Ozzie still out begging for a job

[Eminor3rd]

Just remember next time Sale goes 8 or 9, gives up a couple of hits and strikes out 15, he was "lucky".

 

And I get a kick out of you saying "I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's not smart". Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

 

He's talking about Ozzie being lucky, not the pitchers being lucky.

[LittleHurt05]

How many times in playoff history has a team had 3 consecutive starters enter the 9th inning with a minimum 3-run lead and having thrown 105 pitches or less? That in itself is such a rare occurence.

[witesoxfan]

How many times in playoff history has a team had 3 consecutive starters enter the 9th inning with a minimum 3-run lead and having thrown 105 pitches or less? That in itself is such a rare occurence.

 

This is what we call luck

[Dick Allen]

He's talking about Ozzie being lucky, not the pitchers being lucky.

But he is saying continuing to have them pitch is not smart. They needed to be yanked. The object is winning games. Pulling pitchers that are cruising along just to insert a new pitcher because of a graph, is what not is smart.

[witesoxfan]

Wow. You are off the rails.

 

If Ozzie was so smart for letting those guys throw complete games, then why didn't he let Contreras finish game 1 of the World Series? He'd only thrown 82 pitches and he was rolling.

 

I think you are being argumentative for the reason of being argumentative. It's incredibly lucky to be in the position to let your pitchers attempt to get 4 complete games in a row. THAT IS NOT A BAD THING. People equate "lucky" with "bad" all the time, which is not right.

[witesoxfan]

But he is saying continuing to have them pitch is not smart. They needed to be yanked. The object is winning games. Pulling pitchers that are cruising along just to insert a new pitcher because of a graph, is what not is smart.

 

Show me where I say they needed to. I never said that. Ozzie has never been one to be called a smart man. He went with his gut. He allowed them to stay in, probably against his better judgment. It worked out. The end.

[Dick Allen]

Show me where I say they needed to. I never said that. Ozzie has never been one to be called a smart man. He went with his gut. He allowed them to stay in, probably against his better judgment. It worked out. The end.

According to you leaving a pitcher in who is not getting hit very hard or putting people on base, is not smart because the almighty fangraphs says so.

 

You said you weren't willing to say if it was right or wrong, just that it wasn't smart. And I am the one being argumentitive.

 

As was stated earlier by others, this is just a response to Greg's assertion Ozzie revolutionized the game, and your argument is silly. Ozzie, at one time, was an excellent manager. He was 11-1 in the playoffs.

 

How come it took you 8 years to say what happened was dumb but lucky? The team went 11-1 and brought home some hardware. I say when you are that dominant, there is more than luck involved.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

According to you leaving a pitcher in who is not getting hit very hard or putting people on base, is not smart because the almighty fangraphs says so.

 

You said you weren't willing to say if it was right or wrong, just that it wasn't smart. And I am the one being argumentitive.

 

As was stated earlier by others, this is just a response to Greg's assertion Ozzie revolutionized the game, and your argument is silly. Ozzie, at one time, was an excellent manager. He was 11-1 in the playoffs.

 

How come it took you 8 years to say what happened was dumb but lucky? The team went 11-1 and brought home some hardware. I say when you are that dominate, there is more than luck involved.

 

Because we haven't talked about this in about 8 years.

 

Better judgement (meaning smarter) suggests that using a reliever should have been done. The Sox were up 8-3 in one of those games, maybe getting the guy out in the 7th or 8th so keep his arm fresh for a potential game 6 if necessary would have been a better idea. Maybe that would have given them momentum. It wasn't a dumb move, just that there were smarter, more rational, more reasonable moves that could be made.

[Eminor3rd]

But he is saying continuing to have them pitch is not smart. They needed to be yanked. The object is winning games. Pulling pitchers that are cruising along just to insert a new pitcher because of a graph, is what not is smart.

 

I think the problem that people have with this stuff is this insatiable human need for things to be black and white -- right or wrong, always works or never works. In baseball, this is never the case, indeed, in almost NOTHING is this the case.

 

Again, there are two points being made here, both in response to greg's assertion of the man aging deity, Ozzie Guillen:

 

(1) No one in this thread, including wite, is arguing that Ozzie should have pulled the pitchers. The pitch counts were low, the pitchers were cruising, the game was never in jeopardy.

