Originally Posted by cincrazy
Do you ever stop to think maybe you're being a little hostile about the Dusty situation, and it's getting on people's nerves? No he's not a perfect manager. Fine, you want a change. Many do. But do you really think, with a different manager, things would've been any different? He doesn't make a dramatic difference. But I don't believe he hurts the team. You can cite all the negatives, many of them which I won't disagree with. But I can cite just as many positives. At worst, he's neutral.
I respect you as a poster, never had a problem with you. And still don't. But you're showing little respect for a man, IMO, that deserves more than his fair share.
Of course the manager has some input with players. But do you really think Walt would sign off on it if he disagreed? Dusty gives input, but the bottom line is Walt decides. Dusty can only put the guys on the field that he's given. Lineup construction an issue? We won 97 games. Look at this roster. Can you see us squeezing out that many more wins with what we have? For all the whining people do about the crap players we have and how much they play, we STILL won 97 games. Dusty deserves no credit for that?
Be careful what you wish for, my friend. A new manager is likely to leave you shaking your head and muttering yourself just the same. Yankee fans complained about Torre. Braves fans about Cox. Cardinals fans about LaRussa. Everyone has their flaws.
No I am not hostile about the Dusty situation. I am entitled to an opinion too. I have said many, many times that Dusty is an average manager. For some reason there are a lot of people that get all upset if someone doesn't think Dusty Baker is a fantastic manager. I gave my opinion that he is not fantastic and that he does have flaws, some of which are glaringly obvious. Some people can't handle it when I say that. He also has strengths which I have detailed several times in various threads. I respect Dusty Baker, but I don't think he was a major reason why the 2012 Reds were so much better than Dusty's 2011 Reds.
The "we won 97 games" refrain is meaningless. Dusty is the same manager doing the same things as 2011 when the team had a losing record. The same criticisms from 2011 are still valid today. Unless you think that Dusty Baker is the reason the Reds won 20 more games this year than last year then it is unfair to say that Dusty is immune from all criticism because the Reds won 97 games this year. If Dusty is the reason the Reds improved so much then why didn't Dusty do it last year? Was he as awful last year as he was great this year? Clearly, the reason the Reds won 97 games this year is the addition of Mat Latos, Ryan Ludwick, Todd Frazier, Zack Cozart and Sean Marshall. Dusty was just along for the ride doing the same things he has always done. I don't think Dusty really deserves much of the credit for the 97 win season. I don't think he managed much better than he did last year. He is a decent manager, but definitely replaceable if you don't think decent is good enough.
I believe that the talent on this team if utilized properly could have scored quite a few more runs over the course of the season. So yes, the Reds would likely have won a few more games with a manager that was better at lineup construction and in-game strategy than Dusty Baker was.
I also believe that Bryan Price has much more effect on the team's won/loss record than Dusty Baker does.