Managerial search over. It's Dusty.

[D-Man]

Originally Posted by M2

With the Giants, and I know Law wants to ignore this, Baker's M.O. was to hit his CF in the leadoff spot. When that was Darren Lewis, it wasn't such a hot choice. When it was Darryl Hamilton and Kenny Lofton, it was a pretty good choice. When it was Marvin Benard, it wasn't notably good or bad. That followed him to the Cubs where his CFs didn't do the job as well.

Yep, Law's article is far from "exceptional."

Just to drive home M2's point re: walks. For the bad rap that Dusty has received regarding his statement on walks, here is where his team actually ranked in BBs: 6th, 9th, 7th, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 14th, 14, 16th, and 16th. On average, that puts his teams pretty much in the middle of the pack in BBs.

I'd much prefer to take the objective evidence than some out-of-context quote.

And even though Dusty had the BB beast in the middle of his lineup in SF, one must recall that the Giants finished third in walks in 1999, the year when Bonds only played in 102 games. Warrants mentioning.

[Stormy]

I find there to be a number of material aspects to forecasting how Dusty Baker may, or may not, mesh will with the direction of the current Reds organization. Law's article touched upon several of them, and I think they are germane and well stated.

1. The Reds weakest unit in 2007 was their bullpen. If not properly addressed (and Wayne's demonstrated an ability to whiff on BP improvement twice in two years), how might that impact Dusty's demonstrated tendency to ride his starters longer conventional wisdom indicates is prudent?

2. The Reds haven't developed a pair of top of the rotation starters in more than a decade, and until Harang's and Arroyo's advent, hadn't boasted a decent #1-2 since the brevity of Harnisch and Neagle. So, history would demonstrate that we don't have the luxury of flaming out a pair of arms, and quickly replacing them. Taking the chance that a pitcher abusing phenom like Dusty Baker, under directives to 'win immediately', possibly devoid of a viable and deep bullpen, is going to handle them with care is a pretty big risk. That's without even taking into account the potential handling of youngsters like Bailey.

3. Speaking of the fast forward to a mandate of 'winning now', how might it affect an organization whose GM was just articulating the inception of a 'rebuilding process' less than 18 months ago? At year's end, the future was spelled Bruce, Hamilton, Votto, Bailey, Cueto, Encarnacion, Phillips etc... but aside from BP, there isn't a guy in the group who has a stranglehold on a starting job. How much of the future might be moved via trade to 'go for it now'? How much of a rope will Dusty give young players who demonstrate the typical coming of age inconsistencies, if he's given veteran options in their stead? Is the youth movement going to be derailed, and should it be, before it starts paying it's dividends.

4. Dusty doesn't have any regard for the relevance of OBP to offensive production, and I'm not sure how it can be anymore explicitly stated. In the event that Dusty's speedy CF type happened to possess +OBP skills, then his teams lucked into a decent OBP at leadoff, in the far more frequent circumstance that his speedy CFers didn't possess those skills, his teams were stuck with 280-320OBPs in the #1-2 slots. Frankly, that's no more enlightened than a Miley or Narron batting whoever played SS #2.

Personally, I saw an enormous difference in this offense when Pete placed Hamilton and Keppinger in the #1-2 slot based upon their ability to get on base (as did our offensive output which rose by a statistically significant margin following such moves in July), so the idea of the potential desire to put a rabbit CFer at #1 and a bat handler at #2 gives me premonitions of a potential Hopper and Gonzo tandem at #1-2, and that dismays me.

I think extremely valid points have been made that Dusty is a good manager, but that he might not fit well with the construct of this team (a team which was showing signs of only being a starter and a reliever or two away from contending in the NL Central). I think Dusty's signing has a good chance of derailing the Reds first signs of positive direction this decade.

[Stormy]

Originally Posted by D-Man

Yep, Law's article is far from "exceptional."

Just to drive home M2's point re: walks. For the bad rap that Dusty has received regarding his statement on walks, here is where his team actually ranked in BBs: 6th, 9th, 7th, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 14th, 14, 16th, and 16th. On average, that puts his teams pretty much in the middle of the pack in BBs.

I'd much prefer to take the objective evidence than some out-of-context quote.

And even though Dusty had the BB beast in the middle of his lineup in SF, one must recall that the Giants finished third in walks in 1999, the year when Bonds only played in 102 games. Warrants mentioning.

It's not an out of context quote, it's an explicitly stated mantra. Of course the man's teams were league leaders in walks in the years that Bonds was acquiring more walks by himself than many teams #1-4 hitters combined. In 2002, for example, Bonds drew 198 of his team's 616 walks. Once Dusty joined the Cubs, they were amongst the worst in the league, whereas San Francisco remained at the top. That's a hollow point about SF's walk rate, and there is every reason to believe that Dusty could much more highly value a lesser players 'speed', or 'bat handling', or 'professional at bats' at certain spots in the order than he would one of our younger guys who has some walk driven OBP (Hamilton or Votto come to mind), and I don't think that's a positive for this team.

We have an impressionable young nucleus of players, and the last thing they need is to have a more free swinging, aggressive approach at the plate emphasized to them.

[Stormy]

Originally Posted by pedro

You're certainly entitled to your opinion and while after reading it I'll admit that it's not the worst piece of tripe that Keith Law ever wrote the best thing I can say about it is, you're right, it is redundant. Dusty has his flaws but I honestly believe he's a better manager than many here give him credit for. You can call it a "rubber stamp" all you want but if the Reds had hired Joe Girardi I'd be hopping mad. Frankly I could just as easily say you've got your own rubber stamp, it just has a "no" on it instead of a "yes" and that certainly doesn't make it any more insightful, whether you think so or not.

I obviously don't think you are of a 'rubber stamp' mentality, as you're one of my favorite posters. I also don't think my take is particularly unique or insightful, but as we're dealing with a known quantity in Dusty Baker, I don't think great insight or discovery is needed. That's why I liked Law's article, it simply states exactly what Dusty Baker is, and what we can likely expect in several areas of his management oversight. And each of them will likely come into play next year.

And my 'rubber stamp' doesn't say 'no' as I've been on the praise Krivsky train for months after initially deriding many of his moves, and I thought his appointment of Pete was a spectacular interim fit. I like the direction Krivsky had us headed, and thought we were 2-3 arms away from serious contention in 2008... I just hate the dramatic changing of course which this is likely to entail, in the name of hiring a splashy manager. I'd rather win (which we were on the path to doing), than pay lip service to the concept (which I feel this move embodies).

[RFS62]

When I first heard the deal was done, I was not happy. I think we all had a superficial view of what Dusty was all about, and it wasn't pretty. The rap sheet included pitcher abuse, over-reliance on veterans, and on and on, as has been outlined here ad infinitum.

M2 led the charge, IMO, in looking beyond these notions and looking deeper into the hiring. Some of his best writing, IMO, and that's saying a lot for a RedsZone icon.

For me, the idea that it portends spending the likes of which we haven't seen before was the tipping point in accepting Baker. If all we're doing is paying him 3+ million a year to manage the same roster we finished the year with, I'd join the conga line jumping off the Roebling Bridge.

It's been a fascinating process reading all the varied opinions and conjecture accompanying this move. Caveat Emporer likened it to the 5 stages of the grieving process, with acceptance coming far too early.

GAC is moving to Cleveland and maybe on to Canada with Alec Baldwin.

If what we have here is truly a sea change in spending then I'm on board.

If not, and the pitching isn't addressed, there will be a lot of "I told you so" heard around here.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by D-Man

Yep, Law's article is far from "exceptional."

Just to drive home M2's point re: walks. For the bad rap that Dusty has received regarding his statement on walks, here is where his team actually ranked in BBs: 6th, 9th, 7th, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 14th, 14, 16th, and 16th. On average, that puts his teams pretty much in the middle of the pack in BBs.

I'd much prefer to take the objective evidence than some out-of-context quote.

And even though Dusty had the BB beast in the middle of his lineup in SF, one must recall that the Giants finished third in walks in 1999, the year when Bonds only played in 102 games. Warrants mentioning.

Good point, however captaining a team that finished high in BB rate doesn't necessarily mean that the Manager understands the importance of high OBP.

From his years with the Cubs, Baker didn't seem to understand the importance of high OBP early in the lineup. Randomly, Todd Walker received a team-high 32 games in the #2 slot in 2006. That's good. Well, there's Walker again in 2005 with 61 games in the 2-slot. But we also see Neifi Perez with 65 starts there (26 at leadoff) and Corey Patterson with 18 games in that slot (29 at leadoff). 2005 leadoff? Hairston, Patterson, and Neifi-freakin'-Perez grabbed 131 games there. Corey Patterson gobbled up 55 games at leadoff in 2004 and 47 games in the 2-slot while Derrick Lee was hitting 6th.

Coupled with Baker's admissions as to his understanding (or lack thereof) of how baseball offenses work, I'm highly skeptical that Baker can optimize a lineup. While lineup construction may not be THE key concern with a new Manager, I certainly think that it demonstrates a Manager preference for certain skill sets. Baker has used both Grudz and Todd Walker in either the leadoff or two slots, but not enough to ensure a commitment to starting off with high OBP players considering the number of PA he's offered to poor-OBP players there.

From what I've seen, if there's a faster guy Baker trusts (key word there), he'll position him early in the lineup every time versus a higher OBP slower option. Baker's recent handling of the 2-slot in the lineup has been pretty awful and I'd suggest that he uses an all-too-traditional "speed/contact" first two hitters. That's not at all rare, but it's also not at all good.

[gm]

Originally Posted by RedlegJake

(Baker seems to be the type who turns a franchise around then sees it go south after 3 or 4 seasons; I'd hire him, keep him for his contract and then no matter what - I'd find a new manager. So I think he'll bring about immediate gains for a year or two, run at the central title then I think you get a guy (with a more even keel shall we say?) to take over once Baker begins to wear thin.

I liked the whole post RLJ, but this last part got me wondering....is Johnnie B. his generation's Billy Martin?

[Stormy]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Coupled with Baker's admissions as to his understanding (or lack thereof) of how baseball offenses work, I'm highly skeptical that Baker can optimize a lineup. While lineup construction may not be THE key concern with a new Manager, I certainly think that it demonstrates a Manager preference for certain skill sets. Baker has used both Grudz and Todd Walker in either the leadoff or two slots, but not enough to ensure a commitment to starting off with high OBP players considering the number of PA he's offered to poor-OBP players there.

From what I've seen, if there's a faster guy Baker trusts (key word there), he'll position him early in the lineup every time versus a higher OBP slower option. Baker's recent handling of the 2-slot in the lineup has been pretty awful and I'd suggest that he uses an all-too-traditional "speed/contact" first two hitters. That's not at all rare, but it's also not at all good.

I was just looking at his lineup construction during his Cubs years, as well, and the amount of top of the order (#1-2 hole) At Bats given to the likes of Grudz, Gonzalez, Pierre, Perez, Patterson, and even Hairston, is absolutely alarming. Literally thousands upon thousands of ABs spent at the top of the order on the prototypical speed/contact guys with OBPs often south of .300. I see no reason to believe he would handle anything differently here, especially if we go out and target one of Dusty's prototype CF's in the offseason.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Stormy

1. The Reds weakest unit in 2007 was their bullpen. If not properly addressed (and Wayne's demonstrated an ability to whiff on BP improvement twice in two years), how might that impact Dusty's demonstrated tendency to ride his starters longer conventional wisdom indicates is prudent?

Fair question. Wayne's bullpen building foibles and Dusty's whip hand could form a perfect storm.

Originally Posted by Stormy

2. The Reds haven't developed a pair of top of the rotation starters in more than a decade, and until Harang's and Arroyo's advent, hadn't boasted a decent #1-2 since the brevity of Harnisch and Neagle. So, history would demonstrate that we don't have the luxury of flaming out a pair of arms, and quickly replacing them. Taking the chance that a pitcher abusing phenom like Dusty Baker, under directives to 'win immediately', possibly devoid of a viable and deep bullpen, is going to handle them with care is a pretty big risk. that's without even taking into account the potential handling of youngsters like Bailey.

That's where I go back to Dick Pole. He's been here. He handled Harang fairly well last season and it looked like he figured out that you count pound on Arroyo after the early season ringer they put him through. I'll add that Harang pitches efficiently enough that he can go 7 IP without getting into crazy high pitch counts, so he's self-protecting in that regard.

Originally Posted by Stormy

3. Speaking of the fast forward to a mandate of 'winning now', how might it affect an organization whose GM was just articulating the inception of a 'rebuilding process' less than 18 months ago? At year's end, the future was spelled Bruce, Hamilton, Votto, Bailey, Cueto, Encarnacion, Phillips etc... but aside from BP, there isn't a guy in the group who has a stranglehold on a starting job. How much of the future might be moved via trade to 'go for it now'? How much of a rope will Dusty give young players who demonstrate the typical coming of age inconsistencies, if he's given veteran options in their stead? Is the youth movement going to be derailed, and should it be, before it starts paying it's dividends.

Honestly, I don't think there was ever any real evidence the Reds were pursuing a rebuilding plan. They've taken a look at some younger guys when they had injuries and fell out of the race, but I wouldn't confuse that with a youth movement. Before the franchise hired Baker I said that we ought to be prepared for the reality that at least one of Bruce, Bailey, Cueto and Votto will be traded. That's just realpolitik. If they make such a deal and get a good return, then that's cool with me.

The Castellini/Krivsky regime has consistently said it wants to win now and it's actions have generally been in pursuit of that goal. Even during this dog of a season the only veterans traded were Kyle Lohse and Jeff Conine, who were pending free agents.

Originally Posted by Stormy

4. Dusty doesn't have any regard for the relevance of OBP, and i'm not sure how it can be anymore explicitly stated. In the event that Dusty's speedy CF type happened to possess +OBP skills, then his teams lucked into a decent OBP at leadoff, in the far more frequent circumstance that his speedy CFers didn't possess those skills, his teams were stuck with 280-320OBPs in the #1-2 slots. Frankly, that's no more enlightened than a Miley or Narron batting whoever played SS #2.

Well, seeing that his primary CF options look to have OB skills, that most of the team in fact has OB skills, I'm not overly worried on that score. For the record, during his 10 seasons with the Giants, his primary leadoff hitter had a .333 or better OB seven times.

And while he was with Chicago, he actually got fairly decent OB from his primary leadoff hitters in 2003 (Grudzielanek, .366 OB, and Lofton, .381 OB) and 2004 (Walker, .352 OB, and Grudzielanek, .347 OB). Jerry Hairston (.336 OB) was his primary leadoff guy in 2005 and he had a fairly gaudy OB considering Baker's other options that season. Juan Pierre was at .330 in 2006. While I'm not going to want a .330ish OB up top, the point I'm making here is that Neifi Perez was an exception, not the rule.

Originally Posted by Stormy

Personally, I saw an enormous difference in this offense when Pete placed Hamilton and Keppinger in the #1-2 slot based upon their ability to get on base (as did our offensive output which rose by a statistically significant margin following such moves in July), so the idea of the potential desire to put a rabbit CFer at #1 and a bat handler at #2 gives me premonitions of a potential Hopper and Gonzo tandem at #1-2, and that dismays me.

We'll see, but I'd be extremely surprised to see Hopper getting many starts. Baker would have to bench Hamilton and Freel and keep Bruce in the minors to do it. Let's not forget, Dusty likes him some tools. Hamilton and Bruce are going to appeal to him. Keppinger's not going to start, but we already knew that. My expectation is that Phillips will hit #2.

Originally Posted by Stormy

I think extremely valid points have been made that Dusty is a good manager, but that he might not fit well with the construct of this team (a team which was showing signs of only being a starter and a reliver or two away from contending in the NL Central). I think Dusty's signing has a good chance of derailing the Reds first signs of positive direction this decade.

I think you made some good arguments on that front here. Law didn't. He soiled the bed.

Obviously if Dusty Baker manages like a caricature of himself then it won't bode well for the team. Yet, when I look at his body of work, I see more depth than he's being credited for having.

[WVRedsFan]

Originally Posted by Stormy

I obviously don't think you are of a 'rubber stamp' mentality, as you're one of my favorite posters. I also don't think my take is particularly unique or insightful, but as we're dealing with a known quantity in Dusty Baker, I don't think great insight or discovery is needed. That's why I liked Law's article, it simply states exactly what Dusty Baker is, and what we can likely expect in several areas of his management oversight. And each of them will likely come into play next year.

