05-31-2010, 11:57 PM
<!--quoteo(post=99281:date=May 31 2010, 08:08 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ May 31 2010, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=99223:date=May 30 2010, 11:23 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ May 30 2010, 11:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Whether you are satisfied with Lou's in-game management or not over the past 2 seasons, even his long-time supporters would have to acknowledge that he seems disinterested and overwhelmed by just about every obstacle he's encountered for quite some time. What kind of confidence could that possibly inspire in a team? If anything, his general demeanor and the impression that he has been "out to lunch" since the 2008 playoffs should cost him his job, but it won't. If it hasn't by now, it never will.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My problem with this is the idea that a fan's perception that Pinella is "out to lunch" is almost completely meaningless. Usually (and I have no idea if this is actually what you are getting at Rok) when fans say the manager "doesn't care", it's code for "he isn't screaming at the umps enough". 95 percent of what a manager does to show a team that he cares happens completely out of our sight. It happens in the clubhouse, in meetings with Hendry, in practice, in the dugout. More importantly, when he says "what do you want me to do?", he's RIGHT. He can't make ARam hit. He can't make Dlee hit. He can't make Grabow not suck (and if you are going to argue he could stop pitching him, fine, but pretty much no one has given him another option in that bullpen).
I'd also argue that you can't complain about Lou going through the motions on one hand, and on the other hand rip him for trying something unconventional like putting Z in the pen. A manager who doesn't give a shit simply doesn't make that move. Period.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That isn't what I meant by "out to lunch." I do think Lou cares, but he seems exasperated and paralyzed by events around him. That's what I meant. And giving in to certain impulses to rock the boat (like trying high risk, low reward experiments such as moving Z to the pen) are not the types of calculated gambles that a manager who actually understands his own roster would take. Being caught off guard by your leadoff hitter only walking once in the past 30 days is another sign of a manager who has overstayed his welcome. Re-read Bruce Miles' articles over the past few weeks and then tell me if Lou still sounds like a manager who is on the ball or not. I'm not saying that firing Lou would automatically turn this team into a champion, but I also don't believe for a second that Lou played no part in constructing the roster over the past 2 seasons or that he is filling out the lineup card in the best possible way recently. What sort of value is he adding in your opinion?
My problem with this is the idea that a fan's perception that Pinella is "out to lunch" is almost completely meaningless. Usually (and I have no idea if this is actually what you are getting at Rok) when fans say the manager "doesn't care", it's code for "he isn't screaming at the umps enough". 95 percent of what a manager does to show a team that he cares happens completely out of our sight. It happens in the clubhouse, in meetings with Hendry, in practice, in the dugout. More importantly, when he says "what do you want me to do?", he's RIGHT. He can't make ARam hit. He can't make Dlee hit. He can't make Grabow not suck (and if you are going to argue he could stop pitching him, fine, but pretty much no one has given him another option in that bullpen).
I'd also argue that you can't complain about Lou going through the motions on one hand, and on the other hand rip him for trying something unconventional like putting Z in the pen. A manager who doesn't give a shit simply doesn't make that move. Period.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That isn't what I meant by "out to lunch." I do think Lou cares, but he seems exasperated and paralyzed by events around him. That's what I meant. And giving in to certain impulses to rock the boat (like trying high risk, low reward experiments such as moving Z to the pen) are not the types of calculated gambles that a manager who actually understands his own roster would take. Being caught off guard by your leadoff hitter only walking once in the past 30 days is another sign of a manager who has overstayed his welcome. Re-read Bruce Miles' articles over the past few weeks and then tell me if Lou still sounds like a manager who is on the ball or not. I'm not saying that firing Lou would automatically turn this team into a champion, but I also don't believe for a second that Lou played no part in constructing the roster over the past 2 seasons or that he is filling out the lineup card in the best possible way recently. What sort of value is he adding in your opinion?