Container Top
Search

Events Calendar

EVENT SEARCH:

In This Section


Most Read Stories


Blogs:


First Bell - On Education:
No City of Akron basketball tonight

Pets:
Pet telethon re-airs

The Heldenfiles:
Chipmunks "Squeakquel" on DVD/BD March 30

Akron Zips:
Late surge gives Zips ugly road win

Tribe Matters:
Blogmail response on Hafner

Cleveland Browns:
Stallworth's contract terminated

Balanced Ledger:
QB in Browns future: another mock draft

Kent State Sports:
KSU Notes – February 9

Cleveland Cavaliers:
NBA Power Rankings from Around the Internet

Buckeye Blogging:
Buckeyes grab 18 players on signing day

Varsity Letters:
Garfield at Buchtel basketball

All Da King's Men:
Palin At The Tea Party Convention

Blog of Mass Destruction:
Republican Pre-Conditions

Akron Law Café:
Citizens United v. F.E.C. (Part 4): Kennedy's and O'Connor's Basic Approaches to Constitutional Decisionmaking – Top Down and Bottom Up

Car Chase:
Collector Car Hobby Loses One of the Best—Jim Roll

Let's Talk Real Estate:
Decisions Decisions: Credit Cards or Your Mortgage?

Ohio Travels with Betty:
Loucile is looking for a Lake Erie getaway in June for three kids, ages 1, 3, and 5.

Sound Check:
Talk of the Town – Top entertainment picks for the weekend

HRLite House:
Track HR Research

Akron Gamer:
Makers of 'Castle Crashers' unveil 'BattleBlock Theater'

See Jane Style:
Do IT this week: Layering

Baseball managers purposely wear apathetic face

By Sheldon Ocker
Beacon Journal sports writer

All you need is a tape recorder and a radio station. Baseball teams have access to both, so why wouldn't they allow the manager's question-and-answer period with the media to be broadcast on a postgame show?

Because these sessions with the press often create a perception that the manager is a bloodless robot, who does nothing but make excuses and give inane or evasive answers to sometimes dimwitted questions.

For their own well-being, managers ought to refuse to take part in this practice, but they probably don't realize the harm it does to their already-fragile standing among the sporting public.

I'm not just talking about Eric Wedge, who is under the gun because the Indians can't lose games fast enough. Even popular managers like Mike Hargrove endured a love-hate relationship with a vast block of fans, who automatically blamed him for anything that went wrong with the Tribe.

The on-air postgame news conference helps contribute to the notion that the manager doesn't know (or sometimes care) what he's doing and lacks the emotional commitment to his team.

Most fans seem to think that managers should maintain a fiery disposition 24/7 and be ready to go to war with anyone who challenges their view of a game or a play. That perception probably comes from watching managers kick dirt and spit profanities in the faces of umpires, who are trying to snatch the food right off the table as the little woman and the kids are eating.

Twenty-five years ago, things were different. Radio stations did not send people to hold tape recorders in front of a manager's lips, and TV sports directors hadn't thought of showing up with a camera crew after a game.

Managers were more confrontational with sportswriters, especially when a dumb question or a challenge to the skipper's judgment was broached. Many managers had little use for those in the electronic media. I recall a game in which Indians skipper John McNamara announced, ''I'm going to do the media [sportswriters] first, then I'll get to the other guys.''

Those days are long gone. Partly because of television cameras intruding into the dugout and partly because the culture has changed, managers now are taught to be poker-faced and gesture free during games and almost painfully polite to the most clueless of reporters afterward.

The idea, I suppose, is to never let them see you sweat, never display your anger or your disappointment. But that doesn't play well on the radio after a double-digit loss in which the ace of the staff lasted two innings, the cleanup hitter struck out four times and the star shortstop made three errors.

Listeners are waiting for the manager to rip into his players, not only with a set of descriptive phrases but with the fury of a man determined to stop the malfeasance in its tracks. But that is not what you are likely to hear from a 21st-century manager (Ozzie Guillen and maybe Lou Piniella excepted).

Keeping up facade

The modern skipper is no less calm, detached and reasonable after a horrific loss than after a win. His tone never changes; his voice never rises or falls; he might criticize a group of players but seldom will he single out an individual. It's all kind of bland and artificial. And that's what it's supposed to be.

Managers don't want to let the media or the public inside their heads or show them their emotions. Before reporters troop into the skipper's office, he might take a bat to the drywall or dent his metal desk with an angry kick. But by the time he faces the press, he will have covered up the damage and transformed himself into a model of restraint.

What comes across on the radio is a man who sounds like he doesn't care or, at the very least, has no personal stake in what has just transpired on the field. Wedge demonstrates all of these characteristics, none of which illustrates his true nature.

Why do fans think he lacks intensity and imparts little passion to his players? Because they listen to his postgame sessions with the press.

And he is even worse when the team wins, especially if victory has been accomplished in dramatic fashion or has been unusually convincing. He becomes overly reluctant to praise his players or to put much stock in a single game.

If you didn't know the score, you would swear the team has lost by the way he has disengaged his personality from events on the field. And the more the team wins, the less enthusiasm Wedge imparts to the media.

