At least the Cardinals know a great manager when they see him
Congratulations on the contract extension-- one of the best managers-- Tony LaRussa--he wins no matter where he is
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
TR - I'm not a fan.
Shoulda beat the Dodgers in 88 (ok, Kurt Gibson...emotion wins sometimes).
Shoulda beat the Giants in 89 (did).
Shoulda smoked the Reds in 90 (got smoked).
Should not have been swept by the Red Sox in 04.
Does he ever smile?
Shoulda beat the Dodgers in 88 (ok, Kurt Gibson...emotion wins sometimes).
Shoulda beat the Giants in 89 (did).
Shoulda smoked the Reds in 90 (got smoked).
Should not have been swept by the Red Sox in 04.
Does he ever smile?
He's definitely one of the best.
Remember, he should have finished 3rd this year, then he should have lost to Houston in the NLCS.
Remember, he should have finished 3rd this year, then he should have lost to Houston in the NLCS.
One of the best in the game if not the best right now. Look what he did this year just to get to the Series. Bobby Cox gets my #1 vote and LaRussa is a close second.
He leads the league in managerial blunders......every year.
Almost the entire St. Louis media has drunk the "kool aid".
A manager should win you 6 or 8 games a year......LaRussa costs you 6 or 8 games a year.
Almost the entire St. Louis media has drunk the "kool aid".
A manager should win you 6 or 8 games a year......LaRussa costs you 6 or 8 games a year.
Since none of us see every game, attend every workout, or travel with the club, the best we can do to evaluate a manager in the bigs is to look at what he's done. LaRussa won in Oakland (they haven't won since he left), and he has won in St. Louis. Granted, he had talent, but he has won. If you give Torre and Cox credit as managers (they've had talent, too), you probably have to acknowledge what LaRussa has done as well.
Personally, I think LaRussa is a very good manager. Perhaps the press goes overboard on him every so often but he has done some good things. I thought he did a very good job this year to make it to the WS with an average pitching staff. Sure he had hitting but you have to have top quality pitching to win the big ones and his was, at best, average.
There are plenty of managers who do not win with even when they have ther talent--Torre was a "nowhere' manager before he came to the Yankees--it is all about how you handle the talent you have
Being a loyal Cardinal's Fan, I have often cursed at a move LaRussa has made or not made. Heck it is the nature of the beast that he gets second guessed. However, when talking to his players etc. they seem to have a great deal of respect for him and he gets a lot out of players that have not been considered top tier players. For example the rotating left field this year which had a combined BA of around .290. All in all, I guess I had better wait until I have more experience and have gone further in my careers before I decide that he doesn't know what he is doing.
You have to rate managers on their success. Personally, I don't like the style of ball the Mike Scioscia has the Angels play. I think the loose baserunning loses more games than it wins. However, nobody gets more from his players than Scioscia does and the aggressive style of play may contribute to morale. So even though I don't like the overly aggressive play I'm glad he's managing the Angels.
LaRussa has almost always been a success even when his teams have had less talent. He's a very good manager. Before you say the Cardinals were such a talented team and berate LaRussa because they lost the series look and see where they were picked to finish in their division before the season and ask yourself how much of their first place finish and National league pennant was talent and how much was having a good manager. A little of both I think.
LaRussa has almost always been a success even when his teams have had less talent. He's a very good manager. Before you say the Cardinals were such a talented team and berate LaRussa because they lost the series look and see where they were picked to finish in their division before the season and ask yourself how much of their first place finish and National league pennant was talent and how much was having a good manager. A little of both I think.
quote:
Originally posted by CADad:
You have to rate managers on their success...
Most everyone does. But is it right? Does it really give you the story about how good a manager he is? Where and when has LaRussa managed in a talent short situation? He's almost always had talent OR been in an organization that produces talent regularly so the down years are few.
There is one factor that tells you what kind of success a manager will be and that is the talent level of his first job or nearly first job.
If he takes over a rebuilding club, the odds are he will fail, manage a year or two and get fired. He may manage again, usually hired by another rebuilding team, and shortly thereafter get fired again. And then go where ever unsuccessful former managers go.
If he takes over a team with talent, he'll be given a couple of years to produce. If he does, the press deems him a good manager and he is likely to manage for years.
All of which ignores the real issues. Can he manage? What are his moves? How does he handle his pitching staff? Does he use righty v righty, lefty v lefty in his bullpen moves? If not, why not. Can he sell his decisions? etc etc.
Hal McRae & Tony Pena have shown much more managerial ability than Tony LaRussa. The difference between Hal McRae/Tony Pena and Tony LaRussa has to do with the talent they have. Hell even TR would have a lot of wins if he could call for Eckersley in the 8th or 9th, or had McGwire and Canseco in their prime.
Another example, different sport. Mike Martz of the St. Louis Rams. Everyone talks (locally) about how good he is!!!........Really?......What has he done? Taken the most talented team in the league to the Super Bowl..................and lost. What is never answered is how much better the team would be with a coach who paid attention to defense, special teams. I maintain that ANY and ALL of the coaches hired to be a head coach by other organizations in the NFL since his hiring would have more wins than he has. Simple game coaching, clock management, time out management, challenge management would produce more than he has. Yet, he ranks high on the win list.
Has much more to do with the talent he inherited than his ability to coach.
If you want to be a long term successful manager you better look over the talent of the team wanting to give you your first job with a fine tooth comb before accepting. Because your managerial life depends on this more than any other factor.
Teach,
Some good points. Success is always relative to the talent of the team a manager has. The problem is judging the talent level and separating that from the manager's ability to get the most from his players.
