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

[Chris]

Since some of you love to throw out stat upon stat to support your opinions

 

Stat upon stat to support our opinions or stat upon stat to support the facts?

[CubfaninCA]

Easrlier in this thread there was discussion as to what Dusty did as manager of the Giants to prove or disprove that he hates young players. Some of the players from his better teams were listed; this shows me a couple of things.

 

1) Dusty's philospophy about veteran players was born of experience and reinforced by the way his veteran teams in SF performed. It isn't unreasonable to expect that he would have "learned" from that experience and have brought that theroy that veterans=more wins.

 

2) Given that Baylor was also in love with this philosophy (remember the Proven Veteran Leader?), is it safe to say that management (MacPhail) embraces the veterans first philosophy as well?

 

If so, that means that Baylor, while he needs to go, isn't the problem...he's just a symptom of the problem, and what needs to happen is a larger reorganization.

 

Baker's experience & success in SF has made him set in his ways and stubborn as a mule. However, he hasn't had much to work w/ besides Aurilia, Patterson and Murton, and possibly Cedeno. DuBois, Choi and Calvin Murray aren't much of a smoking gun.

[CubfaninCA]

Since some of you love to throw out stat upon stat to support your opinions

 

Stat upon stat to support our opinions or stat upon stat to support the facts?

 

If stats equal fact, then Baker's a good manager and there year's an aberration.

[JC]

Since some of you love to throw out stat upon stat to support your opinions

 

Stat upon stat to support our opinions or stat upon stat to support the facts?

 

If stats equal fact, then Baker's a good manager and there year's an aberration.

 

Stats do equal facts. However, that does not preclude people from purposely or accidentally misapplying them to suit their needs, an example of which was demonstrated earlier in this thread.

[CubfaninCA]

Since some of you love to throw out stat upon stat to support your opinions

 

Stat upon stat to support our opinions or stat upon stat to support the facts?

 

If stats equal fact, then Baker's a good manager and there year's an aberration.

 

Stats do equal facts. However, that does not preclude people from purposely or accidentally misapplying them to suit their needs, an example of which was demonstrated earlier in this thread.

 

Such as?? Choi??

[JC]

 

Stats do equal facts. However, that does not preclude people from purposely or accidentally misapplying them to suit their needs, an example of which was demonstrated earlier in this thread.

 

Such as?? Choi??

 

I think you know better. But, I've underestimated people before...

[thedaymen]

 

Baylor? :D

 

Argh! I'm turning into a bad imitation of Steve Rosenbloom, and I don't even mean to.

[BigbadB]

If it makes you feel any better, Baylor never angered me as much as Dusty has. But, I wouldn't welcome him back either.

 

The sad thing for me is that I was supportive of the hiring of Dusty. I guess that's what I get for not really knowing that much about his coaching philosophies.

 

But, I cannot support the blind blindly following the blind.

[YearofDaCubs]

Baker has treated every rookie offensive player the same. Little to no playing time regardless of how bad the veteran playing his spot is worse.

 

With that said, Milwaukee and their 2 rookie, 2 second year player line up is tearing up the Cubs "veteran" team.

 

 

Not just head to head, either. Milwaukee and their rookies have a better overall record than the Cubs. I think that's why Dusty isn't playing the kids. He can't stand to allow a team full of young, inexperienced players finish higher in the standings than his team.

 

But, does he ever look at Atlanta, Cleveland, Oakland, etc....?

 

Would Cleveland take Neifi Perez in trade for Jhonny Peralta? Of course not. Would Cleveland start him over Peralta? Of course not. Would Neifi lead off instead of Grady Sizemore? Of course not. Then why on Earth was Neifi playing in front of Ronnie Cedeno and why on Earth does he hit at the top of the order over Matt Murton?

 

Dusty's philosophy might have worked in the era he played in, but it doesn't work now.

 

I pretty much agree with everything you said, but Baker is playing with the hand dealt to him from Hendry. You mentioned the other teams, yet I doubt their GM's would've re-signed guys like Macias, Perez, Hollandsworth and sign Burnitz if there were young guys up and coming. I blame Baker for not playing some of these guys, but Hendry shouldn't be given a free pass, either. Had he really wanted Dubois given a good shot at the everyday spot, what was the need in re-signing Holla (after promising him more playing time) and then signing Burnitz? If Cedeno was wanted to play a lot, why re-sign Perez? Another example, Jocketty wanted Molina to start. Therefore, he didn't even really entertain an offer to Matheny to come back, nor did he sign a good veteran catcher that might enable LaRussa to play him over Molina. Sometimes the manager's decisions are only as good as the GM's decisions. Baker should be criticized, but Hendry has been his co-dependent.

