PDA

View Full Version : How has your opinion of Dusty Baker changed?



Pages : [1] 2

RedsManRick
05-26-2008, 03:11 AM
Given that tonight's game may cause a touch of bias, how has your opinion of Dusty Baker changed since his hiring?

(this was supposed to be a poll but the options never came up...)

A. Improved: Dusty Baker has shown himself to be a better manager than I expected him to be.

B. No Change: Dusty Baker is who we thought he was is.

C. Worsened: So that's what everybody was complaining about...

dougdirt
05-26-2008, 03:13 AM
I can't say what I want to say and insult the man (I have been given a warning in the past for saying something about his intelligence), but lets just say I didn't believe it could get worse, but it has.

Ron Madden
05-26-2008, 03:14 AM
My opinion hasn't changed very much.

I never have liked Dusty Baker as a Manager.

I'll go with (B)

:D

reds44
05-26-2008, 03:17 AM
It's pretty much the same as it always has been. Good people person that will stick up for his players, but not somebody I want running my team.

mbgrayson
05-26-2008, 03:18 AM
Given that tonight's game may cause a touch of bias, how has your opinion of Dusty Baker changed since his hiring?

It really hasn't changed at all. The Dusty we are seeing is the same as Cubs fans saw in 2004-2006. See firedustybaker.com, as I did last fall when Dusty was hired.

mth123
05-26-2008, 03:20 AM
I'm convinced that he needs to go. I was in the "anybody but Baker" camp while the search was going on, but took a wait and see approach after his hiring. I've seen enough.

Spring~Fields
05-26-2008, 03:43 AM
I can't believe how right many were about this guy, when I read their thoughts on him back when he was hired I thought they were just doing like this icon - :runaway:

No, they were right, they just did not articulate it greatly enough, which would be hard to describe what this manager does, so they have a pass on that.

Center and short bats one two, come on, not a problem if they could actually get on base, batting a man third out of respect, decisions like those three have started almost every game since opening day and has failed, yet he continues to pursue it........as they hinder the team percentage wise.

The guy manipulating the signing and hiring of inferior players, while he actually believes that they are an improvement over what other players might have brought to this team.......as they hinder the team percentage wise.
I have to stop before I write something I shouldn't.

C. Worsened: So that's what everybody was complaining about...


But what's worse is this man has a boss with considerable reputation, that can make it clear with a direct or subtle directive for the manager to make the reasonable change now, and no evidence of that has been forthcoming, simply remarkable.

I think that Baker has a serious flaw in evaluating his personnel and an even bigger flaw in utilizing them.

We’re not talking about the usual generalizations here that generate responses such as Baker can’t pitch for them, Baker can’t hit or field for them, we are seeing things that Baker can do something about and refuses to.

boognish
05-26-2008, 03:50 AM
All of the (justified, IMO) gnashing of teeth...and he hasn't even started abusing pitchers short-sightedly.

That is, until today's game, though the die was cast in the 11th which exacerbated the situation and there was really no other way to handle things after that tactical error.

Topcat
05-26-2008, 05:00 AM
Awful choice and I pray I am incorrect on this. The man plays by the book and times have changed and he is inflexible. A lot like the Dinosaurs if you don't adapt you become extinct.

GAC
05-26-2008, 05:30 AM
B. It hasn't changed, and I don't even blame him for the loss last night.

It's not his fault pitcher's blew leads given them.

The only thing I strongly disagreed with was taking Dunn out of the game.

Yeah, some can contend that he did a number on our starters in this 18 inning game, and I'm not going to belabor that point because who was he suppose to throw out there? He used Harang, and left him in there as long as he could, knowing he doesn't pitch till Wednesday. Throwing Bray out there before Fogg doesn't mean the outcome would have been any different. Our stopper Cordero gave it up too.

Sure, we can debate all the "what ifs" in this game, but the fact of that matter is we had three blown saves in one game.

redsrule2500
05-26-2008, 05:37 AM
C. Worsened: So that's what everybody was complaining about...


Definitely. It's crazy, I was cautiously optomisitic coming into this year, but now I see what a complete failure he is as a manager. He's a pathetic joke.

Screwball
05-26-2008, 05:44 AM
C.

I tried to keep an open mind. Hell, I even supported the notion he'd get the team to actually play fundamental baseball. Needless to say, I've been sorely disappointed.

It pains me to think there are still years left on Dusty's contract. Where's Pete Mackanin when you need him?

RedsBaron
05-26-2008, 09:31 AM
(B).
Baker has been about what I expected, a guy who thinks a player with a .201 average and a .242 OBP is a leadoff hitter.

Degenerate39
05-26-2008, 09:37 AM
C.

My main complaint is Corey Patterson and the leadoff spot. He's a horrible hitter and he's not that great on D. I'll never understand why he continues to take playing time away from Jay Bruce.

Another thing that Dusty isn't the only one that's done is double switching Dunn out of the game. He's improved on defense enough to be left in in close 1 run games. The Reds needed his bat last night in extra innings but it wasn't available thanks to the double switch.

lollipopcurve
05-26-2008, 09:42 AM
C. Really struggled with his use/nonuse of Fogg yesterday. You have a long reliever for exactly that kind of game. Now, as Baker himself said, the rotation is "messed up big time."

Redhook
05-26-2008, 10:03 AM
F. When he was first hired, I was a little worried, but optimistic. After a few weeks, he was definitely worse than what I anticipated. Now, after 2 months, he's rewriting the book on how to manage poorly.

MikeS21
05-26-2008, 10:23 AM
B. It hasn't changed, and I don't even blame him for the loss last night.

It's not his fault pitcher's blew leads given them.

The only thing I strongly disagreed with was taking Dunn out of the game.

Yeah, some can contend that he did a number on our starters in this 18 inning game, and I'm not going to belabor that point because who was he suppose to throw out there? He used Harang, and left him in there as long as he could, knowing he doesn't pitch till Wednesday. Throwing Bray out there before Fogg doesn't mean the outcome would have been any different. Our stopper Cordero gave it up too.

Sure, we can debate all the "what ifs" in this game, but the fact of that matter is we had three blown saves in one game.
I don't even disagree with taking Dunn out. If I'm the manager, and we have a one-run lead going into the bottom of the 9th, and Cordero is coming in to close, I'm replacing Dunn in favor of defense EVERY time. I'm not playing for the 12th or 13th inning. I'm figuring on winning the game. And I feel my best shot is to have someone other than Dunn in LF.

I know folks are crowing over Dunn supposed "improved" defense. Of course it is "improved." He's had less flyballs hit to him to mess up. If you look at his total chances per inning, they are down from the last couple years. The Reds' pitching is near or at the top of the leaderboard in strikeouts and with five right-handed starters in the rotation, there are less righthanded hitters hitting the ball to left field. Less chances equals less opportunities equals less errors. So, yeah, if you want to call that improvement, I guess you can.

This game was lost by Weathers, Cordero, and if you want to blame Votto, OK. But I have gone over the game inning by inning, and I agree with probably 85% of Baker's decisions in this one.

jojo
05-26-2008, 10:58 AM
Dusty isn't a tactician but hew doesn't do stuff to piss off the players and he gets on well with the media (voice of the franchise stuff).

I'd suggest that so far he's been pretty much what we should've expected.

Blitz Dorsey
05-26-2008, 11:01 AM
OK, I was wrong. I liked Dusty when he was hired and still like him to some extent. At least he's a good people person, good with media and not a complete jerk like a Marvin Lewis. But I absolutely see 100 percent what his detrators say about him. I don't agree 100 percent, but I understand.

My opinion has certainly changed for the worse. His stubborn refusal to do things with the lineup that my 10-month old daughter could figure out is at the top of the list. I'm obviously talking about NEVER batting Patterson leadoff (or never batting Patterson at all) never batting Janish second and rarely if ever batting Griffey third. You know, little things like the 1-2-3 spots in the Reds' batting order. It's almost like Dusty the Clown places zero emphasis on the three most important spots in the batting order -- the three players that are going to get the most at bats on your team if they receive consistent playing time.

I laughed when I saw the Indians were batting Dave Dellucci in the 3 hole in every game in Cincinnati (or maybe it was 2 out of 3) but that was somewhat out of necessity. Can you imagine what opposing managers must think when they see Patterson/Janish/Griffey or Patterson/Hairston/Griffey when they see the lineup card? They must want to send Dusty a gift basket or something.

Falls City Beer
05-26-2008, 11:11 AM
I find that Dusty has been wise in putting a guy like Janish in the two hole, and occasionally batting Votto 4th/sometimes 5th.

I like that he shows that level of faith in young guys--especially Janish, a guy who is probably a bit overmatched, but is a nice battler and bat-handler.

Dusty's biggest sin isn't even batting Patterson 1st, it's batting Griffey 3rd; he clearly can't give up on this guy's past superstardom. It's over Dusty. Time to face reality.

mth123
05-26-2008, 11:12 AM
I don't even disagree with taking Dunn out. If I'm the manager, and we have a one-run lead going into the bottom of the 9th, and Cordero is coming in to close, I'm replacing Dunn in favor of defense EVERY time. I'm not playing for the 12th or 13th inning. I'm figuring on winning the game. And I feel my best shot is to have someone other than Dunn in LF.

I know folks are crowing over Dunn supposed "improved" defense. Of course it is "improved." He's had less flyballs hit to him to mess up. If you look at his total chances per inning, they are down from the last couple years. The Reds' pitching is near or at the top of the leaderboard in strikeouts and with five right-handed starters in the rotation, there are less righthanded hitters hitting the ball to left field. Less chances equals less opportunities equals less errors. So, yeah, if you want to call that improvement, I guess you can.

This game was lost by Weathers, Cordero, and if you want to blame Votto, OK. But I have gone over the game inning by inning, and I agree with probably 85% of Baker's decisions in this one.

I agree with a double switch to help the defense as well. I just think there are so many bad defenders on the team that it doesn't have to be Dunn automatically that gets removed. If you want to improve the defense double switch out Jr. Its a bigger improvement and leaves the best offensive player in the game.

Yachtzee
05-26-2008, 11:23 AM
Worse. My concern about Dusty was that he was going to destroy the starting rotation by keeping them in games until their arms fell off, but I didn't realize he had the ability to screw up the team through personnel decisions. Guys like Patterson shouldn't even be on the team, but Dusty succeeded not only in getting them signed, but getting them some money, and then playing them all the time. Now the team is saddled with more bad contracts and more players who start because the manager likes them rather than because they can actually produce on the field. Oh to have Pete Mackanin back.

Dusty Baker reminds me of one of those youth baseball coaches who starts kids based on whose mom invites him over for dinner the most.

Rounding Third
05-26-2008, 11:26 AM
I find that Dusty has been wise in putting a guy like Janish in the two hole, and occasionally batting Votto 4th/sometimes 5th.

I like that he shows that level of faith in young guys--especially Janish, a guy who is probably a bit overmatched, but is a nice battler and bat-handler.

Dusty's biggest sin isn't even batting Patterson 1st, it's batting Griffey 3rd; he clearly can't give up on this guy's past superstardom. It's over Dusty. Time to face reality.

Why does Dusty bat Votto, after a month in the majors, 7th to "keep the pressure off." But then a weak hitting SS's first career MLB game he is hitting 2nd?

Its because of the position he plays. Filling out a lineup card based on position is ridiculous.

flyer85
05-26-2008, 11:37 AM
Nope, he is not the reaon the Reds are losing. He is the manager for a good, veteran, plug and play team ... which the Reds obviously are not.

Marc D
05-26-2008, 11:52 AM
When the rumors of Baker coming to the Res started to surface I posted many times over at another forum that that would be it for me. If an organization was that hell bent on self destruction it didn't deserve me as a fan.

Well, I'm too loyal to actually abandon this old familiar pain so I said keep an open mind maybe it will be different once he gets here. In a sense it has been, he hasn't been the vet loving-abuser of young arms monster I expected. Then I think of the things I dislike most about him and they are just a version of the vet loving thing.

#1 Patterson not only being on the team but hitting leadoff = vet loving
#2 JR getting the most playing time of any OFer and a fixture in the 3 hole = vet loving
#3 the constant defensive replacement of Dunn = loyalty to a rigid way of thinking "by the book" which is an ugly cousin of the vet loving thing.

The in game mismanagement stuff I can live with, every manager bungles those to some degree. That is tactics and if he had better players his(or any managers) problems in this area wouldn't be so pronounced.

My problem isn't with his tactics but with his strategy. Strategy is a lack of vision, its the big picture stuff that loses the war. Not seeing the problem with CP and JR is a strategy issue, replacing Dunn for defense while leaving JR in the game constantly is a strategy problem.

So all in all I guess I vote "B" with a twist. He's as bad as I thought he'd be but in a different way.

oneupper
05-26-2008, 11:54 AM
I hated the Dusty signing from day one. I've really tried to give him credit for doing a few things right (e.g. bullpen management at some point).
That was more to try to deny a reality of three more years of losing, regardless of how the roster shapes up.

But the moronic decisions he makes and continues to make despite the obvious results he gets....

It's just utterly depressing. Like living on death row.

Edskin
05-26-2008, 11:59 AM
Much, much worse. Freely admit I was wrong. I was always impressed that out in SF, the Giants always seemed to play above their heads when Dusty was there. But maybe he peaked during that time and simply has not changed/adapted as others have mentioned.

I don't think he's necessarily WORSE than Boone, but he actually makes me angrier during games, which is quite a feat.

The Corey Patterson love-fest has gone beyond ridiculous, and it really makes me question if Dusty Baker understands the first thing about baseball.

People say, "do you really think you know more about baseball than a man who played, coached, and managed for over 30 years in the big leagues?"

My answer: Yes. I really do.

I think Dusty gets hired simply because of who he is (or who he was) and nothing more.

I think he made a blunder with using Harang and Volquez last night-- I simply would have left Fogg in the game to sink or swim for as long as it went-- with Bray as an emergency if it stretched much longer.

But really, the Patterson thing is what gets me the most. Just baffling.

Chip R
05-26-2008, 12:04 PM
I find that Dusty has been wise in putting a guy like Janish in the two hole, and occasionally batting Votto 4th/sometimes 5th.

I like that he shows that level of faith in young guys--especially Janish, a guy who is probably a bit overmatched, but is a nice battler and bat-handler.


No, he's only batting Janish 2nd because that's where shortstops bat. If Janish were a CF he'd be batting 1st.

Red in Chicago
05-26-2008, 12:08 PM
I'm going with B. He hasn't changed a bit since his days in Chicago. A leopard doesn't change his spots;)

westofyou
05-26-2008, 12:10 PM
People say, "do you really think you know more about baseball than a man who played, coached, and managed for over 30 years in the big leagues?"

My answer: Yes. I really do.

I don't, that's for sure.

But I know that Patterson shouldn't lead off.

Doing that however doesn't create an osmosis of massive intelligence about every other aspect of the game to surge through my brain, nor does it I suspect create the opposite effect on Dusty Baker.

Anyone who has watched Dusty manage since 1993 would know that he'd be doing exactly what he has been doing.

Putting more plays on (Runners moving, hit and runs, steals, bunts) they knew he'd lean on speed as a tool that creates situations (not just take advantageous of them) They knew he would sit on players in hopes of them producing (Daryl Hamilton and Marvin Benard say hello) and they knew he'd lean on catchers with no pop.

Dusty Baker is doing exactly what he's always done, the cast might be wrong for the task, and he has his warts like any other manager groomed in an era that is a dot in the past. he's a people manager first and a on field tactician second, just as I suspected he'd be.

flyer85
05-26-2008, 12:11 PM
Dusty Baker is doing exactly what he's always done, the cast might be wrong for the task, and he has his warts like any other manager groomed in an era that is a dot in the past. he's a people manager first and a on field tactician second, just as I suspected he'd be.Dusty has been the same Dusty ... I hope people aren't surprised. He was never a good fit for this team.

membengal
05-26-2008, 12:19 PM
B.

But I am disappointed to be right.

OnBaseMachine
05-26-2008, 12:19 PM
C. Worsened. I never liked him when he was with the Cubs. I knew how bad of a manager he was back then but I decided to give him a chance and erase all the bad things that has been said about him in the past. IMO he started off on the wrong foot by starting Hatteberg over Votto but he quickly realized his mistake there. He handled the pitch counts of Cueto and Volquez well during their first few outings and it looked as it he had learned his lesson in that department. Guess not. Since then he's rode Volquez pretty hard at times. I was still feeling neutral about him until recently when his lineups have become a liability. He continues to bat an out machine lead off, and by his own admittance the only reason Griffey and his .700 OPS is batting third is because reputation. He continues to waste Adam Dunn in the 5/6/7 spot in the lineup. He continues to run Hairston out there at SS despite him looking clueless there.

It was getting to the point where I was losing all patience with Dusty Baker and last night really pushed me over the top. I can't fault him for David Weathers and Cordero blowing saves in the 8th and 9th innings. However, part of the blame goes on Baker for the blown save in the 11th inning. The Padres had two left-handed hitters coming up to begin the inning and the Reds had two options in the pen - LH Bill Bray and RH Josh Fogg. The obvious choice in that situation is to bring in the lefty Bray to face the two lefty hitters. Instead Baker brings in Fogg and he allows both runners to reach base on singles. After a sac bunt and RBI ground out, Baker decides to bring in Bray to face Giles. Of course Giles bloops a RBI hit into LFC but maybe the Reds win that game if Bray starts the inning.

Not only did that move potentially lose the game for the Reds but it screwed up the rotation. Aaron Harang was forced to pitch four innings because Baker burned the long man for four batters. Worst of all, Edinson Volquez was forced to pitch two innings on one day rest and his stuff was clearly lacking. Hopefully his arm will be OK and he'll bounce back and pitch effectively in his next start, how against the Braves instead of the Pirates.

Rounding Third
05-26-2008, 12:26 PM
C. Worsened. I never liked him when he was with the Cubs. I knew how bad of a manager he was back then but I decided to give him a chance and erase all the bad things that has been said about him in the past. IMO he started off on the wrong foot by starting Hatteberg over Votto but he quickly realized his mistake there. He handled the pitch counts of Cueto and Volquez well during their first few outings and it looked as it he had learned his lesson in that department. Guess not. Since then he's rode Volquez pretty hard at times. I was still feeling neutral about him until recently when his lineups have become a liability. He continues to bat an out machine lead off, and by his own admittance the only reason Griffey and his .700 OPS is batting third is because reputation. He continues to waste Adam Dunn in the 5/6/7 spot in the lineup. He continues to run Hairston out there at SS despite him looking clueless there.

It was getting to the point where I was losing all patience with Dusty Baker and last night really pushed me over the top. I can't fault him for David Weathers and Cordero blowing saves in the 8th and 9th innings. However, part of the blame goes on Baker for the blown save in the 11th inning. The Padres had two left-handed hitters coming up to begin the inning and the Reds had two options in the pen - LH Bill Bray and RH Josh Fogg. The obvious choice in that situation is to bring in the lefty Bray to face the two lefty hitters. Instead Baker brings in Fogg and he allows both runners to reach base on singles. After a sac bunt and RBI ground out, Baker decides to bring in Bray to face Giles. Of course Giles bloops a RBI hit into LFC but maybe the Reds win that game if Bray starts the inning.

Not only did that move potentially lose the game for the Reds but it screwed up the rotation. Aaron Harang was forced to pitch four innings because Baker burned the long man for four batters. Worst of all, Edinson Volquez was forced to pitch two innings on one day rest and his stuff was clearly lacking. Hopefully his arm will be OK and he'll bounce back and pitch effectively in his next start, how against the Braves instead of the Pirates.

Agreed 100% However I do fault letting Weathers in when the game is remotely close. And blame Chris Speier for using Cordero the other day when it wasn't needed.

KronoRed
05-26-2008, 01:03 PM
B: no change, this is pretty much what I expected of him.

AmarilloRed
05-26-2008, 01:31 PM
C. Worsened

Given his history of winning in the past, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt this season. He has proved so far to simply be an expensive boondoggle for the Reds that I hope we can jettison in 3 years. His decision-making so far this season has been less than impressive.

Will M
05-26-2008, 01:47 PM
C

I wasn't thrilled with his hiring but seeing how people like to rip managers I was willing to take a wait and see attitude.
I've seen enough.

The Reds clearly have several talented players.
The 25 man roster is put together badly.
Dusty uses the players he has badly.

Yesterday's game was so so so bad.

vaticanplum
05-26-2008, 01:55 PM
My opinion of him remains fundamentally unchanged. The only difference now -- and it's a big difference -- is that I used to shake my head as I watched him poorly manage teams I didn't care for, and now I have to cry as he destroys a team I do care for.

We can and do point to his numerous, tangible baseball failings, the most grievous of which are currently his laughingstock of a batting order and his prediliction for playing subpar veterans over talented youngsters. But my problems with him all boil down to problems of character -- and it is a rare, rare circumstance in which I'm moved to say that or even care about that with regards to someone I don't know. By saying that I have problems with his character, that doesn't mean I think he's a bad person or treats people badly or anything like that. It means that every problem I have with him seems to always go back to personality characteristics of his that, while not inherently bad, are just flat-out death for a manager of a professional baseball team: inflexibility, oversensitivity to criticism, a complete unwillingness to admit when he's wrong, bullheadedness, placement of ego over the good of the team, and a flippant attitude toward responsibility. This is not news to me; these are all exactly the same problems I've had with him since he was managing the Cubs, and my thoughts on the subject are well, well-documented on this board starting way back then. I don't doubt that the man knows a thing or two about baseball -- in fact I believe he probably knows more about baseball than his stubbornness and ego allow him to display -- and I tried to give him a chance for the sake of my team. But it does not surprise me that this team is experiencing the problems that it is, because I was correct in thinking that all of these problems of character are not things that a 50-something year old man suddenly decides to address in a public spotlight.

Which is why I'm always a bit baffled when people refer to him as a good people person. Maybe he can shoot the crap with the players on their level when they're sitting around the clubhouse, sure, and he throws out some fun soundbytes to the media once in a while. But all of the qualities I listed above do not tend to be qualities noted in real "people people" nor in people who are well-respected and perform well in a business sense. I like soundbytes as much as the next guy, but they do not replace -- and typically are not at all related to -- a winning team. If Dusty Baker were a grumpy, taciturn man who kept personal and professional distance from his players and managed to turn out a winning team, I'd adore him.

Spring~Fields
05-26-2008, 03:08 PM
My opinion of him remains fundamentally unchanged. The only difference now -- and it's a big difference -- is that I used to shake my head as I watched him poorly manage teams I didn't care for, and now I have to cry as he destroys a team I do care for.

We can and do point to his numerous, tangible baseball failings, the most grievous of which are currently his laughingstock of a batting order and his prediliction for playing subpar veterans over talented youngsters. But my problems with him all boil down to problems of character -- and it is a rare, rare circumstance in which I'm moved to say that or even care about that with regards to someone I don't know. By saying that I have problems with his character, that doesn't mean I think he's a bad person or treats people badly or anything like that. It means that every problem I have with him seems to always go back to personality characteristics of his that, while not inherently bad, are just flat-out death for a manager of a professional baseball team: inflexibility, oversensitivity to criticism, a complete unwillingness to admit when he's wrong, bullheadedness, placement of ego over the good of the team, and a flippant attitude toward responsibility. This is not news to me; these are all exactly the same problems I've had with him since he was managing the Cubs, and my thoughts on the subject are well, well-documented on this board starting way back then. I don't doubt that the man knows a thing or two about baseball -- in fact I believe he probably knows more about baseball than his stubbornness and ego allow him to display -- and I tried to give him a chance for the sake of my team. But it does not surprise me that this team is experiencing the problems that it is, because I was correct in thinking that all of these problems of character are not things that a 50-something year old man suddenly decides to address in a public spotlight.

Which is why I'm always a bit baffled when people refer to him as a good people person. Maybe he can shoot the crap with the players on their level when they're sitting around the clubhouse, sure, and he throws out some fun soundbytes to the media once in a while. But all of the qualities I listed above do not tend to be qualities noted in real "people people" nor in people who are well-respected and perform well in a business sense. I like soundbytes as much as the next guy, but they do not replace -- and typically are not at all related to -- a winning team. If Dusty Baker were a grumpy, taciturn man who kept personal and professional distance from his players and managed to turn out a winning team, I'd adore him.

I appreciate what you have written and stated above, and that has encouraged me to ask the follow-up questions:

What is your opinion
Of Bakers ability to assess talent?
Of Bakers ability to utilize the player resources available to him?
Of Bakers integrity?
Of Bakers credibility?

And how in your perceptions could the responses to the above cumulatively play out or be looked up by his team of players affecting their performances in either direction to date and into the future?

SteelSD
05-26-2008, 08:34 PM
Y'know, being one of the strongest advocates against the hiring of Dusty Baker, you'd think I'd pick "B". But I can't. He's worse than even my own vivid imagination could comprehend.

How much have my feelings changed to the negative about Baker? If I had to explain it, this would be the analogy: It's one thing to imagine your parents having sex. It's quite another to actually see it happening.

Ron Madden
05-26-2008, 08:38 PM
Y'know, being one of the strongest advocates against the hiring of Dusty Baker, you'd think I'd pick "B". But I can't. He's worse than even my own vivid imagination could comprehend.

How much have my feelings changed to the negative about Baker? If I had to explain it, this would be the analogy: It's one thing to imagine your parents having sex. It's quite another to actually see it happening.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

KronoRed
05-26-2008, 09:55 PM
Thanks Steel..thanks a bunch. :explode:

RedlegJake
05-27-2008, 02:01 AM
Y'know, being one of the strongest advocates against the hiring of Dusty Baker, you'd think I'd pick "B". But I can't. He's worse than even my own vivid imagination could comprehend.

How much have my feelings changed to the negative about Baker? If I had to explain it, this would be the analogy: It's one thing to imagine your parents having sex. It's quite another to actually see it happening.

Maybe the funniest take I've read in a long time and painfully quite true.

Jpup
05-27-2008, 03:31 AM
He's worse than I thought, but I watch the Reds everyday. I'm sure there are guys out there just as bad. I question a lot of moves that managers make. When he started hitting Dunn 7th, I think he killed any credibility with me. His lineups are worse than any I have seen from anyone. Playing Jerry Hairston at short is almost as bad. He's just not a good manager IMO.

Blitz Dorsey
05-27-2008, 03:51 AM
Can't fault Dusty for the mess at short. Like it or not (and I sure don't) Jerry Hairston Jr. is our best option at SS right now.

I want to give Dusty until this time in 2009 to really make up my mind on him, but I can't. His idiotic approach to filling out the lineup card just gets under my skin to no end. Patterson/Janish[orHairston]/Griffey should be someone's tag line. It's one thing to have to run that pathetic group out there as your ultra-important 1-2-3 hitters for one game. But to choose to use that same lineup everyday? That is just moronic and everything that I like about Dusty is trumped by that. He just doesn't get it. I thought his critics were over the top but they are closer to accurate than I thought. He must have been a better manager in San Fran because those teams always played over their head. Even years they didn't make the playoffs they were always in the hunt at the end. And that was the bulk of his career, not his short stint in Chicago. And even in Chicago he almost won a World Series his first year.

Hey Dusty, having a fast leadoff batter doesn't matter if he never gets on base. Hey Dusty, batting Griffey third doesn't make sense unless it's the 90's. What would Griffey need to do for Dusty to drop him to fifth, sixth or seventh where he should be? Would Griffey need to go O-for-his-next 30 with 29 Ks? Would Griffey need to kidnap Dusty's kids and feed them to Barry Bonds?

BuckeyeRedleg
05-27-2008, 09:23 AM
Can't fault Dusty for the mess at short. Like it or not (and I sure don't) Jerry Hairston Jr. is our best option at SS right now.


With Janish on the roster, Hairston is not our best option at short.

It's not really close either.

marcshoe
05-27-2008, 10:36 AM
Worsened. Some things you can't really appreciate until you see them play out day after day.

REDREAD
05-27-2008, 10:42 AM
C. Really struggled with his use/nonuse of Fogg yesterday. You have a long reliever for exactly that kind of game. Now, as Baker himself said, the rotation is "messed up big time."

IMO, what he did with Fogg and Bray was easily defensible. He wanted to use Fogg to get the two RH hitters out and then have Bray go through the lefties.

The problem is that Belisle didn't go deep into the game, the "Better" relievers blew leads. All he had left was Fogg and Bray, who are very shaky, so he tried to leverage them to preserve the 2 run lead, and they failed.

Would you rather Dusty not bring in Bray and just let Fogg keep on pitching, even if he blew the game? That would've prevented the extra innings, I guess.
Or would you rather have had Bray start the inning against RH batters, with Fogg saved "just in case", despite having a 2 run lead?

I think people are forgetting that the Reds had a 2 run lead when Dusty did the Fogg/Bray move.. Dusty was going for the win with the only 2 relievers (IIRC) he had left.

REDREAD
05-27-2008, 10:49 AM
Playing Jerry Hairston at short is almost as bad. He's just not a good manager IMO.

The problem is that Janish is the only SS on this team. When stuff like that happens, every manager is forced to make compromises that he'd rather not make. Also, Hairston is hitting as well. It's not that horrible of a mistake.

Jpup
05-27-2008, 11:03 AM
The problem is that Janish is the only SS on this team. When stuff like that happens, every manager is forced to make compromises that he'd rather not make. Also, Hairston is hitting as well. It's not that horrible of a mistake.

Hairston had played 1 game at short in the majors prior to this season. He's horrible and Paul Janish is a much better option. There is also a GM who can make trades. Dusty has a phone.

westofyou
05-27-2008, 11:12 AM
Hairston had played 1 game at short in the majors prior to this season. He's horrible and Paul Janish is a much better option. There is also a GM who can make trades. Dusty has a phone.

Old baseball saying, If you have to leave your organization to find a SS you'll either have to overpay to get one or you'll get one with warts.

Especially during the season.

lollipopcurve
05-27-2008, 11:22 AM
IMO, what he did with Fogg and Bray was easily defensible. He wanted to use Fogg to get the two RH hitters out and then have Bray go through the lefties.

If that was the last game the Reds played in the season, fine. But when you've got over 100 games to go, you don't use your long reliever for a couple hitters then burn him in a close extra inning game, leaving yourself with only 1 more reliever, a short guy. Either Bray should have started the inning, or Fogg should have been left in to go as long as he could. It's not about always maximizing the marginal percentages for winning in every moment of every game. Sometimes you have to finesse the present in order to maintain a grip on the future... instead, the Reds end up throwing their two best pitchers off schedule, increasing their workload, and losing anyway.

bucksfan2
05-27-2008, 11:45 AM
If that was the last game the Reds played in the season, fine. But when you've got over 100 games to go, you don't use your long reliever for a couple hitters then burn him in a close extra inning game, leaving yourself with only 1 more reliever, a short guy. Either Bray should have started the inning, or Fogg should have been left in to go as long as he could. It's not about always maximizing the marginal percentages for winning in every moment of every game. Sometimes you have to finesse the present in order to maintain a grip on the future... instead, the Reds end up throwing their two best pitchers off schedule, increasing their workload, and losing anyway.

Its a catch-22 here on RZ. Had Fogg been left in there and lost the game RZ would have been complaining because the reds didn't use Bray to hammer down the game. There was a reason Dusty went to Fogg before Bray. It may have been a very simple reason or it could have been a reason not known to the general public.

vaticanplum
05-27-2008, 12:22 PM
Its a catch-22 here on RZ. Had Fogg been left in there and lost the game RZ would have been complaining because the reds didn't use Bray to hammer down the game. There was a reason Dusty went to Fogg before Bray. It may have been a very simple reason or it could have been a reason not known to the general public.

I'm sorry, but I can't ignore these kinds of presumptuous comments anymore. What do you mean by "RZ would have been complaining"? This board has thousands of members and almost as many opinions. There will always be opinions on both sides of the issue. That's kind of why we're here. That's not the issue at hand. If you want to defend Baker's actions, I don't think your best argument is that people would have been unhappy no matter what he did. That has nothing to do with it. And it also shuts down every discussion, ever, since by that argument no one is responsible for anything because hey, you can never please everybody. And if you suspect that he had a good reason, a better argument and a legitimate way to get discussion going is to posit what that reason might have been, not merely saying he must have had one.

I don't mean to single you out, bucksfan. But this is a way a lot of arguments on this board are going these days, all sides, and it's just a waste of time. If people would rather argue contentiousness than baseball, there are better avenues. Have kids or something.

REDREAD
05-27-2008, 12:32 PM
Hairston had played 1 game at short in the majors prior to this season. He's horrible and Paul Janish is a much better option. There is also a GM who can make trades. Dusty has a phone.

It's a trade off. The team is desperate to replace the offense that Kepp was giving them.

Not so sure that the GM should make a trade for a SS. They've already got two (Kepp and AGon) under contract for next season. It's a lost season anyhow. Why pick up a 3rd SS? Seems more appropriate to just patch this season and give Janish some playing time.

It looks like Harriston has had only 10 games at SS. I'm pretty sure not all of them were starts either.

Jpup
05-27-2008, 12:34 PM
It's a trade off. The team is desperate to replace the offense that Kepp was giving them.

Not so sure that the GM should make a trade for a SS. They've already got two (Kepp and AGon) under contract for next season. It's a lost season anyhow. Why pick up a 3rd SS? Seems more appropriate to just patch this season and give Janish some playing time.

It looks like Harriston has had only 10 games at SS. I'm pretty sure not all of them were starts either.

1 was too many. He's horrible. They would be much better off moving Phillips there is they don't want to play Janish.

REDREAD
05-27-2008, 12:35 PM
If that was the last game the Reds played in the season, fine. But when you've got over 100 games to go, you don't use your long reliever for a couple hitters then burn him in a close extra inning game, leaving yourself with only 1 more reliever, a short guy. Either Bray should have started the inning, or Fogg should have been left in to go as long as he could. It's not about always maximizing the marginal percentages for winning in every moment of every game. Sometimes you have to finesse the present in order to maintain a grip on the future... instead, the Reds end up throwing their two best pitchers off schedule, increasing their workload, and losing anyway.

If Dusty had left Fogg in to face those lefty hitters and Fogg lost the game, you can bet the board would've gone nuts.

The Reds still had a lead to protect when Bray was brought in. It's easily defensible.

Now, if the score was tied when Fogg was brought in, then I agree. But I'm not going to criticize Dusty for trying to win the game by bringing Bray in.

guttle11
05-27-2008, 12:36 PM
I didn't want him then, and I don't want him now.

But it's unfair to put much of the early season blame on him. He's only a part of that problem. However, he's not the guy I want when and if the roster does improve, so for that reason, I keep my vote "nay".

REDREAD
05-27-2008, 12:41 PM
I'm sorry, but I can't ignore these kinds of presumptuous comments anymore. What do you mean by "RZ would have been complaining"? .

The vast majority of people would've been mocking the move, saying stuff like "Dusty thinks Fogg is a closer", etc..

If you can't bring Bray into that situation, then they might as well send him back to AAA.

People are saying that Dusty shouldn't have brought Bray into that situation because they knew Bray would give up the tying runs. If that's the case, why have Bray on the team?

It was the right move. Good managers try to win the game. They don't assume the game might go another 8 innings (or however long it went after that).

I'm just curious.. People are all concerned about the rotation being screwed up because Dusty had to use Harang and Volquez.

After Bray tired out, would it have been better to bring in Bako to pitch and just concede the game? Bako was the only guy left on the bench. Or would it have been better to bring in the starting pitchers and try to win the game?

Dusty made good moves. The problem was that the bullpen gave up the lead 3 times (IIRC). I agree Dusty's lineups are screwy, but he's done a good job handling the bullpen, given how poor it is.

OnBaseMachine
05-27-2008, 12:55 PM
The vast majority of people would've been mocking the move, saying stuff like "Dusty thinks Fogg is a closer", etc..

If you can't bring Bray into that situation, then they might as well send him back to AAA.

People are saying that Dusty shouldn't have brought Bray into that situation because they knew Bray would give up the tying runs. If that's the case, why have Bray on the team?

It was the right move. Good managers try to win the game. They don't assume the game might go another 8 innings (or however long it went after that).
.

No, the right move was to bring in Bray to start the inning against the two left-handed hitters. It was a no-brainer IMO. Instead Baker brings in Fogg to start the inning and both LH hitters reach base. Then he decided to bring in Bray and waste our long man in Josh Fogg. That move not only cost the Reds the game but it screwed up 2/5ths of the Reds rotation. It was an easy decision to make and somehow Baker got it wrong.

bucksfan2
05-27-2008, 12:57 PM
I'm sorry, but I can't ignore these kinds of presumptuous comments anymore. What do you mean by "RZ would have been complaining"? This board has thousands of members and almost as many opinions. There will always be opinions on both sides of the issue. That's kind of why we're here. That's not the issue at hand. If you want to defend Baker's actions, I don't think your best argument is that people would have been unhappy no matter what he did. That has nothing to do with it. And it also shuts down every discussion, ever, since by that argument no one is responsible for anything because hey, you can never please everybody. And if you suspect that he had a good reason, a better argument and a legitimate way to get discussion going is to posit what that reason might have been, not merely saying he must have had one.

I don't mean to single you out, bucksfan. But this is a way a lot of arguments on this board are going these days, all sides, and it's just a waste of time. If people would rather argue contentiousness than baseball, there are better avenues. Have kids or something.

I understand but my whole point is that we have 5 pages disecting of what a particular manager did wrong in an 18 inning game. There have been very few posts during this discussion as to the inabilities of the bullpen to protect the lead 3 different times. There have been very few mentions of how the offense went completely dormant during 8 innings of baseball.

Does anyone know the exact reason that Dusty used Fogg? As I stated before there could be multiple reasons behind the move that none of us are aware of. Dusty could have wanted to save Bray because the entire pen had been used and he wanted a fresh Bray. Maybe Fogg needed more work and thought that he could hold the 2 run lead.

I understand that I made a blanket statement but I would also assume that the majority of the frequent posters have been anti-Dusty from day 1. With the exception of Patterson Dusty I really have no complaints about Dusty's managing style so far. I also can't understand the degree of blame Dusty has revieved for a game that went 18 innings. You can't prepare for a game that goes that long. Marty in the booth said that the game was the longest he has ever managed. In a game that long you need are forced to make unconventinal decicions. In hindsight I would have rather the reds lost the game in the 9th inning than play another whole 9 innings but easier said than done.

edabbs44
05-27-2008, 01:06 PM
Just some random thoughts on the Dusty situation:

- Dusty might not make the best use of the lineup, but does anyone actually think that the lineup construction would have a material impact on the success of the team?

