What current manager, of one of the 30 MLB teams, was the best MLB player in his prime years?

Question

And, is there any correlation between being a good player and a good manager?

Answer 1

Mike Scioscia was a very solid but not unpectacular catcher. Pinella also was a Rookie of the year and while not an all time great was the kind of guy people called "a professional hitter". I just heard Don Mattingly say he learned how to hit really well from Pinella and that says a lot.

Buddy Bell, Bruce Bochy, Bud Black (the new killer Bs? lol) are all in that solid but not spectacular category.

Maybe Cecil Cooper was the best hitter among the current managers. Ozzie Guillen the one who manages the most like he played (with wreckless abandon).

But the current managers who were the best player IMO are both in NY. Willie Randolph. You could make a good case for Willie being in the Hall of Fame, based on comparison to the few second basemen who are in there. Joe Torre won an MVP award and was a very solid player, although not a Hall of Famer. I'd give the nod to Willie.

Usually, it isn't the greatest players who make great managers. Some say that's because players who make it easily don't know how to motivate less talented players to play well. Some say the guys who sit on the bench a lot learn a lot of things from the manager which you can't pick up being on the playing field.

Both of those things probably play a role but I think the more significant factor is that being a great player and being a great manager require different skill sets. The odds that one person has BOTH skill sets is exceedingly small.

Answer 2

Off the top of my head I'll say Torre and Socsia. I'll give the nod to Socsia because he doesn't have the payroll and talent level of the Yankees, yet he still has them in contention every year.
I don't think being a good player has anything to do with being a good manager. I would think even more, it would be opposite, except if you're a catcher. If you're a catcher, you're basically calling the whole game and can see where everyone is playing and you are more aware of the base runners and other certain situations. If you are a good player, you are out on the field everyday and paying attention to your position and your hitting etc. If you're not as good as a player, you're on the bench more observing the whole game and watching how everything is coming together. Thats why I think some of the best managers were some of the lesser known players. Obviously there are many exceptions to this.

Answer 3

Ozzie Guillen? He was a terrible hitter, 30% below league average in OPS+, never led the league in any major offensive category, seldom was even top ten in anything but triples, and he got thrown out stealing far too often. He won one Gold Glove.

Randolph was a little better than league average hitter and fielder.

Torre has been judged as the best catcher not to be in the Hall by Baseball Prospectus--his adjusted OPS+ is 120. He also won a Gold Glove (maybe a mistake), an MVP, and was rightfully selected several times to the All-Star Game.

However, most of baseball's best managers were bad players. John McGraw is the only one I can think of who could be a Hall of Famer as both a player and a manager.

Answer 4

There doesn't seem to be much correlation between playing ability and managerial ability. In fact, most of the current MLB managers were only marginal players.

The best of the lot was probably Joe Torre (18 seasons, 2342 hits, .297 average), though Willie Randolph (18 seasons, 2200 hits, .276) and Lou Piniella (1705 hits, .291 average) were also excellent players.

Answer 5

Of the current Crop of Managers I would have to say Ozzie Guillen...many will say "Why Ozzie", it has nothing to do with his offnesive production which was horrible (he played in a time when SS were not supposed to put up huge numbers). While he was a player he was the glue to the franchise, not a great team most years that he played but he kept them competitive as the leader of the team, he was also an outstanding defensive SS. He played all out all the time with a tenacity that is only rivaled with the way he manages now, balls to the with reckless abandon.

Torre was a above average player, so were many others that are managing but typically your best managers were not "Star" players, the Manager has to relate to everyone on the team, a so-so player can relate to the guy that is playing above his talent and can draw more out of it, too many time star players can not relate to someone who is not great like they were. Everyone say Ted WIlliams is a prime example but I would give you others...Mike Schmidt has been a spring training instructor for the Phillies but is only allowed to deal with high talent players, when he has worked with mid level talent it has gotten ugly, he does not have patience for someone less talented than he was. Prime example of great Managers that were so-so players...Lasorda, Herzog, Cox, Girardi (called a good game but not going to the HOF).

Answer 6

Probably Joe Torre. Hard to argue with an MVP Award (1971 NL).

After Joe:
Cecil Cooper
Mike Hargrove
Lou Piniella
Willie Randolph
Ozzie Guillen

Answer 7

You dont have to be a good player to be a good manager....you have great managers who never played...one has nothing to do with the other.....what makes a great manager is knowing your players or afraid to make tough calls when needed...dont be afraid to make tough decisions for fear of being criticized later...

Answer 8

Joe Torre

Answer 9

I would go with Joe Torree. He was an outstanding hitter and had some power. He also had a long productive career.
Mike Scoscia was an adequate catcher.

Answer 10

here are the suspects:

Guillen
Leyland
Pinnela
Cooper
Bell
Scioscia
Randolf
Francona
Torre

Torre had the best carrer in the majors while playing.

I dont think being a good player matters when finding a manager.