PDA

View Full Version : Joe Sheehan isn't a fan of Dusty Baker.



bucksfan2
06-24-2010, 04:58 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/joe_sheehan/06/24/baker.larussa/index.html


Where they do not have an edge is in the dugout. Dusty Baker has a long-standing reputation as a leader of men, a baseball manager whose tactical shortcomings are compensated for by his people skills. A closer look, though, shows that Baker's success as a manager seems to have been tied directly to the ability to write Barry Bonds' name on the lineup card every day. Since leaving Bonds and the Giants after 2002, Baker has a 513-531 record and has managed one team, the 2003 Cubs, to a postseason berth, and he burned out two pitchers in the process. In his last seven seasons as a manager, Baker's questionable personnel choices, including an abiding love for veterans, and his refusal to prioritize on-base percentage over other traits, have chipped away at his team's performances. Whether it was burying Matt Murton and Hee Seop Choi on the bench in Chicago, or giving away runs by leading off such OBP nightmares as Corey Patterson and Orlando Cabrera, or famously overworking Mark Prior and Kerry Wood, Baker has repeatedly made poor choices since leaving San Francisco, where he at least had Bonds' greatness to paper over his mistakes.

IMO it was a hack job of an article but will create discussion non the less. Sheehan basically says the Reds are a surprise team, will be contending all year long, but Dusty Baker still sucks. Nice job Joe!

Scrap Irony
06-24-2010, 05:01 PM
Nothing like trotting out all those false asumptions and wrong-headed ideas.

reds1869
06-24-2010, 05:03 PM
"Burned out two pitchers in the process."

I am getting incredibly sick of that topic.

:bang:

RedEye
06-24-2010, 05:12 PM
Favors vets? Perhaps with Murton and Choi, but they haven't turned into anything since anyway. With the Reds, Dusty has advanced the careers of Votto, Bruce and Stubbs by sticking with them over vet options when they came up. I think this assumption has been proven false.

Burns up arms? Again, in Chicago you can make the case he did. But Wood was likely a ticking time bomb anyway, and Prior's mechanics were more questionable than anyone first thought. Baker did use those guys a lot, but he was also embroiled in a pennant race with no bullpen to speak of. Sort of a catch-22 if you ask me. With the Reds, I've liked the way he's handled Leake and some of the other pitchers for the most part. If nothing else he seems to be learning from his mistakes.

Leads off low-OBP guys? That's a tough one to deny, even during his time with Cincy. Corey Patterson, Willy Taveras, now Orlando Cabrera... all of these guys have been Dusty's choices. Overall, you could make the case that he is now doing better with lineup construction than he was previously (in fact, moving Rolen to 4 and Phillips to 2 looks like a master stroke right now). But the point of the leadoff spot, IMO, continues to be a blind spot for Dusty.

pedro
06-24-2010, 05:14 PM
I'm not really a fan of Joe Sheehan or BP anymore really.

I've stopped subscribing as their main business seems to be self promotion and patting themselves on the back.

TheNext44
06-24-2010, 05:17 PM
If I were a Mod I would close this thread for no other reason than my belief that The writer of this piece is not a credible source nor a talented writer.

Everything he writes is a hack job because he is not capable of writing anythiig else. How this clown still has a job is beyond me.

westofyou
06-24-2010, 05:18 PM
Hee Seop Choi is Korean for Roberto Petagine is it not?

Sheehan has never been my favorite at BP (which I dropped because all the GOOD writers split)

bucksfan2
06-24-2010, 05:20 PM
Leads off low-OBP guys? That's a tough one to deny, even during his time with Cincy. Corey Patterson, Willy Taveras, now Orlando Cabrera... all of these guys have been Dusty's choices. Overall, you could make the case that he is now doing better with lineup construction than he was previously (in fact, moving Rolen to 4 and Phillips to 2 looks like a master stroke right now). But the point of the leadoff spot, IMO, continues to be a blind spot for Dusty.

Not that I disagree with this assessment, but........... the options he had weren't the best. I mean its not like he buried Rickey Henderson 7th in the lineup or anything.

dougdirt
06-24-2010, 05:21 PM
I put full blame of Mark Prior on Dusty. Kerry Wood, not so much. He had already been on the operating table well before Dusty showed up as his manager. I am not sure anyone can argue the leadoff angle. Dusty isn't the only guy around who doesn't quite get good OBP and slow is better than fast and on the bench though.

