ESPN MLB

In honor of Phil Jackson's retirement -- or, at least, his impending one-year hiatus and return in 2012 when the Lakers sign Dwight Howard and Chris Paul -- I present my list of the 10 greatest managers of all time.

10. Davey Johnson
Record: 1,148-888 (.564), 5 division titles, 1 pennant, 1 World Series title

Johnson managed fewer games than the other guys on this list, but he's also the only who has the track record of turning around three different teams. When he took over the Mets in 1984, they hadn't had a winning season since 1976. He won 90 games and two years later a World Series. When he was fired, the Mets fell apart. He took over the Reds midway though 1993 and they won division titles in 1994 and 1995. He left and they fell back under .500. He took over an Orioles team that had been under .500 in 1995, made the playoffs two seasons, left and the team hasn't been over .500 since. His final two-year stint with the Dodgers wasn't quite as successful, although he did win 86 games his second year there. In the end, not an easy guy to get along with, but he won ballgames.

9. Sparky Anderson
Record: 2,194-1,834 (.545), 7 division titles, 5 pennants, 3 World Series titles

He guided the Big Red Machine to the 1975 and '76 championships and then the '84 Tigers. Sure, you can argue that it was easy to manage guys like Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan and Pete Rose, but Sparky also made the necessary moves, such as moving Rose to third base to find room in the lineup for George Foster, and managing a staff that didn't have a true ace. Known as "Captain Hook" for his willingness to yank his starters, he was one of the first managers to use his bullpen so extensively -- the Reds finished last in complete games in four of his nine seasons there. Even though he was just 61 when he retired, there was a feeling he did hang on too long -- five of his final seven Tigers teams finished with losing records.

8. Joe Torre
Record: 2,326-1,997 (.538), 13 division titles, 6 pennants, 4 World Series titles

Sure, you can give credit to George Steinbrenner's payroll, but Torre had a great track record -- nine consecutive division titles, three World Series titles in a row (a stretch in which the Yankees went 33-8 in the postseason). Few managers have commanded the respect from his players like Torre did, and let's not forget he also won division titles with the Braves and Dodgers. And only three managers have won more World Series titles.

7. Walter Alston
Record: 2,040-1,613 (.558), 1 division title, 7 pennants, 4 World Series titles

He famously managed the Dodgers with 23 consecutive one-year contracts. Alston won 90-plus games 10 times and was in his second year at the helm when he pegged Johnny Podres to start Game 7 of the 1955 World Series for Brooklyn. He also gave the ball to Sandy Koufax for Game 7 in 1965 -- on two days' rest, over a more rested Don Drysdale -- and Koufax pitched a shutout. After Koufax retired, however, he made the playoffs just once in his final 10 seasons.

6. Tony La Russa
Record: 2,659-2,309 (.535), 12 division titles, 5 pennants, 2 World Series titles

He's not everbody's cup of tea, but he's been doing this 33 years now and only had nine losing seasons (and lost 90 games just once). He's oddly infatuated with guys who can play multiple positions and not hit at any of them, and blame him if you want for the rise of the LOOGY, but he won with three different organizations. His strength (along with pitching coach Dave Duncan) was the reclamation of veteran starters, a long list that includes guys like Dave Stewart, Scott Sanderson, Chris Carpenter, Jeff Suppan and others.

5. Earl Weaver
Record: 1,480-1,060 (.583), 6 division titles, 4 pennants, 1 World Series title

Weaver's only losing season was his final one. From 1969 to 1980, the Orioles won at least 90 games all but two seasons and topped 100 five times. He lived on great starting pitching, great defense and the three-run homer. He was ahead of most his peers in understanding the value of on-base percentages, worked some terrific platoons, and kept track of things like how his hitters fared against opposing pitchers in the days before computers. His Orioles teams of the early '70s were arguably the greatest defensive squads of all time with Brooks Robinson at third, Mark Belanger at short, Paul Blair in center field and Davey Johnson and then Bobby Grich at second.

4. Joe McCarthy
Record: 2,125-1,333 (.615), 9 pennants, 7 World Series titles

He managed the Yankees from 1931 to 1945, winning eight pennants and his seven World Series titles. (He also managed the Cubs to the 1929 pennant.) He was known as "Push-button Joe" because for the most part he'd pick his eight regulars and play them every day. With the likes of Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth, Tony Lazzeri, Joe DiMaggio, Red Ruffing and Lefty Gomez, he had six Hall of Famers to build around, but he did a pretty good job of it: His '36-'39 Yankees went an amazing 409-201 over four seasons, plus 16-3 in the World Series, and his .615 winning percentage is the best ever.

