Connie Mack = Most overrated manager of all-time

[Soxrock]

Before all you Philadelphians jump over me with "3700 wins, 7 pennants, 5 World Series titles (1910, 1911, 1913, 1929, 1930)" Let's get this straight. He lost 3948 games, more than he won. He had 17 last-place finishes. Unimpressive if you ask me considering if you manage 50 years, 7 pennants should be won.

[jalbright]

World Series titles aren't just something that happens over time. Ask the Cubs, Phillies, or Red Sox, to name just a few franchises that managed to not win 9 pennants or 5 World Series in a 50 year stretch. Mack was superb in building two separate dynasties that won those titles. In between those two dynasties, he had to rebuild because economically he couldn't pay the salaries during the Federal League days. It was slow, but he got there. The second dynasty fell apart because of economics again (this time the Great Depression) and his teams became awful again. By the time the economy recovered, it might have been best if Mack had hung it up, but he kept managing. But should that sad 17 year end to his career overwhelm the tremendous first two thirds of it? I think the HOF came up with the correct answer: no. You obviously disagree.

Jim Albright

[Soxrock]

World Series titles aren't just something that happens over time. Ask the Cubs, Phillies, or Red Sox, to name just a few franchises that managed to not win 9 pennants or 5 World Series in a 50 year stretch. Mack was superb in building two separate dynasties that won those titles. In between those two dynasties, he had to rebuild because economically he couldn't pay the salaries during the Federal League days. It was slow, but he got there. The second dynasty fell apart because of economics again (this time the Great Depression) and his teams became awful again. By the time the economy recovered, it might have been best if Mack had hung it up, but he kept managing. But should that sad 17 year end to his career overwhelm the tremendous first two thirds of it? I think the HOF came up with the correct answer: no. You obviously disagree.

Jim Albright

I disagree because I'm not just focusing on 1934-1950, what about 1915-1921? Yes, he had to stay alive and sell teams essentially, but, still, he did have more losses than wins

[jalbright]

What I'm saying is, take 1894 through 1933, and you've got a HOF caliber manager. The economics of the Depression and his advancing age amount to the same thing as an old player playing out the string for a few paydays--it shouldn't matter in terms of whether or not he's a HOF caliber manager. That still saddles him with the aftermath of 1914's sell off--yet, his ability to build another dynasty demonstrates it was purely economics which forced him into those disastrous moves. He's still third in career wins, still has 22 winning seasons of 35 (he had 25 all told), he'd be 18th in wins over .500, he'd have a .528 career winning percentage in over 4900 games, good for 38th despite a very long career, and he'd have those pennants and world series still to his credit. Connie would still have the third most World Series crowns of anyone, and there aren't a lot of guys who have won seven pennants, either. He also proved able to adapt from deadball tactics to the ball of the late 1920's, which is a remarkable change. When Connie Mack was younger than his mid 70's and had the money to enable him to compete, he did it as well as anyone. To me, that's clearly a HOF caliber manager considering he managed for 35 years up to that point.

Jim Albright

[PVNICK]

I didn't realize Connie Mack was that highly rated. Usually McCarthy, Stengel, McGraw maybe Miller Huggins or Sparky Anderson might come up as the best of all time. Connie Mack to me is in th enext group though I'm inclined to agree with Jim Albright's line of thought.

[jalbright]

I also did a quick count of pennants and World Series won. There are only two franchises that did better in 1901-33: the Yankees and the Giants. In fact, 9 of those franchises (Phils, Dodgers, Braves, Reds, Browns, Senators and Indians) combined to win 9 pennants and 4 World Series in the time Mack won his 9 pennants and 5 World Series between 1901 and 1933.

Another way to show how absurd it is to dismiss nine pennants and five World Series wins in the context of Mack's career is to look at how other franchises did in the sixteen team era (1901-60):

Team years WS pennants
Phils 1901-60 0 2
Pirates 1910-59 1 2
Dodgers 1901-46 0 3
Braves 1901-56 1 2
Reds 1901-60 1 3
Cubs 1919-60 0 5
Browns 1901-60 0 1
Chi Sox 1901-60 2 4
Senatrs 1901-60 1 3
Indians 1901-60 2 3
Tigers 1910-60 2 4
Red Sox 1919-60 0 1


If it was so easy to win those titles in the time frame Mack did it, why do 12 of the other 15 franchises have worse stretches, often far worse?

Jim Albright

[Brian McKenna]

Mack won nine pennants.

1902, '05, '10, '11, '13, '14, '29, '30, '31.

and finished 2nd another six times.

[jalbright]

Mack won nine pennants.

1902, '05, '10, '11, '13, '14, '29, '30, '31.

and finished 2nd another six times.

Thanks for the correction. I made the mistake of crediting the thread author with actually having done his homework. Given his conclusion, I think that was an unwise piece of generosity on my part.

Jim Albright

[Soxrock]

Thanks for the correction. I made the mistake of crediting the thread author with actually having done his homework. Given his conclusion, I think that was an unwise piece of generosity on my part.

Jim Albright

Well, I'll be here more often barring unforeseen circumstances, either way, it was the fact that he had more losses than wins that makes me make this argument. I am not saying he was not good, but he wasn't great. He's not top 5 of all-time

[KCGHOST]

To me we are getting to the point of the word "overrated" being overused.

You will also find that evaluting managers is a daunting task. It seems like the successful ones had better players than the unsuccessful ones and there is no shortage of managers who were thought of as failures at one time in their careers only to be considered great at another time.

Mack has to be credited with actually assembling great teams which demonstrates a keen eye for talent. In the modern era very few managers can claim ths distinction.

[Soxrock]

To me we are getting to the point of the word "overrated" being overused.

You will also find that evaluting managers is a daunting task. It seems like the successful ones had better players than the unsuccessful ones and there is no shortage of managers who were thought of as failures at one time in their careers only to be considered great at another time.

Mack has to be credited with actually assembling great teams which demonstrates a keen eye for talent. In the modern era very few managers can claim ths distinction.

Yeah, but then again he did have it easier back then when he would not lose his best players in the heart of the dynasty. He broke up his teams after they lost a World Series. Maybe overrated is the wrong word, I should have said that he was not among the best of all-time. I think that if he's top 5 it's too high.

[Brian McKenna]

Managers prior to say the later 1930s did not have it easier than today's lot. Their job was a 365-day committment much like NFL coaches of today.

Mack ran his club front top to bottom like his peer Griffith and a slew of others. ML managers' responsibilites in this regard have eased substantially.

[Soxrock]

Managers prior to say the later 1930s did not have it easier than today's lot. Their job was a 365-day committment much like NFL coaches of today.

Mack ran his club front top to bottom like his peer Griffith and a slew of others. ML managers' responsibilites in this regard have eased substantially.

Well, I meant easier because they did not lose their best players to free agency.

[HDH]

Connie Mack started his MLB career in the 1886 as a catcher with the original NL Washington National's where he was a team-mate of players like Paul Hines, who started their careers before the NL was formed. He experienced the change when overhand delivery was first allowed, he saw the AA, participated in the Player's League War, experienced the 60'6" game change, was instrumental in the formation of the AL, involved with the Federal League War, managed against the Black Sox, and managed against Babe the pitcher and Babe the slugger. He owned, scouted, built, and managed 3 separate dynasties, and managed one team for over 50 years. He was ruined by the stock market crash for 10 years, managed though the Great Depression, two World Wars, and witnessed 10 new states join the Union.

Now, you think you are qualified to judge Connie Mack as over-rated. None of us are!

[Soxrock]

Connie Mack started his MLB career in the 1886 as a catcher with the original NL Washington National's where he was a team-mate of players like Paul Hines, who started their careers before the NL was formed. He experienced the change when overhand delivery was first allowed, he saw the AA, participated in the Player's League War, experienced the 60'6" game change, was instrumental in the formation of the AL, involved with the Federal League War, managed against the Black Sox, and managed against Babe the pitcher and Babe the slugger. He owned, scouted, built, and managed 3 separate dynasties, and managed one team for over 50 years. He was ruined by the stock market crash for 10 years, managed though the Great Depression, two World Wars, and witnessed 10 new states join the Union.

