PDA

View Full Version : Why do Tony La Russa Managed Teams Crumble in the Postseason?


PKalltheway
08-27-2006, 10:08 PM
I know there are some pretty knowledgeable baseball fans on here so I know somebody can answer this. Why do Tony La Russa managed teams crumble in the postseason so often? Outside of this year obviously, his teams are usually solid offensively, with good enough pitching to get by, and yet they continue to fail when it counts. Why is this?

SpartanSoxFan
08-27-2006, 10:14 PM
I know there are some pretty knowledgeable baseball fans on here so I know somebody can answer this. Why do Tony La Russa managed teams crumble in the postseason so often? Outside of this year obviously, his teams are usually solid offensively, with good enough pitching to get by, and yet they continue to fail when it counts. Why is this?

I would say its exactly what you said about the pitching. In the playoffs, you need pitching that is better than "good enough to get by." Hitting comes and goes, even with the offensive juggernauts.

PKalltheway
08-27-2006, 10:20 PM
I would say its exactly what you said about the pitching. In the playoffs, you need pitching that is better than "good enough to get by." Hitting comes and goes, even with the offensive juggernauts.
Yeah, that is very true, especially with his Cardinals teams. What about the great pitching he had in Oakland from 1988-1992 (minus 1991)? The 1983 White Sox? Those teams had some great pitching staffs.

fquaye149
08-28-2006, 02:03 AM
I know there are some pretty knowledgeable baseball fans on here so I know somebody can answer this. Why do Tony La Russa managed teams crumble in the postseason so often? Outside of this year obviously, his teams are usually solid offensively, with good enough pitching to get by, and yet they continue to fail when it counts. Why is this?
You mean like the one that won the World Series in 1989?

TheKittle
08-28-2006, 02:26 AM
You mean like the one that won the World Series in 1989?

No like the one who lost the 1988 WS whent hey were clearly the better team. Sure the Gibson HR was a blow. But they couldn't hit Orel and the "great" pitching staff couldn't get a bunch of bums out. I mean the Game 4 and 5 position players had to be among the worse EVER.

PKalltheway
08-28-2006, 08:36 AM
You mean like the one that won the World Series in 1989?
No, I mean like his 1983 White Sox team that won its divison by 20 games, but couldn't do squat in the playoffs. His 1988 team that won 104 games, destroyed Boston in the ALCS, but couldn't handle the Dodgers, who had one of the weakest World Series lineups ever. His 1990 team that won 103 games, hammered Boston yet again in the ALCS, but couldn't beat Cincinnati, a team who had 12 less regular season wins than Oakland. His 1996 team, who, despite being the underdogs to Atlanta, couldn't close out the series after having a 3 games to 1 lead. The Cards lost the next three games of that series by a combined score of 32-1. His 2000 team that won the Central by 10 games, breezed through Atlanta in the first round (keep in mind that Atlanta was the defending NL Champs at the time), and couldn't beat the Mets in the NLCS. I still haven't gotten to his 2002, 2004, or his 2005 teams yet. Now do you get where I'm coming from? (His 2002 team did go through a lot and it was great how far they went)

fquaye149
08-28-2006, 09:29 AM
No, I mean like his 1983 White Sox team that won its divison by 20 games, but couldn't do squat in the playoffs. His 1988 team that won 104 games, destroyed Boston in the ALCS, but couldn't handle the Dodgers, who had one of the weakest World Series lineups ever. His 1990 team that won 103 games, hammered Boston yet again in the ALCS, but couldn't beat Cincinnati, a team who had 12 less regular season wins than Oakland. His 1996 team, who, despite being the underdogs to Atlanta, couldn't close out the series after having a 3 games to 1 lead. The Cards lost the next three games of that series by a combined score of 32-1. His 2000 team that won the Central by 10 games, breezed through Atlanta in the first round (keep in mind that Atlanta was the defending NL Champs at the time), and couldn't beat the Mets in the NLCS. I still haven't gotten to his 2002, 2004, or his 2005 teams yet. Now do you get where I'm coming from? (His 2002 team did go through a lot and it was great how far they went)
Remember the idea that the playoffs are a crapshoot? I seem to remember a poster here by the name of hold2dibber. Is that screen name LaRussa's fault? How about Kirk Gibson deciding that baseball is actually Hollywood and he is actually Roy Hobbs? Does LaRussa have something to do with that? I guess it would be nice if he could have convinced the A's that the Dodgers DIDN'T have a huge rallying point for the rest of the season, but after a moment like that, you can hardly blame LaRussa that the Dodgers were inspired. As far as the Cardinals v. Boston, did you ever consider that the Cardinals DON'T have a very good team, and were merely made to look better by playing in the NL? We're not exactly talking about Bob Welch and Dave Stewart and Dennis Eckersley--they had Chris Carpenter and Matt Morris and Jason Isringhausen. LOL.

