The Ryne Sandberg Thread

[dew1679666265]

This idea was brought up and nobody had done it yet, so I figured why not. The following are the many reasons given on this board as to why Ryne Sandberg should not be the manager of the Chicago Cubs:

 

Comments made by Ryno

The reason I am here, they tell me, is that I played the game a certain way, that I played the game the way it was supposed to be played. I don’t know about that, but I do know this: I had too much respect for the game to play it any other way

 

If you played the game the right way, played the game for the team, good things would happen. That’s what I loved most about the game, how a ground out to second with a man on second and nobody out was a great thing.

 

But Harry, who was a huge supporter of mine, used to say how nice it is that a guy who can hit 40 homers or steal 50 bases or drive in a hundred runs is the best bunter on the team. Nice? That was my job. When did it -- When did it become okay for someone to hit home runs and forget how to play the rest of the game?

 

When we went home every winter, they warned us not to lift heavy weights because they didn’t want us to lose flexibility. They wanted us to be baseball players, not only home run hitters.

 

In my day, if a guy came to spring training 20 pounds heavier than what he left, he was considered out of shape and was probably in trouble. He’d be under a microscope and the first time he couldn’t beat out a base hit or missed a fly ball, he was probably shipped out. These guys sitting up here did not pave the way for the rest of us so that players could swing for the fences every time up and forget how to move a runner over to third. It’s disrespectful to them, to you, and to the game of baseball that we all played growing up.

 

If this validates anything, it’s that learning how to bunt and hit and run and turning two is more important than knowing where to find the little red light at the dug out camera.

 

Transmogrified Tiger comment about Ryno

It's not platitudes that everyone says, he's written articles detailing his love for bunts and steals and other such things. Look at his HOF speech for more proof. Or just look at the games he manages. The guy got thrown out of a game every 10 days or so last year. He sac bunted with his 3 hitter after the first two guys reached base. In the top of the 1st. There's a lot more evidence pointing to "Sandberg was a great baseball player who doesn't have the progressive mindset to be an effective manager" than not.

 

A selected Ryno managerial game

 

Tennessee Top 1st

 

* Tony Thomas hits a ground-rule double (5) on a fly ball to left-center field.

* With James Adduci batting, passed ball by Jose Camarena, Tony Thomas to 3rd.

* James Adduci walks.

* Darwin Barney singles on a line drive to center fielder Gorkys Hernandez. Tony Thomas scores. James Adduci to 2nd.

* Ty Wright out on a sacrifice bunt, third baseman Eric Campbell to second baseman Travis Jones. James Adduci to 3rd. Darwin Barney to 2nd.

 

Here are a couple of links that have led many on here to view Ryno the way they do. Just thought it would be helpful.

 

FJM

 

Yahoo!

 

HOF speech

 

Threads of interest:

 

Sandberg interview

 

What's with all the Sandberg hate around here?

Edited August 23, 2010 by dew

[Old Style]

I don't like bunting your #3 hitter in the first inning (or any inning, really), but other than that I don't see a lot about Sandberg that I don't like. Granted, I haven't spent a lot of time researching or contemplating the issue.

[apete6]

IT'S NICE TO BE IMPORTANT BUT IT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO BE NICE

[dew1679666265]

I don't like bunting your #3 hitter in the first inning (or any inning, really), but other than that I don't see a lot about Sandberg that I don't like. Granted, I haven't spent a lot of time researching or contemplating the issue.

 

I don't agree with all the complaints and fears about Sandberg, but I think his pro-small ball leanings are a bit concerning.

 

The impression I've gotten is that he'd be more active in-game than I'd like, though I think he'd do well teaching and instructing the younger players outside of games. It's one reason I'd really like him in Trammel's current role (assuming Trammel leaves after the year) but not so much as manager.

[soapy]

I'm not entirely convinced one can make the assumption that a manager would manage in the majors the same way he managed in the minors. How much of his decision making was based on trying to teach a player something and how much was based on (what he believed to be) a strategy that would help win the game? For example, Ty Wright isn't the kind of guy that's going to find himself hitting 3rd in a major league line-up anytime soon. One could argue that Sandberg thinks it's important for him to know how to lay down a sac in a critical situation sometime in the future. That's probably not what's happening there, but I think one could make that argument. I find it hard to believe that any manager would bunt in the first inning with their 3rd hitter when the first two guys reach in a major league game.

