User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.7545 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
On the good side, the poll on the Enquirer's web site is running 66% against in answer to the question "Would you be OK with Dusty Baker managing the Reds?".
I'm assuming that the 34% voting "Yes" are all fans of the other NL Central teams.
There are a lot of pitfalls in the hiring a manager game, but I fail to understand why any mid- to small-market team would ever invest in a big name manager. Often, big name managers aren't significantly better than relative nobodies or Jim Tracy-like retreads, and sometimes, they're worse. The the real issue to me is: Why would you ever invest much of your payroll in your manager, if you're a team that has to scramble at the margins for money? Sure, compared to what some players make, even well-paid managers make peanuts. But it strikes me as unwise to invest much money in somebody who never takes the field if you don't have that much money to throw around in the first place. The best way to win is to put good players on the field, and a team like the Reds, which has a $69 million payroll (per Cot's), hinders its ability to settle arbitration cases or lure mid-range FAs by blowing money on a manager like Dusty Baker. Even if he's great (which Baker isn't), it seems like a waste of resources.
I represent that remark.
1997 NL Manager of the Year
2000 NL Manager of the Year
He has a career .527 winning percentage.
It didn't all happen by accident.
No, it happened by Barry Bonds. The awards, like pretty much all awards, mean nothing to me as an actual evaluation of his talent. The winning percentage ain't that hard to achieve when you get to pencil in the names of Barry Bonds and Jeff Kent all the time, which was the most important facet of his job in SF.
Should I just be looking out for my best interests here, and shutting my mouth and ignoring the ruthless bashing the man has taken, because some fruit loop on the internet says so.
I have watched Dusty Baker play and manage baseball games for a few decades now, and what the Cubs fans, and the Mariodiots of this world did to him, makes my stomach churn.
son.
The book on Baker is that he does well with veteran players (the '97 and '00 SF teams, for example; the '93 team had in-their-prime Matt Williams and Bonds). If that is true, he would be a terrible match for the Reds. Looking at their current roster, no more than 3 position players should be older than Adam Dunn; in a perfect world, Jr and Gonzalez will get traded (with Jay Bruce taking over CF and Keppinger at SS), leaving Ross as the only starting position player older than 28. Meanwhile, those trades would mean starting 5 guys 27 or younger (and three 24 or younger); that doesn't include the starting rotation, which will include 22 year old Bailey and possibly 22 year old Johnny Cueto. With Baker as manager, though, I could see Hatteberg staying and getting significant time at 1B; Gonzalez staying at SS; Freel replacing Encarnacion at 3B; and Castro and Bellhorn getting significant playing time.
A veteran-loving manager would set this team back another 5 years, at least.
Not really relevant or anything.
Another problem with Baker is that he didn't seem engaged with running the team as his contract wore on with the Cubs. Increasingly after 2003 he seemed to be mailing it in. He might not be a bad choice for someone who has a team that's ready to be in the race, but needs a little jumpstart. You might get that from Baker for a year or two, but the story today is that managers like him get 3-4 year commitments. Who knows, in the NL Central, maybe the Reds could surprise people with a bit of a boost, but looking to Baker for that is alchemy.
Also, he is too involved in roster decisions. He whined about it in San Francisco, and he got his way in Chicago, with mostly negative results. This is why I would never want him managing my team under any circumstances.
2004: .549, 3rd in division
2005: .488, 4th in division
2006: .407, 6th in division
2007: .525, 1st in division
As someone said, it all didn't happen by accident.
I was a little worried about the Reds becoming the Brewers of 2008!
A rational, non-ruthless, non Mariodiot critique of Dusty:
1. He's one of the LAST managers you want to entrust a young arm too. He's terrible when it comes to managing a staff - I'm not talking about picking match-ups and what-not, but he burns out bullpen arms and runs young starters ragged. There's no earthly reason to have a 21-22-23 year start the 8th inning of an 8 run game. It's pointless and it's dangerous. I enjoy watching good young pitchers, even when they're hurling for the opposition. I would be quite worried about the future of Bailey and soon, Cueto.
2. He falls in love with the most worthless of utility scrubs. One of the attributes I was most looking forward to when Dusty came to Chicago was a long-since discredited belief that Dusty "used his bench well"... From a very rudimentary glance, it seemed Dusty was quite good at getting the Ellis Burks, the Willie McGees, the Barry Bonds, the Reggie Sanders enough rest and keeping fragile veterans healthy... then came Jose Macias. And his Neifi-ness. And on and on. Mark my words, Reds fans -- you'd better start a campaign now to get rid of Juan Castro, or he'll get 300 at-bats -- at the expense of Brandon Phillips and Edwin Encarnacion. Giving Dusty a crappy veteran utility player to go with young kids is like giving a 2 year old a flame thrower and a bunch of full gas cans.
3. He's an excuse factory... another thing I was looking forward to from Dusty -- after the Don Baylor bash-my-players-fest -- was having a manager that stuck up for his players and seemed to foster a good clubhouse atmosphere. In reality, he's TOO loyal - he aids and abets excuse-making. Nothing - NOTHING bad ever happens because of poor fundamentals or mental mistakes, in Dusty's world, it's the summer sun, it's the media, it's this, it's that.
To be honest -- and I'm NOT saying this because I dislike the Yankees -- he'd actually be a pretty good pick to manage a team like the Yankees. They'd need to cut loose some of their chaff, but I could see Dusty picking right up where Joe Torre left off.
Now I hope he gets the job just to see if Bellhorn finally has enough Veteran Presence for Dusty. That would be hilaripus.
This is like a Dusty Baker candy store! Only his teeth won't be ruined, it will be those of Reds fans from all the gritting and grinding.
This statement runs contradictory to your point #1.
No. It happened by virtue of having the greatest hitter in the history of baseball in his lineup for his entire Giants' tenure.
Baker is a complete tactical idiot who can't handle any pitching staff, let alone one with serious bullpen issues and a marginal (at best) starting rotation (i.e. the Reds), or a lineup whose fortunes depend largely on younger players (i.e. the Reds). (If Baker gets the job, Joey Votto better have a good April.)
IOW, I support his hire to the Reds job wholeheartedly.
And I had the, um, pleasure of attending about 60 percent of the home games Baker managed during his Cub tenure. Baker is what he is, and what he always has been. Cub fans didn't "do" anything to him. He simply got a free pass for 10 years from the Bay Area press.
This statement runs contradictory to your point #1.
True (so perhaps I was being a little dishonest when I said it wasn't because I disliked the Yankees)... however - Wang will be 28 next year.
Sure, Joba and Hughes, yada, yada... but I'll believe the Yankees stick with a 22 and 21 yo in the middle of their rotation when I see it.
Interesting point, though it matters only from a PR perspective. Baker may come off less negatively as Reds manager because he'll be much less heavily scrutinized by the local press, which will give him less reason to come off as the whiny apologist that he is.
Which won't prevent him from being the WinBurglar™ as manager just as he was in Chicago--he just won't catch as much heat for it.
I think Baker would still be a good fit on a team with veteran pitchers that wants to win now. Unfortunately, that is not he Cincinnati Reds, and they would be foolish to hire him, but Baker would probably be a very good choice for say a team like San Diego or St. Louis.
Yeah. He did a lousy job with the Cubs, but people here are concluding that therefore the Bay Area gave him a free pass for ten. That's a mighty long time for any free pass to last, especially given that they had three straight bad (and declining) years near the beginning of his regime. When he left the Giants, some of primer's Giants fans sung his praises, in particular his ability to coax good production from his vets.
He isn't as good as mass opinion (or Gambling Rent) believe, but he isn't as bad as Cubs' fans sometimes assume he was throughout his entire career.
Both teams are going to be looking at some important decisions regarding some kids in the next season or 2 --
Rasmus and what-to-do-at-SS (Brendan Ryan?) in STL.
SD is an even worse choice -- they need to figure out if Kouzmanoff, Headley, or someone else fits at 3B, decide when Antonelli is ready at 2B, and also has some OF decisions to make (I believe both Cameron and Giles are FAs.. does Hairston finally get a shot?).... and they have LOADS of the type of chaff Dusty loves to muck it up (pending offseason decisions - Lane, Ensberg, Blum, Jose Cruz, Mackowiak, Brady Clark).
Those are tailor made Dusty disasters... the ONLY way either team enjoys a Baker regime is if they make sure he doesn't have any crappy veteran toys to play with - and both teams have some work to do in that regard.
Believe it or not, I can accept Dusty's staff handling if only because few managers are much better... but when you have a situation where you need to make a decision on a kid, or worse -- multiple kids at one position -- all you can count on with Dusty is that he'll waste at-bats on worthless, known quantity veterans.
Stick him on a team with entrenched veterans at every position and he'll do fine -- even in situations where those entrenched veterans are fragile, he'll do a great job keeping them fresh and healthy. But - put him in a situation where you really need to find out if Joe Prospect has a future or worse, find out WHICH Joe Prospect at position X is a keeper -- and Dusty Baker is organizational Ebola virus.
Do managers have peaks and declines? I would think there would be a learning curve initially. But should a team expect the Dusty that managed in SF or the one in Chicago?
Pleasepleaseplease...
Or, hell, San Diego'd be OK too, if Gambling Rent's so enamored of him...
As I've put it before (perhaps overgeneralizing)--Baker's a great manager for a hugely talented veteran team for whom nothing goes wrong and he gets no criticism. In the real world, he's a steaming pile of crap.
