AFTER MUCH DISAPPOINTMENT:AND BECAUSE OF UNFINISHED INJURY SEATTLE MARINERS HEAD COACH DECIDED TO FIRE HE.
A few rumblings that had been growing louder and louder intensified after the Mariners’ devastating loss to the Angels over the weekend (Deadgar Weekend Redux, anyone?). Mariners fans took to Twitter to call for Scott Servais’s dismissal, and an hour or so after gametime, “Servais” was trending on Twitter—possibly for the first time ever. Though I’ve long since learned to ignore the savage clamors of the angry mob following a Mariners defeat, it appeared to address a recurring theme among the beat writers this weekend, concerning both specific actions that must be taken (such as demoting or DFA-ing a bullpen player to accommodate MLB’s new 13-pitcher cap) and general ones.
indications of significant upcoming changes, many of which directly or indirectly blame a management shift. That is what failing teams do, after all. The Phillies with Joe Girardi and the Angels with Joe Maddon both accomplished this just this season.
But do we really want the Mariners to emulate the likes of the Phillies or Angels, two clubs known for their clumsy ineptitude and inability to turn a profit despite having access to apparently endless spending and talent throughout generations?
Let’s go back and examine the psychological concept of “displacement” first. The most well-known case of displacement looks like this: A significant issue arises. The superior yells at a subordinate, who yells back at the person they are in charge of. After returning home, the person lashes out at their spouse, who then lashes out at their elder sister, who lashes out at their younger sibling, and so on, ending the cycle by mistreating the dog. This phenomenon can be summed up more succinctly, albeit crudely, as “$%!# runs downhill.” Despite being at the bottom of the hierarchy and having done nothing wrong, the poor dog had to bear the brunt of the boss’s terrible day. Most likely, none of you require an explanation of this, as You’ve gone through it before or are now Firing managers is just one more instance of displacement. Historically, only around 25% of mid-season managerial changes have produced a team that has improved its performance to be above.500, and even fewer—roughly 6%—have done so to the point where they are in the postseason. Up until this year, mid-season manager firings had actually been rather uncommon. This was because front offices had been increasingly reliant on data analysis, which meant that managers could make decisions about pitching changes and lineup selections, but they would do so under close supervision from the general manager and analytics team. Nevertheless, when the team is not playing up to par, the first things you hear are demands to fire the management.
Calls to fire the General Manager came shortly after. Strangely, nobody ever appears to ask for the head of player development or analytics.
What aspects of Servais are disliked by the public? Is he not doing enough to “motivate” the team? When the team was winning close games by one run last season and Servais was being discussed as a possible Manager of the Year candidate, that didn’t seem to be an issue. His choices regarding the bullpen are unpopular? He has to decide between some players who were drafted in rounds that are no longer in existence, the husk of Sergio Romo, and a LOOGY who is no longer able to be a LOOGY. Is Toro getting too much playing time? If you believe that only Scott Servais can decide how the lineup appears, Like, could you please describe 1988 for us? Could you afford a home there? And who plays in Toro’s position in the lineup? Sam Haggerty? Is Luis Torrens out of position when playing? There are simply no solid options, just like in the bullpen. Moreover, Scott Servais is not at blame for it.
