06-01-2010, 01:24 PM
<!--quoteo(post=99336:date=Jun 1 2010, 12:06 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jun 1 2010, 12:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->What sort of value is he adding in your opinion?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could write a short novel on this stuff, but I'll try to keep it brief.
I grew up playing Strat-O-Matic Baseball as a kid. It taught me a LOT about baseball, but the main lesson I took from it was that you could hit and run at exactly the right time, bunt during the perfect situation, and rearrange your lineup as well as Connie Mack. And none of it mean shit if you didn't have good players or your good players didn't perform (in the Strat world, that meant if you didn't "roll the dice" well).
This, along with studies I've looked at over the years, lead me to believe that a manager, in a macro sense, has shockingly little to do with a team's record. I don't think managers are completely useless, and I do think they can add value, but I don't think a really really good manager is going to make an 80 win team into a 90 win team. I do think a terrible manager can have a large negative effect on a team, but I good manager cannot overcome a lack of talent/production from his players.
I think Don Baylor was a bad manager, but that is because I disagreed with his fundamental philosophy that bunting in the first inning was a good idea. I think Dusty was a decent manager who had some very big flaws, many of which were exposed in the 2003 playoffs. I think Lou is a good manager who is hamstrung by the core of his team under performing. So I would not shed a tear if Lou is let go, and I would have no problem with Trammel taking over. But if Lee and Ramirez were to then get hot, I would have no illusions that Trammel somehow sprinkled magic pixie dust on them to make them great.
In summary, my first impulse is to blame the players when things go bad. I would say a vast majority of sports fans prefer to blame the ownership/general manager/manager first. All 3 of those can contribute to a bad team, but I don't think any of them can overcome players sucking.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I overwhelmingly agree with this.
I could write a short novel on this stuff, but I'll try to keep it brief.
I grew up playing Strat-O-Matic Baseball as a kid. It taught me a LOT about baseball, but the main lesson I took from it was that you could hit and run at exactly the right time, bunt during the perfect situation, and rearrange your lineup as well as Connie Mack. And none of it mean shit if you didn't have good players or your good players didn't perform (in the Strat world, that meant if you didn't "roll the dice" well).
This, along with studies I've looked at over the years, lead me to believe that a manager, in a macro sense, has shockingly little to do with a team's record. I don't think managers are completely useless, and I do think they can add value, but I don't think a really really good manager is going to make an 80 win team into a 90 win team. I do think a terrible manager can have a large negative effect on a team, but I good manager cannot overcome a lack of talent/production from his players.
I think Don Baylor was a bad manager, but that is because I disagreed with his fundamental philosophy that bunting in the first inning was a good idea. I think Dusty was a decent manager who had some very big flaws, many of which were exposed in the 2003 playoffs. I think Lou is a good manager who is hamstrung by the core of his team under performing. So I would not shed a tear if Lou is let go, and I would have no problem with Trammel taking over. But if Lee and Ramirez were to then get hot, I would have no illusions that Trammel somehow sprinkled magic pixie dust on them to make them great.
In summary, my first impulse is to blame the players when things go bad. I would say a vast majority of sports fans prefer to blame the ownership/general manager/manager first. All 3 of those can contribute to a bad team, but I don't think any of them can overcome players sucking.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I overwhelmingly agree with this.