The Importance of a Competent Field General?

[CubinNY]

They (whomever they are) say that a manager is only good for a couple of wins each season. If this is true, does that also mean the manager is only responsible for a couple of losses too? Or can a bad manager cost the team much more than a few?

 

I don't know, but Jim Leyland has the Tigers off to a 26-13 start this year with roughly the exact same team as last year's (minus Kenny Rogers) that went 71-91. Early on he set the tone when on get away day the Tigers mailed one in and looked bad. He publically chastized not just the players but the coaches too. He was noticably mad. Since that time the Tigers haven't set the world on fire but they've played pretty well.

Edited May 19, 2006 by CubinNY

[Banedon]

They (whomever they are) say that a manger is only good for a couple of wins each season. If this is true, does that also mean the mangers is only responsible for a couple of losses too? Or can a bad manager cost the team much more than a few?

 

I don't know, but Jim Leyland has the Tigers off to a 26-11 start this year with roughly the exact same team as last year's (minus Kenny Rogers) that went 71-91. Early on he set the tone when on get away day the Tigers mailed one in and looked bad. He publically chastized not just the players but the coaches too. He was noticably mad. Since that time the Tigers haven't set the world on fire but they've played pretty well.

 

Pretty sure it's been said before that while a manager will rarely win you games, he can lose you bunches. Hence much of the clamoring for Baker's dismissal.

[mul21]

They (whomever they are) say that a manger is only good for a couple of wins each season. If this is true, does that also mean the mangers is only responsible for a couple of losses too? Or can a bad manager cost the team much more than a few?

 

I don't know, but Jim Leyland has the Tigers off to a 26-11 start this year with roughly the exact same team as last year's (minus Kenny Rogers) that went 71-91. Early on he set the tone when on get away day the Tigers mailed one in and looked bad. He publically chastized not just the players but the coaches too. He was noticably mad. Since that time the Tigers haven't set the world on fire but they've played pretty well.

 

The metrics people say managers are worth only a couple of games either way due to measurable things. Setting a tone and having expectations for the way the team plays are things that can't be measured, but play a huge role in player performance whether anybody wants to admit it or not. Thus the discussions on whether or not the Cubs players had quit on Dusty, which I almost wish they would.

[soapy]

Leyland may in fact be one of the reasons for their improvement, but it doesn't hurt to have a healthy Maggs (who's already surpassed last year's HR total) and Rodriquez vastly outproducing his 2005.

[Sammy Sofa]

We need a Patton and got a McClellan.

[frostwyrm]

We need a Patton and got a McClellan.

Nah, McClellan was a good detail-oriented planner and organizer, but wasn't bold enough to follow through on anything. Dusty is plenty bold, but a lousy planner who is unwilling or unable to keep track of multiple details. He's probably more of a John Bell Hood.

[Sammy Sofa]

Touche, good sir.

[Danny82]

I don't see how you can say it is the same team.

 

Verlander has been pitching for the entire season and is pitching very well. Plus, Bonderman has another year of experience under his belt. Zumaya has also been added to the pen. Those, plus the aforementioned Rogers, are some pretty valuable improvements to the pitching staff over last year.

[Jehrico]

One word: Fundamentals.

 

If your teams doesn't have good fundamentals, it's a sign the manager isn't doing his job. This is the third straight year under Dusty where this team has not displayed reasonable fundamental skills.

[daske17]

We need a Patton and got a McClellan.

Nah, McClellan was a good detail-oriented planner and organizer, but wasn't bold enough to follow through on anything. Dusty is plenty bold, but a lousy planner who is unwilling or unable to keep track of multiple details. He's probably more of a John Bell Hood.

 

I'm thinking we got more of a Ulysses S. Grant. Relies about exclusively on reputation while putting unqualified parties in positions of power.

[Outshined_One]

I don't see how you can say it is the same team.

 

Verlander has been pitching for the entire season and is pitching very well. Plus, Bonderman has another year of experience under his belt. Zumaya has also been added to the pen. Those, plus the aforementioned Rogers, are some pretty valuable improvements to the pitching staff over last year.

 

Todd Jones's continued resurgence (he was with FLA last season) and Curtis Granderson & Chris Shelton seeing more consistent playing time has definitely helped matters, as well.

 

Looks like my prediction of Verlander winning AL ROY was a good one. 8)

[NCCubFan]

They (whomever they are) say that a manger is only good for a couple of wins each season. If this is true, does that also mean the manger is only responsible for a couple of losses too? Or can a bad manager cost the team much more than a few?

I don't think a manger has ever won or lost a baseball game. In fact, I don't think a manger has ever seen a baseball game. :D

[CubinNY]

They (whomever they are) say that a manger is only good for a couple of wins each season. If this is true, does that also mean the manger is only responsible for a couple of losses too? Or can a bad manager cost the team much more than a few?

I don't think a manger has ever won or lost a baseball game. In fact, I don't think a manger has ever seen a baseball game. :D

 

Damn my spelling.

 

Anyway, my man anger is very high at the Cubs manager right now.

 

Maybe Dusty will understand this: This team is flipping and flopping around like a bass out of water. What the Cubs need to do is decide who are the keepers to put in the live well and who are the ones to throw back.

[Stu]

We need a Patton and got a McClellan.

Nah, McClellan was a good detail-oriented planner and organizer, but wasn't bold enough to follow through on anything. Dusty is plenty bold, but a lousy planner who is unwilling or unable to keep track of multiple details. He's probably more of a John Bell Hood.

 

I'm thinking we got more of a Ulysses S. Grant. Relies about exclusively on reputation while putting unqualified parties in positions of power.

 

That describes Grant as president. As a general his chief attribute was that he was aggressive. As Lincoln said of him, when others were clamoring for Grant to be sacked because of his rough edges: "That man fights."

[thedaymen]

 

That describes Grant as president. As a general his chief attribute was that he was aggressive. As Lincoln said of him, when others were clamoring for Grant to be sacked because of his rough edges: "That man fights."

 

Just being aggressive, dude.