The Greatest Manager [Merged Threads]

[timconnelly]

When Joe Torre arrived in New York to manage the
Yankees, there were no thoughts of genius or Hall of
Fame: He was certainly a competent enough manager but
who would guess he would win 5 pennants in 6 years.

It turns out there are many more similarities between
Joe and the last Yankee skipper to have that kind of
success than I would have imagined.

Stengel and Torre:

Were both born in July- 50 years apart (born in 1890
and 1940)

Both managed a New York based National League team in
their first (major league) managerial opportunity.
Stengel managed Brooklyn and Torre the Mets.

Both were very unsuccessful. The Mets finished last
the first three years Torre managed and neither
manager had even one season with a .500 won-loss
record in that stint.

So the Mets were the first team Torre managed and the
last team Stengel managed.

Both managed 3 teams in the NL. (Stengel didn't manage
the Mets until after he left the Yankees.)

Both were extraordinarily popular in NY.

I could mention they were both successful players with
Torre being much the better of the 2. Stengel started
his career with a NY based NL team and Torre finished
his with a NY based NL team. Their career batting
averages were fairly close at .284 and .297. In 1922,
Stengel batted .368 and in 1971, Torre batted .363:
Very high averages that came from out of the blue. (To
be fair, Stengel was a part time player and his .368
did not have the value Joe's did.)

Both have very average career won-loss records, with
Torre at .515 and Stengel at .508.

[Skipper Steve]

Yeah, but you can understand Joe when he speaks. ;)

[timconnelly]

Just thought I'd check in on this poor, lonely, sad thread that died a quick and uneventful death.

Do you guys know when you come up with a thread if it's going to catch fire or not? I have not learned to gauge the interest of the group yet and still have no idea.

[Skipper Steve]

The thread thing is a mystery. I've started some that I thought would be hot - and they got zero replies - While others which I just threw out there got mega-replies. You never know?

Usually a question or a statement that most would disagree to works - - - often a statement that it's so good that no one can debate goes quiet.

[nyy26wc]

I agree with Steve about the often random nature of what starts a thread and what doesn't.

I'll also add that sometimes, there is just good information presented, even though it doesn't develop into a well responded too thread.

[timconnelly]

Great Managers


There are several very valid ways of rating the
greatness of a manager. In this article, rather than
just selecting a method and going with it, I’m going
to examine the various ways that one could make an
analysis and try to draw some conclusions as to what
works best. We will look at some of the most qualified
candidates and even some who aren’t all that qualified
and then make a decision on the all-time top 5.

Certainly we can look at the winning percentages of
various managers and determine who were the most
successful based on that, can’t we? Well not really.
Winning percentage, besides the fact that it fails to
deal with the differences in playing talent that
managers might have to work with, means only so much
from year to year. The reason for that is that a
manager’s job is not to win games per se, but rather,
to win pennants (prior to 1969 and divisional titles
since then). Take Casey Stengel in 1954: it was the
only year that any of his teams ever won 100 games and
he had his highest winning percentage at .669. But
because Cleveland won 8 more games than the Yankees,
it was hardly his most successful season. Another
example of that would be the 1926 and ‘27 Cardinals.
The ‘27 team had a winning percentage that was 23
points better while finishing second. The ’26 team won
the World Series title: you tell me which is more
successful!

I’m not discounting winning percentage. I’m only
saying that being able to win a pennant by 19 games
may not be as great a talent as being able to win a
pennant by 1 game. Lou Piniella and Frank Chance did
great jobs in winning 116 games in a season, but I’m
not ready to concede that they managed better than Bob
Brenly and Fielder Jones, at least not solely because
their teams had higher winning percentages.

Is winning percentage relevant? Sure, and it’s
something that we will be looking at. I’m only saying
it’s not the only thing we’ll be looking at.

What about total number of pennants won? Can we use
that? Certainly, but I think it has some weaknesses
too. Do you remember the Texas Rangers in 1974? They
were coming off a season of 57 wins and 105 losses.
Billy Martin took that team to an 84 and 76 record. It
was a team that only finished 2nd in their division,
but that was some great managing! In the NBA, they
never seem to give the coach of the year award to the
most successful coach, but rather to the coach of the
most improved team. But in basketball, 1 or 2 players
can make a much bigger difference than in baseball.
That Billy Martin also turned around the fortunes of
the 1980 Oakland A’s, as they improved by a full 29
games in the standings, shows that a great manager can
mean more to a team than a great player.

