Torre > Brosius? It cannot be. I will not hear such blasphemy,
Sir Buster.
Look, Joe Torre seems like a good enough guy. Grandfatherly mien, reassuring eyes, a calm, arms-folded presence in the dugout. No obvious assholish tendencies. Sure,
we're all emotional about his departure. I ask you, though, Buster Olney, when you wake up one year from now, will you still really believe this paragraph? How about five years? Fifty?
I always will believe that during the 1996-2001 dynasty, Mariano Rivera was the only uniformed member of the organization more important to the Yankees' success than Torre. They could not have won so much without him, and it remains to be seen if any Yankee manager can ever be as successful or as adept as Joe Torre.Oh. "Always." You will always believe that
no player besides Mariano Rivera was more valuable than Joe Torre. Seriously, when Derek Jeter retires, are you really going to write that, hey, Jetes was a pretty sweet shortstop, but he was no Joe Torre when it comes to winning baseball games? If you had a crazy combo draft of players and managers in 2001, are you really taking Torre over Derek Fucking Fitzgerald Jeter, God of Baseball and Winner of Life?
I'm sorry. This is a heartfelt piece by Buster. He's emotional. There's stuff in there about fatherly pats on the cheek (his words, not mine) and cancer and Scott Brosius' dying dad that I'm not even going to touch. Buster, I understand that you know the man and that you empathize with him. You spent time with him. You know more about Joe Torre the person than everyone reading this blog except for Don Mattingly (hi, Don!). But you can honor Joey T-Bones without resorting to this kind of run of the mill, knee-jerk, Baseball Tonight Bold Prediction-type sports-writing/-commentary hyperbole.
And let's take a step back. Again, we're all sad. Torre is leaving. Stand-up guy. Might be a bad decision for the club. But we're talking about a situation where you're feeling misty-eyed for a guy who's turning down a five million dollar base salary because it is a fucking insult to him. Five million dollars. And he's not hitting 97-mph Josh Beckett fastballs or spearing Curtis Granderson laser beams. He's not doing something that only a select few hundred human beings have the physical and mental capacity to do. He's choosing what order to write down names in a lineup (sometimes poorly). He's deciding when to put a relief pitcher in a game (often incorrectly).
Managing is easier than playing.
Which brings us to value, or as Buster frames it, "importance." Mariano Rivera: extremely important. Thanks for the concession, Buster. And now, a smattering of stats from some of the players who helped the Yankees win four championships in five years. I'm not saying that Joe Torre didn't contribute. I bet he did. Some. But these guys
effing played the games.
Tino Martinez, 1996-2001: 175 HR
Derek Jeter, 1996-2001: 1187 hits
Bernie Williams, 1996-2001: 6 consecutive years of OPS+s over 131
Andy Pettitte, 1996-2001: 1274 2/3 IP, ranging from good to outstanding
Paul O'Neill, 1996-2001: 604 RBI
And these are just some of the really good guys. The list, honestly, is endless. Forget these guys. Forget even the regulars: the Brosiuses, the Knoblauchs, the Stantons. How about Chili Davis' 476 okay at bats at DH? At least he got hits and scored runs. Hideki Irabu sucked, but at least he got
some outs.
The much belabored point is this: Joe Torre managed supertalented teams for a super long time in a super overexposed media market. For that he is a saint in the eyes of many. But he is a human man, a man who was an okay to pretty good baseball manager doing a job that probably a fair number of other people might have been fine doing as well. Baseball managers do not play the game. They do not have as much influence on the outcome of the game as say, football coaches or Ramiro Mendozas. Search your pinstripe-tattooed soul. You know this to be true.
Now excuse me while I finish crying about Joe's departure. I started several days ago and am not ready to stop just yet.
Labels: joe torre, managing, scott brosius, yankees
SI.com's Jon Heyman lists his top 10.
And away we go:
1. Tony La Russa
He put to rest the notion his players tighten up come October with one of the great managing jobs of our time last year. It's no easy thing to make an 83-win team believe it can win. Now he's made me believe. He's an original thinker who's unsurpassed strategically. "I have tried to guess along with him on what moves he'll make next,'' David Eckstein told me in spring training, "and it just can't be done.''
