What happens when you interview for a managerial job?

16 Comments

Interesting story over at the Globe about Pete Mackanin’s day interviewing for the Red Sox managerial job yesterday.

If you’re unaware of Mackanin’s history — current bench coach for the Phillies, former interim manager for Cincy and Pittsburgh, and loooong time minor league manager and coach — it’s worth a read just for that. Sounds like an interesting dude who, in a just world, would have gotten a shot before now. Plus he’s a natty dresser and rocks the silver fox look like a boss.

I was struck midway through the article when it said that he spent nine hours — nine! — at Fenway with the brass.  On what planet do job interviews last nine hours? At the law firm we’d put candidates through a good six hours including lunch and that was for someone who we really didn’t know from Adam. Professionally speaking Mackanin’s past is well-known to the Sox. This is all cut-of-his-jib stuff. I suppose the job is a tad more important than that of a paper-pushing baby lawyer, so I get it.

But what do you do in a nine hour interview? This kind of thing:

Mackanin’s interview included a test of his managerial acumen as he was presented with tricky in-game scenarios and asked how he would handle them.

“It’s like I was laboratory-tested by the Boston Red Sox,’’ he said. “It’s kind of an interesting little scenario they put you through, going over strategy in games. A lot of good questions, a lot of different questions, a lot of outside-the-box questions, a lot of inside-the-box questions.’’

One would hope and assume that every team does this sort of thing. Of course, if so, then one would have to explain how certain managers got their jobs.

That snark notwithstanding, I think it would be interesting to put smarty pants bloggers, tweeters and mid-game manager second guessers through that kind of little exercise. I’m guessing we’d have way more trouble with it than even the worst real manager at whom we’ve ever snarked.

Report: Mike Trout as recognizable to Americans as NBA’s Kenneth Faried

Rob Carr/Getty Images
2 Comments

On Monday, the Washington Post cited Q Scores, a firm that measures consumer appeal of personalities, with regard to Angels outfielder Mike Trout. According to Q Scores, Trout is as recognized to Americans as NBA forward Kenneth Faried, who has spent seven seasons with the Denver Nuggets and is now a reserve with the Brooklyn Nets. Trout’s score was 22, which means just over one in five Americans know who he is.

We have talked here at various times about Trout’s lack of marketability. He has expressed zero interest in being marketed as the face of baseball. Additionally, based on the nature of the sport, it’s harder for baseball to aggressively market its stars since star players don’t impact teams the same way they do in other sports. LeBron James, for example, carries whatever team he’s on to the NBA Finals. James has appeared in the NBA Finals every year dating back to 2011. Trout, despite being far and away the best active player in baseball and one of the best players of all time, has only reached the postseason once, in 2014 when his Angels were swept in the ALDS by the Royals. Trout can’t carry his team to the playoffs and his team hasn’t helped him any in getting there on a regular basis.

Baseball is also more of a regional sport. Fans follow their local team, of course, and don’t really venture beyond that even though games are broadcast nationally throughout the week. The NFL schedule is much shorter and occurs once a week, so fans put aside time to watch not just their favorite team’s game, but other games of interest as well. A June game between the subpar White Sox and Tigers doesn’t have much appeal to it since it’s one of 162 games for both teams, and both teams will play again later in the season. Comparatively, a game between the Bears and Lions has more intrigue since they only play twice a year.

It’s kind of a shame for baseball that Trout isn’t bigger than he is because he is a once-in-a-generation talent, like Ken Griffey Jr. In fact, Trout is so good that he’s still underrated. He’s on pace to have one of the greatest seasons of all-time, going by Wins Above Replacement. Despite that, he’s anything but a lock to win the MVP Award at season’s end because the narratives around other players, like Mookie Betts, are more compelling.

Trout’s marketability is an issue that isn’t likely to be fixed anytime soon. Trout is who he is and forcing him to ham it up for the cameras would come off as forced and unnatural. Major League Baseball will simply have to hope its other stars, like Betts and Bryce Harper, can help broaden the appeal of the sport.