Which HOF "manager" was the best "player"?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

According to the official Hall of Fame web site, the following HOF members were inducted as "MANAGERS":

Walter Alston
Sparky Anderson
Leo Durocher
Rube Foster
Ned Hanlon
Bucky Harris
Miller Huggins
Tommy Lasorda
Al Lopez
Connie Mack
Joe McCarthy
John McGraw
Bill McKechnie
Wilbert Robinson
Frank Selee
Casey Stengel
Earl Weaver

So which of these guys had the best PLAYING career...

and where will JOE TORRE rank as a "player" once he gets inducted as a Manager??

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

McGraw & Foster

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

McGraw: .334 lifetime hitter ... but only 1309 hits.

Torre: .297 hitter with 2342 hits and 1185 RBI.

Clark Griffith: 237 wins vs. 142 losses... and a lifetime 3.31 era.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Hands down.

Then McGraw, but not close.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

Ty Cobb, he managed and was the best in the game ...didn't state which order of HOF that you meant !

Happy Holidays and Im a FREEZING AT - 2 ...brrr !

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

I picked both McGraw & Foster because I think it is difficult to say which is the better "player" when you are comparing pitchers vs. players. It's like asking who was the better player - Ty Cobb or Walter Johnson?

My opinion is that McGraw is clearly the best position player among the managers, while Foster is clearly the best pitcher among the managers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H (misunderestimated)

I'd go with Foster than McGraw and Torre. I would also note that Foster's induction, while he was both a player and manager of more than suffient merit to justify being in the Hall of Fame, also recognized his nearly single-handed construction and maintenance of the original Negro Leagues.....

McGraw, who still has one of the highest On-Base percentages ever (future managers were often keenly aware of the value of simply getting on base before Bill James ever picked up a calculator) was quite injury prone and his career numbers pale next to those of Torre as well as Al Lopez. Also, note that Lopez, Torre, Wilbert Robinson, Hanlon and Mack were all primarily Catchers when they played as were an otherwise disproportionate number of Managers.... Personally, if push came to shove, I'd take McGraw over Torre as a player because of his exceptional value during his peak years and the fact that even as a player (for Hanlon's "Old Orioles") he was a bigger winner than Torre.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Dan, only problem with your answer is that Cobb was elected to the HOF as a manager.

Jay

The difference between genius and insanity is acceptance.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

I think the list is incomplete.

Joe (Iron Man) McGinnity was born on Sunday, March 19, 1871, and began his Major League baseball career on April 18, 1899, with the Baltimore Orioles. The 28 year-old played for 10 seasons on 4 different teams and ended his big league playing career in 1908. (from Baseball Almanac.)

He became a player-coach for Newark, a minor league team. He is the only HOF player in the T206 set who has a minor league team. He played and coached until the age of 50.

I don't know how great he was as either a player or coach (HOF good, though), but he should be included in the list of player/coaches.

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

Don't forget Johnny "Crab" Evers, Roger Bresnahan and Frank "Peerless Leader" Chance since this is a vintage board. Chance was a helluva player-manager but Evers had the best player-manager year of anyone when, in 1914, he led the Boston Miracle Braves on the field and off.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Aren't we missing the point here? Hal posted a list of HOFers who were inducted as MANAGERS and then posed the question: which of THESE GUYS had the best playing career.

The question wasn't "Who is the best player who ever managed?"

That's why Cobb and other greats mentioned were not on the list.

In my opinion, Rube Foster is the only Hall-worthy candidate based on playing career only. I personally like the way McGraw played the game, but even with a .334 career average he falls a bit short in my book due to the era he played in.

For example, in 1894 McGraw hit .340. Pretty good, right? Well, that was 3 points BELOW his team's average of .343 which wasn't even the best team average in the league! Philly hit .349 as a team. I guess it helps when you have 4 guys bat over .400.

So McGraw's .334 career average doesn't look quite so spectacular in proper context. Or at least not Hall-worthy.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Jimmy Collins is pictured with Minneapolis Millers in the t206 set.

Jay

The difference between genius and insanity is acceptance.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Ryan is correct in his clarification.

ALL of the names I listed were NOT enshrined as "players" into Cooperstown, but were enshrined as "MANAGERS."

Presumably, this means that they would all still be in Cooperstown for their managing accomplishments...

even if they had NEVER played a single inning of baseball.

Others who will join them eventually on this same basis:

Joe Torre
Bobby Cox
Tony LaRussa

Any others that I am forgetting?

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Let me see if I understand this. McGraw, with a .334 lifetime BA ans a .466 OBP is not worthy of HOF status on that basis alone?

I must applaud your requirements Ryan! I wish everyone viewed entry into the Hall as difficult as you do. But unfortunately, I do not think that many will agree with you. I sure wish that the Hall of Fame was only for the best of the best. Even if it were tho, McGraw would arguably be a candidate based on his personal on field performance, IMO.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pcelli60

McGraw and Griffith

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Gilbert, I assume you missed the post that pointed out McGraw, despite hitting .340 one year, was still 3 points below his TEAM's average and his team didn't even lead the league that year.

