In the Interests of Equal Time...

CubsWin · April 10, 2006

Cubs.com[/url]"]Shortstop Ronny Cedeno entered Saturday's game with a hit in every game so far. He had struggled this spring at the plate, but Baker was convinced the young infielder could handle the job.

"We didn't just give him the job. He earned it," Baker said. "He showed us he's ready. We can use his speed and his athleticism. He has a lot of range at shortstop. He comes to play and has a lot of energy that you can always use."

I agree that Baker has a history of playing the veteran over the less experienced player at times. There is little doubt about that, but he does so because he believes, rightly or wrongly, that playing the more experienced player that day gives his team the best chance to win. However, based on the above quote, he seems convinced that playing Cedeno over his more experienced options gives this Cubs team the best chance to win.

So, whereas there is evidence to suggest that Baker overvalues experience when handing out playing time, his decisions aren't based on a hatred of or bias against rookies as much as they are based on which player gives his team the best chance to win that day. And isn't that what all managers of contending teams should be basing their decisions on?

Outshined_One · April 10, 2006

I would like to point out that Murton is struggling, but Baker has yet to throw Mabry out there in his place.

A New Era · April 10, 2006

Cubs.com[/url]"]Shortstop Ronny Cedeno entered Saturday's game with a hit in every game so far. He had struggled this spring at the plate, but Baker was convinced the young infielder could handle the job.

"We didn't just give him the job. He earned it," Baker said. "He showed us he's ready. We can use his speed and his athleticism. He has a lot of range at shortstop. He comes to play and has a lot of energy that you can always use."
I agree that Baker has a history of playing the veteran over the less experienced player at times. There is little doubt about that, but he does so because he believes, rightly or wrongly, that playing the more experienced player that day gives his team the best chance to win. However, based on the above quote, he seems convinced that playing Cedeno over his more experienced options gives this Cubs team the best chance to win.

So, whereas there is evidence to suggest that Baker overvalues experience when handing out playing time, his decisions aren't based on a hatred of or bias against rookies as much as they are based on which player gives his team the best chance to win that day. And isn't that what all managers of contending teams should be basing their decisions on?

While I agree he deserves credit for letting Ronny and Murton play. He's not what I'd call a good manager at putting the best team out there to win, LAST year. He's put the RIGHT line-ups in so far, this year.

But I'd hardly call Corey-Neifi or Neifi-Macias as a #1,2 the "best" chance to win when you had guys like Murton, Cedeno, Walker, AND Hairston available. .

badger1679666666 · April 10, 2006

I swear watching Baker manage THIS year is like I'm living in Bizarro world. He does the opposite of everything I EXPECT him to do and he's making good moves generally.

Ding Dong Johnson · April 10, 2006

I swear watching Baker manage THIS year is like I'm living in Bizarro world. He does the opposite of everything I EXPECT him to do and he's making good moves generally.

He pulled a Costanza.

erik316wttn · April 10, 2006

I swear watching Baker manage THIS year is like I'm living in Bizarro world. He does the opposite of everything I EXPECT him to do and he's making good moves generally.

Two words.

Contract. Year.

2002 was a contract year for him as well, and he was suprisingly less idiotic then, too, and took the Giants to the World Series.

biittner77 · April 10, 2006

I can't see how it being a contract year would make any difference to a manager. The pressure to win is always there. A player can mail it in and perhaps not suffer for it. Managers can't mail it in. That's usually their biggest problem. Poor managers tend to try to do too much and wind up micro managing (Like using unneccessary double switches) and basically outsmarting themselves.

I have no way of knowing but perhaps Baker actually feels less pressure this year. He likely has enough talent to win enough games to keep his reputation in tact. So if he doesn't get re upped he can still get a job somewhere else. He won't be seen as a failure because, hey it's the Cubs. There's an entire TV network dedicated to reminding people how bad they are.

If he does win then he's set. Much as I dislike Baker, it's hard to deny that he has been the most successful manager since WWII. A lot of that is not his doing but if a manager gets blame for losing then he msut also get credit for winning.

CheeseHead Cubs Fan · April 10, 2006

I swear watching Baker manage THIS year is like I'm living in Bizarro world. He does the opposite of everything I EXPECT him to do and he's making good moves generally.

Two words.

Contract. Year.

2002 was a contract year for him as well, and he was suprisingly less idiotic then, too, and took the Giants to the World Series.

I don't buy that for a second. He has the tools to manage more effectively this year and is doing a fine job thus far!

BigbadB · April 10, 2006

I'm more critical of Dusty than most. In fact, if I was in charge, Dusty would have been gone already. But, other than the Neifi at the top of the order (note that I didn't say "in the game") the other day, I haven't had much to complain about.

