PDA

View Full Version : More proof Dusty Baker is lost as a manager



NJOBP36
03-12-04, 12:27 AM
If the abuse he puts on his pitchers and his stupid moves in the WS in 2002 weren't proof enough. Of course it's common knowledge he doesn't buy into getting on-base but this is one of the first articles that I've seen directly quoting him.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sports_story.asp?intid=38057119

<em>"I think walks are overrated unless you can run," Baker said. "If you get a walk and put the pitcher in a stretch, that helps. But the guy who walks and can't run, most of the time they're clogging up the bases for somebody who can run."
</em>

That's just wrong, if you get on-base you score more runs and keep innings alive.

<em>
"Have you ever heard the Yankees talk about on-base percentage and walks?
</em>

Actually, yes. Stick Michael raised the Yankees OBP in the early 90's and surprise...they won more games. The Yankees key to success has been taking pitchers out of games earlier.

<em>
"It's called hitting, and it ain't called walking. Do you ever see the top 10 walking? You see top 10 batting average. A lot of those top 10 do walk. But the name of the game is to hit.
</em>

That's a horrible argument and makes no sense, who cares what the media puts in the paper. Fine, it's not "hitting". Call it "batting" or anything, the goal of the batter is to get on-base and in the process try to hit for power.

nyyfanatic85
03-12-04, 12:30 AM
He must be doing something right, but his arguments make no sense.

SuperMario66
03-12-04, 12:43 AM
Dusty Baker is a weird cat. We have known that for a while.

Nettles dfw
03-12-04, 12:44 AM
FWIW, Dusty Baker career OBP .347

Wow, Baker's comments don't seem to make sense. I could perhaps see a manager argue that the scouting/first hand evaluation of players is more important than stats (based on their position). But it's surprising to see him so dismissive of walks.

Bluesexy's daddy
03-12-04, 01:24 AM
Strange. Very strange.

jojos_2
03-12-04, 03:38 AM
Heh.

Bub
03-12-04, 07:35 AM
He must really hate it when two big slow guys leaf off an inning with back-to-back singles.

Irabu's Son
03-12-04, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Bub
He must really hate it when two big slow guys leaf off an inning with back-to-back singles.

Exactly.

I don't get Baker on this one. What's the difference between a walk and a single up the middle? Nada.

LoneRedSeat
03-12-04, 11:33 AM
"Clogging up the bases..." that a MLB manager has these thoughts is dumbfounding.

StaceyRosie
03-12-04, 11:36 AM
:uhh:

What is he talking about?

Nettles dfw
03-12-04, 12:08 PM
This may be proof that managing your people and having a good relationship with your stars may be very important. Because it sure is hard to understand his statements, although he has been relatively sucessful.

His comments on walks not only conflict with "new age" stats but also fly in the face of "conventional" baseball wisdom which decrees that "a walk is as good as a hit".

JeffWeaverFan
03-12-04, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by nyyfanatic85
He must be doing something right, but his arguments make no sense.
Well, it helps that he has managed very good teams. Anyways, this might have been the worst argument I have ever heard. I can't believe a major league manager could actually believe this.

rightfielder21
03-12-04, 07:50 PM
Something else is Dusty other than his name... :uhh:

Nettles dfw
03-12-04, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by rightfielder21
Something else is Dusty other than his name... :uhh: :lol:

nufced1918
03-13-04, 12:24 AM
well he has Grady there to advise him

SuperMario66
03-13-04, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by nufced1918
well he has Grady there to advise him

Good point... :)

Nettles dfw
03-13-04, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by nufced1918
well he has Grady there to advise him Holy cow. How long will Cubs starters be left in games this year?

NJOBP36
03-13-04, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by Nettles dfw
Holy cow. How long will Cubs starters be left in games this year?

That might be the only thing that will stop Prior from being a top-five pitcher ever. FWIW, Baker's teams have led the NL in pitcher abuse points the past two years. 4 out of the top 5 abused in the NL were Cubs.

Nettles dfw
03-13-04, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by NJOBP36


That might be the only thing that will stop Prior from being a top-five pitcher ever. FWIW, Baker's teams have led the NL in pitcher abuse points the past two years. 4 out of the top 5 abused in the NL were Cubs. Great info. Where does Torre rate?

NJOBP36
03-13-04, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by Nettles dfw
Great info. Where does Torre rate?

2nd, first and first the past three years in the AL.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/current/

Nettles dfw
03-13-04, 01:22 AM
NJOBP36,
thanks.

Bosox Guy in Chitown
03-13-04, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by nyyfanatic85
He must be doing something right, but his arguments make no sense.

No offense to cubswin (as they are his first team), but as I tell my Cubbie-loyalist co-workers over lunch: "Baker is to the Cubs what Grady was to the Sox - they win despite of their manager, not because of him."

NJOBP36
03-13-04, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by Nettles dfw
NJOBP36,
thanks.

No problem, I hadn't looked at where Torre ranked before. Surprised me.

C. Bellinger
03-14-04, 10:00 AM
Okay, the NL Central is a masterpiece of creative geniuses this year, including:

Dusty
Tony La Russa, in my opinion a vastly overrated manager on the field (great motivator though)
Jimy Williams (sigh...)
Lloyd McClendon (sigh...)

Dang, I wish Bob Boone were still around.

nyyfanatic85
03-14-04, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by C. Bellinger
Okay, the NL Central is a masterpiece of creative geniuses this year, including:

Dusty
Tony La Russa, in my opinion a vastly overrated manager on the field (great motivator though)
Jimy Williams (sigh...)
Lloyd McClendon (sigh...)

Dang, I wish Bob Boone were still around.

I don't even know who's managing the Brewers and Reds anymore. They seem to go through managers like JLo goes through boyfriends.:lol:

hobokenfish
03-14-04, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by NJOBP36


2nd, first and first the past three years in the AL.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/current/

So I guess that makes Joe a terrible manager too.

There is more to managing than stats. Although I don't completely agree with Dusty's views on OBP (I do agree that it doesn't mean as much if you have guys who can't hit), I don't think he's a bad manager either. In fact, he's pretty good. The Cubs went pretty far last year, despite having a fairly weak lineup and Sosa being hurt/suspended for part of the year. Yes, they had a pretty good pitching staff, but the team was vastly improved from 2002. Dusty helped that team believe in itself. And he did a pretty good job in SF too.

Is Dusty a hall of fame manager? Probably not. But he sure as hell is not Grady Little either.

NJOBP36
03-14-04, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by hobokenfish


So I guess that makes Joe a terrible manager too.

There is more to managing than stats. Although I don't completely agree with Dusty's views on OBP (I do agree that it doesn't mean as much if you have guys who can't hit), I don't think he's a bad manager either. In fact, he's pretty good. The Cubs went pretty far last year, despite having a fairly weak lineup and Sosa being hurt/suspended for part of the year. Yes, they had a pretty good pitching staff, but the team was vastly improved from 2002. Dusty helped that team believe in itself. And he did a pretty good job in SF too.

Is Dusty a hall of fame manager? Probably not. But he sure as hell is not Grady Little either.

I don't recall commenting on Torre one way or the other. For the record though, he's a poor in-game manager but seems to be a good people manager. I'm not sure if that has value or not. I don't think Baker did that much for the Cubs, the pitching was already there and he took Bellhorn who had a great year the year before and made him swing at everything. He's a very overrated manager and while he's not Grady Little he's not much better.

hobokenfish
03-14-04, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by NJOBP36

I don't recall commenting on Torre one way or the other. For the record though, he's a poor in-game manager but seems to be a good people manager. I'm not sure if that has value or not. I don't think Baker did that much for the Cubs, the pitching was already there and he took Bellhorn who had a great year the year before and made him swing at everything. He's a very overrated manager and while he's not Grady Little he's not much better.

Joe's a very poor in-game manager who has 4 rings and 6 pennants. Dusty is "overrated" because his teams win. I don't care how they do it, as long as their teams win. And Dusty's track record is not too shabby. Just as he did with the Giants, he has taken the Cubs and made them believe they are the team to beat this year in the NL. I don't remember the last time the Cubs or their fans believed that. Of course, that's something you can't see in the stats.

NJOBP36
03-14-04, 07:23 PM
Barry Bonds is the biggest reason the Giants won. The pitchers that Baker inherited are the reason the Cubs were successful. Torre is a poor in-game manager.

hobokenfish
03-14-04, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by NJOBP36
Barry Bonds is the biggest reason the Giants won. The pitchers that Baker inherited are the reason the Cubs were successful. Torre is a poor in-game manager.

Riiiight. I'll take Torre or Baker over someone like Showalter (who does everything by percentages) any day.

