Influence of a Manager on a Team's Performance

[Stu]

We've been hearing a lot this year about how Jim Leyland has turned things around in Detroit, similar to how Ozzie Guillen turned things around in Chicago last year, along with countless examples in the past. It seems like when a team performs well the manager is automatically credited, especially if it's an improvement over previous years.

My question is, how much influence do you guys think a Manager has on a team's performance? Are Leyland (and Guillen last year) really responsible for their pitching staffs putting together career years? And if so, what is Guillen doing wrong now that his staff has struggled a little bit this year and what was Leyland doing wrong on all the bad teams he's managed over the years?

I plan on re-reading the chapter in Baseball Between the Numbers that covered this topic but as a general overview... The question they posed was "Is Joe Torre a Hall of Fame Manager?" and I think the underlying point they made, is that Torre was 894-1003 before going to the Yankees and 982-634 since. Did he magically become a good manager when he got to NY, or is he simply the victim of bad teams before NY, or the beneficiary of good teams after NY?

My feeling is that the influence of a manager on a team's performance is vastly overrated. Baseball doesn't require a lot of game planning or in game decision making from a Manager's standpoint in comparison to other major sports. Obviously tactical decisions are more important in the playoffs but how many wins per a season can a poor manager really cost his team?

[SPTO]

Re: Influence of a Manager on a Team's Performance

Good question

The accepted view these days is that a manager is good for 10 extra wins, a marginal manager is good for 5 wins or losses and a bad manager is good for 10 extra losses.

My thinking is that a pretty good manager will do wonders in the short term. I'll give an example from the Blue Jays since i'm most familiar with that organization. In 1989 Jimy Williams was managing the club and they were struggling and basically underachieving. Williams was too overbearing on his players and he had a horrible relationship with his stars.

Enter Cito Gaston (IIRC it was almost Davey Johnson) anywho Cito was already with the club and he was very hands off, let his players play and basically delegated most of the coaching work to his coaches. He did an admirable job with the Jays and it still bothers me that he's never had a job since then.

I think that overbearing managers tend to burn out faster within the clubhouse. A Lou Pinella type will have success for 2-3 years then things will deteriote (sp) because the manager is too hard on his players and his antics are overdone. I don't think Guillen is that type. I've actually heard he's a good players manager but I think what dooms him is that he seems to invite a media circus. How can a team function 100% with that kind of spotlight on them through a whole season. (yeah it can work in football cuz it's a shorter season but baseball...well let's just say the players would get fed up)

As for Leyland well, how can a good manager handle a Pittsburgh team that was losing all their stars? He did have a young(ish) core there for a while tho and had some success. He did pretty good in FLA when they broke the bank and he was pretty much burned out when he went to Colorado.

Leyland was pretty much energized for this job tho, I think he recognized all the young talent just waiting to mature. Sometimes it takes a veteran skipper to get the young guys to gel.

[Stu]

Re: Influence of a Manager on a Team's Performance

Here's an article on Baseball Prospectus I found. (don't need a subscription)

It's very interesting because it's from 1998 and talks a lot about Dusty Baker, who I think people feel very differently about than they did in 98.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=166

[Stu]

Re: Influence of a Manager on a Team's Performance

Good question

The accepted view these days is that a manager is good for 10 extra wins, a marginal manager is good for 5 wins or losses and a bad manager is good for 10 extra losses.

My thinking is that a pretty good manager will do wonders in the short term. I'll give an example from the Blue Jays since i'm most familiar with that organization. In 1989 Jimy Williams was managing the club and they were struggling and basically underachieving. Williams was too overbearing on his players and he had a horrible relationship with his stars.

Enter Cito Gaston (IIRC it was almost Davey Johnson) anywho Cito was already with the club and he was very hands off, let his players play and basically delegated most of the coaching work to his coaches. He did an admirable job with the Jays and it still bothers me that he's never had a job since then.

