The way they went about it made little sense, but the Nationals ended up finding quite the accomplished man to be their new manager. In Dusty Baker they have the second-winningest active manager and a guy who has done everything in his profession besides win a World Series. In fact, he came within one game in 2002 when the Giants lost to the Angels in seven games.
His résumé is essentially unmatched in terms of the candidates who were available, but not everyone sees it as a good move. New York columnist Ken Davidoff, for example, thinks the hire is so miscalculated it could in turn help out the Mets in the NL East.
"Through every normal measure, count this as another good day for the Mets. If their success model relies heavily upon ineptitude from the rest of the National League East, then they just received another encouraging signal."
He continued to cite Baker's old-school approach to managing:
"It’s OK for managers to not embrace sabermetric principles with every last fiber of their being. Collins never will be confused for Bill James. But shouldn’t a 2016 manager be able to at least speak the language? To not view the very concept of on-base percentage with disdain?"
Davidoff makes some additional points that others have raised, that Bud Black would have been better because he was never given a chance in San Diego. One could argue, however, that his nine years there was not a small sample size.
There have been differing opinions on the Baker hire, but this appears to be a fresh idea. Should the Nats hiring Baker be seen as a good thing for the Mets? Interestingly enough, Baker will now become the second-oldest manager in baseball to one Terry Collins of New York.
[RELATED: Nationals roster report: Tanner Roark]