Here's the thread I was thinking of. By "some of primer's Giants fans" I apparently meant Steve Treder, but they are some pretty good posts and Treder is generally a pretty good baseball observer who saw Baker run his team for a decade. The "just got a free pass" thing - you're going to do better than that, especially given that Treder begins by conceding that Baker is below average at the tactical ends of the job.
Again, I'm aware he did a lousy job with the Cubs, but it doesn't thus follow he always was that bad.
I can accept Dusty's staff handling if only because few managers are much better
Hmmmm. . . no.
After the 2002 season, BTF scholars called him the 3rd best manager in the NL. Most with a vote put him in their top three.
Perhaps not, but it does follow much more closely that he is NOW that bad.
Sure. It's not nearly as clear-cut as player ones, but it's there. Managers peak in their 40s and decline in their 50s.
Your comment makes sense with regard to tactical concerns, but there's more to it - handling and relating to players, communication - all the soft stuff that only the real orthodox statheads deny exists even if the rest of us have trouble trying to quantify it.
Yep only Baker as manager can win games single handedly.
Young'uns out that in BTF land may not remember it, but once upon a time - around 2000ish, Jim Leyland had an absolutely vile reputation among statheads. He was the guy who let Tim Wakefield throw 170 pitches in a game. He was the guy who shredded Livian Hernandez (remember when his arm was supposed to fall off altogether?). Last year he was so well respected that when I said all get slagged on here, someone responded that no one has an unkind word to say about Leyland. Times - they have changed.
He had a point though. The fit does matter a lot. I think the best thing Baker might have had going for him in SF wasn't Barry Bonds on the field, but Barry Bonds in the cluhbouse. Huh? Lemme explain. One of the most annoying attributes of Baker - and one I feel did cause his Cubs to melt down - was his hyper-thin-skinnedness where he'd let any shortcomings bother him. While this does lead him to back up his players, it also causes him to shirk on accountability. With the Cubs and their clubhouse full of Alous and Hawkinses, this bred people to pout and go off in a huff and lose their focus completely.
With SanFran, he had far less to worry about in that regard. The best player was unquestionably Barry Bonds. The most criticized player was Barry Bonds. Even before the 'riods controversies, he always had his share of critics and people who thought he was a jerk. But he didn't care and didn't worry about it. He wasn't going to get caught up in that muck. And if the best player on the team won't, that makes it that much more difficult for the rest of the team to do so. It's a reverse-Alou.
Along those lines, here's a competely bizarro that I'm actually serious about - I think it really hurt Baker when MLB came out against letting the players' young children serve as batboys. I heard stories about the Giants, and how having their kids in front of them smiling at them and sometimes playing with them made it so much eassier to shake off any boos or bad vibes they got while playing. And it made the guys act on their better behavior, creating a more congenial and positive atmosphere all around. Put children from Hawkins and Alou and others on the bench, and I think at least some of the stupidest stuff we saw in Chicago wouldn't have happened.
The fit matters. San Fran wasn't just the perfect fit for Baker in terms of roster construction (Brian Sabean possibly took a vow of not producing prospects in the 1990s), and press coverage, but also of that most derided of all terms - chemistry.
'course this ignores that whole Kent-Bonds fight and stuff like that . . . but it least it sounded nice for a paragraph there.
Hmmmm. . . no.
Well - that thread revolved around general managerial competence - there's precious little discussion about longview handling of pitchers (with the benefit of hindsight, I'd point out how quickly Shawn Estes and Russ Ortiz plunged off the cliff of effectiveness, too). I should have been clearer, but I'm talking about the handling of a staff in terms of how a manager handles valuable commodities like 22-23-24 yo pitchers. In that regard, the only managers that pop into my head as good ones are Bobby Cox - and I also think Jerry Manuel was quite good in that regard (whether Manuel was a good manager overall is another discussion -- BUT -- Manuel had two kids in the 21-22-23 range that emerged into their mid/late 20s quite healthy -- Buerhle and Garland -- and I think Manuel deserves credit for his handling of them.)
I obviously have no recollection of old primer threads, but I think it was interesting to look at some of those old Giant teams. For example:
1. Pedro Feliz... I absolutely recognize that he's basically a homer-happy version of Shea Hillenbrand -- but for 2 seasons, he was sitting behind RAMON MARTINEZ, JT SNOW, and DAVID BELL (granted, Bell had a fairly OK season in Dusty's final SF season).
2. Rich Aurilia- often cited as a counter-example of Dusty's proclivity for worthless vets - but the fact is, Rich sat behind Jose Vizcaino in his age 25 season, and even the following year -- he lost a lot of at-bats to Rey Sanchez - and even 9 games to the remains of Shawon Dunston.
Dusty was a good fit in SF largely because Sabean fit Dusty like a glove.... Sabean didn't trust kids either - so it was quite rare for Dusty to be in a situation where starting a kid was the best long term move for the team. Sabean hauled in veterans - and Dusty used them pretty well.
