baseball related interaction with each player's family at some point in time during each season.  It could be as simple as going to a player's son's little league game and going for ice cream afterwards or going fishing on a Saturday morning.

IIRC, he further claimed he had some type of one on one with the regulars and starting pitcher almost every gameday, if not every gameday.  But that may have been Sparky.  It's been a while since I read Whitey's book and I suspect some of my remembrances are running together.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other side of the coin, Whitey also claimed lots of managers were quite distant with their players and further said that way could work as well.

He said he was a people person and he genuinely liked meeting family members / spouses / kids at team-type functions, and the players seemed to genuinely appreciated his interest in their families, so he incorporated that into his managing style.

I remember a fair bit about that portion of his book because I found it to be a good study in managing people in an organization as opposed to baseball players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2018 at 9:47 AM, LooseGoose said:

My opinion of a manager's job:

15% - deflecting press attention from players

25% - not filling out boneheaded lineup cards.

60% - maintaining a harmonious clubhouse.

 

 

 

Bullpen management?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, diaspora04 said:

Bullpen management?

Corrected above by Mr. B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Another way of saying it is a bad manager can ruin a good team but a good manager cannot save a bad team.

 

Do you believe that a good manager can  make a good team great?

 

PHgoihm.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to great?  Probably not.

But I think great implies a best in a decade type team and at some point it becomes semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, tiger337 said:

It's important to have a manager to make in-game decisions, but I don't think there is a great deal of variation between the types of decisions that managers make during a game.  So, that aspect is theoretically important but doesn't result in a big impact on wins ans losses.  I don't believe there is much need to motivate players or to teach them how to play the game right, not at the major league level. 

I think most of the value is off the field such as managers have to deal with the media and keep a harmonious clubhouse (which is where I think the potential to screw up is greatest).

For the sake of argument, I propose to take as givens:

- as you suggested, there is not a great deal of variation between the in-game decisions of managers (I don't disagree FWIW, but I really don't have a strong opinion on this particular point). 

- I claim that decisions about who to use in the bullpen is impacted by roster decisions regarding the bullpen (many Managers exercise decisive influence on some particular bullpen roster decisions). 

- I claim that decisions made regarding the bullpen have a disproportionate impact on high-leverage situations and thus have significant (that is, at least not insignificant) impact on game outcomes.

If the above assumptions are correct, I think managers influence on bullpens would have a significant (again, at least not insignificant) impact on game outcomes.  I think the *best* managers in terms of managing bullpens (again, including marginal roster/health selection/management as well as in-game decisions) can influence 5+ wins a season, I would not be surprised at 10, versus the *worst* managers.  This is a hypothesis that I have stated for years that some strongly disagree with.

If anybody has stumbled across relevant research on the above, I would appreciate seeing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      95,752
    • Total Posts
      2,763,277
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×