Sweet Lou vs. Dusty

by cubsbak on Aug 29, 2007 9:29 AM CDT Comment 47 comments

The Tribune today had some interesting commentary on the differences in style between Sweet Lou and Dusty.

Ramirez and Theriot agreed the biggest difference between Baker and Piniella is Baker was more like a fellow player than a manager.

"Dusty cared about his players so much and he'd do anything in the world for us," Theriot said. "That's probably a trait that sometimes isn't a great one. He was a great friend and a guy who gave me an opportunity to play.

"It's just a different style, a different feel. If you mess up now, Lou is going to come down on you. He doesn't care what you think. There have been times he has come down on me. He doesn't discriminate. It's everybody. No favorites."

"I didn't see him like a manager, I just saw him like a friend," Ramirez added. "He's a players' manager. Lou is a little different. Lou is all about winning the games and playing good ball."

This pretty much confirms what a lot of us suspected.

Also, the Suntimes postulates that Sweet Lou's leadership style and his ability to keep things in perspective will come in handy down the stretch.

''So much riding in August?'' Piniella said during his pregame chat with reporters. ''I don't know. I think you are going to have a hell of a lot more riding [on the games] in the middle of September than you are now -- if we play the way we expect to play.''

Several minutes later, watching batting practice near third base, Piniella chuckled at the excitement that the media horde from Chicago, Milwaukee and other parts of the country was trying to generate at Wrigley Field.

And this is exactly what you want from your manager this time of year. This is why Piniella still stands out as general manager Jim Hendry's best move during a busy offseason.

Piniella continues to provide the right touch this team needs. His true value should shine in September.

A year after coolly guiding the Cubs to the National League Championship Series, manager Dusty Baker was as uptight as his players in 2004. It showed down the stretch, as the Cubs fumbled away the wild-card lead to the hard-charging Astros.

I generally agree with this. Sweet Lou is a huge upgrade from Dusty when it comes to leadership. He has taken charge of this team in a way Dusty never did. I believe he'll get the best out of this team down the stretch.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 47 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

About Baker...

... that's all true. And that style worked as long as he had a player or player(s) in the clubhouse who could keep things under control.

He had that in San Francisco with Jeff Kent. He had it in 2003 with Damian Miller and Eric Karros. But when Miller and Karros departed, the inmates started running the asylum, with predictable results.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Aug 29, 2007 9:34 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

And that's why Dusty hasn't been mentioned...

to fill any of the managerial vacancies in MLB. He's going the same way as former Cubs managers who were burnt in Chicago to never be successful again: Baylor, Riggleman, Zimmer, Durocher, etc. Chicago was their last hurrah.

by Fraggin Judge on Aug 29, 2007 9:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

fwiw...

Durocher did manager again after the Cubs. He was the Astros manager for a while.

by kaseyi on Aug 29, 2007 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right. I forgot that.

Scratch him from the list. Add Elia and others whose names I also momentarily forgot.

by Fraggin Judge on Aug 29, 2007 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

But even under those circumstances I believe Dusty's leadership style hurt the team in subtle ways. In SF, it's often cited that Dusty flipping the ball to Russ Otiz after removing him from the game inspired the Angel's comeback. Many of us feel that if Dusty would've taken charge after the foul ball incident in game 6 of the 2003 NLCS the outcome could've been different. I don't believe Sweet Lou makes those mistakes. He's not worried about who should have a souvenir baseball. He wouldn't sit on his butt when his team is melting down. He takes charge and trys to win baseball games. I believe that's what Ramirez is alluding to in his quote.

by cubsbak on Aug 29, 2007 9:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've always thought the ball flip

Was overrated. Ozzie Guillen and LaRussa do things 10 times as annoying, and they've managed champions.

However, I do agree that Baker sitting on his rump when Prior was falling apart was inexcusable.

The second he saw Alou flip out at Bartman, he should have been alarmed enough to want to calm people down.

Why do you think Herzog never got so much as a sniff from another team, and why do you think he's not in the Hall of Fame, after managing three World Series teams in five years?

