Tony LaRussa, Bobby Cox and Joe Torre voted to the Baseball Hall of Fame

The Baseball Hall of Fame has three new members

12/9/13 in MLB   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

Blog Photo - Tony LaRussa, Bobby Cox and Joe Torre voted to the Baseball Hall of FameSoon, it will be time to take a look at the various players that are eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame.

On the list will be many players of many different types. Some will be confirmed steroid users, others will be perceived to be clean as a whistle. Some will be mortal locks to make the HOF on the first ballot, while others will be stuck in limbo for a while, wondering which ballot will finally send them to Cooperstown, if ever.

There are a few former managers who no longer have to wait for their phone call.

Joe Torre, Bobby Cox and Tony La Russa have officially been unanimously elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame by the expansion era committee. They received all 16 votes from the committee, plenty more than the 12 that were needed for induction.

Torre is best known for his time with the Yankees, when he won four World Series championships, but he also managed the Mets, Braves, Cardinals and Dodgers. In 29 seasons total, he finished with the combined record of 2326-1997 as a manager.

La Russa managed for 33 years between the White Sox, Athletics and Cardinals. He won a World Series with the Athletics and two more with the Cardinals, and finished with a career record of 2728-2365.

Cox managed for 29 seasons, 25 of which were spent with the Atlanta Braves. He also managed 4 seasons for the Blue Jays. Although his Braves won 13 straight division championships (interrupted by the strike in 1994), they only managed to win one World Series. They won 5 National League pennants. His career record was 2504-2001.

These are definitely three legends of the game, and well deserving of their HOF inductions.
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

12/16/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

Pat wrote:
I'm going to say this one last time: That's not even remotely what you said about Torre in your first comment. You have completely changed the argument.

Not at all.  It is indeed right there with what I said.  I just reworded it and embellished it for clarification.
 
 

12/16/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

ML31 wrote:
I have been saying all along that what he had to work with with the Yankees was far superior than he would have had with nearly any other team.  Had he won 10 division titles in 12 seasons with any other team it would be much more impressive and should count for much more.  The fact that he did it with teams that had the talent to win nearly every year makes it less an achievement.  Especially given that he accomplished nowhere near that kind of success anywhere else he managed.  Further suggesting it was more the team he had than it was him.

The Yankee factor is indeed the one and only factor working in Torre's favor here.  If you remove his Yankee seasons and replace them with even slightly above average results from his 4 other jobs no one is talking Hall of Fame for him.  He is in 100% for his 12 year Yankees stint and his other 17 seasons isn't even being considered.   It's not the first time a person's full body of work was not considered when being evaluated for the Hall.  And sadly, it won't be the last.

I'm going to say this one last time: That's not even remotely what you said about Torre in your first comment. You have completely changed the argument.

12/15/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

Pat wrote:
But my point is that it wouldn't matter if it were the Yankees or any other team. If he had sucked as the Yankees manager and then went on to manage a different team to 4 WS rings, he'd still be getting inducted. The fact that it happened to be the Yankees was, in this particular case, immaterial. If it were any other team and he had similar results, nothing would really be different at all.

Again, I agree that some players get more credit than is deserved simply by virtue of being a Yankee, but I don't think that's a factor with Torre in this particular instance.

I have been saying all along that what he had to work with with the Yankees was far superior than he would have had with nearly any other team.  Had he won 10 division titles in 12 seasons with any other team it would be much more impressive and should count for much more.  The fact that he did it with teams that had the talent to win nearly every year makes it less an achievement.  Especially given that he accomplished nowhere near that kind of success anywhere else he managed.  Further suggesting it was more the team he had than it was him.

The Yankee factor is indeed the one and only factor working in Torre's favor here.  If you remove his Yankee seasons and replace them with even slightly above average results from his 4 other jobs no one is talking Hall of Fame for him.  He is in 100% for his 12 year Yankees stint and his other 17 seasons isn't even being considered.   It's not the first time a person's full body of work was not considered when being evaluated for the Hall.  And sadly, it won't be the last.

12/14/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

ML31 wrote:
The Braves fired him when his teams started crapping out.  He wasn't so hot with the Cards either. 

