Loading ...Frequent commenter “hoosierdad” directed my attention to the following piece at The Hardball Times. It’s an excerpt from Chris Jaffe’s book, “Evaluating Baseball Managers,” dealing with our own intrepid manager, Dusty Baker:
Much of the commentary on managers (including, admittedly, much of this book) presents a reductionist view of their job, portraying a skipper as someone who has the same impact on all environments at all times. In reality, managers are better at some parts of the job than at others. Place a man in a situation that fits his strengths, and he will look like a savant. Put that same individual on a team that highlights his weaknesses and people will call him a dullard. Dusty Baker’s experiences with the Giants and Cubs provided ample evidence of this phenomenon.
Read the entire excerpt, especially the parts about Dusty’s time in Chicago. Surely I’m not the only one who sees many similarities with the current version of Baker with the guy who failed so miserably with the Cubs.
I’m afraid the Reds, as currently constructed, are a team that highlights Baker’s weaknesses as a manager, rather than accentuating his strengths. Of course, if Walt Jocketty keeps stockpiling 35-year-olds, Baker is going to feel right at home.
My dad and I were discussing this coming back from Lexington yesterday…I think he isn’t bad at managing egos and that sort of thing, but as far as managing a game situation, rosters, etc he is pretty awful.
When he was in SF and even Chicago for that matter, he had outstanding talent. Those years he was successful were the heyday of Bonds’ “steroid years” when he was hitting like crazy and then his one good year in Chicago he had Prior and Wood pitching unbelievable with very good talent with Lee and Ramirez.
I haven’t seen anything out of him where a young player excelled while under Dusty due to his coaching abilities. And his love for the Nefi Perez’s of the world baffles me as well.
So the GM playing to Baker’s strengths by signing a couple of veterans is bad now? Should they just keep throwing their young talent into the Dusty grinder?
If the team is committed to Dusty for 2010, then the Cabrera signing makes even more sense.
To be fair to Jocketty, the only shortstop in the game that fits the Dusty Baker model is HanRam.
Shouldn’t you build a team based on what you think is right for this year and future years and not for a manager’s perceived stengths?
Batting a SS second no matter what is a stength? Playing a veteran no matter what is a strength? How did that work out with Patterson and Taveras the past two years?
I think that statement needs to be qualified with “productive veterans.” Give Dusty established and legitmate (dare I say All-Star) talent, then you’re ok. Then again, who wouldn’t be? But just giving him some bodies that have been around awhile is not the same as playing to his strength. See: Alex Gonzalez.
If Dusty is a meat grinder for young talent, then he is on the wrong team. Done. Don’t refit the ship so the captain feels more comfortable while he’s sinking it. The Reds will almost always have to rely on youth and development. Even if they are committed to him for 2010, Walt Jocketty should not be spending monies that are contrary to the main purpose so Dusty feels better about himself. To me, that only increases the chances Dusty stays around longer, at which point there’s going to be a breaking point season after season when his in-game skills sabotage any advantage the Reds might have.
I don’t support keeping Dusty on as skipper. But if they are going to, then they will have to cater the team to what he can do. What he can’t do is manage and nurture young talent well. It’s a miracle that guys like Votto, Bruce, and Bailey have done ok despite Dusty. It just shows how awesome they are to begin with.
Nor can he magically turn one dimensional AAA backups into productive everyday shortstops, so it makes sense to give him a proven tool for that position, even if it is nowhere near the ideal one.
“I think that statement needs to be qualified with “productive veterans.” Give Dusty established and legitmate (dare I say All-Star) talent, then you’re ok. Then again, who wouldn’t be? But just giving him some bodies that have been around awhile is not the same as playing to his strength. See: Alex Gonzalez.”
yeah, it wasn’t exactly rocket science to pencil in Barry Bonds into your lineup.
@jason1972: I understand the overall theory there… for instance, in football (college and pro) a guy gets hired and they go through a change to fit his particular system. I get that.
