Tony La Russa

[Kyyle23]

29 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

what are you even talking about? 

Go cry somewhere else. We were discussing a manager in a manager thread. Its not a tony la russa news only thread. If it were your posts in it are worthless as well.

Cool down and come back later.  There are fifty billion threads about managers and I'm sure jaws will come up with another because of something he might think of

[southsider2k5]

 

1 minute ago, Kyyle23 said:

Guys I think we can declare this "agree to disagree" and move on 

Disagree to agree.

[RagahRagah]

49 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Dude I answered the question twice. I'm not going to repeat myself just to carry on a never ending discussion.

No, you did not. You never stated that you understood my explanation.

If you had, you wouldn't still be posting in ire against me because we'd be in agreement and that would indicate original position was incorrect (which it was).

Edited October 16, 2020 by KonerkoFan1

[RagahRagah]

14 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Guys I think we can declare this "agree to disagree" and move on 

Eh, my problem is I don't do that "agree to disagree" stuff when I'm presenting factual information. It just usually ends with the the other person refusing to answer a basic question and then disappearing (it's already happened multiple times).

[RagahRagah]

44 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

what are you even talking about? 

Go cry somewhere else. We were discussing a manager in a manager thread. Its not a tony la russa news only thread. If it were your posts in it are worthless as well.

This post and the post you yourself quoted from Orlando are TWO excellent examples of the childish behavior you won't see me partaking in.

I'm looking for cohesive arguments from adults. Luckily there is a lot of that on this forum. Unfortunately there are always exceptions. 

[SoxFanForever]

[Kyyle23]

15 minutes ago, KonerkoFan1 said:

Eh, my problem is I don't do that "agree to disagree" stuff when I'm presenting factual information. It just usually ends with the the other person refusing to answer a basic question and then disappearing (it's already happened multiple times).

This right here is the problem.  Stop arguing this argument right now. The thread is off the rails and you guys are arguing pedantic bullshit. It's over 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

50 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Guys I think we can declare this "agree to disagree" and move on 

Thought that became pretty clear when I left the thread for hours and the conversation continued on between 6 other posters but apparently orlando has them all blocked 

[bmags]

2 hours ago, SonofaRoache said:

Okay then answer the question. What team won a three game series were someone could strongly argue it was due to randomness of a three game series and not the better team winning? You made the statement so provide an answer. 

If the cubs and marlins played 100 3-game series, I'd expect the Cubs to win >50% of them

If the Reds and Braves played 100 3-game series, I'd expect the braves to win >50% of them

If the Twins and Astros played 100 3-game series, I'd expect the twins to win >50% of them

If the As and White Sox played 100 3-game series, I'd expect the White Sox to win >50% of them

If the Yankees and Indians played 100 3-game series, I'm 50-50. But I don't think Bieber would get rocked more than 1-2x out of 10.

I don't find the cards/brewers to be very good, but I didn't think the Padres were very good either. But in a 60 game sample, the padres were better. 60 games even limited is > 2 games no matter if it's the playoffs. 

[SonofaRoache]

6 minutes ago, bmags said:

If the cubs and marlins played 100 3-game series, I'd expect the Cubs to win >50% of them

If the Reds and Braves played 100 3-game series, I'd expect the braves to win >50% of them

If the Twins and Astros played 100 3-game series, I'd expect the twins to win >50% of them

If the As and White Sox played 100 3-game series, I'd expect the White Sox to win >50% of them

If the Yankees and Indians played 100 3-game series, I'm 50-50. But I don't think Bieber would get rocked more than 1-2x out of 10.

I don't find the cards/brewers to be very good, but I didn't think the Padres were very good either. But in a 60 game sample, the padres were better. 60 games even limited is > 2 games no matter if it's the playoffs. 

1. The Cubs started the season 13 and 3 and finished 8 games over .500. Maybe the Cubs are better than the Marlins, but this season the Marlins had a team just as capable as the Cubs to finish the season. The Marlins would have won if this series was 5 games as well. The Cubs offense was mostly garbage to finish the season except when they played us. Their offense was garbage in the playoffs. 

2. The Braves beat the Reds

3. The Twins have lost 16 straight playoff games. The Astros have won a WS and played in several ALCS'. So they are clearly the better team when compared to the Twins. 

4. The White Sox and As are a coin flip, but that statement is probably false this past season. The A's were better than us this year and finished the season stronger than we did. No one is shocked they beat us. We did not lose to them because of randomness, our coach, lack of a third starter, and lack of hitting with RISP cost us. Which it had the last few weeks of the season. 

5. The Yankees are better than Cleveland, and they won the series as they should have. 

Again, the randomness of baseball is always there. This season's 3 game series did not lead to anything worth mentioning. As I said, the better teams at time of the games won.  

[bmags]

29 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

1. The Cubs started the season 13 and 3 and finished 8 games over .500. Maybe the Cubs are better than the Marlins, but this season the Marlins had a team just as capable as the Cubs to finish the season. The Marlins would have won if this series was 5 games as well. The Cubs offense was mostly garbage to finish the season except when they played us. Their offense was garbage in the playoffs. 

2. The Braves beat the Reds

3. The Twins have lost 16 straight playoff games. The Astros have won a WS and played in several ALCS'. So they are clearly the better team when compared to the Twins. 

4. The White Sox and As are a coin flip, but that statement is probably false this past season. The A's were better than us this year and finished the season stronger than we did. No one is shocked they beat us. We did not lose to them because of randomness, our coach, lack of a third starter, and lack of hitting with RISP cost us. Which it had the last few weeks of the season. 

5. The Yankees are better than Cleveland, and they won the series as they should have. 

Again, the randomness of baseball is always there. This season's 3 game series did not lead to anything worth mentioning. As I said, the better teams at time of the games won.  

Yeah, so I stand by what I said that you are using the results of a silly best of 3 series to justify a bunch of meatbally takes on "championship blood" and "momentum". At the end of 60 games, a bunch of teams were closely grouped together. Some won the next few games. Therefore, the white sox and central divisions are terrible, they didn't have to play amazing teams like the angels, rangers, mets or diamondbacks and it inflated their records.

Had the sox and As been in a play-in game and sox won, then according to you they'd clearly be the better team and justification that the years of playoff ineptitude shows the As just need to learn how to win. Had the Rays/Astros been in a best of 5, they'd have swept the Astros and you'd not be hyping them up now as championship blood that (lol) proved it wasn't because of cheating and faced a favorable schedule to get to the ALCS.

Sox just need to learn how to win. Their third starter situation was no match for the As situation of Mike Fiers and Sean Manaea. That winning 2 games out of 3 against the white sox clearly shows how big of a gulf there was between the two franchises.

[fathom]

Sox were better than the A’s in my opinion. How many positions were the A’s better than the Sox?  Sox just choked in game 3, end of story

[MeanJoeCrede]

12 minutes ago, fathom said:

Sox were better than the A’s in my opinion. How many positions were the A’s better than the Sox?  Sox just choked in game 3, end of story

3rd starter?

[Orlando]

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Orlando

[Kyyle23]

10 minutes ago, MeanJoeCrede said:

3rd starter?

Yea, Mike Fiers 1 2/3 innings was a hell of a lot better than Dunnings 2/3 of an inning.  

[chitownsportsfan]

17 minutes ago, Orlando said:

 

the fuck would he have to be bitter about?  Good lord this dude quit on the team.  The revisionist history around the end of his tenure is pointless.  He's never managing in Chicago again and 99% he'll never manage anywhere again.

[SonofaRoache]

40 minutes ago, fathom said:

Sox were better than the A’s in my opinion. How many positions were the A’s better than the Sox?  Sox just choked in game 3, end of story

As had a better manager,although he messed up game 1. They have high OBP guys and several good starters. These two teams were about even as itnpertains to overall success. Next season we should for sure be better than them. 

[SonofaRoache]

18 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Yea, Mike Fiers 1 2/3 innings was a hell of a lot better than Dunnings 2/3 of an inning.  

Is the topic of this conversation about game 3 or in general? Are we that much more better than the A's overall lsst year to say that their victory over us was an act of random short series? 

[Chicago White Sox]

7 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

And ill add, if you think a manager is worth 3-4 wins in a 60 game season, then managers are the most underpaid people in the game. That would mean managers could be worth 8-10 fWAR over a season. 

Also, I dont think you understand my point. Im saying you take the good with the bad, and in reneterias case that was probably a net gain/loss of wins of ZERO if you account for his in game gaffes.

