From mlb.com:

The most emotionally challenging of his 10 seasons as leader of the Angels culminated in Mike Scioscia’s selection on Wednesday as 2009 American League Manager of the Year by the Baseball Writers’ Association of America.

It was Scioscia’s second Manager of the Year award. He was named by the BBWAA in 2002, when the Angels claimed their first World Series title under his direction after entering the postseason as a Wild Card.

Scioscia, who is the first manager in Major League history to pilot six postseason teams in his first 10 seasons, received 15 of a possible 28 first-place votes for 106 points.

The Twins’ Ron Gardenhire finished second with six first-place votes and 72 points. Joe Girardi of the Yankees (four first-place votes) was third, followed by the Mariners’ Don Wakamatsu (two), the Rangers’ Ron Washington (one) and the Tigers’ Jim Leyland.

Manager of the year is the most meaningless award in sports, as it is very difficult to distill the impact of a manager from the talent of his players. How much of the Angels’ success attributable to Scioscia? What about Joe Girardi? Girardi did a very good job keeping his roster fresh despite the advanced age of many of his regulars, handled the bullpen masterfully, and helped foster a family atmosphere in the clubhouse. His club also won 103 games. Him finishing third suggests that he never had a shot at the award, which underscores its worthlessness.

I am not suggesting that Girardi deserved the award. Rather, I am suggesting that the entire concept of the award is an exercise in futility. It is an honor that goes to a manager who dealt with adversity or had a team that improved a lot. It is not an award given to the person who did the best managing job.

Jesse Sanchez (MLB) has a nice summary out on the current Manager of The Year race in the AL. With Mike Scioscia atop Sanchez’s list, he later offers Joe Girardi as a “dark horse” for the honor. Here’s what Sanchez had to say about Girardi.

The manager of the best team with the highest payroll in baseball is not often a favorite for the award, but Girardi should be given credit for molding his star-studded roster into a team and keeping his club focused despite the early-season distractions surrounding A-Rod. The Yankees are winning and having fun, which will bode well for Girardi heading into the postseason.

The one statement that stands out to me in this brief blurb is that “Girardi should be given credit for molding his star-studded roster into a team and keeping his club focused despite the early-season distractions surrounding A-Rod.” Now, in terms of “molding his star-studded roster into a team,” maybe I’m off base here, but I would actually thank Brian Cashman and Hal Steinbrenner for that. By bringing in CC Sabathia, Nick Swisher, Mark Teixeira, and A.J. Burnett, the team chemistry has truly come together. Having the right personalities in the clubhouse is what turned this “star-studded roster into a team,” right? I don’t think you can really thank Girardi for that (he has definitely contributed, but it’s not all on him).

Also, in regards to the notion that Girardi kept “his club focused despite the early-season distractions surrounding A-Rod,” I don’t think that’s true either. What kept the club focused was that, immediately after confirming he had used steroids, A-Rod needed surgery on his hip, therefore, he wasn’t around for the first 5 weeks of the season when questions pertaining to his steroid use would have been the most fervent. A-Rod wasn’t there to distract anyone, so, of course, the team wouldn’t have to deal with it as much they would have, had he been there from the beginning. Maybe if Girardi and the Yankees had an exceptional stretch in April I would say that Girardi deserves credit for “keeping his club focused,” but they were 12-10 that month.

Now, don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of things Joe Girardi does well, I just don’t see any of them in this simple blurb. What do you think? Should Girardi be given this much credit for these aspects of the ballclub?