****ing idiot had one of the all time great bullpens He was awful Just because his right hand man is just as bad and has a worse roster, doesn’t mean the duster wasn’t awful
Weird how that was always the case. But never the case before or after. UNSUNG GENIUS: Dissecting Dusty Baker's bullpen brilliance for his sabermetric critics (deadspin.com)
Dusty's horribleness. Dusty Baker Was An All-Time Great Manager Long Before His 2,000th Win | FiveThirtyEight If nothing else, the man can extract a winning effort from just about any locker room. And as a result, Baker shows up really high on lists of the best modern managers. Since the dawn of MLB’s free-agency era in 1976, Baker ranks fifth in wins (trailing only Tony La Russa, Bobby Cox, Joe Torre and Bochy) and fourth in manager wins above expected, with 82.0 more total wins than we would predict based on the preseason or midseason Elo ratings for managers who took over teams during a season. ... This dovetails with our previous research on managerial overperformance at a player-by-player level, which in 2017 found that Baker was one of the best in modern history at coaxing better-than-expected performances out of his rosters, after controlling for the amount of talent he had to work with. I'm sure it's just total coincidence that yet another one of his teams got worse after he left.
I don't believe the Astros would be one iota better if Dusty were still here. They probably wouldn't be worse either though.
Well if you think Espada has the same pen depth that duster did then we all know how much baseball knowledge you have
Dusty never had Hader lol and get out of here with that pen depth excuse. Moron. They had depth because they were RESTED, which Dusty allowed them to rest.
I think a yearly breakdown would be interesting too, but I imagine there's a lot of randomness in each year. An average manager should win 0 more games than expected over a large sample size. Over a small one, I'm sure there are a lot of managers with crazy positive and negative numbers simply because so many games come down to a fluke hit or error or pitch, but that should even out over a large timeframe. If you win an average of 3+ more games/year than you should over a 26 year managing career, that's not random chance.
Dusty made some wonky managerial moves, but the players performed for him. Espada makes the same kind of moves, but his team doesn't seem to give a ****. I'd definitely take Dusty right now, although I'm not sure the results would be much better.
Given how the players are performing, I'd like to see yall's statistical and theoretical breakdown of how Bobby Cox or Joe Torre or Casey ****ing Stengel would be doing with this bunch.
