I don't want this to be another Ned Yost thread. Honest. But the myriad discussions about his managerial abilities (or lack thereof, depending upon the poster) has me now thinking about the issue in a broader scope. What are the criteria we should use when evaluating baseball managers? There seems to be some primary categories that are discussed (in no particular order): 1) in-game strategy, 2) overall philosophy (e.g. small ball v. 3-run HR), 3) handling a clubhouse, 4) ability to teach and develop talent, 5) ability to motivate, 6) roster management, and finally 7) wins and/or championships. I'm sure there are others, these are the first ones that come to mind for me. Now, outside of wins/championships, these seem to be extremely subjective areas to evaluate and are not things that can be known through statisitical analysis (at least, I don't think so, but sabermatricians always surprise me). Are different managers better for different teams at different times? Do you want a manager to nurture a young team (ala Yost), or do you want a manager to steady a veteran team like Kuehn in 1982 with the Brewers, just stay out of the way like Casey Stengel with the Yankees, or just be a little nuts and get short term results like Billy Martin? Fiery like McGraw or stoic like Mack? I don't know if it was said about a baseball manager or a football coach, but (paraphrasing here) I recall a quote that went something like this: "He can take his team and beat yours, then turn around and take your team and beat his." In my gut, I feel that way about some managers (given, of course, not a total disparity in talent). That they will get more out of the same 27 guys than others will. But how to know this? I'm truly unsure how to evaluate a manager. I do have strong opinions about them, but I'm not sure they are based on much more than visceral reactions a majority of the time. So, how do you evaluate a manager?