Joe McCarthy: the worst senator of them all, but the best baseball manager ever.

Joe McCarthy: the worst senator of them all, but the best baseball manager ever.

Worse than that pro-slavery guy who beat the other senator with a cane?

Worse than that pro-slavery guy who beat the other senator with a cane?


He was a Representative. Preston Brooks. And he wasn't beating Sumner because Sumner was anti-slavery, I was surprised to see argued in Joel Williamson's Crucible of Race.

Worse than that pro-slavery guy who beat the other senator with a cane?

That was Preston Brooks, who was not a Senator but a US Rep.

This guy should be in the discussion. That ISO is positively Tynerian.

Two questions about McCarthy, who I have researched a bit myself. The first, of course, is how well he would have managed a team that was not obviously the best team. McCarthy's champions were so clearly the dominant teams, with the possible exception of 1943, a war year. I am not suggesting he should be dinged for this--its just something to ponder.

The other is how his latter teams were effected by his alcoholism. Ed Linn wrote that McCarthy regularly had to take leaves of absences for his drinking, which the Yankees would explain as "gall bladder problems". We know that he left the team for extended periods in 1944 and 1945, and eventually left for good in 1946, and I found a few other long weekends in the early 1940s that made the papers. He also drank early and often during his Boston years, culminating in his quitting in 1950. He was not otherwise unhealthy, and he lived a long life. A few players I spoke with from his Red Sox years suggest that he kind of checked out once the season started.

This clearly accelerated in his later career, but I wonder if there were any patterns that show up in the way he used his team. The one thing that struck me was that his Boston teams had very little depth--no bullpen or bench--and this was a part of team that was the responsibility of the manager, at least in Boston. His NY teams were deep.

He also drank early and often during his Boston years, culminating in his quitting in 1950.

I believe I read the story in Halberstam's Summer of '49, that Red Sox pitcher Chuck Stobbs was one day pulled aside by McCarthy. McCarthy walked Stobbs out to the area around second base, and began talking with Stobbs about footwork on fielding grounders and pivoting on the double play (McCarthy had been a second baseman in his long minor league playing career).

This went on for several minutes, as the teenaged Stobbs was mystified as to why in the world his manager was giving him these pointers which had nothing whatsoever to do with his job as a pitcher, but of course the young pitcher was far too intimidated by the living legend of a manager to voice such a question. At long last it dawned on Stobbs that McCarthy thought Stobbs was Billy Goodman, the infielder.

I can't remember how Stobbs relates the story winding up -- I think it was that McCarthy himself suddenly realized that Stobbs wasn't Goodman, and was understandably flustered and embarrassed.

In any case it's about as vivid a demonstration as possible that in those Red Sox years, McCarthy was pretty much a shell of his former self, really kind of coasting on fumes. (Scotch-scented fumes, no doubt.)

Ed Linn tells the story of a game in September 1948 when McCarthy was being guarded on the bench so that he would not "escape" onto the field. Indeed he ended up walking out of the dugout and wandering down the first base line before he was "captured" and brought back to the bench.

Although one can never tell, one has to wonder whether this cost the team a game or two along the line. And, of course, that game or two would have been of use.

This guy should be in the discussion. That ISO is positively Tynerian.

GGC: My father-in-law played semi-pro ball with Sullivan after WWII. They founded the local youth basketball league and remained friends up until Sullivan's death a few years ago.

he wasn't beating Sumner because Sumner was anti-slavery

I suppose he was beating Sumner because Sumner was a proponent of Big Government? {GDAR}

I always thought that Brooks beat Sumner because Sumner had referred, metaphorically, to Senator Andrew Butler (D-SC) as having embraced "the harlot Slavery," which Brooks took literally and personally. But I can stand enlightenment on the subject.

The other is how his latter teams were effected by his alcoholism.

I'm not usually the guy to flag typos, but I do enjoy the subtle ones. This is almost poetic.

Although one can never tell, one has to wonder whether this cost the team a game or two along the line. And, of course, that game or two would have been of use.

I don't know how it couldn't have cost the team at least a few games. I fully realize that in-game tactics aren't as important as the conventional wisdom has made them out to be, but that doesn't mean they're meaningless, and you have to think a team with a manager behaving as these anecdotes suggest McCarthy was often behaving in 1948-49-50 wasn't exactly getting the benefit of the most alert and sagacious in-game tactics.

I, too, in looking at those 1948-49 Red Sox ballclubs in The Sports Encyclopedia: Baseball over the years, was always struck, not so much by the weakness of the Boston bench/bullpen -- they had some decent ballplayers in reserve-- but by the near-total-absence of their deployment. The issue wasn't so much that those Red Sox teams didn't have any second-line talent to call upon when needed, as it was that McCarthy just never called upon it. It was as though filling out the lineup card at the start of the game with the same names as had been there the game before, and calling upon the same six or seven pitchers, over and over to start and relieve, was about all McCarthy could muster the energy/interest to do.

In 1948 Stephens and DiMaggio played every inning, and Doerr would have had he not got hurt in September. The next year Williams (and Stephens, again) started every game, which is why he had the best counting stats of his career.

