Why Did We Pull MB last night?

[qwerty]

Yeah, pretty much. Lots of silly Monday Morning Quarterbacking going on here.

 

Pulling MB after 99 pitches was the right move. It's mid-April, he's still building arm strength, and he has a gazillion innings of wear and tear on that arm to begin with.

 

You don't leave your starting pitcher in there just because your closer gives up too many extra-base hits in save situations, or because your left fielder can't catch. You also don't blame your manager for lack of player execution.

 

Was sending jackson back out there for the 8th inning the right choice when he was right around 100 pitches with a 5 run lead? Jackson ended up with 119 thrown. Seems like there was no reason for him to go out for the 8th.

[Soxbadger]

Jackson's younger and not under contract next year, so if we ruin his arm... (j/k kind of)

 

I just think that the Sox are worried about Mark and potentially fatigue over the season. It stings to lose that game, but at this point its the past and me move on.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Go ahead and flame me all you like, I am just telling you like it is. I also got flamed for being the only one on this board who said MT doesn't have what it takes to close and the quicker we realize that the better off we'll be.

 

First of all don't break your arm for patting yourself on the back. You were far from the only one who said that. As a matter of a fact all you have to do is look at the bumped closer thread to see that only 30 out of 104 votes were even for Matt as closer.

 

NOTE:

 

I said this after BS # 1.

 

And I got flamed. Which one of you guys that flamed me is going to man up and realize that it appears, unfortunately, I was right?

 

I'm actually one of the guys on this board that really likes Ozzie as a manager, I just think his decisions cost us at least 5-7 games a year, and last night WAS DEFINITELY ONE OF THEM.

 

NOTE: Every team blows games like and has a fan base that thinks their manager is an idiot. They also remember the games that are lost, and forget about the ones that we steal. All though I admire all of the internet street cred you apprently have stored up for being right so often...

 

And if we lose to Minny by 3 games again this year or whatever, I won't forget last nights game in September like most everyone else will. Every game counts and we cannot afford to just throw them in the trash by making stupid choices in the 9th. Putting MT was a HORRIBLE decision. DEAL WITH IT.

 

But if you want to stick your head in the sand and blame the loss SOLELY on JP, go ahead. Your choice.

 

Yes everyone will probably blame this game for the season's end if we don't win, and that won't surprise me at all. In fact I would expect it. It doesn't really make it right either.

 

Trust me if the Twins lose this by three games, their fans will pick out the three games that "Gardy gave away" and blame him too. It doesn't make them right either.

[Steve9347]

I will say, this whole idea of babying Mark Buehrle that I've heard tossed around the past 12 hours has been unsettling. The guy is one of our top paid players, he has a rubber arm, and he can throw more than 97 pitches.

[greg775]

I have yet to see a fanbase that wasn't smarter than their manager...

 

Amen.

Name a manager/coach that doesn't get second guessed when their team loses.

It's always been this way; always will be. Some fans feel better criticizing all the manger's moves that fail just as many fans always call for the second-team quarterback to enter the game until he finally does for a few games and he sucks as bad as the starter.

 

I do think Mark should have been given the opportunity to finish the shutout, though.

Saving him for the rest of the season/career is stupid. You can't predict the future.

 

Let him start the ninth inning, though i tell you if he imploded in the ninth, the fans would have been just as mad at Ozzie for not pulling him.

Edited April 12, 2011 by greg775

[Greg Hibbard]

Can someone please tell me why they brought in thornton to face two righties instead of a righty.

[greg775]

Go ahead and flame me all you like, I am just telling you like it is. I also got flamed for being the only one on this board who said MT doesn't have what it takes to close and the quicker we realize that the better off we'll be.

 

Only one on the board? I voted for MT as closer but many many people didn't.

[greg775]

Can someone please tell me why they brought in thornton to face two righties instead of a righty.

 

This is the problem I have with lefty closers. Righties lick their chops. I voted Matt for closer though just because last year at times he was so nasty and I felt he deserved the chance first.

Now I want closer by committee all the way. Sergio first up.

[qwerty]

Can someone please tell me why they brought in thornton to face two righties instead of a righty.

 

 

This is the problem I have with lefty closers. Righties lick their chops. I voted Matt for closer though just because last year at times he was so nasty and I felt he deserved the chance first.

Now I want closer by committee all the way. Sergio first up.

 

 

 

Thornton has murdered right handed hitters three consecutive seasons.

[Greg Hibbard]

Thornton has murdered right handed hitters three consecutive seasons.

