Renteria is a horrible in-game manager

[witesoxfan]

Bunting for a hit is different than sacrifice bunting. If Timmy wants to hone his ability to bunt for a hit, that's fine. But what he did yesterday was not that.

 

But sacrificing helps you get accustomed to bunting. You have to suck at something before you can get good at it. I didn't watch the game, but judging from the reactions here, it was apparently a pretty poor attempt. Get to the point where he's making good attempts, and then he can start to bunt for hits.

 

Also, I'm not sure how true it is of professionals, but when I was playing, when I wasn't hitting well, I'd lay down a bunt now and then. It helps keep you locked on the ball longer, allowing you more opportunities to see spin and directing the bat where it needs to go. That can be some of it too.

[harkness99]

yeah bunting for a hit isn't the same thing because you are not purposefully giving up an out.

[Lip Man 1]

Lefty Tanner set the record for consecutive last place finishes by a manager.

 

He finished last three years in a row 84-86, don't think that is a record.

 

Torborg was the right man for the right team at the right time in my opinion and it showed on the field. The Sox had the talent but it always takes a steady hand to move it in the right direction. Torborg took a team that was garbage in the first half of 89 and "suddenly" they had a winning record in the second half of that year.

 

I guess that was all the players doing. (LOL)

 

LaRussa was another guy who got it what with the team road parties where guys would talk baseball.

 

I think you are absolutely devaluing the impact a manager can have on a team both on the field and off it...but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

Baseball is not as "self-regulating" as you think especially with the amount of money some of these guys are making.

 

[Dick Allen]

He finished last three years in a row 84-86, don't think that is a record.

 

Torborg was the right man for the right team at the right time in my opinion and it showed on the field. The Sox had the talent but it always takes a steady hand to move it in the right direction. Torborg took a team that was garbage in the first half of 89 and "suddenly" they had a winning record in the second half of that year.

 

I guess that was all the players doing. (LOL)

 

LaRussa was another guy who got it what with the team road parties where guys would talk baseball.

 

I think you are absolutely devaluing the impact a manager can have on a team both on the field and off it...but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

Baseball is not as "self-regulating" as you think especially with the amount of money some of these guys are making.

Gene Lamont came in for the 1992 season, and lost 1 more game than Torborg did in 1991 despite losing his starting SS for the season to injury, and then won the division the next 2 seasons. Torborg went to NY lost 90 games buyimg beer and pizza in 1992 and was canned with a 13-25 record in 1993.

[South Side Fireworks Man]

I know that isn't as important now, but if he's still manager when we're trying to compete, it will be.

 

First, there's the constant bunting. I'm not even going to elaborate much because you all know exactly what I'm talking about. Isn't it textbook insanity to do the same exact thing over and over, expecting different results, only for the same result to keep happening? I remember hearing that somewhere- whatever it is, Renteria is at that point with the bunting and the two-strike bunting (which is even worse- even a 5 year-old knows not to bunt with two strikes).

I'm hoping that Rick is just trying to teach his players how to bunt and is just using this season as an instructional training time, allowing the players to perfect techniques against major league competition. Maybe when the games actually mean something as far as a White Sox pennant race is concerned his in-game strategy will be much different. Still, he'll know his players can execute a bunt in a situation that really calls for it.

 

If this isn't the case, the Sox are in big trouble.

Edited July 20, 2017 by South Side Fireworks Man

[bmags]

But sacrificing helps you get accustomed to bunting. You have to suck at something before you can get good at it. I didn't watch the game, but judging from the reactions here, it was apparently a pretty poor attempt. Get to the point where he's making good attempts, and then he can start to bunt for hits.

 

Also, I'm not sure how true it is of professionals, but when I was playing, when I wasn't hitting well, I'd lay down a bunt now and then. It helps keep you locked on the ball longer, allowing you more opportunities to see spin and directing the bat where it needs to go. That can be some of it too.

 

Would you do it with 2 strikes and 2 men on base, 1 in scoring position?

[Lip Man 1]

Gene Lamont came in for the 1992 season, and lost 1 more game than Torborg did in 1991 despite losing his starting SS for the season to injury, and then won the division the next 2 seasons. Torborg went to NY lost 90 games buyimg beer and pizza in 1992 and was canned with a 13-25 record in 1993.

 

So? Torborg never wanted to go to New York that's one of the points I was making. Certain guys are right for certain organizations. I'd easily be willing to bet the Sox would have won with Jeff in 93 as well.

 

Thinking about it here's two examples of how a manger can make a difference.

 

Torborg moved Calderon who was a butcher in right field to left for 1990. Look up the video of the number of great catches he made that season including the last game at Comiskey Park

 

LaRussa moving Fisk a power hitter into the #2 slot in 83' a bat control situation when he was struggling. How'd that turn out for ya?