Lol...come on Ray Ray, saying Renteria was a net gain or loss of zero wins is absolutely ridiculous and makes me think you don’t watch our actual games.  Yes, the team performed well this year because Abreu got in better shape and had a MVP season, our collection of former top 100 prospects (and many top 10 guys) continued to blossom, and several relievers performed well above expectations.  Projection models didn’t project our team to perform this well because projection models don’t handle the development curves of young players with much accuracy, they don’t forecast a player to find the fountain of youth, they don’t expect pitchers to change their pitch usage and to suddenly become a bullpen weapon.  

Rick deserves some credit here, but ultimately most of our “overpeformance” is due to the players or the inherent flaws of projection systems.  Ricky was absolutely horrific with the in-game stuff and he definitely cost us games.  All you have to do is measure our win expectancy during that CLE series before and after some of his bullpen decisions to prove that.  I think the difference between a great manager and a good manager is probably pretty small in terms of wins, but the difference between a good manager and a bad one can be significant.  The Sox didn’t fire Ricky and pay him a salary to not manage our team because managers are more or less meaningless like you’re claiming.  Clearly they felt an upgrade was needed and that any cost was a small price to pay to improve our chances of winning next year.

[SonofaRoache]

1 hour ago, bmags said:

Yeah, so I stand by what I said that you are using the results of a silly best of 3 series to justify a bunch of meatbally takes on "championship blood" and "momentum". At the end of 60 games, a bunch of teams were closely grouped together. Some won the next few games. Therefore, the white sox and central divisions are terrible, they didn't have to play amazing teams like the angels, rangers, mets or diamondbacks and it inflated their records.

Had the sox and As been in a play-in game and sox won, then according to you they'd clearly be the better team and justification that the years of playoff ineptitude shows the As just need to learn how to win. Had the Rays/Astros been in a best of 5, they'd have swept the Astros and you'd not be hyping them up now as championship blood that (lol) proved it wasn't because of cheating and faced a favorable schedule to get to the ALCS.

Sox just need to learn how to win. Their third starter situation was no match for the As situation of Mike Fiers and Sean Manaea. That winning 2 games out of 3 against the white sox clearly shows how big of a gulf there was between the two franchises.

No I am not. You said that the best of three series were random, which is true, but that is the case for the playoffs in general. The point I'm making is that the series were not some big deal because they teams that won were expected to for the most part. The teams still standing have also been among the best teams in baseball the past several years. 

The Dodgers and Rays have been great for a while. Oakland has been a good team for a long time now and the Braves have been a very good team for a couple of years now. All 4 of these teams won series they were projected to. 

The Astros have played in 2 WS and made an ALCS after they stopped cheating. They swept a team that hasn't won a playoff game since we won it all. No surprise there. The Cubs loss may have been a surprise, but there offense was terrible for the last month of the season. And they've collapsed to finish seasons the two previous years. Their run is coming to a halt and the Marlins are up and coming. 

San Diego was hot coming down the stretch. They played good ball to finish the season and no surprise they won their series. The Yankees were the hottest team in baseball to finish the year and have Gerrit Cole. No surprise they beat Cleveland. They've also been a very good team the last few years. 

So, great teams advanced in the post season. Teams that have recently choked late in seasons got beat. A team like the Sox whose manager has cost them games down the stretch cost them a playoff series. 

Lastly, if the Sox would have played Oakland in a one game series I'm sure the A's would have started Bassit. So no guarantee we win that game based on how he pitched game 2. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

51 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Lol...come on Ray Ray, saying Renteria was a net gain or loss of zero wins is absolutely ridiculous and makes me think you don’t watch our actual games.  Yes, the team performed well this year because Abreu got in better shape and had a MVP season, our collection of former top 100 prospects (and many top 10 guys) continued to blossom, and several relievers performed well above expectations.  Projection models didn’t project our team to perform this well because projection models don’t handle the development curves of young players with much accuracy, they don’t forecast a player to find the fountain of youth, they don’t expect pitchers to change their pitch usage and to suddenly become a bullpen weapon.  

Rick deserves some credit here, but ultimately most of our “overpeformance” is due to the players or the inherent flaws of projection systems.  Ricky was absolutely horrific with the in-game stuff and he definitely cost us games.  All you have to do is measure our win expectancy during that CLE series before and after some of his bullpen decisions to prove that.  I think the difference between a great manager and a good manager is probably pretty small in terms of wins, but the difference between a good manager and a bad one can be significant.  The Sox didn’t fire Ricky and pay him a salary to not manage our team because managers are more or less meaningless like you’re claiming.  Clearly they felt an upgrade was needed and that any cost was a small price to pay to improve our chances of winning next year.

The umpires had a bigger impact on the White Sox win % in the playoffs than the Manager did.

My point is essentially the Sox over performed - you will justify that performance as solely a representation of PD and career years and etc. Ricky didn't make optimal game decisions late in the season, but those decisions direct impact on the game is smaller than what it is represented as here. For example, in a 3-3 game in the 7th there were 42+ opportunities to do something prior, just counting outs, and there were multiple AB's with RISP, or multiple errors that put them in the spot; maybe a missed signed, or etc... you get the point.

A game in which Renteria puts the wrong reliever in during the 8th, when the game is tied or Sox are up 1, but Madrigal made 2 errors early that led to 3 runs was not a game that Renteria "lost." And this is exactly where the idea that a manager loses all these games is nonsense. The Manager made an ERROR just like a player did. A certain amount of errors and that leads to an increase in expected runs against or decrease in runs for; enough of those added up and it can equal a win. A manager might impact some runs over the season, but he DIDN't lose the game in those games. The players had many more opportunities than the manager to make a difference, and they simply didn't get it done. The biggest difference too is that a managing error - even when egregious - isn't worth a whole run like a fielding error or baserunning gaffe. It's putting a guy who is 6% more likely to give up a hit, or 8% more likely to allow a run to score. It's not like the choice is between a guy with a .100 BAA and a guy with a .600 BAA. Renteria made a lot of errors down the stretch.

Edited October 16, 2020 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[ron883]

29 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The umpires had a bigger impact on the White Sox win % in the playoffs than the Manager did.

My point is essentially the Sox over performed - you will justify that performance as solely a representation of PD and career years and etc. Ricky didn't make optimal game decisions late in the season, but those decisions direct impact on the game is smaller than what it is represented as here. For example, in a 3-3 game in the 7th there were 42+ opportunities to do something prior, just counting outs, and there were multiple AB's with RISP, or multiple errors that put them in the spot; maybe a missed signed, or etc... you get the point.

A game in which Renteria puts the wrong reliever in during the 8th, when the game is tied or Sox are up 1, but Madrigal made 2 errors early that led to 3 runs was not a game that Renteria "lost." And this is exactly where the idea that a manager loses all these games is nonsense. The Manager made an ERROR just like a player did. A certain amount of errors and that leads to an increase in expected runs against or decrease in runs for; enough of those added up and it can equal a win. A manager might impact some runs over the season, but he DIDN't lose the game in those games. The players had many more opportunities than the manager to make a difference, and they simply didn't get it done. The biggest difference too is that a managing error - even when egregious - isn't worth a whole run like a fielding error or baserunning gaffe. It's putting a guy who is 6% more likely to give up a hit, or 8% more likely to allow a run to score. It's not like the choice is between a guy with a .100 BAA and a guy with a .600 BAA. Renteria made a lot of errors down the stretch.

I don't think looking at it from a WAR standpoint is the way to go. For example, putting Rodon in against the Indians with the bases loaded.  The timing of it is what is so egregious. Put Bummer in there, and he probably gets that third out and has enough juice to pitch the 8th inning, like he did.

How much would that blown opportunity be reflected in WAR? Very little I'd imagine. It did however cost the White Sox the game, one they should have won. It may be only -0.05 WAR, but that is a loss completely on Renteria.

[Harold's Leg Lift]

It is definitely LaRussa's job if he wants it.  

[tray]

59 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

It is definitely LaRussa's job if he wants it.  

Putting all posts and posters aside on the managerial issue, I would get a kick out of seeing LaRussa in the 1983 throwback uniform on Sundays.

Realistically ,Tony is more well suited as an Executive in the front office at this point.

Edited October 17, 2020 by tray

[Timmy U]

1 hour ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

It is definitely LaRussa's job if he wants it.  

We should have a barf reaction.  I don’t doubt this is good info, it would just ruin my fandom. Giving this exciting young team to that sour curmudgeon would depress the hell out of me.  I might have to do the unthinkable: start watching the Mets.