A few comments - first, harkening back to the underlying measure of "success." Now that Dave Roberts is the new Mr. Regular Season titleholder (dismissing the ridiculous 2020 "championship" as worthy of equality with the others), we may ask the value of a managerial career with lots of regular season wins and longevity. Does one need a WS title? Baker is HOF, but not Tom Kelly? Why? Not a desperately perceived dropoff in interest from black Americans, is it? These are legitimate questions, especially for our current crop of craven team owners. Or is success merely participating in lots of increasingly devalued regular season games? The regurgitation of personnel in pro sports might be all about hard-to-get experience. Yet, I think the answer is obvious. Baker (and Roberts, when his time comes) is a HOFer because baseball must acclaim and prop up the value of the regular season, especially within its tightly closed (incestuous?) ranks. So, yes, MLB collectively genuflected in thanks when Baker won with the Astros. This is exactly the same requisite legitimacy stamp they needed for Fishbowl 2020, the Dodgers, and anointed prince Roberts. As I have noted before, it takes very little imagination to hear the shrill howling of illegitimacy (and demands for the dreaded asterisk) had the Marlins won the 2020 "championship." As we continue to see, modern MLB owners will literally create any rationale and twist any rules necessary to achieve both self-validation of their marketing-based decisions and profitability. No problem with profit, per se. We're soon to see NASCAR-esque uniforms, ABS, howls for female field managers, lowering of historical HOF criteria (after all, we can't have a year without an electee, can we?), expansion (there's plenty of major league talent, of course), and more. I'm sure it's all for the best because they love the game. Yeah.
One thing I'll say in comparing managers from different eras is it's gotten a lot harder to win the World Series. There was a time you would reach the World Series by merely being the survivor of 8 teas in each league in the regular season. Now you have 6 teams in each league reaching the postseason and you have to (often) win a crapshoot best-of-3, then a crapshoot best-of-5 then a pair of best-of-7's. Bochy's 4 titles are virtually unprecedented in any era, but to do it in this era is staggering.
Your comment made me take 2 minutes to look at Tom Kelly's career. Yes, 2 World Series championships, but those were his only post-season appearances in a 15-plus season managerial career. He had only 5 winning seasons in his 15 full years, only one in his last 9 years. Finished higher than 4th in his division only 5 times. Was more than 100 games under .500 in the regular season all-time with a .478 career winning percentage.
So 2 World Series titles are a great first line on the resume, but--looking at the full picture--I don't see a Hall of Fame career.
By comparison, Dusty managed 26 seasons, had a .540 career winning percentage, took 13 teams to the playoffs, won 90-plus games 13 times, won 3 pennants and one World Series. He had a .531-or-better winning percentage in 17 of his 26 seasons. He had everything except the World Series title, which he finally won, but he may well have been a Hall of Famer even without winning with the Astros in 2022.
Thank you for the reply and for taking the time to go into such detail. I surely see the argument that the more complicated and participatiry playoff system has made winning a title more difficult. It has also made it easier to qualify (being in the running at all), and thereby ratched up the number of eligible playoff games on manager records considerably. Not calling it "padding," mind you. I am still digesting the ramifications. Regarding Kelly, I agree with you. Considering Baker's record (and it will also apply even more so to Dave Roberts, I wager) without the single WS title, you believe it does rise to "successful" because of his regular season wins, playoff game numbers, and longevity. In some combination or in sufficient numbers. Perhaps this question is too subjective and cannot be quantified, even in our age of analytics. We have the argument in all sports. Dan Marino and Dan Fouts - huge numbers, multiple playoff games, no titles. Of course, football doesn't have the same historical requisites for a HOF career as baseball. I also understand that sheer longevity implies or denotes a degree of competency. Baseball, though, as I mentioned, doesn't like outsiders and thus tends to prefer it's own over and over. This is demonstrably so even if the retreads don't get the ring, just as it does with players in the hope that "this time is the charm" and the like. All in all, this thinking gives the Bakers of the world chances over and over with the same "almost" results because the system's denizens view themselves, "Moneyball"-esque, as possessors of gnostic insights. Baker absolutely is HOF material even without a title because he has to be. The 26 years of good but not good enough simply must be crowned "successful" by all those teams, owners, and fans over the years to vindicate their decisions. One may thus actually argue Kelly's career is more worthy, haven been given far fewer good teams and, importantly, won the sport's top honor twice in far, far fewer attempts. I will not use the "blind squirrel" adage for Baker, though. However, Kelly achieved maximum results from his few chances, does not have to rely either on increasingly diluted-value regular season game wins for justification, nor anywhere near Baker's longevity (another most subjective criteria). It is fascinating to me! Thanks, again, for engaging.
