Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I doubt that. The gaggle of former GM's and Zaidi himself are metric oriented. Dusty is old school instincts and hunches. Dusty's theory of management is "Make them respect you and respect the game, then get out of their way and let them play." It is the sort of leadership where if you have a club of competent veterans, it can work, but if you don't, it doesn't help make them better.
Dusty's strength was always in setting a good example of professionalism and keeping a club focused. In game management was just a crap shoot for him though because he didn't really understand the true percentages at work.
The LA front office will want someone who has mastered the percentages, or at least someone meek enough to follow all marching orders from the brass, including lineup and strategy decisions. Dusty is too old to change his stripes, his style of management has probably had its day and is now perched on the north end of a south bound dinosaur.
I agree with what you say, but I feel like the front office is also pressured to get a "winner" from the general LA media market. Dusty is kind of a proven winner (kinda) and I feel like his sense of managing garners a lot more respect than Mattingly's did. I think for veterans and rookies alike it'll work. But seeing as how Zaidi was integral in the hiring of Bob Melvin of the A's (IMO one of the more underrated managers today), then perhaps you are right
Oh, and can I start using what you said in bold? That is freaking awesome
I spent the year wondering what Zaidi thought about Mattinly's idea of a lead off hitter. Most of the time it was Jimmy Rollins, he of the .285 OBA. For the year, Dodger lead off hitters recorded a .319 OBA, with only the 8 and 9 spots in the order having lower on base averages.
The Dodgers had the second highest team OPS in the NL. (behind only the altitude boosted Rockies) Despite this, they finished 8th in runs scored, very much underachieving. The sum of the Dodger's offense was less than the parts.
When something like that happens, it means that your offense is inefficient, you aren't getting the expected payoff in runs from your hits and walks. One culprit is poor lineup selection, ordering your players so that they do not compliment one another's skills.
Getting that right is nothing exceptional, I should think any manager worth his salt could figure out that if you lead off with a guy who doesn't reach base very often, you will score fewer runs. That so basic a concept seemed to elude Mattingly, did not bode well for his future with a metric oriented front office.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Magic, Stan Kasten, etc bought the squad for $2 billion, right? When you buy a crew for that amount of money, you better have a '$2 billion quality crew'! Dodgers didn't! All sides and causes can be accountable for that, including, but not limited to, Mattingly, the front office/ownership, injuries, lack of depth at pitching, etc!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Magic, Stan Kasten, etc bought the squad for $2 billion, right? When you buy a crew for that amount of money, you better have a '$2 billion quality crew'! Dodgers didn't! All sides and causes can be accountable for that, including, but not limited to, Mattingly, the front office/ownership, injuries, lack of depth at pitching, etc!
The Dodgers have won the NL West the last three seasons, so we aren't talking a bad team. They have been unlucky in the post season but is the proper evaluation of their quality based on how well they did in a small sampling of games (post season) or the 162 game regular schedule?
The 2000-2003 Oakland A's made four straight trips to the post season and won only one post season series. They were a very good team with poor luck in the playoffs.
It should be better understood what a crap shoot the post season is. How often does the top winner from the regular season also win the World Series? Last year it was the two wild card teams playing one another. Wild card teams have won five world titles and the '06 champs, the Cardinals won their division with just 83 wins.
The idea that there are good teams which just aren't built to win in the post season is a myth. If you set out to assemble a team on the basis of winning in October, you are wasting your time. Getting there is what counts, winning once there is largely a matter of good fortune and good timing.
I was shocked when I saw this online and now he is the new manager for Miami.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
