Looking Forward to 2011: New Triumvir Wanted?

Murray Chass, whom I think is pretty cool, a definite minority view in the Internet world I inhabit, is in fine form with a paean to Bobby Cox. But that got me thinking, the consensus view is that we've got three truly historic managers at work in the Major Leagues at the moment. In addition to Cox, one finds at St Louis the innovative Tony LaRussa, while the Dodgers can boast mild-mannered Joe Torre. If Cox retires, who inherits his place among the triumvirs?

No active managers come within five years' service of Cox' twenty-eight years. Mike Scioscia has the same .556 winning percentage as Cox, and a couple of names beat Tony LaRussa's .535 winning percentage. Lou Piniella has seven playoff appearances, to top the list of those not members of the triumvirate. LaRussa has got the fewest of the three, with thirteen of his seasons ending at some point in the postseason.

Here's a chart, showing all active managers with at least nine years of service and five postseason appearances, in each case roughly one-third of Bobby Cox' totals.

Manager       Years      Win Pct.     Postseasons
Lou Piniella    22         .521            7
Mike Scioscia   10         .556            6
Terry Francona  10         .525            5
Jim Leyland     18         .496            5

Outside of these four, Ron Gardenhire will make the list if he starts next season in a manager's job. Charlie Manuel, Dusty Baker, Cito Gaston, and Bruce Bochy all need to make the postseason as well as keeping a managing job through to next season. But, as with Leyland, the postseason section of the curricula vitarum of the last three will look a bit weak.

Lou Piniella will certainly lay claim to Cox' triumvir status if Cox retires after this season, but whether he'll hold it for long is an interesting discussion point. I don't think he has enough postseasons to make a solid claim, which makes the long-term bets one of Scioscia and Francona. Who do you think is the best claimant? Answers on a postcard, or in the comments box.

Roberto Alomar and the Hall of Fame

A Blue Jays' fan of my acquaintance is cutting up rough on Facebook about the failure of Alomar, just, to reach the 75 per cent threshold for election. He probably feels the same way as Ken Rosenthal. I can't agree, and reproduce on my blog my post at this Baseball Think Factory thread.

This article is a good piece of advocacy journalism, but in its substance is not really that different to the piñatas that regularly get posted here from Chass, Pearlman and whomever.

Rosenthal basically wants to strip people of their votes because they don't put in the work. He says:

I’m still trying to figure out why 143 voters failed to endorse Alomar

He then enunciates the following reasons:
1) The First-Ballot honour - he 'respects' the view that maybe Alomar isn't inner-circle.
2) The spitting incident - yes, people should move on, and they've got 14 more years to do so. Penance involves a penalty.
3) The cliff-diving once he joined the Mets.

Having then described three sound reasons for not voting for Alomar the first time round, Rosenthal appoints himself judge and jury to say

Put it all together, and it’s easy to understand why he might have lost small pockets of support. But 143 “no” votes? Sorry, that number is too high to make sense.

Is it? You don't have to be a New York sportswriter or fan to be annoyed about Alomar's time with the Mets, if you are really being objective about his claim to Fame. It's just as meaningful to anyone who is a real baseball fan.

If this article needs to be written next year, I'm more likely to think he's right, and we need a Pride's Purge of the BBWAA. But at the moment, this is an overreaction.