Options
Is Dick Williams easily the greatest manager of all time ?
Goldenage
Posts: 3,278 ✭✭✭✭✭
Look at what he did with all his teams.
He won 3 straight World Series with perhaps the weakest three peat team of all time.
Look what he did at Montreal and San Diego and Boston.
Who is better at doing more with little talent.
He improved EVERY team he went to.
He took the Padres to the World Series.
Got the Expos close.
Look what he did in 1967 with the Red Sox.
Plus the A’s miraculous run.
0
Comments
All I will say is that he had the good fortune to manage some pretty stacked teams. He inherited a good Red Sox team and then a good Athletics team. I have always thought that managers and head coaches get too much of the credit when things go good and take too much of the blame when things go bad. Such is the case with Dick Williams.
Billy Martin improved every team he went to, and every single time by 10 or more wins in his first season. IMO, Martin has no competition for GOAT manager. Martin took over much weaker teams than Williams did, so making the World Series wasn't usually a possibility, but his relative success was remarkable.
Williams turned a 72-90 Red Sox team in 1966 to a 92-70 World Series team in his first year as manager.
I trump your 10 game improvement with a 20 game improvement plus a World Series team.
He improved all his other teams by 10-20 wins. Expos and Padres stunk before he got there.
Martin has “no competition “. ?
That statement earned you your lol.
Those A’s teams won 3 straight???
Come on. They had Reggie and Catfish. The rest were average at best besides Tenace perhaps.
I said at least 10 games. Here's his complete first year record:
1968 Twins: 79-83 7th in AL
1969 Twins: 97-65 1st in Division
1970 Tigers: 74-88 4th in Division
1971 Tigers: 91-71 2nd in Division
1973 Rangers: 57-105 6th in Division
1974 Rangers: 84-76 2nd in Division
1975 Yankees: 83-77 2nd in Division
1976 Yankees: 97-62 1st in Division
1979 Athletics: 54-108 7th in Division
1980 Athletics: 83-79 2nd in Division
1982 Yankees: 79-83 5th in Division
1983 Yankees: 91-71 3rd in Division
1984 Yankees: 87-75 3rd in Division
1985 Yankees: 97-64 2nd in Division
The one decent team he inherited, the 1984 Yankees, improved "only" 10 games; the 1979 A's improved by 29. The 20-game improvement by the Red Sox is very good, it would even rank 3rd on Martin's list.
But you earned your LOL for referring to Sal Bando, Bert Campaneris, Vida Blue, Joe Rudi and Rollie Fingers as "average". The A's of 1972-1974 were every bit as good as the 1975-1976 Reds. The Reds did it all with offense, the A's by having no weakness anywhere.
Still don’t see a 9th in division to World Series team for Martin in there.
Still don’t see 3 straight World Series for Martin either.
Outside of Blue, the rest were average. Fingers would have been a 4.0 ERA guy if he were a starter.
Didn’t Martin ruin those 1980 A’s pitchers arms, and get fired in NY all the time because he couldn’t win like Williams ?
Didn’t he pitch guys 16 innings in one game ?
Are you not on record as saying that Catfish was not a great pitcher ?
Williams took 3 different teams to the World Series. He was 3-2
How many different teams did Martin take ?
Catfish wasn't a great pitcher, but in 1972-1974 he was better than average, as were virtually all of the players on the team. The description of that team, other than Reggie, Hunter, and Tenace, and now Blue, as "average" is laughable.
Your post before that was kind of painful to read. "9th in division"? "3 straight World Series"? Just FYI, nobody ever finished 9th in their division, and the A's won their 3rd WS with Al Dark as their manager, since it didn't really matter who the manager was since the team was so great.
As for the frail A's pitching staff, I'm not sure what happened. Dave Stieb, Jack Morris, and several others pitched more innings than any of the A's staff in the early 80's and kept right on pitching. That Martin was handed a pitching staff made of glass isn't a mark against Martin, it's just that much more impressive that he got such good results out of such a weak rotation.
Billy Martin was certainly the GOAT dirt kicker.
If Billy could only lay off the sauce.
Matt
billy boy has a little somethin somethin for those who think dicky w was a better manager
The better discussion would selecting 5 or perhaps 10 great managers of all time in no particular order with the argument being whether it should be limited to just 5 or 10
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
My answer is NOT Tony LaRussa
Forgot to add... Martin and Williams are in my top 10... not sure both are in my top 5... its close
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Earl Weaver was very good.
Maybe he was, but how can you tell? He inherited a team that had won a WS just two years before, and that team stayed together, and great, for years after Weaver took over and won another WS and two more pennants. Then that team grew old and/or moved on and in the remaining 12+ seasons Weaver managed the team they won one pennant and no World Series. And, the year after Weaver left, the Orioles brought in Joe Altobelli who had an otherwise dismal managerial career, and the Orioles won the Series.
My intention is not to dump on Weaver, but to dump on giving too much credit to managers. Great teams win as long as the manager stays out of the way, and Weaver was handed a great team. That doesn't mean he wasn't a very good manager, but it doesn't provide much evidence that he was a very good manager, either.
Joe Torre e.g.
To judge a manager's greatness is difficult, but maybe a good way to do it is to focus on managers from the post free agency era. I say that because with free agency a manager is really tested harder than the pre-FA era where a team "owned" the players and could keep a good group together. The aforementioned Earl Weaver seemed to do that, the Baltimore record for him is pretty consistent. The only speed bumps are 1972 and 1981 when there were "work stoppages" in the MLB season.
Weaver used to irritate me. He was always screaming at the umpires. Plus his great Orioles teams beat my Twins (also very good teams) in the 1969 and 1970 ALCS (see Boog Powell's numbers).
Years later I read a terrific book; "The Umpire Strikes Back" which should be required reading for anyone who loves baseball.
In the book Ron Luciano, (American League Umpire 1969-1980) tells us that Weaver new the rule book better than just about all the managers and many of the umpires. Luciano went on to say he saw Weaver "out manage" the opponents manager on a regular basis. Obviously, Weaver argued with the umpires at every opportunity, so even though I didn't like it, he sure fought for his team.
I also liked Tom Kelly, who got a lot out of a pretty average team here in Minnesota.
Casey Stengel needs to be mentioned as well. Sure, he had a great team, but he was a pioneer in platooning players, which seems to be the precursor to today's "situational baseball". The Yankees won the two WS after Casey was fired and didn't win another for 14 years.
You are correct that it is difficult to evaluate managers.
This book, https://amazon.com/gp/product/0786439203/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 makes a pretty solid attempt, even if you don't agree with all of its conclusions. At least it is a place to start.
>
>
Don't care to pay $40.00 on Amazon. there's one on feebay for $13.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/194915269360?hash=item2d61dafaf0:g:J48AAOSwoLxf~69Q&amdata=enc:AQAHAAAAsPHj47vY2OEHChO5BJMzrJnD3n5OSEF1e/RJhTWsXZtTfEEB6Y92Q3R1xoM/zJrv1qu/86U0qsWYZ4g35EgWFxiHtsGwrgcGNQj+sV9HCbWUQ8konu8OdAbn3rUQoHgMqPrTYGXCMDPQygX+IiEy/0JlaNHj1jbTmJoUcVfPNkwEGNpF//WWr8RfwMQKY7vouZ7iy5Y9J9+GMFotQHF6e/GB2mhU1clpaln6ct8kZrGF|tkp:Bk9SR8zerb3eYA
I think Al Lopez is in the top 10 and knocking at the door to be in the top 5.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Who are your top 3 ?
Not providing a top three... instead a top 6 and in no specific order Joe McCarthy, John McGraw, Al Lopez, Billy Martin, Dick Williams and Earl Weaver. I really don't like Martin or Weaver much but I am putting biases aside as much as possible. I like Lopez over Weaver and even Martin mainly because he was overshadowed by Yankee greatness. While Lopez may have had one of the best starting rotations in 1954, as manager, he produced perhaps the best performance in the history of MLB and that was without Luke Easter as he was injured and basically out for the season. Sure... Vic Wertz and Larry Doby had good seasons... but did the 1954 Indians match the 1954 Yankees?
