Christy Mathewson and John McGraw

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

By the time a player gets to the Big Leagues it's pretty well-known whether the guy will be a star or part of the supporting cast. But how about a ballplayer and in this situation a pitcher who is talented but becomes a super-star because of a manager. Christy and John McGraw was such a twosome, any additional pairs that come to mind?

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

"By the time a player gets to the Big Leagues it's pretty well-known whether the guy will be a star or part of the supporting cast."

Since when?

"But how about a ballplayer and in this situation a pitcher who is talented but becomes a super-star because of a manager."

I think Matty is a superstar under any manager.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

T206,

You are just a trouble-maker. LOL.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...I am. I happen to love Christy and Muggsy, by the way. And they had a great relationship. I am unaware of any similar relationships in baseball, but I'm sure there were plenty....

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

"By the time a player gets to the Big Leagues it's pretty well-known whether the guy will be a star or part of the supporting cast"


Where do you get this stuff from? Have you looked at some of the first year stats for players who are now regarded as bona fide stars? Many were not so great to start. Take a look at David Ortiz's stats. Between 1997 and 2002 he never batted over .300 for a full season, reached 20 HRs once, and never had more than 75 RBIs. Since joining Boston in 2003, he has never had less than 30 HRs or less than 100 RBIs in a season. In other words, he became a "star" six years into his career. Conversely, there are countless examples of players who are supposed to be "the next big thing" who dont amount to anything once they get to the majors.

[Archive]

Posted By: chris bland

At the risk of turning this into a 300 post thread about steroids, I have often wondered why David Ortiz seems immune to rumors of steroid use - have I just missed the accusations about him?

His career arc seems similar to many who have been linked to steroids, and he certainly isn't a small fellow...

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Being large is not the indicator of steriod use. Ortiz, as far as I can recall, has always been a large guy. No abnormal muscle growth etc. I also dont think his career arc is indicative of steriods. He was a decent player for six years and then "put it together." I think numerous players go through this type of pattern. He is not that old (at least not when his numbers got bigger) - its not like bonds who developed his power in his late 30s when most players are retiring.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

I doubt what you guys are saying. Sure there is the exception to the rule. But in general, it is pretty well-known. For instance a guy like Koufax. Everybody knew he had blazing speed, it was merely a question of whether he would find the strike zone. Or a guy like Ryne Sandberg who comes to the majors young and the first year stats were not exceptional. But you could see that these guys were going to be exceptional major leaguers.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Justin

I think with Ortiz it was matter of getting everyday playing time. His first year in Boston was quite good, and then he has been a superstar ever since.

How bout Dazzy Vance and Wilbert Robinson?

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...some guys that you can tell; but plenty of Sam Horns out there, too.

From the 1987 Topps Set alone:

Kal Daniels
Pete Incaviglia
Kevin Romine
Mike Greenwell

How about Marquis Grissom?

...or Gregg Jefferies?

All these guys were supposed to be super stars.... for them it didn't happen.

It's all well and good to play hindsight quarterback to Sandy Koufax -- WHO IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF PLAYER THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

T206,

We really are talking about two different things. If what you said is true then why do teams bother with scouts. The whole idea is to be able to see the diamond in the rough. If all you had to do was to look at the numbers then it would be a waste of time to have talent scouts. Just draft the high school players with the most home runs and strikeouts. Simple.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Prizner

what was the question again?

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...to gauge future viability as a Major League Player. Sometimes they will say this guy projects to be a No. 1 starter; sometimes they say he's a No. 5 starter at best -- but what actually happens is always quite a bit of a crapshoot. Just compare the No. 1 draft picks over the past 10 years and see who was right about their guesses and who wasn't. With guys who were great from day one it is easy to say, "Well, I knew he was going to always be great," but with many other players it is not so easy to tell.

Take a look at this year's All-Stars and see how many of them you just knew and everybody just knew they would be superstars. Your answers will vary. That's my only point.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Peter,

Scouts are used to sign players who might develop into stars. Once they are in the system, I assure you that the player's stats are what earns promotions to higher levels. Moreover, its a players stats (be it high school or college) that get the scout out there in the first place. Finally, go read moneyball - the whole premise of the book is that scouts dont have a clue what they are doing and that the stats tell the story.

