The Cub Reporter's Bad Logic in Calling For Baker's Ouster
ruz of The Cub Reporter has renewed his call for the ouster of Cubs Mgr. Dusty Baker. While this writer fully agrees with that idea, the reasoning behind ruz's writing seems a little confused.
Here's the link to ruz's post:
http://www.all-baseball.com/cubreporter/...
here's ruz's concluding paragraph:
I need an editor. I'm pushing 800 words to get across an idea that could be expressed in seventy-seven, and I'm about to bury my lede, but here it is: the Cubs' current struggles are directly related to the team that Jim Hendry and Dusty Baker have put together. The problem is not that the Cubs' front office doesn't have a plan; it's that they do have a plan, and it's a bad one. They've had over three years to contruct the team according to their wishes, and we're seeing the results now. It's time for a new plan, and for that to happen the team needs new planners.
The problem with ruz's reasoning lies in the contention that Baker had anything much to do with the construction of the team. For instance, a cinch that Baker had nothing to do with the decision to trade promising pitching prospect for the ineffectual Freddie Bynum. Ditto for the surplus of 2B including one of Baker's less favorite players, Jerry Hairston. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that the fact that Jim Hendry failed to procure veteran pitcher backups in the event that either Wood or Prior failed to be at full health at season's start, was in any way shape or form Baker's fault. Nor was Baker responsible for the mismanagement of a Cubs farm system the glaring deficiencies of which has resulted in precious few position player prospects to amount much at the MLB level for the past decade or so. Nor was Baker responsible for the recent case of Matt Clanton where both a big wad of cash and a 1st round draft pick was wasted through either hideous player development or a failure by the scouts to correctly assess a player's character. In other words, regardless of which side you come down on the Clanton dispute, the club clearly screwed up here.
Make no mistake. Dusty Baker is a horrible field manager. However, the poorly constructed 2006 Cubs team is the work of GM Hendry. The very same GM Hendry whose contract was recently renewed by Cubs mgmt. There is no way that the Cubs are going to dump the failed Hendry and eat the money owed him. That being the case, it really does not matter just who the Cubs manager is. With an incompetent like Hendry in charge of team construction, it is difficult to see how even a good manager could possibly succeed with the team currently on the field. In other words, since the failed Hendry is going to be around to bedevil Cubs fans for years to come, you might as well as have Baker around too.
The only way that the Cubs are going to win anything for the next few years is if both Hendry & Baker exit the scene. That is not going to happen until the Tribune Company finally
gets serious about winning.
- Charles Rector's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Baker & The Tribune
I agree with you that Dusty Baker shouldn't be blamed, much, for the players actually on the roster, and that he should be judged instead on the basis of what he does with the players handed him.
But I don't think the Tribune is to be blamed here. The Tribune has provided sufficient funds to make the Cubs a winner, which indicates they are serious about winning, at least in so much as it leads to greater revenues. But being serious about winning and being competent about winning are two different matters.
RE: Baker & The Tribune
The Tribune has provided a sizable payroll for the team. However, it is virtually unchanged from last year. Despite having larger attendance, not to mention higher ticket prices, than the White Sox, the Cubs payroll is roughly the same as that of the South Siders. During the past few years, the Tribune has gotten mighty creative in figuring out new ways to reap new revenue from the Cubs. It does not appear that most of this new revenue is going any where other than into the Tribune's coffers.
Why can't the Tribune follow the example of Jerry Reinsdorf and simply be content with breaking even? Instead, it follows the Bill Wirtz model of sports team ownership and goes for as big a profit as it can squeeze from the fans.
payroll
That's probably true, but at the same time, if their payroll is roughly the same as the White Sox, we know it's high enough to be able to win in the regular season and dominate in the playoffs.
Any way you slice it, the issue comes down to bad personnel decisions.
Isn't always the way...
