It is amazing how many people think LaRussa over-manages.
Some call it over-managing.
I call it winning.
LaRussa can "over-manage" every game, all game long...as long as he wins...and he does...so who cares?
And is it really considered over-managing if he just wins games? I don't think it is. I think that's just called being a real good manager.
You could argue that other managers that don't win as much as LaRussa, actually under-manage their teams.
And the more I think about it...on what messed up scale is LaRussa judged and determined to have "over-managed" his teams? Isn't that a negative term? Shouldn't that term be reserved for managers who make too many moves and DON'T win games?
People like Slaten are outspoken about how bad LaRussa actually is as a manager. But how many games has Slaten ever won as a manager?
Nobody would hire him because he isn't qualified...not good enough...not talented enough.
How many games has LaRussa won?
Thanks for playing.
I don't see why it can't be both winning and over managing. Granted I'm only 26 and haven't seen as many managers as some, but he makes more moves than any manager I've ever seen. Maybe micromanage is a more appropriate term because it doesn't carry as much of a negative implication. People definitely go overboard in their criticism of him though.
His results have been incredible (and that's really the most important thing). But, that doesn't mean he's beyond reproach or criticism.