Over the past week, the topic of the "legend" that Joe Torre was as a manager has come up a lot. It got me thinking about what is the criteria for what a manager is measured by. Is it World Series titles? Division titles? Overall wins and winning percentages? Does a manager actually have a lot to do with a team's success?
We will use Torre as an example because of the relevance of what has occurred recently. Before Torre became the manager of the NY Yankees, he had three stints will other teams (Mets, Braves, and Cardinals) totaling 15 years. During those years his teams finished above .500 only 4 times and never even made the playoffs once. After joining the Yankees, they made the playoffs all 12 years he was manager, went to the World Series 6 times and won it 4 times. How much of this was due to Torre? We all know that the Yankees have a payroll that allows them to have players on their team that other teams could only dream of and it does take a certain type of person to handle all of the egos that players have. But was it Torre that made the Yankees who they were? Has Torre been given too much credit for the Yankees success, when the years before he could never make it to the .500 mark?
So what is the criteria for measuring MLB managers? Sparky Anderson led teams to World Series victories in both the NL and AL (Reds and Tigers), as has Tony LaRussa (A's and Cardinals). Jim Leyland has taken clubs that were terrible (Pirates and Tigers) and turned them around. Bobby Cox led the Braves to 14 straight division titles, but only won one World Series during that run. Let's go back in the day and mention Connie Mack, who many believe was the greatest manager of all-time. He managed for 53 years (that's ridiculous) and won a record 3731, but his overall winning percentage was .486.
For you baseball fans...what do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment