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

[ltb]

Remember prior to the ASG, Holly got a start against a lefty because 5-7 days is too long to sit without losing your stroke. Baker's words, not mine. If that is true for a craptacular veteran like Hollandsworth, then why isn't it true for the rookies?

 

Baker also said he started Dubois against Tim Wakefield because he thought Wakefield's knuckleball might mess up Hollandsworth's stroke. How does that jibe with Baker's stated approach of putting rookies in situations to succeed and gain confidence?

 

I hate to re-hash this debacle of a season but all one has to do is look at Hendry's comments from the convention and compare them to Dusty's comments in ST related to Dubios and Mr. Craptacular. They don't jive whatsoever.

 

I can just see it. Five years from now someone on Dodger Blues will look up all the rookies that never got a chance under Dusty and mention how terrible Dubios turned out to be. The person will never mention he was competing for playing time against the likes of Todd hollandsworth and Jose Macis.

 

Once again, I'll try an analogy.

 

Pat Robertson and I are being chased by a lion.

I don't have to be faster than the lion to not get eaten

I only have to be faster than Rev. Robertson.

 

The rookie doesn't have to be great he only has to be better than the veteran who he is competing for playing time.

 

Holla was good when he was healthy last year. He got the benefit of the doubt for too long this year, but DuBois wasn't any better considering he can't field a lick.

 

sorry bro, that fielding comment is way off.

 

Hollandsworth, LF Defensive Rate (2005 Cubs): 94

Dubois, LF Defensive Rate (2005 Cubs): 94

 

equal.

dubois was the better hitter, and thus the better choice to get playing time.

[Derwood]

Neifi was never batted in the right slot.

 

But though he has just 17 BB (thus the .301 OBP), he has only struck out 43 times in 528 AB's.

 

Plus who thought he could get you 52 RBI? That's just 5 fewer than Barrett, who was also batted in the wrong slot.

 

Baker don't know slots.

[Shawon12]

sorry bro, that fielding comment is way off.

 

Hollandsworth, LF Defensive Rate (2005 Cubs): 94

Dubois, LF Defensive Rate (2005 Cubs): 94

 

equal.

dubois was the better hitter, and thus the better choice to get playing time

.

 

This is not a personal attack, but referencing some defensive stats can make one look quite foolish and deminish any credibilty from his or her other posts. Makes me wonder if some watch games or just read box scores

[CubinNY]

sorry bro, that fielding comment is way off.

 

Hollandsworth, LF Defensive Rate (2005 Cubs): 94

Dubois, LF Defensive Rate (2005 Cubs): 94

 

equal.

dubois was the better hitter, and thus the better choice to get playing time

.

 

This is not a personal attack, but referencing some defensive stats can make one look quite foolish and deminish any credibilty from his or her other posts. Makes me wonder if some watch games or just read box scores

 

Yes because statistics can be deceiving and our perceptions of reality are never wrong. Makes me wonder if some still use flint to start a fire.

 

This is not a personal attack

[goonys evil twin]

Neifi was never batted in the right slot.

 

But though he has just 17 BB (thus the .301 OBP), he has only struck out 43 times in 528 AB's.

 

Plus who thought he could get you 52 RBI? That's just 5 fewer than Barrett, who was also batted in the wrong slot.

 

Baker don't know slots.

 

Neifi starting is the wrong spot. The only reason he didn't strike out was the same reason he didn't walk. He swung at everything. At usually, early pitches are pitcher's pitches. Which is why he leads the team in GIDP.

[CubfaninCA]

Neifi was never batted in the right slot.

 

But though he has just 17 BB (thus the .301 OBP), he has only struck out 43 times in 528 AB's.

 

Plus who thought he could get you 52 RBI? That's just 5 fewer than Barrett, who was also batted in the wrong slot.

 

Baker don't know slots.

 

Neifi starting is the wrong spot. The only reason he didn't strike out was the same reason he didn't walk. He swung at everything. At usually, early pitches are pitcher's pitches. Which is why he leads the team in GIDP.

 

So you would have went w/ Cedeno instead? Just curious. Not trying to start shhh.

