How good is Terry Francona??

[example1]

Francona is an awful manager strategically speaking.

 

Not to mention i don't appreciate the baiting.

 

So how about if we just leave it at that.

 

Right. You will bait others but then you act shocked if you percieve it coming your way...

 

I did no baiting. Thanks for the Baseball Reference page links. I have them both up on my computer already, but I appreciate you finding the link for me.

 

The numbers you look at are the same ones I see and think Francona has a case. As many WS titles. Tougher division. Tougher city. Tougher egos.

 

I think LaRussa is overrated and Francona gets overlooked. You think strategically he's been a horrible manager, so you must think this team has drastically underachieved during his tenure. I don't think so. I think 2 WS, 3 League Championship Series, and 4 playoff appearences in 5 years is about right for this team.

[Dipre]

Right. You will bait others but then you act shocked if you percieve it coming your way...

 

I did no baiting. Thanks for the Baseball Reference page links. I have them both up on my computer already, but I appreciate you finding the link for me.

 

The numbers you look at are the same ones I see and think Francona has a case. As many WS titles. Tougher division. Tougher city. Tougher egos.

 

I think LaRussa is overrated and Francona gets overlooked. You think strategically he's been a horrible manager, so you must think this team has drastically underachieved during his tenure. I don't think so. I think 2 WS, 3 League Championship Series, and 4 playoff appearences in 5 years is about right for this team.

 

Lol, no means i don't agree.

 

It's not internet slang for "I want a shitstorm".

[example1]

You do know you can do that without being a douche?

 

I wasn't wasting your time. I was asking for you to back up what you say. That's not being a douche. If you were busy in the midst of some other discussion then I apologize. However, I noticed you spent a lot of time talking about YOTNs date. Apparently looking up baseball related stuff is wasting your time.

 

 

 

2006 to be specific.

 

Post-season= Crapshoot.

 

So how does LaRussa get credit for winning the WS in 2006? I remember that series was literally thrown away by a clearly superior Tigers team. LaRussa had nothing to do with having the Tigers pitchers throw the ball all over the field.

 

2,500 + career wins does not = crapshoot.

 

Their winning % are similar to one another and they have had virtually the same average division finish. LaRussa is better in both areas, but not by a whole lot. Remember, I said that Francona would be up there with LaRussa. Not that LaRussa sucks.

 

It doesn't matter, you were being a douche and baiting.

 

I have a problem with people who make one word points and then act offended when asked to back them up. I wasn't being a douche, I was engaging in a discussion that you chose to enter and then quickly wanted to leave. Not my bad.

 

You could've asked for me to back it up, simply.

 

You didn't think it warranted an explanation to begin with.

 

But apparently you wanna whore some attention today.

 

Name calling? Really? I take offense to the way that you have responded to this discussion. I didn't call you names. I merely stated that you tend to have short answers and then expect that people who you disagree with will understand why immediately without explanation.

 

Welcome back to the site.

[Dipre]

Two words: Sample size.

 

Anyways, you win dude.

 

You're king of the internets.

[Gom]

First of all...when it comes to motivating your players, I've noticed that the old school managers do a great job. Torre, as much as I hated his in-game management, was probably the best I've ever seen.

 

However, I think the in-game management is the most important factor. If you need further proof, look at Grady Little.

 

Championships are a bit of a crock. If Girardi wins a World Series or two, does he suddenly become a great manager? I thought he was a good manager when he was with the Marlins. He's a good manager now, and he was a good manager then. I never thought Tito was a great manager, he was just better than Torre.

 

To me, a manager's job is 95% bullpen management and in-game strategizing. How many calls does an AL manager make during the game that doesn't involve pitching? Bunting or stealing? Come on...at most 2 or 3 times a game, if that. However, he has to know when to take the pitcher out, which reliever, etc.

 

Not only that, but he has to manage them over the course of the season. No one in the game does it as well as LaRussa in the NL, and although I am biased here a bit by my fandom, no one in the AL does it as good as Girardi in the AL.

 

Tito? Get real.