 

(2) If Ozzie were actually boldly leaving pitchers in longer than anyone else simply for the sake of trusting his starter, which he wasn't, he would have been putting the team in a worse position to win. That chart isn't projections, it's actual results. However, wite's point is that sometimes you can make a bad decision (in terms of it being a less likely route to success) and still end up with a good outcome, especially in baseball. The fact is, chance is ALWAYS on the defense's side when it comes to run scoring, unless there's a runner on third and no one out. No matter what you do as a pitcher, the guy in front of you is always substantially more likely to make an out than to reach base.

 

EDIT: Also, it's a natural fallacy to assume that a sample is made up of a bunch of instances of its mean. In reality, it is nearly all instances of things happening above or below that mean, and all of those instances are not necessarily due to chance (though chance is a component). If lineups hit .300 off of a pitcher the third time through, that means they often hit much worse and often hit much better -- and it's safe to assume that the times when they hit much worse are the times when aces are in or the pitchers are "cruising."

 

I guess what I'm saying is this: I don't think anyone advocates pulling a pitcher on a low pitch count who is pitching well. However, the strategy of leaving a starter in for a third time through the order, in general, is a poor choice if the game at hand is of high importance. This is convincingly demonstrated and the effect is, in my opinion, much larger than what most people assume it is. In reality, the behavior that you could see to take advantage of this info would be starting a RP warming regardless of situation when the third time through comes around, and having a short hook on the starter at the first sign of trouble, even if he isn't tired.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Eminor3rd

[ewokpelts]

guess, what? 2005 was luck/magic/talent/cocaine.

 

2006-2011 was s***ty managing with a healthy dose of mental retardation from ozzie and sons.

 

that's why he got fired. the only reason he had the job so long was jerry is loyal to a fault.

[Dick Allen]

I think the problem that people have with this stuff is this insatiable human need for things to be black and white -- right or wrong, always works or never works. In baseball, this is never the case, indeed, in almost NOTHING is this the case.

 

Again, there are two points being made here, both in response to greg's assertion of the man aging deity, Ozzie Guillen:

 

(1) No one in this thread, including wite, is arguing that Ozzie should have pulled the pitchers. The pitch counts were low, the pitchers were cruising, the game was never in jeopardy.

 

(2) If Ozzie were actually boldly leaving pitchers in longer than anyone else simply for the sake of trusting his starter, which he wasn't, he would have been putting the team in a worse position to win. That chart isn't projections, it's actual results. However, wite's poinjt is that sometimes you can make a bad decision (in terms of it being a less likely route to success) and still end up with a good outcome, especially in baseball. The fact is, chance is ALWAYS on the defense's side when it comes to run scoring, unless there's a runner on third and no one out. No matter what you do as a pitcher, the guy in front of you is always substantially mroe likely to make an out than to reach base.

His point was Ozzie was not being smart leaving his starters in during the 2005 ALCS, and saying he was lucky.

 

Knowing your personnel well enough to know what they are capable and not capable of isn't luck. It is a skill.

 

At one time, Ozzie, much to my surprise, was an excellent manager.

[Dick Allen]

I think the problem that people have with this stuff is this insatiable human need for things to be black and white -- right or wrong, always works or never works. In baseball, this is never the case, indeed, in almost NOTHING is this the case.

 

Again, there are two points being made here, both in response to greg's assertion of the man aging deity, Ozzie Guillen:

 

(1) No one in this thread, including wite, is arguing that Ozzie should have pulled the pitchers. The pitch counts were low, the pitchers were cruising, the game was never in jeopardy.

 

(2) If Ozzie were actually boldly leaving pitchers in longer than anyone else simply for the sake of trusting his starter, which he wasn't, he would have been putting the team in a worse position to win. That chart isn't projections, it's actual results. However, wite's point is that sometimes you can make a bad decision (in terms of it being a less likely route to success) and still end up with a good outcome, especially in baseball. The fact is, chance is ALWAYS on the defense's side when it comes to run scoring, unless there's a runner on third and no one out. No matter what you do as a pitcher, the guy in front of you is always substantially more likely to make an out than to reach base.

 

EDIT: Also, it's a natural fallacy to assume that a sample is made up of a bunch of instances of its mean. In reality, it is nearly all instances of things happening above or below that mean, and all of those instances are not necessarily due to chance (though chance is a component). If lineups hit .300 off of a pitcher the third time through, that means they often hit much worse and often hit much better -- and it's safe to assume that the times when they hit much worse are the times when aces are in or the pitchers are "cruising."

