First, two things:
It turns out there's been serious talk about Don Wakamatsu getting fired for at least two months. I know this, because it was two months ago that I emailed a few local media members to get their opinions on what a manager is actually expected to do. I'm just a guy on the outside, some idiot sitting in his office in Portland. The media is on the inside, so they know what's up. They can paint a clearer picture of a manager's true job responsibilities. And by knowing the things for which a manager is responsible, we're then able to seriously consider how he's doing.
The responses I got matched up with one another, and what they boiled down to - perhaps unsurprisingly - is that, above all, a manager has to be a leader of men. It isn't about strategy. It's never about strategy. No manager ever gets hired or fired based on how he answers a question about bunting. It's about leadership, and passion, and determination, and communication, and all those words that, one after another, start to sound hollow until you pause for a minute to really think about what they mean.
It is the manager's responsibility to set a certain tone in the clubhouse. To set the right tone, and to press the right buttons. A manager has to keep everybody focused and determined and aware of their roles. As the last sentence of one of the emails I got back reads, "If all goes well you end up with a club that reflects its manager." Well, it all didn't go so well this year. Which is how we wound up with what we have, instead of what we had.
The focus I've been seeing in a lot of places so far has been on how this season wasn't Wakamatsu's fault. That much is true. Though Wak might be the reason the Mariners are 42-70 instead of 44-68, he's not the reason they're 42-70 instead of 62-50. I just can't bring myself to believe that a manager can have that kind of impact. The people at fault here are the players, the front office, and then the field crew, and the sentiment seems to be that it's a shame that the field crew has to pay the price for everyone else's mistakes.
However, what's important here isn't assigning proper blame for the larger disappointment. It doesn't do anyone any good to try and figure out exactly how much of this is everyone's fault. What matters, at any point in time, is making the best decision you can make from that point forward. As Zduriencik talked about in the press conference, there is a constant evaluation process going on, with everybody. The reason this is the case is because focusing on the present is a lot more productive than focusing on the past. And out of this constant evaluation process, it was determined that Don Wakamatsu needed to go.
Why did he need to go? Z obviously didn't open up about this issue, but it doesn't take much of a leap to figure out that he no longer saw Wak as being a capable leader. Of this team. We've heard whispers that Wak had lost the clubhouse for a while. There have been incidents with players that were widely reported, and there have been incidents with players that were not reported at all. There have been incidents with a lot of players. The Ken Griffey Jr. thing, of course, played a huge part, but that wasn't all of it. There have been other things. Separate things.
Yes, you can argue that it shouldn't be like this. You can argue that, at different times, players have acted selfishly, or inappropriately, or stupidly. You can try to trace some of this back to Junior being a negative Nancy after he got off on the wrong foot. But it doesn't matter who started everything, or where things went wrong, or who was being a lil bitch. What matters is what is. Don Wakamatsu was hired to manage a group of people. He was hired to manage a group of baseball players. Baseball players will not always act the way you would expect a thinking man to act. But a huge part of Wak's job was to prepare for that sort of thing, and manage it, and he hasn't. Wak has not done a great job of situation handling this year.
A line you'll come across pretty often at a time like this is that it's easier to fire one manager than 25 ballplayers, and there's a lot of truth to that. Many of the players in the Mariners' clubhouse had lost a lot of respect for Wakamatsu, and many of the players in the Mariners' clubhouse are going to be here for a while, trying to form the next good Mariners team. So in a situation like this, it's a lot easier to dismiss the leader than to dismiss the people being led. And while you could argue that no one should have been dismissed, that the losing set everything south and caused friction between Wak and the players, there's no guarantee that winning would get everything righted. Once you lose respect for a manager, I imagine it's hard to get it back. It is entirely possible, if not probable, that the situation between Wak and many of the players was beyond repair. Or at least, considered to be. No front office ever wants to fire its field manager. I doubt the Mariners would have gone this route if they thought the situation with Wak could be fixed.