In other words, if he kept managing this team for the rest of the year like he did this past week, I'll shut up. I don't want any "I told you so's", since he's clearly managing differently than in previous years. But, I'm willing to give credit where credit is due.

1) he has stuck with the rookies.

2) Neifi has mostly played in double switches and late inning defense. I don't mind an occasional start, but bottom of the order please.

3) He moved Jacque down in the line up yesterday while struggling. While I wouldn't have a problem with him being moved back up tomorrow, a struggling player should not be hitting 5th.

4) His line ups have been pretty consistent. Good OBP guys batting 1/2 in front of Lee and Ramirez.

5) Pretty good use of the pen.

6) I've been pleased with the calls to the bench for pinch hitters.

7) Good call bringing in Hairston to pinch run for Walker late in the game.

8) Maybe it's just me, but the team appears to be hustling more this year.

I'm sure I could name some more if I spent more time with it, but I've been generally pleased with Dusty this week.

badgercub · April 10, 2006

It's not to difficult to "stick" with a guy that is batting over .500. I still think Dusty is an idiot. Batting Neifi second in the lineup, the day he sat Walker is unforgiveable, even if he did have 3 hits. Just give him a little time.

Transmogrified Tiger · April 10, 2006

It's not to difficult to "stick" with a guy that is batting over .500. I still think Dusty is an idiot. Batting Neifi second in the lineup, the day he sat Walker is unforgiveable, even if he did have 3 hits. Just give him a little time.

Yeah, much of the concern about Cedeno is that he won't be allowed to work through the struggles he will inevitably have. On the whole there's been less concern for Murton because the alternative isn't as viable a LF option, unless Pagan gets put out there I guess.

erik316wttn · April 10, 2006

I swear watching Baker manage THIS year is like I'm living in Bizarro world. He does the opposite of everything I EXPECT him to do and he's making good moves generally.

Two words.

Contract. Year.

2002 was a contract year for him as well, and he was suprisingly less idiotic then, too, and took the Giants to the World Series.

I don't buy that for a second. He has the tools to manage more effectively this year and is doing a fine job thus far!

He had the tools in 2004 and 2005 as well. What happened then?

Dusty is a below-average manager who pulled his head out of his butt long enough to try to get an extention (or a big contract somewhere else). Once he has it, you'll see the Dusty of old.

Let's look at it this way.

Dusty is good in his first year on the job, and in contract years.

1993: Won 103 games

2002: Got to the World Series

2003: Led Cubs to NLCS

2006: Looking pretty good so far.

I think you should always be leery of someone who only performs at his absolute best once money is on the line. Dusty has given us very little to complain about this year, but where were these managerial smarts a few years ago?

MPrior · April 10, 2006

I think the real point is that it's only been a week. While I'll give Dusty credit for not screwing up so far, and I will continue to do so until he does, I still think he'll make many of the same boneheaded mistakes this year as before.

BigbadB · April 10, 2006

IIRC, Dusty was making many boneheaded decisions in the first week of 2005. I want to say the "Dusty makes another boneheaded decision" thread in baseball discussions was well into page 10 of the thread after the first week.

Therefore, I have to give credit where credit is due.

Coach C · April 10, 2006

I swear watching Baker manage THIS year is like I'm living in Bizarro world. He does the opposite of everything I EXPECT him to do and he's making good moves generally.

Two words.

Contract. Year.

2002 was a contract year for him as well, and he was suprisingly less idiotic then, too, and took the Giants to the World Series.

I don't buy that for a second. He has the tools to manage more effectively this year and is doing a fine job thus far!

That's true, he does have the tools to manage more effectively, or that maybe Jim Hendry has "Dusty-proofed" this team in a way.

But it's also his contract year, and I would be betting that if he did get the Cubs in the World Series, more than likely he will be looking for a big pay-day on his next contract negoiations.

badger1679666666 · April 10, 2006

I think the real point is that it's only been a week. While I'll give Dusty credit for not screwing up so far, and I will continue to do so until he does, I still think he'll make many of the same boneheaded mistakes this year as before.

Every manager is going to make mistakes. I just want him to consistently make the right decisions. I don't expect him to do so EVERY time.

SouthSideRyan · April 10, 2006

I swear watching Baker manage THIS year is like I'm living in Bizarro world. He does the opposite of everything I EXPECT him to do and he's making good moves generally.

Two words.

Contract. Year.

2002 was a contract year for him as well, and he was suprisingly less idiotic then, too, and took the Giants to the World Series.

I don't buy that for a second. He has the tools to manage more effectively this year and is doing a fine job thus far!

