Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling
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.