PDA

View Full Version : Managerial search over. It's Dusty.



Pages : 1 2 [3]

jojo
10-14-2007, 03:51 PM
As for how well "a more traditional approach" will work, let's cut some of the hyperbole. It can be done with great success. Whether the Reds have the leadership and talent to do it is another matter, but it's hardly a given that traditionalists will fail.

I fail to see the hyperbole in this:


it seems clearer that the Reds are more apt to chase a more traditional approach which at least IMHO, is full of inefficiencies that many smart clubs have recognized and begun to exploit expertly.

The traditional approach can work just like the wishbone offense can in college football. More and more though, the traditional approach in baseball is being made ineffective by innovation. Can the traditional approach work? Sure. Will it have the greatest chance of working, IMHO, nope. BTW, when was the last time the Airforce academy made a bowl game?

traderumor
10-14-2007, 04:01 PM
I fail to see the hyperbole in this:



The traditional approach can work just like the wishbone offense can in college football. More and more though, the traditional approach in baseball is being made ineffective by innovation. Can the traditional approach work? Sure. Will it have the greatest chance of working, IMHO, nope. BTW, when was the last time the Airforce academy made a bowl game?Innovation? MLB is back to post WWII baseball--big markets buying whomever they want and using the rest of the league for the minors, a few upstarts every year, the powers saying its fair, station to station offensive dominated baseball, with a pitching era correction in the offing now that the steroids scandal is full blown. You can already see some speed and D styles starting to surface again. Expect the International Draft to be the next "balance" solution in the same way that the reverse order draft came about in the 60s. Oh, and one of the cruddiest eras for the Reds, with an exciting offense, a slugger, and no pitching.

M2
10-14-2007, 04:39 PM
I fail to see the hyperbole in this ... The traditional approach can work just like the wishbone offense can in college football. More and more though, the traditional approach in baseball is being made ineffective by innovation. Can the traditional approach work? Sure. Will it have the greatest chance of working, IMHO, nope. BTW, when was the last time the Airforce academy made a bowl game?

Not everyone has to do exactly as you would have them do. Plus, if they all did the same thing, it would create new blind spots (which Billy Beane would only be too happy to exploit).

Can the traditional approach work? Golly, I don't know. Ask the Cardinals, Tigers, White Sox, Astros, Marlins, Angels, Giants and D-Backs, all of whom have made the World Series this century with a significant traditional bent (though some have blended traditional with new school because the world isn't black and white). Ask the Braves and Twins if the traditional approach can net you any results.

From 1997-2004, the Giants had eight straight winning campaigns, three division titles, a wild card and a World Series appearance. They averaged 92.25 wins a year during that stretch. Dusty Baker was their manager seven of those eight seasons. Can it work? Good Lord.

pedro
10-14-2007, 04:46 PM
Fair point. But the time and continuity required to execute a plan only matters if it's the right plan -- they aren't sufficient in and of themselves.

Certainly. But it takes time to find that out and my belief is that 18 months is not long enough to find that out.

mth123
10-14-2007, 04:50 PM
This is a chicken/egg debate. Are they good because they've been in place together that long or are they in place together that long because they're good? I tend to think its the latter and that the former doesn't make being good automatic.

VR
10-14-2007, 04:56 PM
Interesting quote from Aaron Harang on the hiring.


"I think he's definitely going to get a change of attitude and get the players to play for him."

lollipopcurve
10-14-2007, 05:26 PM
Interesting quote from Aaron Harang on the hiring.


"I think he's definitely going to get a change of attitude and get the players to play for him."

Interesting, from the normally quiet Harang.

pedro
10-14-2007, 05:27 PM
This is a chicken/egg debate. Are they good because they've been in place together that long or are they in place together that long because they're good? I tend to think its the latter and that the former doesn't make being good automatic.

My point is that they have been able to harvest the fruit of their minor league crops because they've had pretty much the same foremen running the farm since 1991, not necessarily because they're statistically driven.

Falls City Beer
10-14-2007, 05:29 PM
Interesting, from the normally quiet Harang.

I agree. I think the more and more I read the clubhouse mindset needs a reinvention.

But since I can't quantify it, I guess it doesn't matter. Because clearly a guy like Bobby Cox never squeezed blood from some of the stones he's been handed over the years.

redsmetz
10-14-2007, 05:30 PM
I see I now have an "official" email from the Reds. Here's the photo, folks:

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/cin/images/email/2007/baker_hs_150.jpg

Ltlabner
10-14-2007, 05:32 PM
I agree. I think the more and more I read the clubhouse mindset needs a reinvention.

But since I can't quantify it, I guess it doesn't matter. Because clearly a guy like Bobby Cox never squeezed blood from some of the stones he's been handed over the years.

There's definatley been a number of head scratching incidents that point towards clubhouse discord over the past couple of years. If Dusty can clear that out, and get people rowing in the same direction (assuming it's towards the finish line and not over the Victoria Falls) I can give him kudos for that.

Tom Servo
10-14-2007, 05:46 PM
Because I have nothing better to do with my time here's a list of players I compiled potentially available in free agency this offseason who have played for Dusty either with the Giants, Cubs, or both:

Barry Bonds
Sammy Sosa
Livan Hernandez
Matt Clement
Kerry Wood
Russ Ortiz
Greg Maddux
Moises Alou
Ramon Martinez
Julian Tavarez
Joe Borowoski
LaTroy Hawkins
Michael Barrett
Yorvit Torrealba
Pedro Feliz
Reggie Sanders
Kenny Lofton
Cesar Izturis
Antonio Alfonseca
Scott Linebrink
Corey Patterson

Gainesville Red
10-14-2007, 05:50 PM
That list scares the hell out of me.

fearofpopvol1
10-14-2007, 06:18 PM
There are a couple names on that list that I think would be decent gambles if they can be acquired at reasonable money.

reds44
10-14-2007, 06:19 PM
Kerry Wood would look really good in the Reds bullpen.

coachw513
10-14-2007, 06:23 PM
gm and I share the same sickness....being Reds and Vikes fans. (I like the Sixers too, so I should get more sympathy.) I'm in the middle of the trifecta every fan dreads. Your team is THE most embarrassing in every pro sport.




Sorry, but I have to put my Reds, Dolphins and Lakers up there for valid comparision :eek:...It's a wonder I haven't gone postal ;)

As for the hire...sometimes I wonder what I would think if I had never discovered Reds Zone??...because with every passing day of being introduced to well-defined thought and discussion about this franchise here (not that I always agree with it), I'm fascinated by the total disconnect with the Reds FO as compared to the body of thought presented here...which lends me to ask why???...is there some knowledge, some details of information available only in the secret corners of Sarasota and Cincinnati and not readily discernable by the deeply passionate, intelligent masses here???...or rather, is this yet another reflection of a lack of "corporate vision" that seemingly has defined the Reds for way too long...

I work and coach at a brand new high school...I did not/do not have existing deep relationships with my current administration, so with each passing day I begin to evaluate my opinion of the depth of organizational plan and quality, reactive thinking...well, the fear of my day-to-day can be expressed this way...some classes still don't have books, we've had a massive schedule change based on poor budgeting/resource allocation and we love to waste time with poorly defined meetings, but to make it all better our principal is proud that she can offer us coffee, juice and bagels on Friday mornings to get our day off to a good start :confused:...I fear "IT'S ALL ABOUT THE SHOW", a very scary thought in the world of education...no plan IS a plan, it's just a very, very bad one...

Well, that's what this move reeks of to me...as opposed to selecting a manager that clearly has experience and talent working with a core of young, talented position players and pitchers, we hire the opposite...instead of hiring someone with experience nurturing and developing pitching, we hire the opposite...we apparently don't need to follow a deeply felt organizational plan when we can make news with the hiring of Dusty Baker...I mean, we were on ESPN yesterday...we are relevant again...isn't this exciting?? :rolleyes: I fail to believe we can't change the emotional tenor of our clubhouse and on the field with someone who seemingly shares the ability to develop talent, appreciate common-sense baseball tools and have the emotional demeanor not to meltdown and cast blame elsewhere when adversity strikes...

For those that haven't had the ability to read this entire thread, I with deep pain repost this incredible set of statistics from Cyclone:


Mark Prior's pitch counts of 115+ in 2003 ...

May 12th: 124 pitches
May 28th: 123 pitches
June 3rd: 124 pitches
June 19th: 119 pitches
June 26th: 127 pitches
July 1st: 115 pitches
August 10th: 116 pitches
August 15th: 118 pitches
August 26th: 116 pitches
----------------------
September 1st: 131 pitches
September 6th: 129 pitches
September 16th: 124 pitches
September 21st: 131 pitches
September 27th: 133 pitches
October 3rd: 133 pitches
October 8th: 116 pitches
October 14th: 119 pitches

FTR, Mark Prior turned 23-years-old in September of 2003.

I don't know whether Bailey and Cueto and even Maloney are the real thing...I don't know whether Arroyo needs a special eye on his work-load...I do know that it's simply ignorant to hire someone that needs counsel on this...WE CAN'T DO BETTER???...

But I will go nowhere...I will watch every game I can and will read the papers and RZ every single day online...I love the Reds...

But it is not easy...

Matt700wlw
10-14-2007, 06:25 PM
Kerry Wood would look really good in the Reds bullpen.

THAT could work

Unassisted
10-14-2007, 06:35 PM
Looks like Doc has been visiting here.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071014/SPT04/310140013


Doc: Give Baker a break
BY PAUL DAUGHERTY

No love for Dusty Baker. Nothing but bile for a man with more than 1,100 career wins, whose teams have finished either first or second in eight of his 14 seasons as a manager. A guy who has been NL Manager of the Year three times, who took the Chicago Cubs closer to the World Series altar than any manager in almost 50 years?

He stinks, you say. Terrible pick. You won’t go to the games, you won’t renew your season tickets. You’re done with the Reds.

Ownership believed you’d love their choice. An established manager with clubhouse cred, a players manager, a guy who co-existed with the world’s most ornery athlete, Barry Bonds. You wanted someone who wasn’t an afterthought, a fill-in, a finger in the dike of losing. Well, here he is.

You’re more than irritated.

Judging from the comments to Cincinnati.Com's, e-mail and callers to my radio show on 700 WLW, you’re offended.

How come?

What do you want?

Do not say Joe Girardi or Tony La Russa. Reds ownership judged Girardi not worth the trouble, which says a lot. Girardi won 78 games two years ago, with a $15 million payroll. You’d think miserly Florida Marlins ownership would have locked him up forever and beyond. Instead, they fired him. Red flags all around.

La Russa, ultimately, was not going to come here. He’s 63, doesn’t want to start all over. If he does, it’ll be with a team he thinks can win immediately. Probably, he’ll be in St. Louis next April, or at home.

Point is, prospective managers don’t grow up dreaming of managing the Cincinnati Reds. So tell me, again, why Baker is the least popular choice since Vern Rapp.

Burns out pitchers, you say. Look at Mark Prior and Kerry Wood. Well, Wood was a time-bomb, a hard thrower with lousy mechanics. Prior might have been ridden too hard, but this was 2003 and the Cubs were chasing their first Series since 1945. Baker’s not the only guy making the calls on Prior’s pitch count. You could say it was a total team effort, from ownership on down.

Favors veterans, you say. No, more than that. Pampers them. Could be. Question: Could Junior Griffey be coddled any more than he is already? What veterans, exactly, would Baker spoil? The Reds are going to be younger than an Olympic gymnast. Adam Dunn? By inside accounts, Dunn is ready to lead, not be led. Who else might Dusty spoil? David Ross?

Part of Baker’s image as a butt-kisser of older guys comes from having to deal with Bonds. What would any manager have done differently with Barry? Do you really think a Lou Piniella or a Joe Girardi would have stood up to Bonds’ act? Doubtful.

What else? It could be this age of quicker-than-instant communication exaggerates everything, especially anger. Baker is the first manager hired in the offseason since Bob Boone, in 2001. In the six years since, chat rooms and message boards and such have exploded. It’s much easier to let the world know your anger now.

Or maybe part of it is Baker’s black. Is that it? Tell me it’s not. Marvin Lewis is black, but that’s the Bengals, here just since 1968, never taken as personally around here as the Reds. I’d like to think we’re past skin color. Wishing doesn’t make it so.

Here’s what Baker has to do to make you eat your bias: Lead. Identify a few vets capable of doing your bidding in the clubhouse. Set a tone of professionalism that is absent now. Insist on it.

When Joey Votto goes 1-for-20, stay with him. When Homer Bailey hits 100 pitches, remove him. Get yourself a good pitching coach. Leo Mazzone’s available. Other than that, get yourself a figurative flak jacket. You’re gonna need it.

jojo
10-14-2007, 06:37 PM
My point is that they have been able to harvest the fruit of their minor league crops because they've had pretty much the same foremen running the farm since 1991, not necessarily because they're statistically driven.

But if you look at HOW their farm system/organisation is run, it's pretty clear that Shapiro's gutting and retooling of the Indians wasn't successful simply because an existing pipeline was tapped. As a bit of context, by 2001 the Indians were unsustainably old and getting expensive in part because Hart had tapped out their high minor league system (i.e. trading guys like Sexson, Casey and Giles) in order to plug holes on their 25 man roster. Shapiro was promoted to GM in 2001 in order to oversee a rebuilding process in the face of shrinking payroll. He largely implemented a new organization-wide, statistically-driven process to degrees that were considered heretical at the time. Guys like Epstien and Antonetti mined DiamondView (their revolutionary stat-driven, computer-based system that functions to meld scouting and statistical analysis in such as way as to produce a cohesive system that guides their decisions on every level of the organisation) to provide the data that the FO relied heavily upon in making decisions at all levels of their organisation. Also, the retooling process didn't just rely on in house player development. DiamondView was instrumental in targeting guys like Hafner, Lee and Sizemore who were acquired via TRADE in '02. It's far to argue that continuity was important component for the Indians to develop their system but it was the the innovative philosophical transformation of the Indians FO by Shapiro where the reliance upon a statistically-driven system formed the core of their philosophy that allowed them to retool so quickly and successfully.

It wasn't "more of the same" but rather a dramatic change in the way they did business.

Ltlabner
10-14-2007, 06:44 PM
Prior might have been ridden too hard, but this was 2003 and the Cubs were chasing their first Series since 1945.

Or maybe part of it is Bakerís black.

Question: Could Junior Griffey be coddled any more than he is already?

Might have been ridden too hard? Might? And its ok to leave a pitcher twisting in the wind racking up the huge pitch counts Cyclone posted as long as you are in a penant race?

Because he's black? That didn't take long. There's been a long stream of intelligent and well throught out positions pro/con on Dusty since the news broke. Yea. Obviously racism. :rolleyes:

And then Doc totally misses the point regarding vet players. It's not about kissing their butts, it's about turning a blind eye to the younger tallent. Nice dig at Jr. by the way.

Quality stuff there Doc. :thumbdown

jojo
10-14-2007, 06:44 PM
Not everyone has to do exactly as you would have them do. Plus, if they all did the same thing, it would create new blind spots (which Billy Beane would only be too happy to exploit).

Can the traditional approach work? Golly, I don't know. Ask the Cardinals, Tigers, White Sox, Astros, Marlins, Angels, Giants and D-Backs, all of whom have made the World Series this century with a significant traditional bent (though some have blended traditional with new school because the world isn't black and white). Ask the Braves and Twins if the traditional approach can net you any results.

From 1997-2004, the Giants had eight straight winning campaigns, three division titles, a wild card and a World Series appearance. They averaged 92.25 wins a year during that stretch. Dusty Baker was their manager seven of those eight seasons. Can it work? Good Lord.

That ignores the argument though. I'm suggesting that trends seem to indicate a shift in the way many FO's are approaching their businesses (including big market teams like NY and Boston) and many of these changes take advantage of inefficiencies in the traditional approach.

I'm looking forward and suggesting that if the Reds don't also, they will find it even more difficult to compete consistently in the future than they find it now. You're looking in the past and suggesting it won't matter.

Caveat Emperor
10-14-2007, 06:45 PM
Who else might Dusty spoil?

Nefi Perez:



Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
2005 32 CHC NL 154 572 59 157 33 1 9 54 8 4 18 47 .274 .298 .383 77 219 12 4 3 3 2

Why I hate this hire is summarized perfectly by this line.

Matt700wlw
10-14-2007, 06:48 PM
Leave Doc alone...I have to work with him all week..

:D

The black thing, unfortunately came up 2 days after the original story broke...I'm surprised it took that long...


It's sad that that issue actually has merit

KronoRed
10-14-2007, 06:50 PM
Another awful article from the Enquirer

Caveat Emperor
10-14-2007, 06:51 PM
Leave Doc alone...I have to work with him all week..

:D

Tell him to read a little closer. ;)

The points being made on all sides are coherent and well-argued. Yes -- Dusty has a great history of success as a manager. But, there are red flags all over the place that seem to indicate he'll be a poor fit in this city with this team.

To throw the race card out there now is just lazy writing, IMO.

jojo
10-14-2007, 06:53 PM
Because he's black? That didn't take long. There's been a long stream of intelligent and well throught out positions pro/con on Dusty since the news broke. Yea. Obviously racism. :rolleyes:

I'd think the last thing the local media would like to pursue with Baker was a racism angle given some of his comments in the past.

Lets talk baseball Doc PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Matt700wlw
10-14-2007, 06:57 PM
Tell him to read a little closer. ;)

The points being made on all sides are coherent and well-argued. Yes -- Dusty has a great history of success as a manager. But, there are red flags all over the place that seem to indicate he'll be a poor fit in this city with this team.

To throw the race card out there now is just lazy writing, IMO.

He didn't....callers did.


yes, it's lazy, by the callers to throw it in....

I have plenty of reasons why I don't want Dusty here......and none of them are because of his skin color

Hoosier Red
10-14-2007, 06:58 PM
Vets over rookies.
This may have been rehashed already, but just curious what promising rookies languished on the bench because Dusty decided to play vets over them.

Ryan Theriot came up to the Cubs last year, but if he was sitting it was because Ronny Cedeno(Age 23) was playing in front of him.

I hear two contradictory criticisms of Baker.
He play vets over rookies, and he plays guys like Corey Patterson(ages 23-25) way too much.
I've heard this tweaked to say if you produce than he'll play you no matter what, but if you're a rookie and you struggle, then he'll play the struggling veteran over you.
This is probably true of any manager who hasn't been given assurances that he'll manage beyond the next year.
I understand the criticism of Neiffi and Jose Macias, but as was mentioned at about page 10, every manager has their own personal blind spots.

I'm not sure about the Giants, but the Cubs farm system hasn't exactly had a whole lot to write home about the last few years.

As for the arm wrecking, he is old school no doubt, but Wood and Prior were likely headed for the good doctor regardless of who managed. For every Wood and Prior, I can point to Zambrano and Hernandez, two guys that throw a ton of pitches every year with seemingly no ill affect.

Caveat Emperor
10-14-2007, 07:01 PM
He didn't....callers did.


yes, it's lazy, by the callers to throw it in....

I have plenty of reasons why I don't want Dusty here......and none of them are because of his skin color

I didn't listen, but that is just beyond disappointing if race factored at all into the fans discussion of Baker's hiring.

Hoosier Red
10-14-2007, 07:01 PM
Back to my original point.
Who was buried on the Cubs bench or in AAA that has gone on to starring roles elsewhere or since Dusty left.

4256 Hits
10-14-2007, 07:25 PM
Looks like Doc has been visiting here.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071014/SPT04/310140013

This just confirms why my house/car are 700 WLW free zones after 6:00pm! :(


I never thought there was anyway they could come up w/ a downgrade from Furman but sure enough they have.

RedsBaron
10-14-2007, 07:31 PM
About the only positive thing I can say about the hiring of Dusty Baker is that sometimes a team wins despite, not because of, its manager. For example, in 1982 the Orioles won 94 games with Earl Weaver at the helm and just missed winning the AL East. The next season, with Joe Altobelli as manager, the O's won 98 games and the World Series. Does anybody believe that Altobelli was a better manager than Weaver?
Sometimes you are just lucky. A few players have career years, a few new rookies or acquisitions suddenly do better than you could have imagined, and...well you are lucky-you get hot, you win more than your share of close games-and you are a winner. In those instances, you tend to fall back the next season.
So that's the best I can do when it comes to Dusty Baker. Maybe the Reds will be lucky and win despite him.

Outshined_One
10-14-2007, 07:40 PM
Back to my original point.
Who was buried on the Cubs bench or in AAA that has gone on to starring roles elsewhere or since Dusty left.

There's a side to this equation you have to take into account.

It's not just that Dusty Baker would let potentially promising young position players rot on the bench for extended stretches. It's that he would play veterans over them who should not have seen the kind of playing time they got. It's one thing when you keep a promising young player on the bench because you have a pretty good veteran producing. It's another thing when you trot out Neifi Perez every day as a top of the order hitter instead of one of those promising young players.

In other words, Dusty was a-okay with starting arguably the worst everyday player of this generation over someone like Ronny Cedeno or Ryan Theriot. That doesn't speak well to his judgment.

Chip R
10-14-2007, 07:41 PM
I wonder, if someone like LaRussa didn't want to come into a rebuilding situation, why Big Dust would? Does he actually think the Reds have the talent to contend?

westofyou
10-14-2007, 07:42 PM
Everyone keeps mentioning the Cubs as Dusty's resume... whither the 10 years in San Francisco?

