Every Loss is magnified when you're this good

[JUGGERNAUT]

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/co...ia/x06-ard1.htm

 

According to Arvia the White Sox missed the sweep not because of a lack of talent but boneheadedness.

 

1-Iguchi brain camp (surrenders DP).

2-Crede both calling for the ball in the 12th & failing to get off the bag to catch it.

3-Ozzie overusing Hermy. I warned him. You can't use a RP more than 4IP/w-out a day of rest. But he went & did it.

4-Not replacing Koney in a tie game in the 8th inning with a PR. The Timo-Gload question again.

 

I don't agree with his assertion that playing Everett & Thomas at the same time wrecked the offense. 4/11 w 2R, 1RBI is not bad. But I do agree that in general once you get past the starters speed & defense takes a higher priority over thumpers.

 

He waited until the bot 10th to put in Pods. Dumb.

A win takes precedence over a day of rest for hitters.

 

Replay the 8th:

Koney leads off with a single. Pods should have replaced Everett. Why?

He is more likely to break up a DP sit which of course is likely with Koney on.

Arvia did even pick up on that. Instead he harps on the fact that Koney should have been replaced by a PR (Gload) with Everett swinging. Of course Ozzie seems to think Timo has more value to the team than Gload right now so that's a fantasy of Arvia's.

But Pods is on the roster & no matter what numbers Ozzie chooses replacing Everett with Pods then was the right move. One he failed to make.

 

As it is Everett flied out, Dye struck out, & Rowand grounded out to end the inning.

 

In Crede's case there was never a RON sit for Ozuna in the late innings so there was no need for him to sub earlier.

 

Arvia mentions briefly what I feel is the biggest mistake of the game for the all powerful Oz. Someone want to explain to me why Cotts was lifted in the top of the 8th in a 3-3 game? In the 7th he faced 1 batter & got a DP to end the inning.

In the 8th he gave up a walk to Crisp who then went to 2nd on a pass ball. He strikes out Martinez & gets Hafner to fly out.

 

A tie game, he's faced 4 batters & gave up one walk. The pass ball was Widger's fault. Is he trying to wreck Cotts like he did Marte by denying him the 3rd out?

Does it make a difference? Yes.

 

Ozzie managed to use his two highest NPERA ranked arms a total of 6 outs in a tie game. He then used Marte for the next 4 outs, & then went on to use Hermy for more than 3 outs. Ignoring the fact that Hermy was now making his 4th appearance in as many days.

 

Well the rest is history but now we have to live this week with the reprecussions of Ozzie's decision:

1-Hermy is not available today. Unless you want to damage him for the rest of the season. He never should have pitched Sun in a tie game.

2-Marte is good for an inning at most. Having pitched nearly 3 innings over 2 days.

 

So the COL series will fall to Cotts, Politte, Viz & Shingo.

 

Hopefully Garcia will come to the rescue.

[nvxplorer]

The title of the thread is the most valid point.

 

All-in-all, it wasn't a poorly played game. If predicting the outcome were as simple as second guessing in hindsight, the Sox would be undefeated.

 

Here's my second guess, based on something Farmer said: When Pods was running, he was on his own, and it's likely Dye didn't know he was running. If Dye had laid off those pitches, Pods would have been on third before Dye flied out, thus Pods would have scored the winning run.

 

The point is, anything could have happened in that game. There were a few mental errors, but that's always going to happen. I can think of other games where Ozzie's calls were much more questionable than this one. The way the game looked, it could have easily gone deep into extra innings, so I can't fault Ozzie for pitching Hermanson like he did.

[BuehrleTheAce]

JUG, Can I make a humble suggestion?

 

I've read a lot of your posts, and a lot of the arguments and discussions started in your threads and threads you post in. I do like how you bring stats to the table in your discussions, however if you want to reach the most people and get them to your side, try to talk in layman's terms. Also, with such a long-winded post, abbreviating words should've even be a factor. It just clouds the point you're trying to get across.

 

For example, I had to re-read this sentence to get what you meant: "He is more likely to break up a DP sit which of course is likely with Koney on.". After three or four times I realized "DP sit" meant "DP situation".

 

Also, "In Crede's case there was never a RON sit for Ozuna...". OK, I got "sit" from the previous statement, but what is "RON". Runner on? I'm still unsure. And finally, "Ozzie managed to use his two highest NPERA ranked arms...". What's NPERA?

 

Thanks, and keep it up. Stats are important, but remember they're not the be-all-end-all that you seem to believe in.

 

~BTA

[TLAK]

I thought it was a good post by Juggernaut. I kid him as much as anyone about the cryptic stats but for the most part I agree with his reasoning.

[mmmmmbeeer]

The title of the thread is the most valid point.

 

All-in-all, it wasn't a poorly played game. If predicting the outcome were as simple as second guessing in hindsight, the Sox would be undefeated.

 

Here's my second guess, based on something Farmer said: When Pods was running, he was on his own, and it's likely Dye didn't know he was running. If Dye had laid off those pitches, Pods would have been on third before Dye flied out, thus Pods would have scored the winning run.

 

The point is, anything could have happened in that game. There were a few mental errors, but that's always going to happen. I can think of other games where Ozzie's calls were much more questionable than this one. The way the game looked, it could have easily gone deep into extra innings, so I can't fault Ozzie for pitching Hermanson like he did.

 

 

I was watching the CLE broadcast and their announcers couldn't believe that Dye was swinging with Pods at 1st, especially with a 1-0 count, being they knew that Wickman/Martinez were not going to catch Pods stealing. They probably said "Dye did us a real favor there" like 4 times. I suppose you can excuse Dye being he's never been a 2-hole hitter and therefore doesn't understand his responsibility batting after a pure base stealer like Pods and, as Juggs pointed out, Dye probably didn't see a steal sign. This was most definitely critical to the outcome of the game. I disagree with Arvia and Juggs when they both stated that Pods should have PR for Kong in the 8th. I did NOT want to see Timo at 1B at the end of that game. I thought Oz picked the perfect spot for the PR, Dye just didn't execute well given the situation.

 

Also, the title of this post is definitely dead-on. With the exception of a game or two (TEX comes to mind), we really haven't been blown out of the water this season, and we're more than 1/3 of the way through the season. Many of our losses can be attributed to our own miscues as opposed to any sort of dominance displayed by our opponents. It's refreshing to have a team that controls its own destiny and also nice to be able to look back at nearly every loss and be able to pick out 1 or 2 key plays that, had they been played differently, we could have had a winner. In years past we've had to take broad strokes at a weak offense, weak pitching, poor defense....this season it all comes down to a couple of plays. That's a huge difference and it shows in the standings.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Losses are magnified? LOL

 

Around here we put every loss under a Scanning Electron Microscope.

 

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

JUG, Can I make a humble suggestion?

 

I've read a lot of your posts, and a lot of the arguments and discussions started in your threads and threads you post in. I do like how you bring stats to the table in your discussions, however if you want to reach the most people and get them to your side, try to talk in layman's terms. Also, with such a long-winded post, abbreviating words should've even be a factor. It just clouds the point you're trying to get across.

 

For example, I had to re-read this sentence to get what you meant: "He is more likely to break up a DP sit which of course is likely with Koney on.". After three or four times I realized "DP sit" meant "DP situation".

 

Also, "In Crede's case there was never a RON sit for Ozuna...". OK, I got "sit" from the previous statement, but what is "RON". Runner on? I'm still unsure. And finally, "Ozzie managed to use his two highest NPERA ranked arms...". What's NPERA?

 

Thanks, and keep it up. Stats are important, but remember they're not the be-all-end-all that you seem to believe in.

 

~BTA

 

You posted what I wanted to post for a long time but never did. My English teachers at good old Quigley South always said "you write for the reader". All of us here don't know stat abbreviations. I guess we can't argue against what we don't understand.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Losses are magnified?  LOL

 

Around here we put every loss under a Scanning Electron Microscope.

 

 

Amen , Brother Nuke

[JUGGERNAUT]

I just wanted to add Garcia did indeed come to the rescue. 103 pitches over 8IP. With a 9-3 lead into the 9th Ozzie could go the least used Shingo. The rest of the bullpen all got a rest tonight.

 

I was a big fan of the Garcia trade. Everything I saw in his numbers told me he was perfect for this team. He's proving that this year. The difference between winning & losing the division is the road record. I proved that in looking at the team from 1999-2004. The home records were very similar but in 2000 the road record was the difference. Garcia has always had solid road numbers.

 

I know I write a lot but I also type very fast so abbreviations come to mind right away. It looks like I spend a lot of time formulating a post but I really don't. I spend more time looking up the stats to support it but even then I'm pretty fast in doing so. My mind is so deeply entrenched in computer science that it's no wonder my posts reflect that kind of discipline. As an example with this team RON (runners on) has become so entrenched in my posts that it comes as 2nd nature to me now.

 

RON http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/battin...Type=2&type=reg

RISP

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/battin...Type=2&type=reg

 

I can't really explain why we are .713OPS team in RISP but a .771 team in RON. But I do think it means the best is yet to come.

 

I neglect typo's as well as buffer overruns as well. Sorry about that.

[Dam8610]

Losses are magnified?  LOL

 

Around here we put every loss under a Scanning Electron Microscope.

 

 

You sure it isn't more powerful than that?

[southsider2k5]

Losses are magnified?  LOL

 

Around here we put every loss under a Scanning Electron Microscope.

 

 

Wins too.

[Wedge]

  My mind is so deeply entrenched in computer science that it's no wonder my posts reflect that kind of discipline.

 

Sweet, me too! Any specific area within Computer Science?

[kapkomet]

Wins too.

LMAO

 

Ain't that the truth.

 

Hell, we use the damn hubble telescope for every damn play around here.

[Harry Chappas]

I just wanted to add Garcia did indeed come to the rescue.  103 pitches over 8IP.  With a 9-3 lead into the 9th Ozzie could go the least used Shingo.  The rest of the bullpen all got a rest tonight. 

 

I was a big fan of the Garcia trade.  Everything I saw in his numbers told me he was perfect for this team.  He's proving that this year.  The difference between winning & losing the division is the road record.  I proved that in looking at the team from 1999-2004.  The home records were very similar but in 2000 the road record was the difference.  Garcia has always had solid road numbers. 

 

I know I write a lot but I also type very fast so abbreviations come to mind right away.  It looks like I spend a lot of time formulating a post but I really don't.  I spend more time looking up the stats to support it but even then I'm pretty fast in doing so.  My mind is so deeply entrenched in computer science that it's no wonder my posts reflect that kind of discipline. As an example with this team RON (runners on) has become so entrenched in my posts that it comes as 2nd nature to me now.

 

RON http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/battin...=2&type=reg

RISP

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/battin...Type=2&type=reg

 

I can't really explain why we are .713OPS team in RISP but a .771 team in RON.  But I do think it means the best is yet to come.

 

I neglect typo's as well as buffer overruns as well.  Sorry about that.

 

Just keep doin what your doin, we'll all figure it out eventually. Actually your posts have lead to a new way to discuss the game. 15 pitches into an inning with a reliever I now look for the hitter to be more selective as the pitcher has begun to tire.