Texsox Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmmmbeeer Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 I couldn't vote Tex because I think it depends. Hawk made a nice statement last night about this very thing, he said that once a team finds its stride the manager's job is to step back and let it ride. Now when you say "the team is set" do you mean they've hit their stride or are you just saying the roster is set? IMO, JM had a set team but didn't do anything with it to help them get on a roll, get their heads in the right place, which is very much the manager's job. I'll give OG credit for getting this team where they're at but now they're on their own, until they hit an extended losing streak, at which point it's time for OG to step back in and manage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 22, 2004 Author Share Posted May 22, 2004 I couldn't vote Tex because I think it depends. Hawk made a nice statement last night about this very thing, he said that once a team finds its stride the manager's job is to step back and let it ride. Now when you say "the team is set" do you mean they've hit their stride or are you just saying the roster is set? IMO, JM had a set team but didn't do anything with it to help them get on a roll, get their heads in the right place, which is very much the manager's job. I'll give OG credit for getting this team where they're at but now they're on their own, until they hit an extended losing streak, at which point it's time for OG to step back in and manage. How about from a season perspective, not a day to day thing? This was partially out of a comment yesterday about a coach I don't remember that went He could take his team and beat yours, then he could take your team and beat his. That sounds like a huge difference. Would a different manager have WhiteSox v2004 2 games under .500? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 I would say 90-10 players, but putting that into perspective that still leaves about 16 games in the hands of Ozzie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 Your new signature is a classic! Ed Norton is the man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted May 22, 2004 Share Posted May 22, 2004 How about from a season perspective, not a day to day thing? This was partially out of a comment yesterday about a coach I don't remember that went He could take his team and beat yours, then he could take your team and beat his. That sounds like a huge difference. Would a different manager have WhiteSox v2004 2 games under .500? The quote you heard was about a basketball coach. I heard it last night on ESPN when they were talking about the guy coaching Indiana wanting revenge against 'his' old team, Detroit. The problem with the poll is that the manager doesn't influence the winning of games as much as he can lose them. A good manager might win you 6 or 7 games a year, but a bad one can lose you 2 to 3 times that many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.