Managers: Geniuses, Idiots, or.... Humans?

The team wins and the manager is a genius. He played his matchups perfectly, he brought in the right pitcher at the right time, he called the right moves, etc.

The team loses and the manager can't do anything right. Why didn't he pinch hit for that guy? Why didn't he call for a steal? Why did he leave that pitcher in so long? Or not leave him in long enough? 

You get the point.

I propose something else. What if the manager is just a man? What if the real "blame" (if we must blame someone) lies not with the guy in the dugout but with the nine men on the field? Crazy, right?

Here's the thing: managers are important. I'm not saying they are superfluous or unnecessary. But I think we give them too much credit/blame for things beyond their control. There is a great exchange in the movie When The Game Stands Tall. Ladouceur tells his assistant coach that he knows exactly what the other team is going to do. The coach responds, "What do you want me to do? I can't go out there and play for them."

That's it right there. The manager can know what's going to happen, but it's up to the players to know it and to execute it. I'm sure experience helps with that. A manager who has been doing that job for 10, 15, 20+ years is probably going to be better at it than a guy who is brand new. But that doesn't mean that a new manager doesn't know what he's doing. Ultimately, it comes down to the players. And sometimes, the other team just had a better day.

A team is only as good as its players and a manager is only as good as his team. If he doesn't have the players to work with, how can you expect him to win games? Remember, he is a human just like you and me. He can't work magic. I will concede that some guys may be better at reaching a team than others, but just because he can't reach the team he's on doesn't mean he couldn't reach another team. Sometimes combinations don't work.

I digress. Back to managers and teams. Jim Leyland is very good example. He is well regarded as a great manager. He led a lot of great teams, won the World Series with the Marlins, and was the Manager of the Year twice in the National League and once in the American League. Pretty good. That Marlins team that won the World Series? The very next year, after the owner slashed payroll and totally changed the team, they lost 108 games. What happened? Did Leyland suddenly not know how to manage? How could they drop so far in one year? 

The only thing that changed is that Leyland didn't have the players to work with. At the risk of sounding like a broken record a manager is only as good as the players he has to work with. 

Yes, a great manager will have some tricks and knowledge he can bring to the table. He is definitely needed. But it's not all on him. The same decision two games in a row might work out wonderfully one day and go horribly wrong the next. He did the same thing both times. But people herald him as brilliant when it works and foolish when it doesn't.

I really think we need to give them a break. We can celebrate when they make a great decision and be disappointed when they don't. But the manager can only do so much. After all, he's sitting on the bench. The ones who make it happen (or not) are the ones on the field. The manager can't go out and play for them.