I would argue a better analogy for Dusty Baker would be: “where is the next possible mistake and how many can I make in one game?”. How that guy still gets work is beyond me. Watching him butcher the Cubs up close in 2003 was like watching Beethoven compose a Sonata. Pure artistry, the man has a real knack for it.

In chess there is a saying: “The mistakes are there waiting to be made.”

Unfortunately, I guess it’s the same in baseball as far as managerial decisions go.

Anyway, I was pretty much just rehashing the Poz article into my own words, and you make a good point about the lack of knife fights and public blame-game that so often occurs on a losing team. That is pretty remarkable, and for that I think Leyland deserves some credit.

Also, Ozzie using more profanity this year vs. ‘05 is probably true and definitely more entertaining.

Good managers have good talent playing well, and bad managers don’t. Ozzie Guillen is the best example of this. In 2005 he was the best manager in baseball, every move he did was the right call. This was also aided by 200 innings of relief work by Hermanson, Politte and Cotts with a 200 ERA+ (this is like running Dennis Eckersley out there for 2-3 innings every day), and the emergence of a dominant closer in Jenks. And these guys followed the routine 6 or 7 innings he got from his starters. But suddenly in the middle of 2006, Ozzie became a bad manager? No, his talent that was playing over it’s head stopped doing so, and his other talent couldn’t keep it up. I seriously doubt Ozzie did things so drastically different in 2007 vs. 2005 to cause a 27-win swing with arguably a more talented (albeit older) roster.

I will admit that some managers, namely Dusty Baker, are exceptionally bad at some of these things. Having Adam Dunn sac bunt, for example, is generally not a good idea. But I don’t think Leyland is in this class.

Frankly, it’s probably best to stick with the devil we know versus the devil we don’t. Leyland has shortcomings running a bullpen and his lineup construction (particularly putting Pudge at leadoff) leaves much to be desired. And these things will cost us wins over the course of a season. However, given that Leyland is not substantially worse than the majority of managers, we will win our fair share of games based on mismanagement by opposing managers. As such, it’s probably close to a wash over the course of a season.

I think at the end of the day (as in Leyland’s day in the sun), his proper title will be The Great Bloviator. But then I am pretty cynical about this whole mess right now, so take my opinion with a grain of salt

Great article by Posnanski, one of the rare sports writers who write intelligently.

He’s right about Gardenhire (although it may be a stretch to call him the best), who seems to squeeze more out of his teams than one would expect. He makes his fair share of mistakes, of course, but considering the material he has to work with he does a fine job. This is a rebuilding year for the Twins, who have a lot of question marks in pitching and in the lineup, while the vaunted Twins defense is not so hot this year either, and look where they stand. Nobody here very knowledgeable about the game expected them to be especially competitive; a distant third was about the best expected, probably finishing under .500. That may still come to pass of course, but still, their present level of lay has been a real surprise and I think Gardy can take credit for a bit of it.

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlo.....-to-gardy/

Absolutely. Vince, you summarize well, without hyperbole, what is wrong with Leyland as the Tigers manager.

I’m guilty of falling for his persona. Early on, I was struck by his straight-talking style and liked it, but I’ve seen just as much since to make me question whether he really thinks straight. I thought he was a kind of a maverick, but that’s clearly not true. So all that’s left is the hope that he really is The Great Motivator. Not much evidence of that so far in 2008.

However, watching him pretty regularly over the course of 2+ seasons, it seems apparent that his in-game strategizing is more often than not deficient. His mis-use of the pitching staff is the biggest sin(s) and are so many that I won’t even bother to list any of them here.

He sticks with underperforming players way past the expiration date (think Neifi Perez, Craig Monroe, Gary Shelffield, etc., etc.) His strange lineups (e.g. Ivan Rodriguez, leadoff hitter) are also not uncommon.

I have no idea what goes on off the field, but I have to wonder if he is not a little bit responsible for this teams woeful inconsisitency (whether pitching, hitting, or defense), to play for nine innings at a time. I still have the sneaking suspicion that they didn’t come out of ST ready to go. Shouldn’t the Guillen/Cabrera defense issue have been addresed there?

I just don’t find Leyland particularly creative. Occasionally you have to think and play by the seat of your pants, try some things “outside of the book”, and I just don’t think Layland has the capacity to do that.

The intentional walks is only part of the puzzle. More puzzling is why Zach Miner comes into a crucial late-inning, tied-game situation. Or why pitchers are pulled from games sometimes when they’re cruising along. I was completely stumped as to why Verlander was pulled after 6 during the blowout. In the end, we won, but what had been a lockdown performance got very sloppy.

Just weird choices, IMHO.