I know many people have said that a manager's value to a baseball team is minimal to none, and that wins and losses are the responsibility of the players on the field.
The Detroit Tigers haven't had a winning season in 13 years. With no real major acquisitions other than Kenny Rogers, Jim Leyland (okay, granted Leyland has a sub .500 career win pct.) has the Tigers playing excellent ball.
Buddy Bell's Kansas City Royals are abyssmal. Bell has never really managed a good team...or his managing style stinks. The Royals, on paper, look like they should be better than they have been.
Is it possible to say that the Tigers' success and the Royals' failure could be somewhat attributed to their managers? Likewise, Jerry Narron managed the Reds to a .500 record during his stint as manager last year. This year, they've played better under Narron. They clearly reacted more positively to Narron's style than Miley's.
My question is, does the manager of a baseball team play more of a factor in the success or failure of his team than previously thought? Is it possible that some guy's winning attitude spills over to the team, while managers who accept and get used to losing don't motivate their players to winning ballgames the same way managers with winning attitudes? Is this one of the intangibles that so many old timers speak of?