Joseph
06-24-2010, 05:22 PM
I'm not really a fan of Joe Sheehan or BP anymore really.

I've stopped subscribing as their main business seems to be self promotion and patting themselves on the back.

Good point. Kind of like that episode of South Park a few seasons back where everyone liked the smell of their own farts.

As to the article specifically, the Bonds argument [one I've probably made myself in the past] is also a tired one. It's very rare in sports that you can write ONE name on a lineup and know you are going to win more often than not. Bonds wasn't a pitcher and even if he hit a home run each time up they still would have stunk up the joint without some solid pitchers in the late 90's and early 00's. Russ Ortiz, Kirk Rueter [go MSU!], Livan Hernandez, Jason Schmidt etc etc etc.

Dusty isn't Connie Mack, but he's not Vern Rapp either.

pedro
06-24-2010, 05:23 PM
Not denying that Dusty worked him hard but Mark Prior's mechanics gave him a very high chance of injury regardless of who his manager was.

RedsManRick
06-24-2010, 05:24 PM
Everybody knows my feelings towards Baker and I even I found that a bit aggressive and poorly supported. I wonder if there was a longer article there that the SI editors chopped down.

His concerns are reasonable, but he either should have gone in to greater detail about the specific decisions Dusty has made this year, how they threaten our chances to compete, and the alternatives he would suggest OR have just made it a straight attacked piece and be done with it.

RedEye
06-24-2010, 05:24 PM
Not that I disagree with this assessment, but........... the options he had weren't the best. I mean its not like he buried Rickey Henderson 7th in the lineup or anything.

True. I suppose it would be too much to ask for a conventional manager like Dusty to break the mold la the Rays and lead-off someone like Hanigan or Rolen. Heck, Hanigan doesn't even play enough when he's healthy, and Rolen just recently moved to cleanup.

Still, I have to think other managers would get more fidgety or innovative when their leadoff guy is OBP-ing under .300. Dusty doesn't seem to bat an eyelash at that situation--hence the current edition of the Reds ALWAYS has an out machine at the top of the order.

dougdirt
06-24-2010, 05:25 PM
Not denying that Dusty worked him hard but Mark Prior's mechanics gave him a very high chance of injury regardless of who his manager was.

Yes they did... but throwing him 115+ pitches 15+ times in the same season, sometimes in games that were clearly in hand is on the manager.

Here is the game by game pitch count for Prior, including the playoffs, in 2003. Note how the trend keeps going up and up? Yeah, that isn't good at all.
http://redsminorleagues.com/images/prior2003.gif

TheNext44
06-24-2010, 05:56 PM
No matter Prior's mechanic's Dusty did over use him. Can't deny that. And Dusty does like to over use arms, but Prior's really was the only young one that he over used. He was just as cautious as most managers his whole managerial career with other young arms.

But the Bonds argument just doesn't hold water. From 1993 to 2000, there were around a dozen of players in the league that were Bond's equal or very close. And their teams didn't always win.
It really wasn't until 2001 that Bonds became a one man team, head and shoulders above everyone else. And Dusty only had him for two of those years.

Kc61
06-24-2010, 06:06 PM
Taveras had a poor OBP and led off. True.

Cabrera currently has a poor OBP and leads off. But he wasn't a lead off man to start the season, inherited the role when others slumped, and did well in the role before the current slump (or injury).

In his year with the Reds, Corey Patterson hit leadoff in 32 games he started. He did not hit leadoff in 50 games that he started.

BRM
06-24-2010, 06:13 PM
In his year with the Reds, Corey Patterson hit leadoff in 32 games he started. He did not hit leadoff in 50 games that he started.

The guy who had the most number of plate appearances at leadoff that year was Jerry Hairston. He had a .427 OBP in that slot.

LincolnparkRed
06-24-2010, 06:21 PM
The guy who had the most number of plate appearances at leadoff that year was Jerry Hairston. He had a .427 OBP in that slot.

think where this season would be with that stat line on this years team from either Stubbs or Cabrera. Could we be 48-25 with that line or would it be less?

