AGon discussion, et. al.

[scenario]

Interesting to see two sides of the Linebrink vs. other reliever options argument talked out.

 

Honestly... I can't fault the Sox for sticking with Linebrink over someone from the minors.

 

1. No reliever in the minors was doing well enough to earn an MLB promotion. (As Chisoxfn pointed out the two likely suspects Link and Nunez both were dealing with control issues.)

 

2. Linebrink's meltdown was progressive. He did relatively well early... and struggled more and more as the season went on. Much tougher to pull the trigger on a vet in that situation, because its so 'easy' to fall into the trap of giving him one more outing to see if he gets back on track.

 

3. The player who looked the most MLB ready control-wise was Carlos Torres and we see how that played out.

 

4. They weren't going to call up Hudson and convert him to a reliever mid-season.

 

Basically what we saw was a management team (majors and minors) who felt that what we had in the high minors was not better than what we already had in Chicago.

 

So, we traded for Tony Pena to give us another experienced option and he struggled too.

 

Tough situation... but not one IMO that demonstrates a lack of judgment by WhiteSox management.

Edited November 28, 2009 by scenario

[Melissa1334]

Let me add that an "outsider" is not going to change the sport by saying, "here's a new idea: if you want to have a better chance of winning, you should try replacing your well-paid, contractually-bound, historically-productive, yet currently-struggling players with minor league players because it can't hurt." Unless I'm reading this wrong, this is essentially your idea, Shack.

 

A team will never buy into that approach until it is proven that going with the unproven minor leaguer works better than going with a veteran who has a recent, good resume or until the pay structure in baseball changes.

yea,its not that the teams are that dumb. but money simply is a huge factor. soriano was awful last yr and has lots of moments that he is. the cubs wont consider replacing him with a minor leaguer because ur simply not going to sit a guy making that much money

[Quin]

Who wants the horrific task of summarizing the Shack-Rongey debate?

 

My god, I think I understood it...but so much text...

[Ranger]

How would you classify Theo Epstein and Josh Byrnes then Ranger?

 

Epstein went to college, worked for the school paper, got a PR job on an MLB club and worked his way up.

 

Byrnes went to school, got an MLB internship and worked his way up.

 

Neither of these guys are "baseball men", nor are they former players.

 

Would you classify them as fans who got a break?

 

 

No, I think you're missing the point. What you're talking about is true of half of the executives in the history of the game of baseball. This type of thing is different than what James did because they didn't change anything from the outside. They became the establishment from working their way up from the inside through proper channels. They interned within the game and learned that way. They aren't revolutionary figures, they just happen to be good at their jobs (Epstein is for sure). In keeping with the current discussion here, they still operate the way other GM's operate as far waiting on stuggling veterans before calling up minor leaguers. Unless, of course, they have a minor leaguer like Ellsbury waiting to arrive or unless they're able to make a trade.

[iamshack]

Speaking of "wow."

 

I did not say that fans can't have an opinion. But, I don't believe that you and I or anyone else that watches the game have thought of something that people who do this for a living have not already considered. We aren't going to revolutionize baseball and how personnel is handled.

I would say that, yes, if a certain way of handling players is how just about every franchise in the game does it, then it likely that it is the best way. And I don't believe that the Sox failed to bench Linebrink and call up a minor leaguer simply because they didn't think of it. They OBVIOUSLY thought of it, but realized there were too many reasons they could/should NOT do that.

 

I'm guessing that you're referring to the likes of Bill James in your assertion the MLB has hired "intelligent people" to help re-think how things are done. But what you're talking about is statistical analysis of players with track records. A different way to crunch numbers. These are really the only sort of "ordinary people" that have found their way into MLB that have any affect on personnel decisions. A statistician may find a new formula that better helps indicate a player's worth, but no amount of statistics is going to be able to predict when a minor league pitcher is ready for the show, ready to handle the pressure and the change of being promoted, and is going to give you better than what you already have on the roster. This sort of knowledge comes from being able to interact with that minor leaguer on a daily basis.

 

At any rate, the intention of the newer statistics is to reduce uncertainty. Only logic would tell you that there is less uncertainty with a healthy, veteran pitcher that has real, recent success at the major league level (despite current struggles) than there is with a completely unproven minor-leaguer that may or may not be ready to pitch at the major league level. You're operating under the assumption that it could not hurt, when yes, it most definitely could.

 

It's almost beside the point anyway, since teams operate this way because patience works and because they have to. Track record wins out for a reason, Shack.

I like this response a lot better, Mr. Rongey.

I agree with you for the most part about Ozzie, KW, and the rest of the organization being competent, extremely intelligent people who run the Organization and our team very well. I am very happy and content with them in the decision-making roles. Additionally you'll find that if you spend more time here, that I am very supportive of both KW and Ozzie and almost always take the position that they are far more competent to understand the complex workings of the industry and the game than I, or any other fan of the team is. I completely understand they have spent their entire lives in this game, and then this industry, and they have experience and knowledge that I could never imagine having without that same career upbringing.

