What type of manager would you prefer?

[Goober]

I saw this discussion on another forum, and with over a third of the league changing managers this year, I figure it's something we've all heard a lot about lately. So which type of manager would you prefer?

OP copy and pasted:

Some managers are excellent in-game tacticians; some are excellent clubhouse leaders and good with people. The best managers have both skills, of course. Most managers are somewhere in the middle.

Let's say you have your choice between two managers. Neither of them are idiots. Neither of them are horrible at anything, but their best strengths are different. Manager A is a mediocre tactician but an excellent clubhouse leader. Manager B in contrast, is an excellent tactician but a mediocre clubhouse leader.

Who would you rather have? And would it depend on what kind of team you have, a rebuilding club or a contending club?

http://www.minorleagueball.com/

So?

 

[FedEx227]

Give me excellent in-game tactics... I think clubhouses, unity, etc. is very overrated in baseball.

 

[Senser81]

Manager C: No in-game "tactics", excellent in clubhouse.

Baseball managers are the most overrated group of people in the entire sports world. If a manager like, say, Tony LaRussa is called a genius, I am amazed that no one can really point to anything specific tactically that can prove/illustrate why the baseball manager is a genius. The job is really all about managing egos and getting players ready to play for a full 162-game season...so, in a way, its like an NBA head coaching job. But I don't hear anyone talking about 'tactical geniuses' in the NBA.

 

[Blade]

I am mostly with Senser on this. Uncle Cholly may not be the most savvy tactician out there, but he somehow knows the pulse of the team and his instincts are always spot on. People find his mannerisms and accent funny but the man knows baseball at it's subtlety beyond the stats and pulls the right levers to win.

 

[FedEx227]

Well having three MVP caliber hitters in your lineup is a pretty good way to look like a subtle, instinctual genius...no?

 

[Senser81]

Well having three MVP caliber hitters in your lineup is a pretty good way to look like a subtle, instinctual genius...no?

Having a team full of steroid-users is also a pretty good way for LaRussa to be a tactical genius...no?

 

[FedEx227]

Definitely agree. Not sure why you think I'm going to go to bat for TLR.

I think the best way to be a "tactical genius" in baseball is just to manage your bullpen when it's good. Lineup decisions obviously too...but I feel like managers do more to lose games than they do to win them.

I completely agree with you though that baseball managers are overrated as hell.

 

[SuperKevin]

Where's the Jim Riggleman option?

 

[Senser81]

I think the best way to be a "tactical genius" in baseball is just to manage your bullpen when it's good. Lineup decisions obviously too...but I feel like managers do more to lose games than they do to win them.

I completely agree with you though that baseball managers are overrated as hell.

Yeah, I think the only thing a manager really influences is his ability to use the bullpen. But even that is a crapshoot, since most teams are so thin pitching-wise. I do stand by my original statement in that all these SABR guys can't really point to anything specific that a manager does tactically.

 

[Blade]

Well having three MVP caliber hitters in your lineup is a pretty good way to look like a subtle, instinctual genius...no?

And you are saying that LaRussa has never had those guys? Or Dusty Baker? Even the tacticians like Torre have had high caliber players, doesn't mean they are any less of a manager.

I rather have a manager who is awesome in the club house and doesn't tinker much on the field. If you have the players who are MVP caliber let them fuckin play. Just like he let Oswalt stay in the game. I hate guys like Maddon, who pull useless shenanigans within the games, that result into nothing. The players are getting paid to put up HRs, RBIs, quality starts, CGs, close games etc etc. Just keep the players happy and focused, and they will do their thing.

Its frikkin baseball, not rocket science.

 

[FedEx227]

Hahaha...where exactly did I ever say I loved LaRussa and Baker?

I said that's the manager I'd prefer when given those 2 choices. I'd much rather have a good GM than any manager. Give me whoever the fuck to sit there, fill out a lineup or whatever.

The best thing a manager can do is effectively work a good bullpen. It's a total crapshoot but if you have one of the years where you have a top tier bullpen, it's all about properly managing it.

Trust me, I'm the last person in the world that likes a manager influencing the play on the field too much (I have to live with Ozzie Guillen as my team's manager).

 

[Senser81]

I hate guys like Maddon, who pull useless shenanigans within the games, that result into nothing. The players are getting paid to put up HRs, RBIs, quality starts, CGs, close games etc etc. Just keep the players happy and focused, and they will do their thing.

Its frikkin baseball, not rocket science.

Yeah, LaRussa is always messing with his pitchers, and it seems like from year to year he ends up getting wildly inconsistent performances from his pitching staff.

I think that the baseball matchups are individual vs. individual, so there isn't a whole lot you can do with "team strategy". Also, the season is so long that essentially the teams with better talent will win out over teams with less talent. You might be able to get a "strategic" edge for a game or two, but not for 162 games.

I think managers like Torre and Cox should be commended, because even though they had good players they were able to win consistently. Torre had to manage egos and Steinbrenner, and Cox could really use his pitchers without abusing them.

I've only seen one manager who actually could make an immediate impact, and that was Billy Martin. His teams always won. But he usually wore out his pitching staff and team so that in years 2 and 3 the team was overworked.

 

[Blade]

.....I've only seen one manager who actually could make an immediate impact, and that was Billy Martin. His teams always won. But he usually wore out his pitching staff and team so that in years 2 and 3 the team was overworked.

Or he was fired :smug:

 

[Blade]

Hahaha...where exactly did I ever say I loved LaRussa and Baker?

I said that's the manager I'd prefer when given those 2 choices. I'd much rather have a good GM than any manager. Give me whoever the fuck to sit there, fill out a lineup or whatever.

The best thing a manager can do is effectively work a good bullpen. It's a total crapshoot but if you have one of the years where you have a top tier bullpen, it's all about properly managing it.

Trust me, I'm the last person in the world that likes a manager influencing the play on the field too much (I have to live with Ozzie Guillen as my team's manager).

Your comment insinuated that having mvp caliber players made Cholly any less of a manager than those guys. He did some bad ass work with the Indian for a long while before they hired a retard for a GM.

 

[SethMode]

I think if you believe that managers do more to lose games than win them, the LAST type of manager you would want is an "excellent" tactitian. Those are the ones who are far more likely to buy into their own hype and screw up a ballgame/good thing.

Give me a guy that will control a clubhouse on off days and makes sure guys prepare and are motivated that stays the fuck out of their way for the most part at gameday anytime. As was said, they typically do more harm than good.

 

[FedEx227]

"Excellent" tactitian isn't to me shit like bunting runners over... It's basically handling your pitching staff (starters and bullpen) properly.

 

[Senser81]

"Excellent" tactitian isn't to me shit like bunting runners over... It's basically handling your pitching staff (starters and bullpen) properly.

Thats still too broad of an answer for me. What specifically do you mean by "handling your pitching staff properly"? Managers like Billy Martin and Dusty Baker would use their best pitchers until their arms fell off. This would yield short-term success, but had long-term negatives. Baker ruined the careers of Prior and Wood, while Martin destroyed the Oakland A's young pitching staff in the early 80's. Would you say that their handling of the pitching staff was proper or improper?

 

[SethMode]

Thats still too broad of an answer for me. What specifically do you mean by "handling your pitching staff properly"? Managers like Billy Martin and Dusty Baker would use their best pitchers until their arms fell off. This would yield short-term success, but had long-term negatives. Baker ruined the careers of Prior and Wood, while Martin destroyed the Oakland A's young pitching staff in the early 80's. Would you say that their handling of the pitching staff was proper or improper?

I agree (why can't I give thanks?). I'm still not sure what you're referring to FedEx. When to sit the starter in terms of age/development? When to sit them because he looks gassed? When to bring in a lefty or a righty? None of these things exactly require a brilliant tactician.

 

[NAHSTE]

I'll take the Bobby Cox style. Show confidence in your players, stand behind them, and leave it up to the GM to improve the team.

But Bobby's over reliance on "The Book" is my only knock on him. A good example was in the 9th inning of Game 4 of the NLDS, we pull Craig Kimbrel for a lefty reliever to face Aubrey Huff, even though A. Kimbrel is better than the lefty we brought in, Mike Dunn and B. Aubrey Huff hits lefties pretty well.

Of course, Huff hits a single to tie the game. There's no way of knowing whether or not Kimbrel would've gotten Huff out of course, but it serves as a good example for Bobby's managerial philosophy.

Sometimes I'd rather see a manager go against the grain and keep the better pitcher in, than automatically go with the L/L match-up.