Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Kc61

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.

You still haven't answered the question: What did Dusty Baker do better in 2012 than he did in 2011 that accounts for the 18 extra wins?

If he has such a tremendous ability to get players to perform day in and day out why didn't he do that in 2011 when the Reds sucked? Why are so many of the hitters extremely streaky if Dusty gets them to perform day in and day out?

Perhaps the difference is the health of the pitching staff and the addition of Mat Latos, Ryan Ludwick, Todd Frazier, Zack Cozart and Sean Marshall?

Seems disingenuous to credit the manager with the improved performance. It is pretty clear the real reason is the added talent, not a sudden improvement in Dusty's managing ability.

Nah, there is no reason to believe that the same old Dusty Baker had much to do with the radical improvement of the team in 2012.

[camisadelgolf]

[AtomicDumpling]

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.

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.

The Reds don't have a great offense, nobody is arguing that they do. Improving the personnel would be great if possible. But even with the same personnel there are some easy ways to tweak the lineup and situational tactics to eke out some extra runs.

What has been proven beyond all doubt mathematically is that the Reds would have a higher team OPS and hence would score more runs if the best hitters got the most plate appearances and the worst hitters got the fewest plate appearances. Unfortunately Dusty does not comprehend such a basic concept and insists on putting the worst hitters at the top of the lineup. How can a manager in the 21st century, the information age, not be aware of one of the most basic concepts in baseball? It is a telling insight into Dusty's limited skillset.

Dusty's love of bunting in situations in which even a successfully executed bunt play actually reduces the Reds run expectancy is another instance that exposes Dusty's complete lack of understanding of the modern game of baseball. Things such as these make it very clear to students of the game that Dusty Baker does not know what he is doing. He is harming the team by making tactical mistakes that even a rudimentary comprehension of sabermetrics would avoid.

Dusty spends hours compiling hitter vs pitcher charts, despite extensive evidence that hitter vs pitcher histories are statistically meaningless and have no predictive value.

Dusty is riding the coattails of a great pitching staff led by the best pitching coach in baseball today. The talent level of the team is good enough to override the tactical mistakes made by the manager. Dusty does some things well as a leader of men, which is great. But giving Dusty Baker a large piece of the credit for a 97 win season just doesn't have much merit. After all he is the same guy that led them to a 79 win season just a year ago. The large infusion of fresh talent (Latos, Ludwick, Frazier, Cozart, Marshall) this year is the reason the Reds had a better year. It doesn't matter if Dusty stays or goes, this team is going to be good for a few more years at least. It makes sense to acquire a manager that can tactically lead the team to its best possible record without squandering any of it's potential with poor decision-making.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

You still haven't answered the question: What did Dusty Baker do better in 2012 than he did in 2011 that accounts for the 18 extra wins?

If he has such a tremendous ability to get players to perform day in and day out why didn't he do that in 2011 when the Reds sucked? Why are so many of the hitters extremely streaky if Dusty gets them to perform day in and day out?

Perhaps the difference is the health of the pitching staff and the addition of Mat Latos, Ryan Ludwick, Todd Frazier, Zack Cozart and Sean Marshall?

Seems disingenuous to credit the manager with the improved performance. It is pretty clear the real reason is the added talent, not a sudden improvement in Dusty's managing ability.

Nah, there is no reason to believe that the same old Dusty Baker had much to do with the radical improvement of the team in 2012.

You like to use words like disingenuous, but it's you who keep asking the wrong question. A straw man.

Nobody is saying the difference between 2011 and 2012 was Dusty Baker. It's the wrong question. The starting pitching in 2011 was riddled by injury and illness, there was Volquez not Latos, Arroyo was terrible, the team was not going to the playoffs.

The real question is how Dusty did when he had teams with a reasonable playoff chance. In 2010 and especially in 2012 his teams were healthy enough and talented enough to have a chance.

And both times he did great in the regular season. His team did less than great in the post-season which is a reasonable topic for discussion. I think there are personnel factors as well as any strategic considerations.

As I said, I don't think Dusty is coming back. And that's fine, sometimes change is good, a fresh look. But I view his tenure as Reds manager as a success, and when compared to other recent managers, a huge success. He's a winning manager and if he does return I'm fine with it.

Even with the lineups and the bunting.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Kc61

You like to use words like disingenuous, but it's you who keep asking the wrong question. A straw man.

Nobody is saying the difference between 2011 and 2012 was Dusty Baker. It's the wrong question. The starting pitching in 2011 was riddled by injury and illness, there was Volquez not Latos, the team was not going to the playoffs.

The real question is how Dusty did when he had teams with a reasonable playoff chance. In 2010 and especially in 2012 his teams were healthy enough and talented enough to have a chance.

And he did great in the regular season. His team did less than great in the post-season which is a reasonable topic for discussion. I think there are personnel factors there as well as any strategy issues.

As I said, I don't think Dusty is coming back. And that's fine, sometimes change is good, a fresh look. But I view his tenure as Reds manager as a success, and when compared to other recent managers, a huge success.

Yes I agree. The improved talent and health of the players is the reason why the team was better this year.

I think a good tactical manager could have squeezed a few extra wins out of the same personnel.

And I think that question I asked was the perfect question. You and others insist that Dusty can't be criticized because the Reds won 97 games this year, yet you can't explain how Dusty Baker is the reason why they improved by 18 games. If you are so sure Dusty was the reason then you should be able to explain why. He was the same manager that had a losing record in 2011. What did he do differently this year? I'll tell you what he did differently: he managed a better team that had more talent and better health than the year before. That is why the team was better -- because of the players, not the manager. Dusty managed the same way he always has. The criticisms of his managing style that were valid in 2011 are still valid in 2012. He makes a lot of mistakes that could be easily corrected. He does some things well too.

The Reds will be just fine whether Dusty comes back or not.

Some people think Dusty Baker got the most production possible out of this team. Some people think improved lineup construction and in-game strategy could have resulted in more wins. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. It isn't fair to say Dusty Baker was perfect and can't be criticized because the Reds won 97 games this year. No matter how many games they won they could always have done better. Even the best managers make mistakes and it is fair to discuss them.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Some people think Dusty Baker got the most production possible out of this team. Some people think improved lineup construction and in-game strategy could have resulted in more wins. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. It isn't fair to say Dusty Baker was perfect and can't be criticized because the Reds won 97 games this year. No matter how many games they won they could always have done better. Even the best managers make mistakes and it is fair to discuss them.

No, Baker hasn't been perfect. I personally hate bunting with position players. He certainly can be criticized.

But forgive me if I'm dubious about the next guy whomever he may be. They all have their tendencies and flaws. On balance, I think the Dusty era has been very good for the ballclub and, if he goes, I'll remember him as one of the better ones. And I do expect him to leave.

On the post-season, Tom Verducci wrote a piece in SI about the increase in strikeouts and how teams that make contact are better suited for the post season. It was in SI a couple weeks ago, and the team he featured (as being well suited) was the SF Giants. Interesting reading when thinking about the Reds' offense.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

What has been proven beyond all doubt mathematically is that the Reds would have a higher team OPS and hence would score more runs if the best hitters got the most plate appearances and the worst hitters got the fewest plate appearances. Unfortunately Dusty does not comprehend such a basic concept and insists on putting the worst hitters at the top of the lineup. How can a manager in the 21st century, the information age, not be aware of one of the most basic concepts in baseball? It is a telling insight into Dusty's limited skillset.

If it was as simple as you say it is, why don't Matt Kemp and Josh Hamilton bat first? Our best hitters are middle of the order guys that can't afford to waste power at the leadoff and #2 spot. If we had players that fit the table setting mold, they would hit first, but we really just don't have that.

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Dusty's love of bunting in situations in which even a successfully executed bunt play actually reduces the Reds run expectancy is another instance that exposes Dusty's complete lack of understanding of the modern game of baseball. Things such as these make it very clear to students of the game that Dusty Baker does not know what he is doing. He is harming the team by making tactical mistakes that even a rudimentary comprehension of sabermetrics would avoid.

