Should Dusty Baker Receive an Extension?

[jojo]

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.

The Reds won 99 games with Dusty. He at least isn't an anchor when given a good team.

[GAC]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

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.

I don't see where anyone who supports Dusty has said that he couldn't be second-guessed, criticized, or has even emphatically stated he is the major reason for their success this year. The majority of it always comes down to those players on the field. But does any manager, when a team is successful, get any degree of credit? They certainly do when a team is not (they're fired).

I really get tired of hearing some say "A more tactical manager would have squeezed a few more wins out of this season." And if the Reds had won 101, those same people would have still complained because he should have gotten 105.

Every manager gets criticized. In my lifetime there hasn't been a Red's manager I haven't come out of the chair and yelled out.... and that includes Captain Hook.

So, IMO, it's not about being able to second-guess or criticize Baker... it's simply the fact, with some, he doesn't manage the team from the bench like they do their fantasy league. And that's the truth.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by westofyou

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

We all take something different away from the season. Any season that doesn't end in a World Series championship is a disappointment in my book. You're free to view the game as you see fit, though. That's the beauty of the game, IMO.

[mth123]

The pre-season prediction thread had 2 people who predicted that the Reds would win 97 games or more. The average was in the 88 to 89 range. The "knowledge" of the posters here who say the Reds should have gotten more out of the season are the same "knowledgeable" posters who said the Reds didn't have the talent to win as many as they did.

IMO, you can't have it both ways. I predicted 92 wins. The team won 97 and surpassed my expectations. Were there things I disagreed with? Sure there were. Fact is they did better than they should have with the obvious roster flaws that included no real lead-off guys, too may RH bats who struggled against RHP, their top 15 prospect falling flat on his face and the best player on the team out for a huge chunk of the season. I don't see any grounds for taking the manager's job away. In fact, even though there were some obvious warts, he worked a minor miracle IMO. If you weren't one of those people who predicted 97 wins or more (Sir Charles, Roy Tucker) what grounds do you have to complain about bringing back the Manager?

One fairly vocal poster in this thread, whose stance is that Dusty cost the team wins, only predicted 85 wins. I don't get it.

[Boss-Hog]

Originally Posted by mth123

The pre-season prediction thread had 2 people who predicted that the Reds would win 97 games or more. The average was in the 88 to 89 range. The "knowledge" of the posters here who say the Reds should have gotten more out of the season are the same "knowledgeable" posters who said the Reds didn't have the talent to win as many as they did.

IMO, you can't have it both ways. I predicted 92 wins. The team won 97 and surpassed my expectations. Were there things I disagreed with? Sure there were. Fact is they did better than they should have with the obvious roster flaws that included no real lead-off guys, too may RH bats who struggled against RHP, their top 15 prospect falling flat on his face and the best player on the team out for a huge chunk of the season. I don't see any grounds for taking the manager's job away. In fact, even though there were some obvious warts, he worked a minor miracle IMO. If you weren't one of those people who predicted 97 wins or more (Sir Charles, Roy Tucker) what grounds do you have to complain about bringing back the Manager?

One fairly vocal poster in this thread, whose stance is that Dusty cost the team wins, only predicted 85 wins. I don't get it.

That's a great point.

[Always Red]

Originally Posted by mth123

One fairly vocal poster in this thread, whose stance is that Dusty cost the team wins, only predicted 85 wins. I don't get it.

Because hindsight is always 20-20.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by 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.

What manager would win a relay? Just curious as the comparison has me intrigued.

[wlf WV]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

What manager would win a relay? Just curious as the comparison has me intrigued.

Baker is good in the long haul,he got out managed by Bochy.I think he has trouble making the hard decisions or "feel for the game".

He seemed to approach the play offs no differently than the regular season.In any short series I believe Baker is at a disadvantage.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Putting Wilson Valdez in the lineup for 200+ plate appearances (half of them in the 2 slot) this season is just asinine. If you absolutely must put him in the lineup then put him at the bottom or else you will look like a complete fool. .

I agree that Valdez is a poor offensive player.
However, Dusty values having his regulars coming to the ballpark and knowing what position in the batting order they will have. He values that stablity.
So when his #2 hitter Cozart gets hurt, the sub gets put in that slot to avoid lineup shuffling. Is it optimal statistically? No. Did it hurt the team in the big picture ? I don't think so.. we still made the playoffs.

This is similiar to the Stubbs at the top of the order debate. Dusty wanted to give Stubbs every possible chance to succeed, because if Stubbs did succeed, the team would be stronger.. Again, not optimal, but it's not as if it cost us the division either. Once the playoffs started, Stubbs was in the optimal spot (#8).

So I guess, in summary, I think Dusty has a longer term view when he plans the lineups. He's less concerned that Valdez batting #2 means that Valdez might get an extra at bat as opposed to someone like Frasier.. He figures the long term benefits is worth the slightly suboptimal lineup.. It's hard to say whether Dusty is right or not (since the answer can not be quantified), but it's not like Dusty is doing it out of sheer insanity

[mdccclxix]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

I agree that Valdez is a poor offensive player.
However, Dusty values having his regulars coming to the ballpark and knowing what position in the batting order they will have. He values that stablity.
So when his #2 hitter Cozart gets hurt, the sub gets put in that slot to avoid lineup shuffling. Is it optimal statistically? No. Did it hurt the team in the big picture ? I don't think so.. we still made the playoffs.

This is similiar to the Stubbs at the top of the order debate. Dusty wanted to give Stubbs every possible chance to succeed, because if Stubbs did succeed, the team would be stronger.. Again, not optimal, but it's not as if it cost us the division either. Once the playoffs started, Stubbs was in the optimal spot (#8).

So I guess, in summary, I think Dusty has a longer term view when he plans the lineups. He's less concerned that Valdez batting #2 means that Valdez might get an extra at bat as opposed to someone like Frasier.. He figures the long term benefits is worth the slightly suboptimal lineup.. It's hard to say whether Dusty is right or not (since the answer can not be quantified), but it's not like Dusty is doing it out of sheer insanity

Plus you can look at the health of players throughout the year as to why Phillips was not leading off. I think the Opening Day lineup had Stubbs 7th. That was the plan with Rolen healthy (why they counted on this I don't know). Then Ludwick had to immerge over the course of 4-6 weeks in order to be trusted with cleanup, and then Votto had to get healthy. By the time that all fell in place it was late September. In the meantime Dusty wanted Phillips to bat cleanup, which sort of forced him to bat Stubbs higher. Half way through the year he was ready for anyone but Stubbs and wanted a replacement via trade. That tells you how much he values Stubbs defense, because he wasn't blind to his problems at the plate. I thought Heisey could have gotten more play, and I thought Frazier could have hit 2nd, but it's not like the outcomes from those players were bad where they ended up. It's just Stubbs was never able to carry the load. Platoon the poor guy before he goes bonkers.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by mdccclxix

Plus you can look at the health of players throughout the year as to why Phillips was not leading off. I think the Opening Day lineup had Stubbs 7th. That was the plan with Rolen healthy (why they counted on this I don't know). Then Ludwick had to immerge over the course of 4-6 weeks in order to be trusted with cleanup, and then Votto had to get healthy. By the time that all fell in place it was late September. In the meantime Dusty wanted Phillips to bat cleanup, which sort of forced him to bat Stubbs higher. Half way through the year he was ready for anyone but Stubbs and wanted a replacement via trade. That tells you how much he values Stubbs defense, because he wasn't blind to his problems at the plate. I thought Heisey could have gotten more play, and I thought Frazier could have hit 2nd, but it's not like the outcomes from those players were bad where they ended up. It's just Stubbs was never able to carry the load. Platoon the poor guy before he goes bonkers.

Yep, I concur.
Had everyone been healthy from day 1, Phillips would've lead off the entire season.
The #2 slot would've probably been a rotation of Stubbs/Cozart, due to lack of better options.
Another thing on Frazier.. It's great the Reds had enough faith in him to keep him over Franscisco, but I think it's fair to think he far exceeded everyone's expectations.
I'm not being pessemistic.. I just hope Frazier can give us some offense next year, because we're really going to need it.. If Frazier goes through a sophmore slump, the offense is going to struggle next year.

[DGullett35]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

What manager would win a relay? Just curious as the comparison has me intrigued.

Def. not Kirk Gibson after his tumble down the first baseline last year

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Always Red

Because hindsight is always 20-20.

Fair enough. So in hindsight, didn't Dusty do a great job managing them to 98 wins?

[Always Red]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Fair enough. So in hindsight, didn't Dusty do a great job managing them to 98 wins?

Yep, I thought he did a great job managing them to 99 wins, in total. I'm glad he's back and happy for the continuity.

I can't remember what I predicted for a win total, but no way did I pick anywhere near 97. The pitching was far better than I thought it would be.

The poster in question, who I believe predicted only 85 wins, wanted a new manager because of the playoff failure.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by mth123

If you weren't one of those people who predicted 97 wins or more (Sir Charles, Roy Tucker) what grounds do you have to complain about bringing back the Manager?

Because the numbers that matter aren't 97 or 98, they're 0 and 1. How many World Series titles did the Reds win?

So long as that number is 0, there will be grounds to complain about the manager being brought back.