PDA

View Full Version : Fire Dusty at the end of season?



Wheelhouse
08-28-2008, 11:15 AM
The Reds need to go 14-15 to equal their win total last year--if they don't, I think they should give Dusty the pink slip.

Highlifeman21
08-28-2008, 11:47 AM
The Reds need to go 14-15 to equal their win total last year--if they don't, I think they should give Dusty the pink slip.

That's an expensive pink slip.

Always Red
08-28-2008, 11:56 AM
I believe that Pete Mackanin showed that he is a better manager than Dusty Baker.

But no way Dusty gets the pink slip after one year. He'll get at least one more year.

Once Dunn was gone, I think you can throw the record out the window- it can't be held against Dusty that he currently has no offense. That's on Kriv and Jocketty.

RichRed
08-28-2008, 11:59 AM
That's on Kriv and Jocketty.

As Dusty will be all too happy to point out (the Krivsky part anyway).

BRM
08-28-2008, 12:00 PM
Is it Dusty's fault Harang and Arroyo were both "off" this year? I guess you could blame him for that but it would be a hard sell.

I have a hard time blaming Baker for this mess of a season. I'm not a big fan of his by any means but this was simply a poorly constructed team from the beginning. It wasn't going to compete for the playoffs regardless of who was in charge.

Spring~Fields
08-28-2008, 12:05 PM
The Cincinnati Reds organization doesn’t have much luck in turnover of owners, general managers, managers, coaches or players, those turnovers have seemed more like a promotional stunt more than a substantive one to date.

If Jocketty is going to go with a youth movement especially in his position players, and I hope that he does, then I would like to see Dusty Baker stay for the duration. I want to see what kind of a manager, coach and instructor Baker truly is. I think it would be interesting to see how he does at developing a team instead of inheriting a prefab team ready to win.

fearofpopvol1
08-28-2008, 12:13 PM
I doubt it, but what I could see happening is him being fired after next season when the Reds a.) miss the playoffs and b.) don't reach .500.

redsmetz
08-28-2008, 12:13 PM
The Cincinnati Reds organization doesn’t have much luck in turnover of owners, general managers, managers, coaches or players, those turnovers have seemed more like a promotional stunt more than a substantive one to date.

If Jocketty is going to go with a youth movement especially in his position players, and I hope that he does, then I would like to see Dusty Baker stay for the duration. I want to see what kind of a manager, coach and instructor Baker truly is. I think it would be interesting to see how he does at developing a team instead of inheriting a prefab team ready to win.

I don't think they've been "promotional stunts", but I still think trying to maintain some continuity for a sustained time will be invaluable to this organization. And you're right, it's time to see if Dusty's the San Francisco guy or the Cubs guy.

dfs
08-28-2008, 12:27 PM
I doubt it, but what I could see happening is him being fired after next season when the Reds a.) miss the playoffs and b.) don't reach .500.
Yeah. That's become par for the organization. Walt will fire Dusty in order to bring in his guy.

And of course at the end of the 10 season, they'll fire Walt leaving the manager in place. Round and round she goes.

durl
08-28-2008, 12:29 PM
Dusty will stay. This organization will never improve if the Manager and GM continue being changed every year.

Give Dusty a little more time. Krivsky should have been given more time, as well.

edabbs44
08-28-2008, 12:31 PM
If Dusty's name wasn't Dusty Baker and he wasn't given a stupid contract, then he'd be gone already.

But for those reasons, he'll be back next year.

dougdirt
08-28-2008, 12:35 PM
Once Dunn was gone, I think you can throw the record out the window- it can't be held against Dusty that he currently has no offense. That's on Kriv and Jocketty.

Paul Bako and Corey Patterson say Hi! Those two hurt the offense a lot more than Adam Dunn helped it. So yeah, I can hold it against Dusty that he has no offense because he continues to play terrible options when there are better ones available to him.

flyer85
08-28-2008, 12:36 PM
where do I sign?

BRM
08-28-2008, 12:40 PM
Improving the talent level on the 25 man roster will help a whole lot more than firing Baker will. Of course, Walt could do both but most managers have the same basic ideas as Dusty anyway. I'd bet RedsZone wouldn't be happy with his replacement either.

OnBaseMachine
08-28-2008, 12:43 PM
Guys, try not to bash Dusty too much when BRM is around. How would you feel if someone was openly bashing your hero on a message board in front of you?:D

JaxRed
08-28-2008, 12:43 PM
Our only hope for a change is if some other job become available that he wants.

BRM
08-28-2008, 12:45 PM
Guys, try not to bash Dusty too much when BRM is around. How would you feel if someone was openly bashing your hero on a message board in front of you?:D

He's the reason I wear sweatbands, remember. ;)

flyer85
08-28-2008, 12:46 PM
I'd bet RedsZone wouldn't be happy with his replacement either.
the unfortunate truth.

BRM
08-28-2008, 12:47 PM
Honestly, I don't care for Dusty as a manager. I just don't think he's all that much different from most managers in MLB. We won't be terribly happy with whoever replaces Baker either. Just MHO.

Spring~Fields
08-28-2008, 12:49 PM
I don't think they've been "promotional stunts", but I still think trying to maintain some continuity for a sustained time will be invaluable to this organization. And you're right, it's time to see if Dusty's the San Francisco guy or the Cubs guy.

Of course we know that the value of continuity is dependent upon the skills, and talent of the people making up the portions of that “continuity”. Performance and production are measured by results, as we know even a blind squirrel can find the acorn if given enough time. Continuity with the skills and talents of quality people is a good thing, continuity in management and personnel that lacks the necessary skills, talent and essential qualities is a bad thing. Let’s just hope that they don’t spend too many more years with squirrels that can’t find the acorn.

We already know that Baker is a San Francisco and Cubs guy, question is can he become a winning Reds guy.

dougdirt
08-28-2008, 12:51 PM
Improving the talent level on the 25 man roster will help a whole lot more than firing Baker will. Of course, Walt could do both but most managers have the same basic ideas as Dusty anyway. I'd bet RedsZone wouldn't be happy with his replacement either.

Maybe, but how many other managers would give a guy with Corey Patterson's resume so many plate appearances, much less talked management into signing him to a 3 million dollar deal? I can think of about 0. The Corey Patterson experiment lies directly at the feet of Baker, so the talent level on the roster is partially his fault.

When I think back to the 2008 season, I will remember Jay Bruce's rookie year and over 600 plate apperances going to guys with OPS's of .570 and .596 who were only brought in because they were our new managers 'guys'. Baker has his influence on this teams roster and its lack of talent, and its two most talentless players are all his.

RedsManRick
08-28-2008, 12:52 PM
Dusty isn't the difference between this team winning and losing right now. And while I'd absolutely love to see him sent packing, there's no way Castellini bites the bullet on the remainder of his contract to do so.

If we had a 90 win team that Dusty was coaching to 87 wins, I'd be much more fervent about getting rid of him. But for how, he's merely the difference between below average and bad. This team could turn around quickly, but until I see Jocketty give Dusty a 25 man roster capable of making the playoffs if used properly, I can live (begrudgingly) with Baker.

I think BRM and others have it right. Chances are, I won't be happy with whomever replaces Dusty either. There are about 5 managers in the game who I'd actually be pleased with and outside of Davey Johnson, none of them are available.

redsmetz
08-28-2008, 12:52 PM
If Dusty's name wasn't Dusty Baker and he wasn't given a stupid contract, then he'd be gone already.

But for those reasons, he'll be back next year.

His contract really isn't very different than the contracts that the vast majority of ML managers currently have, albeit, the dollar amount leans towards the high side, but not by much. After years of folks complaining that the club was going cheap on managers, it's understandable that they paid money for Baker. His salary may be a bit high, give some other managers, but it's not out of line with what many are being paid by other clubs. But most everybody is on a three year deal, although some have two with club options for one or two more years. I only found two or three who are on one year deals, and some were interim managers.

Exactly how does a contract that mirrors most have every other ML managerial contract get defined as stupid?

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?Itemid=73&id=631&option=com_content&task=view

Some of those numbers have changed. LaRussa is now making $4M+ this year.

flyer85
08-28-2008, 12:53 PM
I'd be much happier if they hired some guy I had never heard of.

dougdirt
08-28-2008, 12:56 PM
His contract really isn't very different than the contracts that the vast majority of ML managers currently have, albeit, the dollar amount leans towards the high side, but not by much. After years of folks complaining that the club was going cheap on managers, it's understandable that they paid money for Baker. His salary may be a bit high, give some other managers, but it's not out of line with what many are being paid by other clubs. But most everybody is on a three year deal, although some have two with club options for one or two more years. I only found two or three who are on one year deals, and some were interim managers.

Exactly how does a contract that mirrors most have every other ML managerial contract get defined as stupid?

Well, there is the fact that no one else wanted him as a managerial candidate, we didn't talk to anyone else, and still paid him 3 million per year for 3 years. Thats what bothers me about the hiring more than anything else. People complain about the Reds going cheap on managers, so they go out and spend a ton of money on a guy no one else wanted. Brilliant.

Scrap Irony
08-28-2008, 01:00 PM
Yeah, I think it's Baker's fault both Harang and Arroyo struggled. Dusty's reputation was that he would be an ideal veteran manager and he'd struggle with the rookies and abuse the starting pitchers.

This season, the rooks have more than held their own, as Votto has been solid, Bruce is okay, and Cueto showed life. Too, Vazquez has been outstanding as a second-year guy.

But those veterans? They've been abysmal. Outside of Dunn, each has seen his overall numbers plummet from last season. None has had what would be considered even a good year. Look at the list. The only good suprise offensively has been that of Hairston and he can't stay healthy for more than a week at a time.

The only thing I can't blame on Dusty is the injuries, and, as a result, the bench. If AGon were around, Keppinger would have been a really solid middle infield back-up. But Patterson and Bako are all on Baker, as is the asisnine batting order.

BRM
08-28-2008, 01:01 PM
It's not Baker's fault that Wayne signed Bako and Patterson. It's the GM's job to assemble the best roster possible. He is allowed to tell the manager "sorry, those guys don't fit into my vision". Now, it is Dusty's fault they have logged so many at-bats. But again, the Reds aren't the only team running terrible hitters out there regularly. The Rockies play Taveras in CF and bat him second often, for example.

dougdirt
08-28-2008, 01:04 PM
It's not Baker's fault that Wayne signed Bako and Patterson. It's the GM's job to assemble the best roster possible. He is allowed to tell the manager "sorry, those guys don't fit into my vision". Now, it is Dusty's fault they have logged so many at-bats. But again, the Reds aren't the only team running terrible hitters out there regularly. The Rockies play Taveras in CF and bat him second often, for example.

Wayne has said that he had nothing to do with Patterson. That was all on Baker. Baker told Castellini to get it done, and he did. When your owner goes over the GM's head, its really tough to build a good roster. Patterson is all Baker all the time. Wayne had nothing to do with him. He hasn't come out and said anything about Bako, but I have a strong feeling Bako is another Baker guy, because well, he has been Baker's guy.

BRM
08-28-2008, 01:08 PM
Wayne has said that he had nothing to do with Patterson. That was all on Baker. Baker told Castellini to get it done, and he did. When your owner goes over the GM's head, its really tough to build a good roster. Patterson is all Baker all the time. Wayne had nothing to do with him. He hasn't come out and said anything about Bako, but I have a strong feeling Bako is another Baker guy, because well, he has been Baker's guy.

I hadn't heard that. If that's the case, Castellini is to blame. Hopefully Jocketty will rid the roster of the flotsam this offseason. Believe me, I hate seeing Patterson get so many at-bats just as much as you. I still don't believe giving Corey PT is the reason the Reds are so terrible though. Their just isn't enough overall talent.

BRM
08-28-2008, 01:13 PM
Dusty isn't the difference between this team winning and losing right now. And while I'd absolutely love to see him sent packing, there's no way Castellini bites the bullet on the remainder of his contract to do so.

If we had a 90 win team that Dusty was coaching to 87 wins, I'd be much more fervent about getting rid of him. But for how, he's merely the difference between below average and bad. This team could turn around quickly, but until I see Jocketty give Dusty a 25 man roster capable of making the playoffs if used properly, I can live (begrudgingly) with Baker.

I think BRM and others have it right. Chances are, I won't be happy with whomever replaces Dusty either. There are about 5 managers in the game who I'd actually be pleased with and outside of Davey Johnson, none of them are available.

I almost fell out of my chair when I read this post. RMR "defending" Baker? :eek:

Crosley68
08-28-2008, 01:15 PM
I have said before that I think Dusty is a good handler of people but a poor in-game situational manager. I firmly believe that if the Reds were a true contender this year talent wise, we all would be screaming for his head because of the obvious in-game blunders that have been decribed on this forum ad nauseum.
But who is to say that the respect that his players have for him doesn't balance out the mistakes he makes in the overall win column. Could be that we could have a "Manager neutral" effect....could we make that a stat now? (I want royalties).

Always Red
08-28-2008, 01:17 PM
Paul Bako and Corey Patterson say Hi! Those two hurt the offense a lot more than Adam Dunn helped it. So yeah, I can hold it against Dusty that he has no offense because he continues to play terrible options when there are better ones available to him.

Just my two cents worth, but every manager has his favorites; the Reds needed some defense, and Dusty knew these guys, however flawed, were better defenders than what was already here. And he was right.

I hesitate to get in the middle of a good Dusty bashing, because he's not my favorite. But Krivsky could have vetoed both CP and Bako, and Jocketty could have gotten rid of them, and yet they're still here. I can't blame Baker for that.

Spring~Fields
08-28-2008, 01:22 PM
Well, there is the fact that no one else wanted him as a managerial candidate, we didn't talk to anyone else, and still paid him 3 million per year for 3 years. Thats what bothers me about the hiring more than anything else. People complain about the Reds going cheap on managers, so they go out and spend a ton of money on a guy no one else wanted. Brilliant.


They did that with the players also, Patterson, Bako, Hairston, 253 .292 .408 .700, .259 .329 .366 .696, .230 .302 .316 .618 and Mercker this year too, (last pitched in 2006). Players that were unemployed for good reason nearing spring training.

Those players taking up roster positions and taking away opportunity and chances for other players who might have performed better even if they were younger and less experienced at the major league level, players that might have gained value with this years experience on their resumes, value that might have been manifested to next years club.

Now we have to be concerned that there are several veteran ex-Giants and ex-Cubs on the FA list that probably won’t be offered a contract either, that the manager is well familiar with while Bako and Patterson are still auditioning for next year with the Reds.

I really hope that Jocketty goes with the youth.

Krusty
08-28-2008, 01:27 PM
Baker isn't worth the money the Reds are paying him.

dougdirt
08-28-2008, 01:30 PM
I hadn't heard that. If that's the case, Castellini is to blame. Hopefully Jocketty will rid the roster of the flotsam this offseason. Believe me, I hate seeing Patterson get so many at-bats just as much as you. I still don't believe giving Corey PT is the reason the Reds are so terrible though. Their just isn't enough overall talent.

While I will agree that Patterson isn't why the Reds suck, he is a big part of the reason they suck so bad. Between he and Bako and their combined .256 OBP and .329 SLG over 543 AB's has been worth roughly 46 RC. Replace that with just a .300 OBP and a .400 SLG, something still well below average and you get 65 RC, two more wins for still well below average production. Something playing David Ross and just about anyone else in the outfield would have easily gotten you. Would we still suck? Yeah, but it wouldn't be quite as bad.

KronoRed
08-28-2008, 01:33 PM
What's the point? this team is going to be bad for a few years more, let Dusty run it and be patient that when the young kids start to improve management will bring in a better manager.

dougdirt
08-28-2008, 01:34 PM
Just my two cents worth, but every manager has his favorites; the Reds needed some defense, and Dusty knew these guys, however flawed, were better defenders than what was already here. And he was right.

I hesitate to get in the middle of a good Dusty bashing, because he's not my favorite. But Krivsky could have vetoed both CP and Bako, and Jocketty could have gotten rid of them, and yet they're still here. I can't blame Baker for that.

Krivsky couldn't veto them, because it seems that Baker had more influence with the owner than he did. Tough to do something when the guy under you has more power than you with your boss. Jocketty could do something, should have, but hasn't.

dougdirt
08-28-2008, 01:36 PM
What's the point? this team is going to be bad for a few years more, let Dusty run it and be patient that when the young kids start to improve management will bring in a better manager.

Tough for some young guys to get better when the Bako's and Patterson's of the world are playing over other options. There is zero reason that either of them should start over Hanigan at catcher or anyone on the 40 man roster in Patterson's case. Yet nearly every day we get to see them out there chugging away toward two sub .600 OPS seasons of over 300 PA. It will be the first time since 2002 that a single team has given 260+ Ab's to TWO players with a sub .600 OPS. That team was the KC Royals, who well, at this point we are probably a laughing stock along with them.

Spring~Fields
08-28-2008, 01:43 PM
Just my two cents worth, but every manager has his favorites; the Reds needed some defense, and Dusty knew these guys, however flawed, were better defenders than what was already here. And he was right.

But Krivsky could have vetoed both CP and Bako, and Jocketty could have gotten rid of them, and yet they're still here. I can't blame Baker for that.

Just what is Dusty Baker responsible for?

Can you hold Baker accountable for giving them the amount of AB/PA and playing time, for his choices and decisions?

Was Baker forced to play them? Clearly Baker is the one that made out the lineup for every game this year.

Or was he compelled to a personal escalation of commitment to playing them after he had so wanted them on the club out of spring training over others?

MartyFan
08-28-2008, 01:46 PM
I believe that Pete Mackanin showed that he is a better manager than Dusty Baker.

But no way Dusty gets the pink slip after one year. He'll get at least one more year.

Once Dunn was gone, I think you can throw the record out the window- it can't be held against Dusty that he currently has no offense. That's on Kriv and Jocketty.

Hands down...I wanted him to be the manager this year in the worst way...Dusty just doesn't make sense...Yeah, I was willing to wait and see, but we've seen...enough already.

Strikes Out Looking
08-28-2008, 02:39 PM
I'd be surprised if they fired him after this season. That's not to say he's my favorite.
While I enjoy his personality (he's much more pleasant to listen to then Jerry Narron), his constant use of Patterson/Bako and his lineup selections when Jr. and Dunn were around baffles me.

I expect new coaches next year--especially hitting and if that doesn't work, maybe Dusty won't be around for year 3 of the contract.

Of course, this just shows the glaring mistake Krivsky and Castellin made when they didn't fire Narron and offer Lou the job once word was out he was interested in coming back to manage a team. That, I believe is the biggest mistake the Reds have made in the past few years (and they've made plenty).

George Anderson
08-28-2008, 02:49 PM
.

Of course, this just shows the glaring mistake Krivsky and Castellin made when they didn't fire Narron and offer Lou the job once word was out he was interested in coming back to manage a team.

I am curious, where did you hear Lou wanted to come back?

Always Red
08-28-2008, 02:53 PM
Just what is Dusty Baker responsible for?

Can you hold Baker accountable for giving them the amount of AB/PA and playing time, for his choices and decisions?

Was Baker forced to play them? Clearly Baker is the one that made out the lineup for every game this year.

Or was he compelled to a personal escalation of commitment to playing them after he had so wanted them on the club out of spring training over others?

I agree with all you say- like I said before, I am not a big Dusty fan.

BUT- The GM has control over all of this, by putting together the roster.

This roster has no decent SS, CF or C. That is most emphatically not Dusty Baker's fault. That's 4 throw away AB's out of 9. Wonder why this team can't score runs? If I had to lay blame, I'd say Kriv was at fault for that. He did some things right here, but did he assemble this mess. The way I read it, Kriv blamed Dusty for CP, and Dusty said it's Krivsky's roster that he's losing with. Typical revisionist history by two guys who find themselves on the losing end.

Again, I am no apologist for Dusty Baker. I will not rehash all of his faults as a manager- we all read them here constantly day after day.

Bako or Ross? Geez, how about neither? At least Bako can catch the ball on occasion. Hopefully Hanigan will get a chance to play more.

Patterson? By far, the best defensive CF the Reds have. Yes, I know, he can't hit worth a lick; I turn away in horror every time he's at bat on TV. Oh, and he's also the worst baserunner on the team- and that's including the injured Ryan Freel. But again, the options out there are limited. I'm glad to see Dickerson finally got his shot, and I'm glad he's making the best of it. If it's me, I have Dickerson in CF next year, and tell him it's his job to lose. I would not be surprised if Patterson is on the roster again next year as 4th or 5th OF. Even doing that, Dickerson will probably wind up playing pretty much like he has the rest of his career, and sink to replacement level. Yes, i do know that CP has negative VORP...

Maybe Stubbs gets a shot at the CF job in ST, if he continues to tear it up like he has been of late.

The truth on Dusty is that he is not the best manager, and he's not the worst; he's somewhere in between. And that's good enough for right now, as RMR said.

Fire Dusty now and good luck finding anyone who will take the job. This team needs stability and continuity. Dusty's not my choice, but if I'm the GM, I leave him in place for now, and start identifying the next smart young guy to replace him with in 2010 or 2011.

RedsManRick
08-28-2008, 03:22 PM
I almost fell out of my chair when I read this post. RMR "defending" Baker? :eek:

Don't get me wrong. If it were my team, Dusty would never have been hired. And if I were the owner tomorrow and had money to burn, he'd be gone after this season. But that's not reality.

So, should Dusty be fired? Yeah, he should be. He's manages the team like he's still on it, more worried about the guys being happy than productive. He's a poor tactician. He does not seem willing to continue to his baseball education. He confuses action with outcome.

Will he be fired? Of course not. And in the big picture, it's quite unlikely that Dusty is the difference between making the playoffs or not.

Spring~Fields
08-28-2008, 05:33 PM
Fire Dusty now and good luck finding anyone who will take the job. This team needs stability and continuity. Dusty's not my choice, but if I'm the GM, I leave him in place for now, and start identifying the next smart young guy to replace him with in 2010 or 2011.

Baker and his coaches just cannot get anything out of these players.

I don’t want him fired though.

I want him to stick around and honor his contract, especially if Jocketty continues with a youth movement. :devil: I think that Baker deserves the opportunity.



Month of August Performances
BA OBP SLG OPS
Adam Rosales .125 .125 .125 .250
Paul Bako .132 .190 .158 .348
B. Phillips .194 .240 .430 .670
E. Encarnacion .214 .283 .345 .628
Jay Bruce .219 .242 .458 .701
J. Keppinger .233 .272 .291 .562
C. Patterson .235 .284 .382 .666
J. Valentin .241 .333 .483 .816
J. Cabrera .250 .286 .469 .754
Ryan Hanigan .250 .333 .542 .875
C. Dickerson .308 .400 .635 1.035
Joey Votto .361 .409 .508 .917

Wheelhouse
08-28-2008, 05:55 PM
That's an expensive pink slip.

Well if you look at it from the perspective that a good manager gets the best out of his players, and Dusty got about $20 MM worth of value out of a $70 MM payroll, it's a money-saving move.

MrCinatit
08-28-2008, 06:08 PM
I am no Baker lover, but firing the guy after one year probably would not be a good move for the organization.
Since 1988, this organization has seen 13 different managers. During Steinbrenner's "glory years", he went through 14 different managers in a same time period. OK, some of George's guys served several different times and there were more managerial changes - five more, if my count is right. This revolving managerial door has become an embarrassment.
I seem to remember that, after the firing of Johnson, there were many who were saying that it would be quite difficult for the Reds to get a "name" manager at the helm again. We got lucky with McKeon, but the rest of the years were littered with the likes of Knight (twice), Boone and Miley.
Should the Reds fire Baker after only one year - should Cast watch his organization hire its fourth manager before he begins his fourth year of ownership - what do you think the chances of this organization will see a quality manager agree to take the helm?

Caveat Emperor
08-28-2008, 06:49 PM
Fire Bob Boone -- this team is losing too much!
Fire Dave Miley -- this team is losing too much!
Fire Jerry Narron -- this team is losing too much!
Fire Dusty Baker -- this team is losing too much!

Yup... we've really got a handle on what the real problem is here.

GAC
08-28-2008, 07:28 PM
Give him the players. Then if he fails it's obvious he'll be gone. But if it happens, it won't (or shouldn't) happen till the second half of next season.

I don't like the guy one bit; but I still think he should be given a fair shot to see what he can do (if anything).

Since the AS break came (and passed), this team is now, more and more, becoming Walt and Dusty's, and less and less WK's.

Going into the '09 season, it will be their team and Baker cannot run out any more excuses such as "This is Wayne Krivsky's team, not Walt Jocketty's and not mine." But knowing Dusty he'll try. ;)

Dusty has done alright with the pitching staff. But his handling of the lineup, and his offensive approach to the game is disturbing IMO. And the bigger question?.... how will he do with an organization going through a youth movement? It's unchartered territory for him.

Give him enough rope.......

GAC
08-28-2008, 07:36 PM
What's the point? this team is going to be bad for a few years more, let Dusty run it and be patient that when the young kids start to improve management will bring in a better manager.

That's if this coaching staff doesn't have them all screwed up by then though. Do you feel confident with guys like Baker, Jacoby, and Poole instructing these younger guys on pitching and hitting? Not impressed with what I've seen so far.

It's like getting a dog with bad habits, and where the former owners did a terrible job at potty training. And you're left to clean up the..... :p:

Spring~Fields
08-28-2008, 08:43 PM
And the bigger question?.... how will he do with an organization going through a youth movement? It's unchartered territory for him.


Let him surprise us :devil:

fearofpopvol1
08-28-2008, 08:52 PM
Give him the players. Then if he fails it's obvious he'll be gone. But if it happens, it won't (or shouldn't) happen till the second half of next season.

I don't like the guy one bit; but I still think he should be given a fair shot to see what he can do (if anything).

Since the AS break came (and passed), this team is now, more and more, becoming Walt and Dusty's, and less and less WK's.

Going into the '09 season, it will be their team and Baker cannot run out any more excuses such as "This is Wayne Krivsky's team, not Walt Jocketty's and not mine." But knowing Dusty he'll try. ;)

Dusty has done alright with the pitching staff. But his handling of the lineup, and his offensive approach to the game is disturbing IMO. And the bigger question?.... how will he do with an organization going through a youth movement? It's unchartered territory for him.

Give him enough rope.......

It's hard for the Reds to compete every year. Playoff opportunities don't happen every year. By allowing Baker to be the manager, you run that risk that after he's fired, someone more competant may not be able to position the Reds the same way as Dusty due to personnel, injuries etc.

WVRedsFan
08-28-2008, 08:53 PM
Give him the players. Then if he fails it's obvious he'll be gone. But if it happens, it won't (or shouldn't) happen till the second half of next season.

I don't like the guy one bit; but I still think he should be given a fair shot to see what he can do (if anything).

Totally agree with GAC on this. He was handed a mess, made it worse with his additions (Bako and Patterson, though Wayne actually hired them), and then the three best players from 2007 were hoisted away. It's only fair to see what he can do with talented players. If he fails, fire him then, not now. The Good Lord couldn't win with this bunch.


Since the AS break came (and passed), this team is now, more and more, becoming Walt and Dusty's, and less and less WK's.

I disagree slightly with this. It's still mostly WK's team - but that is about to change, I'd bet.

GAC
08-28-2008, 09:09 PM
Baker and his coaches just cannot get anything out of these players.

Can't get blood out of a turnip.

LoganBuck
08-28-2008, 09:31 PM
Baker and his coaches just cannot get anything out of these players.


That is true.

But that is not the problem. The problem is that we have watched this whole season go by, and watched continued buffoonery.

1. The Debacle in San Diego
2. The fact that he has two pitchers on his staff that must have a special pitching coach flown in when they are having problems, one of them is now having health problems. Maybe a competent eye watching over them daily would have avoided this. The same goes for Aaron Harang, and Homer Bailey. Baker picked his pitching coach.
3. Bako and Patterson this has already been covered.
4. The constant double switching of Adam Dunn that cost the Reds several games, imo, when Corey Patterson ended up getting his high leverage at bats.
5. Ken Griffey batting third out of respect.
6. The complete inability to construct a batting order. You know CF, SS, RF, 2B etc.
7. Blaming Wayne Krivsky for this mess. Take some responsibility!

GAC
08-28-2008, 09:37 PM
I disagree slightly with this. It's still mostly WK's team - but that is about to change, I'd bet.

It has to change. If this roster is so "dysfunctional" and in need of sweeping changes - and I agree - then even more changes could have been made at the trading deadline to rid themselves of more of those players other then a Jr, Dunn, and Ross. It's a lost season anyway.

But once that opportunity presents itself, and a GM passes on it, then that team becomes more and more HIS. And I don't say that as a criticism of Jocketty or a defense of Krivsky either. But in WK's first season many wanted him fired at the AS break because he hadn't made the sweeping changes needed to improve this team. Now I am not saying that should happen here because I thought that was being very rash and unreasonable then. But for those that were doing so, I didn't see where anyone was cutting WK any slack, after only 4 months on the job, and saying "This is still Dan O'Brien's team". ;)

But Walt (Dusty) have been in charge of this team for pretty much the entire season, yet they've made minimal changes.

I'm hoping that at season's end that numerous contracts that have played themselves out will not be renewed.

It's going to be an interesting off-season. Regardless - the team we see next April will be Walt's (Dusty's).

edabbs44
08-28-2008, 09:59 PM
That is true.

But that is not the problem. The problem is that we have watched this whole season go by, and watched continued buffoonery.

1. The Debacle in San Diego
2. The fact that he has two pitchers on his staff that must have a special pitching coach flown in when they are having problems, one of them is now having health problems. Maybe a competent eye watching over them daily would have avoided this. The same goes for Aaron Harang, and Homer Bailey. Baker picked his pitching coach.
3. Bako and Patterson this has already been covered.
4. The constant double switching of Adam Dunn that cost the Reds several games, imo, when Corey Patterson ended up getting his high leverage at bats.
5. Ken Griffey batting third out of respect.
6. The complete inability to construct a batting order. You know CF, SS, RF, 2B etc.
7. Blaming Wayne Krivsky for this mess. Take some responsibility!

2) Pole was here last year.

4) Cost them games? Was Dunn such a lock to win whatever games you speak of?

7) It is mostly WK's fault. It's his roster.

