And I can't stop taking the bait.

 

I knew it was over when 2k5 put "begging" in the title. greg has lost his mind now.

World Series manager to discussing coaching the Cubs?

 

That's begging for a job.

 

No doubt in my mind.

Do you remember HOW DEEP those Sox starters went? Managers don't have the balls to do that and even in 2005 there was situational lefty-righty crap going on all the time.

 

In game 2, Mark Buehrle threw 99 pitches in 9 innings. He was going back out for a 10th if necessary. He was incredibly efficient.

In game 3, Garland threw 118 pitches in 9 innings. That's perfectly within reason, especially when he was pitching so well.

In game 4, Garcia threw 116 pitches in 9 innings. Again, same story as Garland.

In game 5, Contreras threw 114 pitches in 9 innings.

 

When the guys are pitching as well as they are, it's not ridiculous to just keep them out there. It IS ridiculous to suggest that it's ground breaking to let them pitch that deep.

Edited October 24, 201312 yr by witesoxfan

Yup. You. greg is out of control now and it's your fault.

 

It is payback for the Bill Russell stuff.

I'll give Paulie ALL the credit for the blast.

I give the other guys on base as much credit.

 

Including Dye who got hit in the bat hand by a pitch before Konerko came up.

Do you remember HOW DEEP those Sox starters went? Managers don't have the balls to do that and even in 2005 there was situational lefty-righty crap going on all the time.

Am I the only one who remembers how proud to be of a fan that played defense like our Sox did in 05? I didn't take it for granted at the time.

 

World Series pitch counts

 

Game 1- Contreras 86 pitches

Game 2- Buehrle 100

Game 3- Garland 93

Game 4- Garcia 107

 

 

REVOLUTIONARY!

The one great thing Ozzie did that year was inserting Jenks into the closer's role almost immediately upon being called up. That was ballsy and it paid off big time.

Who me?

 

No doubt in my mind.

Hmmm ... Ozzie has the biggest mouth in the world. Ozzie is at World Series. Reporters ask; Ozzie answers. He'll do a story a day if the media wants to make him a story. Who's he gonna turn down? Nobody.

 

In game 2, Mark Buehrle threw 99 pitches in 9 innings. He was going back out for a 10th if necessary. He was incredibly efficient.

In game 3, Garland threw 118 pitches in 9 innings. That's perfectly within reason, especially when he was pitching so well.

In game 4, Garcia threw 116 pitches in 9 innings. Again, same story as Garland.

In game 5, Contreras threw 114 pitches in 9 innings.

 

When the guys are pitching as well as they are, it's not ridiculous to just keep them out there. It IS ridiculous to suggest that it's ground breaking to let them pitch that deep.

Can somebody give me play by play? Any matchups where various managers would start to play the lefty/righty game even with workable pitch counts?

He basically revolutionized big-game baseball, or should have revolutionized it, in his letting the starters do their thing so deep into games the whole way. Aside from that, he engineered a program that allowed his players to believe they could beat all those good AL teams en route to the Big Dance where we took care of a good but not great Houston club. He put a team on the field golden with the glove that amazed me with its efficient, professional, incredible baseball. That kind of a run thru the postseason??? Remarkable.

It's belief, baby!!

 

HO-LEE s***!!!

I give the other guys on base as much credit.

 

Including Dye who got hit in the bat hand by a pitch before Konerko came up.

 

I meant I give Paulie all the credit for actually making contact, elevating and homering. I would always praise Dye, etc., as well.

Can somebody give me play by play? Any matchups where various managers would start to play the lefty/righty game even with workable pitch counts?

 

Google is free to all. Unless you live in China

 

Alfred E Newmann is 'what me worry?' See to those who again think I am despicably stupid, I even know trivia.

Hmmm ... Ozzie has the biggest mouth in the world. Ozzie is at World Series. Reporters ask; Ozzie answers. He'll do a story a day if the media wants to make him a story. Who's he gonna turn down? Nobody.

 

 

Can somebody give me play by play? Any matchups where various managers would start to play the lefty/righty game even with workable pitch counts?

 

There was never any need. Like I said, Buehrle was cruising in game 2. The Angels couldn't get squat off of him. I forget the exact scores, but the Sox won the next 3 5-2, 8-3, and 6-3 I think? And those guys never really got into trouble late in the game. Why would you need to take them out?