When a manager (or GM...Billy Beane) goes his whole career without winning anything than you point fingers at the manager. But LaRussa DID win a world series. Was that one dumb luck? If it was, so were the ones he lost. Otherwise, he DOES have the ability to win when it counts.

Sorry, LaRussa's not a great manager, but he's certainly not worthless.

PatK
08-28-2006, 09:37 AM
The 1983 ran into a team with better pitching, that's all.

fquaye149
08-28-2006, 09:39 AM
No like the one who lost the 1988 WS whent hey were clearly the better team. Sure the Gibson HR was a blow. But they couldn't hit Orel and the "great" pitching staff couldn't get a bunch of bums out. I mean the Game 4 and 5 position players had to be among the worse EVER.

Who could hit Hershiser in 1988? It was a tough series and Oakland probably should have won. Is Joe Torre a bad manager for losing to Florida in 2003?

soxinem1
08-28-2006, 10:40 AM
LaRussa is one of the few Managers of this era who works with the GM to build the team. Except for his last year here and his last few in Oakland, his teams are competitive and contending.

batmanZoSo
08-28-2006, 10:47 AM
He's a great manager but you can't deny that he allows powerhouse teams to get, basically, smoked in the playoffs. It happens every time with his teams, the one exception being 1989. I don't know what he does wrong in the playoffs. Maybe it's his comatose laid-back attitude. That business man approach he has. I don't know. He can win you a division but beyond that...I wouldn't want him.

1951Campbell
08-28-2006, 11:00 AM
Sorry, LaRussa's not a great manager, but he's certainly not worthless.

I don't think the argument is that he's worthless. He's very valuable if you want to get to the playoffs and advance a round or two. If you want someone who's going to keep a very good team focused enough to win it all, well, you may want to look elsewhere, and I think his playoff record reflects that, especially considering some of the opponents his teams faced.

fquaye149
08-28-2006, 12:40 PM
He's a great manager but you can't deny that he allows powerhouse teams to get, basically, smoked in the playoffs. It happens every time with his teams, the one exception being 1989. I don't know what he does wrong in the playoffs. Maybe it's his comatose laid-back attitude. That business man approach he has. I don't know. He can win you a division but beyond that...I wouldn't want him.

So Bobby Cox is a bad manager? I don't understand this argument...he's not Dusty Baker who has yet to win at the big show.

He won in 1989. He lost in 4 or 5 other WS. Big deal.

fquaye149
08-28-2006, 12:44 PM
I don't think the argument is that he's worthless. He's very valuable if you want to get to the playoffs and advance a round or two. If you want someone who's going to keep a very good team focused enough to win it all, well, you may want to look elsewhere, and I think his playoff record reflects that, especially considering some of the opponents his teams faced.

This is silly. Yes he probably should have won in 1988 and 1990 but those Reds and Dodgers were good and well-managed.

His Cardinals teams were not very good. Their pitching was lousy and had NL inflated #'s. Why on earth would you think they would have had a chance even to hang with Boston in 2004? Why did you think they could beat Houston in 2005? They were outmatched in both cases. I'll ask again: Chris Carpenter, Matt Morris and Isringhausen v. Schilling Pedro and Foulke or Oswalt Clemens and Wagner?

Are you ****ing kidding me?


basically your case against Larussa boils down to two WS series in the late '80's when the NL was generally better than the AL... anyone can lose a couple playoff series even if they're the favorite. The Cardinals **** is irrelevant because they had very crappy pitching.

TheKittle
08-28-2006, 01:06 PM
Who could hit Hershiser in 1988? It was a tough series and Oakland probably should have won. Is Joe Torre a bad manager for losing to Florida in 2003?

But the difference is that Torre has won more WS, and unlike Tony, usually has won WS he has been favored to win. Yes, they should have won the Marlins series. But Tony lost the 88 and 90 WS, when his A's were clearly the best team.

I cut him some slack in 83 because the Orioles were a good team, they finished with one less win the White Sox, so it's not like his A's getting destroyed by the Dodgers in 88.

BTW Gibson's HR only won one game. If Tony was worth a damn he would have told his team to forget about Game 1. The A's could have very easily won four games in a row in 88.

batmanZoSo
08-28-2006, 01:28 PM
So Bobby Cox is a bad manager? I don't understand this argument...he's not Dusty Baker who has yet to win at the big show.

He won in 1989. He lost in 4 or 5 other WS. Big deal.

Bad manager? I said he was great manager! My only gripe is that he tends to lose--and pretty handily--often with a superior team. There's a track record of underachievement there. He's had a marvelous run as a manager but he should have more than the one ring he does--probably two or three.

batmanZoSo
08-28-2006, 01:43 PM
But the difference is that Torre has won more WS, and unlike Tony, usually has won WS he has been favored to win. Yes, they should have won the Marlins series. But Tony lost the 88 and 90 WS, when his A's were clearly the best team.

I cut him some slack in 83 because the Orioles were a good team, they finished with one less win the White Sox, so it's not like his A's getting destroyed by the Dodgers in 88.

