PDA

View Full Version : So stupid ... it's funny



Cyclone792
04-27-2010, 09:23 AM
Every once and a while over the past several years I've engaged in a semi-regular pattern throughout each season. I'll glance at some Reds' numbers, and almost every single time, I'll notice something (lots of things since the beginning of 2008) where I just shake my head and laugh to myself.

Nevertheless, here's some fun stuff I've already noticed about teh 2010 Dusty Bakers:

teh 2010 Dusty Bakers as CF: .149/.241/.216/.457
teh 2010 Dusty Bakers as P: .229/.250/.229/.479

Oh, it gets better.

teh 2010 Dusty Bakers as #1 hitter: .143/.233/.208/.440
teh 2010 Dusty Bakers as #9 hitter: .230/.266/.279/.544

Of course, I'm not advocating leading off with the pitcher - though we may get some OBP bump! - but it's just fitting that a Dusty Baker led team would have a higher on-base percentage from his pitchers and #9-hole hitters than his center fielders and leadoff hitters. And it's not just fitting, it's to the point of just being hilarious.

Remember a thread I started two years ago about Dustifying the Leadoff Slot (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68007)? In that thread, I warned that through Dusty Baker's 15 seasons as manager of the Giants and Cubs, his teams leadoff hitter had an on-base percentage higher than the league average only three times. Dusty's cumulative leadoff OBPs were .334 vs. a league average of .341.

Some folks tried dustifying and rationalizing that .334 isn't too much worse than .341. Maybe they just wanted to make themselves feel better, I don't know.

Yet we're now two years and one month into teh Dusty Baker regime, and well ...

2008 Reds: .326 OBP from the leadoff guy
2008 NL: .342 OBP from the leadoff guy

And the two-hole hitters?

2008 Reds: .305 OBP from the two-hole hitter
2008 NL: .338 OBP from the two-hole hitter

Thank you, Dusty Baker and Corey Patterson. May we have another?

Move on to 2009, which was teh year of Willy T. We know how bad we looked, right?

2009 Reds: .302 OBP from the leadoff guy
2009 NL: .340 OBP from the leadoff guy

2009 Reds: .302 OBP from the two-hole hitter
2009 NL: .338 OBP from the two-hole hitter

Are we seeing a trend yet? Perhaps the first few weeks of 2010 can help us identify what we're seeing ...

2010 Reds: .235 OBP from the leadoff guy
2010 NL: .324 OBP from the leadoff guy

2010 Reds: .300 OBP from the two-hole hitter
2010 NL: .340 OBP from the two-hole hitter

What should we call something that starts off crappy and then manages to get even worse over two plus years? Whatever it is, that's the Reds' at the top of the lineup during teh Dusty Baker regime.

I thought about doing this same exercise for the cleanup hitter using OPS, but I wanted to stop the torture so I haven't bothered to look yet. I can only imagine what those numbers look like though. Any guesses?

The only idea I can ponder is maybe this is all a trick to suppress the salary potential of Joey Votto. With Ryan Howard inking his ridiculous contract, perhaps the Reds' front office figured if they ensured that nobody was ever on base in front of Votto and that the guy behind Votto was a wild hack who cannot hit right-handers, that Votto wouldn't ever be able to post those impressive runs scored and RBI totals that agents love to quote during contract discussions.

Those sneaky Dusty Baker Redlegs!

In the end, the most important number is .456 since 2001. That's winning percentage, and it reminds us that the Lost Decade laughs in all our faces (By the way, what does the Lost Decade's laugh sound like? I envision it being something similar to Heath Ledger's Joker laugh, but perhaps there's something even more sinister and hilarious out there that'd be more appropriate.).

When you get right down to it, the Lost Decade's lineup of owners, general managers and managers is almost like a Dusty Baker lineup.

Lindner
Castellini
Bowden
O'Brien
Krivsky
Jocketty
Boone
Miley
Narron
Baker

Wait, that's 10 guys. I guess we'll play by AL rules and somebody's gotta DH.

Will the madness ever end? I guess if it doesn't, all we can do is just laugh at the stupidity.

westofyou
04-27-2010, 09:27 AM
Ya know, whenever I read teh Dusty I stop reading... same for Duhsty.

IMO it weakens ones argument to lean into the belittle so early in the piece.

edabbs44
04-27-2010, 09:28 AM
Who would you put in CF to up the OBP from that spot in 2010?

Cyclone792
04-27-2010, 09:42 AM
Ya know, whenever I read teh Dusty I stop reading... same for Duhsty.

IMO it weakens ones argument to lean into the belittle so early in the piece.

The Reds nowadays deserve nothing more than being pushed into the belittle. Last week's gate for the homestand echoes those thoughts: 15,200 average per game. Once again, apathy has taken over before May begins. People here just now just move on from the Reds, and the organization really has nobody else to blame but themselves.

I love baseball, but I'm now 28-years-old, and outside a few specific players, this organization has been largely unwatchable since I graduated high school.

Ghosts of 1990
04-27-2010, 09:49 AM
"Good" stuff! haha. This is completely hideous. Can't wait to tell my friends who watch the Reds every night about this one

lollipopcurve
04-27-2010, 09:51 AM
I love baseball, but I'm now 28-years-old, and outside a few specific players, this organization has been largely unwatchable since I graduated high school.

Oh the victimhood.

Seems to me you're getting plenty of enjoyment out of some poor performance.

WMR
04-27-2010, 10:03 AM
Good stuff.

WMR
04-27-2010, 10:04 AM
Oh the victimhood.

Seems to me you're getting plenty of enjoyment out of some poor performance.

Oh yeah, I'm sure Cyclone would prefer the Reds suck wind.

:help:

Cyclone792
04-27-2010, 10:10 AM
Oh the victimhood.

Seems to me you're getting plenty of enjoyment out of some poor performance.

Some of you folks from out of town just don't get it. You watch from afar, but you haven't the slightest idea the current environment here.

This Reds organization is a running joke here in Cincinnati. Their on-field performance isn't just having an impact on the stats and standings, it's a PR disaster. It stretches from the owner's seat to the front office to the manager's seat to the players on the field.

Try explaining to Joe Fan here why he should shell out his money to watch this team, and after he's done laughing at the organization, he'll laugh in your face.

Meanwhile, keep sitting several hundred miles away in a different part of the country and believe that things are looking solid here. You can believe what you want, but you'll be believing in a fantasy if you're not looking at reality.

WMR
04-27-2010, 10:13 AM
Some of you folks from out of town just don't get it. You watch from afar, but you haven't the slightest idea the current environment here.

This Reds organization is a running joke here in Cincinnati. Their on-field performance isn't just having an impact on the stats and standings, it's a PR disaster. It stretches from the owner's seat to the front office to the manager's seat to the players on the field.

Try explaining to Joe Fan here why he should shell out his money to watch this team, and after he's done laughing at the organization, he'll laugh in your face.

Meanwhile, keep sitting several hundred miles away in a different part of the country and believe that things are looking solid here. You can believe what you want, but you'll be believing in a fantasy if you're not looking at reality.

The closer you get to Cincinnati, the bigger laughingstock the Reds become.

mbgrayson
04-27-2010, 10:17 AM
The funny thing is that Stubbs was even quoted the other day as saying he liked batting 7th. Yet, the CF leads off, and the SS bats second.....

I honestly think that when we get the inevitable manager change, if we hire someone who simply moves the lineup around to put high OBP guys (do we have any?) in the #1 and #2 slot, we could score more runs on a regular basis.

Also, we have to get the whole team OBP to a higher plane. There is a direct correlation between OBP and runs scored. Until the Reds organization starts to value that, we will continue to lag in run production.

So far in 2010, the Reds are 25th in MLB in team OBP at .312. We are tied for 16th in runs scored with 87 runs. We are 15th in team HRs with 20.

Of course much of the problem in 2010 has been with pitching....and that is a different thread....

Sea Ray
04-27-2010, 10:19 AM
I think you're putting too much blame here on Dusty Baker. It's not like he's had better options. As you go up and down the lineup you'll find that his players are underperforming the league avg. Managers are only as good as his players.

Hoosier Red
04-27-2010, 10:32 AM
I agree, let's Cyclone the lineup. See how the production stacks up 1-9.

TRF
04-27-2010, 10:39 AM
How much is a trip to the Zoo? a family of four will cost about $70 before food. Get a souvenir or two and you are easily at $120-150. Now how many times can you go to the zoo? It's an all day thing and while I go every time I am in Cincinnati, I can't imagine going three days in a row.

Kings Island? Last time I went took me two days to recover. $300 for four of us. That's parking, food, admission, and a bunch of stuff.

I can get 4 bleacher seats for $28. total. I can park for $2 under Fountain Square. I can spend another $20 on snacks with the idea that we'll eat out after the game.

And I'll see baseball. Even my girly-girl daughter wore a pink Reds Jersey. We saw fireworks and the team actually won.

And I saw baseball. Hard core fans will show up regardless. Some fair weather fans too. That's how you get 15,000 fans instead of 1,500. And yes, winning could turn them into the 90's version of the Indians, but the Reds didn't draw all that well in '99, one of their best regular seasons ever. That had nothing to do with the FO, the manager, the players, or the season and everything to do with Cincinnati and its residents. Cincinnati is a big city with a Mayberry mentality. It would rather stay home, sit on the porch and enjoy the evening.

RedsManRick
04-27-2010, 10:41 AM
Some of you folks from out of town just don't get it. You watch from afar, but you haven't the slightest idea the current environment here.

This Reds organization is a running joke here in Cincinnati. Their on-field performance isn't just having an impact on the stats and standings, it's a PR disaster. It stretches from the owner's seat to the front office to the manager's seat to the players on the field.

Rightly or wrongly, I've let the Reds' backwards attitudes become my representation of the city at large; Seriously behind the times and too proud to admit it.

I think Baseball has increasingly gone from the everyman's game played in sandlots and alleys to a big business, run on the principals of business. But the city remains provincial and its ball club reflects that.

Cyclone792
04-27-2010, 10:49 AM
I agree, let's Cyclone the lineup. See how the production stacks up 1-9.

Yea, that's a typical response I expected from somebody who's apparently content to accept losing month after year after decade.

The lineups are a microcosm of the fundamental problem that this organization has been a losing organization for 10 years. The Reds have folks on their payroll who can't even understand the simple picture, and the last 10 years have only bore out the fact that they also don't understand the big picture.

Always Red
04-27-2010, 10:54 AM
Hard to argue against this at all.

It's like Groundhog Day around Cincinnati; hope springs eternal, and then every year starts out like the year before.

And yet, attendance is up, slightly, compared to last year, though attendance is down throughout MLB.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/current_attendance.shtml

Could just be the exceptionally nice spring we are having.

More than anything, Dusty's idea of a lead-off man frustrates me; he loves speed at the top of the order. Yet, the men that he gives the job to cannot get on base. One after another.

Most of the problem is that the Reds haven't had a true lead-off hitter in what seems to be years. Freel? he could get on base, but was really not smart on the basepaths. You have to go back to Barry Larkin near the end of his career, who wasn't the prototypical lead-off hitter, but did the job when no one else on the team was capable.

pedro
04-27-2010, 10:54 AM
Ya know, whenever I read teh Dusty I stop reading... same for Duhsty.

IMO it weakens ones argument to lean into the belittle so early in the piece.

I'm with WOY, and yes I do understand the environment in Cincinnati. Unfortunately what I understand is that a lot of people are so short sighted that they actually think it's Dusty Baker's fault that the organization has failed for the past 20 years.

It's disappointing.

Cyclone792
04-27-2010, 11:11 AM
How much is a trip to the Zoo? a family of four will cost about $70 before food. Get a souvenir or two and you are easily at $120-150. Now how many times can you go to the zoo? It's an all day thing and while I go every time I am in Cincinnati, I can't imagine going three days in a row.

Kings Island? Last time I went took me two days to recover. $300 for four of us. That's parking, food, admission, and a bunch of stuff.

I can get 4 bleacher seats for $28. total. I can park for $2 under Fountain Square. I can spend another $20 on snacks with the idea that we'll eat out after the game.

And I'll see baseball. Even my girly-girl daughter wore a pink Reds Jersey. We saw fireworks and the team actually won.

And I saw baseball. Hard core fans will show up regardless. Some fair weather fans too. That's how you get 15,000 fans instead of 1,500. And yes, winning could turn them into the 90's version of the Indians, but the Reds didn't draw all that well in '99, one of their best regular seasons ever. That had nothing to do with the FO, the manager, the players, or the season and everything to do with Cincinnati and its residents. Cincinnati is a big city with a Mayberry mentality. It would rather stay home, sit on the porch and enjoy the evening.

I've been to the zoo twice in the last five years. I haven't been to Kings Island in over 10 years. Kings Island serves as much for tourism (folks like you visiting) than it does locals anyway.

But since you brought up Kings Island, consider that I could buy a season pass there for what, maybe $100? I think season passes with season parking passes are a bit more, maybe $125? And folks with those passes can enter and exit as much as they please. If they decide to go for three hours after work on a weeknight, so be it. That's the route the locals who frequent Kings Island take. They don't spend 10 hour days on weekends at the park.

For one season ticket in a 20-game package to the Reds, you're looking at three times the cost of a Kings Island pass. So while you're looking at the cost comparison from a visitor perspective, from a local perspective it's the other way around.

And like I said, I haven't been there in over 10 years so it's not exactly like I have a whole bunch of interest in Kings Island on a personal level.

As for the hardcore Reds fans, their interest is wearing down. I've noticed it just from regularly attending games over the last several years. It's exhausting going to games regularly season after season watching bad teams. People get tired of it, and they start looking for other things to do.

One example: Last Wednesday night, I went to the Reds/Dodgers game and sat near another group of guys who I'd classify as hardcore fans. They knew the game, and they paid attention to the game pitch by pitch. Those fans got up and left in the top of the 7th inning, muttering "I can't believe I drove down here tonight to watch this never-ending [insert fun adjective here]."

pedro
04-27-2010, 11:14 AM
Let's spew piss and vinegar and belittle a person who has virtually nothing to do with why the Reds have only been to the World Series once since 1976!

That'll bring the fans back!

The fact remains that if the Reds had better players then their record would be better, regardless of who the poor schmuck getting railed on by the fans in Cincinnati was.

IowaRed
04-27-2010, 11:21 AM
The lineups are a microcosm of the fundamental problem that this organization has been a losing organization for 10 years. The Reds have folks on their payroll who can't even understand the simple picture, and the last 10 years have only bore out the fact that they also don't understand the big picture.

and that's it, in a nutshell

Too much blame for Baker? Sure, even with my dislike for him, but it comes with the office and the absurd paycheck

Cedric
04-27-2010, 11:51 AM
Rightly or wrongly, I've let the Reds' backwards attitudes become my representation of the city at large; Seriously behind the times and too proud to admit it.

I think Baseball has increasingly gone from the everyman's game played in sandlots and alleys to a big business, run on the principals of business. But the city remains provincial and its ball club reflects that.

It's just a baseball game man. I know you analyze everything and anything to death though.

TRF
04-27-2010, 11:55 AM
I've been to the zoo twice in the last five years. I haven't been to Kings Island in over 10 years. Kings Island serves as much for tourism (folks like you visiting) than it does locals anyway.

But since you brought up Kings Island, consider that I could buy a season pass there for what, maybe $100? I think season passes with season parking passes are a bit more, maybe $125? And folks with those passes can enter and exit as much as they please. If they decide to go for three hours after work on a weeknight, so be it. That's the route the locals who frequent Kings Island take. They don't spend 10 hour days on weekends at the park.

For one season ticket in a 20-game package to the Reds, you're looking at three times the cost of a Kings Island pass. So while you're looking at the cost comparison from a visitor perspective, from a local perspective it's the other way around.

And like I said, I haven't been there in over 10 years so it's not exactly like I have a whole bunch of interest in Kings Island on a personal level.

As for the hardcore Reds fans, their interest is wearing down. I've noticed it just from regularly attending games over the last several years. It's exhausting going to games regularly season after season watching bad teams. People get tired of it, and they start looking for other things to do.

One example: Last Wednesday night, I went to the Reds/Dodgers game and sat near another group of guys who I'd classify as hardcore fans. They knew the game, and they paid attention to the game pitch by pitch. Those fans got up and left in the top of the 7th inning, muttering "I can't believe I drove down here tonight to watch this never-ending [insert fun adjective here]."

point taken on Kings Island, but as a father of three and a guy in my 40's, three hours at kings island would do me in. My kids would love it though.

My larger point is the '99 season. They didn't draw well in the midst of one of the best regular seasons the team had since the 70's. In fact, have the Reds ever drawn 3 million?

I lived in Cincinnati for about 5 years as a teenager. I'd walk downtown to see them play from Lower Price Hill, after saving $3 for a Red seat ticket. But for the most part it seems Cincinnati wants to reminisce about the Big Red Machine, complain Rose isn't in the HOF, and be content to sit at home and watch the game on TV, or listen to Marty talk about tomatoes.

Chip R
04-27-2010, 11:59 AM
In fact, have the Reds ever drawn 3 million?


Nope. And they were the last team to draw 1 million in 1956.

TRF
04-27-2010, 12:04 PM
Nope. And they were the last team to draw 1 million in 1956.

Conservative town that would rather stay home and crow about money saved. Also, isn't the economy of southern Ohio in bad shape? That certainly doesn't help.

Spring~Fields
04-27-2010, 12:08 PM
The fact remains that if the Reds had better players then their record would be better

Surely you're right.

Who’s responsibility is that?

Ltlabner
04-27-2010, 12:11 PM
I'm with WOY, and yes I do understand the environment in Cincinnati. Unfortunately what I understand is that a lot of people are so short sighted that they actually think it's Dusty Baker's fault that the organization has failed for the past 20 years.

It's disappointing.

I don't think anybody is making that case at all. Can you show us where people have laid the blame at Bakers feet for everthing that's happened in 20 years because I'm not seeing it.

I think what Cyclone is saying is that Dustys approach to the game and managerial weaknesses are symbolic of the overall issues of the entire franchise: outdated thinking, flawed talent evaluation and generally having an approach that is stuck in a different era.

Frankly you may be the short-sighted one if you think the discussion starts and ends at the current skipper.

pedro
04-27-2010, 12:14 PM
Surely you're right.

Who’s responsibility is that?

A number of persons going back over the past decade. The Reds aren't going to rebound from Marge Schott, Carl Lindner, Jim Bowden and Dan O'Brien overnight, especially when the current regime, while I believe at least competent, isn't all that innovative.

pedro
04-27-2010, 12:16 PM
I don't think anybody is making that case at all. Can you show us where people have laid the blame at Bakers feet for everthing that's happened in 20 years because I'm not seeing it.

I think what Cyclone is saying is that Dustys approach to the game and managerial weaknesses are symbolic of the overall issues of the entire franchise: outdated thinking, flawed talent evaluation and generally having an approach that is stuck in a different era.

Frankly you may be the short-sighted one if you think the discussion starts and ends at the current skipper.

I'm not the one belittling him by calling him Duhsty.

Ltlabner
04-27-2010, 12:27 PM
I'm not the one belittling him by calling him Duhsty.


So poking fun at the guy by reversing two letters in his name equates to pinning the ills of 20 years of organizational funk on him? Quite a leap there.

Cedric
04-27-2010, 12:28 PM
The Reds need to start winning fast. I don't know if Redszone can handle this funk for another 2-3 seasons.

Petty fights all over the place :)

pedro
04-27-2010, 12:36 PM
So poking fun at the guy by reversing two letters in his name equates to pinning the ills of 20 years of organizational funk on him? Quite a leap there.

All I know is that reading Redszone these days diminishes rather than enhances following the Reds and baseball in general.

You all have fun.

camisadelgolf
04-27-2010, 12:42 PM
All I know is that reading Redszone these days diminishes rather than enhances following the Reds and baseball in general.

You all have fun.
That'll probably change once the Reds get on a winning streak.

reds1869
04-27-2010, 12:47 PM
That'll probably change once the Reds get on a winning streak.

Winning streak? I'll take .500 ball the rest of the season. ;)

Ltlabner
04-27-2010, 12:51 PM
Getting riled up for switching up a couple letters in a guys name just flat misses the main overall point that's been touched on in a couple of threads.

The Reds have simply become irrelevant in Cincinnati. I can see how a Pittsburgh/KC Royals death-spiral happens because once the fans give up it's going to take piles of cash and/or really innovative thinking to pull out.

The Reds have never been a huge draw even in the best of times, but it's probably hard for people 3 timezones away to get a feel for how marginal the Reds have become. I was at opening day.....the vast majority of "fans" there just didn't care about the game.

Spring~Fields
04-27-2010, 12:59 PM
A number of persons going back over the past decade. The Reds aren't going to rebound from Marge Schott, Carl Lindner, Jim Bowden and Dan O'Brien overnight, especially when the current regime, while I believe at least competent, isn't all that innovative.

I think that is true. Many have contributed to the plus and the otherside.

I can also see the other guys points on correcting some of the micro issues that go into the whole. Some of those issues like the OBP is correctable in the present and it becomes frustrating when it seems like something is correctable, but it seems to go on without anyone addressing it.

top6
04-27-2010, 12:59 PM
Getting riled up for switching up a couple letters in a guys name just flat misses the main overall point that's been touched on in a couple of threads.


Exactly.

I do not think Dusty is a good manager - at all. In fact, I would say I spend about 1/2 as much time (and money) following the Reds as I did before they hired Dusty, and his hiring is a major reason why. A team that thinks hiring Dusty Baker and paying him a premium of millions of dollars is a good idea is a team that, imo, has no clue what they are doing and is just desperate for a quit fix to mask their complete inability to ever put together a competitive team. (I'd say the same thing about paying $30 million to an unproven talent out of Cuba, but that's a topic for another thread.)

But Dusty is just a symbol of the problem, and I see no reason to be mad at him. He is managing EXACTLY as he always has, and I don't think he ever suggested he would do anything different. In fact, I think he has improved from his days in Chicago, at least as far as pitch counts and handling young pitchers is concerned. He strikes me as a nice, if stubborn, guy, who is doing exactly what he was hired to do.

westofyou
04-27-2010, 01:01 PM
Alas, baseball is more than on base percentage. I say this having grazed at that buffet for awhile myself, it's tasty, but it's just a course in a fine meal, an important course but still part of a whole.

nate
04-27-2010, 01:04 PM
Alas, baseball is more than on base percentage. I say this having grazed at that buffet for awhile myself, it's tasty, but it's just a course in a fine meal, an important course but still part of a whole.

At least OBP is the Bacos..."fast guy at the top of the lineup" is some sort of three-day old hearts of palm.