Bobby Doerr told me that he believes that McCarthy would not use his bullpen (or did not feel he had a bullpen to use), and that Cronin (had he still been there) would have had such weapons on hand and used them. (In our two conversations, any time Doerr said something that could be interpreted as critical he quickly pointed out how nice a guy someone was. He does not criticize anyone, from what I have heard.)

Joe McCarthy: the worst senator of them all, but the best baseball manager ever.

I always used to be amazed at the coincidental careers of three NFL players in the 70's: Drew Pearson, Ralph McGill, and Dwight MacDonald. It would be like seeing Paul Krugman, Rupert Murdoch and Markos Moulitsas all suit up in the NBA of today.

It would be like seeing Paul Krugman, Rupert Murdoch and Markos Moulitsas all suit up in the NBA of today.

This could not fail to remind me of the enjoyable fact that my high-school's wrestling team featured, at one point, sons of Rupert Murdoch, George Soros, and Edward Said. I do not recall if any of them ever matched up against any of the others in a scrimmage. (I myself was not much of a wrestler.)

This could not fail to remind me of the enjoyable fact that my high-school's wrestling team featured, at one point, sons of Rupert Murdoch, George Soros, and Edward Said.

Well, Warren Buffett graduated from my high school (fifteen years earlier, though), and I had a baseball teammate on that school's team whose Dad was Dean Rusk, but that's a hell of a trio of offspring your wrestling team had. Was Murdoch's kid as much of a junkyard dog as he is, and did Said's kid make any caustic references to hegemonic referees? And what high school was that, anyway? Bronx Science or something like that?

Worse than that pro-slavery guy who beat the other senator with a cane?

He was just demonstrating how slavery worked to the other senator. If his cause'd been righteous, obviously the other senator would've seen how great a slave's life was.

Yeah, the high schools you guys went to were a whole lot more upscale than mine.

Markos Moulitsas graduated from the same high school I did. Not at the same time. That's its claim to fame.

My hunch is that Joe McCarthy was past his prime by then. That said, very few managers are worth a fart after 20 years. His NL contemporary, Bill McKechnie, was also in decline by the end of WWII.

Connie Mack, John McGraw, Tony LaRussa were guys with staying power (though in Mack's case, he still stayed way beyone his power, as it were). A few others did too, but not bloody many.

very few managers are worth a fart after 20 years. His NL contemporary, Bill McKechnie, was also in decline by the end of WWII.

Connie Mack, John McGraw, Tony LaRussa were guys with staying power (though in Mack's case, he still stayed way beyone his power, as it were). A few others did too, but not bloody many.

Absolutely right.

A pet peeve of mine is that while everyone immediately grasps the concept that players don't exhibit a constant degree of excellence over the course of their careers -- they develop, peak, and decline as a matter of course -- all too rarely does the typical discussion comprehend that the same dynamic applies to managers, and to GMs. The assumption seems to be that a given manager or GM is either "good" or "bad," and that quality is fixed and permanent, never changing no matter what circumstances the manager/GM finds himself in, or how long his career extends. Meanwhile the truth is, while the arc is obviously longer for the manager/GM than it is for the player, a very similar growth/regression dynamic applies to these extremely competitive, extremely demanding jobs.

This guy is the most well-known athlete to graduate from my high school - something that I only found out after he played in Carolina.

-- MWE

So the bottom line here is Joe was a drunken bum who lucked his way into managing teams that didn't need a whole lot of managing?

Yeah, the high schools you guys went to were a whole lot more upscale than mine.

Well, before Warren Buffett became a household name back in the 80's, the most famous grad we had was this guy, who made a name for himself out your way.

So the bottom line here is Joe was a drunken bum who lucked his way into managing teams that didn't need a whole lot of managing?

Absolutely not. He was the greatest manager in history and at the end of his career was an alcoholic.

This could not fail to remind me of the enjoyable fact that my high-school's wrestling team featured, at one point, sons of Rupert Murdoch, George Soros, and Edward Said.

Jesus, what school? I'm assuming it's a NYC private school, Dalton or Horace Mann or something like that.

Yeah, the high schools you guys went to were a whole lot more upscale than mine.

I once looked my high school up on Wikipedia and the only person listed as a "notable alum" was a guy who graduated the year before me who was some 2nd or 3rd-level official at Health and Human Services for a couple of years under the second President Bush.

Two questions about McCarthy, who I have researched a bit myself. The first, of course, is how well he would have managed a team that was not obviously the best team. McCarthy's champions were so clearly the dominant teams, with the possible exception of 1943, a war year. I am not suggesting he should be dinged for this--its just something to ponder.

I'm not convinced that I agree with the premise that "McCarthy's champions were so clearly the dominant teams" - but I'm also not convinced that I disagree with the premise, since I don't yet know how you're defining the term "clearly dominant". Yes, they won their flags by large margins:

1929 Cubs 10.5 over second place Pirates
1932 Yanks 13 over second place Athletics
1936 Yanks 19.5 over second place Tigers
1937 Yanks 13 over second place Tigers
1938 Yanks 9.5 over second place Red Sox
1939 Yanks 17 over second place Red Sox
1941 Yanks 17 over second place Red Sox
1942 Yanks 9 over second place Red Sox
1943 Yanks 13.5 over second place Senators

but were these wide margins due to all of these teams being "clearly dominant" or "obviously the best" as far as talent goes? That Cub pennant was wedged between three Cardinal pennants winners (1928, 1930 & 1931), yet somehow McCarthy got his team to finish twenty games in front of them. Was that one Cub team "obiously" more talented than a team that would win three out of four pennants?

That 1932 A's team that finished over a dozen games behind the Yankees had won back-to-back pennants the two previous seasons. That Tiger team that finished almost twenty games behind the 1936 Yankees were the defending World Champions. I just don't see how another team in the league could be "clearly dominant" in terms of talent than either of those teams.

The 1939 Yankees featured Babe Dahlgren at firstbase, Frank Crosetti at shortstop, and only 120 games from Joe DiMaggio - and yet they won by seventeen games. Was this Yankee team really that much obviously better than the rest of the league from a talent perspective?

Again, I don't know how you're defining the term "clearly dominant"; but if your point was that McCarthy's pennant winners had talent that was obviously on paper head and shoulders above the rest the league, then I must disagree.

DB

So I went ahead and looked up my HS on Wikipedia, and apparently there are a few more distinguished grads that I didn't know about.

Like this guy.
And this one.
This gal from TV, too.

-- MWE

Jesus, Mike, with that second one you'll have half of BTF (the nutball half) trying to cadge invitations to your reunion.

I am reluctant to make the claim that any manager was great or terrible without at least pointing out they were great or terrible "given the hand they were dealt." There are a few exceptions. McCarthy was given the best hands of any manager in history, and he did well with those hands. Had he been given a team that required more managing or a team that he had to build from the ground up, well, we just don't know. Were it my team, I would look elsewhere.

We can compare Ted Williams and Babe Ruth because ultimately they had the same job to do. The contexts are different, and we can try to adjust for that, but it was essentially the same job. There is no way to adjust Joe McCarthy to managing the 1976 Royals and have any clue in hell whether he would have known what to do. Me, I would take Herzog over McCarthy for that team. I think McCarthy drank when he was stressed out, and he was stressed out any time he had to manage a lot. The Yankees were in one pennant race in his time there--1940--and they finished third. McCarthy drank.

I look at what John McGraw was given, and I am more impressed with his record than I am with McCarthy. Of course McGraw's job was the same as McCarthy PLUS Barrow, and a bit more besides. McGraw was not so much a drunk as he was a criminal.

The 1939 Yankees featured Babe Dahlgren at firstbase

The awfulness of Dahlgren's 1939 season never ceases to amaze me. He might be the worst regular player on any world champion... and at 106-45, the Yanks weren't exactly an ordinary champion.

The 1939 Yankees featured Babe Dahlgren at firstbase, Frank Crosetti at shortstop, and only 120 games from Joe DiMaggio - and yet they won by seventeen games. Was this Yankee team really that much obviously better than the rest of the league from a talent perspective?

Of course they were. From 1936 to 1939, Joe McCarthy was given the following rookies: Joe DiMaggio, Tommy Henrich, Spud Chandler, Joe Gordon, Charlie Keller. There was no grooming required--they were all pretty much ready to star. Note that they were a regular contender before this happened. The 1936-39 Yankees were so much better than the second place team it was somewhat silly. The AL passed rules to try to stop them: for example, beginning in 1940, the AL champion was not allowed to make any trades. Ever. Unfortunately, the Tigers won the pennant, which was not what everyone expected. They also decided that the All-Star game manager would be selected by the clubs--in 1940, Cronin got the nod.

Jesus, Mike, with that second one you'll have half of BTF (the nutball half) trying to cadge invitations to your reunion.

He was well ahead of me. I'm not quite THAT old!

-- MWE

The awfulness of Dahlgren's 1939 season never ceases to amaze me. He might be the worst regular player on any world champion

I would think that most championship teams, or at least a healthy minority, have a player as bad or worse than Dahlgren. Julio Lugo was worse than Dahlgren, I am sure. To say nothing of Ray Oyler, 1968 or Wayne Garrett, 1969.

GGC: My father-in-law played semi-pro ball with Sullivan after WWII. They founded the local youth basketball league and remained friends up until Sullivan's death a few years ago.

I knew someone would have a Sullivan story. He was probably a good fielder, too. I just clicked on the first Nat who had a bad batting line and ragged on him.

And what high school was that, anyway? Bronx Science or something like that?

Scienceites become rich and famous after they graduate.

Ray Oyler, 1968

I always thought he was a good fielder, but TotalZone says otherwise: +3.

I always thought that Brooks beat Sumner because Sumner had referred, metaphorically, to Senator Andrew Butler (D-SC) as having embraced "the harlot Slavery," which Brooks took literally and personally. But I can stand enlightenment on the subject.

According to Joel Williamson, in The Crucible of Race, Sumner had stated on the floor of the Senate that the aged South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler drooled when he talked. So Brooks beat him, because Butler was too old to avenge the reference to a 'personal infirmity'. Williamson writes: '[Brooks] chastened Sumner, ignominiously, calmly, without putting his hand upon him, almost as he would whip a rebellious dog.'

I've no idea if Williamson is right or not.

I've no idea if Williamson is right or not.

Regardless of the specific incitement to violence, Brooks was a scummy hoodlum who should have been clapped in irons and incarcerated for a lengthy stretch.

I would think that most championship teams, or at least a healthy minority, have a player as bad or worse than Dahlgren.

A first baseman with a 76 OPS+? That would surprise me.

AROM gives him -.5 WAR for '39, but he has 1B as a -7 position for that year, which seems generous to me.

William Blount was a Senator from Tennessee back in the 18th Century. He concocted a plan to incite the Creek and Cherokee Indians to aid the British in conquering the Spanish territory of West Florida. That either is a blow for occupied peoples or it takes the cake when it comes to Senators behaving badly.

Sorry, Mark, I'm just not seeing it. That 1939 BoSox team had Jimmie Foxx, Bobby Doerr, Joe Cronin, Ted Williams, Lefty Grove - I mean, I'm just not seeing a seventeen game advantage there.

The AL passed rules to try to stop them: for example, beginning in 1940, the AL champion was not allowed to make any trades. Ever. Unfortunately, the Tigers won the pennant, which was not what everyone expected.

But then the Yankees won in 1941 by seventeen games over a Red Sox team that now had Dom DiMaggio and was getting a Triple Crown year from Ted Williams...while the Yankees were starting Johnny Sturm (OPS+ 58) at first - even worse than Dahlgren!

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree here, but I just don't see those Yankees teams having a "dominant" talent advantage over the rest of the American League.

DB

and was getting a Triple Crown year from Ted Williams

Ted didn't win the Triple Crown that year - came in 4th in RBI. He did, however, hit .406. So he had that going for him.

I would think that most championship teams, or at least a healthy minority, have a player as bad or worse than Dahlgren. Julio Lugo was worse than Dahlgren, I am sure. To say nothing of Ray Oyler, 1968 or Wayne Garrett, 1969.

Onix Concepcion says hi. The 1985 Royals may have had the weakest position of any worlds champion, rivaling the 1968 Tigers:

Player innings ops+

Concepcion 952 38
Biancalana 451 49
Pryor 40 50
Scranton 16 -100

By weighted average , that's a 41 OPS+

A first baseman with a 76 OPS+? That would surprise me.

AROM gives him -.5 WAR for '39, but he has 1B as a -7 position for that year, which seems generous to me.

Onix Concepcion was a -1.2. And he compiled that in only 2/3 of a season. His partner in crime was a mere -0.1.

and was getting a Triple Crown year from Ted Williams

Ted didn't win the Triple Crown that year - came in 4th in RBI. He did, however, hit .406. So he had that going for him.

Whoops! Sorry about that! Mea culpas all around.

DB

but were these wide margins due to all of these teams being "clearly dominant" or "obviously the best" as far as talent goes? That Cub pennant was wedged between three Cardinal pennants winners (1928, 1930 & 1931), yet somehow McCarthy got his team to finish twenty games in front of them. Was that one Cub team "obiously" more talented than a team that would win three out of four pennants?

Well, in 1928, Rogers Hornsby was a Brave. The Cubs finished in third place, four games out.
In 1929, they won big despite losing Gabby Hartnett to injury for the season.
In 1930, they got Hartnett back but lost Hornsby for 3/4 of the season. Perhaps more importantly, the pitching staff's ERA+ dropped from 111 to 101. They finished in second, two games out.
In 1931, McCarthy was gone and Hornsby had taken over Managing. For the first time the Cubs actually had Hornsby, Hartnett, Kiki Cuyler, and Hack Wilson each play 100+ games, but Wilson tanked under Hornsby, the pitching slid a little further, and they finished back in third, 21 games out.

The Cardinals in those same years were Frankie Frisch and a bunch of guys who got in to the Hall of Fame because Frankie Frisch was on the Veteran's Committee for a while.

So, the Cards had one Solid Hall of Famer, and a bunch of Hall of Very Good guys.
The Cubs had two Inner Circle guys, two guys in Wilson and Cuyler who were Hall of Very Goods, a couple other pretty good players in Riggs Stephenson and Woody English (though English didn't really start playing well until 1930), and because if various injuries, etc. were pretty much playing scrubs at three positions at any given time.

I'm not really sure how I'd rate the two. The Cards talent is just a lot more balanced, while the Cubs have, without question, the two best players. Had Hornsby and Hartnett managed to both be healthy in 1929 and 1930, they almost certainly would have won both years, and it would have been one heck of an offense. Of course, if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle, so the what if doesn't mean much, and I've really just been rambling to no point at all here, but oh well.

Sorry, Mark, I'm just not seeing it. That 1939 BoSox team had Jimmie Foxx, Bobby Doerr, Joe Cronin, Ted Williams, Lefty Grove - I mean, I'm just not seeing a seventeen game advantage there.

Unfortunately for the Red Sox, the league was not playing "five-man" baseball that year, requiring all the teams to fill out complete rosters and play many of the other players. The Yankees matched the Red Sox in star power, and then had another 10 good players besides.

But then the Yankees won in 1941 by seventeen games over a Red Sox team that now had Dom DiMaggio and was getting a Triple Crown year from Ted Williams...while the Yankees were starting Johnny Sturm (OPS+ 58) at first - even worse than Dahlgren!

Seriously, you need to look at the entire teams. Is it your contention that the Yankees of the 1930s won because their manager willed them beyond the capabilities of the roster? I am not saying you are wrong--this is more or less unknowable--but I think your take would be a unique one amongst all I have read.

The Yankees matched the Red Sox in star power, and then had another 10 good players besides.

I'd love to see that list.

DB

Onix Concepcion says hi. The 1985 Royals may have had the weakest position of any worlds champion, rivaling the 1968 Tigers:

Player innings ops+

Concepcion 952 38
Biancalana 451 49
Pryor 40 50
Scranton 16 -100

By weighted average , that's a 41 OPS+

That is terrifying. Remind me why Brett didn't win the MVP that year again?

I look at what John McGraw was given, and I am more impressed with his record than I am with McCarthy. Of course McGraw's job was the same as McCarthy PLUS Barrow, and a bit more besides. McGraw was not so much a drunk as he was a criminal.

Indeed. And even so, McGraw, from everything I understand, could knock 'em back pretty well.

I think it would be interesting to take a semi-serious look at the greatest (or at least, most celebrated) managers in MLB history in conjunction with their drinking habits ...

- McCarthy, as we know, drank to the point of causing major issues in his late career
- McGraw, as you point out, was more fighter than drinker, but that's only to say that he was a chronic problem fighter
- Wilbert Robinson was never far from a flask
- Billy Southworth battled alcoholism his whole life
- Casey Stengel's drinking caused the Yankees' brass some concern in his later years, to the point that they strongly encouraged his wife to come to spring training because that would keep Casey out of the bar all night
- Billy Martin (Stengel's distinct mentor) pretty much literally drank himself to death
- Earl Weaver reputedly had a great fondness for his cocktails
- Bobby Cox had to undergo alcohol/anger management counseling, didn't he?
- Tony LaRussa has been arrested for DUI (just once, or more than once?)

I don't know about Sparky Anderson, Dick Williams, or Whitey Herzog, but I strongly suspect they all enjoyed their drinks quite well.

On the other hand, we have quite a few who either didn't drink at all, or if they did we never heard a thing about it, such as:

- Connie Mack
- Bill McKechnie
- Walt Alston
- Al Lopez
- Joe Torre

Make of this whatever you will.

I don't know about Sparky Anderson, Dick Williams, or Whitey Herzog, but I strongly suspect they all enjoyed their drinks quite well.

I can't imagine Williams was all that sober when he was wandering around hotels naked.

A lot of these guys, of course, were not necessarily drinkers their entire life. Even McCarthy apparently did not drink much in the off-season or after his managerial career was over. He drank when he was under stress. If I was in a pennant race I think I would rather have just about anyone else. Southworth began drinking (supposedly) after his son died in the war, and battled depression after that quite a bit. Martin drank his whole life, every day at all hours of the day, and of course was a terrible drunk.

I suspect that LaRussa is not really like that, that he just stupidly got behind the wheel when he should not have. Your probably have to adjust for era.

Your probably have to adjust for era.

Unquestionably. I'm 100% certain that drinking habits that are viewed with great alarm today wouldn't have raised an eyebrow back in the day.

Mark, DB,

Rather than concentrating on McCarthy or the Yankee depth in trying to explain the chasm between the Yanks and the Red Sox in 1939 and 1941, have either of you considered the possibility that Joe Cronin was just a lousy manager?

(Pre-emptive edit: Looking at those team OPS+ and ERA+ totals***, I can safely say that the Yankee depth was by far and away the bigger factor in 1939, but much less so in 1941.

***1939: OPS+ Yanks 111-100 ERA+ 131-103 Net gap 39 points; Yanks finished 17 G.A.
1941: OPS+ Yanks 102-108 ERA+ 112-99 Net gap 7 points; Yanks finished 17 G.A.

It's RLYW, not RLYB.

McCarthy's wife likely kept the drinking in check when present. Once the season began Joe was on his own and lonely as well. Toss in the stress and presto! a heavy drinker

Some interesting points in this thread. (Finally - jumpstarting my own thread actually worked!)

I have a few responses to Mark's thoughts on McCarthy. I wished I could find a nice, sequential, easy way to do this, but I'll just jumble them down as best I can.

First, I agree McCarthy was dealt the best hand of any manager. He was the right guy at the right place at the right time. Most of my claim that he's the best manager comes in the first chapter, which I have neither the time nor inclination to really get into in depth. I'll be the first to admit that info in chapter one (which covers the Birnbaum Database) - like all the info in the book - is not to be taken as pure gospel. It's utterly impossible to find any info/stats/whatevers on managers without having some info distort or disrupt it. That said, impefect isn't a synonym for useless, and Birnbaum Database generally makes sense. (That is both my opinion and that of a large majority of the people I shared the info with).

McCarthy comes off so comically good in that it's not funny. He blows everyone out of the water. Even if I adjust downward for all the info within it (which I do), it's hard for me to believe he was second to anyone.

Second point - while there is something to be said for the notion that he was dealt an extremely strong hand, one thing worth wondering about is how much role did he do in the dealing. This is one area Mark probably knows more about given that he just wrote a book on a manager from this era (Cronin), but one thing I picked up on in researching this book is that the job of manager slowly shifted from the 1920s to 1950s. Bill James argues in his book on managers that the GM initially was just responsible for getting kids from the farm system, and the managers took care of veterans for the roster. James reckoned the shift to modern responsibility took a while to play out, not finishing until around mid-century or so, IIRC.

I have no idea what the situation was like for all teams at all points in time in the 1920s to 1940s, but I'm hesitant to say McCarthy played no role. That said, I don't want to sound like I'm cutting out Ed Barrow, who deserved his place in Cooperstown. It's just that even to this day managers play a role in roster construction, the more prestige they have the bigger their role.

One other thing that nettles a bit in the dealt-a-good hand idea was his experience with the Cubs. He took over a team that came in last place the year before. He dumped their best player (and arguably the most talented pitcher in franchise history, Pete Alexander) out shortly after arriving. Aside from being one good example of a manager's impact on the roster, it's one that should be expected to hurt the team. They improved. Why? McCarthy picked up some guys misused and abused by other teams. Riggs Stephenson was a fourth outfielder. Hack Wilson was too big a drunk for John McGraw. A few years later he latched on to Kiki Cuyler after he was forced out of Pittsburgh due to a disagreement with his manager.

One line I came across researching McCarthy (it may even be in the article, I think it is but am too lazy to check) was that he could spot a problem coming two years down the line and react accordingly. He had great foresight. The man got the most out of his teams year-in, year-out for about 20 years.

I don't want to give the impression that I don't think McCarthy was a great manager. My point is this: every manager his given a hand to play, and all we can do is judge them by how well they played that hand, or hands if they had varying experiences. McCarthy did a great job with the teams he had. The rest is supposition. I just don't think we can (and I am not suggesting anyone is doing this) say "McCarthy is worth 5 wins, so if you add him to the 1964 Reds they would win the pennant." I don't believe that. I believe there are situations in which McCarthy (and every other manager) would be ill equipped.

And then it all becomes a narrative and a bunch of stories, which I prefer anyway. Did McCarthy help DiMaggio and Keller and Gordon become better players? Maybe he did--that's the story though, not how well they did in one-run games or what the team's ERA+ was. His players came to play every day.

Reading Posnanski's recent book on the Reds, you can't help marvel at how perfect Sparky was for that set of egos and talents. Just perfect. Take that same guy and have him manage a mediocre team--I don't think it works. On the other hand, I tremble to think of Billy Martin with the Reds. The one thing Martin hated was a player who thought he was a bigger star than he was.

I think McCarthy played some role in the construction of the Yankees roster (trading, for example). Of course, they did not trade much. What he was not involved with was finding players for the organization--that was Barrow and Weiss, and the talent coming into that Yankees in the 1930s was the best in history. Barrow and McCarthy fit perfectly together.

I just don't think we can (and I am not suggesting anyone is doing this) say "McCarthy is worth 5 wins, so if you add him to the 1964 Reds they would win the pennant." I don't believe that. I believe there are situations in which McCarthy (and every other manager) would be ill equipped.

Agree completely.

For that matter, I agree with the rest of the post as well.

I will add something here about Cronin, since you brought it up. I believe that Cronin was ill-equipped to deal with the Red Sox of the mid-1930s, a team filled with veterans who were a law unto themselves (Foxx, Grove, Wes Ferrell, etc.). These men were his peers, and he was the glamour boy manager who they often ignored. Some of this was the fault of Cronin's bosses, but he did not handle it well and it affected his play. On the other hand, once the team began breaking in younger players (Doerr, Williams, Dominic), Cronin was the perfect manager--a patient teacher and mentor. When people ask me if Cronin was a good manager, that's my answer--it depends.

I, for one, can not wait to read your book. I admit that I am skimming the posted excerpts. I don't want to ruin it.

Thanks, Mark.

I got an email today (checks clock), OK yesterday, from the publisher saying it's nearly ready for the printer.

When people ask me if Cronin was a good manager, that's my answer--it depends.

Which, likely, is the correct answer for most managers in history.

Eric J..."The awfulness of Dahlgren's 1939 season never ceases to amaze me. He might be the worst regular player on any world champion"

Your choice of adjective to describe Babe Dahlgren "awful" leads me to believe you just put down Rob Neyer's Baseball Dynasties. Surely you can do better than that!

In 1935, when Dahlgren was a rookie with the Red Sox, Joe Cronin said the following about him. "He's the greatest fielding first baseman I ever saw." Is this the same Babe Dahlgren you're talking about?

The Dahlgren that you call the "worst player on any world champion," is that the same Dahlgren who had the dubious task of stepping into the largest pair of shoes in sports history by replacing Lou Gehrig? And on that day, with the weight of the world on his shoulders, he hits a home run and double?

The same Dahlgren who, after missing the first eight games, still managed to drive in 89 runs while hitting eighth; often being pitched around because the pitcher was behind him.

Is this the Dahlgren who was part of that record breaking day in Philidelphia on June 28, 1939 where the Yankees had 13 home runs in a doubleheader? The day he hit 3 home runs?

Is this the same Dahlgren who, after the first two games of the '39 World Series, was hitting .500 with a home run and two doubles, two RBI's and two runs scored while Rolfe, DiMaggio, Gordon, Selkirk were with an RBI?

"Never ceases to amaze me" and "Worst regular player on any world champion." Really?

Is this the Dahlgren who was part of the '39 infield that Dan Daniel, recipient of the J.G.Taylor Spink award in 1962, once claimed that the '39 Yankees infield "with Dahlgren" is the greatest he's ever seen?

Daniel also said, "Having succeeded the top-ranking first baseman of all time it has been Dahlgren’s unpleasant experience to continue a victim of odious and unfair comparisons. However, only those that watch the Yankees day in and day out appreciate Babe for the defensive marvel he is, and know that he is far from the offensive weakling he is painted in popular imagination."
James M. Kahn, of the New York Times, said this about Dahlgren, "Rarely a day goes by that he does not come up with some breathtaking play around first base. The clients gasp, shake their heads and say: “Did you ever see anything like that?” In most cases the correct answer would be “No,” because few first basemen ever could make some of the plays that Dahlgren does."
You want more? Okay...

John Lardner once said, "You have to see the Babe every day to appreciate the full range of his stuff, because as I say, he is always improvising. But half a dozen glimpses in a season will convince you of the truth of my argument, if your mind and eyes are open. As for Dahlgren’s eyes, he can close them and play a better first base than any other you’ll see today. Terry made no mistakes at first, but Dahlgren is twice as fast as Terry, Sisler was fast, but Dahlgren is more resourceful. Lacking what is known as grace, he may impress you on first sight as a scrambler and an acrobat. So he is, but pretty soon you realize that he never misses. He is as sure as death. The double play from first to second to first—said to be the finest in the game—Dahlgren can make 10 different ways. He plays a good right field from first base. He can range all over the park for pop fouls and take them over his shoulder or with his glove behind his back—never for show, always because it’s the easiest way for him to make that particular play. The guy can do everything, and I have a hunch that he invents plays as he goes along. If an old-timer were to swear to me on a stack of testaments that there was every a greater defensive first baseman than Ellsworth 'Babe' Dahlgren of the Yankees I wouldn’t believe him."

When Dahlgren was sold abruptly, right before spring training in 1941, Shirley Povich of the Washington Post said, "There are elements of mystery in the release of Dahlgren by the Yankees. True it is that he was a mere .264 hitter last year and that he had never hit more than .281 in his six years in the big leagues, but the 73 runs he drove in last year was a better record than that of many a .300 hitter and with not another certified big league first baseman on their roster, the Yanks seem to have gone off the deep end in releasing Dahlgren. When you saw Dahlgren out there scooping up wild throws with trifling ease, or spearing fierce line drives as if he were plucking bean bags, you saw the pinnacle of the art of first base play."

I wonder if Cronin, Daniel, Kahn, Lardner, Povich would all agree with your assertion that Babe Dahlgren is the "worst regular player on any world champion?"

Oh, I know...his OPS was only .689 in 1939. Have you ever asked an old timer about an OPS? They couldn't even tell you what it is. Further more, have you ever asked an Old Timer about Babe Dahlgren?

I think we can both agree that Joe DiMaggio is arguably one of the greatest baseball players of all time!?! Here's what DiMaggio had to say about Babe Dahlgren. It was in the Brooklyn Eagle, October 27, 1940. "Babe’s job is safe. He batted only .235 in 1939 and this year he went up to .260, but that’s not half the story. He saved more games for the Yanks with his fielding than some of our pitchers won. He makes impossible plays at first. He’s so good our infielders have become lazy."

I know, I know, they're brothers and maybe it's a San Francisco thing, but Dom DiMaggio even said that Babe Dahlgren was "as graceful a first baseman as I have ever seen."

Eric, I can think of a lot of things that "never cease to amaze me." For example young men who opine so boldly about things they know nothing about.

Oh, I know...his OPS was only .689 in 1939. Have you ever asked an old timer about an OPS? They couldn't even tell you what it is. Further more, have you ever asked an Old Timer about Babe Dahlgren?

They sure as hell would know what a .235 batting average was. And how only one player in the American League with 250 or more ABs had a lower average in 1939.

39yanks:

Obviously, your handle has something to do with your post, and probably nothing I say is going to make a dent. But I did find this part amusing:

Here's what DiMaggio had to say about Babe Dahlgren. It was in the Brooklyn Eagle, October 27, 1940. "Babe’s job is safe.

Four months later (February 25, 1941), and one day after the Yankees had their first spring training workout, Dahlgren was sold to the Boston Braves. Not traded. Sold. And why was the "greatest defensive 1B Joe Cronin ever saw" sold? Because Joe McCarthy decided that his infield would be better with Gerry Priddy at second and Joe Gordon at first.

One should also note that Dahlgren's 89 RBI, which sounds like a good number, placed him fifth on the 1939 Yankees.

Dahlgren was, according to the Sporting News, not even McCarthy's first choice to fill the position; he would have preferred to move Tommy Henrich there, but Henrich couldn't be spared from the outfield due to injuries. And there were a couple of negative references to Dahlgren's lack of "fire" - one quote in a Spink column in TSN indicated that McCarthy wished someone would "pick a fight" with Dahlgren to "wake him up".

The 1939 Yankees had some pitchers who could hit - Ruffing, Monte Pearson, Atley Donald, Marius Russo. In that context, it might be no surprise that teams opted to pitch to Dahlgren.

Now, was he the "worst regular player ever" on a WS champion? Perhaps, perhaps not. But he's certainly in the conversation. And that's no slight to the 1939 Yankees, who if they weren't the greatest "team" ever were more than likely in the top 3 or 4.

-- MWE

EDIT: I would probably argue that, by that time, the guy who was at shortstop for that same team should also be in the discussion, perhaps ahead of Dahlgren.

The same Dahlgren who, after missing the first eight games, still managed to drive in 89 runs while hitting eighth; often being pitched around because the pitcher was behind him.

I think the interesting thing to point out here is that he's a first baseman batting eighth.

The same Dahlgren who, after missing the first eight games, still managed to drive in 89 runs while hitting eighth"

The guys hitting ahead of him might have had something to do with that. I hear the Yankees had some good hitters that year.

Great defense is, well, great, but there's only so much defensive value a 1bman can have. In all those glowing testimonials you quote, the only compliment about his hitting is that he drove in 73 runs one year. .235/.312/.377 is just an awful line, especially in a high-scoring league like the '39 AL. Even if we say he saved 20 runs with his glove, that only improves his year from "incredibly bad" to "bad".

Oh yeah:

And the Red Sox, after a season of Dahlgren at 1B in 1935, felt it necessary to spend $150,000 to bring in Jimmie Foxx for 1936.

-- MWE

One should also note that Dahlgren's 89 RBI, which sounds like a good number, placed him fifth on the 1939 Yankees.

One should also note that five (5) regulars had OBPs over .400
I also note that Twinkeltoes was a really good hitter, 127 OPS+ for his career, I had heard of him solely as the poor sap who attempted to replace the Babe- and as popular wisdom would have it, failed miserably...

And here we go...

Four months later (February 25, 1941), and one day after the Yankees had their first spring training workout, Dahlgren was sold to the Boston Braves. Not traded. Sold. And why was the "greatest defensive 1B Joe Cronin ever saw" sold? Because Joe McCarthy decided that his infield would be better with Gerry Priddy at second and Joe Gordon at first.

Yeah and McCarthy's brilliance shined through when he had to move Gordon back to second after just 30 games (no fault of Gordon's - he should never have been moved) and put Sturm (a left handed hitter) at first who finished the year with 3 home runs and 36 RBI's. When the first baseman he had (Babe Dahlgren) finished the 1941 season with 23 home runs (most by any right handed hitter in the NL) and 89 RBI's.

Sturm's replacement in '42, Buddy Hassett (another left handed hitter) wasn't much better (5 HR's & 48 RBI's). Dahlgren had more home runs and RBI's in 1939 than Sturm in '41 and Hassett in '42 combined and yet, somehow, Dahlgren is considered to be the worst regular on any championship team? Give me a break! Hell, Sturm and Hassett were worse and it only took me five minutes to figure that out and that's not counting the other 66 championsip teams between now and then!

If Dahlgren was just left alone, he would have been a very serviceable first baseman for the Yankees for many years.

But he wasn't a serviceable first baseman for anyone for many years after that. By '45 he barely hit against wartime competition.

I admire your diligence, and appreciate learning about his defensive skill, but seriously, these comments are ridiculous:

on that day, with the weight of the world on his shoulders, he hits a home run and double?

was part of that record breaking day in Philidelphia on June 28, 1939 where the Yankees had 13 home runs in a doubleheader? The day he hit 3 home runs?

who, after the first two games of the '39 World Series, was hitting .500 with a home run and two doubles, two RBI's and two runs scored while Rolfe, DiMaggio, Gordon, Selkirk were with an RBI?

I might as well extol Onix Concepcion by saying how on 5/1/82, he was able to put the events of the Falklands War out of mind and manage 3 hits and an RBI, on a day when George Brett only managed to reach base on a walk.

Your choice of adjective to describe Babe Dahlgren "awful"

It should be noted that I didn't say that Dahlgren was awful (at least I don't think I did; if I said that, my bad). I said that he had an awful season. He had some very solid years in the early '40s, but he played terribly in '39, great defense or not.

Is this the Dahlgren who was part of the '39 infield that Dan Daniel, recipient of the J.G.Taylor Spink award in 1962, once claimed that the '39 Yankees infield "with Dahlgren" is the greatest he's ever seen?

I'm going to guess this comment was made about the infield defense, which was no doubt outstanding. But Dahlgren and Crosetti were both offensive sinkholes in '39, and you don't have to look too far to find an infield that's pretty solidly better overall - the Greenberg-Gehringer-Rogell-Owen Tigers from 1934 come to mind, for instance.

39yanks is Babe Dahlgren's great-nephew