Table of Contents

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

More on Dusty Baker

Here are a few additional comments/links on Dusty Baker:

The Baker Press Conference
(viewable in full via do they make it so darn hard to link directly to their videos?)

Wayne Krivsky really needs to prepare some bulleted notes or something. This speak-from-the-heart-thing that he tries to do at these conferences is incredibly ineffective. I've no doubt that he's speaking sincerely, but he tends to ramble and takes about thrice as long as he needs to given the content of what he says. It'd only take 5 minutes to jot down a few talking points on a note card, and it'd improve his credibility enormously.

Bob and Dusty, on the other hand, are much better "off-the-cuff" speakers (though they also seemed to have planned what to say in their heads a bit better than Wayne). Nothing new with Bob, I can see some evidence of Dusty's reported ability to relate and motivate personnel based on that press conference. I thought Dusty's comment about how to promote leadership in the clubhouse was particularly memorable and effective.

I am perfectly willing to accept that Baker is exceptionally good at relating and motivating players. And I'm also willing to accept that this is important. It's his other qualities as a manager that I worry about. So onto his other qualities...

Pitcher Abuse
One of the things I argued in my initial post about Baker's hiring (and especially the subsequent comments) about pitcher abuse is that the managers don't operate in a vacuum, and that whatever he did in terms of player usage certainly must have been ok with the team's front office in Chicago or San Francisco. Nate Silver, observing that Terry Francona seemed to drastically change his pitcher usage when moving from Philadelphia to Boston, did a nice little study at BPro Unfiltered (it's free!) looking at manager usage of pitchers via their pitcher abuse point statistics. The prediction in his study based on my (and his) assertion is that team identity would be at least as good of a predictor of pitcher usage as manager identity.

Instead, he found that after one controls for year (pitcher usage has changed a lot in the past decade), the best predictor of pitcher usage was manager identity. Team identity was not significant in the model. Therefore, given that Baker showed up at the high end in both SFN and CHN (a point emphasized by Doug Gray here), there's definitely something for the Reds to be concerned about here.

However, I want to emphasize that the correlation was only 0.45. That's certainly substantial, but it's not enormous either--it indicates that manager identity explains about 20% of the variation in pitch counts as measured by pitcher abuse points. This means that managers most certainly can and do change. We can only hope that the media attention focused on Bakers' pitcher handling will make both he and the organization more conscious of the issue. Baker did cite an emphasis on keeping his players healthy in his press conference--hopefully that'll translate into action during the season. Honestly, given how careful the Reds have been with Homer Bailey over the last few years, I'd be shocked to see them suddenly just stop paying attention to his usage under Baker. I'm more concerned about Arroyo, who seems to perform better in subsequent start when his pitch count is kept under 110 or so.

Also, I'd again like to draw attention to the system that Boston uses to study and gauge player fatigue in some of their young pitchers, which I profiled here. I see absolutely no reason why the Reds aren't doing this with every single pitcher in their system. The point isn't to protect them from a particular manager or coach. The point is to gather specific, pitcher-by-pitcher data on fatigue as it relates to their usage, and to prevent injuries by better diagnosing fatigue before someone gets hurt. The potential long- and short-term rewards of using this kind of system just seem enormous relative to the cost required to get it up and running. It's just the sort of thing that could give a small market team like the Reds an edge over the competition in terms of developing their talent and keeping it on the field...after all, how many of the Reds' top pitching prospects have had their arms blow out in the minor leagues over the past 15 years?

Blocking Young Position Players
Another common critique of Baker as a manager is an over-reliance on veteran players, and a tendency to block young prospects with veterans. Baker claims that this had more to do with a lack of good young talent than any tendency to favor veterans on his part. In fact, he emphasized excitement over the opportunity to teach young players how to play. Those are just words, of course.

Still, the fact that Baker's taken so much flack for over-using young pitchers seems to support his claim--how can you argue that he both overuses young talent and while at the same time arguing that he doesn't let them play? :) What we need is an objective study that looks at all the available talent that he actually had at his disposal, rather than just citing anecdotes of blockage.

