Jump to content

ESPN article on Tony LaRussa and the Sox


VAfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DoUEvenShift said:

Hit job trying to stir drama where there is none. Using old quotes when there are newer ones that are far more relevant. 

 

ESPN just mad that their beloved Yankees are trash.

I read that article this morning and it's one of the most moronic, dumb articles I've ever read.  None of it made any sense.  It was some of the worst, lazy "journalism" of the season. I didn't bother linking it because it was so bad.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

I read that article this morning and it's one of the most moronic, dumb articles I've ever read.  None of it made any sense.  It was some of the worst, lazy "journalism" of the season. I didn't bother linking it because it was so bad.  

No kidding. Trying to link a strategy statistic such a bunting and giving up an out to an performance statistic such as spin rate to say TLR hates statistics is absurd.

Talk about someone with an agenda to promote.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

No kidding. Trying to link a strategy statistic such a bunting and giving up an out to an performance statistic such as spin rate to say TLR hates statistics is absurd.

Talk about someone with an agenda to promote.

It was incoherent.  If it was a undergrad essay it would have required an extra red marker.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 “ You cannot take percentages of what you think -- how you would script it -- and take them into a game. You have to watch the game and see. Do you smell a close game? Do you smell a crooked-number game?”

When I “smell” a close game under Tony, I smell a loss.

Games decided by 2 + runs: 48-25 .658

Games decided by 1 run: 10-12 .455

When you play for one run, that’s usually all you get. I have nothing against the bunt in its place, but most of the time, that place is in the bottom of a long forgotten closet.

- Earl Weaver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, DoUEvenShift said:

Hit job trying to stir drama where there is none. Using old quotes when there are newer ones that are far more relevant. 

 

ESPN just mad that their beloved Yankees are trash.

That is the job of ESPN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

@VAfan you can't post entire articles.  It needs to be a blurb and a link or it will be deleted. 

I wondered, but figured the moderators would sort it out.  No problem with them cutting it.  I think it's a terrible article.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, South Side Hit Men said:

 “ You cannot take percentages of what you think -- how you would script it -- and take them into a game. You have to watch the game and see. Do you smell a close game? Do you smell a crooked-number game?”

When I “smell” a close game under Tony, I smell a loss.

Games decided by 2 + runs: 48-25 .658

Games decided by 1 run: 10-12 .455

When you play for one run, that’s usually all you get. I have nothing against the bunt in its place, but most of the time, that place is in the bottom of a long forgotten closet.

- Earl Weaver

The 2005 White Sox, who won the World Series, had 53 sacrifice bunts, and were 35-19 in one-run games.  The 2021 White Sox, after more than half the season has been played, have had 18 sacrifice bunts, and are 10-12 in 1 run games.  

That alone casts serious doubt on your attempt to correlate bunt attempts with one-run losses.  

Also, Tony LaRussa is having the Sox bunt at the next to lowest rate of his long managerial career - 1.8%.  Only the 1998 St Louis Cardinals bunted less -- 1.7%.

*********

I also found this 2007 article from Bill James on one-run games that I find kind of interesting.  

Quote

 

The 50 teams which did well in one-run games had more stolen bases (96-92 on average), more sacrifice bunts (71-67), more complete games (35-31), more saves (34-30), issued fewer walks (513-531), drew more walks (526-520) and had a better ERA (3.77 to 3.91).  

The 50 teams which did poorly in one-run games hit more home runs (127-117), scored more runs (674-658), had a higher slugging percentage (.386-.380), a lower on-base percentage (.325-.323), used more relief pitchers (278-257), threw more wild pitches (47-44) and had more balks (8-7).  They were more likely to play in hitter’s parks (park factors 100.3 vs. 98.5). 

 

 

And there's this excerpt at the end.

 

 

Quote

 

 Can one infer anything about a manager from his one-run record?

I would have guessed, going into this study, that the answer to that might be a flat “no”, or, at least, an equivocal “no” (we can find no evidence within our study that playing well in one-run games is anything but a random occurrence, etc., etc., yada yada yada, bullshit, snore.)   I can’t give you that answer, for two reasons: 

1)  There does seem to be some persistent tendency of teams to play poorly in one-run games, and

2)  Teams which play well in one-run games do seem to have some identifiable characteristics, to a small degree.

 But I will say this:  that I would be careful about drawing any such inferences.   Tony Muser is -15 games in one-run decisions.  I can’t say that this IS just coincindence—but it certainly could be.  It’s not an overwhelming number, in and of itself.   

Rany began this discussion with a comment about Bobby Cox’ relatively poor record in one-run games.   Well, from 1990 through 2001 the Atlanta Braves scored 8,836 runs, allowed 7,409.   This is a ratio of 1.19 to 1.    In one-run games they have gone 297-256, a ratio of 1.16 to 1.    

The Braves have missed their expected won-lost record in one-run games, over the ten years, by 2.1 wins.   Obviously, no conclusion of any kind can be drawn from such an occurrence.   One-run games involve a huge amount of luck.   This may be the only safe statement that can be made about them. 

 

Edited by VAfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...