Dusty's Hiring revisited (the original thread)

[redsmetz]

One of the comments in the myriad of threads going on about Dusty made me go back and look at the thread from when he was first hired. It's voluminous (no surprise there) and some of those who hate Baker today, hated him from day one, but I'd be curious to hear folks thoughts looking back over it with regards to what has happened since.

It's been four and a half years since he was hired. One division title and three seasons where they considerably fell short. Presently we're in first place.

One thing that struck me was the concern folks had for the direction of the club. There were "all in" comments (some things never change, do they?), talk of pitchers arms falling off (Cueto & Bailey are integral parts of our rotation), young players who would never get the chance and the club never being able to build for the future and hang on to the up & coming players we had.

Given what has transpired over the last two off-seasons with regards to the extensions we've seen for Bruce, Phillips, Votto, etc.; I'm wondering what people think of there thoughts then.

Some of it was tempered with "wait and see" and some seemed, as the thread wore on, to come around to some small comfort with the hiring. Of course, some of the canards that have followed Baker for years popped up and are still here today.

My input in the thread was scant Mostly asking questions and being fairly noncommittal.

Enjoy the read.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...ht=dusty+baker

[redsmetz]

BTW, by season's end, Baker will likely rank 5th all-time for Reds managers. He'll be jumping a bunch of folks in the remaining 90 games.

[Always Red]

I like Dusty better than I did when he was hired. Why? I can't put a finger on it directly, but I have found the urban legends about him were mostly that. I love how he fights for his players, and I think they love playing for him. He shows them confidence when perhaps they're scuffling and doubting themselves.

My biggest frustration with Dusty over the years was probably when he insisted on playing Corey Patterson every day- it drove me crazy. Of course, Patterson did play a better defensive CF than anyone had in years for the Reds. But leadoff?

I did have this to say in that thread:

That thud I just heard was Aaron Harang's arm falling off in sheer terror of what the future might hold...

And I'm sorry to say, Harang's arm WAS the one most affected during that time, by a decision that Aaron made. Then unfortunately (because I like Aaron Harang) he chose to blame Dusty for his arm woes, once he was with the Padres. In retrospect, of course, Dusty should have over ruled him and gone with some fodder instead of going all out to win the game.

Mostly I'm tired of the Dusty bashing, non-stop, day after day here. I think that we all get it, there a number of folks here who hate Dusty- the Reds win in spite of him, and when they lose, it's his fault. It's tiresome, and it makes this a negative place to be.

Baseball is fun, the Reds are in first place and it's nearly July. This should be a fun place to come and read about and discuss our favorite team.

[Tom Servo]

I like Dusty better than I did when he was hired. Why? I can't put a finger on it directly, but I have found the urban legends about him were mostly that. I love how he fights for his players, and I think they love playing for him. He shows them confidence when perhaps they're scuffling and doubting themselves.

This is exactly how I feel.

[Homer Bailey]

My take has always been pretty consistent, and is best summarized here:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showp...&postcount=163

The way I see, is there are two main parts to being a major league manager.

Part 1 - This is your ability to put your players in the best position to succeed statistically. It means not pinch hitting Juan Castro for Josh Hamilton (Narron), it means not letting Corey Patterson face a lefty in a late game situation and saying "he hits lefties better than righties" when it's completely not true, it means not batting Paul Janish in the two hole, etc. In my opinion, Dusty is about as bad as you can possibly be at this part of managing. Absolutely, mind-numbingly bad. Way too many instances to name, but the hunches he had with Patterson, Taveras, Gomes, Janish, etc., were enough to drive me up a wall. This part of managing is easiest to control, in my opinion. Either you have baseball smarts, or your stubborn enough to think that you know better than stats do. This is where I despise Dusty as a manager.

Part 2: The part of being a manager that none of us know anything about: Managing the clubhouse. I've never read of an instance of a player not liking Dusty Baker, or not being excited to play for Dusty Baker. He's a player's manager. He seems to be a pretty cool guy. I have absolute, 100% confidence in many members of this board being better at Part 1 (above) than Dusty is. I have no idea how to evaluate part 2, and there is no way to quantify how that affects a team. I don't doubt that it is important to a ball club. Some overstate its importance, but the fact is, it can't truly be measured. Regardless, you don't want a ball club of guys that don't like each other, or don't like the manager.

Why many don't like Dusty is the fact that part 1 is the easiest to evaluate, and it's pretty much factual that Dusty is not good at that part of managing. How much stock you put into part 2 probably weighs directly into your opinion of the man as a manager.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Mostly I'm tired of the Dusty bashing, non-stop, day after day here. I think that we all get it, there a number of folks here who hate Dusty- the Reds win in spite of him, and when they lose, it's his fault. It's tiresome, and it makes this a negative place to be.

Baseball is fun, the Reds are in first place and it's nearly July. This should be a fun place to come and read about and discuss our favorite team.

This is the part that's become the most bothersome for me...and mind boggling. One would think we'd be happy with our first place club. *shrugs*

[redsmetz]

I can't find the quotes now, but FCB had a come of comments early in the thread, before anything was official that were interesting. Basically the points he was making was that the Reds could use someone who would instill some, and it's here I'm forgetting what he said, but whose players weren't afraid to going in hard on opposing players. I don't think he said "meanness" or "toughness". And he saw that Baker seems to dislike everyone else in the NL (again, I'm not doing FCB justice by paraphrasing what he said better).

[redsmetz]

BTW, Doug mentioned that he was going to get the domain name firedustybaker.com. Out of curiousity, I went to the site I use for securing domain names and, irony of ironies, the Whois for that domain says that today is actually the expiration date for it. So it might be available tomorrow.

[dougdirt]

BTW, Doug mentioned that he was going to get the domain name firedustybaker.com. Out of curiousity, I went to the site I use for securing domain names and, irony of ironies, the Whois for that domain says that today is actually the expiration date for it. So it might be available tomorrow.

I do have $11 bucks sitting in paypal.....

I still feel the same way about him as I always have.... he is a bad manager.

[Sea Ray]

I still feel the same way about him as I always have.... he is a bad manager.

I would think anyone who's into stats would have a hard time saying that Dusty's a bad manager. He's 20th all time in managerial wins, 2nd only to Jim Leyland among active managers. His win % is decent, better than Lou Pinella's. "Bad" managers just don't have numbers like that.

I think folks who think Dusty's a bad manager are over rating the talent on this Reds team. I would argue this team does not have .600 win % talent. Dusty's getting the most out it. I don't see him doing boneheaded things like Pete Rose did when he continually played Eddie Milner over Eric Davis or himself over Nick Esasky. I understand those that would like to see Hanigan hit in the #2 hole, but that's a very minor thing as Hanigan is splitting time with Mes. I understand those that want Jay Bruce in the #4 hole but I also see Jay struggle as often as I see Phillips.

These are typical fan second guessing and it goes on everywhere. The truth is Dusty doesn't have a lot of toys to play with. Unless Walt improves this roster, their margin of victory will be razor thin

[dougdirt]

I would think anyone who's into stats would have a hard time saying that Dusty's a bad manager. He's 20th all time in managerial wins, 2nd only to Jim Leyland among active managers. His win % is decent, better than Lou Pinella's. "Bad" managers just don't have numbers like that.

They do when they have Barry Bonds for 10 years (and Balco right down the street) and then head to Chicago where they had 3/5 of their rotation compete for the Cy Young. A manager can only be as good as his talent and Dusty has had a whole slew of it. The guy makes bad decisions though, consistently. Manager wins are akin to pitcher wins.... they don't really tell much.

I think folks who think Dusty's a bad manager are over rating the talent on this Reds team. I would argue this team does not have .600 win % talent.

2 teams per season have that kind of record (that is a 97 and 65 record).

Dusty's getting the most out it. I don't see him doing boneheaded things like Pete Rose did when he continually played Eddie Milner over Eric Davis or himself over Nick Esasky. I understand those that would like to see Hanigan hit in the #2 hole, but that's a very minor thing as Hanigan is splitting time with Mes. I understand those that want Jay Bruce in the #4 hole but I also see Jay struggle as often as I see Phillips.

Simply because someone else was a worse manager doesn't mean that Dusty is a good one. When you combine the things that Dusty says with the things that Dusty does, he isn't a good manager. He doesn't get the new things in baseball. Like Rick said though, there probably isn't any kind of real upgrade on the horizon given the front office views.

[_Sir_Charles_]

He doesn't get the new things in baseball.

I've seen new stats in use in baseball. I've seen pitch counts installed in baseball. I've seen the bullpen's role altered SLIGHTLY in recent years. What exactly are these new things in baseball? The game has changed very little since Dusty actually PLAYED imo.

[Vottomatic]

I don't hate Dusty Baker. But I feel like Homer Bailey (the poster above). I think Dusty is good at clubhouse dealings with players. But in my 47 year lifetime, I never scratched my head as often as I do over a manager's strategical moves.......lineup construction, pinch hitting, use of bullpen, etc. I just think the strategy part is more important.

I was always a fan of Davey Johnson and wanted him to come back. The Nationals had the same thought and now they're doing pretty well. Just my preference in type of managers.

[Revering4Blue]

One fond memory for me from that time period:

GAC's humorous Fred G. Sanford. faking a heart-attack avatar.

"Dusty Baker? Oh,no!"

[mdccclxix]

I don't hate Dusty Baker. But I feel like Homer Bailey (the poster above). I think Dusty is good at clubhouse dealings with players. But in my 47 year lifetime, I never scratched my head as often as I do over a manager's strategical moves.......lineup construction, pinch hitting, use of bullpen, etc. I just think the strategy part is more important.

I was always a fan of Davey Johnson and wanted him to come back. The Nationals had the same thought and now they're doing pretty well. Just my preference in type of managers.

I like Davey as well, but I think it's obvious he only took that job knowing he had an amazing crop of talent coming in and now it's seriously paying off. And it's worth noting his leadoff choices are very similar to Dusty's, low OBP middle infielders. .306 in leadoff this year. Also, he's sticking with his vet Zimmerman in the 3 hole, to the tune of .599 OPS this year. Similar to the Cozart and Rolen situations here.