Conversation:
Me: The Boston Red Sox's number 1 through number 5 pitchers are all better than any of the Pittsburgh Pirates' starting pitchers.
Lapsed (due to horrific play) but Lifelong Baseball Fan: Even Snell? Didn't he have good statistics?
Me: The Red Sox pitchers won games.
Lapsed but Lifelong Baseball Fan: Well look who Snell pitched for and look who they pitched for.
Me: Snell's run support was, like, 80th, in the league, and that's counting the couple of games where the Pirates put up a lot of runs.
(Editor's Note: 80th was evidently hyperbole, but if you fuss with this page, you really can have quite a bit of fun. If combing through depressing stats during another playoff-free offseason is your thing, of course.)
Lapsed but Lifelong Baseball Fan: Seriously? All their pitchers are better than ours?
Me: (dubiously) Fine. I don't really follow the American League (editor's note: too many really good baseball teams tend to make me incredibly bitter), so I'll look up the 2007 statistics online.
Here is what I discovered, using only pretty "basic" statistics because I'm lazy:
Josh Beckett: Record: 20-7, ERA 3.27, K 194, BB 40 WHIP 1.14. BAA: .245 DIPS:3.04
Commentary: Yeah. To state the starkly obvious, the Pirates had no starting pitcher close to the statistics of the majors' only 20 game winner.
Curt Schilling: Record: 9-8 ERA: 3.87, K 101 BB 23 WHIP 1.25 BAA .275 DIPS:4.06
Commentary: While his statistics are obviously not as pristine as Beckett's, and although two starting Bucco pitchers (barely) bested him when it comes to ERA, look at the BB rate. Even missing time this season, Curt Schilling is still Curt freaking Schilling. Argue as an optimistic (or delusional, depending on one's perspective) hopeful might that you might want the upside of a young pitcher with room for growth, at this present moment and in another statement of the seriously obvious, there's no starting Bucco pitcher who'd be able to take a number 2 job off Curt Schilling.
Daisuke Matsuzaka: Record: 15-12, ERA: 4.40, K 201 BB 80 WHIP 1.32, BAA .246 DIPS: 4.09
Commentary: Lots of strikeouts, and too many walks. Speaking only in terms of statistics, his statistics seem somewhat equivalent to those of year-long Ian Snell or of Tom Gorzelanny prior to his final three starts. Snell and Gorzy both edged him in ERA, but Matsuzaka holds an advantage over both in K's and in BAA. Still, depending on the identity and composition of the opposing team, in something that sort of shocked me, you might have wanted to pick and choose among Matsuzaka, Snell, and Gorzy.
Tim Wakefield: W: 17-12, ERA: 4.76, K: 110 BB:64 WHIP:1.35, BAA:.264 DIPS: 4.61
Commentary: An ERA that eerily resembles Ian Snell's 2006 ERA. Still, the WHIP is basically a match of Snell's and the BAA is the same. Considering only two statistics, if you wanted an ERA a full run lower and more strikeouts, you wanted the 2007 Ian Snell over the 2007 Tim Wakefield. But if you're considering "crafty veteran" intangibles not possessed by most youthful Bucco players, Tim Wakefield's 2007 statistics indicate he still knew how to pitch this season.
So, there you have it. The best two pitchers for the Pittsburgh Pirates this season would have been, at best, the third and fourth starting pitchers for the 96-game winning Boston Red Sox. The Pirates' best two pitchers in 2007 would have been, most likely, at best, back-of-the-rotation starters for a team that wins 96 games. However, it's highly likely that Tom Gorzelanny would have won at least 15 games, and it's pretty likely Ian Snell would have finished with a win-loss record above .500.
Just for hilarity, let's look at run support in 2007:
Beckett: 6.59
Schilling: 4.29
Matsuzaka: 5.72
Wakefield: 5.76
I'll let you guess which Bucco pitcher averaged 4.02 run support per nine innings versus 5.40 run support per nine innings, figures which ranked 42nd out of 45 eligible NL pitchers and which ranked 17th of 45 eligible NL pitchers. (Hint: It has a lot to do with the won-loss disparity between the two pitchers, though it should also be noted that the bullpen was definitely not kind to the pitcher who, according to the statistics, received more run support, although the bullpen wasn't exactly kind to the other pitcher, either.)
