What's wrong with Dusty?
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
From: David Short on 4 Feb 2010 15:04 On 2/4/2010 2:32 PM, Junoexpress wrote: > I suppose you could argue that the Reds players are so bad that it > really doesn't matter much which one you put in the line-up. ;>) I don't think that would be a very tough argument to make. Baker has certainly compounded it by making bad 25 man roster decisions at the start of the year and then taking his time sorting things out. > One thing I seem to recall Dusty going on about a lot with the Reds > though is him playing certain people on the basis of the handedness > of the other team's starting pitcher, which to me, does not seem > to be a very good strategy. The platoon advantage is 20 points of batting average or so. If you have GOOD players, that 20 points of batting average may not seem like much. But with guys who can't hit....20 points is a lot. > All in all, I take it as yet another sign of Dusty's incompetence. I doubt you'll get very many who will argue FOR Dusty. He's made some bad decisions here. dfs
From: Junoexpress on 5 Feb 2010 01:12 On Feb 4, 3:04 pm, David Short <David.No.Sho...(a)Spam.wright.Please.edu> wrote: > On 2/4/2010 2:32 PM, Junoexpress wrote:> I suppose you could argue that the Reds players are so bad that it > > One thing I seem to recall Dusty going on about a lot with the Reds > > though is him playing certain people on the basis of the handedness > > of the other team's starting pitcher, which to me, does not seem > > to be a very good strategy. > > The platoon advantage is 20 points of batting average or so. If you have > GOOD players, that 20 points of batting average may not seem like much. > But with guys who can't hit....20 points is a lot. > OK, I can see this point: he's trying to make the most of a little. > > All in all, I take it as yet another sign of Dusty's incompetence. > > I doubt you'll get very many who will argue FOR Dusty. He's made some > bad decisions here. > > dfs I think the Reds need a manager who a) has more energy b) knows his players better and Dusty is not this man. Cheers, Matt
From: David Short on 5 Feb 2010 09:05 On 2/5/2010 1:12 AM, Junoexpress wrote: > On Feb 4, 3:04 pm, David Short > <David.No.Sho...(a)Spam.wright.Please.edu> wrote: >> On 2/4/2010 2:32 PM, Junoexpress wrote:> I suppose you could argue that the Reds players are so bad that it > >>> One thing I seem to recall Dusty going on about a lot with the Reds >> > though is him playing certain people on the basis of the handedness >> > of the other team's starting pitcher, which to me, does not seem >>> to be a very good strategy. >> >> The platoon advantage is 20 points of batting average or so. If you have >> GOOD players, that 20 points of batting average may not seem like much. >> But with guys who can't hit....20 points is a lot. >> > OK, I can see this point: he's trying to make the most of a little. > >>> All in all, I take it as yet another sign of Dusty's incompetence. >> >> I doubt you'll get very many who will argue FOR Dusty. He's made some >> bad decisions here. >> >> dfs > > I think the Reds need a manager who > a) has more energy > b) knows his players better > and Dusty is not this man. The Manager has two jobs. The first is to keep the players playing. I think Dusty does a really nice job of this. The players have not divided up into pro and anti factions. They try on the field. When they don't try on the field Dusty calls them on it. This PART of the managers job has been a problem for this franchise since Jack McKeon. The other part of the managers job is to have the right guys on the 25 man roster and the right guys in the right roles. I don't think anybody can argue that Dusty has been pretty terrible at this. Why in the name of sam hill didn't Gomes come north last year? You can go down the line. The responsibility here rests between the GM and the manager, but Dusty has been a problem. Cory Patterson, not jettisoning Taverable sooner. Letting Paul Bako put up a 64 OPS+ and congratulating yourself on what a good pickup it was....That kind of stuff just has to stop if the franchise will move forward. dfs
From: Ron Johnson on 5 Feb 2010 10:37 On Feb 4, 4:04 pm, David Short <David.No.Sho...(a)Spam.wright.Please.edu> wrote: > On 2/4/2010 2:32 PM, Junoexpress wrote:> I suppose you could argue that the Reds players are so bad that it > > > really doesn't matter much which one you put in the line-up. ;>) > > I don't think that would be a very tough argument to make. > > Baker has certainly compounded it by making bad 25 man roster decisions > at the start of the year and then taking his time sorting things out. > > > One thing I seem to recall Dusty going on about a lot with the Reds > > > though is him playing certain people on the basis of the handedness > > of the other team's starting pitcher, which to me, does not seem > > to be a very good strategy. > > The platoon advantage is 20 points of batting average or so. See below. Almost spot on for batting average. Left-handed hitters are more likely to be a viable option with large platoon splits. > If you have > GOOD players, that 20 points of batting average may not seem like much. > But with guys who can't hit....20 points is a lot. Here's the way hitters with 1000+ PAs between 1984-97 broke down (I haven't bothered to re-do the study. I suspect the percentage of players with extreme splits is down a tad because of roster squeeze due to the expanded pitching staffs. Though Curtis Granderson for instance is still gainfully employed.) vs Left vs Right Bats BA OBP SLG OPS BA OBP SLG OPS diff OA Right .280 .354 .457 .811 .260 .325 .411 .736 .075 .761 Left .273 .342 .404 .746 .296 .377 .472 .849 .103 .814 Both .259 .325 .368 .693 .258 .331 .370 .701 .008 .698 Diff is OPS on the better side - OPS on the weaker side OA is overall OPS. Looks like the switch-hitters at least avoided platoon splits. Not really. It's just that the mix of switch hitters who hit better against left and right respectively is such that as a group they produce broadly the same numbers versus left and right. Here's how they break down at the career level OPS diff Both Left Right 176 or more 12% 14% 3% 126 to 175 8% 27% 13% 76 to 125 17% 24% 29% 26 to 75 34% 27% 41% 25 to -25 29% 8% 12% -26 to -75 2% -76 or more 1%
