Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Connie Mack = Most overrated manager of all-time

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Connie Mack = Most overrated manager of all-time

    Before all you Philadelphians jump over me with "3700 wins, 7 pennants, 5 World Series titles (1910, 1911, 1913, 1929, 1930)" Let's get this straight. He lost 3948 games, more than he won. He had 17 last-place finishes. Unimpressive if you ask me considering if you manage 50 years, 7 pennants should be won.

  • #2
    World Series titles aren't just something that happens over time. Ask the Cubs, Phillies, or Red Sox, to name just a few franchises that managed to not win 9 pennants or 5 World Series in a 50 year stretch. Mack was superb in building two separate dynasties that won those titles. In between those two dynasties, he had to rebuild because economically he couldn't pay the salaries during the Federal League days. It was slow, but he got there. The second dynasty fell apart because of economics again (this time the Great Depression) and his teams became awful again. By the time the economy recovered, it might have been best if Mack had hung it up, but he kept managing. But should that sad 17 year end to his career overwhelm the tremendous first two thirds of it? I think the HOF came up with the correct answer: no. You obviously disagree.

    Jim Albright
    Last edited by jalbright; 08-02-2007, 05:17 PM.
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by jalbright View Post
      World Series titles aren't just something that happens over time. Ask the Cubs, Phillies, or Red Sox, to name just a few franchises that managed to not win 9 pennants or 5 World Series in a 50 year stretch. Mack was superb in building two separate dynasties that won those titles. In between those two dynasties, he had to rebuild because economically he couldn't pay the salaries during the Federal League days. It was slow, but he got there. The second dynasty fell apart because of economics again (this time the Great Depression) and his teams became awful again. By the time the economy recovered, it might have been best if Mack had hung it up, but he kept managing. But should that sad 17 year end to his career overwhelm the tremendous first two thirds of it? I think the HOF came up with the correct answer: no. You obviously disagree.

      Jim Albright
      I disagree because I'm not just focusing on 1934-1950, what about 1915-1921? Yes, he had to stay alive and sell teams essentially, but, still, he did have more losses than wins
      Last edited by jalbright; 08-02-2007, 05:18 PM. Reason: correcting error in quoted portion

      Comment


      • #4
        What I'm saying is, take 1894 through 1933, and you've got a HOF caliber manager. The economics of the Depression and his advancing age amount to the same thing as an old player playing out the string for a few paydays--it shouldn't matter in terms of whether or not he's a HOF caliber manager. That still saddles him with the aftermath of 1914's sell off--yet, his ability to build another dynasty demonstrates it was purely economics which forced him into those disastrous moves. He's still third in career wins, still has 22 winning seasons of 35 (he had 25 all told), he'd be 18th in wins over .500, he'd have a .528 career winning percentage in over 4900 games, good for 38th despite a very long career, and he'd have those pennants and world series still to his credit. Connie would still have the third most World Series crowns of anyone, and there aren't a lot of guys who have won seven pennants, either. He also proved able to adapt from deadball tactics to the ball of the late 1920's, which is a remarkable change. When Connie Mack was younger than his mid 70's and had the money to enable him to compete, he did it as well as anyone. To me, that's clearly a HOF caliber manager considering he managed for 35 years up to that point.

        Jim Albright
        Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
        Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
        A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

        Comment


        • #5
          I didn't realize Connie Mack was that highly rated. Usually McCarthy, Stengel, McGraw maybe Miller Huggins or Sparky Anderson might come up as the best of all time. Connie Mack to me is in th enext group though I'm inclined to agree with Jim Albright's line of thought.

          Comment


          • #6
            I also did a quick count of pennants and World Series won. There are only two franchises that did better in 1901-33: the Yankees and the Giants. In fact, 9 of those franchises (Phils, Dodgers, Braves, Reds, Browns, Senators and Indians) combined to win 9 pennants and 4 World Series in the time Mack won his 9 pennants and 5 World Series between 1901 and 1933.

            Another way to show how absurd it is to dismiss nine pennants and five World Series wins in the context of Mack's career is to look at how other franchises did in the sixteen team era (1901-60):
            Code:
            Team	years	WS	pennants
            Phils	1901-60	0	2
            Pirates	1910-59	1	2
            Dodgers	1901-46	0	3
            Braves	1901-56	1	2
            Reds	1901-60	1	3
            Cubs	1919-60	0	5
            Browns	1901-60	0	1
            Chi Sox	1901-60	2	4
            Senatrs	1901-60	1	3
            Indians	1901-60	2	3
            Tigers	1910-60	2	4
            Red Sox	1919-60	0	1
            If it was so easy to win those titles in the time frame Mack did it, why do 12 of the other 15 franchises have worse stretches, often far worse?

