Lou Piniella veering into Dusty Baker Territory

[gflore34]

I agree, Izturis should have been taking, in fact, if Wells was missing by as much as I've read (didn't see the game). He should have never swung the bat, chances are Wells would have thrown a ball before throwing two strikes. Even if he K's, a pinch hitter was on deck...

 

That inning was the proverbial "pitcher fighting himself" inning. Wells would throw a first pitch curve to the perfect spot on the outside corner. Or he'd let one fly that ends up looking like a pitch out. He wasn't just nibbling when he walked two guys, he was missing by a wide margin, which is pretty much the only way you can walk the always jumpy Michael Barrett late in a close game. Very high and outside, very low and inside. He was all over the place. I actually got excited thinking there was a good chance he'd throw such a bad pitch that even Izturis couldn't try and swing. To be fair, the DP pitch was probably a strike, but I still think you have to make him throw 2 in that situation.

 

This may be a generalization but, I gotta believe a truly competent hitter would have made Wells throw more pitches.

[gflore34]

if lou had pinch hit Theriot for Izturis, wouldn't the Padres have pulled Wells for Linebrink?

 

Was Linebrink up in the pen? If so, probably however, given the choice, I'd take Theriot vs. Linebrink over Izturis vs. Wells.

[CubColtPacer]

if lou had pinch hit Theriot for Izturis, wouldn't the Padres have pulled Wells for Linebrink?

 

I doubt it-because then the Cubs could have pinch-hit Floyd or Ward for Marshall after Theriot hit. They would have kept Wells in, hope he got Theriot out, and then the Cubs wouldn't have really had a good option for a pinch hitter for Marshall.

[Soul]

I don't know about Lou, but the damn Cubs are starting to suck on a level commensurate with their deepest, darkest Dusty days.

 

That's for freaking sure.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

if lou had pinch hit Theriot for Izturis, wouldn't the Padres have pulled Wells for Linebrink?

 

I doubt it-because then the Cubs could have pinch-hit Floyd or Ward for Marshall after Theriot hit. They would have kept Wells in, hope he got Theriot out, and then the Cubs wouldn't have really had a good option for a pinch hitter for Marshall.

 

they wouldn't have had any MI options left -- I doubt they look at DeRosa to play SS

[swordsman]

I don't know about Lou, but the damn Cubs are starting to suck on a level commensurate with their deepest, darkest Dusty days.

 

That's for freaking sure.

 

This is so true!

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't know about Lou, but the damn Cubs are starting to suck on a level commensurate with their deepest, darkest Dusty days.

 

That's for freaking sure.

 

I honestly don't think it's that bad, but it could get that way if they don't turn things around here quickly. Just as the offense seemed to be stabilizing with some relatively decent consistent run totals, they go back to back with 1 run outputs. There is always going to be a danger of slipping back into that feast or famine thing if they don't start getting regular production out of their most important hitters. I really don't think they can afford to get much further under .500 between now and the all star break. They really need to stop losing series (4 of the last 5) and have to put a stop to the 3 games losing streaks.

[Tracer Bullet]

if lou had pinch hit Theriot for Izturis, wouldn't the Padres have pulled Wells for Linebrink?

 

I doubt it-because then the Cubs could have pinch-hit Floyd or Ward for Marshall after Theriot hit. They would have kept Wells in, hope he got Theriot out, and then the Cubs wouldn't have really had a good option for a pinch hitter for Marshall.

 

they wouldn't have had any MI options left -- I doubt they look at DeRosa to play SS

 

I think CCP was saying Floyd or Ward would PH for Marshall, not PH for Theriot.

[Soul]

I don't know about Lou, but the damn Cubs are starting to suck on a level commensurate with their deepest, darkest Dusty days.

 

That's for freaking sure.

 

I honestly don't think it's that bad, but it could get that way if they don't turn things around here quickly. Just as the offense seemed to be stabilizing with some relatively decent consistent run totals, they go back to back with 1 run outputs. There is always going to be a danger of slipping back into that feast or famine thing if they don't start getting regular production out of their most important hitters. I really don't think they can afford to get much further under .500 between now and the all star break. They really need to stop losing series (4 of the last 5) and have to put a stop to the 3 games losing streaks.

 

Typical Cubs though, so perplexing, manage to stay respectable in league-wide offense and pitching, but still lose somehow.

 

I really wish I had the strength to shut off the TV but I'm a fool and will continue to watch and wrack my brain over it. :?

[CubColtPacer]

if lou had pinch hit Theriot for Izturis, wouldn't the Padres have pulled Wells for Linebrink?

 

I doubt it-because then the Cubs could have pinch-hit Floyd or Ward for Marshall after Theriot hit. They would have kept Wells in, hope he got Theriot out, and then the Cubs wouldn't have really had a good option for a pinch hitter for Marshall.

 

they wouldn't have had any MI options left -- I doubt they look at DeRosa to play SS

 

I think CCP was saying Floyd or Ward would PH for Marshall, not PH for Theriot.

 

Yes, that is what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.

[sunnydoo]

Speaking of ridiculous...

 

Seriously, "storied" managers? I suppose it's accurate in that there are a lot of stories about Lou and his temper and Dusty likes to tell a lot of stories about fishing. But we're not talking Earl Weaver over here.

 

Lets see here Piniella has won 1511 games (18th All Time) and has twice been named Manager of the Year. He also won a World Series. One season he won 116 games with one team and he won 200 games for an awful organization in Florida in 3 years.

 

Dusty has won 1162 games as a manager (38th All Time) and been named Manager of the Year 3 times in 14 seasons. He is one of only 4 NL Managers to have 8 consecutive winning seasons EVER. He also won 1100 ballgames faster than such board icons as Jim Leyland and Mike Hargrove.

 

Former All-Stars? And that's relevant because... Really - the ASG and voting is a joke, but even if they were perennial all stars, does that mean they'd be good managers You want Barry Bonds to come manage this team when he retires b/c he's a player with a great career?

 

Um, lets see 18+ years service in an industry and being recognized for excellence in that industry. Gee what employer wouldnt want that. Do you realize how stupid this remark is?

 

Also plays to the fact that the players realize these arent a couple of guys they pulled off a turnip truck somewhere and that they should immediately respect them. They have been around the block a time or two and have been involved in the game for at least 3 decades.

 

Only thing ridiculous here is your assessment that Piniella and Baker are bad managers. They simply arent.

[seanimal]

Managers = +/- 5 wins/losses

 

GM = difference between 90 wins and 90 losses.

 

You do the math.

[sethuel1]

Speaking of ridiculous...

 

Seriously, "storied" managers? I suppose it's accurate in that there are a lot of stories about Lou and his temper and Dusty likes to tell a lot of stories about fishing. But we're not talking Earl Weaver over here.

 

Lets see here Piniella has won 1511 games (18th All Time) and has twice been named Manager of the Year. He also won a World Series. One season he won 116 games with one team and he won 200 games for an awful organization in Florida in 3 years.

 

Dusty has won 1162 games as a manager (38th All Time) and been named Manager of the Year 3 times in 14 seasons. He is one of only 4 NL Managers to have 8 consecutive winning seasons EVER. He also won 1100 ballgames faster than such board icons as Jim Leyland and Mike Hargrove.

 

Former All-Stars? And that's relevant because... Really - the ASG and voting is a joke, but even if they were perennial all stars, does that mean they'd be good managers You want Barry Bonds to come manage this team when he retires b/c he's a player with a great career?

 

Um, lets see 18+ years service in an industry and being recognized for excellence in that industry. Gee what employer wouldnt want that. Do you realize how stupid this remark is?

 

Also plays to the fact that the players realize these arent a couple of guys they pulled off a turnip truck somewhere and that they should immediately respect them. They have been around the block a time or two and have been involved in the game for at least 3 decades.

 

Only thing ridiculous here is your assessment that Piniella and Baker are bad managers. They simply arent.

 

I know tons of people in tons of different lines of work that are recognized as outstanding performers and are actually giant sacks of crap.

 

These two are good baseball examples.

[Pinktermite]

I find it funny that 45 games into Lou's first season and some people want to roast the guy. What the heck is he supposed to do? He was saddled with the players he has. I've said it before, and so has Spark Anderson: You are a genius some years and an idiot in others. It all depends on your players and a little luck. The Cubs are the Cubs. They are Newton's footnote, they are an enigma and always will be. Those of us that choose to be Cubs fans know this, and continue to love them and hate them all at the same time. Dusty was probably good because he had Barry. Lou was good some years because he had good players. The Cubs suck for clearly definable reasons. It's not because of the manager. Hendry is more to blame than Lou is, if anyone at all can be singled out. Usually problems in life and in baseball are a collective failure, not that of one individual.