Who were the young guys buried there?

edabbs44
10-14-2007, 07:42 PM
There's a side to this equation you have to take into account.

It's not just that Dusty Baker would let potentially promising young position players rot on the bench for extended stretches. It's that he would play veterans over them who should not have seen the kind of playing time they got. It's one thing when you keep a promising young player on the bench because you have a pretty good veteran producing. It's another thing when you trot out Neifi Perez every day as a top of the order hitter instead of one of those promising young players.

In other words, Dusty was a-okay with starting arguably the worst everyday player of this generation over someone like Ronny Cedeno or Ryan Theriot. That doesn't speak well to his judgment.

It's up to Wayne to limit Dusty having those opportunities.

There is no reason to have someone described as "arguably the worst everyday player of this generation" on any roster. So shame on Dusty for playing him, but shame on the GM for having him on the roster.

Falls City Beer
10-14-2007, 07:42 PM
I didn't listen, but that is just beyond disappointing if race factored at all into the fans discussion of Baker's hiring.

You're surprised?

traderumor
10-14-2007, 07:45 PM
Everyone keeps mentioning the Cubs as Dusty's resume... whither the 10 years in San Francisco?

Who were the young guys buried there?Those 10 years have been expunged from the records with an asterisk in their place ;)

One thing that has happened since the Reds left the West and you see those teams a few times a year out here is that you forget they play when they aren't coming to town but once a year. Another feather in Bud Ball.

Falls City Beer
10-14-2007, 07:48 PM
Everyone keeps mentioning the Cubs as Dusty's resume... whither the 10 years in San Francisco?

Who were the young guys buried there?

My memory's not what it used to be, but I recall that I absolutely hated playing Dusty's Giants. They seemed to out-everything the Reds--and not just at Candlestick, either.

I'm sure that's favorably swaying my opinion of the hire, right or not.

lollipopcurve
10-14-2007, 08:13 PM
it was the the innovative philosophical transformation of the Indians FO by Shapiro where the reliance upon a statistically-driven system formed the core of their philosophy that allowed them to retool so quickly and successfully.

Yeah, why am I not surprised that this view of the Indians' success is completely software-centric? I'm sure Diamondview is helpful, but more essential tools of the Indians current success were already there before Shapiro et al took over.

Sabathia, signed in 1998.
Peralta in 1999.
Victor Martinez in 1996.
Carmona, probably 2001 or 2002, and I doubt his signing in the Dominican owed anything to Diamondview.

jojo
10-14-2007, 08:14 PM
Back to my original point.
Who was buried on the Cubs bench or in AAA that has gone on to starring roles elsewhere or since Dusty left.

Well the arms have fallen off most of the young pitchers... :D

Being serious though, obviously Dusty will do what he thinks gives his team the best chance of winning so I think it's unfair to say Dusty won't play youngsters. It's just that he tends to overvalue experience and will give veterans long leashes even when slumping badly.

Here's some questions in answer to your question-what youngsters has Dusty managed to greatness? Also, what's a FO that just signed Dusty more likely to do (especially if his opinion about the roster are considered), funnel him youngsters or find a way to get him what he historically has preferred the most?

Hoosier Red
10-14-2007, 08:26 PM
There's a side to this equation you have to take into account.

It's not just that Dusty Baker would let potentially promising young position players rot on the bench for extended stretches. It's that he would play veterans over them who should not have seen the kind of playing time they got. It's one thing when you keep a promising young player on the bench because you have a pretty good veteran producing. It's another thing when you trot out Neifi Perez every day as a top of the order hitter instead of one of those promising young players.

In other words, Dusty was a-okay with starting arguably the worst everyday player of this generation over someone like Ronny Cedeno or Ryan Theriot. That doesn't speak well to his judgment.

Ronny Cedeno played 151 games last year. If he was playing Neiffi, it wasn't because Cedeno was missing time.

Caveat Emperor
10-14-2007, 08:34 PM
You're surprised?

I shouldn't be, but I'd hate to ever get to the point where I reach some sort of zen-acceptance of the prevalence of racism in this city.

Hoosier Red
10-14-2007, 08:36 PM
Well the arms have fallen off most of the young pitchers... :D

Being serious though, obviously Dusty will do what he thinks gives his team the best chance of winning so I think it's unfair to say Dusty won't play youngsters. It's just that he tends to overvalue experience and will give veterans long leashes even when slumping badly.

Here's some questions in answer to your question-what youngsters has Dusty managed to greatness? Also, what's a FO that just signed Dusty more likely to do (especially if his opinion about the roster are considered), funnel him youngsters or find a way to get him what he historically has preferred the most?

Fair points all. However, I'm not sure there are managers around who won't play the struggling veteran over the struggling rookie.
Unless you know you're coming back next year, you have to go with who you feel more comfortable with.

I don't know of any players Dusty has managed to greatness, but I just don't think he's had the quality of young position and pitching talent that he has in Cincinnati.

Highlifeman21
10-14-2007, 08:43 PM
Because I have nothing better to do with my time here's a list of players I compiled potentially available in free agency this offseason who have played for Dusty either with the Giants, Cubs, or both:

Barry Bonds
Sammy Sosa
Livan Hernandez
Matt Clement
Kerry Wood
Russ Ortiz
Greg Maddux
Moises Alou
Ramon Martinez
Julian Tavarez
Joe Borowoski
LaTroy Hawkins
Michael Barrett
Yorvit Torrealba
Pedro Feliz
Reggie Sanders
Kenny Lofton
Cesar Izturis
Antonio Alfonseca
Scott Linebrink
Corey Patterson


I bolded the guys I sure as hell wouldn't mind seeing in a Reds uniform. You can't tell me we wouldn't be a better ballclub with the bolded guys.

Hell, just Michael Barrett alone would completely change this ballclub.

Matt700wlw
10-14-2007, 08:53 PM
I didn't listen, but that is just beyond disappointing if race factored at all into the fans discussion of Baker's hiring.

I heard it being a factor...heard it, with my own ears..


I was very sad when I heard it...because, in this day and age, we should be beyond that kind of crap.


Thankfully, I didn't hear it on a show that I produce

Hoosier Red
10-14-2007, 09:08 PM
I bolded the guys I sure as hell wouldn't mind seeing in a Reds uniform. You can't tell me we wouldn't be a better ballclub with the bolded guys.

Hell, just Michael Barrett alone would completely change this ballclub.

What we need is for Borowski to give up a devastating home run like in game 7, than he'll be easier to sign.

Matt700wlw
10-14-2007, 09:12 PM
Would Rivera be worth a look? And the money?

KronoRed
10-14-2007, 09:13 PM
Would Rivera be worth a look? And the money?

Heck no, way to much coin for a closer

WVRedsFan
10-14-2007, 09:33 PM
I was away all weekend tending to other business and nowhere near radio or computer. Sometimes I like to get away from all of it. I got home this evening to this. What a couple of days, huh?

I kept looking over all the candidates for this job and came back underwhelmed. All of them. I knew neither Larussa nor Torre were going to come here at their age. I also knew that those two guys had little support here (at least, in message count). Everybody wanted Davey Johnson (including me), but Davey has also said he wasn't interested, so I knew he wasn't coming. I was secretly rooting for a 1-year contract for Mack and a wait until next year, but instead I get Dusty.

For all that's been said in this thread, I agree with Stormy and others who say this signals a disfunction in the whole Reds organization. I think it was Team Clark who said the Reds had trouble even filling the lower level jobs on this team. How sad. That would make it appear to be hopeless for a long time, but I think not. Many have asked what causes a man with the business skills of Bob Castellini to hire a Dusty Baker. Here's why. When Ford was in trouble, what did they do? They hired Alan Mulally, a guy who was successful someplace else to fix their company. The old, old philosophy is if he can fix "this" company, he can fix our company. That's what this was all about. Didn't Bob interview Lou before taking over and maybe even Torre. He wanted an "expert" and this is what he apparently thinks Baker is.
Your owner said he wanted to contend for championships right away instead of waiting, so that's what he's doing. Apparently he thinks that the players a mostly in place to win now.

As for remaining the follow the Reds, I had to ask myself if it could be any worse than Boone, Miley, or Narron. The answer came back a resounding, "no". So, if I stuck with them through that I have no choice but to stick with them through this. Like it or not.

For too long I have been preaching that in order to win championships, we had to have someone who has won something to lead the team. Now we have it. It's not exactly who I had in mind, but that goal (at least for me) is accomplished. The rest of it is up to question until about the middle of next year. I imagine those who steadfastly supported Miley, Narron, and lately Mack as well as Krivsky when we were winning (and even when we were not) will be less critical. But after tomorrow, he'll be our leader. I hope he's very successful.

WVRedsFan
10-14-2007, 09:35 PM
I heard it being a factor...heard it, with my own ears..


I was very sad when I heard it...because, in this day and age, we should be beyond that kind of crap.


Thankfully, I didn't hear it on a show that I produce

We should be, but unfortunately we're not, Matt.

But I think it's a very very small minority.

GAC
10-14-2007, 10:05 PM
To throw the race card out there now is just lazy writing, IMO.

Exactly. The fans have stood behind Marvin Lewis. They come to Red games to see Jr. Chad Johnson is currently one of the best loved Bengal players. And any criticism of Lewis has nothing to do with his race, but everything to do with his coaching.

As a fan I am downright insulted that just because I hate the hiring of Baker it has something to do with race. And if fans are critical of Baker during the season it has to be because of race?

Some are playing the race card already huh? Enough of this already.

wolfboy
10-14-2007, 10:21 PM
I was away all weekend tending to other business and nowhere near radio or computer. Sometimes I like to get away from all of it. I got home this evening to this. What a couple of days, huh?

I kept looking over all the candidates for this job and came back underwhelmed. All of them. I knew neither Larussa nor Torre were going to come here at their age. I also knew that those two guys had little support here (at least, in message count). Everybody wanted Davey Johnson (including me), but Davey has also said he wasn't interested, so I knew he wasn't coming. I was secretly rooting for a 1-year contract for Mack and a wait until next year, but instead I get Dusty.

For all that's been said in this thread, I agree with Stormy and others who say this signals a disfunction in the whole Reds organization. I think it was Team Clark who said the Reds had trouble even filling the lower level jobs on this team. How sad. That would make it appear to be hopeless for a long time, but I think not. Many have asked what causes a man with the business skills of Bob Castellini to hire a Dusty Baker. Here's why. When Ford was in trouble, what did they do? They hired Alan Mulally, a guy who was successful someplace else to fix their company. The old, old philosophy is if he can fix "this" company, he can fix our company. That's what this was all about. Didn't Bob interview Lou before taking over and maybe even Torre. He wanted an "expert" and this is what he apparently thinks Baker is.
Your owner said he wanted to contend for championships right away instead of waiting, so that's what he's doing. Apparently he thinks that the players a mostly in place to win now.

As for remaining the follow the Reds, I had to ask myself if it could be any worse than Boone, Miley, or Narron. The answer came back a resounding, "no". So, if I stuck with them through that I have no choice but to stick with them through this. Like it or not.

For too long I have been preaching that in order to win championships, we had to have someone who has won something to lead the team. Now we have it. It's not exactly who I had in mind, but that goal (at least for me) is accomplished. The rest of it is up to question until about the middle of next year. I imagine those who steadfastly supported Miley, Narron, and lately Mack as well as Krivsky when we were winning (and even when we were not) will be less critical. But after tomorrow, he'll be our leader. I hope he's very successful.

It can be a lot worse than Boone, Miley or Narron because we're going to pay a lot more money for Baker. You can have twenty guys named Belisle, Jarvis, Parris, or Villone, but it's the guy named Milton that really hurts. If anything, Dusty Baker is our Eric Milton. We can get the same level of ineptitude for much less. I just don't even know what to do with this organization anymore.

M2
10-14-2007, 10:42 PM
That ignores the argument though. I'm suggesting that trends seem to indicate a shift in the way many FO's are approaching their businesses (including big market teams like NY and Boston) and many of these changes take advantage of inefficiencies in the traditional approach.

I'm looking forward and suggesting that if the Reds don't also, they will find it even more difficult to compete consistently in the future than they find it now. You're looking in the past and suggesting it won't matter.

A) I don't consider 1997-2006 a bygone era.

B) We both know that there's more than one successful front office model out there.

C)I hate the word "compete." The Reds have spent seven seasons trying to compete. Right or wrong, hiring Dusty Baker tells me they aspire to win. Wouldn't be my plan, but he's a good fit for what has been the stated house plan.

Sabo Fan
10-14-2007, 10:42 PM
I'll admit to perhaps being a bit rash in my thinking when I first got news of the Baker hiring. Like many, I immediately began fearing the worst: Dunn's option will be declined because he walks too much, EdE will never again see the light of day, Bailey and Cueto have already scheduled their Tommy John surgery, and the Neifi Perez Era can only be a few short weeks away.

Now that I've had the better part of a day to stew over this latest hire by the Reds, I've decided to put off my final opinion on bringing Baker in until I see what this team looks like come the first of March, and probably until at least the middle of May to see what direction Baker has this team going.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't dissapointed, bewildered and just plain mad after I first heard about this hiring. I couldn't stand Baker when he was with the Giants and thought those teams he had won despite his best efforts. In Chicago I came to dislike him more, partly becuase of his ridiculous comments regarding pitch counts and offensive philosophy, and partly because I dislike the Cubs so much. Now that he's the manager of my favorite team, I can't really say that I like him any more, but I'll at least give the guy a shot.

What troubles me about this move the most is the fact that Baker has never shown an ability to handle a young team. He's managed teams dominated by veterans and has never seemed to be able to develop young talent. One of the reasons I was genuinely excited about the Reds for the first time since the Griffey trade was because of the young talent this team has in Bruce, Votto, Bailey, Cueto, Hamilton, EdE, Phillips and Hamilton. Surround them with Dunn, Harang, Arroyo and Griffey and that's an exciting club that would be fun towatch. Now I'm extremely concerned that none of these young players will be able to live up to their potential because

1. Baker doesn't have the managerial skill set to get them there and
2. Some of them may reach that potential somewhere else because this hire signals a major shift in the direction of this team.

As I've said, I'll ultimately reserve judgement on Baker until next season, but at this point my optimism towards this team heading into next season is extremely tempered.

M2
10-14-2007, 10:55 PM
Also, what's a FO that just signed Dusty more likely to do (especially if his opinion about the roster are considered), funnel him youngsters or find a way to get him what he historically has preferred the most?

I'd think you'd have to assume the latter. Dusty's going to want vets, especially on the mound.

As for position players, he'll probably want an Ausmus/Matheny type of catcher. He might want a fly chaser in CF. Corey Patterson? Votto would seem to be the guy in the most tenuous position, followed by Encarnacion.

He's likely to love Phillips and Gonzalez. I suspect he'll be good for Dunn, not tampering with him too much, not hitting him too low, getting him to play loose.

Jr. is the real question. Nominally, he's the obvious candidate to go, but will Dusty insist on keeping him?

Possibly the plan could be to deal Votto for an arm and station Dunn or Jr. at 1B.

jojo
10-14-2007, 11:05 PM
Yeah, why am I not surprised that this view of the Indians' success is completely software-centric? I'm sure Diamondview is helpful, but more essential tools of the Indians current success were already there before Shapiro et al took over.

Sabathia, signed in 1998.
Peralta in 1999.
Victor Martinez in 1996.
Carmona, probably 2001 or 2002, and I doubt his signing in the Dominican owed anything to Diamondview.

I wasn't arguing it was software-centric. Rather I was arguing that the recent rise of the Indians had less to due with continuity then it is the result of a process set into motion by a complete change in organizational philosophy that was orchestrated by a Shapiro-led FO. How the current Indians regime uses DiamondView is really the embodiment of this radical change. Hart basically had a core of players and adopted a strategy of locking them up long term while augmenting this core yearly by trading prospects or buying the part that was needed via free agency. He rode that pony until it dropped leaving the Indians at a crossroads with his departure. Basically Shapiro took the helm when revenue sharing was forcing fiscal constraints on the Indians FO while player development was a shambles as their high farm system was depleted of bona fide positional prospects and high quality pitchers due to years of Hart flipping prospects and giving up comp picks. By 2004 the system was so improved under the Shapiro-led FO that the Indians were losing guys like Taveras to the rule 5 draft.

While Sabathia was signed and developed under Shapiro's watchful eye, he was on the Indians 25 man roster having made 33 starts for the Indians before Shapiro became their GM in November, 2001.

Martinez was in high A ball when Shapiro took over but he had experienced somewhat of a breakout year with his bat. So Hart handed Shapiro a farm system with basically one serious prospect who was several years away. While Peralta was signed at 17 from the DR, he was basically a struggling kid in low ball who wasn't necessarily projecting as a shortstop. The implementation of Shapiro's player development philosophy is stamped all over Peralta. Carmona (began rookie ball for them in 2002) is a great example of the quick infusion that Shapiro gave the Indians farm system though technically he was under the Indians control in 2000.

Very little that is the current Indians can be counted as a direct result of Hart.

REDREAD
10-14-2007, 11:21 PM
Ohhh the torture of having to listen those. "This is not a firesale"...

Other infamous Allen quotes:

"We're not thowing in the towel" (after 2003 firesale)

"This new stadium will double our revenues and allow us to field a competitive team".

"Attendence declined from last year, but that's ok since higher ticket prices made up for it".

pedro
10-14-2007, 11:33 PM
I wasn't arguing it was software-centric. Rather I was arguing that the recent rise of the Indians had less to due with continuity then it is the result of a process set into motion by a complete change in organizational philosophy that was orchestrated by a Shapiro-led FO. How the current Indians regime uses DiamondView is really the embodiment of this radical change. Hart basically had a core of players and adopted a strategy of locking them up long term while augmenting this core yearly by trading prospects or buying the part that was needed via free agency. He rode that pony until it dropped leaving the Indians at a crossroads with his departure. Basically Shapiro took the helm when revenue sharing was forcing fiscal constraints on the Indians FO while player development was a shambles as their high farm system was depleted of bona fide positional prospects and high quality pitchers due to years of Hart flipping prospects and giving up comp picks. By 2004 the system was so improved under the Shapiro-led FO that the Indians were losing guys like Taveras to the rule 5 draft.

While Sabathia was signed and developed under Shapiro's watchful eye, he was on the Indians 25 man roster having made 33 starts for the Indians before Shapiro became their GM in November, 2001.

Martinez was in high A ball when Shapiro took over but he had experienced somewhat of a breakout year with his bat. So Hart handed Shapiro a farm system with basically one serious prospect who was several years away. While Peralta was signed at 17 from the DR, he was basically a struggling kid in low ball who wasn't necessarily projecting as a shortstop. The implementation of Shapiro's player development philosophy is stamped all over Peralta. Carmona (began rookie ball for them in 2002) is a great example of the quick infusion that Shapiro gave the Indians farm system though technically he was under the Indians control in 2000.

Very little that is the current Indians can be counted as a direct result of Hart.

Actually I'm all for giving credit to Shapiro. But it was the work he did as farm director from 1996-2001 that laid a good bit of the groundwork for what they are experiencing now. I just don't think that it's entirely due to any radical change, regardless of their use of Diamondview, which I do understand is regarded to be the best computer system in use by any major league team.

Here's (http://www.cleveland.com/gameplan/index.ssf?/gameplan/more/part2.html) a good article about Diamondview for anyone else who is interested. I'm a professional software developer so I do appreciate how cool this is.

jojo
10-14-2007, 11:34 PM
I'd think you'd have to assume the latter. Dusty's going to want vets, especially on the mound.

As for position players, he'll probably want an Ausmus/Matheny type of catcher. He might want a fly chaser in CF. Corey Patterson? Votto would seem to be the guy in the most tenuous position, followed by Encarnacion.

He's likely to love Phillips and Gonzalez. I suspect he'll be good for Dunn, not tampering with him too much, not hitting him too low, getting him to play loose.

Jr. is the real question. Nominally, he's the obvious candidate to go, but will Dusty insist on keeping him?

Possibly the plan could be to deal Votto for an arm and station Dunn or Jr. at 1B.

As you suggest, Dusty claims to value pitching (though he doesn't seem to know how to manage a staff) and defense. We know he favors experience and tends to avoid platoons. He doesn't seem to value walks and it's pretty clear he's not a tactician. This off season should be pretty interesting from a roster standpoint. I have no idea what his hiring portends for Dunn and Jr (defense!), Bruce (youth), or Hatteberg (platoon) and Votto (youth/platoon).

Team Clark
10-14-2007, 11:47 PM
Other infamous Allen quotes:

"We're not thowing in the towel" (after 2003 firesale)

"This new stadium will double our revenues and allow us to field a competitive team".

"Attendence declined from last year, but that's ok since higher ticket prices made up for it".

OMG..how can we all forget those? I saw John Allen at the Cincinnati Magazine 40th Anniversary party. I didn't bother to say hello because I just didn't think I could keep it together. :laugh:

Kinda wished I had so I would have had something better to post!

Eric_Davis
10-15-2007, 12:11 AM
On the otherhand, I can't recall Baker burning out pitchers when he was with the Giants. There was a question about Wood's mechanics and Prior wouldn't be the first pitcher with a history of injuries. So how much of the blame do you attribute to Baker for those two flameouts?

