Managers and GMs who belong in the Hall (or already are)

[jalbright]

One thing I noticed is we really don't have a good thread discussing the HOF managers. Who belongs? Who doesn't? Who's not there who should be? Who's there who shouldn't be? If you want to rank the top managers, that would be a good discussion too. I'd carry it over to GMs like Barrow, Rickey, Weiss, Scheurholz, etc. If we get some good discussion on this, I'll be happy to add a link to it to in the resources thread. Floor's open.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

If we ever get to discussing Japanese candidates, here are a few:

My list of qualified Japanese managers. Success points are a Bill James creation. The numbers given are not discounted in any way, and are from a system I modeled on James' system, but isn't identical to it.

Kazuto Tsuruoka Manager's Success Points: 70
He is Japan's winningest manager, with 1807 regular season victories to his credit as well as a .609 winning percentage. His teams were over .500 in 21 of the 23 seasons he managed, and he won 11 pennants. In those 11 pennants was a stretch of 4 pennants in five years and another stretch of 4 pennants in six years.

Tetsuharu Kawakami Manager's Success Points: 60
He managed fourteen seasons for the Yomiuri Giants and was over .500 each season. He won 11 pennants and won the Japan Series every time. Nine of those pennants were consecutive, the fabled "V-9" Giant club.

Shigeru Mizuhara Manager's Success Points: 62
He won eight pennants in nine years from 1951 to 1959 for the Yomiuri Giants. He also won four Japan Series in the period 1951 to 1955 and won a pennant for the Flyers.

Sadayoshi Fujimoto Manager's Success Points: 49
He established the Yomiuri club as a powerhouse, winning pennants in every season from the 1938 Fall season through 1943.

Osamu Mihara Manager's Success Points: 44
He won pennants as a manager for three different franchises, most notably the Lion dynasty he presided over. He won 4 Japan Series in a stretch of five years.

Masaaki Mori Manager's Success Points: 42
He won 7 pennants in 8 years, and six Japan Series in seven years within that stretch.

Yukio Nishimoto Manager's Success Points: 43
He won pennants for three franchises and had a stretch of five pennants in six years. Unfortunately, though he led eight teams to the Japan Series, he never grabbed the brass ring, five of the losses coming to Kawakami's "V-9" Giants.

Toshiharu Ueda Manager's Success Points: 39
He won four pennants in a row, capturing the Japan Series title in a stretch of three consecutive years within that period.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Vic Harris--Negro League

From Jim Riley's Biographical Encyclopedia of Negro League Baseball page 361:

He was combative with umpires which contrasted with

the generally quiet approach he used with his players, never saying too much and preferring to inspire them by example to give their maximum effort. Although he was not noted as a brilliant strategist the players responded to the fiery manager by giving good performances on the baseball diamond.

His methods were good enough to lead his Homestead Grays teams to seven pennants, five of them consecutively. He had plenty of talent on hand to help him do that. But one cannot ignore that great talents are often accompanied by significant egos. He was able to keep that talent with those egos focused on the goal of staying on top. He was also a good if not great player. In many ways, Joe Torre is a good analogy.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

C. I. Taylor--Negro League

From Riley's Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Leagues, pages 763-764:


Acknowledged with Rube Foster as one of the two greatest managers of all time [in the Negro Leagues], contemporaries said that C. I. trained the players and Rube signed them. On the field, the master builder from Carolina was a strict disciplinarian and great teacher who brought out the best in his players . . . . In 1914, he . . . transferred his team to Indianapolis, where the club was sponsored by the American Brewing Company and called the ABCs. Immediately his baseball acumen was evident as he built and nurtured a team that was recognized as a perennial power . . . . Taylor knew how to handle men . . . . Taylor's brilliant career was abruptly terminated when he died at . . . age 47.
Notable accomplishments:
Won a championship in 1916
Brought Oscar Charleston, Dizzy Dismukes, Frank Warfield, Dave Malarcher and Biz Mackey among other Negro League stars into the top level of the Negro Leagues.

From BaseballLibrary.com:

C. I. Taylor was regarded by many . . . as the finest manager in black baseball history. He was patient and dignified, a strict disciplinarian and a good teacher, scrupulously fair and honest with his players. . . . Taylor's teams were perennial powers . . . . Taylor was also instrumental in the founding of the Negro National League.

From The Indianapolis ABCs by Paul Debono, pages 156 and 157:

C. I.'s greatest talent was recruiting and developing players. . . . Not only did Taylor develop players, but he developed managers. The list of Negro League managers who benefitted from his guidance at early stages of their careers is impressive: "Candy" Jim Taylor, "Bingo" DeMoss, "Dizzy" Dismukes, Oscar Charleston, Dave Malarcher, "Biz" Mackey, Otto Briggs and Frank Warfield all became noted managers in the Negro Leagues.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Frank Warfield--Negro League

From page 815 of Riley's Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Leagues:

He was a talented player with a fiery temperament.

[A]s a successful manager, [h]e proved to be a clever strategist, guiding Hilldale to consecutive Eastern Colored League pennants in 1924-1925 including a [Negro] World Series victory in the latter season. He also managed the Baltimore Black Sox to the only American Negro League pennant in 1929. His . . . temper made him quick to engage in arguments with umpires or to castigate a pleyer in view of spectators . . . . Regardless of his management methods, his results were good, and his success extended to Cuba, where he managed the 1924 Santa Clara team to the championship . . . . [One of the key moves he made in Hilldale was to move] Judy Johnson from shortstop to third base and put light-hitting but far-ranging and smooth-fielding Jake Stephens at shortstop.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Bill James' utterly fascinating Guide to Baseball Managers makes the point it is very difficult to evaluate how "good" a manager is (was Gene Mauch a talented manager who usually was saddled with poor teams? was Fred Haney a guy who underachieved with some very talented ones?), much less quantify it. However, it is quite possible to evaluate how successful a manager is, and to reasonably quantify that. A manager gets three points for a World Series champion, two points for a league winner but not WS champ, and one for a division winner who doesn't make the series. He also gets one point for a winning record, another for 20 more wins than losses, and one more for 100 wins. The book came out in 1996, so it doesn't deal with Wild Card teams. Cox is almost assuredly in the forties, and LaRussa and Torre are as well in this system. Leaving them and any other actives aside, here's Bill's list as of 1996:

1. McGraw 79
2. Mack 72 (five World Series wins mean something)
3. Joe McCarthy 71
4. Casey Stengel 52
5. Walt Alson 51
6. Sparky Anderson 49
7. Earl Weaver 42
Harry Wright 42
9. Leo Durocher 38
Bill McKechnie 38
11. Miller Huggins 37
12. Frank Selee 36
13. Fred Clarke 35
14. Cap Anson 34
15. Tommy Lasorda 33
16. Al Lopez 32
17. Dick Williams 31
Ned Hanlon 31
19. Billy Southworth 30
20. Billy Martin 29
21. Frank Chance 28
Charlie Grimm 28
Whitey Herzog 28
24. Ralph Houk 25
Bucky Harris 25
---------------------------
Others of note
Hughie Jennings 24
Davey Johnson 23 (as of 1996)
Gene Mauch 17
Wilbert Robinson 15

As with all such lists, it isn't perfect, but it's pretty darned good. James notes that a guy has to have about 30 points to make the HOF as a manager. He might be a tad too high with that number, but over 25 would certainly fit the bill.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Jose Mendez certainly seems to me to have the kind of case Hughie Jennings would have if he had been a Negro League pitcher rather than a white shortstop. They both were brilliant, for a few years, but maybe not enough to make it to the HOF on that ground alone. Then they both managed with significant success, though that too might be a tad short on its own. But put the two halves together, it's hard to keep him out. Mendez led one of the few organized Negro Leagues of the day in Cuba in wins three times from 1908-13, winning nearly 3/4 of his decisions (74-25). He came to the states and hurt his arm, so he only pitched occasionally thereafter, but generally effectively. He also managed the early Kansas City Monarchs to three league titles and won a Negro League World Series before he died young of pnemonia.

Andy Cooper is in my view a very similar case to Mendez. He was 116-57 in the Negro Leagues over a longer career and not only started but also releived. He was so successful in relief (in addition to his starts) that he is credited with the most saves in Negro League history (per Cooperstown's site) and led the league in that category numerous times (also per Cooperstown's site). He too skippered a team to three pennants and a Negro League World Series victory. I tend to think I'd go with Mendez and Cooper more in a contributor category than solely as players.

[jalbright]

Southworth looks like a candidate with four pennants and two WS championships, but three of the pennants and both championships were during the war years. He had Stan Musial and the rest of the teams were playing 4F's. An despite all that he has won fewer games than Mike Hargrove.

I don't think you fully appreciate Southworth. His success was fueled in no small part to reintroducing platooning to the National League, which is certainly a managerial decision. As for the advantage of having a Musial, I can't think of a manager deserving of the HOF who didn't have at least one like him. And as for having success during the war, Bill James said it wonderfully in his Guide to Managers, p. 163 in my copy:

[T]here is a tendency to automatically discount whatever happened during the war because the game wasn't normal. While this discount is appropriate for players, a manager's job certainly didn't get easier during the war. If anything, wartime performance for managers probably should get extra credit, because wartime baseball was such a fluid situation, with players coming and going all the time, that it created opportunities for innovation and creativity. That kind of baseball is probably a truer test of the manager's skills than regular 1936- or 1976-style baseball, in which some teams just had the horses, and there wasn't much the other teams could do about it.

[jalbright]

George Weiss

Sources: BaseballLibrary.com, Cooperstown's website, and ESPN.com

By the yardsticks of pennants won . . ., George Weiss was an extremely successful baseball executive. His 29 seasons with the New York Yankees (1932-60) brought 19 pennants, and 15 World Championships. . . . Upon joining the Yankees in 1932, Weiss built a fertile farm system which at one point boasted more than 20 teams. At Newark of the International League, such standouts as Joe Gordon, Phil Rizzuto, Spud Chandler and Charlie Keller among others were developed. Weiss sold off surplus talent, those players not quite up to Yankee standards. [In 1947 Weiss was] named GM [of the Yankees] with absolute authority. As a baseball man rather than a MacPhail-type showman, Weiss ran the club, like Barrow, along conservative lines. When the Yankees finished third in 1948, Weiss fired manager Bucky Harris and hired Casey Stengel. Many felt that Weiss had blundered, that he had hired a clown to manage the Yankees. But Weiss knew the real Stengel, who would reward his faith with 10 pennants in 12 seasons. As the Yankees' general manager from 1947 to 1960, [Weiss'] teams won 10 pennants and seven World Series, including five in a row

Weiss surrounded himself with exceptional people, including a brigade of crack scouts. In 1934, when his scouts told him an injured minor leaguer named Joe DiMaggio would recover and be a star, Weiss convinced owner Jacob Ruppert that the Yankees had to have him. In 1959, he pried Roger Maris from the Kansas City Athletics, offering a package (which included Hank Bauer and Don Larsen) that the second-division club could not refuse.

Weiss was named TSN Major League Executive of the Year in 1950, 1951, and 1952 (when the Yankees won three of five consecutive World Championships) and again in 1960.

He and Stengel were forced to retire after the Yankees lost to the Pirates in the 1960 World Series. . . . Weiss moped around before coming out of exile in 1961 as president of the expansion New York Mets. . . . When Weiss retired in 1966 - voluntarily - he left the Mets in better shape than were the last-place Yankees; keys to the 1969 World Champion Mets, such as Tom Seaver and Jerry Koosman, were in the farm system.

[leecemark]

Bill James' utterly fascinating Guide to Baseball Managers makes the point it is very difficult to evaluate how "good" a manager is (was Gene Mauch a talented manager who usually was saddled with poor teams? was Fred Haney a guy who underachieved with some very talented ones?), much less quantify it. However, it is quite possible to evaluate how successful a manager is, and to reasonably quantify that. A manager gets three points for a World Series champion, two points for a league winner but not WS champ, and one for a division winner who doesn't make the series. He also gets one point for a winning record, another for 20 more wins than losses, and one more for 100 wins. The book came out in 1996, so it doesn't deal with Wild Card teams. Cox is almost assuredly in the forties, and LaRussa and Torre are as well in this system. Leaving them and any other actives aside, here's Bill's list as of 1996:

1. McGraw 79
2. Mack 72 (five World Series wins mean something)
3. Joe McCarthy 71
4. Casey Stengel 52
5. Walt Alson 51
6. Sparky Anderson 49
7. Earl Weaver 42
Harry Wright 42
9. Leo Durocher 38
Bill McKechnie 38
11. Miller Huggins 37
12. Frank Selee 36
13. Fred Clarke 35
14. Cap Anson 34
15. Tommy Lasorda 33
16. Al Lopez 32
17. Dick Williams 31
Ned Hanlon 31
19. Billy Southworth 30
20. Billy Martin 29
21. Frank Chance 28
Charlie Grimm 28
Whitey Herzog 28
24. Ralph Houk 25
Bucky Harris 25
---------------------------
Others of note
Hughie Jennings 24
Davey Johnson 23 (as of 1996)
Gene Mauch 17
Wilbert Robinson 15

As with all such lists, it isn't perfect, but it's pretty darned good. James notes that a guy has to have about 30 points to make the HOF as a manager. He might be a tad too high with that number, but over 25 would certainly fit the bill.

Jim Albright

--There are two serious problems with this approach. One it doesn't factor opportunity. Connie Mack piled up the second most points in large part because he managed forever. He built two great teams over the course of his 50 years, but also some of the worst teams of all time. The second most successfull manager of all time shouldn't have a losing record for his career. Two, it doesn't measure the managers actual contribution. Should he have won more or less than he did or would an average manager have won about the same number of games given the talent and opportuity to work with.
--Winning is MOSTLY about having the best players. A great manager will not create as many wins for his team as a superstar player. Conversely the worst manager won't lose as many as a terrible player in the lineup or rotation.
--I don't have any brilliant ideas for solving problem number two. I would modify the scoring to take opportunity (at least in terms of years) into account. Something like this might be more accurate;
-1: losing record
0: .500 record
1: winning record
2: 90 wins
3: 100 wins
Bonus points: 2 for winning division or league and 2 more for winning the world series.
I would probably also give bonus points (or demerits) for how much a teams fortunes changed the first year a manager was on a new job. The drawback to that is it would benifit good short term managers (Martin being the most notorious example), while having limited applications to guys who had long runs with a single team.

[jalbright]

--There are two serious problems with this approach. One it doesn't factor opportunity. Connie Mack piled up the second most points in large part because he managed forever. He built two great teams over the course of his 50 years, but also some of the worst teams of all time. The second most successfull manager of all time shouldn't have a losing record for his career. Two, it doesn't measure the managers actual contribution. Should he have won more or less than he did or would an average manager have won about the same number of games given the talent and opportuity to work with.
.

James is measuring "success", which is more objective than how "good" a manager a guy was. He makes the point that it is very difficult to separate what a manager does from the players he has. I think you would find the book interesting, at the least.

You are completely wrong about Mack piling up points because he managed forever. He gets no points for all those sub-.500 years, which would be almost all of them after the early 30's. He also gets few points between the dismantling of the group after 1914 until the mid 20's when he started to build his second dynasty. He gets the vast majority of his points for those two dynasties.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

Seems I was a little hasty about no threads in our forum discussing managers. Here's one: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=16636 However, that one doesn't add GMs to the mix.

[jalbright]

I'll do some top 30's of managers with over 1000 games managed. We'll start with a real basic one, wins:



Manager wins

Connie Mack 3731
John McGraw 2763
Tony LaRussa* 2214
Sparky Anderson 2194
Bucky Harris 2157
Joe McCarthy 2125
Bobby Cox* 2092
Walter Alston 2040
Leo Durocher 2008
Casey Stengel 1905
Gene Mauch 1902
Bill McKechnie 1896
Joe Torre* 1876
Ralph Houk 1619
Fred Clarke 1602
Tommy Lasorda 1599
Dick Williams 1571
Lou Piniella* 1519
Clark Griffith 1491
Earl Weaver 1480
Miller Huggins 1413
Al Lopez 1410
Jimmie Dykes 1406
Wilbert Robinson 1399
Chuck Tanner 1352
Ned Hanlon 1313
Cap Anson 1296
Charlie Grimm 1287
Frank Selee 1284
Whitey Herzog 1281

[jalbright]

Next is winning percentage (minimum 1000 games managed, through 2005):



Manager win %

Joe McCarthy 0.615
Jim Mutrie 0.611
Charlie Comiskey 0.608
Frank Selee 0.598
Billy Southworth 0.597
Frank Chance 0.593
John McGraw 0.586
Al Lopez 0.584
Earl Weaver 0.583
Harry Wright 0.581
Cap Anson 0.578
Fred Clarke 0.576
Bobby Cox* 0.566
Davey Johnson 0.564
Pat Moran 0.561
Steve O'Neill 0.559
Walter Alston 0.558
Miller Huggins 0.555
Patsy Tebeau 0.555
Bill Terry 0.555
Billy Martin 0.553
Charlie Grimm 0.547
Sparky Anderson 0.545
Hughie Jennings 0.543
Tris Speaker 0.543
Leo Durocher 0.540
Danny Murtaugh 0.540
Fielder Jones 0.540
Joe Cronin 0.540
Herman Franks 0.537

[jalbright]

Next, wins minus losses (minimum 1000 games managed, through 2005):



Manager wins- losses

John McGraw 815
Joe McCarthy 792
Bobby Cox* 489
Walter Alston 427
Frank Selee 422
Fred Clarke 421
Earl Weaver 420
Al Lopez 406
Sparky Anderson 360
Cap Anson 349
Harry Wright 342
Billy Southworth 340
Tony LaRussa* 306
Charlie Comiskey 299
Leo Durocher 299
Frank Chance 298
Miller Huggins 279
Davey Johnson 260
Billy Martin 240
Jim Mutrie 239
Joe Torre* 239
Charlie Grimm 220
Steve O'Neill 219
Hughie Jennings 189
Joe Cronin 181
Bill McKechnie 173
Danny Murtaugh 165
Pat Moran 162
Bill Terry 162
Tommy Lasorda 160

[jalbright]

Next wins times winning percentage (minimum 1000 games managed, through 2005):



Manager wins * win %

Connie Mack 1812.8
John McGraw 1620.5
Joe McCarthy 1305.8
Sparky Anderson 1195.0
Tony LaRussa* 1189.2
Bobby Cox* 1184.4
Walter Alston 1139.2
Leo Durocher 1084.8
Bucky Harris 1063.5
Joe Torre* 1001.8
Bill McKechnie 993.3
Casey Stengel 968.5
Fred Clarke 922.2
Gene Mauch 918.4
Earl Weaver 862.4
Tommy Lasorda 841.6
Ralph Houk 832.1
Al Lopez 823.6
Dick Williams 816.7
Lou Piniella* 785.1
Miller Huggins 783.9
Clark Griffith 777.8
Frank Selee 768.2
Cap Anson 748.8
Harry Wright 711.9
Charlie Grimm 703.6
Wilbert Robinson 699.8
Ned Hanlon 696.0
Billy Martin 692.9
Whitey Herzog 682.0

[jalbright]

Lastly, wins minus losses plus wins times win percentage (minimum 1000 games managed, through 2005):



Manager (w * (w% + 1)) - L

John McGraw 2435.5
Joe McCarthy 2097.8
Bobby Cox* 1673.4
Connie Mack 1595.8
Walter Alston 1566.2
Sparky Anderson 1555.0
Tony LaRussa* 1495.2
Leo Durocher 1383.8
Fred Clarke 1343.2
Earl Weaver 1282.4
Joe Torre* 1240.8
Al Lopez 1229.6
Frank Selee 1190.2
Bill McKechnie 1166.3
Cap Anson 1097.8
Miller Huggins 1062.9
Harry Wright 1053.9
Casey Stengel 1031.5
Bucky Harris 1002.5
Tommy Lasorda 1001.6
Billy Southworth 963.5
Dick Williams 936.7
Billy Martin 932.9
Charlie Grimm 923.6
Ralph Houk 920.1
Davey Johnson 907.3
Clark Griffith 901.8
Lou Piniella* 884.1
Frank Chance 859.4
Joe Cronin 847.8

[538280]

The one big thing I think about managers is I definitely would not want Billy Martin anywhere near the HOF. The guy could win for one or two yeras, and he certainly proved that he could, but he was certainly NOT a great manager. He was such a jerk that no one could take him for a long time, and he wrecked careers of pitchers, particularly in Oakland. He could bring immediate success, but he was like a kiss of death for a franchise's upcoming seasons.

I know other jerky personailities, like Leo Durocher, have made successful managers, but certainly Leo had sustained success over fairly long periods of time. Martin didn't, because no one coudl stand him, and he never was good for a team long term. That's not a great manager.

[leecemark]

James is measuring "success", which is more objective than how "good" a manager a guy was. He makes the point that it is very difficult to separate what a manager does from the players he has. I think you would find the book interesting, at the least.

You are completely wrong about Mack piling up points because he managed forever. He gets no points for all those sub-.500 years, which would be almost all of them after the early 30's. He also gets few points between the dismantling of the group after 1914 until the mid 20's when he started to build his second dynasty. He gets the vast majority of his points for those two dynasties.

