Managers and GMs who belong in the Hall (or already are)

[jalbright]

As JR mentioned, thank you for the hard work on this thread...it would be awesome if the hall of fame voting committee would take note of Bob Howsam's ranking here.

You're welcome--but I wanted to know, too. Why not share it? Heck, for the GMs, Nerdlinger did the heavy work I wasn't willing to undertake.

As for Howsam, I'd be thrilled if they understood the pieces of the puzzle that project Howsam up so far:
Teams in the playoffs six times, and the standard of the top 10-12 is seven;
Teams won four pennants, which is in the top dozen or so;
Teams won three World Series, which is in the top dozen or so;
.566 winning percentage, and .550 is enough to put you in the top dozen or so;
319 more wins than losses, and 250 will put you in the top dozen or so;
and a GM Fibonacci number of 1093, and the top dozen or so standard is 1100.

Add to that the narrative of the Big Red Machine, the acquisition of Joe Morgan, and the acquisitons of Maris and Cepeda to help fuel the success of the Cards in 1967 and 1968; and I think you've made the case why he belongs.

[jalbright]

I found an error in my GM spreadsheet, and it doesn't dramatically change the order of the top 10. It does, however, 1) Raise the level where the top 10 ends, and 2) help the 11th through 20th guys close the gap to the top 10. So the gray area is appropriately 700 to 800 points. It worked with Sabean at 10 and on the cusp of being in the clearly in crowd, and still works. The gap to the 11th place guy is much smaller, and it's Al Campanis with his baggage. I can't see Campanis being inducted any time soon (and my guess is never), which is more defensible if he's in the gray area and his public comments on the qualifications of minorities to serve as GMs provide the weight to sink a borderline case than if he is seen as a stronger candidate. I can see arguments for Chub Feeney since he can add quite a few years as NL president to his GM accomplishments, and even Joe L. Brown for the successes of the Pirates in his late 1950's to mid 1970's tenure. Jocketty is still active, and one more World Series championship would put him in the upper half of the gray area, which seems about right. the revised ranking of GMs who have led their teams for at least 1000 games:

