Baker says the key to good clubs is having players ready to play winning baseball when they arrive in the majors.

The key to good clubs, so far as Dusty is aware, is having the greatest freaking baseball player that ever picked up a bat and glove on your team. That covers a multitude of sins. That, or having three awesome young pitchers and riding them all into the ground and beyond.

I feel bad for Cubs fans, but frankly I often want to shake Steve Bartman's hand and thank him for keeping Dusty Baker the hell out of the World Series.

He'd been to the World Series the previous year, though.

Anything that prevents Dusty Baker from becoming any more famous is just doing good by the human race.

I can't argue with that.

“I wasn’t eased in. Junior (Griffey) wasn’t eased in."

I'm not sure what's more entertaining: Dusty lumping himself in with Junior as a player or his never-ending ability to forget the realities of his playing career.

From ages 19-22, he had the following AB totals: 5, 7, 24, 62. Then at age 23, he got into 127 games and had 446 ABs (though I don't know if the partial season was due to 'easing in' or injury).

Cups of coffee in 4(!) straight seasons? If that's not easing a guy in, what is? Nice to see that Dusty's memory matches his strategic abilities.

I think for the good of the Reds' organization, Bruce needs to play about 500 games at AAA learning how to do the little things, and play winning baseball. Wouldn't want to wreck his confidence, after all.

You're a sissy. I think Bruce should not only spend the whole year in AAA, but he should lay down a bunt every time he goes to the plate. Except occasionally he should execute the hit-and-run too. Those are the little things that win baseball games.

Then, next year, we'll have him work on hitting ground balls to the right side.

Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised Dusty was talking about playing Bruce if he's ready, but I guess it's contingent on his ability to waste outs moving the 7th place hitter over 1 whole base in the 2nd inning.

(Yeah, this might be redundant in light of #8, but I don't think it can be overstated.)

“Who says they need to be eased in, No. 1?” Baker said.

"You didn't see me ease in Mark Prior from his injuries, and he turned out just fine!"

"There's a whole bunch more to baseball than hitting or striking out people," Baker said. "Some young guys make a ton of mistakes. Some don't. Some guys have been around forever and still make a lot of mistakes."

Ahem.

It's amazing how the reaction here never changes, no matter what Baker says. He's saying he wants to play Bruce. But #9 aside there is not one hint of postive reaction. Personally I'd be cautious about this if I was a Reds fan - let's just wait and see what Baker does if (when) Bruce goes 0-12. But because it goes against the BTF Cubs meme ("Baker is an idiot who hates young players") it cannot be received that way.

It's amazing how the reaction here never changes, no matter what Baker says. He's saying he wants to play Bruce. But #9 aside there is not one hint of postive reaction.

No kidding.

(though I don't know if the partial season was due to 'easing in' or injury).

Well, checking his daily gamelog comes in handy - he missed half of June, but played in 8 of the first 10 games, so it's probably due to injury.

It's amazing how the reaction here never changes, no matter what Baker says.

Yup. Dusty Baker has had a very solid career - his record with the Giants in particular is full of players who had their best seasons under Baker. But because he likes to sacrifice bunt, and because he never made a regular out of Bobby Hill, I guess he must be an idiot.

1162-1041 with three division titles and one league pennant.

And replace Barry Bonds with even a medium-grade star, like a Larry Walker or a Luis Gonzalez or something, and that drops to somewhere around 1140-1061 (.517) with two division titles and no pennants (the 2002 Giants wouldn't have reached the postseason without Barry Bonds having one of the greatest seasons in baseball history.) I fail to see anything impressive about this, and--maybe this is where I differ--I fail to see where Dusty should be given credit for Barry Bonds being on the team, or for Barry Bonds playing better than he otherwise might have. Even pre-2001, Barry Bonds was the best player in baseball.

And Dusty absolutely does bear blame for ruining the careers of young pitchers, and when he talks about walks clogging up the bases if the guy's slow, he means it. No way in hell I want this guy holding the car keys to my team.

I think Baker is a bad manager, or at least was when he was in Chicago, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here. It's good that he's saying this. Earlier quotations made it sound like he was predisposed against Bruce, so coming out in favor of him should at least change that. And I don't think he's ever had a position player prospect as good as Bruce. Murton, Choi, Bobby Hill, these weren't potential superstars. Jay Bruce is in a totally different class and until he's benched for Norris Hopper, it's wrong to thing Baker is going to do so.