Blame the guys who aren't playing instead of those who are making millions of dollars and not getting it done. Why does this happen I wonder. I am so sick and tired of of reading, listening and hearing people complain about owners, front office and team managements being the problem for the woes of a team that is well put together and just simply not getting it done. How does one explain the White Sox last year? Was it Ozzie? Maybe, but it takes a team to win awards and championships. After all, the manager isn't the one who is playing and producing the runs to aid in the wins. It takes a whole team effort and the Cubs don't seem to have it. Always excuses showing as to why there are problems. It's sad to think that when D-Lee went down to his injury last month so did the team. I guess he was the whole team. A few years ago now, everybody in the city of Chicago ached for new blood both on the field as well as management and Dusty was the man. Funny how a manager can be the focal point of all of a teams bad play. No, in this instance it is plainly put a player on the same page problem. I will admit, Dusty has made a mistake or two over these few years as Cubs manager, but that comes with the territory. Where is a team leader with no D-Lee pulling the reins? Mad-Dog Maddox seems to have the ear of the pitching staff, but he can't go and pitch for them. If you want to change something about this years team, how about We change the plaers and keep the team? I'm sorry, that would be ridiculous wouldn't it. Then I guess We should blame the man at the helm. A man who played the game very well and has managed well, but that don't count any longer. All We care about is that the Cubs are losing all too often and don't know why. All We know is that Dusty Baker is somehow and someway the man who is making it happen. I have another idea. Let's hire Mike Ditka or Phil Jackson as manager of the Cubs. As silly as that may seem, it could work. Ditka took a team of average players {discounting Sweetness of course}and made them champions in a short time as did Jackson {Bulls couldn't climb that final hump until he showed up}. No that wouldn't work and not because they couldn't get the job done but because a team has got to want to win. Red Sox could have crawled under a rock two seasons back but didn't. They won because they hungered for it, not because Terry Francona gave any great speech or did something different to his line-up to aid with the amazing turn around that lead them to being the champs so deserved and earned. Going back further...How about the Arizona Diamondbacks? They beat the powerhouse New York Yankees in dramatic form to win it all with a bunch of older players who were average at best due to age. Bob Brenly had no speeches to give that made magic happen, just hopes and wishes. You can't talk a team into winning unless they have that need and ache for it. The White Sox proved that last year with the nobodies who became somebodies quickly due to hunger. Get them on {Pierre, Cedeno}, get them over {Cedano, Walker}, get them in {Lee, Ramirez}. Simple right? Should be, but isn't. What is a manager supposed to do when his team isn't getting it done, play the game for them? Of course not. Trade them off and get people more hungry? Seems easy enough but can't happen all at once, not unless you have deep pockets like Steinbrenner. So what do you do? Fact is, this team does have potentisl, but not to win anything this year or maybe next either. But blaming Dusty Baker for it seems plain moronic to me. When the next great manager comes along for the Cubs to wine and dine to a new job with the team, please don't talk so much about it or make it such a big deal. You all did that with Baker and look what has happened. He became human by being the manager of a team from a city where baseball is fierce competition as are all Chicago sports and people expect more from all their teams every season that rolls around. Fire him or Hendry? For what exactly? What is it that they do or did wrong? Outside of being affiliated with an under-achieving bunch of guys, they have done nothing wrong. If they were winning doing the same things as now {whatever that may be in some peoples minds}, would anyone complain then? I know, another dumb question.
Re: Isn't always the way
melcarek69, you are certainly right that some of the Cubs are underperforming this year, and that's largely on them. (It is, however, the coaches' job to help those players perform to the best of their ability.) Regarding Baker, though, you're responding to an argument that no one has made. No one has argued that Dusty Baker is the sole problem with the Cubs. The argument, rather, is that he is not the best person for the job. Many people made this argument when he was hired in 2003 as well.
As for Hendry, do you really believe he has done nothing wrong? Not all of the Cubs are underachieving. Many of them are performing within their expected levels. Additionally, Hendry has clearly overpaid for a number of players during his tenure, and that was evidence from the minute the contract were signed. Neifi Perez, Jacque Jones, and Glendon Rusch are the three most obvious examples from this past offseason. This is not to say that Hendry also has not done many things right.
Dusty
For what it's worth, I have no serious problems with the way Dusty Baker has managed the team this year.
He was charged with integrating two players in their first full season into the lineup, historically a huge area of weakness. But he's played both of them every day, and has generally seemed very supportive of both of them.
I think he's also done very well with the pitching staff, generally making good decisions about removing starters, and letting relievers go longer than an inning when they're pitching well. I thought he left Hill out there too long Tuesday night, but I don't expect to agree with anyone 100% of the time.