[jersey cubs fan]

I find it funny that 45 games into Lou's first season and some people want to roast the guy. What the heck is he supposed to do? He was saddled with the players he has.

 

I don't want to roast him myself. I'm annoyed with some of his tendencies, but I can live with him as manager. The key remains Hendry and the roster.

[sunnydoo]

I know tons of people in tons of different lines of work that are recognized as outstanding performers and are actually giant sacks of crap.

 

I know tons of people in tons of different lines of work that are recognized as sacks of crap (police officers for example) and are actually outstanding performers.

 

These 2 are good baseball examples.

 

Sticking to my story: Hendry, Rothschild, Tribune Management, and Wrigley Field with the lead pipe in the Study.

[Rob]

Lets see here Piniella has won 1511 games (18th All Time) and has twice been named Manager of the Year. He also won a World Series. One season he won 116 games with one team and he won 200 games for an awful organization in Florida in 3 years.

 

Dusty has won 1162 games as a manager (38th All Time) and been named Manager of the Year 3 times in 14 seasons. He is one of only 4 NL Managers to have 8 consecutive winning seasons EVER. He also won 1100 ballgames faster than such board icons as Jim Leyland and Mike Hargrove.

 

Piniella inherited Don Mattingly, Dave Winfield, Willie Randolph, Rickey Henderson, Tommy John, and Ron Guidry in Ney York, and Steinbrenner spent plenty to keep the roster in decent shape. He then caught lightning in a bottle in Cinci, but let's go ahead and give him full credit for that. His other claim to fame is winning 116... but with your roster looking like this:

 

C - Dan Wilson

1B - David Segui

2B - David Bell

3B - Russ Davis

SS - Alex Rodriguez

LF - Brian Hunter

CF - Ken Griffey Jr.

RF - Jay Buhner

DH - Edgar Martinez

 

With Raul Ibanez, John Mabry, and Carlos Guillen on your bench, you should be able to win more than the 79 games he won in 1999. Think about it. ARod, Griffey, and Edgar while all were extremely productive, and Lou can't manage a winning record? Even Dusty managed winning records when all he had was Barry Bonds.

 

Speaking of Dusty, let's agree right now that Manager of the Year means jack squat. The BBWAA doesn't know a bloody thing about baseball, which they've proven time and time again with their HOF balloting. If they don't recognize Ron Santo and Bert Blylevin as great, they don't know what great managing would be either. Also, board icons such as Jim Leyland and Mike Hargrove? Really? I've seen some people lament that Jim Leyland was able to spark a turnaround in Detroit (a dubious claim at best) while the Cubs can't seem to turn it around, but I've never seen anybody say anything positive about Mike Hargrove ever on this board. Not once.

 

Now if you wanted to try and pull some numbers that make them better than Earl Weaver, feel free to try.

 

Former All-Stars? And that's relevant because... Really - the ASG and voting is a joke, but even if they were perennial all stars, does that mean they'd be good managers You want Barry Bonds to come manage this team when he retires b/c he's a player with a great career?

 

Um, lets see 18+ years service in an industry and being recognized for excellence in that industry. Gee what employer wouldnt want that. Do you realize how stupid this remark is?

 

That's funny considering the numbers you're tossing out.

 

Also plays to the fact that the players realize these arent a couple of guys they pulled off a turnip truck somewhere and that they should immediately respect them. They have been around the block a time or two and have been involved in the game for at least 3 decades.

 

Only thing ridiculous here is your assessment that Piniella and Baker are bad managers. They simply arent.

 

Experience only matters if you are learning from it, and Lou and Dusty have proven time and time again they knew how to play the game, but they have no intimate understanding of the mechanisms behind the game.

 

If you're the skinniest kid at fat camp, you're still at fat camp. If you're the most successful horrible manager, you're still a horrible manager. Just because there aren't many Earl Weavers doesn't mean we shouldn't hold them to the standard of what a good manager actually is.

[sunnydoo]

Piniella inherited Don Mattingly, Dave Winfield, Willie Randolph, Rickey Henderson, Tommy John, and Ron Guidry in Ney York, and Steinbrenner spent plenty to keep the roster in decent shape. He then caught lightning in a bottle in Cinci, but let's go ahead and give him full credit for that. His other claim to fame is winning 116... but with your roster looking like this:

 

C - Dan Wilson

1B - David Segui

2B - David Bell

3B - Russ Davis

SS - Alex Rodriguez

LF - Brian Hunter

CF - Ken Griffey Jr.

RF - Jay Buhner

DH - Edgar Martinez

 

With Raul Ibanez, John Mabry, and Carlos Guillen on your bench, you should be able to win more than the 79 games he won in 1999. Think about it. ARod, Griffey, and Edgar while all were extremely productive, and Lou can't manage a winning record?

 

1st- Buhner was hurt most of the year.

2nd- You forgot the other half of the equation, Pitching. Jeff Fassero for gods sakes was the #5 starter. He was 4-14 with a 7.38 ERA.

 

• 
  SP Freddy Garcia 4.07 17 8
  SP *Jamie Moyer 3.87 14 8
  SP *Jeff Fassero 7.38 4 14
  SP *John Halama 4.22 11 10
  SP Gil Meche 4.73 8 4
   
  CL Jose Mesa 4.98 3 6 33
  RP Jose Paniagua 4.06 6 11 3
  RP Ken Cloude 7.96 4 4 1
  RP Frank Rodriguez 5.65 2 4 3
  RP Paul Abbott 3.10 6 2

 

doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out why they only won 79. we are experiencing it first hand. bullpen meltdown due to lack of talent.

 

 

Speaking of Dusty, let's agree right now that Manager of the Year means jack squat. The BBWAA doesn't know a bloody thing about baseball, which they've proven time and time again with their HOF balloting. If they don't recognize Ron Santo and Bert Blylevin as great, they don't know what great managing would be either.

 

I just love gross overgeneralizations. Because you disagree with one thing someone does, everything else they do is wrong as well. Dusty did his job well and he deserved it.

 

He put up the first 100 win season in SF since 1962, in one of the most god forsaken ballparks of all time. He consistently won 90 games there as a manager for a franchise that hadnt done that well since the 60s. And again, one of only 4 NL managers to ever have winning seasons for 8 straight years. That takes some talent.

 

Experience only matters if you are learning from it, and Lou and Dusty have proven time and time again they knew how to play the game, but they have no intimate understanding of the mechanisms behind the game.

 

This is silly. 3 decades in the game and they dont know the mechanics. :roll:

 

If you're the skinniest kid at fat camp, you're still at fat camp. If you're the most successful horrible manager, you're still a horrible manager. Just because there aren't many Earl Weavers doesn't mean we shouldn't hold them to the standard of what a good manager actually is.

 

Piniella is 18th all time, dusty 38th in wins. both have winning records. both have pennants. who exactly is a good manager in your opinion thats out there? Of the active managers ranked in wins are LaRussa, Cox, Torre, Piniella, Leyland, Hargrove, and Baker in that order. Leyland and Hargrove have losing records. All time Piniella and Baker are sorting out pretty well at .516 and .527 respectively.

 

And talking about a ridiculous standard...Earl Weaver is 9th All Time in winning % and the only person in the last 50 years to be in the top 12 where you find Davey Johnson and Bobby Cox in 13th and 14th.

 

Dusty is right with Torre (32) and Larussa (33) in this regard who are at .536 and .535. Piniella is 50th. And Mike Scioscia is the only other active manager in the top 50 at 30 with a 539.

 

I have said all along we should have gone long term with Girardi, but everyone is concerned over the way he manages starters. Piniella was the alternative. He is dealing with what he has to work with. He just cant help a stupid GM.

 

Again, Hendry, Rothschild, Tribune Mgt, and Wrigley Field.

[Tracer Bullet]

Speaking of ridiculous...

 

Seriously, "storied" managers? I suppose it's accurate in that there are a lot of stories about Lou and his temper and Dusty likes to tell a lot of stories about fishing. But we're not talking Earl Weaver over here.

 

Lets see here Piniella has won 1511 games (18th All Time) and has twice been named Manager of the Year. He also won a World Series. One season he won 116 games with one team and he won 200 games for an awful organization in Florida in 3 years.

 

Dusty has won 1162 games as a manager (38th All Time) and been named Manager of the Year 3 times in 14 seasons. He is one of only 4 NL Managers to have 8 consecutive winning seasons EVER. He also won 1100 ballgames faster than such board icons as Jim Leyland and Mike Hargrove.

