PDA

View Full Version : Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?



Pages : [1] 2

fearofpopvol1
10-11-2012, 06:01 PM
I'm not trying to be negative here. It's a fair question to ask after the Reds go up 2-0 on the road and lose the last 3. I don't think it's all his fault by any means, but I also think he made some certainly questionable decisions, some of which were poor IMO.

At any rate...Yay? Nay? Maybe?

Tom Servo
10-11-2012, 06:02 PM
No.

Degenerate39
10-11-2012, 06:02 PM
No

JaxRed
10-11-2012, 06:03 PM
No

Vottomatic
10-11-2012, 06:06 PM
No.

Players manager who brought the team together.

But the decision to stick with Latos against Posey was disastrous. Dusty has a history of sitting and watching the wheels fall off.

GoReds
10-11-2012, 06:10 PM
No. Time for some changes.

Rose was able to get the Reds part of the way towards respectability. It wasn't until Pinella came in that everything came together. Thanks for bringing us up Dusty, but he should consider retiring. He's had a great career.

Brutus
10-11-2012, 06:11 PM
The guy has been to the playoffs twice in three years and Reds fans want him canned?

Surely you guys remember it was 15 years prior to the previous playoff appearance...

reds1869
10-11-2012, 06:13 PM
The guy has been to the playoffs twice in three years and Reds fans want him canned?

Surely you guys remember it was 15 years prior to the previous playoff appearance...

I don't want him canned. I'd prefer he retire.

wheels
10-11-2012, 06:15 PM
I like Dusty Baker as a human being, and a regular season manager. He's great at keeping people together over the long grind.

It's just that his tactical mistakes are far too frequent for a club that seems to now be a regular playoff contender.

Nothing against Dusty, but the Reds need a next level type of a guy.

fearofpopvol1
10-11-2012, 06:15 PM
The guy has been to the playoffs twice in three years and Reds fans want him canned?

Surely you guys remember it was 15 years prior to the previous playoff appearance...

How much credit does he get for the players play on the field?

cinreds21
10-11-2012, 06:16 PM
John Fay ‏@johnfayman
Baker asked he expected to be back: I don't know I'm kind numb. #reds

nemesis
10-11-2012, 06:16 PM
no.

Sea Ray
10-11-2012, 06:18 PM
Absolutely, if his health is OK. He's done a great job this year

Brutus
10-11-2012, 06:21 PM
How much credit does he get for the players play on the field?

Considering how much respect he has in the clubhouse and considering no manager got there in 15 years, I don't think it's worth chancing it to find out.

The players love him. Shouldn't that be enough? Why bother risking it? I hate to beat a dead horse, but the Red Sox thought they were smart and fired Terry Francona for the same reason(s). They ended up with an inept manager that the entire clubhouse hated.

When you have a good thing, you shouldn't be messing with it.

fearofpopvol1
10-11-2012, 06:25 PM
Considering how much respect he has in the clubhouse and considering no manager got there in 15 years, I don't think it's worth chancing it to find out.

The players love him. Shouldn't that be enough? Why bother risking it? I hate to beat a dead horse, but the Red Sox thought they were smart and fired Terry Francona for the same reason(s). They ended up with an inept manager that the entire clubhouse hated.

When you have a good thing, you shouldn't be messing with it.

Do you think the talent level in the last 15 years (namely the pitching) was World Series contention worthy?

OnBaseMachine
10-11-2012, 06:25 PM
Heck no.

Degenerate39
10-11-2012, 06:26 PM
The last 15 years should be blamed on the ownership and general managers. Not Bob, Kriv, or walt but the previous

mdccclxix
10-11-2012, 06:30 PM
I'll say maybe. Depends on player moves. Also depends if the player leadership/culture could move forward with another manager who would perhaps see things in a fresh way. It would be just like Dusty's luck to get canned at this point.

Brutus
10-11-2012, 06:32 PM
Do you think the talent level in the last 15 years (namely the pitching) was World Series contention worthy?

It doesn't matter. The Reds are winning games a lot more now than they were earlier and I think it's ignorance to not give the manager some credit for that.

I think the Reds are a better team with Dusty Baker than without him. And that's really all that matters to me at this point.

Krusty
10-11-2012, 06:32 PM
And what manager would you want to manage the Reds? You get to the playoffs and it is a crapshoot. Should have the Reds won the series? Yep. Should have Dusty Baker had Hanigan bunt in that situation instead of going for a double steal? Considering Drew Stubbs was up next I could understand Baker's thinking.

Instead of replacing the manager, find a stopgap centerfielder who can lead off until Billy Hamilton is ready.

Krusty
10-11-2012, 06:33 PM
One more thing....Sparky Anderson didn't win the World Series in 1970 and 1972 and Bob Howsam didn't fire him. And look how that turn out.

Brutus
10-11-2012, 06:34 PM
And what manager would you want to manage the Reds? You get to the playoffs and it is a crapshoot. Should have the Reds won the series? Yep. Should have Dusty Baker had Hanigan bunt in that situation instead of going for a double steal? Considering Drew Stubbs was up next I could understand Baker's thinking.

Instead of replacing the manager, find a stopgap centerfielder who can lead off until Billy Hamilton is ready.

I hear Bob Boone is available :laugh:

RedEye
10-11-2012, 06:36 PM
No. But he will.

Hoosier Red
10-11-2012, 06:36 PM
One more thing....Sparky Anderson didn't win the World Series in 1970 and 1972 and Bob Howsam didn't fire him. And look how that turn out.

And they choked the 1973 playoffs against the NY Mets and the division away in '74.

fearofpopvol1
10-11-2012, 06:36 PM
It doesn't matter. The Reds are winning games a lot more now than they were earlier and I think it's ignorance to not give the manager some credit for that.

I think the Reds are a better team with Dusty Baker than without him. And that's really all that matters to me at this point.

Your post implied that the Reds not getting into to the playoffs in 15 years was because of the managers they had. So, I would say it does matter if you're using that as a talking point.

The Snow Chief
10-11-2012, 06:37 PM
I think the Reds need to go in a different direction. Dusty's loyalty to vets, emphasis on speed rather than OBP, and mismanagement of pitching substitutions has frustrated me.

I know some people disagree, but to me there is no way you start Mike Leake against the Giants in game 4. They owned him all year and we saw in game one that Latos can pitch effectively on short rest. He only pitched four innings and I would have started him vs. Zito and Arroyo against Cain if we lost game four. Arroyo does not throw hard and I think he can be effective on short rest as well. Bottom line, I think we had a better chance winning one of Latos v. Zito/Arroyo v. Cain than we had Leake v. Zito/Latos v. Cain. Starting Leake just about put all of our eggs in the basket of trying to beat Matt Cain twice in one series. That is a tall order.

Game four also showed you how effective a manager is who gives a pitcher the hook early enough when there are indications of a big inning, fatigue, etc. Giants pitching struggled in game 4, but the substitutions created good matchups to limit the damage. Meanwhile, Dusty's substitutions were always one batter too late. That was the difference in the game. Dusty would not have pulled Zito after 2 2/3. If Dusty was managing the Giants, he would have let him stay long enough to give up the big inning. I've seen too many Reds games to think otherwise.

Having Cairo make this roster was absurd. While I do not support Leake starting, I think he would have been better as a 25th player. He is a better hitter than Cairo, a better pinch runner, and could actually eat several innings (like 6 or 7) if there was a blowout on either side. Fraizer was available to backup Rolen or Votto and Valdez could backup Cozart or Phillips. We knew Cairo would not see the field defensively and he brings no bat and no pinch running ability. Leaving him on the roster was blind loyalty to a vet. Not having Leake on the roster may have ended up costing the Reds the NLCS if they would have made it given the decision to DL Cueto (if Cueto could have come back to pitch a game or two in that series). Having Cairo on the roster did not cost the Reds the series, but it very well could have and I don't trust Dusty to make good roster decisions when it comes to replacing a vet with a better performing younger player.

I think Dusty's record in big postseason games (elimination games) speaks for itself. Realistically, we have 2-3 more seasons of this group together in their prime. After that, guys like Latos, Homer, and Cueto likely will hit the FA market and we have a ton of money tied up in Votto, Bruce, and Phillips. You can't expect Arroyo or Ludwick (if he re-signs) to be effective for any more than 2 or 3 more years. If the Reds are going to win a world series with this group, it will need to be within this window. I don't want Dusty making the clutch decisions. It is too important.

I like Dusty as a person and appreciate his effort. I just think it is best if the Reds go in a different direction.

Hoosier Red
10-11-2012, 06:37 PM
No question he should be back. Decisions have worked out more often than not. I don't think any manager all of a sudden forgets how to manage in the post season. Nor do I think there's a different skill needed to manage in the post season.

WMR
10-11-2012, 06:38 PM
I'm not trying to be negative here. It's a fair question to ask after the Reds go up 2-0 on the road and lose the last 3. I don't think it's all his fault by any means, but I also think he made some certainly questionable decisions, some of which were poor IMO.

At any rate...Yay? Nay? Maybe?

No "HELL NO!!!!!!!!!" option? I am disappoint.

OnBaseMachine
10-11-2012, 06:41 PM
One more thing....Sparky Anderson didn't win the World Series in 1970 and 1972 and Bob Howsam didn't fire him. And look how that turn out.

Pretty bad comparison. That team made the World Series. The Reds just lost three consecutive NLDS games at home.

Kc61
10-11-2012, 06:42 PM
Dusty may retire, after his recent health scare, I would. He doesn't need this anymore, it's an aggravating job.

This team won 97 games. I see no reason to fire the manager, unless his demands are unreasonable.

If they want to do better they need to have a better balanced offense not so dependent on long balls. They need to have a bench that adds more to the offense. And they need to have more pitching depth because the luck of 2012 can't go on forever.

Dusty is a lightening rod, but at the end of the day the team scored 8 runs in three home games with Cueto on the DL.

757690
10-11-2012, 06:43 PM
Should Sparky have been fired after 1970 or 1972 or 1973?

Playoffs are a crap shoot. Baker handled a worst case scenario as best as anyone could. Plus the fact that they were one swing of the bat from winning the series in the final game after being down 6-0 says volumes about Dusty as a manager.

corkedbat
10-11-2012, 06:47 PM
As long as he's not replaced by Bobby Valentine or TLR, I'm fine with someone new.

Brutus
10-11-2012, 06:50 PM
Your post implied that the Reds not getting into to the playoffs in 15 years was because of the managers they had. So, I would say it does matter if you're using that as a talking point.

After a 15-year drought, I don't think it's very prudent to dismiss a guy's role in getting the franchise to the playoffs twice in three years. It is hard to say how responsible Dusty is. But I know the grass isn't always greener and I'd rather not find out the hard way he was more responsible for the success than Redszone wants to admit.

The Snow Chief
10-11-2012, 06:50 PM
The guy has been to the playoffs twice in three years and Reds fans want him canned?

Surely you guys remember it was 15 years prior to the previous playoff appearance...

Come on Brutus. Do you actually think that any manager in baseball past or present could have made the Reds contenders until this ownership group came in and cleaned up the mess that was Cincinnati Reds baseball? We are no longer trotting out Jimmy Haynes or Eric Milton as front of the rotation starters. Dusty is the only manager of the Reds this century who has been given the tools to compete by the front office and GM. You know that.

If you think he is the person to lead this talented group to the promised land over the next couple seasons, fine. However, don't think we're stupid enough to fall for this argument.

Cedric
10-11-2012, 06:51 PM
Over a grinding season he's a fine manager. He's absolutely worthless in thinking outside the box or actually managing a game. I would rather he move on.

Cedric
10-11-2012, 06:52 PM
After a 15-year drought, I don't think it's very prudent to dismiss a guy's role in getting the franchise to the playoffs twice in three years. It is hard to say how responsible Dusty is. But I know the grass isn't always greener and I'd rather not find out the hard way he was more responsible for the success than Redszone wants to admit.

Talent wins over 162 games. Dusty has had many seasons where his teams have stunk and not made the playoffs. It's all about talent until you get too the playoffs. I'd prefer a manager that is creative and/or logical.

Unassisted
10-11-2012, 06:52 PM
I went with maybe. The Reds have done better with the players Walt chooses. I'd like to see if they'd be able to advance farther in the playoffs with a manager Walt chooses.

Matt700wlw
10-11-2012, 06:56 PM
I think the fact that he wasn't given an extension by now speaks volumes.

I would part ways with him, personally.

Matt700wlw
10-11-2012, 06:57 PM
The Reds have done better with the players Walt chooses. I'd like to see if they'd be able to advance farther in the playoffs with a manager Walt chooses.

Also a valid point. He isn't Walt's choice. Yes, he extended him after 2010, but honestly, how could you not?

757690
10-11-2012, 07:02 PM
Come on Brutus. Do you actually think that any manager in baseball past or present could have made the Reds contenders until this ownership group came in and cleaned up the mess that was Cincinnati Reds baseball? .

I can honestly say that none of Boone, Miley and Narron, would have lead this team to 97 wins and a division championship. None of them could have kept the team going after losing Joey Votto for pretty much the second half of the season. Sure this team had talent, but Baker clearly got the best out of it.

edabbs44
10-11-2012, 07:02 PM
Indifferent. Won't be upset if he is gone and won't be upset if he returns. I think the FO has a better sense of his worth than any of us do, that's for sure.

AtomicDumpling
10-11-2012, 07:02 PM
Dusty does a great job as a clubhouse manager or an off-the-field manager in terms of handling personalities, motivating players and the like. Dusty is smart enough to allow Bryan Price to handle the pitching staff. But when it comes down to lineup construction and in-game management he is one of the worst in the business.

Brutus
10-11-2012, 07:05 PM
Come on Brutus. Do you actually think that any manager in baseball past or present could have made the Reds contenders until this ownership group came in and cleaned up the mess that was Cincinnati Reds baseball? We are no longer trotting out Jimmy Haynes or Eric Milton as front of the rotation starters. Dusty is the only manager of the Reds this century who has been given the tools to compete by the front office and GM. You know that.

If you think he is the person to lead this talented group to the promised land over the next couple seasons, fine. However, don't think we're stupid enough to fall for this argument.

Don't think you're stupid enough to fall for the argument that this Reds team did better with Dusty than without and that its' not worth risking the alternatives to find out whether it's true? I never said the Reds made the playoffs solely on account of Dusty Baker. But I sure as heck think if someone is going to make the argument he was given talent, then they should also not be talking out of both sides of their mouths and act like it's his fault they didn't do anything in the playoffs. You can't have it both ways. Either he was not responsible for their success in the regular season or he was equally not responsible for the lack of playoff success.

That grass isn't always greener on the other side. Personally, I think the Reds are better with Dusty than without. And to whatever extent that is debatable, I don't think we should want to find out if it's true. Bobby Valentine says hello.

HokieRed
10-11-2012, 07:15 PM
I keep Dusty unless TLR is available.

Matt700wlw
10-11-2012, 07:21 PM
Fay tweeted that Jocketty will meet with the coaching staff tomorrow and expects everyone to return.

klw
10-11-2012, 07:25 PM
I think having Dusty back would be fine as long as the bench is improved. My issue with Dusty is lineup and game management but if his tools are improved then that can be reduced as an issue. Dusty lost me for a long time on June 24 which is best known as the game in which Chapman gave up the bomb to Willingham in the 9th and the Reds lost 4-3. http://espn.go.com/mlb/playbyplay?gameId=320624117 Where Dusty lost me was after bomb, Frazier walked to bottom of the 9th. Mez was due up next. He already had gone 2 for 3 with a double. Mez had been playing better of late and was the hot bat of the day. Instead, Dusty sent up Willie Harris to bunt. Harris bunted, then a couple of batters later Valdez made the last out. I was done. He does seemed beloved by the players and over a season that means alot. If we get him the full complement of players to avoid the bench that the Reds had this year then I say bring him back.

WMR
10-11-2012, 07:25 PM
Dusty does a great job as a clubhouse manager or an off-the-field manager in terms of handling personalities, motivating players and the like. Dusty is smart enough to allow Bryan Price to handle the pitching staff. But when it comes down to lineup construction and in-game management he is one of the worst in the business.

Great post. The fact that he didn't have LeCure up in the bullpen when Leake went out for his final inning was just unbelievably poor in-game management and a perfect microcosm of where Dusty fails again and again (and will continue to fail until eternity). LeCure should have been warmed up and ready to be inserted upon the first Giant hit of that inning. Just turrible.

Degenerate39
10-11-2012, 07:36 PM
Anyone think the playoffs would've been different had Cueto not gotten hurt? With Latos pitching game 3 and having the possibility of having Cueto back again for 5 if necessary.

The Snow Chief
10-11-2012, 07:37 PM
Don't think you're stupid enough to fall for the argument that this Reds team did better with Dusty than without and that its' not worth risking the alternatives to find out whether it's true? I never said the Reds made the playoffs solely on account of Dusty Baker. But I sure as heck think if someone is going to make the argument he was given talent, then they should also not be talking out of both sides of their mouths and act like it's his fault they didn't do anything in the playoffs. You can't have it both ways. Either he was not responsible for their success in the regular season or he was equally not responsible for the lack of playoff success.

That grass isn't always greener on the other side. Personally, I think the Reds are better with Dusty than without. And to whatever extent that is debatable, I don't think we should want to find out if it's true. Bobby Valentine says hello.

My point is that what happened earlier this century has no relevance to the question of whether Dusty is the person to lead this team to a World Series title. You keep bringing up the past, but this organization was run like the Pirates until this ownership group took over. Things are different now, so I don't think your reference to past Reds performance is particularly compelling.

Dusty did a fine job with the team this season. The 97 wins are impressive in any season, although it needs to be understood that we played in a division with two 100 game losers. Given the makeup of the division and starting pitching performances by the Reds this season, I don't particularly think it was working miracles to win 97.

This team has the talent to compete for a World Series over the next 2-3 years if they can re-sign Ludwick and make a couple smaller upgrades. After that, I think most of the starting pitching will likely sign elsewhere. We have too much money tied up in other players to give them big FA deals. We have a two, maybe three, year window to win it all with this group. The question is, do you want Dusty to be the person making the clutch decisions in crucial playoff games during this limited window?

I don't have the confidence in Dusty to make the correct situational decisions that come up in playoff baseball that do not come up in the regular season. Do you think Dusty would have pulled Zito in game 4 after 2 2/3 of rocky baseball before he gave up the big inning? The Giants manager did so and I think that won the series for them. I have no confidence in Dusty to do that. I think Dusty left his pitchers who were leaking oil in for one or two batters too long in game 4. I really think he was out managed in that game.

If the Reds retain Dusty and win it all with him, no one will be happier than me. I think he is a good guy and I wanted it to work out for him. I just don't think he is the person I want calling the shots in the playoffs and, if I were Walt, I would go in another direction.

edabbs44
10-11-2012, 07:40 PM
Great post. The fact that he didn't have LeCure up in the bullpen when Leake went out for his final inning was just unbelievably poor in-game management and a perfect microcosm of where Dusty fails again and again (and will continue to fail until eternity). LeCure should have been warmed up and ready to be inserted upon the first Giant hit of that inning. Just turrible.

Doesn't that contradict the post you were agreeing with, stating that Price handles the staff?

Does anyone actually know who makes what decisions in game? Or is it bad result decisions Dusty, good result decisions anyone else?

edabbs44
10-11-2012, 07:41 PM
Anyone think the playoffs would've been different had Cueto not gotten hurt? With Latos pitching game 3 and having the possibility of having Cueto back again for 5 if necessary.

Cueto and Votto not being Votto were both problems. No excuse, they should have won being up 2-0 but it would've been nice with a healthy squad.

Benihana
10-11-2012, 07:42 PM
Anyone think the playoffs would've been different had Cueto not gotten hurt? With Latos pitching game 3 and having the possibility of having Cueto back again for 5 if necessary.

No. The Reds bats never showed up. They disappeared around Labor Day and never came back. Leake's performance yesterday and Latos' meltdown today cost us dearly (and Dusty is partly to blame,) but the lack of hitting cost us the series. Too many wasted opportunities.

Benihana
10-11-2012, 07:44 PM
I'm fine either way with or without Dusty going forward. I think the Manager is one of the most overrated positions in sports.

OldXOhio
10-11-2012, 07:44 PM
I like Dusty Baker as a human being, and a regular season manager. He's great at keeping people together over the long grind.

It's just that his tactical mistakes are far too frequent for a club that seems to now be a regular playoff contender.

Nothing against Dusty, but the Reds need a next level type of a guy.

This would be my hope as well. I think Dusty has done a great job, but after this you have to question whether he is the right guy. Walt will soon let us know what he thinks.

Matt700wlw
10-11-2012, 07:45 PM
Cueto and Votto not being Votto were both problems. No excuse, they should have won being up 2-0 but it would've been nice with a healthy squad.

I'm not sure any teams has a "healthy" squad after the guantlet of 162 games...

AtomicDumpling
10-11-2012, 07:51 PM
I'm fine either way with or without Dusty going forward. I think the Manager is one of the most overrated positions in sports.

Agreed.

AtomicDumpling
10-11-2012, 07:52 PM
Dusty is also one of the highest paid managers in the game. I don't have a problem with that necessarily, but if the extra money he makes compared to a good replacement manager is the difference between being able to sign a quality free agent to upgrade the team then it could be a factor to consider.

edabbs44
10-11-2012, 07:55 PM
I'm not sure any teams has a "healthy" squad after the guantlet of 162 games...

Remove Cain and turn Posey into a slap hitter and the result may have been different.

westofyou
10-11-2012, 07:55 PM
Even if Dusty goes (and I sense the Reds might lean on his health issues to push him that way) next season there will a new manager that will be deemed just as clueless and useless in numerous threads

The Snow Chief
10-11-2012, 08:01 PM
Here is what Craig Calcaterra has to say about Dusty's in-game performance.

Respectfully, I think some Reds fans are so scarred by the crappy way that the Reds organization was run for so many years that they are afraid that getting rid of Dusty will be a return to that era. Guys, Dusty can't manage a team without talent either. He won 66 games his last year in Chicago and that is what he would have done if he managed our bad rosters earlier this century. This team has talent and, while Dusty deserves some credit, I think talent is the primary reason they won the division. Their starting pitching and bullpen was much better than anyone else in the division.

Dusty's in game management is just not strong enough to be the guy who I want to lead us over these next two or three crucial seasons.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/10/11/the-reds-are-dead-and-dusty-bakers-fingerprints-are-all-over-the-murder-weapon/

Redlegs
10-11-2012, 08:06 PM
I'm fine with bringing him back. He did a great job this season.

dsmith421
10-11-2012, 08:12 PM
No. He's Marvin Lewis. Took us from pathetic to respectable, too limited to take us any further.

AmarilloRed
10-11-2012, 08:18 PM
Torn on this one. I don't know if we win the last 2 division titles if he's not the manager, but I'm not sure he takes us to the World Series as manager either.I vote maybe.

George Anderson
10-11-2012, 09:01 PM
Dusty does a great job as a clubhouse manager or an off-the-field manager in terms of handling personalities, motivating players and the like. Dusty is smart enough to allow Bryan Price to handle the pitching staff. But when it comes down to lineup construction and in-game management he is one of the worst in the business.

I agree.

I voted no but my question who do they replace him with?

I generally dont criticize managers decisions but leaving Latos in to pitch to Posey in a must win game when you have the best bullpen in baseball is beyond ignorant.

corkedbat
10-11-2012, 09:03 PM
Torn on this one. I don't know if we win the last 2 division titles if he's not the manager, but I'm not sure he takes us to the World Series as manager either.I vote maybe.

My top choice to manage the Reds, is still in the playoffs managing the Nats and is not going anywhere (wanted Davey instead of Dusty). Francona, my next choice was snatched up by the Tribe.

I've got a feeling that if Dusty does continue to manage, it will be in Chavez Ravine. My biggest fear is he will be replaced by Bobby Valentine TLR is next scariest, but not nearly as bad - wouldn't put it past Walt to lure him out of retirement though.

Reds Fanatic
10-11-2012, 09:05 PM
According to Bob Nightengale the baseball writer for USA Today Walt wants Dusty back and will meet with him in the morning:


Bob Nightengale‏@BNightengale

Walt Jocketty said he wants to bring #Reds manager Dusty Baker back, and will sit down with him in morning . #Reds

steig
10-11-2012, 09:13 PM
I want no part of Dusty returning to this team next year.

edabbs44
10-11-2012, 09:14 PM
No. He's Marvin Lewis. Took us from pathetic to respectable, too limited to take us any further.

2nd best record in baseball is respectable?

dsmith421
10-11-2012, 09:15 PM
2nd best record in baseball is respectable?

Two out of three division titles is very respectable.

2-6 in the playoffs less so.

Ghosts of 1990
10-11-2012, 09:15 PM
I'll have him back in a heartbeat.

Caveat Emperor
10-11-2012, 09:15 PM
2nd best record in baseball is respectable?

Meaningless if there isn't a pennant to fly the next season.

Captain Hook
10-11-2012, 09:17 PM
I want to fire the whole team right now but I know that's not a good idea. I'll answer the question posed some other time.

757690
10-11-2012, 09:18 PM
Here is what Craig Calcaterra has to say about Dusty's in-game performance.

Respectfully, I think some Reds fans are so scarred by the crappy way that the Reds organization was run for so many years that they are afraid that getting rid of Dusty will be a return to that era. Guys, Dusty can't manage a team without talent either. He won 66 games his last year in Chicago and that is what he would have done if he managed our bad rosters earlier this century. This team has talent and, while Dusty deserves some credit, I think talent is the primary reason they won the division. Their starting pitching and bullpen was much better than anyone else in the division.

Dusty's in game management is just not strong enough to be the guy who I want to lead us over these next two or three crucial seasons.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/10/11/the-reds-are-dead-and-dusty-bakers-fingerprints-are-all-over-the-murder-weapon/

Absurdly bad article for a guy who is getting paid to write it.

Baker made hundreds of decisions this series and this guy focuses on three of them. Anyone can do that for any series. Baker handled an extremely difficult situation of losing his ace for the series perfectly, and was an at bat away fom winning the series.

Crumbley
10-11-2012, 09:21 PM
Meaningless if there isn't a pennant to fly the next season.
This is a really sad outlook. We had six awesome months. The Reds gave me so much happiness this season. It was a bummer of an ending, but that doesn't make April-October disappear.

cincrazy
10-11-2012, 09:22 PM
I don't think Dusty managed a poor series. I rip him when necessary. His hands were tied this series. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. He's not perfect. But he's better than most. I'm frustrated. I'm devastated. I'm heartbroken. But I have no problem with Dusty returning.

Wonderful Monds
10-11-2012, 09:23 PM
I want to fire the whole team right now but I know that's not a good idea. I'll answer the question posed some other time.

Agreed, and when I say fired, I mean from a cannon, into the sun.

fearofpopvol1
10-11-2012, 09:43 PM
I've mentioned this a couple of other times, but my biggest issue with Baker, and it proved to be a huge one in the series, is his refusal to remove pitchers when they should be removed. He doesn't act with any urgency, even with the situation dictates so. I can forgive that somewhat in a long regular season, where you have to have your pen fresh, but it is inexcusable in the playoffs in (near) do or die situations. When Zito struggled in the 1st game, Bochy had the pen warming. Anytime is starters struggled, Bochy was not afraid in the least to pull them and go to the pen when he needed to. Dusty on the other hand refused.

corkedbat
10-11-2012, 10:37 PM
Love Dusty, but not his in-game style. I'd rather have someone with Dusty's clubhouse demeanor, but much more fundamentally sound.

corkedbat
10-11-2012, 10:42 PM
I keep Dusty unless TLR is available.

I'd say that TLR is available. I'd probably love his on-field results, but I'd have to hold my nose to root for him and even then, I'd feel like I needed a shower after every game. I would save time in my day though by not having to watch or listen to the Manager's shows.

Tony Cloninger
10-11-2012, 10:49 PM
And they choked the 1973 playoffs against the NY Mets and the division away in '74.

The 1974 Dodgers were a great team as well. 102 wins. Great Speed and power...with great starters, even when they lost Tommy John in the middle of 1974...with a CY YOung season going on. They were never in the race really. They never got closer than 3 games after April or May of that year.

1973...oh yeah. THAT was bad. Everyone stopped hitting except Rose and Andy Kosco. Grimsley was terrible.

dougdirt
10-11-2012, 10:57 PM
No. He is a bad manager. He may be a great psychologist, but he sucks as a manager.

Tony Cloninger
10-11-2012, 10:57 PM
I don't think Dusty managed a poor series. I rip him when necessary. His hands were tied this series. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. He's not perfect. But he's better than most. I'm frustrated. I'm devastated. I'm heartbroken. But I have no problem with Dusty returning.

I can agree that he was obviously hurt by Cueto being out..... but the whole team was hurt by his and Walt's refusal to upgrade the bench and replace Cairo and try to replace Valdez. One or the other could have helped the offense more.

757690
10-11-2012, 11:05 PM
No. He is a bad manager. He may be a great psychologist, but he sucks as a manager.

A manager is basically a therapist in a baseball inform. That's most of a manager's job. Most of the in game stuff is made by his coaches, really doesn't have much of an effect on wins and loses.

15fan
10-11-2012, 11:05 PM
The only reason to not bring back Dusty is if you have someone better lined up.

757690
10-11-2012, 11:08 PM
I've mentioned this a couple of other times, but my biggest issue with Baker, and it proved to be a huge one in the series, is his refusal to remove pitchers when they should be removed. He doesn't act with any urgency, even with the situation dictates so. I can forgive that somewhat in a long regular season, where you have to have your pen fresh, but it is inexcusable in the playoffs in (near) do or die situations. When Zito struggled in the 1st game, Bochy had the pen warming. Anytime is starters struggled, Bochy was not afraid in the least to pull them and go to the pen when he needed to. Dusty on the other hand refused.

Was Dusty's problem in 2002 as well. Definitely his biggest weakness.

Why did Dusty Baker sell his loan mower?

Because he couldn't pull the starter ;)

dougdirt
10-11-2012, 11:10 PM
A manager is basically a therapist in a baseball inform. That's most of a manager's job. Most of the in game stuff is made by his coaches, really doesn't have much of an effect on wins and loses.

If that were the case, why are more managers former players who didn't go to college?

A guy probably needs to be good at both sides of things, but Dusty is terrible at the actual BASEBALL part. Always has been.

757690
10-11-2012, 11:14 PM
If that were the case, why are more managers former players who didn't go to college?

A guy probably needs to be good at both sides of things, but Dusty is terrible at the actual BASEBALL part. Always has been.

I know plenty of great therapists who didn't go to college. It's about people skills.

And how even if he is terrible at the baseball part, how come he has won so many games? Either he's not, or it just isn't that important.

dougdirt
10-11-2012, 11:19 PM
I know plenty of great therapists who didn't go to college. It's about people skills.

And how even if he is terrible at the baseball part, how come he has won so many games? Either he's not, or it just isn't that important.

It isn't THAT important on the large scale of 162 games. I have said for a long time that the difference in a season, sans a manager doing something to get a player hurt, is probably just +/-5 wins. But I also want the guy making the right decisions to make that a +5 instead of a -5. I don't see that with Dusty. Never have.

corkedbat
10-11-2012, 11:21 PM
A manager is basically a therapist in a baseball inform. That's most of a manager's job. Most of the in game stuff is made by his coaches, really doesn't have much of an effect on wins and loses.

Hopefully a manager does not have an affect on that many games. Bad in-game decisions made by a bad strategist might only cost four or five more games a year then the decisions made by a good strategist. In a close Divison race though, four or five games can be a lot.

reds44
10-12-2012, 12:09 AM
It wasn't all his fault. He had a hand in it, but so did everybody.

Superdude
10-12-2012, 01:03 AM
A guy probably needs to be good at both sides of things, but Dusty is terrible at the actual BASEBALL part. Always has been.

Terrible? Maybe I'm not paying enough attention to managerial decisions, but from what I've seen, Dusty basically runs the same station-to-station SABR friendly offense we all talk about. I don't know what radically different lineup construction would've produced more runs, but I always felt like he did the best with the pieces he had. Unless I missed a whole slew of horrible decisions this year, the over the top criticism just seems like a bad confirmation bias to me.

MWM
10-12-2012, 01:12 AM
I like Dusty Baker as a human being, and a regular season manager. He's great at keeping people together over the long grind.

It's just that his tactical mistakes are far too frequent for a club that seems to now be a regular playoff contender.

Nothing against Dusty, but the Reds need a next level type of a guy.

Exactly what I was going to say. He was good for this team throughout the season. He got the most out of them day in day out for 162 games. But this team doesn't need that anymore. They've got the horses to win high 90s games for the next few years and they're more experienced now and have the right guys in the cubhouse to keep them playing well for the season.

This team has now evolved and has "graduated" to where they need a cerebral guy who can come in and be smart. Dusty has his good qualities, but I've yet to see anyone claim he's anything other than a pretty poor tactical manager. He's not THE reason the Reds lost this series, but he really made some big blunders that very few managers would have made. Bochy managed circles around him and it did have an impact on the games.

They need someone new, someone a little smarter strategically.

WVPacman
10-12-2012, 01:14 AM
The question is are the reds Front office capable of hiring a manger that can keep the reds in the playoffs and go farther in the playoffs if Dusty does'nt come back.

corkedbat
10-12-2012, 01:23 AM
The thing that irritates me most about Dusty is lineup construction. I really do be lieve there is a difference between batting guys with a high OBP at the top of the order over guys that have not just low, but hideously low OBPs at the top of the order and that is magnified greatly over the course of a season. You can talk all you want about, "Well the Reds won 97 games and scored enough runs over the course of the season, but there were times when this team really struggled to score runs. I don't believe you can score too many runs and I don't believe in rewarding poor plate skills with extra AB's

I hope Jocketty shows his concern with this team's OBP issues with his moves this ofseason. I'd love to see what this team could do with a .350+ guy and Brandon hitting in front of Joey. I do not in any way, shape or form want to see Stubbs, Cozart or Valdez anywhere near the top of the order.

corkedbat
10-12-2012, 01:26 AM
The question is are the reds Front office capable of hiring a manger that can keep the reds in the playoffs and go farther in the playoffs if Dusty does'nt come back.

I'm thinking Dusty's back, but the more I think about it, the more I think Walt would turn to TLR. Just like with players, I believe he's most comfortable with those he's dealt with in the past.

WVPacman
10-12-2012, 01:29 AM
I'm thinking Dusty's back, but the more I think about it, the more I think Walt would turn to TLR. Just like with players, I believe he's most comfortable with those he's dealt with in the past.

I could be wrong but I don't see TLR coming back as a reds manager BUT you have to give the man major props b/c he is a winner no ifs and ands about it.Just imagine what Dusty would think lol.

redsfaninbsg
10-12-2012, 01:52 AM
I think Dusty is crazy a lot but, I would be somewhat upset if he wasn't back. One team won more games than the Reds this season. Every game in the Divisional Series is going five games, folks luck is a big part of the playoffs. Dusty needs to be back and people need to leave him alone. (Wow, I can't believe I typed that).

Tom Servo
10-12-2012, 02:00 AM
Exactly what I was going to say. He was good for this team throughout the season. He got the most out of them day in day out for 162 games. But this team doesn't need that anymore. They've got the horses to win high 90s games for the next few years and they're more experienced now and have the right guys in the cubhouse to keep them playing well for the season.

This team has now evolved and has "graduated" to where they need a cerebral guy who can come in and be smart. Dusty has his good qualities, but I've yet to see anyone claim he's anything other than a pretty poor tactical manager. He's not THE reason the Reds lost this series, but he really made some big blunders that very few managers would have made. Bochy managed circles around him and it did have an impact on the games.

They need someone new, someone a little smarter strategically.
If we still had rep points, you would be the beneficiary of several for this post. Spot on.

757690
10-12-2012, 05:08 AM
Exactly what I was going to say. He was good for this team throughout the season. He got the most out of them day in day out for 162 games. But this team doesn't need that anymore. They've got the horses to win high 90s games for the next few years and they're more experienced now and have the right guys in the cubhouse to keep them playing well for the season.

This team has now evolved and has "graduated" to where they need a cerebral guy who can come in and be smart. Dusty has his good qualities, but I've yet to see anyone claim he's anything other than a pretty poor tactical manager. He's not THE reason the Reds lost this series, but he really made some big blunders that very few managers would have made. Bochy managed circles around him and it did have an impact on the games.

They need someone new, someone a little smarter strategically.

For everybody"blunder" you can find, I can one for every manager in the playoffs this season, plus I can find a dozen moves that a Susty made that helped the team.

Also, this was the exact same logic that was used to fire Sparky. Someone was new needed to take them to the next level.

Winning managers do get fired from time to time, but I can't remember one that the team didn't regret.

Tom Servo
10-12-2012, 05:10 AM
For everybody"blunder" you can find, I can one for every manager in the playoffs this season, plus I can find a dozen moves that a Susty made that helped the team.

Also, this was the exact same logic that was used to fire Sparky. Someone was new needed to take them to the next level.

Winning managers do get fired from time to time, but I can't remember one that the team didn't regret.
I don't think the Giants regret letting Dusty walk.

camisadelgolf
10-12-2012, 05:24 AM
http://cincinnati.craigslist.org/bus/3332020618.html

757690
10-12-2012, 05:32 AM
I don't think the Giants regret letting Dusty walk.

They did well the first two years, then four straight losing seasons. It took stealing Bochy away from the Padres to right the ship.

GAC
10-12-2012, 08:56 AM
I have no problem at all with Baker coming back. I'm not saying I didn't raise my eyebrows at some of his decisions during the last three games, but I don't think anyone can definitively show that if he had/hadn't done this or that it would have led us to win.

Oh sure, fans are going to throw out various situations, but it's still all pretty subjective.

Game 3 was the turning point IMO. Bailey pitched one heck of a game for 7+ innings before the bullpen took over, and both teams were scoreless as we went into the 10th. SF pushed across the lone winning run because of two very critical errors in the field by Hanigan and Rolen. It wasn't Baker's fault they lost that game.

People questioned the decision to start Leake in game 4 over Latos or even LeCure. Did they take into consideration that Latos would have not only been pitching on 3 days rest, but was also not at 100% because of allergies (congestion)? I heard some say they'd still take a less-then-100% Latos over Leake. Really? And if he was instrumental in them losing that game via his pitching, people would have been screaming, after the fact too, that it was stupid of Baker to do that knowing he wasn't 100%. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

LeCure? The guy has been on this team for 3 years. He had his chance to earn a spot as a starter in this rotation prior, and simply failed. He's proven his worth as a solid middle/long relief guy and that is it. And yet you're going to take the chance and hand him the ball in a critical game #4? We went into the 5th inning of that game tied 2-2. Leake starts off the 5th giving up back-to-back doubles, and Baker immediately goes out and talks to Leake... which is what a manager does. The next batter lays down a sac bunt to advance runners. and Baker pulls Leake for LeCure. LeCure gives up a long fly to CF that sacrifices the 2nd run across. What put the nail in the coffin was Arredondo in the 7th. You want to question that decision then fine, but the bottomline is he didn't get the job done.

And game #5, if there has to be a culprit(s), then put it on Latos who let his emotions once again get the best of him, lost his focus, and grooved one. He put us in a very deep hole.

But the bottom line is simply this, as I go back and look at these last three games, and especially yesterday's game..... this team fell back into the same rut that they have struggled with all year - hitting (clutch) with RISP. They were in the bottom tier all year during the regular season in this, and it came back to bite them in the butt. They had Zito on the ropes in the first inning, yet scored only 1 run thank to Phillips getting thrown out trying to advance to 3B. How many innings can we sight examples like this in those last three games? They had multiple opportunities (chances), especially in the last 4 innings of yesterday's game, and the players simply could not come through. They could not capitalize when they needed to.

If some want to place the blame on Baker then go ahead. But the vast majority of the finger pointing needs to go on these players and their lack of execution in critical situations.

That's why they lost. That's where the blame needs to go IMO.

sivman17
10-12-2012, 09:25 AM
Not sure if anyone has posted this yet but was wondering if anyone else had seen this.

G Scott Kyser Jr posted these on Twitter last night.

It's early, but according to my sources within the #Reds organization, Dusty Baker will not be back as #Reds manager. His deal has expired

Apparently Walt Jocketty had decided he was going to bring in how own guy if Baker failed to get the #Reds past the NLDS. And here we are

Not sure what to make of this guy. I had never heard of him but he covers sports for WCPO. I'm not sure who his 'sources' are.

bucksfan2
10-12-2012, 10:05 AM
I don't bring him back.

I like Dusty, thought he did a great job with the Reds. He never changed his managing style during the season, wen Votto went down he didn't panic. When Madson down in ST he didn't panic. When Marshall was ineffective early he switched the Chapman and created one of the best pens in the league. Over the course of a 162 game season I think Dusty gives you a great shot at winning a lot of games.

That said Dusty was poor in the playoffs. He managed games like it was game 145 instead of game 3. Boche managed circles around Dusty. He wasn't afraid to yank a starter early. He wasn't afraid to use all the players on his bench early. Dusty never managed with a sense of urgency and it cost the Reds.

The Reds are built to win the WS. They spent money and traded prospects to advance in the playoffs. You can't have a manager who is out-managed when you are trying to win the WS. That is the reason I don't bring Dusty back. Thank him for his time but get someone who when push comes to shove isn't afraid to pull out all the stops.

Bumstead
10-12-2012, 10:34 AM
Bring him back? Absolutely not. And let's be clear, he won't be fired, he has no contract. I say we let Boston have them after their grievous error and see how that works for them! :laugh:

You can't have a manager that lessens your chances of winning in the playoffs and that's what Dusty did in games 4 & 5 of the playoffs. Dusty has only ever outsmarted himself; it gets old watching him continue to try and outsmart the other team when it's just not going to happen.

Bum

Kc61
10-12-2012, 10:52 AM
Prediction: This will play out like Joe Torre with the Yankees. The Reds will make Baker an offer they expect him to decline. He will say it's not enough, perhaps only one year, and he will depart.

My guess is Dusty has won too much here to be "let go" but the Reds will not show the kind of enthusiasm to cause him to stay.

I expect a new a manager next season. I like Dusty, but it's not a tragedy one way or the other.

MWM
10-12-2012, 11:03 AM
Also, this was the exact same logic that was used to fire Sparky. Someone was new needed to take them to the next level.

Not sure what I'm missing but Sparky actually got them to 2 World Series' and won 2 of them, so I really don't see a direct correlation. Bristol actually had some success coming close a couple of times, so you could argue bringing in Sparky over Bristol was recognizing the team had grown up and needed a new kind of manager.

It's not meant to be a knock on Dusty. They guy has done a really good job for the most part. But I think it's hard to argue that certain managers are better suited for some teams and not others. There are different "types" of managers and different types of teams and I think it's more a matter of finding the right match.

I do believe Dusty was the perfect kind of manager for the 2010 team. He was also a god fit for this team, at least through the first 5 months of the season. At some point they got to the point where they knew they were good and knew how to come to play every single day. They learned all they needed to and became a team that could manage themselves when it came to that part of the game. Phillips has matured almost to a Larkin kind of clubhouse leader. Votto has the respect of everyone and the young players are guys like Bruce and Frazier and Cozart. They are all very teachable and look up to the veterans. They don't have the ego problem guys that managers like Dusty are so good at managing.

Ultimately, I think Walt has put together a team that no longer needs a Dusty Baker. Dusty himself deserves a lot of credit for this team developing into a team that knows how to go take care of their business. They are an elite team for the next few years because of that, IMO.

I think the analogy is of a teacher who has done all he can do. "I have nothing left to teach you" is the cliche that comes to mind. This is not the same team is was 6 months ago. They are legit WS contenders and they know it now. I'm not sure it's a "better" manager they need, it's just a different "type". Dusty is who he is. He's been around a long time and had a lot of success. But he has his blind spots like all managers or head coaches do. His just happen to be the ones this team really needs to have on their bench.

I don't think that's an insult to Dusty, it's a rational analysis of how this team has evolved. This team has at least a 3 year window where they should win 94+ games every year barring multiple major injuries and a couple of small, prudent moves by Walt. It would take a bold move to make a manager change after winning 97 games and I highly doubt it happens. But it could be the thing that makes a difference next October. This team can win a WS with Dusty. But his game management in the playoffs reduces their probability, IMO. Bochy in this series is a good example. There's no way to know if the result would have been different, but Bochy made smart tactical moves all series. With a healthy Cueto or Votto is probably isn't enough, but when it's a very close series where just a few things going one way instead of the other decides the outcome, poor tactics can become the deciding factor. We may have seen it in this series.

WMR
10-12-2012, 11:09 AM
Bochy made Dusty look like an amateur, and it's not like Bochy is some baseball savant.

Larkin Fan
10-12-2012, 11:20 AM
Was it Dusty that left 28 runners on base over the 3 games in Cincinnati? Oh wait... that was the offense.

Bumstead
10-12-2012, 11:32 AM
Was it Dusty that left 28 runners on base over the 3 games in Cincinnati? Oh wait... that was the offense.

No, it was just Dusty that left starting pitchers in until they got creamed and virtually took the Reds out of close ballgames and placed them in blowouts, which I imagine changed the mindset of our batters a bit...so, yeah, good call; but, as Paul Harvey would say: here's the "rest of the story."

Bum

CySeymour
10-12-2012, 11:32 AM
Unfortunately, if Phillips doesn't make that stupid baserunning blunder in game 3, this all is mute at this point :(

lollipopcurve
10-12-2012, 11:38 AM
Unfortunately, if Phillips doesn't make that stupid baserunning blunder in game 3, this all is mute at this point

Ridiculous. If Phillips doesn't single in that at bat.... If Phillips doesn't steal second after that at bat....

Again, ridiculous.

CySeymour
10-12-2012, 11:50 AM
Ridiculous. If Phillips doesn't single in that at bat.... If Phillips doesn't steal second after that at bat....

Again, ridiculous.

Why is that ridiculous? He made a fundamental mistake. True, he isn't the only one to blame, but that is a fair play to point out.

OldXOhio
10-12-2012, 12:09 PM
Why is that ridiculous? He made a fundamental mistake. True, he isn't the only one to blame, but that is a fair play to point out.

You don't know that.....mere speculation as to what would have occurred. What we do know is BP was stellar during the series and to pin any blame on him is ridiculous as mentioned.

Larkin Fan
10-12-2012, 12:24 PM
No, it was just Dusty that left starting pitchers in until they got creamed and virtually took the Reds out of close ballgames and placed them in blowouts, which I imagine changed the mindset of our batters a bit...so, yeah, good call; but, as Paul Harvey would say: here's the "rest of the story."

Bum

Yes, I absolutely agree that he left Homer Bailey in the game too long in Game 3. The players were obviously intimidated by that blowout.

The Reds lost this series because of something that plagued us much of the year. The inability to hit in key situations. If you want to blame Dusty, that's fine. But there's a number of players on the roster that are equally, if not more, culpable.

Reds/Flyers Fan
10-12-2012, 12:31 PM
I think Brook Jacoby is the bigger issue. Unfortunately, if Dusty returns so does Jacoby likely. Dusty is just too fiercely loyal.

Slyder
10-12-2012, 12:40 PM
If Dusty wants to stay involved give him a created a special advisor to the CEO and let him work from "home" or the park and bring in someone else to manage the on the field stuff. I don't want to see Dusty on the field managing again after the debacle.

CySeymour
10-12-2012, 12:50 PM
You don't know that.....mere speculation as to what would have occurred. What we do know is BP was stellar during the series and to pin any blame on him is ridiculous as mentioned.

I worded it poorly, I admit. And yes, it was a team loss.

klw
10-12-2012, 12:52 PM
In the comments to this article, a poster writes that Dusty managed teams are 1-12 in potential elimination games. Does anyone know if that is an accurate stat?


BearcatRevolution
1-12 in elimination games. Dusty can get ya to the post season but never through the post season.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/29973/once-again-dusty-and-the-reds-fall-short\


Unfortunately, that seems to be Dusty’s karma in the postseason. Back in the 2002 World Series, the Giants led 5-0 in the seventh inning in Game 6, only to lose. In 2003, the Cubs were up 3 games to 1 in the NLCS. They lost the Bartman game, and then Baker left in Kerry Wood to give up seven runs in Game 7. And now his Reds became the first National League team to blow a 2-0 series lead in the Division Series.

OesterPoster
10-12-2012, 12:55 PM
I thought it was 2-10 prior to yesterday's game.

Kc61
10-12-2012, 01:02 PM
I think Brook Jacoby is the bigger issue. Unfortunately, if Dusty returns so does Jacoby likely. Dusty is just too fiercely loyal.

Jacoby may not be the right hitting coach, I couldn't tell you.

But let's not avoid the real issue.

The Reds are a below average hitting team in the OBP and BA departments and are particularly weak in these areas against right handed pitching. It was like that all year, and the second half of 2011.

If you like to watch home runs and long doubles, the Reds are your team.

Consistent hitting against all types of pitching? Maybe you want to look somewhere else.

To me, it's the personnel. Walt's job this off-season is to fix it. Whoever the manager is.

Bumstead
10-12-2012, 01:06 PM
Yes, I absolutely agree that he left Homer Bailey in the game too long in Game 3. The players were obviously intimidated by that blowout.

The Reds lost this series because of something that plagued us much of the year. The inability to hit in key situations. If you want to blame Dusty, that's fine. But there's a number of players on the roster that are equally, if not more, culpable.

another side step! Nice! We disagree, that's fine with me. This is too good a team to have a guy running it that can't make reasonable strategic decisions.

Carry-on.

Bum

Marc D
10-12-2012, 01:06 PM
I don't post much anymore but my .02 is that teams take on the personality of the leader and Baker led teams have a track record of playoff choking.

The nucleus is there for this team, the window is open for the next few years. They need a manager with a proven playoff track record (of success).

dfs
10-12-2012, 01:14 PM
We went into the 5th inning of that game tied 2-2. Leake starts off the 5th giving up back-to-back doubles, and Baker immediately goes out and talks to Leake... which is what a manager does. The next batter lays down a sac bunt to advance runners. and Baker pulls Leake for LeCure. LeCure gives up a long fly to CF that sacrifices the 2nd run across.
In the game I was watching and in the play by play on the website, the reds went into the 5th inning down 3-2.
While Dusty is talking to the national tv guys about how well Leake is throwing, Leake gives up two doubles on three pitches scoring another run and leaving a man at second.

You've got an 11 man pitching staff but nobody is even warming in the 5th inning where your starter isn't dominant in a must win game?

And then to do the same thing the next day with Latos?

I'm all for dancing with the guys that brought you there and everything and lord know I have the Tony LaRussa managed every game like it was the 7th game of a world series, but you've got that weapon of a bullpen don't you use it for more than 3 run leads?


If some want to place the blame on Baker then go ahead. But the vast majority of the finger pointing needs to go on these players and their lack of execution in critical situations.

I've been a Baker supporter all this time, but I feel very, very let down by those last two games.

Tom Servo
10-12-2012, 01:16 PM
Yes, I absolutely agree that he left Homer Bailey in the game too long in Game 3. The players were obviously intimidated by that blowout.

It's pretty easy to leave in a pitcher who is dominating. But when the pitcher doesn't have it, you 100% need to pull him 'too soon' rather than 'too late'. With Dusty, it is always too late.

Tony Cloninger
10-12-2012, 01:21 PM
I think Brook Jacoby is the bigger issue. Unfortunately, if Dusty returns so does Jacoby likely. Dusty is just too fiercely loyal.

Then make it easier and tell him that Jacoby has to go....then Baker can just say he walked away beacuse 2 years is not long enough and he did not want to lose Jacoby.

Tony Cloninger
10-12-2012, 01:22 PM
Yes, I absolutely agree that he left Homer Bailey in the game too long in Game 3. The players were obviously intimidated by that blowout.

The Reds lost this series because of something that plagued us much of the year. The inability to hit in key situations. If you want to blame Dusty, that's fine. But there's a number of players on the roster that are equally, if not more, culpable.

The irony here is that Bailey could have gone another inning, maybe 2. It is really weird how he does that isn't it?

Gallen5862
10-12-2012, 01:41 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

Reds To Offer Baker Contract
By Ben Nicholson-Smith [October 12 at 11:21am CST]
The Reds want manager Dusty Baker back for the 2013 season. General manager Walt Jocketty planned to meet with Baker and offer him a short-term contract this morning, Bob Nightengale of USA Today reports (on Twitter).

The Reds were eliminated from the playoffs yesterday, ending a season that saw the team win 97 games and the NL Central title. Baker, who has managed the Reds since 2008, recently missed some time after suffering a mini-stroke. However, he recently said he's "not through managing," an indication that he expects to return for at least one more season.

The Reds have won the NL Central twice since Baker was hired, and their overall winning percentage for the five year period is .517. The 63-year-old earned $3.5MM per season on his first contract with Cincinnati.

edabbs44
10-12-2012, 02:32 PM
It's pretty easy to leave in a pitcher who is dominating. But when the pitcher doesn't have it, you 100% need to pull him 'too soon' rather than 'too late'. With Dusty, it is always too late.

If the pen gets shelled, it then becomes "too soon". When you say that someone should have done something differently, you can never be proven wrong.

Tom Servo
10-12-2012, 02:38 PM
If the pen gets shelled, it then becomes "too soon". When you say that someone should have done something differently, you can never be proven wrong.
Even if their pen got shelled in Game 4, Bochy wouldn't have been wrong to have pulled Zito when he did.

edabbs44
10-12-2012, 02:41 PM
Even if their pen got shelled in Game 4, Bochy wouldn't have been wrong to have pulled Zito when he did.

Bochy allowed Zito to allow 8 base runners in 2 2/3 innings. I'm not sure that Dusty was presented with as easy a test as that.

REDREAD
10-12-2012, 02:52 PM
The guy has been to the playoffs twice in three years and Reds fans want him canned?

Surely you guys remember it was 15 years prior to the previous playoff appearance...

Lol, I agree.
I assumed the poll would lean towards "No", but I had no idea it would be this lopsided.

It's not Dusty's fault that the knee injury sapped Votto's power and that Cueto couldn't pitch in the playoffs.. It's not his fault that the pitching evaporated in the last 3 games (Latos losing his cool, etc)

Honestly, Dusty might be the best manager this team has ever had.
He gets results. Sure, he had talent this year, but on paper, this team could've easily finished 3rd in the division (as many on this board forecasted a non-contending season).

GAC
10-12-2012, 02:56 PM
That said Dusty was poor in the playoffs. He managed games like it was game 145 instead of game 3. Boche managed circles around Dusty. He wasn't afraid to yank a starter early. He wasn't afraid to use all the players on his bench early. Dusty never managed with a sense of urgency and it cost the Reds.

And this right here, as far as any criticism of Baker goes, is the key, and I do lean towards agreeing with your assessment.... not managing with a sense of urgency.

But again - the vast majority of the blame for the loses goes on those players who struggled to execute, take advantage of GOLDEN OPPORTUNITIES with RISP when they presented themselves. And the Giants gave them plenty of them too.

I just got done talking to a buddy... had to talk him down off a bridge because he was so distraught over the Reds..... but when they announced that Cueto was done, and decided to call up Leake, I immediately thought.. "Why not give the start to Chapman? You got Broxton and Marshall to close. It's one game, but a very important one. You close it out, and you have several days of rest.

But I think this gets back to Baker's mindset, which is pretty traditional-thinking, and you have defined roles for players, and you don't sway from that.

I still say that if we had Cueto we'd have won this easily.

GAC
10-12-2012, 03:05 PM
Lol, I agree.
I assumed the poll would lean towards "No", but I had no idea it would be this lopsided.

It's not Dusty's fault that the knee injury sapped Votto's power and that Cueto couldn't pitch in the playoffs.. It's not his fault that the pitching evaporated in the last 3 games (Latos losing his cool, etc)

Honestly, Dusty might be the best manager this team has ever had.
He gets results. Sure, he had talent this year, but on paper, this team could've easily finished 3rd in the division (as many on this board forecasted a non-contending season).

Exactly. And for all those that want Baker canned? Do you have a viable replacement/candidate in mind? Or are you just so mad with frustration you want someone's head to roll.

reds44
10-12-2012, 03:08 PM
Game 5 wasn't Dusty's fault. I didn't agree with starting the runners in the 6th, but there was some logic behind it. Sure, maybe he left Latos in too long, but I remember Dusty bringing LeCure into a game in San Diego earlier this year with the bases laoded and getting torched for it.

The problem was game 4. He managed it like it was a June game. He should have took Leake out the inning before he did, and most everybody was saying that. Also, putting Arredondo in a 5-3 game in the 7th inning instead of going to Marshall/Broxton/Chapman was just dumb. Then he played two bench guys (although, I didn't have a problem with that) as well. It was like he was playing for game 5. I was fine with starting Leake instead of Latos, but he really mismanaged that game.

With all that being said, it wasn't all Dusty's fault. It was a team choke job. I'd have no problem if he was gone, but I don't have a problem bringing him back either.

steig
10-12-2012, 03:21 PM
Game 5 wasn't Dusty's fault. I didn't agree with starting the runners in the 6th, but there was some logic behind it. Sure, maybe he left Latos in too long, but I remember Dusty bringing LeCure into a game in San Diego earlier this year with the bases laoded and getting torched for it.

The problem was game 4. He managed it like it was a June game. He should have took Leake out the inning before he did, and most everybody was saying that. Also, putting Arredondo in a 5-3 game in the 7th inning instead of going to Marshall/Broxton/Chapman was just dumb. Then he played two bench guys (although, I didn't have a problem with that) as well. It was like he was playing for game 5. I was fine with starting Leake instead of Latos, but he really mismanaged that game.

With all that being said, it wasn't all Dusty's fault. It was a team choke job. I'd have no problem if he was gone, but I don't have a problem bringing him back either.

The problem with Dusty in my opinion is his faults seem to all come out at some critical point in the post season. He has made critical errors with his other teams that have cost them clinching games. Sometimes a manager is just good enough to get you to the postseason, and sometimes it takes a different level of manager to get you over the bump and to finally win. That's why I'm disappointed that Francona is already signed.

AtomicDumpling
10-12-2012, 03:23 PM
Lol, I agree.
I assumed the poll would lean towards "No", but I had no idea it would be this lopsided.

It's not Dusty's fault that the knee injury sapped Votto's power and that Cueto couldn't pitch in the playoffs.. It's not his fault that the pitching evaporated in the last 3 games (Latos losing his cool, etc)

Honestly, Dusty might be the best manager this team has ever had.
He gets results. Sure, he had talent this year, but on paper, this team could've easily finished 3rd in the division (as many on this board forecasted a non-contending season).

The best manager the Reds have ever had? Dusty Baker? Wow.

Dusty does good work in the clubhouse and handling personalities and motivating players to do their best. Those are his strong suits. He also has some glaring weaknesses.

The guy's lineup construction and game management are atrocious and a laughingstock around the league.

His loyalty to terrible players like Wilson Valdez and Miguel Cairo shows the players that production doesn't matter. Better Reds players had to sit and watch while two of the league's worst players garnered hundreds of plate appearances and played sub-par defense.

The team was good because Bryan Price's pitching staff is fantastic. The team is loaded with premium talent. Pretty much any manager in baseball could run this team, most of them as good or better than Dusty Baker did.

This Reds team will be fine no matter who the manager is. They didn't lose last year because Dusty was the manager. They didn't win this year because Dusty was the manager. Dusty was here both years and managed the same way. The difference was stellar newcomers Mat Latos, Sean Marshall, Ryan Ludwick, Zack Cozart and Todd Frazier. Dusty was just along for the ride.

You can argue that Dusty is a decent manager who does some things well, but to say he is the best Reds manager ever is way over the top. I just don't get that at all.

reds44
10-12-2012, 03:59 PM
The problem with Dusty in my opinion is his faults seem to all come out at some critical point in the post season. He has made critical errors with his other teams that have cost them clinching games. Sometimes a manager is just good enough to get you to the postseason, and sometimes it takes a different level of manager to get you over the bump and to finally win. That's why I'm disappointed that Francona is already signed.
He's just an easy scape goat to make. If the Reds score more than 1 run in Game 3 we're all kicking back and relaxing until Sunday and everything is great. Same thing if the Reds get the tieing run home yesterday in the 4 straight innings they had.

It's just too easy to put it all on Baker. He PH for Stubbs with Frazier in the 8th inning which got the tieing run to the plate that inning. He handled Cueto going down in Game 1 perfectly. He had his good moments and he had his bad moments, just like every player on the team did.

It was truly a team effort.

Bumstead
10-12-2012, 04:12 PM
I agree: Dusty Baker may be, not completely convinced, the best manager the Reds have had in the last 5 years...sigh...Speier is pretty close but I'm willing to give Dusty the nod here...

AtomicDumpling
10-12-2012, 04:29 PM
He's just an easy scape goat to make. If the Reds score more than 1 run in Game 3 we're all kicking back and relaxing until Sunday and everything is great. Same thing if the Reds get the tieing run home yesterday in the 4 straight innings they had.

It's just too easy to put it all on Baker. He PH for Stubbs with Frazier in the 8th inning which got the tieing run to the plate that inning. He handled Cueto going down in Game 1 perfectly. He had his good moments and he had his bad moments, just like every player on the team did.

It was truly a team effort.

Most people are not basing their opinion of Dusty solely on this playoff series. Most people were ready to move on from Dusty long before this playoff series with the Giants. What happened in this series is merely a microcosm of Dusty's tenure in Cincinnati.

The guy has obvious weaknesses that Reds fans have seen for years. Some of them were exposed again here in the 2012 playoffs, but I don't think people are wanting him gone simply because they blame him for the Reds losing the series. It isn't Dusty's fault the Reds are out of the playoffs. Most people just feel there are better options out there.

Kc61
10-12-2012, 05:33 PM
Most people are not basing their opinion of Dusty solely on this playoff series. Most people were ready to move on from Dusty long before this playoff series with the Giants. What happened in this series is merely a microcosm of Dusty's tenure in Cincinnati.

The guy has obvious weaknesses that Reds fans have seen for years. Some of them were exposed again here in the 2012 playoffs, but I don't think people are wanting him gone simply because they blame him for the Reds losing the series. It isn't Dusty's fault the Reds are out of the playoffs. Most people just feel there are better options out there.

You just wait for the next genius they hire. There aren't that many brilliant in-game managers whose choices always, or even usually, work out.

Every team has fans who bash the manager. If the manager is patient, it's no good. If he acts very quickly, it's no good. The only team that has a good manager at year's end is the World Series champion, and its fans sometimes would disagree.

Dusty is consistent, he has a style, it's worked well over the years. I can justify virtually every move he made this series. Some turned out well, some didn't. Remember after Games 1 and 2, he was being praised to the hilt on this very site.

I have no problem with a change, I like fresh faces to run a team sometimes, maybe they take a fresh look at things. But I fear you'll wait a long time before the next guy wins 97 games.

I still say that this team's personnel mix was deficient on the offensive side. I said it in April. Ultimately, the Reds lost because they couldn't score off Ryan Volgesong, they couldn't get a big hit yesterday, and Leake and Latos, two VERY young pitchers had troubles.

I would MUCH rather see them fix the offense than change managers.

REDREAD
10-12-2012, 05:33 PM
The guy's lineup construction and game management are atrocious and a laughingstock around the league.

His loyalty to terrible players like Wilson Valdez and Miguel Cairo shows the players that production doesn't matter. Better Reds players had to sit and watch while two of the league's worst players garnered hundreds of plate appearances and played sub-par defense.
.

Maybe Dusty realizes the value of using the subs to rest his regular players?
Especially considering the injury issues this team has had to position players?
Any manager would've had to play Cairo and Valdez this year..

Dusty is well respected around the league. Maybe a few bloggers that need to boost their self-esteem think that Baker is a laughingstock, but the actual people in the game respect him. He's been around a long time. If he was a laughing stock (like Bob Boone), he wouldn't have had such a long career.

People mock his lineups, yet the Reds consistently had one of the top offenses.
At the begining of the year, LF was a black hole, yet Dusty's patience was rewarded as Ludwick siezed the job. (The same Ludwick that half the board wanted to DFA). Heisey also got a fair chance to claim the job.
Dusty gave Stubbs every chance to suceed.. That didn't work out, but it's not like it cost the Reds a playoff appearance. When the games mattered (playoffs), Stubbs was batting #8.. Was there any playoff lineup you thought was sub-optimal?

757690
10-12-2012, 05:35 PM
Not sure if anyone has posted this yet but was wondering if anyone else had seen this.

G Scott Kyser Jr posted these on Twitter last night.

It's early, but according to my sources within the #Reds organization, Dusty Baker will not be back as #Reds manager. His deal has expired

Apparently Walt Jocketty had decided he was going to bring in how own guy if Baker failed to get the #Reds past the NLDS. And here we are

Not sure what to make of this guy. I had never heard of him but he covers sports for WCPO. I'm not sure who his 'sources' are.

I don't doubt that Walt would like a different manager, but I can't believe that he would make a decision based on one series. Just not like Walk at all.

Kc61
10-12-2012, 05:36 PM
People mock his lineups, yet the Reds consistently had one of the top offenses.
At the begining of the year, LF was a black hole, yet Dusty's patience was rewarded as Ludwick siezed the job. (The same Ludwick that half the board wanted to DFA). Heisey also got a fair chance to claim the job.
Dusty gave Stubbs every chance to suceed.. That didn't work out, but it's not like it cost the Reds a playoff appearance. When the games mattered (playoffs), Stubbs was batting #8.. Was there any playoff lineup you thought was sub-optimal?

Good post, I agree on Dusty, but I strongly disagree that the Reds had one of the top offenses.

You probably can cherry pick a stat or two in favor of that point, but the team was below average in hits, OBP, BA, walks, among other things. Ninth in the NL in runs scored. And these stats are in the NL, the weaker offensive league.

To me, Dusty gets credit winning in spite of the offense, not because of it.

And it had nothing to do with his batting orders. It's the personnel.

SunDeck
10-12-2012, 05:38 PM
They had great results this year, reaching the post season, despite losing their MVP player for a month and a half. I would not want to work for a company that fires someone in management who has out performed his competition (winning the division) and who has the respect and adoration of his subordinates.

757690
10-12-2012, 05:41 PM
They had great results this year, reaching the post season, despite losing their MVP player for a month and a half. I would not want to work for a company that fires someone in management who has out performed his competition (winning the division) and who has the respect and adoration of his subordinates.

But what if the guy they fired put up each week an inefficient lunch break schedule? ;)

Kc61
10-12-2012, 05:46 PM
His loyalty to terrible players like Wilson Valdez and Miguel Cairo shows the players that production doesn't matter. Better Reds players had to sit and watch while two of the league's worst players garnered hundreds of plate appearances and played sub-par defense.

.

This is really unfair. Dusty doesn't acquire the talent. Dusty didn't sign Cairo to a two year deal. He didn't acquire Valdez to replace Janish. Those are front office moves.

With a five man bench, you have to play your subs sometimes. When Votto and Rolen were both out, he had to use Cairo. When Cozart was out, he had to use Valdez. When both CFers were out, he used Valdez.

When he rested guys at their positions, he used Cairo and Valdez. He didn't acquire them.

Superdude
10-12-2012, 06:01 PM
1) Phillips
2) Cozart
3) Votto
4) Ludwick
5) Bruce
6) Rolen
7) Hanigan
8) Stubbs

Someone give me a significantly better lineup.

And as far bullpen use in the playoffs, that just seems like total monday morning quarterbacking. Bochy's being worshipped now for his quick hook, when in reality, it could've blown up in his face just as easily. Arredondo faced five batters and gave up three runs. If Hoover wasn't warming up to start the inning, I don't know if there's a hook fast enough for how bad Arredondo pitched. And regardless of what happened against Posey, I'm still giving Latos the ball every time in that situation. Just didn't work out.

Caveat Emperor
10-12-2012, 06:09 PM
They had great results this year, reaching the post season, despite losing their MVP player for a month and a half. I would not want to work for a company that fires someone in management who has out performed his competition (winning the division) and who has the respect and adoration of his subordinates.

Think of it this way:

Would you keep around a salesman who is constantly able to drum up new potential clients, but is absolutely incapable of closing the sale?

That's Dusty Baker. When the games count the most, he gets outmanaged and his teams find creative ways to lose.

I'm sick of losing. I'm sick of looking up and seeing 1990 as the last year this organization had any relevance. I don't want to turn into another Chicago or Cleveland -- where you have fans who are born, live, and die never seeing their favorite team hoisting a trophy or raising a banner. Accepting good regular seasons and poor postseasons as positive things embraces mediocrity.

It's time to go find someone who can bring this team to better things than mediocrity while there is still a chance.

lollipopcurve
10-12-2012, 06:12 PM
I'm sick of losing. I'm sick of looking up and seeing 1990 as the last year this organization had any relevance. I don't want to turn into another Chicago or Cleveland -- where you have fans who are born, live, and die never seeing their favorite team hoisting a trophy or raising a banner. Accepting good regular seasons and poor postseasons as positive things embraces mediocrity.

It's time to go find someone who can bring this team to better things than mediocrity while there is still a chance.

Please. Winning 97 games is not mediocrity.

We are not all entitled to be king.

westofyou
10-12-2012, 06:20 PM
Please. Winning 97 games is not mediocrity.

We are not all entitled to be king.

8th most wins in team history, in 131 seasons and yet some still want the video game version of perfection.

jojo
10-12-2012, 06:25 PM
There are a lot worse things that could happen then the Reds giving Dusty a 1 year deal.

RedsManRick
10-12-2012, 06:29 PM
I don't think a team with our budget can be managed with such tactical inefficiency and expect to come on top at the end of the day.

I really do respect what Dusty brings to the table. That this team won so many games in the regular season is a testament to that to some degree. But when the rubber hits the road, you need to be able to maximize your chances to win an individual game and, like Ron Washington, Dusty just isn't up to par in that area.

edabbs44
10-12-2012, 06:34 PM
I don't think a team with our budget can be managed with such tactical inefficiency and expect to come on top at the end of the day.

I really do respect what Dusty brings to the table. That this team won so many games in the regular season is a testament to that to some degree. But when the rubber hits the road, you need to be able to maximize your chances to win an individual game and, like Ron Washington, Dusty just isn't up to par in that area.

So Ron Washington can't win an individual game, however he can take his team to the WS two years in a row? That's ridiculous.

edabbs44
10-12-2012, 06:38 PM
Think of it this way:

Would you keep around a salesman who is constantly able to drum up new potential clients, but is absolutely incapable of closing the sale?

That's Dusty Baker. When the games count the most, he gets outmanaged and his teams find creative ways to lose.

I'm sick of losing. I'm sick of looking up and seeing 1990 as the last year this organization had any relevance. I don't want to turn into another Chicago or Cleveland -- where you have fans who are born, live, and die never seeing their favorite team hoisting a trophy or raising a banner. Accepting good regular seasons and poor postseasons as positive things embraces mediocrity.

It's time to go find someone who can bring this team to better things than mediocrity while there is still a chance.

Don't you think that teams typically need to build towards the levels of success that you are looking for? The Reds are on the upswing, give it time. Everyone wants to blame the manager and its pretty lame. You want to moan about lineup construction and whatever. All I know is I saw our "big bats" up a whole lot yesterday with men on and they didn't come through. Not sure that Dusty got up in those situations.

757690
10-12-2012, 06:42 PM
I wonder if the Reds lost the first two games, then won the next two, the lost the final game, would the same number of people want Dusty fired?

KoryMac5
10-12-2012, 07:07 PM
Not a great question to ask fans a day after losing a playoff series, some folks are still on the bridge contemplating the jump. I think it depends on the price. I would not be willing to pay Baker what some of the elite coaches in the league make but I do feel he has the support of the FO and the team. Overall I think he does a pretty good job with the Reds and would like to see him back.

SunDeck
10-12-2012, 07:23 PM
Think of it this way:

Would you keep around a salesman who is constantly able to drum up new potential clients, but is absolutely incapable of closing the sale?

That's Dusty Baker. When the games count the most, he gets outmanaged and his teams find creative ways to lose.

I'm sick of losing. I'm sick of looking up and seeing 1990 as the last year this organization had any relevance. I don't want to turn into another Chicago or Cleveland -- where you have fans who are born, live, and die never seeing their favorite team hoisting a trophy or raising a banner. Accepting good regular seasons and poor postseasons as positive things embraces mediocrity.

It's time to go find someone who can bring this team to better things than mediocrity while there is still a chance.


Winning the division is mediocre?

Bobby Cox had teams in the post season 16 times, winning 1 World Series.
I have a hard time saying winning only once is his fault.


True, Baker has been in 6 post seasons, with no WS wins. However, that performance is not too far shy of the following group; which of these guys do you not want to be your manager?

Whitey Herzog: 6 Playoffs, 1 WS win
Davey Johnson: 6:1
Charlie Manuel: 6:1
Jim Leyland: 7:1
Lou Piniella: 7:1
Mike Scioscia: 6:1
Earl Weaver: 6:1
Billy Martin: 5:1

OK, I would never have wanted Billy, either, but the rest of these guys are pretty good.

westofyou
10-12-2012, 07:27 PM
Winning the division is mediocre?

Bobby Cox had teams in the post season 16 times, winning 1 World Series.
I have a hard time saying winning only once is his fault.


True, Baker has been in 6 post seasons, with no WS wins. However, that performance is not too far shy of the following group; which of these guys do you not want to be your manager?

Whitey Herzog: 6 Playoffs, 1 WS win
Davey Johnson: 6:1
Charlie Manuel: 6:1
Jim Leyland: 7:1
Lou Piniella: 7:1
Mike Scioscia: 6:1
Earl Weaver: 6:1
Billy Martin: 5:1

OK, I would never have wanted Billy, either, but the rest of these guys are pretty good.

Pennants and banners are all that matter, the rest is just an excuse to spend time in the yard on a nice summer evening.

Or so I've been told.

RedsManRick
10-12-2012, 07:30 PM
So Ron Washington can't win an individual game, however he can take his team to the WS two years in a row? That's ridiculous.

And why did the Rangers lose those series?

A GM can build a team that nearly any manager could get the playoffs. But nothing the GM does can make up for a manager making poor choices when the outcome of a single game means the season. I'm generally of the opinion that you need a manager who doesn't screw up the clubhouse or abuse your pitching staff to win in the regular season and one who can maximize every opportunity to win individual games in the playoffs.

I'm completely open to the idea that neither team would have been there in the first place without their respective manager. And I recognize that the biggest driver of success of success is the execution by the players, which is largely out of the managers' hands. But when teams lose playoff games because of tactical errors that could have easily been avoided, I can't help but wonder about the alternative.

As I've said elsewhere. I'm not advocating getty rid of Dusty for the sake of getting rid of him. But I'd give serious consideration to the alternatives with an eye towards managers who are superior tactically. The guy I really wanted was Francona (assuming we couldn't steal Davey Johnson back from Washington). I like Acta on the tactical side, but have no clue about the human side of things with him. I certainly do NOT want Bobby V or Jim Tracy.

AtomicDumpling
10-12-2012, 07:40 PM
So Ron Washington can't win an individual game, however he can take his team to the WS two years in a row? That's ridiculous.

Ron Washington is a terrible manager. Just because a team is good does not mean the manager is good. Dusty Baker is an average manager. Ron Washington is one of the absolute worst. Totally clueless. Just listen to the guy.

AtomicDumpling
10-12-2012, 07:58 PM
This is really unfair. Dusty doesn't acquire the talent. Dusty didn't sign Cairo to a two year deal. He didn't acquire Valdez to replace Janish. Those are front office moves.

With a five man bench, you have to play your subs sometimes. When Votto and Rolen were both out, he had to use Cairo. When Cozart was out, he had to use Valdez. When both CFers were out, he used Valdez.

When he rested guys at their positions, he used Cairo and Valdez. He didn't acquire them.

You think Valdez and Cairo would be on the team in 2012 if Dusty Baker didn't want them there? No way. Those guys were there because Dusty Baker wanted them there. Jocketty could easily replace those guys at any time. They were both literally in the bottom five worst players in the major leagues this season offensively and they are both poor defensive players too according to UZR. If Dusty wanted them gone they would be gone.

Why do so many people want to give Dusty a pass when it comes to deciding which players are acquired and which players make the team? Dusty and Walt work together to build the team. Walt goes and gets players that Dusty wants. I don't buy the excuse that Dusty is forced to use players he doesn't want on the team. That is not an excuse based in reality.

Putting Wilson Valdez in the lineup for 200+ plate appearances (half of them in the 2 slot) this season is just asinine. If you absolutely must put him in the lineup then put him at the bottom or else you will look like a complete fool. Valdez had the worst OPS in major league baseball in 2012 (min. 150 PAs). He has a .594 career OPS and is a below average fielder. His .463 OPS in 2012 was nearly 300 points lower than pitcher Mike Leake's .749 OPS. Even pitcher Mat Latos had a better OPS than Wilson Valdez.

Superdude
10-12-2012, 08:22 PM
You think Valdez and Cairo would be on the team in 2012 if Dusty Baker didn't want them there? No way. Those guys were there because Dusty Baker wanted them there. Jocketty could easily replace those guys at any time. They were both literally in the bottom five worst players in the major leagues this season offensively and they are both poor defensive players too according to UZR. If Dusty wanted them gone they would be gone.

Why do so many people want to give Dusty a pass when it comes to deciding which players are acquired and which players make the team? Dusty and Walt work together to build the team. Walt goes and gets players that Dusty wants. I don't buy the excuse that Dusty is forced to use players he doesn't want on the team. That is not an excuse based in reality.

Putting Wilson Valdez in the lineup for 200+ plate appearances (half of them in the 2 slot) this season is just asinine. If you absolutely must put him in the lineup then put him at the bottom or else you will look like a complete fool. Valdez had the worst OPS in major league baseball in 2012 (min. 150 PAs). He has a .594 career OPS and is a below average fielder. His .463 OPS in 2012 was nearly 300 points lower than pitcher Mike Leake's .749 OPS. Even pitcher Mat Latos had a better OPS than Wilson Valdez.

We had plenty of reason to believe both of those guys would be decent role players. Give any mediocre player 200 sporadic at bats, and sometimes it's just going to end up the way it did. H Rod was out for a lot of the year, Gregorius is still viewed as a potential starter and needed regular at bats...who else was supposed to fill those 200 plate appearances?

AtomicDumpling
10-12-2012, 08:27 PM
We had plenty of reason to believe both of those guys would be decent role players. Give any mediocre player 200 sporadic at bats, and sometimes it's just going to end up the way it did. H Rod was out for a lot of the year, Gregorius is still viewed as a potential starter and needed regular at bats...who else was supposed to fill those 200 plate appearances?

There are dozens of players throughout baseball that could have been acquired very cheaply at any time who would be upgrades for Valdez and Cairo. Replacing the worst player in the league is actually pretty easy to do. It wasn't done because Dusty wanted to stick with Valdez and Cairo. If he had wanted to replace them they would have been quickly and easily replaced just like they replaced Willie Harris with Xavier Paul.

To replace Valdez or Cairo you don't need to sell the farm. You likely won't get a star player to replace them, but a player worthy of being in the major leagues is not all that hard to get. Sometimes all it takes is cash considerations or a minor league journeyman PTBNL. The bar for upgrading the Reds bench was very low.

Larkin Fan
10-12-2012, 09:00 PM
Exactly. And for all those that want Baker canned? Do you have a viable replacement/candidate in mind? Or are you just so mad with frustration you want someone's head to roll.

I'm pretty sure it's the latter, GAC. ;)

Kc61
10-12-2012, 09:27 PM
You think Valdez and Cairo would be on the team in 2012 if Dusty Baker didn't want them there? No way. Those guys were there because Dusty Baker wanted them there. Jocketty could easily replace those guys at any time. They were both literally in the bottom five worst players in the major leagues this season offensively and they are both poor defensive players too according to UZR. If Dusty wanted them gone they would be gone.

Why do so many people want to give Dusty a pass when it comes to deciding which players are acquired and which players make the team? Dusty and Walt work together to build the team. Walt goes and gets players that Dusty wants. I don't buy the excuse that Dusty is forced to use players he doesn't want on the team. That is not an excuse based in reality.

Putting Wilson Valdez in the lineup for 200+ plate appearances (half of them in the 2 slot) this season is just asinine. If you absolutely must put him in the lineup then put him at the bottom or else you will look like a complete fool. Valdez had the worst OPS in major league baseball in 2012 (min. 150 PAs). He has a .594 career OPS and is a below average fielder. His .463 OPS in 2012 was nearly 300 points lower than pitcher Mike Leake's .749 OPS. Even pitcher Mat Latos had a better OPS than Wilson Valdez.

Yes, I believe Cairo and Valdez were Jocketty's decision. Baker may have gone along with them, but they are primarily the decision of the front office. I hardly see the wisdom of firing the field manager because the FO acquires bad bench players.

As for Valdez' 200+ plate appearances and batting slot, this all took place in the regular season in which the Reds won more games than any team in baseball, save one. Again, I'd hardly fire Dusty for bad moves in the regular season, unless our new minimum standard is 98 games won.

Frankly, and this is not directed at AD, I think RedsZone spent more time blaming Valdez for the Reds' problems this year than any other player. What a joke! It's easy to pick on the fringe bench player. He was well down the list of the team's real problems, a backup middle infielder.

I don't personally care if the Reds renew Baker or go with another good manager, I admire Dusty enormously, but sometimes a fresh look at the team is good. But this team's problems were personnel related IMO.

I just watched CC Sabathia pitch a complete game victory to clinch a playoff series. Mat Latos, a great young talent, wasn't quite ready to do that. I wouldn't fire Dusty for that. Nor would I fire him for the men left on base and the total 8 runs scored in the three final home games, including games against Vogelsong and Zito.

SunDeck
10-12-2012, 09:57 PM
I just got done talking to a buddy... had to talk him down off a bridge because he was so distraught over the Reds..... but when they announced that Cueto was done, and decided to call up Leake, I immediately thought.. "Why not give the start to Chapman? You got Broxton and Marshall to close. It's one game, but a very important one. You close it out, and you have several days of rest.



I had a wild hare about going Lecure, Arredondo, Marshall. Three innings each, max.

westofyou
10-12-2012, 11:14 PM
I had a wild hare about going Lecure, Arredondo, Marshall. Three innings each, max.

Oh jeez we're twins, that was my thought/wish too

George Foster
10-12-2012, 11:42 PM
1) Phillips
2) Cozart
3) Votto
4) Ludwick
5) Bruce
6) Rolen
7) Hanigan
8) Stubbs

Someone give me a significantly better lineup.

1) Votto
2)Cozart
3)Phillips
4)Ludwick
5) Bruce
6) Frazier
7) Hannigan
8) Stubbs (San Fran) Heisey (home)

Votto had no power, he was a spray hitter who walks alot, almost a .500 OBP...perfect lead off hitter. Phillips in the 3 hole is perfect since Votto is injured.

Frazier after doing what he did for this team after Votto went down this summer more than proved he needed to be in the starting line-up.

Stubbs on the road in AT&T park is fine because of the large park. Heisey made every routine play he had to make all season while playing center field. We needed his bat at home.

Did anybody watch the New York series?? Guess who was benched? The mighty A-ROD. Girardi had no problem benching a struggling A-ROD because he knew this was not June. This is the playoff's. You manage differently. Yankees won game 5. This is the difference between Dusty and a manager who knows how to win and has won a World Series.

Is their anyone on this board that can honestly say Dusty would have benched A-ROD for any reason? If you do I say you are intellectually dishonest. WE ALL KNOW Dusty would never bench a struggling veteran, NEVER. Dusty feels that something is "owed" to the veteran. The veteran has paid his dues and therefore despite the situation "deserves" to play over a younger player or God forbid a rookie who is out performing him. You cannot have a manager who refuses to put the right players in the line-up in the right times out of a since of loyalty to certain players.

Girardi could give a rats #@#$ if he is "loved" by his players. You think A-ROD liked being benched? Who cares! It's about winning. You think Girardi would not move Votto in the line-up? Only 7 RBI's since his return? In a "New York minute!"

Yes...Dusty is "loved" by his players...and ALL of them are planning their vacations instead of wondering if they are going to Washington or St. Louis.

CySeymour
10-12-2012, 11:53 PM
Frankly, and this is not directed at AD, I think RedsZone spent more time blaming Valdez for the Reds' problems this year than any other player. What a joke! It's easy to pick on the fringe bench player. He was well down the list of the team's real problems, a backup middle infielder.


Yep, it is farther down then centerfielder and leadoff hitter. Valdez is a capable backup utility infielder, whose primary skill is defense. But the problem most had, myself included, is Dusty trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and slotting him at the top of the lineup when he did play. The problem isn't Valdez himself, it was Dusty not utilizing this resource properly.

757690
10-12-2012, 11:56 PM
Did anybody watch the New York series?? Guess who was benched? The mighty A-ROD. Girardi had no problem benching a struggling A-ROD because he knew this was not June. This is the playoff's. You manage differently. Yankees won game 5. This is the difference between Dusty and a manager who knows how to win and has won a World Series.

Is their anyone on this board that can honestly say Dusty would have benched A-ROD for any reason? If you do I say you are intellectually dishonest. WE ALL KNOW Dusty would never bench a struggling veteran, NEVER. Dusty feels that something is "owed" to the veteran. The veteran has paid his dues and therefore despite the situation "deserves" to play over a younger player or God forbid a rookie who is out performing him. You cannot have a manager who refuses to put the right players in the line-up in the right times out of a since of loyalty to certain players.

Girardi could give a rats #@#$ if he is "loved" by his players. You think A-ROD liked being benched? Who cares! It's about winning. You think Girardi who not move Votto in the line-up? Only 7 RBI's since his return? In a "New York minute!"

Yes...Dusty is "loved" by his players...and ALL of them are planning their vacations instead of wondering if they are going to Washington or St. Louis.

Nice rant, feel better? Too bad none of it is based on facts.

AtomicDumpling
10-13-2012, 12:00 AM
Yes, I believe Cairo and Valdez were Jocketty's decision. Baker may have gone along with them, but they are primarily the decision of the front office. I hardly see the wisdom of firing the field manager because the FO acquires bad bench players.

As for Valdez' 200+ plate appearances and batting slot, this all took place in the regular season in which the Reds won more games than any team in baseball, save one. Again, I'd hardly fire Dusty for bad moves in the regular season, unless our new minimum standard is 98 games won.

Frankly, and this is not directed at AD, I think RedsZone spent more time blaming Valdez for the Reds' problems this year than any other player. What a joke! It's easy to pick on the fringe bench player. He was well down the list of the team's real problems, a backup middle infielder.

I don't personally care if the Reds renew Baker or go with another good manager, I admire Dusty enormously, but sometimes a fresh look at the team is good. But this team's problems were personnel related IMO.

I just watched CC Sabathia pitch a complete game victory to clinch a playoff series. Mat Latos, a great young talent, wasn't quite ready to do that. I wouldn't fire Dusty for that. Nor would I fire him for the men left on base and the total 8 runs scored in the three final home games, including games against Vogelsong and Zito.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the Reds should fire Dusty Baker because the FO acquired bad players. On the contrary, the FO has amassed quite a lot of talent on the team. An extraordinary amount really. The personnel on the team are a manager's dream. That is why the team won 97 games despite having an average manager at best. Jocketty and Baker have worked together to assemble a team chock full of talent with only a couple of woeful duds like Valdez and Cairo, both of whom would be easily replaceable if Dusty and Walt wanted to replace them. Giving those duds hundreds of at-bats is mostly Dusty's fault, and partly Walt's fault for not forcing Dusty to let go of them. Most people can see that General Managers and managers work together to build a roster. GMs don't operate in a vacuum without communicating with the manager and forcing the manager to use players he doesn't want. Dusty Baker has plenty of input and had a big hand in the construction of this roster both good and bad.

The tired refrain that Dusty Baker cannot be criticized because the team won 97 games rings awfully hollow. No matter how many games a team wins they could always have done better. Baker has very clearly done some things poorly in his career here in Cincinnati. Many of the things people think Dusty did wrong in 2012 are the very same things he was doing wrong when the team had a losing record in prior seasons. If Dusty is the reason why the Reds are so good then why did they have a losing record last year? Same manager, different players. Adding Mat Latos, Ryan Ludwick, Todd Frazier, Sean Marshall and Zack Cozart is the reason the 2012 team was better than the 2011 team. Dusty was the same both seasons, so he was not the reason the team got better. The same criticisms of Dusty that were valid in 2011 are still valid in 2012 despite the excellent win/loss record. Dusty is not immune to criticism because he is managing a better group of players this year than last year. His strengths are still strengths and his weaknesses are still weaknesses. Fans and observers have every right to discuss those good and bad qualities without being shot down because the team has a good record this season.

Obviously the team's record has varied considerably over the years of Dusty's tenure, some good some bad. I think it is a bit gullible to believe the reason this year's team won 97 games is because Dusty Baker is the manager and that somehow that makes him immune to criticism because every one of his decisions and strategies were absolutely correct beyond question.

From what I have seen, Wilson Valdez has gotten very little blame for the Reds problems -- certainly not as mush as he deserved.

The Reds playoff loss to the Giants has very little to do with why most people want to move on from Dusty Baker. It is not like they have suddenly come to the realization that Dusty is not that great. They have seen his embarrassing lineup construction and poor in-game strategic moves for several years now. This team is loaded with talent that if utilized correctly could have done better in 2012.

George Foster
10-13-2012, 12:01 AM
Nice rant, feel better? Too bad none of it is based on facts.

Explain? Since none of it is based on facts, you can use your keyboard and educate me. Be specific. No more drive-by posts..

George Foster
10-13-2012, 12:06 AM
The Reds playoff loss to the Giants has very little to do with why most people want to move on from Dusty Baker. It is not like they have suddenly come to the realization that Dusty is not that great. They have seen his embarrassing lineup construction and poor in-game strategic moves for several years now. This team is loaded with talent that if utilized correctly could have done better in 2012.

Very good post. This was not a cinderella team...

CySeymour
10-13-2012, 12:14 AM
It's very hard to say if a better in-game manager would have won that series. But it is clear that a better one would have give the Reds a better chance to win the series. I don't think the decision to start Leake was horrible, he was just left out there too long. The same with Latos in game 5. Or not realizing Votto wasn't going to drive the ball and hitting him 2nd or leadoff. Giving Cozart too many at-bats at the top of the lineup. Pitching Arrendando instead of Hoover in game 4. Having Bruce attempt a steal of 3rd. The players win the games, but they need to be put in the best possible situations by the manager. You can overcome that in the 162 games of the regular season, but in a short series, each decision matters.

757690
10-13-2012, 12:14 AM
Explain? Since none of it is based on facts, you can use your keyboard and educate me. Be specific. No more drive-by posts..

A-Rod was benched for one game for Raul Ibanez, not some young kid rotting on the bench.

Exactly which struggling veteran has Baker refused to bench?

757690
10-13-2012, 12:17 AM
Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling
The Reds playoff loss to the Giants has very little to do with why most people want to move on from Dusty Baker. It is not like they have suddenly come to the realization that Dusty is not that great. They have seen his embarrassing lineup construction and poor in-game strategic moves for several years now. This team is loaded with talent that if utilized correctly could have done better in 2012.

Reds made the playoffs with the second best record in baseball. Does a manager have to get the best record in baseball every year in order to keep his job? How much better is required for the Reds to do for the manager to keep his Job?