3. Bobby Cox
Record: 2,504-2,001 (.556), 15 division titles, 5 pennants, 1 World Series title

It's easy to say he won simply because he had Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and John Smoltz, and easy to criticize because he won just the one World Series, but the man won 11 consecutive division titles and 100-plus games six times. He won 101 games in 2003 with an aging Maddux, no Glavine and Smoltz in the bullpen. His strength was trusting in and developing young players. Among the young players he broke in with the Braves: Steve Avery, Chipper Jones, Andruw Jones, Ryan Klesko, Kevin Millwood, Javy Lopez, Mark Wohlers, John Rocker, Mark Lemke, Jermaine Dye, Jason Heyward, Rafael Furcal, Tommy Hanson, David Justice, Mike Stanton, Adam LaRoche and others. But that track goes back to his days in Toronto (Tony Fernandez, George Bell, Jesse Barfield, Jimmy Key) and even his first stint in Atlanta (Dale Murphy, Bob Horner). Yes, it takes a farm system to produce the talent, but Cox was never afraid to play the youngsters.

2. John McGraw
Record: 2,763-1,948 (.586), 10 pennants, 3 World Series titles

During McGraw's time -- he managed from 1899 to 1932 -- the manager often ran the whole show. McGraw scouted players, signed them, developed them and traded them. From 1903 through 1931, he suffered just two losing seasons. McGraw loved young players; his 1921 and '22 World Series champions had the youngest lineups in the league. He loved speed and athleticism and was pugnacious and a product of a different era (he played for the infamous 1890s Orioles, known for their bloody, spikes-up style of play). For much of his career, he was undoubtedly the most hated man in the National League. In 1923, Heywood Broun wrote, "I suppose it was an important part of McGraw's great capacity for leadership that he would take kids out of the coal mines and out of the wheat fields and make them walk and talk and chatter and play ball with the look of eagles."

1. Casey Stengel
Record: 1,905-1,842 (.508), 10 pennants, 7 World Series titles

While he finished barely over .500 for his career, his winning percentage with the Yankees was .623 and he won 10 pennants in the 12 seasons he managed them. Yes, he had the best talent in the league with Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra and Whitey Ford, but he was also a mad scientist of sorts. He loved to platoon, was a master at juggling his rotation and mixing in veteran starters, and as Bill James pointed out he always had a double-play combination that was terrific at turning two. You can't deny the great record in the World Series. The Yankees did win four more pennants after he retired, but his World Series record (in a more competitive era than the one in which McCarthy managed), puts him No. 1 for me.

Follow David on Twitter: @dschoenfield. Follow the SweetSpot blog: @espn_sweet_spot.

Nick Nelson runs the appropriately named Nick's Twins Blog and he argues today that the Twins have reached the point where they'll have to move Joe Mauer away from catcher.

Nick points out that only two catchers accumulated enough plate appearances last season to quality for the batting title and post an OPS over .700. "Joe Mauer was one of them, of course," Nick writes. "During his career, he's usually ranked as the best offensive catcher in the league, and he's also been one of the most durable. This is precisely what makes him so uniquely valuable."

But Mauer's injuries are taking a toll and he's missed most of 2011. Nick also points out that Mauer has traditionally worn down during the season, with his September slugging percentage the lowest of any month and his postseason numbers not strong -- one extra-base hit in 39 PAs.

The Twins face a difficult decision: Mauer's eight-year contract that pays him $23 million per season just kicked in this year. Mauer turned 28 in April, so the contract takes him through his age-35 season. It seems pretty clear, with his knee and leg injuries, that he won't last that long behind the plate.

So where would they move him? While you hear suggestions of moving Mauer to third base or the outfield, the fact is very few catchers have ever completed such a transition. Here's the list of players who have played at least 200 games at catcher and any position besides first base or designated hitter:

Second base: Craig Biggio
Third base: Joe Torre, B.J. Surhoff
Left field: Brian Downing, B.J. Surhoff, Elston Howard, Ed Kirkpatrick
Center field: Craig Biggio, Roger Bresnahan
Right field: Charlie Moore, Ed Kirkpatrick

Mauer lacks the speed that Biggio, Surhoff, Kirkpatrick and Bresnahan possessed, making it easier for them to change positions. Biggio and Surhoff were also moved off catcher early in their careers. Howard played some left field to get playing time with Yogi Berra behind the plate. The best comparisons are Downing, who the Angels moved to left field (he was OK out there) and then DH. Torre is probably the most comparable, as he was a big catcher (although, at 6-foot-2, not as big as Mauer) and moved to third base when he was 29. He lasted two-plus seasons at third before being moved over to first base. His fielding numbers at third weren't good. That alone doesn't necessarily mean Mauer couldn't handle the transition, although at 6-5 with questionable knees, I think he'd be pretty bad over there. Same goes with left field.

