A word in praise of Riggleman
Riggleman was handed a terrible job to do, and I want to give him some credit for doing it well.
None of us knew that much about Riggleman when he took over. Bench coaches are supposed to be the strategic in-game minds, but often they’re not and almost everyone in baseball manages more or less by the book anyway. They often fill a sort of liaison role with the players, or rat them out constantly to the manager, and they run the team when the manager’s been ejected.
With Riggleman, there’d also been a huge gap between his last managerial job in Chicago and taking over here: he hadn’t managed team since 1999. A lot’s changed since 1999 but, as it turns out, a lot hadn’t.
What a horrible job he was handed. The team was badly built to start and dogged by constant injuries to the starting rotation particularly, the clubhouse was dividing into factions and players were sniping at each other through proxies in the press. There was no way with 72 games down that they were going to contend. They were 25-47 when McLaren left, on their way to a 56-106 season.
61-101 isn’t that much less embarrassing than 56-106 on the surface of it, but it really is. There are about 75 teams in post-World War 2 history that have 56 or fewer wins. And that includes years shortened by labor actions. Throw out years with a labor problem and there’s about 50. As historically bad-for-the-franchise as this was, it could have been much worse.
The team wasn’t as bad as its record when Riggleman took over, but Bedard got all his starts in early in the year. After Riggleman took over for the June 20th game, Bedard got three starts in, for 13 and 2/3rds innings. The rest of the year he had to patch that whole while Batista and Silva and even Washburn came and went through injuries, and he only got four Morrow starts way at the tail end of the season.
Cesar Jimenez made two starts! And there weren’t other options! I know I did my share of second-guessing about who to pitch on how much rest, but I largely gave up. When you’re starving it feels wrong to whine about what’s on the menu that evening.
And yeah, he batted Vidro fourth for a while and said some strange things about it. But once Vidro was thrown off the team, he put together what were, on the whole, pretty reasonable lineups compared to McLaren. He played the outfield for defense, and that improved, or at least until Wlad took his turns out there. I don’t think playing Cairo was ever a solution, but later we were also watching the team test out Valbuena and Tuiasosopo to see how they’d handle playing against major league competition. And to return to Vidro as an example, we can’t really know what instructions he was working under to showcase one player or get some value out of another. I’m inclined, given that it was a lost year and the M’s would later insist on value for Washburn, to believe that there were certainly some marching orders there.
We should though recognize that Riggleman took over and refused to play clubhouse games. His responses to real and invented controversy was steady and laudable.
Divish: Why would someone say stuff like this?
Riggleman: Pettiness, seventh-grade mentality, just pettiness of whatever jealousy, pointing fingers, deflecting responsibility, lack of accountability, just a lack of a character. These things happen when you’re losing; you’re not seeing that happen with winning teams now. But those winning teams go out and lose a couple games and you’ll see it.
I can’t imagine how hard it must have been for Riggleman. Being a major league manager is a coveted job, but this was a nightmare, and he kept plugging away at it, refusing to thrash his players in the press though it would have been so, so easy, not having any part in the clubhouse issues. If we found out years later that Silva’s back problems this year were a cover for Riggleman beating him silly with a fungo bat every time he caught him badmouthing a teammate, I don’t think I’d be that surprised.
And somehow, without Bedard, without the rest of his rotation healthy, managing a terrible team that had been playing below itself and then got worse, they got a little better.
This season’s not going to be that great on his resume. It doesn’t show he can develop young players, take a modest team and squeeze one or two games out of them to squeak into the playoffs, or manage a veteran team to a championship. But when I think about where he had to take over and what happened afterwards, I wonder how many people could have kept things going as well as he did.
Whether or not he comes back next year, I tip my M’s cap to him. Thanks.
Comments
23 Responses to “A word in praise of Riggleman”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Riggleman was not part of the problem. When was the last time that could be said about an Ms skipper?
I think Riggs did a fine job, given the circumstances.
I hope he is actually still in contention for the gig.
I think he deserves a chance at a full season or two without Bavasi’s blunders holding him back.
I have long believed that 90-95% of all big league managers have no effect on the team. A few screw things up so badly (i.e. Dusty Baker’s usage of pitchers) they hurt the team long term. A few can’t figure out in-game tactics such as proper bullpen usage (Grover this is you). A few can squeeze 2-3 more wins per year out of the team. I believe that Riggleman falls into that 90-95% do-no-harm range.
In my mind, however, his stand up character makes him a keeper. If you are going to have a lot of young guys on the team, a leader who communicates by word and deed that he won’t allow selfish behavior (cough, Carlos Silva, cough) is very valuable.
The team can do worse, and has done worse, in its managerial hires. Riggleman in ’09.
Rather than judge Riggleman by what he said about his players, I prefer to judge him on what he did in the games and unfortunately for him, I’ll never forget the 15-inning game against Detroit (July 6th) in which he ran out of pitchers and had to use Burke to pitch the 15th in a 1-1 contest. In these days of seven-man bullpens, it’s inexcusable for a big league manager to run out of pitchers unless the game gets past 20 innings.
Before getting the M’s interim gig, Riggleman hadn’t managed in ten years – and it showed. If Rhodes and Morrow were unavailable that day then you can’t keep removing pitchers after one inning stints (Batista pitched the ninth and was removed, Green pitched the 10th and was removed and then Jimenez, who usually can only pitch 2 innings, started the 11th — if he hadn’t been stingy with his pitches, “Riggs” would have run out of pitchers in the 13th!).
I have to think that with all of Zuriencik’s contacts he could spit on somebody and come up with someone better suited to manage next year’s Mariners than Riggleman. Ned Yost? Bobby Valentine? Davey Johnson? Who knows? With all his years in the game I wouldn’t be surprised if a great manager lke Tom Kelly, who is reportedly happy being retired, has a long-time relationship with Zuriencik and is willing to come to Seattle to manage for Jack. Or maybe Jim Leyland, who goes way back with Jack, is able to wiggle his way out of his situation in Detroit.
Sorry, but I think we’re shooting pretty low if we’re thinking that the best we can do for a manager is Jim Riggleman Redux.
Didn’t he already take a job with the Nationals?
Didn’t he already take a job with the Nationals?
Yes, but if you read the PR about that, or any of the threads here where it was reported, you’ll see he’s “still in the running” for the M’s job, or so everybody on the M’s and the Nationals claim.
Just from hazy memory I have to say I think Jim Leyland, Ned Yost and Bobby Valentine have all demonstrated amply that they are at least as capable as Jim Riggleman of making boneheaded tactical decisions. I can’t see any of those guys being a significant improvement. And I can imagine some of them (Valentine and Leyland) being provocative or arrogant enough to bring a different set of problems to the team.
Who said we thought this was the best we can do? The point is more that while he didn’t do a perfect job, and he’s certainly no genius in-game tactician, Riggleman did a thoroughly admirable job at managing the people on this team, which is, imho, one of the two truly important parts of the job (the other is having the wit to recognize who should play and play them, and to do so in ways that will help them succeed).
Maybe, although the right manager for the people on the 2008 Mariners is not necessarily the right manager for the people that will be on the 2009 Mariners.
They could probably do a better hiring than Riggs, but he didn’t do a bad job, like the last few guys in his position.
I just think that he should at least be in consideration for the full-time gig.
Couldn’t really hurt anything, and the talent on this roster won’t be good enough to contend this season anyway.
The kids they will be playing could probably use a manager like Riggs to teach them how to be ball players.
WRT to the 15-inning game, Dave defended Riggs on Tangotiger’s blog . Well worth a read.
I’d say batting Vidro fourth was more deserving of criticism.
Keep in mind that signing one of those big name guys — Valentine,Davey Johnson, Tom Kelly, Leyland, or whoever — would require a big money, long term contract. Given the roster we’ll be taking into 2009, does that kind of commitment really make sense?
I have respect for Riggleman and what he did with this roster. He reaffirmed to me that there are managers that know what handedness means as well as defensive value and where a bench player should be at the beginning of most games (the bench.) I didn’t think he could possibly be the right man for next year until you inspired me to think more about the situation. I’m not saying that he is it because I still think that there’s better available, but I have to say that I would far prefer Riggleman to Yost. I wouldn’t complain too much if Riggleman was brought back partially because I’m not sure that we even saw 70% of what he could be as Manager. Between a crappy roster, need to showcase (I agree that seems likely), rust from 10 years of not Managing daily and taking care of a few misbehaving children who needed discipline there’s reason to think he’s capable of more than the half season of rebound-manager we saw. I am interested in seeing what he could do with a roster that’s more interchangeable, he started the year with and had some input on building. I’m not sure if him doing it under a Rookie GM is the best move though.
I agree that better can be found than Riggleman.
Leyland doesn’t seem to be available and I can’t see even reason for him to choose Seattle over Detroit right now.
Yost was being flamed by Brewers bloggers for over a year before he got fired about Mclaren-like (Hargrove, etc.) lineups and bullpen use that screamed of similar situations to giving Bloomquist too many at-bats and starting Raul against lefties. I’ve seen that kind of managing before and am not in any hurry to see it here again.
I don’t think Valentine is the best Manager available but for right now he could be a good fit for the roster remake that’s required. His biggest plus is his eye for talent but on a contending club he seems to cost his team games with line-up and matchup moves that go against the statistics and don’t work out to boot. He could be a good choice for a few years but once it’s turned around his in game decisions might still be too frustrating to endure.
And I think just about any team would let a bench coach go if he was offered a managerial position with another team.
Yeah, that’s just Riggleman making sure he has a job next year.
As long as the new manager doesn’t actively work to hurt the team (like playing Cairo or Vidro or throwing Morrow or Felix on three days rest) I doubt it matters too much who they pick as the next manager.
I’d be curious to know if that actually harmed him in the eyes of the clubhouse veterans …
Ralph Malph “Keep in mind that signing one of those big name guys — Valentine,Davey Johnson, Tom Kelly, Leyland, or whoever — would require a big money, long term contract. Given the roster we’ll be taking into 2009, does that kind of commitment really make sense?”
First off “big-money, long-term contract” is a misnomer when it comes to a manager. The highest paid managers in baseball typically make around $4-5 million a year. Joe Torre got a three-year deal with the Dodgers for $13 million, barely more than $4 million a year. The Cardinals paid Tony LaRussa $2.8 mil in 2007 and then gave him a two-year, $8.5 million extension for ’08 and ’09.
So when the best managers in the game are making $4-5 million a year and the importance of a manager in the grand scheme of things is huge, that’s a small price to pay when you compare it to what players get paid. When you have a payroll over $100 million and you lost 100+ games, paying the next manager $4 million a year is really not a big deal.
The M’s might be better off at this juncture with a younger, cheaper manager but at the same time they shouldn’t overlook the big name managers because we don’t expect the team to win in ’09. Managers like Lou Piniella are able to attract players because guys want to play for him either because they played for him before or they know his reputation for wanting to win.
Just because a team is rebuilding doesn’t mean that the choice of manager is not important. Given the right players, the right manager could potentially get this team to .500 (81-81) in ’09 with a shot to contend again in 2010. We don’t need one manager for ’09 when we don’t expect to win and then another manager for when we expect to win.
And speaking of Jim Leyland, the latest news out of Detroit is that the Tigers are not offering him a contract extension beyond 2009 (when his contract expires) and he’s not happy about it. Given his lame duck status and his relationship with Zduriencik, I wouldn’t rule out him coming to Seattle.
http://www.mlive.com/tigers/index.ssf/2008/10/no_contract_extension_disappoi.html
jwgrandsalami
If a win is worth $5M in free agency and “The difference between the best [Earl Weaver] and the worst [John McLaren] managerial tactician is maybe twenty runs a year” (D. M. Zumsteg) then you’d need to be hiring… Earl Weaver (not likely) to get those 10 runs above average in order to justify a $5M salary.
I really don’t think Jim Leyland is worth anything close to that.
I have to agree with DMZ, I wouldn’t be opposed to seein’ old Riggs come back. For the most part I am rather apathetic on who we hire.
I know there is a lot of media hype around this hire but it matters so little, unless it someone terrible, that I’m much more interested in what kind of personnel moves Jay-Z does than who we hire to manage this team
Riggleman seemed to be a stand up guy that you would not mind having for a friend. At least you would know where you stood.
well, if it doesn’t really matter, then I say Li’l Joey, just to see Rizzs’ head asplode.
I also wouldn’t be surprised, but it would give me all the more incentive to hire the man.