I think I'm starting to ramble, so I'll cut myself off. Ultimately, what it comes down to is that, while I think and the front office seems to think that Don Wakamatsu could be a quality big league manager, there was good reason to doubt his ability to be a quality big league manager of the Seattle Mariners, and for that reason he has been let go. Though he and the rest of his coaching staff are not the reason the team is where it is, he has nevertheless failed to act as a capable leader of a sinking team, and if the Mariners believed that the situation between Wakamatsu and many of the players was irreparable, then they made the right call. It's never about assigning blame. It's about doing the best you can with what you have.
8 recs | 81 comments
Best recap I've read of the sitch.
Leader of Men. These men didn’t want to follow Wak anywhere.
appleshampoo - August 9, 2010
Agreed
People seem too ready to excuse Wak for the things he couldn’t control. There wasn’t really any adversity on the club last year, and you had to wonder how he well he would captain the ship when the storm clouds started blowing in. I personally thought his repetitive, endless pushing of his “belief system” without articulating exactly what that was, was pretty empty, and I grew tired of it. I wonder if the players did too.
n8tron3030 - August 9, 2010
I definitely agree.
It’s not his fault the team sucks, but he can’t lead them very well in tough times. It’s pretty easy to lead when your team is winning and on a winning high.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Wak finds success in another organization.
seiferguy - August 9, 2010
And we really have no idea how well he was "leading" them last season.
msb - August 9, 2010
I certainly wish him well.
SeattExPat - August 9, 2010
Unless its with the Angels.
Fuck them.
SeattExPat - August 9, 2010
There's a reason
why the leader of a baseball team is called a manager and not a coach like in other sports. It’s this individual’s job to manage the team. Balancing personalities and handling the overgrown egos of overgrown boys in what essentially is a giant PR cluster. Coaches deal with strategy, managers deal with the people. This recap of your situation is great and gets to the true heart of the matter—Wak lost the clubhouse, lost his ability to impose his will, and lost respect. This is why some managers have to go. It is why Lou should have gone by the all star break in Chicago. He has been ineffectual and apathetic all season and it affected the entire team’s attitude by creating a disaffected atmosphere and making half-assed effort and play acceptable. I wish you guys the best in finding an effective new manager, I think we have one just waiting to be promoted from our AAA team.
snowyman28 - August 9, 2010
hmm.
and here I thought it was just short for “Field Manager”
msb - August 9, 2010
dangit. reply fail.
msb - August 9, 2010
What I find frustrating
Is that too much of the post-firing discussion focuses on why he was fired, and not so much that he simply wasn’t good at his job and that the team is better off without him. Tactically he made lousy decisions, the parts of the roster construction we can attribute to him are likely horrible. Perhaps relative to the avg manager he was big league quality, but that doesn’t mean I want him managing the team I care about.
As a fan of the team, I don’t really care why he’s gone. I care that he’s gone and I think that’s a good step for this organization. That all this BS created an atmosphere wherein the organization could rid themselves of the guy is a slight positive to me.
Dids - August 9, 2010
This is a great summary of why we should care
a little bit. Am I the only rumor whore who is more excited about seeing who gets the job than why Wak lost it?
JaaronGriffeyJr - August 9, 2010
I am not a rumor whore in the slightest but I am with you on not caring why Wak's gone.
pdb - August 9, 2010
I do care why he was fired. I'd like to know that at least part of the reason is that he is bad at the baseball part of the job.
I want to know that Z was not pleased with Wak begging for Wright and overusing White and loving Olson and Tui etc.
abender20 - August 9, 2010
I'd like to hear that he was fired for FASTBALLS!
Poochie - August 9, 2010
BUNT BUNT BUNT BUNT BUNT BUNT BUNT BUNT BUNT BUNT BUNT BUNT BUNT BUNT BUNT BUNT
Faux - August 9, 2010
PlatoonS? PSHAW!