            Jim Albright
            Last edited by jalbright; 08-02-2007, 05:16 PM.
            Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
            Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
            A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

            Comment


            • #7
              Mack won nine pennants.

              1902, '05, '10, '11, '13, '14, '29, '30, '31.

              and finished 2nd another six times.
              Last edited by Brian McKenna; 08-02-2007, 02:51 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by bkmckenna View Post
                Mack won nine pennants.

                1902, '05, '10, '11, '13, '14, '29, '30, '31.

                and finished 2nd another six times.
                Thanks for the correction. I made the mistake of crediting the thread author with actually having done his homework. Given his conclusion, I think that was an unwise piece of generosity on my part.

                Jim Albright
                Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
                Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
                A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by jalbright View Post
                  Thanks for the correction. I made the mistake of crediting the thread author with actually having done his homework. Given his conclusion, I think that was an unwise piece of generosity on my part.

                  Jim Albright
                  Well, I'll be here more often barring unforeseen circumstances, either way, it was the fact that he had more losses than wins that makes me make this argument. I am not saying he was not good, but he wasn't great. He's not top 5 of all-time

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    To me we are getting to the point of the word "overrated" being overused.

                    You will also find that evaluting managers is a daunting task. It seems like the successful ones had better players than the unsuccessful ones and there is no shortage of managers who were thought of as failures at one time in their careers only to be considered great at another time.

                    Mack has to be credited with actually assembling great teams which demonstrates a keen eye for talent. In the modern era very few managers can claim ths distinction.
                    Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by KCGHOST View Post
                      To me we are getting to the point of the word "overrated" being overused.

                      You will also find that evaluting managers is a daunting task. It seems like the successful ones had better players than the unsuccessful ones and there is no shortage of managers who were thought of as failures at one time in their careers only to be considered great at another time.

                      Mack has to be credited with actually assembling great teams which demonstrates a keen eye for talent. In the modern era very few managers can claim ths distinction.
                      Yeah, but then again he did have it easier back then when he would not lose his best players in the heart of the dynasty. He broke up his teams after they lost a World Series. Maybe overrated is the wrong word, I should have said that he was not among the best of all-time. I think that if he's top 5 it's too high.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Managers prior to say the later 1930s did not have it easier than today's lot. Their job was a 365-day committment much like NFL coaches of today.

                        Mack ran his club front top to bottom like his peer Griffith and a slew of others. ML managers' responsibilites in this regard have eased substantially.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by bkmckenna View Post
                          Managers prior to say the later 1930s did not have it easier than today's lot. Their job was a 365-day committment much like NFL coaches of today.

                          Mack ran his club front top to bottom like his peer Griffith and a slew of others. ML managers' responsibilites in this regard have eased substantially.
                          Well, I meant easier because they did not lose their best players to free agency.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Connie Mack started his MLB career in the 1886 as a catcher with the original NL Washington National's where he was a team-mate of players like Paul Hines, who started their careers before the NL was formed. He experienced the change when overhand delivery was first allowed, he saw the AA, participated in the Player's League War, experienced the 60'6" game change, was instrumental in the formation of the AL, involved with the Federal League War, managed against the Black Sox, and managed against Babe the pitcher and Babe the slugger. He owned, scouted, built, and managed 3 separate dynasties, and managed one team for over 50 years. He was ruined by the stock market crash for 10 years, managed though the Great Depression, two World Wars, and witnessed 10 new states join the Union.

                            Now, you think you are qualified to judge Connie Mack as over-rated. None of us are!
                            Last edited by HDH; 08-05-2007, 10:13 AM.
                            In the 1920's, Harry Heilmann led the AL with a .364 average. In addition, he averaged 220 hits, 45 doubles, 12 triples, 16 homers, 110 runs, and 130 RBI.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by HDH View Post
                              Connie Mack started his MLB career in the 1886 as a catcher with the original NL Washington National's where he was a team-mate of players like Paul Hines, who started their careers before the NL was formed. He experienced the change when overhand delivery was first allowed, he saw the AA, participated in the Player's League War, experienced the 60'6" game change, was instrumental in the formation of the AL, involved with the Federal League War, managed against the Black Sox, and managed against Babe the pitcher and Babe the slugger. He owned, scouted, built, and managed 3 separate dynasties, and managed one team for over 50 years. He was ruined by the stock market crash for 10 years, managed though the Great Depression, two World Wars, and witnessed 10 new states join the Union.

                              Now, you think you are qualified to judge Connie Mack as over-rated. None of us are!
                              Again, I admitted overrated was the wrong word. But he still isn't top 5 in my mind, because the order for me in that is:

                              1) Stengel
                              2) McCarthy
                              3) John McGraw
                              4) Sparky Anderson
                              5) Tony La Russa

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X