 

Having said that, based purely on what he has done and what he's written about the way he believes the game should be played, I'm definitely not in favor of having Ryno manage the Cubs. Then there's also the whole thing about not wanting to end up hating my favorite player of all time.

[Sammy Sofa]

I think the main thing that's just absurd about potentially making him the manager next year is his complete lack of MLB coaching/managing experience. That would be true for anyone poised to make this leap.

[soapy]

I think the main thing that's just absurd about potentially making him the manager next year is his complete lack of MLB coaching/managing experience. That would be true for anyone poised to make this leap.

 

Right. As others have mentioned, it would make far more sense for him to come in as a coach before becoming a manager. He's still young enough to do that at this point.

[dew1679666265]

I'm not entirely convinced one can make the assumption that a manager would manage in the majors the same way he managed in the minors. How much of his decision making was based on trying to teach a player something and how much was based on (what he believed to be) a strategy that would help win the game? For example, Ty Wright isn't the kind of guy that's going to find himself hitting 3rd in a major league line-up anytime soon. One could argue that Sandberg thinks it's important for him to know how to lay down a sac in a critical situation sometime in the future. That's probably not what's happening there, but I think one could make that argument. I find it hard to believe that any manager would bunt in the first inning with their 3rd hitter when the first two guys reach in a major league game.

 

Having said that, based purely on what he has done and what he's written about the way he believes the game should be played, I'm definitely not in favor of having Ryno manage the Cubs. Then there's also the whole thing about not wanting to end up hating my favorite player of all time.

 

The bunting with Ty Wright thing bothered me, but I'll admit I don't expect him to bunt in the first inning with a middle of the order guy if he manages the Cubs. I do think, from that event and from things he's said, that he prefers the more traditional type of baseball that emphasizes batting average and small ball.

[cubsfan5150]

I'm not entirely convinced one can make the assumption that a manager would manage in the majors the same way he managed in the minors. How much of his decision making was based on trying to teach a player something and how much was based on (what he believed to be) a strategy that would help win the game? For example, Ty Wright isn't the kind of guy that's going to find himself hitting 3rd in a major league line-up anytime soon. One could argue that Sandberg thinks it's important for him to know how to lay down a sac in a critical situation sometime in the future. That's probably not what's happening there, but I think one could make that argument. I find it hard to believe that any manager would bunt in the first inning with their 3rd hitter when the first two guys reach in a major league game.

 

Having said that, based purely on what he has done and what he's written about the way he believes the game should be played, I'm definitely not in favor of having Ryno manage the Cubs. Then there's also the whole thing about not wanting to end up hating my favorite player of all time.

 

The bunting with Ty Wright thing bothered me, but I'll admit I don't expect him to bunt in the first inning with a middle of the order guy if he manages the Cubs. I do think, from that event and from things he's said, that he prefers the more traditional type of baseball that emphasizes batting average and small ball.

 

Baseball might be moving in that direction as a whole. Pitching has been pretty dominant this season. Regardless, all the bitching about Ryno bunting his #3 batter is nonsense. The point of the minors IS TO DEVELOPE PLAYERS. That's what he was doing. I've seen books and such that stated that the big league club lets the minor league coaches know what they want certain players to work on.

 

As far as Ryno's statement that grounding out to second to get the guy to third is not a bad thing... it's not when the other outcome is the batter striking out and now your sitting with a guy on second and one out. I think what he's referring to is the exact reason that Dunn, Howard, and a multitude of other HR hitters will never be near the player that Pujols is. Pujols makes sure to put the ball in play. Striking out is not OK most of the time, especially in the fore mentions scenario. Part of what Ryno is saying, is that the HR hitters in his day were for the most part "baseball players", not just HR hitters. Dawson, Schmidt, Canseco (I know), Bonds, Griffey, Evans, etc., these guys were all around players, not just one dimensional strike out artists.

 

If Nolan Ryan pitched now, he might strike out 6k batters.

[Sammy Sofa]

Jeez, most hitters won't be the hitter that Pujols is? That's a pretty brave statement.

