The Girardi watch is on

zambonir 2022-04-22 15:58:16 UTC #41

Here’s how much managers are devalued these days: Excluding late-September, get-it-over-with dismissals, not one has been fired in-season since 2018.

That’s right, teams do not even think enough of managers to believe naming a new one in the middle of a season might make a difference.

This Inquirer subhead says it all really:

Taudawg 2022-04-22 16:08:18 UTC #42

Interesting. I'd love to see some math around this idea. Manager changes in-season is likely a small sample yet with 100+ years of history, there should be enough to reach some fringe conclusions. Certainly has worked some cases I can recall, but that's probably selective memory.

zambonir 2022-04-22 16:55:05 UTC #43

Well, I think that observation was slightly tongue-in-cheek, based solely on the 2018 thing. But he also goes on to say that GMs (or at least, the front office) have such a larger role when it comes to in-game decisions these days that they are less likely to be fired for that. And also that tanking teams generally stay the course.

It has certainly worked a few times, just no way to actually say that was the thing that made the difference. For all we know Pat Corrales might have gotten the same result in '83. Though this team does feel a lot like that one! (Not ancient, but veteran, and semi-successful - at least last season - but still feels stale.)

In any case, if Joe isn't managing for his job this month he's definitely managing for it next year. I'm not sure he'd be that great a candidate for other jobs either, once you eliminate the tanking teams and the lower-paying teams (which also overlap of course). Unless the Marlins want him back. Doubt David Ross is going anywhere any time soon.

I think when the change does come it will have Fuld's fingerprints all over it. (It could also actually be Fuld but why would he want to do that really.)

andyb 2022-04-22 19:08:04 UTC #44

We all know managers don't make much of a difference but we all know there are enough examples where a team turned around after the manager changed. Now most of those teams were probably underperforming their talent level (hence why the teams switched). But if teams change managers when they are underperforming, regression to the mean might mean there is some improvement in a larger sample.

So managers might mean little, but statistically teams might improve a bit after a change. Hence the reason for more frequent managerial changes than necessary.

zambonir 2022-04-22 20:37:01 UTC #45

At the end of the day it is still the entertainment business, and a business where perception is reality. If it gets to the point where the season feels like it is in a death spiral, a new manager might not end it, but the team will need to look like it is doing something at least.

I gotta admit, I kind of like the idea of a team that's .450 on July 1 turning the team over to Charlie, making a few good trades, and sneaking in there. But let's hope it doesn't come to that.