In the end, I think that leaves first base or DH as the likely position change for Mauer. And the problem there is seen in this chart, in which we compare Mauer's adjusted OPS ranking among catchers and among first basemen/DHs.


Mauer is a $23 million catcher. But he's not a $23 million first baseman. Plus, the Twins have Justin Morneau signed through 2013. You can see why the Twins want to do everything they can to keep Mauer behind the plate. Unfortunately, the risk in doing that, as we're seeing this season, is that his value while he's on the disabled list is zero.

Follow David on Twitter: @dschoenfield. Follow the SweetSpot blog: @espn_sweet_spot.

Our friends at The Platoon Advantage waxed poetic the other day about Royals reliever Tim Collins, prompting them to come up with the all-time all-tall team and the all-time all-short team. It's not just a list of the tallest (or shortest) players, because they went position-by-position. For example, who is the best tall shortstop or second baseman ever? Read on!

• The Platoon Advantage: All-time tall team
• The Platoon Advantage: All-time tiny team

Other links to check out

• It's About the Money takes a look at 2011 payrolls. The Yankees (shocker!) are No. 1, followed by the Phillies (the new bully on the block), Red Sox, Angels (surprising) and White Sox (just ahead of the Cubs). These payrolls are from USA Today, which calculates based only on Opening Day rosters, so the Mets' figure ($118.8 million) doesn't include the $12 million for Oliver Perez or the $6.25 million for Luis Castillo. The Rays are next-to-last; no wonder they're 0-5!
• Gordon Edes writes on another Red Sox loss. Will fans boo when the Red Sox return home?
• Don't miss Jim Caple's fun look at rejected MLB promotions.
• Eric Karabell checks out Wednesday's action, including Brian Wilson's 2011 debut, in Box Score Bits.
• Joe Torre on Mike & Mike discussing his new role for MLB, instant replay and the Red Sox.
• Tim Kurkjian also on Mike & Mike talking about the Red Sox and other baseball stuff.
• Buster Olney sends in a video on Michael Pineda and what he means for the Mariners.

Follow David Schoenfield on Twitter at @dschoenfield. Follow the SweetSpot blog at @espn_sweet_spot.

After half a month of calisthenics and a week of games, Joe Torre already feels like a distant memory for the Dodgers, and the idea of "manager Don Mattingly" is shedding some of its new-car smell.

Even given the bonhomie typical of spring training, the initial reviews of Mattingly stepping into the skipper's shoes have been positive. Or perhaps the more accurate word is "friendly." There is a fresh attitude in Dodgertown that contrasts with the festering discontent that underscored the second half of 2010, and there is a new manager, and while the two might or might not have anything to do with each other, the correlation hasn't hurt Mattingly. No one right now misses Torre, whose world-weary presence over last season's deteriorating team came to seem stultifying. But whatever you might think of the manager-turned-MLB executive vice president for baseball operations, he casts a considerable shadow that Mattingly might have had trouble stepping out of. Instead, these Dodgers are now Mattingly's Misfits.

But much as this honeymoon might have less to do with Mattingly than the natural balancing of the emotional scales, the end of the honeymoon could easily involve factors beyond his control. The Dodger offense looks like an office building in dire need of retrofitting, with but one player (Andre Ethier) in the projected starting lineup who played in at least 100 games last season with an on-base percentage above .330. The earthquake might not come -- Rafael Furcal could stay healthy, James Loney and Matt Kemp could bounce back, someone else might surprise -- but Mattingly is going to be tested from the outset. Is he going to try to manufacture runs like it's the Dead Ball Era, at the risk of undermining the big inning the team and its fans will crave? Or will he sit back and hope for the best, a best that might never come?

The biggest advance criticism of Mattingly has been his lack of managerial experience in the major or minor leagues, but it's not clear that any amount of worldliness could have taught him the machinations to generate a comfort zone of scoring from this crew. In order to be viewed as a success, Mattingly probably needs to do the very thing that sounds almost too good to be true. Through the force of his quiet, tough-but-encouraging personality, he needs to somehow get the Loneys and Kemps to play to the very best of their abilities, and to keep it going over the long haul of his very first season at the helm.

Jon Weisman writes about the Dodgers at Dodger Thoughts for ESPNLosAngeles.com. Follow him on Twitter.

