witesoxfan

[slow clap]

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 12:19 PM) Depends on the variables involved at the time. Given my background in economics, I can appreciate this answer.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 12:14 PM) my comment was not in regard to the 2005 postseason. If you did something that would only work 1 out of 10 times, and it worked, wouldn't you say that's pretty lucky? Do you think teams that recover onside kicks in the NFL are lucky? Or that guys who get on base due to errors are lucky? Or people who hit on 16 are lucky? Lucky isn't bad, it just means against the odds.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 11:55 AM) They only had a 6 run lead once in the 4 games. 2 3 run leads and won one by 1 run, thanks AJP. If you thought he was not wrong, why did you even start this argument by saying his leaving the pitchers in was not smart? You also hinted earlier that his leaving them in may have affected their performance in 2006. So you are all over the place. For a guy who says someone else is always trying to get the last word, you do spend a lot of time trying to get the last word. If Greg wants to think Ozzie is a genius, why does that bother you? And during that 1 inning they had a 6 run lead, I would have gone with a reliever to keep Garcia's arm fresher. This ultimately didn't matter. Greg said Ozzie was a genius for leaving his starters in. It is my belief that he absolutely was not a genius. If he wants to believe that, he can; I'm merely on here to state my opinion (and one shared by hundreds others on here) that Ozzie is not a genius for that. I am attempting to prove why using numbers. I have said that I have no problem with his decision to do so, given the circumstances, just that he was not. Ultimately, the decision to leave his starters in as long as he did during the 2005 season may have affected their performance in 2006, which would also make him the opposite of a genius and more of a masochist. That is a far greater gray area than 1 inning a reliever would have thrown when up by 6 runs. It was started as a result of the TTOP; Garcia was at a far greater likelihood to blow up in that situation than a reliever. Ultimately, each outcome is its own independent action and the reliever very well could have blown up. In that instance, at least Garcia would have been fresher for a game 7, right? But had Garcia blown up and gone over the 120 or the 130 pitch mark attempting to get a complete game, then he is more fatigued and the Sox are in a worse spot. Neither came into play and it didn't matter either way. Let bygones be bygones and be happy that they won. It's OK. I am not attempting to get the last word in; people take shots at my posts that I believe are shots at my character, so I feel the need to defend them. Nothing more. Your post is a perfect example of that. It's not a personal attack, but it's questioning me. Thus, I feel obligated to answer. If I cared so much about getting the last word in, I could just use my "mighty mod sorcerer powers" and lock the thread when I make a final post. I have yet to do that and won't do that unless it becomes necessary, and thus far, it has not even gotten close to that point.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 11:47 AM) Armed will all this terrific data, aren't you still taking a guess? It's a CYA move . . . "well the computer said I'd be right 90% of the time, they just got lucky." ROFL! And now you're showing that clear cut miscomprehension. The White Sox, in the 2005 season, threw 9 complete games out of a 162 game schedule. That results in a 5.55% chance that they would throw a complete game on any given day, which is roughly 1 in 19 games. To actually throw a complete game, the team would have to be pretty lucky that the pitcher was so good that day. The White Sox did this 4 times in a row. I'm sure my math is wrong here regarding the ability to find variable events and probabilities, but I come up with a 0.00094% chance that the White Sox would have thrown 4 complete games in this instance. It would seem pretty lucky that they would throw 4 complete games in a row given that the odds that they DO NOT throw 4 complete games in a row is 99.99996%, right? Thus, the White Sox were lucky to throw 4 complete games in a row. Lucky does not mean they were bad or wrong. Lucky means against the odds. Given the odds, it was incredibly lucky. Now, if you are arguing that the 2005 White Sox were not incredibly lucky and fortunate and that the team won the World Series beyond all odds, then you are going to find a lot of people that disagree with you. They were incredibly lucky and fortunate, but that's the difference between a bad team and a good team. It's not all numbers and paper and probabilities. Sometimes, check that, A LOT OF times, there is this unaccounted for static fuzz or gray area that you cannot control that we call LUCK that is the difference between a bad team and a good team. You'd argue that the 2013 Red Sox were a better team than the 2013 Cardinals, and some of that is simply due to dumb luck. It's not a bad thing.