I have to say, with the exit from the ballot of Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro, etc., as well as the seeming stalling out of guys like Sheffield and Manny Ramirez, as well as the relative paucity of compelling candidates in the next several ballots, I thik much of the Hall of Fame's attention is about to switch to the various veterans' committees. The Today's Game Committee is particularly interesting, for a bunch of reasons.

In terms of managers, a few facts:

On the list of career wins, the top 10 are already in the Hall of Fame. Bruce Bochy, who is eligible for the first time this year, is 11th.

10 managers have won three or more World Series titles. Nine are in the Hall of Fame. Bochy (who won three) is the 10th.

However, Bochy is 26 games under .500 for his career - 2003-2029, and I believe the only manager in the HOF who is there for being a manager is Connie Mack, who is a wild outlier for a ton of reasons.

I suspect the winning percentage will not be held against him late this year when the Today's Game committee meets, and that he'll be inducted out of the shoot by them. But with guys like Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, etc. on their ballot, it is hard to imagine that they are going to vote for two managers before they vote for one of these all-time players.

So is Pinella the second-best manager not in the Hall of Fame? Well, Terry Francona will pass him in career wins in 2022, has 2 WS titles (Pinella has one), and has a significantly better W/L record. But Pinella was the far better player, and almost certainly a lot more famous. If you are telling the story of baseball in the 1970-1990s, Pinella is part of that story (the Yankees teams as a player, the Mariners' success, the whole "fiery Italian" storyline, etc.)

A quick word about Dusty Baker. He is 12th all-time in wins, will get to 2000 wins early this season, and will pass Bochy, Durocher, and Alston this year into 9th place. He also was a heck of a player. However, he and Gene Mauch have by far the most wins of any manager not to win a World Series - the two of them are hundreds ahead of anybody else who hasn't won it all, and Mauch isn't in the Hall of Fame. So I presume Baker will go in soon after he retires, and he is probably a stronger candidate than Pinella. But I would vote for all three of them, probably.

The mixing of managers and people like Marvin Miller with players seems odd. Why can they have a committee that focus’s on managers, gms, owners, announcers, and people of special interest like James, Boras, Miller, Flood etc ?

So is Pinella the second-best manager not in the Hall of Fame? Well, Terry Francona will pass him in career wins in 2022, has 2 WS titles (Pinella has one), and has a significantly better W/L record. But Pinella was the far better player, and almost certainly a lot more famous.

I don't think Piniella's playing career will matter much at all. A 109 OPS+ for a corner outfielder isn't impressive, and the same with 1700 career hits. It was surely better than Francona's, but VCs have traditionally not aggregated playing+managing records.

The election of Gil Hodges may signal a new trend, but Hodges had a legit HOVG playing career. A better combo candidate is Dusty Baker, who was not quite as good has Hodges but still put up 37 WAR (Piniella had 12). Plus Baker has more wins and higher WP% than Piniella. If only he had a ring.

Sentimentally, I'd like to see Sweet Lou in the Hall, because he was the M's manager when I was a teenager and when they were at their very best. I'm not a thousand percent sure he belongs, but it's hard to know with managers. Anyway, I learned the word \"##########\" from reading his lips during meltdowns.

"out of the chute" I believe.

Why can they have a committee that focus’s on managers, gms, owners, announcers, and people of special interest like James, Boras, Miller, Flood etc ?

They can of course. One reason they may not have ever made that choice is that committees usually elect at least one person every time they meet and it doesn't take long to run out of managers, owners, etc. worthy of induction. Obviously you could have the committee meet just once every 5 years or something and limit the number of people they can elect to control that. (I agree it's weird having managers, etc. sharing the ballot with players.)

It's probably just about being a contemporary but Piniella seems more HoVG manager than HoF manager to me.

I would not have guessed that Bruce Bochy has won more games as a manager than Dusty Baker has. Bochy is also six years younger than Baker, if he wants to come back. A 94-68 season would get his career record back to .500.

Bochy is also six years younger than Baker, if he wants to come back.

Not sure if there is a rule against it, but past practice seems to be to not consider active managers, or those looking to continue managing. IIRC, Tommy Lasorda once hinted he might manage again, but then quickly backtracked when it was suggested that might delay his Hall of Fame consideration.

I don't think Piniella's playing career will matter much at all.

Not too many players can say they've been thrown out at all four bases in a single game.

Bill James as the most influential and most lucid proponent of advanced statistics should already have been in the Hall of Fame.

Does anybody really think that Lou Pinella or Gil Hodges, for example, has been more influential in the structure of team scouting and the ideological and practical directions of the way that front offices evaluate prospects and managerial candidates?

Among many other accomplishments . . .

I don't think Piniella's playing career will matter much at all

While he was active, Piniella was … overrated, is the simplest way of putting it. Or maybe, to be kinder, the one thing he did well (hit for average) was overvalued. Bill Buckner was similar: they were "professional hitters" who always seemed much more valuable than the results really indicated.

I don't know how much of that overrating is still active in voters' minds: whether they'll see Piniella as "Not much above journeyman level, stuck around a long time because he could pinch-hit a little and hit lefties OK" … or whether the image is still "Damn fine hitter, that Piniella."

#8 I believe it was Ron Luciano who said something to the effect that Pinella combined aggression and lack of speed to be one of the worst baserunners he'd ever seen.

Sounds like Pete Rose.

#12 Thing is I think you'll find that Rose was actually a pretty effective baserunner. At least until he got old. Yeah, he was too aggressive in the later part of his career.

Even his terrible base stealing looks a little better when you consider that he ran a lot in situations were the break even point was lower than normal. He has one of the largest differences in values between linear weights (which uses generic values for SB/CS and game state analysis)

I remember in 1989 how the Jays GM, Pat Gillick, was determined to get Lou to manage the Jays. Luckily he didn't, and instead Cito Gaston won 2 WS with the Jays but no one else ever hired him to manage. Always seemed wrong how guys like Pinella got chance after chance despite winning just 1 WS while Gaston won 2 and was ignored. IMO Pinella isn't a HOF manager, but I suspect I'm in the minority. He had great teams in NY early on, and in Seattle for a bit, and in Cincinnati but still could only get to the World Series once. Just looked up his record to confirm and forgot he was managing the Cubs in the end, 1/1/2nd in 3 years, then sub 500 and dumped mid-season in year 4. 0-6 in playoffs with the Cubs. 23-27 overall in the post season. For comparison Cito Gaston was 18-16 in the playoffs and will never get into the HOF (just 894 wins).

For managers I think the HOF needs a very high bar to get in. Lou Pinella isn't anywhere near what I'd consider - either 2000+ wins or multiple (3+) WS wins to get considered seriously imo. Pinella short on both.

Still disgusted that a manager who was key to PED's in MLB got in as easily as he did (TLR - was in Oakland when Canseco's PED use was well known, then in St Louis when McGwire kept stuff in his locker - the concept that their manager didn't know and approve is insane) meanwhile the horses he fed them to won't get in.

I find Piniella’s HOF case interesting. The article pointed out Piniella was able to have two solid runs in Seattle which featured many different players. The mid-late 90s run had Griffey, Big Unit, Edgar, and a young A Rod. The 116-win 2001 team only had Edgar from those main four still around and he was joined by Ichiro, Cameron, Boone, & Olerud. Griffey, Unit & Edgar were good/great players already in place but didn’t start winning until Piniella got there. Seattle’s only playoff appearances were with Piniella as manager. To me, that helps his candidacy. Add in he won a WS sweeping the heavily favored defending champ A’s with a Cincinnati Reds roster that didn’t appear to be championship caliber. Piniella wasn’t able to put it together with the mid-late 80s Yanks but neither was Billy Martin or Yogi Berra. Piniella won in Chicago too but lacked playoff success which was a very Cub thing to do pre-2016. The only place Piniella couldn’t win was in Tampa Bay but it appears ownership didn’t help.

I think Piniella is right at the HOF in/out line for managers. Leyland is similar but maybe has an edge due to 3 pennants and 1 championship vs. Piniella having the 1 pennant and championship. I don’t think we’ll see many HOF level mgrs in future so I consider Piniella a good in/out line. Francona should get in, Bochy will sail in, Dusty is likely, Leyland probably eventually gets in. But who else after that? Scioscia looked good early on but the second half of his managerial run is hindered by only leading the best player in baseball to one playoff appearance. Showalter would need a championship run to be a serious HOF candidate, same with Bob Melvin. I’m not sure Joe Maddon has the HOF resume without a few playoff runs with the allergic to the postseason-Angels and Joe Giradi probably needs a second championship or at least another pennant. As I’ve said before, I find the manager HOF in/out line harder to define than players. For me, Piniella is just barely HOF

double post :-/

For managers I think the HOF needs a very high bar to get in.

I kind of feel the opposite way about managers.

Part of what may be underlying your valid sentiment is that there isn't much evidence that a manager makes a big difference--or at least a measurable difference--in a team's success. That may lead you to want to put in only the very best of the best.

My feeling then is that maybe story of the history of the game should play a bigger role for managers than for players. I would induct guys who managed for a long time and are associated with memorable, successful trams. By that standard, I would have no problem with Pinella, Baker, Davey Johnson, ultimately Showalter, and some others I'm too lazy to think of. I think the Hall would be better for honoring these guys, and you don't have to compare them to Barry Bonds or Lou Whittaker to do it.

some others I'm too lazy to think of

Scioscia has a "combined" case. Francona broke the Red Sox curse and Maddon did the same for the Cubs.

the whole "fiery Italian" storyline

Minor point but Piniella is Spanish (Asturian) and while I’m sure his name confused some fans his fluency was often remarked on in the seventies as an oddity and as an indicator (this hasn’t aged well) of the source of his famous temper

Manager Piniella:
23 seasons
1835–1713, .517
Postseason: 23–27, .460
1 pennant
1 World Series


Manager B:
20 seasons
1551–1517, .506
Postseason: 9–14, .391
0 pennants
0 World Series

Manager B is Showalter. Kinda funny how the two of them have similar records as managers but are viewed so differently.

Manager B is Showalter. Kinda funny how the two of them have similar records as managers but are viewed so differently.

I don't remember Showalter emptying the dugout when he was tossed. We'll see if Buck can get a pennant with the Mets.

I don’t think we’ll see many HOF level mgrs in future ...

because people are getting stupider.

I would induct guys who managed for a long time and are associated with memorable, successful trams.

Casey JOnes was good.

because people are getting stupider.

I think we may see less HOF level mgrs in the future because I feel the role of manager has become more of an extension of the front office and is more easily replaced. I could be wrong but I doubt we’ll see as many La Russa or Cox types who stay with the same team for decades at a time & amass 2,000 career wins.

I think its very difficult to predict the future of that role. But at least you've put a decent argument onto your statement so I understand what you are saying a lot more.

I think Tony La Russa was a freak in any era. He saw (maybe still sees, I don't know) players and plays differently from virtually everyone else, and if the viewer isn't an idiot, then that's almost always going to be valuable. Those kinds of talents are unusual, but I would expect major league owners to recognize a rain maker, if they run into one.

I don't know if the Terry Francona types belong in the Hall of Fame, but it's pretty clear there's still a place for 2000-win managers in the current MBAs-gone-wild regime. Anyone with that kind of longevity is going to have various narratives that look good on a plaque.

There are 11 managers with 2000+ wins - active in the 2000's were LaRussa, Cox, Torre, Bochy. Sparky Anderson retired after 1995 (he was a fun one). Active over 1000 <2000 so have a real shot at 2000 - Dusty Baker (13 wins away so should be there by May 0 WS), Terry Francona (218 wins away 2 WS), Buck Showalter (449 wins away 0 WS), Joe Maddon (645 wins away 1 WS), Bob Melvin (654 wins needed 0 WS), and Joe Girardi (902 wins 1 WS).

The big issue won't be raw wins I think, but WS titles. Those are harder and harder to get with 30 teams now and probably 32 soon. That means if you manage 30 years and are just a 'meh' manager you should get 1 title. Much harder than when there were 16 teams (of course, back then the Yankees had a crazy advantage with no draft and no spending limits of any kind, but no free agency either).