 

I liked the resigning of Hollandsworth. To me, he looked like a guy who could play the part of a Mark Sweeney. Decent outfield replacement when needed and a veteran bat off the bench with some decent punch.

 

Baker was the one who misused him. Whether Hendry had those same intentions or not is not as obvious. I think it hurts the team to not sign a veteran bat for the bench. But, if the manager then turns around and uses the bench bat as an everyday starter, all you can do is beat your head against a wall. Especially if the manager has a contract with more than a year remaining.

 

Maybe I'm wrong and Hendry agrees with Baker's philosophy. If that's the case, Hendry really fooled me. He gave me the impression this past offseason that Dubois would play a lot. He also spent a lot of time and effort building up the farm system. He gave me the impression that he was improving the system from the bottom up, which is a system that works. But, ever since he's had Dusty here, the philosophy seems to have changed.

Misuse is the perfect word to explain Dusty Baker. Off the top of my head I can think 5 times this year he has misused someone. Corey(leadoff) Holla(starter), Neifi(leadoff), Fox(too many consecutive days) Hawkins(closer).

[frostwyrm]

Misuse is the perfect word to explain Dusty Baker. Off the top of my head I can think 5 times this year he has misused someone. Corey(leadoff) Holla(starter), Neifi(leadoff), Fox(too many consecutive days) Hawkins(closer).

 

Dempster(SP). He had 3 straight years of terrible performance as an SP before joining the Cubs.

[bobbyd20]

i'll add Dempster (starter - beginning of the season), Rusch (relief instead of 5th starter while Wood and Prior were down), Walker (6 hole), Macias (#1 pinch hitter), Slumping Burnitz in the 4 spot with a red-hot Ramirez in the 5th spot, etc, etc, etc...these are more than enough reasons for me to have concluded that Baker doesn't know how to fill out a lineup card or use his pitching staff.

 

For these misuses alone, Baker should be gone...and we haven't even touched on all of the excuses or the poor fundamental play.

[Derwood]

i'll add Dempster (starter - beginning of the season), Rusch (relief instead of 5th starter while Wood and Prior were down), Walker (6 hole), Macias (#1 pinch hitter), Slumping Burnitz in the 4 spot with a red-hot Ramirez in the 5th spot, etc, etc, etc...these are more than enough reasons for me to have concluded that Baker doesn't know how to fill out a lineup card or use his pitching staff.

 

For these misuses alone, Baker should be gone...and we haven't even touched on all of the excuses or the poor fundamental play.

 

Lee batting 6th, Perez getting 560 AB's....

[SanJoseCubsFan]

This comment is deciving For NL shortstops he is 6 out of 13 for all of those that qualify. 6 out of 13 is middle of the pack last time I checked. By the way many of the playoff team have a worse OPS shortstop. You can choose to ignore this stat but he is middle of the pack in the NL. The American league has better shortstops this year but so what, we play in the NL. I will say it again, if Neifi is horrible then every SS in the NL is horrible. Neifi has done a fine job this year. He had a bad spell in May and June and has batted over .300 with a .330 on base and +.750 OPS in the second 1/2. Quite trying to make this guy out like the worst player in baseball.

 

 

This does not include today where Neifi is now at .700 OPS and Omar went 0 for 4.

 

1 Felipe Lopez Cin 540 85 154 31 5 20 72 15 6 47 .285 .339 .472 .812

2 Bill Hall Mil 463 62 128 34 3 16 57 18 4 35 .276 .325 .467 .792

3 Rafael Furcal Atl 586 94 164 29 10 11 55 44 10 59 .280 .344 .420 .764

4 David Eckstein StL 595 84 173 25 7 8 58 10 7 55 .291 .361 .397 .758

5 Jimmy Rollins Phi 633 102 178 33 10 10 49 37 6 42 .281 .327 .412 .739

6 Omar Vizquel SF 536 62 147 28 4 3 45 23 10 48 .274 .336 .358 .694

7 Neifi Perez ChC 531 56 147 31 1 9 52 7 3 18 .277 .302 .390 .692

8 Jose Reyes NYM 647 93 178 20 16 7 56 57 13 26 .275 .303 .388 .691

9 Alex Gonzalez Fla 435 45 115 30 0 5 45 5 3 31 .264 .319 .368 .686

10 Jack Wilson Pit 551 60 145 21 7 8 52 6 3 28 .263 .304 .370 .674

RK PLAYER TEAM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB BA OBP SLG OPS

11 Adam Everett Hou 517 55 131 27 2 11 54 20 7 24 .253 .295 .377 .672

12 Royce Clayton Ari 492 57 132 26 4 2 43 9 2 34 .268 .316 .350 .665

13 Cesar Izturis LAD 444 48 114 19 2 2 31 8 8 25 .257 .302 .322 .624

 

 

 

Most shortstop's have unimpressive stats. Look @ his ops, which is middle of the pack

 

Misleading stat. That assessment includes Nomar (191 ABs), Cedeno (80) and Valdez (13) in that mix. Among shortstops with at least 200 ABs this season, Neifi ranks 13th out of 20 in OPS (.692) and .002 lower would have him in 16th out of 20 among shortstops with 200 ABs (3 guys have an OPS of .691)

 

Stupid subjective numbers!

 

Hold it...

[Chris]

By the way many of the playoff team have a worse OPS shortstop.

 

If the season ended right now, the following teams would be in the playoffs:

 

West- Padres

Central- Cardinals

East- Braves

Wild Card- Houston

 

Please note that all of these players have over 400 ABs and here they are top to bottom in terms of OPS:

 

Furcal (.764)

Eckstein (.758)

Greene (.733)

Perez (.700)

Everett (.667)

[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?

 

Keep raging against the machine then. I'm interested to see just how long your crazy quest to right the message board wrongs against Dusty Baker lasts.

I don't know what I did to garner all of this attention from you, IMB!. But you sure seem to enjoy reading my posts, twisting my words and then trying to attack me personally somehow.

 

I don't have a quest. Never said I did. You've said it, though. Interesting.

 

I do have an opinion. I express it, and I provide pretty solid evidence supporting it. If that's a quest in your book, so be it.

 

Is ridicule the only tool in your bag or just your favorite?

[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.

 

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

Nor would I. I don't think any of us would. And yet a lot of us assume that Dusty would. I find that interesting, if not a bit hypocritical.

 

However, it is far from proven that Dusty employs the system described above. It is real easy to look at someone's actions from one point of view and see someone running from responsibility and to look at the same actoins and see someone explaining why he thinks things happen or whatever. We need look no further than our current president. Our nation is deeply divided. He gives the same speech or takes the same actions, but one group hears one thing and the other group hears another.

 

To believe that you know with any amount of certainty that Baker sets up ploys to avoid blame is to say that you are able to read a man's thoughts. Anything short of telepathic ability on your part leaves you with just your opinion. And I think it is a well supported one. Proven? Far from it.

 

There's nothing that disproves this circular logic that's been proved several times.

In a way, you are right. The logic that is being used is sound. But this logical situation is just a theory. No one has proven that Dusty actually does this. Is there evidence for it, yes, most certainly. Is there evidence against it? Yes.

Edited September 23, 2005 by CubsWin

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Notice that Neifi is near the bottom of OBP on that list SJCF. He's 12th of 13 qualified SS in RC/G, which is Runs Created as a rate.

[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.

 

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.

Come on CubinNY, Murton could have said a lot of things other than completely ripping his manager or confirming that Baker's choice to ease him in helped him to be successful from the beginning.

 

He could have said, "It may have made a difference. Who knows? I just came to play." He could've said, "Well, Dusty's the manager. He makes the decisions on who plays and who doesn't. That's not my job." Any of those would have been fine, right?

 

I think it is clearly very logical to think that if Murton didn't agree that Baker helped him at all, he could and would have said something other than his original quote which praised Dusty's approach. There are a lot of other, very subtle options a person can say without giving his manager's method a ringing endorsement.

 

If you disagreed that Baker's tactic helped, and you were one of his players, would you say what Murton said? Would you subjugate your own feelings, spit on your own self-respect and lie the way you assume Murton did? If so, why, when you could have said so many other things that would have neither offended Dusty nor confirmed that his decisions helped you succeed?

 

You see, in order for your opinion to be accurate, not only does Dusty have to completely without morals and one of the most evil schemers on the face of the planet, but Murton has to be the biggest ass-kissing wimp, devoid of any self-respect, ever. I'm just not willing to believe that is the case.

[CubinNY]

If you disagreed that Baker's tactic helped, and you were one of his players, would you say what Murton said? Would you subjugate your own feelings, spit on your own self-respect and lie the way you assume Murton did? If so, why, when you could have said so many other things that would have neither offended Dusty nor confirmed that his decisions helped you succeed?

 

You see, in order for your opinion to be accurate, not only does Dusty have to completely without morals and one of the most evil schemers on the face of the planet, but Murton has to be the biggest ass-kissing wimp, devoid of any self-respect, ever. I'm just not willing to believe that is the case.

 

I don't know anything about what Murton believes.

 

But here is what I would say if I was a callup rookie trying to make a good impression.

 

"Dusty has been great. I mean he has told me how he was going to get me into games and for the most part he has done it. I appreciate the fact that he has let me get myself settled and not, you know, thrown me in the deep end so to speak."

 

If I'm a callup rookie with Murtons numbers here is what I think,

 

"I'm better than Hariston and I'm better than Hollandsworth, and I should be playing everyday."

[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.

Nor would I. I don't think any of us would. And yet a lot of us assume that Dusty would. I find that interesting, if not a bit hypocritical.

 

However, it is far from proven that Dusty employs the system described above. It is real easy to look at someone's actions from one point of view and see someone running from responsibility and to look at the same actoins and see someone explaining why he thinks things happen or whatever. We need look no further than our current president. Our nation is deeply divided. He gives the same speech or takes the same actions, but one group hears one thing and the other group hears another.

 

To believe that you know with any amount of certainty that Baker sets up ploys to avoid blame is to say that you are able to read a man's thoughts. Anything short of telepathic ability on your part leaves you with just your opinion. And I think it is a well supported one. Proven? Far from it.

 

There's nothing that disproves this circular logic that's been proved several times.

In a way, you are right. The logic that is being used is sound. But this logical situation is just a theory. No one has proven that Dusty actually does this. Is there evidence for it, yes, most certainly. Is there evidence against it? Yes.

 

I was being sarcastic. It would be great to never be blamed yet always get the credit, however unethical it is.

 

The rest of my post that you didn't reply to was the evidence for it, what's the evidence against it?

[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.

 

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

Nor would I. I don't think any of us would. And yet a lot of us assume that Dusty would. I find that interesting, if not a bit hypocritical.

 

However, it is far from proven that Dusty employs the system described above. It is real easy to look at someone's actions from one point of view and see someone running from responsibility and to look at the same actoins and see someone explaining why he thinks things happen or whatever. We need look no further than our current president. Our nation is deeply divided. He gives the same speech or takes the same actions, but one group hears one thing and the other group hears another.

 

To believe that you know with any amount of certainty that Baker sets up ploys to avoid blame is to say that you are able to read a man's thoughts. Anything short of telepathic ability on your part leaves you with just your opinion. And I think it is a well supported one. Proven? Far from it.

 

There's nothing that disproves this circular logic that's been proved several times.

In a way, you are right. The logic that is being used is sound. But this logical situation is just a theory. No one has proven that Dusty actually does this. Is there evidence for it, yes, most certainly. Is there evidence against it? Yes.

 

I was being sarcastic. It would be great to never be blamed yet always get the credit, however unethical it is.

 

The rest of my post that you didn't reply to was the evidence for it, what's the evidence against it?

1. The quotes from players like Murton's. There have been several throughout Dusty's tenure with the Cubs.

 

2. The lack of evidence that Dusty rules his clubhouse with an iron fist.

 

3. The logic that shows us that in order for Dusty to be making up ploys to avoid taking responsibility, not only does he have to be a pretty terrible person devoid of any morals, but his players have to be spineless wimps who consistently lie for him even though they are dying to tell the truth.

 

4. The logic that shows us that it is pretty easy for two groups of people to watch the same event, a presidential speech, for instance, and hear two completely different things. One group hears a fearless leader and the other group hears an incredulous liar. Which one is the truth? Both sides will stand by their interpretation, but both can't be accurate. It is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

Again, I'm not defending Dusty. I still want him to be fired. I still disagree with many of his moves. I just don't think that this quote and others constitute evidence that he is a bad manager. I think it is evidence of fans who allow themselves to get so angry that they lose objectivity. Can I prove that? No. That's just my opinion.

[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.

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 wouldn't say he's devoid of morality. He's not very bright, is subject to self-serving delusions, and is incapable of admitting to a mistake. He has a fundamental lack of humility and I suspect he actually believes most of his BS. His primary personality trait is that he views everything through the lens of his own gigantic ego.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

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 wouldn't say he's devoid of morality. He's not very bright, is subject to self-serving delusions, and is incapable of admitting to a mistake. He has a fundamental lack of humility and I suspect he actually believes most of his BS. His primary personality trait is that he views everything through the lens of his own gigantic ego.

 

No. Dusty is an intelligent human being. He just values his own personal experience over statistics/sabermetrics. He's old school.

 

there's nothing worse than a fool who thinks he knows more than he does (dusty). he isn't willing to open himself up to "new" ideas.

 

you don't go up to the plate to walk...please. :roll:

[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.

 

I wouldn't say he's devoid of morality. He's not very bright, is subject to self-serving delusions, and is incapable of admitting to a mistake. He has a fundamental lack of humility and I suspect he actually believes most of his BS. His primary personality trait is that he views everything through the lens of his own gigantic ego.

I think we are saying the same thing.

 

You describe Dusty as a delusional egomaniac with a complete lack of humility. How can someone who fits that description still behave morally?

[Careless]

what's the evidence against it?

This should almost never be asked. what's the evidence against giant flying ninja hamsters? (hint: there is none)

It's very rarely possible to disprove existance.