When teams hire new coaches or managers, there is much discussion about how well the new boss can relate to the players. Are they an easy going players’ coach or the tough, demanding tyrant of a boss. Which is the better fit? In the long run, being able to get along with and get the most out of your players in generally the way to go. Today’s athlete does not want to be humiliated in the press or in front of his peers. However, is the term "players’ coach" a cover up for a guy unwilling to change?
All three Cleveland teams have so-called player friendly bosses, so I picked situations with all three teams to back up my point.
Indians. It was pretty obvious after the 2005 season that Aaron Boone was not the answer at third base, but the Tribe opened the ’06 campaign with him as the regular. By mid-May, Boone again was not productive at the plate and his defense had gone down hill as well, but Eric Wedge kept writing his name in the lineup. The reasons were that Boonie was a good guy in the clubhouse and he was going to start hitting. What was the latter based on, the fact he hadn’t been an effective hitter since his days with the Reds?
What would a guy like Lou Piniella have done? He would have starting looking for alternatives, especially with the Indians not winning. He would have pressed GM Mark Shapiro to bring up Andy Marte earlier, especially after Marte’s strong spring training. Was Wedge really giving his player the benefit of the doubt, or was he afraid to try an alternative? The truly great managers are not afraid to give young players a chance, nor are they scared of taking a risk. You be the judge as to what Wedge’s motives were.
Browns. Why was Romeo Crennel so critical of QB Derek Anderson’s two interceptions agains the Ravens when Charlie Frye has played poorly in games without receiving a rebuke from the coach? Perhaps Anderson’s throws picks all the time in practice and Crennel feels it is starting to occur in games, or maybe the coach doesn’t want to make a switch at QB because it might upset Frye. Either way, the head coach should be concerned with winning games, and if Anderson gives the Browns a better chance to win in the last two games and next season, then he should start ahead of the University of Akron product.
Just because Frye was a third round pick while Anderson was a 6th rounder, doesn’t mean the Oregon State guy isn’t the better player. This is not to say that Anderson is the second coming of Joe Montana. But, the head coach shouldn’t be so loyal to the players who have given him a 4-10 record to date. Heck, if playing Josh Cribbs at quarterback gives the team a better chance to win, he should play.
Cavaliers. With the Cavaliers playing worse than expected, why is Mike Brown sticking with the same players who won more than 50 games for the wine and gold last season? Of course, he is thinking that these guys are veterans and they will get it turned around. The reality is the season has now gone 25 games, and the Cavs are three games over the .500 mark. Sticking with veterans, a known quantity is the modus operandi of the players’ coach. It also might cost him his job.
At what point does Brown feel he has to try something different. Is it when the teams record plummets below the .500 mark? The players’ coach tends not to be pro-active. It is obvious something is wrong with the Cavaliers, but when will someone step up and fix it? A guy like Scott Skiles would be screaming at a Damon Jones to guard somebody, or telling players to take the ball to the basket.
One problem is that coaches have to be more patient than fans. Fans look at a guy who has one bad game and wants them out. No coach, disciplinarian or easy going, can have a knee jerk reaction like that. However, when a player doesn’t perform over a 10-20 game span, and the team isn’t winning, changes have to be made. More often than not, the players’ coach isn’t the guy to pull the trigger. Even when the bullet needs to be fired.
MW
Cleveland Sports Perspective 