As a blogger/writer, I know I'm supposed to wrap some "tidy bow" to summarize this piece, but really, there's not much of a summary I can offer.
Depressing: Two of the best players for the 2007 Pittsburgh Pirates, their 2 best starting pitchers, would not and should not be the best two starting pitchers for a team that wins 96 games, based on their 2007 performance, as indicated only by statistics sans won-loss records.
Theoretically Uplifting: Two of the best players on the 2007 Pittsburgh Pirates, their 2 best starting pitchers, could play a legitimate role, one that doesn't involve merely watching and cheering, on a team that wins 96 games.
Realistically: Two of the best performers for the 2007 Pirates are not what was wrong with the 2007 team. Provided that the twin miracles of good health and no regression occur, the 2 pitchers could (a huge could, given those two previous variables I have come to count as miracles when it comes to Pirate pitchers) improve upon statistically good seasons.
Anyhow, though, I just thought of this piece as an eye-opener: Look at the statistics of the Red Sox's top 2 pitchers and think about the progress that would have to be made by Pittsburgh's top 2 pitchers. Take a gander at the Red Sox's three and four guys and think about what would need to happen to pitchers assuming the 3 and 4 spots in the Pittsburgh rotation.
From the cold, hard perspective (note Schilling still managed a winning record, albeit barely, despite low run support), look at just how good the pitching really is for a team that wins 96 games.
As for hitting? Not even going there. At least not until it comes time for "player profiles" and answering that dreaded but enlightening question of "What role would such a player, statistically speaking, have on a team that wins 90 games?"
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
A Different Form of Post Season Analysis
Among other things that I haven't yet gotten around to writing (preoccupation with other things) are after-the-season analysis of the play of various Pittsburgh Pirates.
When I actually bother to do this, I want to frame my analysis in a slightly different way.
1. Statistics. The "old-school" statistics and some modern sabermetric statistics will be posted to view actual performance in 2007 (and in some cases, prior seasons, for track record purposes).
2. The question that I want to answer: What role would a player at this position, with this statistical line, have on a team that wins 90 games? (I realize that there were two NL playoff teams that didn't win 90 games this season; still, I want to examine what role such a player would have on one of the teams that wins 90 games.) There are two purposes for asking such a question. First, one can realize the harsh (but of course known) truth that most Bucco players wouldn't have a role to play on a team that wins 90 games. Secondarily, however, one can see the value of such a player to a team that wants to win 90 games. And if the Buccos are considering trading some of their more established talent, seeing the value of a great #6 or #7 hitter, a specialist reliever, or a solid mid-to-back-of-the-rotation pitcher to a 90-game winning team helps you to "price" your own player in such a way that you know his worth to a club that earns 90 victories and thus have a concept of the return that must be expected for such a player.
3. Conjecture. Conjecture is what a blog is all about, right? In any case, conjecture might look at past performance or projected future performance. Will a player's value decrease or increase? How will such an increase or decrease in a player's value determine if you should "sell high" or "hold" the player? And, of course, given the title of this section, you can expect to read about "intangibles" or even "favorite player" affectations because, hey, that's part of what conjecture is.
For example, let's take this player (not a Pirate, as the statistical line will soon make obvious):
1. G:34 IP:241.0 H:238 ER:94 HR:20 BB:37 SO:209 W:19 L:7
WHIP: 1.14 BAA: .259 OBP: .292 SLG: .392 OPS: .682
ERA: 3.21 K/BB: 5.65 K/9: 7.81 FIP: 3.27 VORP: 65.2 PRC: 128
2. He was an ace for a team that won 96 games and won their division. A preseason fantasy outlook had him primed for a "career year," and lo and behold, take a gander at the above statistics. He is the number 1 starter for a team that wins 90 games unless that team is blessed with another pitcher who possesses the same superb strikeout, walk, and WHIP rates, and then that team has two legitimate number 1 pitchers.
