Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Dana White Announces Koscheck vs. Hendricks for UFC on FOX

Manuel Reappraised: Are the Phils Smartening Up?

As the trade for free-agent-to-be Freddy Garcia made very apparent, the Phillies are pushing most if not all their chips to the middle of the table for 2007. Given the team's excruciating sequence of post-season near-misses over the last five years, the way their contracts and talent are aligned, and the decision to commit to some older players (Gordon, Moyer) in key roles, this isn't surprising, and I think most of us welcome it.

What is a little surprising is that as the Phillies become Pat Gillick's team, Charlie Manuel remains Pat Gillick's manager. Cholly still commands the clubhouse, more than a year after seeing both Ed Wade, the GM who hired him, and Jim Thome, the superstar slugger with whom he was most closely associated, get shipped out of town. He's in the last year of his deal, but since the announcement of coaching staff changes right after the season, his job clearly has been safe--at least for now.

The more I think about this, though, the more it makes sense--particularly given everything else Gillick has done thus far in the off-season. A team trying to win now generally won't go with a manager they don't believe in. But that doesn't mean the organization is blind to Manuel's shortcomings, as seen by the Garcia and Wes Helms additions and the hiring of Jimy Williams as Manuel's bench coach.

This strikes me as unusually enlightened for an organization that typically accentuates the negative unless enough sparkly things--say, a 1980 World Championship ring, or facial scars from a collision with an outfield fence--are there to distract from said negatives.  

Star-divide

Let's briefly review Manuel's strengths and weaknesses, starting with the good side of the ledger:

He creates a supportive environment, but clearly isn't a doormat. There's never been any grumbling about him, no blind quotes in the press, and even when the team (and Manuel himself) looked like the walking dead last June and July, there was no internal finger-pointing at the skipper. When they came back to life in August/September, though, he got a lot of the credit---as had been the case the year before. In this respect, he's always resembled Joe Torre and Bobby Cox, probably the two most successful managers of this era. At the same time, you got the sense that behind closed doors, he could flay players to shreds. And I have a weird feeling he really didn't like Mike Lieberthal; just a hunch, but bringing back Lieby would have made both budgetary and roster sense (whoever they get to back up Ruiz probably will wind up being more expensive and a worse hitter), and I suspect that the decision to part ways with him came from Manuel.

He really knows hitting. Manuel probably had more to do with Ryan Howard's transformation from decent power prospect to NL MVP than anyone else, and he didn't do too badly with that Thome character either. Jimmy Rollins has done most of his best work under Manuel, and Chase Utley went from Todd Walker to Jeff Kent---more than doubling his walk rate, for one thing---in Manuel's first year on the bench. I'm not sure that any Phillie, aside from Tomas Perez and David Bell (and in Bell's case it was probably injury), saw his offensive production shrink from Bowa's last year to after Manuel took over.

He doesn't shred young arms. Probably Rich Dubee and perhaps some of the front office types deserve credit for this as well, but the fact remains that for the most part, Manuel has admirably taken care of the Phillies' young pitchers. A look at Baseball Prospectus' Maximum Pitcher Abuse Points for 2006 finds Brett Myers in the lower reaches of the top 30 starters---well behind the highest-stress workloads placed on men of less or comparable age and experience like Matt Cain, Dontrelle Willis, Jeff Francis, and Zach Duke. Even more importantly, Cole Hamels is about 60 spots below Myers.

In his highest-workload start of 2006, Myers threw 124 pitches; in his, Hamels threw 116. Myers had 12 starts of between 110 and 124 pitches thrown; Hamels had 4 of between 110 and 116. During Manuel's first season, 2005, he had Myers on an even shorter leash, sending him over the 110-pitch mark just six times in 34 starts (though the worst was a 127-pitch slog that probably was pretty upsetting at the time, for those of us who worry about these things). Given the incredible damage wrought by tough-guy managers like Dusty Baker and Jim Leyland (memo to Justin Verlander: get a good financial planner NOW), this is by no means insignificant.

