Gonzalez and Wren must go...

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I respectfully disagree. I think a manager can make all the difference. One great example is the 1982 Milwaukee Brewers. Buck Rodgers led the Brewers to a first place finish in the strike shortened 1981 season. But the team started off slowly in 1982 under Rodgers. He got fired at 23-24. Harvey Kuenn, who was a coach, was made manager the rest of the way, and the Brewers went 72-43 with him at the helm.

This was a team with 4 future Hall of Famers (Robin Yount, Paul Molitor, Don Sutton and Rollie Fingers) and another guy I think is a future Hall of Famer, Ted Simmons. It had the 1982 Cy Young Award winner in Pete Vuckovich, the 1981 Cy Young winner and MVP Rollie Fingers, the 1982 MVP in Robin Yount. This team was loaded offensively. It hit 216 home runs. Gorman Thomas hit 39, Ben Oglivie had 34, Cecil Cooper had 32, Robin Yount had 29, Ted Simmons hit 23, Paul Molitor hit 19, Don Money hit 16. Cooper, Yount and Molitor had over 200 hits. Four guys drove in over 100 runs, and Simmons drove in 97. They could flat out hit. The difference between the Brewers being a .500 team, and the American League Champions, was the manager. Kuenn had a completely different coaching style. He was more laid back. He told his players to have fun. The team loosened up, and started playing up to their potential. They added Sutton at the beginning of September, but the Brewers were already 25 games over .500 at 78-53.

In this case, the manager made the difference. The players loved Kuenn, and he knew how to take the controls perfectly. The Brewers could have brought in anybody, and I don't think they're as successful with somebody else. At that place in time, it was a perfect marriage.

Bill- Now, please allow me to preface my thoughts be recognizing you as the resident Brewers authority...however...

I respectfully disagree with your specific example. I don't believe the first third of 1982 was in any way indicative of how well the team played 'for Buck Rodgers'...remember that they were a first place team in 1981 and many a team has been as low as a single game under .500 through the first third of the season before showing marked improvement. Who's to say that they would not have achieved the same results under Rodgers?



As far as the original argument is concerned, it is very difficult to tell if great teams are that due to great managers. The 'what makes a great team great' is an argument that has so very many possibilities. Where the Braves' in the 1990s a great team because of Cox, or was it Mazone, or was it the improved defense, or was it the individual pitchers (ie Ruffing with the Yanks), or was the GM or even George Toma to thank?

Clearly, there was a lot to be thankful for and many to be thanked....but where do you draw the line? The Hall-of-Fame contains no Coaches and no Scouts...but few can argue that they are not part of the equation.