It's hard to say being an outsider. As Twins fans we all know how much Al Newman is loved by the players, and there are stories every Spring of him working on fielding before and after the scheduled practices with the players who want to, which seems to go against the glorified drinking-buddy to the manager that Bouton paints the coaches as.

Sal Maglie may have been or may not have been a lousy pitching coach (and judging by how he's characterized in "Ball Four", I'd bet on the former), but there are effective pitching coaches out there. Johnny Sain was the pitching coach for the '65 Twins plus 4 other World Series teams, and was pitching coach for the most 20-game winners ever. ("The Head Game" Chapter 9-The Professor, Roger Kahn, 2000). Atlanta's Leo Mazzone is another. I'd like to think our own Rick Anderson does good work as well. Two of the past three seasons our bullpen was supposed to be our weakness, and they turned out being strengths.

However these are only a couple examples from personal observation and reading. I think there probably are still a lot of coaching resumes that have "good old boy" listed as their primary qualification.

Bouton has very kind words about Johnny Sain in his book, so clearly he doesn't believe that ALL coaches are useless bum-covering platitude shouters -- just a large portion of them.

I am no expert on this, but I would guess the ratio of competent to incompetent coaches in MLB is probably about 60:40. Being able to motivate people is really an underrated skill and often cannot be taught. Someone could be the best pitcher/hitter/fielder in the world, but may be unable to communicate to others how to be a better pitcher/hitter/fielder. Plus personality plays so big into coaching, as evidenced by the whole Todd Walker/Tom Kelly fiasco. Motivation of individuals within a team becomes something that needs to be done on a case by case basis (e.g. what motivates me, may not necessarily work for you!).

Having said all that, I would guess that most former players who become coaches have not had much formal education particularly as it relates to psychology and leadership. Thus the incompetent label.

I was amazed how many rules the players had to follow. Like they were big Boy Scouts. Do clubs still have curfews? Does Terry Ryan sit in the hotel lobby late at night waiting for players to return?

It was also surprising to me (because I never thought about it, I guess) to learn how disrespectful the players could be to the coaches. Has anyone read a more recent tell-all book? Is this still happening? Do Scott Rolen and Jim Edmunds make fun of Tony LaRussa on the back of the team bus?

Hmm. I was thinking about this a little. Yeah, who would guess I could think, but sometimes... Anyway, my thoughts are that THAT age of baseball things were different. By different, I mean, players had talent and some worked hard. Coaches, I'm guessing, were mainly there to help the manager keep an eye on the players, to a certain degree. These days, you have coaches who study a player's mechanics. They watch film and notice changes. There are also conditioning coaches and strength and flexibility trainers and yoga instructors and all manner of things to help give players an edge. In those days, it seems to me, players went out and played. These days, there's a lot more study and work and technology involved.

So, I'm thinking, in those days, it didn't take much to be a coach. These days, you more or less have to either know what you're doing because you've been there done that, or you have to be someone with some sort of learned insight into what you're coaching.

But then, I could be all wrong.

Um, I'm not implying that in THIS age players don't have talent. I meant to add that in this day and age, talent isn't enough. I think you have to kind of study and prepare and work hard at it, too. Even the talented ones. These days, players seem more likely to use some sort of technology, or theories and ... stuff ... to squeeze every available advantage out of whatever talent they have.

Nailbiter,

Rolen and Edmonds may not, but Steve Kline publicly flipped LaRussa the bird in the recent past after he was removed from a game.

He never actually got in the game; he was warmed up and then La Russa went with the rightie. I was actually there for that game. Good times.

To be fair, it was June, before the Cards had started laying waste to the entire NL, and they were playing the Cubs, who were only 2 out at the time. He just wanted in.

I think style is a big factor. When La Russa found out about the bird flippage after the game, he said something to the effect of how he was going to go in the locker room and put his cleats on Kline's throat. Similarly, I can see how Larry Bowa wouldn't take too kindly to players ripping him on the back of the bus. But I can't imagine that applies to everyone. Different managers have different moods and atmospheres they want to impose on the clubhouse.

I think Rick Anderson has been an asset to the team. I'm not convinced that the other coaches on Gardy's staff have really helped any of the players improve, however. For all the work Newman may do with the middle infielders, Guzy regressed since 2001 and Rivas hasn't shown any progress to me. I wish I could say that Hunter, Jones, or anybody else have improved their plate approach under Ullger's tutoring, but I can't. Anybody on the team with any sense of plate discipline already had it when he joined the roster. If Liddle is supposed to help Gardy make better tactical decisions in games, he's failed miserably at that assignment. Offhand, I can't even say what Jerry White is supposed to do, aside from collecting batting gloves and limb guards from hitters who have reached 1st base.

I'm not saying any of them are lazy. They all may be very dedicated to coaching. But if they're ineffectual, so what? Gardy may as well just hire 4 guys to hang out, drink, and listen to funky music with him. Let Anderson work with the pitchers, kick back with the other coaches, and enjoy the good life.