I haven't changed anything no matter how much you wish it were otherwise.  The fact is, Torre is going on ONLY for what he did as a Yankee manager and the rest of his resume has been virtually ignored.  There lies the ignorance, inaccuracy and misinformation you refer to in the discussion.  Not from anything I brought to the table.  It is not the first time that has happened and it won't be the last. 

But my point is that it wouldn't matter if it were the Yankees or any other team. If he had sucked as the Yankees manager and then went on to manage a different team to 4 WS rings, he'd still be getting inducted. The fact that it happened to be the Yankees was, in this particular case, immaterial. If it were any other team and he had similar results, nothing would really be different at all.

Again, I agree that some players get more credit than is deserved simply by virtue of being a Yankee, but I don't think that's a factor with Torre in this particular instance.

12/14/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

Pat wrote:
A large part of his bad seasons came with the Mets, where he started as a player/manager.

Still, no matter how you try to change your argument, any manager with 4 WS rings is getting into the Hall of Fame, regardless of what team he managed. Therefore, your original comment regarding Torre is unequivocally false.

I'm not going to deny that you've made some decent points later in the discussion, but your first comment about Torre was ignorant, inaccurate and misinformed.

The Braves fired him when his teams started crapping out.  He wasn't so hot with the Cards either. 

I haven't changed anything no matter how much you wish it were otherwise.  The fact is, Torre is going on ONLY for what he did as a Yankee manager and the rest of his resume has been virtually ignored.  There lies the ignorance, inaccuracy and misinformation you refer to in the discussion.  Not from anything I brought to the table.  It is not the first time that has happened and it won't be the last. 

12/13/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

A large part of his bad seasons came with the Mets, where he started as a player/manager.

Still, no matter how you try to change your argument, any manager with 4 WS rings is getting into the Hall of Fame, regardless of what team he managed. Therefore, your original comment regarding Torre is unequivocally false.

I'm not going to deny that you've made some decent points later in the discussion, but your first comment about Torre was ignorant, inaccurate and misinformed.

12/13/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

Pat wrote:
Players, yes. Managers, not so much. As much as you want to ignore the postseason, McCarthy won 7 World Series championships. EVERY MANAGER IN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL WITH 7 WS RINGS WILL BE INDUCTED IN THE HALL OF FAME. Regardless of what team they manage, that has always and WILL always be the case. If that makes McCarthy overrated, then so be it.

If you ignore Torre's postseasons, he's still got a .538 winning percentage in 29 years as a manager. He did well with the Braves, Yankees and Dodgers. Not so much, with the Mets. Assuming you also ignore every other manager's postseasons, I think Torre would still be a Hall of Famer. How many other guys have that kind of success over such a long period of time?

Basically, you're trying to ignore the most influential single factor for managers. Like it or not, managers with multiple WS rings will be Hall of Famers every time. If Torre is overrated at all, it's not because he was a Yankee. It's because he won 4 World Series. If he had done the same thing anywhere else, he'd still be getting inducted.

Unlikely any manager will get 7 rings in this day and age.  The odds are just against even the greatest managers in the world with the greatest teams assembled doing it.  McCarthy managed with certain advantages other managers didn't have.  Had he been managing any other team (in his time) would he have similar success?  No way to be sure but I think it safe to conclude he would not.  When evaluating managers it is reasonable to evaluate what they have to work with.  It is all a huge part of the big picture.
If World Series wins is the single most influential factor in evaluating a manager for someone then that someone's evaluation skills are completely out of whack.  The single most important factor is what a manager did with what he had to work with.  With Torre, it is not just the .528 winning % in 29 years of managing.  One must take into account what he had to work with.  BTW...  11 of his 17 managing seasons outside of the Yankees were below .500.  7 were below .450.  Not saying his 12 Yankee years should be ignored.  Just that what he did there should not be overvalued.  As it is, that seems to be the only thing that drove him to the Hall.  Which is simply ludicrous. 

12/13/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

ML31 wrote:
On the contrary.  Players and managers have routinely been rated better just because they did it in New York.  Phil Rizzuto and Joe McCarthy come to mind immediately. 
The foolish comment is claiming that winning World Series' makes a manager great.  Such reasoning is ludicrous in this day and age of huge post season tournaments. 

I ask this...  Ignoring Torre's post seasons...  Is he a Hall of Fame manager?  I ask because that is all you seem to have in his favor. You are placing far too great a value on something that has become increasingly random in the past 20 years....