If you haven't already, I invite you to read Buzz Bissinger's book 3 Nights in August, about La Russa. The purported aim of the book is to show how brilliant La Russa is as a strategist. The actual accomplishment is to make one feel like one wouldn't trust La Russa to take care of one's cats, much less one's baseball team. It starts with an anecdote about how Albert Pujols has a severe arm injury -- one that allows him to swing a bat but not throw. La Russa wants to play him anyway, to like intimidate the other team (which doesn't know about the injury), so he puts him in left field and tells him to casually underhand the ball to the SS if it gets hit to him. A doctor has told La Russa that Pujols, the most important player on the team by a factor of fifty, is risking severe like career-threatening shit if he throws a baseball. This is a not-super-important game. I mean, what the hell?
Avid readers of this blog might remember many months ago when I wrote that I was going to do a lengthy review of this book. I started reading and making notes. By page 80 I had filled ten notebook pages with scribbles and exclamation points and frowny faces, and decided the task was just too big.
And before we go talking about how La Russa is a master strategist because his crappy team won the WS after winning 83 games last year, let's all remember that he controlled three of the most disappointing WS teams in recent history -- the 88 A's (104 wins, McGwire/Canseco, 3 16 game winners and Eck, blown out in 5 games by the Dodgers), the '90 A's (who got humiliated by the Reds) and the '04 Cardinals (who won 105 games and got brushed aside like sidewalk trash).
2. Jim Leyland
Perhaps he isn't the master strategist that La Russa is, but as a salesman and motivator, no one's better. His only blemish is his short time in Colorado, when his heart wasn't in it.
I fail to see why it's okay that his heart wasn't in it when he had a tough job. As opposed to when he managed the '97 Marlins, the best team money could buy, or the ultimately disappointing 90's Bucs. I think he's a fun guy, and a good manager, but shouldn't a big part of a manager's evaluation be how he does when he gets handed a pile of crap? (And please don't tell me the '06 Tigers were a pile of crap. They were well-positioned to be a solid team with that pitching.)
3. Mike Scioscia
Smart and solid, he's extremely even-keeled, and his players have bought into his aggressive, NL style.
Whatever. He's fine.
4. Joe Torre
Fourth place for the four World Series rings. But can he please take it easy on his favorite relievers? He especially needs to be careful with Andy Pettitte and Mariano Rivera.
I don't really know what to make of Torre. I happen to think that the most important job a manager does is handle the clubhouse and the owner. He has a tough clubhouse and a terribly whimsical/crazy owner, and is always even-keeled, so, to quote that weird guy who writes a weekly column about Starbucks and The Sopranos for SI.com, I think I think he's good. He also has a $200m payroll every year and occasionally makes some really odd decisions.
5. Lou Piniella
He didn't do his best work in Tampa, and baseball people noticed. Plus, he's been cited by some for mishandling pitchers. He certainly can lose his cool, as well, but that's part of his charm. Wouldn't want to have to match wits against him in the postseason, though that might not be anyone's worry this year.
I believe Sweet Lou is insanely overrated. Tampa never seemed one ounce better off with him than with anyone else. But what really irritates me is that he's sitting here at #5, and is followed by
6. Bobby Cox
I'm sure most would rank him higher. But since the goal is to win titles, that has to be seen as a failing.
I mean, you've got to be kidding me.
Figuring out what effect, if any, a manager has on a team is very difficult. Moneyball famously talks about how Billy Beane loved Art Howe because Howe sat stoically in the dugout and stared straight ahead and had the appearance of a leader, while essentially just following orders. He presided over those overachieving computer-generated teams that everyone loves to call underachieving because they got terribly unlucky in October, and then he went to the Mets and stunk up the place.
As I said, most anecdotal evidence (because empirical evidence with managers seems misleading) says that managers' most important job is that of a sheep dog -- herding the players in the same direction, keeping them from going astray over the course of a long season, focusing them on the task at hand, that kind of thing.