Lopez did more with less and the record reflects that. The real issue... and I will leave open so others can correct me if there is a desire to do so... is once Lopez assumed the position of manager of the White Sox, the team played well and I would argue was well beyond expectations that set the stage for what would follow in MLB. Doing more with less power... doing more with speed... sort of the Dodgers blue print of for next decade. Think of the Dodgers in the 1950's - power... Snider, Hodges, Campanella and Furillo (and yes Hodges which should be HODGES for those that do not see him in the HOF). The Dodgers were significantly different by 1962. And it worked for them. But I would not consider Walt Alton in the top ten in spite of that success.
Martin was Martin and one has to accept that and the same can be said of Weaver. Weaver may be the only AL mgr that had claim to rivalling the Indians starting rotation of 1954 in that they had 4 20 game winners in 1970. I like Lopez more than Weaver... both are excellent managers.
McCarthy and McGraw are in without question (at least in my my view... and you can take that for what it is worth).
So that leaves Williams... Sorry but I don't see him as a GOAT and as many of you know... that is if you have read anything I have posted... I really just do not like the title... period... for reasons that should be obvious. I like Williams. He was in the right place at the right time to make things happen, There is greatness associated with that trait ... even if it was Gil Hodges as the manager of... well... we should know that if we are participating in the discussion.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The book I mentioned above lists the following (through 2006, so anything in the last sixteen years isn't included):
Williams is tied for 13th with Sparky Anderson. I had no strong opinions of McKechnie, Chance, or Clarke, but none of the other seven surprise me.
For the sake of completeness, the worst were the following:
Connie Mack was the 2nd worst manager in history? Um, OK. And I have no idea how good a manager Jimmie Wilson may have been, but color me skeptical that Joe McCarthy would have won significantly more games with the cast of characters that the Phillies trotted out on the field and called a baseball team in the 1930's.
It seems to me that evaluating managers is mostly impossible, because, for the most part, they have so little effect on a team's results. But to the degree that evaluating managers is possible, that it would only work for managers who worked for several teams, and a mix of good teams and bad teams. If I propose that Joe McCarthy was the worst manager in history, and that literally anyone could have "led" the Yankees to multiple World Series, I am confident that there exists no evidence that I am wrong.
And how in the world is Gene Mauch not on the worst list?
Well, the methodology in the book is pretty convincing. I wish you'd read the book before dismissing the results. You have a blind spot when it comes to evaluating things that aren't immediately obvious, like managing and corner defense. For example, you claim that there is little value in, say, right field defense, and that switching any player with any other player doesn't matter much, but I don't think anyone truly believes that it would make no difference if it were Roberto Clemente or, say, Frank Howard playing Right.
The Phillies became demonstrably worse under Wilson than they were under Shotton, and if you look at Wilson's tenure in Chicago, especially in 1944, something will become clear. After Wilson started the season 1-9, Charlie Grimm came in and finished with a winning record. In 1945 the Cubs won the pennant with an impossibly anonymous team.
The Cubs were often overshadowed by the Cardinals from the early twenties throughout the 1940s. Grimm was an excellent manager at Chicago and Boston/Milwaukee. Was he good enough to crack the top ten? I think it is close.
@daltex
I really look at the 1945 Cubs much differently than you- It was a break out for Andy Pafko- an exciting player who will never be in the HOF but deserves more credit than just a footnote. The same can be said of Phil Cavarretta and Stan Hack. Great players in their day which made the NL 1945 pennant race special. MLB history is simply too important to allow or suggest that "In 1945 the Cubs won the pennant with an impossibly anonymous team"
So does the book you reference include Grimm? Just curious
edited to add- should have included Bill Nicholson too
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I'm tempted to read the book, but I'm also all but positive that I would identify the assumption/method that the author is using with which I strongly disagree within the first five pages.
Regarding RF defense, I think it's you who has the blind spot. Sure, if you try to play Frank Howard in RF you're going to see a big difference between him and a great RF, but that's why Howard got moved to left where it really, really, really doesn't matter who you put there.
The Phillies averaged about 6.5th place out of an 8-team league under Shotton, and went 60-92 in Shotton's last season. The next season Wilson was the manager, the pitching rotation was completely different, and several position players were also changed. And the Phillies lost 4 more games. They stayed bad, for sure, even worse than under Shotton, but it was a different roster.
As for how Wilson did in 10 games - six of which were against the one legitimately great team in the league in an unlucky scheduling fluke for Wilson - surely nobody is drawing any conclusions from that!?! The evidence that the Cubs did better in 1944 than they would have if Wilson had remained their manager is nonexistent.
ETA: Ultimately, trying to evaluate baseball managers must necessarily be similar to trying to evaluate individual players in a team sport. The conclusions you reach will follow, as night follows day, from the assumptions you make at the start. Begin with "because, you know, quarterbacks" and you will ultimately conclude that all of the best players were quarterbacks. I don't know what assumption(s) have been made about baseball managers, but I'm willing to bet that the conclusions that follow are determined entirely by those assumptions, and that there is no statistical support for the assumptions.
Full circle and back to the original question... seems we have a no. And that would be even without easily modifying the greatest of all time.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
And you see I still have the same issue. OK, fine, it matters greatly if you have Barry Bonds (Roy White if you can't see past the PEDs) in Left or Greg Luzinski. If you wish to use "Green Monster infected" results, it matters a great deal if you have Carl Yastrzemski or Jim Rice (or, God help us, Manny Ramirez) in left.
I'm really disappointed in your reaction to the book. You may not agree with everything Chris Jaffe writes, but you should agree that he's not a complete moron and that he knows something about baseball, so even if his methodology is faulty, it's almost certainly interesting enough for you to learn something from it. A book by me you might be able to debunk as trash inside of five pages, but to pre-judge Jaffe that way is disappointing. In fact if you'll PM me your address, I'll send you a copy so it won't cost you anything but time.
You say it matters a great deal if you have Luzinski (possibly the worst LF in history) or Barry Bonds. Again, if you compare the worst in history to a good LF, yes, it will make a difference, but any other comparison will make too little difference to measure. Please note that the Phillies did just fine with Luzinski in LF for years. Other teams did just fine with Dave Kingman, and the Cardinals dominated with Lou Brock. You can try to find a correlation between the fielding ability of the left fielder and winning baseball games and you'd need a massive amount of data to find anything at all, and what you'd find would be a weak, weak correlation. If you're looking at WAR and their "Rfield" then you'll see something significant, but the numbers that WAR makes up out of thin air don't mean anything; anything at all. No left fielder in history, not even Greg Luzinski, cost his team 20 runs vs. an average LF in a single season. Rfield says he did, but he didn't; not even close.
But, as for managers, I have no idea what Jaffe's methods are and I'm making nothing but assumptions about what I think I'd find in his book. So I accept your challenge, and I'll PM you my address. I hereby vow in the presence of the good people here to read it with an open mind.
So... back to Charlie Grimm
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
OK, fine, but it's not just left field. It's the nature of baseball. There are just too many moving parts to say that a team does "just fine" with them. I mean the Dodgers are doing "just fine" by any measure with Craig Kimbrell closing and Chris Taylor (89 OPS+) in Left Field. Meanwhile, the Angels have the best player in the game in center and Ohtani is very close to the best all around pitcher, but they're going nowhere.
I agree that Luzinski didn't cost his team that much, but I'll suggest that he cost his teams as much versus a Larry Hisle or a Carmelo Martinez than Nellie Fox did at second compared to a Mazeroski. Omar Vizquel to Barry Larkin? Clete Boyer to Frank Malzone?