BD wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
BD wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I should amend my statement. The only protest I can remember being upheld was the pine tar game. Scioscia is a fucking tool. He's always bunting an whining to umpires. Most overrated manager since Gene Mauch.
Why is he overrated? I thought his teams have generally pretty good.
Because of very good players.
Can't that be said of any manager? It ultimately comes down to how good your players are. How do you judge if a manager is good at his job if their success hinges on having very good players?
To a degree, yes, but the fact is, it isn't. The media doesn't fetishize Charlie Manuel or Ron Washington as great managers and both of them have been more successful than Scioscia. Jim Leyland is under .500 for his career but viewed as great.
I think way too much is made of managers. They lose more games than they win. I dislike those that are constantly trying to insinuate themselves into the game. RFDC asks if I'd prefer Ventura over Scioscia and my answer is definitely. Not that Ventura is perfect, but he pretty much writes down the nine best names and stays the fuck out of the way. He never tries to lawyer umpires. It just doesn't really work. We've all watched a lot of baseball. Does arguing really get a manager anywhere? Then what's the point? The only time a manager should come out is to stop an angry player from getting bounced or to get a clarification. Scioscia and Leyland like to whine. That helps get them categorized as "good".
A manager's biggest job is to get all the guys on the team pulling together. There are several ways to do it. Ozzie Guillen was good at that important part of the job. But he mitigated it somewhat by overmanaging during the games. He always wants to try to control what happens on the field. So does Scioscia. The players play the game. Let them do it. How good can Scioscia be if he doesn't understand that sacrificing runners from first and second to second and third is a terrible strategy?