Danny Murtaugh- HOFer?
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
Bobster21
Danny Murtaugh- HOFer?
Murtaugh handled his championship teams very differently in '71 than in '60. He really used his squad in 1971. Stargell had the most playing time in '71 starting 85% of the games. Sangy started 80% which quite a lot for a catcher. Then came Robertson at 78%, Clemente at 74% and everyone else under 70%. Of course Alley missed a lot with his injury and Clemente turned 37 during the season. In 1960, some PT was reduced by platoons at C, 1B and CF. But otherwise, Hoak started 98% of the games, Maz 97%, Clemente and Skinner both 90%. Groat was at 88% despite missing most of September with an injury. He really rode his starters and other than platoon players Smith, Nelson and Cimoli, the bench (Baker, Christopher, Schofield, Oldis) was rarely used. Five 1960 starters had more PT than team leader Stargell in 1971. Sangy was used extensively at cacher in '71 and Charlie Sands was the only bench player who was rarely used. Two different styles, same great result.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
Danny Murtaugh- HOFer?
0C2A2D38313D2A3C345F0 wrote: I talked with some fans of other teams about this a long time ago. Their thoughts were interesting regarding Murtaugh as a HOF manager.
1. Regardless that the Pirates won, it's almost as if 1960 isn't counted for any Pirate other than Mazeroski, who they feel made the HOF simply because of the HR. To this day, people can't believe the Yankees lost, their minds focused on the 3 blowout wins. In other words, Murtaugh was "lucky".
2. He was in and out as Pirates manager. There isn't that consistent, long term stretch to judge him on.
3. The Pirates were 1-9 in the NLCS in the 70, 74, and 75, and swept twice by their supposed "rival", the Cincinnati Reds and Sparky Anderson, and dominated by the Dodgers and Walter Alston 3-1. Those were a couple of contemporaries to which Murtaugh is measured. Alston, if you discount 1954 because he wouldn't exactly be a contemporary, had 3 pennants and 3 WS wins. Anderson had 2 WS wins, same as Murtaugh, but his were back to back, and they also appeared in 2 other WS. Three of those four appearances were at the expense of the Pirates, two of them the previously mentioned sweeps with Danny at the helm.
No, he's not a HOF manager. A Pirates HOF member sure, not MLB.
Surge, after reading Steigerwald's opinion, I think he makes a good case in favor of enshrinement. He compared/contrasted Murtaugh's record with managers who are in.
So, if Murtaugh's not deserving, the natural questions could be- are there some who should be taken out, and whom? No one wants to make that decision.
I can only write for myself. Even as a kid I thought that his times away from the club worked against how I thought of his record. Now that I'm older, I wonder of those breaks could have made it harder for a manager to stop and restart? I don't know that answer. But, taken as a whole- if we're able to do that- his record's impressive.
One world championship that most neutral people would say was very improbable. The second was less so, but still, we were not favored, given the opposing SP.
As for the NLCS that we lost, we lost then against teams like the Big Red Machine. They're called that because the Reds WERE Big and a Machine; one of the best rosters of all time. We were good. They were that much better. Beating a roster like the 1960 Yankees PLUS the Reds- That's a guy who's not going to immortality. That's a guy going to sainthood.
1. Regardless that the Pirates won, it's almost as if 1960 isn't counted for any Pirate other than Mazeroski, who they feel made the HOF simply because of the HR. To this day, people can't believe the Yankees lost, their minds focused on the 3 blowout wins. In other words, Murtaugh was "lucky".
2. He was in and out as Pirates manager. There isn't that consistent, long term stretch to judge him on.
3. The Pirates were 1-9 in the NLCS in the 70, 74, and 75, and swept twice by their supposed "rival", the Cincinnati Reds and Sparky Anderson, and dominated by the Dodgers and Walter Alston 3-1. Those were a couple of contemporaries to which Murtaugh is measured. Alston, if you discount 1954 because he wouldn't exactly be a contemporary, had 3 pennants and 3 WS wins. Anderson had 2 WS wins, same as Murtaugh, but his were back to back, and they also appeared in 2 other WS. Three of those four appearances were at the expense of the Pirates, two of them the previously mentioned sweeps with Danny at the helm.
No, he's not a HOF manager. A Pirates HOF member sure, not MLB.
Surge, after reading Steigerwald's opinion, I think he makes a good case in favor of enshrinement. He compared/contrasted Murtaugh's record with managers who are in.
So, if Murtaugh's not deserving, the natural questions could be- are there some who should be taken out, and whom? No one wants to make that decision.
I can only write for myself. Even as a kid I thought that his times away from the club worked against how I thought of his record. Now that I'm older, I wonder of those breaks could have made it harder for a manager to stop and restart? I don't know that answer. But, taken as a whole- if we're able to do that- his record's impressive.
One world championship that most neutral people would say was very improbable. The second was less so, but still, we were not favored, given the opposing SP.
As for the NLCS that we lost, we lost then against teams like the Big Red Machine. They're called that because the Reds WERE Big and a Machine; one of the best rosters of all time. We were good. They were that much better. Beating a roster like the 1960 Yankees PLUS the Reds- That's a guy who's not going to immortality. That's a guy going to sainthood.
Danny Murtaugh- HOFer?
5C697E7E754C7E7E75727E1B0 wrote: I talked with some fans of other teams about this a long time ago. Their thoughts were interesting regarding Murtaugh as a HOF manager.
1. Regardless that the Pirates won, it's almost as if 1960 isn't counted for any Pirate other than Mazeroski, who they feel made the HOF simply because of the HR. To this day, people can't believe the Yankees lost, their minds focused on the 3 blowout wins. In other words, Murtaugh was "lucky".
2. He was in and out as Pirates manager. There isn't that consistent, long term stretch to judge him on.
3. The Pirates were 1-9 in the NLCS in the 70, 74, and 75, and swept twice by their supposed "rival", the Cincinnati Reds and Sparky Anderson, and dominated by the Dodgers and Walter Alston 3-1. Those were a couple of contemporaries to which Murtaugh is measured. Alston, if you discount 1954 because he wouldn't exactly be a contemporary, had 3 pennants and 3 WS wins. Anderson had 2 WS wins, same as Murtaugh, but his were back to back, and they also appeared in 2 other WS. Three of those four appearances were at the expense of the Pirates, two of them the previously mentioned sweeps with Danny at the helm.
No, he's not a HOF manager. A Pirates HOF member sure, not MLB.
Surge, after reading Steigerwald's opinion, I think he makes a good case in favor of enshrinement. He compared/contrasted Murtaugh's record with managers who are in.
So, if Murtaugh's not deserving, the natural questions could be- are there some who should be taken out, and whom? No one wants to make that decision.
I can only write for myself. Even as a kid I thought that his times away from the club worked against how I thought of his record. Now that I'm older, I wonder of those breaks could have made it harder for a manager to stop and restart? I don't know that answer. But, taken as a whole- if we're able to do that- his record's impressive.
One world championship that most neutral people would say was very improbable. The second was less so, but still, we were not favored, given the opposing SP.
As for the NLCS that we lost, we lost then against teams like the Big Red Machine. They're called that because the Reds WERE Big and a Machine; one of the best rosters of all time. We were good. They were that much better. Beating a roster like the 1960 Yankees PLUS the Reds- That's a guy who's not going to immortality. That's a guy going to sainthood.
I can't disagree with how good those foes were. It's just to me, a HOF would have found a way to win one of those Reds series, and certainly, at least ONE game in 6 tries. The Pirates weren't a rinky dink outfit either. Remember, even Doc Ellis thought the Pirates were intimidated by the Reds, hence the game he set out to bean every single one of them in the lineup, in an attempt to put a spark under his team. Murtaugh certainly belongs in the Hall of Very good. I'd take out Leo Durocher, Bobby Cox, Whitey Herzog, and put them alongside Murtaugh. If they're in, he should be in. But without looking at the guys from antiquity, either Earl Weaver should be removed, or Murtaugh in, going with your thoughts.
1. Regardless that the Pirates won, it's almost as if 1960 isn't counted for any Pirate other than Mazeroski, who they feel made the HOF simply because of the HR. To this day, people can't believe the Yankees lost, their minds focused on the 3 blowout wins. In other words, Murtaugh was "lucky".
2. He was in and out as Pirates manager. There isn't that consistent, long term stretch to judge him on.
3. The Pirates were 1-9 in the NLCS in the 70, 74, and 75, and swept twice by their supposed "rival", the Cincinnati Reds and Sparky Anderson, and dominated by the Dodgers and Walter Alston 3-1. Those were a couple of contemporaries to which Murtaugh is measured. Alston, if you discount 1954 because he wouldn't exactly be a contemporary, had 3 pennants and 3 WS wins. Anderson had 2 WS wins, same as Murtaugh, but his were back to back, and they also appeared in 2 other WS. Three of those four appearances were at the expense of the Pirates, two of them the previously mentioned sweeps with Danny at the helm.
No, he's not a HOF manager. A Pirates HOF member sure, not MLB.
Surge, after reading Steigerwald's opinion, I think he makes a good case in favor of enshrinement. He compared/contrasted Murtaugh's record with managers who are in.
So, if Murtaugh's not deserving, the natural questions could be- are there some who should be taken out, and whom? No one wants to make that decision.
I can only write for myself. Even as a kid I thought that his times away from the club worked against how I thought of his record. Now that I'm older, I wonder of those breaks could have made it harder for a manager to stop and restart? I don't know that answer. But, taken as a whole- if we're able to do that- his record's impressive.
One world championship that most neutral people would say was very improbable. The second was less so, but still, we were not favored, given the opposing SP.
As for the NLCS that we lost, we lost then against teams like the Big Red Machine. They're called that because the Reds WERE Big and a Machine; one of the best rosters of all time. We were good. They were that much better. Beating a roster like the 1960 Yankees PLUS the Reds- That's a guy who's not going to immortality. That's a guy going to sainthood.