Well, here's something we can stop worrying about -- Joe Torre is back in the fold:

Last night was about George Steinbrenner in every way, but as we all know, the lingering story in the background was the return of Joe Torre to Yankeeland, his first appearance as part of the “Yankee family” since his departure after the 2007 season ended in a swarm of midges.

--snip--

There will be a Joe Torre day. Possibly as early as next season, Torre will get a plaque in Monument Park and have the number 6 retired in his honor. Because the Yankees haven’t issued the number to anyone else since his departure, Torre will have been the last Yankee to wear it. 3 months ago I wouldn’t have been able to tell you whether or not that would happen with any real certainty, but Joe earned it last night. We’ve all had messy break-ups of some kind or another, and it’s time to let the pain of this one fade and move on to remembering the good times.

Welcome back Joe.

First, Torre was essentially fired. Then he wrote the book. Then the Yankees disappeared him from the new Stadium (not really, but it made for cute little story for a couple of days). And now he's back in the fold. All in the space of less than three years. And it was, from the beginning, utterly inevitable.

Everything happens faster these days, and all the relevant parties are too clear-headed for this (supposed) rift to last much longer than it did.

Looks like the Dodgers have a new manager:

Joe Torre will announce later Friday that he is stepping down as manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers after the season, a source with knowledge of the situation confirmed this morning on the condition of anonymity. As has been speculated from the moment Torre was hired almost three years ago, the club also will name hitting coach Don Mattingly to succeed Torre as manager.

--snip--

Mattingly has never managed at any level, but he is slated to manage in the Arizona Fall League after the season, an assignment that is far different from managing a major league club during the regular season because it is a league that exists primarily for showcasing prospects from a handful of different organizations.

I'm not wild about it.

The Dodgers presumably know more about Mattingly than I do. Maybe things would have been even worse this year if not for his steadying presence. I just wonder how they can possibly know what he'll do, when responsible for 25 different personalities.

Worse, this strikes me as the last, desperate move of an owner who's trying to hang on to the past. Frank McCourt, at heart an Easterner, couldn't buy the Red Sox or the Yankees, so he bought the Yankees' manager. Now the Yankees' manager is leaving, and McCourt is turning to the most beloved Yankee between Thurman Munson and Derek Jeter.

It's absolutely possible that Don Mattingly is the best man -- or at least one of the 20 best men -- for the job.

Considering the process, though, and McCourt's current circumstances, does it seem likely?

I suspect Mattingly won't last long. Perhaps only until McCourt is forced to sell the franchise and the new owner installs a new general manager who installs a new manager.

Of course I could be wrong.

Update: It's official, as the Dodgers have issued a press release confirming Mattingly's promotion.

It must be fun to write about the Dodgers this season. Here's Bill Plaschke quoting Matt Kemp's agent, Dave Stewart:

"I'm almost to the point — and maybe so are the Dodgers — where I'm thinking that this just isn't going to work," Stewart said. "The Dodgers have gaps on this team, and maybe they could fill them by trading Matt. It could be good for the team, and good for the player."

Stewart emphasized he would never formally ask for a trade, but he wonders if his client can be successful while fighting off what he claims are unfair barbs from within the organization, particularly veteran coaches Bob Schaefer and Larry Bowa, both of whom have been critical of the fundamental deficiencies in the budding star.

"It's very, very difficult to play under the circumstances that Kemp is playing under," Stewart said.

"The thing we have to look at is, is there going to be a fit? Is he going to be able to get past the public scrutiny? Matt has to wonder, 'If these guys don't like me, how can I play for them?'"

--snip--

"Everything was fine until suddenly Schaefer and Bowa start getting on him publicly," said Stewart, a former Dodgers pitcher. "On those great Dodger teams of the past, you would never read about a player being trashed like Matt's been trashed."

Stewart is referring to the midseason incident in which Schaefer scolded Kemp for not backing up second base on a stolen-base attempt. Kemp replied with enough harsh words that led to his being benched for three days. Though Schaefer never criticized Kemp publicly, Stewart felt the encounter and punishment unnecessarily embarrassed his player.

Stewart's anger with Bowa stems from a recent Times story in which Bowa chided Kemp for not always playing hard, a charge with which Kemp actually agreed at the time.

"When Larry Bowa played, he would never accept a coach talking about him in the newspaper like that, but they want to Matt to accept it?" Stewart said.I don't know what Larry Bowa would have "accepted" in the 1970s. I'm not sure that Dave Stewart knows, either.

Are Kemp's coaches critical because Kemp isn't playing well this season?

Or is Kemp not playing well this season because his coaches are critical.

That probably depends on your perspective.

