Dusty Bad Managerial Moves Thread

[TrueBlueCubFan]

 

If your talent slips up, and the game is close, and the game relies on Dusty making good moves... he is HORRIBLE. He will make the wrong move 95% of the time. He just doesn't know what he's doing. He plays his favorites, and ignores common sense. If there are a lot of 1-run games, he will lose a lot of them.

 

 

Why aren't you a manager or GM if you know what all the right moves are?

[CubinNY]

 

If your talent slips up, and the game is close, and the game relies on Dusty making good moves... he is HORRIBLE. He will make the wrong move 95% of the time. He just doesn't know what he's doing. He plays his favorites, and ignores common sense. If there are a lot of 1-run games, he will lose a lot of them.

 

 

Why aren't you a manager or GM if you know what all the right moves are?

 

Mr. Blue,

 

Might I suggest that you refrain from clicking on any thread with a title such as this. It will save you some consternation and save someone else from the enivetable, "This is a message board we are aloud to criticize players, managers, GMs, and owners", reply.

[USSoccer]

I was more upset with Macias PH'ing that Perez. However, what bugged me was that, in the 8th, that Hairston didn't come in to pinch run for Walker. Hairston gets to 3rd on the 1st wild pitch, and then he has a chance to score on the subsequent WP's, or maybe Aramis just makes contact and we're tied. It's not like you give up defense with Hairston, so I didn't get that one.

 

Hopefully the trend of having Perez and Macias being the primary options off the bench doesn't last long, though.

[Derwood]

It has been well documented by Chicago sports writers/radio personalities that Dusty has his "boys" in the clubhouse. These are the guys he tends to use more often because he has a history with them. Perez is definitely in that club, as he played for Dusty in SF, etc. Hollandsworth has become a "chosen one". Sosa was the president of the boys club.

 

Well the worry is that the new guys aren't Dusty's Boys yet, meaning Hairston, Dubois, Blanco, etc. aren't going to be his first choice off the bench no matter the situation. I'm not sure what it takes to be qualified as a Dusty Boy (besides being a light hitting, switch hitting utility infielder).

 

I thought traditional logic was "play for the tie at home, play for the win on the road". Playing for the win when you're down 1 with a man on in the 9th is to bring in the guy who is most likely to hit a home run (ie Dubois).

 

Grrr....

[halplm]

I was more upset with Macias PH'ing that Perez. However, what bugged me was that, in the 8th, that Hairston didn't come in to pinch run for Walker. Hairston gets to 3rd on the 1st wild pitch, and then he has a chance to score on the subsequent WP's, or maybe Aramis just makes contact and we're tied. It's not like you give up defense with Hairston, so I didn't get that one.

 

Hopefully the trend of having Perez and Macias being the primary options off the bench doesn't last long, though.

 

It will happen as long as they are on the team, Dusty has proved that.

 

We're just going to have ot face the fact that we're going to lose a higher percentage of close games than we should.

[Crash]

I was more upset with Macias PH'ing that Perez. However, what bugged me was that, in the 8th, that Hairston didn't come in to pinch run for Walker. Hairston gets to 3rd on the 1st wild pitch, and then he has a chance to score on the subsequent WP's, or maybe Aramis just makes contact and we're tied. It's not like you give up defense with Hairston, so I didn't get that one.

 

Hopefully the trend of having Perez and Macias being the primary options off the bench doesn't last long, though.

 

It will happen as long as they are on the team, Dusty has proved that.

 

We're just going to have ot face the fact that we're going to lose a higher percentage of close games than we should.

 

Then why did the Cubs do so well in 1 run games in 2003 with Dusty as the manager?

 

Now I am not supporting Dusty's decision of batting Macias and Perez with Dubois and Hairston on the bench. I just don't think a manager had that huge an impact on this game. The Cubs had more than enough opportunties to win the game with the starters. 8th innning, runners on 2nd and 3rd, nobody out with Nomar, Ramirez, and Burntiz coming up. Pretty hard to set it up any better. Only getting one run out of that isn't the managers fault, the players simply didn't deliver in this situation. It happens.

[Chris]

This thread will easily clear 1K views within 12 hours of the original post. Of course, the use of this thread will be based on the number of bad moves that Baker makes this season.

 

With that being said, I fear that this thread may need to be a weekly one, a la the chit chat thread.

[Careless]

Then why did the Cubs do so well in 1 run games in 2003 with Dusty as the manager?

Question: didn't the cubs have virtually no come from behind victories in 2003? My recollection could be well off from the truth, but if it's not, there's your explaination.

[UK1679666180]

Talent is the ultimate factor in determining Ws & Ls throughout the season, moreso than a manager or something like chemistry and park factors (see Coors). But, there is enough parity to where a manager can have an impact on whether a team wins a division by 4 games or fails to make the playoffs.

[JC]

Lets face it. Dusty's managerial decisions are among the most hotly debated and questioned aspects of Cub baseball. Instead of running from it and allowing it to devolve into a flame war each time, why not embrace it with a sticky as Raw suggested? Like with the posters' pics, one thread should be strictly devoted to suggestions of qualifing decisions, while a companion thread can be devoted to discussion as to the appropriateness of said suggestions.

 

So often, people use the line, "Well, a manager is only determinitive of 3-4 outcomes a year." If so, why don't we at NSBB take a good, hard look at it?

 

While I'm no fan of increasing the number of Forums, perhaps one limiting itself to these two threads, along with a general thread regarding questionable managerial decisions throughout baseball, would keep this forum from getting to bloody. Perhaps a thread can also be devoted to managerial moves made by Dusty that people want to celebrate.

 

In sum, I believe that Dusty's questionable managerial moves are worth memorializing. Perhaps it will show a trend of hypersensitivity on the part of those of us who don't care for his style. Perhaps it will demonstrate that he has a pattern of acting like a boob which costs the Cubs games. I think its worth considerating.

[Chris]

For the record: The Cubs were 27-17 in 1 run games in 2003

 

(in case someone is wondering)

[UK1679666180]

Lets face it. Dusty's managerial decisions are among the most hotly debated and questioned aspects of Cub baseball. Instead of running from it and allowing it to devolve into a flame war each time, why not embrace it with a sticky as Raw suggested? Like with the posters' pics, one thread should be strictly devoted to suggestions of qualifing decisions, while a companion thread can be devoted to discussion as to the appropriateness of said suggestions.

 

So often, people use the line, "Well, a manager is only determinitive of 3-4 outcomes a year." If so, why don't we at NSBB take a good, hard look at it?

 

While I'm no fan of increasing the number of Forums, perhaps one limiting itself to these two threads, along with a general thread regarding questionable managerial decisions throughout baseball, would keep this forum from getting to bloody. Perhaps a thread can also be devoted to managerial moves made by Dusty that people want to celebrate.

 

In sum, I believe that Dusty's questionable managerial moves are worth memorializing. Perhaps it will show a trend of hypersensitivity on the part of those of us who don't care for his style. Perhaps it will demonstrate that he has a pattern of acting like a boob which costs the Cubs games. I think its worth considerating.

 

It is subject to too much interpretation, obviously using Perez in that situation seems easy to critique as a poor move, but more often than not a move will be decided by the outcome rather than the move itself. Say, Perez gets a start at SS to give Nomar a day off and goes 2-4, the opposition brings in a LH to face him and Dusty sticks with him, there might be enough support to merit keeping Perez out there instead of a RH PH'er.

 

Everyone here knows how I feel about Baker, but as mentioned in another thread, he does deserve a fair shake, this is set-up for a Salem witch hunt.

[erik316wttn]

I think Raw, since he started this thread, is going to have to split the cost of a new server with Tim, because this thread will need one just for it.

[Chris]

It is subject to too much interpretation, obviously using Perez in that situation seems easy to critique as a poor move, but more often than not a move will be decided by the outcome rather than the move itself. Say, Perez gets a start at SS to give Nomar a day off and goes 2-4, the opposition brings in a LH to face him and Dusty sticks with him, there might be enough support to merit keeping Perez out there instead of a RH PH'er.

 

Everyone here knows how I feel about Baker, but as mentioned in another thread, he does deserve a fair shake, this is set-up for a Salem witch hunt.

 

You echo my sentiment in that the basis of a good move or bad move is usually dictated by the outcome. However, you mention the concept of "enough merit to support" certain decisions. In this case, I do not see the merit to support the decision.

[halplm]

For the record: The Cubs were 27-17 in 1 run games in 2003

 

(in case someone is wondering)

 

I remember, and I remember thinking it was amazing. The problem with that is, that team should have scored a LOT more. That was the team where they has an insane winning record scoring 4 runs or more, but still only won 88 games.

 

When you score less, but have good pitching, you win a lot of 1 run games.

 

LAST year, we didn't have the pitching, so we lost a LOT more of the 1 run games.