 

And a bad manager, a manager the players hate (cue: Terry Bevington) can destroy a team, talent or not. See: 1996 White Sox.

 

OF COURSE you've got to have talent but talent alone often isn't enough.

 

I have a feeling you know that as well as I do.

 

Again you have your thoughts on this and I have mine. We'll have to agree to disagree as we usually do.

 

[South Side Fireworks Man]

I think we've gotten to the point analytically where it's probably fair to say the impact these managers have on the psyches of their players, something which is entirely immeasurable, is probably far greater than the in-game strategy maneuvers.

Good point.

 

That is a terrific point.

 

The best managers are really amateur psychiatrists. They have an ability to figure out what drives guys, what gets on their minds...things like that.

 

Chuck Tanner was very good at this aspect and so was Jeff Torborg.

 

In fact Jeff called me this morning and as we talked he told me a story about Lance Johnson.

 

The Sox sent Lance back down in the spring of 1989 and Jeff said he was so upset he started crying. Jeff said he told him, 'let's go into my office...'

 

Jeff said he knew immediately what was really bothering Johnson so he gave him his phone number and told him to call anytime something was bothering him or if he just wanted to talk.

 

Jeff told me he knew that Johnson was worried that if he was sent back down to the minors nobody would care anymore and the organization would just forget about him.

 

History shows the type of player Lance was and you never know how this small gesture by Torborg played a part in that as it helped him mentally.

 

Another story Jeff told me a few years ago was right before the All Star Break in 89. Sox were in K.C. had a day off before opening up a series with the Royals.

 

Jeff asked the team to have a short workout on the off day just to go over fundamentals and that if they did it he wouldn't ask for a workout the day before the season resumed so they could be with their families a little longer.

 

So he gets to his office at Kauffman Stadium and sees a bunch of guys on the field working out, he went to his office to start working on lineup's for the series and after about an hour he went back out to the field expecting to see the guys all gone. Instead he found them actually playing a game like we used to do when we were kids (just lobbing pitches in to hitters).

 

He was amazed but thought, 'OK let's see what we can do with this.' So he told me he called and ordered pizza's and some beer and had them in the clubhouse when the team got back inside. They ate and talked.

 

When they came back after the break they won 11 of 12, had a winning record in the second half and had a fantastic 1990 season.

 

Little things sometimes add up to really big things.

 

You just wonder what could have been had Ron Schueler not insisted that he had to hire his own manager and forced Jeff out.

 

Good stories, Lip. Thanks for posting.

 

[greg775]

What the good managers have is good players. Torborg was canned from the Marlins mid season, and then they won the WS. Of course they added Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis to their roster. His career winning pct. as a manager is .006 higher than Robin Ventura's, a guy who was blamed for a lot of things you still see with the same players this year. Bad baserunning, bad defense, stupid throws....Lefty Tanner set the record for consecutive last place finishes by a manager. All these guys did pretty well when they had good players. Ozzie Guillen was a genius when the Sox won and he wanted all the attention. When he did the exact same thing when they were not so good, he was an ego maniac. No one wins with bad players, some lose with some good ones, but the locker room stuff, IMO, is now self regulated. Players make much more money than the manager for the most part. If you have talent and the right players leading your clubhouse you're fine. If you are looking for your manager to be that guy, IMO, it will be brief and there are 2 or 3 guys tops that could get it done.

Very good post. You actually are right. The bunting is very annoying and I think it's the sign of a manager with wrong philosophy about baseball, but what you say IMO is 100 percent true.

[Jose Abreu]

Bunting for a hit is different than sacrifice bunting. If Timmy wants to hone his ability to bunt for a hit, that's fine. But what he did yesterday was not that.

This, along with Saladino's bunt the night before in our only real scoring threat of the night, was extremely hard to watch.

[southsider2k5]

Would you do it with 2 strikes and 2 men on base, 1 in scoring position?

 

When he does that, he isn't doing it for strategy. I think that is the disconnect here. To me he is trying to ingrain the skill into certain guys skill sets so that when they really do need it, they have the ability and count/situation are not something they are thinking about because they will have done it under all circumstances.

[South Side Fireworks Man]

When he does that, he isn't doing it for strategy. I think that is the disconnect here. To me he is trying to ingrain the skill into certain guys skill sets so that when they really do need it, they have the ability and count/situation are not something they are thinking about because they will have done it under all circumstances.

That's what I'm speculating it is. I hope that's it, anyway.

[harkness99]

When he does that, he isn't doing it for strategy. I think that is the disconnect here. To me he is trying to ingrain the skill into certain guys skill sets so that when they really do need it, they have the ability and count/situation are not something they are thinking about because they will have done it under all circumstances.

 

 

I think he is doing it for strategy.

 

He is getting a lot of flack for it, so he can play the "skill development" card. Is it a good skill to have? sure.. but it's not so important that we have more failed sac bunt attempts than half the AL has total sac bunt attempts.

