Good move. I think he is a pretty underrated manager by the stat community. Should be fun to watch the Reds and Cards wrestle the top of the Central the next few years.

ag1

the nl central has a fair amount of turnover. the pirates are getting better and have one of the best players in the game as an anchor

and losing houston takes away 10 wins from everyone in the bank

I hope he gets his World Championship.

I guess we can look forward to two more years of Stubbs (.277 OBP) and Cozart (.288) at the top of the lineup!

Once everyone was healthy, Stubbs was hitting in the #8 spot. They still couldn't muster any offense, but still...Having said that, I hope we see something completely different next year:

Phillips
Frazier
Votto
Ludwick
Bruce
Hanigan
Cozart
Stubbs
p

I hope he gets his World Championship.

So do I, especially if it happens in the next 2 seasons.

One of the easiest off seasons decisions a team could make.

Actually, I'd like to see Hanigan hit at the top of the lineup. He actually seems like a prototypical #2 hitter to me -- gets on base, very patient, rarely strikes out -- except that he's a slow catcher. And he doesn't have a lot of power, so batting him low in the lineup doesn't make as much sense.

What is the feeling on Billy Hamilton being ready next year. His OBP was .410 last year, obviously in A and AA. If he can do a .320 in the majors, that would be a huge improvement over this tear, and if he could do .380, he could be MVP.

What is the feeling on Billy Hamilton being ready next year. His OBP was .410 last year, obviously in A and AA. If he can do a .320 in the majors, that would be a huge improvement over this tear, and if he could do .380, he could be MVP.

My guess is that Billy gets half a season in AAA to hone his centerfield defense and batting skills... Stubbs continues to regress, but, I don't see any way the Reds don't start the season with him.

Actually, I'd like to see Hanigan hit at the top of the lineup. He actually seems like a prototypical #2 hitter to me -- gets on base, very patient, rarely strikes out -- except that he's a slow catcher. And he doesn't have a lot of power, so batting him low in the lineup doesn't make as much sense.

don't know about hannigan specifically, but he is a catcher, so you have to assume he is slower than average, I think putting slow runnes in the first two spot for your better hitters is a bad decision. Great hitters hit the ball hard and sharply and hit into a lot of doubleplays (the Adam Dunn's of the world are the exception) slower runners don't help that out.

OK, a Reds breakdown.

An interesting team. The offense is not particularly good. Obviously another 200 PA of Votto would help but they're not likely to get that level of production out of Ludwick again. Frazier is interesting -- he's a late bloomer and his minor-league track record is hardly stellar as his ML OPS was 40 points higher this year than his career AAA OPS. He'll outhit Rolen 2012 but I'm not sure he'll be better than a league-average 3B. Anyway, it's basically all Votto and Phillips and hoping for league-average from 3-4 more positions (which is not unrealistic). The bench this year was generally pretty bad -- 364 PA for Cairo and Valdez is not a winning formula most of the time.

The pitching was of course top-to-bottom lights out. Other than the fact that they're pitchers, there's no reason not to think it won't be a pretty stellar staff next year. Cueto and Latos have good track records of sustained success now. The 3-5 slots probably won't be as good or as healthy but it's about as good a set of 3-5 starters as you can find (Bailey, Arroyo and Leake). Bullpens are bullpens but Chapman and Marshall are excellent and some of the rest are K'ing 9/9 which is about all you can hope for in putting together a pen.

What's interesting about them is the money. This year's payroll was $81. They're already committed to $69 for next year. Presumably you exercise the $5 M option on Ludwick (he should be worth that) and b-r guesstimates about $30 M in arb awards (looks a bit high to me but it will be driven by Latos and Bailey) and another few million in pre-arb costs. So that's a $25+ M jump in payroll -- which they should be able to afford given the new TV money but is probably at the top of the range of what the owners are willing to spend. Given what they've already got signed for 2014-15 plus rising arb costs, it looks like they'll be operating at that level or above from now on ... or they're going to be trading some contracts.

It also doesn't leave them a lot of room for adding players. A buyout of Latos is likely to try to push some of those costs out a bit and/or they might get a bargain on Bailey.

I don't want to overstate the money tightness. The contracts seem well-structured and generally to the team's advantage. Votto doesn't start making BIG money until 2018. I've got my doubts Phillips will be useful through 2017 but if he's above-average over the life of the deal, they should at least break even. Bruce is tied up longterm and that's at a price where all he needs to do is be about average for it to be OK.

