The Dusty-LaRussa debate

[UK1679666180]

LaRussa is a good manager not great. I think Baker is a good manager as well, just not with a team that needs young pitching with an injury history to stay healthy.

[stitchface]

TLR seems to be better at getting the most out of role players. Both are obstinant to a fault. I see TLR as a slightly above average in and baker as slightly below average to average. I don't think either is worth their contract. At best Baker doesn't cost you any wins. I suspect he may cost the Cubs a loss or two with poor bullpen management and his love of poor offensive players.

[stitchface]

LaRussa is a good manager not great. I think Baker is a good manager as well, just not with a team that needs young pitching with an injury history to stay healthy.

 

to me, the definition of good management would be adapting your style to the team you are managing. Baker does not seem to be good at this.

[UK1679666180]

No, he's not good at adaptation. Which will be interesting to see how he handles Pierre at the top as well as the speed off the bench.

[Jehrico]

I think LaRussa gets more credit than he deserves. He's had some juggernaut offensive lineups during his most successful seasons as manager, the type of lineups that a manager can't mess up. He's lost that this year, we'll see how he handles the offense with several questionable guys who are going to be getting regular playing time.

 

And as far as handling pitchers, I think LaRussa is worse than Baker. Look at all of the promising young arms that have come up with them in the past several years that developed problems and never were right. Just off of the top of my head, Bud Smith and Ankiel come to mind, but there are alot more.

[NewUserName]

lamar hoyt, richard dotson, dave stewart, bob welch, kent bottenfield, cris carpenter, jeff suppan. I am probably missing a couple of more. These are all pitchers that were not good before Tony LaRussa and except for the last 2 were not good after tony larussa. Dusty Baker doesnt have nearly the track record for getting this kind of performance from the scrap heap.

[JakeSlater]

lamar hoyt, richard dotson, dave stewart, bob welch, kent bottenfield, cris carpenter, jeff suppan. I am probably missing a couple of more. These are all pitchers that were not good before Tony LaRussa and except for the last 2 were not good after tony larussa. Dusty Baker doesnt have nearly the track record for getting this kind of performance from the scrap heap.

 

Dusty takes old hitters from scrap heaps and helps make them better. TLR does it with the pitchers.

 

They have a lot in common in a lot of ways.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

lamar hoyt, richard dotson, dave stewart, bob welch, kent bottenfield, cris carpenter, jeff suppan. I am probably missing a couple of more. These are all pitchers that were not good before Tony LaRussa and except for the last 2 were not good after tony larussa. Dusty Baker doesnt have nearly the track record for getting this kind of performance from the scrap heap.

 

Dusty takes old hitters from scrap heaps and helps make them better. TLR does it with the pitchers.

 

They have a lot in common in a lot of ways.

 

What hitters are those?

 

In either case, I'd have to give more credit to Duncan and the hitting coaches than the manager.

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

In the book, which I read three times BTW, it states that Baker is percieved in baseball as a manager who is to proud to learn from his mistakes. To me this is the strongest blow against Baker.

 

LaRussa has a reason behind what he does and is managing 3 innings ahead from the 3rd on. Baker makes his decisions in the moment with little reguard for long term plans.

 

At least that is my take on watching the two teams and my experience.

[JakeSlater]

In the book, which I read three times BTW, it states that Baker is percieved in baseball as a manager who is to proud to learn from his mistakes. To me this is the strongest blow against Baker.

 

LaRussa has a reason behind what he does and is managing 3 innings ahead from the 3rd on. Baker makes his decisions in the moment with little reguard for long term plans.

 

At least that is my take on watching the two teams and my experience.

 

Every manager is proud to learn from his mistakes because they all make them. That book went into some of Tony's mistakes in great detail.

 

Thing about Dusty is that he manages like he played. Full out, full blast, run into a wall, no matter what, gut instinctual baseball. He does want great defensive fundamentals, and his teams played with great fundamentals till last year. His hitting approach was aggressive and he wants his teams to be. But with that kind of style, mistakes will be made. He's not Duncan and LaRussa....he doesn't have little notecards with all the stats of every player around. That kind of managing is great too, but it can be overmanaging if not careful.

 

Baker's managing style can be overmanaging too because it can cause problems with matchups, like using Remlinger against certain lefties.

[BigbadB]

Remember last year when the Cardinals loaded up the bases and Edmonds was due up, and Dusty brought in Mike Remlinger to face him? Edmonds crushed the ball Remlinger served up. Heck, I think even Remlinger knew he shouldn't have been the one to face Edmonds in that situation.

 

Making a move like that is comparable to a chef serving up raw chicken. There's a slight chance you might not get sick, but you probably will.

 

Gut feeling is crap. If you play the percentages, I won't be screaming like a lunatic and throwing things at my tv. And running Neifi and Macias out there to bat 1/2 in the order ahead of Lee is asinine. I just walked over and turned off the tv, and I rarely do that when a Cubs baseball game comes on.

 

I'd never consider trying that once as an experiment. Dusty did it numerous times. I don't care who was injured. We had Murton, Barrett among others to hit at the top of the order. Neifi is an out machine and how many times did he hit 1st or 2nd last year? Way, way, way, way, way too many times.

 

Why do players like playing for Dusty? Because he doesn't ride their asses when they do something stupid. He just lets them play. When Moises Alou kicked the ball into the ivy and let a relatively slow runner walk around the bases for an inside the park home run, a "good" manager would have told him to take a shower and go home. He most certainly would not reward lazy, half assed play go rewarded with more playing time.

 

I could go on and on. Being a long time baseball player doesn't make you a good manager. While I am not stating I know more about the game or would do a better job of managing a team, it doesn't mean that I'm willing to concede that every guy that has been a manager at the major league level is a good manager. And I certainly do not think that Dusty is a good manager.

 

A good manager doesn't continue sending your set up man out to close games when it's obvious to everyone in the stands that he doesn't have the mind set to close games. Dusty did it day after day after day. If that wasn't enough, he did it again the next year. Hawkins is a good set up man. But, don't let him close.

 

We learn when we are young that if you put your finger in a pan of boiling water, you will burn your finger. Dusty puts his finger in that boiling water everyday. Screw hunches. Play the percentages. If you lose playing the percentages, then at least you gave your team the best chance to win everyday, and I won't complain.

 

If you have watched Cub baseball everyday while Dusty has been in charge and can still say he's a good manager, then I applaud your optimism. But, there is absolutely nothing you can do to convince me you are correct.

 

And the saddening part of it all was that I supported bringing in Dusty Baker as the manager. I guess I didn't really know anything about him prior to coming to Chicago other than the fact players liked playing for him. I didn't realize it was because mediocre to bad veterans get more playing time and those are the guys who actually like playing for him.

 

"Walks clog the bases" is not the mentality I want to hear from the manager of the team I route for. Baserunners score runs. The aggressive approach is good if you are swinging at good pitches. The Cubs barely scored 700 runs last year, so maybe a few more walks might be in order?

 

To each there own. I'd actually prefer to have Baylor back. I thought his in game management was bad, but Dusty's is worse.

 

Last year when it was apparent that the Cubs were out of it, Dusty still wouldn't play the kids. He wanted to get the Cubs record over .500 so that he could make his resume look good for another 4m a year long term contract. It didn't work. The crap he was sending out there everyday in meaningless games wasn't as good as the kids he's now planning on starting this year.

 

I don't know who would make a good manager, and I'm not overly fond of Tony LaRussa, but LaRussa is definitely better.

 

The Cubs had over 40m to spend this offseason and there was no excuse to put together a team that couldn't win it all. They went out and got the guys "they" wanted. Let's just see how it works out for them. I'll be cheering for the Cubs to win, but I'll be cheering in spite of Dusty's poor managerial abilities. If they don't secure a playoff spot this year, I want Hendry and Baker gone. Hendry could salvage his job only if he got rid of Baker quickly enough to not impact the entire season.

