1
Seems like the wrong reasons to hire a manager IMO.
You want someone that can take command themselves and preferrably someone with a track record of success.
Baker, Wedge and Zduriencik
=== Baker on Wedge ===
OK, so first hip-slam off of Lonnie's and Geoffy's riffs ... :- )
9 - What are Eric Wedge's strongest skills as a manager?
Wedge's strongest skill is his ability to say yes to the people running the show and take blame for things that aren't always his fault. I'm not writing this as a joke.
If you're going to work with some of the newer, stats-driven front offices in baseball, you have to be able to go with the resistance. These front offices tend to treat managers like puppets and then point fingers at the dugout when their best-laid plans go astray. ...And the GMs of those teams will want certain players used regularly while the manager takes heat from fans for doing so....
Wedge worked for years with a front office in Cleveland that was anointed genius-level status by some but never quite lived up to that reputation. ...nd he lasted all through the past decade, from the basement up. That requires knowing how to work with a GM because there are always growing pains associated with rebuilding teams. The fact Wedge can handle this gives him a leg up because you can be sure there will be regular phone calls from Jack Zduriencik down to the dugout, or post-game meetings to dissect what went wrong. This doesn't mean the manager is a yes-man. He just knows when to pick his battles.
This is a big reason why Bobby Valentine wasn't hired. Zduriencik is feeling his own brand of heat from above. He needs a manager to do things his way and can't afford to be getting into debates on every decision, foolish as the decision may wind-up being.
Usually we summarize a section like that. But which sentence are you going to take out?
... 2002 to 2009 were the Mark Shapiro years. Shapiro of course had sabermetricians eating out of the palm of his hands because ... he didn't play baseball. He was an Ivy League grad who analyzed baseball using numbers -- so obviously an evolution in the correct direction, right?
In fact, you might remember a local movement to hire Shapiro's assistant Chris Antonetti, who was in effect the Paul DePodesta to Shapiro's Billy Beane.
Check Shapiro's record as GM. Nine seasons, only two of them above .500. Did Ricciardi, or DePodesta, or the numbers-only guys as a group, prove that they were an evolution in the direction of superiority?
I know a sabermetrician or two that I would looooove to see given a baseball team. :- )
.................
Interesting that Baker puts the Mariners into the "newer front office" type. I'm sure that Zduriencik's team (with Blengino et al) is more digital than, say, Pat Gillick's. But I would hardly put Jack Zduriencik into a basket with Shapiro, Ricciardi or DePodesta.
Would like to ask Geoff what he's talking about there.
.................
As you know, I have 24-karat, genuine admiration for sabermetrics that advance the understanding of baseball. The reason I'm blogging is because of the 100's of hours of fascination that James brought his audience.
There are guys today who humbly, likeably, and entertainingly move our understanding of the game forward. Tango, Allen, Studeman, and others are constantly publishing work that is of real and impactful value to major league GM's. (And these guys have a strange tendency to actually be hired by those GM's.)
It's only when people characterize the average sabermetrician as having 975 of 1,000 light bulbs on, and Pat Gillick as having 300 of them on, that I lock and load.
That's all. Sabermetrics good. Ignorance bad.
.................
As to Zduriencik preferring Wedge to Valentine ... it is fascinating that with his life on the line, Zduriencik wants the steering wheel. You've got to admire the self-belief.
.................
Working-class fans tend to resent a manager "selling out" by doing as his boss directs him to do.
My own feeling is the opposite. In F-500, a senior manager is there to execute the director's vision. If he does so, and the director's vision is sewage, usually the powers-that-be will recognize it.
Zduriencik has the right, and the responsibility, to get a manager who will execute his plan coherently. And it's to Wedge's credit if he's willing to help create that coherency.
It's on Zduriencik. And I trust Zduriencik. So I'm good.
.
Cheerio,
The other other Jeff
Comments
2
Well you want all the oars pulling in the same direction, at least if you're a general manager with a clear vision. Wedge combines a neat package of org compatibility & being a good soldier with some MLB street cred and a reputation for integrity.
So why am I still so underwhelmed by his presence here?
3
It happens a lot. And it's something they don't teach you in business school.
If an exec's butt is on the line over a given product development or department's performance, he will almost certainly micro-manage it. He will have to have a malleable product manager or department head in place. A strong, independent type will just create too much conflict. I've been through it myself as a :ahem: very Type-A, independent manager. Micro manage me and it's going to go bad for everyone involved.
Funny, that I never put the Valentine/Wedege thing in this context but it makes perfect sense.
4
I agree with the above. I saw Wedge speak at a baseball coaches convention and he is all about the team and all about the players. I was really impressed with him and I think if I was a player, I would want to play for him.
5
I think what some people don't quite understand is just why synergy between GM and Manager is important.
The GM's job is *NOT* dependent on what the Manager does. But, the Manager's job can be made easier or harder depending on the decisions of the GM.
The Managers JOB is to get the maximum *COMBINED* production out of whatever players the GM provides. The tricky part here is that maximizing combined production is not synonymous with maximizing individual production.
BUT ... the Manager needs to communicate "needs" to the GM, and can assist the GM in making decisions that will make it easier to maximize combined production.
In Atlanta in 1990, Bobby Cox tells John Scheurholz - "we've got a good hitting SS - Blauser ... but he's costing us games with his glove." The GM goes and gets Rafael Belliard, a glove-only SS for the roster. Bobby Cox gets Belliard into 149 games ... Blauser into 136 - (combined 693 PAs between the two). W/O Belliard, Cox doesn't have an option to maximize both offensive and defensive production from SS, he just has to live with good bat, lead glove and concentrate his efforts elsewhere.
My view of the manager's job is why I was so confused by the general concensus that Wak was a good manager in a bad situation. If 23 of 25 players on a roster are performing under expectation/projection/historic norms, the manager is clearly NOT doing *HIS* job. The GM may have made his job easy or hard ... but that doesn't change the basic job.
I said DURING 2010 that Wak's "choices" likely had detrimental impact on the production of half the roster. A lot of it had to do with Griffey cemented to the #5 slot. If the GM doesn't sign Griffey, *THAT* scenario is avoided, and the 2010 season has a completely different dynamic - so one could point the finger at Z (or higher) for bringing Griffey back.
But, once on the roster, it becomes Wak's job to balance the PT and fill out the lineup card. If the GM gives you Reggie Jackson ... but you think benching Reggie will help increase production overall, then as Manager, you bench Reggie.
The GM can get miffed - and can fire you. But, if the GM says, "player X starts in the #5 slot every game against RHP!" The manager has a simple choice. He can keep his job (briefly) by compliance - or he can DO his job, and bench the player that is not getting the job done.
IMO, doesn't matter what the profession, at the point you decide the way to keep your job is to NOT do your job, you're doomed.
6
Thanks for the on-site report John. 90% of communication is nonverbal, and if live-up-close you saw him as a team guy, that's great to hear.
7
Hargrove's disdain for Bavasi became plainly visible toward the end, with Hargrove jerking Shin-Soo Shoo out of the lineup after one (1) OF error, giving Petagine 2 plate appearances in the first 20 games and stuff like that.
The M's spiral down into 100 losses came because the powers-that-be allowed Hargrove to play brinksmanship with Bavasi via the lineup card, and stuff like that.
Behind-the-scenes relationships between MGR and GM can make or break a club, no doubts there. We just watched it in Seattle.
................
Oh for a Cox-Scheurholz duo here.