Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Sorry, this makes no sense to me. Sounds like somebody looking for ways to criticize a manager.

Should I evaluate Baker by some fans' view of his in-game strategies and lineup construction?

Or should I evaluate him based on division championships two of three years and 97 wins this year, considering also the early playoff exits?

I'll look at the results and I think they've been better than the Reds have had since the days of Jack McKeon and Davey Johnson.

I kind of like the wins and division championships. Just me, I guess.

You should evaluate him based on his real performance rather than things that he is not responsible for.

It might be just you that can't see the reasons for why the Reds won 97 games and the division.

I guess you believe Joe Torre is the greatest baseball mind in the history of the universe? He has plenty of wins and division championships, but nobody ever confused him with a great manager.

Some people can see that the manager is not a major reason the Reds won those games this year after winning only 79 last year under Dusty Baker.

What did Dusty Baker do this year that he didn't do last year? If you can't answer that question then why do you believe Dusty Baker is the reason the Reds were so good this year?

Just throwing out "97 wins" over and over in the face of all logic isn't very convincing to a student of the game of baseball. It has already been explained to you several times why the Reds' win count is no reason to glorify Dusty Baker. Obviously Dusty Baker is not the reason the Reds improved so much in 2012 from their disastrous 2011 season. It was the addition of 5 excellent players that were not here in 2011 -- Mat Latos, Ryan Ludwick, Todd Frazier, Zack Cozart and Sean Marshall. This team is loaded with top-notch baseball players, and that is the reason they won 97 games.

People can explain to you a hundred times why it is so dumb to put the worst hitters at the top of the lineup and why OBP is so important and why bunting is a losing strategy yet you just don't get it. All of those things are proven, mathematical facts that show that Dusty Baker uses poor strategies that are harming the team. Those are criticisms that are backed up with rock solid statistical and historical proof. Why does it bother you so much when those facts are discussed?

Dusty does other things well that help make up for his weaknesses. As I have said before many times, Dusty is a good clubhouse manager. He manages personalities well, keeps his players rested and ready to play, and he motivates the players very well.

You continue to believe that Dusty is perfect because the Reds had a good year. It must be impossible for a team loaded with so much talent to actually win more than 97 games right? No team has ever won more than 97 games in one season in MLB history. 97 wins is a perfect season. Dusty Baker couldn't possibly have done anything better because 97 wins is the best you can get.

Actually the Reds might have been able to win even more games if the lineup construction and in-game strategies had been utilized more optimally.

In the playoffs, when you are playing other very good teams that also won 90+ games, you can't just rely completely on talent and skill to win. In the playoffs the smaller things like managerial moves become more magnified because the talent level is evenly matched. In the playoffs it is especially important to use exactly the right lineup construction and exactly the right strategy and very often the result of games and series rely on such things, much more so than in the regular season where you can beat up on inferior talent. In tight games in key situations is where Dusty Baker gets exposed and out-managed.

Believe it or not every manager in the history of baseball has made mistakes. Why do some folks like you freak out when Dusty Baker's mistakes and weaknesses come up for discussion?

I think Dusty Baker is an average manager, maybe a bit below average. In my opinion, average is not good enough. I think the Reds should try to get one of the best managers if at all possible. Dusty is good enough for some people, but I think the Reds can do better. Obviously you disagree.

If all you can do is look at the number of wins then you just don't have a very in-depth perception of the game of baseball I guess. I think you already know that but in this case you don't want to look deeper because you are afraid of what you might see. I know that you know a lot about baseball, so open your mind on this issue.

What did Dusty Baker do differently in 2012 than he did in 2011 that accounts for the 18 extra wins?

[757690]

Do the Reds really have 97 win talent? Who ever thought that the Reds would win 97 games this season and win the division as easily as they did?

They have one of the best hitters in the game, but he was injured the entire second half of the season.

They have an All- Star worthy second baseman, and an All-Star RF, but other than that, their offense is rather pedestrian.

They have a Cy Young Candidate, but so do the Mets and Dodgers.

Their #2 pitcher is 24 years old, was a .500 pitcher last season, and has some anger issues.

Their #3 starter is coming off a 5 ERA season.

Their #4 starter had a 4.89 career ERA coming into this season

Their #5 starter is 24 soft tosser who never pitched in the minors, and was league average his first two seasons.

Their bullpen is strong, but had to overcome losing it's closer, setup man and LOOGY to injury for the whole season.

They have great defense, probably their strongest part of the team.

They have a lousy bench.

Does all of that look like a 97 win team to you on paper? Where's this overflowing talent that should be the next BRM or 1927 Yankees? I think this is clearly the best team since the BRM, but definitely not the most talented.

[George Foster]

Originally Posted by 757690

A-Rod was benched for one game for Raul Ibanez, not some young kid rotting on the bench.

Exactly which struggling veteran has Baker refused to bench?

Do you think Baker would of benched A-Rod in game 5? seriously? He does not manage that way and that was my point.

When Frazier played regularly, before Votto came back, do you know what he batted? What his BA was with runners in scoring position? Not exactly some young kid rotting on the bench. Arguably the MVP of the team in July and August.

Was Rolan that much of a defensive upgrade over Frazier? 2 errors. A 3rd error saved by a diving Phillips backing up 1st in San Fran. Was Stubbs that much of a defensive upgrade over Heisey..in GABP?

You can make apologies for Dusty. That's your right. He is not the sole reason why we lost but he did have a lot to do with it. He refuses to put the best line-up possible on the field in critical situations.

If Dusty gets all the credit for 97 wins, should he not get some of the blame for losing 3 in a row at home?

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by George Foster

Do you think Baker would of benched A-Rod in game 5? seriously? He does not manage that way and that was my point.

When Frazier played regularly, before Votto came back, do you know what he batted? What his BA was with runners in scoring position? Not exactly some young kid rotting on the bench. Arguably the MVP of the team in July and August.

Was Rolan that much of a defensive upgrade over Frazier? 2 errors. A 3rd error saved by a diving Phillips backing up 1st in San Fran. Was Stubbs that much of a defensive upgrade over Heisey..in GABP?

You can make apologies for Dusty. That's your right. He is not the sole reason why we lost but he did have a lot to do with it. He refuses to put the best line-up possible on the field in critical situations.

If Dusty gets all the credit for 97 wins, should he not get some of the blame for losing 3 in a row at home?

Scott Rolen also had a ~.850 OPS in the second half, OPSing over 900 2 out of 3 of those months.

Frazier over Rolen is not the slam dunk decision RedsZone wants to believe it is.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by 757690

Do the Reds really have 97 win talent? Who ever thought that the Reds would win 97 games this season and win the division as easily as they did?

They have one of the best hitters in the game, but he was injured the entire second half of the season.

They have an All- Star worthy second baseman, and an All-Star RF, but other than that, their offense is rather pedestrian.

They have a Cy Young Candidate, but so do the Mets and Dodgers.

Their #2 pitcher is 24 years old, was a .500 pitcher last season, and has some anger issues.

Their #3 starter is coming off a 5 ERA season.

Their #4 starter had a 4.89 career ERA coming into this season

Their #5 starter is 24 soft tosser who never pitched in the minors, and was league average his first two seasons.

Their bullpen is strong, but had to overcome losing it's closer, setup man and LOOGY to injury for the whole season.

They have great defense, probably their strongest part of the team.

They have a lousy bench.

Does all of that look like a 97 win team to you on paper? Where's this overflowing talent that should be the next BRM or 1927 Yankees? I think this is clearly the best team since the BRM, but definitely not the most talented.

The Reds are pretty much above average at every spot on the field except centerfield once you consider offense and defense and baserunning. The centerfielder is a very talented under-achiever.

The Reds are way above average at every spot in the rotation except #5, and even Mike Leake is an average or better 5th starter. The bullpen is simply the best in baseball from top to bottom.

This team doesn't have any glaring weaknesses on the team at all until you get down to the two worst players on the team, Cairo and Valdez, who are worse than almost every team's 24th and 25th man.

We don't need to grade the team on what was expected of them coming into the season, when we didn't know what to expect from the likes of Ludwick, Frazier, Cozart etc.. We now know their true talent level of this team right up to date, and that talent level matches up very favorably with any team in the major leagues. I don't see another team in baseball with more talent at every position than the Reds.

The pitching staff is without question the strength of the team. It sure is nice getting to watch some real pitchers for the first time in a decade or more. It's also great to know that you don't have to score 6+ runs to win a game.

The hitting has been a bit of a disappointment even though there are plenty of good bats. Just a bit better lineup construction and less of a small-ball approach could do wonders to eke out a couple extra runs per week.

With all the young talent and potential for improvement the Reds have I am sure the Reds would be an ideal job for most managers to seek.

[757690]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

The Reds are pretty much above average at every spot on the field except centerfield once you consider offense and defense and baserunning. The centerfielder is a very talented under-achiever.