So logically to be considered you should have at least 1 title, and 3 should be a dead on lock as that would be very hard to get now. (Torre, LaRussa, and Boche)

But with guys like Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, etc. on their ballot,

Will they be on the ballot though? The HOF took the rather drastic step of reducing eligibility from 15 to 10 years to get rid of them sooner. They can certainly exert pressure and have influence over who appears on the Era ballots. If they don't want the controversy, I don't think they'll have any trouble excluding them from the ballot.

The mixing of managers and people like Marvin Miller with players seems odd.

Stupid is more like it. Non players should be on their own ballot/committee so as not to interfere with the election of players. It's absurd to make a voter try to distinguish between Ted Simmons and Marvin Miller's qualifications for the HOF.

Scioscia has a "combined" case.

Not really. He's like Piniella. I don't think you get "playing credit" if the playing credit only is worth 0 HOF votes, which it would be for both Scioscia and Piniella. You only get playing credit if you're actually a star or somewhat plausible HOF choice like Torre.

Out of curiosity ... Piniella did get 2 votes on the 1990 ballot, same as Mickey Rivers and Rick Monday, one more than Luzinski (that ain't right). Dusty pulled in 4 votes on the 92 ballot, just ahead of Kingman and Bill Russell, well behind Grich's 11 votes. Scioscia apparently did not make the ballot (looks like they tightened up who got listed between 1990 and 1998). Piniella had begun his managerial career but hadn't yet won his WS with the Reds (later that year). Baker and Scioscia started their managerial careers shortly after dropping off the ballot.

I don't think you get "playing credit" if the playing credit only is worth 0 HOF votes

Scioscia has two All-Star games and two World Series rings as a player. That's not nothing.

I don't know if the Terry Francona types belong in the Hall of Fame,

You're kidding right?

1782 wins
.540 WP%
2 WS
3 Pennants
10 post season appearances.

If that's not a HOF manager, then I'm not sure where your in/out line is?
Dude has had 1 losing season since 2004 and that was last year's 80-82 season. In defiance of how hard the Indian FO tries to make this guys job, he just keeps on winning with the chits that he has.
I'm not sure about the rest of you but I don't think the HOF would be a lesser place if Francona was in it.

Francona, the player, has two appearances in seasonal top 10s ... in 1987, he was 5th in TZ runs saved as a 1B with 4; and in 1983 he was tied for 5th in DPs turned as a RF with 1. Obviously still a much better player than most managers were.

Francona definitely a better player than Walt Alston.

Alston managed 1st WS win for Dodgers (+ 3 more)

Francona managed 1st WS win since 1918 Babe Bosox, w/what what 32 has posted way, way more than enough.

Sciocia a serviceable catcher + only WS win for Angels, in also.

Neither of them is Gene Mauch, basically best know for the 1964 Phils collapse (although I though he invented the double switch, pretty significant).

Manager HOF cases intrigue me because there is less of a clear definition of what a HOF mgr is than what a HOF pitcher or position player is.

Here’s my opinion on the currently eligible and soon to be eligible mgr candidates

Bochy-Easy Yes, 3 World Series titles
Baker-Yes, leading the Astros to the pennant pushed him over the top for me. Great regular season resume & longevity
Piniella-Yes, just barely. I think both Leyland & Piniella suffer in comparison to Cox, Torre,La Russa
Leyland-Yes, also just barely but a hair ahead of Piniella due matching his 1 WS title and having 2 more pennants
Francona-Easy Yes, managed Boston to WS title and ended curse, added another title, and almost ended Cleveland’s WS title drought
Scioscia-undecided, if you reverse his career he’s probably a yes but led Trout to only one playoff app in the second half of mgr career which hurts his case
Showalter-no but a WS title with the Mets would change to a yes
Maddon-undecided but probably a yes, ended Cubs curse and led Rays to first postseason appearances, but has a shorter mgr career, similar to Davey Johnson but maybe a step ahead
Melvin-no but a good start and has time to add accomplishments

None of these mgrs really had enough of a playing career to seriously add to HOF case. I thought Scioscia had a slightly better playing career than he actually had. I mean he was on the Simpsons after all. Baker had by far the best career of the group but it still wouldn’t be enough to flip him from a no to a yes but he’d be a yes for me anyways so it doesn’t matter

A 94-68 season would get his career record back to .500.

