witesoxfan

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 02:14 PM) His point was Ozzie was not being smart leaving his starters in during the 2005 ALCS, and saying he was lucky. Knowing your personnel well enough to know what they are capable and not capable of isn't luck. It is a skill. At one time, Ozzie, much to my surprise, was an excellent manager. *The White Sox won by 6 runs in game 4. You better believe I think the right call in that situation is pulling the starter before the start of the 8th. It's not a big deal that he didn't, especially in hindsight. *No, I do not believe Ozzie was smart in leaving those guys out there. I think there were better options. Still, they were not dumb nor bad moves. Really, there is no wrong move that can be made when your team is playing that well, and it's going to work out no matter what you do almost every time. I believe he should have taken the guys out using hindsight, but I'm not complaining about it, but merely bringing it up in discussion. I will argue that leaving them in was not revolutionary because it was not. *However, if Ozzie obviously knew what his pitchers could handle, why would they have put up an ERA a full run higher the following season? Perhaps he did overwork them a bit in 2005? QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 02:18 PM) So next year on the final day of the season, if the Sox need a victory to get into the playoffs and Chris Sale is perfect through 6, has a pitch count around 90 and the Sox lead 1-0, if Ventura trots out Nate Jones to face the righty batting for the 3rd time to lead off the 7th, no one should really have a problem with it. Nope, nor would I care if he left him in. Now, how about a more reasonable example...the Sox are up by 6 runs heading to the bottom of the 8th inning, winning the ALCS by 2-1, and Hector Santiago is at 90 pitches after 7. Are you going to leave him in the game for the 8th?

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 12:29 PM) I mentioned it in the original post, assface. shut it potsie

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 12:27 PM) According to you leaving a pitcher in who is not getting hit very hard or putting people on base, is not smart because the almighty fangraphs says so. You said you weren't willing to say if it was right or wrong, just that it wasn't smart. And I am the one being argumentitive. As was stated earlier by others, this is just a response to Greg's assertion Ozzie revolutionized the game, and your argument is silly. Ozzie, at one time, was an excellent manager. He was 11-1 in the playoffs. How come it took you 8 years to say what happened was dumb but lucky? The team went 11-1 and brought home some hardware. I say when you are that dominate, there is more than luck involved. Because we haven't talked about this in about 8 years. Better judgement (meaning smarter) suggests that using a reliever should have been done. The Sox were up 8-3 in one of those games, maybe getting the guy out in the 7th or 8th so keep his arm fresh for a potential game 6 if necessary would have been a better idea. Maybe that would have given them momentum. It wasn't a dumb move, just that there were smarter, more rational, more reasonable moves that could be made.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 12:16 PM) But he is saying continuing to have them pitch is not smart. They needed to be yanked. The object is winning games. Pulling pitchers that are cruising along just to insert a new pitcher because of a graph, is what not is smart. Show me where I say they needed to. I never said that. Ozzie has never been one to be called a smart man. He went with his gut. He allowed them to stay in, probably against his better judgment. It worked out. The end.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 12:03 PM) Wow. You are off the rails. If Ozzie was so smart for letting those guys throw complete games, then why didn't he let Contreras finish game 1 of the World Series? He'd only thrown 82 pitches and he was rolling. I think you are being argumentative for the reason of being argumentative. It's incredibly lucky to be in the position to let your pitchers attempt to get 4 complete games in a row. THAT IS NOT A BAD THING. People equate "lucky" with "bad" all the time, which is not right.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 12:11 PM) How many times in playoff history has a team had 3 consecutive starters enter the 9th inning with a minimum 3-run lead and having thrown 105 pitches or less? That in itself is such a rare occurence. This is what we call luck

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 11:43 AM) Is response #1 a threat? Or is he saying that he doesn't have a choice now but to tackle lower which will result in more injuries? He's got a point about Marshall. How about instead of going low, you just tackle people properly? Get this f***ing goon out of the league

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 11:37 AM) Just remember next time Sale goes 8 or 9, gives up a couple of hits and strikes out 15, he was "lucky". And I get a kick out of you saying "I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's not smart". Sorry, that doesn't make sense. 1 complete game is not lucky. 4 complete games in a row is lucky Next time Mark Buehrle gets 45 guys out in a row again, there was absolutely no luck involved. --- Bobby Jenks as the closer was not smart either in 2005. A rookie who has had emotional problems in the past? Yeah, sounds like a great closer, even with electric stuff. It worked out.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 11:48 AM) Wasn't this the same dope who said no one else offered more than $50 million earlier freaking out some posters thinking the Sox must have overpaid? He was probably being fed that information by the Rockies so that he could leak it in hopes that the Sox would decrease their offer.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 11:06 AM) Climbed through Aasgard Pass in The Enchantments over the weekend with friends. Amazing trip. Did you have to deal with any bandits or maurauders in caves?