Jim Albright

--Mack had more opportunities to pile up success points than anybody else due to managing more seasons. I realize he didn't add points his unsuccessfull seasons. My point was that his outrageously unsuccessfull seasons should result in some demerits from his score. Rewarding success with no corresponding penalty for failure is not a good indicator of who was the best. For example, the batting champ is not the player with the most hits (or most sucessfull outcomes), he is the player with the highest rate of successfull outcome rate (assuming he meets minimum opportunity requirements). BTW, I have read the book and did find it interesting.

[jalbright]

--Mack had more opportunities to pile up success points than anybody else due to managing more seasons. I realize he didn't add points his unsuccessfull seasons. My point was that his outrageously unsuccessfull seasons should result in some demerits from his score. Rewarding success with no corresponding penalty for failure is not a good indicator of who was the best. For example, the batting champ is not the player with the most hits (or most sucessfull outcomes), he is the player with the highest rate of successfull outcome rate (assuming he meets minimum opportunity requirements). BTW, I have read the book and did find it interesting.
Mark,

Pennants and world championships are like batting, ERA and home run titles--you don't lose them after the season you won them. Mack piled up most of his points from the two dynasties he built. At least until about 1940, it wasn't his managing ability, but his team's finances that interfered with his ability to win. He was one hell of a manager for a long time, even if you cost him a little for that final third of his career when his team was financially not able to compete.

Jim Albright

[leecemark]

--Well I can excuse him the last 1/3 of a career when he devolved into something of a joke. What about the nightmare teams he put on the field for a decade between his two dynasties? He was every bit as responsible for building and leading those teams as he was the winners. I can't give him a free pass on that. He is clearly a deserving member of the Hall of Fame, but a notch below the best managers IMO.

[UTforever22]

does joe torrie belong as a manager? he has 4 world series rings, however, i would not support his case because look at the players he's had! It would be hard not to make it to the world series the lineups he had.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Where are the GMs? :)

[Ubiquitous]

I think Sandy Alderson is making a great case to being put in the hall. I think Dave Dombrowski is doing an excellent job in making a case for himself.

GM of the Expos when they produced all that great talent, GM of the Marlins that brought in all that talent that won a WS and helped win a second one. GM of the Tigers and turning them into a winner as well.

Not only that but was an Assistant GM and in charge of the minor leagues for the White Sox back in the early 80's when the Sox had a good team with talent.

Dombrowski isn't some guy who has only found success with one team, or lucked into a perfect situation. He has built winners and he did it with handcuffs on. Of all the modern GM's I think he is the most eligible candidate for the honor.

[soberdennis]

I'll begin by asking one question -Why is Dick Williams still waiting for the call?
Others I might consider are Billy Southworth, Ralph Houk, and Billy Martin. But the one I definitely would put in is Williams.
Active managers who one day will get the call are Joe Torre, Bobby Cox, and Tony Larussa.

[Ubiquitous]

So why Dick Williams?

[leecemark]

--Dick Williams was a terrific manager who led some historic winners. He made his first splash with the 67 Red Sox, leading a young team to Boston's first pennant in 21 years. His next stop (he was not a particularly easy guy to get along with) was at Oakland where he led a young team to 3 division titles and two WS championships before deciding he couldn't work for Charley Finley anymore. He then moved to Montreal where he led them to the most success in their history. Next was San Diego, where he led them to their first pennant ever. Leading 3 different teams, all with long histories of losing before he took over, to the World Series is pretty impressive and worthy of consideration for Cooperstown.

[soberdennis]

So why Dick Williams?
Two managers took three different teams to the world series. One, Bill McKecknie, is in the HOF. The other is Williams.

[KCGHOST]

I don't think you fully appreciate Southworth. His success was fueled in no small part to reintroducing platooning to the National League, which is certainly a managerial decision. As for the advantage of having a Musial, I can't think of a manager deserving of the HOF who didn't have at least one like him.

You missed the point. He had Stan Musial and, thus, had the biggest horse in the corral. All the other managers had mainly never-were's, never-will-be's, and over-the hill's. Southworth was going into the gunfight with a .44 Magnum while his competitors were showing up with BB guns. You want to give him all credit for Musial without having had anything to do with it. Southworth looks good because of Musial, not the other way around.

I can't think of an HoF manager since McGraw retired who wasn't a function of the horses he had. I mean, for goodness sakes, there are people who think Joe Torre is great manager.

I'd treat managers like broadcasters and writers: Give'em a wing.

[soberdennis]

You missed the point. He had Stan Musial and, thus, had the biggest horse in the corral. All the other managers had mainly never-were's, never-will-be's, and over-the hill's. Southworth was going into the gunfight with a .44 Magnum while his competitors were showing up with BB guns. You want to give him all credit for Musial without having had anything to do with it. Southworth looks good because of Musial, not the other way around.

I can't think of an HoF manager since McGraw retired who wasn't a function of the horses he had. I mean, for goodness sakes, there are people who think Joe Torre is great manager.

I'd treat managers like broadcasters and writers: Give'em a wing.
Southworth belongs. Williams definitely belongs. After that I'll wait for the big three to retire to the big dugout retirement home, then pt them in immediately. Right now maybe noone else.

[Ubiquitous]

Two managers took three different teams to the world series. One, Bill McKecknie, is in the HOF. The other is Williams.


So?

Dick Williams was not well liked by his players or his team. Did he do anything that changed the game? Was he an innovator or a trailblazer? What actually made Dick Williams a good to great manager? Forget the end result, what did he actually do to get them there? The water boy for the Chicago Bulls has six rings that doesn't mean he is the greatest water boy in history.

Most of Dick Williams teams have been uninspiring mediocre teams. The exception being the A's which history has shown Finley to be really running. So how much credit are we going to give Williams for managing that team? Take away Oakland and you have a manager who is only 20 games above .500 over 18 seasons.

[leecemark]

--Young Dick Williams was very popular with his players, but less so with the front office. When he got older Williams didn't relate to his players as well. As for taking away Oakland, how good does anybody look when you take away their best years? None of Williams teams were good before he got there. His first 4 improved significantly under his leadership.

[soberdennis]

So?

Dick Williams was not well liked by his players or his team. Did he do anything that changed the game? Was he an innovator or a trailblazer? What actually made Dick Williams a good to great manager? Forget the end result, what did he actually do to get them there? The water boy for the Chicago Bulls has six rings that doesn't mean he is the greatest water boy in history.

Most of Dick Williams teams have been uninspiring mediocre teams. The exception being the A's which history has shown Finley to be really running. So how much credit are we going to give Williams for managing that team? Take away Oakland and you have a manager who is only 20 games above .500 over 18 seasons.
What did Bill McKechnie do that makes him HOF worthy and not Williams?
1. The 67 Sox came from 9th in 66 to within one win of the WS title.
2. Williams should get some credit for putting up with Finley as long as he did. He was the first manager to last more than a year under that mule-headed owner.
3. The Padres had never finished higher than 4th before 1984.