 

Former All-Stars? And that's relevant because... Really - the ASG and voting is a joke, but even if they were perennial all stars, does that mean they'd be good managers You want Barry Bonds to come manage this team when he retires b/c he's a player with a great career?

 

Um, lets see 18+ years service in an industry and being recognized for excellence in that industry. Gee what employer wouldnt want that. Do you realize how stupid this remark is?

 

Also plays to the fact that the players realize these arent a couple of guys they pulled off a turnip truck somewhere and that they should immediately respect them. They have been around the block a time or two and have been involved in the game for at least 3 decades.

 

Only thing ridiculous here is your assessment that Piniella and Baker are bad managers. They simply arent.

 

I don't care to go through and put in responses to each quote. But I take it from your response to my ASG question that you do want Barry Bonds to manage this team when he retires b/c he's recognized as excellent in his industry. You still didn't address the fact that going to a lot of ASGs does not mean that you're excellent at baseball. It's voted on by fans, some of which are young kids that vote for their favorite players, some of which are intelligent, some of which are ignorant, some of which are complete morons. The ASG is a popularity contest. Has nothing to do with excellence at baseball and certainly shouldn't have any relevance in deciding who would be a good manager.

 

Let's accept that all of their wins over their long careers are totally attributable to them and not the teams/circumstances they were in. I don't, but fine. Even assuming that, that doesn't mean they're good now. Baseball is a heck of a lot different now that it was when these guys started managing. And Lou hasn't managed in the NL in some time, which is a much different game than the AL. They both make unnecessary moves, put bad OBP guys at the top of the lineup b/c they're fast or they look like leadoff hitters (or they play SS or CF, traditional leadoff hitter positions), mismanage the pitching staff.

 

The game has passed them by. There is a lot of information out there that good managers can use to put their players in the best position to succeed. Has Hendry given Dusty or Lou Murderer's Row? Far from it. But Dusty and Lou have taken a mediocre/bad team and made it worse. Are they responsible for more of the losses than Hendry? Not likely. But that doesn't mean they get a free pass for sucking at their jobs.

[Rob]

1st- Buhner was hurt most of the year.

2nd- You forgot the other half of the equation, Pitching. Jeff Fassero for gods sakes was the #5 starter. He was 4-14 with a 7.38 ERA.

 

• 
  SP Freddy Garcia 4.07 17 8
  SP *Jamie Moyer 3.87 14 8
  SP *Jeff Fassero 7.38 4 14
  SP *John Halama 4.22 11 10
  SP Gil Meche 4.73 8 4
   
  CL Jose Mesa 4.98 3 6 33
  RP Jose Paniagua 4.06 6 11 3
  RP Ken Cloude 7.96 4 4 1
  RP Frank Rodriguez 5.65 2 4 3
  RP Paul Abbott 3.10 6 2

 

doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out why they only won 79. we are experiencing it first hand. bullpen meltdown due to lack of talent.

 

 

And Lou ran Fassero out there 24 times to start a ballgame. Doesn't that speak to some sort of fundamental flaw with Lou? At any rate, if you want to chalk up the 37 game swing to pitching and (in particular, the bullpen) I'll allow it. Looking at the difference between our bullpen now and their bullpen there, we have a huge advantage in pitching talent, and we aren't getting much from them. Lou has been leveraging them all wrong, and if you want proof, check out the bullpens' Fair RA vs. their WXRL in comparison to other teams. Lou has shown a complete inability to know who to bring in and when, and this isn't merely hindsight bias.

 

I just love gross overgeneralizations. Because you disagree with one thing someone does, everything else they do is wrong as well. Dusty did his job well and he deserved it.

 

He put up the first 100 win season in SF since 1962, in one of the most god forsaken ballparks of all time. He consistently won 90 games there as a manager for a franchise that hadnt done that well since the 60s. And again, one of only 4 NL managers to ever have winning seasons for 8 straight years. That takes some talent.

 

I could pull out a few more dozen examples of flaws on the part of the BBWAA... including the last few MVPs in both leagues. Bottom line, it's not once or twice the BBWAA has screwed up, and I'm more inclined to believe that Lou and Dusty getting their awards is more a function of breakout years from their guys (aka Jim Frey and Don Zimmer's awards in 84 and 89) than from exceptional tactical usage... which would be par for the course from the BBWAA, just another screwup.