 

I guess what I'm saying is this: I don't think anyone advocates pulling a pitcher on a low pitch count who is pitching well. However, the strategy of leaving a starter in for a third time through the order, in general, is a poor choice if the game at hand is of high importance. This is convincingly demonstrated and the effect is, in my opinion, much larger than what most people assume it is. In reality, the behavior that you could see to take advantage of this info would be starting a RP warming regardless of situation when the third time through comes around, and having a short hook on the starter at the first sign of trouble, even if he isn't tired.

So next year on the final day of the season, if the Sox need a victory to get into the playoffs and Chris Sale is perfect through 6, has a pitch count around 90 and the Sox lead 1-0, if Ventura trots out Nate Jones to face the righty batting for the 3rd time to lead off the 7th, no one should really have a problem with it. It would be the smart thing to do.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Dick Allen

[Eminor3rd]

So next year on the final day of the season, if the Sox need a victory to get into the playoffs and Chris Sale is perfect through 6, has a pitch count around 90 and the Sox lead 1-0, if Ventura trots out Nate Jones to face the righty batting for the 3rd time to lead off the 7th, no one should really have a problem with it. It would be the smart thing to do.

 

No, see that is to my point about the outliers. Now, same situation, but it's John Danks. And the bullpen lines up well with handedness the rest of the way. Hell yeah, I don;t have a problem with that. Like I said, though, it's even reasonable to jsut say start the inning with Nate Jones in the 'pen, trot him out the first time someone reaches base at all.

[witesoxfan]

His point was Ozzie was not being smart leaving his starters in during the 2005 ALCS, and saying he was lucky.

 

Knowing your personnel well enough to know what they are capable and not capable of isn't luck. It is a skill.

 

At one time, Ozzie, much to my surprise, was an excellent manager.

 

*The White Sox won by 6 runs in game 4. You better believe I think the right call in that situation is pulling the starter before the start of the 8th. It's not a big deal that he didn't, especially in hindsight.

*No, I do not believe Ozzie was smart in leaving those guys out there. I think there were better options. Still, they were not dumb nor bad moves. Really, there is no wrong move that can be made when your team is playing that well, and it's going to work out no matter what you do almost every time. I believe he should have taken the guys out using hindsight, but I'm not complaining about it, but merely bringing it up in discussion. I will argue that leaving them in was not revolutionary because it was not.

*However, if Ozzie obviously knew what his pitchers could handle, why would they have put up an ERA a full run higher the following season? Perhaps he did overwork them a bit in 2005?

 

So next year on the final day of the season, if the Sox need a victory to get into the playoffs and Chris Sale is perfect through 6, has a pitch count around 90 and the Sox lead 1-0, if Ventura trots out Nate Jones to face the righty batting for the 3rd time to lead off the 7th, no one should really have a problem with it.

 

Nope, nor would I care if he left him in.

 

Now, how about a more reasonable example...the Sox are up by 6 runs heading to the bottom of the 8th inning, winning the ALCS by 2-1, and Hector Santiago is at 90 pitches after 7. Are you going to leave him in the game for the 8th?

[greg775]

Like I'm sure many on here, I have been re-watching my '05 World Series DVDs. Man, watching Ozzie in the dugout during those games makes me miss him as the manager - he was fun, laid back (well, other than screaming at umps), hilarious in '05.

 

That being said, from '06 till the end, he thought he was the best manager in the world and should get paid like he is... As said above, that is when he was too much and needed to go. Doesn't change the fact that in '05 he helped make that the best year of baseball for Sox fans.

That is a fair post. Darn good post. I don't think he necessarily needed to go, though. I've given Kenny credit many times for winning the war. He beat Oz mano vs. mano. Knocked him out in the battle for Jerry's love/approval.

 

Right, this is dumb. We're all bickering with one another over something we weren't even mad about until greg came in here and started spouting Ozzie garbage about changing the game and the best ever and all.

 

Eminor, I am not the devil.

[LittleHurt05]

Like I'm sure many on here, I have been re-watching my '05 World Series DVDs. Man, watching Ozzie in the dugout during those games makes me miss him as the manager - he was fun, laid back (well, other than screaming at umps), hilarious in '05.

 

That being said, from '06 till the end, he thought he was the best manager in the world and should get paid like he is... As said above, that is when he was too much and needed to go. Doesn't change the fact that in '05 he helped make that the best year of baseball for Sox fans.

