Quote:
Originally Posted by RchW
This is what I'm trying to get at. Manager influence it seems to me is on a game by game basis. Matt Williams just made a move that backfired but if he had not and the Giants had scored he would have been on the same hot seat he is on now.
I still claim that winning must be the tie breaker. If you win your step by step managing cannot be considered bad.
|
I agree for the most part. I think most of us can agree that Yost botched that bullpen move against the A's, but his team bailed him out. Yet now the Royals have won three straight extra-inning playoff games, so Yost can't have done a bad job, right?
The other thing to consider is, when is something a smart manager move and when is it a player just coming through? Does Buck Showalter get credit for bringing in Gausman yesterday when the Orioles were trailing? Or does Gausman get the credit for coming into a game and pitching his balls off? Or both? A whole lot of it is subjective rather than simply being a good or bad manager move. Managers can make decisions, but at the end of the day, the guys between the lines have to perform. Unless a manager is putting a player in a position where it's tough for him to succeed, like Yost did with Ventura, then it's hard to say who really gets the credit or the blame when things go well or go bad.