From mlb.com:
The most emotionally challenging of his 10 seasons as leader of the Angels culminated in Mike Scioscia’s selection on Wednesday as 2009 American League Manager of the Year by the Baseball Writers’ Association of America.
It was Scioscia’s second Manager of the Year award. He was named by the BBWAA in 2002, when the Angels claimed their first World Series title under his direction after entering the postseason as a Wild Card.
Scioscia, who is the first manager in Major League history to pilot six postseason teams in his first 10 seasons, received 15 of a possible 28 first-place votes for 106 points.
The Twins’ Ron Gardenhire finished second with six first-place votes and 72 points. Joe Girardi of the Yankees (four first-place votes) was third, followed by the Mariners’ Don Wakamatsu (two), the Rangers’ Ron Washington (one) and the Tigers’ Jim Leyland.
Manager of the year is the most meaningless award in sports, as it is very difficult to distill the impact of a manager from the talent of his players. How much of the Angels’ success attributable to Scioscia? What about Joe Girardi? Girardi did a very good job keeping his roster fresh despite the advanced age of many of his regulars, handled the bullpen masterfully, and helped foster a family atmosphere in the clubhouse. His club also won 103 games. Him finishing third suggests that he never had a shot at the award, which underscores its worthlessness.
I am not suggesting that Girardi deserved the award. Rather, I am suggesting that the entire concept of the award is an exercise in futility. It is an honor that goes to a manager who dealt with adversity or had a team that improved a lot. It is not an award given to the person who did the best managing job.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
15 Responses to Scioscia Wins AL Manager Of Year, Girardi Finishes 3rd
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
I’m going to disagree with you on this one. You state that “Him finishing third suggests that he never had a shot at the award, which underscores its worthlessness.” But then state “I am not suggesting that Girardi deserved the award.” You seem to imply if the race was close then it would have been okay. You also state “How much of the Angels’ success attributable to Scioscia? What about Joe Girardi? Girardi did a very good job keeping his roster fresh despite the advanced age of many of his regulars, handled the bullpen masterfully, and helped foster a family atmosphere in the clubhouse. His club also won 103 games.” But you neglect to mention that Scioscia had to piece together line-ups and pitching staffs that for long streches of time had to deal without their two best hitters and they started 14 pitchers this year. You have to look no farther than the Mets to come up with numbers like that and we all saw how fast they folded. Couple that in with the fact that he had to manage his team through a tragedy and this pick was a no-brainer. I get that you don’t like the award, but it basically is a did you turn the team around-overcome adversity award rather than was your team the best in the league. In the end all of these awards are meaningless (silver slugger, good glove, MVP, etc.) and one thing matters and we won that.
At least the other awards have statistics with them and at the end of the day the MVPs and what not usually at least go to a player with the best numbers like it will this year, but with managers who is to say Girardi would have won or lost with the Angels and who is to say that Mike S. would have won the series with the Yankees… This is the 1 award that is meaningless and Girardi not finishing top 2 shows it’s falsity!
I also don’t think the Nick Adenhart stuff should get him anymore votes, was it really that big a deal? It was sad for his family but it wasn’t like he was an ace or a star in anyway for that team. He had some talent and some potential but no one was coming into this season with the Angles thinking everything hinged on Adenhart’s shoulders… Really in the end how much does that death affect winning or losing? It doesn’t! The players play and if they hadn’t been sticking his jersey or picture in our face every chance they got people wouldn’t even be talking about it.
” also don’t think the Nick Adenhart stuff should get him anymore votes, was it really that big a deal? It was sad for his family but it wasn’t like he was an ace or a star in anyway for that team.”
I don’t know if you have ever lost a friend or loved one suddenly but it really hurts. Some members of the Angels may not have been close with him but others were and it is a tough situation to go through. You play all spring training with a guy and spend much of your waking time travelling to and from games and in the dugout with him and then he’s gone. One of the things a manager must do is handle his players the right way, give time to grieve, tell them when its time to move on and so forth. A sudden death like that could have been a big psychological blow to the team but it wasn’t. I think this is one of the non-statistical items taken into account in the manager of the year award and I guess since you can’t place a numerical saber-metric value to it you don’t value it. As I said this award is no more or less meaningful than the others in that in the end of the day who really cares as long as we win the series.
