The Sporting News has an interesting look at the MLB managers, by their playing careers. Safe to say that Paul Molitor ranks pretty well on this list. 

 

Also fair to say that there is a pretty quick dropoff, especially after #5. 

 

What do you think? Is there any correlation between a manager's career as a player and his ability as a manager?

Skill as a player does not always translate to a skill as an organizer, teacher  and leader. It also doesn't mean you understand the nuances of the game.

I think Joe Posnanski had a piece on this a few years ago when Frank Robinson retired (he'd be #1 on any list).  Generally, for a long time, ex-great players as managers were pretty common and some were great (Cap Anson, Tris Speaker). But after Ted Williams failed as manager this theory that 'great players' couldn't relate and therefore teach became ingrained into the game.  

 

This article is from a few years ago but states that "It does appear that great players who became managers skewed mightily toward the early parts of baseball. In fact, 46 of the 56 players with at least 50 WAR who became managers began their careers before 1940. Not surprisingly, as these were some of the best players of their time, a large portion also served as player-managers."

 

I think the "can't relate" theory is overstated.  I wasn't a huge fan of Molitor's but I have to admit he did a nice job his first year.  The players responded well to him and he did things differently.  My guess is that a high baseball IQ would be helpful for a manager.

But after Ted Williams failed as manager this theory that 'great players' couldn't relate and therefore teach became ingrained into the game. 

While his record declined after the first year, it's nevertheless true that by far the best record, indeed the only winning season, ever compiled by the "new" Washington Senators, in their short history before this sorry franchise moved to Texas, was compiled in 1969 under Teddy Ballgame, an improvement of an astounding 21 wins over his predecessor. "Failed" doesn't quite give fair credit or a balanced enough view.

Well, like the authors pointed out:  most had marginal careers and an a few never made it out of the minors.  Translation:  those that had to scrap there way up the latter needed to learn more to get ahead.

Molitor is a rare exception.   I don't think any of this is new to anyone who follows baseball.

I'd also guess that back when the super-stars did turn into managers, most still needed an actual job after playing baseball, and if baseball was all that they knew, being a manager was likely more in their wheelhouse than say becoming a meteorologist.

 

The super-stars of recent vintage got paid well enough that a life-after-baseball job isn't likely a necessity. Which also points to the fact that any super-star player that did make a ton of money while playing but wants to continue in the profession, is probably mostly doing it for the love of the game, which obviously should be a pretty big requirement.

 

Of course they could be interested simply because they're bored I guess. I'd hope any functional GM could weed those guys out.

I'd also guess that back when the super-stars did turn into managers, most still needed an actual job after playing baseball, and if baseball was all that they knew, being a manager was likely more in their wheelhouse than say becoming a meteorologist.

You saying you wouldn't watch the news if Gardy was doing the weather? Because I know I would.

You saying you wouldn't watch the news if Gardy was doing the weather? Because I know I would.

"Hurricane ChiTown is really getting after it."

"Hurricane ChiTown is really getting after it."

Ummm ... what?