PDA

View Full Version : Dusty Baker "Old School"????



Triples
10-18-2007, 11:41 AM
In a thread in ORG, someone labeled Dusty Baker as old school. I understand the "old school" concept but I'm not sure I see how it applies in baseball. What is so different about the game today than in the "old days" what ever they are. And, why does Dusty Baker fall into the "old school" catagory.:confused:

AmarilloRed
10-18-2007, 12:35 PM
I may be able to speak to this because I was a fan back in the "old days". It used to be that starting pitchers would go very deep into games, and relievers if used at all would only close out the game. Dusty likes to have his starting pitchers go deep into games, so he qualifies in that respect. Baserunning was also a very large part of the game to a much greater extent than it is now, and the only power hitters hit in the middle of the lineup. Rookies needed to prove themselves over several seasons, and I don't believe you would have ever seen a rookie starting at a position his very first year in the league. Dusty has a history of preferring veterans over rookies, so he could also be considered "old school" in this respect. These are just some of the ways things were different in the past as opposed to now, and I am sure some other members could speak to further differences.

Natty Redlocks
10-18-2007, 01:35 PM
Old school: Batting average, stolen bases, rbi, pitcher wins, fielding %

New school: There is a huge amount of statistical data now that attempts to quantify the value of a player. For hitters, on-base % + slugging % (OPS) is probably the most widely used "new school" stat. For pitchers, it's WHIP (walks + hits per innings pitched).

There are way more and most of them are over my head, but when I think of new school vs. old school, I think of statheads vs. baseball guys. You'll find most of the Redszone statheads on ORG and if you read their stuff, some of it is actually very impressive and persuasive.

Anyway, Dusty Baker with his obvious contempt for OBP (evidenced by his famous "walks clog the bases" quote, and his repeated insistence on batting speedy guys who can't get on base at the top of the order) is definitely "old school", which will probably one day be known as "ignorant school".

WMR
10-18-2007, 02:38 PM
Read the third quote in my sig.

stevekun
10-18-2007, 03:29 PM
For what its worth, this is just my oppinion...but old school baseball is better...it might not win now but its better baseball

texasdave
10-18-2007, 10:37 PM
Ignorant school is a little harsh. How about this one. Hit the ball and run the bases until you see the umpire give the HR signal - old school. Hit the ball and stand at home plate admiring your shot and then have to settle for a single when the ball doesn't go out - new school. Which one is 'ignorant' there?

WMR
10-18-2007, 10:40 PM
Ignorant school is a little harsh. How about this one. Hit the ball and run the bases until you see the umpire give the HR signal - old school. Hit the ball and stand at home plate admiring your shot and then have to settle for a single when the ball doesn't go out - new school. Which one is 'ignorant' there?

That's not "new school" baseball.

C'mon.

"New school" baseball is an ideology about statistics and what they represent, not showboating.

jimbo
10-18-2007, 10:45 PM
Anyway, Dusty Baker with his obvious contempt for OBP (evidenced by his famous "walks clog the bases" quote, and his repeated insistence on batting speedy guys who can't get on base at the top of the order) is definitely "old school", which will probably one day be known as "ignorant school".

So all of the great managers of the past were "ignorant?"

WMR
10-18-2007, 10:50 PM
So all of the great managers of the past were "ignorant?"

No. You wouldn't call someone ignorant for not using the newest cancer treatments 100 years ago when those treatments didn't exist.

Someone living in today's time who ignores the newest medicinal treatments available and pretends they don't even exist, however, is a close-minded buffoon.

jimbo
10-18-2007, 11:04 PM
No. You wouldn't call someone ignorant for not using the newest cancer treatments 100 years ago when those treatments didn't exist.

Someone living in today's time who ignores the newest medicinal treatments available and pretends they don't even exist, however, is a close-minded buffoon.

I hear what you are saying, but I don't think it's a fair comparison. The advancements of medicine is factual while the newer stats of today is not actual proof that "new school" is any better than "old school." It's just a different style. I like some of the new stats out today also, but do not think they are the say all and do all of baseball today. That doesn't make me a buffoon.

I think there are lot of things about our society today that would be a lot better off if more "old school" was used.

WMR
10-18-2007, 11:07 PM
I hear what you are saying, but I don't think it's a fair comparison. The advancements of medicine is factual while the newer stats of today is not actual proof that "new school" is any better than "old school." It's just a different style. I like some of the new stats out today also, but do not think they are the say all and do all of baseball today. That doesn't make me a buffoon.

I think there are lot of things about our society today that would be a lot better off if more "old school" was used.

Anyone who says walks "clog the bases" is, in my opinion, hopelessly stuck in the past instead of realizing that the ideal outcome for any trip to the plate is to NOT MAKE AN OUT.

jimbo
10-18-2007, 11:11 PM
Anyone who says walks "clog the bases" is, in my opinion, hopelessly stuck in the past instead of realizing that the ideal outcome for any trip to the plate is to NOT MAKE AN OUT.

So you've based your entire opinion of the man on one statement? I guess I tend to look at the entire puzzle instead of one piece.

WMR
10-18-2007, 11:14 PM
So you've based your entire opinion of the man on one statement? I guess I tend to look at the entire puzzle instead of one piece.

No offense, but duh, me too.

I've followed Dusty's managing career since he was with the Giants, and his decisions have consistently adhered to his stated views toward the "right way" to play baseball. And Dusty has never been reticent about sharing his opinions.

DannyB
10-18-2007, 11:32 PM
"New" school is a R-L-R-L-R-L-R batting order to keep the other team from using a certain pitcher late in the game even if your Rs or Ls cant hit or get on base.
"Old" school is putting your on base guys in front of your RBI guys and getting a big enough lead to not worry about what pitcher you see late in the game.

WMR
10-18-2007, 11:35 PM
"New" school is a R-L-R-L-R-L-R batting order to keep the other team from using a certain pitcher late in the game even if your Rs or Ls cant hit or get on base.
"Old" school is putting your on base guys in front of your RBI guys and getting a big enough lead to not worry about what pitcher you see late in the game.

Actually, the "new school" approach would NEVER advocate batting players R-L-R-L simply to split up the lefties and righties. The "new school" approach would advocate setting up your line-up so that your highest OBP players get the maximum amount of at-bats without worrying about whether or not they are lefty or righty.

Natty Redlocks
10-19-2007, 01:36 AM
I hear what you are saying, but I don't think it's a fair comparison. The advancements of medicine is factual while the newer stats of today is not actual proof that "new school" is any better than "old school." It's just a different style. I like some of the new stats out today also, but do not think they are the say all and do all of baseball today. That doesn't make me a buffoon.

I think there are lot of things about our society today that would be a lot better off if more "old school" was used.

The "newer stats" simply reveal truths that were always there. Medicine is a great comparison. And "old school" guys ignore those truths at their peril, while "new school" guys like Billy Beane and Theo Epstein use them to their advantage, with increasing and undeniable success. When you ignore the facts (which is, by definition, what statistics are), it's called ignorance. Sorry if it sounds offensive, but it is what it is.

jimbo
10-19-2007, 03:50 AM
........while "new school" guys like Billy Beane and Theo Epstein use them to their advantage, with increasing and undeniable success. When you ignore the facts (which is, by definition, what statistics are), it's called ignorance. Sorry if it sounds offensive, but it is what it is.

Give me a break. Beane, while competative, hasn't won anything yet and Epstein is backed by money and some of his spending lately is quite questionable.

Not offended at all, I found your post quite comical.

Facts are that whether you like Baker or not (and I do have my reservations), he is a winner......and that is undeniable.


The "newer stats" simply reveal truths that were always there.

Yeah, the DBacks get outscored for the year and yet make it to the NLCS. That stats don't always tell the truth, they are only a tool.

texasdave
10-19-2007, 09:57 AM
That's not "new school" baseball.

C'mon.

"New school" baseball is an ideology about statistics and what they represent, not showboating.

To me "Old School, New School" is indicative of the way things used to be as opposed to the way things are now. This extends beyond a statistical approach to the game. Here is another example of "Old School, New School" to me: New School - players wear their pants down to the shoe tops. Old School - Players fold their pants under just pull the knee and you can see plenty of their sock. "Old School, New School" pertains to more than just analysts of the game. It includes owners, gms, managers, players, fans and a whole lot more, IMO.

SMcGavin
10-19-2007, 01:13 PM
Yeah, the DBacks get outscored for the year and yet make it to the NLCS. That stats don't always tell the truth, they are only a tool.

Right, isn't that the whole idea of "new school"? Using every tool at your disposal to find and exploit market inefficiencies? The Dusty Bakers and Joe Morgans of the world get an "old school" rep because not only do they not consider new approaches to the game, they openly trash those new approaches without giving them a chance (e.g. Baker's "clog the bases" and "the Yankees don't walk" comments, and pretty much anything Joe Morgan has ever said).

My biggest problem with the manager hire is not that I wanted somebody who was all about sabrmetrics as our manager. I just wanted somebody who was not totally against it from the start. My ideal manager is a guy who a) players respect and b) will use every tool at his disposal to improve his lineup construction, bullpen use, etc. Dusty has one of those traits, he certainly does not have the other.

This is not just a baseball thing either. Somebody referenced medicine earlier - guess what, there are tons of older doctors who perform mostly unneccesary techniques because that is what they were taught in medical school and that is what they have been doing their whole careers. Even though newer research may be against these techniques, old docs still do them. It's not these doctors (or Dusty) are too stupid to understand the new data, it's that they are too stubborn (and I include Dusty in this category). It's the mindset of "I'm doing it this way because I've always done it this way" and it is a problem in a multitude of fields besides baseball.