 

I'm not saying all 1-run games are the manager's responsability to win, I'm saying that a managers decisions will generally only be able to effect 1 or 2 runs, so their impact is greater in one run games than in others.

 

Don't forget also, Dusty rode his starting pitchers HARD in 2003, which means he made fewer pitching decisions, and thus fewer decisions in general...

 

However, need I remind you of Troy O'Leary, Tom Goodwin, and Lenny Harris... how many pinch hitting appearances did they get???

[Wheelimus]

There is just no reasonable justification for pinch hitting Neifi Perez and Jose Macias over Hairston and Dubois. All there is is the stupid righty/lefty split. And teams are going to keep bringing in the appropriate relievers to bring Dusty's left handed bats off of the bench.

 

But lets be honest here, there has to be shared blame. Jim Hendry has to be just as responsible for this loss as Baker, for having those guys on the bench in the first place. Everyone knows Dusty Baker, he hasn't changed much in a decade. We all know the positives (gets the most out of his players, etc.). But if you're going to make him your manager, you have to pick your bench players almost as carefully as you pick your starters. If you have to have a scrub or two on the bench, they had damn well better be right handed, or Dusty is going to misuse them.

 

I think after tonight it's painfully obvious that, if he's going to keep Hollandsworth starting, we need to get Ben Grieve up from Iowa as quick as we can. This is where Hendry has to show some balls, and eat a mistake, bring up Grieve, designate Macias for assignment. Nobody is going to claim him, so he'll still be in Iowa if (must fight throwing up in my mouth) you need him.

Edited April 6, 2005 by Wheelimus

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

How many games can we look back to and say that a move Dusty made in the game definitely gave us a win. I know alot of praise and/or blame is given based on whether a move is successful, but the PH moves tonight were not the best moves he could've made.

A win that a different move wouldn't have given? 0. You just can't tell. However, the question should be "what % of his moves work out?"

 

Using Neifi to PH in the 9th with a man on down a run

Pass [ ] Fail [x]

 

While we're on the subject, does anyone here get the feeling that dusty would be horrible at chess?

 

Chess? Hell, I don't think Dusty would be able to figure out Chutes and Ladders!

[halplm]

It is subject to too much interpretation, obviously using Perez in that situation seems easy to critique as a poor move, but more often than not a move will be decided by the outcome rather than the move itself. Say, Perez gets a start at SS to give Nomar a day off and goes 2-4, the opposition brings in a LH to face him and Dusty sticks with him, there might be enough support to merit keeping Perez out there instead of a RH PH'er.

 

Everyone here knows how I feel about Baker, but as mentioned in another thread, he does deserve a fair shake, this is set-up for a Salem witch hunt.

 

You echo my sentiment in that the basis of a good move or bad move is usually dictated by the outcome. However, you mention the concept of "enough merit to support" certain decisions. In this case, I do not see the merit to support the decision.

 

Perhaps a thread that simply lists his moves from each game as a record. We could then look at trends objectively, and analyze him over the season. It doesn't have to be one long argument...

[UK1679666180]

In this case, I do not see the merit to support the decision.

 

You can't find any merit to support the decision of Perez PH'ing in that situation.

[JC]

Lets face it. Dusty's managerial decisions are among the most hotly debated and questioned aspects of Cub baseball. Instead of running from it and allowing it to devolve into a flame war each time, why not embrace it with a sticky as Raw suggested? Like with the posters' pics, one thread should be strictly devoted to suggestions of qualifing decisions, while a companion thread can be devoted to discussion as to the appropriateness of said suggestions.

 

So often, people use the line, "Well, a manager is only determinitive of 3-4 outcomes a year." If so, why don't we at NSBB take a good, hard look at it?

 

While I'm no fan of increasing the number of Forums, perhaps one limiting itself to these two threads, along with a general thread regarding questionable managerial decisions throughout baseball, would keep this forum from getting to bloody. Perhaps a thread can also be devoted to managerial moves made by Dusty that people want to celebrate.

 

In sum, I believe that Dusty's questionable managerial moves are worth memorializing. Perhaps it will show a trend of hypersensitivity on the part of those of us who don't care for his style. Perhaps it will demonstrate that he has a pattern of acting like a boob which costs the Cubs games. I think its worth considerating.

 

It is subject to too much interpretation, obviously using Perez in that situation seems easy to critique as a poor move, but more often than not a move will be decided by the outcome rather than the move itself. Say, Perez gets a start at SS to give Nomar a day off and goes 2-4, the opposition brings in a LH to face him and Dusty sticks with him, there might be enough support to merit keeping Perez out there instead of a RH PH'er.

