The price of success

[pedro]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I get worried that a run at the playoffs likely means injuries to Cueto/Bailey in the future with the way that Dusty treats pitchers. If we can go 79-83 and lose Baker and still have the same team going forward, I would feel MUCH better about that scenario than knowing we made the playoffs but Dusty was running our pitching staff in August, September and October of 2010 and was coming back the next 2-4 seasons.

I don't think Dusty has misused the Reds pitching, with possible exception of the extra inning game Harang pitched in in SD.

And I think it's going a little overboard to claim that injuries to Reds pitchers are any more "likely" under Baker than they are under anyone else who would be hired to manage the Reds.

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by pedro

Anybody who'd rather the Reds didn't succeed so they could satiate their need to bag on Dusty Baker needs to have their head examined as far as I'm concerned.

[RedlegJake]

I, too, have to wonder how one can dislike a manager so much they'd rather the team fail so they can see him fired.

Dusty's weaknesses seem to be offset by his strengths, imo. Game management is weak but "handling" players personalities and egos is strong. Since the players and their talent (or lack) play the game I feel his strengths helps offset his weakness.

As for his being a Dodger or a Giant I don;t see it - he was a transplant to both - I always associate him with being a Brave and despite their recent success I've never hated them like I do the Cubs and Dodgers. I tend to equate players with the team they came up with unless they had little or no PT with the original club. And why hate the Giants? Heck they've been pretty much also rans since the early 60s when Willie and Marichal and McCovey were in their prime, with the exception of one or two seasons since.

[pedro]

As far as I'm concerned there are just some fans who would rather be proven right than to enjoy a good season of baseball by their favorite team and I find that sad. There are no guarantees in baseball (or life). Try to win now if you can, next year may never come. Just ask any Cubs fan.

[MikeS21]

Originally Posted by pedro

I don't think Dusty has misused the Reds pitching, with possible exception of the extra inning game Harang pitched in in SD.

And I think it's going a little overboard to claim that injuries to Reds pitchers are "likely" under Baker.

I agree, but I'm one of those who discounts that SD game with Harang as misuse.

175 pitches on a young arm is misuse. 115 pitches on a young arm is not. And if those "young arms" would not need 120 pitches to get through the 5th inning, this would be a non-issue.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by pedro

I don't think Dusty has misused the Reds pitching, with possible exception of the extra inning game Harang pitched in in SD.

And I think it's going a little overboard to claim that injuries to Reds pitchers are any more "likely" under Baker than they are under anyone else who would be hired to manage the Reds.

I will disagree with that. Homer Bailey pitched more at the end of last season than he should have given that we were literally playing for nothing.

Given that we know that Baker has his pitchers consistently throw more pitches than other managers, I don't think it is a stretch at all to think its more likely that a guy is more likely to be injured under Baker than another hire.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by pedro

As far as I'm concerned there are just some fans who would rather be proven right than to enjoy a good season of baseball by their favorite team and I find that sad. There are no guarantees in baseball (or life). Try to win now if you can, next year may never come. Just ask any Cubs fan.

I am more concerned about the long term success of my team over the short term success and I believe a short term success for the Reds in 2010 could mean less long term success moving forward if Baker returns.

[nate]

I don't think he's a good field manager. I do think he is (or would be) a good bench coach. Again, I think the manager only plays a direct role in, at most, 5% of all games during a season.

Personally, I'd rather have a different field manager but keep Dusty as a bench coach. That's never going to happen because Dusty has far too much prestige at this point.

If the Reds win this season with Dusty, great!

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I will disagree with that. Homer Bailey pitched more at the end of last season than he should have given that we were literally playing for nothing.

Given that we know that Baker has his pitchers consistently throw more pitches than other managers, I don't think it is a stretch at all to think its more likely that a guy is more likely to be injured under Baker than another hire.

Nolan Ryan would disagree with what you say. But then again what does he know?????

[pedro]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I will disagree with that. Homer Bailey pitched more at the end of last season than he should have given that we were literally playing for nothing.

Given that we know that Baker has his pitchers consistently throw more pitches than other managers, I don't think it is a stretch at all to think its more likely that a guy is more likely to be injured under Baker than another hire.

I don't agree about Homer. I think there is value to a pitcher learning how to stretch it out. Homer never threw more than 117 pitches in a game last year and honestly if you are going to insist on the stick in the sand 100 pitch mark Homer would have barely ever made it past the 5th inning and that's just not acceptable.

As for your second assertion, prove it.

[11larkin11]

I'm in the Nolan Ryan camp. Pitchers are coddled way too much. Most Latin pitchers pitch winter ball every year. Its all about what you do between starts to protect your arm.

Most here say Homer pitched too much at the end of the season. Isn't is amazing that he had the best numbers of his career at that time, letting him go 7 innings at 110-115 instead of pulling him at 5 innings 90 pitches?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

Nolan Ryan would disagree with what you say. But then again what does he know?????

He knows that I am actually right. Nolan Ryan knows that kids are coddled so much now that they don't have the endurance to pitch like they used to because those guys threw so much in high school, college and the minors that the guys who couldn't do it were weeded out and the guys who could weren't and had incredible arm strength as a result of so much throwing from ages 15-23, when guys today probably get half as much throwing in during those ages as they did in the 60's or 70's. Go read about all that he has to say on it and you will see where he says kids need to throw more at a younger age if his idea's are ever going to work again. However since that likely isn't going to happen because we know that pitching leads to injuries and so many more kids are pitching with breaking balls earlier than ever before that they are going to continue having strict pitch counts.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by 11larkin11

I'm in the Nolan Ryan camp. Pitchers are coddled way too much. Most Latin pitchers pitch winter ball every year. Its all about what you do between starts to protect your arm.

Most here say Homer pitched too much at the end of the season. Isn't is amazing that he had the best numbers of his career at that time, letting him go 7 innings at 110-115 instead of pulling him at 5 innings 90 pitches?

I don't think anyone would have had a problem with him going 6 and 105 pitches. It was sending him back out for the 7th when he was already at 105 pitches that bothered people.

Like I just noted in my previous post, its because pitchers are coddled way too much now that they need to continue to be coddled because their arms aren't the same as they once were.

[pedro]

FTR, if you go by Pitcher Abuse Points, Tim Lincecum is far and away the most abused pitcher in the last two years. How'd that work out?

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I don't think anyone would have had a problem with him going 6 and 105 pitches. It was sending him back out for the 7th when he was already at 105 pitches that bothered people.

Like I just noted in my previous post, its because pitchers are coddled way too much now that they need to continue to be coddled because their arms aren't the same as they once were.

You have to learn to pitch those innings. You have to learn to pitch when you are slightly tired, when hitters have seen you 2 times already. You can't learn to pitch in those situations if you never are allowed to do so. You can't learn how to pitch in those situations during simulated games. I am in the camp that the end of last year will be a spring board for Homer's success and not part of the Verducci curse.

But then again this has been discussed in another thread and I don't think either sides are bending.