 

Francona's moves are baffling, to be honest. I can't understand what the heck he is doing in innings 6, 7, and 8. The 9th goes to Papelbon, but the rest is confusing. In that regard, he's very similar to Torre.

 

In comparing him to LaRussa, there should be no question. LaRussa has won everywhere he has gone. Whether you agree with "creeping LaRussa-ism", the fact remains that his technique has changed the game. He's an innovator, and one of the old guard who uses modern systems and analysis to maximize his moves.

 

In that regard, and for that reason, there is a huge gulf between LaRussa and managers like Tito or Torre. They can't hold their own against a LaRussa.

[Dipre]

First of all...when it comes to motivating your players, I've noticed that the old school managers do a great job. Torre, as much as I hated his in-game management, was probably the best I've ever seen.

 

However, I think the in-game management is the most important factor. If you need further proof, look at Grady Little.

 

Championships are a bit of a crock. If Girardi wins a World Series or two, does he suddenly become a great manager? I thought he was a good manager when he was with the Marlins. He's a good manager now, and he was a good manager then. I never thought Tito was a great manager, he was just better than Torre.

 

To me, a manager's job is 95% bullpen management and in-game strategizing. How many calls does an AL manager make during the game that doesn't involve pitching? Bunting or stealing? Come on...at most 2 or 3 times a game, if that. However, he has to know when to take the pitcher out, which reliever, etc.

 

Not only that, but he has to manage them over the course of the season. No one in the game does it as well as LaRussa in the NL, and although I am biased here a bit by my fandom, no one in the AL does it as good as Girardi in the AL.

 

Tito? Get real.

 

Francona's moves are baffling, to be honest. I can't understand what the heck he is doing in innings 6, 7, and 8. The 9th goes to Papelbon, but the rest is confusing. In that regard, he's very similar to Torre.

 

In comparing him to LaRussa, there should be no question. LaRussa has won everywhere he has gone. Whether you agree with "creeping LaRussa-ism", the fact remains that his technique has changed the game. He's an innovator, and one of the old guard who uses modern systems and analysis to maximize his moves.

 

In that regard, and for that reason, there is a huge gulf between LaRussa and managers like Tito or Torre. They can't hold their own against a LaRussa.

 

This is why i said "Lol,no".

[Emmz]

They've won the same number of WS in much less time. He won 3 straight AL Pennants in 88, 89 and 90, but lost in the WS twice.

 

LaRussa has won his division 12 times and won 2 WS and 5 pennants.

 

I just wanted to go over this. I disagree with this, in the sense that this somehow is supposed to tarnish LaRussa as a manager or somehow put Francona over the top. LaRussa is so much more proven, he's won on different teams over a long period of time, that means rebuilding. Francona has won two worlds series basically because he was handed a job that was a guaranteed success, the Red Sox were a very competitive team, and they still are. Francona has not had to rebuild much yet. I think once he proves himself by actually going through several teams, he will then have somewhat of a case (possibly) with LaRussa. However, it's just to early to put him even in the same sentence.

 

Also, I recall back in the 2004 playoffs Francona made one of the silliest errors a manager could make, he put a very tired Pedro Martinez in, while the Red Sox were dominating. I had no idea why he would do that, but he did, and there was no reason for it. I'm just saying, if you're going to compare someone to LaRussa, I wouldn't pick Francona

[BoSox21]

You play with the cards you're dealt. But if you decide you would've rather have spent the last 5 seasons with Tony LaRussa instead of Terry Francona knowing that the 5 years under Francona have brought 4 playoff appearances, 2 World Series titles and another ALCS Game 7 appearance, would you really think LaRussa would've succeeded more?

[Dipre]

You play with the cards you're dealt. But if you decide you would've rather have spent the last 5 seasons with Tony LaRussa instead of Terry Francona knowing that the 5 years under Francona have brought 4 playoff appearances' date=' 2 World Series titles and another ALCS Game 7 appearance, would you really think LaRussa would've succeeded more?[/quote']

 

Not the point.