Because he presided over a colossal meltdown, and has never stopped blaming Denkinger for it.

I won't shed one tear if Baker suffers the same fate.

by lancaster99 on Aug 29, 2007 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Please explain ball flip incident.

Me like to know these things. Many thanks

GREAT SUCCESS!!!

by Chitown Mojo on Aug 29, 2007 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In a nutshell

Baker removed the starting pitcher from a game where the Giants were ahead late.

He flipped the ball to the pitcher so he could have it as a souvenir.

Supposedly, the Angels took that as motivation, came back to win the Series.

Like I said, I've never bought it. I'm sure some Angels saw it and thought, "You know, I'd like to jam that ball up Dusty's butt."

But that didn't make them better hitters, nor better fielders or pitchers. It didn't make the Giants worse at all those things.

If you aren't motivated to win the World Series, regardless of what Baker does, then to quote Steve Stone, "Go sell cars."

by lancaster99 on Aug 29, 2007 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

One could also argue

that it distracted the Giants. Instead of maintaining focus to win the game Dusty's move signaled that he thought the game was already won. Perhaps the Giants let up a bit and the Angels took advantage. Even if it didn't have any impact it was still a very stupid thing to do.

by cubsbak on Aug 29, 2007 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that Dusty should have intervened in '03,

but let's clarify that it wasn't just Prior falling apart. The incidents in that fateful inning had an adverse affect on all of the players' psychological aspect of the game. Many of us were dissapointed and some of us still are, however I don't think we should blame just one player or one fan for that matter.

There are 3 things in my life which I really love: God, family, and baseball. The only problem - once baseball season starts, I change the order around a bit.

by cubsfan4life on Aug 29, 2007 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's precisely why Dusty should've intervened.

n/t

by Fraggin Judge on Aug 29, 2007 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly. I wasn't defending Dusty

I was defending Prior and the rest of the players.

There are 3 things in my life which I really love: God, family, and baseball. The only problem - once baseball season starts, I change the order around a bit.

by cubsfan4life on Aug 30, 2007 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still think

Dusty's single biggest mistake with the Cubs, was not bringing in Clement in game 7 against the Marlins. It was clear, Wood did not have his best stuff and you can't leave anything in the tank at that point. Clement had a couple of days rest, and he was the "best" pitcher available at that point (when the game was tied).

The very next night, the Yankees and Red Sox played a game seven, and both managers brought in starters as relievers on short rest. There is no tomorrow, and you have to play it that way.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Aug 29, 2007 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Bringing in the likes of Dave Veres and Mike Remlinger so he could save Matt Clement for game 1 of a world series that would never happen was absolutely unforgivable.

by cubsbak on Aug 29, 2007 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I remember screaming that at the TV

I think he was saving Clement for Game 8.

by rgonzale on Aug 31, 2007 9:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well said

Dusty needed a couple players to be certain type of leaders for him to be effective. With Lou, he takes care of that on his own.

Lastly, Piniella is a far better in game manager than Dusty and is also a much better judge at reading players capabilities. I know the run and hit didn't work in Arizona, but putting the slow Floyd in motion last night saved an out, and very well may have won that game.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Aug 29, 2007 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Lou may not be the best in-game tactician but he is definitely better than Baker. Lou has done an astronomically better job just filling out the lineup card everyday. If Neifi were on this team there's no way we'd be seeing him hitting second everyday. Nuff said.

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

by pageian on Aug 31, 2007 8:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

IMO

Piniella is one of the best in-game tacticians in all of baseball. But that's just me.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Aug 31, 2007 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jeff Kent?

Really? From what I understand most people consider him a jerk and I don't think many of his teammates care/cared for him. Dugout fights etc... I'm sure he'd get in someones face if they needed it but I can't see him being respected enough to be considered a leader or to help keep a clubhouse in order.

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

by pageian on Aug 31, 2007 8:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I saw this today, too

and had planned on posting something quite similar to your diary. Good job.