Finally there's Ryan Madson -- who doesn't matter in the scheme of things for the Reds but is just an interesting case. Obviously they don't exercise the $11 M option on him. There wasn't much of a market for him last year in the end (the Reds got him for 1/$6 plus that option) and even less of one now. What does he get this offseason? 1/$3? If he can be had that cheaply, I know I'd be tempted by the idea of a Chapman, Marshall, Madson bullpen. I'm not sure I could talk myself into the reality of Madson bouncing back but that is deadly in theory. They also had Broxton around. He'll be an FA and had a good enough year that he should do better than last year's 1/$4 deal.

don't know about hannigan specifically, but he is a catcher, so you have to assume he is slower than average, I think putting slow runnes in the first two spot for your better hitters is a bad decision. Great hitters hit the ball hard and sharply and hit into a lot of doubleplays (the Adam Dunn's of the world are the exception) slower runners don't help that out.

But fast runners don't have much impact on that either. The speed of the batter makes a much bigger difference in DPs. Basically if the ball is hit slowly enough that an average or even above-average runner is going to make it a close play at 2nd, then most batters will beat the relay to first anyway.

Anyway, Fisk used to bat #2 a lot as did Downing. Of course that's AL where a bit of power in the #2 spot should pay off more. Those are always the first two to spring to my mind for some reason. Anyway, I don't think there's a chance in hell of Dusty moving a C (non-IRod division) to the #2 spot, but Hanigan at #2 looks like a perfectly good idea to me. Certainly I'd like to maximize the number of DP opportunities for Votto. :-)

I didn't check this, but I think the optimal lineup would be something like:

3B Frazier
1B Votto
LF Ludwick
RF Bruce
2B Phillips
CF Heisey
C Hanigan
SS Cozart

But fast runners don't have much impact on that either. The speed of the batter makes a much bigger difference in DPs. Basically if the ball is hit slowly enough that an average or even above-average runner is going to make it a close play at 2nd, then most batters will beat the relay to first anyway.

I'm never a fan of slow runners in the two spot, because they hit into a lot of dps, you set your lineup with a great obp guy first, then follow with a dp machine batting second, doesn't make much sense.

I do think that the faster runner reduces the dp a little(I used to not until someone on here changed my mind) it turns routine grounders to the second base into one play force outs. Given a choice I like strikeout guys with high obp (Jim Edmonds type of hitters) in the second spot if possible, but that goes contrary to traditionalist.

Note: I'm not sure Hanigan is a dp candidate or not, just going on assumptions of catchers.

So... how does Dusty Baker's HOF case look, if you combine his efforts as a player and manager? I mean, he'll come up short (2 A-S as a player; 3 MotY, no titles as a skip) - but has managed both 19 year playing and managerial career, to date.

I know Hanigan is pretty good but Meseraco seems to still have a higher offensive ceiling. Is he trade bait now with Dust back?

How much ceiling is there for a 24 year old who puts up a 68 OPS+ in 184 big league PAs last year?

So... how does Dusty Baker's HOF case look, if you combine his efforts as a player and manager? I mean, he'll come up short (2 A-S as a player; 3 MotY, no titles as a skip) - but has managed both 19 year playing and managerial career, to date.

If you give him that WS title Tom is hoping for, he'd make a pretty good comp for Red Schoendienst on both sides of the bill. But without at least a seocnd pennant, I can't see it happening (particularly with three other HoF managers whose careers largely overlapped his).

I'm never a fan of slow runners in the two spot, because they hit into a lot of dps, you set your lineup with a great obp guy first, then follow with a dp machine batting second, doesn't make much sense.

That's fair enough but it's a Dusty team -- there's no danger of a high OBP leadoff hitter. :-)

Obviously, all else equal, you'd prefer a fast runner. But it would take some convincing analysis for me to think that it makes more difference than, say, 10 points of OBP and that's not a lot of OBP.

Also I happen to like a runner with decent speed in the #6 (#7 AL) spot -- depending on personnel of course. But somebody who can steal a base in front of your crap, low-power hitters at the bottom of the lineup. It seemed to be something some good teams did in the 70s and 80s (but probably not as much as I think). Maybe these days there's always enough power at the bottom of the lineup that it wouldn't be much use. And one of those is likely to be your slow C who (hopefully) is one of those 240/290/420 kinda Cs (note, if he's substantially better than that, he's probably higher in the order; and the alternative is usually the 240/290/360 C which is not good).

Basically, speed at the top is kinda wasted. Scoring from first on a double is the main benefit, then staying out of DPs (as batter or runner if that matters). But stealing in front of Votto is just dumb and even if you don't score on Votto's doubles, at least you're standing on 3B. And as I joked, you want to maximize Votto's DP opportunities -- you want men on base. And then there's my belief that "protection" has more to do with the batters in front of a hitter getting on than it does with how good the hitter behind him is.

how does Dusty Baker's HOF case look, if you combine his efforts as a player and manager?