I'm not nearly smart enough to get inside Matt Kemp's head. Purely in terms of performance, he's not the player we expected. Here are his OPS+ for the past four seasons: 127, 110, 125, 110. He's striking out (slightly) more often than ever before. His steals are down, his caught stealings up. According to two reputable defensive metrics -- UZR and Defensive Runs Saved -- Kemp's play in center field is way off this season.

Essentially, he seems to be regressing. Maybe he can't stop thinking about Rihanna. Maybe he put on 25 pounds of muscle last winter, which is slowing him down on the bases and in center field. Maybe he's decided he's a power hitter, which would explain the strikeouts and the batting average.

I don't have any idea, really. But you can understand the coaches' frustration with Kemp just a little, can't you? Larry Bowa and Bob Schaefer have been around the game forever, and they haven't seen many players with Matt Kemp's raw talents. And it must be killing them to think he's wasting it.

Which doesn't mean they're helping. Maybe Kemp would benefit from an attitude adjustment, but maybe that process would be facilitated by a coaching adjustment.

Which brings to mind a question that nobody seems to have asked ... What's Joe Torre been up to? In the spring, the general manager ripped Kemp. In the summer, the coaches ripped Kemp. Is Torre waiting for the fall?

The fall doesn't begin until the 23rd of September.

Of course, that's probably too late for the Dodgers, who have already fallen too far. Maybe the solution here is to keep Kemp and find a new coaching staff. Because the old staff doesn't seem to have accomplished much this summer.

From Bill Madden, who probably isn't just making this up:

Lou Piniella is retiring as manager of the Chicago Cubs effective at the end of the season, the Daily News has learned.

The 67-year old Piniella, who led the Cubs to NL Central division titles in 2007 and 2008, is in the last year of his contract, but has endured a particularly stressful season in which the team is mired in fourth-place, 10 1/2 games out.I think this is probably the end of the line for Piniella's managerial career ... but I also think we should be clear about the terminology here. Is Piniella retiring ... or is he simply leaving the Cubs? There is a difference.

Granted, at 67 Piniella is old for a manager. But Bobby Cox is 69. Joe Torre was 67 when the Dodgers hired him. Jack McKeon managed the Reds until he was 69 ... and managed the Marlins until he was 74. So while 67, historically speaking, is old for a manager, in the 21st century it's not particularly old.

So I'm not sure that "retiring" is the right word, because I'm not sure that Piniella isn't going to manage again and I won't be sure until he's gone a few years without managing.

Once we're sure, Piniella will become a popular Hall of Fame candidate. He'll probably have to wait a while, though, because he'll inevitably be compared to his contemporaries, and those comparisons won't serve him well.

If Piniella doesn't manage after this season, for at least four years he'll rank 14th on the all-time list with something like 1,860 wins. But Tony La Russa, Bobby Cox, and Joe Torre currently rank third, fourth, and fifth on the all-time list. The Hall of Fame has elected a lot of managers, but it usually doesn't happen quickly. Cox will go in first, then Torre, and finally La Russa (assuming that he actually retires someday).

Then, probably, Lou Piniella.

With the exception of Gene Mauch, every manager with more wins than Piniella will be in the Hall of Fame. And Mauch finished his career with a losing record and never won a World Series; Piniella has a winning record and a World Series ring.

On the other hand, the manager in 15th place is Ralph Houk. Like Piniella, Houk played for and managed the Yankees. Like Piniella, Houk managed a number of teams. Piniella's and Houk's career winning percentages are practically identical. Where Piniella won one World Series, Houk won two.

But I think Piniella gets (and will continue to get) more credit for his team's successes than Houk has for his. Houk's first team was the '61 Yankees, coming off 10 American League championships in 12 years. There was definitely a sense then -- or is now, anyway -- that Houk was simply fortunate enough to take the helm of a powerhouse team that essentially couldn't be beat. Houk managed the Yankees to three straight pennants, was kicked upstairs so Yogi Berra could manage, returned to the dugout after two seasons ... and managed for most of the next 20 years without a single first-place finish.

Piniella's been successful in New York, in Cincinnati, in Seattle, and in Chicago. My guess is that it's the broad-based nature of his success, rather than the raw numbers, that will eventually get him in.

Man, I should have seen this coming:

The Anti-Defamation League, which advocates against anti-Semitism and bigotry, also believed (Tim) McCarver's comments went too far.

"No matter what one thinks of the Yankees' treatment of Joe Torre, likening it to how Germany and Russia treated their generals who fell out of favor is an inappropriate comparison," the organization said in a statement.