I completely agree, and the quote that really struck me was Ramirez's, when he says, "Lou is different [from Dusty]. He [Lou] is all about winning the games and playing good ball." I immediately thought, "Well, what the hell kind of manager or player ISN'T all about winning and playing well?" Isn't that the whole damn point of competitive sport? It made me sigh with relief and pleasure knowing that Dusty was no longer a part of our family. Good riddance.

Then the other part of me thought, "Hey, it's '07, we're in first. Forget Dusty and move on!" And so I am, but not without relishing the things that are good about the last several months of Cubbieball.

"Mine, mine, says the squirrel to the transformer, unclear on the capacities of electricity." -Dean Young

by Kegler on Aug 29, 2007 9:45 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

And I agree that it's pointless to bash Dusty right now, who I don't think was a terrible manager. He definitely had his strengths, the biggest one being that he was generally able to get his players to play hard for him.

by cubsbak on Aug 29, 2007 9:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

can't forget organizational DNA

Dusty has an imprint on this team, especially the current core performers: Zambrano, Ramirez & Wood of ('03 experience); Dempster & Wuertz of ('04 experience) Blanco & Ohman ('05) followed by Howry, Eyre Jones in '06, along with the rookies of last year; Theriot, Hill, Marshall, Marmol & Cedeno.

This has a significant impact as how players approach the game and how a manager expects performance. In Dusty's world he managed so that players could get opportunities for statistics that resulted in payroll chits, he always kept starters in so they had a chance to earn a win, he didn't like the walk for he said it clogged the bases but he knew a hit was better for their statistics, he like HR's, so situational hitting was not encouraged.

Mental mistakes were overlooked or ignored. This put Barrett in a bad development since all Barrett really thought was offensively. K's were king with the staff.

With Piniella the stats are not relevant as wins and losses. Winning is the reason you play, not the stats so you don't see Ramirez getting on himself for not hitting HR's the team is winning. It is night and day.

Milw-09-24-98--Brown in for defense--bases loaded--flyball--HE DROPPED THE BALL!!!NO NO NO, cubs lose 8-7

by Ivy Walls on Aug 29, 2007 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's one thing

that brings me back to Dusty often. I don't think it is off-bounds to discuss Dusty or to even bash him if need be. That one thing is that Cubs management kept on going with Dusty when it was apparent that things weren't working.

It's my opinion that many if not most organizations would have fired Baker mid-way through the 2005 season. I was saying that at that time. The performance of the team continued to get worse and worse with him there culminating in the ugly debacle that was 2006. What if the Cubs had hired Piniella in 2006 instead? Where would the Cubs be now? My guess is that this season would be even better.

I'm not saying that Baker is a horrible manager. I am saying that it was evident that the Cubs weren't the right place for him. The moral of the story is that management needs to be more pro-active at this level because the rest of the league won't take pity.

by NO100 on Aug 29, 2007 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

to be fair

Baker had managed the team within 5 outs of the World Series in 2003 and the team just missed the playoffs in 2004

to say it was apparent that things werent working in mid-2005 with Dusty Baker would be a bit reactionary

Now of course we saw what happened the rest of 2005 and 2006 and none of that was very fun to watch

but i'd have to say its a bit of hindsight bias working to suggest in mid 2005 things werent working with Baker

now again, i've somehow gotten attached with the "Baker-supporter" label around here when in actuality i'm not much of a believer in managers making a big difference in general

so i'm sure i'll get lambasted in here with this post

by DartmouthCubsFan on Aug 29, 2007 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know you don't know me

but I'm not a reactionary person. Again, I'm not saying that Baker is a horrible manager, just that it wasn't working with the Cubs. 2003, up until the last 5 outs, was a good job done.

By the first half of 2005, the Cubs had the Hawkins meltdown, the Merker incident with the broadcasters, and using players continuously in situations that were not good fits. Going into 2004, the Cubs were the best team in the NL and that team underperformed. I wasn't the only person saying Dusty should lose his job, if only to "shake up the team". National media outlets (ESPN) were openly discussing it too.

