I'm really curious about this. Like, if Robin wants to go pull Sale after 94 pitches in the 6th (just for example) does Cooper have veto power? That seems absurd to me from an organizational hierarchy but I'm willing to accept that perhaps that is how they do it. It's obviously worked pretty well but it's certainly unorthodox.

 

I think you are misunderstanding. This isn't Ventura bowing at the throne of Don Cooper and begging permission on who to use. This is Cooper telling him who is ready, who makes sense. He's tell him that that starter looks tired, he looks strong etc. This guy is ready for this situation, this one isn't.

 

I also don't think it is unorthodox. It just seems like it because we don't follow the other 29 teams as much as ours.

I think you are misunderstanding. This isn't Ventura bowing at the throne of Don Cooper and begging permission on who to use. This is Cooper telling him who is ready, who makes sense. He's tell him that that starter looks tired, he looks strong etc. This guy is ready for this situation, this one isn't.

 

I also don't think it is unorthodox. It just seems like it because we don't follow the other 29 teams as much as ours.

 

As long as the chain of command is Manger (whoever, Robin, Ozzie, etc) --> Pitching Coach, I'm cool with it. I just don't want executive decisions being made by the pitching coach when the manager is higher up on the org chart because that is a recipe for ass covering and discord.

I think you are misunderstanding. This isn't Ventura bowing at the throne of Don Cooper and begging permission on who to use. This is Cooper telling him who is ready, who makes sense. He's tell him that that starter looks tired, he looks strong etc. This guy is ready for this situation, this one isn't.

 

I also don't think it is unorthodox. It just seems like it because we don't follow the other 29 teams as much as ours.

 

I agree with this and really it makes total sense. Robin wasn't a pitcher, Coop is one of the better pitching minds in the league. I think I'd actually be disappointed is Robin was the one making the decisions over Coop. That is something that wouldn't make sense to me.

 

 

Let's look at the Sox actual W-L under Robin versus their expected W-L using the pythagorean formula, and then compare it to Ozzie Guillen's record.

 

2012: Actual W-L 85-77. Expected 88-74. -3 games

2013: Actual 63-99. Expected 67-95. -4 games

2014: Actual 52-55. Expected 52-55. 0 games

Overall for Robin -7.

 

Here's Ozzie's record:

2011: +4

2010: +2

2009: -1

2008: 0

2007: +5

2006: +2

2005: +8

2004: -1

Overall for Ozzie, +19.

 

 

Am I the only one that finds it odd Vafan doesn't like Ventura because he walked Bryce Harper with runners on 2nd and 3rd last season with a RHP on the mound? On that date, Harper was hitting .417. Zimmerman .241.

 

Were you at the game? Santiago v. Harper was 1000% better as a choice than a worn out Axelrod facing Ryan Zimmerman, when he'd already spent almost 100 pitches in 3.2 innings and wasn't going to give you anything more.

 

Harper versus righties in 2013: .300, .388, .560

Harper versus lefties in 2013: .214, .327, .321

 

Enough said!

Let's look at the Sox actual W-L under Robin versus their expected W-L using the pythagorean formula, and then compare it to Ozzie Guillen's record.

 

2012: Actual W-L 85-77. Expected 88-74. -3 games

2013: Actual 63-99. Expected 67-95. -4 games

2014: Actual 52-55. Expected 52-55. 0 games

Overall for Robin -7.

 

Here's Ozzie's record:

2011: +4

2010: +2

2009: -1

2008: 0

2007: +5

2006: +2

2005: +8

2004: -1

Overall for Ozzie, +19.

 

So by this logic, which is exremely flawed, Robin hasn't cost the Sox anything this year.

 

Let's look at the Sox actual W-L under Robin versus their expected W-L using the pythagorean formula, and then compare it to Ozzie Guillen's record.

 

2012: Actual W-L 85-77. Expected 88-74. -3 games

2013: Actual 63-99. Expected 67-95. -4 games

2014: Actual 52-55. Expected 52-55. 0 games

Overall for Robin -7.

 

Here's Ozzie's record:

2011: +4

2010: +2

2009: -1

2008: 0

2007: +5

2006: +2

2005: +8

2004: -1

Overall for Ozzie, +19.

 

He's improved 4 games over last year. Need to sign him to long term extension now.

Let's look at the Sox actual W-L under Robin versus their expected W-L using the pythagorean formula, and then compare it to Ozzie Guillen's record.

 

2012: Actual W-L 85-77. Expected 88-74. -3 games

2013: Actual 63-99. Expected 67-95. -4 games

2014: Actual 52-55. Expected 52-55. 0 games

Overall for Robin -7.

 

Here's Ozzie's record:

2011: +4

2010: +2

2009: -1

2008: 0

2007: +5

2006: +2

2005: +8

2004: -1

Overall for Ozzie, +19.

 

Looking at a team's W/L versus the pythagorean W/L and using it as a way to assess a manager is pretty ludicrous.

So by this logic, which is exremely flawed, Robin hasn't cost the Sox anything this year.

And by that logic, Joe Maddon has been a good manager once the past 6 seasons.

Were you at the game? Santiago v. Harper was 1000% better as a choice than a worn out Axelrod facing Ryan Zimmerman, when he'd already spent almost 100 pitches in 3.2 innings and wasn't going to give you anything more.

 

Harper versus righties in 2013: .300, .388, .560

Harper versus lefties in 2013: .214, .327, .321

 

Enough said!

That supports Ventura walking Harper to get to Zimmerman. Which is exactly what happened.

On a related note, I've been critical of how Robin has treated Webb (pretty much as the 4th or 5th guy out of the pen) but now it's time to take off the kid gloves and let him see some high leverage innings. They wanted to bring him along slow well OK great, now put him under a bit more pressure and see how he responds. Stuff wise, he has the potential to be a good setup or decent closer imo, certainly as good as Reed was for the Sox.

