Playing Devil's Advocate for the Coaching Staff (Kinda)

Given the horribly negative and depressing tone of my latest post, I'd figure I'd flip the tone entirely and play Devil's Advocate for a second. And, yes, by Devil's Advocate, I mean, I plan to consider a couple of reasons why one could argue it would be beneficial to maintain this Bucco coaching staff for one more season.

(Caveat: I have the ability to make arguments with which I completely disagree. I doubt I'm going to agree with anything at all I write here in favor of the Devil's Advocate argument, but I offer it for the sake of consideration/conversation/trying to resume a more cordial and less depressing tone.)

I can list many qualms with Jim Tracy and his staff. Tracy rarely seems to field a lineup that is consistently the best. If the Pirates ever consistently played their best players, the team might have a better record. Whether it's the fault of general management primarily or the coaching staff primarily, it often takes too long to recognize who the best players are and then put the best players in a position where they have a chance to win the ball game. Beyond Tracy, the inconsistent results of pitching coach Jim Colburn still leave me wanting--and while I know Colburn doesn't literally make the pitches, he's still the pitching coach and responsible for the pitchers. (You'll notice I left out things such as Tracy's annoying post game comments about "special" players and not getting a "clutch" hit as well as ignoring Colburn's confrontations with different players at various points this year. While I actually don't think such details are impertinent to an evaluation of the coaching staff, and I don't think they're merely cosmetic issues, I do think when I address them in my usual snarky manner, I don't do them justice, so for the moment, they're being ignored.)

However, one could argue that there are two things that Tracy and his staff have developed for certain players, and in the case of certain players, both of these things could be critically important. The first critically important thing is knowledge of certain players (hold your tongues, naysayers, I'll get to your points very shortly). The second critically important thing are expectations based on that developed knowledge. And, when dealing with, for example, a pitching staff that's still very young, both intimate knowledge of players' strengths and weaknesses as well as expectations based on the player's profile are crucially important for future success.

Let's look at a couple of examples of how this knowledge/expectations thing works. First, take a gander at Freddy Sanchez. Though it took way too long, Freddy hitting at a ridiculously high rate eventually got Tracy's attention last season. He played his way into a starting position and won a batting title. Based on knowledge of what they've seen Sanchez do, up close and personal, he's the every day second baseman and ranks quite high in the NL in total hits this season. Tracy expects Sanchez to play at an All-Star level, and given those expectations, (and once healthy), Sanchez met those expectations. Given what coaches have seen and know that Sanchez can do, Sanchez gets the opportunity to meet expectations and do what he's expected to do.

Let's look at a pitching example of the knowledge/expectations thing when it comes to a pitcher. At the start of the 2006 season, Ian Snell was hit, and hit hard. He eventually rebounded to win 14 games and show that he had "nasty stuff" that left a few baseball people drooling in anticipation of what he might be able to become. Snell was sensational in the first half of 2007, conquering demons of keeping balls in the park while striking out lots batters while continuing to use his nasty stuff. He's struggled in the second half of this season. Yet for the better part of two seasons now, Snell gets the ball every fifth day. Sneeze as you might at Tracy's pronouncements (I surely do), there's an expectation that if everything ever gets to the point of continuously clicking with Snell, in terms of focus, command, and stuff, that he could be "very good" or "very special." (And while those are Tracy's words; they've actually been shared by a couple of other people outside the Pirates' organization.) But the knowledge in seeing flashes of dominance and mastery up close and personal, as well as the expectation that you need to become as good as you can be, do matter.

Now, of course, come the necessary follow-up questions. Doesn't any good manager and coaching staff, even if they're new, quickly acquire intimate knowledge of their players? (Talent-wise, yes. Personality wise in terms of mental preparation and mental motivation, I suspect, might not happen quite as quickly.) How important are expectations for players? (Critically. Expectations need to be high but not impossible or completely unreasonable, and expectations need to be based on actual and correct, not imagined and incorrect, knowledge of players.)

Thus, when it comes to evaluating the coaching staff, I want to know the answers to these two questions. Do Tracy and his coaches truly have accurate knowledge of each player's strengths and weaknesses? Do they have true knowledge of the players with whom they work, and I mean that in all ways--tools possessed, mental acumen, etc. Have they developed actual knowledge of their players in such a way that their already acquired and accurate knowledge is more beneficial to the players than an entirely new coaching staff would prove to be? Beyond having acquired accurate knowledge of their players, have they maintained expectations consistent with their knowledge of their players? Have they put the players in a position where they can meet or exceed high yet reasonable expectations?

Of course, for all this talk about "knowledge" and "expectations," the bottom line is that results are what matter the most. Results for the Pirates come in two ways: the individual progress/growth of a few talented young players and winning games. For every player who may have benefited from the knowledge and expectation this particular staff has developed of them (Sanchez), there's another player (Duke) whose results say they have regressed under the current coaching staff. When it comes to managers and their coaching staff, the bottom line is getting results.

But the question to ask is, Who is going to best be able to get results? Idealistically, who is coaching your young pitchers to conquer demons--whether too many home runs given up or walking too many batters issues or control and command issues or mental lapses? Idealistically, who can both evaluate talent in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of a player and a lineup and then create a lineup that takes advantage of a player's strengths while minimizing his vulnerabilities? And, especially, who can do this better for a majority of players who are either green in terms of time served or young or both? Is it coaches who, for whatever issues they clearly have (if you've read my snark, you know there are lots), do know the players and the players know them? (And keep in mind that "knowledge," especially when it's not accurate knowledge, can be and often is overrated.) Or is it coaches who've had no firsthand experience in terms of actual interaction with these players and who will have to gain "knowledge" of them and learn certain things that should (not that they necessarily are)already be known to the current coaching staff?

Of course, the bottom line question has to come, and it's this: Who will get the best results given the MLB players he will have at the start of 2008 training camp? The Devil's Advocate says there is something to be said for knowing your players, knowing how to work through your players' issues with them, them knowing how to work with you, and, of course, for expectations being maintained that are commensurate with who a player is (and please note, despite writing the Devil's Advocate position here, I know I don't agree with it.)

The antithesis to the Devil's Advocate position is that "knowledge" of players, especially knowledge that's resulted in screaming matches in the dugout this season, is completely overrated. The antithesis to the Devil's Advocate position is that expectations that are about to result in a 15th consecutive losing season and that have resulted in inconsistency and regression for too many players (even if progress was shown by a few) aren't high or reasonable and aren't even worthwhile expectations. On most days, especially after yet another loss, I tend closer to the antithesis of the Devil's Advocate position.

But on those rare days when the kids in the lineup hit and one of the young starting pitchers goes seven or eight solid innings and the team wins? Given overall results, I can't buy the Devil's Advocate argument, but I can acknowledge that true knowledge of players and high and reasonable expectations are good things when manifested by a coaching staff.

So, what do you prefer? The lunacy of the Devil's Advocate position, given the overall still horrific results? Or the antithesis of the Devil's Advocate position, again, given the overall and still horrific results?

But, seriously, if and when the coaching staff changes, here's to hoping the right kind of changes get made. Bottom line: that means results. But never forget that results in terms of individual players' progress and growth that results in more wins is helped tremendously by coaches who acquire true knowledge of their players, have the ability to interact with what they truly know about their players, and can uphold high expectations that their players, put in appropriate positions to succeed by general management and the manager, can then successfully meet and, yes, eventually, even, ultimately, exceed.