 

I don't really believe him, but it doesn't honestly matter all that much, because I doubt he will be the manager when the team is getting ready to compete.

 

One positive I have about him - I think the players play with more confidence and less tight. However I have to real way of measuring that or knowing if its true.

 

The frenzy of bunt attempts is something I can quantify.

Edited July 21, 2017 by harkness

[Lip Man 1]

When he does that, he isn't doing it for strategy. I think that is the disconnect here. To me he is trying to ingrain the skill into certain guys skill sets so that when they really do need it, they have the ability and count/situation are not something they are thinking about because they will have done it under all circumstances.

 

Certainly possible given the circumstances. Some of these guys I suspect will be with the team in a few years and expected to make a contribution.

 

Actually knowing how to execute the lost art of fundamentals can only help them and the team as a whole.

 

If you have to learn how to do these things at the big league level (which leads to another question for another day) then learning in a rebuilding year would be the preferred way to go in my opinion.

[harkness99]

just some data for people about bunting (some have read similar things, but I'm sure not everyone has)

 

"Sacrifice bunting is giving the defense a free out. Free. No work, no need to make quality pitches. According to ESPN Stats and Info, the sacrifice bunt results in an out just over 96% of the time in major league baseball. According to a 2011 study of high school baseball in Texas, an attempted sacrifice bunt resulted in an out 83% of the time. This out is just about the most sure thing you can give.

 

Attempted sac bunts in the bigs also result in the lead runner being throw out 17% of the time and a double play being turned 8% of the time.

 

It is understood that the out is granted in the situation and an understood part of a sacrifice, but let’s look at other methods of getting to second if you insist on playing for one run. From 2000-2014, base stealers in MLB were successful 72.3% of the time. The success rate is loftier at the high school level (not including the increased likelihood of a wild pitch or passed ball at the amateur level).

 

Would you rather have a 73% chance of having a runner at second with no outs or an 83% chance of having a runner at second with one out?

 

The answer seems obvious. Just how important is it to get that man to second anyway?

 

According to Dan Levitt of baseballanalysts.com, using a study that gathered information over 15 years of professional baseball, the expected run table for an inning sets at .877 in situations where there is a runner at first with no outs. However, if you decide to bunt the runner over, your expected run table for the inning drops to .693 with a runner on second and one out.

 

In essence, you are voluntarily killing your own rally.

 

In addition to the expected run table, basic percentages say that the sac bunt is the wrong play. According to Baseball Prospectus, you have a 24.4 percent better chance of scoring a runner from first with no outs than you have of scoring a runner from second with one out. 24.4 percent! Swing away.

 

In addition, in situations with two base runners, teams stand a 10.4% better chance at scoring one run with runners on first and second with no outs than they do with runners on second and third with one out."

 

[beautox]

As its been posted in this thread already bunts suck. Renteria is as much of a prospect to this organization as anyone in our top 30. Ideally when we're going into '19 he has gone through his own personal growth as a manager and can lead this club to .500 if not handing the keys over to someone else wouldn't be the worst thing if he hasn't improved.

[SCCWS]

When he does that, he isn't doing it for strategy. I think that is the disconnect here. To me he is trying to ingrain the skill into certain guys skill sets so that when they really do need it, they have the ability and count/situation are not something they are thinking about because they will have done it under all circumstances.

 

But that also means that our minor league system did not work with him enough on it. He is not a player who jumped quickly to the majors like Sale and did not get time to work on fundamentals. I do think that more players in general are arriving in the majors with weaker fundamentals

[Chicago White Sox]

I blame the front office for not educating their manager on why bunting is typically statistically stupid.

[Bob Sacamano]

The most annoying sac bunt is seeing a speedy guy hit a lead off double to start an inning only for the next guy to attempt to move him over to third. I hate that. Give yourself 3 chances to bring him in as opposed to 2.

 

The only bunt I am a fan of is the drag bunt or bunt for base hit from a speedster.

Edited July 21, 2017 by soxfan2014

[Buehrlesque]

just some data for people about bunting (some have read similar things, but I'm sure not everyone has)

 

"Sacrifice bunting is giving the defense a free out. Free. No work, no need to make quality pitches. According to ESPN Stats and Info, the sacrifice bunt results in an out just over 96% of the time in major league baseball. According to a 2011 study of high school baseball in Texas, an attempted sacrifice bunt resulted in an out 83% of the time. This out is just about the most sure thing you can give.

 

Attempted sac bunts in the bigs also result in the lead runner being throw out 17% of the time and a double play being turned 8% of the time.

 

It is understood that the out is granted in the situation and an understood part of a sacrifice, but let’s look at other methods of getting to second if you insist on playing for one run. From 2000-2014, base stealers in MLB were successful 72.3% of the time. The success rate is loftier at the high school level (not including the increased likelihood of a wild pitch or passed ball at the amateur level).

 

Would you rather have a 73% chance of having a runner at second with no outs or an 83% chance of having a runner at second with one out?

 

The answer seems obvious. Just how important is it to get that man to second anyway?

 

According to Dan Levitt of baseballanalysts.com, using a study that gathered information over 15 years of professional baseball, the expected run table for an inning sets at .877 in situations where there is a runner at first with no outs. However, if you decide to bunt the runner over, your expected run table for the inning drops to .693 with a runner on second and one out.

 

In essence, you are voluntarily killing your own rally.

 

In addition to the expected run table, basic percentages say that the sac bunt is the wrong play. According to Baseball Prospectus, you have a 24.4 percent better chance of scoring a runner from first with no outs than you have of scoring a runner from second with one out. 24.4 percent! Swing away.

 

In addition, in situations with two base runners, teams stand a 10.4% better chance at scoring one run with runners on first and second with no outs than they do with runners on second and third with one out."

This is everything right here! This needs to be printed out on paper.... no, chiseled into rock... and put in every office, dugout, scoreboard and locker room at the stadium.

[Dick Allen]

This is everything right here! This needs to be printed out on paper.... no, chiseled into rock... and put in every office, dugout, scoreboard and locker room at the stadium.

I do agree bunting is bad in many situations, but the free out stuff, fine, but.....Bunting shouldn't be that hard. Most ABs end with outs anyway. A bunt done properly is a productive out. The don't bunt ever even with pitchers argument is IMO misguided. Terrible hitters, bunting should be fine. But the guy has to be able to lay one down, and when they get to 2 strikes and look terrible the first 2 bunt attempts, the manager should be able to take something away from that. Many guys sacrifice without sacrificing with a guy on first and no one our anyway trying to hit to the right side and advancing the runner. No one ever slams that practice.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Dick Allen

[Balta1701]

But that also means that our minor league system did not work with him enough on it. He is not a player who jumped quickly to the majors like Sale and did not get time to work on fundamentals. I do think that more players in general are arriving in the majors with weaker fundamentals

He wasn't "Carson Fulmer" rushed, but he wasn't brought along slowly either. His callup last year wasn't a "He's ready" callup, it was a "We thought Jimmy Rollins at SS was a great idea for winning the AL Central and Oops please come and save our season" callup. He showed at each level he could eventually adapt, but he had so many things to work on - fielding, hitting - that 2 years ago I would have penciled in his ideal callup time as mid-2017.

[witesoxfan]

Would you do it with 2 strikes and 2 men on base, 1 in scoring position?

 

Not with 2 strikes, so that much is bad.

[witesoxfan]

just some data for people about bunting (some have read similar things, but I'm sure not everyone has)

 

"Sacrifice bunting is giving the defense a free out. Free. No work, no need to make quality pitches. According to ESPN Stats and Info, the sacrifice bunt results in an out just over 96% of the time in major league baseball. According to a 2011 study of high school baseball in Texas, an attempted sacrifice bunt resulted in an out 83% of the time. This out is just about the most sure thing you can give.

 

Attempted sac bunts in the bigs also result in the lead runner being throw out 17% of the time and a double play being turned 8% of the time.

 

It is understood that the out is granted in the situation and an understood part of a sacrifice, but let’s look at other methods of getting to second if you insist on playing for one run. From 2000-2014, base stealers in MLB were successful 72.3% of the time. The success rate is loftier at the high school level (not including the increased likelihood of a wild pitch or passed ball at the amateur level).

 

Would you rather have a 73% chance of having a runner at second with no outs or an 83% chance of having a runner at second with one out?

 

The answer seems obvious. Just how important is it to get that man to second anyway?

 

According to Dan Levitt of baseballanalysts.com, using a study that gathered information over 15 years of professional baseball, the expected run table for an inning sets at .877 in situations where there is a runner at first with no outs. However, if you decide to bunt the runner over, your expected run table for the inning drops to .693 with a runner on second and one out.

 

In essence, you are voluntarily killing your own rally.

 

In addition to the expected run table, basic percentages say that the sac bunt is the wrong play. According to Baseball Prospectus, you have a 24.4 percent better chance of scoring a runner from first with no outs than you have of scoring a runner from second with one out. 24.4 percent! Swing away.

 

In addition, in situations with two base runners, teams stand a 10.4% better chance at scoring one run with runners on first and second with no outs than they do with runners on second and third with one out."

 

You are looking at the run table. What are the odds of scoring 1 run? That's what matters. That's the point of a sacrifice bunt.

[harkness99]

You are looking at the run table. What are the odds of scoring 1 run? That's what matters. That's the point of a sacrifice bunt.

 

It says pretty clearly at the end ... a sac bunt lowers your chance of scoring 1 run.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2017 by harkness