 

That being said, that does not make them infallible. Ozzie makes all sorts of decisions that are incorrect and idiotic, whether that be in-game decisions or personnel decisions. Does that make him an idiot or a bad manager? No. What you're looking at is the entire body of work, including his in-game decisions, his personnel decisions, and how he manages/massages the egos and temperaments of the 26 guys in that clubhouse. I happen to think he does a pretty darn good job of doing that.

 

Does that mean I have to agree with every one of his decisions? I certainly hope not. Does that mean that every decision he has made over the course of his six years of managing this ballclub have been correct? I highly doubt it. Even Ozzie admits that he listens and reads the suggestions of fans on the radio and in his email. He claims he has even made lineup changes at the advice of fans before. Now obviously I understand he is playing with the fans a bit here, but the point he is trying to make is that Ozzie goes by his gut a lot. He makes decisions based on what he feels is right. I can live with that. But it doesn't mean he never should have handled something differently, does it?

 

As for the Bill James thing you mention, I'd like to make one quick point here. The reason that the statistical-oriented guys were accepted into the business first is because they had statistics and studies to point to that could not easily be refuted. They eventually HAD to be accepted. As soon as one team took the chance, and showed positive results, others would follow. And they followed because the stakes are too great not to.

 

What will come next are other ideologies and philosophies. Baseball had reached a level where so many people were doing things "because this is the way it has always been done in the game of baseball," that there were no fresh new ideas. The industry was stale. Now the door has opened to accept new ideologies and new philosophies. The statistical analysis is what opened it up, but now other ideas will follow.

 

 

[Ranger]

yea,its not that the teams are that dumb. but money simply is a huge factor. soriano was awful last yr and has lots of moments that he is. the cubs wont consider replacing him with a minor leaguer because ur simply not going to sit a guy making that much money

 

 

This is another good example. The contract is obviously a massive part of it, but there is also a lot of "track record" at play here. As imperfect of a player Soriano is, they KNOW what he's capable of despite a bad year. They know he's capable of a rebound at any time (just as has happened with thousands of veteran players throughout the history of baseball). They know what he can do when he's playing to his ability. They know the only uncertainty lies within whether or not he'll get back to form. Whereas, if they bring up someone else to replace him, there are TWO uncertainties they have to deal with:

 

1)Will he play to his ability? and

2)If he DOES play to his potential, will it even be better than what Soriano gives us?

 

And until a some future executive is an actual clairvoyant, they will never be able to change that dominant philosophy of the game.

[iamshack]

This is another good example. The contract is obviously a massive part of it, but there is also a lot of "track record" at play here. As imperfect of a player Soriano is, they KNOW what he's capable of despite a bad year. They know he's capable of a rebound at any time (just as has happened with thousands of veteran players throughout the history of baseball). They know what he can do when he's playing to his ability. They know the only uncertainty lies within whether or not he'll get back to form. Whereas, if they bring up someone else to replace him, there are TWO uncertainties they have to deal with:

 

1)Will he play to his ability? and

2)If he DOES play to his potential, will it even be better than what Soriano gives us?

 

And until a some future executive is an actual clairvoyant, they will never be able to change that dominant philosophy of the game.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa.

This is not a good example. Every example of a player who has a lot of $ remaining on his contract, but sucks, is not necessarily a good example.

You're talking about a guy who has $90 million left on his contract. If he isn't productive in some way the Cubs will be limited in their attempt to put a competitive team on the field.

Scott Linebrink has $10.5 million remaining on his contract.

Alfonso Soriano was once one of the best overall players in baseball. Scott Linebrink was once one of the better setup men in baseball.

This is apples and oranges, not comparable in any way other than that they have both managed to massively suck as of late.

[Ranger]

I like this response a lot better, Mr. Rongey.

I agree with you for the most part about Ozzie, KW, and the rest of the organization being competent, extremely intelligent people who run the Organization and our team very well. I am very happy and content with them in the decision-making roles. Additionally you'll find that if you spend more time here, that I am very supportive of both KW and Ozzie and almost always take the position that they are far more competent to understand the complex workings of the industry and the game than I, or any other fan of the team is. I completely understand they have spent their entire lives in this game, and then this industry, and they have experience and knowledge that I could never imagine having without that same career upbringing.

 

That being said, that does not make them infallible. Ozzie makes all sorts of decisions that are incorrect and idiotic, whether that be in-game decisions or personnel decisions. Does that make him an idiot or a bad manager? No. What you're looking at is the entire body of work, including his in-game decisions, his personnel decisions, and how he manages/massages the egos and temperaments of the 26 guys in that clubhouse. I happen to think he does a pretty darn good job of doing that.

 

Does that mean I have to agree with every one of his decisions? I certainly hope not. Does that mean that every decision he has made over the course of his six years of managing this ballclub have been correct? I highly doubt it. Even Ozzie admits that he listens and reads the suggestions of fans on the radio and in his email. He claims he has even made lineup changes at the advice of fans before. Now obviously I understand he is playing with the fans a bit here, but the point he is trying to make is that Ozzie goes by his gut a lot. He makes decisions based on what he feels is right. I can live with that. But it doesn't mean he never should have handled something differently, does it?