LoganBuck
08-28-2008, 10:18 PM
2) Pole was here last year.

4) Cost them games? Was Dunn such a lock to win whatever games you speak of?

7) It is mostly WK's fault. It's his roster.

2. Pole was Dusty's choice this year, he was not bound to Pole until he decided that Pole would be his pitching coach.

4. Do we have to argue Dunn versus Patterson? Without checking the game logs I know it happened at least three times where the Reds ended up losing. Sure Dunn could just as easily struck out.

7. Some people take salt, ketchup, brown sugar, pepper, mustard, and hot sauce, and make killer barbecue sauce. Others make a mess. Dusty is part of the management team, he was all offseason. He had his input, and brought in at least 4 players. He is complicit.

Spring~Fields
08-28-2008, 10:57 PM
Can't get blood out of a turnip.

Since all they have is turnips, thus nothing to trade, where are these players going to come from?

I see there are some ex-Giants and ex-Cubs on the FA list

He will do exactly what he did this year, he can only do what he thinks, what he knows and what he believes, he is what he is.

This is Big Bobs team, don't forget that he has been running the show since 2006, Mr. 7% increase, how's that been working out?

WVRedsFan
08-28-2008, 11:32 PM
It has to change. If this roster is so "dysfunctional" and in need of sweeping changes - and I agree - then even more changes could have been made at the trading deadline to rid themselves of more of those players other then a Jr, Dunn, and Ross. It's a lost season anyway.

Exactly. The problem at shortstop and third base. The outfield. Catching. All must be addressed because I believe what we have at these positions (not all outfielders, btw) is inadequate.


But Walt (Dusty) have been in charge of this team for pretty much the entire season, yet they've made minimal changes.

I'm hoping that at season's end that numerous contracts that have played themselves out will not be renewed.

It's going to be an interesting off-season. Regardless - the team we see next April will be Walt's (Dusty's).

I got the feeling that WJ looked at this mess of a roster and just thought he'd let the free agents go and deal with it after the season. Finally, he got offers for Dunn and Griffey (which he thought was never going to happen) and pulled the trigger. Ross was a no-brainer. What's the use of having three bad catchers when you can cut to two and bring a kid up? Look for next year's team to be so different that you'll need a program to know who's playing. If not, then maybe I'll join you in following the Indians. :)

redsmetz
08-29-2008, 07:32 AM
1. The Debacle in San Diego

I'll agree there's an argument to be made about allowing Harang to pitch four innings, but it's only fair to note that the "debacle in San Diego" (is that a registered trademark?) falls equally on the Reds pitching staff who had three blown saves in that game, two in regulation. If any of those pitchers does their job, we're never seeing Aaron Harang pitch four innings in relief.

As many have said ad nauseum, this sort of game happens in a ML season and sometimes there are adverse consequences due to choices made, but someone needed to get out there and there's been many a starter who pitched in a game like that. That hardly constitutes "bafoonery".

dfs
08-29-2008, 07:53 AM
Fire Bob Boone -- this team is losing too much!
Fire Dave Miley -- this team is losing too much!
Fire Jerry Narron -- this team is losing too much!
Fire Dusty Baker -- this team is losing too much!

Yup... we've really got a handle on what the real problem is here.

Fire Bob Boone -- this team is losing too much!
Fire Jim Bowden -- this team is losing too much!
Fire Dave Miley -- this team is losing too much!
Fire Dan O -- this team is losing too much!
Fire Jerry Narron -- this team is losing too much!
Fire Wayne -- this team is losing too much?
Fire Dusty Baker -- this team is losing too much!

and next in the sequence???

Fire Walt --

camisadelgolf
08-29-2008, 08:30 AM
I dislike Baker's managing as much as the next guy, but I'm all for keeping him next year. He's getting paid about $3.5mm, and whoever they would hire to replace him would probably earn about $1mm. In other words, the replacement manager would have to be about $4.5mm worth of a positive difference to make it worth it, and I just don't think that's possible. I'd just go ahead and let Baker finish his contract and hope that he convinces some quality free agents to come to Cincinnati in the meantime.

jojo
08-29-2008, 08:45 AM
Fire Dusty? Sure. OK. Just don't do it before Mike Hargrove gets hired on somewhere.

Managers as a rule are more trivial pursuit than event IMHO so Dusty, Hargrove, "insert name here" really are the last piece of the puzzle.

Right now inserting any of those guys would be like hiring a captain to navigate your ship to the new world on a voyage beginning in the morning even though your ship is still on blocks in the ship yard with the hull being only half completed.

Dusty is a prettier face of the franchise.

Strikes Out Looking
08-29-2008, 11:39 AM
I am curious, where did you hear Lou wanted to come back?

I didn't mean come back to the Reds, but come back to being a manager. IIRC, he left Tampa Bay after 2005 and in the Spring of '06 he came to Cincy and spoke with Castellini. Supposedly he told him he was taking the year off--Castellini should have been calling him constantly from late that Summer on--instead they gave Narron an extension. I believe this has been the biggest mistake made during the Castellini years.

Spring~Fields
08-29-2008, 12:08 PM
Give him the players.

Going into the '09 season, it will be their team and Baker cannot run out any more excuses such as "This is Wayne Krivsky's team, not Walt Jocketty's and not mine." But knowing Dusty he'll try. ;)




"In the last two years, we've had the team we wanted maybe one-third or one-quarter of the time. We haven't had the pleasure of having the team we put together."

- Sun-Times, July 7



"Give me the horses - and my horses stay healthy - and I'll win," Baker told reporters.

Some fans you just can’t please, some even said pretty much the same things years ago. I use to wonder why, I don’t anymore.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/fullcourtpress/2006/05/its_looking_like_dustys_last_s.html


http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/sports/the_dusty_ozzie_show.php

bucksfan2
08-29-2008, 01:40 PM
I didn't mean come back to the Reds, but come back to being a manager. IIRC, he left Tampa Bay after 2005 and in the Spring of '06 he came to Cincy and spoke with Castellini. Supposedly he told him he was taking the year off--Castellini should have been calling him constantly from late that Summer on--instead they gave Narron an extension. I believe this has been the biggest mistake made during the Castellini years.

I thought he left Tampa in 05 and came to the reds as a special consultant but was still getting paid from Tampa. If the Reds would have hired him during that season he would have forefitted his salary from the Rays. The next offseason the Cubs hired him.

guttle11
08-29-2008, 01:46 PM
One thing we all should have learned by now, if you fire someone, you need to find a better replacement.

So "Fire Dusty?". I'm all for it, but only if a better option is brought in. I don't have any confidence in that happening though.

Strikes Out Looking
08-29-2008, 02:19 PM
I thought he left Tampa in 05 and came to the reds as a special consultant but was still getting paid from Tampa. If the Reds would have hired him during that season he would have forefitted his salary from the Rays. The next offseason the Cubs hired him.

I don't think he was hired by the Reds--I think he spoke with Castellini during the spring and then that was it. According to the wire services:


Castellini offered Lou Piniella a chance to become a special adviser, but the former Reds and Devil Rays manager is taking a year off after Tampa Bay agreed to buy out the final year of his contract.

"Lou really had a year that he had to stay away from major league baseball," Castellini said. "I didn't know that at the time we talked about it. It's just not going to happen this year. And I would expect Lou to go back to managing."

LoganBuck
08-29-2008, 03:08 PM
I'll agree there's an argument to be made about allowing Harang to pitch four innings, but it's only fair to note that the "debacle in San Diego" (is that a registered trademark?) falls equally on the Reds pitching staff who had three blown saves in that game, two in regulation. If any of those pitchers does their job, we're never seeing Aaron Harang pitch four innings in relief.

As many have said ad nauseum, this sort of game happens in a ML season and sometimes there are adverse consequences due to choices made, but someone needed to get out there and there's been many a starter who pitched in a game like that. That hardly constitutes "bafoonery".

It wasn't only that. He double switched Dunn out of the game, and someone else if I remember correctly. Patterson was already in the lineup, which made the lineup easy to pitch around. The Fogg/Bray problem was the crux of the Harang issue. It would not have come down to Harang and Volquez pitching if Baker hadn't burned two pitchers in that manner. Go look up the game log and box score of that one. It is ugly.

RedsManRick
08-29-2008, 03:12 PM
It wasn't only that. He double switched Dunn out of the game, and someone else if I remember correctly. Patterson was already in the lineup, which made the lineup easy to pitch around. The Fogg/Bray problem was the crux of the Harang issue. It would not have come down to Harang and Volquez pitching if Baker hadn't burned two pitchers in that manner. Go look up the game log and box score of that one. It is ugly.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SDN/SDN200805250.shtml

Freel pinch hit for David Weathers, who was up following Dunn in the 9th. Freel then stayed in the game as a defensive replacement for Dunn. The game was tied 6-6 at the time. Freel would go on to collect 4 AB, the same number as Dunn.

Patterson, at the top of the lineup, went 0-8 on the day.

redsmetz
08-29-2008, 03:53 PM
It wasn't only that. He double switched Dunn out of the game, and someone else if I remember correctly. Patterson was already in the lineup, which made the lineup easy to pitch around. The Fogg/Bray problem was the crux of the Harang issue. It would not have come down to Harang and Volquez pitching if Baker hadn't burned two pitchers in that manner. Go look up the game log and box score of that one. It is ugly.

Again, I don't disagree that mistakes were made, particularly late in the game, but if our set up guy and closer had done their jobs, it would have been a nice win and no one would be talking about it.

Highlifeman21
08-29-2008, 04:37 PM
Well if you look at it from the perspective that a good manager gets the best out of his players, and Dusty got about $20 MM worth of value out of a $70 MM payroll, it's a money-saving move.

The Dusty is not the reason why this team sucks something awful.

Lack of talent (on every roster in the organization) is the reason why this team sucks something awful.

Wheelhouse
08-29-2008, 04:41 PM
I dislike Baker's managing as much as the next guy, but I'm all for keeping him next year. He's getting paid about $3.5mm, and whoever they would hire to replace him would probably earn about $1mm. In other words, the replacement manager would have to be about $4.5mm worth of a positive difference to make it worth it, and I just don't think that's possible. I'd just go ahead and let Baker finish his contract and hope that he convinces some quality free agents to come to Cincinnati in the meantime.

Again, when as a manger you get $20MM out of a $70MM payroll, and you have a manager who could damage or destroy millions of dollars worth of pitchers, it is a money SAVING move to replace Dusty.

redsmetz
08-29-2008, 05:53 PM
Again, when as a manger you get $20MM out of a $70MM payroll, and you have a manager who could damage or destroy millions of dollars worth of pitchers, it is a money SAVING move to replace Dusty.

The very nature of the game of baseball means constant risk of damage to players, particularly pitchers. At this point, we don't know if any of our pitchers have been damaged. Cueto shows the strain, but Harang seems to be showing nothing wrong. In spite of the handwringing (particularly going on over in the Sun Deck), Harang had a decent outing last night, except for three pitches. Two out of his last three starts have been good and he stated they'd found a mechanical flaw that had fixed the recent problems. I suggest that this start shows that.

There is plenty of blame to go around for this disasterous season between the owner, the GM's, the coaching staff and the players. I agree with those that firing Baker after one season is more of the same and will be counterproductive for the future. Lets see what Jocketty can do with the roster and what decisions are made about coaches, etc. and go from there.

Wheelhouse
08-29-2008, 06:42 PM
The very nature of the game of baseball means constant risk of damage to players, particularly pitchers. At this point, we don't know if any of our pitchers have been damaged. Cueto shows the strain, but Harang seems to be showing nothing wrong. In spite of the handwringing (particularly going on over in the Sun Deck), Harang had a decent outing last night, except for three pitches. Two out of his last three starts have been good and he stated they'd found a mechanical flaw that had fixed the recent problems. I suggest that this start shows that.

There is plenty of blame to go around for this disasterous season between the owner, the GM's, the coaching staff and the players. I agree with those that firing Baker after one season is more of the same and will be counterproductive for the future. Lets see what Jocketty can do with the roster and what decisions are made about coaches, etc. and go from there.

Jocketty's job is on the line in all this as well--he has the right to put his own guy in, and he will IMO.

edabbs44
08-29-2008, 07:34 PM
Again, when as a manger you get $20MM out of a $70MM payroll, and you have a manager who could damage or destroy millions of dollars worth of pitchers, it is a money SAVING move to replace Dusty.

He hasn't done much wrong with the handling of the staff. That's just some of this:

http://www.altmeat.com/pics/400/oscar_meyer_bologna.jpg

edabbs44
08-29-2008, 07:57 PM
Again, I don't disagree that mistakes were made, particularly late in the game, but if our set up guy and closer had done their jobs, it would have been a nice win and no one would be talking about it.

That's the point the Dustybashers can't fathom.

GAC
08-29-2008, 07:57 PM
Jocketty's job is on the line in all this as well

Walt's job is secure. And it should be. If Bob C shows the same impatience with Jocketty as he did with WK then that is evidence the problem is far, far deeper then Dusty Baker.

No one is going to convince me, going into this new season, that this owner didn't already "entertain" doubts about Krivsky and was looking to possibly replace him. And that was further cemented when he hire WJ as an "advisor". And Bob C was just as complicit in the hiring of Dusty Baker also, and giving him that 3 year contract. You think he didn't sign off on that deal?

And that boggles me further. If the above is possibly true, concerning this owner, at some point. replacing his GM, then why sign a guy like Baker when your new GM may have diffferences and want "his guy" in there?

And remember - it has been this owner who has consistently been telling Baker to "keep his chin up" (so to speak), be patient, and hang in there. So Baker ain't going anywhere in the immediate future.

It has primarily been WJ who has gotten rid of players like a Jr and Dunn, and decided to go on a youth movement. Again, something this owner also had to agree with. So in doing so, a owner and GM can't expect any manager, regardless of who it is, to somehow immediately turn it around the following year. Very unreasonable expectation IMO.

RedsManRick
08-29-2008, 08:04 PM
That's the point the Dustybashers can't fathom.

Or maybe we recognize both. The bullpen blew the game multiple times and then Dusty went on to exacerbate the situation by misusing the remainder of his staff.

There was plenty of blame to go around in that game, no doubt. But that fact doesn't absolve Dusty of his share. Though I'm quite sure Dusty would agree with the assessment that he's not to blame for anything.

GAC
08-29-2008, 08:13 PM
Again, I don't disagree that mistakes were made, particularly late in the game, but if our set up guy and closer had done their jobs, it would have been a nice win and no one would be talking about it.

My only questioning of Baker in that game was bringing in RHer Weathers in the 8th to face RHers Kouzmanoff and Greene, and not going with LHer Bray. Other then that, it was just one of those screwy games.

Unassisted
08-29-2008, 11:17 PM
Unless Dusty does something outrageous to get himself fired, I figure the Reds are stuck with him until late in the third year of his contract. No manager with a better W-L record will want the job if he's canned sooner than that and Castellini won't settle for someone unproven.

Ron Madden
08-30-2008, 07:43 AM
Dusty is a product of Major League Baseball.

Old values and old beliefs never ever die in MLB.

redsmetz
08-30-2008, 08:55 AM
My only questioning of Baker in that game was bringing in RHer Weathers in the 8th to face RHers Kouzmanoff and Greene, and not going with LHer Bray. Other then that, it was just one of those screwy games.

And that's been a common complaint throughout the season; and certainly a legitimate one. Nearly every manager makes sort of mistake sometime in a season. So there's no question that Baker can share in that portion of the blame, but that hardly constitutes a "debacle" as it was earlier called.

On the other hand, it's easy enough to say "mistakes happen" (and they do), but if its ongoing, it has to be addressed. But in reality, it's not just Dusty's mistakes, the blame can run up and down the entire bench.

mth123
08-30-2008, 09:03 AM
My only questioning of Baker in that game was bringing in RHer Weathers in the 8th to face RHers Kouzmanoff and Greene, and not going with LHer Bray. Other then that, it was just one of those screwy games.

The problem with the extra inning game was not bringing Harang in to try and win, it was bringing him back on short rest for his next start. Dusty is guilty of this negligence with a valuable property, but he wasn't acting entirely on his own. Dick Pole and the GM are equally as guilty IMO. Not sure if Krivsky was still GM at the time or if Jocketty had taken over by then.

Spring~Fields
08-30-2008, 10:24 AM
On the other hand, it's easy enough to say "mistakes happen" (and they do), but if its ongoing, it has to be addressed. But in reality, it's not just Dusty's mistakes, the blame can run up and down the entire bench.

Mistakes
mis·take [mi stáyk]
n (plural mis·takes)
1. incorrect act or decision: an incorrect, unwise, or unfortunate act or decision caused by bad judgment or a lack of information or care

2. identify somebody or something incorrectly: to identify somebody or something incorrectly, or fail to recognize somebody or something

3. choose something incorrectly: to choose something incorrectly or injudiciously


Can mistakes be measured by the number of decisions and choices to bat a given batter in the same position over and over again even though it is the wrong choice and decision?

What if we read the back of the baseball card and went by the players career numbers, or 2007 season or three yr splits or just used what was occuring month by month in 2008?

Is offense a critical part of baseball? Is the evaluation of talent and the utilization of that talent the managers decisions and choices?

Is Phillips a cleanup hitter ? When he gets most of his AB/PA against right handed pitching?


vs. Right .248 .291 .396 .687
vs. Left .299 .355 .597 .952
June .262 .304 .374 .678
July .278 .330 .402 .732
August .194 .240 .430 .670

Batting #4 .275 .326 .482 .808
Runs 65 Hits 121 HR 19 RBI 66


Edwin Encarnacion 3 yr splits


Batting #4 .286 .373 .535 .908
2008
April .293 .369 .576 .945
June .294 .422 .603 1.025
July .291 .367 .620 .987


Was Griffey the best option to be the number three slot hitter?


April .255 .345 .429 .774
May .250 .336 .360 .696
June .205 .370 .425 .795
vs. Left .203 .303 .357 .660

Should an Adam Dunn have been batting down in the order in the 5 slot with his OBP?
Batting #5 .396 .549 .945

Was Patterson or Jay Bruce his best and only option for lead off hitter?
Is playing CF the right criteria for choosing a lead off batter?


April .225 .292 .488 .780
May .180 .180 .197 .377
June .156 .156 .311 .467
vs. Left .140 .173 .200 .373
vs. Right .209 .246 .365 .611

Bruce
Batting #1 .232 .260 .389 .649



but if its ongoing, it has to be addressed.

Was it addressed in a timely manner?



Encarncion
Batting #6 .332 .484 .816
Batting #7 .413 .648 1.061

Votto
Batting #5 .281 .361 .594 .955
Batting #7 .302 .366 .448 .814

Dunn
Batting #5 .396 .549 .945
Batting #6 .351 .667 1.018

Batting #1
Jay Bruce .260 .389 .649
C. Patterson .218 .321 .539
Norris Hopper .192 .125 .317
J. Keppinger .167 .148 .315

Batting #2
C. Patterson .185 .154 .339
Paul Janish .239 .167 .406
J. Keppinger .305 .365 .671

Wheelhouse
08-30-2008, 10:48 AM
He hasn't done much wrong with the handling of the staff. That's just some of this:

http://www.altmeat.com/pics/400/oscar_meyer_bologna.jpg

I disagree wholeheartedly--and all you need to look at are 280 at bats of THIS:

http://www.mlb.com/images/2008/03/04/FheQihEe.jpg

Spring~Fields
08-30-2008, 10:58 AM
I disagree wholeheartedly--and all you need to look at are 280 at bats of THIS:

http://www.mlb.com/images/2008/03/04/FheQihEe.jpg

How about the baloney that got him on the roster to begin with, and the baloney that keeps him other's playing?

How about Bako and the often injured Hairston?


Three year stats
Hairston .231 .301 .323 .624
Bako .212 .281 .249 .530
Patterson .254 .291 .393 .684


One certainly did not have to wait until half way through the 2008 season to know that these three were not the answer to the Reds offensive woes before the 2008 season even started.

Vada Pinson Fan
08-30-2008, 11:00 AM
Batting Griffey third irked me most of this year. Loved when I saw Griffey hitting 7th for the White Sox! Baker wasted a lot a offensive opportunities hitting Griffey in that spot. In my opinion Baker hasn't inspired this team to play better and looks passive to bewildered at times. Baker will be here next year. Krivsky caused Castellini to eat too many contracts to be able to afford to cut ties with Dusty.

My choice for the next Reds manager, whenever that may be, is the Louisville Bats Manager of the Year: Rick Sweet. I'm very impressed by what I have seen and heard about this manager.

Spring~Fields
08-30-2008, 11:05 AM
My choice for the next Reds manager, whenever that may be, is the Louisville Bats Manager of the Year: Rick Sweet. I'm very impressed by what I have seen and heard about this manager.

How about Duncan with St. Louis, would he like a managing chance?

GAC
08-31-2008, 06:06 AM
And that's been a common complaint throughout the season; and certainly a legitimate one. Nearly every manager makes sort of mistake sometime in a season. So there's no question that Baker can share in that portion of the blame, but that hardly constitutes a "debacle" as it was earlier called.

Oh I agree. And I have never agreed with those that refer to this game as a debacle. Those types of games are infrequent, and no manager likes to face them or be stuck in that situation. They are very frustrating to ANY manager.

We can all sight "what ifs" in this game.

But as it has been mentioned earlier... if his pitchers (bullpen) had done their job then Baker wouldn't have been in that extra innings situation where he had to start utilizing his starters.

The one player that really pee'd me off was Cordero. We went back ahead in the 9th 7-6 and this 12 mil closer blows another save right off the bat vs the leadoff guy.

We then go back ahead in the 11th 9-7. And IMO, here is where Dusty made his second critical mistake (the 1st being not bringing in the lefty Bray in the 8th to face the righties). He brought in Fogg, in another save opportunity, and he gave up two runs.

I'm not going to be too critical of Baker on this one because I understand he was trying his best not to start eating into his starters, so he brought Fogg in. Baker didn't start using his starters until he had no relivers left. But if you're serious about preserving the win, then why bring in a guy who had an ERA of 9, zero saves, and expect him to do that? How can any manager exhibit any confidence in a pitcher with those kind of numbers in that situation?

And Fogg did what Fogg does and the rest is history.


The problem with the extra inning game was not bringing Harang in to try and win, it was bringing him back on short rest for his next start.

I agree. Harang pitched a masterful 4 innings (2 hits, 0 runs), but also threw 63 pitches.

Foresight is everything; but I almost would have brought him in instead of Fogg and allow Aaron to save the game. Then use Fogg 4 days later. But again - foresight is everything. ;)


Not sure if Krivsky was still GM at the time or if Jocketty had taken over by then.

Nope. WK was fired a month earlier on April 24th.

Ltlabner
08-31-2008, 08:21 PM
The Dusty is not the reason why this team sucks something awful.

Lack of talent (on every roster in the organization) is the reason why this team sucks something awful.

Dusty doesn't make a team awful.

Dusty makes an awful team tremendously horrific.

Wheelhouse
09-01-2008, 01:06 PM
The Dusty is not the reason why this team sucks something awful.

Lack of talent (on every roster in the organization) is the reason why this team sucks something awful.

At the start of this year, at which position did the Reds have a lack of talent aside from catcher? CF? They had a huge talent there in Bruce who should have been up from the beginning. The Reds are a talented team that has played below their capabilities. In addition their play has been sloppy, unconcentrated, and without a solid approach. Every announcer, and every professional scout has said this. The Reds are a few pieces away, and one of them is a good manager.

The Reds farm system is also highly ranked, and the Dunn and Griffey trades have bettered it.

WVRedsFan
09-01-2008, 02:00 PM
My choice for the next Reds manager, whenever that may be, is the Louisville Bats Manager of the Year: Rick Sweet. I'm very impressed by what I have seen and heard about this manager.

<cough>Dave Miley<cough>

WVRedsFan
09-01-2008, 02:05 PM
At the start of this year, at which position did the Reds have a lack of talent aside from catcher? CF? They had a huge talent there in Bruce who should have been up from the beginning. The Reds are a talented team that has played below their capabilities. In addition their play has been sloppy, unconcentrated, and without a solid approach. Every announcer, and every professional scout has said this. The Reds are a few pieces away, and one of them is a good manager.

The Reds farm system is also highly ranked, and the Dunn and Griffey trades have bettered it.

At the start of the year, the Reds looked like this:

1B - Hatteberg
2B - Phillips
SS - ????
3B - Encarnacion
LF - Dunn
CF - Patterson
RF - Griffey, Jr.
C - Ross/Bako

Hatteberg was nearing 40, but was the designated starter over Votto. Shortstop was a question mark with Gonzalez out for the season. Encarnacion has his defecencies as we've discussed here. Centerfield was a black hole with Patterson and Bruce only came later--much too late. Junior was aging fast and everyone knew it. Our catching was AAA at best.

That's very talented? To their credit, Votto played himself into the starting job at first base and we were forced to play an oft-injured Hairston there some, but it ended up with Keppinger who is a good utility player at best. When Dunn and Griffey were traded, we had to depend on a rookie (who's done well btw) in left.

Sounds like a losing team to me.

nate
09-01-2008, 04:23 PM
<cough>Dave Miley<cough>

So because Dave Miley didn't lead the Reds to the promised land the idea of promoting your AAA manager to the big club is bad and should never be considered?

Is that what you're saying?

Spring~Fields
09-01-2008, 04:26 PM
At the start of this year, at which position did the Reds have a lack of talent aside from catcher? CF? They had a huge talent there in Bruce who should have been up from the beginning. The Reds are a talented team that has played below their capabilities. In addition their play has been sloppy, unconcentrated, and without a solid approach. Every announcer, and every professional scout has said this. The Reds are a few pieces away, and one of them is a good manager.

The Reds farm system is also highly ranked, and the Dunn and Griffey trades have bettered it.

I can't agree with you more.

If he had looked at the three year, 3 Year (2005 - 2007) stats for his players he should have known what he had to start the season with, as most, not all, Redszone members did. There is even split stats to tell him at what position the players have performed their best in the lineup. Example 3 years stats for Patterson batting #1 Batting #1 .212 .256 .338 .594, doesn't look like a good option for a lead off batter to me, prior to the 2008 season.

There was no excuse for Baker not knowing what Patterson, Bako and Hairston had been doing for the past three years, especially their on base percentages and health issues. Unless he ignored the stats, a part of evaluating his players.

The manager along with his choices and his decisions undermined the offense of the Reds in the first two months of the season. I don’t think there is anyone that can say that Patterson, Bako and Hairston did not change or effect dynamically the order of what occurred with the Reds in 2008, even though some still think that a batting order doesn’t matter even though they would not recommend batting a Patterson and Bako one two followed by the pitcher in that lineup that doesn’t matter.

“undermined” the offense defined.
2. weaken something gradually: to diminish or weaken something gradually

Three unemployed ex-cubs who should have never been taking up roster space on the Reds that other’s could have had to contribute.

The 38 year old Hatteberg had 52 total AB in 2008.

The manager that persuaded the organization to sign Patterson, Bako, and Hairston should have had reason to have known of the lefty lefty platoon situation at first base and should have influenced that Hatteberg to be released for better options, in fact he had a right handed Keppinger who can play first base, and we saw that Valentin can play first. Dusty Baker has what, thirty forty years in baseball ? Not to mention all of the tutoring from Hank or is that a Farney type that he has had.

It is also nothing new for players to hit a left handed or right handed pitcher better than the other, the manager should have known and applied those facts to his offensive strategies also, along with accepting the facts of on base percentages.

But no, he was fixated on speed and CF leads off, SS bats second, even if they can’t get on base, respect bats third, even if they could not hit left hander’s and free swinger bats fourth, even if they could not hit right hander’s well, and on base percentage bats down in the order.

Baker also brought in his bench coach, Chris Speier, that was to help Encarncion, Votto and others with their fielding, we all saw how that worked out. While his pitching coach and former Cubs coach had to have Soto called in to bail him out when he did not know what to do to help with the young pitching. I won’t mention some of the worst seasons for Harang, Arroyo and a complete failure with Belisle and Bailey.

Dick Pole doesn't seem to be able to stay with one organization very long, is their a talent, skill or results problem with Pole?
Bio
"Dick Pole is in his second season on the Major League coaching staff, his 20th season as a Major League coach and his 16th season as a professional pitching coach on 11/7/06 was hired as the Reds pitching coach previously was the pitching coach on the Major League staffs of the Chicago Cubs (1988-91), San Francisco Giants (1993-97), Anaheim Angels (1999), Cleveland Indians (2000-01) and Montreal Expos (2002) and for the Boston Red Sox Class AAA affiliate in Pawtucket (1991)...also spent time as a bullpen coach for the Red Sox (1998) and Cubs (2003-06)"

By the end of May Bakers team was out it.
Cincinnati 26 29 .473 8 games behind RS 248 RA 271 DIFF -23
.473 x 162 projecting a 77 win season with the well funded Chicago by their ownership running away with it.

Countless talented stats people on Redszone and in the press had written a great deal pointing out the flaws of the managers strategies, and tactical errors in judgment in utilizing and evaluating his player personnel, they were proven correct.

When the rough times came in June, he had already squandered his chances and opportunities of April and May



April BA OBP SLG OPS 3 Year BA OBP SLG OPS SB
B. Phillips .283 .330 .500 .830 .280 .326 .455 .781 57
Adam Dunn .232 .396 .415 .811 .248 .379 .527 .906
E. Encarnacion .293 .369 .576 .945 .273 .348 .450 .798
Joey Votto .308 .341 .538 .880 .321 .360 .548 .908
J. Keppinger .312 .361 .431 .793 .319 .385 .462 .847
K. Griffey Jr. .255 .339 .429 .768 .278 .355 .520 .875
J. Bruce Rookie
Paul Bako .310 .388 .507 .895 .212 .281 .249 .530

Totals .261 .331 .428 .760
Opponents .265 .330 .433 .763

Bench/Platoon
J. Hairston Jr. .348 .375 .435 .810 .231 .301 .323 .624 18
Ryan Freel .321 .351 .377 .728 .265 .353 .376 .729 88
C. Patterson .225 .292 .488 .780 .254 .291 .393 .684 97
S. Hatteberg .167 .316 .233 .549 .283 .371 .413 .784
Norris Hopper .240 .296 .240 .536 .332 .379 .396 .775 16
J. Valentin .208 .269 .250 .519 .275 .336 .448 .784
David Ross .200 .200 .300 .500 .228 .304 .463 .767


After getting a good look in April Baker should have known that he had these players for May.



