PDA

View Full Version : Your Love & Faith Meter For Dusty Making The Right Choices And Decisions



Spring~Fields
07-16-2008, 09:15 AM
Your Love & Faith meter for Dusty making the right choices and decisions with the offense for the season remaining.

Running Hot
Running Luke Warm
Running Cold
Running on Empty


Why ?

nate
07-16-2008, 09:26 AM
Lukewarm. And that sucker's barely above room temperature.

On the "warm" side, I think he's managed the bullpen well the majority of the time and his sweatbands always ensure that he's nattily attired.

On the "luke" side, his lineups don't seem to maximize his roster's potential. He likes "small ball" at odd times and, most importantly, he and his coaching staff haven't found a way to get sustained offensive success out of the players.

Highlifeman21
07-16-2008, 10:12 AM
Results are hidden? What kinda poll is this?

I went with Running Cold.

I'm actually very happy with how he's handling Cueto and Volquez (and Bailey when he's up). We're not seeing too many ridiculous pitch counts, which is a good thing. However, he's beating Harang and Arroyo to death. I also think he's beating the bullpen to death, to a degree. Burton, Affeldt, Lincoln, Weathers and Cordero are all on pace for 80+ IP. IMO, that's a bit much for 5 bullpen arms. I could see 1 or 2 guys going 80+, but 5 is laughable. I realize that the only reliable SP we have to not tax the bullpen are Harang, and Arroyo and it seems every other start from Cueto and Volquez also don't tax the bullpen, but when you want only around 500 IP from your pen during a season and we're looking to get at least 400 from those 5 bullpen arms, I see a red flag.

And no one likes Dusty's lineups. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind that likes Dusty's lineups.

KronoRed
07-16-2008, 08:36 PM
Empty I guess, I never really had a meter for Dusty.

jojo
07-16-2008, 09:12 PM
meh......there are bigger issues facing the reds....

Homer Bailey
07-17-2008, 12:01 AM
I think Dusty is a pretty serious problem. The way he defies logic more often than not drives me crazy, especially with where he bats Griffey. I'm just never going to like this guy. His mistakes are laughable. It's not that hard to manage a team, yet he fails to make some of the easiest and most obvious decisions.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-17-2008, 12:42 AM
Results are hidden? What kinda poll is this?


Agree. What's up with that?

paintmered
07-17-2008, 12:43 AM
Agree. What's up with that?

Fixed.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-17-2008, 12:45 AM
Thanks. I would still like to see who voted for what.

letsgojunior
07-17-2008, 12:46 AM
Running on empty.

Even when he eventually gets to the "right decision," he wastes 60 games figuring it out (see, e.g., Patterson at leadoff).

Caveat Emperor
07-17-2008, 12:47 AM
He's pushing all the right buttons with the pitching staff thus far. Hard to argue with his handling of Cueto and Volquez.

Hitting and lineups? Eh. At least EE and Bruce are getting everyday PT, and he's finally had the good sense to get Patterson out of the lineup. He still doesn't have a clue how to maximize run potential or keep his best hitters in the best position to succeed (see: BP batting #4 against RHP), but that's very much a part of Dusty's MO that isn't going to change.

Puts me right about at average to below-average.

Spring~Fields
07-17-2008, 02:33 AM
Agree. What's up with that?

It was at one time an attempt to run a truer poll without the current results being made available until the poll closes on 07/20/08, to see what the votes would be without the voters being influenced by the current results. Unfortunately that was "fixed” so that won’t be happening.


I would still like to see who voted for what.

Why?

What kind of poll would it be, if I knew how my buddies voted, and then voted with them?

Now that the poll has been skewed
40 voted
59 abstained,
0.5959595959595959595959595959596
60% are either lukewarm or apathetic regarding the questions or the manager.

WVRedsFan
07-17-2008, 02:52 AM
Running luke warm. Everyone seems to forget the improvement in W-L record, but that's OK.

I'm certainly no Dusty Baker fan (in fact, I wish he were gone), but compared to Bob boone, Dave Miley, Jerry Narron, and even Pete Macklanin, he appears to be a genius (some will disagree, I'm sure). The sins of the past (poor roster construction and unwise contracts) have left a disfunctional team for Baker to work with and he makes his share of mistakes (as all managers do), but I still contend that you could put the greatest manager in the world in charge of this club an still wind up below .500. That's my opinion of course.

time for a change in the makeup of this club which can be made now, but not likely until over the winter. As many as say this team is talented, the offensive results are putrid. You have to score runs to win. Unfortunately, the Reds do not score enough runs to win consistently. The pitching is much improved and all that's left is some hitters who can drive in runs and against lefthanded pitching. I look for Jockkety to work on that soon. Until then, give the man this team and he's dong remarkably well, as much as I hate to say it.

Spring~Fields
07-17-2008, 03:01 AM
Everyone seems to forget the improvement in W-L record, but that's OK.

I haven't forgotten that the team has been showing improvements. I believe that they will do better post all-star than they did pre.

By now management on various levels of the organization will have learned much more about their personnel and should be able to adjust, adapt and to modify to gain improvements from the experience. Yet the competitors still have a vote.

reds44
07-17-2008, 04:00 AM
Dusty's is better than Narron, Miley, and Boone I know that. I have no idea actually how good he is though.

I think there are bigger problems with this team than Dusty.

KronoRed
07-17-2008, 04:04 AM
Running luke warm. Everyone seems to forget the improvement in W-L record, but that's OK.

To be fair to Mackanin he was 41-39, Dusty is doing worse:D

Ron Madden
07-17-2008, 05:29 AM
I have never had any faith in Dusty.

I really want to have faith in Dusty Baker but I doubt I ever will.

The Reds just had 3 days off, I just wonder who out of the starting lineup Dusty will rest tonight.

Spring~Fields
07-17-2008, 08:35 AM
I think there are bigger problems with this team.

I can think of a few bigger problems :lol:

1.) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/depth?team=chc
2.) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/depth?team=stl
3.) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=chc
4.) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=stl
5.) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/depth?team=mil
6.) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/standings
7.) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/depth?team=cin
8.) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=cin
9.) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/fielding?team=cin&cat=errors&season=2008&seasonType=2
10.) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/pitching?team=cin&season=2008&seasonType=2&split=127&cat=wins&order=true&type=std
11.) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/pitching?team=cin&cat=opponentOnBasePct&order=true&season=2008&split=128&seasonType=2&type=vsb


This year and next year, and the year after, so forth and so on, three of those problems will continue trying to get better too. :thisyear:

:oops: :fineprint

BuckeyeRedleg
07-17-2008, 10:23 AM
It was at one time an attempt to run a truer poll without the current results being made available until the poll closes on 07/20/08, to see what the votes would be without the voters being influenced by the current results. Unfortunately that was "fixed” so that won’t be happening.


Gotcha. Makes sense.


Why?

What kind of poll would it be, if I knew how my buddies voted, and then voted with them?

Understood. Ok then, when the poll is closed can we see who voted for what?

Also, I would think one way around all of this is that if poll results were blocked until one votes. Then, they can see the percentages and who voted for what, without it effecting their vote.

Spring~Fields
07-17-2008, 11:45 AM
Gotcha. Makes sense.
Understood. Ok then, when the poll is closed can we see who voted for what?
Also, I would think one way around all of this is that if poll results were blocked until one votes. Then, they can see the percentages and who voted for what, without it effecting their vote.

I can't swear by anything on the Internet, but I think that it will or they can, I suppose since I wrote that I will be wrong. :D

I really thought that the poll would be more positive, this time, especially with the team playing a bit better and now having learned a bit more, and then taking that into the second part of the season, I think there is some reason to have some faith and confidence in the man.

Spring~Fields
07-17-2008, 12:02 PM
I would think one way around all of this is that if poll results were blocked until one votes. Then, they can see the percentages and who voted for what, without it effecting their vote.

That makes perfect sense to me, if the software allows it. I would have set it up that way if I would have seen an option to do that.

Chip R
07-17-2008, 12:05 PM
From the last City Beat newspaper

http://citybeat.com/current/sports-1.jpg

Spring~Fields
07-17-2008, 12:19 PM
From the last City Beat newspaper

http://citybeat.com/current/sports-1.jpg

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/flygirl420/jokes%20and%20funny%20sayings/wiley_coyote-2.gif

BuckeyeRedleg
07-17-2008, 12:21 PM
Looks like Dusty Baker making out with Corey Patterson.