[Derwood]

Neifi was never batted in the right slot.

 

But though he has just 17 BB (thus the .301 OBP), he has only struck out 43 times in 528 AB's.

 

Plus who thought he could get you 52 RBI? That's just 5 fewer than Barrett, who was also batted in the wrong slot.

 

Baker don't know slots.

 

Neifi starting is the wrong spot. The only reason he didn't strike out was the same reason he didn't walk. He swung at everything. At usually, early pitches are pitcher's pitches. Which is why he leads the team in GIDP.

 

I don't dispute that at all. But RBI is a real stat that can't be discarded. Same with Burnitz. People like to decry him as a terrible outfielder. I lump them into the same boat. Both are above average defensively, and both have given more RBI than expected.

 

That's not to say I want either back, but no one here likely believed that the two would combine for 135 RBI and 133 runs scored? Compare that to last season, when the primary RF (Sosa) and SS (Nomar/Martinez) combined for 130 RBI and 119 runs scored.

 

Sadly, Neifi and Jeromy have been a slight upgrade offensively and a big upgrade defensively. Probably why management defends them so much.

[BigbadB]

Neifi was never batted in the right slot.

 

But though he has just 17 BB (thus the .301 OBP), he has only struck out 43 times in 528 AB's.

 

Plus who thought he could get you 52 RBI? That's just 5 fewer than Barrett, who was also batted in the wrong slot.

 

Baker don't know slots.

 

Wouldn't you rather have him strike out a little more over grounding into double plays? 21 is downright pathetic. Especially considering the amount of times he actually comes to the plate with runners on. 326 at bats this year, Neifi has come to the plate with no one on. 202 times, he's come to the plate with runners on, 21 of those times have resulted in a GIDP.

 

That would have been 21 more opportunities for Lee and Co. to drive in 21 more runs.

 

Give Neifi 21 more outs to put towards his OBP for making two outs instead of 1. Now his OBP looks even worse. But, let's keep batting him at the top of the order since it's worked out so well this year. :wink:

[Derwood]

Neifi was never batted in the right slot.

 

But though he has just 17 BB (thus the .301 OBP), he has only struck out 43 times in 528 AB's.

 

Plus who thought he could get you 52 RBI? That's just 5 fewer than Barrett, who was also batted in the wrong slot.

 

Baker don't know slots.

 

Wouldn't you rather have him strike out a little more over grounding into double plays? 21 is downright pathetic. Especially considering the amount of times he actually comes to the plate with runners on. 326 at bats this year, Neifi has come to the plate with no one on. 202 times, he's come to the plate with runners on, 21 of those times have resulted in a GIDP.

 

That would have been 21 more opportunities for Lee and Co. to drive in 21 more runs.

 

Give Neifi 21 more outs to put towards his OBP for making two outs instead of 1. Now his OBP looks even worse. But, let's keep batting him at the top of the order since it's worked out so well this year. :wink:

 

he should bat no higher than 9th

[BigbadB]

Neifi was never batted in the right slot.

 

But though he has just 17 BB (thus the .301 OBP), he has only struck out 43 times in 528 AB's.

 

Plus who thought he could get you 52 RBI? That's just 5 fewer than Barrett, who was also batted in the wrong slot.

 

Baker don't know slots.

 

Neifi starting is the wrong spot. The only reason he didn't strike out was the same reason he didn't walk. He swung at everything. At usually, early pitches are pitcher's pitches. Which is why he leads the team in GIDP.

 

I don't dispute that at all. But RBI is a real stat that can't be discarded. Same with Burnitz. People like to decry him as a terrible outfielder. I lump them into the same boat. Both are above average defensively, and both have given more RBI than expected.

 

That's not to say I want either back, but no one here likely believed that the two would combine for 135 RBI and 133 runs scored? Compare that to last season, when the primary RF (Sosa) and SS (Nomar/Martinez) combined for 130 RBI and 119 runs scored.

 

Sadly, Neifi and Jeromy have been a slight upgrade offensively and a big upgrade defensively. Probably why management defends them so much.

 

I don't really understand the thought process that Burnitz and Neifi provided quality RBI's this year. Burnitz hit directly behind 3 guys hitting .300 or better all season. 1 of those guys (Walker) got on base in front of him at a .356 clip, another is one of the league leaders in OBP in Lee at .423 and Ramirez had a .358 OBP. Burnitz should have 83 RBI's with his eyes closed up there with that kind of production in front of him. But, 23 of his RBI's came from his own bat driving himself in. 12 of those at bats came with runners on, which now explains where a minimum of 35 of his RBI's came from. His poor .256 AVG/.426 SLG/.742 OPS with runners on base explains why after more at bats than anyone else on the team in a high production slot in the batting order, he only has 83 RBI's on the season. In 100 less at bats this year, Aramis still has 9 more RBI's than Burnitz. That's what comes from an OPS difference of 150 points.

 

Burnitz has come to the plate this year with runners on 295 times.

 

Ramirez has come to the plate this year with runners on 247 times.

 

Lee has come to the plate this year with runners on 275 times.

 

I would also give Burnitz the advantage in lefty/righty match ups. In other words, Burnitz sees more right handers than Aramis and Lee see left handers. This makes Burnitz look even worse.

 

I won't even go into Neifi's RBI totals, since his OPS is as horrible as it is.

 

Burnitz was probably the best we could get given the circumstances last year. I don't fault him for that. I do fault management for waiting until the last minute to do something with RF and having to settle for Burnitz. I was adamant about getting Cliff Floyd last year to replace Sammy.

 

But, I really can't give Burnitz any offensive production props. Poor OPS, average pop, lack of overall production from a high production slot in the batting order. I think Murton can outproduce Burnitz with a bat now.

 

Therefore, that experiment should be over. Next!

[BigbadB]

Neifi was never batted in the right slot.

 

But though he has just 17 BB (thus the .301 OBP), he has only struck out 43 times in 528 AB's.

 

Plus who thought he could get you 52 RBI? That's just 5 fewer than Barrett, who was also batted in the wrong slot.

 

Baker don't know slots.

 

Wouldn't you rather have him strike out a little more over grounding into double plays? 21 is downright pathetic. Especially considering the amount of times he actually comes to the plate with runners on. 326 at bats this year, Neifi has come to the plate with no one on. 202 times, he's come to the plate with runners on, 21 of those times have resulted in a GIDP.

 

That would have been 21 more opportunities for Lee and Co. to drive in 21 more runs.

 

Give Neifi 21 more outs to put towards his OBP for making two outs instead of 1. Now his OBP looks even worse. But, let's keep batting him at the top of the order since it's worked out so well this year. :wink:

 

he should bat no higher than 9th

 

Actually, I was thinking 8th is a good fit for him. Decent AVG that could drive in runs. The fact he never walks would drive pitcher's crazy trying to get to the pitcher's spot in the order. But, since Dusty sees Neifi as a premier top of the order hitter, one or the other needs to go, preferably both.

[CubfaninCA]

Neifi was never batted in the right slot.

 

But though he has just 17 BB (thus the .301 OBP), he has only struck out 43 times in 528 AB's.

 

Plus who thought he could get you 52 RBI? That's just 5 fewer than Barrett, who was also batted in the wrong slot.

 

Baker don't know slots.

 

Neifi starting is the wrong spot. The only reason he didn't strike out was the same reason he didn't walk. He swung at everything. At usually, early pitches are pitcher's pitches. Which is why he leads the team in GIDP.

 

I don't dispute that at all. But RBI is a real stat that can't be discarded. Same with Burnitz. People like to decry him as a terrible outfielder. I lump them into the same boat. Both are above average defensively, and both have given more RBI than expected.

 

That's not to say I want either back, but no one here likely believed that the two would combine for 135 RBI and 133 runs scored? Compare that to last season, when the primary RF (Sosa) and SS (Nomar/Martinez) combined for 130 RBI and 119 runs scored.

 

Sadly, Neifi and Jeromy have been a slight upgrade offensively and a big upgrade defensively. Probably why management defends them so much.

 

I don't really understand the thought process that Burnitz and Neifi provided quality RBI's this year. Burnitz hit directly behind 3 guys hitting .300 or better all season. 1 of those guys (Walker) got on base in front of him at a .356 clip, another is one of the league leaders in OBP in Lee at .423 and Ramirez had a .358 OBP. Burnitz should have 83 RBI's with his eyes closed up there with that kind of production in front of him. But, 23 of his RBI's came from his own bat driving himself in. 12 of those at bats came with runners on, which now explains where a minimum of 35 of his RBI's came from. His poor .256 AVG/.426 SLG/.742 OPS with runners on base explains why after more at bats than anyone else on the team in a high production slot in the batting order, he only has 83 RBI's on the season. In 100 less at bats this year, Aramis still has 9 more RBI's than Burnitz. That's what comes from an OPS difference of 150 points.

 

Burnitz has come to the plate this year with runners on 295 times.

 

Ramirez has come to the plate this year with runners on 247 times.

 

Lee has come to the plate this year with runners on 275 times.

 

I would also give Burnitz the advantage in lefty/righty match ups. In other words, Burnitz sees more right handers than Aramis and Lee see left handers. This makes Burnitz look even worse.

 

I won't even go into Neifi's RBI totals, since his OPS is as horrible as it is.

 

Burnitz was probably the best we could get given the circumstances last year. I don't fault him for that. I do fault management for waiting until the last minute to do something with RF and having to settle for Burnitz. I was adamant about getting Cliff Floyd last year to replace Sammy.

 

But, I really can't give Burnitz any offensive production props. Poor OPS, average pop, lack of overall production from a high production slot in the batting order. I think Murton can outproduce Burnitz with a bat now.

 

Therefore, that experiment should be over. Next!

 

Good post about Burnitz. With all the opporunties, he should have over 100 rbi's. Should have gotten Kent.

[UK1679666180]

Neifi was never batted in the right slot.

 

But though he has just 17 BB (thus the .301 OBP), he has only struck out 43 times in 528 AB's.

 

Plus who thought he could get you 52 RBI? That's just 5 fewer than Barrett, who was also batted in the wrong slot.

 

Baker don't know slots.

 

Neifi starting is the wrong spot. The only reason he didn't strike out was the same reason he didn't walk. He swung at everything. At usually, early pitches are pitcher's pitches. Which is why he leads the team in GIDP.

 

So you would have went w/ Cedeno instead? Just curious. Not trying to start shhh.

 

I would've... When Cedeno proved he could hit AAA pitching at a high clip with a large enough sample, Neifi was coming down from his early season high.

 

Despite Neifi's great start, he managed an OPS under .700 and an OBP around .300. His defense hasn't been able to sway me from thinking the Cubs would've been better off giving Cedeno the 8th spot in the order and playing him 4-5 games a week.

 

I don't know if Cedeno would've been more productive, but I sure would've liked to have found out as it was worth the risk.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

Holla was good when he was healthy last year. He got the benefit of the doubt for too long this year, but DuBois wasn't any better considering he can't field a lick.

 

That's a misconception people have about Hollandsworth in 2004. He was good off the bench, but not as a starter. His numbers in PT duty were so good, they masked his inefficiency once he took over as a starter much like Neifi's hot April and earl May this season masked his atrocious play over the rest of the season.

 

In 2004 as an OF, Hollandsworth hit 261/333/414 in 111 ABs.

 

As a pinch hitter, he went 563/611/1.063 in 16 ABs.

 

As you can see, Hollandsworth's numbers when playing in the field were not anything that should have earned him a starting position. Not over Dubois. Not over Murton. Hell, Greive or Kelton likely could have put up that kind of line.

[biittner77]

I remember when The Cubs first hired Baker. A lot of Giants fans warned us about Baker and 3 things stand out:

 

1. They said Baker hated young players. At the time I believed that it was more a matter of the Giants system being terrible. The Giants fans disagreed. We have no way of knowing on that one

 

2. The rule of 7: "A starting pitcher will stay in the game until he has pitched 7 innings or has given up 7 runs, whichever comes first. Kind of funny when you think about it.

 

3. Forfeit Sundays: Baker fills out some bizarre lineup cards.

 

At the time I thought Baker was a pretty good manager as he had won with Barry Bonds, a good closer and basically nothing else.

 

It cannot be denied that the players, for the most part, love playing for Baker. This includes Cedeno and Murton. Granted, they do not have the luxury of speaking their minds but the fact that they say good things as opposed to saying nothing at all actually says a lot. :wink:

 

Nevertheless, what rubs most people here the wrong way is that Baker always has an excuse. For example:

 

Baker says: "You have to make an impression when you get your chance, that's what I did" or words to that effect. Murton goes 3-4 in his first game but still gets benched and then sent down. So much for making an impression.

 

When he finally starts giving Murton more time, his success is due to "The other team doesn't have a book on him yet." While there is some truth to that, isn't it also true that when a pitcher and a hitter face each other for the first time that the pitcher has the advantage? Also, if experience beats inexperience shouldn't the experienced pitcher have yet another advantage?

 

Given no other option, Baker plays Murton every day. When he continues to hit Baker says "see, my system worked". What's missing from Baker's system is a fundamental part of the learning curve, namely, that it is also possible to learn from your failures.

 

apologies for this Russian Novel of a post. Congrats to anyone that made it this far.

[CubsWin]

Im glad someone else was willing to take up the "I love Dusty Baker" banner, we were really lacking since ZZ got b&

 

Quite clever considering I want Baker to be fired. :o

 

Just trying to provide some objectivity for a change.

Yeah, I saw this post, too, and couldn't figure out who IMB! was referring to. I went back and looked to see if anyone in this thread actually said they loved Dusty Baker and wanted him to stay on as manager and I couldn't find one post that said that.

 

Maybe IMB! couldn't argue with our points, so he/she decided to try to paint as something we're not. I don't know.

[CubsWin]

I remember when The Cubs first hired Baker. A lot of Giants fans warned us about Baker and 3 things stand out:

 

1. They said Baker hated young players. At the time I believed that it was more a matter of the Giants system being terrible. The Giants fans disagreed. We have no way of knowing on that one

 

2. The rule of 7: "A starting pitcher will stay in the game until he has pitched 7 innings or has given up 7 runs, whichever comes first. Kind of funny when you think about it.

 

3. Forfeit Sundays: Baker fills out some bizarre lineup cards.

 

At the time I thought Baker was a pretty good manager as he had won with Barry Bonds, a good closer and basically nothing else.

 

It cannot be denied that the players, for the most part, love playing for Baker. This includes Cedeno and Murton. Granted, they do not have the luxury of speaking their minds but the fact that they say good things as opposed to saying nothing at all actually says a lot. :wink:

 

Nevertheless, what rubs most people here the wrong way is that Baker always has an excuse. For example:

 

Baker says: "You have to make an impression when you get your chance, that's what I did" or words to that effect. Murton goes 3-4 in his first game but still gets benched and then sent down. So much for making an impression.

 

When he finally starts giving Murton more time, his success is due to "The other team doesn't have a book on him yet." While there is some truth to that, isn't it also true that when a pitcher and a hitter face each other for the first time that the pitcher has the advantage? Also, if experience beats inexperience shouldn't the experienced pitcher have yet another advantage?

 

Given no other option, Baker plays Murton every day. When he continues to hit Baker says "see, my system worked". What's missing from Baker's system is a fundamental part of the learning curve, namely, that it is also possible to learn from your failures.

 

apologies for this Russian Novel of a post. Congrats to anyone that made it this far.

I feel much the same way. Well said.

 

And, yes, I did make it all the way to the end of your Russian novel.

[imb]

Im glad someone else was willing to take up the "I love Dusty Baker" banner, we were really lacking since ZZ got b&

 

Quite clever considering I want Baker to be fired. :o

 

Just trying to provide some objectivity for a change.

Yeah, I saw this post, too, and couldn't figure out who IMB! was referring to. I went back and looked to see if anyone in this thread actually said they loved Dusty Baker and wanted him to stay on as manager and I couldn't find one post that said that.

 

Maybe IMB! couldn't argue with our points, so he/she decided to try to paint as something we're not. I don't know.

 

Find one post where I was talking to you? I was using a little hyperbole to describe our friend over there, I didn't know I had to clear that by you. Maybe you couldn't come up with a post that had any substance to it, so you decided to come up with this bs again, nice going.

[frostwyrm]

Dusty's system is foolproof. He waits until he has no choice but to play the rookie, then if the rookie sucks Dusty can say he waited because he knew the rookie wasn't ready or was just plain bad, and if the rookie performs well Dusty can claim it's because of his system. Logically it's a closed circle. Dubois and Murton were both successful examples of Dusty's system in action, failure or success of the individual players is irrelevant because any result, good or bad, validates the system.

[CubsWin]

Im glad someone else was willing to take up the "I love Dusty Baker" banner, we were really lacking since ZZ got b&

 

Quite clever considering I want Baker to be fired. :o

 

Just trying to provide some objectivity for a change.

Yeah, I saw this post, too, and couldn't figure out who IMB! was referring to. I went back and looked to see if anyone in this thread actually said they loved Dusty Baker and wanted him to stay on as manager and I couldn't find one post that said that.

 

Maybe IMB! couldn't argue with our points, so he/she decided to try to paint as something we're not. I don't know.

 

Find one post where I was talking to you? I was using a little hyperbole to describe our friend over there, I didn't know I had to clear that by you. Maybe you couldn't come up with a post that had any substance to it, so you decided to come up with this bs again, nice going.

Wow, clearly you haven't read my posts in this thread. I gave a direct quote from Matt Murton talking about the subject at hand. I don't know how much more substantive and relevent you need my post to be before you can recognize that it has some "substance" to it.

 

On the other hand, the post of your's I quoted above is nothing but an attempt at a derisive personal attack that by your own admission is exaggerated.

 

Your post also failed to clarify who you were talking to. When I read it, I assumed you were responding to my posts. Then I saw that CubfaninCA had also responded. I went back and saw that we were basically the only two posters that were saying that Dusty might actually have been accurate in his statement. I also saw that no one wrote anything remotely close to what you accused them of have writing. I wasn't sure whether you were accusing me or CubfaninCA or someone else of having taken up the banner you described, but since you didn't say exactly to whom you were referring, it was a logical deduction to reach that it was either one of us or both.

 

Hyperbole? I guess if that's all you got, use it.

 

Now, if we can get back on track in this thread. Does anyone else truly believe that Murton was forced to say what he said?

[CubsWin]

Dusty's system is foolproof. He waits until he has no choice but to play the rookie, then if the rookie sucks Dusty can say he waited because he knew the rookie wasn't ready or was just plain bad, and if the rookie performs well Dusty can claim it's because of his system. Logically it's a closed circle. Dubois and Murton were both successful examples of Dusty's system in action, failure or success of the individual players is irrelevant because any result, good or bad, validates the system.

That's a pretty good point. Well said and thought out.

 

It makes perfect sense. All that has to be assumed is that Dusty is completely devoid of any morality, honesty or sense of self-worth.

 

If those assumptions are accurate, I think you are dead on.

[CubsWin]

I thought I would post this again.

 

ChicagoSports.com[/url]"]Baker has been criticized for not playing Murton against right-handers early, though Murton insists that's one of the big reasons for his success.

 

"It's easy to struggle your first 10 or 15 at-bats and then really start beating yourself up," he said. "I was able to have a little success early, it made me relax and realize I could play here."

Look, I'm not saying that this quote changes anything about Dusty Baker. I still would like to see him go. I disagree with a lot of his decisions. But I think this quote is pretty solid evidence that this thread is another example of us being overly eager to find things to criticize him for.

 

Isn't it enough that he bats guys with terrible OBP at the top of the order? Isn't enough that he failed to rally his team to victory when Wood and Nomar returned? Isn't it enough that he isn't the best at managing a bullpen so that guys stay sharp? Isn't it enough that he overvalues major league experience?

