Jump to content
jaws7575

Tony La Russa

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I said in another thread, but I'd hire Bochy first and Bochy only if he was interested in the job. 

Then probably Cora; Hinch would be fine, I just don't like Hinch dating back to his Diamondbacks days either. That said, he was so young then and he's fine now I'm sure.

The hilarious thing is I don't think Managers mean much, but I think LaRussa would be an absolute disaster.

Fair point. I think Bochy would do a great job. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

If you had the White Sox as a 94-95 win team over 162 to start this season I commend you. If you thought they were a 96-99 win team over 162 then I commend you even more.

Our manager literally might have cost us the division and we went from seed 1 to seed 7 in a week largely attributed to abysmal managing. I don't know what you're trying to say.

I've seen your unfailing optimism and I appreciate it, but there's a time for realism. Realism is, managers make a big difference and ours cost us big time. You make way too many excuses and your narrative that managing isn't important is a blatant disregard of common knowledge.

Edited by KonerkoFan1
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2020 at 4:50 AM, jaws7575 said:

One of my all-time favorite sox teams is the 83 white  sox, makes me feel old. If it was not that goof messing up on the base path the sox would won and Hoyt pitching next game they win and are world series  bound ughhhhhhh.  I am one of Tony's fan . If this was ten years I would say yes. I have a lot of reservations if this is a real option. One he has not managed in 9 years-the game has changed. His age is my real concern  would he up with all the travel this year and beyond? This team has a good 5 year window and I do not want a lot of with the manager spot. My honest question is tony a viable option? My first pick I think is Hinch .My heart is with Tony but common sense says no.

Oh Hell No.

Bring me somebody from Tampa Bay, Cleveland, Houston or the LA Dodgers.

Time to go new school.

And I wouldn't stop there.

The Sox need a complete marketing overhaul. I want the Sox to develop a global brand. 

Once they get new ownership I want them to go seriously after that entertainment $$.  

Relocated to the South Loop like they should have done when the late, great visionary Harold Washington first offered it.

Give those tourists a choice of a 5 min cab ride or dealing with the madness of Clark and Addison.

I want the Sox to be the preferred destination for attending Chicago MLB. 

It's game on.

 

 

 

Edited by GradMc
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

I’m not sure what you’re arguing here, but if you watched the Cleveland series you’d know how much a bad manager can cost you.

I'm arguing the Sox won more games than most thought, so saying they should have won even more just isn't logical. Down the stretch, Renteria choked - but most so in game 3. He overmanaged and he's not a great in-game manager so over managing is suicidal. That said, again... the players lost the games. Just as the players took them on a pace that was ahead of all projections. 

This fallacy that other managers always make this optimal decision that every fan would agree with is just dumb too. Ricky wasn't Bevington. He just clearly handled and managed pressure poorly. He was pacing and had his hands on his knees like he was getting ready to keel over every time they showed him in the dugout in the playoffs. I'm sure that really made everyone around him feel great... jeeeeesus

Edited by Look at Ray Ray Run
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, GradMc said:

Oh Hell No.

Bring me somebody from Tampa Bay, Cleveland, Houston or the LA Dodgers.

Time to go new school.

And I wouldn't stop there.

The Sox need a complete marketing overhaul. I want the Sox to develop a global brand. 

Once they get new ownership I want them to go seriously after that entertainment $$.  

Relocated to the South Loop like they should have done when the late, great visionary Harold Washington first offered it.

Give those tourists a choice of a 5 min cab ride or dealing with the madness of Clark and Addison.

I want the Sox to be the preferred destination for attending Chicago MLB. 

It's game on.

 

 

 

In other words, finally realizing the team’s place as the major market team that it is.  
 

Sign me up for that!

  • Like 1
  • Fire 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

I'm arguing the Sox won more games than most thought, so saying they should have won even more just isn't logical. Down the stretch, Renteria choked - but most so in game 3. He overmanaged and he's not a great in-game manager so over managing is suicidal. That said, again... the players lost the games. Just as the players took them on a pace that was ahead of all projections. 

