Please don't blame Jenks

[Dick Allen]

This was one of the poorer managed games of the season, and I don't think many people would argue with that. I'm still puzzled why our middle infield wasn't at DP depth for the last batter.

I was wondering that as well. And why does Ozzie wait until Vazquez has the lead run on base before he is pulled? Note to Ozzie: waiting for a few more hits doesn't do anything for your bullpen. They still have to get the same amount of outs. Its so apparent when Vazquez is going to fall apart, yet the dugout seems to want to look the other way.

[fathom]

I was wondering that as well. And why does Ozzie wait until Vazquez has the lead run on base before he is pulled? Note to Ozzie: waiting for a few more hits doesn't do anything for your bullpen. They still have to get the same amount of outs. Its so apparent when Vazquez is going to fall apart, yet the dugout seems to want to look the other way.

 

Everyone gave Ozzie credit for how he used to let Garland work out of trouble, and it helped his confidence. The thing is, Ozzie has always pulled Garland before he can be put in a situation where he can get the loss. It's similar to what happened in McCarthy's debut.

[bulokis]

Vazquez sets the tempo/momentum for this game. He always find a way to mess it up. I think Brandon can do much better than what Vazquez is giving us.

 

Ozzie/Coop always says our bullpen is made to come in the 7th, 8th, 9th and our starters are expected to last 6+ innings. But everytime Javy The Fifth pitches the game plan is screwed already.

[elrockinMT]

I haven't seen anyone that's solely blamed Jenks for the loss. However, he did blow the save today. He does deserve a lot of the blame. It's his job to get the final 3 outs of the game, and he didn't. He's struggled recently, and we need him to get confidence in his curveball again. He's been great this year though, and we'd be in a lot of trouble if he didn't contribute the way he has so far.

 

 

Lopez could only make it 5 innings again. Cotts blew it again and Jenks blew the ninth inning save. Ok there is plenty of blame to go around, but look at Jenks stats since the 19 inning game. He is doing poorly more often than he does good and Cotts is righ there with him.

Edited July 31, 2006 by elrockinMT

[BigSqwert]

Lopez could only make it 5 innings again. Cotts blew it gain and Jenks blew the ninth inning save. Ok there is plenty of blame to go around, but look at Jenks stats since the 19 inning game. He is doing poorly more often than he does good.

Yeah that Lopez is starting to get on my nerves.

[Balta1701]

Yeah that Lopez is starting to get on my nerves.

Can we trade him for a reliever too?

[Guest JimH]

This was one of the poorer managed games of the season, and I don't think many people would argue with that. I'm still puzzled why our middle infield wasn't at DP depth for the last batter.

 

Would they not want to try and cut the winning run off at home plate on a softly hit grounder? Why concede the winning run? If they play back, it requires a hard hit ball on the ground. Playing the infield in gives them the opportunity to keep the game alive on a softly hit ball via a force at the plate, or possibly a DP if it's hit right at someone. Why eliminate one of your options?

 

Your criticism stems from the end result, a hard hit ball not right at one of the infielders. They played the %'s and the guy smoked one.

[BigSqwert]

Would they not want to try and cut the winning run off at home plate on a softly hit grounder? Why concede the winning run? If they play back, it requires a hard hit ball on the ground. Playing the infield in gives them the opportunity to keep the game alive on a softly hit ball via a force at the plate, or possibly a DP if it's hit right at someone. Why eliminate one of your options?

 

Your criticism stems from the end result, a hard hit ball not right at one of the infielders. They played the %'s and the guy smoked one.

Aren't the chances of a hard hit ground ball likely to increase with the a Jenks fastball?

[Guest JimH]

Aren't the chances of a hard hit ground ball likely to increase with the a Jenks fastball?

 

Doesn't matter who's pitching, things can happen ... see Gibbons' bloop to CF. The point being, playing the IF back in that situation takes away a defensive option. Any type of slow roller ends the game. Or a bunt.

[BigSqwert]

Doesn't matter who's pitching, things can happen ... see Gibbons' bloop to CF. The point being, playing the IF back in that situation takes away a defensive option. Any type of slow roller ends the game. Or a bunt.

It goes both ways as you increase the hitter's opportunity to sneak one past the drawn in IF. Pick your poison I guess.

[fathom]

Would they not want to try and cut the winning run off at home plate on a softly hit grounder? Why concede the winning run? If they play back, it requires a hard hit ball on the ground. Playing the infield in gives them the opportunity to keep the game alive on a softly hit ball via a force at the plate, or possibly a DP if it's hit right at someone. Why eliminate one of your options?

 

Your criticism stems from the end result, a hard hit ball not right at one of the infielders. They played the %'s and the guy smoked one.

 

Here's my thinking...if you're not going to play for the double play, then you have Jenks face Patterson and not load the bases. Patterson is extremely prone to the strikeout, and that's what's Jenks best asset is. Once you loaded the bases with one out, you have to play the middle infielders back and try to turn the double play. I don't know what the splits are, but Jenks seems to be a ground ball pitcher when the ball is put into play. And FWIW, I said in the game thread that I didn't like the Patterson IBB.

[Guest JimH]

It goes both ways as you increase the hitter's opportunity to sneak one past the drawn in IF. Pick your poison I guess.

 

How do you address defending against a bunt in that situation?

 

Javy Lopez could've dropped one down the line with the IF playing back, and even if he gets thrown out the runner scores, especially on a bunt to the right side with a righthander pitching and a lefthanded throwing firstbaseman in the game.

 

Percentage wise, it was the right move. It forced the guy to make solid contact, i.e hard grounder not right at someone or a deep fly ball ... and Lopez got the job done.

[fathom]

How do you address defending against a bunt in that situation?

 

Javy Lopez could've dropped one down the line with the IF playing back, and even if he gets thrown out the runner scores, especially on a bunt to the right side with a righthander pitching and a lefthanded throwing firstbaseman in the game.

 

Percentage wise, it was the right move. It forced the guy to make solid contact, i.e hard grounder not right at someone or a deep fly ball ... and Lopez got the job done.

 

If Lopez drops down a successful bunt, then you tip your cap to him (especially against Jenks). We're not talking about Omar Vizquel at the plate in terms of how he handles the bat. By having your corners in for that situation, it's unlikely they're going to bunt with the bases loaded.

[Balta1701]

How do you address defending against a bunt in that situation?

 

Javy Lopez could've dropped one down the line with the IF playing back, and even if he gets thrown out the runner scores, especially on a bunt to the right side with a righthander pitching and a lefthanded throwing firstbaseman in the game.

 

Percentage wise, it was the right move. It forced the guy to make solid contact, i.e hard grounder not right at someone or a deep fly ball ... and Lopez got the job done.

Was that still with Tejada on 3rd? I can't see a bunt being the smart option. He's not exactly a speed burner. And I doubt Lopez is a great bunter...and how in teh world do you get a good bunt down against Bobby Jenks anyway?

[Guest JimH]

Here's my thinking...if you're not going to play for the double play, then you have Jenks face Patterson and not load the bases. Patterson is extremely prone to the strikeout, and that's what's Jenks best asset is. Once you loaded the bases with one out, you have to play the middle infielders back and try to turn the double play. I don't know what the splits are, but Jenks seems to be a ground ball pitcher when the ball is put into play. And FWIW, I said in the game thread that I didn't like the Patterson IBB.

 

Now you're changing your beef.

 

You said you wondered why they had the IF playing back in that situation. I explained why. Now you are saying they should've done something different with Patterson. The question was why did they play the IF in with 1 out and the bases loaded.

 

Do you not think that Corey Patterson has the ability to drag bunt in that situation?

 

You give yourself the best percentage situation to cut off the winning run at home while at the same time keeping yourself open for a possible double play. They did. It didn't work out.

[fathom]

Was that still with Tejada on 3rd? I can't see a bunt being the smart option. He's not exactly a speed burner. And I doubt Lopez is a great bunter...and how in teh world do you get a good bunt down against Bobby Jenks anyway?

 

I don't know, but every team we play seems to have no trouble getting the bunt down. It's amazing how they're able to do it even on tough pitches. I can only recall one time this year where the other team didn't execute their bunt (Twins triple play).

 

Now you're changing your beef.

 

You said you wondered why they had the IF playing back in that situation. I explained why. Now you are saying they should've done something different with Patterson. The question was why did they play the IF in with 1 out and the bases loaded..

 

All along, I thought we should have faced Patterson in that situation. I've seen him enough for the last 5 years to know that he doesn't have a great chance of contact against the stuff Jenks has. However, once Ozzie made the decision to walk him, he should have had the corners in, and played his middle infield at DP depth. Of course, when there's one out and first and third, you would play your infield in with someone like Patterson at the plate. In the Patterson situation, you would hope for a K.

[Guest JimH]

If Lopez drops down a successful bunt, then you tip your cap to him (especially against Jenks). We're not talking about Omar Vizquel at the plate in terms of how he handles the bat. By having your corners in for that situation, it's unlikely they're going to bunt with the bases loaded.

 

Oh please. Just stop. Lopez is very good at handling the bat, he is a veteran player, a good hitter.

 

That's the point, they played in to take away the bunt. Think about it. If they played back, as you wanted, it gives Lopez the option to bunt or hit something soft.

 

Playing in gave the Sox more defensive options and put the pressure on the hitter to execute, which he did.

[fathom]

Oh please. Just stop. Lopez is very good at handling the bat, he is a veteran player, a good hitter.

 

That's the point, they played in to take away the bunt. Think about it. If they played back, as you wanted, it gives Lopez the option to bunt or hit something soft.

 

Playing in gave the Sox more defensive options and put the pressure on the hitter to execute, which he did.

