shoota

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Aug 7, 2006 -> 11:59 PM) 2000 w/ 95 wins....But whatever, Manuel never had as good of a team. Talent overrides a lot of things in sports. Correct.

QUOTE(VAfan @ Aug 4, 2006 -> 01:49 PM) If you were Ozzie right now, what 3 things would you do to try to spark the team on an August-September run? This is what I would do. If I were Ozzie for a week, I'd fire myself and hire Tom Kelly. With a good manager making the decisions, winning baseball would then just fall into place.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Aug 7, 2006 -> 09:25 PM) IIRC, Manuel made too many adjustments. So I'm not seeing the comparison. The comparison holds true in that both are bad managers.

QUOTE(Wealz @ Aug 7, 2006 -> 11:17 PM) Call me crazy, but I'll keep the World Series trophy and forgo whatever is behind curtain #3. You can still take 2005 and fire Ozzie to improve the present and future.

QUOTE(greg775 @ Aug 7, 2006 -> 09:28 PM) Also you act like our bullpen is clutch. Our bullpen has been average at best. The bullpen doesn't have to be clutch for them to be better options than the starters in the innings of their implosions.

QUOTE(Wealz @ Aug 7, 2006 -> 10:46 PM) .568 and a World Series speaks for itself. Yet a better manager might have lead Ozzie's teams to a better winning percentage, 2005 World Series victory, and have the 2006 team playing much better baseball.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Aug 7, 2006 -> 10:36 PM) Remember when he brought Marte into the third game of the Boston series? Who knows how that series would've went if Duque hadn't had one of the greatest playoff innings in history. No doubt. With hindsight, I'm grateful for Ozzie's poor decision because it gave me one of the most emotional feelings I've had watching sports.

QUOTE(SnB @ Aug 7, 2006 -> 10:05 PM) we went out and get guys like macdougal for a reason. If bmac came in, in the 7th and gave up a few runs, I wouldn't be nearly this upset, cause at least ozzie made some sort of right move. But honestly, it's got to be around 10 games that we've lost this season, due to just leaving the starter in their too long. We won in the playoffs last year in spite of ozzie, basically we didn't give him a chance to screw it up. I think more and more people are beggining to see that. You're right that the Sox won the World Series last year in spite of Ozzie's bad managing, such as his use of Damaso Marte and Neal Cotts, and his decisions to put Marte on the playoff rosters over McCarthy. Ozzie had a poor philosophy last year of using the worse of his two lefty relievers in critical relief situations. He used Marte when the game was on the line instead of using Cotts, who he was saving for situation that didn't occur. The smart philosophy would have been to first use his best lefty reliever, Cotts, for the tougher situations where a lefty pitcher is required, because he was more likely to succeed than Marte. Then, later in the game if a lefty is needed, call on Marte. Ozzie had this backwards, regularly used Marte at critical points in the game where a lefty pitcher was desired, while Cotts rotted in the bullpen for a situation that often never came.

QUOTE(bighurt574 @ Aug 7, 2006 -> 01:59 PM) Through 53 games, our attendence is 1,908,770, which means we would need 1,091,230 over our last 28 home games to hit 3 million. That would be 38,972 per game. Possible, yes, but we probably come up just short (we haven't even hit that in all of our "sell-outs"). Good analysis. The Sox can still hit the 3 million mark by counting playoff games. Did the Sox have a higher attendence than the Cubs last year including playoffs?

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Aug 3, 2006 -> 04:38 PM) For whatever it's worth my baseball stat-nut, fantasy league sports-geek co-worker (who is a Cubs fan but pays close attention to the Sox) said, when I first approached him on this question a while back, without hesitation: He's hurt. The only other explanation he could think of, when asked again today, was that he's worn out from the combo of the WS last year and in particular the WBC. For whatever it's worth. He and I don't believe that with Buehrle because a) he never threw that hard, B) the dropoff is not as severe as Freddy's and c) even he seems to agree it's a placement issue. But I agree with Milkman: this truly IS like the JFK mystery to Sox fans. I've never seen anything like it. Is there any precedence for this--the caveat being for somebody who was NOT obviously injured? Billy Koch. He lost his fastball in less than half a year. He had it in October with the A's and didn't have it the next March with the Sox.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 2, 2006 -> 09:21 AM) Thank you for at least being honest about what's really bugging people about Vaz, the $$$ that KW gave him. You have a completely false understanding of my post. The money Vazquez makes is not more important than his performance. I mentioned his salary and the cost spent to acquire him as reason why KW--nor anyone else--should think of Javier Vazquez as a 5th starter. Vazquez supporters can quit dreaming that he will become the next Jose Contreras because Vazquez has never been as good of a pitcher as Contreras was pre-2005.

Crede's definitely behind Thome, Dye and Konerko.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jul 31, 2006 -> 05:09 PM) I am Vaz I suck I am the 5th starter I am supposed to suck Why don't you go bother Mark "I can't hold a lead for schlitz" Buehrle? The criticism of 5th starter Javy Vazquez is reasonable because he was expected to pitch much better than a 5th starter. If KW only thought of him as a 5th starter, he wouldn't have given up a top prospect and taken on his salary that's one of the highest on the team for him. Mark Buehrle has been a much better pitcher over his career--and this season--than Javier Vazquez. Mark has pitched horribly for five consecutive starts, but his pitching history suggests his struggle is an aberration while Javy's poor pitching is consistent every year. Javier Vazquez sucks and should not be defended.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 12:10 PM) His performance isn't the issue. His cost and potential value in the future are the reasons they cannot put him in the pen. This is heart of our differing opinions. I believe his performance is the reason he and McCarthy should switch roles and I'm willing to sacrifice his future trade value for an improved 2006 team. I'm not concerned with Vazquez's salary since he will be paid the same no matter what role he pitches. I care more about winning than I do saving face.

On top of his poor pitching, Javy Vazquez seems to be the pretty boy type that doesn't get his hands dirty and doesn't possess the grinder personality. I formed this opinion on him for two reasons: not defending his teammate AJ Pierzynski when he was twice intentionally hit by pitch by Padilla, and for regularly crumbling with men on base.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 07:47 AM) The Sox won the series, which is what they wanted to do. Even if you have the bullpen totally rested for Vazquez and lose yesterday because of it, the very best you would be able to do is take 2 of 3. That is now the worst-case scenerio. Ozzie's no wizard when handling his bullpen, but he did the right thing yesterday, and got the all important win. Excellent analysis. I agree with that philosophy.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 05:57 PM) I'm going to ask Christine O'Reilly what she thinks of our chances. Seriously, why try to change the way someone views things? They're White Sox fans...that should be enough for them to get on your good side. Awesome. If I see her on the street, I'm taking that ring. I deserve it more.

All Sox fans should strive to be Dark Clouds because they exhibit realistic viewpoints unlike Dreamers whose viewpoints are usually inaccurate and always elementary. Dark Clouds base their thinking on fact and performance; Dreamers believe everything will turn out for the best because they're either incapable of imagining a scenario where their team or player fails, or they're incapable of comprehending the statistical performance that suggests a best case scenario is unlikely.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 11:57 AM) You didn't disprove squat. You suggested putting him in the pen and I told you why that idea was worth spiff. Nowhere in your defense of Vazquez did you use his performance to prove that he's a better option than Brandon McCarthy in the rotation. You only used reasons like his salary and high cost used to acquire him. Very telling.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 07:27 AM) You also have think about the long - term and not only the short - term here. Like YAS said if you move Vaz to the pen, you're stuck with him there for the next few seasons and his confidence will be shattered. And how often would you actually use him out of the pen? Look at how Ozzie uses B-Mac right now. We didn't trade Chris Young just so we would be stuck with a long reliever with a terrible contract. If Vaz is going to be out of this rotation, it'll be at the end of the season as part of a trade to open up a spot for B-Mac. You and YASNY are using backwards logic to support your want to keep Vazquez in the rotation. Chris Young is already gone and Vazquez's contract cannot be changed, so these two past events should have no influence on how Javier Vazquez is used by the White Sox. Now that he's on the team, he should be used in whatever manner helps the Sox win the most games. You cannot disagree with that. QUOTE(YASNY @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 08:59 AM) To expand on your remarks and rebut shoota's... Vaz and Contreras are very comparable as they are both pitchers with great 'stuff' and were underperforming. The trade deadline is a weak argument because Cooper has contributed to the mental aspects of the game for Contreras as well as Garland. It takes time to accomplish that, and if the Sox just dump Vazquez without giving him every opportunity, then they gave away Young for nothing. The trade deadline argument is yours: "If they put him the pen, they've a $10M long reliever they'd never be able to trade." I simply disproved your faulty thinking: "Since the trading deadline is two days' away, your second point is irrelevant."

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 02:00 AM) Because you don't pay around $10M for a guy to be basically a long reliever who's hardly used. That's a ridiculous argument. If the Sox were likely to win more games with each man's role switched, how could you not support the change? QUOTE(YASNY @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 02:04 AM) Exactly! There is a chance they can still get inside of Javy's head and turn him around ala Contreras. If they put him the pen, they've a $10M long reliever they'd never be able to trade. Since the trading deadline is two days' away, your second point is irrelevant. And your first point is false groupthink because Vazquez has never been as good of a pitcher as Contreras pre-2005. QUOTE(greg775 @ Jul 30, 2006 -> 03:02 AM) I don't know why many assume BMac would suddenly be way better than Vazzy. Can't you picture BMac going 5 strong innings like Vazzy and getting lit up in the sixth also? Garland sucked big time his first few seasons. Watching Bmac pitch this year I don't sense a ton of zeros on the board. Sounds like the deal where the first team quarterback is spiffty and the fans are calling for the unknown. Once he gets in, the backup isn't always the answer. Don't look only at the starting performances of both men. Also look at how Vazquez would perform in the bullpen. Since he dominates hitters the first two times through a lineup, his numbers suggest he'd be an excellent long man. Vazquez could likely be the better bullpen pitcher than McCarthy while McCarthy could likely be the better starting pitcher. The Sox could upgrade their starting rotation and bullpen by adjusting their current talent.

QUOTE(S720 @ Jul 29, 2006 -> 10:34 PM) That tells us we know nothing! Stop being an arm-chaired manager, and let Ozzie do his job. What makes you believe it'd be a bad decision to switch the pitching roles of Vazquez and McCarthy?

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jul 29, 2006 -> 10:15 PM) ERA measured against the league average, and adjusted for ballpark factors. An ERA+ over 100 is better than average, less than 100 is below average. Thanks for the explanation.

How does this reflect on Ozzie Guillen that this simple change which would improve the team is so obvious to us fans, yet he refuses to do it?

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jul 29, 2006 -> 10:11 PM) Vazquez also had an ERA+ of 135 in 01, 106 in 02 and 154 in 03. For comparisons sake, Contreras had a ERA+ of 122 in 2005, and 132 so far this season. Looks pretty similar there to me. I don't know what ERA+ means.