What managers will make the Hall of Fame?

[John1941]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't really understand the HOF's criteria for managers. It seems all over the place. Bobby Cox won a single World Series in 29 years as a manager. Doesn't sound like a HOFer to me but he is one.

Cox only won one world series, but he won five NL pennants and won 100 games five times. He won 2504 games as a manager - fourth all time. His teams were consistently excellent.

Saying he shouldn't be a hall of famer because he only won one WS is a little like saying Connie Mack shouldn't be a hall of famer because he had a .486 career winning percentage.

[packs]

Originally Posted by John1941

Cox only won one world series, but he won five NL pennants and won 100 games five times. He won 2504 games as a manager - fourth all time. His teams were consistently excellent.

Saying he shouldn't be a hall of famer because he only won one WS is a little like saying Connie Mack shouldn't be a hall of famer because he had a .486 career winning percentage.

I consider it to be more of a question of what makes you a HOF manager? And what makes one person one but another isn't? I don't think anyone can seriously say the Braves of the 90s were good because they had Bobby Cox anymore than it can be said the Yankees of the 90s were good because they had Joe Torre. But the difference is that Torre won and Cox didn't.

The feeling in NY has always been that anyone could have managed those teams but Torre benefitted from being the guy who did. Is there much of a difference when you look at the teams Cox was managing?

Why is Jim Leyland a HOFer but Billy Martin isn’t? There doesn’t seem to be common criteria for managers.

[jayshum]

No one thought much of Terry Francona as a manager when he was with the Phillies and had 4 losing seasons. It's amazing what having good players can do for a manager's reputation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I consider it to be more of a question of what makes you a HOF manager? And what makes one person one but another isn't? I don't think anyone can seriously say the Braves of the 90s were good because they had Bobby Cox anymore than it can be said the Yankees of the 90s were good because they had Joe Torre. But the difference is that Torre won and Cox didn't.

The feeling in NY has always been that anyone could have managed those teams but Torre benefitted from being the guy who did. Is there much of a difference when you look at the teams Cox was managing?

Why is Jim Leyland a HOFer but Billy Martin isn’t? There doesn’t seem to be common criteria for managers.

Billy Martin should make the HOF for pulling Reggie from right field and then trying to go after him in the dugout.