 

Exactly!!

 

The closer job should have been between Petricka and Webb, once Jones was gone and Lindstrom first semi-failed in the job and then made the choice easy by getting hurt. Putnam should have made the 3rd guy in the "close games" bullpen group.

 

In addition to getting better performance out of these guys, they are guys the Sox can potentially groom and cultivate like they did with Reed and Jones. Whereas Bellisario and Guerra and Downs were all rent-a-players with no future in the Sox pen.

That supports Ventura walking Harper to get to Zimmerman. Which is exactly what happened.

Not to get to Dylan versus Zimmerman...

That supports Ventura walking Harper to get to Zimmerman. Which is exactly what happened.

 

I guess it's hard to argue with you and WiteSoxFan if you are so set on arguing absurdities.

I guess it's hard to argue with you and WiteSoxFan if you are so set on arguing absurdities.

 

What's absurd is pulling a starting pitcher in the 4th inning when he's given up 3 runs in the 9th game of the season.

What's absurd is pulling a starting pitcher in the 4th inning when he's given up 3 runs in the 9th game of the season.

When it's Dylan Axelrod? I don't find that absurd at all.

When it's Dylan Axelrod? I don't find that absurd at all.

 

Axelrod was fantastic in the minors in '11 and '12, was great in a cup of coffee in the majors '11, and was bad but with positive signs in '12 in the majors. At that point, the Sox didn't know exactly what they had in Axelrod, and again, he was coming off a pretty good first start. The only way I'm pulling him there is if it was a high leverage game, and there is no such thing as a high leverage game 9 games into the season.

I guess it's hard to argue with you and WiteSoxFan if you are so set on arguing absurdities.

Santiago's splits lefty/lefty lefty/righty aren't all that different except for power. In the 4th inning of the 9th game of the year, I would rather have Robin have the starter facing the guy hitting .241 vs. bringing in a reliever who had pitched the day before to face their best hitter hitting .417. If that's absurd, then there really is no word to describe your anger towards the scenerio.

What's absurd is pulling a starting pitcher in the 4th inning when he's given up 3 runs in the 9th game of the season.

 

Quit bringing logic into this argument. Not to mention it was a game early in the season.

 

It also is extremely easy to question something after it happened. That whole hindsight is 20/20. For all we know in another parallel universe Ventura had someone pitch to Harper and it led to worse results.

 

/shrugs

Axelrod was fantastic in the minors in '11 and '12, was great in a cup of coffee in the majors '11, and was bad but with positive signs in '12 in the majors. At that point, the Sox didn't know exactly what they had in Axelrod, and again, he was coming off a pretty good first start. The only way I'm pulling him there is if it was a high leverage game, and there is no such thing as a high leverage game 9 games into the season.

Considering he was already at 100 pitches or so, at that point I think you're trying to bring in someone to stop the bleeding whether it is the 4th or the 6th inning.

But you want him to go as long as possible. You are in an NL park and will probably be changing pitchers often. Not that it mattered, but burning out your bullpen in April isn't a recipe for success later on.

You want him to do so effectively.

 

If results don't matter because you just went through your entire pen the last few days, then fine. But when you're talking about a guy that doesn't have a body of work to fall back on, and your offense has just gotten you back in the game, and the guy is near 100 pitches already anyways, what is the point in trying to get one more batter out of him?

Uh oh, Shack saw the Ventura signal go up

You want him to do so effectively.

 

If results don't matter because you just went through your entire pen the last few days, then fine. But when you're talking about a guy that doesn't have a body of work to fall back on, and your offense has just gotten you back in the game, and the guy is near 100 pitches already anyways, what is the point in trying to get one more batter out of him?

 

Sometimes you lose a battle to win a war. Perhaps they believed that burning the pen would result in more losses.

 

Impossible to speculate, and once again, no one knows if the other options result in better results. Simply hindsight allows you to always argue another position with the possibility that position results in a better outcome. When in fact, there is also the possibility that the other position resulted in a worse outcome.

Uh oh, Shack saw the Ventura signal go up

Nah...I'm not going to go as far as some of these other folks...but I've been displeased with him since '12...(ask Fathom)

 

I'm not going to sit here and try to determine how many games he has cost us, but for a guy that played the game for his entire life, he seems to have very poor instincts from a strategical or tactical viewpoint.

 

He may be wonderful with managing the clubhouse, and that is the lion's share of the job, but I do believe he holds us back quite a bit.

Sometimes you lose a battle to win a war. Perhaps they believed that burning the pen would result in more losses.

 

Impossible to speculate, and once again, no one knows if the other options result in better results. Simply hindsight allows you to always argue another position with the possibility that position results in a better outcome. When in fact, there is also the possibility that the other position resulted in a worse outcome.

Yeah, this is the argument one makes when his decisions turned out to be wrong.

 

 

Nah...I'm not going to go as far as some of these other folks...but I've been displeased with him since '12...(ask Fathom)

 

I'm not going to sit here and try to determine how many games he has cost us, but for a guy that played the game for his entire life, he seems to have very poor instincts from a strategical or tactical viewpoint.

 

He may be wonderful with managing the clubhouse, and that is the lion's share of the job, but I do believe he holds us back quite a bit.

 

I won't disagree that he's made some moves that have been real head scratchers. He had Youkilis try and bunt against Detroit 2 years ago and I remember immediately hating every bit of it. Still, it's hard for me to look at some of these situations and criticize them too harshly.

 

In the Nationals example, if Axelrod gets Zimmerman out and is pulled after that, nobody thinks anything of it. He got burned.