And my 'rubber stamp' doesn't say 'no' as I've been on the praise Krivsky train for months after initially deriding many of his moves, and I thought his appointment of Pete was a spectacular interim fit. I like the direction Krivsky had us headed, and thought we were 2-3 arms away from serious contention in 2008... I just hate the dramatic changing of course which this is likely to entail, in the name of hiring a splashy manager. I'd rather win (which we were on the path to doing), than pay lip service to the concept (which I feel this move embodies).

Good post. Let me just add one thing here. I did not hear the press conference because I was workiing and my mind was on other things, but did anyone else but me get the feeling that this was Castellini's call and Krivsky had little to do with it. I've seen pictures of Wayne at the PC and he was stoic almost. Was this BCast's dream of having a trophy manager?

I'm kind of like RFS62 now. If the hiring of Baker means more money spent on arms that help us, good. If not, like Stormy, this could be the beginning of a long sad ride. That, I'm not prepared to take.

[Jpup]

Originally Posted by WVRedsFan

Good post. Let me just add one thing here. I did not hear the press conference because I was workiing and my mind was on other things, but did anyone else but me get the feeling that this was Castellini's call and Krivsky had little to do with it. I've seen pictures of Wayne at the PC and he was stoic almost. Was this BCast's dream of having a trophy manager?

I'm kind of like RFS62 now. If the hiring of Baker means more money spent on arms that help us, good. If not, like Stormy, this could be the beginning of a long sad ride. That, I'm not prepared to take.

I'm afraid, very afraid. I just don't see the Reds upping the payroll to add the arms needed to win a pennant.

[Aronchis]

[epared for the reality that at least one of Bruce, Bailey, Cueto and Votto will be traded. That's just realpolitik. If they make such a deal and get a good return, then that's cool with me.


Why prepare when it may not be in the Reds best interest? Your bias to thinking every bias they make is for a "veteren" is over the top. You could even make a arguement the Reds actually damage themselves by trading those guys...........the 2008 season. Each could in a way contribute in some form to that team.

I would veer toward different routes which can bring the same(probably bad) and the trades you think will take place, don't.

[Ltlabner]

Originally Posted by Stormy

We have an impressionable young nucleus of players, and the last thing they need is to have a more free swinging, aggressive approach at the plate emphasized to them.

To me, this is the outcome of the concerns about Dusty and walks. He's going to be pressuring some kids who already have a propensity to swing freely to go up there and swing more freely.

I see that as a bad thing.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by M2

It's the sabermetric Pavlovian dog reaction to Dusty Baker: Wood! Prior! Neifi! drool

To be fair, Keith Law isn't exactly regarded as the spokesperson for sabermetrics.....

[M2]

Originally Posted by Aronchis

Why prepare when it may not be in the Reds best interest? Your bias to thinking every bias they make is for a "veteren" is over the top. You could even make a arguement the Reds actually damage themselves by trading those guys...........the 2008 season. Each could in a way contribute in some form to that team.

I would veer toward different routes which can bring the same(probably bad) and the trades you think will take place, don't.

Wow, I've apparently got biases I don't even know about. And here I thought I was in favor of putting Jay Bruce in the starting lineup and going with young arms in the pen.

Sorry that I don't think jamming Bailey or Cueto into the rotation and hoping for fluffy bunny happiness is a viable plan for winning anything or for successfully developing young arms.

Anyway, the market for prospects has never been higher. If the right opportunity presents itself, the Reds have what the market wants. Bruce would be untouchable if it were my call. Push came to shove and I had to deal one of the top two arms, it would be Bailey. Homer's got the higher market value and the Reds traditionally don't teach control very well. I've got nothing against Votto, but he plays 1B. If a 1B could land me a pitcher or catcher (though don't ask me what impact catcher would be on the trade market) and Votto could land me the guy, then I'd figure out another way to cover 1B.

What I find useless is this notion that you can't possibly consider dealing a prospect when his value is high. It's completely myopic, every bit as much as the notion that you would trade all your kids away. If the Reds aren't prepared to take a more lucid approach to how they work the roster then THAT more than Dusty Baker is what will tie an anchor to the franchise bumper.