But what doesn’t pan out here is that Dusty’s “system” is unfeasible from the Reds market stand-point. It’s hard to imagine that never not being true. Therefore, in most cases it just seems detrimental to do anything for Dusty’s benefit. Just seems so obvious it’s a bad fit. IMHO, any success the Reds have this season will in spite of Baker’s managing, not because of it.
To review: If it’s remarkable anybody develops under Dusty’s management, then that’s a red flag. If players are naturally blessed and would be successful anywhere, then having a team of those guys isn’t really asking a lot of your manager. The Reds aren’t in a position to be that team with an all-star at every position.
If the Reds have another below .500 season, then Dusty is gone. If not, he’ll be resigned for a couple of years.
I think that’s right. Dusty’s fate is purely in the hands of the 2010 record.
Eric Byrnes is now a Mariner…and I think they got away with paying the league minimum because of the owed money by the D’backs.
…and the Mariners DFA Tommy Everidge to make room for this guy. If you like Janish you will like this guy. He is a right handed hitting first baseman (and he hit very, very well in either AA or AAA, don’t remember which)who can absolutely rake. He is in his late 20’s, and I really don’t think he had a great chance in Oakland.
Tavares and Rosales gone to Oakland for Aaron Miles!
Now that’s some nice addition by subtraction there.
Editors: Quick, get up a thread on this and break out the ticker-tape!
I like when these things happen during lunch so I can get a thread up quickly!
I think Dusty’s lineups are a joke like everybody else. I’m not sure, though, that Dusty is a destroyer of young talent. Votto did well last year despite some major issues to overcome. Bailey blossomed. Bruce struggled but was strong by the end, etc. I think Dusty did well with all that. Dusty’s weaknesses are his weakness. His loyalty can be both a strength and at times a weakness. One of his strengths is that players seem to like to play for him. So there usually is not and probably will not be a lot of division. 2010 will be what it will be. If players have very goods years there may not much Dusty can do to mess it up. Then the Reds will have a pretty good year and Dusty, fairly or unfairly, will look like a genius. If players have so, so years. The Reds will be so,so. There will be a lot of second guessing. “Could Dusty have gotten more of this team with a better lineup, playing so and so more,” etc? Dusty, fairly or unfairly, won’t look so hot. If Dusty goes, whoever comes in will have their strengths and weaknesses also. We definitely have had some good and not so good managers come through here. We then will have to hope for a good one. There are a number I could name that I would not trade for Dusty and some I wouldn’t hesitate a second to replace him with. All that is with hindsight, of course. Who knew Sparky would be such a perfect fit ahead of time, etc. He also had a pretty good roster.
I just read above about Taveras and Rosales. I read it but I don’t believe it. Is somebody messing with us?
To be fair, other than game time management (which is a HUGH part of his job) Dusty does okay. However, I wander if Bryan Price was brought in to be the next manager. I’d love to see Sweet managing in Cincinnati next year, though.
The comments in the article about his treatment of veterans vs. rookies says that he let lesser players make starts while better players sat on the bench. It seems to me that until he came to Cincinnati, Baker’s team really never had much in the way of positional player prospects.
Aurilia is about the only decent prospect in San Francisco that I remember and he was a full-time player.
Cubs fans gripe about lack of playing time to folks like Ronny Cedeno (who did get a full season under Baker), Jason DuBois, and Matt Murton (who also got a lot more playing time for Baker than he did for Pinella.) You could also throw-in Hee Seop Choi. None of those guys have surfaced anywhere else. Not as quality every day major leaguers, and not even as decent bench options.
Votto, Bruce, Stubbs – these guys have been played at their respective positions without much dinkering around since the day they got here.
This might be a little bit of piling on but Cincinnati and Dusty were never a good marriage to start. It was highly questioned when the deal was put together and most of the questions of whether Dusty could adjust to the challenges that Cincinnati presented have been answered in the negative.
I hope Walt fires Dusty sometime soon.
[...] ESPN.com’s Rob Neyer questions whether we have the right manager for our team. As a reminder, Chad Dotson had earlier referred Redleg Nation readers to this new book about evaluating managers. The excerpt made [...]