KW34

Wow, didn't realize how despised Macha is/was in Oakland. I retract my L.A. guess - no way DePodesta takes someone Beane doesn't like. How many managers (not named Cox) are there that team's fans actually like? It doesn't seem to be very many.

Gammons just reported Macha is out as A's manager (money issue). I'm guessing he winds up in L.A.

That's interesting. I've always felt that Dusty's main motivation method was "us against the world", and his teams thrived under adversity - when forced to circle the wagons (apologize for the cliches). In 2003 he attacked the negative perception of the Cubs and Cubs fans ("why not us?") and successfully parlayed it into a somewhat successful playoff run. Last year he attacked the broadcasters and media without much success, but did have the team in position for a run until the hurricane in Florida. This year they made a brief run after Prior went down, and again when Wood finally went to have his surgery. I figured next year he would play the "woe is me I don't have a contract after all I've done". If he turns down an extension, what does he have left? The fans now expect a winner, the broadcasters play nice (not in a bad way - I am a big fan of Len), hopefully injuries won't be as big of a problem next year. Has Dusty ever been in a situation where he couldn't complain or blame anything? And more importantly, can he possibly succeed in this type of environment?

Many Dodgers fans hated Tracy, often complaining about moves some here might find "Dusty-esque", most notably his handling of one Hee Seop Choi. If Tracy were here I don't think many would find much different in on the field matters. Check out this comments on this blog if you'd like a sampling of the SABR-friendly L.A. fans' views on Tracy: http://dodgerthoughts.baseballtoaster.com/archives/269357.html

While I agree the Sosa money absolutely counts towards the overall payroll, I don't feel it is fair to judge Dusty with this money included. Sosa did not play for the Cubs this year and that money was never available for Dusty on the field. It makes more sense to me to judge Dusty based on the 9th highest payroll (which still should be plenty to make the playoffs). Wasn't a huge fan of this. I agree this was bad. Corey was absolutely awful this year. I realize he is not suited to leadoff, but he did have one month of success doing it last year. I think Dusty was trying to get Corey going and I can't fault him for that. It didn't work and Patterson was demoted. Didn't like this one, either. Remlinger was bad this year, also. Every time I thought Dusty was finally getting it with regard to Remlinger's splits he would do something stupid like this. I understand your frustrations and don't disagree with you entirely. It has definitely been a tough year. Allow me to throw out a few possibilities: Dusty takes his players to task in private. He is always publicly protective of his players. While one might want him to tell the press the truth (that he's ticked off at so-and-so for this-or-that), I don't think that's the best way to maintain a good relationship with a player (or anyone for that matter). With that said, I truly think Dusty makes some statements he doesn't believe to keep the spotlight off the players and on him. There is more to managing than pressing the right buttons on the field. Baseball is a game of failure, and even if you make the correct statistical call you are still going to be wrong quite a bit. It is a long season. Players get nicked, players lives get complicated, outside forces impact one's psyche. These things are rarely reported but have a tremendous impact on a players ability to succeed on any given day. A manager has to deal with things like this also. Yes, Dusty can't make a lineup to save his life but he must be doing something right to have had the success he's had. I disagree with your assessment that the Cubs should have been a 90 win team with the injuries. I think when we look back on this season objectively we will realize that this team had serious flaws. There's more I want to address but I've got to go now. I'll try to come back later.

No they are not. I would argue that since Sosa is not here he shouldn't count, at least when considering what Dusty has to work with. And they fired Lefebvre, replacing him with Tom Trebelhorn. Trebelhorn did worse and lasted one year. For whatever it is worth, Dusty followed up his rookie managerial season .636 winning percentage with seasons of .478, .465, and .420, respectively. He then ripped off 6 consecutive seasons finishing in either first or second place. Is it possible that "Dusty-ball" takes awhile to take hold and patience is in order? Is it possible that stability would be better than making a change? Although Dusty does upset me at times he is not the anti-christ some make him out to be (at least I don't think so ). :wink:

Here's an even better question, who was the last Cub manager with the payroll to work with that Dusty has had? Per the USA Today salary database, in 1993 Jim Lefebvre had the 6th highest payroll (as opposed to 9th this season).

You were right. He recanted his allegations that 6 or 7 pitchers on every team were doing steroids but not of his own use.

Tom House is an admitted steroid user, so I don't think he'll be welcome in the Cubs org. I'm not knocking House, just saying that the people in charge are image conscious. I don't think this is true. Do you have a link? I thought the story went that House meant greenies and not steroids. Additionally I'm not sure if he said he did it or it was just pitchers on his team.

As an aside, there was an article in the New Yorker about Rickey Henderson playing independent ball. He was asked if he knew about steroid use. His response [paraphrasing - can't recall exact words]: "No man, I wish they would've told me. Could you imagine Rickey on steroids? Look out!" :D

Big Mac? That's pre-Beane and pre-"Moneyball" though, isn't it? Pre-Beane, yes, although Beane learned his chops from Alderson who was there at the time.

Steriods can make one recover faster, enabling one to become stronger and faster (run, hit for power). Tangentially this would impact the others as well - the faster you are the more balls you can get to (field), the stronger you are the harder you can hit the ball so more grounders get through the infield (hit)...throw, well, I've really got nothing on throw. General argument is as follows: premise #1: Steriods make you a better baseball player. premise #2: Average baseball players are cheaper in the marketplace. conclusion: Average baseball players given steroids would then be both better and cheaper. It seems you are arguing premise #1 which is fine. Then I might ask why the uproar over steroids to begin with?

Wow, I never looked at it that way. Great argument. :wink:

I tend to agree with you on both counts. I do think, however, that ownership needs to take some responsibility.

