Right now, La Russa and Gardenhire.

 

They manage to be competitive with mediocre teams.

um, no one

 

managers don't really do s*** IMO

 

Generals don't fire machine guns or fly planes, but you still need someone to set the strategy.

I give LaRussa a ton of credit for thinking outside the box and hiring a former catcher as his pitching coach in Dave Duncan. Dave Stewart and Dennis Eckersley wouldn't be who they were without LaRussa.

 

Or Bobby Cox for teaming up with Leo Mazzone. LaRussa should take some heat for losing to the Dodgers and the Red Sox in the WS with superior talent, but he also gets major props for winning with an 83-78 team and getting stellar pitching out of Jeff Weaver, Anthony Reyes, and Jeff Suppan.

 

Sparky Anderson should also be up there.

Edited June 10, 200817 yr by WCSox

I have to go with Weaver, Anderson, and Lasorda. Managers are essentially hired to be fired, but these three managed for decades. Plus they each have championships under their belt. They were giants; the Michael, Magic, and Bird of managers.

 

Either that just because they were the managers during the era I grew up in

 

SFF

Edited June 10, 200817 yr by SpringfieldFan

Only two teams other than the Yankees won the American League pennant and went to the World Series in the 50's. One was the Cleveland Indians, the other our Chicago White Sox. Both teams were managed by Al Lopez.

Also Tommy Lasorda is underrated because he's a blowhard, but he really is a smart baseball guy. And of course don't forget the great Chuck Tanner!

You think that Mazzone might come back into coaching?

Generals don't fire machine guns or fly planes, but you still need someone to set the strategy.

 

Yeah, war is slightly different than a game

 

All im saying is, baseball is prolly the least important sport when talking about a manager/coach

Yeah, war is slightly different than a game

 

All im saying is, baseball is prolly the least important sport when talking about a manager/coach

I'd have to say basketball takes that title, over baseball.

 

I'd have to say basketball takes that title, over baseball.

 

I didn't say basketball because at least there is actually set offensive plays and defenses/presses/etc that need to be incorporated.

 

Baseball? Hey this guy is a left handed pull hitter, you guys move over a little bit.. there you go. And were set.

I'd have to say basketball takes that title, over baseball.

 

Maybe, but I think there's a reason that guys like Phil Jackson, Pat Riley, and Jerry Sloan have had major success (and multiple titles in the first two cases) with completely different teams.

 

 

I didn't say basketball because at least there is actually set offensive plays and defenses/presses/etc that need to be incorporated.

 

Baseball? Hey this guy is a left handed pull hitter, you guys move over a little bit.. there you go. And were set.

Basketball has a few set plays, but they are rarely stuck to, except in game breaking situations. There are a few routine moves used of course. But the game is just so player-dynamic, the coach (IMO) is very limited in effect, especially at the pro level. They have much less effect than baseball managers, in-game. And out of game, I'd say that's even more so. All sports can be expressed on a continuum of skils ----- athleticism. Basketball is much closer to athleticism than other major sports, except maybe soccer, so coaching off the field is the least important.

 

Maybe, but I think there's a reason that guys like Phil Jackson, Pat Riley, and Jerry Sloan have had major success (and multiple titles in the first two cases) with completely different teams.

A note on that... one thing that is also true about coaching in basketball and baseball alike, is that the manager has more effect on psychology and personalities, than they do on actual in-game events. This is especially pronounced in basketball. Its in large part glorified day care. Football would be an example on the other end, where its much more about strategy and design.

 

A note on that... one thing that is also true about coaching in basketball and baseball alike, is that the manager has more effect on psychology and personalities, than they do on actual in-game events. This is especially pronounced in basketball. Its in large part glorified day care. Football would be an example on the other end, where its much more about strategy and design.

 

I completely agree about the psychology and managing of egos in both sports (and for that matter, for ALL professional sports). And for all of its physicality, football is definitely the most cerebral of the major professional sports.

 

That said, I think that there's at least as much strategy in basketball as baseball. It's more subtle in some cases, such as Phil Jackson scrapping the triangle and going to the pick-and-roll with Kobe in the second half of the first NBA Finals game. A more obvious example would be Gregg Popovich having his bench players constantly foul Shaq and taking their chances with him at the line in the Spurs/Suns series.