Top Five Worst Managers in Baseball

[Bruiser Chong 0]

I only had to read the first one to completely agree with the man's assessment.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Gardenhire's not great but number two in all of baseball. I don't think so.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Forces his best young arms (Johan Santana, Francisco Liriano) to serve a six-month middle-relief apprenticeship before he allows them to replace clearly inferior starters (Kyle Lohse, Joe Mays) in the rotation

 

Earl Weaver did the same thing. There is a lot to suggest it's a good idea. Still, Gardenhire stubbornly sticks by smallball even after his team finished dead last in runs scored last season. Dusty Baker I think gets unduly criticized at times. He's an average manager, but is often the scapegoat for Cub misery.

 

One that never gets mentioned, Frank Robinson. Robinson has managed parts of 15 seasons in MLB, and has yet to guide his team to the postseason.

[therealworldschampion 0]

How in God's name is Charlie Manuel not on that list?

[Bruiser Chong 0]

I don't think the slams against Dusty are unwarranted. He's the second highest paid manager in the game and for what? His team finished under .500 last year and at this rate, it could happen again. The Cubs have been a terrible fundamental team during his tenure, something you can't necessarily blame on the players alone. Remember, only four players on the roster right now were there when he came aboard in 2003. The Cubs have been a lousy fundamental team since then, but the only consistent has been Baker. Something's gotta give. Instead of those issues ever being addressed and fixed, there's just a lot of excuse-making.

 

Were he not making anything and managing a team not expected to win, then maybe I'd agree with you. But when you're supposedly a contender and posting lineups that include Neifi Perez batting second and your team can't do things like hit the cut-off man, run the bases, or cover first base, you have to shoulder some blame.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Forces his best young arms (Johan Santana, Francisco Liriano) to serve a six-month middle-relief apprenticeship before he allows them to replace clearly inferior starters (Kyle Lohse, Joe Mays) in the rotation

 

Earl Weaver did the same thing. There is a lot to suggest it's a good idea. Still, Gardenhire stubbornly sticks by smallball even after his team finished dead last in runs scored last season. Dusty Baker I think gets unduly criticized at times. He's an average manager, but is often the scapegoat for Cub misery.

 

One that never gets mentioned, Frank Robinson. Robinson has managed parts of 15 seasons in MLB, and has yet to guide his team to the postseason.

 

 

Twins aren't a smallball team. They really dont fit into any style at this point. Gardenhire himself is not a smallball manager. In the past it was probably the players on the team, and following what Tom Kelly had always done. More than enough stories say, Gardenhire would rather play a style closer to Weaverball than smallball. The problem is the lineup is full inexperienced, inpatient, and inconsistent hitters.

[Lt. Al Giardello 0]

Uh, maybe injurys are the main reason why Baker ain't winning games with the Cubs. Did you guys ever think that?

 

He's one of the best mangers in the game IMO.

 

Why isn't Charlie Manuel or Frank Robinson on the list? They are much worse then Dusty Baker.

[Guest Princess Leena]

Thanks for reminding us that Dusty is black.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Uh, maybe injurys are the main reason why Baker ain't winning games with the Cubs. Did you guys ever think that?

 

He's one of the best mangers in the game IMO.

Don't be stupid. The fact is, he's consistently fallen back into great situations. He had the luxury of having Barry Bonds as his core during his time in SF. The misconception is he turned the Cubs around from a terrible 2002 team to a squad that got within five outs of the WS. What most people seem to overlook is:

 

1) In 2003, he got the first full seasons out of Mark Prior and Carlos Zambrano. Moreover, Kerry Wood was actually healthy in 2003. Prior and Wood made 62 starts that season. To date, that is the most starts that duo has ever made.

 

2) They were a .500 team in July. It wasn't until the acquisiton of Lofton, Ramirez and Simon they started to roll. One could also argue the dominance of the four lead starters in the rotation and an insanely soft schedule down the stretch synched it for the Cubs.

 

3) They had a fully healthy Moises Alou. In 2002, Alou was injured the bulk of the season and nowhere near the player everyone knew he was when he was on the field. That, again, left things up to Sammy Sosa.

 

These things are what got the Cubs to where they went in 2003. When four of your starters are throwing down and your offense is clicking, even a bad manager has trouble messing it up.

 

Now, let's look at the two+ season since then. In 2004, you could easily use the injury excuse. I mean, Wood had been hurt before, but after his strong 2003, I guess the Cubs figured he'd be fine from that point. Prior had never had a pitching-related injury, so his DL stint was a surprise.

 

That doesn't take away from the Cubs being a one-dimensional, fundamentally-inept squad that year. They had a lot of firepower in that lineup, but rarely walked and subsequently, rarely saw middle relief. On the basepaths, they were awful. Unconventional doubleplays were a way of life for them. They had mental lapses on the field.

 

Move along to 2005. A weaker looking squad on paper, but promises of better fundamentals and scoring runs in ways other than the longball. That lasted until the second game. Although much of the personale had changed, the club remained incapable of having long at-bats or executing on the little things. But apparently, Mark Prior and Kerry Wood being hurt affected their ability to takes walks, lay down sac bunts or effectively run the bases. Yeah.

 

Now here we are almost a fifth of the way into 2006 and since 2002, this looks like one of the weakest offenses the Cubs have fielded. But it was supposed to be okay; small ball, small ball. The problem with small ball is that you often play for one run and at the most, get one run. Well, with the Cubs having given up eight runs or more 10 times in less than 40 games, that method isn't leading to many wins. The problem's compounded when you consider the Cubs STILL aren't executing on the things that are supposed to be their MO.

 

Yes, the GM didn't do a good job of putting together an offense, but at the same time, what's that we've always heard about Dusty? He gets the most out of the least? It's just crazy a team that insists on laying down sac bunts and giving up runs whenever it can is unable to do this. At the same time, it's something they go at full-swing. Any time there's a possibility to move the runner over by giving up an out, Dusty's doing it, unless it's one of his power hitters. He's even had Walker lay down a few bunts.

 

But here we are in the fourth year of his contract. Few players remain from that original squad and yet this team continues to lack the ability to carry out the simple fundamental elements of the game. Jacque Jones made another mistake he's been making all year and that allowed the runner to move into scoring position. That runner eventually scored and proved the be the difference in the game.

 

Yes, it was Jones who made the mistake and not Dusty. But isn't it Dusty's job to rally the troops and make sure these mistakes stop happening? Is it not his job to take his team to the field and work on bunting and hitting the cut-off man if they have such a problem doing it? Dusty's always had the rep as a player's manager, but that seems to be another problem. He's too laid back and just thinks everything will work itself out. The problem is, that isn't happening. Players aren't reprimanded for poor defensive play or costly mistakes. It's a shame no one on the team is stepping up to be the leader. Lord knows they don't have one in their manager.

[randomguy 0]

Dusty Baker sucks if for no other reason than the fact that he consistenly helps ruin young arms.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Racist Dusty tops this list? This guy knows what he's talking about.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Dusty Baker sucks if for no other reason than the fact that he consistenly helps ruin young arms.

The only guy I can think of that he might've ruined is Mark Prior, and even that's iffy. The damage of Kerry Wood was done well before Baker arrived. Is there anyone in San Francisco he wrecked?

[Hawk 34 0]

Dusty Baker sucks if for no other reason than the fact that he consistenly helps ruin young arms.

The only guy I can think of that he might've ruined is Mark Prior, and even that's iffy. The damage of Kerry Wood was done well before Baker arrived. Is there anyone in San Francisco he wrecked?

 

He wrecked his credibility as a father but as far as his job with pitchers? No one, I can recall.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Haven't some speculated Russ Ortiz' downward slide was caused by Dusty overusing him? I didn't keep tabs on them back then, so I don't know if there's anything to it or if it's just Dusty hate.

 

I'd agree he's not done any damage to people other than Prior. Wood's been on the DL every year since 1999.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Haven't some speculated Russ Ortiz' downward slide was caused by Dusty overusing him? I didn't keep tabs on them back then, so I don't know if there's anything to it or if it's just Dusty hate.

 

I'd agree he's not done any damage to people other than Prior. Wood's been on the DL every year since 1999.

Just Dusty hate. Ortiz had one great season ERA wise and then he was consistant for three years, leaving San Francisco after the first season. He was unsustainably wild from day one.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I probably come off as a Dusty apologist here. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want him managing my team. It's just important to me to give credit where it is due, so that the real criticisms are more valid. His insistance on veterans is quite maddening. Rob Neyer has a couple real good essays on Baker's managerial job in his new book.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

What new book is this? I must own it immediately.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Blunders. It's easily his best work. Besides the Cubs' hiring Baker, Neyer tackles everything from the White Sox trading for Chick Gandil to Joe Torre failing to use Mariano Rivera in game four of the 2003 World Series. Great, great read.

[Guest Felonies!]

Thanks for reminding us that Dusty is black.

Touch 'em all!