Now, you think you are qualified to judge Connie Mack as over-rated. None of us are!

Again, I admitted overrated was the wrong word. But he still isn't top 5 in my mind, because the order for me in that is:

1) Stengel
2) McCarthy
3) John McGraw
4) Sparky Anderson
5) Tony La Russa

[jalbright]

Actually, your inclusion of Anderson as #4 instead of Mack is interesting.

Mack had two dynasties, Sparky one.
Mack built those dynasties by himself, Sparky had a GM.
Mack won nine pennants and five World Series titles, Sparky five and three, with two other division titles to his credit.
Mack had to adjust from deadball style play to the lively ball play of the late 20's and beyond. Sparky didn't.

I don't think Mack's sorry 17 year coda (at least partially economically induced) at the end of his career obliterates the advantages he has over Sparky.

I can certainly see your top three over Mack, and LaRussa isn't done yet, and has some definite points in his favor, so I'm willing to hold off on that one. I think I'd put Mack about fourth myself, but there is some room for subjectivity there. However, I wouldn't put Sparky over Mack.

Jim Albright

[Soxrock]

Actually, your inclusion of Anderson as #4 instead of Mack is interesting.

Mack had two dynasties, Sparky one.
Mack built those dynasties by himself, Sparky had a GM.
Mack won nine pennants and five World Series titles, Sparky five and three, with two other division titles to his credit.
Mack had to adjust from deadball style play to the lively ball play of the late 20's and beyond. Sparky didn't.

I don't think Mack's sorry 17 year coda (at least partially economically induced) at the end of his career obliterates the advantages he has over Sparky.

I can certainly see your top three over Mack, and LaRussa isn't done yet, and has some definite points in his favor, so I'm willing to hold off on that one. I think I'd put Mack about fourth myself, but there is some room for subjectivity there. However, I wouldn't put Sparky over Mack.

Jim Albright

Yeah, I guess you have a point

[musialfan]

You are comparing two completely different eras of baseball here. Not only did Mack own the team he managed but the talent was in much shorter supply then as well. Then add to that the lack of specialized coaching and physical training. Baseball has become so pinpointed since his time. Today's managers do far less managing than those days. The talent is thick and top notch across most of the board in modern baseball and even the worst teams of today would run circles around the teams of those days. When the athletes themselves are that much better the managing aspect becomes more limited. We are now talking about more guidance of talent than actually plotting out an entire game. Joe Torre has the easiest time of them all. Give me nine guys that good and I'll look like a HOF manager as well. Coaching is what Mack did then. He would not have been the manager in today's age that he was then. He would be a coach. This statement is true in any sport. It may be most eveident in football. Take the greats of their time(in their prime) and put them on the field now, against today's best, and it's a slaughter. Today's players are bigger, stronger, and faster. I'm not meaning to detract from Mack but you can't compare them. What about Ali vs Tyson? In their prime Tyson beats Ali hands down. Too fast, too strong, it's a different era. Do you really think Cy Young could muster 500 wins in modern baseball? HOF is described as the best among your position when you played, or managed in this case. You can't compare across eras. Plain and simple.

[soberdennis]

One thing that seems to be omitted here. The two dynastic teams, 1910-14 and 1929-31, are usually ranked among the greatest of all time. The 29-31 team is often compared to the 27 Yankees. Mack built these teams and managed them to greatness.
I don't know where I would rank him. But I don't think I would use the word "overrated."

[soberdennis]

Again, I admitted overrated was the wrong word. But he still isn't top 5 in my mind, because the order for me in that is:

1) Stengel
2) McCarthy
3) John McGraw
4) Sparky Anderson
5) Tony La Russa
I find it interesting that you put Stengel number 1. His record was just barely over .500 and he won 100 games just once. He was considered a clown in Boston and Brooklyn.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/managers/stengca01.shtml
HOF yes. Ahead of McGraw and McCarthy, no.