Hindsight, I think, only goes to prove the point. I will stick by position that knowing what the Cubs knew in mid 2005 was reason enough to let Baker go. The signs were obvious that 2006 was going to be a very bad year.

by NO100 on Aug 29, 2007 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the signs were obvious

AND the general manager did very little to support the manager in 2006

the big additions were Eyre, Howry, and Jones

no concern was given to the rotation which had zero depth

and the team traded away any pitching depth it had in the farm system in order to acquire a below average CF both offensively and defensively

the general management failed as much as anything in preparing that team for at best mediocrity, when Lee went down the team which was essentially built like a straw-house blew down quite quickly

and to get back to my original point, i wasn't trying to make a generalization about you in particular, i was trying to say "IF" Baker was fired in mid-2005 after having just lead the Cubs to consecutive successful seasons it would likely have been viewed as quite reactive

by DartmouthCubsFan on Aug 29, 2007 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No doubt

Hendry had a bad year in 2005 and 2006 too. I wonder, though, how much of that was of Baker's doing. Pierre and Perez were "Baker guys". Hendry went and got them because Baker wanted them. I still contend that the team turned into an "on the field circus" by mid-2005 and Baker not only did nothing to correct that, but actually fanned the flames. The only reasons Hendry has a job still was because he signed his extention right before the wheels came off and because the Trib was having the issues they were having.

Oh, and I didn't think that you were generalizing about me. Also, I think we could get into a semantical debate between "reactive" and "proactive", but I don't think that would be very beneficial.

by NO100 on Aug 30, 2007 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

After reading your post

I'm sure the idiots who run major league baseball teams must be kicking themselves for wasting all that money on managers when they could easily find someone off the street to do the same job for minimum wage. Teams like the Cardinals, who annually waste a ton of money on Tony LaRussa's salary, and the Braves, who waste a fortune on Bobby Cox's salary, are obviously very poorly run.

by cubsbak on Aug 29, 2007 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

look

i've intentionally ignored responding to your posts because i know all you're looking to do is get into some type of argument with me which you'll provide absolutely no factual evidence and just state random opinions or feelings you have loaded with hindsight and confirmation bias

you have your opinions, i have mine

leave it be

for years and years many of these smart baseball men that you bow down to have done many a stupid thing

the book moneyball does an excellent job of pointing out how all of this "groupthink" within baseball to accept common viewpoints as golden has lead to specific inefficiencies in the analysis of the game (the batting average vs. obp debate, etc)

i believe in my opinion and i'm not going to sit here and tell you to believe in it, i've tried to explain my reasoning before with factual evidence and you've retorted with opinions and anecdotal evidence... we've done this dance before

all i'm going to say is these people running baseball are not infallable

and all of the teams you mention as having success with their managers happen to have one major thing in common

they've had GREAT GM's behind them

and there's been other places where GREAT GM's have consistently built great teams without "big name" managers as well (Florida, Oakland, Minnesota, etc)

by DartmouthCubsFan on Aug 29, 2007 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Alas

If only the baseball establishment would wise up and stop wasting money on managers when they're all interchangeable. Those stupid "groupthink" morons need to wise up and read moneyball. If only they'd listen to your "factual evidence" and not get fooled by "random opinions or feelings loaded with hindsight and confirmation bias." Seriously, do you even bother to watch baseball games or do you just sit around reading box scores and books about Billy Beane?

And as for your "great teams" examples, last I checked, the last time Florida, Oakland, and Minnesota won championships they had pretty fine managers guiding them (McKeon, LaRussa, and Kelley). But hey, that must be just a random opinion or feeling loaded with hindsight and confirmation bias not a fact. Because it's obvious that anyone with opposable thumbs can manage a baseball game just as well as Bobby Cox.

by cubsbak on Aug 29, 2007 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

2 more points

It's too bad these "GREAT GM's" aren't smart enough to realize they're wasting money on their managers. Seems to me, instead of calling them "GREAT GM's", you should be arguing that Walt Jockety and John Shurholts are fools for paying all that money to Cox and LaRussa when it doesn't make any difference to their team's success.

