I guess I've just decided I have nothing better to do than make myself a pariah around here. But I'm officially tired of all the "Fire Soth!" sentiment. Sure, I also see his inexplicable micromanaging, playing Raul Ibanez (in cleanup!), the 2009 postseason, and all that, and it frustrates me as much as anyone else. He's absolutely criticism-worthy. So is every manager. They all make asshat decisions regularly.
But when and why did all the hate start? Because we got used to being in the postseason almost every year of the 2000's. Fans of most teams, including ours prior to 2002, could only dream of that. When we were in it, it was all "hail Soth!". Then we started not winning, and wanted heads to roll. "Fire Soth!" (As if that would make up for not having Vlad any more.)
But man, we're winning. If we're gonna blame Soth for us losing, then we gotta give him props when we're winning. That's just logic. To say "yeah but we'd be in first place if not for his mismanagement" is a pretty easy armchair call.
Obviously, most of what has to do with a win or loss of it is the players. They're playing well. No one says "oh hey great nice pinch hit call David Freese hit a home run" because now it's religion at HH that Soth is a moron so if anything good happens it couldn't be because of him. As if there aren't a billion factors that go into every moment of every ballgame.
Go ahead and make a case that a manager has minimal impact in a game, but then silence your calls for his banishment; or make the case that a manager can at best not screw things up, and our guy screws things up too much. But if you're going to fantasize that another manager would create wins, then give the guy who's running the team credit when we're winning. FFS. Have a little class. Use your brain.
I'm not saying Soth is a hero, but the Angels played well for a lot of years under him, and they're playing well this year, so I'm just asking that we think for ourselves rather than assuming that he can do no right and if the Angels win it's despite him. It's lazy thinking, mob mentality, and now HH doctrine.
Seems to me that Scioscia wants to win games. He might make stupid decisions in his attempt to do that, and favor the vets unreasonably, and on and on, but the Angels are winning, and if you're going to blame him for losing, give him credit for winning. Or is it easier to make another lasagna joke about the fat guy?
Go ahead, tell me I'm an asshole because I won't tote the party line that Soth sucks. I'm waiting.