BTW Gibson's HR only won one game. If Tony was worth a damn he would have told his team to forget about Game 1. The A's could have very easily won four games in a row in 88.

LaRussa and Torre are the same manager, only Torre wins with the better team. To be honest, I believe the two WS that Torre lost, he should have lost. The Diamondbacks were invincible as along as Schilling and Unit could pitch twice each. Even with that, it took Rivera of all people to blow game 7 in the bottom of the 9th to lose that one. And with the Marlins, that's a very underrated team. I would argue that they were better than the Yankees that year--certainly better equipped for playoff baseball than the station-to-station, slug-it-out Yankees of recent years, including the '03 team which they disposed of in 6.

1951Campbell
08-28-2006, 01:56 PM
This is silly. Yes he probably should have won in 1988 and 1990 but those Reds and Dodgers were good and well-managed.



Silly? Come now.

You yourself admit the A's should have won three of three appearances, but failed to do so. This reminds me of The Breakfast Club:

"What, I'm an idiot because I can't make a lamp?"

"No, you're a genius because you can't make a lamp."

So Larussa takes a team capable of three-peating and presto! comes up with a one-peat and he's a genius? Not gonna work, sorry. And again, Larussa is just about as far from worthless as you can get, but going 1-3 in the World Series points to a problem closing the deal, a problem that, say, Joe Torre does not seem to have. That's all.

PKalltheway
08-28-2006, 02:30 PM
He's a great manager but you can't deny that he allows powerhouse teams to get, basically, smoked in the playoffs. It happens every time with his teams, the one exception being 1989. I don't know what he does wrong in the playoffs. Maybe it's his comatose laid-back attitude. That business man approach he has. I don't know. He can win you a division but beyond that...I wouldn't want him.
Batman made my point exactly. I never inferred that he was a worthless manager. He is a great manager. His teams are always favorites in the postseason, and they're the ones that get smoked in the playoffs.

voodoochile
08-28-2006, 02:49 PM
Because steroid induced homeruns don't happen as often in the playoffs.

fquaye149
08-28-2006, 02:50 PM
Silly? Come now.

You yourself admit the A's should have won three of three appearances, but failed to do so. This reminds me of The Breakfast Club:

"What, I'm an idiot because I can't make a lamp?"

"No, you're a genius because you can't make a lamp."

So Larussa takes a team capable of three-peating and presto! comes up with a one-peat and he's a genius? Not gonna work, sorry. And again, Larussa is just about as far from worthless as you can get, but going 1-3 in the World Series points to a problem closing the deal, a problem that, say, Joe Torre does not seem to have. That's all.
I didn't mean they should have won in my estimate. I meant they were favored the same way some people favored the Cardinals over the Red Sox--I don't feel like the A's of 1988 or 1990 had as good of pitching as the Dodgers or the Reds.

He's not a genius, but he doesn't have some magical "deficiency" that prevents him from winning. Sometimes he just has a lesser team, or sometimes **** happens like Gibson's HR, that defines a series. Maybe if the AJ incident doesn't happen we don't win the ALCS. MAYBE. That's the point--you can't put your arms around a memory, with apologies to Johnny Thunders.

Joe Torre hasn't won a WS title since 2000. Is that a reflection of him? I tend to think not.

fquaye149
08-28-2006, 02:51 PM
But the difference is that Torre has won more WS, and unlike Tony, usually has won WS he has been favored to win. Yes, they should have won the Marlins series. But Tony lost the 88 and 90 WS, when his A's were clearly the best team.

I cut him some slack in 83 because the Orioles were a good team, they finished with one less win the White Sox, so it's not like his A's getting destroyed by the Dodgers in 88.

BTW Gibson's HR only won one game. If Tony was worth a damn he would have told his team to forget about Game 1. The A's could have very easily won four games in a row in 88.

But no manager could have told LOS ANGELES to forget game 1.

fquaye149
08-28-2006, 02:53 PM
Because steroid induced homeruns don't happen as often in the playoffs.

Actually I would go one step further and say regularly induced homeruns don't happen as often in the playoffs.

Pitching wins in the playoff, and of the series Larussa has been favored to win, only one of the losses came against a team that you could argue had worse pitching (Cincinnati in 1990). I mean, for ****'s sake--OREL HERSHISER in 1988!

Oblong
08-28-2006, 02:55 PM
I think it's wrong to conclude too much based on what happens in a 5 or 7 game series. The better teams do not always win a playoff series. I believe it's still somewhat of a crapshoot in the playoffs. Guys like La Russa and Cox get too much blame for their playoff failures. They should be applauded for consistently having contenders.

fquaye149
08-28-2006, 03:02 PM
Let's look at these two supposed collapses

1988 pitching matchups

Game ONE: Tim Belcher v. Dave Stewart (LA)
Game TWO: Orel Hershiser v. STORM DAVIS (my emphasis) (LA)
Game THREE: John Tudor v. Bob Welch (Oakland)
Game FOUR: Belcher v. Stewart (LA)
Game FIVE: Hershiser v. Davis (LA)

Looks like it went down exactly as it should have

1990 pitching matchups


ONE: Dave Stewart v. Jose Rijo (CIN)
TWO: Bob Welch v. Danny Jackson (CIN)
THREE: Tom Browning v. Mike Moore (CIN)
FOUR: Dave Stewart v. Jose Rijo (CIN)

This is a little more suspect, but considering Cincy's bullpen (Myers, Dibble, and Charlton--you know what their nickname was, admit it) it's not hard to see why Oakland lost.

