Ozzie still out begging for a job

[Texsox]

200 replies.

 

No wonder the media loves him

[southsider2k5]

200 replies.

 

No wonder the media loves him

 

To be fair 197 of them revolved around Greg.

 

Then there are these two.

[witesoxfan]

Greg 4 manager

[Eminor3rd]

Then why would you post what you posted in post #144?

 

Just read the first bolded sentence in my last post. That is the direct answer to your question the first time you asked it. That is the clarification of post 144.

[Dick Allen]

Just read the first bolded sentence in my last post. That is the direct answer to your question the first time you asked it. That is the clarification of post 144.

But if you read post 144, your clarification is something totally different.

[Eminor3rd]

But if you read post 144, your clarification is something totally different.

 

No it's not. When I was saying "it," in post 144, you thought I was referring "to the decision to change pitchers." As in, "the decision to change pitcher has nothing to do with pitcher's tiredness." In my clarification, I'm trying to explain that "it" in post 144 is referring to the disparity that leads to the starkly increasing slash lines of league hitters each time through the lineup.

[Dick Allen]

He is NOT clearly better the 2nd time. Did you not look at his career numbers?

 

1st time - .222/.285/.327/.612, 537 PAs

2nd time - .231/.278/.352/.630, 530 PAs

3rd time - .243/.294/.411/.705, 464 PAs

4th time - .245/.297/.372/.669, 101 PAs

 

There they are again, his career numbers. He is clearly worse. This is more indicative of Chris Sale than his splits this year, unless you believe that Chris Sale was a different and much better pitcher this year compared to last year and that there was a clear shift upwards in his talent. I don't believe there was; therefore I'm using the larger sample size, which paints a clearer picture.

 

I've argued this point enough.

-In retrospect, I think Ozzie should have taken Garcia out in game 4. He didn't. It didn't matter. Nobody should care. I certainly don't.

-Hurrah, the Sox threw 4 complete games in a row. That in itself is lucky. It certainly didn't revolutionize the game.

-The numbers indicate that Chris Sale gets worse the more hitters see him, except the 4th time, which is not a signficant amount of plate appearances to begin with and can be explained away using fairly safe assumptions. This is true of about 99% of pitchers.

-There is no black and white in baseball. Except the White Sox uniforms. Except when they aren't.

And why would it be considered lucky if Sale got guys out their 3rd and 4th crack against them? Seems to me the odds of them not making an out or less than 3 in 10.

[LittleHurt05]

This quickly went from a top 5 thread to a bottom 5 thread. Lock it up mods.

[Quin]

This quickly went from a top 5 thread to a bottom 5 thread. Lock it up mods.

 

This thread was so great...then that stopped.

[greg775]

I'm sure I can make a statement to steer the thread back in another direction since I do love Ozzeroo.

[witesoxfan]

And why would it be considered lucky if Sale got guys out their 3rd and 4th crack against them? Seems to me the odds of them not making an out or less than 3 in 10.

 

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say Sale would be lucky to get guys out then. I said he's clearly and visibly worse. The only time I've used the word lucky was in reference to the White Sox throwing 4 complete games in a row in the 2005 ALCS.

 

Stop this arguing to argue bulls***. If you feel the need to get the last word in, by all means, you can go right ahead, but I'm done posting in this thread because it's absurd to continue.

[Eminor3rd]

Extremely relevant, extremely data-heavy article on TTOP (times through the order penalty): http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article....articleid=22156

 

Summary section for those without BP subscription or those not interested in reading like 5000 words:

 

Let’s recap what we learned today about the “times through the order” penalty.

 

- The first time through the order, pitchers pitch better than they do overall. This “first time” effect is magnified in the first inning, especially for the home pitcher.

 

- Starters get progressively worse as they face the lineup for the second, third, and fourth times. The fourth-time penalty gets masked in outdoor games, especially at night, and in the ninth and later innings.

 

- A pitcher’s career “times through the order” patterns have almost no predictive value. We can assume that all starting pitchers have roughly the same “true talent” TTOP, regardless of what they have shown in the past.

 

- Good and bad pitchers show around the same magnitude of TTOP. The third time through the order, all starters are expected to pitch around .35 runs per nine innings worse than they do overall.

 

- Pitch count does not seem to have much of an effect on the TTOP. For example, going into the third time through the order, whether a pitcher has thrown 60 or 75 pitches doesn’t seem to matter much.

 

- For an individual batter, the number of pitches seen makes a huge difference. The largest difference is from the first to the second time through the order. If a batter sees fewer than three pitches in his first PA, he hits 10 points better his second time at the plate. If he sees more than four pitches his first time up, he hits 25 points better on his second go-around!

 

As you can see, the “times through the order” penalty is a significant effect that should be incorporated into a manager’s decision about when to remove a starting pitcher. In fact, it would behoove managers and pitching coaches to be much more mindful of a starter’s “times through the order” than his pitch count. In an article I wrote two years ago about the benefit of “quick hooks,” I showed that a typical NL team could add from a half to a full win per season simply by removing a starting pitcher who is not an ace whenever he comes to bat in a high-leverage situation after pitching at least five innings, even if his replacement is a league-average reliever. Even in AL parks, where pitchers don’t bat, managers should be inclined to replace a pitcher, especially a fourth or fifth starter, as soon as he faces the order for the third time. These mediocre or worse starters are likely at or near replacement level by this time, even if they have been pitching well.

 

Samples used in the article were all PAs ever and all PAs from 2000-2012.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Eminor3rd

[Marty34]

I've skimmed through this thread and I find it funny that people think Guillen "got lucky" managing his staff during the 2005 postseason. Brings me to another point, it seems a lot of people here use "lucky" to describe success that goes against the SABR norm.

[witesoxfan]

I've skimmed through this thread and I find it funny that people think Guillen "got lucky" managing his staff during the 2005 postseason. Brings me to another point, it seems a lot of people here use "lucky" to describe success that goes against the SABR norm.

 

And this is the problem with skimming. Nobody has said Ozzie got lucky in managing. I have suggested the fact that 4 guys in a row got complete games is lucky. I also said that I would have taken guys out in retrospect, but that it was a decision that ultimately made no difference. Read and comprehend, don't skim and jump to conclusions.

[Eminor3rd]

And this is the problem with skimming. Nobody has said Ozzie got lucky in managing. I have suggested the fact that 4 guys in a row got complete games is lucky. I also said that I would have taken guys out in retrospect, but that it was a decision that ultimately made no difference. Read and comprehend, don't skim and jump to conclusions.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Eminor3rd

[Marty34]

And this is the problem with skimming. Nobody has said Ozzie got lucky in managing. I have suggested the fact that 4 guys in a row got complete games is lucky. I also said that I would have taken guys out in retrospect, but that it was a decision that ultimately made no difference. Read and comprehend, don't skim and jump to conclusions.

 

The only difference it could have made would be not winning the World Series.

[Eminor3rd]

The only difference it could have made would be not winning the World Series.

 

At no point, has anyone argued that Ozzie should not have allowed his pitchers to throw complete games in the World Series. No one. At any point in this thread.

 

We were arguing the general idea of the "genius," or lack thereof, of having a long hook on starters because greg associated it with Ozzie and his greatness.

[witesoxfan]

The only difference it could have made would be not winning the World Series.

 

But ultimately, as proven by its depth and effectiveness in the World Series, there is a 99.999% chance it would have made no difference because that bullpen was probably the best in White Sox history.

 

So #1, Ozzie was lucky that the White Sox were in a position to throw 4 straight complete games and #2, in retrospect, I would have made a move that would have ultimately made no difference in the outcome of the series (because a White Sox reliever giving up 6 runs to that Angels offense in 1 inning was not going to happen).

 

This is virtually a pointless debate at this point. The points have been made and beaten to death, but you have chosen to drag a dead horse through the mud.

 

 

[Marty34]

At no point, has anyone argued that Ozzie should not have allowed his pitchers to throw complete games in the World Series. No one. At any point in this thread.

 

We were arguing the general idea of the "genius," or lack thereof, of having a long hook on starters because greg associated it with Ozzie and his greatness.

 

Wite just said he would have taken the starters out in retrospect, but it's a decision that would not have made any difference.

[caulfield12]

But ultimately, as proven by its depth and effectiveness in the World Series, there is a 99.999% chance it would have made no difference because that bullpen was probably the best in White Sox history.

 

So #1, Ozzie was lucky that the White Sox were in a position to throw 4 straight complete games and #2, in retrospect, I would have made a move that would have ultimately made no difference in the outcome of the series (because a White Sox reliever giving up 6 runs to that Angels offense in 1 inning was not going to happen).

 

This is virtually a pointless debate at this point. The points have been made and beaten to death, but you have chosen to drag a dead horse through the mud.

 

 

Except Hermanson and Marte were really struggling for different reasons at that point. Vizcaino was the last one in usually.

 

I'll give you Cotts, Politte and Jenks.

 

So I'd say the best back end of the bullpen in White Sox history.

[witesoxfan]

Wite just said he would have taken the starters out in retrospect, but it's a decision that would not have made any difference.

 

I have no problem that Ozzie kept him in. This is what led to the TTOP debate. I also said I would have taken Garcia out so he could be ready for a game 7 and be fresher. I have no problem that Ozzie kept him in because his pitch count was decent. It ultimately would have made no difference either way.

Edited November 6, 2013 by witesoxfan

[Dick Allen]

The result is the only thing that matters.

 

If you want to think Ozzie was a genius because he left his pitchers in, fine.

 

If you want to think Ozzie was "not smart" for not yanking his pitchers, fine.

 

The Sox won. Why have a problem with what was done 8 years later?

 

And to say the ultimate result would have been the same if he had used the bullpen, while perhaps true, is total speculation, certainly not a fact.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

Except Hermanson and Marte were really struggling for different reasons at that point. Vizcaino was the last one in usually.

 

I'll give you Cotts, Politte and Jenks.

 

So I'd say the best back end of the bullpen in White Sox history.

 

Dustin Hermanson made 1 appearance in the 2005 playoffs. He got a strikeout and gave up a game tying double. That was literally it. He can be struggling all he wants, but if he doesn't get used, then who cares?

 

Marte was bailed out by El Duque against Boston but, even though he struggled with his control, he was effective in his one appearance against Houston.

[Eminor3rd]

The result is the only thing that matters.

 

If you want to think Ozzie was a genius because he left his pitchers in, fine.

 

If you want to think Ozzie was "not smart" for not yanking his pitchers, fine.

 

The Sox won. Why have a problem with what was done 8 years later?

 

I don't think we do. I mean that was started the argument, but I feel like both wite and I have been trying to steer it away from 2005 as much as possible. I only revived the thread because I saw that article that I thought was a much more complete and clear numerical argument than what we'd been referring to from FanGraphs. I'd rather discuss the merits of the short/long hook versus what Ozzie did. I'm glad we won.

[witesoxfan]

The result is the only thing that matters.

 

If you want to think Ozzie was a genius because he left his pitchers in, fine.

 

If you want to think Ozzie was "not smart" for not yanking his pitchers, fine.

 

The Sox won. Why have a problem with what was done 8 years later?

 

And to say the ultimate result would have been the same if he had used the bullpen, while perhaps true, is total speculation, certainly not a fact.

 

Which is why I said there's a 99.999% chance that it would have been fine. If you prefer 99.9% (meaning 1 in 1,000 rather than 1 in 100,000) then whatever, it was a miniscule chance that it would have had an effect.