Terry Bevington managed the White Sox for three seasons and amassed a winning record overall: 222-214.

 

Robin Ventura has managed the White Sox for five seasons and has amassed a losing record overall of 369-431.

 

Bevington arguably had better teams to work with in some seasons.....but Robin has had more years.

 

Who's the better manager?

It's a push. Neither was very good for different reasons.

 

At least I guess, Robin never waived in a bullpen pitcher when there wasn't any warming up or got into a fist fight with an umpire at a steakhouse. LOL.

 

Mark

 

 

Neither guy should of ever been hired is the sad fact.

GACK!...Terry Bevington was the worst! At least RV is likeable and a respected former player.

got into a fist fight with an umpire at a steakhouse. LOL.

 

Mark

 

Bevington also

during a game.

That this is even a discussion point is indicative of the fact that hiring the right person to lead has never been a huge priority for this organization

Robin is a much better manager. Robin is not a buffoon. He just isn't a very good manager. Bevington was a buffoon.

 

Robin really blew it. He might have had a long career as a manager had he figured a way to build on that 23-10 start. At the first sign of adversity the team folded and Robin's laid back, even keel personality didn't help a bit. Since 23-10 this team has been historically bad.

Robin is a much better manager. Robin is not a buffoon. He just isn't a very good manager. Bevington was a buffoon.

 

Robin really blew it. He might have had a long career as a manager had he figured a way to build on that 23-10 start. At the first sign of adversity the team folded and Robin's laid back, even keel personality didn't help a bit. Since 23-10 this team has been historically bad.

 

WTF does the highlighted mean?

I wasn't around when Bevington was the skipper for the Sox, but it's hard to imagine that anyone could be worse than Robin.

no Bevington was not a better manager than Ventura.

no Bevington was not a better manager than Ventura.

 

I get that some people are irrationally angry about Ventura, but Terry Bevington? That is just embarrassing.

Surprised by how close the poll is.

 

Bevington was worse, guys.

I'm having a hard time coming up with concrete ways in which Robin Ventura is good compared to anyone else at managing a baseball team

At least Robin knows the difference between "foul" and "fair."

At least Robin knows the difference between "foul" and "fair."

 

Or "warming" and "not warming".

This is ridiculous. Terry Bevington actually once argued a call that was in the White Sox favor.

And yet, for all of Bevington's incompetence and stupidity, he still managed that club to a winning record over 3 years.

 

And for all of Robin Ventura's skill and acumen as a major league player, since September 1, 2012, he manages this team to an average of 71 wins per season over 4+ years.

 

Obviously, it turns out that you don't need a brain or wits or to know the difference between "warming" and "not warming" or "foul" or "fair" or arguing a call in favor of the White Sox to manage them to a winning record....

 

so what's Ventura's excuse, then?

Edited September 23, 20169 yr by Greg Hibbard

And yet, for all of Bevington's incompetence and stupidity, he still managed that club to a winning record over 3 years.

 

And for all of Robin Ventura's skill and acumen as a major league player, since September 1, 2012, he manages this team to an average of 71 wins per season over 4+ years.

 

Obviously, it turns out that you don't need a brain or wits or to know the difference between "warming" and "not warming" or "foul" or "fair" or arguing a call in favor of the White Sox to manage them to a winning record....

 

so what's Ventura's excuse, then?

 

Um, talent? How is that not obvious.

And yet, for all of Bevington's incompetence and stupidity, he still managed that club to a winning record over 3 years.

 

And for all of Robin Ventura's skill and acumen as a major league player, since September 1, 2012, he manages this team to an average of 71 wins per season over 4+ years.

 

Obviously, it turns out that you don't need a brain or wits or to know the difference between "warming" and "not warming" or "foul" or "fair" or arguing a call in favor of the White Sox to manage them to a winning record....

 

so what's Ventura's excuse, then?

 

Really?

 

Look at some of those lineups from 1995-1997. It's easy to manage when you're lineup is anchored by a 1st ballot Hall of Fame first basemen, and a Gold Glove, Hall of Fame talent third basemen and features guys like Harold Baines, Tim Raines, Danny Tartabull, Ray Durham, Tony Philips, Dave Martinez and Lance Johnson.

Really?

 

Look at some of those lineups from 1995-1997. It's easy to manage when you're lineup is anchored by a 1st ballot Hall of Fame first basemen, and a Gold Glove, Hall of Fame talent third basemen and features guys like Harold Baines, Tim Raines, Danny Tartabull, Ray Durham, Tony Philips, Dave Martinez and Lance Johnson.

 

Ok, I'm looking.

 

Um. The regular lineup for 1997 season featured Ray Durham with one of the worst OPS's of his career, Chris ".582 OPS" Snopek at 3B for most of the games, Ozzie Guillen sporting a .612 OPS for 140+ games at the ass end of his career, Jorge Fabregas at C with about a .680 OPS, Al Belle in the worst season he had in the late 90s. Frank Thomas had a great year and Ventura played part time.

 

The pitching... Jamie Navarro at 9-14, Danny Darwin, James Baldwin, Wilson Alvarez only startign 22 games....need I go on? Only two starters had above .500 records and they were ONE GAME above .500.

 

Bevington still managed them to 80 wins. How? I don't honestly know.

 

Maybe Frank's WAR was 80 that year.

Edited September 23, 20169 yr by Greg Hibbard

Ok, I'm looking.

 

Um. The regular lineup for 1997 season featured Ray Durham with one of the worst OPS's of his career, Chris ".582 OPS" Snopek at 3B for most of the games, Ozzie Guillen sporting a .612 OPS for 140+ games at the ass end of his career, Jorge Fabregas at C with about a .680 OPS, Al Belle in the worst season he had in the late 90s. Frank Thomas had a great year and Ventura played part time.

 

The pitching... Jamie Navarro at 9-14, Danny Darwin, James Baldwin, Wilson Alvarez only startign 22 games....need I go on? Only two starters had above .500 records and they were ONE GAME above .500.

 

Bevington still managed them to 80 wins. How? I don't honestly know.

 

Maybe Frank's WAR was 80 that year.

 

I never thought I would see the day that somebody was defending Terry Bevington on here.

 

I like how you conveniently leave out that though it was one of Belle's worst seasons he still had .274/.332/.491 slash with 30 HRs, 45 2Bs and 116 RBIs. Also you are completely ignoring the production of Baines, Martinez and Cameron. Frank was so damn good then that he basically provided the offensive of 2 average hitters. This lineup has nothing of the sort in it other than Abreu for the last month and a half. Even in that month and a half his numbers don't reach what Frank did for an 8 year span.

 

Overall the '97 team had a slightly better offense (101 to 100 OPS+) and a slightly worse pitching staff (93 ERA+ to 96 ERA+) and they managed to win 80 games. This years team is on pace to win 77 games. Let's not pretend like Bevington was some sort of managerial genius because he managed 80 wins compared to Ventura's 77 on what are both average teams.

Ok, I'm looking.

 

Um. The regular lineup for 1997 season featured Ray Durham with one of the worst OPS's of his career, Chris ".582 OPS" Snopek at 3B for most of the games, Ozzie Guillen sporting a .612 OPS for 140+ games at the ass end of his career, Jorge Fabregas at C with about a .680 OPS, Al Belle in the worst season he had in the late 90s. Frank Thomas had a great year and Ventura played part time.

 

The pitching... Jamie Navarro at 9-14, Danny Darwin, James Baldwin, Wilson Alvarez only startign 22 games....need I go on? Only two starters had above .500 records and they were ONE GAME above .500.

 

Bevington still managed them to 80 wins. How? I don't honestly know.

 

Maybe Frank's WAR was 80 that year.

Well they had Robin for about half the year. Belle, Frank, Baines, Cameron was putting up numbers similar to Melky. Dave Martinez had a pretty good year. This year Rollins started a lot. JB Shuck started a lot. Avi Garcia started a lot. Durham's OPS is pretty similar to Lawries and Saladinos.

I never thought I would see the day that somebody was defending Terry Bevington on here.

 

I like how you conveniently leave out that though it was one of Belle's worst seasons he still had .274/.332/.491 slash with 30 HRs, 45 2Bs and 116 RBIs. Also you are completely ignoring the production of Baines, Martinez and Cameron. Frank was so damn good then that he basically provided the offensive of 2 average hitters. This lineup has nothing of the sort in it other than Abreu for the last month and a half. Even in that month and a half his numbers don't reach what Frank did for an 8 year span.

 

Overall the '97 team had a slightly better offense (101 to 100 OPS+) and a slightly worse pitching staff (93 ERA+ to 96 ERA+) and they managed to win 80 games. This years team is on pace to win 77 games. Let's not pretend like Bevington was some sort of managerial genius because he managed 80 wins compared to Ventura's 77 on what are both average teams.

 

It seems to me a 101/93 is noticeably worse than a 100/96, and Bevington won at least three more games than Ventura probably does this year no matter what Robin does, with worse metrics, but you're saying that Bevington and Ventura are roughly equivalent and that Bevington should still be more derided?

 

Ok, I don't get it.

Edited September 23, 20169 yr by Greg Hibbard

WTF does the highlighted mean?

"Robin is not a buffoon. He just isn't a very good manager."

 

That means Robin is not a clown, somebody to be mocked, somebody who embarrasses the franchise with his ineptitude like a Bevington. Like I said, Robin is an OK manager. He just overall, in the big picture, blows. Maybe if he had better talent he'd be the next Lasorda.

But as it stands, he is horrible. Way too many meltdown losses in his career. Way too many bad trends on the team. The record vs. the Central, inability to bunt, horrible bullpen and bullpen decisions, ridiculous play right after the all star break normally burying any hope we had, a few road trips of total ineptitude. All that kinda stuff.

 

Bevington as I wrote was simply in over his head. Robin is not. Bevington was a clown.

Edited September 23, 20169 yr by greg775

It seems to me a 101/93 is noticeably worse than a 100/96, and Bevington won at least three more games than Ventura probably does this year no matter what Robin does, with worse metrics, but you're saying that Bevington and Ventura are roughly equivalent and that Bevington should still be more derided?

 

Ok, I don't get it.

 

That team may have played slightly above its talent level but it had nothing to do with Bevington. The guy was painfully bad. Much worse than Robin.