When it comes to managerial evaluations, I think people overlook the organizational aspect of it. Yes, ultimately the manager's evaluation comes down to wins and losses, but there's a lot to be said for caring for young arms and properly working farm products into the team. Whatever Dusty's strengths in the W/L side of things -- he's awful when it comes to the latter. Brian Sabean got around that by constructing a team that played to Dusty's strengths (or rather, because Sabean was fellow traveler).
Even a team with peak Bonds would have trouble winning when the starting rotation spits up a sub 80 collective ERA+
I was going to say Baker would be a good fit for the Yankees, but they have quite a few good young arms to ruin. Maybe Seattle if Bavasi deludes himself into thinking they are just a few pieces away from a championship team?
Yep only Baker as manager can win games single handedly.
Yes, it is absolute. Either a manager won games single handedly, or his players won it single handedly, there is no in-between where they all contribute to a winning cause. Great black and white thinking.
That's an interesting theory. Perhaps Dusty leaned on Bonds and a cast of vets in San Fran, which worked, and tried to replicate that in Chicago where he had personnel like Lenny F. Harris and Tom F. Goodwin and it had more mixed results. Which makes me think it really wouldn't work in Cincinnati.
Well... I've NEVER backed off Leyland criticism. Let's see where Bonderman - who's stagnated - and Verlander, who's ERA rose as the season went on - end up in a year or 2. Will Bonderman ever develop into a top of the rotation starter? Will Verlander stay healthy? We shall see (and sure, it does not follow that if Verlander goes under the knife, it's Leyland's fault).
I'd point out in regards to Wakefield - it's a different equation with a knuckleballer.
So far as Hernandez, other than 2003 -- his best season remains his first partial season. Playoff hero and amazing 22 yo defector in 1997... more or less mid-rotation journeyman since (a few snippets of more success, a lot more when he was worse).
I'm not claiming there's a perfect gameplan for keeping a young pitcher healthy and effective -- but Baker and Leyland most certainly do NOT err on the side of caution. Were I running a team like the Reds, who are going to be counting on Homer Bailey and Johnny Cueto to lead my rotation for the rest of the decade, Baker is NOT the manager I'd want... neither is Leyland.
I was just gonna say--I don't think Hernandez has dispelled the criticism of Leyland regarding his usage of pitchers in Florida. Sure, Livan's lasted forever and thrown a billion pitches (which undoubtedly would not have been the case with most pitchers, who would've been long gone by now after that workload), but he's also been pretty damned mediocre for almost his entire career, after such a promising start. I think Hernandez could well have been a completely different pitcher if he'd been treated more delicately early on.
I mean, he's BEYOND being a junkballer. I was absolutely shocked, watching game 3 of the LDS, how little stuff he has. His fastball maxes at 86, and the rest of his repertoire's a bunch of quasi-curves and eephus pitches that he can't even get over the plate consistently. He's completely dependent on batters lunging at his slop to maintain even his barely-above-replacement-level quality.
Considering that he can write Pujols into the lineup everyday, he can play a bunch of mediocre veterans, and there aren't many young players, yes, St. Louis is actually the perfect place for him.
Of course, St. Louis has lots of white guys on the team, and Dusty doesn't like to play them in the summer.
I disagree with you on this. He's never had a serious injury, in fact, I don't believe he's ever spent a significant amount of time on the DL in his career. He may be hiding an injury, but shouldn't there have been enough by now that we'd see some indication of that?
I think there's two things that explain Hernandez's career: he may not be as young as he says, and Cuban players aren't nearly as good as thought.
I think a lot depends on what the new, as of yet unnamed regime decides to do... They could decide to just reload and hope a healthy Carpenter and rejuvenated Rolen reverse their fortunes. If the Cards look to patch rather than rebuild, I agree -- they could do a lot worse than Baker.
'course... as a Cubs fan that doubts the Card's can just be 'patched' (serious holes up the middle, unsettled rotation) - I certainly hope they try going that route.
Question: Why would Baker, unless he's just desperate to manage, want the Reds' job? His selling point isn't developing young talent or managing a pitching staff or in-game tactics, or fire-and-brimstone kick-in-the-ass motivation. He sells himself to the press and public as A Guy Who Wins, and it's hard to see how a 79-83 season in Cincinnati is going to burnish that reputation all that much. Without thinking it through too much, Toronto seems like a better fit for Dusty if the Jays tire of Gibbons (what's his status)? Maybe Seattle ... I wouldn't be stunned to see him take the Brewers if something happens to Yost.
But not the Reds.
Happy Base Ball
Sure, it's probably something we'll never know definitively... I think those of us that are militant 'TLC for young pitcher' types have evolved beyond injuries being the sole reason - as more and more analysts look at the scenarios, effectiveness has come into play. Still - I don't know how anyone can say Livan's stuff hasn't deserted him. I remember watching him pitch in 97 - he may not have had Pedro filthy stuff, but he had a very good fastball with pretty good action and PFC WG is right -- his stuff is slop now. Just like Matt Morris - he's learned to pitch on guile, guts, and 'knowing' how to pitch.
What's more - most of "us" absolutely accept that there are freaks of nature that were just somehow "made" to pitch. Carlos Zambrano looks like just that type of pitcher. He escaped Baker seemingly unscathed - he's now entering his late 20s and has stayed both healthy and effective. Freaks of nature happen. The problem is - you just don't know the hurler is a freak of nature until he either breaks down or survives.
*shudder* Despite likely being the class of the Central for 2-3 years, the Brewers are one of the few direct Cub competitors I have soft spot for (maybe it's because NTN, Harvey, et al are pretty nice guys that are just fun to talk baseball with). With their rotation (Gallardo, Parra) and the kids -- PLUS the possibility of Hart or Weeks ending up in the Dusty doghouse, I'd really hate to see that happen.
Clyde King managed both Mays and Aaron.
So did Yogi (managed Aaron in the 1974 All Star game.)
Well, management was paying Vizcaino nearly $3 mllion. He lost a lot of AB to Sanchez as you mention, but was injured in most of July. Dunston never started a game at short that year.
I'd point out in regards to Wakefield - it's a different equation with a knuckleballer.
Yeah, but . . 170 pitches? We ain't talkin' 122 here.
Hernandez has dispelled the criticism of Leyland regarding his usage of pitchers in Florida. Sure, Livan's lasted forever and thrown a billion pitches (which undoubtedly would not have been the case with most pitchers, who would've been long gone by now after that workload), but he's also been pretty damned mediocre
I think people are forgetting what the railing about Hernandez (both in Florida & in SanFran under Baker) was. It wasn't that they better be careful or he'll be mediocre for several years. It's that his shoulder and elbow were ticking time bombs about to go off. He should've been out of baseball 7-8 years ago back in the heyday of pitch count-mania. He was prospectus's Arm Most Likely to Fall Off.
Regarding Baker in STL... What about Rasmus? Duncan?
Ain't Duncan established? That's what really matters with Baker - playing known players. Duncan's pretty well known by this teim.
How many pitchers have the stuff they had ten years ago?
Hernandez WAS worked hard by Leyland, ridden harder than any other pitcher in the majors during that time. However, given everything else, it's hard to pin his decline on overruse.
The following are all, I think, more valid explanations for Hernandez's decline:
1) Livan was never a power-stuff guy in the first place. We know that strikeouts are a good predictor of career length; nothing in Livan's mid-20s K/9s suggested he'd be a good pitcher 7-10 years later
2) Livan was overhyped as an amateur (how many Cuban pitchers have become All-Star types in the majors?) and his biggest claim to fame came via Eric Gregg's need to get to a McDonald's.
3) Livan might well be older than he claims. It's widely considered that El Duque is three to five years older than he claims. It's not unreasonable to think that Livan could really be in his late 30s
4) Livan weighs 430 pounds.
Happy Base Ball
Sure, and people sometimes overlook that. Joe Torre and Casey Stengel are obvious examples.
I am sure Baker has some positives, but I don't see him as a good fit for the current Reds.
I'll just reiterate that criticism has evolved too... Absolutely - 5-6-7-8 years ago, people like 'me' were pointing pretty much strictly to injury concerns... but as more research has been done and folks start to pay attention more, the thinking has evolved to include decreases in effectiveness.
Was there maybe a bit too much screeching about absolutes and certain injury doom? Perhaps.
I think we also focus too much on arguing the Livans, the Matt Morrises, the Priors, the Woods, too.
Like I said - I think it's also wise to look at pitchers like Buerhle and Garland. Jerry Manuel was highly regarded by pitcher TLC folks. He had Buerhle and Garland when they were both quite young - he handled both VERY gently. Both now have 8 seasons under their belt. Both have stayed remarkably healthy. And other than Buerhle's 2006 - both have also been remarkably consistent -- Buerhle as a very good pitcher, Garland as a slightly better than average.
He gets some deserved criticism for his treatment of young starting pitchers but that is a problem easily remedied by the front office if they choose to view that usage as an issue. As such, I really don't see that a big problem for Dusty's next employer. If your GM is okay with riding the young players hard then the manager (whose job is to win the game that day) is probably going to ride them hard and I think that goes for managers who don't have harsh reputations in this area. If you're concerned about Dusty's history then law down the law before you hire him.
Dusty could be a good fit for some teams (the Dodgers, for example). The Reds are not one of these teams.
You don't think overuse can manifest itself in lesser effectiveness and/or change in pitching style, as well as disabling injury?
Look--there's enough meritorious argument going on in this discussion without your having to sully it by understating Livan's weight.
I'd be in favor of that!
(And yes, I saw your later comment about how he's a free agent now. I'm still sticking by my boy, even if he's not very...good...anymore.)