If you can look past the Dusty stereotype for a minute, you'd realize that a non-pitcher bunted only 28 times this season for the Reds. This is the 4th lowest in the NL central. This is 1 bunt more than Bruce Bochy. And more telling, this is 4 bunts less than SABR hero Joe Maddon.

[757690]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Yes I agree. The improved talent and health of the players is the reason why the team was better this year.

I think a good tactical manager could have squeezed a few extra wins out of the same personnel.

And I think that question I asked was the perfect question. You and others insist that Dusty can't be criticized because the Reds won 97 games this year, yet you can't explain how Dusty Baker is the reason why they improved by 18 games. If you are so sure Dusty was the reason then you should be able to explain why. He was the same manager that had a losing record in 2011. What did he do differently this year? I'll tell you what he did differently: he managed a better team that had more talent and better health than the year before. That is why the team was better -- because of the players, not the manager. Dusty managed the same way he always has. The criticisms of his managing style that were valid in 2011 are still valid in 2012. He makes a lot of mistakes that could be easily corrected. He does some things well too.

The Reds will be just fine whether Dusty comes back or not.

Some people think Dusty Baker got the most production possible out of this team. Some people think improved lineup construction and in-game strategy could have resulted in more wins. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. It isn't fair to say Dusty Baker was perfect and can't be criticized because the Reds won 97 games this year. No matter how many games they won they could always have done better. Even the best managers make mistakes and it is fair to discuss them.

There has not been a single manager in the history of baseball who could win without talent. However, there have been plenty that have lost with talent.

No one, absolutely no one is saying that Baker is the reason why the Reds improved this season. What his supporters are saying is that this team, with the talent it had going into the season, and all of it's hardships, doesn't win 97 games without a manager as good as Dusty.

[wlf WV]

He is a regular season manager,a good one.He's a long distance runner,I don't see him winning a sprint or relay.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Superdude

If you can look past the Dusty stereotype for a minute, you'd realize that a non-pitcher bunted successfully only 28 times this season for the Reds. This is the 4th lowest in the NL central. This is 1 bunt more than Bruce Bochy. And more telling, this is 4 bunts less than SABR hero Joe Maddon.

Corrected that for you.

I have never seen a team try and fail to execute a bunt so frequently. And I wasn't only talking about this year.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by 757690

There has not been a single manager in the history of baseball who could win without talent. However, there have been plenty that have lost with talent.

No one, absolutely no one is saying that Baker is the reason why the Reds improved this season. What his supporters are saying is that this team, with the talent it had going into the season, and all of it's hardships, doesn't win 97 games without a manager as good as Dusty.

There have been plenty of people trumpeting Dusty Baker as a major reason why the Reds were good this year. They even claimed that he was so good that it was ridiculous to second-guess any of his decisions.

I don't have a problem with people liking Dusty. I only have a problem with people who say Dusty can't be criticized -- and that has happened hundreds of times this year here on Redszone.

You can believe that Dusty is great if you want to. I will disagree.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Corrected that for you.

I have never seen a team try and fail to execute a bunt so frequently. And I wasn't only talking about this year.

I couldn't find a number for attempted sac bunts, so I'm obviously taking a liberty and assuming successful sac bunts generally correlate with bunt attempts to some degree. This is clearly one of those arguments that could go round and round forever, so I'm gonna go ahead and step out. It's been real.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Pennants and banners are all that matter, the rest is just an excuse to spend time in the yard on a nice summer evening.

Or so I've been told.

And I'll stick by that comment until the day I die. If you aren't playing to win a Championship, there's no point to playing.

Professional sports don't offer silver medals for a reason.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

And I'll stick by that comment until the day I die. If you aren't playing to win a Championship, there's no point to playing.

Professional sports don't offer silver medals for a reason.

The quote was not about the players, it was about what fans get out of following the game, but you know that

[fearofpopvol1]

Wow, pretty interesting splits here. Half think he should not be back for sure, then basically 1/4 yes, 1/4 maybe!