In the fourth inning of Fox's broadcast, McCarver -- who was Torre's teammate with the St. Louis Cardinals in 1969 -- accused the Yankees of "corporate childishness" in their dealings with Torre.

The Yankees did not mention their former manager, who led the team to 12 postseason appearances and four World Series titles, during ceremonies honoring the team's remarkable history at the last game at the old Yankee Stadium in 2008.

"You remember some of those despotic leaders in World War II, primarily in Russia and Germany, where they used to take those pictures that they had ... taken of former generals who were no longer alive, they had shot 'em," McCarver said Saturday. "They would airbrush the pictures, and airbrushed the generals out of the pictures. In a sense, that's what the Yankees have done with Joe Torre. They have airbrushed his legacy. I mean, there's no sign of Joe Torre at the Stadium. And that's ridiculous. I don't understand it."

There is a large photo of Torre with late Yankees owner George Steinbrenner at one of the new stadium's gates. Torre, now manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers, also appeared on a tribute video shown on the stadium scoreboard during a pregame ceremony Friday for Steinbrenner, who died July 6.

EARTH TO THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: It's an analogy. Maybe not the greatest analogy in the world, and I'm not even sure the Nazis went to a great deal of effort airbrushing photos. Stalin's Communists sure did, though. Probably because there were so many opportunities, as Stalin's various purges resulted in the executions of thousands of Russian officers, party officials, etc. No, killing millions of people isn't the same as airbrushing a manager out of the picture (whether literally or figuratively). But we could use more broadcasters who know the world existed before 1970. And if McCarver had limited the analogy to Stalin, he would have been perfectly within (my) acceptable boundaries.

Assuming, of course, that he was actually right about the Yankees removing Joe Torre from their history. Which he wasn't.

It's a funny thing, actually. McCarver has apologized -- "Although my analogy was inappropriate, in my opinion the underlying point remains true." -- but he's apologized for the wrong thing. What he should have said was, "Although my analogy was for the most part on point, I didn't realize that Joe Torre's photo can be seen inside the new Yankee Stadium. Next time I'm there, I will be sure to take the full tour."

Prompted by a quote from Mike Scioscia about Bobby Cox belonging on a "Mt. Rushmore of managers," Big League Stew wonders who would appear on such a monument ...

If you go by the list of all-time wins, Cox would be included with 1,930 victories and would join the three guys in front of him — Connie Mack, John McGraw and Tony La Russa.

He'd also be in if you rightly attach a lot of importance to Atlanta's 14 straight division titles, which were achieved in the time of free agency.

But if you include Cox and La Russa, you also exclude Hall of Fame skips like Sparky Anderson, Casey Stengel, Joe McCarthy, Walter Alston and, maybe one day, Joe Torre.

I don't think bare statistics should determine who's on our managerial Mt. Rushmore any more than bare statistics should determine who's in the Hall of Fame.

Or at least not statistics as bare as career wins.

Connie Mack managed in 53 seasons and his teams won five World Series. Yeah, he's got a losing record but I still believe you start with him. He's the George Washington on baseball's Mt. Rushmore.

But I'm sure someone would like to argue about Mack, and I would happily argue about just about every other candidate. Well, except for John McGraw. I'll argue, but I won't be real happy about having to bother. McGraw managed for more than 30 years, and won 10 National League pennants and three World Series. He was also responsible for building his teams before the advent of assertive general managers.

Oh, and McGraw gets bonus points for being one of the game's three or four most famous figures during most of his managerial career (along with Cobb and Ruth).

So we've still two slots. And yes, it's hard to see those two slots not going to two of these guys: La Russa, Stengel, McCarthy, and Cox.*

*Sorry, but in such company I'm dropping Sparky Anderson (only five postseasons), Walt Alston (impeccable record, but fairly or not he's never been considered the key to all those winning teams), and Joe Torre (too many losses while managing Mets and Cardinals).

I'm on record arguing that Joe McCarthy is the greatest manager ever, but my standards for managerial Rushmore are somewhat different. If McCarthy had managed to win a pennant while managing the Red Sox, or if he'd been able to stay off the sauce and manage a few more years ... But he didn't, so I'm going to drop him, however reluctantly, from the list.

We need someone from the post-World War II era, though, and it's hard to imagine a better candidate than Stengel, who was in the 1950s what McGraw was in the Dead Ball Era. Yes, I know that Stengel won only when he managed the Yankees, who probably would have won nearly as many pennants if someone else had been managing them. But again, this isn't all about numbers or even greatness; it's about whose face you'd want to see on the side of a mountain. And with all those lines and crags, Casey's face was made for granite.

