Misunderstood Melvin
John Levesque on Bob Melvin.
I think Levesque’s essential point: that criticism of Melvin because of his demeanor is misplaced, is a reasonable one. Managers come in all forms, and success is a package with one particular style. And it’s reasonable to point out that other managers rise and sink with the fortunes of their team, their style praised and attacked depending on fortunes often outside their control.
That said, he misses a larger point here, which is that Melvin’s laid-back style does not, from what we hear from other channels, include accountability, that he demands very little from his players and they respond in kind. You can be a player’s manager and still get results out of your players — Dusty Baker comes immediately to mind. Melvin does not do this.
The other point this article misses is that Melvin’s deficencies that will lead to his firing aren’t limited to his style. I’ve made some pretty serious arguments against Melvin’s unmotivating style in this space, but that’s the small of it. He’s bad at putting together lineups. He runs his bullpens badly. He’s a bad judge of talent. He’s out-foxed on the field by other managers.
It may, in the way other players’ attitudes and public relationships have led to their ouster, be the reason why Melvin’s fired. But there are many reasons to fire Melvin, and they can’t all be defended so easily.
Comments
53 Responses to “Misunderstood Melvin”
When a guy whines, his demeanor matters. When a guy bunts early, on the theory scoring ONE first leads to wins, his ‘strategery’ matters. Dump the mutt.
Has anyone ever seen melvin and lachman talk during a game?I watch every game and ive never seen this communicating is a problem for BOOBMELTURD!!!SEND HIM AWAY NOW!!!
Yes, Bob Melvin resign! Be Fired.
PositivePaul,
Offense is a favorite statistical category, and what fans want. Your bottom line that “scoring runs is how teams win” is to avoid the other aspects of baseball, and to undermine their importance. Yes, you have to score runs to win. But, you also have to prevent the other team from scoring runs, otherwise you don’t win the game. It’s how sports works.
The Boston Red Sox of the 50s had amazing offenses, but their pitching kept them out of the playoffs.
The amazing Yankees teams had great offenses and decent pitching. The great Cubs teams of the early 1900s had great pitching and decent offense. The ’54 Indians had both. The 2001 Mariners had both.
To give offense greater importance than pitching is to go against not only logic, but a lot of baseball fact. It’s a two sided game.
I think perhaps you are more focused on it because it’s where the Mariners have been lacking recently. (Until this year, where they lack EVERYTHING)