On Hanley’s Return And The Role Of Managers
Undoubtedly, everyone who reads this site knows of the situation between Marlins shortstop Hanley Ramirez and manager Fredi Gonzalez which developed over the last few days. Ramirez’s actions, particularly his comments on Gonzalez’s lack of major league experience as well as Ramirez’s unwillingness to apologize to his teammates, seemed like the perfect primer for a massive clubhouse rift if it wasn’t handled appropriately.
The main issue for Gonzalez and the Marlins is that Hanley Ramirez is clearly the best player on the team. With the Marlins at 22-19, within three games of the division and one game of the wild card, losing Ramirez for multiple games could be extremely damaging to their playoff aspirations. Ramirez has a 130 wRC+ so far this year – a down year so far. Still, that’s extremely productive for a shortstop who appears to have figured out his former issues in the field. That makes Ramirez about a 5 win player even if his hitting doesn’t return to the 150 wRC+ he was at from 2007-2009, and a 7 win player if it does. Benching Ramirez for a significant period of time simply was not an option for Gonzalez.
Today, Ramirez was in the lineup after apologizing to his team. Ramirez was the most valuable position player for the Marlins, posting a .146 WPA in a 3-5 effort including an RBI in the two run fifth which gave the Marlins a lead they wouldn’t relinquish, as they defeated the Cardinals in St. Louis by a score of 5-1.
Much of the sabermetric community harps on the in-game decisions made by managers. We love to dissect the tiny differences between bringing in a closer in the 8th inning or batting a slow but excellent hitter in the leadoff slot. The impacts of those decisions tend to be minimal over the course of the season – usually costing teams only a few runs over 162 games. We spill so many words over these decisions because they seem like such easy fixes. It’s painful to see men that have been inside baseball seem to misunderstand such simple concepts.
Situations like the one that Fredi Gonzalez has had to defuse are much more likely to cost a team multiple wins over the course of a season. If the star player is visibly disgruntled and isn’t playing up to his potential, the impact on the team will almost certainly be more than a few runs. If the manager takes things too personally and benches the player for an extended period of time, or worse, instigates a trade or demotion, the impact will almost certainly be multiple wins. The job of the manager is to produce the most wins from the talent he’s given. Keeping the players in a situation in which they will produce at their highest levels is assuredly more important than the minutiae of lineup construction and, in all but the most extreme of cases, bullpen and bench management.
It certainly appears that Gonzalez has deftly handled this situation. Ramirez is back in the lineup and has apologized, and he produced in his first game back. Gonzalez has performed the most important duty in his role as manager. Now what’s important is that this issue appears to be squarely behind the Marlins, and they can go back to winning games instead of dousing clubhouse fires. If the Marlins are still winning two months from now, nobody will even remember this incident, and for that, Fredi Gonzalez deserves praise.
Jack Moore's work can be seen at VICE Sports and anywhere else you're willing to pay him to write. Buy his e-book.
This is the main reason that I think Charlie Manuel is a good manager. He manages players well. He’s willing to bench players for not playing hard, but also to do it in a way that doesn’t anger the players. Compare this to Larry Bowa, who just pissed off players–eventually running Scott Rolen out of town. They both had the “You gotta play hard” mentality, but Manuel seems to be much better at it.
The ‘massaging egos’ part is pretty important, but you still need to not fail in other important aspects. Case in point: Joe Torre, Bullpen Arsonist. For years, he was praised for how he handled his veterans, and it’s a great credit to him, but there are other aspects of the job he just flat-out sucks in.
Bobby Cox is the same way, he absolutely wears out the bullpen and babies his starters. He’s a good clubhouse manager though.
The best thing for the manager to say is that
I’m not going to get into a personal feud. Hanley was benched for not sprinting after the ball. He’s our best player and will be back in the lineup tomorrow.
Then he’s not dependant on Hanley apologizing. It seems to have worked out anyway, but Hanley is likely to be slightly more disgruntled as a result.
do that, and there is no closure.. no way “to put it behind you”. You have to have the final act somewhere, adn as the player was the one who was out of line, his is the act that has to be done. Do that act, and move ahead. He did, and the Marlins are moving ahead.
Same with kids. They apologize for their misdeed, and you two (parent and kid) put it behind you and move on.
Good article, but in this case I’m not sure how well he actually handled it. Dawson and Perez appear to be the ones that got Hanley to “back down”, while Gonzalez was taking (polite) shots at Ramirez in the media.
But you’re dead on that the nitpicking of managers for minor things like where someone hits in the lineup or how often they bunt is pretty silly.
Minor pet peeve that I have to share: why do some fangraphs writers (mainly Carson Cistulli) write as if this were McSweeney’s? Jack, this is actually a great article with a nice, casual style – why start it with that pretentious title “ON hanley’s return…”. You can just say “Hanley’s return…” Cistulli’s articles are particularly egregious – he seems to go out of his way with every word to prove some kind of sophisticated, pompous intelligence. I love the analysis at fangraphs but I get frustrated by the occasional puffed-up writing style.
Anyone with me?
I blame Michel Montaigne for the “On…” thing.
i’m totally with you, i can’t stand carson. by far the worst writer on this site. he’s not funny, either.
Nope, not with you. I never understand why people fixate on headlines at all. They either briefly give some sense of the topic (which is fine, no matter how brief, since all the length and nuance and complexity belongs in the article) or they don’t (which is bad, and the only real reason for criticism, however muted by the relative unimportance).
I had a bigger objection to the headlines when the writers were obviously straining to make every one a pun.
Though I will add, I generally skip Carson’s articles. But there’s a lot I skip here.
I think Fredi knows he better not piss off the golden goose. Because if ownership sees a problem with Hanley v. Fredi…. it’s ADIOS Gonzalez!!!
I think you’re missing the balance you need to strike as a manager there. You have to both keep your star player in the game while also encouraging a culture of hustle, teamwork, and all-around non-prima-donna-ism. The latter stuff requires some amount of punishment and example setting, which is necessarily going to conflict with the first goal of keeping Hanley in the game. Gonzalez accomplished both goals, but only because Hanley eventually came around. Would Gonzalez have been any less of a manager if Hanley had extended his tantrum and taken the situation nuclear? I’d think Hanley would be to blame in that situation, not Gonzalez.
Kinda along the lines of what Dave said, by not handling a situation correctly, the *other* players on the team may be affected, and not produce as many runs as they could. It’s not just a balance between benching Hanley and keeping Hanley productive, it’s also a (very hard to measure, if measurable at all) balance between the positive runs created by playing your best player and the negative runs created through the 24 other players on the team down the line .
I called it! LOL
“ADIOS Gonzalez!”