Molitor and History

Conventional wisdom tells us that great players make lousy managers while average players make fantastic managers. The reason: The game came easily to those gifted enough to play it well. Average players had to KNOW the game inside and out to make it themselves or to have even a remote chance of success. They are the ones who knew what NEEDED to happen to change ball clubs around.

In the case of the Twins, we've had two average players in charge for more than 25 years. Tom Kelly and Ron Gardenhire had some very good years. but eventually ALL managers fail, that's why you need new ones.

So what about Paul Molitor? As far as I can tell, in the history of baseball, there have only been TWO other managers who became managers AFTER they were elected to the Hall of fame. Ted Williams was simply awful as a manager for the Washington Senators. The other, Ryne Sandberg, is currently having a terrible time of it in Phildelphia with his year-and-a-half with the Phillies.

There have been some great managers who were good players, though. Lou Pinella and Joe Torre come to mind, but they were GOOD players, not great.  Don Baylor is another recent example of a good player becoming a manager, yet in  9 years of managing he still is below a .500 winning percentage.

In the early days of baseball, great players were often made into player/managers so that the owners could pay them more money, so it's hard to separate their wins as managers versus their great play on the field contributing to the wins.

For the most part conventional wisdom appears to be right. Paul Molitor may break the mold and become great as a manager as well.

Something tells me his starting rotation will have a lot to with his success, though.

If the Twins had THAT the last five years, Gardy would still be managing.