You just have to love Dusty Baker. The world would be boring without contrary opinions.

Sometimes, you get so caught up in on-base percentage that you’re clogging up the bases.

Swinging the bat early and often is good aerobic exercise, and players who don't do it get fat and slow.

Sometimes, you get so caught up in on-base percentage that you’re clogging up the bases.

I had always assumed that the "clogging up the bases" jokes I've seen around here were something of an exaggeration. Huh. Guess not.

It is somewhat amazing that in 2008 there are still baseball people who apparently don't even know what OBP means. It seems to me that Dusty Baker (and Joe Morgan, unless he had an epiphany) honestly seem to think that OBP is something like "walk percentage" and doesn't incorporate hits.

I realize I'm preaching to a choir full of preachers, but OBP is not only about walks. Ichiro has a good OBP with only 50 walks a year, Tony Gwynn topped .400 one year with only 35 walks. Mickey Tettleton walked 100 times every year and his OBP was usually in the same range as Ichiro's. The walks aren't the important thing, Dusty. Getting on base (and avoiding outs) is.

Adam Dunn will be traded on ____________ to ____________.

Adam Dunn will be traded on ____________ to ____________.

Well, Dusty also says that the object is to score and drive in runs, and Dunn's scored 99+ runs each of the last four years and driven in over 100 3 of the last 4 years (plus 92 the other year). So, Dusty really has a problem with guys who walk a lot but don't actually score runs. Of course, I think such players mostly exist in Dusty Baker's imagination.

we had this same discussion with the same quote from Dusty from August 2006

Sometimes, you get so caught up in on-base percentage that you’re clogging up the bases.”

Which recalls the old Tim McCarver line about Giambi:

"Giambi walks too much. He's always clogging up the bases with all that walking.

The thing I get a kick out of is that Baker wants batters to drive guys in while keeping the bases uncluttered.

Best Regards

John

Considering that people are often influenced by events early in their life I wonder how Baker managed to completely ignore the efforts of Darrell Evans. The two played together for several years and Evans was clearly a productive player despite a clear lack of speed. And he also had a habit of taking ball four.

this quote is encouraging for keeping Dunn fans

“I’m big on driving in runs and scoring runs,” Baker said. “Guys in the middle should score about close to equal to what they drive in.

which is pretty true.

The two played together for several years and Evans was clearly a productive player despite a clear lack of speed. And he also had a habit of taking ball four

.

As you may know, Bill James syas Evans is the most underrated player ever, so I would guess that Baker saw Evans as a slow guy with a low BA and nothing special on the field.

The thing I get a kick out of is that Baker wants batters to drive guys in while keeping the bases uncluttered.

Making him the world's biggest fan of the sacrifice fly.

Making him the world's biggest fan of the sacrifice fly.

You didn't grow up listening to Marty Brennaman.

cfb:

What is true? The players are not swinging the bat as often?

Or are you referring to Dunn specifically. Which is not true any longer. In 2007 Dunn was clearly making an effort to be more aggressive at the plate.

What is true? The players are not swinging the bat as often?

neither, I'm talking about his comment that your middle of the order guys should drive in as many as they score. I probably should have just cut and paste the first sentence.

Or are you referring to Dunn specifically. Which is not true any longer. In 2007 Dunn was clearly making an effort to be more aggressive at the plate.

Really? It didn't show up in his stats, which are pretty much identical to those of 2004 and 2005. In 2006 he plunged, and I seem to recall much being made of the supposition that happened because the Reds were trying to force him to swing more.

If Dunn ever happened to randomly hit .285 instead of his usual .260-ish, he'd probably lead the league in RBI (even with Dusty trying to keep the bases empty) and win the MVP award.

Seriously, the Reds need to leave Adam Dunn alone and let him do what he was born to do, or get rid of him.

Speaking of Marty, I wonder how Dusty will handle that relationship. Dusty's approach is to shield his players from all criticism and demonize the media. But he and Marty clearly share the same attitudes and by my reckoning mock the same things. So Baker might be inclined to enjoy Marty's company. HOWEVER, Marty isn't shy about stating that a player, in his opinion, stinks. And Adam Dunn has been his favorite whipping boy since about 2005.

This could be an interesting dynamic to observe..................

