200D00111607105053620 wrote: I agree that most managers do the same things and therefore don't make a lot of difference. And a team like the Pirates that wants to be competitive with a consistently inexpensive roster needs an exceptional manager rather than an ordinary one. I believe Hurdle was an ordinary manager prior to this year and became below average with his emphasis on rest, constantly changing lineups and waiting too long to replace an ineffective Watson as closer. He, like others, manages by formula.
Formula managing is why most managers seem very much alike. It protects them from criticism because people just accept that they managed correctly. Fans and media accept that an effective pitcher should be replaced merely because he reached the magic 100 pitch count. They accept that an effective reliever should be replaced because the next inning is a different reliever's inning to pitch. If a manager strays from the formula and it fails, he's criticized. If he sticks to the formula and it fails, they say he managed correctly.
Managers copy other managers. Not always for the best. The closer concept was initiated by Tony LaRussa when he had a strong bullpen headed by a nearly unhittable Dennis Eckersley. He decided that he had the pen to hold the other team in check and then shut them down in the 9th with Eckersley. It worked so every other team adopted the same strategy. But some didn't (and don't) have a strong enough pen to get to the 9th unscathed or a strong enough closer to be unhittable in the 9th. And it doesn't mean the previous strategy of using your best reliever to get out of jams instead of holding him for the 9th to pick up a save stat was wrong. It worked well for decades and some studies now indicate it is a better use of the bullpen than the accepted closer concept. The point is, what works for one team doesn't always work for others. But because managers accept formulas and run with them, we see the same types of decisions made from manager to manager even if it doesn't benefit that team.
I agree with most of this. A lot of copy cat. But you do need the talent to do certain things. I also feel when you lose, more is pointed out. I think a problem is that the manager has to answer questions to the media after every single game. If they did that once a week and weren't questioned so much, maybe they would manage differently. With that said, they shouldn't worry what the media thinks, but we know how every word gets twisted or remembered.
Good point about the frequent exposure to media. Managers seem to stick to the accepted formulas to avoid blame as much as possible when things go wrong and there's always someone from the media to ask them about it.
I do feel if they had a reason, then it would be understood. Gut feeling isn't a good reason. But they also hide stuff so their team isn't exposed for the next game. For example, if a player is sick or hurt and not used they are asked why. They often say something random than say "they are hurt".
Two years later ...
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster