Is Votto white? If he's white, young, patient, and slow (he is a 1B), he's got no shot at ever getting in the lineup.

Possible series of events, rationalizations, whatever:

1. Reds don't really have a chance this year, so...
2. Big deal if Dusty has Dunn swing more, because...
3. Perhaps Dunn will start blasting even more home runs, and then...
4. With the Reds out of contention, perhaps pitchers will be more willing to throw some meat Dunn's way so...
5. He can break the HR record and take it away from that (sarcasm alert!) evil, evil man!

I'd dig that.

Yes, he is white. What, couldn't do a quick Google Image Search?

Now watch all the racists come in here and badmouth Dusty.

Is Dusty supposed to favor Scott Hatteberg? That would be amusing. Hatteberg is completely an OBP-first player. He's actually a walks-first player and he'll clog the bases more than Votto. Maybe Keppinger becomes the regular first baseman.

What is Google Image Search?

What is Google Image Search?

Go to www.google.com. Click on the tab labeled "images" and type in the image you want to search.

Sheesh, its like you were born before 1985 or something!

As a cranky, resentful, and gout-ridden 33-year-old coot, I resent #7's slanderous libel. Now get off my woodchips!

Yes, he is white. What, couldn't do a quick Google Image Search?


That's right. I only have so much time to ignore real work, and I'm not going to waste it searching for a baseball player.

1985? I'd say before 1975.

Okay. So you're uninterested in facts enough that you 1) comment on players without knowing the slightest thing about them (Votto steals bases too, BTW), and 2) incorrectly claim that Dusty won't play a white guy. The latter statement will probably kickstart an incredibly lame thread, never mind give ammo to the the clown who thinks that criticizing Dusty Baker is an inherently irrational act. But that's all okay, because you're so very busy.

Possible series of events, rationalizations, whatever:

1. Reds don't really have a chance this year, so...
2. Big deal if Dusty has Dunn swing more, because...
3. Perhaps Dunn will start blasting even more home runs, and then...
4. With the Reds out of contention, perhaps pitchers will be more willing to throw some meat Dunn's way so...
5. He can break the HR record and take it away from that (sarcasm alert!) evil, evil man!

I'd dig that.

You just keep dreaming, Rutherford. Just ignore all those angry Cub fans that hate Dusty.

I already make it a point to ignore Cub fans, angry or not. White Sox fans, too.

The latter claim will probably kickstart an incredibly lame thread, never mind give ammo to the the clown who thinks that criticizing Dusty Baker is an inherently irrational act.

First, Dusty's admitted in the past that 'white guys can't withstand the heat as well as black guys' to paraphrase.

Second, I'm just giving Damon some crap as he was to me because we know each other.

I already make it a point to ignore Cub fans, angry or not. White Sox fans, too.


You're failing on the second one.

Dusty Baker really annoys me.

Won't avoiding looking at 3rd strikes mean more strikeouts?

I didn't include it in the lead, because I didn't want to steal the whole damn article, but Dusty's Bonds quote is also pretty priceless.

There’s not a cow in Texas if he don’t get better.

Huh?!

I'm only a Reds fan through friends and even I'm dreading his impact on this team. Friends seem surprisingly optimistic for whatever reason.

I really have trouble understanding what's wrong with Baker. Is he just so dumb that he doesn't understand that on-base percentage is simply how often a guy does not make a freaking out, or is he so dumb that he doesn't understand what not making an out means? Or does he just willfully ignore the fact that there is a limited number of outs and the best way to maximize your run scoring opportunities is to use those outs as slowly as possible?

I didn't include it in the lead, because I didn't want to steal the whole damn article, but Dusty's Bonds quote is also pretty priceless.

The Reds should just hire Barry as a player/manager.

Reds fans really need to start coming to grips with the idea that Bruce and Votto are not going to start the year with the Reds

Is he just so dumb that he doesn't understand that on-base percentage is simply how often a guy does not make a freaking out, or is he so dumb that he doesn't understand what not making an out means?

I don't necessarily think he's dumb, but I am starting to think Baker believes that OBP only measures walks. For a guy who is constantly praising Bonds, it's strange that he doesn't understand a big part of what makes Bonds so good.

Reading some of the fan comments on this article, on OBP, Dusty should be popular.

I don't necessarily think he's dumb, but I am starting to think Baker believes that OBP only measures walks.

Yeah. It definitely seems that way. It's just so mindboggling how Baker and so many others think that wanting a good OBP means wanting a player to walk. NO. It means wanting a player to not get out, and if that means walking, fine. It's better than getting out.