Taken in the context of when McGraw played, his numbers are less than spectacular. You can't just blindly look at numbers and say this player was great, or this one wasn't. Look at pitchers K totals. Compared to previous generations, they are spectacular, but players don't care anymore if they strikeout. Striking out used to be humiliating for a batter, so they did everything possible to not do it. Walter JOhnson's K total is much more impressive than everyone ahead of him except maybe Ryan's.

Jay

The difference between genius and insanity is acceptance.

[Archive]

Posted By: HW

Rube Foster is definitely my first choice.

I also think John McGraw was a great player. He finised in the top ten the the league in Batting Average 4 times, On Base Percentage 6 times, Runs 4 times and Stolen Bases 4 times. He led the leage in On Base Percentage 3 times and Runs 2 times. Those are some pretty good stats.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H (misunderestimated)

I think Griffith (who is not on Hal's list above) is in the HOF as a player not a Manager. Chance, who is in the HOF as a Player, is easily HOF class as a Manager as well. In fact, "the Peerless Leader" probably belongs more as Manager than as a Player.....

946 Wins 648 Loses .593 Winning percentage (6th All-Time) with 4 Pennants and 2 World Series Wins. In a five years span, 1906-10 he was 530 and 235. His receord with the Cubs (early/mid-season 1905 thru 1912) in 1178 games was: 768 Wins and just 389 loses that's .664. .664 would easily be first all-time.

I like to think that while he is one of the lesser players in the HOF he is a legitimate HOFer becasue of his leadership (i.e. managerial skill etc.). The same may not be true of his infield cohorts, Evers and Tinker who are marginal HOFers at best.

Another "Cub" player-manager, Cap Anson also rates HOF class as a Manger regardless of his playing achievements. Of course, Cap's contibutions as both a player and manager are forever stained by his role in facilitating Major League Baseball's aparthied.

If Baseball's Hall of Fame were like Basketball's -- or Rock'n Rolls for that matter -- Anson and Chance would be HOFers twice-over, as Players and Managers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Jay:

I did not miss the post that pointed out that McGraw, despite hitting .340 one year, was still 3 points below his TEAM's average and his team didn't even lead the league that year. I simply do not think that the performance of other players during one or two years has any impact on McGraw's qualification for recognition.

Now Jay, if what you were saying was that throughout his career, John McGraw batted three points lower than his team's avarage; I believe that a valid point would exist. However, I currently view the fact cited as a statistical quirk, of no greater value than a curiousity.

Gilbert

I just checked baseball reference: 25th in lifetime BA, 3rd in lifetime OBP.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Gilbert,

Since you seem to think McGraw's numbers were 1 or 2 year aberrations, I made up a spreadsheet with a more detailed statistical analysis comparing the career of John McGraw to the career of Don Mattingly and both of their contemporaries. To show that the year I gave in the first example wasn't a fluke, I've included statistics for his entire career in comparison with the league average and league leaders in the categories of BA, HR, and RBI.

I couldn't get it to line up right when I tried to post it so I was going to e-mail it to you, but you left no e-mail address.

Based on that comparison, it looks like you must believe that Mattingly belongs in the Hall more than I do. And my son's middle name is literally "Mattingly."

25th in lifetime average? Yes.
Highest finish? 3rd.
Next highest? 3rd.
Next? 5th.
Next? 10th.

Four top ten finishes with none higher than 3rd is not a HOFer unless they have amazing power. Do McGraw's 13 career home runs qualify as amazing power? Don Mattingly hit more home runs in a season than McGraw did in his career...8 times!

McGraw was never even close to winning a batting title. His best season was 19 points below the league leader.

In the season that the LEAGUE AVERAGE was .309 and McGraw hit .340, he still finished 100 points behind Hugh Duffy!

By the way, Hal McRae, Amos Otis and Lou Piniella all had 4 top ten finishes as well. Looks like the Kansas City Royals might need their own wing in Cooperstown!

Oh, and Al Oliver had 9 top ten finishes including a batting title. Factor in his 2,700+ hits and must seem like Ted Williams to you. Why aren't you championing the cause of Al Oliver in the Hall?

My point is: John McGraw is not a HOF-worthy candidate based on his playing career alone.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

They have formulas which are supposed to neutralize for statistical differences among eras. McGraw is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the HOF as a player except on one measure. (All time ranks are in parentheses)
Black Ink: Batting - 10 (220) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 50 (486) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 41.2 (132) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 60.0 (290) (Likely HOFer > 100)

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Gee Ryan, I thought that my e-mail could be assessed thru my log on info. People have previously had success with that. In any case, My e-mail address is identify7@aol.com.

As you note, McGraw was not a slugger. He was the type of player who hit well, got on base a lot, and stole bases often. A very exciting player, exemplary of the period in which he played.

To achieve the 25th highest batting average ever is, to me, a noteworthy accomplishment. To compliment that achievement with his proficiency in stealing bases adds significantly to his reputation. But what puts him over the top in my estimation is that roughly half of the time that he faced a pitcher, he was successful in getting on base.

He is in pretty elite company here. Those players whose OBP can be rounded off to .5 include Ruth, Williams, McGraw and Hamilton.

Although a man to man comparison regarding achievements is prone to inadequacies; I feel a man to man comparison between similar players is most valid. I do not think that McGraw was as good as Hamilton , but he was in his league.

It is ok if you do not agree with my evaluation of this player, Ryan and Jay. I fail to see your points. Particularly considering the caliber of player elected to the hall during the past few decades.

But if the comparison is really who was better: Foster or McGraw? The comparison is not completely fair to Foster, since most assessments of his playing credentials rely on recollections rather than documentation. I tend to put much emphasis on recollections, but wish the history was better documented.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Gilbert, to give you an idea of how inflated numbers were during McGraw's era, the league batting average during his career (I omitted his last 4 years since it totals about 20 games) is .283 and the OBA .340. During Bonds' career the league avg is .260 and OBA is .323. Those are some pretty huge spreads.

And the only players with as few top 10 appearances as McGraw in the top 25 for career BA are Stenzel and O'Doul who had very brief major league careers, and Rigg Stephenson, who like McGraw, benefited from playing during an era with a very high BA. All of these players has 3 or 4 appearances, the next lowest after that is Dave Orr with 7. Cobb was in the top 10 all but 2 years of his career and that was at the tail end.

McGraw was a very good player for his day, but not a HOFer.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Jay, I don't know why, but I just gotta see if you are goin' to say again "No, he isn't"



Yes, he is"!

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

If McGraw was ever among the best, a proposition which I don't agree with, it was only for a very short while. He was only a regular or semi-regular for 9 years. In fact, he played in over 100 games in only five seasons. In two other seasons, he exceeded 90 games. Overall, he only had 3924 AB and only 1309 hits. To my way of thinking, that isn't really a HOF-quality type of career.

Moreover, if you go to BaseballReference.com and look at his comps, only two of the top 10 most comparable players are in the HOF. Those two are Jennings (4th) and Chance (6th), both of whom are somewhat iffy HOF selections based strictly on their achievements as players. The three players most comparable to McGraw, in order, are Denny Lyons, Johnny Pesky and Red Rolfe.

I've heard sporadic HOF arguments in favor of each. However, I don't think there has ever been much of a hue and cry for the election of Lyons, Pesky or Rolfe to the HOF. The reason is that neither the length of their careers nor their accomplishments while they played warrant it. The same is true of McGraw. End of story.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Williams

As the forum newbie, I just love this website, I just dabble in cards, but have been working on some older Topps Sets.

Anyway, I'd vote for Al Lopez or John McGraw.

[Archive]

Posted By: Doug Doremus

Your question leads me to another that a friend and I have been debating: Should a player be elected to the Hall of Fame on the basis of playing and managing careers combined--on the basis of overall contributions to baseball?

My contention is that a player should be able to be elected on this basis, and that on this basis Gil Hodges surely belongs [the '69 Mets being the greatest managerial feat in my lifetime--a magical year when Hodges made every right move,molding a team into one that was greater than the sum of its parts], albeit his career was cut short by untimely death.

On what basis does the Hall of Fame Committee elect? I suppose this question really need be asked of them. What do you think?

[Archive]

Posted By: sayitaintsojoe

...Joe Torre's numbers are often overlooked.
remember that the hieght of his career was during a Pitching dominant era, and that he was one of the most productive catchers offensively in that era.
Was a smart player behind the plate, on the bases and pretty handy at 1st base and even gave his team an extra 3rd baseman...and won an MVP award in '71.



Regardless of Bill James almighty theoretical formulas, one must consider:

RANKINGS FOR CATCHERS DURING 1960S: 1st in AB (4302), R (542), H (1261), 1B (891), 2B (183), HR (160), HR% (3.72), RBI (653), AVG (.293), SLG (.460), OBA (.357), OPS (.817), TB (1978), EBH (370) ; 2nd in G (1196); 3rd in 3B (27), BB (400)

now compare Gary Carter, Carlton Fisk and the other catchers with marginal offensive stats.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

Not only player, manager and innovator, but pitching AND hitting and fielding (I guess it will be in someone else's lifetime that Caruthers and and Hoy get in). Why do you have to make it as ONLY a player, a pitcher or a honcho? I guee John M. Ward beat the system, sort of.

But not to change the topic too much: what HOF players (deserving) were also at least GOOD managers?