 

BTW, I find your last line about Dusty real interesting. I agree with it. It did take some talent... from his players. I've always been of the mind that it's real hard for a manager to win any ballgames, but real easy for him to lose them. Dusty was just lucky he had Barry Bonds' talent to cover for his mistakes.

 

 

Experience only matters if you are learning from it, and Lou and Dusty have proven time and time again they knew how to play the game, but they have no intimate understanding of the mechanisms behind the game.

 

This is silly. 3 decades in the game and they dont know the mechanics. :roll:

 

You seem to have missed my point.

 

Would you feel comfortable flying on a jetliner that a pilot of thirty years with absolutely no other formal training designed and built himself?

 

Just as there's a difference between understanding how to fly a plane, how to design one, and how to build one; there is a difference between understanding how to play the game and intimately understanding how everything interacts with each other to maximize return by exploiting the probabilities inherent in certain states of the game. Ideally, I'd love to have a manager with experience playing the game as he can help to motivate and fix fundamental flaws in the players... but that last part can be handled by the coaches... so all Lou really brings to the table with his experience is his ability to motivate properly, an important aspect of course, but he completely lacks the ability to use tactics in a beneficial manner.

 

Piniella is 18th all time, dusty 38th in wins. both have winning records. both have pennants. who exactly is a good manager in your opinion thats out there? Of the active managers ranked in wins are LaRussa, Cox, Torre, Piniella, Leyland, Hargrove, and Baker in that order. Leyland and Hargrove have losing records. All time Piniella and Baker are sorting out pretty well at .516 and .527 respectively.

 

And talking about a ridiculous standard...Earl Weaver is 9th All Time in winning % and the only person in the last 50 years to be in the top 12 where you find Davey Johnson and Bobby Cox in 13th and 14th.

 

Dusty is right with Torre (32) and Larussa (33) in this regard who are at .536 and .535. Piniella is 50th. And Mike Scioscia is the only other active manager in the top 50 at 30 with a 539.

 

I don't mean this to sound rude, but I do know the numbers. I checked the out extensively when Lou was hired. He's managed some pretty talented teams though. And again, I feel that it's real hard for a manager to win his team any games, but real easy for him to lose them. Looking at the tactics he's employed, he is hurting his teams in this regard over the course of his career. The natural talent level has been higher than the results. Perhaps I've set the bar too high, but there were better options available than Lou Piniella.

 

 

I have said all along we should have gone long term with Girardi, but everyone is concerned over the way he manages starters. Piniella was the alternative. He is dealing with what he has to work with. He just cant help a stupid GM.

 

Again, Hendry, Rothschild, Tribune Mgt, and Wrigley Field.

 

Girardi would have been a better choice, as would have been digging Larry Dierker up from the grave. By far the best choice would have been Fredi Gonzalez, though. Anybody who had spent their professional career under the tutelage of Bobby Cox who reads the works of Bill James has a very bright career coming.

 

Yeah, not gonna debate this whole mess is Hendry's fault for his inability to recognize "proven veteran" players were not inherently more useful than young players... just as it's his fault for not recognizing that "proven veteran managers" doesn't mean they're anything more than the managing equivalent of Todd Hollandsworth or Juan Pierre... acceptible stopgaps so long as they don't cost much and are easily discarded once something actually useful comes along.

[sunnydoo]

.Lou has been leveraging them all wrong, and if you want proof, check out the bullpens' Fair RA vs. their WXRL in comparison to other teams. Lou has shown a complete inability to know who to bring in and when, and this isn't merely hindsight bias.

 

On this we are just going to have to disagree. I know you believe in the Loogy, i just dont. Its just different managerial styles.

 

There have been occasions when i have disagreed with choices made (namely Eyre pitching to Delgado who has pounded lefties this year but not done so well against rightys) but its more i think from not having the right pieces rather than the wrong ones.

 

Piniella simply wants to build the Nasty Boys again in the bullpen..flamethrowers with attitude...and our bullpen is a bunch of choir boys and boy scouts who walk people like pansies.

 

BTW, I find your last line about Dusty real interesting. I agree with it. It did take some talent... from his players. I've always been of the mind that it's real hard for a manager to win any ballgames, but real easy for him to lose them. Dusty was just lucky he had Barry Bonds' talent to cover for his mistakes.

