Comments on: Tony La Russa wants intensity and grittiness. And maybe he has a point.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:22:16 +0000

Most years, the Cardinals have been in the top 5 of the NL in payroll, far outspending most teams in their division. The Cubs and Astros have spent as much at times, but the Cardinals are always among the leaders in non-NY/BOS/LA spending.
.
LaRussa is a typical manager. He wins with good players and he loses with bad ones….for the most part, he has done well when he has a loaded team, and the team flags badly when they lose a player or two. Duncan does more with less than LaRussa does.
.
Last year LaRussa sucked all of the life out of his own team by being a bad manager/leader and he blamed one or two players for all of it instead of accepting any blame himself for failing to adapt.
.
A smart manager wouldn’t regularly take the 3rd best hitter out of his lineup late in the game in a move that weakened both the offense and defense, which is exactly what he did every time he replaced Rasmus with Jay or Winn or Stav or whoever….then he’d move a RF over to play CF and put a horrible defender in RF. It does take talent to weaken so many aspects of your team in one fell swoop.

By: spudchukar

spudchukar — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:41:41 +0000

OK, Hacker point take with the A’s. But it isn’t accurate that the Cards have been in the top 1/3 since his takeover. Top half would be accurate. They have ranked 13th and 11th recently, and have never been in the upper echelon. You could be correct about the current Cardinal GM, time will tell, but exactly who were the GM’s previously who kept him in check, and what exactly are his ideas that are crazy?

By: hackerjay

hackerjay — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 21:46:12 +0000

Oakland was always in the top third in team payroll while LaRussa was their manager, and they had the highest payroll in the league in 1991. The Cardinals have also been in the top third in salary ever since LaRussa has been there.
I don’t think his success is 100% related to the teams he has been on, but he has almost never (I couldn’t find his White Sox data) managed a low payroll team.

I do wonder though if LaRussa has too much power with the Cardinals nowadays. It seems like in the past his general managers have kept a lot of his crazier ideas in check. The new Cardinals guy kind of seems like a pushover to me though. I could be wrong, as I don’t follow the Cards all that closely, but that is the impression I’ve got.

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:55:45 +0000

And when you don’t let them play, things go to hell. #freeColby

By: spudchukar

spudchukar — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:12:32 +0000

It is even more amazing that one would diminish his accomplishments, by suggesting his success is primarily due to Dave Duncan. Kinda like saying Napolean was overrated as a military commander, and his triumphs were due to his great generals.
I’m not always in full concert with La Russa, and I too have some real doubts about the upcoming season, Lohse?, Berkman’s defense?, closer?, Shumaker and the rival divisional acquisitions; but one thing I do know is that by the close of the 2011 season if we are not playoff bound it won’t be because of managerial decisions. More likely the result of cheap-assed ownership. La Russa will do as he has always done, make the most out of what he has.

By: spudchukar

spudchukar — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:02:59 +0000

Not often do I hear you compliment La Russa Craig, so I know bias isn’t at play here. To be accurate La Russa/Duncan were among the first, and probably utilize some statistical analysis, like spray charts, pitching tendencies and hitting zones more than any other organization. So it would be unfair to classify them as anti-statistical. Their un-conventional philosophies are a combination multiple theories. They use stats as tools not gospel as they should.
While the great player, great manager meme has some merit it should be noted that La Russa’s tenure in MLB has included stops in Oakland, Chicago (Sox), and St. Louis; not exactly known for their spendy ways. I find it pretty remarkable that he has enjoyed the success he has had, and to dismiss it as a result of overarching talent, or lucrative contracts is unfair. (cont.)

By: paperlions

paperlions — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:53:34 +0000

“the odd juicer or two” understates EVERY team of the 90s
.
I agree about Duncan. I have little doubt that he has been more instrumental in LaRussa managing winning teams than LaRussa has.

By: hackerjay

hackerjay — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:51:51 +0000

“They were second in the league in stolen bases too, despite all that power.”
Rickey Henderson had 65 of the team’s 141 stolen bases. Any team Rickey was on was going to be near the top of the stolen base leaderboard.

By: randomdigits

randomdigits — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:40:39 +0000

You also read the same stuff in Will’s book Men at work. Of course Men at work also has La Russa talking about how he doesn’t drink…

By: thefalcon123

thefalcon123 — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:22:56 +0000

What Tony LaRussa is really great at is pushing management to spend money. When they A’s stopped spending money, they started losing under LaRussa. This isn’t a knock against him, it’s actually a pretty amazing trait. Tony’s 2nd reason for success is Dave Duncan.

By: apbaguy

apbaguy — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:11:30 +0000

I think “the odd juicer or two” understates the 1990 A’s significantly, but that’s in the past. Don’t forget LaRussa’s not-so-secret weapon: Dave Duncan. It helps when you can count on having solid pitching every year, no matter what names are on the backs of the uniforms.

By: kander013

kander013 — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:00:18 +0000

For the love of God, please sign Nick Punto if La Russa wants scrappers. Gardy can drop off his little one at the airport too.

By: holliswatson

holliswatson — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:20:56 +0000

This post pretty well sums up my thoughts for the 2010 season. As a Cards fan, I’m nervous. As a La Russa fan, I still feel like he’s the man for the job, and I’m glad he’s back. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

By: PanchoHerreraFanClub

PanchoHerreraFanClub — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:15:02 +0000

Yeah, isn’t amazing that good managers always seem to have good players.

By: yankeesfanlen

yankeesfanlen — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:34:58 +0000

Intensity and Lance Berkman in the same thought? Must have checked it at the GWB.

By: mangothefruit

mangothefruit — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:25:39 +0000

Of course it helps that he’s almost always had HOFers and major superstars on his teams (Not to mention the odd juicer or two). You can be eccentric as you want as long as you keep letting those players play.