It's a philosophy that goes back 60 years. Craig, Lasorda, and Baker are all products of the Walter Alston philosophy. It was fine in the days when the Dodgers were getting the largest percentage of young, quality pitchers every year. But, those days are long past as expansion has doubled the number of franchises and everyone recruits in places where only the Dodgers used to go. The Dodgers for over half a century have burned out their pitchers, and it's a philosophy that goes with those that played for them. Lasorda, Craig, and Baker are all of the same mold. Their style doesn't work anymore. It's antiquated. You have to take very good care of your assets nowadays.

How often do the Dodgers ever have a pitcher come up through their system last very long in the Majors without having Major injuries? Not very often. They rarely get through arbitration before they're ruined. They've had to buy all of their quality pitchers from other organizations for over a decade now.

Eric_Davis
10-15-2007, 12:14 AM
and do you think Dusty Baker will do what Krivsky tells him to when it comes to protecting pitchers? Not a chance. Baker will do whatever he wants because Krivsky didn't hire him. Krivsky would never hire a guy who would do his own thing against Krivsky's orders. Krivsky has proven that he wants to protect the assets and not rush any players or ruin any arms. How many arms got ruined this year in the REDS' organization? None. That's probably the first time in a dozen years where we haven't lost a good prospect for the year because of arm trouble.

REDREAD
10-15-2007, 12:19 AM
OMG..how can we all forget those? I saw John Allen at the Cincinnati Magazine 40th Anniversary party. I didn't bother to say hello because I just didn't think I could keep it together. :laugh:

Kinda wished I had so I would have had something better to post!

:lol:

I just remembered another one.. A fan here asked Allen a question about why the Reds didn't spend more on something. and Allen's response was "It's not Your money"

RBA
10-15-2007, 12:50 AM
The darkest hour is just before the dawn.

Mario-Rijo
10-15-2007, 12:57 AM
I don't dislike everything about the guy but he really doesn't seem to be a good fit for us, what with the reputation for leaning away from using youth. Because that's what we have/will have during his tenure.

My only rationalization for this is that the powers that be felt the need for a big name was neccessary to establish the fact that they are serious about competing. IMO his hiring doesn't quite send the message they wanted to convey. Sure he is a "known" manager with some degree of success, but again those teams were tailored to fit his style. I just don't see us having the ability to match his style with our available resources.

It's also too bad that Castellini and Krivsky feel that they need to do anything but win to gain this measure of trust with fans, media, the players etc. It's too bad that a guy like Mackanin who seemed to have a real grasp on running this team is replaced with a guy based on managements perception of what they have to do to gain credibility, when the truth is all they had to do is go out and pay some money for quality pitching and Mack would have competed just as well if not better than Dusty "I won't make you publicly accountable" Baker.

Pete Handled the staff pretty well with the exception of a couple of occasions.

Pete motivated everyone, both veteran and rookie and everyone in between. Mainly by holding everyone accountable.

Pete was honest and classy with everyone.

Pete did as well as could be expected with what he had any given time.

Pete wasn't here long enough to be sure he was perfect for the job, but it sure was looking that way.

We don't need any show of commitment other than the commitment to winning and IMHO this (Dusty) isn't it. Of course it's all moot at this point apparently so the best I can do is hope I'm wrong about Baker and hope it brings the Reds what it is they seek..........some slack. And perhaps a FA or 2 that feels this signing is some show of progress.

I will be expecting the Red's to take a step back at least initially and praying for the opposite. Because as bad as it seems to be I can't just walk away for more than few moments at a time anyway.

WVRedsFan
10-15-2007, 01:18 AM
http://www.sportsline.com/columns/weblogs/entry/10383530

It's not perfect, but Reds are Baker's best option now

Most likely, Dusty Baker doesn't know something you don't. He did not agree to a three-year deal believed to be worth between $11 million and $12 million to manage in Cincinnati because he thinks the Reds are ready to win now.

No, Baker has a burning desire to manage again, to not let his career end on that 66-96 downer he and last year's Cubs produced, and the simple fact is that after sitting out a year, there really aren't any ready-made situations whereby a skipper can move in and win immediately.

Cincinnati owner Bob Castellini has been wooing Baker for weeks. The Reds remain far from perfect, what with a dearth of pitching, the Ken Griffey Jr. problem (he's an older, injury-prone player past his prime that they really can't shed) and a middle-of-the-order slugger in Adam Dunn who strikes out way too often and is a defensive liability.

Baker, of course, has plenty of experience in managing superstars in various stages of decline -- Barry Bonds in San Francisco, Sammy Sosa with the Cubs -- and knows the National League extremely well. The players still love him, he still has that energy at 58, and one of the hard truths in the game is that the longer you stay away, the easier it is for clubs to forget about you.

Baker did not want to be forgotten, so he surveyed the landscape and made the best of it.

Seattle would have been a a solid fit, but the Mariners made interim John McLaren their full-time skipper.

There still might be an opening with the Yankees that could come as early as this week, but if Joe Torre is axed, Steinbrenner family favorite Don Mattingly, currently Torre's bench coach, is expected to get that job. Or perhaps former Marlins manager and current Yankees broadcaster Joe Girardi.

The St. Louis situation could be fluid depending on Tony La Russa's decision, but hiring a manager who flamed out with the hated Cubs would be a hard sell in that town

Cedric
10-15-2007, 01:21 AM
Thanks for the post. Who wrote that though? How pointless was the article? Dusty Baker wanted a job running one of the 30 teams in the greatest sport in the world. WOW. Big shock.

RBA
10-15-2007, 01:25 AM
Thanks for the post. Who wrote that though? How pointless was the article? Dusty Baker wanted a job running one of the 30 teams in the greatest sport in the world. WOW. Big shock.

In other words....

It goes without saying. :thumbup:

WVRedsFan
10-15-2007, 01:32 AM
It can be a lot worse than Boone, Miley or Narron because we're going to pay a lot more money for Baker. You can have twenty guys named Belisle, Jarvis, Parris, or Villone, but it's the guy named Milton that really hurts. If anything, Dusty Baker is our Eric Milton. We can get the same level of ineptitude for much less. I just don't even know what to do with this organization anymore.

What are they paying him? $4 million. Good grief, they paid the wonderful tandem of Cromier, Stanton, and Lohse more than that!

I'm not happy with Baker, but this is not the end of the world. As another Zoner said, the guy, at least has a winning record regardless.

And yes, I had warmed to Pete Macklanin, but let's not hang the guy until he fails.

WVRedsFan
10-15-2007, 01:41 AM
Thanks for the post. Who wrote that though? How pointless was the article? Dusty Baker wanted a job running one of the 30 teams in the greatest sport in the world. WOW. Big shock.

Scott Miller on CBS Sportsline. I thought the telling quote was that BCast chased Baker for weeks. Not Krivsky--Castellini.

I don't know what to think right now, but the whole thing will either be a huge success or a collosial failure.

Patrick Bateman
10-15-2007, 01:56 AM
What are they paying him? $4 million. Good grief, they paid the wonderful tandem of Cromier, Stanton, and Lohse more than that!



On an off-topic note, I'll never understand how a league average starter at 4M (for only 1 year btw) continues to get lumped in with guys like Stanton and Cormier.

Pitchers like Lohse have a market value at 8M+. See what he gets in free agency. He was a great addition at little cost.

Reds Nd2
10-15-2007, 01:59 AM
No, like I said, he wouldn't be my choice. Of course, I'd question how many of those kids will actually play for the Reds if Dusty is the manager. Expect the youth movement to be minimized if he's at the helm. His arrival would portend an entirely different gameplan for this organization. It would be all about winning now.

I've been saying for years that this franchise needs to make a serious commitment in a single direction - load up or rebuild. If the club hires Baker then it would seem that load up is the choice.
I'm just not that sure about the winnining now part gameplan. I've always thought that '08 was the game plan for the franchise. I'm just not sure DB helps that plan along. In fact, I think it may hinder any long term plans of this team winning consistantly for years to come.

Topcat
10-15-2007, 02:44 AM
I am truly not pleased with the hiring of Dusty Baker at all. As a Redsfan I hope it works out, but I fear for the future Of Homer and Cueto and any young arm going forward with dusty the definition of pitching abuse Baker.

M2
10-15-2007, 03:00 AM
I'm just not that sure about the winnining now part gameplan. I've always thought that '08 was the game plan for the franchise. I'm just not sure DB helps that plan along. In fact, I think it may hinder any long term plans of this team winning consistantly for years to come.

I think you need to separate the intention from the ability to execute. Baker certainly indicates the intention to win now is there, that in fact the organization expects to win now. It may wind up horribly and bitterly disappointed, but it's not the same as handing the keys over Miley or Narron and hoping they can reach the end of the season in one piece. Expect the word "compete" to get tossed into the incinerator and the franchise to put some money beyond the verbeage.

They certainly might screw it up, but damned if they don't want it.

M2
10-15-2007, 03:22 AM
I am truly not pleased with the hiring of Dusty Baker at all. As a Redsfan I hope it works out, but I fear for the future Of Homer and Cueto and any young arm going forward with dusty the definition of pitching abuse Baker.

Though look at it from another angle. If you call them up to the majors in their early 20s, you're probably abusing them anyway. It's not like you've got to wait 100 pitches until you start screwing them up. From pitch one, you might be asking them to push beyond sound mechanics to get big league hitters out.

It's no secret that the flameout rate for young pitchers is through the roof, but say one or both catch lightning in a bottle and start mowing down big leaguers. Maybe that kid's only got a year or two at the top. If so, do you want him to throw 180 IP or 220? You're running a small market team and you've got a window open right now, for the first time in ages. You've paid for two staff bulwarks and now you've got a cheap phenom or two to join them, to make a real push at a championship. Are you going to let that pass because you want to take it easy on a kid who might breakdown or backslide anyway? You can't know or control the future, but you can do something about today.

I'll put it to you this way, if Dusty Baker rode Bailey and Cueto hard and won like crazy with them, I wouldn't shed a tear if they had short careers.

People keep praising the Indians around here. They didn't take it easy on Fausto Carmona this year and they've always ridden C.C. Sabathia hard. They never took it easy on Jeremy Sowers or Cliff Lee either and those two guys broke down this year.

fearofpopvol1
10-15-2007, 03:24 AM
http://www.sportsline.com/columns/weblogs/entry/10383530

It's not perfect, but Reds are Baker's best option now

Most likely, Dusty Baker doesn't know something you don't. He did not agree to a three-year deal believed to be worth between $11 million and $12 million to manage in Cincinnati because he thinks the Reds are ready to win now.

No, Baker has a burning desire to manage again, to not let his career end on that 66-96 downer he and last year's Cubs produced, and the simple fact is that after sitting out a year, there really aren't any ready-made situations whereby a skipper can move in and win immediately.

Cincinnati owner Bob Castellini has been wooing Baker for weeks. The Reds remain far from perfect, what with a dearth of pitching, the Ken Griffey Jr. problem (he's an older, injury-prone player past his prime that they really can't shed) and a middle-of-the-order slugger in Adam Dunn who strikes out way too often and is a defensive liability.

Baker, of course, has plenty of experience in managing superstars in various stages of decline -- Barry Bonds in San Francisco, Sammy Sosa with the Cubs -- and knows the National League extremely well. The players still love him, he still has that energy at 58, and one of the hard truths in the game is that the longer you stay away, the easier it is for clubs to forget about you.

Baker did not want to be forgotten, so he surveyed the landscape and made the best of it.

Seattle would have been a a solid fit, but the Mariners made interim John McLaren their full-time skipper.

There still might be an opening with the Yankees that could come as early as this week, but if Joe Torre is axed, Steinbrenner family favorite Don Mattingly, currently Torre's bench coach, is expected to get that job. Or perhaps former Marlins manager and current Yankees broadcaster Joe Girardi.

The St. Louis situation could be fluid depending on Tony La Russa's decision, but hiring a manager who flamed out with the hated Cubs would be a hard sell in that town

!@#$%^&*

Wow. I mean, I was never a fan of this move to begin with, but this just makes me go overboard now. What a waste of financial resources. That kind of money could easily sign a dependable reliever or be put towards the contract of a back of the rotation kind of starter. What this also signals is that Dusty will play out his contract in Cincinnati regardless of the results because of the investment made.

I'm really disappointed now.

BCubb2003
10-15-2007, 03:41 AM
Wow. I mean, I was never a fan of this move to begin with, but this just makes me go overboard now. What a waste of financial resources. That kind of money could easily sign a dependable reliever or be put towards the contract of a back of the rotation kind of starter. What this also signals is that Dusty will play out his contract in Cincinnati regardless of the results because of the investment made.



That's probably true, but there's the small possibility that this is the beginning of something we're not used to: Do what it takes. Need a big-name manager? Do what it takes. Need a reliever? Do what it takes.

RedlegJake
10-15-2007, 05:50 AM
1. The money. Anyone think the Reds could really have hired a "name" - any guy with a ML resume - LaRussa, Brenly, Girardi, Torre, Macha - anyone? Including Dusty - and NOT paid big bucks and a multi-year? Come on. That's just not happening. If it was budget wanted then the ONLY choice was MacKanin. And the board would have screamed then that the Reds remained ever cheap.

2. In house Outhouse. Get someone from outside the clique, get a fresh perspective - don't hire the same guys from the same organization - AGAIN. So they don't. And they are reviled anyway. It is different, it IS a shakeup over the same ol' same ol' but again damned if you do/damned if you don't.

3. We need attitude. That's been a common refrain (and one I agree with). So they hire a guy who is one of the surly managers, attitude plus. Players like him but he'll get in their face fast if need be. Still someone with an attitude gets hired - BUT anyone but him is the cry! All I can think is who? Girardi? Lord no, Baker has him "dusted" as a manager. Girardi was the one guy, followed by Brenly, that I detested as a possible candidate. In context I'm doing cartwheels over Baker's hiring. I even think he's a better candidate overall than Mac and I felt had Girardi and Brenly beat hands down.

Finally - the "I'll quit rooting for the Reds" over Baker stuff. Ya gotta be kidding me. Seriously. The franchise of Luke Sewell, Bucky Walters (great pitcher horrid manager), Don Heffner, Russ Nixon, Vern Rapp, Ray Knight, Bob Boone and Dave Miley? The Reds have always competed with best(worst) for managers with suckitude. I'll NEVER quit being a Reds fan, period. If they bomb out for the next 20 years and I die never seeing a winning season I'll still root for them, watch them, gnash my teeth, shred my garments, lament, wail and hope for better every season. Dusty Baker is far, far from the thing that would make me quit being a Reds fan. I can't even fathom anyone feeling different if they are really a fan. If you want to win and compete all the time root for the Yankees or Bosox. I don't mean that as a knock either. If losing really downs you, and periods of ineptitude gnaw at you until you wanna go watch another team - then you should. Because this franchise has swung pretty wildly through its history from really, really terrible to pretty good, with one brief era of dominance. Maybe that's what spoiled some. Historically, though the 70s were a huge aberration.

One thing about Dusty's hiring. Next season will almost certainly be different. I hope it's better as well. Since I'm in the extreme minority who think this is a pretty good hire (Baker seems to be the type who turns a franchise around then sees it go south after 3 or 4 seasons; I'd hire him, keep him for his contract and then no matter what - I'd find a new manager. So I think he'll bring about immediate gains for a year or two, run at the central title then I think you get a guy (with a more even keel shall we say?) to take over once Baker begins to wear thin.

RedsManRick
10-15-2007, 09:53 AM
I love how Dunn is a defensive liability who strikes out too much. I wonder how they'd describe Manny? The real story is that old school baseball men struggle to see the value in a guy who hits just .260 in a good year. If he hit .300 with 20 HR nobody would care about his defense.

This is going to be par for the course moving forward -- except expect it to come from our manager.

bucksfan2
10-15-2007, 10:03 AM
1. Im lookwarm on this signing. Dusty is better than the past managers. Narron, Miley, and Boone were all managers who put their team at a disadvantage whenever they stepped onto the field. MacKanon was still an unknown. If you take away the typical boost that every intern manager gets when the previous manager is fired he did nothing to impress.

2. Dusty ruined Kerry Wood's arm is just like saying McKenon ruined Scott Williamsons arm. Mark Prior was a different story but if I remember correctly wasn't he rushed to the majors because most in the organizatoin thought he was MLB ready when he was drafted.

3. I hear that Dusty always played veterans over younger players but I just dont remember many young players coming up in the Cubs and Giants organizatoin. The Giants have always had veteran players and seemed to go the FA route quite a bit. To that fact when you have the two best players in baseball in Kent and Bonds you are going to ride them.

4. I hope this is a GM Mangager relationship that Epstein has with Francona. Epstein shut down Buckhotz becuase he had reach his max number if innings. I can see Krivsky doing the same with a rookie pitcher if he pitches too many innings.

5. Baker has something to prove. His last season was a disaster in Chicago. It doesn't help much when your MVP candidate 1b goes down early in the season and your pitching staff is bad. The best thing about this hire is that Baker does have something to prove. He was one of the most sought after managers about 4 years ago and now many reds fans are mad tha the reds hired him.

6. Its going to be refreshing to have a manager protect his players. Narron was horriable at that. During his tenure I wanted to see him protect Edwin when a call went against him. Or come out of the dougout storming mad during a long losing streak but he never did. Baker will do that and the reds will be a better team because of that. Players play harder for a manager when they realize that he will have their back.

RFS62
10-15-2007, 10:13 AM
XM just had Ken Rosenthal on for his weekly spot, and he said he "understands that Dusty was asked about Woods and Prior during his interview, and his answer was apparently satisfactory".

TRF
10-15-2007, 10:19 AM
I'll put it to you this way, if Dusty Baker rode Bailey and Cueto hard and won like crazy with them, I wouldn't shed a tear if they had short careers.

I will because he doesn't have enough pieces in place to win EASILY with them. The pen is a shambles, and defensively this team is Phillips, an improving EE and a BUNCH of ????'s

I take 4 months off, and this is what brings me back? I swear ownsership and the FO are trying to make me take up hockey.

anyhow.... Do I want to see 120 pitch efforts blown up by this sorry pen? do we want to see ridiculous pitch counts and 10-16 records to show for it? Because Dusty's management style suggest that very outcome. Krivsky better find some QUALITY arms for the pen, or we could see a ver abused rotation with NOTHING to show for it.

And now I slip back into obscurity

RedsFan75
10-15-2007, 10:20 AM
bucksfan brings up some very good points.

I think I've decided to wait and see...

One can only hope.

Always Red
10-15-2007, 10:36 AM
OK

Concerns have been expressed, rightfully so, by many here at RZ (including myself). I've read through all of this gargantuan thread, contributed my own doubts and fears, and the bottom line is that I am a Reds fan first.

Bob Castellini is trying to win. He's making an effort. We might all disagree on how to get there, and I understand that most of us prefer a more "modern" approach to winning, but Castellini is trying, as best he knows how, to make this work.

It's a beautiful fall day here in Cincinnati; it's going to be about 80 and sunny today. I've complained, and now I am done. It's time for me to be more positive. Dusty Baker is the manager of my team, the Cincinnati Reds. I'm feeling like being optimistic today; yes, it really is a decision, to be positive and optimistic, at least for me.

The past is the past. I'm going to assume Dusty has learned from the mistakes that he made in Chicago. I like to think I am open-minded, and there is also a lot to like about Dusty Baker, especially as compared to managers we've had here in the past. He's not perfect, but then none of the candidates out there are.
Dusty has been a winner; that's a good start.

So, until or unless Dusty starts frowning on walks as "base-cloggers" and running Arroyo and Harang out there for 120-130 pitches, I am done with complaining about Dusty Baker.

I don't care how he does it as long as he brings victories and doesn't abuse the pitchers. Rookies, vets, old guys, new guys- I don't care. Maybe that's just what this team needs- new blood and a shakeup.

Welcome to Cincinnati, Dusty; I hope you have a long, productive stay here :beerme:

westofyou
10-15-2007, 10:42 AM
2. Dusty ruined Kerry Wood's arm is just like saying McKenon ruined Scott Williamsons arm.

No, it's like saying Jack McKeon ruined Steve Busby's arm.

Because he did.

flyer85
10-15-2007, 10:54 AM
No, it's like saying Jack McKeon ruined Steve Busby's arm.or that Johnson ruined Gooden's arm.

westofyou
10-15-2007, 11:06 AM
http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/spring/


Dusty reax

The Reds sent this from Dusty's agent, my ol' pal Greg Genske: "Dusty is extremely excited to join the Cincinnati Reds with its rich history—and looks forward to helping re-establish the legacy of the Big Red Machine."

# Aaron Harang: "I think he’s going to be a good addition to our team. He’s got a track record, he knows how to win. I think he’s going to demand quality play from his players. He’s not going to be the type of guy who is not afraid of benching a guy for not hustling."

# Bronson Arroyo: "To get it out of the way quick is great, instead of dragging it out and going through five or six interviews and waiting until the last minute to make a decision. It’s good for the organization to get going in the right direction."

# Marty Brennaman: "I don’t think you can deny his track record. I was even surprised at it after I looked at it. If you want to talk about a guy with 9 winning seasons."

# Rich Aurilia: "I think it’s great, he’s the type of guy players want to play for it’s like having another guy on the team. He'd love to play. He'd like to put the uniform on. I think it’s a great hire, he's a great character guy and a great communicator. He treats everyone the same. I think he’ll enjoy the ownership group and they’re going in the right direction."

# Kent Mercker: "I think it’s a great hire. Being the prognosticator I am, if they’re going to make a change, I thought Dusty would be a great candidate. He brings instant street credibility. It’s a name everyone has heard of. As a player, he’s played in the World Series, he can relate to players, because he was a player. The one thing I got from him, he knew every one of his players, he knew their wives names, he knew what they liked to eat. He took the time to get to know the 25 guys he was going to battle with."

# Pete Mackanin: "Today I’m just digesting the news, trying to figure out what the plan is. I think I’m just going to start calling other teams and try to get a job. There may or may not be something for me in the organization. It’s probably unlikely as a coach, but I don’t think that’s been ruled out. I’m just going to start making phone calls."

# Jeff Brantley: "I think it’s awesome. I think the Reds will benefit greatly by having Dusty at the wheel. I know there are naysayers, but I’ve played for him. I know what it’s like to play for a young manager, I know what it’s like to play for a guy who has played a long time. Dusty’s very good. He’s about winning. The one thing I’ve always loved about Dusty is he’s a guy who gets guys to play their best."

"He knows how to teach you how to hit, too. You can bet your bottom dollar that there won’t be any slumps swinging the bat."

"Everyone’s knock on Dusty is not understanding pitchers, but the thing about it is he does understand. But when you have your main pitcher is basically hurting himself, which was Prior and you have another guy with the worst mechanics in the game in Kerry Wood. Those guys were going to get hurt, no matter who was manager. He just ended up getting kicked in the teeth for it."

# And one more... Adam Dunn: "I think it's a perfect fit."

Dunn also said his knee is feeling better, he's just waiting for the swelling to go down completely, but has been doing his rehab. He said nobody's talked to him about his extension, "I'm sure getting Dusty was their No. 1 priority, and rightfully so."

vaticanplum
10-15-2007, 11:12 AM
I keep seeing quotes from Rich Aurilia, in fact I've probably seen more from him about this than anyone else including front office management. I know he's a Giant and all, but the reporters do know that he's no longer a Red, right?

Chip R
10-15-2007, 11:14 AM
I keep seeing quotes from Rich Aurilia, in fact I've probably seen more from him about this than anyone else including front office management. I know he's a Giant and all, but the reporters do know that he's no longer a Red, right?

:lol:

Rich likes Big Dust cause he played him every day.

westofyou
10-15-2007, 11:20 AM
I keep seeing quotes from Rich Aurilia, in fact I've probably seen more from him about this than anyone else including front office management. I know he's a Giant and all, but the reporters do know that he's no longer a Red, right?

He played for Dusty, came up as a rookie and played for years for him...in fact he was a YOUNG player who pushed an established vet aside... a fact that seems to be diluted by Cubs blue.

He also like Brantley has been an insider in both organizations, that is a unique insight when discussing the work habits of leaders, ask the people who worked for them and have the experience of the two work cultures. You'll learn more then you think.

This sort of stuff is what humanizes the game and blurs the edge of statistical studies. It's all about people at the end of the day, and they all look at the game differently then us and mostly it's because they play(ed) it day in and day out. That's why I think oral histories from players is so valuable, it's a look at the game usually after they played and it usually tells you more in 1 page then John Fay can in one season.

redsmetz
10-15-2007, 12:19 PM
I liked this quote:


Dunn also said his knee is feeling better, he's just waiting for the swelling to go down completely, but has been doing his rehab. He said nobody's talked to him about his extension, "I'm sure getting Dusty was their No. 1 priority, and rightfully so."

This is what I'm loving about Adam Dunn; a growing maturity. I hope step #2 is signing Adam to a 4-5 year deal.

Unassisted
10-15-2007, 12:36 PM
I'll put it to you this way, if Dusty Baker rode Bailey and Cueto hard and won like crazy with them, I wouldn't shed a tear if they had short careers.
That's a great point. It seems like the prevailing assumption on those starters in the pipeline is that they're destined for long successful careers. It could be that they're destined for short successful careers, no matter who writes their name in the 9-hole on the lineup card. Dusty can write that name as well as anyone. There's no reason to think he won't get the most out of those guys over the short haul, if that's their destiny.

BCubb2003
10-15-2007, 12:51 PM
Dusty can write that name as well as anyone.

Well, Narron studied calligraphy, so I'd give the nod to him, but otherwise you're probably right.

Falls City Beer
10-15-2007, 01:04 PM
That's a great point. It seems like the prevailing assumption on those starters in the pipeline is that they're destined for long successful careers. It could be that they're destined for short successful careers, no matter who writes their name in the 9-hole on the lineup card. Dusty can write that name as well as anyone. There's no reason to think he won't get the most out of those guys over the short haul, if that's their destiny.

The prevailing wisdom on the starters in the pipeline is that they'll all be above replacement level and they'll all be cheap for six years. But if they're good, they'll only be cheap for a couple of years. I don't think you can have a great or even a good starter cheap for six years; arbitration means they'll get a huge pay raise if they're good, so really, the cheapness argument is all relative; the only way they remain cheap (even in the pre-FA seasons) is if they are mediocre or worse.

All this assumes that said starter would be healthy anyway--which is certainly worse than a 50 % chance.

Tom Servo
10-15-2007, 01:05 PM
You can watch the press conference now on Reds.com

Tom Servo
10-15-2007, 01:11 PM
Dusty says there's a "number of guys he's called who are interested in coming to Cincinnati."

Falls City Beer
10-15-2007, 01:12 PM
Dusty says there's a "number of guys he's called who are interested in coming to Cincinnati."

Coaches? players? both? neither? groupies?

nate
10-15-2007, 01:13 PM
Coaches? players? both? neither? groupies?

Cubs fans.

Tom Servo
10-15-2007, 01:14 PM
Coaches? players? both? neither? groupies?
He mentioned he plans for the Reds "to play exciting baseball and fundamental baseball" and have a number of high character players, and then came the quote. I took it that he meant players.

pedro
10-15-2007, 01:14 PM
Coaches? players? both? neither? groupies?

John Lee Hooker

Falls City Beer
10-15-2007, 01:15 PM
John Lee Hooker

I'd be fine with that.

Tom Servo
10-15-2007, 01:17 PM
C.Trent, man of the people, asks Dusty about his reputation for hurting young pitchers.

BRM
10-15-2007, 01:19 PM
C.Trent, man of the people, asks Dusty about his reputation for hurting young pitchers.

What was the response?

OldXOhio
10-15-2007, 01:20 PM
Jeff Brantley: "I know what itís like to play for a young manager"

Good for you cowboy....what's that got to do w/ this hire?

Wheelhouse
10-15-2007, 01:30 PM
As usual, no beat writer has the sack to ask meaningful questions. 1) Does the coaching staff stay, or go? 2) Dusty, who are some of these players who you could get to come to Cincinnati? 3) Bob, in polls conducted by the Dayton Daily News and the Enquirer, 70% of those who responded disapprove of this move. Does this concern you? 3) Why did you not wait until you had a chance to interview ALL of the best available candidates for the job?

RedsManRick
10-15-2007, 01:43 PM
You know what really bugs me? That I keep hearing how so many people wanted a "name manager".

A. Why is that relevant? Shouldn't the Reds be hiring a manager on their own terms?
B. So what? Lots of people want us to spent $100M per year and we aren't doing that.

This isn't a democracy. Assuming WK and Castellini actually are the experts here, than the wish of the common man is irrelevant. It just bugs me that this point is made at all.

Either Baker was hired because Bob &/or Wayne felt he was the best available option, in which case I seriously question their logic, or they caved to get a guy who they thought would go over well with the general public, in which case I seriously question their motives. In any case, to me, this move reflects poorly on them. What the fans want is a winning Cincinnati Reds team.

If knowing how to do that was common, we'd all be GMs. So step up, claim that you are the experts, explain why Dusty was the best choice, and forget what us fans say. Because if you are really listening to the masses, now is an odd time to start. And if you are really listening to your most fervent, well educated about the game fans, you probably can tell by now that you missed the message completely.

M2
10-15-2007, 01:51 PM
As usual, no beat writer has the sack to ask meaningful questions. 1) Does the coaching staff stay, or go? 2) Dusty, who are some of these players who you could get to come to Cincinnati? 3) Bob, in polls conducted by the Dayton Daily News and the Enquirer, 70% of those who responded disapprove of this move. Does this concern you? 3) Why did you not wait until you had a chance to interview ALL of the best available candidates for the job?

Them's hardly tough questions.

1) We're assessing our coaching needs and will be making decisions in the coming weeks.

2) I'm not the GM and we're not officially allowed to talk about players on other teams.

3) I know fans in Cincinnati will appreciate winning baseball. Dusty Baker knows what it takes to play winning baseball.

4) We interviewed the best candidate and hired him. There wasn't any reason to put on a dog and pony show when we found the absolute right man for the job.

Pressers are notoriously poor places to get meaningful answers anyway. The main questions, IMO, are whether fans should expect an active offseason and whether the club is willing to spend more money if the right talents become available. Probably someone ought to try to get Castellini or Krivsky to make a definitive statement about 2008. What is your expectation for the 2008 Reds? What is the minimum you expect the club to accomplish?

Other than that it'll be a lot of gobbledygook about fundamentals and commitment to winning.

Ltlabner
10-15-2007, 02:07 PM
M2 appears to be on the right track that hiring Dusty is the opening move towards making more serrious steps to contend and build a solid team. Of course, now they have to implement.

Maybe the path they've taken isn't such a bad one afterall. They've weeded out a lot of chaff, added some interesting tallent along the way, not burdened themselves with long-term anchor contracts, and not traded away key players for nothing. Yes, they've made mistakes along the way, no doubt. But it's been the slow and steady approach so many of us have advocated.

But making incremental improvements, especially as big contracts are comming off the books, and the status of the division changes, makes a whole lotta sense. The Cubs seemingly shot their bolt last year and now they've pretty much locked in on their team. It's a good team, but they aren't going to make any huge splash this year (I wouldn't think) The Cards, Pirates and Astros are in shambles. The Brew Crew made big strides so they'd be considered competition. But by hanging back, making smaller moves the Reds are in a better year to make a bigger splash.

If, in fact, that is what they are planning on doing, and if they can implement effectivley. That's a couple of big if's.

Puffy
10-15-2007, 02:10 PM
Let me start by saying that I understand all, and I mean all, the people who are so negative about Dusty Baker being named manager. On some levels I agree with them all. Baker wouldn't have even been a candidate in my book and would be somewhere around 100 on my list of who I would want running the Reds.

But realistically, he's better than Boone (anyone is better than Boone) so what the hell, right.

The way I see it the Reds are never going to be any good on a consistent basis as long as Krivsky is the GM anyway. Krivsky is the most dangerous type of GM there is. He's not Dan O'Brien awful. He's just good enough to find great pickups like Phillips and Arroyo (although I still feel WMP is going to be a beast - see his last month and a half with regular PT in Washington). But he has no concept of what he values. He values defense but doesn't know what it looks like. He doesn't understand the value of getting on base and seems to focus on gap power and batting average (Gonzalez, Cantu, Conine, Phillips). He cannot build a bullpen to save his life and he values arms that don't miss bats.

So I don't see the Reds ever being consistently good under Krivsky. I think he'll continue to find bargains, but those bargains will be .280 average driven, on base empty hitters. I think he overpay for defense, only the defense is perceived defense and not actual defense. And I think the bullpen will be, in his best years, average - I don't think he can spot what an above average bullpen should be.

Baker's here - he is a players manager who gets people to overplay. Thats good. Give Dusty Baker a team with average talent and he can make that team a contender - we haven't had a manager who could do that since McKeon, I don't think people realize that. But Krivsky and Baker working together to acquire talent - thats what scares me.

flyer85
10-15-2007, 02:14 PM
But Krivsky and Baker working together to acquire talent - thats what scares me.The problem I have had with WK all along is his propensity to acquire(as I see it) the "wrong type of players", especially pitchers. All we can hope is that WK has learned from the debacle he created in the bullpen in 2007 ... but I am not holding my breath.

RedLegSuperStar
10-15-2007, 02:19 PM
As usual, no beat writer has the sack to ask meaningful questions. 1) Does the coaching staff stay, or go? 2) Dusty, who are some of these players who you could get to come to Cincinnati? 3) Bob, in polls conducted by the Dayton Daily News and the Enquirer, 70% of those who responded disapprove of this move. Does this concern you? 4) Why did you not wait until you had a chance to interview ALL of the best available candidates for the job?

1) Does the coaching staff stay, or go?

I think Pole will stay in some form whether it's pitching coach or moved to the pen. If the team can get a Mazzone could I see Pole moving to the pen. But back to the question.. Like Dusty said, their is only so much he can do while still being under contract with ESPN. Once the baseball season is over.. (which is what i've read to believe is the end of his contract with ESPN) he can then start putting the pieces to the team together.

2) Dusty, who are some of these players who you could get to come to Cincinnati?

What does it matter? When is the last time we could say we had a manager have players call him up and say I would love to be apart of your team and help you win..

Dusty spoke about leaders.. which is something this team hasn't had since Larkin. Dusty scares me by being a players manager.. but also intrigues me by being a manager players want to play for.

3) Bob, in polls conducted by the Dayton Daily News and the Enquirer, 70% of those who responded disapprove of this move. Does this concern you?

Cough.. Redszone.com's Poll ..Cough

But I think majority of us are basing that on the Wood and Prior situation.

Perhaps what Jeff Brantley said might change those thoughts:


"Everyone’s knock on Dusty is not understanding pitchers, but the thing about it is he does understand. But when you have your main pitcher is basically hurting himself, which was Prior and you have another guy with the worst mechanics in the game in Kerry Wood. Those guys were going to get hurt, no matter who was manager. He just ended up getting kicked in the teeth for it."

Will there be 70% of people at seasons end saying the same thing when we see results and improvements to this team? I believe the same (probably less percentage due to the situation) felt the same way when Mackanin took over. I remember people stating that even if he turn the team around and got us into contention that we would still look for another manager. We all feel sorry for Mackanin.. but for Pete sake.. err.. for his sake it's a business and he will find work. For the Reds? Hopefully; he has a great knack for the game and is ballsy with a smidge bit witty.

4) Why did you not wait until you had a chance to interview ALL of the best available candidates for the job?

I agree.. but i'm being open minded or maybe just brain washed about the whole situation and buying into what Krivsky, Castellini, and Baker were saying. If Baker never likes to lose and always has to win then I'm happy he's putting on a Reds uniform. We all want to see winning baseball and we all deserve it.. tax payers especially.. Dusty's record proves he wins more then he loses.. so we could at least give the man a chance to prove himself before we hang him at the stake in Fountain Square.

Matt700wlw
10-15-2007, 02:23 PM
What was the response?

He was trying to win, and did what he thought he had to do for the franchise and the city...

Pretty honest response....

BRM
10-15-2007, 02:24 PM
He was trying to win, and did what he thought he had to do for the franchise and the city...

Pretty honest response....

Thanks Matt.

jojo
10-15-2007, 02:34 PM
Let me start by saying that I understand all, and I mean all, the people who are so negative about Dusty Baker being named manager. On some levels I agree with them all. Baker wouldn't have even been a candidate in my book and would be somewhere around 100 on my list of who I would want running the Reds.

But realistically, he's better than Boone (anyone is better than Boone) so what the hell, right.

The way I see it the Reds are never going to be any good on a consistent basis as long as Krivsky is the GM anyway. Krivsky is the most dangerous type of GM there is. He's not Dan O'Brien awful. He's just good enough to find great pickups like Phillips and Arroyo (although I still feel WMP is going to be a beast - see his last month and a half with regular PT in Washington). But he has no concept of what he values. He values defense but doesn't know what it looks like. He doesn't understand the value of getting on base and seems to focus on gap power and batting average (Gonzalez, Cantu, Conine, Phillips). He cannot build a bullpen to save his life and he values arms that don't miss bats.

So I don't see the Reds ever being consistently good under Krivsky. I think he'll continue to find bargains, but those bargains will be .280 average driven, on base empty hitters. I think he overpay for defense, only the defense is perceived defense and not actual defense. And I think the bullpen will be, in his best years, average - I don't think he can spot what an above average bullpen should be.

Baker's here - he is a players manager who gets people to overplay. Thats good. Give Dusty Baker a team with average talent and he can make that team a contender - we haven't had a manager who could do that since McKeon, I don't think people realize that. But Krivsky and Baker working together to acquire talent - thats what scares me.

Give him a good team and he'll probably get them to play like a good team. Give him garbage and they'll play like garbage.

RedsFan75
10-15-2007, 02:49 PM
Give him a good team and he'll probably get them to play like a good team. Give him garbage and they'll play like garbage.

What I want to see is if you give him a decent but flawed team how does it play out, and can he play on the strengths and reduce the weaknesses

M2
10-15-2007, 02:51 PM
Give him a good team and he'll probably get them to play like a good team. Give him garbage and they'll play like garbage.

Yet following that line of thinking, Baker's managerial pedigree makes it a lot more likley that he will given a good team than if a competent, but fairly non-descript guy like Mackanin was on the job.

Baker creates an impetus to try to improve the roster for the immediate next season that the Reds have lacked for years on end.

So if Baker can probably get a good team to play like a good team and if his hire is a catalyst for the front office taking greater pains to assemble a good team, then wouldn't that make him a good hire?

KronoRed
10-15-2007, 02:55 PM
Good for you cowboy....what's that got to do w/ this hire?

A big bowl of squat.

dabvu2498
10-15-2007, 02:57 PM
Good for you cowboy....what's that got to do w/ this hire?

Looking at Brantley's career, the only two managers he played for that would qualify as young would be Terry Francona, and none other than Jerry Narron.

wolfboy
10-15-2007, 03:04 PM
What are they paying him? $4 million. Good grief, they paid the wonderful tandem of Cromier, Stanton, and Lohse more than that!

I'm not happy with Baker, but this is not the end of the world. As another Zoner said, the guy, at least has a winning record regardless.

And yes, I had warmed to Pete Macklanin, but let's not hang the guy until he fails.

Why pay more for Baker when Pete could get similar results? Why pay more for Milton when someone like Belisle could have gotten similar results? Why pay more for Stanton when Salmon costs less?

It isn't the end of the world, but it is a sign that they still don't get it.

And Eric Milton still has a winning record

Matt700wlw
10-15-2007, 03:15 PM
Word is, players now want to come here and play for Dusty.

I don't know who these players are....and even if I did, I probably couldn't tell you :)

KronoRed
10-15-2007, 03:16 PM
Word is, players now want to come here and play for Dusty.

I don't know who these players are....and even if I did, I probably couldn't tell you :)

Rich Aurilia
JT Snow
Bill Mueller :D

Chip R
10-15-2007, 03:17 PM
Rich Aurilia
JT Snow
Bill Mueller :D

Neiffi Perez

jojo
10-15-2007, 04:10 PM
Baker creates an impetus to try to improve the roster for the immediate next season that the Reds have lacked for years on end.

But if that means turning outside the Org for solutions, it's a FA market where such an impetus results in overpaying Mike Sweeney to be your right handed *pop* and Josh Fogg to be your #3 for the next four years...

IMHO, Krivsky has always worked best at the margins. Trusting him to do well with loose purse strings seems like a gamble. If Krivsky really has a mandate to win next season, finding a solution to the *Jr* problem should be near the top of his off season to do list.

RBA
10-15-2007, 04:12 PM
Word is, players now want to come here and play for Dusty.

I don't know who these players are....and even if I did, I probably couldn't tell you :)


It is not a secret if it is known by three people.

Puffy
10-15-2007, 04:30 PM
It is not a secret if it is known by three people.

When did Conficius take over your handle? Should we hold an exorcism?

M2
10-15-2007, 05:16 PM
But if that means turning outside the Org for solutions, it's a FA market where such an impetus results in overpaying Mike Sweeney to be your right handed *pop* and Josh Fogg to be your #3 for the next four years...

IMHO, Krivsky has always worked best at the margins. Trusting him to do well with loose purse strings seems like a gamble. If Krivsky really has a mandate to win next season, finding a solution to the *Jr* problem should be near the top of his off season to do list.

I agree that trusting Krivsky to build a contender for next season is a gamble. That said, if he can't do it, then I don't really care about his margin walking skills. Supposedly it's a GM's dream to be told to go out and bring me home a champion.

As for the first part, free agency isn't the only, or even the primary, way to bring in talent.

I'm fully allowing that they might do this poorly. That's a very real possibility. Yet at least they're going to do it in earnest and that's better than the stuck-in-limbo plan that's been employed since the advent of Carl Lindner.

pedro
10-15-2007, 05:32 PM
Here's a now almost ten year old article about Dusty from BP. Pretty interesting read that definitely touches on some of the gripes that many have with Dusty while discussing his managerial style and how it might lead to success nonetheless.


Evaluating Managers
Another Trip Down a Dusty Road

by Steven Rubio

A headline for a recent Baseball Weekly cover story described Dusty Baker as an "inspirational manager" in charge of "overachieving Giants." The article included gushing praise from players, fellow managers, and even an opposing general manager who stated that Baker "handles people like nobody I've ever seen ... I'd get rid of my own guy right now if I knew I could have Dusty Baker managing for me." Throughout the avalanche of compliments, one matter comes up again and again: Dusty is a supreme leader of men, a true "manager" as one might imagine a manager in any business, not only baseball.

Stat-based analysts often bemoan the use of so-called "intangibles" as markers of value for baseball players. While no one denies the existence of intangible contributions, there is enough tangible statistical evidence describing a player's contribution to make intangibles largely irrelevant to the analyst's task. What a player does on the field of play is recorded in detail in the statistical record, and while writers with a romantic or philosophic bent might draw delightful word pictures about things that "don't appear in the boxscores," the analyst is concerned mainly with what happens on the field. A tangible run scored is always worth more than an intangible contribution, or rather, if the intangible DOES contribute something, it WILL appear in the boxscore. As Bill James pointed out long ago, if an elephant walks in the snow, there will be footprints.

James' most recent book, the fascinating and excellent "Bill James' Guide to Baseball Managers from 1870 to Today," isn't about baseball players, but instead focuses on the people who direct the players in their efforts. As always, James offers an inspired read: intelligent, catty, confident of his opinion no matter how right or wrong he is, James is ultimately a great writer as much or more than he is a great analyst. (And it always bears repeating that the quality of James' writing is what sets him apart from the large majority of statiscally-based analysts of baseball.) However, James falls victim to certain pitfalls of the stat-based approach that are instructive for all of us who would examine baseball under the statistical microscope. For it is one thing to assert that statistics are extremely important to the analysis of baseball player performance, and to claim that a player's contribution can be accurately reflected in his stats, but quite another thing to assume that everything in life can be reduced to tangibles. Anti-statheads, obsessed with dismissing quantifiable evidence, too frequently reject the entire notion of quantification; their arguments are all intangible, even proudly so. But statheads must also be aware of the dangers of falling too much in love with our own tools, and must remember that what works in one situation (evaluating player performance) will not necessarily work in other situations.

Take baseball managers, for instance. Analysts continue to make fine progress in breaking down the "percentages," helping us to understand the relative value of bunting, stealing bases, and other aspects of the game that are controlled by the manager. These tangible parts of a manager's job are important, and any evaluation of a manager's contributions must take into account the value (negative or positive) of his in-game tactical decisions. James does much to advance this aspect of analysis in his book, including an interesting discussion of what information should go on a manager's baseball card.

Furthermore, it is becoming more clear with time that the way a manager uses his pitching staff is vital not only to the short-term success of a club, but also to the long-term success of both the club and the individual pitchers. The increased attention to pitch counts is only one area where stat-based analysis is offering vital information which contemporary managers (hello, Jim Leyland) ignore at the peril of their pitchers' arms.

Nonetheless, I want to argue here that for managers, unlike for baseball players, the intangibles are indeed important. As James notes on the very first page of his book, "There is one indispensable quality of a baseball manager. The manager must be able to command the respect of his players. This is absolute; everything else is negotiable."

James then spends the next 300 pages leading up to the above- mentioned manager's baseball card, which lists tangible, quantifiable evidence about a manager's performance but, unavoidably, completely ignores that which he claims on the first page is absolute.

Now, we can safely ignore speculation about a player's intangible contributions, because we have footprints in the snow: the statistical record. I don't care how Barry Bonds hit that homer. I care that he hit a homer rather than struck out. But I suspect data about how often Dusty Baker calls a pitchout is the wrong kind of footprint. If we follow those footprints, we'll end up at the end of the wrong road, in a way that doesn't happen when evaluating player performance. It is the player's job to produce on the field, which is what the statistics explain. But what is a manager's job? To lead the team, to "handle people," to extract the best possible performance from the players he is given, to "command the respect of his players." And I don't think we're ever going to be able to quantify that part of the manager's job. Again, a player might have some influence on his teammates in this regard, but the far larger portion of his contributions come on the field, while the manager's influence can only be felt off the field.

Dusty Baker does many stupid things during a baseball game. He bunts too much, he overworks his bullpens, his lineups are often oddball, he seems to have a preference for "proven" veteran players over young guys who might actually be able to play well. But Dusty also has two Manager of the Year awards, given for seasons where his team seemed to outperform expectations in a huge way. Coincidence? Mere chance? Perhaps. But it's possible that opposed to all the negative stuff Dusty does with strategy, tactics, or lineup construction is one huge positive that more than overcomes anything else you can say about him: he commands the respect of his players. Maybe they play better for Dusty than they would for other managers. How do we quantify that? How important is it that Dusty gets the best possible season out of guys like Rey Sanchez, when Rey Sanchez isn't much good to begin with? That's pretty hard to say, but Baker's success with two different Giants' teams tells me that he is doing something right, and it doesn't seem to have much to do with knowing when to bunt.

The great Earl Weaver was another master at maximizing the performance of his players, although you couldn't find two more different managerial styles than Weaver's and Baker's. While Weaver liked players who, in the contemporary parlance, played "within themselves," he also firmly believed that "there is no such thing as a 'winning' or a 'losing' player. It comes down to a player's ability and how he produces." (This quote comes from the indispensable "Weaver on Strategy.") What Weaver attempted to do as a manager was to draw on the player's ability. He looked, not at what a player was bad at, but instead at what a player was good at, and then tried to find as many opportunities as possible to get the player in the game when what was needed was what the player was good at. So he'd have his lefty-hitting slugger and his righty- hitting slugger, his defensive specialist and his utility man, and he'd maneuver the team so that each player got plenty of chances to perform his specialty. He wasn't friends with his players; on the contrary, he felt "a manager should stay as far away as possible from his players," and claimed he didn't say ten words to Frank Robinson in Robby's entire Oriole career. Nonetheless, by focusing on a player's ability and accentuating the player's strengths, Weaver got the most out of those players.

But that's not what managers like Dusty Baker do. Baker focuses on what Weaver claims doesn't exist: 'winning' and 'losing' players. Dusty Baker has an apparent ability to make each player on his team feel like a winner. Whatever the motivational tools, Dusty's players believe in him and believe in themselves, a fact made clear in the Baseball Weekly article. Rich Rodriguez says the Giants are winning for one reason: "It's Dusty." Robb Nen states that "you want to play for a guy like that." Even the opposition takes notice: Gary Sheffield chimes in to claim that "It doesn't matter how the cards are dealt to him, Dusty gets the most out of it, and the man finds a way to win." As noted earlier, Baker's strategic moves are not always as clearly helpful as those of a controlling manager like Weaver. But perhaps Baker is indeed creating 'winning' players.

It's important to note that baseball is the most individual of team sports. While teamwork is paramount in sports like basketball, football, and soccer, where each player continually interacts on the field with other players, in baseball, it comes down to a pitcher and a batter. If the leftfielder and the catcher don't get along, it hardly matters, whereas a shooting forward who gets on the wrong side of a point guard might not see the ball as often as he should. And again, this seems to be where a Dusty Baker shines. Dusty would get a guy like Glenallen Hill, who was down because he'd lost his starting job, and somehow he'd convince Hill to keep from letting his disappointment affect his play. The problem wasn't that Hill might have poisoned the "teamwork," the clubhouse atmosphere. The problem was that Hill might have poisoned his own attitude to where he couldn't reach even his own low potential. Baker makes each player feel good about himself, creates 'winning' players, then hopes the result is a winning team. Which is backwards from Weaver's argument that "A winning player is nothing more than a player on a winning team."

I think Earl Weaver was the greatest manager in my lifetime, partly because what he did taught statheads how to think like statheads. Weaver was also one of the most successful managers of all time. But for managers, there is more than one road to success, and some of those roads come down to intangibles, those very things which are so maddeningly useless when analyzing players. I don't think there's any way for us to know how much respect a manager commands amongst his players, but I agree with Bill James that it is indispensable to the manager's success or failure. In this case, at least, intangibles matter.

[Steven Rubio would like to add, as bitterly as possible, that yesterday's trades close the book on whether or not Brian Sabean is an idiot.]

Chip R
10-15-2007, 05:44 PM
I wonder if Dusty is possibly the modern day Billy Martin without Billy's demons and his manic. Billy would come into a town, have everyone playing Billy Ball, he'd blow some pitchers arms out, get into a fight and leave town. But he went to the postseason everywhere he went to the post season except for TEX. Maybe Big Dust is like that.

westofyou
10-15-2007, 05:57 PM
I wonder if Dusty is possibly the modern day Billy Martin without Billy's demons and his manic. Billy would come into a town, have everyone playing Billy Ball, he'd blow some pitchers arms out, get into a fight and leave town. But he went to the postseason everywhere he went to the post season except for TEX. Maybe Big Dust is like that.

No one beats Billy and his henchman Art Fowler. Together they must have decided over cocktails one night to see what kind of abuse a pitchers arm could take, and they both followed through with their plan.

Art got it started himself when he coached the 1964 Angels.

AL Innings Pitched 1964


INNINGS PITCHED IP AGE CG
1 Dean Chance 278 23 7
2 Gary Peters 274 27 3
3 Jim Bouton 271 25 3
4 Camilo Pascual 267 30 6
5 Claude Osteen 257 24 5
6 Dave Wickersham 254 28 3
7 Milt Pappas 252 25 5
8 Whitey Ford 245 35 4
9 Al Downing 244 23 3
10 Jim Kaat 243 25 6

Dean Chance was 23 and led the league in Innings Pitched; he later topped that total as a Twin in 67 and 68, but he would never have as good a year as he had in 1964.

Next Art landed in Minnesota as Martins first pitching coach.

1969 IP leaders


INNINGS PITCHED IP AGE CG
1 Denny McLain 325 25 13
2 Mel Stottlemyre 303 27 15
3 Mike Cuellar 291 32 9
4 Sam McDowell 285 26 9
5 Mickey Lolich 281 28 7
6 Fritz Peterson 272 27 7
7 Dave McNally 269 26 2
8 Jim Perry 262 33 4
9 Dave Boswell 256 24 1
10 Andy Messersmith 250 23 2

Slotted in 39 is Dave Boswell, most famous for duking it out with Martin, Boswell also was the ace of the division winning Twins. He also never topped the amount of work he logged in 1969, and threw only 69 innings the next year, and never topped that again.

On to Detroit in 1971, an event that I was lucky enough to watch first hand.

True, this was the era that starters threw a deadball amount of innings; Fowler and Martin were in the midst of it and often were the ones that led the way.


1971
INNINGS PITCHED IP AGE CG
1 Mickey Lolich 376 30 16
2 Wilbur Wood 334 29 10
3 Vida Blue 312 21 13
4 Mike Cuellar 292 34 10
T5 Tom Bradley 286 24 -4
T5 Joe Coleman 286 24 5
T7 Pat Dobson 282 29 8
T7 Jim Palmer 282 25 10
9 Bert Blyleven 278.1 20 6
T10 Clyde Wright 277 30 0
T10 Andy Messersmith 277 25 3

1972
INNINGS PITCHED IP AGE CG
1 Wilbur Wood 376 30 7
2 Gaylord Perry 342.2 33 18
3 Mickey Lolich 327 31 12
4 Catfish Hunter 295 26 6
5 Bert Blyleven 287.1 21 1
6 Nolan Ryan 284 25 9
7 Joe Coleman 280 25 -2
8 Jim Palmer 274.1 26 8
9 Pat Dobson 268 30 3
10 Ken Holtzman 265 26 6

1973
INNINGS PITCHED IP AGE CG
1 Wilbur Wood 359 31 6
2 Gaylord Perry 344 34 16
3 Nolan Ryan 326 26 14
4 Bert Blyleven 325 22 12
5 Bill Singer 316 29 6
6 Jim Colborn 314 27 11
7 Mickey Lolich 309 32 4
8 Ken Holtzman 297 27 3
9 Jim Palmer 296.1 27 7
10 Joe Coleman 288 26 0

Three straight 300-inning seasons for Lolich and three straight 280 seasons for Coleman, just to keep the things straight they did it again after Art left, likely because old habits are hard to avoid, by 1975 both starters were on the fast track to retirement, Lolich 34 and Coleman only 28.

After the Tigers tired of Martinís act he and Fowler moved on to Texas

The 328 innings pitched by Jenkins in 1974 was a career high, also logging a career high for the Texas club that season was Jim Bibby, who logged 260 plus innings and didnít top 200 again until 1980.


INNINGS PITCHED IP AGE CG
1 Nolan Ryan 332.2 27 12
2 Ferguson Jenkins 328.1 30 15
3 Gaylord Perry 322.1 35 16
4 Wilbur Wood 320 32 8
5 Catfish Hunter 318 28 9
6 Luis Tiant 311.1 33 12
7 Mickey Lolich 308 33 13
8 Ross Grimsley 295.2 24 4
9 Steve Busby 292.1 24 7
10 Joe Coleman 286 27 -3

1975
INNINGS PITCHED IP AGE CG
1 Catfish Hunter 328 29 17
2 Jim Palmer 323 29 13
3 Gaylord Perry 305.2 36 13
4 Jim Kaat 303.2 36 -1
5 Wilbur Wood 291 33 0
6 Vida Blue 278 25 1
7 Bert Blyleven 275.2 24 9
8 Doc Medich 272.1 26 3
9 Mike Torrez 270.2 28 4
10 Ferguson Jenkins 270 31 10

After the Rangers tired of Martin, they both headed to New York. There they had less of an impact in pushing their starters to the top of the innings pitched list, except in 1979 when they gave the ball to Tommy John for 276 inningsÖ the same Tommy John whose arm had been reattached just a few seasons earlier.

All in all the Yankees in that span had three starters who achieved their lifetime high in innings pitched, Ed Figueroa, Tommy John and Ron Guidry.

After that the duo was on to Oakland, where they would break arms as well as records.

Oakland Athletics from 1980 to 1982


INNINGS PITCHED IP AGE CG
1 Rick Langford 290 28 20
2 Mike Norris 284.1 25 16
3 Larry Gura 283.1 32 7
4 Dennis Leonard 280.1 29 0
5 Tommy John 265.1 37 7
6 Moose Haas 252.1 24 6
7 Scott McGregor 252 26 3
8 Mike Flanagan 251.1 28 3
T9 Steve Stone 250.2 32 0
T9 Jim Clancy 250.2 24 7

INNINGS PITCHED IP AGE CG
1 Dennis Leonard 201.2 30 3
2 Jack Morris 198 26 9
3 Rick Langford 195.1 29 13
4 Steve McCatty 185.2 27 11
5 Dave Stieb 183.2 23 5
6 Dennis Martinez 179 26 4
7 Mike Norris 172.2 26 7
8 Larry Gura 172.1 33 7
9 Milt Wilcox 166.1 31 3
10 Geoff Zahn 161.1 35 3

INNINGS PITCHED IP AGE CG
1 Dave Stieb 288.1 24 12
2 Jim Clancy 266.2 26 3
3 Jack Morris 266.1 27 10
4 Mike Caldwell 258 33 5
5 Dennis Martinez 252 27 2
6 Luis Leal 249.2 25 3
7 Larry Gura 248 34 1
8 Floyd Bannister 247 27 -2
9 Dan Petry 246 23 1
10 Len Barker 244.2 26 4

36 complete games by the 1980 innings leaders and all in all 5 Oakland starters with over 210 innings pitched. Also of note NINTY FOUR complete games by Aís pitchers in 1980, thatís good for first place since World War Two. The five starters (Brian Kingman, Mike Norris, Rick Langford, Matt Keough and Steve McCatty) never exceeded their performance innings wise again, and all five were out of the game by the late 80ís.

Once those arms were used up it was back to New York for two brief appearances in 1983 and 1988.

Again a Yankee shows up in the top ten


INNINGS PITCHED IP AGE CG
1 Jack Morris 293.2 28 12
2 Dave Stieb 278 25 7
3 Dan Petry 266.1 24 1
4 LaMarr Hoyt 260.2 28 4
5 Scott McGregor 260 29 5
6 Charlie Hough 252 35 4
7 Ron Guidry 250.1 32 15
8 Rick Sutcliffe 243.1 27 3
9 John Tudor 242 29 0
10 Rich Dotson 240 24 1

Plus Shane Rawley hit his career high in innings pitched, this feat helped keep Fowlers and Martinís record intact.

Back again in 1988 Fowler coached a staff that for he first time in his career had not one starter with at least 200 innings pitched (Rick Rhoden led the team with 197

jojo
10-15-2007, 07:07 PM
Alright the dust has settled and its time to ask the most important question, albeit the one everyone seems to be ignoring-why wasn't Earl Weaver brought in for at least an interview?

Matt700wlw
10-15-2007, 07:25 PM
You do realize that the second highest paid manager in baseball right now is managing the small market Reds, now...


If nothing else, it does show the Castellini is trying to change the culture and image of this team.

BoydsOfSummer
10-15-2007, 07:48 PM
Alright the dust has settled and its time to ask the most important question, albeit the one everyone seems to be ignoring-why wasn't Earl Weaver brought in for at least an interview?

I was thinking the same thing.

KronoRed
10-15-2007, 07:54 PM
If nothing else, it does show the Castellini is trying to change the culture and image of this team.

It also shows that the economic system is even more out of whack when a guy who was fired 13 months ago is being paid more then managers with teams in the playoffs.

Ltlabner
10-15-2007, 07:54 PM
So empirically, most of the responsibility for pitcher usage does fall on the shoulders of the manager — which means that now might be a good time to trade Homer Bailey in a fantasy league. The moral responsibility, however, might be another matter. It is organizations, after all, who are responsible for hiring their managers. And when you hire a manager like Dusty Baker, one of two things ought to be true: either you’ve considered his philosophy on pitch counts and signed off on it, or you’ve given him the Birds, Bees and Labrums lecture and expect him to change his ways. If the careers of Bailey and Cueto are ruined by high pitch counts, it will be Dusty who pulled the trigger — but the Reds who hired the assassin.

From BP. They did some fancy analyisis to explore whether it was a managers influence, or the team culture, that had the greatest impact on Pitcher Abuse Points (ie. working the pitching arms hard). I can't possibly begin to explain their methadology and math work, but the above para was the sumation and pretty interesting, IMO.

Matt700wlw
10-15-2007, 08:09 PM
This guy's not a fan...

http://www.beepcentral.com/blogs/bindex.aspx?ubid=3103&blog=3990

Raisor
10-15-2007, 08:22 PM
I. Think. The. Dusty. Signing. Is. Just. Swell.

I. Never. Said. Not. Even. Once. That. I. Would. Take. Hostages.

KronoRed
10-15-2007, 08:45 PM
I. Think. The. Dusty. Signing. Is. Just. Swell.

I. Never. Said. Not. Even. Once. That. I. Would. Take. Hostages.

So how did the lobotomy go?

RFS62
10-15-2007, 08:47 PM
I. Think. The. Dusty. Signing. Is. Just. Swell.

I. Never. Said. Not. Even. Once. That. I. Would. Take. Hostages.


So how did the lobotomy go?



Not a lobotomy. Just a little conditioning by the Reds front office field team.


http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/060609/14578__clockwork_l.jpg

edabbs44
10-15-2007, 09:33 PM
You do realize that the second highest paid manager in baseball right now is managing the small market Reds, now...


If nothing else, it does show the Castellini is trying to change the culture and image of this team.

Pour some money into the pitching staff and it would do more for the image than what Baker is doing.

But I agree with you. I just don't want to see skimping on the players while spending like a drunken sailor on the manager.

westofyou
10-15-2007, 09:52 PM
BTW, talk about irony, the man who hired Dusty Baker to his first MLB managing job is also the last Reds GM to win a championship.

GAC
10-15-2007, 10:16 PM
Here's a now almost ten year old article about Dusty from BP. Pretty interesting read that definitely touches on some of the gripes that many have with Dusty while discussing his managerial style and how it might lead to success nonetheless.

Thanks for the article pedro.

For one as myself who also harps on the "intangibles" and how they play a part in the game - which also causes me to be at odds, at times, with some who live solely by statistical analysis - I guess I need to give some sort of credence to a manager being able to "inspire" and motivate players.

There are some guys on this roster, including Castro, who are gonna prove to be on helluva task though. :lol:

westofyou
10-15-2007, 10:23 PM
Who is the manager with the most wins in his first year managing?

Dusty Baker

What was Dusty's first job managing?

The Scottsdale Scorpions in the AFL in the fall of 1992.

It was there that he met Dick Pole for the first time, he was his pitching coach... Dusty hired him to coach the 1993 Giants staff. The BP coach for that team was Bob Brenly

IslandRed
10-15-2007, 10:29 PM
Thanks for the article pedro.

For one as myself who also harps on the "intangibles" and how they play a part in the game - which also causes me to be at odds, at times, with some who live solely by statistical analysis - I guess I need to give some sort of credence to a manager being able to "inspire" and motivate players.

There are some guys on this roster, including Castro, who are gonna prove to be on helluva task though. :lol:

Maybe his ability to extract better performance out of his players and his philosophical/tactical missteps just cancel out in the W-L?

I dunno. I'm not impressed with the pitcher handling over the years, to put it mildly. At the same time, before he went down in flames with the 2006 Cubs, he won a lot of ballgames. Maybe the year off and the lower-intensity spotlight in Cincinnati will keep him from getting wound so tight. At least I hope so.

fearofpopvol1
10-15-2007, 10:36 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3064610

Watch Keith Law's opinions. Typically, I think he's an idiot and I rarely agree, but I agree with his assessment overall.

Matt700wlw
10-16-2007, 03:34 PM
More Dusty stuff

http://cbs.sportsline.com/columns/story/10410305


http://www.suntimes.com/sports/slezak/604900,CST-SPT-carol16.article

coachw513
10-16-2007, 03:55 PM
Yet following that line of thinking, Baker's managerial pedigree makes it a lot more likley that he will given a good team than if a competent, but fairly non-descript guy like Mackanin was on the job.

Baker creates an impetus to try to improve the roster for the immediate next season that the Reds have lacked for years on end.

So if Baker can probably get a good team to play like a good team and if his hire is a catalyst for the front office taking greater pains to assemble a good team, then wouldn't that make him a good hire?

You think??

Not that your contention is wrong, but I pray this franchise doesn't base its organizational goals on who it hires..."well, our manager doesn't create a national buzz so let's go out and be mediocre"...

I'd like to think privately some folks have decided to move more chips into the middle of the table, including ante-ing up for one Mr. Baker (though I think that's a losing hand)...

M2
10-16-2007, 04:20 PM
You think??

Not that your contention is wrong, but I pray this franchise doesn't base its organizational goals on who it hires..."well, our manager doesn't create a national buzz so let's go out and be mediocre"...

I'd like to think privately some folks have decided to move more chips into the middle of the table, including ante-ing up for one Mr. Baker (though I think that's a losing hand)...

I'd say who it hires reflects the organizational goals more than the other way around. The Reds spent years hiring managers (ones no one else was going to want) to lead a team that they nominally hoped would win, but one that hadn't been particularly engineered to do so.

Everyone wants to win, but there's a substantial difference between the "this might work" approach and the "bring me the head of the NL Central" approach.

What we've been given for seven years is lip service. The Reds weren't opposed to win, but they weren't particulary for it either. It wasn't an all-consuming drive inside the organization and the managers refelcted that.

Baker's hire indicates, to me, that we should expect some action this time around. If the Reds just wanted to subsist in the gray area between shaking the club up to compete and shaking it down to rebuild, they could have just kept Mackanin. He could made do with modest changes and done so with a pleasant manner to boot.

Instead we get Dustiny. My take is the cascade effect works like this.

- team decides it's time to up the ante
- team hires a manager with a strong win now mindset
- that locks in expectations, no one gets to shrug his shoulders and say "Oh well, that didn't work."
- team now has to give that manager a team it thinks will win, not one it thinks might win, one that will win
- new manager now stands a better chance of winning because he's been given resources that wouldn't have been handed to an anonymous hire

It could all go to pot, but I do think the Reds have locked themselves into a far more aggressive course of action and that could net results.

traderumor
10-16-2007, 04:36 PM
I'd say who it hires reflects the organizational goals more than the other way around. The Reds spent years hiring managers no one else was going to want to lead a team that they nominally hoped would win, but one that hadn't been particularly engineered to do so.

Everyone wants to win, but there's a substantial difference between the "this might work" approach and the "bring me the head of the NL Central" approach.

What we've been given for seven years is lip service. The Reds weren't opposed to win, but they weren't particulary for it either. It wasn't an all-consuming drive inside the organization and the managers refelcted that.

Baker's hire indicates, to me, that we should expect some action this time around. If the Reds just wanted to subsist in the gray area between shaking the club up to compete and shaking it down to rebuild, they could have just kept Mackanin. He could made do with modest changes and done so with a pleasant manner to boot.

Instead we get Dustiny. My take is the cascade effect works like this.

- team decides it's time to up the ante
- team hires a manager with a strong win now mindset
- that locks in expectations, no one gets to shrug his shoulders and say "Oh well, that didn't work."
- team now has to give that manager a team it thinks will win, not one it thinks might win, one that will win
- new manager now stands a better chance of winning because he's been given resources that wouldn't have been handed to an anonymous hire

It could all go to pot, but I do think the Reds have locked themselves into a far more aggressive course of action and that could net results.

This right here is exactly what has me jacked up. Go ahead and say "tr always agrees with everything the FO does," which, like Dusty, I'm so misunderstood ;), but that's for another time. The FO just spent $11M on a manager. Deadpan who that is all you want, but this is more than a name, this is someone who has been at the helm of winning programs. And I'm glad to see the Reds apparently recognizing that paying for quality people in the FO is just as important as chucking out multimillions to a player. A refreshing culture change. Now, go spend some money on ballplayers.

paulrichjr
10-16-2007, 05:35 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3066206&name=law_keith


Keith Law

Baker's wrong for the Redsposted: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 | Feedback | Print Entry

Yes, Dusty Baker has had some success in his career when handed a stable roster with veterans filling major positions. Sure, he has a .527 winning percentages over 14 career seasons as a manager, finishing first in the division three times and second on six other occasions. But there is little reason to believe he can guide a rebuilding process forward, and there are many reasons to worry that he'll derail it instead. So in hiring Baker as their new manager, I believe the Cincinnati Reds made the wrong choice.

Baker's biggest flaws as a manager seem to coincide with the biggest needs the Reds have in terms of leadership. During his tenure with the Chicago Cubs (2003 through 2006), Baker earned a reputation among some in baseball as a shredder of young arms, overusing Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, and Matt Clement -- and coming close to the same with Carlos Zambrano.

Wood's last six regular-season starts in 2003 included pitch counts of 125, 120, 122, 114, 125, and 122. On Sept. 8, for example, the Cubs scored three runs in the top of the seventh to take a 9-2 lead, and Wood -- already at 107 pitches -- came out to pitch the bottom of the inning. In the playoffs that year, he threw 124 pitches in his first start and 112 pitches in under six innings in his last start. Wood, who had already had a history of arm injuries, including Tommy John surgery that cost him the 1999 season, hurt his arm in 2004, was limited by more arm injuries to just 86 innings in 2005-'06, and finally had to be moved to a one-inning bullpen role in 2007.

Prior, in the only fully healthy season of his major-league career, was 23 years old in 2003. He topped 120 pitches nine times, and in his last six starts, threw 131, 129, 109, 124, 131, and 133 pitches, the last coming in just 6 2/3 innings against Pittsburgh. He threw 132 pitches in his first playoff start, and started the eighth inning against Florida in Game 6 of their NLCS despite showing obvious signs of fatigue. He retired one hitter, gave up a double, a walk, a wild pitch, a single, a groundball to third that was misplayed for an error, and a double -- after which he was pulled. Baker didn't even have anyone warming up in the bullpen to start the inning.

Just as concerning is Baker's track record at developing young pitchers. Across his two tenures as a big-league manager (Baker also managed San Francisco from 1993 to 2002), he only had two rookie pitchers who turned into solid starters. The first was Russ Ortiz, a league-average starter during his time in San Francisco who managed to go two years with Atlanta before hurting his shoulder. The second is Zambrano, who has so far survived some enormous workloads doled out by Baker, starting with 214 innings and more than 900 batters faced at age 22. Zambrano's 2007 season, the worst of his big-league career, may be a fluke, but it may also be at least partly the result of the high workloads he endured under Baker.

Cincinnati has one of the best pairs of starting pitching prospect of any organization in the game, with potential No. 1 starter Homer Bailey sitting in AAA and potential No. 2 starter Johnny Cueto right behind him. Bailey already had huge workloads in his career before he signed with the Reds, working as a high school pitcher in Texas -- the same background Wood brought into pro ball.

So Baker likes to work pitchers hard and doesn't seem overly concerned when they walk too many opposing hitters. In fact, he has said bases on balls are an overrated part of offense.

"I think walks are overrated unless you can run," Baker said in an MLB.com back in March 2004. "If you get a walk and put the pitcher in a stretch, that helps, but the guy who walks and can't run, most of the time he's clogging up the bases for somebody who can run. ... Who have been the champions the last seven, eight years? Have you ever heard the Yankees talk about on-base percentage and walks?"

This evinces, in my view, a lack of understanding of how runs are scored -- and of the importance not just of getting on base, but of plate discipline in general. And in fact, the two years before Baker made those comments, the Yankees did lead the American League in walks, just as they did in 1997 and 1998, the latter being the year in which they won 114 games and led the league in runs scored.

In 2004 with the Cubs, Baker batted Corey Patterson (.320 OBP) in the leadoff spot 55 times. In 2005, Patterson (.254 OBP) hit leadoff 29 times, while Jerry Hairston (.336 OBP) hit leadoff 76 times, and Neifi Perez (.298 OBP) hit second 65 times. And of course, in 2006, Baker used Juan Pierre -- who doesn't walk, but who can run -- and his .330 OBP in the leadoff spot 159 times. The Cubs finished second-to-last in the league in runs scored in 2006, and while that's also due to the fact that Derrek Lee was hurt and the Cubs had a lot of bad players, Baker's insistence on hitting one of his worst batters first while burying Matt Murton (.365 OBP) in the seventh spot was part of the problem.

Baker is now at the helm of a club whose most productive hitter, Adam Dunn, draws 100 walks a year and runs like a hippopotamus in quicksand. The incoming first baseman, top prospect Joey Votto, drew 70 walks in AAA this year, runs like a former catcher, and doesn't have the 30-homer power that might make Baker overlook the kid's patience. There's a good risk that Baker won't put these guys high enough in the lineup; there's also a risk that he won't play these guys at all, favoring faster contact hitters who don't work the count or get on base. Even Josh Hamilton, a superb athlete who once had good speed but whose knee injuries have limited his basestealing abilities, may find himself at risk.

The Reds will point to Baker's track record of taking two franchises to the playoffs, bringing one within a few outs of a World Series title and another within five outs of a pennant, but those experiences aren't applicable to the task ahead of Baker now. Both clubs were built to try to win in the short term, while the Reds just lost 90 games and their hopes for a turnaround rest on young players who are just now reaching the big leagues. Given Baker's overuse of his young arms in Chicago and his indifference to the importance of putting men on base, the Reds have made a big move in the wrong direction.

paulrichjr
10-16-2007, 05:44 PM
The above post written by Keith Law that I posted does not comfort me at all. I despised Krivs during his first year on the job (when the Reds stayed in the hunt), I really thought a lot different over the past year as I warmed up to his moves and considered his moves all smart moves for the future (even though his team was a loser)....Now this...Wow...I am afraid that this team has been set back 3 years at least.

Point: Walks clog up bases - I'm not a SABR genius but this is insane.

pedro
10-16-2007, 06:01 PM
I didn't read the article but Keith Law doesn't really have track record of knowing much about anything as far as I can tell.

coachw513
10-16-2007, 06:03 PM
And I'm glad to see the Reds apparently recognizing that paying for quality people in the FO is just as important as chucking out multimillions to a player. A refreshing culture change. Now, go spend some money on ballplayers.

Well it beats the best news of the Hot Stove league being the naming of a new announcer :rolleyes:

Roll Willie Shoemaker out of his grave and stick him on a donkey...then hoist me on top of a Kentucky Derby winner...you get the point...

I want Dusty to succeed despite it not being my choice...I am indifferent to them spending $11 M to do it...if that's money well-spent, then fine...

But our fine FO needs to make a serious financial committment to pitching (IMHO through trades rather than via FA) and retention of current talent, hopefully initiated by Dunn's option being picked up today...

Tony Cloninger
10-16-2007, 08:23 PM
Besides Freel and/or Hopper.....this team does not have any of those fast types that do not walk.

I think Baker will hit Dunn 4th and Votto 6th....in between EE.

Phillips probably hit's 2nd.....Hopper/Freel or Keppinger hit's 1st.

It's not like this team is full of Womacks and Nefi perez's.

When they talk about veterans to bring in...I think they will look to starters to bring in. Maybe some bench.

pedro
10-16-2007, 08:57 PM
I'm not sure that Dunn, while not a speedster, would be considered that much a base clogger either. He runs pretty well for a big man. It's not like he's Javy Valentin or anything.

Ltlabner
10-16-2007, 09:00 PM
I'm not sure that Dunn, while not a speedster, would be considered that much a base clogger either. He runs pretty well for a big man. It's not like he's Javy Valentin or anything.

Agree. He's actually pretty speedy for a big guy. Didn't he have a little spate of stolen bases right around the ASB?

With Dusty on board, we might even see more stolen bases from the secret weapon.

Cyclone792
10-16-2007, 09:07 PM
Agree. He's actually pretty speedy for a big guy. Didn't he have a little spate of stolen bases right around the ASB?

With Dusty on board, we might even see more stolen bases from the secret weapon.

Yea, once Dunn gets going he has pretty decent speed. He appears slow because of his slow stride, but his stride is such a long stride that it just chews up a ton of ground. Dunn's acceleration is quite slow, and that's probably the biggest drag on his defense, but I think his slow acceleration is just a side-effect of his size. There's very few athletes his size who also possess great acceleration.

Raisor
10-16-2007, 09:09 PM
Yea, once Dunn gets going he has pretty decent speed. .

So does a glacier.

Cyclone792
10-16-2007, 09:11 PM
So does a glacier.

Those glaciers (with the Bear Grylls pronunciation) will outrun anything once they get going.

RFS62
10-16-2007, 09:13 PM
Yea, once Dunn gets going he has pretty decent speed.


So does a glacier.


Yeah, he has decent speed for a 6'6", 275 pound guy.

He does NOT have decent speed for a major league outfielder. He has below average speed for a MLB outfielder.

He's got plenty enough good qualities to not have to ignore his shortcomings.

Stormy
10-16-2007, 09:21 PM
I didn't read the article but Keith Law doesn't really have track record of knowing much about anything as far as I can tell.

It's an exceptional, if somewhat redundant, article. Those who have apparently decided to rubber stamp everything this Reds F.O. does would be hard pressed to effectively counter Law's contentions about Dusty's design incompatabilities with the current Reds' franchise.

Caveat Emperor
10-16-2007, 09:36 PM
It's an exceptional, if somewhat redundant, article. Those who have apparently decided to rubber stamp everything this Reds F.O. does would be hard pressed to effectively counter Law's contentions about Dusty's design incompatabilities with the current Reds' franchise.

OTOH -- Law's point about Baker developing young starters is something of a nonstarter. I'd have to go back and compare notes, but I don't seem to recall either the Giants or the Cubs having prospects beating down the door when Baker was about.

The point about walks is something that bothers me (in that I can't believe someone who has been around baseball as much as Baker has would say something like that), but its not like Baker was benching guys in San Fran for taking the BB.

pedro
10-16-2007, 09:40 PM
It's an exceptional, if somewhat redundant, article. Those who have apparently decided to rubber stamp everything this Reds F.O. does would be hard pressed to effectively counter Law's contentions about Dusty's design incompatabilities with the current Reds' franchise.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion and while after reading it I'll admit that it's not the worst piece of tripe that Keith Law ever wrote the best thing I can say about it is, you're right, it is redundant. Dusty has his flaws but I honestly believe he's a better manager than many here give him credit for. You can call it a "rubber stamp" all you want but if the Reds had hired Joe Girardi I'd be hopping mad. Frankly I could just as easily say you've got your own rubber stamp, it just has a "no" on it instead of a "yes" and that certainly doesn't make it any more insightful, whether you think so or not.

jojo
10-16-2007, 09:42 PM
You're certainly entitled to your opinion and while after reading it I'll admit that it's not the worst piece of tripe that Keith Law ever wrote the best thing I can say about it is, you're right, it is redundant. Dusty has his flaws but I honestly believe he's a better manager than many here give him credit for. You can call it a "rubber stamp" all you want but if the Reds had hired Joe Girardi I'd be hopping mad. Frankly I could just as easily say you've got your own rubber stamp, it just has a "no" on it instead of a "yes" and that certainly doesn't make it any more insightful, whether you think so or not.

I think people can legitimately not like the hire for some insightful reasons.

pedro
10-16-2007, 09:47 PM
I think people can legitimately not like the hire for some insightful reasons.

Without a doubt. but I take exception to the idea that just because I don't hate it it's because I've decided to "rubber stamp" every thing this team does. That's a bunch of bull ****.

M2
10-16-2007, 10:52 PM
It's an exceptional, if somewhat redundant, article. Those who have apparently decided to rubber stamp everything this Reds F.O. does would be hard pressed to effectively counter Law's contentions about Dusty's design incompatabilities with the current Reds' franchise.

It struck me as trite and shallow.

Baker once managed the Giants too, in fact he spent most of his managerial career there, but it draws barely any mention from Law. His sole mention of Dusty's tenure with the Giants is to try to connect Baker to Russ Ortiz's shoulder injury three seasons and two teams after Baker last managed him. Apparently no one else in the chain of custody there could possibly have been responsible.

Law's another who apparently can't be bothered to listen to what the Reds are saying about their immediate goals, namely that they have immediate goals. When Baker went to Chicago, Wood, Prior and Zambrano had already ensconced themselves in the rotation. There's a big difference between inheriting a staff of young major league pitchers and a franchise with young wannabe major league pitchers. With the Cubs, that's the team he inherited and the only real discretion he had was how much to use the kids, not whether to use them. In the cases of Bailey and Cueto, he doesn't have to use them and we've been told, literally, to expect the club to add pitching.

It's not even sort of the same situation. So far as anyone knows, he's not being asked to win immediately with kids on the mound. Law's entire premise, that Baker's being asked to lead a rebuilding pitching staff, is beyond flimsy. Chances are his rotation will be Harang, Arroyo, Belisle and two guys not currently with the Reds.

How will he manage a group like that? Law doesn't know because he's got a diatribe to write about Wood and Prior.

Then there's the OB part of the article. Now, I'm a bit of an OB buff. I think it's the bee's knees. Yet if you look at the rosters Baker had to manage with the Cubs, it's not like he had a lot of OB to go around. As pedro noted in one of these threads, the Cubs have spent most of the last 60 seasons not getting on base very well, 2003-2006 were no exception. Baker wasn't exactly overflowing with compelling leadoff choices. You can make an argument that Todd Walker should have been the leadoff man in 2004-6. Michael Barrett could have hit second I suppose. In 2005 that would have put Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez 3rd and 4th. Then you'd have had five consecutive outs before they came up again. Matt Murton and Jacque Jones added some lineup depth in 2006, but Lee, Walker and Barrett missed significant time that season. What I'm driving at here is Baker didn't exactly have the machinery to construct a good lineup in those seasons.

With the Giants, and I know Law wants to ignore this, Baker's M.O. was to hit his CF in the leadoff spot. When that was Darren Lewis, it wasn't such a hot choice. When it was Darryl Hamilton and Kenny Lofton, it was a pretty good choice. When it was Marvin Benard, it wasn't notably good or bad. That followed him to the Cubs where his CFs didn't do the job as well.

Of course, Law extrapolates Baker's leadoff hitter tendencies into a bizarre point about Adam Dunn, Joey Votto (who unbeknownst to Law stole 42 bases over the past two seasons) and Josh Hamilton, none of whom profile as leadoff hitters. You see, Dusty Baker once managed Corey Patterson and Neifi Perez and that means he won't be kind to those guys. That he also managed Barry Bonds, J.T. Snow, Moises Alou, Jeff Kent, Will Clark, Matt Williams, Ellis Burks, Bill Mueller and Derrek Lee is immaterial.

Now, I suppose Baker could hit Alex Gonzalez leadoff with the Reds and make my head explode, but I'll go out on a limb and hazard the guess that he won't do that. Brandon Phillips could get the gig, though I'd think his power would put him no higher than 2nd (and hitting leadoff could help him in the OB department). Baker could force someone to the pine to play Ryan Freel, though I'll believe that when I see it. It wouldn't surprise me to see Edwin Encarnacion hit up top. Though, dependent on circumstances, Jay Bruce could be your leadoff hitter next season. He's probably the CF if he's on the team and Dusty likes to hit his CFs in the leadoff spot. If so, my hands will be alternating between clapping and two thumbs up.

That's what's missing from Law's "analysis." He's paying almost no attention to what Baker might do with the Reds roster. It isn't analysis, it's invective devoid of insight. It's the sabermetric Pavlovian dog reaction to Dusty Baker: Wood! Prior! Neifi! drool

M2
10-16-2007, 10:57 PM
Without a doubt. but I take exception to the idea that just because I don't hate it it's because I've decided to "rubber stamp" every thing this team does. That's a bunch of bull ****.

C'mon pedro, all those years of bemoaning the Reds management, front office and ownership and countless posts made in support of an analytic approach to the game, that was just you faking it. I bet you were wearing an "I love John Allen" t-shirt the whole time.

westofyou
10-16-2007, 11:06 PM
but I don't seem to recall either the Giants or the Cubs having prospects beating down the door when Baker was about.


Nah... Baker didn't go with fly catcher Darrin Lewis or choose Rich Aurilia over Clayton... never happened.

Always Red
10-16-2007, 11:07 PM
Pitch counts are not pure science, at least not yet.

Cyclone has tugged me in the direction of "more is worse", especially in the case of Bronson Arroyo this summer.

FWIW, Dick Pole was on Paul Daugherty's show tonight (I know, but I was waiting to pick my daughter up from soccer practice, and I couldn't find anything else), and he was asked specifically about pitch counts. (And good for Doc for asking that question)

The Reds pitching coach said that pitch counts are not written in stone, and that someone decided anything over 100 is abuse, and that's not right. He said that even 120 pitches is not always abuse, if a guy is not struggling at all. He also said that Dusty was absolutely not guilty of abusing Prior and Woods, and that some guys are just meant to throw more than others do. He specifically referred to Steve Busby as a pitcher who many thought would pitch for 20 years, and barely made it through three, and that it was no one's fault (I saw Busby's arm problems blamed on Jack McKeon yesterday, on this site).

Some guys are horses who are meant to throw, can throw a lot and get away with it, and others are not; and no matter who their manager is, they will be accused of abusing them. Science and stats have not yet reached the point where the "workhorse" can be identified.

Any "horse" should be rode lightly until his workload can be safely established, and I think we're getting closer to that today than we were 10 years ago.

I think Dick Pole is right about one thing- 100 pitches is an arbitrary number- by itself it means nothing. Applied to individual pitchers, it can either mean a light, normal or extreme workload, depending upon the arm in question.

westofyou
10-16-2007, 11:08 PM
C'mon pedro, all those years of bemoaning the Reds management, front office and ownership and countless posts made in support of an analytic approach to the game, that was just you faking it. I bet you were wearing an "I love John Allen" t-shirt the whole time.

Nope... it's his small of the back tattoo... it's written in the noodle of a Three Way that takes up most of his back.

Falls City Beer
10-16-2007, 11:30 PM
It's the sabermetric Pavlovian dog reaction to Dusty Baker: Wood! Prior! Neifi! drool

I agree that the piece was consonant with the fluff pieces that float around such nebulous things as manager-hirings.

Find target upon which to grind axe. Team hires target. Grind.

Riggleman and Baylor were just as guilty of shredding Wood's arm as anyone...but hey, it fits neatly into a narrative, so grind away.

LincolnparkRed
10-16-2007, 11:40 PM
Riggleman and Baylor were just as guilty of shredding Wood's arm as anyone...but hey, it fits neatly into a narrative, so grind away.

I think Wood was his own grinding wheel in the case of his arm. I would still hear Steve Stone talking about what awful mechanics he has, even after he left the Cubs booth he would do a radio show or two here in Chicago and every time there is a Wood injury (often enough) you would hear Stone's I told you so voice opining on his awful pitching motion.

Falls City Beer
10-16-2007, 11:42 PM
I think Wood was his own grinding wheel in the case of his arm. I would still hear Steve Stone talking about what awful mechanics he has, even after he left the Cubs booth he would do a radio show or two here in Chicago and every time there is a Wood injury (often enough) you would hear Stone's I told you so voice opining on his awful pitching motion.

No doubt.

But I remember Riggleman riding Wood like a circus donkey down the stretch in 98.

pedro
10-16-2007, 11:58 PM
C'mon pedro, all those years of bemoaning the Reds management, front office and ownership and countless posts made in support of an analytic approach to the game, that was just you faking it. I bet you were wearing an "I love John Allen" t-shirt the whole time.

I'm proud of those shirts. I really am. Screened 'em up in my basement myself. And while I know that Johnny's photo shopped smile looks a little insincere I just can't for the life of me understand why no one else wanted one.

OnBaseMachine
10-17-2007, 12:13 AM
I'm proud of those shirts. I really am. Screened 'em up in my basement myself. And while I know that Johnny's photo shopped smile looks a little insincere I just can't for the life of me understand why no one else wanted one.

I'm sure RedRead would love one.

D-Man
10-17-2007, 12:25 AM
With the Giants, and I know Law wants to ignore this, Baker's M.O. was to hit his CF in the leadoff spot. When that was Darren Lewis, it wasn't such a hot choice. When it was Darryl Hamilton and Kenny Lofton, it was a pretty good choice. When it was Marvin Benard, it wasn't notably good or bad. That followed him to the Cubs where his CFs didn't do the job as well.


Yep, Law's article is far from "exceptional."

Just to drive home M2's point re: walks. For the bad rap that Dusty has received regarding his statement on walks, here is where his team actually ranked in BBs: 6th, 9th, 7th, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 14th, 14, 16th, and 16th. On average, that puts his teams pretty much in the middle of the pack in BBs.

I'd much prefer to take the objective evidence than some out-of-context quote.

And even though Dusty had the BB beast in the middle of his lineup in SF, one must recall that the Giants finished third in walks in 1999, the year when Bonds only played in 102 games. Warrants mentioning.

Stormy
10-17-2007, 12:40 AM
I find there to be a number of material aspects to forecasting how Dusty Baker may, or may not, mesh will with the direction of the current Reds organization. Law's article touched upon several of them, and I think they are germane and well stated.

1. The Reds weakest unit in 2007 was their bullpen. If not properly addressed (and Wayne's demonstrated an ability to whiff on BP improvement twice in two years), how might that impact Dusty's demonstrated tendency to ride his starters longer conventional wisdom indicates is prudent?

2. The Reds haven't developed a pair of top of the rotation starters in more than a decade, and until Harang's and Arroyo's advent, hadn't boasted a decent #1-2 since the brevity of Harnisch and Neagle. So, history would demonstrate that we don't have the luxury of flaming out a pair of arms, and quickly replacing them. Taking the chance that a pitcher abusing phenom like Dusty Baker, under directives to 'win immediately', possibly devoid of a viable and deep bullpen, is going to handle them with care is a pretty big risk. That's without even taking into account the potential handling of youngsters like Bailey.

3. Speaking of the fast forward to a mandate of 'winning now', how might it affect an organization whose GM was just articulating the inception of a 'rebuilding process' less than 18 months ago? At year's end, the future was spelled Bruce, Hamilton, Votto, Bailey, Cueto, Encarnacion, Phillips etc... but aside from BP, there isn't a guy in the group who has a stranglehold on a starting job. How much of the future might be moved via trade to 'go for it now'? How much of a rope will Dusty give young players who demonstrate the typical coming of age inconsistencies, if he's given veteran options in their stead? Is the youth movement going to be derailed, and should it be, before it starts paying it's dividends.

4. Dusty doesn't have any regard for the relevance of OBP to offensive production, and I'm not sure how it can be anymore explicitly stated. In the event that Dusty's speedy CF type happened to possess +OBP skills, then his teams lucked into a decent OBP at leadoff, in the far more frequent circumstance that his speedy CFers didn't possess those skills, his teams were stuck with 280-320OBPs in the #1-2 slots. Frankly, that's no more enlightened than a Miley or Narron batting whoever played SS #2.

Personally, I saw an enormous difference in this offense when Pete placed Hamilton and Keppinger in the #1-2 slot based upon their ability to get on base (as did our offensive output which rose by a statistically significant margin following such moves in July), so the idea of the potential desire to put a rabbit CFer at #1 and a bat handler at #2 gives me premonitions of a potential Hopper and Gonzo tandem at #1-2, and that dismays me.

I think extremely valid points have been made that Dusty is a good manager, but that he might not fit well with the construct of this team (a team which was showing signs of only being a starter and a reliever or two away from contending in the NL Central). I think Dusty's signing has a good chance of derailing the Reds first signs of positive direction this decade.

Stormy
10-17-2007, 12:49 AM
Yep, Law's article is far from "exceptional."

Just to drive home M2's point re: walks. For the bad rap that Dusty has received regarding his statement on walks, here is where his team actually ranked in BBs: 6th, 9th, 7th, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 14th, 14, 16th, and 16th. On average, that puts his teams pretty much in the middle of the pack in BBs.

I'd much prefer to take the objective evidence than some out-of-context quote.

And even though Dusty had the BB beast in the middle of his lineup in SF, one must recall that the Giants finished third in walks in 1999, the year when Bonds only played in 102 games. Warrants mentioning.


It's not an out of context quote, it's an explicitly stated mantra. Of course the man's teams were league leaders in walks in the years that Bonds was acquiring more walks by himself than many teams #1-4 hitters combined. In 2002, for example, Bonds drew 198 of his team's 616 walks. Once Dusty joined the Cubs, they were amongst the worst in the league, whereas San Francisco remained at the top. That's a hollow point about SF's walk rate, and there is every reason to believe that Dusty could much more highly value a lesser players 'speed', or 'bat handling', or 'professional at bats' at certain spots in the order than he would one of our younger guys who has some walk driven OBP (Hamilton or Votto come to mind), and I don't think that's a positive for this team.

We have an impressionable young nucleus of players, and the last thing they need is to have a more free swinging, aggressive approach at the plate emphasized to them.

Stormy
10-17-2007, 12:55 AM
You're certainly entitled to your opinion and while after reading it I'll admit that it's not the worst piece of tripe that Keith Law ever wrote the best thing I can say about it is, you're right, it is redundant. Dusty has his flaws but I honestly believe he's a better manager than many here give him credit for. You can call it a "rubber stamp" all you want but if the Reds had hired Joe Girardi I'd be hopping mad. Frankly I could just as easily say you've got your own rubber stamp, it just has a "no" on it instead of a "yes" and that certainly doesn't make it any more insightful, whether you think so or not.

I obviously don't think you are of a 'rubber stamp' mentality, as you're one of my favorite posters. I also don't think my take is particularly unique or insightful, but as we're dealing with a known quantity in Dusty Baker, I don't think great insight or discovery is needed. That's why I liked Law's article, it simply states exactly what Dusty Baker is, and what we can likely expect in several areas of his management oversight. And each of them will likely come into play next year.

And my 'rubber stamp' doesn't say 'no' as I've been on the praise Krivsky train for months after initially deriding many of his moves, and I thought his appointment of Pete was a spectacular interim fit. I like the direction Krivsky had us headed, and thought we were 2-3 arms away from serious contention in 2008... I just hate the dramatic changing of course which this is likely to entail, in the name of hiring a splashy manager. I'd rather win (which we were on the path to doing), than pay lip service to the concept (which I feel this move embodies).

RFS62
10-17-2007, 01:11 AM
When I first heard the deal was done, I was not happy. I think we all had a superficial view of what Dusty was all about, and it wasn't pretty. The rap sheet included pitcher abuse, over-reliance on veterans, and on and on, as has been outlined here ad infinitum.

M2 led the charge, IMO, in looking beyond these notions and looking deeper into the hiring. Some of his best writing, IMO, and that's saying a lot for a RedsZone icon.

For me, the idea that it portends spending the likes of which we haven't seen before was the tipping point in accepting Baker. If all we're doing is paying him 3+ million a year to manage the same roster we finished the year with, I'd join the conga line jumping off the Roebling Bridge.

It's been a fascinating process reading all the varied opinions and conjecture accompanying this move. Caveat Emporer likened it to the 5 stages of the grieving process, with acceptance coming far too early.

GAC is moving to Cleveland and maybe on to Canada with Alec Baldwin.

If what we have here is truly a sea change in spending then I'm on board.

If not, and the pitching isn't addressed, there will be a lot of "I told you so" heard around here.

SteelSD
10-17-2007, 01:27 AM
Yep, Law's article is far from "exceptional."

Just to drive home M2's point re: walks. For the bad rap that Dusty has received regarding his statement on walks, here is where his team actually ranked in BBs: 6th, 9th, 7th, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 14th, 14, 16th, and 16th. On average, that puts his teams pretty much in the middle of the pack in BBs.

I'd much prefer to take the objective evidence than some out-of-context quote.

And even though Dusty had the BB beast in the middle of his lineup in SF, one must recall that the Giants finished third in walks in 1999, the year when Bonds only played in 102 games. Warrants mentioning.

Good point, however captaining a team that finished high in BB rate doesn't necessarily mean that the Manager understands the importance of high OBP.

From his years with the Cubs, Baker didn't seem to understand the importance of high OBP early in the lineup. Randomly, Todd Walker received a team-high 32 games in the #2 slot in 2006. That's good. Well, there's Walker again in 2005 with 61 games in the 2-slot. But we also see Neifi Perez with 65 starts there (26 at leadoff) and Corey Patterson with 18 games in that slot (29 at leadoff). 2005 leadoff? Hairston, Patterson, and Neifi-freakin'-Perez grabbed 131 games there. Corey Patterson gobbled up 55 games at leadoff in 2004 and 47 games in the 2-slot while Derrick Lee was hitting 6th.

Coupled with Baker's admissions as to his understanding (or lack thereof) of how baseball offenses work, I'm highly skeptical that Baker can optimize a lineup. While lineup construction may not be THE key concern with a new Manager, I certainly think that it demonstrates a Manager preference for certain skill sets. Baker has used both Grudz and Todd Walker in either the leadoff or two slots, but not enough to ensure a commitment to starting off with high OBP players considering the number of PA he's offered to poor-OBP players there.

From what I've seen, if there's a faster guy Baker trusts (key word there), he'll position him early in the lineup every time versus a higher OBP slower option. Baker's recent handling of the 2-slot in the lineup has been pretty awful and I'd suggest that he uses an all-too-traditional "speed/contact" first two hitters. That's not at all rare, but it's also not at all good.

gm
10-17-2007, 01:32 AM
(Baker seems to be the type who turns a franchise around then sees it go south after 3 or 4 seasons; I'd hire him, keep him for his contract and then no matter what - I'd find a new manager. So I think he'll bring about immediate gains for a year or two, run at the central title then I think you get a guy (with a more even keel shall we say?) to take over once Baker begins to wear thin.

I liked the whole post RLJ, but this last part got me wondering....is Johnnie B. his generation's Billy Martin?

Stormy
10-17-2007, 01:42 AM
Coupled with Baker's admissions as to his understanding (or lack thereof) of how baseball offenses work, I'm highly skeptical that Baker can optimize a lineup. While lineup construction may not be THE key concern with a new Manager, I certainly think that it demonstrates a Manager preference for certain skill sets. Baker has used both Grudz and Todd Walker in either the leadoff or two slots, but not enough to ensure a commitment to starting off with high OBP players considering the number of PA he's offered to poor-OBP players there.

From what I've seen, if there's a faster guy Baker trusts (key word there), he'll position him early in the lineup every time versus a higher OBP slower option. Baker's recent handling of the 2-slot in the lineup has been pretty awful and I'd suggest that he uses an all-too-traditional "speed/contact" first two hitters. That's not at all rare, but it's also not at all good.

I was just looking at his lineup construction during his Cubs years, as well, and the amount of top of the order (#1-2 hole) At Bats given to the likes of Grudz, Gonzalez, Pierre, Perez, Patterson, and even Hairston, is absolutely alarming. Literally thousands upon thousands of ABs spent at the top of the order on the prototypical speed/contact guys with OBPs often south of .300. I see no reason to believe he would handle anything differently here, especially if we go out and target one of Dusty's prototype CF's in the offseason.

M2
10-17-2007, 01:45 AM
1. The Reds weakest unit in 2007 was their bullpen. If not properly addressed (and Wayne's demonstrated an ability to whiff on BP improvement twice in two years), how might that impact Dusty's demonstrated tendency to ride his starters longer conventional wisdom indicates is prudent?

Fair question. Wayne's bullpen building foibles and Dusty's whip hand could form a perfect storm.


2. The Reds haven't developed a pair of top of the rotation starters in more than a decade, and until Harang's and Arroyo's advent, hadn't boasted a decent #1-2 since the brevity of Harnisch and Neagle. So, history would demonstrate that we don't have the luxury of flaming out a pair of arms, and quickly replacing them. Taking the chance that a pitcher abusing phenom like Dusty Baker, under directives to 'win immediately', possibly devoid of a viable and deep bullpen, is going to handle them with care is a pretty big risk. that's without even taking into account the potential handling of youngsters like Bailey.

That's where I go back to Dick Pole. He's been here. He handled Harang fairly well last season and it looked like he figured out that you count pound on Arroyo after the early season ringer they put him through. I'll add that Harang pitches efficiently enough that he can go 7 IP without getting into crazy high pitch counts, so he's self-protecting in that regard.


3. Speaking of the fast forward to a mandate of 'winning now', how might it affect an organization whose GM was just articulating the inception of a 'rebuilding process' less than 18 months ago? At year's end, the future was spelled Bruce, Hamilton, Votto, Bailey, Cueto, Encarnacion, Phillips etc... but aside from BP, there isn't a guy in the group who has a stranglehold on a starting job. How much of the future might be moved via trade to 'go for it now'? How much of a rope will Dusty give young players who demonstrate the typical coming of age inconsistencies, if he's given veteran options in their stead? Is the youth movement going to be derailed, and should it be, before it starts paying it's dividends.

Honestly, I don't think there was ever any real evidence the Reds were pursuing a rebuilding plan. They've taken a look at some younger guys when they had injuries and fell out of the race, but I wouldn't confuse that with a youth movement. Before the franchise hired Baker I said that we ought to be prepared for the reality that at least one of Bruce, Bailey, Cueto and Votto will be traded. That's just realpolitik. If they make such a deal and get a good return, then that's cool with me.

The Castellini/Krivsky regime has consistently said it wants to win now and it's actions have generally been in pursuit of that goal. Even during this dog of a season the only veterans traded were Kyle Lohse and Jeff Conine, who were pending free agents.


4. Dusty doesn't have any regard for the relevance of OBP, and i'm not sure how it can be anymore explicitly stated. In the event that Dusty's speedy CF type happened to possess +OBP skills, then his teams lucked into a decent OBP at leadoff, in the far more frequent circumstance that his speedy CFers didn't possess those skills, his teams were stuck with 280-320OBPs in the #1-2 slots. Frankly, that's no more enlightened than a Miley or Narron batting whoever played SS #2.

Well, seeing that his primary CF options look to have OB skills, that most of the team in fact has OB skills, I'm not overly worried on that score. For the record, during his 10 seasons with the Giants, his primary leadoff hitter had a .333 or better OB seven times.

And while he was with Chicago, he actually got fairly decent OB from his primary leadoff hitters in 2003 (Grudzielanek, .366 OB, and Lofton, .381 OB) and 2004 (Walker, .352 OB, and Grudzielanek, .347 OB). Jerry Hairston (.336 OB) was his primary leadoff guy in 2005 and he had a fairly gaudy OB considering Baker's other options that season. Juan Pierre was at .330 in 2006. While I'm not going to want a .330ish OB up top, the point I'm making here is that Neifi Perez was an exception, not the rule.


Personally, I saw an enormous difference in this offense when Pete placed Hamilton and Keppinger in the #1-2 slot based upon their ability to get on base (as did our offensive output which rose by a statistically significant margin following such moves in July), so the idea of the potential desire to put a rabbit CFer at #1 and a bat handler at #2 gives me premonitions of a potential Hopper and Gonzo tandem at #1-2, and that dismays me.

We'll see, but I'd be extremely surprised to see Hopper getting many starts. Baker would have to bench Hamilton and Freel and keep Bruce in the minors to do it. Let's not forget, Dusty likes him some tools. Hamilton and Bruce are going to appeal to him. Keppinger's not going to start, but we already knew that. My expectation is that Phillips will hit #2.


I think extremely valid points have been made that Dusty is a good manager, but that he might not fit well with the construct of this team (a team which was showing signs of only being a starter and a reliver or two away from contending in the NL Central). I think Dusty's signing has a good chance of derailing the Reds first signs of positive direction this decade.

I think you made some good arguments on that front here. Law didn't. He soiled the bed.

Obviously if Dusty Baker manages like a caricature of himself then it won't bode well for the team. Yet, when I look at his body of work, I see more depth than he's being credited for having.

WVRedsFan
10-17-2007, 02:28 AM
I obviously don't think you are of a 'rubber stamp' mentality, as you're one of my favorite posters. I also don't think my take is particularly unique or insightful, but as we're dealing with a known quantity in Dusty Baker, I don't think great insight or discovery is needed. That's why I liked Law's article, it simply states exactly what Dusty Baker is, and what we can likely expect in several areas of his management oversight. And each of them will likely come into play next year.

And my 'rubber stamp' doesn't say 'no' as I've been on the praise Krivsky train for months after initially deriding many of his moves, and I thought his appointment of Pete was a spectacular interim fit. I like the direction Krivsky had us headed, and thought we were 2-3 arms away from serious contention in 2008... I just hate the dramatic changing of course which this is likely to entail, in the name of hiring a splashy manager. I'd rather win (which we were on the path to doing), than pay lip service to the concept (which I feel this move embodies).

Good post. Let me just add one thing here. I did not hear the press conference because I was workiing and my mind was on other things, but did anyone else but me get the feeling that this was Castellini's call and Krivsky had little to do with it. I've seen pictures of Wayne at the PC and he was stoic almost. Was this BCast's dream of having a trophy manager?

I'm kind of like RFS62 now. If the hiring of Baker means more money spent on arms that help us, good. If not, like Stormy, this could be the beginning of a long sad ride. That, I'm not prepared to take.

Jpup
10-17-2007, 04:31 AM
Good post. Let me just add one thing here. I did not hear the press conference because I was workiing and my mind was on other things, but did anyone else but me get the feeling that this was Castellini's call and Krivsky had little to do with it. I've seen pictures of Wayne at the PC and he was stoic almost. Was this BCast's dream of having a trophy manager?

I'm kind of like RFS62 now. If the hiring of Baker means more money spent on arms that help us, good. If not, like Stormy, this could be the beginning of a long sad ride. That, I'm not prepared to take.

I'm afraid, very afraid. I just don't see the Reds upping the payroll to add the arms needed to win a pennant.

Aronchis
10-17-2007, 06:06 AM
[epared for the reality that at least one of Bruce, Bailey, Cueto and Votto will be traded. That's just realpolitik. If they make such a deal and get a good return, then that's cool with me.


Why prepare when it may not be in the Reds best interest? Your bias to thinking every bias they make is for a "veteren" is over the top. You could even make a arguement the Reds actually damage themselves by trading those guys...........the 2008 season. Each could in a way contribute in some form to that team.

I would veer toward different routes which can bring the same(probably bad) and the trades you think will take place, don't.

Ltlabner
10-17-2007, 07:44 AM
We have an impressionable young nucleus of players, and the last thing they need is to have a more free swinging, aggressive approach at the plate emphasized to them.

