Comments on: Teams should stick with their managers longer

By: Roger Moore

Roger Moore — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:27:41 +0000

I think you’re missing an important point that Bill James made in his book on managers. It’s wrong to think of a manager as being generically good or bad. Instead, he needs to be seen as having strengths and weaknesses that will come into play in different circumstances. A manager who likes playing veterans may be perfect for a team trying to squeeze one or two great seasons out of its veteran core but horribly wrong after the team collapses and it’s time to rebuild with rookies. A defense first manager may be great if your team strength is young pitching and terrible if it’s veteran sluggers.

Hurdle’s problem wasn’t that he was a “bad manager”. His problem was that he was the wrong manager for the 2009 Rockies. He was a loyal manager who had been with many of his players for years. That was great, but it kept him from being willing to replace his declining players. Tracy didn’t have the same loyalties, so he was able to make the necessary moves Hurdle ran away from.

By: WhenMattStairsIsKing

WhenMattStairsIsKing — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:25:43 +0000

I’ve wondered this myself for years, and simply couldn’t agree more.

By: apbaguy

apbaguy — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:16:18 +0000

The EPL has the same dynamic, it’s why you see managers being recycled. It takes a long time to determine who is marginally more of “winner” in managerial circles. Guys like LaRussa, Torre, etc, are not automatic winners in every situation. But they are smart enough to capitalize on the good situations as they find them and can win the trust of management and/or the players and hold that trust, thereby gaining the time necessary to let their skills become evident.