Soxbadger

If Ozzie doesnt know that Girardie will pinch hit Chavez when he brings in the righty, fire Ozzie right now.

Its not about how many pitches did Santos throw, its how many pitches did he potentially have to throw. If Santos is the closer, you cant risk that he does throw 20 pitches to get out of the inning and then you put in Thornton? Its just backwards logic, the Sox scoring in the 9th really helped out. But can you imagine how tight that game is if Granderson leads off with only a 1 run lead? I just dont like it, call me old fashioned. Or maybe Ozzie just considered this game a must win, I didnt consider that before, but I guess if he thought he had to win this game no matter what, than Sergio makes sense. But I just would prefer a different approach 90% of the time.

How did putting Santos in to face Chavez make sense? Sale v. Jones is just as good of a match up, and doesnt risk your closer throwing an extra what, 10-15 pitches?

You have no idea what youre talking about. It had nothing to do with Thornton, it had to do with the fact Santos (to the best of my knowledge) has never closed a game at any level. So for his first chance at closing ever Ozzie decided to throw him in the 8th and 9th. That is a recipe for disaster. Perhaps you should go back and see that after the KC loss where Thornton gave up the 3 run hr (I believe his second blown save) I posted in the game thread that the Sox seriously needed to consider switching Thornton from the role. So once again, I have no clue what you are talking about. I am merely suggesting (which is factually correct) that having to pitch the 8th and 9th is significantly harder. Thus if Santos was my closer, he does not pitch the 9th. I stay with Sale v Jones, if Santos is my closer. Your argument is insane, absolutely mind blowingly dumb.

Sarcasm, catch the fever!

Seriously some of you are flat out ridiculous. Go look up the stats on closer success rates when entering in the 8th and then ask who really was talking about winning or losing a game. Just because Santos came through, doesnt mean its the right decision. As for wanting players to succeed, thats how you win. If every player succeeds you win games. If players fail, your team fails. Serious insanity by some posters.

Humber! And Santos did the job, Ozzie put him in a screwy situation and he came through. At this point he has to be the closer, nothing else you can say. He earned it.

Who is a hater? I love Santos. I hate how he is being handled in a really difficult situation. I want players to succeed.

And you win the game by not throwing your closer in the 8th. Outside of Rivera, how many closers successfully can get the 8th and 9th?] There is a reason why most winning teams dont do this s***, especially with a very young and inexperienced reliever.

This is just not smart baseball. This is flat out stupid.

If Matt isnt closer, and Sale was in during the 8th. What is his role? It looks like Santos wil stay in, but thats just horrible pen management.

Sox always play Yankees tough and find ways to lose to crappy teams. Its just White Sox baseball. And I completely disagree on Santos. No way would I bring him out there after sitting this entire inning and having to face Granderson, A-Rod, Teix. Id rather have Thornton face Granderson, flip Teix to righty as well.

Slide to the back of the bag, did you not just see how the Yankees did it?

Why do people think that Ozzie has a new closer. Thornton is going to close this game, and if he is successful hell close the next game. There is just no way you let Santos throw in the 8th if hes going to close in the 9th.

CQ so no bunt, although Id say they should steal.

Glad Santos was a former infielder.

Eric Chavez was with the A's. KW always wanted him, but he seemingly lost it at some point in the career.

Thornton is going to get 1 more chance if it gets to the 9th. Thats my guess.

Change up and then high fastball? Humber seemingly has his choice against Swisher.

Wow ump squeezing Humber bad this inning.

No matter what happens, Humber has done a whale of a job to start the season.

Fooled A-Rod bad on that change.

And the overall spectrum is irrelevant as we neither have a communist party nor a fascist party. Not to mention I thought most ideas on political spectrums had the spectrum as a graph with a X and Y axis, as composed to a straight line. So its not just where the party falls on the X axis, its also about where the party is on the Y axis. I dont put a lot of weight into political spectrums, but Id definitely say that Republican's arent "far" right. They are slightly right, Im not even sure many Republican's know who Michael Oakeshott is or that every American is by default not conservative, because we dont believe in ideas such as: “To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.” True conservatism is not in the United States, it cant be, the creation of the United States was one of the biggest repudiations of conservative thought (if not the biggest). Prior to the US, conservative ideology believed that only the upper class or royals could lead, because they were the only ones who had lead before (prefer the familiar to the unknown, the tried to the untried), the US was a great experiment. We are all truly liberal, some of us are more conservatively liberal than others. But no one in the US who supports anything other than a Monarchy can truly be called far right.

Yep, because the less bad one = the better one for my perspective. Its just a question of which one "more" represents my policies. Im not sure what your center right stance means, because well Democrats are clearly left of Republicans.

Well as a practical matter, that is the truth. If you vote for a 3rd party the most likely out come is that your second choice loses. Its some what a prisoners dilemma.