Rongey is My New Idol

[StrangeSox]

For the most part people include links in their posts, so we don't really have a problem with that. The things that can get Soxtalk into legal trouble, we do follow up on. The rest of it is definately different.

 

FWIW I'm pretty sure the copyright rules are broken here (and just about everywhere) frequently, you're only supposed to post a paragraph or two, not an entire article.

[Balta1701]

FWIW I'm pretty sure the copyright rules are broken here (and just about everywhere) frequently, you're only supposed to post a paragraph or two, not an entire article.

Most places won't care if you're not regularly posting the entire article...if that all you do they'll get annoyed...but the most important thing for them is a link, since the Google crawler will see the link and it'll push them upwards.

[StrangeSox]

Most places won't care if you're not regularly posting the entire article...if that all you do they'll get annoyed...but the most important thing for them is a link, since the Google crawler will see the link and it'll push them upwards.

 

I'm pretty sure it's still a violation of Fair Use and subject to copyright infringement, but it generally isn't worth prosecuting. I think you're only supposed to post the first and maybe second summary paragraphs, unedited, and with a link.

[Iwritecode]

I'm pretty sure it's still a violation of Fair Use and subject to copyright infringement, but it generally isn't worth prosecuting. I think you're only supposed to post the first and maybe second summary paragraphs, unedited, and with a link.

 

The rule there when I left was no posting of anything. Not even part of a sentence. Just a link.

[PeavyTime]

I love when people rip on WSI. Losers

[kitekrazy]

I love when people rip on WSI. Losers

 

Some of us are exiled and cannot return there.

 

[BigSqwert]

White Sox radio host Rongey arrested for threats against stupid callers

by Tim Baffoe

 

Chicago police believe they may have caught the man suspected of a recent rash of face-to-face death threats against White Sox fans. 670 The Score’s host Chris Rongey was taken into custody and charged Tuesday with criminal harassment of at least of seven people around the Chicagoland area, all of whom apparently are die-hard fans of the South Side baseball team.

 

“After detectives made the connection that all the victims were fans of the Sox, phone records from each victim showed that all had recently called the Mr. Rongey’s post-game radio station after a Sox game and just prior to the incidents,” said interim CPD Supt. Terry Hillard. “They put two and two together after that.”

 

Rongey is required to take calls on his White Sox pre- and post-game shows from inebriated fans who often lack a high school education.His quiet, burning frustration with most callers — particularly after a Sox loss — is widely known by his friends and coworkers since he started hosting. While the cordial Rongey has done his best to stay polite, the mounting annoyance of regularly dealing the Sox very dim base fan base finally made him crack.

 

“Few of us in the business envy him,” said Herb Lawrence, producer at The Score. “He has to deal with so many incredibly stupid people live on the air, particularly during a losing streak. I’m not saying he should have done what he did, but I understand.”

 

Since the Sox six-game losing streak began last week, Rongey had been taking a growing number of incensed calls from listeners suggesting a wide variety of hair-brained fixes for the team, which has struggled during the young season. He began hunting down callers at their homes, threatening to injure or even kill them next time they wasted his time with another moronic call.

 

Rongey was arrested outside the home of his latest would-be victim, Steve DiGiolo of Mt. Greenwood, around 11 p.m. Monday night as police waited in an unmarked car following DiGiolo’s call to The Score following the Sox shutout loss to Tampa Bay. DiGolo called the station to rant that the team, which averages five runs a game, should fire hitting coach Greg Walker. Upon arrest, Rongey reportedly could be heard mumbling “162 games. Why don’t they understand there are 162 games? I will make them understand.”

 

Like all of Rongey’s previous harassment victims, DiGiolo was passed out in a drunken stupor on his back porch at the time and was unharmed.

via

[knightni]

Well done.

 

http://m.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=101...150159822555679

 

 

via

 

You wuz... too late!

[103 mph screwball]

Hopefully his job will be easier if the Sox break the losing streak

[Balta1701]

Hopefully his job will be easier if the Sox break the losing streak

I don't think his job ever would get easier. I was never as on edge about baseball as I was towards the end of 2005. About the only year I truly didn't really care was in 2007.

[Ranger]

Fair enough, thanks for the candid response.

