Best manager in Red Sox history

[notin]

He barely had 2 seasons where he did not win it all.

 

Winning his last year in college at the University of San Francisco was monumental.

 

It's not just about the rings. Julio Lugo has a ring as the starting SS for the Sox. To me, the Celts don't with without Russell. He was a tremendous defensive player. I've played enough basketball in my life to know the great importance or rebounds, and nobody was better than Bill. I'm also convinced he could have and would have scored much more, if needed.

 

I get the Jordan argument. I get the Wilt argument. I even think Magic is under-rated, but to me, and it's just my opinion, Russell in the best ever.

 

 

Magic is definitely underrated. How many players in NBA history were cable of playing any position?

[sk7326]

Magic is definitely underrated. How many players in NBA history were cable of playing any position?

 

Not many though LeBron James is one.

[notin]

Not many though LeBron James is one.

 

Good call. Dirk Nowitzki was another one I thought of, but honestly, for a 7 footer, he's actually pretty weak on the boards and defensively and therefore a questionable center at best.

[moonslav59]

Magic is definitely underrated. How many players in NBA history were cable of playing any position?

 

That game Magic played center was, well, "magical".

[cp176]

Seems like a very reasonable position.

 

Although it is fun to try to do, it is absolutely impossible to compare the greatest from different generations. Russell did certain things better than perhaps any big man has done to this day. Does that make him the best player - depends on the criteria. If I was given the opportunity to start a team that I was building with one free pick from any era, it would be Magic Johnson. But I certainly would not think of him as my greatest player pick. Russell I think has to be considered the greatest winner of all time but having watched Lebron play for a while now I think that a very strong case could be made for him being the greatest player of all time.

[dgalehouse]

Russell and Wilt came along at a time when there were not a lot of athletic big men in the game. They were able to dominate . Neither could be considered the all around basketball player that Jordan and the others mentioned were .

[moonslav59]

Russell and Wilt came along at a time when there were not a lot of athletic big men in the game. They were able to dominate . Neither could be considered the all around basketball player that Jordan and the others mentioned were .

 

Russell was a fine athlete.

[dgalehouse]

Russell was a fine athlete.

 

He was a fine athlete , but he couldn't do the things Jordan could do. Russell and Wilt were not good shooters. They dominated because of a combination of size and athletic ability.

[notin]

Russell and Wilt came along at a time when there were not a lot of athletic big men in the game. They were able to dominate . Neither could be considered the all around basketball player that Jordan and the others mentioned were .

 

But does someone need to be an all-around player to be the best of all time?

 

If I asked who the best baseball player of all time was, I’m sure there would be plenty of mention for Babe Ruth or Ted Williams. Was either one known for his defense?

[Bellhorn04]

But does someone need to be an all-around player to be the best of all time?

 

If I asked who the best baseball player of all time was, I’m sure there would be plenty of mention for Babe Ruth or Ted Williams. Was either one known for his defense?

 

No they weren't, but their offensive contributions were Herculean. This question illustrates why WAR-type total contributions measurements can be important.

[moonslav59]

He was a fine athlete , but he couldn't do the things Jordan could do. Russell and Wilt were not good shooters. They dominated because of a combination of size and athletic ability.

 

...and Jordan couldn't average 24 RPG either.

 

[notin]

No they weren't, but their offensive contributions were Herculean. This question illustrates why WAR-type total contributions measurements can be important.

 

Exactly.

 

Although Ruth, given his pitching prowess, was closer to being a better well-rounded ball player.

 

Also, his enormous gut made him a more well-rounded player. Yes. I went there...

[dannycater]

Ralph Houk

[notin]

I do think Joe McCarthy might deserve some praise here...

[Sox75]

Ok... So, the original joke thread morphed into a real debate about what it takes to he labelled 'THE BEST Red Sox Manager of all time.' A pretty decent basis for a good debate....