I might also say that being a great manager is usually
a temporary thing. You might bring something that the
old manager lacked, a something that might not have
been the right ingredient until right now and won’t
hold up but so long! In 1978, Bob Lemon brought a
calmness into the clubhouse that was exactly what the
Yankees needed.

So I favor the integration method. It means that you
aren’t looking at one thing but everything. It means
you look at the big picture first and you break it
down into components without losing sight of the
whole. It is a more intuitive process in that it can’t
always be explained statistically but that’s all
right.

I think we can divide the great managers into
different categories. Let’s call the 1st category:
Inspirational Guys Who’ll Yell at You at the Drop of a
Hat. There are lots of great managers who’ll fall into
this category:
John McGraw
Billy Martin
Leo Durocher
Dick Williams
Earl Weaver

The 2nd category is Guys Who Are So Smart They Could
Beat You With Your Team or Theirs:
Casey Stengel
Joe Torre
Al Lopez
Tony LaRussa
Whitey Herzog

And the 3rd category Guys With Teams So Good, Does it
Matter Who’s Managing?
Frank Chance
Connie Mack
Joe McCarthy
Miller Huggins
Sparky Anderson

Just a few comments: It’s always been amazing to me
that John McGraw was able to manage for 30 years. The
guy had a terrible temper and enough antisocial
behavior to make him seem like a better candidate for
an inmate in a prison rather than manager of a
baseball team. He won 10 pennants, had a winning
percentage of .586 and managed successfully in both
the dead ball and the modern era. Only his lack of
World Series success keeps him from being my number 1
pick.

Billy Martin would be my choice for manager if I had
to pick 1 guy for 1 season only, especially if there
wasn’t a lot of pressure to win the pennant. (I would
also make sure he had the best relief pitcher in
baseball and wouldn’t ruin the great young arms on my
staff!) But Billy was not able to sustain his success.
Apparently he pushed too hard. Or maybe he just drank
too much.

Casey Stengel was a genius with the Yankees. There has
never been a manager even remotely as successful at
winning year after year by such small margins. During
the 5 straight pennants that the Yankees won, from
1949-53, their margin of victory over the 2nd place
teams is only a combined 19.5. That’s the same margin
that the Yankees won by in one year in 1936! Had
Stengel had even marginal success any place else, he
would have to be my top man.

If Connie Mack was a great manager, then he was surely
the sorriest owner in baseball history. He had some
great teams that I think anybody could have won with,
but he finished last 17 times. Now admittedly, that’s
over a 50-year period but Connie would not make my
list of great managers.

Joe McCarthy is the greatest manager in baseball
history. The only thing that would make that clearer
is if he had won a pennant and World Series with the
Red Sox. McCarthy managed for 24 seasons: he had to
have some teams that just didn’t have it. But with all
the potential for season ending injuries (he lost
Rogers Hornsby in 1930 after an MVP season, and still
finished 2nd), tragic retirements (the Yankees won the
pennant in 1939 by 17 games, despite the early season
loss of Lou Gehrig), and wartime interruptions, the
guy never finished in the 2nd division or fell below
.500.

He took over the Cubs in 1926 and with his arrival,
Hack Wilson became a major star. Whatever he did
helped Wilson drive in runs at a record rate. Wilson
would never be the same player again after McCarthy
left at the end of 1930. And it wasn’t like he never
built a club: The Cubs were an 8th place team in 1925:
They improved by 14 games and 4 spots in the standings
with Marse Joe at the helm!

McCarthy managed Hornsby, Ruth, Gehrig, and Williams;
4 of the greatest hitters of all-time. He had his
problems with Ruth and Hornsby (Babe wanted his job
and the Rajah actually got it). Perhaps the best story
about McCarthy is when he joined the Red Sox after
years with the Yankees. He showed up in a polo shirt.
No one had ever seen him in a polo shirt. He had
always enforced a strict dress code with the Yankees.
When asked what was going on, he responded,” I hear
Mr. Williams doesn’t like to dress up. Well, if I
can’t get along with a .400 hitter then I’m the one
who’s crazy.”

1) Joe McCarthy
2) John McGraw
3) Casey Stengel

[Skipper Steve]

Tim - have you read Bill James' THE BASEBALL MANAGERS?

Highly recommended.

[timconnelly]

No, never even heard abot it. There's not much I can write about where Bill hasn't already gone though: He's the best!!

[Skipper Steve]

His Top Ten All-Time:

1. McGraw
2. Mack
3. McCarthy
4. Stengel
5. Alston
6. Sparky Anderson
7. Weaver and Harry Wright
9. Durocher and Bill McKechnie

Miller Huggins just missed the Top Ten.

