Originally Posted by Kc61
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?