It's not clear they do combine. I mean it makes sense to me that the VC would and there are probably some (Schoendienst?) who got by on that combination. Anyway, I was first thinking he'd probably make it but he needs another 5 years (above 500) to make it to 2000 wins. 3 MotY sounds like a lot but the 1 pennant and no WS isn't (by HoF standards). And as pointed out, he largely overlaps with Torre, LaRussa and Cox ... and Leyland (4 seasons from 2000). Maybe the manager standards will adapt to the new playoff realities and will therefore focus more on regular season success.

He'll also be the first viable (non-Negro League) black manager candidate. (or have I forgotten somebody)

He'll also be the first viable (non-Negro League) black manager candidate. (or have I forgotten somebody)

No. Frank's the only other non-Latino black manager with a comparable number of years in the dugout, I believe. And Frank wasn't going in again, even if he hadn't been saddled with some of the sorriest managerial destinations one guy can get.

It's not clear they do combine. I mean it makes sense to me that the VC would and there are probably some (Schoendienst?) who got by on that combination.

Yeah, even though I think he'd be comparable to Red on paper, I still wouldn't like his chances even if he did get that ring. Red's selection seems a bit of an outlier. (Hodges, for instance, hasn't gotten a similar combo boost from the VC).

dusty has been and remains a good manager. as to the hall of fame it's the one pennant as the peak accomplishment that hampers his candidacy. teams have won a lot of games. has won the division plenty. lots of teams with 90 or more wins. about as close as you can be to being a hall of famer but right now i think not.

boy he's close

An interesting team. The offense is not particularly good. Obviously another 200 PA of Votto would help but they're not likely to get that level of production out of Ludwick again. Frazier is interesting -- he's a late bloomer and his minor-league track record is hardly stellar as his ML OPS was 40 points higher this year than his career AAA OPS. He'll outhit Rolen 2012 but I'm not sure he'll be better than a league-average 3B. Anyway, it's basically all Votto and Phillips and hoping for league-average from 3-4 more positions (which is not unrealistic). The bench this year was generally pretty bad -- 364 PA for Cairo and Valdez is not a winning formula most of the time.

Outside of the obvious upgrades you mentioned (bench is the biggest. Dusty loves him some bench guys. Reds have to have a strong bench with Dusty pulling the levers), CF could be a huge upgrade for the Reds offensively. Stubbs just looks like he'll never figure it out, at least not in Cincinnati. He put up a 61! OPS+ this year after a disappointing 86 OPS+ last year. His power has fallen to just a ~.120 ISO the last 2 years, and he's not improved on figuring out the strike zone either.

I know the Reds will likely not be able to add much payroll in 2013, and you don't want to block Hamilton for 2014, but I'd be really interested in someone like Pagan. Plays solid D, gets on base, has a little pop, and has had the veteran pixie dust sprinkled on him. With Bourn, Upton, and Hamilton on the market as well this winter, Pagan should be a good deal for a team needing a CF.

I'll set aside my animosity long enough to agree that he's probably close -- a WS title and I'd vote him in... even though I truly, truly hate him as a tactician and think that he often verges on awful when it comes to lineup decisions, PT decisions, and handling a pitching staff (from SP usage to running the bullpen).

That's not to say he doesn't have skills as a manager -- I think he really does excel at 'handling players'. I think he's also been very good at keeping gimpy guys as healthy and useful as possible (going back to Burks and Bonds, continuing in Chicago with Alou, Rolen - until the wheels fell off, etc).

I'm not surprised that he's getting an extension based on the division title, but I am surprised he got the division to begin with... My take, at least based on SF and CHI, is that once he gets his shot and misses, things go sour in a hurry... I think I said at the time the Reds hired him that I thought he'd have a good 2-3 years - even perhaps exceeding team expectations, but then I figured it would get ugly in a hurry. He surprised me by actually having the Reds get their #### together after it looked like he was on his way out.

I'm a big hall guy but frankly, leading three different teams to the postseason multiple times at each stop is a pretty meaningful accomplishment, even without a WS title.... so yeah, despite the fact I still blame him for a lot of issues that haunt the Cubs to this day and I'd never want him managing my team again.... I'd have no problem with him being in.

he often verges on awful when it comes to lineup decisions, PT decisions, and handling a pitching staff (from SP usage to running the bullpen).

The Reds led the league in ERA+ by a wide margin this year. One wonders what would have happened if they'd had a manager who wasn't awful at running a pitching staff.

I'm a big hall guy but frankly, leading three different teams to the postseason multiple times at each stop is a pretty meaningful accomplishment.

Well, he didn't get there multiple times at each stop, which is probably one of the big reasons for that animosity issue you've got.

Its also much less meaningful to simply take your team to the postseason than it was 20 years ago.

I thought about mentioning Gil when I posited my convo starter, but like Red better as a comp. Anyway, I don't think Baker is all that close to getting in myself, but it had never occurred to me to even think about it until now.

Its also much less meaningful to simply take your team to the postseason than it was 20 years ago.

OTOH, a pennant won now is more meaningful than one won in 1964.

I think its awesome that Votto led the league in walks despite missing 51 games. Has anyone ever led the league in a non-rate stat while missing so many games?

Well, he didn't get there multiple times at each stop, which is probably one of the big reasons for that animosity issue you've got.

I keep blacking out that the last few weeks of 2004 happened the way it did... yeah... OK -- multiple trips with 2 teams, only one trip with the third.

The Reds led the league in ERA+ by a wide margin this year. One wonders what would have happened if they'd had a manager who wasn't awful at running a pitching staff.

Well, I'm not going to turn Dusty's HoF thread into another pitcher usage critique... but I guess I'd just say that I think he leans on his horses much, much harder than he needs to. Whether it's the cream of the starting rotation or his best arms in the bullpen - I just think there are a lot of situations where the staff would be better overall suited if the closer got a break in a 3 run game, the SP got yanked with a 5 run lead, or the primary setup man wasn't called upon to get the last out with 2 men on in the 8th, but the team winning by 4.

Obviously, the 2003 playoffs were the most annoying example -- but I think he has a habit of doing the same during the regular season.

From staff management perspective, I just think he's the opposite of how good he is at keeping gimpy regulars healthy... he sometimes needlessly taxes arms without thinking about the big picture season.

From staff management perspective, I just think he's the opposite of how good he is at keeping gimpy regulars healthy... he sometimes needlessly taxes arms without thinking about the big picture season.

The Reds got 161 starts this year out of their top five starters, which is, needless to say, a lot. But I don't know whether that proves or disproves your point.

OTOH, a pennant won now is more meaningful than one won in 1964.

Agree. Dusty will probably have to win at least one more before he can even get much consideration.

He'll also be the first viable (non-Negro League) black manager candidate. (or have I forgotten somebody)

Cito Gaston, two-time World Series winning manager says "Hello."

Cito Gaston, two-time World Series winning manager says "Hello."

Ralph Houk, Tom Kelley and Danny Murtaugh, among others, ask what the hell he's saying hello for.

Ralph Houk, Tom Kelley and Danny Murtaugh, among others, ask what the hell he's saying hello for.

Houk, Kelley and Murtaugh were black, who knew?

Houk, Kelley and Murtaugh were black, who knew?

Really?

Two WS victories haven't been enough to make those guys viable Hall of Fame candidates, and they aren't enough to do likewise for Cito.

I don't think you're clear on the difference between viable candidate and inductee. Murtaugh received 50% of the vote in the 2010 Veterans Committee vote and Tom Kelly was on the final ballot that same year. That's a viable candidate in my book, even if I wouldn't vote for either of them myself.

Really?

Two WS victories haven't been enough to make those guys viable Hall of Fame candidates, and they aren't enough to do likewise for Cito.

The issue was that Chris was responding directly to the comment about a "viable black manager candidate", not viable candidates with two WS titles.

The issue was that Chris was responding directly to the comment about a "viable black manager candidate", not viable candidates with two WS titles.

And I'm saying that Cito Gaston is not a viable Hall of Fame candidate, thus he's not a viable black manager candidate either. The fact that those other gentlemen have similar resumes to Cito shows that two WS victories alone are not enough to make a manager a candidate for the Hall of Fame.

Right now, Dusty isn't a viable candidate either. Give him a WS title, combined with the other stuff (20-plus years, several manager of the year honors, 7 or 8 playoff appearances with three different teams and a damn good playing record), and he's at least in the conversation as a combo candidate, though I don't think it would be enough.

Ah. I didn't understand what you were saying.

I don't think you're clear on the difference between viable candidate and inductee. Murtaugh received 50% of the vote in the 2010 Veterans Committee vote and Tom Kelly was on the final ballot that same year. That's a viable candidate in my book, even if I wouldn't vote for either of them myself.

I'll grant you Murtaugh, based on that vote. I wouldn't call Kelley or Houk viable candidates at this point.

I think I said at the time the Reds hired him that I thought he'd have a good 2-3 years - even perhaps exceeding team expectations, but then I figured it would get ugly in a hurry. He surprised me by actually having the Reds get their #### together after it looked like he was on his way out.

I figure the Reds window is open for the next 2-3 years. I can see having a known successful quantity keeping that core going for the time that window is perceived to be open.

Other than lineup construction that leads to "Two out, nobody on for Votto", are there actually any issues with Dusty?

I wonder how much input Dusty has into bench construction. The Valdez/Cairo/Harris bench of suck this year really sounds to me like something Dusty would love.

But of course, even if that's the case Jocketty should just take his toys away. Problem solved.