I think that overbearing managers tend to burn out faster within the clubhouse. A Lou Pinella type will have success for 2-3 years then things will deteriote (sp) because the manager is too hard on his players and his antics are overdone. I don't think Guillen is that type. I've actually heard he's a good players manager but I think what dooms him is that he seems to invite a media circus. How can a team function 100% with that kind of spotlight on them through a whole season. (yeah it can work in football cuz it's a shorter season but baseball...well let's just say the players would get fed up)

As for Leyland well, how can a good manager handle a Pittsburgh team that was losing all their stars? He did have a young(ish) core there for a while tho and had some success. He did pretty good in FLA when they broke the bank and he was pretty much burned out when he went to Colorado.

Leyland was pretty much energized for this job tho, I think he recognized all the young talent just waiting to mature. Sometimes it takes a veteran skipper to get the young guys to gel.

So you'd agree that personality is more important, whether it be handling players, media, front office, etc, than daily strategy and decision making?

I totally agree about Piniella. Everyone loves him because they think he's this fiery motivator but I just don't think that approach makes sense in baseball because it's such an individual sport. I thought he did a terrible job in Tampa, a situation where he had a chance to teach some amazing young talent but he chose to make it a joke because he wasn't getting the support he wanted from his front office. I think his poor managing there is costing them wins now, rather than during his tenure though.

My view may be biased a little bit being in Boston. We went from Grady Little, who was generally regarded as a poor tactical manager to Terry Francona who is generally thought of as a good tactical manager (except in Philly). Despite the perceived differences in ability between them, Francona only won 5 more games than Little over their first two years in Boston.

[SPTO]

Re: Influence of a Manager on a Team's Performance

So you'd agree that personality is more important, whether it be handling players, media, front office, etc, than daily strategy and decision making?

As much as I hate coddling of players and hiring managers based on personality (read: Buck Martinez) I do generally agree that it's more about personality then strategy in baseball. That's why they got bench coaches. Those guys basically are the eyes and ears for the managers "in game".

[Stu]

Re: Influence of a Manager on a Team's Performance

As much as I hate coddling of players and hiring managers based on personality (read: Buck Martinez) I do generally agree that it's more about personality then strategy in baseball. That's why they got bench coaches. Those guys basically are the eyes and ears for the managers "in game".

Good point. As an example the Red Sox bench coach, Brad Mills, is responsible for all their defensive positioning and I'm sure has input on pretty much every tactical decision they make.

[Dice]

Re: Influence of a Manager on a Team's Performance

I treat managers just like the individual players when it comes to the teams success. Managers are only part of the success. Just like individiual players. A great manager is not going to make a crappy team into a contender. A manager is like adding a key player on the team. BUT one player is not going make the difference if your team is crappy. For example, Starting Pitcher is a vital position in baseball. BUT if you put Johan Santana on the Royals would that make them instant contenders? I would think NOT.

A successful manager has to have the pieces to win. Period. There's no way around it. As Ozzie stated the first day he was hired as the manager, "I can't win the Kentucky Derby with donkeys, I need horses!" No matter how smart your manager is he's going to need talent. When Leyland was in his last years in Pittsburg he was very thin on talent. And as a result, he lost a lot of games because of it.

Just like with players the managers performance hinges on the success of a talented team. Managers, just like players, can have career seasons. You don't need a hall of fame manager to win the championship. And if there is a manager that's having a career year with a talented team then they are more than likely to win the World Series. And managers, just like player, can go into a slump. Most of the time a manager's slump happens in the post season. For instance, Tony LaRussa is a prime example of going into slumps in the playoffs. He's a hall of fame manager and has had some of the most talented teams with the late-80's A's and late 90's-to-present Cardinals teams and yet only win ONE World Series. The reason why this is the case(and why managers go into the so-called slump) is because in most cases he over manages in the playoffs.

Another element in manager/team success is the relationship and ability of his General Manager. The GM and manager needs to have constent communication on the player personel. AND the communication needs to be good. This is why the Cubs are where they are. Dusty is a good manager BUT if Jim Hendry is not giving him the players that he needs then this makes Dusty look bad.

In conclusion, a lot takes place for a team's success BUT a good manager could make a good team into a contender. A good manager can get a good team into the promise land. It's just like a team getting a key player. For example let's take this senerio. You got a team with 4 quality starters and the weak link is the fifth starter. This team always seems to fall short of the playoffs by a 1 or 2 games. Then they go out and get their starter and they end up winning the World Series. Manager have that same effect for a good team trying to get over the hump. The Tigers were a good team last year. Leyland was the key acquisition for them and that's why they are where they are now. Ozzie made a difference BUT not until he endured his first year in 2004 with some major changes. Ozzie inherited most of Jerry Manuel's team in 2004. That's why they did the overhaul between 2004 and 2005 and set the pieces around him to win the championship.

Two last things before I end this, managers can spoil a championship caliber teams chances of winning. Also, there are two types of successful managers:
1. One who can get a team 90-100 wins in the regular season.
2. One who can get the job done in the playoffs.
Guys like Bobby Cox, Tony LaRussa are examples of number 1. Someone like Tommy Lasorta, Joe Torre are examples of number 2.

[VanCitySportsGuy]

Re: Influence of a Manager on a Team's Performance

In todays game, the manager has almost no effect on a teams performance on the field because all managers are generic.

For example every manager believes "the closer" should be used at the end of ball games. The player that hits the most HR's usually hits 4th in the batting order. All teams use a 5 man rotation.

A supposed great manager like Joe Torre wouldn't be able to take this years Pirates and make them a 85 win club.

In Baseball Between The Numbers, James Click concluded with "But in terms of actually contributing wins on the field, the influence of managers remains clouded by auxiliary factors, hidden somewhere beneath the numbers."

A good GM is far more important than having a "good" manager.

[mjb2124]

Re: Influence of a Manager on a Team's Performance

The accepted view these days is that a manager is good for 10 extra wins, a marginal manager is good for 5 wins or losses and a bad manager is good for 10 extra losses.

I get into this debate on a Pirates board all the time. The guy I debate with claims that SPTO's statement is true. I don't feel it is based on a small sample size with the Pirates.

Long story short, Lloyd McClendon leaves and this guy states the Pirates will win 10-15 more games because Lloyd was such a poor manager. Jim Tracy comes in and the Pirates are worse than they were at this point last year. Is Tracy really a worse manager than Lloyd? I doubt it. I think they both stink, but that's just my opinion.

IMO, the manager isn't very important at the MLB level and I do feel they are vastly overrated. I don't think they have that much influence on the outcome of games throughout the course of the season.

[SPTO]

Re: Influence of a Manager on a Team's Performance

For example every manager believes "the closer" should be used at the end of ball games.

I dunno, Tony LaRussa has done some interesting stuff and fairly recently as well. A perfect example was when he had his SP batting 8th in the lineup rather then last.

As for the closer thing, look at John Gibbons (ok not the greatest example but hear me out) he sometimes puts BJ Ryan in the 8th inning which is a little unusual in today's game.

[SPTO]

Re: Influence of a Manager on a Team's Performance

A successful manager has to have the pieces to win. Period.

I agree to an extent but there have been some interesting results that show otherwise.

1969 Mets: Gil Hodges took over in '68 and the Mets were still losers finishing 9th in the NL that year. They were 73-89 and taking a cursory look at the roster of the '68 and '69 teams the only changes were:

Ken Boswell being promoted to starting 2B as Phil Linz was out of baseball in '69

The aging Ed Charles who was the starting 3B on the '68 team was demoted as the Mets used rookie Wayne Garrett at the hot corner

The '68 team had Nolan Ryan in the starting rotation but he was demoted to the 'pen in '69. Rookie Gary Gentry took his place.

The '69 pen looked to be a bit younger and saw the debut of Tug McGraw as a full-timer.

So how did a team with not that many changes suddenly become 100-62 and winning the WS? hmmm

Other examples would be the '91 Twins and Braves but i'm too lazy to look up the rosters for those two teams at the moment. I'm just saying there are exceptions to every rule.

Managers CAN have an impact.

[Thrasha]

Re: Influence of a Manager on a Team's Performance

The biggest way a manager can handicap his team is through either poor bullpen usage and/or beligerent PT given to players who don't deserve it (coughDustyBakercough).

Their will probably never be a way to measure a manager's true worth. If you don't have the players, you aren't going to win.

It seems from the small sample sizes that I can pull from my brain, players coaches seem to have a maybe slightly higher run of success (maybe, I'm just thinking). And it could all be attributed basically to how a coach runs his team between games. The media interaction, taking the heat off the players if something goes wrong, arguing calls, whatever it might be.