[HDH]

OK, I was too harsh on you about Connie Mack.

But, as a Tiger fan all my life. I will never allow Sparky Anderson be called great and let it go unchallenged.

First, a monkey could've managed the Big Red Machine. In fact, one did. The pitching on those teams were very good. The 1st version of what was known as The Big Four I remember was the 1970s Reds. Don Gullett, Gary Nolan, Ross Grimsley, and Wayne Simpson. All young pitchers that came up like the recent A's and Tigers have. He truely mismanaged his pitching staff but that offense was so overwhelming, he could do almost anything and still overcome his mistakes. He pulled his pitchers often for no reason, developing the nick-name "Captain Hook".

He arrived in Detroit in 1979. Without knowing the team, he announced that the team would be ready in 5 years. 5 years later, WS Champs. Now, for the truth. True brethern know that the Tigers were at most, 2 years away when Sparky arrived. Ralph Houk had done his job, built the team back up, honed a management replacement in Les Moss who was managing a contending team early on, and the farm was full. The nucleus was already in place with young unknowns, Jack Morris, Milt Wilcox, Dave Rozema, Lou Whitaker, Alan Trammell, Lance Parrish, Aurelio Lopez, Tom Brookens, and Dan Petry was slated to join from AAA. Sparky had to be the star of the team. He rid the team of all its known stars such as Rusty Staub, Jason Thompson, Ron LeFlore, Steve Kemp, and even some favorites such as Aurelio Rodriguez and John Hiller and replaced them with "his players" in the form of Champ Summers and Rich Hebner type players and set the club back 3 years. He rarely gave young players a chance and usually gave up on them quickly. In fact, Roger Craig took control of the 1984 pitching staff and deserves as much credit for the WS as anyone. 1987 was Sparky's good year but, deserves sole credit for the poor showing in the playoffs. Almost every post season move he made was more than a little bizzar... mostly leaving a revived Willie Hernandez under utilized while the big choke, Mike Hennemen, lost game after game. Then there was the speedy, hot hitting Scott Lusader sitting on the bench and fat old Darrell Evens trying to play 3B while the Twins were making it obvious trying to hit it his way. Yeah, that's your great manager!

Ultimately, he had two very good solid teams and just couldn't build new ones as they aged. Sparky's biggest asset is that he amused the media, nearly copying Casey Stengel's speech and mannerism.

[dodger dynamo]

during the years the a's won, only mr. mack could have managed them to the pennant and championship. during the years they lost, any manager would have lost. battlin bake, the dodger dynamo

[PlayJay]

In 1913, Shibe offered him a substantial ownership stake in the Athletics, in order for him to resist the temptation to go to New York to manage the Yankees. Reflex dictates that this job would've been quite a plum, but nothing could be further than the truth: at that time, the newly named Yankees were a second rate club with poor ownership, and an uncertain future.

The only reason Connie Mack got to keep his job was because of that stake. If he didn't have that, he surely would've been fired early on during the 1915-1921 devastation. By the late '30s, he assumed total control of the American League Club of Philadelphia, and no one alive was gonna wrest him from that dugout...although, given the events that happened, it would've been well if someone had attempted this. It would've saved everyone the sight of an eighty six year old drifting in and out of senility, calling for pinch hitters who hadn't been with the A's for thirty odd years, trying to manage a team in a pennant race.

You have a choice: you can buy the Connie Mack of the legend, or you can buy this very human man with eccentric financial theories, monumental (although not exclusive to Mr. Mack, of course) stinginess, and the kind of racist bigotry that would have him foot the bill to have the loudest, nastiest heckler in Shibe Park follow Larry Doby around the whole American League, just so he could "n%$#@!" him to death. Either way, Philly baseball fans had no choice...they had Mr. Mack, year in and year out. The alternative, until the Carpenter family arrived, was so untenable, that watching baseball must indeed have been quite painful.