Justin:

No, Adam's 2006 was impacted by him showing up to training camp like Shamu the Killer Whale and running out of gas come August. Feel free to check out his splits. He fell off the cliff the last two months of the season. Which also happened to some extent in 2005 as well.

Dunn showed up in 2007 looking 15-20 lbs lighter and looking to swing a bit more. If you check out 2007 numbers with runners on base his OBP is more in line with his seasonal average while in earlier seasons Adam's OBP would be somewhat higher than his seasonal line with runners on base.

It wasn't HUGE. But it was a difference.

There was a lot of discussion here as the difference was visually evident to anyone who followed the team or the division.

i think we're all missing the point....wanting to keep his players from clogging the bases has nothing to do with strategy or baseball theory....dusty baker is an artist, as such regards the field as his canvas....anytime there are more than 10 players, two coaches, and four umpires on the field is simply cluttering a pristine landscape and must be avoided at all costs.

Speaking of Marty, I wonder how Dusty will handle that relationship. Dusty's approach is to shield his players from all criticism and demonize the media. But he and Marty clearly share the same attitudes and by my reckoning mock the same things. So Baker might be inclined to enjoy Marty's company. HOWEVER, Marty isn't shy about stating that a player, in his opinion, stinks. And Adam Dunn has been his favorite whipping boy since about 2005.

I think the key to how well Dusty does in Cincy is his relationship with Dunn. Adam Dunn is, very much, an anti-Dusty player - lots of base-clogging walks, lots of strikeouts, doesn't do the "little things" (the dude's 6'6, 240 lbs, nothing about him is "little"). He's also quite obviously the best hitter on the Reds. Dusty's calling card is getting great production out of his veteran hitters, especially the middle-of-the-order types (Bonds, Kent, Alou, Aramis Ramirez, Derrek Lee).

If Adam Dunn becomes one of "Dusty's guys" and hits 50 homers and drives in 140 runs, then the Reds could well win the NL Central and Dusty could well win another Manager-of-the-Year award. If Dusty turns on Adam Dunn, though, then the Reds could find themselves in 5th place and Dusty could find himself looking for work within the next season or two. I think it'll be interesting.

I had always assumed that the "clogging up the bases" jokes I've seen around here were something of an exaggeration. Huh. Guess not.

No, he actually said those very words. When Dusty opens his mouth, he's pretty much parody-proof; he parodies himself almost reflexively.

From memory Dusty doesn't mind cluttering the bases with fast guys, just slow guys who walk instead of getting on by singles. I agree it would be best to have high speed high obp guys in a perfect world, but generally the high speed guys don't get on base because they are taught when they are young to hammer the ball into the ground, which works at the lower levels a lot better than at MLB levels.

Kiko:

Dunn is in his walk year. Unless Dusty kneecaps him Adam will have a great year in 2008. And then sign for oodles for cash with someone.

My hope is that on the last day of the season Dunn finishes off his great season with a titanic homer in his final at bat and as he crosses home plate blows a kiss to the radio booth.

It's times like these that I am thankful for the existence of Manny Acta.

Did anyone read the quote?

The point is that getting on base is good, but trying to draw a walk at the expense of swinging at good pitches is not. Run-scoring is precisely what OBP is about - it's not good in itself, but only insofar as it leads to runs. Baker's talking at the level of how the game is played, previous to counting the results, and noting correctly that aggression in the hitting zone should at most very rarely be sacrificed in the attempt to draw a walk.

The reflexive Baker-hatred here, as seen in the persistent FJM-style snark and misrepresentation, is definitely driving me to mild Reds fandom. Should be fun - I never much cared about the Reds one way or the other. Always thought Eric Davis was cool.

to quote 洋基's Biggest Fan! from the thread I linked above

I sometimes wonder if managers prefer quick and speedy player who can bunt, and hit-and-run over slow home run hitting players because the quick and speedy players justify the manager's role and existence on the team. Playing small ball helps demonstrate "strategeery" and the baseball smarts a manager's got... if you've got a lineup of home run hitting sluggers, all you do is fill out the lineup card and stay the heck out of their way. Dusty seems to me like someone who really needs to prove to everyone how he's a smart manager... having speed on the base paths just gives him one more outlet to demonstrate why he's smarter than you.

Unless Dusty kneecaps him Adam will have a great year in 2008.

Well, if one listens to some of us Cubs fans, the worst case is that Dusty drops Dunn to 7th in the lineup because he strikes out too much and starts resting him 2-3 times a week in June, July, and August, because he can't handle the heat.

Actually, I take back the "reflexive" from my comment. These are three very weirdly written paragraphs:

Not down with OBP: Baker has repeatedly talked about the desire to have a do-it-all leadoff hitter with speed. What kinds of hitters is he looking for further down the lineup? Does he want guys with lofty on-base percentages? The answer will likely not sit well with fans of the book "Moneyball," because Baker said he believes the OBP statistic is overvalued.

"I'm big on driving in runs and scoring runs," Baker said. "Guys in the middle should score about close to equal to what they drive in. On-base percentage, that's fine and dandy. But a lot of times guys get so much into on-base percentage that they cease to swing. It's becoming a little bit out of control.

"What you do is run the pitcher's count up, that helps," Baker said. "You put him in the stretch, that helps. But your job in the middle is to either score them or drive them in. The name of the game is scoring runs. Sometimes, you get so caught up in on-base percentage that you're clogging up the bases."

For some reason, the author of the article chose to preface a statement about the proper approach of a middle-of-the-order hitter with a reference to Dusty's preferences in lead-off guys.

Dusty did not say anything in this article about what he wants a leadoff hitter to be. All these comments about leadoff hitters draw from a misreading enabled by the very poor composition of the article.

The reflexive Baker-hatred here, as seen in the persistent FJM-style snark and misrepresentation, is definitely driving me to mild Reds fandom

I agree that's it a bit silly to harp about stupid things a manager SAYS

as I pointed out before, very few managers ever SAID stupider things than did Sparky Anderson, but you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a lot of stupid things that he DID

Matt:

While manager of the Cubs Dusty Baker openly derided the concept of taking ball four. And in 2005 and 2006 the Cubs finished last in the NL in walks drawn. The 2006 total was 395 which was WAY lower than Pittsburgh's next lowest figure of 459.

I would gladly mock Cubs fans if given the opportunity. But I believe the interpretation here is correct. Dusty Baker is not an advocate of players that walk in any significant number.

Did anyone read the quote?

The point is that getting on base is good, but trying to draw a walk at the expense of swinging at good pitches is not. Run-scoring is precisely what OBP is about - it's not good in itself, but only insofar as it leads to runs. Baker's talking at the level of how the game is played, previous to counting the results, and noting correctly that aggression in the hitting zone should at most very rarely be sacrificed in the attempt to draw a walk.

The reflexive Baker-hatred here, as seen in the persistent FJM-style snark and misrepresentation, is definitely driving me to mild Reds fandom. Should be fun - I never much cared about the Reds one way or the other. Always thought Eric Davis was cool.

Except that aggression gets taken to an extreme with Baker. Lots of players who were striking out a ton and not getting on that often were kept in the lineup while players who did a good job of working the count didn't get a chance at hitting leadoff. Corey Patterson is the best example of this. He hit Corey Patterson leadoff, in spite of the fact Patterson couldn't get on base. Patterson swung at more pitches than just about anyone, including swinging at pitches head high, pitches way outside, and pitches that were barely above the plate (not just sliders, but regular fastballs).

So long as Dusty has a good view of what is a good pitch is reasonable, what he's saying is great. But his track record suggests that he thinks a good majority of pitches are hittable pitches, which is not true.

EDIT: I'll agree with MCoA in his next comment that the paragraphs were weirdly worded, so confusion about what was meant is easy to understand.

jmac:

Oh, I don't know about that. Getting all giddy about Chris Pittaro and before starting Enos Cabell at first base and his .323 slugging percentage could be deemed stupid..........and that's just for starters................

While manager of the Cubs Dusty Baker openly derided the concept of taking ball four. And in 2005 and 2006 the Cubs finished last in the NL in walks drawn. The 2006 total was 395 which was WAY lower than Pittsburgh's next lowest figure of 459.

Everybody on his late 90s Giants teams could take a free pass, though.

JT Snow, Jeff Kent, Bill Mueller, Marvin Benard, Ellis Burks.

Of the repeating regulars, really only Rich Aurilia and Benito Santiago didn't take their share of walks. Baker certainly looks worse the more stringently you focus on his last two years in Chicago. I don't think that those teams are particularly comparable to the one he's managing now, so I prefer to look at his whole career.

Getting all giddy about Chris Pittaro and before starting Enos Cabell at first base

but getting giddy about Pittaro would come under the category of stupid things Sparky SAID--I'll give you Enos Cabell, though...

Matt:

I specifically referenced what Dusty said. And his Chicago teams walk totals decreased during his tenure.

If you search through the game chatter/thread archives literally every Cub fan around here wanted the San Fran Dusty that you mention. Because the Chicago Dusty was a very different guy.

But if you talk to the PLAYERS they don't mention Dusty. They mention Barry Bonds. Rich Aurilia gave an interesting interview while in Cincy where he spoke about Barry's influence not just on him but the entire Giants team.

As has Ellis Burks and JT Snow.

So what is more likely? That Dusty altered his offensive philosophy between San Fran and Chicago or that perhaps there was one very obvious difference between the two teams?

jmac:

But he PLAYED Pittaro. He started Opening Day in 1985.

Maybe starting Mike Moore and his ERA over 7. The Howard Johnson HateFest.

Sparky was a great manager. But he had his bad moments.............

EDIT:

And don't get me started about letting George Foster stew while Bobby Tolan did nothing...

But if you talk to the PLAYERS they don't mention Dusty. They mention Barry Bonds. Rich Aurilia gave an interesting interview while in Cincy where he spoke about Barry's influence not just on him but the entire Giants team.

As has Ellis Burks and JT Snow.

That's interesting. I was not aware of that, but it definitely makes me pause. If the success of those Giants teams is attributed, by the Giants themselves, not to Dusty but to particular leaders on the roster, then his record looks a lot less impressive.

It seems like Cincinnati will be a test of this theory. If they get Chicago Dusty, too - and 2005 Chicago Dusty at that - it'll be pretty nasty for his legacy.

Matt:

Now don't take this wrong. The players LIKED Dusty. And they appreciated his contributions.

But I have heard each of these players talk about Barry's plate approach and how other players tried to incorporate some of his approach. Knowing that they didn't have Barry's physical gifts but they could certainly learn the strike zone.

But he PLAYED Pittaro. He started Opening Day in 1985.

well, yeah, but c'mon, he only gave him starts thru early May and then sat him

no, of course, Sparky did DO some stupid things; but he SAID a LOT MORE stupid things than he did, which tended to lower his rep in certain circles

as for Dusty, his "stupid do"/"stupid say" percentage is probably higher

I had the same read as MCoA. There's two different ways of view OBP:
1) As a goal before-the-fact to strive for
2) As an after the fact way of evaluating performance.

With 2, it's obvious that a walk is a very positive outcome. It seems likely that Baker undervalues that outcome. People on this site probably have a better understanding than most about the importance of that outcome.

However, many people on the site seem to think that it simply is something you will to happen like this:
1) Read Bill James
2) Embrace the love of OBP
3) ??????
4) Up your big league OBP.
5) But don't join the big leagues because you enjoy being a lawyer old guy instead.

Every major leaguer would improve if their manager knew a way to increase their walk rate without adversely affecting any of their other positive rates, right?

How many managers do you know that know how to do that specifically?

So what is more likely? That Dusty altered his offensive philosophy between San Fran and Chicago or that perhaps there was one very obvious difference between the two teams?

The Cubs philosophy seems to change a lot with the coming of Dusty. Not sure if 2007 reflects the influence of Piniella or Hendry
2000: 6th in walks 11th in scoring
2001: 5th in walks 7th in scoring
2002: 6th in walks 11th in scoring
2003: 14th in walks 9th in scoring
2004: 14th in walks 7th in scoring
2005: 16th in walks 9th in scoring
2006: 16th in walks (only 395!) 14th in scoring
2007: 15th in walks 8th in scoring

Pitching, on the other hand, shows that the team has never thought walks matter that much.
2000: 14th in walks, 14th in scoring
2001: 12th in walks, 4th in scoring
2002: 14th in walks, 12th in scoring
2003: 16th in walks, 3rd in scoring
2004: 9th in walks, 3rd in scoring
2005: 13th in walks, 9th in scoring
2006: 16th in walks, 14th in scoring
2007: 13th in walks, 2nd in scoring

Eraser:

Can't speak for all managers but the only good manager currently working that I know clearly eschews bases on balls is Mike Scioscia. He's a contact guy and openly talks about it. Kind of a modern day Bill McKechnie.

I messed up in 42. The first three years offense shouldn't show a team with good OBP skills. That was when Sosa drew about 100 walks a year. Drop his total in each year by 50, and the Cubs go 11th, 8th, and 12th in walks.

I guess it's been more of an organizational philosophy for the Cubs, but Baker doesn't seem to help it any.

The name of the game is scoring runs.

2. In order to score a run, a player must first get on ___________.

Steroids?

That too.

Dunn showed up in 2007 looking 15-20 lbs lighter and looking to swing a bit more. If you check out 2007 numbers with runners on base his OBP is more in line with his seasonal average while in earlier seasons Adam's OBP would be somewhat higher than his seasonal line with runners on base.

It wasn't HUGE. But it was a difference.

The pitch data summary at BB-Ref supports quite clearly the idea that he was swinging more.

His swing% on all pitches and swing% on strikes were the highest in his career. His % of strikes looking were the lowest of his career. Of course the % of time he made contact while swinging was also the 2nd LOWEST of his career.

But I'm not sure what the conclusion to be drawn from his splits is

Career Overall .248/.381/.519 Walk% = 16.5 K% = 26.6

Career Men on .243/.409/.509 Walk% = 20.8 K% = 26.0

2007 Overall... .264/.386/.554 Walk% = 16.0 K% = 26.1

2007 Men On.. .257/.392/.552 Walk% = 18.3 K% = 26.9

Every major leaguer would improve if their manager knew a way to increase their walk rate without adversely affecting any of their other positive rates, right?

How many managers do you know that know how to do that specifically?

Do I expect a manager to be able to get a specific batter on his team to suddenly take more walks and become a better hitter? Of course not; if a manager could do that consistently, he'd be making oodles of cash. What I do expect of a manager is that he recognize that Player A who takes walks and hits for some power but strikes out some is a better hitter than Player B who hits for a higher average and runs faster but doesn't take a walk or hit for power. In other words, stop[ writing in Jason Tyner as the freaking DH [/bitter Twins fan].

More generally, it's not that I think managers can do terribly much in most cases to change the shape of players' offensive contributions. But they can recognize which are more productive, and reward good offensive players with more playing time. This is the area where I think Dusty and Gardy and other managers of their ilk do the damage, not by telling players not to take a walk.

But he PLAYED Pittaro. He started Opening Day in 1985.

Maybe starting Mike Moore and his ERA over 7. The Howard Johnson HateFest.

Sparky was a great manager. But he had his bad moments.............

The Howard Johnson thing I'll give you. It's obvious what drove it; Johnson was a complete butcher in the field. He was even worse in Detroit than he went on to be as a Met. Still, he should have been sent to third base every day, and Tom Brookens sent . . . somewhere.

Enos Cabell was a problem, but the solution wasn't readily apparent. Sure, he was a terrible choice to be the first baseman, but the year he slugged .323 was 1982. Who was the alternative you think Sparky should have sent out there? Mike Laga? John Wockenfuss had decent numbers in a part time role, but he was also the backup catcher. I guess Richie Hebner would have been a better choice than Cabell, but let's not pretend that Darrell Evans or Dave Bergman were among Sparky's options at that point.

Chris Pittaro? Are you really making a big deal out of him? His entire Tiger career consisted of 62 at bats. He played in 28 games. This hardly constitutes serious stupidity on Sparky's part.

But they can recognize which are more productive, and reward good offensive players with more playing time. This is the area where I think Dusty and Gardy and other managers of their ilk do the damage,

Neifi Perez says hi

JMN:

As a reminder, Sparky talked up Pittaro as the next Mickey Mantle THROUGHOUT spring training. Now Sparky was prone to hyperbole but when the lad was starting on Opening Day and after he got three dribbles through the infield for base hits you would have thought Andersen was going to have kittens.

