Managing ain't what it used to be

[Always Red]

Originally Posted by membengal

Is that right? See, live and learn.

50 years later, I hereby call that managerial decision with Mays rock stupid.

[MWM]

Nice post, RFS. And you're right, the world of managing a MLB team has changed dramatically. The problem as I see it though is too many sitting back and bemoaning about how things have changed rather than changing along with it. This is common in any facet of life when things change. There's a contingent of people who sit back and see an opportunity and those who sit back and talk about how it ain't how it used to be. The former are the ones that find a way to thrive in the new environment, while the latter wind up withering away and becoming irrelevant.

Baseball has changed. So if you still want to be a part of it, then you sure as hell better change too, because it isn't going to return to the good ole' days anytime soon. This is incredibly obvious in watching today's managers manage. As a whole, the current crop of managers are stuck in a bygone era and have not adapted to the current climate of the game. It's clear that the characterisics that made a manager great way back when are not the same that make them great today.

So what makes a great modern day manager? I don't really know. I'm not sure that anyone knows yet because too few organizations have looked for a new world manager. They continune to throw old school managers out there. They need to rethink what a manager's role is and what would make one successful. Maybe they need managers with degrees in Psychology. Maybe they need managers who know little about the game, but know how to handle egos. I really don't know what the answer is, but I know that it's not the crop of mangers out there now who are stuck in the past.

Things change. So what? It's the circle of life. Either evolve or become extinct. I don't feel all that sorry for managers who refuse to see that things have changed and are still trying to manage like it's the 70s or 80s.

[Marc D]

Originally Posted by MWM

Nice post, RFS. And you're right, the world of managing a MLB team has changed dramatically. The problem as I see it though is too many sitting back and bemoaning about how things have changed rather than changing along with it. This is common in any facet of life when things change. There's a contingent of people who sit back and see an opportunity and those who sit back and talk about how it ain't how it used to be. The former are the ones that find a way to thrive in the new environment, while the latter wind up withering away and becoming irrelevant.

Baseball has changed. So if you still want to be a part of it, then you sure as hell better change too, because it isn't going to return to the good ole' days anytime soon. This is incredibly obvious in watching today's managers manage. As a whole, the current crop of managers are stuck in a bygone era and have not adapted to the current climate of the game. It's clear that the characterisics that made a manager great way back when are not the same that make them great today.

So what makes a great modern day manager? I don't really know. I'm not sure that anyone knows yet because too few organizations have looked for a new world manager. They continune to throw old school managers out there. They need to rethink what a manager's role is and what would make one successful. Maybe they need managers with degrees in Psychology. Maybe they need managers who know little about the game, but know how to handle egos. I really don't know what the answer is, but I know that it's not the crop of mangers out there now who are stuck in the past.

Things change. So what? It's the circle of life. Either evolve or become extinct. I don't feel all that sorry for managers who refuse to see that things have changed and are still trying to manage like it's the 70s or 80s.

Too bad I'm all repped out.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by MWM

Nice post, RFS. And you're right, the world of managing a MLB team has changed dramatically. The problem as I see it though is too many sitting back and bemoaning about how things have changed rather than changing along with it. This is common in any facet of life when things change. There's a contingent of people who sit back and see an opportunity and those who sit back and talk about how it ain't how it used to be. The former are the ones that find a way to thrive in the new environment, while the latter wind up withering away and becoming irrelevant.

Baseball has changed. So if you still want to be a part of it, then you sure as hell better change too, because it isn't going to return to the good ole' days anytime soon. This is incredibly obvious in watching today's managers manage. As a whole, the current crop of managers are stuck in a bygone era and have not adapted to the current climate of the game. It's clear that the characterisics that made a manager great way back when are not the same that make them great today.

So what makes a great modern day manager? I don't really know. I'm not sure that anyone knows yet because too few organizations have looked for a new world manager. They continune to throw old school managers out there. They need to rethink what a manager's role is and what would make one successful. Maybe they need managers with degrees in Psychology. Maybe they need managers who know little about the game, but know how to handle egos. I really don't know what the answer is, but I know that it's not the crop of mangers out there now who are stuck in the past.

Things change. So what? It's the circle of life. Either evolve or become extinct. I don't feel all that sorry for managers who refuse to see that things have changed and are still trying to manage like it's the 70s or 80s.

This post should be archived.

[RedsBaron]

The trend in major league baseball for more than a century has been for the manager to have less and less control. John McGraw in the first three decades of the Twentieth Century was master of all he surveyed with the NY Giants. He not only was the manager; he in effect was general manager, chief of scouts, and the Supreme Leader. While a different personality than McGraw, Connie Mack was if anything even more powerful--while no owner would dare challenge McGraw, Mack WAS the owner.
Managers lost authority as the game became too complex for one person to be in charge of virtually everything. No manager under Branch Rickey in the 1930s-1950s ever had near the power McGraw and his fellow managers did earlier in that century.
With the increase in press coverage, and more critical press coverage, managers became less the lords of their domain in the public's eyes. With the great increase in players' salaries, and the advent of free agency, players were no longer at a manager's mercy.
Adapt or die.

[Tony Cloninger]

When this team starts losing it's always the managers fault, for the most part.....especially if it is a manager who no one really likes.

So AG was ahead of AD despite being on a little tear. JN wants to get the offense going and Dunn is struggling. Is this not allowed beacuse it is a favorite of RZ? Do you think this is why the Reds lost?

[WVRedsFan]

Originally Posted by mth123

This post should be archived.

Great posts by both RFS62 and MWM.

Everything has changed so much since I first started watching baseball as a boy in the 60's. I can remember Fred Hutchinson ordering players to take on a 3-0 count. Every time. Times have changed. Pitchers used to finish a season with 12-10 complete games. No more. A good ERA was below 3.00 and a 4.00 was bad. You have to change with the times. Problem is that the paradeims have changed. And when you're heading toward your 6th decade, that's tough. I imagine that's some of what we're seeing in Cincinnati.

[Yachtzee]

Gone are the days when a manager could rouse his charges with a hearty "Go get 'em, fellas, so that we can get out of here and bound some Budweisers."

[GAC]

Originally Posted by membengal

Sigh. I was NOT comparing them, other than to note that Dunn is the Reds' most run productive bat, and he was stuck behind Alex G last night. I am guessing the Giants did NOT shove their most productive bat behind an offensive black hole. Ever. There was no good excuse for that last night. On any level.

When an offensive is struggling as bad as the Reds have been, ANY managers will shuffle a lineup to play that "hot bat". Gonzo, not Dunn, is that hot bat right now. It's not about what have you done for me in the past; but what are you doing for me lately. Over the last week, here is what the two have down....

             G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB  BA  OBP  SLG 
Gonzalez     6 25 6 10 2 1  2   5   0 .400 .400 .800 
Dunn         6 19 3 3  2 0  1   1   0 .158 .273 .421

And one can go back even farther with Dunn to the last 2 1/2 weeks. Since April 11th he has had 3 RBIs and 1 HR. That is totally UNACCEPTABLE.

As much of a fan as I am of Dunn - he needs to be kicked in the A$$ big time. He looks terrible at the plate.

And for the year so far?....

            AB R  H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS  OBP  SLG  OPS  AVG 
Gonzalez    76 8  24 4  1  2  9   5 11  0 0  .354 .474 .827 .316 
Dunn        85 15 22 4  0  5 10  13 32  5 0  .357 .482 .839 .259

Is it likely to stay this way? Odds say it won't. But you play the hot bat. And if I was Dunn I'd be embarassed that the likes of a Gonzo is putting up similar production right now. Whose next? Castro?


Good post rfs.....

Many deride or downplay how important an "intangible" such as leadership is on a team/in that clubhouse. I'm talking about that player(s) who aren't afraid to call someone out who is making bonehead plays, costing games, and basically have their head up their collective butt.

Many would agree that Vaughn's leadership was very instrumental to this team in '99. Bob Hertzel's book "The Big Red Machine: The Inside Story of Baseball's Best Team" emphasized how important this was with the '75 Reds when they came out of the gate and stunk it up pretty bad due to poor/lackluster play.

It was the players who intervened in that clubhouse.

I don't see that on this team. They may all play and get along well like buddies, and maybe that is the problem - they are too chummy.They are afraid of hurting their pals feelings. And with some of the young players that we have on this team they need to see a Rose or Vaughn "type" personality in that clubhouse.

Friends don't let friends play "drunk".

[membengal]

GAC, someone said it elsewhere, but moving Alex G up AFTER he had a rare good game or two is the equivalent of a blackjack player chasing his bets after winning a few hands. Over the long haul, you put the guys in the spots where they are most likely to succeed. Alex G should NEVER hit fifth. For anyone.

[RFS62]

Originally Posted by membengal

GAC, someone said it elsewhere, but moving Alex G up AFTER he had a rare good game or two is the equivalent of a blackjack player chasing his bets after winning a few hands. Over the long haul, you put the guys in the spots where they are most likely to succeed. Alex G should NEVER hit fifth. For anyone.

No offense, but that blackjack analogy is simply terrible.

The Reds moved Alex up when they saw that he was locked in.

Look at his splits since St. Louis. He's been tearing the cover off the ball.

And stats aren't the only factor used to make these decisions. Very often a player can be raking but be BABIP unlucky. You're rarely playing exactly the way your numbers reflect. A .300 hitter doesn't always hit .300. He has hot and cold streaks. That's why advance scouting is so important. You want to know who's hot and who's not at the CURRENT TIME.

It's the difference between macro and micro evaluation. Both have their place. You have to take full advantage of the times when a player is hot to get the full effect of his abilities. That's one reason changing lineups around doesn't bother me much.

[RANDY IN INDY]

Originally posted by RFS62:

No offense, but that blackjack analogy is simply terrible.

I would have to agree with that.

[membengal]

It bothers me because it is once again the Reds miscasting a guy. I relaxed about Alex G's signing, after a fashion, because of the whole we're-getting-glove thing, but his signing should NOT have been a doorway to slot his bat in the middle of the line-up. Period. It's a bad spot for him, and they are now three days into a bad spot for him.

And I know this is the wrong thread to maintain that, since I am among the staunchest of Narron defenders, but this kind of move from him is exactly why I have such a hard time taking him seriously. For all the good he does (good repoire with players, the Hamilton thing), this kind of stuff drives me nuts on the other side of the ledger.

[RANDY IN INDY]

That's one reason changing lineups around doesn't bother me much.

Particularly when you don't have a consistently dominant type lineup that does all the right things regularly. This team has demonstrated early that it is anything but consistent. Play the hot hand.

[membengal]

Ah, the "do the right things" cult. I yield. By all means, let's put a horrific OBP/OPS guy on balance 5th as punishment because of the "do the right things" alleged shortcomings of this team. Awesome.