I dunno. Hendry stuck up for him, but Hendry would say they were going to do one thing and Baker would do the other. Hendry had to repetedly Dusty-proof the roster.
And for no reason whatsoever, here's some thread on Piniella when the Cubs hired him.
Maybe. But, I'm looking over his career stats, and other than 2 great years in Montreal in 03 and 04, I'm not seeing anything that screams overuse here, or even outlier. I'm just seeing a guy getting older. In fact, if he was overused, how did he have such great years in 03 and 04? The statistical outliers for his career are the two great years, not the rest.
Except for this season, his K/9 rate has floated between 5-7. His BB/9 between 1-3. The big change I'm seeing is that he got hit more this year, and when he got hit, he was smoked.
If you want to say that overuse can attribute to loss of effectiveness, you gotta find someone that's a better example than Livan. He just looks like a guy that got old and fat.
9/1/07 - Verlander and Tigers vs. the A's
Through 6, Verlander's throwing a beauty and the Tigers are winning 3-1. They tack on another 2 runs in the top of the 7th. If I'm reading the box right, Verlander was at 103 pitches through 6.
What earthly reason is there to have Verlander start the 7th?
It's Sept 1 - so I can assume it's not as if the bullpen needed the rest. I realize the Tigers are fighting for their playoff lives, but the A's have had trouble scoring runs all year. It's a waste of 26 more pitches for a 24 yo stud.
That's the heart of the complaint against Leyland and Baker (and managers like them). It's situations where taxing a young arm makes no sense.
I'm a glass half-empty guy when it comes to the issue of evaluating managers using sabermetric approaches (no offense, Chris, and of course you yourself have made many of the same observations I am here), and I think the reason is that while context is something sabermetrics has been able to isolate in evaluating players, it's just too complicated for evaluating managers. First, every roster is different, not just in terms of inherent talents, tendencies and experience level, but in personality. Not just the players on the roster, but everything surrounding it. By the time a manager has been observed in enough different contexts so that you can get an idea of where his strengths are, he's going to be a grizzled veteran. Baker was around long enough that we have a decent idea of his strengths and weaknesses, as you can see from the many observations made in this thread, but that just brings us to the next problem.
Managerial effectiveness is not a constant. To a certain extent, the skills of ballplayers are predictable. As you said, managers can learn, but they can unlearn too. They can become complacent and develop bad habits. Their motivational approaches might work well at first, but wear thin after a short amount of time. Baker is 58 years old, he is probably set financially, and has a ten year-old at home. The priority of one's job in life doesn't always stay the same. I think Baker was a very effective manager in San Francisco. In Chicago he was not, and I think part of it was that he lost interest. I think Lou Piniella was a very effective manager for the Cubs in 2007. Who knows how he will play in 2010.
His availability is questionable because of the eye injury he sustained while standing in the on-deck circle. Somewhat coincidentally to this discussion, the opponent that night was the Reds.
Sean Estes
Fixed.
Fixed.
Tough crowd. The years were almost identical except that he pitched 20 more innings, won 4 fewer games, and walked a few more guys.
Just so that my point here is clear - I'm not defending Leyland. I'm saying that I think Livan wasn't overused.
Leyland's far from perfect as a manager. My view on managers is that most are the same with some outliers. I just don't think that they are that different or have as much of an effect. As I stated, there are outliers both good and bad.
I believe it was Rob Neyer that said a few years ago one of the most important skills a manager must have is ability to interact with the media. Joe Torre gets huge points in that category.
The Dusty of Chicago had no tactical skills and no clubhouse ones either, which led to the underachieving disaster that was the Cubs post-2003.
Tough crowd. The years were almost identical except that he pitched 20 more innings, won 4 fewer games, and walked a few more guys.
Well - rightly or wrongly - I pretty much fall back on ERA+ for shorthand, and he went from 155 to 115.... but you're also right that the discussion shouldn't revolve around Livan. I think everyone excepts that there are outliers - and Livan seems like one of them.
I also don't want to give the impression that I think Leyland is a "bad manager" -- he's obviously helmed two very good teams who were pretty bad teams before he came on board.
What portion of managerial competence does pitcher handling occupy? I don't know... and one can certainly make the argument that individual players/pitchers be damned, flags fly forever.
I think it depends on the team makeup and team direction -- coming back to the heart of the thread -- the Reds, I don't think, are a team that should be sniffing anywhere near Baker (or Leyland, were he available). Their pitching for the next 2-4 years is likely to hinge upon Homer Bailey and Johnny Cueto. That's 2 big chips I don't want to gamble with.
I do certainly appreciate that it's a lot easier to just read the work others have done and spout off about it on the internet.
