Science Project: Is Baker Better? By Keith Glab Wed, November 12 2003 Purpose: I want to determine whether or not Dusty Baker, the runner-up for 2003 Manager of the Year, really deserves all of the accolades he has received for the Cubs’ outstanding season.  Is Dusty really better than the managers Cubs fans are used to? Hypothesis: I imagine that since I disagreed with so many of his managerial moves during the regular and post-season, that I will find his achievements to be no better than the other successful Cub managers of the past two decades.   Procedure: In order to determine Baker’s place in Cubs’ history, I will compare him to the four Cub managers of the past 20 years that have had the most successful seasons.  Jim Frey of 1984, Don Zimmer of 1989, Jim Riggleman of 1998, Don Baylor of 2001, and this year’s Dusty Baker will all be compared against two measures.  I will examine their team’s improvement over the previous season and their actual record versus what one would expect from the number of runs scored and allowed by the club.  The formula for predicting winning percentage from run differential was introduced by Bill James many years ago as follows:                              Runs Scored squared Win % =    --------------------------------------------------------           Runs Scored squared plus Runs Allowed squared Results: Manager                     Win Improvement           Wins above Expectation Jim Frey 1984                         25                                3 Don Zimmer 1989                   16                                2 Jim Riggleman 1998                22                                5 Don Baylor 2001                     23                               -1 Dusty Baker 2003                    21                                2 Variables: Baker, Baylor, and Frey made their impressive improvements the very first season after taking over the club.  Riggleman and Zimmer each improved the same team that they had managed the previous year.   Conclusion: All of the commotion about Baker’s 21-game improvement is somewhat unwarranted, since that achievement has been matched several times in recent Cub history.  It also does not appear that Baker got many more wins than the club’s talent was worth.  You can make the argument that he caused his players to perform over their abilities, but it’s hard to believe that he did so to a much higher degree than the other managers, and there’s really no way to measure that statistically. Perhaps the most important statistic is that none of those first four managers lasted more than two years as manager beyond their one fantastic season.  For Baker to be considered one of the all-time great Cub managers, he must lead the Cubs to back-to-back winning seasons, something that hasn’t been accomplished in over 30 years.