What managing can -- and can't -- do
It's interesting to note the Minnesota Twins' current playoff steak: 0-9, dating back to their last three post-season appearances.
And I thought Ron Gardenhire was a good manager!
Well, he is a good manager. He is also limited by what his team can, and can't, do, which is why the Twins are 0-9 spanning three playoff runs and why at one point in 2009 they were 12 games below .500.
Managers can't bat, or pitch, or field. They can prepare players who bat, or pitch, or field, or run.
But, ultimately, it's up to the players to get it done. The same people who figure Jim Leyland's team "collapsed" and that he was "out-managed" down the stretch by Gardenhire and others aren't, in my view, looking at the realities of why teams win or lose.Dugout decisions can always be second-guessed, although I'm still waiting on my first rational e-mail from a Leyland critic after the team has won a particular game.
Managers end up being second-guessed, and their decisions end up branding them as geniuses or buffoons, based on how the team plays.
Which is why Gardenhire was no better or no worse as a manager during the Twins' first-half slide than he was when they caught fire down the stretch.
It had to do instead with how his pitchers pitched. And how his hitters hit. And how the organization was able to patch up when key pitchers and players were lost to injury.
Of course, according to this logic it doesn't matter who manages a team. It's all on the players. You can put any halfway intelligent fan at the helm and do at least what Leyland or Gardenhire did in 2009.
No. That's the other half of the coin that too many people don't understand or want to acknowledge.
You still must be a capable captain. Your players must respect you. You must know how to lead. You must be an authority figure. You must understand the intricacies of baseball, all of which, by the way, apply to Leyland, or Gardenhire, or Ozzie Guillen of the White Sox.
They know how to manage. In fact, they're experts. But they don't, by themselves, any of them, win or lose a division -- at least not in my experience, no matter how much you want to second-guess a particular decision in a particular game.
What the people who want Leyland fired fail to offer is (a) a certifiably more capable replacement manager than the guy who currently runs the Tigers or (b)certifiable reasons for why their replacement manager would have done all the right things that they say Leyland failed to do, and how this man would have avoided critical second-guesses down the stretch.
In my view, they're kidding themselves -- and you -- if they argue otherwise. They would have had similar grievances, likewise, with a manager whose team was never much more than a team destined to finish the 2009 season 10 or so games above .500.
That's why some of us picked the Tigers to finish in that vicinity at the start of 2009.
And, by the way, it wasn't because of the manager.
Comments
| Jump to bottom |
Leyland
I'll say it again, Leyland is a mediocre manager. He's a lifetime under .500 manager. With the exception of the first half of 2006, he's under .500 with the Tigers. His teams regularly collapse in the second half. We're supposed to credit him for doing better this year with a team that was "predicted" to finish last, however, he received no blame from the lapdog media for finishing last in 2008 with a team that was "predicted" to go the World Series. He got the lion's share of the credit for 2006, however, now when the team performs poorly, it's on the players. Other teams place their best hitter's in the number three spot. Leyland bats Clete Thomas there. Other teams put their best players on the field in must win situations, Leyland rests players in the last week of the season. It's really not difficult to understand why he does these things as the Detroit media have served as his apologists and biggest fans since he got here. Even going so far as to basically ignore his lie about Miguel Cabrera's facial injuries. Leyland said, "he didn't see them." End of story. And finally, the argument that, "well, who would replace him?" So, the fans who pay good money can't ask for him to be dismissed, UNLESS they have a candidate in mind. Got it. There's no accountability for Leyland in this city and as long as the media continues to serve as his fawning fan club and defender, there never will be.
JIM LEYLAND
THE MOST IMPORTANT TALENT THAT ANY BASEBALL MANAGER MUST HAVE IS HOW TO BRING A TEAM THRU A LENGTHY SEASON OF 162 GAMES IN BASEBALL AND HAVE THE TEAM PLAYING THEIR BEST AT THE END OF THE SEASON. THIS REQUIRES A MANAGER WHO CAN DETERMINE WHO ARE THE MONEY PLAYERS WHO CAN PRODUCE WHEN THE PENANT RACES REALLY GET STARTED. LEYLAND IS A COMPLETE FLOP IN THIS REQARD. LOOK AT HIS TEAMS EVERY YEAR HE HAS BEEN WITH THE TIGERS. THEY ALWAYS FADE DOWN THE STRETCH. ON THE OTHER HAND, RON GARDENHIRE IS THE BEST AT TAKING LESSER TALENT AND HAVING HIS TEAM PLAY BETTER AS THE SEASON UNFOLDS AND HE DOES IT EVERY YEAR. WHAT WAS LEYLAND DOING PLAYING MARCUS THIS YEAR INSTEAD OF RAYBURN DOWN THE STRETCH? WHY WAS HUFF THE DH WHEN HE SHOWED HE COULD NOT HIT ANYTHING WHEN GUILLEN SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE DH WITH RAYBURN IN LEFT FIELD EVERY DAY. THESE ARE JUST 2 OF THE MORE DUMB THING S THAT LEYLAND DID TO CAUSE THE LOST OF THE DIVISION TITLE. WHY DIDN'T HE DEVELOP PERRY TO BE A BIG PART OF THE PITCHING STAFF DOWN THE STRETCH? HE SHOULD HAVE KNOW BETTER THAN TO PUT MINOR IN THE BIGGEST GAME OF THE YEAR BECAUSE HE CANNOT PITCH WHEN THE SITUATION IS A HIGH PRESSURE SITUATION.
| Jump to top |
