Reports say that Jim Riggleman will be hired as the Washington Nationals manager for the 2010 season. The team will be holding a press conference some time today in order to make the announcement. Riggleman took over for previous manager Manny Acta after he went 26-61 with a .299 winning percentage. Under Riggleman, the team's performance improved with a record of 33-42 and a winning percentage of .440.
Clearly a change was needed. While the Nationals may be rebuilding, Acta was not getting the most out of his players. The team became much more competitive very quickly under Riggleman. The sign of progress is encouraging and I hope Riggleman can continue to improve the team with spring training and a full season to work with. Yet I have to wonder if Riggleman was the best candidate out there. In situations such as these, many teams don't seem to look very hard. Rather than search for the best candidate teams now seem to look for the most obvious. Riggleman improved the team enough to ensure the Nationals finished with the worst record in the league. Prior to his time in DC, Riggleman managed the San Diego Padres from 1992-1994, the Chicago Cubs from 1995-1999, and the Seattle Mariners for part of the 2008 season. His overall record is 522-654 with a winning percentage of .444.
I'm not saying that I don't trust Riggleman to do the job or that he wasn't the best candidate to lead the Nationals forward. Yet his resume can really only be described as average. I hope that the Nationals see him as the man that can lead the team forward and not the easiest hire they could get away with.
Week 6 NFL Picks
8 years ago
A manager can only have as good a record as the talent he has to work with. Riggleman and Acta, managing mostly the same personnel, had a difference of 29.9% wins versus 44% wins. That's a huge difference. Maybe Acta was just that bad -- but the Cleveland Indians obviously don't think so. It's also possible Riggleman was that good.
ReplyDeleteNow, I haven't researched how Riggleman's records in other cities compared to managers who came before and after him. That information would be pertinent, in my view. Just nothing that he has a sub-.500 overall record, however, doesn't tell me much.
The other advantage with going with someone who was already with the team is that he knows the players and the players know him. It's not just laziness that leads teams to prefer an existing manager (or interim manager), other things being equal.
We'll see how Riggleman does. Maybe I'm just an irrational optimist, but I believe the Nationals can reach .500 and climb out of last place in the coming season under Riggleman, with Nyjer Morgan in the leadoff spot all year and better pitching. I even think they could conceivably be a playoff team in 2011.