[cubsfan5150]

Jeez, most hitters won't be the hitter that Pujols is? That's a pretty brave statement.

 

I didn't say "hitter", I said "player". Pujols does everything, Howard, Reynolds, and Dunn do one thing. Pujols is excellent defensively, can you say that about the other guys, probably not. Pujols is said to be one of the best baserunners in the league, can you say that about the other guys? No. Pujols is an all around player, which is what Ryno is saying you should be, not just a HR hitter that strikes out every third at bat.

[Sammy Sofa]

He's still an extreme outlier. It's simply not realistic to expect most players to be anywhere near the type of player that Pujols is, so why not point to the legion of other players that perform multiple roles well, or at least serviceably? Pujols is basically a freak, so comparing other players to him is pretty pointless, plus players like Howard and Dunn have shown time and time again how extremely valuable they can be, so why dismiss them as if they're something young players should actively avoid becoming if their strengths ultimately show them to be that type of player? Some players simply have obvious strengths and glaring weaknesses instead of being "balanced" players, and Sandberg's rhetoric often times sounds like he wants to essentially "force it" if a player isn't one of those all-around workhorses.

[MSG T]

I'm not entirely convinced one can make the assumption that a manager would manage in the majors the same way he managed in the minors. How much of his decision making was based on trying to teach a player something and how much was based on (what he believed to be) a strategy that would help win the game? For example, Ty Wright isn't the kind of guy that's going to find himself hitting 3rd in a major league line-up anytime soon. One could argue that Sandberg thinks it's important for him to know how to lay down a sac in a critical situation sometime in the future. That's probably not what's happening there, but I think one could make that argument. I find it hard to believe that any manager would bunt in the first inning with their 3rd hitter when the first two guys reach in a major league game.

 

Having said that, based purely on what he has done and what he's written about the way he believes the game should be played, I'm definitely not in favor of having Ryno manage the Cubs. Then there's also the whole thing about not wanting to end up hating my favorite player of all time.

 

The bunting with Ty Wright thing bothered me, but I'll admit I don't expect him to bunt in the first inning with a middle of the order guy if he manages the Cubs. I do think, from that event and from things he's said, that he prefers the more traditional type of baseball that emphasizes batting average and small ball.

 

Baseball might be moving in that direction as a whole. Pitching has been pretty dominant this season. Regardless, all the bitching about Ryno bunting his #3 batter is nonsense. The point of the minors IS TO DEVELOPE PLAYERS. That's what he was doing. I've seen books and such that stated that the big league club lets the minor league coaches know what they want certain players to work on.

 

As far as Ryno's statement that grounding out to second to get the guy to third is not a bad thing... it's not when the other outcome is the batter striking out and now your sitting with a guy on second and one out. I think what he's referring to is the exact reason that Dunn, Howard, and a multitude of other HR hitters will never be near the player that Pujols is. Pujols makes sure to put the ball in play. Striking out is not OK most of the time, especially in the fore mentions scenario. Part of what Ryno is saying, is that the HR hitters in his day were for the most part "baseball players", not just HR hitters. Dawson, Schmidt, Canseco (I know), Bonds, Griffey, Evans, etc., these guys were all around players, not just one dimensional strike out artists.

 

If Nolan Ryan pitched now, he might strike out 6k batters.

 

I don't have the table memorized, and I don't have either book here, but I'm almost positive your run expectancy goes down from a runner on second and no outs to a runner on third and one out. That would mean intentionally giving yourself up to move a runner over is a bad thing. If it just happens, ok, but they (the old timey guys like Sandberg) talk about doing things like that on purpose to help the team. In reality, things like that cause you to score fewer runs, which in turn, hurts the team.

[cubsfan5150]

I'm not entirely convinced one can make the assumption that a manager would manage in the majors the same way he managed in the minors. How much of his decision making was based on trying to teach a player something and how much was based on (what he believed to be) a strategy that would help win the game? For example, Ty Wright isn't the kind of guy that's going to find himself hitting 3rd in a major league line-up anytime soon. One could argue that Sandberg thinks it's important for him to know how to lay down a sac in a critical situation sometime in the future. That's probably not what's happening there, but I think one could make that argument. I find it hard to believe that any manager would bunt in the first inning with their 3rd hitter when the first two guys reach in a major league game.