 

Lopez is good at handling the bat? He has 6 sac bunts in his career. With the bases loaded, if the opposition wants to try to bunt, be my guess. With Jenks throwing high fastballs at 98 mph, I would have been more than willing to tip my cap if he executed the bunt. It's over though...time to move on to tomorrow's important game.

Edited July 31, 2006 by fathom

[Guest JimH]

All along, I thought we should have faced Patterson in that situation. I've seen him enough for the last 5 years to know that he doesn't have a great chance of contact against the stuff Jenks has. However, once Ozzie made the decision to walk him, he should have had the corners in, and played his middle infield at DP depth. Of course, when there's one out and first and third, you would play your infield in with someone like Patterson at the plate. In the Patterson situation, you would hope for a K.

 

He ... is ... a ... good ... drag ... bunter. And speedy.

 

Walking him gives you a chance against a slower runner, and playing in gives you the chance to cut the winning run off at the plate on something slow, and turning a DP on something hard right at someone. If he (Lopez) hits something hard NOT right at someone and they're playing back, speedy Patterson likely goes in hard to 2B to break it up.

[Balta1701]

Lopez is good at handling the bat? He has 6 sac bunts in his career. With the bases loaded, if the opposition wants to try to bunt, be my guess. With Jenks throwing high fastballs at 98 mph, I would have been more than willing to tip my cap if he executed the bunt. It's over though...time to move on to tomorrow's important game.

And he has 1 sacrifice bunt since 1999. Wow.

[RockRaines]

I haven't seen anyone that's solely blamed Jenks for the loss. However, he did blow the save today. He does deserve a lot of the blame. It's his job to get the final 3 outs of the game, and he didn't. He's struggled recently, and we need him to get confidence in his curveball again. He's been great this year though, and we'd be in a lot of trouble if he didn't contribute the way he has so far.

2 blown saves puts him in elite territory IMO. Im ok with the loss.

[Guest JimH]

Lopez is good at handling the bat? He has 6 sac bunts in his career. With the bases loaded, if the opposition wants to try to bunt, be my guess. With Jenks throwing high fastballs at 98 mph, I would have been more than willing to tip my cap if he executed the bunt. It's over though...time to move on to tomorrow's important game.

 

What does 6 sac bunts in his career have to do with it? Playing in takes that option away from him, no matter how many statistical successes he's had or hasn't had. He is a veteran and knows what he's doing. Any kind of bunt, even a bad one, likely gets the job done. You are not thinking this thru, choosing instead to find every little thing to criticize the manager about. And it is not just the bunt, it has everything to do with Lopez hitting something softly. Next you'll tell me no one hits anything softly off of Jenks because he throws 98. Please refer to Jay Gibbons.

Edited July 31, 2006 by JimH

[fathom]

What does 6 sac bunts in his career have to do with it? Playing in takes that option away from him, no matter how many statistical successes he's had or hasn't had. He is a veteran and knows what he's doing. Any kind of bunt, even a bad one, likely gets the job done. You are not thinking this thru, choosing instead to find every little thing to criticize the manager about.

 

This wasn't a little thing to criticize about. It was a huge strategically decision in the game, and it deserves discussion (as we're doing). I can guarantee that we weren't worried about Javy Lopez beating us with the bunt. I will give you Patterson being a threat to bunt, and that could be a reason to walk him. All I know is that if you walk the bases for a slow, power hitter, most managers would probably play their middle infielders back.

 

As for Jenks, he needs to put together a string of solid outings. He's been giving up runs pretty consistently now, and it's been happening almost completely on his fastball.

[Guest JimH]

This wasn't a little thing to criticize about. It was a huge strategically decision in the game, and it deserves discussion (as we're doing). I can guarantee that we weren't worried about Javy Lopez beating us with the bunt. I will give you Patterson being a threat to bunt, and that could be a reason to walk him. All I know is that if you walk the bases for a slow, power hitter, most managers would probably play their middle infielders back.

 

As I've said now about 6 times, it's not just the bunt. A bunt is just one of several slow rolling soft type hits that could happen, and if it did and the IF is playing back, game over.

 

If they're playing in, they can get a force at home. If it's hard hit and right at someone, they can turn the DP.

 

Again, why eliminate one of your defensive options?

 

That's why they played in.

 

I will give you Patterson being a threat to bunt, and that could be a reason to walk him.

 

Ya think?

 

And maybe to increase your defensive options in terms of getting an out at home via the force, or possibly the DP?

[fathom]

As I've said now about 6 times, it's not just the bunt. A bunt is just one of several slow rolling soft type hits that could happen, and if it did and the IF is playing back, game over.

 

I agree that we should have had the corners in, and that would take away the threat of the bunt. If the ball was hit so slowly that we couldn't turn two on a very slow runner, who's to say we would have gotten the force out at home? There's a lot of things that can happen though, and it's too bad we had to lose. Jermaine Dye is quickly shooting up the ranks as one of my favorite Sox players of all time.