Some good points. Success is always relative to the talent of the team a manager has. The problem is judging the talent level and separating that from the manager's ability to get the most from his players.
Teacherman
And without Eckersly I might also win!!!!
As long as I have good coaches around me--ala Joe Torre!!!!
And without Eckersly I might also win!!!!
As long as I have good coaches around me--ala Joe Torre!!!!
And a $200 Million payroll.
Second-guessing managers is a part of the game. And we're all most critical of our own team's manager....because we know them and the team the best. And we probably didn't really know/analyze them much before they started managing our team unless, of course, they were managing a rival.
Torre, for example, didn't have a particularly distinguished career as a manager (no winning seasons with the Mets, slid with the Braves, mediocre with the Cards) where talent had to be coaxed, grown, developed....in other words Coached. He's done well for the Yankees more as a diplomat than a baseball coach -- no small job with George & The Company of Egos. Horses for courses. Doesn't make him a great manager, just a great Yankee manager.
TLR can drive some Cardinals fans crazy, particularly when pitcher handling is discussed. (And, gee, most MLB Managers are wonderful on that score
) He's not warm and fuzzy like Torre, nobody would want to take him fishing like Herzog, and George Will did the man no good at all. And in those extraneous things lie his biggest image problems.
Comparing managers is almost as fraught with problems as comparing eras of baseball. Talent, budget, GM deals, owner support all have significant impact on the job open for the manager to do.
I like LaRussa; I've also spent significant energy screaming at the TV or computer broadcast at him. But I'm happy he signed that contract....even if he did cost more than a couople of our infielders....
Torre, for example, didn't have a particularly distinguished career as a manager (no winning seasons with the Mets, slid with the Braves, mediocre with the Cards) where talent had to be coaxed, grown, developed....in other words Coached. He's done well for the Yankees more as a diplomat than a baseball coach -- no small job with George & The Company of Egos. Horses for courses. Doesn't make him a great manager, just a great Yankee manager.
TLR can drive some Cardinals fans crazy, particularly when pitcher handling is discussed. (And, gee, most MLB Managers are wonderful on that score
) He's not warm and fuzzy like Torre, nobody would want to take him fishing like Herzog, and George Will did the man no good at all. And in those extraneous things lie his biggest image problems.Comparing managers is almost as fraught with problems as comparing eras of baseball. Talent, budget, GM deals, owner support all have significant impact on the job open for the manager to do.
I like LaRussa; I've also spent significant energy screaming at the TV or computer broadcast at him. But I'm happy he signed that contract....even if he did cost more than a couople of our infielders....
quote:
Originally posted by TRhit:
...ala Joe Torre!!!!
Torre is an excellent example of my point. Very average in St. Louis..........a genius in NY.
He's the same guy.......The difference is the talent.
And knowing how to utilize it---some never learn how to utilize talent--that is the difference and also having the right staff with you--it is called MANAGING!!!!
To compare the A's of recent years with the A's of the LaRussa years is comparing apples and oranges. LaRussa had far superior talent (including a very good starting rotation during the WS years) by normal baseball standards when he was there. It was embarrassing that he lost to the Reds in particular (sweep!) and demoralizing that they lost to the Dodgers.
The recent A's HAVE had a lot of success with a stellar starting rotation and less talent in the field than in LaRussa's years. To say they haven't won since he left is wrong...no they haven't made it to a WS, but they have been in the playoffs consistently. For their payroll, even that is quite a bit of success in my book.
I've always thought Tony LaRussas was a good manager, but not one of the game's best. He does have his players' respect. I just think he's average to maybe a little above average...but not as good as the credit he gets.
The recent A's HAVE had a lot of success with a stellar starting rotation and less talent in the field than in LaRussa's years. To say they haven't won since he left is wrong...no they haven't made it to a WS, but they have been in the playoffs consistently. For their payroll, even that is quite a bit of success in my book.
I've always thought Tony LaRussas was a good manager, but not one of the game's best. He does have his players' respect. I just think he's average to maybe a little above average...but not as good as the credit he gets.
You fellows bring up some good points, but in today's market, the number one talent that a Mgr. needs is.................he has to be able to handle the press. It is the most important talent you can have. Without it, you will get run out of town the first time you don't win, and there is only one winner every year.
LaRussa has it, Lasorda had it, McRae did not have it.
LaRussa has it, Lasorda had it, McRae did not have it.
IMHO...the best example of a superb coach is Bill Belichick, the coach of the NE Patriots...the Red Sox have even sought out his advice on coaching skills...no bravado on his part or that of his players....took mediocre players and maximized their skills...speaks to the press when necessary...basically keeps a low profile(which can be very irritating to the Boston media)...but brings out the very best in all of his players who exhibit nothing but the utmost respect for the man...more coaches should take a page from his book no matter what the sport 
catchermom03---
Yeah, but...GO STEELERS!!!!!
Yeah, but...GO STEELERS!!!!!
Pa Mom- I'll second that! GO STEELERS!!
Some would say that it is harder to manage a team with little talent and that you have done a great job when they exceed expectations. Some would say that it is easy to manage a team with loads of talent because you will win in spite of the manager because you have the studs. Personally I feel that it would be much easier to manage a team that no one expects anything from than manageing the Yankees where every move and loss is scrutinized. If you are manageing the Royals people will cut you slack and say Hes doing a good job but he just doesnt have the horses. If you are manageing the Yankees they will say All that payroll and all those studs and he cant win with that. Just my opinion