NYC Angel Fan

And by the way, how old is that guy who’s on the verge of winning another AL pennant?

Those are fair points, though Wetteland was a top-drawer closer with whom they won a World Series. But while these are sort of mitigating reasons to understand Showalter only advancing to the ALCS once in 22 years, there seems to be all sorts of contortions to try to explain away why Ron Washington was the all-time most successful manager for the one franchise he was given a shot to manage. It puzzles me.

This whole ‘he hasn’t managed in 10 years’ argument would imply that he’s been sitting at home, out of baseball, all this time— missing out on the modern game. He hasn’t been, he’s been around it. (And being related to Braves fans, I have heard unprompted how popular he is with their players.) This idea that he isn’t smart enough to manage again when he’s a baseball lifer who’s still coaching also feels like an unevenly applied concept. Do you really think that just because owners do something, it must be based on facts because they never do anything ill-advised, and that’s why he’s never been rehired? Arte is not the only owner who’s not infallible. So, if owners have never hired him again, why hasn’t he been rehired? Gee, that’s a really good question. The idea ‘sure he was successful, but only a manager in one place’ is also puzzling to me. Why choose somebody we know is mediocre over somebody with a track record of success who we fear was a fluke and is secretly mediocre? I mean when one sees guys like Showalter, Mattingly, and Walt Weiss, potentially, getting recycled for 2nd and 3rd chances and not Ron Washington… it’s almost like affirmative action… but for mediocre managers.

1 out of 4 of Showalter's seasons with the Rangers was over .500 and he never made the playoffs with them with teams that included A-Rod, Soriano, Texeira. How was that winning? Showalter had a lot of good talent brought in for him in Arizona and had pretty much the same team as the WS-winning D-backs and he didn't even make the playoffs the previous year and got bounced in the NLDS the previous year. The Yankees spent a lot on his teams and had great talent... which was only able to put it together and win championships after he left. Half his seasons in Baltimore were winning with little spending-- so that was his one success of sorts, but again, he never got past the ALCS. And the Mets had the highest payroll and it was another failure for him. Why hire somebody who we know is not going to really take us anywhere? (For the record, when Ron Washington took over the Rangers, they had never won a playoff series in franchise history-- even with all the talent that was already there... with Buck Showalter as their manager.)

I would find this to be a more convincing argument against Ron Washington if you didn't then go on to say that there's really that significant a difference between 72 and 68 years old. (Both are past conventional retirement age.) If you're dinging Ron Washington for not having managed in the last 10 years, then I assume you're rejecting first-time managers, since they have't managed for...ever. Right? But joking aside-- since I'm not going to be able to post for a little while and I don't feel like getting into a back and forth about this-- I can respect a position that says we need a first-time manager. But not one that gives thin reasons to recycle Buck Showalter yet again.

It wasn't a complaint, it was a commentary on the logic that was being used. What I meant by saying how do you disprove that is that you are making a statement that sounds somewhat circular in its nature: a) any manager who manages for a long time has to be a good manager; b) you can't judge this manager by tangible results because there are things happening in the background you can't know about; c) it's up to the person who questions this conventional wisdom to disprove that fact-- but of course, you can't do that because there's stuff that happens in the background that you can't know about. Do you see how even if you took the worst manager to manage 20 years, it would be unprovable under these conditions? Showalter looks the part of a good manager, he talks like he's a good manager. But other than the Orioles, all of the teams that Showalter managed achieved more after he left than they did with him-- with pretty similar personnel. That's damning. Yep, I'd prefer Ron Washington. But I'd also prefer a manager with no experience to Buck Showalter. Sorry if that goes against the prevailing conventional wisdom here, but that's what message boards are for and I believe in trying to prevent mistakes before they happen. But hey, it sounds like we aren't going to convince one another, so we can agree to disagree here too.

Showalter had a lot of talent in Texas (A-Rod, Soriano, Texeira, etc) and Arizona (Schilling, Randy Johnson, Luis Gonzalez, Tony Womack, Stottlemyre, prime Steve Finley,etc) too. We won’t even mention the Yankees, who went on to build a dynasty once they were free of Showalter. I mean if Ron Washington‘s achievements were due to talent, then Showalter’s were too. The difference: Washington, Bob Brenly and Joe Torre could win in the playoffs with it. Showalter could not and will not. It is a joke to see mediocre managers get recycled and no 2nd shot for Ron Washington.

