Dusty Baker: True or Untrue

by CouncilmanJim on Dec 26, 2007 12:28 PM EST

I was hoping the community would weigh in on the assertion that Dusty Baker mishandled his pitching staff while with the Cubs and is bad news for Cincinnati's young arms. I was talking to a journalist friend and made an off the cuff comment about Dusty Baker that disparaged his ability to handle a pitching staff. My friend called me out on my comment. Who is right? Am I guilty of simply regurgitating an unwarranted gripe about Dusty, or am I correct in believing his record is replete with high pitch counts and an elevated number of pitchers with arm troubles. Admittedly, I need to so some more in depth research for actual numbers and examples, but I thought I could illicit a great reaction both for and against my claim. Cubs and Giants fans would have a better perspective than mine and I in intrigued if Reds fans have any concerns about Bailey and Cueto. Thanks

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Both?

Pitchers in general need pitch counts. Young pitchers especially need pitch counts. In my opinion it is the GM's job to set these and have them enforced. Baker road his guys hard so long as they were performing, but from the sounds of it, there was no thing as a pitch count when he was with the Cubs. That falls on the shoulders of the GM as much as it does Baker. I really hope Wayne Krivksy steps in and has a pitch count again for Homer Bailey and for the younger pitchers. Bailey had differing pitch counts last year (when he came back from injury it was quite a bit lower than it had been early in the season which was 105 and 115).

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Dec 26, 2007 12:34 PM EST reply actions

Dusty is a moron

He ruined Prior, shoved Wood down the same path, and tried like hell to ruin Zambrano. He had Prior go 130 pitches coming back off an injury IIRC. All the time the Cubs pitchers under Baker were pitching just unbelievable pitch counts. Prior also jumped from

He's just a terrible, terrible manager IMO.

To make my point, that this man hasnt the slighest friggin clue how to manage a pitching staff - here I present the PAP rankings(pitcher abuse points) from BP for the years he was Cubs manager(03-06).

2003
Kerry Wood, 259,422 PAP, 2nd most in MLB
Mark Prior, 220,295, 4th
Carlos Zambrano, 104,226, 11th
Matt Clement, 35,282, 49th

2004
Zambrano, 158,715, 3rd
Wood, 67,576, 16th (shockingly missed time with injury)
Clement, 43,460, 35th
Prior, 36,854, 49th (shockingly missed time with injury)

2005
Zambrano, 161,247, 2nd
Prior, 102,881, 3rd
Wood was out all year
Ancient Greg Maddux wasnt abused, but nobody else made 20 starts thanks to Baker's previous stupidity.

2006
Zambrano, 134,813, 2nd
Rich Hill, 21,509, 50th
Cubs had 9 starters make 5 or more starts thanks to 3 previous seasons of Baker abusing pitchers.

Simply put, the man is an imbecile and shouldnt be allowed near a major league ballpark. He's ruined careers before and will again. He has no clue what he's doing. The only reason more guys dont appear on the lists above in 05 and 06 is that most of them can no longer last a full season to acquire enough PAPs to make the top of the list.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/

Here's a good article about the abuse of Prior:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2851466&sportCa t=mlb

from the above article(Keith Wollner of BP):
"That's a pretty high load for a guy," Woolner said. "At a very young age, [Prior] was worked harder than almost every other pitcher in baseball. He and Wood were two of the four most heavily worked pitchers in 2003. And almost immediately after that, [Prior] started experiencing problems."

by alskor on Dec 26, 2007 1:13 PM EST reply actions

Unfinished thought above...

Sorry...

"Prior also jumped from" USC to ~198 professional innings in his first professional season(including 116.2 MLB innings!). Then the next year 211.1 IP with the Cubs. Just stupid. The guy hasnt had a fully healthy year since.

Honestly, the guy had picture perfect mechanics and a great frame. This sort of once in a generation abuse by Dusty was the ONLY THING that could have derailed him. Its a ridiculous shame that it happened. Baker really should be banned for life. There is no excuse, NONE, for those numbers above. No reason can justify it. I dont care that the Cubs havent won the WS in forever... Do what

by alskor on Dec 26, 2007 1:24 PM EST up reply actions

Damn it

pressed enter again, another unfinished thought!

