PDA

View Full Version : Managers



Ltlabner
06-29-2006, 05:23 PM
Ok all of us arm-chair GM's. In light of the furor over the Narron contract extension my question is; how much impact do managers really have over the success of their team?

Can they help a little, but hurt a lot? Are they the key to success? Can they take the bad news bears and make them the 2007 World Series Reds Camps? Can they take the 1976 BRM and turn them into 2006 Royals?

Another aspect to this...what sort of managers style do you prefer? Screaming lunatic? The cool headed baseball guru? Stats-Deluxe? Micro Manager? The guy that justs lets them play but keeps a lid on the personal issues?

I'd ask that if you want to argue about Narron specifically, please do so in the two existing Narron contract threads.

Jr's Boy
06-29-2006, 05:31 PM
Case in point:Jimmy Leyland.

jimbo
06-29-2006, 05:35 PM
Case in point:Jimmy Leyland.

The Tigers just have a better team this season. I think Leyland gets way too much credit for their success.

RedsManRick
06-29-2006, 05:37 PM
There was article a number of years ago on BP or other such site which basically said a really good manager can win you 2-3 games above "average", a really bad one can cost you 5-6. Without the article and no other facts to back it up, I'm going to say that jives with my general take as well.

Managers have much more room to do harm than good. The best ones don't screw their teams up.

dsmith421
06-29-2006, 05:37 PM
Except for the very top tier of managers who have a tangible effect on players (Bobby Cox), I'd say they can help a little and hurt a lot.

That's my chief problem with re-upping Narron--why would you lock yourself into three years of fixed costs on a relatively fungible good?

BRM
06-29-2006, 05:38 PM
The Tigers just have a better team this season. I think Leyland gets way too much credit for their success.

I concur. I'm not completely dismissing Leyland's contribution but the Tigers are enjoying full seasons from Granderson and Thames as well as a healthy Ordonez and Guillen. Let's not forget Verlander and Kenny Rogers. None of these players were major players last year due to age or injury. Except for Rogers who was with another team. The 2006 Tigers are definitely a better team in the talent department than the 2005 version.

jimbo
06-29-2006, 05:41 PM
That's my chief problem with re-upping Narron--why would you lock yourself into three years of fixed costs on a relatively fungible good?

He's still relatively cheap, so locking him in for 3 seasons isn't really a big deal. It isn't like they locked in someone like Piniella with a multi-million dollar contract. I think demonstrating stability and security is well worth it.

dabvu2498
06-29-2006, 05:41 PM
Great question and hopefully we can have some civilized conversation on the matter.

Not having been around many "managers," per say, I would like to emphasize the role of the entire coaching staff and the dynamic that must exist between all however many of them there are now and the players as a group. Hopefully, the manager is able and willing to delegate certain responsibilities and tasks and dealings with players to the coach on staff that's the most capable. The real question, then, is a question of the competency of the entire staff.

To my mind the role of the manager, with an excellent staff, is three-fold:
1. Motivate (can also the role of the entire staff)
2. Manage the lineup and game situations (with the input of the entire staff)
3. Public relations (People don't ask Chambliss questions while one of his hitters is in the middle of a 3-39 or Hume when one of his pitchers gives up 4 bombs.)

I've always liked the quote about Leyland from many years ago: "He knows when to hug and when to bug."

Ltlabner
06-29-2006, 07:49 PM
That is an excellent point dabvu. Part of managing is assembling a team of coaches which can impact a team on a more micro level. Does he surround himself with buddies? With guys smarter than him? With "yes men"? It all plays a role.