Jump to content

If Trembley is gone after this year ...


TonySoprano

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Some people give managers too much credit, but this is too far the other way. A baseball season is 162 games long. It's an unenviable task to motivate these guys for that long.

I have a real hard time believing that someone becomes a world class athlete without having a hell of a lot of motivation instilled deep inside of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a real hard time believing that someone becomes a world class athlete without having a hell of a lot of motivation instilled deep inside of them.

Because they had motivation getting there doesn't mean their motivation doesn't shift. This kind of thing happens to high-achievers in all fields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a real hard time believing that someone becomes a world class athlete without having a hell of a lot of motivation instilled deep inside of them.

You'd be wrong then. Besides pride, there are tons of things that can motivate or demotivate a player. Personal issues, money, and even fatigue could play a role in this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a real hard time believing that someone becomes a world class athlete without having a hell of a lot of motivation instilled deep inside of them.

I see where you're going with this but then you should be equally astounded that many MLB players aren't even motivated enough to go to the gym every once and a while and consequently have beer guts that make them look like they are pregnant with triplets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many responses. I guess I'll just end with my last thought on this. If some guy who these players have never met, can walk into the clubhouse and eek every ounce of talent out of them, fantastic. I don't see it happening. I also don't believe that professionals like to lose, or even accept it. It boils down to the talent on the team, not how motivating the manager can be. Why don't we just hire Tony Robbins to manage? We'd win the world series every year then, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobby Cox is probably the "Earl Weaver-est" manager in baseball.

Not sure what you mean by that. I watched the Braves up close for all but 7 of Cox's 22 seasons managing the Braves. In terms of personality, tone, and interactions with players, he's nothing like Earl was. In important ways, he's the opposite of how Earl was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see where you're going with this but then you should be equally astounded that many MLB players aren't even motivated enough to go to the gym every once and a while and consequently have beer guts that make them look like they are pregnant with triplets.

I'd like to see a correlation between having a good or bad body, and how it effects performance in baseball. I'm pretty sure you'd have a heck of a time proving your assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many responses. I guess I'll just end with my last thought on this. If some guy who these players have never met, can walk into the clubhouse and eek every ounce of talent out of them, fantastic. I don't see it happening. I also don't believe that professionals like to lose, or even accept it. It boils down to the talent on the team, not how motivating the manager can be. Why don't we just hire Tony Robbins to manage? We'd win the world series every year then, right?

Does he have to eek out every bit of talent? Aren't you setting up some kind of false dichotomy - either they "eek out every bit of talent" or they don't matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does he have to eek out every bit of talent? Aren't you setting up some kind of false dichotomy - either they "eek out every bit of talent" or they don't matter?

You're doing what you do best, Jim. I'm sure you are quite aware of how many games even the worst manager has an effect on. Drungo and others have pointed that out time and again. If you want to refute that the manager plays a larger role than the talent of his roster, I'll happily await the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still in Trembley's corner mainly because I can't see blaming him for what's happening, either the good, the bad, or the ugly.

The good is we have some great looking young players. They seem to like Trembley and Trembley seems to be a good job of handling/nurturing them. I have no doubt that he is the right guy for handling these kids.....experience matters......and working with young players is exactly what he has done for the past 20 years.

The bad is having a team stuck with aging and increasing non-productive players, which is not Trembley's fault. Talk to MacPhail and PA. There are a lot of complaints about Trembley inability to motivate these guys, that he doesn't get in there faces when they don't play the game right. Well, we have no clue whatsoever what goes on behind closed doors. I have absolutely no doubt that Trembley has grabbed some ears in his office. But the bottom linre is the talent of the players.

The ugly is losing, but you can't blame that on Trembley....at least not yet. I'd bet money that if he is given the players to be truly competitive, all the fire Trembley BS stops.....except from the world haters and disgruntled at everything and everyone crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're doing what you do best, Jim. I'm sure you are quite aware of how many games even the worst manager has an effect on. Drungo and others have pointed that out time and again. If you want to refute that the manager plays a larger role than the talent of his roster, I'll happily await the results.

I didn't argue that at all. And frankly, I'm tired of people taking pot-shots at me. [Edited to note: super-sensitivity alert.]

I also don't want to "refute that the manager plays a larger role than the talent of his roster." I don't think a manager does. Nor do I want to refute that he does.

The point is, that it's tough to tell exactly what kind of effect a manager has, and whether that effect follows different short-term or long-term trajectories.

That's it.

No one here disputes talent is key.

I think the better argument is that even if there IS a short-term effect that alters the course of a team, there's little evidence that there's a long-term effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...