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

[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.

 

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

The difference maker in that team leading the league in HR versus the previous years were McGriff and Bellhorn. One could argue that McGriff was a Baylor kind of guy, but Bellhorn really did most of his damage under Kimm. Without Horn's 27 HR at the second base position, the Cubs wouldn't have been near 1st place.

[NCCubFan]

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.

I can give Baylor credit for McGriff hitting 30 HRs for another team. :twisted:

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think it is clear that the only thing Weaver and Baylor had in common was that both were managers of major league teams. Beyond that, the comparisons end. I'm seen nothing beyond vague anecdotal evidence to support any other ascertion.

 

Weaver was the antithesis of winning with small ball. Baylor was the epitome of it.

[Guest]

I think it is clear that the only thing Weaver and Baylor had in common was that both were managers of major league teams. Beyond that, the comparisons end. I'm seen nothing beyond vague anecdotal evidence to support any other ascertion.

 

Weaver was the antithesis of winning with small ball. Baylor was the epitome of it.

Well, Baylor only embraced portions of small ball. He bunted and hit-and-run incessantly. But his teams were regularly near the bottom in steals (again, team composition had a lot to do with that, though).

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think it is clear that the only thing Weaver and Baylor had in common was that both were managers of major league teams. Beyond that, the comparisons end. I'm seen nothing beyond vague anecdotal evidence to support any other ascertion.

 

Weaver was the antithesis of winning with small ball. Baylor was the epitome of it.

Well, Baylor only embraced portions of small ball. He bunted and hit-and-run incessantly. But his teams were regularly near the bottom in steals (again, team composition had a lot to do with that, though).

 

I was being exteme in my statements to make a point. But you are correct. Baylor's Cubs teams didn't steal much, but they sure gave away a lot of outs with sac bunts and hit and runs.

[srbin84]

Bellhorn became a Baylor guy. He just didnt start from opening day because he had like 320 MLB ABs and very, very bad numbers.

[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?

The difference maker in that team leading the league in HR versus the previous years were McGriff and Bellhorn. One could argue that McGriff was a Baylor kind of guy, but Bellhorn really did most of his damage under Kimm. Without Horn's 27 HR at the second base position, the Cubs wouldn't have been near 1st place.

 

I guess I see 'Horn has a "Baylor-type", but that's just me. Its difficult o quantify what a Baylor type is. As you correctly pointed out, his teams had power and lacked plate discipline, yet they bunted like they were the 85' Cards (i.e., powerless). Hard to quantify what Don was trying to do. Guess that's why most of his team stunk.

[BigbadB]

Bellhorn became a Baylor guy. He just didnt start from opening day because he had like 320 MLB ABs and very, very bad numbers.

 

Possibly so. However, neither Baylor or Baker used Bellhorn properly. He excelled as a top of the order hitter under Kimm, and then he excelled as a top of the order hitter under Little at Boston.

 

Baker attempted to turn a .375 OBP guy (mostly from drawing walks) into a bottom of the order RBI guy. But, to make up for it, he's doing the best he can to convert Neifi into a top of the order hitter. :cheers:

 

Weaver's line up featured bashers, but always seemed to have a good lead off guy (Paul Blair, Ken Singleton) to start things off.

[srbin84]

Bellhorn became a Baylor guy. He just didnt start from opening day because he had like 320 MLB ABs and very, very bad numbers.

 

Possibly so. However, neither Baylor or Baker used Bellhorn properly. He excelled as a top of the order hitter under Kimm, and then he excelled as a top of the order hitter under Little at Boston.

 

Baker attempted to turn a .375 OBP guy (mostly from drawing walks) into a bottom of the order RBI guy. But, to make up for it, he's doing the best he can to convert Neifi into a top of the order hitter. :cheers:

 

Weaver's line up featured bashers, but always seemed to have a good lead off guy (Paul Blair, Ken Singleton) to start things off.

 

Well, if anything has been concluded, it's been that Baylor had no idea what he was trying to do.

[srbin84]

Bellhorn became a Baylor guy. He just didnt start from opening day because he had like 320 MLB ABs and very, very bad numbers.

 

Possibly so. However, neither Baylor or Baker used Bellhorn properly. He excelled as a top of the order hitter under Kimm, and then he excelled as a top of the order hitter under Little at Boston.

 

Baker attempted to turn a .375 OBP guy (mostly from drawing walks) into a bottom of the order RBI guy. But, to make up for it, he's doing the best he can to convert Neifi into a top of the order hitter. :cheers:

 

Weaver's line up featured bashers, but always seemed to have a good lead off guy (Paul Blair, Ken Singleton) to start things off.

 

Well, if anything has been concluded, it's been that Baylor had no idea what he was trying to do. I agree that Bellhorn is a good No. 2 hitter though.

[CubinNY]

Well, if anything has been concluded, it's been that Baylor had no idea what he was trying to do.

 

If what you say is true, then Baylor was nothing like Weaver.

[srbin84]

Well, if anything has been concluded, it's been that Baylor had no idea what he was trying to do.

 

If what you say is true, then Baylor was nothing like Weaver.

 

Like him with the home runs, not like him with the sacs.

[Guest]

Well, if anything has been concluded, it's been that Baylor had no idea what he was trying to do.

 

If what you say is true, then Baylor was nothing like Weaver.

 

Like him with the home runs, not like him with the sacs.

Gah.

 

Do me a favor. Baylor was the manager for two full years (2000, 2001). Please tell me the Cubs NL rank in HR those two years and let me know if that's the hallmark of a manager who emphasizes HR. If you don't do that, the please drop it. Baylor is NOTHING like Weaver.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

http://espn.go.com/media/pg2/2001/0907/photo/a_baylor_i.jpg

http://www.birdshit.org/phf-aaek040.jpg

 

Case closed.

[RynoRules]

I dunno - they both appear to favor putting their left hands on the small of their backs...

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Well, if anything has been concluded, it's been that Baylor had no idea what he was trying to do.

 

If what you say is true, then Baylor was nothing like Weaver.

 

Like him with the home runs, not like him with the sacs.

 

Even when it has been proven that Baylor;s teams weren't near the top of the list in terms of HRs? Did you just ignore half the posts in this thread?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Well, if anything has been concluded, it's been that Baylor had no idea what he was trying to do.

 

If what you say is true, then Baylor was nothing like Weaver.

 

Like him with the home runs, not like him with the sacs.

 

Can you please tell me how many games you've watched that Weaver managed? What are your sources of Weaver's managing style? I'm just curious to how much you really know about Weaver.

[srbin84]

Well, if anything has been concluded, it's been that Baylor had no idea what he was trying to do.

 

If what you say is true, then Baylor was nothing like Weaver.

 

Like him with the home runs, not like him with the sacs.

 

Can you please tell me how many games you've watched that Weaver managed? What are your sources of Weaver's managing style? I'm just curious to how much you really know about Weaver.

 

I know more about Weaver than Baylor from reading books and studying his teams. My recollection of Baylor was his last year when we hit a ton of homers and nothing else, leading the league. I should have looked at his first two years stats before I said anything.

[Rob]

Well, if anything has been concluded, it's been that Baylor had no idea what he was trying to do.

 

If what you say is true, then Baylor was nothing like Weaver.

 

Like him with the home runs, not like him with the sacs.

 

Can you please tell me how many games you've watched that Weaver managed? What are your sources of Weaver's managing style? I'm just curious to how much you really know about Weaver.

 

On that note, I highly recommend reading "Weaver on Strategy"

[KatJ]

Well, if anything has been concluded, it's been that Baylor had no idea what he was trying to do.

 

If what you say is true, then Baylor was nothing like Weaver.

 

Like him with the home runs, not like him with the sacs.

 

Can you please tell me how many games you've watched that Weaver managed? What are your sources of Weaver's managing style? I'm just curious to how much you really know about Weaver.

 

On that note, I highly recommend reading "Weaver on Strategy"

 

Is there a chapter on "How to burn out your pitching staff with a three-man rotation"? :-)