OMG really!
Everyone has lost a loved one/family member it’s called life! You feel bad about, dust yourself off and try to continue with life but guess what? He wasn’t family members with anyone on that team and he wasn’t so close to any of them that they were best friends because he hadn’t been on the team that long in the first place… There is also a huge difference in “loved ones” and “teammates” even teammates you really like and are close with aren’t loved ones because you only met them playing a sport and for the most part you don’t even see them unless you are playing.
The award it’s self has no meaning because there is no judging criteria, basically anything you want to judge it off of you can! I bet some people voted for him just because of the death which is stupid and I am sure people voted for him because he is a nice guy who doesn’t play with a lot HR power all the time and rather plays a speed game which has nothing to do with being any better or worse than anyone else either! People probably even gave him votes over Girardi because of the Yankees payroll and the thought that it doesn’t take a good manager to win with that kind of money… The whole award is dumb, way more so than any of the other awards!
It is less important that the other awards MVPs, Gold Gloves and Silver sluggers can all be judged based on that players numbers and actions but with manager of the year it really matters less on what you do than what you have to work with… Neither Girardi or Scioscia or even in the discussion if they manage the Nationals or Royals and if one did a great job with the Royals but it was only better for the talent level and not better as far as winning 100 games how do you judge that?
I’m not advocating Girardi, nor the “best team” standard. Rather I am saying that neither standard is better, and there is no discernable way to really judge managers.
Exactly!
It boils down to you don’t like the award because it is not based on numbers. But neither are other awards that seemingly turn into popularity contests. There clearly was a case for Scioscia to win the award whether you like it or not. While Girardi finishing 3rd has a lot to do with the payroll bias don’t forget that the Twins has a great Sept (which is when the votes were cast).
No, that’s not it at all, it has zero to do with numbers, and I never suggested that it did. It has to do with a lack of objective criteria. We really don’t know what makes a great manager, nor how much of a team’s success is attributable to the manager.
IE…
“The award it’s self has no meaning because there is no judging criteria, basically anything you want to judge it off of you can!”.
“It is less important than the other awards MVPs, Gold Gloves and Silver sluggers can all be judged based on that players numbers and actions but with manager of the year it really matters less on what you do than what you have to work with… Neither Girardi or Scioscia are even in the discussion if they manage the Nationals or Royals and if one did a great job with the Royals but it was only better for the talent level and not better as far as winning 100 games how do you judge that?”.
Manager of the Year is an award of circumstance.
However, I wonder if there are any curses involved with the MoY, much like the NBA’s CoY curse?
Actually, I think the Scoscia and Girardi both did great jobs this season.
fRANKLY, I DON’T THINK tORRE WOULD HAVE HAD PATIENCE WITH THE YOUNG PITCHERS and developed them LIKE gIRARDI DID AND i THINK no way WOULD HE HAVE GONE to MARTE INSTEAD OF coKE THE WAY gIRARDI DID.
I think Torre would have made Burnett nutz also when AJ lost control a few times and AJ’s fragile style personality under Torre and his vendettas could have exploded the wrong way and we’d be hearing that AJ didn’t have a NYC make-up and was a huge mistake.
Girrardi did a great job.
Imagine Swishers craziness and AJ’s ‘PIES” under Torre.I think not.Just tension and trying to win the WS in April and May again.
sore loser
Because that sums it up…
The system just has no rhyme or reason because it’s not based off set criteria.
Yup, the award is so important to me, I am so sad about this. Seriously, I criticised the Gold Gloves despite Jeter and Tex winning. This has nothing to do with who won.
IDK MO you do seem like the kind of person who would hold a grudge if your manager comes in third haha