Kermit. - August 9, 2010
Sean White! Jamie Wright!
fluffylamps - August 9, 2010
I'm interested in seeing any logic in why (fill in the blank) is a better manager than Wak was.
We have very very few examples of managers wit a record of consistent excellence- Casey Stengel wasn’t very good as a Brave or Dodger, Joe Torre wasn’t very special as a Cardinal, Billy Martin spent the 80’s not winning anything and drinking, Lou Piniella’s pretty undistinguished post-M’s, etc.
Most managers simply don’t make a difference. It seems to me Wak hasn’t proven or disproven anything in terms of his managerial skill any more than Bob Melvin did during his short stint here… and what concerns me is that I think the difference between Wak and (next Mariners manager) might be as irrelevant as the difference between BoMel and Mike Hargrove. It’s distressing that our organization might be spinning their wheels on some issues as much as it was in 2004-2005.
eponymous_coward - August 9, 2010
Wak proved that he could take a team that had a reasonable expectation of .500 or better ball and lead them to a 42-70 record
When things get this bad it becomes less a question of whether another manager is better than the current one. It becomes, “Can we continue with the current manager and anticipate that he will be able to lead this team to success?” The front office decided the answer was No. They don’t yet know if Daren Brown or someone else will be the manager in 2011. They did know that they no longer wanted it to be Don Wakamatsu.
lemonverbena - August 9, 2010
So would Lincoln and Armstrong be justified in firing GMZ using the exact same logic?
I just want to see how far this logic goes, seeing as Wak may have managed these crappy players poorly, but GMZ is why they’re on the roster in the first place.
For the record, I don’t think GMZ should be fired… and my take is this is “deck chairs, meet Titanic”. I have no evidence that suggests that GMZ is able to identify superior managerial candidates (in fact, the evidence points to the opposite conclusion, if the assertion is that Wak bears some blame in all of this).
eponymous_coward - August 9, 2010
Also, I'd point out Casey Stengel.
His record as a Brave and Dodger: meh- bad players, bad organizations (the Dodgers got good just after he left, and they hired Leo Durocher)
Record as a Yankee: Hall of Fame
Record as Met: Terrible, but this was the worst expansion franchise ever
I am not saying that this proves anything (plenty of bad managers have gotten fired, and justifably, too). It’s just that “Hey, we’ll fix things by firing the manager and hiring a better one” isn’t particularly born out by evidence- good managers get fired too. The problem is lack of talent in the players most of the time. I don’t think there’s much evidence that the Mariners being bad in 2010 has much to do with their manager.
eponymous_coward - August 9, 2010
It's a fair question
But the GM is not a leader of men the way the manager is. Put simply, something had to change and the on-field manager is the easiest thing to change. It’s possible that the majority of blame lies with Jack Z. But firing the GM is an organizational overhaul. Jack is still very well respected inside the game. Wak had not earned that level of respect, and he had lost it from his own players. And we don’t know what level of dysfunction between manager and front office existed.
lemonverbena - August 9, 2010
Not for the same reasons at all.
The job of a GM is to construct a roster, but smart decisions won’t always lead to good outcomes. It’s important to remember that way back in March, GMZ said we were a long-shot to make the play offs. Most projection systems sat the M’s around 75-80 wins. While we were all optimistic at the beginning of this season, it’s important to recall that most of us knew better than to bet the M’s were playing in October.
A good GM can have a bad season. The trouble with leaders is that it’s hard to regain the confidence of your followers once it’s lost. Failed smart people can continue to be smart, but failed leaders can’t continue to lead.
philosofool - August 9, 2010
So a good GM can have a bad season, and it shouldn't impact your evaluation...
but a good manager has a bad season (again: I could give you a nice long list of HOF managers who had bad seasons), and they can’t continue to lead?
I don’t buy it.
There’s also a huge heapin’ helpin’ of fundamental attribution error going on here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
The error being: Wak must suck at being a leader because the 2010 Mariners suck, even though there’s an explanation that doesn’t involve assuming anything about his quality of his managerial performance being any different from 2009: he has crap players, and history has shown that if you give very good managers very bad teams, you get crappy win-loss records.
Now, I’ll grant that maybe the relationship with his players is damaged. If so, let’s keep in mind the GM is in part responsible for those players, and I’d say if so, it casts some doubt on the ability to evaluate chemistry/“intangibles”… or just throws into sharp relief that losing clubhouses are miserable places to be, regardless of all the Eagle Scouts and designated huggers you sign.
eponymous_coward - August 9, 2010
Oh and to clarify.
I’m not asserting Wak’s a particularly good manager. I think he’s somewhere in the big huge indeterminate “I don’t think this guy really helps but doesn’t hurt” throng of managers.
The problem I see is that I’m not very sold that GMZ knows what a particularly good baseball manager is, considering he got to pick his last one, and ended up firing him some 18 months later. Basically, this is giving into baseball clichĂ©-dom, as well as continuing organizational instability (this team has been through five managers in the space of four years, multiple pitching coaches, etc.).
eponymous_coward - August 9, 2010
Agreed.
And, face it, at some point this team just needs to stick with a guy, no matter what SABR says about his grit/hustle/sticktoitiveness.
SeattExPat - August 9, 2010
What does SABR have to do with it?
msb - August 9, 2010
Absolutely nothing.
In line with eponymous_coward’s posts, I was agreeing with the proposition that blaming Wak for a bad season is at best counterproductive. So while firing the manager may be cathartic, let’s not pretend that somehow he was having some great effect on the team due to some intangibles that may or may not have been under his control or in his area of responsibility.
Advanced baseball statistics are great, but speak nothing to laughable intangibles like grit, attitude and hustle. I was being dismissive of the effort to evaluate how the team sucking could have been Wak’s fault.
SeattExPat - August 9, 2010
You lost me
He managed like crap. He lost control of his team. Sure there are many other factors but those basic truths seem pretty self evident to me. I liked the guy, I believed in the guy, At least the guy I watched manage last year. Somehow, in his second season, he become a different manager that was weak and indecisive and lacked imagination.
Great Sergios Ghost - August 9, 2010
Well, to hazzard a guess...
I’d say that it’s a lot easier to manage with confidence coming off a 100 loss season while being a .500+ team than it is to manage a team on it’s way to 100 losses after a .500+ season.
philosofool - August 9, 2010
I think his in game decision making was...
…not very good. But I’m not convinced that this had a major factor in the decision (or, at least by itself). More important was that he lost the respect of the team; one could do one and not the other…(though it’s obvious that the two could be related…)
rtang - August 9, 2010
Oh, of course.
Why didn’t I realize it was somehow Ichiro’s fault.
msb - August 9, 2010
Cue the selfish/hurts this team memes.
Paytheline - August 9, 2010
Surprised it took that long.
the other side - August 9, 2010
I'm sick of that Bill James saying being proven true all the fucking time.
BrianL - August 9, 2010
As I recall, he was also pretty down on the 2010 team.
Though not THIS down.
eponymous_coward - August 9, 2010
Well, what with Morosi being right there in the clubhouse everyday...
oh, wait.
msb - August 9, 2010
Clearly you need to be reminded that he could 75 homers if he wanted to.
Crystal for DH - August 9, 2010
*HIT 75 homers
Crystal for DH - August 9, 2010
There is a truly impressive amount of crazy in that article.
drblacknwhite - August 9, 2010
Yeah, obviously nobody in the entire sabremetric community
- suggested Griffey would be a bad fulltime DH in 2010
- thought the Morrow for League deal wasn’t a great idea
- thought Wilson was a potential injury risk
GOD
eponymous_coward - August 9, 2010
I usually like Morosi okay.
That was retarded.
Fuckmikereilly - August 9, 2010
Also, holy crap
“They haven’t seen the postseason since the team-first days of Dan Wilson, Mark McLemore and Stan Javier.”
