Old anti-Dusty rant from 2003

[cheapseats]

I was just digging around Baseball Prospectus (for subscribers only), and I came across a great article written the day after the Cubs won game 2 of the LCS vs the Marlins in 2003.

 

The Cubs had an 8-0 lead after the 5th inning, but Dusty sent Prior back out to pitch the 6th inning anyway. Prior ended up throwing 116 pitches.

 

From the BP article by Joe Sheehan:

 

Mark Prior has pitched more this year than he ever had in any season in his life. Over the past six weeks, he's made nearly 1,000 pitches, all of them in pressure situations. How hard would it have been to give him 40 pitches off? The Cubs had an 11-0 lead with 12 outs to go...My god, if Baker isn't going to use Juan Cruz in a tie game in the 11th inning, and he isn't going to use him with a 11-run lead in the sixth inning, why the hell is Cruz on the roster? ...

 

I've had it with Dusty Baker and his halo. He's a mediocrity who was blessed with Barry Bonds in his first job and somehow managed to make two division titles and a Wild Card in 10 years seem like an accomplishment. He showed up in Chicago just as two excellent young pitchers were prepared to start their first full seasons, managed a 90-win team all the way to 88 wins, and had the good fortune to be up against Jimy Williams and Tony La Russa. Baker cost the Cubs maybe 60 runs on offense this year because he cared more about forcing his preferred plate approach on good young hitters than on developing them, and 30 more by showing unwarranted loyalty to the worst starting pitcher in the league. He'll cost them more going forward as the star versions of Prior and Carlos Zambrano he managed this year turn into something less pleasant as a result of his heavy hand.

 

Baker made major mistakes with this team, and it made the playoffs not because he's a genius, but because he inherited enough talent that even he couldn't screw it up. The Teflon coating he carries around is ridiculous, and an example of just how far the media will go to avoid doing actual analysis when given the option to tell a good story.

 

...There was no good reason, not even a bad reason, for Mark Prior to throw 116 pitches last night. I truly hope his career doesn't go the way of Jaret Wright's, but if it does, remember last night's game. Extra effort in pursuit of a championship is justifiable. Last night was just a joke.

 

There's a lot more to the article than that, but it was intriguing to me that there have been people critical of a few things that we at NSBB have been critical of recently, namely:

 

1) Cubs poor approach at the plate and inability to develop young hitters

2) Baker stubbornly sticking with poor starting veteran pitchers

3) Baker having starters throw more pitches than necessary when games are already decided

4) Dusty letting guys rot in the bullpen

 

Even when the Cubs were winning, some people were seeing what it took me a couple of years to see.

[ToupeeOnFire]

Pick up an old Bill James Baseball Abstract from the 1980s and you will find some of the same criticisms that you see now (well, except for the stuff about a manager abusing the arms of young, incredibly gifted pitchers -- that's a recent phenomenon).

 

Amazing how little has changed.

[frostwyrm]

if Baker isn't going to use Juan Cruz . . . with a 11-run lead in the sixth inning, why the hell is Cruz on the roster? ...

Ha, I remember writing something just like that on message boards back then.

[minnesotacubsfan]

if Baker isn't going to use Juan Cruz . . . with a 11-run lead in the sixth inning, why the hell is Cruz on the roster? ...

Ha, I remember writing something just like that on message boards back then.

 

suuuuuuure you do.....

 

:wink:

[FergieJ31]

Sheehan is right of course, and it's even worse than he described: Prior pitched the 7th too.

 

I was at that game. When the Cubs went up 11-0 everyone around me, the whole section, was surprised to see Prior pitch the 6th. And we were absolutely STUNNED to see him take the mound in the top of the 7th with a 12-2 cushion.

 

Dusty's excuse the next day?

 

"I didn't see McKeon giving up and giving his [starters] a rest, so I wasn't about to. Those guys can put up a lot of runs in a hurry, we saw that in game 1."