Can somebody give me play by play? Any matchups where various managers would start to play the lefty/righty game even with workable pitch counts?

 

You are aware that reliever usage has steadily increased over the years, right? That hundreds of managers had been letting their pitchers pitch even deeper into games than Ozzie Guillen for DECADES? That even IF Ozzie Guillen had actually been doing something different than his contemporaries by "boldly" letting his starters flirt with 120 pitches, it would be a call back to the norms that had dominated baseball for OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS, thus representing something similar to the absolute antithesis of the word "revolutionary"?

Edited October 24, 201312 yr by Eminor3rd

greg be trolling

In game 2, Mark Buehrle threw 99 pitches in 9 innings. He was going back out for a 10th if necessary. He was incredibly efficient.

In game 3, Garland threw 118 pitches in 9 innings. That's perfectly within reason, especially when he was pitching so well.

In game 4, Garcia threw 116 pitches in 9 innings. Again, same story as Garland.

In game 5, Contreras threw 114 pitches in 9 innings.

 

When the guys are pitching as well as they are, it's not ridiculous to just keep them out there. It IS ridiculous to suggest that it's ground breaking to let them pitch that deep.

 

The Sox had as many complete games in that series as all post season teams combined in 2011, 2012, and 2013.

You are aware that reliever usage has steadily increased over the years, right? That hundreds of managers had been letting their pitchers pitch even deeper into games than Ozzie Guillen for DECADES? That even IF Ozzie Guillen had actually been doing something different than his contemporaries by "boldly" letting his starters flirt with 120 pitches, it would be a call back to the norms that had dominated baseball for OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS, thus representing something similar to the absolute antithesis of the word "revolutionary"?

 

Grady Little used that "revolutionary" strategy in the 2003 ALCS and barely made it out of Boston alive.

You are aware that reliever usage has steadily increased over the years, right? That hundreds of managers had been letting their pitchers pitch even deeper into games than Ozzie Guillen for DECADES? That even IF Ozzie Guillen had actually been doing something different than his contemporaries by "boldly" letting his starters flirt with 120 pitches, it would be a call back to the norms that had dominated baseball for OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS, thus representing something similar to the absolute antithesis of the word "revolutionary"?

Maybe revolutionary was a questionable word. It was different, though; managers had gone to the lefty/righty thing in 05.

 

greg be trolling

Ugh.

 

The Sox had as many complete games in that series as all post season teams combined in 2011, 2012, and 2013.

Thank you!

Maybe revolutionary was a questionable word. It was different, though; managers had gone to the lefty/righty thing in 05.

 

Yes, they had, when their starters weren't pitching extremely well and efficiently. And, the results of the specialized reliever trend have been overwhelmingly successful in every measurable way.

 

Ozzie Guillen had nothing to do with the incredible performances our pitchers gave us in that post-season. The only thing he could have done was ruin an obviously good thing unfolding in front of him. I guess we can give him credit for not sabotaging those performances, but no one is going to buy any argument that 99% of all managers wouldn't have "done" the exact same thing, which was doing nothing.

Edited October 24, 201312 yr by Eminor3rd

Grady Little used that "revolutionary" strategy in the 2003 ALCS and barely made it out of Boston alive.

 

Right! But evidence to the contrary never fits into revisionist history, does it?

I could list 20 reasons why Ozzie is a good fit to coach again, but you probably don't want to hear them.

 

Don't discount the value of a guy who has won the big prize. As good as Leyland is, he couldn't get a ring with the Tigers though he got one earlier than that. Ron Washington? It's not easy to do.

At least when Ozzie got to the big series, the World Series, he took care of business. Had we not won in our one-and-done appearance we'd still be without a WS title since the dark ages with none in sight.

 

Personally I respect the ring and Mr. Mouth has one!!!! No matter what u guys think of him.

 

And he's not begging for a job; he's smart to answer questions pointing out he wants back in.

 

 

I like Ozzie Guillen. Maybe we need an infield coach? I would think so after last year

Ozzie invented the complete game.

 

Post of the f***ing year.

I like Ozzie Guillen. Maybe we need an infield coach? I would think so after last year

 

No

Ozzie invented the complete game.

 

Post of the f***ing year.

 

I can't win. Though I try. I wish an objective debate coach could come in here and deem me the winner.