 

With that said, I was just curious who some of the other managers and GM's are that you think the most highly of...?

 

I'm not asking for the answer to "if something happened to Ozzie or KW, who should their replacement be?" as that's a slightly different question, and the White Sox have traditionally not showered huge amounts of money on "big name" managers or GM's, although if you're spending $128 million on payroll, there's really no reason to believe that might not change in the future, as well.

 

In particular, which GM's do you think are best at their job/s?

 

Since you're still a young guy, I'm sure you follow Esptein and Daniels (the GM with perhaps the most interesting pre-baseball background). Jack Z (I'm not going to attempt to spell his name without looking it up) with the Mariners had a ton of fans until the last couple of seasons for his approach. Chris Antonetti with the Indians is getting more and more attention as well after the Indians' hot start. Beane has to be part of the discussion too, for various polarizing reasons. And Andrew Freidman with the Rays, I'd guess.

 

How has the SABR/Roto/Ivy League generation influenced the way you follow baseball and its statistics/analysis?

 

By the way, I find it interesting that you didn't bring up Greg Walker. Of all the coaches, he's the one who has been most consistently under fire on Sox message boards and call-in shows, and yet Ozzie (and the rest of the coaching staff/F.O.) seems to really care for the guy, players like Konerko adore him...on the other hand, quite a few believe that a hitting coach is clearly less important than say, the pitching or bench coach. Why do you think Walker has been under 10X the amount of criticism that Don Cooper has been since 2006? Does Cooper get a lifetime pass after how well those 2005 and 2006 staffs (for the first four months, especially...and with the obvious exclusion of Javy) performed?

 

Overall, I'm a firm believer that people tend to make WAY too much of both GM's and coaching staffs. In general, I truly believe that unless the guys you have are totally incompetent, the results on the field will be dictated by the players. Now, you could say, "Yeah, but the GM obtains the players, so isn't he responsible?" Yes, but to an extent. GM's acquire players based on two things: 1)track record and/or 2) projection. Let's say a GM acquires a veteran player that has a track record of success, yet, for some reason, once acquired, he does nothing like he had done in previous seasons. Is that performance really on the GM? Something I think about often is the '06 team. Really, that team was a very good baseball team that was betrayed by a failing bullpen. Even with all their issues, they still won 90 games that year and I think would have been a dangerous playoff team. However, how was KW supposed to know that Pollitte and Cotts would be so terrible after being nearly unhittable the prior season? It's not like their performance lagged a bit. No, those guys were TOTALLY different the next year. Elite in 2005, awful in 2006. That degree of change doesn't usually happen like that from one year to the next.

 

I could really get into that and talk for an hour about it, but I don't feel like typing that much right now.

 

As far as the GM's. Daniels appears to be a good one. Antonelli, too, but he's still new. I like Friedman as well. The thing is, GMs around the league aren't working with the same parameters, so it's tough to tell. Like I said, unless they're completely incompetent (maybe Minaya), they're probably capable of doing the job.

 

Yes, Walker gets a lot of grief, and no, it isn't deserved. I still think many fans have yet to grasp the reality of what a hitting coach is actually supposed to do and what his real capabilities are. To be honest, a hitting coach isn't a miracle worker and there is only so much that can be done. It's a pretty well-known secret around baseball that firing a hitting coach due to lack of offensive performance is strictly a cosmetic action. It's done for one of two reasons: 1) To appease a fanbase and give the appearance of being proactive and/or 2) To buy time for current GM/manager so as to keep his job a bit longer. The third reason (and this applies for anyone on a coaching staff) is if the guy is lazy as a coach (i.e. doesn't show up and do early work with players...which was apparently the issue with Rock) or has some off-field problems (alcohol, drugs, etc...like Mitchell Page w/ STL).

 

Just think how many times teams make a change and nothing really changes on the field over the long haul. Take a look at the Eddie Murray/Derek Shelton situation. Remember how good Shelton apparently was when he got hired in '06? So, a few years later, he gets fired because he's no longer good at his job? Come on. How about, the Indians players weren't any good at hitting, Sizemore's always injured, and Hafner was a lot smaller than he used to be AND was injured. I'm surprised that more people don't catch on to the pattern and say to themselves, "Wait, something doesn't make sense here." Guy gets hired, is the greatest ever at his job, gets fired a few years later because he's no longer any good, then immediately gets hired by some other team. Why is that? Because all teams know the secret. Firings are done to appease fans even though they really don't have any actual benefit to the results.