Also, I notice you constantly criticizing Sweet Lou's in-game decision making. Why? Seems to me if you really believe that a manager doesn't make any difference to a baseball team you wouldn't bother to constantly criticize Sweet Lou. You can't have it both ways.

by cubsbak on Aug 29, 2007 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll just say this

Piniella has been the best thing that has happened to the Cubs since Dallas Green. The man is an excellent in game manager, and recognizes a players talents quickly. Look at what he did with this team since ST; he recognized in short order - Theriot can play, Barrett can't catch and Marmol would be kick ass in the pen. Piniella has given Hendry a concentrated lesson on finding the right pieces, and this team would be in deep shit without him.

I have nothing against Hendry, but his strengths are not related to placing proper value on certain key positions, and Piniella's is.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Aug 29, 2007 7:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

because

all these managers make similar mistakes, thats why there's little difference between them

talent dictates championships or outperformance

thats why behind every "dynasty" you'll see a great GM moreso than you'll see a great manager

beane, schuerholz, ryan, etc are tremendous GMs

and in markets where they dont have a lot of money you see these GMs replacing their managers more often (Oakland, Minnesota)

this is my last post on this, feel free to bash my opinion however you deem fit to try to antagonize me into this childish game you like to play with everyone on the site

by DartmouthCubsFan on Aug 29, 2007 8:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So

every manager makes "similar mistakes"? Really? Every one? So you know something that every manager in baseball doesn't know? You really should write a book or something identifying all these mistakes that EVERY manager since the beginning of time has been making. I'm sure it would be a best seller.

You still haven't told me why these "tremendous" GM's are wasting resources on managers like Cox and LaRussa. Shouldn't they be paying managers the league minimum and spending more money on players? St. Louis is a notoriously cheap franchise, yet Jockety shells out big bucks for LaRussa. Wouldn't it make more sense for him to spend that money on players? Why don't these "tremendous" GM's realize this?

How many championships have these replacement managers in Oakland and Minnesota won? Last I checked LaRussa and Kelly were their skippers the last time these teams were in the world series.

Thanks for allowing me the freedom to bash your opinion however I deem fit. That really means a lot.

by cubsbak on Aug 29, 2007 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Arguing yet again.

I love this team!!!!!

by sue369 on Aug 29, 2007 9:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

that even with a good manager, you won't put together extended periods of winning with a crap GM. In today's game, GM's are extremely important because of all the player movement.

Regarding managers, I'd say there are about 6-7 that I think make a decent impact. Those are the guys that are fun to watch how they use their players and their strategy. And yes, I would put Piniella on that short list.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Aug 29, 2007 10:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed....

I remember seeing somewhere a big stat thing about how a manager might make a difference in about 5-10 games a year....and then went on to rate them by "what kind of difference they made"...basically said they didn't make much of a diff...and evaluated thru their careers....

I wish I could find the article or link....

Tony the Drunk was like a +2.....
Joe Torre was like a 0

Surprises...

Bobby Cox was like a +30 (very good)
Dusty Baker was like a +10....(good)

and Lou was like a (-5) <bad>

The best defense is a good offense

by kcjones on Sep 1, 2007 1:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Marathon

Lou's comment last night was perfect, and one we all need to heed. He said something to the effect that we have been in a marathon and now we're starting to jog. By mid September we'll be in a sprint.

With the crowd reaction and enthusiasm last night one of Lou's biggest jobs will be to calm expectations of players according to the fans; this is not sprint time, it's jog time. Play steady, play smart. In a couple of weeks, put the hammer down. We all want this team in the postseason. Peak in a few weeks with a long win streak. For now, let's win series and hang on to the lead. No one wants a repeat of 2004.

This is Harry Carray, goodbye from Wrigley Field and So Long Everybody.

by mrcubsfan on Aug 29, 2007 9:45 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Very well said.

n/t

Well, sometimes nothin is a real cool hand.

by wicubfan on Aug 29, 2007 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually he said to the effect

that the team should be jogging now, (not sprinting) that they are in the race but have to maintain the emotional keel that there is much more to do.

I have said earlier that they are approaching the final turn in the proverbial horse race still on the back stretch though....Cubs have 32 games remaining...the sprint to the finish line will not begin until the StL series in mid-September and then still it will not be a sprint but more of a stronger run....

The sprint to the finish line will be the final ten games, that is 22 games from now, almost a month. Now remember when in '04 the Cubs had nothing left and the Astros sprinted to the line winning the WC by one game.

I have a feeling though that this weekend Cubs will spot 5 or 6 wins with Milwaukee and Houston...looking ahead we are going to face a pitcher who is still winged and does not have command. Then a lefty with 2 starts that totaled 6-IP twice...then another lefty rookie with one game start (0-1) 5.2-IP, followed by a 3rd lefty (Rodriquez) 7-12 finished by old Woody Williams who is 8-13....

Cubs spot themselves to 71 or 72 wins and it will be the Cardinals who will need to start jogging faster.

Milw-09-24-98--Brown in for defense--bases loaded--flyball--HE DROPPED THE BALL!!!NO NO NO, cubs lose 8-7

by Ivy Walls on Aug 29, 2007 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

we're on the same page. It's easy to get caught up on August 28 when the crowd was like it was last night. It ain't over until it's over.....

This is Harry Carray, goodbye from Wrigley Field and So Long Everybody.

by mrcubsfan on Aug 29, 2007 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah! The memories!

http://travel.typepad.com/photos/chicago_cubs_and_friends/chicubs_015.html"target=_blank"

LOL

by Fraggin Judge on Aug 29, 2007 10:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I still have that shirt...

And I wear it to Cubs games sometimes, just to see people's reactions.

Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth?

by Keith on Aug 29, 2007 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Upcoming Starters

Just a little side note on the upcoming starters and the expectations of 5 or 6 wins? Rodriguez dazzled us in the juice box. While he pithces like crap on the road vs home, he is no slouch. Also the immortal Woody Williams got a win against us as well. Lets not take the Stros too lightly!!!

by bigzaccountant on Aug 29, 2007 12:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

So Who Are the Clubhouse Leaders?

Lee and Ramirez seem to be more follow-by-example rather than rah-rah vocal leaders. Alf is still new and probably does not want to step on Lee and ARam's toes (same goes for DeRosa). Kendall would probably be a good candidate, but not until next year (maybe postseason?).

It's probably why Barrett is gone. He tried to be the clubhouse leader but did it more by intimidation rather than negotiation. He also did not set a great example with his bat or glove.

Hank White has been physically injured, and up until about a few weeks ago JJones was mentally injured. So yeah, there was a leadership vacuum that Piniella needed to fill. I'd like to see the old tradition of a kangaroo court with fines (would have come in handy for the "controversial" DeRosa to Theriot throw/bobble, let alone the weak bunt attempts), but it looks like no player has stepped up to be judge.

Pie, Fontenot, Theriot and Soto up the middle ... yippie oh, oh, oh!

by SpudV on Aug 31, 2007 7:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

My $00.02.....

I'm still not sold on Pinella.

I'm not sure anybody coulda done any better with last year's team.

The ACID test is coming up. I believe Baker NEVER had a losing recored against the Cardi...TURDS...while he managed the Cubs....Lou has 4 very important games to manage ...that will show if he is up to the task or not.

04....OK inmates ran asylum....05...and 06 poorly constructed teams nobody could win with....(but Baker STILL BEAT THE CARDINALS....

The other thinh...Baker's weakness....the Cubs ned to start preying on the weak teams in the division....Cincinnati has a winning record against the Cubs this year...

Gotta stop feeing sorry for the also rans in the central and start BEATING THEM UP.....quit being a polite midwesterner and KICK SOME A$$.....

The best defense is a good offense

by kcjones on Sep 1, 2007 1:24 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

A managers value

is not judged by how they do against one team. You play 162 and the goal is to win enouph to get into the playoffs. Doing well against one team means zero, if you fail to get the max out of your club against the other teams.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Sep 3, 2007 9:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs