PDA

View Full Version : The price of success



Eric_the_Red
03-02-2010, 08:38 AM
I think we all can agree that this year it looks like the Reds could be a darkhouse team for the Wild Card. And, of course, we all want the Reds to succeed.

However, if the Reds do manage to make the playoffs this year, doesn't that all but guarantee an extension to Dusty Baker?

So, would you accept a playoff appearance if it means another 2-4 years of Dusty as manager? Or, would you prefer the team maybe finish a game or two above .500 if it meant a new (unknown) manager next year?

Personally, I'm on the fence with Dusty. His apparent lack of statistical knowledge frustrates me, but I do think he is a great manager of ballplayers (good clubhouse guy). I still think I would take a few more toothpick chomping years if it meant a winning season that led to playoff baseball returning to Cincinnati.

reds1869
03-02-2010, 08:39 AM
If we are successful I will be happy. Remember, there is no guarantee Dusty's replacement would be an improvement.

edabbs44
03-02-2010, 08:40 AM
I think we all can agree that this year it looks like the Reds could be a darkhouse team for the Wild Card. And, of course, we all want the Reds to succeed.

However, if the Reds do manage to make the playoffs this year, doesn't that all but guarantee an extension to Dusty Baker?

So, would you accept a playoff appearance if it means another 2-4 years of Dusty as manager? Or, would you prefer the team maybe finish a game or two above .500 if it meant a new (unknown) manager next year?

Personally, I'm on the fence with Dusty. His apparent lack of statistical knowledge frustrates me, but I do think he is a great manager of ballplayers (good clubhouse guy). I still think I would take a few more toothpick chomping years if it meant a winning season that led to playoff baseball returning to Cincinnati.

If Dusty gets this team to the playoffs, then I think an extension would be justified. Success on the field means a lot more to me than the BS around his lineup constructions and whatever else people want to complain about.

thatcoolguy_22
03-02-2010, 08:48 AM
I'm in the boat that thinks the manager MIGHT decide the outcome to about 3-5 games a year. He drives me crazy with the decisions that he makes sometimes, but I would gladly take a playoff trip if it meant 10 more years of dusty.

IowaRed
03-02-2010, 08:51 AM
I'll be the one dissenting vote. My personal dislike for Baker doesn't allow me to cheer on the Reds team like I have since the early 70's. I haven't spent any money on the Reds since he took over, no gear, no trips to Cincinnati or anywhere else to see them, and no spring training. Although that isn't the only decision management has made over the years to get me into this mode, it is the main one. It was my wife a couple of years ago who voted against getting rid of the baseball package on DirecTV. I am more than ready for a manager I can fully support. I am still a fan of most of the players but I can EASILY deal with another losing season if it means a new manager next year.

bucksfan2
03-02-2010, 09:14 AM
I'm in the boat that thinks the manager MIGHT decide the outcome to about 3-5 games a year. He drives me crazy with the decisions that he makes sometimes, but I would gladly take a playoff trip if it meant 10 more years of dusty.

I am becoming more and more a believer in the idea that players make manager and not vice versa. With the exception of lineup makeup, which I think is a tad bit over blown, Dusty has really dispelled most of his criticisms. He hasn't catered to the older players. I think he has handled the pitching staff nicely during his tenure as manager. I don't think his in game decisions are any worse than any other manager out there.

If the Reds make the playoffs or find themselves in contention this season Dusty does deserve an extension. If they have another sub .500 season then Dusty deserves the boot.

RedsManRick
03-02-2010, 09:23 AM
IR, you won't be the only dissenting voice. My enjoyment of Reds baseball has been reduced significantly since Baker arrived and I would not want a playoff appearance at the cost of his extension.

While I don't believe a manager's tactical decisions mean more than a small handful of games in the big picture, I worry for both missed opportunities in the advancement of young players who don't clearly force their way in to the picture and for the health of our young arms.

Ironically enough, I think managers are more likely to do significant harm or benefit in the macro than in the micro.

westofyou
03-02-2010, 09:26 AM
Is following the Reds under Baker any worse than when Narron, Boone or Knight was manager? Or Miley? They're all the same if you look at it objectively, except Dusty actually has had a modicum of success while the others haven't at all.

Eric_the_Red
03-02-2010, 10:14 AM
Agree with WOY. Boone infuriated me as a manager. I've blacked out more memories of those days as a coping mechanism.

I am curious to the percevied value of a manager. If managers aren't really important to the team W/L record, why does it matter who is manager? Wouldn't you root for the Reds to win regardless if it is Dusty or Sparky Anderson?

Or, if managers play a vital part in team success, wouldn't making the playoffs validate Dusty as a good manager? Wouldn't Reds fans want a good manager in the dugout?

Just trying to understand those who wouldn't want a winning season just because of more Dusty.

IowaRed
03-02-2010, 10:39 AM
Yes, following Reds baseball is much worse under Baker than any other manager in my lifetime. RMR mentioned a couple of reasons, here are a few more. Baseball is not a completely objective game and I can't be completely objective about the people in baseball either. I have disliked Baker for a very long time before he was associated with the Reds and becoming a Red does not erase those feelings. Once a 70's/80's Dodger always a 70's/80's Dodger, once a Cub always a Cub. If Garvey or Cey became the Reds manager, I would start out feeling the same negativity. If they both had acted and spoke the way Baker does and if they both managed the way Baker does, my opinion of them would continue, not improve

edabbs44
03-02-2010, 10:43 AM
I am curious to the percevied value of a manager. If managers aren't really important to the team W/L record, why does it matter who is manager? Wouldn't you root for the Reds to win regardless if it is Dusty or Sparky Anderson?

Or, if managers play a vital part in team success, wouldn't making the playoffs validate Dusty as a good manager? Wouldn't Reds fans want a good manager in the dugout?

You would think.

I think that, even if Cincy wins 90 games this season, in the eyes of some they would have won 95 under someone else just because he didn't manage the bullpen better, or because his lineup construction didn't mesh with certain beliefs, or for some other reason.