 

Fans see it in simple terms: Team's not hitting well. Who's the hitting coach? Greg walker. Fire Greg Walker. Unfortunately, it just isn't that simple.

 

I also believe that it is probably easier for a pitching coach to have success than it is for a hitting coach (logistics are different), though, either way, it always comes down to what a player is capable of doing. Cooper doesn't get a "free pass" but he's gotten more leeway because his pitching staffs have typically done well, with some exceptions.

 

As far as hiring the "big name", what good does that really do? Lou Piniella was a big name. So is Rudy Jaramillo (who is apparently an offensive god of some sort, yet his team finished in the lower 1/2 of NL teams in offense last year. Like I said, it's all about the players). People make too much of it.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Ranger

[Chicago White Sox]

No offense Rongey, but this isn't fantasy baseball. GMs are forced to look at more than just past production and projections when adding players. Most importantly, they have to look at organizational need. Since a GM is in charge of an organization, it's ultimately his responsibility to have a minor league system that can fill needs on a regular basis. If not, he's forced to go outside the organization to address those holes. That surely will have an impact on his decision making. He may be forced to overpay in free agency to fill a need, ala Scott Linebrink, or he may have to go with a player that is not qualified for the job, ala Dwayne Wise. Clearly, need and market forces play a major role here, and these are directly related to organizational management. KW may not be to blame if Jesse Crain performs much worst than past production suggests, but he is responsible for committing so much money to him. Had there been a decent minor league option, KW may have possibly used those funds to improve the team in another area.

[fathom]

Overall, I'm a firm believer that people tend to make WAY too much of both GM's and coaching staffs. In general, I truly believe that unless the guys you have are totally incompetent, the results on the field will be dictated by the players. Now, you could say, "Yeah, but the GM obtains the players, so isn't he responsible?" Yes, but to an extent. GM's acquire players based on two things: 1)track record and/or 2) projection. Let's say a GM acquires a veteran player that has a track record of success, yet, for some reason, once acquired, he does nothing like he had done in previous seasons. Is that performance really on the GM? Something I think about often is the '06 team. Really, that team was a very good baseball team that was betrayed by a failing bullpen. Even with all their issues, they still won 90 games that year and I think would have been a dangerous playoff team. However, how was KW supposed to know that Pollitte and Cotts would be so terrible after being nearly unhittable the prior season? It's not like their performance lagged a bit. No, those guys were TOTALLY different the next year. Elite in 2005, awful in 2006. That degree of change doesn't usually happen like that from one year to the next.

 

Tons of baseball statisticians were predicting Politte crashing back to earth after the 2005 due to the percentage of line drives he gave up that turned into outs. Some metrics ruled him the luckiest pitcher of 2005. As for Cotts, the fact that he gave up one home run all 2005 with his high fastball probably indicated that there was luck involved. The 2006 team didn't fade because of the bullpen...it faded cause the starting pitching hit the wall with a few months left. Even with a bad bullpen to start 2006, we were 6 games up on the Wild Card at the ASB.

[fathom]

As far as hiring the "big name", what good does that really do? Lou Piniella was a big name. So is Rudy Jaramillo (who is apparently an offensive god of some sort, yet his team finished in the lower 1/2 of NL teams in offense last year. Like I said, it's all about the players). People make too much of it.

 

He turned that franchise around and had them in playoffs first two years (including best record in NL in 2nd year, I believe) he was there, but THANKFULLY, they choked in the playoffs.

[caulfield12]

Tons of baseball statisticians were predicting Politte crashing back to earth after the 2005 due to the percentage of line drives he gave up that turned into outs. Some metrics ruled him the luckiest pitcher of 2005. As for Cotts, the fact that he gave up one home run all 2005 with his high fastball probably indicated that there was luck involved. The 2006 team didn't fade because of the bullpen...it faded cause the starting pitching hit the wall with a few months left. Even with a bad bullpen to start 2006, we were 6 games up on the Wild Card at the ASB.

