May You Live In Interesting Times...aka Managing the Mets

By David Rubin

I heard the title of this post in a Chinese Restaurant that I used to frequent quite often when I lived in New York, long before they ever used it on tv's "The Sopranos," and it's NOT a positive saying, but is intended as a curse (it's origins have long been in dispute, but it's rumored to come from a Chinese proverb amounting to “May you live in an interesting age”). Well, for Met fans, it seems these past 24 years have been one "curse" after another, coming close to success on numerous occasions, only to be left outside, staring in the window at another team's "feast."

Quantity Vs. Quality

I was particularly reminded of this "curse" this weekend, when speculation ran rampant among the teams faithful over who would be named the 20th manager of the New York Mets. Now lest anyone become obsessed over this number, and become another Walter Sparrow (the part Jim Carrey played in "The Number 23"), what this really amounts to is 20 managers over 48 years of existence, or one new manager every 2.4 seasons. Compare that to the Houston Astros (nee Colt 45's), who came into being the same year (1962)- the Astros have had 18 managers, or one every 2.66 seasons- not so different. Compare that to the Angels, who have been in existence one year longer then both the Mets and Astros, who have run 24 men out with line-up cards since 1961, or a new manager every 2.04 seasons- and that's WITH Mike Scioscia at the helm for 10 of those seasons!! From a purely mathematical standpoint, the AMOUNT of managers at the helm of Los Mets hasn't been terribly unusual.

Quality, well that's a whole different animal. We can quantify quality in a number of way, including won-loss record and/or pre/post Met success. If we focus simply on Won-Loss, the following are the Mets "successful" managers:

Gil Hodges: 339-309, 1 World Series Victory
Davey Johnson: 595-417, 1 World Series Victory
Bud Harrelson: 145-129
Bobby Valentine: 536-467, 1 World Series Loss
Willie Randolph: 302-253

By all accounts, no Met fan would rate either Buddy or Willie's tenures as "successful" ones, although under Willie's watch, the Mets did become more relevant, particularly in 2006 when they almost reached the World Series. Gil, Davey & Bobby V represent, to Mets' fans, all that has ever been "right" with the team- and yet, they account for only 16 of the Mets' 48 years, or one-third of their existence.

The Mets have had a total of 23 seasons above .500, and of those teams, 15 featured either Gil, Davey or Bobby V at the helm. Therefore, bringing back Bobby V would have meant, to the younger portion of the team's fan-base, a return to the only real "glory days" they've known. Reaching back to the past isn't always the right thing to do, especially with a team trying to find their identity yet again. In Wally Backman, many fans sought a link to the '86 team, which represented the longest period of "prosperity" (6 years of above .500 baseball) in the teams' existence. Again, understandable, and at least in the form of Backman, the team would still have been moving forward, while simultaneously drawing from the most prosperous time they've ever had. You could say this would have been the "best of both worlds" for fans...

Gil Hodges, prior to his successful 3 year run with the Mets (cut short by his tragic heart attack at the young age of 48), ran the Washington Senators. He inherited one of the worst teams in baseball, and slowly but surely began to turn them around. After the '67 season, Gil was traded to the Mets for pitcher Bill Denehy, which seemed to be going from the "frying pan to the fryer." Gil benefited from great young pitching and timely acquisitions, leading the team to what remains as the greatest "Cinderella story" in baseball, the 1969 World Championship. With only 9 seasons under his belt, it's hard for baseball historians to truly gauge how successful Hodges was as a manager, but if you were to ask the players on that '69 team, from (then) youngsters like Tom Seaver or Nolan Ryan, to more "established" players like Donn Clendenon or Ed Charles, they'd unanimously tell you of their love for the old Brooklyn first baseman, almost to a man.

Bobby Valentine also managed only 2 teams in the major leagues, in addition to spending a number of years managing in Japan. Ironically, the two organizations that Valentine managed for are the same two that Hodges did- the Texas Rangers, who were originally the Washington Senators, and the Mets. Like Hodges, Valentine had mixed success with the Rangers, going 581-605 over 8 seasons; he brought the team to their 5th 2nd place finish in team history, and twice reached as high as third, but his successor (minus Toby Harrah's interim status), Kevin Kennedy, was the first manager to achieve first place status, only 2 seasons after Valentine was let go. So Valentine, like Hodges, had the lion's share of his success with the Mets, yet, unlike Hodges, never won the World Series, losing to the crosstown Yankees in 2000. However, it's amazing that Valentine even got the team that far, as they relied on a great, two-way infield and timely pitching, in spite of an outfield that featured the likes of Timo Perez, Benny Agbayani and Jay Payton, not exactly a "murderers' row." It's because of the failings of that 2000 team, and how far Valentine took them, that he's so revered in Met fandom, so again, in spite of his non-Met record, he's still looked at as a huge success as a manager.

In The Right Place, At The Right Time

The Mets have also had 4 managers who had, at best, a "mixed bag" of success with the team, but who saw considerable success elsewhere and who were looked upon, at one point or another, as being successful managers:

Casey Stengal: 175-404 (1st manager), 1149-696 w/ Yankees, 1905-1842 overall
Yogi Berra: 292-296, One World Series appearance, 484-444 lifetime, includes 2 seasons w/ Yankees
Joe Torre: 286-420, 1173-767 w/ Yankees, 2326-1997 overall
Dallas Green: 229-283, 454-478 overall, World Series win with Phillies, 1980

Wait- so Dallas Green actually did NOT have the great record that people thought he did- so does that mean he wasn't a great manager? Well, he did take the Phillies to victory for the first time in their history in the World Series in 1980, but it could be argued that he was the recepient of a stacked Phils' team, whom he inherited from Danny Ozark (who had them in 1st 3 of the previous 4 seasons). And he did rebuild the Cubs, although not as successfully as either he or the Cubs' faithful would have liked. Green spent the majority of his tenure since retiring in the front office, so realistically, he shouldn't be ranked overall as a "successful" manager, but someone who had one very successful year.

Now Yogi- well, icon-status aside, he really didn't get the chance he deserved during either of his 2 tenures with the Yankees, first being fired after a season (1964) in which he went 99-63, but lost in the World Series, then being fired again after going 87-75, (1984) finishing in 3rd, lasting only 16 games into the '85 season. Some have labeled Yogi as "lucky" following on the heals of Stengel's success with the Yanks and Hodges success with the Mets, but he did finish with above .500 records in 4 of his 6 full seasons, with 2 Pennants and 2 World Series appearances. However, due to the small "sample size" it's hard to argue that Yogi was either a good or bad manager, so that takes him out of the argument as well.

Casey Stengel was an unsuccessful 756-1146 without his Yankee years included, so it could be said, on one hand, that the success of the Yankee players (from the end of DiMaggio's career through the prime of Mantle's) is what truly drove Stengel's success during that stint.

Likewise, Joe Torre was 1153-1230 without his Yankee numbers included (or his "core 4" of Jeter-Rivera-Posada-Pettitte), making him yet another manager with a sub-.500 record. Both of these men benefited greatly from the make-up of their rosters, which, at the end of the day, is the TRUE DRIVING FORCE OF SUCCESS. In a nutshell: great players make great managers!

Finally, let's put all of this into context. The Mets managerial search, winnowed down to 4 candidates, featured 2 men who had no prior major league experience, Wally Backman and Chip Hale, and two who had mixed-results as a manager, Bob Melvin and Terry Collins. It was often cited that Alderson and company went with experience versus potential when they ultimately hired Collins. Proponents of both Hale and Backman can point to the fact that the likes of Lou Pinella, Tony LaRussa, Joe Girardi and Terry Francona, all looked upon as successful managers (and all of whom have won at least one World Series), all had little to no major or minor league managerial experience, and also little to no major league coaching experience as well. It certainly hasn't hurt their careers, and each had to start somewhere.

If prior experience at the position was the only criteria, the hire of either Melvin or Collins would have been more understandable, at least to fans and journalists alike. However, the one thing that Collins possessed that neither Backman, Hale or Melvin had, was familiarity. As someone who has had to hire literally dozens of managers, and thousands of team members, I can relate to hiring someone who is familiar, where there is the knowledge that said hire would be extremely appreciative for the hire and would do everything in his/her power not to embarrass the person who brought you into the organization. While we'd assume that both Hale and Backman would be equally grateful to receive their first opportunity to manage at the big league level, the comfort of knowing exactly what you are getting in Collins, especially for new VP Paul DePodesta, the right hand guy to GM Sandy Alderson, was simply too much to overlook. It's easier for me to have been able to gamble on potential, because I usually had the chance to oversee multiple managers at once, wherein I could take a gamble on one or two high-potential leaders since I had a talent pool of mostly solid, dependable people to surround them with. In the case of the Mets, Alderson and team could only hire ONE manager at the major league level, and so comfort level took precedence over potential, at least for the next 2 seasons.

In 2 years from now (the length of Collins new contract), we'll know if Collins ended up in line with Valentine and Hodges, succeeding at greater heights with the Mets then with prior organizations, or if he ends up as a mere "caretaker" along the lines of George Bamberger, who kept the seat warm (along with Frank Howard for a partial season) for one Davey Johnson. I'm betting Mets' fans are hoping that Collins equates to Bamberger, indeed, and Wally Backman becomes the "new" Davey Johnson in 2 years time.

As the Chinese proverb allegedly says, "may you live in interesting times"...indeed!!