[frostwyrm]

Sheehan is right of course, and it's even worse than he described: Prior pitched the 7th too. I was at that game. When the Cubs went up 11-0 everyone around me, the whole section, was surprised to see Prior come out for the 6th. And we were absolutely STUNNED to see him come out in the 7th with a 12-2 cushion. Dusty's excuse the next day?

 

"I didn't see McKeon giving up and giving his [starters] a rest, so I wasn't about to. Those guys can put up a lot of runs in a hurry, we saw that in game 1."

 

Dusty also mentioned that he had Prior on a pitch count of 115. Apparently computing the significance of the 11 run lead re Prior's pitch count was too taxing for Dusty's brain.

[goonys evil twin]

From the BP article by Joe Sheehan:

 

I've had it with Dusty Baker and his halo. He's a mediocrity who was blessed with Barry Bonds in his first job and somehow managed to make two division titles and a Wild Card in 10 years seem like an accomplishment.

 

Amen.

[flynnhicks03]

"and 30 more by showing unwarranted loyalty to the worst starting pitcher in the league"

 

Refresh my memory, who is he referring to here?

[badger1679666666]

"and 30 more by showing unwarranted loyalty to the worst starting pitcher in the league"

 

Refresh my memory, who is he referring to here?

 

Estes?

[CubColtPacer]

"and 30 more by showing unwarranted loyalty to the worst starting pitcher in the league"

 

Refresh my memory, who is he referring to here?

 

I believe he is referring to Shawn Estes in that quote.

[cheapseats]

"and 30 more by showing unwarranted loyalty to the worst starting pitcher in the league"

 

Refresh my memory, who is he referring to here?

 

I believe he is referring to Shawn Estes in that quote.

 

Yep. And by Baseball Prospectus's VORP stat, Shawn Estes really was the worst pitcher in all of baseball in 2003, so Sheehan's statement isn't just hyperbole.

 

Estes sucked, and Baker sent him to the mound time after time.

 

The #7 worst pitcher in 2003 by VORP (out of 676 players who pitched that year): Glendon Rusch.

 

It's good to see Hendry has improved the pitching staff during his tenure. :wink:

[goonys evil twin]

"and 30 more by showing unwarranted loyalty to the worst starting pitcher in the league"

 

Refresh my memory, who is he referring to here?

 

I believe he is referring to Shawn Estes in that quote.

 

Yep. And by Baseball Prospectus's VORP stat, Shawn Estes really was the worst pitcher in all of baseball in 2003, so Sheehan's statement isn't just hyperbole.

 

Estes sucked, and Baker sent him to the mound time after time.

 

The #7 worst pitcher in 2003 by VORP (out of 676 players who pitched that year): Glendon Rusch.

 

It's good to see Hendry has improved the pitching staff during his tenure. :wink:

 

And yet some people will credit him for that late season win, when in fact, if he chose just about any other option the rest of the year, they wouldn't have needed that win.

[thedaymen]

"and 30 more by showing unwarranted loyalty to the worst starting pitcher in the league"

 

Refresh my memory, who is he referring to here?

 

I believe he is referring to Shawn Estes in that quote.

 

Yep. And by Baseball Prospectus's VORP stat, Shawn Estes really was the worst pitcher in all of baseball in 2003, so Sheehan's statement isn't just hyperbole.

 

Estes sucked, and Baker sent him to the mound time after time.

 

The #7 worst pitcher in 2003 by VORP (out of 676 players who pitched that year): Glendon Rusch.

 

It's good to see Hendry has improved the pitching staff during his tenure. :wink:

 

If I remember correctly Estes threw a shotout that last week of the season on the same day Oswalt was pitching for the Astros and everyone was giving the day to them. For some reason the Stros lost and Cubs won.

 

Not saying Shawn is a good pitcher, I just remember everyone partying when that matchup flipped.

[CubsBullsBears]

I think the series was lost in game 2 of the NLCS by letting Prior throw 120 pitches w/ a 10-run lead. Dam it, Dusty.