May BA OBP SLG OPS
B. Phillips .292 .342 .557 .898
Adam Dunn .284 .429 .691 1.120
E. Encarnacion .172 .228 .247 .475
Joey Votto .281 .385 .528 .913
J. Keppinger .400 .447 .543 .990 J. Hairston Jr. .343 .397 .514 .912
K. Griffey Jr. .250 .336 .360 .696
Jay Bruce .579 .680 .895 1.575
David Ross .282 .429 .385 .813

Totals .263 .339 .417 .755
Opponents .278 .347 .455 .802

Bench/Platoon
J. Hairston Jr. .343 .397 .514 .912
Ryan Freel .300 .355 .371 .727
J. Valentin .267 .313 .400 .713
Paul Janish .280 .333 .280 .613
S. Hatteberg .222 .211 .278 .488
Paul Bako .186 .262 .305 .567
C. Patterson .180 .180 .197 .377

WVRedsFan
09-01-2008, 05:06 PM
So because Dave Miley didn't lead the Reds to the promised land the idea of promoting your AAA manager to the big club is bad and should never be considered?

Is that what you're saying?

Maybe.

All the attributes mentioned about the Louisville manager also applied to Dave Miley. Performance at the AAA level should not mean it will happen at the major league level. Maybe he would be a great manager, but the fact that he has done well at Louisville does not mean he would do well with the big club.

Spring~Fields
09-01-2008, 05:31 PM
So because Dave Miley didn't lead the Reds to the promised land the idea of promoting your AAA manager to the big club is bad and should never be considered?

Is that what you're saying?

Miley never had a chance to succeed, he had no pitching.

Where are most of them now ?

Miley’s Pitching Inherited Staff 2003
Check out these numbers
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CIN/2003.shtml

SP Paul Wilson
SP Danny Graves
SP Ryan Dempster
SP Jimmy Haynes
SP John Bale
SP Aaron Harang
SP Jimmy Anderson
SP Jeff Austin
SP Seth Etherton
SP Josh Hall

Scott Williamson
Felix Heredia
Chris Reitsma
Scott Sullivan
Kent Mercker
John Riedling
Brian Reith
Todd Van Poppel
Gabe White
Dan Serafini
Scott Randall
Jose Acevedo
Ryan Wagner
Phil Norton
Juan Cerros
Joey Hamilton
Josias Manzanillo
Matt Belisle
Joe Valentine
Mark Watson

Miley’s Pitching Staff 2004
Check out this numbers
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CIN/2004.shtml

SP Paul Wilson
SP Aaron Harang
SP Jose Acevedo
SP Cory Lidle
SP *Brandon Claussen
SP Josh Hancock
SP Luke Hudson
Danny Graves
John Riedling
Phil Norton
Todd Jones
Ryan Wagner
Todd Van Poppel
Gabe White
Mike Matthews
Joe Valentine
Brian Reith
Jung Bong
Jimmy Haynes
Jesus Sanchez
Juan Padilla
Aaron Myette

Miley / Narron Pitching staff 2005
Check out these numbers
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CIN/2005.shtml

SP Eric Milton
SP Aaron Harang
SP Ramon Ortiz
SP Brandon Claussen
SP Luke Hudson
SP Paul Wilson
CL Dave Weathers
Kent Mercker
Todd Coffey
Matt Belisle
Ryan Wagner
Randy Keisler
Jason Standridge
Ricky Stone
Brian Shackelford
Elizardo Ramirez
Danny Graves
Joe Valentine
Josh Hancock
Ben Weber
Allan Simpson
Chris Booker

nate
09-01-2008, 05:55 PM
Maybe.

All the attributes mentioned about the Louisville manager also applied to Dave Miley. Performance at the AAA level should not mean it will happen at the major league level. Maybe he would be a great manager, but the fact that he has done well at Louisville does not mean he would do well with the big club.

So what are the criteria he should be judged by?

cincrazy
09-01-2008, 05:57 PM
Maybe.

All the attributes mentioned about the Louisville manager also applied to Dave Miley. Performance at the AAA level should not mean it will happen at the major league level. Maybe he would be a great manager, but the fact that he has done well at Louisville does not mean he would do well with the big club.

Sparky did well in the minors before coming to us... just sayin'

WVRedsFan
09-01-2008, 05:57 PM
So what are the criteria he should be judged by?

Beats me.

I would think a proven winner would be one, but we have one of those right now and it hasn't worked out so well. Yet.

WVRedsFan
09-01-2008, 06:00 PM
Sparky did well in the minors before coming to us... just sayin'

I know.

I wish I knew some others who did well after success in the minors, but I'm ashamed to admit I do not. I would guess that there are some.

And my point in the original reply was simply to remind folks that success at AAA does not mean success at the major league level. Nothing more.

RANDY IN INDY
09-01-2008, 07:05 PM
Never hurts to come in to a really good situation when it comes to being successful as a manager.

WVRedsFan
09-01-2008, 07:14 PM
Never hurts to come in to a really good situation when it comes to being successful as a manager.
True. I remember Sparky came in 1970 to a pretty loaded team and had a nearly .600 winning percentage when he was fired.

RANDY IN INDY
09-01-2008, 09:15 PM
I always thought of that 1970 team as Dave Bristol's team. Being in the right place at the right time is a wonderful thing.

jojo
09-01-2008, 09:42 PM
Dusty could've managed a perfect season and this team wouldn't be sniffing the playoffs.

He's basically the overripe banana in a tuna-fruit smoothie. A fresh banana really isn't going to help much.

RedsManRick
09-01-2008, 10:08 PM
Dusty could've managed a perfect season and this team wouldn't be sniffing the playoffs.

He's basically the overripe banana in a tuna-fruit smoothie. A fresh banana really isn't going to help much.

Clearly this 2008 smoothie was rotten. I think the question being asked is when you make next year's smoothie, do you want to start it off with an overripe banana?

jojo
09-01-2008, 10:21 PM
Build a better smoothie and the banana wont even be tasted.

Spring~Fields
09-01-2008, 10:22 PM
Clearly this 2008 smoothie was rotten. I think the question being asked is when you make next year's smoothie, do you want to start it off with an overripe banana?

Too bad Baker did not know the difference, he might have requested better players going in or throughout the season. :)

jojo
09-01-2008, 10:44 PM
Too bad Baker did not know the difference, he might have requested better players going in or throughout the season. :)

There isn't a manager in the game that would've made this season a successful one for the Reds if being a serious playoff contender is the definition of successful. The Cubs and Brewers are simply much too good.

SteelSD
09-02-2008, 12:12 AM
Too bad Baker did not know the difference, he might have requested better players going in or throughout the season. :)

Baker's the kind of guy who likes whatever flavor he's used to tasting. Problem is that his palette is crap. But hey, at least the 2008 Reds aren't his creation even though he's the guy who wanted a number of his own ingredients added to the recipe while also being in charge of poor prep and abyssmal cooking.

As a Manager, Dusty Baker is a week one "Top Chef" reject.

Cooper
09-02-2008, 12:49 AM
Dusty is the kind of chef who.....i got nothing.

Spring~Fields
09-02-2008, 09:40 AM
After JoJo asked the question up above I had to stop and think, and think, and think, just what did I expect this season from a winning manager, Dusty Baker. :confused:

I had to think, well, like any fan I had hoped for a winning team, 82-80. :party:

When it became apparent at the end of April that I was not going to see that this year, I began to rationalize that a .500 team was possible, somehow convincing myself that .500 would be a big step in the right direction, :oops: much to my chagrin I found that also was a bit too lofty for the baseball managing philosopher, Baker.

After many perceptual adjustments and finding myself suffering from LCOS, :eek: (lineup construction obsession syndrome) my hopes sank lower and lower.

By June I had to turn to delusions of grandeur, :all_cohol
Yes, maybe I could get lucky and hit my preseason pick of 74 wins, or something like that, I recall seeing what Chip predicted at the time, so after much thought, I decided to get sneaky :KoolAid: and went with one loss more, surely Baker could achieve that giving me some fantasy bragging and crowing rights, after all that would enable me to fire off a PM to GAC, saying, “hey lookie here, I got that one right, yippee, whoopee“. :notworthy I even had plans of going all out and clicking on some smiley icons and having a real good time with that, :bowrofl: wrong again. :cry: so disappointing I cannot do that now.

:dunno: I mean who knew that a good day or good game with Dusty Baker starts when either his number one or number two batter could actually get on base, and then not get picked off going to second.

Turns out that I was looking at the wrong end of the standings with Baker, :doh: a winning manager that struggled to keep his team ahead of a Pittsburgh no less, :bang: Pittsburgh !!! and Houston well, Houston was just too much of a challenge for him.

So JoJo I guess my answer would have to be, could Baker at least have kept this team, his team, ahead of a Pittsburgh for the entire season? :pray: Can he at least stay ahead of them in the standings :fineprint for the rest of the season. :beerme: :thumbup:



Houston 72 66 .522 13 615 646 -31
Cincinnati 61 76 .445 23.5 586 683 -97
Pittsburgh 57 79 .419 27 615 752 -137

Ltlabner
09-02-2008, 09:46 AM
I wonder if by devine intervention the Reds were fighting for 1st place if Dusty would be claiming this "wasn't his team".

Spring~Fields
09-02-2008, 09:52 AM
Baker's the kind of guy who likes whatever flavor he's used to tasting. Problem is that his palette is crap. But hey, at least the 2008 Reds aren't his creation even though he's the guy who wanted a number of his own ingredients added to the recipe while also being in charge of poor prep and abyssmal cooking.

As a Manager, Dusty Baker is a week one "Top Chef" reject.

:lol:

He would have trouble putting together a can of soup and water, somehow blaming the can opener for the end results.

At least he had speed. :) Speed up to the plate, and speed back to the dugout, Patterson.

Spring~Fields
09-02-2008, 09:58 AM
I wonder if by devine intervention the Reds were fighting for 1st place if Dusty would be claiming this "wasn't his team".

I thought that you gave up the sauce? :)

jojo
09-02-2008, 11:28 AM
After JoJo asked the question up above I had to stop and think, and think, and think, just what did I expect this season from a winning manager, Dusty Baker. :confused:

I had to think, well, like any fan I had hoped for a winning team, 82-80. :party:

When it became apparent at the end of April that I was not going to see that this year, I began to rationalize that a .500 team was possible, somehow convincing myself that .500 would be a big step in the right direction, :oops: much to my chagrin I found that also was a bit too lofty for the baseball managing philosopher, Baker.

After many perceptual adjustments and finding myself suffering from LCOS, :eek: (lineup construction obsession syndrome) my hopes sank lower and lower.

By June I had to turn to delusions of grandeur, :all_cohol
Yes, maybe I could get lucky and hit my preseason pick of 74 wins, or something like that, I recall seeing what Chip predicted at the time, so after much thought, I decided to get sneaky :KoolAid: and went with one loss more, surely Baker could achieve that giving me some fantasy bragging and crowing rights, after all that would enable me to fire off a PM to GAC, saying, “hey lookie here, I got that one right, yippee, whoopee“. :notworthy I even had plans of going all out and clicking on some smiley icons and having a real good time with that, :bowrofl: wrong again. :cry: so disappointing I cannot do that now.

:dunno: I mean who knew that a good day or good game with Dusty Baker starts when either his number one or number two batter could actually get on base, and then not get picked off going to second.

Turns out that I was looking at the wrong end of the standings with Baker, :doh: a winning manager that struggled to keep his team ahead of a Pittsburgh no less, :bang: Pittsburgh !!! and Houston well, Houston was just too much of a challenge for him.

So JoJo I guess my answer would have to be, could Baker at least have kept this team, his team, ahead of a Pittsburgh for the entire season? :pray: Can he at least stay ahead of them in the standings :fineprint for the rest of the season. :beerme: :thumbup:



Houston 72 66 .522 13 615 646 -31
Cincinnati 61 76 .445 23.5 586 683 -97
Pittsburgh 57 79 .419 27 615 752 -137


But here's the thing. Dusty has basically just been Dusty. I don't think he's managed in a way that would've been out of line with expectations.

It was pretty clear early on that everything that needed to break right for the Reds wasn't going too and I thought several decisions made over the winter made it even less likely. That said, the big disappointment for me has been that even though it seemed pretty clear in the spring that this team wasn't going to be a serious contender, I thought the baseball we'd be treated to would be a lot more fun to watch. It's a bummer that in many aspects, this hasn't necessarily been true. I've adored watching Volquez and Cueto. I've been heartbroken to see Harang struggle. Votto is just fine, in fact, I'm optimistic about his defense. I've anguished over Bruce's initiation-not worried about his talent but rather just hate to see the painful struggle. Watching EE's ceiling clearly be defined hasn't been fun (I like to dream just like everyone else but man, I'm almost ready to accept that he just can't play defense). Anyway, you get the picture.

IMHO,Dusty is the swarm of mosquitos at the homecoming game where your team is overmatched. he's more annoyance than cause.

edabbs44
09-02-2008, 11:41 AM
But here's the thing. Dusty has basically just been Dusty. I don't think he's managed in a way that would've been out of line with expectations.

Exactly...I said it a while ago. Dusty's shortcomings were well known and upper management and ownership chose to ignore those facts and still hire him. So the fact that he was allowed to pump out awful lineups falls both on Dusty and the FO.

At least we saw a little improvement when Walt came to town, but I'm not sure if that was his doing or maybe Dusty finally giving in.

Next year I'm sure we'll get some clarity.

Topcat
09-03-2008, 01:55 AM
Fire Dusty as soon as possible. He is not the man to be managing kids going forward.

Spring~Fields
09-03-2008, 10:25 AM
Exactly...I said it a while ago. Dusty's shortcomings were well known

So that would be verification and confirmation

1. establishment of truth: the establishment of the truth or correctness of something by investigation or evidence

2. something that confirms something else: something that supports, validates, or verifies something else

flyer85
09-03-2008, 10:27 AM
Dusty's shortcomings were well known and upper management and ownership chose to ignore those facts and still hire him. IMHO they were ignorant of those shortcomings and were only concerned that he had a track record as a "winning manager".

edabbs44
09-03-2008, 12:27 PM
So that would be verification and confirmation

1. establishment of truth: the establishment of the truth or correctness of something by investigation or evidence

2. something that confirms something else: something that supports, validates, or verifies something else

:confused:

Spring~Fields
09-03-2008, 03:30 PM
:confused:


Exactly...I said it a while ago. Dusty's shortcomings were well known

"Well known shortcomings" apparently were validated, verified and confirmed.

That would be supported by what the people have been saying this year on Redszone.

The biggest defense for him with the Reds that I can think of, though not the time that he was with the Cubs in which he had finished his last two years under .500, but his biggest defense would be the disaprity between the competitors in the division since at least 2002, which the funding disparity would be the Reds ownerships fault by choice, or I might say default. They simply would not fund the aquiring of talent from 2002 and leading up to and throughout 2008 in comparison to the competitors in the division.

Division Competitors Payroll and the disparity in comparison to the Reds and Pirates
2002
St. Louis Cardinals $ 74,660,875 Jocketty's team
Chicago Cubs $ 75,690,833
Houston Astros $ 63,448,417

Cincinnati Reds $ 45,050,390 disparity vs. St. Louis 29,610,485
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 42,323,599


2003
St. Louis Cardinals $ 83,786,666 Jocketty's team
Chicago Cubs $ 79,868,333 Baker's team
Houston Astros $ 71,040,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 59,355,667 disparity vs. St. Louis 24,430,999
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 54,812,429


2004
Chicago Cubs $ 90,560,000 Baker's team
St. Louis Cardinals $ 83,228,333 Jocketty's team
Houston Astros $ 75,397,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 46,615,250 disparity vs. Chicago 43,944,750
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 32,227,929

2005
St. Louis Cardinals $ 92,106,833 Jocketty's team
Chicago Cubs $ 87,032,933 Baker's team
Houston Astros $ 76,779,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 61,892,583 disparity vs. St. Louis 30,214,250
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 38,133,000

2006
Chicago Cubs $ 94,424,499
Houston Astros $ 92,551,503
St. Louis Cardinals $ 88,891,371

Cincinnati Reds $ 60,909,519 disparity vs. Chicago 33,514,980
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 46,717,750

2007
Chicago Cubs $ 99,670,332
St. Louis Cardinals $ 90,286,823
Houston Astros $ 87,759,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 68,904,980 disparity vs. Chicago 30,765,352
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 38,537,833

2008
Chicago Cubs $ 118,345,833
St. Louis Cardinals $ 99,624,449
Houston Astros $ 88,930,414

Cincinnati Reds $ 74,117,695 disparity vs. Chicago 44,228,138
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 48,689,783

What does those disparity amounts each year buy the competitors that the Reds ownership would not buy? I mean those years led to what Baker has to work with this year.

Plus Players cost more in 2008 than they did in the preceding years, and even more in 2009. Though Baker teams had one of the highest payrolls in the division when he was with the Cubs. Of course each of the Reds managers and general managers had that obstacle to deal with even before Baker and Jocketty.

29,610,485 million, 24,430,999 million, 43,944,750 million, 30,214,250 million and 27,981,852 would buy some nice additonal players for teams like the Cards and Cubs between 2002 and 2006

Maybe Jojo is right, that this manager and apparently the managers before just did not have the team with which to win more games than they lost.

I can see how that can happen with the disparity that each of the general managers had to deal with for the cash strapped Reds. That enabled the competitors even Bakers two wining teams in Chicago 2003, 2004, though his 2005 and 2006 Chicago teams finished below .500 even with the huge disparity. Jocketty's team in St. Louis and the Chicago teams for the most part have been allowed to run away and hide from the Reds.

What do you think ? Does Baker, Jocketty and the previous Reds managers and general managers have a reasonable competitive disparity excuse?

We can compare the runs scored and the runs allowed and take a look at how Cincinnati and Pittsburgh has done against the disparity. Some blame the offense, we can check the runs scored average vs the Pirates to get a feel for just how good the Reds offense was in comparion each of those years and compare them to the divison winners runs scored.

2002
Runs Allowed 774
Reds worst in their division
Allowed 126 more runs than the division winner, Walt Jocketty’s Cardinals
Allowed 44 more runs than Pittsburgh

Runs Scored 709
The Reds 78 runs less than the division winner, Walt Jocketty’s Cardinals who scored 787 runs.
The Reds 68 runs more than Pittsburgh, 0.419 per game average more than Pittsburgh
Cincinnati 78 84 .476 19 games behind, finished third, just ahead of Pittsburgh


2003
Runs Allowed 885
Reds worst in their division
Allowed 202 more runs than the divisional winner
Allowed 84 more runs that Pittsburgh who finished ahead of the Reds

Runs Scored 694
Worst in their division
31 runs less than the division winner, Dusty Bakers Cubs who only scored 725 runs, less runs than Walt Jocketty’s St. Louis 876 who finished third, Houston 805 finishing second and Pittsburgh 753 who finished fourth ahead of the Reds.
59 runs less than Pittsburgh 0.346 runs per game less than Pittsburgh
Cincinnati 69 93 .421 19 games behind finished fifth, and behind Pittsburgh


2004
Runs Allowed 907
Reds worst in their division
Allowed 248 more runs than the divisional winner
Allowed 163 more runs than Pittsburgh

Runs Scored 750
Fourth most in their division
105 less runs scored than the divisional winner, Walt Jocketty’s Cardinals who scored 855 runs, 66 more runs than Dusty Bakers Cubs who finished 16 games behind
70 more runs than Pittsburgh 0.432 runs average more than Pittsburgh
Cincinnati 76 86 .466 29 games behind finished fourth just ahead of Pittsburgh

2005
Runs Allowed 889
Allowed 255 more runs than the division winner
Allowed 120 more runs than Pittsburgh

Runs Scored 820
Most in their division
15 runs more than the divisional winner, Walt Jocketty’s Cardinals who scored 805 runs, scoring 102 runs more than Dusty Baker’s Cubs who finished fourth 21 games behind and just ahead of the Reds.
140 more runs than Pittsburgh who finished last, 0.864 runs average more than Pittsburgh
Cincinnati 73 89 .451 27 games behind, finished next to last

2006
Runs Allowed 801
Third most allowed in their division
Allowed 39 runs more than the division winner
Allowed 7 runs more than Pittsburgh
Dusty Bakers Cubs were the worst allowed with 834 runs allowed

Runs Scored 749 Second in their division
32 runs less than the divisional winner, Walt Jocketty’s Cardinals who scored 781 runs, 68 runs more than Dusty Bakers Cubs, who scored only 713 runs next to the worst in the division and who finished 17.5 games behind and last in the division.
58 more runs than Pittsburgh 0.358 runs average more than Pittsburgh
Cincinnati 80 82 .494 3.5 games behind finished third, ahead of Dusty Bakers Cubs who finished last in the division

2007
Runs Allowed 853
Worst in their division
Allowed 163 runs more than the division winner, Lou’s Cubs, who finished first a year after Dusty’s Cubs who finished last
Allowed 7 more runs than Pittsburgh who finished last in the division

Runs Scored 783
Second most in their division
31 more runs than the division winner, Lou’s Cubs who scored 752 runs, 39 more runs than Dusty Bakers Cubs who finished last the year before.
and the Reds finished next to last in their division
59 more runs than Pittsburgh who finished last in the division, 0.364 runs average more than Pittsburgh
Cincinnati 72 90 .444 13 games behind, finished next to last

2008 to date
Runs Allowed 686 second worst, ahead of only Pittsburgh
Allowed 120 more runs than the division leader, Lou’s Cubs
Allowed 68 runs less than Pittsburgh

Runs scored 588 Dusty Bakers Reds are the worst in the division
162 runs less than the division leader, Lou’s Cubs
30 runs less than Pittsburgh
Cincinnati 61 77 .442 23.5 games behind the division leader, Lou and his Cubs.

Division Competitors Payroll and the disparity in comparison to the Reds and Pirates
2002
St. Louis Cardinals $ 74,660,875
Chicago Cubs $ 75,690,833
Houston Astros $ 63,448,417

Cincinnati Reds $ 45,050,390 disparity vs. St. Louis 29,610,485
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 42,323,599


2003
St. Louis Cardinals $ 83,786,666
Chicago Cubs $ 79,868,333
Houston Astros $ 71,040,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 59,355,667 disparity vs. St. Louis 24,430,999
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 54,812,429


2004
Chicago Cubs $ 90,560,000
St. Louis Cardinals $ 83,228,333
Houston Astros $ 75,397,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 46,615,250 disparity vs. Chicago 43,944,750
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 32,227,929

2005
St. Louis Cardinals $ 92,106,833
Chicago Cubs $ 87,032,933
Houston Astros $ 76,779,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 61,892,583 disparity vs. St. Louis 30,214,250
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 38,133,000

2006
Chicago Cubs $ 94,424,499
Houston Astros $ 92,551,503
St. Louis Cardinals $ 88,891,371

Cincinnati Reds $ 60,909,519 disparity vs. St. Louis 27,981,852
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 46,717,750

2007
Chicago Cubs $ 99,670,332
St. Louis Cardinals $ 90,286,823
Houston Astros $ 87,759,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 68,904,980 disparity vs. Chicago 30,765,352
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 38,537,833

2008
Chicago Cubs $ 118,345,833
St. Louis Cardinals $ 99,624,449
Houston Astros $ 88,930,414

Cincinnati Reds $ 74,117,695 disparity vs. Chicago 44,228,138
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 48,689,783

What does those disparity amounts each year buy that the Reds and Pirates ownership would not buy? Plus Players cost more in 2008 than they did in the preceding years.

jojo
09-03-2008, 03:56 PM
"Well known shortcomings" apparently were validated, verified and confirmed.

That would be supported by what the people have been saying this year on Redszone.

The biggest defense for him with the Reds that I can think of, though not the time that he was with the Cubs in which he had finished his last two years under .500, but his biggest defense would be the disaprity between the competitors in the division since at least 2002, which the funding disparity would be the Reds ownerships fault by choice, or I might say default. They simply would not fund the aquiring of talent from 2002 and leading up to and throughout 2008 in comparison to the competitors in the division.

Division Competitors Payroll and the disparity in comparison to the Reds and Pirates
2002
St. Louis Cardinals $ 74,660,875 Jocketty's team
Chicago Cubs $ 75,690,833
Houston Astros $ 63,448,417

Cincinnati Reds $ 45,050,390 disparity vs. St. Louis 29,610,485
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 42,323,599


2003
St. Louis Cardinals $ 83,786,666 Jocketty's team
Chicago Cubs $ 79,868,333 Baker's team
Houston Astros $ 71,040,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 59,355,667 disparity vs. St. Louis 24,430,999
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 54,812,429


2004
Chicago Cubs $ 90,560,000 Baker's team
St. Louis Cardinals $ 83,228,333 Jocketty's team
Houston Astros $ 75,397,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 46,615,250 disparity vs. Chicago 43,944,750
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 32,227,929

2005
St. Louis Cardinals $ 92,106,833 Jocketty's team
Chicago Cubs $ 87,032,933 Baker's team
Houston Astros $ 76,779,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 61,892,583 disparity vs. St. Louis 30,214,250
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 38,133,000

2006
Chicago Cubs $ 94,424,499
Houston Astros $ 92,551,503
St. Louis Cardinals $ 88,891,371

Cincinnati Reds $ 60,909,519 disparity vs. Chicago 33,514,980
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 46,717,750

2007
Chicago Cubs $ 99,670,332
St. Louis Cardinals $ 90,286,823
Houston Astros $ 87,759,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 68,904,980 disparity vs. Chicago 30,765,352
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 38,537,833

2008
Chicago Cubs $ 118,345,833
St. Louis Cardinals $ 99,624,449
Houston Astros $ 88,930,414

Cincinnati Reds $ 74,117,695 disparity vs. Chicago 44,228,138
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 48,689,783

What does those disparity amounts each year buy the competitors that the Reds ownership would not buy? I mean those years led to what Baker has to work with this year.

Plus Players cost more in 2008 than they did in the preceding years, and even more in 2009. Though Baker teams had one of the highest payrolls in the division when he was with the Cubs. Of course each of the Reds managers and general managers had that obstacle to deal with even before Baker and Jocketty.

29,610,485 million, 24,430,999 million, 43,944,750 million, 30,214,250 million and 27,981,852 would buy some nice additonal players for teams like the Cards and Cubs between 2002 and 2006

Maybe Jojo is right, that this manager and apparently the managers before just did not have the team with which to win more games than they lost.

I can see how that can happen with the disparity that each of the general managers had to deal with for the cash strapped Reds. That enabled the competitors even Bakers two wining teams in Chicago 2003, 2004, though his 2005 and 2006 Chicago teams finished below .500 even with the huge disparity. Jocketty's team in St. Louis and the Chicago teams for the most part have been allowed to run away and hide from the Reds.

What do you think ? Does Baker, Jocketty and the previous Reds managers and general managers have a reasonable competitive disparity excuse?

We can compare the runs scored and the runs allowed and take a look at how Cincinnati and Pittsburgh has done against the disparity. Some blame the offense, we can check the runs scored average vs the Pirates to get a feel for just how good the Reds offense was in comparion each of those years and compare them to the divison winners runs scored.

2002
Runs Allowed 774
Reds worst in their division
Allowed 126 more runs than the division winner, Walt Jocketty’s Cardinals
Allowed 44 more runs than Pittsburgh

Runs Scored 709
The Reds 78 runs less than the division winner, Walt Jocketty’s Cardinals who scored 787 runs.
The Reds 68 runs more than Pittsburgh, 0.419 per game average more than Pittsburgh
Cincinnati 78 84 .476 19 games behind, finished third, just ahead of Pittsburgh


2003
Runs Allowed 885
Reds worst in their division
Allowed 202 more runs than the divisional winner
Allowed 84 more runs that Pittsburgh who finished ahead of the Reds

Runs Scored 694
Worst in their division
31 runs less than the division winner, Dusty Bakers Cubs who only scored 725 runs, less runs than Walt Jocketty’s St. Louis 876 who finished third, Houston 805 finishing second and Pittsburgh 753 who finished fourth ahead of the Reds.
59 runs less than Pittsburgh 0.346 runs per game less than Pittsburgh
Cincinnati 69 93 .421 19 games behind finished fifth, and behind Pittsburgh


2004
Runs Allowed 907
Reds worst in their division
Allowed 248 more runs than the divisional winner
Allowed 163 more runs than Pittsburgh

Runs Scored 750
Fourth most in their division
105 less runs scored than the divisional winner, Walt Jocketty’s Cardinals who scored 855 runs, 66 more runs than Dusty Bakers Cubs who finished 16 games behind
70 more runs than Pittsburgh 0.432 runs average more than Pittsburgh
Cincinnati 76 86 .466 29 games behind finished fourth just ahead of Pittsburgh

2005
Runs Allowed 889
Allowed 255 more runs than the division winner
Allowed 120 more runs than Pittsburgh

Runs Scored 820
Most in their division
15 runs more than the divisional winner, Walt Jocketty’s Cardinals who scored 805 runs, scoring 102 runs more than Dusty Baker’s Cubs who finished fourth 21 games behind and just ahead of the Reds.
140 more runs than Pittsburgh who finished last, 0.864 runs average more than Pittsburgh
Cincinnati 73 89 .451 27 games behind, finished next to last

2006
Runs Allowed 801
Third most allowed in their division
Allowed 39 runs more than the division winner
Allowed 7 runs more than Pittsburgh
Dusty Bakers Cubs were the worst allowed with 834 runs allowed

Runs Scored 749 Second in their division
32 runs less than the divisional winner, Walt Jocketty’s Cardinals who scored 781 runs, 68 runs more than Dusty Bakers Cubs, who scored only 713 runs next to the worst in the division and who finished 17.5 games behind and last in the division.
58 more runs than Pittsburgh 0.358 runs average more than Pittsburgh
Cincinnati 80 82 .494 3.5 games behind finished third, ahead of Dusty Bakers Cubs who finished last in the division

2007
Runs Allowed 853
Worst in their division
Allowed 163 runs more than the division winner, Lou’s Cubs, who finished first a year after Dusty’s Cubs who finished last
Allowed 7 more runs than Pittsburgh who finished last in the division

Runs Scored 783
Second most in their division
31 more runs than the division winner, Lou’s Cubs who scored 752 runs, 39 more runs than Dusty Bakers Cubs who finished last the year before.
and the Reds finished next to last in their division
59 more runs than Pittsburgh who finished last in the division, 0.364 runs average more than Pittsburgh
Cincinnati 72 90 .444 13 games behind, finished next to last

2008 to date
Runs Allowed 686 second worst, ahead of only Pittsburgh
Allowed 120 more runs than the division leader, Lou’s Cubs
Allowed 68 runs less than Pittsburgh

Runs scored 588 Dusty Bakers Reds are the worst in the division
162 runs less than the division leader, Lou’s Cubs
30 runs less than Pittsburgh
Cincinnati 61 77 .442 23.5 games behind the division leader, Lou and his Cubs.

