Levine: Dusty won't get extension until after season...

[SouthSideRyan]

Pitcher abuse for Weaver?

 

Sitting around for the 3 run homer for Baylor?? How many times did he bunt in the 1st inning?

 

The correct answer is every [expletive] GAME

[srbin84]

Pitcher abuse for Weaver?

 

Sitting around for the 3 run homer for Baylor?? How many times did he bunt in the 1st inning?

 

The correct answer is every [expletive] GAME

 

Flanagan and Palmer missed about a combined 80 starts under him and Steve Stone's career ended at 33.

 

The Cubs led the NL in homers in 2002.

[CubinNY]

Pitcher abuse for Weaver?

 

Sitting around for the 3 run homer for Baylor?? How many times did he bunt in the 1st inning?

 

The correct answer is every [expletive] GAME

 

Flanagan and Palmer missed about a combined 80 starts under him and Steve Stone's career ended at 33.

 

The Cubs led the NL in homers in 2002.

 

Baylor came up with Baltimore, but I don't think he is a disciple of Weaver. He spent most of his career in California and NY (Yankees).

 

Under Weaver, Flanagan and Palmer also pitched into their late 30s early 40s.

 

Steve Stone was never a good pticher. He had one good year in 1980 (he did throw 250 innings though).

 

Weaver demanded that his pitchers throw strikes. If they didn't they didn't stay in Baltimore. Throwing strikes, what a concept. And very un-Cub like.

[Guest]

Look at the guys who were available then and who they were disciples of (i.e. Ned Yost-Bobby Cox), etc.

 

Don Baylor was hitting coach for Cox before getting hired. I can't remember who else was considered for the job around Baylor's hire(other than Gardenhire who I'm iffy on), but the Dusty hiring had no retreads talked about/interviewed IIRC.

 

Baylor is a disciple of Earl Weaver....very Cub like philosophy minus the good the players.

Baylor was most decidedly not a disciple of Earl Weaver. Nice try, though.

[srbin84]

Look at the guys who were available then and who they were disciples of (i.e. Ned Yost-Bobby Cox), etc.

 

Don Baylor was hitting coach for Cox before getting hired. I can't remember who else was considered for the job around Baylor's hire(other than Gardenhire who I'm iffy on), but the Dusty hiring had no retreads talked about/interviewed IIRC.

 

Baylor is a disciple of Earl Weaver....very Cub like philosophy minus the good the players.

Baylor was most decidedly not a disciple of Earl Weaver. Nice try, though.

 

The Cubs offense was based off of hitting home runs under Baylor, and like Weaver, he abused his pitchers. He brought Lieber back from a long rain delay and that eventually caused him to have a serious injury. If you were trying to dispute those two comparisons I made between the two, you haven't done it yet.

[Guest]

Look at the guys who were available then and who they were disciples of (i.e. Ned Yost-Bobby Cox), etc.

 

Don Baylor was hitting coach for Cox before getting hired. I can't remember who else was considered for the job around Baylor's hire(other than Gardenhire who I'm iffy on), but the Dusty hiring had no retreads talked about/interviewed IIRC.

 

Baylor is a disciple of Earl Weaver....very Cub like philosophy minus the good the players.

Baylor was most decidedly not a disciple of Earl Weaver. Nice try, though.

 

The Cubs offense was based off of hitting home runs under Baylor, and like Weaver, he abused his pitchers. He brought Lieber back from a long rain delay and that eventually caused him to have a serious injury. If you were trying to dispute those two comparisons I made between the two, you haven't done it yet.

Good gravy, man. You are asking me to disprove something that you haven't come close to establishing yet. Here's a couple differences off the top of my head:

 

1) Weaver hated bunting and wasting outs. Baylor teams regularly led the league -- even when he managed Colorado. He was also a big proponent of hitting and running and all the other useless crap that managers do to make themselves feel worthwhile.

 

2) Weaver believed in breaking pitchers into the majors by having them serve as relievers for a while first. He thought it was a lower-stress way for them to learn how to get big league hitters out. Baylor? not so much.

 

To address your points:

 

Baylor's teams hit a lot of homeruns because that's how the teams were built, not because he had them waiting around for the three run home run.

 

Weaver actually did a fairly good job of keeping pitchers healthy. He managed in a different era, though, and his pitcher usage (and all pitcher usage from that era) looks extreme only when viewed through the lens of today's patterns.

[BigbadB]

Can you provide examples of how Weaver abused his pitchers. Palmer and Flanagan weren't throwing anymore innings than any other pitcher in the league during that time. Bob Gibson, Fergie Jenkins, Steve Carlton, Juan Marichal, Nolan Ryan, etc....

[srbin84]

I know Weaver broke guys in as relievers. Personally, I think that is a bad tactic. As far as him abusing pitchers, it is an opinion based only on the fact that his guys missed a lot of starts and Weaver still advocates the use of a four man rotation today.

[Guest]

I know Weaver broke guys in as relievers. Personally, I think that is a bad tactic. As far as him abusing pitchers, it is an opinion based only on the fact that his guys missed a lot of starts and Weaver still advocates the use of a four man rotation today.

What, I take the time to answer your challenge and this is the best you can come up with? Anecdotal crap?

 

I hate wasting my time like that.

 

Prove that Weaver's staffs missed more time than any other contemporary staff and I'll agree that he abused his pitchers. Tell me how Baylor is more repsonsible for the home run reliance than the combination of the team composition and the fact that the Cubs play in a park that favored home runs at that time and I'll grant you that point.

 

Otherwise, stop challenging me to prove my side of the argument.

[Guest]

Gee, just did a little research...

 

In 2001, Baylor's last full season as manager, the Cubs finished all of eighth in HR's. I haven't been able to find their ranking on sacrifices yet, but I'll bet it was much higher than eighth.

 

Yeah, that's some Earl Weaver baseball right there.

[CubinNY]

Gee, just did a little research...

 

In 2001, Baylor's last full season as manager, the Cubs finished all of eighth in HR's. I haven't been able to find their ranking on sacrifices yet, but I'll bet it was much higher than eighth.

 

Yeah, that's some Earl Weaver baseball right there.

 

Easy Tim. You don't post here enough anymore and I hate to see you waste them.

 

Don Baylor is to Earl Weaver

 

As

 

Don Knotts is to Arnold Swatzanigar

[BigbadB]

Don Knotts was never a governor? Who knew?

[srbin84]

You can see the about 3 or 4 seasons each where they missed double digit starts. Stone's career ended at an early age after a huge innings season. None had the longevity of a Jenkins or Gibson. Maybe it's just a coincidence.

 

Palmer

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/palmeji01.shtml

 

Flanagan

http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/flanami01.shtml

 

Stone

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/stonest01.shtml

[Banedon]

You can see the about 3 or 4 seasons each where they missed double digit starts. Stone's career ended at an early age after a huge innings season. None had the longevity of a Jenkins or Gibson. Maybe it's just a coincidence.

 

Palmer

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/palmeji01.shtml

 

Flanagan

http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/flanami01.shtml

 

Stone

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/stonest01.shtml

 

Maybe they were just soft.

[Guest]

You can see the about 3 or 4 seasons each where they missed double digit starts. Stone's career ended at an early age after a huge innings season. None had the longevity of a Jenkins or Gibson. Maybe it's just a coincidence.

 

Palmer

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/palmeji01.shtml

 

Flanagan

http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/flanami01.shtml

 

Stone

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/stonest01.shtml

So you proof is that the Orioles pitchers were less durable than a couple of the most durable pitchers of all time? Gee, I guess any team that doesn't have a bunch of guys pitch into their 40's must have an abusive manager. The fact that two pitchers each had seasons where they missed double digit starts is entirely normal across a pitcher's career and it is far easier to find examples of pitchers who do than don't.

 

Here's an idea: If you are going to blame weaver for being abusive, why don't you try to separate the manager's input here. What did Weaver specifically do (again, that his contemporaries didn't) to cause his pitchers problems?

[BigbadB]

You can see the about 3 or 4 seasons each where they missed double digit starts. Stone's career ended at an early age after a huge innings season. None had the longevity of a Jenkins or Gibson. Maybe it's just a coincidence.

 

Palmer

http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/palmeji01.shtml

 

Flanagan

http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/flanami01.shtml

 

Stone

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/stonest01.shtml

 

I was always under the impression that Steve Stone always blamed himself for his career being cut short, and that was because he threw curve balls all season long.

 

As far as Flanagan and Palmer are concerned, I don't know enough to comment. I will say that I enjoyed watching Earl Weaver's offense and I did not enjoy watching Baylor's offense.

[CubinNY]

I was always under the impression that Steve Stone always blamed himself for his career being cut short, and that was because he threw curve balls all season long.

 

Stone always blamed pitching in Candlestick Park for his shortened pitching career. Because of the weather he always overthrew and had bad mechanics which resluted in arm troubles, which resulted from him throwing in the mid 90s to the high 80s. That is one of the reasons he is so harsh on Wood. He doesn't want Wood to end up like him.

 

I don't know how anyone can claim pitcher abuse by citng two ptichers who either pitched until they were 40 (Flanagan) or 38 (Palmer).

 

Baylor's use of Leiber wasn't abuse as much as it was neglagence. Aside from that incident, I've never seen a pticher go out after a long rain dey on a cold day.

[Guest]

Gee, just did a little research...

 

In 2001, Baylor's last full season as manager, the Cubs finished all of eighth in HR's. I haven't been able to find their ranking on sacrifices yet, but I'll bet it was much higher than eighth.

 

Yeah, that's some Earl Weaver baseball right there.

In 2000 (Baylor's first full season as manager) the Cubs sacrificed 89 times, most in the majors. In 2001 they sacrficed 117 times. To put that number in perspective, the next closest team was St. Louis with 83 sacrifices. Saying Baylor loved the sac bunt is a huge understatement.

 

During Weaver's tenure with the Orioles (1969-1982) MLB teams averaged about 70 sacrifices a year. The Orioles averaged 57 over the same period.

[Guest]

Gee, just did a little research...

