Q & A and McClendon

A lot of interesting stuff, as usual, in the Q & A.

My take on any manager or general manager is this. If he's a rookie, he's going to screw up. If he pays attention, studies the game, and has real problem-solving ability, he's going to get better. If he does not pay attention, does not study the game, and creates more problems then he solves, then he needs to be fired.

I don't have any kind of access or inside information, but I've seen little evidence that McClendon is more a problem-maker than problem-solver. The fact that a lot of raw players leave Pittsburgh and continue to improve is no strike against McClendon; that's like blaming the 6th-grade teacher when the 10th-grade girls grow boobs or get pregnant. I expect every player the Pirates cast off after a few years of service to catch on somewhere else and keep getting better. They have talent and sometimes it takes a lack of security (e.g., getting dumped by the Pirates) to motivate young players to get the most out of it. If players are malingering in Pittsburgh, trying to stay healthy and extend their career into the free agency paydays, then it doesn't matter who is the manager in Pittsburgh. If the additional motivation of finding a new job doesn't help, simple aging and maturing will. Of course young players leave Pittsburgh and keep getting better.

In addition, I'm not impressed with arguments that proceed from the assumption that the manager is the person who is primarily responsible for a player's development. The primary responsibility for a player's development falls to the player. Any good coach or teacher knows this. All the good players know this.

So all things being equal, I would assume that McClendon will be a better manager in 2006 than any rookie manager. I also assume that Littlefield will be a better general manager in 2006 than any rookie general manager. But I'm not terribly qualified to make that decision, so I can only offer that opinion with a shrug.