Here's how it goes. Each side makes their opening argument. One side goes first. Once the other side goes, the first side may post again and defend his argument. You can only go again once the opposing side gets to speak. You've got 48 hours.

 

ONLY the competitors of this specific debate, the judges and myself may post in this thread.

 

At the end the judges will privately vote on a winner.

 

This debate ends 8:00 PM Eastern on 11/4.

 

Topic - Better Manager. Jim Leyland or Jack McKeon?

 

Jim Leyland - Wild Card

 

Jack McKeon - Juanky

 

Either side may begin.

Let me start off by saying I am a fan of Jim Leyland. He was a man on a mission when he came here, he had been denied by the Braves so many times. He finally got all the weapons he needed when he put on the teal and black, and took it all the way. I am a fan of Jim.

 

But, I'm sorry Josh, there is no question here. Jim Leyland had a team that was destined for glory. Gary Sheffield, Kevin Brown, Al Leiter, all veterans that were here from before hand and were well established. Moises Alou, Alex Fernandez, and Bobby Bonilla were all guns brought into help seal the deal. Livan Hernandez, Edgar Renteria, and Craig Counsell, all rookies that had big impacts. That team did not require much attention, it could have won with many managers.

 

Jack McKeon inherited a team in disarray. The ace of the staff? Gone for the season. The second best pitcher? Elbow problems. The workhorse of the staff? Hurt himself bunting of all things. Michael Tejera and Tommy Phelps were making starts. Pudge was in a slump of a lifetime. One of the team's major sources of production was Alex fricking Gonzalez!

 

The team went from 10 games under .500 to slowly but surely climbing up the standings. It was just hero after hero after hero. On back to back nights, walk off homeruns were hit in extra innings to win games against the Dodgers. Who hit them? Ramon Castro and Mike Mordecai. That is bench work right there.

 

The main difference is, Jack worked with a young team. While Jim just had to get the guys motivated to play to the level they had already been playing at (and they clearly did not, not a single member of that team had a career year that year compared to their years past and their years since), Jack got his guys to take a look up to see their potential. We won't know for a few years whether or not some of the thigns we called "career years" this year really was the ceiling for these guys. But one thing is for sure, without Jack stepping in midseason to be the master fixer, we would be talking about who we could acquire to maybe make a push at .500 next season, instead of getting fitted for our 2003 World Series Champions rings.

I'd like to say the same toward McKeon, as you did Leyland. And speaking off the record, I believe Jack is, in fact, the better manager. But since I'm being forced against my will to argue otherwise, let me get down to the point.

 

Everyone, we need to keep in mind here, this is an arguement of who is the better manager (career), and not who had the better championship season.

 

Jim Leyland won two division titles in Pitssburgh. He won 92 games and won a World Series. That's a resume any manager would love to have, including Jack McKeon. Jack had his years, but only two times as a manager has he put together a standout season, and in only one of them has he made the post-season (2003, world series title).

 

Leyland may have had a bought team, but all it bought him was a bunch of superstars having mediocre years. Jeff Conine, Mr. Marlin, couldn't even hold down the starting job at 1B, for god sakes. Without Leyland, that team would have played itself into a hole.

 

The '97 Marlins didn't play themselves to the World Series, Jim managed that team to the Series. There's a difference.

 

Now I'm not taking away what Jack did, but he had it differently. Both teams had the talent to win the World Series, no question. But Jack had a team of players putting together career years (Juan Pierre, Mike Lowell, Derrek Lee, Luis Castillo, Alex Gonzalez, ect.). Jim had a bunch of players that hadn't reached or were past their prime, or just flat out played like crap (Jeff Conine, Gary Sheffield, ect.).

 

Jack McKeon took a team of talented young players having career years and went with it. Jim Leyland had a team of great mediocre players and made something out of it.

 

But ultimately, we are debating over who was the better manager, period. Not just for one season in which they both happened to win it all.

 

Jim Leyland was better than Jack McKeon, no question. His two division titles and World Series ring speak for themselves. Jack McKeon, who spent about 20 more years in major league baseball, has no division titles to his name, and only one post-season berth, which resulted in a championship.