NJOBP36
03-14-04, 07:56 PM
I don't know Showalter's strategy very well, but I'll take the numbers manager over the "feel" guy any time. Playing the percentages.

hobokenfish
03-14-04, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by NJOBP36
I don't know Showalter's strategy very well, but I'll take the numbers manager over the "feel" guy any time. Playing the percentages.

And I'll take the guy who can play by the percentages, but knows when to deviate because his "feel" tells him to do so. (unless, of course, that "feel" tells him to put in Jeff Weaver in extra innings of the 4th game of the World Series. That's the one decision that I will never understand...)

Monkeyman
03-14-04, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by hobokenfish


And I'll take the guy who can play by the percentages, but knows when to deviate because his "feel" tells him to do so. (unless, of course, that "feel" tells him to put in Jeff Weaver in extra innings of the 4th game of the World Series. That's the one decision that I will never understand...)

He was running out of pitchers, gotta use him sometime.

Considering all four of the managers of championship series teams last year were more feel than numbers guys, I go with the feel guys.

While I don't think walks are as useless as Baker seems to think, I'd rather have a hit than a walk, because walks don't drive anybody in, unless the bases are loaded.

NJOBP36
03-14-04, 08:48 PM
The reason that there weren't any number guys in the playoffs is because there's hardly any in the majors. Francona sounds like one however. A walk makes a pitcher work more and also doesn't fluctuate nearly as much as singles.

hobokenfish
03-14-04, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Monkeyman


He was running out of pitchers, gotta use him sometime.

Considering all four of the managers of championship series teams last year were more feel than numbers guys, I go with the feel guys.

While I don't think walks are as useless as Baker seems to think, I'd rather have a hit than a walk, because walks don't drive anybody in, unless the bases are loaded.

Except for the first point, agreed. Joe was not running out of pitchers. He had like three guys, including Gabe White and Mo, available. Weaver was the worst option possible. I remember watching that game and thinking, "What the #$^& are you doing, Joe?? You've got other guys in the pen!" Then after Weaver went 1-2-3 in his first inning of work, I thought to myself, "Don't push your luck, Joe!" Then whammo. And a feel manager should have known this better than anyone -- the guy was just awful all year long and should not even have been on the playoff roster.

Anyway, as for the percentage guys, the biggest risk is always not taking one. Trader Jack proved that last year.

NJOBP36
03-14-04, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by hobokenfish
the biggest risk is always not taking one.

No, the biggest risk is going against the percentages.

Monkeyman
03-14-04, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by NJOBP36
The reason that there weren't any number guys in the playoffs is because there's hardly any in the majors. Francona sounds like one however. A walk makes a pitcher work more and also doesn't fluctuate nearly as much as singles.

Francona may be a numbers guy, but he's a terrible manager. He doesn't get much out of his players, and thats a bigger problem than going against the percentages.

A walk only makes a pitcher work more if the single came very early in the count. And since we're talking about which is more valuable, from an offensive standpoint, the question is which produces more runs. Singles will produce more runs than walks, and you can't coherently argue that.

NJOBP36
03-14-04, 10:06 PM
I'm not sure that you can say Francona is a terrible manager. IIRC the Phillies weren't much when he was there. Singles will produce more runs, but as I mentioned singles are fluky and walks stay consistent from player to player.

Monkeyman
03-14-04, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by NJOBP36
I'm not sure that you can say Francona is a terrible manager. IIRC the Phillies weren't much when he was there. Singles will produce more runs, but as I mentioned singles are fluky and walks stay consistent from player to player.

I may be misreading this, but... what the heck are you talking about? Singles are fluky? I disagree. I think guys who get lots of hits are usually what we call "good hitters." And walks stay consistent from player to player? Tell that to Jason Giambi and Alfonso Soriano.

SuperMario66
03-14-04, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Monkeyman


I may be misreading this, but... what the heck are you talking about? Singles are fluky? I disagree. I think guys who get lots of hits are usually what we call "good hitters." And walks stay consistent from player to player? Tell that to Jason Giambi and Alfonso Soriano.

I have to say that I agree with you monkeyman. Singles are one thing about baseball that cannot be labeled fluky at all.

NJOBP36
03-14-04, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by Monkeyman


I may be misreading this, but... what the heck are you talking about? Singles are fluky? I disagree. I think guys who get lots of hits are usually what we call "good hitters." And walks stay consistent from player to player? Tell that to Jason Giambi and Alfonso Soriano.

