GatewayRedbirds.com

He's probably the most prepared manager I've ever seen. Of course, that can become a negative as he can become too much of a micromanager for my liking.

I disagree that La Russa "won" the World Series, because he's not the one that re-discovered his past goodness like Weaver. He's not the one who recovered from a strained oblique and went 8-for-13 in Games 3-5 in the World Series, he's not the one who put it all together like Kinney and Johnson, and he's not the one who had 19 postseason hits like Molina.

With the exception of preparing Weaver a bit better, La Russa did nothing but press every button and it worked out for them. And even then I would argue that he's the reason Weaver did well. Weaver is capable of going on stretches where he can be a successful pitcher.

And I still contend that a manager is as good as the players he has. If you gave La Russa 25 Tripp Cromers, I don't think he wins. Dusty Baker was not very good in Chicago, but he won over 85 games seven times in 10 seasons in San Francisco. A manager simply cannot alter a players ability and make him better

GatewaySnayke wrote:I disagree that La Russa "won" the World Series, because he's not the one that re-discovered his past goodness like Weaver. He's not the one who recovered from a strained oblique and went 8-for-13 in Games 3-5 in the World Series, he's not the one who put it all together like Kinney and Johnson, and he's not the one who had 19 postseason hits like Molina.

With the exception of preparing Weaver a bit better, La Russa did nothing but press every button and it worked out for them. And even then I would argue that he's the reason Weaver did well. Weaver is capable of going on stretches where he can be a successful pitcher.

And I still contend that a manager is as good as the players he has. If you gave La Russa 25 Tripp Cromers, I don't think he wins. Dusty Baker was not very good in Chicago, but he won over 85 games seven times in 10 seasons in San Francisco. A manager simply cannot alter a players ability and make him better

As I recall, I remember TLR stacking the rotation to give him the best shot at the end of the season and during the playoffs. Sure the players had to play the games, but Tony did his best by making sure his cards were in the best order.

Plus in 2005, he had Rolen, Reggie, and Walker on the DL for most of the season and somehow won over 100 games with So, Mabry, and Nunez.

Maybe the player rises to the occasion to play in St. Louis, or maybe Tony just knows the strengths of each player and knows when to use them to let them shine.

GatewaySnayke wrote:I disagree that La Russa "won" the World Series, because he's not the one that re-discovered his past goodness like Weaver. He's not the one who recovered from a strained oblique and went 8-for-13 in Games 3-5 in the World Series, he's not the one who put it all together like Kinney and Johnson, and he's not the one who had 19 postseason hits like Molina.

With the exception of preparing Weaver a bit better, La Russa did nothing but press every button and it worked out for them. And even then I would argue that he's the reason Weaver did well. Weaver is capable of going on stretches where he can be a successful pitcher.

And I still contend that a manager is as good as the players he has. If you gave La Russa 25 Tripp Cromers, I don't think he wins. Dusty Baker was not very good in Chicago, but he won over 85 games seven times in 10 seasons in San Francisco. A manager simply cannot alter a players ability and make him better

Guess who put all of those players into a position and/or was instrumental in giving them an opportunity to succeed?

GatewaySnayke wrote: La Russa did nothing but press every button and it worked out for them.

And I still contend that a manager is as good as the players he has. A manager simply cannot alter a players ability and make him better

Then why are you so quick to blame him when we lose? Sounds like your opinion is that a manager can not make a team better but can, most certainly, make them worse.

raddy wrote:

jim wrote:I don't know what overrated means. Overrated by who? Some of the opinions I've heard, I'd say he's downright underrated.

How can a guy 3rd on the list in wins be overrated?

When they have much superior talent than the other teams.

Most people thought the Mets and the Tigers had superior talent.

raddy wrote:

jim wrote:I don't know what overrated means. Overrated by who? Some of the opinions I've heard, I'd say he's downright underrated.

How can a guy 3rd on the list in wins be overrated?

When they have much superior talent than the other teams.

Let me ask you this. Who is a more overrated manager, Joe Torre or Tony LaRussa?

raddy wrote:When they have much superior talent than the other teams.

I've always been a little critical of guys like Phil Jackson that only coach teams that are stacked. Of course you could argue that he's earned it...but why not test your wares as a coach/manager and go turn around a sinking or already sunken ship every once in awhile to prove that you're really cut from an elite cloth.

That's exactly what Tony LaRussa did in St. Louis. He came to a team reeling after a 62-81 record in 1995. And they were almost as bad the year before. He didn't wait for a job to come along that would guarantee to pad his winning percentage. He took a team whose three highest paid players were Ken Hill, Todd Zeile and Mike Morgan. If his teams have been stacked it's partly his doing, IMO.

Richie Allen wrote:

docellis wrote:When they have much superior talent than the other teams.

I've always been a little critical of guys like Phil Jackson that only coach teams that are stacked. Of course you could argue that he's earned it...but why not test your wares as a coach/manager and go turn around a sinking or already sunken ship every once in awhile to prove that you're really cut from an elite cloth.

That's exactly what Tony LaRussa did in St. Louis. He came to a team reeling after a 62-81 record in 1995. And they were almost as bad the year before. He didn't wait for a job to come along that would guarantee to pad his winning percentage. He took a team whose three highest paid players were Ken Hill, Todd Zeile and Mike Morgan. If his teams have been stacked it's partly his doing, IMO.

Watch who you quote please.

Richie Allen wrote:I've always been a little critical of guys like Phil Jackson that only coach teams that are stacked. Of course you could argue that he's earned it...but why not test your wares as a coach/manager and go turn around a sinking or already sunken ship every once in awhile to prove that you're really cut from an elite cloth.

That's exactly what Tony LaRussa did in St. Louis. He came to a team reeling after a 62-81 record in 1995. And they were almost as bad the year before. He didn't wait for a job to come along that would guarantee to pad his winning percentage. He took a team whose three highest paid players were Ken Hill, Todd Zeile and Mike Morgan. If his teams have been stacked it's partly his doing, IMO.

Fantastic, spot on perspective.

I still remember being beside myself with happiness when the Cards won their division for the first time in 9 years in 1996.

But, that was in large part due to an overrated manager, so, I should have probably tempered my joy.