[The Professor]

Good players make a good manager...at least, a great deal of the time, they do.

Mauch was an inexperienced manager in '64 with a ballclub that was to some extent playing way above itself. Nevertheless, he deserves the blame for the meltdown.

Until he took over the Angels in the early 80s, Mauch managed rebuilding squads and also-rans. The Expos and Twins?? That may explain the sub-.500 record. Mauch is best compared to Tony LaRussa - they both were/are big "numbers & percentages" types. The #'s don't always pan out...and the manager gets the (perhaps deservedly) blame. Who knew? I disagree with the decision to pull Mike Witt in the '86 ALCS key game. BUT...Gary Lucas was the percentage choice (if you, like Mauch or LaRussa or a number of other fairly successful managers do, play the %). Lucas hadn't hit a batter all year...he promptly hit a batter. Then there is Donnie Moore, too sore to throw an effective splitter(his 'must' have pitch) and the rest is history. Nevermind that the Angels weren't dead after that game...they just came out flat. Same in '82...Mauch didn't pitch and he didn't hit.

...anyway, I can see why Mauch has the reputation he does, but while I'm not a "Mauch partisan" I wouldn't feel bad about letting Mauch manage any ballclub I owned.

Cox has a lot of pennants...but I don't see him with too many WS rings and, talk about a guy who makes some odd decisions (and with the talent in Atlanta, he'd better win anyway...)

Weaver had an All-World pitching staff and some great players in Baltimore. He didn't have those players in '85-'86...and he was a loser. (Now, don't get me wrong...I love Earl Weaver and have the utmost respect for him)

So...in '64, yeah, Mauch deserves all the blame. In '82 and '86 the decisions were curious (plain bad) but the Angels still could have won either series. Great teams make great managers...in most cases...and neither the Expos or the Twins throughout most of the 1970s were great teams.