I can't disagree with how good those foes were. It's just to me, a HOF would have found a way to win one of those Reds series, and certainly, at least ONE game in 6 tries. The Pirates weren't a rinky dink outfit either. Remember, even Doc Ellis thought the Pirates were intimidated by the Reds, hence the game he set out to bean every single one of them in the lineup, in an attempt to put a spark under his team. Murtaugh certainly belongs in the Hall of Very good. I'd take out Leo Durocher, Bobby Cox, Whitey Herzog, and put them alongside Murtaugh. If they're in, he should be in. But without looking at the guys from antiquity, either Earl Weaver should be removed, or Murtaugh in, going with your thoughts.
-
WildwoodDave
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:19 am
Danny Murtaugh- HOFer?
6B4D4A5F565A4D5B53380 wrote: I talked with some fans of other teams about this a long time ago. Their thoughts were interesting regarding Murtaugh as a HOF manager.
1. Regardless that the Pirates won, it's almost as if 1960 isn't counted for any Pirate other than Mazeroski, who they feel made the HOF simply because of the HR. To this day, people can't believe the Yankees lost, their minds focused on the 3 blowout wins. In other words, Murtaugh was "lucky".
2. He was in and out as Pirates manager. There isn't that consistent, long term stretch to judge him on.
3. The Pirates were 1-9 in the NLCS in the 70, 74, and 75, and swept twice by their supposed "rival", the Cincinnati Reds and Sparky Anderson, and dominated by the Dodgers and Walter Alston 3-1. Those were a couple of contemporaries to which Murtaugh is measured. Alston, if you discount 1954 because he wouldn't exactly be a contemporary, had 3 pennants and 3 WS wins. Anderson had 2 WS wins, same as Murtaugh, but his were back to back, and they also appeared in 2 other WS. Three of those four appearances were at the expense of the Pirates, two of them the previously mentioned sweeps with Danny at the helm.
No, he's not a HOF manager. A Pirates HOF member sure, not MLB.
Surge, after reading Steigerwald's opinion, I think he makes a good case in favor of enshrinement. He compared/contrasted Murtaugh's record with managers who are in.
So, if Murtaugh's not deserving, the natural questions could be- are there some who should be taken out, and whom? No one wants to make that decision.
I can only write for myself. Even as a kid I thought that his times away from the club worked against how I thought of his record. Now that I'm older, I wonder of those breaks could have made it harder for a manager to stop and restart? I don't know that answer. But, taken as a whole- if we're able to do that- his record's impressive.
One world championship that most neutral people would say was very improbable. The second was less so, but still, we were not favored, given the opposing SP.
As for the NLCS that we lost, we lost then against teams like the Big Red Machine. They're called that because the Reds WERE Big and a Machine; one of the best rosters of all time. We were good. They were that much better. Beating a roster like the 1960 Yankees PLUS the Reds- That's a guy who's not going to immortality. That's a guy going to sainthood.
I can't disagree with how good those foes were. It's just to me, a HOF would have found a way to win one of those Reds series, and certainly, at least ONE game in 6 tries. The Pirates weren't a rinky dink outfit either. Remember, even Doc Ellis thought the Pirates were intimidated by the Reds, hence the game he set out to bean every single one of them in the lineup, in an attempt to put a spark under his team. Murtaugh certainly belongs in the Hall of Very good. I'd take out Leo Durocher, Bobby Cox, Whitey Herzog, and put them alongside Murtaugh. If they're in, he should be in. But without looking at the guys from antiquity, either Earl Weaver should be removed, or Murtaugh in, going with your thoughts.
Good manager but there are other good managers who haven't made it as well. Did have a HOF exchange with Roy Face. Danny told his pitchers that he didn't want them to have sex the day before they were to pitch. Elroy said "hey skip, you use me almost every day, what the hell are you trying to do to me"?
1. Regardless that the Pirates won, it's almost as if 1960 isn't counted for any Pirate other than Mazeroski, who they feel made the HOF simply because of the HR. To this day, people can't believe the Yankees lost, their minds focused on the 3 blowout wins. In other words, Murtaugh was "lucky".
2. He was in and out as Pirates manager. There isn't that consistent, long term stretch to judge him on.
3. The Pirates were 1-9 in the NLCS in the 70, 74, and 75, and swept twice by their supposed "rival", the Cincinnati Reds and Sparky Anderson, and dominated by the Dodgers and Walter Alston 3-1. Those were a couple of contemporaries to which Murtaugh is measured. Alston, if you discount 1954 because he wouldn't exactly be a contemporary, had 3 pennants and 3 WS wins. Anderson had 2 WS wins, same as Murtaugh, but his were back to back, and they also appeared in 2 other WS. Three of those four appearances were at the expense of the Pirates, two of them the previously mentioned sweeps with Danny at the helm.
No, he's not a HOF manager. A Pirates HOF member sure, not MLB.
Surge, after reading Steigerwald's opinion, I think he makes a good case in favor of enshrinement. He compared/contrasted Murtaugh's record with managers who are in.
So, if Murtaugh's not deserving, the natural questions could be- are there some who should be taken out, and whom? No one wants to make that decision.