 

Anyway, Dusty Baker's act just isn't gonna work in Chicago any longer. He just shrugs his shoulders, makes some dumbshit excuse, and says "dude" a lot. Evidently that flies in a city like San Francisco, where the world doesn't revolve around the Giants, but we're all fed up over here.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Except Jim Hendry. Many are confident it isn't a question of "if," but when Baker gets his extension. Steve Stone noted how the Cubs not giving him one would be like saying they'd made the wrong decision and that's never been their way. When asked how they could justify giving an extension after what's happened in recent years, he pointed out they've been able to increase profits (from the added bleacher seats), while lowering their payroll with no problem.

 

I was unaware the Cubs' payroll was actually less than the White Sox. That's pretty unacceptable considering the Cubs draw significantly more fans.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Neyer speculated that Dusty may have ruined Rod Beck's arm back in 1993.

 

I'll throw in two more names Buck Showalter and Phil Garner.

[vivalaultra 0]

Phil Garner's not a bad manager. He just...manages on instinct sometimes. And it seems that he's got pretty good instincts, as the 'Stros have had their best days with him at the helm. You can say that the only reason they've won is because they've had a good team, but look at some of the teams the Astros had in the late 90s with Larry Dierker managing. And look at the first half of 2004, where they had Clemens, Pettitte, and Oswalt and were barely at .500 at the All-Star Break. It wasn't until after Phil came along that they went on their amazing run. I agree that Phil Garner isn't a great manager when it comes to using statistics or micromanaging, but he knows his players and he seems to make good decisions 90% of the time. This one drunk guy up at Minute Maid Park the other nite went on and on about how he hated Phil Garner and the 'Stros getting to the postseason the last few years was nothing but "blind damn luck". I disagree. I'd take Phil over Dusty Baker any day of the week. And he's got the second best moustache in baseball...behind Jeff Kent.

[Vern Gagne 0]

I think the best days have alot to do with the NL itself not being the league it was in the late 90's.

 

I'll give Garner credit he does seem to get his team motivated to play. Though the little tirade last World Series wasn't necessary.

[cabbageboy 0]

Here's the ammo I can muster against Dusty Baker:

 

1. The guy somehow managed not to even make the playoffs with the 1993 Giants. The Giants were something like 10 games ahead of the Braves in August (I don't recall the exact date) but ended up somehow choking it away. It seemed like the Braves swept them twice late in the season.

 

2. The 2002 World Series. The Giants had a 3-2 series lead. Bonds batted something like .500 in the series. The Giants had game 6 all but in the bag. And of course they somehow blew the series to the baseball equivalent of the 1983 NC St. Wolfpack.

 

3. 2003 NLCS. I mean what more possibly needs to be said about this debacle? Grady Little was fired for leaving Pedro Martinez in too long. Dusty manages to blow a 3-1 series lead, leaves Prior in too long, and the Cubs totally melt down. While the 2002 screwups led to the rather amusing Angels World Series win, these 2003 screwups led to the FLORIDA MARLINS winning a 2nd World Series. I mean, how can this man sleep at night knowing this stuff?

 

4. Continually pitching Kyle Farnsworth in 2004. Though to be honest, even Bobby Cox fell victim to this last year. And Torre likely will this year. The fact that the Yankees have Farnsworth is reason enough for me to predict gloom and doom for them in the playoffs.

[Guest Felonies!]

In Cox's defense, Farnsworth was great for those two months. He just sucked in the playoffs. Again.

[Fökai 0]

In Cox's defense, Farnsworth was great for those two months.

 

10-10 in save opportunities with a 1.98 ERA and 32 K's in 27.1 innings pitched. Only fifteen hits, six earned runs and five walks to boot.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Lot of good that did him in Game 4.

[Guest Felonies!]

That's the story of his life: lights out, except that one time.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

1. The guy somehow managed not to even make the playoffs with the 1993 Giants. The Giants were something like 10 games ahead of the Braves in August (I don't recall the exact date) but ended up somehow choking it away. It seemed like the Braves swept them twice late in the season.

 

The Giants won 103 games! They went 15-11 in August, 16-12 in September and 2-1 in October, so it is not like they fell flat. Usually when a team loses a big league, it is because their opponent made an incredible stretch run. If there's a fault, it is that Dusty pitched a rookie (!) starter who lost five games after September 1st.

 

The other stuff is somewhat silly. Every manager has bad losses on his resume.

[cabbageboy 0]

I'm not saying it's fair that the 93 Giants are remembered mostly for choking away a huge lead over the Braves, but the Braves did in fact own them head to head late in the season. All the Giants had to do was beat the Braves a couple times to stem that furious rally. Did they do it? No. Some of that has to fall on Dusty.

 

Also, since the Giants were perceived as being screwed out of the playoffs that year we got the friggin Wild Card. So anytime the World Series champs end up being the Angels or the Marlins, blame Dusty.