Just like Steve Garvey

[J.R.]

Is it even worth calling out everyone who needlessly attacked Dusty Baker in this thread? Would they even open their minds long enough to hear a differing opinion backed with solid logic?

 

Logic takes a vacation every time someone defends the dood.

[CubsWin]

The nonsensical things Dusty says will continue to have their own threads, because it backs up the opinions of those who want him fired and this quote falls in this category. I don't see how anyone can defend this guy, IMO.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that the Dusty quotes will continue to have their own threads because they usually back up the opinions of those who want him fired, like me.

 

However, this quote does not fall into that catagory. I have explained why it doesn't. I noticed you did not attempt to explain why you think it does. Why not?

[CubsWin]

Is it even worth calling out everyone who needlessly attacked Dusty Baker in this thread? Would they even open their minds long enough to hear a differing opinion backed with solid logic?

 

Logic takes a vacation every time someone defends the dood.

Who is defending him?

[CubsWin]

That is why I think it is inaccurate to say that Dusty is biased against rookies simply because they are rookies.

 

How is "Dusty is biased against rookies just because they are rookies" any different than "Dusty overvalues major league experience"? Clearly if you overvalue major league experience, then you are predisposed against, otherwise called biased against, people who lack that experience.

Yes, but it isn't because of some irrational hatred or bias against rookies, like racism or sexism, that he makes the decisions he does, and that is often what fans have accused him of.

 

He makes his decisions out of fear, it seems, instead of faith. He goes with what he knows and trusts. If he thinks his best option is a rookie, he'll start him. He has already proven that. Its just that his thinking and decision-making process is flawed.

[CubsWin]

Disclaimer- The following is the most ridiculous post I have ever made:

 

The reason to bring up the number of people who aren't needlessly bashing Dusty in this thread is because of your exaggeration in your original post of "is it even worth calling out everyone who needlessly attacked Dusty in this thread". Only a couple out of the 20 odd posts in the thread relate the quote to Dusty's performance. The rest are just calling him out for saying something that didn't make any sense.

I exaggerated nothing because I was addressing those who accused Dusty of being stupid based on this quote not just those that related the quote to Dusty's performance. That was clear in my original post and it is clear now. Go back and read it again, if you must.

 

Your post is completely unjustified, since you've obviously done the same thing that you are accusing people of. You assumed that what everyone was saying was the worst possible interpretation so that it supported your "everyone takes things too far with Dusty" crusade.

I don't have a crusade or a campaign, but I'm flattered that you think this is one.

 

Amazingly, you still stand by the notion that Dusty's quote doesn't make sense. So I guess, I am going to have to break down why it makes sense before you are going to understand where I am coming from and retract the accusations you have made of me.

 

I can't believe I actually have to do this. This shouldn't have to be done.

 

The question to which he was responding reads,"Should the Cubs evaluate kids at the expense of trying to win?" That's clear, isn't it? But since Dusty didn't say this part, I won't go into explaining it.

 

Dusty's primary answer is, "I'm trying to do both". The longest word in this answer is six letters long and I think we all know the meaning of the word "trying". This sentence couldn't possibly be misconstrued. He is trying to win and evaluate the kids at the same time. Also, he doesn't believe that winning and evaluating talent are mutually exclusive as the person who asked the question seems to.

 

The author then chose to include this little story about something Dusty learned from Steve Garvey while playing with him in Los Angeles. Dusty said, "It's a situation where you have to find something to play for." The "its" in this case is referring to the situation the Cubs are currently in. A team in the final month of the season that is basically out of it. The reason why he mentions having to "find something to play for" is because the normal reason to play (getting into the post-season) has been removed, so you need to replace it if you are going to play with a similar level of inspiration or passion. Now he didn't use any abnormal words, and I think all that stuff is pretty obvious to any baseball fan. I am assuming that all of this explanation is pretty insulting to your intelligence at this point, am I right? I know it is to mine.

 

Dusty continues, "I learned that from Steve Garvey". Here the word "learned" is the longest word at 7 letters, but there are still no unusual words. It is a very clear sentence. He learned about finding something to play for from Steve Garvey.

 

Dusty continues, "On days he had a migraine and didn't feel like playing, he played for a sick child or an older person in the hospital or something." So on days when Garvey's passion for playing baseball was removed by, in this case a migraine, he would play for someone less fortunate than him. This would remind him of how fortunate he was to be playing baseball for a living, and it would improve his attitude about playing that day. The longest word in that sentence is 9 letters long and is the word "something", not exactly difficult to understand. The sentence structure is clear. The "he" in this case clearly refers back to Garvey from the sentence before. The verb "played" refers to the act of competing on the baseball field, but any fan knows that. This is really simply stuff, isn't it?

 

Well, that's it. That's all he said. Its self-evident to me that this particular quote is easy to understand and straightforward.