So the backup catcher isn't allowed to play first base? JW had played 2/3 of a season in 1980 and done pretty well. Why he was relegated to an end seat in the dugout with Sparky never made a lot of sense to me. He wasn't "great" but the guy could swing the bat ok.

And my issue with Cabell is that he was even playing. Cabell was done by now, 1983 or no 1983. And Sparky had seen enough baseball to recognize that. Cabell played because Sparky LIKED him. Which is pretty silly.

There's two different ways of view OBP:
1) As a goal before-the-fact to strive for
2) As an after the fact way of evaluating performance.

Why not both?

The goal is not to draw a walk, but to get on base (to avoid making an out). Swinging at bad pitches will lower your OBP because it will lead to fewer walks. Not swinging at good pitches will lower your OBP because it will lead to fewer hits. Both are bad.

Every position player should be approaching their at-bats in the majority of situations with the primary goal of not making an out. Obviously there are strategic situations where trading an out for a run may be worthwhile. Obviously there are hitters so poor (like pitchers) that they should be practically auto-bunting with men on base.

Sometimes, you get so caught up in on-base percentage that you’re clogging up the bases.

This is vintage Dusty Baker. God knows, you can't steal 2nd base to get guys in scoring position if there is a pesky Moneyball freak already standing there 40% of the time.

In order to score a run, a player must first get on ___________.

in order for the next batter to move him over with a sac bunt or otherwise productive out.

Who was the alternative you think Sparky should have sent out there? Mike Laga?

Why not? Sparky himself once said something along the lines that Mike Laga "will make you forget about every power hitter that ever lived." Man, Anderson was fun when it came time for Tiger prospects to get their shot in spring training...he singlehandedly made the exhibition season more interesting.

Considering that people are often influenced by events early in their life I wonder how Baker managed to completely ignore the efforts of Darrell Evans.

Dusty's ideal player is obviously Willie McGee, not Darrell Evans.

Why not both?

The goal is not to draw a walk, but to get on base (to avoid making an out). Swinging at bad pitches will lower your OBP because it will lead to fewer walks. Not swinging at good pitches will lower your OBP because it will lead to fewer hits. Both are bad.

Every position player should be approaching their at-bats in the majority of situations with the primary goal of not making an out. Obviously there are strategic situations where trading an out for a run may be worthwhile. Obviously there are hitters so poor (like pitchers) that they should be practically auto-bunting with men on base.

Perhaps I was unclear in the original post. My point is that OBP is easy to evaluate after the fact--a BB contributed X amount of runs.

Before the fact, it's not as easy to maximize OBP or BB just by resolving to do so. Look at your own response. It's basically, "Just don't swing at bad pitches!"

It's that simple? Great. I'm going to go tryout for a ML team tomorrow.

Dusty's career pythag as a skipper is -1, IIRC.

Somebody said somewhere its a sign of real racial progress in America when you have black guys as part of the "old boy network".

It's that simple? Great. I'm going to go tryout for a ML team tomorrow.

No, it's not simple. That's why there are good players and bad players. However, it's managers like Dusty Baker and Ron Gardenhire who flat-out refuse to acknowledge that not making outs is an important part of scoring runs and rather opt for easily exaggerated (if not completely fictional) qualities such as grit, guts, and hustle to make their starting lineups.

"(if not completely fictional) qualities such as grit, guts, and hustle to make their starting lineups."

Do you actually think that levels of determination, compousure, maturity and effort do not vary from human to human!?
Really?

I'm not just talking about baseball here, do you really think all humans have the same mental composure and personality traits?

Because that is what you are saying

Because that is what you are saying

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the relevance of grit, guts, and hustle (in the sense that managers and sportswriters use the terms) to the game of baseball (which is what we're discussing here) is easy to exaggerate if it exists at all. I did not mention any of the traits you mentioned.

"I did not mention any of the traits you mentioned."

Really?

Hustle doesn't come from ones effort level? composure and determination are not equal to "grit and guts"

"
No, that's not what I'm saying"

Yes, yes you did. You termed those qualities possibly "completely fictional"

Before the fact, it's not as easy to maximize OBP or BB just by resolving to do so. Look at your own response. It's basically, "Just don't swing at bad pitches!"

It's that simple? Great. I'm going to go tryout for a ML team tomorrow.