 

Yes, he has still a good BAA, but in each of those three seasons Thornton's average against righties is significantly higher than lefties.

 

Given that he's having problems in general this year, wouldn't it stand to reason that a right hander is more likely to have subsequent success?

 

Ozzie is Mr. Right/Right and Left/Left, which is why last night made even less sense.

[WCSox]

Was sending jackson back out there for the 8th inning the right choice when he was right around 100 pitches with a 5 run lead? Jackson ended up with 119 thrown. Seems like there was no reason for him to go out for the 8th.

 

Jackson was pitching the day after back-to-back 12-inning games. The decision to leave him in was about giving the bullpen a badly-needed rest.

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

Mark's FB tops out at 85 MPH. His cutter has changeup-like velocity. Ozzie is full of it if he's claiming to be "saving" Mark this f***ing early in the season. No disrespect to anybody in particular, but I get the feeling Ozzie or Kenny could convince some of you that you have a twin growing out of your ass if they really wanted to. I don't have a problem with Ozzie pulling Mark (though I did disagree with it at the time). But the reasoning is insulting.

[WCSox]

Mark's FB tops out at 85 MPH. His cutter has changeup-like velocity. Ozzie is full of it if he's claiming to be "saving" Mark this f***ing early in the season. No disrespect to anybody in particular, but I get the feeling Ozzie or Kenny could convince some of you that you have a twin growing out of your ass if they really wanted to. I don't have a problem with Ozzie pulling Mark (though I did disagree with it at the time). But the reasoning is insulting.

 

It used to top out at 91, and the decline has to with the number of innings he's pitched.

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

It used to top out at 91, and the decline has to with the number of innings he's pitched.

 

If we have to treat a soft-tosser like Mark with kid gloves from here on out then I don't want him back next year. That's just me.

[Rowand44]

It used to top out at 91, and the decline has to with the number of innings he's pitched.

He hasn't been touching 91 for a long, long time now. And he's been more or less hitting 87 this year, he's freakin fine. I kind of agree with J4L, I wasn't in an uproar when we pulled Mark but I certainly disagreed with it. Either way, the defense in the end is what once again let us down(though Matt looked awful last night).

[WCSox]

If we have to treat a soft-tosser like Mark with kid gloves from here on out then I don't want him back next year. That's just me.

 

I don't consider pulling a starter after 99 pitches treating him "with kid gloves." Considering that very few managers let their starters go more than 115 or 120 pitches, 99 is still an appreciable amount. Unless the entire bullpen was sucking wind (like in Jackson's case), pulling him at that point seems pretty reasonable.

 

In addition, I think that last night's decision had a lot to do with Ozzie testing Thornton. For all I know, it could've been the main reason.

 

[JohnCangelosi]

First of all don't break your arm for patting yourself on the back. You were far from the only one who said that. As a matter of a fact all you have to do is look at the bumped closer thread to see that only 30 out of 104 votes were even for Matt as closer.

I was talking about my statement that MT doesn't have what it takes to close. That's what I was flamed about. I was NOT talking about WHO we "wanted" as a closer.

 

BIG difference. A lot of people just wanted MT to continue in his setup role not to mention Sale did quite fine last year during his short stint with the job. So this HARDLY means that people didn't think MT couldn't close.

 

People on the board are questioning his makeup now, but I got flamed for questioning his makeup for the role after the first blown save, because I actually questioned it last year when he was filling in for Bobby. To me even last year he didn't seem right to me in the 9th with the lead.

 

But I don't expect you to understand the subtle yet large difference between the two. Just continue to support Ozzie no matter what decision he makes, because at the end of the day it's all on the players. If Ozzie decides Konerko should play center field, then PK should do it and do it well. If he cannot it's on PK, not Ozzie, right?

 

 

[Jordan4life_2007]

I don't consider pulling a starter after 99 pitches treating him "with kid gloves." Considering that very few managers let their starters go more than 115 or 120 pitches, 99 is still an appreciable amount. Unless the entire bullpen was sucking wind (like in Jackson's case), pulling him at that point seems pretty reasonable.

 

In addition, I think that last night's decision had a lot to do with Ozzie testing Thornton. For all I know, it could've been the main reason.

 

And I'm totally fine with that. If Ozzie had said this I wouldn't have a problem at all. But saving Mark on April 11th? Not buying it.

[WCSox]

And I'm totally fine with that. If Ozzie had said this I wouldn't have a problem at all. But saving Mark on April 11th? Not buying it.

 

IIRC, arms tend to not always be fully-conditioned at this point in the season. I can't speak about Mark's specifically, but I could understand why a manager wouldn't want a guy throwing 130 pitches in early/mid-April after maybe one or two 6+ inning starts in ST.

