Ken Singleton almost seemed outraged. His Yankees’ broadcast partner, Michael Kay, had just mentioned that Jerry Manuel, the Mets’ manager, had refered to his right fielder, Ryan Church, as “that guy” rather than use his name after he incomprehensibly missed third base in the 11th inning the night before and was called out instead of scoring the tie-breaking run.
“There should be a little more respect involved,” Singleton said, his ire seemingly rising. “You wouldn’t want the player saying ‘that manager.'” Then he added, “I’m serious. There’s a certain amount of respect on a ball club that you should have. You’re in this together for six months.”
I was watching the Yankees game, and Singleton’s comments caught my attention. I had not heard Manuel’s “that guy” comment and, like the former player, didn’t think it was appropriate. Yes, he said it in the immediate aftermath of a tough loss to the Dodgers, but players can be excused for making dumb comments in the heat of the moment, not managers.
Managers are held to a higher standard because they are the responsible adult in the room. They are supposed to keep their heads when everyone else is losing theirs. They set the tone for their players.
Every good manager will tell you that when his team is playing badly, is in a long losing streak, is in the midst of blowing a 7-game lead with 17 games to play, it is imperative that he remain calm and maintain a cool exterior as a way of showing his players that all is not lost. Show panic or fear, and all will be lost.
Certainly a manager is entitled to erupt after a tough loss, and the Mets’ loss was very difficult for them. But react by overturning the food table in the clubhouse, as some managers have done, or tell the clubby to turn off the damn music. Go out and tell the reporters about the dumb mistake the player made and how it cost us the game. But use the player’s name; don’t call him “that guy.”
Which, it turns out, is not what Manuel did. A viewing of the video of Manuel’s post-game news conference shows that Manuel refered to “a guy,” not “that guy.” In the context in which he made his comment, Manuel cannot be faulted for saying “a guy” instead of refering to Church by name. Had Manuel actually said “that guy” in that context, he would have been speaking disparagingly of his player.
This was what Manuel said in response to a question: “We actually battled to score that tying run, and then, you know, have a chance in extra innings to go ahead, and a guy missed third base. It’s unbelievable. I can’t explain why or how or anything, but he actually missed, missed the base.”
Why did reporters hear “that guy?” I can’t say. When I watched the SNY video of Manuel’s news conference, I repeatedly reran it, trying hard to hear “that” and not “a.” The first few times I thought I heard “that,” most likely because I was primed to hear what I had read, but my executive producer, who had already watched the video, said, play it again. He didn’t call me Sam.
So I played it again and played it again and played it a few more times. Unmistakably Manuel said “a guy.” The best I can offer for the confusion is that before the word “a,” he uttered a guttural sound or two that some listeners merged with “a” to make “that.”
If you doubt that Manuel said “a guy,” listen for yourself. Go to SNY.tv, click on video at the top of the on the home page, then click on video archives at the bottom of the next page. Finally, on the archive list find the May 18 post-game reaction and click on watch, Then listen.
Why all this attention on exactly what Manuel said? It goes to Manuel’s relationship with Church, which he insists is fine, convincing no one, and his level of class as a manager. Had he said “that guy,” he wouldn’t have any.
Unless reporters haven’t heard Manuel correctly on a regular basis, the manager at the start of spring training responded to a reporter’s observation that Church was a good hitter by immediately countering that Murphy was a good hitter, too.
Around the same time Manuel said he thought that Church’s problems last year after coming back from a concussion went beyond the concussion. Manuel didn’t say what he thought it was but left reporters wondering how Church failed.
Early in the season someone said Church made a nice play, and Manuel responded that Murphy did, too. Manuel’s listeners feel he seems to go out of his way to be harsh about Church.
The manager has also been more tolerant of Murphy. In the eighth inning of the series finale in Los Angeles last Thursday night, the Mets had runners at second and third and one out in a 1-1 game. Manuel let the left-hand hitting Murphy hit against left-hander Brent Leach, and he grounded out. But Manuel used a pinch-hitter, Fernando Tatis, for the left-hand hitting Church, and Tatis grounded out.
A day earlier, before the second of the Mets’ three losses in Los Angeles, Manuel addressed his perceived dislike for Church, denying it, of course.
“I don’t have a problem with Ryan,” he said. “I like Ryan. We need Ryan Church. We need every guy in there, but Ryan Church is the guy that we feel has the potential. If he gets right, he can really carry us.”
Manuel acknowledged that he was angry after Church committed his fatal misstep in missing third base and losing the tie-breaking run. “You’re doggone right I was mad at him,” he said. “I could have strangled him. If it had been my son, I would have strangled him.”
Manuel had reason and the right to feel that way about Church. His was a natural and reasonable reaction. What he had no business doing was disparaging him by calling him “that guy.” And to his credit, he didn’t.