3. He's definitely enjoyed a "career" year this season, but he's still only 26 and primed for several more "career" years. For pitching like this, you gladly pay $8,750,000 a year, his salary in 2007. And since this is the conjecture section, his stuff is beheld with the eyes to be dynamite, and he's pure pleasure to watch on the mound.
Oh, the player in question is 26-year-old CC Sabathia, who lost Game 1 to the the Boston Red Sox tonight and whose stuff--even in the midst of the loss--still made me drool. I figured I'd give Bucco fans a chance to see the analysis and outlook for a legitimate big-time, big league star.
I've been tossing around what these pieces will look like in my head, and I have an idea: the non-2007 version of Jason Bay can start for a team that wins 90 games, a few other position players have various different roles to play on 90 game winning teams (not the roles for which they're slated on the Pirates) and perhaps 3 or 4 pitchers could find a place on a team that wins 90 games.
But it's all about proper value, and the question I'm most curious about is the one that will sting the most, but is most necessary to examine, and that's the question so absurd that non-Bucco fans reading this blog are probably working hard to refrain from too much uproarious laughter: What role would this ballplayer, based on performance alone, have on a major league baseball team that wins 90 games?
It should be interesting to consider, that's all.
When I actually bother to do this, I want to frame my analysis in a slightly different way.
1. Statistics. The "old-school" statistics and some modern sabermetric statistics will be posted to view actual performance in 2007 (and in some cases, prior seasons, for track record purposes).
2. The question that I want to answer: What role would a player at this position, with this statistical line, have on a team that wins 90 games? (I realize that there were two NL playoff teams that didn't win 90 games this season; still, I want to examine what role such a player would have on one of the teams that wins 90 games.) There are two purposes for asking such a question. First, one can realize the harsh (but of course known) truth that most Bucco players wouldn't have a role to play on a team that wins 90 games. Secondarily, however, one can see the value of such a player to a team that wants to win 90 games. And if the Buccos are considering trading some of their more established talent, seeing the value of a great #6 or #7 hitter, a specialist reliever, or a solid mid-to-back-of-the-rotation pitcher to a 90-game winning team helps you to "price" your own player in such a way that you know his worth to a club that earns 90 victories and thus have a concept of the return that must be expected for such a player.
3. Conjecture. Conjecture is what a blog is all about, right? In any case, conjecture might look at past performance or projected future performance. Will a player's value decrease or increase? How will such an increase or decrease in a player's value determine if you should "sell high" or "hold" the player? And, of course, given the title of this section, you can expect to read about "intangibles" or even "favorite player" affectations because, hey, that's part of what conjecture is.
For example, let's take this player (not a Pirate, as the statistical line will soon make obvious):
1. G:34 IP:241.0 H:238 ER:94 HR:20 BB:37 SO:209 W:19 L:7
WHIP: 1.14 BAA: .259 OBP: .292 SLG: .392 OPS: .682
ERA: 3.21 K/BB: 5.65 K/9: 7.81 FIP: 3.27 VORP: 65.2 PRC: 128
2. He was an ace for a team that won 96 games and won their division. A preseason fantasy outlook had him primed for a "career year," and lo and behold, take a gander at the above statistics. He is the number 1 starter for a team that wins 90 games unless that team is blessed with another pitcher who possesses the same superb strikeout, walk, and WHIP rates, and then that team has two legitimate number 1 pitchers.
3. He's definitely enjoyed a "career" year this season, but he's still only 26 and primed for several more "career" years. For pitching like this, you gladly pay $8,750,000 a year, his salary in 2007. And since this is the conjecture section, his stuff is beheld with the eyes to be dynamite, and he's pure pleasure to watch on the mound.
Oh, the player in question is 26-year-old CC Sabathia, who lost Game 1 to the the Boston Red Sox tonight and whose stuff--even in the midst of the loss--still made me drool. I figured I'd give Bucco fans a chance to see the analysis and outlook for a legitimate big-time, big league star.