Singles are the noisest offensive stat. They vary greatly by luck, defense, etc. A slappy like Suzuki can disapper for LONG stretches because he only hits singles. What I meant by "player to player" was that hitters walk at consistently the same rate throughout their careers.

Monkeyman
03-14-04, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by NJOBP36


Singles are the noisest offensive stat. They vary greatly by luck, defense, etc. A slappy like Suzuki can disapper for LONG stretches because he only hits singles. What I meant by "player to player" was that hitters walk at consistently the same rate throughout their careers.

The fact that Suzuki is a streaky hitter is irrelevant. A good hitter is a good hitter, and certainly not flukey. Certainly a guy who walks a lot could get in a slump where he's not seeing the ball wall, and swinging at bad pitches, and as a result, not walking. And even if that weren't the case, it doesn't change the fact that A HIT is more valuable than A WALK. And in no way can "player to player" be used in that way. That would be season to season or day to day or whatever, but player to player is a comparison of players.

NJOBP36
03-15-04, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by Monkeyman


The fact that Suzuki is a streaky hitter is irrelevant. A good hitter is a good hitter, and certainly not flukey. And in no way can "player to player" be used in that way. That would be season to season or day to day or whatever, but player to player is a comparison of players.

Actually it's not, he's a perfect example of a player that relies on singles. He has below average patience and below average power.

Fine, use whatever term you want. Players consistently walk the same amount but their single total can fluctuate a lot.

NJOBP36
03-15-04, 12:02 AM
A hit can be more valuable than a walk, but not always. And a disciplined hitter helps a team a lot more when he slumps than a hacker. If nothing else, he'll make the pitcher pitch more.

SuperMario66
03-15-04, 12:04 AM
Good Point Josh.

NJOBP36
03-15-04, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by SuperMario66
Good Point Josh.

Thanks :)

hobokenfish
03-15-04, 08:47 AM
But back to the original point, how can you say that a manager that wins consistently -- with different teams -- has no clue? Just because he doesn't follow your SABRmetric mantra doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's doing. SABR is not the gospel.

hobokenfish
03-15-04, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by NJOBP36

No, the biggest risk is going against the percentages.

It always is. But it's a risk/benefit reward. The stats said that pitchers on 3 days rest usually lose. Jack McKeon said the hell with the percentages, and pitched Josh Beckett. Not a bad gamble.

NJASDJDH
03-15-04, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by hobokenfish
But back to the original point, how can you say that a manager that wins consistently -- with different teams -- has no clue? Just because he doesn't follow your SABRmetric mantra doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's doing. SABR is not the gospel.

Easy, the manager can get teams that are hard to screw up.

NJASDJDH
03-15-04, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by hobokenfish


It always is. But it's a risk/benefit reward. The stats said that pitchers on 3 days rest usually lose. Jack McKeon said the hell with the percentages, and pitched Josh Beckett. Not a bad gamble.

But...that's...the...point...

hobokenfish
03-15-04, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by NJASDJDH


But...that's...the...point...

What? That "feel" managers can be successful and that it doesn't all boil down to stats? Yeah, that was my point.

AnskyChris
03-15-04, 12:24 PM
I'm not sure that one bad pitching decision makes Joe a "poor in-game Mgr."

hobokenfish
03-15-04, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by NJASDJDH


Easy, the manager can get teams that are hard to screw up.

So I guess Dusty and Joe consistently have had teams they couldn't screw up.

Or, maybe they know how to get the best out of their players. But that would just be silly, now wouldn't it...

NJOBP36
03-15-04, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by AnskyChris
I'm not sure that one bad pitching decision makes Joe a "poor in-game Mgr."

I didn't say it did. Overall, he's bad in-game. He makes out the lineup wrong, going by BP he abuses his pitchers, and doesn't use some pitchers enough.

NJOBP36
03-15-04, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by hobokenfish


So I guess Dusty and Joe consistently have had teams they couldn't screw up.

Or, maybe they know how to get the best out of their players. But that would just be silly, now wouldn't it...

Barry Bonds is a future HOF, a top-10 player ever even before 2001. It's not hard to write his name in the 3-slot every day. Prior, Zambrano, Wood and Clement are a decent staff I would say.

Maybe they have some voodoo magic but I don't see it. And I don't think I ever said that the numbers guys will always be right, just that a majority of the time they will be.

NJASDJDH
03-15-04, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by AnskyChris
I'm not sure that one bad pitching decision makes Joe a "poor in-game Mgr."

No, but that, and this:

http://minoryankeeblog.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_minoryankeeblog_archive.html#107843005677134859

Is just a small tip of the iceberg.

nufced1918
03-15-04, 04:14 PM
Art Martone on Dusty's comments

http://www.projo.com/redsox/content/projo_...bcol.e07f9.html

hobokenfish
03-15-04, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by NJASDJDH


No, but that, and this:

http://minoryankeeblog.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_minoryankeeblog_archive.html#107843005677134859

Is just a small tip of the iceberg.

Oh, a blog said it, so it must be so....

Bottom line: name another living manager who would be more successful managing the Yankees for the past 8 years than Joe Torre. It's pretty tough to beat a .500 championship winning percentage and a .750 pennant winning percentage.

NJOBP36
03-15-04, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by hobokenfish


Oh, a blog said it, so it must be so....

Bottom line: name another living manager who would be more successful managing the Yankees for the past 8 years than Joe Torre. It's pretty tough to beat a .500 championship winning percentage and a .750 pennant winning percentage.

He was a sub .500 manager before coming to the Yankees.

hobokenfish
03-15-04, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by NJOBP36

He was a sub .500 manager before coming to the Yankees.

Do I care what he did back then? No. Did I like the original signing of Joe after George "let" Buck go? No. Has this team been a powerhouse since Torre took over in 1996? Hell yes.

And you still haven't answered my question: who would be a better manager for this team?

NJOBP36
03-15-04, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by hobokenfish


Do I care what he did back then? No. Did I like the original signing of Joe after George "let" Buck go? No. Has this team been a powerhouse since Torre took over in 1996? Hell yes.

And you still haven't answered my question: who would be a better manager for this team?

I do think he was a nice change of pace from Showalter but this team was on it's way anyhow. Had the best record in the AL when the strike hit and was in the playoffs in 95. Unless he magically learned how to manage in 96, I think most managers could do just as good a job.

hobokenfish
03-15-04, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by NJOBP36

I do think he was a nice change of pace from Showalter but this team was on it's way anyhow. Had the best record in the AL when the strike hit and was in the playoffs in 95. Unless he magically learned how to manage in 96, I think most managers could do just as good a job.

Or perhaps he didn't have good teams in St. Louis or with the Mets??

You can say all you want that "most managers" could do what Joe did with this team, but Joe actually did it. And there's only a handful of managers in the history of the game who have done what he has done in the past 8 years. It's just kind of silly to even think about, really. What, someone else may have managed them to win 5 or 6 championships?

I still have no other names of managers who would do a better job....

NJASDJDH
03-15-04, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by hobokenfish
Or perhaps he didn't have good teams in St. Louis or with the Mets??


Correct me if I'm wrong NJOBP36, but isn't this the whole point?

hobokenfish
03-15-04, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by NJASDJDH


Correct me if I'm wrong NJOBP36, but isn't this the whole point?

No matter how good a manager is, he can only do so much with a bad team. Talk to Sweet Lou Piniella. Of course, he must not be a good manager either.

My question still remains: who would you rather have managing the Yankees than Joe Torre? I STILL have no answers to that question.

NJOBP36
03-15-04, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by NJASDJDH


Correct me if I'm wrong NJOBP36, but isn't this the whole point?

Pretty much, with few exceptions managers don't have an outcome on more than few games a year.

Hobokenfish, I don't think we're ever going to convince each other of our opinion. But at least you posted reasonable arguments unlike a few people.

hobokenfish
03-15-04, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by NJOBP36

Hobokenfish, I don't think we're ever going to convince each other of our opinion. But at least you posted reasonable arguments unlike a few people.

Probably not, which makes it interesting. I understand playing by the percentages, and sometimes Joe drives me nuts with some of the moves he makes (as I said, there is one in particular that plays in my head over and over and over....). But I have to give the guy credit for results. And although he has yet to win the big one, I also have to give Dusty similar credit for his consistency in winning.

By the way, one decision Joe made in playing the percentages that sticks out in my mind: last year I was at a game where the bases were loaded with 2 out in the 9th, we're down by 1 run against Baltimore, and Nick Johnson is due up. Ruben Sierra pinch hits off the lefty and flies out to end the game. THAT is an example when your gut should tell you to go with the more patient hitter, regardless of numbers or righty/lefty matchups. Of course, Ruben came up with some BIG pinch hits in the postseason, so I guess Joe knew what he was doing.

