SweetSpot: John McGraw
Jerry Crasnick has a story today on Jose Altuve, the exciting spark plug for the Houston Astros. Yes, I just wanted to write "spark plug." At 5-foot-5, Altuve looks like a player better suited to 1896 than 2012. But the dude can hit. Anyway, here's an all-time all-short team in honor of our new favorite second baseman.
C: Yogi Berra, 5-7 (1946 to 1965)
A Yankees scout who saw Berra when he was a teenager turned in this report: "He does everything wrong, but it comes out right." Berra refused to sign with his hometown Cardinals because they wouldn't give him the same bonus as his neighborhood pal Joe Garagiola. Berra knew he was better. He was right.
1B: Joe Judge, 5-8 (1915 to '34)
First basemen are supposed to be tall and powerful, and Judge is the only 5-8 or shorter one to have a lengthy career. He was a good player for the Washington Senators, although he didn't hit for much power (71 career home runs). He hit better than .300 nine times and finished with a .298 average and more than 2,300 hits. Judge broke Walter Johnson's ankle during spring training in 1927, essentially ending Johnson's career. Bill James wrote that when Johnson later managed the club and had to bench an aging Judge, the two men who had been best friends ended up in a nasty public feud.
2B: Joe Morgan, 5-7 (1963 to '84)
The two-time MVP and Hall of Famer was easily the best player in baseball during his 1972-1976 peak. When we did the all-time best season bracket, I wrote about Morgan's remarkable 1975 season, when he was five wins better than any other NL player. (Although Baseball-Reference.com has since modified its WAR calculations, and that margin is down to 3.4 wins.)
3B: John McGraw, 5-7 (1891 to 1906)
Although remembered as one of the greatest managers ever, McGraw was a valuable third baseman in the 1890s because of his on-base skills. In 1899, he hit .391 and drew 124 walks for a .547 OBP, the fourth-highest single-season mark. Back in McGraw's day, third base was actually more of a defensive position than second base because of the large number of bunts employed, so you see a lot of small, spry third basemen up until the 1920s. The only notable "modern" third basemen under 5-9 would be Chone Figgins and Grady Hatton, a good player with the Reds in the late '40s/early '50s.
SS: Freddie Patek, 5-5 (1968 to '81)
Listed at 5-5, Patek might have been an inch shorter. You could go Phil Rizzuto (5-6) or Rabbit Maranville (5-5) here, but we'll give Patek bonus points for being even shorter than those two guys. Nicknamed "The Flea," Patek was a three-time All-Star with the Royals and finished sixth in the 1971 AL MVP vote.
LF: Tim Raines, 5-8 (1979 to 2002)
Raines deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He was an on-base machine and one of great base stealers ever. If we lower the bar to 5-7 (there haven't been many short left fielders), we'd go with George Burns, a Raines-type player with the Giants in the teens and early '20s who led the NL five times in runs scored.
CF: Hack Wilson, 5-6 (1923 to '34)
Built like Kirby Puckett except even shorter, stronger and more barrel-chested, a unique figure in baseball history. Wilson is rare among short players in that he had enormous power, leading the NL four times in home runs, including 1930 when he drove in an MLB-record 191 runs with the Cubs. His career fell apart after that because of heavy drinking and his Hall of Fame résumé is based on a scant five-year run, but you wonder whether such a player could even exist today.
RF: Willie Keeler, 5-4 (1892 to 1910)
Keeler arrived in the big leagues as a third baseman with the New York Giants, but the Giants sold him to Brooklyn for $800. He was later traded to the Baltimore Orioles, where he played with McGraw as the Orioles won three straight NL pennants from 1894 to 1896. A .341 career hitter and Hall of Famer, and Baseball-Reference.com lists Keeler as a left-handed thrower (he hit lefty), but that's a mistake. Here's a picture of him late in his career with the Giants, throwing right-handed.
DH: Matt Stairs, 5-9 (1992 to 2011)
He actually didn't DH all that much, but there haven't been many short guys to play more than a handful of games at DH. We'll put Stairs here, especially because he's generously listed at 5-9. Brian Downing, 5-10, became a regular DH the last few years of his career (1973 to 1992).
P: Dolf Luque, 5-7 (1914 to '35)
"The Pride of Havana" won 194 games, including 27 with the Reds in 1923. He had a good fastball and big curveball and from 1921 to 1928 averaged 262 innings per season. There were some excellent short pitchers in the 1800s, but of course we see very few short hurlers in modern baseball. Since 1950, the pitcher with the most wins who was 5-9 or shorter is Tom Gordon with 138, and only five have won 100. At 5-10 (listed heights), you get Whitey Ford and Billy Pierce.