Casey Stengel was considered a clown before he came to NY A Boston Sportswriter once nominated the cabbie that hit Stengel for "Sportsman of the Year". He had a losing record except for his twelve Years in the Bronx. I suppose you are now going to tell me that Stengel does not belong in the HOF.? Williams won everywhere. Stengel won one place.

[jalbright]

You missed the point. He had Stan Musial and, thus, had the biggest horse in the corral. All the other managers had mainly never-were's, never-will-be's, and over-the hill's. Southworth was going into the gunfight with a .44 Magnum while his competitors were showing up with BB guns. You want to give him all credit for Musial without having had anything to do with it. Southworth looks good because of Musial, not the other way around.

I can't think of an HoF manager since McGraw retired who wasn't a function of the horses he had. I mean, for goodness sakes, there are people who think Joe Torre is great manager.

With all due respect, I recognized your point, but indicated essentially what you did in your second paragraph quoted above. Earl Weaver had the Robinsons and Palmer. Alston had Koufax and Drysdale. Mack had Foxx and Grove for one dynasty, Baker, Collins, Plank and Bender for another. Anderson had a raft of talent. Huggins had Ruth. They all had some real talent to win their championships--no manager has ever won one by himself. There may be managers who largely lost one by themselves, but managerial success is always achieved through the men on the field.

Jim Albright

[538280]

So?

Dick Williams was not well liked by his players or his team. Did he do anything that changed the game? Was he an innovator or a trailblazer? What actually made Dick Williams a good to great manager? Forget the end result, what did he actually do to get them there? The water boy for the Chicago Bulls has six rings that doesn't mean he is the greatest water boy in history.

Considering Williams moved around in his career to places that had not won previously, I don't see how you can say he was just riding his talent. Clearly he had a large upward effect on every team he joined. Recent stuides by Baseball Prospectus have also shown in terms of Win Expectancy he was one of the most efficient managers ever, if that means anything to you.

Williams was also very well liked by his players in Oakland. Perhaps Charlie Finely did not care for Williams, and this led to his eventual firing, but I'm not sure if not liking Charlie Finley was really a bad thing to the Oakland players.

[soberdennis]

Considering Williams moved around in his career to places that had not won previously, I don't see how you can say he was just riding his talent. Clearly he had a large upward effect on every team he joined. Recent stuides by Baseball Prospectus have also shown in terms of Win Expectancy he was one of the most efficient managers ever, if that means anything to you.

Williams was also very well liked by his players in Oakland. Perhaps Charlie Finely did not care for Williams, and this led to his eventual firing, but I'm not sure if not liking Charlie Finley was really a bad thing to the Oakland players.
Williams was the first manager Finley did not fire. He quit because he was tired of Finley's shenanigans.

[leecemark]

--Williams didn't get fired. He quit after Finley tried to put Mike Andrews on the DL (with a made up injury) and replace him on the WS roster following a 2 error game. Hating Finley was the unifying force for the A's. Charley O made Steinbrenner look like a kind hearted boss. The man did have an eye for both talent and innovation though. I'd support Finley for the Hall too.

[Ubiquitous]

--Young Dick Williams was very popular with his players, but less so with the front office. When he got older Williams didn't relate to his players as well. As for taking away Oakland, how good does anybody look when you take away their best years? None of Williams teams were good before he got there. His first 4 improved significantly under his leadership.


I'm not taking away anything I'm pointing out a fact. Finley ran the A's period.


What did Bill McKechnie do that makes him HOF worthy and not Williams?
1. The 67 Sox came from 9th in 66 to within one win of the WS title.
2. Williams should get some credit for putting up with Finley as long as he did. He was the first manager to last more than a year under that mule-headed owner.
3. The Padres had never finished higher than 4th before 1984.


I'm not going to vote for somebody simply because somebody else is in the hall.


Okay the Sox did good in 1967. What they do in 1968 and 1969?
Okay the Padres did good in 1984 what they do during the rest of Dick's tenure? We are not talking about some manager who built great teams or piloted great teams we are talking about a manager who every so often would manage a team that had a good year. Not even a great year really just a good year. The 1984 Padres were not a great team, they won 92 games the next closet had 80. The 1967 Red Sox were not a great team they too won 92 games. Outside of the Finley A's he is nothing remarkable. So did he create the A's? Did he turn Reggie Jackson into a star? Sal Bando? Catfish Hunter? No. So then was he some sort of Joe torre or Phil Jackson able to get the most out of his vets and win the big games? No, I don't see that either. Like I said before forget the record and tell me what is so great about him? Define Dick Williams the manager.

[soberdennis]

--Williams didn't get fired. He quit after Finley tried to put Mike Andrews on the DL (with a made up injury) and replace him on the WS roster following a 2 error game. Hating Finley was the unifying force for the A's. Charley O made Steinbrenner look like a kind hearted boss. The man did have an eye for both talent and innovation though. I'd support Finley for the Hall too.
As much as I hated the man, I agree that Finley deserves consideration for the HOF.
I remember when he had a mule in the center field at Munincipal Stadium in KC named Charley O. Sometimes I wondered which Charley O was running the A's.
It is a pretty sad comentary to note that the A's went through more managers in their first ten years under Finley than they did in their previous 60 years. Yes Mack covered 50 of those 60. But still?!!!

[Fuzzy Bear]

I agree with all of the people here who have advocated for Dick Williams. He didn't win EVERYWHERE he went (California, Seattle), but he won in MOST PLACES he went (Boston, Oakland, Montreal, San Diego). He pissed people off, but he wasn't Billy Martin, drinking and brawling his way out of jobs.

As for Charlie O. Finley, Dick Williams' skill was, in no small part, acting to overcome and compensate for many of the asinine decisions by Finley that hindered the club's success.

[soberdennis]

I agree with all of the people here who have advocated for Dick Williams. He didn't win EVERYWHERE he went (California, Seattle), but he won in MOST PLACES he went (Boston, Oakland, Montreal, San Diego). He pissed people off, but he wasn't Billy Martin, drinking and brawling his way out of jobs.

As for Charlie O. Finley, Dick Williams' skill was, in no small part, acting to overcome and compensate for many of the asinine decisions by Finley that hindered the club's success.
Like I said I think th e Mule ran the club.

[Paul Wendt]

In 1946 the Permanent Committee, a.k.a. Old-Timers Committee, elected 5 managers to the Honor Rolls of Baseball. The Veterans Committees later elected four of them (italics) to the Hall of Fame.

1946 Honor Roll - Managers
Bill Carrigan
Ned Hanlon
Miller Huggins
Frank Selee
John Montgomery Ward

See "Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 1946" at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_Hall_of_Fame_balloting,_1946#Old-Timers_Committee), "Old-Timers Committee" section, for marvelous coverage of both the controversial election of 11 players and the Rolls of Honor.

Wikipedia has entries, some much too short, for all of the five honored managers.

Ward worked as a manager, player, and players organizer in the 19th century; Hanlon and Selee were exceptionally successful managers in the 1890s and 1900s, field managers and general managers combined; Carrigan led the Red Sox in the mid-teens and Huggins led the Yankees throughout the 1920s.