Reasons for behavior

 

Why is he so reluctant to express any emotion, win or lose? Because of his overriding belief that players, coaches and managers must not get too high when life on the diamond is good or too low when it's not. Even keel is an expression to live by, and the media might as well get used to it.

Overreacting to transitory events over a long season is one of the worst things a player or manager can do. Wedge, like all managers, knows this. It is a truism of baseball, no less than three strikes and you're out.

But when he exhibits this passive attitude in front of a microphone, he looks more like a disinterested observer who accidentally was given a uniform and a lineup card rather than the man in charge of the team.

When fans hear this stuff on the radio, they should understand that the guy answering the questions is faking it, to one degree or another. This is not a real person to whom they are listening. To know the genuine Mike Hargrove or the genuine Eric Wedge, they would have to sneak into the manager's office before the media get there. And that's not going to happen.

All you need is a tape recorder and a radio station. Baseball teams have access to both, so why wouldn't they allow the manager's question-and-answer period with the media to be broadcast on a postgame show?

Because these sessions with the press often create a perception that the manager is a bloodless robot, who does nothing but make excuses and give inane or evasive answers to sometimes dimwitted questions.

For their own well-being, managers ought to refuse to take part in this practice, but they probably don't realize the harm it does to their already-fragile standing among the sporting public.

I'm not just talking about Eric Wedge, who is under the gun because the Indians can't lose games fast enough. Even popular managers like Mike Hargrove endured a love-hate relationship with a vast block of fans, who automatically blamed him for anything that went wrong with the Tribe.

The on-air postgame news conference helps contribute to the notion that the manager doesn't know (or sometimes care) what he's doing and lacks the emotional commitment to his team.

Most fans seem to think that managers should maintain a fiery disposition 24/7 and be ready to go to war with anyone who challenges their view of a game or a play. That perception probably comes from watching managers kick dirt and spit profanities in the faces of umpires, who are trying to snatch the food right off the table as the little woman and the kids are eating.

Twenty-five years ago, things were different. Radio stations did not send people to hold tape recorders in front of a manager's lips, and TV sports directors hadn't thought of showing up with a camera crew after a game.

Managers were more confrontational with sportswriters, especially when a dumb question or a challenge to the skipper's judgment was broached. Many managers had little use for those in the electronic media. I recall a game in which Indians skipper John McNamara announced, ''I'm going to do the media [sportswriters] first, then I'll get to the other guys.''

Those days are long gone. Partly because of television cameras intruding into the dugout and partly because the culture has changed, managers now are taught to be poker-faced and gesture free during games and almost painfully polite to the most clueless of reporters afterward.

The idea, I suppose, is to never let them see you sweat, never display your anger or your disappointment. But that doesn't play well on the radio after a double-digit loss in which the ace of the staff lasted two innings, the cleanup hitter struck out four times and the star shortstop made three errors.

Listeners are waiting for the manager to rip into his players, not only with a set of descriptive phrases but with the fury of a man determined to stop the malfeasance in its tracks. But that is not what you are likely to hear from a 21st-century manager (Ozzie Guillen and maybe Lou Piniella excepted).

Keeping up facade

The modern skipper is no less calm, detached and reasonable after a horrific loss than after a win. His tone never changes; his voice never rises or falls; he might criticize a group of players but seldom will he single out an individual. It's all kind of bland and artificial. And that's what it's supposed to be.

Managers don't want to let the media or the public inside their heads or show them their emotions. Before reporters troop into the skipper's office, he might take a bat to the drywall or dent his metal desk with an angry kick. But by the time he faces the press, he will have covered up the damage and transformed himself into a model of restraint.

What comes across on the radio is a man who sounds like he doesn't care or, at the very least, has no personal stake in what has just transpired on the field. Wedge demonstrates all of these characteristics, none of which illustrates his true nature.

Why do fans think he lacks intensity and imparts little passion to his players? Because they listen to his postgame sessions with the press.

And he is even worse when the team wins, especially if victory has been accomplished in dramatic fashion or has been unusually convincing. He becomes overly reluctant to praise his players or to put much stock in a single game.

If you didn't know the score, you would swear the team has lost by the way he has disengaged his personality from events on the field. And the more the team wins, the less enthusiasm Wedge imparts to the media.

Reasons for behavior

 

Why is he so reluctant to express any emotion, win or lose? Because of his overriding belief that players, coaches and managers must not get too high when life on the diamond is good or too low when it's not. Even keel is an expression to live by, and the media might as well get used to it.

Overreacting to transitory events over a long season is one of the worst things a player or manager can do. Wedge, like all managers, knows this. It is a truism of baseball, no less than three strikes and you're out.

But when he exhibits this passive attitude in front of a microphone, he looks more like a disinterested observer who accidentally was given a uniform and a lineup card rather than the man in charge of the team.

When fans hear this stuff on the radio, they should understand that the guy answering the questions is faking it, to one degree or another. This is not a real person to whom they are listening. To know the genuine Mike Hargrove or the genuine Eric Wedge, they would have to sneak into the manager's office before the media get there. And that's not going to happen.



Story tools

Email  Email   Print  Print   Save  Save   Reprint  Reprint   Popular  Most Popular   Reprint  Subscribe

Share this story

AddThis Social Bookmark Button














Most Commented Stories