[Andy]

I'd like to admit that it took me until about mid-2005 before realizing the stupidity of Baker. Spot-on criticisms by BP.

[JGalt73]

I still think my longtime sig is the best BP prediction.

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

I still think my longtime sig is the best BP prediction.

 

By chance, do you have the Sheehan article that your sig quote comes from?

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I think the series was lost in game 2 of the NLCS by letting Prior throw 120 pitches w/ a 10-run lead. Dam it, Dusty.

 

Game 1. Who shall we pitch to...Mike Lowell or Lenny Harris?

 

](*,)

[illiniguy]

I think the series was lost in game 2 of the NLCS by letting Prior throw 120 pitches w/ a 10-run lead. Dam it, Dusty.

 

Game 1. Who shall we pitch to...Mike Lowell or Lenny Harris?

 

](*,)

Ah well going to and probably winning the World Series wan't that important yet. That was only year one of Dusty's plan. With our young staff and great GM we will soon be able to claim multiple Titles.

[Chris]

I think the series was lost in game 2 of the NLCS by letting Prior throw 120 pitches w/ a 10-run lead. Dam it, Dusty.

 

Game 1. Who shall we pitch to...Mike Lowell or Lenny Harris?

 

](*,)

 

Ouch.

[soccer10k]

"and 30 more by showing unwarranted loyalty to the worst starting pitcher in the league"

 

Refresh my memory, who is he referring to here?

 

I believe he is referring to Shawn Estes in that quote.

 

Yep. And by Baseball Prospectus's VORP stat, Shawn Estes really was the worst pitcher in all of baseball in 2003, so Sheehan's statement isn't just hyperbole.

 

Estes sucked, and Baker sent him to the mound time after time.

 

The #7 worst pitcher in 2003 by VORP (out of 676 players who pitched that year): Glendon Rusch.

 

It's good to see Hendry has improved the pitching staff during his tenure. :wink:

 

If I remember correctly Estes threw a shotout that last week of the season on the same day Oswalt was pitching for the Astros and everyone was giving the day to them. For some reason the Stros lost and Cubs won.

 

Not saying Shawn is a good pitcher, I just remember everyone partying when that matchup flipped.

 

Needle, meet haystack.

[soccer10k]

That series was lost in Game 6 and only Game 6. Not the Lowell Game 1 home run because you don't walk the leadoff hitter in an extra inning tie game unless he's an MVP player (re: Bonds circa 2001ish or David Ortiz now), which Lowell isn't. By doing so you are just asking to lose the game. Look at the way that inning went:

 

M Lowell homered to center.

J Pierre grounded out to second.

A Alfonseca relieved M Guthrie.

L Castillo reached on infield single to shortstop.

L Castillo stole second.

I Rodriguez intentionally walked.

D Lee walked, L Castillo to third, I Rodriguez to second.

M Cabrera lined into double play, shortstop to second, I Rodriguez doubled off second.

 

Ok. So say they walk Lowell. Pierre likely bunts him over to second. Castillo would still reach on a single to the shortstop which puts 1st and 2nd with 1 out. Then you have to pitch to Pudge. How do you know he doesn't come through like he did the whole postseason? You don't. The Cubs didn't lose the series with this game.

 

The Cubs didn't lose the series with Prior throwing 116 pitches in Game 2. Why would that one game have any effect on him in Game 6 especially considering he had 5 DAYS OFF between Games 2 and 6. That's one more day off than he was used to having. Wouldn't you think the 113 pitches per start Prior averaged over the course of the whole season have the bigger effect on his arm? He only threw 3 more pitches than his season average. Now if Prior had averaged 90 pitches per start during the year and threw 120 in Game 2, then you might have an argument. I'm not saying that Dusty was right in leaving him in, and I think he definately should have taken him out considering the circumstances. But to say that Game 2 killed Prior's arm is ludicrous.