Several important managers and captain/managers were already in the Hall of Fame, some of them thanks to the committee's election of 21 players in 1945 and 1946. Naming Ward is the most remarkable because he was so prominent a player and the same committee controlled election of old-time players. In two years they had elected Jimmy Collins, Fred Clarke and Frank Chance, who were player-managers of strong teams for several years. Huggins was a very good player, too, perhaps comparable to Johnny Evers, and later a manager in Cincinnati and New York. In two years they had elected Wilbert Robinson, Hugh Jennings, and Clark Griffith, who were managers mainly after they retired as players. Perhaps naming Ward and Huggins to the honor roll as managers expressed a judgment that they were not strong candidates for the Hall.

Note.
The title of this thread names "managers" and "general managers". The Honor Roll for executives named Ed Barrow, surely recognized mainly as the Yankees general manager in the 1920s and 1930s. See "Honor Rolls of Baseball - 11 executives" in the neighboring thread for "league officials and owners".

[Calif_Eagle]

In reading the Frank Chance & Lou Piniella threads, currently both just a few below this one (at the time of this writing) I started wondering, what should the criteria be for a manager to be selected to the HOF? And what about people with good records as a player and a manager like the two men above and others such as Joe Torre and Gil Hodges? At what point does a combination of accomplishment in each category push someone over the line into the Coop? Or, again... does it? If you are slightly under the HOF line in each category, should your combined record get you a shot at all? I dont have a clearcut view on these questions at present.

Re: Frank Chance, my gut says his combined record is HOF worthy, he probably wouldnt get in on his playing or managing record alone. (Except for the impact of the poem "Tinker to Evers to Chance" maybe, which no doubt helped all 3 get in. I bet Harry Steinfeldt wishes he had been in the poem too... lol) Had Frank Selee lived and managed the Cub team he (largely) built, perhaps Chance would not have made the HOF.

Re: Was Lou Piniella a "legendary" manager... well... he has managed 5 different places, finished first (divisions) at 3 of them, won an upset WS with the Reds, broke the AL win record for a single season in a surprise campaign with the Mariners, may yet be the 1st Chicago Cubs pilot, where he has also finished first twice so far; to win a WS since The Peerless Leader in 1908 (Frank Chance.) It seems to feel to me like he is getting close to "legendary" status.

So what does the membership think? Anyone out there with strong views or thoughts they want to contribute in a general discussion of managers and combined playing and managing records, please have at it...!

[jalbright]

I think we've discussed this topic in this thread. (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=49984) Feel free to join in that discussion, as I'll be merging the threads.

[Calif_Eagle]

In reading over the thread that was merged with my new one, I see a lot of discussion of Billy Southworth and Dick Williams. Subsequent to the end of this earlier thread, Southworth and Williams have in fact each been selected to the HOF.

Southworth won 3 flags and 2 WS with the Cardinals, then took the Boston Braves to the 1948 WS, where they lost to the Cleveland Indians. (The 1948 World Series was called a "scalping party" by at least one paper, because of the Indians vs Braves theme.)

It appears that Williams selection is based on having had a similar type career as Bill McKechnie, who was already in the HOF, in that each man won pennants with 3 different teams. Each man won 2 World Series, McKechnie with the Pirates and Reds, Williams won 2 with the Oakland Athletics. Williams also became the first manager ever fired after back to back 90+ win seasons, at Montreal; during a season in which the Expos would go on to win their only division title (1981).

Billy Martin finished first (divisions) at Minnesota, Detroit, New York (2 pennants and a WS, plus managed most of 1978 when the Yankees went on to win another WS.) and took a division crown at Oakland as well. Billy also pulled down a Manager of the Year trophy at Texas with a 2nd place finish in 1974. An unexpectedly good season and Texas-Washington's best ever in its history to that point.

A few other managers with a McKechnie - Williams type history of winning at multiple stops besides Martin are Dave Johnson and Tony LaRussa and Lou Piniella. Is this a characteristic that should count? Being able to go anywhere and still turn out winning teams? It appears to have gotten at least two men selected to the HOF, and there is some feeling that based purely on winning that Martin may deserve to be in as well.

As a young Indian fan in the 70's I was excited when it was rumored that Gabe Paul was talking to Billy Martin at one point about the Tribe's managerial job. He never got a job offer with us, probably because Paul wanted a manager he could control. But, I liked the idea that this man could walk in and get immediate improvement out of a team. He did it at *FIVE* different spots during his career, almost everywhere he ever went. I know he used his pitchers up and didnt manage for the long run. But as they say in the world of investing, in the long run we are all dead. And he managed in a baseball world before pitch counts and 5 day rotations and the impact of SABR-metric studies. I think Martin has a good case for the HOF, his personal short-comings notwithstanding, adding in his playing record (which I know isnt HOF worthy on its own) gives him at least a bit of a boost too.

[Brad Harris]

The Hall of Fame states that those individuals who performed in more than one capacity (player/manager/executive/umpire) will be considered for their "overall contribution to the game of Baseball;" however, the only ballot the individual would be eligible for will be determined by the role in which they were most "prominent." The BBWAA-appointed Historical Overview Committee is charged with making such distinctions. A player candidate may have been a Negro Leaguer, provided his career straddles the breaking of the color barrier. There is no provision for Negro League managers, executives, umpires or pioneers at this time.

In accordance with these new rules for the Hall of Fame (instituted prior to the 2008 elections), and with the view that there will be elections taking place this winter for the Veterans Committee, the following are the 10 candidates, I believe, are best qualified for their respective ballots (based on the Hall's eligibility requirements):

2010 Veterans Committee Election for Managers & Umpires
Bill Carrigan
Bill Dineen
Bruce Froemming
Doug Harvey
Whitey Herzog
Ralph Houk
Davey Johnson
Billy Martin
Gene Mauch
Danny Murtaugh

2010 Veterans Committee Election for Executives & Pioneers
Daniel Adams
John A. Heydlar
Bob Howsam
Marvin Miller
Ernest Lanigan
Bob Quinn
Gabe Paul
A.J. Reach
Jacob Ruppert
George Steinbrenner

2011 Veterans Committee Election for Post-WWII Players
Dick Allen
Bobby Bonds
Bobby Grich
Gil Hodges
Minnie Minoso
Tony Oliva
Ron Santo
Ted Simmons
Joe Torre
Jimmy Wynn

2014 Veterans Committee Election for Pre-WWII Players
Bob Caruthers
Larry Doyle
Wes Ferrell
Heinie Groh
Paul Hines
Sherry Magee
Carl Mays
Jimmy Sheckard
Vern Stephens
Deacon White

I've italicized the four individuals I would vote for on each hypothetical ballot.

[Paul Wendt]

The Hall of Fame states that those individuals who performed in more than one capacity (player/manager/executive/umpire) will be considered for their "overall contribution to the game of Baseball;" however, the only ballot the individual would be eligible for will be determined by the role in which they were most "prominent." The BBWAA-appointed Historical Overview Committee is charged with making such distinctions.
Throughout my reply, "executives" means "pioneers & executives", both regarding the candidates or hall of famers and regarding the committee.

It appears to me that the executives committee makes its own nominations and acts after the HOC acts on players, manager and umpires. So the HOC can make the call that someone is primarily a player, or the call that he is primarily a manager or umpire, by nominating him. If they don't nominate someone, however, the executives committee can make the call that he is primarily an executive, by nominating him.