I realize that the Tejada story revolves around B12, but one cannot help but notice the contingent of one-time Oakland A's that have been involved in the headlines regarding steroids. This begs the question of whether their was something else in the Moneyball philosophy besides taking advantage of an inefficient market. This is pure speculation on my part, but think about it. Take a player who knows the game, plays the right way, gets the most out of his ability, is a gamer (i.e. whatever cliche you choose) but just doesn't have the talent level of his peers. Now if you give this player some medical help that improves his ability you've really got something. It's tough to take a 5 tool athlete and make him a baseball player. What if you could take a baseball player and improve his 5 tools? Really all it would take would be a seedy doctor, someone in or around the organization who advocated it (could be anyone), and a "don't ask, don't tell" organizational-philosophy. Again, not saying this is the case but it does make me wonder.

While I agree in principle with your statements, I don't agree that good patience can be taught (at least not at the major league level) with much success. With this said I believe the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of those who put the team together and not the manager. The manager is like the person leading a team hacking through the jungle with a machete. They are just blindly cutting and chopping, making progress, and the manager's job is to most effectively lead the team through the jungle. It's the general manager's job to climb a tree and point out the direction in which to go. The manager may say "We're making great progress," and indeed they may be, but it's up to the GM to say "Yes, but the road is the other way!"

I would expect him hit like Juan Pierre. I don't think a hitter should significantly change his approach based on batting order, therefore I would not expect a significant change. Bellhorn slugged .512 in 2002 and .444 last year. My contention is that this is the type of hitter clubs wanted him to be. They will accept the strikeouts and low average if he's walking and hitting for power. Take out the power part and it is unacceptable. That is why three teams have dumped him the past few years. While I'm not going to get into optimal lineup construction here, I don't think a player shouldn't cease being valuable simply because his spot in the batting order changes. The bottom line is that Bellhorn was bad in 2003 and if you want to blame Dusty and claim misuse that's your prerogative, but I just don't see it that way.

He was better than Lenny freaking Harris. They both sucked. Belhorn finished 2003 with a .646 OPS playing half the year in Colorado. Everyone's favorite whipping boy (Corey) is at .626 (just as bad) this year, and Neifi is at .702. Point being it wasn't Dusty's fault - Belhorn played until he became a liability and was gone. Harris was on the roster and given first chance to replace Belhorn. He failed also, hence Ramirez. Bellhorn had a roughly .680 OPS when he was benched. Harris in 2003? OPS around .480. That's not a typo. Harris was around .600 at that time (I'm assuming you mean around May 24). Again, I'm not saying Harris was good, simply that Belhorn was bad and deserved to be benched. Harris got about 17 starts (by my crude calculation) before he was deemed inadequate as well. Either way in my opinion you can't say Dusty is a bad manager based on this particular situation.

I don't understand this. Organization people are very high on Cedeno, but they are bringing Neifi back? How could they not be aware that there's not a snowball's chance in hell of Cedeno starting over Neifi? Stuff like this makes me think the Cubs deserve to lose. Neifi was the backup SS this year. Nomar went down, so Neifi starts. I think there's a very good chance of Cedeno being the starting SS next year, even with Neifi on the roster. Just curious, what would you do for a backup SS (with the assumption that it is possible that Cedeno might fail)?

He was better than Lenny freaking Harris. They both sucked. Belhorn finished 2003 with a .646 OPS playing half the year in Colorado. Everyone's favorite whipping boy (Corey) is at .626 (just as bad) this year, and Neifi is at .702. Point being it wasn't Dusty's fault - Belhorn played until he became a liability and was gone. Harris was on the roster and given first chance to replace Belhorn. He failed also, hence Ramirez.

Are we referring to the same Belhorn who was just released by Boston? Come on, the guy was atrocious in 2003 (as he has been this year) - you cannot pin that on Baker. Dusty has always made seemingly crazy statements to keep the spotlight off of the players and is a master at it. Look at the times he makes these statements and I think you'll find they coincide with a deeper issue that is being overshadowed. I find it funny that many claim to exaggerate in regard to Dusty while his statements are twisted as gospel that he firmly believes. I also find it funny that there are some who truly believe they would be a better manager than Dusty. Let's face it, Dusty is indeed frustrating, but not nearly as bad as some make him out to be. I wouldn't be averse to a managerial change but have no problem with 2006 being a Baker led team.

But he'll be back in September to pick up that time. September time doesn't count. If he has less than 130 at bats he will still be considered a rookie next year.

By my calculations this most likely will allow Murton to retain his rookie status next year (2 days shy of 45 days on the 25 man roster). Not defending the move, but perhaps this had something to do with it.

Hmmm, I guess Steve Stone and the Red Sox probably wouldn't have much use for Tony Gwynn. Not even close. You must only remember the heavy-set Gwynn in his 30s. He owns 5 gold gloves and has 319 career stolen bases, topping out at 56 in 1987 (2nd in the league).

I think the portion of Clines' statements that is the most telling is saying Corey could do it in bp but couldn't translate it into games. Allow me to offer an analogy. Suppose you are a decent golfer. Someone on the range points out some flaw in your swing. You try it out - it's uncomfortable, but after about 15 to 20 swings it starts to work. You're hitting longer, straighter, with more consistency. Now you get on the course for real and your foursome wants to make the game "interesting", enough so that it would sting a bit if you lost. Now you start out with your new approach and you duck hook your first drive OB. The next few shots and holes continue in this manner. How many of you would continue to play with this new swing? I think most would abandon it and go back to the method that worked in the past, even though long term it is not in your best interests. Now, when you try to go back to your original swing you just can't find it - you're chunking, skulling and slicing. You keep trying to make minor adjustments on the fly but nothing works. Your round is shot and there is seemingly nothing you can do - your swing is in shambles. This is my theory on what may be going on with Corey.