"Do what" the Tigers did with Verlander! Dont give me some old school b/s excuse. Leyland is as old school as it gets but he saw the reasons to not run a young arm into the ground, or if he didnt his org. wouldnt let him! Either way it is entirely inexcusable.

by alskor on Dec 26, 2007 1:26 PM EST reply actions

alskor

You bring me back to my point, you need someone, a GM if needed in certain cases to step in and set up guidelines on pitching. A pitch count and an innings limit is something that a team needs to have set for pitchers. If you have a manager who you think won't fall in line with what you believe, then I have to wonder why you hired him in the first place and secondly, you need to set the rules for him to follow.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Dec 26, 2007 4:56 PM EST reply actions

Kerry Wood was already damaged goods.

Prior and Zambrano were handled irresponsibly by Dusty, though I do wonder often whether Prior would have ended up with a lot of career injuries anyway. The most-abused pitchers these days would have been considered "pandered" by the old-school guys, including Leyland, version 1 (who was among the worst of the worst). As an example of old-school usage, here are Fernando Valenzuela's innings by age:

193 (25 games + minors?)
285 (37)
257 (35)
261 (35)
272 (35)

Don't mis-read me here, I'm in no way defending this pattern of systematic destruction of an arm. But if you look back at the seminal work on pitcher abuse, The Diamond Appraised, even the guys in the "control" group weren't used much less than Prior and Zambrano. And the pitchers who were burned out by abuse before navigating their "injury nexus" had Fernando-esque usage patterns.

Anyway, as a Cubs fan, I'm hurt and angered that Prior fell apart, and that Zambrano seems to be on a premature decline... both under conditions which weren't nurturing to them. I'm pretty sure that Zambrano was about as healthy as can be when he arrived here, but I'm not convinced that Prior wasn't an injury waiting to happen... a high of 211 innings (even with a high PAP rating) at age 22 shouldn't exactly be a death knell for a pitcher.

In 2003, Prior went 124+ pitches in 5 of his last 6 starts, leading the Cubs to their 1-game lead in their division, accounting for 5 of his CAT_4 starts in 2003 (which is why he had such a high PAP). Was that worth it? I don't know... I obviously don't like the fallout from it, but which manager would have had the self-discipline to avoid that fate? Clearly I'm biased as a fan, but I thought that team had a real shot at a title... they set the all-time team strikeout record (pitching), and adding Aramis and Lofton down the stretch (for free) filled their two biggest holes.

Anyway, I think that the young arms in Cincy really may be in safer territory with Dusty than the Cubs pitchers were. Dusty tends to annoint an "ace" and ride him to sickening PAP totals (see: Hernandez, Livan). I have to assume that's going to be Harang, and he's past the "injury nexus". So, the effect on him should only be a slightly reduced performance level due to more arm fatigue both in-game, and between starts. Unless Bailey or Cueto steps up and wrests the "ace" mantle away, AND the team is in contention, I think they will be relatively safe. I can see Cincy competing, but I have difficulty seeing Harang falter enough to avoid being the horse all year long.

by BobbyMac on Dec 26, 2007 4:59 PM EST reply actions

Harang's been over 230 innings two straight years.

I really don't worry too much about him being able to handle it, because he's consistently shown he has no trouble handling it. He was also fifth in pitcher abuse points last year. The dude might be the best workhorse in baseball right now, and it'll take some impressive work for Dusty to screw him up.

I worry about the effect Dusty will have on Bronson Arroyo next year, personally. Arroyo had a few game stretch last year where Narron worked the hell out of him, and he was absolutely awful for the next month.

by Geki on Dec 26, 2007 5:41 PM EST up reply actions

7 runs, 7 innings

We used to joke that Dusty had a 7 run/7 inning policy with his starters. They'd come out of the game only at the point one of those two milestones was achieved. After experiencing the way Felipe Alou and Bruce Bochy use bullpens, it's actually not a terrible strategy. Injuries to starters were not a big problem with the Giants when Dusty was the manager, although we didn't have a lot of rooks during that time. All the pitching prospects were traded for vets during his tenure. I think Russ Ortiz was the only starter who broke in during Dusty's time.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 26, 2007 5:16 PM EST reply actions

Russ Ortiz

Given that Russ Ortiz pitched at least 195 2/3 innings in each of the four full seasons he pitched for Dusty Baker, I don't think it is fair to say that Russ broke under Dusty's management. Russ broke in 2005, three seasons after he last played for Dusty.

by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2007 3:14 AM EST up reply actions

Broke In

I meant that he broke into the big leagues, not that he broke down.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 27, 2007 11:47 AM EST up reply actions

My mistake

My mistake, Dr. I should have known better.

One thing I have come to believe is that if you and I agree on something, it is bank. :)

by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2007 8:05 PM EST up reply actions

IMO

I felt that Dusty Baker overused his pitchers -- but for a long time he got away with it.

I would say Robb Nen was the first pitcher who came unraveled following Brian's approach.

Personally I wouldn't stretch out starters very often, nor would I use relievers more than two days in a row barring emergency.

What I WOULD do is stretch out my relievers. I would try to use them less frequently but for more innings at a time. I would also make every attempt to use my best relievers in higher-leverage situations, which often might involve bringing them into the game earlier and having them throw two or three innings instead of just one or even a portion of one.

Dusty's strength as a manager is motivational. He's certainly not exceptional strategically.

Overall, I happen to like him as a manager. But as with virtually every manager out there -- both inside and outside of baseball -- he has his strengths and his weaknesses.

by sharksrog on Dec 26, 2007 5:19 PM EST reply actions

Bullpen Strategy

I agree with you on having relievers go more than one inning at a time in return for not being used as often. I would say most managers in MLB go more with the one inning more often strategy which I tend to think burns out bullpen arms more often.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 26, 2007 6:16 PM EST up reply actions

Bingo!

You and I are in complete agreement here, Dr. This is a case of managers merely going by the "book," rather than using their pitchers to the best possible leverage.

It seems to me that baseball is a very reactive sport. Most seem afraid to do anything out of the usual.

In the Giants' case, that worked to their advantage in the 2006 draft. Because of prejudices and misjudgements, they may have gotten the best player in the draft even though they drafted only #10.

I wish the Giants had given Manny Acta a shot at managing them last season. Although he was a rookie manager, he is among the more proactive managers around.

In the Giants' defense, they may not have felt he would be the best manager to handle Barry Bonds. But that was short-term thinking, at best.

by sharksrog on Dec 27, 2007 3:18 AM EST reply actions

Let's not forget....

...that whether or not you believe some of the blame lies with Baker, Matt Clement also damaged his arm under Baker's tenure. Full disclosure: I've been pretty outspoken on my disdain for Baker's managerial prowess over the years. I've followed the Cubs since I was a kid and catch more than half their games on TV or in person every season, so if you ask my one person focus group (well, me plus all of my buddies that I watched regularly with), it wasn't just that Baker ignored pitch counts and innings piling up on his young arms. Baker also contributed to the abuse by not being able to manage a bullpen, often forcing the Cubs to leave a starter out there because he'd already burned through good alternatives in the pen.

Baker just made so many tactically poor moves, we found ourselves constantly being angry at a decision or second guessing him. His lineups also were terrible and he publicly stated he wasn't hired to develop prospects, but to win ballgames. If you've ever seen him on Baseball Tonight, he's not terribly well spoken or thought provoking. I've never heard him offer any true insight into the game, or elevate a discussion. He was also this way in front of the media while managing the Cubs. He's just never seemed like an authority on baseball to me. I really can't tell you anything well, as a manager, in my opinion.

Most players say he's a nice guy to play for, and that they like him. But I'm sure those same players would take the manager that gives them the best chance to win over the guy that makes their life easier in the clubhouse. To further illustrate that last point, BP did some cursory research on how many wins a manager might gain or lose for his team. Obviously this was very hard to quantify, but for what it's worth, they found that a manager does not have a big affect on winning extra games for his team. Conversely, they found that managers can have a HUGE negative affect on their team's record with continuously poor work.

It's even harder to forgive Baker he can affect a team's record even after he's done managing it. His gift to the Cubs? Wood is now a reliever, Zambrano has gotten progressively worse and might be damaged as well, Prior is a Padre, and Clement still hasn't made it back. This rotation (or at least 3 of its members) had the potential to keep the Cubs in contention for several years. Now all we have to look back at are the monumentally poor decisions to leave starters in a game, when leading by 5 or more runs, and a pitch count at or near 100. Or the times he'd leave one of them out there to "take their lumps" while not being able to find the strike zone and going over the 25 pitch mark in a single inning. These are the times the mechanics broke down, the overthrowing started, and the injuries began to mount.

Hopefully Baker has learned something from his time in Chicago and won't do the same thing to the Reds, but I wouldn't put money on it.

"When people talk, listen completely. Most people never listen." (Hemingway)

by jmoultz on Dec 27, 2007 2:16 PM EST reply actions

Baker post-mortem

Some parts of this I agree with totally (the insistence that guys with career OBP's under .300 need to be in the 1-2 slots in a lineup is my 2nd-worst criticism of Baker, a point to which you allude tengentially).

That said, blaming Clement's subsequent injuries on Dusty Baker is a reach beyond reaches. Clement pitched 191 IP the year following his tenure as a Cub. While his decline didn't follow directly from getting domed with a liner, it certainly didn't help. And his first-half stats that year were: 117 IP, 97 K, 35 BB, 9 HR. Does that sound like a "damaged goods" pitcher? He started the All-Star game! That 117 IP matched his high-IP (1st half) mark with Chicago. He has asthma, and Dusty respected that, and treated him fairly gently... the fact that he wore down in the 2nd halves of all his seasons almost certainly had more to do with this condition than with any arm abuse.

I've already commented on Wood's usage. I'll add that Kerry Wood was Twenty-six (26) in Dusty's first season. And Dusty gave him fewer IP (211) than the Baylor/Lachemann had done the year before. Good grief, 211 IP in 32 GS for a 26-year-old? Oh no! Come on.

I cannot believe I'm defending Dusty, but I know that for a while (certainly through 2003), he had some sort of record for best September record by a manager. He isn't imaginative, and he doesn't embrace the simple concept of getting on base leading to runs, which will always be a hindrance to him (and which I find surprising, since he walked as a player). And, he overused Prior and Zambrano. While his usage patterns exceeded the current model for SP usage, there have been herds of young pitchers used far worse in the past, and many of them have developed normally. Did he increase the chance of them getting hurt? Probably.... but it was like making a 50% likelihood into a 60% likelihood, not this "automatic devastation" thing that people seem to think.

My take on the Cubs record-breaking 2003 rotation, and why they didn't propagate further (ala Braves rotation of the 90s):

Zambrano - None of the blame for the Cubs SP decline can really be placed on his performances... lack of offense has kept his win totals down, but he's been very effective at getting hitters out.

Prior - USC pitchers are often damaged in college. And, while 2003 wasn't arm-friendly, why was he allowed to go 138 pitches on August 8, 2002 (pre-Dusty)? In fact, he was 23rd on the PAP chart for 2002, despite throwing only 116.2 IP. In clearly meaningless games (67 wins for the Cubs).

Clement - Was in contention to be the 2005 All-Star game starter for Boston the year after leaving Chicago for greener Monsters.

Wood - Honestly, I think the majority of his problems go back to May 6, 1998, when he tossed arguably the best-pitched game in history. He was 21st in PAP that year (at age 18). Four years later, by 2002, he'd seemingly reinvented himself as an effective-but-not-elite SP after suffering through the expected injuries and rehabs. When Dusty arrived, he was coming off his career-high IP (213.2), and was entering his age-26 season.

Now, one may argue that hiring a guy with a lack of a "light touch" to manage this group of high-level arms was a bad idea, and I'd agree with that. But unless Zambrano breaks down hideously, I don't see how a lot of this blame can be traced to Dusty. Looking forward, if BigZ does self-destruct, will Lou get some of the heat? Isn't a spike to 115 walks allowed scary enough to treat the Big Guy's arm more gently? Not for Lou.

by BobbyMac on Dec 27, 2007 5:50 PM EST up reply actions