 

Having said that, based purely on what he has done and what he's written about the way he believes the game should be played, I'm definitely not in favor of having Ryno manage the Cubs. Then there's also the whole thing about not wanting to end up hating my favorite player of all time.

 

The bunting with Ty Wright thing bothered me, but I'll admit I don't expect him to bunt in the first inning with a middle of the order guy if he manages the Cubs. I do think, from that event and from things he's said, that he prefers the more traditional type of baseball that emphasizes batting average and small ball.

 

Baseball might be moving in that direction as a whole. Pitching has been pretty dominant this season. Regardless, all the bitching about Ryno bunting his #3 batter is nonsense. The point of the minors IS TO DEVELOPE PLAYERS. That's what he was doing. I've seen books and such that stated that the big league club lets the minor league coaches know what they want certain players to work on.

 

As far as Ryno's statement that grounding out to second to get the guy to third is not a bad thing... it's not when the other outcome is the batter striking out and now your sitting with a guy on second and one out. I think what he's referring to is the exact reason that Dunn, Howard, and a multitude of other HR hitters will never be near the player that Pujols is. Pujols makes sure to put the ball in play. Striking out is not OK most of the time, especially in the fore mentions scenario. Part of what Ryno is saying, is that the HR hitters in his day were for the most part "baseball players", not just HR hitters. Dawson, Schmidt, Canseco (I know), Bonds, Griffey, Evans, etc., these guys were all around players, not just one dimensional strike out artists.

 

If Nolan Ryan pitched now, he might strike out 6k batters.

 

I don't have the table memorized, and I don't have either book here, but I'm almost positive your run expectancy goes down from a runner on second and no outs to a runner on third and one out. That would mean intentionally giving yourself up to move a runner over is a bad thing. If it just happens, ok, but they (the old timey guys like Sandberg) talk about doing things like that on purpose to help the team. In reality, things like that cause you to score fewer runs, which in turn, hurts the team.

 

Agreed, it does go down, but guess what's even lower... a runner on second and one out after Mark Reynolds just struck out because he's incapable of making contact on a regular basis.

[dew1679666265]

Baseball might be moving in that direction as a whole. Pitching has been pretty dominant this season. Regardless, all the bitching about Ryno bunting his #3 batter is nonsense. The point of the minors IS TO DEVELOPE PLAYERS. That's what he was doing. I've seen books and such that stated that the big league club lets the minor league coaches know what they want certain players to work on.

 

I understand that, but why have him bunt in the first inning? Is that just when Ryno decided to have him execute his sac bunt of the week/month or something? Or is there an element to Ryno's thinking that you maximize your ability to score by bunting runners over? That's what concerns me.

 

As far as Ryno's statement that grounding out to second to get the guy to third is not a bad thing... it's not when the other outcome is the batter striking out and now your sitting with a guy on second and one out.

 

Those aren't the only two options, though. Making an out is very rarely a good thing and a good hitter of any type should not intentionally get himself out. Try to get a good pitch to hit and try to drive the ball somewhere – that should be the goal of pretty much any hitter up there – unless the batter is trying a drag bunt or something similar on occassion to take advantage of good speed and/or poor defense.

 

I think what he's referring to is the exact reason that Dunn, Howard, and a multitude of other HR hitters will never be near the player that Pujols is. Pujols makes sure to put the ball in play. Striking out is not OK most of the time, especially in the fore mentions scenario. Part of what Ryno is saying, is that the HR hitters in his day were for the most part "baseball players", not just HR hitters. Dawson, Schmidt, Canseco (I know), Bonds, Griffey, Evans, etc., these guys were all around players, not just one dimensional strike out artists.

 

If Nolan Ryan pitched now, he might strike out 6k batters.

 

Pujols is the best hitter in the game and could be the most talented hitter ever. There's a lot more reasons why guys like Dunn and Howard are not as good a hitter as Pujols is than just that Pujols doesn't strike out as much.

