Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

[Bumstead]

Bring him back? Absolutely not. And let's be clear, he won't be fired, he has no contract. I say we let Boston have them after their grievous error and see how that works for them!

You can't have a manager that lessens your chances of winning in the playoffs and that's what Dusty did in games 4 & 5 of the playoffs. Dusty has only ever outsmarted himself; it gets old watching him continue to try and outsmart the other team when it's just not going to happen.

Bum

[Kc61]

Prediction: This will play out like Joe Torre with the Yankees. The Reds will make Baker an offer they expect him to decline. He will say it's not enough, perhaps only one year, and he will depart.

My guess is Dusty has won too much here to be "let go" but the Reds will not show the kind of enthusiasm to cause him to stay.

I expect a new a manager next season. I like Dusty, but it's not a tragedy one way or the other.

[MWM]

Originally Posted by 757690

Also, this was the exact same logic that was used to fire Sparky. Someone was new needed to take them to the next level.

Not sure what I'm missing but Sparky actually got them to 2 World Series' and won 2 of them, so I really don't see a direct correlation. Bristol actually had some success coming close a couple of times, so you could argue bringing in Sparky over Bristol was recognizing the team had grown up and needed a new kind of manager.

It's not meant to be a knock on Dusty. They guy has done a really good job for the most part. But I think it's hard to argue that certain managers are better suited for some teams and not others. There are different "types" of managers and different types of teams and I think it's more a matter of finding the right match.

I do believe Dusty was the perfect kind of manager for the 2010 team. He was also a god fit for this team, at least through the first 5 months of the season. At some point they got to the point where they knew they were good and knew how to come to play every single day. They learned all they needed to and became a team that could manage themselves when it came to that part of the game. Phillips has matured almost to a Larkin kind of clubhouse leader. Votto has the respect of everyone and the young players are guys like Bruce and Frazier and Cozart. They are all very teachable and look up to the veterans. They don't have the ego problem guys that managers like Dusty are so good at managing.

Ultimately, I think Walt has put together a team that no longer needs a Dusty Baker. Dusty himself deserves a lot of credit for this team developing into a team that knows how to go take care of their business. They are an elite team for the next few years because of that, IMO.

I think the analogy is of a teacher who has done all he can do. "I have nothing left to teach you" is the cliche that comes to mind. This is not the same team is was 6 months ago. They are legit WS contenders and they know it now. I'm not sure it's a "better" manager they need, it's just a different "type". Dusty is who he is. He's been around a long time and had a lot of success. But he has his blind spots like all managers or head coaches do. His just happen to be the ones this team really needs to have on their bench.

I don't think that's an insult to Dusty, it's a rational analysis of how this team has evolved. This team has at least a 3 year window where they should win 94+ games every year barring multiple major injuries and a couple of small, prudent moves by Walt. It would take a bold move to make a manager change after winning 97 games and I highly doubt it happens. But it could be the thing that makes a difference next October. This team can win a WS with Dusty. But his game management in the playoffs reduces their probability, IMO. Bochy in this series is a good example. There's no way to know if the result would have been different, but Bochy made smart tactical moves all series. With a healthy Cueto or Votto is probably isn't enough, but when it's a very close series where just a few things going one way instead of the other decides the outcome, poor tactics can become the deciding factor. We may have seen it in this series.

[WMR]

Bochy made Dusty look like an amateur, and it's not like Bochy is some baseball savant.

[Larkin Fan]

Was it Dusty that left 28 runners on base over the 3 games in Cincinnati? Oh wait... that was the offense.

[Bumstead]

Originally Posted by Larkin Fan

Was it Dusty that left 28 runners on base over the 3 games in Cincinnati? Oh wait... that was the offense.

No, it was just Dusty that left starting pitchers in until they got creamed and virtually took the Reds out of close ballgames and placed them in blowouts, which I imagine changed the mindset of our batters a bit...so, yeah, good call; but, as Paul Harvey would say: here's the "rest of the story."

Bum

[CySeymour]

Unfortunately, if Phillips doesn't make that stupid baserunning blunder in game 3, this all is mute at this point

[lollipopcurve]

Unfortunately, if Phillips doesn't make that stupid baserunning blunder in game 3, this all is mute at this point

Ridiculous. If Phillips doesn't single in that at bat.... If Phillips doesn't steal second after that at bat....

Again, ridiculous.

[CySeymour]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

Ridiculous. If Phillips doesn't single in that at bat.... If Phillips doesn't steal second after that at bat....

Again, ridiculous.

Why is that ridiculous? He made a fundamental mistake. True, he isn't the only one to blame, but that is a fair play to point out.

[OldXOhio]

Originally Posted by CySeymour

Why is that ridiculous? He made a fundamental mistake. True, he isn't the only one to blame, but that is a fair play to point out.

You don't know that.....mere speculation as to what would have occurred. What we do know is BP was stellar during the series and to pin any blame on him is ridiculous as mentioned.

[Larkin Fan]

Originally Posted by Bumstead

No, it was just Dusty that left starting pitchers in until they got creamed and virtually took the Reds out of close ballgames and placed them in blowouts, which I imagine changed the mindset of our batters a bit...so, yeah, good call; but, as Paul Harvey would say: here's the "rest of the story."

Bum

Yes, I absolutely agree that he left Homer Bailey in the game too long in Game 3. The players were obviously intimidated by that blowout.

The Reds lost this series because of something that plagued us much of the year. The inability to hit in key situations. If you want to blame Dusty, that's fine. But there's a number of players on the roster that are equally, if not more, culpable.

[Reds/Flyers Fan]

I think Brook Jacoby is the bigger issue. Unfortunately, if Dusty returns so does Jacoby likely. Dusty is just too fiercely loyal.

[Slyder]

If Dusty wants to stay involved give him a created a special advisor to the CEO and let him work from "home" or the park and bring in someone else to manage the on the field stuff. I don't want to see Dusty on the field managing again after the debacle.

[CySeymour]

Originally Posted by OldXOhio

You don't know that.....mere speculation as to what would have occurred. What we do know is BP was stellar during the series and to pin any blame on him is ridiculous as mentioned.

I worded it poorly, I admit. And yes, it was a team loss.

[klw]

In the comments to this article, a poster writes that Dusty managed teams are 1-12 in potential elimination games. Does anyone know if that is an accurate stat?

BearcatRevolution
1-12 in elimination games. Dusty can get ya to the post season but never through the post season.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/po...eds-fall-short\

Unfortunately, that seems to be Dusty’s karma in the postseason. Back in the 2002 World Series, the Giants led 5-0 in the seventh inning in Game 6, only to lose. In 2003, the Cubs were up 3 games to 1 in the NLCS. They lost the Bartman game, and then Baker left in Kerry Wood to give up seven runs in Game 7. And now his Reds became the first National League team to blow a 2-0 series lead in the Division Series.