rating	General Manager
2008.9	Barrow, Ed HOF
1323.5	Schuerholz, John
1274.4	Rickey, Branch HOF
1239.8	Weiss, George HOF
1130.4	Bavasi, Buzzie
1079.5	Cashman, Brian
1006.5	Gillick, Pat HOF
886.3,,	Dalton, Harry
860.2,,	Howsam, Bob
790.5,,	Sabean, Brian
782.8..	Campanis, Al
770.5..	Feeney, Chub
731.5..	Brown, Joe
729.8..	Jocketty, Walt
685.2..	Walsingham, William
655.0..	Quinn, John
621.8..	Griffith, Clark HOF
606.4........ Epstein, Theo
605.3..	Beane, Billy
574.6..	Finley, Charlie
560.9..	Campbell, Jim
559.3..	Duquette, Dan
548.8..	Cashen, Frank
533.1..	Grabiner, Harry
530.0..	Owens, Paul
526.7..	Dombrowski, Dave
526.2..	Peters, Hank
525.7..	Hart, John
520.2..	Mack, Connie HOF
506.7..	Alderson, Sandy
500.5..	Griffith, Calvin
487.8..	Devine, Bing
471.5..	Paul, Gabe
461.4..	Greenberg, Hank HOF
459.4..	O'Connell, Dick
444.6..	Mozeliak, John
424.8..	Barnard, Ernest
413.4..	Stoneman, Bill
411.9..	Melvin, Doug
410.6..	McHale, John
399.2..	Williams, Ken
398.2..	Collins, Eddie
395.5..	MacPhail, Lee HOF
395.4..	Claire, Fred
387.7..	Hunsicker, Gerry
383.8..	Towers, Kevin
376.1..	Cronin, Joe  HOF
369.8..	Benswanger, William
368.9..	MacPhail, Larry HOF
368.3..	Colletti, Ned
363.1..	Giles, Warren HOF
341.8,,	Zeller, Jack
339.9..	Daniels, Jon
337.8..	Rosen, Al
335.1..	Evans, Billy
332.8..	MacPhail, Andy
326.1..	Burke, Joe
325.5..	Stoneham, Horace
321.6..	Friedman, Andrew
319.8..	Michael, Gene
316.2..	Lajoie, Bill
308.5..	Hemond, Roland
307.9..	Schueler, Ron
303.9.........Lane, Frank
300.1..	Hamey, Roy
293.5..	Wren, Frank
285.8..	Garagiola, Joe
261.2..	Ryan, Terry
260.3..	Tallis, Cedric
258.0	,,,,,,,,Veeck, Bill  HOF
257.1..	Quinn, Bob (Robert)
255.7..	Sullivan, Haywood
254.9..	DeWitt, Bill
244.7..	Hendry, Jim
243.5..	Maxvill, Dal
237.9,,	Gorman, Lou
235.4..	Peterson, Harding
231.4,,	Woodward, Woody
210.9,,	Wagner, Dick
210.9,.	Port, Mike
206.9..	Minaya, Omar
206.2..	McKeon, Jack
204.0..	Short, Ed
201.5..	Bowden, Jim
200.4..	O'Dowd, Dan
197.0..	Richardson, Spec
192.3..	McDonald, Joe
189.4..	Holland, John
177.4..	Wade, Ed
171.3..	Grieve, Tom
166.7..	Smith, Tal
165.6..	Ricciardi, J.P.
164.6..	Gallagher, James T.
159.1..	Shapiro, Mark
133.5..	Robinson, Eddie
129.7..	Thomas, Lee
123.1..	Ash, Gord
120.9..	Seghi, Phil
119.3..	Byrnes, Josh
118.4..	Gebhard, Bob
114.1..	Himes, Larry
111.7..	Haney, Fred
111.3..	Robinson, Herk
110.4..	Richards, Paul
110.2..	Bando, Sal
108.7..	Moore, Dayton
105.3,,	Bavasi, Bill
103.6..	McIlvaine, Joe
89.7...	Huntington, Neal
53.2...	O'Brien Sr., Dan
42.5...	Beattie, Jim
40.2...	Quinn, Bob (James)
21.3...	Bonifay, Cam
-2.8...	Fanning, Jim
-2.9...	Matthews, Wid
-32.4...	Smith, Randy
-34.6...	Selkirk, George
-77.7...	LaMar, Chuck

These results reduce the number of negative scores, which I prefer, and also moves Billy Beane much closer to the mark for entry to the Hall, among others.

[Herr28]

Walt Jocketty left the Cardinals after 2006, and I believe he has been the GM of the Cincinnati Reds ever since. John Mozeliak has been the GM in St. Louis since Jocketty left. Also, just a note, Bob Howsam may have made the trade for Roger Maris after the 1966 season, but it was his replacement as GM of the Cardinals (Stan Musial) who convinced Maris to sign his contract for 1967. Maris had warned the Yankees that if they traded him without at least informing him first that a trade was coming, he would retire rather than report to the new team. They didn't say boo, and Maris was understandably upset and wasn't planning on playing in 1967 until Musial stepped up.

Howsam can have credit for the trade, but Musial needs recognition (maybe even more so) for keeping Maris on the team and in MLB for the two straight NL pennants in '67 and '68. One last tidbit, in that above post about Howsam, you mentioned him picking up Cepeda and Maris in '67 and '68, but he had resigned by the end of January '67. Orlando Cepeda was acquired by trade during the 1966 season, and the Maris trade was made after the '66 season.

[Chadwick]

Sorted by Committee Eligibility...

