PDA

View Full Version : What would it take for you to renew Dusty?



cincrazy
08-11-2012, 08:02 PM
Let's talk about the elephant in the room over there in the corner... Dusty's contract situation.

He's currently a lame duck, and with the way the Reds are performing, he's at least giving himself a chance to get an extension. If you're Walt, what does it take from the team down the stretch for you to renew Dusty? Is a simple playoff spot enough, do we have to win the World Series, or would even that not be enough for some of you?

Tony Cloninger
08-11-2012, 08:07 PM
I can see them and think they should go to the WS at least. A 1st round exit will not be horrible unless they get swept and play badly.

Brutus
08-11-2012, 08:10 PM
The guy should get credit by now. The players absolutely stand behind him and that means a lot for a club that has finally been competitive again the last few years. As such, if they win the division, he should get rewarded. The playoffs are a crapshoot anyhow.

marcshoe
08-11-2012, 09:10 PM
I think he's already earned his keep.

AmarilloRed
08-11-2012, 09:18 PM
Expectations are higher-he'd have to win at least one playoff series.

kaldaniels
08-11-2012, 09:33 PM
In terms of acquiring future organizational talent, it is not wise for a team to fire a manager who just won a division. So if he wins the Central, no doubt I keep him.

redsmetz
08-11-2012, 09:37 PM
I do care whether we make the playoffs, but I don't believe we need to make the playoffs in order to be hired.

cumberlandreds
08-11-2012, 09:41 PM
I don't always agree with Dusty's descions, but who'd available that may be better? Terry Francona is the only one that comes to mind. I would sign Dusty no matter what. He has done a very good job of handling these injuries and keeping everyone on top of their game. It would have been easy for this team t have folded with Votto and Phillips out. They didn't and Dusty deserves quite a bit of credit for that.

The Voice of IH
08-11-2012, 09:42 PM
It's tough for me to imagine a scenario where Baker is not extended, save a devastating collapse. If I was Jocketty, I would need to have four or five slam dunk candidates that I know would take the job before even thinking about not extending hhi and his staff. Your expectations for this team should not correlate to whether to renew Bakers contract.

HokieRed
08-11-2012, 09:46 PM
If we make the playoffs, I don't see how you can let him go.

Nathan
08-11-2012, 09:47 PM
This season's set up to where there is no reason for them not to make the playoffs, barring a major collapse. If they fail to do so, then, I'd say, he's gone.

Always Red
08-11-2012, 09:48 PM
He's earned the privilege of keeping the job, IMO. He's been the best Reds manager since McKeon. The roster is Walts responsibility, and I value stability in an organization.

Ryan Ludwick may have saved Dusty's job, I think a case can be made for that.

I don't agree with all of his in game decisions, by any means, but he knows these men, what they can do, and more importantly, what they cannot do.

I'd give him 2 more years, and he probably wouldn't want more than that, to be honest- he's made a ton of money in the game and is no spring chicken any more. Let Dave Bell keep learning in AAA; I think he's probably in the on deck circle.

Big Klu
08-11-2012, 10:18 PM
There's always a possibility that Dusty may be ready to hang it up, especially if the Reds are highly successful in the postseason. His son is getting to the age where he will be involved in more school activities, and I could see Dusty wanting to take an active role as a supportive father.

hebroncougar
08-11-2012, 10:32 PM
I think it's time for Dusty to earn that big pay. It's win a playoff series for me. He's earned respect for how he runs a clubhouse from me, but his tactical skills leave a lot to be desired. If he doesn't win a playoff series, I can see them landing Francona. That being said, if they make the playoffs I wouldn't have a problem with them extending him. I'd just be disappointed, more so than losing in 2010.

corkedbat
08-11-2012, 10:40 PM
If Dusty were to leave, who would Jocketty turn to? Would he coax TLR out of his one-year retirement? Gosh, Dusty's sounding better already. :evil:

kaldaniels
08-11-2012, 10:49 PM
I think it's time for Dusty to earn that big pay. It's win a playoff series for me. He's earned respect for how he runs a clubhouse from me, but his tactical skills leave a lot to be desired. If he doesn't win a playoff series, I can see them landing Francona. That being said, if they make the playoffs I wouldn't have a problem with them extending him. I'd just be disappointed, more so than losing in 2010.

I can't get behind the win a playoff series sentiment, though you are sensible in not being upset if they re-sign him just for making the playoffs.

In the first round it just takes one clunker from your starter and one heroic performance from one of the other team's starters and you are in an 0-2 hole facing elimination.

corkedbat
08-11-2012, 11:03 PM
Dusty drives me up a wall and I really dislike his managing style, but I'm resigned to his return. I actually think that there are others out there that could do as well, but considering his success, but the only way I can see anyone other than him in the manager's seat next year is if Dusty himself decides he wants to move on.

Vottomatic
08-11-2012, 11:10 PM
Dusty drives me up a wall and I really dislike his managing style, but I'm resigned to his return. I actually think that there are others out there that could do as well, but considering his success, but the only way I can see anyone other than him in the manager's seat next year is if Dusty himself decides he wants to move on.

Totally agree.

When you have a good team, alot of managers could have done the job.

It's kind of like saying John Calipari is a great basketball coach when he's got NBA players beating college players. I could have won that national championship sitting on the bench and telling those guys to go get it done. Yippee.

Give me the coach or manager who gets overachievement from average/mediocre players, such as what Clint Hurdle is doing in Pittsburgh.

I'm glad the Reds are doing so well. But Dusty's strategical moves drive me up a wall. But like Corkedbat, I'm resigned to his returning.

cincrazy
08-11-2012, 11:12 PM
Totally agree.

When you have a good team, alot of managers could have done the job.

It's kind of like saying John Calipari is a great basketball coach when he's got NBA players beating college players. I could have won that national championship sitting on the bench and telling those guys to go get it done. Yippee.

Give me the coach or manager who gets overachievement from average/mediocre players, such as what Clint Hurdle is doing in Pittsburgh.

I'm glad the Reds are doing so well. But Dusty's strategical moves drive me up a wall. But like Corkedbat, I'm resigned to his returning.

I think the Pirates have more talent than you're giving them credit for. Hurdle and Baker are both very good at managing the clubhouse and the players. They're both a player's manager. Neither was is that great strategically. But hell, neither was Joe Torre, who bombed at like 3 other stops before winning FOUR World Series with the Yankees.

WVRedsFan
08-11-2012, 11:27 PM
I guess I'm getting soft. The man drives me crazy with his lineups and bunting. He drives me crazy with his toys and love of veterans, even those who hit .150 and seem clueless, but it's working. Having remembered Boone, Miley, and Narron so well, we could do worse and there is no clear candidate if they let him go. I say he stays. For now.

corkedbat
08-11-2012, 11:37 PM
Totally agree.

When you have a good team, alot of managers could have done the job.

It's kind of like saying John Calipari is a great basketball coach when he's got NBA players beating college players. I could have won that national championship sitting on the bench and telling those guys to go get it done. Yippee.

Give me the coach or manager who gets overachievement from average/mediocre players, such as what Clint Hurdle is doing in Pittsburgh.

I'm glad the Reds are doing so well. But Dusty's strategical moves drive me up a wall. But like Corkedbat, I'm resigned to his returning.

Yeah, hatas love to say now that it's no big deal that Cal won it all because he had great players. Before he won though, they were saying he won't ever win it all, because you just can't win a championship with a freshman point guard or he can't win a NC witout Junior and Senior leadership or he'll never win a championship when he's turning over his roster every year. Three years at UK and he's been to an elite eight, a final four and won it all. Each time melding cores of freshmen and getting them to play chamionship defense starting from scratch each October. Hata's gonna hate. Lame.

With Dusty, he's been handed pros - a team crafted over the last several years by others. I do think he players do like playing for him and that's a big plus, but I get the feeling they'd probably have won more this season if he had just stayed out of their way. Porbably just my problem because some of the things he does are so assinine and it gets on my nerves so.

Ghosts of 1990
08-12-2012, 12:05 AM
I don't know. They need to make some noise in the playoffs I think, or it's time for a change in my opinion.

We need to stop being satisfied with just getting to the playoffs. That's a Bengals mentality. Get to the playoffs, send someone home and then we'll talk about extension. If you get to the playoffs and get swept again or beat 3 of 4, I think it's time to think about a manager who does things differently while these guys are still in their prime.

Manager's importance is overstated anyways. I really like Dusty Baker the man and I think he's a winner. But he has to deliver somewhat come October and I think if he was being honest he knows that as well.

AtomicDumpling
08-12-2012, 12:14 AM
Bryan Price should be the Reds number one priority to get him signed to a long term extension.

I would like to see Rays bench coach Dave Martinez become the Reds next manager.

Dan
08-12-2012, 12:21 AM
As long as Terry Francona is available, there's nothing Dusty could do to make me want to re-sign him.

kaldaniels
08-12-2012, 12:45 AM
As long as Terry Francona is available, there's nothing Dusty could do to make me want to re-sign him.

So the Reds win the World Series and you aren't going to attempt to bring back the manager that won it for them?