But still, it's pathetic that Dusty can say all the right things, and yet a majority of BBTF STILL repeats the same stupid tired cliches. So much for the "Think" in Baseball Think Factory.

All managers will look worse without their best players. Who are the other good players Baker had on those teams? Really not many. Taking a highly mediocre bunch to a .500 record is a good achievement too.

Does Baker have faults? Absolutely. But he ain't without his strengths.

The facts also are that Dusty Baker took over a team that had won fewer than 70 games in three of the preceding four seasons, and led it to records of 88-74 and 89-73 in back-to-back years.

-- MWE

No, actually, I never especially thought the fascination with veterans was Dusty Baker's thing; certainly Brian Sabean and his protege Ned have both established that they're beyond obsession when it comes to veterans, and the Cubs also have shown a distaste for young players that has survived Dusty Baker. Dusty has major faults, which I've already discussed in this thread, but I don't place "hates young players" among them, really.

And Mike, you don't think the coming on of Prior and Zambrano, or his torturous abuse of both plus Kerry Wood, had anything to do with that?

I think Baker is a bad manager, or at least was when he was in Chicago, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here.

ditto, plus I don't think Baker has ever had a prospect the caliber of Jay Bruce before- what I'm interested in is what he does with Votto- does Votto get the Choi treatment?

But still, it's pathetic that Dusty can say all the right things

The facts also are that Dusty Baker took over a team that had won fewer than 70 games in three of the preceding four seasons, and led it to records of 88-74 and 89-73 in back-to-back years.

-- MWE


And in his last year in Chicago, the team went 70-92 and the year after they went 85-77.

And Mike, you don't think the coming on of Prior and Zambrano, or his torturous abuse of both plus Kerry Wood, had anything to do with that?

Of course. But let's be fair here - given what the Cubs had, and what Baker's mandate was when he was hired, what would you have done differently? It's not as though those Cubs were set up to be a powerhouse.

Kerry Wood, by the way, pitched 213 2/3 innings in 2002, the year before Baker came on board, and 211 in 2003. If Baker abused Wood, he was merely following what Don Baylor had already done. Zambrano's workload under Baker was fairly consistent, and he's held up reasonably well over the years - I'd hardly call that abuse. Matt Clement had his best years with Dusty managing; he hasn't pitched nearly as well since. Baker got the best of Glendon Rusch's career by spotting him well and not overextending him. And Baker's bullpens in Chicago always pitched well, as a group.

Baker has his blind spots, sure. But he also has had his strengths, and for the most part he's gotten good results from his teams. And he does deserve to be credited for that.

-- MWE

I think it's also worth considering that in this day and age the only way to be a "bad" manager is to fail to follow orders from the people who are actually calling the shots.

Or maybe one who punches out his players or habitually sleeps in the dugout while drunk.

I think it's also worth considering that in this day and age the only way to be a "bad" manager is to fail to follow orders from the people who are actually calling the shots.

Huh?

In light of the BALCO stuff, how much credit does Dusty really deserve for all the "career years" guys had on his watch?

That sucks about Craig. I really hope he manages to catch on somewhere.

The facts also are that Dusty Baker took over a team that had won fewer than 70 games in three of the preceding four seasons, and led it to records of 88-74 and 89-73 in back-to-back years.

-- MWE

That leaves out some serious context.

The 2002 team was closer to a 75 win team in terms of talent. In 2003 the offense lost 6 points of OPS+, while the defense gained 19 points of ERA+.

Breakdown of offense changes:
C: Miller outhit Girardi, but Bako was outhit by Hundly. Slight increase.
1B: This position lost about 20 points of OPS+ between 2002 and 2003.
2B: This position lost 30 points of OPS+ between 2002 and 2003. Man, Bellhorn was great that year.
3B: Aramis + Bellhorn + Harris < Mueller. This position lost about 15 points of OPS+ from 2002 to 2003.
SS: Gonzalez lost about 13 points of OPS+ between 2002 and 2003. Man, this infield lost a ton of hitting.
RF: Sammy lost 27 points of OPS+ to bring him down to 133.
CF: Patterson gained 27 points in his half season, and Lofton was a bit better than him during his stay. Big gain.
LF: Alou gained 14 points of OPS+.
Bench: No change big enough to be a big factor.

Breakdown of pitching changes:
Wood: Gained 25 points of ERA+
Clement: Lost 7 points of ERA+
Prior: Gained 56 points of ERA+ and started in 11 more games
Zambrano: Double his starts and added 29 points of ERA+
Estes: Basically equal to Benes, Bere, and Smyth
Bullpen: Went from crappy to decently good.

Most of the improvements were players getting older and getting more playing time, and would have happened even if someone else had been manager.

does Votto get the Choi treatment?

There's a concurrent thread on Choi. I think Baker is given a bad rap for him (and I'm not really much of a Baker fan). Choi played in 49 of the first 60 games for the Cubs in 2003 before he collided with Kerry Wood and suffered a concussion that caused him to miss a month of the season and bat .164 when he got back - a fact that I think is more likely the result of the concussion than the result of anything that Baker did. Then the Cubs traded him in the offseason. If it wasn't for the concussion, Choi was on pace for 454 plate appearances in 2003 and, given how Eric Karros hit in the second half, I think it's at least possible that he would have gotten even more than that.

Of course. But let's be fair here - given what the Cubs had, and what Baker's mandate was when he was hired, what would you have done differently? It's not as though those Cubs were set up to be a powerhouse.

So having 3 star pitchers they'd never give up, a 3B, 1B (Lee trade), a RF, and a CF that all would be average or better, and a minor league system full of live arms doesn't set the Cubs up to be good? The fact that they only won 89 games in 2004 should be held against Baker. That team should have been in the playoffs easily.

Teams are spending well over $100 million on payroll, a single game won or lost is worth more than $2 million. If the folks upstairs aren't directing almost everything (from playing time to strategy to coaching emphasis to media talking points) they've fallen well behind the curve. Jay Bruce's playing time is almost certainly going to be mostly determined by someone other than Dusty Baker.

Managers used to be very important because a large chunk of their duties were the sorts of things baseball ops now does . Their jobs are to keep order in the clubhouse, make a few not hard decisions in game (with substantial input on those decisions from above in between games) and be a good interview for the media.

There's a concurrent thread on Choi. I think Baker is given a bad rap for him (and I'm not really much of a Baker fan). Choi played in 49 of the first 60 games for the Cubs in 2003 before he collided with Kerry Wood and suffered a concussion that caused him to miss a month of the season and bat .164 when he got back - a fact that I think is more likely the result of the concussion than the result of anything that Baker did. Then the Cubs traded him in the offseason. If it wasn't for the concussion, Choi was on pace for 454 plate appearances in 2003 and, given how Eric Karros hit in the second half, I think it's at least possible that he would have gotten even more than that.

Dusty never really gave Choi a chance to get back into the action. After the concussion he started 2 games in a row 3 times and never started 3 games in a row.

Not to say a Choi-Lee trade wouldn't have been a good idea, but Choi may have gotten more of a chance if he had 2 seasons of 400+ PA and good hitting. He's still be a useful bat off the bench for some team, and might be worth taking a flier on.

Choi played in 49 of the first 60 games for the Cubs in 2003 before he collided with Kerry Wood and suffered a concussion that caused him to miss a month of the season and bat .164 when he got back - a fact that I think is more likely the result of the concussion than the result of anything that Baker did.

Much later, it was revealed that Choi was having some issues with post-consussion syndrome. At the time, Cubs fans here were tortured with Eric Karros & Randall Simon and nary an explanation on Choi's disappearance.

I actually agree with you, Voros, but it's rare--not unheard of, but rare--for GMs to hire or keep managers around that they fundamentally disagree with. Thus, paying attention to what managers say and/or do can provide a helpful peek into what kind of philosophy the front office is running.

And in his last year in Chicago, the team went 70-92 and the year after they went 85-77.

That is also true. And it is also true that (a) the Cubs in 2007 had a healthy Derrek Lee for the entire season, which the 2006 team did not have; (b) the Cubs in 2007 had four healthy starters in the rotation for the entire season, while Dusty's last team had one. If Piniella can trot Zambrano/Hill/Lilly/Marquis out there every time their turns come up for a second consecutive year, the Cubs will likely do well again. If he can't, the team could easily look like Dusty's last team.

-- MWE

But because he likes to sacrifice bunt, and because he never made a regular out of Bobby Hill, I guess he must be an idiot.

Boy, those strawmen are scary, aren't they?

And in his last year in Chicago, the team went 70-92

66-96, actually, but who's counting?

Thus, paying attention to what managers say and/or do can provide a helpful peek into what kind of philosophy the front office is running.

Right, but then it should come as no surprise the Baker sounds different when it comes to Jay Bruce than he did with regards to Murton or Choi or whomever. Different team and different GM.

That is also true. And it is also true that...

Yes but if we're dipping into context then Baker got Grudzielanek, Mark Prior, Aramis Ramirez (midseason), etc.

There were big changes made to start 2003 as well.

66-96, actually, but who's counting?

Not me, apparently, where did I get that number?

Right, but then it should come as no surprise the Baker sounds different when it comes to Jay Bruce than he did with regards to Murton or Choi or whomever. Different team and different GM.

To be fair to Baker, if you were to rank all 30 major-league teams based on their ability to develop position player prospects over the past two decades, I don't know how you'd rank numbers 1 - 28 but I'm pretty sure that 29 and 30 would be the San Francisco Giants and the Chicago Cubs (in whichever order). I think his stint here in Cincy will be a much better gauge of what kind of job Dusty Baker can actually do working kids into his lineups.

Not me, apparently, where did I get that number?

It was only a 66-win season, yet it seemed so much better!

70-92 was their Pythagorean W-L.

It's amazing how the reaction here never changes, no matter what Baker says. He's saying he wants to play Bruce. But #9 aside there is not one hint of postive reaction. Personally I'd be cautious about this if I was a Reds fan - let's just wait and see what Baker does if (when) Bruce goes 0-12. But because it goes against the BTF Cubs meme ("Baker is an idiot who hates young players") it cannot be received that way.

There's no (or little) positive reaction because the Cubs fans have heard this before. Baker is not going to come out and say "I hate young players, they'll never play for me." But look at what he said. He did not say that he wants to play Bruce. He said that youth is not a criteria. But he did say that knowing how to play the game is a criteria. And having watched years of press conferences and on-the-field actions, it's clear to the Cubs fans on this board that Dusty does not think that young players know how to play the game. Actually, I guess that it could be said that Dusty has not had a young player that knows how to play the game. But at some point it becomes a pattern.

Dusty is extremely defensive. IMO, he's not planning on playing Bruce. But if a reporter comes up to him and says, "So Dusty, Bruce is only 20. You don't play young players, but Bruce is good. What are you going to do?" Dusty would be completely within character to say, "Hey, I don't have a problem with young players as long as they can play the game." He defends himself against the accusation, but comes up with a different reason to do what he's accused of. Once again, we've seen it before.

Oh, also, as cliche as it is to bash Dusty, this:

So much for the "Think" in Baseball Think Factory.

is even more cliche. It's trotted out virtually every time that a large majority of the people here disagree with someone. Can we please retire it?

70-92 was their Pythagorean W-L.

Like I said, the '06 Cubs seemed so much better than their W-L. :-p

Actually, it felt like a 115-loss season; man, the '06 Cubs were ugly.

There's no (or little) positive reaction because the Cubs fans have heard this before.

Yes. The folks leaping to Baker's defense are almost exclusively those who didn't spend 4 years watching Baker's mismanagement (and listening to his talking points) from an excruciatingly close distance from '03 to '06, and who don't root for the team he was mismanaging. Bruce may yet get a fair shot this year, but that doesn't mean Baker's comments don't reflect the same spin we've been hearing for years about young players on Baker teams.

As for some of the other stuff, I don't even consider sacrifice bunting a particularly grave sin of Baker's, though perhaps that's a result of his succeeding Don Baylor. Baker seemed like an OBP freak in comparison (at least in that respect).

Once again, we've seen it before.

To whit:

"That's really unfair," Baker said of the criticism. "How could I have that attitude? I'm trying to play the best guys to win, young or old. You have to consider what [Todd Hollandsworth] showed us last year. I know 'Holly' can hit, and I know Dubois is going to hit.

"I've always said before my career is over with I'd like to have a whole team of young players," he said. "It's easier to get them young and teach them."

As a survivor of the Baker era in Chicago, this is what sticks out to me:

Baker says the key to good clubs is having players ready to play winning baseball when they arrive in the majors.

“Look at the Braves organization,” he said. “When they come up to the big leagues, they know how to play. ... You get credit or discredit if they play good, fundamental baseball in the big leagues. But they learn that in the minor leagues. There’s a way to teach them in the minor leagues so they retain.”

It's not that Dusty won't play young players per se. It's that he's never shown much of an inclination to use them in place of "his guys" when injuries occur and he can slip one of his veteran toadies in the lineup, and he doesn't seem to have much use or inclination in coaching a young player to help him make adjustments so he can succeed in the majors.

To repeat: "But they learn that in the minor leagues. There’s a way to teach them in the minor leagues so they retain." They learn in the minors; you teach them in the minors. It's not Dusty Baker's job to coach, as far as Dusty is concerned.

Which... whatever. The Barry Bonds-era Giants probably benefited from a guy like Baker, who could manage the superstar egos and stay out of the way of his accomplished hitters. Same with the Slammin' Sammy era in Chicago. But I don't think Baker's style, and inability to coax the best performances out of his young players, meshes well with the sort of team the Reds have right now. I could be wrong.

The headline doesn't really match the true story of the article. This is standard Dusty hugging the prospect so he can better position to stab him in the back.

Maybe Dusty's saying the right things, but I don't see why we should slap him on the back until he does the right things.

That's really unfair," Baker said of the criticism. "How could I have that attitude? I'm trying to play the best guys to win, young or old. You have to consider what [Todd Hollandsworth] showed us last year. I know 'Holly' can hit, and I know Dubois is going to hi

Forgot all about DuBois
Brutally bad on defense

Peaked early, hit .251/.303/.415 in AAA last year - which was Norfolk, which is the worst place to hit in all of AAA- but come on, if you are a 1b/Dh type you've got to hit quite a bite better than that in AAA...

I don't think DuBois was ever going to be a quality MLBer no matter who his manager was- can't really hold him against Dusty

DuBois, Choi,
Murton- Dusty gave him more PT than Piniella- Pinella's misuse of Murton was baffling- basically he had a terrible April- played well thereafter but never got his job back...
Cedeno- Dusty gave him 572 PAs, and Cedeno blew- what's baffling is where he batted Cedeno compared to where he batted Murton
Bobby Hill - .262/.343/.350 in the MLB, at 2B not awful, juts not good enough- just never developed one inch past the age of 23- his minor league numbers held constant through 2006- and they suggest a guy who'd hit .262/.343/.350 in the majors.
Pedro Feliz- had 33 homers in AAA in 2000 - played part time and extremely poorly under Dusty- was actually pretty decent his first two years under Alou...
Rich Aurillia- Dusty's great shining position prospect success- it took 4-5 years but Dusty eventually made him a regular- bad at times, good at times...
Bill Mueller- (keppinger's earlier incarnation)- it took 2/3 years but Dusty made him a regular, not a star but useful
Armando Rios- OPS+'d 144, 118, and 109 used PT by Dusty- turned into a pumpkin when he hit 30- peaking from 26-29 was a useful enough player, Dusty could have gotten more from him- maybe
Marvin Benard- basically Rios with more PT, Dusty eventually made him a regular, bat failed after 30

None of these guys were destined to be stars, no matter who his manager was

Personally, I'm over Dusty. I don't really care what he does in Cincy, except for how it directly impacts the Cubs. No need to rehash this #### over and over. I've said my piece, and I think both the Cubs and Dusty are better off now.

That won't stop me from making fun of the stupid #### he's likely to pull, but I'll feel a little bit of pain each time.

None of these guys were destined to be stars, no matter who his manager was

That's total hindsight and unproveable either way.

I can show you what Hollandsworth hit in The Year of Dubois: .254/.301/.388 and his defense was no peach out there.

Jason Dubois in 2004 with the Cubs: .239/.289/.472

Hollandsworth got twice the at bats.

Hollandsworth got twice the at bats

they both sucked
Personally I'd given Hollandsworth's ABs to DuBois to see what Dubois could do, but no biggie-
giving ABs to Karros over Choi, and refusing to let Choi get any consistent PT after his injury (when karros was playing badly) was far worse.

Although an "OF" Dubois actually had less defensive value than Choi (DuBois was a born DH)

I used the word "destined" a bit too carefully-
I can see an alternate reality where Choi and maybe Murton became stars, but no one else really, guys who could have been useful- or who could have given their teams more value, but as someone else noted above, SF and CHI just have been awful at drafting and development.