Pre-Integration Committee
1. William Walsingham
2. Harry Grabiner
3. Ernest S. Barnard
4. William Benswanger
5. Jack Zeller
6. Billy Evans

Golden Era Committee
1. Buzzie Bavasi
2. Bob Howsam
3. Chub Feeney
4. Joe L. Brown
5. John Quinn
6. Charlie O. Finley
7. Calvin Griffith
8. Bing Devine
9. Gabe Paul
10. Dick O'Connell

Expansion Era Committee
1. John Schuerholz
2. Harry Dalton
3. Al Campanis
4. Jim Campbell
5. Frank Cashen
6. Paul Owens
7. Hank Peters
8. Bill Stoneman
9. Fred Claire
10. Al Rosen

Not Yet Eligible
1. Brian Cashman
2. Brian Sabean
3. Walt Jocketty
4. Theo Epstein
5. Billy Beane
6. Dan Duquette
7. Dave Dombrowski
8. John Hart
9. Sandy Alderson
10. John Mozeliak

[jalbright]

This is one time I like that the list is tilted toward the current day, rather than more evenly distributed. Before the free agent era, there were GMs, but it was an evolving position and the big successes were the guys who put had the scouting set ups or contacts like Pompez helped the Giants get Latino talent. After the free agent era kicked in, there was more money at risk, and the demand for better results became higher. So it stands to reason that the incidence of high quality candidates should skew a bit toward more recent times.

[Chadwick]

This is one time I like that the list is tilted toward the current day, rather than more evenly distributed. Before the free agent era, there were GMs, but it was an evolving position and the big successes were the guys who put had the scouting set ups or contacts like Pompez helped the Giants get Latino talent. After the free agent era kicked in, there was more money at risk, and the demand for better results became higher. So it stands to reason that the incidence of high quality candidates should skew a bit toward more recent times.

Concur completely. The giants of bygone eras were the innovators whose careers helped define an evolving role. The vintage of GM in the past half century is a more established role, providing a more fixed standard by which the men who held that role may be evaluated.

[Herr28]

Same thing, but looking only at pennants...

GMs with Multiple World Series Appearances
14 - Ed Barrow
10 - George Weiss
8 - Buzzie Bavasi, Branch Rickey*
6 - Brian Cashman, John Schuerholz*
5 - Harry Dalton*
4 - Al Campanis, Bob Howsam, Brian Sabean
3 - Sandy Alderson, Dave Dombrowski*, Chub Feeney, Charlie Finley, Pat Gillick*, Roy Hamey, J.A. Robert Quinn, William Walsingham
2 - Joe L. Brown, Jon Daniels, Bing Devine, Bill DeWitt*, Theo Epstein, Warren Giles, Hank Greenberg*, John Hart, Walt Jocketty, Andy MacPhail, Larry MacPhail*, Dal Maxvill, John Mozeliak, Dick O'Connell, Paul Owens, Gabe Paul, Hank Peters, Charles Weber, Jack Zeller

* Dalton, De Witt, Gillick, Greenberg, MacPhail, Rickey and Schuerholz are the only general managers to win pennants with multiple teams


I've not yet credited all the GM-like executives of the first half-century or so of MLB so, for example, Connie Mack's 9 pennants are not listed here yet, but everyone ever identified as a "general manager" or "business manager" has more or less been accounted for at this point.

One thing of note is that roughly 30 percent of current GMs - Alderson, Cashman, Daniels, Dombrowski, Hart, Jocketty, Mozeliak and Sabean - make this list.

I have just been working through this thread, and thought I would add that Branch Rickey here in this list should be given credit for 8 NL pennants just in his time in St. Louis -- not counting the additional pennants he should be credited for after building up that Brooklyn Dodgers powerhouse from the late 40s onward. It was Rickey's minor league system that produced the players that won the NL flag in 1926, 1928, 1930, 1931, 1934, 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1946 -- with 1943, 1944, and 1946 coming after Rickey had already left town. Those were his players that won those 3 pennants and 2 World Series while he was in Brooklyn busy building up another winner.

Therefore, in all reality, Rickey should have a lot more than just 8 pennants here. I understand if that doesn't fit the rules established to look at these GMs, but still it really was his team that won those other 3 flags in St. Louis (though Sam Breadon wanted to take credit for winning "without" Rickey).

[jalbright]

I have just been working through this thread, and thought I would add that Branch Rickey here in this list should be given credit for 8 NL pennants just in his time in St. Louis -- not counting the additional pennants he should be credited for after building up that Brooklyn Dodgers powerhouse from the late 40s onward. It was Rickey's minor league system that produced the players that won the NL flag in 1926, 1928, 1930, 1931, 1934, 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1946 -- with 1943, 1944, and 1946 coming after Rickey had already left town. Those were his players that won those 3 pennants and 2 World Series while he was in Brooklyn busy building up another winner.