 

Beckett shut down the Cubs in Game 5 and they didn't have a chance to win that game. He pitched unbelievably well at home in Florida so the Cubs didn't lose that game, the Marlins won it.

 

Game 6 was what lost the Cubs the series. They had numerous opportunities to make things right. Whether that means Gonzalez fielding that ball cleanly or Baker having a reliever ready it doesn't matter. The Cubs lost the 2003 NLCS in Game 6.

 

The Cubs didn't have a chance in Game 7. Sure Kerry Wood hit the homer that electrified Wrigley and tied the game. Alou homered to give the Cubs the lead. But the Game 7 loss was inevitable. Sure, theoretically the Cubs could have pulled the series out and managed a stunning comeback the day after an unbelievable loss. But that doesn't happen.

 

The bottom line is that the Cubs lost the 2003 NLCS in Game 6 and the Marlins won the NLCS in Game 7.

[illiniguy]

That series was lost in Game 6 and only Game 6. Not the Lowell Game 1 home run because you don't walk the leadoff hitter in an extra inning tie game unless he's an MVP player (re: Bonds circa 2001ish or David Ortiz now), which Lowell isn't. By doing so you are just asking to lose the game. Look at the way that inning went:

 

M Lowell homered to center.

J Pierre grounded out to second.

A Alfonseca relieved M Guthrie.

L Castillo reached on infield single to shortstop.

L Castillo stole second.

I Rodriguez intentionally walked.

D Lee walked, L Castillo to third, I Rodriguez to second.

M Cabrera lined into double play, shortstop to second, I Rodriguez doubled off second.

 

Ok. So say they walk Lowell. Pierre likely bunts him over to second. Castillo would still reach on a single to the shortstop which puts 1st and 2nd with 1 out. Then you have to pitch to Pudge. How do you know he doesn't come through like he did the whole postseason? You don't. The Cubs didn't lose the series with this game.

 

The Cubs didn't lose the series with Prior throwing 116 pitches in Game 2. Why would that one game have any effect on him in Game 6 especially considering he had 5 DAYS OFF between Games 2 and 6. That's one more day off than he was used to having. Wouldn't you think the 113 pitches per start Prior averaged over the course of the whole season have the bigger effect on his arm? He only threw 3 more pitches than his season average. Now if Prior had averaged 90 pitches per start during the year and threw 120 in Game 2, then you might have an argument. I'm not saying that Dusty was right in leaving him in, and I think he definately should have taken him out considering the circumstances. But to say that Game 2 killed Prior's arm is ludicrous.

 

Beckett shut down the Cubs in Game 5 and they didn't have a chance to win that game. He pitched unbelievably well at home in Florida so the Cubs didn't lose that game, the Marlins won it.

 

Game 6 was what lost the Cubs the series. They had numerous opportunities to make things right. Whether that means Gonzalez fielding that ball cleanly or Baker having a reliever ready it doesn't matter. The Cubs lost the 2003 NLCS in Game 6.

 

The Cubs didn't have a chance in Game 7. Sure Kerry Wood hit the homer that electrified Wrigley and tied the game. Alou homered to give the Cubs the lead. But the Game 7 loss was inevitable. Sure, theoretically the Cubs could have pulled the series out and managed a stunning comeback the day after an unbelievable loss. But that doesn't happen.

 

The bottom line is that the Cubs lost the 2003 NLCS in Game 6 and the Marlins won the NLCS in Game 7.

If we would have brought in a righty to start the inning McKeon had mentioned he would have used Harris in placee of Lowell. Dusty bringing in a lefty to start the inning which he later mentioned was to keep a check on Lenny. So it was lost in Game 6, but could have been won long before Game 6 even happened.

[JGalt73]

I still think my longtime sig is the best BP prediction.

 

By chance, do you have the Sheehan article that your sig quote comes from?

 

Here it is.

[badger1679666666]

 

Needle, meet haystack.

 

Wouldn't that be blind squirrel, meet acorn?

 

:wink: