Now I'll need your security pass
There have been strong rumblings about New York Mets manager Jerry Manuel being replaced with the team off to a slow start (albeit in a small sample). 6 games into the season this is not unprecedented. In 1988 The Baltimore Orioles fired Cal Ripken after 6 games. In 2002 the Detroit Tigers fired Phil Garner after 6 games. Both teams were 0-6. I found that information at a blog called Walk Like A Sabermetrician which has a chart and graph filled article about mid-season managerial changes and their effect that you may find informative. They suggest that typically there is a small uptick in the winning percentage of the team whose manager has been changed, but wonder whether that is attributable to the manager or simply to regression to the mean.
That article linked to another article at The Hardball Times which uses binomial distribution to further illuminate said regression to the mean.
I suggest before anyone of us comes to a conclusion about whether Jerry Manuel should be fired immediately (or soon) that we read and digest both articles. I read them, but I can’t say that I digested them as much as they gave me indigestion. But I will say that both articles, as I understood them, conclude that mid-season firings of managers in and of themselves do not lead to any noteworthy increase in productivity or achievement from the ballclubs they managed.
The Walk Like A Sabermetrician article sums up:Â “…one might well expect that many of these teams would improve on their own, whether a managerial change was made or not. It is of course impossible to say to what extent that is true . One must grant the possibility, however far-fetched it may be, that these managers were all an albatross around the neck of the club, dragging it down and preventing it from reaching its true potential. I don’t buy it, certainly not in the majority of cases. Managers are relatively fungible, and so they are offered up as penance for a poor season, demonstrating to the fans or the players or the media that the brass is being proactive.”
The Harball Times article sums up: “…teams don’t seem to benefit at all from hiring a new manager mid-season…”
I encourage you all to draw your own conclusions.
111 comments
darknova306
4/13/2010-1:06pm at 1:06 pm (UTC -4)
How many of those managers were using their pens terribly or batting scrubs cleanup or wasting outs down 1 run in the 9th with a great base-stealer on 1st? Jerry singlehandedly costs us games. He needs to go. Now.
GravediggerHebner
4/13/2010-1:12pm at 1:12 pm (UTC -4)
To be able to answer your question with facts would require a tremendous amount of research even with which it may be impossible to draw objective conclusions.
darknova306
4/13/2010-1:20pm at 1:20 pm (UTC -4)
Alright, how many of them admitted to not properly preparing their team for a game? That should get you fired on the spot.
GravediggerHebner
4/13/2010-1:34pm at 1:34 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t know, I can only say I can’t afford the memberships to all the newspaper websites required to find out.
It’s not my goal to say “spare my man Jerry” or anything like that. It’s simply to suggest that mid-season managerial firings are not sound long term solutions to problems.
What I went looking for, but couldn’t find when I stumbled upon these articles, was an article I read around when Willie was fired which demonstrated factually that the majority (I can’t recall the percentage but it was a majority) of mid-season manager additions were themselves fired within 18 months – it’s a perpetuating cycle that doesn’t lead to long term solutions. I think the very idea we’re having this discussion demonstrates that.
Firing Willie after the 2007 season would’ve been a far better idea than firing him mid-2008 IMO, and also IMO firing Jerry at the end of 2009 would’ve been a far better idea than firing him now, or a month or two months from now.
An organization may very well be handicapped by it’s current manager, but it’s also handicapped by changing a regime during the season due to the fact that there is less time to set up and implement a thorough plan moving forward, as well as fewer options for doing so.
trs86
4/13/2010-1:37pm at 1:37 pm (UTC -4)
I agree Grave that firing Manuel would have been better off at the end of 2009 but does that imply that we would be better off waiting until the end of 2010 is the best scenario?
GravediggerHebner
4/13/2010-1:42pm at 1:42 pm (UTC -4)
For 2010, I can’t say. Based on the winning percentage gain, whether it’s related to the manager or not it does exist, it seems probable that it will be a small benefit to the record of the team this season.
But it also seems probable that it will not be a long term, multi-season benefit to the team and it’s record based on the statistical probability that a mid-season manager replacement doesn’t last beyond 18 months the majority of the time.
A post season managerial change, with it’s inherent wider field of candidates and better ability to implement a plan organizationally, is better long term.
Omar doesn’t likely have “long term” on his side, and is therefore even more prone to make a good short term, bad long term decision IMO. I would far prefer that whoever the next manager of this ballclub is that he is supported organizationally with a vision and a plan and is around for at least 5 years if not more. Mid-season guys typically don’t last long themselves and I’m not at all excited about continuing the cycle.
stickguy
4/13/2010-1:48pm at 1:48 pm (UTC -4)
those stats are skewed by the fact that a lot of mid-season replacements are considered interim managers at the time, with the intent of finding the permanent guy (maybe the incumbant) after the season.
and remember, bad teams fire managers. and bad teams don’t get good overnight.
trs86
4/13/2010-1:50pm at 1:50 pm (UTC -4)
I am beginning to think perhaps Omar has more long-term stability than we think. His extension just started.