 

Barry Bonds wasnt there for the 103 win season, the team was more than just him (Kent for example), and Bonds is more bottle than blonde if you know what i mean.

 

As for the BBWAA, we will have to disagree with that too. They do some good things and then they do some moronic things. Not going to condemn the whole process over a few events, but measure them equally and individually for what they are worth.

 

You seem to have missed my point.

 

Would you feel comfortable flying on a jetliner that a pilot of thirty years with absolutely no other formal training designed and built himself?

 

Just as there's a difference between understanding how to fly a plane, how to design one, and how to build one; there is a difference between understanding how to play the game and intimately understanding how everything interacts with each other to maximize return by exploiting the probabilities inherent in certain states of the game. Ideally, I'd love to have a manager with experience playing the game as he can help to motivate and fix fundamental flaws in the players... but that last part can be handled by the coaches... so all Lou really brings to the table with his experience is his ability to motivate properly, an important aspect of course, but he completely lacks the ability to use tactics in a beneficial manner.

 

I disagree with this. We have no idea what goes on behind close doors. I think he has done tremendous thingss for several guys on the team including Guzman, Ramirez, Cedeno, and Theriot by setting the bar and letting them no what is expected of them. He also has been involved with Rothschild in helping him do his job trying to get the deliveries of Guzman, Hill and Z sorted out.

 

He wants to kill his bullpen no doubt, but with as many walks as they are giving up, i think anger is the proper response.

 

I don't mean this to sound rude, but I do know the numbers. I checked the out extensively when Lou was hired. He's managed some pretty talented teams though. And again, I feel that it's real hard for a manager to win his team any games, but real easy for him to lose them. Looking at the tactics he's employed, he is hurting his teams in this regard over the course of his career. The natural talent level has been higher than the results. Perhaps I've set the bar too high, but there were better options available than Lou Piniella.

 

And again we will disagree. Lou won the WS. He has managed many post season teams. Some of it is natural talent, some of it is GM building (Quinn for instance was a real good baseball man although i am sure many do not appreciate his grandson on this board), and some of it is just luck, but the bottom line is you need to get results and Lou has done that over his career.

 

In my honest opinion, i feel he is a step down from Dusty, but he manages the game the way it supposed to be managed. He talks the talk and walks the walk. You may not be happy with the way he manages, but its simply a different philosophy.

 

Some of it is attention getting and some of it is for reasons unknown, but look at the careers of his players once they left his side. For every Griffey and ARod you can name (guys who had immense talent to start with) i can give you a Boone, an Olerud and a Cameron who had career years playing for Piniella but have now hit the skids.

 

Girardi would have been a better choice, as would have been digging Larry Dierker up from the grave. By far the best choice would have been Fredi Gonzalez, though. Anybody who had spent their professional career under the tutelage of Bobby Cox who reads the works of Bill James has a very bright career coming.

 

And you think Fitzsimons signs off on an unproven major league talent for a 90 million payroll team wanting to win a WS? He would have been tarred and feathered and run out of town.

[abuck1220]

I know tons of people in tons of different lines of work that are recognized as outstanding performers and are actually giant sacks of crap.

 

I know tons of people in tons of different lines of work that are recognized as sacks of crap (police officers for example) and are actually outstanding performers.

 

These 2 are good baseball examples.

 

Sticking to my story: Hendry, Rothschild, Tribune Management, and Wrigley Field with the lead pipe in the Study.

 

so the actual physical structure the cubs play in (like the wood, metal, dirt, cement and stuff) is more to blame for their failures than the guy who manages the team? whatever.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm not even gonna dignify the "Wrigley is the problem" nonsense with a response.

 

But why is it exactly that Lou and Dusty's 18 years of being respected in the business is enough for you but Rothschild's isn't?

 

And my favorite part, commending Lou for averaging 67 wins a season in Tampa. Something Rothschild did.

[abuck1220]

seriously. wow, 200 wins in three seasons...did they name the ballpark after him?

[SouthSideRyan]

I wonder if John Olerud and Bret Boone getting old had anything to do with them doing poorly. And I wonder if Mike Cameron had as good a year as ever as recently as last year when Piniella was notably not managing the Padres.

 

And I really don't even dislike Piniella much, but thi reasoning is nutty.