But as anyone who "watches the games" can tell you, Manuel has his drawback as well. These include:

Terrible pinch-hitting decisions. In 2006, while the Phils offense overall paced the National League with a .794 OPS, the team's pinch-hitters put up a collective .563 OPS, 15th of the 16 NL clubs ahead of only the Mets.  This was even worse than the 2005 performance of the bench bats, which included a .643 OPS. Wade and Gillick, architects of those bad benches, deserve blame here too--but it wasn't either of them who gave Tomas Perez and Endy Chavez (pre-alien possession model, mind you) each 43 at-bats off the bench in '05, while better options languished--or sent Abe Nunez up there 39 times (he got 5 hits) last season. This is one area where, presumably, Williams will have more input.

His loyalties to veterans and commitment to "guys in their roles" has led to bad personnel management, especially in the bullpen. There's a valid case to be made that the 2005 decisions not to sit down David Bell, Tim Worrell and Rheal Cormier cost the Phils a playoff spot that year; last year it was a different vet reliever, Arthur Rhodes, who kept a high-leverage role much longer than he probably merited one. Sometimes this persistence pays off: Manuel's resistance to moving Jimmy Rollins out of the leadoff spot is probably the best example, as no less an authority than Bill James now rates J-Roll as one of the game's best leadoff men. But Manuel's embrace of the organization's ongoing and inexplicable veteran-reliever fetish has hurt the team in both of his two seasons at the helm.

The team hasn't started well, and they're weak on fundamentals. Every April, the Phils stress the need to get off to a quick start. Then they go 10-14 and have to spend the next two or three months climbing out of the hole. This problem predates Manuel, but he hasn't solved it; this too will be part of Williams's charge. If he can figure out how to teach the pitchers to bunt, and fellow Sunshine Boy coach Davey Lopes can teach Shane Victorino how to steal bases, that could be worth two wins over the course of the season.

I think the team's evaluation on Manuel--that his strengths outweigh his weaknesses, but that they better needed to support him--is spot-on correct. This doesn't mean he has a lot of rope; John Russell returns as manager of the team's triple-A affiliate, and a third straight slow start could lead to a change in the dugout by June. But this is a shot worth taking, and in my view the Phillies deserve credit on this one for seeing if they can put Manuel in a position to succeed, rather than chasing a shiny Piniella or Baker or Showalter this winter.

Poll
What happens to Charlie Manuel this season?
Phils win the division; he gets a long-term deal
8 votes
Team wins the wild card and Charlie comes back for 1-2 more years
39 votes
Near-miss, again, and he's fired in October or November
20 votes
Mid-season dismissal
12 votes

79 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 18 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

i am not opening a pat burrell debate thread
a good, fair assessment, i think. there are some more drill down points that i'd like to hear some thoughts on (manuel appears to be calling pitches from the dugout more than i've noticed with other managers, and the slow start business -- there's got to be something more at work here than just lax spring training), but on the whole i can't argue with what you've got. remember how bad their fielding seemed at the beginning last year (david bell, ryan howard's throwing lapses, a certain RFer, etc)? if that happens again this year, i'm sorry, i'm going to lose it.

but the point i wanted to make that while manuel is praised as a hitters' manger, he's got one guy who absolutely needs a fixin' and if he can get pat burrell to progress some this year and not put up more of last year's regression, i'll forever leave manuel alone. pat is a streaky hitter, and probably always be, and perhaps taking advice is not his strong point, but something has got to give. not to make a "watch the games" point, but i just once want to see burrell shorten up a swing with 2 strikes and just try to put the ball in play instead of the same old big swing. (and yes, i know pat was basically hitting off of one leg for most of the year). i don't want to get all fundamental-crazed here, but that just seems like what should be day 1 of hitting school. i would love to evesdrop on what cholly's been telling pat or what he will tell him this season.