 

In 2001, Baylor's last full season as manager, the Cubs finished all of eighth in HR's. I haven't been able to find their ranking on sacrifices yet, but I'll bet it was much higher than eighth.

 

Yeah, that's some Earl Weaver baseball right there.

In 2000 (Baylor's first full season as manager) the Cubs sacrificed 89 times, most in the majors. In 2001 they sacrficed 117 times. To put that number in perspective, the next closest team was St. Louis with 83 sacrifices. Saying Baylor loved the sac bunt is a huge understatement.

 

During Weaver's tenure with the Orioles (1969-1982) MLB teams averaged about 70 sacrifices a year. The Orioles averaged 57 over the same period.

Gracias, amigo.

[BigbadB]

In 2000 (Baylor's first full season as manager) the Cubs sacrificed 89 times, most in the majors. In 2001 they sacrficed 117 times. To put that number in perspective, the next closest team was St. Louis with 83 sacrifices. Saying Baylor loved the sac bunt is a huge understatement.

 

During Weaver's tenure with the Orioles (1969-1982) MLB teams averaged about 70 sacrifices a year. The Orioles averaged 57 over the same period.

 

Couple that in with the fact that small ball should have been more prominent when Weaver was a manager, and station to station long ball was more prominent while Baylor was managing, and it taints those numbers even more.

 

Though the Baltimore offense was hardly a weak hitting team.

[srbin84]

Well, it was combination of things then because the Cubs still led the league in homers.

[Guest]

Well, it was combination of things then because the Cubs still led the league in homers.

Wow, I hate arguing with people who don't read. Let me put this in a bigger font...

 

The Cubs ranked 8th in HR in 2001 under Baylor

 

Here's the proof.

 

 Tm    R/G    R    G    AB    H    2B   3B  HR   BB    SO    BA   OBP   SLG   SB   CS  OPS+hmR/G rdR/G
+---+-----+-----+----+-----+-----+----+---+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+-----+-----+
COL  5.70   923  162  5690  1663  324  61  213  511  1027  .292  .354  .483  132   54 102  6.84  4.56
HOU  5.23   847  162  5528  1500  313  29  208  581  1119  .271  .347  .451   64   49 108  5.43  5.02
ARI  5.05   818  162  5595  1494  284  35  208  587  1052  .267  .341  .442   71   38 103  5.22  4.88
STL  5.02   814  162  5450  1469  274  32  199  529  1089  .270  .339  .441   91   35 107  5.40  4.64
SFG  4.93   799  162  5612  1493  304  40  235  625  1090  .266  .342  .460   57   42 119  4.35  5.52
SDP  4.87   789  162  5482  1379  273  26  161  678  1273  .252  .336  .399  129   44 103  4.04  5.70
CHC  4.80   777  162  5406  1409  268  32  194  577  1077  .261  .336  .430   67   36 106  4.85  4.74
LAD  4.68   758  162  5493  1399  264  27  206  519  1062  .255  .323  .425   89   42 107  4.07  5.28
PHI  4.60   746  162  5497  1431  295  29  164  551  1125  .260  .329  .414  153   47  97  4.64  4.57
FLA  4.58   742  162  5542  1461  325  30  166  470  1145  .264  .326  .423   89   40 102  4.74  4.43
MIL  4.57   740  162  5488  1378  273  30  209  488  1399  .251  .319  .426   66   36  96  4.62  4.52
CIN  4.54   735  162  5583  1464  304  22  176  468  1172  .262  .324  .419  103   54  97  4.28  4.79
ATL  4.50   729  162  5498  1432  263  24  174  493  1039  .260  .324  .412   85   46  94  4.37  4.63
MON  4.14   670  162  5379  1361  320  28  131  478  1071  .253  .319  .396  101   51  83  4.43  3.84
PIT  4.06   657  162  5398  1333  256  25  161  467  1106  .247  .313  .393   93   73  87  4.22  3.89
NYM  3.96   642  162  5459  1361  273  18  147  545  1062  .249  .323  .387   66   48  96  3.67  4.26
+---+-----+-----+----+-----+-----+----+---+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+-----+-----+
Tot  4.70 12186 2592 88100 23027 4613 488 2952 8567 17908  .261  .331  .425 1456  735

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Well, it was combination of things then because the Cubs still led the league in homers.

Wow, I hate arguing with people who don't read. Let me put this in a bigger font...

 

He's technically right, they led the NL in 2002. They were 7th in the NL in 2000.

[Guest]

Well, it was combination of things then because the Cubs still led the league in homers.

Wow, I hate arguing with people who don't read. Let me put this in a bigger font...

 

He's technically right, they led the NL in 2002. They were 7th in the NL in 2000.

In 2002, Baylor was fired halfway through the year. I can't give him credit for any accomplishment in a year he didn't fully manage.

[RynoRules]

Well, it was combination of things then because the Cubs still led the league in homers.

Wow, I hate arguing with people who don't read. Let me put this in a bigger font...

 

He's technically right, they led the NL in 2002. They were 7th in the NL in 2000.

In 2002, Baylor was fired halfway through the year. I can't give him credit for any accomplishment in a year he didn't fully manage.

 

Fair point, but that was a team built to Baylor's specs (at least initially), no?