Should Nats Pick Up Riggleman's Option Before the Season Begins?

I generally don't like to critique other people's writing in this space.  I do a lot of that in private, and it's a good way to make sure what I write is at least halfway relevant and up to date. 

But what's the point of having a blog -- especially one that describes itself as being "dedicated to the constructive criticism of the Washington Nationals" -- and not commenting when something grabs my attention?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as it's based on an educated, rational thought process.  There's room for anecdotal evidence and statistical analysis and to ignore one over the other is usually folly.

Today's column by Jason Reid in The Washington Post raises a question that has, to this date, been unasked and for good reason.  And quite frankly, I think Mr. Reid's conclusion and his methodology leave something to be desired.

Before we begin, Harper at Nationals Baseball also has a critique of Mr. Reid's work today.  You should read that piece too, because I generally agree with his points as well.

Mr. Reid asserts that the Washington Nationals organization should exercise the option on manager Jim Riggleman's contract, signaling "Riggleman’s importance to the future", before the season begins.  In his piece, Mr. Reid argues that "It’s not hard to manage with essentially a one-year deal. It’s downright impossible."

Mr. Reid provides no statistical evidence or analysis to back this statement up.  This is his opinion, though he offers it as if it is an incontrovertible fact.  He never once mentions Riggleman's career managerial record, other than to cherry-pick the Nats improvement in record from 2009 to 2010, as if that was all due to Riggleman's stewardship.

He goes on to cite the reasons he thinks the Nationals would be wise to exercise Riggleman's contract, including Riggleman's handling of the bullpen last season and the antiquated notion of the manager being "in control" of the clubhouse.

On the last point, Riggleman himself has gone on record stating his desire for the clubhouse to police itself.  He's just not that type of guy.  Yet Mr. Reid cites these qualities as reasons to give Riggleman a long-term deal.

The evidence shows that Riggleman is not a very good manager.  In 11 seasons, his lifetime winning percentage of .442 is equivalent to a 71-91 season.  In fact, his clubs have finished the season with a winning percentage higher than .469 in just two of those 11 seasons, neither of which happened as manager of the Nationals.

If the Nationals were a legitimate pennant contender this year, I might be inclined to agree with some of Mr. Reid's opinion.  But they are not.  The Nats will have had a successful season if they escape last place in the National League East.  If the starting pitching does not improve over last season, they might have a hard time matching their win total from last season.

No, this is not a team that needs to be extending anyone's contract on faith, feeling, or opinion.  A growing team -- all parts of it -- must be evaluated on its performance alone.  The players, the field manager, the general manager, the training staff, the public relations, the business managers -- every single one of them.

This ownership has proven a reluctance to change.  Remember, they didn't fire Jim Bowden -- he resigned.

If they want to retain Jim Riggleman, they are perfectly welcome to, but Riggleman should have to earn it.  There's no reason to do it now, other than the antiquated notion that a "lame duck" manager can't properly motivate his players; that he'll be tuned out otherwise. 

If any single player on a team that has lost 300-plus games over the last three years needs to be motivated to perform by the manager they should be removed from the roster TODAY, and that burden should fall on Mike Rizzo, not Jim Riggleman.

There will be plenty of time for contracts when the season is over, when any progress (or lack thereof) has been proven.  Picking up Riggleman's option before the season starts removes any flexibility Rizzo might have with respect to his field manager for 2012.

One last point on Mr. Reid's column, and this is the tricky one.  Granted, I may be more sensitive to others on this point, but I have to mention it, because it was the motivation for me to write this column in the first place.

Mr. Reid states, very clearly, why we should trust his opinion over anything else: 

"Unless you’ve spent significant time in baseball clubhouses, it’s impossible to understand the dynamic that exists among managers, coaches and players — especially on bad teams."

This, my friends, is elitist sports journalism at its worst. 

Mr. Reid may be a terrific writer.  He spent a lot of time on the D.C. NFL team's beat.  He's a respected journalist in D.C. and elsewhere.  Maybe because this is his first Nats column he left like he needed to let us know "he's been there".  He painstakingly cites the eight seasons he spent covering the Los Angeles Dodgers, including Riggleman's four seasons as bench coach.

In that case, maybe Mr. Reid should have done a little research about the Dodgers.  Walter O'Malley, long-time Dodgers owner, famously never gave out more than one-year contracts to his managers, Hall of Famers Walter Alston and Tommy Lasorda. 

Worked pretty good for them.