Crystal for DH - August 9, 2010
Because everyone knows guys like Rob Johnson, Josh Wilson and Langerhans are such me-first kind of guys.
msb - August 9, 2010
It is the Godwin's law of what is wrong with the Mariners
Jed MC - August 9, 2010
Interesting that the two 'veteran writers' about to be interviewed on the pregame show have both already thrown their allegience behind Wak.
msb - August 9, 2010
[snerk]
Steve Kelley has another one of his columns up that reads like a parody of himself.
msb - August 9, 2010
Um....
….isn’t that a redundancy?
rtang - August 9, 2010
Also, I wish the M's could hire Joe Schultz as a manager, but he's sort of dead
I would like it if we had a MLB manager who repeatedly urged his team to pound Budweiser.
eponymous_coward - August 9, 2010
AND use "shituck" as a swear word.
eponymous_coward - August 9, 2010
Wakamatsu
With so many pitchers and hitters going bad at the same time you have to wonder about their coaching and the analysis of their problems. It’s certainly easier to get rid of the manager than all the players. Since Wakamatsu was a catcher and none of our catchers have been playing well you have to wonder about that.
After signing Figgins to a long term expensive contract and their seemingly irreconcilable enmity you have to figure its cheaper to get rid of the manager. Also, it’s easier for “Z” to dump the manager than admit to having made too many gambles in picking up players, especially with Figgins begining to come around at the plate.
It’s also easier to blame the season on the manager and hope that the 2nd half they improve to raise fans’ hopes for next season and try to at least maintain attendance for the rest of the season. In late season and next year the prospects in waiting may whip up attendance as well as hopes. The replacements are cheap and can’t do any worse as they’re the ones who’ve been coaching the prospects. “Z” now has the chance to see if the Tacoma manager actually could be the real deal as well as cheap. He certainly knows Smoak and Ackerly as well as the pitchers.
undeterredphil - August 9, 2010
Ackerly?
Eyeball Kid - August 9, 2010
Warshington.
JY - August 9, 2010
I know it's not polite to point it out, but this is really Zduriencik's fault above all else.
As should be obvious by now, he set Wakamatsu up to fail. I’m not just talking about the ill-advised trades & acquisitions, I’m talking in particular about forcing Griffey on the team and then leaving Wakamatsu hanging out on a limb, forcing HIM to be the one doing the dirty work of benching Griffey. Once Wakamatsu was seen as being the one swinging the axe, he was done for with the team. And it was obvious to damn near everyone (certainly everyone here on LL) that Griffey would be a significant liability from the outset. This wasn’t impossible to predict.
Zduriencik blew it. I’m glad he hasn’t been fired himself, or anything, but he seriously blew it this season and we need to factor that into our evaluations of him.
esoteric - August 9, 2010
I'm calling bullshit on this.
I have a very hard time believing Zduriencik was responsible for Griffey being on the roster. I’m comfortable in my belief that Sweeney was on the roster because of lobbying from Wakamatsu. And Zduriencik wasn’t the one that insisted on batting Lopez 4th and using Sean White repeatedly in high-leverage situations.
Wakamatsu hasn’t been a good field manager since he’s been here and the only thing he was ever possibly good at was managing personalities, which clearly was not the case this year. Zduriencik is certainly to blame to a large extent for the team’s record, but he’s not responsible for Wakamatsu being a piss-poor manager.
Aaron Campeau - August 9, 2010
The only people to blame here are Armstrong and Lincoln. I don't think Jack wanted to fire
Wak. I think that both men realized that things just didn’t click this year and they would go back at it next season. However, you have these two bafoons at the top of the organizations who felt that somebody needed to be sacrificed to show the fans that the organization cares.
These two idiots are so out of touch with the Seattle baseball fan though, that they fired Wak to appease the fans, when the fans don’t even blame Wak for the poor results this season.
I agree that Wak has not done a good job this year, but I think most of us agree that the jury is out on whether he is a good or bad manager, and that none of us had an issue if he came back next year.