by gr on Dec 18, 2006 6:32 PM EST reply actions  

fair enough
I don't disagree with any of that, and I think that in Burrell's case the numbers don't tell the whole story... but he's still done considerably better in the last two years under Manuel than in his final two years with Bowa. Maybe that isn't a fair comparison, because Pat evidently loathed Bowa, but while Burrell hasn't been the guy we all hoped he would be, I'm not entirely sure there's much more in him than what Manuel et al have extracted since the start of '05.

by dajafi on Dec 18, 2006 7:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Cholly and Burrell
My problem with Manuel and Burrell isn't that he didn't fix Burrell; rather, it's that Cholly didn't keep Burrell in games enough.  Burrell produced 29 HR and almost 100 RBI in somewhat limited playing time, thanks to complete benchings and late inning switches.  Burrell's spot in the lineup often came up again later in games, and the Phils just had weak-hitters in his place.  He should have had 625 plate appearances, not 560.

by David S. Cohen on Dec 19, 2006 9:44 PM EST up reply actions  

There's an argument to be made
That Burrell's productivity was maximized, rather than limited, by his usage. That because of his assorted nagging owwies he'd have been less effective had he played more.

I don't think I buy it, but it's possible.

by phatj on Dec 19, 2006 10:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Well...
I do agree that it was maddening when Burrell's spot would come up late in games... But you have to admit that Burrell is a liability on the bases. Not only is he slow and gimpy, he's a stupid baserunner IMO.
Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Dec 20, 2006 9:45 AM EST up reply actions  

Huh?
I never had a problem with Burrell's baserunning, other than those times he was thrown out at home and the catcher had time for tea and crumpets before applying the tag in a leisurely manner. But that's on Dancy, not Burrell.

by phatj on Dec 20, 2006 1:05 PM EST up reply actions  

dancy
dancy had a knack for "i'm hitting over and B on the controller and he's still running home" plays at the plate.

by uncle milt on Dec 20, 2006 2:46 PM EST up reply actions  

best.comment.ever
on Dancy's decisions. I wonder if he's ever cried in his beer with former Cubs 3b coach "Wave 'em In" Wendell Kim.

by dajafi on Dec 20, 2006 2:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Burrell on the basepaths
BP had a long piece on baserunning earlier this year.  Actually, it was several pieces looking at all the various complex ways baserunning affects the game.  If I remember correctly, the bottom-line conclusion was that Burrell has been the worst baserunner in baseball over the past few years.

by David S. Cohen on Dec 21, 2006 8:35 AM EST up reply actions  

Interesting
Did that piece make any attempt to isolate the effect of the third base coach? Otherwise I'd still maintain that Burrell has often been the victim of some horrific decisions by Dancy (and Vuke before him).

by phatj on Dec 21, 2006 9:27 AM EST up reply actions  

bowa
definately better than under bowa. i guess its just that he's still so imperfect, its hard not to think a couple things ironed out here and there could make a nice difference over the course of a season. but for all i know, that could have been bowa's attitude: tinker, tinker, tinker...

by gr on Dec 18, 2006 9:38 PM EST reply actions  

The Manager
I've been a long time reader of The Good Phight, but the brilliance of this post finally got me motivated enough to go through the arduous process of registering to comment...so here we are.

I was just having a friendly argument with another Phillies fan about how I've recently seen the light with regards to the appropriateness of Charlie Manuel managing this particular group of Philadelphia Phillies...it took me two plus years, but I can finally say that I am a Charlie Manuel fan.