Therefore, in all reality, Rickey should have a lot more than just 8 pennants here. I understand if that doesn't fit the rules established to look at these GMs, but still it really was his team that won those other 3 flags in St. Louis (though Sam Breadon wanted to take credit for winning "without" Rickey).

You can argue Rickey belongs higher than this ranking for reasons than this, and I can't say you're wrong. That said, it's an argument. Other guys kept and developed guys in the system after Rickey left. The only workable way to divide the credit for purposes of the rating system was to give the credit to the guy who held the GM role. It's not perfect, but remember we're trying to start the conversation rather than completely settle it. Other things to remember are that Rickey is third without any of the extra credit you want to give him nor any credit for being part of the integration of the game--and that even with the imperfect approach I felt was the best I could come up with in this structure, it's a damn good list. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and this one's pretty good. I submit it's a hell of a lot better way to orient the discussion than without something like that.

[Herr28]

You can argue Rickey belongs higher than this ranking for reasons than this, and I can't say you're wrong. That said, it's an argument. Other guys kept and developed guys in the system after Rickey left. The only workable way to divide the credit for purposes of the rating system was to give the credit to the guy who held the GM role. It's not perfect, but remember we're trying to start the conversation rather than completely settle it. Other things to remember are that Rickey is third without any of the extra credit you want to give him nor any credit for being part of the integration of the game--and that even with the imperfect approach I felt was the best I could come up with in this structure, it's a damn good list. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and this one's pretty good. I submit it's a hell of a lot better way to orient the discussion than without something like that.

I was only adding to the conversation, not trying to argue or to settle anything. Rickey doesn't need "extra credit" to compete with anyone on this list. The teams that won in '43, '44, and '46 were by and large almost completely built top to bottom with Rickey's players. I only added that as a part of his legacy, not to move him around anyone's list. Your pudding will taste just as nice with a little extra spice added to the recipe. I am not trying to throw anything out of the bowl here.

[jalbright]

My difficulty with your argument is first and foremost that I'm convinced that while the division of credit I came up with is imperfect, it's the best answer to use for everybody. Secondly, there's a tendency to support a favorite candidate with the good that came from the candidate--but not to do the same what-if for others. I think perhaps the best solution in cases like this is to note the guys signed or traded for by Rickey (the candidate in question here) and who had successes after Rickey's departure. That limits the discussion to good things done by the candidate. It's what I was trying to do with Howsam in mentioning the Maris and Cepeda acquisitions, though the largest impacts of those moves arrived after Howsam left the club. A third issue is that a guy may not get full credit for good moves he did make before he left, leaving meant he could no longer make any mistakes for that club. The GM after Howsam kept Maris and Cepeda, which was a good decision--and one which was his responsiblity to make.

[Herr28]

I don't have a beef with this system, and I agree with what you are saying and how this list is saying it. I should get that out of the way because I think there is a misunderstanding here. I am not arguing, or advocating, or trying to change anything in the list. I am not commenting on the system, whether perfect or not. I was simply commenting on the legacy of one guy mentioned in the list. I don't care where he sits on that list, even if he was sitting at the very top, because I was only adding that those other 3 pennants were won with his system of players. In regards to the comments I made about Howsam above, that was to correct some post earlier that said he acquired both Maris and Cepeda in 1965 -- which is incorrect. Stan Musial took the job after Howsam and convinced Maris to sign his contract, rather than retire after the trade, and Maris did so -- adding to Howsam's legacy with an "assist" by The Man. Those comments were not made to besmirch Howsam, the system employed here or this list of great GMs, just to add a bit to the historical legacy of the men already named in this thread.

[jalbright]

It's all good. I didn't get where you're coming from, and it's hard not to be a little defensive about some of these new creations. I'm particularly proud of this one, since the discussion was pretty much all narrative before this, and I want it to become a basis for a more organized way of discussing GM candidates for the Hall.

I'm not disputing that Howsam got an assist from Musial. GMs, like managers, don't accomplish what they do alone. Howsam may or may not deserve a lot of credit for Maris. That's a matter for debate--but what's not in debate is that the teams Howsam served as GM were quite successful, and Howsam had a hand in that success. That's the debate about Cashman as well--how much of the credit for the undeniable success of the teams he served as GM belongs to Cashman?

[Gold Pinstripes]

In reading the Frank Chance & Lou Piniella threads, currently both just a few below this one (at the time of this writing) I started wondering, what should the criteria be for a manager to be selected to the HOF? And what about people with good records as a player and a manager like the two men above and others such as Joe Torre and Gil Hodges? At what point does a combination of accomplishment in each category push someone over the line into the Coop? Or, again... does it? If you are slightly under the HOF line in each category, should your combined record get you a shot at all? I dont have a clearcut view on these questions at present.

Re: Frank Chance, my gut says his combined record is HOF worthy, he probably wouldnt get in on his playing or managing record alone. (Except for the impact of the poem "Tinker to Evers to Chance" maybe, which no doubt helped all 3 get in. I bet Harry Steinfeldt wishes he had been in the poem too... lol) Had Frank Selee lived and managed the Cub team he (largely) built, perhaps Chance would not have made the HOF.

Re: Was Lou Piniella a "legendary" manager... well... he has managed 5 different places, finished first (divisions) at 3 of them, won an upset WS with the Reds, broke the AL win record for a single season in a surprise campaign with the Mariners, may yet be the 1st Chicago Cubs pilot, where he has also finished first twice so far; to win a WS since The Peerless Leader in 1908 (Frank Chance.) It seems to feel to me like he is getting close to "legendary" status.

So what does the membership think? Anyone out there with strong views or thoughts they want to contribute in a general discussion of managers and combined playing and managing records, please have at it...!

I don't think the 2001 Mariners helps the case for Lou Pinella. They had such a dominant regular season, only to fall apart in the playoffs, and Pinella has to take responsibility for that. Seattle had a strong chance at the first world title in franchise history, and fell well short.

[Herr28]

It's all good. I didn't get where you're coming from, and it's hard not to be a little defensive about some of these new creations. I'm particularly proud of this one, since the discussion was pretty much all narrative before this, and I want it to become a basis for a more organized way of discussing GM candidates for the Hall.

I'm not disputing that Howsam got an assist from Musial. GMs, like managers, don't accomplish what they do alone. Howsam may or may not deserve a lot of credit for Maris. That's a matter for debate--but what's not in debate is that the teams Howsam served as GM were quite successful, and Howsam had a hand in that success. That's the debate about Cashman as well--how much of the credit for the undeniable success of the teams he served as GM belongs to Cashman?

I agree, and I do like this overall. I think Howsam did an excellent job, and even Musial himself didn't take credit for that 1967 World Series winner -- the team was already in place he felt. Stan's biggest contribution was to treat Maris like a human being, something he hadn't seen from a front office person that whole decade, and that made it an easy decision for Roger to ink that 1967 contract (Musial had let him sit on it all winter without trying to pressure him, and Maris respected that). It is a team sport, all the way up the chain of command, so it is difficult to hand out all the credit (and blame) to individuals across the years -- but it isn't impossible.

[Gold Pinstripes]

I really have to plug Danny Murtaugh again.

Murtaugh was the guy who got the Pirates to win, and win big. Had he not developed heart problems, I believe that the Pirates would have been perennial contenders in the 1960s. He reached that team as no other manager in their history.

Murtaugh is a subjective pick and a "narrative" pick, but he's a guy who won 2 World Championships with the same team far apart, and improved the team every time he came back to run it. Murtaugh had four (4) separate stints as Pirate manager. Arguably, the last stint killed him, but each time he reversed the stagnation and apathy and got the Pirates in REAL contention. (The exception was 1967, when he was brought in to replace Harry "The Hat" Walker, but his heart issues were not under control.)

Murtaugh's qualifications are definitely in line with other managers already inducted, his early death at 59, and losing time with health problems has really affected the public perception of Murtaugh. Won as many WS titles as Bobby Cox and Whitey Herzog combined, and did so as the underdog.