 

As for the Bill James thing you mention, I'd like to make one quick point here. The reason that the statistical-oriented guys were accepted into the business first is because they had statistics and studies to point to that could not easily be refuted. They eventually HAD to be accepted. As soon as one team took the chance, and showed positive results, others would follow. And they followed because the stakes are too great not to.

 

What will come next are other ideologies and philosophies. Baseball had reached a level where so many people were doing things "because this is the way it has always been done in the game of baseball," that there were no fresh new ideas. The industry was stale. Now the door has opened to accept new ideologies and new philosophies. The statistical analysis is what opened it up, but now other ideas will follow.

 

 

Of course he, and they, are not infallible. They will make mistakes, and they do. But there are traditional philosphies that will be put into practice because, well, they work. They have the higher probability of maximum success than anything else that can be tried. I don't think his philosophy of allowing a veteran to make a turnaround will ever be tossed aside. The only way that might happen is if MLB is contracted to half the teams (thus concentrating the product and creating more, better options for every team at every position) or if the pay structure completely changes. And even if the latter happens without the former, I still think things stay the way they are.

[iamshack]

Of course he, and they, are not infallible. They will make mistakes, and they do. But there are traditional philosphies that will be put into practice because, well, they work. They have the higher probability of maximum success than anything else that can be tried. I don't think his philosophy of allowing a veteran to make a turnaround will ever be tossed aside. The only way that might happen is if MLB is contracted to half the teams (thus concentrating the product and creating more, better options for every team at every position) or if the pay structure completely changes. And even if the latter happens without the former, I still think things stay the way they are.

Please don't mistake my argument for ever stating that Linebrink should not have been given a chance to rebound. I have never said that. In fact, I have mentioned again and again that I agree with the philosophy that the White Sox had a far better chance to win with an effective Scott Linebrink than without one.

 

What I am arguing is things reached a certain point in August where he was giving up huge innings in critical games where the idea should have been abandoned. We can say it is easy to say this looking back on it, but come on, every game he was either giving up runs or barely escaping giving up runs. And he certainly didn't appear to be stranding inherited runners either. At that point, when you have seen this song and dance over and over and over, anything different would have been better.

 

I am not arguing that someone different should have been put into the role for the sake of them being different. I am arguing that the performances Linebrink was compiling could have literally been bettered by anyone different that we allowed to pitch in his stead. It's not an argument of "I just want to see someone different because I hate Scott Linebrink." It's an argument of "This guy was so incredibly bad that the sheer odds suggest we could have blindly chosen another professional ballplayer and he would have performed better."

 

But that is where we disagree, and I am willing to leave it at that.

[Ranger]

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa.

This is not a good example. Every example of a player who has a lot of $ remaining on his contract, but sucks, is not necessarily a good example.

You're talking about a guy who has $90 million left on his contract. If he isn't productive in some way the Cubs will be limited in their attempt to put a competitive team on the field.

Scott Linebrink has $10.5 million remaining on his contract.

Alfonso Soriano was once one of the best overall players in baseball. Scott Linebrink was once one of the better setup men in baseball.

This is apples and oranges, not comparable in any way other than that they have both managed to massively suck as of late.

 

 

Trust me, I'm fully aware of the differences in the two deals, though Linebrink does have a considerable contract for a relief pitcher. Obviously, the contract is different for Soriano and is the greatest factor, but there is track record involved here as well. Soriano can be, and has been, a productive offensive player.

 

It isn't the best example but it to better illustrate what I'm getting at, I should probably say that were Soriano's contract to expire and he were available, he would still get an opportunity somewhere because of his history of success. It wouldn't be nearly as big of a contract, but the philosphy still applies that a player with a track record would get the chance over a minor league player from a team that has the money.

[iamshack]

Trust me, I'm fully aware of the differences in the two deals, though Linebrink does have a considerable contract for a relief pitcher. Obviously, the contract is different for Soriano and is the greatest factor, but there is track record involved here as well. Soriano can be, and has been, a productive offensive player.

 

It isn't the best example but it to better illustrate what I'm getting at, I should probably say that were Soriano's contract to expire and he were available, he would still get an opportunity somewhere because of his history of success. It wouldn't be nearly as big of a contract, but the philosphy still applies that a player with a track record would get the chance over a minor league player from a team that has the money.

I agree 100%.

Look, I support the signing of Andruw Jones! Doesn't that tell you where I stand here?

 

My issue has never been that veterans should never get a chance to rebound.

[Ranger]

Please don't mistake my argument for ever stating that Linebrink should not have been given a chance to rebound. I have never said that. In fact, I have mentioned again and again that I agree with the philosophy that the White Sox had a far better chance to win with an effective Scott Linebrink than without one.

 

What I am arguing is things reached a certain point in August where he was giving up huge innings in critical games where the idea should have been abandoned. We can say it is easy to say this looking back on it, but come on, every game he was either giving up runs or barely escaping giving up runs. And he certainly didn't appear to be stranding inherited runners either. At that point, when you have seen this song and dance over and over and over, anything different would have been better.

