"In Dusty We (Still) Trusty" Revisited: How About A Little Fire Scarecrow?

If any of our readers have ever taken a logic class, they are probably familiar with the list of logical fallacies. These include such common logical and argumentative mistakes as non sequitirs, ad hoc ergo propter hoc, etc.

One of these argumentative boo-boo's is referred to as the "straw man". Basically, when a person rebuts another person's argument, they invent a tenet of the original argument that was, in fact, never made by the first arguer. They then tear this tenet apart, giving the illusion that they have soundly defeated the original argument when they have truly done nothing of the sort.

It is my contention that this is exactly what Pablo has done in defense of Dusty Baker.

Pablo begins his post by claiming that I consider Dusty Baker a "shitty manager". This is exactly correct. No need to even make a disclaimer that he's paraphrasing. The thesis of my argument could be those words exactly: Dusty Baker is a shitty manager. The vulgarity gives it a bit of accentuation that I think fits nicely.

His next sentence, "Let's see what the numbers show", plunges the reader through the rabbit-hole into the world of errors that Pablo has constructed.

This is the straw man: Pablo compares Dusty Baker's numbers to Tony La Russa's (current and longtime manager of the St. Louis Cardinals) as if to demonstrate that Dusty is no worse a manager than La Russa. This is fine, except for the fact that I never claimed that La Russa was a better manager than Baker, or even that La Russa was not a shitty manager.

(For the record, my feelings on La Russa are mixed.

A manager's role is an overstated one, I believe.

Compared to other sports, the winning percentages of the best teams in baseball hardly compare to those of the best teams in other sports. For example, the Chicago Bulls championship 1995-1996 season garnered them a regular season record of 72-10, a .878 winning percentage. In football, the 1990 San Francisco 49er's had a winning percentage of .875 after a 14-2 regular season. Compare that to the modern day AL record from the Seattle Mariners in 2001: 116-46, a .716 winning percentage. These examples may not be the best winning percentages each sport has to offer, but they do represent some of the best. But the best teams in baseball are still not as winning as the best teams in other sports.

The point is that in baseball, there are many factors that determine a team's success or failure, more than in any other sport. As a result, each factor's effect is proportionately less than it might be in football or basketball. The role of manager is one of these factors. I feel that a manager in baseball has much less control over a team's success than a manager in any other sport. I would go even farther to say that a manager has less control than each position player, the pitching staff, even the front office, on overall team success.

That being said, how much should the success, or failure, of a manager's team be a reflection of that manager's ability? Surely, the team is more dependent on the performance of its players. The manager has some leverage when it comes to a player's performance, but not nearly enough that he could singlehandedly change the course of a season through player manipulation. Rather, I feel a manager's winning percentage is more of a reflection of the teams he has been given.

Instead of judging a manager by winning percentage, I think it is more accurate to critique using a different set of criteria. The ones I would suggest are less based on statistics and more on qualities. Thusly, they are much more subjective and leave themselves open to greater debate. The list of qualities I would use includes, but is not bound exclusively to: longevity, general baseball knowledge, decision-making, use of players, relationship with players, relationship with front office, relationship with media (and by extension, fans), etc.

I am by no means saying that these qualities are the defining attributes of a great manager. I do feel, however, that a manager's success cannot be based on numbers. Instead, judgment can be much better-made through judging a manager's skills. This, incidentally, runs completely counter to my feelings on judging player quality. For that, I would depend almost exclusively on the numbers.

All this being said, I perceive La Russa to have a sort of father-son relationship with his players. He seems to be generally affectionate, but all business. I have seen him dress down players in the dugout and on the field and have only heard stories about what goes on the clubhouse. His relationship with GM Walt Jocketty seems similar: all business. His "genius", people claim, is in his decision-making. I do see in him a very knowledgeable baseball person who is constantly thinking his way through a game. However, this can also be his fault. I have seem him over-think on multiple occasions: bringing in a lefty pitcher to face a lefty batter when the original righty was a much better pitcher (he's done the same pinch-hitting in lefty-righty situations. I believe I've read of him defending himself by saying that he's basically just saving his ass: if he allowed the righty pitcher to face the lefty and a run scored, he would be asked why he didn't bring in the lefty). But for the most part, La Russa is fundamentally sound. While he has lasted a long time and has quite a few wins, I do not see him as a manager head and shoulders above his peers. Instead, I see him as a basebal savvy man who has been given some very good teams. I do not feel Baker is the same type of manager, but more on that later.)

I apologize for the lengthy digression, but it served to demonstrate what I feel makes a good manager.

I never argued that La Russa was a better manager than Baker, nor that La Russa is not a bad manager while Baker is. This is, however, the argument that Pablo is refuting.

Pablo compares their winning percentages, which are equal. (I've already demonstrated why I feel winning percentage is a bad metric for comparing managers.)

He also mentions that La Russa made three World Series with the A's, as Pablo says, a team containing more "talent than Stockholm in December". He notes that only one of those appearances resulted in a win. He forgets to mention the now-cliched axiom that the playoffs are always a crapshoot. Once you get there, it's better to be lucky than good. (Incidentally, he forgets to mention Baker's record in the World Series: 0-1. Not that that's a good way to measure a manager....)

Pablo further notes that in Dusty's first three years with the Cubs, he led them to a .527 winning percentage. He does not note that he took the Cubs to the playoffs one of those three years.

Not even considering the dismal 2006 season (which would bring his Cubs career winning percentage down considerably), a .527 winning percentage for a team with a payroll at or nearing $100 million during those three years is not something for which Dusty should be given "the fucking Congressional Medal...". In those three seasons, the Cubs ranked in the top five in payroll in the Major Leagues. I could list the number of teams with lower payrolls that passed the Cubs in the standings during those seasons, but I'm too lazy, the list would be too long, and it would be too painful for Cub fans, especially considering that the Cardinals would be at the top of that list two out of three years.

Now, I want to clarify that I don't feel that any of the above is a reflection of Baker's ability. Instead, I feel it shows the incompetency of the Cubs' front office and the pathetic drive/ability/whatever of the majority of Cubs players. But, I quote the above information to demonstrate that Pablo's use of World Series success and career Cub winning percentage is useless in judging Baker's worth as a manager....even if his team has a history of sucking ass.

Pablo goes on to quote each manager's playing statistics. Clearly, Baker was the better player. I don't remember ever claiming that he wasn't. I will, however, claim resolutely that this has absolutely no bearing on either man's ability as a manager. Who gives a fuck if Baker won two Silver Sluggers or hit five homeruns in the postseason? How the hell does any of that translate to managerial competence? And the fact that La Russa never even attempted a stolen base? Well, shit, I don't want him managing my team! What the hell's wrong with that base non-stealing pussy? Maybe his pseudo-mullet was too high of a drag coefficient.

Alan Trammell was a borderline Hall of Fame player. Are the Tigers stroking his cock for his managing skills? Trammell might as well be dead now that Leyland is there.

The reasons I think Baker sucks as a manager are numerous: his ignorance of the value of walks; his frequent mistakes in managing his pitching staff (a world unto itself); his belief that black players are better suited to the hot temperatures of mid-summer baseball; his steadfast devotion to overvalued veteran players past their prime; his strong reluctance to play, or even continue development of, young players; his inability to accept any responsibility for his, or his team's, behavior; his incompetence at keeping his players focused on the game (see Mercker v. the t.v. broadcast booth 2004 and Alou v. the umpires 2004); his annoying belief that anecdotes about him batting behind Hank Aaron have managerial value. There are disgruntled Cubs fans out there who could make lists ten times as long as mine.

So that's it. I do believe Dusty is a shitty manager. I've quoted the reasons why.

I said earlier that I thought La Russa was a intelligent baseball man who had been given some very good teams. I believe that Baker is an unintelligent baseball mans who has been given some very good teams.

I might be wrong. But if I am, it's not because Dusty's won three manager of the year awards or was the 1977 NLCS MVP.

Incidentally, Pablo, I don't think you'll have any problem reserving savedusty.com as a domain name. And, I wouldn't expect a lot of affirmative visitors.

******

Don't read too much vitriole into this little diatribe. I've got nothing but love and respect for my boy Pablo. This was only meant as a furtherance of the great baseball dialogue we've been engaging in for the last year and a half. Much love, P.

And to you Cub fans, don't think I bash Baker because it makes me feel better about the Cardinals. I'd feel Baker was a bad manager regardless of what team I rooted for. I'm sure most of you can relate.