but my answer to your first question is yes, he was a great manager the previous 2 years. Evaluating a manager by the team’s won/lost record is as faulty an approach as evaluating a pitcher that way. I was enormously impressed by the skills and character Maddon demonstrated in his first two years-his patience, creativity, fortitude, judgment, positive attitude, attention to detail, matching of players to roles, dissecting mechanics and more. My only question was would he complement these skills so necessary to building a contender with those needed once a team actually did contend. He proved this year that he could. The award this year should really be manager of the past 3 years. Now there are new challenges which will require continued growth on his part.

It is possible that he also improved on in-game decisions as Brickhaus says. I pay little attention to that as in most cases I think it vastly overrated as an issue, and in any case different circumstances almost certainly altered such choices as bullpen usage and pinch hitting decisions. Intelligent people do change course, of course (despite the sophomoric campaign strategy of candidates who think that labeling their opponents as flip-floppers is a criticism when it is often a compliment), and Maddon is certainly learning from experience. Perhaps that accounts for perceived improvements in in-game tactics. But the key is that he has maintained a focus (allowing flexibility within it) for 3 years, and finally the won/lost record caught up.