 

The question is, without the use of exactly the argument you just pointed out, who is the better manager?

 

LaRussa is the better strategist by far, he's also handled some big egos, and has won wherever he's gone.

 

Did Tito win with the Phillies?

[SoxSport]

It's hard to judge a manager, because 1) much of a team's success is due to the players, not the manager (though a manager can screw things up royally in game situations and in his relationship with the players), and 2) you don't know where the FO stops and the manager starts--except in moves during the game.

 

The media tends to judge managers by a team's won-lost record, and that can be misleading. I think everyone would agree on the things Tito does well. The disagreement, I suspect, is on game management. As I've said, I think he shuffles lineups and uses the whole team really well. I don't think he's strong playing smallball in one-run or extra inning games--where a run is very hard to get. I also don't think he's very intense until late in the season and the playoffs. It seems he could do more to win some games earlier in the season.

 

The other thing I don't like, which a lot of managers now do, is use a different reliever every inning. When a pitcher throws 20-30 heating up in the bullpen, you want him throwing 2 innings if he has his stuff. If he isn't sharp, go to the next pitcher. How many times does a manager lose a game because he replaces a sharp reliever the next inning with a guy who isn't sharp that day and gets hit--costing the game. In tennis, it's called an UNFORCED ERROR. In baseball, it's standard operational procedure these days. And it taxes the hell out of a bullpen.

[BoSox21]

Not the point.

 

The question is, without the use of exactly the argument you just pointed out, who is the better manager?

 

LaRussa is the better strategist by far, he's also handled some big egos, and has won wherever he's gone.

 

Did Tito win with the Phillies?

 

I see what you're saying but how can you possibly figure out who is a "better manager". Are you looking at who manages a game the best? Who keeps all the egos on a team in check? It also depends on the type of team the guy is managing. Francona is fantastic at keeping a team with a ton of big egos in check that's also talented enough to overcome his strategical shortcomings.

[Dipre]

I see what you're saying but how can you possibly figure out who is a "better manager". Are you looking at who manages a game the best? Who keeps all the egos on a team in check? It also depends on the type of team the guy is managing. Francona is fantastic at keeping a team with a ton of big egos in check that's also talented enough to overcome his strategical shortcomings.

 

I'm talking about the overall package.

 

Tito is a great media/player guy, but his in-game management is a joke.

[BoSox21]

Fine, but how can you possibly figure out the overall package? Has LaRussa ever faced the Boston media? I know St. Louis is baseball-crazy but everything is always sunshine and unicorns over there. They aren't critical about their team whatsoever. Has LaRussa ever dealt with Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, Manny Ramirez, etc?

[Dipre]

Fine' date=' but how can you possibly figure out the overall package? Has LaRussa ever faced the Boston media? I know St. Louis is baseball-crazy but everything is always sunshine and unicorns over there. They aren't critical about their team whatsoever. Has LaRussa ever dealt with Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, Manny Ramirez, etc?[/quote']

 

Remember the late '80's Oakland?

 

Did you know Canseco was one of the most controversial s***-starters in baseball?

 

Again, strategy and actual in-game management should be more important than dealing with Pedro.

[Emmz]

I think his in-game management is terrible, and I don't think his media/player relationship outshines that, I think LaRussa is very, very good at both

[BoSox21]

Again, strategy and actual in-game management should be more important than dealing with Pedro.

 

Not when you're dealing with a 2004 Red Sox team that is uber-talented but full of children. The talent overcomes the strategy part but he's gotta be able to keep that talent focused on the task at hand.

[Dipre]

Not when you're dealing with a 2004 Red Sox team that is uber-talented but full of children. The talent overcomes the strategy part but he's gotta be able to keep that talent focused on the task at hand.

 

So the 2004 Cards were any less talented or any less filled with big egos?

[BoSox21]

So the 2004 Cards were any less talented or any less filled with big egos?

 

Who the hell had an ego on the 2004 Cards? Scott Rolen?

[Dipre]

Who the hell had an ego on the 2004 Cards? Scott Rolen?