Spring~Fields
04-27-2010, 01:04 PM
Alas, baseball is more than on base percentage. I say this having grazed at that buffet for awhile myself, it's tasty, but it's just a course in a fine meal, an important course but still part of a whole.

That's true too. Just because the Reds put their best OBP at the top doesn't mean that they will win. Just one piece of the puzzle that can be corrected.

Spring~Fields
04-27-2010, 01:16 PM
But Dusty is just a symbol of the problem, and I see no reason to be mad at him. He is managing EXACTLY as he always has, and I don't think he ever suggested he would do anything different. In fact, I think he has improved from his days in Chicago, at least as far as pitch counts and handling young pitchers is concerned. He strikes me as a nice, if stubborn, guy, who is doing exactly what he was hired to do.

That is the way that I am starting to see it.

Dusty Baker his coaches and his players are the goats, while the goat masters and the goat shepherds, the ownership group and general manager leaves them to face the wolves. Guess who gets bit and devoured first, while the goat masters and goat shepherds escape the wrath.

And profits no matter what they feed the goats and the fans at the petting zoo.

The body follows the head.

nate
04-27-2010, 01:22 PM
That's true too. Just because the Reds put their best OBP at the top doesn' mean that they will win. Just one piece of the puzzle that can be corrected.

It would say to me that the manager understands the difference between regular outs and strikeouts is small.

But yeah, it's not the whole problem and there isn't a whole problem other than the team doesn't have enough good players. That's the whole problem. I don't expect Dusty or anyone who doesn't have a pointy hat, wand and ocelot familiar to be significantly change the team winning percentage.

I do have to say to those who find the conversation here so odious. Start a new thread, use your ignore user/thread feature or have a cream soda.

The complaining about the complaining is as bad as the complaining.

Roy Tucker
04-27-2010, 01:25 PM
What disappoints me is that I truly thought things were going to be different with Castelinni as owner. He seems (or seemed) very motivated to change things.

Of course, a 5 game winning streak will turn a lot of this venom into honey. My hope is still springing eternal.

Spring~Fields
04-27-2010, 01:27 PM
It would say to me that the manager understands the difference between regular outs and strikeouts is small.

But yeah, it's not the whole problem and there isn't a whole problem other than the team doesn't have enough good players. That's the whole problem. I don't expect Dusty or anyone who doesn't have a pointy hat, wand and ocelot familiar to be significantly change the team winning percentage.

I do have to say to those who find the conversation here so odious. Start a new thread, use your ignore user/thread feature or have a cream soda.

The complaining about the complaining is as bad as the complaining.



I agree. I always had a problem with the labeled optimist being negative about the labeled pessimist or should I say reasoned skeptics?

It confuses me. That’s my problem, I am working on it. :)

Why don't the Reds have enough good players ? How many lifetimes does that take to achieve?

Brutus
04-27-2010, 01:33 PM
Complaining...check

Complaining about the complaining...check

Complaining that people are complaining about the complaining... checkmate.

In my own little box, as I've designed it to shut myself away from the world, the Reds will win or lose more likely in spite of Dusty, his low-OBP leadoff hitters and his lineup magic than because of him. Optimized lineups be darned, the Reds first need to continue to upgrade each position to the best of their ability, creativity and finances and then the race to ship Dusty on the next flight back to the West coast wouldn't be as entertaining.

Spring~Fields
04-27-2010, 01:35 PM
Winning streak? I'll take .500 ball the rest of the season. ;)

Your shooting too low or I am greedy, after all these years, I want more, one game over .500. At least that would indicate that someone has an understanding on how to accomplish improvement in at least some baby steps in their profession.

While they stop selling their patrons failure.

Cyclone792
04-27-2010, 01:37 PM
point taken on Kings Island, but as a father of three and a guy in my 40's, three hours at kings island would do me in. My kids would love it though.

My larger point is the '99 season. They didn't draw well in the midst of one of the best regular seasons the team had since the 70's. In fact, have the Reds ever drawn 3 million?

I lived in Cincinnati for about 5 years as a teenager. I'd walk downtown to see them play from Lower Price Hill, after saving $3 for a Red seat ticket. But for the most part it seems Cincinnati wants to reminisce about the Big Red Machine, complain Rose isn't in the HOF, and be content to sit at home and watch the game on TV, or listen to Marty talk about tomatoes.

The attendance for the 1999 season was disappointing until the final series against St. Louis (and the one-game playoff obviously). I think mostly what we got, though, was that season just avoided the typical attendance dropoff we usually see. Rather than seeing crowds dip down in the mid teens per game, attendance late that season kind of hung around its summer time June-July levels. Not really a gain per se, but the success of the season did prevent the usual attendance crash. As you point out, though, that's not something to be proud of. That team should have been drawing 30k+ on weeknights and well into the 40s on weekends, and it didn't happen.

FWIW, I'd say your take on how Cincinnati wants to reminisce about the Big Red Machine is pretty spot on too.

Cyclone792
04-27-2010, 01:47 PM
What disappoints me is that I truly thought things were going to be different with Castelinni as owner. He seems (or seemed) very motivated to change things.

Of course, a 5 game winning streak will turn a lot of this venom into honey. My hope is still springing eternal.

I've seen small, incremental changes with Castellini, and I liked it at first because I took it as a sign that the tide was turning. The problem is the pace has never accelerated from that slow start.

A five game winning streak sure would help, but I think we're deep enough into the season to have a good idea on what we're going to get. I reached a bit and figured 83 wins this year - I still think this is a ~.500 team despite how miserable they've looked thus far.

The biggest problem is this organization needs to start moving toward some 90+ winning seasons, and what I've seen this season shows me the chances of that are rather unlikely.

TheNext44
04-27-2010, 01:48 PM
I really wish posters would put the fact that a thread is about lineup construction in the title so I know ahead of time not to click on it.

Hoosier Red
04-27-2010, 02:20 PM
Yea, that's a typical response I expected from somebody who's apparently content to accept losing month after year after decade.

The lineups are a microcosm of the fundamental problem that this organization has been a losing organization for 10 years. The Reds have folks on their payroll who can't even understand the simple picture, and the last 10 years have only bore out the fact that they also don't understand the big picture.

But if you're going to post on the lineups, post on the lineups. If it's the organization as a whole, than really blaming Dusty is nothing more than trying to push one part of a wave away as it swallows you up.

If the problem between big picture and everyday is Castellini's than point yourself that way and fire away. I certainly won't stop you. If the problem is Dusty, than by all means prove it.

What you showed is that the Reds in 2009 and 2008 had a weak top of the lineup. They continuously looked for new players(perhaps not the right new players but still.)
I think you're crazy if you don't think Dusty values OBP at the top of the lineup. But when the choice is between "sucks" and "sucks but is fast" I'd probably put "sucks but is fast" up there too. There's only one Votto and only one Rolen. Everyone else on this team has been sub par.

dougdirt
04-27-2010, 02:26 PM
But if you're going to post on the lineups, post on the lineups. If it's the organization as a whole, than really blaming Dusty is nothing more than trying to push one part of a wave away as it swallows you up.

If the problem between big picture and everyday is Castellini's than point yourself that way and fire away. I certainly won't stop you. If the problem is Dusty, than by all means prove it.

What you showed is that the Reds in 2009 and 2008 had a weak top of the lineup. They continuously looked for new players(perhaps not the right new players but still.)
I think you're crazy if you don't think Dusty values OBP at the top of the lineup. But when the choice is between "sucks" and "sucks but is fast" I'd probably put "sucks but is fast" up there too. There's only one Votto and only one Rolen. Everyone else on this team has been sub par.

Of course the blame goes on Dusty for the lineups. Of course the blame goes on Walt, who approved of Dusty when he was an advisor or vice president or whatever he was and Bob for hiring him given his past choices and track record of decision making. Its an organizational problem that starts at the top and works its way down to the manager who continuously makes poor decision after same poor decision year after year after year despite so much evidence saying its a poor decision and hurting your team. No one in the Reds FO seems to know or care though.

As for Dusty caring about OBP at the top.... I don't believe it because its CF in the leadoff and SS at the #2 spot. For nearly 20 years it has been that way in Dusty Baker's lineups.

Falls City Beer
04-27-2010, 02:27 PM
No one in the Reds FO seems to know or care though.

Or maybe they realize that a manager's influence isn't tremendous.

dougdirt
04-27-2010, 02:33 PM
Or maybe they realize that a manager's influence isn't tremendous.

They may think that, but they are wrong as are you. Sure, no manager is making a 15 win difference. But 5-8 wins? Absolutely. And that, to me, is a tremendous difference.

edabbs44
04-27-2010, 02:33 PM
Of course the blame goes on Dusty for the lineups. Of course the blame goes on Walt, who approved of Dusty when he was an advisor or vice president or whatever he was and Bob for hiring him given his past choices and track record of decision making. Its an organizational problem that starts at the top and works its way down to the manager who continuously makes poor decision after same poor decision year after year after year despite so much evidence saying its a poor decision and hurting your team. No one in the Reds FO seems to know or care though.

As for Dusty caring about OBP at the top.... I don't believe it because its CF in the leadoff and SS at the #2 spot. For nearly 20 years it has been that way in Dusty Baker's lineups.

Fairly certain that Dusty was pre-Walt.

Falls City Beer
04-27-2010, 02:34 PM
Sure, no manager is making a 15 win difference. But 5-8 wins? Absolutely.

Prove it.

dougdirt
04-27-2010, 02:37 PM
Prove it.

Disprove it.

I can play that game too.

But I am pretty sure that without Dusty there would have been no Patterson. No Taveras (at least starting 100 times). No Harang issue in San Diego. No one on base in front of Joey Votto for 3 straight seasons now. No Brandon Phillips batting 4th.

This team has some talent issues, no question. But those issues are further exposed by Dusty Baker.

dougdirt
04-27-2010, 02:38 PM
Fairly certain that Dusty was pre-Walt.

Yes. Kind of. They both started working for the Reds in the 2008 season (Baker was hired in 2007 though).

15fan
04-27-2010, 02:40 PM
Back to the original post.

Leading off with the Ps and batting the current leadoff guys 9th would be...LaRussan.

WMR
04-27-2010, 02:41 PM
I wonder if batting Phillips lead-off would cause him to shorten his currently enormous swing?

Falls City Beer
04-27-2010, 02:42 PM
Disprove it.

I can play that game too.

It's not a game, it's basic logic: the burden of proof is on you, not me. You made a claim that a manager could impact outcomes by a range of 5-8 games. How do you arrive at that number?

My agnosticism is not on trial here; I have no idea how much a manager impacts W/L, but I know that a manager does not perform on-field tasks. Therefore, I doubt the extent of his impact. Which is a perfectly defensible position. You, on the other hand, have affixed a number in a *positive* sense; now prove it.

WMR
04-27-2010, 02:44 PM
They may think that, but they are wrong as are you. Sure, no manager is making a 15 win difference. But 5-8 wins? Absolutely. And that, to me, is a tremendous difference.

If maximizing your run scoring ability leads to ONE extra win, it's worth finding a guy who stacks his line-up based on OBP and not silly antiquated notions of certain positions batting in certain spots based on.... THEIR POSITION.

I mean, really, that is paleolithic thinking compared to how most modern clubs run things...

dougdirt
04-27-2010, 02:45 PM
It's not a game, it's basic logic: the burden of proof is on you, not me. You made a claim that a manager could impact outcomes by a range of 5-8 games. How do you arrive at that number?

