Which Type of MLB Player Makes Good Managers?

Mark McGwire is back in St. Louis. Big Mac will join the Cardinals' coaching staff as the hitting coach.

We've all heard the various complaints, criticisms, and even praise for the Redbirds' new hitting instructor, but how much of it is warranted? Should a player get a coaching job just because of his superstar status as a player?

Without a doubt, some superstars have gone on to excel as a major league manager—John McGraw, Joe Torre, and Frank Chance come readily to mind.

These were high-average hitters who could likely make the Hall of Fame solely on their playing prowess, but instead continued their careers as coaches and sat at the helm of dynasties.

But what of the men who couldn't make it as major league players, but found success as on the dugout's top step? Sparky Anderson, Jim Leyland, and Earl Weaver all had success as managers who barely played in the majors.

Leyland and Weaver never saw a major league at-bat, Anderson was the only player in history to see 500-plus at bats in his rookie campaign and never saw another plate appearance.

In my humble and honest opinion, the biggest deciding factors in which players become good coaches are grit and concentration.

Most of the successful managers were infielders, known for a whatever-it-takes mentality. Infielders must use the full extent of their baseball knowledge on every pitch, because they never know what's coming off the hitter's bat.

The days of player-managers are long gone, but a manager can still affect the game in myriad ways. When it comes to that, who would you rather have at the top step of your dugout? The middle infielder with quick reflexes and an expansive baseball knowledge, or the placid outfielder, only concerned when the ball is hit right at him?

This is a debate open to the public, so please give any feedback you have.