 

He alone was enough to account for Pedro AND Schilling, he and LaRussa hated each other, not to mention Woody Williams crying for his "Ace" role and Izzy's puffed-chest "i don't give intentional BB's" ********.

[BoSox21]

Point taken...he did lose the series though

 

Look, overall I do think LaRussa is a better manager but I think it's an irrelevant discussion cause I don't think the Sox would fare any better with LaRussa than they have with Francona

[Dipre]

Point taken...he did lose the series though

 

Look, overall I do think LaRussa is a better manager but I think it's an irrelevant discussion cause I don't think the Sox would fare any better with LaRussa than they have with Francona

 

He did, but as i've pointed numerous times, the post-season is a crap-shoot.

 

And, by that account, then you should consider him a genius of managing for winning in '06 with that piece of s*** team.

 

Jeff Weaver?

 

Srsly?

[RWTP24]

First of all...when it comes to motivating your players, I've noticed that the old school managers do a great job. Torre, as much as I hated his in-game management, was probably the best I've ever seen.

 

However, I think the in-game management is the most important factor. If you need further proof, look at Grady Little.

 

Championships are a bit of a crock. If Girardi wins a World Series or two, does he suddenly become a great manager? I thought he was a good manager when he was with the Marlins. He's a good manager now, and he was a good manager then. I never thought Tito was a great manager, he was just better than Torre.

 

To me, a manager's job is 95% bullpen management and in-game strategizing. How many calls does an AL manager make during the game that doesn't involve pitching? Bunting or stealing? Come on...at most 2 or 3 times a game, if that. However, he has to know when to take the pitcher out, which reliever, etc.

 

Not only that, but he has to manage them over the course of the season. No one in the game does it as well as LaRussa in the NL, and although I am biased here a bit by my fandom, no one in the AL does it as good as Girardi in the AL.

 

Tito? Get real.

 

Francona's moves are baffling, to be honest. I can't understand what the heck he is doing in innings 6, 7, and 8. The 9th goes to Papelbon, but the rest is confusing. In that regard, he's very similar to Torre.

 

In comparing him to LaRussa, there should be no question. LaRussa has won everywhere he has gone. Whether you agree with "creeping LaRussa-ism", the fact remains that his technique has changed the game. He's an innovator, and one of the old guard who uses modern systems and analysis to maximize his moves.

 

In that regard, and for that reason, there is a huge gulf between LaRussa and managers like Tito or Torre. They can't hold their own against a LaRussa.

 

This might be the funniest thing I have every heard. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[example1]

Not the point.

 

The question is, without the use of exactly the argument you just pointed out, who is the better manager?

 

I think the discussion you and I were having was actually whether or not Tito would, with another WS win, be considered to be a manager in the same stratta as LaRussa. I never said he was better. Perhaps someone else did. :dunno:

 

Did Tito win with the Phillies?

 

LaRussa finished an average of FOURTH in the division with Chicago. His win % was .506 and he didn't make the playoffs once.

 

In Oakland he had a number of winning years, and finished below .500 for his last 3 years.

 

 

Again, I am not s***ing on LaRussa. He's a good manager. I was paying Tito a compliment rather than ripping on LaRussa.

 

Just as people want to take away credit from Tito for winning with a good team, I think LaRussa has only won with good teams too.

 

In 2006 he won with St. Louis and they were not the best team on the field. However, he won because the Tigers threw the Series away and the NL was weak overall. His team that year was 83-78. They had a .516 Win %. .516. That's not him turning water to wine, that's winning a s***** division to get to the craps table. They beat the Mets in the playoffs to get to the WS, facing a Mets staff of Glavine, Traschel, Perez and Maine. C'mon, let's get serious here.

 

LaRussa has won when his teams are great. He has not won when his teams suck. He won in 2006 with a s***** team against a team that gave them the Series and a bunch of hack opponents in the NL.

 

I think he does make good decisions on the field, but like every other manager he is only as successful as his players are. Tito and LaRussa both handle their players well.

