Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

I just got done reading a book called "The Man in the Dugout" by Leonard Koppett. It was basically bios of the 19 managers in MLB history that Koppett deems "genius" or "influencing the game". The book is very well-written, and Koppett uses a lot of subjectivity when describing how a manager was a 'genius' or how he influenced the game. The book was published in the late-90s, FWIW. One thing that stood out to me was how so many of the geniuses never really won consistently. The section on Gene Mauch was fascinating on two fronts...one, he managed/overmanaged basically the opposite way of what sabermetrics now tells us...bunting, hit-and-run, frequent lineup changes, etc. Second, he managed for 26 years and lost more than 100 games than he won (1902-2307, .483). So where is the 'genius' to be found? I find it incredible that a guy can continue to be employed for 26 years despite being consistently mediocre at best, somehow be referred to as a 'genius', and then, RETROSPECTIVELY, have an author like Koppett continue the idea that Mauch was indeed a genius. Other managers mentioned in the book were similarly mediocre (Roger Craig, Chuck Tanner, Bucky Harris).

Looking at all-time MLB managers, Connie Mack has the most wins with a .486 percentage, but he couldn't fire himself I guess. Bruce Bochy is the present-day equivalent of Gene Mauch (genius, 26 years, .498 win%). Could an NFL coach last 26 years with a below .500 record? Could he last 13 years? It's interesting that baseball managing has always dealt with nebulous ideas that aren't ever connected to actually winning a game. I can only think of one NFL coach who lasted a long time without accomplishing much...22 years, 6 winning seasons, but no 'genius' reputation at least (he did have a rep for dirty play).

Bryan wrote: Gene Mauch

Id wonder what his W-L would be without the expansion Expos. Their talent level was awful at first.
And when guys like Gary Carter and Raines and Cromarte and Valentine and Dawson were making the majors
he was gone a year or so before...

I do know he won with Angels when they were loaded but didn't get the ring.

As far as Philly I don't know enough about them to know if he underachieved or not. I only know Dick
Allen and Jim Bunning.

And I'd agree on Fisher - middle-of-the-pack lifetime with just a handful of good years

JohnTurney wrote:Id wonder what [Gene Mauch's} W-L would be without the expansion Expos. Their talent level was awful at first.
And when guys like Gary Carter and Raines and Cromarte and Valentine and Dawson were making the majors
he was gone a year or so before...

I do know he won with Angels when they were loaded but didn't get the ring.

The Angeles of that era weren't exactly loaded, except when Mauch was managing them.

In 1982, Mauch managing, they won 93 games, won their division, but lost the league championship series in five games, which was the maximum then.

Mauch left after that, and in 1983 they went 70-92. A year later they improved a bit, but only to 81-81.

He returned in 1985, and what had been an old team in 1982 had gotten really old by then. But they won 90 games and finished one game out of first. Then in 1986 then won 92 games, won the division, but lost the league championship series in seven games.

This is similar to what happened with the Vikings when Bud Grant quit, then returned after a year of Les Steckel. And Grant never won the big one either -- at least not in this country. But that doesn't mean he wasn't a damn good coach.

Bob Gill wrote:.
The Angeles of that era weren't exactly loaded, except when Mauch was managing them.

That is my memory, too. In the 1980s they signed a lot of big-time free agents
and it didn't get them over the hump.

Could an NFL coach last 26 years with a below .500 record? Could he last 13 years?

I think the closest we can come with NFL head coaches is Jeff Fisher. Not terrible enough to get fired but his teams were usually mediocre to below average with a few 13-3 seasons sprinkled in here and there to give people hope.

Bob Gill wrote:

JohnTurney wrote:Id wonder what [Gene Mauch's} W-L would be without the expansion Expos. Their talent level was awful at first.
And when guys like Gary Carter and Raines and Cromarte and Valentine and Dawson were making the majors
he was gone a year or so before...

I do know he won with Angels when they were loaded but didn't get the ring.

The Angeles of that era weren't exactly loaded, except when Mauch was managing them.

In 1982, Mauch managing, they won 93 games, won their division, but lost the league championship series in five games, which was the maximum then.

Mauch left after that, and in 1983 they went 70-92. A year later they improved a bit, but only to 81-81.

He returned in 1985, and what had been an old team in 1982 had gotten really old by then. But they won 90 games and finished one game out of first. Then in 1986 then won 92 games, won the division, but lost the league championship series in seven games.

This is similar to what happened with the Vikings when Bud Grant quit, then returned after a year of Les Steckel. And Grant never won the big one either -- at least not in this country. But that doesn't mean he wasn't a damn good coach.

Grant was a good coach, worthy of the HOF. But he was horrible in the Super Bowl. Maybe you lose all four, but I just didn't like his vanilla, "scared" approach. He was too even keel and just didn't know how to adjust to the stage.

Gene Mauch blew it a couple of times. In 1964 with the Phillies he was starting his top starting pitchers with two days rest and they didn't perform well. This is with a lead. That was a bad move, you never go to that strategy until you have to.

Then with the Angels in 1982 he did the same thing. Had a 2-1 lead. His fourth starter, Ken Forsch, was basically just as good as his game 1 starter, Tommy John. But Mauch again moved John up to pitch on 3 days rest. John got shelled. Then pitched Bruce Kison in game 5 on three days rest as well. Kison pitched okay but only made 5 innings because he got a blister. Now he still could have used Forsch in the bullpen, Forsch had years of experience as a reliever as well. He goes with one of his guys, Luis Sanchez, that's okay but he's got four innings to cover now. Sanchez loads the bases in the seventh, Angels have a one run lead. Left Cecil Cooper at the plate. Mauch has Andy Hassler in the bullpen who did great against Cooper. Mauch sticks with Sanchez who gives up a two run single to Cooper that decides the game. Then he brings in Hassler. Forsch never pitched. Dumb at the worst possible time.

Jay Z wrote:Gene Mauch blew it a couple of times. In 1964 with the Phillies he was starting his top starting pitchers with two days rest and they didn't perform well. This is with a lead. That was a bad move, you never go to that strategy until you have to.

Then with the Angels in 1982 he did the same thing. Had a 2-1 lead. His fourth starter, Ken Forsch, was basically just as good as his game 1 starter, Tommy John. But Mauch again moved John up to pitch on 3 days rest. John got shelled. Then pitched Bruce Kison in game 5 on three days rest as well. Kison pitched okay but only made 5 innings because he got a blister. Now he still could have used Forsch in the bullpen, Forsch had years of experience as a reliever as well. He goes with one of his guys, Luis Sanchez, that's okay but he's got four innings to cover now. Sanchez loads the bases in the seventh, Angels have a one run lead. Left Cecil Cooper at the plate. Mauch has Andy Hassler in the bullpen who did great against Cooper. Mauch sticks with Sanchez who gives up a two run single to Cooper that decides the game. Then he brings in Hassler. Forsch never pitched. Dumb at the worst possible time.

Reminds me of the 2016 World Series, when "genius" Terry Francona had a 3-2 series lead and decided to pitch his starters on short rest for games 6 and 7. Basically handed the series to the Cubs, although fellow "genius" Joe Maddon tried to give it back in Game 7 by pulling his starter after 63 pitches. I thought both managers should have been fired after that World Series...I couldn't believe how little criticism both Francona and Maddon received from the media for the lunacy they perpetrated throughout that series.

Gene Mauch also blew the 1986 ALCS. Up 3-1 with one out remaining in Game 5...Mike Witt looking to get out #27 and go to the World Series...but wait! Here comes Gene Mauch, inserting himself into the activities. To the amazement of all, Mauch decides now is the time to remove Witt from the game. To the further amazement of all, Mauch doesn't bring in his closer Donnie Moore, but instead brings in Gary Lucas. HUH? Lucas immediately hits the batter with his first pitch, and the rest is history.

Haha ... you are right Bryan but I still like Francona and Maddon.

Jay Z wrote: Grant was a good coach, worthy of the HOF. But he was horrible in the Super Bowl. Maybe you lose all four, but I just didn't like his vanilla, "scared" approach. He was too even keel and just didn't know how to adjust to the stage.

In three of those Tarkenton veered from the game plan. Have had more than one player tell me that, including Grant. What I didn't ask (would have been kind of ruse) was why he didn't make Tarkenton follow what they did.

Tarkenton called the plays, Grant and Jerry Burns didn't and Tarkenton would run stuff that was deemed to not be good against teams...It's really kind of odd.
So, yeah, if that happened that is being "horrible in the Super Bowl." If there was a problem, you think he'd have fixed it.

Bruce Bochy won three championships with the Giants and now he’s winning with the perennially underachieving Rangers. I would say he’s a cut above Gene Mauch, regardless of the similarity of their regular season records.

I see a similarity between John Madden and Bobby Cox. They were big regular season winners year after year but only managed to win one championship each.

The randomness of baseball is why the increase in playoff teams makes the postseason a complete crapshoot.