What if? Jimmy Dykes vs Connie Mack

[PhillyA_man]

The A's started to rebound in the late 40's and early 50's, finally making it back into the first division a bit. What held them back? Pitching, Hitting or.....Connie Mack?
What if Jimmy Dykes started managing those A's in say...1948? Could they have contended? Were they a better team then their performance showed? Connie Mack was not 100%, could the change have helped?

[LouGehrig]

The problem was the players, not the manager. The A's had little pitching and less offense. By 1954, they were an interesting but terrible team. Jim Finigan had a good rookie season, hitting .300, but he faded after that and Bill Renna, Bill Wilson, Elmer Valo, Joe Astroth, an injured Bobby Shantz, and even Arnie Portocarrero were not going to make much of an impact. Of course, Spook Jacobs could steal bases but his problem was getting to first base.

[DTF955]

I always understood, from what I read, that Dykes did pretty much run the Athletics by 1948; maybe not entirely, but as the first "bench coach," if you will.

[KCGHOST]

Dykes had 22 seasons of managing and never finished higher than 3rd. I can't imagine having another few seasons of managing with the A's would have changed his record any.

[Catfish27]

"What if Branch Rickey were the President/GM of the A's instead of Connie Mack?" has greater potential.

I understand that the A's were slow to sign African-American players. If they'd been more progressive they would have seen the great wealth of talent playing in the Negro Leagues.

Of course times were different then, and even after the Dodgers and Indians integrated Major League Baseball the city of Philadelphia was not quick to accept men with dark skin playing along side men with light skin.

Richie Allen, a man of prodigious talent, had a very difficult time with the hometown fans early in his career as a member of the Phillies, and he broke in over fifteen years after Jackie Robinson played his first game with the Brooklyn Dodgers.