For example, Al Reach. The HOC classifies him only if they nominate him (presumably as a player). If they don't nominate him, the executives committee can nominate him. During the last cycle, did they announce the executives ballot in advance? If not, then my interpretation is that they meet and discuss whomever they choose to discuss, and any such discussion is called de facto nomination. In that case, for the executives election much depends on who comes to the meeting with what preparation. One member could do homework on Al Reach, make a persuasive case, and voila!

I'm not sure we have an important example on the board now. Al Reach is the strongest example in my opinion but he is such a longshot that I can't say he is practically important. (In shock and awe we will reinterpret him as a practically important example when that one member does her homework and he is in the press release next day!)

[Paul Wendt]

I wouldn't go to a meeting, as HOC or executives committee member, without studying the 1946 Honor Rolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_Hall_of_Fame_balloting,_1946#Roll_of_Hono r).


Brad,
Whatever happened to Frank Bancroft of New Bedford, etc, etc, and Cincinnati?
"the prince of managers" some writers evidently called him, presumably before Cincinnati
You were planning to vote for him as a BBF HOF Contributor, iirc. You didn't cast a ballot there (nor did I) and he now seem to be off the radar screen otherwise.

[Brad Harris]

Brad,
Whatever happened to Frank Bancroft of New Bedford, etc, etc, and Cincinnati?
"the prince of managers" some writers evidently called him, presumably before Cincinnati
You were planning to vote for him as a BBF HOF Contributor, iirc. You didn't cast a ballot there (nor did I) and he now seem to be off the radar screen otherwise.
My enthusiasm with Bancroft at that time had more to do with having unearthed an interesting candidate. I was prepared to vote for Bancroft eventually in the BBFHoF based on the information I had at the time. On the other hand, the BBF HoF has elected how many contributors already and a maximum of 15 can be named on any one ballot.

My list above was who I largely consider the "best" candidates for the 10-man ballots. "Electability" was a factor in determining "best" for that purpose to some extent here.

Bancroft remains a very interesting candidate for future consideration, but I don't see the Veetrans Committee adding his name to the ballot at all the way things are setup right now.

[Brad Harris]

I'm not sure we have an important example on the board now. Al Reach is the strongest example in my opinion but he is such a longshot that I can't say he is practically important. (In shock and awe we will reinterpret him as a practically important example when that one member does her homework and he is in the press release next day!)
Gil Hodges? He was not named to the "Managers" ballot in 2008, but was named to the Post-WWII Players ballot in 2009. According to the Veterans Committee rules, voters should consider Hodges' managing career in their deliberations.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'll begin by asking one question -Why is Dick Williams still waiting for the call?
Others I might consider are Billy Southworth, Ralph Houk, and Billy Martin. But the one I definitely would put in is Williams.
Active managers who one day will get the call are Joe Torre, Bobby Cox, and Tony Larussa.

Williams and Southworth are now in.

Williams was the Ron Santo of managers; his election ended an injustice.

Torre, Cox, and LaRussa are all active; I expect all of them to be inducted.

I consider Houk to be more HOF-worthy than a number of managers in the HOF (including Southworth). I consider Danny Murtaugh to be the most HOF-worthy manager not yet inducted.

[RuthMayBond]

Williams and Southworth are now in.

Williams was the Ron Santo of managers; his election ended an injustice.

Torre, Cox, and LaRussa are all active; I expect all of them to be inducted.

I consider Houk to be more HOF-worthy than a number of managers in the HOF (including Southworth).Absolutely agree with you up to here

<I consider Danny Murtaugh to be the most HOF-worthy manager not yet inducted.>

Nah, I could think of several guys ahead of him

[Fuzzy Bear]

Gil Hodges? He was not named to the "Managers" ballot in 2008, but was named to the Post-WWII Players ballot in 2009. According to the Veterans Committee rules, voters should consider Hodges' managing career in their deliberations.

Such a consideration might push Hodges over the top.

Hodges did very well in BBWAA balloting. He was considered a star in his own time. He's about the same as Jim Rice on career value, and Rice is in the HOF (:hissyfit:).

At a certain level, if Rice, why not Hodges? I know the downward slide that starts with such logic, but Hodges' backers have a semi-valid point.

[Brad Harris]

I consider Houk to be more HOF-worthy than a number of managers in the HOF (including Southworth). I consider Danny Murtaugh to be the most HOF-worthy manager not yet inducted.
Murtaugh was an outstanding manager, but what is often forgotten about Whitey Herzog was his experience as Director of Player Development for the Miracle Mets (1967-1972) and his stints as a General Manager (Cardinals 1980-82, Angels 1993-94).

Herzog was the man most responsible for the development of the talent that won the 1969 World Championship and saw the playoffs again in 1973. He alone was responsible for assembling the base of those Cardinal teams that took "Whiteyball" to new heights. And Herzog is responsible to laying the foundation of those Angels division winners in the late 90's.

Besides winning three Manager of the Year Awards, Herzog was named "Manager of the Decade" by Sports Illustrated at the end of the Eighties (over Tommy Lasorda, Sparky Anderson, Tony LaRussa among others). Herzog was also a recipient of the Executive of the Year Award.

So in addition to his nearly 1,300 wins, six division titles, three pennants and one World Championship, his awards and accolades as a successful and innovative field manager, Whitey Herzog helped nurse the talent on great teams for the Mets and Angels as well as the Royals and Cardinals.

In terms of an overall contribution, I think that ought to settle any argument between him and Murtaugh (who I have ranked second on my own list of eligible managers.)

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Haven't read most of the thread so not sure if he's been mentioned, but Pat Gillick should be considered. He was the archetect of the Blue Jays 2 WS titles as well as the Phillies WS championship last year. Very shrewd evaluator of talent and fantastic at putting a club together.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Murtaugh was an outstanding manager, but what is often forgotten about Whitey Herzog was his experience as Director of Player Development for the Miracle Mets (1967-1972) and his stints as a General Manager (Cardinals 1980-82, Angels 1993-94).

Herzog was the man most responsible for the development of the talent that won the 1969 World Championship and saw the playoffs again in 1973. He alone was responsible for assembling the base of those Cardinal teams that took "Whiteyball" to new heights. And Herzog is responsible to laying the foundation of those Angels division winners in the late 90's.

Besides winning three Manager of the Year Awards, Herzog was named "Manager of the Decade" by Sports Illustrated at the end of the Eighties (over Tommy Lasorda, Sparky Anderson, Tony LaRussa among others). Herzog was also a recipient of the Executive of the Year Award.

So in addition to his nearly 1,300 wins, six division titles, three pennants and one World Championship, his awards and accolades as a successful and innovative field manager, Whitey Herzog helped nurse the talent on great teams for the Mets and Angels as well as the Royals and Cardinals.

In terms of an overall contribution, I think that ought to settle any argument between him and Murtaugh (who I have ranked second on my own list of eligible managers.)

I confess that Murtaugh is a personal favorite for me. Herzog should rate ahead of him, and I'm surprised he hasn't been selected for induction yet.

Murtaugh is a guy who's been forgotten. Unconscionably so, IMO.

