The TLR Manager Thread

[skooch]

23 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Wouldn't it have been better if someone on the staff said "whose running for Hendriks" Instead of confirming Hendriks was on second? 

Because that might imply that they wanted to replace Hendricks with a PR which would mean he wouldn't pitch the bottom of the 10th.

[Texsox]

7 minutes ago, skooch said:

Because that might imply that they wanted to replace Hendricks with a PR which would mean he wouldn't pitch the bottom of the 10th.

Wouldn't it imply the staff knew that the NL rules allowed for pinch running for the pitcher in that situation while allowing the pitcher to stay in the game? 

[caulfield12]

4 minutes ago, skooch said:

Because that might imply that they wanted to replace Hendricks with a PR which would mean he wouldn't pitch the bottom of the 10th.

Why it wouldn’t have been Bummer...we will never know, but multi-inning outings are going to further burn away Hendriks’ competitive advantage with only the fastball.  Eventually, his secondary stuff will get overexposed if he struggles to put away hitters with only the heater and has to trick the hitter with a pitch that isn’t his best (see K.Jansen with the Dodgers in recent years.)

[caulfield12]

https://theathletic.com/2571204/2021/05/06/greenberg-tony-tony-tony-la-russa-has-done-it-again-and-it-feels-bad-for-white-sox-fans/?source=freedailyemail

 

Greenberg: Tony, Tony, Tony (La Russa) has done it again and it feels bad for White Sox fans
When Tony La Russa was hired to manage the White Sox, I had my fun with the Jerry Reinsdorf jokes and all of the mishegas around the very Reinsdorfian move. Who didn’t?

But the heart of the issues I had with the hire wasn’t that La Russa wouldn’t get Tim Anderson’s joie de vivre.

“At 76, no matter how sharp La Russa is,” I wrote in October, “are the Sox getting the best version of him? You don’t have to hedge, the answer is no.”

Edited May 7, 2021 by caulfield12

[Chisoxfn]

1 hour ago, raBBit said:

This is the real question.

Yeah - it seems like the coaches might have been more puzzled on why the double switch for Hendricks vs. the fact that Hendricks is running?  I mean I don't think it is crazy that an AL mgr doesn't know this rule - but the bench coach and staff, someone probably should. I still say this got way more attention than the stolen base call with Leury - which just was not a good call.  

That said - fact that the league made a big deal about this - I presume to each club (not just the NL clubs) - it would seem one of the Sox coaches should have been aware of this.  I'm not going to lie - I tried to stay neutral on TLR - but it is looking more and more like he just isn't the right guy for this job.  

[raBBit]

1 minute ago, Chisoxfn said:

Yeah - it seems like the coaches might have been more puzzled on why the double switch for Hendricks vs. the fact that Hendricks is running?  I mean I don't think it is crazy that an AL mgr doesn't know this rule - but the bench coach and staff, someone probably should. I still say this got way more attention than the stolen base call with Leury - which just was not a good call.  

For the double switch - I took the press comments just as you did. They were questioning LaRussa on having Hendriks be the runner which confirms they didn't know/understand the rule and that a pitcher never has to be that runner. 

For the Leury steal, I think LaRussa's comments were more open-ended. To me, if Garcia gets caught stealing on a sign from the dugout, the manager says "We gave him the sign, he's doing his job, etc." but that's not what LaRussa said. Just said "we were trying to be aggressive" which I took to imply that Garcia went on his own. He also made comments that he would do it again. So I am not sure. Absolutely inexplicable there though. 

The one thing I think LaRussa has done well this season is protect his players and take fault when he's screwed up when he's in the media. That said, we're not even 30 games into the season and you can already make a compilation of LaRussa documenting his failures. 