[example1]

Francona has won two worlds series basically because he was handed a job that was a guaranteed success, the Red Sox were a very competitive team, and they still are.

 

No team is ever guaranteed a world series. He won two of them. He has managed to get into the playoffs in 04, 05, 07, 08 and (hopefully) 09. I don't know what more people could expect of him.

 

I've watched a lot of baseball over the years (as has everyone else, I'm sure), and I see very little reason for criticism. He doesn't do anything by rote habit, he always has a reason for his decisions and they have generally worked out really well for the team. How anyone can dispute that is beyond me.

 

 

Francona has not had to rebuild much yet. I think once he proves himself by actually going through several teams, he will then have somewhat of a case (possibly) with LaRussa. However, it's just to early to put him even in the same sentence.

 

Good managers stay with teams. Will Francona be punished if he stays with the Sox for 20 years like Bobby Cox has? I hope not.

 

Also, I recall back in the 2004 playoffs Francona made one of the silliest errors a manager could make, he put a very tired Pedro Martinez in, while the Red Sox were dominating. I had no idea why he would do that, but he did, and there was no reason for it.

 

He also started Derek Lowe in all 3 series clinching games that year despite his absolutely horrible season. Mistakes and successes happen all the time, either by choice or blind luck.

 

I'm just saying, if you're going to compare someone to LaRussa, I wouldn't pick Francona

 

Fair enough.

[The_Destroyah]

to me comparing Tito to LaRussa is unfair, its very similar to comparing Bay to Manny, of course Manny (LaRussa) is better IMO but does that make Bay (tito) a bad player? absolutely not.

[example1]

Perhaps when I said that with another WS Tito would be in the same stratta ("up there") with LaRussa rubbed a number of LaRussa lovers the wrong way. Combined with a deep disdain for Francona (which I also don't understand) it started what Dipre appropriately called a "shitstorm".

 

My point was merely that with a 3rd WS title Francona would have to be considered one of the better managers in the past few decades, where LaRussa clearly sits. Perhaps I should have named another manager, but that person likely would have started a shitstorm as well.

 

I think Scioscia is a great manager too. He has also had a bunch of very good teams. Any arguements there?

[The_Destroyah]

Perhaps when I said that with another WS Tito would be in the same stratta ("up there") with LaRussa rubbed a number of LaRussa lovers the wrong way. Combined with a deep disdain for Francona (which I also don't understand) it started what Dipre appropriately called a "shitstorm".

 

My point was merely that with a 3rd WS title Francona would have to be considered one of the better managers in the past few decades, where LaRussa clearly sits. Perhaps I should have named another manager, but that person likely would have started a shitstorm as well.

 

I think Scioscia is a great manager too. He has also had a bunch of very good teams. Any arguements there?

 

I agree with this. I by no means dislike Tito, I think he is a better manager than people give him credit for, and I don't see why some people dislike him so much.

[Emmz]

Yeah, I was just under the impression that some people actually thought of him as a BETTER manager than Tony LaRussa, which he isn't yet. LaRussa is a fabulous manager, one of the best in the big leagues, and one of the best of the past couple of decades. But yeah, give Tito some time, if he were to win another World Series, it's possible, but he also would have to maintain success, which LaRussa has done over his career as a manager, which makes him one of the best in the past couple of decades in my book

[example1]

It wouldn't be blind luck that would give Tito 3 WS titles and thus tie him for 4th all time. Hell if they win this year I'd say it is quite a display of managing.

 

Crapshoot or not he's the first manager to win his first 8 games in the World Series and he's 9-1 in elimination games. There have been plenty of good managers who do not have the same playoff success.

[RWTP24]

This all started when I asked “do you think Francona would be at the top of the list if he won the Sox another WS this year."

 

Right now he is not better then a lot of managers, but I think if he wins again, we all might have to start thinking about it.

 

I say all this because he does a lot of things that really piss me off, but if he keeps winning he is doing something right.

 

I don't think anyone is saying Francona is better than Tony La Russa as of now, but again, if he wins a WS this year, I think we can start thinking about it..

 

NO???