I would like to think professional players are beyond the point of needing their coach to throw a fit in order to play better.

of course you would like to...but do you really think this is true? would Delmon Young have run out   a few more ground balls if he was playing for Lou Piniella or another manager that he had respect for?

either way, I dont think Piniella is a good example, because he is often abusive of his players. so in his case players may play harder, but it is out of fear, not out of respect.

Personally, I dislike managers who throw public tantrums. I find them laughable and cannot imagine anyone thinks they are "watching their back" when they do it or that they are inspiring the players to try harder. But I am sure others feel quite differently, and my guess is the same holds for players on any team, some of whom might respond to displays of temper and others who likely are alienated by it.

I have no problem with a manager throwing a tantrum (within reason of course) if it distracts an umpire from a player who is about to get tossed.  That's simply taking one for the team.

I enjoy analysis of things that really can't be statistically analyzed, in this case the correlation between a manager's proclivity to be ejected and team success.  I happen to agree with bobr's assessment of the subject in general and his take on Maddon in particular.  My own sense is that managers get ejected for one of the following reasons, sometimes more than one within the same event:

1.  they are trying to make a point with an umpire to get them to think about future calls
2,  they are trying to show leadership

3.  they are trying to defend a player
   
4.  they are trying to deflect heat from a player, so that player doesn't get ejected
   
5.  they are making a general statement of protest, and in so doing fire up their team
   
6.  they are frustrated and want to lash out, but with no purpose
   
7.  they want to leave the game early for some reason
   
8.  they are showing off
   
9.  they are by nature insecure and/or defensive

There are other reasons, I'm sure, but you get the point:  not all reasons are created equal, and some have strategic value, while others don't.  Many managers at least use the tool to try to achieve some good (reasons 1-5); but some hotheads--Lou was one of them--just lost credibility every time they yell about something...these guys usually get ejected for reasons 6 through 9.

But does it really matter why they do it?  Does getting ejected for any reason help the team to win?  In a game situation, I'd say no.  Over the course of a season, probably not either, since ejections occur so rarely anyway.  

Keep in mind that for every time a manager gets ejected, he probably storms out of the dugout 30 times to argue something.  The correlation to team success and leadership--if there is any at all--lies in when the manager protests something, and how he protests the issue, rather than whether he is actually ejected for it.  

Maddon, by all accounts, is a reasonable man, well spoken, thinks things through.  He has an excellent relationship with umpires, treats them respectfully.  Thus, when he protests something, they tend to respect him, and in some way, his message comes across more effectively.   That is his style.  In my view, that's also just being smart; at the same time, it sets a good example for his players.  Not all players, mind you--some do not respond to this approach, just as not all unruly students respect an excellent teacher.  But on the whole, he knows what he's doing here, better than most, and likely can achieve better long term outcomes as a result.

Thus, I repeat my thesis:  this topic is best studied in a psych lab, rather than with statistics, as the lack of conclusiveness in the data set clearly shows.  But I like the effort.  Interesting.

.  comes out of the may can see that many of these reasons are intended to