RedsManRick
07-17-2008, 12:39 PM
Dusty's new theme song, courtesy of Jackson Browne.



Looking out at the road rushing under my wheels
Looking back at the years gone by like so many summer fields
In sixty-five I was seventeen and running up one-o-one
I dont know where Im running now, Im just running on

Running on - running on empty
Running on - running blind
Running on - running into the sun
But Im running behind

Gotta do what you can just to keep your love alive
Trying not to confuse it with what you do to survive
In sixty-nine I was twenty-one and I called the road my own
I dont know when that road turned onto the road Im on

Running on - running on empty
Running on - running blind
Running on - running into the sun
But Im running behind

Everyone I know, everywhere I go
People need some reason to believe
I dont know about anyone but me
If it takes all night, thatll be all right
If I can get you to smile before I leave

Looking out at the road rushing under my wheels
I dont know how to tell you all just how crazy this life feels
I look around for the friends that I used to turn to to pull me through
Looking into their eyes I see them running too

Running on - running on empty
Running on - running blind
Running on - running into the sun
But Im running behind

Honey you really tempt me
You know the way you look so kind
Id love to stick around but Im running behind
You know I dont even know what Im hoping to find
Running into the sun but Im running behind

Highlifeman21
07-17-2008, 05:39 PM
Thanks. I would still like to see who voted for what.

Now that we can see, can we get some public results?

Pretty please mods? With a cherry on top?

Crosley68
07-17-2008, 06:02 PM
He is better with pitchers than I thought..........questionable with lineup construction........Good with team personalities..........beyond bad with in-game management.

Adds up to running cold.

KronoRed
07-17-2008, 08:57 PM
Looks like Dusty Baker making out with Corey Patterson.

I need some mind bleach

BuckeyeRedleg
07-17-2008, 09:00 PM
I need some mind bleach

I need some for the last nine years watching this ballclub.

Spring~Fields
07-18-2008, 01:41 AM
I need some mind bleach

:lol:


Go Gators!
The winning team is the better team.

We could use some “gators” about now, to clear out some of the carcasses in that Reds clubhouse and off the roster. :)

AmarilloRed
07-18-2008, 01:49 AM
Luke Warm. He has done a good job of handling the starting pitching(better than I expected), and he has the team playing close to .500. It is for these reasons I will not vote Cold.

WVRedsFan
07-18-2008, 01:55 AM
I need some for the last nine years watching this ballclub.


Oh God yes. Many probably think I'm an old grouch, but the last nine years have me so upset with the direction of this team that I get carried away. Living through the Lindner era with the seemingly non interest and that being followed up with the Castellini era where win now is supported by really stupid moves and I've just about lost hope. Forgive this old fogey for being negative.

As for Dusty, just remember that given the proper tools, he has won. If the club reeled off 10 or 12 in a row, he would be the hero. The fact that he has a club that can't field, can't hit, and has so many young players that things are inconsistent is new to Baker. So far, we're only 5 over .500 and I can only point to about 7 of those 51 losses that I can blame on him, so that's not enough to condemn him. Most managers are like that. I'm looking to Walt Jocketty to make some moves soon. If those positive moves are made and we still do not win, then it's Dusty's head. On a platter. But you cannot blame the field general for being given a team that just isn't ready to win. Yet.

Spring~Fields
07-18-2008, 10:32 AM
Living through the Lindner era with the seemingly non interest and that being followed up with the Castellini era where win now is supported by really stupid moves and I've just about lost hope.
You mean this group ?
Carl H. Lindner, Carl H. Lindner III, Mrs. Louis Nippert, William J. Reik, George L. Strike, they're still a part of the Reds, don't the teams look familiar, then and now? ;)


As for Dusty, just remember that given the proper tools, he has won. The fact that he has a club that can't field, can't hit, and has so many young players that things are inconsistent is new to Baker. So far, we're only 5 over .500 and I can only point to about 7 of those 51 losses that I can blame on him, so that's not enough to condemn him. But you cannot blame the field general for being given a team that just isn't ready to win. Yet.

Didn’t he have some players that could put up some good offensive numbers in his Chicago years?
Did his offenses perform as well as possible?

I am not very familiar with the Cubs years with Baker, maybe some others are.

2006 Chicago Cubs
66-96, Finished 6th in NL Central Division
Scored 716 runs, Allowed 834 runs
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2006.shtml


3B Aramis Ramirez .352 .561
1B Derrek Lee .368 .474
Ryan Theriot .412 .522
C Michael Barrett .368 .517
RF Jacque Jones .334 .499
Phil Nevin .335 .497
LF Matt Murton .365 .444
2B Todd Walker .352 .390
CF Juan Pierre .330 .388
SS Ronny Cedeno .271 .339
Jerry Hairston .253 .244


2005 Chicago Cubs
79-83, Finished 4th in NL Central Division
Scored 703 runs, Allowed 714 runs.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2005.shtml


1B Derrek Lee .418 .662
3B Aramis Ramirez .358 .568
Matt Murton .386 .521
C Michael Barrett .345 .479
2B Todd Walker .355 .474
Nomar Garciaparra .320 .452
RF Jeromy Burnitz .322 .435
Jerry Hairston .336 .368
SS Neifi Perez .298 .383
LF Todd Hollandsw .301 .388
CF Corey Patterson .254 .348


2004 Chicago Cubs
89-73, Finished 3rd in NL Central Division
Scored 789 runs, Allowed 665 runs
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2004.shtml


3B Aramis Ramirez .373 .578
LF Moises Alou .361 .557
Neifi Perez .400 .548
Todd Hollandsworth .392 .547
RF Sammy Sosa .332 .517
1B Derrek Lee .356 .504
C Michael Barrett .337 .489
2B Todd Walker .352 .468
Nomar Garciaparra .364 .455
CF Corey Patterson .320 .452
Mark Grudzielanek .347 .432
SS Ramon Martinez .313 .346
Paul Bako .288 .283


2003 Chicago Cubs
Scored 724 runs, Allowed 683 runs
88-74, Finished 1st in NL Central Division
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/2003.shtml


RF Sammy Sosa .358 .553
CF Corey Patterson .329 .511
LF Moises Alou .357 .462
3B Aramis Ramirez .314 .491
Kenny Lofton .381 .471
1B Eric Karros .340 .446
2B Mark Grudzielan .366 .416
SS Alex Gonzalez .295 .409
C Damian Miller .310 .369
Ramon Martinez .333 .375
Paul Bako .311 .330


http://citybeat.com/current/sports-1.jpg

Highlifeman21
07-18-2008, 11:07 AM
Just when I think I can't get any more disgusted with The Dusty, he gives me more ammo...

Last night in the 9th, I understand bringing in Patterson as a defensive upgrade in CF, since he is our best defensive CF, but the statue he left in RF bewildered me. I honestly don't get why he took out Dunn, and left in Griffey. IMO, we're much better defensively with Dunn/Patterson/Bruce, than Bruce/Patterson/Griffey. Granted, I love the effort Griffey gave at trying to rob Wright in the 9th, and I'm not convinced Bruce would have made the play, but I know for a fact Bruce would have been to the wall quicker and possibly could have timed his jump better.

Now I'm not saying The Dusty's move to leave Griffey in RF and shift Bruce to LF while removing Dunn from the game cost us exactly, but I honestly don't get why Griffey isn't the 1st OF out of the game when it comes time for late inning defensive upgrades?

Dunn's better Griffey offensively and defensively, so why on Earth does The Dusty take out Dunn last night in the 9th?

BuckeyeRedleg
07-18-2008, 11:12 AM
Just when I think I can't get any more disgusted with The Dusty, he gives me more ammo...

Last night in the 9th, I understand bringing in Patterson as a defensive upgrade in CF, since he is our best defensive CF, but the statue he left in RF bewildered me. I honestly don't get why he took out Dunn, and left in Griffey. IMO, we're much better defensively with Dunn/Patterson/Bruce, than Bruce/Patterson/Griffey. Granted, I love the effort Griffey gave at trying to rob Wright in the 9th, and I'm not convinced Bruce would have made the play, but I know for a fact Bruce would have been to the wall quicker and possibly could have timed his jump better.

Now I'm not saying The Dusty's move to leave Griffey in RF and shift Bruce to LF while removing Dunn from the game cost us exactly, but I honestly don't get why Griffey isn't the 1st OF out of the game when it comes time for late inning defensive upgrades?

Dunn's better Griffey offensively and defensively, so why on Earth does The Dusty take out Dunn last night in the 9th?

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

NJReds
07-18-2008, 11:13 AM
Granted, I love the effort Griffey gave at trying to rob Wright in the 9th, and I'm not convinced Bruce would have made the play, but I know for a fact Bruce would have been to the wall quicker and possibly could have timed his jump better.


I was sitting about two seats away from where Wright's HR landed. No way anyone catches that ball. It hit the guy standing in the front row. It was a towering fly ball (not a line drive). Michael Jordan couldn't have jumped high enough to catch that ball.

But I agree. I was surprised that Jr. wasn't the one that was subbed out for defense.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-18-2008, 11:18 AM
I was sitting about two seats away from where Wright's HR landed. No way anyone catches that ball. It hit the guy standing in the front row. It was a towering fly ball (not a line drive). Michael Jordan couldn't have jumped high enough to catch that ball.

But I agree. I was surprised that Jr. wasn't the one that was subbed out for defense.

Curious, but from your perspective should Jr. have been able to catch the ball that landed in front of him that inning.

Cordero did pitch pretty bad, but the first hit was weak flare and Wright's HR was a deep fly ball anywhere else. Seemed like the rest were just finding the holes. Not alot of luck there.

KronoRed
07-18-2008, 02:27 PM
But I agree. I was surprised that Jr. wasn't the one that was subbed out for defense.

It's all about respect;)

Spring~Fields
07-18-2008, 03:45 PM
Just when I think I can't get any more disgusted with The Dusty, he gives me more ammo...

Last night in the 9th, I understand bringing in Patterson as a defensive upgrade in CF, since he is our best defensive CF, but the statue he left in RF bewildered me. I honestly don't get why he took out Dunn, and left in Griffey. IMO, we're much better defensively with Dunn/Patterson/Bruce, than Bruce/Patterson/Griffey. Granted, I love the effort Griffey gave at trying to rob Wright in the 9th, and I'm not convinced Bruce would have made the play, but I know for a fact Bruce would have been to the wall quicker and possibly could have timed his jump better.

Now I'm not saying The Dusty's move to leave Griffey in RF and shift Bruce to LF while removing Dunn from the game cost us exactly, but I honestly don't get why Griffey isn't the 1st OF out of the game when it comes time for late inning defensive upgrades?

Dunn's better Griffey offensively and defensively, so why on Earth does The Dusty take out Dunn last night in the 9th?

If I assume that he has two outfielders that actually could use being replaced for defensive replacements, but, he only has one quality defensive replacement to replace one of the two defenders, if that was true, shouldn’t the deciding factor be that he leaves in the better offensive player of the two? In this case a Dunn might stay and Griffey be the one that is replaced? Or is the “defensive replacement”, is it a failed strategy to begin with because of a limited value on defense, and a potential risk of weakening the offense?

Highlifeman21
07-18-2008, 03:49 PM
If I assume that he has two outfielders that actually could use being replaced for defensive replacements, but, he only has one quality defensive replacement to replace one of the two defenders, if that was true, shouldn’t the deciding factor be that he leaves in the better offensive player of the two? In this case a Dunn might stay and Griffey be the one that is replaced? Or is the “defensive replacement”, is it a failed strategy to begin with because of a limited value on defense, and a potential risk of weakening the offense?

I'm not sure what you're asking, but my point was that Dunn is better than Griffey offensively and defensively, so why would he leave Griffey in at all?

I fully understand that The Dusty had two options to replace defensively, but Griffey more glaringly deserves to be replaced on any level (offense or defense) than Dunn.

Spring~Fields
07-18-2008, 04:29 PM
From the last City Beat newspaper

http://citybeat.com/current/sports-1.jpg

Chip couldn’t the image of the cartoon be used as a poster to simplify a description of the management choices or style of a Dusty Baker if we considered the terms below, if his core manager theories or philosophies are strongly represented throughout that which is either known or unknown to the public by such in the type of or form of Patterson experiments?