My agnosticism is not on trial here; I have no idea how much a manager impacts W/L, but I know that a manager does not perform on-field tasks. Therefore, I doubt the extent of his impact. Which is a perfectly defensible position. You, on the other hand, have affixed a number in a *positive* sense; now prove it.

A manager doesn't perform on field tasks, but he does supply someone with the chance to perform on the field. Therefore the decisions he makes directly relates to how a team is going to perform. You can doubt the impact that it hurt the Reds for Taveras and Patterson to accrue 900 PA for the Reds in the last 2 seasons, or to see Harang go from pre San Diego borderline #1 starter to questionable #3/4 starter after. I don't doubt it one bit. It has cost the team plenty of wins.

Falls City Beer
04-27-2010, 02:46 PM
If maximizing your run scoring ability leads to ONE extra win, it's worth finding a guy who stacks his line-up based on OBP and not silly antiquated notions of certain positions batting in certain spots based on.... THEIR POSITION.

I mean, really, that is paleolithic thinking compared to how most modern clubs run things...

Why not cut out the middleman if a manager's only job is to make out a lineup card? I'd love to get the maximum out of my club, but focusing the ire on the manager seems like a wholesale waste of time when you consider the prime movers that this team lacks.

nate
04-27-2010, 02:46 PM
But if you're going to post on the lineups, post on the lineups. If it's the organization as a whole, than really blaming Dusty is nothing more than trying to push one part of a wave away as it swallows you up.

If the problem between big picture and everyday is Castellini's than point yourself that way and fire away. I certainly won't stop you. If the problem is Dusty, than by all means prove it.

What you showed is that the Reds in 2009 and 2008 had a weak top of the lineup. They continuously looked for new players(perhaps not the right new players but still.)
I think you're crazy if you don't think Dusty values OBP at the top of the lineup. But when the choice is between "sucks" and "sucks but is fast" I'd probably put "sucks but is fast" up there too. There's only one Votto and only one Rolen. Everyone else on this team has been sub par.

"Sucks" vs "sucks but fast" _hasn't_ been the only choice.

This year, Dusty has 4 guys on the roster with a career OBP of .350 or greater. Only two of them start. Only one of them hits in the top 3.

I wish Dusty had the players who would fulfill his idea of what a lineup should be but he doesn't and he doesn't adapt. This makes me, yes...the non-baseball guy who hasn't played since Little League on some internet forum, question his tactical ability on the field.

It's more like he's managing by rote.

nate
04-27-2010, 02:46 PM
I wonder if batting Phillips lead-off would cause him to shorten his currently enormous swing?

I've wondered this too.

WMR
04-27-2010, 02:49 PM
Why not cut out the middleman if a manager's only job is to make out a lineup card? I'd love to get the maximum out of my club, but focusing the ire on the manager seems like a wholesale waste of time when you consider the prime movers that this team lacks.

I happen to somewhat agree with your overall premise that a manager has little effect on whether his team ultimately sinks or swims. It's all about the horses.

Whether or not you can specify a win increase number, filling out the line-up card is one of the areas where the manager, without a doubt, has DIRECT control.

Most of the other stuff, manager's personality, fire in his belly, blah blah blah is more along the lines of inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

reds1869
04-27-2010, 02:51 PM
Common sense dictates that a manager has at last some impact on results. It is completely irrational to believe otherwise. If anyone truly believes managers have no impact on the game, I ask them this: do you want someone calling the shots by just simply rolling the dice and picking the appropriate action based on a pre-determined chart? No? Why not?

Just because something is not statistically measurable (yet) doesn't mean it is untrue. Managers certainly impact the game. How can you possible claim LaRussa's machinations make no difference one way or another?

Cyclone792
04-27-2010, 02:52 PM
But if you're going to post on the lineups, post on the lineups. If it's the organization as a whole, than really blaming Dusty is nothing more than trying to push one part of a wave away as it swallows you up.

If the problem between big picture and everyday is Castellini's than point yourself that way and fire away. I certainly won't stop you. If the problem is Dusty, than by all means prove it.

What you showed is that the Reds in 2009 and 2008 had a weak top of the lineup. They continuously looked for new players(perhaps not the right new players but still.)
I think you're crazy if you don't think Dusty values OBP at the top of the lineup. But when the choice is between "sucks" and "sucks but is fast" I'd probably put "sucks but is fast" up there too. There's only one Votto and only one Rolen. Everyone else on this team has been sub par.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

Dusty Baker's lineups are a microcosm of the underlying organizational-wide problem. We have two years of trends and history showing us that Dusty Baker still doesn't get it with his lineups. We also have 15 years of history showing us that he doesn't get it with his lineups.

And yet the Reds just let him keep doing the same thing over and over again. You know, if it isn't working, where's the process to actually review this and make some necessary adjustments. If there is one, it isn't working.

But still, let's not concentrate lineups, but rather the big picture. How about other things?

This organization has some young talent, nobody disputes that. But where's the development of this talent once it's reaching the big leagues? People keep talking about these windows, hey we'll be there in 2011 and 2012. Three years ago it was we'll be there in 2010. How we lookin' right now?

How in the world is this pitching staff walking the world and serving up meatballs? The weather hasn't even warmed up yet, but this team is walking four guys per nine and serving up 1.3 bombs per nine. It's awfully difficult to prevent run scoring and win games when the pitching staff tries to give up a plethora of runs. Nick Masset symbolizes the staff as a whole: walks and meatballs.

Now before you ask me how that relates to Dusty Baker, the overall point is the Reds as an organization haven't done a whole lot of noteworthy things to correct these things.

Homer Bailey has provided negative value thus far in his career. For this team to compete, that kid's got to develop. In fact, speaking of his development, what has happened to it? Are we on the five year and then hope plan with him?

For this team to compete, Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo have to combine for 400+ innings and a sub 4 ERA. Harang himself has pitched like Eric Milton since late May 2008. What's going on with these guys? Do we just sit back and say woe is me? Or should this organization actually figure out how to best ensure their pitchers' performance is upheld through the duration of at least their contract?

I like Jay Bruce. Kid's a fine defensive right fielder, and he's got all the tools. But for someone who absolutely murdered minor league pitching, his big league performance over his first 900 plate appearances isn't an answer to anything good. What happened with his development? What are the Reds doing about it, if anything? Are we going to be on the five year and then hope plan with him too?

Why did the Reds go out and sign a shortstop who plays defense as well as Felipe Lopez did four years ago? They preached shortstop defense, and so they sign an aging "gold glove" shortstop who shouldn't be playing shortstop. What's going on here?

Joey Votto has been the lone bright spot I've seen from this organization a long time. Cueto's been fine, but we need SEVERAL guys like Cueto, Bailey, Leake, Bruce, Chapman, etc. develop in a Votto-like manner. Of course, Votto is a self-driven machine. That just tells me that we're fortunate enough that whatever shortcomings the Reds had with him he's been able to work through with his own dedication and hard work.

It seems to me that far too much of this young talent is seemingly crashing into a brick wall with their development, and that brick wall seems to be stationed right at the big league level. There's a broken link, or several broken links, and if these links are addressed then those windows people dream about won't ever open.

And yes, I do believe a chunk of that broken link sits in the manager's office. How much, I don't know, but it needs to be addressed.

TRF
04-27-2010, 02:52 PM
Here is where I'll give Cast credit. He's got an idea about marketing his team. Brining back the names of the past even in superficial positions like Morgan's is more than the lips service of "The Power of Tradition". It doesn't mean employ only ex-reds. It's a way to tie the fans of the past to the present and give them something to discuss with the fans of tomorrow.

And some of these are good baseball hires too. Soto, Davis etc.

But none of it puts apathetic fan's butts in seats. And Cincinnati has a very apathetic fanbase. They always have. Teams usually get a bump in attendance following a winning season. To a point, going back to 1975, this is true. The drew more in 76 than the prior year. But after winning the WS in a sweep in 76, attendance was down just a little bit. Maybe because they were out of the race going into that last month. who knows. But it was the beginning of a slow but steady decline that lasted a long time until 1985, Pete's first full season as Reds Manager, his last as a player and of course 4192. That bumped the attendance by 600K. But even though 85 was a good young team that finished in 2nd place, 1986 saw a decrease of 200K in attendance, for another good young team that finished in 2nd place. Now look at the attendance from 1990 on. The Reds best year attendance wise was 2000. Anything significant about that year? The best Cincinnati can do is about 2.5 mil and it takes either a team of Big Red Machine stature, or the trade of one of the greatest players of all time to accomplish this.

Meanwile the Cardinals can draw 3 mil for a 3rd place team and 2.6 mil for a fourth place team. Yeah the third place team had the Big Mac/Sammy show, but still. Does this speak to the organization or the fans?

I heard the excuses in 1999. traffic. lots of construction downtown. PBS was going up causing all kinds of problems. Well those problems were there in 2000. And they managed to show up for Junior.

Cincinnati needs a superstar. I love Votto's game. I think Jay Bruce has a tremendous future. Neither of them are ever going to be KGJ.

nate
04-27-2010, 02:52 PM
A manager doesn't perform on field tasks, but he does supply someone with the chance to perform on the field. Therefore the decisions he makes directly relates to how a team is going to perform. You can doubt the impact that it hurt the Reds for Taveras and Patterson to accrue 900 PA for the Reds in the last 2 seasons, or to see Harang go from pre San Diego borderline #1 starter to questionable #3/4 starter after. I don't doubt it one bit. It has cost the team plenty of wins.

I think the difference between the best manager and worst manager is right in the range.

Coincidentally, I think that's about the same range as the difference between the best lineup versus the worst lineup on a team of players with diverse skill.

SMcGavin
04-27-2010, 02:53 PM
Exactly.

I do not think Dusty is a good manager - at all. In fact, I would say I spend about 1/2 as much time (and money) following the Reds as I did before they hired Dusty, and his hiring is a major reason why. A team that thinks hiring Dusty Baker and paying him a premium of millions of dollars is a good idea is a team that, imo, has no clue what they are doing and is just desperate for a quit fix to mask their complete inability to ever put together a competitive team. (I'd say the same thing about paying $30 million to an unproven talent out of Cuba, but that's a topic for another thread.)

But Dusty is just a symbol of the problem, and I see no reason to be mad at him. He is managing EXACTLY as he always has, and I don't think he ever suggested he would do anything different. In fact, I think he has improved from his days in Chicago, at least as far as pitch counts and handling young pitchers is concerned. He strikes me as a nice, if stubborn, guy, who is doing exactly what he was hired to do.

This is a great post. I find myself sometimes cursing at Dusty, asking why he can't put together better lineups. But that's not fair to him. Just like you say, he's doing the same thing he's always done. He didn't get this job under false pretenses, by misrepresenting himself. Dusty is not a good manager. Neither am I, but if the Reds offered me $4M to be manager, I'd take it too. It's kind of like yelling at Willy Taveras or Eric Milton. Both of those guys tried, they're just very bad baseball players. We shouldn't blame Dusty, we should blame the people who put him in charge.

Chip R
04-27-2010, 02:53 PM
We all make fun of Dusty for his proclivity to have low OBP guys batting 1-2 in the order but, really, who are you going to replace them with that is going to make a difference?

WMR
04-27-2010, 02:54 PM
Phillips and Rolen would be a fun start.

Phillips needs a 'fresh start' more than just about anyone. Maybe this could jump start it for him.

WMR
04-27-2010, 02:55 PM
I'd love to know how many times this year Scott Rolen has come up in the first inning to begin a game.

nate
04-27-2010, 02:58 PM
We all make fun of Dusty for his proclivity to have low OBP guys batting 1-2 in the order but, really, who are you going to replace them with that is going to make a difference?

Dickerson
Rolen
Votto
Hanigan (yes, really...until his career OBP looks as bad as Gomes, do it, why not? He'd be somehow worse?)
The rest, (it doesn't matter.)

Or (Chip version)

Javy
Javy
Javy
Javy

:cool:

Falls City Beer
04-27-2010, 02:59 PM
You're missing the forest for the trees.

Dusty Baker's lineups are a microcosm of the underlying organizational-wide problem. We have two years of trends and history showing us that Dusty Baker still doesn't get it with his lineups. We also have 15 years of history showing us that he doesn't get it with his lineups.

And yet the Reds just let him keep doing the same thing over and over again. You know, if it isn't working, where's the process to actually review this and make some necessary adjustments. If there is one, it isn't working.

But still, let's not concentrate lineups, but rather the big picture. How about other things?

This organization has some young talent, nobody disputes that. But where's the development of this talent once it's reaching the big leagues? People keep talking about these windows, hey we'll be there in 2011 and 2012. Three years ago it was we'll be there in 2010. How we lookin' right now?

How in the world is this pitching staff walking the world and serving up meatballs? The weather hasn't even warmed up yet, but this team is walking four guys per nine and serving up 1.3 bombs per nine. It's awfully difficult to prevent run scoring and win games when the pitching staff tries to give up a plethora of runs. Nick Masset symbolizes the staff as a whole: walks and meatballs.

Now before you ask me how that relates to Dusty Baker, the overall point is the Reds as an organization haven't done a whole lot of noteworthy things to correct these things.

Homer Bailey has provided negative value thus far in his career. For this team to compete, that kid's got to develop. In fact, speaking of his development, what has happened to it? Are we on the five year and then hope plan with him?

For this team to compete, Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo have to combine for 400+ innings and a sub 4 ERA. Harang himself has pitched like Eric Milton since late May 2008. What's going on with these guys? Do we just sit back and say woe is me? Or should this organization actually figure out how to best ensure their pitchers' performance is upheld through the duration of at least their contract?

I like Jay Bruce. Kid's a fine defensive right fielder, and he's got all the tools. But for someone who absolutely murdered minor league pitching, his big league performance over his first 900 plate appearances isn't an answer to anything good. What happened with his development? What are the Reds doing about it, if anything? Are we going to be on the five year and then hope plan with him too?

Why did the Reds go out and sign a shortstop who plays defense as well as Felipe Lopez did four years ago? They preached shortstop defense, and so they sign an aging "gold glove" shortstop who shouldn't be playing shortstop. What's going on here?

Joey Votto has been the lone bright spot I've seen from this organization a long time. Cueto's been fine, but we need SEVERAL guys like Cueto, Bailey, Leake, Bruce, Chapman, etc. develop in a Votto-like manner. Of course, Votto is a self-driven machine. That just tells me that we're fortunate enough that whatever shortcomings the Reds had with him he's been able to work through with his own dedication and hard work.

It seems to me that far too much of this young talent is seemingly crashing into a brick wall with their development, and that brick wall seems to be stationed right at the big league level. There's a broken link, or several broken links, and if these links are addressed then those windows people dream about won't ever open.

And yes, I do believe a chunk of that broken link sits in the manager's office. How much, I don't know, but it needs to be addressed.

I can get behind this post. When the scope widens to the entire organization, the thesis that this club is eaten up with stupidity and incompetence becomes entirely verifiable. However, scapegoating a manager is simply caving in to a kneejerk and overly simplistic anger.

Falls City Beer
04-27-2010, 03:01 PM
We all make fun of Dusty for his proclivity to have low OBP guys batting 1-2 in the order but, really, who are you going to replace them with that is going to make a difference?

Well, and the argument last year was that Stubbs and Dickerson would provide INFINITELY (all caps) more OBP than Taveras. Careful what you wish for, eh?

Sure, I don't get Cabrera in the 2 hole, but then I don't get him in the lineup, period. But that's a whole other discussion.

Cyclone792
04-27-2010, 03:03 PM
I can get behind this post. When the scope widens to the entire organization, the thesis that this club is eaten up with stupidity and incompetence becomes entirely verifiable. However, scapegoating a manager is simply caving in to a kneejerk and overly simplistic anger.

The manager's not the only problem, but he's part of the big problem, which runs deep in the organization.

And as I mentioned earlier, he's the PR face of the big problem. And so long as we maintain the combination of the Reds losing games + the manager making stupid decisions, he'll be the PR face of the big problem.

George Anderson
04-27-2010, 03:04 PM
"I don't believe a manager ever won a pennant. Casey Stengel won all those pennants with the Yankees. How many did he win with the Boston Braves and Mets? I've never seen a team win a pennant without players. I think the only thing the manager has to do is keep things within certain boundaries." Source: Los Angeles Times (August 8, 1974)...Sparky Anderson


"The players make the manager, it's never the other way."...Sparky Anderson

Falls City Beer
04-27-2010, 03:04 PM
The manager's not the only problem, but he's part of the big problem, which runs deep in the organization.

And as I mentioned earlier, he's the PR face of the big problem. And so long as we maintain the combination of the Reds losing games + the manager making stupid decisions, he'll be the PR face of the big problem.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the extent of his impact.

Losing with Joe Torre wouldn't feel any better to me.

Chip R
04-27-2010, 03:04 PM
Dickerson
Rolen
Votto
Hanigan (yes, really...until his career OBP looks as bad as Gomes, do it, why not? He'd be somehow worse?)
The rest, (it doesn't matter.)


Dickerson hasn't been much better than Stubbs at the plate. He walks more but that's like saying Brandon Phillips walks more than Jeff Francouer. Except for that callup a couple of years ago, he hasn't shown much. Rolen second is interesting but if Dickerson isn't getting on base, you're hoping for a lot of solo HRs. Dusty already bats Votto 3rd so no difference there. If they don't hit home runs, the rest of the lineup is so bad, you aren't going to score a lot more runs anyway.

Sea Ray
04-27-2010, 03:13 PM
Conservative town that would rather stay home and crow about money saved. Also, isn't the economy of southern Ohio in bad shape? That certainly doesn't help.

Don't blame the city. If anything this city has supported the Reds to a fault. The Reds have gone to one playoff in 30 years. You can't expect much attendance given that track record. Comparable cities with such losing like Kansas City and Pittsburgh have fared much worse

Cyclone792
04-27-2010, 03:13 PM
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the extent of his impact.

Losing with Joe Torre wouldn't feel any better to me.

Well my point is that his impact is reaching the bulk of the casual fan base now. He's laughed at pretty regularly now locally. He basically feeds people a line of crap each night, and after two years of it they're done trying to buy into it.

Just a note here that I'm differentiating RZ fans with casual fans. We know what Baker is and knew that before he was hired. We also know that most all managers feed fans lines of crap each night. But Joe Fan here locally who bought the hoopla of a "winning manager" coming in two years ago is now cursing at the TV on a nightly basis. That wasn't happening in 2008.

Ltlabner
04-27-2010, 03:13 PM
Dickerson hasn't been much better than Stubbs at the plate. He walks more but that's like saying Brandon Phillips walks more than Jeff Francouer. Except for that callup a couple of years ago, he hasn't shown much. Rolen second is interesting but if Dickerson isn't getting on base, you're hoping for a lot of solo HRs. Dusty already bats Votto 3rd so no difference there. If they don't hit home runs, the rest of the lineup is so bad, you aren't going to score a lot more runs anyway.

All these player moves and we're still stuck waiting for a long-ball to score runs.

Cyclone792
04-27-2010, 03:15 PM
Dickerson hasn't been much better than Stubbs at the plate. He walks more but that's like saying Brandon Phillips walks more than Jeff Francouer. Except for that callup a couple of years ago, he hasn't shown much. Rolen second is interesting but if Dickerson isn't getting on base, you're hoping for a lot of solo HRs. Dusty already bats Votto 3rd so no difference there. If they don't hit home runs, the rest of the lineup is so bad, you aren't going to score a lot more runs anyway.

An even more pressing issue is why Dickerson and Stubbs haven't developed at the big league level (I won't even bother touching the Stubbs @ AAA level stuff).

Again, it's that brick wall showing up.

redsmetz
04-27-2010, 03:15 PM
Well my point is that his impact is reaching the bulk of the casual fan base now. He's laughed at pretty regularly now locally. He basically feeds people a line of crap each night, and after two years of it they're done trying to buy into it.

Just a note here that I'm differentiating RZ fans with casual fans. We know what Baker is and knew that before he was hired. We also know that most all managers feed fans lines of crap each night. But Joe Fan here locally who bought the hoopla of a "winning manager" coming in two years ago is now cursing at the TV on a nightly basis. That wasn't happening in 2008.

So every RZ fan knew this about Baker? Please, that is so overly broad to be laughable. The most we can say is that there was a segment, perhaps sizeable, on Redszone, who have have disdained the hiring from day one. Hate him all you want, hate the hiring all you want, but please don't assume to speak for me. I'd like to believe I'm a RZ fan afterall.

Cyclone792
04-27-2010, 03:18 PM
So every RZ fan knew this about Baker? Please, that is so overly broad to be laughable. The most we can say is that there was a segment, perhaps sizeable, on Redszone, who have have disdained the hiring from day one. Hate him all you want, hate the hiring all you want, but please don't assume to speak for me. I'd like to believe I'm a RZ fan afterall.

Sure, you're a minority RZ fan who believes the team as constructed each year can win. And every year they lose more than they win. It's a slam dunk bet every spring.

Am I speaking accurately for you now?

KronoRed
04-27-2010, 03:23 PM
I wonder if batting Phillips lead-off would cause him to shorten his currently enormous swing?

No way, other then Votto and maybe Rolen this is a team a hackers.

The Reds have never drawn well unless they were headed to the Series, one of the major reasons why it's silly to compare them to the Cardinals, right now I'd say it's 50/50, unless the MLB business model changes, that the Reds will even be in this town in 15 to 20 years.

edabbs44
04-27-2010, 03:34 PM
An even more pressing issue is why Dickerson and Stubbs haven't developed at the big league level (I won't even bother touching the Stubbs @ AAA level stuff).

Again, it's that brick wall showing up.

Maybe it has something to do with their taalent level.

Chip R
04-27-2010, 03:35 PM
An even more pressing issue is why Dickerson and Stubbs haven't developed at the big league level (I won't even bother touching the Stubbs @ AAA level stuff).

Again, it's that brick wall showing up.


Either MLB has been too big of a jump for them to make and they hit that proverbial brick wall and that's as far as their talent will take them or they have not been able to develop any further and that's on the coaching staff. It seems that in the past 10 years or so, Dunn and Votto have been the only ones to make the transition from putting up big numbers in the minors to putting up big numbers in MLB.

TRF
04-27-2010, 03:40 PM
Don't blame the city. If anything this city has supported the Reds to a fault. The Reds have gone to one playoff in 30 years. You can't expect much attendance given that track record. Comparable cities with such losing like Kansas City and Pittsburgh have fared much worse

'90 WS
'94 1st place strike shortened season
'95 NLCS
'99 1 game playoff, best regular season of the decade

'92 2nd in the division.
'00 2nd in the division.

We aren't talking Pirates bad here, and in the '90's they had as much success as the Cardinals and not NEARLY the attendance.

So yeah, I guess I can blame the city, just a little.

Cyclone792
04-27-2010, 03:42 PM
Either MLB has been too big of a jump for them to make and they hit that proverbial brick wall and that's as far as their talent will take them or they have not been able to develop any further and that's on the coaching staff. It seems that in the past 10 years or so, Dunn and Votto have been the only ones to make the transition from putting up big numbers in the minors to putting up big numbers in MLB.

To me, regardless of which category Dickerson and Stubbs fall under, that's on the Reds as an organization. The coaching staff being unable to develop them further is self-explanatory, but if the Reds incorrectly scouted their talent levels then that's also on the Reds as an organization.

Good organizations ship those players out for something else before it becomes apparent that they're not competent big leaguers. Find teams on the market who overvalue your guys and undervalue their guys, and then start taking advantage of those inefficiencies on the margins.

nate
04-27-2010, 03:47 PM
Dickerson hasn't been much better than Stubbs at the plate. He walks more but that's like saying Brandon Phillips walks more than Jeff Francouer. Except for that callup a couple of years ago, he hasn't shown much.

On his career (463 PAs), he's walked 12.3% of the time. I'm gonna go with that rather than 42 PAs this season. I just don't buy that he's lost the ability to walk. If he's still dreadful at the end of June, do something else. Until then, let him play based on his total body of work rather than 10% of his most recent ABs.


Rolen second is interesting but if Dickerson isn't getting on base, you're hoping for a lot of solo HRs.

Cyclone posted the numbers. I think there's a better chance Dickerson reverts to his career rates than Drew Stubbs suddenly figures out how to get on base.


Dusty already bats Votto 3rd so no difference there. If they don't hit home runs, the rest of the lineup is so bad, you aren't going to score a lot more runs anyway.

I just don't find the "it doesn't matter" argument tenable or acceptable. Doing it the way they've been doing it hasn't been a rousing success.

What does it hurt to try?

Sea Ray
04-27-2010, 03:50 PM
'90 WS
'94 1st place strike shortened season
'95 NLCS
'99 1 game playoff, best regular season of the decade

'92 2nd in the division.
'00 2nd in the division.

We aren't talking Pirates bad here, and in the '90's they had as much success as the Cardinals and not NEARLY the attendance.

So yeah, I guess I can blame the city, just a little.


You've made my point, one playoff appearance in 30 years. Their recent history is horrible. If you don't like my comparisons to Pitt and KC, try Cleveland and Baltimore. Both of those cities were drawing very well when the team was winning but now that losing has set in attendance has sunk to Cincinnati-like levels.

lollipopcurve
04-27-2010, 03:50 PM
The Reds have gone to one playoff in 30 years.

Ouch. That had not occurred to me.

Sea Ray
04-27-2010, 03:51 PM
We aren't talking Pirates bad here, and in the '90's they had as much success as the Cardinals and not NEARLY the attendance.



This can be explained in words:

Mark McGwire

RedsManRick
04-27-2010, 03:52 PM
I continue to be amazed by people who reject the notion that we should be worried about making cheap, easy, small improvements. If an organization can't get the small things right, what makes you think it can get the big things right?

What concerns me the most about ownership is that, given BC's statements, they seem to believe (or think fans believe) that the team has stunk because it didn't want to win enough. Sure, wanting to win is a precondition, but it's the how you plan to do it that really matters. Until and unless Reds management realizes that its process is lacking and takes an honest and open approach to improving it, I don't see why we should expect the product on the field to change.

Sure, we might have better and worse years within that 70-85 win range. But busting out of that range is going to take some major changes in the way this organization runs its business.

macro
04-27-2010, 04:03 PM
Actually, the team has been in the playoffs twice since '79: 1990 and 1995. But Sea Ray's point is still well-taken. Only the Expos/Nationals and Rays have fewer over that 30-year span, and the Rays have only been around since 1998.

TRF
04-27-2010, 04:07 PM
Ouch. That had not occurred to me.

It's also incorrect.

Chip R
04-27-2010, 04:08 PM
On his career (463 PAs), he's walked 12.3% of the time. I'm gonna go with that rather than 42 PAs this season. I just don't buy that he's lost the ability to walk. If he's still dreadful at the end of June, do something else. Until then, let him play based on his total body of work rather than 10% of his most recent ABs.

Cyclone posted the numbers. I think there's a better chance Dickerson reverts to his career rates than Drew Stubbs suddenly figures out how to get on base.

I just don't find the "it doesn't matter" argument tenable or acceptable. Doing it the way they've been doing it hasn't been a rousing success.

What does it hurt to try?

That's great if he's walking 12.3% of the time but he's got to be able to hit too and if he's hitting safely a little more than that, it's not adequate. Now Dusty's on him for taking 3rd strikes so he's going to be hacking even more.

All this is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

TRF
04-27-2010, 04:12 PM
This can be explained in words:

Mark McGwire

1992 STL 3rd place, 2.4 mil
1993 STL 3rd place, 2.8 mil
1994 STL 3rd place 1.8 mil (Strike Shortened season)
1995 STL 4th place, 1.7 mil
1996 STL 1st place, 2.6 mil

That's very similar to the reds in terms of success, and they outdrew the Reds in every season but one.

No McGwire for any of those seasons. Next excuse?

In fact, the Reds had more 1st place finishes from 1990-1999 than the Cardinals (4-1) It really wasn't a bad decade to be a fan. (and yes I know the decade started in 1991, but i like to call the '90s a decade)

Sea Ray
04-27-2010, 04:14 PM
It's also incorrect.

As Macro correctly stated they've been to the playoffs twice in the past 30 years.

Does that sound any better?

It's abysmal and attendance reflects that reality. It's matched only by the Expos/Nats and their attendance was so bad they lost their franchise.

OnBaseMachine
04-27-2010, 04:16 PM
Actually, the team has been in the playoffs twice since '79: 1990 and 1995. But Sea Ray's point is still well-taken. Only the Expos/Nationals and Rays have fewer over that 30-year span, and the Rays have only been around since 1998.

Yep, and let's also remember that the Reds were screwed out of two playoff appearances in 1981 and 1994 due to strikes. Who knows, the Reds may have another World Series banner flying if not for those work stoppages. And while it doesn't count as a playoff appearance, the Reds did play in a one game playoff in 1999. But yeah, these last ten years have been brutal for the Reds organization. I can only remember bits and pieces of the 1995 season, so I'm desperate for some winning baseball in Cincinnati. I remember how fun 1999 was, I want to experience that again sometime soon, only this time I hope they make the playoffs and do well.

westofyou
04-27-2010, 04:24 PM
1992 STL 3rd place, 2.4 mil
1993 STL 3rd place, 2.8 mil
1994 STL 3rd place 1.8 mil (Strike Shortened season)
1995 STL 4th place, 1.7 mil
1996 STL 1st place, 2.6 mil

That's very similar to the reds in terms of success, and they outdrew the Reds in every season but one.

No McGwire for any of those seasons. Next excuse?
Convenient cutoff date, dig deeper the gulf has been there longer



1992 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 83 79 3 2,418,483
1991 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 84 78 2 2,448,699
1990 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 70 92 6 2,573,225
1989 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 86 76 3 3,080,980
1988 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 76 86 5 2,892,799
1987 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 95 67 1 3,072,122
1986 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 79 82 3 2,471,974
1985 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 101 61 1 2,637,563
1984 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 84 78 3 2,037,448
1983 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 79 83 4 2,317,914
1982 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 92 70 1 2,111,906


1992 Cincinnati Reds NL West 90 72 2 2,315,946
1991 Cincinnati Reds NL West 74 88 5 2,372,377
1990 Cincinnati Reds NL West 91 71 1 2,400,892
1989 Cincinnati Reds NL West 75 87 5 1,979,320
1988 Cincinnati Reds NL West 87 74 2 2,072,528
1987 Cincinnati Reds NL West 84 78 2 2,185,205
1986 Cincinnati Reds NL West 86 76 2 1,692,432
1985 Cincinnati Reds NL West 89 72 2 1,834,619
1984 Cincinnati Reds NL West 70 92 5 1,275,887
1983 Cincinnati Reds NL West 74 88 6 1,190,419
1982 Cincinnati Reds NL West 61 101 6 1,326,528

TRF
04-27-2010, 04:25 PM
Success is a funny thing. From 1990 to 2000 the Reds had 4 1st place finishes, and 2 2nd place finishes. I consider 1999 a 1st place finish, with a loss in a one game playoff. 3 rd's, 1 4th and 2 5th place finishes in 11 years.

The Cardinals had 2 1st place, 1 2nd place, 4 3rd place, 3 4th place and one 6th place finishes.

And they outdrew the Reds almost every year.

TRF
04-27-2010, 04:27 PM
Convenient cutoff date, dig deeper the gulf has been there longer



1992 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 83 79 3 2,418,483
1991 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 84 78 2 2,448,699
1990 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 70 92 6 2,573,225
1989 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 86 76 3 3,080,980
1988 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 76 86 5 2,892,799
1987 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 95 67 1 3,072,122
1986 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 79 82 3 2,471,974
1985 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 101 61 1 2,637,563
1984 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 84 78 3 2,037,448
1983 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 79 83 4 2,317,914
1982 St. Louis Cardinals NL East 92 70 1 2,111,906


1992 Cincinnati Reds NL West 90 72 2 2,315,946
1991 Cincinnati Reds NL West 74 88 5 2,372,377
1990 Cincinnati Reds NL West 91 71 1 2,400,892
1989 Cincinnati Reds NL West 75 87 5 1,979,320
1988 Cincinnati Reds NL West 87 74 2 2,072,528
1987 Cincinnati Reds NL West 84 78 2 2,185,205
1986 Cincinnati Reds NL West 86 76 2 1,692,432
1985 Cincinnati Reds NL West 89 72 2 1,834,619
1984 Cincinnati Reds NL West 70 92 5 1,275,887
1983 Cincinnati Reds NL West 74 88 6 1,190,419
1982 Cincinnati Reds NL West 61 101 6 1,326,528


it was too much copy and paste, but yeah. I went back as far as 1990, but you make the point even better. Yes, the Cardinals were more successful in the 80s, but they have a long history of support from their fans that the Reds have never really enjoyed. Maybe in the 50's.

Sea Ray
04-27-2010, 04:28 PM
1992 STL 3rd place, 2.4 mil
1993 STL 3rd place, 2.8 mil
1994 STL 3rd place 1.8 mil (Strike Shortened season)
1995 STL 4th place, 1.7 mil
1996 STL 1st place, 2.6 mil

That's very similar to the reds in terms of success, and they outdrew the Reds in every season but one.

No McGwire for any of those seasons. Next excuse?

In fact, the Reds had more 1st place finishes from 1990-1999 than the Cardinals (4-1) It really wasn't a bad decade to be a fan. (and yes I know the decade started in 1991, but i like to call the '90s a decade)

I honestly don't know what your point is here.

Let's start with a few facts here:

1) St Louis is an excellent baseball town

2) StL is a little bigger than Cincinnati

Attendance really jumped when they acquired McGwire in 1997

The Reds attendance was very similar in the years you mentioned. In fact it was actually higher in Cincinnati in 1994 and 1995. Why? Because of winning!

Reds Attendance in

93 2.4mill
94 1.897mill
95 1.7mill
96 1.8 mill

Very similar.

Again what's your point?

westofyou
04-27-2010, 04:32 PM
it was too much copy and paste, but yeah. I went back as far as 1990, but you make the point even better. Yes, the Cardinals were more successful in the 80s, but they have a long history of support from their fans that the Reds have never really enjoyed. Maybe in the 50's.

