Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Next?

I know there are still 12 games to be played and my boy Dale Svuem is the new manager for 2008 (I will address this issue sometime this morning) but Dale will almost certainly not be called on to manage in 09. I hope they can retain him at 3rd because I love Send-Em's attitude to the position. It's probably counter to what I should think, but until some other stat head does the work for me, I'm sticking with my homie.

Anyway, who do you want in 2009? I think the obvious name that we'll hear about is Bobby Valentine. He could sort of be like the Mike Keenan of baseball. Bring him in knowing he probably has 2-3 years of effectiveness until his act wears thin. A tough, hard nose sonofabitch may be just what a maturing-but-soft ball club needs. Add Larry Bowa to that mix.

I think it's too much to wish for an analytic mind who knows and plays the percentages at all/most times. Such a manager does not yet really exist.

My criteria:
1. Experience
2. Discipline
3. Honesty

Ned Yost failed on all fronts. He had no real experience other than fetching Cox's coffee. He and his team lacked discipline which diminished focus. And Yost was not honest. He wasn't honest with the fans, he wasn't honest with the media, he wasn't honest with the team and really, he wasn't honest with himself.

I think someone in the Bobby Valentine/Larry Bowa mold would be excellent. Now, I know Bowa HATES baseball new-think. Possibly to a stubborn fault. So, in addition to my above criteria, which are more demeanor/facade than anything, I add the following:

Of in-game import:
1. History of platooning (platooning a star gains brownie points)
2. Has shown a tactical use of bullpen (f' the closer, use your best pitcher and play the matchups)
3. Emphasis on OBP

I cannot think of anyone that fits these criteria, can you? More importantly, what do you want to see in a new manager, and do you have someone in mind?

9 comments:

PaulNoonan said...

I should be the manager, apparently.

E.S.K. said...

you lose on my most important criteria (assuming the roster stays mostly the same); experience.

If I knocked that out, I would clearly be the #1 choice.

DannyNoonan said...

Experience is overrated. Dusty Baker has experience. Mike McCarthy doesn't. You've been watching too many campaign ads.

E.S.K. said...

I disagree. A manager with some modicum of experience would have been more equipped to handle the sudden fog descending on the Brewers. Or at least they would have recognized it and made adjustments sooner.

Which is why while I think experience is incredibly important, it is counterbalanced by the rest.

An experienced manager with a track record of platooning (it's my benchmark because it shows they understand the underlying principles that I value, and is easy to pick out)would be ideal.

E.S.K. said...

But yes, I would take Paul over Dusty, just as I would take Kinky Friedman over either chucklehead in those ads you reference.

DannyNoonan said...

But the problem is that there just aren't that many managers with experience that are knowledgable about numbers. All the experienced managers are "baseball guys."

E.S.K. said...

Which is why I put it to you, dear readers, to find me a name.

DannyNoonan said...

I bet Mark A is a "numbers guy." I bet a lot of the new businessman-turned-MLB-team-owners are.

Eric said...

the best maanger of course is me.

I'm Spartacus