A few comments - first, harkening back to the underlying measure of "success." Now that Dave Roberts is the new Mr. Regular Season titleholder (dismissing the ridiculous 2020 "championship" as worthy of equality with the others), we may ask the value of a managerial career with lots of regular season wins and longevity. Does one need a WS title? Baker is HOF, but not Tom Kelly? Why? Not a desperately perceived dropoff in interest from black Americans, is it? These are legitimate questions, especially for our current crop of craven team owners. Or is success merely participating in lots of increasingly devalued regular season games? The regurgitation of personnel in pro sports might be all about hard-to-get experience. Yet, I think the answer is obvious. Baker (and Roberts, when his time comes) is a HOFer because baseball must acclaim and prop up the value of the regular season, especially within its tightly closed (incestuous?) ranks. So, yes, MLB collectively genuflected in thanks when Baker won with the Astros. This is exactly the same requisite legitimacy stamp they needed for Fishbowl 2020, the Dodgers, and anointed prince Roberts. As I have noted before, it takes very little imagination to hear the shrill howling of illegitimacy (and demands for the dreaded asterisk) had the Marlins won the 2020 "championship." As we continue to see, modern MLB owners will literally create any rationale and twist any rules necessary to achieve both self-validation of their marketing-based decisions and profitability. No problem with profit, per se. We're soon to see NASCAR-esque uniforms, ABS, howls for female field managers, lowering of historical HOF criteria (after all, we can't have a year without an electee, can we?), expansion (there's plenty of major league talent, of course), and more. I'm sure it's all for the best because they love the game. Yeah.
One thing I'll say in comparing managers from different eras is it's gotten a lot harder to win the World Series. There was a time you would reach the World Series by merely being the survivor of 8 teas in each league in the regular season. Now you have 6 teams in each league reaching the postseason and you have to (often) win a crapshoot best-of-3, then a crapshoot best-of-5 then a pair of best-of-7's. Bochy's 4 titles are virtually unprecedented in any era, but to do it in this era is staggering.
Your comment made me take 2 minutes to look at Tom Kelly's career. Yes, 2 World Series championships, but those were his only post-season appearances in a 15-plus season managerial career. He had only 5 winning seasons in his 15 full years, only one in his last 9 years. Finished higher than 4th in his division only 5 times. Was more than 100 games under .500 in the regular season all-time with a .478 career winning percentage.
So 2 World Series titles are a great first line on the resume, but--looking at the full picture--I don't see a Hall of Fame career.
By comparison, Dusty managed 26 seasons, had a .540 career winning percentage, took 13 teams to the playoffs, won 90-plus games 13 times, won 3 pennants and one World Series. He had a .531-or-better winning percentage in 17 of his 26 seasons. He had everything except the World Series title, which he finally won, but he may well have been a Hall of Famer even without winning with the Astros in 2022.
Thank you for the reply and for taking the time to go into such detail. I surely see the argument that the more complicated and participatiry playoff system has made winning a title more difficult. It has also made it easier to qualify (being in the running at all), and thereby ratched up the number of eligible playoff games on manager records considerably. Not calling it "padding," mind you. I am still digesting the ramifications. Regarding Kelly, I agree with you. Considering Baker's record (and it will also apply even more so to Dave Roberts, I wager) without the single WS title, you believe it does rise to "successful" because of his regular season wins, playoff game numbers, and longevity. In some combination or in sufficient numbers. Perhaps this question is too subjective and cannot be quantified, even in our age of analytics. We have the argument in all sports. Dan Marino and Dan Fouts - huge numbers, multiple playoff games, no titles. Of course, football doesn't have the same historical requisites for a HOF career as baseball. I also understand that sheer longevity implies or denotes a degree of competency. Baseball, though, as I mentioned, doesn't like outsiders and thus tends to prefer it's own over and over. This is demonstrably so even if the retreads don't get the ring, just as it does with players in the hope that "this time is the charm" and the like. All in all, this thinking gives the Bakers of the world chances over and over with the same "almost" results because the system's denizens view themselves, "Moneyball"-esque, as possessors of gnostic insights. Baker absolutely is HOF material even without a title because he has to be. The 26 years of good but not good enough simply must be crowned "successful" by all those teams, owners, and fans over the years to vindicate their decisions. One may thus actually argue Kelly's career is more worthy, haven been given far fewer good teams and, importantly, won the sport's top honor twice in far, far fewer attempts. I will not use the "blind squirrel" adage for Baker, though. However, Kelly achieved maximum results from his few chances, does not have to rely either on increasingly diluted-value regular season game wins for justification, nor anywhere near Baker's longevity (another most subjective criteria). It is fascinating to me! Thanks, again, for engaging.
Isn’t the chart in the Athletic wrong? The marlins won the World Series in 2003 and not 2013. Am I reading this story wrong?
The chart represents the last time any of the city’s big 4 teams won a title. The Heat won in 2013.