 

I am not arguing that someone different should have been put into the role for the sake of them being different. I am arguing that the performances Linebrink was compiling could have literally been bettered by anyone different that we allowed to pitch in his stead. It's not an argument of "I just want to see someone different because I hate Scott Linebrink." It's an argument of "This guy was so incredibly bad that the sheer odds suggest we could have blindly chosen another professional ballplayer and he would have performed better."

 

But that is where we disagree, and I am willing to leave it at that.

 

 

It is where we disagree because I think the potential reward by allowing him more time is greater than what Nunez (for example) could've given them at the time. Not to say at some point Nunez won't be a really good reliever, it's just that allowing Linebrink as much time as possible gave them a better chance at team success than would going with a minor-leaguer that probably isn't ready. It's nto that I think you hate Linebrink, it's that I think you believe it couldn't have gotten any worse with someone else. It could have. I also think they gave it the appropriate amount of time before they decided to use him in earlier innings.

[Ranger]

I agree 100%.

Look, I support the signing of Andruw Jones! Doesn't that tell you where I stand here?

 

My issue has never been that veterans should never get a chance to rebound.

 

We'll see what Jones does. He's not a difference-maker, but he's no-risk and potential good reward. It goes along with the belief that a veteran with a track record is a better option than, say, John Shelby. Or even Jordan Danks, though he is, at least, a VERY promising prospect. But he's probably just not ready.

[iamshack]

It is where we disagree because I think the potential reward by allowing him more time is greater than what Nunez (for example) could've given them at the time. Not to say at some point Nunez won't be a really good reliever, it's just that allowing Linebrink as much time as possible gave them a better chance at team success than would going with a minor-leaguer that probably isn't ready. It's nto that I think you hate Linebrink, it's that I think you believe it couldn't have gotten any worse with someone else. It could have. I also think they gave it the appropriate amount of time before they decided to use him in earlier innings.

Well obviously someone could have been worse. But Linebrink was so bad that someone being worse than he was would not have mattered. A loss still counts as one loss, regardless of whether you lose by 1 run or 5 runs. Linebrink devastated our chances so badly in many games that the chance of someone actually being worse than him was well-worth taking considering that person could also have been better.

 

One more point I would like to make is that "deciding" when a player is ready is an incredibly subjective thing. There have been legions of players that have been proclaimed ready, that went on to show everyone watching that they were not. There have also been legions of players that no one expected much of at all, who went on to show everyone that they indeed were very ready.

 

And it just so happens that the very profile of players we are discussing, often fall into that category. Many of these relievers were failed starters, guys that didn't particularly light it up in the minor leagues in any role, but were given a chance because, well honestly, there was no harm in giving them a chance. Often times it was by organizations that weren't competitive and had nothing to lose other than another game, but that has certainly not always been the case. Organizations that were indeed winning have given guys that they didn't expect much from a chance, and plenty of these players have turned into solid relievers.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Ranger, Shack...How 'bout an old fashioned steel caged death match to settle this debate? I'll ref.

[iamshack]

Ranger, Shack...How 'bout an old fashioned steel caged death match to settle this debate? I'll ref.

I'm perfectly happy with leaving the debate about Linebrink where it is. Mr. Rongey sees it one way, I see it another.

 

What I get frustrated about is the notion that because things have been done this way in the past, or are generally done this way currently, that there must exist no better way.

 

I consider myself to be a reasonable person, and so I will admit that things that are generally done a certain way are done so because success has been experienced from doing them that way. I do not expect, nor do I encourage, an atmosphere of chaos, where things are always being changed, merely for the sake of changing them.

 

One should never stop looking for new and better ways to do something, however. One should never stop exploring. And it isn't always easy to try something new, or to take the risk of failure. As Barack likes to say, "if it wasn't hard to do, it would have already been done before."

 

I also get frustrated with the idea that people not involved in the industry are not capable of coming up with any better ideas or thoughts than those within the industry.

 

Look at Belichick's recent decision to go for it on 4th down against the Colts a few weeks ago. Belichick had read studies which point out that statistically, a team would fare better by going for it on 4th down in certain situations than those that don't. He went for it on 4th down, as you all know, didn't get it, lost the game, and now the majority of the league is claiming he is an idiot. Coaches, players, tv commentators alike. That doesn't change the fact that the study still claims that a team will have a better chance to win if they go for it on certain 4th down situations. And yet, those same people don't make a big deal out of all the 4th downs he does go for (and makes), or all the other innovative things he does as a coach.

 

Well, that study came from a fan. Not a coach, but some fan, who happens to be really good with numbers. Bill Belichick, widely considered one of the best coaches in the league, is looking for and utilizing ideas that come from outside the industry of football. But we shouldn't consider them? Ozzie shouldn't? Kenny shouldn't?

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I started this whole argument by responding to Ranger's comments on some of the callers who would phone in to his show to b**** about Linebrink. I posted the stats a few pages back, and for the exception of about 5 innings or so from Nunez, everyone on the team was better than Linebrink in the second half. To assume there was no one who would have performed better than Linebrink is a massive assumption considering how bad Linebrink was.