 

I always thought that winning the WS was the best and worst thing that could happen for Ozzie.

 

Best: Obviously bringing Chicago a WS title as manager

 

Worst: It inflated his already huge ego to epic proportions and he suddenly thought he was the best manager in the world and refused to hear it any other way. Which also spread to his next of kin. That ego got in the way of baseball and helped lead the Sox into major underachievement.

[Dick Allen]

*The White Sox won by 6 runs in game 4. You better believe I think the right call in that situation is pulling the starter before the start of the 8th. It's not a big deal that he didn't, especially in hindsight.

*No, I do not believe Ozzie was smart in leaving those guys out there. I think there were better options. Still, they were not dumb nor bad moves. Really, there is no wrong move that can be made when your team is playing that well, and it's going to work out no matter what you do almost every time. I believe he should have taken the guys out using hindsight, but I'm not complaining about it, but merely bringing it up in discussion. I will argue that leaving them in was not revolutionary because it was not.

*However, if Ozzie obviously knew what his pitchers could handle, why would they have put up an ERA a full run higher the following season? Perhaps he did overwork them a bit in 2005?

 

 

 

Nope, nor would I care if he left him in.

 

Now, how about a more reasonable example...the Sox are up by 6 runs heading to the bottom of the 8th inning, winning the ALCS by 2-1, and Hector Santiago is at 90 pitches after 7. Are you going to leave him in the game for the 8th?

If he's rolling along, for sure. But if Hector Santiago is at only 90 pitches through 7, you have breaking news on all networks. If a couple of guys get on, or his stuff has definitely fallen off, you take him out, but an extra 20 or 30 pitches isn't going to tire him out for his next start. You don't know if the reliever is going to implode.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Dick Allen

[Eminor3rd]

Eminor, I am not the devil.

 

I know.

[Eminor3rd]

If he's rolling along, for sure. But if Hector Santiago is at only 90 pitches through 7, you have breaking news on all networks. If a couple of guys get on, or his stuff has definitely fallen off, you take him out, but an extra 20 or 30 pitches isn't going to tire him out for his next start. You don't know if the reliever is going to implode.

 

You're missing the point: it has NOTHING to do with how tired he is. It has everything to do with the effect of hitters having had a chance to see and time all of his stuff. That's one of the big reasons relievers are so effective -- it isn't just because they can throw as hard as they are able, it's that it's a totally different repertoire that, not only have they hitters seen all game, but will only see a couple times all year.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Eminor3rd

[Jordan4life_2007]

Eminor, I am not the devil.

 

[Dick Allen]

You're missing the point: it has NOTHING to do with how tired he is. It has everything to do with the effect of hitters having had a chance to see and time all of his stuff. That's one of the big reasons relievers are so effective -- it isn't just because they can throw as hard as they are able, it's that it's a totally different repertoire that, not only have they hitters seen all game, but will only see a couple times all year.

Again, if a couple of guys get on, you take him out. This is a 6 run lead. If his stuff has dropped off, you take him out. If his stuff that his shutting them down for 7 innings is still there in the 8th, chances are they aren't going to start raking just because they have seen him before. If the guy is dealing and his pitch count isn't out of hand, leave him in and get the win. Hitters have seen many pitchers for years and still make outs most of the time.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Dick Allen

[iamshack]

Cowherd advanced some silly theory this morning about allowing your starters more rope and even to actually let them lose games rather than pulling them early because they are usually alpha males and damaging their egos upsets the clubhouse and their own confidence.

 

It was about the dumbest thing I have ever heard him say (and that is saying something).

[LittleHurt05]

Cowherd advanced some silly theory this morning about allowing your starters more rope and even to actually let them lose games rather than pulling them early because they are usually alpha males and damaging their egos upsets the clubhouse and their own confidence.

 

It was about the dumbest thing I have ever heard him say (and that is saying something).

 

Was he talking about Jake Peavy?

[iamshack]

Was he talking about Jake Peavy?

No, Lance Lynn.

[Dick Allen]

Chris Sale's 2013 stats really don't back up the seeing him for the second or third time help you hit him.

From innings 1-3 and 4-6, the batting average, on base, and slugging against him is virtually indentical. From innings 7-9 it's actually better because if starters are pitching in those innings, they tend to have their good stuff that day.