This fallacy that other managers always make this optimal decision that every fan would agree with is just dumb too. Ricky wasn't Bevington. He just clearly handled and managed pressure poorly. He was pacing and had his hands on his knees like he was getting ready to keel over every time they showed him in the dugout in the playoffs. I'm sure that really made everyone around him feel great... jeeeeesus

Another person talking about "logic" who clearly doesn't understand it.

You're suggesting our mindset should be to stay with the expectations on paper before the beginning of the season and ignore how things have actually been going accordingly?

That's one of the most obtuse things I've ever heard in my life. So once they win some arbitrary amount of games we might have expected before the season we should just stop expecting wins and stop TRYING to win?

Please don't talk about logic and fallacies because this post is such a bizarre violation of common sense it's staggering.

We actually were in line to win the division. Our manager arguably cost us that, as well as good seeding. Who gives a fuck what people expected at the beginning of the season?


Good Lord...

Edited by KonerkoFan1
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Fire 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Why in the world do you think La Russa is capable of running a front office?

Dude, I don't appreciate you stalking my posts with sarcastic comments  so I am putting you on ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KonerkoFan1 said:

Another person talking about "logic" who clearly doesn't understand it.

You're suggesting our mindset should be to stay with the expectations on paper before the beginning of the season and ignore how things have actually been going accordingly?

That's one of the most obtuse things I've ever heard in my life. So once they win some arbitrary amount of games we might have expected before the season we should just stop expecting wins and stop TRYING to win?

Please don't talk about logic and fallacies because this post is such a bizarre violation of common sense it's staggering.

We actually were in line to win the division. Our manager arguably cost us that, as well as good seeding. Who gives a fuck what people expected at the beginning of the season?


Good Lord...

No, what's absurd is you thinking a team outperforming expectations has nothing to do with the manager at all and the ONLY impact a manager has on a teams success are the "negative" decisions you think he makes in a couple games; decisions that are at worst marginally worse, meaning sometimes they might even work out over the other one.

This is where every single person making the same argument you've made lose there point. 

You want to give the players all the credit for their performance and record. The thing holding back this well oiled underrated monster is the coach... its illogical. The reason some of these guys prospered, developed and succeeded may have been due to the support and personality renteria had; the patience. The majority of a managerial impact is made off the field, before games, in the clubhouse, watching film.. it's not made in the 7th inning with a bullpen move. This is where the argument loses itself. Renteria was obviously a part of the reason the team performed well and developed. His shortcoming was when the stage got big, it became too big for him. He wasn't prepared for situations and he over managed. Bad combination. What he didn't do is cost the White Sox 3 or 4 wins, as so many here want to argue. Everything counts, not just the stuff that makes you irrationally angry as a couch coach. So yes, I've been called a defender for merely being rational. Renteria wasn't the right guy for the job. He also didn't cost them 3-4 wins.

Edited by Look at Ray Ray Run
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No, what's absurd is you thinking a team outperforming expectations has nothing to do with the manager at all and the ONLY impact a manager has on a teams success are the "negative" decisions you think he makes in a couple games; decisions that are at worst marginally worse, meaning sometimes they might even work out over the other one.

This is where every single person making the same argument you've made lose there point. 

You want to give the players all the credit for their performance and record. The thing holding back this well oiled underrated monster is the coach... its illogical. The reason some of these guys prospered, developed and succeeded may have been due to the support and personality renteria had; the patience. The majority of a managerial impact is made off the field, before games, in the clubhouse, watching film.. it's not made in the 7th inning with a bullpen move. This is where the argument loses itself. Renteria was obviously a part of the reason the team performed well and developed. His shortcoming was when the stage got big, it became too big for him. He wasn't prepared for situations and he over managed. Bad combination. What he didn't do is cost the White Sox 3 or 4 wins, as so many here want to argue. Everything counts, not just the stuff that makes you irrationally angry as a couch coach. So yes, I've been called a defender for merely being rational. Renteria wasn't the right guy for the job. He also didn't cost them 3-4 wins.

If it's absurd, then please explain exactly to the tee what Renteria contributed. Because if my position is absurd, you will absolutely be able to give concrete examples. For all we know, Renteria lost the faith and admiration of all the players in the last couple weeks.

Your logic seems to be that the manager absolutely must be credited with numerous wins but must not be blamed for numerous losses.

You saying Renteria didn't cost them three to four losses is absolutely absurd because it's very clear that he cost them much more than that many.

Sorry, but you're just wrong. Again, that Cleveland series is all anyone needs to disprove your ridiculousness. But there's far more examples than just those.

I'm not sure if blind loyalty in delusion is your problem or just a lack of comprehension but you're way off base to say the very least.

Edited by KonerkoFan1
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to change the title.  It looked like it was written by a bot in a reddit subforum 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KonerkoFan1 said:

If it's absurd, then please explain exactly to the tee what Renteria contributed. Because if my position is absurd, you will absolutely be able to give concrete examples. For all we know, Renteria lost the faith and admiration of all the players in the last couple weeks.

Your logic seems to be that the manager absolutely must be credited with numerous wins but must not be blamed for numerous losses.

You saying Renteria didn't cost them three to four losses is absolutely absurd because it's very clear that he cost them much more than that many.

Sorry, but you're just wrong. Again, that Cleveland series is all anyone needs to disprove your ridiculousness. But there's far more examples than just those.

I'm not sure if blind loyalty in delusion is your problem or just a lack of comprehension but you're way off base to say the very least.

How can it be fair that absolute, exactly to the tee, concrete examples are required to prove the argument, but it can be disproved by a subjective interpretation of watching a 4-game Cleveland series?  

Edited by default

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2020 at 9:32 PM, ThirdGen said:

LaRussa was a cutting edge manager, consistently ahead of his peers when it came down to use of statistical analysis.  In addition, he was always open to different methods of lineup construction and bullpen usage- far before anyone else was.  He caught a lot of hell from the old school throughout his career, but a lot of what he first tested became the norm.  He speaks Spanish, and was always known as a players' manager.

He is a Hall of Fame manager with 3 World Championships behind him, one 9 years ago.

Hinch won one World Series by cheating.

If, and this is a big if, LaRussa is still physically and mentally sound, and if he is still open to and in love with stats as he was when he started, the Sox could do a lot worse..  The combination of him and Jirschele in the dugout for the next couple of years, with Jirschele taking over after learning from LaRussa could leave the Sox set for a decade or more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2020 at 9:32 PM, ThirdGen said:

LaRussa was a cutting edge manager, consistently ahead of his peers when it came down to use of statistical analysis.  In addition, he was always open to different methods of lineup construction and bullpen usage- far before anyone else was.  He caught a lot of hell from the old school throughout his career, but a lot of what he first tested became the norm.  He speaks Spanish, and was always known as a players' manager.

He is a Hall of Fame manager with 3 World Championships behind him, one 9 years ago.

Hinch won one World Series by cheating.

If, and this is a big if, LaRussa is still physically and mentally sound, and if he is still open to and in love with stats as he was when he started, the Sox could do a lot worse..  The combination of him and Jirschele in the dugout for the next couple of years, with Jirschele taking over after learning from LaRussa could leave the Sox set for a decade or more.

Great post and dead on. I wasn’t a fan about going back words but larussa was a never a run of the mill manager he is a hall of fame manager like a bobby Cox. Something else to consider larussa speaks fluent Spanish and back in that day he was all about stats and match ups. We could do a lot worse. I still think larussa will be hired in the same capacity as he is now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KonerkoFan1 said:

If it's absurd, then please explain exactly to the tee what Renteria contributed. Because if my position is absurd, you will absolutely be able to give concrete examples. For all we know, Renteria lost the faith and admiration of all the players in the last couple weeks.

Your logic seems to be that the manager absolutely must be credited with numerous wins but must not be blamed for numerous losses.

You saying Renteria didn't cost them three to four losses is absolutely absurd because it's very clear that he cost them much more than that many.

Sorry, but you're just wrong. Again, that Cleveland series is all anyone needs to disprove your ridiculousness. But there's far more examples than just those.

I'm not sure if blind loyalty in delusion is your problem or just a lack of comprehension but you're way off base to say the very least.

That is a bad Argumentation. I do believe Ricky was probably not the right guy but it is absurd to not give him credit for the wins but only blame him for the losses. It is true the Sox underperformed the last two weeks but they also played way above their heads the first 45 games unless you believe the Sox were like a 105 win team after being projected for 85 wins. 

You can't just say the first 45 games were the Sox new level and any deviation from that is on the manager. 

That being said of course it is always possible to get better. 

 

I guess we will see next year who is correct. If the Sox win more than 95 games than you can say that is their true talent level and Ricky was just holding them back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KonerkoFan1 said:

If it's absurd, then please explain exactly to the tee what Renteria contributed. Because if my position is absurd, you will absolutely be able to give concrete examples. For all we know, Renteria lost the faith and admiration of all the players in the last couple weeks.

Your logic seems to be that the manager absolutely must be credited with numerous wins but must not be blamed for numerous losses.

You saying Renteria didn't cost them three to four losses is absolutely absurd because it's very clear that he cost them much more than that many.

Sorry, but you're just wrong. Again, that Cleveland series is all anyone needs to disprove your ridiculousness. But there's far more examples than just those.

I'm not sure if blind loyalty in delusion is your problem or just a lack of comprehension but you're way off base to say the very least.

I'm not wrong. Your inability to understand that baseball managers have significantly more impact on the game before and after the game - and in practice, video sessions and etc - than they do in the game. For the last time, you cannot say that the players did everything on their own and made all their own success and the manager only failed and made mistakes. It's not logical. 

Clearly a part of the development and success of the younger players is on Renteria; clearly, he deserves some credit for taking a team picked to finish 500 or below and turning them into a .583% team. 

The thing that cost Renteria his job is that he did his job well up until that point; meaning, he did what he was supposed to get the team to overperform and put them in a position to compete for a title... what he didn't do was maintain that calm demeanor and sense of control when the moment got big; as a player, you can feel that. 

Ricky wasn't up for the task at the end, but he was one of the MANY reasons they got to that end. To pretend that the only impact Renteria had on the ball club was negative - holding the team back - is complete nonsense.

Edited by Look at Ray Ray Run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KonerkoFan1 said:

If it's absurd, then please explain exactly to the tee what Renteria contributed. Because if my position is absurd, you will absolutely be able to give concrete examples. For all we know, Renteria lost the faith and admiration of all the players in the last couple weeks.

Your logic seems to be that the manager absolutely must be credited with numerous wins but must not be blamed for numerous losses.

You saying Renteria didn't cost them three to four losses is absolutely absurd because it's very clear that he cost them much more than that many.

Sorry, but you're just wrong. Again, that Cleveland series is all anyone needs to disprove your ridiculousness. But there's far more examples than just those.

I'm not sure if blind loyalty in delusion is your problem or just a lack of comprehension but you're way off base to say the very least.

And ill add, if you think a manager is worth 3-4 wins in a 60 game season, then managers are the most underpaid people in the game. That would mean managers could be worth 8-10 fWAR over a season. 

Also, I dont think you understand my point. Im saying you take the good with the bad, and in reneterias case that was probably a net gain/loss of wins of ZERO if you account for his in game gaffes.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dominikk85 said:

That is a bad Argumentation. I do believe Ricky was probably not the right guy but it is absurd to not give him credit for the wins but only blame him for the losses. It is true the Sox underperformed the last two weeks but they also played way above their heads the first 45 games unless you believe the Sox were like a 105 win team after being projected for 85 wins. 

You can't just say the first 45 games were the Sox new level and any deviation from that is on the manager. 

That being said of course it is always possible to get better. 

 

I guess we will see next year who is correct. If the Sox win more than 95 games than you can say that is their true talent level and Ricky was just holding them back. 

not really since a young team improves with time

Anyone who thinks a team with two true SP is a 95+ win team be crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sox were showing us what a full season would look like when the season ended. It wasn't 95 wins. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Fire 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pcq said:

The Sox were showing us what a full season would look like when the season ended. It wasn't 95 wins. 