Where is the massive crumble?

fquaye149
08-28-2006, 03:06 PM
oh--just for fun

2004 pitching matchups

ONE: Woody Williams v. Tim Wakefield (ho hum, Boston wins a slugfest...)
TWO: Matt Morris v. Curt Schilling (um....yeah)
THREE: Pedro Martinez v. Jeff Suppan (ahhahahaahaha)
FOUR: Derek Low v. Jason Marquis (ho hum again, but maybe being down 3-0 caused them to tank.

Just not seeing how having worse pitching than the opposition is LaRussa's fault. If anything, blame Dave Duncan:tongue:

1951Campbell
08-28-2006, 03:34 PM
Let's look at these two supposed collapses

1988 pitching matchups

Game ONE: Tim Belcher v. Dave Stewart (LA)
Game TWO: Orel Hershiser v. STORM DAVIS (my emphasis) (LA)
Game THREE: John Tudor v. Bob Welch (Oakland)
Game FOUR: Belcher v. Stewart (LA)
Game FIVE: Hershiser v. Davis (LA)

Looks like it went down exactly as it should have

1990 pitching matchups


ONE: Dave Stewart v. Jose Rijo (CIN)
TWO: Bob Welch v. Danny Jackson (CIN)
THREE: Tom Browning v. Mike Moore (CIN)
FOUR: Dave Stewart v. Jose Rijo (CIN)

This is a little more suspect, but considering Cincy's bullpen (Myers, Dibble, and Charlton--you know what their nickname was, admit it) it's not hard to see why Oakland lost.

Where is the massive crumble?

The massive crumble is that it took exactly one Hollywood home run in 1988 for them to decide it was over. You can emphasize Storm Davis if you want, but you still have Bob Welch and Dave Friggin' Stewart twice apiece. And the 1988 Dodgers couldn't hit the floor if they fell out of bed. The A's mentally checked out. I remember watching that Series and thinking they were just dazed the rest of the time after Gibson.

And Cincy was a little more suspect? Geez, with Cincy's starting pitching maybe, maybe you lose in 6 or 7, but swept? C'mon, the A's shoulda won.

I dunno, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

1951Campbell
08-28-2006, 03:35 PM
oh--just for fun

2004 pitching matchups

ONE: Woody Williams v. Tim Wakefield (ho hum, Boston wins a slugfest...)
TWO: Matt Morris v. Curt Schilling (um....yeah)
THREE: Pedro Martinez v. Jeff Suppan (ahhahahaahaha)
FOUR: Derek Low v. Jason Marquis (ho hum again, but maybe being down 3-0 caused them to tank.

Just not seeing how having worse pitching than the opposition is LaRussa's fault. If anything, blame Dave Duncan:tongue:

Yeah, no way they the BoSox.

fquaye149
08-28-2006, 04:13 PM
Stewart:
21-12 3.23 ERA 192k/110bb

Welch:
17-9 3.64 ERA 158/81

STORM DAVIS (hee hee):
16-7 3.76 ERA 127/91

Belcher:
12-6 2.91 ERA 152/51 (!!!)

Tudor:
(b/t Cardinals and Dodgers)
10-8 ~2.30 ERA 87/41

Hershiser:
23-8 2.26 ERA 178/73

As you can see the A's starters were adequate, but the Dodgers' starters were much much better.

1990:

Stewart:
22-11 2.56 ERA 166/83

Welch:
27-6 2.95 ERA 127/77 (this is pretty poor for 27 wins)

Moore:
13-5 4.65 ERA 73/84 (!!!)

Rijo:
14-8 2.70 ERA 152/78

Jackson
6-6 3.61 ERA 76/40

Browning:
15-9 3.80 ERA 99/52

There's no question Oakland's STARTING rotation was better (although Stewart and Rijo were the only starters to start two games, and are pretty comparable). So let's take a look at games 2 and 3.

Game 2 was Welch against Danny Jackson. Jackson's ERA is more than a half-point worse than Welch's, but his k/bb is actually better. The game went ten, and ended 5-4. Welch gave up 4 runs, which isn't horrible. The fact is, though, that Jackson left after the 2nd. The Reds bullpen pitched the remaining 8 innings.

How about a little on that bullpen, as an aside:

THE NASTY BOYS
Charlton:
12-9 2.74 ERA 117/70,
Dibble:
8-3 1.74 ERA 136/34:o: 11 saves
Myers:
4-6 2.08 ERA 98/38:o: 31 saves

not too bad... of course we might as well look at Eckersley too:
4-2 0.61 ERA 73/4 (that's right, FOUR:o:) and 48 saves

no question that Eckersley was amazing...but he didn't play much of a factor in the whole affair

in fact, game 2 was the only game where you should have favored the A's heavily over the reds, and it was a freak loss for Welch, where he gave up a whopping 4 runs!

I agree that the A's probably had a better team in 1990, but not all that much better.

TheKittle
08-28-2006, 04:25 PM
Stewart:
21-12 3.23 ERA 192k/110bb

Welch:
17-9 3.64 ERA 158/81

STORM DAVIS (hee hee):
16-7 3.76 ERA 127/91

Belcher:
12-6 2.91 ERA 152/51 (!!!)

Tudor:
(b/t Cardinals and Dodgers)
10-8 ~2.30 ERA 87/41

Hershiser:
23-8 2.26 ERA 178/73

As you can see the A's starters were adequate, but the Dodgers' starters were much much better.

1990:

Stewart:
22-11 2.56 ERA 166/83

Welch:
27-6 2.95 ERA 127/77 (this is pretty poor for 27 wins)

Moore:
13-5 4.65 ERA 73/84 (!!!)

Rijo:
14-8 2.70 ERA 152/78

Jackson
6-6 3.61 ERA 76/40

Browning:
15-9 3.80 ERA 99/52

There's no question Oakland's STARTING rotation was better (although Stewart and Rijo were the only starters to start two games, and are pretty comparable). So let's take a look at games 2 and 3.

Game 2 was Welch against Danny Jackson. Jackson's ERA is more than a half-point worse than Welch's, but his k/bb is actually better. The game went ten, and ended 5-4. Welch gave up 4 runs, which isn't horrible. The fact is, though, that Jackson left after the 2nd. The Reds bullpen pitched the remaining 8 innings.

How about a little on that bullpen, as an aside:

THE NASTY BOYS
Charlton:
12-9 2.74 ERA 117/70,
Dibble:
8-3 1.74 ERA 136/34:o: 11 saves
Myers:
4-6 2.08 ERA 98/38:o: 31 saves

not too bad... of course we might as well look at Eckersley too:
4-2 0.61 ERA 73/4 (that's right, FOUR:o:) and 48 saves

no question that Eckersley was amazing...but he didn't play much of a factor in the whole affair

in fact, game 2 was the only game where you should have favored the A's heavily over the reds, and it was a freak loss for Welch, where he gave up a whopping 4 runs!

I agree that the A's probably had a better team in 1990, but not all that much better.

All that stats are great and all but you really miss the point. The A's were SWEPT by a much weaker Reds team in 90 and lost in 5 games to a very much weaker Dodger team. If the A's lost both series in 7 games, I could say some bad breaks happened here and there. But they got their asses kicked in both series.

Yes pitching is huge but have you looked at the Dodgers' starting line up? Mickey Hatcher, Franklin Stubbs, John Shelby, Rick Dempsey, Mike Davis, that sure as hell isn't the 27 Yankees.

fquaye149
08-28-2006, 05:08 PM
All that stats are great and all but you really miss the point. The A's were SWEPT by a much weaker Reds team in 90 and lost in 5 games to a very much weaker Dodger team. If the A's lost both series in 7 games, I could say some bad breaks happened here and there. But they got their asses kicked in both series.

Yes pitching is huge but have you looked at the Dodgers' starting line up? Mickey Hatcher, Franklin Stubbs, John Shelby, Rick Dempsey, Mike Davis, that sure as hell isn't the 27 Yankees.

Um I think the stats are great and all BECAUSE they can illustrate that the Reds team of 1990 was only "much weaker" in popular perception. Same thing with the Dodger team (which actually had vastly superior starting pitching).

I understand that Oakland had a "juggernaut" lineup--but time and time again the playoffs have shown that "juggernaut" lineups usually lose out to starting pitching.

AnkleSox
08-28-2006, 06:11 PM
I understand that Oakland had a "juggernaut" lineup--but time and time again the playoffs have shown that "juggernaut" lineups usually lose out to starting pitching.

Which worries me :(:

TheKittle
08-28-2006, 07:03 PM
Um I think the stats are great and all BECAUSE they can illustrate that the Reds team of 1990 was only "much weaker" in popular perception. Same thing with the Dodger team (which actually had vastly superior starting pitching).

I understand that Oakland had a "juggernaut" lineup--but time and time again the playoffs have shown that "juggernaut" lineups usually lose out to starting pitching.

Really? Like the great starting pitching for the 71 Orioles (4, 20 game winners) beat the juggernaut lineup of the Pirates with Clemente and Stargell?

Or the great staff of the Braves, Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz, won those multiple World Series during the 90's!!!!

Riiiiiiiiight.

fquaye149
08-28-2006, 07:23 PM
Really? Like the great starting pitching for the 71 Orioles (4, 20 game winners) beat the juggernaut lineup of the Pirates with Clemente and Stargell?

Or the great staff of the Braves, Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz, won those multiple World Series during the 90's!!!!

Riiiiiiiiight.

Well I'll tell you this much: the great starting pitching of the Dodgers beat the A's handily. Or how about the 1983 Orioles over the Phillies, the 1984 Tigers over the Padres, 1986 Mets over Red Sox, 1987 Twins over Cardinals, 1995 Braves over Indians, 2001 Diamondbacks over Yankees, 2002 Angels over Giants, 2003 Marlins over Yankees.

I can't believe you're actually trying to make the argument based on two examples of outslugging that hitting is more important to WS success than pitching. It's absurd.

batmanZoSo
08-28-2006, 09:53 PM
Well I'll tell you this much: the great starting pitching of the Dodgers beat the A's handily. Or how about the 1983 Orioles over the Phillies, the 1984 Tigers over the Padres, 1986 Mets over Red Sox, 1987 Twins over Cardinals, 1995 Braves over Indians, 2001 Diamondbacks over Yankees, 2002 Angels over Giants, 2003 Marlins over Yankees.

I can't believe you're actually trying to make the argument based on two examples of outslugging that hitting is more important to WS success than pitching. It's absurd.

Good assessment, but the Angels pretty much slugged everyone to death as I recall. And I would really put Angels over Baker. He pretty much gave that series to them.

Tragg
08-28-2006, 10:02 PM
LaRusa's performance in the playoffs has not matched the gaudy regular season records of many of those teams.
But take a look at those 99-100 win LaRusa teams, and they don't look that great on paper (like us in 1983, LOL) - so perhaps he's getting them to over-achieve in regular season.

PKalltheway
08-28-2006, 11:47 PM
Good assessment, but the Angels pretty much slugged everyone to death as I recall. And I would really put Angels over Baker. He pretty much gave that series to them.
The Giants did pretty much give that series to the Angels. The Giants won game 5 16-4, and they had a 5-0 lead in game 6, and they just needed 8 more outs for a World Championship. Dusty and the Giants pissed that series away big time. Didn't Baker bring in Robb Nen in the epic game 6 collapse to help preserve the lead? IIRC, Nen's shoulder was already in shreds at this point.

fquaye149
08-29-2006, 12:04 AM
The Giants did pretty much give that series to the Angels. The Giants won game 5 16-4, and they had a 5-0 lead in game 6, and they just needed 8 more outs for a World Championship. Dusty and the Giants pissed that series away big time. Didn't Baker bring in Robb Nen in the epic game 6 collapse to help preserve the lead? IIRC, Nen's shoulder was already in shreds at this point.

See? This is the way to approach a claim that a manager is deficient: ACTUAL gametime decisions that are measurable. Baker's horrible pitching management is quantifiable, in the Giants series and the Florida series.

LaRussa has found a way to win in 89. Some people tend to think he ought to have won more. I have tried to show that his teams weren't nearly as good, playoff-wise, as they were hyped up to be. Unless you can point to some non "intangible" reason why LaRussa is such a lousy playoffs manager (especially since he has a WS ring) in the face of facts like that LA's rotation was tons better and Cincy's bullpen was shutdown quality (and that every team takes a series off now and then) it's going to smack of saying "well if Rowand were on the Sox his leadership would propel us to first place" or "Thome being out will help us score more runs and pitch better"--interesting theories, but rather contradictory to logic.

batmanZoSo
08-29-2006, 11:22 AM
See? This is the way to approach a claim that a manager is deficient: ACTUAL gametime decisions that are measurable. Baker's horrible pitching management is quantifiable, in the Giants series and the Florida series.

LaRussa has found a way to win in 89. Some people tend to think he ought to have won more. I have tried to show that his teams weren't nearly as good, playoff-wise, as they were hyped up to be. Unless you can point to some non "intangible" reason why LaRussa is such a lousy playoffs manager (especially since he has a WS ring) in the face of facts like that LA's rotation was tons better and Cincy's bullpen was shutdown quality (and that every team takes a series off now and then) it's going to smack of saying "well if Rowand were on the Sox his leadership would propel us to first place" or "Thome being out will help us score more runs and pitch better"--interesting theories, but rather contradictory to logic.

Well, with Baker it's more apparent and popular (especially around these parts) to criticize him. It's pretty much accepted that he's a weak manager, while it's widely believed that LaRussa is a great manager. I don't have any specific moves that one could use against LaRussa, but his problem has never been x's and o's--that's always been Dusty's problem. Dusty is great with players but he can't make moves for ****. LaRussa doesn't seem to have that problem, but I feel there's be something lacking on the "intangibles" side with him that's caused his teams to underachieve--and it's my opinion that a lot of them did.

fquaye149
08-29-2006, 11:59 AM
Well, with Baker it's more apparent and popular (especially around these parts) to criticize him. It's pretty much accepted that he's a weak manager, while it's widely believed that LaRussa is a great manager. I don't have any specific moves that one could use against LaRussa, but his problem has never been x's and o's--that's always been Dusty's problem. Dusty is great with players but he can't make moves for ****. LaRussa doesn't seem to have that problem, but I feel there's be something lacking on the "intangibles" side with him that's caused his teams to underachieve--and it's my opinion that a lot of them did.