Could we say,
The managers choices and decisions become an issue when the team has a problem with a limited amount of runs scored which in turn during the season has become problematic in games in which they have lost a large amount by 2 runs or less. The cartoon is presumptively illustrative of the core to his philosophies and theories of effective player personnel usage and utilization which adversely impacts the dynamics of the team. Could it be used to make a reasonable assumption that the Patterson experiment is how this manager evaluates and assess talent in the off season then throughout spring training and then the season being the result in his extended utilization ?

Issue - problem or difficulty: a source of conflict, misgiving, or emotional distress (informal)
had issues with some of his choices, decisions and there results

Problem - Word Key: Synonyms
problem, mystery, puzzle, riddle, conundrum, enigma,
CORE MEANING: something difficult to solve or understand

Problematic - 1. difficult: involving difficulties or problems
2. uncertain: unsettled or posing an uncertain outcome
n
something problematic: a matter or issue that is problematic

Core - . essential part: the central or most important part of something
the core of the argument
adj
essential: of central or fundamental importance

Dynamics - 1. change-producing forces: the forces that tend to produce activity and change in any situation or sphere of existence
2. personal relationships: the relationships of power between the people in a group

Credits/Source:
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Spring~Fields
07-18-2008, 04:46 PM
I'm not sure what you're asking, but my point was that Dunn is better than Griffey offensively and defensively, so why would he leave Griffey in at all?

I fully understand that The Dusty had two options to replace defensively, but Griffey more glaringly deserves to be replaced on any level (offense or defense) than Dunn.

I am agreeing with you and at the same time I am wondering if it is a bit of a catch twenty-two in that the defensive replacement might not have much positive value or effect anyway, then taking out the offensive players can turn around and hurt the team in certain situations that could still come up in a game if they had been taken out.

Big Klu
07-19-2008, 02:27 AM
If I assume that he has two outfielders that actually could use being replaced for defensive replacements, but, he only has one quality defensive replacement to replace one of the two defenders, if that was true, shouldn’t the deciding factor be that he leaves in the better offensive player of the two? In this case a Dunn might stay and Griffey be the one that is replaced? Or is the “defensive replacement”, is it a failed strategy to begin with because of a limited value on defense, and a potential risk of weakening the offense?


I'm not sure what you're asking, but my point was that Dunn is better than Griffey offensively and defensively, so why would he leave Griffey in at all?

I fully understand that The Dusty had two options to replace defensively, but Griffey more glaringly deserves to be replaced on any level (offense or defense) than Dunn.



I am neither defending nor condemning Dusty, but I believe that Baker is using Patterson to replace whichever OF has batted most recently, which puts the new pitcher (in this case, Cordero) in the spot in the batting order furthest from actually coming to the plate. On Thursday, since Dunn made the last out in the eighth inning, the double-switch put Patterson in the #9 spot (fourth in the next inning), and Cordero in the #5 spot (ninth in the next inning).

I agree, however, that an OF of Dunn-Patterson-Bruce is superior defensively to Bruce-Patterson-Griffey. (It pains me to see Griffey as a substandard defensive outfielder, but that's what he is now.) IMO, the possible Reds outfield combos based on the current roster would rank as follows (from best to worst):

1. Dunn-Patterson-Bruce
2. Bruce-Patterson-Griffey
3. Dunn-Patterson-Griffey
4. Dunn-Bruce-Griffey


Offensively, I would rank them as follows:

1. Dunn-Bruce-Griffey
2. Dunn-Patterson-Bruce
3. Dunn-Patterson-Griffey
4. Bruce-Patterson-Griffey


Replacing Griffey in the late innings with Patterson downgrades the offense by one spot in the rankings, but upgrades the defense by three spots in the rankings (an acceptable tradeoff in the ninth inning with a two-run lead). However, replacing Dunn with Patterson downgrades the offense by three spots, but upgrades the defense by only two spots. All for a net gain of two slots in the batting order (the new pitcher is the ninth batter in the next inning, instead of the seventh).

WVRedsFan
07-19-2008, 02:40 AM
I am neither defending nor condemning Dusty, but I believe that Baker is using Patterson to replace whichever OF has batted most recently, which puts the new pitcher (in this case, Cordero) in the spot in the batting order furthest from actually coming to the plate. On Thursday, since Dunn made the last out in the eighth inning, the double-switch put Patterson in the #9 spot (fourth in the next inning), and Cordero in the #5 spot (ninth in the next inning).

I agree, however, that an OF of Dunn-Patterson-Bruce is superior defensively to Bruce-Patterson-Griffey. (It pains me to see Griffey as a substandard defensive outfielder, but that's what he is now.) IMO, the possible Reds outfield combos based on the current roster would rank as follows (from best to worst):

1. Dunn-Patterson-Bruce
2. Bruce-Patterson-Griffey
3. Dunn-Patterson-Griffey
4. Dunn-Bruce-Griffey


Offensively, I would rank them as follows:

1. Dunn-Bruce-Griffey
2. Dunn-Patterson-Bruce
3. Dunn-Patterson-Griffey
4. Bruce-Patterson-Griffey


Replacing Griffey in the late innings with Patterson downgrades the offense by one spot in the rankings, but upgrades the defense by three spots in the rankings (an acceptable tradeoff in the ninth inning with a two-run lead). However, replacing Dunn with Patterson downgrades the offense by three spots, but upgrades the defense by only two spots. All for a net gain of two slots in the batting order (the new pitcher is the ninth batter in the next inning, instead of the seventh).

Klu:

The whole point is that if the game is close and there is any indication that we might need more runs, you do not replace Dunn and Griffey. There are no players on this team than have the potential to produce runs other than Dunn and Griffey. If it's a blowout, yes, go ahead, but how often does that happen with this offense? Rarely.

One more thing needs to be mentioned. If we end up trading Dunn or not signing him and letting Griffey go to free agency, what will this offense look like? I shudder at the thought. Jocketty will have to do some hard work in signing some bats. Add that to the questions in the pitching staff--Harang injured, Arroyo inconsistent, Cueto young, and Volquez untested, not to mention the 5th starter role which is uncertain at best, and you get an uneasy picture. This team always needs offense and that's something that many do not consider as they proclaim that we need to rid outselves of two corner outfielders who may not be perfect.

Big Klu
07-19-2008, 02:57 AM
Klu:

The whole point is that if the game is close and there is any indication that we might need more runs, you do not replace Dunn and Griffey. There are no players on this team than have the potential to produce runs other than Dunn and Griffey. If it's a blowout, yes, go ahead, but how often does that happen with this offense? Rarely.

One more thing needs to be mentioned. If we end up trading Dunn or not signing him and letting Griffey go to free agency, what will this offense look like? I shudder at the thought. Jocketty will have to do some hard work in signing some bats. Add that to the questions in the pitching staff--Harang injured, Arroyo inconsistent, Cueto young, and Volquez untested, not to mention the 5th starter role which is uncertain at best, and you get an uneasy picture. This team always needs offense and that's something that many do not consider as they proclaim that we need to rid outselves of two corner outfielders who may not be perfect.

Dunn? I agree. Griffey? I'm not so sure....

If the game is close in the ninth inning and the Reds have the lead, and Griffey is not scheduled to bat anytime soon (seventh or later in the next inning), then in my opinion it is an acceptable tradeoff to replace Griffey with Patterson for the boost in defense. I don't buy into the "What if we can't hold the lead, and we have to go into extra innings?" argument--to me, that's a defeatist attitude. I think with a two-run lead in the ninth, you do your pitchers a disservice if you don't have your best defense out there, particularly if the offensive player being replaced has just batted in the previous inning. In a situation like what the Reds had on Thursday, I definitely would have inserted Patterson into the game for defensive purposes--but for Griffey, not for Dunn! (Personally, I would not consider replacing Dunn, what with the current makeup of the roster.)

Highlifeman21
07-19-2008, 10:22 AM
I am agreeing with you and at the same time I am wondering if it is a bit of a catch twenty-two in that the defensive replacement might not have much positive value or effect anyway, then taking out the offensive players can turn around and hurt the team in certain situations that could still come up in a game if they had been taken out.

I'm not overly swayed that the situation is or was a Catch 22. It essentially comes down to the player Patterson is replacing.

If Patterson is replacing Dunn, then the defense increase significantly, while IMO the offense decreases more than the defense increases. Hence, Patterson's defense is negated, should his bat be needed in extra frames.

If Patterson is replacing Griffey, the defense increases moreso than if Patterson replaces Dunn. Patterson's offense is worse than Griffey's, but with this example IMO, Patterson's defense more than makes up for his lack of stick, whilst compared to Griffey's stick. IMO, the outcome is more desireable than Patterson replacing Dunn.

As for the situations offensively, I firmly believe that you leave Dunn in the game, since he can help you much more offensively than Patterson or Griffey. If the choice is between Patterson or Griffey, then you just have to grin and bear it, and enjoy Patterson's superior defense to Griffey's.





As BigKlu pointed out, Dunn had made the last out in the bottom of the 8th, so from a double switch perspective it made sense for Dunn to come out, but Griffey was only 2 spots ahead of him. It's not like we're talking drastically different parts of the lineup. Granted, Patterson would have come up sooner if he replaced Griffey than Dunn, but at this point in Griffey's career, I wouldn't considered him a guy I want up late in the game. Not that I want Patterson up late in the game, but with Griffey and Dunn's spots being only separated by Phillips, I considered Dunn making the last out of the prior inning moot.

Spring~Fields
07-19-2008, 12:25 PM
I'm not overly swayed that the situation is or was a Catch 22. It essentially comes down to the player Patterson is replacing.

If Patterson is replacing Dunn, then the defense increase significantly, while IMO the offense decreases more than the defense increases. Hence, Patterson's defense is negated, should his bat be needed in extra frames.

If Patterson is replacing Griffey, the defense increases moreso than if Patterson replaces Dunn. Patterson's offense is worse than Griffey's, but with this example IMO, Patterson's defense more than makes up for his lack of stick, whilst compared to Griffey's stick. IMO, the outcome is more desireable than Patterson replacing Dunn.

As for the situations offensively, I firmly believe that you leave Dunn in the game, since he can help you much more offensively than Patterson or Griffey. If the choice is between Patterson or Griffey, then you just have to grin and bear it, and enjoy Patterson's superior defense to Griffey's.


I guess I am thinking about various future games in general where the Reds may need the offense from a Dunn or Griffey in the eighth or ninth and into extra innings. Patterson is a defensive upgrade for that moment in time during the game, but I don’t see his replacement really making an impact that often. How many chances and put outs does he actually get in the eighth and ninth, that Dunn or Griffey are not getting to?

So with the roster options that are on hand now, I would prefer that the manager would just leave Dunn and Griffey in and use Patterson for a pinch runner if needed, we have seen this manager use his starting pitchers to pinch run on occasion, where one of them could end up like Hairston, Freel, or a Cabrera. Patterson should not have been on this team to begin with, and after his sustained performance this season, he should have been moved to open up a spot for one that could benefit the Reds more.

Spring~Fields
07-19-2008, 10:03 PM
Cutler pointed out today on WLW. Not sure that it really means anything but I thought it was worth some curiosity.

Pokey Reese
Career .248 .307 .352 .659

2002
vs. Left--.282 .340 .388 .728
vs. Right .259 .327 .342 .669

Brandon Phillips - Clean up batter
Career
.265 .309 .429 .738

3Year
vs. Left-- .322 .364 .529 .893
vs. Right .263 .310 .425 .735

2008 Season
vs. Right .242 .285 .373 .658

jojo
07-20-2008, 09:14 AM
Cutler pointed out today on WLW. Not sure that it really means anything but I thought it was worth some curiosity.

Pokey Reese
Career .248 .307 .352 .659

2002
vs. Left--.282 .340 .388 .728
vs. Right .259 .327 .342 .669

Brandon Phillips - Clean up batter
Career
.265 .309 .429 .738

3Year
vs. Left-- .322 .364 .529 .893
vs. Right .263 .310 .425 .735

2008 Season
vs. Right .242 .285 .373 .658

Most players have platoon splits, Phillips' just looks worse because he destroys lefties. I guess the glass can be viewed as either half full or half empty, but I'd suggest this one is half full.

BTW, not all splits are created equal and I'd suggest that too much emphasis is placed upon batting order splits because they basically break a player's data into significantly smaller sample sizes (many teams rendering interpretation impossible) and really, the meaningfulness of arbitrarily splitting the data according to where a player batted in the lineup is dubious anyway.

For what it's worth though, Brandon's best days have occurred as a #4/5 hitter.

Also, his career numbers batting cleanup are actually this:.299/.345/.496 OPS: .841

I'm not sure where the numbers quoted above came from?????