All time San Francisco Giants managers - MLB, San Francisco Giants

You Might Like

More Polls By: ML31

Who liked it? 4

qtowndogg (+)
Philadelphia Phillies

bhopp4p1 (+)
New York Yankees

Jahiegel (+)
Milwaukee Brewers

bookiebuster (+)
San Francisco Giants

MLB Results Skip to Next Poll »

Like it?

All time San Francisco Giants managers

All managed a minimum of 600 games for the San Francisco Giants. None are in the Hall of Fame.

When Age G W-L % Div. Pen. WS.

Alou 2003-2006 68-71 646 342-304 .529 1 0 0

Baker 1993-2002 44-53 1556 840-715 .540 2 0 0
Craig 1985-1992 55-62 1152 586-566 .509 2 1 0

Dark 1961-1964 39-42 644 366-277 .569 0 1 0

Fox 1970-1974 48-52 675 348-327 .516 1 0 0

Franks 1965-1968 51-54 649 367-280 .567 0 0 0

| Closed on 05/16/08 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | MLB, San Francisco Giants | Opinion List

Rank	9 Fans	Avg (1st)
1.	Roger Craig	2.3 (5)
2.	Dusty Baker	1.8 (2)
3.	Alvin Dark	1.0 (1)
Also receiving votes:	Felipe Alou	0.7 (1)
Also receiving votes:	Herman Franks	0.2