I've been tossing around what these pieces will look like in my head, and I have an idea: the non-2007 version of Jason Bay can start for a team that wins 90 games, a few other position players have various different roles to play on 90 game winning teams (not the roles for which they're slated on the Pirates) and perhaps 3 or 4 pitchers could find a place on a team that wins 90 games.
But it's all about proper value, and the question I'm most curious about is the one that will sting the most, but is most necessary to examine, and that's the question so absurd that non-Bucco fans reading this blog are probably working hard to refrain from too much uproarious laughter: What role would this ballplayer, based on performance alone, have on a major league baseball team that wins 90 games?
It should be interesting to consider, that's all.
In Search of an Authoritative Manager
Since other things have been preoccupying me lately, I've offered no commentary about recent Bucco happenings that pleased me. The total housecleaning that rid the Pirates of Creech and Graham, in addition to this year's coaching staff, was something that had to happen. And for once, something that had to happen actually happened.
Which brings me to the start of another Bucco offseason. The baseball playoffs are underway which of course means the Pittsburgh Pirates are no longer playing baseball. In addition to hiring a new scouting director and director of player development, the Buccos will need a new skipper for next year. Since several other blogs love to speculate about various candidates (and believe me, I enjoy reading all that speculation) for the vacant Pittsburgh managerial position, I thought rather than list names of potential candidates, I'd list the qualities I see as crucial for the next manager of the Pittsburgh Pirates to possess.
Allow me to begin with yet another teaching analogy (three years spent in a middle school classroom will do this to you, be forewarned). As a teacher, I learned about four different types of "classroom management" profiles. A teacher who profiles as "laissez-faire" is a teacher who places few "demands or controls" students and is more concerned for their emotional well-being than being concerned that they learn anything. An "indifferent" teacher places few demands on students and thus the classroom lacks discipline. An "indifferent" teacher is also generally disinterested, and rarely puts any time into preparing lessons for the class, and students can sense their teacher's indifference. Just as "laissez-faire" and "indifferent" were definitely not the profiles to achieve success in a classroom of children, so too did Jim Tracy's managing style, what I believe to be a hybrid of "laissez-faire" and "indifferent," was not a way to achieve success with a fairly young and inexperienced team.
However, based on the blogs I regularly read, I believe some Bucco fans are mistakenly screaming for Tracy's antithesis--which would be an "authoritarian" manager. In education, an "authoritarian" teacher is described as one who places "firm controls and limits" on students (which, admittedly, sounds pretty good, especially if a classroom lacks discipline in the first place). Yet an "authoritarian" teacher is also one who expects swift obedience without explaining the rationale behind decisions, allows no room for communication, and gives no indication of caring about the students they teach. Given the past two years under Jim Tracy's at best laissez-faire and at worst indifferent management style, it is understandable why some Bucco fans are yearning for an authoritarian manager who will crack a whip and constantly hold players accountable.
Except--here's the thing. Both students and baseball players can be held accountable with reasonable discipline. While reasonable discipline might involve cracking an occasional whip, in the classroom, an "authoritative" teacher is the one who firmly establishes expectations and consequences for the failure to meet those expectations while also clearly communicating the rationale behind those expectations and consequences. An "authoritative" teacher shows their care for students by clearly communicating to students when expectations have been exceeded or reached and remains in clear communication when expectations are not being reached. In the vast majority of American classrooms, an "authoritative" teacher is the type of instructor most likely to get the best results in terms of classroom culture and student achievement.
While I understand the thirst for an authoritarian figure who will show his "passion" by losing his temper, getting into fights, and publicly calling out every player who fails to meet expectations, the Buccos do not need an authoritarian manager. The Pirates need an authoritative manager. The Pirates will need an authoritative manager regardless of whether the team trades a few high profile players this offseason or if the team remains pretty much the same.
Why do the Pirates require an authoritative manager? If the team is going to trade away any assets this offseason, a "rebuilding" phase will occur. A "rebuilding" team--e.g. a young and inexperienced one--will need a manager who can hold players accountable while also clearly communicating with them. An authoritarian manager who may occasionally excite the players will also frustrate young and inexperienced players due to a lack of communication skills. In order for young and inexperienced players to improve, they need to be managed and coached in such a way that they know what they need to improve and how they can improve. A passionate, fiery authoritarian manager may rouse one player from his doldrums, but overall, such an authoritarian manager would likely do more harm than good due to an inability to communicate clearly with, and thus coach, the majority of the team's players.
While I pay little heed to the sparkling and lengthy adverbs with which the new Bucco general manager continually peppers his speech (readers of this blog know Mr. Huntington and I are probably a little similar, verbiage wise), I will break down what Mr. Huntington should be looking for in a manager in one word: Authoritative. Authoritative enough to be able to hold his players accountable for their conduct on and off the field. Authoritative enough to be able to communicate clearly with every player on the team, which means learning that one motivation method (a public call out) may work great for one player but that another motivation method (a more private rebuke) is necessary for another player. Authoritative enough to lead a major league team and authoritative enough to allow players to assume leadership responsibilities at the right time. Authoritative enough to respond to progressions, setbacks, regressions, wins, and losses, with the right combination of rationality and emotion. Authoritative enough to demonstrate to his players his care by thorough preparation for spring training and games and authoritative enough to demand his players continuously prepare themselves in the same professional manner. Authoritative enough to demand the bottom line results in terms of winning games and yet be able to work out all the steps, good and bad, that will help a club become a winning baseball team.
With that being said, what would my short list for an "authoritative" manager resemble?
1. I want a manager. I want someone with managerial (but not necessarily major league) managerial experience. While I'm sure there are successful first-time managers who don't make the mistakes of going too authoritarian or too laissez-faire to compensate for their inexperience, I don't want to take the unnecessary risk of entrusting a young and inexperienced team to a person who's inexperienced in management. Management is different than coaching third base, and I want to hire a manager who has a track record of success in his role as a manager of a baseball team.
2. I do not want authoritarian, laissez-faire, or indifferent managers, no matter how successful the big-league or minor-league teams they previously managed were. An authoritarian figure who can't communicate and lacks coaching and tactical skills will not help young players learn how to improve. A laissez-faire manager could work quite well on a veteran team full of very good to great players, but a laissez-faire manager is not going to fly with a young and inexperienced team. The Pirates need to find a manager who's experienced success using an authoritative style--clear communication, clear instruction, and clear accountability.
3. Someone who is passionate and who cares. And yes, an authoritative manager can be someone who is passionate and who cares--and that might mean there are very specific occasions, rather than weekly or daily occasions, when he finds himself raising his voice.
Given this list, you can probably guess what I don't want:
1. Passionate, emotional men who played the game but don't have a clue how to communicate with the current generation of players, have no tactical knowledge of how to manage games, and have no instructional skills. A complete lack of communication skills and basic intelligence are also, obviously, not desirable traits.
2. Experienced coaches with a track record of success gained through managing teams very different than will be the 2008 Pirates.
Clearing Up Any Confusion:
1. Passion and emotion are necessary, but the next manager must apply his passion and emotion in the right directions--in clearly communicating his expectations to his players, ensuring his coaching staff provides the proper preseason and in-season instruction to meet those expectations, and demanding accountability while also holding himself accountable for preparation--rather than applying his passion and emotion to showcasing how passionate and emotional he is and only being Jim Tracy's antithesis in personality but not in terms of bottom-line results.
2. Basically speaking, the Pirates are still going to have a fairly young pitching staff next season. Outside of a few arbitration eligible players, the Pirates are going to have several players still making entry-level salaries next season. When thinking about a manager, you have to have a manager who will be able to push the right buttons to help a young starting pitcher achieve consistency and to help a position player avoid defensive mental lapses. You have to have a manager with the sense to know the appropriate time to give a pitcher the hook, and you must have a manager who has the right combination of patience, impatience, accountability, high standards--to have the sense to bench a player or allow him to work out of his slump and to give a pitcher the freedom to respond to a poor outing with a good one. You have to have a manager who can communicate with his team and reach his team and teach his team and lead his team. You have to have a manager who can know his players and a manager whom the inexperienced players will respect and heed.