I'm not saying it saying it's anything but a silly anecdote, but I play a fair bit of OOTP. OOTP simulates, to some extent, pitcher fatigue, pitcher endurance, and increases injury frequencies and decreased effectiveness accordingly. Despite my rabid anti-Leyland/Baker/Lasorda leanings, I find myself having a devil of a time keeping my young electronic pitchers "safe". I'm constantly running up 130, 140 PC efforts because I want this electronic representation of a player to get that CG, that shutout, etc.
It's a lifetime of difference from punching keys on a keyboard in a simulation/game to actually sitting in a dugout 162 days a season -- but I think I have a small modicum of appreciation for the proclivities of Leyland ,et al. It's a lot easier to scream about pulling some kid days, weeks, months, etc after the fact, on BTF than it might be sitting in the dugout watching the kid roll.
But - were I a GM or a team owner - it's what I would insist my manager be very cognizant of and tailor his usage to.
Good game.
What portion of managerial competence does pitcher handling occupy? I don't know... and one can certainly make the argument that individual players/pitchers be damned, flags fly forever.
I think it depends on the team makeup and team direction -- coming back to the heart of the thread -- the Reds, I don't think, are a team that should be sniffing anywhere near Baker (or Leyland, were he available). Their pitching for the next 2-4 years is likely to hinge upon Homer Bailey and Johnny Cueto. That's 2 big chips I don't want to gamble with.
This is something that a competant GM would know. Krivsky has never shown himself to be one.
This is silly. Bonds was the best hitter in baseball for the stretch that Baker managed the Giants, but in 1997, for example, Bonds was only the third-best hitter in the league, yet Baker still won 90 games, the division title, and the manager of the year award. In 1999, when Bonds played in only 102 games (and his OPS+ would have placed him fourth in the league), the Giants still won 86 games.
Yes, having a player like Barry Bonds in the lineup is going to help any manager. But even leaving aside the fact that Bonds' performance improved with Baker as his manager, to ascribe all of Dusty's success to Barry Bonds is just ridiculous.
I don't know, I think some versions of @$$holery are immune to flowers, puppies, and children.
Absolutely. I believe he was also the first Cubs skipper to post back-to-back .500+ seasons since Durocher (or without checking, perhaps Franks in the 70s?).
The big problem with Dusty was that the things I/we didn't like about him just became so glaringly bad and pronounced. I don't know that anyone except Steve Garvey has the near universal hatred on BTF that Neifi, Macias, and the other members of F Troop have.
I was one of the last BTF Cub fans to jump off the Dusty ship - as late as 2006, I was still finding times where I'd be defending him. But man, oh man, did he make me schizophrenic. I'd go from defending him one day to joining in the chorus because Neifi got 4 ABs the night before.
First Cubs skipper since Leo the Lip to post consecutive .500+ seasons. One could make a very good argument he was also the best Cubs skipper since Leo, too... perhaps with a nod in Jim Frey's direction.
No, I know that... but he did play one on TV for a couple of years.
Through 6, Verlander's throwing a beauty and the Tigers are winning 3-1. They tack on another 2 runs in the top of the 7th. If I'm reading the box right, Verlander was at 103 pitches through 6.
What earthly reason is there to have Verlander start the 7th?
Because he was throwing a beauty, had only thrown 103 pitches, and the Tigers only had a 2-run lead. Eleven straight men hadn't even gotten the ball out of the infield when the inning began. Verlander proceeded to strike out the first two guys he faced. Then he had trouble getting that last time out, gunning up his pitch count in the stratosphere.
It's Sept 1 - so I can assume it's not as if the bullpen needed the rest.
Yea, but do you really want to hand off a close game to the 8th best guy in the 'pen? Also, we're presuming that the AAA bullpen was well rested. The majors 'pen certainly wasn't - they'd played three extra-inning games in the last week.
I didn't really bring up Leyland as a guy I'm sold on. I really don't have much knowledge in him one way or the other (actually, my articles on managers said he's terrible with pitchers), but man, a guy pushes his pitcher for one game in a pennant race and a guy gets crucified.
That's the heart of the complaint against Leyland and Baker (and managers like them). It's situations where taxing a young arm makes no sense.
Since when was a two-run lead insurmountable? Since when does it not make sense to try to win games in September when you've still got a shot at the post-season?
it's just too complicated for evaluating managers. First, every roster is different, not just in terms of inherent talents, tendencies and experience level, but in personality. Not just the players on the roster, but everything surrounding it. By the time a manager has been observed in enough different contexts so that you can get an idea of where his strengths are, he's going to be a grizzled veteran.
Up to a point, sure. I agree completely. Up to a point. Two things:
First, it revolves around an issue of uncertainty. It won't be until a man is a grizzled vet that we can have a good idea what his strengths are (if even then) but we can start to decipher things well before then. The sabermetric community really doesn't like to deal with uncertainty, in my experience. Well, know you does, but the nature of quantifying knowledge in these parts makes people especially skittish. This is understandable and generally appropriate, but trying to understand is better than not.
