PDA

View Full Version : Dusty Speaks, Hilarity Insues



Pages : [1] 2

reds44
06-26-2012, 06:23 PM
Re: playing time in LF
http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2012/06/26/baker-production-key-to-playing-time/


Baker is looking for RBI from Ludwick and Frazier.

“Everybody preaches on base percentage, which is great,” Baker said. “But I was talking to (Detroit manager) Jim Leyland about this the other day. You’ve got to have someone to drive them in. The name of the game is touch home plate the most.”

Ludwick went into Tuesday hitting .227. He had 31 RBI in 172 at-bats. That’s 5.54 at-bats per RBI. Frazier was hitting .264 with 22 RBI in 144 at-bats (a 6.54 ratio). Heisey was hitting .262 with 15 RBI in 195 at-bats (a 13.0 ratio). Heisey, however, hits up in the order mostly.

“Ludwick has been very productive at driving in runs,” Baker said. “Which had been one of our downfalls this year, especially RBIs with two outs.”

Actually, Ludwick (.167) and Frazier (.176) have similar batting averages with runners in scoring position and two outs. Heisey’s been the best of the bunch (.259).

“We’ll see who’s hot and who can do what,” Baker said. “A lot of times, batting average can be a misconception if there’s not run production. I’d rather have both. When you do, you have an All-Star.”

dougdirt
06-26-2012, 06:29 PM
Here is my biggest beef with that.... did Fay or anyone else actually point out to Dusty that he was absolutely talking out of his rear end? I imagine that they didn't.

reds44
06-26-2012, 06:35 PM
Ludwick is hitting .222 with runners on, .231 with RISP, and .167 with RISP and 2 outs.
Frazier is hitting .246 with runners on, .222 with RISP, and .176 with RISP and 2 outs.
Heisey is hitting .304 with runners on, .275 with RISP, and .259 with RISP and 2 outs.

Yet Ludwick has been productive at driving in runs with 2 outs. Whaaaat?

mace
06-26-2012, 06:35 PM
Doug, a beat reporter can't do that. They're not there to argue with their subjects. Their job is to record and report what the man says. Now, yeah, the reporter could certainly--politely--point out the numbers and raise the question of how Dusty's statement can be reconciled in light of the stats. But he absolutely cannot tell the manager that he's full of it, or even challenge him aggressively. That's unprofessional and unproductive.

Always Red
06-26-2012, 06:38 PM
Here is my biggest beef with that.... did Fay or anyone else actually point out to Dusty that he was absolutely talking out of his rear end? I imagine that they didn't.

And I imagine that if you were the Reds beat writer, gainfully employed, you would not have done so either, if you ever wanted the manager to speak with you again.

Being absolutely honest, and saying whatever comes to mind, will often get one fired, unless one is George Steinbrenner.

dougdirt
06-26-2012, 06:39 PM
Doug, a beat reporter can't do that. They're not there to argue with their subjects. Their job is to record and report what the man says. Now, yeah, the reporter could certainly--politely--point out the numbers and raise the question of how Dusty's statement can be reconciled in light of the stats. But he absolutely cannot tell the manager that he's full of it, or even challenge him aggressively. That's unprofessional and unproductive.

So they don't ask questions?

I am not saying the rebuttal should be "Dusty, you are a moron because here are the stats". But they should be saying "well Dusty, the stats actually say this" and then present the stats to him. Now sure, I doubt any of those guys had the stats available at the time of the quote, but now that someone has them, I would love to see someone bring them back and ask a follow up. It won't happen though. Not in Cincinnati.

dougdirt
06-26-2012, 06:41 PM
And I imagine that if you were the Reds beat writer, gainfully employed, you would not have done so either, if you ever wanted the manager to speak with you again.

Being absolutely honest, and saying whatever comes to mind, will often get one fired, unless one is George Steinbrenner.

You know where it gets you fired? Towns like Cincinnati. Where how dare you question someone? Go to a real town and pointing out that someone is wrong isn't going to get you fired as a sports beat reporter.

_Sir_Charles_
06-26-2012, 06:43 PM
Ludwick is hitting .222 with runners on, .231 with RISP, and .167 with RISP and 2 outs.
Frazier is hitting .246 with runners on, .222 with RISP, and .176 with RISP and 2 outs.
Heisey is hitting .304 with runners on, .275 with RISP, and .259 with RISP and 2 outs.

Yet Ludwick has been productive at driving in runs with 2 outs. Whaaaat?

That's not what he said. He said Ludwick has been productive at driving in runs. End of sentence. The 2 out part he was referring to the whole team struggling with that. Not Ludwick being productive at RBI's with 2 outs.

This is exactly the kind of thing that takes on a life of it's own when people want to bash Dusty. I'm trying to find out what he said that was wrong and what would cause the supposed hilarity. I've yet to see it.

He said people preach OBP. He agreed that it's great. He then said that the bottom line is scoring runs. Does anybody here disagree with that? He then said that BA can be deceiving if it doesn't translate into runs being scored. What good does a high BA do for the team if it doesn't add to the run totals? Again, are people arguing with this?

Where exactly is he talking out of his rear end Doug? Where is the hilarity Reds44?

I'm apparently missing something.

Brutus
06-26-2012, 06:43 PM
Isn't having three Dusty threads at the top of the board a little bit overkill?

westofyou
06-26-2012, 06:49 PM
Team in first = Dusty Pinata

http://supermanvillains.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/216px-ClassicBizarro.png

mdccclxix
06-26-2012, 06:49 PM
You can read what he said however you want, but what I see is that Dusty said this:


“Everybody preaches on base percentage, which is great,” Baker said. “But I was talking to (Detroit manager) Jim Leyland about this the other day. You’ve got to have someone to drive them in. The name of the game is touch home plate the most.”

How is that a denial of the value of OBP? It isn't at all.

Consider this: if Stubbs could OBP .400, do you think he'd take him out of the leadoff spot for any reason? Cozart? Cabrera? Taveras? Patterson? It's not that he hates guys on base, that is so patently false. He just can't find a guy (thanks FO). Maybe someday. Nevertheless, he does emphasize that players have other strengths, especially some of the Reds who slug well and produce (Ludwick, Heisey, Frazier, etc).


Then for this quote:


“Ludwick has been very productive at driving in runs,” Baker said. “Which had been one of our downfalls this year, especially RBIs with two outs.”

Sounds to me he's talking about two separate things: Ludwick's RBI total (good) and the teams struggles with two out RBI's (bad). He didn't say Ludwick is good with 2 out RBI's, but it sounds to me like he's hoping the two will connect and Ludwick can help the team out.

This won't stop the critics from feasting on this interview (for years and years to come! :rolleyes: )

reds44
06-26-2012, 06:51 PM
You can read what he said however you want, but what I see is that Dusty said this:



How is that a denial of the value of OBP? It isn't at all.

Consider this: if Stubbs could OBP .400, do you think he'd take him out of the leadoff spot for any reason? Cozart? Cabrera? Taveras? Patterson? It's not that he hates guys on base, that is so patently false. He just can't find a guy (thanks FO). Maybe someday. Nevertheless, he does emphasize that players have other strengths, especially some of the Reds who slug well and produce (Ludwick, Heisey, Frazier, etc).


Then for this quote:



Sounds to me he's talking about two separate things: Ludwick's RBI total (good) and the teams struggles with two out RBI's (bad). He didn't say Ludwick is good with 2 out RBI's, but it sounds to me like he's hoping the two will connect and Ludwick can help the team out.

This won't stop the critics from feasting on this interview (for years and years to come! :rolleyes: )
Because he didn't actually mean "OBP is great." If he did, the guy with the second best OBP on the team wouldn't be hitting 8th. It was a yeah that's great, BUT in typical Dusty fashion.

mdccclxix
06-26-2012, 06:52 PM
So all this over a platoon catcher with no pop batting 8th.

< Dusty's 1,500 wins and 40 years in the game

mdccclxix
06-26-2012, 06:57 PM
Isn't having three Dusty threads at the top of the board a little bit overkill?

I know, it shouldn't be this way, but I'm tired of people running roughshod over Dusty for no good reason! I won't take it! :D Go Dusty! Go Reds! Kill the Brewers and then avenge those years in SF where those flakes ran you out of town!

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0312/mlb_a_baker_gb1_300.jpg

Heck yes, Dusty

VR
06-26-2012, 06:57 PM
He's talking about who's been hot.

“We’ll see who’s hot and who can do what,” Baker said

Ludwick has a .907 OPS in June, and driven in 11 runs in 74 at bats.
Heisey has a .563 OPS in June, and has driven in 4 runs in 78 at bats.

dougdirt
06-26-2012, 06:58 PM
Where exactly is he talking out of his rear end Doug?

I'm apparently missing something.

Where he says how productive Ludwick is at driving in runners, when comparing him to other left field options, who are hitting better with runners on base than Ludwick is.

reds44
06-26-2012, 07:00 PM
He's talking about who's been hot.

“We’ll see who’s hot and who can do what,” Baker said

Ludwick has a .907 OPS in June, and driven in 11 runs in 74 at bats.
Heisey has a .563 OPS in June, and has driven in 4 runs in 78 at bats.
And then there's Todd Frazier, who has been hitting all year, including June who can't play over Rolen or Ludwick apparently.

_Sir_Charles_
06-26-2012, 07:01 PM
Because he didn't actually mean "OBP is great." If he did, the guy with the second best OBP on the team wouldn't be hitting 8th. It was a yeah that's great, BUT in typical Dusty fashion.

I'd like to see Hanigan higher in the order too, but I've seen numerous people argue against it and they had pretty legitimate reasons. But I guess since Dusty has him there, it must be because he hates OBP. I guess it all goes back to his "clogging the bases" quote from nearly a decade ago. Sorry, I ain't buyin' it. You're reading into what he said what you WANT to read into it from what I'm seeing.

PuffyPig
06-26-2012, 07:02 PM
Ludwick is hitting .222 with runners on, .231 with RISP, and .167 with RISP and 2 outs.
Frazier is hitting .246 with runners on, .222 with RISP, and .176 with RISP and 2 outs.
Heisey is hitting .304 with runners on, .275 with RISP, and .259 with RISP and 2 outs.

Yet Ludwick has been productive at driving in runs with 2 outs. Whaaaat?

Since when has BA been the key stat in assessing offensive ability?

I'm guessing looking at OPS in similiar circumstances shows a whole different story.

Becuase I know Frazier and Ludwick have been much better at driving in runs than Heisey.

mdccclxix
06-26-2012, 07:02 PM
And then there's Todd Frazier, who has been hitting all year, including June who can't play over Rolen or Ludwick apparently.

He's going to get everyone involved. Like it or not, Cairo WILL get another start some day. Valdez, WILL get another start. Likewise, Ludwick will need to get some PT, I hope he hits one out tonight.

reds44
06-26-2012, 07:03 PM
I'd like to see Hanigan higher in the order too, but I've seen numerous people argue against it and they had pretty legitimate reasons. But I guess since Dusty has him there, it must be because he hates OBP. I guess it all goes back to his "clogging the bases" quote from nearly a decade ago. Sorry, I ain't buyin' it. You're reading into what he said what you WANT to read into it from what I'm seeing.
Leadoff hitter has a .299 OBP. 2 hitter has a .308 OBP. Those two guys are hitting ahead of the best hitter in baseball. When Heisey plays, he hits either 1-2. He has a .298 OBP. Heck, usually when Wilson Valdez plays he bats 2nd. He has a .244 OBP.

He does not care about OBP. If he did, they wouldn't be hitting at the top of the lineup.

reds44
06-26-2012, 07:04 PM
He's going to get everyone involved. Like it or not, Cairo WILL get another start some day. Valdez, WILL get another start. Likewise, Ludwick will need to get some PT, I hope he hits one out tonight.
Apples to oranges. Difference between getting guys some playing time and what he's doing with Ludwick.

_Sir_Charles_
06-26-2012, 07:04 PM
Where he says how productive Ludwick is at driving in runners, when comparing him to other left field options, who are hitting better with runners on base than Ludwick is.

With limited playing time, he's 4th on the team in RBI's. How is that not productive at doing that? Other players might be hitting at a higher average with runners on, but are they driving them in too? If Ludwick is 4th on the club in RBI's I'd have to say that Dusty has a pretty valid point. I can't stand Ludwick as a player, but he HAS had some key hits at key times.

It seems to me that you guys see a Dusty quote and POUNCE. Looking for things that aren't there. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like.

kaldaniels
06-26-2012, 07:07 PM
You know where it gets you fired? Towns like Cincinnati. Where how dare you question someone? Go to a real town and pointing out that someone is wrong isn't going to get you fired as a sports beat reporter.

So are you mad at Fay or mad at Cincinnati?

Raisor
06-26-2012, 07:07 PM
I don't care one way or another about RBI totals. Play the 8 guys with the best OPS on the team and they'll score more runs. I think Dusty's lineups stink, but at least keep the right 8 guys in there.

mdccclxix
06-26-2012, 07:08 PM
It's a good thing Bruce didn't go into cleanup after his annual 3 week tear, he'd be a goat right now. Meanwhile, Dusty stuck with BP and it has paid dividends. If anything, I'd say now would be good to try Bruce 4th because he's going to surge again soon, but in reality you can't say that's a good strategy for running a ball club. Dusty stabilizes this ball club.

VR
06-26-2012, 07:09 PM
And then there's Todd Frazier, who has been hitting all year, including June who can't play over Rolen or Ludwick apparently.

He's got a .799 OPS in June.

Ludwick has the hot hand, the manager has been playing him....and still getting ab's for the other guys.

I'm still lost at what the confusion is, other than a shabby piece of writing by the author of the article.

mdccclxix
06-26-2012, 07:10 PM
Apples to oranges. Difference between getting guys some playing time and what he's doing with Ludwick.

Not really. You have to consider Ludwick's role is bigger than Cairo in the scheme of this team. He's got to get playing time. Until he's off the team, he's part of the team.

reds44
06-26-2012, 07:10 PM
He's got a .799 OPS in June.

Ludwick has the hot hand, the manager has been playing him....and still getting ab's for the other guys.

I'm still lost at what the confusion is, other than a shabby piece of writing by the author of the article.
And a .866 on the year. Play who is better. Frazier has been better than Ludwick and Rolen all year, and he's not playing.

mdccclxix
06-26-2012, 07:11 PM
He's got a .799 OPS in June.

Ludwick has the hot hand, the manager has been playing him....and still getting ab's for the other guys.

I'm still lost at what the confusion is, other than a shabby piece of writing by the author of the article.

What's new from Fay. Also up to 347 consecutive articles with a spelling error. Unreal.

VR
06-26-2012, 07:11 PM
What's new from Fay. Also up to 347 consecutive articles with a spelling error. Unreal.

I didn't realize Fay wrote the article. That explains it.

dougdirt
06-26-2012, 07:12 PM
So are you mad at Fay or mad at Cincinnati?

I am just mad.

It seems like in Cincinnati it is frowned upon to question the manager. A Bengals writer actually lost his job on the beat a few years ago for calling out Marvin Lewis on something he said. It is a joke that it was allowed to happen.

mdccclxix
06-26-2012, 07:14 PM
And a .866 on the year. Play who is better. Frazier has been better than Ludwick and Rolen all year, and he's not playing.

So you realize sometimes the numbers change places right? One player gets hot and his numbers pass another's, etc. You can't always rely on numbers, but I think that predominates the conversation in Redsland. Hence, casting about for new plans for Chapman after some correction to his historical start. Send him to AAA and bring in Broxton, or Street, or Masset, or Bray, or something!

_Sir_Charles_
06-26-2012, 07:16 PM
Leadoff hitter has a .299 OBP. 2 hitter has a .308 OBP. Those two guys are hitting ahead of the best hitter in baseball. When Heisey plays, he hits either 1-2. He has a .298 OBP.

He does not care about OBP. If he did, they wouldn't be hitting at the top of the lineup.

Our 1-2 guys have bad OBP. I'm not arguing that at all. But where's his better options? This team has low OBP across the board. He's kinda limited with his options. But again, that must be because Dusty hates OBP. The only player who has a decent OBP that he "could" move up is Hanigan. The slowest guy on the team. There's a valid argument for him to NOT be up there due to that lack of speed. Who else can be up there? Phillips is who I'd want, but he's being successful right now in the middle of the lineup...another place where we're short handed. Phillips can't be leadoff AND cleanup. He's got to pick one. For now, he's picked cleanup. I'm not saying I agree with it, but he does have legitimate reasons for it.

If it's all about OBP, why don't we go with this for a lineup? Highest to lowest OBP.

Votto
Hanigan
Frazier
Phillips
Bruce
Ludwick
Stubbs
Cozart

Hmmm...but that puts Phillips in the cleanup role again. Imagine that. And a rookie batting 3rd. No, I don't like this lineup at all. I'd prefer higher OBP's too, but with the cards Dusty's been dealt, he's having to make due with what he's got. And he doesn't HAVE a prototypical lead off hitter or cleanup hitter or 2 hole hitter or high average hitters or high OBP hitters. So complaining about Dusty isn't going to change the roster construction. If we want to complain about the low OBP at the top of the order...I'd be pointing the finger at Walt IMO. And again, just saying that Walt should get so and so isn't as easy as it seems. The other teams want high OBP guys too.

reds44
06-26-2012, 07:16 PM
So you realize sometimes the numbers change places right? One player gets hot and his numbers pass another's, etc. You can't always rely on numbers, but I think that predominates the conversation in Redsland. Hence, casting about for new plans for Chapman after some correction to his historical start. Send him to AAA and bring in Broxton, or Street, or Masset, or Bray, or something!
So I'm supposed to believe Rolen and Ludwick are going to magically produce substantially better numbers than they have been the last couple years despite being old?

Isolating Ludwick's 31 RBIs and pointing out that as to why he should be playing is incredibly shortsighted.

Always Red
06-26-2012, 07:18 PM
I am just mad.

It seems like in Cincinnati it is frowned upon to question the manager. A Bengals writer actually lost his job on the beat a few years ago for calling out Marvin Lewis on something he said. It is a joke that it was allowed to happen.

No beat writers in any town browbeat the manager, doug, you know that as well as I do. Doesn't happen in NY, Chicago, or LA.

The ones that do have no direct facial contact with the manager. Big difference.

"Question the manager?" Are you kidding me?

Here, it's non stop bashing, all day long, day after day after day.

I think it was really Redszone that ran Sparky out of town....

reds44
06-26-2012, 07:19 PM
Our 1-2 guys have bad OBP. I'm not arguing that at all. But where's his better options? This team has low OBP across the board. He's kinda limited with his options. But again, that must be because Dusty hates OBP. The only player who has a decent OBP that he "could" move up is Hanigan. The slowest guy on the team. There's a valid argument for him to NOT be up there due to that lack of speed. Who else can be up there? Phillips is who I'd want, but he's being successful right now in the middle of the lineup...another place where we're short handed. Phillips can't be leadoff AND cleanup. He's got to pick one. For now, he's picked cleanup. I'm not saying I agree with it, but he does have legitimate reasons for it.

If it's all about OBP, why don't we go with this for a lineup? Highest to lowest OBP.

Votto
Hanigan
Frazier
Phillips
Bruce
Ludwick
Stubbs
Cozart

Hmmm...but that puts Phillips in the cleanup role again. Imagine that. And a rookie batting 3rd. No, I don't like this lineup at all. I'd prefer higher OBP's too, but with the cards Dusty's been dealt, he's having to make due with what he's got. And he doesn't HAVE a prototypical lead off hitter or cleanup hitter or 2 hole hitter or high average hitters or high OBP hitters. So complaining about Dusty isn't going to change the roster construction. If we want to complain about the low OBP at the top of the order...I'd be pointing the finger at Walt IMO. And again, just saying that Walt should get so and so isn't as easy as it seems. The other teams want high OBP guys too.
Because it's not ALL about OBP, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to think you want as many guys on base as possible for the best hitter in baseball.

mdccclxix
06-26-2012, 07:22 PM
So I'm supposed to believe Rolen and Ludwick are going to magically produce substantially better numbers than they have been the last couple years despite being old?

Isolating Ludwick's 31 RBIs and pointing out that as to why he should be playing is incredibly shortsighted.

Rolen is likely better than his .600 OPS. In fact, if he corrects his numbers to late career norms, he might have a fantastic year left in him. Aside from that, his defense spanks anyone elses.

Ludwick is getting playing time, and yes it's not crazy to think he'd out produce a very similar player in Frazier, who, by the way, will get a lot of playing time, I'm sure.

Needling Dusty for every single little thing is not going to "fix" this team. He's making hay right now, enjoy!

Raisor
06-26-2012, 07:23 PM
Hanigan should be hitting in the first inning ahead of Votto every day he plays. Period. Excelemation point.

dougdirt
06-26-2012, 07:24 PM
No beat writers in any town browbeat the manager, doug, you know that as well as I do. Doesn't happen in NY, Chicago, or LA.

The ones that do have no direct facial contact with the manager. Big difference.

"Question the manager?" Are you kidding me?

Here, it's non stop bashing, all day long, day after day after day.

I think it was really Redszone that ran Sparky out of town....
Really? When a manager says something that a reporter in New York feels in blatantly incorrect they don't say anything?

Also, I really get tired of hearing about what "redszone" would do. Redszone isn't me. Redszone isn't you. Redszone is 5000 people with differing opinions. The rebuttal that Redszone would do something to an opinion I have is silly. I disagree with a whole bunch of people on Redszone about every hour.

westofyou
06-26-2012, 07:25 PM
Hanigan should be hitting in the first inning ahead of Votto every day he plays. Period. Excelemation point.

In strat maybe... in the real world I find it to be an iffy proposition

_Sir_Charles_
06-26-2012, 07:27 PM
Because it's not ALL about OBP, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to think you want as many guys on base as possible for the best hitter in baseball.

True. So who do you put up there? Seriously, WHO? The only guy is Hanigan, also the SLOWEST guy. I'd personally like to give it a shot, but there ARE valid reasons to NOT do it. You've got to be able to see that, right?

Getting guys who are better with OBP is not Dusty's job. Pull up the Reds team stats and sort them by OBP....the numbers outside of Votto & Hanny are pretty bad...EVERYWHERE. Dusty doesn't HAVE options. So he's left with plugging guys in where they fit the best. Votto at 3. Phillips at 4. Bruce at 5. And the rest, just plug them in and hope for the best. Since none of the rest of them have good OBP skills, throw speed up top. Again, I don't agree with it...but it's not illogical at all.

reds44
06-26-2012, 07:27 PM
Rolen is likely better than his .600 OPS. In fact, if he corrects his numbers to late career norms, he might have a fantastic year left in him. Aside from that, his defense spanks anyone elses.

Ludwick is getting playing time, and yes it's not crazy to think he'd out produce a very similar player in Frazier, who, by the way, will get a lot of playing time, I'm sure.

Needling Dusty for every single little thing is not going to "fix" this team. He's making hay right now, enjoy!
Rolen had a .715 OPS in August/September of 2010 and a .676 OPS in 2011. He currently has a .606 OPS this year. He's also 37. He's likely done.

_Sir_Charles_
06-26-2012, 07:28 PM
Hanigan should be hitting in the first inning ahead of Votto every day he plays. Period. Excelemation point.

I'd certainly like to see it tried. It might fail to epic proportions, but I think it's worth a shot.

reds44
06-26-2012, 07:29 PM
True. So who do you put up there? Seriously, WHO? The only guy is Hanigan, also the SLOWEST guy. I'd personally like to give it a shot, but there ARE valid reasons to NOT do it. You've got to be able to see that, right?

Getting guys who are better with OBP is not Dusty's job. Pull up the Reds team stats and sort them by OBP....the numbers outside of Votto & Hanny are pretty bad...EVERYWHERE. Dusty doesn't HAVE options. So he's left with plugging guys in where they fit the best. Votto at 3. Phillips at 4. Bruce at 5. And the rest, just plug them in and hope for the best. Since none of the rest of them have good OBP skills, throw speed up top. Again, I don't agree with it...but it's not illogical at all.
Nope. There's really no valid reason to have your best on base guy besides Votto hitting 8th. None at all.

_Sir_Charles_
06-26-2012, 07:33 PM
Nope. There's really no valid reason to have your best on base guy besides Votto hitting 8th. None at all.

As many have pointed out, Hanigan's OBP might be high simply BECAUSE he hits 8th. He might be getting extra walks BECAUSE the pitcher is right behind him. Putting him higher in the order could very well lead his OBP to plummet to record lows. His lack of speed could easily lead to a huge increase in GIDP's hitting that high in the order. Hitting 8th has led to quite a bit of success for Hanigan and moving him out of that spot could hurt that production and success. It could also be a comfort level issue for him.

Again, I'd like to see it tried....but those are pretty valid arguments to NOT do it.

reds44
06-26-2012, 07:36 PM
As many have pointed out, Hanigan's OBP might be high simply BECAUSE he hits 8th. He might be getting extra walks BECAUSE the pitcher is right behind him. Putting him higher in the order could very well lead his OBP to plummet to record lows. His lack of speed could easily lead to a huge increase in GIDP's hitting that high in the order. Hitting 8th has led to quite a bit of success for Hanigan and moving him out of that spot could hurt that production and success. It could also be a comfort level issue for him.

Again, I'd like to see it tried....but those are pretty valid arguments to NOT do it.
He has a .371 OBP in his career. I'm supposed to believe that's all because he bats 8th? Somebody should look up what the NL OBP is for the 8th spot. I would do it but I don't know how. Bet it's a lot lower than .371.

Hanigan has 63 career ABs batting 6th, and a .352 OBP.
Batting 7th he has 233 ABs and a .396 OBP.
8th, it's .364.

I'm not a genius, but if he has a career .371 OBP and batting 8th it's .364, he actually does at least slightly better when he's not hitting 8th.

Raisor
06-26-2012, 07:39 PM
The idea of not trying Hanigan hitting high iin the lineup because he MIGHT fail there is circular reasoning. It comes down to not trying something because he's never done it before.

_Sir_Charles_
06-26-2012, 07:42 PM
He has a .371 OBP in his career. I'm supposed to believe that's all because he bats 8th?

Somebody should look up what the NL OBP is for the 8th spot. I would do it but I don't know how. Bet it's a lot lower than .371.

I don't believe that it is. But I'm willing to concede that if he moves out of that spot, some of the walks he draws could go down considerably. I still think his plate discipline and eye would work well at the top of the order...but his lack of speed does give me pause. Who was that last really slow guy who was successful hitting 1 or 2? I can't recall any, but I'm sure someone can.

Always Red
06-26-2012, 07:42 PM
Really? When a manager says something that a reporter in New York feels in blatantly incorrect they don't say anything?

Also, I really get tired of hearing about what "redszone" would do. Redszone isn't me. Redszone isn't you. Redszone is 5000 people with differing opinions. The rebuttal that Redszone would do something to an opinion I have is silly. I disagree with a whole bunch of people on Redszone about every hour.

I don't read a whole lot of arguing between managers in NY and beat writers.

Do you? If so, I'd love to read them. (Really)

There is a group consciousness here of late that is extremely negative and cynical. Which I find very puzzling for a team that's in first place fairly soon after the Lost Decade. Maybe it's just an internet thing.

If that statement I made in the post above about Redszone and Sparky doesn't pertain to you, doug, then please just ignore it.

Raisor
06-26-2012, 07:43 PM
In strat maybe... in the real world I find it to be an iffy proposition

Its not even worth trying?

How can he prove he can or can't do it unless he's given an opportunity to try?

They need to try it for at least a month. At least we would have at least some data to review.

_Sir_Charles_
06-26-2012, 07:43 PM
The idea of not trying Hanigan hitting high iin the lineup because he MIGHT fail there is circular reasoning. It comes down to not trying something because he's never done it before.

Agreed. But to slam Dusty for not doing it, when there ARE pretty valid reasons not to, seems blatantly unfair towards Dusty IMO. (not pointing at you, just in general)

Tom Servo
06-26-2012, 07:49 PM
*Ensues

kaldaniels
06-26-2012, 07:50 PM
I think press conferences (yes they are rare) are where you see managers get "challenged".

In the real world it just doesn't happen much with the beat guys, due to both the proximity of the beat reporter and due to the beat writer wanting to continue getting quotes. Not complaining, that's just the way it is.

Puffy
06-26-2012, 07:50 PM
So I'm supposed to believe Rolen and Ludwick are going to magically produce substantially better numbers than they have been the last couple years despite being old?

Isolating Ludwick's 31 RBIs and pointing out that as to why he should be playing is incredibly shortsighted.

You crack me up! The guy who has a Soriano avatar is *****ing about "expecting old people to magically produce better numbers than the last couple of years" while advocating for a guy who is that description.

We can also improve our pitching staff by finding Marcus Moore and El Lizard Ramirez. Oh, and bring up your boy Joey Gathright too!!

Talk about hilarity.......

klw
06-26-2012, 08:12 PM
He has a .371 OBP in his career. I'm supposed to believe that's all because he bats 8th? Somebody should look up what the NL OBP is for the 8th spot. I would do it but I don't know how. Bet it's a lot lower than .371..

It is .307 in the NL (and .306 in the AL interestingly enough).
http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/split/116/league/nl

Looking at prior years the NL OBP for the 8th spot has typically been higher that the AL and usually falls in the .315 to.325 range.

Raisor
06-26-2012, 08:15 PM
I don't believe that it is. But I'm willing to concede that if he moves out of that spot, some of the walks he draws could go down considerably. I still think his plate discipline and eye would work well at the top of the order...but his lack of speed does give me pause. Who was that last really slow guy who was successful hitting 1 or 2? I can't recall any, but I'm sure someone can.

Wade Boggs, 4361 career PA's in the leadoff spot, 9 SB, 400+ OBP

Peter Edward Rose 10,710 PA's in the leadoff spot, 125 SB, 125 SB, 101 CS.

I'd call Boggs really slow, and Pete wasn't exactly Vince Coleman out there.

Those are two that come to mind

_Sir_Charles_
06-26-2012, 08:18 PM
Wade Boggs, 4361 career PA's in the leadoff spot, 9 SB, 400+ OBP

Peter Edward Rose 10,710 PA's in the leadoff spot, 125 SB, 125 SB, 101 CS.

I'd call Boggs really slow, and Pete wasn't exactly Vince Coleman out there.

Those are two that come to mind

I'll agree with you on Boggs. But Pete wasn't that slow IMO. And on the other hand though...Hanigan is no Wade Boggs either.

hebroncougar
06-26-2012, 08:28 PM
I wonder if he considered Ludwick has so many RBI's because the guys in front of him are, you know, clogging up those bases.

Raisor
06-26-2012, 08:28 PM
I'll agree with you on Boggs. But Pete wasn't that slow IMO. And on the other hand though...Hanigan is no Wade Boggs either.

Didn't say he was Boggs. But he gets on base 36.5% of the time.

I don't have a subscription with BP.com but I'd like to see where Joey ranks with PA's ROB.

Big Klu
06-26-2012, 08:29 PM
Blumj could probably expound on this topic better than I, but my recollection of the Red Sox teams of the mid to late 80's was that they were truly a station-to-station ball club that waited around for for the three-run homer.

_Sir_Charles_
06-26-2012, 08:33 PM
Didn't say he was Boggs. But he gets on base 36.5% of the time.

I don't have a subscription with BP.com but I'd like to see where Joey ranks with PA's ROB.

I know you weren't. I'll agree that they're pretty equally slow, but Wade brought so much more to the plate than Ryan does...it more than validated him hitting that high. With Hanigan, there are legitimate concerns I'd say. Still love to see it tried of course.

edabbs44
06-26-2012, 08:43 PM
It's a good thing Bruce didn't go into cleanup after his annual 3 week tear, he'd be a goat right now. Meanwhile, Dusty stuck with BP and it has paid dividends. If anything, I'd say now would be good to try Bruce 4th because he's going to surge again soon, but in reality you can't say that's a good strategy for running a ball club. Dusty stabilizes this ball club.

Yep, many of these criticisms are basically just nonsense. Complain, complain, complain until proven wrong and then find something else to go after.

Keeping BP in the 4 hole has worked out well. Crazy. And re: Frazier, after watching such short stint all stars like Dickerson and Heisey in the past few years I think we should temper out enthusiasm on him. Looks like he has potential but I don't think that this is some sort of catastrophic error being made.

westofyou
06-26-2012, 10:04 PM
Its not even worth trying?

How can he prove he can or can't do it unless he's given an opportunity to try?

They need to try it for at least a month. At least we would have at least some data to review.
He's a catcher, their legs are shot... that's a big part of my reasoning... (note: MINE) a lot of why I feel that way can be found in this article, a lot odf the other reasons I find in the difference a # 8 hitter sees compared to the guy in front of a Votto

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/sports/baseball/russell-martin-plays-catcher-the-toughest-position-in-baseball.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all



That evening at Yankee Stadium, Martin and Ivan Nova, the right-hander who was starting that night, walked to the bullpen at 6:35. Once they arrived, Martin got behind the plate and into his crouch. He repeated that close to 50 times. He fully stood up exactly four times, once during the national anthem.

The Times counted the number of times Martin got into his crouch in the course of the night. In all, counting pregame warm-ups with Nova in the bullpen and the 8 to 10 warm-up throws before each inning, he did it 311 times.

In the first inning, Martin stood up and then went back down into the crouch 19 times, and spent 7 minutes 30 seconds in his crouch. The longest inning was the seventh, in which he moved up and down 54 times and spent 10:48 squatting on his way to nearly an hour in the crouch.

The math grows ugly. Last season, Martin’s first with the Yankees after he signed as a free agent, he started 118 games, meaning he spent roughly 106 hours in the crouch. In his seven-year career, he has spent the equivalent of almost 28 days crouching.

reds44
06-26-2012, 10:07 PM
You crack me up! The guy who has a Soriano avatar is *****ing about "expecting old people to magically produce better numbers than the last couple of years" while advocating for a guy who is that description.

We can also improve our pitching staff by finding Marcus Moore and El Lizard Ramirez. Oh, and bring up your boy Joey Gathright too!!

Talk about hilarity.......
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with Rolen and Ludwick being bad, but okay lol.

Homer Bailey
06-27-2012, 12:38 AM
Fay's use of RBI per AB might be the most hilariously awful use of stats I've ever seen.

AtomicDumpling
06-27-2012, 01:22 AM
True. So who do you put up there? Seriously, WHO? The only guy is Hanigan, also the SLOWEST guy. I'd personally like to give it a shot, but there ARE valid reasons to NOT do it. You've got to be able to see that, right?

Getting guys who are better with OBP is not Dusty's job. Pull up the Reds team stats and sort them by OBP....the numbers outside of Votto & Hanny are pretty bad...EVERYWHERE. Dusty doesn't HAVE options. So he's left with plugging guys in where they fit the best. Votto at 3. Phillips at 4. Bruce at 5. And the rest, just plug them in and hope for the best. Since none of the rest of them have good OBP skills, throw speed up top. Again, I don't agree with it...but it's not illogical at all.

Did Dusty put his best OBP hitters at the top of the lineup in prior seasons with the Giants, Cubs and Reds? Or is he only failing to do it this year because he has no better options (except Philips and Hannigan of course)? I haven't gone back to check to see if it is true, but he did have a reputation before he came to Cincinnati for putting his fast centerfielders and shortstops at the top despite their hitting ability or lack thereof.

defender
06-27-2012, 01:37 AM
I am just mad.

It seems like in Cincinnati it is frowned upon to question the manager. A Bengals writer actually lost his job on the beat a few years ago for calling out Marvin Lewis on something he said. It is a joke that it was allowed to happen.

What should Fay say?

Heisey should be the starting LFer because he has the highest BA with runners on base? Even though Heisey is statistically the worst hitting OFer on the Reds by far?

Ludwick does not have 31 RBI because his BA RISP is too low?

No matter who you play and where you bat them, I can find a stat that proves you don't understand baseball?

By the way, both Stubbs' and Bruce's HRs were on the first pitch. Of course Baker's swing first philosophy results in more outs than hits or HR. If we only mention it when the players make out, then Baker is wrong every time.

Tom Servo
06-27-2012, 02:45 AM
Did Dusty put his best OBP hitters at the top of the lineup in prior seasons with the Giants, Cubs and Reds? Or is he only failing to do it this year because he has no better options (except Philips and Hannigan of course)? I haven't gone back to check to see if it is true, but he did have a reputation before he came to Cincinnati for putting his fast centerfielders and shortstops at the top despite their hitting ability or lack thereof.
CF Darren Lewis (career .323 OBP) and Robby Thompson (career .329, but a monster season in 93) hit 1st and 2nd for the 93 Giants, Lewis and 2B John Patterson (.289) in 94, Lewis for most of 95 until the Giants got Neon Deion (.319) from our Redlegs with Thompson returning to the 2 hole. So the first three years were definitely more geared towards speed with Deion being the only guy who could get on base at a decent clip. During these years the other lineup regulars included Royce Clayton (.312) and Kirt Manwaring (.311) who batted after the middle of the lineup of Will Clark, Matt Williams, and Barry Bonds. So really, he worked with what he had.

Dusty seemed to correct the issue in 1996 when given better options by going with Marvin Bernard (.343) and Bill Mueller (.373). He regressed a bit in 1997 by batting Jose Vizcaino (.318) second, but by late August he realized the error of his ways and moved Mueller back into his rightful spot with Darryl Hamilton (.360) manning leadoff effectively. Mueller and Hamilton held onto those same spots in 1998. With Hamilton gone Bernard returned to the leadoff spot in 1999 and Mueller remained in the 2 hole. The turn of the century in 2000 saw that same Bernard/Mueller tandem remain in tact. 2001 saw Bernard split almost evenly with Calvin Murray (.315), but in Dusty's defense Murray had gotten on base at a .348 rate the previous season. And with Mueller gone, good old Richie Aurilla (.328) took over the 2 hole with his 37 HR monster season. In his swansong season in the Bay, Dusty unconventionally used Louisville Bats manager David Bell (.320) in the leadoff spot before the team acquired Kenny Lofton (.372) and he took over, and Aurilia still manned the 2 spot.

With his Cubs in 2003, Dusty used Mark Grudzielanek (.322, but .366 in 03) and Alex Gonzalez (.302) as his leadoff and 2 spot guys until he was reunited with Kenny Lofton and Lofton took over leadoff and Grudzielanek slid into the 2 spot. 2004 saw Dusty's love affair with Corey Patterson (.290) really begin as Patterson logged the most 2 hole and nearly the most leadoff at-bats, with Todd Walker (.348) narrowly leading him in leadoff appearances. It is interesting to note though that 2004 saw 1B Derrek Lee (.365) and Catcher Michael Barrett (.320) draw 28 and 18 appearances in the 2 hole, respectively, which is certainly unconventional for an old-school guy. Dusty gave up on Patterson in 2005 and turned instead to fellow future Red Jerry Hairston Jr. (.329) in the leadoff spot with Walker drawing a good amount of starts in the 2 hole but still trailing the infamous Neifi Perez (.297). Dusty's Chicago swansong saw Juan Pierre (.346) hit leadoff in 159 games, with a rotating cycle of Walker, Ryan Theriot (.342), Ronny Cedeno (.289) and others (including the Reds discarded Tony Womack) in the 2 hole. He only batted Matt Murton (.352) in the 2 hole three times, which was definitely the best way to go.

And with our Reds, well, you know that story. Patterson in 2008 until he faceplanted and was replaced by Hairston. I completely forgot too that Bruce hit leadoff in 22 games that year. Keppinger (.333) hit second. Wily Taveras (.320) in 2009 until he faceplanted and Stubbs (.323) took over. Hairston and Janish (.289) manned the 2 spot with cult-favorite Chris Dickerson (.351) also drawing starts in both slots but unable to stay healthy. In 2010 it was BP (.322) and Orlando Cabrera (.317) flip-flopping back and forth hitting 1st and 2nd and last year in 2011 it was Stubbs leading off with BP and Edgar Renteria (.343) splitting the 2 hole.

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

So what conclusion do I draw? Dusty certainly has an affinity for speed, but for the most part he generally is able to recognize what a leadoff and 2 hole leader need to be able to do. Of course, he is susceptible to falling in love with certain guys in certain spots but I think his Reds tenure has been marred by some historically bad play in the form of Patterson and Taveras in 2008 and 2009.

*This analysis is all courtesy of Baseball-Reference and my insomnia.

The Voice of IH
06-27-2012, 02:57 AM
So they don't ask questions?

I am not saying the rebuttal should be "Dusty, you are a moron because here are the stats". But they should be saying "well Dusty, the stats actually say this" and then present the stats to him. Now sure, I doubt any of those guys had the stats available at the time of the quote, but now that someone has them, I would love to see someone bring them back and ask a follow up. It won't happen though. Not in Cincinnati.