19 Comments \| Sorted by Most Recent First \| Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 \| 172 days ago bookiebuster (+)	+1 Baker won a pennant in '02, as you know. It says 0. 1. Roger Craig 2. Dusty Baker 3. Felipe Alou
	Was this comment...? (1)
#2 \| 172 days ago Buttons (+)	bookiebuster wrote: Baker won a pennant in '02, as you know. It says 0. ML31 does not recognize pennants won under the guise of the Wild Card... also affectionately referred to by ML31, and I'm paraphrasing here, as "Bud Selig's Welfare System" 1. Roger Craig 2. Felipe Alou 3. Alvin Dark
	Was this comment...?
#3 \| 172 days ago ML31 (+)	bookiebuster wrote: Baker won a pennant in '02, as you know. It says 0. Yeah, well... Call it a typo if you like. I just couldn't bring myself to count it because they finished 2 1/2 games back of the Snakes. Sorry. 1. Roger Craig 2. Dusty Baker 3. Alvin Dark
	Was this comment...?
#4 \| 145 days ago qtowndogg (+)	ML31 wrote: Yeah, well... Call it a typo if you like. I just couldn't bring myself to count it because they finished 2 1/2 games back of the Snakes. Sorry. Are you kidding me? So if they would have won the World Series, you wouldn't have counted that World Series win? A pennant is a pennant, and championship is a championship. It doesn't matter how you get there. 1. Dusty Baker 2. Roger Craig 3. Alvin Dark
	Was this comment...?
#5 \| 145 days ago ML31 (+)	qtowndogg wrote: Are you kidding me? So if they would have won the World Series, you wouldn't have counted that World Series win? A pennant is a pennant, and championship is a championship. It doesn't matter how you get there. It matters to me. You may enjoy getting things you haven't earned. But to me, those "victories" are empty and worthless. 1. Roger Craig 2. Dusty Baker 3. Alvin Dark
	Was this comment...?
#6 \| 145 days ago qtowndogg (+)	ML31 wrote: It matters to me. You may enjoy getting things you haven't earned. But to me, those "victories" are empty and worthless. How are they not earned? They did what was required to make it to the postseason, then they did what was required to win in the postseason. The NFL has 4 wildcard teams each year in the playoffs. The NBA and NHL each only have 6 division winners out of the 16 teams that make it to the playoffs. Just because you don't win your division doesn't mean you can't have a shot at the big prize. In fact, there have been a TON of wildcard champions over this past decade in baseball; even in football, the N.Y. Giants won as a wildcard team in the Super Bowl this year. So the Giants Super Bowl win shouldn't count? The Red Sox (2004), Angels, and Marlins (to name just a few) are all empty victories too? Count it or not, but the actual record books DO count these. And yes, they are definitely earned. They don't just hand out championships; the teams that win them have something to do with it. 1. Dusty Baker 2. Roger Craig 3. Alvin Dark
	Was this comment...?
#7 \| 145 days ago ML31 (+)	qtowndogg wrote: How are they not earned? They did what was required to make it to the postseason, then they did what was required to win in the postseason. The NFL has 4 wildcard teams each year in the playoffs. The NBA and NHL each only have 6 division winners out of the 16 teams that make it to the playoffs. Just because you don't win your division doesn't mean you can't have a shot at the big prize. In fact, there have been a TON of wildcard champions over this past decade in baseball; even in football, the N.Y. Giants won as a wildcard team in the Super Bowl this year. So the Giants Super Bowl win shouldn't count? The Red Sox (2004), Angels, and Marlins (to name just a few) are all empty victories too? Count it or not, but the actual record books DO count these. And yes, they are definitely earned. They don't just hand out championships; the teams that win them have something to do with it. The Giants 2002 "pennant" is not earned because the team did not prove they deserved a chance at the post season when they did not win their division. Last time I checked, 2nd place was not first place. I do not care what other sports do. Other sports are not baseball. Apples and oranges. The mere fact that MLB uses a format that allows undeserving teams to win pennants and world series' does not legitimize undeserving teams winning pennants and world series'. And yes, the Angels and Marlins so called "victories" are empty and hollow. And would mean nothing to any fan with any kind of self worth. No, MLB does not just "hand out" championships. But they DO just hand out chances at one. Every year in MLB, two undeserving teams are just handed a shot at a title that they did not earn based on their performance in the regular season. It is some kind of reward for failure. And makes no sense whatsoever. 1. Roger Craig 2. Dusty Baker 3. Alvin Dark
	Was this comment...?
#8 \| 145 days ago qtowndogg (+)	ML31 wrote: The Giants 2002 "pennant" is not earned because the team did not prove they deserved a chance at the post season when they did not win their division. Last time I checked, 2nd place was not first place. I do not care what other sports do. Other sports are not baseball. Apples and oranges. The mere fact that MLB uses a format that allows undeserving teams to win pennants and world series' does not legitimize undeserving teams winning pennants and world series'. And yes, the Angels and Marlins so called "victories" are empty and hollow. And would mean nothing to any fan with any kind of self worth. No, MLB does not just "hand out" championships. But they DO just hand out chances at one. Every year in MLB, two undeserving teams are just handed a shot at a title that they did not earn based on their performance in the regular season. It is some kind of reward for failure. And makes no sense whatsoever. So the 2004 Red Sox season was completely empty. And yes, I know baseball is different from other sports. But they all still have playoff teams that do not win their division. According to you, you're saying that if you do not win your division then you don't deserve to have a chance to play for a championship. So, if a wildcard team has a 96-66 record in a tough division and another team wins their division but goes 82-80, then the division winner deserves to play in the playoffs more than the wildcard team does? Yes, the team won their division and because of that deserve to be in the playoffs, but are they better than that wildcard team? 1. Dusty Baker 2. Roger Craig 3. Alvin Dark
	Was this comment...?
#9 \| 145 days ago ML31 (+)	qtowndogg wrote: So the 2004 Red Sox season was completely empty. And yes, I know baseball is different from other sports. But they all still have playoff teams that do not win their division. According to you, you're saying that if you do not win your division then you don't deserve to have a chance to play for a championship. So, if a wildcard team has a 96-66 record in a tough division and another team wins their division but goes 82-80, then the division winner deserves to play in the playoffs more than the wildcard team does? Yes, the team won their division and because of that deserve to be in the playoffs, but are they better than that wildcard team? Empty. Worthless. And a complete embarassment. MLB plays 162 games. If the best team in a division does not come out on top after that many games, how many does it then take? 200? 250? The NFL is the only league that can not only justify the # of playoff teams they have, but to add even more! They only play 16 games. Very few. A bad call in this game and a funny hop in that game... Season over. So it makes sense for them to have a lot of playoff teams. In MLB, if a team does not finish in first place then they have no business being included in the post season. For a multitude of reasons. First, the # of games. As explained above. Next, it is unfair to the team that actually DID finish first for the team they already beat gets in as well. It means finishing first gets teams the exact same thing as finishing 2nd. That is wrong on so very many levels. And let's not even get into how such a format has made true meaningful pennant races extinct. Yes. The 82 win first place team deserves to go to the post season more so than the 96 win 2nd place team. Why? Because the 82 win team did something the 96 win team did not. Finish better than the other teams in their group. There is no proof that the 96 win 2nd place team would have finished first in the 82 win team's division. You can guess. MAYBE they would. But it will never be known for sure. Maybe the 82 win team only played as well as they needed to win. Maybe if the 82 win team were in a more competitive situation, they would have won 95 or 100 games. You just don't know. Total wins means nothing overall. Only the final standing regardless of wins is what matters. That is what teams play for. 1. Roger Craig 2. Dusty Baker 3. Alvin Dark
	Was this comment...?
#10 \| 145 days ago Buttons (+)	+1 This will be my only warning: qtowndogg: Do yourself a favor and stop now. This discussion will end painfully for you. While yours is a noble cause, and a valid point which most on this site and in the world agree with (including myself), this battle with ML31 is futile and will only bring about indigestion and have you harboring animosity toward that blue MLS crest which is his avatar. He is the proverbial brick wall... run now while there is hope... 1. Roger Craig 2. Felipe Alou 3. Alvin Dark
	Was this comment...? (1)
#11 \| 145 days ago ML31 (+)	Buttons wrote: This will be my only warning: qtowndogg: Do yourself a favor and stop now. This discussion will end painfully for you. While yours is a noble cause, and a valid point which most on this site and in the world agree with (including myself), this battle with ML31 is futile and will only bring about indigestion and have you harboring animosity toward that blue MLS crest which is his avatar. He is the proverbial brick wall... run now while there is hope... Why is it I am the brick wall here? Why can't those who think that 2nd place is the same as 1st place be the proverbial brick wall? So according to you, if 4 people insist that 2+2=5 and one person says 2+2=4... Then the 2+2=4 person is the brick wall! Why aren't the 2+2=5 people the brick wall? Not only are they stubborn, but wrong too! This discussion will only end painfully for qtowndogg if he insists on thinking 1st place is the same as 2nd. If he says something like "I love playoffs. The more the merrier..." Then fine. Nothing I can say to that. If he says something like, "I never enjoyed baseball pennant races so I don't care that they are gone." Then again, fine. Nothing I can say to that. 1. Roger Craig 2. Dusty Baker 3. Alvin Dark
	Was this comment...?
#12 \| 145 days ago qtowndogg (+)	Buttons wrote: This will be my only warning: qtowndogg: Do yourself a favor and stop now. This discussion will end painfully for you. While yours is a noble cause, and a valid point which most on this site and in the world agree with (including myself), this battle with ML31 is futile and will only bring about indigestion and have you harboring animosity toward that blue MLS crest which is his avatar. He is the proverbial brick wall... run now while there is hope... lol, OK. 1. Dusty Baker 2. Roger Craig 3. Alvin Dark
	Was this comment...?
#13 \| 145 days ago ML31 (+)	Buttons wrote: This will be my only warning: qtowndogg: Do yourself a favor and stop now. This discussion will end painfully for you. While yours is a noble cause, and a valid point which most on this site and in the world agree with (including myself), this battle with ML31 is futile and will only bring about indigestion and have you harboring animosity toward that blue MLS crest which is his avatar. He is the proverbial brick wall... run now while there is hope... More... How is the idea that 2nd place being worth the exact same thing as first place be a "noble cause"? How can a point be valid when it is so easily disqualified? 1. Roger Craig 2. Dusty Baker 3. Alvin Dark
	Was this comment...?
#14 \| 145 days ago qtowndogg (+)	ML31 wrote: More... How is the idea that 2nd place being worth the exact same thing as first place be a "noble cause"? How can a point be valid when it is so easily disqualified? 2nd place is not the exact same thing as 1st place. None of us ever said that. 1. Dusty Baker 2. Roger Craig 3. Alvin Dark
	Was this comment...?
#15 \| 145 days ago ML31 (+)	It is to you if you are OK with MLB allowing 2nd place teams in the post season. The team that finished 2nd gets the exact same thing as the team they finished 2nd to. How fair is that? 1. Roger Craig 2. Dusty Baker 3. Alvin Dark
	Was this comment...?
#16 \| 145 days ago qtowndogg (+)	ML31 wrote: It is to you if you are OK with MLB allowing 2nd place teams in the post season. The team that finished 2nd gets the exact same thing as the team they finished 2nd to. How fair is that? They don't GET the exact same thing. They still have to EARN it by beating that first place team. If they can beat that first place team (on the road) in an extended playoff series, then I think they've earned the right to go to the next round. Just our opinion. I respect that you have your opinion too. 1. Dusty Baker 2. Roger Craig 3. Alvin Dark
	Was this comment...?
#17 \| 145 days ago ML31 (+)	qtowndogg wrote: They don't GET the exact same thing. They still have to EARN it by beating that first place team. If they can beat that first place team (on the road) in an extended playoff series, then I think they've earned the right to go to the next round. Just our opinion. I respect that you have your opinion too. They do 'get' the same thing after the 162 game season. Both get the opportunity to advance to the post season. Why is it fair to the first place team who busted their rears over the 162 game season to put as much distance between them and 2nd place as possible... Only to find out that they didn't need to work that hard because if they had finished in 2nd place themselves, they would have got the exact same thing? Also, results from the playoffs don't mean a whole lot. Not in todays format. Here's why... All 8 playoff teams are good teams. The difference between the best teams and the worst teams is very very small. The best teams win 6 of 10. The worst teams win 4 of 10. With so many good teams, the playoffs can be won by any team,