Caveat Emperor
06-24-2010, 06:22 PM
I put full blame of Mark Prior on Dusty. Kerry Wood, not so much. He had already been on the operating table well before Dusty showed up as his manager. I am not sure anyone can argue the leadoff angle. Dusty isn't the only guy around who doesn't quite get good OBP and slow is better than fast and on the bench though.

Here's what I don't get about "Dusty ruined <insert pitcher>" -- people come back from arm troubles every year. Edinson Volquez is throwing 98 MPH in a rehab start less than 12 months removed from TJ surgery. Chris Carpenter is one of the best pitchers in baseball after having his elbow completely scrambled.

Are we to assume that Dusty's "abuse" of Prior & Wood was so heinous that it completely destroyed their arms to the point that no surgery or procedure in the world could ever fix it? That seems kind of suspicious to me.

mbgrayson
06-24-2010, 06:29 PM
We all react when a national no-nothing guy attacks OUR manager, even though we know there is some real truth lurking in the criticism.

1. 'Dusty favors veterans'. Votto, Stubbs, etc shoot this down somewhat, but he did play Patterson and Taveras over young outfielders like Dickerson, and he still plays Cabrera over Janish... (with some good reason).

2. 'Dusty burns out pitcher's arms.' Kerry and Wood, blah blah.... Well, we have Homer in 2009 going well beyond his 2008 innings, and now is hurt. We have Cordero having pitched in 37 out of 73 games so far, on pace to pitch in 82 games, when his previous career high was 77 games in 2006. We have Rhodes having pitched in 34 out of 73 games, on pace to pitch in 75 games, when his previous career high was 72 games ten years ago. Is Dusty over-using Coco and Arthur? I say yes.

3. Lead off. Dusty just doesn't value high OBP guys as a lead off hitter: he cares more about 'speed'. Certainly the Reds don't have a prototypical lead off guy, yet year after year we end up with someone leading off with an OBP under .300. If Cabrera's .276 OBP were an aberrition, a one year trend, that would be one thing. Instead, it is similiar every season under Dusty's watch. He owns that one....100%.

I don't really like Sheehan all that much, and he certainly lacks many recent examples. However, on stat issues he is about right.

However, over the last three years, I do think there is real value in how well Dusty works with the players. on many of those subjective type things, Dusty brings something to the table. I didn't buy that three years ago, and now I do. Of course I would like a manager to be strong in all facets of the game....

RedsManRick
06-24-2010, 07:38 PM
Sticking just to his tenure in Cincinnati, my main critiques are:

1) He has advocated for the acquisition of players from his past who did not improve the team and stuck with them through predictable poor performance to the detriment of the team

2) His player usage decisions seem to be based on assigning players to a predefined role which may or may not match up well to their actual skills. This miscasting is often due to the usage of "old school" approaches and/or following "the book" to a T. This leads to decisions like closers pitching 4 straight days even with 3 run leads, lefties being treated like LOOGYs whether they are or not and fast players being put at the top of the lineup regardless of their ability to find 1B.

3) His in-game strategic decisions are similarly old-school, using a logic (when they use any logic at all) rooted in the low run scoring environment of the late 70's, early 80's when playing for 1 run (and only 1 run) made more sense. He often hits pitchers only to pull them the next inning and fails to make appropriate double switches.

4) He seems to have a thing for utility men who aren't actually good at anything.

I don't think he's been particularly abusive of our starting pitchers, save for the Harang incident (which was the results of #3, above). In terms of his love for vets, I think that's been overblown a bit. It's not that he refuses to play truly talented youngsters. It's that he prefers proven mediocrity to unproven youth with just a moderate amount of upside -- Janish and Hanigan being two clear examples in my mind.

TheNext44
06-24-2010, 08:49 PM
Sticking just to his tenure in Cincinnati, my main critiques are:

1) He has advocated for the acquisition of players from his past who did not improve the team and stuck with them through predictable poor performance to the detriment of the team

2) His player usage decisions seem to be based on assigning players to a predefined role which may or may not match up well to their actual skills. This miscasting is often due to the usage of "old school" approaches and/or following "the book" to a T. This leads to decisions like closers pitching 4 straight days even with 3 run leads, lefties being treated like LOOGYs whether they are or not and fast players being put at the top of the lineup regardless of their ability to find 1B.

3) His in-game strategic decisions are similarly old-school, using a logic (when they use any logic at all) rooted in the low run scoring environment of the late 70's, early 80's when playing for 1 run (and only 1 run) made more sense. He often hits pitchers only to pull them the next inning and fails to make appropriate double switches.

4) He seems to have a thing for utility men who aren't actually good at anything.

I don't think he's been particularly abusive of our starting pitchers, save for the Harang incident (which was the results of #3, above). In terms of his love for vets, I think that's been overblown a bit. It's not that he refuses to play truly talented youngsters. It's that he prefers proven mediocrity to unproven youth with just a moderate amount of upside -- Janish and Hanigan being two clear examples in my mind.

Why aren't you writing for Sports Illustrated? This is a far more intelligent, accurate, fair, and well written critique of Dusty Baker than the one that Sheehan wrote.

pedro
06-24-2010, 10:19 PM
Sticking just to his tenure in Cincinnati, my main critiques are:

1) He has advocated for the acquisition of players from his past who did not improve the team and stuck with them through predictable poor performance to the detriment of the team

2) His player usage decisions seem to be based on assigning players to a predefined role which may or may not match up well to their actual skills. This miscasting is often due to the usage of "old school" approaches and/or following "the book" to a T. This leads to decisions like closers pitching 4 straight days even with 3 run leads, lefties being treated like LOOGYs whether they are or not and fast players being put at the top of the lineup regardless of their ability to find 1B.

3) His in-game strategic decisions are similarly old-school, using a logic (when they use any logic at all) rooted in the low run scoring environment of the late 70's, early 80's when playing for 1 run (and only 1 run) made more sense. He often hits pitchers only to pull them the next inning and fails to make appropriate double switches.

4) He seems to have a thing for utility men who aren't actually good at anything.

I don't think he's been particularly abusive of our starting pitchers, save for the Harang incident (which was the results of #3, above). In terms of his love for vets, I think that's been overblown a bit. It's not that he refuses to play truly talented youngsters. It's that he prefers proven mediocrity to unproven youth with just a moderate amount of upside -- Janish and Hanigan being two clear examples in my mind.

Re: #1. With exception of Corey Patterson, which was a joint decision, I'm not entirely sure that's fair. I don't think there is enough evidence to suggest a pattern, at least off the top of my head.

Re:# 2 - while it is true that Dusty likes speed at lead off I think his reasons for not leading off the catcher extend past the purely speed argument, but we've covered that in other threads.

Re:#4- I think your expectations of utility guy resumes is a bit out of line with reality. There is a reason why guys end up utility players and it generally revolves around not hitting at or above league average. Plus I think the example of Hanigan is a little unfair as Hanigan was starting most of the time when he was not injured.

SMcGavin
06-24-2010, 10:57 PM
The poor OBP guys batting leadoff is hard to deny. That's definitely a problem with Dusty and it drives me nuts.

Two other problems I was worried about with him when the Reds picked him up were over-reliance on veterans and over-use of pitcher's arms. I have to say, I don't have a ton of bones to pick with him on these two issues.

I guess I'd sum it up like this - I'm not the biggest Dusty fan in the world, but even I would admit that a lot of the criticisms he gets are unfair. This article included.

kaldaniels
06-24-2010, 11:00 PM
Yes they did... but throwing him 115+ pitches 15+ times in the same season, sometimes in games that were clearly in hand is on the manager.

Here is the game by game pitch count for Prior, including the playoffs, in 2003. Note how the trend keeps going up and up? Yeah, that isn't good at all.
http://redsminorleagues.com/images/prior2003.gif

But you placed "full blame" for Prior's injury on Dusty. That means you place zero blame on his mechanics. True?

VR
06-24-2010, 11:04 PM
But you placed "full blame" for Prior's injury on Dusty. That means you place zero blame on his mechanics. True?

Or steroids?

Chip R
06-24-2010, 11:50 PM
I think perhaps Dusty has learned from his mistakes. Maybe he messed up with Prior and Wood and maybe he didn't but perhaps he thinks that there's a chance he did so he's taking it a little easier with the younger pitchers.

LoganBuck
06-25-2010, 12:01 AM
I blame Homer Bailey's shoulder on Dusty. What was he thinking last September?

dougdirt
06-25-2010, 12:09 AM
But you placed "full blame" for Prior's injury on Dusty. That means you place zero blame on his mechanics. True?

I place full blame on it happening so quickly on Baker because of his usage. It was likely to happen eventually, but Baker sped up the process by using the ever loving crap out of him in 2003.

kaldaniels
06-25-2010, 12:13 AM
I place full blame on it happening so quickly on Baker because of his usage. It was likely to happen eventually, but Baker sped up the process by using the ever loving crap out of him in 2003.

Totally fair assessment.

REDREAD
06-25-2010, 11:36 AM
Re: #1. With exception of Corey Patterson, which was a joint decision, I'm not entirely sure that's fair. I don't think there is enough evidence to suggest a pattern, at least off the top of my head.


Yep, I agree, there's not really a pattern of Dusty lobbying for his buddies regardless of their performance. Dusty has been around for a long time, so it's not that difficult to connect him to Gary Matthews Jr (or just about anyone) in a few links (Dusty played with GMatthews Jr's father or had some association with him).

I think back to 2008 when Dusty was publicly lobbying to get Stanton released. I think that's all the defense Dusty needs. He wants to win, not give undeserving vets jobs. I am not sure if we have had another manager in my lifetime publicly lobby to get a stinky player owed big money released. I can respect that.






Re:# 2 - while it is true that Dusty likes speed at lead off I think his reasons for not leading off the catcher extend past the purely speed argument, but we've covered that in other threads.


Yes, Whether we agree with it or not, Dusty likes to put people in lineup spots that he thinks they will succeed at. It seems like Dusty is a big believer in the intangible (and not measurable) pshcological impact of where in a lineup a guy is. Sometimes it seems to work, sometimes not. Dusty likes to try things out. I can see how this is frustrating for people who think the lineup should be constructed around projected OBP/OPS or someother projected stat.. So Patterson got about 32 games in the leadoff slot, just to see what would happen. Dusty's GM just signed the guy to a 3 million dollar contract, so he was kind of obligated to at least try it, and IIRC, Patterson had a hot week or two to start off the season.

bucksfan2
06-25-2010, 11:42 AM
Sticking just to his tenure in Cincinnati, my main critiques are:

1) He has advocated for the acquisition of players from his past who did not improve the team and stuck with them through predictable poor performance to the detriment of the team

Wouldn't you have advocated for your daughter's boyfriend?

Patterson was a mistake but he was demoted to the minors after failing and was only brought back up because of injuries and trades.

WT was an awful decision that was correct mid season and eventually traded away.

Other than those two players I don't of anyone who Dusty strictly advocated for that had hurt the team.


2) His player usage decisions seem to be based on assigning players to a predefined role which may or may not match up well to their actual skills. This miscasting is often due to the usage of "old school" approaches and/or following "the book" to a T. This leads to decisions like closers pitching 4 straight days even with 3 run leads, lefties being treated like LOOGYs whether they are or not and fast players being put at the top of the lineup regardless of their ability to find 1B.

I really think this applies to most managers in baseball. I don't really have an issue with the way Dusty has used his pen. Actually I think he has used it pretty well but the pitchers haven't performed. I think you could make the argument that he is using his best pitcher, Rhodes, in the most important game situations. Heck Cordero needs a 3 run lead for me to even be comfortable.


3) His in-game strategic decisions are similarly old-school, using a logic (when they use any logic at all) rooted in the low run scoring environment of the late 70's, early 80's when playing for 1 run (and only 1 run) made more sense. He often hits pitchers only to pull them the next inning and fails to make appropriate double switches.

I think you can mane a pretty good argument that in the post PED game the scores are reverting to a more lower score game with pitchers dominating more and more. I do think Dusty takes into consideration who is on the mound before the decides to play for a low scoring contest or not. I don't have a problem with him deciding to bunt over runners early in the game when the game is being played in Oakland or Seattle, or when facing a legit ace.

I don't have an issue with his double switches.


4) He seems to have a thing for utility men who aren't actually good at anything.

I think there is head wringing over the 25th man on every roster. I also think that there is a lot of behind the scenes stuff, not privy to fans, that ultimately make the decision on who is the utility man on a team. If the Cairo's of the world are the biggest gripes we have with Dusty and the Reds then thats a good thing, right?


I don't think he's been particularly abusive of our starting pitchers, save for the Harang incident (which was the results of #3, above). In terms of his love for vets, I think that's been overblown a bit. It's not that he refuses to play truly talented youngsters. It's that he prefers proven mediocrity to unproven youth with just a moderate amount of upside -- Janish and Hanigan being two clear examples in my mind.

Don't quite understand why the Harang incident keeps being brought up. He says it wasn't a problem and we have had two straight off seasons in which no arm issues have been discovered and no surgery happened.

As for Hanigan he has been given quite a bit of time to play. Unfortunately last season when playing every day last season at C he broke down and his numbers declined. I think Dusty has used Hanigan just fine. As for Janish, I don't think he can hit. I know others feel that way as well.

Chip R
06-25-2010, 02:57 PM
I think there is head wringing over the 25th man on every roster.

I hope not. I'd hate to see a head being wrung. ;)

Rojo
06-25-2010, 03:26 PM
So Patterson got about 32 games in the leadoff slot, just to see what would happen. Dusty's GM just signed the guy to a 3 million dollar contract, so he was kind of obligated to at least try it.

No he wasn't. This isn't 1986, $3 million isn't a lot of money now. The signing of Patterson wasn't as bad a decision as batting him lead-off.

I thought the article was pretty accurate. Dusty's not very good. But people LOVE managers.

OnBaseMachine
06-25-2010, 04:38 PM
Baseball Prospectus article on Dusty:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=11304

nate
06-25-2010, 04:54 PM
I saw that this morning. I don't have a subscription so I was wondering what the conclusion might be.

westofyou
06-25-2010, 04:56 PM
I saw that this morning. I don't have a subscription so I was wondering what the conclusion might be.

It's BP the conclusion is obvious, they haven't tread off their position on Dusty since the site was built out

TheNext44
06-25-2010, 05:10 PM
I saw that this morning. I don't have a subscription so I was wondering what the conclusion might be.

You couldn't guess the conclusion from this first sentence?


Its an affront to Managing 101: Whether you look at the batting order as a way to set up the offense or simply as a vehicle for distributing the most plate appearances to your best hitters, it has long been accepted baseball doctrine that your leadoff hitter should have a high on-base percentage

Anyone who thinks any lineup construction is an affront to Managing 101 simply doesn't understand baseballs very well. Yeah, it's a point that Dusty doesn't get, and it has some importance, but lineup construction just isn't important enough to be considered an "affront" to anything.

Again, Duaty's critics show overwehlmong bias in what could be an informative and helpful article.

Rojo
06-25-2010, 05:57 PM
Funny, nobody's offering that Dusty's a good manager -- just that he's not as bad as all that. The eye of the kitten.

westofyou
06-25-2010, 06:00 PM
Funny, nobody's offering that Dusty's a good manager -- just that he's not as bad as all that. The eye of the kitten.

I think he's a good manager

redsmetz
06-25-2010, 06:15 PM
Funny, nobody's offering that Dusty's a good manager -- just that he's not as bad as all that. The eye of the kitten.

I'll echo what WOY said. I'm tired of the turnstile in the manager's office and he's better than lots of folks around here give him credit for.

RedsManRick
06-25-2010, 06:28 PM
I'm beginning to think a good manager is like a good umpire. You know they're doing a good job when you aren't talking about how well they're doing their job.

westofyou
06-25-2010, 06:30 PM
I'm beginning to think a good manager is like a good umpire. You know they're doing a good job when you aren't talking about how well they're doing their job.

I've been watching baseball for 40 years now and I can't remeber one manager that wasn't railed on by the press, fans and the media.

Not a single guy

RedsManRick
06-25-2010, 06:49 PM
I've been watching baseball for 40 years now and I can't remeber one manager that wasn't railed on by the press, fans and the media.

Not a single guy

That's my point. Couldn't the same be said about umpires? The most notable things they do are when they really screw something. Nobody is putting the manager on sportscenter or writing an article about him for a well constructed lineup, a happy clubhouse, or a properly executed double switch.

westofyou
06-25-2010, 06:54 PM
That's my point. Couldn't the same be said about umpires? The most notable things they do are when they really screw something. Nobody is putting the manager on sportscenter or writing an article about him for a well constructed lineup, a happy clubhouse, or a properly executed double switch.

No, the best umpire is one you don't notice.

The manager can be doing 1000 things a day that helps a team and you might hear of 4 of them.

Rojo
06-25-2010, 07:23 PM
No, the best umpire is one you don't notice.

Isn't that his point?

westofyou
06-25-2010, 07:24 PM
Isn't that his point?

Exactly, the manager is not as cloaked as the umpire should be.

Rojo
06-25-2010, 07:25 PM
I'll echo what WOY said. I'm tired of the turnstile in the manager's office and he's better than lots of folks around here give him credit for.

Actually, you echoe'd what I said.

Rojo
06-25-2010, 07:30 PM
Exactly, the manager is not as cloaked as the umpire should be.

I'm lost.

westofyou
06-25-2010, 07:32 PM
I'm lost.

A good umpire isn't seen because he makes the right calls, a good/bad manager is seen regardless of what they do, they're the captain of the ship, so whether crash on the rocks or sail by without an incident you'll see them.

Rojo
06-25-2010, 07:34 PM
I've been watching baseball for 40 years now and I can't remeber one manager that wasn't railed on by the press, fans and the media.

Not a single guy

Same could be said U.S. Presidents yet some were better than others, often way better.

Criticism of the manager is often interpreted as "laying all the blame" on him. I'm not doing that. This has been a talent bereft organization. Doesn't change my opinion of Baker.

westofyou
06-25-2010, 07:38 PM
Same could be said U.S. Presidents yet some were better than others, often way better.

Criticism of the manager is often interpreted as "laying all the blame" on him. I'm not doing that. This has been a talent bereft organization. Doesn't change my opinion of Baker.

Mine either

RedsManRick
06-25-2010, 07:42 PM
A good umpire isn't seen because he makes the right calls, a good/bad manager is seen regardless of what they do, they're the captain of the ship, so whether crash on the rocks or sail by without an incident you'll see them.

My point is that I can't remember the last time a manager was singled out in the press for something good he did. Sure they'll still be at the press conference, but you don't hear the color guy talking about what a great lineup the guy put together or how smart it was for him to pull the starter when he did.

Managers have all sorts of opportunities to make good and bad decisions, but like umpires, the good decisions are largely taken for granted while the bad ones get all of the press.

westofyou
06-25-2010, 07:46 PM
but you don't hear the color guy talking about what a great lineup the guy put together or how smart it was for him to pull the starter when he did.


I hear quite a lot of that on Gianst broadcasts, Padres broadcasts, Angel and D- Backs broadcasts, can't tell ya about the east coast games I have to listen to the adventures of the Reds

Hoosier Red
06-25-2010, 07:48 PM
I think WOY's point is that no matter what a manager is going to be ripped to shreds. A good umpire is not noticed one way or another.

I looked at Dusty's entire career. He's had 9 seasons finish above the Pythag projection, 7 seasons below, and 1 exactly matched the pythag projections.

Over the course of his career, Dusty is 14 games above what the pythagorean projection.

I think he's a good manager. He got the most out of guys like Jeff Kent and Edgardo Alfonzo in San Francisco, has gotten more out of guys like Johnny Gomes than previous managers, and I can't think of a player who Dusty hasn't gotten much out of that other managers did. (Please feel free to correct me.)

RFS62
06-25-2010, 07:49 PM
I agree with WOY and others in that I think he's a good manager too.

And I'll bet that a lot of those who think he does a good job lean more towards sports-psychology and tend to look at things from a players or participants point of view.

WOY adds a great historical perspective as well.

I think he speaks the same language as the average player. The average player would get killed here in debates on performance analysis, IMO.

Before he was a manager, he was an exceptional hitting instructor. He performed as a player and he can teach.

Yes, he makes moves that cause many to scratch their heads. But his command of the clubhouse makes up for any of that in the overall gestault a manager is called upon to create.

The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. That's what he does.

You get a bunch of guys to play hard and care. Hard to overstate the importance of that. Impossible to quantify.

westofyou
06-25-2010, 09:44 PM
Yes, he makes moves that cause many to scratch their heads. But his command of the clubhouse makes up for any of that in the overall gestault a manager is called upon to create.
Managers are hired for 1 of 3 things, either to apply a guiding hand to a young team, or apply discipline to a team that has talent but needs their butts kicked or to be an x's and o's guy.

Once they achieve their goal they are usually jettisoned for a guy who provides what they don't.

So in essence the next Reds guy should be an x's and o's guy.