Well, as someone mentioned earlier, the problem might not have been that they underachieved in the postseason, but that they vastly overachieved in the regular season (or, you might argue, that they did exactly what they were supposed to do--that is, that they were built for reg season success but not postseason).

A lot of people cited the 1983 Sox as a team he "underachieved" with. They cite the 99 wins as an example of why this team ought to have been successful beyond the regular season. However--we must not forget the nickname for the 1983 season...that is "Winning Ugly." Whether LaRussa deserves credit for that is debatable, but it would suggest that maybe the White Sox WEREN'T the most talented team in the playoffs in 1983.

I've discussed the A's ad nauseum here. I really don't believe their pitching was as good as the teams they faced (with the obvious exception of the 1989 Giants) BUT it's true that their lineup was a behemoth. However, I don't think winning 1 out of 3 world series is all that bad shakes.

Let's examine:

in 1992 he lost to the Blue Jays team that went on to win the series. Does anyone honestly believe the 1992 A's were better than the Blue Jays? I don't...but I'm willing to listen to dissenting opinions on the matter.

We've discussed his division winning Cardinals clubs (no pitching despite great hitting). Remember too that in 2002 he lost Darryl Kile after 14 games--not generally going to HELP a pitching staff--that would tend to pad a reg. season win total but make a team vulnerable in the playoffs.

I believe what you can say about LaRussa is that he's neither outstanding nor deficient--he doesn't tend to have great pitching. When he did he made the world series three years straight and won it once. The other time he had great pitching (1983) he didn't really have a lineup that could fill it out.

I just think it's overdone. This is espn-ism, boston-ism, and all the like. Jumping to a conclusion that someone is "cursed" or a "choker" due to bad circumstance and not an actual quantifiable deficiency (a la Peyton Manning's abysmal performance in postseason play)

FarWestChicago
08-29-2006, 09:42 PM
LaRussa has found a way to win in 89.Ummm, it's called an earthquake. And it let LaRussa run his two best starters out there 4 straight times. :redneck

fquaye149
08-30-2006, 12:27 AM
Ummm, it's called an earthquake. And it let LaRussa run his two best starters out there 4 straight times. :redneck

Well...I thought I knew what I was talking about, but if West doesn't agree with me, I should probbaly reconsider.

And no, I'm not being a smartass, in case you're wondering.

Mohoney
08-30-2006, 01:39 AM
When a manager (or GM...Billy Beane) goes his whole career without winning anything than you point fingers at the manager. But LaRussa DID win a world series. Was that one dumb luck? If it was, so were the ones he lost. Otherwise, he DOES have the ability to win when it counts.

Bobby Cox practically mirrors this.

Mohoney
08-30-2006, 01:41 AM
Good assessment, but the Angels pretty much slugged everyone to death as I recall.

Plus, their bullpen was pretty damn good, allowing the late inning comebacks.

batmanZoSo
08-30-2006, 01:56 AM
Well...I thought I knew what I was talking about, but if West doesn't agree with me, I should probbaly reconsider.

And no, I'm not being a smartass, in case you're wondering.

I imagine the Giants were able to do the same thing.

CAREY33
08-30-2006, 01:01 PM
Kind of funny how in other sprots guysl ike Larry Brown and Bill Parcells are considered the best coaches in the league because they are able to win in several different places. Larussa is considered a bum eventhough he has done the exact same thing.

WSox597
08-30-2006, 04:40 PM
I hated to see LaRussa go when the "gm" fired him back when. He has won everywhere he's gone. He knows the game very well, and gets the most out of his players.

I'll venture to say that he wouldn't play Mack in CF ever.

We haven't had a manager as good as LaRussa since he left, present one included.

Mohoney
08-31-2006, 04:50 AM
We haven't had a manager as good as LaRussa since he left, present one included.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I think that Ozzie will win another ring in this town, be it with this team either this year or next, or with a rebuilt team 6 or 7 years from now (hell, maybe both), where I don't see LaRussa ever winning another ring.

He had very good chances, with better talent than the opposition, in both 1990 and 2004, and, quite frankly, got outmanaged both times.

When has this guy ever taken an out-of-nowhere team all the way? Ozzie did.

Mohoney
08-31-2006, 04:54 AM
Kind of funny how in other sprots guysl ike Larry Brown and Bill Parcells are considered the best coaches in the league because they are able to win in several different places. Larussa is considered a bum eventhough he has done the exact same thing.

Larry Brown is so overrated that the comparison loses its validity.

As for Parcells, his career almost mirrors LaRussa, except that he has 2 rings instead of 1. That extra Super Bowl makes Parcells better, in my opinion. However, LaRussa is definitely ahead of Brown.