[Chicago White Sox]

People keep referring to this as a NL rule, but the reality is it was an update to a rule implemented last year that applied to all teams.  This update only exists because they got rid of the universal DH and as such they had to determine how to handle pitchers in the event they were the designated runner in extras.  All mangers were made aware of the rule change and given that every team plays inter-league games this should have been relevant info for each of them.  If you want to critique the broader coaching staff that’s totally fine, but it’s not fair to position this as some weird one-off NL rule IMO.

[Texsox]

6 minutes ago, raBBit said:

For the double switch - I took the press comments just as you did. They were questioning LaRussa on having Hendriks be the runner which confirms they didn't know/understand the rule and that a pitcher never has to be that runner. 

For the Leury steal, I think LaRussa's comments were more open-ended. To me, if Garcia gets caught stealing on a sign from the dugout, the manager says "We gave him the sign, he's doing his job, etc." but that's not what LaRussa said. Just said "we were trying to be aggressive" which I took to imply that Garcia went on his own. He also made comments that he would do it again. So I am not sure. Absolutely inexplicable there though. 

The one thing I think LaRussa has done well this season is protect his players and take fault when he's screwed up when he's in the media. That said, we're not even 30 games into the season and you can already make a compilation of LaRussa documenting his failures. 

I didn't catch that about the steal. Interesting take on the situation. Tony hasn't thrown anyone under the bus and is always taking the blame. It's a huge change from what I was expecting (arrogant, never wrong). 

[Texsox]

3 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

People keep referring to this as a NL rule, but the reality is it was an update to a rule implemented last year that applied to all teams.  This update only exists because they got rid of the universal DH and as such they had to determine how to handle pitchers in the event they were the designated runner in extras.  All mangers were made aware of the rule change and given that every team plays inter-league games this should have been relevant info for each of them.  If you want to critique the broader coaching staff that’s totally fine, but it’s not fair to position this as some weird one-off NL rule IMO.

Correct. I should have phrased it as a rule that only pertains in NL stadiums.  So 12 games this year. 

And to be accurate it wasn't implemented until this year. 

[soxguy456]

Maybe Jerry sees Tony struggling a little bit and decides to open up the check book to give him some help. Thats what a good friend would do. 

[skooch]

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

Wouldn't it have been better if someone on the staff said "whose running for Hendriks" Instead of confirming Hendriks was on second? 

 

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

Wouldn't it imply the staff knew that the NL rules allowed for pinch running for the pitcher in that situation while allowing the pitcher to stay in the game? 

Well, it doesn't allow for PR (a remaining bench player), per se. It allows for the player immediately preceding the pitcher's spot to run instead. My point was just that saying "who's running for Hendriks" might be interpreted by an old NL manager like him to think of actually PR for Hendriks and having someone else pitch B10.

[caulfield12]

8 minutes ago, soxguy456 said:

Maybe Jerry sees Tony struggling a little bit and decides to open up the check book to give him some help. Thats what a good friend would do. 

Bill James?  Does he still work for the Red Sox?  Still alive?  We might have to settle for Stephen King.

[Texsox]

9 minutes ago, skooch said:

 

Well, it doesn't allow for PR (a remaining bench player), per se. It allows for the player immediately preceding the pitcher's spot to run instead. My point was just that saying "who's running for Hendriks" might be interpreted by an old NL manager like him to think of actually PR for Hendriks and having someone else pitch B10.

Thank you for clearing that up.  I appreciate it. 

So someone saying are we going with Abreu or Hendriks running would have been better?

Maybe Tony thought he could catch lightning in a bottle twice. Hell of Cease can be 3 for 3 maybe Hendriks could be Henderson for a half inning.

It still makes me loath the NL and a lack of universal DH. 

 

[caulfield12]

4 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Thank you for clearing that up.  I appreciate it. 

So someone saying are we going with Abreu or Hendriks running would have been better?

Maybe Tony thought he could catch lightning in a bottle twice. Hell of Cease can be 3 for 3 maybe Hendriks could be Henderson for a half inning.

It still makes me loath the NL and a lack of universal DH. 

 

Abreu isn't a burner or anything, but he's an experienced baserunner. Hendriks has only been on base one time in his career (in 2015) and he didn't even get to second base. 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/tony-la-russa-admits-he-didnt-know-new-extra-innings-rule-after-white-sox-fall-to-reds/

Guess similar odds or likelihood to Cease going 3/3...

Edited May 7, 2021 by caulfield12

[Texsox]

3 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Abreu isn't a burner or anything, but he's an experienced baserunner. Hendriks has only been on base one time in his career (in 2015) and he didn't even get to second base. 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/tony-la-russa-admits-he-didnt-know-new-extra-innings-rule-after-white-sox-fall-to-reds/

Guess similar odds or likelihood to Cease going 3/3...

I don't have any stats to back this up but I'm guessing Abreu is less likely to be injured running the bases. Could you image the shit storm if Hendriks was injured while out their running? 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

50 minutes ago, raBBit said:

For the double switch - I took the press comments just as you did. They were questioning LaRussa on having Hendriks be the runner which confirms they didn't know/understand the rule and that a pitcher never has to be that runner. 

For the Leury steal, I think LaRussa's comments were more open-ended. To me, if Garcia gets caught stealing on a sign from the dugout, the manager says "We gave him the sign, he's doing his job, etc." but that's not what LaRussa said. Just said "we were trying to be aggressive" which I took to imply that Garcia went on his own. He also made comments that he would do it again. So I am not sure. Absolutely inexplicable there though. 

The one thing I think LaRussa has done well this season is protect his players and take fault when he's screwed up when he's in the media. That said, we're not even 30 games into the season and you can already make a compilation of LaRussa documenting his failures. 

This is flat out wrong. 

Larussa said he called for the steal and said he'd do it again and didn't regret it.

[caulfield12]

6 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I don't have any stats to back this up but I'm guessing Abreu is less likely to be injured running the bases. Could you image the shit storm if Hendriks was injured while out their running? 

Or they were intentionally trying to injure him so they could reallocate the 60% reimbursement for insurance to another outfielder...?

Only Rachel Phelps in Major League I would think of that.  Except she’d pocket the money herself.

[caulfield12]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

This is flat out wrong. 

Larussa said he called for the steal and said he'd do it again and didn't regret it.

Based on the assumption they still wouldn’t throw through with Hendriks at third...or purely trusting Leury’s baserunning instincts, such as they are?

[raBBit]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

This is flat out wrong. 

Larussa said he called for the steal and said he'd do it again and didn't regret it.

I touched on three different topics and you repeated something that I said in response to the situation which I said explicitly "I am not sure." Not all of us are the all knowing like you. Hopefully one day I can reach your level enlightenment. Until then, if you could just never respond to my posts so I can learn on my own that'd be great. 

[South Side Hit Men]

25 minutes ago, soxguy456 said:

Maybe Jerry sees Tony struggling a little bit and decides to open up the check book to give him some help. Thats what a good friend would do. 

People assume Jerry remains lucid at age 85, but unlike Tony, Jerry can continue to operate as a recluse and the public will never know if he has diminished capacity. The last time Jerry was videotaped for an interview was February 2020, he explicitly stated Tony La Russa has no reason to return to managing.

I wonder if the White Sox are considering controlling or pulling media access to Tony. In nearly five decades of watching sports, I don’t ever recall a similar incident of a reporter reading and teaching a manager or coach the rules of a game, or a response that the media knows the rules better than the manager.

I hope the White Sox don’t pull James Fegan’s credentials for the audacity of doing his job.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

4 minutes ago, raBBit said:

I touched on three different topics and you repeated something that I said in response to the situation which I said explicitly "I am not sure." Not all of us are the all knowing like you. Hopefully one day I can reach your level enlightenment. Until then, if you could just never respond to my posts so I can learn on my own that'd be great. 

I watched the post game conference and you misrepresented what he said. Then implied he was helping g his player by doing so. I didnt address your other points because I had nothing to say about them. Is that ok with you? 

Take your condescending poor me nonsense somewhere else. Sheesh.

Edited May 7, 2021 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[ThirdGen]

6 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I don't have any stats to back this up but I'm guessing Abreu is less likely to be injured running the bases. Could you image the shit storm if Hendriks was injured while out their running? 

What I don't understand is this- if the NL is so worried about pitchers running the bases why don't they have the DH?  Or allow a courtesy runner Little League style?  Cease was on base three times the game before, and he had never been on the bases before at any pro level before.  Why didn't that terrify us?  TLR and the staff should have known the rule, but the rule is stupid.  A pitcher running in the 10th inning is no more likely to get injured than one in the fourth.  And once you are into your bullpen, swapping out that pitcher is easier.

During TLR's first stint he sometimes used starting pitchers as pinch runners on their off days so he didn't burn his bench.  Not a good idea in my mind, and IIRC he stopped doing so.  Probably under front office pressure.  But bottom line is he isn't afraid of pitchers running the bases.  I wonder if he would have flipped to Abreu even if he knew the rule.  If I had to lose one player in that inning to injury, I'd probably prefer Hendrik to tell the truth.

Sometime I would like to see a list of pitchers who have been injured running the bases over the last 10 years or so.  I know they aren't on base often, but I can't recall a case of a pitcher ending up on the IL from baserunning.  But I don't pay that much attention to the NL, so it probably has happened.  I do know we have lost two players to the IL related to baserunning injuries in six weeks, so it isn't just a pitcher problem. 

Finally, he rarely throws players under the bus.  We will never know if TLR called the steal or not.  Its just the way he is.

[South Side Fireworks Man]

53 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Correct. I should have phrased it as a rule that only pertains in NL stadiums.  So 12 games this year. 

And to be accurate it wasn't implemented until this year. 

Wouldn't it also apply in AL stadiums if a manager previously had to put his DH in the field due to an injury thus losing the DH for the rest of the game?

[ThirdGen]

Just now, South Side Fireworks Man said:

Wouldn't it also apply in AL stadiums if a manager previously had to put his DH in the field due to an injury thus losing the DH for the rest of the game?

In theory yes.  Could also apply to Ohtani.  But highly unlikely scenario.

[caulfield12]

2 minutes ago, ThirdGen said:

What I don't understand is this- if the NL is so worried about pitchers running the bases why don't they have the DH?  Or allow a courtesy runner Little League style?  Cease was on base three times the game before, and he had never been on the bases before at any pro level before.  Why didn't that terrify us?  TLR and the staff should have known the rule, but the rule is stupid.  A pitcher running in the 10th inning is no more likely to get injured than one in the fourth.  And once you are into your bullpen, swapping out that pitcher is easier.

During TLR's first stint he sometimes used starting pitchers as pinch runners on their off days so he didn't burn his bench.  Not a good idea in my mind, and IIRC he stopped doing so.  Probably under front office pressure.  But bottom line is he isn't afraid of pitchers running the bases.  I wonder if he would have flipped to Abreu even if he knew the rule.  If I had to lose one player in that inning to injury, I'd probably prefer Hendrik to tell the truth.

Sometime I would like to see a list of pitchers who have been injured running the bases over the last 10 years or so.  I know they aren't on base often, but I can't recall a case of a pitcher ending up on the IL from baserunning.  But I don't pay that much attention to the NL, so it probably has happened.  I do know we have lost two players to the IL related to baserunning injuries in six weeks, so it isn't just a pitcher problem. 

Finally, he rarely throws players under the bus.  We will never know if TLR called the steal or not.  Its just the way he is.

Because he was the best hitter on his high school team (not shocking, I know), played SS and is much closer to that period of his life in baseball than Hendriks at his size trying to sprint anywhere when he was much younger.