PDA

View Full Version : Castellini: We want Dusty for "years to come"



Reds/Flyers Fan
08-16-2012, 02:20 PM
Bob would also like to see Dusty go into the Hall of Fame as a Cincinnati Red.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120815&content_id=36744914&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

757690
08-16-2012, 02:23 PM
Cast never said he wanted Dusty to stay on as manager after this year, jus that he wanted him in the organization. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but maybe he sees Dusty getting a promotion to the front office after this year. Dusty gets to semi-retire, but still stay in the game.

savafan
08-16-2012, 02:37 PM
Cast never said he wanted Dusty to stay on as manager after this year, jus that he wanted him in the organization. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but maybe he sees Dusty getting a promotion to the front office after this year. Dusty gets to semi-retire, but still stay in the game.

You're reading too much into it. Dusty wouldn't go into the Hall of Fame as a special advisor to the general manager.

westofyou
08-16-2012, 02:39 PM
Cast never said he wanted Dusty to stay on as manager after this year, jus that he wanted him in the organization. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but maybe he sees Dusty getting a promotion to the front office after this year. Dusty gets to semi-retire, but still stay in the game.

Dusty has never sat in an office that was not in a clubhouse, if not there he'd probably prefer to sit on a boat in the Sacramento Delta.

cumberlandreds
08-16-2012, 02:40 PM
Cast never said he wanted Dusty to stay on as manager after this year, jus that he wanted him in the organization. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but maybe he sees Dusty getting a promotion to the front office after this year. Dusty gets to semi-retire, but still stay in the game.

He did say this:

"He's done a heck of a job. A heck of a job, you bet. He's a heck of a guy," Castellini said. "I'd like to see him add a World Series win with us and go into the Hall of Fame as a Red."

Of course he could win the WS this year and be signed to a front office job. But I really do think he meant he wanted him as manager.

Caveat Emperor
08-16-2012, 02:41 PM
I like Dusty.

Most of what people complain about with him (lineups, relief pitcher usage, etc.) is repeated on 29 other message boards every single day.

dunner13
08-16-2012, 02:44 PM
Dusty certainly has issues and a lot of his decisions make you want to bang your head against the wall but as long this team keeps winning with him I think we would be stupid to let him go. Bottom line is as long as I get to cheer for the Reds in the playoffs every year I don't care what the lineup card looks like.

redsfan30
08-16-2012, 02:44 PM
I am proud to have Dusty Baker manage the Cincinnati Reds.

He was at the helm bringing us out of the Lost Decade and is on the brink of taking us to the playoffs for the second time in three seasons.

The players absolutely love him and that means a million times more to me than what we as fans think of him.

I echo Bob Castellini's thoughts. I hope he wins a World Championship in Cincinnati and rides into Cooperstown wearing a Reds hat.

757690
08-16-2012, 02:44 PM
Dusty has never sat in an office that was not in a clubhouse, if not there he'd probably prefer to sit on a boat in the Sacramento Delta.

I agree, I can't imagine Dusty wanting to hang up his uniform anytime soon. He lives for the game on the field. Just a thought about what Cast might be thinking.

George Anderson
08-16-2012, 02:48 PM
Dusty certainly has issues and a lot of his decisions make you want to bang your head against the wall but as long this team keeps winning with him I think we would be stupid to let him go. Bottom line is as long as I get to cheer for the Reds in the playoffs every year I don't care what the lineup card looks like.

this

medford
08-16-2012, 02:51 PM
I like Dusty.

Most of what people complain about with him (lineups, relief pitcher usage, etc.) is repeated on 29 other message boards every single day.

Wow, I never knew there were so many dedicated Reds boards out there :)

RedlegJake
08-16-2012, 02:54 PM
The players absolutely love him and that means a million times more to me than what we as fans think of him.

Amen!~ I get so tired of hearing the Dusty bashers scream for his head as if they really matter anyway. If you hate Dusty that bad you might as well go root for your second favorite team until they fire him. Some people let their Dusty hate go way too far. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone on RZ as much as some of the poor folks I see on the Enquirers message board. There are some seriously deranged individuals messaging there who seem to live in a "hate Dusty Universe".

Tom Servo
08-16-2012, 02:57 PM
I like Dusty.

Most of what people complain about with him (lineups, relief pitcher usage, etc.) is repeated on 29 other message boards every single day.
My sentiments exactly.

11larkin11
08-16-2012, 03:07 PM
I like Dusty.

Most of what people complain about with him (lineups, relief pitcher usage, etc.) is repeated on 29 other message boards every single day.

This. SO much this.

lidspinner
08-16-2012, 03:07 PM
I have cursed Dusty and I have loved Dusty.....its part of being Manager of a MLB club....you are going to get no credit when you win and all the credit when you lose....

I supervise 22 grown men at my job and if they mess up, they get in trouble, if they continue to mess up and cost my company money then I lose a job....its part of life and it doesnt mean its right but it does mean thats how it goes..

If Dusty can find ways to win while making stupid moves with the lineup or with in game decisions then I am all for it, the problem is that Dusty has tried to defend himself to the media and the second he opens his mouth he has lost....not to mention when he brings up stats and they are totally wrong does not help his cause one bit. bottom line as stated above, win and your gold and us fans will love you till the day you start losing. Thats what he gets paid millions for, to make those calls and put the weight on his shoulders.

Dan
08-16-2012, 03:17 PM
In other news, long, long threads on Dusty's managerial style will be on Redszone "for years to come."

Actually I wonder if Dusty is considering retirement. He hasn't said a thing publicly (even back last winter) about wanting an extension, and maybe winning it all and riding off into the sunset is how he wants to go out.

westofyou
08-16-2012, 03:25 PM
In other news, long, long threads on Dusty's managerial style will be on Redszone "for years to come."

Yep, the private part of his job comprises the largest part of his workload and no one outside can judge that since we have no visibility of the processes or the actual workload.

Meanwhile the public side of his job leans on his game time decisions and we have the benefit of hindsight when we mull over their outcome.

In short we don't know much about the private side, and we already know the result of the decision we are slamming him for making in a moment that we didn't have to participate in (and thus have only a limited amount of data that is used to manage that decision)

Caveat Emperor
08-16-2012, 03:35 PM
Remember all the fun about Dusty baker hating young players?

Your first place Cincinnati Reds started 3 rookies last night in the everyday 8.

Tom Servo
08-16-2012, 03:41 PM
Remember all the fun about Dusty baker hating young players?

Your first place Cincinnati Reds started 3 rookies last night in the everyday 8.
Even worse were the rumors about killing arms. I'm still amused by seeing Volquez listed among Wood and Prior. Dusty may have something of a slow hook for his pitchers, but in no way has he been a detriment to Reds starting pitching.

camisadelgolf
08-16-2012, 03:51 PM
I'd sure hate for the Reds to tank, but if they do, I'd love to see how these quotes come into play.

CarolinaRedleg
08-16-2012, 03:53 PM
Even worse were the rumors about killing arms. I'm still amused by seeing Volquez listed among Wood and Prior. Dusty may have something of a slow hook for his pitchers, but in no way has he been a detriment to Reds starting pitching.

Volquez's issues are between his ears.

Caveat Emperor
08-16-2012, 04:30 PM
I'd sure hate for the Reds to tank, but if they do, I'd love to see how these quotes come into play.

Assuming it's not some truly horrendous tank job, I'd still bring Dusty Baker back. I like stability -- I'm happy the revolving door in the manager's office has ended, and I can't help but be impressed with how Baker has guided the team through this stretch without an MVP-level bat in the lineup for a month.

Add to that his division title in 2010 and the decision becomes really no-brainer, IMO.

reds44
08-16-2012, 04:38 PM
Anybody who has a serious problem bringing Dusty back is doing it wrong.

edabbs44
08-16-2012, 04:43 PM
Anybody who has a serious problem being Dusty back is doing it wrong.

Huh?

757690
08-16-2012, 04:46 PM
Yep, the private part of his job comprises the largest part of his workload and no one outside can judge that since we have no visibility of the processes or the actual workload.

Meanwhile the public side of his job leans on his game time decisions and we have the benefit of hindsight when we mull over their outcome.

In short we don't know much about the private side, and we already know the result of the decision we are slamming him for making in a moment that we didn't have to participate in (and thus have only a limited amount of data that is used to manage that decision)

On the public side, there hasn't been a Reds manager who didn't drive me crazy with his in game decisions, especially Sparky and Sweet Lou (winning magnified dumb decisions). I gave up caring about those in game decisions awhile ago and have been mentally healthier since.

One the private side, it's hard to measure, but I think keeping a team winning during a long stretch without their MVP speaks volumes about a manager's ability to keep a team focused and driven. For me that's the number one job of a manager, keeping the team fresh, focused, confident and driven all season long The baseball season is a six month grueling long haul that wears down the greatest of athletes, both physically and mentally.

redsmetz
08-16-2012, 05:28 PM
One of the things I said a long time ago was that I thought it was important for the Reds to end the revolving door they'd set up at the manager's office. It was keeping out continuity and was likely deleterious to becoming a winning team. Now how much does that impact things overall? I have no idea, but the great majority of winning clubs have stability in their manager position. Of course, as with all managers, the day comes when they're fired or when they retire. It's the nature of the beast.

Dusty will likely finished the season in fifth place among all the managers the Reds have had in their 100+ years of existence. He's 21 wins away from Pete Rose. Even going .500 puts him up there.

cincrazy
08-16-2012, 06:03 PM
What in the world else would someone expect Cast to say? "Oh, our team is 25 games over .500, but Dusty's not doing that great, and we'll evaluate him at the end of the year"?

Vottomatic
08-16-2012, 06:55 PM
Anybody who has a serious problem bringing Dusty back is doing it wrong.

I'm not touching that statement with a ten foot pole.

Dusty drives me crazy with his lineups and moves. But the players apparently love him and play hard for him. I continually hear quotes from players about how much fun this team is and how everyone gets along and likes eachother.

My biggest gripe was in the past Dusty seemed to be watching the wheels fall off and would do nothing about it. This year, his sense of urgency is much, much better.

No complaints. Bring him back.

RFS62
08-16-2012, 07:05 PM
Yep, the private part of his job comprises the largest part of his workload and no one outside can judge that since we have no visibility of the processes or the actual workload.

Meanwhile the public side of his job leans on his game time decisions and we have the benefit of hindsight when we mull over their outcome.

In short we don't know much about the private side, and we already know the result of the decision we are slamming him for making in a moment that we didn't have to participate in (and thus have only a limited amount of data that is used to manage that decision)



This.

There's some intangible in leaders in all lines of work which makes people work hard and take pride in their craft. Dusty combines "been there, done that" with a players understanding of how hard it is to get through the daily grind of the season. He teaches them how to be professionals, and what that means. They watch Rolen go about his routines, and I'll bet that's the tenor of this clubhouse.

It's a 162 game juggling act over 8 months, through injuries, setbacks, elation, whatever, and it seems like the players play hard for him. These guys pull hard and pull together, it seems.

I don't agree with a lot of his lineup construction either, but the good far outweighs the bad. The most important things of all, he's got covered in spades.

MartyFan
08-16-2012, 08:24 PM
I have always thought the DUSTY IS GREAT and FIRE DUSTY stuff is absolutely laughable.

FANS didn't like it when Sparky was hired...how'd that work out?

I personally never have had one feeling one way or another about Dusty BUT I would rather have Pete Mackanin as manager...more so while the organization was building than where it is right now.

If Dusty wants to come back next year and the year after, sign him to a two year extension and be glad...if he doesn't want to manage any longer say goodbye and move on. Rumor has it Jim Tracey will be available! ;) We also know that Francona is out there as is Mr. Larkin...though I don't know that I would want Barry Larkin as a manager.

dougdirt
08-16-2012, 08:33 PM
Even worse were the rumors about killing arms. I'm still amused by seeing Volquez listed among Wood and Prior. Dusty may have something of a slow hook for his pitchers, but in no way has he been a detriment to Reds starting pitching.

Aaron Harang disagrees with you. Homer Bailey hasn't finished a full season since Dusty rode him very hard in August/September of 2009 and pushed him well over his previous high in innings. Volquez.... not so much. Dusty hasn't done what he did to Prior here in Cincinnati, but I still think he rides some arms too hard. Johnny Cueto averaged 116 pitches per start in June this year. The Reds won those games by 3,4,5 and 6 runs before losing the last one by 3. That probably isn't the best thing.

kaldaniels
08-16-2012, 09:01 PM
I may have missed it but that's the first I've heard mention (or implied) that Dusty caused Homer's arm issues.

westofyou
08-16-2012, 09:05 PM
Wait.. a human being who throws a baseball for a living actually can get injured throwing a baseball?

dougdirt
08-16-2012, 09:09 PM
I may have missed it but that's the first I've heard mention (or implied) that Dusty caused Homer's arm issues.

I recall several times it being brought up. And not all were by me either. There was concern being talked about at the end of 2009 about what it could mean going forward.

Tom Servo
08-16-2012, 09:11 PM
I respect Harang and he's one of my personal favorites, but the fact of the matter is that I simply don't buy the theory that the relief appearance against San Diego single-handedly caused him to go from his 05-07 form to the form he has now. I don't pretend to know how much stress that had on his forearm, but in July 08 his MRI of the forearm was negative and diagnosed as a strain. If it was as bad as he claims, that it forced him to change his mechanics, than Harang owed it to himself and the team to tell them and take as long as he needed to get better. Instead he pitched all of 2008 except for those few missed starts with the strain in July, and pitched all of 2009 until his appendectomy.

If we are blaming management, how about Harang throwing 234.1 and 231.2 innings (and boy, were those 2007 ones especially meaningless) in 2006 and 2007, pre-Dusty?

westofyou
08-16-2012, 09:11 PM
Prior to coming to Cincinnati Dusty was more known for leaning on his key BP arms more than starters, he has had several closers record all his teams saves several times (Cordero 2008)

edabbs44
08-16-2012, 09:23 PM
Dusty is the only manager who overuses his starters and relievers at the same time.

westofyou
08-16-2012, 09:25 PM
Dusty is the only manager who overuses his starters and relievers at the same time.

Sparky created that meme, Wayne Simpson thinks so!!

camisadelgolf
08-16-2012, 11:51 PM
Aaron Harang disagrees with you. Homer Bailey hasn't finished a full season since Dusty rode him very hard in August/September of 2009 and pushed him well over his previous high in innings. Volquez.... not so much. Dusty hasn't done what he did to Prior here in Cincinnati, but I still think he rides some arms too hard. Johnny Cueto averaged 116 pitches per start in June this year. The Reds won those games by 3,4,5 and 6 runs before losing the last one by 3. That probably isn't the best thing.
The Reds needed a pitcher, and Harang volunteered and insisted that he could do it. And honestly, wasn't Harang due for a bad year anyway? As for Volquez, Tommy John surgery was inevitable. That's why he changed his breaking stuff. And if you have the choice of riding Prior and Wood hard or missing the playoffs completely, you cash all your chips and hope Prior and Wood can keep it together. I'm not saying Dusty doesn't have room for improvement in regards to how much he uses his pitchers, but blaming him for those injuries isn't fair imo.

traderumor
08-17-2012, 12:14 AM
Wait.. a human being who throws a baseball for a living actually can get injured throwing a baseball?Yes, and when it happens, it must be overuse, and by the current manager. I imagine Dusty is somehow to blame for Madson's ligament falling off the bone.

WVRedsFan
08-17-2012, 12:31 AM
I, like most people posting here, like winning. Under Dusty's leadership, they are winning. So, it's hard to fire a man who has his team going 70-47. He may not win it all this year, but our gripes (and I am one of the gripers from time to time) are just the nature of the baseball fan. Look at any board. Most fans question their team's manager. It's just the way it is, but I'm one fan who won't lose sleep when Dusty gets a new three-year contract.

AtomicDumpling
08-17-2012, 02:07 AM
I am ambivalent about Dusty Baker. I think the Reds are going to win at pretty much the same rate with him or without him. Dusty Baker is not the reason the Reds are winning this year, just like he wasn't the reason the Reds were losers last year.

I agree with the majority on Redszone that believe Dusty is a great player's manager who is good at managing people, motivating players to play hard and keeping the players focused and happy.

I agree with the majority on Redszone that believe Dusty is a poor in-game manager whose old-fashioned, small ball mentality is outdated.

Dusty Baker (like almost every other manager) is not going to make or break a team. Generally speaking I believe bad managers (like Bobby Valentine) can do more to harm a team than good managers (like Joe Maddon) can do to help a team.

I also believe that a great pitching coach like Dave Duncan or Leo Mazzone is extremely important to a team and can have more of a positive impact on team performance than the manager does. I think Bryan Price could actually be in that class. The way a pitching staff is handled can and should be the prerogative of the pitching coach and I believe that Dusty trusts Price to make most of the pitching decisions as he should.

I won't be upset if the Reds keep Dusty Baker because things are working fine right now and there is no compelling reason to upset the apple cart if you don't have to. I won't be upset if the Reds dismiss Dusty Baker as long as they replace him with an innovative, modern sabermetric tactician who can utilize the latest technology and data to implement smarter strategies (other teams are doing this and the Reds are falling behind). If the Reds dismiss Dusty Baker and replace him with a retread who failed somewhere else or with an untried former player with old school tendencies I would be upset.

I realize Dusty is making a lot of money that might be better spent on improving the roster, but unless the Reds can find a clear upgrade they should just keep Baker here.

Dusty is using rookies like Cozart and Frazier this year, which counters to some degree his reputation of being a manager who favors veterans (that doesn't mean he hates rookies or never uses young players, only that he prefers vets and there is not necessarily anything wrong with that). Keep in mind though that Cozart and Frazier are 27 year old rookies just now getting their first chance. Cozart didn't get a chance until the string of veteran shortstops and Paul Janish utterly failed. People were calling for Cozart to get a chance long before he finally got the call. Frazier played well last year, had a great spring training this year and still got sent to the minors so Dusty could keep Miguel Cairo. Only Rolen's injuries gave Frazier the chance he waited so long for. We still have veterans Cairo and Wilson Valdez clinging to roster spots even though they have played far below replacement level while better players toil at Louisville and Pensacola.

I also think Dusty gets too much of a pass when it comes to any criticism for the makeup of the roster. Dusty is not helplessly compelled to use the poor bench players Jocketty forces upon him. I am sure Dusty has a lot of input on which players the Reds sign in the offseason and which players are invited to Spring Training. He certainly has the primary final decision on which players actually make the team. If Dusty really wants a certain player I am sure Jocketty makes a strong effort to get him. Guys like Wilson Valdez and Miguel Cairo are on the team because Dusty wants them here, not because they were the Reds' only options in the universe.

In summary, Dusty Baker is an average manager in my opinion. When the team is winning games an average manager is sufficient. If the team were losing there might be some urgency to make a change, but right now the Reds should keep the ship sailing in the same direction unless a great manager becomes available and wants to come here.

AtomicDumpling
08-17-2012, 02:07 AM
DP

Raisor
08-17-2012, 07:14 AM
It is what it is.

Big Klu
08-17-2012, 08:38 AM
Who is a great manager, and what makes him great?

(Legitimate question here, not being sarcastic.)

Cooper
08-17-2012, 10:10 AM
I'm getting too old for this board...the lineup construction arguments throw off a game improvement a year...maybe...yet every night we got to hear about it.

Doug Dirt: Homer has to pitch and aquire historically high numbers at some point....unless you want to pitch him at 200 innings and then go down from there.

You're never gonna be wrong if you advocate having a pitcher throw less innings- they all get hurt- they all could use more rest....but someone has to pitch.

Always Red
08-17-2012, 01:41 PM
I'm getting too old for this board...the lineup construction arguments throw off a game improvement a year...maybe...yet every night we got to hear about it.

Doug Dirt: Homer has to pitch and aquire historically high numbers at some point....unless you want to pitch him at 200 innings and then go down from there.

You're never gonna be wrong if you advocate having a pitcher throw less innings- they all get hurt- they all could use more rest....but someone has to pitch.

me too, across the board :thumbup:

cumberlandreds
08-17-2012, 02:31 PM
Who is a great manager, and what makes him great?

(Legitimate question here, not being sarcastic.)

Great players make great managers. Those managers in turn know how to handle the personalities of those great players in order for them play hard everyday. Sparky was one of the best at that.

camisadelgolf
08-17-2012, 03:31 PM
Who is a great manager, and what makes him great?

(Legitimate question here, not being sarcastic.)
Winning. People had all kinds of criticism for Tony LaRussa, but at the end of the day, he was finding ways to win. Somehow, he was a great manager because of it.

dougdirt
08-17-2012, 03:48 PM
I'm getting too old for this board...the lineup construction arguments throw off a game improvement a year...maybe...yet every night we got to hear about it.

Doug Dirt: Homer has to pitch and aquire historically high numbers at some point....unless you want to pitch him at 200 innings and then go down from there.

You're never gonna be wrong if you advocate having a pitcher throw less innings- they all get hurt- they all could use more rest....but someone has to pitch.

It isn't about not having historically higher numbers. It is about moderate gain from year to year in those numbers.

dougdirt
08-17-2012, 03:52 PM
Who is a great manager, and what makes him great?

(Legitimate question here, not being sarcastic.)

Managers who get the most out of the talent given to them in terms of wins over a long period of time.

Problem is, it is incredibly tough to determine the true talent level in a given time frame of the roster handed to a manager.

bucksfan2
08-17-2012, 04:25 PM
Managers who get the most out of the talent given to them in terms of wins over a long period of time.

Problem is, it is incredibly tough to determine the true talent level in a given time frame of the roster handed to a manager.

Other than Joe Madden, who most saber guys love, who do you like as a manager?

Cooper
08-17-2012, 04:53 PM
DougDirt: if you don't want Homer throwing those innings- who picks him up...who would you rather have pitch them? Same with Cueto ....who do you have pick them up? Andrew Brackman? (sorry, bad joke).

Big Klu
08-17-2012, 06:27 PM
Other than Joe Madden, who most saber guys love, who do you like as a manager?

Davey Johnson, who many people on this board respect greatly as one of the best Reds managers of an entire generation, doesn't think very highly of Joe Maddon.

Tom Servo
08-17-2012, 07:13 PM
Davey Johnson, who many people on this board respect greatly as one of the best Reds managers of an entire generation, doesn't think very highly of Joe Maddon.
He's a weird wuss.

westofyou
08-17-2012, 07:17 PM
He's a weird wuss.

Davey note:

Davey put on weight to hit HR's so that he could make more jack, Weaver felt it hurt his range and he dealt him to Atlanta where he hit more HR's and his lack of range hurt his game more than the HR's helped it

corkedbat
08-17-2012, 08:54 PM
He didn't say he wants to pay Dusty what Dusty wants to be paid (so maybe there's still hope). :evil:

RedlegJake
08-18-2012, 04:03 AM
I remain firmly in the re-hire Dusty camp. Give him the talent and he wins. Somehow even the stuff he does that I think is dumb works a lot of the time. His strengths outweigh his weaknesses in my opinion. Add to that there hasn't been a single name offered up as his replacement that I like better than Dusty.

RedlegJake
08-18-2012, 04:04 AM
Great players make great managers. Those managers in turn know how to handle the personalities of those great players in order for them play hard everyday. Sparky was one of the best at that.

This.

paulrichjr
08-18-2012, 11:39 AM
On WLW last night, after the game, this was the topic. I was surprised to hear the rumors that both LA teams might be looking for a manager at the end of the season. I guess it could certainly be a lure for him to go home to LA and manage either team but especially the Dodgers. They also mentioned many still love him in Chicago (I would take that bet right now that he is last on their list even though it is obvious the manager wasn't the problem there...it's the jinx).

redsfandan
08-18-2012, 12:26 PM
On WLW last night, after the game, this was the topic. I was surprised to hear the rumors that both LA teams might be looking for a manager at the end of the season. I guess it could certainly be a lure for him to go home to LA and manage either team but especially the Dodgers. They also mentioned many still love him in Chicago (I would take that bet right now that he is last on their list even though it is obvious the manager wasn't the problem there...it's the jinx).

I take alot of the 'rumours' that I hear on WLW with a grain of salt. I don't think anyone should take anything they on WLW too seriously.

Tom Servo
08-18-2012, 01:15 PM
On WLW last night, after the game, this was the topic. I was surprised to hear the rumors that both LA teams might be looking for a manager at the end of the season. I guess it could certainly be a lure for him to go home to LA and manage either team but especially the Dodgers. They also mentioned many still love him in Chicago (I would take that bet right now that he is last on their list even though it is obvious the manager wasn't the problem there...it's the jinx).
Worth noting that 'home' is actually Sacramento for Dusty, though as you said he does have obvious Dodger ties.

DGullett35
08-18-2012, 02:02 PM
I like Dusty and always have but if he wants to go to manage the Dodgers we should see if they could just trade us managers. I love Mattingly. He seems like a hard nosed guy and you can tell the guys in LA like playing for him. Id like to see us extend Dusty but if it doesnt happen we need a players manager to take his place. It just seems like this group of guys the Reds have now play well with a manager like that. Maybe its just the players personalities but I dont think this team would respond as well with a Bobby V or Lou Pinella type manager.

cincrazy
08-18-2012, 03:30 PM
All the great managers have been heavily criticized. Torre only won because it was the Yankees. Bobby Cox couldn't win the big one. Tony LaRussa outsmarted himself. Lou Piniella was too hot-headed and lost his passion for the game as he got older and mellowed out. Terry Francona's too nice. No manager in the history of baseball has been able to avoid this stuff. No matter how good.

Vottomatic
08-18-2012, 06:38 PM
Ken Broo, Lance & Mo have all gotten alot of mileage out this sign Dusty topic this past week. I think it's a bit overblown just to stir things up.

I'd have to look at what the team's record was back before the AS Break. But that big run after it is what has put this team in the driver's seat. I think management wanted to see if this team would fold or kick into gear before giving Dusty what he wants. And at the time, it sure appeared it could go either way.

Glad it didn't.

westofyou
08-23-2012, 04:46 PM
Front-office types' takes (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=18091)



Reds: "You look at that team, and it's pretty good, but it also doesn't blow you away. Yet they are running away with the NL Central, and some of the credit has to go to Dusty Baker. It's going to be interesting to see how it all plays out after the season. Dusty doesn't have a contract beyond next season, and he could be in demand as a free agent if the Reds don't re-sign him. He'd be a good fit with the Angels if Mike Scioscia gets fired and a good fit with the Red Sox if Bobby Valentine gets fired."

Tom Servo
08-23-2012, 04:49 PM
I hate to say it, but Dusty would probably be a great fit for the Angels.

Brutus
08-23-2012, 04:52 PM
I hate to say it, but Dusty would probably be a great fit for the Angels.

I agree. As organizational philosophy goes, the Angels and Dusty share a common bond. The Angels are big on bunting, fundamentals, personalities, etc.

Caveat Emperor
08-23-2012, 05:06 PM
Ken Broo, Lance & Mo have all gotten alot of mileage out this sign Dusty topic this past week. I think it's a bit overblown just to stir things up.

I don't know if it's overblown -- the reality is that Castellini usually gets what he wants. If he wants Dusty here and there isn't a long-term deal with ink drying already, it probably means that Dusty's people are advising him to wait until the offseason to see what else is out there.

AmarilloRed
08-23-2012, 05:19 PM
One thing to follow will be the Manager of the Year voting. I don't see how the Reds could not bring him back if he wins it-unless the price gets too high.

GAC
08-24-2012, 05:27 AM
Dusty has never sat in an office that was not in a clubhouse, if not there he'd probably prefer to sit on a boat in the Sacramento Delta.

So would I (or on a golf course). I don't see Dusty as an "office guy" when he retires. He'll leave the game and go off to enjoy the remainder of his life (he has earned it) doing occasional guest appearances/speaking engagements, and IMO, continue working with kids and charities in his hometown of Sacramento.

http://www.dustybaker.com/_images/personal-life-photo.jpg

GAC
08-24-2012, 05:42 AM
Great players make great managers.

In reference to this. Stengel once was asked what was the easiest part of his job as a manager. He responded "Making out the daily lineup card".


Those managers in turn know how to handle the personalities of those great players in order for them play hard everyday. Sparky was one of the best at that.

Yes he was.

Another Stengel quote....

"Finding good players is easy. Getting them to play as a team is another story."

Vottomatic
08-28-2012, 09:16 AM
I was listening to WLW on my way in to work. I can't remember the exact quotes, but the conversation went like this. Jim Scott went to someone for an update, not sure who it was, but it wasn't Mo Eggar. The guy tells how the Reds won last night on Arroyo's homer and Chapman finishing it off. Also mentions Dusty winning his 400th or so win putting him 5th all time on the Reds manager's list. Jim Scott then says something like "do you think they'll get Dusty extended" to which the guy says something like this, again not an exact quote "not if the rumored riff between Dusty and Jocketty has any say in it".

Gotta be something to that. You know all those guys down there here all the background stuff.

I'm still annoyed that I have to see Stubbs and his 32% K rate / .291 OBP batting first or second in the lineup. I'm sure Walt is too.

dougdirt
08-28-2012, 09:47 AM
Jim Scott then says something like "do you think they'll get Dusty extended" to which the guy says something like this, again not an exact quote "not if the rumored riff between Dusty and Jocketty has any say in it".

Gotta be something to that. You know all those guys down there here all the background stuff.



I have been saying that for a while now.... Not that there was a "tiff", but that Walt (and most of the rest of the front office guys) want someone else in there.

lollipopcurve
08-28-2012, 10:19 AM
If it's Baker v. Jocketty, give me Walt.

RedsManRick
08-28-2012, 12:05 PM
If it's Baker v. Jocketty, give me Walt.

Agreed. But if it was Castellini's call in the first place and the Reds have a modicum of success with Baker, I can't imagine he'll change his mind. Unless, perhaps, if Walt were to give him some sort of ultimatum. It wouldn't be the first time Walt didn't see eye-to-eye with ownership and decided to part company.

lollipopcurve
08-28-2012, 12:25 PM
Agreed. But if it was Castellini's call in the first place and the Reds have a modicum of success with Baker, I can't imagine he'll change his mind. Unless, perhaps, if Walt were to give him some sort of ultimatum. It wouldn't be the first time Walt didn't see eye-to-eye with ownership and decided to part company.

Would be a crippling blow to the organization, IMO.

traderumor
08-28-2012, 02:47 PM
Even if there is any truth to the Walt/Dusty issue, I don't see it logically following that "WJ would prefer X over Dusty" as meaning that WJ can't live with Dusty. They've kept any rift private thus far, other than some loose lips that talk to Doug. Professionals learn to choose their battles, this doesn't seem to be one's WJ has been willing to fight.

Vottomatic
08-28-2012, 02:56 PM
I say fire everybody and start over!!!! :laugh: ;) :p

camisadelgolf
08-28-2012, 03:05 PM
I wouldn't worry about that rumor. Managers and general managers argue all the time. As long as the team's winning, they'll be fine.

westofyou
08-28-2012, 03:55 PM
True

Oh look here's one just the other day... and a jab at a Reds employee too (well deserved IMO)

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2012/08/nationals-jayson-werth-davey-johnson-rip-jim-riggleman-/1#.UD0Tt8GPUsc



A day after manager Davey Johnson and general manager Mike Rizzo could be heard in a heated exchange following Washington's fourth consecutive loss, outfielder Jayson Werth has come out ripping former skipper Jim Riggleman. And Johnson took a shot too.

"Between last year and this year, it's night and day," Werth said. "Just the whole atmosphere in the clubhouse. You have an iconic manager that really knows how to handle this team. If we still had a guy like Riggleman as the manager, I don't think the team is where it's at."

Asked to elaborate, Werth said, "You have a guy (in Johnson) that is confident in himself and in his players. That alone can go a long way. ... Being a big league player for so long, being a big league manager for so long, Davey has a real good feel (for the game)."

redsfandan
08-28-2012, 04:21 PM
If it's Baker v. Jocketty, give me Walt.

I third that (since RMR already seconded it).




Agreed. But if it was Castellini's call in the first place and the Reds have a modicum of success with Baker, I can't imagine he'll change his mind. Unless, perhaps, if Walt were to give him some sort of ultimatum. It wouldn't be the first time Walt didn't see eye-to-eye with ownership and decided to part company.

Would be a crippling blow to the organization, IMO.

Crippling? I doubt that.

757690
08-28-2012, 04:25 PM
Agreed. But if it was Castellini's call in the first place and the Reds have a modicum of success with Baker, I can't imagine he'll change his mind. Unless, perhaps, if Walt were to give him some sort of ultimatum. It wouldn't be the first time Walt didn't see eye-to-eye with ownership and decided to part company.

I agree, but I think if given an ultimatum, Cast would choose Walt over Baker.

defender
08-28-2012, 07:14 PM
He did say this:

"He's done a heck of a job. A heck of a job, you bet. He's a heck of a guy," Castellini said. "I'd like to see him add a World Series win with us and go into the Hall of Fame as a Red."

Of course he could win the WS this year and be signed to a front office job. But I really do think he meant he wanted him as manager.

If Cast intends to have Baker manage for many years, why wouldn't he say "a couple of World Series wins".

If you mean something, say it clearly. The fact that Castellini's statements were ambiguous seem worse than not saying anything at all.

Cooper
08-28-2012, 07:59 PM
Not seeing eye to eye might be a strength in a management team. I hate the guy I work with and he hates me even more (cause he knows i'm right). Point being, we have differing skills sets and our work together is often a good product (with me carrying 90% of the load) because of those differences. Here's the most important part of the process- our supervisor can see the strengths/limitations of us both and feels comfortable in reminding us of each other's load. He can do that without fear because he is the owner of the company and we (my partner and i) know there's no upward mobility in the company. If there was, i'd triangulate and tear his heart out and i'd like to think he's do the same to me.

Castillini may have the same situation with Dusty/Walt. Neither one of them wants the other guys job -and just maybe their differences work in tandem -pretty nicely.

dougdirt
08-28-2012, 08:03 PM
Even if there is any truth to the Walt/Dusty issue, I don't see it logically following that "WJ would prefer X over Dusty" as meaning that WJ can't live with Dusty. They've kept any rift private thus far, other than some loose lips that talk to Doug. Professionals learn to choose their battles, this doesn't seem to be one's WJ has been willing to fight.

Come on now, you know that I am not the only person who has heard about it. I am a nobody.

redsmetz
08-28-2012, 08:47 PM
Come on now, you know that I am not the only person who has heard about it. I am a nobody.

But the reality is we don't know who it is you're hearing it from, and obviously that's something we'll never know because you can't (and shouldn't) reveal that. Hence, we have no way of knowing what sort of axe there is to grind, nor do we have a sense whatsoever of the degree with which Jocketty doesn't see eye to eye with Baker or not.

If I had to guess, I'm guessing there are some in the organization who want to run with new stats and disdain the very thought of Dusty Baker being at the helm since he doesn't pay them the respect folks think he should.

At the end of the day, the success presently being experienced is going to speak volumes. And my guess is Jocketty's willing to live with whatever differences he has with Dusty and vice versa.

M2
08-28-2012, 10:30 PM
If Jocketty would just give Dusty a CF who can hit leadoff it would make life so much easier. We knew before Dusty took the Reds job that he had a tic for leadoff CFs. It's pretty clear, he's not going to improvise. Just give him a guy who can do the job already. Outside of that I don't get the complaints about Dusty. His teams show up to play every night. His in-game decisions are better than the average manager (all of them make curious decisions). He's brought along lots of young talent and gotten performance out of a fair number of iffy vets (the season Ryan Ludwick is having boggles the mind). His teams also don't wig out. MLB plays a long season, players and coaches spend way too much time together, and it can create a ton of friction. Dusty's teams stay on a pretty even keel (even when he had egos like Barry Bonds and Jeff Kent back in San Francisco).

mth123
08-29-2012, 04:28 AM
If Jocketty would just give Dusty a CF who can hit leadoff it would make life so much easier. We knew before Dusty took the Reds job that he had a tic for leadoff CFs. It's pretty clear, he's not going to improvise. Just give him a guy who can do the job already. Outside of that I don't get the complaints about Dusty. His teams show up to play every night. His in-game decisions are better than the average manager (all of them make curious decisions). He's brought along lots of young talent and gotten performance out of a fair number of iffy vets (the season Ryan Ludwick is having boggles the mind). His teams also don't wig out. MLB plays a long season, players and coaches spend way too much time together, and it can create a ton of friction. Dusty's teams stay on a pretty even keel (even when he had egos like Barry Bonds and Jeff Kent back in San Francisco).

Exactly. Its not like Dusty has had a ton of options for the top of the order.

AtomicDumpling
08-29-2012, 05:03 AM
I don't think Dusty Baker is the reason the Reds are winning this year just like I don't think Dusty Baker was the reason the Reds were losing last year.

Stellar newcomers Todd Frazier, Ryan Ludwick, Mat Latos, Sean Marshall and Zack Cozart would make any manager look good.

Dusty Baker has managed the Reds through good years and through bad years. Obviously he is not the difference between last year and this year. It is the players that will make a manager look good or bad, not vice versa.

In a perfect world the Reds would get a smart, proactive, innovative manager like Joe Maddon. Since the Reds are unlikely to get him or someone like him I am fine with keeping Dusty Baker despite his high salary. If Dusty does go elsewhere it won't be a big blow to the Reds either.

The Reds are fine with Dusty Baker and they will be fine without Dusty Baker.

redsmetz
08-29-2012, 06:30 AM
I don't think Dusty Baker is the reason the Reds are winning this year just like I don't think Dusty Baker was the reason the Reds were losing last year.

Stellar newcomers Todd Frazier, Ryan Ludwick, Mat Latos, Sean Marshall and Zack Cozart would make any manager look good.

Dusty Baker has managed the Reds through good years and through bad years. Obviously he is not the difference between last year and this year. It is the players that will make a manager look good or bad, not vice versa.

In a perfect world the Reds would get a smart, proactive, innovative manager like Joe Maddon. Since the Reds are unlikely to get him or someone like him I am fine with keeping Dusty Baker despite his high salary. If Dusty does go elsewhere it won't be a big blow to the Reds either.

The Reds are fine with Dusty Baker and they will be fine without Dusty Baker.

I'll grant you the last line, a bit of a no-brainer. Life goes on, the game continues. But really, baseball is the ultimate team sport. It's never about just one individual, but at the same time, it's disingenuous to completely dismiss the environment Baker's fostered with this team, especially in this season. It can't be measured statistically and I suspect, like with any team, it's a balancing act. But I can't say this team would necessarily be winning at the clip it is without Dusty Baker at the helm. These aren't robots, either managing/coaching or with the players.

At this point, Dusty should be a leading candidate for Manager of the Year. Why would Bob Castellini want to dismiss that? It's been decades since we've had any stability in the manager's seat. I stand firmly in the camp of keeping Baker on for a few more years and I think the club and he will reach an amicable agreement.

Chip R
08-29-2012, 10:38 AM
I don't think Dusty Baker is the reason the Reds are winning this year just like I don't think Dusty Baker was the reason the Reds were losing last year.

Sure, but he does seem to get the lion's share of the blame when the Reds lose and very little of the credit when they win.

AtomicDumpling
08-30-2012, 12:34 PM
Sure, but he does seem to get the lion's share of the blame when the Reds lose and very little of the credit when they win.

Depends on who you talk to. Just read these threads here on Redszone and you will see Dusty Baker getting tons of credit for the Reds good season. Way too much credit in my opinion.

What has Dusty changed in his managing of the team from last year to this year that has resulted in a 20 game upward swing in the Reds' record? What has Dusty done better this year compared to last year that makes him deserve the credit for the Reds' excellent season? Unless you can answer those questions then it doesn't make much sense to give Dusty much of the credit for the Reds' turnaround this year.

When a team brings in a bunch of new players (Latos, Ludwick, Frazier, Marshall, Cozart etc) that are huge upgrades over last year then why give the credit to the same manager that failed last year?

mdccclxix
08-30-2012, 12:37 PM
So you'd concede he got way too much blame last year with lesser players?

Caveat Emperor
08-30-2012, 01:42 PM
If Jocketty would just give Dusty a CF who can hit leadoff it would make life so much easier. We knew before Dusty took the Reds job that he had a tic for leadoff CFs. It's pretty clear, he's not going to improvise. Just give him a guy who can do the job already. Outside of that I don't get the complaints about Dusty. His teams show up to play every night. His in-game decisions are better than the average manager (all of them make curious decisions). He's brought along lots of young talent and gotten performance out of a fair number of iffy vets (the season Ryan Ludwick is having boggles the mind). His teams also don't wig out. MLB plays a long season, players and coaches spend way too much time together, and it can create a ton of friction. Dusty's teams stay on a pretty even keel (even when he had egos like Barry Bonds and Jeff Kent back in San Francisco).

Spot on post.

savafan
08-30-2012, 02:50 PM
What has Dusty changed in his managing of the team from last year to this year that has resulted in a 20 game upward swing in the Reds' record? What has Dusty done better this year compared to last year that makes him deserve the credit for the Reds' excellent season? Unless you can answer those questions then it doesn't make much sense to give Dusty much of the credit for the Reds' turnaround this year.

When a team brings in a bunch of new players (Latos, Ludwick, Frazier, Marshall, Cozart etc) that are huge upgrades over last year then why give the credit to the same manager that failed last year?

Having been in middle management, which, let's face it, that's what Dusty is, what you do when your staff isn't working out is go to your higher ups and convince them to get you the right people for the job to help improve the overall production of the company. I have to believe that Dusty is in constant communication with Walt, and did something similar, having at least a little say in the players brought in for this season. Then, it's his job to get these guys to play as one cohesive unit, which he's been great at. I've been guilty of underestimating Dusty Baker at times, and I feel that's what you're doing right here.

mdccclxix
08-30-2012, 02:56 PM
Having been in middle management, which, let's face it, that's what Dusty is, what you do when your staff isn't working out is go to your higher ups and convince them to get you the right people for the job to help improve the overall production of the company. I have to believe that Dusty is in constant communication with Walt, and did something similar, having at least a little say in the players brought in for this season. Then, it's his job to get these guys to play as one cohesive unit, which he's been great at. I've been guilty of underestimating Dusty Baker at times, and I feel that's what you're doing right here.

FWIW, it doesn't sound like Dusty has a crush on Drew Stubbs at all, either.

AtomicDumpling
08-30-2012, 06:09 PM
So you'd concede he got way too much blame last year with lesser players?

Like I said multiple times, Dusty Baker was not the reason the Reds were bad last year and he is not the reason the Reds are good this year.

Vottomatic
08-30-2012, 06:10 PM
FWIW, it doesn't sound like Dusty has a crush on Drew Stubbs at all, either.

Sometimes I think Dusty plays Stubbs simply to spite Walt. Maybe it's an in your face thing....where he's showing Walt he needs an upgrade at CF. :laugh:

AtomicDumpling
08-30-2012, 06:43 PM
Having been in middle management, which, let's face it, that's what Dusty is, what you do when your staff isn't working out is go to your higher ups and convince them to get you the right people for the job to help improve the overall production of the company. I have to believe that Dusty is in constant communication with Walt, and did something similar, having at least a little say in the players brought in for this season. Then, it's his job to get these guys to play as one cohesive unit, which he's been great at. I've been guilty of underestimating Dusty Baker at times, and I feel that's what you're doing right here.

I do give Dusty much of the credit for the composition of the roster, both good and bad. Walt Jocketty is not out there acquiring players he likes without caring if Dusty Baker wants them on the team. They work together in deciding which players to acquire, or at least they should.

I have said a couple times in this thread that Dusty has more control over which players are on the team than people think he does. Yes I believe some of the credit for acquiring good players should go to Dusty Baker because he does have a lot of input in the decision making regarding personnel acquisition. But that works both ways. If you rightfully want to give Dusty some credit for bringing in guys like Ludwick and Latos you also have to give him some of the blame for moves like bringing in Miguel Cairo and Wilson Valdez and Corey Patterson and Wily Taveras. Those players were acquired because Dusty wanted them. They made the team because Dusty wanted them on the team. They received a lot of playing time because Dusty put them in the lineup -- often at the top of the lineup where they received more plate appearances than the actual good hitters the Reds had. You can't give Dusty credit for bringing in the good players and then turn around and give him a pass for using bad hitters at the top of the lineup because he allegedly has no better options. Why doesn't he have any better options? Because he didn't work with Jocketty to acquire any better options, nor did he properly use the options he had.

When it comes to Frazier and Cozart it is clear they were only given opportunities to play long after they should have been. Pretty much everyone agrees that Dusty stuck with Paul Janish way too long instead of turning to Cozart much earlier. Frazier is another guy that should have been playing over the likes of Miguel Cairo and Juan Francisco and others long ago instead of laboring in the minors until the age of 26. The manager should have seen that.

I have never been one of the folks that is constantly criticizing Dusty's every move. I have said repeatedly that he is an average manager. I don't blame any alleged mishandling of the pitching staff on Dusty during his tenure because he pretty much leaves that stuff up to the pitching coach, and the Reds have an excellent pitching coach in Bryan Price. I think Dusty does a great job of motivating the players, boosting their confidence and keeping them happy, healthy, rested and productive to the best of their abilities. I think Dusty has his players bunt WAY too often and gives away far too many outs. He doesn't bring anything modern or new to the table. He doesn't appreciate the importance of On-Base Percentage. He puts way too much faith in specious statistics like a hitter's history vs specific pitchers. Dusty is awful at assembling a batting order. He gives way too many at-bats to the team's worst hitters and not enough at-bats to the team's best hitters. There is absolutely no excuse for putting Cozart and Stubbs at the top of the lineup, which gives them more at-bats per game than Votto, Phillips, Bruce, Ludwick and Frazier. If you don't have an ideal lead-off or two-hole hitter then at least make sure your best players are the ones that get those extra at-bats. The Reds actually have several excellent options to bat in the 1st and 2nd slots in the batting order, but Dusty has them batting 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th instead.

All things considered Dusty Baker is an average manager. He is good at some things and bad at other things. He has never been the reason the Reds were a good team or a bad team. Until somebody can explain what Dusty Baker is doing differently this year than last year that accounts for why the Reds are winning so many more games this year then I will not be inclined to believe that Dusty Baker has much to do with the drastic turnaround. The difference between bad 2011 and great 2012 is obviously Todd Frazier, Ryan Ludwick, Mat Latos, Sean Marshall and Zack Cozart -- not Dusty Baker.

Steve4192
08-30-2012, 08:03 PM
If Jocketty would just give Dusty a CF who can hit leadoff it would make life so much easier.

Exactly.

I get as frustrated as everyone else seeing out-machines like Cozart and Stubbs at the top of the batting order, but whose fault is it Dusty has to play those guys in the first place? The GM who hasn't given him any better options, that's who.

Sure, it would be nice to see them batting 7/8 instead of 1/2, but in the grand scheme of things batting orders aren't all that important. What is far more important is who is in the lineup every day, and if Walt doesn't like seeing those guys in the lineup, he has no one to blame but himself. To paraphrase Bill Parcells, Dusty cooks the dinner with the groceries Walt brings home. If Walt wants filet mignon, he needs to stop bringing home hamburger.

AtomicDumpling
08-30-2012, 09:34 PM
Exactly.

I get as frustrated as everyone else seeing out-machines like Cozart and Stubbs at the top of the batting order, but whose fault is it Dusty has to play those guys in the first place? The GM who hasn't given him any better options, that's who.

Sure, it would be nice to see them batting 7/8 instead of 1/2, but in the grand scheme of things batting orders aren't all that important. What is far more important is who is in the lineup every day, and if Walt doesn't like seeing those guys in the lineup, he has no one to blame but himself. To paraphrase Bill Parcells, Dusty cooks the dinner with the groceries Walt brings home. If Walt wants filet mignon, he needs to stop bringing home hamburger.

Batting 1st in the lineup instead of 8th gives a player about 110 extra plate appearances per year. That is equivalent to a whole month's worth of games for a starting player. Wouldn't you rather give that extra month's worth of games to one of your best hitters instead of one of your worst? For that reason I think the batting order clearly does matter a lot. So putting Cozart and Stubbs at the top of the lineup is like squandering two months worth of at-bats from a star hitter.

Steve4192
08-30-2012, 10:09 PM
Batting 1st in the lineup instead of 8th gives a player about 110 extra plate appearances per year. That is equivalent to a whole months worth of games for a starting player. Wouldn't you rather give that extra month's worth of games to one of your best hitters instead of one of your worst? For that reason I think the batting order clearly does matter a lot. So putting Cozart and Stubbs at the top of the lineup is like squandering two months worth of at-bats from a star hitter.

Sounds good in theory, but every analysis I have ever seen shows that the impact of batting orders is negligible.

This is particularly true for the Reds, where nobody save Joey Votto posts a particularly strong OBP (and the odds of Joey batting leadoff are nil). The difference between Stubbs/Cozart's 290ish OBP and the 340ish OBP posted by guys like Phillips/Ludwick/Rolen/Frazier only amounts to five extra times on base in those 100ish extra plate appearances. That is hardly an earth-shattering difference.

AtomicDumpling
08-30-2012, 10:28 PM
Sounds good in theory, but every analysis I have ever seen shows that the impact of batting orders is negligible.

This is particularly true for the Reds, where nobody save Joey Votto posts a particularly strong OBP (and the odds of Joey batting leadoff are nil). The difference between Stubbs/Cozart's 290ish OBP and the 340ish OBP posted by guys like Phillips/Ludwick/Rolen/Frazier only amounts to five extra times on base in those 100ish extra plate appearances. That is hardly an earth-shattering difference.

I don't recall saying it was earth-shattering, but the studies I have seen have shown that it is a statistically significant difference. It is not just OBP that needs to be considered but SLG and wOBA as well. Not only are the better hitters more likely to avoid an out, they are also much more likely to get an extra-base hit, including more home runs. The batting order does matter, especially when the difference between the good and bad hitters is as large as it is in the Reds' case.

I agree that Votto will never hit leadoff for the Reds, but simulation studies have shown that the best place to put your best hitter in the lineup is the 2-hole. MLB teams always put their best hitter in the 3-hole because that is the tradition and it is considered a mark of respect to hit third in the lineup. The Book by Tom Tango showed that the most important slots in the lineup in order are #2, #1, #4 and then #3. I think this is even more true for the Reds since Votto's fantastic .465 OBP is largely wasted when he comes to the plate so often with two outs. It doesn't give the rest of the lineup much chance to drive him around.

I think an optimal lineup would net the average team about 2 extra wins per season. It is definitely not enough to turn a bad team into a good team, but in many seasons an extra two wins could be the difference between making the playoffs or not.

Brutus
08-30-2012, 10:31 PM
Sounds good in theory, but every analysis I have ever seen shows that the impact of batting orders is negligible.

This is particularly true for the Reds, where nobody save Joey Votto posts a particularly strong OBP (and the odds of Joey batting leadoff are nil). The difference between Stubbs/Cozart's 290ish OBP and the 340ish OBP posted by guys like Phillips/Ludwick/Rolen/Frazier only amounts to five extra times on base in those 100ish extra plate appearances. That is hardly an earth-shattering difference.

I believe the difference between the absolute best and absolute worst lineup can be, over the course of a season, around 60-80 runs. But in practical terms, the difference between the optimal lineup and what is usually run out on a daily basis is only about 10-20 runs (i.e. an extra win or two).

AtomicDumpling
08-30-2012, 10:32 PM
I believe the difference between the absolute best and absolute worst lineup can be, over the course of a season, around 60-80 runs. But in practical terms, the difference between the optimal lineup and what is usually run out on a daily basis is only about 10-20 runs (i.e. an extra win or two).

I agree. That is about two extra wins per season. Definitely worth the effort to get it right.

The batting order the Reds have been using over the last couple months is almost the worst possible batting order they could use if you think about it. The three best hitters in terms of wOBA are all in the bottom half of the lineup. Pretty much the only way to make it worse would be to put the pitcher at the top of the order. That is a bit of an exaggeration :p, but the Reds current lineup is far from optimal.

oneupper
08-30-2012, 10:38 PM
I agree. That is about two extra wins per season. Definitely worth the effort to get it right.

Yeah, but Dusty does not care.


Baker not concerned with outside perceptions

PHOENIX -- The top two hitters in the Reds' lineup -- Zack Cozart and Drew Stubbs -- have been in extended slumps lately. Cozart took a 0-for-18 skid into Wednesday while Stubbs was 1-for-22 entering the finale with the D-backs. The duo went a combined 0-for-10 in Tuesday's 5-2 win.

"That was yesterday. Today it could be them," Reds manager Dusty Baker said. "As long as it's somebody."

Aware that his daily lineups are a source of criticism, Baker doesn't care.

"Everybody is looking for the perfect team, the perfect lineup. There aren't any," Baker said. "Even the mighty Yankees aren't perfect. We have a better record than they do. The Yankees, the Dodgers and some of these teams -- their payrolls are twice as much as ours -- trying to get perfect and it's still not perfect.

"The name of the game is 'Win.' You're always going to try to find something you're not doing. It depends on how your outlook in life is. Are you a half-empty or half-full person? I find that most people are half-empty people. I don't deal with them. I don't listen to them."

AtomicDumpling
08-30-2012, 11:05 PM
Yeah, but Dusty does not care.

So is Dusty's logic that since you can never have a perfect lineup therefore you shouldn't try to get it as close to perfect as possible?

Is he saying that the lineup doesn't matter? If so why does he change it sometimes? Wouldn't that indicate that the manager doesn't have much impact on the game?

Is he saying the reason why the Reds have the best record in baseball is because of the way he sets the batting order?

I don't have a problem with the fact that Dusty doesn't care what people say about his decisions. Frankly, the manager should make decisions with logic rather than because of what people might say. But sometimes the manager might be able to learn something from the comments made by outsiders, and Dusty could use some extra wisdom when it comes to setting batting orders.

The notion that since the Reds have a great record it means that Dusty has done everything perfectly rings hollow. He is after all the same guy that led the Reds to a losing record last year.

Most people around the league can see that the primary reason the Reds have improved so much is because they added Latos, Frazier, Ludwick, Marshall and Cozart to the roster -- not because Dusty Baker suddenly became a great manager this year.

Dusty is doing a fine job but let's not get carried away. The idea that you can't disagree with a manager at all because his team is winning doesn't make sense to me.

cincrazy
08-30-2012, 11:08 PM
Honestly, if you bat our pitchers in the 1 or 2 hole, they probably couldn't do much worse than Stubbs has fared at the top. Hell, Leake and Latos may be upgrades over Drew.

AtomicDumpling
08-30-2012, 11:13 PM
Honestly, if you bat our pitchers in the 1 or 2 hole, they probably couldn't do much worse than Stubbs has fared at the top. Hell, Leake and Latos may be upgrades over Drew.

Touche! :duel:

defender
08-31-2012, 03:46 AM
As an employee, how would like it if your boss said: "I know we have the best record in (your job), but I am so clever, that I can change things around, and we will do even better."

The players believe they win or lose the games. Why would you want a manager that made decisions with the goal that reporters think he is smart. Nobody wants a boss who makes decisions based on them getting as much credit as possible for what you do.

AtomicDumpling
08-31-2012, 05:17 AM
Honestly, if you bat our pitchers in the 1 or 2 hole, they probably couldn't do much worse than Stubbs has fared at the top. Hell, Leake and Latos may be upgrades over Drew.

Leake does have an OPS that is significantly higher than both Stubbs and Cozart this year.

Leake's career OPS of .636 is almost as high as Cairo's career OPS and is 37 points higher than Wilson Valdez's comical career OPS of .599 -- how has he been able to play in the big leagues until the age of 34 with his truly dismal history of sub-replacement production?

redsmetz
08-31-2012, 05:38 AM
The notion that since the Reds have a great record it means that Dusty has done everything perfectly rings hollow. He is after all the same guy that led the Reds to a losing record last year.

Of course it rings hollow, no one has suggested that Baker has done everything perfectly. But you'd choke before you'd ever acknowledge that he's done something that's made this year's club what it is. How much? Who knows. But his greatest skill might well be the people side and it's all humming right now - to the tune of the best record in baseball and an 8 1/2 game lead. Little wonder Bob C. wants him back.

AtomicDumpling
08-31-2012, 05:51 PM
Of course it rings hollow, no one has suggested that Baker has done everything perfectly. But you'd choke before you'd ever acknowledge that he's done something that's made this year's club what it is. How much? Who knows. But his greatest skill might well be the people side and it's all humming right now - to the tune of the best record in baseball and an 8 1/2 game lead. Little wonder Bob C. wants him back.

I would choke huh? I don't think that is a fair accusation at all. Just read this thread and make a list of all the things I have said Dusty does well. It would be a long list. I have defended him many times and disagreed with him many times.

You know, it is actually possible for someone to disagree with one or more of Dusty's decisions without being a Dusty hater.

redsmetz
08-31-2012, 06:22 PM
I would choke huh? I don't think that is a fair accusation at all. Just read this thread and make a list of all the things I have said Dusty does well. It would be a long list. I have defended him many times and disagreed with him many times.

You know, it is actually possible for someone to disagree with one or more of Dusty's decisions without being a Dusty hater.

Point taken & please accept my apology for the poor word choice.

AtomicDumpling
08-31-2012, 06:29 PM
Point taken & please accept my apology for the poor word choice.

No worries mate. Still love ya! (does that sound creepy? I didn't mean it to. :D)

redsmetz
08-31-2012, 10:06 PM
No worries mate. Still love ya! (does that sound creepy? I didn't mean it to. :D)

As long as you mean "mate" in an Aussie way & not that you want me to move in, we're good.

AtomicDumpling
08-31-2012, 10:20 PM
As long as you mean "mate" in an Aussie way & not that you want me to move in, we're good.

Well I am not from Australia, but yeah that is what I meant. :laugh:

OldXOhio
09-01-2012, 03:41 PM
"As long as it's somebody."

I don't think you have to be a MLB manager or a former player to understand the fault in this logic. In every walk of life this mentality can be a recipe for failure, so as leaders, whether in sports or in business, you must put people in the best possible position for the organization to succeed. Wishing for success does nothing, even when you have talent abound like Baker. No it does not guarantee results, but it is explainable in a logical manner to your shareholders if expectations are not met.

corkedbat
09-01-2012, 04:14 PM
As much as I hate it, I'm resigned to the fact that Baker will be back. And even though he'll probably win manager of the year, continuing to bat Cozart and Stubbs at the top of the order is assinine.

Tadasimha
09-01-2012, 06:43 PM
As much as I hate it, I'm resigned to the fact that Baker will be back. And even though he'll probably win manager of the year, continuing to bat Cozart and Stubbs at the top of the order is assinine.

Irony is so much fun! The word is spelled asinine.

Wheelhouse
09-01-2012, 07:27 PM
As much as I hate it, I'm resigned to the fact that Baker will be back. And even though he'll probably win manager of the year, continuing to bat Cozart and Stubbs at the top of the order is assinine.

I'd the Reds are three-and-out in the playoffs, Dusty will not be back.

cincrazy
09-02-2012, 07:54 PM
I don't understand the hate for Dusty. Frustration with any manager is normal. But we are 82-53. How much better could anyone else do? Do you think we'd be 90-45 with someone else? I mean come on. Only a few people on this board expected this team to win at this level. They've far exceeded most of our expectations, yet the man still gets no love, and little credit. They win "in spite" of him. It's absurd.

Sometimes he drives me crazy as much as the next guy. But to assign him no credit, as many don't, for this team's success is ridiculous.

Vottomatic
09-02-2012, 08:07 PM
IF Dusty would quit batting Stubbs 1st or 2nd, he'd just about have me won over.

IF his lineup construction would make sense, I'd become a Dusty fan. I think he simply is being a hardhead and stubborn by keeping Stubbs near the top of the order. I think I could handle just about any lineup other than Stubbs anywhere but 7th or 8th.

cincrazy
09-02-2012, 09:20 PM
IF Dusty would quit batting Stubbs 1st or 2nd, he'd just about have me won over.

IF his lineup construction would make sense, I'd become a Dusty fan. I think he simply is being a hardhead and stubborn by keeping Stubbs near the top of the order. I think I could handle just about any lineup other than Stubbs anywhere but 7th or 8th.

I think we'll see that when Votto comes back. I hope so anyways.