It may not be simple, but you do see it happen. Guys like Barry Bonds and Rickey Henderson have an influence on their teammates that can be seen in the stats of their teams -- people do start walking more, and they do it by being more selective. If you get more selective, you swing at more good pitches, and leave more bad pitches alone.

If these guys are good enough to make a major league roster, they are good enough to improve their approach. It is not like they are all going to turn into Ted Williams. But they can, and do improve. But if the manager is urging them to be aggressive, and to swing, they are going to swing at more bad pitches.

Sure, and I believe the dynamic you are discussing exists, but not in the, "And the Oakland A's will be World Champions FOREVER!!!" sort of way it is often portrayed as.

And it's still reminding me a little too much of the "If Vlad/Ichiro! would just try to swing less, he'd be a better hitter" argument, which seems like complete BS.

Can't speak for all managers but the only good manager currently working that I know clearly eschews bases on balls is Mike Scioscia. He's a contact guy and openly talks about it. Kind of a modern day Bill McKechnie.

Prominent managers whose teams really didn't walk much at all (ordered from most walk-phobic on down):

Danny Murtaugh
Tom Kelly
Mike Scioscia
Felipe Alou
Bill McKechnie
Roger Craig
Red Schoendienst

If anyone's curious, the most walk-phobic manager in history was Lefty Phillips.

Most pro-BB major managers (again leading off with the top walking skippers):

Joe McCarthy
Fielder Jones
Sparky Anderson
George Stallings
Pat Moran
Earl Weaver
Joe Torre
Frank Chance
Leo Durocher
Al Lopez
Gene Mauch

King of the BB was Billy Herman - narrowly beating out Joe McCarthy. A rather impressive score for McCarthy given that it's harder to score really extreme at this the longer you manage and he lasted for a quarter-century.

For some reason, the author of the article chose to preface a statement about the proper approach of a middle-of-the-order hitter with a reference to Dusty's preferences in lead-off guys.

It's not really confusing at all. The article says:

Baker has repeatedly talked about the desire to have a do-it-all leadoff hitter with speed. What kinds of hitters is he looking for further down the lineup?

The article's about lineups. The author says we already know what kind of leadoff hitter Baker wants, but he hasn't yet talked much about middle-of-the-order hitters. And then proceeds to talk about them.

And it's still reminding me a little too much of the "If Vlad/Ichiro! would just try to swing less, he'd be a better hitter" argument, which seems like complete BS.

Vlad (.391 career OBP) and Ichiro (.379 career OBP) are already good enough and established at a high enough level that mucking about with their approach would be foolhardy. However, it should be noted that Ichiro/Vlad are exceptional hitters for average with very different styles. Vlad is a classic bad-ball hitter who can golf swing a baseball out of the park. Ichiro is more of a guy who controls his strike zone than a bad-ball hitter.

Guys who consistently hit in the .325-.330 range are already good at getting on base so there's little to fix.

But it isn't always about "swinging less." For some players (Rich Becker comes to mind as a fairly obscure example), it's about swinging more.

Dunn is in his walk year.

Walk years clog up the offseason.

I'm not a Dusty Baker fan but I don't think he said anything particularly objectionable here.

The goal is not to draw a walk, but to get on base (to avoid making an out). Swinging at bad pitches will lower your OBP because it will lead to fewer walks. Not swinging at good pitches will lower your OBP because it will lead to fewer hits. Both are bad.

The goal is to score runs. I think the point Dusty is making is that, while the OBP is good, its just a means to an end (as some above have said). If you're the six hitter and there is man on second with first base open, you might want to be more aggressive than usual. If you're the last legit hitter in your lineup, you might swing away a little more than usual because its no help to anyone to be stranded on first when the inning ends.

Dusty doesn't want someone in a position where a run needs to be driven in to be sitting back and trying to boost his on-base percentnage in a way that won't help the team. Lets face it - there are situations where getting on base is going to be a lot easier than driving someone home. There then might be a master-agent conflict. I know I'm not saying this artfully but it makes sense. If you can get on base 40% of the time, you're going to look great... but not at the expense of driving someone home.