Players, yes. Managers, not so much. As much as you want to ignore the postseason, McCarthy won 7 World Series championships. EVERY MANAGER IN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL WITH 7 WS RINGS WILL BE INDUCTED IN THE HALL OF FAME. Regardless of what team they manage, that has always and WILL always be the case. If that makes McCarthy overrated, then so be it.

If you ignore Torre's postseasons, he's still got a .538 winning percentage in 29 years as a manager. He did well with the Braves, Yankees and Dodgers. Not so much, with the Mets. Assuming you also ignore every other manager's postseasons, I think Torre would still be a Hall of Famer. How many other guys have that kind of success over such a long period of time?

Basically, you're trying to ignore the most influential single factor for managers. Like it or not, managers with multiple WS rings will be Hall of Famers every time. If Torre is overrated at all, it's not because he was a Yankee. It's because he won 4 World Series. If he had done the same thing anywhere else, he'd still be getting inducted.

12/13/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

Pat wrote:
Again, you have no proof of this whatsoever. Does anyone view Joe Girardi as a better manager than his peers who have won a single World Series? If anything, I'd say people cite Girardi's time with the Marlins as an example of his managerial skills more than his time with the Yankees.

There's a case to be made that the pressure of playing in New York has an impact on players. But managers are most directly influenced by the quality of their players, and they're often judged accordingly. Since Yankees managers consistently have an extremely talented group of players to work with, they're often given LESS credit than other managers in other places, and deservedly so.

That having been said, 4 World Series championships as a manager is HOF-worthy no matter who you manage.

So basically, your initial comment regarding Torre was embarrassingly inaccurate and misguided, whether you realize it or not.

On the contrary.  Players and managers have routinely been rated better just because they did it in New York.  Phil Rizzuto and Joe McCarthy come to mind immediately. 
The foolish comment is claiming that winning World Series' makes a manager great.  Such reasoning is ludicrous in this day and age of huge post season tournaments. 

I ask this...  Ignoring Torre's post seasons...  Is he a Hall of Fame manager?  I ask because that is all you seem to have in his favor. You are placing far too great a value on something that has become increasingly random in the past 20 years....

12/13/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

ML31 wrote:
I suppose I should have added that nothing you have said has invalidated the comment cited either.

I sure can intelligently make that claim because things done in New York always carry more weight than they do elsewhere.  It stands to reason that managers winning games would garner the same special treatment.

Again, you have no proof of this whatsoever. Does anyone view Joe Girardi as a better manager than his peers who have won a single World Series? If anything, I'd say people cite Girardi's time with the Marlins as an example of his managerial skills more than his time with the Yankees.

There's a case to be made that the pressure of playing in New York has an impact on players. But managers are most directly influenced by the quality of their players, and they're often judged accordingly. Since Yankees managers consistently have an extremely talented group of players to work with, they're often given LESS credit than other managers in other places, and deservedly so.

That having been said, 4 World Series championships as a manager is HOF-worthy no matter who you manage.

So basically, your initial comment regarding Torre was embarrassingly inaccurate and misguided, whether you realize it or not.

12/12/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

Pat wrote:
Right. That's what my words were for. And honestly, your comment invalidated itself by being ridiculously ignorant.

You can't intelligently claim that he's getting more credit for doing it in New York than he would have gotten for doing it elsewhere, when no one has done it elsewhere and NOT received similar accolades (HOF induction).

I suppose I should have added that nothing you have said has invalidated the comment cited either.

I sure can intelligently make that claim because things done in New York always carry more weight than they do elsewhere.  It stands to reason that managers winning games would garner the same special treatment.

12/12/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

ML31 wrote:
Nothing I have said invalidates the comment you quoted.

Right. That's what my words were for. And honestly, your comment invalidated itself by being ridiculously ignorant.

You can't intelligently claim that he's getting more credit for doing it in New York than he would have gotten for doing it elsewhere, when no one has done it elsewhere and NOT received similar accolades (HOF induction).

12/12/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

Pat wrote:
Once again, that's EXTREMELY different from your initial post, which stated (and I quote):

"Torre is yet another example of doing something in New York counts for more than if it were done elsewhere.  Had he done the same thing with some other team but the Yankees it's very doubtful he would be in the Hall at all."

Nothing I have said invalidates the comment you quoted.

12/12/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

ML31 wrote:
Now you are just going out of your way to make an argument.

I repeat...   Joe Torre is a perfect argument to make the case that World Series wins do not necessarily a great manager make. Had he really been much better he would have done better with other teams.

 

Once again, that's EXTREMELY different from your initial post, which stated (and I quote):

"Torre is yet another example of doing something in New York counts for more than if it were done elsewhere.  Had he done the same thing with some other team but the Yankees it's very doubtful he would be in the Hall at all."

12/11/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

Pat wrote:
"Further, had he done better with other teams it would not have been held in as high a regard."

This is absolutely unsubstantiated and has no factual basis behind it whatsoever. If anything, I think he would have been held in a HIGHER regard if he had accomplished the same things elsewhere. Many other managers (Joe Maddon, for example) are extremely highly regarded without any World Series rings. If Torre had done the same thing in Tampa Bay as he did in NY, he would probably be touted as the greatest manager of all time. Thus, blowing your ridiculous statement out of the water.

Now you are just going out of your way to make an argument.

I repeat...   Joe Torre is a perfect argument to make the case that World Series wins do not necessarily a great manager make. Had he really been much better he would have done better with other teams.

 

12/11/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

"Further, had he done better with other teams it would not have been held in as high a regard."

This is absolutely unsubstantiated and has no factual basis behind it whatsoever. If anything, I think he would have been held in a HIGHER regard if he had accomplished the same things elsewhere. Many other managers (Joe Maddon, for example) are extremely highly regarded without any World Series rings. If Torre had done the same thing in Tampa Bay as he did in NY, he would probably be touted as the greatest manager of all time. Thus, blowing your ridiculous statement out of the water.

12/11/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

Pat wrote:
Absolutely false. You didn't reword it, you formed a completely different case. Your first argument was that his accomplishments with the Yankees are treated with higher regard because they occurred with the Yankees. Your second argument was that he was incapable of replicating those accomplishments elsewhere. Whether you realize it or not, those are two entirely different arguments. In fact, YOU'RE treating his accomplishments differently because they happened in New York, by discrediting him due to the huge amount of talent he had to work with. While I think there's some merit to that particular argument, a manager with 4 World Series wins should make the Hall of Fame 100% of the time. I can't imagine a situation in which there would be a reasonable exception.

The same reasoning undermines both concepts.  Joe Torre is a perfect argument to make the case that World Series wins do not necessarily a great manager make. Had he really been much better he would have done better with other teams.  Further, had he done better with other teams it would not have been held in as high a regard.  But in that respect you are have a point...  That question is moot because he didn't manage other teams in that time frame.  It is, however a factor I consider when it comes to managers. 

12/11/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

ML31 wrote:
I didn't change my argument.  The reasoning remains unchanged.  I just reworded it. 

Absolutely false. You didn't reword it, you formed a completely different case. Your first argument was that his accomplishments with the Yankees are treated with higher regard because they occurred with the Yankees. Your second argument was that he was incapable of replicating those accomplishments elsewhere. Whether you realize it or not, those are two entirely different arguments. In fact, YOU'RE treating his accomplishments differently because they happened in New York, by discrediting him due to the huge amount of talent he had to work with. While I think there's some merit to that particular argument, a manager with 4 World Series wins should make the Hall of Fame 100% of the time. I can't imagine a situation in which there would be a reasonable exception.

12/10/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

Pat wrote:
It's interesting that you changed your entire argument on Torre once confronted with how ridiculous your original premise was. I still think he's HOF-worthy, but you made a much better case this time.

I didn't change my argument.  The reasoning remains unchanged.  I just reworded it. 

12/10/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

ML31 wrote:
If no one won in 1994 then all winning streaks of any kind ended.  It's really pretty simple math.

Regarding Torre you are making a ton of assumptions.  He won 3 division titles in his 17 years helming teams not called Yankees.  I wouldn't call that Hall of Fame success.  Take his 12 Yankee years away from his 29 years of managing replace them with managing years like his other 17 seasons and no one is talking Hall of Fame with him.

Look, if he won more division titles managing elsewhere I would be right there on the Torre bandwagon.  But managing the highest payroll in the majors to division titles is just not the toughest managerial task there is.  I have a hard time using World Series titles as evidence for anything these days because a lot of that is now based on luck than anything else, thanks to the large playoff field. 