Dusty Baker really annoys me.

Racist.

I love the dustbag, now that he is in Cincinnati. Couldn't be happier, as he will really screw that team up.

Dusty Baker is an inherently irrational act.

These nescient and indignant Dusty threads are headed toward hostile. I'm only reading the next one with my youngest spawn as a human shield.

I'm only reading the next one with my youngest spawn as a human shield.

Nicely played.

Dusty Baker is an inherently irrational act.

Jack, you misspelled "ass."

Now that's funny, you racist. I keep waiting for the inevitable, "I've just gotta play my dudes" quote. That one always cracked me up.

On Votto: “He needs to swing some more. I talked to him about that. Strikeouts aren’t the only criteria. I’d like to see him more aggressive.”

What is Baker talking about? By his 2007 pitch analysis numbers, Votto falls into the camp of "aggressive' hitter. He didn't take lots of pitches. Oh wait, it's clear that Baker is basing his analysis of Votto on a couple dozen at-bats so far this spring. He would never think to look up some past stats, and if he did he wouldn't have any idea of what they mean.

This is 2008, not 1975. Managers who are so completely behind the information curve should really be unemployed.

Baker is SOOOOO kissing up to Marty. Goodness.

For those not aware Marty Bigmouth hates players who in HIS opinion are "passive".

Hatteberg is "good" because he is "patient".

Dunn is "bad" because he is "passive".

Explain the contradictions? Cripes, my head hurts trying to understand the individual points much less follow the alleged logic that links them.

Can't say I'm that enthused about Dusty and Ned re-enacting their "dumb-off" matchup.

Explain the contradictions?

40-50 HR = passive
10-20 HR while grinding = patient

Reds fans really need to start coming to grips with the idea that Bruce and Votto are not going to start the year with the Reds

I never have expected anything different--Freel, Hopper, Hatteberg and now apparently Patterson are all Dusty's kind of guys. I anticipate that Jocketty/LaRussa will be running the 2009 or 2010 Reds. Dunn will be gone before then, however.

I do believe if you swapped Baker and Yost both teams would be better. The Brewers young talent is established and Dusty's skill at making players feel warm and fuzzy would likely be well received after Yost's stupid mind games and motivational ploys.

Meanwhile, Yost's preimary strength of letting kids play aligns well with the Reds. And Ned would be reunited with his security blanket, Coco.

I can't believe Larry Dierker can't even get a whiff of a second chance.

-These quotes are pretty bad, pretty much they're what a bunch of very reasonable Dusty quotes posted earlier were then misinterpreted as.

-I don't see anything wrong with starting Jay Bruce in the minors. It's Krivsky's fault, not Baker's - Dunn/Bruce/Griffey would be an embarrassment in the outfield, they need a much stronger CF if they're going to put DHs in both corners. Bruce, while his upside is pretty awesome, does not project all that great just yet - most of the projection systems have him under .320 OBP. It seems pretty likely there's more for him to learn in the minors yet, and given the disastrous outfield that Krivsky has committed to, it makes sense to put Bruce in the minors unless he shows something special in spring.

-The main problem with Bruce, judging by the numbers, is plate discipline. 48 Ks and 15 BB in 200 PA in AAA looks like a guy who needs to do a better job identify his pitch. Kinda funny, in context.

These quotes are pretty bad, pretty much they're what a bunch of very reasonable Dusty quotes posted earlier were then misinterpreted as.

Isn't that evidence that perhaps his earlier quotes WEREN'T misinterpreted? And that he really does not like on-base percentage?

-I don't see anything wrong with starting Jay Bruce in the minors. It's Krivsky's fault, not Baker's - Dunn/Bruce/Griffey would be an embarrassment in the outfield, they need a much stronger CF if they're going to put DHs in both corners. Bruce, while his upside is pretty awesome, does not project all that great just yet - most of the projection systems have him under .320 OBP. It seems pretty likely there's more for him to learn in the minors yet, and given the disastrous outfield that Krivsky has committed to, it makes sense to put Bruce in the minors unless he shows something special in spring.

Yes and no. I agree to a point; in fact, in a thread about a month ago, I said that I thought both the Reds and Padres could get utility out of adding Corey Patterson because most agree he is a pretty good defensive OF. On the other hand, if Bruce is the best player the Reds have for CF, he should have the job. Projection systems indicate that he is--right now. Your point about D is valid, however, and it is a long-term team construction problem based on Griffey/Dunn. I don't think Baker has thought it through like that, though--"we need a D guy in CF"- I think he just figures Bruce is too young.

MCoA,

I don't want to hijack this into a politics thread, but I am interested in any opinions you have on the Demo nom battle. Andy and I have exchanged a few emails about it.

This is gonna be a very fun year for the NL Central. 100 years comes to an end.

I don't want to hijack this into a politics thread, but I am interested in any opinions you have on the Demo nom battle.

I'm pretty burned out by it, honestly. I need to focus on my own work, and the huge time gap until PA matches almost perfectly with the time I need to churn out eighty pages or so. So, in bullet points-

-While I have a marginal preference for Obama based on foreign policy and symbolic effect, I'm more worried about the negative effects of a drawn-out battle on the party's ability to focus against McCain and on the down-ballot races
-I hope that FL and MI hold new primaries/caucuses. That would allow for a clear settlement. As it is, Clinton has a pretty good (maybe 1 in 4) shot at reaching the convention with a defensible argument for the nomination (pledged + supers + FL/MI)
-Holding competitions in FL and MI would almost certainly win it for Obama (even in losses, he'd prevent Hillary from collecting enough delegates to make up the difference), so it probably won't happen

Edit: I basically agree with Chris Bowers' analysis.

I do believe if you swapped Baker and Yost both teams would be better.

I don't think Dusty makes any team better. Yeah, I know, he's won manager of the year, but I've seen him make way too many tactical mistakes to consider him a good manager.

I'm pretty burned out by it, honestly.

Me too, actually. I am going to read other stuff when I read this weekend and do some writing.

I need to focus on my own work the opening of baseball season

Just a reminder of where your priorities should be.

The math supposedly still favors Obama, but Ohio changed things, and is the fulcrum IMO of the new push for doing FL and Mich over. Thanks for the link and response.

I need to focus on my own work the opening of baseball season

Indeed. Fantasy draft March 20th. Luckily for my work, this has been a historically boring Sox ST so far..

I don't think Dusty makes any team better. Yeah, I know, he's won manager of the year, but I've seen him make way too many tactical mistakes to consider him a good manager.

He gets good performances out of veterans. His small ball tactics probably don't make much of a difference.

He gets good performances out of veterans. His small ball tactics probably don't make much of a difference.


His bullpen tactics do make a difference though. As do his lineup tactics, and neither one is good.

Dusty tries to nudge his starters which is something Milwaukee needs. Yost decided BEFORE the season last year he had 6 inning guys and managed to burn out his bullpen by July.

He gets good performances out of veterans.

I'm even somewhat skeptical of this. I thought that someone made a list of all of the veterans that Dusty's had and there were just as many underperformers as overperformers. Basically, if your team is mostly veterans to begin with, and Dusty finds a way to play even the bench veterans, you're going to have a lot of veterans overperform their projections just based on sheer volume. A lot will underperform as well, but we don't remember those.

I just remember the Cubs clubhouse full of veterans turning into whiny babies under Baker.

I don't think Dusty makes any team better. Yeah, I know, he's won manager of the year, but I've seen him make way too many tactical mistakes to consider him a good manager

three manager of the years. The best thing a manager can do has probably very little with tactics and that is put out the best lineup and make his players ready to play, the latter part from my recollection, Dusty does a good job, it's the first part that he has problems with, which means he needs a team that is tailored to who he is going to play. He is going to play grinders, agressive swingers, speed guys, and veterans. If you get him a team that is built like that he will do well, he also recognizes the value of a guy with Bonds skillset, just doesn't care for a lot of them, and of course he has a pretty good record of keeping attitude problems in relative check. Give him a team with Milton Bradley, Frank Thomas, Eckstein, Rolen or a Vernon Wells and that is a team he could probably do well with, although that particular team may have problems with him as a manager. (yes I know Bradley isn't on the Blue Jays, but was looking for a confirmed attittude problem to go along with supposed attitude problems like Thomas and Rolen)

I have a disparate team, I would consider Dusty as manager, although I would pursue a legendary pitching coach and maybe treat it as offensive/defensive coordinator job.

I just remember the Cubs clubhouse full of veterans turning into whiny babies under Baker.

I don't remember it like that, not really. There were some fan issues with his choices of who to play at second base or in the outfield, but I thought that Dusty did a good job of instilling a team unity/pride type of thing, I seriously doubt that Barrett meltdown would have happened under Dusty (yes I know about Kent/Bonds, but Dusty was still able to get them to play together after that)

I do remember one of the second baseman whining, which could happen in any clubhouse, but Baker was able to criticize his star players and still not cause tension to the point where the player demanded to be traded, (see TLR and Rolen, Jordan, Ozzie, Gant) It's one of the things I like about Ozzie Guillen, he's not afraid to be the spotlight bad guy, something I think he picked up from watching Dusty, the media/fans can hate the manager and leave the players alone, so he takes one for the team, and the players know this.

-Holding competitions in FL and MI would almost certainly win it for Obama (even in losses, he'd prevent Hillary from collecting enough delegates to make up the difference), so it probably won't happen

They'd also likely be caucuses, which have overwhelmingly favored Obama to this point, though MI and FL would likely be tougher for him.

Michigan's reportedly going to announce a caucus in the next few days (in which case, the pressure on FL to follow suit would be very strong).

OK, back to baseball (as I, too, am depressed enough by the Dem race already without discussing it in a baseball thread).

I don't remember it like that, not really. There were some fan issues with his choices of who to play at second base or in the outfield, but I thought that Dusty did a good job of instilling a team unity/pride type of thing

He fostered an "us vs. them" mentality in his team. The team was unified, sure, but they complained together about the fans, the announcers, everything. They basically caused the exit of Steve Stone. And this was a team of supposed veterans, like Moises Alou.

They'd also likely be caucuses, which have overwhelmingly favored Obama to this point, though MI and FL would likely be tougher for him.

I believe the Florida dems were holding out for another primary instead (and they want the DNC to pay for it, which the DNC is rejecting).

If they did try to make it a caucus, it sounds like there's a good chance of a lawsuit or two or three (with the ol' 'd' word getting thrown out there) - but that's just the nature of 21st Century politics, I suppose (even with only one party involved).

He fostered an "us vs. them" mentality in his team. The team was unified, sure, but they complained together about the fans, the announcers, everything. They basically caused the exit of Steve Stone. And this was a team of supposed veterans, like Moises Alou.

It's a strategy that usually works to be honest. It may make the team unbearable (I hated Dusty's teams because they were pricks) but it usually makes for a stronger team. As a Marine the same concept is used constantly within the military, and I don't see any reason not to use in other professions, heck that minor bit of pride/loyalty thing could save the team money on contracts if they work it right. It was probably over the top, but I don't think it hurt the team.

You're probably right in that it didn't hurt the team, I guess. But man, it was annoying, and it caused Stone's departure which still stings today.

I suspect a compromise may be end up being: the Florida results stand, and holding a quick and dirty do-over caucus in Michigan. Not sure that's fair, but it's looking like a possibility.

Us vs. them is the only trick Dusty has in his book. I don't see how anyone who watched that team all year can think it didn't affect them. Every loss was bad breaks, bad calls, opponents having career games against them. There was no accountability and they imploded in on themselves as things came to a head at the end of the season. It was a nightmare.

You're probably right in that it didn't hurt the team, I guess.

I disagree. The proof's in the pudding; that team underachieved significantly. And the comments we heard all year from Dusty and various players suggested the team's M.O. was to complain about those who called the team on its B.S. first, and hold people accountable for substandard performance later (if at all).

Or, what Ryan said.

the Florida results stand

already tried that; look where it got us...

He fostered an "us vs. them" mentality in his team. The team was unified, sure, but they complained together about the fans, the announcers, everything. They basically caused the exit of Steve Stone. And this was a team of supposed veterans, like Moises Alou.

And when Stone turned in another Cy Young season the following year, it probably cost the Cubs a playoff berth.

"He gets good performances out of veterans."

I've said this before, but given that most of his San Francisco veterans were subsequently implicated in the BALCO thing, how much credit does he really deserve for getting good performances out of them?

I've said this before, but given that most of his San Francisco veterans were subsequently implicated in the BALCO thing, how much credit does he really deserve for getting good performances out of them?

Exagerration? OK, I know Bonds was implicated, and I've heard Glenallen Hill (who really didn't improve noticeably in SF anyway). I'm sure there's a few others, but I haven't been following close enough to know who. Checking b-ref quickly, I see unexpected improvement from Brent Mayne, Benito Santiaog, J. T. Snow, Jeff Kent, Matt Williams, David Bell, and Ellis Burks.

Marvin Benard was part of the first Balco thing correct?

I don't remember it like that, not really. There were some fan issues with his choices of who to play at second base or in the outfield, but I thought that Dusty did a good job of instilling a team unity/pride type of thing, I seriously doubt that Barrett meltdown would have happened under Dusty

The punchline being: of course the Barrett dust-up wouldn't have happened, since Zambrano would've been on the DL.