Jump to content
jaws7575

Tony La Russa

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, BrianAnderson said:

 

To me, why aren't there more qualified options? I don't want anybody with a preexisting negative coming into the process. Seems like w this talent we should be able to find a manager who checks all the boxes. 

By definition if someone is available to manage that has experience at this point, it is because there was a negative.

The only other way would be for a good manager to become a free agent.  But good managers usually get contract extensions.

Anyone we hire will have negatives.  That is just how it works.  The question is, which negatives do you prefer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, KonerkoFan1 said:

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.

Those are both subjective claims.  Since there are no generally accepted standards or methods that would prove a subjective claim conclusively true or false, this means, even though the claims may involve facts, they are not provable.

Your argument ("the losses are on him") is supported by subjective (non provable) claims and therefore cannot be proven as true.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It's FRIDAY SS2k, and I'm taking a 3 day weekend after finishing up the midterms of my masters, and completing my first week with the new job! It's going to be soxtalk troll city today!!!!!!!! Get your popcorn ready!

All jokes aside, please no La Russa. 

BOCHY! BOCHY! BOCHY!

I love when someone attempts a soft landing and subsequent disappearance after failing to answer a simple, direct question.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, default said:

Those are both subjective claims.  Since there are no generally accepted standards or methods that would prove a subjective claim conclusively true or false, this means, even though the claims may involve facts, they are not provable.

Your argument ("the losses are on him") is supported by subjective (non provable) claims and therefore cannot be proven as true.

No, they are not. It's very simple, statistics aren't even necessary.

You make bad decisions consistently, you will have bad results. You make good decisions consistently, you will have good results. A good result after a bad decision is fortunate but not commendable. A bad result after a good decision is of no fault.

Renteria made abysmal decision after abysmal decision, game after game. As a result, we lost the division and 6 spots in seeding in a week. It is absolutely reasonable to pin that on Renteria because win or lose, he made constant bad decisions and therefore is to blame.

By your rationale the manager is never at fault

It's really very simple. This is 100% objective.

Edited by KonerkoFan1
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I love when someone attempts a soft landing and subsequent disappearance after failing to answer a simple, direct question.

I love when someone thinks they're arguing intelligently but can only "prove" arguments using unproveable subjective claims, and can only "disprove" arguments using logical fallacies.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, default said:

I love when someone thinks they're arguing intelligently but can only "prove" arguments using unproveable subjective claims, and can only "disprove" arguments using logical fallacies.

Ok, which fallacy did I commit?

You responding before you could have possibly read the entire post and absorbed it is a little telling, too. 

Not to mention justifying someone else not being able to answer a question.

Whataboutism. Guess what? That's a logical fallacy, bud. Nothing like committing a fallacy while accusing someone else of doing so.

Edited by KonerkoFan1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

KC was a .500 team against the rest of baseball. Detroit nearly was. The record vs .500 teams thing is deceptive this season, as one team was single handedly responsible for that, making it look like they sucked against everyone. 

Can't have it both ways. Can't say praise should be abundant because of the season record and not dive into the why of the record. The AL Central and the NL Central were the worst divisions in each league and the conclusion of this season will prove this. These two divisions only played each other. The Royals and Tigers are bad and would have proven so over the course of 100 games against other teams. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Can't have it both ways. Can't say praise should be abundant because of the season record and not dive into the why of the record. The AL Central and the NL Central were the worst divisions in each league and the conclusion of this season will prove this. These two divisions only played each other. The Royals and Tigers are bad and would have proven so over the course of 100 games against other teams. 

This is non-sense, the winner of the world series this year should be able to hang its flag high as anyone, but the turnout of a bunch of 3-game series is random as hell. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Can't have it both ways. Can't say praise should be abundant because of the season record and not dive into the why of the record. The AL Central and the NL Central were the worst divisions in each league and the conclusion of this season will prove this. These two divisions only played each other. The Royals and Tigers are bad and would have proven so over the course of 100 games against other teams. 

Everyone in their division played a similar schedule, and the Sox were 1 win from having the best record. So sure, their schedule wasn’t as tough as some teams, but it was pretty much the same as their rivals. I haven’t looked back at the preseason win prediction list, but I am pretty sure 35 was on the high end. 
 

This might have worked out perfectly. Ricky could have taken them to the ALDS, but as long as they didn’t trust Cease or Dunning to give up a run, that was as far as it was going to go. So Ricky’s lack of game management didn’t cost them a trip to the WS or a WS title, and it was exposed even though the team won games and made the playoffs. Think of what it usually takes to get fired from the White Sox.

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bmags said:

This is non-sense, the winner of the world series this year should be able to hang its flag high as anyone, but the turnout of a bunch of 3-game series is random as hell. 

No it isn't. The better teams won their series. What team won a three game series that could be argued they only won because of randomness? The Yankees, Rays, and Astros have been at the top of the AL consistently when healthy. This year the Astros proved it without cheating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KonerkoFan1 said:

Ok, which fallacy did I commit?

You responding before you could have possibly read the entire post and absorbed it is a little telling, too

Not to mention justifying someone else not being able to answer a question.

Whataboutism. Guess what? That's a logical fallacy, bud.

You invent strawman arguments to disprove and did it again TWICE in this post.  

You are correct that whataboutisim is a logical fallacy could involve not answering a question.   But justifying someone else not being able to answer a question is not whataboutisim.

Share this post


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

Can't have it both ways. Can't say praise should be abundant because of the season record and not dive into the why of the record. The AL Central and the NL Central were the worst divisions in each league and the conclusion of this season will prove this. These two divisions only played each other. 

Yes, that they only played the Centrals (which, despite 7 playoff teams won a total of 2 playoff games) plus the Sox' poor record against those 7  playoff teams, leaves the true quality of this team an open question. 
On the Larussa matter, it's hard to reconcile front-office dissatisfaction with Renteria and Cooper not following analytics with looking at LaRussa for manager.

Edited by GreenSox
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Everyone in their division played a similar schedule, and the Sox were 1 win from having the best record. So sure, their schedule wasn’t as tough as some teams, but it was pretty much the same as their rivals. I haven’t looked back at the preseason win prediction list, but I am pretty sure 35 was on the high end. 
 

This might have worked out perfectly. Ricky could have taken them to the ALDS, but as long as they didn’t trust Cease or Dunning to give up a run, that was as far as it was going to go. So Ricky’s lack of game management didn’t cost them a trip to the WS or a WS title, and it was exposed even though the team won games and made the playoffs.

My point is we shouldn't get over confident over this season. The record was very good but in a real season this team wins between 86 and 90 games imo, not the 96 they were on pace to do. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

No it isn't. The better teams won their series. What team won a three game series that could be argued they only won because of randomness? The Yankees, Rays, and Astros have been at the top of the AL consistently when healthy. This year the Astros proved it without cheating. 

This is skip bayless quality stuff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good news is because the white sox won a playoff game that proves they were better than all the other Central teams regardless of the regular season so they are fine.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

My point is we shouldn't get over confident over this season. The record was very good but in a real season this team wins between 86 and 90 games imo, not the 96 they were on pace to do. 

Yes but other than Abreu, you can probably expect some improvement. How many players made their major league debut? They got nothing out of EE and Mazara. Moncada physically was a shell of himself. No Kopech. I was worried a year ago, but now I am convinced this team, if it stays healthy, will be a powerhouse. I was expecting some busts, but of their young hitters, it looks like somehow that may be avoided. TA is going to be better than anyone could have ever thought.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely think Renteria should have been fired because regardless of whether those decisions actually cost the Sox the games in question, they were by most experts in the game, egregiously bad managerial decisions. 
 

Yes, a manager often gets all of the blame and none of the credit. If Renteria wasn’t the manager for 2017-2020 would Anderson have developed as he did? Would Moncada have gotten on track? Would James McCann have blossomed into the player we know? Those are also subjective calls.
 

I think Ricky was absolutely the right dude for a young developing team that needed to stay loose and roll with the punches to get into a position to win. He is absolutely NOT the right dude moving forward, because the margin for error in high leverage situations is razor thin, and he proved several times- in several seasons- that he was willing to make baffling, questionable, extremely high risk calls that often didn’t pan out. 
 

I think managers maybe make the difference in 2-3 wins a year. I just don’t trust Ricky to be on the right side of that with this team anymore. It doesn’t mean he’s not a good baseball man and it doesn’t mean he doesn’t deserve another role somewhere else. 
 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, default said:

You invent strawman arguments to disprove and did it again TWICE in this post.  

You are correct that whataboutisim is a logical fallacy could involve not answering a question.   But justifying someone else not being able to answer a question is not whataboutisim.

LOL please explain where the straw man arguments are because I didn't even talk about arguments from anybody else, I simply explained the process of making good decisions versus bad ones. I'm thinking you might not know what a strawman actually is.

I asked a legitimate question to another poster and you turned it around on me. Instead of just let it be and have him answer the question I was asking him. That's a form of whataboutism.

Edited by KonerkoFan1

Share this post


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

This is skip bayless quality stuff.

Okay then answer the question. What team won a three game series were someone could strongly argue it was due to randomness of a three game series and not the better team winning? You made the statement so provide an answer. 

Edited by SonofaRoache

Share this post


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

Yes but other than Abreu, you can probably expect some improvement. How many players made their major league debut? They got nothing out of EE and Mazara. Moncada physically was a shell of himself. No Kopech. I was worried a year ago, but now I am convinced this team, if it stays healthy, will be a powerhouse. I was expecting some busts, but of their young hitters, it looks like somehow that may be avoided. TA is going to be better than anyone could have ever thought.

I agree with this. But,the improvement wouldn't come from Ricky most likely. Which is why he was fired. I believe we didn't perform even better this year because Ricky took games out of our hands. If we had a coach like Hinch, Bochy, TLR, Cora, or Q I think we have an even better season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Look at Ray Ray run and Konerko Fan, why don’t you exchange numbers so you can argue in peace. I keep coming back to this thread for news and all I find is you two chickens clucking.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KonerkoFan1 said:

I love when someone attempts a soft landing and subsequent disappearance after failing to answer a simple, direct question.

Dude I answered the question twice. I'm not going to repeat myself just to carry on a never ending discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Orlando said:

Hey Look at Ray Ray run and Konerko Fan, why don’t you exchange numbers so you can argue in peace. I keep coming back to this thread for news and all I find is you two chickens clucking.

what are you even talking about? 

Go cry somewhere else. We were discussing a manager in a manager thread. Its not a tony la russa news only thread. If it were your posts in it are worthless as well.

Edited by Look at Ray Ray Run
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys I think we can declare this "agree to disagree" and move on 

  • Like 1

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.

×