How Good is Tony LaRussa?

BP published an interesting, although not very satisfying, look at Tony LaRussa's career.  I didn't realize that if he wins 80 more games, he will have the third most wins of all-time, behind Connie Mack and John McGraw.  

BP compares his past teams' Pythagorean projections for win totals with the teams' actual number of wins.  Managers that have more wins than are projected are good managers.  I'm skeptical that is the best way to determine how effective a manager is.  By that formula, Macha was a freakin' genius last year, since the A's won five more games than projected.  

LaRussa won only 16 games more than projected over his entire career, which suggests that he is actually an average manager.  Or, it could also mean managers don't have much of an effect on games.  Or, it could mean that this is not a good way of evaluating managers.  Here is what BP says:

http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3749

"Genius?: That Tony LaRussa, he's been around a long time. This year will mark his tenth year at the helm of the Cards, and that's after years managing the White Sox and the A's before arriving by the Mississippi. He's moved up to seventh on the all-time list for managerial wins, and with 80 wins this year, he'll vault all the way to number three, behind only Connie Mack and John McGraw. This offseason, he signed a deal that will keep him in the dugout at Busch Stadium through the 2007 season.

So, is the guy any good? How could we tell? What about looking at the difference between his team's projected wins and its actual wins? Wouldn't we expect that a great manager's teams would consistenly outperform their Pythagorean projection, owing to the effects of his acumen and wisdom?

Year    Team     W   L   RS   RA   PytW   Delta  Finish

1980    CHA     70  90  587  722    65      5       5
1981    CHA     54  52  476  423    59     -5     3/6
1982    CHA     87  75  786  710    89     -2       3
1983    CHA     99  63  800  650    96      3       1
1984    CHA     74  88  679  736    75     -1       6
1985    CHA     85  77  736  720    83      2       3
1987    OAK     81  81  806  789    83     -2       3
1988    OAK    104  58  800  620    100     4    AL 1
1989    OAK     99  63  712  576    97      2    WS 1
1990    OAK    103  59  733  570    99      4    AL 1
1991    OAK     84  78  760  773    79      5       4
1992    OAK     96  66  745  672    89      7       1
1993    OAK     68  94  715  846    69     -1       7
1994    OAK     51  63  549  588    53     -2       2
1995    OAK     67  77  730  761    69     -2       4
1996    STL     88  74  759  706    86      2       1
1997    STL     73  89  689  708    79     -6       4
1998    STL     83  79  810  782    84     -1       3
1999    STL     75  86  809  838    78     -3       4
2000    STL     95  67  887  771    91      4       1
2001    STL     93  69  814  684    94     -1       1
2002    STL     97  65  787  648    95      2       1
2003    STL     85  77  876  796    88     -3       3
2004    STL    105  57  855  659    100     5    NL 1

We're only including full seasons, so 1986, when LaRussa split time between Chicago and Oakland is left out. PytW is the wins predicted by the Pythagorean Theorem, using 1.83 as the exponent.
That's 10 division titles, four pennants and one world title in 24 full seasons of filling out lineup cards and calling sac bunts. Over the course of all those thousands of games, LaRussa's teams have, in fact, outperformed their Pythagorean projections...by a grand total of 16 wins. Which, frankly, isn't that many.

Now, before anyone gets all hysterical, we'll admit this is really a toy, and not a way of rigorously analyzing the effect of a manager. But it does illustrate a point: the genius manager might be the most overstated cliché in the game.

At this point, we know the optimal strategy in many game situations--it's hard to imagine a manager gaining a huge edge there. The idea of the Wizard of Oz pulling levers and besting his counterpart in a battle of wits is simply outdated, Lloyd McClendon aside. This doesn't mean that some managers don't do a better job of game management than others (Dusty Baker, I'm looking at you, dude), and certainly, the managment of a pitching staff is still a big deal (you again, Dusty).

What statistics can't capture is what is increasingly the real job of a manager: dealing with people. This is the era of manager as soother, facilitator, confidant, ego-stroker and vibe-generator. Those aren't things that you can measure or quantify. Perhaps when it comes to managers, intangibles are what matter."