 

I'm a lifelong devoted Cub fan. I am not a pessimistic person by nature. Baylor and Dusty have made me this way by their poor management skills. Baylor still isn't managing today, and Baker is only still managing because he managed good teams that would have been fairly successful whether he was there or some other manager that could keep Barry Bonds happy.

[JakeSlater]

Man, playing the percentages can blow up in your face too, especially if done too much.

 

It was Larry Walker, not Jim Edmonds. But I know what you are saying.

 

Thing is, if we had a Bob Howry type pitcher or a Scott Eyre, it'd be a little easier to figure out who would face Walker. But it wasn't, so you pick who you think is the best. No reliever was really that awesome out of the pen last year, so Walker might've crushed any of them. Doesn't make Dusty's move anymore right, just makes it done.

 

I was screaming when he tried Neifi/Macias once too. I hated Macias. But at least he only tried it once, and I'd say it was experimenting because he was trying to find the right formula. I KNEW it wasn't right, but won't fault him for trying. If we could keep our guys healthy, we don't see stupid calls like that.

 

Dusty Baker did not have that good of teams until 2002, so don't give me that. He had Barry Bonds, Jeff Kent, and a bunch of misfits till 2002. He won with teams that had no business winning. That was partly his managing right there.

[BigbadB]

Dusty won what with his band of misfits? Nothing.

 

He finished 1st twice in the NL West during his tenure there. The NL West has been the red headed step child division of major league baseball for quite some time now. The Rockies have never been good. The D'Backs were only good when they had Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling. The Padres put together one good team and then have a fire sale immediately afterwards. The Dodgers and Giants are the only two teams that spend any significant money in that division. So, for 2 first place finishes in 10 years in San Fran is really not that strong of a resume.

 

And his band of misfits featured more than just Jeff Kent and Barry Bonds. Ellis Burks, Will Clark, Robbie Thompson, Bill Mueller, Jason Schmidt, Livan Hernandez, Rob Nen, Rod Beck, JT Snow, Matt Williams, etc..

 

I'll go conservative and compare the 1999 team instead of the 2000 team. The 1999 Giants team that won 85 games finished the year with a .352 team OBP and scored 872 runs. What happened? The Cubs scored 703 last year. When did Dusty transform into an aggressive approach?

 

The 1999 Giants drew 696 walks.

The 2000 Giants drew 709.

 

The 2005 Cubs drew 419 walks. 419

 

Dusty may not have had all star teams while he was in San Fran, but he clearly had better teams than most of the other teams in that division.

 

If you like Dusty, I'm cool with that. Why must you convince me that I need to like Dusty? You'll have a tougher time convincing me to support Dusty than you would to get me to eat a plate of lima beans, and I absolutely cannot stand lima beans.

 

I believe Perez and Macias hit at the top of the order together more than just once, also.

[/b]

[XZero771679666304]

Man, playing the percentages can blow up in your face too, especially if done too much.

 

It was Larry Walker, not Jim Edmonds. But I know what you are saying.

 

Thing is, if we had a Bob Howry type pitcher or a Scott Eyre, it'd be a little easier to figure out who would face Walker. But it wasn't, so you pick who you think is the best. No reliever was really that awesome out of the pen last year, so Walker might've crushed any of them. Doesn't make Dusty's move anymore right, just makes it done.

 

I was screaming when he tried Neifi/Macias once too. I hated Macias. But at least he only tried it once, and I'd say it was experimenting because he was trying to find the right formula. I KNEW it wasn't right, but won't fault him for trying. If we could keep our guys healthy, we don't see stupid calls like that.

 

Dusty Baker did not have that good of teams until 2002, so don't give me that. He had Barry Bonds, Jeff Kent, and a bunch of misfits till 2002. He won with teams that had no business winning. That was partly his managing right there.

 

Baker tried Macias/Perez once, but he tried Patterson/Perez far too many times. And as for the idea that he was "experimenting" with Macias/Perez, that is silly. You don't need to experiment with that to know it won't work. It's like me going under the sink and "experimenting" by drinking some bleach.

 

When you have guys who have abysmal career OBP consistently batting on top of your order, that has crossed the line from experimentation to foolishness. Walker, who has more success in the leadoff role than all the other players used in that role last year combined, and who had great success in the first half of 2004, was used as "protection" for Ramirez. Meanwhile, Derrek and ARam continued to have no one but each other to drive in.

 

Why? because Dusty seems to think you have to be fast to bat at the top of the order, with actually being on base to use that speed seemingly an afterthough to him. Nevermind the fact that Perez isn't fast, and was third in the entire league in GIDP, so once every blue moon when the leadoff guy got on, Neifi erased them both.

 

Blindly relying on percentage certainly has its pitfalls, but when you blatantly ignore them in favor of longshot gambles and inexplicable loyalties, you are doing far more of a disservice to your team, and are negligent in your duties as manager. Hawkins is the prime example of this. He was terrible in multiple opportunities as a closer in Minnesota, and that was a well known fact. In spite of this, Dusty runs him out there. He is bad, so Dusty runs him out there some more. He continues to be bad. Next season, Hendry suggests using Dempster as closer in ST. Dusty changes his mind and runs Hawkins out there again, and Hawkins is horrible again. The team is hurt, and Hawkins is ruined by the whole fiasco.

 

Prior throwing 116 pitches with an 11 run lead because his PC was supposed to be 115. Consitently leaving his pitcher out there when there is a lead. Batting Macias as the first PH. Leaving vets out there to stink for long periods. Batting Burnitz in between Ramirez and Lee just because he is LH. Batting Lenny Harris leadoff. Pitching Chad Fox three days in a row and leaving him out there to toil in a blowout when he is coming off an injury and shouldn't even be pitch consecutive days. And on, and on, and on.

 

You can try and spin all you want, but Dusty is a poor manager.

 

And Dusty had good team before 2002, plus the West was a weak division. Matt Williams, Ellis Burks, J.T. Snow, Rich Aurilia, Billy Swift, Rod Beck, Robb Nen, John Burkett, Kirk Rueter, Russ Ortiz and Shawn Estes all gave Dusty's Giants their best years along side Kent and Bonds. Other notables who contributed positively to some of those teams include Willie McGee, Robby Thompson and Livan Hernandez. Many of those players had a few superstar caliber seasons during that run.

 

Dusty had good teams in San Francisco, don't kid yourself.

[BigbadB]

I was screaming when he tried Neifi/Macias once too. I hated Macias. But at least he only tried it once, and I'd say it was experimenting because he was trying to find the right formula. I KNEW it wasn't right, but won't fault him for trying. If we could keep our guys healthy, we don't see stupid calls like that.

 

Your definition of once and my definition of once are clearly different. Guess what these box scores have in common?

 

Sept. 17th

Sept. 23rd

Sept. 24th

Sept. 25th

Sept. 28th

Sept. 29th

Oct. 1st

 

Yep, Neifi and Macias batting 1/2 in the order in every one of these games. I could probably find more if I really wanted to dedicate more time in making my point. But, we all know these things happened. We also know that Enrique Wilson has seen top of the order at bats. We also know that the previous year Rey Ordonez has seen top of the order at bats. No other team in baseball is willing to give employment opportunities to Rey Ordonez or Enrique Wilson, Not even a bottom of the barrel budget team like the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. Not only do the Cubs employ guys like this, but Dusty sticks them right there at the top of the order.

 

The funny thing about September and October is that rosters are expanded. Note all the dates of the box scores above. There should never be any reason to start your 25th man during this time frame. When your 25th man has an OBP well under .300, it's even more stupid to bat him at the top of the order.

 

I can respect your faith in Dusty Baker, Jake. But, please respect mine. I once had faith in him too. But, too many just plain ignorant decisions has me wishing he'd be fired like he deserves to be. Hendry needs to go also.