 

I've seen others comment on Linebrink's past success as well as his stuff as reasons to keep going to him over someone else on the farm. I'll respond by again pointing out that 1) Linebrink has had a terrible second half in each of the last 4 seasons, so for past success you really do have to go back pretty far, and 2) Linebrink's "stuff" doesn't mean jack if he can't use it properly. For example, why were Aardsma, MacDougal, Sisco, and Masset sent down in '07? We called up Ehren Wassermann that year, who in comparison has pretty much nothing as far as stuff, and yet Ehren performed extremely well. Ryan Bukvich, who also had much lesser stuff, came up in '07 as well and pitched a hell of a lot better than the other guys he was replacing. DJ Carrasco is yet another example of the "stuff" argument not always panning out. DJ has been one the most important pieces to our bullpen the last two seasons, possibly THE most important piece given the amount of innings he's taken off the arms in the back of the pen, and yet Carrasco will be the guy with the weakest stuff on the entire 2010 pitching staff. Carlos Torres is another one. Torres has pretty much nothing to work with at all, and yet he still was a much better pitcher in the second half than Linebrink was. At least Torres tries to mix it up and work to both sides of the plate rather than the "fastball right down the chute" style Linebrink uses.

 

My whole point was that Ranger's arguments for running Linebrink out there were terrible arguments that can be easily refuted with statistics. The only reason the Sox ran Linebrink out there was because of the vast amount of money owed to him, and possibly, if you want to dig that far, because the Sox wanted him to help Peavy with his transition. Therefore it is a complete dick move for Ranger to laugh at the callers who voiced their displeasure on his show, because the callers were making valid points, and they had valid reasons for their complaints. And as I said before, if you don't want to blame it on the contract over the radio, then at least don't come here and start that s*** again because you're going to get an actual baseball argument in return. Ranger can make some points, and most of the time he does and he is easy to agree with, but he still can be a snob to a lot of his callers for no reason. It's one thing to rip on someone for saying something completely irrational, but you should at least look at the numbers first, because Linebrink really was that bad. Literally *anyone* else in our pen could have done better, and when it comes to what we had on the farm, there were definitely other options, including no-risk candidates like Derek Rodriguez and Fernando Hernandez, who everyone knew would be left unprotected after the season ended anyway.

 

And again, I know Linebrink was out there because of his contract. That's the Sox decision, that's their money, their player, etc. But if you disagree with the Sox decision, you still have every right to b**** about it. Maybe b****ing about it is pointless and gets you nowhere (looking at the CF situation from 2006-09) but there's still a valid argument there.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I started this whole argument by responding to Ranger's comments on some of the callers who would phone in to his show to b**** about Linebrink. I posted the stats a few pages back, and for the exception of about 5 innings or so from Nunez, everyone on the team was better than Linebrink in the second half. To assume there was no one who would have performed better than Linebrink is a massive assumption considering how bad Linebrink was.

 

I've seen others comment on Linebrink's past success as well as his stuff as reasons to keep going to him over someone else on the farm. I'll respond by again pointing out that 1) Linebrink has had a terrible second half in each of the last 4 seasons, so for past success you really do have to go back pretty far, and 2) Linebrink's "stuff" doesn't mean jack if he can't use it properly. For example, why were Aardsma, MacDougal, Sisco, and Masset sent down in '07? We called up Ehren Wassermann that year, who in comparison has pretty much nothing as far as stuff, and yet Ehren performed extremely well. Ryan Bukvich, who also had much lesser stuff, came up in '07 as well and pitched a hell of a lot better than the other guys he was replacing. DJ Carrasco is yet another example of the "stuff" argument not always panning out. DJ has been one the most important pieces to our bullpen the last two seasons, possibly THE most important piece given the amount of innings he's taken off the arms in the back of the pen, and yet Carrasco will be the guy with the weakest stuff on the entire 2010 pitching staff. Carlos Torres is another one. Torres has pretty much nothing to work with at all, and yet he still was a much better pitcher in the second half than Linebrink was. At least Torres tries to mix it up and work to both sides of the plate rather than the "fastball right down the chute" style Linebrink uses.

 

My whole point was that Ranger's arguments for running Linebrink out there were terrible arguments that can be easily refuted with statistics. The only reason the Sox ran Linebrink out there was because of the vast amount of money owed to him, and possibly, if you want to dig that far, because the Sox wanted him to help Peavy with his transition. Therefore it is a complete dick move for Ranger to laugh at the callers who voiced their displeasure on his show, because the callers were making valid points, and they had valid reasons for their complaints. And as I said before, if you don't want to blame it on the contract over the radio, then at least don't come here and start that s*** again because you're going to get an actual baseball argument in return. Ranger can make some points, and most of the time he does and he is easy to agree with, but he still can be a snob to a lot of his callers for no reason. It's one thing to rip on someone for saying something completely irrational, but you should at least look at the numbers first, because Linebrink really was that bad. Literally *anyone* else in our pen could have done better, and when it comes to what we had on the farm, there were definitely other options, including no-risk candidates like Derek Rodriguez and Fernando Hernandez, who everyone knew would be left unprotected after the season ended anyway.

 

And again, I know Linebrink was out there because of his contract. That's the Sox decision, that's their money, their player, etc. But if you disagree with the Sox decision, you still have every right to b**** about it. Maybe b****ing about it is pointless and gets you nowhere (looking at the CF situation from 2006-09) but there's still a valid argument there.

 

Let me ask you this...during the second half of 2006, you know, when Mark Buehrle was getting lit up like a Christmas tree, were you pining for the Sox to bring up any random minor leaguer simply because "well, he can't be any worse than Mark right now"? And your 2007 reference is kinda corny. First of all, we were out of it well before the all-star break. So it's a lot easier to throw some minor league crap (which Wasserman and Bukvich were) out there and seeing what happens. Second, none of the guys that were sent down that year had anywhere near the proven track record Linebrink has (even with the second half fades). And you can't even call 2008 a fade. It wasn't until he got hurt and then came back that he struggled. Which wasn't all that surprising. Third, and this goes for Shack as well, where are the names of these guys the Sox should've called up? Just any random pitcher? No matter who? Last I checked, we weren't exactly s***tin' out quality prospects, relief or any other kind for that matter. I can only speak for myself, but I don't want to see Jon Link or Fernando Hernandez in critical situations in which we're legitimately fighting to get into the playoffs. But that's just me.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Jordan4life

[scenario]

Just to make sure we're keeping the record straight here...

 

He had a total of 57 appearances.

 

After his first 38 appearances (through July 31st), Linebrink had a 2.48 ERA.

 

And the Sox were 26-12 in games that he pitched.

 

After appearance #43, on August 15th, he had a 2.98 ERA.

 

Pull the plug and replace him with a minor leaguer yet? Nyet.

 

It was in late August and September when he fell apart (over his final 14 appearances).

 

Yes, he struggled from then on out, but when a veteran pitcher gets through 75% of his performances in a season with a sub-3.00 ERA, and then starts struggling... it's got to be extremely difficult for a manager/GM to think the pitcher can't turn it around the next time out.

 

So when exactly do you pull the plug and say some minor leaguer with zero MLB experience is a better option?

Edited November 29, 2009 by scenario

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Let me ask you this...during the second half of 2006, you know, when Mark Buehrle was getting lit up like a Christmas tree, were you pining for the Sox to bring up any random minor leaguer simply because "well, he can't be any worse than Mark right now." And your 2007 reference is kinda corny. First of all, we were out of it well before the all-star break. So it's a lot easier to throw some minor league crap (which Wasserman and Bukvich were) out there and seeing what happens. Second, none of the guys that were sent down that year had anywhere near the proven track record Linebrink has (even with the second half fades). And you can't even call 2008 a fade. It wasn't until he got hurt and then came back that he struggled. Which wasn't all that surprising. Third, and this goes for Shack as well, where are the names of these guys the Sox should've called up? Just any random pitcher? No matter who? Last I checked, we weren't exactly s***tin' out quality prospects, relief or any other kind for that matter.

Go compare Mark's 2nd half in 2006 with Linebrink's second halves over the last few years and then get back to me.

 

No, my 2007 reference was not kind of corny. Compare Linebrink's second half last year with those other players I mentioned.

 

So wait, it's easier to send down s***ty relievers when we're NOT contending? That doesn't make any sense. One would think that an organization would have less patience when they're trying to win ballgames.

 

Proven track record for Linebrink - I already responded to that a bunch in this thread. Linebrink hasn't had a good second half since 2005. Sure he has a proven track record if you want to go back 4 years to find the last time he had one.

 

There were all kinds of options for all kinds of reasons. Santeliz, Harrell, and Link were already on the roster. Hernandez and Rodriguez were two options that the Sox would have had to add, but that the Sox wouldn't have minded cutting. There are always guys in other organizations and on the waiver wire. It's impossible to go back and see just all of what was out there because there were probably scores of arms available by the Aug 31 waiver wire deadline. Not all of them would have been better than Linebrink, probably not even half of them since we're considering all kinds of reclamation projects and so forth, but there were options out there. In-house or otherwise, the Sox could have at least made it know that Linebrink's performance wasn't acceptable and tried someone else.

 

The point is, there is no reason to believe we couldn't have put someone better in there. We probably wouldn't have found another Carrasco or Wassermann in 2007, and I doubt we would have gotten enough of a boost to take the division, but the ideas that 1) there was no one better, 2) the Sox shouldn't be questioned over it, 3) bad contracts need MLB playing time, and 4) there was no reason to even TRY to replace Linebrink, all bother me.

[ptatc]

I'm perfectly happy with leaving the debate about Linebrink where it is. Mr. Rongey sees it one way, I see it another.

 

What I get frustrated about is the notion that because things have been done this way in the past, or are generally done this way currently, that there must exist no better way.

 

I consider myself to be a reasonable person, and so I will admit that things that are generally done a certain way are done so because success has been experienced from doing them that way. I do not expect, nor do I encourage, an atmosphere of chaos, where things are always being changed, merely for the sake of changing them.

 

One should never stop looking for new and better ways to do something, however. One should never stop exploring. And it isn't always easy to try something new, or to take the risk of failure. As Barack likes to say, "if it wasn't hard to do, it would have already been done before."

 

I also get frustrated with the idea that people not involved in the industry are not capable of coming up with any better ideas or thoughts than those within the industry.

 

Look at Belichick's recent decision to go for it on 4th down against the Colts a few weeks ago. Belichick had read studies which point out that statistically, a team would fare better by going for it on 4th down in certain situations than those that don't. He went for it on 4th down, as you all know, didn't get it, lost the game, and now the majority of the league is claiming he is an idiot. Coaches, players, tv commentators alike. That doesn't change the fact that the study still claims that a team will have a better chance to win if they go for it on certain 4th down situations. And yet, those same people don't make a big deal out of all the 4th downs he does go for (and makes), or all the other innovative things he does as a coach.

 

Well, that study came from a fan. Not a coach, but some fan, who happens to be really good with numbers. Bill Belichick, widely considered one of the best coaches in the league, is looking for and utilizing ideas that come from outside the industry of football. But we shouldn't consider them? Ozzie shouldn't? Kenny shouldn't?

 

I would disaagree with this to an extent. People watching a player everyday have a better idea of how this player will perform than someone who doesn't. You can see how he handles individual situation or how he reacts. This may be as important as his stats on determining if he is ready for a promotion. Thus, I would trust the managers and scouts to determine if someone is ready. Are they going to be right everytime, no. But they will have a better idea than people from the outside.

 

I've spent enough time working in the minors to see this process and the hands on evaluation seems to work. Of course you can question it because they aren't always going to be right but I would still trust the people that see them everyday.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Go compare Mark's 2nd half in 2006 with Linebrink's second halves over the last few years and then get back to me.

 

You either missed or ignored the point all together because it doesn't support your argument. Mark was so bad he brought back images of Jamie Navarro. By your logic, there just simply had to be somebody out there better. Somebody, anybody that could've out performed Mark. The hotdog guy? The beer guy? Just anybody.

 

No, my 2007 reference was not kind of corny. Compare Linebrink's second half last year with those other players I mentioned.

 

So wait, it's easier to send down s***ty relievers when we're NOT contending? That doesn't make any sense. One would think that an organization would have less patience when they're trying to win ballgames.

 

You brought up 2007 as some kinda barometer as in how can you call up no-name minor leaguers and get lucky from time to time. And yes, it's a lot easier to do that when your 10+ games out before the all-star break.

 

 

Proven track record for Linebrink - I already responded to that a bunch in this thread. Linebrink hasn't had a good second half since 2005. Sure he has a proven track record if you want to go back 4 years to find the last time he had one.

 

And even with that he's still far more proven than any of the scrubs that were sent down in 2007. That was my point.

 

There were all kinds of options for all kinds of reasons. Santeliz, Harrell, and Link were already on the roster. Hernandez and Rodriguez were two options that the Sox would have had to add, but that the Sox wouldn't have minded cutting. There are always guys in other organizations and on the waiver wire. It's impossible to go back and see just all of what was out there because there were probably scores of arms available by the Aug 31 waiver wire deadline. Not all of them would have been better than Linebrink, probably not even half of them since we're considering all kinds of reclamation projects and so forth, but there were options out there. In-house or otherwise, the Sox could have at least made it know that Linebrink's performance wasn't acceptable and tried someone else.

 

Of course there's options. I mean, every team has pitchers in their minor league system. Doesn't mean you call up crap to replace a struggling guy just to throw some s*** at the wall to see if you can get lucky. You replace a guy that's struggling because you legitimately think another guy can do the job. And I have no reason to believe there was anybody in the system they could've came up and performed, especially when we're battling two other teams for a playoff spot.

 

The point is, there is no reason to believe we couldn't have put someone better in there. We probably wouldn't have found another Carrasco or Wassermann in 2007, and I doubt we would have gotten enough of a boost to take the division, but the ideas that 1) there was no one better, 2) the Sox shouldn't be questioned over it, 3) bad contracts need MLB playing time, and 4) there was no reason to even TRY to replace Linebrink, all bother me.

 

Why do you keep saying this as if it's an undeniable fact? What do you know that Buddy Bell, Kenny Williams, Rick Hahn, ect, don't know? And there's nothing wrong with questioning or having an opinion. But you gotta come with something better than "well, there just HAD to be better options out there. I just KNOW it." Otherwise you're just b****ing just to b****.

 

[iamshack]

I would disaagree with this to an extent. People watching a player everyday have a better idea of how this player will perform than someone who doesn't. You can see how he handles individual situation or how he reacts. This may be as important as his stats on determining if he is ready for a promotion. Thus, I would trust the managers and scouts to determine if someone is ready. Are they going to be right everytime, no. But they will have a better idea than people from the outside.