To me, this is the outcome of the concerns about Dusty and walks. He's going to be pressuring some kids who already have a propensity to swing freely to go up there and swing more freely.

I see that as a bad thing.

jojo
10-17-2007, 08:21 AM
It's the sabermetric Pavlovian dog reaction to Dusty Baker: Wood! Prior! Neifi! drool

To be fair, Keith Law isn't exactly regarded as the spokesperson for sabermetrics.....

M2
10-17-2007, 12:06 PM
Why prepare when it may not be in the Reds best interest? Your bias to thinking every bias they make is for a "veteren" is over the top. You could even make a arguement the Reds actually damage themselves by trading those guys...........the 2008 season. Each could in a way contribute in some form to that team.

I would veer toward different routes which can bring the same(probably bad) and the trades you think will take place, don't.

Wow, I've apparently got biases I don't even know about. And here I thought I was in favor of putting Jay Bruce in the starting lineup and going with young arms in the pen.

Sorry that I don't think jamming Bailey or Cueto into the rotation and hoping for fluffy bunny happiness is a viable plan for winning anything or for successfully developing young arms.

Anyway, the market for prospects has never been higher. If the right opportunity presents itself, the Reds have what the market wants. Bruce would be untouchable if it were my call. Push came to shove and I had to deal one of the top two arms, it would be Bailey. Homer's got the higher market value and the Reds traditionally don't teach control very well. I've got nothing against Votto, but he plays 1B. If a 1B could land me a pitcher or catcher (though don't ask me what impact catcher would be on the trade market) and Votto could land me the guy, then I'd figure out another way to cover 1B.

What I find useless is this notion that you can't possibly consider dealing a prospect when his value is high. It's completely myopic, every bit as much as the notion that you would trade all your kids away. If the Reds aren't prepared to take a more lucid approach to how they work the roster then THAT more than Dusty Baker is what will tie an anchor to the franchise bumper.

IslandRed
10-17-2007, 12:24 PM
To me, this is the outcome of the concerns about Dusty and walks. He's going to be pressuring some kids who already have a propensity to swing freely to go up there and swing more freely.

I see that as a bad thing.

I dunno... I went back and looked at Baseball Reference, and in the two instances where Dusty took over a team, hitters generally did about what they'd done before with respect to walk rate. The Cubs did take a dip when he got there, but that was almost wholly explainable by the dip in Sammy Sosa's walk rate, which was almost wholly explainable by the National League noticing he wasn't hitting 60 homers a year anymore, or maybe Sammy himself noticing.

Baker's apathy towards walks and related apathy towards OBP will show up in the lineup construction, but not IMO by changing the stripes of the hitters.

D-Man
10-17-2007, 12:25 PM
Of course the man's teams were league leaders in walks in the years that Bonds was acquiring more walks by himself than many teams #1-4 hitters combined. In 2002, for example, Bonds drew 198 of his team's 616 walks.

If look at his 1999 Giants, you see a *team* that is littered with good to great BB ratios. Of the 14 Giants who had 100 or more ABs, 10 of them had AB:BB of 10:1 or better. And those that didn't--Aurilia, Javier, Servais, and Ramon Martinez--were close.

Bonds "only" had 78 BBs that year. It was a collective effort.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SFG/1999.shtml


We have an impressionable young nucleus of players, and the last thing they need is to have a more free swinging, aggressive approach at the plate emphasized to them.

I don't see any evidence that Baker forced younger players, like Mueller, Aurilia, Benard, or Rios, to go up there hacking. And even if he did, he wasn't very successful in changing their respective approaches.

RedsManRick
10-17-2007, 12:27 PM
I think the biggest concern is that improving the pitching staff simply isn't an issue of spending more money. It's about identifying and then developing or acquiring the talent. We could've spent $30M on Zito, Eaton, Dannys Baez, and Mike Stanton (oops) and have had no better a staff than we had already.

What I'd really like to see and hear is a commitment to identifying and acquiring top level talent -- be it through the amateur draft, trades, or free agency. I want to see evidence of an evaluation process that involves more than ERA and experience.

While spending money is great, clearly the real issue is making the right choices with your 40 man roster. Spending money simply gives you more choices and more flexibility, but it does little to help you make the right ones. In fact, it can even encourage the wrong ones because it allows you to be less critical.

M2 among others have convinced to at least reserve judgment on Dusty until he gives me reason to complain. At this point, I'm putting my focus back on Wayne to see what he does with this apparent opportunity. With a great financial commitment from Cast, the wealth of young ready and almost ready talent, and the general weakness of the division, there's a pretty nice opportunity here. If Dusty squanders it through mismanagement, I'll be at the very front of the line to call him on it. However, let's see what kind of roster Wayne gives him to work with first.

Chip R
10-17-2007, 12:28 PM
I liked the whole post RLJ, but this last part got me wondering....is Johnnie B. his generation's Billy Martin?


You trying to steal my thunder? ;)

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1481716&postcount=629

Besides the tendancy to overwork starters and his teams drastically improving in his first year, I don't think the comparison holds as much water as I thought it did.

Billy never really stayed in any one place long enough to see if his teams went downhill after he was there for a while.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/managers/martibi02.shtml

Dusty stayed quite a while in SF and while they plotzed after his first season, he got them back to the Series. Dusty coddles his players - especially the vets. Billy coddled no one. Billy was a drunk and had problems off the field with his fists. Other than almost getting his kid ran over, I don't recall any problems with Dusty. Billy was known as a genius in the dugout as far as strategy went. Dusty, not so much. After thinking about it, I really think they have more differences than similarities.

gm
10-17-2007, 07:35 PM
You trying to steal my thunder? ;)

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1481716&postcount=629

Besides the tendancy to overwork starters and his teams drastically improving in his first year, I don't think the comparison holds as much water as I thought it did.

Billy never really stayed in any one place long enough to see if his teams went downhill after he was there for a while.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/managers/martibi02.shtml

Dusty stayed quite a while in SF and while they plotzed after his first season, he got them back to the Series. Dusty coddles his players - especially the vets. Billy coddled no one. Billy was a drunk and had problems off the field with his fists. Other than almost getting his kid ran over, I don't recall any problems with Dusty. Billy was known as a genius in the dugout as far as strategy went. Dusty, not so much. After thinking about it, I really think they have more differences than similarities.

Can't. Read. Everything.

(And if I take the time to read until the end of a thread to see if someone else already made the point I was planning to make...I usually forget what the point was by the end of the thread...does that make sense?)

Ltlabner
10-17-2007, 08:30 PM
One aspect of having Dusty on board that might be of benefit (albiet fuzzy clubhouse stuff) of his experience, track record and name cachet with the players themselves.

I can easily see Narron more or less having to beg guys to do this or that. My impression, and maybe I'm way off base, is that for most of the players when Dusty speaks they will listen. At the very least, they will consider what he is talking about. These guys are only human and having that implied authority may help to impose some clubhouse discipline that has been lacking. Instead of asking, suggesting, hinting or even begging he mearly has to express himself.

How many times did Narron talk about PTGTRW and defense yet nothing ever changed. I'm sure he didn't stop talking about it behind the clubhouse doors, yet it didn't have an impact, the players didn't listen or they outright defied him.

Now Dusty could totally blow that implied authority. And he may use his implied authority to do wacky things, but in theory, I can see Dusty being able to adress issues much easier and quicker over a Narron, Miley or maybe even PMac type.

gm
10-17-2007, 08:48 PM
So does a glacier.

Don't forget the knee. The 18-wheeler had no air brakes

Ron Madden
10-18-2007, 04:00 AM
I hope like hell that we've heard the end of those silly cliches so often used by Narron and his ilk.

I've never understood why a run scored via a SF or ground out to second base is the right way to score a run, and hitting a pitch out of the park is somehow considered the wrong way to score a run. :dunno:

The only Right Way To Play The Game is to score more runs than your opponent before making 27 outs, and to hold your opponent to as few runs as possible while recording 27 outs.

Sometimes you win 9-7 sometimes you lose 3-2.

I sure wish we had a Reds game to follow tonight. It's already been a long off season. ;)

westofyou
10-18-2007, 11:01 AM
I hope like hell that we've heard the end of those silly cliches so often used by Narron and his ilk

You mean EVERY baseball manager out there?

Even the new skool managers espouse homilies and the like.

You'll never escape that stuff, it's a part of the game... plus I don't think I ever heard a manager talk down a HR... that's announcer fodder.

wheels
10-18-2007, 02:14 PM
You mean EVERY baseball manager out there?

Even the new skool managers espouse homilies and the like.

You'll never escape that stuff, it's a part of the game... plus I don't think I ever heard a manager talk down a HR... that's announcer fodder.

Managerisms are as much a part of the game as hot dogs and the seventh inning stretch.

I need a chuckle or two before the game starts, and Narron was especially hilarious with that Huckleberry Hound drawl.

I hope Baker can provide some laughs at the very least.

oneupper
10-18-2007, 04:56 PM
Lots of interesting opinions in this thread.

I'll just get on the record by saying I DON'T like the signing.

Paying big bucks for a bad manager (It's my opinion, OK) is like paying big bucks for a bad pitcher. Its double BAD.

Dusty Baker will become Wayne Krivsky's Eric Milton.

jojo
10-18-2007, 07:05 PM
Baker's apathy towards walks and related apathy towards OBP will show up in the lineup construction, but not IMO by changing the stripes of the hitters.

This is a great comment.

RedsManRick
10-18-2007, 07:14 PM
I think you're right Jojo. I think we're going to continue to see Dunn buried at 5. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Phillips moved up to the two hole or leadoff if Hamilton is in CF.

jojo
10-18-2007, 07:15 PM
One aspect of having Dusty on board that might be of benefit (albiet fuzzy clubhouse stuff) of his experience, track record and name cachet with the players themselves.

I can easily see Narron more or less having to beg guys to do this or that. My impression, and maybe I'm way off base, is that for most of the players when Dusty speaks they will listen. At the very least, they will consider what he is talking about. These guys are only human and having that implied authority may help to impose some clubhouse discipline that has been lacking. Instead of asking, suggesting, hinting or even begging he mearly has to express himself.

How many times did Narron talk about PTGTRW and defense yet nothing ever changed. I'm sure he didn't stop talking about it behind the clubhouse doors, yet it didn't have an impact, the players didn't listen or they outright defied him.

Now Dusty could totally blow that implied authority. And he may use his implied authority to do wacky things, but in theory, I can see Dusty being able to adress issues much easier and quicker over a Narron, Miley or maybe even PMac type.

I think there really are three aspects in a manager's job description:

1. lineup/manage the staff;
2. manage the clubhouse;
3. manage the media;

Dusty's major flaws are related to the first responsibility IMHO. He excels at the second responsibility. Basically as a tactician he'll cost the team runs but in general most managers aren't all that and a bag of chips in this regard so it remains to be seen how much this really hurts. He's probably good for + runs regarding his ability to manage the clubhouse because guys tend to play for him. Probably the sum of the effects of responsibilities one and two roughly even out or count as a slight positive.

To me, it's responsibility three that I am actually excited about because it will be refreshing to have a manager that manages the media well for a change.

westofyou
10-20-2007, 11:51 AM
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07293/827065-63.stm


Huntington acknowledged yesterday that the Pirates had Dusty Baker and Trey Hillman on their potential candidate list, but he wouldn't say how high or low on the list they were.

Baker has agreed to manage the Cincinnati Reds. Hillman yesterday signed to manage the Kansas City Royals.

Joe Torre, who won't return to manage the New York Yankees, also won't manage the Pirates, Huntington said.

Huntington said the Pirates will honor Major League Baseball's self-imposed ban on teams announcing major decisions during the World Series, which begins Wednesday.

"I know people are thinking we're taking a ridiculous amount of time on this," Huntington said. "But I think there's more anxiety externally than internally. I just want to get it right."

Matt700wlw
10-20-2007, 01:30 PM
3. manage the media;



Give us quotes and we're happy. Good or bad.


If you don't, we'll just make fun of you....like the Narron firing press conference which was a humiliation on the part of the Reds....people crying, the owner looking like he'd been hitting the Jack Daniels for the past 6 months.



We don't create the reality....we just reflect it, and (hopefully) report it....and yeah, there's probably just a touch of opinion in there too... :)

KronoRed
10-20-2007, 02:39 PM
I think you're right Jojo. I think we're going to continue to see Dunn buried at 5. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Phillips moved up to the two hole or leadoff if Hamilton is in CF.

Actually I bet we see Phillips in the 3 spot, 30/30 guy bats 3rd, old baseball rules you know ;)

Dunn won't bat 2nd, and JR will be 4th, so who knows where Dunn will land.

Matt700wlw
10-20-2007, 02:52 PM
Actually I bet we see Phillips in the 3 spot, 30/30 guy bats 3rd, old baseball rules you know ;)

Dunn won't bat 2nd, and JR will be 4th, so who knows where Dunn will land.

Maybe the novel idea of Griffey and Dunn in 3 and 4 hole back to back will actually occur.

That would be stellar!

Bat Phillips in the five hole....Edwin in the 6 hole? I'm not sure, at this point who bats second.

People weren't happy with Edwin batting low in the order last season, and I can understand it...but honestly, this lineup, the way it's constructed now is STACKED....

I would put it against any other lineup in baseball.

KronoRed
10-20-2007, 02:56 PM
I'd like to see EE in the 2 spot, even when he was stinking this year he got on base, bat him 2nd to see if the hot streak from the end of the year is still working, then move him down for some much needed right handed power.

Assuming of course, any of these players are actually still on the team in April :D

Matt700wlw
10-20-2007, 02:59 PM
I thought about that, but Edwin can drive in runs...a lot of them.

Aside from the first part of last season, when he couldn't hit anything.....he LOVES guys on base...which is why I put him a little lower...


The biggest problem with this lineup is there are way too many lefties....I was thinking Hamilton leadig off, maybe Votto in the 2 hole, but then with Dunn and Griffey that's 4 lefties to start your lineup....


I'm going to send a letter to Bud and see if it's possible for the Reds only face right handed pitching next season.

:)

Talking harcore, deep down baseball, that doesn't involve the postseason teams, in the middle of October.

This is kind of cool!


Makes me think this team does have a direction....and really can win sooner than later! And as a fan before anything else...job aside...

I just want to see this team win again....I was 10 the last time they won the world series....

I'd like to understand and appreciate another appearance....and, now the job part comes in, sort of be a part of it.

WVRedsFan
10-20-2007, 04:09 PM
Makes me think this team does have a direction....and really can win sooner than later! And as a fan before anything else...job aside...

I just want to see this team win again....I was 10 the last time they won the world series....

I'd like to understand and appreciate another appearance....and, now the job part comes in, sort of be a part of it.

That's the beauty of the off season. The team can't prove you wrong until April!

This team has about 100% more direction than it did at this time last year. Even though he's not my choice, we have a real manager, not a guy they just threw in there because he was likeable. First base may be manned by a kid who can hit and field and is young. We have a shortstop and a backup. We have an outfield who could conceivably hit over 100 HR's. Only the pitching needs improvement. Same as last year.


...like the Narron firing press conference which was a humiliation on the part of the Reds....people crying, the owner looking like he'd been hitting the Jack Daniels for the past 6 months.

I agree. Those two created the monster Narron and waited too long to make a move (even extended him), so they should have been mad at themselves, not crying. It became more obvious when a nobody named Macklanin took the same team to a winning record. Oh well.

Matt700wlw
10-20-2007, 04:15 PM
That's the beauty of the off season. The team can't prove you wrong until April!

This team has about 100% more direction than it did at this time last year. Even though he's not my choice, we have a real manager, not a guy they just threw in there because he was likeable. First base may be manned by a kid who can hit and field and is young. We have a shortstop and a backup. We have an outfield who could conceivably hit over 100 HR's. Only the pitching needs improvement. Same as last year.

But spending big bucks on a proven manager, our first choice or not, with a track record of winning shows me they are going to try to do this right now. If you're going to spend money like that on a manager, you have to follow that up by getting him the players, or you look like a joke




I agree. Those two created the monster Narron and waited too long to make a move (even extended him), so they should have been mad at themselves, not crying. It became more obvious when a nobody named Macklanin took the same team to a winning record. Oh well.


Mack did a good job, and I hope he gets a chance somewhere.

Right now, another no name, no track record, "interim" manager was the last thing this team needed.....maybe that's not fair, maybe that's not justified, but it's business.


Mama wasn't happy....hopefully Dusty makes her happy.

Unassisted
10-20-2007, 06:22 PM
A Cubs beat writer weighs in on the Dusty "myths."
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-071020morrissey,1,6695287.column?coll=cs-cubs-headlines


Baker bashers forget the facts
Rick Morrissey
In the wake of the news

October 21, 2007

I can't tell you how many people came up to me last week and made light of the Reds' hiring of Dusty Baker. Five? Ten? I lost track after the second joke about the distinct possibility the Cubs would go 15-0 against Cincinnati next season.

The glee that followed the announcement was the kind normally reserved for when the movie villain gets it but good in the end.

A Cubs fan on the FireDustyBaker.com Web site said the name now should be changed to Don'tFireDustyBaker.com. Nicely played.

I don't recall one person saying the Reds made a good move.

So I'll say it: The Reds made a good move. You know, if winning's your thing.

It's interesting how, aside from his odd decision to pull Carlos Zambrano after 85 pitches in Game 1 of the Arizona playoff series, Lou Piniella is regarded as something of a baseball genius for getting 85 victories out of a franchise that won 66 games the season before under Baker.

Never mind that many believed the Cubs had the most talent, by far, in the National League Central this year.

Never mind that the Cubs spent gobs of money on players for Piniella.

Or, for that matter, that the Cubs won 88 and 89 games in Baker's first two seasons at Wrigley Field.

Piniella is a savant!

And Baker, who got his 2003 club closer to the World Series than any Cubs team in almost 60 years, is perceived as a loser, a punch line, chump change.

You still can hear the moaning long after his departure.

Why, why, why didn't he take Mark Prior out of Game 6 when the Cubs were five outs from going to the World Series? I don't know. Perhaps it was because Prior was throwing a three-hit shutout going into the eighth inning, and he was the Cubs' best pitcher. Perhaps it was because setup man Kyle Farnsworth didn't inspire a whole lot of confidence and Baker liked his chances with a pitcher who had gone 18-6 with a 2.43 earned-run average in the regular season.

Why, oh, why didn't he have starter Carlos Zambrano warming up in the bullpen when the sky fell in that game? Perhaps it was because the sky fell at warp speed. If you were in the ballpark that night, you know how quickly things fell apart. And if you're a follower of this sad franchise, you know the sense of inevitability that settled in at Wrigley Field with Moises Alou's glove-throwing incident. It was over before it was over.

It has become gospel that Baker ruined Prior and Kerry Wood. Wood was injuries, plural, waiting to happen, and nothing before or since Baker's arrival can change that simple truth. Prior's situation is a bit more complex. The piling on of Baker began when Prior sat out the first two months of the 2004 season … with Achilles' tendinitis.

That's not to say Baker was innocent of overpitching Prior and causing chronic arm problems. It's to say I don't know. Nobody knows.

One study that analyzed pitchers from 2000 to 2006 showed that Baker's starters averaged 3.68 pitches per start more than they would have been expected to throw under certain conditions. This was based on innings, hits, strikeouts, walks, the particular season, the particular league and a lot of stuff I never understood in math class.

In other words, Baker was not a pitcher killer.

The beginnings of Prior's shoulder injury could have come at Southern California, in the minors or in the big leagues under Baker. Again, nobody knows. But that hasn't stopped fans and media members, many of them newly minted experts in biomechanics and kinesiology, from blaming Baker for Prior's undoing.

That the Cubs fell apart in 2006 was more an indictment of general manager Jim Hendry than it was Baker. Even though Wood and Prior had proved to be medically unreliable, the Cubs didn't respond by signing or trading for other starters. They sat still.

History is a tricky business. You might have noticed that the past tends to fade. Things you thought happened didn't, and things that did happen are forgotten. Some themes emerge, and all the elbow grease in the world can't make them go away. In Chicago, Baker's theme is one of abject failure.

It might come as a surprise to you that in 13 seasons as a manager, he went to the playoffs four times and finished second in his division six other times.

He was not guiltless here. He put too much faith in veterans who didn't deserve faith. Loyalty is one thing; loyalty to a LaTroy Hawkins is insanity.

He let Sammy Sosa be Sammy Sosa, Moises Alou be Moises Alou and Kent Mercker be Kent Mercker. Enabling never looked quite so ugly.

When the Cubs finally did everyone a favor by letting those players walk, they forgot to bring in honest-to-goodness major-league talent as replacements. And when Derrek Lee went down with a broken wrist in 2006 and Todd Walker had to play first base, well, you wonder what Piniella could have done with that.

We need heroes and we need baddies. That's life. Baker has taken on epic evil proportions in this town. The descent from good to evil has been dizzying.

Now he will run a team that hits well. It's a team with a decent mix of veterans and young players. Oh, that's right. The rap is that Baker doesn't like young players. Wait, didn't second-year pro Matt Murton hit .297 as a regular in 2006? You remember Murton, don't you? Whatever became of him?

Baker gets a chance to start over in Cincinnati, a town with people who are nervous after reading some of the fiction about their new manager.

How about giving him a chance, Reds fans? You might even win a few games from those mighty, mighty Cubs.