 

Can anyone break down this quote and show how it doesn't make sense?

 

CP20, I think you are better than this. I don't think you or anyone else needed that broken down for you at all. So, please, I'm asking you nicely for a second time, either break down this quote and show how it doesn't make sense or retract your accusations about me.

[J.R.]

Who is defending him?

 

You just blew 679 words in an attempt to prove that Baker made sense.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I understand that Dusty was relating Steve Garvey's motivation to win that he gathered when he wasn't feeling like playing. That doesn't even come close to answering the question he was asked.

 

I also think you're better than this. You're a smart guy, you could definitely do better than repeatedly bringing up a discussion of semantics when it comes to the degree in which people use words to describe Dusty's shortcomings.

[biittner77]

The question was:

 

Should the Cubs evaluate kids at the expense of trying to win?

 

A dumb question in that it implies winning and playing young players are mutually exclusive.

 

The answer was:

 

"I'm trying to do both," Baker said.

 

That part is fine. But then he continued:

 

"It's a situation where you have to find something to play for. I learned that from Steve Garvey. On days he had a migraine and didn't feel like playing, he played for a sick child or an older person in the hospital or something."

 

This is the part that makes no sense. How are motivation and playing young players in any way related? It seems to me that motivation would not be an issue to young players trying to prove themselves. So who is it exactly that has to empathize with the less fortunate to get up for a meaningless game then?

 

If you want to blame the author of the article for putting the two disjointed thoughts together that's fine. Blame the author for making Baker look bad. The fact is that Baker says enough bizarre things that it's not too much of a stretch to believe that he said the 2nd part in response to the first question.

[Careless]

The question was:

 

Should the Cubs evaluate kids at the expense of trying to win?

 

A dumb question in that it implies winning and playing young players are mutually exclusive.

 

I disagree, there's a big difference between playing murton and cedeno, who appear to belong at the major league level in some capacity, and playing everyone in the minors you think might possibly be ready for the majors. You could, if you wanted, run out 10 minor leaguers every day. You would almost certainly lose more if you did. Somewhere between that extreme and playing a couple guys who are having solid season is a point where you're evaluating kids at the expense of trying to win

[CubsWin]

I understand that Dusty was relating Steve Garvey's motivation to win that he gathered when he wasn't feeling like playing. That doesn't even come close to answering the question he was asked.

Wow, I can't believe you just wrote that. He had already answered the question in the first sentence of the quote. He said, "I'm trying to do both". That is about as clear and direct of an answer as one can give. The story he told is clearly related to the topic of the question which was winning when you are basically out of the hunt. So I still don't see where any confusion lies.

 

I also think you're better than this. You're a smart guy, you could definitely do better than repeatedly bringing up a discussion of semantics when it comes to the degree in which people use words to describe Dusty's shortcomings.

I freely admit that I love a good debate, especially when the odds are against me because the people's minds are already made up.

 

But that doesn't mean that I'm repeatedly bringing up a discussion of semantics. This is a clear cut case. His quote made perfect sense. Several people criticized him for saying it. Done.

 

The question of bias vs. overvalue only becomes semantics if you aren't one of the fans who believe that Dusty has some irrational prejudice against rookies, irrational like racism and sexism are irrational.

 

If you aren't one of those fans, then basically we agree. And any time you argue with someone with whom you agree, it is going to be over semantics. When I read the word "biased", I equate it to "prejudiced" which I take to mean that he has a preconceived negative notion of a rookie. Like, "This guy sucks 'cause he's a rookie". And I don't think it is like that with him. I think he is just scared, so he goes with the safe bet. Of course, I would rather he didn't.

 

I never responded to, quoted or even referred to any of your comments in this thread, so I have always been a little surprised as to why you chose to engage in this conversation because I think we basically agree. About the only thing we didn't agree on was whether that quote was clear and easy to understand.

 

And finally, I never created any, what was it that you wrote, degrees "in which people use words to describe Dusty's shortcomings". I simply asked that people be accurate and respectful. That's pretty straightforward, isn't it?

[CubsWin]

This is the part that makes no sense. How are motivation and playing young players in any way related? It seems to me that motivation would not be an issue to young players trying to prove themselves. So who is it exactly that has to empathize with the less fortunate to get up for a meaningless game then?

That comment wasn't for the rookies, it was for Walker, Lee, Burnitz, Barrett, etc. If he is going to win and play the kids, he is going to need the non-rookies to play with the necessary motivation. Doesn't that make sense?

 

At the time he said the quote, Cedeno and Murton would be the only rookies being given semi-regular playing time and the rest of the line-up would be filled with vets who might indeed be experiencing a loss of motivation at this time of year given the team's record.

 

This is why I think the whole quote made perfect sense and was very clear, an oddity for Dusty, that's fo sho.