 

What does that tell you? Jim Leyland was the more successful manager, and that's the bottom line.

Well, opposing counsel is admitting McKeon is a better manager. :mischief2 Anyways.

 

Hmm, career wise.....

 

The simple fact of the matter for Jim Leyland is that he has always had large amounts of talent to play with. Jack hasn't. Jim Leyland, in ten years with the Pirates, managed to win the weaker of the two original NL divisions all of three times. In 1990 he had an outfield featuring the likes of young stars named Bonds, Bonilla, and Alou. How about exposure to a young Tim Wakefield? Or Al Martin in his hey day? Heck, even Doug Drabek when he was good was a Pirate. And don't forget Andy Van Slyke (sorry, had to).The two biggest names on Jack McKeon's Padres his first full year as a manager? A young Tony Gwynn and fat cow John Kruk.

 

But when it all boils down to it, you really just have to look at what that manager did in his time as a manager for his respective team. It took Jim 3 years to field a winning record in Pittsburgh, and 5 whole years to reach the playoffs. Then after three straight appearances, he flopped again to four straight losing seasons before leaving the scene of the crime.

 

He comes to Florida, with a team tailor made for his bidding. Wins a title thanks to the players (if he was such a great manager that year he would have won manager of the year), and then proceeds to lose 108 the next season. Heads to Colorado and marks his arrival by dropping 90 games and finishing dead last in the division. Whoopee. He was one and done in mile high, and we haven't heard from him on the managerial front since.

 

The sad part is, for all the sucess we have heard of Jim having, he doesn't have a .500 record as a manager. Not with a single team, not in his career. Is a guy with a .486 winning percentage really a great manager?

 

Well, lets look at Jack shall we. His first year ever as manager he took the Royals to a record of 88-74, good for a 2nd place finish. The year before he took over? Twelve less wins, and a finish all the way back in fourth. He was finished with the Royals after 75, his point proven. Total record? 215-205. Yeah, that's pretty bad.

 

He then moved on to Oakland, the only team he has a sub-.500 record with. The reason? The front office just didn't give him time to work. He only got 53 games in 1977, going 26-27. And in 1978, with key players hurt and a left in a lousy situation by his predecessor, Jack managed to get to 45 wins.

 

As we all have heard he ended up stumbling into the San Diego organization as GM and Manager every once in a while. He managed the last three quarters of 1988, leading the Padres to a 67-48 record and a third place finish. The next season he went 89-73, a nice second place finish (just three games out of first place). In 1990 he decided he wanted to only GM, so he took himself out of the post after a near .500 start. Total record with the Padres? 193-164, good for a .541 winning percentage (head and shoulders above anything Jim ever had).

 

Trader Jack made his final stop before arriving in Miami in Cincy. His first season he again took over halfway, cruising along to a 33-30 finish. In 1998, hurt by injuries and bad luck, Trader Jack's boys finished just 8 games under .500. But the winning ways started right back up next season, with a 96-67 record and coming just 27 outs from a postseason berth. Same story in 2000, an 85-77 season record. Total record with the Reds? 291-259, by far a winning total.

 

And then of course there is this past season, which needs no reminder because it is fresh in everyone's heads. 10 games under to World Series title. Would Jim have been able to do that? The numbers clearly point to nope. This was Jack's ship to right, and right it he did.

 

Just a quick pill to swallow. Jim Leyland's total managerial record? 1069-1131, .486 winning percentage. Jack McKeon's? 770-733, good for a .512 winning percentage (not counting this 2003 season). Who is the real winner here?

But one thing is for sure, without Jack stepping in midseason to be the master fixer, we would be talking about who we could acquire to maybe make a push at .500 next season, instead of getting fitted for our 2003 World Series Champions rings.

 

Interesting argument Juanky

 

I'd like to say the same toward McKeon, as you did Leyland. And speaking off the record, I believe Jack is, in fact, the better manager. But since I'm being forced against my will to argue otherwise, let me get down to the point.

Nice honest admission,

 

Leyland may have had a bought team, but all it bought him was a bunch of superstars having mediocre years. Jeff Conine, Mr. Marlin, couldn't even hold down the starting job at 1B, for god sakes. Without Leyland, that team would have played itself into a hole.

 

The '97 Marlins didn't play themselves to the World Series, Jim managed that team to the Series. There's a difference.

 

Now I'm not taking away what Jack did, but he had it differently. Both teams had the talent to win the World Series, no question. But Jack had a team of players putting together career years (Juan Pierre, Mike Lowell, Derrek Lee, Luis Castillo, Alex Gonzalez, ect.). Jim had a bunch of players that hadn't reached or were past their prime, or just flat out played like crap (Jeff Conine, Gary Sheffield, ect.).

 

Good comeback, the stars who all had so-so quality years, but quantity took them over the top.

 

Looks close so far, some more deliberation would be nice guys. :thumbup Both of you look good so far

Jack does have the better winning percentage, and he does have a knack for taking over teams and doing what their predicessor couldn't. But Jim took a Pirate team that didn't have much talent, and over time turned them into a winner.

 

The real bottom line is that Jack had a lot of winning seasons, and that's fine and dandy if you want a just-over-.500 record every season. But how many times did he manage his team to the promised land (World Series)? How many times did he manage them anywhere near the promised land (playoffs)!? One time.

 

And the funny thing is, if is wasn't for the wild card, he wouldn't have even made it that one time. Jim managed his team to the playoffs by winning consecutive division titles in Pittsburgh, and that was before the creation of the wild card.

 

How can Jack possibly be a better manager than Jim if he's only managed ONE post-season team, in the post-wild card era?

 

He has a better career record. Woopty doo. A million 85 win seasons mean nothing if you never make the playoffs.

 

Leyland may have a lower career winning percentage, but he also had more playoff berths, and that's what counts. Making the post-season makes you a great manager, and McKeon did it all but once. Leyland did it three times in about half the time it took McKeon.

If making the playoffs is a measure of being a great manager, then I guess by your standards Grady Little is a better manager than Jack McKeon? Grady got to the playoffs in his second year as Boston manager. Curious, though, how Grady got canned and Jack got an extension.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot judge a manager by how many times he has taken his team to The Promised Land in this case. Because the Promised Land is not the playoffs, it is The World Series. And both have won it once. So they are even there.

 

Making the playoffs is not an adequate measure of who is a better manager because circumstances can present themselves to prevent a team from getting to the playoffs. This was the first season that Felipe Alou got to the playoffs as well. Shouldn't have been, because the 94 strike happened when his team was running away with the division and was almost a lock to get to the World Series. I would take Felipe over Jim in a heartbeat, he has managed the Expos while Jim got the Pirates in their second hey day. But Jim has been there more times than Felipe, so he must be better.

 

Ken Macha got to the playoffs this season as manager of the Oakland A's. Did he get there because he is such a great manager? No. His team went 96-66 this year, a steady decline from back to back 100 win seasons. No great manager has a 2-0 lead in a series and is one game away from sending Boston home for 3 and out, and then loses the Series. That is not the mark of a great manager, that is the mark of deplorable managing. He got to the playoffs because of The Big Three. If Jack would have had the Big Three in San Diego or in Cincy, he would have won the World Series by now.

 

The fact of the matter is that Jim got to play in the easier of the two divisions in the NL at the time. When Jack was managing, he had to be buried behind teams that had been established as being very good. In 1999, when he missed the playoffs by just a few outs, he had to go the whole year buried behind the Killer B's. And he still managed to get closer than anyone would have thought. In 1988, taking over midseason and having to be in the same division as the eventual World Champions, he still managed to improve the team drastically after their dreadful start under Admin Bowa. Managing the Kansas City Royals back in the day, he still managed to make it close despite having to deal with Oakland dynasty featuring the likes of Catfish Hunter, Rollie Fingers, and Mr. October, a group that back to back to back World Series titles.

 

The Bottom Line is total success as a manager. And it is obvious that Jack, with his career winning percentage over .500 plus his nice pretty 2003 World Series ring, has had more success in his career than Jim Leyland. That is just the plain truth, no ifs, ands, or butts about it. At the end of the day, Jack McKeon is hired over Jim Leyland nine out of ten times. Doesn't that mean that he is a better manager?

Jack McKeon can take over a team 5 someodd games under .500 and end up winning 85 games that season. There's no question about that. If that's the kind of manager you need, just a fill-in while you look for a long-term solution, than Trader is your man.

 

But if you're looking for a long-term manager who will build you a great team over a couple of years, than you definately want Leyland. I mean, when he took over Pittsburgh, he had a team full of prospects. Over the years, he helped develop those prospects (like you said, the likes of Moises Alou, Bobby Bonilla, and the one and only Barry Bonds) into the players they were then, and are now, to win games.

 

When you give McKeon a team with talent to turn around at mid-season, he's going to do it. When you give Leyland a bad team to build up into a top team over a few seasons, he's going to do it.

 

Bottom line, both can be considered better than the other, depending on what you need. If you need a coach to take over for half a year and get you a winning record, you're going to hire McKeon. If you want someone that can turn a young potential-full team into an elite club over a few seasons, than you're going to hire Leyland.

 

I want a guy that can give me a powerhouse for years to come. Not a guy that can resurect a lost team at mid-season to get barley past .500.

But if you're looking for a long-term manager who will build you a great team over a couple of years, than you definately want Leyland.

BS, I'm taking Jack. He knows how to actually win games consistently.

 

I mean, when he took over Pittsburgh, he had a team full of prospects.

 

And what does Jack have now? Jim had Barry Bonds playing for him, Jack had Tony Gwynn. And the difference? Tony Gwynn stayed a Padre for life. Barry Bonds got out of Pittsburgh first chance he got. He didn't like Jim much did he?

 

When you give Leyland a bad team to build up into a top team over a few seasons, he's going to do it.

Four winning seasons out of 10 is a top team? I don't believe so.

 

If you want someone that can turn a young potential-full team into an elite club over a few seasons, than you're going to hire Leyland.

 

Leyland has never managed an elite club in his life. If it was so "elite" it would have managed to win a pennant, instead of finishing under .500 6 times.

 

I want a guy that can give me a powerhouse for years to come.

Six losing seasons in ten tries a powerhouse does not make.

 

Not a guy that can resurect a lost team at mid-season to get barley past .500.

 

At least Jack saw the positive side of .500 more often than not.

BS, I'm taking Jack. He knows how to actually win games consistently.

It's hard to win games when you don't have talent. When Leyland had enough talent, he won.

 

And what does Jack have now? Jim had Barry Bonds playing for him, Jack had Tony Gwynn. And the difference? Tony Gwynn stayed a Padre for life. Barry Bonds got out of Pittsburgh first chance he got. He didn't like Jim much did he?

For one, Jack definately does not have a team full of prospects. He has TWO prospects on his team (Miguel and Dontrelle). And you have absolutely NO proof that Bonds left because of Lyland. And if that was, in fact, the problem, and Bonds didn't want to stay in Pittsburgh because of Leyland, don't you think the Pirates would rather keep a player of Bonds caliber around rather than Leyland, who in your eyes isn't even that good of a manager?

 

Four winning seasons out of 10 is a top team? I don't believe so.

 

The man won 95 games in '90, in '91 he won 98 games, and in '92 he won 96 games. Those aren't three top teams?

 

Leyland has never managed an elite club in his life. If it was so "elite" it would have managed to win a pennant, instead of finishing under .500 6 times.

You're forgetting the fact that he managed it to 95+ wins three consecutive times.

 

Six losing seasons in ten tries a powerhouse does not make.

 

Three 95+ win seasons in three consecutive years is a pretty damn good run, wouldn't you say? Seeing that Jack McKeon has managed ONE 95+ win team in his life, in a seaosn in which he didn't even make the playoffs.

 

At least Jack saw the positive side of .500 more often than not.

 

Just like Jim saw the post-season more often than Jack.

It's hard to win games when you don't have talent. When Leyland had enough talent, he won.

 

Barry Bonds, Sid Bream, Bobby Bonilla, Doug Drabek, John Smiley, John Cangelosi, Jay Bell, Tim Wakefield, Al Martin, Orlando Merced, Andy Van Slyke, Denny Neagle, Tony Womack, Jon Lieber, Dan Plesac, John Wehner, Jason Schmidt, Jason Kendall, Vinny Castilla, Dante Bichette, Admin Walker. What do all these names have in common? They were all on losing teams managed by Jim Leyland. Those are some bad players right there, let me tell you. And the sad part is, the list goes on and on.

 

And you have absolutely NO proof that Bonds left because of Lyland

 

You have no proof that he left for other reasons.

 

The man won 95 games in '90, in '91 he won 98 games, and in '92 he won 96 games. Those aren't three top teams?

The man lost 98 in '86, 88 in '89, 87 in '93, 86 in '95 (a strike shortened year, mind you), 89 in '96, 108 in '98, and 90 in '99. Those are 8 top teams, let me tell you.

 

You're forgetting the fact that he managed it to 95+ wins three consecutive times.

 

And you are neglecting the fact he lost 82 games or more 6 times in 10 tries.

 

Three 95+ win seasons in three consecutive years is a pretty damn good run, wouldn't you say?

No

He failed to win the World Series.

 

Seeing that Jack McKeon has managed ONE 95+ win team in his life, in a seaosn in which he didn't even make the playoffs.

 

Jack didn't play in a cupcake division.

 

Just like Jim saw the post-season more often than Jack.

 

Jack won the Series on try one. It took Jim 4 just to beat the Braves.

Barry Bonds, Sid Bream, Bobby Bonilla, Doug Drabek, John Smiley, John Cangelosi, Jay Bell, Tim Wakefield, Al Martin, Orlando Merced, Andy Van Slyke, Denny Neagle, Tony Womack, Jon Lieber, Dan Plesac, John Wehner, Jason Schmidt, Jason Kendall, Vinny Castilla, Dante Bichette, Admin Walker. What do all these names have in common? They were all on losing teams managed by Jim Leyland.

For one, almost NONE of those players had hit their prime yet. Two, he also had three consecutive 95+ win seasons with most from that group.\

 

You have no proof that he left for other reasons.

You brought this up, not me. You have no proof to defend it, nor do I to oppose it, so why are we even discussing it?

 

Those are 8 top teams, let me tell you.

 

Did I say they were top teams? Why are you avoiding the fact that he won 95+ games three straight years, and that those three teams were top MLB clubs in each of those years? And don't forget the fact that ANY manager in the history of baseball probably would have lost 100+ with that '98 team.

 

And you are neglecting the fact he lost 82 games or more 6 times in 10 tries.

Just as you are neglecting the fact that McKeon couldn't manage a post-season team until the creation of the wild card (something that he openly admits he hated until it actually came in handy for him) and 12 years as a manager in MLB.

 

No

He failed to win the World Series.

 

Funny, because Jack failed to even make the playoffs over an 11 year span, none the less win the world series.

 

It took Jim 5 years to make the playoffs, and 11 years to win the world series. It took Jack 12 years to make the playoffs, and 12 years to win the world series.

 

Jack didn't play in a cupcake division.

Jack didn't play in an easy division in 2003. What about his other 11 years as a manager? You can't tell me all of those divisions were just as tough as this one. I'm sure a few of them were as easy, if not easier than Jim's. And yet, Jack STILL failed to win even one, while Jim was wracking them up one by one in Pittsburgh.

 

Jack won the Series on try one. It took Jim 4 just to beat the Braves.

 

Exactly. Jack has only had ONE try. Jim had four.

 

You can't win the world series if you don't make it to the playoffs, and Jim has made the playoffs four times more than Trader.

For one, almost NONE of those players had hit their prime yet. Two, he also had three consecutive 95+ win seasons with most from that group.

Then what of your "Jim takes prospects and turns them into players." Arguement? If Leyland were really that good, then he would have won with them. But he didn't.

 

Your going to tell me that the Blake Street Bombers hadn't reached their prime in 1999? They had been in the playoffs (your magic land of promise) already once before. Half or more of that list went to the playoffs, but also was on a losing team with Jim. So what of the playoffs being the Holy Grail then?

 

Did I say they were top teams? Why are you avoiding the fact that he won 95+ games three straight years, and that those three teams were top MLB clubs in each of those years?

 

They were not the top of the echelon in either of the three years. They were the baseball equivalent of the Buffalo Bills of the same time frame: get to the playoffs and stink up the place. And I am not avoiding these three teams, I am merely pointing out that contrary to Jack, more often than not Jim has managed losing teams.

 

And don't forget the fact that ANY manager in the history of baseball probably would have lost 100+ with that '98 team.

Not true. I believe Jack would have gotten them into single digit losses.

 

Just as you are neglecting the fact that McKeon couldn't manage a post-season team until the creation of the wild card

 

Isn't his fault he didn't play in a cake division and didn't have the nice hitting corps Leyland had to play with.

 

Jack didn't play in an easy division in 2003. What about his other 11 years as a manager? You can't tell me all of those divisions were just as tough as this one. I'm sure a few of them were as easy, if not easier than Jim's. And yet, Jack STILL failed to win even one, while Jim was wracking them up one by one in Pittsburgh.

Check past comments in this thread, I already spoke on this. But he had to be in the NL East this season, had to be behind the Oakland A's of the 70's when he managed the Royals, and was stuck behind the World Champion Dodgers when he took over the Padres for a brief stint. Jim? Didn't have to deal with much. Cincy, the most talented team in the NL in 1990, was in the West. In 1991 and 1992, the most talented teams in the NL played in the West. Jim got to cruise on through in the East. Finally when a team came to give him the challenge he didn't have the three seasons before (The Phillies in 93), Jim's team folded under the pressure like they always did and failed to get close to the playoffs.

 

Exactly. Jack has only had ONE try. Jim had four.

 

1.000 Winning Percentage vs .250, who is more successful again?

 

You can't win the world series if you don't make it to the playoffs, and Jim has made the playoffs four times more than Trader.

 

And failed three more times than Jack

 

Again, Jack is by far the most successful. Just check the numbers.

Not true. I believe Jack would have gotten them into single digit losses.

 

153-9 :thumbup

Then what of your "Jim takes prospects and turns them into players." Arguement? If Leyland were really that good, then he would have won with them. But he didn't.

Yes he did! They were prospects in this early Pittsburgh years, and he progressed them into a 1st place team three times.

 

And all the players you named went on to promising careers at the least. Jim laid the foundation for those players.

 

And I am not avoiding these three teams, I am merely pointing out that contrary to Jack, more often than not Jim has managed losing teams.

And I am merely pointing out that contrary to Jim, Jack finished out of first place not just more often than not, but that he has NEVER finished in first place. Jim finished in first three times.

 

Not true. I believe Jack would have gotten them into single digit losses.

 

Well I believe differently. Beliefs mean nothing. We'll never know if Jack could have managed that team better or worse than Jim.

 

Isn't his fault he didn't play in a cake division and didn't have the nice hitting corps Leyland had to play with.

Jack couldn't win the division when he did manage in an easy division or a hard one. And Jim NEVER had the pitching staff Jack has. Everyone knows pitching wins championships, and Jack had more of it than Jim.

 

Cincy, the most talented team in the NL in 1990, was in the West. In 1991 and 1992, the most talented teams in the NL played in the West. Jim got to cruise on through in the East.

 

That's why Jim was named NL Manager of the Year in '90 and '92, right?

 

1.000 Winning Percentage vs .250, who is more successful again?

OK, let's say Jim was a manager of Jack's caliber. That would mean he only got to the playoffs one time. We'll say his one time was '97, which would give Jim that same 1.000 winning percentage.

 

But Jim isn't a manager of Jack's caliber. He's better. He previously managed three other teams to the playoffs. Jack had managed none.

 

Again, Jack is by far the most successful. Just check the numbers.

 

You're second sentence contradicts (sp) your first sentence. The numbers tell me Jim is better.

Not true. I believe Jack would have gotten them into single digit losses.

 

153-9 :thumbup

Double Digit losses. Still better than triple

 

Yes he did! They were prospects in this early Pittsburgh years, and he progressed them into a 1st place team three times.

 

No, actually most of them were not of those early prospect years or of the three division title seasons. Most were actually after 1992, the last time Jim saw the playoffs save 1997. So yes, they were for the most part all on losing teams.

 

Jim laid the foundation for those players.

 

No he most certainly did not. For every Barry Bonds Jim coached (And he didn't like Jim after all WC ), there are two Mike Diaz's.

 

Jim finished in first three times.

 

And did nothing those three times. You know why? Because he played in a pancake division. If the Pirates would have been in the West they would have never even glimpsed the light of first place.

 

We'll never know if Jack could have managed that team better or worse than Jim.

 

You will never know, but you can take an estimated guess. Just look at the numbers. And the numbers clearly show that Jack would have managed that team better than Jim. Period.

 

Jack couldn't win the division when he did manage in an easy division

 

Never had the chance

 

or a hard one

 

Jim never had that chance.

 

And Jim NEVER had the pitching staff Jack has

 

Excuse you? Kevin Brown, Al Leiter, Alex Fernandez, Livan Hernandez, and Tony Saunders were a hell of a front 5. And while not up to the level talent wise that this year's staff is, they performed better.

 

That's why Jim was named NL Manager of the Year in '90 and '92, right?

 

There was no one else to give it to, he won by default.

 

OK, let's say Jim was a manager of Jack's caliber.

 

He isn't, Jack is better.

 

That would mean he only got to the playoffs one time. We'll say his one time was '97, which would give Jim that same 1.000 winning percentage.

 

What in the hell are you saying?

 

But Jim isn't a manager of Jack's caliber.

 

Nope, he isn't.

 

He's better

 

Maybe if you are drunk.

 

You're second sentence contradicts (sp) your first sentence.

 

No, it doesn't.

 

The numbers tell me Jim is better.

 

The numbers you dream up don't count. Hard numbers, Jack is better. It is not even a question.

Juanky, why are you dancing around everything with three word sentences like, "Nope, he isn't" or "No, he doesn't"? If you're going to respond to something, back it up with some facts. "Nope, he isn't" and "No, he doesn't" aren't very knowledgable responses, and they shouldn't even designate responses.

 

No, actually most of them were not of those early prospect years or of the three division title seasons. Most were actually after 1992, the last time Jim saw the playoffs save 1997. So yes, they were for the most part all on losing teams.

OK, if most of those prospects weren't on those three division champ teams, then who were? A group of less talented players, perhaps? Maybe that's why he won those MOTY awards. He won when he wasn't expected to win.

 

No he most certainly did not. For every Barry Bonds Jim coached (And he didn't like Jim after all WC? ), there are two Mike Diaz's.

 

And how many Barry Bonds has Jack developed? How many Barry Bonds has ANYONE developed for that matter?

 

And did nothing those three times. You know why? Because he played in a pancake division. If the Pirates would have been in the West they would have never even glimpsed the light of first place.

Bobby Cox has won 11 consecutive division titles. He has won the world series 1 time. Are you going to tell me that Bobby Cox is a bad manager, and that Jack is better?

 

You will never know, but you can take an estimated guess. Just look at the numbers. And the numbers clearly show that Jack would have managed that team better than Jim. Period.

 

That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You can't take an estimated guess on how many games he would have won, or lost for this matter, with that '98 team. I mean, if you want to go by estimated guesses, someone could have said before this season we were going to go 71-91, not the other way around, and it would have been a legitimate guess.

 

And while not up to the level talent wise that this year's staff is, they performed better.

This years team performed better than that one pitching wise in the post-season. That's what matters most. Jack had better pitching than Jim did, and Jim had more offense. Pitching wins championships. Jack had it easier.

 

There was no one else to give it to, he won by default.

 

Why couldn't they have given it to one of those western teams managers? Because like you said, they were SOOOOOO much better.

Juanky, why are you dancing around everything with three word sentences like, "Nope, he isn't" or "No, he doesn't"? If you're going to respond to something, back it up with some facts. "Nope, he isn't" and "No, he doesn't" aren't very knowledgable responses, and they shouldn't even designate responses.

If you go back to my first few points, I was oozing facts. I dripped facts out of my ears. But since your arguement is completely lacking in facts and you wouldn't come up to where I was and use good facts (because they all favor Jack anyways), I decided to stoop to your level for a little while.

 

OK, if most of those prospects weren't on those three division champ teams, then who were? A group of less talented players, perhaps? Maybe that's why he won those MOTY awards. He won when he wasn't expected to win.

 

There are these types of players. They are called 'talented veterans'. Should resound in your brain from a certain team in 1997. That is what was on the Pittsburgh Pirates from 1990-1992. Simple fact. And really, Jack would have probably won a World Series with those teams at least one year. Heck, at least win a playoff series! The Pirates of 1990-1992 are the example for the Minnesota Timberwolves. Neither gets out of the first round.

 

And how many Barry Bonds has Jack developed?

Well, hes had some semi-decent players that he developed. Not much though. Some guy named Tony Gwynn. Some young catcher named Sandy Alomar Jr. The Boone brothers. Paul Konerko. Sean Casey. Some young guy named George Brett. Orlando Cepeda. But they all suck.

 

Bobby Cox has won 11 consecutive division titles. He has won the world series 1 time.

 

And more often than not I would hire someone else.

 

That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You can't take an estimated guess on how many games he would have won

Yes, you can. It is this subject called mathematics, they teach it in high school. But wait, you aren't there yet are you?

 

Jack's better numbers with worse team leads you to draw the conclusion that he would have finished with a better record with the 98 team. Again, I refer you to the facts that have been presented so far. The evidence is all there.

 

This years team performed better than that one pitching wise in the post-season.

 

The starting pitching for this year's Marlins were not that great in the postseason until the World Series. The 1997 pitching was anchored by a lights out pen and a great 1-2-3-4 for the playoffs. They exceled in the show.

 

Why couldn't they have given it to one of those western teams managers? Because like you said, they were SOOOOOO much better.

 

Never said the managers were better, I said the teams were. And it doesn't take a great manager to manage a great team to victory, though you need a good manager to get out of the first round of the playoffs.

 

SEE: Jim Leyland

Here's my bottom line.

 

RESUME'S

 

Jim Leyland

 

Two time NL Manager of the Year.

Has won won 90+ games four times.

Has won three division titles.

Has made four post-season appearences.

Has won one World Series title.

 

Jack McKeon

 

One time NL Manager of the Year.

Has won 90+ games two times.

Has won ZERO division titles.

Has made ONE post-season appearence.

Has won one World Series title.

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

When you look at that, who are you going to hire? I'm sure as hell going to go with Jim Leyland.

 

The man developed the likes of Moises Alou, Bobby Bonilla, Admin Walker, Jason Kendall, Tim Wakefield, Jason Schmit, and the one and only Barry Bonds. Where are those players now?

 

Leyland could take a team full of prospects and over time develop them into a team full of All-Stars. He went from 65 wins in '89 to 95 in '90.

 

To be considered better than Jim Leyland, Jack McKeon needs to have at least managed ONE division champion after 12 years of managing. He hasn't done it. It took Leyland all of four years to win a division title. It took him all of seven years to win three.

 

Look, McKeon had a record over .500 almost every year he managed. If you're an owner and all you want is to be just-over .500 every season, and never make the playoffs, Trader Jack is the guy you want. But if you're a smart owner, and you're willing to go through 2-3 years of rebuilding to have 2-3 years of division championships, and get a chance at a World Series title in the playoffs, you want Jim Leyland.

 

That's the bottom line.

This debate is now over.

The winner of this debate is Wild Card!

 

What a close match and a VERY well done debate. Nice work gentlemen.

 

Anyone may now post in this topic.

WC? Wow.....I am impressed.

Congrats to both of you. You both presented very good arguments and it was a close vote decided with the very last ballot.

Is this debate thing going to be a fixture? It's quite interesting.

Is this debate thing going to be a fixture? It's quite interesting.

There will be 3 more first round matchups and then the 2nd round matches and then the final.

 

As for future debates, that is all based on the participation level in this one. So far I am very pleased.