Maybe Roberts can take a 1 year sabbatical, Bochy can take over LA...that should do it. Heck, I reckon I could manage LA and they'd win over 90 games.

(although I though he invented the double switch, pretty significant).

This is like some old wives tale. Hughie Jennings was probably doing this over a hundred years ago. At least that's what I read. Casey Stengel certainly did it in world series game 1, 1962:

https://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1962/B10040SFN1962.htm

So "no" Mauch didnt invent it.

Murtaugh doing it in 1959:

https://www.baseballhistorycomesalive.com/connie-mack-stadium-philadelphia-june-30-1959-thunder-lightning-and-rain-interrupts-a-pitchers-duel/

this site claims 1906 although neither Retrosheet nor Baseball reference show Griffith in the 8th slot after he subbed himself in:

https://bosoxinjection.com/2013/12/20/1st-double-switch/

Yeah, the double switch has been around as long as mid-inning bullpen substitutions. I recall it was Mauch who "invented" the 5th infielder for game-ending situations with a guy on 3rd and less than 2 outs.

what does the fifth infielder gain you in that situation? YOu'd think the extra gaps in the OF would allow more balls to drop in or something...

A ball hit to the OF scores the run anyway, even if it’s caught.

Playing career for a person being considered based on their managerial success is pretty irrelevant. Maybe if a guy (like Hodges) was a serious HOF candidate as a player it might put a very close managerial case over the top. I personally didn't think Hodges managerial case was that close to HOF to be saved by his borderline playing career, but done is done.

Baker might be a better test. He has three times as many wins as Hodges and a far better winning percentage. Not fair to Hodges since he didn't get a chance to improve his WP, but fair is meaningless. We can only go by what happened. If/when Baker is elected, his playing career may be mentioned but it will be merely a footnote.

Of those mentioned in 32, I disagree on a couple:
Bochy - Yes. 3 WS overcomes low WP
Baker - Yes. Managed multiple teams and in every case improved them. Next year he'll reach top ten in wins.
Piniella - No. He has a couple of hooks to get attention (1990 wire to wire and 2001 record number of wins), but I don't see it.
Leyland - No. Just over 50% WP.
Francona - Yes. 2 WS wins and .540 and the Boston Curse nonsense. If his health allows, he could manage several more years.
Scioscia - Close, but just short for me.
Showalter - No, as of now. However, he has a great rep for preparing a team/organization. His teams (other than Baltimore - they don't count) get over the hump after he leaves and his successor gets the benefits of his labors.
Maddon - On the no side for now. He got a late start, so he is unlikely to accumulate an impressive win total. Needs another WS.
Melvin - Needs to win something before the conversation starts

Others making a case
Roberts - >.600 WP, three pennants & 1 WS. May already be over the line. Only manager to double his teams win total the year AFTER winning a World Series. Most MLB wins by manager born in Japan.
Cora - Needs to manage another decade and keep winning, but off to a great start. Only 46.
Hinch - Oddly on his third managerial job and only 47 years old.
Girardi - Needs more success. One WS but no other playoff appearances.
Cash - One pennant, good WP, only 44 years old.
Mattingly - ??? Taking the Marlins job after winning three divisional titles in LA may have tanked his HOF chance. If he wins a WS, he could be test case for a playing career boosting a HOF case.

I personally didn't think Hodges managerial case was that close to HOF to be saved by his borderline playing career, but done is done.

Hodges was elected as a player, not a manager.

44. alilisd Posted: January 31, 2022 at 12:01 PM (#6063192)

I personally didn't think Hodges managerial case was that close to HOF to be saved by his borderline playing career, but done is done.



Hodges was elected as a player, not a manager.

Okay, flip it around. His playing career wasn't close enough to be pushed across the finish line by his managerial career.