Olde Man’s Tavern: Charlie’s Place

Wednesday came and went without any fanfare except for Minnesota’s Ron Gardenhire and San Diego’s Bud Black. Both were named Manager of the Year in their respective leagues. As the lead on Blog Red Machine, I was somewhat taken aback that Cincinnati’s Dusty Baker finished second. Yes, I’m moving on…or am I?

Look, I honestly have no real beef with Black winning. The old “doing more with less” debate certainly does apply here to a certain point. Then, I looked really hard at the finally tally. As I glared (yes, I glared) even harder at that final count, the name that was shown as finishing fifth shocked me even more.

That’s why this week it’s off to the City of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia, and a “visit” to Charlie Manuel and the home turf of his Philadelphia Phillies, Citizens Bank Park. A journey of 2,727 miles from the offices of Scott Boras to the Bank.

Now then, back to my thought here.

Here’s a peek at how the voting shook out for NL Manager of the Year:

Why was I shocked that Manuel finished fifth?

Taking a step back here. It’s borderline strange how different opinions have developed on the voting of this award. I don’t believe there’s one clear-cut way to cast a vote in any particular year. I already mentioned the “more for less” deal. There can be other factors to consider. Where did the experts pick this team to finish (almost always a factor). Where did that team finish in comparison to the predictions (always a factor, too).

But have we become too enamored with some of these arguments? Or have we turned out train of thought in that direction when it comes to the voting? Not at all. It really has evolved into a year-by-year gig.

Look a previous winners in either league. The most prominent and clearly visible fact is that a high number of wins will add to your chances. Since 2000, only six (of a total of twenty-two awards) MOY winners failed to win 90+ games. Two (Jim Tracy for Colorado in 2009 and Jack McKeon for Florida in 2003) were interim managers. One (Joe Girardi for the Marlins) had his team finish below .500 (78-84). That would tell us that wins are a major prerequisite. Not always, but frequently.

Well, didn’t Manuel lead the Phillies to the most wins in the National League in 2010? He sure did. All he’s done in Philly is win.

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 11/18/2010.

Now to contradict myself a bit here. Wins are important, but securing the most victories within your league doesn’t translate into being named MOY. In fact, it kind of works against you. Again, I go back to 2000. Only on seven of the twenty-two total occasions has the manager of the team obtaining the most victories won.

I have a list of reasons why Manuel may have been “downgraded” from consideration. Not a single point listed here is a direct indictment on Manuel’s managerial ability. If I owned a team, he could manage for me any time.

1. The Phillies have a monstrous payroll compared to almost all other NL teams.
This point cannot be debated. According to Cot’s Baseball Contracts, Philly’s 2010 opening day payroll was $138,178,379. Compare that to the $37,799,300 of the Padres. Over $100,000,000 more for the Phillies. The usual arguments begin: market size, willingness of management to spend. We’ve heard every last one of those. We hear them every year. Trying to buy a trophy/pennant is almost commonplace now.

To that, I say that money doesn’t guarantee success. All it guarantees is a lot of money going toward the roster talent. Look at it in a business sense here. It’s an investment, right?

2. With that payroll, the talent is deeper.
A general thought. Not necessarily a correct one though. Larger market teams have this aura that they can sign any player they wish based solely on the premise that they have the cash to make such deals. A harsh reality is sometimes those same large market teams really do have to overpay to acquire talent. Those teams become entrenched in a bidding war for talent.

I know this analogy may seem strange, but remember the scene from Major League where the GM and manager are talking when Corbin Bersen’s character, Roger Dorn, arrives? The conversation was that the manager didn’t think the Indians had any high priced talent to which the GM replied that Dorn was only high priced.

I know what some of you are asking. First, why did he pull out a Major League reference? Just like the flick. The other is doesn’t that leave the “small market teams” are left out in the cold? It does. That’s an argument that cannot be completely discarded. I would add that those large market teams are more capable of absorbing that albatross. Almost a c’est la vie kind of deal.

Look at the Mets and the situations with the contracts of Carlos Beltran and Oliver Perez. You might even consider the Jason Bay deal here. What about the Giants and Barry Zito? The deal the Los Angeles Dodgers made a couple of years back with Manny Ramirez? Think any of those players “lived up” to the value of their deals? Maybe for a while in a case or two, but only for a while.

The Phillies, too, could be looking at potential “bad contracts” in their future. Again, think business here. Return on investment. Is a five year, $125 million extension for Ryan Howard really a smart business decision? And how about that Joe Blanton will be taking home a cool $10.5 mill a year over the next two seasons? Those deals may or mat not evolve into such. There could be others as well. Only time will answer that.

3. With all that talent, you don’t have to manage. Just fill out the lineup card and let ’em go play.
I’ve actually heard similar arguments in the past. I know I’ll hear it again. Talent must still be “coached up”. A player can ooze with talent. How does that talent transfer to the field? That’s where a manager earns some of his paycheck. It’s not only making critical game decisions.

And those game decisions will be called out on occasion. Isn’t that what the media and bloggers do best?

Manuel, viewed as a “player’s manager”, had to sit his MVP shortstop Jimmy Rollins and Gold Glove center fielder Shane Victorino. I personally view Manuel as more of a “no nonsense” manager. Yes, his players love playing for him, but those guys better play the game the right way. The pine is waiting if you don’t. Manuel has that proven fact.

All that perceived talent brings another facet into play here. Egos. Those have to be coached and managed. Meld them into a cohesive unit. This aspect of being a manager far too often overlooked. With all those egos and all the money, someone needs to keep ’em in check.

To me, it all boils down to this. Work with what you’re given. To me, Manuel clearly does this. And he just might be the best at it.

Finishing fifth? Can’t see Charlie being that low. That’s what shocked me.