I can only write for myself. Even as a kid I thought that his times away from the club worked against how I thought of his record. Now that I'm older, I wonder of those breaks could have made it harder for a manager to stop and restart? I don't know that answer. But, taken as a whole- if we're able to do that- his record's impressive.
One world championship that most neutral people would say was very improbable. The second was less so, but still, we were not favored, given the opposing SP.
As for the NLCS that we lost, we lost then against teams like the Big Red Machine. They're called that because the Reds WERE Big and a Machine; one of the best rosters of all time. We were good. They were that much better. Beating a roster like the 1960 Yankees PLUS the Reds- That's a guy who's not going to immortality. That's a guy going to sainthood.
I can't disagree with how good those foes were. It's just to me, a HOF would have found a way to win one of those Reds series, and certainly, at least ONE game in 6 tries. The Pirates weren't a rinky dink outfit either. Remember, even Doc Ellis thought the Pirates were intimidated by the Reds, hence the game he set out to bean every single one of them in the lineup, in an attempt to put a spark under his team. Murtaugh certainly belongs in the Hall of Very good. I'd take out Leo Durocher, Bobby Cox, Whitey Herzog, and put them alongside Murtaugh. If they're in, he should be in. But without looking at the guys from antiquity, either Earl Weaver should be removed, or Murtaugh in, going with your thoughts.
Good manager but there are other good managers who haven't made it as well. Did have a HOF exchange with Roy Face. Danny told his pitchers that he didn't want them to have sex the day before they were to pitch. Elroy said "hey skip, you use me almost every day, what the hell are you trying to do to me"?
-
Bobster21
Danny Murtaugh- HOFer?
56686D65766E6E6545607764010 wrote: I talked with some fans of other teams about this a long time ago. Their thoughts were interesting regarding Murtaugh as a HOF manager.
1. Regardless that the Pirates won, it's almost as if 1960 isn't counted for any Pirate other than Mazeroski, who they feel made the HOF simply because of the HR. To this day, people can't believe the Yankees lost, their minds focused on the 3 blowout wins. In other words, Murtaugh was "lucky".
2. He was in and out as Pirates manager. There isn't that consistent, long term stretch to judge him on.
3. The Pirates were 1-9 in the NLCS in the 70, 74, and 75, and swept twice by their supposed "rival", the Cincinnati Reds and Sparky Anderson, and dominated by the Dodgers and Walter Alston 3-1. Those were a couple of contemporaries to which Murtaugh is measured. Alston, if you discount 1954 because he wouldn't exactly be a contemporary, had 3 pennants and 3 WS wins. Anderson had 2 WS wins, same as Murtaugh, but his were back to back, and they also appeared in 2 other WS. Three of those four appearances were at the expense of the Pirates, two of them the previously mentioned sweeps with Danny at the helm.
No, he's not a HOF manager. A Pirates HOF member sure, not MLB.
Surge, after reading Steigerwald's opinion, I think he makes a good case in favor of enshrinement. He compared/contrasted Murtaugh's record with managers who are in.
So, if Murtaugh's not deserving, the natural questions could be- are there some who should be taken out, and whom? No one wants to make that decision.
I can only write for myself. Even as a kid I thought that his times away from the club worked against how I thought of his record. Now that I'm older, I wonder of those breaks could have made it harder for a manager to stop and restart? I don't know that answer. But, taken as a whole- if we're able to do that- his record's impressive.
One world championship that most neutral people would say was very improbable. The second was less so, but still, we were not favored, given the opposing SP.
As for the NLCS that we lost, we lost then against teams like the Big Red Machine. They're called that because the Reds WERE Big and a Machine; one of the best rosters of all time. We were good. They were that much better. Beating a roster like the 1960 Yankees PLUS the Reds- That's a guy who's not going to immortality. That's a guy going to sainthood.
I can't disagree with how good those foes were. It's just to me, a HOF would have found a way to win one of those Reds series, and certainly, at least ONE game in 6 tries. The Pirates weren't a rinky dink outfit either. Remember, even Doc Ellis thought the Pirates were intimidated by the Reds, hence the game he set out to bean every single one of them in the lineup, in an attempt to put a spark under his team. Murtaugh certainly belongs in the Hall of Very good. I'd take out Leo Durocher, Bobby Cox, Whitey Herzog, and put them alongside Murtaugh. If they're in, he should be in. But without looking at the guys from antiquity, either Earl Weaver should be removed, or Murtaugh in, going with your thoughts.
Good manager but there are other good managers who haven't made it as well. Did have a HOF exchange with Roy Face. Danny told his pitchers that he didn't want them to have sex the day before they were to pitch. Elroy said "hey skip, you use me almost every day, what the hell are you trying to do to me"?
I know that in 1960 (don't know about other years) Murtaugh told his players they could no longer take their wives on road trips. The official explanation was that wives liked their husbands to take them sightseeing in the day prior to night games, which could tire the players. Sure.
