You haven't exactly been littering the thread with emperical examples yourself. How about some evidence to back up your stance?
Frankly, I think your opinion of manager's true impact on baseball teams is pretty overstated yourself. First of all, LaRussa has consistently had the most talent on his team throughout the respective league/division he's coached in... going back to his Oakland days. When he was with Oakland, he was notorious for having amazing regular season teams... who always found a way to lose in the World Series, minus one year (nobody could screw it up all the time). Now, he's in St. Louis... he once again has the best regular season team year in and year out, but since 2001, he's found a way to lose spectacularly in the playoffs each time. Let alone the fact that his teams underachieved woefully from 1997-1999, and in 2003. So, in the end, LaRussa is a great manager who still finds a way to lose in the playoffs with far superior talent... and Garner is a poor manager who gets to the playoffs with less talent, but came up short in his World Series appearence. Or maybe if we had a manager like Bobby Cox, who also finds new ways to lose in the playoffs these days, you'd be satisfied. Only he can have his team set-up perfectly to play an 18 inning game, and still lose. If teams are able to overcome "bone-headedness" of managers... tell me exactly, how important are these managers really? In the end, I said what I said about Garner because when he came on, this team started winning. When he came on, they went 36-10. When he came on, they found ways (improbably) to win playoff series and go to the World Series. I know you want to chalk it up to just one big coincidence... but frankly, as you just told me, how do I respond to something that is clearly much of your imagination?
b****ing about the coach of a team who has the best record in baseball and is coming off the world series...interesting. there's no manager out there whose going to make the move you want every single time. don't argue with results, the players have obviously responded well to garner.
Additionally, the more I look at them, the more similiar Rudy T. and Garner really are... except for the fact that the Rockets were Rudy's first coaching job, while Garner had managerial stints elsewhere. In the end, whether its successful or not, both manage based on instinct more, and structure/percentages less... and whether or not they're smart, or simply just "lucky"... they end up getting results. Jimy Williams reminds me more of JVG... a hands-on guy that is tactically sound, makes all the right "textbook" moves, but ends up with teams that have no swagger, no personality, and ends up playing like a bunch of robots. (that being said, until the Rockets mature more as a team, they still need JVG). Baseball, more than any sport, has proven that over the history of time... playing percentages gets you far in the regular season (where everything is based on routine), but once you get to the playoffs, and the importance of each individual game goes up by 1000, playing like a pre-programmed zombie can end up haunting you big-time.
Yeah, thats why they beat us in the playoffs.... It seems your just trying to pick a fight and argue. Name me 5 managers other then LaRussa and Joe Torre. I'll check back and give you time to look up the names on google.
No doubt, her coverage of the Stros is the best in Houston. I haven't read the Chron (other than what's posted on here) this season. I also have a thing for redheads. I agree with Raven: it's hard to have a discussion about Garner's managerial acumen without some examples of what you consider his "boneheaded"ness, gunn. Also curious of specifics where TLR outmanaged him in the playoffs.
LaRussa did outmanage Garner in their first series against each other. But if you look back on the '05 NLCS, I think you'll find a much different situation. And again, look at results. This team not only beat the Cards, but essentially beat them in 5. http://search.chron.com/chronicle/search.do He is not called "scrap iron" for nothing. I still remember this article from when he got hired, because it filled me with optimism. Just do a archive search and you'll find tons of proof that he helped bring a toughness to this team. They came from behind to miraculously claim the wild card two seasons in a row. That takes some mettle. No, no, no. They had a boneheaded manager. His name was Jimy Williams. He made some really questionable moves and didn't do jack for this team during his tenure. Garner, while he makes decisions from his gut (some work, some don't) is far from being a boneheaded manager. If he was this team would not have gotten to the WS. A team can only go so far w/o someone competent at the helm.
St. Louis has been the most talented team in the NL at least the last two seasons, yet the less talented Astros led by the bonehead manager managed to beat them in last year's playoffs. So apparently in the head to head match up that mattered most, LaRussa's more talented lineup and his managerial superiority couldn't manage to beat the Astros.
Nail, meet head. All you can expect a manager to do is to have a plan - based on their personal strengths as players & on the strenth of the team overall - to put his players in the best possible situations to allow them to succeed. You may not agree with a manager's decisions, but implying that Garner, for example, doesn't have well-thought-out & in-depth reasoning behind the decisions he makes is unbelievably arrogant. He may not explain every one in the detail you might like, and some of those decisions may not work out, but that doesn't make them boneheaded, even given our amazing gift of hindsight & second-guessing. Results do not equate with rightness or wrongness.
A good number of the players have praised the atmosphere around the club the past couple of years. It's ridiclulous to argue that the manager has nothing to do with that. Jimy was spoken of very highly by some of the players - Everett & Ensberg especially - as someone who significantly helped them grow as players. Jimy 's a great, great coach & teacher of the game. He definitely had serious faults as a manager, but to say he did "nothing for this team" is incorrect.
Well I know he had success with Boston before coming over to Houston, which made it all the more frustrating when he couldn't produce results. And when I say nothing, I meant that he underachieved during his tenure here. And yeah he made some consistantly questionable moves. But that said I still feel bad for him; how his time here ended; how he couldn't get the job done; how the Houston crowd booed him during the All-Star. So yeah he probably isn't the best example of a boneheaded manager; more like a decent/good manager that made a lot of boneheaded moves. Either way, Garner does not fit into the boneheaded category. Well boneheaded moves occasionally, but then that's just in hindsight, as so many of his moves are made with his gut.
Yeah, I'll go ahead and side with the group of people who support Garner...thats an easy choice there, Im more than happy with him at the helm. As far as the Pettite situation, I hope everyone realizes it was a fun filled situation and nothing more than just sarcastic talk...the dudes were having fun with it.
very glad to hear there was another, fun-filled side to this story. Cause I never thought Andy would be like that either.. ortiz just hoping for drama? I guess he got some reads, but lost a lotta respect in the process..