If that is at all true...who is better than Bobby Cox? He didn't win titles? He won every division title from 1844 to 2005. He throws some of the best player-protecting temper tantrums in the game. His guys love him. He handles veterans and rookies and retreads and rich guys and does gutsy things like make John Smoltz a closer. If I were GMing a team, I might get Bobby Cox to run it. Assuming he secretly agreed to run it Moneyball-style.
7. Grady Little
He was knocked hard for sticking with Pedro Martinez in the 2003 ALCS, when his critics apparently would have rather seen him turn the game over to a very iffy bullpen. He's a low-key guy who doesn't get the plaudits he deserves.
Grady Little is a bad manager. He is a very nice man who says pleasant things in a pleasant drawl. He has no business being anywhere near a dugout. And this is not sour grapes. This is common sense.
9. Ozzie GuillenIt may look like he's managing on emotion, but few know the game better.He hits Podsednik first, doesn't care about OBP, thinks everyone should steal, bunts all the time, and says racist and insulting things. But he has a fun accent!
10. Terry Francona
The Red Sox skipper keeps his cool in a tough environment. He manages both the clubhouse and game well.
If these are your criteria: put Torre first, Terry 2nd, Cox 3rd, and everyone else 4th.
11. Ron Gardenhire
Always has the Twins hustling, just like in the Tom Kelly years.
He also thought Luis Castillo was worth 15 extra wins for his team. He seems decent, I guess, though he does some funky things with his line-up.
Managers are a mystery. Uneven payrolls and the large element of luck in short series make conclusions about their abilities very difficult. In general they should probably be judged on their overall team management skills, on and off the field -- controlling their players well and also letting them have fun without letting things get out of control...all that jazz.
However, I believe -- and this is from memory, so correct me if I am wrong -- that it was Rick Pitino who once said that the only time a basketball coach really has any tangible influence over that fluid game was coming out of a timeout, when (s)he could set up a specific play. If there is any corresponding truth in baseball, then people who famously make bonehead moves at crucial situations should never be on the list of best managers in baseball.
I'm looking at you, Grady.
Labels: grady little, joe torre, jon heyman, managing, moneyball, tony la russa
I was floored by how reasonable new Nats manager Manny Acta comes off in
this Washington Times article. Honestly. Floored.
Take a look:
Defense: "A big part of defense is positioning. We are not going to be letting these guys do most of these things on their own. We are going to be controlling some part of the game from the bench. We will have enough charts and stuff to be able to see if he is in the right spot and, if not, control it. We would rather take that out of their hands, and between me and Pat Corrales, we will take care of that." "Charts and stuff." That means evidence, or at least an attempt at evidence. Fine. I like it. A decent start.
Stealing: "We will run selectively. I think one of the things that doomed this club last year is that they were first in caught stealing. I am not going to be running all over the place just because 25,000 people in the stands are saying I am aggressive while people are getting thrown out on the bases. Not everybody will have a green light here. The guys who are going to run are the guys who are going to prove to me that they will be successful most of the time trying to steal a base." Yes! Manny Acta, I love you. This guy just gets it. He even gets his own dig in at people think making extra outs on the basepaths is "aggressive." Preach on, Manny.
Bunting: "It's been proven to me that a guy at first base with no outs has a better chance to score than a guy at second base with one out. That has been proven to me with millions of at-bats. I don't like moving guys over from first to second unless the pitcher is up or it is real late in the game. Manny Acta: capable of learning. Open to new ideas. Looks at studies involving millions of at-bats and believes the results over what he's been told over and over again. Opposite of Ozzie Guillen.
Lineup: Acta said his preference for the second spot in the lineup ideally would be determined by on-base percentage -- even though his plan is to bat Guzman, a low-percentage on-base guy, second.
"You can't steal first base," he said. "That is the main thing for me. You have to get on in order to score. I know Guzman is not a big high-percentage guy, but we don't have all the choices that we want to have here right now. With Lopez on base, Guzman may be the ideal guy to get him over with a hit-and-run or a drag bunt to get the guy in the scoring position for the [Ryan] Zimmermans and [Austin] Kearnses of the world.
He said if everyone were healthy, Ryan Church would bat second. I'm going to come out and say it right now: I think Manny Acta reads FJM every day. He probably has it in his Bloglines.
Labels: managing, manny acta, nationals
