Firing Baker now won't improve Cubs

Firing the man on the top step of the Cubs dugout seems like a fitting and just conclusion to the disappointment we've felt since mid-October 2003.  A team that has looked punch-drunk ever since a game-tying 3-run HR by Victor Diaz on Sept. 25, 2004 (losing 132 times and logging just a .450 winning percentage since), we've been waiting for this team to play up to its expectations.

Dusty Baker may or may not lead this team to its next winning season. Only Jim Hendry knows for sure.  But recent Cub history and some currently existing and not easily changeable elements show that making the manager the fall guy in mid-season leads to more disappointment and an inability to judge the replacement fairly.

The new manager will be using the same personnel as Baker.  

Casey Stengel would have the same options if he was managing the Cubs: bat Neifi 2nd or 7th, start Bynum in LF or RF tonight, would Z have the same chance of Mabry of a late-inning pitch-hit.  I dare anyone to make a winner with the 25 men (24 at this point) that Dusty has had at his disposal during the first 2 months of the season.   More ABs from Bynum (70), Womack (67) and Blanco (63) than Derrek Lee (44)??  Rich Hill and Angel Guzman equaling Wood's start totals (4)??  Or Jay Kuk U. matching Prior (1)??   Could any manager anywhere win consistently with players like that to choose from?

The new manager would bring in a new set of coaches and new philosophies.  

That works well in spring training.  But its success in mid-season is less probable than a crapshoot.  Think of human nature when a substitute teacher is brought in.  A new boss at work.  A new step-father.  The threshold of success, even the threshold of tolerance is often set so high that instant gratification...any gratification... is nearly unheard of. "A new hitting coach, huh?  Great.  I wonder how this guy is going to try to change me."  Players, already sensing that the season is a lost cause, now get confirmation from the organization when the manager and coaches they've been listening to for years are gone and a new group of men that likely all players have never met, and in some cases, never heard of comes in to try to divert a last place finish.  If introductions are made in February and the team has a chance to get to know the players for six weeks when win-loss records don't count and players have a chance to adjust, changes can be productive.  But when changes are made mid-season, you risk players tuning out, turning off and showing even less drive.  Managers, some living their ultimate dream for the first time, will choose the mediocre sure thing over developing a rookie anyday (see Fred McGriff vs. Hee Seop Choi).

The 29 best managers have a job right now.

The selection is thin on the managerial store shelves at this time of the season.  During the winter, you might get to reel in the big name coming off a successful tenure elsewhere.  Even in September, you might snag a guy that was fired by a different yet equally disappointed organization.  But finding the kind of guy that you'd want to "see what they can do with this team" in the last 100 games often turns disastrous.  Since Whitey Lockman replaced Leo Durocher in 1972 and when 39-26 (.600) to lead the team to a 2nd place finish, mid-season Cub replacements have failed, and in some cases failed miserably.

1974 - Whitey Lockman is replaced by Jim Marshall, who goes 22-44 (.362) as the team finished last.

1983 - Lee Elia is replaced by Charlie Fox, who goes 17-22 (.436) as the team finished fifth.

1986 - Jim Frey is replaced by Gene Michael, who goes 46-56 (.451) as the team finished fifth.

1987 - Gene Michael is replaced by Frank Lucchesi, who goes 8-17 (.320) as the team finished last.

1991 - Don Zimmer is replaced by Jim Essian, who goes 59-63 (.484) as the team finished fourth.

2002 - Don Baylor is replaced by Bruce Kimm who goes 33-45 (.423) as the team finished fifth.

There is no guarantee of improvement over the deposed manager, no indication in any of these hirings that the team hired the 'right man', no indication that "all this team needs is to get rid of that bum and bring in fresh blood."  Look again at that list:

Jim Marshall
Charlie Fox
Gene Michael
Frank Lucchesi
Jim Essian
Bruce Kimm

Is there anyone available right now that wouldn't end up on this list in a couple years for future Cub fan to mock?  All were arguably good baseball men.  But were they better than Leo Durocher, Jim Frey or Don Zimmer?  They were brought into a situation in which success wasn't possible.  The candidate pool is so shallow that it's nearly impossible to find anyone that can single-handed turn this team, or any bad team around.

Does Baker deserve to continue managing the Cubs?  Would he have been better with a better team?  Perhaps, as he certainly came here with a winning record.  Would things have been different with Prior, Wood and Lee healthy?  Should he be blamed for the injuries?  Should Hendry?  Maybe.  But the bigger question is: Is there someone out there that, if filling out the line-up card in Cleveland tonight, would actually get better results on the field than Baker?