[Brad Harris]

[Pat] Gillick is an interesting candidate, in that he's employed by the Phillies as an "advisor." If he's considered "retired," he would be eligible for the 2010 ballot and a strong contender among executives. He is an executive I support.

I tripped over the following (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/preview09/columns/story?columnist=gammons_peter&id=4030641) article today. The portion relevant to this discussion:

The Phillies were the fourth team for which Pat Gillick was a general manager. Two of the teams -- the Phillies and Blue Jays -- won a combined three World Series championships. Two other teams -- the Orioles and Mariners -- went wire-to-wire in first place (the Orioles in 1997 won 98 games, and the Mariners in 2001 won 116 games). Even back in the '80s, Gillick understood the importance of young players. He'd make deals in August for potential free agents, trying to load up with draft picks. He even personally flew to Sao Paulo, Brazil, to scout a pitcher. He loved the Rule V Draft, and found players like George Bell, Jim Acker, Kelly Gruber and Manny Lee in that minor league draft. When he was the Blue Jays' GM, players were reluctant to sign as free agents in Toronto; in fact, Ken Dayley was their first major free-agent signing. So Gillick tried to keep the scouting and development pipeline rolling.

[Paul Wendt]

At the top of this page Fuzzy Bear plunks for Houk and Murtaugh. RuthMayBond agrees on Houk (ahead of Southworth too) but doesn't like Murtaugh.

FB returned to Houk and Murtaugh in a "Current managers" thread this week.


Pinella's work with the 1990 Reds was one of the most impressive jobs of managing I have ever seen. He won, and won impressively, beating more talented teams in the process, and flat out HUMILIATING LaRussa's A's to win it all in the WS. If Pinella had won the pennant with the Cubs last year, let alone with the Mariners, he well may have redeemed himself. As of now, I really can't see why he should go in and not Ralph Houk or Danny Murtaugh.


I agree with you that Houk and Murtaugh's inductions are overdue. Perhaps they ought to be ahead of Piniella too. They both have two WS wins to his one.

Houk's career was just a little shorter than Piniella's, and he didn't have many real high points after his early run with the Mantle-Maris Yankees, though as has been pointed out they usually played above their talent level.

Murtaugh's career was much shorter than the others (mostly due to poor health and premature death), but his winning percentage was better...his teams in the 1970's were always strong.

I don't know where I'd put Piniella in relation to those two, but I think they're all well over the line.

This prompted me to look at when the Hall of Fame managers worked, wondering in particular how much recognition the selectors have lavished on Houk and Murtaugh's time relative to other times.

[Paul Wendt]

begin at #58
(moved here from current managers)


Annual number of games worked by all HOF managers

more than 1000 games - at least seven teams
1926, 28-29, 40-42

500 to 1000 games
1902-05, 14-56 (except 26, 28-29, 40-42, 47), 68-80, 82, 85-86

fewer than 500 games - no more than three full-season teams
before 1901 and 1906-13, 47, 57-67, 81, 83-84, 87 to date

During the 1957-67 trough, Hall of Fame managers handled three teams per season except 1961 and 1966, only two. Seven of Murtaugh's 12 full seasons and two of his three part seasons fall within that time.

During the early 20th century trough, 1906-13, HOF players Frank Chance, Fred Clarke, and Hugh Jennings were usually handling three teams; HOF executive Clark Griffith was usually handling another. There is no 19th century trough either, considering that Harry Wright (HOF pioneer) and Charlie Comiskey (HOF executive) are not counted here --nor are Anson and other HOF players.

Cox, LaRussa, and Torre make at least four HOF managers every season 1968-96 and three since then.


1950-1969 in detail

Here is a closer look at the 1950s and 1960s which include the only notable trough in recognition of managers by the Hall of Fame.

bold marks 1957 to 1967, the time of two or three HOF managers.

x Mack to 1950
x McCarthy to 1950
xx Southworth to 1951
xxxxxxx Harris to 1956
xxxxxxxxxxx_xxxx____ Stengel
xxxxxx_________xxxx Durocher
_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx__xx Lopez
____xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Alston
1967 Williams debut
1968 Weaver debut

Hall of Fame player Red Schoendienst managed the St Louis Cardinals 1965-76. He may be our best example "player" since Frank Chance who is recognized partly for his work as manager.

1961 was Casey Stengel's year off. HOF player Joe Gordon led the Kansas City Athletics for 60 games, which I judge to be no part of his HOF resume. Beside Danny Murtaugh some of the 1961 managers with long careers were Alvin Dark, Charlie Dressen, Ralph Houk, Gene Mauch, Bill Rigney, and Paul Richards.

[Paul Wendt]

begin at #58
(moved here from current managers)


Hall of Fame managers
21 pennants, fifteen in the 1950s and six in the 1960s

9, Stengel 1950-53, 55-58, 60
2, Durocher 1951, 54
2, Lopez 1954, 1959
6, Alston 1955-56, 59, 63, 65-66
1, Williams 1967
1, Weaver 1969

none - Mack, McCarthy, Southworth, Harris


other Hall of Famers
3 pennants

1, Berra 1964 (also 1973)
2, Schoendienst 1967-68


not in the Hall of Fame
16 pennants

1, Eddie Sawyer 1950
2, Charlie Dressen 1952-53
2, Fred Haney 1957-58
1, Danny Murtaugh 1960 (also 1971)
1, Fred Hutchinson 1961
3, Ralph Houk 1961-63
1, Alvin Dark 1962 (also 1974)
1, Johnny Keane 1964
1, Sam Mele 1965
1, Hank Bauer 1966
1, Mayo Smith 1968
1, Gil Hodges 1969


Open questions:
How does this time period compare with other times by the numbers of pennant winners represented in the Hall of Fame?

[Paul Wendt]

Steve O'Neill (at baseball-reference) (http://www.baseball-reference.com/managers/o%27neist01.shtml) managed four good teams to good records, always above .500 in fourteen seasons 1935-1954. He may be the strongest candidate Manager from the 1890s to 1950s.
--later if you are a Murtaugh and Houk naysayer.

O'Neill played 1500 games as a catcher including 1200 in ten seasons 1915-24 when 120 games was unusual and 100 was not routine. He was a strong batter for about five season during the middle of that span.

[Brad Harris]

As for GMs, does anyone have any thoughts on the following candidates:
- Buzzie Bavasi
- Al Campanis
- Bing Devine
- Pat Gillick
- Bob Howsama

As far as ineligible candidates go, what kind of case has Dave Dombrowski built?

[Paul Wendt]

Note, GMs stand for election to the "Pioneers and Executives" or Executives category. They are considered by the same committee, on the same ballot, as Bowie Kuhn (elected for 2008), Barney Dreyfuss (elected for 2008), and Marvin Miller (also ran for 2008).

Field Managers and Umpires are considered on the same ballot by another committee.

--
Interesting on several points
: 3 December 2007 Associated Press coverage of that morning's meetings and elections (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3139417)

- Selig 'has been one of the most vocal supporters of Miller's candidacy' and he expressed surprise at Miller's defeat.

- Killebrew, 'on the panel that considered Miller, said he was limited because he could only vote for four of the 10 candidates. "Everybody on that list deserved to be there."'. That's John Fetzer and John McHale!