Division Competitors Payroll and the disparity in comparison to the Reds and Pirates
2002
St. Louis Cardinals $ 74,660,875
Chicago Cubs $ 75,690,833
Houston Astros $ 63,448,417

Cincinnati Reds $ 45,050,390 disparity vs. St. Louis 29,610,485
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 42,323,599


2003
St. Louis Cardinals $ 83,786,666
Chicago Cubs $ 79,868,333
Houston Astros $ 71,040,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 59,355,667 disparity vs. St. Louis 24,430,999
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 54,812,429


2004
Chicago Cubs $ 90,560,000
St. Louis Cardinals $ 83,228,333
Houston Astros $ 75,397,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 46,615,250 disparity vs. Chicago 43,944,750
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 32,227,929

2005
St. Louis Cardinals $ 92,106,833
Chicago Cubs $ 87,032,933
Houston Astros $ 76,779,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 61,892,583 disparity vs. St. Louis 30,214,250
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 38,133,000

2006
Chicago Cubs $ 94,424,499
Houston Astros $ 92,551,503
St. Louis Cardinals $ 88,891,371

Cincinnati Reds $ 60,909,519 disparity vs. St. Louis 27,981,852
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 46,717,750

2007
Chicago Cubs $ 99,670,332
St. Louis Cardinals $ 90,286,823
Houston Astros $ 87,759,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 68,904,980 disparity vs. Chicago 30,765,352
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 38,537,833

2008
Chicago Cubs $ 118,345,833
St. Louis Cardinals $ 99,624,449
Houston Astros $ 88,930,414

Cincinnati Reds $ 74,117,695 disparity vs. Chicago 44,228,138
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 48,689,783

What does those disparity amounts each year buy that the Reds and Pirates ownership would not buy? Plus Players cost more in 2008 than they did in the preceding years.

Payroll is not preventing the Reds from reaching the playoffs.

Spring~Fields
09-03-2008, 04:09 PM
Payroll is not preventing the Reds from reaching the playoffs.

How many years on average does it take a franchise to build a winning team when they first start out, or are starting out from the bottom? In addition how much effect does a competitors advantage have on building that winning team? Under the directive of let's say the type of Reds ownership group and their thinking and planning?

Two years ? Three years ? Five Years? Ten Years ?

I don't really know, I thought that you might know.

jojo
09-03-2008, 04:14 PM
How many years on average does it take a franchise to build a winning team when they first start out, or are starting out from the bottom? In addition how much effect does a competitors advantage have on building that winning team? Under the directive of let's say the type of Reds ownership group and their thinking and planning?

Two years ? Three years ? Five Years? Ten Years ?

I don't really know, I thought that you might know.

I know this-payroll is not preventing the Reds from reaching the playoffs.

Spring~Fields
09-03-2008, 04:21 PM
I know this-payroll is not preventing the Reds from reaching the playoffs.

Would you say that talent acquired or the lack of talent acquired is keeping the Reds from having a winning team? "Playoff" would be too big of a step for a team that has been so bad for so long wouldn't it, shouldn't we just keep it at "winning team" ?

So, would you say that talent acquired or the lack of talent acquired is keeping the Reds from having a winning team?

Most people indicate sometimes that the managers have very little to do with a team winning or losing, so would it be the talent that they acquired over time and that they presently have that makes the difference?

But the Reds did acquire talent from 2002-2008, were the Cubs and Cardinals somehow able to acquire better talent?

jojo
09-03-2008, 04:35 PM
Would you say that talent acquired or the lack of talent acquired is keeping the Reds from having a winning team? "Playoff" would be too big of a step for a team that has been so bad for so long wouldn't it, shouldn't we just keep it at "winning team" ?

So, would you say that talent acquired or the lack of talent acquired is keeping the Reds from having a winning team?

Most people indicate sometimes that the managers have very little to do with a team winning or losing, so would it be the talent that they acquired over time and that they presently have that makes the difference?

It's absolutely a talent issue. That said, it's not payroll that is keeping the Reds from having sufficient talent to be a chronic winner.

gonelong
09-03-2008, 04:49 PM
How many years on average does it take a franchise to build a winning team when they first start out, or are starting out from the bottom? In addition how much effect does a competitors advantage have on building that winning team? Under the directive of let's say the type of Reds ownership group and their thinking and planning?

Two years ? Three years ? Five Years? Ten Years ?

I don't really know, I thought that you might know.

On average, I don't know. I do know that the Rays seem to have figured it out pretty quickly. They went from the depths of hopelessness to legit contenders in 3 seasons.

After the 2005 Season Stuart Sternberg took over the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, fired the GM (LaMar), and hired Matt Silverman (an investment banker) as President and Andrew Friedman (a former Bear Stearns Analyst and MidMark Capital Associate) as Executive Vice President of Baseball Operations. Gerry Hunsicker was named as the Senior Vice President of Baseball Operations. Later that year, Joe Maddon was named the Manager. (Silverman and Friedman were both < 30 when hired).

Incorporating investment principles (positive arbitrage, quantitative analysis, etc.) with scouting they have moved the Rays from a team that had won 63,69,69,62,55,63,70, & 67 wins and put it on pace to win 100 games in his 3rd season of ownership (in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox no less).

2008
Yankees - $208.1 M
Red Sox - $133.4 M
TB Rays - $43.7 M

GL

Spring~Fields
09-03-2008, 04:54 PM
It's absolutely a talent issue. That said, it's not payroll that is keeping the Reds from having sufficient talent to be a chronic winner.


There isn't a manager in the game that would've made this season a successful one for the Reds if being a serious playoff contender is the definition of successful. The Cubs and Brewers are simply much too good.

I am just trying to support your point that implied that Baker had no chance of winning with this team. While trying to grasp how this team and the Pirates became so bad, while trying to understand just how the Cards and Cubs became so good. I thought that maybe there was a valid reason for Baker not being able to field a winning team this year.

What was it particularly that came from specifically the St. Louis Cardinals and Chicago Cubs farm systems that put them over the top of the Reds throughout most of the decade of 2000, over the Reds who had winning teams in 1999 96-67, finished 2nd in NL Central Division, in 2000 85-77, finished 2nd in NL Central Division after that season from 2001 forward the Cubs and Cardinals have enjoyed several winning seasons while the Reds and Pirates have played under .500.

How did the Cardinals and Cubs get so much better over that time frame?

What was the most obvious difference maker for the Cards and Cubs over the Reds and Pirates?

Spring~Fields
09-03-2008, 05:04 PM
On average, I don't know. I do know that the Rays seem to have figured it out pretty quickly. They went from the depths of hopelessness to legit contenders in 3 seasons.

After the 2005 Season Stuart Sternberg took over the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, fired the GM (LaMar), and hired Matt Silverman (an investment banker) as President and Andrew Friedman (a former Bear Stearns Analyst and MidMark Capital Associate) as Executive Vice President of Baseball Operations. Gerry Hunsicker was named as the Senior Vice President of Baseball Operations. Later that year, Joe Maddon was named the Manager. (Silverman and Friedman were both < 30 when hired).

Incorporating investment principles (positive arbitrage, quantitative analysis, etc.) with scouting they have moved the Rays from a team that had won 63,69,69,62,55,63,70, & 67 wins and put it on pace to win 100 games in his 3rd season of ownership (in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox no less).

2008
Yankees - $208.1 M
Red Sox - $133.4 M
TB Rays - $43.7 M

GL

I count eight seasons above.

The Reds had the same opportunity over the same time frames I believe, but the ownership chose a different plan to develop their product didn't they?

jojo
09-03-2008, 05:28 PM
I am just trying to support your point that implied that Baker had no chance of winning with this team. While trying to grasp how this team and the Pirates became so bad, while trying to understand just how the Cards and Cubs became so good. I thought that maybe there was a valid reason for Baker not being able to field a winning team this year.

What was it particularly that came from specifically the St. Louis Cardinals and Chicago Cubs farm systems that put them over the top of the Reds throughout most of the decade of 2000, over the Reds who had winning teams in 1999 96-67, finished 2nd in NL Central Division, in 2000 85-77, finished 2nd in NL Central Division after that season from 2001 forward the Cubs and Cardinals have enjoyed several winning seasons while the Reds and Pirates have played under .500.

How did the Cardinals and Cubs get so much better over that time frame?

What was the most obvious difference maker for the Cards and Cubs over the Reds and Pirates?

You don't do it all from the farm. You grow your own, you trade for pieces and you sign pieces (but do your best to round the roster out via FA targeting mostly value).

Even the Rays-who have a phenomenal farm-put themselves over the top in part with a key trade that allowed them to significantly upgrade their whole defensive scheme (though they got a key piece for their rotation as well in Garza).

It's not payroll that's keeping the Reds from winning. It's decisions that have.

All payroll does is afford you a margin of error for stupid though even that isn't Bavasi proof because being able to spend a lot is a double-edged sword.

Spring~Fields
09-03-2008, 06:59 PM
Even the Rays-who have a phenomenal farm-put themselves over the top in part with a key trade that allowed them to significantly upgrade their whole defensive scheme (though they got a key piece for their rotation as well in Garza).

2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 they had losing seasons like the Reds, so can we say that the 6 years that the Rays took are about the norm for a major league team to build from the botttom up?

So haven't the Reds been building up their farm system, trading for players, bringing in free agents over the years? Why were each of their general managers Bowden, O'Brien and Krivsky so bad at building up the farm system, trading for players, and using the FA market as you have suggested, why have the Cubs, and Cardinals done better than the Reds?


It's not payroll that's keeping the Reds from winning. It's decisions that have.

Money does not effect decision making? Money does not effect the level of talent or personnel that an organization can afford?

Then why did they hire Baker when the team doesn't have the talent to win, and why spend the money on him?


All payroll does is afford you a margin of error for stupid though even that isn't Bavasi proof because being able to spend a lot is a double-edged sword.

All ? really, ok. Do you consider that to be intellectually honest?

Maybe Baker and Bavasi are "proof", who hired both of them?

Again I ask, How did the Cardinals and Cubs get so much better over that time frame?

Spring~Fields
09-03-2008, 07:20 PM
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71525

Sundeck makes this claim


According to Pete Gammons on ESPN today, Dunn told him that the biggest difference in going to the Diamondbacks was that the players really care about winning. That's all they talk about. He said that wasn't the case with the Reds where winning wasn't that big a deal with the players.


First, Dunn didn't say that Reds players didn't care, just that they didn't care as much as the Diamondback players, who according to Dunn, "That's all they talked about."

Could this be true, or is it just a misquote? If it is true, what kind of players and manager of players and people do the Reds have?

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71525

jojo
09-03-2008, 10:46 PM
All ? really, ok. Do you consider that to be intellectually honest[/B]

Yes.

adv. Used to express affirmation, agreement, positive confirmation, or consent.
n. 1. An affirmative or consenting reply. 2. An affirmative vote or voter.
tr.v. To give an affirmative reply to.

Spring~Fields
09-03-2008, 10:56 PM
Yes.

adv. Used to express affirmation, agreement, positive confirmation, or consent.
n. 1. An affirmative or consenting reply. 2. An affirmative vote or voter.
tr.v. To give an affirmative reply to.

Okay, I have to give Dusty a rest, he is getting on my nerves losing to Pittsburgh. :) God I hate it when the Reds lose.

GAC
09-04-2008, 03:10 PM
Of course it is a talent issue. That's pretty obvious. :lol:

But at some point payroll also enters that equation. Unless you've got another "Volquez" in the system, which is an "indictment" of any system as to how good/bad it is, then you better be prepared to pay a Volquez or lose him.

Spring~Fields
09-04-2008, 03:41 PM
Of course it is a talent issue. That's pretty obvious. :lol:

But at some point payroll also enters that equation. Unless you've got another "Volquez" in the system, which is an "indictment" of any system as to how good/bad it is, then you better be prepared to pay a Volquez or lose him.

Kudos to the intellectually honest man, GAC :thumbup:

At least enough talent to beat Pittsburgh and Houston right. :)

jojo
09-04-2008, 03:52 PM
Kudos to the intellectually honest man, GAC :thumbup:

Is your position intellectually honest or an example of begging the question?

GAC
09-05-2008, 04:05 AM
Kudos to the intellectually honest man, GAC :thumbup:

At least enough talent to beat Pittsburgh and Houston right. :)

Well lets take a look at the Cubs. Are they an organization that has a strong track record of growing their own, scouting and developing youth? That certainly is not their strong point.

In the last 4 years in the NL, lets look at payroll invested....


Payroll
#1 New York Mets 414.28 Million
#2 Los Angeles Dodgers 382.84 Million
#3 Chicago Cubs 371.68 Million
#4 Philadelphia Phillies 366.44 Million
#5 St. Louis Cardinals 354.51 Million
#6 Atlanta Braves 354.08 Million
#7 San Francisco Giants 352.49 Million
#8 Houston Astros 332.48 Million
#9 San Diego Padres 246.68 Million
#10 Arizona Diamondbacks 243.86 Million
#11 Cincinnati Reds 238.32 Million
#12 Colorado Rockies 209.25 Million
#13 Milwaukee Brewers 196.01 Million
#14 Washington Nationals 190.26 Million
#15 Pittsburgh Pirates 155.61 Million
#16 Florida Marlins 148.05 Million

Now am I saying that payroll is the sole factor to winning? Of course not. But it sure helps.

One has to recognize and go after talent, regardless of the level. And it is advantageous for every organization to have a strong, viable farm system. Whether their direction is to "build within (due to payroll constraints), like organizations such as the As, Marlins, Twins, Reds, Pitt, etc. Or bigger market clubs without the payroll constraints who can use those prospects as trading chips. Such as with the Haren deal to the D'Backs.

The "problem" facing those successful smaller market teams is not in the development of the youth, but in the retaining of them. You're constantly in that cycle of having to find and develop those replacements.

And that is where teams like the Cubs (and others) step in and capitalize. Why (or how)? Because of payroll.

It certainly doesn't take much to recognize established talent and then throw the money at them (pull them away from those other smaller teams).

When a baseball team in the span of a month signs two players to contracts totaling more than $200 million (Soriano-136 mil; Rameriz-75 mil), it usually means the team is pretty serious about winning in short order. And the Cubs haven't stopped there either.

And IMHO, that's the main reason why you see Piniella in Chicago and not Cincy........ TEAM PAYROLL. No way was this guy coming to Cincinnati! I guarantee you that any talks he had with Castellini always came back to... "How much are you going to raise team payroll and buy me the players I need to win?"

He left Seattle because, in his own words, the M's ownership wasn't serious about winning in their refusal to increase their already 90+ mil payroll.

Lou would have done no better in Cincy then Dusty.... and Lou knew that.

Both of these managers, IMHO, aren't guys who build teams (especially from within); but have them built for them.

But it wasn't until Dusty left that the Cubs really went on a spending spree. I wonder if that somehow bugs Dusty who wonders "Why didn't you do that (make a greater commitment) when I was there?" ;)

Now I gleaned this from an SI article on the Cubs a couple years ago....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/john_donovan/07/07/baker.cubs/index.html

You want reasons that Baker should be canned? Oh, we have hundreds of 'em, beginning with the Cubs' record (31-54), the skipper's maddening overuse of his pitchers; his dizzying use of lineups; the painful manner in which the Cubs have been losing this year; his inability to get the most out of promising young players (come back, Corey Patterson!) and some alarming examples of outright cluelessness in-game strategy.

How about some reasons that Baker should be kept? Yeah, we can give you some of those, too. Baker's a winning manager, a proven player favorite.

--------------------------

Do any of those highlighted statements sound familiar here in '08?

It seems the Cincy FO, in the deliberations on hiring Baker, ignored the obvious truths of the first paragraph, while considering only those contained in the second.

So I am suppose to maintain my optimism, going into the '09 season, with a team going into a supposed youth movement, that Baker is the guy to bring them along?

I may be stupid, but I'm not ignorant. ;)

Topcat
09-05-2008, 06:04 AM
It is going to be a balance of talent and cash paid out. But to deny the fact that upper echelon talent has to come within is quite simply retarded. Players like outholes, Utley and there sort do not see open market. You need to develop within and compliment with serious pitching etc. The Red's system has developed and will develop a lot of complimentary assets to trade over the next while with out a doubt. But Do not kid yourself . They need to target players who will flourish in the ball park and be guiding forces on a very youth based team. I do not know if there is a stat measuring fly balls distance average on players but the Red's should researchthis area and play it to there stength in regards to there ballpark.

jojo
09-05-2008, 07:31 AM
Once again, payroll isn't keeping the Reds down-having a huge payroll simply isn't a prerequisite to winning.

GAC
09-05-2008, 10:58 AM
Once again, payroll isn't keeping the Reds down-having a huge payroll simply isn't a prerequisite to winning.

Payroll is not the sole factor, but yes, it is a factor.

jojo
09-05-2008, 11:26 AM
Payroll is not the sole factor, but yes, it is a factor.

There is no reason the Reds couldn't be a playoff contender at their current payroll level.

Spring~Fields
09-05-2008, 06:54 PM
Well lets take a look at the Cubs. Are they an organization that has a strong track record of growing their own, scouting and developing youth? That certainly is not their strong point.

In the last 4 years in the NL, lets look at payroll invested....


Payroll
#1 New York Mets 414.28 Million
#2 Los Angeles Dodgers 382.84 Million
#3 Chicago Cubs 371.68 Million
#4 Philadelphia Phillies 366.44 Million
#5 St. Louis Cardinals 354.51 Million
#6 Atlanta Braves 354.08 Million
#7 San Francisco Giants 352.49 Million
#8 Houston Astros 332.48 Million
#9 San Diego Padres 246.68 Million
#10 Arizona Diamondbacks 243.86 Million
#11 Cincinnati Reds 238.32 Million
#12 Colorado Rockies 209.25 Million
#13 Milwaukee Brewers 196.01 Million
#14 Washington Nationals 190.26 Million
#15 Pittsburgh Pirates 155.61 Million
#16 Florida Marlins 148.05 Million

Now am I saying that payroll is the sole factor to winning? Of course not. But it sure helps.

One has to recognize and go after talent, regardless of the level. And it is advantageous for every organization to have a strong, viable farm system. Whether their direction is to "build within (due to payroll constraints), like organizations such as the As, Marlins, Twins, Reds, Pitt, etc. Or bigger market clubs without the payroll constraints who can use those prospects as trading chips. Such as with the Haren deal to the D'Backs.

The "problem" facing those successful smaller market teams is not in the development of the youth, but in the retaining of them. You're constantly in that cycle of having to find and develop those replacements.

And that is where teams like the Cubs (and others) step in and capitalize. Why (or how)? Because of payroll.

It certainly doesn't take much to recognize established talent and then throw the money at them (pull them away from those other smaller teams).

When a baseball team in the span of a month signs two players to contracts totaling more than $200 million (Soriano-136 mil; Rameriz-75 mil), it usually means the team is pretty serious about winning in short order. And the Cubs haven't stopped there either.

And IMHO, that's the main reason why you see Piniella in Chicago and not Cincy........ TEAM PAYROLL. No way was this guy coming to Cincinnati! I guarantee you that any talks he had with Castellini always came back to... "How much are you going to raise team payroll and buy me the players I need to win?"

He left Seattle because, in his own words, the M's ownership wasn't serious about winning in their refusal to increase their already 90+ mil payroll.

Lou would have done no better in Cincy then Dusty.... and Lou knew that.

Both of these managers, IMHO, aren't guys who build teams (especially from within); but have them built for them.

But it wasn't until Dusty left that the Cubs really went on a spending spree. I wonder if that somehow bugs Dusty who wonders "Why didn't you do that (make a greater commitment) when I was there?" ;)

Now I gleaned this from an SI article on the Cubs a couple years ago....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/john_donovan/07/07/baker.cubs/index.html

You want reasons that Baker should be canned? Oh, we have hundreds of 'em, beginning with the Cubs' record (31-54), the skipper's maddening overuse of his pitchers; his dizzying use of lineups; the painful manner in which the Cubs have been losing this year; his inability to get the most out of promising young players (come back, Corey Patterson!) and some alarming examples of outright cluelessness in-game strategy.

How about some reasons that Baker should be kept? Yeah, we can give you some of those, too. Baker's a winning manager, a proven player favorite.

--------------------------

Do any of those highlighted statements sound familiar here in '08?

It seems the Cincy FO, in the deliberations on hiring Baker, ignored the obvious truths of the first paragraph, while considering only those contained in the second.

So I am suppose to maintain my optimism, going into the '09 season, with a team going into a supposed youth movement, that Baker is the guy to bring them along?

I may be stupid, but I'm not ignorant. ;)

Outstanding post, and points, I couldn't agree more line for line.

I did not think it was a case of anyone being stupid or ignorant, just deliberately selective. Like political spin doctors do.

You don't overlook the obvious or dismiss it out of hand. :) Always follow the money trail, especially from 2000 to 2008, one dollar leads to the next step and so forth. Including the dollars that we don't see that were invested in the minor league systems of teams.

I wonder how many times the higher payroll teams have won the American League, National League and World Series in the past ten years vs the ones unwilling to spend and choosing to keep the money for the ownership and investors vs putting a good product on the field?

Of course there was one or two organizations that played well under the steroid and corked bat era's.


Lou would have done no better in Cincy then Dusty.... and Lou knew that.

Both of these managers, IMHO, aren't guys who build teams (especially from within); but have them built for them.

I think that Pete Mac would have had more wins out of this team this year than what they have now.

Back to your point of talent, I noticed you did not say who's talent.

Looks like to me that the Reds could have won more games in 2008 and that WV might have a case against the offense after all. Of course I thought that most of the season anyway, OBP, OBP, OBP properly placed increases run scoring potential, if I interpreted many of the stats people on the board here correctly.


You want reasons that Baker should be canned? Oh, we have hundreds of 'em, beginning with the Cubs' record (31-54), the skipper's maddening overuse of his pitchers; his dizzying use of lineups; the painful manner in which the Cubs have been losing this year; his inability to get the most out of promising young players (come back, Corey Patterson!) and some alarming examples of outright cluelessness in-game strategy.

Talent to score runs ?
Talent to give run support to the pitching?
Talent to take pressure off of the pitching?
Talent to take the pressure off of the defense?
Talent to take pressure off of the other offensive players?
Talent to put pressure on the opposition pitching?
Talent to put pressure on the opposition defense?
Talent to score more runs than the opponent and to win 1 run and 2 run games?

Bakers skills and talents, his offensive strategies, choices and decisions resulted in.
0 Runs 9 Games
1 Run or less 24 Games
2 Runs or less 47 Games
3 Runs or less 66 Games

9 Games Scored 0 Runs
15 Games Scored 1 Run
23 Games Scored 2 Runs
19 Games Scored 3 Runs

9 Games Scored 0 Runs
Apr. 11 at Pittsburgh L 1-0
May 2 at Atlanta L 2-0
May 6 vs. Chi Cubs L 3-0
June 5 at Philadelphia L 5-0
June 11 vs. St. Louis L 10-0
June 15 vs. Boston L 9-0
June 27 at Cleveland L 6-0
July 27 vs. Colorado L 11-0
Aug. 19 at Chi Cubs L 5-0

15 Games Scored 1 Run
Apr. 10 at Milwaukee W 4-1
Apr. 13 at Pittsburgh L 9-1
Apr. 25 San Francisco L 3-1
May 3 at Atlanta L 9-1
May 20 at LA Dodgers L 4-1
June 17 LA Dodgers L 3-1
June 18 LA Dodgers L 6-1
June 22 at NY Yankees L 4-1
June 24 at Toronto L 14-1
June 26 at Toronto L 7-1
July 9 at Chi Cubs L 5-1
July 26 vs. Colorado L 5-1
Aug. 5 vs. Milwaukee L 8-1
Aug. 9 vs. Houston L 3-1
Aug. 27 at Houston L 4-1

23 Games Scored 2 Runs
Mar. 31 vs. Arizona L 4-2
Apr. 8 at Milwaukee L 3-2
Apr. 18 vs. Milwaukee L 5-2
Apr. 29 at St. Louis L 7-2
Apr. 30 at St. Louis L 5-2
May 21 at LA Dodgers L 5-2
May 22 at San Diego L 8-2
May 29 vs. Pittsburgh L 7-2
June 3 at Philadelphia L 3-2
June 4 at Philadelphia W 2-0
June 8 at Florida L 9-2
June 10 vs. St. Louis L 7-2
July 13 at Milwaukee L 3-2
July 25 vs. Colorado L 7-2
July 29 at Houston L 6-2
Aug. 1 at Washington L 5-2
Aug. 3 at Washington L 4-2
Aug. 13 at Pittsburgh L 5-2
Aug. 20 at Chi Cubs W 2-1
Aug. 21 at Chi Cubs L 3-2
Aug. 26 at Houston W 2-1
Aug. 28 at Houston L 3-2
Sept. 2 vs. Pittsburgh L 3-2

19 Games Scored 3 Runs
Apr. 3 vs. Arizona W 3-2
Apr. 7 vs. Philadelphia L 5-3
Apr. 12 at Pittsburgh L 4-3
Apr. 16 at Chi Cubs L 12-3
Apr. 19 vs. Milwaukee L 5-3
Apr. 21 vs. LA Dodgers L 9-3
Apr. 23 vs. Houston L 9-3
Apr. 24 vs. Houston L 5-3
May 11 at NY Mets L 8-3
May 23 at San Diego W 3-2
May 30 vs. Atlanta W 3-2
June 13 vs. Boston W 3-1
July 4 vs. Washington W 3-0
July 5 vs. Washington W 3-2
July 8 at Chi Cubs L 7-3
Aug. 6 vs. Milwaukee L 6-3
Aug. 15 vs. St. Louis L 5-3
Aug. 16 vs. St. Louis L 9-3
Aug. 24 at Colorado L 4-3

Cincinnati 62 78 .443

55 % of the losses

At least 43 of the Reds 78 losses came from here.

9 Shutout Losses
16 1 Run Losses
14 2 Run Losses
13 3 Run Losses

The bottom feeder teams talent have recorded these results (The teams that are not supposed to have the talent)


LA Dodgers 70 70 .500 1.5
Colorado 66 75 .468 6
Cincinnati 62 78 .443 23
Atlanta 61 80 .433 18.5
Pittsburgh 59 80 .424 25.5
San Francisco 60 79 .432 11
San Diego 54 86 .386 17.5
Washington 54 87 .383 25.5

Cincinnati against the bottom feeder teams for the 2008 season to date

April, May, June
Cincinnati against the bottom feeder teams talent
Cincinnati W 13 L 18 Win Pct. .419
July, August, September
Cincinnati against the bottom feeder teams
Cincinnati W 13 L 14 Win Pct. .481

2008 Season results against the bottom feeder teams talent
Cincinnati W 26 L 32 Win Pct .448
Reds Offense for:
Pre-All Star .248 .325 .405 .729
Post-All Star .244 .310 .414 .724

April .261 .331 .428 .760
May .263 .339 .417 .755
June .218 .304 .362 .665
July .259 .327 .433 .761
August .234 .297 .397 .694
September .283 .365 .505 .870


I think that this team under achieved against the teams that are not suppose to have the talent, well, according to the results that their records have recorded. Even though the Reds added pitching and had Dunn, Griffey, Phillips, Votto, Encarncion, Keppinger, Ross and added Hairston, Patterson, Bako and Bruce early on.


And that is where teams like the Cubs (and others) step in and capitalize. Why (or how)? Because of payroll.
St. Louis, Houston, Milwaukee have also capitlized from the payroll also.

How many of Jocketty's primary players on those winning St. Louis teams came from their minor league system?

OnBaseMachine
09-05-2008, 09:28 PM
Three nights ago Dusty sent Volquez back out for the 7th inning despite having thrown 107 pitches in six innings. Tonight Arroyo had thrown six shutout innings on 109 pitches in a 9-0 game. Dusty sends him back out and he ends up allowing a run and throwing 122 pitches. There is no sense in having Arroyo throw that many pitches in a 9-0 ballgame. I see no good reason why Dusty should not be fired at the end of this season.

flyer85
09-05-2008, 09:31 PM
interesting stat by CW about how bad the Cubs were in walks under Baker(#30 in his last year 2006), this year they are #1 in MLB in drawing walks and are of course one of the best offensive teams in baseball.

IslandRed
09-05-2008, 10:21 PM
interesting stat by CW about how bad the Cubs were in walks under Baker(#30 in his last year 2006), this year they are #1 in MLB in drawing walks and are of course one of the best offensive teams in baseball.

Very true. Of course, that's been accomplished primarily by turning over the roster, not by making patient hitters out of hackers. And the roster is Hendry's job. The only two significant contributors left from Dusty's squads are Ramirez and Lee. Ramirez' walk rate is up this year, but last year it was about the same as it had been under Baker. And Lee always was patient, and has remained so, although his walk rate has declined slightly this year.

That's consistent with some back-of-the-napkin research I did in the spring, looking for major swings in walk rates on an apples-to-apples basis on either the Giants or Cubs when he made that move back in 2003. Didn't see anything meaningful.

I know the board often uses "aggressive" as code for "hacking," and Dusty's certainly made some colorful and dumb quotes ("clogging the bases" being a favorite) suggesting he doesn't properly appreciate the base on balls as a matter of lineup construction, but... when I listen to him talk about hitting, there's little for me to disagree with. He wants hitters to know a ball from a strike, be ready to jump on hittable pitches, don't swing at crap. Pretty basic stuff.

RFS62
09-05-2008, 10:57 PM
I know the board often uses "aggressive" as code for "hacking," and Dusty's certainly made some colorful and dumb quotes ("clogging the bases" being a favorite) suggesting he doesn't properly appreciate the base on balls as a matter of lineup construction, but... when I listen to him talk about hitting, there's little for me to disagree with. He wants hitters to know a ball from a strike, be ready to jump on hittable pitches, don't swing at crap. Pretty basic stuff.



Great post, IslandRed.

Dusty was known as a great hitting coach before he became a manager. He put out a video tape and companion book series about ten years ago called "You can teach hitting".

It was a big favorite among high school and college coaches.

I picked it up years ago, and I was just leafing through it and thought this section might dispel some of the notions about his mental approach to hitting.

This is taken from a section titled "Mental to Practical: A Typical Trip to the Plate".

Let's take a mental trip through the hitter's mind on a typical time at bat. At the plate, the hitter should think about the following before the umpire's signal to resume play.

a. Balance. Get balanced in the batter's box.

b. Relax. Use breathing to help your state of mind. Inhale and exhale deeply to get extra oxygen in the bloodstream to keep a clear head.

c. Concentrate. Prepare to concentrate solely on the pitch, allowing no distractions from the opposition or the stands. Create "tunnel vision" towards the pitch.

d. Attack the ball. Keep only the thought in mind to attack the ball and hit it hard.

When the hitter steps up to the plate, he should not be worried about fundamentals. If the hitter is not prepared fundamentally to hit, then he will probably not be successful. It is your job as a coach to make sure that fundamentals have been taken care of before game time. Stress that each of your players try to do the following when at the plate.

1. Get a good pitch. Swing at a pitch in the strike zone that you feel you have a good chance of hitting. You may, for example, prefer a medium high inside pitch.

2. Attack the ball. Take a good swing or at least the best swing that you can possibly take, and hit the ball hard.

3. Try to get deep in the count on the first at bat, unless runners are in scoring position. You want to see as many pitches as possible, so you should not be fooled in future at bats by a pitch you have not seen. There is a delicate balance here. Aggressiveness is to be encouraged since you may get only one good pitch to swing at. On the other hand, making good judgments can get you deep in the count on the first at bat.

4. You have four at bats and should not lose one because you are not ready or feeling rushed.




In the preface, Will Clark wrote the following:

"Dusty Baker has had a ton of impact on my hitting career. The main aspect of the game that he helps me with is the mental part of hitting."


There are many other quotes from established hitting stars just like that one.

Dusty is ridiculed here, talked down to as if the RedsZone collective consciousness knows more about hitting than he does.

I've always found that amusing. I'm no big fan of his managing style, but the man knows how to teach and coach hitting.


http://images.bestwebbuys.com/muze/books/35/9780940279735.jpg

WVRedsFan
09-05-2008, 11:26 PM
I can remember our high school coach (when my son was playing) using the techniques in this book to teach hitting. I know Dusty is universally hated around here, but for the life of me, I don't feel about him like I did about Boone, Miley, and Narron, and here's why.

Regardless of what you think about him, he has been successful everywhere he's been. His problem has been the players he's been handed (not a popular view--our players are very talented according to many). When at SF and Chicago, he had players who could hit the ball and pitchers who could pitch. I'll never understand why he took the Reds job. It looks to me that Dusty can do very well with talented players, but has a time with those talent-challenged players. He didn't help himself any getting Bako and Patterson on board, but I think he looked at the roster he was handed and saw a poor catching position and a poor OF and was grasping for straws. Or maybe it was all Wayne's idea. We'll never know. Hopefully, niether player will be back next year.

As unfair as it was to dismiss WK in April after a short time, it would be equally unfair to dismiss Dusty Baker given the team he has had to put on the field. It's like people being violently opposed to abortion favoring the death penalty. It's not consistent.

And, yes, I was among those who thought Baker was not a good choice. And I still feel the same.

SirFelixCat
09-06-2008, 04:12 AM
I'm frustrated by some of Dusty's moves. For instance, tonight:

w/ a 9-0 lead and Arroyo over 100 pitches thru 6, he runs him back out there in the 7th, hoping to see his arm fall off, waits til he gives up a run and is over 120 pitches, THEN goes and gets him.

Seriously, wtf? Why run him out there for the 7th? I see no logic there whatsoever....:angry:

dougdirt
09-06-2008, 04:16 AM
I'm frustrated by some of Dusty's moves. For instance, tonight:

w/ a 9-0 lead and Arroyo over 100 pitches thru 6, he runs him back out there in the 7th, hoping to see his arm fall off, waits til he gives up a run and is over 120 pitches, THEN goes and gets him.

Seriously, wtf? Why run him out there for the 7th? I see no logic there whatsoever....:angry:

Don't try to find logic in anything Dusty does. It will lead to insanity.

GAC
09-06-2008, 06:25 AM
There is no reason the Reds couldn't be a playoff contender at their current payroll level.

I never said they couldn't. If teams like the Marlins, and even the Angels a few years ago, can make it to and win a WS with a relatively low or mid-level payroll, then anyone can do it. You have to be smart, and the Reds haven't. Not when you spend 12 mil/yr on a closer. To close what? Not when you allow your most productive offense player to walk, and then, IMHO, try to use the reasoning that they're going to head in another direction. I guess that direction can only be up since they've been at the bottom for quite some time now.

This organization needs to either crap or get off the pot. I have no idea what direction they are going in.

http://atangledweb.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/scarecrow_oz.gif

I admire and fully support the approach/philosophies of smaller market teams like the As, Twins, Marlins, and now Tampa who rely heavily on statistical analysis in drafting, player development, and team construction.

What else can they do to succeed in this baseball economy when they are faced with payroll constraints that several other teams/markets aren't faced with?

That is my point.... when some of those larger market teams utilize the same approach plus have the added advantage of payroll (like the Red Sox and others) to go out and immediately fill those weaknesses by using such situations as the trading deadline, where teams like the above are going to lose players to FA because they can't afford to retain them.... who do you think is going to consistently come out on top most of the time?

Other then the Marlins, when was the last time the As, Twins, or TB even been to a WS, let alone won one?

They are still at a disadvantage.

Sure you better have a strong, viable farm system. Because those teams realize that their window of opportunity is closing with those current players, and if they don't win, the odds are they are going to lose those players and will need to fill their shoes? Where? Their only option, for the most part, is the farm system.

Is that an obstacle facing those bigger market teams? For the most part "No". They have THEIR farm system, YOUR farm system, and also the FA market.

They are also, for the most part, the ones standing on the sidelines, like sharks smelling the blood of their prey, ready to swoop in and snatch players up. At times, those smaller market teams are nothing more then AAAA teams for those larger ones.

They can shop anywhere they want from WalMarts to Saks. Me? I'm pretty much relegated to Dollar General. ;)

Why should a larger market team be concerned about trading away their prospects to get that prized player when, in a few years, they, or some other larger market team, figure they can get that prospect back due to that other team's inability to financially retain them? ;)

mth123
09-06-2008, 06:40 AM
This whole concept of payroll not being an advantage is absolutely bunk.

Of course its possible to make every decision correctly and put together a cheap team that wins a lot. But its a lot more likely to maintain a winning team if you can afford to keep the good players around long term, spend to backfill for the mistakes that are made, and spend for more depth in the event of injuries.

Saying that payroll is not an advantage is like saying two prospective Lawyers or CPAs have the same chance at passing when one needs a perfect score and the other only needs a 75% score. The guy with the 75% score has a much better chance at the designation and a more successful career. Its only common sense.

Moving on from your mistakes and starting anew is an advantage that money provides. Living with the misery until the contracts come off the books and you can afford to try again is very different. Smart teams can win with a lower payroll, but saying that having the resources isn't a huge advantage in any walk of life is a huge load of bull cr@p.

GAC
09-06-2008, 06:50 AM
This whole concept of payroll not being an advantage is absolutely bunk.

Of course its possible to make every decision correctly and put together a cheap team that wins a lot. But its a lot more likely to maintain a winning team if you can afford to keep the good players around long term, spend to backfill for the mistakes that are made, and spend for more depth in the event of injuries.

Saying that payroll is not an advantage is like saying two prospective Lawyers or CPAs have the same chance at passing when one needs a perfect score and the other only needs a 75% score. The guy with the 75% score has a much better chance at the designation and a more successful career. Its only common sense.

Moving on from your mistakes and starting anew is an advantage that money provides. Living with the misery until the contracts come off the books and you can afford to try again is very different. Smart teams can win with a lower payroll, but saying that having the resources isn't a huge advantage in any walk of life is a huge load of bull cr@p.

Very good post.

I guess what we need is a "bean counter" like John Allen with Billy Beane's brains.... a Billy Allen! :p:

jojo
09-06-2008, 07:28 AM
While not being able to speak for everyone, I have never said having the ability to have a high payroll isn't an advantage (that's a strawman on steroids regarding my views on the issue). For instance, it was clearly indicated earlier that payroll increases margin of error (though it's not foolproof in that regard either). In fact, I've often argued that payroll is an important tool but it should be leveraged situationally-growing/expanding or shrinking/contracting in a thoughtful, purposeful manner. Payroll can be a huge tool when buying the last few wins to get into the playoffs (think redoing your bathroom and kitchen before putting your house on the market-you're most likely going to get that money back and then some). Failing to leverage it in that instance is a huge sin IMHO. So I haven't even argued that payroll should always be kept low at all costs.

What I've said is that payroll is an excuse. There is no reason the Reds can't be a playoff team at their current payroll. None. I'll go a step further and argue this bit of "craziness"-the Reds still would've largely sucked this last decade even if they were in the top ten teams from a payroll standpoint. We'd probably all be watching Zito give up dingers for $120+M, Pavano injury himself while making a salad and Matthews Jr and Pierre patrolling the outfield daily.

I think harping on payroll over and over as an explanation for the Reds recent history is bunk.

RFS62
09-06-2008, 07:46 AM
This whole concept of payroll not being an advantage is absolutely bunk.

Of course its possible to make every decision correctly and put together a cheap team that wins a lot. But its a lot more likely to maintain a winning team if you can afford to keep the good players around long term, spend to backfill for the mistakes that are made, and spend for more depth in the event of injuries.

Saying that payroll is not an advantage is like saying two prospective Lawyers or CPAs have the same chance at passing when one needs a perfect score and the other only needs a 75% score. The guy with the 75% score has a much better chance at the designation and a more successful career. Its only common sense.

Moving on from your mistakes and starting anew is an advantage that money provides. Living with the misery until the contracts come off the books and you can afford to try again is very different. Smart teams can win with a lower payroll, but saying that having the resources isn't a huge advantage in any walk of life is a huge load of bull cr@p.




Yep. I know it's fashionable to say payroll doesn't matter, and one can cite teams who defy the odds.

But to argue that it's no advantage has always struck me as odd.

Level the playing field, then find out who has the smartest front office. Until then, you don't know. Because all the lower income teams have to try things that the Yankees and Red Sox don't have to.

jojo
09-06-2008, 07:58 AM
Yep. I know it's fashionable to say payroll doesn't matter, and one can cite teams who defy the odds.

But to argue that it's no advantage has always struck me as odd.

Level the playing field, then find out who has the smartest front office. Until then, you don't know. Because all the lower income teams have to try things that the Yankees and Red Sox don't have to.

Once again, the only entity arguing that there isn't a potential advantage associated with being able to outspend others is made of straw. And once again, just as a rope can be a very useful tool, it can also be a noose.

Frankly, I think we already can tell who has the smartest FO's.

RFS62
09-06-2008, 08:29 AM
Once again, the only entity arguing that there isn't a potential advantage associated with being able to outspend others is made of straw. And once again, just as a rope can be a very useful tool, it can also be a noose.

Frankly, I think we already can tell who has the smartest FO's.


You think it's a strawman?

Man, I hear it all the time. Payroll shouldn't matter.

That's no strawman, it's a very widespread argument.

And you don't know what a small market GM would do in a big market. We can talk about it until we're blue in the face, but until the playing field is leveled, you won't have anything but conjecture.

And it won't be leveled until the internet takes over for cable tv for delivering games.

jojo
09-06-2008, 08:36 AM
You think it's a strawman?

Man, I hear it all the time. Payroll shouldn't matter.

That's no strawman, it's a very widespread argument.

Well, I can only defend my position.


And you don't know what a small market GM would do in a big market. We can talk about it until we're blue in the face, but until the playing field is leveled, you won't have anything but conjecture.

I think you can judge tha quality of his decisions irregardless of his market.


And it won't be leveled until the internet takes over for cable tv for delivering games.

If I was king for a day, I'd first impose world peace. Next, I'd ban mlb's blackout restrictions. Then, I'd eat, drink and be merry.

RFS62
09-06-2008, 08:39 AM
I think you can judge tha quality of his decisions irregardless of his market.





Indeed you can. But everything's relative. You don't know, for instance, what Krivsky would have done with more money. You also don't know what Cashman would do with less.

So, you are judging their competence under different circumstances, are you not?

jojo
09-06-2008, 08:50 AM
Indeed you can. But everything's relative. You don't know, for instance, what Krivsky would have done with more money. You also don't know what Cashman would do with less.

So, you are judging their competence under different circumstances, are you not?

Well sure. But a propensity to make good decisions should translate. Just like a propensity to make bad ones probably won't (see Bavasi). That said, just like players, GMs have skillsets.

Personally, I think giving Krivsky more money would've played into his weaknesses as a GM.

Spring~Fields
09-06-2008, 12:47 PM
This whole concept of payroll not being an advantage is absolutely bunk.
Of course its possible to make every decision correctly and put together a cheap team that wins a lot. But its a lot more likely to maintain a winning team if you can afford to keep the good players around long term, spend to backfill for the mistakes that are made, and spend for more depth in the event of injuries.

Saying that payroll is not an advantage is like saying two prospective Lawyers or CPAs have the same chance at passing when one needs a perfect score and the other only needs a 75% score. The guy with the 75% score has a much better chance at the designation and a more successful career. Its only common sense.

Moving on from your mistakes and starting anew is an advantage that money provides. Living with the misery until the contracts come off the books and you can afford to try again is very different. Smart teams can win with a lower payroll, but saying that having the resources isn't a huge advantage in any walk of life is a huge load of bull cr@p.

Excellent very honest and realistic post.

The ones with more and better tools will succeed over the rest. Resources are the name of the game.

jojo
09-06-2008, 01:08 PM
Excellent very honest and realistic post.

The ones with more and better tools will succeed over the rest. Resources are the name of the game.

There is a very real chance that teams like the Yanks, Tigers, Dodgers and Mariners wouldn't sniff the playoffs. Meanwhile Tampa may finish with the best record in baseball while Minnesota and Arizona may join them in the playoffs.

You can believe whatever you want. But until you acknowledge the obese fluorescent orange elephant in the living room of your argument, you really should dispense with the pejoratives.

Spring~Fields
09-06-2008, 03:50 PM
There is a very real chance that teams like the Yanks, Tigers, Dodgers and Mariners wouldn't sniff the playoffs. Meanwhile Tampa may finish with the best record in baseball while Minnesota and Arizona may join them in the playoffs.

You can believe whatever you want. But until you acknowledge the obese fluorescent orange elephant in the living room of your argument, you really should dispense with the pejoratives.

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

camisadelgolf
09-06-2008, 04:00 PM
Let's settle this. Let's look at the percentage of teams in the top half of payroll that made it to the playoffs over the past few years and compare it to the percentage of teams from the lower half of payroll. Something tells me that the teams in the upper half have gone to the playoffs much more often than the teams in the lower half. Sure, it's not completely due to salary, but it's certainly a factor.

But just because a team isn't in the top half of salary doesn't mean they can't compete/win. I don't think anyone is saying that, and I don't think anyone is saying that having the money to spend guarantees you playoff spots. It just looks to me like a bunch of people taking things out of context for the sake of arguing.

StillFunkyB
09-06-2008, 04:06 PM
I don't like Dusty, but firing him would make ZERO difference.

Talent is what the Reds need, not another new manager.

Spring~Fields
09-06-2008, 07:31 PM
Let's look at the percentage of teams in the top half of payroll that made it to the playoffs over the past few years and compare it to the percentage of teams from the lower half of payroll.

2007 World Series (4-0): Boston Red Sox (96-66, AL) vs. Colorado Rockies* (90-73, NL)
$ 143,026,214 vs. $ 54,424,000
BostonRS vs. Clvlnd
$ 143,026,214 vs. $ 61,673,267
Colorado* vs. Arizona
$ 54,424,000 vs. $ 52,067,546
BOS vs. LAA
$ 143,026,214 vs. $ 109,251,333
CLE vs. NYY*
$ 61,673,267 vs. $ 189,639,045
ARI vs. CHC
$ 52,067,546 vs. $ 99,670,332
COL* vs. PHI
$ 54,424,000 vs. $ 89,428,213

Cincinnati Reds $ 68,904,980 No Show

2006 World Series (4-1): St. Louis Cardinals (83-78, NL) vs. Detroit Tigers* (95-67, AL)
$ 88,891,371 vs. $ 82,612,866
Detroit* vs. Oakland
$ 82,612,866 vs. $ 62,243,079
St.Louis vs. NewYorkM
$ 88,891,371 vs. $ 101,084,963
DET* vs. NYY
$ 82,612,866 vs. $ 194,663,079
OAK vs. MIN
$ 62,243,079 vs. $ 63,396,006
NYM vs. LAD*
$ 101,084,963 vs. $ 98,447,187
STL vs. SDP
$ 88,891,371 vs. $ 69,896,141

Cincinnati Reds $ 60,909,519 No Show

2005 World Series (4-0): Chicago White Sox (99-63, AL) vs. Houston Astros* (89-73, NL) ALCS (4-1):
$ 75,178,000 vs. $ 76,779,000
ChicagoW vs. LA of AN
$ 75,178,000 vs. $ 97,725,322
Houston* vs. St.Louis
$ 76,779,000 vs. $ 92,106,833
CHW vs. BOS*
$ 75,178,000 vs. $ 123,505,125
LAA vs. NYY
$ 97,725,322 vs. $ 208,306,817
STL vs. SDP
$ 92,106,833 vs. $ 63,290,833
HOU* vs. ATL
$ 76,779,000 vs. $ 86,457,302

Cincinnati Reds $ 61,892,583 No Show

2004 World Series (4-0): Boston Red Sox* (98-64, AL) vs. St. Louis Cardinals (105-57, NL)
$ 127,298,500 vs. $ 83,228,333
BostonRS* vs. NewYorkY
$ 127,298,500 vs. $ 184,193,950
St.Louis vs. Houston*
$ 83,228,333vs. $ 75,397,000
BOS* vs. ANA
$ 99,946,500 vs. $ 79,031,667
NYY vs. MIN
$ 184,193,950 vs. $ 53,585,000
STL vs. LAD
$ 83,228,333 vs. $ 100,534,667
HOU* vs. ATL
$ 75,397,000 vs. $ 90,182,500

Cincinnati Reds $ 46,615,250 No Show


2003 World Series (4-2): Florida Marlins* (91-71, NL) vs. New York Yankees (101-61, AL)
$ 48,750,000 vs. $ 152,749,814
NewYorkY vs. BostonRS*
$ 152,749,814 vs. $ 99,946,500
Florida* vs. ChicagoC
$ 48,750,000 vs. $ 79,868,333
NYY vs. MIN
$ 152,749,814 vs. $ 55,505,000
BOS* vs. OAK
$ 99,946,500 vs. $ 50,260,834
FLA* vs. SFG
$ 48,750,000 vs. $ 82,852,167
CHC vs. ATL
$ 79,868,333 vs. $ 106,243,667

Cincinnati Reds $ 59,355,667 No Show

2002 World Series (4-3): Anaheim Angels* (99-63, AL) vs. San Francisco Giants* (95-66, NL)
$ 61,721,667 vs. $ 78,299,835
ALCS (4-1): Anaheim* vs. Minnesta
$ 61,721,667 vs. $ 40,225,000
SanFranc* vs. St.Louis
$ 78,299,835 vs. $ 74,660,875
ANA* vs. NYY
$ 61,721,667 vs. $ 125,928,583
MIN vs. OAK
$ 40,225,000 vs. $ 40,004,167
SFG* vs. ATL
$ 78,299,835 vs. $ 93,470,367
STL vs. ARI
$ 74,660,875 vs. $ 102,819,999

Cincinnati Reds $ 45,050,390 No Show

2001 World Series (4-3): Arizona Diamondbacks (92-70, NL) vs. New York Yankees (95-65, AL) ALCS (4-1):
$ 85,247,999 vs. $ 112,287,143
NewYorkY vs. Seattle
$ 112,287,143 vs. $ 74,720,834
Arizona vs. Atlanta
$ 85,247,999 vs. $ 91,936,166
SEA vs. CLE
$ 74,720,834 vs. $ 92,660,001
NYY vs. OAK*
$ 112,287,143 vs. $ 33,810,750
ATL vs. HOU
$ 91,936,166 vs. $ 60,387,667
ARI vs. STL*
$ 85,247,999 vs. $ 78,333,333

Cincinnati Reds $ 48,784,000 No Show

2000 World Series (4-1): New York Yankees (87-74, AL) vs. New York Mets* (94-68, NL) ALCS (4-2):
$ 92,938,260 vs. $ 79,759,762
NewYorkY vs. Seattle*
$ 92,938,260 vs. $ 59,215,000
NewYorkM* vs. St.Louis
$ 79,759,762 vs. $ 63,093,023
NYY vs. OAK
$ 92,938,260 vs. $ 32,121,833
SEA* vs. CHW
$ 59,215,000 vs. $ 31,159,000
STL vs. ATL
$ 63,093,023 vs. $ 82,732,500
NYM* vs. SFG
$ 79,759,762 vs. $ 53,541,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 44,217,500 No Show

It takes either money or pitching or both and both are used to build over time. There are those one hit wonders though.

jojo
09-06-2008, 07:37 PM
2007 World Series (4-0): Boston Red Sox (96-66, AL) vs. Colorado Rockies* (90-73, NL)
$ 143,026,214 vs. $ 54,424,000
BostonRS vs. Clvlnd
$ 143,026,214 vs. $ 61,673,267
Colorado* vs. Arizona
$ 54,424,000 vs. $ 52,067,546
BOS vs. LAA
$ 143,026,214 vs. $ 109,251,333
CLE vs. NYY*
$ 61,673,267 vs. $ 189,639,045
ARI vs. CHC
$ 52,067,546 vs. $ 99,670,332
COL* vs. PHI
$ 54,424,000 vs. $ 89,428,213

Cincinnati Reds $ 68,904,980 No Show

2006 World Series (4-1): St. Louis Cardinals (83-78, NL) vs. Detroit Tigers* (95-67, AL)
$ 88,891,371 vs. $ 82,612,866
Detroit* vs. Oakland
$ 82,612,866 vs. $ 62,243,079
St.Louis vs. NewYorkM
$ 88,891,371 vs. $ 101,084,963
DET* vs. NYY
$ 82,612,866 vs. $ 194,663,079
OAK vs. MIN
$ 62,243,079 vs. $ 63,396,006
NYM vs. LAD*
$ 101,084,963 vs. $ 98,447,187
STL vs. SDP
$ 88,891,371 vs. $ 69,896,141

Cincinnati Reds $ 60,909,519 No Show

2005 World Series (4-0): Chicago White Sox (99-63, AL) vs. Houston Astros* (89-73, NL) ALCS (4-1):
$ 75,178,000 vs. $ 76,779,000
ChicagoW vs. LA of AN
$ 75,178,000 vs. $ 97,725,322
Houston* vs. St.Louis
$ 76,779,000 vs. $ 92,106,833
CHW vs. BOS*
$ 75,178,000 vs. $ 123,505,125
LAA vs. NYY
$ 97,725,322 vs. $ 208,306,817
STL vs. SDP
$ 92,106,833 vs. $ 63,290,833
HOU* vs. ATL
$ 76,779,000 vs. $ 86,457,302

Cincinnati Reds $ 61,892,583 No Show

2004 World Series (4-0): Boston Red Sox* (98-64, AL) vs. St. Louis Cardinals (105-57, NL)
$ 127,298,500 vs. $ 83,228,333
BostonRS* vs. NewYorkY
$ 127,298,500 vs. $ 184,193,950
St.Louis vs. Houston*
$ 83,228,333vs. $ 75,397,000
BOS* vs. ANA
$ 99,946,500 vs. $ 79,031,667
NYY vs. MIN
$ 184,193,950 vs. $ 53,585,000
STL vs. LAD
$ 83,228,333 vs. $ 100,534,667
HOU* vs. ATL
$ 75,397,000 vs. $ 90,182,500

Cincinnati Reds $ 46,615,250 No Show


2003 World Series (4-2): Florida Marlins* (91-71, NL) vs. New York Yankees (101-61, AL)
$ 48,750,000 vs. $ 152,749,814
NewYorkY vs. BostonRS*
$ 152,749,814 vs. $ 99,946,500
Florida* vs. ChicagoC
$ 48,750,000 vs. $ 79,868,333
NYY vs. MIN
$ 152,749,814 vs. $ 55,505,000
BOS* vs. OAK
$ 99,946,500 vs. $ 50,260,834
FLA* vs. SFG
$ 48,750,000 vs. $ 82,852,167
CHC vs. ATL
$ 79,868,333 vs. $ 106,243,667

Cincinnati Reds $ 59,355,667 No Show

2002 World Series (4-3): Anaheim Angels* (99-63, AL) vs. San Francisco Giants* (95-66, NL)
$ 61,721,667 vs. $ 78,299,835
ALCS (4-1): Anaheim* vs. Minnesta
$ 61,721,667 vs. $ 40,225,000
SanFranc* vs. St.Louis
$ 78,299,835 vs. $ 74,660,875
ANA* vs. NYY
$ 61,721,667 vs. $ 125,928,583
MIN vs. OAK
$ 40,225,000 vs. $ 40,004,167
SFG* vs. ATL
$ 78,299,835 vs. $ 93,470,367
STL vs. ARI
$ 74,660,875 vs. $ 102,819,999

Cincinnati Reds $ 45,050,390 No Show

2001 World Series (4-3): Arizona Diamondbacks (92-70, NL) vs. New York Yankees (95-65, AL) ALCS (4-1):
$ 85,247,999 vs. $ 112,287,143
NewYorkY vs. Seattle
$ 112,287,143 vs. $ 74,720,834
Arizona vs. Atlanta
$ 85,247,999 vs. $ 91,936,166
SEA vs. CLE
$ 74,720,834 vs. $ 92,660,001
NYY vs. OAK*
$ 112,287,143 vs. $ 33,810,750
ATL vs. HOU
$ 91,936,166 vs. $ 60,387,667
ARI vs. STL*
$ 85,247,999 vs. $ 78,333,333

Cincinnati Reds $ 48,784,000 No Show

2000 World Series (4-1): New York Yankees (87-74, AL) vs. New York Mets* (94-68, NL) ALCS (4-2):
$ 92,938,260 vs. $ 79,759,762
NewYorkY vs. Seattle*
$ 92,938,260 vs. $ 59,215,000
NewYorkM* vs. St.Louis
$ 79,759,762 vs. $ 63,093,023
NYY vs. OAK
$ 92,938,260 vs. $ 32,121,833
SEA* vs. CHW
$ 59,215,000 vs. $ 31,159,000
STL vs. ATL
$ 63,093,023 vs. $ 82,732,500
NYM* vs. SFG .
$ 79,759,762 vs. $ 53,541,000

Cincinnati Reds $ 44,217,500 No Show

It takes either money or pitching or both and both are used to build over time. There are those one hit wonders though.

There is absolutely no reason why the Reds couldn't make the payoffs given their payroll in any of the seasons you've referenced.

oneupper
09-06-2008, 08:13 PM
I don't like Dusty, but firing him would make ZERO difference.

Talent is what the Reds need, not another new manager.

Perhaps, but here's the problem. Dusty is what I consider a "negative value" manager...as in give him a 85 win talent level ballcub...he'll win 80.

So, if you keep him...like you probably will, you'll have to amass a ton of talent (or a secret stash of HGH) to overcome the "Dusty factor" and win.

And to make it worse, there are a couple of "positive value" managers in our division already, like LaRussa (or is it LaRussa/Duncan) and Piniella. The other managers in the division are probably also better than Dusty.

So you have to make up the talent "gap" that you already have plus the "managerial gap" that you have with Dusty at the helm. Kind of like starting the season 5 games back.

Conclusion: wake me up in 2011.

Highlifeman21
09-06-2008, 09:18 PM
Well sure. But a propensity to make good decisions should translate. Just like a propensity to make bad ones probably won't (see Bavasi). That said, just like players, GMs have skillsets.

Personally, I think giving Krivsky more money would've played into his weaknesses as a GM.

Definitely more money to be spent on bad contracts, which seemed to be one of his MO's while at the helm.

Highlifeman21
09-06-2008, 09:20 PM
I don't like Dusty, but firing him would make ZERO difference.

Talent is what the Reds need, not another new manager.

You're absolutely right.

While The Dusty isn't my favorite choice for manager, he certainly isn't the problem.

The Reds have an organizational talent problem. Very few guys that would or should be considered marquee talent, and absolutely zero depth from top to bottom. That's never a good thing...

dougdirt
09-06-2008, 09:26 PM
I don't like Dusty, but firing him would make ZERO difference.

Talent is what the Reds need, not another new manager.

Of course Dusty thinks Patterson and Bako are talented and he seems to have the ability to bring in his guys. Given that, I think the Reds need both a new manager and more talent.

Spring~Fields
09-06-2008, 09:27 PM
Definitely more money to be spent on bad contracts, which seemed to be one of his MO's while at the helm.


Especially if it was on contracts for a Patterson, Bako, Fogg, and often injured Mercker, Hairston types.

jojo
09-06-2008, 10:24 PM
Let's settle this. Let's look at the percentage of teams in the top half of payroll that made it to the playoffs over the past few years and compare it to the percentage of teams from the lower half of payroll. Something tells me that the teams in the upper half have gone to the playoffs much more often than the teams in the lower half. Sure, it's not completely due to salary, but it's certainly a factor.

But just because a team isn't in the top half of salary doesn't mean they can't compete/win. I don't think anyone is saying that, and I don't think anyone is saying that having the money to spend guarantees you playoff spots. It just looks to me like a bunch of people taking things out of context for the sake of arguing.

Here's a quick look at payroll relative to winning percentage for each of the last three seasons (i.e. the regression of individual payroll rank among the 30 major league teams in the given year to individual winning percentage in that same year using USA today's payroll figures for each year to see how well payroll might predict wins):

2006: R square= .29;
2007: R square= .17;
2008: R square= .10;

The regression was statistically significant (P< .05) for '06 and '07 but not for '08.

Here's all three years combined with major league payroll rank again regressed against winning percentage:

'06 thru '08: R square= .19;

Once again the regression was statistically significant (P<.05).

So while payroll has a relationship to wins (once again I haven't argued otherwise), these relationships do not support the argument that payroll per se is a dramatic drag on a team's ability to be competitive. This has been seen time and again as teams in the bottom half of payroll regularly out perform teams that outspend them in many cases by a dramatic margin. In fact, it's actually the extremes at both ends that tend to drive the relationship. If your team isn't within the lowest 10% or highest 10% of payroll, the relationship between moola and wins becomes more murky (R square= .13).

Payroll is a tool. It's neither a magic bullet nor is it a valid excuse. In other words, how you use it can trump how much you use.

RFS62
09-06-2008, 10:37 PM
Wow, how about that. Money doesn't matter in business.

Who knew?

Highlifeman21
09-06-2008, 10:44 PM
Wow, how about that. Money doesn't matter in business.

Who knew?

That's what my magic 8 ball told me.

I asked it "does money matter in business?" and it replied "absolutely not".

jojo
09-06-2008, 10:47 PM
Wow, how about that. Money doesn't matter in business.

Who knew?

Well, for what its worth, I think many of the business/sales oriented people in the ORG might view the phrase "throwing money at a problem" as a pejorative.

Money absolutely matters in baseball-making it that is-which is why understanding how spending it translates to success on the field shouldn't just be left up to intuition.

BTW, thanks for pointing out Dusty's hitting book..... I threw $2 at amazon to get a "like new" copy after reading your earlier post. :beerme:

Spring~Fields
09-06-2008, 11:04 PM
Wow, how about that. Money doesn't matter in business.

Who knew?

Somethings Forbes just doesn't tell us.
Guess we can close down the FED, and the IRS now, I wonder if Wall Street got the memo. :lol:

RFS62
09-07-2008, 12:04 AM
BTW, thanks for pointing out Dusty's hitting book..... I threw $2 at amazon to get a "like new" copy after reading your earlier post. :beerme:



It's worth every penny.

:cool:

Actually, there are passages of that book which will cause a riot if you post them here.

Situational hitting, elevating the ball for a sac fly, putting it in play to the right side...... You're going to have material for some time.

OnBaseMachine
09-07-2008, 01:37 AM
Baker fuzzy on facts

Baker, 59, was surprised to learn the 40th anniversary of his major-league debut was Saturday, Sept. 6. One year removed from high school, the California native was a September call-up for the Atlanta Braves and pinch-hit against the Houston Astros.

After being told the box score shows he went 0-for-1, Baker began rhapsodizing about his first big-league hit. But his memory was a bit faulty on that, too.

"It was off Juan Marichal," he said. "It was a little swinging bunt. I ran halfway to right field. I couldn't stop."

The pitcher actually was the Astros' Mike Cuellar. But Baker had 1,981 career hits, and some, apparently, are easier to recall than others.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/content/oh/story/sports/pro/reds/2008/09/07/ddn090708spredsnotes.html

Spring~Fields
09-07-2008, 02:13 AM
This has been seen time and again as teams in the bottom half of payroll regularly out perform teams that outspend them in many cases by a dramatic margin.


Personal assertion

Or

Another statistical theory? Which book did you read that in? Who was the author and what motivated their statement? Who’s the source? Was it just some Internet source?

So do I understand this correctly, the lower payroll teams, “regularly out perform”, win more baseball games than the higher payroll teams in the Reds division ?

1999 the Cincinnati Reds were very competitive with their division, how did St. Louis, Chicago and Houston get ahead of the Reds since that time? What was their primary advantage over the Reds?

Considering payroll, teams finish, games behind, runs scored, and runs allowed, I am having a hard time seeing any reality to the assertion in the results recorded below. With one exception where it might be true for Dusty Baker’s Cubs, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

Do you mean that in a substantive measure? Or are you trying to speak of the occasional outlier type teams that are one year wonders and then drop back to their more traditional season results?

So larger markets in a capitalistic system do not enjoy an advantage?

Could you show us that theory based upon this division below and it’s teams for the years 2000 through 2007 conclusively? Also in addition to this division below, for teams routinely playing above .500 and to league titles and world series for this decade? How has the low payroll worked out for teams such as Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Milwaukee from 2000-2007 respectively?

Perhaps you could narrow that down using the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 to make it simpler for some us to understand better?

How does the theory factor in injuries to key players with high salaries?

Though I think that most people would consider that a flawed statistical theory when they look at the results “time and again” and see that the teams among those with the highest payroll, well, I am confident that they can interpret that for themselves and draw their own correct conclusions on how the teams with the greater financial resources available have done in comparison to those with much less financial resources utilized or applied to their major league player personnel.

As for myself I can see that the higher payroll has benefited St. Louis, Houston, and Chicago in the 2000 decade, when salaries and payrolls grew to record proportions. Walt Jocketty himself and Dusty Baker enjoyed the advantage that the financial expenditures brought them in St. Louis and Chicago themselves, and then on the other hand, both have had to endure second lowest payroll in the division, Cincinnati Reds this year.

Chicago, St. Louis, Houston, appears that their executives, opted against being in the lower payroll group for the purpose of placing a better product on the field. While with the bottom half of the payroll teams, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Milwaukee we find that the story is or I should say theory is dubious at best, when the theory suggests by stating that they “the bottom half of payroll regularly out perform teams that outspend them in many cases by a dramatic margin.” When clearly these teams, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee have not, "regularly", but Cincinnati was in 1999 and some Jim Bowden fans would argue, even before that.



1999
Pittsburgh Pirates $ 24,217,666
Cincinnati Reds $ 42,142,761
Milwaukee Brewers $ 42,927,395
St. Louis Cardinals $ 46,248,195
Houston Astros $ 55,289,000
Chicago Cubs $ 55,368,500

2000
Above .500 GB
$ 63,093,023 St. Louis 95 67 .586 --
$ 44,217,500 Cincinnati 85 77 .525 10.0
Below .500
$ 35,782,833 Milwaukee 73 89 .451 22.0
$ 52,081,667 Houston 72 90 .444 23.0
$ 26,561,667 Pittsburgh 69 93 .426 26.0
$ 62,129,333 Chicago 65 97 .401 30.0

2001
Above .500 GB
$ 60,387,667 Houston 93 69 .574 --
$ 78,333,333 St. Louis 93 69 .574 --
$ 64,515,833 Chicago 88 74 .543 5
Below .500
$ 45,099,333 Milwaukee 68 94 .420 25
$ 48,784,000 Cincinnati 66 96 .407 27
$ 57,760,833 Pittsburgh 62 100 .383 31

2002
Above .500 GB Positive Run Differential
$ 74,660,875 St. Louis 97 65 .591 - RS 787 RA 648 +139
$ 63,448,417 Houston 84 78 .515 13 RS 749 RA 695 +54
Below .500
$ 45,050,390 Cincinnati 78 84 .476 19 RS 709 RA 774 -65
$ 42,323,599 Pittsburgh 72 89 .439 24.5 RS 641 RA 730 -89
$ 75,690,833 Chicago 67 95 .404 30 RS 706 RA 759 -53
$ 50,287,833 Milwaukee 56 106 .344 41 RS 627 RA 821 -194

2003
Above .500 GB Positive Run Differential
$ 79,868,333 Chicago 88 74 .530 - RS 725 RA 683 +42
$ 71,040,000 Houston 87 75 .534 1 RS 805 RA 677 +128
$ 83,786,666 St. Louis 85 77 .518 3 RS 876 RA 796 +80
Below .500 Negative Run Differential
$ 54,812,429 Pittsburgh 75 87 .446 13 RS753 RA 801 -48
$ 59,355,667 Cincinnati 69 93 .421 19 RS 694 RA 885 -191
$ 40,627,000 Milwaukee 68 94 .412 20 RS714 RA 873 -159

2004
Above .500 GB Positive Run Differential
$ 83,228,333 St. Louis 105 57 .644 - RS 855 RA 659 +196
$ 75,397,000 Houston 92 70 .564 13 RS 803 RA 698 +105
$ 90,560,000 Chicago 89 73 .536 16 RS789 RA 665 +124
Below .500 Negative Run Differential
$ 46,615,250 Cincinnati 76 86 .466 29 RS 750 RA 907 -157
$ 32,227,929 Pittsburgh 72 89 .419 32.5 RS 680 RA 744 -64
$ 27,528,500 Milwaukee 67 94 .411 37.5 RS 634 RA 757 -123

2005
Above .500 GB Positive Run Differential
$ 92,106,833 St. Louis 100 62 .617 - RS 805 RA 634 +171
$ 76,779,000 Houston 89 73 .549 11 RS 693 RA 609 +84
$ 39,934,833 Milwaukee 81 81 .500 19 RS 726 RA 697 +29
Below .500 Negative Run Differential
$ 87,032,933 Chicago 79 83 .488 21 RS 703 RA 714 -11
$ 61,892,583 Cincinnati 73 89 .451 27 RS 820 RA 889 -69
$ 38,133,000 Pittsburgh 67 95 .414 33 RS 680 RA 769 -89

2006
Above .500 GB Positive Run Differential
$ 88,891,371 St. Louis 83 78 .516 - RS 781 RA 762 +19
$ 92,551,503 Houston 82 80 .506 1.5 RS 735 RA 719 +16
Below .500 Negative Run Differential
$ 60,909,519 Cincinnati 80 82 .494 3.5 RS 749 RA 801 -52
$ 57,568,333 Milwaukee 75 87 .463 8.5 RS 730 RA 833 -103
$ 46,717,750 Pittsburgh 67 95 .414 16.5 RS 691 RA 794 -103
$ 94,424,499 Chicago 66 96 .407 17.5 RS 713 RA 834 -121

2007
Above .500 GB Positive Run Differential
$ 99,670,332 Chicago 85 77 .525 - RS 752 RA 690 +62
$ 70,986,500 Milwaukee 83 79 .512 2 RS 801 RA 776 +25
Below .500 Negative Run Differential
$ 90,286,823 St. Louis 78 84 .481 7 RS 725 RA 829 -104
$ 87,759,000 Houston 73 89 .451 12 RS 723 RA 813 -90
$ 68,904,980 Cincinnati 72 90 .444 13 RS 783 RA 853 -70
$ 38,537,833 Pittsburgh 68 94 .420 17 RS 724 RA 846 -122

Sources:
Espn
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/index
USATODAY
http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2000
Baseballreference
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL_2001.shtml

Anyone else having a problem seeing the reality in the original assertion as it might apply to the Reds division for the years 2000-2008 respectively? :confused:

GAC
09-07-2008, 07:38 AM
I think harping on payroll over and over as an explanation for the Reds recent history is bunk.

No one, including myself, is harping on it. Just saying it is a influential part. And it's obvious impact to the equation shouldn't be downplayed. It sure would be nice to be able to afford to retain some of these young players for a bit after you've invested so much on them.

c'set la vie. ;)

jojo
09-07-2008, 09:20 AM
S~F:

Earlier I posted a simple regression analysis to begin to look at the relationship between payroll and wins. Obviously there is a relationship but for the purposes of this discussion (especially the "dialog" you and I have been having), the data suggest you're greatly overstating your case concerning the efficacy of increasing payroll.


Personal assertion

Or

Another statistical theory? Which book did you read that in? Who was the author and what motivated their statement? Who’s the source? Was it just some Internet source?

So do I understand this correctly, the lower payroll teams, “regularly out perform”, win more baseball games than the higher payroll teams in the Reds division ?

I think being purposefully obtuse is unbecoming but worse, it kills discussion.


This has been seen time and again as teams in the bottom half of payroll regularly out perform teams that outspend them in many cases by a dramatic margin.

In 2006, Minnesota out performed 16 teams that spent more than they did. Another bottom half team, the Bluejays outperformed 9 teams that were in the top half based upon spending. The Florida Marlins basically didn't even pay anyone that year and they performed equal to or better than 5 teams in the top half of payroll (the lowest paid team in baseball was better than 33% of the highest paid teams in baseball). That year at least 8 teams in the bottom half of payroll outplayed at least 33% of the teams in the top half of payroll based upon a comparison of winning percentages.

Similar stories are easy to find in '07 and '08.


So larger markets in a capitalistic system do not enjoy an advantage?

Once again, what I'm arguing is that the advantage they do enjoy is often overstated (many times grossly) and it is an advantage that can be overcome (and is overcome regularly). The Reds, given where their payroll has been in recent years, cant use payroll as an excuse. In fact roughly 60% of the teams that have had lower payroll then they have had between '06 and '08 have outperformed them!


Though I think that most people would consider that a flawed statistical theory when they look at the results “time and again” and see that the teams among those with the highest payroll, well, I am confident that they can interpret that for themselves and draw their own correct conclusions on how the teams with the greater financial resources available have done in comparison to those with much less financial resources utilized or applied to their major league player personnel.

When a logical extension of a position is a declarative like the one below (referring to what Bob C. needs to do to win):




If Bob Castellini wants to win baseball games next year.

Pitching
C.C. Sabathia
Brian Fuentes
Juan Cruz
Joe Beimel
Damaso Marte

Offense


Player OBP BB%
Mark Teixeira 0.409 14.3%
Milton Bradley 0.445 16.6%
Orlando Hudson 0.367 8.8%


I think it's easy to judge how realistic one's views are concerning payroll issues.

Teams like the Yanks and BoSox are in unique situations where they can insanely spend because leveraging their networks means they'll actually get an even more insane profit. That said, even they are looking for ways to lower their payroll and are emphasizing player development.

IMHO, a more responsible, sustainable approach to payroll is to build intelligently and then throw money at the last few wins that get you into the playoffs.

jojo
09-07-2008, 09:28 AM
No one, including myself, is harping on it. Just saying it is a influential part. And it's obvious impact to the equation shouldn't be downplayed. It sure would be nice to be able to afford to retain some of these young players for a bit after you've invested so much on them.

c'set la vie. ;)

Cleveland's payroll usually sits around Cincy's and they popularized the approach of retaining their core.

Spring~Fields
09-07-2008, 12:44 PM
No one, including myself, is harping on it. Just saying it is a influential part. And it's obvious impact to the equation shouldn't be downplayed. It sure would be nice to be able to afford to retain some of these young players for a bit after you've invested so much on them.

c'set la vie. ;)

Exactly and especially without a confirmation bias.

Unless you want to continue to field a team with filler and fodder such as Patterson, Bako, Hairston, Mercker.

GAC
09-07-2008, 02:42 PM
Cleveland's payroll usually sits around Cincy's and they popularized the approach of retaining their core.

You mean like Belle, Rameriz, Thome, Lofton, Giles, and now C.C? :p:

Cleveland is a perfect example of what I am talking about - teams not being able to afford/retain their young talent.

What the Indians did, in the 90's, and with the building of their new ballpark, was sign their young emerging prospects, give them the money/contracts and lock them up for several years. There was risk involved.

And once established themselves, and those contracts were coming to an end, where did these guys end up at? Not back in Cleveland.

jojo
09-07-2008, 04:17 PM
You mean like Belle, Rameriz, Thome, Lofton, Giles, and now C.C? :p:

Cleveland is a perfect example of what I am talking about - teams not being able to afford/retain their young talent.

What the Indians did, in the 90's, and with the building of their new ballpark, was sign their young emerging prospects, give them the money/contracts and lock them up for several years. There was risk involved.

And once established themselves, and those contracts were coming to an end, where did these guys end up at? Not back in Cleveland.

How many free agents actually do remain with their same club?

Trading CC was a conscious decision to not pay him $150M+ over 6-7 years. That can't be blamed on payroll limitations. That's more philosophical.

GAC
09-07-2008, 04:33 PM
Trading CC was a conscious decision to not pay him $150M+ over 6-7 years. That can't be blamed on payroll limitations. That's more philosophical.

You can tell yourself it's purely philisophical; but their philisophical approah is influenced (forced) by their payroll constraints. What choice do they have? The Indians would have loved to have been able to retain that talent. They simply couldn't afford it since an expenditure of that magnitude would hamstring them in other areas.

Whereas the team that does sign him probably won't be facing that.

They made a smart move in dealing him prior to the deadline to the Brewers for top prospects; but the bottomline is that they would have loved not being in that position. Not when it comes to starting pitching.

But teams like the Indians will recover faster then say a team like the Reds because they have a stronger farm system.

jojo
09-07-2008, 04:46 PM
You can tell yourself it's purely philisophical; but the Indians would have loved to have been able to retain that talent. They simply couldn't afford it since an expenditure of that magnitude would hamstring them in other areas.

Whereas the team that does sign him probably won't be facing that.

They made a smart move in dealing him prior to the deadline to the Brewers for top prospects; but the bottomline is that they would have loved not being in that position. Not when it comes to starting pitching.

But teams like the Indians will recover faster then say a team like the Reds because they have a stronger farm system.

I'm willing to concede that the Indians aren't the Yankees if you're willing to concede that there is no reason that the Reds couldn't be in at least as good of shape as the Indians/Twins/As/Rays going forward.

GAC
09-07-2008, 05:00 PM
I said that several pages ago! :lol:

Of course a team can compete (win) with a modest payroll if they have the the smarts to "cross every T and dot every I" from a statistcal, player evaulation standpoint.

All I've said is that bigger market teams, who also follow that same philosophy, also have an added edge in payroll spending power that these other teams don't possess.

oneupper
09-07-2008, 08:38 PM
The Reds are poor AND ignorant. Guess we're screwed.

Chip R
09-07-2008, 09:56 PM
You mean like Belle, Rameriz, Thome, Lofton, Giles, and now C.C? :p:

Cleveland is a perfect example of what I am talking about - teams not being able to afford/retain their young talent.

What the Indians did, in the 90's, and with the building of their new ballpark, was sign their young emerging prospects, give them the money/contracts and lock them up for several years. There was risk involved.

And once established themselves, and those contracts were coming to an end, where did these guys end up at? Not back in Cleveland.


Not even the big boys keep all their young players. The Yankees kept guys like Jeter, Rivera, Posada and Williams but they decided to cut bait on guys like Soriano and they couldn't even re-sign Pettite. BOS had a couple of guys who came up witht hem but moswt of their other guys have been with other organizations before they were with BOS.

CLE has had a pretty nice run with Sizemore, Peralta, Blake, Martinez, Hafner, Sabathia, et. al. Darn near made the World Series last year. If they hadn't been so bad this year they might have actually kept CC. It's not like these guys are rookies and 2-3 year players either. The difference between CLE and the Reds or TB and the Reds or even the Twins and the Reds is that those teams had better talent than the Reds did.

gonelong
09-08-2008, 09:03 AM
Money for a MLB organization is not much different than money for the average Joe.

Joe 1:
If you are a knucklehead you'll spend it unwisely and extra money may be more harmful than good (see Milton, Eric aka hookers and blow). You might be euphoric at first, but then have to deal with the aftermath for a few years.

Joe 2:
If you have some smarts about you you might take some extra money and start a college fund for the kids, pay down the mortgage, etc (signing someone like a Jay Bruce and/or Joey Votto to a long-term contract - aka college fund) It may take awhile to pay off, but it's a step in the right direction. Build one block at a time, and build consistently.

* More money for Joe1 would not allow him to be as successful as Joe2.
* Joe 2 can be more successful than Joe1 even if Joe1 has more money.
* If you give Joe2 more money, it will be a very valuable tool for him.

GL

/obvious

GAC
09-08-2008, 10:02 AM
Not even the big boys keep all their young players. The Yankees kept guys like Jeter, Rivera, Posada and Williams but they decided to cut bait on guys like Soriano and they couldn't even re-sign Pettite.

That's true Chip, though I don't know what you mean when you state they couldn't re-sign Pettite? Couldn't meaning he made the conscious decision, regardless of what the Yanks offered, to play in his home state of Texas, and with his bud Clemens? In that case, no host team can overcome that.

And "cutting bait" on a player was not governed by financial restraints; but simply that a player is not worth the money. There's a difference.

Again - all I have said is that a larger market team, which has greater financial revenues to work with, overall, is not buoyed by payroll constraints anywhere to the degree it is with smaller market teams where it is the primary factor. Sure, those larger market teams, at some point, can hit the "ceiling". But their ceiling is alot higher then those smaller market ones. ;)

And those larger market teams can make "mistakes" (and they do); but it doesn't seem to hit them as hard as it does a smaller market team. They can "absorb" them better/overcome.

Many said that the Reds signing Jr was a good example of this. Not because he was hurt so much; but because the contract then hindered them from spending in other areas, and even forced them to cut corners. And isn't that what Lindner/Allen did?

Why weren't the As able to keep players like a Giambi, Zito, Haren, and others? Why did the Pirates trade away one of their most productive players this year in Bay? And many other examples can be shown with organizations like the Twins, Marlins, and others, where they lost quality, established players not necessarily because they didn't think they were worth the money - though Zito may be an exception - but because they couldn't afford to retain them due to financial restraints.

And sure - another factor in those decisions is that they have strong, viable farm systems too that can provide those replacements.

I've never denied that.

But the main reason Beane ("Moneyball"), and other successful teams have embraced that philosophy is not only because it's a sound approach to the game for winning (see: Branch Rickey); but because the current economics of the game have given them no other alternative if they want to remain competitive and have a chance of winning.

And as I stated before.... when the larger market clubs also embrace that philosophy, like a Boston (Epstein), plus have the added advantage of payroll, then you're going to try and convince me they aren't going to have a leg up?

Why are the Cub's winning? It certainly is not because Sweet Lou is a sabermatrician. He's more old school then anything. Sure, it's about recognizing talent. But the Cubs have increased their payroll, since '05, over 40 million dollars to add that talent from elsewhere. Their current payroll is 119 mil compared to the Red's 75 mil. That's a 44 mil difference.


CLE has had a pretty nice run with Sizemore, Peralta, Blake, Martinez, Hafner, Sabathia, et. al. Darn near made the World Series last year.

Yes they did. I really don't know what your point is though. Again - my position (argument) is not about team's establishing strong farm systems and building within, which is where everyone of those Indian players above came from. But about those teams being able to afford to retain them once they have established themselves and that "window" closes.

And the Indians, as I stated earlier, are a prime example of an organization that goes into a rebuild mode every few years, lets those established stars walk because they can't afford to retain them, and then relies on their prospects.

Look at some of those players you list, and their payroll progression...


2005 2006 2007 2008
Sizemore .3 .6 .9 3.1
Martinez .7 1.0 3.2 4.4
Peralta .3 .7 1.0 2.5
Hafner .3 2.7 4.0 8.0

If I know the Indian's history as of late, these guys will price themselves right out of Cleveland. Blake and C.C are already gone.

They slashed their payroll back from 93 mil (2001) to 34 mil (2004) and decided to play/develop their prospects. It has since slowly climbed back up to the 78 mil range as they have had to give raises to various players. But the Indians haven't "gone nuts" in their issuing of contracts (overpaid), and IMHO and you'll see it stay in that range too. They allow their player's salaries to grow/progress so far before they decide they are pricing themselves out of Cleveland, and they then trade them away. They then fall back on their farm system.

Again - they are doing it right!

And when they do trade players, for the most part, they get something in return.

Blake landed P Jon Meloan and C Carlos Santana from the Dodgers.

http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20080726&content_id=3199023&vkey=pr_cle&fext=.jsp&c_id=cle

C.C. landed the Brewer's top prospect in LaPorta, as well as pitchers Rob Bryson and Zach Taylor.


If they hadn't been so bad this year they might have actually kept CC.

The reason they were so bad was because they were plagued with injuries to guys like Martinez, Hafner, Carmona, Westbrook, Elarton, and Barfield. Since the beginning of August they have gone 22-12 (a 10 game win streak in there too). So the talent is still there; but the DL thwarts talent. ;)

The reason that C.C. was traded was because he said he wouldn't talk contract negotiations till after the season ended. And that usually means a player ain't planning on returning. Especially when the guy starts floating remarks of about how much he wants to return home (west coast), and was wanting Santana-like money rumored at around $130 mil/6 years. Surely, you must be kidding if you think Larry Dolan is going to cough up that kind of cash when he hasn't had the history of doing so. I've got some land I want to sell you. ;)

The Indians weren't going to hold onto a guy, let him walk at season's end for two unknown draft picks, when they can take advantage of the TD and those teams still in the hunt but looking to add, and be more involved (dictate) what the return would be.

Again - look what the Brewers gave up to rent Sabbathia. And do you think the Brewers have a snowball chance in hades of re-signing C.C.? I don't.

And what were the Reds able to get for Dunn, who was in the same situation as a C.C? :cool:


It's not like these guys are rookies and 2-3 year players either. The difference between CLE and the Reds or TB and the Reds or even the Twins and the Reds is that those teams had better talent than the Reds did.

Sure it's all about talent. No one is arguing that issue. It's about all the avenues avaluable to teams to acquire that talent. And those with greater finances have an avenue available to them that teams like the Reds do not.

And add to that mix an organization that hasn't had a very sound farm system for years, even though they are making improvements recently, and you have the current recipe for disaster.

The Red's farm system, though improved, is still not at the level needed when placed side by side with organizations like the As, Indians, Twins, and others.

Now throw a manager like Dusty Baker into that mix and alot of Red fans can scream "Bend me over and call me Sally! :lol:

Chip R
09-08-2008, 10:19 AM
That's true Chip, though I don't know what you mean when you state they couldn't re-sign Pettite? Couldn't meaning he made the conscious decision, regardless of what the Yanks offered, to play in his home state of Texas, and with his bud Clemens? In that case, no host team can overcome that.



But players make conscious decisions all the time and it has nothing to do with money. Jr. wanted to play closer to home. The Mariners couldn't compete with that. 3-4 years down the road people look at something like that and say they left for more money but that's not always true. Back in 2000, the Reds had a choice whether to keep Barry Larkin or trade him to the Mets. They kept him and re-signed him so it wasn't about the money.

GAC
09-08-2008, 10:22 AM
But players make conscious decisions all the time and it has nothing to do with money. Jr. wanted to play closer to home. The Mariners couldn't compete with that. 3-4 years down the road people look at something like that and say they left for more money but that's not always true. Back in 2000, the Reds had a choice whether to keep Barry Larkin or trade him to the Mets. They kept him and re-signed him so it wasn't about the money.


All true, but again, that is not the point I'm emphazing in respect to payroll/financial flexibility...


Again - all I have said is that a larger market team, which has greater financial revenues to work with, overall, is not buoyed by payroll constraints anywhere to the degree it is with smaller market teams where it is the primary factor. Sure, those larger market teams, at some point, can hit the "ceiling". But their ceiling is alot higher then those smaller market ones. ;)

Theo utilizes not only statistical analysis in player evaluation; but also has da money to spend when he has to.

jojo
09-08-2008, 10:33 AM
All true, but again, that is not the point I'm emphazing in respect to payroll/financial flexibility...



Theo utilizes not only statistical analysis in player evaluation; but also has da money to spend when he has to.

Boston and the Yanks are unique when it comes to payroll and profit. They really need to be treated separately because what applies to them really doesn't apply to the rest of the league. Those two will always have a bully pulpit

GAC
09-08-2008, 10:56 AM
Boston and the Yanks are unique when it comes to payroll and profit. They really need to be treated separately because what applies to them really doesn't apply to the rest of the league. Those two will always have a bully pulpit

They still play in the same league and against those other teams who dont have that advantage.

So I don't see how one can separate that.

Besides - it's not just those two. How can you leave out the following organizations who have bolstered their payrolls solely to make the post-season, or vastly increase their chances?...

Tigers 138 mil
Mets 138 mil
White Sox 121 mil
Cubs 119 mil
Angels 119 mil
Dodgers 118 mil

There's 8 teams (including the Yanks and Sox). And the only ones who probably won't make it off that list are the Yanks and Tigers.

Again... try to convince me that having that kind of money to spend doesn't give these teams an advantage?

Again - it's not the money ALONE; but the money to be able to retain or acquire that talent that other teams can't when facing that situation.

Sure - you're going to have a team, most every year, like the Rays, be that surprise. But overall what are the results?

And again - if the Ray succeed, will they be able to retain those players who got them there when the time comes? I doubt it.

OnBaseMachine
09-08-2008, 11:24 AM
Baker's winning formula? Big money, good players

By Hal McCoy

Staff Writer

Monday, September 08, 2008

CINCINNATI — Dusty Baker didn't want to be lured into the topic asked of him about what it is like managing in Chicago.

Baker, though, won't duck a question. "No comment" is not in his vocabulary, so he gave the writer what he wanted — what it is like managing in Chicago in comparison to San Francisco and Cincinnati.

"Well, you're under a lot more scrutiny in Chicago," he said. "There are a lot more people helping you manage. It's different because the Cubs haven't won in so long, that's the main difference."

Asked what it takes to win in Chicago, Baker quickly said, "Have a good team. That's what you need. An outstanding team. And if you don't have one, it is tougher there than other places. The problem is too many people in Chicago are expecting to lose.

"Hey, man, I'm not there any more," Baker added. "I had my turn. I just wish they had reloaded when I was there the way they have now. We lost Sammy Sosa and Moises Alou. That was big."

Over the last offseason, the Cubs invested $300 million in extending contracts, signing free agents and manager Lou Piniella.

"That's a deep team over there now," said Baker. "A real deep team. I wish they had loaded me up like this."

http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/content/oh/story/sports/pro/reds/2008/09/08/ddn090808spredsnotes.html

RedsManRick
09-08-2008, 11:48 AM
I don't think I've ever seen a manager in any sport routinely abdicate responsibility like Dusty Baker -- and yet nobody seems to call him on it. I'm not saying that Dusty is solely or even primarily responsible for our current won-loss record, but anytime something goes wrong, he's pointing fingers.

jojo
09-08-2008, 11:59 AM
They still play in the same league and against those other teams who dont have that advantage.

So I don't see how one can separate that.

Besides - it's not just those two. How can you leave out the following organizations who have bolstered their payrolls solely to make the post-season, or vastly increase their chances?...

Tigers 138 mil
Mets 138 mil
White Sox 121 mil
Cubs 119 mil
Angels 119 mil
Dodgers 118 mil

There's 8 teams (including the Yanks and Sox). And the only ones who probably won't make it off that list are the Yanks and Tigers.

Again... try to convince me that having that kind of money to spend doesn't give these teams an advantage?

Again - it's not the money ALONE; but the money to be able to retain or acquire that talent that other teams can't when facing that situation.

Sure - you're going to have a team, most every year, like the Rays, be that surprise. But overall what are the results?

And again - if the Ray succeed, will they be able to retain those players who got them there when the time comes? I doubt it.

I'm not sure why you watch Reds baseball because they have no chance of ever winning given payroll. BTW, lets fire Dusty. :cool:

The top two payroll teams have no chance of making the playoffs. The Mets, Whitesox and Dodgers may all very well have their playoff hopes dashed by teams spending significantly less on payroll. Boston is fighting it's tail off to not finish in second place. Seattle is an abomination.

The certain efficacy of payroll really is begging the question. Right now there are many big spending GMs sweating bullets.

Chip R
09-08-2008, 12:03 PM
I don't think I've ever seen a manager in any sport routinely abdicate responsibility like Dusty Baker -- and yet nobody seems to call him on it. I'm not saying that Dusty is solely or even primarily responsible for our current won-loss record, but anytime something goes wrong, he's pointing fingers.


He's not exactly Bear Bryant, is he?

BRM
09-08-2008, 12:05 PM
I don't think I've ever seen a manager in any sport routinely abdicate responsibility like Dusty Baker -- and yet nobody seems to call him on it. I'm not saying that Dusty is solely or even primarily responsible for our current won-loss record, but anytime something goes wrong, he's pointing fingers.

It sure looks that way. I might have missed a quote or two but I don't remember reading anything from him where he took responsibility for any of the current team's failures.

RedsManRick
09-08-2008, 12:12 PM
A larger payroll gives you access to more options in building your club. But at the end of the day, you still have a 25 man roster and a limited amount of choices you can make to establish it. For a good GM, there are always ways to building a winning roster. And for a bad GM, no amount of money can make up for routine poor decision making.

Let's say payroll is 25% of the equation. Heck, let's say it's 50%. What about the rest of it? Unless and until we figure out the part about making good use of the resources we have, the amount of resources is somewhat of a moot point.

OnBaseMachine
09-08-2008, 12:12 PM
Here is one of my favorite Dusty quotes:

Responding to suggestions that the Cubs play their prospects the rest of the way in order to build for the future, Baker said: "If that happens and we lose even more, are you going to hold that against my record, too? While you are developing?''

http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/sports/the_dusty_ozzie_show.php

Strikes Out Looking
09-08-2008, 12:19 PM
I don't think I've ever seen a manager in any sport routinely abdicate responsibility like Dusty Baker -- and yet nobody seems to call him on it. I'm not saying that Dusty is solely or even primarily responsible for our current won-loss record, but anytime something goes wrong, he's pointing fingers.

The buck stops there.

Spring~Fields
09-08-2008, 02:08 PM
Why are the Cub's winning? It certainly is not because Sweet Lou is a sabermatrician. He's more old school then anything. Sure, it's about recognizing talent. But the Cubs have increased their payroll, since '05, over 40 million dollars to add that talent from elsewhere. Their current payroll is 119 mil compared to the Red's 75 mil. That's a 44 mil difference.


And the Cardinals did not operate in the same manner from the 2001 forward?

And La Russa does not have the same thing on his mind again?

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/spo...0?OpenDocument

La Russa expects commitment from club


By Joe Strauss
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
09/05/2008

But with the Cardinals listing toward a second straight postseason miss, the third-winningest manager in the game's history would also like to believe the organization will again prove its commitment to fortifying itself this winter via an aggressive search for what he considers "impact" help.

"I would anticipate ownership and the front office are excited about us making a significant improvement for next season," La Russa said. "If we had a losing season, you could make the same comment. But if you're a losing club, 'significant' could mean getting to .500. We've got the components here. You're adding to something good."

That said, a baseball lifer who describes himself as "not a long-range thinker" hopes the club will make every effort this offseason to pull abreast of the well-monied Chicago Cubs and the recently emboldened Milwaukee Brewers.


"The idea is if you have a chance to finish first, then finish first or at least contend for first," La Russa said. "When this season started, you didn't know how this team was going to play. Well, we've played pretty damn good. We're closer to first place than we are the second division (of NL teams). I would think the idea this winter is to make some significant additions so we can be there."

La Russa does make clear that he does not see all the answers to his team's numerous holes arriving from within the system.

"You have your prospects. And it's good to publicize how good they are. But you want to be realistic with what you have. We've seen a lot of players; we've seen some pitchers. But you have to ask yourself, is there an impact guy within your system, like an Albert (Pujols)? If (Adam) Wainwright was from our system, is there a guy like him?" La Russa said. "We're going to need some impact. Is that there, or is there someone who fits the next category — legitimate help?"

After a run of six postseason appearances in eight years and a run of 10 seasons of 3 million attendance since 1998, La Russa is aware that some accuse the organization of complacency. "I hear it all the time," he said.

This winter, he believes, offers an opportunity for rebuttal.
"The concern I hear the most is: Is the organization satisfied? We've had a nice run in the playoffs. We have a nice crowd. We have a nice ballpark. We're contending. … I'd be disappointed if that's the case. I don't believe that's true. But we have something to prove in that direction. We have some fair needs. We have to make our best effort to fill those needs, I would think."

"I get some credit for being competitive. If I lose some competitive desire, then I don't deserve that compliment. It's up to me and to the nine on the field to prove that we're competitive every game. You can't rely on what you've done in the past. I never have," La Russa said. "I think the issues are out there and it's up to the organization to prove if they want to have a fighting chance to finish first. The only way you do that is by your actions, not by the benefit of what you've done. It's always what you do next. If you lose sight of that you're making a big mistake."


http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/spo...0?OpenDocument

Somehow I don’t think that La Russa is addressing the ownership to improve the farm system next year, and of course if the Cardinals do improve their team next year, money won’t have anything to do with it. To suggest that financial advantage does not have a barring is simply not credible.

The “impact help” that La Russa is looking for will just come to play for him out of the sheer joy of playing for him.


After a run of six postseason appearances in eight years

How did the Cardinals achieve and sustain such dominance over the Reds ?

1999
St. Louis Cardinals $ 46,248,195 Cincinnati Reds $ 42,142,761
personnel advantage $4,105,434

2000
$ 63,093,023 St. Louis 95 67 $ 44,217,500 Cincinnati 85 77
personnel advantage $18,875,523

2001
$ 78,333,333 St. Louis 93 69 $ 48,784,000 Cincinnati 66 96
personnel advantage $29,549,333

2002
$ 74,660,875 St. Louis 97 65 $ 45,050,390 Cincinnati 78 84
personnel advantage$29,610,485

2003
$ 83,786,666 St. Louis 85 77 $ 59,355,667 Cincinnati 69 93
personnel advantage $24,430,999

2004
$ 83,228,333 St. Louis 105 57 $ 46,615,250 Cincinnati 76 86
personnel advantage $36,613,083

2005
$ 92,106,833 St. Louis 100 62 $ 61,892,583 Cincinnati 73 89
personnel advantage $30,214,250

2006
$ 88,891,371 St. Louis 83 78 $ 60,909,519 Cincinnati 80 82
personnel advantage $27,981,852

Tell me again what the price of players from 2000-2006 were and that the $18,875,523 to $36,613,083 did not buy St. Louis an advantage over the Cincinnati Reds.

So am I to understand that St. Louis was not financially using resources to build their team over the Reds team in the 2000 decade? and that those resource increases did not carry forward to build the St. Louis organization in the years following 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006?

While the Reds farm roster and major league roster fell into disrepair and into a losing organization for what? carrying forward for eight straight years now?

That takes a big reach to suggest or even state that the price of players from 2000 through 2006 were not less during those years than they have been for pitching and other impact players from 2006 forward. Then to deny that the Cardinals were able to trade for higher priced players and to resign them.

I don’t think that anyone wants to suggest that St. Louis does not know anything about winning within their division do they? How many of their key impact players came from within that organization?

These teams outside of the Reds and Cardinals division, such as Minnesota, Florida, Tampa, and Oakland took years to build their teams, I assume that people will have no complaints with an O’Brien or a Krivsky if they try to build from within? No one will complain that they are not winning? That is kind of ridiculous to ask, isn’t it? Just as ridiculous as it is to try to say that money is not a difference maker in the Reds, Cardinals, Astro's and Cubs situation.

Obvisiouly their plan throughout 2000 forward was not to rebuild from the farm system, it was to compete through trades and acquisitions. When they tried to implement that plan the competition simply outspent them.

Is there any question that Bowden, O'Brien, Krivsky and now Jocketty could obtain better talent throughout the 25 man roster with funds competitive with the traditional leaders in the Reds division?

I am not sure how Dusty Baker feels about this or Walt Jocketty, since I have never seen them have a track record for success from buidling up from within and the minor league systems of their previous teams. When they were hired, was the plan to win now or the plan to take the time and money to build from within the farm system? How many years does it take to develop one pitcher by the way??

What were the signing bonuses for draft players in 2001, 2002, 2003, ect. Compared to 2006, 2007, 2008? Is money a factor there?

If Castellini and the rest of the ownership group wants to take the time and years to rebuild from within the farm system and trades, and are willing to commit the time and money to a plan like the other small market teams that have had some success doing that, then I am sure that the Reds could eventually achieve success.

Spring~Fields
09-08-2008, 02:58 PM
Fortunes have changed for Cincinnati, St. Louis, Houston, and Chicago.

Some of the golden years for Jim Bowden.
1994 National League
Central Division
Team W L WL% GB
Cincnnti CIN 66 48 .579 -- $ 39,826,333

Houston HOU 66 49 .574 0.5 $ 32,041,500

Pittsbgh PIT 53 61 .465 13.0 $ 20,265,500

St.Louis STL 53 61 .465 13.0 $ 28,956,001

ChicagoC CHC 49 64 .434 16.5 $ 35,717,333

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=1994

1995 National League
Central Division
Team W L WL% GB
Cincnnti CIN 85 59 .590 -- $ 37,240,667

Houston HOU 76 68 .528 9.0 $ 31,624,000

ChicagoC CHC 73 71 .507 12.0 $ 32,460,834

St.Louis STL 62 81 .434 22.5 $ 30,956,000

Pittsbgh PIT 58 86 .403 27.0 $ 17,043,000

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=1995

1996 National League
Central Division
Team W L WL% GB
St.Louis STL 88 74 .543 -- $ 38,741,666

Houston HOU 82 80 .506 6.0 $ 26,894,000

Cincnnti CIN 81 81 .500 7.0 $ 40,719,334

ChicagoC CHC 76 86 .469 12.0 $ 30,954,000

Pittsbgh PIT 73 89 .451 15.0 $ 21,253,500

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=1996

1997 National League
Central Division
Team W L WL% GB
Houston HOU 84 78 .519 -- $ 32,935,000

Pittsbgh PIT 79 83 .488 5.0 $ 9,071,666

Cincnnti CIN 76 86 .469 8.0 $ 46,267,000

St.Louis STL 73 89 .451 11.0 $ 44,179,167

ChicagoC CHC 68 94 .420 16.0 $ 39,829,333

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=1997

1998 National League
Central Division
Team W L WL% GB
Houston HOU 102 60 .630 -- $ 40,629,000

ChicagoC CHC 90 73 .552 12.5 $ 49,383,000

St.Louis STL 83 79 .512 19.0 $ 52,572,500

Cincnnti CIN 77 85 .475 25.0 $ 21,995,000

Milwkee MIL 74 88 .457 28.0 $ 32,252,583

Pittsbgh PIT 69 93 .426 33.0 $ 13,752,000

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=1998

1999 National League
Central Division
Team W L WL% GB
Houston HOU 97 65 .599 -- $ 40,629,000

Cincnnti CIN 96 67 .589 1.5 $ 52,572,500

Pittsbgh PIT 78 83 .484 18.5 $ 13,752,000

St.Louis STL 75 86 .466 21.5 $ 21,995,000

Milwkee MIL 74 87 .460 22.5 $ 32,252,583

ChicagoC CHC 67 95 .414 30.0 $ 49,383,000

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=1998

How did he become the losing general manager of the Cincinnati Reds after 2000 ? Did he suddenly become completely incompetent? Or did he no longer have the payroll advantage to wheel and deal with?

Is there any question that ownership funding of the team in relationship to the competitors within the same division has not had a major impact on the Cincinnati Reds?

How did St. Louis become the dominant power in the division in the decade of 2000? Wits and charms?

jojo
09-08-2008, 03:38 PM
Fortunes have changed for Cincinnati, St. Louis, Houston, and Chicago.

Some of the golden years for Jim Bowden.
1994 National League
Central Division
Team W L WL% GB
Cincnnti CIN 66 48 .579 -- $ 39,826,333

Houston HOU 66 49 .574 0.5 $ 32,041,500

Pittsbgh PIT 53 61 .465 13.0 $ 20,265,500

St.Louis STL 53 61 .465 13.0 $ 28,956,001

ChicagoC CHC 49 64 .434 16.5 $ 35,717,333

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=1994

1995 National League
Central Division
Team W L WL% GB
Cincnnti CIN 85 59 .590 -- $ 37,240,667

Houston HOU 76 68 .528 9.0 $ 31,624,000

ChicagoC CHC 73 71 .507 12.0 $ 32,460,834

St.Louis STL 62 81 .434 22.5 $ 30,956,000

Pittsbgh PIT 58 86 .403 27.0 $ 17,043,000

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=1995

1996 National League
Central Division
Team W L WL% GB
St.Louis STL 88 74 .543 -- $ 38,741,666

Houston HOU 82 80 .506 6.0 $ 26,894,000

Cincnnti CIN 81 81 .500 7.0 $ 40,719,334

ChicagoC CHC 76 86 .469 12.0 $ 30,954,000

Pittsbgh PIT 73 89 .451 15.0 $ 21,253,500

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=1996

1997 National League
Central Division
Team W L WL% GB
Houston HOU 84 78 .519 -- $ 32,935,000

Pittsbgh PIT 79 83 .488 5.0 $ 9,071,666

Cincnnti CIN 76 86 .469 8.0 $ 46,267,000

St.Louis STL 73 89 .451 11.0 $ 44,179,167

ChicagoC CHC 68 94 .420 16.0 $ 39,829,333

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=1997

1998 National League
Central Division
Team W L WL% GB
Houston HOU 102 60 .630 -- $ 40,629,000

ChicagoC CHC 90 73 .552 12.5 $ 49,383,000

St.Louis STL 83 79 .512 19.0 $ 52,572,500

Cincnnti CIN 77 85 .475 25.0 $ 21,995,000

Milwkee MIL 74 88 .457 28.0 $ 32,252,583

Pittsbgh PIT 69 93 .426 33.0 $ 13,752,000

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=1998

1999 National League
Central Division
Team W L WL% GB
Houston HOU 97 65 .599 -- $ 40,629,000

Cincnnti CIN 96 67 .589 1.5 $ 52,572,500

Pittsbgh PIT 78 83 .484 18.5 $ 13,752,000

St.Louis STL 75 86 .466 21.5 $ 21,995,000

Milwkee MIL 74 87 .460 22.5 $ 32,252,583

ChicagoC CHC 67 95 .414 30.0 $ 49,383,000

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=1998

How did he become the losing general manager of the Cincinnati Reds after 2000 ? Did he suddenly become completely incompetent? Or did he no longer have the payroll advantage to wheel and deal with?

Is there any question that ownership funding of the team in relationship to the competitors within the same division has not had a major impact on the Cincinnati Reds?

How did St. Louis become the dominant power in the division in the decade of 2000? Wits and charms?

There is no reason the Reds couldn't be a playoff contender at their current payroll level.

Spring~Fields
09-08-2008, 05:34 PM
There was plenty of blame to go around in that game, no doubt. But that fact doesn't absolve Dusty of his share. Though I'm quite sure Dusty would agree with the assessment that he's not to blame for anything.

RedsManRick, a couple questions for you. Or anyone that can help answer the questions.

If OBP is all the rage to scoring runs, did the Reds individual players have a bad OBP in April?

Why did the Reds have the least amount of runs scored in their division in as of April 30 ? Even behind Pittsburgh!


April
OBP
Adam Dunn .396 .415 .811
Paul Bako .388 .507 .895
J. Hairston Jr. .375 .435 .810
E. Encarnacion .369 .576 .945
J. Keppinger .361 .431 .793
Ryan Freel .351 .377 .728
Joey Votto .341 .538 .880
K. Griffey Jr. .339 .429 .768
B. Phillips .330 .500 .830
S. Hatteberg .316 .233 .549
Norris Hopper .296 .240 .536
C. Patterson .292 .488 .780
J. Valentin .269 .250 .519
David Ross .200 .300 .500



Chicago Cubs 171
St. Louis 135
Houston 131
Pittsburgh 128
Milwaukee 126
Cincinnati 124


If OBP is all the rage to scoring runs, did the Reds individual players have a bad OBP May?

Why did the Reds have the second least amount of runs scored in their division as of May 31st? Even behind Pittsburgh!


May
OBP
Jay Bruce .680 .895 1.575
J. Keppinger .447 .543 .990
Adam Dunn .429 .691 1.120
David Ross .429 .385 .813
J. Hairston Jr. .397 .514 .912
Joey Votto .385 .528 .913
Ryan Freel .355 .371 .727
B. Phillips .342 .557 .898
K. Griffey Jr. .336 .360 .696
Paul Janish .333 .280 .613
J. Valentin .313 .400 .713
B. Arroyo .267 .154 .421
Paul Bako .262 .305 .567
Josh Fogg .250 .250 .500
Andy Phillips .250 .000 .250
E. Encarnacion .228 .247 .475
S. Hatteberg .211 .278 .488
Aaron Harang .200 .200 .400
C. Patterson .180 .197 .377



Chicago Cubs 319
Pittsburgh 276
Houston 266
St. Louis 259
Cincinnati 256
Milwaukee 238


If OBP is all the rage to scoring runs, did the Reds individual players have a bad OBP June?

Why did the Reds have the least amount of runs scored in their division as of June 30 ? Even behind Pittsburgh!


June
OBP
J. Cabrera .450 .444 .894
E. Encarnacion .422 .603 1.025
J. Keppinger .406 .370 .777
K. Griffey Jr. .370 .425 .794
Adam Dunn .342 .425 .768
J. Hairston Jr. .339 .472 .811
David Ross .326 .297 .623
Joey Votto .315 .386 .701
B. Phillips .304 .374 .678
B. Arroyo .286 .714 1.000
Jay Bruce .274 .340 .614
Johnny Cueto .250 .143 .393
Paul Janish .244 .154 .398
J. Valentin .240 .227 .467
Paul Bako .224 .283 .507
Norris Hopper .222 .160 .382
Andy Phillips .211 .222 .433
C. Patterson .156 .311 .467
Ryan Freel .125 .125 .250



Chicago Cubs 452
Pittsburgh 397
St. Louis 395
Milwaukee 367
Houston 364
Cincinnati 357




Pre - All Star
OBP
J. Cabrera .450 .444 .894
J. Hairston Jr. .398 .495 .893
David Ross .389 .417 .806
Adam Dunn .380 .538 .918
J. Keppinger .353 .388 .741
Joey Votto .350 .464 .814
K. Griffey Jr. .348 .400 .748
E. Encarnacion .341 .481 .823
Ryan Freel .340 .359 .699
Jay Bruce .335 .429 .765
B. Phillips .323 .476 .798
Paul Bako .296 .355 .651
Norris Hopper .286 .200 .486
Paul Janish .278 .203 .481
J. Valentin .276 .314 .591
S. Hatteberg .262 .231 .493
C. Patterson .225 .337 .562


If OBP is all the rage to scoring runs, did the Reds individual players have a bad OBP July?

Why did the Reds have a second to the least amount of runs scored in their division as of July 30 ? Even behind Pittsburgh!



July
OBP
J. Hairston Jr. .479 .524 1.003
David Ross .447 .515 .962
J. Valentin .391 .636 1.028
K. Griffey Jr. .386 .541 .927
Adam Dunn .381 .762 1.143
E. Encarnacion .367 .620 .987
Joey Votto .337 .352 .689
B. Arroyo .333 .364 .697
B. Phillips .330 .402 .732
Jay Bruce .282 .384 .665
Paul Bako .260 .217 .477
Homer Bailey .250 .500 .750
J. Keppinger .238 .258 .495
Andy Phillips .200 .214 .414
Josh Fogg .167 .167 .333
C. Patterson .158 .111 .269
J. Cabrera .125 .250 .375

Chicago Cubs 580
Pittsburgh 533
St. Louis 531
Milwaukee 505
Cincinnati 476
Houston 466

Spring~Fields
09-08-2008, 05:51 PM
There is no reason the Reds couldn't be a playoff contender at their current payroll level.

If the competition were not there, they have been much more productive with their resources than the Reds.

I could kind of agree with you there JoJo, as I don't accept the Reds organizations excuses, if they have any, especially the ownership group of Castellini, Lindner, Reich and Strike.

They at least should have had and have a winning team. Championships that might be another story with the competitiors in their divsion substantively out spending them and out thinking them.

One thing for certain, this thread will be around in the archives, or we will recall it, and we will see how Jocketty and Dusty does next year with their changes, and the direct competitions, and we can take a look at how it all turned out again between them to see what the factors were. We can agree that they have no excuse next year right?

The 4th season is coming up for this ownership group, Bengals and Browns fans know what ownerships can do or not do, then so should Reds fans.

RedsManRick
09-08-2008, 10:37 PM
RedsManRick, a couple questions for you. Or anyone that can help answer the questions.

5 comments before answering your questions:

1. The obvious, run scoring is not just a function of getting on base. By omitting SLG, you're missing a significant piece of the puzzle. And once you account for slugging too, you account for the vast majority of what's possible to account for.

2. There are innings. Runs scored totals are not derived from a single distribution but from thousands of extremely tiny, non-normal distributions, the vast majority of which have a run value of zero, but an OBP > 0. This makes it harder for the tiny inefficiencies to cancel each other out and thus requires bigger samples before the relationships become obvious. Even in the aggregate, it's not that OBP is a perfect predictor of how many runs a team scores -- just the largest single determinant.

3. The also obvious, looking at player by player OBP ignores the number of plate appearances each player had, somewhat obscuring how well the team performed. Looking at a list of player OBP could make us think that 5 PA of a .600 OBP should be given equal weight to 100 PA of a .250 OBP. Obviously this would be silly.

4. Small sample sizes = greater variance. When you chop up data in to arbitrary chunks, you create more opportunities for variances to show up, making correlations appear weaker.

5. When you use data in a weaker form or type, you weaken its meaning. Runs and OBP are ratio level. Their internal values are ordered (.350 > .349), the scale is constant (the difference between .350 and .349 is the same as the difference between .349 and .348), and there is a meaningful zero (zero OBP = no runners on base -- as opposed to 0 degrees Fahrenheit for example). By looking at rank order, you've turned ratio data in to mere ordinal. So what could be 200 > 199 > 17 becomes A > B > C. You've eliminated useful information, namely the distances between the values. When you're examining a correlation, the effect of one variable on another, that distance can be just as meaningful as the order, arguably more so. I see this done on this board all of the time, usually to discount a more rigorous analysis. Only use ranks when you can't use the underlying data. I'll use three imaginary pairs of data to illustrate

Team A: .350 OBP & 700 runs
Team B: .349 OBP & 715 runs
Team C: .320 OBP & 600 runs

If all you do is look at ranking/order, you'd say there doesn't appear to be much of relationship, because the team with the most runs has the 2nd best OBP. But the difference between team C and teams A & B really provides a lot of information suggesting that there indeed could be a relationship. It would be hard to see this from ranking alone. As a rule of thumb, you shouldn't "demote" data unless you have to.

On to the data... First the raw data, by month, and then the intra-month rankings. The CORR row is the correlation coeffecient, aka "r-squared". It answers the question, how much of the change in the first variable (runs) can be explained by changes in the second variable (OBP). It reads as a percent. So in April, the differences in OBP explain ~76% of the differences in runs -- this is a strong positive correlation.



April May June July Total
Runs OBP Runs OBP Runs OBP Runs OBP Runs OBP
Chicago 168 .380 148 .359 133 .352 138 .336 587 .357
St Louis 135 .374 124 .342 136 .337 136 .340 531 .348
Pittsburgh 116 .310 148 .339 121 .313 136 .340 521 .326
Milwaukee 122 .319 112 .323 139 .322 138 .335 511 .325
Cincinnati 122 .331 132 .339 101 .304 119 .327 474 .325
Houston 131 .302 135 .345 98 .318 102 .328 466 .323
--CORR-- 0.76 0.76 0.66 0.82 0.86

Runs OBP Runs OBP Runs OBP Runs OBP Runs OBP
Chicago 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1
St Louis 2 2 5 3 2 2 3 1 2 2
Pittsburgh 6 5 1 4 4 5 3 1 3 3
Milwaukee 4 4 6 6 1 3 1 4 4 5
Cincinnati 4 3 4 4 5 6 5 6 5 4
Houston 3 6 3 2 6 4 6 5 6 6
--CORR-- 0.67 0.63 0.60 0.46 0.94


To point 5 above, in any given month, if you look at rank instead of the raw values, you find a weaker relationship. However, once you aggregate the data sufficiently, the correlations start to even out. Remember, we're still omitting SLG, so explaining over 85% of our variation tells us that OBP is pretty darn good at "predicting" run scoring.



If OBP is all the rage to scoring runs, did the Reds individual players have a bad OBP in April? Why did the Reds have the least amount of runs scored in their division in as of April 30 ? Even behind Pittsburgh!

If OBP is all the rage to scoring runs, did the Reds individual players have a bad OBP May? Why did the Reds have the second least amount of runs scored in their division as of May 31st? Even behind Pittsburgh!

If OBP is all the rage to scoring runs, did the Reds individual players have a bad OBP June? Why did the Reds have the least amount of runs scored in their division as of June 30 ? Even behind Pittsburgh!

If OBP is all the rage to scoring runs, did the Reds individual players have a bad OBP July? Why did the Reds have a second to the least amount of runs scored in their division as of July 30 ? Even behind Pittsburgh!


In any given month, the Reds were no better than 3rd in the NL Central in getting on base and no better than 4th in scoring runs. Overall, the Reds were 4th in OBP, and 5th in Runs.

Pittsburgh led the NL Central in OBP in July. In May, when Pittsburgh tied Chicago for the most runs despite tying the Reds for the 4th highest OBP, they outslugged the Reds by .028 points.

I guess there is no simple answer to your question. The easy answer is a combination of OBP not being perfect, merely the best, and the reality that there's a decent amount of run scoring variance in samples of 20-25 games. Once you get a good half season under your belt, the relationship really begins to solidify as those random variations start canceling each other out.

Spring~Fields
09-08-2008, 11:56 PM
5 comments before answering your questions:

1. The obvious, run scoring is not just a function of getting on base. By omitting SLG, you're missing a significant piece of the puzzle. And once you account for slugging too, you account for the vast majority of what's possible to account for.

2. There are innings. Runs scored totals are not derived from a single distribution but from thousands of extremely tiny, non-normal distributions, the vast majority of which have a run value of zero, but an OBP > 0. This makes it harder for the tiny inefficiencies to cancel each other out and thus requires bigger samples before the relationships become obvious. Even in the aggregate, it's not that OBP is a perfect predictor of how many runs a team scores -- just the largest single determinant.

3. The also obvious, looking at player by player OBP ignores the number of plate appearances each player had, somewhat obscuring how well the team performed. Looking at a list of player OBP could make us think that 5 PA of a .600 OBP should be given equal weight to 100 PA of a .250 OBP. Obviously this would be silly.

4. Small sample sizes = greater variance. When you chop up data in to arbitrary chunks, you create more opportunities for variances to show up, making correlations appear weaker.

5. When you use data in a weaker form or type, you weaken its meaning. Runs and OBP are ratio level. Their internal values are ordered (.350 > .349), the scale is constant (the difference between .350 and .349 is the same as the difference between .349 and .348), and there is a meaningful zero (zero OBP = no runners on base -- as opposed to 0 degrees Fahrenheit for example). By looking at rank order, you've turned ratio data in to mere ordinal. So what could be 200 > 199 > 17 becomes A > B > C. You've eliminated useful information, namely the distances between the values. When you're examining a correlation, the effect of one variable on another, that distance can be just as meaningful as the order, arguably more so. I see this done on this board all of the time, usually to discount a more rigorous analysis. Only use ranks when you can't use the underlying data. I'll use three imaginary pairs of data to illustrate

Team A: .350 OBP & 700 runs
Team B: .349 OBP & 715 runs
Team C: .320 OBP & 600 runs

If all you do is look at ranking/order, you'd say there doesn't appear to be much of relationship, because the team with the most runs has the 2nd best OBP. But the difference between team C and teams A & B really provides a lot of information suggesting that there indeed could be a relationship. It would be hard to see this from ranking alone. As a rule of thumb, you shouldn't "demote" data unless you have to.

On to the data... First the raw data, by month, and then the intra-month rankings. The CORR row is the correlation coeffecient, aka "r-squared". It answers the question, how much of the change in the first variable (runs) can be explained by changes in the second variable (OBP). It reads as a percent. So in April, the differences in OBP explain ~76% of the differences in runs -- this is a strong positive correlation.



April May June July Total
Runs OBP Runs OBP Runs OBP Runs OBP Runs OBP
Chicago 168 .380 148 .359 133 .352 138 .336 587 .357
St Louis 135 .374 124 .342 136 .337 136 .340 531 .348
Pittsburgh 116 .310 148 .339 121 .313 136 .340 521 .326
Milwaukee 122 .319 112 .323 139 .322 138 .335 511 .325
Cincinnati 122 .331 132 .339 101 .304 119 .327 474 .325
Houston 131 .302 135 .345 98 .318 102 .328 466 .323
--CORR-- 0.76 0.76 0.66 0.82 0.86

Runs OBP Runs OBP Runs OBP Runs OBP Runs OBP
Chicago 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1
St Louis 2 2 5 3 2 2 3 1 2 2
Pittsburgh 6 5 1 4 4 5 3 1 3 3
Milwaukee 4 4 6 6 1 3 1 4 4 5
Cincinnati 4 3 4 4 5 6 5 6 5 4
Houston 3 6 3 2 6 4 6 5 6 6
--CORR-- 0.67 0.63 0.60 0.46 0.94


To point 5 above, in any given month, if you look at rank instead of the raw values, you find a weaker relationship. However, once you aggregate the data sufficiently, the correlations start to even out. Remember, we're still omitting SLG, so explaining over 85% of our variation tells us that OBP is pretty darn good at "predicting" run scoring.



In any given month, the Reds were no better than 3rd in the NL Central in getting on base and no better than 4th in scoring runs. Overall, the Reds were 4th in OBP, and 5th in Runs.

Pittsburgh led the NL Central in OBP in July. In May, when Pittsburgh tied Chicago for the most runs despite tying the Reds for the 4th highest OBP, they outslugged the Reds by .028 points.

I guess there is no simple answer to your question. The easy answer is a combination of OBP not being perfect, merely the best, and the reality that there's a decent amount of run scoring variance in samples of 20-25 games. Once you get a good half season under your belt, the relationship really begins to solidify as those random variations start canceling each other out.

Great job and response, thanks for taking so much time to explain this.

I will take some time and really look this over and let it sink in, I thought your input very interesting and educational, you responded with so much more than I had hoped for.

Thanks for such a great effort in your response and your time, seriously. Thank you.

GAC
09-09-2008, 06:27 AM
Well - that didn't take long. I said this just last week on Baker...


But it wasn't until Dusty left that the Cubs really went on a spending spree. I wonder if that somehow bugs Dusty who wonders "Why didn't you do that (make a greater commitment) when I was there?" ;)

And here you go....


"Hey, man, I'm not there any more," Baker added. "I had my turn. I just wish they had reloaded when I was there the way they have now.

Just call me da prophet! :thumbup:

GAC
09-09-2008, 08:54 AM
I'm not sure why you watch Reds baseball because they have no chance of ever winning given payroll. BTW, lets fire Dusty. :cool:

First off - I've never advocated firing Baker. Of course I want the guy to succeed. But with his approach to the game he'll hang himself at some point IMO.

Secondly - no where have I said that payroll alone is what wins/makes a team competitive. You're the one who keeps injecting that I'm saying that. But to try and remove it from the equation for success is naive too.

Sometimes I think you just like to argue. :cool:

A team like the Reds, while not having the payroll flexibility (spending levels) of those larger market teams, do spend.... they just don't spend wisely with what they have.

When I look at other similar market teams, such as the As, Twins, Marlins, and Rays, I at least can definitively see what their approach/plan is.

You can even say that about those consistently successful larger markets clubs too who either are developing talent or going out and purchasing it (because they can).

But with teams like the Reds (and others).... I have no idea. It's like they are apprehensive (afraid) to fully embrace a formula that is working for those "like" organizations. Would any of those smaller market teams above have forked out monies (contracts) for guys like a Jr, Dunn, Arroyo, Harang, and Cordero? Locking up so much of their payroll in a few guys, and then filling the rest of the roster with fodder? No way IMO.

We now have an owner and GM from St Louis. And the Cards have proven to be a succecssful organization over the last decade. But the Card's (Jocketty's) approach has not been one of like what we see with the As, Twins, Marlins, and Rays is it? I'm not saying that Walt is incapable of doing so; but his forte (past success) has not been one of building from within via the farm system. He was always able to find, or capitalize on, those "under appreciated" ballplayers. And the Cards weren't afraid to spend when they needed to either.

He's finding out that Cincy is not St Louis. It's interesting that the Cards had no problem basically firing this guy (running him out of town) after reviving that franchise. I'd like to know why? From what I've read, it appears that the Cards possibly realized that Jocketty's approach/philosophy, which is admitedly more "old school", was wearing thin (passing) when it comes to being consistently competitive, and they have since started to embrace more the "Moneyball" concept with the new GM.

So we think (especially Castellini) that he's going to somehow replicate that St Louis success here in Cincy? We'll see. Castellini seems to be two steps behind.

As with everyone else, I'm still waiting to see, in the off-season, just what direction this FO is going to take this team. They continue to speak out of both sides of their mouths. They've started drafting better these last few years, and started to improve the talent in their farm system. And while I like some of the youth, they ain't there yet.


The top two payroll teams have no chance of making the playoffs....The Mets, Whitesox and Dodgers may all very well have their playoff hopes dashed by teams spending significantly less on payroll. Boston is fighting it's tail off to not finish in second place. Seattle is an abomination.

Again - nowhere did I say that having a large payroll alone is a guaranteed lock to make the post-season. Just like there are exceptions that one can give of a large market team spending foolishly and proving unsuccessful - there are also exceptions of smaller market teams showing success.

So two of the top payroll teams aren't going to make the post-season. 12 of the 15 bottom tier payroll teams (under 80 mil) also don't have a snowball chance either. And a overwhelming majority consistently don't.

And of those 11 teams currently vying for the post-season - 7 of them are high payroll teams. And they lead in 5 of the 6 divisions. And the surprising Rays have lost 6 of 7 and now only have a 1/2 game lead on the Sox.

Now is the reason for those lower tier team's lack of success rooted in payroll only? No where have I said that. No more then those having a large accessible payroll is somehow a lock.

And speaking of Seattle. Where is their former GM now? ;)

You hold onto the argument that the philosophy of statistical analysis alone is the ONLY path for success. And to somehow try and inject any other factor into that formula for success, such as payroll,which gives teams an added advantage, is somehow trying to belittle, besmirch, or trounce on those sacred scrolls. And you're wrong.

redsmetz
09-09-2008, 09:20 AM
A team like the Reds, while not having the payroll flexibility (spending levels) of those larger market teams, do spend.... they just don't spend wisely with what they have.

When I look at other similar market teams, such as the As, Twins, Marlins, and Rays, I at least can definitively see what their approach/plan is.

You can even say that about those consistently successful larger markets clubs too who either are developing talent or going out and purchasing it (because they can).

But with teams like the Reds (and others).... I have no idea. It's like they are apprehensive (afraid) to fully embrace a formula that is working for those "like" organizations. Would any of those smaller market teams above have forked out monies (contracts) for guys like a Jr, Dunn, Arroyo, Harang, and Cordero? Locking up so much of their payroll in a few guys, and then filling the rest of the roster with fodder? No way IMO.

Not to ignite a side argument, but I think the fruits of the plan that's been here in place since Castellini took over are arriving. Jocketty has continued what was already being put in place. I don't disagree that we've had some questionable fodder on the ML payroll during this time, but a team needed to be on the field while the youngsters finished developing (or additional young talent was acquired).

Junior was inherited and he was sent off as most assumed he would. Jocketty's return was sufficient, give the circumstances. As for Dunn, we'll never know whether Krivsky would have taken a different approach and it's a moot point. I think it's possibly he may have done the same thing, but again, there's no sense in figuring that out. It is what it is and it appears we got a reasonable return for a player who didn't seem to be in the club's plans.

As for the three pitchers you named, I would strongly disagree. I understand how some believe the contracts are too extravegent for the Reds' budget. I think they'll prove to be decent market rates through their lives. It's been noted numerous times here that few can recall the last time the Reds had this much depth in their pitching corps. I think it's possibly the best they've had overall since the late 60's, early 70's.

But my earlier point is that I think there has been a plan and it's been fairly similar to the organizations you named. No question, it was a rough road getting to this point, but we're arriving. Yes, we have needs, but that's to be expected.

GAC
09-09-2008, 11:18 AM
but I think the fruits of the plan that's been here in place since Castellini took over are arriving. Jocketty has continued what was already being put in place.

Very true; but what does the "continuing" aspect entail? That's what the fans are waiting to see. Walt has already, pretty much, called up a majority of what young, near-level talent we have in the farm system to "see what we got".

So to add to the below point...


I don't disagree that we've had some questionable fodder on the ML payroll during this time, but a team needed to be on the field while the youngsters finished developing (or additional young talent was acquired).

Is he going to continue on that path in '09, meaning, giving the Hanigans, CDicks, Janishes, and others the opportunity to prove themselves in '09, along with Votto, Cueto, and Volquez, while also resigning some of that "fodder", as I said Krivsky did, which also comes somewhat cheap, as backups/stopgaps?

Because if you're waiting (hoping) to see if Hanigan is the answer at catcher, CDick is in one of the OF spots, or Homer in the rotation, and that they become serviceable, then you're not going to go into the market and invest/give out contracts to fill weaknesses you may have in-house.

Not saying it's an impossibility. Just very unlikely; but we'll see.

But that's the sticky part.... if those youngsters fail, you then know; but you've also just shot down another season (2009), and are then faced with either having to try a different approach or wait for so more of those youngsters in the system to mature/prove their worth.

Again - I'm not against that. Just a FO that is more concerned with PR then being as upfront as possible.


As for the three pitchers you named, I would strongly disagree. I understand how some believe the contracts are too extravegent for the Reds' budget. I think they'll prove to be decent market rates through their lives. It's been noted numerous times here that few can recall the last time the Reds had this much depth in their pitching corps. I think it's possibly the best they've had overall since the late 60's, early 70's.

No one, including myself, is denying that depth (improvement). We hope that Harang will recover. Arroyo is who he is (unpredictable). When he's hot he's hot... and when he's not he's not.

The signing of Cordero, IMO, was simply a ridiculous move for the Reds. Next season he'll be the second highest paid closer in MLB, or at least up there right? To close what?

I have no problem with this pitching staff IF they are going to invest in the other areas in the off-season to complement it. But if they are going to follow the path of youth development for the next couple of years, OR if those contracts prevent them from signing an established, quality player or two to fill needs, and they are going to be content with bringing back guys like Hairston, Patterson, and whatever dregs they may have, then aren't those contracts somewhat of a waste?


But my earlier point is that I think there has been a plan and it's been fairly similar to the organizations you named.

I don't think the Red's plan (whatever that may be) is anywhere near the plans of the As, Twins, Marlins, or Rays. At least not at this juncture. Now they may be trying to head in that direction; but they are still a few years away. And that is only if they continue to make quality drafts.

That is not to say I don't like some of the things I am currently seeing with the youth.

That "Letter To The Fans" really had me scratching my head....

"We have sought and signed proven players. We have extended the contracts of select current players. We added Dusty Baker, a proven winning manager."

"The vast majority of our 50 draft picks were signed, culminating last week with first-rounder Yonder Alonso and a pair of talented pitchers. Our expanded scouting operations also signed Juan Duran from the Dominican Republic and Yorman Rodriguez from Venezuela, who are arguably the best amateur free agent position players from their respective countries."

-------------------

Talk about trying to "mother hubbard soft soap" the fans. ;)

Now don't get me wrong. I think the movement/decisions they have made when it comes to the draft and going after quality youth is fantastic and moving us in the right direction. But there is no immediate help there at all.

So don't then feed me this line.... "we chose to endure the short-term ramifications for the sake of building a strong, competitive team for 2009"

I like what Will Carroll said about that letter....

"Reds owner Bob Castellini and GM Walt Jocketty wrote a letter to fans explaining their decisions made in trading both Adam Dunn and Ken Griffey Jr, as well as explaining why the team isn’t in contention.


It’s a nice gesture, but there’s one section that has me dumbfounded:


“We had high expectations for the 2008 season. Unfortunately the team has not played up to our expectations and we have sustained injuries to key players within our starting lineup and rotation.”


Ok, the high expectations might just be overvaluing your team, which is understandable. What I don’t see is that injuries have played a major part in the downfall of the Reds. Griffey and Dunn were both healthy. The young players they mention? All healthy. The biggest injuries on the team were the pair of stacked injuries to Alex Gonzalez and Jeff Keppinger, and the injury to Aaron Harang. They could mean Ryan Freel or Kent Mercker, I guess.


The problem is that, aside from Harang, who I’ll get to in a minute, the injuries made the team better or at least left them no worse off. Dusty Baker had indicated that he liked Alex Gonzalez over Keppinger in the spring until an injury changed that. Keppinger went down and was eventually replaced by Jerry Hairston Jr and Jolbert Cabrera, both who have positive VORPs. Freel was barely positive in over two months of play.


If they mean Aaron Harang, then the close of the letter makes less sense. If the team is playing for 2009, Harang is now more risky than he was at the start of this season, largely due to the usage patterns put on him by Baker and his staff. We can safely assume that Harang (if healthy), Bronson Arroyo (since they kept him), Edinson Volquez, and Johnny Cueto will be the first four in next year’s Reds rotation. Even without PECOTA, does anyone think that group is going to be significantly better next year than this year?


And that’s assuming health. Harang will have a big red flag on him and Volquez and Cueto face a Verducci Effect. Volquez pitched 178 2/3 in 2007, but only 34 in the bigs. Cueto went 161 1/3, all in the minors. (My work on the Verducci Effect doesn’t include minor league innings, but I’m giving the more liberal reading here.) At more than 150 innings each now and eight starts to go if they stay on schedule, both would be tapping on the 200 inning door in their first full season in the show.

Jay Bruce has been nice, but he’s not exactly setting the world on fire, putting up a VORP that ranks just behind the aforementioned injured Ryan Freel in almost 200 more at bats. Votto’s been nice, but he’s also 12th in VORP among NL 1B. There’s nothing on the horizon to replace the offense lost by the Dunn trade and you have to take the word of the scouts to think the Bruce is an immediate replacement for even the diminished Griffey that Cincy fans got tired of seeing.


Sending the letter to fans was a nice gesture, but if I was a Reds fan, I’d be worried. While Jocketty has a great record of building winning teams, I hope it was the PR staff that wrote this. Mis-assessing the past isn’t a good indication that they’ll know what to do in the future."

jojo
09-09-2008, 01:07 PM
Secondly - no where have I said that payroll alone is what wins/makes a team competitive. You're the one who keeps injecting that I'm saying that. But to try and remove it from the equation for success is naive too.

Sometimes I think you just like to argue. :cool:

My "argument" isn't aimed at refuting the notion that "payroll alone is the decider". Rather, I'm arguing that the Reds currently have sufficient payroll to be one of those teams fighting for the playoffs. It may seem like arguing semantics but I think it's a huge point with important implications and it's one that seems to be glossed over by a good many (and that comment isn't aimed at any specific individual).

Here's one example why I think it's important (and why I don't think I'm arguing just to argue). If payroll disparity has been a significant factor explaining the Reds performance the last five years, then the obvious answer (or at least a logical extension of such an argument) is to simply spend more. However, I think such an approach over the last several years probably would've crippled the Reds for many years to come given their FO. Really Milton is the poster boy for what happens when you have an ownership that suddenly wants to spend more and a GM that in many ways has decisions forced upon him.

redsmetz
09-09-2008, 02:08 PM
GAC, I'm fairly busy, so I can't give your extensive response the time it deserves, but just a quick note back - I am not presuming that the young talent coming up now will be a static situation. I think they will add pieces, whether it's other young players from another team or some veterans with value, but I think there will be additions. While I like what little I've seen of Chris Dickerson and Ryan Hanigan, I won't presume that these are now their jobs to lose. I don't think you are presuming that either. They're doing very well, but we'll have to see how things sort out through the off season and in Spring Training.

Spring~Fields
09-09-2008, 07:06 PM
First off - I've never advocated firing Baker. Of course I want the guy to succeed. But with his approach to the game he'll hang himself at some point IMO.

Secondly - no where have I said that payroll alone is what wins/makes a team competitive. You're the one who keeps injecting that I'm saying that. But to try and remove it from the equation for success is naive too.

Sometimes I think you just like to argue. :cool:

A team like the Reds, while not having the payroll flexibility (spending levels) of those larger market teams, do spend.... they just don't spend wisely with what they have.

When I look at other similar market teams, such as the As, Twins, Marlins, and Rays, I at least can definitively see what their approach/plan is.

You can even say that about those consistently successful larger markets clubs too who either are developing talent or going out and purchasing it (because they can).

But with teams like the Reds (and others).... I have no idea. It's like they are apprehensive (afraid) to fully embrace a formula that is working for those "like" organizations. Would any of those smaller market teams above have forked out monies (contracts) for guys like a Jr, Dunn, Arroyo, Harang, and Cordero? Locking up so much of their payroll in a few guys, and then filling the rest of the roster with fodder? No way IMO.

We now have an owner and GM from St Louis. And the Cards have proven to be a succecssful organization over the last decade. But the Card's (Jocketty's) approach has not been one of like what we see with the As, Twins, Marlins, and Rays is it? I'm not saying that Walt is incapable of doing so; but his forte (past success) has not been one of building from within via the farm system. He was always able to find, or capitalize on, those "under appreciated" ballplayers. And the Cards weren't afraid to spend when they needed to either.

He's finding out that Cincy is not St Louis. It's interesting that the Cards had no problem basically firing this guy (running him out of town) after reviving that franchise. I'd like to know why? From what I've read, it appears that the Cards possibly realized that Jocketty's approach/philosophy, which is admitedly more "old school", was wearing thin (passing) when it comes to being consistently competitive, and they have since started to embrace more the "Moneyball" concept with the new GM.

So we think (especially Castellini) that he's going to somehow replicate that St Louis success here in Cincy? We'll see. Castellini seems to be two steps behind.

As with everyone else, I'm still waiting to see, in the off-season, just what direction this FO is going to take this team. They continue to speak out of both sides of their mouths. They've started drafting better these last few years, and started to improve the talent in their farm system. And while I like some of the youth, they ain't there yet.



Again - nowhere did I say that having a large payroll alone is a guaranteed lock to make the post-season. Just like there are exceptions that one can give of a large market team spending foolishly and proving unsuccessful - there are also exceptions of smaller market teams showing success.

So two of the top payroll teams aren't going to make the post-season. 12 of the 15 bottom tier payroll teams (under 80 mil) also don't have a snowball chance either. And a overwhelming majority consistently don't.

And of those 11 teams currently vying for the post-season - 7 of them are high payroll teams. And they lead in 5 of the 6 divisions. And the surprising Rays have lost 6 of 7 and now only have a 1/2 game lead on the Sox.

Now is the reason for those lower tier team's lack of success rooted in payroll only? No where have I said that. No more then those having a large accessible payroll is somehow a lock.

And speaking of Seattle. Where is their former GM now? ;)

You hold onto the argument that the philosophy of statistical analysis alone is the ONLY path for success. And to somehow try and inject any other factor into that formula for success, such as payroll,which gives teams an added advantage, is somehow trying to belittle, besmirch, or trounce on those sacred scrolls. And you're wrong.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Spring~Fields
09-09-2008, 07:07 PM
Very true; but what does the "continuing" aspect entail? That's what the fans are waiting to see. Walt has already, pretty much, called up a majority of what young, near-level talent we have in the farm system to "see what we got".

So to add to the below point...



Is he going to continue on that path in '09, meaning, giving the Hanigans, CDicks, Janishes, and others the opportunity to prove themselves in '09, along with Votto, Cueto, and Volquez, while also resigning some of that "fodder", as I said Krivsky did, which also comes somewhat cheap, as backups/stopgaps?

Because if you're waiting (hoping) to see if Hanigan is the answer at catcher, CDick is in one of the OF spots, or Homer in the rotation, and that they become serviceable, then you're not going to go into the market and invest/give out contracts to fill weaknesses you may have in-house.

Not saying it's an impossibility. Just very unlikely; but we'll see.

But that's the sticky part.... if those youngsters fail, you then know; but you've also just shot down another season (2009), and are then faced with either having to try a different approach or wait for so more of those youngsters in the system to mature/prove their worth.

Again - I'm not against that. Just a FO that is more concerned with PR then being as upfront as possible.



No one, including myself, is denying that depth (improvement). We hope that Harang will recover. Arroyo is who he is (unpredictable). When he's hot he's hot... and when he's not he's not.

The signing of Cordero, IMO, was simply a ridiculous move for the Reds. Next season he'll be the second highest paid closer in MLB, or at least up there right? To close what?

I have no problem with this pitching staff IF they are going to invest in the other areas in the off-season to complement it. But if they are going to follow the path of youth development for the next couple of years, OR if those contracts prevent them from signing an established, quality player or two to fill needs, and they are going to be content with bringing back guys like Hairston, Patterson, and whatever dregs they may have, then aren't those contracts somewhat of a waste?



I don't think the Red's plan (whatever that may be) is anywhere near the plans of the As, Twins, Marlins, or Rays. At least not at this juncture. Now they may be trying to head in that direction; but they are still a few years away. And that is only if they continue to make quality drafts.

That is not to say I don't like some of the things I am currently seeing with the youth.

That "Letter To The Fans" really had me scratching my head....

"We have sought and signed proven players. We have extended the contracts of select current players. We added Dusty Baker, a proven winning manager."

"The vast majority of our 50 draft picks were signed, culminating last week with first-rounder Yonder Alonso and a pair of talented pitchers. Our expanded scouting operations also signed Juan Duran from the Dominican Republic and Yorman Rodriguez from Venezuela, who are arguably the best amateur free agent position players from their respective countries."

-------------------

Talk about trying to "mother hubbard soft soap" the fans. ;)

Now don't get me wrong. I think the movement/decisions they have made when it comes to the draft and going after quality youth is fantastic and moving us in the right direction. But there is no immediate help there at all.

So don't then feed me this line.... "we chose to endure the short-term ramifications for the sake of building a strong, competitive team for 2009"

I like what Will Carroll said about that letter....

"Reds owner Bob Castellini and GM Walt Jocketty wrote a letter to fans explaining their decisions made in trading both Adam Dunn and Ken Griffey Jr, as well as explaining why the team isn’t in contention.


It’s a nice gesture, but there’s one section that has me dumbfounded:


“We had high expectations for the 2008 season. Unfortunately the team has not played up to our expectations and we have sustained injuries to key players within our starting lineup and rotation.”


Ok, the high expectations might just be overvaluing your team, which is understandable. What I don’t see is that injuries have played a major part in the downfall of the Reds. Griffey and Dunn were both healthy. The young players they mention? All healthy. The biggest injuries on the team were the pair of stacked injuries to Alex Gonzalez and Jeff Keppinger, and the injury to Aaron Harang. They could mean Ryan Freel or Kent Mercker, I guess.


The problem is that, aside from Harang, who I’ll get to in a minute, the injuries made the team better or at least left them no worse off. Dusty Baker had indicated that he liked Alex Gonzalez over Keppinger in the spring until an injury changed that. Keppinger went down and was eventually replaced by Jerry Hairston Jr and Jolbert Cabrera, both who have positive VORPs. Freel was barely positive in over two months of play.


If they mean Aaron Harang, then the close of the letter makes less sense. If the team is playing for 2009, Harang is now more risky than he was at the start of this season, largely due to the usage patterns put on him by Baker and his staff. We can safely assume that Harang (if healthy), Bronson Arroyo (since they kept him), Edinson Volquez, and Johnny Cueto will be the first four in next year’s Reds rotation. Even without PECOTA, does anyone think that group is going to be significantly better next year than this year?


And that’s assuming health. Harang will have a big red flag on him and Volquez and Cueto face a Verducci Effect. Volquez pitched 178 2/3 in 2007, but only 34 in the bigs. Cueto went 161 1/3, all in the minors. (My work on the Verducci Effect doesn’t include minor league innings, but I’m giving the more liberal reading here.) At more than 150 innings each now and eight starts to go if they stay on schedule, both would be tapping on the 200 inning door in their first full season in the show.

Jay Bruce has been nice, but he’s not exactly setting the world on fire, putting up a VORP that ranks just behind the aforementioned injured Ryan Freel in almost 200 more at bats. Votto’s been nice, but he’s also 12th in VORP among NL 1B. There’s nothing on the horizon to replace the offense lost by the Dunn trade and you have to take the word of the scouts to think the Bruce is an immediate replacement for even the diminished Griffey that Cincy fans got tired of seeing.


Sending the letter to fans was a nice gesture, but if I was a Reds fan, I’d be worried. While Jocketty has a great record of building winning teams, I hope it was the PR staff that wrote this. Mis-assessing the past isn’t a good indication that they’ll know what to do in the future."

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

OnBaseMachine
09-09-2008, 07:15 PM
I like Will Carroll but I thought this part of his statement was off:


If they mean Aaron Harang, then the close of the letter makes less sense. If the team is playing for 2009, Harang is now more risky than he was at the start of this season, largely due to the usage patterns put on him by Baker and his staff. We can safely assume that Harang (if healthy), Bronson Arroyo (since they kept him), Edinson Volquez, and Johnny Cueto will be the first four in next year’s Reds rotation. Even without PECOTA, does anyone think that group is going to be significantly better next year than this year?

Yeah Will, I do think that group will be a lot better next year. Aaron Harang is not a 5.00+ ERA pitcher. He's proven himself in the past as a legit 200+ innings at sub 4.00 ERA type of pitcher and I fully expect him to return to that form next season. Bronson Arroyo had a disastrous first half but is back to pitching like has the last four or five years. And last but not least, Johnny Cueto is very young and has incredible stuff. He may not develop into an ace next season but I look for him to improve. As a whole I see the starting rotation improving quite a bit.

Spring~Fields
09-09-2008, 07:56 PM
Yeah Will, I do think that group will be a lot better next year. Aaron Harang is not a 5.00+ ERA pitcher. He's proven himself in the past as a legit 200+ innings at sub 4.00 ERA type of pitcher and I fully expect him to return to that form next season. Bronson Arroyo had a disastrous first half but is back to pitching like has the last four or five years. And last but not least, Johnny Cueto is very young and has incredible stuff. He may not develop into an ace next season but I look for him to improve. As a whole I see the starting rotation improving quite a bit.

I want to agree with your positive comments here, and they very well could become reality next season.

Yet with what we have seen this year, aren't those pitchers still a question mark for next season even Volquez who might not have quite the season that he did this year?

OnBaseMachine
09-09-2008, 08:01 PM
I want to agree with your positive comments here, and they very well could become reality next season.

Yet with what we have seen this year, aren't those pitchers still a question mark for next season even Volquez who might not have quite the season that he did this year?

I just don't see Harang having another down season. The offseason should do him some good and allow him to come in at full strength next season. A healthy Harang really strengthens this rotation. As for Volquez, I see no reason why he won't repeat his success. His stuff is top notch. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he's better next season. If he can improve his control a bit he'll be even better IMO.

Spring~Fields
09-09-2008, 08:04 PM
I As for Volquez, I see no reason why he won't repeat his success. His stuff is top notch. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he's better next season. If he can improve his control a bit he'll be even better IMO.

I really like the thought Volquez being better, and of course I hope that Cueto will be, perhaps Soto will work with him away from his current coaches and help him in the off season.

GAC
09-09-2008, 08:39 PM
If payroll disparity has been a significant factor explaining the Reds performance the last five years, then the obvious answer (or at least a logical extension of such an argument) is to simply spend more.

That is not true.... to simply spend more. Again - nowhere did I say spend just for the sake of spending. The Reds, over the last few years, have increased spending. The problem is that they have not spent wisely. And IMO, the reason they have spent like they have is because they didn't have the farm system to fall back on.

It begins with the recognition of talent, paying accordingly, and not overpaying.

You say there is no reason the Reds, with their current payroll of around 74 mil, shouldn't be competitive/winning. Yet isn't that further evidence that they haven't spent wisely on talent?

Your example of Milton is just one.

They are not getting the "best bang for their buck" IMO.

That's why I simply laugh at this comment from that letter to the fans...

"We have sought and signed proven players."

Looking down this current roster - where are they? And again, the emphasis is on sought and proven.

Walt, as of yet, hasn't done that. He's done nothing but subtraction up to this stage.

The only players that might fall under that classification were sought and signed by Krivsky. And no, this is not a lamentation over his firing, but only that it was the state of this roster/player personnel, and the lack of talent, which has led to losing, as the reasoning for Castellini firing him.

A FO that has sought and signed proven players is not 21.5 games out of 1st place.

GAC
09-09-2008, 09:09 PM
Yeah Will, I do think that group will be a lot better next year. Aaron Harang is not a 5.00+ ERA pitcher. He's proven himself in the past as a legit 200+ innings at sub 4.00 ERA type of pitcher and I fully expect him to return to that form next season. Bronson Arroyo had a disastrous first half but is back to pitching like has the last four or five years. And last but not least, Johnny Cueto is very young and has incredible stuff. He may not develop into an ace next season but I look for him to improve. As a whole I see the starting rotation improving quite a bit.

That may be true OBM. There is definitely room for improvement with a rotation that is 26th in MLB in both ERs (458) and ERA 5.09. Our top two pitchers in '08 have been Volquez and Arroyo. I don't see where one can expect much improvement from them in '09 over what they have done this season; but only hoping they can match that.

The question mark, or where improvement has to be seen, is with Harang and Cueto. Will Harang recover enough, and will Cueto continue to mature/improve?

And will it be enough to offset this offense?

Because the way this offense has trouble scroing runs (they might hit 700), and unless there are improvements in that department, as well as defense, they will put immense pressure on ANY rotation.

Spring~Fields
09-09-2008, 09:29 PM
"We have sought and signed proven players."



Castellini believes that and probably his advisor Jocketty back in January told him that, of course the results that Castellini has achieved with his organizations turnover, should tell him something different.


When the Reds payroll goes up to meet contract extensions or the contracts of current players, such as with Harang, Arroyo, Dunn, Griffey and the new guy Cordero, payroll does go up, when major league minimums go up, payroll goes up, and words would say that the Reds are spending more on the team. Take another look, they are way behind in the 2000 decade, and the 6-7% increases are not significant when each year of the decade of 2000 your competitors percentages and player resources increased at a greater rate each year of the Reds eight straight losing seasons.

Why would they bring in Jocketty and Baker who have never had to perform under a low budget umbrella if they don’t intend to go a different route than Minnesota, Oakland, Florida or Tampa?

Does Baker have any track record with a young team and unproven players? When was he a winning manager under those circumstances?

The Reds aren’t a fantasy league team, I know you know that.