 

 

I remember that game right before the ASB when we took down Papelbon and were 26 games over .500 still at that point.

 

Undoubtedly, the starting pitching just wore down. Javy was always terribly erratic that year...but consistently a victim of the one bad pitch or one big inning.

 

Then there was the Brian Anderson fiasco in CF. Eventually the offense cooled down and they actually did need both a competent offensive CFer and a league-average defensive contributor up the middle.

 

And with Liriano and Santana dealing for much of that second half, the Twins were just a team of destiny as they reeled in the Tigers over the last 3 months.

 

 

 

KW has tried both approaches with the pen. He's gone for the guys with the track record (Dotel and Linebrink) as well as the likes of Sisco, MacDougal, Masset and Aardsma. Power arms not fulfilling their potential. He's also brought in a dozen crappy lefties to audition for one role...and then traded the best of that group (Javier Lopez) to the Red Sox.

 

I don't think anyone could have predicted Hermanson, Politte, Jenks and Cotts to pitch as well as they did. In the end, bringing in Thome wasn't the wrong move...it was believing that Brian Anderson was the guy to keep after parting with Chris Young, Anthony Webster, Jeremy Reed and Rowand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[fathom]

I don't think anyone could have predicted Hermanson, Politte, Jenks and Cotts to pitch as well as they did. In the end, bringing in Thome wasn't the wrong move...it was believing that Brian Anderson was the guy to keep after parting with Chris Young, Anthony Webster, Jeremy Reed and Rowand.

 

For 2006, it was the fact that your two best pitchers (Buehrle and Contreras) had a second half combined ERA around 5.75. The 2006 team during the first half was the best White Sox team, in terms of talent, I've ever seen.

[caulfield12]

He turned that franchise around and had them in playoffs first two years (including best record in NL in 2nd year, I believe) he was there, but THANKFULLY, they choked in the playoffs.

 

 

Well, obviously the "big name" isn't always the best move. If they'd taken that approach, Cito Gaston would have been named the manager.

 

On the other hand, hiring someone with a track record like Terry Bevington didn't work so well, either.

 

It just depends where your roster is...that was the argument for dumping Torborg and Manuel, that they were better suited for "THESE KIDS CAN PLAY" rebuilding efforts centered around youthful prospects than with managing a team successfully through the playoffs (like a Piniella, LaRussa or Torre).

 

Then again, with today's athletes, often the big name manager hasn't realized that you need to change with the times and adapt (moreso this is true in basketball, but also baseball IMO). For example, Piniella never would post the next day's line-up until the last minute. Just this one little thing drove the players nuts, but he was too stubborn to change.

Edited April 22, 2011 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

For 2006, it was the fact that your two best pitchers (Buehrle and Contreras) had a second half combined ERA around 5.75. The 2006 team during the first half was the best White Sox team, in terms of talent, I've ever seen.

 

 

Yeah, I forgot about Contreras, my avatar.

 

Until he got injured in that game against Cincinnati, he was the best pitcher (for a 4 month stretch) any of us might ever see with the White Sox...at least the most dominant I'd seen in my lifetime during that stretch. Other than the game against Paul Byrd in the playoffs, he just never lost. And he did it with essentially just two pitches.

 

When all things are said and done, that was the key moment of the White Sox "mini-dynasty" dying before it started.

 

Buehrle, you kind of expected he would revert to his normal 3.75-4.25 self with more hits than innings pitched. Contreras and McCarthy, it was unbelieveable how well those guys pitched in August and September.

 

 

[fathom]

I firmly believe Ozzie would be a great manager in the NL or for a team like Seattle. As illustrated by his comments about the bunt yesterday, his philosophy of bunting on a team with 2 future 500 home run players (possibly) is skewed.

[caulfield12]

I firmly believe Ozzie would be a great manager in the NL or for a team like Seattle. As illustrated by his comments about the bunt yesterday, his philosophy of bunting on a team with 2 future 500 home run players (possibly) is skewed.

 

 

The only question is why he's so stubborn to hold onto this managerial theory that flies in the face of the homers hit in 2005/2006 and even in 2008 with Quentin/Ramirez/Dye/Konerko/Thome, etc.

 

1) Maybe because that's what worked for him personally, and the "dead ball" White Sox playing in Old Comiskey needed to score just a run at a time? Or weren't capable of scoring in bunches.

 

2) His time coaching and playing in the NL at the end of his career with ATL/Cox and the Marlins.

 

3) The fact that it worked so well with Iguchi and Pods for 3-4 months in 2005...but hasn't since?

 

4) His general inability to admit he's wrong since the World Series and adapt to the roster as much as expecting players who aren't capable of bunting or playing fundamental baseball to change for Ozzie? I'm thinking here of players like BA and Josh Fields, to name a couple.

 

As Fathom mentioned, this mindset just doesn't work well in the AL East or AL Central. It certainly does have its place in baseball, with a low payroll team like the Padres or one that's limited offensively, such as the Mariners or A's.

Edited April 22, 2011 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

The only question is why he's so stubborn to hold onto this managerial theory that flies in the face of the homers hit in 2005/2006 and even in 2008 with Quentin/Ramirez/Dye/Konerko/Thome, etc.

 

1) Maybe because that's what worked for him personally, and the "dead ball" White Sox playing in Old Comiskey needed to score just a run at a time? Or weren't capable of scoring in bunches.

 

2) His time coaching and playing in the NL at the end of his career with ATL/Cox and the Marlins.

 

3) The fact that it worked so well with Iguchi and Pods for 3-4 months in 2005...but hasn't since?

 

4) His general inability to admit he's wrong since the World Series and adapt to the roster as much as expecting players who aren't capable of bunting or playing fundamental baseball to change for Ozzie? I'm thinking here of players like BA and Josh Fields, to name a couple.

 

As Fathom mentioned, this mindset just doesn't work well in the AL East or AL Central. It certainly does have its place in baseball, with a low payroll team like the Padres or one that's limited offensively, such as the Mariners or A's.

 

It would be more of a story if the players went on to succeed somewhere else in #4. Being able to not fix bad baseball players when no one else can, isn't a big negative in my book.

[Dick Allen]

It would be more of a story if the players went on to succeed somewhere else in #4. Being able to not fix bad baseball players when no one else can, isn't a big negative in my book.

That's been my argument for Greg Walker for years.

[caulfield12]

Chris Getz is a consistent .636/.637 OPS no matter where he plays.

 

Fields and Anderson? Don't think so.

 

Ryan Sweeney finally ended up losing his starting job in Oakland for a lot of the same reasons he wasn't believed to project as more than a 4th OF in Chicago.

 

Chris Young and Greg Walker don't have anything in common.

 

Even C. Carter has turned out to be a big bust (based on early returns), and the verdict's a bit discouraging on B. Allen.

 

We all know about Jeremy Reed and Michael Morse.

 

Basically, we've simply sucked at developing position prospects since Durham, Ordonez, C-Lee, Crede and Rowand.

Edited April 22, 2011 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

Chris Getz is a consistent .636/.637 OPS no matter where he plays..

Well, that's an impressively precise OPS.

[lostfan]

I remember that game right before the ASB when we took down Papelbon and were 26 games over .500 still at that point.

 

Undoubtedly, the starting pitching just wore down. Javy was always terribly erratic that year...but consistently a victim of the one bad pitch or one big inning.

 

Then there was the Brian Anderson fiasco in CF. Eventually the offense cooled down and they actually did need both a competent offensive CFer and a league-average defensive contributor up the middle.

 

And with Liriano and Santana dealing for much of that second half, the Twins were just a team of destiny as they reeled in the Tigers over the last 3 months.

 

 

 

KW has tried both approaches with the pen. He's gone for the guys with the track record (Dotel and Linebrink) as well as the likes of Sisco, MacDougal, Masset and Aardsma. Power arms not fulfilling their potential. He's also brought in a dozen crappy lefties to audition for one role...and then traded the best of that group (Javier Lopez) to the Red Sox.

 

I don't think anyone could have predicted Hermanson, Politte, Jenks and Cotts to pitch as well as they did. In the end, bringing in Thome wasn't the wrong move...it was believing that Brian Anderson was the guy to keep after parting with Chris Young, Anthony Webster, Jeremy Reed and Rowand.

When the offense started to fold halfway through the season, that's when Anderson actually started hitting (of course, he'd never again do anything worth mentioning after about early September of that year)