NJASDJDH
03-15-04, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by hobokenfish


Probably not, which makes it interesting. I understand playing by the percentages, and sometimes Joe drives me nuts with some of the moves he makes (as I said, there is one in particular that plays in my head over and over and over....). But I have to give the guy credit for results. And although he has yet to win the big one, I also have to give Dusty similar credit for his consistency in winning.

By the way, one decision Joe made in playing the percentages that sticks out in my mind: last year I was at a game where the bases were loaded with 2 out in the 9th, we're down by 1 run against Baltimore, and Nick Johnson is due up. Ruben Sierra pinch hits off the lefty and flies out to end the game. THAT is an example when your gut should tell you to go with the more patient hitter, regardless of numbers or righty/lefty matchups. Of course, Ruben came up with some BIG pinch hits in the postseason, so I guess Joe knew what he was doing.

Hate to nitpick here, but someone who manages by stats would have left Nick in in that situation.

hobokenfish
03-15-04, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by NJASDJDH

Hate to nitpick here, but someone who manages by stats would have left Nick in in that situation.

A manager who manages by the book will go for the lefty-righty matchup. I can't remember the exact situation, but it was something that called for a righty against a lefty. And don't nitpick unless you know the situation and the stats. Take a look at Nick's numbers against Baltimore last season. 5 hits in 51 at bats, .270 OBP.

NJASDJDH
03-15-04, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by hobokenfish


A manager who manages by the book will go for the lefty-righty matchup. I can't remember the exact situation, but it was something that called for a righty against a lefty. And don't nitpick unless you know the situation and the stats. Take a look at Nick's numbers against Baltimore last season. 5 hits in 51 at bats, .270 OBP.

Believe me, I know Nick Johnson's stats. A manager who knows stats would have realized that Nick Johnson is infinitely better in the situation, here's why:

http://yankeefan.blogspot.com/archives/2003_08_01_yankeefan_archive.html#106161755211024408

hobokenfish
03-16-04, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by NJASDJDH


Believe me, I know Nick Johnson's stats. A manager who knows stats would have realized that Nick Johnson is infinitely better in the situation, here's why:

http://yankeefan.blogspot.com/archives/2003_08_01_yankeefan_archive.html#106161755211024408

Congratulations on being so knowledgeable on Nick Johnson's stats. I'm not very fond of blogs, and the arrogance surely doesn't make me want to click on that one.

NelsonMuntz
03-16-04, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by hobokenfish


Congratulations on being so knowledgeable on Nick Johnson's stats. I'm not very fond of blogs, and the arrogance surely doesn't make me want to click on that one.
Don't waste your time hobokenfish. I gave that blog a look, but the writer totally lost me when he defended Randy Choate. Actually, the sabermet disciples make some good points, and I agree with a lot of what they say. But because most of them never actually stepped foot in a dugout, you will never convince them of the importance of the human element of the game. Torre does occasionally make bad decisions according to the percentages, but his feel for his players, his ability to keep his team focused amidst Steinbrenner's criticism and the glaring spotlight of the NY media cannot be understated. Just like Jeter's leadership qualities are invaluable and cannot be measured in VORP, or UZR, or any other stat they read about in Moneyball. The sabermetricians would have you believe that we'd be better off with Pokey Reese at SS than Jeter. But back to Torre, like you said earlier, so far nobody has been able to name one manager who would have done a better job managing this team than Joe Torre.

hobokenfish
03-16-04, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by NelsonMuntz

Don't waste your time hobokenfish. I gave that blog a look, but the writer totally lost me when he defended Randy Choate. Actually, the sabermet disciples make some good points, and I agree with a lot of what they say. But because most of them never actually stepped foot in a dugout, you will never convince them of the importance of the human element of the game. Torre does occasionally make bad decisions according to the percentages, but his feel for his players, his ability to keep his team focused amidst Steinbrenner's criticism and the glaring spotlight of the NY media cannot be understated. Just like Jeter's leadership qualities are invaluable and cannot be measured in VORP, or UZR, or any other stat they read about in Moneyball. The sabermetricians would have you believe that we'd be better off with Pokey Reese at SS than Jeter. But back to Torre, like you said earlier, so far nobody has been able to name one manager who would have done a better job managing this team than Joe Torre.

Very well stated. And back to the original title of this thread, Dusty Baker also has been very good at managing the human element of the game.