John Levesque on Bob Melvin.
I think Levesque’s essential point: that criticism of Melvin because of his demeanor is misplaced, is a reasonable one. Managers come in all forms, and success is a package with one particular style. And it’s reasonable to point out that other managers rise and sink with the fortunes of their team, their style praised and attacked depending on fortunes often outside their control.
That said, he misses a larger point here, which is that Melvin’s laid-back style does not, from what we hear from other channels, include accountability, that he demands very little from his players and they respond in kind. You can be a player’s manager and still get results out of your players — Dusty Baker comes immediately to mind. Melvin does not do this.
The other point this article misses is that Melvin’s deficencies that will lead to his firing aren’t limited to his style. I’ve made some pretty serious arguments against Melvin’s unmotivating style in this space, but that’s the small of it. He’s bad at putting together lineups. He runs his bullpens badly. He’s a bad judge of talent. He’s out-foxed on the field by other managers.
It may, in the way other players’ attitudes and public relationships have led to their ouster, be the reason why Melvin’s fired. But there are many reasons to fire Melvin, and they can’t all be defended so easily.