Oh, so this is why Murton is successful........

[UK1679666180]

Or maybe he is just being accurate. I hate to introduce empirical evidence in a thread like this one, but, in two and a half pages of posts, shouldn't someone have asked what Murton thinks?

 

He's being accurate by using hindsight? There's no chance in hell that Murton is hitting as well as he is b/c of his playing time compared to you know his actual hitting talents and approach at the plate.

 

There's no reason for Dusty to try and incorporate the way he handled Murton into the logic of Murton hitting so well unless he's trying to stroke his own ego (pun intentional for my last post) or pat himself on the back for a job well done while Hollandsworth stunk it up after they unloaded Lawton to the Yanks. Great job Dusty, I wish I could give him as much credit as he gives to himself and then I could accept mediocrity as "not my fault" when I screw up, but I believe in accountability.

Edited September 21, 2005 by UK

[CubfaninCA]

Well here's some specifics about the Giants from 1996 to 2002. I looked up their lineups and doesn't look like there was much room to develop players after 1996, as the lineup was pretty stacked from 97 to 02 (Baker went 121 games over .500 in those 6 years), and Baker actually started some youngsters (Pedro Feliz, Armando Rios and Calvin Murray). Of course, it's Dusty's fault that Murray and Rios never made it w/ any other team and that Feliz is average. PERHAPS SF just had a talent drought from 96 to 2002 w/ position players, like the Cubs have had for quite some time, or maybe Baker should have sat Snow, Kent, Aurilla, Mueller, Bonds or Burks, and play some alleged hot shot instead??? Funny thing is that Baker was right about Choi, Hill and DuBois, while the Baker Haters were wrong, but don't let the facts stop the constant bashing.

 

Here's a link to the Giants lineup in 2001 and you can access the lineups from 1997 to 2002.

 

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/teams/2001giants.stm

 

All of that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Dusty started Hollandsworth and Lawton over Murton until he had no other choice. Dusty does not like rookies. We know that. I don't understand why you're getting so upset at other people who get upset at Dusty for taking credit when a player does well, yet at the same time, never taking blame for anything that doesn't go his team's way. First it was "other teams don't have a book on him" then when Dusty realized that Murton wasn't a fluke it was "I'm putting him in a position to succeed" and now "he's succeeding because of me." If you want to believe that Dusty is the reason for Murton's success, then so be it, but I don't think it's necessary to act shocked when other people get upset that he takes all the credit for it.

 

Only the Baker haters see it as "Dusty taking all the credit." Baker complimented Murton by saying the kid's impressing him.

 

I don't see how Murton deserved to play over a proven player like Lawton. I wish Baker would have taken Burnitz out of the lineup and went w/ Murton in LF and Lawton in RF, but lots of managers would have went w/ the vet Burnitz even though he was slumping terribly.

 

As for being upset, the one's who seem to be upset are those who constantly nitpick Baker over not developing young players. Baker hasn't had much to develop. I guess the fact that Novoa, Ohman and Wuertz are solid relievers is irrelevant.

[JC]

Or maybe he is just being accurate. I hate to introduce empirical evidence in a thread like this one, but, in two and a half pages of posts, shouldn't someone have asked what Murton thinks?

 

He's being accurate by using hindsight? There's no chance in hell that Murton is hitting as well as he is b/c of his playing time compared to you know his actual hitting talents and approach at the plate.

 

There's no reason for Dusty to try and incorporate the way he handled Murton into the logic of Murton hitting so well unless he trying to stroke his own ego (pun intentional for my last post) or pat himself on the back for a job well done while Hollandsworth stunk it up after they unloaded Lawton to the Yanks. Great job Dusty, I wish I could give him as much credit as he gives to himself and then I could accept mediocrity as "not my fault" when I screw up, but I believe in accountability.

 

I've never seen UK more terse than in this thread.

 

I like it.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I've never seen UK more terse than in this thread.

 

I like it.

 

I haven't noticed, I'm too busy waiting for the Hoops/Cuse grudge match.

[JC]

 

Only the Baker haters see it as "Dusty taking all the credit." Baker complimented Murton by saying the kid's impressing him.

 

I don't see how Murton deserved to play over a proven player like Lawton. I wish Baker would have taken Burnitz out of the lineup and went w/ Murton in LF and Lawton in RF, but lots of managers would have went w/ the vet Burnitz even though he was slumping terribly.

 

As for being upset, the one's who seem to be upset are those who constantly nitpick Baker over not developing young players. Baker hasn't had much to develop. I guess the fact that Novoa, Ohman and Wuertz are solid relievers is irrelevant.

 

Thank god for the injection of some objectivity.

 

Novoa, Ohman and Wuertz? Notwithstanding the fact that there is room for debate that these three are "solid relievers", as Tim said, the discussion is obviously directed at position players. That is a common concession that is made in the argument about Dusty's bias against young players. Stop trying to change the subject.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Or maybe he is just being accurate. I hate to introduce empirical evidence in a thread like this one, but, in two and a half pages of posts, shouldn't someone have asked what Murton thinks?

 

He's being accurate by using hindsight? There's no chance in hell that Murton is hitting as well as he is b/c of his playing time compared to you know his actual hitting talents and approach at the plate.

 

There's no reason for Dusty to try and incorporate the way he handled Murton into the logic of Murton hitting so well unless he trying to stroke his own ego (pun intentional for my last post) or pat himself on the back for a job well done while Hollandsworth stunk it up after they unloaded Lawton to the Yanks. Great job Dusty, I wish I could give him as much credit as he gives to himself and then I could accept mediocrity as "not my fault" when I screw up, but I believe in accountability.

 

I've never seen UK more terse than in this thread.

 

I like it.

 

Agreed.

[Mizzou]

Well here's some specifics about the Giants from 1996 to 2002. I looked up their lineups and doesn't look like there was much room to develop players after 1996, as the lineup was pretty stacked from 97 to 02 (Baker went 121 games over .500 in those 6 years), and Baker actually started some youngsters (Pedro Feliz, Armando Rios and Calvin Murray). Of course, it's Dusty's fault that Murray and Rios never made it w/ any other team and that Feliz is average. PERHAPS SF just had a talent drought from 96 to 2002 w/ position players, like the Cubs have had for quite some time, or maybe Baker should have sat Snow, Kent, Aurilla, Mueller, Bonds or Burks, and play some alleged hot shot instead??? Funny thing is that Baker was right about Choi, Hill and DuBois, while the Baker Haters were wrong, but don't let the facts stop the constant bashing.

 

Here's a link to the Giants lineup in 2001 and you can access the lineups from 1997 to 2002.

 

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/teams/2001giants.stm

 

All of that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Dusty started Hollandsworth and Lawton over Murton until he had no other choice. Dusty does not like rookies. We know that. I don't understand why you're getting so upset at other people who get upset at Dusty for taking credit when a player does well, yet at the same time, never taking blame for anything that doesn't go his team's way. First it was "other teams don't have a book on him" then when Dusty realized that Murton wasn't a fluke it was "I'm putting him in a position to succeed" and now "he's succeeding because of me." If you want to believe that Dusty is the reason for Murton's success, then so be it, but I don't think it's necessary to act shocked when other people get upset that he takes all the credit for it.

 

Only the Baker haters see it as "Dusty taking all the credit." Baker complimented Murton by saying the kid's impressing him.

 

I don't see how Murton deserved to play over a proven player like Lawton. I wish Baker would have taken Burnitz out of the lineup and went w/ Murton in LF and Lawton in RF, but lots of managers would have went w/ the vet Burnitz even though he was slumping terribly.

 

As for being upset, the one's who seem to be upset are those who constantly nitpick Baker over not developing young players. Baker hasn't had much to develop. I guess the fact that Novoa, Ohman and Wuertz are solid relievers is irrelevant.

 

So Murton deserved to play over the proven veteran Burnitz, but not the proven veteran Lawton? I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic here. And it's not as if Lawton was outperforming Burnitz at the time - the opposite is true.

 

I think you're taking the devil's advocate thing a bit far here. That or you're arguing just to argue.

[CubfaninCA]

Here is the beauty of where this thread has gone: its largely a figment of someone's imagination.

 

Its no secret that I don't care for Dusty at all as a manager. I think he is terrible. However, that really isn't reflected in this thread. Rather, CubfaninCA took exception to my mention of Choi and Dubois and misinterpreted my post.

 

I took exception to Baker taking credit for Murton's success. I read Dusty's comments as defensive (fairly commonplace for Dusty) and self congratulatory rather than crediting Murton and his hard work. There is no acknowledgement of the tremendous season he had in the minors, nor is there any acknowledgement that Murton's discipline does not adhere to Dusty's well documented approach.

 

CubfaninCA jumped on me, making general accusations of vitriol and implying that I said Dusty ruined Choi and Dubois. In fact, I wrote no such thing. Instead, I used Choi and Dubois as examples to demonstrate that Dusty's "system" or "strategy" isn't foolproof for young hitters. He said the same things with respect to them as he just did for Murton. I just thought it was relevant to reference a couple of guys that Dusty's young hitter approach didn't fair well with.

 

I don't care for Dusty Baker, but that doesn't mean every criticism of mine is steeped in bias, as is implied. Actually, a close reading of thread evidences that I agreed Choi and Dubois' struggles could well have been from the fact that they just aren't good ML batters. Of course, that concession is lost in the zeal to attack Dusty antagonists and/or apologize for the man.

 

To think, it all could have been avoided with relative ease.

 

My entire commentary is this thread isn't directed @ you. Just was taking on the idea that Baker can't develop youngsters.

[JC]

 

I think you're taking the devil's advocate thing a bit far here. That or you're arguing just to argue.

 

Maybe he thinks being objective compels you to object to everything.

[UK1679666180]

I've never seen UK more terse than in this thread.

 

I like it.

 

I just hate to see managers try and overshadow the work of a player. This kid busts his rear end to go from AA to the majors in the same season, sits behind stiffs who combined for an OPS around .600 and by default Baker has to play him. I'm supposed to recognize Baker's brilliance for sitting him for some scrubs b/c Murton has worked his rear off and done well? Please...

 

It might be cool to try and be trendy and go against the grain in this thread but logic tells me otherwise in the case of how Murton has been handled. I don't give a crap of how Baker handled Minor, Aurilia, Clayton or Van landingham in SF.

Edited September 21, 2005 by UK

[CubfaninCA]

Well here's some specifics about the Giants from 1996 to 2002. I looked up their lineups and doesn't look like there was much room to develop players after 1996, as the lineup was pretty stacked from 97 to 02 (Baker went 121 games over .500 in those 6 years), and Baker actually started some youngsters (Pedro Feliz, Armando Rios and Calvin Murray). Of course, it's Dusty's fault that Murray and Rios never made it w/ any other team and that Feliz is average. PERHAPS SF just had a talent drought from 96 to 2002 w/ position players, like the Cubs have had for quite some time, or maybe Baker should have sat Snow, Kent, Aurilla, Mueller, Bonds or Burks, and play some alleged hot shot instead??? Funny thing is that Baker was right about Choi, Hill and DuBois, while the Baker Haters were wrong, but don't let the facts stop the constant bashing.

 

Here's a link to the Giants lineup in 2001 and you can access the lineups from 1997 to 2002.

 

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/teams/2001giants.stm

 

All of that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Dusty started Hollandsworth and Lawton over Murton until he had no other choice. Dusty does not like rookies. We know that. I don't understand why you're getting so upset at other people who get upset at Dusty for taking credit when a player does well, yet at the same time, never taking blame for anything that doesn't go his team's way. First it was "other teams don't have a book on him" then when Dusty realized that Murton wasn't a fluke it was "I'm putting him in a position to succeed" and now "he's succeeding because of me." If you want to believe that Dusty is the reason for Murton's success, then so be it, but I don't think it's necessary to act shocked when other people get upset that he takes all the credit for it.

 

Only the Baker haters see it as "Dusty taking all the credit." Baker complimented Murton by saying the kid's impressing him.

 

I don't see how Murton deserved to play over a proven player like Lawton. I wish Baker would have taken Burnitz out of the lineup and went w/ Murton in LF and Lawton in RF, but lots of managers would have went w/ the vet Burnitz even though he was slumping terribly.

 

As for being upset, the one's who seem to be upset are those who constantly nitpick Baker over not developing young players. Baker hasn't had much to develop. I guess the fact that Novoa, Ohman and Wuertz are solid relievers is irrelevant.

 

So Murton deserved to play over the proven veteran Burnitz, but not the proven veteran Lawton? I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic here. And it's not as if Lawton was outperforming Burnitz at the time - the opposite is true.

 

I think you're taking the devil's advocate thing a bit far here. That or you're arguing just to argue.

 

Lawton's obp was around .375 when they acquired him and they needed a leadoff man, while Burnitz had been in a major slump since late June or so. Iirc Lawton had a bad stretch of 10 games or so w/ the Cubs.

[JC]

 

My entire commentary is this thread isn't directed @ you. Just was taking on the idea that Baker can't develop youngsters.

 

I'm sure its not. But, the thread took on its current vibe after I mentioned Choi and Dubois here:

 

Can Dusty compliment a young player without patting himself on the back? If his "system" is so sound, why didn't it work for Hee Seop, or Dubois?

 

And you later responded, referencing the same two guys here:

 

Ah the vitriol. Can anyone ever give Baker any credit?? Considering he actually played the game he may know a thing or two. Yes, he's a behind the times, but the guy has more hits and homers than this entire board combined.

 

As for Choi and DuBois, yes it's Baker's fault they're riding the pine w/ LA and Cleveland. :roll:

 

Even if my post was considered to be vitriolic (which I don't think it was), I don't see a lot of other vitriolic efforts in this thread.

[CubfaninCA]

 

Only the Baker haters see it as "Dusty taking all the credit." Baker complimented Murton by saying the kid's impressing him.

 

I don't see how Murton deserved to play over a proven player like Lawton. I wish Baker would have taken Burnitz out of the lineup and went w/ Murton in LF and Lawton in RF, but lots of managers would have went w/ the vet Burnitz even though he was slumping terribly.

 

As for being upset, the one's who seem to be upset are those who constantly nitpick Baker over not developing young players. Baker hasn't had much to develop. I guess the fact that Novoa, Ohman and Wuertz are solid relievers is irrelevant.

 

Thank god for the injection of some objectivity.

 

Novoa, Ohman and Wuertz? Notwithstanding the fact that there is room for debate that these three are "solid relievers", as Tim said, the discussion is obviously directed at position players. That is a common concession that is made in the argument about Dusty's bias against young players. Stop trying to change the subject.

 

Why don't you throw out some young position players Baker's been given to develop, who were worth a crap. Or you going to dance around it w/ another 6 paragraph lecture?

 

Murton may be the best one he's had the past 10 years.

[CubfaninCA]

 

I think you're taking the devil's advocate thing a bit far here. That or you're arguing just to argue.

 

Maybe he thinks being objective compels you to object to everything.

 

Ok I'll edit myself. :)

Edited September 21, 2005 by CubfaninCA

[Transmogrified Tiger]

 

Only the Baker haters see it as "Dusty taking all the credit." Baker complimented Murton by saying the kid's impressing him.

 

I don't see how Murton deserved to play over a proven player like Lawton. I wish Baker would have taken Burnitz out of the lineup and went w/ Murton in LF and Lawton in RF, but lots of managers would have went w/ the vet Burnitz even though he was slumping terribly.

 

As for being upset, the one's who seem to be upset are those who constantly nitpick Baker over not developing young players. Baker hasn't had much to develop. I guess the fact that Novoa, Ohman and Wuertz are solid relievers is irrelevant.

 

Thank god for the injection of some objectivity.

 

Novoa, Ohman and Wuertz? Notwithstanding the fact that there is room for debate that these three are "solid relievers", as Tim said, the discussion is obviously directed at position players. That is a common concession that is made in the argument about Dusty's bias against young players. Stop trying to change the subject.

 

Why don't you throw out some young position players Baker's been given to develop, who were worth a crap. Or you going to dance around it w/ another 6 paragraph lecture?

 

Murton may be the best one he's had the past 10 years.

 

Are they better than Eric Karros? Todd Hollandsworth? Glenallen Hill? Steve Scarsone?

[JC]

 

I think you're taking the devil's advocate thing a bit far here. That or you're arguing just to argue.

 

Maybe he thinks being objective compels you to object to everything.

 

Figured the smartest guy on the board could come up w/ a better insult. :o Thanx for the shot though.

 

Listen, you are the one touting yourself to be Captain Objective. It was a more a play on words (objective --> object) than a "shot" at you.

 

By my count, there are two people smarter than me on the board.

 

Maybe just one since Yanr was banned.

[imb]

Cubsfanbeardsauce got b& too.

[CubfaninCA]

 

My entire commentary is this thread isn't directed @ you. Just was taking on the idea that Baker can't develop youngsters.

 

I'm sure its not. But, the thread took on its current vibe after I mentioned Choi and Dubois here:

 

Can Dusty compliment a young player without patting himself on the back? If his "system" is so sound, why didn't it work for Hee Seop, or Dubois?

 

And you later responded, referencing the same two guys here:

 

Ah the vitriol. Can anyone ever give Baker any credit?? Considering he actually played the game he may know a thing or two. Yes, he's a behind the times, but the guy has more hits and homers than this entire board combined.

 

As for Choi and DuBois, yes it's Baker's fault they're riding the pine w/ LA and Cleveland. :roll:

 

Even if my post was considered to be vitriolic (which I don't think it was), I don't see a lot of other vitriolic efforts in this thread.

 

The first 16 posts or so were getting to be a little over the top. Just my opinion though.

 

I must have glanced over your 2nd Choi/DuBi post.

[CubfaninCA]

 

Only the Baker haters see it as "Dusty taking all the credit." Baker complimented Murton by saying the kid's impressing him.

 

I don't see how Murton deserved to play over a proven player like Lawton. I wish Baker would have taken Burnitz out of the lineup and went w/ Murton in LF and Lawton in RF, but lots of managers would have went w/ the vet Burnitz even though he was slumping terribly.

 

As for being upset, the one's who seem to be upset are those who constantly nitpick Baker over not developing young players. Baker hasn't had much to develop. I guess the fact that Novoa, Ohman and Wuertz are solid relievers is irrelevant.

 

Thank god for the injection of some objectivity.

 

Novoa, Ohman and Wuertz? Notwithstanding the fact that there is room for debate that these three are "solid relievers", as Tim said, the discussion is obviously directed at position players. That is a common concession that is made in the argument about Dusty's bias against young players. Stop trying to change the subject.

 

Why don't you throw out some young position players Baker's been given to develop, who were worth a crap. Or you going to dance around it w/ another 6 paragraph lecture?

 

Murton may be the best one he's had the past 10 years.

 

Are they better than Eric Karros? Todd Hollandsworth? Glenallen Hill? Steve Scarsone?

 

I'm glad they got Simon in 2003, and Hollandsworth stayed around too long. Baker's quite far from perfect, but not as bad as portrayed by those who say he can't develop anyone.

[CubfaninCA]

 

I think you're taking the devil's advocate thing a bit far here. That or you're arguing just to argue.

 

Maybe he thinks being objective compels you to object to everything.

 

Figured the smartest guy on the board could come up w/ a better insult. :o Thanx for the shot though.

 

Listen, you are the one touting yourself to be Captain Objective. It was a more a play on words (objective --> object) than a "shot" at you.

 

By my count, there are two people smarter than me on the board.

 

Maybe just one since Yanr was banned.

 

Hope you're not leaving goony out of that count. :o

 

I prefer being called Captain Fair & Balanced.

[JC]

 

Why don't you throw out some young position players Baker's been given to develop, who were worth a crap. Or you going to dance around it w/ another 6 paragraph lecture?

 

Murton may be the best one he's had the past 10 years.

 

This is a loaded question. It is entirely possible that Baker's erratic usage patterns and luke warm confidence have stiffled the growth of some players at his disposal. It is impossible to know for sure, but I can't imagine any skill being cultivated by not getting to practice your craft with regularity.

 

I think Patterson is worth a crap. He has regressed since Baker has come on board. I think Dubois' minor league numbers warranted more patience and a more significant demonstration of confidence by his manager. The same can be said for Choi. While they may not be stars, they aren't complete bums.

 

How about the asinine usage of Hill and Harris when they were brought up over the last couple of years when their minor league numbers warranted playing time? Say what you want, but Bobby Hill has value as a bench player. He has sported OBPs of .353 and .343 over the last two years as a bench player. I find value in those numbers that Baker never did.

 

I will conclude with just 4 paragraphs this time.

[CubfaninCA]

 

Why don't you throw out some young position players Baker's been given to develop, who were worth a crap. Or you going to dance around it w/ another 6 paragraph lecture?

 

Murton may be the best one he's had the past 10 years.

 

This is a loaded question. It is entirely possible that Baker's erratic usage patterns and luke warm confidence have stiffled the growth of some players at his disposal. It is impossible to know for sure, but I can't imagine any skill being cultivated by not getting to practice your craft with regularity.

 

I think Patterson is worth a crap. He has regressed since Baker has come on board. I think Dubois' minor league numbers warranted more patience and a more significant demonstration of confidence by his manager. The same can be said for Choi. While they may not be stars, they aren't complete bums.

 

How about the asinine usage of Hill and Harris when they were brought up over the last couple of years when their minor league numbers warranted playing time? Say what you want, but Bobby Hill has value as a bench player. He has sported OBPs of .353 and .343 over the last two years as a bench player. I find value in those numbers that Baker never did.

 

I will conclude with just 4 paragraphs this time.

 

Will spot you Patterson. I haven't liked how Baker's used him @ times. However, most responsibility has to rest on Corey's shoulders. He's been given shot after shot. It's not like he's been buried on the bench. Unfortunately, the fans are on him now, and he can't seem to block it out. Probably have to deal him and watch he become a good player elsewhere.

[JC]

Cubsfanbeardsauce got b& too.

 

Nobody living in Alaska is smarter than me.

 

I mean, they live in Alaska. Come on.

[brinoch]

 

Why don't you throw out some young position players Baker's been given to develop, who were worth a crap. Or you going to dance around it w/ another 6 paragraph lecture?

 

Murton may be the best one he's had the past 10 years.

 

This is a loaded question. It is entirely possible that Baker's erratic usage patterns and luke warm confidence have stiffled the growth of some players at his disposal. It is impossible to know for sure, but I can't imagine any skill being cultivated by not getting to practice your craft with regularity.

 

I think Patterson is worth a crap. He has regressed since Baker has come on board. I think Dubois' minor league numbers warranted more patience and a more significant demonstration of confidence by his manager. The same can be said for Choi. While they may not be stars, they aren't complete bums.

 

How about the asinine usage of Hill and Harris when they were brought up over the last couple of years when their minor league numbers warranted playing time? Say what you want, but Bobby Hill has value as a bench player. He has sported OBPs of .353 and .343 over the last two years as a bench player. I find value in those numbers that Baker never did.

 

I will conclude with just 4 paragraphs this time.

 

I don't think a single sentence constitutes a paragraph, JC. Stop trying to pad your post. Sheesh.

[brinoch]

Cubsfanbeardsauce got b& too.

 

Nobody living in Alaska is smarter than me.

 

I mean, they live in Alaska. Come on.

 

Three words: Fort Wayne, Indiana.