 

Strike outs oftentimes are a sign of patience at the plate as well. A guy like Dunn is a very patient hitter who waits back for the pitcher to give him a good pitch to hit. That approach will allow you to get better pitches to hit, but will also put you behind in the count more often. It leads to more strikeouts, but it also makes you a better hitter overall. I'll agree on Howard, his strikeouts are largely a result of impatience at the plate and chasing pitcher's pitches. He doesn't have the patience Dunn does.

 

A focus on not striking out can lead to increased double plays and poorly hit balls as well. If a hitter shortens up his swing and takes a poor swing with the intent to only make contact and not strike out, you're looking at a weak grounder right at somebody most of the time. That must be taken into account as well.

[cubsfan5150]

He's still an extreme outlier. It's simply not realistic to expect most players to be anywhere near the type of player that Pujols is, so why not point to the legion of other players that perform multiple roles well, or at least serviceably? Pujols is basically a freak, so comparing other players to him is pretty pointless, plus players like Howard and Dunn have shown time and time again how extremely valuable they can be, so why dismiss them as if they're something young players should actively avoid becoming if their strengths ultimately show them to be that type of player? Some players simply have obvious strengths and glaring weaknesses instead of being "balanced" players, and Sandberg's rhetoric often times sounds like he wants to essentially "force it" if a player isn't one of those all-around workhorses.

 

If you are that player, why not make sure that you work on other parts of your game though. That's what Pujols, Sandberg and Dawson all did. Instead, these other guys, while valuable in some ways, don't improve themselves in the other parts of baseball.

[CoBleacherBum]

If the point of this thread is to show why Ryno should NOT be manager of the Cubs next year, it isn't convincing me. I guess the one exception would be the sac bunt with the #3 hitter. BUT... isn't it likely that if you took every manager and looked back at their history you could find a head scratcher like that?

 

By the way, what happened next? Did the runners eventually score? Did they win the game?

[dew1679666265]

Agreed, it does go down, but guess what's even lower... a runner on second and one out after Mark Reynolds just struck out because he's incapable of making contact on a regular basis.

 

But what if you're Adam Dunn who walks 40% of the time he steps to the plate and you draw a walk with a runner on second and none out? Then you have runners on first and second with nobody out instead of a runner on third and one out if you forced Dunn to weakly hit a grounder to the right side.

 

A manager should play to the strengths of a hitter and downplay his weaknesses. If you can make a hitter more balanced without making him worse overall, that's great. But it's also rare.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm not entirely convinced one can make the assumption that a manager would manage in the majors the same way he managed in the minors. How much of his decision making was based on trying to teach a player something and how much was based on (what he believed to be) a strategy that would help win the game? For example, Ty Wright isn't the kind of guy that's going to find himself hitting 3rd in a major league line-up anytime soon. One could argue that Sandberg thinks it's important for him to know how to lay down a sac in a critical situation sometime in the future. That's probably not what's happening there, but I think one could make that argument. I find it hard to believe that any manager would bunt in the first inning with their 3rd hitter when the first two guys reach in a major league game.

 

Having said that, based purely on what he has done and what he's written about the way he believes the game should be played, I'm definitely not in favor of having Ryno manage the Cubs. Then there's also the whole thing about not wanting to end up hating my favorite player of all time.

 

The bunting with Ty Wright thing bothered me, but I'll admit I don't expect him to bunt in the first inning with a middle of the order guy if he manages the Cubs. I do think, from that event and from things he's said, that he prefers the more traditional type of baseball that emphasizes batting average and small ball.

 

Baseball might be moving in that direction as a whole. Pitching has been pretty dominant this season. Regardless, all the bitching about Ryno bunting his #3 batter is nonsense. The point of the minors IS TO DEVELOPE PLAYERS. That's what he was doing. I've seen books and such that stated that the big league club lets the minor league coaches know what they want certain players to work on.

 

As far as Ryno's statement that grounding out to second to get the guy to third is not a bad thing... it's not when the other outcome is the batter striking out and now your sitting with a guy on second and one out. I think what he's referring to is the exact reason that Dunn, Howard, and a multitude of other HR hitters will never be near the player that Pujols is. Pujols makes sure to put the ball in play. Striking out is not OK most of the time, especially in the fore mentions scenario. Part of what Ryno is saying, is that the HR hitters in his day were for the most part "baseball players", not just HR hitters. Dawson, Schmidt, Canseco (I know), Bonds, Griffey, Evans, etc., these guys were all around players, not just one dimensional strike out artists.

 

If Nolan Ryan pitched now, he might strike out 6k batters.

 

I don't have the table memorized, and I don't have either book here, but I'm almost positive your run expectancy goes down from a runner on second and no outs to a runner on third and one out. That would mean intentionally giving yourself up to move a runner over is a bad thing. If it just happens, ok, but they (the old timey guys like Sandberg) talk about doing things like that on purpose to help the team. In reality, things like that cause you to score fewer runs, which in turn, hurts the team.

 

Agreed, it does go down, but guess what's even lower... a runner on second and one out after Mark Reynolds just struck out because he's incapable of making contact on a regular basis.

 

Guess what makes it go higher. 2 runs scored because Mark Reynolds hit a HR, because he wasn't busy worrying about putting the ball in play at the expense of actually making good contact.

[MSG T]

I'm not entirely convinced one can make the assumption that a manager would manage in the majors the same way he managed in the minors. How much of his decision making was based on trying to teach a player something and how much was based on (what he believed to be) a strategy that would help win the game? For example, Ty Wright isn't the kind of guy that's going to find himself hitting 3rd in a major league line-up anytime soon. One could argue that Sandberg thinks it's important for him to know how to lay down a sac in a critical situation sometime in the future. That's probably not what's happening there, but I think one could make that argument. I find it hard to believe that any manager would bunt in the first inning with their 3rd hitter when the first two guys reach in a major league game.

 

Having said that, based purely on what he has done and what he's written about the way he believes the game should be played, I'm definitely not in favor of having Ryno manage the Cubs. Then there's also the whole thing about not wanting to end up hating my favorite player of all time.

 

The bunting with Ty Wright thing bothered me, but I'll admit I don't expect him to bunt in the first inning with a middle of the order guy if he manages the Cubs. I do think, from that event and from things he's said, that he prefers the more traditional type of baseball that emphasizes batting average and small ball.

 

Baseball might be moving in that direction as a whole. Pitching has been pretty dominant this season. Regardless, all the bitching about Ryno bunting his #3 batter is nonsense. The point of the minors IS TO DEVELOPE PLAYERS. That's what he was doing. I've seen books and such that stated that the big league club lets the minor league coaches know what they want certain players to work on.

 

As far as Ryno's statement that grounding out to second to get the guy to third is not a bad thing... it's not when the other outcome is the batter striking out and now your sitting with a guy on second and one out. I think what he's referring to is the exact reason that Dunn, Howard, and a multitude of other HR hitters will never be near the player that Pujols is. Pujols makes sure to put the ball in play. Striking out is not OK most of the time, especially in the fore mentions scenario. Part of what Ryno is saying, is that the HR hitters in his day were for the most part "baseball players", not just HR hitters. Dawson, Schmidt, Canseco (I know), Bonds, Griffey, Evans, etc., these guys were all around players, not just one dimensional strike out artists.

 

If Nolan Ryan pitched now, he might strike out 6k batters.

 

I don't have the table memorized, and I don't have either book here, but I'm almost positive your run expectancy goes down from a runner on second and no outs to a runner on third and one out. That would mean intentionally giving yourself up to move a runner over is a bad thing. If it just happens, ok, but they (the old timey guys like Sandberg) talk about doing things like that on purpose to help the team. In reality, things like that cause you to score fewer runs, which in turn, hurts the team.

 

 

Agreed, it does go down, but guess what's even lower... a runner on second and one out after Mark Reynolds just struck out because he's incapable of making contact on a regular basis.

 

Point being, doing it intentionally is a bad thing. If you can hit the ball well enough to intentionally hit it on the ground to the right side, you should be able to hit it somewhere other than to the right side weakly. I'd rather a guy like Dunn or Howard go up there trying to do what they normally do and reap the rewards often, than have them go up in situations like that and change their swing to intentionally ground out to the 2B. They will provide a much greater benefit to their team by NOT changing their approach than by altering it in certain circumstances.

Edited August 23, 2010 by MSG T

[Sammy Sofa]

He's still an extreme outlier. It's simply not realistic to expect most players to be anywhere near the type of player that Pujols is, so why not point to the legion of other players that perform multiple roles well, or at least serviceably? Pujols is basically a freak, so comparing other players to him is pretty pointless, plus players like Howard and Dunn have shown time and time again how extremely valuable they can be, so why dismiss them as if they're something young players should actively avoid becoming if their strengths ultimately show them to be that type of player? Some players simply have obvious strengths and glaring weaknesses instead of being "balanced" players, and Sandberg's rhetoric often times sounds like he wants to essentially "force it" if a player isn't one of those all-around workhorses.

 

If you are that player, why not make sure that you work on other parts of your game though. That's what Pujols, Sandberg and Dawson all did. Instead, these other guys, while valuable in some ways, don't improve themselves in the other parts of baseball.

 

It's not that simple. Some guys simply have inherent weaknesses in their game that they fortunately can overcome or compensate for with strengths in other areas. It's simply not realistic to think that every player can or even should be an "all-around player."

[SouthSideRyan]

Guys should stop striking out so much, and be more like Mike Schmidt.

[Sammy Sofa]

If the point of this thread is to show why Ryno should NOT be manager of the Cubs next year, it isn't convincing me. I guess the one exception would be the sac bunt with the #3 hitter. BUT... isn't it likely that if you took every manager and looked back at their history you could find a head scratcher like that?

 

By the way, what happened next? Did the runners eventually score? Did they win the game?

 

The bunt isn't the main point. The main points are his naive and unrealistic rhetoric regarding playing the game "the right way" and with "the right type of players" and his complete and total lack of coaching experience at the MLB level.

[cubsfan5150]

He's still an extreme outlier. It's simply not realistic to expect most players to be anywhere near the type of player that Pujols is, so why not point to the legion of other players that perform multiple roles well, or at least serviceably? Pujols is basically a freak, so comparing other players to him is pretty pointless, plus players like Howard and Dunn have shown time and time again how extremely valuable they can be, so why dismiss them as if they're something young players should actively avoid becoming if their strengths ultimately show them to be that type of player? Some players simply have obvious strengths and glaring weaknesses instead of being "balanced" players, and Sandberg's rhetoric often times sounds like he wants to essentially "force it" if a player isn't one of those all-around workhorses.

 

If you are that player, why not make sure that you work on other parts of your game though. That's what Pujols, Sandberg and Dawson all did. Instead, these other guys, while valuable in some ways, don't improve themselves in the other parts of baseball.

 

It's not that simple. Some guys simply have inherent weaknesses in their game that they fortunately can overcome or compensate for with strengths in other areas. It's simply not realistic to think that every player can or even should be an "all-around player."

 

I agree here, basically I'm saying that I believe some guys are content to hit 35 HR's and strike out 200 times. I think a batter that hits 25 HR's but strikes out 80 times a year is typically more valuable because he's not failing his team in other situations. Aramis is more valuable than Reynolds IMO.

 

Cool sidebar... I just read that Pujols only swings about 87 MPH as opposed to the 100+ MPH by many of the other power hitters. Don't know if that's a good thing or not. Probably has more swing control I suppose.

Edited August 23, 2010 by cubsfan5150

[dew1679666265]

If the point of this thread is to show why Ryno should NOT be manager of the Cubs next year, it isn't convincing me. I guess the one exception would be the sac bunt with the #3 hitter. BUT... isn't it likely that if you took every manager and looked back at their history you could find a head scratcher like that?

 

The point of the thread is to outline the issues people have brought up in the past about their concerns over Ryne Sandberg as manager. It seemed that every time somebody brought up that Ryno would be a bad choice, somebody different would chime in questioning why he'd be bad and we'd have the exact same debate in numerous threads.

 

So, the idea was to put all the complaints into one thread to reference anytime somebody asked the question as to why some people on this board don't like Ryno as a managerial candidate. Keeps the discussion more centralized and easier to keep up with, basically.

 

By the way, what happened next? Did the runners eventually score? Did they win the game?

 

No runs scored after Ty Wright's bunt and Tennessee lost the game 5-4.