1. Regardless that the Pirates won, it's almost as if 1960 isn't counted for any Pirate other than Mazeroski, who they feel made the HOF simply because of the HR. To this day, people can't believe the Yankees lost, their minds focused on the 3 blowout wins. In other words, Murtaugh was "lucky".
2. He was in and out as Pirates manager. There isn't that consistent, long term stretch to judge him on.
3. The Pirates were 1-9 in the NLCS in the 70, 74, and 75, and swept twice by their supposed "rival", the Cincinnati Reds and Sparky Anderson, and dominated by the Dodgers and Walter Alston 3-1. Those were a couple of contemporaries to which Murtaugh is measured. Alston, if you discount 1954 because he wouldn't exactly be a contemporary, had 3 pennants and 3 WS wins. Anderson had 2 WS wins, same as Murtaugh, but his were back to back, and they also appeared in 2 other WS. Three of those four appearances were at the expense of the Pirates, two of them the previously mentioned sweeps with Danny at the helm.
No, he's not a HOF manager. A Pirates HOF member sure, not MLB.
Surge, after reading Steigerwald's opinion, I think he makes a good case in favor of enshrinement. He compared/contrasted Murtaugh's record with managers who are in.
So, if Murtaugh's not deserving, the natural questions could be- are there some who should be taken out, and whom? No one wants to make that decision.
I can only write for myself. Even as a kid I thought that his times away from the club worked against how I thought of his record. Now that I'm older, I wonder of those breaks could have made it harder for a manager to stop and restart? I don't know that answer. But, taken as a whole- if we're able to do that- his record's impressive.
One world championship that most neutral people would say was very improbable. The second was less so, but still, we were not favored, given the opposing SP.
As for the NLCS that we lost, we lost then against teams like the Big Red Machine. They're called that because the Reds WERE Big and a Machine; one of the best rosters of all time. We were good. They were that much better. Beating a roster like the 1960 Yankees PLUS the Reds- That's a guy who's not going to immortality. That's a guy going to sainthood.
I can't disagree with how good those foes were. It's just to me, a HOF would have found a way to win one of those Reds series, and certainly, at least ONE game in 6 tries. The Pirates weren't a rinky dink outfit either. Remember, even Doc Ellis thought the Pirates were intimidated by the Reds, hence the game he set out to bean every single one of them in the lineup, in an attempt to put a spark under his team. Murtaugh certainly belongs in the Hall of Very good. I'd take out Leo Durocher, Bobby Cox, Whitey Herzog, and put them alongside Murtaugh. If they're in, he should be in. But without looking at the guys from antiquity, either Earl Weaver should be removed, or Murtaugh in, going with your thoughts.
Good manager but there are other good managers who haven't made it as well. Did have a HOF exchange with Roy Face. Danny told his pitchers that he didn't want them to have sex the day before they were to pitch. Elroy said "hey skip, you use me almost every day, what the hell are you trying to do to me"?
I know that in 1960 (don't know about other years) Murtaugh told his players they could no longer take their wives on road trips. The official explanation was that wives liked their husbands to take them sightseeing in the day prior to night games, which could tire the players. Sure.
Danny Murtaugh- HOFer?
"I'd take out Leo Durocher, Bobby Cox, Whitey Herzog, and put them alongside Murtaugh. If they're in, he should be in. But without looking at the guys from antiquity, either Earl Weaver should be removed, or Murtaugh in"
From a purely personal standpoint, I would always like to see significant Pirates enshrined in the Hall.
Players like Oliver, Hebner, Parker, and Sanguillen were personal favorites, but, with the possible exception of Parker, via one of the Veterans Groups, it likely won't happen.
Managers, however, stack up differently than players when it comes to the Hall.
What makes a manager a HOF'er? - Is it longevity?, Games Won?, Winning Pct?, or Post-season success?
If it is post season success, then you have to boot Weaver, Durocher, Lasorda, and Cox out in comparison to Murtaugh.
Winning percentage? - Kick out Stengel, Torre, Herzog, LaRussa, and Durocher there too.
Games won is tied to longevity of course, and there, Murtaugh doesn't compare.
World Series titles doesn't necessarily define a great manager, so I would agree with those that believe Murtaugh deserves enshrinement.
Think about this - Bruce Bochy will be enshrined when it his turn. I do not think anyone doubts Bochy's candidacy, but he posted a losing record for his career as a manager. Longevity, Championships, and his relationship to the players and media will carry the vote for him.
From a purely personal standpoint, I would always like to see significant Pirates enshrined in the Hall.
Players like Oliver, Hebner, Parker, and Sanguillen were personal favorites, but, with the possible exception of Parker, via one of the Veterans Groups, it likely won't happen.
Managers, however, stack up differently than players when it comes to the Hall.
What makes a manager a HOF'er? - Is it longevity?, Games Won?, Winning Pct?, or Post-season success?
If it is post season success, then you have to boot Weaver, Durocher, Lasorda, and Cox out in comparison to Murtaugh.
Winning percentage? - Kick out Stengel, Torre, Herzog, LaRussa, and Durocher there too.
Games won is tied to longevity of course, and there, Murtaugh doesn't compare.
World Series titles doesn't necessarily define a great manager, so I would agree with those that believe Murtaugh deserves enshrinement.
Think about this - Bruce Bochy will be enshrined when it his turn. I do not think anyone doubts Bochy's candidacy, but he posted a losing record for his career as a manager. Longevity, Championships, and his relationship to the players and media will carry the vote for him.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
Danny Murtaugh- HOFer?
597479686F7E69292A1B0 wrote: I talked with some fans of other teams about this a long time ago. Their thoughts were interesting regarding Murtaugh as a HOF manager.
1. Regardless that the Pirates won, it's almost as if 1960 isn't counted for any Pirate other than Mazeroski, who they feel made the HOF simply because of the HR. To this day, people can't believe the Yankees lost, their minds focused on the 3 blowout wins. In other words, Murtaugh was "lucky".
2. He was in and out as Pirates manager. There isn't that consistent, long term stretch to judge him on.
3. The Pirates were 1-9 in the NLCS in the 70, 74, and 75, and swept twice by their supposed "rival", the Cincinnati Reds and Sparky Anderson, and dominated by the Dodgers and Walter Alston 3-1. Those were a couple of contemporaries to which Murtaugh is measured. Alston, if you discount 1954 because he wouldn't exactly be a contemporary, had 3 pennants and 3 WS wins. Anderson had 2 WS wins, same as Murtaugh, but his were back to back, and they also appeared in 2 other WS. Three of those four appearances were at the expense of the Pirates, two of them the previously mentioned sweeps with Danny at the helm.
No, he's not a HOF manager. A Pirates HOF member sure, not MLB.
Surge, after reading Steigerwald's opinion, I think he makes a good case in favor of enshrinement. He compared/contrasted Murtaugh's record with managers who are in.
So, if Murtaugh's not deserving, the natural questions could be- are there some who should be taken out, and whom? No one wants to make that decision.
I can only write for myself. Even as a kid I thought that his times away from the club worked against how I thought of his record. Now that I'm older, I wonder of those breaks could have made it harder for a manager to stop and restart? I don't know that answer. But, taken as a whole- if we're able to do that- his record's impressive.
One world championship that most neutral people would say was very improbable. The second was less so, but still, we were not favored, given the opposing SP.
As for the NLCS that we lost, we lost then against teams like the Big Red Machine. They're called that because the Reds WERE Big and a Machine; one of the best rosters of all time. We were good. They were that much better. Beating a roster like the 1960 Yankees PLUS the Reds- That's a guy who's not going to immortality. That's a guy going to sainthood.
I can't disagree with how good those foes were. It's just to me, a HOF would have found a way to win one of those Reds series, and certainly, at least ONE game in 6 tries. The Pirates weren't a rinky dink outfit either. Remember, even Doc Ellis thought the Pirates were intimidated by the Reds, hence the game he set out to bean every single one of them in the lineup, in an attempt to put a spark under his team. Murtaugh certainly belongs in the Hall of Very good. I'd take out Leo Durocher, Bobby Cox, Whitey Herzog, and put them alongside Murtaugh. If they're in, he should be in. But without looking at the guys from antiquity, either Earl Weaver should be removed, or Murtaugh in, going with your thoughts.
Good manager but there are other good managers who haven't made it as well. Did have a HOF exchange with Roy Face. Danny told his pitchers that he didn't want them to have sex the day before they were to pitch. Elroy said "hey skip, you use me almost every day, what the hell are you trying to do to me"?
I know that in 1960 (don't know about other years) Murtaugh told his players they could no longer take their wives on road trips. The official explanation was that wives liked their husbands to take them sightseeing in the day prior to night games, which could tire the players. Sure.
Fast forward to 2020. Players STILL need to leave the other half at home- unless they're willing to pay the freight, so to speak.
BOB's BOB, and he watches those things. Her's not paying for those kinds of (ahem) perks.
1. Regardless that the Pirates won, it's almost as if 1960 isn't counted for any Pirate other than Mazeroski, who they feel made the HOF simply because of the HR. To this day, people can't believe the Yankees lost, their minds focused on the 3 blowout wins. In other words, Murtaugh was "lucky".
2. He was in and out as Pirates manager. There isn't that consistent, long term stretch to judge him on.
3. The Pirates were 1-9 in the NLCS in the 70, 74, and 75, and swept twice by their supposed "rival", the Cincinnati Reds and Sparky Anderson, and dominated by the Dodgers and Walter Alston 3-1. Those were a couple of contemporaries to which Murtaugh is measured. Alston, if you discount 1954 because he wouldn't exactly be a contemporary, had 3 pennants and 3 WS wins. Anderson had 2 WS wins, same as Murtaugh, but his were back to back, and they also appeared in 2 other WS. Three of those four appearances were at the expense of the Pirates, two of them the previously mentioned sweeps with Danny at the helm.
No, he's not a HOF manager. A Pirates HOF member sure, not MLB.
Surge, after reading Steigerwald's opinion, I think he makes a good case in favor of enshrinement. He compared/contrasted Murtaugh's record with managers who are in.
So, if Murtaugh's not deserving, the natural questions could be- are there some who should be taken out, and whom? No one wants to make that decision.
I can only write for myself. Even as a kid I thought that his times away from the club worked against how I thought of his record. Now that I'm older, I wonder of those breaks could have made it harder for a manager to stop and restart? I don't know that answer. But, taken as a whole- if we're able to do that- his record's impressive.
One world championship that most neutral people would say was very improbable. The second was less so, but still, we were not favored, given the opposing SP.
As for the NLCS that we lost, we lost then against teams like the Big Red Machine. They're called that because the Reds WERE Big and a Machine; one of the best rosters of all time. We were good. They were that much better. Beating a roster like the 1960 Yankees PLUS the Reds- That's a guy who's not going to immortality. That's a guy going to sainthood.
I can't disagree with how good those foes were. It's just to me, a HOF would have found a way to win one of those Reds series, and certainly, at least ONE game in 6 tries. The Pirates weren't a rinky dink outfit either. Remember, even Doc Ellis thought the Pirates were intimidated by the Reds, hence the game he set out to bean every single one of them in the lineup, in an attempt to put a spark under his team. Murtaugh certainly belongs in the Hall of Very good. I'd take out Leo Durocher, Bobby Cox, Whitey Herzog, and put them alongside Murtaugh. If they're in, he should be in. But without looking at the guys from antiquity, either Earl Weaver should be removed, or Murtaugh in, going with your thoughts.
Good manager but there are other good managers who haven't made it as well. Did have a HOF exchange with Roy Face. Danny told his pitchers that he didn't want them to have sex the day before they were to pitch. Elroy said "hey skip, you use me almost every day, what the hell are you trying to do to me"?
I know that in 1960 (don't know about other years) Murtaugh told his players they could no longer take their wives on road trips. The official explanation was that wives liked their husbands to take them sightseeing in the day prior to night games, which could tire the players. Sure.
Fast forward to 2020. Players STILL need to leave the other half at home- unless they're willing to pay the freight, so to speak.
BOB's BOB, and he watches those things. Her's not paying for those kinds of (ahem) perks.
-
WildwoodDave
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:19 am
Danny Murtaugh- HOFer?
0A272A3B3C2D3A7A79480 wrote: I talked with some fans of other teams about this a long time ago. Their thoughts were interesting regarding Murtaugh as a HOF manager.
1. Regardless that the Pirates won, it's almost as if 1960 isn't counted for any Pirate other than Mazeroski, who they feel made the HOF simply because of the HR. To this day, people can't believe the Yankees lost, their minds focused on the 3 blowout wins. In other words, Murtaugh was "lucky".
2. He was in and out as Pirates manager. There isn't that consistent, long term stretch to judge him on.
3. The Pirates were 1-9 in the NLCS in the 70, 74, and 75, and swept twice by their supposed "rival", the Cincinnati Reds and Sparky Anderson, and dominated by the Dodgers and Walter Alston 3-1. Those were a couple of contemporaries to which Murtaugh is measured. Alston, if you discount 1954 because he wouldn't exactly be a contemporary, had 3 pennants and 3 WS wins. Anderson had 2 WS wins, same as Murtaugh, but his were back to back, and they also appeared in 2 other WS. Three of those four appearances were at the expense of the Pirates, two of them the previously mentioned sweeps with Danny at the helm.
No, he's not a HOF manager. A Pirates HOF member sure, not MLB.
Surge, after reading Steigerwald's opinion, I think he makes a good case in favor of enshrinement. He compared/contrasted Murtaugh's record with managers who are in.
So, if Murtaugh's not deserving, the natural questions could be- are there some who should be taken out, and whom? No one wants to make that decision.
I can only write for myself. Even as a kid I thought that his times away from the club worked against how I thought of his record. Now that I'm older, I wonder of those breaks could have made it harder for a manager to stop and restart? I don't know that answer. But, taken as a whole- if we're able to do that- his record's impressive.
One world championship that most neutral people would say was very improbable. The second was less so, but still, we were not favored, given the opposing SP.
As for the NLCS that we lost, we lost then against teams like the Big Red Machine. They're called that because the Reds WERE Big and a Machine; one of the best rosters of all time. We were good. They were that much better. Beating a roster like the 1960 Yankees PLUS the Reds- That's a guy who's not going to immortality. That's a guy going to sainthood.
I can't disagree with how good those foes were. It's just to me, a HOF would have found a way to win one of those Reds series, and certainly, at least ONE game in 6 tries. The Pirates weren't a rinky dink outfit either. Remember, even Doc Ellis thought the Pirates were intimidated by the Reds, hence the game he set out to bean every single one of them in the lineup, in an attempt to put a spark under his team. Murtaugh certainly belongs in the Hall of Very good. I'd take out Leo Durocher, Bobby Cox, Whitey Herzog, and put them alongside Murtaugh. If they're in, he should be in. But without looking at the guys from antiquity, either Earl Weaver should be removed, or Murtaugh in, going with your thoughts.