The Reds are way above average at every spot in the rotation except #5, and even Mike Leake is an average or better 5th starter. The bullpen is simply the best in baseball from top to bottom.

This team doesn't have any glaring weaknesses on the team at all until you get down to the two worst players on the team, Cairo and Valdez, who are worse than almost every team's 24th and 25th man.

We don't need to grade the team on what was expected of them coming into the season, when we didn't know what to expect from the likes of Ludwick, Frazier, Cozart etc.. We now know their true talent level of this team right up to date, and that talent level matches up very favorably with any team in the major leagues. I don't see another team in baseball with more talent at every position than the Reds.

The pitching staff is without question the strength of the team. It sure is nice getting to watch some real pitchers for the first time in a decade or more. It's also great to know that you don't have to score 6+ runs to win a game.

The hitting has been a bit of a disappointment even though there are plenty of good bats. Just a bit better lineup construction and less of a small-ball approach could do wonders to eke out a couple extra runs per week.

With all the young talent and potential for improvement the Reds have I am sure the Reds would be an ideal job for most managers to seek.

This analysis assumes that the manager has nothing to do with how well players perform. If you think that is true, then of course you don't want Baker as manager.

[Matt700wlw]

In an earlier post, I said that I would move on without Dusty Baker.

I voted 'maybe' in the poll, because the question needs to be asked... Who's out there right now that can bring that extra something to the equation to take this team to the next level? Tony LaRussa? He's not coming out of retirement to come here, if at all....

If Dusty agrees to a short term contract, it's far from the worst thing in the world, but Walt Jocketty also needs to give him better options to work with. If the Wilson Valdez's of the world are on the bench, Dusty will use them.

This team doesn't need a major overhaul by any means. It needs upgrades.

I'd love to have Ryan Ludwick back, but will he mutually agree to a $5 million option? He could probably get more than that on the open market after the year he had. Would the Reds pay?


I've said for years that they also need a new hitting coach, if for no other reason than to provide a different voice and approach. He won't be able to work miracles, but maybe he could provide a little something that's missing.

I like the rotation. Solid. However, can we really expect them to stay healthy for an entire season again? Probably not. I also wouldn't be opposed to Mike Leake having a year in Louisville to develop. He's still a very raw, and young talent.

Bullpen. One of the best. Is Broxton coming back? What's the status of Ryan Madson, and is he worth the risk? Is Chapman the closer or is he going to be a starter? Sean Marshall is here. Good move.

Drew Stubbs has to go. I hope he thrives somewhere, but I don't see it happening here.

A TRUE leadoff hitter is needed, something that they haven't had in probably 15 years. Who's out there? Is there someone in the system that can fill that role? Billy Hamilton is hopefully the answer in 2014, but we're not there yet....

Mesoraco. Novarro. Hannigan.

It's going to be an interesting offseason....but a fun one.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by 757690

This analysis assumes that the manager has nothing to do with how well players perform. If you think that is true, then of course you don't want Baker as manager.

I think the hitters would perform better with a better manager who put them in better spots to succeed.

Dusty and Bryan Price have done a sensational job with the pitching staff. I tend to give most of that credit to Price because I think Dusty pretty much lets Price do his thing with the pitchers. Dusty has the final say and signs off on the decisions, but basically Dusty wisely trusts Price to run the pitching show.

I don't think Dusty is managing differently this year than he did last year when the team was bad, and therefore shouldn't get too much of the credit for the improved performance of the team. The biggest difference between last year and this year is the addition of several excellent players -- Latos, Ludwick, Frazier, Cozart and Marshall. I am sure Dusty was part of the decision-making process along with Jocketty that resulted in acquiring and utilizing those players.

By the way, I didn't say that I "don't want Baker as manager". I just feel the team is at a point where they have a chance to acquire an upgrade at manager.

[SunDeck]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Oh jeez we're twins, that was my thought/wish too

I know, people hate it when we finish each others sentences too.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

What did Dusty Baker do this year that he didn't do last year? If you can't answer that question then why do you believe Dusty Baker is the reason the Reds were so good this year?

Just throwing out "97 wins" over and over in the face of all logic isn't very convincing to a student of the game of baseball.

People can explain to you a hundred times why it is so dumb to put the worst hitters at the top of the lineup and why OBP is so important and why bunting is a losing strategy yet you just don't get it.

