Jump to content

Are educated managers more or less likely to be reasonable?


JHSump
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4269 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

Interesting article about Davey Johnson:

http://www.nytimes.c...h-movement.html

Makes me wonder: are highly educated managers (at any level) more likely to be reasonable/professional in their dealings with umpires? Or, are they more likely be be devious? What are your thoughts/experiences?

(And I have no idea about Johnson in this regard, so comments on him would be interesting also.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only does education have a role, but demographic and personality as well. There are educated a$$hole coaches. Some are more prone to assholishness than others. Some are very reserved, water off a duck's back personality types. The introvert, the extrovert, the passive-agressive can all have the same PhD and act completely differently. In my experience, the educated coach tends to have better rules conception and general baseball knowledge. The un/under-educated coach tends to be more emotional. Refining is the real issue. Education acts as a base, while ignorance is more alkaline. The Ph is somewhere in the middle between education, demographic, and experience. That being said, I have had coaches with philosophy degrees act worse than a HS dropout working in a factory coach whose knowledge of the game far superceded his formal education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think it would be hard to judge. As soon as they start acting like an unreasonable idiot I assume they aren't very educated. I have found that some that are very educated can be very arrogant too. So you have that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Education acts as a base, while ignorance is more alkaline.

What do you mean with this statement? I can't figure this one out.

Especially considering a base substance is alkaline (they are the same thing), I think perhaps trout was going for acid and alkaline?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Education acts as a base, while ignorance is more alkaline.

What do you mean with this statement? I can't figure this one out.

Especially considering a base substance is alkaline (they are the same thing), I think perhaps trout was going for acid and alkaline?

college chemistry was a long time ago :D lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Education can make difference but the difference between their baseball knowledge and presumed baseball knowledge is far more important.

Quite true. I know some coaches that are clearly well educated, but can be way wrong when it comes to baseball or baseball rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only does education have a role, but demographic and personality as well. There are educated a$$hole coaches. Some are more prone to assholishness than others. Some are very reserved, water off a duck's back personality types. The introvert, the extrovert, the passive-agressive can all have the same PhD and act completely differently. In my experience, the educated coach tends to have better rules conception and general baseball knowledge. The un/under-educated coach tends to be more emotional. Refining is the real issue. Education acts as a base, while ignorance is more alkaline. The Ph is somewhere in the middle between education, demographic, and experience. That being said, I have had coaches with philosophy degrees act worse than a HS dropout working in a factory coach whose knowledge of the game far superceded his formal education.

Also, very true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of good comments in this thread. I guess in the end, formal education my play only a very small role in how they act, or in their baseball knowledge.

The one thing that struck me about the Davey Johnson article was his keying in on statistical analysis apparently long before that became fashionable in more recent times (as in Moneyball). Seems like it resonated with his math education. But I have no idea what his personality is like, and how he interacts with umpires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Davy does pretty well with umpires, his baseball knowledge is quite good. That's why it was so funny with the pine tar in the glove dispute. His argument was quite reasoned, the Fl manger was typical rat ranting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...