Thank you for showing that Danimal's stat about the average number of pitches is BS.  It just goes to show you that Dusty has a short leash for some pitchers and an absurdly long leash for others.  Dusty's problem is that he tries to win every game.... at the potential cost for any other game in the history of the franchise he is managing for.  Sometimes this is great and it greatly explains how he has a .529 winning percentage.  However, it also shows that Dusty is not a great manager for a team with good young pitching.... like the Reds or the 2003 Cubs.  

the Chicago media. And it was mostly deserved.

But Morrissey's column kind of misses the big point MOST people are bringing up about Dusty being hired by the Reds: Dusty is a terrible fit for that team.

There are some similarities to the Reds of '08 (what they'll probably look like, anyway) and the Cubs of '03 -- veteran nucleus, young arms on the way up, suspect bullpen. Dusty took a group like that, with some late season additions, and won 88 games and nearly won the pennant.

But knowingly or not, he mortgaged the future to do it. If he tries that strategy with the Reds, he'll win 80 games and destroy their young pitchers along the way -- because the Reds aren't as good as the '03 Cubs AND they won't have the money to make midseason moves.

Baker should have come out to the mound immediately to calm Prior down.

It's not worth defending. Dusty wasn't a good manager.

I just think Morrissey is right that Dusty didn't "abuse" his pitchers.

it's a nice straw man argument created by Morrissey.

While there are definitely a few things Baker could have done differently in that unfortunate inning, Game 6 is decidedly not what I (or most people) have a problem with regarding Baker.  There were many other more significant reasons to think of Baker as crappy manager:

• The aura of lack of accountability for mistakes (always blaming others or just bad luck)
  
• The lack of understanding of plate discipline and the value of OBP resulted in few chances for our best hitters to drive in runs
  
• Refusing to play prospects (instead going with Perez, Hollandsworth, etc) which hindered offseason progress because we didn't get clear pictures of what Cedeno, Theriot, Murton, etc could do given a full-time role

To ignore all that and suggest that everyone's problem with Baker is game 6 or pitcher abuse is definitely disingenuous.

1. The progression of hitters into bigger, stronger beings.  Between steroids and weight training, hitters today are MUCH bigger and stronger than hitters in years past.  This results in This has led to:
2. The continued emergence of the strikeout as the "out pitch," rather than just focusing on getting outs any way they can come.  Due to the ability of hitters to hit the ball further, there's more margin for error on a swing that can still result in a HR.  And a groundball may be hit harder these days for more "seeing eye singles."  Thus, missing bats entirely is a preferred means of getting outs.  Strikeouts are definitely a bigger part of today's game than in years past.

Points 1 and 2 have led to:

3. Increased use of sliders and sharper breaking pitches.  These pitches cause more stress on the body than the fastball/changeup of years past.  In order to get these bigger, stronger hitters out.

An additional point of interest may be the lowering of the mound in conjunction with the steroid/weight training era for hitters.  It is very possible that this combination has led to more injuries.

These are all just hypotheses.  But the point is that researchers are finding a significant link between "pitcher abuse" and injuries.  That would suggest that SOMETHING is different between pitchers of today and pitchers of yesteryear.  And considering the amount of money invested in today's pitcher, I think people are going to pay a lot more attention to anything that might lead to damaging such expensive investments.

This is a gross misstatement of the Pitching Abuse Points position.  Is a pitcher who is abused going to necessarily break down?  No.  Is a pitcher who is not abused going to avoid a break down.  No.  But the chances that an abused pitcher is going to break down go way up.  Citing to examples of pitchers that  did not break down does not establish that Pitcher Abuse does not happen any more than citing to examples of 96 year old grandmothers who smoke 3 packs a day and drink a pint of whiskey establish that smoking and excessive drinking are not dangerous.  

And this has consistently been the position of those people that actually think about the issue of pitcher abuse points.  But what the anti's do is to set up a straw man which misstates the actual argument and then knock down the straw man.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. For that reason alone, Baker's failures are still referred to as an example of what cannot be repeated.

Sandberg is retired yet he's still used as an example of what we seek in a player. Do you suggest we put a moratorium on references to him?

I can take a joke.

Still, it's been a long time since I brought this subject up, and between then and now I've made comments on numerous issues. So it's not really fair to say I'm a one-dimensional poster.

Funny pictures, though.

That was inexcusable.  Also, Dusty failed to use his best available pitcher, Matt Clement, in relief in game 7 because he was saving him for a world series that would never happen.  Instead he kept Wood in too long when it was obvious he didn't have it and later in the game Dusty actually brought in the Cubs worst relief pitcher, Dave Veres.  In a do or die game Dusty used Dave Veres.  That is pathetic.