 

Pretty good arguments on all sides. I think we all agree that it certainly takes a TEAM stacked with talent to win in the mlb. It also takes some pretty damned good pitching, & more often than not, a couple of All Star Pitchers. It takes a TEAM stacked with very good hitters, & a couple of big bats. Solid to great D is also a must.

 

The MLB & NFL take having REALLY GOOD - GREAT TEAMS to win. In the NFL it also takes a really good - GREAT quarterback & a really good - GREAT COACH. The MLB really good - GREAT pitching & a manager who can unite so many individuals.

 

I would think we can all agree that the silly non-parallel argument about how you define individual MLB player greatness is a red-herring argument. There is no parallel in determining "the GREATEST MLB manager." As we've seen here, that argument gets truly ridiculous REAL FAST.

 

unlike other sports where the coach & the game plan can dramatically impact any game, the MLB manager is truly unique. TOO MANY INTANGIBLES, and a manager's worth can only be assessed over the course of a VERY LONG season. Managing such a varied group of individuals. LEADING them, not so much "coaching them" toward greatness.

 

So far, the only thing we know for sure, is that Cora HAS UNDOUBTEDLY proved to be THE COACH OF THE YEAR! NO doubt about it. He has taken a very talented young team, and led them to A TRULY HISTORIC season.

 

CAN he motivate and lead them all the way to ultimate historic GREATNESS in the Post Season? Now that would pretty much seal the deal. IF HE DOES, there will be absolutely NO DOUBT that he is THE BEST OF ANY MANAGER out there!!!! . . . . . THIS YEAR!

 

After that . . . . Does he become a transcendent manager, a la Bill Belichic? Nobody knows. He will not be given the Nobel Peace Prize now! Not before earning it. SURE! He will remain a great coach of the year, for THIS YEAR, but without winning it all, THAT TAG will go to Dave Roberts. Without winning it ALL, Cora CAN NOT be in the conversation for "Greatest Red Sox Manager Ever!" SORRY ! It is what it is. It is axiomatic for a reason! Not everyone gets a trophy in The World Series. You don't win it ALL, you never make it into the conversation.

 

Please stop with the false "what about the rings" for individual MLB players. It's false equivalency & a ridiculous red herring argument! It's a TRULY dumb argument not worthy of discussion.

 

! ! ! NEWS FLASH ! ! !

 

MLB managers and players are assessed on completely different metrics!

 

SURE! It's fun to talk about the relative greatness of NBA players, or even MLB & NFL players..... fun! Someplace else.

 

p.s. NOT pulling a Pike & prescribing the parameters of the conversation!!!! Just pointing out the ridiculousness of the false parallels being drawn by some.

 

:0 LOL just my 2 cents.

Edited October 23, 2018 by Sox75

[Sox75]

I do think Joe McCarthy might deserve some praise here...

 

:0 LOL ..... While you were Sleeping... a great movie!

 

While you were texting . . . .

 

 

PERFECT! +100

[notin]

Ok... So, the original joke thread morphed into a real debate about what it takes to he labelled 'THE BEST Red Sox Manager of all time.' A pretty decent basis for a good debate....

 

Pretty good arguments on all sides. I think we all agree that it certainly takes a TEAM stacked with talent to win in the mlb. It also takes some pretty damned good pitching, & more often than not, a couple of All Star Pitchers. It takes a TEAM stacked with very good hitters, & a couple of big bats. Solid to great D is also a must.

 

The MLB & NFL take having REALLY GOOD - GREAT TEAMS to win. In the NFL it also takes a really good - GREAT quarterback & a really good - GREAT COACH. The MLB really good - GREAT pitching & a manager who can unite so many individuals.

 

I would think we can all agree that the silly non-parallel argument about how you define individual MLB player greatness is a red-herring argument. There is no parallel in determining "the GREATEST MLB manager." As we've seen here, that argument gets truly ridiculous REAL FAST.

 

unlike other sports where the coach & the game plan can dramatically impact any game, the MLB manager is truly unique. TOO MANY INTANGIBLES, and a manager's worth can only be assessed over the course of a VERY LONG season. Managing such a varied group of individuals. LEADING them, not so much "coaching them" toward greatness.

 

So far, the only thing we know for sure, is that Cora HAS UNDOUBTEDLY proved to be THE COACH OF THE YEAR! NO doubt about it. He has taken a very talented young team, and led them to A TRULY HISTORIC season.

 

CAN he motivate and lead them all the way to ultimate historic GREATNESS in the Post Season? Now that would pretty much seal the deal. IF HE DOES, there will be absolutely NO DOUBT that he is THE BEST OF ANY MANAGER out there!!!! . . . . . THIS YEAR!

 

After that . . . . Does he become a transcendent manager, a la Bill Belichic? Nobody knows. He will not be given the Nobel Peace Prize now! Not before earning it. SURE! He will remain a great coach of the year, for THIS YEAR, but without winning it all, THAT TAG will go to Dave Roberts. Without winning it ALL, Cora CAN NOT be in the conversation for "Greatest Red Sox Manager Ever!" SORRY ! It is what it is. It is axiomatic for a reason! Not everyone gets a trophy in The World Series. You don't win it ALL, you never make it into the conversation.

 

Please stop with the false "what about the rings" for individual MLB players. It's false equivalency & a ridiculous red herring argument! It's a TRULY dumb argument not worthy of discussion.

 

! ! ! NEWS FLASH ! ! !

 

MLB managers and players are assessed on completely different metrics!

 

SURE! It's fun to talk about the relative greatness of NBA players, or even MLB & NFL players..... fun! Someplace else.

 

p.s. NOT pulling a Pike & prescribing the parameters of the conversation!!!! Just pointing out the ridiculousness of the false parallels being drawn by some.

 

:0 LOL just my 2 cents.

 

Also, we have. “Babe Ruth was fat” joke.

[sk7326]

...and Jordan couldn't average 24 RPG either.

 

 

Obviously. At the same time that was an era where pace of play was extremely fast and shooting leaguewide was awful. (Bob Cousy never shot 40% from the floor) Rebounds were also very plentiful back then. You can argue that some of Rodman's best rebounding seasons were every bit as good or better.

[moonslav59]

Obviously. At the same time that was an era where pace of play was extremely fast and shooting leaguewide was awful. (Bob Cousy never shot 40% from the floor) Rebounds were also very plentiful back then. You can argue that some of Rodman's best rebounding seasons were every bit as good or better.

 

Yes, you could argue that, but shooting 38% not 48% does not create double the rebounds.

[sk7326]

Yes, you could argue that, but shooting 38% not 48% does not create double the rebounds.

 

When you consider that the average pace in the 60s was 25% higher than league pace today.

 

Put it this way. In 1962, the average NBA team went 46 for 108 in each game. In 1996 it was 37 for 80. There were about 20 more available misses. Russell was amazing - but relative to the league Rodman's best rebounding seasons were more nuts.

[moonslav59]

When you consider that the average pace in the 60s was 25% higher than league pace today.

 

Put it this way. In 1962, the average NBA team went 46 for 108 in each game. In 1996 it was 37 for 80. There were about 20 more available misses. Russell was amazing - but relative to the league Rodman's best rebounding seasons were more nuts.

 

They both got about a third of their team's rebounds...Rodman had a higher percentage.

 

BTW, Dwight Howard has a similar career RPG number as Rodman.

[notin]

When you consider that the average pace in the 60s was 25% higher than league pace today.

 

Put it this way. In 1962, the average NBA team went 46 for 108 in each game. In 1996 it was 37 for 80. There were about 20 more available misses. Russell was amazing - but relative to the league Rodman's best rebounding seasons were more nuts.

 

A product of the era's as well. The NBA added the 3-point shot in 1979, meaning there was a reason to take more lower percentage shots and create more rebounds...