Is Dierker too critical?

Once again, Bagwell is reacting to inocuous comments by Dierker. If a reporter asks Dierker about the struggling offense, what is he supposed to say? The past few weeks their offense has been poor, even Bagwell acknowledged it. Bagwell points out how they are 5 1/2 and 6/12 games up. If their offense had been working even a little better, they may be a few games better.

Last year, prior to Wagner's surgery when he was struggling, Dierker said something like "Wagner's velocity is good but there is no movement on his fastball". For some reason, Wagner got upset about that. Later when they found out he had arm trouble, Wagner said something like "I knew something must be wrong, because I had velocity but no movement".

Dierker does nothing worse than point out the obvious.

 

I've thought Dierker has been pretty good with the press when speaking about the players. He speaks in general terms, and says the obvious criticisms of the team as a whole. I've never heard him directly critical of individual players, and he often defends them.

Talking about the team's offense is pretty obvious -- and deserved criticism. It sounds like Bagwell is being a little sensitive. Yes, the team has won games, but they've lost several that they should have won, several by one point, and they are back in the habit of leaving lots of runners on base. Had the offense been just a little less anemic, even average, they'd be sitting on 10+ wins now, and breathing easy preparing for the playoffs.

 

Bagwell definitely overreacted here. Dierker made a good point. Bagwell says to look at the team's record during the stretch of offensive slumping, but the Astros only played weak teams during that stretch. In these series coming up (San Fran, St. Louis, Chicago), if our offense is as weak as it has been, we will not play well in the series. And if we get stomped in this series by the Giants, I hope Bagwell will realize that. Dierker is doing a good job.

 

Maybe Dierker should take a page out of Rudy Ts book and keep the criticisms to himself.

I think he is right in what he is saying, but why say it? Why not just say publicly, "well we ran into some good pitching, and every team goes through some slumps now and then, but the main thing is that we are winning ball games"

Then in the Clubhouse, kick some tail.

These guys are professional, no need to chastise them in the public eye.

Use your head Dierk...before it gets lopped off.

DaDakota

 

<B>I think he is right in what he is saying, but why say it? Why not just say publicly, "well we ran into some good pitching, and every team goes through some slumps now and then, but the main thing is that we are winning ball games" </B>

Who's to say he hasn't tried that? This hitting slump has been going for over a month now -- it's not good pitching, and its not a regular old slump. Who knows, but the day after Dierker made his comments, the offense went psycho with HR's and doubles for the first time in a long, long time... Most likely a coincidence, but maybe *Bagwell* needs to keep it in clubhouse.

 

Dierker's been saying just that for the past couple of weeks. At some point he (and the team) has to acknowledge that it is more of a collective slump than running into great pitching. If the Brewers and Reds pitching is so great, why are they doing so bad?

It is hard to say "...but the main thing is that we are winning some games." after being shut down in a loss by some obscure pitcher again.

For instance in their last 4 losses they have been shut down by:

Coppinger (Brewers) - 8.53 ERA
Dessens (Reds) - 4.51 ERA
Coppinger (Brewers) - ERA now down to 7.50
Quevedo (Brewers) - decent ERA this year of 3.60 in limited duty, lifetime ERA over 6.00

In 2 of their recent wins they beat Suzuki who has an ERA over 5.30 and scored 5 runs (4 earned) total off of him (12 innings) with 2 runs scoring on a wild pitch.

 

It is for this very reason that the players should be able to take a little criticism. They are professionals, public criticism should be no big deal, whether by the manager or by anyone else.

 

Agreed that you take public criticism, but you DON'T take your criticism to the PRESS if you are part of the team.

You will NEVER hear Rudy say something negative about his team in public...NEVER.

Didn't you guys ever hear your parents tell you if you don't have something nice to say, then ........

Dierker needs to keep it in house, not in the papers.

DaDakota

 

Dierker hasn't mastered the art of baseball politics yet like the Joe Torre's of baseball. He's a little too honest for his own good.

 

<B>Didn't you guys ever hear your parents tell you if you don't have something nice to say, then ........

Dierker needs to keep it in house, not in the papers.
</B>

So you think a manager or coach should never make critical comments of their team in public?

 

I agree that a coach shouldn't air specific criticism in public, but general comments about the teams strengths and weaknesses are expected.

Dierker hasn't really been any different than Rudy T -- well, maybe a little less articulate. It seems like the team (Bagwell) is just being overly sensitive.

I have, many times, heard Rudy make comments like, "We put up a good defense but just weren't making the shots," "Our defense needs to take it up a notch and get more rebounds," or, "They beat us, we just didn't play hard enough." To me, that's not any different than, "Our pitching has kept us in the game even though our offense has been struggling."

He could have said, "Bagwell needs to quit being so streaky, and learn to bat more consistently," and that would have been wrong.

 

So how do the following quotes from Tomjanovich, differ from what Dierker was saying?

"We were dead in the water," Tomjanovich said. "We came out very flat, they came out with energy. We weren't in the mood to play defense in the first half."

Rudy comes right out and says he team wasn't playing defense and came out flat. Dierker comes right out and says his offense isn't performing. All coaches make comments similar to Dierker's. Dierker did not blast any players in particular.

Here are Joe Torre's comments about a recent performance by Yankee pitcher Ted Lilly:

"He was good early and it looked like he just, I don't want to say lost it, but he made some bad pitches. He got ahead in a lot of counts 0-2 and he basically let the hitter off of the hook. That's inexperience."

 

Dierker isn't so bad at all if you look at Larry Bowa.

 

I think DaDakota is right. A manager gains absolutely nothing from criticizing his players in the media limelight. This is why the team really doesn't like this guy. Last year Biggio took some criticism from Dierker before his injury...he ultimately said, "if he thinks he can do better, he ought to go out there and give it a try." He's breeding contempt. Even if he's right, he's wrong to say so in the public. Ask Shane Reynolds how he felt about Dierker and his comments in the 99 playoffs. This isn't my only criticism of Dierk, but it's pretty high on my list. In a city where the media goes pretty easy on the players, there's no reason for a coach to come out and make statements calling out his players to the public. It's one thing in NY where coaches really feel pressured to answer those kinds of questions that way (but notice Joe Torre REALLY does not)...but not in Houston. That's ridiculous. Next time you hear Dusty Baker, Felipe Alou or Joe Torre really criticize a player to the media, let me know. (chalking up one experience to a young pitcher as inexperience is hardly criticism...and if so it's certainly more constructive than the shrug-your-shoulders, "what can i do" kind of criticism that Dierk distributes). Those are the mainstays...the Larry Bowas of the world can't keep a job long enough to really complain anyway. What camp does Dierker want to be in? Let's see...we pay our two Hall of Famers (possibly) on the right side of the infield a lot of money??? Who gets his walking papers?? I'm guessing it's Dierk if things go awry.

 

<B>This is why the team really doesn't like this guy. </B>

One interesting thing to note is that this team hasn't liked ANY manager. Terry Collins was too uptight, Larry Dierker is too loose, etc. I'd be interested to see what kind of manager they do want.