The old adage that a walk is as good as a hit is not universal. If there are two outs and a man on third, a hit will drive him him and a walk will not. Then, 30% of the time, you're out of the inning without scoring a run. That's why he's making the distinction between middle-of-the-order guys and the seven-eight-nine hitters. Runs are the name of the game. You don't want Aramis Ramirez with his bat on his shoulder when the only hope of driving a run home is Felix Pie.

This is all independent of the point made above by CrosbyBird about altering guys approaches at the plate. Baseball is a funny game... if you think too much you're going to think yourself out.

I think the point Dusty is making is that, while the OBP is good, its just a means to an end (as some above have said). If you're the six hitter and there is man on second with first base open, you might want to be more aggressive than usual.

As someone who has studied the Philosophy of Dusty Baker, I don't think that was the point he was making. It is at best a by-product of his main point, which is that Walks Clog the Bases.

if you think too much you're going to think yourself out.

It is possible to alter one's approach so it becomes ingrained, something you do without thinking. Sammy Sosa did it. I don't think anyone is going to accuse Sammy of overthinking.

Most pro-BB major managers (again leading off with the top walking skippers):


Wow; that's the list with 6 Hall of Famers.

Lets face it - there are situations where getting on base is going to be a lot easier than driving someone home. There then might be a master-agent conflict. I know I'm not saying this artfully but it makes sense. If you can get on base 40% of the time, you're going to look great... but not at the expense of driving someone home.

Here's the flaw with your theory. The only way to specifically choose to avoid a walk in favor of a hit is to swing at more questionable pitches. Those questionable pitches are pitches where even if you make contact, you are less likely to make productive contact, and more likely to pop up or hit a weak grounder. You have to be so much better than the hitter coming next to make it worthwhile. Certainly there are cases like that, like a #8 hitter in the NL with 2 outs. But the difference between a #6 hitter and a #7 hitter typically is not significant enough to change your approach in that manner.

If your argument is that you can change your approach to get an extra-base hit, that's more compelling. And most hitters do make that change, at least until they're at 2 strikes.

The old adage that a walk is as good as a hit is not universal. If there are two outs and a man on third, a hit will drive him him and a walk will not. Then, 30% of the time, you're out of the inning without scoring a run. That's why he's making the distinction between middle-of-the-order guys and the seven-eight-nine hitters. Runs are the name of the game. You don't want Aramis Ramirez with his bat on his shoulder when the only hope of driving a run home is Felix Pie.

First of all, "a walk is as good as a hit" is an exaggeration. It's only as good as a single when the bases are empty or it's potentially the final half-inning with the bases loaded.

The example you give of Ramirez followed by Pie in a 2 outs, man on 3rd situation (assuming Pie's 2007 is at all representative of his ability) is a perfect one for my point. A pitcher who knows the next guy in the lineup represents such a dramatic difference in ability, with 1B open, isn't going to give Ramirez anything good to hit. Ramirez isn't getting hittable pitches in that PA, but instead getting the "unintentional intentional walk." If it's a strong #7 hitter or a #8 hitter, it's even worse.

Not to mention that there's a chance the next hitter can hit an extra-base hit and drive in 2 runs.

As a reminder, Sparky talked up Pittaro as the next Mickey Mantle THROUGHOUT spring training. Now Sparky was prone to hyperbole but when the lad was starting on Opening Day and after he got three dribbles through the infield for base hits you would have thought Andersen was going to have kittens.

Sure, he said it. Chris Pittaro was just 1985's next Mickey Mantle. Kirk Gibson was the the next Mickey Mantle in 1981. Mike Laga was the next Willie Stargell in 1982. Barbaro Garbey was the next Willie McCovey in 1984. Darnell Coles was the next Maury Wills in 1986. There was always some rookie on the team who was the next [insert Hall of Famer here]. As said above, it's one of the things that made Sparky entertaining. If you took him seriously with any of it, you weren't paying attention to what he was doing. Sparky wasn't giving rational analysis of his young players; he was talking incessantly so that the reporters would bother him and leave his players alone. For the most part, it worked. Jim Leyland does the same thing a lot of the time, though he seems to recognize that Gary Sheffield plays better if you let him express whatever comes into his head next, preferably to someone with a notebook.

The seriousness that Sparky connected to his own comments on these lines should be judged by how quickly he discarded guys who were sure Hall of Famers.