He had the tools in 2004 and 2005 as well. What happened then?

Dusty is a below-average manager who pulled his head out of his butt long enough to try to get an extention (or a big contract somewhere else). Once he has it, you'll see the Dusty of old.

Let's look at it this way.

Dusty is good in his first year on the job, and in contract years.

1993: Won 103 games
2002: Got to the World Series
2003: Led Cubs to NLCS
2006: Looking pretty good so far.

I think you should always be leery of someone who only performs at his absolute best once money is on the line. Dusty has given us very little to complain about this year, but where were these managerial smarts a few years ago?

I'm pretty skeptical about the contract year phenomenon in the first place, but at least with players there is something they can do to improve themselves.(Work out more in the offseason, take extra time in the cages, field, reviewing film.) With a manager what does he do to do well in a contract year? Did he go to the library in the offseason and take out books on strategy because he realized this season mattered? Did he say "now that I've wasted the last 2 seasons actively trying to lose games, now I'm gonna try and win?" Dusty's always tried to do his best with regards to winning games, he's just doing it a lot more intelligently this year than in year's past.

ConstableRabbit · April 10, 2006

In Dusty we...... trustysofarinthisearlyseasoninthehopesthathewillcontinuetonotmaketerriblemovesasheclearlyhasinthepast?

treebird · April 10, 2006

thnx for continuing to play the guy batting .556 dusty

you truly have proved us wrong

erik316wttn · April 10, 2006

I swear watching Baker manage THIS year is like I'm living in Bizarro world. He does the opposite of everything I EXPECT him to do and he's making good moves generally.

Two words.

Contract. Year.

2002 was a contract year for him as well, and he was suprisingly less idiotic then, too, and took the Giants to the World Series.

I don't buy that for a second. He has the tools to manage more effectively this year and is doing a fine job thus far!

He had the tools in 2004 and 2005 as well. What happened then?

Dusty is a below-average manager who pulled his head out of his butt long enough to try to get an extention (or a big contract somewhere else). Once he has it, you'll see the Dusty of old.

Let's look at it this way.

Dusty is good in his first year on the job, and in contract years.

1993: Won 103 games
2002: Got to the World Series
2003: Led Cubs to NLCS
2006: Looking pretty good so far.

I think you should always be leery of someone who only performs at his absolute best once money is on the line. Dusty has given us very little to complain about this year, but where were these managerial smarts a few years ago?

I'm pretty skeptical about the contract year phenomenon in the first place, but at least with players there is something they can do to improve themselves.(Work out more in the offseason, take extra time in the cages, field, reviewing film.) With a manager what does he do to do well in a contract year? Did he go to the library in the offseason and take out books on strategy because he realized this season mattered? Did he say "now that I've wasted the last 2 seasons actively trying to lose games, now I'm gonna try and win?" Dusty's always tried to do his best with regards to winning games, he's just doing it a lot more intelligently this year than in year's past.

But WHY is he doing it more intelligently this year?

I think last year he was miserable in Chicago and wanted to leave. This year he figures if he has a good year someone else will give him a good contract, so he's pulling out all the stops.

Dusty's been managing for a long time. Long enough to where he didn't just magicially learn the common sense moves that he's been making this past offseason. That knowledge has been there all along, and for whatever reason he chose not to use it.

Transmogrified Tiger · April 10, 2006

But WHY is he doing it more intelligently this year?

Because we're only 3% done with the season.

erik316wttn · April 11, 2006

But WHY is he doing it more intelligently this year?

Because we're only 3% done with the season.

Has he gone this long without pissing people off before?

srbin84 · April 11, 2006

But WHY is he doing it more intelligently this year?

Because we're only 3% done with the season.

Has he gone this long without pissing people off before?

It seems like him acting competent irritates some people more than anything else he's done.

badger1679666666 · April 11, 2006

But WHY is he doing it more intelligently this year?

Because we're only 3% done with the season.

Has he gone this long without pissing people off before?

It seems like him acting competent irritates some people more than anything else he's done.

Because they don't have anything to incessantly complain about anymore. Their existence is unsatisfying.

erik316wttn · April 11, 2006

But WHY is he doing it more intelligently this year?

Because we're only 3% done with the season.

Has he gone this long without pissing people off before?

It seems like him acting competent irritates some people more than anything else he's done.

Because they don't have anything to incessantly complain about anymore. Their existence is unsatisfying.

I take a bit of an issue with this statement.

I'm simply asking where was this intelligence the last few years? Why does it all of a sudden show up now, convieniently in his contract year?

I always have thought giving a contract to someone who underperfoms in every year but a contract year is a mistake.

In the Interests of Equal Time...

Recommended Posts

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs