No, what's absurd is you thinking a team outperforming expectations has nothing to do with the manager at all and the ONLY impact a manager has on a teams success are the "negative" decisions you think he makes in a couple games; decisions that are at worst marginally worse, meaning sometimes they might even work out over the other one.
This is where every single person making the same argument you've made lose there point.
You want to give the players all the credit for their performance and record. The thing holding back this well oiled underrated monster is the coach... its illogical. The reason some of these guys prospered, developed and succeeded may have been due to the support and personality renteria had; the patience. The majority of a managerial impact is made off the field, before games, in the clubhouse, watching film.. it's not made in the 7th inning with a bullpen move. This is where the argument loses itself. Renteria was obviously a part of the reason the team performed well and developed. His shortcoming was when the stage got big, it became too big for him. He wasn't prepared for situations and he over managed. Bad combination. What he didn't do is cost the White Sox 3 or 4 wins, as so many here want to argue. Everything counts, not just the stuff that makes you irrationally angry as a couch coach. So yes, I've been called a defender for merely being rational. Renteria wasn't the right guy for the job. He also didn't cost them 3-4 wins.