 

Do you really have to twist his words or assume the worst about what he says to whip him some more? I think it is classless of us, and I think were better than this, but so what? That's just my opinion. What matters is that the assumptions made about Baker in this case are inaccurate unless you believe that Murton had a metaphorical gun to his head when he said the above quote.

[CubinNY]

I thought I would post this again.

 

ChicagoSports.com[/url]"]Baker has been criticized for not playing Murton against right-handers early, though Murton insists that's one of the big reasons for his success.

 

"It's easy to struggle your first 10 or 15 at-bats and then really start beating yourself up," he said. "I was able to have a little success early, it made me relax and realize I could play here."

Look, I'm not saying that this quote changes anything about Dusty Baker. I still would like to see him go. I disagree with a lot of his decisions. But I think this quote is pretty solid evidence that this thread is another example of us being overly eager to find things to criticize him for.

 

Isn't it enough that he bats guys with terrible OBP at the top of the order? Isn't enough that he failed to rally his team to victory when Wood and Nomar returned? Isn't it enough that he isn't the best at managing a bullpen so that guys stay sharp? Isn't it enough that he overvalues major league experience?

 

Do you really have to twist his words or assume the worst about what he says to whip him some more? I think it is classless of us, and I think were better than this, but so what? That's just my opinion. What matters is that the assumptions made about Baker in this case are inaccurate unless you believe that Murton had a metaphorical gun to his head when he said the above quote.

 

What did you expect Murton to say?

 

"Hey, Dusty is as stuborne as a jack ass. All I've done is hit since I got here and the ignoramus plays Hollandsworth over me. What a buffone. He has to be one of the worst managers for bringing up you position players in the modern era of baseball."

 

Dusty is Murtons manager for crying out loud.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Dusty's system is foolproof. He waits until he has no choice but to play the rookie, then if the rookie sucks Dusty can say he waited because he knew the rookie wasn't ready or was just plain bad, and if the rookie performs well Dusty can claim it's because of his system. Logically it's a closed circle. Dubois and Murton were both successful examples of Dusty's system in action, failure or success of the individual players is irrelevant because any result, good or bad, validates the system.

That's a pretty good point. Well said and thought out.

 

It makes perfect sense. All that has to be assumed is that Dusty is completely devoid of any morality, honesty or sense of self-worth.

 

If those assumptions are accurate, I think you are dead on.

 

I know I wouldn't want a system where I don't get blamed for failure, and get credit for success.

 

There's nothing that disproves this circular logic that's been proved several times. Dubois had early success, Dusty had praise but always some criticisms that somehow justified him not playing. When Dubois finally got to play, Dusty said that this was the plan all along, and that he's been trying to put him in the best situations to succeed. In other words, good job Dusty, Dubois wouldn't have done that well without you. Ridiculous. Then when Dubois struggles, there's not a mention of said "system", and he gets replaced much quicker than Hollandsworth did while putting up similar numbers.

 

Same thing with Murton. Has early success, Dusty says good job, that he's putting Murton in the best situations to succeed. Again, hooray Dusty. Murton continues to hit, all other options sans Hairston are removed, and Murton splits time with Hairston, with all praise for Murton being tempered with "he can't hit for power(paraphrased)". Now Murton keeps hitting, and it's a result of Dusty's plan all along. Sorry if I don't buy that.

[dalgreen]

Another ridiculous quote from Dusty, " Murton isn't the typical lead-off guy. He doesn't have enough speed." I'll place my bet on Murton beating Perez in the 100 m dash. I'd also take Murton over Eckstein in the 100 m dash. Nevertheless, it's about getting on base.

 

Changing subjects: why are you guys trying to put Dubois and Murton in the same class? You shouldn't . Dubois is 27 years old and played many, many years in the minors. Why some of you are still considering him a "kid" is somewhat hilarious. Murton has/had more upside than Dubois. I don't understand why Dubois' name is even being brought up. I don't even think he's in the same class as Murton.