RP: Roy Face, 5-8 (1953 to '69)
Credited with 193 saves, Face is famous for his 18-1 season with the Pirates in 1959. He also saved three games for Pittsburgh in the 1960 World Series.
C: Yogi Berra, 5-7 (1946 to 1965)
A Yankees scout who saw Berra when he was a teenager turned in this report: "He does everything wrong, but it comes out right." Berra refused to sign with his hometown Cardinals because they wouldn't give him the same bonus as his neighborhood pal Joe Garagiola. Berra knew he was better. He was right.
1B: Joe Judge, 5-8 (1915 to '34)
First basemen are supposed to be tall and powerful, and Judge is the only 5-8 or shorter one to have a lengthy career. He was a good player for the Washington Senators, although he didn't hit for much power (71 career home runs). He hit better than .300 nine times and finished with a .298 average and more than 2,300 hits. Judge broke Walter Johnson's ankle during spring training in 1927, essentially ending Johnson's career. Bill James wrote that when Johnson later managed the club and had to bench an aging Judge, the two men who had been best friends ended up in a nasty public feud.
[+] Enlarge
Malcolm Emmons/US PresswireThe 5-foot-7 Joe Morgan was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1990.
Malcolm Emmons/US PresswireThe 5-foot-7 Joe Morgan was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1990.The two-time MVP and Hall of Famer was easily the best player in baseball during his 1972-1976 peak. When we did the all-time best season bracket, I wrote about Morgan's remarkable 1975 season, when he was five wins better than any other NL player. (Although Baseball-Reference.com has since modified its WAR calculations, and that margin is down to 3.4 wins.)
3B: John McGraw, 5-7 (1891 to 1906)
Although remembered as one of the greatest managers ever, McGraw was a valuable third baseman in the 1890s because of his on-base skills. In 1899, he hit .391 and drew 124 walks for a .547 OBP, the fourth-highest single-season mark. Back in McGraw's day, third base was actually more of a defensive position than second base because of the large number of bunts employed, so you see a lot of small, spry third basemen up until the 1920s. The only notable "modern" third basemen under 5-9 would be Chone Figgins and Grady Hatton, a good player with the Reds in the late '40s/early '50s.
SS: Freddie Patek, 5-5 (1968 to '81)
Listed at 5-5, Patek might have been an inch shorter. You could go Phil Rizzuto (5-6) or Rabbit Maranville (5-5) here, but we'll give Patek bonus points for being even shorter than those two guys. Nicknamed "The Flea," Patek was a three-time All-Star with the Royals and finished sixth in the 1971 AL MVP vote.
LF: Tim Raines, 5-8 (1979 to 2002)
Raines deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He was an on-base machine and one of great base stealers ever. If we lower the bar to 5-7 (there haven't been many short left fielders), we'd go with George Burns, a Raines-type player with the Giants in the teens and early '20s who led the NL five times in runs scored.
CF: Hack Wilson, 5-6 (1923 to '34)
Built like Kirby Puckett except even shorter, stronger and more barrel-chested, a unique figure in baseball history. Wilson is rare among short players in that he had enormous power, leading the NL four times in home runs, including 1930 when he drove in an MLB-record 191 runs with the Cubs. His career fell apart after that because of heavy drinking and his Hall of Fame résumé is based on a scant five-year run, but you wonder whether such a player could even exist today.
RF: Willie Keeler, 5-4 (1892 to 1910)
Keeler arrived in the big leagues as a third baseman with the New York Giants, but the Giants sold him to Brooklyn for $800. He was later traded to the Baltimore Orioles, where he played with McGraw as the Orioles won three straight NL pennants from 1894 to 1896. A .341 career hitter and Hall of Famer, and Baseball-Reference.com lists Keeler as a left-handed thrower (he hit lefty), but that's a mistake. Here's a picture of him late in his career with the Giants, throwing right-handed.
DH: Matt Stairs, 5-9 (1992 to 2011)
He actually didn't DH all that much, but there haven't been many short guys to play more than a handful of games at DH. We'll put Stairs here, especially because he's generously listed at 5-9. Brian Downing, 5-10, became a regular DH the last few years of his career (1973 to 1992).
P: Dolf Luque, 5-7 (1914 to '35)
"The Pride of Havana" won 194 games, including 27 with the Reds in 1923. He had a good fastball and big curveball and from 1921 to 1928 averaged 262 innings per season. There were some excellent short pitchers in the 1800s, but of course we see very few short hurlers in modern baseball. Since 1950, the pitcher with the most wins who was 5-9 or shorter is Tom Gordon with 138, and only five have won 100. At 5-10 (listed heights), you get Whitey Ford and Billy Pierce.
RP: Roy Face, 5-8 (1953 to '69)
Credited with 193 saves, Face is famous for his 18-1 season with the Pirates in 1959. He also saved three games for Pittsburgh in the 1960 World Series.
Last weekend, I was in Cleveland attending the Seymour Medal conference as the keynote speaker, but that's less interesting than the conference, and particularly the raison d'etre for the event itself. The Seymour Medal, named for the eminent baseball historians Harold Seymour and Dorothy (Seymour) Mills, is awarded by the Society for American Baseball Research; it honors the best work of baseball history published in the previous calendar year. This year, SABR awarded the hardware to co-authors Lyle Spatz and Steve Steinberg for their book, 1921: The Yankees, The Giants, and the Battle for Baseball Supremacy in New York (University of Nebraska Press).
After the conference, they discussed their work with me, with an eye towards explaining why it's a volume you might want to add to your own baseball bookshelf:
CK: Your book 1921 talks about a season that concluded with an all-New York World Series showdown. Besides the series itself, what was at stake for baseball?
Lyle Spatz: Because the public did not become aware of the 1919 Black Sox scandal until very late in 1920, the 1921 season was in many ways a test, to see if fans would still care about the game. Two great pennant races and several heroic individual performances showed they did. Also at stake was baseball supremacy in its major market, New York City, and the way the game would be played in the future.
Steve Steinberg: It was also the fist year of the commissioner [Kenesaw Mountain Landis], who was solidifying his power and banned the Black Sox. It was a year in which Babe Ruth has his second power season in a row, in New York, solidifying the emergence of a new long-ball game, and the end of the Deadball Era. And 1921 reflected New York's rise to the top of the baseball world, where it would stay for most of the century.
CK: The game itself was different, but so was the sportswriting. In your research, where did you notice the biggest differences between the game, then and now, and what were they?
LS: Before radio and TV, to say nothing of the blogosphere, fans got all their information from newspapers. New York had a multitude of newspapers, morning and afternoon, and most with several editions. Writing for these papers were some of the most memorable reporters and columnists ever to cover the game, a group that included Grantland Rice, Fred Lieb, Damon Runyon, Joe Vila, Hugh Fullerton, and Sam Crane. While in some cases, the language was a bit flowery, references were sometimes made to poetry and the classics that unfortunately many modern day readers would find incomprehensible.
While these men were not averse to criticizing the players, mangers, or club executives, each had his favorites and those they wanted replaced. Even Ruth, McGraw, and Miller Huggins came in for their share of bad press, yet there was a seemingly unwritten line regarding personal habits they mostly did not cross. Nevertheless, discerning fans knew that when the newspaper said that Giants pitcher Phil Douglas was taking some personal time off, what was really happening was that Douglas had disappeared on one of his periodic drinking sprees. Now, of course, we would know the flophouse he was in and the brand of outlawed whiskey he was drinking.
SS: Sportswriters -- most of them -- assumed the role of making ballplayers “heroic.” The start of a 1920s' emergence of sports superstars: Jack Dempsey (boxing), Bobby Jones (golf), Bill Tilden (tennis), and the Babe. We drew on a dozen or so New York papers alone, and others in other cities. Each added perspective to the season; each revealed some things that others did not provide.
In '21, a dominating, control(ling) guy such as John McGraw could still flourish (as a manager)... that's almost inconceivable today. He called every pitch of the 1921 World Series from the dugout.
CK: Why should contemporary fans care about the 1921 season, and what lessons does it provide them as they follow the game today?
LS: As a baseball historian, my belief is that fans should care about every season; realistically, not everyone does. However, no living fan can remember a time when the Yankees were not the most famous franchise in baseball. That all began in 1921.
SS: It was the first Yankees pennant; up until then, this was a team with a long history of losing. It ended with one of the greatest conflicts in baseball history, as the Yankees-Giants battle was about who would dominate New York, which style of baseball would dominate the game, and which man -- McGraw or Ruth -- would be number one in New York.
It's almost incomprehensible, Babe's dominance of the game in 1921. He was 12.4 percent of all American League home runs that year. Had Barry Bonds hit 12.4 percent of all National League homers in 2001, he would have had to have hit 366. 1921 reminds that, while fans love great players and managers, they really enjoy the really colorful great ones even more.
Finally, the wealthy teams -- as these two teams were -- could pay for talent from the less wealthy clubs, a trend we have seen repeatedly since. The '21 Yankees had the Red Sox, the '21 Giants had the Braves and Phillies. Money has and will continue to influence the game, yet baseball still continues to thrive.
Christina Kahrl covers baseball for ESPN.com. You can follow her on Twitter.
After the conference, they discussed their work with me, with an eye towards explaining why it's a volume you might want to add to your own baseball bookshelf:
[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Library of CongressBabe Ruth accounted for 12.4 percent of American League home runs during the 1921 season.
AP Photo/Library of CongressBabe Ruth accounted for 12.4 percent of American League home runs during the 1921 season.Lyle Spatz: Because the public did not become aware of the 1919 Black Sox scandal until very late in 1920, the 1921 season was in many ways a test, to see if fans would still care about the game. Two great pennant races and several heroic individual performances showed they did. Also at stake was baseball supremacy in its major market, New York City, and the way the game would be played in the future.
Steve Steinberg: It was also the fist year of the commissioner [Kenesaw Mountain Landis], who was solidifying his power and banned the Black Sox. It was a year in which Babe Ruth has his second power season in a row, in New York, solidifying the emergence of a new long-ball game, and the end of the Deadball Era. And 1921 reflected New York's rise to the top of the baseball world, where it would stay for most of the century.
CK: The game itself was different, but so was the sportswriting. In your research, where did you notice the biggest differences between the game, then and now, and what were they?
LS: Before radio and TV, to say nothing of the blogosphere, fans got all their information from newspapers. New York had a multitude of newspapers, morning and afternoon, and most with several editions. Writing for these papers were some of the most memorable reporters and columnists ever to cover the game, a group that included Grantland Rice, Fred Lieb, Damon Runyon, Joe Vila, Hugh Fullerton, and Sam Crane. While in some cases, the language was a bit flowery, references were sometimes made to poetry and the classics that unfortunately many modern day readers would find incomprehensible.
While these men were not averse to criticizing the players, mangers, or club executives, each had his favorites and those they wanted replaced. Even Ruth, McGraw, and Miller Huggins came in for their share of bad press, yet there was a seemingly unwritten line regarding personal habits they mostly did not cross. Nevertheless, discerning fans knew that when the newspaper said that Giants pitcher Phil Douglas was taking some personal time off, what was really happening was that Douglas had disappeared on one of his periodic drinking sprees. Now, of course, we would know the flophouse he was in and the brand of outlawed whiskey he was drinking.
SS: Sportswriters -- most of them -- assumed the role of making ballplayers “heroic.” The start of a 1920s' emergence of sports superstars: Jack Dempsey (boxing), Bobby Jones (golf), Bill Tilden (tennis), and the Babe. We drew on a dozen or so New York papers alone, and others in other cities. Each added perspective to the season; each revealed some things that others did not provide.
In '21, a dominating, control(ling) guy such as John McGraw could still flourish (as a manager)... that's almost inconceivable today. He called every pitch of the 1921 World Series from the dugout.
CK: Why should contemporary fans care about the 1921 season, and what lessons does it provide them as they follow the game today?
LS: As a baseball historian, my belief is that fans should care about every season; realistically, not everyone does. However, no living fan can remember a time when the Yankees were not the most famous franchise in baseball. That all began in 1921.
SS: It was the first Yankees pennant; up until then, this was a team with a long history of losing. It ended with one of the greatest conflicts in baseball history, as the Yankees-Giants battle was about who would dominate New York, which style of baseball would dominate the game, and which man -- McGraw or Ruth -- would be number one in New York.
It's almost incomprehensible, Babe's dominance of the game in 1921. He was 12.4 percent of all American League home runs that year. Had Barry Bonds hit 12.4 percent of all National League homers in 2001, he would have had to have hit 366. 1921 reminds that, while fans love great players and managers, they really enjoy the really colorful great ones even more.
Finally, the wealthy teams -- as these two teams were -- could pay for talent from the less wealthy clubs, a trend we have seen repeatedly since. The '21 Yankees had the Red Sox, the '21 Giants had the Braves and Phillies. Money has and will continue to influence the game, yet baseball still continues to thrive.
Christina Kahrl covers baseball for ESPN.com. You can follow her on Twitter.
Mark Cunningham/MLB Photos via Getty ImagesTony La Russa won five pennants and two World Series with three different organizations.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.
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.
Who belongs on managerial Mt. Rushmore?
February, 19, 2010
2/19/10
2:07
AM ET
By Rob Neyer | ESPN.com
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 ...
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.
- 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.
BACK TO TOP
Page: 1
ABOUT THIS BLOG
David Schoenfield
Schoenfield is a senior writer for ESPN.com and been with ESPN since 1995, having served as baseball editor and Page 2 senior editor. Follow Dave on Twitter: @dschoenfield and the SweetSpot blog on Facebook.
SWEETSPOT CONTRIBUTORS
Steve Berthiaume
SweetSpotESPN Archive |
Christina Kahrl
SweetSpotESPN Archive |
Eric Karabell
SweetSpotESPN Archive |
Mark Simon
SweetSpotESPN Archive |