Like I said, "mistreating" (in the eyes of the baseball world) a successful manager will impair this club from bringing in the next wave of talent.

CTA513
08-12-2012, 12:50 AM
Id take him back, but I would like to see other spots on the coaching staff upgraded.

Tom Servo
08-12-2012, 01:06 AM
Like any manager Dusty has his good points and bad points. I think he deserves a good amount of credit for being the first Reds manager since Davey Johnson to lead a Reds team to the playoffs and the first since Jack McKeon to even have a winning season. Personally, I like Dusty overall. I think a point about him that I don't like is actually one of his good points: He doesn't have any feuds or 'play favorites' with players. While that is like 99% a good thing, I feel it leads to a guy having too much rope with Dusty (ie: Cordero, Patterson, Taveras, Cairo, etc) where he never turns on them for lack of performance. At a certain point, some guys BELONG in the doghouse, you know?

But even though I like Dusty, I could see where the Reds would potentially be better off not having to pay his salary. Of course, this immediately brings to mind the cheapo hirings of Boone, Miley, and Narron, but I don't think that is the way the Reds should go either. I just think sooner or later they need to find a guy who is in-synch with Jocketty the way he and La Russa were.

CrackerJack
08-12-2012, 03:51 AM
If we make the playoffs, I don't see how you can let him go.

I'd like to see some higher standards here again, and I suppose that depends on whether you think your roster was good enough to get to a WS (not win it necessarily) or not in the first place.

If that's not the case, sure, keep him around, I like him and root for him, but if there's another 2010 post season debacle this year, I'd cut him loose and most of this staff in a heartbeat. You don't have one of the top 3 records in baseball and just get trampled against the first team you face like you don't belong. I say that because he has so much input, apparently, regarding who they sign for depth, which is a huge factor in pennant games.

mth123
08-12-2012, 06:51 AM
I'd guess the ball is in Dusty's court. The Reds have been successful under his watch. You can argue talent level, but teams usually keep successful managers. I'd guess that Dusty is trying to decide if he wants to return or the negotiations are on-going and the Reds are trying to agree on money or other conditions that Dusty may be asking for.

If Dusty doesn't return, I'm guessing Price is the new manager. Adding Mack Jenkins as assistant pitching coach seems like a case of succession planning IMO. Price moves up to the Manager's job and Jenkins becomes the pitching coach.

KoryMac5
08-12-2012, 11:25 AM
As long as Terry Francona is available, there's nothing Dusty could do to make me want to re-sign him.

Who could go wrong with beer and chicken in the clubhouse during games. The pitching staff would love him.

Tony Cloninger
08-12-2012, 11:43 AM
Id take him back, but I would like to see other spots on the coaching staff upgraded.

I am on board with this, most certainly.

Tony Cloninger
08-12-2012, 11:44 AM
As long as Terry Francona is available, there's nothing Dusty could do to make me want to re-sign him.

Well ..anything to get him off ESN Sunday night. He is really annoying on that show......he is not as funny as he thinks he is.

dfs
08-12-2012, 12:30 PM
At this point it's tough to see the reds letting Baker go unless he wants to retire.

If you take the top 20 managers of all time by wins( a group that Dusty is a member of) and sort them by winning percentage, Baker is in the middle of the group.

I might not agree with many of his decisions, but the notion that you'll throw him away because they might get a better guy, seems terribly short sighted to me.

When Baker came here, the two big worries I had were that he would slag arms (which he hasn't) and that he just gave up during his final year in Chicago. I balanced that with the belief that Baker would ....thug up....my reds. We would see more pitching inside and guys not backing down from the other team and umpires. Remember the bad old days when no reds pitcher would throw over the inside portion of the plate? Those days are gone and while Scott Rolen and other vets deserve some credit, part of the credit for that culture shift goes to Dusty Baker.

Best reds manager in my lifetime was Davey Johnson, but after that It's tough for me to decide between Dusty, Sparky and McKeon.

All of those guys made decisions that I may not have agreed with, but I almost always could predict exactly what they were going to do. That level of consistency helps a team.

I can't see the front office improving the franchise at this point by getting rid of Baker.

cincrazy
08-12-2012, 12:34 PM
I think if you're going to get rid of Baker, it better be a home run hire. It better not be some guy with no resume, because I think these players LOVE Baker, and would have a hard time accepting someone else that doesn't carry some serious cred with them. I get as frustrated as anyone with some of Dusty's decisions and his stubbornness, but we can't discount how much these players love him and rally around him.

RedsMan3203
08-12-2012, 12:56 PM
Look back to where the Reds were befor Dusty got here.... Just like Marvin for the Bengals... He has done so well with what he has been given and given us a winner...

Now, if this is 3 or 4 years down the road and the Reds keep winning, but keep getting pushed out of the play offs early... Then, I'd think about a change.... But, not right now.

Give him another 2-3 years with an option.

cincrazy
08-12-2012, 01:36 PM
I think this poll really shows how divided Reds fans are about Dusty Baker haha.

Chip R
08-12-2012, 02:09 PM
I think this poll really shows how divided Reds fans are about Dusty Baker haha.

I'm not sure we need a poll to show that. ;)

Wonderful Monds
08-12-2012, 03:12 PM
Bryan Price should be the Reds number one priority to get him signed to a long term extension.

I would like to see Rays bench coach Dave Martinez become the Reds next manager.

This team does not operate in the Joe Maddon against the grain style of managing, so I don't think one could ever expect to hire a manager who does. And frankly, I don't think I would want them to considering how well we do things our way.

RedsManRick
08-12-2012, 03:59 PM
I would prefer not to bring Baker back and frankly I don't understand why anybody would base such a decision based on the team's post-season performance. If you don't think Baker should be brought back today, the reasons for that probably don't change because of an October winning streak. And if you do think he should be brought back, I'm not sure why anything short of a complete collapse would change your mind.

mth123
08-12-2012, 04:24 PM
There is a lot about Baker that drives me crazy. I'd prefer a different tactician (a job that, IMO, should be delegated anyway with the Manager being a leader of men with guys who specialize in taking care of in game strategy doing so). But if the team is being successful in spite of those problems, I'm in the camp that the "devil you know" is better than the one you don't. Until the team starts under-peforming on a consistent basis, I don't see a reason to make a change in spite of all the individual moves that I really disagree with.

This team is on pace to win around 96 games this year. Most thought 85 to 90 was their water level. Changing the manager is a "big picture" decision and indiviual decisions - like who hits lead-off and whether or not they should bunt - take a back seat to the big picture IMO.

CrackerJack
08-12-2012, 04:31 PM
Well ..anything to get him off ESN Sunday night. He is really annoying on that show......he is not as funny as he thinks he is.

Then again, you could say that about every single personality on ESPN IMO, and ESPN as a whole.

CrackerJack
08-12-2012, 04:53 PM
I would prefer not to bring Baker back and frankly I don't understand why anybody would base such a decision based on the team's post-season performance. If you don't think Baker should be brought back today, the reasons for that probably don't change because of an October winning streak. And if you do think he should be brought back, I'm not sure why anything short of a complete collapse would change your mind.

I don't claim to or think i'm a better manager than Dusty, so I base opinions on results, and you have to include the post-season in that equation, many other competitive teams do as well.

If they're not going to give him the guys to do much more than win the division every few years, or compete for the WC, then get trounced, then I don't want to see him back, he's not that kind of manager, again unless your expectations are that low.

If his team continues to over-perform and does that in the post season to a reasonable extent, how can you not bring him back?

redsfandan
08-12-2012, 05:46 PM
Best reds manager in my lifetime was Davey Johnson, but after that It's tough for me to decide between Dusty, Sparky and McKeon.

So, are you actually saying that you might take Dusty over Sparky??

kaldaniels
08-12-2012, 05:54 PM
I don't claim to or think i'm a better manager than Dusty, so I base opinions on results, and you have to include the post-season in that equation, many other competitive teams do as well.

If they're not going to give him the guys to do much more than win the division every few years, or compete for the WC, then get trounced, then I don't want to see him back, he's not that kind of manager, again unless your expectations are that low.

If his team continues to over-perform and does that in the post season to a reasonable extent, how can you not bring him back?

Hypothetical.

You have 100 points to award to various members of the Reds and Philles organization (lets keep it simple, just managers and players) in terms of who was responsible for the Phillies sweep of the Reds in 2010.

How many points would you award to Dusty?

We all want post-season sucess, but in a best of 5 series, you really are hoping for luck to be on your side, especially if yours is the weaker roster of the 2 teams. So despite it's ugliness...are you really holding the Phillies series against Dusty?

traderumor
08-12-2012, 07:06 PM
The Francona love is puzzling, considering the arguments against Dusty center around "he has players, so he wins." Boston won because........apparently Francona's managerial acumen was better than everyone else. No, Boston won with Francona as manager, a big giant payroll, and better players. I recall a lot of Bobby Valentine for Manager campaigns also.

Dave Martinez stumping just makes me laugh out loud, as if anyone recommending him has the first clue about his abilities to be a successful major league manager. And his mentor is the smartest baseball man alive, yet barely has the Rays in the pennant race this season.

Dusty is welcome back at a similar rate if he wants to come back. The organization is doing well, I don't see any reason to believe that he is a weak link that needs replaced to make it a better organization.

Oh, and get over the 2010 playoffs people. We got our butts beat by a stronger team, time to move on.

Mario-Rijo
08-12-2012, 07:08 PM
The way I look at this is 2 fold. (Though I mistakenly choose the 2nd to last option, I'd go with win 1 PO series).

1st - He is gonna be back no matter what we think short of a monumental collapse and the team missing out on the playoffs completely. I suppose it's possible if he lost in a 1 game W/C playoff he could still not be asked back, but it's a stretch IMO.

2nd - I wouldn't have him back unless he at least wins a series. Perhaps he is the difference in this team making the playoffs or not, tough to debate (though I think some good not "great" managers could do the same). But you pay big money to big name Managers to win in the playoffs. There isn't a dominant team this year in the NL so he really needs to earn his money.

3rd - Ok so 3 fold. If he agrees to fire Jacoby and replace him with the Bryan Price of hitting coaches then as long as he gets into the playoffs I would renew him. Brook has had plenty of time to get more out of Bruce, Stubbs, Heisey etc. and hasn't. Time to get someone in here who understands mechanics and approach.

traderumor
08-12-2012, 07:09 PM
The way I look at this is 2 fold.

1st - He is gonna be back no matter what we think short of a monumental collapse and the team missing out on the playoffs completely. I suppose it's possible if he lost in a 1 game W/C playoff he could still not be asked back, but it's a stretch IMO.

2nd - I wouldn't have him back unless he at least wins a series. Perhaps he is the difference in this team making the playoffs or not, tough to debate (though I think some good not great managers could do the same). But you pay big money to big name Managers to win in the playoffs. There isn't a dominant team this year in the NL so he really needs to earn his money.

3rd - Ok so 3 fold. If he agrees to fire Jacoby and replace him with the Bryan Price of hitting coaches then as long as he gets into the playoffs I would renew him. Brook has had plenty of time to get more out of Bruce, Stubbs, Heisey etc. and hasn't. Time to get someone in here who understands mechanics and approach.So that's it, Jacoby doesn't understand mechanics and approach? Man, let's fire him now. :lol:

Mario-Rijo
08-12-2012, 07:11 PM
So that's it, Jacoby doesn't understand mechanics and approach? Man, let's fire him now. :lol:

Ok both understands and gets results.

dfs
08-12-2012, 09:03 PM
So, are you actually saying that you might take Dusty over Sparky??

I look at talent that Sparky was handed and then the fact that he only brought home 2 world series rings with the reds and I have to wonder if more could have been done.

I know that's sacrilege in a town that worship at the memory of the BRM, but it's what I see.

Dusty took a crummy team to the point where they should be among the best in the game. I admire that.

Again, I don't agree with all his tactical decisions, but within his own framework, he is VERY consistent.

WebScorpion
08-13-2012, 03:19 AM
I think the Reds next manager is sitting in Louisville managing the AAA club...David Bell. I think the reason they're hesitant to renew Dusty is they know if Bell doesn't get the call this from the Reds, he'll get it from another team.

membengal
08-13-2012, 06:46 AM
Its hard for me to understand views that Baker won't be back.

edabbs44
08-13-2012, 07:02 AM
Ok both understands and gets results.

5th in the NL in OPS. I think he is getting some results.

DGullett35
08-13-2012, 01:16 PM
Ive always liked Dusty. I think hes done a good enough job to get an extension but does he want to come back?

Kc61
08-13-2012, 04:49 PM
Baker is probably at the stage where he would easily retire, do some broadcasting, and live his life - unless he gets a very attractive offer.

Reds are probably at the stage where they would like Dusty to stay but feel the team is now well settled and on its way - and don't want to vastly overspend on the manager.

I just think this comes down to a negotiation that may or may not be successful. I don't think Reds would want to get rid of Dusty, he's done a good job of bringing the team along, but it's just a matter of dollars and cents.

Despite all the bunting, which drives me nuts, I think Dusty has done a fine job with the Reds. If he goes, a very able replacement will be needed.

reds44
08-13-2012, 04:52 PM
I don't like Dusty Baker. As long as the Reds make the playoffs, he deserves to be back.

Griffey012
08-13-2012, 05:40 PM
Barring a horrid collapse of some sort Baker should and needs to be back. Leading this team to the record he has without Votto is nothing short of remarkable. Obviously some players have had huge impacts as well (Ludwick especially) but with the youthfulness of the roster he has done a great job in pulling the guys together, getting them to believe, and ultimately getting results. I'd say extend him 2 more seasons at about the same rate.

edabbs44
08-13-2012, 08:08 PM
He deserves to be back. I'm not sure how anyone can dispute that.

traderumor
08-13-2012, 08:53 PM
Ok both understands and gets results.
I'd guess if Jacoby had the Cardinals hitters, that the offense would still be the best in the league. I'd likewise guess if Mark McGwire had the Reds hitters, the offense would be about average.

cincrazy
08-13-2012, 08:56 PM
A few of my concerns with Dusty when he accepted the job:

1. His handling of pitchers
2. His handling of young players

And honestly, other than the Harang incident that has been well-noted, I haven't had a single issue with how he handles the pitching staff. And I think he's been FANTASTIC with young guys like Frazier, Cozart, Bruce, Stubbs, etc. He's given them every chance to succeed. Maybe TOO many chances in some cases.

He's shown the utmost patience and care, and that's huge in the development of these guys IMO, even if it drives me crazy at times.

CrackerJack
08-15-2012, 01:16 PM
It's hard not to root for the guy, I know that much. I'd really like to see him shut all of the haters in this town up.

dougdirt
08-15-2012, 01:30 PM
It's hard not to root for the guy, I know that much. I'd really like to see him shut all of the haters in this town up.

Never going to happen. Teams win because they have talent. Managers make small differences unless their mismanagement leads to injuries, which leads to lesser talent.

_Sir_Charles_
08-15-2012, 01:59 PM
I'm not sure if this has been posted or not, but ESPN's got a nice article up on Dusty. I think it's done by the guy from redlegnation.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/28041/in-defense-of-dusty-baker

edabbs44
08-15-2012, 02:14 PM
I'm not sure if this has been posted or not, but ESPN's got a nice article up on Dusty. I think it's done by the guy from redlegnation.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/28041/in-defense-of-dusty-baker

The humanity!

traderumor
08-15-2012, 02:52 PM
Never going to happen. Teams win because they have talent. Managers make small differences unless their mismanagement leads to injuries, which leads to lesser talent.I don't understand how this is a response to "shutting up haters." Your response says "the manager has little responsibility for the results on the field, so criticizing him is folly."

westofyou
08-15-2012, 02:58 PM
I'm not sure if this has been posted or not, but ESPN's got a nice article up on Dusty. I think it's done by the guy from redlegnation.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/28041/in-defense-of-dusty-baker

Yes, Chad wrote it... kudos Chad

RedsManRick
08-15-2012, 03:08 PM
He deserves to be back. I'm not sure how anyone can dispute that.

Based on the standards of the industry, I'd agree. But that doesn't mean we should all have to agree with those standards. In my opinion, the manager's job is supposed to be to get the most production from the players his given as he can. If you think Dusty has done a good job of that you should want him back. If you think there is a viable, better alternative available, you don't.

Brutus
08-15-2012, 03:13 PM
Based on the standards of the industry, I'd agree. But that doesn't mean we should all have to agree with those standards. In my opinion, the manager's job is supposed to be to get the most production from the players his given as he can. If you think Dusty has done a good job of that you should want him back. If you think there is a viable, better alternative available, you don't.

You think guys should be fired because there might be a viable, better alternative? If that's the case, wouldn't you fire guys almost all the time? There's almost always someone "better" out there.

I don't see why having a viable alternative should be the reason you fire a guy. Either he's doing the job he's being paid to do or he's not.

RedsManRick
08-15-2012, 03:33 PM
You think guys should be fired because there might be a viable, better alternative? If that's the case, wouldn't you fire guys almost all the time? There's almost always someone "better" out there.

Viable = Is available and willing to take the job. I'm not sure where you got "might" from.



I don't see why having a viable alternative should be the reason you fire a guy. Either he's doing the job he's being paid to do or he's not.

Teams are always looking to upgrade the players. Why would you do differently with the manager?

Remember, we're not talking about firing Dusty here; his contract is up. The question is whether or not you re-sign him. As far as I'm concerned, you ask the same question you would for any other job. Of the available talent, who is the best guy for the job?

Obviously, you account for uncertainty when assessing manager ability. And you might even place a premium on keeping the manager consistent. But I'd flip your question around. If there is a better person willing and able to do the job, why wouldn'tyou hire him?

Brutus
08-15-2012, 03:37 PM
Viable = Is available and willing to take the job. I'm not sure where you got "might" from.

Teams are always looking to upgrade the players. Why would you do differently with the manager. Obviously, you account for the uncertainty around assessing manager ability, but I'd flip your question around. If there is a better person willing and able to do the job, why in the world wouldn't you hire him? I'm not talking about firing Dusty in the middle of his contract.

I'm talking about the Reds having an open managerial position at the end of the year and hiring the best guy for the job. Sure, consistency can serve as a tie-breaker. But if you can hire somebody that you think is better, you do.

Teams don't typically go looking to upgrade a position unless it's one of need. If a player is an average or above-average player, they're not typically trying to actively replace the player. That's not to say they don't keep their eyes peeled for something that comes along, but rarely do you see teams not satisfied with players that are above average.

Further, at least with players you have things that you can measure to get a good idea of what you're getting. With managers, it's nothing more than a whim. You can't know exactly whether a guy is an upgrade. The Red Sox thought they were getting an upgrade over Terry Francona. How is that working out for them?

When you have a guy that has his players' trust and clearly the team enjoys playing for a guy, you don't mess with that. Chemistry is a real thing, and when you have it, one should be careful not to tamper with it too much.

RedsManRick
08-15-2012, 03:42 PM
[QUOTE=RedsManRick;2704220][QUOTE=Brutus;2704183]You think guys should be fired because there might be a viable, better alternative? If that's the case, wouldn't you fire guys almost all the time? There's almost always someone "better" out there.

Teams don't typically go looking to upgrade a position unless it's one of need. If a player is an average or above-average player, they're not typically trying to actively replace the player.

But this isn't "actively replacing". His contract is up. Team's don't always extend their average players. They look at the market, consider their options and then move forward based on putting the best team on the field the following year.

You're


That's not to say they don't keep their eyes peeled for something that comes along, but rarely do you see teams not satisfied with players that are above average.

You're asserting Dusty is above average. Some people may disagree with that assessment -- even if the Reds win the World Series. Winning a series doesn't inherently mean the manager is above average anymore than it means the 25th man on your roster is.



Further, at least with players you have things that you can measure to get a good idea of what you're getting. With managers, it's nothing more than a whim. You can't know exactly whether a guy is an upgrade. The Red Sox thought they were getting an upgrade over Terry Francona. How is that working out for them?

When you have a guy that has his players' trust and clearly the team enjoys playing for a guy, you don't mess with that. Chemistry is a real thing, and when you have it, one should be careful not to tamper with it too much.

The Red Sox fired Francona not because he made poor managerial decisions on the field but because he lost the clubhouse. They hired a guy who can't control his clubhouse. I think the Sox erred in firing Francona because they apparently assumed he was the problem in the clubhouse when it appears there's plenty of blame to go around.

I grant you the uncertainty of assessing quality and the value of consistency and agree they should be considerations. However, at some point, you have make up your mind of how good a job a guy is doing. Some people use a team's record or playoff record to make that judgment. I don't.

westofyou
08-15-2012, 03:43 PM
The Reds felt it was a good idea to dump Sparky once... Johnny Mac was "Viable"

And a horrible manager

RedsManRick
08-15-2012, 03:43 PM
The Reds felt it was a good idea to dump Sparky once... Johnny Mac was "Viable"

And a horrible manager

Your point being? Don't blame me for the Reds being a poor judge of managerial ability.

westofyou
08-15-2012, 03:47 PM
Your point being? Don't blame me for the Reds being a poor judge of managerial ability.

My point is you want to pin the guy to the wall for moves you feel he didn't do and poo poo the stuff you don't see.

Which is fine, it's part of looking at a manager and his body of work for the most part.

Just be careful what you wish for when delving in the grey.

Brutus
08-15-2012, 03:54 PM
But this isn't "actively replacing". His contract is up. Team's don't always extend their average players. They look at the market, consider their options and then move forward based on putting the best team on the field the following year.

You're



You're asserting Dusty is above average. Some people may disagree with that assessment -- even if the Reds win the World Series. Winning a series doesn't inherently mean the manager is above average anymore than it means the 25th man on your roster is.



The Red Sox fired Francona not because he made poor managerial decisions on the field but because he lost the clubhouse. They hired a guy who can't control his clubhouse. I think the Sox erred in firing Francona because they apparently assumed he was the problem in the clubhouse when it appears there's plenty of blame to go around.

I grant you the uncertainty of assessing quality and the value of consistency and agree they should be considerations. However, at some point, you have make up your mind of how good a job a guy is doing. Some people use a team's record or playoff record to make that judgment. I don't.

If Francona lost his clubhouse, then what has happened with Valentine? Like WOY said, be careful what you wish for.

Managerial choices are so extremely subjective, I don't know how anyone could get rid of a guy that has proven to be successful for your club, when truthfully you have no idea how any manager is going to perform when taking over. This isn't like WAR, OPS, etc. where we can quantify success. You're basing it on nothing more than an interview and a whim when you replace a manager.

I think it's borderline reckless to replace a guy that has gotten a team to (potentially) the playoffs in two of three seasons after going more than a decade and a half since getting there. The devil you do know is better than the devil you don't.

Homer Bailey
08-15-2012, 04:01 PM
I'm not sure if this has been posted or not, but ESPN's got a nice article up on Dusty. I think it's done by the guy from redlegnation.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/28041/in-defense-of-dusty-baker

Very good and accurate article, IMO.

kaldaniels
08-15-2012, 04:06 PM
In a perfect and simple world, you would not have to worry about the feelings of the players...but we do not live in that world.

So lets say the Reds win the World Series and the players love Dusty. Do you take the dramatic step of not even attempting to re-sign Dusty and totally alienating the clubhouse. Not trying to re-sign Dusty would be viewed around the league as a slap in the face to him and I believe it would scar this franchise/front office.

I don't think playoff records should matter here, but I also can't believe if the Reds won a World Series some would not slide a contract offer across the desk to the manager that brought the club there.

westofyou
08-15-2012, 04:14 PM
I also can't believe if the Reds won a World Series some would not slide a contract offer across the desk to the manager that brought the club there.

How about if they lost the series?

Fired after winning a series:

1926 Rogers Hornsby (traded and perhaps hated as much as Cobb)

1948 - Bucky Harris Yankees

Losing

1960 - Casey Stengel Yankees

Spitball
08-15-2012, 04:18 PM
The Reds felt it was a good idea to dump Sparky once... Johnny Mac was "Viable"

And a horrible manager

Not that this is an important argument, but John McNamara should not be labeled a "horrible" manager. He wasn't Sparky Anderson, and he is responsible for Bill Buckner's legacy in Boston. He may not have been great or even real good, but I wouldn't consider him a horrible manager.

He did lead the Reds to a first place finish in the NL West in 1979. He did lead the Reds to the best record in the NL in 1981. He did take Boston to the World Series in 1986. If you throw out his years of managing poor Padre teams, he has a decent record.

I think Maury Wills and Buddy Bell were horrible. John Mac should be labeled differently in my opinion.

dougdirt
08-15-2012, 04:23 PM
Didn't Dusty Baker once take a team to the World Series and then not get brought back the following year?

westofyou
08-15-2012, 04:24 PM
Didn't Dusty Baker once take a team to the World Series and then not get brought back the following year?

Yes, he was fighting with the owner most of the year too, forgot about that one

westofyou
08-15-2012, 04:26 PM
Not that this is an important argument, but John McNamara should not be labeled a "horrible" manager. He wasn't Sparky Anderson, and he is responsible for Bill Buckner's legacy in Boston. He may not have been great or even real good, but I wouldn't consider him a horrible manager.

He did lead the Reds to a first place finish in the NL West in 1979. He did lead the Reds to the best record in the NL in 1981. He did take Boston to the World Series in 1986. If you throw out his years of managing poor Padre teams, he has a decent record.

I think Maury Wills and Buddy Bell were horrible. John Mac should be labeled differently in my opinion.

Horrible is probably too strong, but he was a lot like Dusty, plus had the personality of a cup and saucer Bill James beat on him hard during the Abstract years

dougdirt
08-15-2012, 04:33 PM
Yes, he was fighting with the owner most of the year too, forgot about that one

Yeah, from what I can remember he wasn't happy about not getting credit for how well the team was performing.

kaldaniels
08-15-2012, 04:34 PM
I think the baseball world could rationalize it if Dusty was not reupped after losing a World Series. But that is not what I said. I said "If the Reds won the World Series"...

westofyou
08-15-2012, 04:36 PM
Yeah, from what I can remember he wasn't happy about not getting credit for how well the team was performing.

True, the stadium was being touted and McGowen the owner was all over the press about how he had saved the Giants from moving.

It was a buzz kill for those enjoying the run that's for sure.

Dusty is also one of the few men to have won 100 games in a season and not get to the playoffs (1993)

dougdirt
08-15-2012, 04:36 PM
I think the baseball world could rationalize it if Dusty was not reupped after losing a World Series. But that is not what I said. I said "If the Reds won the World Series"...

The poll gives quite an array of options....

But personally? I don't like him as a manager. I think there should be other, better qualified options out there. Whether those guys are actually given the time of day by front offices, I don't know, but I believe they should be. Reds go out and sweep their way through the World Series and I would rather someone else be managing the Reds on OD 2013. He simply isn't the kind of manager that I would hire if I were running the team.

vic715
08-15-2012, 04:37 PM
Yes, he was fighting with the owner most of the year too, forgot about that one

You forgot Yogi in 1964.Remember the harmonica incident?

kaldaniels
08-15-2012, 04:40 PM
The poll gives quite an array of options....

But personally? I don't like him as a manager. I think there should be other, better qualified options out there. Whether those guys are actually given the time of day by front offices, I don't know, but I believe they should be. Reds go out and sweep their way through the World Series and I would rather someone else be managing the Reds on OD 2013. He simply isn't the kind of manager that I would hire if I were running the team.

I know and I respect that. No issue on that at all.

But I just think there would be a good bit of fallout if you make no attempt to re-sign a respected World Series winning manager. I don't think it would be as simple as "well his contract was up, we are moving on".

westofyou
08-15-2012, 04:45 PM
You forgot Yogi in 1964.Remember the harmonica incident?

Ooooooooooooo my knee!!

Keane quit IIRC, he was almost fired during the season

Spitball
08-15-2012, 05:29 PM
Ooooooooooooo my knee!!

Keane quit IIRC, he was almost fired during the season

I believe Keane's Cardinals beat Yogi's Yankees in the 1964 World Series. Yogi got fired afterward, and Keane jumped to the Yanks. It was a bad move as the Yankees were aging and in serious decline.

By 1966 the Yankees are in last place and in 1967 the Cards are back in the WS.

cincrazy
08-15-2012, 05:48 PM
If the Reds win the World Series, and Dusty ISN'T brought back, that sends a horrible signal to the players, and to any future free agents.

oneupper
08-15-2012, 05:55 PM
My hope is that the REDS win the World Series and that Dusty decides to retire at the top.

edabbs44
08-15-2012, 05:57 PM
Based on the standards of the industry, I'd agree. But that doesn't mean we should all have to agree with those standards. In my opinion, the manager's job is supposed to be to get the most production from the players his given as he can. If you think Dusty has done a good job of that you should want him back. If you think there is a viable, better alternative available, you don't.

So you think this is better than a .600 roster?

CrackerJack
08-15-2012, 06:55 PM
Never going to happen. Teams win because they have talent. Managers make small differences unless their mismanagement leads to injuries, which leads to lesser talent.

I don't disagree Dusty is going to be as successful as his roster lets him be...but you wouldn't know that judging from the reaction by so many in this city.

I do want to see them do better than they did in 2010, in the post season, assuming they're going there again, and not just get swept and look bad doing it. This team is better than that one was IMO.

Again it's just hard "not" to root for the guy, he's a good, genuine fella, his pedigree has been earned, I'm over the nit-picking, old school stuff he does. At least he's predictable.

I like to see guys like that succeed in any profession, so I'm rooting for him regardless, and if they extend him, at this point, that's fine with me, I like him.

mattfeet
08-15-2012, 07:05 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120815&content_id=36744914&vkey=news_cin&c_id=cin&partnerId=rss_cin

Castellini wants Baker back for "years to come".

-Matt

dougdirt
08-15-2012, 07:08 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120815&content_id=36744914&vkey=news_cin&c_id=cin&partnerId=rss_cin

Castellini wants Baker back for "years to come".

-Matt

Of course he does. He is the only one that wanted him the first time around. Then the second time around. Odds are, this time around too.

Cyclone792
08-15-2012, 07:18 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120815&content_id=36744914&vkey=news_cin&c_id=cin&partnerId=rss_cin

Castellini wants Baker back for "years to come".

-Matt

Off topic rant coming up ... but you know, I read this article and I simply shake my head in disgust when I read things like this:


The Reds haven't won a playoff game since Game 4 of the 1990 World Series, when they swept the A's.

I guess both the writer and editor missed the fact that the Reds did win a playoff game in the 1995 LDS ... three playoff wins, in fact.

Just careless journalism right there.

westofyou
08-15-2012, 07:23 PM
Of course he does. He is the only one that wanted him the first time around. Then the second time around. Odds are, this time around too.

Turns out he's the only guy whose vote counts too

Wonderful Monds
08-15-2012, 07:54 PM
Of course he does. He is the only one that wanted him the first time around. Then the second time around. Odds are, this time around too.

That's a pretty bold statement to make without the facts to back it up.

redsfaninbsg
08-15-2012, 07:55 PM
That's a pretty bold statement to make without the facts to back it up.

I thought this was common knowledge?

edabbs44
08-15-2012, 08:02 PM
Of course he does. He is the only one that wanted him the first time around. Then the second time around. Odds are, this time around too.

The players don't want him around?

Dom Heffner
08-15-2012, 08:45 PM
I think he gets renewed, and deserves it.

While his lineups are head scratchers sometimes, that could be rectified with better talent in some spots where we are weak.

I think the players like him.

They win.

Who else would be better?

dougdirt
08-15-2012, 10:10 PM
That's a pretty bold statement to make without the facts to back it up.

I know what I have been told.

dougdirt
08-15-2012, 10:10 PM
The players don't want him around?

They probably do. It isn't often that they players don't want their manager back.

Wonderful Monds
08-15-2012, 10:11 PM
I know what I have been told.

I'll take the on the field results and what the players have to say about Dusty over a bunch of hearsay, myself personally.

dougdirt
08-15-2012, 10:12 PM
I'll take the on the field results and what the players have to say about Dusty over a bunch of hearsay, myself personally.

I will take what people who work for the Reds have told me.

Wonderful Monds
08-15-2012, 10:14 PM
I will take what people who work for the Reds have told me.

Does it really matter? This team is one of the best in baseball and likely does not go on their miraculous sans-Votto run without Dusty.

Frankly, the obstinance in the unwillingness to acknowledge that Dusty Baker might not be an incompetent fool at his position astounds me.

membengal
08-15-2012, 10:19 PM
Frankly, the obstinance in the unwillingness to acknowledge that Dusty Baker might not be an incompetent fool at his position astounds me.

What? Who has said that on this board?

Wonderful Monds
08-15-2012, 10:21 PM
What? Who has said that on this board?

It's an embellishment to be sure, but many insinuations here toe that line.


Let's just put it this way: if you would can a manager coming off a WS victory, that's not managing a ball club to achieve its best on field performance. That's just opinionated obstinance.

dougdirt
08-15-2012, 10:22 PM
Does it really matter? This team is one of the best in baseball and likely does not go on their miraculous sans-Votto run without Dusty.



Sure it matters, because your hearsay comment implied, or I read it as it implied that it was merely something I had heard from some random nobody.

Wonderful Monds
08-15-2012, 10:24 PM
Sure it matters, because your hearsay comment implied, or I read it as it implied that it was merely something I had heard from some random nobody.

Unless you heard it directly from the mouth of Walt Jocketty, a man notorious for playing his cards close to his chest, I think you kind of have to regard that as hearsay.

dougdirt
08-15-2012, 10:27 PM
Unless you heard it directly from the mouth of Walt Jocketty, a man notorious for playing his cards close to his chest, I think you kind of have to regard that as hearsay.

Well, I can't say who it was, but it wasn't Jocketty. But it was someone with absolutely nothing to gain by making the comment.

Wonderful Monds
08-15-2012, 10:31 PM
Well, I can't say who it was, but it wasn't Jocketty. But it was someone with absolutely nothing to gain by making the comment.

Perhaps. Believe me, I'm not saying you didn't hear what you heard, I just think that kind of thing you have to take with a grain of salt.

And really, if the guy gets results and the players respond well to him, I just can't really find a problem with that situation, myself.

dougdirt
08-15-2012, 10:33 PM
Perhaps. Believe me, I'm not saying you didn't hear what you heard, I just think that kind of thing you have to take with a grain of salt.

And really, if the guy gets results and the players respond well to him, I just can't really find a problem with that situation, myself.

Maybe it is just me, but I am always striving for better. I think there are better options out there than Dusty Baker. Bakers has his goods and his bads, just like most guys, but his bads are so simple to correct and yet he simply can't do it. Makes it an easy decision for me to want to find someone else. Unfortunately, I am not in charge of finding someone else and baseball in general tends to hire guys just like Dusty Baker (re: old school baseball thinking), which means I have little faith in any true kind of upgrade to him actually happening.

Wonderful Monds
08-15-2012, 10:40 PM
Maybe it is just me, but I am always striving for better. I think there are better options out there than Dusty Baker. Bakers has his goods and his bads, just like most guys, but his bads are so simple to correct and yet he simply can't do it. Makes it an easy decision for me to want to find someone else. Unfortunately, I am not in charge of finding someone else and baseball in general tends to hire guys just like Dusty Baker (re: old school baseball thinking), which means I have little faith in any true kind of upgrade to him actually happening.

Well if the hypothetical is he wins a World Series, you can't get any better than that really can you? I agree in terms of upgrading players, but the manager is a much more complex situation because his influence isn't measurable. If you find the winning combo, you shouldn't really mess with success, IMO.

westofyou
08-15-2012, 10:44 PM
Twenty five games above .500 today and it can be better with a different manager... Perhaps.

Could be worse too.

Problem is in the real world folks get compliments and kudos for crushing the prior expectations, here we practice theories and platitudes and get nothing for them.

