9/2 Post-Game: Boston Red Sox @ Tampa Bay Rays

and looking at as many variables as I can imagine. And frankly I am not prepared to do that now. On another site I went into lengthy examination of Maddon’s decision to pull Shields for Cormier in a game the Rays lost. The original poster was adamant in castigating Maddon. At first I simply was looking to understand why Maddon did it (because my initial reaction was also negative), but more and more came to the conclusion he did absolutely the right thing. I almost did the same thing here on a post I think you wrote about his use of the bullpen in a specific case, but was simply too exhausted to go through it again.

As for your Pena example, there is no way I would have wanted him to pinch run for Pena in that situation. I want his defense at 1B, and chances are most hits will score him from 2B anyway. And it does make sense once that run is in to pinch run for Burrell who is replaceable. Am I sure I am right? No. Perhaps your approach would be more advisable, but it is hardly a slam-dunk answer and definitely not an argument that Maddon managed the situation poorly.

But none of that is my essential point. What I was responding to here and on the other thread was what appeared to me a general condemnation of Maddon’s managerial skills based on different views of proper in game tactics. I do not argue that fans cannot evaluate a manager because we lack enough inside knowledge, but I do insist that not only are in game tactics close to meaningless as clues to managers’ skills, but that we should first try to consider the many available options and accept the possibility that many are reasonable. Perhaps, for example, in the Navarro example above, his decision was based on who was at bat in each case. I don’t know and am not asserting that as a reason, only suggesting there are possibilities that fans do not consider either out of ignorance of the many details in each case or because once we establish our premise all decisions are viewed through the prism of that perspective.

For example, I have probably known in advance that a manager’s decision was terrible 1000s of times. And I can probably recall 3 or 4 cases when my premonition (reasonable assessment?) was accurate. I have either forgotten the other 997+ times the results did not validate my view or can explain the dissonance by noting that the batter actually hit a screaming line drive right at a fielder or a fielder made a great play to save runs or the umpire unaccountably expanded his strike zone so the strikeout should have been ball 4 or whatever it takes to maintain my illusion of knowing better than the manager.

I have no problem with people arguing that a different decision would have been better. That is a large part of the fun of the game. But I do have a problem with assuming that such differences of opinion are the difference between right and wrong rather than different approaches or preferences. And I certainly object when such differences are used as grounds for dismissing a manager who just led a team to 97 victories and is following that up with another fine, if disappointing, year. I do not credit Maddon with all the success, although I do think that in tandem with the front office (because I think they work together like a Swiss watch) he is a large part of that success, but I do think he has earned our forebearance when things do not go as we hoped. Because we are frustrated by dashed hopes is no reason to find scapegoats, and particularly no reason to make lists of grievances against Maddon who has shown himself to be a creative, flexible and imaginative strategist.