Biting the Hand That Feeds Us

Espn's Jeff Pearlman mentioned our humble "blog" in an article today on ESPN's Page 2, assuredly increasing our readership from zero to a number substantially more existent than zero.

That doesn't mean, though, that he has immunity. This very article, an apology to Joe Torre for doubting him this year, suffers from the very flaw that got him into trouble in the first place. In this article, Pearlman references a FireJayM. article Larry B (anonymously, at the time, though no longer) wrote in which Larry takes Pearlman to task for, among other things, overstating the importance of the manager and relying too heavily on a small sample size. In case you're interested here's Larry's article.

At any rate, Pearlman's article (written in true Page 2 fashion, rife with offhand casualty and autobiographical factoids (none of which I'll bother poking fun at)--

Let's begin with a tangential issue:

Too often we in the media are allowed to skate through life without suffering real consequences and/or admitting the errors of our ways. We label someone a bust based on a poor initial impression, and 14 years later Howard Johnson retires with 228 home runs and two All-Star Game appearances.

Is HoJo really the best example here? Really? I mean, he was a badass in RBI Baseball and everything--and yeah the restaurant named after him has some delicious cuisine--and yeah, he's played in New York, which fulfills ESPN's requisite NY/BOS obsession--but what about a more prominent (and...recent?) standout. What about...say...Drew Brees...comes to mind, just off the top of my head.

Admittedly this is just a potshot at Pearlman and has little to do with the main problem I have with this column, but....Howard Fucking Johnson?

Anyway, back to the issue--which is Pearlman's mea culpa re: http:/firejoetorre.pearlspot.com

At the time, I honestly believed what I was preaching. As a former baseball writer at Sports Illustrated, I'd closely monitored the Yankees through the years, from their startling rise in 1996 to the dramatic letdown in Arizona six seasons ago to the more recent crushers at the hands of lesser franchises like Anaheim, Florida and Detroit. I'd seen Torre at his best, allowing self-motivated veterans like Chili Davis and Tim Raines be themselves, and I'd seen Torre at (what I perceived to be) his worst earlier this season, sitting listlessly on the bench as losses mounted with staggering regularity.

SIC typos aside, let's address this issue. It's something Larry touched on in his article, but is worth revisiting--

What is the relative value of the manager? It's a question that's hotly contested among sports fans and one that merits such discussion. The fact is, as Yogi Berra said about managers, "You can't make up no trick plays."

As a White Sox fan, however, I have seen the perils of bad management (Ozzie 2006-2007) due to poor personnel manage (ha) ment...I have also seen that same manager have success (Ozzie 2004-2005) by making less poor substitution and lineup decisions.

This, however, isn't what Pearlman's talking about when he criticizes Torre--he's talking about "that spark"...the "confidence" a manager instills in his team. I put those words in quotes because they're utterly intangible (though not necessarily unreal). A manager like Torre, placid and collected, will do wonders for certain players' mental stability--an important thing to consider in a season. A manager like Torre, placid and collected, may also be detrimental to other players, who'd rather have a manager like Bobby Valentine or Ozzie Guillen--someone to light a fire under their ass.

The problem with this assessment of managers is that it's impossible to quantify, as even the players themselves might not be sure what kind of manager they'd rather have, and even if they did, probably wouldn't want to bite their manager in the ass by saying "I'd rather have a calmer manager" or vice versa.

I'm not necessarily sure where I stand on the issue of "intangible" qualities of a manager. But that doesn't matter--the point is Pearlman certainly does--he thinks they're a huge issue. Therefore, that's the standard by which he must apply all judgments of managers (well, at least in order to be logically sound)--

1. Does the manager make good game time decisions?
2. Does the manager inspire his team to play well?

Here's the problem then: Pearlman goes on to apologize to Torre thusly:

Thing is, I failed to afford Torre the one thing he deserved: the benefit of the doubt. When you win and win and win, one poor start does not a nightmare make. From Vince Lombardi to Tom Landry to Davey Johnson to Phil Jackson, our sports are filled with excellent coaches who triumphed despite arduous rough patches. It's happened before. It'll happen again. It's happening now.

There's no doubt the Yankees are playing well now. Most people would point to their improved pitching. Others would point out the fact that due to their runs scored/runs against, their lack of success was mostly due to bad luck rather than bad baseball and that their record would return to expected soon enough (which it has).

What isn't viable is the idea that this is Torre's doing. The problem with that is it forces you to ignore the first half of this season--the Yankees haven't been playing well in 2007 any longer than they were playing lousy. If you're going to buy into the sample size of this second half enough to say that Torre's turned it around, you can't discount the fact that the Yankees were horrible under him the first half.

And here's the thing--he plays it off as a slump. Ok...except for the problem is what a "slump" would indicate in a manager. That is, this is not a matter of not "executing" like pitchers or hitters in a slump have problems with. A slump in "leadership" (since Pearlman would never say Torre was making bad gametime decisions) is indicative in a fundamental problem with Torre's leadership. It indicates that for a significant percentage of the season, Torre was unable to get his kids to play for him at an adequate level, which indicates a problem in "chemistry" and "leadership" in the old master. Which means he IS starting to lose it.

Which means, that if you buy into Pearlman's line of logic re: managing, you can't erase that first half. Unless, you know, you buy into the REAL problem with the Yankees in the first half, something Pearlman fails to acknowledge:

The real problem had nothing to do with Torre at all..and this resurgence has very little to do with Torre either (beyond the fact that he didn't panic and do something drastic while they were losing )--it had to do with the personnel and bad luck.