Good manager but there are other good managers who haven't made it as well. Did have a HOF exchange with Roy Face. Danny told his pitchers that he didn't want them to have sex the day before they were to pitch. Elroy said "hey skip, you use me almost every day, what the hell are you trying to do to me"?
I know that in 1960 (don't know about other years) Murtaugh told his players they could no longer take their wives on road trips. The official explanation was that wives liked their husbands to take them sightseeing in the day prior to night games, which could tire the players. Sure.
This is the 21st Century. Danny's not wanting wives on road trips was the 20th Century. I have been told that today's players would rather their wives stay home- for obvious reasons which we won't get inte
1. Regardless that the Pirates won, it's almost as if 1960 isn't counted for any Pirate other than Mazeroski, who they feel made the HOF simply because of the HR. To this day, people can't believe the Yankees lost, their minds focused on the 3 blowout wins. In other words, Murtaugh was "lucky".
2. He was in and out as Pirates manager. There isn't that consistent, long term stretch to judge him on.
3. The Pirates were 1-9 in the NLCS in the 70, 74, and 75, and swept twice by their supposed "rival", the Cincinnati Reds and Sparky Anderson, and dominated by the Dodgers and Walter Alston 3-1. Those were a couple of contemporaries to which Murtaugh is measured. Alston, if you discount 1954 because he wouldn't exactly be a contemporary, had 3 pennants and 3 WS wins. Anderson had 2 WS wins, same as Murtaugh, but his were back to back, and they also appeared in 2 other WS. Three of those four appearances were at the expense of the Pirates, two of them the previously mentioned sweeps with Danny at the helm.
No, he's not a HOF manager. A Pirates HOF member sure, not MLB.
Surge, after reading Steigerwald's opinion, I think he makes a good case in favor of enshrinement. He compared/contrasted Murtaugh's record with managers who are in.
So, if Murtaugh's not deserving, the natural questions could be- are there some who should be taken out, and whom? No one wants to make that decision.
I can only write for myself. Even as a kid I thought that his times away from the club worked against how I thought of his record. Now that I'm older, I wonder of those breaks could have made it harder for a manager to stop and restart? I don't know that answer. But, taken as a whole- if we're able to do that- his record's impressive.
One world championship that most neutral people would say was very improbable. The second was less so, but still, we were not favored, given the opposing SP.
As for the NLCS that we lost, we lost then against teams like the Big Red Machine. They're called that because the Reds WERE Big and a Machine; one of the best rosters of all time. We were good. They were that much better. Beating a roster like the 1960 Yankees PLUS the Reds- That's a guy who's not going to immortality. That's a guy going to sainthood.
I can't disagree with how good those foes were. It's just to me, a HOF would have found a way to win one of those Reds series, and certainly, at least ONE game in 6 tries. The Pirates weren't a rinky dink outfit either. Remember, even Doc Ellis thought the Pirates were intimidated by the Reds, hence the game he set out to bean every single one of them in the lineup, in an attempt to put a spark under his team. Murtaugh certainly belongs in the Hall of Very good. I'd take out Leo Durocher, Bobby Cox, Whitey Herzog, and put them alongside Murtaugh. If they're in, he should be in. But without looking at the guys from antiquity, either Earl Weaver should be removed, or Murtaugh in, going with your thoughts.
Good manager but there are other good managers who haven't made it as well. Did have a HOF exchange with Roy Face. Danny told his pitchers that he didn't want them to have sex the day before they were to pitch. Elroy said "hey skip, you use me almost every day, what the hell are you trying to do to me"?
I know that in 1960 (don't know about other years) Murtaugh told his players they could no longer take their wives on road trips. The official explanation was that wives liked their husbands to take them sightseeing in the day prior to night games, which could tire the players. Sure.
This is the 21st Century. Danny's not wanting wives on road trips was the 20th Century. I have been told that today's players would rather their wives stay home- for obvious reasons which we won't get inte
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
Danny Murtaugh- HOFer?
21st century coaching.
You're the guy who was asking a bunch of HS kids why they were teleGRAPHing plays.
They've never even heard of FAX machines, FCOL.))
You're the guy who was asking a bunch of HS kids why they were teleGRAPHing plays.
They've never even heard of FAX machines, FCOL.
))-
DemDog
Danny Murtaugh- HOFer?
7D485F5F546D5F5F54535F3A0 wrote: 21st century coaching.
You're the guy who was asking a bunch of HS kids why they were teleGRAPHing plays.
They've never even heard of FAX machines, FCOL.))
FAX machines? Huh, I remember when I got my first photocopy machine in the early 70's. It cost a fortune and it used thermal paper that came in big rolls. When you made that copy you just tore it off the roll like you would a sheet of toilet paper!
You're the guy who was asking a bunch of HS kids why they were teleGRAPHing plays.
They've never even heard of FAX machines, FCOL.
))FAX machines? Huh, I remember when I got my first photocopy machine in the early 70's. It cost a fortune and it used thermal paper that came in big rolls. When you made that copy you just tore it off the roll like you would a sheet of toilet paper!