Dr. D enjoys a good "manager drive-by" as well as the next saberdweeb

.............................

Start with the understanding that successful MLB managers do many things at an incomprehensibly super-competent level.  By "incomprehensibly" we mean that it's difficult to even understand their skills, even if we have them explained to us carefully.  Personally, I'm not claiming to understand how Bobby Cox could, despite a tough-guy approach, keep control of the Atlanta Braves for 20 years.

Some of these many things include:

1. Making sure everybody plays hard
2. Making sure all members of the 25-man roster play hard
3. Making sure that infielders, outfielders, catchers, and pitchers play hard
4. Helping with technical instruction (Mike Scioscia being the reductio ad absurdum)
5. Keeping pitchers healthy (Earl Weaver and Bobby Cox being the reductio ad absurdum)
6. Making in-game tactical decisions such as pitching changes (Jim Leyland not being the reductio ad absurdum.  Maybe Tony LaRussa)
7. Pointing his finger, in March, at the right ballplayer and saying "THAT one" (Lou Piniella being the reductio ad absurdum)
8. Staying on the same page with his boss (Mike Hargrove and Bill Bavasi not being the reductios ad absurdum)
9. Managing the media (Joe Torre and Tony LaRussa being the reductios ad absurdum)
10. etc

In the scheme of things, that "make sure everybody plays hard" bit:  (1) Has always been the most important part of the job, and (2) Becomes a larger and larger part of the job description, as time goes on.  It's even worse in the NBA, in which coaching is nothing more than matchups and relating to players.  But MLB is plenty bad enough that way.

We once axed a certain famous Red Sox exec, after a managerial change, what he'd thought of Grady Little's performance.  He directed his attention to 1, 2, and 3 above.  "Everybody played hard for Grady, except Manny."

...............

It's hard for people to understand just how few men there are on the planet who can retain control of a sports locker room.  The "old school saber" crew, the 1990's BP crowd, will sort of gloss over this.  It is not an area in which they are literate, and this means that they'll write it off as not very relevant.  Then they'll move on to focus on tactical decisions as the fans in the bleachers do.

Hey, it's hard to retain control of six tech writers for more than a year at a time.  How do you retain control of 25 millionaires all fighting over the money?  It's nearly impossible.  But Jack Zduriencik had to fire Don Wakamatsu when he failed to do the impossible:  to manage the Griffey / Figgins / young bucks civil war.  When the locker room goes, so does the chance to win, and so does the manager.

I'm not talking politics here:  I'm talking about the way that Big Business is misunderstood by academics.  I've heard college professors speak of major political candidates -- often governors of U.S. states -- as though they were literally unintelligent, literally below-average in IQ, like maybe he or she has an 85 IQ or something.  When that kind of rhetoric is thrown around, my mind always turns to the 3rd-, 4th- and 5th-level execs we worked with at Boeing.  The guys at Boeing who have 500 people under them, and who keep their organizations on time and under budget, those dudes are straight out of Deep Blue Sea.  They're killer sharks with big brains surgically implanted.  

Many people have never met a truly high-powered executive.  The first time you meet an Alan Mulally type, it's a daunting experience.  There isn't any such thing as a governor of a U.S. state who is unintelligent.  To say that there is, identifies you as a person who's never been around one, even for a moment.

Somebody asked Bill James last week whether he thought he could be a good GM.  He doubted it.  Every GM he'd ever met, he said, had a social element, a leadership talent, that he could never even strive to attain.  

The point is, the mesh of skills that allows Eric Wedge to lead effectively is a verrrrrrrry rare one.  It's not like you could just go find somebody off the street to replace Wedge.  Even the 50 guys on the planet who are known to be good at Wedge's job - they fail half the time when matched with the wrong clubhouses.

Fire Wedge?  Then who?  That's the problem.  Am not saying you shouldn't.  Am asking whether we understand the problems included with that decision.

.................

We talk about Wedge, we tend to talk about everything OTHER THAN his ability to lead men.  To keep them focused and doing the best they can.  But that is almost the only thing that Jack Zduriencik will consider, when he decides whether to continue with Eric Wedge.  

Is Michael Saunders still going out there playing to win, believing that he can win, working the count and letting the bat fly?  Is Jason Vargas setting up hitters with an idea out there, or is he pitching with a Noesi-like lack of interest?  That's what the insiders talk about, when they talk about an ML manager.