PS...  A case could be made for Cox.  I would lean towards no but there are some legitimate cases to be made in his favor.

PPS...  It's sad how arrogant some people can get when presented with thoughtful well constructed opinions that differ from their own.   They sometimes use terms like "delusional".  As if that invalidates what was said in any way.

It's interesting that you changed your entire argument on Torre once confronted with how ridiculous your original premise was. I still think he's HOF-worthy, but you made a much better case this time.

12/10/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

Pat wrote:
You say some crazy stuff from time to time, but your comments on Torre and Cox are beyond irrational.

For starters, the 1994 season never ended. So no one won the division that year. To say the Braves lost the division is like saying the Expos won the World Series simply because they had the best record. The season never ended. Anything that happened that year is essentially irrelevant.

As for Torre… if he won 4 World Series championships somewhere else, he wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? What a bizarre thing to say. I'd like to see the list of managers with 4 World Series championships who AREN'T in the HOF. Oh wait. It doesn't exist. Because anyone who has ever won 4 WS as a manager is in the HOF. Without exception. And only 5 guys have ever done it.

It's unbelievable how delusional you are sometimes.
(Edited by ML31)

If no one won in 1994 then all winning streaks of any kind ended.  It's really pretty simple math.

Regarding Torre you are making a ton of assumptions.  He won 3 division titles in his 17 years helming teams not called Yankees.  I wouldn't call that Hall of Fame success.  Take his 12 Yankee years away from his 29 years of managing replace them with managing years like his other 17 seasons and no one is talking Hall of Fame with him.

Look, if he won more division titles managing elsewhere I would be right there on the Torre bandwagon.  But managing the highest payroll in the majors to division titles is just not the toughest managerial task there is.  I have a hard time using World Series titles as evidence for anything these days because a lot of that is now based on luck than anything else, thanks to the large playoff field. 

PS...  A case could be made for Cox.  I would lean towards no but there are some legitimate cases to be made in his favor.

PPS...  It's sad how arrogant some people can get when presented with thoughtful well constructed opinions that differ from their own.   They sometimes use terms like "delusional".  As if that invalidates what was said in any way.

12/9/13   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

ML31 wrote:
I'm good with LaRussa.  He won wherever he went and more than that, he revolutionized how bull pens were used.  The concept of the single inning "Closer" was his.

Never felt Cox was all that great a manager.  I felt he always had the horses to win in Atlanta.  And a pet peeve of mine is that division title streak.  They weren't consecutive.  Braves won 3 divisions.  Then didn't win one.  The reeled off 10 more.  It's 10 consecutive and 13 of 14. 

Torre is yet another example of doing something in New York counts for more than if it were done elsewhere.  Had he done the same thing with some other team but the Yankees it's very doubtful he would be in the Hall at all. 

You say some crazy stuff from time to time, but your comments on Torre and Cox are beyond irrational.

For starters, the 1994 season never ended. So no one won the division that year. To say the Braves lost the division is like saying the Expos won the World Series simply because they had the best record. The season never ended. Anything that happened that year is essentially irrelevant.

As for Torre… if he won 4 World Series championships somewhere else, he wouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? What a bizarre thing to say. I'd like to see the list of managers with 4 World Series championships who AREN'T in the HOF. Oh wait. It doesn't exist. Because anyone who has ever won 4 WS as a manager is in the HOF. Without exception. And only 5 guys have ever done it.

It's unbelievable how delusional you are sometimes.

12/9/13   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

Interesting that the 3 managers (deservedly) get in even though their success came in the PED Era with PED users, particularly LaRussa, yet players don't get the same easy treatement.

Also, Marvin Miller got screwed again, but I might as well have said the sun sets in the west every night.

12/9/13   |   ML31   |   3671 respect

I'm good with LaRussa.  He won wherever he went and more than that, he revolutionized how bull pens were used.  The concept of the single inning "Closer" was his.

Never felt Cox was all that great a manager.  I felt he always had the horses to win in Atlanta.  And a pet peeve of mine is that division title streak.  They weren't consecutive.  Braves won 3 divisions.  Then didn't win one.  The reeled off 10 more.  It's 10 consecutive and 13 of 14. 

Torre is yet another example of doing something in New York counts for more than if it were done elsewhere.  Had he done the same thing with some other team but the Yankees it's very doubtful he would be in the Hall at all.