 

Everyone here knows how I feel about Baker, but as mentioned in another thread, he does deserve a fair shake, this is set-up for a Salem witch hunt.

 

I hate the phrase "witch hunt". Its so over used today that it has lost much of its meaning, in my opinion. I fully agree that such an examination will be open to vast interpretations; however, that is the purpose of the discussion thread. We shouldn't fear opposition, as long as its done in a civil manner.

 

In addition, people that get tired of the Dusty criticism could find solace in the fact that many of his questionable decisions will be limited to one thread and/or forum, rather than littering the board in multiple areas.

[UK1679666180]

however, that is the purpose of the discussion thread. We shouldn't fear opposition, as long as its done in a civil manner.

 

It isn't a discussion though, it isn't subjective thinking, as it just piling on him just to pile on him. More times than not, I disagree with his moves, I just don't feel the need to display my feathers like a male peacock every time he makes a poor move.

 

If you're in the mind-set that he'll likely make poor decision before a good move (as I am), it is difficult to have an objective thought process.

 

For example, if Dierker was the next manager as much as I want him, I think you can have a similar thread in a short amount of time and have enough people to make it substantial.

[JC]

however, that is the purpose of the discussion thread. We shouldn't fear opposition, as long as its done in a civil manner.

 

It isn't a discussion though, it isn't subjective thinking, as it just piling on him just to pile on him. More times than not, I disagree with his moves, I just don't feel the need to display my feathers like a male peacock every time he makes a poor move.

 

If you're in the mind-set that he'll likely make poor decision before a good move (as I am), it is difficult to have an objective thought process.

 

For example, if Dierker was the next manager as much as I want him, I think you can have a similar thread in a short amount of time and have enough people to make it substantial.

 

I disagree that every manager is subject to the same scrutiny as Dusty. Dusty's reputation as a poor tactition proceeded his tenure at Chicago. While I'm certain you are correct that no matter who was in the driver seat, they would be subject to second guessing by someone, I don't think the criticisms are nearly as evident as with Dusty.

 

In addition, I don't think every criticism that is posted is an attempt to puff one's chest and attract attention to the individual poster. I think most of it derives out of the poster's love for the Cubs. People want the Cubs to succeed, and to the extent they perceive Dusty to be an impediment to that success, they will criticize his decisions. I see nothing wrong with that, nor do I see it as a poster attempting to attract attention to him/herself.

[nick23]

I was more upset with Macias PH'ing that Perez. However, what bugged me was that, in the 8th, that Hairston didn't come in to pinch run for Walker. Hairston gets to 3rd on the 1st wild pitch, and then he has a chance to score on the subsequent WP's, or maybe Aramis just makes contact and we're tied. It's not like you give up defense with Hairston, so I didn't get that one.

 

Hopefully the trend of having Perez and Macias being the primary options off the bench doesn't last long, though.

It would have been ok not to pinch run Hairston for Walker if you're planning on using Hairston as a pinch hitter in the ninth. That obviously wasn't the case though.

[halplm]

How about a thread which is not used for discussion (a parallel thread could rant and rave about things) that had entries that listed Dusty's critical decisions, including the situation leading to them. This could lead to all kinds of different stats as the season moves forward. It would also show the good with the bad.

 

For instance, in game 1, I think the only decision that would get listed would be Zambrano's exit after 4 2/3. The DBacks could have gotten back in it if something wasn't done, and I'm not sure anyone disagrees with Dusty's decision. After the game was well in hand, the other moves were simply to get guys ABs.

 

Game 2 would be a longer list. Since the game was so close, all the decisions would be listed, pitching changes, pintch hitters/runners, and defensive subs.

 

It would take a lot of work, but hey, what else are we going to do.

 

This would also prevent people from being able to exaggerate positions, like... "Macias is always first of the bench!" "No, look, only 80% of the time is he first." :wink:

[UK1679666180]

I don't mind the fact that you can disagree with a move, heck I do that all the time. I hope, it can objective at the same time.

 

In the context of this board, I don't like the impression that "we're" out to get Baker, I don't think it leads to a correct/positive interpretation of us. If you disagree with a move, provide some reasons, I disagree with the way the Cubs handled Zambrano; 14 of his 31 starts, I thought they extended him in situations when he needed to be extended. But, to say "Dusty is an idiot" or "fire Dusty" provides nothing IMO.