Yes... so only the bad stretches show you what the future of a season looks like. The 20 of 25 stretch wasn't real, only the poor stretch was. SMH

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renteria was fired because he put the team in a terrible situation the last two weeks of the season with awful game decisions. The marbles were on the table and he pushed them off. As a manager, if you consistently blow with divisions, playoff appearances, and playoff series' on the line, you will be fired, regardless of regular season contributions. The only exception is probably small market 60 million dollar payroll type of clubs. Winning organizations fire managers that lose the most important games because of bad managing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

Renteria was fired because he put the team in a terrible situation the last two weeks of the season with awful game decisions. The marbles were on the table and he pushed them off. As a manager, if you consistently blow with divisions, playoff appearances, and playoff series' on the line, you will be fired, regardless of regular season contributions. The only exception is probably small market 60 million dollar payroll type of clubs. Winning organizations fire managers that lose the most important games because of bad managing. 

Yes, agreed 100%. He got fired because when the moment got big, it was too big for him. Period, end of story. That doesn't mean he cost them tons of wins all year; it just means he wasn't suited to manage in those moments.

Now, endless turnover is stupid and pointless and every study done in the financial world will tell you that constantly firing people in leadership positions is not good for sustained success. I think it's fine to say we wanted a new skipper now that our boat is 3 times as big and strong, though.

Edited by Look at Ray Ray Run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Yes... so only the bad stretches show you what the future of a season looks like. The 20 of 25 stretch wasn't real, only the poor stretch was. SMH

The good stetches happened against the Royals, Tigers, and Pirates. Although other teams lost more to them, we matched up well and feasted on them. We went 13 and 22 against .500 teams. We went 7 and 13 against the top two teams in our division. This cannot be viewed as great accomplishment. We can appreciate the season being an overall success, but nothing special. 

The struggles came at the worst time as we were trying to win a division championship and a playoff series. Managers get fired for these types of performances, especially when they may be viewed as the norm. If we are being honest, the Sox and Ricky struggled more than the last 10 games of the season. Ricky in particular made poor decisions throughout the year He was credited by the front office for the team's success as Hahn said Ricky deserves to enjoy our success and to be a part of it. Ricky was so bad the last two and a half weeks that he coached himself out of any chance of being here next year. 

  • Fire 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, pcq said:

The Sox were showing us what a full season would look like when the season ended. It wasn't 95 wins. 

Is that so? The 2016 cubs lost 15 out of 20 games from June 20 to July 9, including a 5 game losing streak from July 5 to July 9.

They continued after that with a 21-6 streak, momentum doesn't exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SonofaRoache said:

The good stetches happened against the Royals, Tigers, and Pirates. Although other teams lost more to them, we matched up well and feasted on them. We went 13 and 22 against .500 teams. We went 7 and 13 against the top two teams in our division. This cannot be viewed as great accomplishment. We can appreciate the season being an overall success, but nothing special. 

The struggles came at the worst time as we were trying to win a division championship and a playoff series. Managers get fired for these types of performances, especially when they may be viewed as the norm. If we are being honest, the Sox and Ricky struggled more than the last 10 games of the season. Ricky in particular made poor decisions throughout the year He was credited by the front office for the team's success as Hahn said Ricky deserves to enjoy our success and to be a part of it. Ricky was so bad the last two and a half weeks that he coached himself out of any chance of being here next year. 

I'm not going to rehash this over and over, but when you are playing the majority of your games vs certain teams - as are they and every other team - your results vs those teams will have a significant impact on that teams record. Meaning the Sox record vs those teams - the dominance - had a lot to do with those teams have losing records; moreso than in a regular season where the schedule is more balanced.

Edited by Look at Ray Ray Run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, default said:

How can it be fair that absolute, exactly to the tee, concrete examples are required to prove the argument, but it can be disproved by a subjective interpretation of watching a 4-game Cleveland series?  

It is if you understand how logic works. 

There's no guarantee the Sox hang on to win those games, true. But they were commanding each and Renteria fucked them up, period. The losses are on him because he didn't put his team in the best position to win. If he DOES do that and they lose, he's not at fault. The process is what dictates fault, not the outcome. There is literally nothing subjective about that. Do you understand now?

Now please explain YOUR position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×