What Ron Washington Proves About Managing

The Rangers picked up Ron Washington's option for next year today. His contract was for three years plus a team option for a fourth, an option that the team has taken. John Daniels, the Rangers GM, is apparently happy with Washington, fans seem to be saying nice things about him for the first time ever, and three days ago Howard Bryant wrote a glowing story about him on espn.com.

The last three years, I have spent many nights in Rangers Ballpark listening to fans heckle in frustration with Washington's managing, but now, as the Ranger sit in first place, all that seems to have been forgotten. Suddenly, we are hearing about how old fashioned, and pleasantly apolitical Washington is. Writers and fans alike are touting his virtues and forgetting what a ridiculously stupid manager he can be. Washington is notorious for bringing in the wrong pitcher at the wrong time, making strange substitutions, and making all around goofy managing decisions.

But the Rangers are winning this year. And those that suddenly find themselves wanting to give Ron credit have begun talking about how players are finally buying into his fundamentals first, defensive mindset et cetera, et cetera. But to me, the Rangers success thus far proves one thing about managers in baseball: they just don't matter that much. If the general manager can put together a good enough lineup and a good enough pitching staff, there is little that a manager can do to mess things up. And a good team can make a mediocre manager look pretty good (Joe Torre managed the cardinals to a 20-27 record before being fired the year before he "managed" the 1996 Yankees to a World Series championship).

Of course, a manager can blow some games when he makes stupid decisions with pitchers, or screws up a line-up royally. But baseball is a game about individuals. One pitcher pitches to one batter who hit the ball toward one player. If each of these men is the best at doing what their role requires them to do, not much team-wide strategy is necessary, save for which pitches to throw (a decision usually made by the catcher and pitcher-though some managers control pitches more than others), how to line up outfielders and whether or not to steal a base. Except for decisions of which pitches to throw to which hitters, these are, frankly, usually small decisions of little consequence.

So good managing, in reality, has little to do with good decision making. If it did, no manager could expect to be anything but inconsistent. After all, as any Red Sox fan knows, when Francona makes some of his bizarre decisions, our view of his managing has much to do with whether or not the gamble works. If it works, he is a freaky baseball genius. When it doesn't, we yell, "Ohmagod Tito, what are you doing?!"

Instead, the best thing a manager can do is manage his players' personalities well. If a manager can take heat from the media, heat from umpires, and heat from other players in the clubhouse off of his guys, he can keep a clubhouse that trusts him and wants to play for him. If he can get a team to buy into a team concept so that players, instead of thinking entirely of individual interests, instead sacrifice for each other, and play hard together, he has done his job. This ability is what separates good managers from bad ones. What managers like Terry Francona, Tony La Russa, and Ron Washington have in common is that they are able to build a trust with their players who often see these managers as father figures who they want to please and are willing to play for. So if you give a man like these some good players, he can make a lot of silly decisions and still put together a successful season. After all, if your manager brings in Eric Gange, it helps if you like him enough to risk injury crashing into the wall to rob the home run Gange is giving up. So, the one thing I really like about Ron Washington is probably what he does best as a manager; he is a nice guy.

Update:

I'm going to insert for you here a conversation I just had with my wife over facebook because it speaks to this conversation:

Jeffery:
Not an hour after I wrote about the mediocre managing of Ron Washington, he
calls for a suicide squeeze with a man on third and one out with a rookie at
bat. Andrus misses bunt, runner picked of, then Andrus hits a fly ball to right.
. .which would have been a sacrifice fly but was out number three instead

Charissa:
Cruz was SAFE, might I add...

Jeffery:
That doesn't make the play less stupid. As a sabermatrician, you know that
it doesn't make statistical sense to try this play because it fails so often.
The chances are much better that Andrus hits a fly ball (which scores the tying
run) than that he gets down the bunt AND Cruz gets a good enough jump to beat
the pitcher to the ball. Read Moneyball already!

Charissa:
I'm not saying the suicide squeeze was a good call, just that my boy Nelly
got hosed. And anyway, I can't read moneyball, you loaned it out to
someone!