ESPN Insider says ....
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Prev: Nats Ink Willy
Next: Gomes a red again
From: John Kasupski on 22 Feb 2010 22:59 On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:24:33 -0800 (PST), RJA <agentvaughn(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Baker did play the likes of Patterson and Taveras over the likes of >better options while they were healthy (Freel, Hopper, Dickerson, etc.) OK, I guess that makes him an idiot then. Of course, Charlie Manuel in Philadelphia stuck with Jimmy Rollins (.296 OBP, 86 OPS+) as his leadoff man all year when he could easily have moved Victorino, Utley, or even Werth into the leadoff slot and still had a guy with 20 or more steals - and a better OBP and OPS+ than Rollins - leading off. I guess that makes Charlie Manuel an idiot too. And what about Ron Gardenhire in Minnesota sticking with Carlos Gomez (.287 OBP, 64 OPS+) as his centerfielder when he could have gone with an outfield of Delmon Young in left, Denard Span in center and Mike Cuddyer in right. I guess that makes Ron Gardenhire an idiot too. Oh, and Jim Leyland in Detroit kept running Adam Everett out there at shortstop despite a .288 OBP and 59 OPS+ while Ramon Santiago grabbed some pine. I guess Leyland is an idiot too. So, imagine that, four of the top 12 active managers in career winning percentage are idiots. Those six Manager of the Year awards, 15 division titles, 5 league pennants, and 2 WS championships they collectively have in eight different cities obviously must be the result of their teams winning in spite of the manager - and I am eternally grateful to all of Dusty's detractors, because never in a million years would I have figured this out on my own! Many Thanks, JK http://www.principalspage.com/theblog/wp-content/uploads//2008/02/commonsense.jpg
From: Kommienezuspadt on 23 Feb 2010 10:18 "John Kasupski" <w2pio(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote in message news:gid6o55pn2htgr1t62gavjdol1hcvevb77(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:24:33 -0800 (PST), RJA <agentvaughn(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>Baker did play the likes of Patterson and Taveras over the likes of >>better options while they were healthy (Freel, Hopper, Dickerson, etc.) > > OK, I guess that makes him an idiot then. > > Of course, Charlie Manuel in Philadelphia stuck with Jimmy Rollins (.296 > OBP, 86 > OPS+) as his leadoff man all year when he could easily have moved > Victorino, > Utley, or even Werth into the leadoff slot and still had a guy with 20 or > more > steals - and a better OBP and OPS+ than Rollins - leading off. I guess > that > makes Charlie Manuel an idiot too. > > And what about Ron Gardenhire in Minnesota sticking with Carlos Gomez > (.287 OBP, > 64 OPS+) as his centerfielder when he could have gone with an outfield of > Delmon > Young in left, Denard Span in center and Mike Cuddyer in right. I guess > that > makes Ron Gardenhire an idiot too. > > Oh, and Jim Leyland in Detroit kept running Adam Everett out there at > shortstop > despite a .288 OBP and 59 OPS+ while Ramon Santiago grabbed some pine. I > guess > Leyland is an idiot too. > > So, imagine that, four of the top 12 active managers in career winning > percentage are idiots. Those six Manager of the Year awards, 15 division > titles, > 5 league pennants, and 2 WS championships they collectively have in eight > different cities obviously must be the result of their teams winning in > spite of > the manager - and I am eternally grateful to all of Dusty's detractors, > because > never in a million years would I have figured this out on my own! > > Many Thanks, > JK > > http://www.principalspage.com/theblog/wp-content/uploads//2008/02/commonsense.jpg > wow
From: john smith on 23 Feb 2010 12:00 Saying that the REDS were kept afloat last year because of Dusty Baker is quite a stretch. I remember very well then being stuck on 4.5 games back for like a month. It wasn't because of the brilliance of Baker but by the pure mediocrity and sadness of every team in the NL Central division. Heck, I believe sometime in July all 6 teams were separated by 5 games top to bottom. It sure wasn't Baker's genius that did this. Just a bunch of really mediocre teams right around .500 all year. The Cardinals proved how weak this division was with their pathetic playoff performance. So before we rewrite baseball history and award Baker any medals remember this division wasn't all that great. Their are still no dominant starting pitchers in this division and the bottom line is dominant starting pitching wins in the post season more often than not...
