Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling
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.