Kc61
10-13-2012, 01:37 AM
I don't think anyone is suggesting the Reds should fire Dusty Baker because the FO acquired bad players. On the contrary, the FO has amassed quite a lot of talent on the team. An extraordinary amount really. The personnel on the team are a manager's dream. That is why the team won 97 games despite having an average manager at best. Jocketty and Baker have worked together to assemble a team chock full of talent with only a couple of woeful duds like Valdez and Cairo, both of whom would be easily replaceable if Dusty and Walt wanted to replace them. Giving those duds hundreds of at-bats is mostly Dusty's fault, and partly Walt's fault for not forcing Dusty to let go of them. Most people can see that General Managers and managers work together to build a roster. GMs don't operate in a vacuum without communicating with the manager and forcing the manager to use players he doesn't want. Dusty Baker has plenty of input and had a big hand in the construction of this roster both good and bad.

The tired refrain that Dusty Baker cannot be criticized because the team won 97 games rings awfully hollow. No matter how many games a team wins they could always have done better. Baker has very clearly done some things poorly in his career here in Cincinnati. Many of the things people think Dusty did wrong in 2012 are the very same things he was doing wrong when the team had a losing record in prior seasons. If Dusty is the reason why the Reds are so good then why did they have a losing record last year? Same manager, different players. Adding Mat Latos, Ryan Ludwick, Todd Frazier, Sean Marshall and Zack Cozart is the reason the 2012 team was better than the 2011 team. Dusty was the same both seasons, so he was not the reason the team got better. The same criticisms of Dusty that were valid in 2011 are still valid in 2012 despite the excellent win/loss record. Dusty is not immune to criticism because he is managing a better group of players this year than last year. His strengths are still strengths and his weaknesses are still weaknesses. Fans and observers have every right to discuss those good and bad qualities without being shot down because the team has a good record this season.

Obviously the team's record has varied considerably over the years of Dusty's tenure, some good some bad. I think it is a bit gullible to believe the reason this year's team won 97 games is because Dusty Baker is the manager and that somehow that makes him immune to criticism because every one of his decisions and strategies were absolutely correct beyond question.

From what I have seen, Wilson Valdez has gotten very little blame for the Reds problems -- certainly not as mush as he deserved.

The Reds playoff loss to the Giants has very little to do with why most people want to move on from Dusty Baker. It is not like they have suddenly come to the realization that Dusty is not that great. They have seen his embarrassing lineup construction and poor in-game strategic moves for several years now. This team is loaded with talent that if utilized correctly could have done better in 2012.

Sorry, this makes no sense to me. Sounds like somebody looking for ways to criticize a manager.

Should I evaluate Baker by some fans' view of his in-game strategies and lineup construction?

Or should I evaluate him based on division championships two of three years and 97 wins this year, considering also the early playoff exits?

I'll look at the results and I think they've been better than the Reds have had since the days of Jack McKeon and Davey Johnson.

I kind of like the wins and division championships. Just me, I guess.

757690
10-13-2012, 01:42 AM
Sorry, this makes no sense to me. Sounds like somebody looking for ways to criticize a manager.

Should I evaluate Baker by some fans' view of his in-game strategies and lineup construction?

Or should I evaluate him based on division championships two of three years and 97 wins this year, considering also the early playoff exits?

I'll look at the results and I think they've been better than the Reds have had since the days of Jack McKeon and Davey Johnson.

Speaking of whom, I guess he should be fired now too, along with Buck Showalter.

AtomicDumpling
10-13-2012, 02:40 AM
Sorry, this makes no sense to me. Sounds like somebody looking for ways to criticize a manager.

Should I evaluate Baker by some fans' view of his in-game strategies and lineup construction?

Or should I evaluate him based on division championships two of three years and 97 wins this year, considering also the early playoff exits?

I'll look at the results and I think they've been better than the Reds have had since the days of Jack McKeon and Davey Johnson.

I kind of like the wins and division championships. Just me, I guess.

You should evaluate him based on his real performance rather than things that he is not responsible for.

It might be just you that can't see the reasons for why the Reds won 97 games and the division.

I guess you believe Joe Torre is the greatest baseball mind in the history of the universe? He has plenty of wins and division championships, but nobody ever confused him with a great manager.

Some people can see that the manager is not a major reason the Reds won those games this year after winning only 79 last year under Dusty Baker.

What did Dusty Baker do this year that he didn't do last year? If you can't answer that question then why do you believe Dusty Baker is the reason the Reds were so good this year?

Just throwing out "97 wins" over and over in the face of all logic isn't very convincing to a student of the game of baseball. It has already been explained to you several times why the Reds' win count is no reason to glorify Dusty Baker. Obviously Dusty Baker is not the reason the Reds improved so much in 2012 from their disastrous 2011 season. It was the addition of 5 excellent players that were not here in 2011 -- Mat Latos, Ryan Ludwick, Todd Frazier, Zack Cozart and Sean Marshall. This team is loaded with top-notch baseball players, and that is the reason they won 97 games.

People can explain to you a hundred times why it is so dumb to put the worst hitters at the top of the lineup and why OBP is so important and why bunting is a losing strategy yet you just don't get it. All of those things are proven, mathematical facts that show that Dusty Baker uses poor strategies that are harming the team. Those are criticisms that are backed up with rock solid statistical and historical proof. Why does it bother you so much when those facts are discussed?

Dusty does other things well that help make up for his weaknesses. As I have said before many times, Dusty is a good clubhouse manager. He manages personalities well, keeps his players rested and ready to play, and he motivates the players very well.

You continue to believe that Dusty is perfect because the Reds had a good year. It must be impossible for a team loaded with so much talent to actually win more than 97 games right? No team has ever won more than 97 games in one season in MLB history. 97 wins is a perfect season. Dusty Baker couldn't possibly have done anything better because 97 wins is the best you can get.

Actually the Reds might have been able to win even more games if the lineup construction and in-game strategies had been utilized more optimally.

In the playoffs, when you are playing other very good teams that also won 90+ games, you can't just rely completely on talent and skill to win. In the playoffs the smaller things like managerial moves become more magnified because the talent level is evenly matched. In the playoffs it is especially important to use exactly the right lineup construction and exactly the right strategy and very often the result of games and series rely on such things, much more so than in the regular season where you can beat up on inferior talent. In tight games in key situations is where Dusty Baker gets exposed and out-managed.

Believe it or not every manager in the history of baseball has made mistakes. Why do some folks like you freak out when Dusty Baker's mistakes and weaknesses come up for discussion?

I think Dusty Baker is an average manager, maybe a bit below average. In my opinion, average is not good enough. I think the Reds should try to get one of the best managers if at all possible. Dusty is good enough for some people, but I think the Reds can do better. Obviously you disagree.

If all you can do is look at the number of wins then you just don't have a very in-depth perception of the game of baseball I guess. I think you already know that but in this case you don't want to look deeper because you are afraid of what you might see. I know that you know a lot about baseball, so open your mind on this issue.

What did Dusty Baker do differently in 2012 than he did in 2011 that accounts for the 18 extra wins?

757690
10-13-2012, 02:56 AM
Do the Reds really have 97 win talent? Who ever thought that the Reds would win 97 games this season and win the division as easily as they did?

They have one of the best hitters in the game, but he was injured the entire second half of the season.

They have an All- Star worthy second baseman, and an All-Star RF, but other than that, their offense is rather pedestrian.

They have a Cy Young Candidate, but so do the Mets and Dodgers.

Their #2 pitcher is 24 years old, was a .500 pitcher last season, and has some anger issues.

Their #3 starter is coming off a 5 ERA season.

Their #4 starter had a 4.89 career ERA coming into this season

Their #5 starter is 24 soft tosser who never pitched in the minors, and was league average his first two seasons.

Their bullpen is strong, but had to overcome losing it's closer, setup man and LOOGY to injury for the whole season.

They have great defense, probably their strongest part of the team.

They have a lousy bench.

Does all of that look like a 97 win team to you on paper? Where's this overflowing talent that should be the next BRM or 1927 Yankees? I think this is clearly the best team since the BRM, but definitely not the most talented.

George Foster
10-13-2012, 02:56 AM
A-Rod was benched for one game for Raul Ibanez, not some young kid rotting on the bench.

Exactly which struggling veteran has Baker refused to bench?

Do you think Baker would of benched A-Rod in game 5? seriously? He does not manage that way and that was my point.

When Frazier played regularly, before Votto came back, do you know what he batted? What his BA was with runners in scoring position? Not exactly some young kid rotting on the bench. Arguably the MVP of the team in July and August.

Was Rolan that much of a defensive upgrade over Frazier? 2 errors. A 3rd error saved by a diving Phillips backing up 1st in San Fran. Was Stubbs that much of a defensive upgrade over Heisey..in GABP?

You can make apologies for Dusty. That's your right. He is not the sole reason why we lost but he did have a lot to do with it. He refuses to put the best line-up possible on the field in critical situations.

If Dusty gets all the credit for 97 wins, should he not get some of the blame for losing 3 in a row at home?

Wonderful Monds
10-13-2012, 03:09 AM
Do you think Baker would of benched A-Rod in game 5? seriously? He does not manage that way and that was my point.

When Frazier played regularly, before Votto came back, do you know what he batted? What his BA was with runners in scoring position? Not exactly some young kid rotting on the bench. Arguably the MVP of the team in July and August.

Was Rolan that much of a defensive upgrade over Frazier? 2 errors. A 3rd error saved by a diving Phillips backing up 1st in San Fran. Was Stubbs that much of a defensive upgrade over Heisey..in GABP?

You can make apologies for Dusty. That's your right. He is not the sole reason why we lost but he did have a lot to do with it. He refuses to put the best line-up possible on the field in critical situations.

If Dusty gets all the credit for 97 wins, should he not get some of the blame for losing 3 in a row at home?

Scott Rolen also had a ~.850 OPS in the second half, OPSing over 900 2 out of 3 of those months.

Frazier over Rolen is not the slam dunk decision RedsZone wants to believe it is.

AtomicDumpling
10-13-2012, 03:25 AM
Do the Reds really have 97 win talent? Who ever thought that the Reds would win 97 games this season and win the division as easily as they did?

They have one of the best hitters in the game, but he was injured the entire second half of the season.

They have an All- Star worthy second baseman, and an All-Star RF, but other than that, their offense is rather pedestrian.

They have a Cy Young Candidate, but so do the Mets and Dodgers.

Their #2 pitcher is 24 years old, was a .500 pitcher last season, and has some anger issues.

Their #3 starter is coming off a 5 ERA season.

Their #4 starter had a 4.89 career ERA coming into this season

Their #5 starter is 24 soft tosser who never pitched in the minors, and was league average his first two seasons.

Their bullpen is strong, but had to overcome losing it's closer, setup man and LOOGY to injury for the whole season.

They have great defense, probably their strongest part of the team.

They have a lousy bench.

Does all of that look like a 97 win team to you on paper? Where's this overflowing talent that should be the next BRM or 1927 Yankees? I think this is clearly the best team since the BRM, but definitely not the most talented.

The Reds are pretty much above average at every spot on the field except centerfield once you consider offense and defense and baserunning. The centerfielder is a very talented under-achiever.

The Reds are way above average at every spot in the rotation except #5, and even Mike Leake is an average or better 5th starter. The bullpen is simply the best in baseball from top to bottom.

This team doesn't have any glaring weaknesses on the team at all until you get down to the two worst players on the team, Cairo and Valdez, who are worse than almost every team's 24th and 25th man.

We don't need to grade the team on what was expected of them coming into the season, when we didn't know what to expect from the likes of Ludwick, Frazier, Cozart etc.. We now know their true talent level of this team right up to date, and that talent level matches up very favorably with any team in the major leagues. I don't see another team in baseball with more talent at every position than the Reds.

The pitching staff is without question the strength of the team. It sure is nice getting to watch some real pitchers for the first time in a decade or more. It's also great to know that you don't have to score 6+ runs to win a game.

The hitting has been a bit of a disappointment even though there are plenty of good bats. Just a bit better lineup construction and less of a small-ball approach could do wonders to eke out a couple extra runs per week.

With all the young talent and potential for improvement the Reds have I am sure the Reds would be an ideal job for most managers to seek.

757690
10-13-2012, 03:30 AM
The Reds are pretty much above average at every spot on the field except centerfield once you consider offense and defense and baserunning. The centerfielder is a very talented under-achiever.

The Reds are way above average at every spot in the rotation except #5, and even Mike Leake is an average or better 5th starter. The bullpen is simply the best in baseball from top to bottom.

This team doesn't have any glaring weaknesses on the team at all until you get down to the two worst players on the team, Cairo and Valdez, who are worse than almost every team's 24th and 25th man.

We don't need to grade the team on what was expected of them coming into the season, when we didn't know what to expect from the likes of Ludwick, Frazier, Cozart etc.. We now know their true talent level of this team right up to date, and that talent level matches up very favorably with any team in the major leagues. I don't see another team in baseball with more talent at every position than the Reds.

The pitching staff is without question the strength of the team. It sure is nice getting to watch some real pitchers for the first time in a decade or more. It's also great to know that you don't have to score 6+ runs to win a game.

The hitting has been a bit of a disappointment even though there are plenty of good bats. Just a bit better lineup construction and less of a small-ball approach could do wonders to eke out a couple extra runs per week.

With all the young talent and potential for improvement the Reds have I am sure the Reds would be an ideal job for most managers to seek.

This analysis assumes that the manager has nothing to do with how well players perform. If you think that is true, then of course you don't want Baker as manager.

Matt700wlw
10-13-2012, 03:30 AM
In an earlier post, I said that I would move on without Dusty Baker.

I voted 'maybe' in the poll, because the question needs to be asked... Who's out there right now that can bring that extra something to the equation to take this team to the next level? Tony LaRussa? He's not coming out of retirement to come here, if at all....

If Dusty agrees to a short term contract, it's far from the worst thing in the world, but Walt Jocketty also needs to give him better options to work with. If the Wilson Valdez's of the world are on the bench, Dusty will use them.

This team doesn't need a major overhaul by any means. It needs upgrades.

I'd love to have Ryan Ludwick back, but will he mutually agree to a $5 million option? He could probably get more than that on the open market after the year he had. Would the Reds pay?


I've said for years that they also need a new hitting coach, if for no other reason than to provide a different voice and approach. He won't be able to work miracles, but maybe he could provide a little something that's missing.

I like the rotation. Solid. However, can we really expect them to stay healthy for an entire season again? Probably not. I also wouldn't be opposed to Mike Leake having a year in Louisville to develop. He's still a very raw, and young talent.

Bullpen. One of the best. Is Broxton coming back? What's the status of Ryan Madson, and is he worth the risk? Is Chapman the closer or is he going to be a starter? Sean Marshall is here. Good move.

Drew Stubbs has to go. I hope he thrives somewhere, but I don't see it happening here.

A TRUE leadoff hitter is needed, something that they haven't had in probably 15 years. Who's out there? Is there someone in the system that can fill that role? Billy Hamilton is hopefully the answer in 2014, but we're not there yet....

Mesoraco. Novarro. Hannigan.

It's going to be an interesting offseason....but a fun one.

AtomicDumpling
10-13-2012, 03:47 AM
This analysis assumes that the manager has nothing to do with how well players perform. If you think that is true, then of course you don't want Baker as manager.

I think the hitters would perform better with a better manager who put them in better spots to succeed.

Dusty and Bryan Price have done a sensational job with the pitching staff. I tend to give most of that credit to Price because I think Dusty pretty much lets Price do his thing with the pitchers. Dusty has the final say and signs off on the decisions, but basically Dusty wisely trusts Price to run the pitching show.

I don't think Dusty is managing differently this year than he did last year when the team was bad, and therefore shouldn't get too much of the credit for the improved performance of the team. The biggest difference between last year and this year is the addition of several excellent players -- Latos, Ludwick, Frazier, Cozart and Marshall. I am sure Dusty was part of the decision-making process along with Jocketty that resulted in acquiring and utilizing those players.

By the way, I didn't say that I "don't want Baker as manager". I just feel the team is at a point where they have a chance to acquire an upgrade at manager.

SunDeck
10-13-2012, 09:27 AM
Oh jeez we're twins, that was my thought/wish too

I know, people hate it when we finish each others sentences too.

Kc61
10-13-2012, 11:43 AM
What did Dusty Baker do this year that he didn't do last year? If you can't answer that question then why do you believe Dusty Baker is the reason the Reds were so good this year?

Just throwing out "97 wins" over and over in the face of all logic isn't very convincing to a student of the game of baseball.

People can explain to you a hundred times why it is so dumb to put the worst hitters at the top of the lineup and why OBP is so important and why bunting is a losing strategy yet you just don't get it.

Dusty does other things well that help make up for his weaknesses. As I have said before many times, Dusty is a good clubhouse manager. He manages personalities well, keeps his players rested and ready to play, and he motivates the players very well.

You continue to believe that Dusty is perfect because the Reds had a good year.

Believe it or not every manager in the history of baseball has made mistakes. Why do some folks like you freak out when Dusty Baker's mistakes and weaknesses come up for discussion?

If all you can do is look at the number of wins then you just don't have a very in-depth perception of the game of baseball I guess. I think you already know that but in this case you don't want to look deeper because you are afraid of what you might see. I know that you know a lot about baseball, so open your mind on this issue.

What did Dusty Baker do differently in 2012 than he did in 2011 that accounts for the 18 extra wins?

I think you could use a broader view of baseball managing. Issues like lineup construction and bunting, which you allude to, have a role. But ultimately the key to managing a baseball team, or any team, is getting maximum performance from your players.

There are very few managers who do this as well as Baker.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Dusty skins the cat by old school in-game managing and a tremendous ability to get players to perform day in and day out.

It may not be enough for you, but be careful what you ask for. The genius you would hire may read Fangraphs more but may win many fewer games.

Marc D
10-13-2012, 11:45 AM
Winning the division is mediocre?

Bobby Cox had teams in the post season 16 times, winning 1 World Series.
I have a hard time saying winning only once is his fault.


True, Baker has been in 6 post seasons, with no WS wins. However, that performance is not too far shy of the following group; which of these guys do you not want to be your manager?

Whitey Herzog: 6 Playoffs, 1 WS win
Davey Johnson: 6:1
Charlie Manuel: 6:1
Jim Leyland: 7:1
Lou Piniella: 7:1
Mike Scioscia: 6:1
Earl Weaver: 6:1
Billy Martin: 5:1

OK, I would never have wanted Billy, either, but the rest of these guys are pretty good.

First I would argue that actually winning a WS and never winning one is a pretty significant gap and therefore Baker is about as far shy of the names on that list as one could get and still be a MLB manager with 6 post season appearances.

Secondly, at least for me, it's the common theme of Baker led teams choking in the post season that is the primary concern. 2002 Giants, 2003 Cubs, 2012 Reds. Once is a coincidence, three's a trend.

Windows don't stay open that long anymore, this team is poised to be good for a while but they can't afford a manager who has a track record of consistently failing the way he does.

If I am the GM/owner and there isn't a manager available with a better post season track record then I would give Baker one more chance. If they choke again he'd be gone.

Reds/Flyers Fan
10-13-2012, 12:17 PM
St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist floats TLR to Cincinnati idea:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/jeff-gordon/tipsheet-is-dusty-done-in-cincinnati/article_58ad29d0-1467-11e2-a9d2-001a4bcf6878.html

Kc61
10-13-2012, 02:24 PM
I still believe Dusty will not be back.

This is just like Torre with the Yankees.

Reds will offer him a year. Dusty will want a LTC and a big raise.

I think he will walk.

Kc61
10-13-2012, 02:55 PM
The hitting has been a bit of a disappointment even though there are plenty of good bats. Just a bit better lineup construction and less of a small-ball approach could do wonders to eke out a couple extra runs per week.



No, different personnel would add to the runs scored.

Reds are a collection of righty hitters with power and fair to poor OBP skills.

Rolen, Frazier, Phillips, Ludwick, Cozart, Heisey, Stubbs, Mesoraco. It's a one dimensional offense. All similar type hitters in general terms.

The counterbalance is basically two guys, Votto (injured) and Bruce an inconsistent low BA hitter with excellent lefty power.

The team is among the lowest in baseball in hitting singles.

The team had a .710 OPS against righty pitching.

There are no real tablesetters. There is absolutely no lefty hitting tablesetter. The bench provided very little offense, it only improved slightly when Paul and Navarro were acquired.

Look at the balance on the Cards. The Cards have more switch hitters on the DL than the Reds have had on the team in years. Lefties, righties, singles hitters, long ball hitters. A far more balanced offense.

You think the problem is the batting order Dusty uses?

Replace Stubbs, Heisey, Cairo and Valdez with steady, good OBP men, some from the left side or switch hitters, and you'll see a very different offense. One starter and three bench players.

Replace Ludwick or Frazier with a high caliber switch hitter, like Beltran or Sandoval, and you'll see even more improvement.

Not a well balanced offense, regardless of batting order. A personnel matter.

Superdude
10-13-2012, 04:34 PM
No, different personnel would add to the runs scored.

Reds are a collection of righty hitters with power and fair to poor OBP skills.

Exactly. It's easy to pinpoint the middle of the order guys on this team. Outside of that, you can shuffle them around any way you want and it won't make a bit of difference IMO. We've assembled a whole team of 5-8 hole hitters.

AtomicDumpling
10-13-2012, 04:43 PM
I think you could use a broader view of baseball managing. Issues like lineup construction and bunting, which you allude to, have a role. But ultimately the key to managing a baseball team, or any team, is getting maximum performance from your players.

There are very few managers who do this as well as Baker.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Dusty skins the cat by old school in-game managing and a tremendous ability to get players to perform day in and day out.

It may not be enough for you, but be careful what you ask for. The genius you would hire may read Fangraphs more but may win many fewer games.

You still haven't answered the question: What did Dusty Baker do better in 2012 than he did in 2011 that accounts for the 18 extra wins?

If he has such a tremendous ability to get players to perform day in and day out why didn't he do that in 2011 when the Reds sucked? Why are so many of the hitters extremely streaky if Dusty gets them to perform day in and day out?

Perhaps the difference is the health of the pitching staff and the addition of Mat Latos, Ryan Ludwick, Todd Frazier, Zack Cozart and Sean Marshall?

Seems disingenuous to credit the manager with the improved performance. It is pretty clear the real reason is the added talent, not a sudden improvement in Dusty's managing ability.

Nah, there is no reason to believe that the same old Dusty Baker had much to do with the radical improvement of the team in 2012.

camisadelgolf
10-13-2012, 04:55 PM
http://i.imgur.com/Rn6kb.jpg

AtomicDumpling
10-13-2012, 05:02 PM
No, different personnel would add to the runs scored.

Reds are a collection of righty hitters with power and fair to poor OBP skills.

Rolen, Frazier, Phillips, Ludwick, Cozart, Heisey, Stubbs, Mesoraco. It's a one dimensional offense. All similar type hitters in general terms.

The counterbalance is basically two guys, Votto (injured) and Bruce an inconsistent low BA hitter with excellent lefty power.

The team is among the lowest in baseball in hitting singles.

The team had a .710 OPS against righty pitching.

There are no real tablesetters. There is absolutely no lefty hitting tablesetter. The bench provided very little offense, it only improved slightly when Paul and Navarro were acquired.

Look at the balance on the Cards. The Cards have more switch hitters on the DL than the Reds have had on the team in years. Lefties, righties, singles hitters, long ball hitters. A far more balanced offense.

You think the problem is the batting order Dusty uses?

Replace Stubbs, Heisey, Cairo and Valdez with steady, good OBP men, some from the left side or switch hitters, and you'll see a very different offense. One starter and three bench players.

Replace Ludwick or Frazier with a high caliber switch hitter, like Beltran or Sandoval, and you'll see even more improvement.

Not a well balanced offense, regardless of batting order. A personnel matter.

The Reds don't have a great offense, nobody is arguing that they do. Improving the personnel would be great if possible. But even with the same personnel there are some easy ways to tweak the lineup and situational tactics to eke out some extra runs.

What has been proven beyond all doubt mathematically is that the Reds would have a higher team OPS and hence would score more runs if the best hitters got the most plate appearances and the worst hitters got the fewest plate appearances. Unfortunately Dusty does not comprehend such a basic concept and insists on putting the worst hitters at the top of the lineup. How can a manager in the 21st century, the information age, not be aware of one of the most basic concepts in baseball? It is a telling insight into Dusty's limited skillset.

Dusty's love of bunting in situations in which even a successfully executed bunt play actually reduces the Reds run expectancy is another instance that exposes Dusty's complete lack of understanding of the modern game of baseball. Things such as these make it very clear to students of the game that Dusty Baker does not know what he is doing. He is harming the team by making tactical mistakes that even a rudimentary comprehension of sabermetrics would avoid.

Dusty spends hours compiling hitter vs pitcher charts, despite extensive evidence that hitter vs pitcher histories are statistically meaningless and have no predictive value.

Dusty is riding the coattails of a great pitching staff led by the best pitching coach in baseball today. The talent level of the team is good enough to override the tactical mistakes made by the manager. Dusty does some things well as a leader of men, which is great. But giving Dusty Baker a large piece of the credit for a 97 win season just doesn't have much merit. After all he is the same guy that led them to a 79 win season just a year ago. The large infusion of fresh talent (Latos, Ludwick, Frazier, Cozart, Marshall) this year is the reason the Reds had a better year. It doesn't matter if Dusty stays or goes, this team is going to be good for a few more years at least. It makes sense to acquire a manager that can tactically lead the team to its best possible record without squandering any of it's potential with poor decision-making.

Kc61
10-13-2012, 05:03 PM
You still haven't answered the question: What did Dusty Baker do better in 2012 than he did in 2011 that accounts for the 18 extra wins?

If he has such a tremendous ability to get players to perform day in and day out why didn't he do that in 2011 when the Reds sucked? Why are so many of the hitters extremely streaky if Dusty gets them to perform day in and day out?

Perhaps the difference is the health of the pitching staff and the addition of Mat Latos, Ryan Ludwick, Todd Frazier, Zack Cozart and Sean Marshall?

Seems disingenuous to credit the manager with the improved performance. It is pretty clear the real reason is the added talent, not a sudden improvement in Dusty's managing ability.

Nah, there is no reason to believe that the same old Dusty Baker had much to do with the radical improvement of the team in 2012.

You like to use words like disingenuous, but it's you who keep asking the wrong question. A straw man.

Nobody is saying the difference between 2011 and 2012 was Dusty Baker. It's the wrong question. The starting pitching in 2011 was riddled by injury and illness, there was Volquez not Latos, Arroyo was terrible, the team was not going to the playoffs.

The real question is how Dusty did when he had teams with a reasonable playoff chance. In 2010 and especially in 2012 his teams were healthy enough and talented enough to have a chance.

And both times he did great in the regular season. His team did less than great in the post-season which is a reasonable topic for discussion. I think there are personnel factors as well as any strategic considerations.

As I said, I don't think Dusty is coming back. And that's fine, sometimes change is good, a fresh look. But I view his tenure as Reds manager as a success, and when compared to other recent managers, a huge success. He's a winning manager and if he does return I'm fine with it.

Even with the lineups and the bunting.

AtomicDumpling
10-13-2012, 05:07 PM
You like to use words like disingenuous, but it's you who keep asking the wrong question. A straw man.

Nobody is saying the difference between 2011 and 2012 was Dusty Baker. It's the wrong question. The starting pitching in 2011 was riddled by injury and illness, there was Volquez not Latos, the team was not going to the playoffs.

The real question is how Dusty did when he had teams with a reasonable playoff chance. In 2010 and especially in 2012 his teams were healthy enough and talented enough to have a chance.

And he did great in the regular season. His team did less than great in the post-season which is a reasonable topic for discussion. I think there are personnel factors there as well as any strategy issues.

As I said, I don't think Dusty is coming back. And that's fine, sometimes change is good, a fresh look. But I view his tenure as Reds manager as a success, and when compared to other recent managers, a huge success.

Yes I agree. The improved talent and health of the players is the reason why the team was better this year.

I think a good tactical manager could have squeezed a few extra wins out of the same personnel.

And I think that question I asked was the perfect question. You and others insist that Dusty can't be criticized because the Reds won 97 games this year, yet you can't explain how Dusty Baker is the reason why they improved by 18 games. If you are so sure Dusty was the reason then you should be able to explain why. He was the same manager that had a losing record in 2011. What did he do differently this year? I'll tell you what he did differently: he managed a better team that had more talent and better health than the year before. That is why the team was better -- because of the players, not the manager. Dusty managed the same way he always has. The criticisms of his managing style that were valid in 2011 are still valid in 2012. He makes a lot of mistakes that could be easily corrected. He does some things well too.

The Reds will be just fine whether Dusty comes back or not.

Some people think Dusty Baker got the most production possible out of this team. Some people think improved lineup construction and in-game strategy could have resulted in more wins. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. It isn't fair to say Dusty Baker was perfect and can't be criticized because the Reds won 97 games this year. No matter how many games they won they could always have done better. Even the best managers make mistakes and it is fair to discuss them.

Kc61
10-13-2012, 05:54 PM
Some people think Dusty Baker got the most production possible out of this team. Some people think improved lineup construction and in-game strategy could have resulted in more wins. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. It isn't fair to say Dusty Baker was perfect and can't be criticized because the Reds won 97 games this year. No matter how many games they won they could always have done better. Even the best managers make mistakes and it is fair to discuss them.

No, Baker hasn't been perfect. I personally hate bunting with position players. He certainly can be criticized.

But forgive me if I'm dubious about the next guy whomever he may be. They all have their tendencies and flaws. On balance, I think the Dusty era has been very good for the ballclub and, if he goes, I'll remember him as one of the better ones. And I do expect him to leave.

On the post-season, Tom Verducci wrote a piece in SI about the increase in strikeouts and how teams that make contact are better suited for the post season. It was in SI a couple weeks ago, and the team he featured (as being well suited) was the SF Giants. Interesting reading when thinking about the Reds' offense.

Superdude
10-13-2012, 05:56 PM
What has been proven beyond all doubt mathematically is that the Reds would have a higher team OPS and hence would score more runs if the best hitters got the most plate appearances and the worst hitters got the fewest plate appearances. Unfortunately Dusty does not comprehend such a basic concept and insists on putting the worst hitters at the top of the lineup. How can a manager in the 21st century, the information age, not be aware of one of the most basic concepts in baseball? It is a telling insight into Dusty's limited skillset.

If it was as simple as you say it is, why don't Matt Kemp and Josh Hamilton bat first? Our best hitters are middle of the order guys that can't afford to waste power at the leadoff and #2 spot. If we had players that fit the table setting mold, they would hit first, but we really just don't have that.


Dusty's love of bunting in situations in which even a successfully executed bunt play actually reduces the Reds run expectancy is another instance that exposes Dusty's complete lack of understanding of the modern game of baseball. Things such as these make it very clear to students of the game that Dusty Baker does not know what he is doing. He is harming the team by making tactical mistakes that even a rudimentary comprehension of sabermetrics would avoid.

If you can look past the Dusty stereotype for a minute, you'd realize that a non-pitcher bunted only 28 times this season for the Reds. This is the 4th lowest in the NL central. This is 1 bunt more than Bruce Bochy. And more telling, this is 4 bunts less than SABR hero Joe Maddon.

757690
10-13-2012, 06:02 PM
Yes I agree. The improved talent and health of the players is the reason why the team was better this year.

I think a good tactical manager could have squeezed a few extra wins out of the same personnel.

And I think that question I asked was the perfect question. You and others insist that Dusty can't be criticized because the Reds won 97 games this year, yet you can't explain how Dusty Baker is the reason why they improved by 18 games. If you are so sure Dusty was the reason then you should be able to explain why. He was the same manager that had a losing record in 2011. What did he do differently this year? I'll tell you what he did differently: he managed a better team that had more talent and better health than the year before. That is why the team was better -- because of the players, not the manager. Dusty managed the same way he always has. The criticisms of his managing style that were valid in 2011 are still valid in 2012. He makes a lot of mistakes that could be easily corrected. He does some things well too.

The Reds will be just fine whether Dusty comes back or not.

Some people think Dusty Baker got the most production possible out of this team. Some people think improved lineup construction and in-game strategy could have resulted in more wins. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. It isn't fair to say Dusty Baker was perfect and can't be criticized because the Reds won 97 games this year. No matter how many games they won they could always have done better. Even the best managers make mistakes and it is fair to discuss them.

There has not been a single manager in the history of baseball who could win without talent. However, there have been plenty that have lost with talent.

No one, absolutely no one is saying that Baker is the reason why the Reds improved this season. What his supporters are saying is that this team, with the talent it had going into the season, and all of it's hardships, doesn't win 97 games without a manager as good as Dusty.

wlf WV
10-13-2012, 06:58 PM
He is a regular season manager,a good one.He's a long distance runner,I don't see him winning a sprint or relay.

AtomicDumpling
10-13-2012, 07:36 PM
If you can look past the Dusty stereotype for a minute, you'd realize that a non-pitcher bunted successfully only 28 times this season for the Reds. This is the 4th lowest in the NL central. This is 1 bunt more than Bruce Bochy. And more telling, this is 4 bunts less than SABR hero Joe Maddon.

Corrected that for you.

I have never seen a team try and fail to execute a bunt so frequently. And I wasn't only talking about this year.

AtomicDumpling
10-13-2012, 07:41 PM
There has not been a single manager in the history of baseball who could win without talent. However, there have been plenty that have lost with talent.

No one, absolutely no one is saying that Baker is the reason why the Reds improved this season. What his supporters are saying is that this team, with the talent it had going into the season, and all of it's hardships, doesn't win 97 games without a manager as good as Dusty.

There have been plenty of people trumpeting Dusty Baker as a major reason why the Reds were good this year. They even claimed that he was so good that it was ridiculous to second-guess any of his decisions.

I don't have a problem with people liking Dusty. I only have a problem with people who say Dusty can't be criticized -- and that has happened hundreds of times this year here on Redszone.

You can believe that Dusty is great if you want to. I will disagree.

Superdude
10-13-2012, 08:00 PM
Corrected that for you.

I have never seen a team try and fail to execute a bunt so frequently. And I wasn't only talking about this year.

I couldn't find a number for attempted sac bunts, so I'm obviously taking a liberty and assuming successful sac bunts generally correlate with bunt attempts to some degree. This is clearly one of those arguments that could go round and round forever, so I'm gonna go ahead and step out. It's been real.

Caveat Emperor
10-14-2012, 02:07 AM
Pennants and banners are all that matter, the rest is just an excuse to spend time in the yard on a nice summer evening.

Or so I've been told.

And I'll stick by that comment until the day I die. If you aren't playing to win a Championship, there's no point to playing.

Professional sports don't offer silver medals for a reason.

westofyou
10-14-2012, 02:31 AM
And I'll stick by that comment until the day I die. If you aren't playing to win a Championship, there's no point to playing.

Professional sports don't offer silver medals for a reason.

The quote was not about the players, it was about what fans get out of following the game, but you know that

fearofpopvol1
10-15-2012, 04:36 PM
Wow, pretty interesting splits here. Half think he should not be back for sure, then basically 1/4 yes, 1/4 maybe!

jojo
10-16-2012, 08:07 AM
There has not been a single manager in the history of baseball who could win without talent. However, there have been plenty that have lost with talent.

No one, absolutely no one is saying that Baker is the reason why the Reds improved this season. What his supporters are saying is that this team, with the talent it had going into the season, and all of it's hardships, doesn't win 97 games without a manager as good as Dusty.

The Reds won 99 games with Dusty. He at least isn't an anchor when given a good team.

GAC
10-16-2012, 08:54 AM
There have been plenty of people trumpeting Dusty Baker as a major reason why the Reds were good this year. They even claimed that he was so good that it was ridiculous to second-guess any of his decisions.

I don't have a problem with people liking Dusty. I only have a problem with people who say Dusty can't be criticized -- and that has happened hundreds of times this year here on Redszone.

You can believe that Dusty is great if you want to. I will disagree.

I don't see where anyone who supports Dusty has said that he couldn't be second-guessed, criticized, or has even emphatically stated he is the major reason for their success this year. The majority of it always comes down to those players on the field. But does any manager, when a team is successful, get any degree of credit? They certainly do when a team is not (they're fired).

I really get tired of hearing some say "A more tactical manager would have squeezed a few more wins out of this season." And if the Reds had won 101, those same people would have still complained because he should have gotten 105.

Every manager gets criticized. In my lifetime there hasn't been a Red's manager I haven't come out of the chair and yelled out.... and that includes Captain Hook.

So, IMO, it's not about being able to second-guess or criticize Baker... it's simply the fact, with some, he doesn't manage the team from the bench like they do their fantasy league. And that's the truth.

Caveat Emperor
10-16-2012, 09:31 AM
The quote was not about the players, it was about what fans get out of following the game, but you know that

We all take something different away from the season. Any season that doesn't end in a World Series championship is a disappointment in my book. You're free to view the game as you see fit, though. That's the beauty of the game, IMO.

mth123
10-16-2012, 09:41 AM
The pre-season prediction thread had 2 people who predicted that the Reds would win 97 games or more. The average was in the 88 to 89 range. The "knowledge" of the posters here who say the Reds should have gotten more out of the season are the same "knowledgeable" posters who said the Reds didn't have the talent to win as many as they did.

IMO, you can't have it both ways. I predicted 92 wins. The team won 97 and surpassed my expectations. Were there things I disagreed with? Sure there were. Fact is they did better than they should have with the obvious roster flaws that included no real lead-off guys, too may RH bats who struggled against RHP, their top 15 prospect falling flat on his face and the best player on the team out for a huge chunk of the season. I don't see any grounds for taking the manager's job away. In fact, even though there were some obvious warts, he worked a minor miracle IMO. If you weren't one of those people who predicted 97 wins or more (Sir Charles, Roy Tucker) what grounds do you have to complain about bringing back the Manager?

One fairly vocal poster in this thread, whose stance is that Dusty cost the team wins, only predicted 85 wins. I don't get it.

Boss-Hog
10-16-2012, 11:05 AM
The pre-season prediction thread had 2 people who predicted that the Reds would win 97 games or more. The average was in the 88 to 89 range. The "knowledge" of the posters here who say the Reds should have gotten more out of the season are the same "knowledgeable" posters who said the Reds didn't have the talent to win as many as they did.

IMO, you can't have it both ways. I predicted 92 wins. The team won 97 and surpassed my expectations. Were there things I disagreed with? Sure there were. Fact is they did better than they should have with the obvious roster flaws that included no real lead-off guys, too may RH bats who struggled against RHP, their top 15 prospect falling flat on his face and the best player on the team out for a huge chunk of the season. I don't see any grounds for taking the manager's job away. In fact, even though there were some obvious warts, he worked a minor miracle IMO. If you weren't one of those people who predicted 97 wins or more (Sir Charles, Roy Tucker) what grounds do you have to complain about bringing back the Manager?

One fairly vocal poster in this thread, whose stance is that Dusty cost the team wins, only predicted 85 wins. I don't get it.

That's a great point.

Always Red
10-16-2012, 12:51 PM
One fairly vocal poster in this thread, whose stance is that Dusty cost the team wins, only predicted 85 wins. I don't get it.

Because hindsight is always 20-20.

Hoosier Red
10-16-2012, 01:00 PM
He is a regular season manager,a good one.He's a long distance runner,I don't see him winning a sprint or relay.

What manager would win a relay? Just curious as the comparison has me intrigued.

wlf WV
10-18-2012, 12:27 AM
What manager would win a relay? Just curious as the comparison has me intrigued.
Baker is good in the long haul,he got out managed by Bochy.I think he has trouble making the hard decisions or "feel for the game".

He seemed to approach the play offs no differently than the regular season.In any short series I believe Baker is at a disadvantage.

REDREAD
10-18-2012, 02:49 PM
Putting Wilson Valdez in the lineup for 200+ plate appearances (half of them in the 2 slot) this season is just asinine. If you absolutely must put him in the lineup then put him at the bottom or else you will look like a complete fool. .

I agree that Valdez is a poor offensive player.
However, Dusty values having his regulars coming to the ballpark and knowing what position in the batting order they will have. He values that stablity.
So when his #2 hitter Cozart gets hurt, the sub gets put in that slot to avoid lineup shuffling. Is it optimal statistically? No. Did it hurt the team in the big picture ? I don't think so.. we still made the playoffs.

This is similiar to the Stubbs at the top of the order debate. Dusty wanted to give Stubbs every possible chance to succeed, because if Stubbs did succeed, the team would be stronger.. Again, not optimal, but it's not as if it cost us the division either. Once the playoffs started, Stubbs was in the optimal spot (#8).

So I guess, in summary, I think Dusty has a longer term view when he plans the lineups. He's less concerned that Valdez batting #2 means that Valdez might get an extra at bat as opposed to someone like Frasier.. He figures the long term benefits is worth the slightly suboptimal lineup.. It's hard to say whether Dusty is right or not (since the answer can not be quantified), but it's not like Dusty is doing it out of sheer insanity :)

mdccclxix
10-18-2012, 03:00 PM
I agree that Valdez is a poor offensive player.
However, Dusty values having his regulars coming to the ballpark and knowing what position in the batting order they will have. He values that stablity.
So when his #2 hitter Cozart gets hurt, the sub gets put in that slot to avoid lineup shuffling. Is it optimal statistically? No. Did it hurt the team in the big picture ? I don't think so.. we still made the playoffs.

This is similiar to the Stubbs at the top of the order debate. Dusty wanted to give Stubbs every possible chance to succeed, because if Stubbs did succeed, the team would be stronger.. Again, not optimal, but it's not as if it cost us the division either. Once the playoffs started, Stubbs was in the optimal spot (#8).

So I guess, in summary, I think Dusty has a longer term view when he plans the lineups. He's less concerned that Valdez batting #2 means that Valdez might get an extra at bat as opposed to someone like Frasier.. He figures the long term benefits is worth the slightly suboptimal lineup.. It's hard to say whether Dusty is right or not (since the answer can not be quantified), but it's not like Dusty is doing it out of sheer insanity :)


Plus you can look at the health of players throughout the year as to why Phillips was not leading off. I think the Opening Day lineup had Stubbs 7th. That was the plan with Rolen healthy (why they counted on this I don't know). Then Ludwick had to immerge over the course of 4-6 weeks in order to be trusted with cleanup, and then Votto had to get healthy. By the time that all fell in place it was late September. In the meantime Dusty wanted Phillips to bat cleanup, which sort of forced him to bat Stubbs higher. Half way through the year he was ready for anyone but Stubbs and wanted a replacement via trade. That tells you how much he values Stubbs defense, because he wasn't blind to his problems at the plate. I thought Heisey could have gotten more play, and I thought Frazier could have hit 2nd, but it's not like the outcomes from those players were bad where they ended up. It's just Stubbs was never able to carry the load. Platoon the poor guy before he goes bonkers.

REDREAD
10-18-2012, 04:01 PM
Plus you can look at the health of players throughout the year as to why Phillips was not leading off. I think the Opening Day lineup had Stubbs 7th. That was the plan with Rolen healthy (why they counted on this I don't know). Then Ludwick had to immerge over the course of 4-6 weeks in order to be trusted with cleanup, and then Votto had to get healthy. By the time that all fell in place it was late September. In the meantime Dusty wanted Phillips to bat cleanup, which sort of forced him to bat Stubbs higher. Half way through the year he was ready for anyone but Stubbs and wanted a replacement via trade. That tells you how much he values Stubbs defense, because he wasn't blind to his problems at the plate. I thought Heisey could have gotten more play, and I thought Frazier could have hit 2nd, but it's not like the outcomes from those players were bad where they ended up. It's just Stubbs was never able to carry the load. Platoon the poor guy before he goes bonkers.

Yep, I concur.
Had everyone been healthy from day 1, Phillips would've lead off the entire season.
The #2 slot would've probably been a rotation of Stubbs/Cozart, due to lack of better options.
Another thing on Frazier.. It's great the Reds had enough faith in him to keep him over Franscisco, but I think it's fair to think he far exceeded everyone's expectations.
I'm not being pessemistic.. I just hope Frazier can give us some offense next year, because we're really going to need it.. If Frazier goes through a sophmore slump, the offense is going to struggle next year.

DGullett35
10-18-2012, 10:32 PM
What manager would win a relay? Just curious as the comparison has me intrigued.

Def. not Kirk Gibson after his tumble down the first baseline last year:)

Sea Ray
10-19-2012, 11:05 AM
Because hindsight is always 20-20.

Fair enough. So in hindsight, didn't Dusty do a great job managing them to 98 wins?

Always Red
10-19-2012, 11:10 AM
Fair enough. So in hindsight, didn't Dusty do a great job managing them to 98 wins?

Yep, I thought he did a great job managing them to 99 wins, in total. I'm glad he's back and happy for the continuity.

I can't remember what I predicted for a win total, but no way did I pick anywhere near 97. The pitching was far better than I thought it would be.

The poster in question, who I believe predicted only 85 wins, wanted a new manager because of the playoff failure.

Caveat Emperor
10-19-2012, 01:34 PM
If you weren't one of those people who predicted 97 wins or more (Sir Charles, Roy Tucker) what grounds do you have to complain about bringing back the Manager?

Because the numbers that matter aren't 97 or 98, they're 0 and 1. How many World Series titles did the Reds win?

So long as that number is 0, there will be grounds to complain about the manager being brought back.

westofyou
10-19-2012, 01:37 PM
Veruca Salt was a Reds fan

redsmetz
10-19-2012, 06:14 PM
Because the numbers that matter aren't 97 or 98, they're 0 and 1. How many World Series titles did the Reds win?

So long as that number is 0, there will be grounds to complain about the manager being brought back.

Which year should the Reds have fired Sparky Anderson? After the 1970 season, or '72 or '73? How about McKechnie? He should have been canned after 1939. Same for Hutchinson after they got their hats handed to them in 1961?

World Series titles are great, they're the ultimate goal, but the reality is, you don't always win them.

westofyou
10-19-2012, 06:16 PM
Which year should the Reds have fired Sparky Anderson? After the 1970 season, or '72 or '73? How about McKechnie? He should have been canned after 1939. Same for Hutchinson after they got their hats handed to them in 1961?

World Series titles are great, they're the ultimate goal, but the reality is, you don't always win them.

http://msbehaveddotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/veruca-salt-now.jpg?w=300

Caveat Emperor
10-19-2012, 06:26 PM
http://msbehaveddotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/veruca-salt-now.jpg?w=300

Cute. But, if not now, when? It isn't 1975 -- small market teams can't keep windows open forever in this day and age. By your logic, we could join the Cubs in the 100+ year wait club and it would be OK so long as the team consistently has winning seasons.

Regardless, any manager that doesn't win a championship is open to questions. There's no manager who will be insulated from criticism, and that's especially true of a manager who doesn't have a ring.

Brutus
10-19-2012, 06:37 PM
Cute. But, if not now, when? It isn't 1975 -- small market teams can't keep windows open forever in this day and age. By your logic, we could join the Cubs in the 100+ year wait club and it would be OK so long as the team consistently has winning seasons.

Regardless, any manager that doesn't win a championship is open to questions. There's no manager who will be insulated from criticism, and that's especially true of a manager who doesn't have a ring.

I'm a little confused, CE. Last summer, you were taking the stance the Reds should not trade Devin Mesoraco because small market clubs have to keep their farm systems stocked to compete. Now you seem to be suggesting that windows don't stay open for very long, hinting that the Reds should be doing everything they can to win now.

edabbs44
10-19-2012, 06:37 PM
Cute. But, if not now, when? It isn't 1975 -- small market teams can't keep windows open forever in this day and age. By your logic, we could join the Cubs in the 100+ year wait club and it would be OK so long as the team consistently has winning seasons.

Regardless, any manager that doesn't win a championship is open to questions. There's no manager who will be insulated from criticism, and that's especially true of a manager who doesn't have a ring.

The Reds haven't acted like a small market team recently and they have a fairly sizeable window right now. Teams don't often go from zero to sixty as fast as you wish. There is a maturation process that takes place as well. And if you don't believe that, then why aren't you as critical of the players who were actually on the field?

westofyou
10-19-2012, 10:59 PM
Cute. But, if not now, when? It isn't 1975 -- small market teams can't keep windows open forever in this day and age. By your logic, we could join the Cubs in the 100+ year wait club and it would be OK so long as the team consistently has winning seasons.

Regardless, any manager that doesn't win a championship is open to questions. There's no manager who will be insulated from criticism, and that's especially true of a manager who doesn't have a ring.

Joe P

Ultimate success is no longer judged over 162 games. Your grade will be determined by the final exam. Success is assessed during the first three weeks of October, when a hot pitcher, a zoned-in hitter, a series of double play balls or a favorable call from the umpire can make all the difference.

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/39913534/

You're the new guard CE

Have at it, it's your world now

lollipopcurve
10-20-2012, 09:33 AM
Ultimate success is no longer judged over 162 games. Your grade will be determined by the final exam. Success is assessed during the first three weeks of October, when a hot pitcher, a zoned-in hitter, a series of double play balls or a favorable call from the umpire can make all the difference.


Fool's errand to put all your baseball hopes in the postseason. If it happens, consider yourself lucky. If not, enjoy the ride.

Caveat Emperor
10-21-2012, 12:13 PM
So let's not play the post-season at all. Just give the team with the best record a trophy and move onward to the offseason.

westofyou
10-21-2012, 01:25 PM
So let's not play the post-season at all. Just give the team with the best record a trophy and move onward to the offseason.

Better yet let's just disregard the teams accomplishments when they don't win it all, that way only one fan base can consider the season a success.

The rest can just contemplate what a bunch of losers they are and what a monumental waste of time baseball is

NJReds
10-21-2012, 01:30 PM
Better yet let's just disregard the teams accomplishments when they don't win it all, that way only one fan base can consider the season a success.

The rest can just contemplate what a bunch of losers they are and what a monumental waste of time baseball is

Willie Mays only hit one home run and hit .247 in 99 postseason at bats. What a hack. :p

Crumbley
10-21-2012, 07:42 PM
Better yet let's just disregard the teams accomplishments when they don't win it all, that way only one fan base can consider the season a success.

The rest can just contemplate what a bunch of losers they are and what a monumental waste of time baseball is
I believe they are known as Yankees fans.

We cannot become the kids on Super Sweet 16, throwing tantrums about getting the red Corvette instead of the black. The former is still pretty cool.

westofyou
10-21-2012, 08:02 PM
I believe they are known as Yankees fans.

We cannot become the kids on Super Sweet 16, throwing tantrums about getting the red Corvette instead of the black. The former is still pretty cool.

Meanwhile in Gotham City

Between All and Nothing Lies Yanks’ New Reality (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/sports/baseball/between-all-and-nothing-lies-the-yankees-new-reality.html?ref=sports)



On the field, the Yankees are just like everybody else in the postseason. That is, they are susceptible to poorly timed slumps and devastating injuries and egregious umpire calls and rotten scheduling. Their 27 championships and high expectations offer no guarantees of October magic.

Did the Yankees fail this season? Yes and no. Every team wants to win the World Series, so the Yankees are one of 29 that will fail to meet that goal this season. But four days of astonishing ineptitude against the Tigers should not obscure what came before.

“The bottom line is very simple: the season ended in a very disappointing way because our goal is to win the World Series,” the team president, Randy Levine, said after flying home from Detroit on Friday. “But the fact of the matter is, despite that, we won 95 games, the best in the American League, and we made it to the A.L.C.S.

Caveat Emperor
10-22-2012, 01:56 PM
"There's more to life than winning a championship. There's the magic of summer days at the ballpark. They can never take that away from us."

- Every Cubs fan for the last 100 years.

;)

mdccclxix
10-22-2012, 02:29 PM
Between the Champs not being worth anything nowadays and the Champs being the only thing that defines success, I think there is a definite psychic impact from this past season.

westofyou
10-22-2012, 02:33 PM
Between the Champs not being worth anything nowadays and the Champs being the only thing that defines success, I think there is a definite psychic impact from this past season.

Yep, it's a real metaphysical quandary when sucking is all you do when you aren't winning a tainted championship.

mdccclxix
10-22-2012, 02:37 PM
Yep, it's a real metaphysical quandary when sucking is all you do when you aren't winning a tainted championship.

I can see why Homer's out there shooting deer and hogs and whatever all off season.

mdccclxix
10-22-2012, 02:50 PM
This "Votto Window" is open probably pretty wide through 2017. He'll have plenty of power during that time. After, perhaps he can be an awesome 2 hitter with a .375 OBP for the rest of his years. Who knows. But think about how many drafts haven't happened, and the one's that are still very recent.

2009 - Hamilton is almost ready
2010 - Grandal = Latos
2011 Stephanson, Cingrani, probably 2-3 others will 'pop'
2012 Travieso, Winker, again probably 2-3 others will impact
2013 ?
2014 ??
2015 ???
2016 ????
2017 ?????

If Hamilton is just a .340 OBP player with good defense, he could maybe score 110 runs one year.

The 2015 rotation could be Chapman, Latos, Cueto, Stephanson, Travieso. Or 100 other variations.

Winker may end up being a huge .900 ops bat, who knows?

Bruce may bring back a haul in a trade after he's hit 250 HR as a Red...who knows?

So many things will go right, that's what I think. The Reds have reached a higher plain and will be able to operate by regularly adding small tweeks through their farm and smart FA plans.

George Foster
10-23-2012, 12:56 AM
Chapman needs a couple of other pitches if he is going to be an effective starter. He uses his slider every now and then...rarely for a strike. Does not have a change up...How can he start?

2nd and 3rd time through the line up they will be hitting him hard. His fastball has no movement...it's fast...but straight.

I have a hard time thinking he can pitch 200 innings pitching 100mph 90% of the time.

Always Red
10-23-2012, 03:18 PM
David Bell is now out of the organization; he signed on as 3B coach for the Cubs today.

Blocked out of the major league coaching staff here for the next 2 years; I can't blame him for moving on.

mdccclxix
10-23-2012, 03:21 PM
David Bell is now out of the organization; he signed on as 3B coach for the Cubs today.

Blocked out of the major league coaching staff here for the next 2 years; I can't blame him for moving on.

Can we now see his hiring as exactly what it was purported to be? To put pressure on Dusty?

redsmetz
10-23-2012, 03:25 PM
There's really nothing presently that precludes the Reds considering David Bell when Baker's contract is up. I understand it's possible he might take another job between now and then. Then again, others may be available too.

Always Red
10-23-2012, 03:37 PM
There's really nothing presently that precludes the Reds considering David Bell when Baker's contract is up. I understand it's possible he might take another job between now and then. Then again, others may be available too.

Yes, exactly- moving out of the organization and being exposed to other ideas generally will broaden both experience and a knowledge base, and is seen as a good thing.

westofyou
10-23-2012, 03:39 PM
Yes, exactly- moving out of the organization and being exposed to other ideas generally will broaden both experience and a knowledge base, and is seen as a good thing.

Plus being a Cub for a few years will teach him about disappointment

Always Red
10-23-2012, 03:40 PM
Can we now see his hiring as exactly what it was purported to be? To put pressure on Dusty?

I don't see it that way. He was at Carolina in AA for 3 years before he was at Louisville.

The Reds didn't fire him, he chose to go to Chicago.

David Bell is building himself a nice bundle of different experiences for his future.