KeepJerryManuel.com
By Howard Megdal ~ October 2nd, 2009. Filed under: Howard Megdal.
Once again, one of the best baseball writers in the business has sounded the alarm for changing managers. Last time, it was Tim Marchman in the sadly-defunct New York Sun. This time, it is another one of my favorites: Ken Davidoff.
Davidoff makes a number of key points that I agree with: the inexcusable ripping of Ryan Church’s toughness in returning from a concussion, that the Mets appear to have checked out on the season, that his moves often don’t seem to correspond to what the stats indicate he should do. He is cogent throughout- after all, it is a Ken Davidoff column.
However, I diverge from Davidoff when the reality of the non-binary choice gets explored. After all, it is not a question of Jerry Manuel or Not Jerry Manuel. If not Jerry Manuel, then who?
Davidoff writes:
“Who could replace Manuel? That’s easy, as long as the Mets can meet certain conditions: Pay Tony La Russa. Forgive Bobby Valentine. Forget Manny Acta’s friendship with Tony Bernazard and prioritize his baseball smarts.”
Alas, that would be the same Tony LaRussa who frequently makes the less stat-savvy choice, seemingly to prove his own intelligence. (See refusing to pinch-hit Albert Pujols with the bases loaded in the 2007 All Star Game for further details.) That’s Bobby Valentine, who accused his star catcher, through the media, of partying too much. And Manny Acta was fired by the Nationals because, even beyond the lack of talent on the roster, it was generally acknowledged that the team quit on him.
And yet, Davidoff is right- these will likely be the best choices available this winter.
Now, regarding the Devil We Know: we know Manuel can manage this team effectively when he has the proper parts. He managed the Mets to a 101-win pace in 2008 without a bullpen, and had them playing .600 ball before The Plague of 2009 hit.
Managers are always going to make playing time decisions we disagree with- Nick Evans not playing at the expense of Fernando Tatis being the biggest, along with Manuel’s inexplicable Omir Santos love second for me- but Manuel generally plays his best players, and unlike Willie Randolph, does understand both platoon splits and that it is okay to admit a mistake and change.
Frankly, the latter two parts are about all I think it is reasonable to ask for; that and a manager who doesn’t mind explaining why he made particular choices. Davidoff’s second paragraph on alternative choices mentions a number of untested managerial candidates, and he isn’t wrong to suggest that any of them might be better than Manuel. They might, of course, be far worse. As Willie Randolph showed us, far worse is distinctly possible.
Davidoff ends with:
“On the other hand, they owe their fans everything. Is Manuel everything you’ve always wanted? If he is, then, to be blunt, your standards are too low.”
My reply to Davidoff? I’m not choosing the would-be new manager. The organization choosing Manuel’s replacement is the Mets.
I’ll take the competent manager with the mad media skills who we know can guide this team to victory when given enough talent and count my blessings.
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Wrong.
I’m not going to get into arguments about Willie Randolph, but he was a better manager than Manuel. Art Howe was a better manager. Bobby Valentine was a better manager. (going back any further and I’m too young to value my opinion)
People overrate ‘managing the media’, and Willie wasn’t that bad until the end. What’s important is managing how your players react to how you manage the media. Players this year have questioned some of Manuel’s moves. He’s said one thing to which his other players have said another. (Manuel: “We can’t win with these guys.” Cora: “We’re all professionals here. We have to go out there and play our game and we can win.” Beltran: “I hope my knee is good in 15 days, and these guys are good enough to be in first place when I return”)
Manuel lies to the media. He got by in 2008 by saying (not doing) the opposite of what Randolph was criticized for. (i.e. bullpen roles, something Manuel has been incapable of doing. He’s lost games due to his love of the lefty/righty matchup. He lost a game in 2008 that could’ve made a different at the end by running out too many pitchers early and running out of them in extras. Just like Manuel is incapable of seeing a game beyond 9 innings, he’s incapable of seeing a team beyond 23 players.
Daniel Murphy had good numbers against lefties when he played DP Tatis over him over and over and over again. He then came out and said a young guy like Murphy needs to play every day. And continued to platoon him. Then Murphy’s numbers against Lefties dropped. Was this because he can’t hit lefties, or because he never saw a lefty for two months in a platoon? Practice..repetition..
I don’t know what you’re referring to when you say Randolph didn’t play his best players. That he gave guys days off and played his backups enough so that they’d contribute? Look at Randolphs bench, which did a lot better. Easley, Anderson, etc. Manuel plays guys like Argenis Reyes for a month without a hit. or Tatis this year. Or never puts Jeremy Reed in the lineup. What did he have? 4AB in April?
Nevermind the Perpetual Pedro thing. Maybe if he’d managed the bullpen better they wouldn’t have been burnt out late 2008. He got the least out of them that he could. He gets the least out of his players, where Randolph seemed to get the most out of at least the bench guys.
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Howard, whether it’s LaRussa, Valentine, Acta or any other experienced manager, there will something negative to discuss …. but in the case of an experienced manager, there should also be a great deal of positives. If Joe Torre, Bud Black, Terry Francona and Charlie Manuel were suddenly available there would be dissenters about each of them as well.
The funny thing for me is I like Manuel but the fact is that this team has crumbled under him …. his entertaining press conferences aren’t as entertaining when you are one of the six worst teams in baseball ….
This teak needs a fresh start — Omar is a moron and needs to go …. a new GM needs to hire his own field manager …. it’s that basic to me.
If they do not do this they will simply be trying to patch a team together for 2010 with a constant (at best) or reduced payroll with the same leadership that has basically destroyed a dominant team over the last three seasons.
I have been a Mets fan for a long, long time — I fear we are heading into the same abyss we entered after the Seaver trade in 1977, 1993 and 2003 …. I never thought we would be a 4th or 5th place team again this soon after the 2003 debacle but here we are on the cusp of it again and we expect to use injuries as an excuse and go to war with the same leadership.
I love the Mets …. always will …. but they do make it hard.