[frostwyrm]

I much enjoyed seeing Alex Gonzalez get 312 at bats in front of Sammy Sosa in 2003.

[JakeSlater]

Dusty won what with his band of misfits? Nothing.

 

He finished 1st twice in the NL West during his tenure there. The NL West has been the red headed step child division of major league baseball for quite some time now. The Rockies have never been good. The D'Backs were only good when they had Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling. The Padres put together one good team and then have a fire sale immediately afterwards. The Dodgers and Giants are the only two teams that spend any significant money in that division. So, for 2 first place finishes in 10 years in San Fran is really not that strong of a resume.

 

And his band of misfits featured more than just Jeff Kent and Barry Bonds. Ellis Burks, Will Clark, Robbie Thompson, Bill Mueller, Jason Schmidt, Livan Hernandez, Rob Nen, Rod Beck, JT Snow, Matt Williams, etc..

 

I'll go conservative and compare the 1999 team instead of the 2000 team. The 1999 Giants team that won 85 games finished the year with a .352 team OBP and scored 872 runs. What happened? The Cubs scored 703 last year. When did Dusty transform into an aggressive approach?

 

The 1999 Giants drew 696 walks.

The 2000 Giants drew 709.

 

The 2005 Cubs drew 419 walks. 419

 

Dusty may not have had all star teams while he was in San Fran, but he clearly had better teams than most of the other teams in that division.

 

If you like Dusty, I'm cool with that. Why must you convince me that I need to like Dusty? You'll have a tougher time convincing me to support Dusty than you would to get me to eat a plate of lima beans, and I absolutely cannot stand lima beans.

 

I believe Perez and Macias hit at the top of the order together more than just once, also.

[/b]

 

And if you don't like Dusty, I'm more than cool with that. He has supporters and he has haters, like any other manager.

 

But for most people to say he's a horrible manager with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, especially with his career record, is flat out blind hatred in the nth degree.

 

I'm sorry, there is absolutely no such thing as winning DESPITE a manager. Dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

And the Patterson/Neifi experiment wasn't the dumbest move by Dusty. They hit like .240 with those two at 1-2, with Neifi being the majority of that .240, and went 16-16 with those two at 1-2. The dumbest dumbest dumbest 1-2 was Hairston/Patterson. Cubs went 1-11 and hit .140 with those two at 1-2.

[frostwyrm]

And the Patterson/Neifi experiment wasn't the dumbest move by Dusty. They hit like .240 with those two at 1-2, with Neifi being the majority of that .240, and went 16-16 with those two at 1-2.

 

That just leads me to believe the Cubs could have gone 20-12 in those games with a better lineup.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

And if you don't like Dusty, I'm more than cool with that. He has supporters and he has haters, like any other manager.

 

But for most people to say he's a horrible manager with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, especially with his career record, is flat out blind hatred in the nth degree.

 

I'm sorry, there is absolutely no such thing as winning DESPITE a manager. Dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

And the Patterson/Neifi experiment wasn't the dumbest move by Dusty. They hit like .240 with those two at 1-2, with Neifi being the majority of that .240, and went 16-16 with those two at 1-2. The dumbest dumbest dumbest 1-2 was Hairston/Patterson. Cubs went 1-11 and hit .140 with those two at 1-2.

 

There is absolutely such thing as winning despite the manager. It's unfortunate for those who hold the position, but managers can't do a whole lot to help a team. They can do plenty to handicap, but outside of instruction(which a manager doesn't do a whole lot of anyways), there's very little they can do. If Dusty starts 9 pitchers in the lineup and we win 1-0 because Zambrano went the distance and hit a home run, I'd say we won in spite of the manager's foolishness. The same thing applies to a much lesser degree when managers do stupid things like ignore L/R splits or OBP, or favor some players over another without valid reason.

 

Also, evaluating a combination of 2 hitters by W/L record says nothing. Comparing Neifi/Patterson and Hairston/Patterson is easy, it's simply Hairston v. Neifi. And offensively there's no contest, Hairston is the far superior hitter, and much better suited to hit at the top of the lineup.