Dusty does other things well that help make up for his weaknesses. As I have said before many times, Dusty is a good clubhouse manager. He manages personalities well, keeps his players rested and ready to play, and he motivates the players very well.

You continue to believe that Dusty is perfect because the Reds had a good year.

Believe it or not every manager in the history of baseball has made mistakes. Why do some folks like you freak out when Dusty Baker's mistakes and weaknesses come up for discussion?

If all you can do is look at the number of wins then you just don't have a very in-depth perception of the game of baseball I guess. I think you already know that but in this case you don't want to look deeper because you are afraid of what you might see. I know that you know a lot about baseball, so open your mind on this issue.

What did Dusty Baker do differently in 2012 than he did in 2011 that accounts for the 18 extra wins?

I think you could use a broader view of baseball managing. Issues like lineup construction and bunting, which you allude to, have a role. But ultimately the key to managing a baseball team, or any team, is getting maximum performance from your players.

There are very few managers who do this as well as Baker.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. Dusty skins the cat by old school in-game managing and a tremendous ability to get players to perform day in and day out.

It may not be enough for you, but be careful what you ask for. The genius you would hire may read Fangraphs more but may win many fewer games.

[Marc D]

Originally Posted by SunDeck

Winning the division is mediocre?

Bobby Cox had teams in the post season 16 times, winning 1 World Series.
I have a hard time saying winning only once is his fault.


True, Baker has been in 6 post seasons, with no WS wins. However, that performance is not too far shy of the following group; which of these guys do you not want to be your manager?

Whitey Herzog: 6 Playoffs, 1 WS win
Davey Johnson: 6:1
Charlie Manuel: 6:1
Jim Leyland: 7:1
Lou Piniella: 7:1
Mike Scioscia: 6:1
Earl Weaver: 6:1
Billy Martin: 5:1

OK, I would never have wanted Billy, either, but the rest of these guys are pretty good.

First I would argue that actually winning a WS and never winning one is a pretty significant gap and therefore Baker is about as far shy of the names on that list as one could get and still be a MLB manager with 6 post season appearances.

Secondly, at least for me, it's the common theme of Baker led teams choking in the post season that is the primary concern. 2002 Giants, 2003 Cubs, 2012 Reds. Once is a coincidence, three's a trend.

Windows don't stay open that long anymore, this team is poised to be good for a while but they can't afford a manager who has a track record of consistently failing the way he does.

If I am the GM/owner and there isn't a manager available with a better post season track record then I would give Baker one more chance. If they choke again he'd be gone.

[Reds/Flyers Fan]

St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist floats TLR to Cincinnati idea:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colum...a4bcf6878.html

[Kc61]

I still believe Dusty will not be back.

This is just like Torre with the Yankees.

Reds will offer him a year. Dusty will want a LTC and a big raise.

I think he will walk.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

The hitting has been a bit of a disappointment even though there are plenty of good bats. Just a bit better lineup construction and less of a small-ball approach could do wonders to eke out a couple extra runs per week.

No, different personnel would add to the runs scored.

Reds are a collection of righty hitters with power and fair to poor OBP skills.

Rolen, Frazier, Phillips, Ludwick, Cozart, Heisey, Stubbs, Mesoraco. It's a one dimensional offense. All similar type hitters in general terms.

The counterbalance is basically two guys, Votto (injured) and Bruce an inconsistent low BA hitter with excellent lefty power.

The team is among the lowest in baseball in hitting singles.

The team had a .710 OPS against righty pitching.

There are no real tablesetters. There is absolutely no lefty hitting tablesetter. The bench provided very little offense, it only improved slightly when Paul and Navarro were acquired.

Look at the balance on the Cards. The Cards have more switch hitters on the DL than the Reds have had on the team in years. Lefties, righties, singles hitters, long ball hitters. A far more balanced offense.

You think the problem is the batting order Dusty uses?

Replace Stubbs, Heisey, Cairo and Valdez with steady, good OBP men, some from the left side or switch hitters, and you'll see a very different offense. One starter and three bench players.

Replace Ludwick or Frazier with a high caliber switch hitter, like Beltran or Sandoval, and you'll see even more improvement.

Not a well balanced offense, regardless of batting order. A personnel matter.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by Kc61

No, different personnel would add to the runs scored.

Reds are a collection of righty hitters with power and fair to poor OBP skills.

Exactly. It's easy to pinpoint the middle of the order guys on this team. Outside of that, you can shuffle them around any way you want and it won't make a bit of difference IMO. We've assembled a whole team of 5-8 hole hitters.