It is so easy to be a manager in Cincinnati. No one ever questions anything he ever does. Especially when the team is in first place.

Big Klu
06-27-2012, 03:33 AM
CF Darren Lewis (career .323 OBP) and Robby Thompson (career .329, but a monster season in 93) hit 1st and 2nd for the 93 Giants, Lewis and 2B John Patterson (.289) in 94, Lewis for most of 95 until the Giants got Neon Deion (.319) from our Redlegs with Thompson returning to the 2 hole. So the first three years were definitely more geared towards speed with Deion being the only guy who could get on base at a decent clip. During these years the other lineup regulars included Royce Clayton (.312) and Kirt Manwaring (.311) who batted after the middle of the lineup of Will Clark, Matt Williams, and Barry Bonds. So really, he worked with what he had.

Dusty seemed to correct the issue in 1996 when given better options by going with Marvin Bernard (.343) and Bill Mueller (.373). He regressed a bit in 1997 by batting Jose Vizcaino (.318) second, but by late August he realized the error of his ways and moved Mueller back into his rightful spot with Darryl Hamilton (.360) manning leadoff effectively. Mueller and Hamilton held onto those same spots in 1998. With Hamilton gone Bernard returned to the leadoff spot in 1999 and Mueller remained in the 2 hole. The turn of the century in 2000 saw that same Bernard/Mueller tandem remain in tact. 2001 saw Bernard split almost evenly with Calvin Murray (.315), but in Dusty's defense Murray had gotten on base at a .348 rate the previous season. And with Mueller gone, good old Richie Aurilla (.328) took over the 2 hole with his 37 HR monster season. In his swansong season in the Bay, Dusty unconventionally used Louisville Bats manager David Bell (.320) in the leadoff spot before the team acquired Kenny Lofton (.372) and he took over, and Aurilia still manned the 2 spot.

With his Cubs in 2003, Dusty used Mark Grudzielanek (.322, but .366 in 03) and Alex Gonzalez (.302) as his leadoff and 2 spot guys until he was reunited with Kenny Lofton and Lofton took over leadoff and Grudzielanek slid into the 2 spot. 2004 saw Dusty's love affair with Corey Patterson (.290) really begin as Patterson logged the most 2 hole and nearly the most leadoff at-bats, with Todd Walker (.348) narrowly leading him in leadoff appearances. It is interesting to note though that 2004 saw 1B Derrek Lee (.365) and Catcher Michael Barrett (.320) draw 28 and 18 appearances in the 2 hole, respectively, which is certainly unconventional for an old-school guy. Dusty gave up on Patterson in 2005 and turned instead to fellow future Red Jerry Hairston Jr. (.329) in the leadoff spot with Walker drawing a good amount of starts in the 2 hole but still trailing the infamous Neifi Perez (.297). Dusty's Chicago swansong saw Juan Pierre (.346) hit leadoff in 159 games, with a rotating cycle of Walker, Ryan Theriot (.342), Ronny Cedeno (.289) and others (including the Reds discarded Tony Womack) in the 2 hole. He only batted Matt Murton (.352) in the 2 hole three times, which was definitely the best way to go.

And with our Reds, well, you know that story. Patterson in 2008 until he faceplanted and was replaced by Hairston. I completely forgot too that Bruce hit leadoff in 22 games that year. Keppinger (.333) hit second. Wily Taveras (.320) in 2009 until he faceplanted and Stubbs (.323) took over. Hairston and Janish (.289) manned the 2 spot with cult-favorite Chris Dickerson (.351) also drawing starts in both slots but unable to stay healthy. In 2010 it was BP (.322) and Orlando Cabrera (.317) flip-flopping back and forth hitting 1st and 2nd and last year in 2011 it was Stubbs leading off with BP and Edgar Renteria (.343) splitting the 2 hole.

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

So what conclusion do I draw? Dusty certainly has an affinity for speed, but for the most part he generally is able to recognize what a leadoff and 2 hole leader need to be able to do. Of course, he is susceptible to falling in love with certain guys in certain spots but I think his Reds tenure has been marred by some historically bad play in the form of Patterson and Taveras in 2008 and 2009.

*This analysis is all courtesy of Baseball-Reference and my insomnia.


Just to clarify, this is not the Alex Gonzalez who played for the Reds in 2007-09, but rather Alex S. Gonzalez.

redsmetz
06-27-2012, 05:44 AM
That's not what he said. He said Ludwick has been productive at driving in runs. End of sentence. The 2 out part he was referring to the whole team struggling with that. Not Ludwick being productive at RBI's with 2 outs.

This is exactly the kind of thing that takes on a life of it's own when people want to bash Dusty. I'm trying to find out what he said that was wrong and what would cause the supposed hilarity. I've yet to see it.

He said people preach OBP. He agreed that it's great. He then said that the bottom line is scoring runs. Does anybody here disagree with that? He then said that BA can be deceiving if it doesn't translate into runs being scored. What good does a high BA do for the team if it doesn't add to the run totals? Again, are people arguing with this?

Where exactly is he talking out of his rear end? Where is the hilarity?

I'm apparently missing something.

I'm not sure I've seen anyone genuinely answer these questions (I've edited out the names SC used because my post isn't about the particular posters). What are the answers though? Folks love to hate on DB, but I think Sir Charles has laid out a fine analysis asking where the actual beef is?

Who here disagrees the point in a game is to score runs? That's the bottom line and no amount of fancy stats takes away from that.

The desire to denigrate Dusty Baker at every turn these days, completely loses sight of what actually makes him a good manager (at least for this particular club at this moment in history). It's simple enough for us to be telling the radio or typing to a chat board what the right things are to do, but tonight's game is emblematic as to what his greatest strength is.

It's a heckuva tightrope for us fans, but he stayed with Bronson Arroyo after a superb pitching performance and it was only a slap hit beyond Cozart's reach that tied the game up. And understandably, we're all sweating bullets bringing Chapman back out and he starts off wild. But Baker put him back on that horse and he came through. And even Baker chastising Chapman's somersaults ("we don't play the game that way") makes him what he is. Deeds like this are a tightrope, no question, and you'll lose some games from time to time because of it, but you have your ballplayers knowing they have their manager's confidence.

Part of my reason of drawing forward the original thread about his hiring was because I was struck at some of the fears that have proved baseless. He has been extraordinary with our young squad over the years they've entered fully into their careers. And many of them are locked up for years to come.

You all can laugh all you want, but my suspicion is that Bob C. is sincere in bringing Baker back. The X's and the O's of Dusty Baker, if you will, aren't always what folks want, but there's more to being a manager than that sort of thing. He's got this club, with its warts and all, playing first place ball. That's the bottom line.

dougdirt
06-27-2012, 07:02 AM
It is so easy to be a manager in Cincinnati. No one ever questions anything he ever does. Especially when the team is in first place.

Yep, being in first place means you can't nor have you made any mistakes and should never be questioned. Sounds like Dusty is the King and off with your head if you dare question him.

edabbs44
06-27-2012, 07:03 AM
Yep, being in first place means you can't nor have you made any mistakes and should never be questioned. Sounds like Dusty is the King and off with your head if you dare question him.

Havent some gone a little further than that?

Vottomatic
06-27-2012, 07:04 AM
Open mouth, insert foot = Dusty

dougdirt
06-27-2012, 07:05 AM
Havent some gone a little further than that?

I imagine that some have. But that can be said about just about anyone who has ever done just about anything.

At the end of the day, I simply can't see how anyone can think he is a good manager. Yes, he has some things he does that are good, but the bad far outweigh the good IMO.

edabbs44
06-27-2012, 07:13 AM
I imagine that some have. But that can be said about just about anyone who has ever done just about anything.

At the end of the day, I simply can't see how anyone can think he is a good manager. Yes, he has some things he does that are good, but the bad far outweigh the good IMO.

That's probably because you only see one piece of his job.

dougdirt
06-27-2012, 07:21 AM
That's probably because you only see one piece of his job.

So then everyone should agree with me since no one else can see 'the other side of his job', right?

edabbs44
06-27-2012, 07:30 AM
So then everyone should agree with me since no one else can see 'the other side of his job', right?

Not sure what you are getting at. But the magnifying glass on every decision he makes is probably not the best way to assess his work. It wasnt too long ago that I was reading about how poorly constructed this team was, no depth, lack of LH hitters, no bench, etc etc. Walt was (and still occasionally) takes some posts on the chin. Now the team is in first, playing well, and some are saying that this team should be 6 or 7 games up and would be with a better manager. I don't get it.

And where are those posters who wanted Dusty's head when he kept BP in the cleanup spot over Bruce? It seems like that has worked out pretty well. Is that still part of the anti Dusty book of work or can we put that in the + column?

dougdirt
06-27-2012, 07:45 AM
And where are those posters who wanted Dusty's head when he kept BP in the cleanup spot over Bruce? It seems like that has worked out pretty well. Is that still part of the anti Dusty book of work or can we put that in the + column?
I am still here. I never wanted Dusty's head for the BP at clean up move. I just thought it was and continues to be the incorrect decision. Jay Bruce is a better hitter than Brandon Phillips is.

redsmetz
06-27-2012, 07:55 AM
Yep, being in first place means you can't nor have you made any mistakes and should never be questioned. Sounds like Dusty is the King and off with your head if you dare question him.

This is oversimplifying what folks are saying. Have you ever heard those of us who speak up for Baker ever say he's not without his faults, that he never makes mistakes that should be questioned? I've never seen it. But it's fair game to call into question what is becoming a myopic approach to one aspect of the job a manager has, i.e. the in-game machination. No question that is extremely important, but I would argue that it's not the sole criteria. What else there is isn't just some panacea, touchy-feely voodoo stuff. It's the very real managing of living, breathing human beings to get them to play to the best of the capabilities and perhaps get them to exceed that. It's a messy business, and as I noted elsewhere this morning, you're going to lose some games working the the players you are given.

As for the earliest comment that brought on this "never question Dusty" line of thought, the poster there noted that wasn't the job of a reporter to call out a manager in that fashion. That person noted it was "unprofessional and unproductive." And that was before someone noted, correctly I think, that in fact, separate statements were being weaved into a whole that isn't there. Neither you nor others have answered Sir Charles legitimate questions as to where exactly you disagree with Baker when you look at what he actually says.

Sadly, the hilarity ensues from the nearly irrational blind hatred for Dusty Baker - well, no, it's really not funny at all, is it?

edabbs44
06-27-2012, 07:59 AM
*Ensues

Btw, post of the thread. Hopefully Fay is reading this thread.

MikeS21
06-27-2012, 08:44 AM
The fun with these "fire the manager" threads is that you can change the name "Dusty Baker" to "Jerry Narron," "Dave Miley," "Bob Boone," or "Jack McKeon" and the same thread will show up during any season over the last 15 years. I cannot begin to count how many times it was said that poor Adam Dunn had no one hitting in front of him or behind him - even with Sean Casey and Junior Griffey hitting behind him. ;)

OldXOhio
06-27-2012, 08:46 AM
“We’ll see who’s hot and who can do what,” Baker said.

I didn't read the entire thread so SIAP, but the above quote is the only problem I have with what Dusty said. And the problem with it is probably more attributable to the FO than Baker. Regardless, it would seem the revolving door in left will continue.

edabbs44
06-27-2012, 09:10 AM
The fun with these "fire the manager" threads is that you can change the name "Dusty Baker" to "Jerry Narron," "Dave Miley," "Bob Boone," or "Jack McKeon" and the same thread will show up during any season over the last 15 years. I cannot begin to count how many times it was said that poor Adam Dunn had no one hitting in front of him or behind him - even with Sean Casey and Junior Griffey hitting behind him. ;)

Agree. I think Votto is seeing plenty to hit.

REDREAD
06-27-2012, 09:46 AM
Ludwick is hitting .222 with runners on, .231 with RISP, and .167 with RISP and 2 outs.
Frazier is hitting .246 with runners on, .222 with RISP, and .176 with RISP and 2 outs.
Heisey is hitting .304 with runners on, .275 with RISP, and .259 with RISP and 2 outs.

Yet Ludwick has been productive at driving in runs with 2 outs. Whaaaat?


What's their OPS with runners in scoring position. I looked, and I can't find an easy place to find it (without crunching the numbers myself).
I am willing to bet that Ludwick's slugging with runners in scoring position is significantly higher than Heisey (which leads to more runs).. Not sure about the OBP part though.
Another thing to factor in is that Ludwick started off just awful, but is OPSing almost 900 in his last 28 games.. He's been doing a lot better of late.
I would agree with Dusty, the last month, Ludwick has outperformed Heisey.

REDREAD
06-27-2012, 09:54 AM
And then there's Todd Frazier, who has been hitting all year, including June who can't play over Rolen or Ludwick apparently.

Not correct.. I posted yesterday.. As of yesterday, Rolen had started 6 games and pinch hit in one. Same with Frazier. Now last night Frazier didn't start (IIRC), so Rolen has started one more game. Frazier is not getting buried on the bench.

Rolen and Ludwick have been playing well since Rolen came off the DL too.

REDREAD
06-27-2012, 10:05 AM
Because it's not ALL about OBP, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to think you want as many guys on base as possible for the best hitter in baseball.

And you also want guys with pop that can get themselves into scoring position.

You also want guys with speed that can steal a base or occasionally score from 1b.

Hanigan is slow, a part time player, and has no power at all.

Hannigan is projected to play about 60% of the season. Let's say 360 plate appearances. Stubbs is OBP 312 on the season now, including his horrible start. Hannigan is at 361.. the difference over 360 plate appearances is just
getting on base 17 times more over the entire season. It's just not worth it, considering that it's so much more difficult to get Hannigan to score from first than Stubbs.

Look at last night's game. Stubbs won it with a HR. Hanigan doesn't have that skill set.

Despite his poor career OBP, Stubbs has scored at least 90 runs a year every year.. It's working.

RedsManRick
06-27-2012, 10:09 AM
"OBP is great"

Really? Your lineups sure don't reflect that, Dusty.

Puffy
06-27-2012, 10:12 AM
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with Rolen and Ludwick being bad, but okay lol.

Reds44 -

What I mean is Soriano has been bad for 3 plus years yet you have already endorsed acquiring him this year - yet you say neither Ludwick or Rolen can revert to career norms (well, Rolen, Ludwick's career is nothing worth looking at outside of one year) because they are old. Soriano is old yet you love him, Rolen old thus he is done. Can't you see where your logic veers?

As to the rest, you have a history of being, ummmmmmm, reactionary.

traderumor
06-27-2012, 10:15 AM
What's their OPS with runners in scoring position. I looked, and I can't find an easy place to find it (without crunching the numbers myself).
I am willing to bet that Ludwick's slugging with runners in scoring position is significantly higher than Heisey (which leads to more runs).. Not sure about the OBP part though.
Another thing to factor in is that Ludwick started off just awful, but is OPSing almost 900 in his last 28 games.. He's been doing a lot better of late.
I would agree with Dusty, the last month, Ludwick has outperformed Heisey.He might very well have meant that, but since he did not give exact parameters for the time period that he was referring to, we get to pick apart his statement. ;)

BTW, Fay needs access to Dusty for his job. I suppose he could have pulled out his mobile device and did a quick fact check, but I'm not sure he's going to get the quotes he needs from Dusty about the time he does that.

REDREAD
06-27-2012, 10:18 AM
He might very well have meant that, but since he did not give exact parameters for the time period that he was referring to, we get to pick apart his statement. ;)
.

Yep, that's what we're here for.. to pick apart things to pass the time :) These threads are always worth reading.. not mocking anyone.. but it's funny, every time Dusty makes a quote. POUNCE! :)

RedsManRick
06-27-2012, 10:31 AM
I think the OBP comment is actually a bit of a red herring here. Clearly, if the goal is OBP, our current LF options are not great. But if the question is about run production, looking at small samples of production in clutch situations and asking "who's hot?" is a poor approach to deciding who to play on a given day.

If you want to look at small samples to talk about driving in runs, why not look at RBI using a denominator that actually measures opportunity? Per BP, Ludwick has driven in 15.2% of baserunners this year (22/145), Frazier 15% (15/100), Rolen 13% (13/100) and Heisey 10.2% (13/127). http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1110060

To cut this down even further in two those with 2 outs is just plain silly. As if a guy's ability to drive in runners with two outs was some special skill not already captured by simpler metrics with much bigger sample sizes.

Of course, none of those figures is actually predictive of how they'll perform moving forward -- which is what we actually care about. But I don't imagine that's a concept Dusty puts much stock in. His statements pretty clearly indicate that he highly values recent performance.

_Sir_Charles_
06-27-2012, 10:42 AM
Did Dusty put his best OBP hitters at the top of the lineup in prior seasons with the Giants, Cubs and Reds? Or is he only failing to do it this year because he has no better options (except Philips and Hannigan of course)? I haven't gone back to check to see if it is true, but he did have a reputation before he came to Cincinnati for putting his fast centerfielders and shortstops at the top despite their hitting ability or lack thereof.

I don't think it was CF & SS's exactly but rather the fact that Dusty does like speed at the top of the lineup. Nothing wrong with that, but they need to be able to reach base too. The problem lies in the fact that he hasn't had that hitter with both speed AND on base skills. But I agree with your point. This season though, he does have a legitimate excuse.

RANDY IN INDY
06-27-2012, 10:51 AM
He might very well have meant that, but since he did not give exact parameters for the time period that he was referring to, we get to pick apart his statement. ;)

BTW, Fay needs access to Dusty for his job. I suppose he could have pulled out his mobile device and did a quick fact check, but I'm not sure he's going to get the quotes he needs from Dusty about the time he does that.

I agree. With all due respect, I don't think Fay's main premise in his job is to ask Baker questions with the idea of having facts in his back pocket to try and make him look bad in the press.

_Sir_Charles_
06-27-2012, 10:53 AM
So then everyone should agree with me since no one else can see 'the other side of his job', right?

But the PLAYERS see the other side of his job...and they unilaterally love him. I think that speaks volumes on his job performance. He has also headed up teams to new heights after struggling for lengthy periods (Cubs, Giants & us). Sure, you can point to the personnel and say that's why he had success, but lots of managers have great players and fail to win. There's more to this game than the stat sheet and it seems to me that Dusty is good with all that "other stuff".

When he was brought in here I heard 3 things over and over about him.

1. He abuses young arms
2. He favors vets over young players
3. He hates the walk

Well, from what I've seen during his Reds tenure...all 3 are so far from false it's laughable. The only real faults I see with Dusty are his lineup construction and his love-affair with the bunt. Overall I think he's been good for this club and it's development.

_Sir_Charles_
06-27-2012, 10:55 AM
Not sure what you are getting at. But the magnifying glass on every decision he makes is probably not the best way to assess his work. It wasnt too long ago that I was reading about how poorly constructed this team was, no depth, lack of LH hitters, no bench, etc etc. Walt was (and still occasionally) takes some posts on the chin. Now the team is in first, playing well, and some are saying that this team should be 6 or 7 games up and would be with a better manager. I don't get it.

And where are those posters who wanted Dusty's head when he kept BP in the cleanup spot over Bruce? It seems like that has worked out pretty well. Is that still part of the anti Dusty book of work or can we put that in the + column?

Exactly. If this team is so poorly constructed...Dusty should be manager of the year for getting this bunch of misfits to first place, right?

mdccclxix
06-27-2012, 11:22 AM
I think the OBP comment is actually a bit of a red herring here. Clearly, if the goal is OBP, our current LF options are not great. But if the question is about run production, looking at small samples of production in clutch situations and asking "who's hot?" is a poor approach to deciding who to play on a given day.

If you want to look at small samples to talk about driving in runs, why not look at RBI using a denominator that actually measures opportunity? Per BP, Ludwick has driven in 15.2% of baserunners this year (22/145), Frazier 15% (15/100), Rolen 13% (13/100) and Heisey 10.2% (13/127). http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1110060

To cut this down even further in two those with 2 outs is just plain silly. As if a guy's ability to drive in runners with two outs was some special skill not already captured by simpler metrics with much bigger sample sizes.

Of course, none of those figures is actually predictive of how they'll perform moving forward -- which is what we actually care about. But I don't imagine that's a concept Dusty puts much stock in. His statements pretty clearly indicate that he highly values recent performance.

Playing the hot hand is something he's shown a lot of tact with, as evidenced by times when he'll sit a guy that's hot (to the torture of many) and other times when he'll stick with a guy that's struggling (to the torture of many), hence his "hollering" quip.

After all the minutia of statistical evidence is parsed out, which often leads to inconsequential variance anyway, what's really left is the actual human element and interaction. Confidence, playing time, development, luck, etc.

RedsManRick
06-27-2012, 11:53 AM
Playing the hot hand is something he's shown a lot of tact with, as evidenced by times when he'll sit a guy that's hot (to the torture of many) and other times when he'll stick with a guy that's struggling (to the torture of many), hence his "hollering" quip.

That just emphasizes the point. The logic he shares publicly, as it relates to performance, is arbitrary at best, nonsensical at worst. Sometimes it's about what a guy has done for him lately. Other times it's whether or not he's proven. Sometimes a guy is cold and needs some playing time to shake the rust off. Other times the player needs a day off to think about it.

I don't deny that there are complex decisions to be made. And I'll concede that all of the inputs to those decisions don't lend themselves to a pithy sound bite. It's possible Dusty is just simplifying a consistent logic in inconsistent ways. But it doesn't seem that way to me.


After all the minutia of statistical evidence is parsed out, which often leads to inconsequential variance anyway, what's really left is the actual human element and interaction. Confidence, playing time, development, luck, etc.

I agree. So let's stop talking about the small sample sizes altogether and keep it a conversation based on those less tangible things. Using stats poorly is worse than not using them at all. Comments such as the exchange with Leyland underscore Dusty's challenge with understanding what the stats actually say. I don't doubt that he's a stellar baseball man -- same with Leyland. And at the end of the day, maybe its the decisions based on the intangibles that allow guys to perform at their best. But don't tell me that while OBP is nice, this team needs more guys driving in runs, when it's 4th in SLG (2nd best ISO) and 9th in OBP and we know for a fact that OBP is by far the biggest component of what drives run production.

This team has plenty of power. It lacks OBP -- partly because it lacks batting average. The problem, which Dusty may not have wanted to talk about, is that our LFs are one of the primary sources of this problem -- though Frazier has far and away outperformed Heisey and Ludwick this year. On a rate basis, he's been the 2nd best hitter on the team (.366 wOBA to Bruce's .360. Nobody else is above .340).

As Dusty (and many mangers) is wont to do, he looks at everything from the micro perspective and misses the forest for the trees.

reds44
06-27-2012, 12:21 PM
What's their OPS with runners in scoring position. I looked, and I can't find an easy place to find it (without crunching the numbers myself).
I am willing to bet that Ludwick's slugging with runners in scoring position is significantly higher than Heisey (which leads to more runs).. Not sure about the OBP part though.
Another thing to factor in is that Ludwick started off just awful, but is OPSing almost 900 in his last 28 games.. He's been doing a lot better of late.
I would agree with Dusty, the last month, Ludwick has outperformed Heisey.
If you use their yahoo player pages it does a nice job breaking everything down. I can't look it up right now because I'm at work, but I think all 3 of their OPS' with RISP were pretty similar.

mdccclxix
06-27-2012, 12:31 PM
That just emphasizes the point. The logic he shares publicly, as it relates to performance, is arbitrary at best, nonsensical at worst. Sometimes it's about what a guy has done for him lately. Other times it's whether or not he's proven. Sometimes a guy is cold and needs some playing time to shake the rust off. Other times the player needs a day off to think about it.

I don't deny that there are complex decisions to be made. And I'll concede that all of the inputs to those decisions don't lend themselves to a pithy sound bite. It's possible Dusty is just simplifying a consistent logic in inconsistent ways. But it doesn't seem that way to me.



I agree. So let's stop talking about the small sample sizes altogether and keep it a conversation based on those less tangible things. Using stats poorly is worse than not using them at all. Comments such as the exchange with Leyland underscore Dusty's challenge with understanding what the stats actually say. I don't doubt that he's a stellar baseball man -- same with Leyland. And at the end of the day, maybe its the decisions based on the intangibles that allow guys to perform at their best. But don't tell me that while OBP is nice, this team needs more guys driving in runs, when it's 4th in SLG (2nd best ISO) and 9th in OBP and we know for a fact that OBP is by far the biggest component of what drives run production.

This team has plenty of power. It lacks OBP -- partly because it lacks batting average. The problem, which Dusty may not have wanted to talk about, is that our LFs are one of the primary sources of this problem -- though Frazier has far and away outperformed Heisey and Ludwick this year. On a rate basis, he's been the 2nd best hitter on the team (.366 wOBA to Bruce's .360. Nobody else is above .340).

As Dusty (and many mangers) is wont to do, he looks at everything from the micro perspective and misses the forest for the trees.

I think Dusty would gladly stop talking about all the statistical reasons for his choices, but there is that pressure to show your savvy with numbers these days. How he uses small samples could very well be more advanced and informed than we know because he just gives little short answers. He is also closer to the club than we can ever get.

With regards to his comments about OBP, he's not talking about lead off with the set of players that play LF. The solution for more OBP isn't likely going to come from LF or within the org this year, so yeah he's probably not going to air his frustrations with that. It's pointless.

AtomicDumpling
06-28-2012, 04:09 AM
I would imagine Dusty has more input and control over the player acquisition process than people realize. Yes it is Jocketty who actually goes out and gets the players, but Dusty has a ton of input and is integrally involved in the process. Dusty and Walt discuss the roster and decide together what the team needs. I believe Walt has gone out and made player moves because Dusty wanted a certain player or type of player. I don't believe that Jocketty is making moves in a vacuum without input from the coaching staff or against Dusty's will, and I don't believe Dusty is helplessly forced to use players he does not want on the team. Guys like Cairo, Valdez and Ludwick are here because Dusty wanted them.

I am sure there have been players that Dusty wanted but Walt was unable or unwilling to acquire as well. You can't get a player who is unavailable or is unwilling to come here. But in general I believe the roster is the way it is because both Dusty and Walt decided to build the team this way. For that reason I don't think Dusty is beyond blame for the lack of some good OBP hitters for the top of the lineup. If he really valued that type of player he would have them by now because the Reds have had several years in Dusty and Walt's reign to find a way to acquire them.

reds44
07-05-2012, 09:27 PM
July 5th version. Nice typo from Fay too.

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2012/07/05/stubbs-gets-day-off-to-regroup/


Stubbs will likely be back be back in the lineup today. He’ll also likely be in the second spot, i.e, Baker is not considering doing him down in the lineup.

“He took off this year when I put him second,” Baker said. “You hope, during the course of the year, whoever I put in front of Joey (Votto) takes off. Like I keep saying it’s like putting your finger in the dike trying to re-arrange things.

“He’s one my one main speed threat. If you drop him down to seventh and he steals, they’ll walk the catcher to get to the pitcher.”

oregonred
07-05-2012, 09:28 PM
July 5th version.

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2012/07/05/stubbs-gets-day-off-to-regroup/

:lol:

Basecloggers

Of course Leake has a nearly 7 RC/276 this season. FWIW.

reds44
07-05-2012, 09:29 PM
My favorite part of that might be where he pretty much admits that catchers bat 8th no matter what.

Not to mention the fact Stubbs can't really steal in front of Votto anyways because they'll just walk him.

oregonred
07-05-2012, 09:30 PM
That quote is wrong on so many fronts that Dusty must be two steps ahead of everyone else.

Seriously he had to be misquoted. Seriously? :bang:

Cedric
07-05-2012, 09:45 PM
It's amazing how someone can be around this game for so long and have absolutely no idea what they are doing.

kbrake
07-05-2012, 09:48 PM
I clicked on this page first and before seeing the actual quote I was expecting much worse. By Dusty standards this doesn't seem so bad. Still dumb, but not even close to his worst.

Tony Cloninger
07-05-2012, 09:53 PM
It's amazing how someone can be around this game for so long and have absolutely no idea what they are doing.

And yet no one calls him on it. Like ...."Hi Dusty, I have a question......do you think we are all stupid? I mean I know you think fans and blogs are stupid, but us at the press here?" Q the talk about what Hank Aaron one did or told him.

I'm telling you...this guy is Rasputin.

osuceltic
07-05-2012, 09:53 PM
I find it funny that Dusty's intelligence is challenged by someone who misspelled "ensues."

reds44
07-05-2012, 09:55 PM
I find it funny that Dusty's intelligence is challenged by someone who misspelled "ensues."
Touche lol

AtomicDumpling
07-06-2012, 05:56 AM
“He’s my one main speed threat. If you drop him down to seventh and he steals, they’ll walk the catcher to get to the pitcher.”

... and that is supposed to be a bad thing?

That would only happen if there were two outs right? The rest of the time they would pitch to the catcher with Stubbs in scoring position because otherwise the pitcher would be able to bunt both runners into scoring position.

Isn't enticing them into walking the catcher a good thing for the Reds anyway though? Or would you rather have him pitch to the catcher (with two outs and Stubbs on first) and get him out about 65-70% of the time and then have the pitcher lead off the next inning? It is better for us to get the pitcher's slot out of the way this inning and have the leadoff hitter bat 1st in the next inning. In Dusty's scenario even if the catcher does get a hit it is still unlikely that Stubbs will score before the pitcher comes to the plate, so we risked making an out for no reason. Having the opposing team intentionally walk our catcher to face the pitcher plays into the Reds advantage, Dusty should know that. I don't think he thought his scenario through very well. Walks are a good thing, they lead to more runs being scored, so don't try to avoid them.

If having Stubbs steal second in front of the catcher is a guaranteed way to turn the lineup over then sign me up every time.

The subtle part of Dusty's quote is telling as well. He just assumes that the catcher will always be batting 8th even if he is better than the hitters batting in front of him. The lineup should be sorted by their hitting ability rather than the positions they play on defense or their footspeed. It doesn't matter how fast or slow you are if you can't get on base at a high rate. I would rather have the slowest runner in the league take a base on balls than have the Flash walk back to the dugout with bat in hand. It is better to have the bases clogged than the bases empty. Every out the bottom of the lineup manages to avoid brings us one step closer to another Joey Votto plate appearance.

dougdirt
07-06-2012, 08:47 AM
... and that is supposed to be a bad thing?

That would only happen if there were two outs right? The rest of the time they would pitch to the catcher with Stubbs in scoring position because otherwise the pitcher would be able to bunt both runners into scoring position.

Isn't enticing them into walking the catcher a good thing for the Reds anyway though? Or would you rather have him pitch to the catcher (with two outs and Stubbs on first) and get him out about 65-70% of the time and then have the pitcher lead off the next inning? It is better for us to get the pitcher's slot out of the way this inning and have the leadoff hitter bat 1st in the next inning. In Dusty's scenario even if the catcher does get a hit it is still unlikely that Stubbs will score before the pitcher comes to the plate, so we risked making an out for no reason. Having the opposing team intentionally walk our catcher to face the pitcher plays into the Reds advantage, Dusty should know that. I don't think he thought his scenario through very well. Walks are a good thing, they lead to more runs being scored, so don't try to avoid them.

If having Stubbs steal second in front of the catcher is a guaranteed way to turn the lineup over then sign me up every time.

The subtle part of Dusty's quote is telling as well. He just assumes that the catcher will always be batting 8th even if he is better than the hitters batting in front of him. The lineup should be sorted by their hitting ability rather than the positions they play on defense or their footspeed. It doesn't matter how fast or slow you are if you can't get on base at a high rate. I would rather have the slowest runner in the league take a base on balls than have the Flash walk back to the dugout with bat in hand. It is better to have the bases clogged than the bases empty. Every out the bottom of the lineup manages to avoid brings us one step closer to another Joey Votto plate appearance.

I just wanted to quote this so people could read it twice.

CesarGeronimo
07-06-2012, 08:51 AM
Dusty needs to focus on getting some freakin runners on base before Joey Votto hits. Despite the amazing season Votto is having and his terrific batting average with runners on base, halfway through the season Votto is just 20th in the National League in RBIs with 47.

Dusty needs to put his best OBP guys in front of Votto and whoever will make it hardest to pitch around Votto behind him in the order, and forget all this nonsense about how to use his one speed guy. This is ridiculous and unacceptable.

Raisor
07-06-2012, 09:19 AM
I think we should write a strongly worded letter and send it to Dusty, Walt, and the Castses.

I nominate of of Redszone legal advisors to actually write the thing with the ORG acting as the continental congress and ratify it.

SO LET IT BE WRITTEN! SO LET IT BE DONE!

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 09:35 AM
Stubbs will likely be back be back in the lineup today. He’ll also likely be in the second spot, i.e, Baker is not considering doing him down in the lineup.

“He took off this year when I put him second,” Baker said. “You hope, during the course of the year, whoever I put in front of Joey (Votto) takes off. Like I keep saying it’s like putting your finger in the dike trying to re-arrange things.

“He’s one my one main speed threat. If you drop him down to seventh and he steals, they’ll walk the catcher to get to the pitcher.”

This team has a lot of problems, and Dusty can't solve them all. Hence, the "finger in the dike comment". Maybe some of you think he can fix all the teams problems because you have a keyboard and watch all the games.

What you're hearing above is a result of Stubbs downward track. Basically, Dusty is saying "this is the last best idea we have for Drew becoming the Drew this franchise needs him to be." He's batting 2nd because he's batting .750 OPS there and horribly every where else. But, leave it to a cold streak to deliver verdicts from the fans who are not responsible for a team. Take a look at the Opening Day lineup, which represents to most people "the way it was drawn up" in the offseason:

Phillips - good year there in 2011
Cozart - rookie protected by Votto
Votto - .
Rolen - Thanks Walt
Bruce - spent his career here so far
Ludwick - a pariah early on, now people want him everyday in LF and cleaning up. par.
Stubbs - apparently Dusty was on to something before some of the posters reaction to last night?
Hanigan - oh yes, the preeminent lead off hitter of Redszone, apologies Ryan, you're 8th
P

He's got people all fired up again over one of his throw away comments. The fact is, he does only offer excuses, because he doesn't really care to explain the entire sport of baseball and his players role in it during a 1 minute interview.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 09:38 AM
Think if Walt had gotten Willingham or Beltran instead of Madson:

Phillips
Cozart
Votto
Beltran/Willingham
Bruce
etc
etc
etc

All. year. long.

CesarGeronimo
07-06-2012, 09:42 AM
This team has a lot of problems, and Dusty can't solve them all. Hence, the "finger in the dike comment". Maybe some of you think he can fix all the teams problems because you have a keyboard and watch all the games.

What you're hearing above is a result of Stubbs downward track. Basically, Dusty is saying "this is the last best idea we have for Drew becoming the Drew this franchise needs him to be." He's batting 2nd because he's batting .750 OPS there and horribly every where else. But, leave it to a cold streak to deliver verdicts from the fans who are not responsible for a team. Take a look at the Opening Day lineup, which represents to most people "the way it was drawn up" in the offseason:

Phillips - good year there in 2011
Cozart - rookie protected by Votto
Votto - .
Rolen - Thanks Walt
Bruce - spent his career here so far
Ludwick - a pariah early on, now people want him everyday in LF and cleaning up. par.
Stubbs - apparently Dusty was on to something before some of the posters reaction to last night?
Hanigan - oh yes, the preeminent lead off hitter of Redszone, apologies Ryan, you're 8th
P

He's got people all fired up again over one of his throw away comments. The fact is, he does only offer excuses, because he doesn't really care to explain the entire sport of baseball and his players role in it during a 1 minute interview.

Because of Stubbs' downward track, they need to bat him second instead of seventh? :lol:

westofyou
07-06-2012, 09:48 AM
Because of Stubbs' downward track, they need to bat him second instead of seventh? :lol:

Stubbs ain't perfect, but he did have a .372 OB% last month, second best on the team... I'd take a .330 from him the rest of the year myself... lord knows they can use it

In fact the Reds were 4th in the league last month in OPS, with this line

.265/.332/.444/.776

The last week has been putrid for sure (.274 ob%)

But the league is trending downward in OB% currently and the Reds actually are slightly above average.

What I see a lot of is the the game is trending away from offense and those who grew up in the 90's and Aughts see it as the end of the world and only the Reds as the ones suffering through the change.

The game is changing folks... take notice

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 09:48 AM
Yeah, they're trying to save his career basically. I'm not a Stubbs fan, but I'm batting him 2nd. You think Dusty is blind to his slump? That's why he gave him a break.

Tony Cloninger
07-06-2012, 09:50 AM
I just wanted to quote this so people could read it twice.

You should post it to the Enquirer comments.....so some of those bozos who post there would get hit with some knowledge. Heck....forward it to Fay and see if would at least confront Dusty with this logic.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 09:50 AM
Stubbs ain't perfect, but he did have a .372 OB% last month, second best on the team... I'd take a .330 from him the rest of the year myself... lord knows they can use it

In fact the Reds were 4th in the league last month in OPS, with this line

.265/.332/.444/.776

The last week has been putrid for sure (.274 ob%)

But the league is trending downward in OB% currently and the Reds actually are slightly above average.

What I see a lot of is the the game is trending away from offense and those who grew up in the 90's and Aughts see it as the end of the world and only the Reds as the ones suffering through the change.

The game is changing folks... take notice

Thank you. To all, please take a visit to the Mariners baseball-ref page, if last night's loss is overly irksome:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SEA/2012.shtml

RANDY IN INDY
07-06-2012, 09:58 AM
Stubbs ain't perfect, but he did have a .372 OB% last month, second best on the team... I'd take a .330 from him the rest of the year myself... lord knows they can use it

In fact the Reds were 4th in the league last month in OPS, with this line

.265/.332/.444/.776

The last week has been putrid for sure (.274 ob%)

But the league is trending downward in OB% currently and the Reds actually are slightly above average.

What I see a lot of is the the game is trending away from offense and those who grew up in the 90's and Aughts see it as the end of the world and only the Reds as the ones suffering through the change.

The game is changing folks... take notice

I believe you are on to something.....................;)

CesarGeronimo
07-06-2012, 10:00 AM
Stubbs ain't perfect, but he did have a .372 OB% last month, second best on the team... I'd take a .330 from him the rest of the year myself... lord knows they can use it

In fact the Reds were 4th in the league last month in OPS, with this line

.265/.332/.444/.776

The last week has been putrid for sure (.274 ob%)

But the league is trending downward in OB% currently and the Reds actually are slightly above average.

What I see a lot of is the the game is trending away from offense and those who grew up in the 90's and Aughts see it as the end of the world and only the Reds as the ones suffering through the change.

The game is changing folks... take notice

When I look up Stubbs' OBP over the last 30 days on Reds.com, it shows .225 for that period and .289 for the season. I think you are cutting up his numbers in a way that is not reflective of what he's likely to do moving forward.

oregonred
07-06-2012, 10:06 AM
Stubbs ain't perfect, but he did have a .372 OB% last month, second best on the team... I'd take a .330 from him the rest of the year myself... lord knows they can use it

In fact the Reds were 4th in the league last month in OPS, with this line

.265/.332/.444/.776

The last week has been putrid for sure (.274 ob%)

But the league is trending downward in OB% currently and the Reds actually are slightly above average.

What I see a lot of is the the game is trending away from offense and those who grew up in the 90's and Aughts see it as the end of the world and only the Reds as the ones suffering through the change.

The game is changing folks... take notice

Agree offense is way down, but you have to admit the offesive roster construction of this team is simply inexcusable -- no left handers on the bench, no switch hitters, redundant players in the OF, low OBP players out the wazoo. The Reds futility in close and 1-run games is becoming more evident as the dog days approach.

This team is 2nd in the league in road ERA with a stellar 3.35 yet is only 21-22 on the road. Five solid starters making all 82 starts. Something is wrong...

...The offense is 12th in the NL on the road with a .672 OPS (last is .655 so the cellar is in sight) and 11th vs. RHP at .706 (last in reach at .687). Offense may be down league wide but this is simply pathetic.

The poor roster construction is the overriding factor in holding the team back but Dusty has shown no ability to maximize the hand he has been dealt or to deviate from the script.

westofyou
07-06-2012, 10:14 AM
Agree offense is way down, but you have to admit the offesive roster construction of this team is simply inexcusable -- no left handers on the bench, no switch hitters, redundant players in the OF, low OBP players out the wazoo. The Reds futility in close and 1-run games is becoming more evident as the dog days approach.

This team is 2nd in the league in road ERA with a stellar 3.35 yet is only 21-22 on the road. Five solid starters making all 82 starts. Something is wrong...

...The offense is 12th in the NL on the road with a .672 OPS (last is .655 so the cellar is in sight) and 11th vs. RHP at .706 (last in reach at .687). Offense may be down league wide but this is simply pathetic.

The poor roster construction is the overriding factor in holding the team back but Dusty has shown no ability to maximize the hand he has been dealt or to deviate from the script.

I agree... the Reds roster is in need of tweaks for sure, and Dusty can only play with the cards dealt him at this time. Personally I don't think Hanigen at the top of the order is the answer. This team needs a BA driven player or two, guys who move the ball to get on base, not just walk or hit it far.

That said it's up to Jocketty to find the answer, that's why he gets to sit in the good seats for free

westofyou
07-06-2012, 10:15 AM
When I look up Stubbs' OBP over the last 30 days on Reds.com, it shows .225 for that period and .289 for the season. I think you are cutting up his numbers in a way that is not reflective of what he's likely to do moving forward.

I said June... but you're right on the recent 30 days.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 10:17 AM
Agree offense is way down, but you have to admit the offesive roster construction of this team is simply inexcusable -- no left handers on the bench, no switch hitters, redundant players in the OF, low OBP players out the wazoo. The Reds futility in close and 1-run games is becoming more evident as the dog days approach.

This team is 2nd in the league in road ERA with a stellar 3.35 yet is only 21-22 on the road. Five solid starters making all 82 starts. Something is wrong...

...The offense is 12th in the NL on the road with a .672 OPS (last is .655 so the cellar is in sight) and 11th vs. RHP at .706 (last in reach at .687). Offense may be down league wide but this is simply pathetic.

The poor roster construction is the overriding factor in holding the team back but Dusty has shown no ability to maximize the hand he has been dealt or to deviate from the script.

This is the condescension to Dusty that is often reason for my rebuttals in support of him. No 'ability'? Really? I'd say willingness maybe, but of course he has the ability to understand anyone's reason for batting this guy or that at the top of the lineup.

OldXOhio
07-06-2012, 10:23 AM
This is the condescension to Dusty that is often reason for my rebuttals in support of him. No 'ability'? Really? I'd say willingness maybe, but of course he has the ability to understand anyone's reason for batting this guy or that at the top of the lineup.

Perhaps it's both. It would seem Dusty values speed over OBP at the top. To not recognize this flaw does speak in some sense to his ability.

REDREAD
07-06-2012, 10:24 AM
When I look up Stubbs' OBP over the last 30 days on Reds.com, it shows .225 for that period and .289 for the season. I think you are cutting up his numbers in a way that is not reflective of what he's likely to do moving forward.

You are both right..
June 375 OBP
Last 28 games (which Drew only started 9 games) is 225 obp

Honestly, I think Dusty is doing the right thing by keeping Stubbs in the #2 slot. His speed/power does play well when Drew is hitting, and there's not like there's anyone better to hit #2 (Hannigan is not a serious candidate).

I think I would move Cozart out of the #1 slot before I moved Stubbs out of the #2.

membengal
07-06-2012, 10:29 AM
Game is trending back, sure, woy. No disagreement. just puts even more emphasis on needing a consistent high obp guy in front of votto, and that is not drew stubbs.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 10:33 AM
Perhaps it's both. It would seem Dusty values speed over OBP at the top. To not recognize this flaw does speak in some sense to his ability.

It would appear the Reds organization doesn't value OBP as much as many fans do. Otherwise there wouldn't be a procession of fast, low OBP players every year since Jocketty showed up. We've gone over this in the past, but look at what Dusty's had available to hit 1 and 2 and tell me he's made some idiotic choices. The best options I've heard are like Rolen batting 2nd, Hannigan leading off or 2nd, Dickerson, ummm, Heisey?, I don't know...Hernandez?, what have people had to complain about other than the players we've acquired - I don't know.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 10:37 AM
CF Darren Lewis (career .323 OBP) and Robby Thompson (career .329, but a monster season in 93) hit 1st and 2nd for the 93 Giants, Lewis and 2B John Patterson (.289) in 94, Lewis for most of 95 until the Giants got Neon Deion (.319) from our Redlegs with Thompson returning to the 2 hole. So the first three years were definitely more geared towards speed with Deion being the only guy who could get on base at a decent clip. During these years the other lineup regulars included Royce Clayton (.312) and Kirt Manwaring (.311) who batted after the middle of the lineup of Will Clark, Matt Williams, and Barry Bonds. So really, he worked with what he had.

Dusty seemed to correct the issue in 1996 when given better options by going with Marvin Bernard (.343) and Bill Mueller (.373). He regressed a bit in 1997 by batting Jose Vizcaino (.318) second, but by late August he realized the error of his ways and moved Mueller back into his rightful spot with Darryl Hamilton (.360) manning leadoff effectively. Mueller and Hamilton held onto those same spots in 1998. With Hamilton gone Bernard returned to the leadoff spot in 1999 and Mueller remained in the 2 hole. The turn of the century in 2000 saw that same Bernard/Mueller tandem remain in tact. 2001 saw Bernard split almost evenly with Calvin Murray (.315), but in Dusty's defense Murray had gotten on base at a .348 rate the previous season. And with Mueller gone, good old Richie Aurilla (.328) took over the 2 hole with his 37 HR monster season. In his swansong season in the Bay, Dusty unconventionally used Louisville Bats manager David Bell (.320) in the leadoff spot before the team acquired Kenny Lofton (.372) and he took over, and Aurilia still manned the 2 spot.

With his Cubs in 2003, Dusty used Mark Grudzielanek (.322, but .366 in 03) and Alex Gonzalez (.302) as his leadoff and 2 spot guys until he was reunited with Kenny Lofton and Lofton took over leadoff and Grudzielanek slid into the 2 spot. 2004 saw Dusty's love affair with Corey Patterson (.290) really begin as Patterson logged the most 2 hole and nearly the most leadoff at-bats, with Todd Walker (.348) narrowly leading him in leadoff appearances. It is interesting to note though that 2004 saw 1B Derrek Lee (.365) and Catcher Michael Barrett (.320) draw 28 and 18 appearances in the 2 hole, respectively, which is certainly unconventional for an old-school guy. Dusty gave up on Patterson in 2005 and turned instead to fellow future Red Jerry Hairston Jr. (.329) in the leadoff spot with Walker drawing a good amount of starts in the 2 hole but still trailing the infamous Neifi Perez (.297). Dusty's Chicago swansong saw Juan Pierre (.346) hit leadoff in 159 games, with a rotating cycle of Walker, Ryan Theriot (.342), Ronny Cedeno (.289) and others (including the Reds discarded Tony Womack) in the 2 hole. He only batted Matt Murton (.352) in the 2 hole three times, which was definitely the best way to go.

And with our Reds, well, you know that story. Patterson in 2008 until he faceplanted and was replaced by Hairston. I completely forgot too that Bruce hit leadoff in 22 games that year. Keppinger (.333) hit second. Wily Taveras (.320) in 2009 until he faceplanted and Stubbs (.323) took over. Hairston and Janish (.289) manned the 2 spot with cult-favorite Chris Dickerson (.351) also drawing starts in both slots but unable to stay healthy. In 2010 it was BP (.322) and Orlando Cabrera (.317) flip-flopping back and forth hitting 1st and 2nd and last year in 2011 it was Stubbs leading off with BP and Edgar Renteria (.343) splitting the 2 hole.

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

So what conclusion do I draw? Dusty certainly has an affinity for speed, but for the most part he generally is able to recognize what a leadoff and 2 hole leader need to be able to do. Of course, he is susceptible to falling in love with certain guys in certain spots but I think his Reds tenure has been marred by some historically bad play in the form of Patterson and Taveras in 2008 and 2009.

*This analysis is all courtesy of Baseball-Reference and my insomnia.

bump


ahem, Walt? Yes, Walt, please throw a bone if you could. Right now, please.

westofyou
07-06-2012, 10:37 AM
Game is trending back, sure, woy. No disagreement. just puts even more emphasis on needing a consistent high obp guy in front of votto, and that is not drew stubbs.

Yep, they really need a guy who hits .290 and can take 60-70 walks a year

Problem is the Reds have not had many of those guys in the last 20 years



OBA YEAR OBA AVG BB
1 Eric Davis 1996 .394 .287 70
2 Scott Hatteberg 2006 .389 .289 74
3 Joey Votto 2008 .368 .297 59
4 Scott Rolen 2010 .358 .285 50
5 Todd Walker 2002 .353 .299 50
6 Jay Bruce 2010 .353 .281 58
7 Felipe Lopez 2005 .352 .291 57
8 Sean Casey 2003 .350 .291 51



And just to gauge on who that is over the last season here's the top 10 in that range


SEASON
2011
AVERAGE BETWEEN .280 AND .300
WALKS BETWEEN 50 AND 80

OBA OBA AVG BB
1 Alex Avila .389 .295 73
2 Matt Holliday .388 .296 60
3 Carlos Beltran .385 .300 71
4 Chase Headley .374 .289 52
5 Justin Upton .369 .289 59
6 Yunel Escobar .369 .290 61
7 Andre Ethier .368 .292 58
8 Alberto Callaspo .366 .288 58
9 Albert Pujols .366 .299 61
10 Billy Butler .361 .291 66


#4 on that list was mentioned as available yesterday

Chip R
07-06-2012, 10:41 AM
Dusty needs to focus on getting some freakin runners on base before Joey Votto hits. Despite the amazing season Votto is having and his terrific batting average with runners on base, halfway through the season Votto is just 20th in the National League in RBIs with 47.

Dusty needs to put his best OBP guys in front of Votto and whoever will make it hardest to pitch around Votto behind him in the order, and forget all this nonsense about how to use his one speed guy. This is ridiculous and unacceptable.

Problem is there is only 1 guy who has a better OBP than Votto and that's Hanigan. What are you going to do on the days he doesn't play? The NL doesn't have a DH. If you bat Votto 3rd and Hanigan 1st or 2nd who else bats ahead of Votto? You guys are all about the problem but you don't have a solution.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 10:45 AM
Yep, they really need a guy who hits .290 and can take 60-70 walks a year

Problem is the Reds have not had many of those guys in the last 20 years



OBA YEAR OBA AVG BB
1 Eric Davis 1996 .394 .287 70
2 Scott Hatteberg 2006 .389 .289 74
3 Joey Votto 2008 .368 .297 59
4 Scott Rolen 2010 .358 .285 50
5 Todd Walker 2002 .353 .299 50
6 Jay Bruce 2010 .353 .281 58
7 Felipe Lopez 2005 .352 .291 57
8 Sean Casey 2003 .350 .291 51



And just to gauge on who that is over the last season here's the top 10 in that range


SEASON
2011
AVERAGE BETWEEN .280 AND .300
WALKS BETWEEN 50 AND 80

OBA OBA AVG BB
1 Alex Avila .389 .295 73
2 Matt Holliday .388 .296 60
3 Carlos Beltran .385 .300 71
4 Chase Headley .374 .289 52
5 Justin Upton .369 .289 59
6 Yunel Escobar .369 .290 61
7 Andre Ethier .368 .292 58
8 Alberto Callaspo .366 .288 58
9 Albert Pujols .366 .299 61
10 Billy Butler .361 .291 66


#4 on that list was mentioned as available yesterday

I expected to see Rich Aurrelia on that list, but he was close. Any way, I've always liked Alberto Callaspo and thought he was undervalued. Headley would be a choice acquisition and I believe, yes I believe, those clouds over Redszone, they would part, and the sunshine would be great, if only for a time. Then it would be Dusty's fault again.

CesarGeronimo
07-06-2012, 10:46 AM
You are both right..
June 375 OBP
Last 28 games (which Drew only started 9 games) is 225 obp

Honestly, I think Dusty is doing the right thing by keeping Stubbs in the #2 slot. His speed/power does play well when Drew is hitting, and there's not like there's anyone better to hit #2 (Hannigan is not a serious candidate).

I think I would move Cozart out of the #1 slot before I moved Stubbs out of the #2.

They both need to be moved out of their slots with their sub .300 OBPs and sub .700 OPSs.

Joey Votto is hitting .370 with an OPS of 1.228 with runners on base and .367 with an OPS of 1.335 with runners in scoring position. Yet, amazingly, he stands just 20th in RBIs in the National League with 47 at the halfway point of the season. Dusty needs to pack his best hitters around Votto and instead he is doing just the opposite.

The Reds may not have great options for 1-2, but Dusty is playing the worst possible options there. Phillips and Frazier would be a better option, by far, with Ludwick fourth. Or Phillips and Ludwick would be a better option with Frazier fourth. Or Phillips and Frazier 1-2 and move Bruce up a spot to cleanup.

The remedy to having some deficiencies in your lineup is not to bat your worst hitters first, giving them the most at bats and leaving the bases vacant for your best hitters. This is insanity and yet people will defend it, no matter how crazy it gets.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 10:53 AM
They both need to be moved out of their slots with their sub .300 OBPs and sub .700 OPSs.

Joey Votto is hitting .370 with an OPS of 1.228 with runners on base and .367 with an OPS of 1.335 with runners in scoring position. Yet, amazingly, he stands just 20th in RBIs in the National League with 47 at the halfway point of the season. Dusty needs to pack his best hitters around Votto and instead he is doing just the opposite.

The Reds may not have great options for 1-2, but Dusty is playing the worst possible options there. Phillips and Frazier would be a better option, by far, with Ludwick fourth. Or Phillips and Ludwick would be a better option with Frazier fourth. Or Phillips and Frazier 1-2 and move Bruce up a spot to cleanup.

The remedy to having some deficiencies in your lineup is not to bat your worst hitters first, giving them the most at bats and leaving the bases vacant for your best hitters. This is insanity and yet people will defend it, no matter how crazy it gets.

I think the Cozart thing is getting old, even for me. He's been bad enough to pry Phillips out of cleanup. In concert with that has been the good play of Frazier and Ludwick, which now make more sense for cleanup. But we can't pretend this has been the case all year. For a while Cozart was struggling, Frazier was getting spot starts and so was Ludwick. Things are firming up on these two fronts and you may see a change. But, like Dusty said yesterday, the effect may be meaningless, as Frazier and Ludwick could easily slump as badly as Stubbs has been. Then you've got no one driving Votto in as well as Phillips has been. When Dusty makes certain choices, he sticks with them even when they appear not to work because he knows baseball will fool your eyes pretty often. We'll see what the AS break brings. He may just keep going in hopes that his guys are refreshed, I wouldn't be surprised.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 10:56 AM
That 2010 offense had really nice balance as a result of Rolen. Since then, they've had no replacement for that type of production.

Wheelhouse
07-06-2012, 10:57 AM
And I imagine that if you were the Reds beat writer, gainfully employed, you would not have done so either, if you ever wanted the manager to speak with you again.

Being absolutely honest, and saying whatever comes to mind, will often get one fired, unless one is George Steinbrenner.

This is true. The beats know where their bread is buttered.

OldXOhio
07-06-2012, 10:58 AM
Problem is there is only 1 guy who has a better OBP than Votto and that's Hanigan. What are you going to do on the days he doesn't play? .

Even if Hanigan is evenly splitting time at C, you've got half the games covered hitting him 2. Put Frazier there for the others.


The NL doesn't have a DH. If you bat Votto 3rd and Hanigan 1st or 2nd who else bats ahead of Votto? You guys are all about the problem but you don't have a solution

I think the argument for most is that you have two guys at the top with low OBP. No arguing that there aren't many options for Dusty to choose from, but why hamper the offense that badly at the top.

My solution until such time Walt decides to correct some of his mess:

Phillips
Hanigan/Frazier
Votto
Bruce
Ludwick
Hanigan/Frazier
Stubbs
Cozart
P

dougdirt
07-06-2012, 10:58 AM
That 2010 offense had really nice balance as a result of Rolen. Since then, they've had no replacement for that type of production.

They have had no replacement for it because they extended an injury prone mid 30's player to a two year extension and spent money on that instead of going out and using that money on someone more reliable. The Reds paid for intangibles rather than production and well, this is the bed that they made.

dougdirt
07-06-2012, 11:00 AM
This is true. The beats know where their bread is buttered.

Unfortunately in Cincinnati it does work that way, as there is really only one beat guy who doesn't work for the team.

oregonred
07-06-2012, 11:09 AM
This is the condescension to Dusty that is often reason for my rebuttals in support of him. No 'ability'? Really? I'd say willingness maybe, but of course he has the ability to understand anyone's reason for batting this guy or that at the top of the lineup.

willingness, desire, urgency, insert your own adjective here...

Team in a funk, long road trip out West, why not have a bit of fun for a day or two and shake things up a bit. What's the worst that can happen? Three runs over three days.

From the poor choices, Phillips is the best leadoff option and I'd slot Ludwick in at cleanup now (best of poor choices).

Phillips
Cozart/Stubbs
Votto
Ludwick
Bruce
Frazier
Cozart/Stubbs/Heisey/Biff Spiffington/insert low OBP guy of choice here...
Manigan (catcher must bat 8th, but Mes should be 7th)

OldX's works fine too... Phillips at leadoff. Please.

oregonred
07-06-2012, 11:11 AM
They have had no replacement for it because they extended an injury prone mid 30's player to a two year extension and spent money on that instead of going out and using that money on someone more reliable. The Reds paid for intangibles rather than production and well, this is the bed that they made.

That and Arroyo's deal eliminated all pay-flex from 2011-2013. :bang:

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 11:12 AM
They have had no replacement for it because they extended an injury prone mid 30's player to a two year extension and spent money on that instead of going out and using that money on someone more reliable. The Reds paid for intangibles rather than production and well, this is the bed that they made.

True, but they also passed on some outfielders that would have helped in this department.

Teams role the dice on injury prone players, but the Reds don't that often at all. Rolen, a generational talent, was the exception. He did provide 1.5 bWAR last year in half a season. This year is looking grim, but it's not over yet. I don't mind the signing at all since his defense is great still, but do mind that they planned him to hit cleanup again this year. That was foolish.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 11:21 AM
willingness, desire, urgency, insert your own adjective here...

Team in a funk, long road trip out West, why not have a bit of fun for a day or two and shake things up a bit. What's the worst that can happen? Three runs over three days.

From the poor choices, Phillips is the best leadoff option and I'd slot Ludwick in at cleanup now (best of poor choices).

Phillips
Cozart/Stubbs
Votto
Ludwick
Bruce
Frazier
Cozart/Stubbs/Heisey/Biff Spiffington/insert low OBP guy of choice here...
Manigan (catcher must bat 8th, but Mes should be 7th)

OldX's works fine too... Phillips at leadoff. Please.

I could use any of the adjectives you listed, those don't have a tone that implies the man is an idiot. I think Dusty would prefer Brandon leading off since that's where he started the year, and with the solid play from Ludwick it may be enough to make that switch. But let's not pretend like Ludwick doesn't have some rough outings and won't look bad eventually. Ludwick is Ludwick. Heisey is Heisey. Frazier is Frazier. All over the course of the year. Frazier is the one that interests me the most, as I believe he may have some rookie magic going this year, or he may be growing as a player. The youthful intrigue is there with Frazier, but it's also fleeting.

_Sir_Charles_
07-06-2012, 11:23 AM
My favorite part of that might be where he pretty much admits that catchers bat 8th no matter what.

Not to mention the fact Stubbs can't really steal in front of Votto anyways because they'll just walk him.

My favorite part is that he MAY have considered "doing" stubbs somewhere ELSE in the order. Dusty's wife may not approve. :p

oregonred
07-06-2012, 11:32 AM
I could use any of the adjectives you listed, those don't have a tone that implies the man is an idiot. I think Dusty would prefer Brandon leading off since that's where he started the year, and with the solid play from Ludwick it may be enough to make that switch. But let's not pretend like Ludwick doesn't have some rough outings and won't look bad eventually. Ludwick is Ludwick. Heisey is Heisey. Frazier is Frazier. All over the course of the year. Frazier is the one that interests me the most, as I believe he may have some rookie magic going this year, or he may be growing as a player. The youthful intrigue is there with Frazier, but it's also fleeting.

Yep no argument here. Dusty is not an idiot, but he is very set in his philosophy for good or bad and that just isn't ever going to change. We'll see how 2012 plays out, but becoming more clear that to maximize the 2012-2015 window Dusty shouldn't be the guy.

cincrazy
07-06-2012, 11:33 AM
Let's be honest, the Reds aren't that much different than the Nationals, Giants, Dodgers, Pirates, etc. All of them have great pitching, but hitting that leaves much to be desired. The difference is, those teams seem to be better at close games, particularly one run games. And the Reds have really struggled in that regard this year, in part, I believe, because Dusty just isn't that great at strategic thinking.

oregonred
07-06-2012, 11:35 AM
Let's be honest, the Reds aren't that much different than the Nationals, Giants, Dodgers, Pirates, etc. All of them have great pitching, but hitting that leaves much to be desired. The difference is, those teams seem to be better at close games, particularly one run games. And the Reds have really struggled in that regard this year, in part, I believe, because Dusty just isn't that great at strategic thinking.

I think it is more the offensive roster construction and Dusty's poor usage of righty/lefty matchups when the Marshall in the 8th Chapman in the 9th plan deviates one iota.

Let's not kid ourselves, the Ryan Madson injury was really a killer in many ways and it is increasingly rearing its head as we approach the dog days. We wouldn't be 13-15 in 1-run games with Madsen as the closer and Marshall/Chapman as setup guys (prefer Chapman in rotation, but I'll play along).

oregonred
07-06-2012, 11:37 AM
Unfortunately in Cincinnati it does work that way, as there is really only one beat guy who doesn't work for the team.

This is increasingly true in most markets. Newspapers are like slide rules.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 11:45 AM
Yep no argument here. Dusty is not an idiot, but he is very set in his philosophy for good or bad and that just isn't ever going to change. We'll see how 2012 plays out, but becoming more clear that to maximize the 2012-2015 window Dusty shouldn't be the guy.

To maximize Dusty's, or any manager for that matter, tenure, how about getting him the best players possible? That hasn't happened enough while he's been here.

Take a look who Davey Johnson is leading off with in the 1 and 2 holes this year.

As for 1 run records, his is .500 while in Cincinnati. His best year was 2008. 13 and 16 this year isn't horrible, it's slightly unlucky. Thank Marshall for last night. The bullpen has a good ERA but is actually just average at finishing games. Allow for that to improve and the 1 run thing should do the same.

Dusty has a winning record in extra innings, btw.

This is a slump, and if it's the worst things get, we'll be great.

oregonred
07-06-2012, 11:51 AM
To maximize Dusty's, or any manager for that matter, tenure, how about getting him the best players possible? That hasn't happened enough while he's been here.



Never going to happen in a smaller market. Part of taking the job is to find a manager that can maximize the capabilities and results of a payroll 75-80% of the league average. Developing young players and optimizing the lineup construction and game strategy is a big part of the job. Dusty excels at the people side, but I would argue is below average or average in the others.

20+ other MLB managers would literally kill for this pitching staff and an injury free and capable starting rotation.

westofyou
07-06-2012, 11:52 AM
They have had no replacement for it because they extended an injury prone mid 30's player to a two year extension and spent money on that instead of going out and using that money on someone more reliable. The Reds paid for intangibles rather than production and well, this is the bed that they made.

You forgot they traded a future Cy Young winner too

dougdirt
07-06-2012, 12:04 PM
You forgot they traded a future Cy Young winner too

I forgot to mention a few things about you too.

What does any of that have to do with their mistake of extending a known injury prone middle 30's player?

_Sir_Charles_
07-06-2012, 12:08 PM
Yep no argument here. Dusty is not an idiot, but he is very set in his philosophy for good or bad and that just isn't ever going to change. We'll see how 2012 plays out, but becoming more clear that to maximize the 2012-2015 window Dusty shouldn't be the guy.

But we've said this before, that he wouldn't change. And time and time again, he's proven us wrong. He'll never hit Votto & Bruce back to back...but from August on last year, he did just that. I agree with many here, I'd like to see Phillips leading off too. But it's not that simple. If Dusty moves Brandon out of the cleanup slot, he's going to want someone who can produce there. AND he's hesitant to move Phillips out of that slot BECAUSE he's been productive there. Solving one problem by creating another is not the answer. Dusty knows this and actually so do many of us but we're only looking at one side of the equation. Get the low OBP guys out of the #1 & #2 slots! Yeah, but who goes IN there? And who replaces the production of the guys moving there? It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle blind. He's got VERY limited options and an entire city screaming at him to do it their way. I feel sorry for him. Tough spot.

westofyou
07-06-2012, 12:09 PM
I forgot to mention a few things about you too.

What does any of that have to do with their mistake of extending a known injury prone middle 30's player?

I'm all ears Doug, all ears... you teed it up I swung..

Buy yourself a sense of humor this board used to be overflowing with folks who could laugh at anything... including themselves.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 12:09 PM
Never going to happen in a smaller market. Part of taking the job is to find a manager that can maximize the capabilities and results of a payroll 75-80% of the league average. Developing young players and optimizing the lineup construction and game strategy is a big part of the job. Dusty excels at the people side, but I would argue is below average or average in the others.

20+ other MLB managers would literally kill for this pitching staff and an injury free and capable starting rotation.

Dejesus and Willingham both signed for less than Madson did this offseason. 2 years 22 million for Beltran looks good right now as well. These were affordable difference makers.

hebroncougar
07-06-2012, 12:12 PM
Dejesus and Willingham both signed for less than Madson did this offseason. 2 years 22 million for Beltran looks good right now as well. These were affordable difference makers.

Which one do you want to not resign for that deal, Phillips or Votto? And most people were absofreakinglutely ecstatic about the Madsen signing. The ONLY way that doesn't work out tremendous is if he gets hurt, and well, we know the end now. In my book, Dusty just doesn't get it, as far as strategy and lineup construction go. He's a good clubhouse manager, but that's taken us as far as it can. He needs to go.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 12:17 PM
Which one do you want to not resign for that deal, Phillips or Votto? And most people were absofreakinglutely ecstatic about the Madsen signing. The ONLY way that doesn't work out tremendous is if he gets hurt, and well, we know the end now. In my book, Dusty just doesn't get it, as far as strategy and lineup construction go. He's a good clubhouse manager, but that's taken us as far as it can. He needs to go.

Phillips
Cozart
Votto
Rolen
Bruce
Ludwick
Stubbs
Hanigan

What about this lineup do you have a problem with? What would indicate that Dusty doesn't get it? That's what he started the year with and god knows he'd still be doing it if Rolen was 1/2 himself. You'd likely see OBP of .330-.360 from the 1 and 2 holes. Blame it on Dusty and Walt, but just don't leave Walt out of it. Dusty has done as much as can be done, short of putting a slow platoon catcher in a slump ahead of Votto. Yippee. He manages the arch of a season, not a road trip or a series or a month or a week.

nate
07-06-2012, 12:18 PM
But we've said this before, that he wouldn't change. And time and time again, he's proven us wrong. He'll never hit Votto & Bruce back to back...but from August on last year, he did just that. I agree with many here, I'd like to see Phillips leading off too. But it's not that simple. If Dusty moves Brandon out of the cleanup slot, he's going to want someone who can produce there. AND he's hesitant to move Phillips out of that slot BECAUSE he's been productive there. Solving one problem by creating another is not the answer. Dusty knows this and actually so do many of us but we're only looking at one side of the equation. Get the low OBP guys out of the #1 & #2 slots! Yeah, but who goes IN there? And who replaces the production of the guys moving there? It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle blind. He's got VERY limited options and an entire city screaming at him to do it their way. I feel sorry for him. Tough spot.

I don't.

He's beholden to a rote management style. It's putting hexagonal pegs in multi-dimensional holes.

Who goes in the 1 and 2 slots?

Votto and Bruce.

I know, it seems so radical because after years of being subjected to "baseball wisdom," it's hard to stomach the thought of giving up that rare 1st-inning 3-run "Weaver's delight" for your best hitters maybe getting an extra PA.

And last night...Ondrusek? Really? LeCure with the bases loaded and no one out?

Don't they have a guy who leads the world in K in the bullpen?

Let's not be mistaken, the Reds are an imperfect team.

Dusty is one of those imperfections.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 12:21 PM
I don't.

He's beholden to a rote management style. It's putting hexagonal pegs in multi-dimensional holes.

Who goes in the 1 and 2 slots?

Votto and Bruce.

I know, it seems so radical because after years of being subjected to "baseball wisdom," it's hard to stomach the thought of giving up that rare 1st-inning 3-run "Weaver's delight" for your best hitters maybe getting an extra PA.

And last night...Ondrusek? Really? LeCure with the bases loaded and no one out?

Don't they have a guy who leads the world in K in the bullpen?

Let's not be mistaken, the Reds are an imperfect team.

Dusty is one of those imperfections.

Ahh, yes, the multi-dimensional brilliance of mathematically perfect lineups. They've been getting Dusty run from town to town in some sense. Me, I wish Dusty had lasers so he could distract opponents!

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 12:24 PM
Now I'm positive we need better players, Votto's batting leadoff on the internet.

dougdirt
07-06-2012, 12:24 PM
I'm all ears Doug, all ears... you teed it up I swung..

Buy yourself a sense of humor this board used to be overflowing with folks who could laugh at anything... including themselves.

I didn't tee up anything.

I said it was a mistake to sign Scott Rolen to an extension because of his chronicled injury history and age.

As for laughing at myself, sure. I can. The first 10 times. Maybe even the first 100. It gets pretty old after that. Been old for years. I don't go around calling out things other people have said that are wrong over and over, particularly after things they say that have no relevance to the comment. It is petty. Childish.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 12:26 PM
I didn't tee up anything.

I said it was a mistake to sign Scott Rolen to an extension because of his chronicled injury history and age.

As for laughing at myself, sure. I can. The first 10 times. Maybe even the first 100. It gets pretty old after that. Been old for years. I don't go around calling out things other people have said that are wrong over and over, particularly after things they say that have no relevance to the comment. It is petty. Childish.

Yeah, you've taken a beating over that one Doug.

nate
07-06-2012, 12:26 PM
Ahh, yes, the multi-dimensional brilliance of mathematically perfect lineups. They've been getting Dusty run from town to town in some sense. Me, I wish Dusty had lasers so he could distract opponents!

As opposed to the mathematically imperfect one he trots out because he thinks positions = batting order?

I mean, I know numbers originally were used to distinguish position after garishly colored uniforms didn't work out but Dusty takes this quite literally.

I wish he had lasers that would fill out his lineup cards and manage his bullpen.

Raisor
07-06-2012, 12:29 PM
Top five hitters in the lineup should be Votto, Bruce, Phillips, Ludwick, and Frazier in whatever order you want. .

I would love to see Phillips, Bruce, and Votto up in the first inning every game.

Group your best hitters together, good things will happen.

nate
07-06-2012, 12:34 PM
Now I'm positive we need better players, Votto's batting leadoff on the internet.

Cue'ed perfectly.

Why is it a bad idea?

Someone's feelings might get hurt?

I think winning salves 98% of hurt feeling wounds.

Dusty's clubhouse manner (something I think he's good at) picks up the 7-10 split on the remaining 2%.

Win-win!

nate
07-06-2012, 12:37 PM
Top five hitters in the lineup should be Votto, Bruce, Phillips, Ludwick, and Frazier in whatever order you want. .

I would love to see Phillips, Bruce, and Votto up in the first inning every game.

Group your best hitters together, good things will happen.

They are grouped together!

To hit in the first inning with two outs.

:cool:

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 12:39 PM
As opposed to the mathematically imperfect one he trots out because he thinks positions = batting order?

I mean, I know numbers originally were used to distinguish position after garishly colored uniforms didn't work out but Dusty takes this quite literally.

I wish he had lasers that would fill out his lineup cards and manage his bullpen.

:laugh:

There is some truth to what you say, but I don't think it's as simple as that. He plays who he has in a very similar manner to other teams. He's just had crappy CF and SS hitters and lineups that need spacing of the 3 good hitters. The year he had 5 good hitters he won the division. This year it's looking dodgey unless some bats get hot in the second half or if the FO decides to send a life boat early enough, unlike last year.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 12:43 PM
Top five hitters in the lineup should be Votto, Bruce, Phillips, Ludwick, and Frazier in whatever order you want. .

I would love to see Phillips, Bruce, and Votto up in the first inning every game.

Group your best hitters together, good things will happen.

The only thing wrong with this post is the fact that Ludwick and Frazier are the typical flavor of the month guys that Dusty can refute. Earlier in the year it was Mesoraco, or Hanigan, or Cozart, or Stubbs. See? This team has 3 good hitters. At any given time they might have a 4th from the list above. Madson over Dejesus or Willingham was a mistake. Especially in lieu of the fact they didn't know what to do in the rotation.

Raisor
07-06-2012, 12:54 PM
You ride with who's hot. Frazier has been terrific all year Ludwick is right around his career norms. I certainly don't continue hitting Cozart and Stubbs at the top of the order because I'm afraid that Frazier and Ludwick MIGHT falter. What's happening now isn't working out very well. Try something new. One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 12:54 PM
Cue'ed perfectly.

Why is it a bad idea?

Someone's feelings might get hurt?

I think winning salves 98% of hurt feeling wounds.

Dusty's clubhouse manner (something I think he's good at) picks up the 7-10 split on the remaining 2%.

Win-win!

I guess it wouldn't solve there being no one on base for Votto, unless of course... Hanny was 9th. This IS going to work isn't it!

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 12:57 PM
You ride with who's hot. Frazier has been terrific all year Ludwick is right around his career norms. I certainly don't continue hitting Cozart and Stubbs at the top of the order because I'm afraid that Frazier and Ludwick MIGHT falter. What's happening now isn't working out very well. Try something new. One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

The same insanity quote could work if you're always shuffling the lineup based on who's hot. I remember Dusty explaining his disdain for that "what have you done for me lately" message to his players.

VR
07-06-2012, 01:05 PM
Stubbs ain't perfect, but he did have a .372 OB% last month, second best on the team... I'd take a .330 from him the rest of the year myself... lord knows they can use it

In fact the Reds were 4th in the league last month in OPS, with this line

.265/.332/.444/.776

The last week has been putrid for sure (.274 ob%)

But the league is trending downward in OB% currently and the Reds actually are slightly above average.

What I see a lot of is the the game is trending away from offense and those who grew up in the 90's and Aughts see it as the end of the world and only the Reds as the ones suffering through the change.

The game is changing folks... take notice

Great point.....Which is a reminder that guys with marginal power and freakish speed need to shorten their swings and focus on solid contact, not the longball.

I continue to be amazed at the declining results for young Reds hitters, and downright ugly approach at the plate.

hebroncougar
07-06-2012, 01:07 PM
Phillips
Cozart
Votto
Rolen
Bruce
Ludwick
Stubbs
Hanigan

What about this lineup do you have a problem with? What would indicate that Dusty doesn't get it? That's what he started the year with and god knows he'd still be doing it if Rolen was 1/2 himself. You'd likely see OBP of .330-.360 from the 1 and 2 holes. Blame it on Dusty and Walt, but just don't leave Walt out of it. Dusty has done as much as can be done, short of putting a slow platoon catcher in a slump ahead of Votto. Yippee. He manages the arch of a season, not a road trip or a series or a month or a week.

You're making most people's point. He doesn't adjust. Ever. He keeps running the same stuff out there, everyday in the same order. CF, SS, or SS, CF. Even if it's Valdez, even if it's your two lowest OBP guys. I'd be fine with your lineup, but plug in Frazier for Rolen at this point. Hell, if Bryce Harper was on this team, he'd bat 8th every other day because he's a rookie, and he used to be a catcher.

nate
07-06-2012, 01:07 PM
I guess it wouldn't solve there being no one on base for Votto, unless of course... Hanny was 9th. This IS going to work isn't it!

Or he and Bruce gets an extra PA every couple games (and Stubbs and Cozart get less PAs.)

Or he's on base for Bruce in the first inning.

I'm perfectly fine with Hanigan batting 9th.

westofyou
07-06-2012, 01:17 PM
Great point.....Which is a reminder that guys with marginal power and freakish speed need to shorten their swings and focus on solid contact, not the longball.


Fast infields (ala astroturf) will be the next trend around the league, time to adjust to a game that values defense and speed at times over walks and power, it's been trending too far to the later the past 2 decades, currently we are in the midst of a correction cycle.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 01:21 PM
Or he and Bruce gets an extra PA every couple games (and Stubbs and Cozart get less PAs.)

Or he's on base for Bruce in the first inning.

I'm perfectly fine with Hanigan batting 9th.

Is it worth a try? Sure, why not? I can go that route, but I don't care if Dusty doesn't want to experiment with the lineup that way during a slump in July.

Raisor
07-06-2012, 01:26 PM
This is just my opinion based on watching Dusty over the last few years. It seems to me he's more concerned with deflecting blame then anything else. I'm probably wrong but that's the impression I get when reading quotes by Star Dust.

mdccclxix
07-06-2012, 01:27 PM
You're making most people's point. He doesn't adjust. Ever. He keeps running the same stuff out there, everyday in the same order. CF, SS, or SS, CF. Even if it's Valdez, even if it's your two lowest OBP guys. I'd be fine with your lineup, but plug in Frazier for Rolen at this point. Hell, if Bryce Harper was on this team, he'd bat 8th every other day because he's a rookie, and he used to be a catcher.

My point is he did adjust, he put a flailing Stubbs in the best spot to succeed, he stabilized cleanup at a time when the whole team was hitting .210, he stuck with a rookie SS through his slumps, he's allowed Ludwick to play his way up from a .190 batting average, he's trying to get Heisey going despite his power outage, etc. He's making adjustments that are meant to stabilize and define the team, the players are not responding all the time and that stinks. But you can be sure that Ludwick's name, or Bruce's, or whoever, will rise and fall in popularity for the cleanup spot as they perform during various points. Dusty's not going to go crazy changing the roles for players after every 3-4 game a bench guy has.

dougdirt
07-06-2012, 01:37 PM
This is just my opinion based on watching Dusty over the last few years. It seems to me he's more concerned with deflecting blame then anything else. I'm probably wrong but that's the impression I get when reading quotes by Star Dust.

He certainly doesn't like anyone at all to question him.

osuceltic
07-06-2012, 01:43 PM
It's a combination of things. WOY is right about the way the game is trending. No question. He's also right about the needs on this team -- they need a guy or two who can hit. Not take a walk, not necessarily hit home runs, just solid hitters. Get a couple of those guys in the right spots, and suddenly everyone else looks a little better in more natural roles. But it isn't easy finding those guys.

The Reds placed their chips on several guys, and right now they look like losing bets. They knew what they had with Votto, Phillips and Bruce (not saying anything about the production of those three -- just that the Reds pretty much knew what to expect and have gotten just that). You could argue Hanigan also fits that bill. Beyond that, every "maybe" has come up on the other side of the coin flip. Stubbs, Rolen, Cozart, Heisey, Mesoraco ... all were "maybes" that haven't panned out. Maybe they'll turn it around, but it's very much up in the air.

This isn't about Dusty. He does good things and he does bad things. This is about the players on the field. You can shift the batting order all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that anything Dusty gets out of someone not named Votto, Phillips or Bruce feels like found money.

CesarGeronimo
07-06-2012, 01:53 PM
My point is he did adjust, he put a flailing Stubbs in the best spot to succeed, he stabilized cleanup at a time when the whole team was hitting .210, he stuck with a rookie SS through his slumps, he's allowed Ludwick to play his way up from a .190 batting average, he's trying to get Heisey going despite his power outage, etc. He's making adjustments that are meant to stabilize and define the team, the players are not responding all the time and that stinks. But you can be sure that Ludwick's name, or Bruce's, or whoever, will rise and fall in popularity for the cleanup spot as they perform during various points. Dusty's not going to go crazy changing the roles for players after every 3-4 game a bench guy has.

Obviously, you are right that players will continue to rise and fall, but we are now more than halfway through the season - 82 games - and here are the Reds' best hitters so far -- Votto, 1.082 OPS, Frazier .870, Bruce .837, Ludwick, .786, Phillips .765. I don't think that suggests that we're talking at this point about a good game or two by Frazier or Ludwick as compared to Stubbs at .638 and Cozart at .689.

reds44
07-06-2012, 01:54 PM
There's no doubt the offense isn't all Dusty's fault. In fact, it's mostly Walt's fault. This team has a sevre lack of on base skills to get on in front of Votto. With that being said, hitting the two worst on base guys on the team in Cozart and Stubbs in front of Votto while hitting one of the best in Hanigan 8th makes zero sense.

Somebody in the game thread last night said Hanigan is terrible at driving runs in. If that's the case, why not bat him leadoff? You put a band aid over Hanigan's lack of run producing problem while getting a guy on base in front of Votto.

There are no perfect solutions to this problem due to lack of talent, but the fact Dusty continues to trot out the same thing and thinks it'll magically get better is a big problem.

Always Red
07-06-2012, 02:03 PM
Fast infields (ala astroturf) will be the next trend around the league, time to adjust to a game that values defense and speed at times over walks and power, it's been trending too far to the later the past 2 decades, currently we are in the midst of a correction cycle.

Time to lower the mound again and tighten up the strike zone even more, ala 1969?

REDREAD
07-06-2012, 03:56 PM
And last night...Ondrusek? Really? LeCure with the bases loaded and no one out?
.

That was one of the most incredibly frustrating games of the year.
But Marshall and Logan were the ones that blew it.
It was a tie game, I can see why Dusty needed some time to warm up a reliever to replace Logan.. Dusty has been fried for burning up his pen too fast in a tie game.

By the time someone had warmed up, Logan already loaded up the bases with no outs. The game was pretty much lost by then.. very difficult to get out of that situation without giving up a run.. Logan lost it.. why not put LeCure in?

I guess it's possible Chapman could've gotten 3 consecutive outs without letting a run score, but that's pretty difficult, even for him.

So I can agree with you that in general, Logan hasn't been getting the job done as a setup man of late.. he needs more rest or maybe some lower leverage innings for awhile.. (He "wore down" last year too). But I guess I wasn't mad at Dusty bringing in LeCure.. the game was already lost by that point.

oregonred
07-06-2012, 05:00 PM
And why wasn't either Chapman or Bray ready to go when Ondrusek served up the leadoff double to pitch to Alonso? Putting the light hitting and speedster Maybin in a bunting situation instead of possibly having to drive in the winning run from 2nd or 3rd with one out.

Dusty's been getting 7-8 innings a night like clockwork from the rotation and his pen also has four days off coming up in less than 72-hours.

Sure Marshall does his job and Chapman closes the ninth out for the 1-0 was the plan. However the moment the plan fell apart in the 8th - some seriously flawed strategy and decisions were made by Dusty that minimized his team's chances of moving the game onto the 10th inning.

This isn't really rocket science there are only a limited number of permutations to script. Lefty warming up in the pen to start the inning, lefty/lefty, righty/righty, insert strikeout guy when a strikeout needed, etc. etc.

westofyou
07-06-2012, 05:04 PM
And why wasn't either Chapman or Bray ready to go when Ondrusek served up the leadoff double to pitch to Alonso? Putting the light hitting and speedster Maybin in a bunting situation instead of possibly having to drive in the winning run from 2nd or 3rd with one out.

Dusty's been getting 7-8 innings a night like clockwork from the rotation and his pen also has four days off coming up in less than 72-hours.

Sure Marshall does his job and Chapman closes the ninth out for the 1-0 was the plan. However the moment the plan fell apart in the 8th - some seriously flawed strategy and decisions were made by Dusty that minimized his team's chances of moving the game onto the 10th inning.

This isn't really rocket science there are only a limited number of permutations to script. Lefty warming up in the pen to start the inning, lefty/lefty, righty/righty, insert strikeout guy when a strikeout needed, etc. etc.


I think it's safe to also levy some of the finger pointing at Price, he's the pitching coach, he's the one who has his name thrown out there as a possible manager in the future.

In short he has a HUGE play in any choice, he's the expert in that field.

Plus, there has to be other items we have no access to that play in the decision making.

It may not be rocket science, but it's not making mud pies either

oregonred
07-06-2012, 05:06 PM
I think it's safe to also levy some of the finger pointing at Price, he's the pitching coach, he's the one who has his name thrown out there as a possible manager in the future.

In short he has a HUGE play in any choice, he's the expert in that field.

Plus, there has to be other items we have no access to that play in the decision making.

It may not be rocket science, but it's not making mud pies either

Agree. Does the buck ever stop with Dusty or frankly anyone in positions of authority anymore? He is the big dog, the head honcho, the 3M+ managerial hotshot and responsible for the decisions (good and bad) of his hand chosen staff.

westofyou
07-06-2012, 05:16 PM
Agree. Does the buck ever stop with Dusty or frankly anyone in positions of authority anymore? He is the big dog, the head honcho, the 3M+ managerial hotshot and responsible for the decisions (good and bad) of his hand chosen staff.

Sure he will be the one who has the ties cut when the axe falls, but it ain't 1923 anymore this game is a committee based decision and no one ever mentions that, it's not a one man shop

oregonred
07-06-2012, 05:39 PM
Sure he will be the one who has the ties cut when the axe falls, but it ain't 1923 anymore this game is a committee based decision and no one ever mentions that, it's not a one man shop

Sweet, get a managerial title, a 3.5M a year paycheck and the ability to deflect all responsibility to a committee of bureaucrats.

Maybe he should run for President or Congress :)

westofyou
07-06-2012, 05:50 PM
Sweet, get a managerial title, a 3.5M a year paycheck and the ability to deflect all responsibility to a committee of bureaucrats.

Maybe he should run for President or Congress :)

Nah... hours are too long.

Dusty takes the heat, he doesn't throw his players or coaches under the bus, he might get flustered or angry at questions, but that's to be expected in today's world of of the 24 minute news cycle.

He's far from perfect that's for sure.

To echo my constant feelings on managers, they are hired to be fired, each man is brought in for a reason and usually fired for something that they were never hired for... Dusty's case is he's not a brilliant tactician (nor was Sparky come to think of it) and he was brought in to make the Reds less of a lumbering, never take an extra base, fall asleep when it gets bad sort of team... which surprise they no longer are. They hit the cut-off man, go 1st to 3rd better than any Reds team in over a decade.

But his kryptonite is his inability to adjust midstream and that is where he he will drown.

oregonred
07-06-2012, 05:54 PM
Another splendid summary from WOY.

Perfectly stated other than I don't really think Dusty takes much heat. Managers in 20 other bigger markets would kill for how easy he has it with the local media and a fan base that hasn't won a playoff game since 19 freaking 95.

westofyou
07-06-2012, 06:00 PM
Another splendid summary from WOY.

Perfectly stated other than I don't really think Dusty takes much heat. Managers in 20 other bigger markets would kill for how easy he has it with the local media and a fan base that hasn't won a playoff game since 19 freaking 95.

Hard to take bigtime heat in a town that only has the Enquirer, the Dayton paper has even stopped sending guys on the road. You need to sell papers with controversy.

In short the Reds have a couple of beat writers and none seem to be angling to be heard outside of the circle they call home.

The Post was perfect for this as the afternoon papers were not about the score, but about the franchise and the day to day

AtomicDumpling
07-06-2012, 06:14 PM
It's a combination of things. WOY is right about the way the game is trending. No question. He's also right about the needs on this team -- they need a guy or two who can hit. Not take a walk, not necessarily hit home runs, just solid hitters. Get a couple of those guys in the right spots, and suddenly everyone else looks a little better in more natural roles. But it isn't easy finding those guys.

The Reds placed their chips on several guys, and right now they look like losing bets. They knew what they had with Votto, Phillips and Bruce (not saying anything about the production of those three -- just that the Reds pretty much knew what to expect and have gotten just that). You could argue Hanigan also fits that bill. Beyond that, every "maybe" has come up on the other side of the coin flip. Stubbs, Rolen, Cozart, Heisey, Mesoraco ... all were "maybes" that haven't panned out. Maybe they'll turn it around, but it's very much up in the air.

This isn't about Dusty. He does good things and he does bad things. This is about the players on the field. You can shift the batting order all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that anything Dusty gets out of someone not named Votto, Phillips or Bruce feels like found money.

So why not give the three sure things more plate appearances than the sub-.300 OBP crew? Moving Phillips, Votto and Bruce to the top of the lineup will get them more plate appearances while setting the table for the rest. Right now we just get the cream of the lineup to the plate with two outs and the bases empty most of the time.

VR
07-07-2012, 01:13 AM
Dusty has learned pretty well how to answer reporter's questions. Deflect heat from his players and team, and be as generic as possible. Reporters base their career on digging up dirt, finding controversy, and catching someone important saying something incendiary. Dusty has done well to avoid that, nightly.

As with politicians....I imagine if my every move, and every word, was dissected daily. Oof, what a train wreck that would be....and I consider my self a pretty smart, put-together guy. :)

Tony Cloninger
07-07-2012, 01:27 AM
Hard to take bigtime heat in a town that only has the Enquirer, the Dayton paper has even stopped sending guys on the road. You need to sell papers with controversy.

In short the Reds have a couple of beat writers and none seem to be angling to be heard outside of the circle they call home.

The Post was perfect for this as the afternoon papers were not about the score, but about the franchise and the day to day

Add the fact that Fay forgets to ask questions or barely pries before being rebuffed by Baker..... I think Baker has already made up his mind about Ludwick being #4 if BP goes back to leadoff. Fay writes about how Frazier would be a better option due RISP BA and SLG% being 2nd to Votto....yet he does not ask Baker about this or point it out?
I guess he figured what is the point.

nate
07-07-2012, 02:09 PM
That was one of the most incredibly frustrating games of the year.
But Marshall and Logan were the ones that blew it.
It was a tie game, I can see why Dusty needed some time to warm up a reliever to replace Logan.. Dusty has been fried for burning up his pen too fast in a tie game.

By the time someone had warmed up, Logan already loaded up the bases with no outs. The game was pretty much lost by then.. very difficult to get out of that situation without giving up a run.. Logan lost it.. why not put LeCure in?

I guess it's possible Chapman could've gotten 3 consecutive outs without letting a run score, but that's pretty difficult, even for him.

So I can agree with you that in general, Logan hasn't been getting the job done as a setup man of late.. he needs more rest or maybe some lower leverage innings for awhile.. (He "wore down" last year too). But I guess I wasn't mad at Dusty bringing in LeCure.. the game was already lost by that point.

Who in the bullpen is most likely to record three strikeouts?

As unlikely as it might be, I think if there's someone who can, he's on our team.

Ondrusek has never really been a very good pitcher; I'd prefer he get practice in Louisville.

757690
07-07-2012, 02:17 PM
Who in the bullpen is most likely to record three strikeouts?

As unlikely as it might be, I think if there's someone who can, he's on our team.

Ondrusek has never really been a very good pitcher; I'd prefer he get practice in Louisville.

While strikeouts are nice with the bases loaded no outs, the key is throwing strikes. With a force at home, plenty of ways to get out of it without a strikeout. Zero ways if anybody draws a walk.

That might have been part of the reasoning.

nate
07-07-2012, 03:47 PM
While strikeouts are nice with the bases loaded no outs, the key is throwing strikes. With a force at home, plenty of ways to get out of it without a strikeout. Zero ways if anybody draws a walk.

That might have been part of the reasoning.

As long as the ball is hit a certain way and right at someone.

I'd rather take the chances with the guy who's suppose to be the best reliever.

757690
07-07-2012, 03:51 PM
As long as the ball is hit a certain way and right at someone.

I'd rather take the chances with the guy who's suppose to be the best reliever.

Me too. Go down fighting, I say.

Just trying to find some rational for the decision.

DGullett35
07-07-2012, 09:41 PM
Dusty has decided on the rotation to start the so called second half of the season

goes like this

Latos
Leake
Cueto
Arroyo
Bailey

I would have thought Cueto would start game 1. I kind of like this though. It gives Cueto a couple extra days.

Tony Cloninger
07-07-2012, 09:51 PM
Cueto is getting 4 days rest..... I think ti should be Cueto, Latos or they can switch.....but Arroyo 3rd, then Bailey and Leake.

They are going to give Leake less starts due to his innings......correct?

westofyou
07-07-2012, 10:11 PM
Dusty has decided on the rotation to start the so called second half of the season

goes like this

Latos
Leake
Cueto
Arroyo
Bailey

I would have thought Cueto would start game 1. I kind of like this though. It gives Cueto a couple extra days.

I was hoping this would happen, Latos is on a roll, he's a power guy the Reds need to ride his arm, splitting him Cueto up is good, styles are important to mix up

Redhook
07-08-2012, 08:05 AM
I was hoping this would happen, Latos is on a roll, he's a power guy the Reds need to ride his arm, splitting him Cueto up is good, styles are important to mix up

I like it too. One of the rare times I actually like what Dusty does, but I will give him credit here.

REDREAD
07-11-2012, 12:26 AM
Who in the bullpen is most likely to record three strikeouts?

As unlikely as it might be, I think if there's someone who can, he's on our team.

Ondrusek has never really been a very good pitcher; I'd prefer he get practice in Louisville.

Sorry for the delay in response.
The Padres had bases loaded no outs.. Dusty used Lecure (?) instead of Chapman..
The decision was made to use Chapman in a situation where the Reds were more likely to win.
I agree with you.. if they were pulling out all the stops to win that one game, Chapman is a better choice.. but it wasn't game 7 of the WS.. The Reds had low odds of winning that game. Lecure instead of chapman was a defensible choice, imo.

I also agree with you that maybe logan should be in lower leverage situations for awhile.

nate
07-11-2012, 10:03 AM
Sorry for the delay in response.
The Padres had bases loaded no outs.. Dusty used Lecure (?) instead of Chapman..
The decision was made to use Chapman in a situation where the Reds were more likely to win.

This is the problem.


I agree with you.. if they were pulling out all the stops to win that one game, Chapman is a better choice.. but it wasn't game 7 of the WS..

Why does it have to be game 7 to use your best pitcher in a high-leverage situations?


The Reds had low odds of winning that game. Lecure instead of chapman was a defensible choice, imo.

If we're going to "lose anyway," why even change to LeCure?


I also agree with you that maybe logan should be in lower leverage situations for awhile.

Relievers tend to be less effective when their K/BB ratio hovers closely to 1:1.

Blitz Dorsey
07-11-2012, 11:08 AM
Ouch. Pretty rough thread here. "Ensues" is misspelled in the thread title and Dusty was right about Ludwick.

Heisey is a No. 4 OF. That's what he is. Ludwick has once again proven he's a good No. 3 OF. The only problem for the Reds is finding a legit CF now.

REDREAD
07-11-2012, 02:03 PM
This is the problem.


Well, I can see your point, but I don't exactly see it as a problem.
The Reds can only get so many appearances out of Chapman per year.

Would you rather use Chapman in a bases loaded no out situation, and if Chapman allows no runs to score, the game is still tied?
Or would you rather save him for a high leverage situation when the Reds are up by one run, but in danger of blowing it?

Was there any real difference in letting LeCure face the last batter vs letting Logan do it? My guess is that Dusty sensed Logan needed out of there. The game was already lost. But I guess I can concede that minor point.. Still, I don't think it was incompetent to pull Logan at that point.

I also think that the fact that it was a tie game played a lot into this.
Dusty has gotten heavily criticized for burning through his bullpen in tie game situation.. If Chapman gets out of the mess that Logan created, then the game goes to 16 innings before LeCure or a starting pitcher loses it, Dusty still gets criticized.

I did look up on a win expectancy site.. In that situation, the Padres had over a 91% chance of winning the game...

oregonred
07-11-2012, 03:14 PM
Going back to that debacle. If Chapman didn't start the 9th then he should have been brought in to face Alonso with Grandal on 2nd and no outs -- instead of giving Alonso an IBB and letting Maybin bunt. The game was still very salvageable at this point.

Assuming success with Alonso, then Maybin would have been up with one out and the situation would have been much more manageable. Once the sacrifice was made (and Maybin beat out the bunt) then things were dire.

Giving Alonso the IBB instead of bringing in Chapman made little sense, then bringing in LeCure instead of an unhuman weapon for the ages, averaging nearly 2K's an inning, was just adding insult to injury.

defender
07-11-2012, 04:47 PM
Dusty is still criticized for pitching Harang in an extras in San Diego 5 years ago. People state it was not worth the risk of overuse/injury to try and win one game. If Chapman gets out of the 9th does he pitch the 10th?

Do the Reds win the last 2 games that Chapman saved if he had pitched on Friday?

nate
07-12-2012, 07:20 AM
Well, I can see your point, but I don't exactly see it as a problem.
The Reds can only get so many appearances out of Chapman per year.

Would you rather use Chapman in a bases loaded no out situation, and if Chapman allows no runs to score, the game is still tied?
Or would you rather save him for a high leverage situation when the Reds are up by one run, but in danger of blowing it?

Was there any real difference in letting LeCure face the last batter vs letting Logan do it? My guess is that Dusty sensed Logan needed out of there. The game was already lost. But I guess I can concede that minor point.. Still, I don't think it was incompetent to pull Logan at that point.

I also think that the fact that it was a tie game played a lot into this.
Dusty has gotten heavily criticized for burning through his bullpen in tie game situation.. If Chapman gets out of the mess that Logan created, then the game goes to 16 innings before LeCure or a starting pitcher loses it, Dusty still gets criticized.

I did look up on a win expectancy site.. In that situation, the Padres had over a 91% chance of winning the game...

I would've and would tend to use my best reliever in the highest leverage situation rather than "save" situations.

Raisor
07-12-2012, 08:53 AM
RR, go back and read some of your posts and ask yourself: is Dusty managing to win or is he managing to avoid criticism? A lot of your posts contain some variation od "Dusty did x at one point instead of y and was criticized for it"

REDREAD
07-12-2012, 09:13 AM
RR, go back and read some of your posts and ask yourself: is Dusty managing to win or is he managing to avoid criticism? A lot of your posts contain some variation od "Dusty did x at one point instead of y and was criticized for it"

Well, that's a fair point.. Dusty shouldn't be doing stuff to avoid criticism. He should be trying to win.. I guess my point in saying that is that Dusty will get criticized no matter what he does.

The Reds are limited in how many times Chapman can be used. I am not 100% positive, but I don't think he can be used 3 days in a row (or at least not with reprocussions).

Do you bring Chapman into a game where the win expectancy for the Reds is 9% or do you hold him back for a time when maybe the win expectancy is 60%? Both are high leverage situations. I guess that's my point. The game was almost certainly lost with bases loaded and no outs (since the reds were on the road).

Not that it matters, but I think most managers don't bring in their closer at that point. (Win expectancy 9%)

bucksfan2
07-12-2012, 09:18 AM
RR, go back and read some of your posts and ask yourself: is Dusty managing to win or is he managing to avoid criticism? A lot of your posts contain some variation od "Dusty did x at one point instead of y and was criticized for it"

Over the course of a 162 game season "managing to win" takes a whole new meaning. Dusty not only has to manage to win game 91 but he also has to manage to win more games than his competition.

CySeymour
07-12-2012, 09:25 AM
Dusty is still criticized for pitching Harang in an extras in San Diego 5 years ago. People state it was not worth the risk of overuse/injury to try and win one game. If Chapman gets out of the 9th does he pitch the 10th?

Do the Reds win the last 2 games that Chapman saved if he had pitched on Friday?

I always felt Harang pitching in extra's was completely defensible and wasn't a problem. The problem was when Dusty then turned around and brought Harang back on short rest for his next start.

traderumor
07-12-2012, 11:10 AM
I would've and would tend to use my best reliever in the highest leverage situation rather than "save" situations.
That's a nice general rule, but there is certainly a lot more going into "who do I bring in at this particular high leverage situation, which may be one of multiple high leverage situations I encounter in this particular game." And this begs the question of "define highest leverage." I don't think its fair to look at bullpen usage decisions in a vaccuum of "you try to win every game." Many of the theories, like this one, merely turn the big league manager into a fire extinguisher, constantly chasing the "win" by putting out the fire in each and every game with his "best reliever" in the "highest leverage situation" of the moment. Crisis management is all that is, and unless you have Mike Marshall, the theory just doesn't work very well to keep from wearing out your best relievers by June. The funny thing is that Dusty does primarily use this theory, as evidenced by the complaints on this very board that he is overusing the top 4 or 5 while the rest of the pen sits and rots. Lecure is one of those guys.

Bumstead
07-12-2012, 11:15 AM
Well, that's a fair point.. Dusty shouldn't be doing stuff to avoid criticism. He should be trying to win.. I guess my point in saying that is that Dusty will get criticized no matter what he does.

Dusty gets criticized because he's a bad game Manager. It's deserved and it's annoying listening to him try and defend himself. The time has come for the Reds to move on from Dusty.

Bum

bucksfan2
07-12-2012, 11:51 AM
That's a nice general rule, but there is certainly a lot more going into "who do I bring in at this particular high leverage situation, which may be one of multiple high leverage situations I encounter in this particular game." And this begs the question of "define highest leverage." I don't think its fair to look at bullpen usage decisions in a vaccuum of "you try to win every game." Many of the theories, like this one, merely turn the big league manager into a fire extinguisher, constantly chasing the "win" by putting out the fire in each and every game with his "best reliever" in the "highest leverage situation" of the moment. Crisis management is all that is, and unless you have Mike Marshall, the theory just doesn't work very well to keep from wearing out your best relievers by June. The funny thing is that Dusty does primarily use this theory, as evidenced by the complaints on this very board that he is overusing the top 4 or 5 while the rest of the pen sits and rots. Lecure is one of those guys.

When you get to the bottom of the 9th in a tie game the away team must get 6 outs in order to win the game. Its an advantage for the home team and it makes choosing relievers a little more difficult for the away team. Managers have to manage to win but also have to keep in mind the "what if" factor.

FWIW I think Dusty has done a pretty good job with the pen this season. I like the way he has used Marshall and Arredondo as his best RH and LF reliever at various points in the game.

traderumor
07-12-2012, 11:58 AM
Dusty gets criticized because he's a bad game Manager. It's deserved and it's annoying listening to him try and defend himself. The time has come for the Reds to move on from Dusty.

BumDusty gets criticized because he's your favorite team's manager, and its universal, 30 teams have a predominance of smarter fans than the manager. Most of the criticism is one man's opinion, who is often formulating that opinion without all the relevant information to make that opinion valid.

He also gets criticized because of different baseball strategy "worldviews." People complain because Dusty doesn't manage like they would manage, so he's wrong.

In other words, most of the "criticism" is just "not what I would do there," where the definition of "there" is often the actual manager and the fan working out of two different sets of decision making facts, with the manager naturally having more decision making facts than the fan.

mattfeet
07-12-2012, 12:02 PM
^good post.

Matt

IslandRed
07-12-2012, 12:04 PM
That's kind of how I feel about it. Bottom of the ninth, bases loaded, tie game... bringing in Chapman there is kind of a "horses gone, barn door closing" situation. Even if he manages to pull off the three-strikeouts-with-no-walks thing, the reward is not a win, it's to go to extra innings with our two best relievers already used up. Same logic with another poster's thought of yanking Ondrusek and putting in Chapman as soon as the winning run reached base. If that specific game is that dadgum critical, just put Chapman in to start the ninth and be done with it.

Bumstead
07-12-2012, 12:10 PM
Dusty gets criticized because he's your favorite team's manager, and its universal, 30 teams have a predominance of smarter fans than the manager. Most of the criticism is one man's opinion, who is often formulating that opinion without all the relevant information to make that opinion valid.

He also gets criticized because of different baseball strategy "worldviews." People complain because Dusty doesn't manage like they would manage, so he's wrong.

In other words, most of the "criticism" is just "not what I would do there," where the definition of "there" is often the actual manager and the fan working out of two different sets of decision making facts, with the manager naturally having more decision making facts than the fan.

My criticism is based on the team underachieving the last year and a half. Dusty's "decisions" have played a huge role in that underachievement. It's not about being uninformed or unable to process all the "relevant" (by relevant I don't mean just what's relevant in your opinion) data. I haven't spent much time criticizing Red's managers in the past, so I don't buy that it's just my team's manager so I am critical of him. He makes $3.5M to get this team to win the games they are supposed to win and maybe sneak out a few they shouldn't because he's supposed to be good at what he does. He's not. The players are happy. They are underachieving. I would rather they were angry and overachieving...

I'm done with Dusty and I can't wait till Jockety finally rids us of him. The Dusty apologists have every excuse in the book for Dusty. I have heard them all, you aren't saying anything different. The Reds are still underachieving and Dusty is the leader. Come up with more excuses.

Bum

dougdirt
07-12-2012, 12:34 PM
Dusty gets criticized because he's your favorite team's manager, and its universal, 30 teams have a predominance of smarter fans than the manager. Most of the criticism is one man's opinion, who is often formulating that opinion without all the relevant information to make that opinion valid.

He also gets criticized because of different baseball strategy "worldviews." People complain because Dusty doesn't manage like they would manage, so he's wrong.

In other words, most of the "criticism" is just "not what I would do there," where the definition of "there" is often the actual manager and the fan working out of two different sets of decision making facts, with the manager naturally having more decision making facts than the fan.

I thought Dusty was a bad manager when he was managing the Cubs too. It isn't because he is managing my team, it is because he makes a ton of poor managerial decisions.

traderumor
07-12-2012, 12:55 PM
I thought Dusty was a bad manager when he was managing the Cubs too. It isn't because he is managing my team, it is because he makes a ton of poor managerial decisions.I'd say you probably qualify for the "different baseball worldviews" fan, which includes the presumption that your managerial decisions are right and Dusty's are wrong.

traderumor
07-12-2012, 01:02 PM
My criticism is based on the team underachieving the last year and a half. Dusty's "decisions" have played a huge role in that underachievement. It's not about being uninformed or unable to process all the "relevant" (by relevant I don't mean just what's relevant in your opinion) data. I haven't spent much time criticizing Red's managers in the past, so I don't buy that it's just my team's manager so I am critical of him. He makes $3.5M to get this team to win the games they are supposed to win and maybe sneak out a few they shouldn't because he's supposed to be good at what he does. He's not. The players are happy. They are underachieving. I would rather they were angry and overachieving...

I'm done with Dusty and I can't wait till Jockety finally rids us of him. The Dusty apologists have every excuse in the book for Dusty. I have heard them all, you aren't saying anything different. The Reds are still underachieving and Dusty is the leader. Come up with more excuses.

Bum

Underachieving. By what measure? They underperformed their pythag last year, so I suppose you could go that direction, but this year they are right at their expected W/L. So that seems to be a push.

Do you have a different measure to substantiate that their record should be better, and that can be directly attributed to the manager?

dougdirt
07-12-2012, 01:14 PM
I'd say you probably qualify for the "different baseball worldviews" fan, which includes the presumption that your managerial decisions are right and Dusty's are wrong.

Well if that is the argument then can't you just claim that every manager is good and that anyone who disagrees with that premise just has a different opinion?

dougdirt
07-12-2012, 01:16 PM
Underachieving. By what measure? They underperformed their pythag last year, so I suppose you could go that direction, but this year they are right at their expected W/L. So that seems to be a push.

Do you have a different measure to substantiate that their record should be better, and that can be directly attributed to the manager?

I am not a fan of using a pythagorean to real record comparison to determine the quality of a manager. It misses so much data. If the Reds had people in front of Votto that someone else would have hit there, the Reds probably would have scored more runs, thus changing their pythag and actual records. But that doesn't get counted against a manager batting low OBP guys in front of Votto. Likewise, running out Scott Rolen instead of Todd Frazier doesn't get counted, but using Todd Frazier is incredibly likely to put more runs scored on your side.

Bumstead
07-12-2012, 01:17 PM
Underachieving. By what measure? They underperformed their pythag last year, so I suppose you could go that direction, but this year they are right at their expected W/L. So that seems to be a push.

Do you have a different measure to substantiate that their record should be better, and that can be directly attributed to the manager?

So...the pythag is the only measure of whether a team is underachieving or not? Here we go with the basement created stats so that people don't actually THINK they have to watch the game to understand which teams are good and which teams are bad and which players are good and which one's are not. Just look at the WAR or Pythag and that's all you need to know, right? Cause this team has scored as many runs as they are capable and haven't allowed anymore than they were capable of stopping? If that is your Dusty defense at this point, I find it laughable.

I prefer to actually watch the Reds play, and to me they are losing games they shouldn't. This is not one man's opinion either. There is a large % of Reds fans that feel the same. Does that make us all uninformed in your book? Dusty is miserable at managing games; I don't even think that is debatable after all these years of him proving it. If I were to handicap what a manager brings to a team beyond year 1 (the honeymoon period when everything seemed dandy with Dusty) I would Dusty is a -4.5 WARM (M="manager"). Don't throw metrics at me, thinking you are proving anything; those just confirm that the team is not producing where they should be. Why keep defending him anyway? Do you think there are better teams in the NL Central, this year or last? There weren't and there aren't. The Reds should be 8-10 games better than any team in this division after 162 games. They won't be with Dusty.

Carry on

Bum

pedro
07-12-2012, 01:22 PM
So...the pythag is the only measure of whether a team is underachieving or not? Here we go with the basement created stats so that people don't actually THINK they have to watch the game to understand which teams are good and which teams are bad and which players are good and which one's are not. Just look at the WAR or Pythag and that's all you need to know, right? Cause this team has scored as many runs as they are capable and haven't allowed anymore than they were capable of stopping? If that is your Dusty defense at this point, I find it laughable.

I prefer to actually watch the Reds play, and to me they are losing games they shouldn't. This is not one man's opinion either. There is a large % of Reds fans that feel the same. Does that make us all uninformed in your book? Dusty is miserable at managing games; I don't even think that is debatable after all these years of him proving it. If I were to handicap what a manager brings to a team beyond year 1 (the honeymoon period when everything seemed dandy with Dusty) I would Dusty is a -4.5 WARM (M="manager"). Don't throw metrics at me, thinking you are proving anything; those just confirm that the team is not producing where they should be. Why keep defending him anyway? Do you think there are better teams in the NL Central, this year or last? There weren't and there aren't. The Reds should be 8-10 games better than any team in this division after 162 games. They won't be with Dusty.

Carry on

Bum

But it's ok for you to create your own stat on the fly and throw it at Traderumor?

Carry on.

pedro
07-12-2012, 01:26 PM
Honestly, Dusty has his faults, that's obvious. But I think the amount of hand wringing and claims of the negative effect that it has on the Reds W/L record is pretty overblown.

mdccclxix
07-12-2012, 01:29 PM
Personally, I watch most every game, and have since 2009, and I think this year the Reds are oh, say, right abouty 5-9 games better than their talent. There! Bravo to Dusty and his staff of coaches he collected and relies on.

gonelong
07-12-2012, 01:30 PM
Honestly, Dusty has his faults, that's obvious. But I think the amount of hand wringing and claims of the negative effect that it has on the Reds W/L record is pretty overblown.

A number of his plusses are not on display on a daily basis. A number of his minuses are. I think most people have an off-kilter view of his managing accumen, but I think its understandable.

GL

REDREAD
07-12-2012, 01:32 PM
The players are happy. They are underachieving. I would rather they were angry and overachieving...


Who exactly is underachieving?

I am not saying I agree with this list, but my guess is that most would say: Stubbs, Heisey, maybe Homer/Leake, maybe Bruce, maybe Marshall, maybe Mes?
I think that just about covers the likely suspects.. I don't necessariliy think they are underachieving though.. It's certainly not due to lack of motivation that they aren't performing as well as well hoped. In any event, what's Dusty supposed to do? Take away their chairs in the clubhouse?

You say that you would rather the team be unhappy and overachieving.. Seems kind of shortsighted... If Votto and Phillips were not happy (but overachieving) I doubt they sign extensions. Heck, if Cincy gets the reputation of being an unhappy place, I doubt we're able to trade for guys like Marshall and extend them before a single game is played. That's how it was in the Lindner era.. Cincy was a crappy place to play, and we had a real hard time attracting/retaining talent.

Bumstead
07-12-2012, 01:34 PM
But it's ok for you to create your own stat on the fly and throw it at Traderumor?

Carry on.

Actually I think my stat would be more useful in an argument regarding Dusty's "managerial" abilities than pythag. Pythag just proves to me that the Reds are underachieving but he is using it as a defense. It's an irrelevant "stat" in this conversation.

Carry on.

RANDY IN INDY
07-12-2012, 01:37 PM
Honestly, Dusty has his faults, that's obvious. But I think the amount of hand wringing and claims of the negative effect that it has on the Reds W/L record is pretty overblown.

:beerme:

Bumstead
07-12-2012, 01:39 PM
Who exactly is underachieving?

I am not saying I agree with this list, but my guess is that most would say: Stubbs, Heisey, maybe Homer/Leake, maybe Bruce, maybe Marshall, maybe Mes?
I think that just about covers the likely suspects.. I don't necessariliy think they are underachieving though.. It's certainly not due to lack of motivation that they aren't performing as well as well hoped. In any event, what's Dusty supposed to do? Take away their chairs in the clubhouse?

You say that you would rather the team be unhappy and overachieving.. Seems kind of shortsighted... If Votto and Phillips were not happy (but overachieving) I doubt they sign extensions. Heck, if Cincy gets the reputation of being an unhappy place, I doubt we're able to trade for guys like Marshall and extend them before a single game is played. That's how it was in the Lindner era.. Cincy was a crappy place to play, and we had a real hard time attracting/retaining talent.

Is Lindner still running the team? Do the MLB players know that he's not running the team? What's the point of bringing this up over and over?

How do you know it's not a lack of motivation? I would say Ondrusek has underachieved in several key situations and a lot of that has to do with Dusty putting him in position to fail. Dusty does this repeatedly with the bullpen. The biggest underachiever on the team? Dusty.

Bum

westofyou
07-12-2012, 01:51 PM
Dusty sucks = boring, navel gazing baseball analysis

Makes this site unbearable at times

Carry on

mdccclxix
07-12-2012, 01:53 PM
Is Lindner still running the team? Do the MLB players know that he's not running the team? What's the point of bringing this up over and over?

How do you know it's not a lack of motivation? I would say Ondrusek has underachieved in several key situations and a lot of that has to do with Dusty putting him in position to fail. Dusty does this repeatedly with the bullpen. The biggest underachiever on the team? Dusty.

Bum

You mean one of the best bullpens in baseball? Remove Dusty and, shoot, you might have a bullpen of Mariano Rivera's.

REDREAD
07-12-2012, 01:53 PM
How do you know it's not a lack of motivation? I would say Ondrusek has underachieved in several key situations and a lot of that has to do with Dusty putting him in position to fail. Dusty does this repeatedly with the bullpen. The biggest underachiever on the team? Dusty.

Bum

I just don't think a "drill sargent" type is really necessary or effective.
There's a few exceptions in my lifetime, like Billy Martin, but he's only a short time fix and wears out his welcome pretty quick. Most of the "hardass" types really don't get any better results than the managers that people like.
I guess I don't get why the players would not be motivated.
Most of them are young guys.. if nothing else, they are performing the best they can to get a bigger contract down the road.

You have a point about Logan possibly being used incorrectly and/or too often. I grant you that. However, while some people are frustrated with Dusty's patience with pitchers, we have seen it pay dividends. When Chapman went through his rough patch this year, there were threads calling for his demotion from closer. Dusty stayed the course, and it paid dividends. I'm sure most players are more relaxed and perform better when they know that they are not 1 mistake away from losing their job. In fact, Rijo said that when he was young.. He had failed with the Yanks and A's.. He came over, and at one point Rose told Rijo that he was very talented and was going to stay in the rotation until he figured things out.. Rijo said that lifted a lot of stress off him, and allowed him to relax and play better.. That's one example.. Most of us have worked for hardass managers that make everyone miserable. In most cases, the results are not as good as they could be.

I think another valid criticism of this year's team could be their record in 1 run games, which I believe is under 500, despite a good pen and defense.
I hope that rebounds in the second half. It seems though we did lose a lot of heartbreakers in the first half, but despite that, we are only 1 game out of first place.. That's not too shabby.. Despite Dusty, we are only 1 game out. :)

_Sir_Charles_
07-12-2012, 01:56 PM
Honestly, Dusty has his faults, that's obvious. But I think the amount of hand wringing and claims of the negative effect that it has on the Reds W/L record is pretty overblown.

This.

You guys can second guess all you want, but until player x is replaced by player y or put in the z batting order position, all you can do is speculate what the outcome would be.

I think we can all agree that out 1 & 2 hitters aren't playing as well as we'd like. But to just come out an say its Dusty's fault for batting those guys there is pretty unfair IMO. Because you've got to figure who would be replacing those guys, and what effect moving Stubbs and Cozart to a lower spot in the order would do to THAT part of the order. They might play even WORSE down there. And the guys you move up to the top might play as bad or worse than what Stubbs/Cozart/Heisey have done in the top of the order.

Say what you will about Dusty, but shuffling the batting order for the sake of shuffling it or appeasing the fans is not what he does. He likes his players to feel comfortable where they're hitting. He likes them to know their roles. And he gives players a much longer leash than most managers do. Sometimes that pays dividends, sometimes it doesn't. But eventually, even Dusty will make that change that needs to be made. IMO he's done a good job here in Cincy. There's not a single manager out there who won't drive fans nuts with some of his in-game decisions or lineups. But I don't know of any manager who keeps his team playing hard, working together, and puts a better clubhouse personality into play as Dusty does.

And lastly, I think the actual effect of a manager is vastly overblown. The bottom line is that the players have to perform in whatever role they're put into. Some here may say that he doesn't put them into the best position to succeed...but none of us know that, we're guessing. I'll lean towards the guy who's been in this game since I was born knowing what's best for his players. And one thing I know for certain, I much rather prefer a stable managerial position than the manager-go-round that we were on prior to Dusty.

traderumor
07-12-2012, 02:01 PM
Well if that is the argument then can't you just claim that every manager is good and that anyone who disagrees with that premise just has a different opinion?The argument is what is often labeled as criticism is a result of different worldviews. For example, if your bullpen usage theory differs from the managers, then you criticize his use of the bullpen, even though the manager may be using the bullpen according to his worldview. In other words, you're both being "true to yourself," but you disagree at the core on managerial decisions, so it comes off as "criticism." While it is a criticism, it isn't necessarily at the decisions, but at the philosophy driving those decisions. But you said he makes bad decisions. Well, that begs the question, "is Doug the final authority for correct baseball decisions, or is Doug consistent with the final authority for correct baseball decisions."

Bumstead
07-12-2012, 02:02 PM
Dusty sucks = boring, navel gazing baseball analysis

Makes this site unbearable at times

Carry on

While I always enjoy your "one-liners," I fail to see your analysis within this post and how it should distract me from removing the lint from my navel.

Watching Dusty manage the Reds=unbearable most of the time.

I don't believe I ever posted that he "sucked," but that is an obvious conclusion.

Carry on

traderumor
07-12-2012, 02:04 PM
I am not a fan of using a pythagorean to real record comparison to determine the quality of a manager. It misses so much data. If the Reds had people in front of Votto that someone else would have hit there, the Reds probably would have scored more runs, thus changing their pythag and actual records. But that doesn't get counted against a manager batting low OBP guys in front of Votto. Likewise, running out Scott Rolen instead of Todd Frazier doesn't get counted, but using Todd Frazier is incredibly likely to put more runs scored on your side.I didn't say it was. I was hoping Bumstead could provide some substance to his argument that the Reds are underachievers as he asserted. I was offering a potential, quick and dirty argument for an example.

Bumstead
07-12-2012, 02:04 PM
You mean one of the best bullpens in baseball? Remove Dusty and, shoot, you might have a bullpen of Mariano Rivera's.

Yeah, that's what I said...:rolleyes:

dougdirt
07-12-2012, 02:06 PM
I didn't say it was. I was hoping Bumstead could provide some substance to his argument that the Reds are underachievers as he asserted. I was offering a potential, quick and dirty argument for an example.

Oh I know. I was just adding that to the conversation since the whole pythag/real record comparison was brought up.

westofyou
07-12-2012, 02:08 PM
While I always enjoy your "one-liners," I fail to see your analysis within this post and how it should distract me from removing the lint from my navel.

Watching Dusty manage the Reds=unbearable most of the time.

I don't believe I ever posted that he "sucked," but that is an obvious conclusion.

Carry on

The words "sucks" don't need to be typed as I can read between the lines most of the time.

I just find it boring to play the same song over and over and over again, the Dusty is ruining the Reds song is something that folks can dance to all they want. But it bleeds into every thread, every day, and it's tiring to me

But as I say... Carry on

Bumstead
07-12-2012, 02:09 PM
Honestly, Dusty has his faults, that's obvious. But I think the amount of hand wringing and claims of the negative effect that it has on the Reds W/L record is pretty overblown.

So, if we lose the division by 3 games and miss out on a wild card by 2 games, will it still be overblown? When is losing games because of poor game management enough? At what point should we expect the manager to know how to construct a lineup and make quality decisions in critical situations within a baseball game? Dusty Baker is closing in on managing his 3,000th baseball game, how much more rope does he need?

Bum