I think he's made a mistake, as cubsnet has argued, by not finding a platoon partner for Jacque Jones, but this is mitigated by two things. First, I don't know if there's a manager in the game who would be so quick to platoon Jones, however necessary it may be. Second, the Cubs simply haven't faced enough lefties yet this year for it to have much effect - Jones only has 20 plate appearances against lefties. And Restovich is barely adequate as a platoon partner anyway, with only a 755 OPS against lefties from 2003-2005, albeit in limited action, so I feel it's a small gripe so far.
I could also say that he's played Neifi too much, but what's the alternative? Hairston, Mabry and Bynum have been equally bad, and at least Neifi gives back a little with his glove.
I've been as hard as Dusty as anyone I know, but all things considered it's faintly ridiculous to blame him for the Cubs' struggles this year. He's had some rotten luck; Lee's injury is beyond his control, and it's hard to blame anyone for the struggles of Ramirez, Pierre, and Hairston except the players involved.
But the biggest problem is that this team is very poorly constructed, and even if that was not obvious when the year began, it was obvious that everything needed to break exactly right for the Cubs to be in contention. Of course, not everything has gone right, and the shortcomings of having to depend on Mabry, Perez, Rusch, and Bynum are quite clear. To the extent that Dusty had a hand in having these guys on the roster, I blame Hendry for ceding his control over to Dusty instead of doing his job.
Baker's use of relievers
letting relievers go longer than an inning when they're pitching well
I was pumped when Baker had Eyre go 2 innings on opening day. And he's continued to have his relievers do that this season, to his credit.
Baker and the Cubs hitters' approach at the plate
I largely agree with you, Brian, but I do think that Baker, as a former hitting coach and current philosophically-inclined manager, contributes in some way to the Cubs' often too impatient approach at the plate.
Maybe so
But that doesn't really account for their struggles this year. A-Ram's walk rate is significantly higher this year than it's been any other year of his career. Juan Pierre's walk rate is down slightly, but he's seeing more pitches per PA than his career average, as is Jones. Walker and Murton both have healthy walk rates, as does Barrett (who's been the one Cub to be excellent all around at the plate). Cedeno's been impatient, but he's also been fairly effective, so more power to him.
I agree that they could use more patience as a team, but I think it's far too easy to pigeonhole that as the problem. They're just bad, and it's hard to see where drastic improvement in plate discipline would come from given the roster. It's easy to see Ramirez returning to effectiveness, and Murton and Walker hitting for more power. But plate discipline isn't an issue for those three.
Barrett, Cedeno, and Jones are all playing at right around their expected level (or above it, in Barrett's case). Pierre's a different case; as much as I hate to say it, Pierre isn't so far below his expected level that getting there would make a huge difference. Another 40 points of batting average would be nice but it won't suddenly make them a good team. It's unreasonable, I think, to expect much more than that from him at this point, given how much of his value has always depended on his batting average. But this was something that was well known when Hendry acquired him.
It seems misguided to blame Dusty for not making him better. It's one thing to watch as a patient hitter starts hacking after coming under Dusty's instruction. That's not what we're seeing this year, though. We're seeing hitters that have always been impatient remaining impatient. That's on Hendry for acquiring those players in the first place.
Baker and Cubs' walk rates
Yes, there are certainly problems in addition to low walk rates. Lack of power is another problem. Not getting on base and not hitting home runs and doubles is a bad combination. And you're also right that Hendry is the one who acquires these players.
I'm not really criticizing Baker for this year. Or, at least, not just this year. But that the Cubs have ranked 15th (2006), 16th (2005), 14th (2004), and 14th (2003) in the National League in walks drawn in Baker's tenure has to be due in part to an organizational philosophy set in part by the field manager. That some or most Cubs players have either 1) decent walk rates or 2) expected walk rates or 3) both, does not mean that a better manager would not be able to improve on those rates through better coaching. The Cubs don't need drastic improvement in a couple of players, they need incremental improvement in most players.
The consistency of this problem makes it easy to focus on.
re: walk rates
That some or most Cubs players have either 1) decent walk rates or 2) expected walk rates or 3) both, does not mean that a better manager would not be able to improve on those rates through better coaching.
It seems to me that there are three problems with this statement. First, do we know that coaching has that big of an effect, to be able to change the philosophy of an entire team? That seems like a bold thing to assert, and I'm not really sure it works that way. Instead, I think you have to look at the GM as the one who sets the organizational philosophy. Dusty's swing-first mentality was well known when he came aboard; that someone with his philosophy is manager is a symptom of the problem, not the cause.
Second, will incremental improvement in walk rates for lots of players really help this team that much? This team has been truly horrid offensively since Lee went down. No power, no batting average, no walks. Even if you could effect incremental improvements in walk rates, I think you're looking at a team that would go from horrid to ... merely awful. An incremental change across the board is still an incremental change. I guess what I'm saying is that walk rates seems like the least of their problems right now.
And finally, even if the staff could change that through coaching, why should they have to? It's simply not an efficient way to run a ballclub, acquiring players with deficient skills and counting on the staff to fix them. There are plenty of players out there who are better than the John Mabrys and Neifi Perezes and Juan Pierres and Jacque Joneses of the world
Re: three problems
Brian, it's always more fun debating someone who thinks matters through as much as you do. I really don't think we're far apart here. But, to respond:
On problem #1: No, we cannot measure a coach's effect. But if we believe that a coach has no effect, or even an inconsequential effect, we might as well get rid of all the coaches. If it's a bold thing to assert that a manager has an effect on the team's overall playing philosophy, then I'll live with that, but I don't think it's that bold. If a coach drills in your ahead to be aggressive early in the count (and I don't know if Baker, Clines, and Matthews do that), then the players are going to be more likely to act consistent with that philosophy. Either that, or the manager will play someone else. That the philosophical problem exists higher in the organization does not absolve the field manager, who has a significant amount of autonomy with regard to instructing player performance.
On problem #2: I agree that this is a problem, though not necessarily a problem with my statement. In any event, that the team also needs to hit for a higher average and with more power does not mean that the walk rate problem should not also be addressed. Additionally, in the context of discussing a manager's performance, control of the strike zone is something more within the manager's control (though by no means complete control) than, say, making Juan Pierre into a 20-homer hitter.
On problem #3: I agree it's not an efficient way to run a ballclub, but it is, no matter what, a coach's job to coach, no matter the players given to him. That said, I'm under no delusion that Baker can take a bad offensive team and make them a good offensive team.
coaches
...if we believe that a coach has no effect, or even an inconsequential effect, we might as well get rid of all the coaches
Well, in this case, why not?
Seriously, though, that's not really what I meant. There's a time and place for instruction, obviously, but I think what you're saying goes beyond that. Certainly there's precedent for a hitting coach to make a huge difference with individual players - Sammy always gave a lot of credit to Pentland, for example. And I definitely think that coaches can do a lot of good when it comes to spotting mechanical flaws, studying pitchers' habits, etc. But I don't think there's a lot of precedent for taking a team full of impatient hitters and significantly changing their approach on a team-wide basis. I could be wrong about that, but it seems like a tall order to me.
Plus, in the end the manager is not hired to determine an organizational philosophy, but to implement it. At the beginning of Dusty's tenure, I thought he was working against Hendry's plan, by refusing to play Bellhorn, Choi, Cruz, Wellemeyer, etc. Now, though, I think that's changed.
And you're right - it's quite fun.
Re: coaches
I don't think there's a lot of precedent for taking a team full of impatient hitters and significantly changing their approach on a team-wide basis.
This would be an interesting study, something that would take more time than I have, given that you'd have to find situations where a new manager came in with a team that was largely the same as the previous year's team and had a defined emphasis one way or the other on plate discipline. And then factor out the other factors (e.g., the players being one year older, etc.).
My inclination is to believe that a manager can have either a beneficial or detrimental effect if the manager's philosophy is defined enough and the manager is given enough time, and that the effect would be significant, but probably not substantial.
in the end the manager is not hired to determine an organizational philosophy, but to implement it
I'm not so sure about this. This is one of the areas where the baseball world is different than the real world. In the real world, a supervisor is hired to implement a philosophy determined by the higher-ups. The higher-ups (at least the immediate ones) usually know how to do the supervisor's job. In baseball, a manager has (or should have) expertise that front office personnel many times do not have. (Of course, Jim Hendry is a former college manager, so he is different.) As a result, the field manager is hired, in part, to implement his own on-the-field philosophy. Of course, he's only hired if the front office personnel believe in that manager's philosophy. But it is, often I believe, the field manager's philosophy.