Is Managing Over-rated?

quote:

Is managing a game no more complicated than how your players are performing at any given moment? How much smarts did it take to run Cole Hammels out there yesterday? or in contrast, Did Russel Martin and Rafael Furcal make Joe Torre look stupid?

Someone once asked me what makes a good coach. My response was talented players and team chemistry.

The ability to pool the later is what makes a good coach a great one. It is a learned trait. Is is also impossible if the big egos one is coaching are not buying into the concept.

The bottom line is the better the players, the better the coach. At least in fans and parents eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by ClevelandDad:

This year's smart guy manager in the AL appears to be Joe Madden of the Rays. Those glasses make the guy look smart imho along with his cerebral interviews with the media.

Is managing a game no more complicated than how your players are performing at any given moment?

Likin' Maddon a lot!

I think that people judge a manager or coach by their players performance. It happens at all levels. A good manager can teach. A good manager can motivate. A good manager can make difficult decisions and bench someone. What he does is reflected in his players. However, as Bighit says, there's so many pieces that form success. How much of the Rays success for example is due to manager, staff, players? There seem to be all the pieces there from watching the series.

I once knew a HS coach who had a group of dads who were always bashing him. That was until a very succesful year, where I heard one say "I'm even liking how ***'s coaching". LOL Everyone loves a winner. A looser... not so much.

CD-Good subject. I do think that over 162+ games a manager really does make a difference, but I don't necessarily think he has to be a genius, but rather one that has basic common sense. Being able to handle the different personalities and keep the disruptions to a minimum. There have been a number of successful managers that won just by keeping the "egos" in check but weren't considered cerebral. Bobby Cox is one who comes to mind. He's made a number of questionable strategic moves over the years that IMO weren't the smartest at the time but his overall success rate is hard to argue with. He knew how to get the most out of his players.

Once a manager fills out the lineup card MOST of his work is done. Of course he makes strategic moves during the game that can and will influence outcomes to a certain extent, but if his players perform to previous high standards that have prompted the manager to pencil them in the lineup then the team is going to perform well. It also has to be taken into account how well the other team is playing-a pitcher that normally pitches at 89-91 mph all of a sudden is hitting 95 and his curve is breaking off the table(it happens) is going to make a "smart" manager look dumb real quick.

One variable is luck. One swing of the bat and the score ends up 1-0. Was one manager smarter than the other?

Managing and coaching during the season is very over rated. The preseason is my time to shine and the regular / post season is the players time to shine. You have to prepare them in the preseason through drills, situations and reps but once the season starts - let them play.

I might win or lose 1 or 2 games a year by calling such and such play but in all honesty it still falls on the guys because they have to execute it. If they fail then I will take full blame (publically and in practice) for it but it was still them that failed. If it works I give them full credit because they were the ones who did it.

quote:

Bobby Cox is one who comes to mind. He's made a number of questionable strategic moves over the years that IMO weren't the smartest at the time but his overall success rate is hard to argue with. He knew how to get the most out of his players.

No offense but it's easy to be a genius when you can trot out 3 Cy Young and future hall of famers onto the hill everyday. Scheurholz (former GM) probably deserves the most credit for their success. He wrote a book that pretty much talks about his career (can't remember the name of it) and it is a great book. I highly recommend it but in it he talks about how he used his scouts and coaches and manager to determine who to get.

Look at these managers

Joe Torre - nothing special as manager of the Cardinals but better talent with the Yankees and he is a genius.

Tony LaRussa - nothing special with the White Sox but better talent with Oakland and he is a genius.

Phil Jackson - I want to see what he can do when he isn't coaching the best players ever in the NBA.

I'm not saying these guys are dumb and got lucky but that you can only do so much with what you got. You can't make chicken salad out of chicken droppings.

Plus winning cures all team chemistry issues and you can still win without chemistry - look at the A' in the 1970's. It's rare but talent and preperation trumps all.

I think a big part of a manager's (or any pro coach) success has to do with being a good leader. He has to lead by setting rules and enforcing them to all players. Thus gaining their respect. Lead by creating an atmosphere in which the players remain motivated and enjoy coming to the park everyday.

It is amazing to watch so many players go over and hang out with Charlie Manuel during a game. Even Pat Burrell who was benched a few times down the stretch last year would stand and talk with Manuel during games. It seems that all of the Phillies respect and like him. Subsequently they play without added pressures and have developed great team chemistry.

Obviously strategic moves have to be made over the course of a season but most baseball lifers can make those most of the time.

when charlie Manuel came to Philadelphia some of the sports media were brutal. their description of his managerial abilities were at times personal and viscious. To his credit manuel handled it well. After winning the Pennant last evening I would love to ask some of those who ripped him several years ago comment on the teams success.
Is managing over rated well yes and no. good players make you look like a genuius and bad players like a moron. I always look at Casey Stengal with the yankees. He was called the old professor when the Yankees won all those championships. How did he get so dumb with the 62 mets?

The chief attribute of a good coach/manager in my eyes, is the ability to get the most out of his players. That's why Joe Girardi was so sought after. But using Girardi as an example, could it be that certain people only work well with certain groups? I.e. Girardi is great with young talent, but older sqauds he has less of an impact with? I know coaches that are sometimes thought of as great motivators, have their act wear thin over time, i.e. Mike Ditka. Then we've all seen coaches that have outlived their usefulness or ability to motivate. Some coaches are able to adapt and change with the times to stay relevant and motivational.

So unlike a HS or College coach, that will consistently have the same demographic group to work with, pro's have a moving target, even from year to year considering free agency and trades.

Who is the best parent?
The one whose kids are better?
Do make "good kids" their parents look better?
Of course, the same happens with managers.

The neccessary managing skills depend on the team. A team of young players may need lots of instruction. A veteran team needs a massaging of ego. Some teams need to be kicked in the rear. Others need to be stroked.

It seems when a team fails under an intense manager it's because they have tuned him out. The next manager is usually mellower. Conversely, when a mellow manager fails it's said the players are walking on him and an intense manager is hired.

Manager is a term unique to baseball versus head coach.

With a few lefties, including David Price in the pen yesterday in the comeback "loss" by Tampa, one would think using one of the guys against Ortiz may have made a difference. Managing of players is a main part of the gig, both on and off the field. That includes not making a move when it was obvious one should be made.

Captain Hook should have been on the field at least 3 times in the latter part of that game.

I think managing is huge. IMHO, to sit at the top of the dugout steps, having to make game changing decisions 162+ games a year while taking into account the players you have to work with, historical results, and "gut checks", takes a special person, with special tools. That's only game time, couple that with duties a manager has outside the dugout and you have a job that is many times under appreciated. Most fans look at the manager in hindsite after failure, step in his shoes "real time", for a season, and I think the view would be very different.

I agree with coach2709 thoughts that players control the outcome, but, someone has to assess the tangibles of timing, situation, cast of characters, and put the play in motion. In many situations a called play, or lack threrof determines the outcome of a game. Whoever pulls the trigger is a big part of the outcome. The term "over-rated" is very subjective. IMO

When looking at the "whole", most "baseball people" could manage a game or two at that level, but how many could successfully manage a season of games?

Head coaches and managers surround themselves with good people who are the key components that help make the team successful. They delegate and those that delegate successfully with a talented coaching staff usually are successful. For many MLB managers, their farm system (good or bad) depends a lot on their success as well.
The success of the pitching staff doesn't depend on the manager, or the success of the hitters hitting home runs also doesn't depend on the manager. His main job is to take those parts and put them together with the hand he is dealt by upper management (draft or trades), or in the case of a college HC, those players he can recruit.

Good managers then find the way to use those players effectively, and I don't think it always depends on talent.

Managers get the credit or discredit for the end result of the game and team, very often credit is not given to those that work directly with the players.

JMO.

There are a lot of good theories here as to what makes a good manager or head coach but the true secret to longevity was the example of old Connie Mack who manged the Philadelphia A's from the late 1800's to 1950. He was part owner of the club! You never get fired that way. Seriously, I feel flexibility leads to being one of the all time great managers. As someone pointed out, most managers have their specialty as well as corresponding weaknesses. Piniella seems to do great with veterans but doesn't have much patience with young players. Up to this year it seemed Dusty Baker was the same. Billy Martin was great at moving to a loser and lighting a fire under them and before you knew it they were winners. Only trouble was, he and his drinking wore thin with ownership, fans and players very quickly. Bobby Cox has shown an ability to win with slugging clubs as well as ones that won on defence and baserunning. Of course most of those years he was blessed with solid starting pitching. But not so much in the last winning years. He of course used different closers many times. This is the flexibility I'm talking about. Some guys like Buck Showalter are great at building a club as disciplinarians and micro managers but usually "lose" their guys after a few years of over managing things. Sometimes repacing a guy like him with a "players" manager works for a while but eventually guys start taking advantage and the cycle repeats. Thats why I respect a guy like Cox who has won for a long time with different club makeups. I think Scoscia (spelling) may be like Cox eventually.

.
Heard on the TV coverage...

"The X's and O's are pretty easy...the ability to bring a collection of high paid athletes together as a unit with a unified purpose, goal, and vision is much more difficult and rare."

Bunch of truth to that.

44
.

Tampa manager was asleep at the wheel...............................................................................................................CRASH

quote:

Is managing over-rated?

IMO, NO!

quote:

Originally posted by OLDSLUGGER8:
Manager is a term unique to baseball versus head coach.

With a few lefties, including David Price in the pen yesterday in the comeback "loss" by Tampa, one would think using one of the guys against Ortiz may have made a difference. Captain Hook should have been on the field at least 3 times in the latter part of that game.

Congratulations to TB