But back to the point. It’s hard to analyze this statistically because so much comes into play. Wouldn’t it be obvious that a lot of mid-season managerial changes are interim guys thus of course they get replaced?
stickguy
4/13/2010-1:57pm at 1:57 pm (UTC -4)
I think you may be right about Omar. The wilpons gave him that extension when they did for a reason, so they must be on some kind of common ground. Or he is just their stooge (shield?), so why get rid of that?
The biggest smoking gun was when they hoarded all the better prospects instead of trading them for a perceived quick fix. Not at all the move of a GM with both feet on the banana peel. Although Keeping Mejia up is just the opposite?
Maybe Omar knows there is no way he stays past his contract anyway, so he might as well try to make himself look competant for the next employer?
GravediggerHebner
4/13/2010-2:02pm at 2:02 pm (UTC -4)
The first linked article notes:
“Only the first change is counted for any team-season. If there is an initial interim replacement, and later a permanent replacement, I have lumped them together as most of the interim stints are just a couple of games.”
If the manager change mid-season is as you say an “interim guy” who is going to get replaced, it’s really just sticking a finger in a dike, not fixing the dam, thus as I have been saying no long term benefit.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:07pm at 2:07 pm (UTC -4)
Right but there are cases of a short-term gain. Then of course there are cases of the guy replacing the interim manager doing quite well.
GravediggerHebner
4/13/2010-2:26pm at 2:26 pm (UTC -4)
Yes, there are cases of all those things. The article says that 76 of 102 teams that changed managers mid-season had a better won-lost percentage after the change than before (for that specific season), or 75% of teams.
He went on to use some math that I won’t pretend to understand to say that the actual percentage change was plus .049, which (this is me talking now not the article) if applied to a 162 game season would suggest 7.938 game improvement.
Of course we can’t apply it to a 162 game sample as that would not be mid season. As you guys note below Willie was fired after 69 games with a record of 34-35, or a winning percentage of .493 so if the Mets that season were to have improved at the .049 rate over their remaining 93 games, they would’ve gone 50-43. They in fact went 55-38, so they in that season outperformed the average.
They also failed to make the playoffs, and while yes they’ve suffered noteworthy injuries, they’ve had a losing record since then, so what long term benefit was there to that mid-season change?
trs86
4/13/2010-2:36pm at 2:36 pm (UTC -4)
None but that could also be because the Mets did not go out and hire a replacement for the “interim” guy.
GravediggerHebner
4/13/2010-2:41pm at 2:41 pm (UTC -4)
Manuel has been the manager since June 2008, that’s hardly “interim.”
I think it’s more likely that Manuel was/is not an “interim guy” than that he still is and the team simply hasn’t found a “non-interim guy” yet with whom to replace him.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:42pm at 2:42 pm (UTC -4)
But he started as the interim guy and should have been replaced at the end of that season.
stickguy
4/13/2010-1:08pm at 1:08 pm (UTC -4)
makes sense. basically, losing teams get managers fired. And normally, bad teams lose. So, even after changing the manager, the team is still bad.
so logically, you are only going to get a better record if the team is underperforming to what the talent level is, or they get more talent from someplace.
The real debate in this case is not how much of an impact changing managers has, it is how much of an impact the manager makes in the first place.
Say you put all 30 manager names in a hat, shook them up, and randomly assigned them to a new team. How much, if at all, do you think the standings will change? GOod teams will still win, bad teams wil still lose.
But, managers can impact a few wins (at least it seems that way). Not a huge number, but there has to be some difference from a terrible tactical guy to a strong one. Benching better options for stiffs, odd line ups, mangling the pen, stuff like that.
So, IMO, the biggest change is from giving the team a jolt (fresh air? New attitude?), but that can only go so far if the new guy doesn’t have the horses.
Bottom line, if the Mets have talent that Jerry is maximizing (meaning they should be able to win more), toss him overboard!
Or just do it for the usual reason, throwing raw meat to the hungry liions (the fans).
trs86
4/13/2010-1:18pm at 1:18 pm (UTC -4)
I think what saber always misses is the human element. 4D brought this up but in NY with the pressure already on the players that black cloud of will my play cause the manager to be fired? Who will our manager be tomorrow….? Could easily have an impact on the team.
ceetar
4/13/2010-1:28pm at 1:28 pm (UTC -4)
See, the post to Walk Like A Sabermetrician is hard to take seriously when they admit to having a supreme bias. When they call the manager ‘fungible’ if they don’t believe the manager has any value, how am I supposed to really buy their analysis of the managers value?
Firing Jerry is not about evaluating the team, it’s about evaluating him and his abilities and whether they get the job done that they need. If he batted the pitcher first and Wright 9th and used K-Rod for innings 4-7 of a game with the Mets winning 14-2, he should be fired, regardless of if they’re winning.
GravediggerHebner
4/13/2010-1:29pm at 1:29 pm (UTC -4)
But when will that ever change? Even Joe Torre was constantly under scrutiny and the threat of being let go, or at least of not being renewed.