 

I've spent enough time working in the minors to see this process and the hands on evaluation seems to work. Of course you can question it because they aren't always going to be right but I would still trust the people that see them everyday.

 

You're picking one sentence out of context and arguing it in a completely different manner in which I did.

 

Never did I say that someone outside of the organization somehow knows the personnel of the White Sox better than those that work for the White Sox.

 

If you think that's what I have been arguing this entire time, you've missed the whole point.

 

No disrespect intended, PTATC, I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree with you to a degree. We just happen to disagree from that degree onward.

[iamshack]

J4L,

It's really difficult to point out guys that we can say with any certainty would have done better, especially considering they really didn't give anyone else a chance. How can I point to someone who did statistically better when they weren't allowed to pitch in the first place? And you and others will argue that the reason they didn't pitch is because the Organization didn't believe they were ready. And that's where this becomes a circular argument and goes on and on and on...

 

I think what KHP and I are trying to say is that Linebrink reached a point in which it was no longer a question whether or not he would be bad. It was pretty much every time from mid-August onward that he was just terrible. At that point, yes, KHP and I are of the opinion that they should have gone with someone else, whether he was judged to be "ready" or not.

 

BUT, this argument has run its course and its pretty clear that we should all just let it go.

 

That being said, I think something else this conversation has spawned is the argument about whether players with large contracts should continue to play, or whether teams should cut their losses.

 

Additionally, I think another great debate that has come out of this is how much the game and industry of baseball has to learn from those that are not members of that industry.

 

I think those are positive debates which we can continue without this spiraling down into a big pile of crap and personal insults.

 

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Just to make sure we're keeping the record straight here...

 

He had a total of 57 appearances.

 

After his first 38 appearances (through July 31st), Linebrink had a 2.48 ERA.

 

And the Sox were 26-12 in games that he pitched.

 

After appearance #44, on August 15th, he had a 2.98 ERA.

 

Pull the plug and replace him with a minor leaguer yet? Nyet.

 

It was in late August and September when he fell apart (over his final 13 appearances).

 

Yes, he struggled from then on out, but when a veteran pitcher gets through 77% of his performances in a season with a sub-3.00 ERA, and then starts struggling... it's got to be extremely difficult for a manager/GM to think the pitcher can't turn it around the next time out.

 

So when do you pull the plug and say some minor leaguer with zero MLB experience is a better option?

I think it goes back further than that.

 

Here's July 17th until the end of the year. Bolded are the occasions he gave up runs. Italicized are the occasions either he or someone else bailed him out of poor outings. The rest are good outings. Notice how infrequent they are.

 

July 17 - 1 IP, 3 H, HR, 2 ER; comes in ahead 3, leaves ahead 1

July 18 - inherits 2 runners, faces one batter, gives up a hit, then is pulled and bailed out by someone else

July 20 - faces 3 batters, gets an out, gives up a hit and walk

July 24 - gets one out, gives up 2 hits, a walk, an earned run

July 27 - nice outing, scoreless, gives up nothing over 1 inning

July 31 - 1 IP, no runs, but gives up two hits and a walk in the inning, pitches around allowing 3 baserunners

Aug 2 - 1.2 IP, 2 H, 2 BB, ER, gets bailed out

Aug 9 - 1.1 IP, 3ER, 3H, 1BB, 1HR

Aug 10 - 1 IP, gives up nothing, first strong outing since July 27th

Aug 12 - 1 IP, only allows a walk, strong outing

Aug 15 - 1 IP, only gives up a hit, 3rd strong outing in a row

Aug 17 - 1 IP, 1 H, 2 BB, 1 HR, 3ER, comes in ahead by 3 and leaves with the game tied

Aug 23 - 1 IP gives up nothing, strong outing

Aug 25 - inherits based loaded bot. 7 of a tie game with 2 outs and gets out of it; then gives up 3 ER, 3H, HR and leaves with 2 outs in the 8th after blowing the game

Aug 28 - 1 IP, only one hit, strong outing

Aug 30 - 1.2 IP, 3 H, HR, 1 ER - inherits 3 base runners and lets them all score on top of his own handiwork

Sep 2 - 1 IP, 2 H, no runs, good outing

Sep 8 - 1 IP, 2 H, BB, ER

Sep 11 - 1 IP, 3 H, BB, 2 ER

Sep 16 - 1 IP, 1 H, no runs, strong outing

Sep 17 - 0.1 IP, HBP, 2 H, BB, 2 ER loses the game in extras

Sep 19 - 1.0 IP, 1 hit, strong outing

Sep 22 - 1.0 IP, gives up nothing, strong outing

Sep 26 - 0.2 IP, 5 H, 4 ER

 

I don't know when you pull the plug in hindsight, but by watching his appearances you could see early on that there were going to be problems. From July 12th and going back Linebrink only allowed 7 ER combined and only 5 times had allowed more than 2 baserunners in an inning. From July 17th and forward he gave up 22 ER and allowed more than 2 baserunners 11 times.