Ozzie still out begging for a job

[Marty34]

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.

 

Why would you want to replay it?

[witesoxfan]

Why would you want to replay it?

 

That's not what I said. I literally have no problem whatsoever with the decision that Ozzie made. I said that, in hindsight, I would have taken Garcia out after 8 innings of game 3 to save his arm for a potential game 7. I absolutely do not care that he left him in and there was no incorrect decision to be made in that situation, only varying levels of correct. It worked out and they won and that's all I care about at this point.

 

Maybe I would have cost the Sox the World Series because Vizcaino (and the subsequent relievers) would have allowed 7 runs. Given how well that team was playing, I have a significant level of certainty that I would not have.

[Eminor3rd]

That's not what I said. I literally have no problem whatsoever with the decision that Ozzie made. I said that, in hindsight, I would have taken Garcia out after 8 innings of game 3 to save his arm for a potential game 7. I absolutely do not care that he left him in and there was no incorrect decision to be made in that situation, only varying levels of correct. It worked out and they won and that's all I care about at this point.

 

Maybe I would have cost the Sox the World Series because Vizcaino (and the subsequent relievers) would have allowed 7 runs. Given how well that team was playing, I have a significant level of certainty that I would not have.

 

How many time in a row will you need to post this before Marty stops asking the same question?

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

Not so much of skimming, as totally misrepresenting a different opinion.

[Dick Allen]

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.

Considering you are using sabermetrics for your argument which is heavily dependant on math, I think you would have to agree the 1 in 1000 that the Sox bullpen implodes isn't anywhere near accurate.

 

I would say there would be at least a 3% chance they implode. Probably nearly the same as the difference of the percentage of getting on base between the 3rd and 4th times through the order.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Dick Allen

[StrangeSox]

I would say there would be at least a 3% chance they implode.

 

[Eminor3rd]

Considering you are using sabermetrics for your argument which is heavily dependant on math, I think you would have to agree the 1 in 1000 that the Sox bullpen implodes isn't anywhere near accurate.

 

I would say there would be at least a 3% chance they implode. Probably nearly the same as the difference of the percentage of getting on base between the 3rd and 4th times through the order.

 

You MIGHT be right, that sounds like a plausible number. But you might also be wrong. Might there be research that shows this so we can judge the accuracy or your estimate? Maybe a league-wide shutdown/meltdown ratio? Somebody put some effort into that stat a couple years ago.

[Marty34]

That's not what I said. I literally have no problem whatsoever with the decision that Ozzie made. I said that, in hindsight, I would have taken Garcia out after 8 innings of game 3 to save his arm for a potential game 7. I absolutely do not care that he left him in and there was no incorrect decision to be made in that situation, only varying levels of correct. It worked out and they won and that's all I care about at this point.

 

Maybe I would have cost the Sox the World Series because Vizcaino (and the subsequent relievers) would have allowed 7 runs. Given how well that team was playing, I have a significant level of certainty that I would not have.

 

What SABRmetric are you basing this off of? Give Guillen his due.

[Marty34]

You MIGHT be right, that sounds like a plausible number. But you might also be wrong. Might there be research that shows this so we can judge the accuracy or your estimate? Maybe a league-wide shutdown/meltdown ratio? Somebody put some effort into that stat a couple years ago.

 

Too many variables involved. This is not strat-o-matic.

[Dick Allen]

It would be interesting to see the actual comments after these games. I bet there was more Ozzie was a genius than idiot.

 

Probably more interesting would be the gamethread when El Duque shut down Boston. I know when he was trotting in I was WTFing, and when it worked out, I didn't think of Ozzie as a guy who made a dumb decision that somehow worked out.

[StrangeSox]

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?

 

Just want to point out that sometimes suboptimal decisions still work out. If Option A will work 10% of the time while Option B works 90% of the time, you didn't make the best choice if you happen to go with A and it happens to work out.

[Eminor3rd]

Too many variables involved. This is not strat-o-matic.

 

According to what? How are there too many variable involved? What are they? What is the threshold for "too many?"

 

There are always too many variables involved to predict the future with certainty. That does NOT mean you shouldn't use what you know to hedge your chances. Just randomly guessing when you don't have to isn't really trying very hard.

 

There are too many variables involved in human biology to ever really get the field of medicine right. Should we stop trying? Has our incomplete picture of medicine NOT helped us increase the quality of our lives?

[Eminor3rd]

It would be interesting to see the actual comments after these games. I bet there was more Ozzie was a genius than idiot.

 

Probably more interesting would be the gamethread when El Duque shut down Boston. I know when he was trotting in I was WTFing, and when it worked out, I didn't think of Ozzie as a guy who made a dumb decision that somehow worked out.

 

I wasn't thinking that either.

[Dick Allen]

According to what? How are there too many variable involved? What are they? What is the threshold for "too many?"

 

There are always too many variables involved to predict the future with certainty. That does NOT mean you shouldn't use what you know to hedge your chances. Just randomly guessing when you don't have to isn't really trying very hard.

 

There are too many variables involved in human biology to ever really get the field of medicine right. Should we stop trying? Has our incomplete picture of medicine NOT helped us increase the quality of our lives?

Just looking at his game logs in 2005, Bobby Jenks gave up 3 runs in a game himself 3 times. For it to be 3%, the team only had to do it 5 times.

[Dick Allen]

Just want to point out that sometimes suboptimal decisions still work out. If Option A will work 10% of the time while Option B works 90% of the time, you didn't make the best choice if you happen to go with A and it happens to work out.

But that is one reason I used 3%. If the OBP the next AB goes from .320 to .350, that's an increase of 3%. If the odds the bullpen implodes are 3%, it's pretty much a wash. I'll go with the guy who is cruising as long as his pitch count isn't inflated and he's feeling fine instead of the unknown. If he gives up a hit or 2, then you take him out. And that is what Ozzie did during the WS, and what he would have done during the ALCS. If you don't need your bullpen, there is no point using them.

 

 

[Eminor3rd]

Just looking at his game logs in 2005, Bobby Jenks gave up 3 runs in a game himself 3 times. For it to be 3%, the team only had to do it 5 times.

 

Yeah, like I said, definitely plausible. Just wondering if there is a larger sample consensus on those things. Like, for example, is a team's or player's SD/MD predictive from year to year, or does it need much higher samples? Seems like this is something that has probably been looked at and should definitely be factored into the discussion.

[Marty34]

According to what? How are there too many variable involved? What are they? What is the threshold for "too many?"

 

There are always too many variables involved to predict the future with certainty. That does NOT mean you shouldn't use what you know to hedge your chances. Just randomly guessing when you don't have to isn't really trying very hard.

 

There are too many variables involved in human biology to ever really get the field of medicine right. Should we stop trying? Has our incomplete picture of medicine NOT helped us increase the quality of our lives?

 

Armed will all this terrific data, aren't you still taking a guess? It's a CYA move . . . "well the computer said I'd be right 90% of the time, they just got lucky." ROFL!

[witesoxfan]

I wasn't thinking that either.

 

Nor was I.

 

I also bet that my 0.1% chance of the White Sox relievers giving up more than 6 runs is closer than 3%. What you are suggesting by saying that is that, in every 33 chances, any bullpen pitcher is liable to give up 7 runs in 1 inning of work. How many relievers even gave up 7 runs in an appearance - even including more than 1 inning - at all this year?

 

It's silly that you two are getting so worked up over this. Again, let me explain

 

#1) Ozzie was lucky that his team was even in a position to throw 4 complete games in a row. Ozzie was NOT LUCKY TO WIN because his pitchers threw 4 complete games in a row or whatever.

#2) In the case where the White Sox clearly had the game wrapped up, I would have removed the starter to allow him to remain fresher to throw in a potential game 7, which was still very much in doubt at that point.

#3) Leaving Garcia in or going to a reliever, nobody would have cared either way because neither decision was incorrect.

a. If Ozzie puts in a reliever, he is not wrong.

b. If Ozzie leaves Garcia in, he is not wrong.

 

Do we understand this or do I have to say it about 12 or 13 more times before this thread can die again?

[Eminor3rd]

Armed will all this terrific data, aren't you still taking a guess? It's a CYA move . . . "well the computer said I'd be right 90% of the time, they just got lucky." ROFL!

 

Yes. But there is a MASSIVE difference between an educated guess and a random/gut feeling/whatever guess based on nothing. That's the point: dismissing something that doesn't prove everything all the time is stupid. You don't need absolute certainty for something to be useful.

[TheBigHurtIsBack]

Don't discount the value of a guy who has won the big prize. As good as Leyland is, he couldn't get a ring with the Tigers though he got one earlier than that.

 

LOL, just when I keep thinking nothing you say could be any worse than some of the OTHER stuff I've heard you say. I just... wow.

[Dick Allen]

I'm no Ozzie apologist. When he was hired, I didn't think he would last 1 season. But IMO he was a really good manager his first 3 seasons. Even in 2006. After that, he was too focused on himself. I don't think he's the genius Greg thinks he is, but he obviously knew what he was doing during the 2005 postseason.

[Dick Allen]

Nor was I.

 

I also bet that my 0.1% chance of the White Sox relievers giving up more than 6 runs is closer than 3%. What you are suggesting by saying that is that, in every 33 chances, any bullpen pitcher is liable to give up 7 runs in 1 inning of work. How many relievers even gave up 7 runs in an appearance - even including more than 1 inning - at all this year?

 

It's silly that you two are getting so worked up over this. Again, let me explain

 

#1) Ozzie was lucky that his team was even in a position to throw 4 complete games in a row. Ozzie was NOT LUCKY TO WIN because his pitchers threw 4 complete games in a row or whatever.

#2) In the case where the White Sox clearly had the game wrapped up, I would have removed the starter to allow him to remain fresher to throw in a potential game 7, which was still very much in doubt at that point.

#3) Leaving Garcia in or going to a reliever, nobody would have cared either way because neither decision was incorrect.

a. If Ozzie puts in a reliever, he is not wrong.

b. If Ozzie leaves Garcia in, he is not wrong.

 

Do we understand this or do I have to say it about 12 or 13 more times before this thread can die again?

They only had a 6 run lead once in the 4 games. 2 3 run leads and won one by 1 run, thanks AJP. If you thought he was not wrong, why did you even start this argument by saying his leaving the pitchers in was not smart?

 

You also hinted earlier that his leaving them in may have affected their performance in 2006. So you are all over the place.

 

For a guy who says someone else is always trying to get the last word, you do spend a lot of time trying to get the last word. If Greg wants to think Ozzie is a genius, why does that bother you?

Edited November 6, 2013 by Dick Allen

[Eminor3rd]

But that is one reason I used 3%. If the OBP the next AB goes from .320 to .350, that's an increase of 3%. If the odds the bullpen implodes are 3%, it's pretty much a wash. I'll go with the guy who is cruising as long as his pitch count isn't inflated and he's feeling fine instead of the unknown. If he gives up a hit or 2, then you take him out. And that is what Ozzie did during the WS, and what he would have done during the ALCS. If you don't need your bullpen, there is no point using them.

 

Here's SOME context: http://www.fangraphs.com/library/pitching/sd-md/

 

The +/- 6% cutoff puts SDs and MDs on a similar scale as saves and holds, meaning 40 shutdowns is roughly as impressive as 40 saves or 40 holds. Dominant closers or set-up men will typically have 35 to 40+ shutdowns and a handful of meltdowns.

 

Meanwhile, meltdowns are more common than blown saves, and they can happen to both closers and non-closers alike. The worst relievers will rack up around 10 to 15 meltdowns in a season.

 

So that's vague, but it fits with your estimation of Jenks. A "handful" could be 3 and a season's worth of appearance for him was about 60, and 3/60 = 5%

 

So you're choosing between adding 30 points or so to the batter's OPS versus taking a 5% chance on a meltdown from your RP.

[witesoxfan]

Armed will all this terrific data, aren't you still taking a guess? It's a CYA move . . . "well the computer said I'd be right 90% of the time, they just got lucky." ROFL!

 

And now you're showing that clear cut miscomprehension.

 

The White Sox, in the 2005 season, threw 9 complete games out of a 162 game schedule. That results in a 5.55% chance that they would throw a complete game on any given day, which is roughly 1 in 19 games. To actually throw a complete game, the team would have to be pretty lucky that the pitcher was so good that day. The White Sox did this 4 times in a row. I'm sure my math is wrong here regarding the ability to find variable events and probabilities, but I come up with a 0.00094% chance that the White Sox would have thrown 4 complete games in this instance. It would seem pretty lucky that they would throw 4 complete games in a row given that the odds that they DO NOT throw 4 complete games in a row is 99.99996%, right?

 

Thus, the White Sox were lucky to throw 4 complete games in a row. Lucky does not mean they were bad or wrong. Lucky means against the odds. Given the odds, it was incredibly lucky.

 

Now, if you are arguing that the 2005 White Sox were not incredibly lucky and fortunate and that the team won the World Series beyond all odds, then you are going to find a lot of people that disagree with you. They were incredibly lucky and fortunate, but that's the difference between a bad team and a good team. It's not all numbers and paper and probabilities. Sometimes, check that, A LOT OF times, there is this unaccounted for static fuzz or gray area that you cannot control that we call LUCK that is the difference between a bad team and a good team. You'd argue that the 2013 Red Sox were a better team than the 2013 Cardinals, and some of that is simply due to dumb luck. It's not a bad thing.

[witesoxfan]

They only had a 6 run lead once in the 4 games. 2 3 run leads and won one by 1 run, thanks AJP. If you thought he was not wrong, why did you even start this argument by saying his leaving the pitchers in was not smart?

 

You also hinted earlier that his leaving them in may have affected their performance in 2006. So you are all over the place.

 

For a guy who says someone else is always trying to get the last word, you do spend a lot of time trying to get the last word. If Greg wants to think Ozzie is a genius, why does that bother you?

 

And during that 1 inning they had a 6 run lead, I would have gone with a reliever to keep Garcia's arm fresher. This ultimately didn't matter.

 

Greg said Ozzie was a genius for leaving his starters in. It is my belief that he absolutely was not a genius. If he wants to believe that, he can; I'm merely on here to state my opinion (and one shared by hundreds others on here) that Ozzie is not a genius for that. I am attempting to prove why using numbers. I have said that I have no problem with his decision to do so, given the circumstances, just that he was not.

 

Ultimately, the decision to leave his starters in as long as he did during the 2005 season may have affected their performance in 2006, which would also make him the opposite of a genius and more of a masochist. That is a far greater gray area than 1 inning a reliever would have thrown when up by 6 runs.

 

It was started as a result of the TTOP; Garcia was at a far greater likelihood to blow up in that situation than a reliever. Ultimately, each outcome is its own independent action and the reliever very well could have blown up. In that instance, at least Garcia would have been fresher for a game 7, right? But had Garcia blown up and gone over the 120 or the 130 pitch mark attempting to get a complete game, then he is more fatigued and the Sox are in a worse spot. Neither came into play and it didn't matter either way. Let bygones be bygones and be happy that they won. It's OK.

 

I am not attempting to get the last word in; people take shots at my posts that I believe are shots at my character, so I feel the need to defend them. Nothing more. Your post is a perfect example of that. It's not a personal attack, but it's questioning me. Thus, I feel obligated to answer. If I cared so much about getting the last word in, I could just use my "mighty mod sorcerer powers" and lock the thread when I make a final post. I have yet to do that and won't do that unless it becomes necessary, and thus far, it has not even gotten close to that point.