The Cardinals had 11 seasons with over 1 million fans before the Reds got their 3rd in 1961, by the time the Reds moved in Riverfront they had 4 seasons with 1 million fans, the high 1.12, By then the Cardinals had 17 years over 1 million and 2 were over 2 million.

TRF
04-27-2010, 04:34 PM
I honestly don't know what your point is here.

Let's start with a few facts here:

1) St Louis is an excellent baseball town

2) StL is a little bigger than Cincinnati

Attendance really jumped when they acquired McGwire in 1997

The Reds attendance was very similar in the years you mentioned. In fact it was actually higher in Cincinnati in 1994 and 1995. Why? Because of winning!

Reds Attendance in

93 2.4mill
94 1.897mill
95 1.7mill
96 1.8 mill

Very similar.

Again what's your point?

1995 Reds, 1.7mil 1st place. 1995 Cardinals 1.7 mil 4th place.

You say Big Mac caused the jump in STL's attendance, I say it returned to normal. KGJ boosted Reds attendance to 2.5. Sure winning MIGHT have sustained it. My point is this: STL fans love baseball. CIN fans like winners.

woy stated it better than me, and he went back much further. a 6th place Cardinal team drew 2.5 mil.

dougdirt
04-27-2010, 04:35 PM
Cyclone posted the numbers. I think there's a better chance Dickerson reverts to his career rates than Drew Stubbs suddenly figures out how to get on base.


Did I miss something where Dickerson didn't have 1 walk and 17 strikeouts to go with a .262 OBP and deserves to be starting over Stubbs who has a higher OBP (.273) with 8 walks and 21 strikeouts? I just can't figure how you can make the above statement given the actual numbers. Whatever is going on with Dickerson right now isn't like his career, but his career isn't even a full season worth of at bats either, so we don't really know where his true talent level lies (the same can be said for Stubbs too).

nate
04-27-2010, 04:50 PM
Did I miss something where Dickerson didn't have 1 walk and 17 strikeouts to go with a .262 OBP and deserves to be starting over Stubbs who has a higher OBP (.273) with 8 walks and 21 strikeouts?

Yes, their career numbers. For the season, neither has been good. Stubbs has been "not good" for 20 more PAs than Dickerson.


I just can't figure how you can make the above statement given the actual numbers. Whatever is going on with Dickerson right now isn't like his career, but his career isn't even a full season worth of at bats either, so we don't really know where his true talent level lies (the same can be said for Stubbs too).

I think right now, Dickerson is a better leadoff man Stubbs should hit 7th. Try it for a month and see how that goes.

nate
04-27-2010, 04:52 PM
That's great if he's walking 12.3% of the time but he's got to be able to hit too and if he's hitting safely a little more than that, it's not adequate. Now Dusty's on him for taking 3rd strikes so he's going to be hacking even more.

Well, even if he inches toward his career average of .279 (not unthinkable) he'll be leagues better than Stubbs' (short) career average. In fact, he's always hitting better than Stubbs so if we were to simply start walking more, he'd be better...assuming Stubbs doesn't improve.


All this is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I just don't see a reason not to do it.

dougdirt
04-27-2010, 04:58 PM
Yes, their career numbers. For the season, neither has been good. Stubbs has been "not good" for 20 more PAs than Dickerson.
Stubbs has also been better for 20 more PA this season than Dickerson.



I think right now, Dickerson is a better leadoff man Stubbs should hit 7th. Try it for a month and see how that goes.

Based on what? The guy has a 17 to 1 strikeout to walk ratio and a lower OBP than Stubbs. Not that either should be near leading off....

Cyclone792
04-27-2010, 05:03 PM
Based on what? The guy has a 17 to 1 strikeout to walk ratio and a lower OBP than Stubbs. Not that either should be near leading off....

At this point I'd strongly consider putting Hanigan in one of the top two spots. He should be starting regulary instead of Hernandez anyway, and his primary offensive weapon is getting on base.

It's not ideal, but it's a basic question of which we'd rather have: Joey Votto up with one out and a slow catcher on first base, or Joey Votto up with two outs and nobody on base.

nate
04-27-2010, 05:09 PM
Stubbs has also been better for 20 more PA this season than Dickerson.

Dickerson has a "stellar" .274 wOBA to Stubbs' .255.


Based on what? The guy has a 17 to 1 strikeout to walk ratio and a lower OBP than Stubbs. Not that either should be near leading off....

Based on their careers.

They've both been bad this year.

But wait a minute, I'm not saying Dickerson INSTEAD of Stubbs. I'm saying Dickerson leading off and playing LF with Stubbs hitting 7th and playing CF.

Sea Ray
04-27-2010, 05:10 PM
1995 Reds, 1.7mil 1st place. 1995 Cardinals 1.7 mil 4th place.

You say Big Mac caused the jump in STL's attendance, I say it returned to normal. KGJ boosted Reds attendance to 2.5. Sure winning MIGHT have sustained it. My point is this: STL fans love baseball. CIN fans like winners.

woy stated it better than me, and he went back much further. a 6th place Cardinal team drew 2.5 mil.

You're right Reds fans do like winners but you can't say St Louis fans like baseball until you give them 30 yrs of two playoff runs. Then we can talk.

Every town will tolerate an occasional down year but sustained struggling is very hard on attendance

dougdirt
04-27-2010, 05:11 PM
But wait a minute, I'm not saying Dickerson INSTEAD of Stubbs. I'm saying Dickerson leading off and playing LF with Stubbs hitting 7th and playing CF.

Even if both guys are in the lineup, I see no rational reasoning that Dickerson should be batting leadoff over Stubbs, if somehow those are the only two options available.

nate
04-27-2010, 05:12 PM
At this point I'd strongly consider putting Hanigan in one of the top two spots. He should be starting regulary instead of Hernandez anyway, and his primary offensive weapon is getting on base.

I'd prefer Hanigan too but the shockwave of a slow guy leading off might cause a shutdown rivaling the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull.

RichRed
04-27-2010, 05:18 PM
Even if both guys are in the lineup, I see no rational reasoning that Dickerson should be batting leadoff over Stubbs, if somehow those are the only two options available.

How about facing a righty?

Roy Tucker
04-27-2010, 05:18 PM
Cards fans broadly accept their team. Reds fans are curmudgeonish and picky.

Cyclone792
04-27-2010, 05:22 PM
I'd prefer Hanigan too but the shockwave of a slow guy leading off might cause a shutdown rivaling the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull.

Yup, that's the problem with Reds Thinking. I see him as a type of David Eckstein type hitter, and Eckstein gave his teams a solid four year run from 2005-08 where he got on base at a .355 clip. Nothin' at all wrong with that.

Not that I think Hanigan is an exceptionally long term answer, but if we can get three full-time years or so out of him behind the plate with a .360ish on-base percentage before he breaks down, just take it and run. Those are gifts that should be opened and used to the best of our ability while we have them.

RedsManRick
04-27-2010, 05:22 PM
At this point I'd strongly consider putting Hanigan in one of the top two spots. He should be starting regulary instead of Hernandez anyway, and his primary offensive weapon is getting on base.

It's not ideal, but it's a basic question of which we'd rather have: Joey Votto up with one out and a slow catcher on first base, or Joey Votto up with two outs and nobody on base.

You can't bat him leadoff; just look at those RBI totals from last year. He needs to work on his RBI skills first. I mean, he's a catcher! Catcher = RBI dude. Duh!

Man, what I'd give to hear somebody in the organization recognize that when it comes to OBP vs. Speed, OBP goes in front of your good hitters and speed in front of the bad ones. It's really not that complicated. You can't score from 1st on a double if you're sitting next to Dusty after striking out. And if you're going to risk an out for a base, shouldn't you do that when taking that base is crucial to you scoring rather than merely a decent bump?

nate
04-27-2010, 05:28 PM
You can't score from 1st on a double if you're sitting next to Dusty after striking out.

But you can hear some great stories about the Hammer!

:cool:

dougdirt
04-27-2010, 05:28 PM
Man, what I'd give to hear somebody in the organization recognize that when it comes to OBP vs. Speed, OBP goes in front of your good hitters and speed in front of the bad ones. It's really not that complicated.

And yet we look all over baseball and more than a handful of teams bat fast guys who have poor OBP skills 1-2 in their lineups. It makes the brain hurt.

Spring~Fields
04-27-2010, 06:02 PM
You can't bat him leadoff; just look at those RBI totals from last year. He needs to work on his RBI skills first. I mean, he's a catcher! Catcher = RBI dude. Duh!

Man, what I'd give to hear somebody in the organization recognize that when it comes to OBP vs. Speed, OBP goes in front of your good hitters and speed in front of the bad ones. It's really not that complicated. You can't score from 1st on a double if you're sitting next to Dusty after striking out. And if you're going to risk an out for a base, shouldn't you do that when taking that base is crucial to you scoring rather than merely a decent bump?

Right, that point that you are making is so consistent of them that one can predict it seasons in advance and have an outstanding chance of being right, when that should not be so easy.

They sold the opposite of what you are getting at for so long that they even have the local media singing the same tune regardless of what the stats say right in front of their eyes if they bothered to look and leave their imaginations out of it.

Management simply repeats the story that they don’t have anyone else to even try, because they don’t want to try the other players in those positions in the order, it is not their tradition, so they aren’t going to try another way for more than a day.

He knows that the first spots in the order gets the most PA, but, that’s not an issue with him. How long did they sell that they did not have anyone other than Phillips to bat cleanup regardless of his split against right handed pitching.

Still would have helped though if the organization and his boss had given him something to play with that would not hurt him and his team on the season.

Spring~Fields
04-27-2010, 06:10 PM
You're missing the forest for the trees.

Dusty Baker's lineups are a microcosm of the underlying organizational-wide problem. We have two years of trends and history showing us that Dusty Baker still doesn't get it with his lineups. We also have 15 years of history showing us that he doesn't get it with his lineups.

And yet the Reds just let him keep doing the same thing over and over again. You know, if it isn't working, where's the process to actually review this and make some necessary adjustments. If there is one, it isn't working.

But still, let's not concentrate lineups, but rather the big picture. How about other things?

This organization has some young talent, nobody disputes that. But where's the development of this talent once it's reaching the big leagues? People keep talking about these windows, hey we'll be there in 2011 and 2012. Three years ago it was we'll be there in 2010. How we lookin' right now?

How in the world is this pitching staff walking the world and serving up meatballs? The weather hasn't even warmed up yet, but this team is walking four guys per nine and serving up 1.3 bombs per nine. It's awfully difficult to prevent run scoring and win games when the pitching staff tries to give up a plethora of runs. Nick Masset symbolizes the staff as a whole: walks and meatballs.

Now before you ask me how that relates to Dusty Baker, the overall point is the Reds as an organization haven't done a whole lot of noteworthy things to correct these things.

Homer Bailey has provided negative value thus far in his career. For this team to compete, that kid's got to develop. In fact, speaking of his development, what has happened to it? Are we on the five year and then hope plan with him?

For this team to compete, Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo have to combine for 400+ innings and a sub 4 ERA. Harang himself has pitched like Eric Milton since late May 2008. What's going on with these guys? Do we just sit back and say woe is me? Or should this organization actually figure out how to best ensure their pitchers' performance is upheld through the duration of at least their contract?

I like Jay Bruce. Kid's a fine defensive right fielder, and he's got all the tools. But for someone who absolutely murdered minor league pitching, his big league performance over his first 900 plate appearances isn't an answer to anything good. What happened with his development? What are the Reds doing about it, if anything? Are we going to be on the five year and then hope plan with him too?

Why did the Reds go out and sign a shortstop who plays defense as well as Felipe Lopez did four years ago? They preached shortstop defense, and so they sign an aging "gold glove" shortstop who shouldn't be playing shortstop. What's going on here?

Joey Votto has been the lone bright spot I've seen from this organization a long time. Cueto's been fine, but we need SEVERAL guys like Cueto, Bailey, Leake, Bruce, Chapman, etc. develop in a Votto-like manner. Of course, Votto is a self-driven machine. That just tells me that we're fortunate enough that whatever shortcomings the Reds had with him he's been able to work through with his own dedication and hard work.

It seems to me that far too much of this young talent is seemingly crashing into a brick wall with their development, and that brick wall seems to be stationed right at the big league level. There's a broken link, or several broken links, and if these links are addressed then those windows people dream about won't ever open.

And yes, I do believe a chunk of that broken link sits in the manager's office. How much, I don't know, but it needs to be addressed.

Excellent, great post.

nate
04-27-2010, 06:29 PM
Even if both guys are in the lineup, I see no rational reasoning that Dickerson should be batting leadoff over Stubbs, if somehow those are the only two options available.

I do. Their career proclivity to get on base. Until Dickerson's career numbers become unacceptable or Stubbs' become acceptable, I'd say let Dickerson do it.

dougdirt
04-27-2010, 06:53 PM
I do. Their career proclivity to get on base. Until Dickerson's career numbers become unacceptable or Stubbs' become acceptable, I'd say let Dickerson do it.

Neither has a career enough at the MLB level to know that though. Dickerson's career OBP is boosted by a ridiculous .375 BABIP in less than a seasons sample split over what is now 3 seasons. He has walked a lot in the past, but his enitre offensive value since his September has been boosted by a very high BABIP that we simply don't know if he can continue to replicate. Especially now that he isn't walking at all, I don't want to hope he can continue to replicate it. Stubbs at the very least is still walking.

nate
04-27-2010, 08:15 PM
Neither has a career enough at the MLB level to know that though. Dickerson's career OBP is boosted by a ridiculous .375 BABIP in less than a seasons sample split over what is now 3 seasons. He has walked a lot in the past, but his enitre offensive value since his September has been boosted by a very high BABIP that we simply don't know if he can continue to replicate. Especially now that he isn't walking at all, I don't want to hope he can continue to replicate it. Stubbs at the very least is still walking.

What does it hurt to try it and find out? I think it's more likely they both improve rather than stay at their current production level. I just think Dickerson likely has a greater ability to get on base than Stubbs.

mth123
04-27-2010, 08:29 PM
Dusty gets on my nerves once in a while, but lets face it, the position players on this roster are just not good enough.

Its a team filled with 7th and 8th place bats. The position players include:

1. an OF consisting of a 22 Y/O with a bright future that hasn't arrived and a bunch of 4th and 5th OF,

2. a Catching Position that consists of one of the better back-ups around but just isn't a starter and a starter that isn't as good as the back-up,

3. a choice at SS involving one player who is a defensive replacement who can't hit and another who is a defensive replacement who can't field,

4. the Team's highest paid position player who is below average 70% of the time,

5. a mainstay who is a former All Star but now is mostly an average player who seems like a stud in comparison to the others and

6. Joey Votto.

Redhook
04-27-2010, 09:37 PM
Great thread and posts Cyclone. I agree with everything you've said. Dusty's ignorance and the front office allowing it to continue magnifies and epitomizes the Reds ineptitude as an entire organization.

dabvu2498
04-27-2010, 09:42 PM
Dusty gets on my nerves once in a while, but lets face it, the position players on this roster are just not good enough.


So it would appear.

OBPs
2010
Batting #1:
Reds: .233 (14th of 16 -- yep. 2 worse. That's hard to fathom)
NL: .324

Batting #2:
Reds: .294 (15th)
NL: .339

Batting #3:
Reds: .388 (10th)
NL: .379

Batting #4:
Reds: .288 (14th)
NL: .334

Batting #5:
Reds: .342 (10th)
NL: .353

Batting #6:
Reds: .273 (16th)
NL: .332

Batting #7:
Reds: .329 (6th)
NL: .310

Batting #8:
Reds: .397 (4th)
NL: .351

Above league average at 3 positions in the order. (Above league median at only 2.)

As an aside, maybe there are a lot of NL teams who should hit their #8 hitters at the top of the order. ;)

2009:

Batting #1:
Reds: .302 (15th -- 16th was your NL Champion Phillies, #1 was your Pittsburgh Pirates)
NL: .340

Batting #2:
Reds: .302 (15th)
NL: .337

Batting #3:
Reds: .383 (5th)
NL: .373

Batting #4:
Reds: .326 (14th)
NL: .353

Batting #5:
Reds: .339 (5th)
NL: .334

Batting #6:
Reds: .321 (11th)
NL: .333

Batting #7:
Reds: .328 (5th)
NL: .319

Batting #8:
Reds: .308 (14th)
NL: .326

So, above league average at 3 positions in the batting order. That won't cut it no matter what order you put em in.

TheNext44
04-27-2010, 09:50 PM
I have a feeling there would be far fewer of these threads if Cordero didn't blow the save in Pittsburgh and the Reds were 9-10 instead of 8-11, and none of them if Masset didn't blow the first game and the Reds were 10-9.

Falls City Beer
04-27-2010, 09:52 PM
I have a feeling there would be far fewer of these threads if Cordero didn't blow the save in Pittsburgh and the Reds were 9-10 instead of 8-11, and none of them if Masset didn't blow the first game and the Reds were 10-9.

Maybe, but the Reds' RA is still off the charts, two bad games or not.

Cyclone792
04-27-2010, 09:59 PM
I have a feeling there would be far fewer of these threads if Cordero didn't blow the save in Pittsburgh and the Reds were 9-10 instead of 8-11, and none of them if Masset didn't blow the first game and the Reds were 10-9.

Bad baseball is bad baseball.

If the Red were 10-9 with a similar RS/RA ratio, we'd have threads where we'd be warning people that the run differential, poor play and mismanagement better fix itself, or the ship's gonna hit the iceberg. Then some folks would get irritated with that statement, but what would end up happening (as has happened multiple times during the Lost Decade) is that the RS/RA ratio wouldn't improve and the ship would indeed hit the iceberg.

And if you don't believe me, we've been down that road already before.

SMcGavin
04-27-2010, 10:17 PM
Neither has a career enough at the MLB level to know that though. Dickerson's career OBP is boosted by a ridiculous .375 BABIP in less than a seasons sample split over what is now 3 seasons. He has walked a lot in the past, but his enitre offensive value since his September has been boosted by a very high BABIP that we simply don't know if he can continue to replicate. Especially now that he isn't walking at all, I don't want to hope he can continue to replicate it. Stubbs at the very least is still walking.

I can't get behind tossing Dickerson's MLB track record. Not saying it's the be all end all decider of his future, but it does means something. But, for argument's sake, let's throw it out. Wouldn't the next thing you look at be AAA stats? Dickerson's last season there he put up a .384 OBP, Stubbs had .353. I'm just not seeing the argument for Stubbs' leadoff skills over Dickerson.

dougdirt
04-27-2010, 10:28 PM
I can't get behind tossing Dickerson's MLB track record. Not saying it's the be all end all decider of his future, but it does means something. But, for argument's sake, let's throw it out. Wouldn't the next thing you look at be AAA stats? Dickerson's last season there he put up a .384 OBP, Stubbs had .353. I'm just not seeing the argument for Stubbs' leadoff skills over Dickerson.

If we are going to throw out ones stats, then the next thing I want to look at is skillsets, not minor league stats. Dickerson's skillset is similar to Stubbs minus the power potential. The only major difference we see in the stats is a .050 point BABIP swing for Dickerson.

Offensively Dickerson strikes out more and walks a little more than Stubbs for their careers. He has hit for similar overall power. Nothing in there says better skillset for either guy and we should expect extrermely similar production going foward if we toss out a 17/1 K/BB rate this season for Dickerson. Unless Stubbs starts to hit for power again, in which case things swing substantially for Stubbs.

mdccclxix
04-27-2010, 10:47 PM
Maybe all the promotions the Reds do will add up down the road. You have to give them credit in the promotions department in recent years.

a) it's salvaging what's left of the opportunity to build Reds spirit
b) it will pay off when the Reds get good
c) it may be MORE effective when the Reds get good

Maybe it will help close the gap of apathy for the Reds.

TheNext44
04-27-2010, 11:36 PM
Bad baseball is bad baseball.

If the Red were 10-9 with a similar RS/RA ratio, we'd have threads where we'd be warning people that the run differential, poor play and mismanagement better fix itself, or the ship's gonna hit the iceberg. Then some folks would get irritated with that statement, but what would end up happening (as has happened multiple times during the Lost Decade) is that the RS/RA ratio wouldn't improve and the ship would indeed hit the iceberg.

And if you don't believe me, we've been down that road already before.

Fair enough. Hard to defend the Reds to any fan who suffered through this past decade.

My only point is that it is too early to draw conclusions about how good or bad the team is this year. If they continue this level of play through June, then I'll pay more attention.

TRF
04-28-2010, 09:32 AM
If we are going to throw out ones stats, then the next thing I want to look at is skillsets, not minor league stats. Dickerson's skillset is similar to Stubbs minus the power potential. The only major difference we see in the stats is a .050 point BABIP swing for Dickerson.

Offensively Dickerson strikes out more and walks a little more than Stubbs for their careers. He has hit for similar overall power. Nothing in there says better skillset for either guy and we should expect extrermely similar production going foward if we toss out a 17/1 K/BB rate this season for Dickerson. Unless Stubbs starts to hit for power again, in which case things swing substantially for Stubbs.

Again you ignore the trends their minor league careers took. Dickerson trended up in power while Stubbs trended down. I don't blame this on Stubbs, I blame the guys developing him. There was no consistent plan. Get Stubbs a stroke that can take advantage of his power, then you have something. My comp would be Ludwick, but with blazing speed. That's a player worth having. The current version? not so much.

Sea Ray
04-28-2010, 10:09 AM
Yup, that's the problem with Reds Thinking. I see him as a type of David Eckstein type hitter, and Eckstein gave his teams a solid four year run from 2005-08 where he got on base at a .355 clip. Nothin' at all wrong with that.

Not that I think Hanigan is an exceptionally long term answer, but if we can get three full-time years or so out of him behind the plate with a .360ish on-base percentage before he breaks down, just take it and run. Those are gifts that should be opened and used to the best of our ability while we have them.

Why yammer about where a second string player should hit in the batting order? Hernandez is the starter as of now so where Hanigan hits when he does play will really mean very little in the big picture

Roy Tucker
04-28-2010, 10:18 AM
Bad baseball is bad baseball.



That's my biggest beef. The Reds have not played good baseball for a quite a while now. If it wasn't the Reds, I wouldn't give them the time of day.

I like to watch good baseball. For example, the Cards always play good baseball. Maybe they have individual failures pitching or at-bats or in the field, but I always feel like the general vector of the team is in a coherent and positive direction. Same with the Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Dodgers, Twins, Phils, Angels, and Braves. Good overall team philosophy and it shows.

But the Reds never seem to hit on all cylinders and its like a '62 Renault burning oil. The roster is screwy, talent is spotty, discipline and attention to game details is inconsistent, and I get the feeling there are many different leaders and players that aren't all pulling oars in time and working at cross-purposes.