I think that Billy Martin would be an interesting comparison to LaRussa.

Mohoney
08-31-2006, 05:03 AM
Back to Martin vs. LaRussa

Martin has - 2 WS titles in 3 appearances (compared to 1 in 4 appearances for LaRussa), a win % higher than LaRussa (.553 to .537), and has guided 4 different franchises to the playoffs while LaRussa has only guided 3.

I guess that LaRussa can claim that he led franchises in both leagues to the World Series, but to mention LaRussa in the same breath as Sparky Anderson is outright blasphemy, IMO.

batmanZoSo
08-31-2006, 09:27 AM
We haven't had a manager as good as LaRussa since he left, present one included.

That I agree with.

Although Ozzie is off to a pretty solid start to his managerial career and may eclipse La Russa, it hasn't happened yet.

PKalltheway
09-01-2006, 12:23 AM
Back to Martin vs. LaRussa

Martin has - 2 WS titles in 3 appearances (compared to 1 in 4 appearances for LaRussa), a win % higher than LaRussa (.553 to .537), and has guided 4 different franchises to the playoffs while LaRussa has only guided 3.

I guess that LaRussa can claim that he led franchises in both leagues to the World Series, but to mention LaRussa in the same breath as Sparky Anderson is outright blasphemy, IMO.
Actually, Billy Martin only has one WS ring in just two appearances. In 1978, Bob Lemon acutally piloted the Yanks to their second straight WS title. Not to be picky, but LaRussa has acutally guided 11 teams to the postseason, not 3 (1983, 1988-1990, 1992, 1996, 2000-2002, 2004-2005).:redneck Billy Martin did guide four teams to the postseason, but his fourth playoff appearance came as manager of the Oakland A's in 1981.

SouthSide_HitMen
09-01-2006, 12:39 AM
LaRussa is one of the few Managers of this era who works with the GM to build the team. Except for his last year here and his last few in Oakland, his teams are competitive and contending.

*Cough* (http://www.whitecleats.org/photos/bashbros.jpg) Steroids *Cough* (http://www.seafox.com/mcgwire.gif)

He worked under the three of the best GMs in the business who gave him the talent which he could not advance. I think LaRussa is overrated and his lefty / righty nonsense has never worked in the long run.

His teams have always underachieved when it mattered most. It took an earthquake and a truly horrible Giants team to give him his one and only title.

The Dodgers were a two man team and the Reds were also major underdogs. He hasn't done squat in the weak NL - reaching the Series once only to be destroyed.

Canning LaRussa was one of the few things Hawk did which made sense (though I wish we could have kept Leyland).

PKalltheway
09-01-2006, 12:47 AM
He hasn't done squat in the weak NL - reaching the Series once only to be destroyed.

Also in 2004, the Cards barely reached the Series. The Astros, a team they finished MILES ahead of during the regular season, pushed the Cards to the wall. It took a walk-off homer in Game 6, and clutch hits in the sixth inning of Game 7 for St. Louis to win. In Game 5, their "powerful" offense only got one hit. That's no typo. ONE HIT.

fquaye149
09-01-2006, 12:48 AM
*Cough* (http://www.whitecleats.org/photos/bashbros.jpg) Steroids *Cough* (http://www.seafox.com/mcgwire.gif)

He worked under the three of the best GMs in the business who gave him the talent which he could not advance. I think LaRussa is overrated and his lefty / righty nonsense has never worked in the long run.

His teams have always underachieved when it mattered most. It took an earthquake and a truly horrible Giants team to give him his one and only title.

The Dodgers were a two man team and the Reds were also major underdogs. He hasn't done squat in the weak NL - reaching the Series once only to be destroyed.

Canning LaRussa was one of the few things Hawk did which made sense (though I wish we could have kept Leyland).

looks like you missed a hell of a thread

SouthSide_HitMen
09-01-2006, 01:54 AM
looks like you missed a hell of a thread

I read the thread.

I remember Oakland being a -320 favorite (Lay $320 to win $100) in 1988 and a -360 favorite in 1990.

These are astronomical odds for a baseball series. I remember Clemens, Martinez and Maddux vs. a scrub in the 1990s as the only other times I've seen the money line that high for a baseball game.

Oakland lost both series.

St. Louis has won a few wild card series games against weak NL West teams but that has been the extent of LaRussa's postseason success in his ten years in St. Louis with the exception of the 2004 season when they were pasted 4 games to zero by Boston.

LaRussa was a failure in Chicago. His only success was his steroid based A's teams and they choked away two of three series. The Dodgers had two players who could beat them and yet LaRussa couldn't win. The Reds squad were vastly outmanned in every facet of the game - Oakland's hitters were better and Oakland had a much better ERA and WHIP in the AL (unadjusted) vs. the Reds.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/1990_WS.shtml

He is not the worst manager by any means but he is overrated and I am glad he left the White Sox (was ecstatic at the time).