How does someone disprove that first sentence? Maybe because 3 of the 4 team’s successors to him won/reached a World Series? And we’re talking about the mid-90s Yankees and the Johnson-Schilling D-backs here with high payrolls. (The Mets also have had a pretty decent payroll recently.) Admittedly, he did an ok job with the Orioles, though they underachieved in the playoffs. (I should apologize, by the way: Showalter also won a wildcard game in his career, so I should count that too. ) But it amazes me how many chances he gets after his teams underachieved so often. He has four 90+ win seasons, 1 Playoff series win and a wildcard win in 22 seasons. Compare that with Ron Washington, who has the same number of 90+ win seasons and made two World Series in just over a third of that time. Buck Showalter looks and sounds like a good manager but his track record is underwhelming and the ceiling is low. Ron Washington, while not perfect, has the better track record and better upside, in my view.

Around the time he started at Nebraska, I was hoping for that. But now he has more of a track record as a (college) manager. It wasn’t particularly distinguished.

What success? He’s got a .509 winning percentage and won 1 playoff series in 20+ years. That’s an achievement— but not the good kind.

This appears to be a picture of Milton Nascimento, the Brazilian musician. What is your point?

Ron Washington is beloved by players wherever he goes. I think you'd have to say that he had success in his previous managerial stint-- he was one pitch away from winning it a prime Neftali Cruz on the mound, got to the playoffs multiple times, and Texas didn't do much after he left until they got Bruce Bochy. Galling that he hasn't had other opportunities while Buck Showalter is given chance after chance to fail again. Walt Weiss is not a guy who inspires confidence either. There is a feeling of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic until we can get Arte Moreno to sell the team. (No 'Sell the team, Arte' signs or public heckling?) But if anybody could get players to go through the wall for him and get more out of less talent, I'd bet on Ron Washington.

Yeah. Ok.

I remember GMJ as seeming the worst-ever FA signing by the Angels at the time, so maybe my memory has the same affliction as yours... There were definitely questions about the plan to use Escobar as a starter, but if I recall correctly-- and I might not be-- it was a thin starting pitcher FA class that year, so he was considered to be one of the best. In any case, you're right about Blyleven-- my bad. (I'd forgotten about the intervening Minnesota years after the successful Cleveland run...)

Don Baylor David Eckstein-- pretty under-the-radar, claimed off waivers. Maybe Scott Spezio, for his 2002 playoff run alone.

I believe that Blyleven and Escobar were touted pretty highly as FA's, if memory serves me correctly.

3 straight sub-4.00 ERA years and won 18 games on the '82 division winner. Was bummed they only started him one game those playoffs, though he wasn't stellar in that game...

Again, unsupported assertions get an 'it ain't so just because you said so' response

I think a strong argument could be made that the Braves' fans can be pretty tough on them (at least in the last 20 years). Not sure about Houston... but again, my point here isn't that critical media and fans is a pre-condition for a championship; but if a team is going in the wrong direction and won't change, that will continue unnecessarily longer if fans and media don't bring pressure. Meant to say you're spot-on about good management and players winning championships. If your organization is well-run, then it doesn't require pressure. But if the wrong people are in place and ownership is blind to it (which was the original point of my original post here), then pressure should be brought to bear. That is, unless you're making a Billy Beene-like point that the manager's role is not very important. Then, that would be a different discussion.

Of course, but you didn't back it up with reasoning

...because you say so? I lived in the Bay Area for a long time surrounded by A's fans and that fan base was so unquestioning and passive about Billy Beane's decisions that they continued with the same approach that develops good players and trades them away before they get expensive... and incidentally, before they develop to be able to get over that final hurdle and win a championship. Beane-- who has a financial stake in the team and profits off of this approach-- has absolutely carte blanche to do this from the fans, and so they continue to never sniff a championship year in and year out. And they won't until the next time they have developed a good team, they get some pushback from somebody (fans, the media) when they try to sell them off.

Cherry-picking the teams to bend the facts to what you're trying to say... funny you omit the Yankees and Giants and have no response to which approach has gotten more titles... but to address what you have to say, yes: with the Knicks, their owner is impervious to criticism and hated in New York. True about the Jets, to some extent, though there is some real fan apathy there. (But then again, since 1961, the Knicks have more titles than the Angels, and the Jets have as many.) My original point here is that if management is making bad moves, it is a good thing for them to hear it from fans, and with the exception of the Knicks, here in NY, it gets changes. The changes don't always pan out-- though they sometimes do-- look what the managerial change (and getting to play the Angels) did for the Phillies, for example-- but continuing with a bad plan is not going too fix it faster.

Name calling? . Oh, you hurt my widdle feelings.