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 11:39 AM) I wasn't thinking that either. Nor was I. I also bet that my 0.1% chance of the White Sox relievers giving up more than 6 runs is closer than 3%. What you are suggesting by saying that is that, in every 33 chances, any bullpen pitcher is liable to give up 7 runs in 1 inning of work. How many relievers even gave up 7 runs in an appearance - even including more than 1 inning - at all this year? It's silly that you two are getting so worked up over this. Again, let me explain #1) Ozzie was lucky that his team was even in a position to throw 4 complete games in a row. Ozzie was NOT LUCKY TO WIN because his pitchers threw 4 complete games in a row or whatever. #2) In the case where the White Sox clearly had the game wrapped up, I would have removed the starter to allow him to remain fresher to throw in a potential game 7, which was still very much in doubt at that point. #3) Leaving Garcia in or going to a reliever, nobody would have cared either way because neither decision was incorrect. a. If Ozzie puts in a reliever, he is not wrong. b. If Ozzie leaves Garcia in, he is not wrong. Do we understand this or do I have to say it about 12 or 13 more times before this thread can die again?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 11:03 AM) Why would you want to replay it? That's not what I said. I literally have no problem whatsoever with the decision that Ozzie made. I said that, in hindsight, I would have taken Garcia out after 8 innings of game 3 to save his arm for a potential game 7. I absolutely do not care that he left him in and there was no incorrect decision to be made in that situation, only varying levels of correct. It worked out and they won and that's all I care about at this point. Maybe I would have cost the Sox the World Series because Vizcaino (and the subsequent relievers) would have allowed 7 runs. Given how well that team was playing, I have a significant level of certainty that I would not have.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 10:53 AM) The result is the only thing that matters. If you want to think Ozzie was a genius because he left his pitchers in, fine. If you want to think Ozzie was "not smart" for not yanking his pitchers, fine. The Sox won. Why have a problem with what was done 8 years later? And to say the ultimate result would have been the same if he had used the bullpen, while perhaps true, is total speculation, certainly not a fact. Which is why I said there's a 99.999% chance that it would have been fine. If you prefer 99.9% (meaning 1 in 1,000 rather than 1 in 100,000) then whatever, it was a miniscule chance that it would have had an effect.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 10:51 AM) Except Hermanson and Marte were really struggling for different reasons at that point. Vizcaino was the last one in usually. I'll give you Cotts, Politte and Jenks. So I'd say the best back end of the bullpen in White Sox history. Dustin Hermanson made 1 appearance in the 2005 playoffs. He got a strikeout and gave up a game tying double. That was literally it. He can be struggling all he wants, but if he doesn't get used, then who cares? Marte was bailed out by El Duque against Boston but, even though he struggled with his control, he was effective in his one appearance against Houston.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 10:50 AM) Wite just said he would have taken the starters out in retrospect, but it's a decision that would not have made any difference. I have no problem that Ozzie kept him in. This is what led to the TTOP debate. I also said I would have taken Garcia out so he could be ready for a game 7 and be fresher. I have no problem that Ozzie kept him in because his pitch count was decent. It ultimately would have made no difference either way.

