Is Ventura the worst manager in the history of MLB?

[iamshack]

I won't disagree that he's made some moves that have been real head scratchers. He had Youkilis try and bunt against Detroit 2 years ago and I remember immediately hating every bit of it. Still, it's hard for me to look at some of these situations and criticize them too harshly.

I agree...but how else do you evaluate him then? By height?

Edited July 30, 2014 by iamshack

[Dick Allen]

Yeah, this is the argument one makes when his decisions turned out to be wrong.

And yours and the others are from hindsight. If his decisions work out, it is probably what you would have done. If they don't, he's an idiot, it was obvious what he should have done, and there is no way the alternative would have failed.

[iamshack]

I won't disagree that he's made some moves that have been real head scratchers. He had Youkilis try and bunt against Detroit 2 years ago and I remember immediately hating every bit of it. Still, it's hard for me to look at some of these situations and criticize them too harshly.

 

In the Nationals example, if Axelrod gets Zimmerman out and is pulled after that, nobody thinks anything of it. He got burned.

But that is where the error lies...if you're going to pull him after that anyways, you make the change.

 

And I understand if you did that you could argue that you'd be overmanaging; at some point you have to get outs without playing every matchup....and I'm not saying this particular example really even bothers me. But it's just another in a long line of headscratchers where eventually you reach the conclusion that this guy is not a good tactical decision-maker.

[witesoxfan]

I agree...but how else do you evaluate him then?

 

It's harder for us to do so. This isn't football or basketball where coaching is so much more of the game.

 

I think basically all we can do is set our expectations for the team and compare those results, and see what the team's attitude is like. In 2011, you could tell the team was tuned out the entire time, whereas in 2013, I didn't get that impression but I could sense that the team was down and beat and just knew they weren't good enough. They seem different again this year.

[RockRaines]

Nah...I'm not going to go as far as some of these other folks...but I've been displeased with him since '12...(ask Fathom)

 

I'm not going to sit here and try to determine how many games he has cost us, but for a guy that played the game for his entire life, he seems to have very poor instincts from a strategical or tactical viewpoint.

 

He may be wonderful with managing the clubhouse, and that is the lion's share of the job, but I do believe he holds us back quite a bit.

Yes, we know you hate him. but it keeps you from posting during wins or victory threads. The manager is not the issue with this club, its talent.

[witesoxfan]

But that is where the error lies...if you're going to pull him after that anyways, you make the change.

 

And I understand if you did that you could argue that you'd be overmanaging; at some point you have to get outs without playing every matchup....and I'm not saying this particular example really even bothers me. But it's just another in a long line of headscratchers where eventually you reach the conclusion that this guy is not a good tactical decision-maker.

 

I doubt they wanted to face Harper in that situation no matter who was pitching, given how he'd been hitting the ball early in the year, so then you are talking about Axelrod or Santiago facing Zimmerman. Typically, you're going to want to go with the righty.

[iamshack]

And yours and the others are from hindsight. If his decisions work out, it is probably what you would have done. If they don't, he's an idiot, it was obvious what he should have done, and there is no way the alternative would have failed.

Not true. You've always got to take it the other extreme.

 

Look, I get it that being a manager in baseball is a fairly thankless job. When something goes wrong, the manager gets blamed, but when things go right, the player gets the credit.

 

But these moves he makes and doesn't make, they go beyond that. This criticism isn't isolated either. I laugh hearing the handicappers here moaning about terrible he is.

[iamshack]

Yes, we know you hate him. but it keeps you from posting during wins or victory threads. The manager is not the issue with this club, its talent.

Why do you feel it is necessary to come at me personally for criticizing the manager?

[RockRaines]

Why do you feel it is necessary to come at me personally for criticizing the manager?

I just want you in happy threads.

[Dick Allen]

Not true. You've always got to take it the other extreme.

 

Look, I get it that being a manager in baseball is a fairly thankless job. When something goes wrong, the manager gets blamed, but when things go right, the player gets the credit.

 

But these moves he makes and doesn't make, they go beyond that. This criticism isn't isolated either. I laugh hearing the handicappers here moaning about terrible he is.

Message board managing is like paper trading. Everyone makes millions when they paper trade. All amateur managers would win 100+ games a year if they were calling the shots.

[iamshack]

I just want you in happy threads.

There is no interesting discussion in the happy threads.

[iamshack]

Message board managing is like paper trading. Everyone makes millions when they paper trade. All amateur managers would win 100+ games a year if they were calling the shots.

While generally true, that isn't reason enough to dismiss all criticism.

 

Especially in this day and age in sports, where quite a bit of value has come from those outside of the those who have played the game.

[Dick Allen]

While generally true, that isn't reason enough to dismiss all criticism.

 

Especially in this day and age in sports, where quite a bit of value has come from those outside of the those who have played the game.

Gamethreads are pretty well known for 100% strategic accuracy (assuming if something didn't work out, any alternative would 100% of the time). Of course the "mistake" isn't pointed out until after the fact.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Dick Allen

[iamshack]

Gamethreads are pretty well known for 100% strategic accuracy (assuming if something didn't work out, any alternative would 100% of the time). Of course the "mistake" isn't pointed out until after the fact.

That's not true.

[shysocks]

How about this one - July 2, Angels @ Sox, tied at 2 in the bottom of the ninth with runners at the corners and one out. Moises Sierra is due up, and in roughly 80 plate appearances with the team he had been about a league-average hitter. Robin pinch-hits Leury Garcia, who was in a 1-for-25 slump and is just generally terrible at the plate. There are no lefty/righty numbers that were relevant here. No move had occurred earlier in the inning that would require another move to shift defensive pieces around in the top of the 10th. It was a situation that demanded contact, only Garcia actually strikes out more than Sierra - he just looks like a contact hitter because he's a little person.

 

What is the explanation here? Why make that substitution? Why pinch hit with the worst hitter on the team?

 

By the way, Leury singled and won the game. I just want to prove that it's not always hindsight management that leads to complaining. The move worked, but it was veerrrry tactically stupid and I remembered that. There's no shortage of examples like this with Robin. This shouldn't be difficult to admit.

[southsider2k5]

How about this one - July 2, Angels @ Sox, tied at 2 in the bottom of the ninth with runners at the corners and one out. Moises Sierra is due up, and in roughly 80 plate appearances with the team he had been about a league-average hitter. Robin pinch-hits Leury Garcia, who was in a 1-for-25 slump and is just generally terrible at the plate. There are no lefty/righty numbers that were relevant here. No move had occurred earlier in the inning that would require another move to shift defensive pieces around in the top of the 10th. It was a situation that demanded contact, only Garcia actually strikes out more than Sierra - he just looks like a contact hitter because he's a little person.

 

What is the explanation here? Why make that substitution? Why pinch hit with the worst hitter on the team?

 

By the way, Leury singled and won the game. I just want to prove that it's not always hindsight management that leads to complaining. The move worked, but it was veerrrry tactically stupid and I remembered that. There's no shortage of examples like this with Robin. This shouldn't be difficult to admit.

 

Garcia is the least likely guy on the team to GDIP. That means if he makes contact, the run scores.

 

[Jake]

Whenever a decision made by Robin backfires, it's wrong.

 

When a decision that goes right may have defied logic...still wrong! Boom.

 

Robin = always wrong, no matter what

[caulfield12]

That supports Ventura walking Harper to get to Zimmerman. Which is exactly what happened.

 

 

 

 

The one thing I'll say about this is it's not like Dylan Axelrod was Jon Garland circa 2003.

 

I'm pretty sure KW and Hahn never believed with his lack of stuff that he was a long-term solution. We can say that he was testing/teaching Axelrod all you want, but your first responsibility is to win games. Unless you're dealing with one of the top pitching prospects in the system, "teachable moment" or finding something to build upon for future use shouldn't rank high because where's the payoff from that?

 

I wouldn't even accept it if it was Noesi on the mound, because he has more ability...but not with a Carroll or Axelrod. In those cases, you do what it takes to preserve the lead or hold the tie unless of course your bullpen isn't rested and the starter has to stay in.

 

 

[caulfield12]

Exactly!! The closer job should have been between Petricka and Webb, once Jones was gone and Lindstrom first semi-failed in the job and then made the choice easy by getting hurt. Putnam should have made the 3rd guy in the "close games" bullpen group. In addition to getting better performance out of these guys, they are guys the Sox can potentially groom and cultivate like they did with Reed and Jones. Whereas Bellisario and Guerra and Downs were all rent-a-players with no future in the Sox pen.

 

Except exposing Webb to that role would have had him back in AA before the end of another month of games.

 

He's clearly not ready for high-leverage situations and they've been nursing him along hoping he could turn it around and get a run going to build his confidence.

 

Petricka's never been a minor league closer, and was a starter for most of his time in our system. It would have hardly been fair to just thrust him into that role when you have experienced guys who have been in those situations before.

 

You never know...this treatment has worked in the past, we protected Santos even with his great stuff and he evolved into the natural candidate.