Only if the owner of the team is also the manager will that threat recede, and I don’t think we want that.
trs86
4/13/2010-1:31pm at 1:31 pm (UTC -4)
True Grave but not like this. The media circus that was 2008 would be hard to ignore.
fongy2
4/13/2010-1:36pm at 1:36 pm (UTC -4)
This post (@1:18p) might be the best one I’ve seen from you TRS!
trs86
4/13/2010-1:38pm at 1:38 pm (UTC -4)
Yeah, not saying that the saber world does not have value though. I think it is obviously a mix of both.
fongy2
4/13/2010-1:48pm at 1:48 pm (UTC -4)
That has kinda been my argument all along.
This is a human game,played by humans….
Not a PS3 or XBox game.
Sabermetrics has plenty of merit no doubt
BUT with human beings there are so many variables which computers can’t account
for……Unless of course that computer is named Hal
ceetar
4/13/2010-1:51pm at 1:51 pm (UTC -4)
New motto for our manager.
“Dav(id), it can only be attributed to human error.â€
GravediggerHebner
4/13/2010-1:55pm at 1:55 pm (UTC -4)
My only goal here is to add some statistical reasoning to what is largely (not exclusively, but largely) an emotional conversation.
fongy2
4/13/2010-2:04pm at 2:04 pm (UTC -4)
Booooo!!!!
GravediggerHebner
4/13/2010-2:05pm at 2:05 pm (UTC -4)
LOL!
trs86
4/13/2010-2:05pm at 2:05 pm (UTC -4)
You did a very good job Grave. Not saying it does not have value. Just saying that it’s difficult in this situation to go by stats because really there are no stats that have been in THIS situation.
GravediggerHebner
4/13/2010-2:12pm at 2:12 pm (UTC -4)
That sounds like what Mr. Bill might say about David Wright’s ability to hit in the clutch.
“He may have a (insert acceptable stat here) with runners in scoring position overall but he’d never been faced with a runner on third and no one out on (insert date it actually happened) against (insert pitcher opposing him at that moment that prevented him from driving in the run).”
So yeah, every stat has never quite been in the situation it is being applied to in some respect. So where do we go from here?
We have to have some baseline to use for conversational purposes do we not? I mean, there are statistical reasons why we may prefer that Mike Jacobs not bat 4th, but those reasons have never been in Citi Field on April 5th versus Josh Johnson so now what?
trs86
4/13/2010-2:14pm at 2:14 pm (UTC -4)
I just don’t think this is the same as hitting or pitching Grave. Sorry. Again, quality post though and I am sure the stat side appeals to many.
Mr North Jersey
4/13/2010-2:15pm at 2:15 pm (UTC -4)
Nice….
Can you be my lawyer if I ever need one? You are great at making your point.
GravediggerHebner
4/13/2010-2:38pm at 2:38 pm (UTC -4)
Well I did say “I encourage you all to draw your own conclusions” and you are so I did my job. Now it’s time for me to have lunch.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:41pm at 2:41 pm (UTC -4)
Sparked a very nice debate. Have a good dunch.
metsfan4decades
4/13/2010-1:29pm at 1:29 pm (UTC -4)
Something I’ve been saying for awhile….
Unless you’re an extremely bad or extremely good manager, I believe the manager has less of an impact on a winning or losing team record than the talent on the field does.
Case in point is Joe Torre. As a NY Met manager? not so good. As a Yankee manager? Well, you know the results there. Good talent plus a manager that was apparently a good fit for that talent lead to success.
That being said, I don’t think Jerry is the best fit to manager this current crop of players. However, as I said on an earlier post as well, changing management now I don’t believe, is going to result in instantaneous success. Usually takes a while for bad management to manifest itself as a problem and it takes some time after a management change, to right the ship.
If they were going to make the change, it should have been done after the end of last season. My opinion is they should have replaced Jerry then, started off fresh. Omar, I was still on the fence about over the winter. I think his leash is a bit longer.
trs86
4/13/2010-1:32pm at 1:32 pm (UTC -4)
While I agree, I still think about the almost instant success of the 2008 Mets when Willie was fired. Perhaps for THIS group of players it is more about the manager?
ceetar
4/13/2010-1:36pm at 1:36 pm (UTC -4)
It wasn’t instant. They’d won 2/3 and they were under .500 for the next week if I recall correctly.
trs86
4/13/2010-1:39pm at 1:39 pm (UTC -4)
Pretty much instant Ceetar. I posted those stats earlier.
Mr North Jersey
4/13/2010-1:56pm at 1:56 pm (UTC -4)
You guys Wiilie was fired after the June 16th game in Col that the Mets had won 9-6 bringing willie’s record to 34-35.
In Willie’s last 10 games the Mets were 4-6
In Willie’s last 6 games the Mets were 4-2
In Jerry’s next 10 games the Mets went 5-5
In Jerry’s next 6 games the Mets went 3-3
Jerry finished with a 55-38 record
fongy2
4/13/2010-2:03pm at 2:03 pm (UTC -4)
And Davey was fired at 20-22
coming off of the greatest
6 yr success span in our
history,one Championship,
one 7gm loss to the eventual
World Champs when we were the
best team in the game AND
4 other close 2nd place finishes…When if there had
a WC back then,we’d have been in the playoffs all 6
seasons.
………Just sayin…..
ceetar
4/13/2010-2:10pm at 2:10 pm (UTC -4)
he was fired in Anaheim after the win over the Angels.
Jerry’s team was 2-4 against the Phillies “down the stretch”
trs86
4/13/2010-2:13pm at 2:13 pm (UTC -4)
LOL, again we can go back and forth on this. Jerry also never had a losing month while Willie had a winning month at 13-12.
ceetar
4/13/2010-1:41pm at 1:41 pm (UTC -4)
They were 8-9 over the next 17. roughly the same percentage they were before. Then they got hot and went on a long winning streak.
trs86
4/13/2010-1:44pm at 1:44 pm (UTC -4)
Yeah but they were 2-1 immediately afterward for a winning percentage of .667.
ceetar
4/13/2010-1:50pm at 1:50 pm (UTC -4)
they were 3/4 prior to. That’s .750%. They played worse.
trs86
4/13/2010-1:56pm at 1:56 pm (UTC -4)
Jerry came in during mid-June with the Mets 6.5 gamers out and by Mid-July the Mets were in 1st place. We can go back and forth like this all day. You have a different opinion of instant I guess. Looking at July and August’s records show that the Mets were playing better under Jerry. Regardless of how good or bad of a manager Jerry is.
Mr North Jersey
4/13/2010-1:57pm at 1:57 pm (UTC -4)
trs they were 2-1 prior to willie’s firing also.
stickguy
4/13/2010-1:58pm at 1:58 pm (UTC -4)
why don’t you guys start arguing this inning by inning, AB by AB?
talk about getting hung up on small samples. It also totally ignores the teams they were playing, home/road, etc.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:03pm at 2:03 pm (UTC -4)
LOL, yeah I know NJ. My comment about 2-1 was as crack on Ceetar using a random 17 games to show that it was not “instant”.
ceetar
4/13/2010-2:12pm at 2:12 pm (UTC -4)
17 games is 10%. That’s hardly instant. And I don’t think long winning streaks or losing streaks are usually the result of anything the manager does. The 2008 team was going to win 85+ games in it’s sleep. They just started slow. This doesn’t mean Jerry was a good manager. Likely could’ve brought in a bologne sandwich to manage those games and they would’ve had a good record.
The team needed an outside influence/philosophy. still does. Never got it. a couple of coaches like Obkerfeld or Shines do not do it.
and stickguy, nice mb comment about Mets fans. heh.
GravediggerHebner
4/13/2010-2:30pm at 2:30 pm (UTC -4)
17 games is also, coincidentally I’m sure, the number of games left in 2007 when the Mets were up 7 games yet failed to make the postseason.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:34pm at 2:34 pm (UTC -4)
OK Cheetar, well Willie sure had the sleep walking because that team was not winning 85+ no matter what you say. They had one winning month at 13-12. Started slow? Come on, half a season is not starting slow. Never said Jerry was a good manager. However, if you give him credit for losing it then you have to give him credit for getting them there. They played like a 34-35 team under Willie and played like a 55-28 team under Jerry. I can’t see what we are arguing over.
stickguy
4/13/2010-1:42pm at 1:42 pm (UTC -4)
well, for man reasons (and of course this is just my opinion) it seems like there is a large mental aspect to this team. Meaning, a lot in their heads that seems to negatively impact the output on the field. Whether it is the pitchers getting all befuddled, or hitters pressing with RISP, something seems off.
So, are the players putting too much pressure on themselves? Too little? Those seem like things a good manager should be able to deal with.
A whacky manager and the history of 3 poor finishes in a row can mess with the head I would think. And since you can’t change history, all that is really left (short of wholesale player change) is getting rid of th emanager, who was here for all the goryness going back to the 9th inning of game 7 in 2006.
Like it or not, Jerry is ground zero right now for fan frustration. And since I have not seen 1 valid point showing he brings anything positive to the table, why keep him?
SOmetimes, a fresh voice (or jsut getting rid of the negativity) relaly can revitalize a team.
Stop thinking meat, just go out and play. Mush easier if you have faith that the guy pulling the strings has your back and will make the right move at the right time.
fongy2
4/13/2010-1:35pm at 1:35 pm (UTC -4)
I think the 30 yrs b/t the met and yank jobs had more than
a little something to do with Torre knowing how to manage.
stickguy
4/13/2010-1:44pm at 1:44 pm (UTC -4)
why? He sucked with the Braves too. Do you think he want back to graduate school to learn how to manage? Speaking from personal experience, most people don’t get inherently smarter as they get older, they just have more practice doing wha tthey do (which he wasn’t doing).
I know, based on wisdom of the ages, bring back Davey
Mr North Jersey
4/13/2010-1:47pm at 1:47 pm (UTC -4)
Wow so most people you know stop learning as they get older? That Sucks.
fongy2
4/13/2010-1:49pm at 1:49 pm (UTC -4)
Thanks for the back Mr.NJ!
I know I’m alot better doing my job
at 44 than when I first started doing it @ 22!
stickguy
4/13/2010-1:52pm at 1:52 pm (UTC -4)
You think you get smarter, but that is usually the senility creeping in!
My point was, there is nothing specific about getting older that will make a poor manager a good one. Unless you think just doing it for many years you will get better at it (and Torre, IIRC, wasn’t even managing when the yankees hired him).
If he sucked with the mets and braves, he would have sucked with the Yankees too if he hadn’t lucked into a rare occurance of talent.
Same with Charlie manual. He is a geezer (60+), and is the same plodding, average manager he always was, he just has a better team. They didn’t go to the WS because he got any smarter.
fongy2
4/13/2010-1:59pm at 1:59 pm (UTC -4)
My friend, usually with age one learns not just how do
handle the technical aspects of a job better,some
more than others BUT more importantly, in a job like
being a baseball Mgr, one
usually learns how to deal
with your players,coaches,
ownership/F.O. types,etc better. Not to mention the
media in a large market.
Further, by your way of thinking,Jerry should just be left alone because the
overall talent of this club just isn’t that great….
So, what can really be expected out of him??
stickguy
4/13/2010-2:06pm at 2:06 pm (UTC -4)
NO, I think the talent on the team is better than what Jerry is getting out of it.
I also think he is a boob, and not particularly good at his job, and really doesn’t deserve to be kept.
Mr North Jersey
4/13/2010-2:00pm at 2:00 pm (UTC -4)
That means experience means very little in your eyes.
stickguy
4/13/2010-2:25pm at 2:25 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t think you followed my original response to FOngy (who also gave Torre an extra 10 years in there).
“why? He sucked with the Braves too. Do you think he want back to graduate school to learn how to manage? Speaking from personal experience, most people don’t get inherently smarter as they get older, they just have more practice doing what they do (which he wasn’t doing).”
I actually agreed with you. You can get better from experience. Not that Torre really did (based on the braves job). ANd the fact that he wasn’t maanging for a while (TV, right?) doesn’t support getting more practice or expereince.
Mr North Jersey
4/13/2010-5:07pm at 5:07 pm (UTC -4)
We have gone so far down the rabbit hole that I no longer see what the point was.
Simply put if the idea is that a manager can’t gain a different approach as time goes by where upon reflecting on their past they decide to handle things in a different way if given another opportunity.
Then I don’t agree.
We can evolve upon reflection and through observation learn new ways to do things.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:01pm at 2:01 pm (UTC -4)
Most likely correct. Manuel was almost ran out of town in Philly.
fongy2
4/13/2010-2:05pm at 2:05 pm (UTC -4)
About 3 yrs in a row!
Mr North Jersey
4/13/2010-2:01pm at 2:01 pm (UTC -4)
Everyone’s learning curve is different of course and some may never learn no matter how much they try but the idea that people can’t learn as they get older as they continue to do something I just have to disagree. Sorry.
stickguy
4/13/2010-2:05pm at 2:05 pm (UTC -4)
I didn’t say that can’t. I said that just getting older doesn’t mean they automatically will get better.
and in some cases (pro football coaches being a classic case), they get worse.
fongy2
4/13/2010-2:06pm at 2:06 pm (UTC -4)
Tell that to Dick Vermeil!
Mr North Jersey
4/13/2010-2:07pm at 2:07 pm (UTC -4)
Why state the obvious?
I think every1 knows you don’t automaticly get smarter just by aging.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:12pm at 2:12 pm (UTC -4)
I think it goes with his original point. The teams that Torre coached that lacked talent he sucked and the teams with talent he excelled. Common sense to me. Manager for the most part is only as good as his players.
ceetar
4/13/2010-2:14pm at 2:14 pm (UTC -4)
Torre kept getting rehired too, which is evidence people thought he at least did a decent job. Most managers are average and have very litle effect. Bobby Valentine is an extremely smart guy and usually has a positive effect. Manuel has a negative one.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:16pm at 2:16 pm (UTC -4)
Yet Bobby can’t seem to get a job. Or is it that he keeps turning them down? I am confused.
Mr North Jersey
4/13/2010-2:21pm at 2:21 pm (UTC -4)
Give Torre credit though they made the post season every year he was there they won because of talent no team ever won because of their manager but many have lost because of the manager.
Torre did a good job everyone made fun of him when he got the job and look at him now. He managed one of the greatest Yankee teams ever through a great era.
Let’s not diminish his contributions.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:23pm at 2:23 pm (UTC -4)
Never said Torre sucked. Just saying that he started winning when he had talent.
Mr North Jersey
4/13/2010-2:25pm at 2:25 pm (UTC -4)
It’s not that he started winning is that he continued to win that we should be recognizing.
How many managers can claim the same? Not many.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:27pm at 2:27 pm (UTC -4)
Agreed NJ. He most likely is a very good manager but could do nothing without talent (and a large payroll, lol).
Mr North Jersey
4/13/2010-2:33pm at 2:33 pm (UTC -4)
You see you fail to see what he did now its your bias against the Yankees that is clouding your judgement.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:38pm at 2:38 pm (UTC -4)
NJ, I have been one of Torre’s biggest supporters. He does very well, WHEN he has talent. Just saying that without talent he’s not very good. What manager is?
Mr North Jersey
4/13/2010-2:42pm at 2:42 pm (UTC -4)
Again why state the obvious? If the sun doesn’t come up it will be dark.
If you don’t have talent you can’t win.
This everyone knows. What Torre did was continue to win that made what he did special. Just because you have talent you are not guaranteed to win let alone at the level that Torre did.
Very few managers can make that claim.
Kingman 26
4/13/2010-2:27pm at 2:27 pm (UTC -4)
He actually did not come remotely close to sucking with the Braves, this is a common misconception; I am frankly shocked to see it repeated by the Stickman!
From 1970-1981, the Braves finished 3rd twice, 4th twice, and 5th or 6th ever other year in a 6 team division.
In Torre’s three years, they finished 1st, 2nd, and 2nd.
They then finished 5th or 6th the next SIX years.
He sucked in Atlanta?
Come on Stick, you are FAR better than that.
He was good to excellent in Atlanta.
stickguy
4/13/2010-2:30pm at 2:30 pm (UTC -4)
then why did he get fired?
if anything, it just proves the point that he was average at best, and only as good as the players on the team.
That’s the biggest thing that bugs me about people that want to put him on a pedastal a some god-like figure that causes teams to win just be gracing them with his presence.
Kingman 26
4/13/2010-2:41pm at 2:41 pm (UTC -4)
Because nowadays people forget that for the 30 years prior to Bobby Cox’s rehiring in 1991, the Braves were one of the worst, most poorly run teams in the game.
From 1959 to 1990, two postseason appearances, both 3-0 NLCS sweeps. Including 1969.
Are you really saying that the only manager who managed them to 1st or 2nd place finishes in a 21-year period “sucked”??
stickguy
4/13/2010-2:42pm at 2:42 pm (UTC -4)
Looks that way!
stickguy
4/13/2010-2:46pm at 2:46 pm (UTC -4)
actually, by your logic, Willie never should have been fired. They finished 1st and 2nd in 2006 and 2007 (can’t remember 2005 OTTOMH).
I guess he didn’t suck either!
you also have to look at expectations. If the phils finish 2nd this year, did Chollee do a great job (since 2nd is good) or a bad job (since they were predicted to run away with it?)
Same question for the Nats manager, but probably a different answer.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:49pm at 2:49 pm (UTC -4)
Yeah Willie should not have been fired after 2007 and most likely should have not been fired during 2008. The Mets FO should have came out and said Willie IS and WILL be our long-term manager. They did not…
trs86
4/13/2010-2:51pm at 2:51 pm (UTC -4)
Come to think of it you are right. Willie took a team that had been terrible for a while to their 1st post-season in years and followed it up with a heart breaking collapse in 2007 to finish 2nd. Not bad for his first 3 years.
Kingman 26
4/13/2010-2:54pm at 2:54 pm (UTC -4)
I NEVER advocated firing Willie that I can recall, and looking at Art Howe and Jerry Manuel and the seeming indifference of this group of Mets post-2006, I think more and more we blew it with Willie, and I would not be surprised to see him win in his next stop.
The 2005 Mets competed into September after several horrible years.
Willie was fired for the reason I cite below; sometimes ownership/fans/media demand a change, and the Wilpons couldn’t fire the roster in 2008, so they fired Willie.
Today, I would take him back over the incompetent, giggling, unprepared, back-stabbing jackass clown we have in a second.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:57pm at 2:57 pm (UTC -4)
I think the Mets caused that disaster with Willie. They could do the same with Jerry. You can’t allow a black could to hang over the team with manager and GM. You come out and say that Jerry/Omar are here for the long-term and we will win or lose with them OR you fire them. Plain and simple. We are not having this debate if they do that.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:58pm at 2:58 pm (UTC -4)
Gritty McRacism: Hey why does it always have to be a black cloud? If Jerry was black then Willie would have still been here. Oh he is black? Well just another case of the white man changing his name to Hispanic.”
ceetar
4/13/2010-3:06pm at 3:06 pm (UTC -4)
Funny thing is they could’ve stopped it. They basically put out the “short leash” nonsense. Effectively creating a lame-duck situation. Of course, they were probably just getting the jump on the media, knowing they’d call for his head at the first sign of trouble anyway. Still, he doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt (neither does Warthen, or really HoJo), so there is no reason to create that lame duck situation.
trs86
4/13/2010-3:12pm at 3:12 pm (UTC -4)
Agreed Ceetar but I just don’t understand this theory. I have said it all day. Either you have confidence in me or you don’t. Either fire me or stand up for me.
metsfan4decades
4/13/2010-2:24pm at 2:24 pm (UTC -4)
To not continue that long thread from above, but continue the conversation:
Experience definitely adds something to the pot. However…if you’re poor or just mediocre at something, you’re not going to get ‘top of your field’ by just practice – which is what experience is.
