Writings on baseball by Matt Barnard and Dan Stein.

 
Little's out in Boston.

While I'm a little late in addressing the issue, it's now official that Grady Little will not be managing the Red Sox next season. As a Yankee fan, I'm pretty bummed about this, as it was a pleasure to watch his poor in-game managerial skills hurt the Red Sox throughout the season and really blow up in the postseason. I'm in Boston unfortunately, so I've heard a ridiculous and unpleasant amount of discussion on the subject. Briefly, the attitudes of many around here can be grouped into two basic categories:

1. Little deserved to lose his job for allowing Pedro to stay in the game in Game 7 of the ALCS
2. Little made a mistake, but he's a good manager overall (lots of regular season wins) and should keep his job

It surprises me to some degree that Boston, supposedly a big time, well-informed sports town isn't more perceptive on this issue. Had the Red Sox done anything short of going to a World Series this year, I honestly believe Little would have been canned (I realize it's a bit late for this, but I would've told you the same thing prior to the season). The fact that he lost his final game largely to a strategic blunder makes it an easier sell publicly, but I have to believe that the Henry/Epstein/James management team is anxious to get someone they feel more comfortable with in place, and have wanted to do so since they came into power. The truth is, the 2003 iteration of the Red Sox was an immensely talented roster. Playing in a division that required them to play a lot of games against the Orioles and Devil Rays, it's really not surprising that they won 95 games. That's a hell of a job and a terrific season, but you'd have a hard time convincing me that the players assembled wouldn't be able to at least duplicate that kind of success under most managers.

The idea that guys like Charlie Manuel, Jim Fregosi, Mike Hargrove or Glenn Hoffman are going to get this job seems pretty far fetched to me. The whole point is to install a manager consistent with the philosophy of management, and bringing in a old baseball guy simply because he's got major league managerial experience is not something the team's going to be looking for. That's not to say the team won't hire a guy who has managed at the major league level - I think they might well - but I'd be very surprised to see him emerge from that list.

So where is the team likely to look? If I had to guess, I'd say the Red Sox manager next year would emerge from a list more like this one: Larry Dierker, Whitey Herzog, Davey Johnson, Bobby Valentine or Jerry Remy. None of these guys are locks by any means, but I'd be willing to bet that the Red Sox front office is going to take a hard look at each one of them. I'm pretty confused as to why Dierker's name has been mentioned so little in relation to the job (at least in the Boston press), since he seems to me to be the frontrunner. Maybe I'm way off on this, but the Red Sox are now a sabermetrically-oriented team, and he's pretty widely acknowledged as the guy who works best (of those available) in that kind of framework. And while he's been out of baseball for awhile, I really think Whitey Herzog is going to receive serious consideration. He's had great success throughout his managerial career and has turned the Red Sox job down twice in the past. I can't imagine he'd do so again. Bill James, now of the Red Sox, has been an open admirer and supporter of Herzog in the past, and you'd have to think that would help him in this process. Again, I really don't even feel comfortable presenting any kind of prediction on this, simply because Boston could well pull someone up who none of us is considering as a possibility. But the new Red Sox manager is not going to be a retread scrub hired because he's got a bunch of experience. Or because he's managed Manny Ramirez in the past. He's going to be someone who manages in a way consistent with the style of the front office, and that's a real good thing for Boston. I hope I'm wrong.
posted by VZW Watcher at 8:31 PM -

 
Pete Rose: more of this?

Dan pointed out an article to me tonight that appears on the New York Times website written by Jeff Neuman, the former editorial director of the Baseball Encyclopedia, on the issue of Pete Rose's potential enshrinement into the Hall of Fame. Really, this is one of my least favorite notionally baseball-related topics, as it has little to do with anything that occurred on the field. That said, it's an issue, and one that we may well see resolved this offseason (at least according to Baseball Prospectus).

The article is worth a read, and advocates Rose's enshrinement posthumously. I don't have a problem with that. The idea is to punish Rose for his indiscretions, not to deny his accomplishments, which were certainly significant. Many people (I hesitate to say most, as I unfortunately don't think it's true) want to see Rose held accountable for his actions, something that no admission of guilt would have any effect on.

I really don't want to rehash my thoughts on the issue, so here's some of what I wrote back on December 11th of last year:

That said, I couldn't care less if he's allowed into the Hall of Fame. At the time, there was nothing to prohibit banned players from entering the Hall, and he does deserve to be in on merit. While I believe things can and should be done to punish him going forward, his career speaks for itself. The Hall of Fame, in my opinion, is not there to honor great men, it's there to honor great players. It's pretty clear that Rose stuck around far too long in baseball and did so to the detriment of his teams. But it's also clear that he had a superlative career and is the all-time leader in hits. He's a player that deserves a plaque in Cooperstown, regardless of his future in the sport. So I'd be in support of suspending the Hall of Fame rule that no banned player is eligible on the grounds that it was not in place when Rose agreed to a lifetime ban. There's a huge difference between this and his being reinstated, which would be totally reprehensible in light of the facts available to us.

Posthumous induction would really be fine. But in the interests of being a bit more diplomatic and perhaps just, I would advocate putting the issue in the hands of the BBWAA and seeing what happens. If Rose is indeed inducted (as one would certainly suspect), a plaque honoring him gets hung on the wall. And that's it. No ceremony, nothing. And most importantly, the ban from any kind of participation in baseball activities remains unchanged.

Beyond that (commenting more on the article than the issue now), comparing Rose with guys like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth (who are accused of being "vicious" and "gluttonous" respectively in the column) is ridiculous. There's a pretty big difference between the explicit breaking of rules that uphold the integrity of the entire enterprise and having some character flaws. (There's also a pretty clear difference between Rose and those two guys in terms of qualifications, but that's another matter.) Pete Rose really doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame based on his actions, despite having had a great career. More than that though, he really doesn't ever deserve to be involved with the game whose integrity he worked to destroy.
posted by VZW Watcher at 1:12 AM -