As long as Lincoln and Armstrong are the gruesome twosome calling the shots, may we hope and pray for some luck to get a saber-guy, and not a retread of the Krivsky/Bonifay/LaMar stinky mold. That said, we all wait with baited breath that they’ve actually learned something…

With Mat Olkin having as small a voice in the organization as he does, should we have any faith in anyone worthwhile as GM?

As a self-employed business owner myself, I truly cannot understand how a business person can look at themselves and their competition and seemingly never ask the question, “what can we learn from them to improve our own business?” All we hear, like in Howard Lincoln’s response to that fan letter, references their commitment to their high payroll. I honestly could give a s*** less how much money they spend on payroll if they don’t know how to spend it wisely. Lincoln needs to understand this and not sound so hollow. My parents taught me to think before I speak. Apparently, Lincoln’s philosophy is “ignorance is bliss.”

There’s just not enough data, and way too many confounding variables.

Remember that we’re talking about the effect of a manager, but we don’t necessarily need to study only managerial changes on a single team. Studying the effects on players who change teams may be useful, too, if controlled for player ages and stadium effects and so on. So I don’t think the problem is lack of data so much as the surfeit of variables.

I take it for granted that the design of such a study would be very difficult, which is why we have never seen one.

There’s just not enough data, and way too many confounding variables. Teams that change managers in the offseason generally have different rosters; players who go to play for other managers have different teammates and are at different points on their career arcs. Even if you looked strictly at teams that switched managers mid-season and kept the same roster, there’s too much else that changes for it to be meaningful — they don’t play the same teams, and the teams they do play both before and after have changed somewhat as well (you don’t even see the same pitchers necessarily). Not to mention that, aside from the 2007 M’s, how many teams have changed managers when they weren’t doing anything but stinking up the basement in the standings, where some regression to the mean is almost inevitable anyway?

A manager probably has some effect, and there may even be some way to measure it, but I don’t know how you would.

That would be an interesting study, and I’d love to see it. Obviously, my feeling is that it would come out the other way, but we’re both talking through our hats, which is why I qualified it as a clear opinion.

Here.

I doubt there’s ever been a manager who has a demonstrable record of their players performing better than they did under other managers.

That would be an interesting study, and I’d love to see it. Obviously, my feeling is that it would come out the other way, but we’re both talking through our hats, which is why I qualified it as a clear opinion.

I think it is demonstrably true, though, that most managers have a hand in personnel decisions. Not about what to pay players, perhaps, but over what type of player the team pursues. Who goes between the lines is the most important thing for any team.

I think he might suprise us with his methods (and might not too), and the sentimental aspect of him being the Skip, sadly, is a fringe benefit that might freaking matter at this point. Yeah, I’d buy a ticket to see Cora yank Silva in the 4th inning after another lousy outing.

Bring on Mighty Mouse.

Riggleman was absolutely by-the-book in on-field tactics in his days with the Cubs. Uninspired, but serviceable. Personally, though, I think on-field tactics is just a small protion of what makes a good manager – maybe 10%. Far more important are his abilities to get the most out of the players he has, support his coaches, and deal with management (especially as they make personnel decisions).

Huh. I guess I’m pretty much the opposite. I don’t think managers have the ability to get the most out of their players; I doubt there’s ever been a manager who has a demonstrable record of their players performing better than they did under other managers. All I ask from a manager in these areas is that he not do damage: not do things that harm his players.

Whereas tactics, minor as it may be compared to the skills of the players, does make some difference in runs scored and allowed. So give me a tactical manager, regardless of the other stuff. At worst, that gets you Billy Martin. At best it gets you Earl Weaver.

Cora has been talked up quite a bit as future manager material, especially since the White Sox won the World Series. I think people implicitly assume somebody has to be keeping the ship on course while Ozzie goes nuts.

the three minor league managerial stints, as well as his time as GM of the Caguas baseball team …