Some Sweeping, False Statements About Managers

Which MLB managers have performed the best so far this year? Is it even possible to get a real answer to that question? Does any of this even matter? Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe undertook the futile task of answering at least one of those questions in his article, Managers at the top of Major League Baseball. Cafardo ranks the "10 best performances by managers so far," and after reading through the list, I was left with oh so very many questions. Number one on the list, predictably:

"1. Don Mattingly, Dodgers - He has emerged as a good leader, one who has taken a bunch of Triple A players and made them winners."

No. No no no, no. The Dodgers are NOT a bunch of Triple-A players. Quite the opposite, actually. We're talking about a veteran-heavy roster that features Bobby Abreu, Jerry Hairston Jr., Mark Ellis, Adam Kennedy, Ted Lilly, Aaron Harang, and Chris Capuano in prominent roles. Those guys are almost old enough to have KIDS playing in Triple-A.

"Mattingly has certainly taken advantage of the weak National League West, and perhaps the Dodgers aren’t as good as their record indicates..."

But still! Mattingly's totally the man!

"4. Bobby Valentine, Red Sox - He has had about $80 million of payroll on the disabled list most of the season, losing two All-Star outfielders (Carl Crawford, Jacoby Ellsbury) and his closer (Andrew Bailey), but he has pieced together one of the majors’ best bullpens... He also has put together a lineup that is somehow still producing runs."

How?! How, exactly, has Bobby Valentine "put together" Boston's lineup? Did he trade for Adrian Gonzalez? Did he draft Will Middlebooks? Does he personally inject steroids into David Ortiz's bloodstream? How hard is it to write "Adrian Gonzalez" and "Dustin Pedroia" into the lineup everyday?????

"Valentine keeps emphasizing his type of baseball..."

What, exactly, is Valentine's type of baseball? I would do anything to get Nick Cafardo to answer this question. How exactly, specifically, is Bobby Valentine's style of baseball different from anyone else's?

"5. Buck Showalter, Orioles - Dead last, no questions asked, was the consensus on the Orioles before the season, but instead they have been in first place."

This might not be a bad selection. My problem is with the next bit:

"Showalter’s steady hand and leadership have kept his promising pitching staff consistent." 

I know, I know, you're probably thinking, "How can a nebulous concept like 'leadership' possibly help pitchers get outs?" Well, I'm here to tell you non-believers that the only reason Jason Hammel has six wins and a sub-3.00 ERA is Buck Showalter's firm, crisp, leadershipy, steady hand.

"He, too, has managed injuries well, and has been able to survive with a lineup that hasn’t had All-Star second baseman Brian Roberts all season, and has also lost Nick Markakis and Mark Reynolds, among others, at times."

Yeah, everyone has to deal with injuries. But the phrase, "he...has been able to survive with a lineup that hasn't had All-Star second baseman Brian Roberts all season" is simply a joke. Roberts hasn't been an All-Star since 2007, and hasn't been healthy (or even good) since 2009. This is like saying, "Joe Girardi has been able to survive with a lineup that hasn't had All-Star second baseman Chuck Knoblauch all decade."

"6. Davey Johnson, Nationals - He has been able to manage through substantial injuries to his 3-4-5 hitters, his fifth starter, and his closer, plugging in the Steve Lombardozzis of the world and receiving top production. He has pieced together the best starting rotation in the NL..."

But, but...how, specifically, has Davey Johnson "pieced together" his rotation? That makes it sound like Johnson assembled the staff singlehandledly. But is he paying Edwin Jackson's salary? Did he give birth to Stephen Strasburg?

"...At the same time, he has introduced Bryce Harper to the majors and overseen Stephen Strasburg’s amazing comeback from Tommy John surgery."

Really? We're giving Davey Johnson credit for the success of two of the greatest baseball talents of the generation? I'm fairly certain neither Harper nor Strasburg need anyone's help.

"7. Mike Scioscia, Angels - How hard can it be with Albert Pujols and a great starting rotation?"

Right. Correct. Soooo....why is Scioscia still on this list?

"Well, consider that with Pujols struggling, the Angels were declared DOA by many in April, seen as one of the biggest busts in baseball."

So basically, the best way to inflate your reputation as a manager is to suck miserably for the first month of the season, to the point where your team is being labelled the biggest bust in baseball. Then, all you have to do is perform somewhat adequately the rest of the season, and suddenly you look awesome by comparison. The Scioscia Way.

"Scioscia didn’t allow that to continue. He fired hitting coach Mickey Hatcher, released outfielder Bobby Abreu, and seemed to send a message to his players that complacency would not be tolerated."

Uh....nope. Angels General Manager Jerry DiPoto did those things. Because he actually has that authority.

"And they’ve responded. Pujols has picked up the pace, and the Angels now look every bit as strong as they were supposed to be."

Meeting expectations. Mere adequacy. The Scioscia Way.

"9. Brad Mills, Astros - OK, hear me out. The Astros were playing .431 baseball through Friday, but that’s far better than anyone expected. Look at the lineup and tell me who half these guys are. They do have decent pitching, and Mills has gotten his players to buy into the idea that even though they’re building for the long haul, they can still compete now. Mills was always an extremely organized coach with the Red Sox and is the same way in Houston. He is executing the wishes of the new ownership, and it appears he will survive."

Apparently, the new criteria for being an exceptional manager include:
1. Winning 43% of the time.
2. Not getting fired.

"10. Clint Hurdle, Pirates - With that offense, this team has no business being three games over .500 (which it was through Friday). Hurdle seems to get the most out of his players, especially pitchers. He has found ways for his lineup to manufacture runs."

The most laughably incorrect claim of the entire article is saved for the very end. Clint Hurdle has NOT found ways for his lineup to manufacture runs. Pittsburgh has scored 188 runs all season. Which ranks...
...wait for it...
...dead last in all of baseball.
Yeah, Clint Hurdle definitely gets the most out of his players.

On a concluding note: while nebulous ideas like leadership and personality might be important for baseball managers, whatever impact they have occurs behind-the-scenes and can't be gauged by anyone outside of the clubhouse. When it comes to things we can actually measure, in-game decision-making is the most significant way a successful manager impacts the success of his team. That includes things like bullpen and bench management, setting a lineup, and defensive alignment. But somehow, there's hardly any mention of those strategic decisions in an article about successful managing, which makes the piece a completely subjective invention of narrative. Unfortunately, that's the norm when it comes to lazy evaluation of baseball managers.

John Kruk Does Not Watch Baseball

The Kafka-esque scene: Karl Ravech and John Kruk on Baseball Tonight are 'Power Ranking' MLB's teams after most clubs have played three (3!!) games. The conversation goes:

Karl Ravech: So many people are unwilling to really draw conclusions based on three games--

--because those people have functioning brains--

Ravech: --I feel very comfortable that these Power Rankings you're about to deliver will hold up for most of the year.

I think (hope?) that Ravech is being sarcastic here, and maybe subtly mocking Kruk a little bit. I like it.

John Kruk: At least 'til the break. I think at least 'til the break, yeah, they will.

Kruk doesn't catch on, at all. Which is very disconcerting.

Ravech: What are they?

Kruk: Well, I don't know.

Correct. One point for Kruk.

Kruk: [laughs it off]

Nope, wait, he was being sarcastic. [Kruk's point is retracted.]

Kruk: Well, I've got Tampa Bay. I mean, you win three games against the Yankees, everyone thought the Yankees would win the East, they're the top team for me.

Perfectly defensible. Awesome pitching. Good hitting. Great defense. Well done.

Kruk: Detroit, beating the Red Sox three games, three-and-oh.

Not really a complete sentence, but sure, another good pick. Continue.

Kruk: Arizona, beating the Giants.

As you can see, Kruk likes to deliver his thoughts in short spurts rather than complete sentences, maybe because he runs out of breath after a few words or something. The result is basically incongruous babble, which doesn't help when the next point you're going to make is also incongruous babble:

Know about baseball, John Kruk does not.

Kruk: Then the Mets, and then the Baltimore Orioles.

Wait--I'm really sorry, but it sounded like you said 'Mets' and 'Baltimore Orioles.' Could you repeat that?

Kruk: Then the Mets, and then the Baltimore Orioles.

Oh, so I didn't mishear you, and you're just admitting that you don't really know anything about anything. The METS AND THE ORIOLES? The only (ONLY) worse choice would have been the Astros, maybe.

Justify your unjustifiable selections, please.

Kruk: Hey, how can you not have teams that are three-and-oh, undefeated, haven't lost, not be the best five teams in baseball?

Because teams that are bad at baseball don't belong on the list called "Top Five Teams in Baseball."

Look, Krukie. You chose the Orioles and the Mets only because they've won three games in a row. That means nothing. At all. Hey, last year, the Mets started 3-1 and enjoyed 11 different three-game winning streaks. They finished 77-85. The Orioles actually started last year with wins in six of their first seven games, and had nine different three-game win streaks. Their final record was 69-93, finishing 28 games out of first place. This year's Mets lost their best position player, Jose Reyes, and this year's Orioles lost their best pitcher, Jeremy Guthrie. Regardless of their records, these are bad baseball teams.

Because, believe it or not: a three-game sample size is indicative of almost nothing. That's like, 13 at-bats. Shelley Duncan can look good in 13 at-bats.

Relevant Example: I just checked the box scores, and Barry Zito threw a complete-game shutout against the Rockies. Maybe Kruk will now pick Zito to win the Cy Young.

Kruk [referring to Ravech's rankings]: How do you get--how do you get Texas and [the Angels] in there? How do you do that?

Because those teams are actually good at hitting and pitching the baseball. Even though (gasp!) both teams have lost already. You might think that ugly lone blemish in the loss column virtually eliminates Texas and L.A. from playoff contention, but--bear with me, now--I have a hunch that they'll somehow claw their way back into the race.

Kruk: How do you get better than undefeated? You're disrespecting the teams that are undefeated.

I like how Kruk throws around 'undefeated' like it means something after three games. The O's and Mets swept a three-game series. Have you never seen this before?

Ravech: You'll be able to follow John Kruk's Power Rankings on ESPN.com all season long.

Oh, trust me, I'll be checking them thrice daily.

Ravech: Don't look for any changes, though.

Well played, Ravech.