It's a slow summer news day here in Virginia politics, so with that I'm going to turn my attention to more important matters: baseball! :) The subject today is whether the Washington Nationals, with their worst-in-the-majors 16-45 record (and 20 games out of first place in the NL East), should fire their manager, Manny Acta. Currently, it looks like Acta's job security is "shaky" at best. The question is, should it be? John Feinstein lays out some pros and cons. First, here are Feinstein's reasons to keep Acta.
...He's a class act; he's a bright, young baseball guy managing a young team. His players like him, and they show up every day and really try to play for him, albeit not very well. If Acta is fired now, you can bet he's going to get another managing job down the road, and there's a very good chance he'll be a success.OK, I'm sold; keep Manny Acta (and get him better players)!
But wait, what about Feinstein's reasons to get rid of Acta?
So why fire him? Because sometimes in sports you have to make change for the sake of change. One can almost feel the "here we go again" sense the players have in the late innings night after night. Most nights they know there are two guarantees: It's going to rain, and they're going to find some way to lose either by bullpen implosion or some horrible defensive gaffe.Making changes just to make changes? Meh. I don't know about you, but that doesn't get me too excited. As a long-time Orioles fan, I remember the start of the 1988 season and the team's 21-game losing streak. I also recall that after going 0-6, the Orioles fired manager Cal Ripken, Sr. and hired Hall-of-Famer Frank Robinson to replace him. The Orioles proceeded to lose 15 more straight games, en route to a last-place, 54-107 record. Yeah, that did a lot of good.
The bottom line is this: the Nat's will probably fire Manny Acta. The problem is, unless their problems really stem from Acta, and not from the front office or the players, it won't accomplish anything.