[Archive]

Posted By: John H.

How can anyone know if McGraw had nothing, a little, or a lot to do with Matty being the pitcher he was? They are linked because they were on the same team, they had a lot of success together and they apparently had a good relationship, not because McGraw "made" Mathewson a great pitcher.

Also, we don't have a clue how most careers are going to turn out when a player first makes the bigs. Some players are immediate stars, some continue to improve and become stars, many plateau and belong to the supporting cast, and some get injured or regress and drop out of the majors as big disappointments.

John

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

So when Ken Griffey Jr. graduated from high school, major league scouts did not have a clue as to whether he would be a star?

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...it is easy to play hindsight quarterback when you are looking at Griffey; but how about Sosa? Why did he get traded so much early in his career if he had 600 home runs in front of him?

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Peter,

I have no idea what major league scouts thought. They obviously thought he was good enough to sign to a contract and probably thought he'd be a great player. But that is a terrible argument. For every "sure thing" that turns out to be a sure thing, there are 100 who dont. For every 1st rounder who hits it big, there are probably 15 who never make the majors. By the same token, there are numerous examples of late round draft picks who become stars. Obviously scouts didnt think that Albert Pujols would be a star - he wasnt drafted until the 13th round. For every player you can name, I promise you I can name 20 flops who were projected to be sure fire stars.

Major league scouts probably thought kal danials, kent hrbek, steve sax, gregg jefferies, etc. were all going to be HOFers - well, they arent and never will be.

[Archive]

Posted By: John H.

Regarding David Ortiz; I read in SI that the Twins were trying to make him fit into their "small ball" style of play. Well, that didn't work out very well so, despite his great potential, they finally gave up and released him. He signed with the BoSox where they told him to go out an knock the sh** out of the ball. He was quoted as saying that in Minnesota batters would get high fives for moving a runner over but in Boston it was seen as an unproductive at bat. The Sox made it clear that they want hitters to drive runners in and that allowed Ortiz to relax and swing for the fences.

John

[Archive]

Posted By: ScottIngold

Alway's know it will be a real head shaker.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

I think what Professor Chaos is saying is that without John McGraw, Matty would been a borderline HOFer, if at all. Just like Ty Cobb and Hank Greenberg. You know, those players that were on the bubble but somehow managed to get elected.

I think we should all agree with PC and slowly back away from this thread, keeping an eye out to be sure it doesn't follow us.

Any other response will just encourage it.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

I'm very hurt. I ask a serious question and all I get is abuse.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

peter...I think most are befuddled by your statement about it being obvious once a player makes the pros whether he's destined for stardom...or just a supporting role. this comment is not true...at all.

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

i agree with peter u.,i'm befuddled by pchaos premise.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

That's a legitimate complaint. Let's say it's a borderline star, now what I'm really interested in finding out is whether a good manager makes much of a difference in the development of a player. If he does, do we have historical examples of a star being heavily influenced by manager?

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

I think in your last post you played out the question in a way that provokes serious conjecture, though conjecture is all it can ever really be.....If the star turned into a superstar under the guidance of a manager or 'system' - you'll never know if he'd have struggled otherwise. You just can't, not without jumping in the proverbial time machine and changing the course of that player's destiny to measure the result.

I too though think its a reasonable assumption that at least some would have failed to meet their absolute top shelf potential. But working out who might or might not have failed is next to impossible to think through. For me, MJ could very easily have been a Kobe without the very structured requirements of Phil's/Tex Winters schemes and not have achieved such immortality. Still a jaw dropper, but perhaps not as measurably successful. And then you plug Kobe into the scheme and in spite of incredible brilliance it's all he can do to get out of the way of achieving sustained success..... Similarly Tiger's swing guru Butch Harmon may well have a fair hand in many of Woods' majors - as do all his other coaches throughout life. But how do you measure it? How can you know such superstars wouldn't have found some other road to stardom and success if forced to travel a different path?

Fair question, I'm glad you wearn't so wearied by the knockers that you gave up!



Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Ed Ivey

Stengel may have hindered Mantle's achievements with unreachable expectations.

[Archive]

Posted By: 1959 Topps

I think Matty is a star under any manager but his relationship with Mac could not have hurt.

On another note, sure fire HOFer's in the minors sometimes are busts. And some superstars don't hit their stride for a few years. Mantle does come to mind.

I've seen minor leaaguer with more talent in their little finger than I had in my whole body never hit over .240 in Triple A. And I've seen guys with less talent and great heart make it.

As for berating Peter, I don't think that's fair and is uncalled for. He's just trying to be a part of it all and brings up some interesting and sometime amusing posts.

Smiley added for PC.




In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

How about Babe Ruth and Ed Barrow? Under Barrow Ruth became an every day OF.

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

Hmmm...wanna see why Ortiz is more successful in Boston, look no further than the stadium he plays in...

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: John H.

Ortiz is a lefthanded hitter. Fenway doesn't help him much.

John

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Ed Barrow was the general manager, and Babe was one of those very special talents that didn't need help from anybody.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

Fenway does help Ortiz as a lefty...right field is very short at the pole and does help Ortiz. It also does not hurt that right center is huge and this has helped his average. Fenway also has a better hitter's blind and eventhough Minnesota is the "Homerdome" hitters seem to hit better at Fenway.

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Ed Barrow was the Sox manager when Babe became a full-time OF. I agree that Babe probably needed no help to become a great hitter. But it was of some importance that Barrow felt that Ruth was such a great hitter that he was willing to make him an OF full time even though he was one of the best pitchers of his time. In effect, Barrow was "trading" a proven ace pitcher for a hitter of great potential.

Also, it can be argued that most hall of famers were special talents that needed no help. Who's to say? It can be said of anybody, including Mathewson, and there really is no way to prove the point.

Howard

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

how about leo durocher putting willie mays in the outfield at age 20 & keeping him there? leo always took credit for this.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

I think your creation of Peter C's nickname is one of the best I have seen in a long while. Large kudos to you for "Professor Chaos"!!!!!!!!

As far as commenting on the topic of this thread, I look forward to doing so as soon as I can figure out what it is.

Interesting Mgr-Player relationships (in order of increasing value and incredulity):
LaRussa - Pujols
Jennings - Cobb
Frank Chance - Ernie Banks
Cap Anson - Juan Gonzalez
Tom LaSorda - fresh plate of pasta

[Archive]

Posted By: Pcelli60

Well, right off the bat Mathewson won 20 games in 01' without McGraw and despite the meddling of then Giants owner Andrew Freedman. Amid Matty's early success Freedman was convinced that he could make a good first baseman out of him. Others involved with the team actually envisioned him as an outfielder and even a shortstop!
This was still going on when McGraw entered the scene in the summer of 02'. He immediately put an end to all this nonsense. It could be speculated that that alone could have done wonders for a young Matty's confidence.In was in fact, the beginning of a beautiful relationship.
Obviously McGraw cant be given credit for Matty's raw ability. But the two are attached at the hip by history. McGraw's eye for talent was needed at that critical moment in Mathewson's career. Matty could have be a twenty game winner even with the worse teams of that era. But it was McGraw's Giants that made him famous..

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

Mathewson was already a great pitcher when McGraw came to the Giants, although Matty's career had only just begun -- he had a great '01 followed by a mediocre '02 (by Big Six standards).

However, I think it is definitely true that the Giants were a much better team under McGraw, and that certainly helped Mathewson's numbers.

The Mathewson-McGraw realtionship is covered well in "The Old Ball Game" by Frank Deford. A very enjoyable read, with many players in the old tobacco sets making an appearance. Quite a cast of characters!

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Lefty batters are also helped in Fenway by the minimal foul territory and the tendency for opposing managers to pitch righties there.

Howard

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

One of the biggest myths in baseball is the "homerdome". Someone in SABR actually did an analysis of all the hits in the Metrodome and found that it was about average for HRs, but was actually far above average for doubles and triples.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Can we attribute Babe Ruth's tremendous performance with the Yankees to Miller Huggins ?

HECK NO.......but, we can credit Miller Huggins for bringing Ruth to the Yankees, as he was the one
who persuaded Col. Ruppert and Til Houston to acquire Ruth from Boston.

TED Z