OnBaseMachine
03-02-2010, 10:52 AM
I would never root against my team to not make the playoffs. I'm far from Dusty Baker's biggest fan, but he's not bad enough to the point where I'm rooting against the Reds to make the playoffs for fear of him receiving a contract extension. I'm starved for playoff baseball in Cincinnati. I would like to see the Reds replace Baker after this season, but if a playoff appearance in 2010 results in two more years of Dusty then so be it, IMO. They could always replace him halfway through the extension if needed.

westofyou
03-02-2010, 10:54 AM
Yes, following Reds baseball is much worse under Baker than any other manager in my lifetime. RMR mentioned a couple of reasons, here are a few more. Baseball is not a completely objective game and I can't be completely objective about the people in baseball either. I have disliked Baker for a very long time before he was associated with the Reds and becoming a Red does not erase those feelings. Once a 70's/80's Dodger always a 70's/80's Dodger, once a Cub always a Cub. If Garvey or Cey became the Reds manager, I would start out feeling the same negativity. If they both had acted and spoke the way Baker does and if they both managed the way Baker does, my opinion of them would continue, not improve

I can't pull up the hate for teams in the 70's and instill them in today's world view, can't do it, but can see how it happens. I've always seen Dusty more as the Giants manager than anything else prior to coming to Cincinnati, he nor it never bothered me.

IowaRed
03-02-2010, 11:03 AM
understood, if I thought he was a good manager or somebody I thought made sense on and off the field I could temper those old feelings better. That same emotional part of baseball keeps me tied to the Reds despite my feelings about Baker. If I could have broken my 30+ year affair with the Reds it would have happened the minute he was hired.

durl
03-02-2010, 11:08 AM
If the Reds make the playoffs, Baker will have earned an extension, IMO. Isn't the whole goal to make it to the postseason, not to have a manager that everyone likes?

That being said, if the Reds do make the playoffs, I still wouldn't give Dusty a 5-year extension. I would say that a couple of years would be just fine.

oneupper
03-02-2010, 11:28 AM
Although it's all speculation at this point, a more probable scenario could very well be an intermediate one: The team does well (say 83-79) and misses the playoffs by a few games. Baker is given an extension after producing the first winning season in a decade.

A truly tragic outcome, since those 3-5 "manager" wins (which Dusty is on the wrong side of), could have put the team in the post-season, plus the weight of Dusty's incompetence will affect the team's chances for years to come.

OUReds
03-02-2010, 11:43 AM
Since I like Dusty in the grand scheme of things, it would pretty much be a win-win for me!

VR
03-02-2010, 11:44 AM
Dusty is not my # choice....but he's proven himself to be a very good leader of the team.

Eric_the_Red
03-02-2010, 11:53 AM
Although it's all speculation at this point, a more probable scenario could very well be an intermediate one: The team does well (say 83-79) and misses the playoffs by a few games. Baker is given an extension after producing the first winning season in a decade.

A truly tragic outcome, since those 3-5 "manager" wins (which Dusty is on the wrong side of), could have put the team in the post-season, plus the weight of Dusty's incompetence will affect the team's chances for years to come.


Is that quantifiable? If so, why aren't all managers graded this way?

osuceltic
03-02-2010, 12:19 PM
IR, you won't be the only dissenting voice. My enjoyment of Reds baseball has been reduced significantly since Baker arrived and I would not want a playoff appearance at the cost of his extension.


I find this mind-boggling. Step back for a second and think about this.

RedsManRick
03-02-2010, 12:24 PM
I find this mind-boggling. Step back for a second and think about this.

It's not the extension that I'd be worried about. It's the implications on the years 2011 and beyond. I'd much rather be set up for success for the foreseeable future than put that future at increased risk of never coming for the sake of a single playoff appearance.

Plus Plus
03-02-2010, 12:26 PM
Very few, if any, managers seem to 'optimize' lineups according to a stat-evident rhyme or reason. Dusty Baker is clearly the antithesis of a stat-optimized lineup. However, Baker doesn't take the field, hit, catch, or pitch. If the Reds fail this year, next year, or for the next decade (again), then I think it will be safe to say that the players on the team were not good enough to win and that it isn't due to Baker thoroughly sabotaging the lineups of the team.

A manager is like the conductor of an orchestra- they receive too much blame when the going is bad, and too much praise when the going is good. Frankly, I am apathetic to who the manager is for the Reds, especially if they start winning.

Strikes Out Looking
03-02-2010, 12:34 PM
I don't have the dislike for Dusty that I did for Narron or Boone. If he leads the team to the playoffs, I have no problem with him sticking around for another 3 years or so.

pedro
03-02-2010, 12:40 PM
Anybody who'd rather the Reds didn't succeed so they could satiate their need to bag on Dusty Baker needs to have their head examined as far as I'm concerned.

westofyou
03-02-2010, 12:44 PM
Dusty is just another baseball guy shaped by the era he grew up in and the one he played in, if making a lineup was the only attribute that defined a managers worth to an organization then I suspect someone might have figured that out awhile ago.

As it stands he's just another guy with a baseball opinion who happens to drive most crazy, after he's gone another one will come and take his place.

11larkin11
03-02-2010, 01:01 PM
The hate for Dusty on this board is astounding. Sure, his lineups aren't perfect, but people here wanted LaRussa, and that guy batted his pitcher 8th. If Baker did that, this place would go insane.

Lets face it. The guy has a pennant, 3 time Manager of the Year, he's 100 games over .500 in his career, even with these two in Cincinnati, been in the playoffs 4 times since '97, how many times have our Reds been in the playoffs in that time?

Face it, the guy is a real manager. He isn't Bob Boone, Jerry Narron, Dave Miley, or Pete Mackanin (sp?). If he wins, I don't see why people would be against giving him an extension.

RFS62
03-02-2010, 01:11 PM
Anybody who'd rather the Reds didn't succeed so they could satiate their need to bag on Dusty Baker needs to have their head examined as far as I'm concerned.


I have to agree. I just don't get it.

MikeS21
03-02-2010, 01:12 PM
I wouldn't care if they extended Dusty tomorrow.