Instead Armstrong and Lincoln think they are showing the fans they care, by firing somebody. In reality they are the two that most fans despise/
Rudy4three - August 9, 2010
I don't think the jury is out at all. He was terrible and I would have been quite annoyed had he come back next year.
Also, blaming Armstrong and Lincoln for everything bad that happens is old and annoying and lazy.
Aaron Campeau - August 9, 2010
Yet, all the writers both nationally and who work the beat point the finger at them
I would think they know a little more about what’s going on than you.
Rudy4three - August 9, 2010
I haven't heard that once.
Aaron Campeau - August 9, 2010
I've read two articles and heard a radio interview. That's three different individuals right there.
Also, how do you now blame Chuck Armstrong for force feeding Griffey onto this roster once again, with no plan on how to have him retire gracefully if he sucked? This was probably the cause of most of the clubhouse turning on Wak.
Rudy4three - August 9, 2010
*not
Rudy4three - August 9, 2010
So three people that you're not bothering linking to or naming mentioned it.
Sorry, I require slightly more proof than that. It would appear to me that you’re making assumptions based on what you’d like the truth to be.
Aaron Campeau - August 9, 2010
I also require more proof that Wak forced Sweeney onto the club, was soley
responsible for using Sean White, and batting Jose Lopez fourth. Those are also assumptions with no evidence to back them up.
Rudy4three - August 9, 2010
Seriously?
Sweeney, yeah, there’s no proof of that (though I’d argue it’s significantly more plausible that Armstrong and Lincoln being responsible for Wak’s firing) so fine. But you require further evidence that the manager was responsible for lineup order and bullpen usage? That’s some serious tinfoil-hat shit there, dude.
Aaron Campeau - August 9, 2010
That's a fuckload of hypocrisy right there.
Eyeball Kid - August 9, 2010
Or GMZ, or Wak, or (insert name of crappy player here)
This is sort of the corollary of victory having a thousand fathers and defeat being an orphan. There’s no one problem that’s wrong with the 2010 Mariners, caused by one factor that’s fixed by “fire this dude”. There are systematic problems from a lot of different causes, some within various people’s control (example: resigning Griffey), some that aren’t (example: damned near every signing/trade that made up the 2010 roster since mid—2009 turning out as the worst possible scenario).
Also: Wak’s terrible compared to who? Lou Piniella (who did some pretty annoying things)? Don Baylor? John “veteran who’s been through wars” McLaren? Bob Brenly, who won a World Series while making managerial decisions that made people go “what the hell”? I can also give you a pretty long list of managers who’ve won pennants and championships without being Earl Weaver. In fact, I’d argue most managers have idiosyncracies that will drive you nuts- the difference is you’re not watching those guys 162 games a year.
eponymous_coward - August 9, 2010
Don Wakamatsu might be the worst tactical manager I have ever watched.
He’s really, really bad.
Aaron Campeau - August 9, 2010
No, he's not the worst.
You haven’t watched baseball for very long if you think he’s the worst. C’mon, remember the glory days of the Late Hargrove era? Seriously, it got so bad that we considered a major redemption when the guy actually bestirred himself to argue long enough to get a game snowed out.
esoteric - August 10, 2010
You're right, the fact that we disagree is solely based on the fact that I have been watching baseball for a year and a half.
Come on dude, be less patronizing. I’ve been watching baseball for twenty years. I think Wakamatsu is worse than Hargrove. You disagree, fine, but you don’t need to be a dick and insinuate that I’m ignorant.
Aaron Campeau - August 10, 2010
Worse than McLaren?
Poochie - August 10, 2010
At least Wak paid his bets off before he was fired. Have to give him that.
Kermit. - August 9, 2010
Okay I can't believe this type of shit gets published
Caple’s take
In short:
“Premise: The Mariners’ failure is Lincoln and Armstrong’s fault.
Evidence:
The Mariners have had a lot of manager turnover.
Jack Zduriencik has made some puzzling moves, while some of his gambles have paid off and some have backfired.
Wakamatsu demonstrated an inability to control his players, but it was often the fault of the players.
Conclusion: This is all Lincoln and Armstrong’s fault."
Fuckmikereilly - August 10, 2010
That is ridiculous, I agree. It's Jack Z's fault, I think we can all agree on that.
To whatever extent Z may have had his hands tied by budgetary considerations, that isn’t enough to shift responsibility to them in any meaningful way. Because you can even say that Griffey was their doing and then you still have to explain Bradley, Kotchman, Figgins, Morrow-for-League, Sweeney, etc.
Look, let’s be honest: there were a lot of roster moves that turned out a complete debacle this year.
esoteric - August 10, 2010
It's his fault in as much as nearly all of the high risks on the roster didn't pan out
If you liked the 90 win upside in February, it came with a 90 loss downside. The Mariners weren’t realistically going to compete without having a lot of rish on the roster, You can’t retroactively call Z terrible if you liked the moves at the time. It’s stunning to me how media and fans alike are now laying the blame at Z when they praised him in the offseason. You could project Bradley missing playing time, yes, but could you reasonably to project him to have a sub .300 OBP, and a sub .350 SLG? Could anyonee have reasonably forseen that Jose Lopez would OPS .600, or that Chone Figgins would play like a near-replacement level player?
Poochie - August 10, 2010
Agreed re: Lincoln and Armstrong
They have no clue as to how to build a winning organization. How much longer do we have to be one of the three teams that hasn’t been to the World Series? The M’s have been through a lot of managers lately. Zdurencik has only been here two years.
Jmnor8 - August 11, 2010
While I mostly agree with your premise, I think you just settled into the average manager impact.
I have not crunched the numbers but I feel rather comfortable saying Wak may have cost us five games, not two. I even feel I may be conservative.
He was really bad and if the average manager only affects the win-loss toal by five games then a bad one may impact as much as ten. I still wish I knew what amount of roster construction was in his hands, because if he was behind all of the moves I think he was then this guy fucked us right our of spring training.
I will not miss Don Wakamatsu one bit and I am glad Adair is gone too.
Sec 108 - August 10, 2010
Losing and losing control
You can lose control of players but if you win it won’t matter. You may get fired but they’ll keep bringing you back (Billy Martin). Or you can lose but the players still love you, you may last an extra year, but you’ll eventually go anyway if you keep losing.
But losing games and losing control? You’re gone. Unless you are Walter Alston/Tommy Lasorda or you own the team like Connie Mack, your fate from day 1 is to be fired.
The M’s should clone earl Weaver and hire the clone, although he may not like the assembled roster. Or go from the frying pan of clubhouse disarray and into the fire: Bobby Valentine. Or Davey Johnson. OK, highly unlikely.
wobatus - August 10, 2010
When they get the podcast up on 710, Drayer and Salk have an interesting look at the whole thing
it would be the first quarter of the 10-11 hour.
msb - August 10, 2010
that would be the 11-12 hour.
plus a repeat of Olney’s trouncing of the FO
msb - August 10, 2010
I'm probably missing something, so I'll go ahead and ask...
I’ve heard the expression “lost the clubhouse”, but I still don’t understand what it means. The manager fills out the lineup. He moves people in and out of the game. He calls specific in-game strategies. Were the players no longer following the lineup card, handing over the ball, or following his orders to bunt/steal/etc.?
I guess my question boils down to this: why do baseball players need to like and/or respect their manager? Does their disapproval affect their performance? In what way?
Lanky - August 10, 2010
Purely conjecture on my part here since much of what you ask cannot truly be answered.
As for losing the clubhouse the biggest thing may be players going over the manager’s head to complain to the media or front office. If a general manager is dealing with a stream of players coming into the office to bitch maybe he gets pretty fed up with the manager.
Sec 108 - August 11, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.