[JakeSlater]

And it very well could've been Patterson handicapping both Neifi and Hairston at the top, who knows. With Neifi and Corey at 1-2, the combo hit .240, which means Neifi HAD to have hit somewhere in the .290-.300 range for that to happen.

 

I'm scared for Hairston to be #2 because he was terrible at it last year.

 

Problem is that Dusty can be blamed for stupidity, but he has to be lauded for good moves too. You cannot have the cake and eat it too. Dusty makes good moves too, no matter what bashers say.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

And it very well could've been Patterson handicapping both Neifi and Hairston at the top, who knows. With Neifi and Corey at 1-2, the combo hit .240, which means Neifi HAD to have hit somewhere in the .290-.300 range for that to happen.

 

I'm scared for Hairston to be #2 because he was terrible at it last year.

 

Problem is that Dusty can be blamed for stupidity, but he has to be lauded for good moves too. You cannot have the cake and eat it too. Dusty makes good moves too, no matter what bashers say.

 

What are the good moves that he makes? Putting his team in the best position is what he's supposed to do, anything less than that is him hurting the team. That's why the manager can do little to help and a lot to hurt.

[BigbadB]

And it very well could've been Patterson handicapping both Neifi and Hairston at the top, who knows. With Neifi and Corey at 1-2, the combo hit .240, which means Neifi HAD to have hit somewhere in the .290-.300 range for that to happen.

 

I'm scared for Hairston to be #2 because he was terrible at it last year.

 

Problem is that Dusty can be blamed for stupidity, but he has to be lauded for good moves too. You cannot have the cake and eat it too. Dusty makes good moves too, no matter what bashers say.

 

Hendry is to blame for a lot of Baker's shortcomings. Unfortunately, you have to Dusty proof the roster to keep Dusty from making boneheaded decisions. How for example?

 

#1. All lefty bullpen guys must be proficient at getting left handed hitters out.

 

#2. Add only players who provide respectable OBP.

 

So, I don't lay all of my issues with Dusty on just Dusty. Hendry gave him Rey Ordonez. Hendry gave him Neifi Perez. Hendry gave him Enrique Wilson. Hendry gave him Jose Hernandez. Hendry gave him Lenny Harris. Hendry gave him Damian Jackson. Hendry gave him an unproven rookie (Dubois) and a mediocre veteran (Hollandsworth) to compete for an outfield job.

[frostwyrm]

Dusty can't do math. In a Score interview not too long ago he talked about what he had thought Hollandsworth could do for a full season based on a "half season" of at bats in the previous year. Somebody should have let Dusty know that 167 plate appearances is not one half, but rather one quarter of a season for an everyday player.

[XZero771679666304]

Dusty makes good moves too, no matter what bashers say.

 

Mane some. And when you do, let's count up the number of bad moves you can think of, and see what the ratio is. If the ratio is even 1:3 good moves to bad, I'd be shocked.

 

There is a reason Dusty Baker is a punch line in a great many circles. I have been watching Cubs Baseball for a Long time, and I have to go back to Jim Essian to recall another manager as inept as Dusty.

[Soul]

And it very well could've been Patterson handicapping both Neifi and Hairston at the top, who knows. With Neifi and Corey at 1-2, the combo hit .240, which means Neifi HAD to have hit somewhere in the .290-.300 range for that to happen.

 

I'm scared for Hairston to be #2 because he was terrible at it last year.

 

Problem is that Dusty can be blamed for stupidity, but he has to be lauded for good moves too. You cannot have the cake and eat it too. Dusty makes good moves too, no matter what bashers say.

 

That's like saying a thief must be credited for all those times he decided not to steal.

 

A manager at the major league level is expected to make good moves---even the *right* move, if you will---all the time. We can credit Dusty for his good moves if we want, but the bottom line is, he isn't making enough of them. Not for this level of baseball.

 

This thread started out as a comparison between Dusty and Tony, so I will fall back once again on that comparison. Tony makes a higher percentage of good moves than Dusty does.