Brian Kenny rules. But he is hardly the first sabermetrically friendly guy out there.
I don't hate Dusty Baker. He seems like an outstanding person. I do think he is a poor manager though. But there is a world of difference between hating someone and thinking they aren't good at their job.
I would rather the Reds win 100 games with any manager than lose 100 with any manager, assuming those 100 wins don't lead to injuries to players because of poor managing (and no, I am not saying Dusty is currently doing anything of the sort, just laying out the way I would be against that 100 win season) to the cost of winning so much.
Obviously a poor manager, having won the 17th most games in the history of major league baseball. I wonder if Brian Kenny would be available to take over?
"Man, the pitch looks fast, even in slow motion." Thom Brennaman on Chapman's fastball.
Weird that he then moved to another organization for 6 years and finished under .500 there too.
Then he moved on to the Yankees where he won 90+ games in 11 of 12 seasons. Did he figure something out as a manger or did he find a place with a lot of talent?
Why did he win 84, 95 and 80 games in three years after he left the Yankees? Did he forget how to manage in the bookend years?
Or is this whole win loss thing for managers directly tied to the amount of talent you have on the field?
This is what I don't get about the Dusty situation.
He's 1636-1475 as a manager. As a Reds manager, he's 474-434. He's managed some really talented teams, absolutely. But what is there to bash him for? He's been successful more than he's not. Does he have his flaws? Absolutely. Does every manager have his flaws? Absolutely.
He's great in the clubhouse, and he suffers a bit in game. In game is more visible than in the clubhouse.
However, when you look at his record over the years the good as outweighed the bad. And if you want to say it's because of the players he's had, why are we even bothering to argue this? The players win games.
Dusty gets none of the credit and all of the blame. I understand almost every manager does, but with him it's more so than most. I don't get why.
He's fine. He's not the best, he's not the worst.
By my count, when Baker's teams have made the post-season, they've lost to the eventual World Champion every year but two.
Not that this means anything necessarily, just pointing out that if you dismiss his overall W-L percentage based on the fact that the talent largely dictates success, why would you not allow that talent, luck, and variability play a part in his post season success.
So in terms of evidence, you're basically disqualifying everything.
When people say that I donít know what Iím talking about when it comes to sports or writing, I think: Man, you should see me in the rest of my life.