That could be a really, really good thing for the White Sox and something they absolutely need to look into taking advantage of.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 10:48 AM) Well, I guess we can debate "ever seen" then, haha. If the poster was say, 55 years old, just depends on the context. Well then it clearly would go to Earl Weaver

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 10:37 AM) The only difference it could have made would be not winning the World Series. But ultimately, as proven by its depth and effectiveness in the World Series, there is a 99.999% chance it would have made no difference because that bullpen was probably the best in White Sox history. So #1, Ozzie was lucky that the White Sox were in a position to throw 4 straight complete games and #2, in retrospect, I would have made a move that would have ultimately made no difference in the outcome of the series (because a White Sox reliever giving up 6 runs to that Angels offense in 1 inning was not going to happen). This is virtually a pointless debate at this point. The points have been made and beaten to death, but you have chosen to drag a dead horse through the mud.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 10:29 AM) I've skimmed through this thread and I find it funny that people think Guillen "got lucky" managing his staff during the 2005 postseason. Brings me to another point, it seems a lot of people here use "lucky" to describe success that goes against the SABR norm. And this is the problem with skimming. Nobody has said Ozzie got lucky in managing. I have suggested the fact that 4 guys in a row got complete games is lucky. I also said that I would have taken guys out in retrospect, but that it was a decision that ultimately made no difference. Read and comprehend, don't skim and jump to conclusions.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 10:05 AM) Sort of. Golic was not at all excusing the stuff Incognito did, but he was saying that if Martin really had the stuff of an NFL player, he would have beat the living s*** out of Incognito instead of just quitting. I don't buy that and had that argument with my brother-in-law. First and foremost, guards typically have to be and are physically stronger than tackles. Tackles have to be quick on their feet. So right there alone you have the chance for Incognito to kick the crap out of him. Secondly, and probably more importantly, Incognito was probably leading the charge, but other guys were probably backing him in the toughening up. In Martin's mind, going after Incognito means going after 3-5 guys. He'd be stupid to do that too.

I thought Marinez looked OK. I'd like him and Castro to get one more chance in the system, but I'm not going to be upset if they don't bring them back.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 09:57 AM) First you would have to look at the players coming from Central/South America that may have been very poor growing up. If baseball is the best way "off the island", whether or not you like baseball doesn't matter. Or that it's one of the only two sports they can really play. There aren't many, if any, basketball hoops in the neighborhoods, and football requires too much equipment for the impoverished nations to actually afford. You can play baseball - with a stick and rubber ball - or you can play soccer - with a round ball of some type. Some guys just turn out to be pretty damn good at it. It's also one of the best ways off the island too because guys are actually down there looking for players to sign at young ages.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 5, 2013 -> 07:06 PM) Yeah. Thinking about the article I posted in the sports section...I wonder if one of the advantages enjoyed by the guys who stuck it out is that they loved baseball less? I know KW has said that football was his #1 passion in life and that if he were ever offered a job with the Raiders, he'd take it in a second. It also makes you wonder about guys like Julius Peppers, Antonio Gates, Jimmy Graham, and Julius Thomas too.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 09:15 AM) I think in time we will know if the coaches for Miami had an idea of what was going on and how much they knew. I also think this will lead to a ban of all forms of hazing. I would say that there is no doubt this happens, even if most of it is good natured fun. I think taping a guy up on the field goal posts for a bit is fine and dandy, and making those guys take back equipment or whatever is generally harmless. Most of this stuff is ridiculous though.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 09:11 AM) Oh come on. This is the ESPN spin machine at work. This isn't a nightmare. The Dolphins (and NFL) aren't losing money on this thing. It's just another story about professional players being assholes. Who honestly thinks less of the NFL or the Dolphins because of this? It was one asshole and one victim. Without more, case closed. Even if the dolphins coaches asked Icognito to toughen Martin up, they didn't know he was going to be a racist asshole about it or go about it in the way that he did. The NFL, no, but I do certainly think less of the Dolphins. Incognito has proven to be a bigger POS than anyone could have imagined and the Dolphins apparently entrusted him to "toughen up" Jonathan Martin even though they were likely well aware of his racist nature.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Nov 5, 2013 -> 09:23 PM) I just hope it's for the right reasons. Yes, because he was the best pitcher

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 5, 2013 -> 07:00 PM) Mike Mussina... Didn't know he was still playing

Why would it matter if Incognito is better than Martin anyways? Incognito is a guard and Martin is a tackle. That's like saying that "because Julius Peppers is better than Henry Melton, the Bears should get rid of him." No, you'd ideally like to keep both of them so your team is better. What does that have to do with any of this? Incognito (and the Dolphins in generally) have a PR nightmare on their hands. Also, the Dolphins asking for Martin to be toughened up is pretty general. Them asking Incognito, a known POS, to toughen him up brings their ability to identify high character players into question.

I think the more interesting thought is how many pro baseball players are actually playing their favorite sport or if they were just really good at baseball?

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Nov 4, 2013 -> 04:38 PM) I was having this conversation with my roommates this week: if you could pick one player to start a franchise with, who would it be? We were basically all torn between Luck, Wilson and Rodgers. Garrison Sanborn