Old school guys have been managing the game forever, drawing on their experience and knowledge

Some day even Joe Maddon will be called Old School, count on it, sure as the sun rising in the east

edabbs44
08-15-2012, 10:54 PM
Maybe it is just me, but I am always striving for better. I think there are better options out there than Dusty Baker. Bakers has his goods and his bads, just like most guys, but his bads are so simple to correct and yet he simply can't do it. Makes it an easy decision for me to want to find someone else. Unfortunately, I am not in charge of finding someone else and baseball in general tends to hire guys just like Dusty Baker (re: old school baseball thinking), which means I have little faith in any true kind of upgrade to him actually happening.

It is starting to become apparent that the posters who want more of a "new school" manager are in denial over what Dusty and the Reds are currently doing since he is the anti-saber manager. I am guessing that some posters are going all-in against Dusty because they believe that, due to all that they have read, studied and thought they had down pat, there is no way Dusty is doing a good job and in no way has any sort of part of the success of the Reds. Forget that the Reds have the 2nd best record in baseball and the largest lead in the game, it must be in spite of Dusty because of everything we "know" about him and everything he does that angers the saber community.

Get over the batting order, his use of Ondrusek and his man love for guys like Juan Pierre and CPatt. The Reds are killing it and no one with any sense of what truly goes on in the game would think to get rid of this guy at this stage in the season. We have struggled through years of futility and watched a revolving door in the front office at least partly because of their struggles. Now we find a winning combo and want to see more of the same?

Walt, Bob and Dusty have been abused on this board over the past few years way more than is deserved. I'm glad that this regime is proving many wrong. I know it is crazy, but maybe they do know what they are doing.

dougdirt
08-15-2012, 11:31 PM
Well if the hypothetical is he wins a World Series, you can't get any better than that really can you? I agree in terms of upgrading players, but the manager is a much more complex situation because his influence isn't measurable. If you find the winning combo, you shouldn't really mess with success, IMO.

You can win more games. What if next year other teams take a step forward and we, despite being just as good, aren't holding a 7 game lead on August 15th and it is instead a 2 game lead, don't you want someone who you think is able to better use your players even if the guy that was there the year before won the World Series with most of these same players?

dougdirt
08-15-2012, 11:33 PM
It is starting to become apparent that the posters who want more of a "new school" manager are in denial over what Dusty and the Reds are currently doing since he is the anti-saber manager. I am guessing that some posters are going all-in against Dusty because they believe that, due to all that they have read, studied and thought they had down pat, there is no way Dusty is doing a good job and in no way has any sort of part of the success of the Reds. Forget that the Reds have the 2nd best record in baseball and the largest lead in the game, it must be in spite of Dusty because of everything we "know" about him and everything he does that angers the saber community.

Get over the batting order, his use of Ondrusek and his man love for guys like Juan Pierre and CPatt. The Reds are killing it and no one with any sense of what truly goes on in the game would think to get rid of this guy at this stage in the season. We have struggled through years of futility and watched a revolving door in the front office at least partly because of their struggles. Now we find a winning combo and want to see more of the same?

Walt, Bob and Dusty have been abused on this board over the past few years way more than is deserved. I'm glad that this regime is proving many wrong. I know it is crazy, but maybe they do know what they are doing.

I will say this about any manager, not just Dusty.... short of their negligence causing injuries to players that takes away from the teams talent level, good managers and bad managers aren't all that different from each other. Their impact is rather minimal. Dusty isn't a bad manager, I just happen to think there are better ones out there.

Wonderful Monds
08-15-2012, 11:34 PM
You can win more games. What if next year other teams take a step forward and we, despite being just as good, aren't holding a 7 game lead on August 15th and it is instead a 2 game lead, don't you want someone who you think is able to better use your players even if the guy that was there the year before won the World Series with most of these same players?

I think taking that approach you are more likely to end up the team trailing by 7 games than winning by 2. The Red Sox tried a similar approach this year in response to the chicken and beer non story. I don't think anyone would say that worked out.

dougdirt
08-15-2012, 11:36 PM
I think taking that approach you are more likely to end up the team trailing by 7 games than winning by 2. The Red Sox tried a similar approach this year in response to the chicken and beer non story. I don't think anyone would say that worked out.

And I think taking that approach would actually work, regardless of what the Red Sox situation is.

Wonderful Monds
08-15-2012, 11:39 PM
I guess I just don't think minor lineup decisions are worth ditching a WS winning manager over. That's really the only reason at all I can imagine anyone would want to lose Dusty. Although, in terms of managing his players, he seems to excel at picking their spots, resting them and keeping them fresh and generally pushing the right buttons to put them in a position to succeed.

kaldaniels
08-15-2012, 11:48 PM
It has been said...

1)The impact of managers is typically minimal.
2)Dusty is not a bad manager.

and hypothetically if the Reds win the World Series some would not try to re-sign him?

Spare the "there would be someone better available" (because you could probably apply that to just about any manager who is due for a contract renewal) argument, not trying to re-up him would show a lack of business acumen in my opinion, no offense.

Now if you disagree with the 2 points I list, that is another matter.

RedsManRick
08-16-2012, 01:53 AM
It has been said...

1)The impact of managers is typically minimal.
2)Dusty is not a bad manager.

and hypothetically if the Reds win the World Series some would not try to re-sign him?

Spare the "there would be someone better available" (because you could probably apply that to just about any manager who is due for a contract renewal) argument, not trying to re-up him would show a lack of business acumen in my opinion, no offense.

Now if you disagree with the 2 points I list, that is another matter.

For reference.

1) I think the impact of managers is like pitchers controlling their BABIP. Objectively speaking, they have a major influence. A very under-qualified person could probably screw things up badly. But once you whittle it down to the list of people qualified for the job, the differences between them aren't all that huge.

2) I think Dusty Baker is an average manager. He helps the team in the clubhouse. He hurts the team in the dugout. His overall impact is negligible.

I think the strongest argument for keeping Dusty is the "don't rock the boat" argument. It's not that he's such a great manager. It's that the risk ticking off key players (or of the admitted possibility that clubhouse manner is actually a much bigger influence on player performance than tactical decision making) may not merit the potential gain by having a better tactician on the bench. Personally, like Doug, I think we can do better and would try to. But I completely understand the arguments for keeping him; just not any arguments that suggest he must be a great manager if we win.

Wonderful Monds
08-16-2012, 01:56 AM
For reference.

1) I think the impact of managers is like pitchers controlling their BABIP. Objectively speaking, they have a major influence. A very under-qualified person could probably screw things up badly. But once you whittle it down to the list of people qualified for the job, the differences between them aren't all that huge.

2) I think Dusty Baker is an average manager. He helps the team in the clubhouse. He hurts the team in the dugout. His overall impact is negligible.

I think the argument for keeping Dusty isn't that he's such a great manager. It's that the risk of rocking the boat and ticking off key players may not merit the potential gain by having a better tactician on the bench.

I think to be honest the degree to which Dusty hurts the team in the dugout is pretty much very minimal. Has it not been proven that lineups ultimately do not matter over the course of a season? I think too that one of Dusty's noted strengths, straight from the mouth of his players, is his ability to pick spots for his players well and he knows how to keep them fresh. Ultimately that has to help in the dugout by allowing them to perform at their top potential, doesn't it?

defender
08-16-2012, 06:05 AM
New school is high ceiling. Set the lineup to score as many runs as possible over the season. Some times they score 1 or 0, sometimes 6 or more. As long as the score more than they allow, in the long run they win more than they lose.

Dusty Baker is high floor. Set the lineup to maximize the minimum runs scored as often as possible. This may not maximize total runs scored over a season, but tries to prevent low/no scoring games.

Look at the Reds lineup. It is amazing how few times they have been shut out. It is amazing how many times they score more runs than their opponent.

Players like Baker, not just because he is nice to them in the clubhouse, but because they like this style of baseball. Players think their skill wins or loses the games. They believe, they can get the clutch hits and the key outs.

Players don't want a manager going all optimal strategy on them all the time. Use them in their roles, let them win the games. Clubhouse manager and in game manager has to be the same guy.

Nothing Baker did behind the scenes would matter, if he did not back it up with his in game actions. His in game actions have to be based on the players, not math.

mth123
08-16-2012, 06:32 AM
New school is high ceiling. Set the lineup to score as many runs as possible over the season. Some times they score 1 or 0, sometimes 6 or more. As long as the score more than they allow, in the long run they win more than they lose.

Dusty Baker is high floor. Set the lineup to maximize the minimum runs scored as often as possible. This may not maximize total runs scored over a season, but tries to prevent low/no scoring games.

Look at the Reds lineup. It is amazing how few times they have been shut out. It is amazing how many times they score more runs than their opponent.

Players like Baker, not just because he is nice to them in the clubhouse, but because they like this style of baseball. Players think their skill wins or loses the games. They believe, they can get the clutch hits and the key outs.

Players don't want a manager going all optimal strategy on them all the time. Use them in their roles, let them win the games. Clubhouse manager and in game manager has to be the same guy.

Nothing Baker did behind the scenes would matter, if he did not back it up with his in game actions. His in game actions have to be based on the players, not math.

Nice post. :thumbup:

lollipopcurve
08-16-2012, 07:16 AM
New school is high ceiling. Set the lineup to score as many runs as possible over the season. Some times they score 1 or 0, sometimes 6 or more. As long as the score more than they allow, in the long run they win more than they lose.

Dusty Baker is high floor. Set the lineup to maximize the minimum runs scored as often as possible. This may not maximize total runs scored over a season, but tries to prevent low/no scoring games.

Look at the Reds lineup. It is amazing how few times they have been shut out. It is amazing how many times they score more runs than their opponent.

Players like Baker, not just because he is nice to them in the clubhouse, but because they like this style of baseball. Players think their skill wins or loses the games. They believe, they can get the clutch hits and the key outs.

Players don't want a manager going all optimal strategy on them all the time. Use them in their roles, let them win the games. Clubhouse manager and in game manager has to be the same guy.

Nothing Baker did behind the scenes would matter, if he did not back it up with his in game actions. His in game actions have to be based on the players, not math.

Very interesting post -- an angle that never occurred to me.

kaldaniels
08-16-2012, 08:14 AM
For reference.

1) I think the impact of managers is like pitchers controlling their BABIP. Objectively speaking, they have a major influence. A very under-qualified person could probably screw things up badly. But once you whittle it down to the list of people qualified for the job, the differences between them aren't all that huge.

2) I think Dusty Baker is an average manager. He helps the team in the clubhouse. He hurts the team in the dugout. His overall impact is negligible.

I think the strongest argument for keeping Dusty is the "don't rock the boat" argument. It's not that he's such a great manager. It's that the risk ticking off key players (or of the admitted possibility that clubhouse manner is actually a much bigger influence on player performance than tactical decision making) may not merit the potential gain by having a better tactician on the bench. Personally, like Doug, I think we can do better and would try to. But I completely understand the arguments for keeping him; just not any arguments that suggest he must be a great manager if we win.

That's a good assessment. This is all a fantasy discussion of course, but what if you were the GM and you wanted to stay employed. Would you still let a World Series winning manager walk away? If you do, you are putting a pretty big target on your back should the team underperform the next season...the odds of which may exceed the odds of your next managerial choice making a meaningful difference.

mdccclxix
08-16-2012, 09:19 AM
New school is high ceiling. Set the lineup to score as many runs as possible over the season. Some times they score 1 or 0, sometimes 6 or more. As long as the score more than they allow, in the long run they win more than they lose.

Dusty Baker is high floor. Set the lineup to maximize the minimum runs scored as often as possible. This may not maximize total runs scored over a season, but tries to prevent low/no scoring games.

Look at the Reds lineup. It is amazing how few times they have been shut out. It is amazing how many times they score more runs than their opponent.

Players like Baker, not just because he is nice to them in the clubhouse, but because they like this style of baseball. Players think their skill wins or loses the games. They believe, they can get the clutch hits and the key outs.

Players don't want a manager going all optimal strategy on them all the time. Use them in their roles, let them win the games. Clubhouse manager and in game manager has to be the same guy.

Nothing Baker did behind the scenes would matter, if he did not back it up with his in game actions. His in game actions have to be based on the players, not math.

Great way to put it. I would build on this by saying take a look at the rotation. Most complete games in baseball. How did we get to here from when Cueto could barely go 6? Bailey could barely go 5? I remember lots of situations where Dusty has left it up to his players to find their own way despite what the numbers say. He's got a great sense for when to dig for more from a player.

The funniest thing to me is Dusty, so called veteran lover by Cubs fans, and Reds fans who just heard about it from Cubs fans, was handed a large, I mean very large, crop of young talent in 2008 and every year since, really. He's got most of them earning paychecks for a long, long time.

Now, he doesn't do their workouts for them. I'm not saying Cueto or Bailey would be bad elsewhere. But under his, and his staff's, tutelage he's been a perfect guy for the Reds. I think the script needs to be rewritten immediately. Dusty Baker is a heck of a manager, especially if you've got young talent because he knows where to find greatness in them.

mdccclxix
08-16-2012, 09:27 AM
I can't say enough about the dignity that players receive when playing for the Reds. From Bob to Walt to Dusty, they are 3 of the nicest guys in baseball. Very little cockiness, just confidence and intelligence. For example, if you're Miguel Cairo, or you're a teammate watching Miguel go through this last rough season getting every chance to prove himself, that speaks volumes. Same with Scott Rolen or Ken Griffey Jr. You play baseball for these three guys and you get treated with respect on and off the field. I think Dusty has a key spot in this picture.

mdccclxix
08-16-2012, 09:39 AM
I think Doug if you heard from anybody important in the Reds org about Dusty being a target it isn't surprising. It probably happened sometime after May of last year and before June of this year when the team had underperformed over the course of 365 days and faced some growing pains from being a targeted team in the division.

I go back to Hanigan as a #1 or #2 hitter, our so-called best option to hit in front of Votto. Is that one of the simple fixes that would have appeased the fire Dusty crowd? Most of the fixes people have had may fix one part of the lineup but they don't necessarily fix the other part. Like Dusty's said, it's like trying to stick a finger in the dyke.

And where it comes to spots where he doesn't follow this split or that split, you can probably guess there's another reason besides outright stupidity or incompetence that the man is doing what he's doing. I think player development has been one of his absolute strong points.

Kc61
08-16-2012, 09:44 AM
Players don't want a manager going all optimal strategy on them all the time. Use them in their roles, let them win the games. Clubhouse manager and in game manager has to be the same guy.

Nothing Baker did behind the scenes would matter, if he did not back it up with his in game actions. His in game actions have to be based on the players, not math.

Well said. One of the best posts on this subject.

Players are human they aren't chess pieces to be moved around. Dusty gets that.

But he still bunts too much.

lollipopcurve
08-16-2012, 09:49 AM
I can't say enough about the dignity that players receive when playing for the Reds. From Bob to Walt to Dusty, they are 3 of the nicest guys in baseball. Very little cockiness, just confidence and intelligence. For example, if you're Miguel Cairo, or you're a teammate watching Miguel go through this last rough season getting every chance to prove himself, that speaks volumes. Same with Scott Rolen or Ken Griffey Jr. You play baseball for these three guys and you get treated with respect on and off the field. I think Dusty has a key spot in this picture.

Very well said, and I agree with this 100%. I think it makes a huge difference, the "culture thing," and it is generally way too discounted in forums like this.

Tony Cloninger
08-16-2012, 10:21 AM
So basically Dusty is winning in spite of himself and his inability to change the #1-2 in the batting order.....and using Logan in high leverage situations?

I mean that's been pretty much it. I was tired of Baker as well in the 1st two months and the fact he just would not move BP to leadoff. I thought he was going to stubbornly kill this team's offense by not doing this. I was wrong.
What he has done to hold this team together without Votto deserves more than what he is getting from some people. But if you already have your mind made up, even if the players themselves told you ...that you are short changing his capacity to lead the team over saber methods...you are not going to change your mind...so no point in even trying anymore.

Always Red
08-16-2012, 10:42 AM
Theoretical question for the board: Is there a manager out there who is making all the right moves, but his team is not winning in spite of it?

In other words, how is a manager judged other than his win/loss record? W-L record has become passe for judging SP's, as they often have no control over that once they are out of the game.

Are there better stats for judging managers? Any stats?

As many here have said in this thread, the managing of people is very hard to quantify, the managing of the game itself, and what a manager does in certain situations, is more open to real analysis.

traderumor
08-16-2012, 10:59 AM
Well said. One of the best posts on this subject.

Players are human they aren't chess pieces to be moved around. Dusty gets that.

But he still bunts too much.We are in total agreement here. Other than the occasional late, tight game with a poor hitter at the plate, no one should be bunting other than the pitcher. Giving up that precious out is clearly a play that should be put in the grave with our baseball forefathers.

What is worse is the call for the slug bunt by the pitcher. Let's take a guy who is likely the worst hitter on the field who is already struggling just to make contact, square to bunt, get in hitting position real fast, and try to shoot one past a charging infielder. It does work at least once a year, so I guess its worth it. ;)

wolfboy
08-16-2012, 11:06 AM
But he still bunts too much.

That's the one thing I still can't resist yelling at the t.v. about. :angry:

redsmetz
08-16-2012, 11:19 AM
I think the strongest argument for keeping Dusty is the "don't rock the boat" argument. It's not that he's such a great manager. It's that the risk ticking off key players (or of the admitted possibility that clubhouse manner is actually a much bigger influence on player performance than tactical decision making) may not merit the potential gain by having a better tactician on the bench. Personally, like Doug, I think we can do better and would try to. But I completely understand the arguments for keeping him; just not any arguments that suggest he must be a great manager if we win.

Seriously? The strongest argument is that he's having success, particularly this year. You say "it's not that he's such a great manager." That's your subjective belief. I'm not often given to superlatives, but "great" is a word that history will tell. His record would indicate that he's been a good manager overall. Like anyone, he's had blemishes to that record. Again, it's your opinion that keeping him is a "don't rock the boat" move to placate certain unnamed players. It seems to be folks that strongly dislike Baker and his anti-sabermetric heresies insist that we must have a great manager, that such a sabermetric messiah is out there and we darn well must have him. They concede now, begrudgingly I think, that Dusty's a darn fine human being, but he's costing us games left & right because he hasn't accepted the gospel of saber.

The man has his flaws. I think he has actually lost us some games from being set in his ways. There are others, his moves have won. History is replete with such stories.

My guess is that Baker is renewed for two years when he decides to finally retire. Mayhem will continue on RZ because Dusty the heretic continues to get a paycheck. Oy.

edabbs44
08-16-2012, 11:26 AM
For those who love Francona, check out game 1 of the 2004 WS. CF lead off, SS 2nd. SS had a .301 OBP that year. Bellhorn hit 8th with a .373 OBP.

cincrazy
08-16-2012, 11:29 AM
My biggest problem with Dusty: his playing Cairo over Rolen so often at third. Always going with the veterans over the young guys! Nothing changes!

RedsManRick
08-16-2012, 11:32 AM
New school is high ceiling. Set the lineup to score as many runs as possible over the season. Some times they score 1 or 0, sometimes 6 or more. As long as the score more than they allow, in the long run they win more than they lose.

Just curious, but what's the basis for this? Yes, score more runs as possible over the season. And yes, score more than you allow over the course of the season and you'll likely win more than you lose.

But at the individual game level that doesn't mean the new school approach creates more variance. If anything, taking the extra risks on bases and purposefully making outs to advance runners are both efforts that create more extreme outcomes. Either they work and increase your scoring in that game or they fail and decrease it. Sure, I can see the "old school" approach meaning fewer shutouts. But I can also see it mean trading 3 run games for 1 run games. It shifts the floor up a tiny bit and brings the ceiling down quite a bit -- but it is not an equal tradeoff.

To be clear, "new school" doesn't (or shouldn't) mean ignoring the value of contact and speed. Rather, at it's most basic, it's about valuing outs and putting guys on base.

I don't have any evidence to say that your suggestion is necessarily wrong. As I mentioned, I'd think it's directionally correct. But I'd love to see some real data brought to bear on it.

RedsManRick
08-16-2012, 11:33 AM
Seriously? The strongest argument is that he's having success, particularly this year. You say "it's not that he's such a great manager." That's your subjective belief.

Correct. Hence the "I think..." that preceded my assertion. I'm sorry if my having an opinion that differs from yours offends you so.

traderumor
08-16-2012, 11:38 AM
The love and hate of a manager and the debate of his managerial moves is just what message boards were made for. Unfortunately, it is a very difficult subject to discuss because there is very little hope for an objective discussion because there is very little objective data to analyze. Most of his job are "what-if" situations with many variables and at least one unknown in most of them. The discussions are subjective and delve into topics where the evaluator is making assumptions, reading between the lines on quotes, and basing conclusions on little more than their personal opinion. And of course, the other team's manager is always smarter than yours.

Oh, and the manager you admire's bench coach is the guy you want to hire for your team's next manager.

Tony Cloninger
08-16-2012, 11:42 AM
Theoretical question for the board: Is there a manager out there who is making all the right moves, but his team is not winning in spite of it?

In other words, how is a manager judged other than his win/loss record? W-L record has become passe for judging SP's, as they often have no control over that once they are out of the game.

Are there better stats for judging managers? Any stats?

As many here have said in this thread, the managing of people is very hard to quantify, the managing of the game itself, and what a manager does in certain situations, is more open to real analysis.


I can see it now.... the announcer says "Boy, That Jose Schultz is making all the right moves and they just keep backfiring on him. It's hard to believe he could be this unlucky."

It's a bad move when it fails and a good one when it works. Some can be more obvious than others...sure.... but if the moves keep working....he must be the luckiest man alive.

dougdirt
08-16-2012, 11:44 AM
Theoretical question for the board: Is there a manager out there who is making all the right moves, but his team is not winning in spite of it?

In other words, how is a manager judged other than his win/loss record? W-L record has become passe for judging SP's, as they often have no control over that once they are out of the game.

Are there better stats for judging managers? Any stats?

As many here have said in this thread, the managing of people is very hard to quantify, the managing of the game itself, and what a manager does in certain situations, is more open to real analysis.

And that is the problem, it is very tough to judge a manager because you can't always know what they are dealing with in terms of who is feeling it and who isn't. Maybe reliever X is tired that day and not available. We don't always know that.

Kc61
08-16-2012, 11:45 AM
We are in total agreement here. Other than the occasional late, tight game with a poor hitter at the plate, no one should be bunting other than the pitcher. Giving up that precious out is clearly a play that should be put in the grave with our baseball forefathers.

What is worse is the call for the slug bunt by the pitcher. Let's take a guy who is likely the worst hitter on the field who is already struggling just to make contact, square to bunt, get in hitting position real fast, and try to shoot one past a charging infielder. It does work at least once a year, so I guess its worth it. ;)

An occasional bunt for the element of surprise is ok. But all the sacrificing with position players drives me crazy. And it seems hardly to ever work!

Still, it's a quibble, Dusty has done a very fine job this year. His guys always play hard.

When the team wins I enjoy watching Dusty interact with the players. He seems to be a great motivator.

redsmetz
08-16-2012, 11:45 AM
Correct. Hence the "I think..." that preceded my assertion. I'm sorry if my having an opinion that differs from yours offends you so.

I didn't say it offended me. Clearly I take umbrage with it. Of course your "I think" wasn't qualifying the statement about Dusty not being a great manager, it was the lead clause to your suggestion that the strongest argument is the "don't rock the boat" argument. I disagree.

I do believe strongly that Baker's greatest sin to some here is that he doesn't genuflect when sabermetrics is mentioned. I would imagine that he's fairly tired of the plethora of armchair managers who are certain they could do things better if one only went by the new shiny book.

But offended? Please, there are far more important things in this world that are offensive. Baseball's just a game. And obviously you're free to state your opinion, just as others are free to disagree.

defender
08-16-2012, 01:36 PM
Just curious, but what's the basis for this? Yes, score more runs as possible over the season. And yes, score more than you allow over the course of the season and you'll likely win more than you lose.

But at the individual game level that doesn't mean the new school approach creates more variance. If anything, taking the extra risks on bases and purposefully making outs to advance runners are both efforts that create more extreme outcomes. Either they work and increase your scoring in that game or they fail and decrease it. Sure, I can see the "old school" approach meaning fewer shutouts. But I can also see it mean trading 3 run games for 1 run games. It shifts the floor up a tiny bit and brings the ceiling down quite a bit -- but it is not an equal tradeoff.

To be clear, "new school" doesn't (or shouldn't) mean ignoring the value of contact and speed. Rather, at it's most basic, it's about valuing outs and putting guys on base.

I don't have any evidence to say that your suggestion is necessarily wrong. As I mentioned, I'd think it's directionally correct. But I'd love to see some real data brought to bear on it.

I have done some, and I think eventually more will be done, but explaining why "old school" managers do what they do has yet to become a popular subject of sabermetrics.

Looking at complete season data paints a different picture than looking at each AB individualy. The complete season data essentially ignores the outs, which is the framework of the game.

OBP is the most important thing, then you add the framework of 9 three out inning games and that is where you see the value of all the things we think of as baseball. Speed, clutch hitting, productive outs,

REDREAD
08-17-2012, 02:55 PM
This season's set up to where there is no reason for them not to make the playoffs, barring a major collapse. If they fail to do so, then, I'd say, he's gone.

That's my take too. One of the websites that tracks the standings has the Reds at something like a 92%-96% chance to make the playoffs (I can't remember the exact number). It would take an epic collapse to miss the playoffs now..

If the Reds fail to make the playoffs, and don't have a major injury catastrophe, then maybe you consider not renewing Dusty. Maybe one has a case then..

I wouldn't mind if the Reds renewed Dusty today. He's earned it.. I did vote for "make the wildcard', but I think that's pretty much a given.

REDREAD
08-17-2012, 03:26 PM
I guess I just don't think minor lineup decisions are worth ditching a WS winning manager over. That's really the only reason at all I can imagine anyone would want to lose Dusty. Although, in terms of managing his players, he seems to excel at picking their spots, resting them and keeping them fresh and generally pushing the right buttons to put them in a position to succeed.

Yep.. there's a few complaints about Dusty that may or may not be valid.... but here they are:

Uses Logan too much
Bunts too much.
Doesn't bat Hannigan #2 (or some other lineup shuffling complaint).

That's pretty much it, isn't it? I bet every fanbase in baseball has at least 3 similiar complaints with their manager.

Yet, there's been times when Dusty has gone against the grain of the board and been rewarded.. I remember calls to DFA Rolen and Ludwick earlier this year.. we would've been screwed if we did that.

I also think Dusty deserves some credit for bringing along the youngsters.
He's been brilliant with Frasier and Cozart.. I would even say he's handled Stubbs and Hiesey great, even though we've been disappointed with them at times. He (and Price) have been great with taming Chapman. I really think he's gotten the most out of all the talent he's been given, which is all you can ask a manager to do.

I really have no desire to experiment with a new manager now. I hope Dusty wants to come back next year.