The Tall Tactician. Little Napoleon. The Old Professor ... I'm happy with that trio. One too many old-timers, you might think. But those men were colossal figures, larger-than-life even. Has the same been true of any managers since Stengel? Perhaps, but it's probably too eary to tell. That's the problem with La Russa and Cox (and Torre, another future Hall of Famer): we just don't have any perspective on their places in the game.

If we're going to choose one, though? I think it has to be La Russa. Bobby Cox didn't win 14 straight division titles. He won three, then missed one in 1994, then won another 11 straight. That's still incredibly impressive, but (again) we're in rarefied territory here. And however bad his (and the Braves') luck might have been, just one World Championship doesn't seem like a lot for the side of a mountain. Meanwhile, La Russa's got a dozen division titles -- coming with three different franchises -- and two World Championships. His record's no different from Cox's, really.

Here's the thing, though ... Cox is retiring after this season. La Russa's still going strong, and it takes a long, long time to blast away all that granite. Sure, let's go ahead and get started on the three dead guys. And in the dozen or so years it takes to identify a suitable escarpment and carve the old-timers, maybe No. 4 will make himself obvious. Maybe Joe Torre will win another World Series, or maybe La Russa will. We don't need to decide anything quite yet.

Joe Torre has chosen Vicente Padilla as his Game 2 starter, and Dave Cameron thinks that is one big mistake:

Padilla has pitched better than anyone could have expected since joining the Dodgers, running a 3.40 FIP in seven starts, then shutting out the Cardinals in the first round. However, Padilla has a long track record of having significant problems against left-handed batters.

--snip--



This isn’t some small sample fluke. Padilla will always struggle against LHBs with his repertoire. And, wouldn’t you know, the Phillies have some pretty good left-handed hitters. Between Shane Victorino, Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, and Raul Ibanez, Padilla’s going to be staring down one of the best collections of left-handed bats in the game.



I understand the desire to play the hot hand, and Padilla is throwing better in LA than he has in years, but this is still a really bad match-up for him. In this case, Torre’s simply weighting recent performance far too heavily. Pitching well or not, he’s still penciling in Vicente Padilla for two starts in the NLCS, and that’s not a good decision.

I can't agree more. There's a tendency for managers, especially when he's got a new and suddenly successful player, to believe that somehow the player has changed. Perhaps due to better coaching, or perhaps due to the proverbial "change of scenery." But as Cameron notes, we're not talking about some kid here. Padilla has been around for a while. In his long and exactly average career, Padilla has struck out roughly six batters per nine innings. In his time with the Dodgers, though -- 46 innings, including his seven zeroes against the Cardinals last week -- he's struck out nearly nine per nine innings.

And that's not just because he switched from the American League to the National; Padilla's spent most of his career in the National League.

If the NLCS goes seven games, Padilla will get two starts and Randy Wolf just one. In his career, the left-handed Wolf has limited left-handed hitters to a .222/.293/.377 line. In the right-handed Padilla's career -- roughly the same length as Wolf's -- he's been knocked around by lefties pretty good: .297/.380/.479. Those numbers are dramatic. Against lefties, Padilla's batting average allowed is higher than Wolf's on-base average allowed, and his on-base average allowed higher than Wolf's slugging average.

The Dodgers would seem to have two big advantages in this series: they have many right-handed hitters to counter the Phillies' many left-handed starting pitchers; and they have many left-handed starting pitchers to counter the Phillies' many left-handed hitters. But Torre, based on the grand total of 46 innings, seems willing to give away, to some degree at least, one of those advantages.

MLB Trade Rumors on an odd situation in Los Angeles:

Talking to Jim Peltz of the L.A. Times, Dodgers manager Joe Torre would not commit to Ronnie Belliard over Orlando Hudson as the team's starting second baseman. Belliard has started at second base in eight of the team's 18 games this month, as well as a few times at third.

Hudson stands to lose money as a bench player, though he was gracious in comments made to Peltz. The way his contract is set up, Hudson is currently earning $10,000 per plate appearance up until his 632nd. He's already earned $7.63MM on the season, despite a base salary of $3.38MM.

Hudson has always been a bargain. Entering this season, he'd delivered roughly $58 million in value in his career while earning a mere $13.4 million. Of course, this is typical for good players in their early seasons, before they're eligible for free agency. And all the more so because much of Hudson's value has been his defense, which is hard to quantify in an arbitration hearing.

At almost the exact moment that Hudson finally did become eligible for free agency, the U.S. economy went into free fall. Hence the one-year contract and the $3.4 million base salary. That said, he's going to wind up earning close to $8 million this season, while being "worth" less than $12 million. Still a bargain of sorts, but not like before.

And it really does seem that Hudson's time has passed. He didn't become an every-day player until he was 24, and wasn't a free agent until he was almost 31. For whatever reasons, his defense isn't what it used to be. A three-time Gold Glove winner, Hudson's defense at second base is not just passable. He seems to have passed his peak as a hitter, too. Getting benched in favor of Ronnie Belliard doesn't look real good, either.

What's odd about the benching is that Hudson was hitting plenty well enough until early September; his "slump" really consists of only 10 starts. Meanwhile, Belliard's been on a tear since joining the Dodgers three weeks ago, but that's only 18 games. There simply isn't any obvious reason to think that Belliard is suddenly a better player than Hudson.

Maybe Torre knows all this. Maybe he's just resting Hudson for the playoffs, and trying to keep his new toy Belliard sharp for spot duties next month. If you're a Dodger fan, you can only hope ...

Mark Newman asks three (future) Hall of Fame managers -- along with Henry Chadwick, risen from the grave -- about lineup construction, and I couldn't help siezing upon this bit from Joe Torre:

With certain people, it's easy. You know where the leadoff guy goes. I used to have trouble and Don Zimmer gave me a great hint-start from the bottom. He was right. All of a sudden I realized when you put the names down that way, it makes the rest of it easier. With our current lineup, you know where (Matt) Kemp, (Andre) Ethier, Manny (Ramirez) and (Rafael) Furcal will be. Those guys will be in the top four or five spots. It becomes pretty simple, and occasionally it's a matter of how to attack a certain pitcher with right-handed hitters or left-handed hitters. But when you have players who play every day regardless, it's not that tough a call.

(Sorry, I can't resist ...)

Umm, Skipper? Have you forgotten already that Matt Kemp has spent more than half his time this season in the bottom third of the lineup? And have you failed to notice that Rafael Furcal, who simply must be near the top of your lineup, has a .320 on-base percentage and has stolen only six bases all season? Russell Martin, who's spent most of the season in the bottom third of the order, has a higher OBP and more steals than Furcal, who at this point is suited to just one spot: eighth.

Look, I know that batting orders are relatively unimportant, and that the difference between any two moderately reasonable lineups is just a few runs over the course of the whole season. But everybody loves to talk about lineups, and I'd love to hear from a manager, future Hall of Famer or not, who's coming close to actually putting together the best lineup possible. 'Cause Joe Torre hasn't been close this season.

Maybe he'll get it right next month.

(Hat Tip: BTF's Newsstand)

Rob Neyer covers contenders , pretenders, the top managerial jobs and Joe Torre's misuse of the Dodgers' bullpen.

Are we really going to see Manny Ramirez in the All-Star Game this summer? We might. Should we? Manny's manager doesn't think so ...

Ramirez

Dodgers manager Joe Torre said he doesn't think suspended outfielder Manny Ramirez should be an All-Star this year, even though fans have him fourth in voting at the position.

"No, I don't, and if you ask Manny, he'd give you the same answer," said Torre. "I understand a lot of it is a popularity contest and you want to give the manager the best players, but to me, the significance of the All-Star Game is to reward players who had a good first half.

"They don't always do that. But I always feel it's great to have young players [given] a chance to make the club. Look at Evan Longoria, and rightly so.

"Manny's popularity is why he's gotten votes. Realistically, he didn't have, except for reputation, a right to be an All-Star. It probably isn't the right thing for him this year, from the baseball aspect, I've got to think."

I like Joe Torre, but he's got this completely backwards.

I mean, from the "baseball aspect?" Really?

From the baseball aspect, Manny Ramirez belongs in the All-Star Game. The fans vote for their favorite baseball players, plus the All-Star Game has traditionally been reserved for the best baseball players. Granted, there's often space for players having the best seasons and for players who are neither great nor having a great season, but happen to play for a team that's bereft of talent. Still, there would be little argument if Ramirez were voted to the National League team despite missing 50 games with a baseball injury.

This isn't about baseball, though. It's about drugs and cheating. And I'm sorry because I'm not generally one to moralize, but a player who's been suspended for 50 games for cheating simply doesn't belong in the All-Star Game. No way, no how. I know the commissioner's hands are often tied by the players' association, but this really shouldn't even be an issue. There should be a rule, something like this, already: Any player suspended, due to violation of Major League Baseball's drug policy, shall be ineligible for the next All-Star Game.

Baby simple, and completely appropriate. Yes, it's too late to do anything about Manny. And, yes, someone should have thought of this a long time ago. But we shouldn't ever have to deal with this question again.