I think it's worse that it's on Sale

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 10:39 AM) And he would have been roasted. His pitchers were cruising. Buehrle 9 innings 5 hits 0 walks Garland 9 innings 4 hits 1 walk Garcia 9 innings 6 hits 1 walk Contreras 9 innings 5 hits 2 walks. Lucky? I don't think so. Ozzie screwed up a lot of things. But that playoff run was done very well. He had his ace starting game 1 of the WS, with a completely rested bullpen. The fact that 4 guys threw complete games in 4 consecutive games is lucky as hell, even if it was because they were cruising. You are likely to run into some kind of hiccup. Beyond that, it wasn't ground breaking or revolutionary, which was the original point. If you can't agree that 4 consecutive complete games is lucky on its own, then we won't ever find agreement on this and it's a neverending argument. Lucky isn't a bad thing, and I'm not saying Ozzie leaving them in was wrong or right. I'm saying it's not smart. Sometimes, not smart works out. It did in that instance.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 10:23 AM) The starter didn't get rocked or hurt. The team won the WS. That is the only thing that matters. Just keep in mind if you manage the fangraphs way and pull your starter because he might fade the second or third time through the line up, your bullpen is going to in shambles in a month. One key to that 2005 team was when they had the lead in the 5th inning, the game was basically over. Ozzie used the bullpen perfectly that year. Who knows what happens if the bullpen was taxed because Ozzie managed based on fangraphs. Greg is obviously over the top in his love for Ozzie, but to say Ozzie was wrong or just got very lucky with how he used his pitching staff in the playoffs is ludicrious, and just as over the top, if not more, the other way. Yes, if you manage each game like it's the last game of the year or the last 7 games of the year, then it will happen...which is why you don't manage each game like it's the last game of the year. But, come the playoffs, when they really are the last games of the year, you can afford that a bit more. You are the one who brought up "if the bullpen would have failed, Ozzie would have been roasted." Then you admit that the bullpen was dynamite all year, which it was. Thus it's safe to assume they wouldn't have failed. They certainly could have, but you are assuming unlikely hypothetical scenarios, so I am going to do the opposite and assume likely hypothetical scenarios. At the end, the Sox still would have won. The fact that the Sox did that for 4 games and didn't get bit on the ass is lucky, and it's generally not wise to have guys throw 4 complete games. They were pitching really well though, and the need to relieve those pitchers never came up. That's also incredibly lucky.

Stafford didn't know he was sneaking it until he got to the line http://deadspin.com/even-matthew-stafford-...fake-1453316076

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 09:52 AM) 50 of the 53 players on the Packers roster have only played for the Packers. John Kuhn played 9 games with the Steelers in 2006 Ryan Pickett played 5 years with the Rams. Seneca Wallace is the third player, having played for a couple teams. I remember seeing that last night. That is absolutely unreal.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 01:20 AM) Seeing this thread makes my heart hurt. I miss college. More than anything, I miss college. If I could go back and do an undergrad program again without racking up $100,000 worth or debt, I so totally would do it in a second.

Heroin is one of my favorite songs and one of the most memorable songs of all time. I had never heard about the Velvet Underground until college and then I bought a greatest hits album. I'm gonna have to run through that in the next couple days.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 09:30 AM) Schiano is a solid 1-12 in his last 13 games. Just an incredible showing. He's really done a magnificent job of running that team into the ground.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Oct 26, 2013 -> 06:27 PM) One of my favorite prospects in this draft class that has been getting some hype lately is Hawaiian prep arm Kodi Medeiros. Good fastball, shows 2 plus secondaries, but an unconventional arm slot. Hoping he's available in the second round but I wouldn't bet on it. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article....rticleid=22115# http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/kodi-...owd-at-jupiter/ I saw him pitch in the amateur high school all-star game. He looked fantastic. He's got late 1st or comp pick written all over him though. If he's there in the 2nd, it's because he's asking for a lot of money, which the Sox should give him if they were able to get him.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 08:25 AM) I love it. I love that they had probably the best running back of the past 20 years and wasted him. With their current QBs, that team might be bad enough to lose 14 games, even with AP. I think the Bucs will pull a few out once Schiano is inevitably fired (he's lost like, what, 12 games in a row now? 14 games? Something like that. He has to go soon).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 25, 2013 -> 06:04 PM) I always thought one of Ozzies strengths was how he ran the pitching staff. When his starters gave him those complete games no one said it was stupid then. In fact wasnt Jerry Manuel criticized for yanking Garland consistently in the 6th and 7th innings? Ozzie would have been blasted had he removed a starter who was cruising and the bullpen got rocked. I never blasted him, unless you count me saying "it wasn't smart." That's not the first time something Ozzie's done has been called "not smart." It wasn't a bad thing that he left them in, as they were pitching well and everything worked out in the end. Oh, and this "If Ozzie would have removed the starter and the bullpen got rocked" is ridiculous. He wasn't criticized for removing Garland in game 3 of the World Series, even though it was, for all intents and purposes, the same exact situation. And had he left a starter in and the starter got rocked or hurt, how smart does he look then? Seriously, imagine if, in game 5, the Angels string together 4 hits in a row in the 8th inning against Contreras and he leaves with runners on 1st and 3rd with no one out and the Angels down 6-5. Is that a situation you want to put a reliever in? Because it sure didn't work out when Qualls was put in a similar situation. Fact of the matter is that he was lucky. That entire year was lucky. It's OK to be lucky...that is not a bad thing.

I just remember how hot that team was out of the gate and by like early June, it seemed like they'd expended too much energy. Frank came back and hit like 12 homers in a month's worth of games and kick started that team. How has no one mentioned Rally Crede yet? That was the most excited and intense I have ever been for one of the first 162 games in my life.

I was down 103-76 going into the Sunday night game. I also had Lacy and Jordy starting. YOU CAN PUT IT ON THE BOOOOOOOARD, YES!

They can also trade a late round pick for a pass rusher with an expiring contract. Walter Football suggested Antonio Smith

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 25, 2013 -> 04:49 PM) I don't get your point. In other words, Ozzie did something outside the box and it worked. That constitutes smart managing, genius managing, right? No, he put his pitchers at risk and gave the opposition greater opportunities to score because they'd seen the guys more often, and overall he was lucky that they didn't score more. You do not understand a lot of very basic concepts.