Soriano's 2007

Discuss all things Cardinals Baseball
Post Reply
98navigator
Everyday Player
Posts: 179
Joined: February 12 07, 4:34 pm

Post by 98navigator »

Popeye_Card wrote:
98navigator wrote:
I'm talking about his entire 4 years with the team. Most of what you've pointed out is fluff; his manager of the year awards have nothing to do with managing the Cubs. The team as unable to reach it's potential in any of his years. Again, 2003 happened despite him. Another manager would have been able to, at the very least, get the team to the WS (in 2002 he figured out a way to blow that series as well). Dusty Baker has always been a very shaky in-game decision maker--his strong suit is supposedly handling clubhouse personalities and being the friend of the players...

There are many people that were never sold on the hiring of Baker so it is hardly hindsight. Whether or not the roster was flawed in 2005 & 2006, it is clear that he is not the kind of manager that gets the most out of his roster.
That's a heck of a lot of revisionist thinking.

All those folks saying "In Dusty we trusty" were wrong?

Dusty made Bartman mess with that ball, made Gonzalez make the error, and made Prior blow up allowing the Marlins to take the lead?

Dusty improved the Cubs by 21 wins from 2002 to 2003, and he didn't do enough?

Other managers would have gotten more wins out of that 2004 squad? The one that missed over 20 starts from it's best two pitchers, had Hawkins as it's closer because it had no better options, and still won 89 games?

I'm sure the manager was the problem.

--P--
Come on man, "In Dusty We Trusty" was a marketing slogan by someone selling T-Shirts. Besides, how can you judge history without revisiting and evaluating what was not known at the time? Like I said, the Cubs had the best starting staff in the NL (2003). He rode them too hard while finding a way to come up a game short. At the time, many people thought Dusty was the reason for the winning. Truth be told, the improved health of Kerry Wood and the emergence of the rookie Mark Prior were the real reasons for the success (not to mention Clement and Zambrano also winning in the double digits). No manager is going to help a guy go 18-6 with a 2.43 ERA.

--There were better options in the bullpen in 2004 but Dusty is loyal to a fault. He stuck with Hawkins rather than "risk losing him mentally." The 89 wins were in great part due to the starters and improved offense (Sosa, Alou, Ramirez & Lee). The back end of the bullpen (or how they were used) was a major problem.

User avatar
Popeye_Card
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
Posts: 29877
Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am

Post by Popeye_Card »

98navigator wrote:
Come on man, "In Dusty We Trusty" was a marketing slogan by someone selling T-Shirts. Besides, how can you judge history without revisiting and evaluating what was not known at the time? Like I said, the Cubs had the best starting staff in the NL (2003). He rode them too hard while finding a way to come up a game short. At the time, many people thought Dusty was the reason for the winning. Truth be told, the improved health of Kerry Wood and the emergence of the rookie Mark Prior were the real reasons for the success. No manager is going to help a guy go 18-6 with a 2.43 ERA.

--There were better options in the bullpen in 2004 but Dusty is loyal to a fault. He stuck with Hawkins rather than "risk losing him mentally." The 89 wins were in great part due to the starters and improved offense (Sosa, Alou, Ramirez & Lee). The back end of the bullpen (or how they were used) was a major problem.
Baker does not deserve much credit, but I don't see why he gets so much blame for guiding the ship during the Cubs' most succesful seasons of recent vintage. I don't see how Sweet Lou is going to be better. It's not like he doesn't also have a history of questionable bullpens, riding young starting pitchers too hard, and coming up short in the playoffs. He just doesn't wear the sweat bands and chew toothpicks.

--P--

98navigator
Everyday Player
Posts: 179
Joined: February 12 07, 4:34 pm

Post by 98navigator »

Popeye_Card wrote:
98navigator wrote:
Come on man, "In Dusty We Trusty" was a marketing slogan by someone selling T-Shirts. Besides, how can you judge history without revisiting and evaluating what was not known at the time? Like I said, the Cubs had the best starting staff in the NL (2003). He rode them too hard while finding a way to come up a game short. At the time, many people thought Dusty was the reason for the winning. Truth be told, the improved health of Kerry Wood and the emergence of the rookie Mark Prior were the real reasons for the success. No manager is going to help a guy go 18-6 with a 2.43 ERA.

--There were better options in the bullpen in 2004 but Dusty is loyal to a fault. He stuck with Hawkins rather than "risk losing him mentally." The 89 wins were in great part due to the starters and improved offense (Sosa, Alou, Ramirez & Lee). The back end of the bullpen (or how they were used) was a major problem.
Baker does not deserve much credit, but I don't see why he gets so much blame for guiding the ship during the Cubs' most succesful seasons of recent vintage. I don't see how Sweet Lou is going to be better. It's not like he doesn't also have a history of questionable bullpens, riding young starting pitchers too hard, and coming up short in the playoffs. He just doesn't wear the sweat bands and chew toothpicks.

--P--
Unlike Dusty, Lou has won multiple championships (2 as a player and one as a manager). Lou also has a better understanding of in-game decisions.

Piniella will make a difference.

As for Dusty, a blind squirrel could have guided the 2003 & 2004 teams. All he did was set the lineup and leave the starters in too long (something Lou has already talked about not doing). When it comes to actually knowing when to make changes (double switches, bullpen usage, mound visits, etc) Dusty is traditionally lacking. Plus, Baker bought into the "curse" nonsense which, I believe, contributed to complacency (and fatalistic attitude among the players).

Anyway, the story of Lou Piniella as manager of the Chicago Cubs is in its infancy. We'll see what happens... I do know that Lou has a better track record of winning which is why I am optimistic.

greenback44
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 11671
Joined: June 26 06, 8:54 pm
Location: In a Small Town with Jack and Diane

Post by greenback44 »

jim wrote:BTW - I was curious so I just went back a couple of years ago looking at Pitcher Abuse Points. Z was 2nd out of all MLB pitchers in 2006 and 2005 (Prior was 3rd in 2005), and 3rd in 2004. In 2003, Dusty rode Wood(2) and Prior(3) to money finishes.

Based on his genetics, body type, etc... it may mean that he is just an incredibly durable guy. But if I were a Cub fan, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the ghost of Dusty.
Zambrano's PAP in 2006 would've been 30th in 1996; Pedro was 31st that year and Mussina 28th. There may have been a time when that kind of PAP rank was meaningful. It's not at all clear that it is now.

User avatar
Transmogrified Tiger
Puppy Murderer
Posts: 9334
Joined: April 25 06, 6:07 pm
Location: Across the River

Post by Transmogrified Tiger »

*Insert "Did they improve X amount of wins is a horrible, flawed argument" rant here*

98navigator
Everyday Player
Posts: 179
Joined: February 12 07, 4:34 pm

Post by 98navigator »

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:*Insert "Did they improve X amount of wins is a horrible, flawed argument" rant here*
:lol:

User avatar
haltz
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 22034
Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
Location: a proud midwestern metropolis

Post by haltz »

OT: What's the story with NSBB, guys? Are we ever going to be able to read the site sans registration again?

User avatar
Transmogrified Tiger
Puppy Murderer
Posts: 9334
Joined: April 25 06, 6:07 pm
Location: Across the River

Post by Transmogrified Tiger »

haltz wrote:OT: What's the story with NSBB, guys? Are we ever going to be able to read the site sans registration again?
I imagine so. Like I said somewhere, it was part of a large scale attack on different phbb boards, and Tim is waiting until the requisite changes are made to open up everything again. Unfortunately, he doesn't have nearly as much time to dedicate to the site than it's earlier days, so unless it goes down for everyone things move at a much slower pace.

jim
Red Lobster for the seafood lover in you
Posts: 50608
Joined: May 1 06, 2:41 pm

Post by jim »

greenback44 wrote:
jim wrote:BTW - I was curious so I just went back a couple of years ago looking at Pitcher Abuse Points. Z was 2nd out of all MLB pitchers in 2006 and 2005 (Prior was 3rd in 2005), and 3rd in 2004. In 2003, Dusty rode Wood(2) and Prior(3) to money finishes.

Based on his genetics, body type, etc... it may mean that he is just an incredibly durable guy. But if I were a Cub fan, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the ghost of Dusty.
Zambrano's PAP in 2006 would've been 30th in 1996; Pedro was 31st that year and Mussina 28th. There may have been a time when that kind of PAP rank was meaningful. It's not at all clear that it is now.
Can you explain a little more? What do you mean there may have been a time ...?

greenback44
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 11671
Joined: June 26 06, 8:54 pm
Location: In a Small Town with Jack and Diane

Post by greenback44 »

jim wrote:
greenback44 wrote:
jim wrote:BTW - I was curious so I just went back a couple of years ago looking at Pitcher Abuse Points. Z was 2nd out of all MLB pitchers in 2006 and 2005 (Prior was 3rd in 2005), and 3rd in 2004. In 2003, Dusty rode Wood(2) and Prior(3) to money finishes.

Based on his genetics, body type, etc... it may mean that he is just an incredibly durable guy. But if I were a Cub fan, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the ghost of Dusty.
Zambrano's PAP in 2006 would've been 30th in 1996; Pedro was 31st that year and Mussina 28th. There may have been a time when that kind of PAP rank was meaningful. It's not at all clear that it is now.
Can you explain a little more? What do you mean there may have been a time ...?
I'm saying the pitch count environment has changed so dramatically that finishing 2nd in PAP doesn't mean the same thing it meant just ten years ago. The usefulnees of PAP was a controversial topic back when Roger Clemens had a bunch of 140-pitch games (a level-headed fellow like Sean Forman poked plenty of holes in it). It's only harder to see the usefulness of PAP when 130 pitches is now an anomaly.

Post Reply