 

[Balta1701]

He hasn't been touching 91 for a long, long time now. And he's been more or less hitting 87 this year, he's freakin fine. I kind of agree with J4L, I wasn't in an uproar when we pulled Mark but I certainly disagreed with it. Either way, the defense in the end is what once again let us down(though Matt looked awful last night).

Mark's average fastball from Pitch F/X

2007 86.9

2008 86.7

2009 85.6

2010 86.1

2011 85.2

 

His fastball has maybe...maybe changed by 1 mph the last 5 years. He's a bit low now, but it's also the start of the season.

[southsider2k5]

I was talking about my statement that MT doesn't have what it takes to close. That's what I was flamed about. I was NOT talking about WHO we "wanted" as a closer.

 

BIG difference. A lot of people just wanted MT to continue in his setup role not to mention Sale did quite fine last year during his short stint with the job. So this HARDLY means that people didn't think MT couldn't close.

 

People on the board are questioning his makeup now, but I got flamed for questioning his makeup for the role after the first blown save, because I actually questioned it last year when he was filling in for Bobby. To me even last year he didn't seem right to me in the 9th with the lead.

 

But I don't expect you to understand the subtle yet large difference between the two. Just continue to support Ozzie no matter what decision he makes, because at the end of the day it's all on the players. If Ozzie decides Konerko should play center field, then PK should do it and do it well. If he cannot it's on PK, not Ozzie, right?

 

Trust me when I say you were alone there either. There were plenty of "The 8th is different than the 9th posts" over this winter. But feel free to continue playing the victim card Al Sharpton.

[qwerty]

Jackson was pitching the day after back-to-back 12-inning games. The decision to leave him in was about giving the bullpen a badly-needed rest.

 

I made note of this in another thread. Pena would have had more than enough rest to go at least one, if not two innings. Even if he couldn't go two... crain would have been more than capable of going one inning after his 1.1 innings the day prior... as the day before that was an off day. So how i see it, there was no valid reason for jackson to go back out there at that point, it certainly was not because the entire bullpen needed rest.

 

IIRC, arms tend to not always be fully-conditioned at this point in the season. I can't speak about Mark's specifically, but I could understand why a manager wouldn't want a guy throwing 130 pitches in early/mid-April after maybe one or two 6+ inning starts in ST.

 

Who is this imaginary guy potentially throwing 130 pitches? Can't be buehrle. Well it could, but for him to toss 30+ pitches up there in one inning likely means he would have given up several runs before departing.

Edited April 12, 2011 by qwerty

[kitekrazy]

Decision was made in the off season that MB would be under lower pitch counts than in years past, even if he's coasting after 95+ pitches/8 innings. As the innings continue to pile on over the years, Buehrle's running out of gas earlier and earlier in the season...and if this team is going to contend in the playoffs, or even get into the playoffs, we need Buehrle to have some gas left during the stretch run.

 

Call me crazy, but despite Buehrle coasting, a closer should be able to close out a 1-0 game against one of the worst offenses in the game. If we can't trust Thornton now, we can't trust him later while he "works out his problems" and games become increasingly important. Which also leads me to this: Everyone here just assumes he will work out his problems based on previous seasons. However, this isn't previous seasons...it's 2011. We may have to consider that Thornton won't come out of this, especially when placed in closer situations game after game.

 

Also, it's funny to listen to Sox fans talk about how Ozzie is such a bad tactical manager. I've heard, on repeated occasions, from other teams fans and announcers and radio personalities that they'd LOVE to have Ozzie as their teams manager. While I understand many here at Soxtalk would love to see him fired, the fact is he'd have another managerial job with another major league team tomorrow.

 

Great post.

 

[Milkman delivers]

He hasn't been touching 91 for a long, long time now. And he's been more or less hitting 87 this year, he's freakin fine. I kind of agree with J4L, I wasn't in an uproar when we pulled Mark but I certainly disagreed with it. Either way, the defense in the end is what once again let us down(though Matt looked awful last night).

 

Ugh, I hate when people place all of the blame on one person when multiple people were at fault. The defense AND Thornton let us down last night.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Ugh, I hate when people place all of the blame on one person when multiple people were at fault. The defense AND Thornton let us down last night.

 

Matt's at fault. But I'm a lot more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's been so good for so long that I think we take it for granted. JP? No comment. If he's not going to catch the damn ball he has next to no worth. I dismissed what happened in the Tampa game as a fluke. But again? Unacceptable.