I have heard the same complaints about every Reds manager since Sparky Anderson, and I'm pretty sure he could have drawn names out of a hat to put together a line-up and still would have won. Sweet Lou may be the exception, but I remember "Sports Talk" on WLW, and even he was hounded on pretty much.

Let's face it, until a manager goes 162-0, someone is going to find something to complain about, and even then, folks are going to question decisions.

If you want a statistics-driven field manager, it first has to come from a statistics-driven FO. I see no signs of a sabermetric savy FO in RedsLand. Which means that if you don't keep Dusty, all you are going to do is rearrange the deck chairs of the Titanic and bring in another old school manager who is going to bat Brandon Phillips in the clean-up spot. The only thing that will change is a different philosophy of doing things the same old way, and it sets the team back another couple years from actually contending.

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 01:17 PM
Anybody who'd rather the Reds didn't succeed so they could satiate their need to bag on Dusty Baker needs to have their head examined as far as I'm concerned.
I get worried that a run at the playoffs likely means injuries to Cueto/Bailey in the future with the way that Dusty treats pitchers. If we can go 79-83 and lose Baker and still have the same team going forward, I would feel MUCH better about that scenario than knowing we made the playoffs but Dusty was running our pitching staff in August, September and October of 2010 and was coming back the next 2-4 seasons.

edabbs44
03-02-2010, 01:19 PM
I get worried that a run at the playoffs likely means injuries to Cueto/Bailey in the future with the way that Dusty treats pitchers. If we can go 79-83 and lose Baker and still have the same team going forward, I would feel MUCH better about that scenario than knowing we made the playoffs but Dusty was running our pitching staff in August, September and October of 2010 and was coming back the next 2-4 seasons.

Likely?

pedro
03-02-2010, 01:19 PM
I get worried that a run at the playoffs likely means injuries to Cueto/Bailey in the future with the way that Dusty treats pitchers. If we can go 79-83 and lose Baker and still have the same team going forward, I would feel MUCH better about that scenario than knowing we made the playoffs but Dusty was running our pitching staff in August, September and October of 2010 and was coming back the next 2-4 seasons.

I don't think Dusty has misused the Reds pitching, with possible exception of the extra inning game Harang pitched in in SD.

And I think it's going a little overboard to claim that injuries to Reds pitchers are any more "likely" under Baker than they are under anyone else who would be hired to manage the Reds.

bucksfan2
03-02-2010, 01:21 PM
Anybody who'd rather the Reds didn't succeed so they could satiate their need to bag on Dusty Baker needs to have their head examined as far as I'm concerned.

:beerme:

RedlegJake
03-02-2010, 01:22 PM
I, too, have to wonder how one can dislike a manager so much they'd rather the team fail so they can see him fired.

Dusty's weaknesses seem to be offset by his strengths, imo. Game management is weak but "handling" players personalities and egos is strong. Since the players and their talent (or lack) play the game I feel his strengths helps offset his weakness.

As for his being a Dodger or a Giant I don;t see it - he was a transplant to both - I always associate him with being a Brave and despite their recent success I've never hated them like I do the Cubs and Dodgers. I tend to equate players with the team they came up with unless they had little or no PT with the original club. And why hate the Giants? Heck they've been pretty much also rans since the early 60s when Willie and Marichal and McCovey were in their prime, with the exception of one or two seasons since.

pedro
03-02-2010, 01:26 PM
As far as I'm concerned there are just some fans who would rather be proven right than to enjoy a good season of baseball by their favorite team and I find that sad. There are no guarantees in baseball (or life). Try to win now if you can, next year may never come. Just ask any Cubs fan.

MikeS21
03-02-2010, 01:29 PM
I don't think Dusty has misused the Reds pitching, with possible exception of the extra inning game Harang pitched in in SD.

And I think it's going a little overboard to claim that injuries to Reds pitchers are "likely" under Baker.
I agree, but I'm one of those who discounts that SD game with Harang as misuse.

175 pitches on a young arm is misuse. 115 pitches on a young arm is not. And if those "young arms" would not need 120 pitches to get through the 5th inning, this would be a non-issue.

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 01:30 PM
I don't think Dusty has misused the Reds pitching, with possible exception of the extra inning game Harang pitched in in SD.

And I think it's going a little overboard to claim that injuries to Reds pitchers are any more "likely" under Baker than they are under anyone else who would be hired to manage the Reds.

I will disagree with that. Homer Bailey pitched more at the end of last season than he should have given that we were literally playing for nothing.

Given that we know that Baker has his pitchers consistently throw more pitches than other managers, I don't think it is a stretch at all to think its more likely that a guy is more likely to be injured under Baker than another hire.

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 01:31 PM
As far as I'm concerned there are just some fans who would rather be proven right than to enjoy a good season of baseball by their favorite team and I find that sad. There are no guarantees in baseball (or life). Try to win now if you can, next year may never come. Just ask any Cubs fan.

I am more concerned about the long term success of my team over the short term success and I believe a short term success for the Reds in 2010 could mean less long term success moving forward if Baker returns.

nate
03-02-2010, 01:32 PM
I don't think he's a good field manager. I do think he is (or would be) a good bench coach. Again, I think the manager only plays a direct role in, at most, 5% of all games during a season.

Personally, I'd rather have a different field manager but keep Dusty as a bench coach. That's never going to happen because Dusty has far too much prestige at this point.

If the Reds win this season with Dusty, great!

bucksfan2
03-02-2010, 01:35 PM
I will disagree with that. Homer Bailey pitched more at the end of last season than he should have given that we were literally playing for nothing.

Given that we know that Baker has his pitchers consistently throw more pitches than other managers, I don't think it is a stretch at all to think its more likely that a guy is more likely to be injured under Baker than another hire.

Nolan Ryan would disagree with what you say. But then again what does he know?????

pedro
03-02-2010, 01:35 PM
I will disagree with that. Homer Bailey pitched more at the end of last season than he should have given that we were literally playing for nothing.

Given that we know that Baker has his pitchers consistently throw more pitches than other managers, I don't think it is a stretch at all to think its more likely that a guy is more likely to be injured under Baker than another hire.