 

If there's one issue with Ventura this year, it's not misusing Petricka and especially Webb. Finding the most favorable closing situations for Petricka vs. Putnam is the right approach, just like Ozzie protected Viciedo from tough RH pitching from 2010-2011, and now we know why (although he's done okay against RHP, finally, this season).

 

 

[The Ginger Kid]

On a related note, I've been critical of how Robin has treated Webb (pretty much as the 4th or 5th guy out of the pen) but now it's time to take off the kid gloves and let him see some high leverage innings. They wanted to bring him along slow well OK great, now put him under a bit more pressure and see how he responds. Stuff wise, he has the potential to be a good setup or decent closer imo, certainly as good as Reed was for the Sox.

 

 

Exactly!!

 

Yeah, he was awesome in the 7th of that tie game against Houston. 4 ER in 1.0 IP. The guy who had an 8.53 ERA through 6 IP in the month of June. He should get more chances to suck rather than bring him along slowly. Got it.

[greg775]

Not another player who is being beloved by some on Soxtalk ... Webb.

Geez. What have Nate Jones and Webb done to be so beloved? Webb has been total horses***. Yet some want Robin to have used him in high pressure situations as if he'd actually do better in those situations. I do feel badly for Nate with the Tommy John. He'll obviously not be heard from again for a long long time.

[witesoxfan]

Not another player who is being beloved by some on Soxtalk ... Webb.

Geez. What have Nate Jones and Webb done to be so beloved? Webb has been total horses***. Yet some want Robin to have used him in high pressure situations as if he'd actually do better in those situations. I do feel badly for Nate with the Tommy John. He'll obviously not be heard from again for a long long time.

 

Daniel Webb had an ERA of 1.87, a K/9 of 11.2, BB/9 of 3.9, and he allowed 1 home run in 62.2 IP in the minors last year. He came up and had a bit of success this year and has been fairly good this year. He throws 94-97 MPH and has good stuff otherwise. He's 24 years old.

 

Yet, just so everyone knows, greg says he's horses***, nevermind a 3.38 ERA, 3.86 FIP, 4.37 xFIP, 52% GB rate, and decent K numbers that will likely improve over time. Nate Jones is a very good reliever too, but I'm not going to get into those numbers, and he's obviously hurt for a while now.

[lasttriptotulsa]

Not another player who is being beloved by some on Soxtalk ... Webb.

Geez. What have Nate Jones and Webb done to be so beloved? Webb has been total horses***. Yet some want Robin to have used him in high pressure situations as if he'd actually do better in those situations. I do feel badly for Nate with the Tommy John. He'll obviously not be heard from again for a long long time.

 

 

Daniel Webb had an ERA of 1.87, a K/9 of 11.2, BB/9 of 3.9, and he allowed 1 home run in 62.2 IP in the minors last year. He came up and had a bit of success this year and has been fairly good this year. He throws 94-97 MPH and has good stuff otherwise. He's 24 years old.

 

Yet, just so everyone knows, greg says he's horses***, nevermind a 3.38 ERA, 3.86 FIP, 4.37 xFIP, 52% GB rate, and decent K numbers that will likely improve over time. Nate Jones is a very good reliever too, but I'm not going to get into those numbers, and he's obviously hurt for a while now.

 

Greg has two qualifications for whether a player is great or horses***.

 

1: Were they on the 2005 White Sox? If yes, the player is great and will always be great and should be re-signed and given whatever amount of money for however many years they want. If they were not, they are horses***.

 

2: Are they a current Kansas City Royals player. If yes, the player is great and the Sox should trade for or sign him as a FA no matter the cost and comp picks attached. If the player does join the Sox, the player no longer meets one of the two qualifications and instantly becomes horses***.

 

There are obvious exceptions to every rule, but this is my general thoughts about Greg's player evaluation from the years I've been on this board.

[shysocks]

Garcia is the least likely guy on the team to GDIP. That means if he makes contact, the run scores.

That is true, but Garcia is also more likely to hit a too-shallow fly ball than Sierra, and they had the infield in so a ground ball may not have driven in the run. If Leury had a much higher contact rate than Sierra it would have made sense, but basically Robin just took a bad hitter and replaced him with a worse hitter. It's not a good recipe.

 

Whenever a decision made by Robin backfires, it's wrong.

 

When a decision that goes right may have defied logic...still wrong! Boom.

 

Robin = always wrong, no matter what

Nobody said Robin is always wrong, that's straw man garbage. It's about judging the process and not the results, and nullifying the argument that I/we/they only criticize Robin when the players don't execute.

 

And isn't a decision that "may defy logic" by definition the wrong decision?

[JoshPR]

Man, This thread is like the energizer bunny