Among other modern day MGRs, Dick Wiliams was the highest - # 17.

[Yogi#8Fan]

Hey, I figured why wait til the AM. We've talked about great announcers, HOFers who shouldn't have been, those who weren't but should've been. Now let's talk about the managers.

From their trade thoughts, out and out managerial skills, were they "too faithful" to underperforming players, did they call for the IBB too often against dangerous sluggers, did they make logical decisions when calling the rotation, lineup, who they picked in the pen. Anything. Let's hear it! Anyone wishing to discuss postseason performance, who was great in which era, I'd love to hear all about it.

[SmedIndy]

Currently, I think the best managers are guys like Bruce Bochy, always getting the most out of what he has.

Dick Williams always intrigued me. He always tried innovative things (like pinch hitting for his second basemen every time up).

[timconnelly]

Joe McCarthy is the greatest manager in baseball
history, for my money. The only thing that would make that clearer
is if he had won a pennant and World Series with the
Red Sox. McCarthy managed for 24 seasons: he had to
have some teams that just didn’t have it. But with all
the potential for season ending injuries (he lost
Rogers Hornsby in 1930 after an MVP season, and still
finished 2nd), tragic retirements (the Yankees won the
pennant in 1939 by 17 games, despite the early season
loss of Lou Gehrig), and wartime interruptions, the
guy never finished in the 2nd division or fell below
.500.

He took over the Cubs in 1926 and with his arrival,
Hack Wilson became a major star. Whatever he did
helped Wilson drive in runs at a record rate. Wilson
would never be the same player again after McCarthy
left at the end of 1930. And it wasn’t like he never
built a club: The Cubs were an 8th place team in 1925:
They improved by 14 games and 4 spots in the standings
with Marse Joe at the helm!

McCarthy managed Hornsby, Ruth, Gehrig, and Williams;
4 of the greatest hitters of all-time. He had his
problems with Ruth and Hornsby (Babe wanted his job
and the Rajah actually got it). Perhaps the best story
about McCarthy is when he joined the Red Sox after
years with the Yankees. He showed up in a polo shirt.
No one had ever seen him in a polo shirt. He had
always enforced a strict dress code with the Yankees.
When asked what was going on, he responded,” I hear
Mr. Williams doesn’t like to dress up. Well, if I
can’t get along with a .400 hitter then I’m the one
who’s crazy.”

[SmedIndy]

McCarthy was one of the best.

John McGraw and Connie Mack you'd have to put up there. If Mack didn't have to worry about going bankrupt all the time, he'd be really recognized.

Many people forget Frank Selee, but he won with Boston and the Cubs back when baseball was played by "real men".

Ned Hanlon found a way to win too, but sometimes it wasn't always, shall we say, legal.

I do think sometimes we give short shrift to guys like Dick Williams, or even Sparky Anderson or Whitey Herzog, since they're so recent and no one was waxed poetic about them, really. Williams, especially, with all the shenannigans of the A's in the 70's, was top-notch.

[sweaver]

Joe McCarthy #1, hands down.

Other candidates for the top 10: Casey Stengel, John McGraw, Whitey Herzog, Billy Martin (short-term), Dick Williams, Walter Alston.

I consider Connie Mack's expertise to be more on the GM side, player acquisition. He owned the team, after all, and did it all.

Some other names: Frank Selee, Miller Huggins, Leo Durocher, Lou Piniella, Sparky Anderson.

That's off the top of my head, understand.

[Yogi#8Fan]

Originally posted by timconnelly
Just thought I'd check in on this poor, lonely, sad thread that died a quick and uneventful death.

Do you guys know when you come up with a thread if it's going to catch fire or not? I have not learned to gauge the interest of the group yet and still have no idea. The one about good/great players/managers I figured would take off and it did pretty well. The one I'd started about managers I didn't expect only 4 responses. Perhaps a better title might've helped.

When Night Al did the one about undeserving HOF-ers, that to me was a sure bandwidth eater. Who could avoid that one? No trick formula, other than trying to keep the fire burning a little bit and hoping for the best.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Who was the greatest manager in baseball history?

I can only list nine (9) choices. If you have a different one, vote "other" and be sure to post!

The greatest ever may well not be on this list.

[BravesWin!]

bobby cox has won everywhere he's been and is moving up the list on all time wins, and when he is done i think he'll be in some very, very, elite company....

andrew

[JamesI]

He may have only won one World Series, but where's Earl Weaver in the list?

[sweaver]

I'll say McCarthy. "Marse Joe" always improved his team, and kept them top-notch.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by JamesI
He may have only won one World Series, but where's Earl Weaver in the list?

I could only post nine (9) choices, plus a 10th for "other". While I voted for Alston, I certainly could have voted for Weaver or Bobby Cox, and I might if I thought about the issue on another day.

[Rajah]

While they are all good choices, and I do think Bobby Cox should be up there, and I like what Whitey Herzog, Connie Mack, John McGraw and the various Yankee managers of note did, I'm going to pick Earl Weaver. I think that there are a lot of managers out there now who could benefit greatly from Earl's book.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

McCarthy. Cox is still working his way up the list, though.

If you look at James' manager's scores from his book on managers, Bobby looks at lot more impressive historically.

[TimmyB]

I voted for Sparky. Crazy as that sounds.

He won in Cincinatti which was almost to be expected. What he did in Detriot, however, was remarkable given the talent level.

Cox, Weaver, McCarthy, Chance all could easily be #1. Whitey could easily be anyone's #2.

[Skip]

I've always had a thing for John McGraw.

[pwdennis]

The Magnificent Seven

01 John J McGraw
02 Billy Southworth
03 Joe McCarthy
04 Paul Richards
05 Casey Stengel
06 Sparky Anderson
07 Earl Weaver

[Skip]

I meant to say this earlier - of 'modern' guys I like Sparky and the Earl of Baltimore.

If anyone, that is any single one of you, mentions Lasorda - there will be words....

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by Skip
If anyone, that is any single one of you, mentions Lasorda - there will be words....

hmmmmmmmmmmmmLASORDA!!!

:D

[KCBOOMER]

No such thing as "the greatest manager". Just guys lucky enough to get more talent than the other guy.

[pathogan]

...for me. Rube Foster if you count the Negro leagues...Joe torre reminds me of Warren Spahn's comment on casey stengel{He played for him with the Boston Braves and METS} "I played for casey before and after he was a genius"

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by TimmyB
I voted for Sparky. Crazy as that sounds.

He won in Cincinatti which was almost to be expected. What he did in Detriot, however, was remarkable given the talent level.


I agree with your assessment of Sparky as a manager in Cincy; however, I believe he should have won more in Detroit. There was no excuse for losing the 1987 playoff series to the Twinkies. The 1980s Tigers were a talented, star-studded team that should have won at least one more pennant.

There really isn't any excuse, other than divine intervention, as to why the 1973 Reds lost the division series to the 82-79 Mets, either.

And Sparky lost the 1972 World Series DESPITE Reggie Jackson being injured for the entire series.

[TimmyB]

Interesting assesment, Fuzzy. I agree on the '73 issue. As far as the MotorCity Kitties, I always perceived them as being short on starting pitching. I recall Morris was a stud. But, after that, Tanana was pitching on grit (and I should add he was reborn in Detroit -- I cannot speak to whether that was the result of coaching by Sparky or some other factor) and then... it seemed get thin.

But, I also must agree with a few others who have stated that greatness has an awful lot to do with the 25 players on the field. (If Joe McCarthy had been that great, the '46-'50 Red Sox would have been the equals of the McCarthy-era Yanks).

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by TimmyB
Interesting assesment, Fuzzy. I agree on the '73 issue. As far as the MotorCity Kitties, I always perceived them as being short on starting pitching. I recall Morris was a stud. But, after that, Tanana was pitching on grit (and I should add he was reborn in Detroit -- I cannot speak to whether that was the result of coaching by Sparky or some other factor) and then... it seemed get thin.

The 1980s Tigers also had Dan Petry as their #2 starter, who was a Jerry Koosman-level pitcher for a little while.

The mid-80s Tigers had, IMO, HOF or near-HOF quality players at 2b (Whitaker), SS (Trammell), 1b (Evans), LF/DH (Kirk Gibson, at his peak), #1 SP (Morris), reliever (Hernandez). Did any of the other teams who won pennants from 1982-87 have a better base of talent than this?

Additionally, Sparky completely mismanaged Howard Johnson, trading him to the Mets for Walt Terrell. Terrell was OK, but Johnson was a STUD, who had a 5 year run of All-Star level play. Sparky failed to insert and develop a top prospect who may have been THE missing piece (i. e., the alternative to Tom Brookens) that would have made the Tigers really special throughout the 1980s, not just in 1984.

I do agree, however, that the 1984 Tigers were one of the greatest teams ever, and Sparky was one of the reasons for that.