The good things Manuel does are often behind closed doors (maintaining a positive clubhouse environment, spending extra time working with young hitters) while his faults are out in the open for any fan to judge (poor fundamentals displayed by his club, bad bullpen/bench decisions). It's extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to pinpoint the true impact a manager has on a game in-progress (though maybe something could be done involving WPA graphs or something of that ilk) so it is worth it to me to have a man in charge that has done an above average job on other aspects of his role as manager. Ideally, you have either a manager who excels in both realms of the job (like Dusty Baker...don't worry, that's a joke) or surround a manager good at one aspect of his job with a coaching staff that can pick up the slack where he is deficient (hopefully what the Phils have done this offseason).

by roboz on Dec 18, 2006 10:13 PM EST reply actions  

bingo
Cholly's flaws are on display no less than once a week, as he sends up some Danny Sandoval to pinch-hit with a guy on second and two outs or taps his left forearm to bring in a Cormier type whose ERA is north of 5. The good stuff, though, only suggests itself when you follow the team for a long stretch, closely: lineup guys picking it up, the sustained intensity in August while some opponents start to wander, the total absence of blind critical quotes.

He's not perfect by any means, and if I thought  about it for a few minutes I probably could reel off a handful of names I'd rather have managing the team. But the "I watch the games" crowd, focusing just on the poor in-game decision-making, misses a huge part of the picture.

by dajafi on Dec 19, 2006 1:32 AM EST up reply actions  

Not to completely absolve Charlie
but how much farther would this team have gotten with even a Randall Simon on the bench instead of the Danny Sandovals and Chris Robersons? True, the team has started out slowly the last two Aprils, but that was a feature of Bowa's teams as well...and Charlie has gotten 88 and 85 wins out of two very flawed teams.

I agree, Gillick has absolutely made the smart move here, and if in bringing in a stronger coaching staff the team can ideally pick up 1-2 games from more aggressive baserunning (Lopes) and perhaps 1-2 from better in-game management (Williams), then that would seem to be a rather out-of-the-box approach, one that is almost, dare I say it, Moneyball-esque!

Dunno who saw this already but here is an interesting look at the ChiSox side of that Garcia deal: http://tinyurl.com/v6rlf

by das411 on Dec 19, 2006 12:40 AM EST reply actions  

The guys don't quit on him
I think the most telling thing in Charlie's favor is that in both 2005 and 2006, the guys never quit playing hard for him, no matter how bleak things seemed in the standings.

September 2005 was one of the Phillies best months and the Phils finished strong in 2006 as well after being pretty far back in July.

When Bowa was around, there was always talk of mutiny and how the players hated him and how they didn't want to play for him or they didn't try as hard or they quit on him or whatever.

I think that's one big positive in Manuel's favor, that the players will always play hard for him.

by lethal on Dec 19, 2006 4:06 AM EST reply actions  

Frankly
I've always thought the manager in baseball was the least important of coaches in most sports.

I don't really give a whole lot of credit to Manuel, but i don't really blame him either. The players seem to like him and want to play for him, which is probably the most important thing,

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Dec 19, 2006 9:40 AM EST reply actions  

eight months, 190 games...
Baseball players spend more time together, day in and day out, for a longer part of the year, than is the case in any other sport. Every team is a community--if you want to push the boundaries of cliche, a family. The manager is the head of that family.

Most of the time, when everybody wants to shiv the paterfamilias, things don't go real well. A baseball manager probably has less direct control over the outcome of a game than a football head coach. But that doesn't mean he's "less important" by any stretch.

by dajafi on Dec 19, 2006 12:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Analysis and features focusing on Philadelphia Phillies baseball.

Blog Lords

Wholecamels_small WholeCamels

Boys_small jonk

198222_nlds_reds_phillies_baseball_small FuquaManuel

Dsc04697_small David S. Cohen

Meltingface_small dajafi

Phillyfriar__new2__small PhillyFriar

Associate Blog Lords

Bugs_small taco pal

Greg_luzinski_small Wet Luzinski

Cptjackalbatross_small RememberthePhitans

Phillies1980logo_small schmenkman

Madmen_icon_small lizroscher

Blogger Emeritus

Colevatar_small Matt Swartz