Much of what makes a good manager is their personality. Something that can’t be taught. All these managers know how the game of baseball is played. But if you can’t relate or reach these young players, all the baseball smarts in the world aren’t going to guarantee success.
I could be wrong but that’s why I keep saying that I believe Jerry to be the wrong fit for this team, for this town.
stickguy
4/13/2010-2:27pm at 2:27 pm (UTC -4)
I’m not sure you can give Jery credit for knowin ghow the game is played either. No more than many of the LL coaches I coached with over the years (some of whom were actaully pretty good at it).
Firing managers is mostly for the fans anyway.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:30pm at 2:30 pm (UTC -4)
Actually I think you should add the players in with the fans. I think they just get tired of listening to the same voice when they are losing. If you are winning the manager could be firing rocket ships up your ass and get by with it.
metsfan4decades
4/13/2010-2:31pm at 2:31 pm (UTC -4)
Very true.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:45pm at 2:45 pm (UTC -4)
My team this year was very into our style when we started the year red hot but then had issues with them when we struggled a little at the end. We did not change our philosophy, tactical things yes, yet they suddenly were not appropriate or effective anymore. Interesting the players liked being held accountable when they were winning but fled when they were losing.
metsfan4decades
4/13/2010-2:31pm at 2:31 pm (UTC -4)
LOL – I knew there would be some disputing Jerry knows how the game should be played…..
His decisions are not the norm – he plays way outside the book. For instance, who slows the game down to the point where MLB fines you $1000 by having everyone wait to pull the catcher in from the BP to pinch hit?
If is outside the box thinking was getting it done, everyone would be calling him a genius.
Like I think the jury is still out on LaRusso batting his pitcher 8th.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:29pm at 2:29 pm (UTC -4)
Good point in that just because a manager is successful one place does not mean that he would be in another due to different circumstances. Not quite the same with a player although that can be debatable as well.
metsfan4decades
4/13/2010-2:33pm at 2:33 pm (UTC -4)
One of these articles linked in Grave’s post (forget which one now) made a point that statistics showed although mid season firing of a manager might have showed an improvement for some teams, all teams with a replacement manager fell short of their perceived potential the rest of the year.
Goes back to me saying that a change in poor management is not going to be realized instantaneously. If they were going to do it, should have done it after the end of ’09.
If they’re going to do it this year, might as well wait until we’re completely out of it.
metsfan4decades
4/13/2010-2:34pm at 2:34 pm (UTC -4)
Or, it backs up the mindset of it has less to do with the manager, and more to do with the talent on the team.
stickguy
4/13/2010-2:37pm at 2:37 pm (UTC -4)
well, also define what the primary role of the manager is.
even during the yenakee years, Torre’s biggest attribute seemed to be he was a calm guy, that worked well with the NY press and could put up with the team’s owner.
But, he was always (IIRC) considered to be fair to middling as a tactician, and often made head scratching moves (that often worked due to the talent on the field 0vercoming them). That, and he chewed up BP arms like a tree chipper (with Mariano seemingly the only one he couldn’t kill).
I always got the impression that the late 90′s teams just had the type of players that ran themselves, and self-policed the team, which really marginalizes the manager’s role.
TRS is a coach, and I bet he will agree that teams with no leadership on the field or court have a lot of trouble winning, since the manager/coach can’t do that much during the game.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:40pm at 2:40 pm (UTC -4)
Agreed. A quality team captains are just as important as the coach. I rely on them heavily. It is interesting because talent alone will not win you games nor will a great coach. You have to have the right mix of both and THEN those two must mesh together. I have seen plenty of talented teams with talented coaches struggle because they just don’t fit each other.
Kingman 26
4/13/2010-2:51pm at 2:51 pm (UTC -4)
I largely agree that baseball managers generally have less impact than football or basketball coaches. The strategy and substitutions in those sports have much great effect on results. Sure, it is easier for Pat Riley to win with a great roster, and nobody will ever know if Phil Jackson is really any good, as he never had the guts to coach a team without 1-2 superstars. But still, put Bill Parcells anywhere and his team will at least win and compete.
In baseball, it is more about respect, tone, and attitude.
Davey Johnson’s teams not only almost always won, but they often improved greatly on his watch and went back to mediocrity after he left. Billy Martin too. I think players probably wanted to win badly for a Gil Hodges, and feared the consequences of losing for a Billy Martin.
In baseball, I think it is all about the players respecting the manager as a man (think Gil Hodges or Bobby Cox) or respecting the tone the manager sets (think Davey or Jim Leyland) or respecting the manager’s on-field tactics (think Bobby V or Tony LaRussa).
I think that Jerry is clearly a mediocre strategist at best, and most definitely does not have the players’ respect, nor does he set a winning tone. Unprepared? Vomit.
Grave’s points are always good ones, but many times managers get fired simply because a change must be made and the players cannot be fired (especially in baseball).
I personally cannot see how an argument can be made FOR Jerry at this point.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:54pm at 2:54 pm (UTC -4)
stickguy
4/13/2010-3:12pm at 3:12 pm (UTC -4)
glad to see we are back on the same page again!
GravediggerHebner
4/13/2010-4:12pm at 4:12 pm (UTC -4)
My argument isn’t FOR JERRY, it’s against yet another mid-season managerial change because those are statistically shown to be poor long term solutions to managerial problems.
Should Jerry be fired at any time during the regular season, his replacement is likely to be out of the job within 18 months (but I cannot now find the article I originally read that in so I can’t “prove it” however that happens more than 50% of the time with mid-season hirings). By virtue of starting this season as manager Jerry has already beaten the odds in some respect, statistically he was more likely to already have been fired than to still be managing.
That we all pretty much universally agree he was not the right long term solution is one thing. That the team would be handicapping itself by replacing him mid-season, when in a large sense plans are hard to alter organizationally (can’t go back in time and institute different organizational philosophies in the off season when they are better applied), and in a more immediate sense candidates for replacing him are limited (the organization cheats itself by not having a large field from which to choose) it’s simply not the best long term solution.
And as the team spirals in mediocrity, I am not excited about or anxious to simply re-start the same faulty cycles that mid-season hirings come with. I don’t want to have the team do whatever it will do this season, which includes the fairly reasonable and realistic possibility that it will not make the post season, then have the organization decide “well this guy didn’t get a spring training or a full season so let’s give him one” only to have that then bear out that the guy wasn’t good enough so then he gets fired mid-season and the same damn thing starts again.
That’s my overriding concern, that this mid-season replacement cycle is self-perpetuating. At some point that cord needs to be cut, the bed needs to be made, and we all need to lie in it.
ceetar
4/13/2010-4:21pm at 4:21 pm (UTC -4)
I see a lot of truth to that. But that truth is assuming the Mets make the wrong decision. Backman and Bobby V are two candidates often mentioned. Those guys are both available.
If not you can have someone step in if you stick to the interim tag and don’t resign them. If they don’t make the playoffs chances are Omar’s gone anyway, and a new manager would be part of the new GMs deal, so there isn’t that much risk of it.
GravediggerHebner
4/13/2010-4:37pm at 4:37 pm (UTC -4)
All fair and reasonable points.
I would only say about the field of candidates that Backman has zero MLB experience and I just personally doubt that a franchise that seemingly considers itself a contender is going to turn the reigns over to a rookie.
Valentine I strongly believe is an excellent manager, one who has clearly demonstrated a thorough understanding of the game, and one who has clearly demonstrated an ability to get more out of less. But I’m just personally not a fan of organizational managerial recycling. I know it worked well for the Braves with Bobby Cox, it’s just a preference of mine to move forward.
I know managers are different than players but as I’ve said before on this subject, somehow the second tenures of Tom Seaver, Bobby Bonilla and Roger Cedeno were not as satisfying as the first, and I would hate to tarnish the fine legacy of Valentine with a potentially (not probable, just potential) less than satisfying second act.
stickguy
4/13/2010-2:52pm at 2:52 pm (UTC -4)
Lot’s of nice discussion on this topic, but I think we are forgetting the simple truth.
In BB, as a manager, you lose, you get fired. And losing is relative to the expectations of the team (fans, owners, media, payroll, predictions).
That’s why Jerry got a pass after last year’s horrible record (the injuries changed the expectation). Although IMO, he hid his terrible moves and off the field antics behind that excuse.
It really doesn’t have that much to do with a manager being “good”. Lots of very talented (strategically, and motivationally) managers have been fired, and ended up doing quite well elsewhre.
Obviously Torre (beat that one to death).
Terry Francona is another great example. Actually a pretty good bench guy, but got run out of Philly on a rail (I think the fine philly fans might have inserted it a couple of feet up too).
But, in a better situation in Boston, and suddenly he is the next great thing.
When really, he is pretty much the same guy, sith the same skills (plus whatever he learned from his first experience).
I just don’t put Jerry in the class of a good manger in a bad situation. I think he will pretty much suck at the job no matter where he goes.
trs86
4/13/2010-2:55pm at 2:55 pm (UTC -4)
Most likely right Stick.
Kingman 26
4/13/2010-2:56pm at 2:56 pm (UTC -4)
Great example in Francona.
metsfan4decades
4/13/2010-3:06pm at 3:06 pm (UTC -4)
Managing a ML club is not the job you want to try and build up your retire account around.
Only in MLB can you take a team to the post season 12 straight seasons and then basically be run out of town on a rail by the owners/FO. Or at least be offered such an insultingly incentive laden offer you know it’s going to be turned down. Saves face on firing and or no new contract and avoids the fan storming. Have to hand it to them, that was a brilliant tactical move there.
Given the fact that Torre was probably the most successful manager for reaching post season with any team in a long while, and even he couldn’t keep that confidence going, stands to reason managerial jobs are always going to be revolving doors.