Shawn has answered the call and has begun a study looking at Baker's record with young players on a season-by-season basis. There are 14 seasons to work with, so he should be able to get a nice sample here. So far, from 1993 through 2002, he has found that two deserving young homegrown position players that won jobs (Rich Aurilia and Bill Mueller), while several young starting pitchers were in the rotation (Shawn Estes, Kirk Reuter, and Russ Ortiz). There may have been others who did not get as much of a shot, but I'm not seeing a massive trend against young players thus far. The primary reason for the abundance of veterans, in fact, had to do with trades of young players for veterans. Whether Baker had something to do with that, I don't know. It'll be interesting to see Shawn's piece recapping Baker's time with the Cubs.

As a side note, I want to thank C. Trent Rosecrans for asking questions about pitcher abuse and blocking young players in the press conference and in subsequent interviews! It's nice to see at least one reporter stepping up and asking some good questions. It's going to be such a shame to lose him when the Post closes its doors at the end of the year.

Baker's Salary and the Reds' Aspirations
J.C. Bradbury noted that Baker's salary will be $3.5 million a season over his three-year deal, which is ~$2.5 million more than the median managerial salary in '07. He thinks that the decision to spend that kind of money has more to do with sending a message to the fanbase than an expectation of actual return on the ballfield. I think he's probably correct about that.

He also thinks, along that vein, that the Reds may be aggressive players in the free agent market his offseason, perhaps even courting A-Rod. .... Now I wouldn't be surprised to see them go after some big name free agents, because even after picking up Dunn's option (adds $3 million to payroll), they should have a substantial amount of cash on hand to play with given the departures of the Milton ($10.3 m), Lohse ($4.2 m), LaRue ($2.5 m), Cormier ($2.3 m), Conine ($2 m), Hatteberg ($1.5 m, assuming he leaves), and Saarloos ($1.2 m) liabilities. That's $24 million right there, which represented 35% of the '07 opening day payroll. Some of that will be used with the various player options and raises, but there's still going to be a lot of financial room to work with this offseason.

Nevertheless, I can't imagine them ponying up the $30 million a year that will likely be needed to retain someone like A-Rod. He's an outstanding player, and would put up huge numbers in homer friendly GABP, but there are too many other holes on this team to be dedicating ~40% of payroll to one individual. Nevertheless, I could certainly see them go after folks in the $10-15 million range.

Photo by AP/David Kohl


  1. Just wanted to say you've done some excellent work during the Baker Tribulations, presenting balanced analyses and interesting, non-traditional viewpoints.

    Keep up the terrific work and always, always stay on the fence of objectivity when overviewing the ol' Redlegs, and your site will continue to grow!

  2. Baker made an oblique, but valid (IMO) point about the SF situation. Something to the effect that "it's the same way now." Which is true. Brian Sabean is probably the reason the Giants were/are always full of veteran players. If anything, they're even older now than they were with Baker.

    Now, does that get Dusty off the hook for the Chicago era? Would another manager have been able to develop Patterson and Choi into something, or were they just overhyped all along? Was it a coincince that Marmol flourished after Baker left?

    It sure felt like Baker was screwing around with those guys at the time, but I'm eager to learn whether my observations had any merit. The causal questions are ultimately impossible to answer, but I'm interested to hear what Doug and others find out.

  3. Well, I didn't pay much attention to them at the time, so I have no personal observations to rely on.

    In Patterson's case, however, it seems like he got a pretty damn fair shake. Here's some stats on him:

    year G AB OPS+
    2003 83 329 116
    2004 157 631 92
    2005 126 451 56

    Anyone who gets 451 AB's in a season in which hits for a 56 OPS+ is getting plenty of opportunities...and he played almost every game in '04. He's just never been able to put all his talents together.

    As for Choi, he's kind of an enigma. In his year with Chicago, he certainly lost some playing time to Eric Karros. But at the same time, Karros had a decent (though not great) season. And one part-time year won't kill a kid's development, will it? Choi didn't stick with the Marlins or Dodgers either, despite hitting reasonably well.

    I wanted the Reds to go after him in '06, but he ultimately washed out in AAA with Boston that season (0.207/0.347/0.361). Maybe this is a case where scouts or coaches saw something about his skills or his makeup that the stats didn't..?

  4. Choi was in a horrific collision in 2003, had a career-threatening concussion, lost his starting position and has never fully recovered.

    That's a perfect example of what I mean by doing the homework--looking harder and deeper--than the surface numbers, and making wild-haired deductions.

  5. Thanks for that info, it's helpful. If nothing else, it's certainly an explanation that needs to be considered when trying to understand what happened with that guy. Choi did hit reasonably well in subsequent seasons when given playing time, but he certainly never lived up to the potential everyone thought he had.

    Maybe I should have looked closer into that history...but then again, I wasn't claiming that Baker ruined the guy either! :D

  6. "As for Choi, he's kind of an enigma. In his year with Chicago, he certainly lost some playing time to Eric Karros. But at the same time, Karros had a decent (though not great) season. And one part-time year won't kill a kid's development, will it? Choi didn't stick with the Marlins or Dodgers either, despite hitting reasonably well."

    In late July/early August I felt that Keppinger had earned the starting third base job. He was clearly outplaying Edwin Encarnacion at the time. That was met with equal parts laughter and derision on every message board on which I suggested same. EdE absolutely HAD to play every day. Now I read that one part-time year won't kill a kid's development. Everyone and their brother seemed to think it would kill EdE's development. C'est la vie.

  7. Dave,

    Two big differences between the situation with Eddie and the Choi/Karros situations.

    1. The Cubs were in a pennant race in '03, which they ultimately won. Therefore, player development is much less important than putting the team on the field that can give you the best chance of winning that each night. The '07 Reds, by July, were far enough out of it that player development should have been the primary goal.

    2. Keppinger was playing well above anything you could reasonably expect from him given his previous performances. This was a 27-year old (i.e. not likely to further improve) guy with a 0.420 career minor league SLG, and he was slugging well over 0.500 at the time. So there was no reasonable expectation that he could continue his torrid pace (I'd suggest that his September slugging of 0.372 may be showing what we can more reasonably expect of him).

    With Karros, however, you had a guy with a long track record of success, even though he was in the declining phase of his career. Splitting time between he and Choi seems like a very appropriate thing to do, especially in a pennant race.

    FWIW, Eddie had a pretty nice second half, eh?

  8. Also, while I'm sure that you did hear something like this from others, I don't think I ever argued that Eddie's development would be killed. Just that it might be slowed. My argument was that the potential payoffs to getting him back on track prior to next season outweighed any short term problems with his performance...because, again, we were well out of the pennant race.

  9. Yes, and the other thing about Choi--and again, this is a fairly routine search . . . the Cubs got this guy named Lee in '04, and a dude who hits around 30 bombs, drives in around 100, plays Gold Glove defense and is just 29, well, he's gonna play over the sputtering kid.

    It's like the argument that the Cubs sucked in '05-'06 and Dusty is a bum because of it. I've been trying to compile the number of injuries, DL uses and player games lost to DL those two years. It's beyond staggering.

    When most people just look at the team numbers for tthose years and see all the vets playing, they scream it's because Dusty is an idiot and won't develop youngsters.

    For one, you have to have youngsters to develop who are ready for the big leagues. For another, when a grenade lands in your clubhouse, someone has to play. There's no choice. And most times veterans make up the core of your bench depth.

  10. Hi Mr. Redlegs,

    I'm not entirely sure who you're addressing with the comments about not doing general searches, but I don't think we've really been unfairly on the attack regarding baker's blocking of young players in any of the comments on this blog. Granted, I may not have done more than a b-ref lookup when chris mentioned Choi and Patterson, but as you'll see over the coming week with this player value series I've been working on, I've been doing my share of research on other issues of late. :D

    On the issue of player blockage, I'm relying mostly on Shawn's recaps at his blog to evaluate those claims. And through part three, I have to say that I'm not seeing a huge trend against youth on Baker teams, except that his GMs tended to trade away youth and get veterans in return. You'll find a few cases where someone never got a chance, but it doesn't look more common on Baker clubs as it has with the Reds over the past several years.

    Anyway, Lee was acquired for Choi, right? So I'm not sure what Lee has to do with anything related to Choi's playing time in Chicago, except that he's the reason that Choi left. Obviously the fact that Choi didn't work out in Florida or LA after a season with Baker can't all be his fault, as I said above.

    I certainly have my reservations about Baker, as I've cited in my posts on him. But I haven't seen much evidence yet that he has an exceptional tendency to block young talent.

  11. Justin, I wasn't clear--I was saying, in general, all the bereaved fan yap about Baker's so-called rap sheet that many bloggers and fans have used as attack fodder. If they would just look closer. It's just not hard.

    And as you mentioned, since you're looking deeper-- which isn't hard, mind you--can be proven as myths.

    I anticipate the report with above-average curiosity!