- More blame should be placed on the FO than on Dusty. Everyone knew what Dusty's MO was. Yet they hired him and gave him control. I made the same anaolgy when he was hired...it's like hiring your klepto cousin as your new cashier and letting him close up for the night. It's your fault. It's the FO's fault.

- Since everyone's favorite punching bag is Dusty, everything he now does is magnified at about 20X. I never saw so much bellyaching like the 18 inning game. No one cared that the bullpen blew three leads. Somehow it was his fault. Give me a break.

- Lastly, the team isn't very good no matter who's in charge. Give him a better roster and I bet he becomes a better manager.

REDREAD
05-27-2008, 01:08 PM
No, the right move was to bring in Bray to start the inning against the two left-handed hitters. It was a no-brainer IMO. Instead Baker brings in Fogg to start the inning and both LH hitters reach base. Then he decided to bring in Bray and waste our long man in Josh Fogg. That move not only cost the Reds the game but it screwed up 2/5ths of the Reds rotation. It was an easy decision to make and somehow Baker got it wrong.


Here's the summary of the 11th:

Josh Fogg pitching for Cincinnati CIN SDG
J Fogg relieved F Cordero. 9 7
L Carlin singled to right. 9 7
J Gerut singled to shallow right, L Carlin to second. 9 7
S Hairston sacrificed to pitcher, L Carlin to third, J Gerut to second. 9 7
T Iguchi grounded out to third, L Carlin scored. 9 8
B Bray relieved J Fogg. 9 8
B Giles doubled to center, J Gerut scored. 9 9
A Gonzalez flied out to center.


Carlin is a switch hitter.

Gerut is a lefty, but was brought in as a pinch hitter, only hitting .215. Maybe you put Bray in now, but the next 2 hitters are righties.

Hitter #3 is a righty (Harriston). Hitter #4 is a righty (Iguchi)

So, the context helps... The only LH that Fogg faced was a weak pinch hitter. It made sense to leave Fogg in there so he could face Harriston and Iguchi.

If you start the inning with Bray, he faces a switch hitter, maybe a RH pinch hitter, and then 2 more RH bats.

If you can't trust Fogg to retire the #8 hitter and a .215 hitting PH.. then just cut him right now.. It's not really Dusty's fault that Fogg stinks. Dusty pushed the right buttons, but got burned anyhow.

lollipopcurve
05-27-2008, 01:12 PM
Its a catch-22 here on RZ. Had Fogg been left in there and lost the game RZ would have been complaining because the reds didn't use Bray to hammer down the game.

Some people yes, some no. And what RZ thinks doesn't matter. I've been a solid Baker supporter since he was hired, but my support is fraying, and it was this move in particular that has me questioning how steady he is at the wheel.

top6
05-27-2008, 01:17 PM
It is too hard for me to answer this question by simply responding to the poll. So I went back to the archives to see the post I made when I first learned that Dusty Baker would be the manager, in order to see how my opinions have evolved since then.


As others have said, I think I'm done with the Reds.
LOL at me. This was true if by "I'm done" I meant "will not read Reds news for 2 days."


This is the worst possible move they could have made.
I still believe this. I don't think the manager matters all that much, but this was the worst move possible.

I really think that if Wayne and Cast had held a press conference and said, "to save money, we are not going to have a manager this year, and we are just going to have Scott Hatteberg be the manager," in all seriousness, that would have been a better move.
This would have been a much better move. Seriously. I stand by this. Hatteberg as player-manager would have been and would still be better than the ongoing travesty that is Dusty Baker.


Our team just hired someone who thinks walks clog up the bases, and who thinks the Yankees teams of the 1990s didn't care about on base percentage. Just think about that. Seriously, that's totally indefensible.
Not sure why I felt the need to type this, but it is accurate, and my opinion on these topics hasn't changed.


I don't think I can spend money and support people who are this dumb. It's even worse than Mike Brown, in a way, because Mike Brown just cares about money, not winning. He's not dumb. He's a cheap sob, but if he could choose between two coaches who cost the same amount of money, all other things being equal he would take the coach who had the best chance to win. Cast, on the other hand, just spent far more money on a coach who gives them less chance to win. That's dumber than anything Mike Brown ever did.
I still agree with this; in fact I agree with it even more. I think Mike Brown is a much better owner than Castellini. I also think they might be the two of the ten worst owners in North American pro sports.


I guess I'm just dragging this post on because it's probably the last think I'll post about the Reds for a while. I guess I'll pull for the As next year - I'd like to see Billy Beane win one. Anyway, good bye Reds, for now.[/
LOL again at me. Overreact much? Seriously, top6 of six months ago, CALM DOWN! It's just a game.

I did buy an As hat that same day, and was all prepared to root for them. Of course, I'm still rooting for the Reds, and couldn't name more than 5 or 6 players on the As off the top of my head. (That said, the As hat fits really well and is really comfortable, and it actually has become my go-to hat for non-Reds-related events.)

So I guess Dusty wasn't as bad as I thought. Although he is every bit as terrible as a manager as he has always been, he has not made me abandon the team I grew up rooting for.

Thanks, Dusty.

OnBaseMachine
05-27-2008, 01:32 PM
Here's the summary of the 11th:

Josh Fogg pitching for Cincinnati CIN SDG
J Fogg relieved F Cordero. 9 7
L Carlin singled to right. 9 7
J Gerut singled to shallow right, L Carlin to second. 9 7
S Hairston sacrificed to pitcher, L Carlin to third, J Gerut to second. 9 7
T Iguchi grounded out to third, L Carlin scored. 9 8
B Bray relieved J Fogg. 9 8
B Giles doubled to center, J Gerut scored. 9 9
A Gonzalez flied out to center.


Carlin is a switch hitter.

Gerut is a lefty, but was brought in as a pinch hitter, only hitting .215. Maybe you put Bray in now, but the next 2 hitters are righties.

Hitter #3 is a righty (Harriston). Hitter #4 is a righty (Iguchi)

So, you are not remembering correctly. The only LH that Fogg faced was a weak pinch hitter. It made sense to leave Fogg in there so he could face Harriston and Iguchi.

If you start the inning with Bray, he faces a switch hitter, maybe a RH pinch hitter, and then 2 more RH bats.

If you can't trust Fogg to retire the #8 hitter and a .215 hitting PH.. then just cut him right now.. It's not really Dusty's fault that Fogg stinks. Dusty pushed the right buttons, but got burned anyhow.

Bringing your long relief man in to pitch against three of four batters in just dumb. Look at how the Padres handled it....they saved their long man and he was able to go six innings. Baker used our long man for four batters. Just not smart managing at all. Bringing in Bill Bray to start the inning was a no-brainer move and unfortunately Baker made the wrong decision.

REDREAD
05-27-2008, 01:39 PM
Bringing your long relief man in to pitch against three of four batters in just dumb. Look at how the Padres handled it....they saved their long man and he was able to go six innings. Baker used our long man for four batters. Just not smart managing at all. Bringing in Bill Bray to start the inning was a no-brainer move and unfortunately Baker made the wrong decision.

But it was a different situation. The Reds had a 2 run lead at the start of the inning.

The Padres had a tie situation. If the 11th started as a tie, then maybe Dusty makes a different move.

I'd also like to point out that Bray has not been that great this year either. It was pretty much a case of "pick your poision".. That's also why Lincoln and Weathers are seeing action in game situations. Outside of Cordero, there's really no reliable option out of the pen.

I don't remember anyone in the game thread suggesting that Dusty should leave Fogg in to face Giles, just in case the game continued into extra innings.
I don't remember exactly, but I can't recall anyone suggesting that Fogg be saved in case the Reds gave up the lead in the 11th either. Naturally, everyone thought just as Dusty did.. Protect the 2 run lead, don't worry about extra innings. Starting the inning with Bray may or may not have worked out better, but what Dusty did was certainly defensible. I don't remember if the Padres had a RH pinch hitter left on their bench, but if they did, Bray would have to face a switch hitter and then 3 righties..

Now we can make the argument that Fogg should be cut and Coffey (or someone else) recalled, but that's on Walt, not Dusty.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-27-2008, 01:39 PM
Well done, top6.

OnBaseMachine
05-27-2008, 01:43 PM
But it was a different situation. The Reds had a 2 run lead at the start of the inning.

The Padres had a tie situation. If the 11th started as a tie, then maybe Dusty makes a different move.

I'd also like to point out that Bray has not been that great this year either. It was pretty much a case of "pick your poision".. That's also why Lincoln and Weathers are seeing action in game situations. Outside of Cordero, there's really no reliable option out of the pen.

I don't remember anyone in the game thread suggesting that Dusty should leave Fogg in to face Giles, just in case the game continued into extra innings.
I don't remember exactly, but I can't recall anyone suggesting that Fogg be saved in case the Reds gave up the lead in the 11th either. Naturally, everyone thought just as Dusty did.. Protect the 2 run lead, don't worry about extra innings. Starting the inning with Bray may or may not have worked out better, but what Dusty did was certainly defensible. I don't remember if the Padres had a RH pinch hitter left on their bench, but if they did, Bray would have to face a switch hitter and then 3 righties..

Now we can make the argument that Fogg should be cut and Coffey (or someone else) recalled, but that's on Walt, not Dusty.

Everyone thought Bray should have started the inning. It was a no-brainer. A easy decision to make. Bray has pitched very solid over his last seven appearances. He's got good stuff and a much better chance of holding a two run lead than Fosh Fogg. Dusty Baker made the wrong decision and it cost the Reds the game and two starters.

blumj
05-27-2008, 01:47 PM
Carlin is a switch hitter.

Gerut is a lefty, but was brought in as a pinch hitter, only hitting .215. Maybe you put Bray in now, but the next 2 hitters are righties.

Hitter #3 is a righty (Harriston). Hitter #4 is a righty (Iguchi)

So, the context helps... The only LH that Fogg faced was a weak pinch hitter. It made sense to leave Fogg in there so he could face Harriston and Iguchi.

If you start the inning with Bray, he faces a switch hitter, maybe a RH pinch hitter, and then 2 more RH bats.

If you can't trust Fogg to retire the #8 hitter and a .215 hitting PH.. then just cut him right now.. It's not really Dusty's fault that Fogg stinks. Dusty pushed the right buttons, but got burned anyhow.
Do you really want a manager who prioritizes L/R matchups above all else when he's down to the last 2 pitchers in his bullpen?

OnBaseMachine
05-27-2008, 01:52 PM
Do you really want a manager who prioritizes L/R matchups above all else when he's down to the last 2 pitchers in his bullpen?

Especially when Fogg is the long man... he should have been the last pitcher used.

OldRightHander
05-27-2008, 01:53 PM
The Reds scored 7 runs in 9 innings. When you do that and don't win, where does the blame lie? A decent outing by the starter and that kind of offense makes innings 10-18 a moot point. There were plenty of chances to win that game before it ever got to the dreaded 11th inning. Sure, Dusty has his share of faults, but there's plenty of blame to go around, especially among the pitching staff.

RedsManRick
05-27-2008, 02:05 PM
The L/R issue in the 11th was really irrelevant. Either guy should have been able to get 3 outs before giving up 2 runs. Fogg is proven to be quite mediocre and Bray isn't proven. You could make arguments either way. But that would miss the point. Bottom line is that Baker had two guys left in his bullpen and had to bring one of them in to the game. There is ALWAYS a chance that the game goes beyond the current inning. Given that neither guy was far and away the better option for the 11th, Baker needed to keep the guy in pocket who could go multiple inning if the need arose. He didn't and the game went extras.

Is it only Dusty's fault that he had to go to Harang and Volquez? Of course not. But it could have been avoided, or significantly delayed, had he made a fairly obvious decision. There's no need to try and place blame for the way the events played out on any one person. Each can be evaluated on what they did based on the opportunities they've had -- and Dusty pretty cleared botched his.

And sadly, to the point of this thread, Dusty is exactly as expected by me. He's the Corey Patterson of managers. He has some really solid raw tools and it looks like he should be able to put it all together in to a very productive guy. But he just has a fundamental flaw that really negates the positives he brings to the table if placed in a key position. However, it's the dumb manager (or GM) who continues to put him in situations in which he's struggled in the past. Dusty has routinely misused his roster throughout his managerial career and continues to do so as the Reds manager. This is what Reds management signed up for.

westofyou
05-27-2008, 02:23 PM
First Reds 18 inning game since the Carter Administration, is it a surprise a starter was used?

Really?

18 innings, first one in almost 30 years... looks like a statistical anomaly to me.

lollipopcurve
05-27-2008, 02:27 PM
First Reds 18 inning game since the Carter Administration, is it a surprise a starter was used?

Really?

18 innings, first one in almost 30 years... looks like a statistical anomaly to me.

San Diego used 0 starters in relief. The Reds used 2. Shouldn't have happened.

jojo
05-27-2008, 02:31 PM
Just some random thoughts on the Dusty situation:

- Dusty might not make the best use of the lineup, but does anyone actually think that the lineup construction would have a material impact on the success of the team?

- More blame should be placed on the FO than on Dusty. Everyone knew what Dusty's MO was. Yet they hired him and gave him control. I made the same anaolgy when he was hired...it's like hiring your klepto cousin as your new cashier and letting him close up for the night. It's your fault. It's the FO's fault.

- Since everyone's favorite punching bag is Dusty, everything he now does is magnified at about 20X. I never saw so much bellyaching like the 18 inning game. No one cared that the bullpen blew three leads. Somehow it was his fault. Give me a break.

- Lastly, the team isn't very good no matter who's in charge. Give him a better roster and I bet he becomes a better manager.

It's a nice gig to get for $3.5M per isn't it?

westofyou
05-27-2008, 02:31 PM
San Diego used 0 starters in relief. The Reds used 2. Shouldn't have happened.

Absolutes are thrown out the window when a once every 30 year event happens.

OldRightHander
05-27-2008, 02:41 PM
San Diego used 0 starters in relief. The Reds used 2. Shouldn't have happened.

The Reds had the lead in the 9th inning with the closer on the mound. The game never should have gone into extras, but it happened. A lot of things shouldn't have happened in that game. Like I said before, a good outing by the starter would have eliminated those "shouldn't haves."

edabbs44
05-27-2008, 02:41 PM
It's a nice gig to get for $3.5M per isn't it?

It was a ridiculous hiring.

edabbs44
05-27-2008, 02:42 PM
Absolutes are thrown out the window when a once every 30 year event happens.

100% right.

RedsManRick
05-27-2008, 02:46 PM
Just some random thoughts on the Dusty situation:

- Dusty might not make the best use of the lineup, but does anyone actually think that the lineup construction would have a material impact on the success of the team?

Yes. The difference between a good lineup and a Dusty lineup can mean as much as 20-30 runs over the course of the season. That equates to a few wins.



More blame should be placed on the FO than on Dusty. Everyone knew what Dusty's MO was. Yet they hired him and gave him control. I made the same anaolgy when he was hired...it's like hiring your klepto cousin as your new cashier and letting him close up for the night. It's your fault. It's the FO's fault.

I agree 100%. I'm not sure how much of the decision was Wayne's and how much was BC's. I'm guessing more of it was the latter and I am very dissatisfied with Castellini as an owner. I laud his intention but am extremely wary of his methods.


Since everyone's favorite punching bag is Dusty, everything he now does is magnified at about 20X. I never saw so much bellyaching like the 18 inning game. No one cared that the bullpen blew three leads. Somehow it was his fault. Give me a break.

Relievers allow runs, especially mediocre runs. I'm upset that those runs scored but frankly I expect it to happen on occasion. There's no excuse for gross roster mismanagement. I'm not faulting Dusty for Weathers and Cordero both giving up homers, nor Fogg & Bray giving up 2 runs. I'm faulting Dusty for having no viable fallback option in the event that Fogg got hit a bit. He painted himself in to a corner, forcing himself in to using his starters by not leaving himself any other option when he easily could have.

And again, can we please get off this black & white single source fault concept. Yes, sometimes people use short-hand language like "Dusty blew that one for us" or "Cordero cost us the game". But nobody is really (or at minimum, should be) placing 100% blame on a single person for a given outcome There's lots of blame and credit to shared. But that doesn't absolve anybody of their role, and in this case, Dusty's decision to use Fogg first played a very significant role in the necessity of using two starting pitchers in relief. (as did using 3 relief pitchers to get 7 outs in the 5th-7th, though he still had multiple options remaining at that point)


Lastly, the team isn't very good no matter who's in charge. Give him a better roster and I bet he becomes a better manager.

Agree completely on the former. A good manager might have this team at 25-26 instead of 23-28. Ultimately, Dusty is a small piece of the larger problem.

Disagree completely on the latter. The latter is only true if you judge a manager based on his team's W/L record, which I know you are inclined to do. My opinion is that Dusty was a poor manager when the Giants were winning more often than not, a poor manager when the Cubs were run in to the ground over his tenure, and is a poor manager today. If Dusty were to win 90 games with a 93 win team while risking the health of his pitchers, I would hardly be signing his praises.

edabbs44
05-27-2008, 02:59 PM
Yes. The difference between a good lineup and a Dusty lineup can mean as much as 20-30 runs over the course of the season. That equates to a few wins.

As much as 20-30 runs. I guess that is worst case scenario. What is the other side?


I agree 100%. I'm not sure how much of the decision was Wayne's and how much was BC's. I'm guessing more of it was the latter and I am very dissatisfied with Castellini as an owner. I laud his intention but am extremely wary of his methods.

Wayne walked out saying that Dusty was his hire. He wasn't afraid to throw some people under the bus on the way out, so I think it was his choice. I originally faulted BC more.


Relievers allow runs, especially mediocre runs. I'm upset that those runs scored but frankly I expect it to happen on occasion. There's no excuse for gross roster mismanagement. I'm not faulting Dusty for Weathers and Cordero both giving up homers, nor Fogg & Bray giving up 2 runs. I'm faulting Dusty for having no viable fallback option in the event that Fogg got hit a bit. He painted himself in to a corner, forcing himself in to using his starters by not leaving himself any other option when he easily could have.

He easily could have lost the game by pitching Fogg more than he did. Fogg sucks and it was an 18 inning game. Pitch Fogg for an extended period and they automatically lose. Don't and they have a better chance of winning.


Agree completely on the former. A good manager might have this team at 25-26 instead of 23-28. Ultimately, Dusty is a small piece of the larger problem.

Disagree completely on the latter. The latter is only true if you judge a manager based on his team's W/L record, which I know you are inclined to do. My opinion is that Dusty was a poor manager when the Giants were winning more often than not, a poor manager when the Cubs were run in to the ground over his tenure, and is a poor manager today. If Dusty were to win 90 games with a 93 win team while risking the health of his pitchers, I would hardly be signing his praises.

I was just pointing out the irony. His managing deficiencies wouldn't be as magnified if they were winning.

REDREAD
05-27-2008, 03:47 PM
Do you really want a manager who prioritizes L/R matchups above all else when he's down to the last 2 pitchers in his bullpen?


The point is that it is defensible. No one said during the game that Fogg needed to be saved in case the game was tied up again.

Again, what use is Fogg if Dusty can't count on him to get out the #8 hitter and a PH hitting around .200?

Bray wasn't exactly sharp either, the game might've been blown if he started the inning as well.

With this pen, it's pretty much "pick your poison". It's easy to rip Dusty a new one when we have the benefit of hindsight. If Bray started the inning, and those RH bats had gotten hits off him, Dusty would get ripped for that too. Some people watch every game, hoping to gather more evidence that Dusty is an idiot.. Many other managers would've done exactly what Dusty did last night. Dusty played the percentages. Unfortunately, both Fogg and Bray failed.

REDREAD
05-27-2008, 03:49 PM
First Reds 18 inning game since the Carter Administration, is it a surprise a starter was used?

Really?

18 innings, first one in almost 30 years... looks like a statistical anomaly to me.


But Dusty is an idiot for not foreseeing it, according to some. :lol:

I wonder if from now on, whenever the Reds have a lead in extra innings, if people will say Dusty should hold back people in case it goes to 18 innings..

RedsManRick
05-27-2008, 03:51 PM
The point is that it is defensible. No one said during the game that Fogg needed to be saved in case the game was tied up again.

Dusty's failure wasn't that Fogg & Bray gave up those two runs. Those runs are on them. His failure was in not properly accounting for the possibility that two runs might be given up. As soon as Dusty ran Fogg out there, he committed to using starting pitchers if the game were to go any further. And given the quality of pitcher he was using, that was a very real possibility.

And I personally said during the game that Fogg needed to be saved for that distinct possibility. I was upset the moment the decision was made and it had nothing to do with who the better pitcher was for the 11th. Frankly, any major league pitcher should be expected to hold a 2 run lead for an inning.

OnBaseMachine
05-27-2008, 03:52 PM
With this pen, it's pretty much "pick your poison". It's easy to rip Dusty a new one when we have the benefit of hindsight. If Bray started the inning, and those RH bats had gotten hits off him, Dusty would get ripped for that too.

Well, it's not hindsight when myself and a few others were calling for Bray to start the inning before the inning even started.


Many other managers would've done the exact opposite of what Dusty did last night.

Fixed that for ya.

REDREAD
05-27-2008, 03:57 PM
Dusty's failure wasn't that Fogg & Bray gave up those two runs. Those runs are on them. His failure was in not properly accounting for the possibility that two runs might be given up. As soon as Dusty ran Fogg out there, he committed to using starting pitchers if the game were to go any further. And given the quality of pitcher he was using, that was a very real possibility.

And I personally said during the game that Fogg needed to be saved for that distinct possibility. I was upset the moment the decision was made and it had nothing to do with who the better pitcher was for the 11th. Frankly, any major league pitcher should be expected to hold a 2 run lead for an inning.

By that logic though, Fogg should never be used unless it's an extra inning game.

Dusty had to balance the risk of losing the game by having Bray start the game vs the risk of extra innings. Dusty went for the win. I'm glad he did.
I will never fault a manager for going for the win.

Dusty could've let Fogg pitch to Giles and Gonzales. Would that have made people happier? It would've probably removed the risk of having to use starting pitchers in extra innings. Bray could've been held back, just in case.. But then the game would've been over in the 11th.

Dusty could've also left Bray there to pitch until the bitter end.. Again, would that have made people happy?

Dusty's decision gave the offense another 7 innings to try to score a run, but they didn't.

Chip R
05-27-2008, 03:58 PM
By that logic though, Fogg should never be used unless it's an extra inning game.


Now you're getting it. :thumbup: ;)

REDREAD
05-27-2008, 04:00 PM
Well, it's not hindsight when myself and a few others were calling for Bray to start the inning before the inning even started.

And then when Bray fails, then what? Dusty still screwed up for not using the righty. Or he gets blamed for the loss some other way.

Bray wasn't exactly sharp that game either. Might've still resulted in a loss, even if it was an 11 inning loss instead of an 18 inning loss.

The rotation will be fine. People act as if Harang or Volquez will be permanently damaged or something. They will be fine.

RedsManRick
05-27-2008, 04:39 PM
By that logic though, Fogg should never be used unless it's an extra inning game.

I don't see how you arrive at that. Dusty had two pitchers left and was going to use one of them. One of them could go multiple innings and one of them could not. That is a completely different scenario than having 4 or 5 other relievers still available and choosing to use Fogg in middle relief.



Dusty had to balance the risk of losing the game by having Bray start the game vs the risk of extra innings. Dusty went for the win. I'm glad he did.
I will never fault a manager for going for the win.

So Dusty felt that Josh Fogg, JOSH FOGG, gave him a notably better chance to win the game? To protect a 2 run lead? I don't see how.



Dusty could've let Fogg pitch to Giles and Gonzales. Would that have made people happier? It would've probably removed the risk of having to use starting pitchers in extra innings. Bray could've been held back, just in case.. But then the game would've been over in the 11th.

Dusty could've also left Bray there to pitch until the bitter end.. Again, would that have made people happy?

Not in the least. The problem wasn't taking Fogg out of the game. It was putting him in the game in the first place when Bray was available to hold down the lead. Dusty put himself in to the situation where if the Reds happened to give up the lead, they had nobody left to pitch who could go multiple innings. If Bray starts the inning and gives up two runs, you still have Fogg to pitch a few innings. Maybe Fogg gives up runs in the 12th or 13th, but at least you aren't forced in to using a starter. Starting the 11th with Fogg made the bottom of the 11th a do or die scenario.



Dusty's decision gave the offense another 7 innings to try to score a run, but they didn't.

Dusty's decision, coupled with our offensive ineptitude in those 7 innings, forced two starting pitchers in to lengthy relief appearances out of necessity, placing additional strain upon a guy already expected to be our horse and a 24 year old with a golden arm.

The irony of Fogg pitching the 11th is that if he struggles, you take him out and burn your only guy who can go multiple innings. If he doesn't struggle, it's game over and you don't need that guy. So by making that move, Dusty committed to using a starter in the 13th inning and beyond. If you pitch Bray and he ties it up, at least you still have the option of pitching Fogg for 3 or 4 innings. You can still bring in the starter if you feel the need, but you aren't forced to.

Bottom line, I don't want my starting pitchers pitching unexpectedly in relief if at all possible. Dusty had two options: Fogg-Bray and Bray-Fogg. One of options those gave him a potential multiple-inning guy if they blew the save, one of them didn't. Dusty chose the option which robbed him of the multi-inning guy. And the argument that Fogg gave them a much better shot at winning the game in 11 just doesn't fly.

jojo
05-27-2008, 07:49 PM
But Dusty is an idiot for not foreseeing it, according to some. :lol:

I wonder if from now on, whenever the Reds have a lead in extra innings, if people will say Dusty should hold back people in case it goes to 18 innings..

Lets say the 18 inning game is a freak 70 foot wave in the Bering Sea and the Reds are the boat battling the conditions. It's not Dusty's fault that a nasty sneaker wave is about to hit but Dusty might be one of the least desirable guys you'd want at the helm when the stuff hits the fan and decision A sets a chain of events into motion....

IslandRed
05-27-2008, 09:41 PM
The irony of Fogg pitching the 11th is that if he struggles, you take him out and burn your only guy who can go multiple innings. If he doesn't struggle, it's game over and you don't need that guy. So by making that move, Dusty committed to using a starter in the 13th inning and beyond. If you pitch Bray and he ties it up, at least you still have the option of pitching Fogg for 3 or 4 innings. You can still bring in the starter if you feel the need, but you aren't forced to.

Bottom line, I don't want my starting pitchers pitching unexpectedly in relief if at all possible. Dusty had two options: Fogg-Bray and Bray-Fogg. One of options those gave him a potential multiple-inning guy if they blew the save, one of them didn't. Dusty chose the option which robbed him of the multi-inning guy. And the argument that Fogg gave them a much better shot at winning the game in 11 just doesn't fly.

Well stated.

A manager can probably be forgiven for having to dip into the rotation for relief when the game goes 18 innings. But when he has to go there after twelve innings, a miscalculation was made along the way.

membengal
05-27-2008, 09:53 PM
The one area I had hoped that Dusty might be of value would be an ability to talk frankly with Jr. about his rapidly declining skills, and perhaps get Jr. to accept certain realities about his game in 2008. I thought perhaps Baker, with his years of playing and managing would have the chops to have that kind of much needed conversation with Jr.

Instead, he has gone the other way, and penciled him into 3rd in the line-up on a daily basis without question.

mth123
05-27-2008, 10:27 PM
The one area I had hoped that Dusty might be of value would be an ability to talk frankly with Jr. about his rapidly declining skills, and perhaps get Jr. to accept certain realities about his game in 2008. I thought perhaps Baker, with his years of playing and managing would have the chops to have that kind of much needed conversation with Jr.

Instead, he has gone the other way, and penciled him into 3rd in the line-up on a daily basis without question.

My thoughts exactly.

Call me a chump, but I still have hopes for such a conversation after #600 is struck.

It may be September at this rate.

GAC
05-27-2008, 10:32 PM
The one area I had hoped that Dusty might be of value would be an ability to talk frankly with Jr. about his rapidly declining skills, and perhaps get Jr. to accept certain realities about his game in 2008. I thought perhaps Baker, with his years of playing and managing would have the chops to have that kind of much needed conversation with Jr.

Instead, he has gone the other way, and penciled him into 3rd in the line-up on a daily basis without question.

And sadly enough, Dusty will continue to do so until season's end out of respect for who Jr is (not what his current performance is).

membengal
05-27-2008, 10:49 PM
mth, perhaps, when 600 gets here. Perhaps. Cross fingers and all that.

GAC: Could. not. agree. more. (I am sad to say)

OnBaseMachine
05-29-2008, 04:34 PM
Aaron Harang is an excellent example of a pitcher who can do more than he’s currently asked to do. He was fifth in MLB in pitches thrown last season, but maxed out at 125 and threw 100 pitches or less in 19 of 34 starts. Having started on Thursday night, Sunday was his throw day. To ask a pitcher of Harang’s ability and durability to relieve on his throw day is not only a good idea, it’s a great one. Teams could stop the spread of seven- and eight-man bullpens by assigning each starter to the pen on a throw day, available in either a mop-up role, in an extra-inning game, or even a high-leverage situation.

This is not a radical suggestion. The idea of a set rotation in which each starter made 30-odd starts and didn’t do anything isn’t quite as young as the concept of the save specialist, but they shared a room growing up. It was quite common in the 1940s and 1950s for pitchers to not have roles other than “get guys out when you’re put in the game.” We don’t need to see a return to anything that radical; getting 5-10 relief appearances a season from a couple of starters would likely allow teams to have actual benches again, providing a secondary benefit, and even perhaps bringing back old-fangled notions like “pinch-hitters” and “platoons.”

Now, not everyone is going to be a candidate for this kind of handling, which brings us to the 17th inning of Saturday’s game. Having ridden Harang for four frames and 63 pitches, Baker didn’t want to push his luck. At that point, he turned to phenom Edinson Volquez. The differences between Volquez and Harang are the differences between a good idea and a bad one. Harang is a 30-year-old veteran, Volquez a 24-year-old in his second season. Harang had started Thursday, making Sunday the natural day to use him. Volquez had pitched Friday, and was less than 48 hours removed from the mound. Harang is a horse, Volquez a stringbean, and you’d prefer to take risks with the more durable body.

Put it all together, and the decision to bring in Volquez was a terrible one. The outcome of one game is not going to make a big difference to the Reds’ season-they have a .500 upside, thanks in part to the decision to have a .245 OBP guy lead off for seven weeks. Volquez, however, is critical to the success the team might have in 2009 and beyond. His right arm is more important than any win this year. There’s no sense, none, in taking a risk with him in the pursuit of a win that would do little more than lower their draft position in 2008.

Dusty Baker has been a mixed bag this season, doing a better job with Joey Votto and Edwin Encarnacion than might have been expected, but he also hamstrung the team with Patterson. Sunday was more of the same, with one very good decision followed by one very bad one. The “bane of all good pitchers”? Perhaps not, but still, perhaps, a danger to the young ones.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/

A Sheehan Moment

by Joe Sheehan

I made a mistake in my Unfiltered post yesterday, and I would like to issue a correction. Reader C.B. writes:

In large part, I agree with what you had to say in your Unfiltered post, but I need to point out one important flaw that contradicts information given by the Reds‘ broadcast crew (George Grande and Chris Welsh) during the game and confirmed by Dusty Baker in yesterday’s pre-game. Aaron Harang’s throw-day was Saturday, and Volquez’s was Sunday. Does that change things for you?

This information, which I have verified, is correct. I have operated for years under the assumption that the throw day came in the middle of two starts. In fact, the more common pattern is for the throw day to come on the second day after a start. Will Carroll verifies this as well.

Would that change my evaluation? I would be less enthused about using Harang, but I would still believe it to be a fairly good decision? I would be less offended by using Volquez, but I would still be strongly against it. The argument for using Volquez is that it is his throw day, but his youth and inexperience, as well as the relative importance of the game to the Reds, still argue strongly against doing so.

In any case, while I learned something here-the standard throw pattern for starters is start/off/throw/off/off/start-I did make a significant mistake for no good reason. For that, I apologize to the readers.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/

jojo
05-29-2008, 04:46 PM
Aaron Harang is an excellent example of a pitcher who can do more than he’s currently asked to do. He was fifth in MLB in pitches thrown last season, but maxed out at 125 and threw 100 pitches or less in 19 of 34 starts. Having started on Thursday night, Sunday was his throw day. To ask a pitcher of Harang’s ability and durability to relieve on his throw day is not only a good idea, it’s a great one. Teams could stop the spread of seven- and eight-man bullpens by assigning each starter to the pen on a throw day, available in either a mop-up role, in an extra-inning game, or even a high-leverage situation.

This is not a radical suggestion. The idea of a set rotation in which each starter made 30-odd starts and didn’t do anything isn’t quite as young as the concept of the save specialist, but they shared a room growing up. It was quite common in the 1940s and 1950s for pitchers to not have roles other than “get guys out when you’re put in the game.” We don’t need to see a return to anything that radical; getting 5-10 relief appearances a season from a couple of starters would likely allow teams to have actual benches again, providing a secondary benefit, and even perhaps bringing back old-fangled notions like “pinch-hitters” and “platoons.”

Now, not everyone is going to be a candidate for this kind of handling, which brings us to the 17th inning of Saturday’s game. Having ridden Harang for four frames and 63 pitches, Baker didn’t want to push his luck. At that point, he turned to phenom Edinson Volquez. The differences between Volquez and Harang are the differences between a good idea and a bad one. Harang is a 30-year-old veteran, Volquez a 24-year-old in his second season. Harang had started Thursday, making Sunday the natural day to use him. Volquez had pitched Friday, and was less than 48 hours removed from the mound. Harang is a horse, Volquez a stringbean, and you’d prefer to take risks with the more durable body.

Put it all together, and the decision to bring in Volquez was a terrible one. The outcome of one game is not going to make a big difference to the Reds’ season-they have a .500 upside, thanks in part to the decision to have a .245 OBP guy lead off for seven weeks. Volquez, however, is critical to the success the team might have in 2009 and beyond. His right arm is more important than any win this year. There’s no sense, none, in taking a risk with him in the pursuit of a win that would do little more than lower their draft position in 2008.

Dusty Baker has been a mixed bag this season, doing a better job with Joey Votto and Edwin Encarnacion than might have been expected, but he also hamstrung the team with Patterson. Sunday was more of the same, with one very good decision followed by one very bad one. The “bane of all good pitchers”? Perhaps not, but still, perhaps, a danger to the young ones.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/

A Sheehan Moment

by Joe Sheehan

I made a mistake in my Unfiltered post yesterday, and I would like to issue a correction. Reader C.B. writes:

In large part, I agree with what you had to say in your Unfiltered post, but I need to point out one important flaw that contradicts information given by the Reds‘ broadcast crew (George Grande and Chris Welsh) during the game and confirmed by Dusty Baker in yesterday’s pre-game. Aaron Harang’s throw-day was Saturday, and Volquez’s was Sunday. Does that change things for you?

This information, which I have verified, is correct. I have operated for years under the assumption that the throw day came in the middle of two starts. In fact, the more common pattern is for the throw day to come on the second day after a start. Will Carroll verifies this as well.

Would that change my evaluation? I would be less enthused about using Harang, but I would still believe it to be a fairly good decision? I would be less offended by using Volquez, but I would still be strongly against it. The argument for using Volquez is that it is his throw day, but his youth and inexperience, as well as the relative importance of the game to the Reds, still argue strongly against doing so.

In any case, while I learned something here-the standard throw pattern for starters is start/off/throw/off/off/start-I did make a significant mistake for no good reason. For that, I apologize to the readers.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/

This is good stuff and the kind of things that make baseball such an intriguing, addictive game.

That said, Sheehan is suggesting Saturday was Aaron's throw day while the 18 inning epic was played on Sunday (Volquez's throw day). In other words, if this is correct, "throw day" can't be used as a justification for Dusty's decision regarding Aaron.

In any event, I don't think it can be argued that Dusty was making his pitcher usage decisions based upon "throw day" or in the least, throw day wasn't a consistent consideration.

dabvu2498
05-29-2008, 04:54 PM
Regardless of who's throw day it was, wouldn't any side sessions have been done before the game? (Especially on a get-away-day.)

Meaning Volquez/Harang/whoever would've thrown before and during the game.

Or am I nuts?

flyer85
05-29-2008, 04:58 PM
So there was speculation about Belisle warming up in the pen last night because it was his throw day. Which it was not according to the above schedule, Tuesday would have been his throw day.

dabvu2498
05-29-2008, 05:03 PM
So there was speculation about Belisle warming up in the pen last night because it was his throw day. Which it was not according to the above schedule, Tuesday would have been his throw day.

He's not scheduled to start again till Saturday. 5 days off between starts would modify the program some, I'd guess.

flyer85
05-29-2008, 05:06 PM
He's not scheduled to start again till Saturday. 5 days off between starts would modify the program some, I'd guess. I think it is a lock that Belisle starts on Saturday, although his days in the rotation are likely numbered.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-29-2008, 05:08 PM
I think it is a lock that Belisle starts on Saturday, although his days in the rotation are likely numbered.

Wanna bet?

Big Klu
05-29-2008, 05:09 PM
I am firmly of the belief that starting pitchers should be available to pitch in relief on their throwing day. Maybe not every starter, and maybe not every time. But many of them should be able to give the club an inning or two now and then on their throwing day.

flyer85
05-29-2008, 05:14 PM
Wanna bet?
Nope. :D

I guess Fogg makes the start because Bailey, Maloney and Thompson have pitched the last three days (which is why I thought Belisle was a lock).

BTW, I never though Belisle was going to survive in the rotation, there is nothing in his track record to suggest success as a starter in the majors. Hopefully he will be put in the bullpen in Louisville where I think he could transition into a quality reliever.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-29-2008, 05:18 PM
BTW, I never though Belisle was going to survive in the rotation, there is nothing in his track record to suggest success as a starter in the majors. Hopefully he will be put in the bullpen in Louisville where I think he could transition into a quality reliever.

He was average last year. Not bad for a #5 making the league minimum.

CaiGuy
05-29-2008, 05:53 PM
B. Exactly what I and most others expected. Everyone seems to have alread covered the main points.

At least he makes for some funny quotes...

WebScorpion
05-30-2008, 12:15 PM
My opinion of Dusty really hasn't changed much. I still think he's a great leader of people and a poor tactician. What he really needs is Hank Aaron as his bench coach...at least he'd give us some sensible in-game moves, and we know Dusty would listen to him. ;)

Dusty is who we thought he was. Just ask Dennis Green. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/laughing016.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

RedsManRick
05-30-2008, 12:16 PM
Dusty is who we thought he was. Just ask Dennis Green. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/laughing016.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

Glad somebody appreciated the reference :). Don't count on me letting Dusty off the hook though...

OnBaseMachine
05-30-2008, 10:35 PM
Dusty continues to add fuel to the fire. Tonight Edinson Volquez had thrown 100 pitches through six innings after pitching on one day rest five days ago. Any manager in his right mind takes Volquez out after six innings, not Dusty Baker. He leaves him in and he promptly gives up a lead off double. Then Baker takes him out one batter too late and the run eventually scores to tie the game at two. Just when you think he can't get any worse...he does Hairston walks to begin the bottom of the 8th in a 2-2 game. In steps Jay Bruce who is 3-for-3 on the night against a lefty. You obviously let him swing away, right? No, Dusty Baker decides to have him bunt on the first pitch. Bruce bunts it foul and looked bad doing it and then later popped up. Just an awful decision to make Bruce bunt in that situation.

I'm tired of Dusty Baker.

dougdirt
05-30-2008, 10:39 PM
Dusty continues to add fuel to the fire. Tonight Edinson Volquez had thrown 100 pitches through six innings after pitching on one day rest five days ago. Any manager in his right mind takes Volquez out after six innings, not Dusty Baker. He leaves him in and he promptly gives up a lead off double. Then Baker takes him out one batter too late and the run eventually scores to tie the game at two. Just when you think he can't get any worse...he does Hairston walks to begin the bottom of the 8th in a 2-2 game. In steps Jay Bruce who is 3-for-3 on the night against a lefty. You obviously let him swing away, right? No, Dusty Baker decides to have him bunt on the first pitch. Bruce bunts it foul and looked bad doing it and then later popped up. Just an awful decision to make Bruce bunt in that situation.

I'm tired of Dusty Baker.

He probably figured Bruce wouldn't get the bunt down, and hit a HR..... it worked for Dunn and Encarnacion after all.

reds44
05-30-2008, 10:40 PM
Dusty continues to add fuel to the fire. Tonight Edinson Volquez had thrown 100 pitches through six innings after pitching on one day rest five days ago. Any manager in his right mind takes Volquez out after six innings, not Dusty Baker. He leaves him in and he promptly gives up a lead off double. Then Baker takes him out one batter too late and the run eventually scores to tie the game at two. Just when you think he can't get any worse...he does Hairston walks to begin the bottom of the 8th in a 2-2 game. In steps Jay Bruce who is 3-for-3 on the night against a lefty. You obviously let him swing away, right? No, Dusty Baker decides to have him bunt on the first pitch. Bruce bunts it foul and looked bad doing it and then later popped up. Just an awful decision to make Bruce bunt in that situation.

I'm tired of Dusty Baker.
Jerry Narron disagrees.

edabbs44
05-31-2008, 12:07 AM
Dusty continues to add fuel to the fire. Tonight Edinson Volquez had thrown 100 pitches through six innings after pitching on one day rest five days ago. Any manager in his right mind takes Volquez out after six innings, not Dusty Baker. He leaves him in and he promptly gives up a lead off double. Then Baker takes him out one batter too late and the run eventually scores to tie the game at two. Just when you think he can't get any worse...he does Hairston walks to begin the bottom of the 8th in a 2-2 game. In steps Jay Bruce who is 3-for-3 on the night against a lefty. You obviously let him swing away, right? No, Dusty Baker decides to have him bunt on the first pitch. Bruce bunts it foul and looked bad doing it and then later popped up. Just an awful decision to make Bruce bunt in that situation.

I'm tired of Dusty Baker.

Take a sedative.

Jay Bruce got the bunt sign? With a man on first? With the "meat" of the order coming up in the 8th in a tie game? Heavin forbid.

Dusty is trying to win the game. I'm no Dusty fan, but let's not obsessively nitpick every single move he makes.

OnBaseMachine
05-31-2008, 12:11 AM
Take a sedative.

Jay Bruce got the bunt sign? With a man on first? With the "meat" of the order coming up in the 8th in a tie game? Heavin forbid.

Dusty is trying to win the game. I'm no Dusty fan, but let's not obsessively nitpick every single move he makes.

Jay Bruce is 3-for-3 at that point and has had laid down a sac bunt according to the broadcast. It was just a bad, bad move, Right up there with trying to make Dunn bunt a couple weeks ago before he blasted a 3-run walk off homerun.

edabbs44
05-31-2008, 12:20 AM
Jay Bruce is 3-for-3 at that point and has had laid down a sac bunt according to the broadcast. It was just a bad, bad move, Right up there with trying to make Dunn bunt a couple weeks ago before he blasted a 3-run walk off homerun.

ARod has 16 sac bunts in his career, all in the first 6 years of his career.

Manny has two. Both in the 2nd year of his career.

Hank Aaron had 18 of his 21 career sac bunts in his first 3 seasons.

Pujols had a sac bunt in his rookie season.

Junior had 5 of his 8 career sac bunts in his first 3 seasons.


Moral of the story...it appears as if you are likely to achieve "non-bunt" status as your career goes on. But it looks like many of the all-time greats have been asked on occasion to sacrifice their personal stats for the good of their team at times.

OnBaseMachine
05-31-2008, 12:24 AM
If Bruce is struggling and it's the bottom of the 9th inning then bunting him there maybe isn't such a bad idea, but the way he is swinging the bat right now you let him swing away.

edabbs44
05-31-2008, 12:28 AM
If Bruce is struggling and it's the bottom of the 9th inning then bunting him there maybe isn't such a bad idea, but the way he is swinging the bat right now you let him swing away.

Maybe Dusty was also trying to humble him up a bit. Kid might be getting a little cocky and Dusty is trying to show him the bigger picture.

Sometimes people automatically think the worst with Baker...kind of like last night with Dunn being taken out of the game. Before anyone knew what the whole story was Dusty was already getting blasted.

OnBaseMachine
05-31-2008, 12:31 AM
Maybe Dusty was also trying to humble him up a bit. Kid might be getting a little cocky and Dusty is trying to show him the bigger picture.
.

Well, if that's the case then Dusty is worse than I thought. But I think we all know that's not the reason Bruce was bunting.

Falls City Beer
05-31-2008, 12:33 AM
Jay Bruce is 3-for-3 at that point and has had laid down a sac bunt according to the broadcast. It was just a bad, bad move, Right up there with trying to make Dunn bunt a couple weeks ago before he blasted a 3-run walk off homerun.

It was the right move. You're playing for one run. By the book? Yeah, but it's defensible, perfectly so.

Patrick Bateman
05-31-2008, 12:37 AM
Here's my problem with the bunt call in that situation:

1. Jay Bruce has never laid down a successful bunt in his professional career. Obviously that is mainly based on opportunity, but the fact of the matter is, that it's a skill that he hasn't had the chance to master. He can work hard at it in practice, but doing it in a game against unpredictable pitchers is difficult

2. Jay Bruce has been flat out raking since he's come up. Honestly, the way he's going, I don't want to take the bat out of his hands. You could put up a reasoned argument that Bruce had a better chance of advancing the runner to 2nd via a hit, rather than a bunt with the way he's going, and you wouldn't even give up an out.

Basically, after watching his bunt attempt, and after watching inexperienced bunters asked to bunt by Reds managers, I honestly doubt that he would get it down. It would be different if he was a proven ace bunter, and it was a virtual lock he would succeed, but that is different. I see this as a big bat being taken down for a guaranteed out, and a 50-50 shot of actually advancing the runner. I think it's defensibile, but I think it was the wrong call in this situation.

Cyclone792
05-31-2008, 01:29 AM
1. Jay Bruce has never laid down a successful bunt in his professional career. Obviously that is mainly based on opportunity, but the fact of the matter is, that it's a skill that he hasn't had the chance to master. He can work hard at it in practice, but doing it in a game against unpredictable pitchers is difficult.

Yep, and I've said this before and I'll say it again ...

Jay Bruce has had 1,492 plate appearances in the minor leagues, all of them in the Reds organization. Jay Bruce has never laid down a sacrifice bunt in any of those 1,492 plate appearances. If the Reds want their hitters to know how to bunt, then they need to teach their hitters how to bunt in the minor leagues. This means actual game situations too against live pitching.

Don't send a guy through three years of the minors with 1,492 plate appearances and zero bunts and then ask him to bunt in his 4th big league game. That's just stupidity at the highest level.

If the Reds expect Jay Bruce to know how to bunt, then they should have taught him how in the minors.

WVRedsFan
05-31-2008, 01:56 AM
Yep, and I've said this before and I'll say it again ...

Jay Bruce has had 1,492 plate appearances in the minor leagues, all of them in the Reds organization. Jay Bruce has never laid down a sacrifice bunt in any of those 1,492 plate appearances. If the Reds want their hitters to know how to bunt, then they need to teach their hitters how to bunt in the minor leagues. This means actual game situations too against live pitching.

Don't send a guy through three years of the minors with 1,492 plate appearances and zero bunts and then ask him to bunt in his 4th big league game. That's just stupidity at the highest level.

If the Reds expect Jay Bruce to know how to bunt, then they should have taught him how in the minors.

When I think of players you should use to bunt, I think of Juan Castro, Norris Hopper, Ryan Freel Hairston, and others, but never guys who can hit like Griffey, Bruce, Phillips, or Dunn. To even think of having Bruce bunt in that situation is ludicrous. Just another example of brain fade on the part of the manager.

Sometimes Dusty really amazes me at some of the things he does, but I will repeat this as long as I have breath...I'd rather have Dusty than Boone, Miley, or Narron. That might not be saying much, but Dusty will give me less gray hair than those other three. Of course, I'll take the option to revise this by October.

RedsManRick
05-31-2008, 02:12 AM
Watch what you say WV, Juan Castro has been brought in to pinch hit for a stud rookie OF before...

OnBaseMachine
05-31-2008, 02:13 AM
Yep, and I've said this before and I'll say it again ...

Jay Bruce has had 1,492 plate appearances in the minor leagues, all of them in the Reds organization. Jay Bruce has never laid down a sacrifice bunt in any of those 1,492 plate appearances. If the Reds want their hitters to know how to bunt, then they need to teach their hitters how to bunt in the minor leagues. This means actual game situations too against live pitching.

Don't send a guy through three years of the minors with 1,492 plate appearances and zero bunts and then ask him to bunt in his 4th big league game. That's just stupidity at the highest level.

If the Reds expect Jay Bruce to know how to bunt, then they should have taught him how in the minors.

Great post. I agree with it all.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-31-2008, 03:40 AM
Yep, and I've said this before and I'll say it again ...

Jay Bruce has had 1,492 plate appearances in the minor leagues, all of them in the Reds organization. Jay Bruce has never laid down a sacrifice bunt in any of those 1,492 plate appearances. If the Reds want their hitters to know how to bunt, then they need to teach their hitters how to bunt in the minor leagues. This means actual game situations too against live pitching.

Don't send a guy through three years of the minors with 1,492 plate appearances and zero bunts and then ask him to bunt in his 4th big league game. That's just stupidity at the highest level.

If the Reds expect Jay Bruce to know how to bunt, then they should have taught him how in the minors.

Amen.

GAC
05-31-2008, 06:53 AM
Earlier in the game Bruce did a very solid (and unselfish) job when he hit the ground ball to the opposite side to advance Hairston to 3rd (who later scored).

If your objective is to advance a runner into scoring position in a tight/tied game, and you got a guy who is either not good at or inexperienced in sac bunts, then IMO don't force the issue. Of course the guy going up there is to try to get a hit. But before he steps into that batter box he has to realize that at a minimum he has to at least accomplish moving that runner over (sacrifice). If he doesn't know that then he doesn't belong in baseball IMO.

Dusty is just a bunt nut. ;)

KittyDuran
05-31-2008, 07:04 AM
IMHO, the bunt is getting to be obsolete anyway... it should be abolished since it's really not a basic enough skill that the majority of major and minor league players know how to execute successfully. Just a simple putting the ball in play sacrifice will get the job done.

jojo
05-31-2008, 08:27 AM
Personally, I would've preferred that Dusty put on the homer sign in that instance. :cool:

GAC
05-31-2008, 11:53 AM
Personally, I would've preferred that Dusty put on the homer sign in that instance. :cool:

He doesn't need to with "I always swing from the heels" Phillips. :cool:

Spring~Fields
05-31-2008, 11:58 PM
I like this from Dusty Baker today, nice touch from Dusty.

“What a remarkable story Jay Bruce is,” manager Dusty Baker said. “I’ve never seen a better story. If he’s living a dream, I’d like to be in that dream.”

Rounding Third
06-01-2008, 12:13 AM
Personally, I would've preferred that Dusty put on the homer sign in that instance. :cool:

Why would you do that when he could ground out to 2nd and advance the runner to third? :confused:

jojo
06-01-2008, 07:21 AM
Why would you do that when he could ground out to 2nd and advance the runner to third? :confused:

Ya, I guess a homer would kill the rally. :cool:

GAC
06-01-2008, 07:30 AM
I like this from Dusty Baker today, nice touch from Dusty.

“What a remarkable story Jay Bruce is,” manager Dusty Baker said. “I’ve never seen a better story. If he’s living a dream, I’d like to be in that dream.”

Can I give my "I have a dream " speech? :p:

redsrule2500
06-01-2008, 07:37 AM
I like this from Dusty Baker today, nice touch from Dusty.

“What a remarkable story Jay Bruce is,” manager Dusty Baker said. “I’ve never seen a better story. If he’s living a dream, I’d like to be in that dream.”

Dusty is great for those one-liners! That "hopefully we eat together" quote comes to mind...

jojo
06-01-2008, 08:05 AM
Dusty is great for those one-liners! That "hopefully we eat together" quote comes to mind...

"The dingos ate my baby", manager Dusty Baker said.

Spring~Fields
06-01-2008, 11:15 AM
Dusty is great for those one-liners! That "hopefully we eat together" quote comes to mind...

That's the one that I have a problem with, because we found out later what was on the menu. Some of the steady diet, especially with Patterson sauce topping the main course was not very nutritional for the team and the fans, especially when Bruce seasoning was the right ingredient to garnish the team. With Dusty it is a wonder that I don’t break out with ambiguity hives. :runaway:

Always Red
06-01-2008, 11:24 AM
That's the one that I have a problem with, because we found out later what was on the menu. Some of the steady diet, especially with Patterson sauce topping the main course was not very nutritional for the team and the fans, especially when Bruce seasoning was the right ingredient to garnish the team. With Dusty it is a wonder that I don’t break out with ambiguity hives. :runaway:

Well, as it turns out, Corey was just an appetizer.

Bruce has moved up to the main course!

I'm willing to give Dusty some time (not that I have any choice). I think he's here, no matter what happens, through the 2009 season. And rightly so, you can't be changing managers every year. If they fire him after this year, no one in their right mind will ever want to work for Bob Castellini again.

Spring~Fields
06-01-2008, 11:25 AM
Can I give my "I have a dream " speech? :p:

I have a dream that one day Dusty will actually interpret the back of the baseball card correctly and place guys who can actually get on base the most at the top of his batting order and that he will realize that speed cannot steal first base, that it is essential that they have exhibited the actual ability to walk or get a hit. It is just too tough to steal home when one cannot get to first base to begin with. :doh:

Thankfully those younger players that might not have much of a baseball card have an advocate in Jocketty and staff. ;)

Spring~Fields
06-01-2008, 11:39 AM
Well, as it turns out, Corey was just an appetizer.

Bruce has moved up to the main course!

I'm willing to give Dusty some time (not that I have any choice). I think he's here, no matter what happens, through the 2009 season. And rightly so, you can't be changing managers every year. If they fire him after this year, no one in their right mind will ever want to work for Bob Castellini again.

I was thinking along those lines the other day as you are writing, that he too might need time, time to learn his players etc. Baker did not inherit a bowl of cherries this season, I wouldn't fire him either, he really isn't that bad, sprinkle in a little better defense, a dash of better relievers, add a cup or two of better situational hitters that produce OBP, SLG, OPS and the feast could turn out just fine.

I just have a risk adversity to his top three in the lineup at times, that might reduce the scoring opportunities over the season, that too will probably change with time, Baker will adapt and adjustments will come in time.

As you have pointed out, they have made adjustments and are moving forward now.

OnBaseMachine
06-14-2008, 07:58 PM
Another poorly managed game by Dusty Baker today, starting with batting Paul Janish second and continually batting Griffey third based on reputation only. The biggest flaw I had with him today was bringing Mike Lincoln back out for the 10th inning. I just knew that was going to end in a disaster because more often than not Lincoln stinks it up in his second inning. He's basically a one inning guy at best unless it's mop up duty. Dusty brings him back out for his second inning of work and he proceeds to allow back-to-back homeruns to Youkilis and Crisp. Cordero or Bray should have started that inning.

Spring~Fields
06-14-2008, 08:11 PM
Another poorly managed game by Dusty Baker today, starting with batting Paul Janish second and continually batting Griffey third based on reputation only. The biggest flaw I had with him today was bringing Mike Lincoln back out for the 10th inning. I just knew that was going to end in a disaster because more often than not Lincoln stinks it up in his second inning. He's basically a one inning guy at best unless it's mop up duty. Dusty brings him back out for his second inning of work and he proceeds to allow back-to-back homeruns to Youkilis and Crisp. Cordero or Bray should have started that inning.

I agree, here is a little supporting data and commentary.


Mike Lincoln 4.70
Bill Bray 2.75
F. Cordero 2.64

Paul Janish .196 .268 .216 .484
Griffey .250 .361 .401 .762

And Bruce isn’t doing so well with Janish batting behind him and according to Baker a batter might be given something to hit with a good hitter or a Griffey batting behind them, so Baker is taking the bat out of Bruce’s hands in effect. Oh just another 2 run or less loss.

Kc61
06-14-2008, 08:18 PM
Dusty should have pitched Cordero in the tenth, although Coco had pitched the last two games. So it's not a clearcut decision, but I think Dusty made the wrong choice.

But Dusty handles his pitchers much better than most of the Reds recent managers and at least, now, Burton and Coco are available tomorrow if needed. If the Reds can get through six tomorrow in a close game, he has these guys to (hopefully) shut the Sox down.

Folks gripe if pitchers are overused, if they aren't overused, whatever. It's part of being a fan. Sometimes managers gamble and fail, it happens.

Onward.

red-in-la
06-14-2008, 08:26 PM
Dusty should have pitched Cordero in the tenth, although Coco had pitched the last two games. So it's not a clearcut decision, but I think Dusty made the wrong choice.

But Dusty handles his pitchers much better than most of the Reds recent managers and at least, now, Burton and Coco are available tomorrow if needed. If the Reds can get through six tomorrow in a close game, he has these guys to (hopefully) shut the Sox down.

Folks gripe if pitchers are overused, if they aren't overused, whatever. It's part of being a fan. Sometimes managers gamble and fail, it happens.

Onward.

But that is just the point that Baker is clueless....tomorrow is Becket versus Bailey.....a close game into the 6th? Are you kidding?

The simple idea that Patterson EVER plays is enough to fire the guy......but to lead him off in the 10th down 2? Nuff said.

The Reds goofy organization has managed to stumble on yet another bad manager......

WVRedsFan
06-14-2008, 08:33 PM
I agree, here is a little supporting data and commentary.


Mike Lincoln 4.70
Bill Bray 2.75
F. Cordero 2.64

Paul Janish .196 .268 .216 .484
Griffey .250 .361 .401 .762

And Bruce isn’t doing so well with Janish batting behind him and according to Baker a batter might be given something to hit with a good hitter or a Griffey batting behind them, so Baker is taking the bat out of Bruce’s hands in effect. Oh just another 2 run or less loss.

Very true. Batting Bruce leadoff is ludicrous and batting Janish (even starting him) is worse. Griffey isn't seeing anything to hit (he could walk every time) or he's pressing. Phillips is not a cleanup hitter and Dunn and Votto do nothing for me batting so low in the order.

It's a mess.

jojo
06-14-2008, 08:36 PM
Personally, I don't like using a reliever three nights in a row. I guess I wasn't screaming for Dusty's head on the Cordero decision.

Spring~Fields
06-14-2008, 08:41 PM
Very true. Batting Bruce leadoff is ludicrous and batting Janish (even starting him) is worse. Griffey isn't seeing anything to hit (he could walk every time) or he's pressing. Phillips is not a cleanup hitter and Dunn and Votto do nothing for me batting so low in the order.

It's a mess.

Janish has to play at SS with the injuries, I don't think any of us has any problem with his defense at SS. It is just losing by small amounts while Bakers theories in the top of order are contradicted by Bakers theories in the bottom of the order. He is giving the extra AB to a young inexperienced and poor hitter at this time. Then he went to far with a Lincoln. He also according to his theories, he is in effect taking the bat out of Bruces and Votto's hands by giving the advantage to the pitcher on the other side by putting weak hitters behind them. It is Baker who says today, that Janish might get something to hit with Griffey behind him, then it is also true for a Votto with a Bako or Ross behind him, and a Bruce with a Janish behind him that they might not get as much to hit.

It's that he does this in multiple games, not just one now and then. Which we would have no gripes if it was just now and then.

Falls City Beer
06-14-2008, 08:47 PM
I say the Reds win tomorrow. I'm calling it.

Spring~Fields
06-14-2008, 08:50 PM
I say the Reds win tomorrow. I'm calling it.

I hope that you're right, is Bailey going tomorrow ?

vaticanplum
06-14-2008, 08:50 PM
I say the Reds win tomorrow. I'm calling it.

I'm echoing it.

fearofpopvol1
06-14-2008, 08:54 PM
Personally, I don't like using a reliever three nights in a row. I guess I wasn't screaming for Dusty's head on the Cordero decision.

I agree with this, but don't you think they should've replaced Lincoln with Bray?

Falls City Beer
06-14-2008, 08:57 PM
I hope that you're right, is Bailey going tomorrow ?

Yep. A rested Cordero gets the save.

flyer85
06-14-2008, 08:57 PM
just wait til the DH games coming up ... Corey will be back in CF batting leadoff

Falls City Beer
06-14-2008, 08:58 PM
I agree with this, but don't you think they should've replaced Lincoln with Bray?

Bray, Lincoln: tomato, tomahto.

Spring~Fields
06-14-2008, 09:00 PM
just wait til the DH games coming up ... Corey will be back in CF batting leadoff

Gee thanks, and they think I rain on the parades around here. :lol::lol:

fearofpopvol1
06-14-2008, 09:08 PM
Bray, Lincoln: tomato, tomahto.

I agree that Bray should not be given any accolades or anything (since he hasn't proven anything long-term), but he is definitely a better option than Lincoln. And the fact that the 1st batter faced was a lefty makes the decision all the more clear.

OnBaseMachine
06-14-2008, 09:11 PM
Bray, Lincoln: tomato, tomahto.

Bill Bray has been pitching very good lately. He blew two fastballs past Manny Ramirez today and then struck him out on a nasty slider. He's allowed only one run in his last 11.2 innings and has a 2.66 ERA on the season.

Falls City Beer
06-14-2008, 09:14 PM
I agree that Bray should not be given any accolades or anything (since he hasn't proven anything long-term), but he is definitely a better option than Lincoln. And the fact that the 1st batter faced was a lefty makes the decision all the more clear.

The first batter Lincoln faced in the 10th was a righty--Lowell.

fearofpopvol1
06-14-2008, 11:00 PM
The first batter Lincoln faced in the 10th was a righty--Lowell.

I was thinking of Drew from the inning before. Either way, Bray was still a better option. Especially with Lincoln having been lucky and escaping trouble the inning before. Lincoln threw up bombs in the Mets series when Dusty used him for more than inning. Lesson not learned I suppose.

Chip R
06-14-2008, 11:30 PM
just wait til the DH games coming up ... Corey will be back in CF batting leadoff

Now you're just being mean. ;)

RedlegJake
06-14-2008, 11:35 PM
Bray, Lincoln: tomato, tomahto.

Sorry FCB, on this one you're just dead wrong. You're entitled to your opinion of course.

Spring~Fields
06-15-2008, 06:43 PM
How has your opinion of Dusty Baker changed?

French is the best language to describe it in right now and the rules prohibit me from articulating my thoughts at the present. :)

OnBaseMachine
06-17-2008, 10:25 PM
Dusty struck again tonight.

With the Reds down 2-0 in the 7th and the bases loaded, Dusty brings in Valentin (.688 OPS vs lefties last three seasons) to face a lefty. He grounds into what could have been a double play but Loney bobbled it. And then he allowed Corey Patterson (.372 OPS vs LHP) to face the lefty and he promptly grounded out to end the inning. Just a very poorly managed inning by Dusty that possibly cost the Reds the game.

Cedric
06-17-2008, 10:29 PM
I honestly thought he might have learned from Chicago and would become a decent manager. I think I might have been wrong.

His move with Patterson tonight was just absurd and another reason his ego is affecting this team. You only need to listen to five minutes of his interviews to realize how much he likes to talk about himself. He wants Corey to prove him right so bad that he is willing to risk losing the game because of it. It's not that he doesn't care to win, it's just that he cares too much about things that should have no bearing on the game today. Just can't make dumb mistakes like he does over and over.

Spring~Fields
06-18-2008, 12:12 AM
How can so many complain about one manager and the group of people that have registered various complaints, all be wrong ?

These same complaints were registered with people in Chicago before any of us started complaining, so what gives here? What is wrong with this picture folks?

marcshoe
06-18-2008, 12:17 AM
He wants Corey to prove him right so bad that he is willing to risk losing the game because of it.

So he's essentially doing the same thing that Bowden's doing with the ex-Reds in Washington. You would think that baseball has become enough of a big-money enterprise that those with a financial stake would make sure their businesses are run efficiently.

SteelSD
06-18-2008, 12:37 AM
How can so many complain about one manager and the group of people that have registered various complaints, all be wrong ?

They're not. I think that many folks were unprepared as to the actual amount of lunacy Baker carries around with him. It's like when you hear a story about some horrible event but can't really believe that it was that bad because you haven't experienced it for yourself.

Tony Cloninger
06-18-2008, 12:47 AM
I ain't no member of any toothpick loving club.....but i do give him some more slack than a lot of people are willing to do.....especially when it seems to border on the "reaching for anything to bash him" ....but these moves he made were bad......and yet Andy Phillips and paul janish would have made better options? I mean....picture a choice between Darrell Chaney...Ed Crosby...Tom Lawless and Reggie taylor....and you get the idea of what this manager (or any other) would have to deal with.

VR
06-18-2008, 12:53 AM
I'm giving it until after the break for him to figure out how to put a lineup together. After that, I will commence the reprobation of Dusty Baker, unabashadly.

WVRedsFan
06-18-2008, 01:19 AM
At he risk of repeating myself and making everyone think I'm crazy, I'll give dusty some slack. Very little, but some.

The Good Lord couldn't make a winning lineup with this bunch of parts thrown together. Once the roster problem is fixed, then I'll judge Dusty. This thrown together team is a mess. Until then, I'll continue to be amazed at what happens every night.

Spring~Fields
06-18-2008, 02:05 AM
John Fays blog had this insight. (I guess it is appropriate to post it here, seems relevant to me.)


Meanwhile, Corey Patterson sounded OK with his 1-for-5 in which he left four runners on base.

“I thought I had good at-bats,” he said. “You can’t worry about results. People look at charts and worry about results. You’ve got to maintain your approach. You have your ups and downs. Could I be playing better? Sure. I’ve been in this situation before. You’ve got to keep playing."

Mario-Rijo
06-18-2008, 02:09 AM
Meanwhile, Corey Patterson sounded OK with his 1-for-5 in which he left four runners on base.

“I thought I had good at-bats,” he said. “You can’t worry about results. People look at charts and worry about results. You’ve got to maintain your approach. You have your ups and downs. Could I be playing better? Sure. I’ve been in this situation before. You’ve got to keep playing."

He actually had pretty good AB's for his standard tonight. And still couldn't put together a good night.

penantboundreds
06-18-2008, 02:11 AM
Corey "Past"erson needs to stop playing in the major leagues....he was sent down and thought he deserved it, he struck out 4 times in one minor league game and grounded into a double play (or something close to that), and then gets brought back up and leads off.

Horrible Big Wood (Dustbowl).

This might be one of the first negative things I've ever posted about Dusty but he is really aggravated me. The guy simply does not believe in OBP or stats, nor does he watch the game (presumably). ARRRRGH

AmarilloRed
06-18-2008, 02:16 AM
Eat the 3 million, and call up Chris Dickerson.He strikes out a lot, but at least he will draw his share of walks.

Gainesville Red
06-18-2008, 02:45 AM
My favorite part of C. Trent's game story tonight:




"Corey has traditionally been better against left-handers than right-handers in his career."

The stats don't exactly match Baker's statement -- in his career, Patterson is hitting .261 against right-handed pitchers and .240 against left-handed pitchers, and he came into Tuesday's game hitting .197 against right-handers and .172 against left-handers.

jojo
06-18-2008, 09:35 AM
My favorite part of C. Trent's game story tonight:

I thought the point of Dusty platooning Corey was his platoon splits (i.e. he is less productive against left handed pitchers-a trend well defined by his 3500 PAs at the major league level).

I think Dusty basically manages all from the gut at times and he just tells the media whatever he thinks will get them out of his office if they ask him about a decision. Also, and importantly, he's a player's manager. It's not like he's going to tell the truth-"well Corey does stink against lefties but, you know what, Andy Phillips just isn't good (a truth that would indict two players and a GM)". Dusty isn't a jerk and I think it might be helpful to keep that in mind when trying to decipher Dustyspeak.

Then of course there is that whole ignore that "The Book" has underwent a myriad of revisions since his playing days thing.

hebroncougar
06-18-2008, 09:52 AM
No, my opinion hasn't changed. And I think this thread would be a whole lot worse if the Reds had the talent to win. He is not a good manager by any standard other than if you are a fan of the team the Reds are playing. Just think back to how much fun you had when we was the manager of the Cubs.

Tom Servo
06-18-2008, 10:20 AM
I didn't think Dusty could be so infuriating and bullheaded in his ways. Apparently I was wrong.

Roy Tucker
06-18-2008, 11:04 AM
I didn't think Dusty could be so infuriating and bullheaded in his ways. Apparently I was wrong.


I'm starting to feel that way too.

When you're hoping Norris Hopper gets well soon so that Dusty quits batting Patterson and his .229 OBP leadoff (and seems to always come up at the worst times), well, that's a pretty sad state of affairs. I'm starting to think Corey has incriminating pictures of Dusty and Votto or something. It's beyond goofy.

bucksfan2
06-18-2008, 11:07 AM
My opinion of Dusty is starting to change. My opinion is starting to change because of one person, Corey Patterson. I don't know what it is about this guy. I have a feeling that Dusty has some sort of personal obligation he feels towards Patterson. He wouldn't take him out of the game in the 7th because he was in a tight spot with Jr unable to play but he has made other move to try and win the game that has put himself in an even tighter spot. The 18 inning affair he burned his long man going for thie win. Just this past weekend against Boston he took out his only SS in insert Javy as a PH and went with Cabrera for the rest of the game. Dusty's excuse was complete BS. He could have moved Cabrera to the OF and inserted Janish at SS. He could have told Jr to cowboy up and play 2 innings of defense in the outfield.

It is Jocketty's job to step in and talk to Dusty about Corey. If Dusty doesn't listen Jocketty needs to cut Patterson. There is absolutly no way Patterson should be taking up a major league roster spot when his hitting is just so awful. Castellini also needs to learn that the GM is there to oversee personal additions. What the manager wants isn't always the best for the team. Krivsky is probably sitting back and laughing at the way Patterson is playing.

flyer85
06-18-2008, 11:12 AM
all I can tell you is I won't be back to GABP as long as they their current manager. I have seen enough.(over the last 4 years I have been to ~40 games)

redsmetz
06-18-2008, 11:14 AM
No, my opinion hasn't changed. And I think this thread would be a whole lot worse if the Reds had the talent to win. He is not a good manager by any standard other than if you are a fan of the team the Reds are playing. Just think back to how much fun you had when we was the manager of the Cubs.

The highlighted quote got me wondering what our record has been against Dusty's clubs - no so great, it seems.

When he managed SF, in the ten years Dusty managed the Giants, we were 51-40 with only three seasons when we didn't have a losing record against them (94, 96 and 01 - and one season, 95, we split with them). At Chicago, we were slightly better; 35-33, but only one winning season (05).

All told, we have gone 86-73 against Dusty. I'm not quite sure why we were having so much fun playing his clubs.

Cyclone792
06-18-2008, 11:20 AM
Corey Patterson is a prime example why I don't want bad players on the roster at all. Inevitably, bad players are almost always misused by clueless managers, and Dusty's misuse of Patterson fits right in. If Patterson was used strictly for late inning defense with a very occasional start where he's batting no higher than 8th in the lineup, I could deal with that.

But A) giving him 177 plate appearances through June 18, B) giving him 158 plate appearances and 32 starts hitting 1st or 2nd, and C) allowing him to hit in late inning, high leverage situations when better hitters reside on the bench is flat ridiculous.

Corey Patterson isn't much more than Juan Castro with much more playing time. It doesn't really get any worse than that.

BRM
06-18-2008, 11:24 AM
The highlighted quote got me wondering what our record has been against Dusty's clubs - no so great, it seems.

When he managed SF, in the ten years Dusty managed the Giants, we were 51-40 with only three seasons when we didn't have a losing record against them (94, 96 and 01 - and one season, 95, we split with them). At Chicago, we were slightly better; 35-33, but only one winning season (05).

All told, we have gone 86-73 against Dusty. I'm not quite sure why we were having so much fun playing his clubs.

Going 86-73 against him is pretty good IMO. Better than the record with him on our side.

Cyclone792
06-18-2008, 11:29 AM
All told, we have gone 86-73 against Dusty. I'm not quite sure why we were having so much fun playing his clubs.

That's a .541 winning percentage over 159 games, or an average of 87.6 wins in a full season.

Since 1993 in games against non-Dusty managed teams, the Reds only have a .483 winning percentage.

jojo
06-18-2008, 11:33 AM
As a signing, it wasn't a bad decision to sign Corey (even at $3M though given his poor start it does look like a decision that wont work out). Pecota projected him to do this: 271/.313/.424 which would have made him exactly an average NL CFer offensively this season (though other systems were less enthusiastic suggesting an OPS from .700 to 740 but these were all assuming he'd play in the AL). I have no idea what the scouts had to say about him so I can't figure that in to the equation. He is a true plus defender, probably on the order of +5 to +10 over the course of a full season. So there was a realistic expectation that he would be at least something equivalent to a league average CFer. At $3M, that's a pretty good value (though I guess it could be argued that his contract was an overpay because the Reds could've probably signed him for less).

I think the initial plan was also to platoon him which obviously might be expected to increase the odds he'd hit the Pecota projection.

Basically Patterson, when his skill set is leveraged properly, could be a useful player even though he'll never hit the ceiling he was once thought to have.

Then Dusty got hold of him. Then Corey started off poorly at the plate. Dusty's inappropriate use of Corey coupled with his poor start really is a perfect storm of suppression on the Reds run differential.

Neither really should count as knocks against Krivsky though IMHO.

Falls City Beer
06-18-2008, 11:40 AM
As a signing, it wasn't a bad decision to sign Corey (even at $3M though given his poor start it does look like a decision that wont work out). Pecota projected him to do this: 271/.313/.424 which would have made him exactly an average NL CFer offensively this season (though other systems were less enthusiastic suggesting an OPS from .700 to 740 but these were all assuming he'd play in the AL). I have no idea what the scouts had to say about him so I can't figure that in to the equation. He is a true plus defender, probably on the order of +5 to +10 over the course of a full season. So there was a realistic expectation that he would be at least something equivalent to a league average CFer. At $3M, that's a pretty good value (though I guess it could be argued that his contract was an overpay because the Reds could've probably signed him for less).

I think the initial plan was also to platoon him which obviously might be expected to increase the odds he'd hit the Pecota projection.

Basically Patterson, when his skill set is leveraged properly, could be a useful player even though he'll never hit the ceiling he was once thought to have.

Then Dusty got hold of him. Then Corey started off poorly at the plate. Dusty's inappropriate use of Corey coupled with his poor start really is a perfect storm of suppression on the Reds run differential.

Neither really should count as knocks against Krivsky though IMHO.

This I agree with. Using Patterson as a scapegoat for the Reds' woes this season, however, is no longer humorous. We get it. Patterson sucks. But in the list of problems with this team, Patterson is way, way down in terms of true impact.

RedsManRick
06-18-2008, 11:49 AM
After a few months, Dusty is almost exactly who I expected him to be. What's unfortunate is that I cannot think of a single positive thing he does that I would not expect to see of any manager. Maybe I'm blinded by bias, but I just cannot see the positive impact -- the things he supposedly brings to the table that offset his obvious strategic and tactical weakness.

As for Patterson, I agree with Jojo's basic analysis. That said, while a knife can be a very useful tool, I wouldn't give one to a three year old. If you're going to ask your kid to cook, maybe you should stick with Mac and Cheese.

bucksfan2
06-18-2008, 11:49 AM
This I agree with. Using Patterson as a scapegoat for the Reds' woes this season, however, is no longer humorous. We get it. Patterson sucks. But in the list of problems with this team, Patterson is way, way down in terms of true impact.

I agree to an extent. Patterson isn't the reason this team is awful. Even if Patterson doesn't play an inning and someone else leads off this team may have 2-3 more wins? My problem with Patterson and Dusty is that there is no way a manager would put a team on the field when he feels that players on the bench give him a better chance of winning. For some reason Dusty continues to insert Patterson in a role he can't play.

IMO its absolute stupidity on Dusty's part to insert one of the worst hitters in the game leadoff yet keep your best hitter burried in the 7 slot.

hebroncougar
06-18-2008, 11:56 AM
That's a .541 winning percentage over 159 games, or an average of 87.6 wins in a full season.

Since 1993 in games against non-Dusty managed teams, the Reds only have a .483 winning percentage.

That would have been my next point. We are talking some poor overall seasons in the time frame we are talking. So that's our record against him with the likes of Narron, Miley, and Boone at the helm?

flyer85
06-18-2008, 11:57 AM
its absolute stupidity on Dusty's part ... and it isn't going to change anytime soon.

MartyFan
06-18-2008, 12:00 PM
I was in the wait and see camp when he was hired...

I waited
I saw
He needs to go

bucksfan2
06-18-2008, 12:00 PM
... and it isn't going to change anytime soon.

Thats where his boss, Jocketty, needs to step in and say something.

flyer85
06-18-2008, 12:01 PM
Thats where his boss, Jocketty, needs to step in and say something.Dusty is an ol' dog

edabbs44
06-18-2008, 12:16 PM
I don't think that there is any shot of him getting canned this year.

I say next June is the earliest we see him going.

redsmetz
06-18-2008, 12:18 PM
That's a .541 winning percentage over 159 games, or an average of 87.6 wins in a full season.

Since 1993 in games against non-Dusty managed teams, the Reds only have a .483 winning percentage.

I should have worded my statement better. We had a losing record of 73-86 (I said we had a record of 86-73 against Dusty). Of course, that's a .459 record. It worse than our record against everyone else. Sorry for flipping that around. My point was, we haven't had much success against Dusty's previous clubs thus far in response to the poster who suggested we were regularly chomping at the bit to play against the Giants or the Cubs. Out of 14 seasons, we only had four with a winning record.

flyer85
06-18-2008, 12:20 PM
I don't think that there is any shot of him getting canned this year.

I say next June is the earliest we see him going.I'd say more like next October. I don't see a mid-season canning of Dusty the Ole Dog.

Cyclone792
06-18-2008, 12:25 PM
I should have worded my statement better. We had a losing record of 73-86 (I said we had a record of 86-73 against Dusty). Of course, that's a .459 record. It worse than our record against everyone else. Sorry for flipping that around. My point was, we haven't had much success against Dusty's previous clubs thus far in response to the poster who suggested we were regularly chomping at the bit to play against the Giants or the Cubs. Out of 14 seasons, we only had four with a winning record.

That makes more sense considering Dusty's previously managed teams had more talent than the Reds during most seasons, thanks in part to Barry Bonds.

Spring~Fields
06-18-2008, 12:42 PM
It is Jocketty's job to step in and talk to Dusty about Corey. If Dusty doesn't listen Jocketty needs to cut Patterson. There is absolutly no way Patterson should be taking up a major league roster spot when his hitting is just so awful. Castellini also needs to learn that the GM is there to oversee personal additions. What the manager wants isn't always the best for the team. Krivsky is probably sitting back and laughing at the way Patterson is playing.

Corey Patterson is not the problem, Corey Patterson is a symbol of the core problem. Our focus should not be on Corey Patterson alone but to question the thinking of one that is very serious, and has shown it over and over again, serious about batting unqualified, underachieving and under skilled players, batting them one and two in two of the primary offensive positions in the lineup. Just because they are playing centerfield or shortstop. This manager is serious about that. It doesn’t matter whether they can hit or not, whether they have a good skill set or not to bat leadoff and to hit second, it only matters that they play the positions of center and short, is the madness behind the ludicrous logic.

Their names are not Patterson, Hairston, Freel, Hopper, Bruce, Keppinger, Janish, Cabrera, no, now leading off for the Cincinnati Reds is Centerfielder, and batting second is Shortstop!

Forget the players names or abilities, centerfield is leading off, and shortstop is batting second. It has the reasoning and the logic of one paranoid by a superstition.

It doesn’t matter to his thinking if it fails over and over again, he has and is going to continue with that superstition like logic, while all along he scratches his head wondering why his team isn’t scoring enough runs, why they just can’t get that one big hit, why pitcher x or y just doesn’t get the run support, he starts each game off with an inferior and failed strategy and as the lineup turns over he often ends up with four inferior batters, the catcher, the pitcher, the centerfielder and shortstop following one another.

We need the stats people to tell us once again the importance of the number one and two positions in the lineup and why RBI is a dependent stat etc. and how some of this goes into RS and RA differentials.

If Castro was still with the Reds he would have been hitting second, if Reggie Taylor was still with the Reds he would be leading off, the manager is serious about those two fielding positions batting one, two in the batting order regardless of their skill or production levels. Just as serious as he is about Griffey batting third and a Phillips batting fourth with a Dunn and Votto batting down in the order.

Don’t focus on Patterson, focus on every game where center and short are in the key hitting positions that set up situations for the batters behind them to drive them in to score runs, and the reduced or lost opportunity that comes from giving the most at bats to the skill challenged players over players that can produce.

Center bats first, short bats second, not because of Patterson, but because of a man that calls himself a manager, the man is serious, he has done that since the season began, and that is his only logic, the rest of his remarks are BS, he is going to bat center first and short second, even if they are the poorest hitters on the team, think about it.

We haven't even scratched the surface of why respect bats third, and free swinger who struggles against right handed pitching bats fourth. How much of the superstitious logic that seems to fuel the strategies goes into behind the scenes batting tips and instructions or tweaking the pitchers that you will never know about?

RedsManRick
06-18-2008, 12:46 PM
I really don't understand the record comparison for Dusty. It's like pinning the ups and down of the US economy on a president. Sure, he influences it, but it's nearly impossible to isolate his influence.

The macro approach just doesn't make sense. Either it reaffirms the opinion we've formed based on all of the stuff we see every day, or it flies in the face of it, leaving us confused with no idea how to move forward and make sense of it.

Dusty Baker is a poor manager because he makes decisions that harm his team's chances to win on a regular basis, when better decisions are obvious to everyone from the player-turned-announcer, to the casual fan, to the stat guru analyst. For once, it doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

KronoRed
06-18-2008, 02:18 PM
I'd say more like next October. I don't see a mid-season canning of Dusty the Ole Dog.

I don't see him going anywhere till his deal is up, inevitably he'll put some wins together and get an extension.

go ReDZ

jojo
06-18-2008, 02:20 PM
If Jocketty does his job, Dusty will be the toast of the town.

Spring~Fields
06-18-2008, 02:29 PM
That makes more sense considering Dusty's previously managed teams had more talent than the Reds during most seasons, thanks in part to Barry Bonds.

I had to reread your points from little while back.


http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68007

VR
06-18-2008, 03:03 PM
How did the local media respond to the game/ Corey situations?

bucksfan2
06-18-2008, 04:31 PM
I really don't understand the record comparison for Dusty. It's like pinning the ups and down of the US economy on a president. Sure, he influences it, but it's nearly impossible to isolate his influence.

The macro approach just doesn't make sense. Either it reaffirms the opinion we've formed based on all of the stuff we see every day, or it flies in the face of it, leaving us confused with no idea how to move forward and make sense of it.

Dusty Baker is a poor manager because he makes decisions that harm his team's chances to win on a regular basis, when better decisions are obvious to everyone from the player-turned-announcer, to the casual fan, to the stat guru analyst. For once, it doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

IMO that we often have a difficult time measuring the effectiveness or lack there of of a manager. I do think that your "great" managers are great because of the situation they are put into. I think if you compare Jack Mckeon, Jim Lelyand, Joe Torre, and Bobby Cox, all managers whom I have a great deal of respect for, you will see that one is better in a given situation than the other. But how do you measure who is a better manager. Is it Jack because he won the WS with a young team, is it Torre who has won the most WS but has had the most talent. Is it Cox who has been the most consistant of the group. You can make comparisons and debates for hours about who is a better manager.

Back to Dusty. I agree with you that he doesn't put his team in the best position to win when he inserts Patterson at the top of the lineup. But you have to wonder how many games Patterson at the top of the order cost the Reds. I think in reality that number would be too difficult to determine. You could come up with a guess but then again you set a lineup at the beginning of the day but you don't know who will come up to bat in the most pressure situations. IMO Dusty is a better manager when his hands are tied. With the exception of Patterson I think Dusty has stopped tinkering so much with double switches and taking Dunn out of the game early for a defensive replacement. In all reality you could create a lineup, I could create a lineup, and we couldn't determine if ours would have won more games this season or not.

RedsManRick
06-18-2008, 05:09 PM
That's really my point bucksfan2. We can't get any reliable sense of managerial effect by looking at added wins or losses. There's just way too much else going on. What we can do is put together a growing list of smart/stupid things they do, decisions that worked out and ones that filed, missed opportunities, etc.

While I can't tell you that Dusty has cost us 1 game or 5, I can tell you that I cannot imagine a manager doing any less with this crew than Dusty has done, particularly on the offensive side.

To an extent, I think managers are a bit like umpires. If they do their jobs well, they sort of blend in to the woodwork, letting the players decide the game on the field. By and large, if you're talking about the manager at all, it's because he's done something obviously stupid. With Dusty, it's like the Reds start a run and the players have to make up for him. That's admittedly a VERY subjective measure, but it works for me.

Cyclone792
06-18-2008, 06:10 PM
This is just beautiful. Absolutely classic Dusty Baker here.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/o/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/


Before he asked by the media after Tuesday’s game, Cincinnati Reds manager Dusty Baker brought it up himself, saying he knew people wandered why.

Oh, yeah?

So why did Baker permit Corey Patterson, a lefthander hitting .193, bat against Dodger lefthander Joe Beimel, a pitcher against whom Patterson was 1 for 13 with six strikeouts.

At theime, there were runners on second and third with two outs and the Reds trailed, 2-1. Patterson bounced meekly to second base.

Baker said his reason was two-fold:

ONE - He said at the time he didn’t believe Ken Griffey Jr. was availalbe (out of the lineup with a virus), although Griffey pinch-hit in the ninth - and struck out.

And he said Patterson hits leftanders better than righthanders. Untrue. Patterson is hitting .167 against lefthanders and .199 against righthanders. Clearly, he hits neither.

TWO - Baker said he had no outfielders. Andy Phillips played outfield in spring training, but not since, and Baker said it would be unfair to him. Still, he could have played right field for a couple of innings, with Jay Bruce moving from right to center.

And shortstop Jolbert Cabrera played 16 games in the outfield for Louisville. He could have moved from shortstop to right and Paul Janish inserted a shortstop.

To me, those are feeble reasons, Illogical reasons.

Anyway, that’s Baker’s story and he is sticking to it as we sit in the press box at Great American Ball Park awaiting the second game of the Dodgers series.

The thing is - nobody is hitting. The Reds are hitting .178 on this 2-5 homestand. They’ve scored 2.3 runs a game. They are hitting .075 with runners in scoring position and are 0 for their last 11.

My Aunt Opal could hit better than that with her ironing board - and she is in a wheel chair.

The lineup hasn’t been posted yet, but if Patterson is in there I won’t be able to write tonight because there will be a mess on my laptop.

Let's take a look at both of these, especially the second reason ...

#1) Patterson hits lefties better than righties: Patterson's lifetime OPS against righties is .725 whereas it's only .647 against lefties. That's a 78 point difference for his career. Sure, it's true that Patterson has had individual seasons where the swing favored lefties, and we all know that's what Dusty will see when trying to dustify his choice of using Patterson. If Dusty has to manipulate facts to get his way, then that's exactly what he'll do.

Now #2) He only has four outfielders. This is the biggest load of BS I've ever seen. Not only has Jolbert Cabrera played 18 games in the outfield (16 in RF and 2 in LF), but he has more outfield in his major league career (297 games) than any other position. Between Cabrera's big league career and minor league career combined, he's played 445 games in the outfield.

So we've got one of two things happening. Either Dusty Baker is so misinformed about his roster that he doesn't even know what positions his players are capable of playing, or he's just a flat out liar. Take your pick, but whatever it is ... it isn't good.

Raisor
06-18-2008, 06:22 PM
So we've got one of two things happening. Either Dusty Baker is so misinformed about his roster that he doesn't even know what positions his players are capable of playing, or he's just a flat out liar. Take your pick, but whatever it is ... it isn't good.

Those are the only two choices I see, and you are right, neither is good.

vaticanplum
06-18-2008, 06:25 PM
Ok, so after reading that gem, I reiterate, I was wrong about Corey patterson, but I was so very right about Dusty Baker.

RedsManRick
06-18-2008, 06:26 PM
So we've got one of two things happening. Either Dusty Baker is so misinformed about his roster that he doesn't even know what positions his players are capable of playing, or he's just a flat out liar. Take your pick, but whatever it is ... it isn't good.

Or?

RichRed
06-18-2008, 06:27 PM
Ok, so after reading that gem, I reiterate, I was wrong about Corey patterson, but I was so very right about Dusty Baker.

The two of them are essentially stealing $6 million combined this year. Ugh.

Spring~Fields
06-18-2008, 06:28 PM
Either Dusty Baker is so misinformed about his roster that he doesn't even know what positions his players are capable of playing, or he's just a flat out liar. Take your pick, but whatever it is ... it isn't good.


In either case I doubt that Baker is very concerned about credibleness or credibility, then again maybe he thinks the media and fans are credulous.

marcshoe
06-18-2008, 06:32 PM
Sorry, I can't help this.....

When I looked at the board and saw "Dusty" in the thread title and the last post by "Spring Fields" the first thing that popped into my head was "what have I done to deserve this."

Again, sorry. Back to the thread.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-18-2008, 07:40 PM
In either case I doubt that Baker is very concerned about credibleness or credibility, then again maybe he thinks the media and fans are credulous.

Exactly. I don't think he's stupid either. He's just stubborn and he doesn't care what anyone thinks.

He's a millionaire times ten thanks to Reds ownership and he'll be still be a millionaire times ten no matter what Reds ownership decides this year, the next, or the year after that.

GAC
06-18-2008, 09:38 PM
If there is such a thing as a bizzaro Superman, then Dusty is a bizzaro ML manager.

Rojo
06-18-2008, 09:42 PM
My opinion has changed from bad to worse. I've seen plenty of Dusty in SF and thought him to be an ok care-taker. But, now I realize that some decent Giants teams masked a truly crummy manager. Weak. Dump. Now.

Ltlabner
06-18-2008, 10:41 PM
I didn't like the pick to begin with.

But then moderated a bit when I was assured that all the rumors of goofy roster management and abusing the arms in his steed were all grosly overstated.

But then the season started and we were treated to how many lead off at bats given away to Corey Patterson (while EE and Votto were going nuts in the 6 and 7 holes.)?

His management of pitching arms has been mostly decent with some weird moments.

His biggest crime, IMO, has been preaching "be agressive at the plate" to delicate ears such as Votto, Bruce and EE while posing BPhil as a power hitter.

Yea, I was right. I don't like him.

Spring~Fields
06-19-2008, 03:27 AM
While I can't tell you that Dusty has cost us 1 game or 5, I can tell you that I cannot imagine a manager doing any less with this crew than Dusty has done, particularly on the offensive side.



From John Fay

http://beta.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=blog07&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ae57bcc87-152a-4f72-96fb-cc08b1f396efPost%3a73361209-5dea-450f-869f-5878380c8bcc&sid=sitelife.cincinnati.com

How bad are the Reds going offensively? This bad:
--The Reds are hitting .179 on the homestand and have scored a total of 17 runs in the eight games.
--Paul Bako, Adam Dunn, Edwin Encarnacion, Brandon Phillips and Joey Votto are all on pace to strikeout 108 times or more. “No. 1, we’ve got to have better pitch selection,” Dusty Baker said. “No. 2, we’re striking out too much. When you don’t put the ball in play, you’ve got no chance to get a hit. We’ve got quite a few guys to strike out 100 times. . . You’ve got to put the ball in play.”
--The Reds have scored two runs in the last three games. “It’s disheartening to score one run,” Baker said. “It’s hard to win with one, unless you get a shutout.”
-Derek Lowe, pitching on short rest and with one day notice, looked great. He allowed one run on three hits in 5 1/3 innings. “We’re making everyone look like Cy Young,” Baker said. “Everybody’s not.”
--The Reds had only one fewer hits than the Dodgers. But the Reds were 0-for-6 with runners in scoring position. The Dodgers were 3-for-8. The Reds are 3-for-46 (.065) with RISP on the homestand. “We got plenty of hits,” Baker said. “This last week we haven’t been hitting with runners in scoring position and runners on base. That’s the name of the game.”



June to date
Total RS 60 RA 83 Dif - 23
6 - Wins 11 - Losses
RS 37 / 6 games 6.17 RPG RA 71 /11 games 6.45 RPG
RA 12 / 6 games 2.00 RPG RS 23 /11 games 2.09 RPG

RS 60 /17 games 3.53 RPG
RA 83 /17 games 4.88 RPG

May to date
Total RS 132 RA 139 Dif - 7
15 - Wins 12 - Losses
RS 94 / 15 games RPG 6.27 RA 90 / 12 games RPG 7.50
RA 49 / 15 games RPG 3.27 RS 38 / 12 games RPG 3.17

RS 132 / 27 games RPG 4.89
RA 139 / 27 games RPG 5.15

April to date
Total RS 122 RA 135 Dif - 13
12 - Wins 16 - Losses
RS 82 / 12 games RPG 6.83 RA 99 / 16 games RPG 6.19
RA 36 / 12 games RPG 3.00 RS 40 / 16 games RPG 2.50

RS 122 / 28 games RPG 4.36
RA 135 / 28 games RPG 4.82


39 losses RS 101 / 39 games 2.59 runs per game

39 losses RA 260 / 39 games 6.67 runs per game

33 wins RS 213 / 33 games 6.45 runs per game

33 wins RA 97 / 33 games 2.94 runs per game

Ron Madden
06-19-2008, 03:28 AM
In my opinion Dusty is an Idiot.

Ron Madden
06-19-2008, 03:33 AM
The really sad thing is, the only guys ever hired to Manage ML Baseball teams are pretty much the same as Dusty Baker. Give or take a brain cell or two.

OldXOhio
06-19-2008, 09:29 AM
“It’s disheartening to score one run,” Baker said. “It’s hard to win with one, unless you get a shutout.”


This is what Bob C. is getting for his $$. A lousy game manager but one helluva thinker.

Chip R
06-19-2008, 02:47 PM
I know that if this team was in the thick of the division race, Dusty would be receiving the lion's share of the credit.

Matt700wlw
06-19-2008, 02:49 PM
“It’s disheartening to score one run,” Baker said. “It’s hard to win with one, unless you get a shutout.”

Hank Aaron told him that

edabbs44
06-19-2008, 10:55 PM
I would complain about Dusty, but the team is so bad that there are more important things to complain about when it comes to the Reds.

Tony Cloninger
06-20-2008, 12:18 AM
I don't think people will listen or care....the CP fiasco is something that has been latched too as evidence that baker stinks no matter what the other garbage looks like.

HokieRed
06-20-2008, 12:22 AM
I'm not a big fan of Dusty's but he's not what's wrong with the ballclub. If you're looking for one guy to lay that at the feet of, it has to be Wayne Krivsky. This team is primarily his construction, creation, whatever you want to call it, and it's a terrible team, one I think has a real chance of losing 100 games. Walt's really the only hope we have right now as what is needed is a completely objective evaluation of a lot of talent that has been ridiculously overvalued.

WVRedsFan
06-20-2008, 12:25 AM
I know that if this team was in the thick of the division race, Dusty would be receiving the lion's share of the credit.

That's very true. I do know that I stand by the statement I made a week or so ago. No one, and I mean no manager could message this team into a winner. No way. That doesn't excuse the brain farts of our present manager, but if your team is not hitting (see Griffey, Dunn, Ecarnacion, catcher (whoever it is) and whoever else isn't hitting and your best pitchers aren't pitching well (see Arroyo, Harang, and whoever the 5th starter is this week), you're going to go below .500 and stay there.

If we fix the team and we still lose, off with Dusty's head, but for now, he gets a reprieve.

Spring~Fields
06-20-2008, 12:32 AM
I would complain about Dusty, but the team is so bad that there are more important things to complain about when it comes to the Reds.

The team has been so bad for so many years now, even 1999 was a fluke, I think that the hope was that Dusty being a winning manager with a history of past success, that he could do something between him and his coaches to get a little better out of these players and the additions to the team this year. I guess that Dusty is just like all the other figure head managers and coaches in major league baseball, they all have to have a fine team to begin with before they can look like a good manager.

Cincinnati has cried small market and spent like it compared to the larger competitors in the larger population centers, I really wonder if they or a team like Pittsburgh even have the revenues to compete, and I am starting to believe that is why these teams bring in the past and cheap to fill the rosters with a name or two to keep the revenues flowing.

Yet they seem to blow millions trying to go cheap and fail either way. They are businessmen investing for a return on investments and tax shelters while managing their financial portfolios, so who knows.

RedlegJake
06-20-2008, 12:34 AM
Someone said in the GT tonight they'd seen the same bad fundamentals with Boone, and Miley, and Narron and now Baker. Hmmmm. Maybe it isn't the managers. Maybe after that many managers with the same results, it's the guys doing the playing. Not defending Baker here. I'd love to see him gone, but it's obvious to me most of the problem is the players not executing regardless of how the lineups constructed.

GAC
06-20-2008, 12:41 AM
Managers are like Presidents..... they get the blame when, at times, they shouldn't and aren't in control of certain situations... and they take (get) the credit when it's going good.

And then there's Dusty, who has thrown a wrench in the whole space/time continuum thingy. ;)

Reds1
06-20-2008, 12:43 AM
I'm disappointed. I think he makes mistakes many nights!

Spring~Fields
06-20-2008, 12:50 AM
Someone said in the GT tonight they'd seen the same bad fundamentals with Boone, and Miley, and Narron and now Baker. Hmmmm. Maybe it isn't the managers. Maybe after that many managers with the same results, it's the guys doing the playing. Not defending Baker here. I'd love to see him gone, but it's obvious to me most of the problem is the players not executing regardless of how the lineups constructed.

I will choke saying this, but I really think that Baker is better than Boone, Miley or Narron, those guys looked like someone living vicariously through their players and making moves all the time because the game had passed them by to me, and by being so involved with moves etc, it gave them a chance to play live fantasy team with a real major league team. Boone and Narron had losing history's before they came, and Miley, of a bad copy of them.

The organinzation under the previous ownerships and Jim five tool Bowden along with their failed plans and management. It takes years to clean up the neglect from them. I don't think that they really have the money or the players now to get into the game with the big boys anyway. Baseball is a large city game now. Unless they are very wise like that guy out in Oakland, but he is a rare one.

vaticanplum
06-20-2008, 01:10 AM
I'm not a big fan of Dusty's but he's not what's wrong with the ballclub. If you're looking for one guy to lay that at the feet of, it has to be Wayne Krivsky. This team is primarily his construction, creation, whatever you want to call it, and it's a terrible team, one I think has a real chance of losing 100 games.

I don't know about that. I think this team is better than it's playing. I don't think it's an inherently a playoff-caliber team, and that is not Dusty's fault. But I think it could fairly easily have a record better than it does, and that is Dusty's fault. Not sure which is worse; it's kind of like choosing between pepper and pimento ice cream.

Kc61
06-20-2008, 01:22 AM
I don't know about that. I think this team is better than it's playing. I don't think it's an inherently a playoff-caliber team, and that is not Dusty's fault. But I think it could fairly easily have a record better than it does, and that is Dusty's fault. Not sure which is worse; it's kind of like choosing between pepper and pimento ice cream.

You may be overvaluing the players. Right now, among non-injured players with 100 at bats, the highest starting BA is Joey Votto at .278. There's one pitcher below 4.00 in the rotation, two are over 5.00 and the fifth starter doesn't exist. The team is second in the league in errors. These are damning statistics.

Dusty isn't the best strategist but under other managers the bullpen has been wiped out by now, and Dusty has avoided that. He has a 22-year old starter learning on the job, no fifth starter, and his two aces are having subpar seasons.

His bullpen is better than last year but Weathers and Affeldt have been disappointing and Lincoln hasn't handled the multi-inning role. Majewski is a mop up guy.

The team has no starting catcher. Griffey's numbers speak for themselves in RF. His rookies at the corner infield spots have been inconsistent on defense and just ok offensively.

Dusty has lost three shortstops to injury and two of them, Kepp and Hairston, were among the team's best hitters.

Due to injury the bench now has Patterson, A. Phillips, Janish, Cabrera, all of whom probably are AAA guys at this point.

The team has very little right handed hitting and, again, with Kepp, Freel and Hairston out that situation is even worse.

Everyone picks on Dusty's batting orders, but when the hitters are clicking they have rattled off some streaks. But once all the tablesetters went down with injury, the offense tanked.

And on top of all this, I think the Reds have had a murderous schedule this year. Now they go to the Bronx to face a red-hot Yankee team.

I happen to like Dusty a lot, which puts me in the minority around here. But whatever anyone thinks of him generally, he's not the main problem right now.

Spring~Fields
06-20-2008, 01:37 AM
I happen to like Dusty a lot, which puts me in the minority around here. But whatever anyone thinks of him generally, he's not the main problem right now.

I wish I would have known this before and that if yourself and other’s really like him on the board, I would have out of consideration for you and the other’s, I would have lightened up on Baker. I don’t want to be stepping on board members thoughts and feelings over some player or manager, it is, I just don’t know when another really appreciates and respects one such as Mr. Baker. The board members and the board are more important than dragging someone through the thistle beds in my view.

Kc61
06-20-2008, 01:45 AM
I wish I would have known this before and that if yourself and other’s really like him on the board, I would have out of consideration for you and the other’s, I would have lightened up on Baker. I don’t want to be stepping on board members thoughts and feelings over some player or manager, it is, I just don’t know when another really appreciates and respects one such as Mr. Baker. The board members and the board are more important than dragging someone through the thistle beds in my view.

All fair opinions are welcome. I have great respect for Baker despite a somewhat old fashioned approach. I think he's handled the young players very, very well. Guys like EE, Cueto, Volquez, Votto have been handled great this year. And he handles the pen very well.

He should focus more on OBP at the top of the lineup, I agree, he seems very concerned with spreading the lefties and righties around the lineup. But with all the injuries,the best leadoff and second spot guys have been unavailable anyway. As for Corey P, well Dusty and Walt did send him down -- they didn't just accept his batting problems. Injuries caused his return.

Mostly, I just think Dusty is a very solid individual, a good (if not perfect) manager, and a great spokesman for the team. If he loses for three years I won't want him back -- I want the Reds to win -- but right now the roster isn't a winning one.

Spring~Fields
06-20-2008, 01:57 AM
All fair opinions are welcome. I have great respect for Baker despite a somewhat old fashioned approach. I think he's handled the young players very, very well. Guys like EE, Cueto, Volquez, Votto have been handled great this year. And he handles the pen very well.

He should focus more on OBP at the top of the lineup, I agree, he seems very concerned with spreading the lefties and righties around the lineup. But with all the injuries,the best leadoff and second spot guys have been unavailable anyway. As for Corey P, well Dusty and Walt did send him down -- they didn't just accept his batting problems. Injuries caused his return.

Mostly, I just think Dusty is a very solid individual, a good (if not perfect) manager, and a great spokesman for the team. If he loses for three years I won't want him back -- I want the Reds to win -- but right now the roster isn't a winning one.

I can see that you are genuine in your assertions regarding Dusty Baker.

I feel that with this board that the members and yourself have a right to peaceful enjoyment in their reading and exchange of thoughts and ideas without one such as myself or other’s hurrying around the Internet to find every less than perfect remark by Baker or another on Baker to rush here to post it, when there are members who do respect and appreciate his management style. I am glad that you spoke your position on Dusty Baker, and many of your points are accurate if one is being honest.

WVRedsFan
06-20-2008, 02:20 AM
All fair opinions are welcome. I have great respect for Baker despite a somewhat old fashioned approach. I think he's handled the young players very, very well. Guys like EE, Cueto, Volquez, Votto have been handled great this year. And he handles the pen very well.

He should focus more on OBP at the top of the lineup, I agree, he seems very concerned with spreading the lefties and righties around the lineup. But with all the injuries,the best leadoff and second spot guys have been unavailable anyway. As for Corey P, well Dusty and Walt did send him down -- they didn't just accept his batting problems. Injuries caused his return.

Mostly, I just think Dusty is a very solid individual, a good (if not perfect) manager, and a great spokesman for the team. If he loses for three years I won't want him back -- I want the Reds to win -- but right now the roster isn't a winning one.

You make some good points. WE don't see the constant "punishing" of players like EdE by sending them down to the minors on a vendetta. We see a fresh bullpen every night (even if he does make some questionable decisions on who to pitch). But we see the constant infatuation with Patterson (of course that's not unusual since most of out other managers have played favorites that perplexed the masses) and poor lineup constructin (which is almost a signature trait of the Reds).

I want to like Dusty. I really want him to do well because he is the Reds manager. I just have to know what he would do if he had a real center fielder. What he would do if he had 4 solid starters. What he would do if he had a bench without three catchers, none of which can hit or field. Until I get that answer, and more than 2 months have gone by, he gets to stay in my mind. When the answer comes, if it does, and it's negative (which I suspect it will be), then off he goes.

Ron Madden
06-20-2008, 04:21 AM
It may be true that a Manager is only as good as his Players.

It may also be true that a Players success depends greatly on the Managers ability to place him in a position to succeed.

Believe it or not, Dusty does have input into the players that make up the 25 man roster.

I've heard all that a Manager can do is play the cards he's dealt. I'll go with the odds here and bet that Dusty plays his cards wrong.

GAC
06-20-2008, 08:31 AM
You may be overvaluing the players. Right now, among non-injured players with 100 at bats, the highest starting BA is Joey Votto at .278. There's one pitcher below 4.00 in the rotation, two are over 5.00 and the fifth starter doesn't exist. The team is second in the league in errors. These are damning statistics.

Dusty isn't the best strategist but under other managers the bullpen has been wiped out by now, and Dusty has avoided that. He has a 22-year old starter learning on the job, no fifth starter, and his two aces are having subpar seasons.

His bullpen is better than last year but Weathers and Affeldt have been disappointing and Lincoln hasn't handled the multi-inning role. Majewski is a mop up guy.

The team has no starting catcher. Griffey's numbers speak for themselves in RF. His rookies at the corner infield spots have been inconsistent on defense and just ok offensively.

Dusty has lost three shortstops to injury and two of them, Kepp and Hairston, were among the team's best hitters.

Due to injury the bench now has Patterson, A. Phillips, Janish, Cabrera, all of whom probably are AAA guys at this point.

The team has very little right handed hitting and, again, with Kepp, Freel and Hairston out that situation is even worse.

Everyone picks on Dusty's batting orders, but when the hitters are clicking they have rattled off some streaks. But once all the tablesetters went down with injury, the offense tanked.

And on top of all this, I think the Reds have had a murderous schedule this year. Now they go to the Bronx to face a red-hot Yankee team.

I happen to like Dusty a lot, which puts me in the minority around here. But whatever anyone thinks of him generally, he's not the main problem right now.

All of what you state above is true.

And I don't think anyone, including myself who hates this guy, have stated he is the main problem, or tried to place all the team's woes solely on him.

I just think the guy is hugely over-rated as far as a manager goes and his philosophy (approach) to the game, as well as his game time strategy/management, validates that IMHO.

Even when some of those "table setters" weren't hurt, how did he utilize them? And yes, I do believe that lineup construction, and how a manager utilizes a player within that structure is important.

And I'm sorry; but when I listen to this guy's rationale in some of those post-game interviews where his game time decisions are questioned, the guy either shows ignorance of his own player's stats and performance in various scenarios, or the guy is just making stuff up and downright lying.

And I don't think Dusty is a liar, so I'll go with the former. ;)

Rojo
06-20-2008, 02:13 PM
I don't know about that. I think this team is better than it's playing. I don't think it's an inherently a playoff-caliber team, and that is not Dusty's fault. But I think it could fairly easily have a record better than it does, and that is Dusty's fault. Not sure which is worse; it's kind of like choosing between pepper and pimento ice cream.

Bingo.

puca
06-20-2008, 02:37 PM
I don't know about that. I think this team is better than it's playing. I don't think it's an inherently a playoff-caliber team, and that is not Dusty's fault. But I think it could fairly easily have a record better than it does, and that is Dusty's fault. Not sure which is worse; it's kind of like choosing between pepper and pimento ice cream.

I used to think that way. I'm not sure I do anymore.

They have individual pieces, but honestly this team as a whole is below average in every category I can think of:

Power,
OBP,
Average,
Speed,
Defense,
Starting pitching,
Relief pitching,
Bench,
Intelligence

Chip R
06-20-2008, 03:38 PM
I don't know about that. I think this team is better than it's playing. I don't think it's an inherently a playoff-caliber team, and that is not Dusty's fault. But I think it could fairly easily have a record better than it does, and that is Dusty's fault. Not sure which is worse; it's kind of like choosing between pepper and pimento ice cream.


I agree and that goes to the point I made earlier. If this team was doing well, Dusty would get the credit. Since the team is not doing well, he should receive a lot of the blame.

RedsManRick
06-20-2008, 03:40 PM
I agree and that goes to the point I made earlier. If this team was doing well, Dusty would get the credit. Since the team is not doing well, he should receive a lot of the blame.

I would argue that if this team were doing well, Dusty would probably deserve the credit -- because he would be managing differently than he's managed so far.

Chip R
06-20-2008, 03:58 PM
I would argue that if this team were doing well, Dusty would probably deserve the credit -- because he would be managing differently than he's managed so far.


I don't agree with that. He's managed the same here as he did in SF and CHI and he had success with them. People thought that he would magically make this team a contender because it played in a weak division and he had a track record of success. That hasn't happened and while this team doesn't necessarily have the talent to be a contender, they shouldn't be languishing in the cellar of arguably the worst division in baseball.

RedsManRick
06-20-2008, 04:06 PM
I don't agree with that. He's managed the same here as he did in SF and CHI and he had success with them. People thought that he would magically make this team a contender because it played in a weak division and he had a track record of success. That hasn't happened and while this team doesn't necessarily have the talent to be a contender, they shouldn't be languishing in the cellar of arguably the worst division in baseball.

I guess that's sort of my point. I didn't articulate it well. The reality is that if the Reds record were flipped, they wouldn't be the same team. Within a handful of wins in either direction, it's pretty hard to argue that the manager is the cause. I think Dusty has managed a more-or-less .500 team to a sub .500 record, but it's not entirely his fault that the Reds aren't winning.

The entire premise that "if this team was doing well" sort of obscures that reality. "If this team was doing well" imagines a world where Ken Griffey Jr. has fresh legs, Corey Patterson OPSes .775, Brandon Phillips hits righties, and Josh Fogg really is a 4.00 ERA pitcher. If this team were doing well, it wouldn't really be this team. I would argue that outside of an ability to have Bruce up from Day 1 over Patterson, no manager could manage the roster Dusty's been given to "doing well". That doesn't excuse Dusty, however.

Dusty did well in San Fransisco not because he was an especially good manager, but because he was given a talented roster and his skills fit the needs of the team. I think the latter point is often under appreciated. San Fransisco was a situation which required an astute politician more than an accomplished tactician. In Chicago, Dusty won with a very talented roster and lost as the quality declined, eventually losing control of the clubhouse. When the job required a greater degree of picking the right players to play, he suddenly became a worse manager. Judging managers based on an absolute scale of winning percentage is ridiculously silly. Comparing them against the baseline of the talent on their roster and the particular requirements of the team is appropriate - and Dusty does not score especially well in this regard when the needs shift away from the political and more towards the strategic and tactical.

westofyou
06-20-2008, 04:29 PM
San Fransisco was a situation which required an astute politician more than an accomplished tactician For over ten years?

I guess the same could be said of Sparky, or Bobby Cox.

I just wouldn't say it myself.

Chip R
06-20-2008, 05:09 PM
I guess that's sort of my point. I didn't articulate it well. The reality is that if the Reds record were flipped, they wouldn't be the same team. Within a handful of wins in either direction, it's pretty hard to argue that the manager is the cause. I think Dusty has managed a more-or-less .500 team to a sub .500 record, but it's not entirely his fault that the Reds aren't winning.


What I understood your point to be was that if the Reds were successful, it would be because Dusty managed differently than he has. His tactics and strategies would be different. Patterson may not even be on the team and if he were he'd be batting 8th. Jr. would be a part time player and batting lower in the order. Dunn would be batting higher in the order and Phillips lower against righties. We don't know if that would have worked or not but we do know what he has been doing isn't working and while he doesn't deserve all the blame, he deserves a lion's share of it.

RedsManRick
06-20-2008, 05:12 PM
For over ten years?

I guess the same could be said of Sparky, or Bobby Cox.

I just wouldn't say it myself.

Yes. I agree and would say the same about Sparky and Cox. The performance of their teams relative to .500 were more a testament to the quality of talent on their rosters. In that sort of a situation, playing politician is more important. It would've been pretty darn hard to screw up the Reds lineup in 1975 or the Braves rotation in the mid 90's. That doesn't make Sparky or Cox bad at strategy, that can be decided on it's own merit, but it means their ability in that arena was less important than it would have been with a lesser collection of talent.

RedsManRick
06-20-2008, 05:14 PM
What I understood your point to be was that if the Reds were successful, it would be because Dusty managed differently than he has. His tactics and strategies would be different. Patterson may not even be on the team and if he were he'd be batting 8th. Jr. would be a part time player and batting lower in the order. Dunn would be batting higher in the order and Phillips lower against righties. We don't know if that would have worked or not but we do know what he has been doing isn't working and while he doesn't deserve all the blame, he deserves a lion's share of it.

That's correct. I guess my failure was in my implied hyperbole and not clarifying the definition of good. All of those things above would make a real difference, perhaps making the Reds a .500 team instead of a .450 one. They would not, in my estimation, make us a .550 team. Being significantly above .500 would require both a change in managerial performance and available talent.

REDREAD
06-20-2008, 05:44 PM
I used to think that way. I'm not sure I do anymore.

They have individual pieces, but honestly this team as a whole is below average in every category I can think of:


Yes, the team is 12th in the league in pitching (team ERA) and 11th in runs scored.

You can't really blame Dusty's lineups for that. It's a poorly constructed team.