Second, if we can't ever really know unless a guy has been around for a while, then we can't really judge or make any final judgements. And of course, we do that stuff all the dang time. Just ask Bruce Kimm or Jim Essian. Since we (and I most certainly include myself in that category) make these judgements, it hinders our credibility to say we can't really know about a guy until he's been around a while.
I'm tempted to get into a broader talk of knowledge as a series of Eureka! papers vs. knowledge as a series of converstaions, but I can't figure a way to make it fit. Besides, this bit is pretentious enough for now.
I also don't want to give the impression that I think Leyland is a "bad manager" -- he's obviously helmed two very good teams who were pretty bad teams before he came on board.
Actually three, but many Marlins were bought in the same off-season he came aboard.
I think it depends on the team makeup and team direction -- coming back to the heart of the thread -- the Reds, I don't think, are a team that should be sniffing anywhere near Baker (or Leyland, were he available). Their pitching for the next 2-4 years is likely to hinge upon Homer Bailey and Johnny Cueto. That's 2 big chips I don't want to gamble with.
And of course making it all the more fun with guys, being lenient on young pitchers doesn't guarantee squat. Look at last year's Marlins. Girardi had four rookies start 94 games. They usually finished under 100 pitches, rarely went over 110, and never made it to 100. In a decent majority of their starts they threw 6 or fewer innings. They're all floundering this year. One guy went 100 pitches 6 times in 22 starts and he's been injured all year. Screwy. Meanwhile, Dontrelle Willis who Girardi did lean on mighty dang hard has also slipped noticably, but has actually been healthier than most of the guys who were babied last year.
First Cubs skipper since Leo the Lip to post consecutive .500+ seasons. One could make a very good argument he was also the best Cubs skipper since Leo, too... perhaps with a nod in Jim Frey's direction.
Herman Franks is sorely underrated.
The Cubs also, one should note, have one of the worst records of finding good managers in baseball over the last several decades. (thinks about it). Really, since Charlie Grimm.
Lou Piniella might be the best skipper they've had since Charlie Grimm.
The Trib has hired retread managers almost exclusively. They've never began the year with a man with no managerial experience. They're only newbies they gave a shot to were Jim Essian and Bruce Kimm . . . so I guess it ain't such a bad thing they stuck with the Trebelhorns and Baylors of this world.
Verlander's throwing free and easy? He feels really strong that day?
I'm not saying you're wrong (it may have been a terrible decision to leave him in), but I think pitch count alone isn't really enough to make a proper judgment on Leyland's decision.
At any rate, the game you cite is the only time all year Verlander exceeded 120. If going over that number once is going to damage him, he probably can't be saved anyway.
If there's any team that might be a WORSE fit for Dusty than the Reds, it's the Dodgers. I shudder to think how he'd use an 0-for-the-week slump as an excuse to job Ethier or Kemp out of PT for an extended period, never mind mangling the 3B situation to maximize veteran moxieness.
First - it was a 4 run lead, not a 2 run lead (the Tigers were away and tacked on 2 in the top of the 7th... so Verlander came back out for a 4 run lead).
Second - no, I'm not saying that game alone did irreparable harm. I'm just forwarding as an instance of what I would call poor decision making by a manager in regards to a young ace. Yes - it was the only time he exceed 120 pitches - but without going back to the game logs, I would also be looking for other games where he thew say... 110, 115, etc pitches in a meaningless game. I'm not a PAP or PAP3 researcher, just a proponent -- and I'm also not advocating a hard and fast X PC. There are, in fact, plenty of situations where I might be OK with letting Verlander throw 129 pitches... if he's got a no-no, well, yeah... I can't justify pulling the kid. If it's the playoffs and a one run game... Hell, if it's a September 1 run game and you're in the race.
My beef is "extraneous" pitches - and late innings of a 4 run game against a team that has trouble scoring runs, I would consider all 26 pitches he threw in the 7th as a waste.
Looping this back to Baker - that's why a lot of Cub fans still hold a grudge against Baker for Prior. It's that game 2 NLCS -- the Cubs were cruising, up 12-2 after 6 complete. Yet - Prior threw 115 pitches. The 10 pitches he threw in the 7th were a waste. The 11 he threw in the 8th before finally leaving were a waste. Is that the reason Prior's become what he is? Probably not.... but I can't imagine crap like that helping. If it were a 3-2 or 4-2 (or maybe even 5-2) game, sure... I ride my ace, especially if he still looks sharp.
To me - it's all about saving the bullets, saving wear and tear -- especially for a young pitcher who may not take the same approach as a vet like a Johnson, Maddux, etc.
The Dusty/BTF thing seems to happen because we put a lot of stock in the minors (too much, for the most part), and Dusty likes veterans (too much, for the most part). The successful answer is somewhere in the middle.
If you'd want to drive Dusty nuts, figure out a way to get him managing in Tampa. With only about 5 people on the roster over 32, those wristbands would come in handy covering the razor marks.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main