From: RJA on 23 Feb 2010 13:21 On Feb 22, 10:59 pm, John Kasupski <w2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:24:33 -0800 (PST), RJA <agentvau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Baker did play the likes of Patterson and Taveras over the likes of > >better options while they were healthy (Freel, Hopper, Dickerson, etc.) > > OK, I guess that makes him an idiot then. > > Of course, Charlie Manuel in Philadelphia stuck with Jimmy Rollins (.296 OBP, 86 > OPS+) as his leadoff man all year when he could easily have moved Victorino, > Utley, or even Werth into the leadoff slot and still had a guy with 20 or more > steals - and a better OBP and OPS+ than Rollins - leading off. I guess that > makes Charlie Manuel an idiot too. Rollins had a .349 OBP the year before. At least he has shown the ability to get on base some in the past. His OBP slipped due to his lower batting average last year and Manuel was likely just hoping he would come out of that funk "any day now." It depends on alternatives as well. I'd want the guys you mentioned hitting in the middle of the order. The bottom line here is that Baker doesn't make decisions based on logic or numbers, but rather on speed when choosing his leadoff guy. > And what about Ron Gardenhire in Minnesota sticking with Carlos Gomez (.287 OBP, > 64 OPS+) as his centerfielder when he could have gone with an outfield of Delmon > Young in left, Denard Span in center and Mike Cuddyer in right. I guess that > makes Ron Gardenhire an idiot too. Gomez was batting 8th all year which is his appropriate spot. Can't really call the manager an idiot there. Many teams have a guy who plays solely for what he offers on defense. I think many would have been fine with Taveras batting 8th. Of course, Taveras is a horrible defender so there's no reason for him to even be in the lineup. He's a glorified pinch runner. > Oh, and Jim Leyland in Detroit kept running Adam Everett out there at shortstop > despite a .288 OBP and 59 OPS+ while Ramon Santiago grabbed some pine. I guess > Leyland is an idiot too. Everett batted 8th and mostly 9th. Also appropriate. If he had to play this guy for some reason, that's where he should bat. > So, imagine that, four of the top 12 active managers in career winning > percentage are idiots. Those six Manager of the Year awards, 15 division titles, > 5 league pennants, and 2 WS championships they collectively have in eight > different cities obviously must be the result of their teams winning in spite of > the manager - and I am eternally grateful to all of Dusty's detractors, because > never in a million years would I have figured this out on my own! I think you're off point. If Taveras was going to play for whatever reason, then batting him 8th would have been appropriate. Those managers are doing something that Baker doesn't do. They used common sense and knew how to read a stat sheet.
From: John Kasupski on 25 Feb 2010 03:50
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:40:12 -0800 (PST), HTP <tmbowman25(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Signing taveras was Walts doing and the buck ultimately stops with >him. 1 year made at least a little sense; 2 years at 6 mil was >downright stupid. But I feel quite certain that he did not do so >without the input and encouragement from Dusty. Now, given the cost, >it was inevitable that Willy would get alot of playing time. Its Dusty >that insisted on hitting Willy repeatedly in the leadoff spot. True, >the Reds didnt have many other good options for that job, at least >initially. But given Taveras' career inability to get on base and the >emergence of Dickerson as an OBP threat, after a month or 2 it became >inexcusable for Dusty to pencil in Taveras in the top spot. He saw >those SB totals and allowed that to be the overriding factor. Well, you've just basically validated my entire argument then. Except for the OBP part...which as I've said, Baker is not a stathead manager and so that's probably never going to be the overriding factor. So basically, this discussion has run its course. JK > > |