So, without any name-dropping, the one attribute that stands out, above all else, when it comes to next season's manager, is that he must be authoritative.
Get an authoritative manager, and, hopefully, that hire will eventually demonstrate why the "authoritative" style is often regarded as the best of all management styles.
Which brings me to the start of another Bucco offseason. The baseball playoffs are underway which of course means the Pittsburgh Pirates are no longer playing baseball. In addition to hiring a new scouting director and director of player development, the Buccos will need a new skipper for next year. Since several other blogs love to speculate about various candidates (and believe me, I enjoy reading all that speculation) for the vacant Pittsburgh managerial position, I thought rather than list names of potential candidates, I'd list the qualities I see as crucial for the next manager of the Pittsburgh Pirates to possess.
Allow me to begin with yet another teaching analogy (three years spent in a middle school classroom will do this to you, be forewarned). As a teacher, I learned about four different types of "classroom management" profiles. A teacher who profiles as "laissez-faire" is a teacher who places few "demands or controls" students and is more concerned for their emotional well-being than being concerned that they learn anything. An "indifferent" teacher places few demands on students and thus the classroom lacks discipline. An "indifferent" teacher is also generally disinterested, and rarely puts any time into preparing lessons for the class, and students can sense their teacher's indifference. Just as "laissez-faire" and "indifferent" were definitely not the profiles to achieve success in a classroom of children, so too did Jim Tracy's managing style, what I believe to be a hybrid of "laissez-faire" and "indifferent," was not a way to achieve success with a fairly young and inexperienced team.
However, based on the blogs I regularly read, I believe some Bucco fans are mistakenly screaming for Tracy's antithesis--which would be an "authoritarian" manager. In education, an "authoritarian" teacher is described as one who places "firm controls and limits" on students (which, admittedly, sounds pretty good, especially if a classroom lacks discipline in the first place). Yet an "authoritarian" teacher is also one who expects swift obedience without explaining the rationale behind decisions, allows no room for communication, and gives no indication of caring about the students they teach. Given the past two years under Jim Tracy's at best laissez-faire and at worst indifferent management style, it is understandable why some Bucco fans are yearning for an authoritarian manager who will crack a whip and constantly hold players accountable.
Except--here's the thing. Both students and baseball players can be held accountable with reasonable discipline. While reasonable discipline might involve cracking an occasional whip, in the classroom, an "authoritative" teacher is the one who firmly establishes expectations and consequences for the failure to meet those expectations while also clearly communicating the rationale behind those expectations and consequences. An "authoritative" teacher shows their care for students by clearly communicating to students when expectations have been exceeded or reached and remains in clear communication when expectations are not being reached. In the vast majority of American classrooms, an "authoritative" teacher is the type of instructor most likely to get the best results in terms of classroom culture and student achievement.
While I understand the thirst for an authoritarian figure who will show his "passion" by losing his temper, getting into fights, and publicly calling out every player who fails to meet expectations, the Buccos do not need an authoritarian manager. The Pirates need an authoritative manager. The Pirates will need an authoritative manager regardless of whether the team trades a few high profile players this offseason or if the team remains pretty much the same.
Why do the Pirates require an authoritative manager? If the team is going to trade away any assets this offseason, a "rebuilding" phase will occur. A "rebuilding" team--e.g. a young and inexperienced one--will need a manager who can hold players accountable while also clearly communicating with them. An authoritarian manager who may occasionally excite the players will also frustrate young and inexperienced players due to a lack of communication skills. In order for young and inexperienced players to improve, they need to be managed and coached in such a way that they know what they need to improve and how they can improve. A passionate, fiery authoritarian manager may rouse one player from his doldrums, but overall, such an authoritarian manager would likely do more harm than good due to an inability to communicate clearly with, and thus coach, the majority of the team's players.
While I pay little heed to the sparkling and lengthy adverbs with which the new Bucco general manager continually peppers his speech (readers of this blog know Mr. Huntington and I are probably a little similar, verbiage wise), I will break down what Mr. Huntington should be looking for in a manager in one word: Authoritative. Authoritative enough to be able to hold his players accountable for their conduct on and off the field. Authoritative enough to be able to communicate clearly with every player on the team, which means learning that one motivation method (a public call out) may work great for one player but that another motivation method (a more private rebuke) is necessary for another player. Authoritative enough to lead a major league team and authoritative enough to allow players to assume leadership responsibilities at the right time. Authoritative enough to respond to progressions, setbacks, regressions, wins, and losses, with the right combination of rationality and emotion. Authoritative enough to demonstrate to his players his care by thorough preparation for spring training and games and authoritative enough to demand his players continuously prepare themselves in the same professional manner. Authoritative enough to demand the bottom line results in terms of winning games and yet be able to work out all the steps, good and bad, that will help a club become a winning baseball team.
With that being said, what would my short list for an "authoritative" manager resemble?
1. I want a manager. I want someone with managerial (but not necessarily major league) managerial experience. While I'm sure there are successful first-time managers who don't make the mistakes of going too authoritarian or too laissez-faire to compensate for their inexperience, I don't want to take the unnecessary risk of entrusting a young and inexperienced team to a person who's inexperienced in management. Management is different than coaching third base, and I want to hire a manager who has a track record of success in his role as a manager of a baseball team.
2. I do not want authoritarian, laissez-faire, or indifferent managers, no matter how successful the big-league or minor-league teams they previously managed were. An authoritarian figure who can't communicate and lacks coaching and tactical skills will not help young players learn how to improve. A laissez-faire manager could work quite well on a veteran team full of very good to great players, but a laissez-faire manager is not going to fly with a young and inexperienced team. The Pirates need to find a manager who's experienced success using an authoritative style--clear communication, clear instruction, and clear accountability.
3. Someone who is passionate and who cares. And yes, an authoritative manager can be someone who is passionate and who cares--and that might mean there are very specific occasions, rather than weekly or daily occasions, when he finds himself raising his voice.
Given this list, you can probably guess what I don't want:
1. Passionate, emotional men who played the game but don't have a clue how to communicate with the current generation of players, have no tactical knowledge of how to manage games, and have no instructional skills. A complete lack of communication skills and basic intelligence are also, obviously, not desirable traits.
2. Experienced coaches with a track record of success gained through managing teams very different than will be the 2008 Pirates.
Clearing Up Any Confusion:
1. Passion and emotion are necessary, but the next manager must apply his passion and emotion in the right directions--in clearly communicating his expectations to his players, ensuring his coaching staff provides the proper preseason and in-season instruction to meet those expectations, and demanding accountability while also holding himself accountable for preparation--rather than applying his passion and emotion to showcasing how passionate and emotional he is and only being Jim Tracy's antithesis in personality but not in terms of bottom-line results.
2. Basically speaking, the Pirates are still going to have a fairly young pitching staff next season. Outside of a few arbitration eligible players, the Pirates are going to have several players still making entry-level salaries next season. When thinking about a manager, you have to have a manager who will be able to push the right buttons to help a young starting pitcher achieve consistency and to help a position player avoid defensive mental lapses. You have to have a manager with the sense to know the appropriate time to give a pitcher the hook, and you must have a manager who has the right combination of patience, impatience, accountability, high standards--to have the sense to bench a player or allow him to work out of his slump and to give a pitcher the freedom to respond to a poor outing with a good one. You have to have a manager who can communicate with his team and reach his team and teach his team and lead his team. You have to have a manager who can know his players and a manager whom the inexperienced players will respect and heed.
So, without any name-dropping, the one attribute that stands out, above all else, when it comes to next season's manager, is that he must be authoritative.
Get an authoritative manager, and, hopefully, that hire will eventually demonstrate why the "authoritative" style is often regarded as the best of all management styles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)