From: John Kasupski on 5 Feb 2010 11:22
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:28:03 -0800 (PST), HTP <tmbowman25(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >1st base - Votto was clearly the starter and missed time due to his >mental state, but received almost all of the starts while active and >available. Yep...and when he was out, Hernandez got moved to 1B for mosy of those games and Hanigan started at catcher. >2nd base - Phillips started 150 games > >shortstop - > Gonzalez is the April starter, by May 4th he'd started 21 of 25 >games, he sits for a week and a half but is not disabled, resumes >playing, is disabled in mid-june after starting 49 of 65 games at ss, >so he's clearly the regular having been rested for non-injury related >reason for only about 5 games or so. He returns after 5 weeks and >starts 18 of the next 20 games and is then traded to Boston. So AGon >started roughly 67 of the 75 games for which he was physically sound. > > Hairston was the primary replacement for AGon when Alex was disabled >or physically unavailable, although he was also seeing alot of time at >3rd base during that period. > >Janish started 10 or 11 games at ss in the 2&1/2 months prior to AGons >stint on the DL, and then started roughly 45 of the final 48 games at >ss after AGon was traded. > >3rd base- > Encarnacion started every game in April, and then was disabled for 2 >months (58 games). Upon his July return, he started 23 of 24 games at >3rd until he was dealt to Toronto. So Encarnacion started in 42 of the >43 games for which he was physically available. > > Rolen started 4 of 6 when acquired, then was disabled for 2 weeks. He >returned and started 34 of the final 40 games. He did have frequent >flare ups of back spasms i believe. > > During EE's DL stint, the third base starts were divided mainly among >Hairston (29) and Rosales (25). Janish got 1 start (he wasnt >frequently being interchanged with Rosales as you seemed to recall). >The other starts i assume went to Sutton or Richar. During this whole >period, Hairston was starting virtually every day, but was often >unavailable for 3rd since he was filling in at SS for Gonzalez while >he was on the DL. > >left field- > I'm not completely sure who the starter was supposed to be leaving >spring training. I believe that Dickerson and Hairston were supposed >to platoon at the position, and that this would be the only real >platooning that Dusty planned on doing. However, Hairston started only >9 games in LF (with 6 of those starts coming in April before the >injury train started), and was unavailable most of the rest of his >tenure because he was filling in for EE and Gonzalez. > Dickerson did 2 stints on the DL (missing 49 games), shifted to CF >occasionally when Taveras was injured or sucking so badly that even >Dusty couldnt bear to see him on the field. > Gomes came up at about the end of April and essentially became the >RH half of the LF platoon, then started showing up in RF when Bruce >got hurt. > Nix gradually usurped Dickerson as the primary LH half of that >platoon after a hot start, and then promptly cratered. He would >eventually be disabled in August (15 games). > Balentien was acquired in July and saw occasional starts but never >had any claim on the starter job. > Darnell McDonald was in the mix too. > > Theres no one player who clearly stands out as deserving the starting >LF job last year. You can make a case for 4 players. Hairston was >needed elsewhere. Dickerson was disabled twice, was day-to-day alot >iirc, and was never viewed as more than a platoon player anyway. Gomes >was in Louisville for the first month of the season and was also iffy >as an everday player. Nix wasnt able to claim the starting job out of >Florida and didnt start to lay claim until May, based mainly on a >string of excellent PH appearances. > >Centerfield - > Taveras started 93 of the first 118 games. He missed 8 starts in >early May and 4 starts in July/Aug with minor ailments. So he started >roughly 93 of the 105 games for which he was physically available, >which is actually quite astonishing considering his level of play. > Stubbs was called up and became the starter when WillieT was disabled >and started 40 of the final 44 games. > >Right Field > Bruce started 78 of the first 86 games before going onto the DL. >After that it was a mixture of Gomes, Dickerson, balentien, and Nix, >until Bruce returned in mid-Sept. I dont recall Bruce being "sent down >to the minors", other than perhaps a rehab stint for his injury. That's exactly what happened, after he returned from the DL, he was sent to the Bats on a rehab assignment. > Catcher > For the most part split fairly evenly between hanigan and Hernandez, >considering Ramon spent a stretch at first and that both catchers did >time on the DL. I hope youre not in favor of the idea of starting one >of these guys 140+ times. I wonder if anybody in the organization has considered getting Bench, or somebody, to teach Alonso to be a catcher. He's the perfect size for a catcher, it would solve the problem of him being blocked by Votto at 1B, and the Reds would have a lefty-hitting catcher with good contact and some pop. >So, with the exception of LF and C, Dusty probably wrote his starters >name into the lineup card 90+% of the time, provided that the player >was physically available. The only position that looked RH/LH >platooned was LF, although to be honest RF should have been, certainly >after a couple months had passed. > > I see no evidence of Dusty trying to get his bench players plenty of >playing time. The bench-hopping, as you called it, was due almost >entirely to injuries. > >The 2010 Reds look pretty set with the exception of ... left field, so >expect more of the same. C - Hernandez.Hanigan 1B - Votto 2B - Phillips SS - Cabrera 3B - Rolen RF - Bruce CF- Stubbs LF - Cast of thousands. Let's hope Heisey is the next Frank Robinson (comes out of nowhere to win the Reds' starting job in LF). JK |