I don't agree about Homer. I think there is value to a pitcher learning how to stretch it out. Homer never threw more than 117 pitches in a game last year and honestly if you are going to insist on the stick in the sand 100 pitch mark Homer would have barely ever made it past the 5th inning and that's just not acceptable.

As for your second assertion, prove it.

11larkin11
03-02-2010, 02:07 PM
I'm in the Nolan Ryan camp. Pitchers are coddled way too much. Most Latin pitchers pitch winter ball every year. Its all about what you do between starts to protect your arm.

Most here say Homer pitched too much at the end of the season. Isn't is amazing that he had the best numbers of his career at that time, letting him go 7 innings at 110-115 instead of pulling him at 5 innings 90 pitches?

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 02:12 PM
Nolan Ryan would disagree with what you say. But then again what does he know?????

He knows that I am actually right. Nolan Ryan knows that kids are coddled so much now that they don't have the endurance to pitch like they used to because those guys threw so much in high school, college and the minors that the guys who couldn't do it were weeded out and the guys who could weren't and had incredible arm strength as a result of so much throwing from ages 15-23, when guys today probably get half as much throwing in during those ages as they did in the 60's or 70's. Go read about all that he has to say on it and you will see where he says kids need to throw more at a younger age if his idea's are ever going to work again. However since that likely isn't going to happen because we know that pitching leads to injuries and so many more kids are pitching with breaking balls earlier than ever before that they are going to continue having strict pitch counts.

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 02:14 PM
I'm in the Nolan Ryan camp. Pitchers are coddled way too much. Most Latin pitchers pitch winter ball every year. Its all about what you do between starts to protect your arm.

Most here say Homer pitched too much at the end of the season. Isn't is amazing that he had the best numbers of his career at that time, letting him go 7 innings at 110-115 instead of pulling him at 5 innings 90 pitches?

I don't think anyone would have had a problem with him going 6 and 105 pitches. It was sending him back out for the 7th when he was already at 105 pitches that bothered people.

Like I just noted in my previous post, its because pitchers are coddled way too much now that they need to continue to be coddled because their arms aren't the same as they once were.

pedro
03-02-2010, 02:16 PM
FTR, if you go by Pitcher Abuse Points, Tim Lincecum is far and away the most abused pitcher in the last two years. How'd that work out?

bucksfan2
03-02-2010, 02:16 PM
I don't think anyone would have had a problem with him going 6 and 105 pitches. It was sending him back out for the 7th when he was already at 105 pitches that bothered people.

Like I just noted in my previous post, its because pitchers are coddled way too much now that they need to continue to be coddled because their arms aren't the same as they once were.

You have to learn to pitch those innings. You have to learn to pitch when you are slightly tired, when hitters have seen you 2 times already. You can't learn to pitch in those situations if you never are allowed to do so. You can't learn how to pitch in those situations during simulated games. I am in the camp that the end of last year will be a spring board for Homer's success and not part of the Verducci curse.

But then again this has been discussed in another thread and I don't think either sides are bending.

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 02:22 PM
FTR, if you go by Pitcher Abuse Points, Tim Lincecum is far and away the most abused pitcher in the last two years. How'd that work out?

We may find out soon enough. His fastball velocity dropped off big time last year compared to the year before. But just because someone defies the system doesn't mean it works that way for everyone or even most. Just about everything has outliers.

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 02:24 PM
You have to learn to pitch those innings. You have to learn to pitch when you are slightly tired, when hitters have seen you 2 times already. You can't learn to pitch in those situations if you never are allowed to do so. You can't learn how to pitch in those situations during simulated games. I am in the camp that the end of last year will be a spring board for Homer's success and not part of the Verducci curse.

But then again this has been discussed in another thread and I don't think either sides are bending.

Its not about learning to pitch with a tired arm. You simply shouldn't pitch with a tired arm. It leads to a break down in mechanics, which leads to injuries.

pedro
03-02-2010, 02:25 PM
We may find out soon enough. His fastball velocity dropped off big time last year compared to the year before. But just because someone defies the system doesn't mean it works that way for everyone or even most. Just about everything has outliers.

I'm still waiting for the proof that Dusty's starters throw more pitches than most every other managers.

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 02:30 PM
I'm still waiting for the proof that Dusty's starters throw more pitchers than most every other managers.
From AOL Fanhouse - http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/02/23/dustys-trail-a-ticket-to-operating-table/



Dusty Baker
Pitches Per Start
Year Baker League
1993 86.7 89.3
1994 91.0 88.8
1995 89.6 85.8
1996 97.7 83.1
1997 94.9 88.4
1998 93.9 91.6
1999 103.8 95.8
2000 102.5 97.2
2001 99.7 93.8
2002 100.9 93
2003 103.5 93.5
2004 99.0 93.8
2005 97.7 95.4
2006 91.9 94.5
2008 97.9 93.9
2009 98.7 94.4

More from the article:


Analysts at Baseball Prospectus have been studying possible overuse of pitchers since at least 1998, when they developed a metric known as Pitcher Abuse Points. PAP essentially counts pitches thrown over 100, adding weight to the extra pitches the higher the total goes.

Baker's teams were below the league average in PAP in his first three seasons, but since then they have been above in 12 of the past 13 years. In 2002 with the Giants and 2003 with the Cubs, Baker's teams racked up more than three times the number of PAP of the average among the other teams in the league.

With the Reds Baker has had 42% more PAP than the league average.

pedro
03-02-2010, 02:33 PM
From AOL Fanhouse - http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/02/23/dustys-trail-a-ticket-to-operating-table/



Dusty Baker
Pitches Per Start
Year Baker League
1993 86.7 89.3
1994 91.0 88.8
1995 89.6 85.8
1996 97.7 83.1
1997 94.9 88.4
1998 93.9 91.6
1999 103.8 95.8
2000 102.5 97.2
2001 99.7 93.8
2002 100.9 93
2003 103.5 93.5
2004 99.0 93.8
2005 97.7 95.4
2006 91.9 94.5
2008 97.9 93.9
2009 98.7 94.4

You're really going to hang your hat on 3-4 pitches per start over last 4 years? Honestly? Looks like he's pretty much average to me.

TheNext44
03-02-2010, 02:33 PM
I'm still waiting for the proof that Dusty's starters throw more pitchers than most every other managers.

Actually, Doug is right, that Dusty's starters historically have thrown more pitches than the average pitcher. It was in an article posted here a week or so back. (which Doug has found)

However, there is no evidence that Dusty's starting pitchers break down at a greater rate than other manager's pitchers . Basically, Wood and Prior broke down together, right after spending time with Dusty, so everyone concluded that Dusty ruins arms.

If you look at his history, Dusty's pitchers as a whole have broken down at the same rate as any other manager's pitchers.

I have no more worries about Dusty ruining Reds pitchers than I had about Narron, Boone, McKeon, Johnson, or even Lou.

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 02:35 PM
Pedro - see my post again, I hit submit too soon and have added more to it.

pedro
03-02-2010, 02:36 PM
Actually, Doug is right, that Dusty's starters historically have thrown more pitches than the average pitcher. It was in an article posted here a week or so back.

However, there is no evidence that Dusty's starting pitchers break down at a greater rate than other manager's pitchers . Basically, Wood and Prior broke down together, right after spending time with Dusty, so everyone concluded that Dusty ruins arms.

If you look at his history, Dusty's pitchers as a whole have broken down at the same rate as any other manager's pitchers.

I have no more worries about Dusty ruining Reds pitchers than I had about Narron, Boone, McKeon, Johnson, or even Lou.


I saw it. It's so close to the average to be almost non existent.

I'd be very interested to see how other managers stack up against that. John Lackey threw 131 pitches in a game last year. Should we be calling for Mike Sciosia's head too?

Eric_the_Red
03-02-2010, 02:37 PM
Pedro - see my post again, I hit submit too soon and have added more to it.

Besides pitches thrown, which is not really the point, where are the facts that show Dusty's pitchers break down or get injured above the normal rate?

TheNext44
03-02-2010, 02:43 PM
From AOL Fanhouse - http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/02/23/dustys-trail-a-ticket-to-operating-table/



Dusty Baker
Pitches Per Start
Year Baker League
1993 86.7 89.3
1994 91.0 88.8
1995 89.6 85.8
1996 97.7 83.1
1997 94.9 88.4
1998 93.9 91.6
1999 103.8 95.8
2000 102.5 97.2
2001 99.7 93.8
2002 100.9 93
2003 103.5 93.5
2004 99.0 93.8
2005 97.7 95.4
2006 91.9 94.5
2008 97.9 93.9
2009 98.7 94.4

More from the article:



With the Reds Baker has had 42% more PAP than the league average.

PAP points have been debated heavily, and all I can say succinctly is that they are pretty meaningless. No study, zero research has shown that pitches above the 100 count mark add additional wear and tear on a pitchers arm. The only studies that I have seen on the subject show that for pitchers under 25 years old, throwing over 120 pitches a game seems to lead to more injuries. I value RBI's more than I value PAP's.

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 02:47 PM
PAP points have been debated heavily, and all I can say succinctly is that they are pretty meaningless. No study, zero research has shown that pitches above the 100 count mark add additional wear and tear on a pitchers arm. The only studies that I have seen on the subject show that for pitchers under 25 years old, throwing over 120 pitches a game seems to lead to more injuries. I value RBI's more than I value PAP's.

So you disagree that pitchers are more tired after pitch 100 than before it? And that pitchers don't maintain the same mechanics while tired? Or that off mechanics can cause injury?

Eric_the_Red
03-02-2010, 02:49 PM
So you disagree that pitchers are more tired after pitch 100 than before it? And that pitchers don't maintain the same mechanics while tired? Or that off mechanics can cause injury?

Aren't pitchers more tired after pitch 50 than before it? Or pitch 90? Or 110?

Why is pitch 100 the magic number? Where is the evidence?

bucksfan2
03-02-2010, 02:52 PM
Aren't pitchers more tired after pitch 50 than before it? Or pitch 90? Or 110?

Why is pitch 100 the magic number? Where is the evidence?

Its a nice big round number.

TheNext44
03-02-2010, 02:55 PM
So you disagree that pitchers are more tired after pitch 100 than before it? And that pitchers don't maintain the same mechanics while tired? Or that off mechanics can cause injury?

This I agree with. When that point comes is dependent on so many factors that choosing a random, round number like 100 seems silly.

Watch the pitcher. If he is changing his mechanics, pull him. If he shows signs of laboring, pull him. Just don't use a convenient, round number to do the deciding for you.

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 03:03 PM
Aren't pitchers more tired after pitch 50 than before it? Or pitch 90? Or 110?

Why is pitch 100 the magic number? Where is the evidence?
Sure. The thing is, every manager lets his guy throw 50 pitches. Just about all guys go 90 on a consistent basis. 100 is probably the 'magic' number because its where most managers start to make moves or preparation for moves.

TheNext44
03-02-2010, 03:14 PM
Back to the question at hand.

I am not a big Dusty as manager fan. But I haven't really been a fan of Reds managers, period. From Sparky to Rose to Lou to Davey to Jack to Dusty, all of them aggravated me pretty much to equal degrees.

My philosophy about managers is that as long as they are not you, they will make many decisions that you disagree about. They will have huge holes in their managerial philosophy that will drive you crazy.

Sparky with his too quick hook, Rose loved to bunt too much, Lou needed that LOOGY even if it was Scott Ruskin, Jack did very little in game managing, and Dusty likes his #1 and 2 hitters to be fast, and refuses to adapt to the newer stats.

But all of these guys did win, even with their faults. I think with managers, you just have to take them as a whole entity, warts and all. They all have warts, but as long as they have a solid long term winning philosophy and plan for the team, I'm okay with them. And despite what some people say, I think Dusty does have a solid winning philosophy. It's not one I would adopt, but it is one that has worked quite well for him.

So if his philosophy, no matter how much it drives me crazy, wins, then I have no problem with him, especially since I am sure the next guy will drive me crazy as well.

Eric_the_Red
03-02-2010, 03:14 PM
Sure. The thing is, every manager lets his guy throw 50 pitches. Just about all guys go 90 on a consistent basis. 100 is probably the 'magic' number because its where most managers start to make moves or preparation for moves.

Is that because of the manager or conventional wisdom saying 100 is the "magic number"? (The same wisdom that says "RBI guys" bat 4th and fast guys leadoff.)

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 03:24 PM
Is that because of the manager or conventional wisdom saying 100 is the "magic number"? (The same wisdom that says "RBI guys" bat 4th and fast guys leadoff.)

Its because it has been shown that around pitch 100 guys start losing effectiveness.

TheNext44
03-02-2010, 03:29 PM
Its because it has been shown that around pitch 100 guys start losing effectiveness.

Where? Not doubting you, I just have never seen any research on it.

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 03:38 PM
I am just going to link you to that PAP article on BP. There are other studies out there, but that one is very easy to find.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1477

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 03:50 PM
To add more to the pitcher conversation within this thread - I found this article interesting on ESPN.com, these two quotes in particular:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=kurkjian_tim&id=4359938



Hershiser said, "Pitch counts have crept into the heads of managers, pitching coaches and doctors in part because of CYA, cover your ass. When you take an MRI, the look after 50 pitches looks different than the look after 100, and people put numbers to them. No manager wants to lose his job because he got someone hurt. So he stays within the cutoff number."

Duncan said he "doesn't give a damn about what people say about pitch counts because I know the individual pitcher. [Chris] Carpenter threw 114 pitches the other night. It was his first time over 110, but we're aware of his history with his surgeries. What we've done with him and Adam [Wainwright] is to take their bullpen sessions and warm-up sessions and cut them in half. Where they might have thrown 75 pitches before a game, now they throw 40. They're not wasting pitches. That's why we're not reluctant to go 120."

edabbs44
03-02-2010, 03:54 PM
What we've done with him and Adam [Wainwright] is to take their bullpen sessions and warm-up sessions and cut them in half. Where they might have thrown 75 pitches before a game, now they throw 40. They're not wasting pitches. That's why we're not reluctant to go 120."

Do you think that maybe PAP is somewhat flawed due to a quote like this?

TRF
03-02-2010, 03:54 PM
If Dusty can guide this team to the playoffs, he can have my son as an indentured servant. Yeah, i'd be for keeping him around.

TheNext44
03-02-2010, 03:59 PM
I am just going to link you to that PAP article on BP. There are other studies out there, but that one is very easy to find.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1477

Thank you.

I know that one, and it concludes that the 120 pitch mark is the one that should be used.

"The implications for pitcher usage are rather straightforward; starting pitchers should, in general, be held to 121 or fewer pitches"

And if you look at all the graphs, it shows that the 120 pitch mark is the one teams should be worried about, and that is only in terms of short term effectiveness.

In fact, here is a quote that no one ever mentions from that study:

"We should interject a few notes of caution here. First is that we haven't yet established what PAP was originally designed to measure -- risk of injury from overuse. We've been investigating a related (and initially easier to assess) phenomenon -- short-term ineffectiveness following high pitch count outings. PAP^3 should not, at this point, be used as a proven indicator of health risks. At best, it should be taken as an early warning indicator that a pitcher is being pushed too hard. It says nothing about whether a pitcher can fully bounce back to his previously established level of performance given enough rest and a more sensible workload. "

I actually never read that before, and have much more respect for BP and for PAP now.

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 04:00 PM
Do you think that maybe PAP is somewhat flawed due to a quote like this?

Well its somewhat flawed like every other stat in baseball. I 100% believe that pitch 105 in the 7th inning for Homer Bailey is less stressful than pitch 105 in the 7th inning for Johnny Cueto is. Just like pitch 105 for a reliever would be more stressful. Some guys are better suited to handle pitch #XYZ than others.

I don't believe we are close to understanding even 25% of what leads to pitchers injuries and we will never be able to fully prevent them. But I do believe that PAP has its uses, especially when used against the rest of baseball. It is not the be all, end all. No stat truly is. There are faults within every stat out there. I still find a lot of them useful in telling us things about players and even some about managers. It really concerns me that Dusty Baker's PAP as a team is 42% higher than the average in MLB since he has been with the Reds. That isn't a small discrepancy in the slightest. That is a giant leap with the help of also being on the moon with less gravity.

Ltlabner
03-02-2010, 04:10 PM
I find Teh Dusty to be an annoying on many levels. I'd be much happier if a different manager donned the goofy 58-year-old-man-uni.

All that said, I far and away rather the Reds be relevant than remove the Teh Dusty from my team. I'd much rather have a reason to care about the team again (i.e. winning baseball) than satisfy my subjective view of what should happen to the manager.

edabbs44
03-02-2010, 04:11 PM
Well its somewhat flawed like every other stat in baseball. I 100% believe that pitch 105 in the 7th inning for Homer Bailey is less stressful than pitch 105 in the 7th inning for Johnny Cueto is. Just like pitch 105 for a reliever would be more stressful. Some guys are better suited to handle pitch #XYZ than others.

I don't believe we are close to understanding even 25% of what leads to pitchers injuries and we will never be able to fully prevent them. But I do believe that PAP has its uses, especially when used against the rest of baseball. It is not the be all, end all. No stat truly is. There are faults within every stat out there. I still find a lot of them useful in telling us things about players and even some about managers. It really concerns me that Dusty Baker's PAP as a team is 42% higher than the average in MLB since he has been with the Reds. That isn't a small discrepancy in the slightest. That is a giant leap with the help of also being on the moon with less gravity.

For a stat with this many flaws, I can't see how we can use it to chastize a manager.

pedro
03-02-2010, 04:17 PM
For a stat with this many flaws, I can't see how we can use it to chastize a manager.

Because we have to prove Dusty is a bad bad man in order to justify our preconceived notions and make us feel like we are smart.

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 04:19 PM
For a stat with this many flaws, I can't see how we can use it to chastize a manager.

Because despite it having its flaws it shows us that Dusty allowed his pitchers to go much deeper into games than the average manager? Again, since PAP only assigns points for pitches 101 and beyond we know what they are referring to. Using PAP, Dusty has accumulated 42% more PAP than the average manager in baseball. That is a lot of pitches 101+ that our guys throw that other teams guys don't. If that doesn't concern you, fine. It concerns the crap out of me.

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 04:23 PM
Because we have to prove Dusty is a bad bad man in order to justify our preconceived notions and make us feel like we are smart.

Dusty seems like a great guy, just one who is misguided in how to use a pitching staff. If someone were to show me the data that says my preconceived notion that Dusty Baker uses his starting pitchers longer than other managers, I would easily be able to accept that. However every ounce of data out there suggests that he does indeed use his starting pitchers longer than other managers do.

Sea Ray
03-02-2010, 04:26 PM
I have a better question. Let's say the Reds improve 10 games this year to say 88 wins but they miss the playoffs. Do you still can Dusty?

pedro
03-02-2010, 04:28 PM
Dusty seems like a great guy, just one who is misguided in how to use a pitching staff. If someone were to show me the data that says my preconceived notion that Dusty Baker uses his starting pitchers longer than other managers, I would easily be able to accept that. However every ounce of data out there suggests that he does indeed use his starting pitchers longer than other managers do.

I hardly think "evidence" that Dusty's starting pitchers have thrown 3-4 pitches per game more than average is damning proof that he is shiva destroyer of pitchers.

bucksfan2
03-02-2010, 04:28 PM
Well its somewhat flawed like every other stat in baseball. I 100% believe that pitch 105 in the 7th inning for Homer Bailey is less stressful than pitch 105 in the 7th inning for Johnny Cueto is. Just like pitch 105 for a reliever would be more stressful. Some guys are better suited to handle pitch #XYZ than others.

To be honest this is very subjective. On the surface I agree with you. Homer has a better build and a more fluid motion than Cueto so he should be able to work deeper into the game with less stress than a guy like Cueto. But I also think situation and stuff play a large role in the amount of stress placed upon a given hitter. Cueto facing the 8 hole hitter on his 105th pitch is going to be less stressful than Bailey facing Pujols on his 105th pitch.



I don't believe we are close to understanding even 25% of what leads to pitchers injuries and we will never be able to fully prevent them. But I do believe that PAP has its uses, especially when used against the rest of baseball. It is not the be all, end all. No stat truly is. There are faults within every stat out there. I still find a lot of them useful in telling us things about players and even some about managers. It really concerns me that Dusty Baker's PAP as a team is 42% higher than the average in MLB since he has been with the Reds. That isn't a small discrepancy in the slightest. That is a giant leap with the help of also being on the moon with less gravity.

I do think Baker will have higher PAP on his pitchers because he has two work horses in Arroyo and Harang. When you look at those pitchers who like to pitch on ever 5th game, are strike out pitches, and work later into the game they will ratchet up pitch counts. Couple that with Cueto, Bailey, and Volquez all three power pitches who use more pitches and you have a recipe for high pitch counts.

I think that what often gets overlooked is that every MLB pitcher is a freak of nature. Guys who can throw the ball 90+ MPH just don't grow on trees. I think that adds into the difficulty in trying to find out what leads to pitching injuries. I mean a guy like Lincecum shouldn't be able to do what he does, but he hasn't shown any signs of slowing down. A guy like Cueto shouldn't be able to throw the ball as hard as he can. But their God given ability allows them to do so.

BRM
03-02-2010, 04:35 PM
I have a better question. Let's say the Reds improve 10 games this year to say 88 wins but they miss the playoffs. Do you still can Dusty?

No way they fire Dusty after an 88 win season.

Puffy
03-02-2010, 04:40 PM
No way they fire Dusty after an 88 win season.

I think the more important questions are:

(1) would TRF trade his son into Dusty's indentured servitude for 88 wins; and
(2) who has Falls City's firstborn son and would that person give him to Dusty for aforesaid indentured servitude?

westofyou
03-02-2010, 04:41 PM
No way they fire Dusty after an 88 win season.

Sure you can, he makes following baseball a drag, he's Less Moss times Vern Rapp to the power of Don Zimmer, He's Joe Adcock, the College of Coaches and Bob OFarrell in a doubleknit shirt

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 04:42 PM
I hardly think "evidence" that Dusty's starting pitchers have thrown 3-4 pitches per game more than average is damning proof that he is shiva destroyer of pitchers.

I would pay more attention to his PAP than average pitches because it tells us how hard he rides the guys that can actually pitch rather than his pitching staff actually sucking and guys not even making it to 90 pitches (see 2006 where his average pitch count was lower than average, but his PAP was still 19% higher than the MLB average). He was fine with pulling crappy pitchers who were getting their brains beat in and it led to a lower than average pitch count for his staff. But when guys were able to get to pitch 100, he let them go much further than the average manager did.

pedro
03-02-2010, 04:50 PM
I would pay more attention to his PAP than average pitches because it tells us how hard he rides the guys that can actually pitch rather than his pitching staff actually sucking and guys not even making it to 90 pitches (see 2006 where his average pitch count was lower than average, but his PAP was still 19% higher than the MLB average). He was fine with pulling crappy pitchers who were getting their brains beat in and it led to a lower than average pitch count for his staff. But when guys were able to get to pitch 100, he let them go much further than the average manager did.

I can only find 3 instances of Reds SP throwing 120 or more pitches last year with the high being 123 (Harang). I just don't think all the hand wringing is justified.

dougdirt
03-02-2010, 04:55 PM
I can only find 3 instances of Reds SP throwing 120 or more pitches last year with the high being 123 (Harang). I just don't think all the hand wringing is justified.

And I can find a mountains worth of evidence that shows that Baker throws his pitchers longer than other managers throw their pitchers in baseball games and its been that way for 14 years running. Pitching is bad for your arm. It simply is. The more you pitch, the more chances you have at risking injury. Dusty makes/allows his guys to throw more pitches, especially once we reach the upper echelon of pitches thrown than other managers in baseball on average, by a very wide margin. Its not like we are talking he is 5% worse than the average. We are talking 42% worse than the average in terms of allowing his pitchers reach very deep on the spectrum of pitches thrown in a game. You clearly aren't concerned. I am very concerned.

pedro
03-02-2010, 05:09 PM
And I can find a mountains worth of evidence that shows that Baker throws his pitchers longer than other managers throw their pitchers in baseball games and its been that way for 14 years running. Pitching is bad for your arm. It simply is. The more you pitch, the more chances you have at risking injury. Dusty makes/allows his guys to throw more pitches, especially once we reach the upper echelon of pitches thrown than other managers in baseball on average, by a very wide margin. Its not like we are talking he is 5% worse than the average. We are talking 42% worse than the average in terms of allowing his pitchers reach very deep on the spectrum of pitches thrown in a game. You clearly aren't concerned. I am very concerned.

Based on scale where 100 pitches is bad, which is highly debatable. That's fine that you've bought in, good for you, but that doesn't make it gospel. Seriously, you make it sound as if no SP should ever throw more than 100 pitches. Ever think what that does to the pitchers in the BP? If he was routinely having guys throw 130+ pitches, then yes, I would be concerned but he isn't doing that. Further, when the variance that drives the 42% jump is merely a handful of pitches, which it is as the Reds had a pretty stable rotation last year, I think it's a topic that is blown way out of proportion.

TRF
03-02-2010, 05:18 PM
I think the more important questions are:

(1) would TRF trade his son into Dusty's indentured servitude for 88 wins; and
(2) who has Falls City's firstborn son and would that person give him to Dusty for aforesaid indentured servitude?

1, yes

2, First born is likely in WITSEC, so no chance.

TRF
03-02-2010, 05:21 PM
No way they fire Dusty after an 88 win season.

Wasn't McKeon essentially fired after an 86 win season followed a 96 win season? How about Sparky in, was it '77 or '78?

Yeah, he can be fired.

Sea Ray
03-02-2010, 05:30 PM
Wasn't McKeon essentially fired after an 86 win season followed a 96 win season? How about Sparky in, was it '77 or '78?

Yeah, he can be fired.

I'm sure you can see the difference in your examples. The fired managers had win totals going down, not up like Dusty has done in his first two years here

TRF
03-02-2010, 05:46 PM
I'm sure you can see the difference in your examples. The fired managers had win totals going down, not up like Dusty has done in his first two years here

Sparky was fired after a couple of WS championships. Going from awful to less awful shouldn't guarantee a job.

McKeon's win totals went down because the GM didn't get him what he asked for, a decent rotation. And since the GM can't fire himself...

MWM
03-02-2010, 05:59 PM
It's all moot, IMO. I'm not sure why the Reds are considered a dark horse candidate every single year, but they are. I just don't see how this team can compete for the playoffs. But I say this every year, too. :evil:

traderumor
03-02-2010, 06:00 PM
Enjoyment of the Reds predicated on who the manager is? Amazing. Of course, there was a pocket of people who thought Sparky was a buffoon. I imagine they missed a lot of baseball as a result, but I seriously doubt that baseball missed them.

M2
03-02-2010, 06:03 PM
1. I suspect the Braves routinely led all of baseball is pitches per start during the club's heyday. Pitch well and you'll throw more pitches. That's how baseball works - good players do more.

2. Dusty Baker is identifiably good at handling a bullpen.

3. Isn't every team that's not an obvious contender a darkhorse possibility to contend for the playoffs?

4. Given the paltry attendance last season, does the team have to be successful right out of the gate to avoid a complete tear down?

wheels
03-02-2010, 06:43 PM
1. I suspect the Braves routinely led all of baseball is pitches per start during the club's heyday. Pitch well and you'll throw more pitches. That's how baseball works - good players do more.

2. Dusty Baker is identifiably good at handling a bullpen.

3. Isn't every team that's not an obvious contender a darkhorse possibility to contend for the playoffs?

4. Given the paltry attendance last season, does the team have to be successful right out of the gate to avoid a complete tear down?


I agree with your first three points.

On number four, though....I think the club is young enough that Walt and Bob can justify riding it out.

Then again, dumping Harang, Arroyo, Phillips and Rolen could be construed as such. :D

As for Dusty...If they win, I can deal with his lineups. I actually kinda like him on a personal level and his players really seem to like him.

He ain't no Davey Johnson, but I'd kinda miss the Dustyisms.

IowaRed
03-02-2010, 06:49 PM
well, at least this board can agree on one thing. Anybody who wants the Reds to have one more crappy year so the manager gets fired is either nuts, sad, or amazing. That's something I guess

wheels
03-02-2010, 06:52 PM
well, at least this board can agree on one thing. Anybody who wants the Reds to have one more crappy year so the manager gets fired is either nuts, sad, or amazing. That's something I guess

I don't think you're sad or amazing.:D

VR
03-02-2010, 06:52 PM
In game threads last year, there were the fewest discussions in the HISTORY of Redszone during the 6th/7th/8th innings about pitchers being left in the game too long.

I'm ready to jump on a manager anytime a pitcher is obviously gassed and yet is left out there.....Dusty does it fewer times than any manager since Davey Johnson.

BRM
03-02-2010, 08:01 PM
Wasn't McKeon essentially fired after an 86 win season followed a 96 win season? How about Sparky in, was it '77 or '78?

Yeah, he can be fired.

He can be fired. No question. But I seriously doubt Walt fires him if the teams wins 88 games this year. 88 puts them in the hunt most of the year, if not all year. He'd get extended in that case.

Plus Plus
03-02-2010, 08:31 PM
I'm curious to see what people mean by an extension. An 88 win season leading to Baker being brought back next year is markedly different than an 88 win season that leads to a 3 year extension.

As I said before, I don't care who the manager is as long as the Reds win, and that I think managers generally receive too much credit when the going is good and too much blame when the going is bad. 88 wins and Baker coming back is great, imho. I was twelve years old in 1999 and thirteen in 2000, the last time the Reds were serious playoff contenders. I'm ready to see wins, even if that means frustration about 'Bakermetrics' for the 2011 season and beyond.

Big Klu
03-03-2010, 04:46 PM
100 pitches is WAY, WAY too many. Under no circumstances should a pitcher be allowed to throw more than 75 pitches. (And 65 would be preferable.)