I also forgot Corey Patterson... Dusty gave him PT, it didn't work out

I also forgot Corey Patterson... Dusty gave him PT, it didn't work out


Made him the leadoff hitter...

The appropriate criticism of Dusty and young players isn't necessarily playing time ... and it's not even necessarily that he doesn't "teach" them. It's that he focusses on what they can't do ... and he does it publicly ... and he almost seems to intentionally put them in the roles they are worst at. In spring, don't be surprised to hear Dusty talking to the press about Bruce's defense or his strikeouts or his baserunning or how his proper role is leadoff or whatever.

Dusty talks about "not easing in" Bruce ... yet Dubois, Murton, Choi were all "eased in" as platoon players ... and given Dubois and Murton were the wrong side of the platoon, that was particularly damaging. Patterson meanwhile was pushed repeatedly into a role he wasn't suited for and instructed to bunt more. He clearly wasn't getting the help he needed to succeed. Cedeno -- he did give him a chance, not clear he helped him at all though.

I do think Dusty gets too much heat for the Prior/Wood breakdowns. Injuries happen to pitchers all the time and we don't understand them even in the aggregate -- thinking we know why a particular pitcher broke down is silly (I am about to be sill). What he does deserve lots of criticism for is (1) having Prior continue pitching after the collision with Giles and (2) having Prior throw a lot of low-leverage innings down the stretch and in the playoffs. Obviously I can't prove it, but I do think those were the innings that ruined Prior's career -- not that it might not have ended up ruined anyway. But whether they contributed to his injuries or not, those innings represented a completely unneccessary risk.

The facts also are that Dusty Baker took over a team that had won fewer than 70 games in three of the preceding four seasons, and led it to records of 88-74 and 89-73 in back-to-back years.

Well, he was the first Cubs manager with back-to-back winning seasons since Durocher so I can't take that away from him. But... for whatever wacky reason, that turnaround is not at all uncommon for the Cubs:

1998: + 22 wins under Riggelmann
2001: + 23 wins under Baylor
2003: + 21 wins under Baker
2007: + 19 wins under Piniella

Conversely, drops back down to mid-60s wins have also been quite common.

Still, 4 times in 10 seasons, the Cubs have seen jumps of 20 wins. From 97-07, it's 5 seasons in the 65-70 range, 5 in the 85-90 range and 1 500 season.

Baker certainly comes out the best record-wise, no denying.

Anyway, as I've said before: I think Baker's a pretty lousy managner in most ways ... he's also probably the best manager the Cubs have had since at least Frey. (He's also had the best talent since at least Frey) We've had a rough time of it.

Dusty is annoying and may even be a bad human being. But he's clearly been an above-average manager.

Most teams tend to improve under new managers. For the most part the reason is that managers tend to be fired after failing to meet performance expectations, and teams that underperform to their expectations tend to rebound the following year.

Dusty is annoying and may even be a bad human being. But he's clearly been an above-average manager.

Annoying: agree
Bad human being: I have no firsthand knowledge
Above-average manager: disagree. In fact, it's been hashed out so much on BTF that's it's blindingly obvious that it's anything but "clear". Now if you if you had said ", period" at the end then I guess I couldn't argue.

Thus, paying attention to what managers say and/or do can provide a helpful peek into what kind of philosophy the front office is running.

Right, but then it should come as no surprise the Baker sounds different when it comes to Jay Bruce than he did with regards to Murton or Choi or whomever. Different team and different GM.

This overlooks the fact that there were numerous times - especially in the second half of his tenure as Cubs manager - when Baker said & did the exact opposite of what GM Jim Hendry had said the Cubs should do.

Dusty is annoying and may even be a bad human being.

By almost all accounts, Dusty Baker is an extremely likable person. His players loved him. There's even a story in Billy Bean's "Going the Other Way" about a player before him who was alleged to have been gay. Billy Martin called him a f*ggot to his face, Lasorda dumped him off the roster. Eventually, he was drummed out of baseball and spent time in a hospital, where virtually no one would visit him -- but Bean mentions Baker visited him.

If the folks upstairs aren't directing almost everything (from playing time to strategy to coaching emphasis to media talking points) they've fallen well behind the curve.

Most teams include the manager in the decision making process - sounding him out, making sure he's on the page. The finale decision rests with the higher ups and the manager sure as hell won't agree with all the decisions, but most major managers have a say or can at least speak their peace. Since they're the ones who come in most contact with the players, I don't know why a team would want to shut them out of the process altogehter.

Most teams include the manager in the decision making process - sounding him out, making sure he's on the page. The finale decision rests with the higher ups and the manager sure as hell won't agree with all the decisions, but most major managers have a say or can at least speak their peace.

I wonder. My impression is that managers have a much bigger role than that. I get the feeling that bench and bullpen filler positions are usually left almost completely up to the manager -- obviously the GM has to sign the guys but he tries to get who the manager wants. And that almost all in-game decisions are the manager's. But maybe I'm wrong.

I wonder. My impression is that managers have a much bigger role than that.

Frankly, so do I, but I can't imagine any scenario in which baseball execs routinely leave managers out of the loop and expect them just to be little more than push-button men for the front office, which is where the thread seems to be going.

Can't all of these be true:

1. Dusty is someone who had some very favorable conditions in his managing stops that might have caused him to look like the best manager in the league even when he probably wasn't.
2. Dusty, like many major league managers has several glaring weaknesses.
3. In Dusty's case, those weaknesses are in some of the few areas of the game that amateur saberfiends and friends focus most on so they are naturally going to have a more negative perception of him.
4. Dusty is a great human being and a pretty decent writer who has had some amazing experiences in his life and performed better than practically anyone would have in those situations.
5. Dusty has some trivial mannerisms that if you spend more time being exposed to than his positive character traits, you might find him to be "annoying".
6. Dusty has become one of those topics on BTF where people just love to dig in and be intentionally obtuse on to practice their destructive debate skills. "He improved them by this many games!" "You are using that out of context, let me use something out of context and be a hypocrite just to contradict you!"

Keith Law lists Bruce as the #2 prospect in all the minors, behind Longoria. Here's the evaluation:

Bruce is probably the top power-hitting prospect in the minors right now, unsurprising for a kid who was already well-developed physically at the time he was drafted. Bruce sets up very deep but generates excellent bat speed and is strong enough to drive balls out to all fields... There's no reason he couldn't step in right now and win the Rookie of the Year Award in the NL if he's given an everyday job.

Baker on Votto:


"What's Hatteberg? 38?" Baker said. "Votto's the future here. I talked to Hatteberg about Votto. He thinks he's going to be a heck of a player. He's not conceding his position. ... I think he understands to be part of the club that Votto might have to be a major part of it. It might be Votto's time."

Of course they don't shut him out of the process, but that doesn't mean the manager has a whole lot of impact on what the team is going to look like. Just because you're in charge doesn't mean you're going to be a jerk about it and lord it over people.

My point is that managers have a minor (at best) impact on the on the field success of a Major League team, so looking at Dusty Baker's winning percentages (or any other manager) as if they mean something is faulty.

Voros:

Well, I find your premise, not YOU but the premise, complete bullsh#t.

The caveat is that an ok or even good manager's impact isn't near the magnitude of a bad manager. A bad manager can easily sabotage not just a season but an entire organization.

Not a personal attack. I am sure you mean well.

But the notion is cr#p.

Just so we are clear.

Managers used to be very important because a large chunk of their duties were the sorts of things baseball ops now does . Their jobs are to keep order in the clubhouse, make a few not hard decisions in game (with substantial input on those decisions from above in between games) and be a good interview for the media.

I'm going to have to disagree here too. For the most part, I agree with the front office calling most of the shots, but I do think there are two significant areas where a manager can contribute -- and it's exactly because wins are so expensive/valuable that it's important to have a manager who is good at these things:

1) Reading his players, particularly pitchers. While on average, pitchers probably pitch the same most of the time and tire at a consistent rate (between 90-100 pitches, for example), I have no doubt that there are observable signs in the course of a game that could indicate a pitcher has more or less.

That doesn't mean that a manager should always go with his observations -- a manager who does this badly would definitely be worse than one who plays it by the book all the time -- but I believe there is room for a manager to make significant positive impact.

The same applies to knowing when pitchers might not "have it," or when players' injuries are affecting their swing/defense, etc.

2) Leveraging the bullpen.

3) Coaching young players.

Anything that prevents Dusty Baker from becoming any more famous is just doing good by the human race.

Dusty is annoying and may even be a bad human being.

wow .. just wow!!