PDA

View Full Version : Sox lead AL in run differential


DumpJerry
06-19-2008, 07:45 AM
The Sox as of today (June 19) have the best run differential in the American League (+77). The Red Sox are second with +70.

The only MLB teams with a better run differential are the Phillies (+90) and Cubs (+106).

By the way, the Angels, the other AL division leader is only +2.

We lead MLB in fewest runs given up (one less than the A's).

I think this speaks volumes for our pitching and, yes, our offense.

ondafarm
06-19-2008, 08:07 AM
Which just begs the question, why don't we have a better record?

soxpride724
06-19-2008, 08:10 AM
Which just begs the question, why don't we have a better record?


That's what I was saying.

BRDSR
06-19-2008, 08:13 AM
Which just begs the question, why don't we have a better record?

I think this stat just shows that a lot of our losses have come with small run differentials, which is because our pitching gives up 1, 2, or 3 runs, and our offense scores 0, 1, or 2. At the same time, games like the 16-5 shelacking we put on Pittsburgh two nights ago run up that run differential pretty fast while only resulting in one more win.

The stat is about as valuable as the bandwidth that was used to post it (although leading the league in fewest runs allowed is obviously impressive).

BigPapaPump
06-19-2008, 08:14 AM
Which just begs the question, why don't we have a better record?

Royals and Pirates.

jabrch
06-19-2008, 08:37 AM
Which just begs the question, why don't we have a better record?

Simple...we haven't won more games.

SoxGirl4Life
06-19-2008, 09:09 AM
Royals and Pirates.


and Twins. That four gamer we killed them in run diff.

balke
06-19-2008, 09:29 AM
Which just begs the question, why don't we have a better record?


Whitesox v. AL East = 7-12
Whitesox v. AL West = 6-6

ondafarm
06-19-2008, 10:24 AM
The stat is about as valuable as the bandwidth that was used to post it . . .

Totally disagree with that. I'd suggest that it inversely correlates with manager skill.

doublem23
06-19-2008, 10:30 AM
Totally disagree with that. I'd suggest that it inversely correlates with manager skill.

:rolleyes:

DSpivack
06-19-2008, 10:30 AM
Totally disagree with that. I'd suggest that it inversely correlates with manager skill.

The inconsistent offense is Ozzie's fault?

doublem23
06-19-2008, 10:34 AM
The inconsistent offense is Ozzie's fault?

EVERYTHING IS OZZIE'S FAULT. Or Kenny's fault. Or Reinsdorf's fault.

Last game I was at? My hot dog was slightly burnt... Ozzie's fault. The didn't fill my beer up to the very top of the cup... Cheap ass Jerry's fault. And then John Danks gave up a hit. Stupid Kenny's fault for trading Garland.

ondafarm
06-19-2008, 10:48 AM
The inconsistent offense is Ozzie's fault?

In the AL the manager does two important things: 1) sets the batting order/ defense, 2) decides when to pull the starting pitcher.

Ozzie does both of these very poorly.

Rdy2PlayBall
06-19-2008, 10:54 AM
In the AL the manager does two important things: 1) sets the batting order/ defense, 2) decides when to pull the starting pitcher.

Ozzie does both of these very poorly.What do you mean? He's not going to pull a pitcher because he gave up 3 runs in an inning because our offence doesn't always get those kind of runs. Not many of our pitchers have done so bad they need to be pulled anyway. It's not like he's leaving them in too long, has one pitcher had a complete game on the Sox? Idk... I think he's doing fine in that category. :redneck

---- tell me why I'm wrong so I can know more about this stuff too :scratch:

Palehose Pete
06-19-2008, 10:57 AM
EVERYTHING IS OZZIE'S FAULT. Or Kenny's fault. Or Reinsdorf's fault.

Last game I was at? My hot dog was slightly burnt... Ozzie's fault. The didn't fill my beer up to the very top of the cup... Cheap ass Jerry's fault. And then John Danks gave up a hit. Stupid Kenny's fault for trading Garland.

Some people like burnt hot dogs...

asindc
06-19-2008, 10:58 AM
In the AL the manager does two important things: 1) sets the batting order/ defense, 2) decides when to pull the starting pitcher.

Ozzie does both of these very poorly.

Perhaps you prefer Ozzie leave his starter in for, let's say 130 pitches?

BRDSR
06-19-2008, 11:04 AM
In the AL the manager does two important things: 1) sets the batting order/ defense, 2) decides when to pull the starting pitcher.

Ozzie does both of these very poorly.

First of all, I think Ozzie's biggest deficiency is his use of the bullpen in close games where the starter doesn't get to or through the seventh. He uses too many relievers in situational, lefty-right matchup sort of ways, and we end up with a middle reliever holding down the fort from the 11th inning on (should the game get that far). Moreover, I think he's getting better.

Setting the lineup/order is inherently difficult when you have a team of one-dimensional hitters, some of whom are playing out of position to an extent. I'd say I agree with about half of Ozzie's decisions and that, all things being equal, a lot of his decisions are pretty close calls that could go either way. What're you gonna do?

And when to pull the starting pitcher? You're always going to be able to second guess a decision when the pitcher starts the seventh and promptly gives up two or three runs. But it's going to happen. It doesn't make it a bad decision each time. But a pitcher like Garland excelled under Ozzie precisely because he left him in the right amount of time.

The run differential on this team is so disproportionately larger than the record is good because it is a team that is inconsistent by design, who go on tears and therefore "waste" runs in blowouts but can't score 3 runs in a 2-0 shutout. That's the offense's fault and, to some extent, Kenny's.

Ozzie's a average or above average on-field manager with a frustrating tendency to run his mouth off the field.

jabrch
06-19-2008, 11:27 AM
In the AL the manager does two important things: 1) sets the batting order/ defense, 2) decides when to pull the starting pitcher.

Ozzie does both of these very poorly.

What the manager does most - and most important - that is most impactful - is serves as the motivator and the leader of the team. That's something OG does very well.

Setting the batting order is largely irrelevant. And Guillen has been fairly good this year at moving hot hands up in the order - if you place value on that. I do believe you could draw straws and have only a marginal difference in output over the course of the year.

As far as when to pull the starting pitcher, I can't imagine you are complaining about how OG/Coop have managed the pitching this year. I'd say that they have been fairly effective in terms of pitching and managing pitchers - wouldn't you?

jabrch
06-19-2008, 11:33 AM
First of all, I think Ozzie's biggest deficiency is his use of the bullpen in close games where the starter doesn't get to or through the seventh. He uses too many relievers in situational, lefty-right matchup sort of ways, and we end up with a middle reliever holding down the fort from the 11th inning on (should the game get that far). Moreover, I think he's getting better.


I think his attitude is play to win it now and hope it doesn't go 14+....and while I get it - and I see flaws to it - I don't see it being a lock that if you go the other way, you'd be right.

Playing the L/R matchups can be very effective. With a pen like ours, that has been as successful as it has been this year, I'm just not going to criticise that use...

I believe managers get too much credit for good things and too much blame for the bad. I like Guillen - because he is fun. I like him because he is also a fan. And I like him because it really appears that the players truly like playing for him - and that is a plus when it comes to keeping them happy. I can live with occasionally him not making a move that I'd make - that will pay off sometimes and cost us other times.

Eddo144
06-19-2008, 11:46 AM
What the manager does most - and most important - that is most impactful - is serves as the motivator and the leader of the team. That's something OG does very well.
I agree that Ozzie does this well, though I think you're overstating its importance. For the most part, players come to play every day; they are professionals and I can't imagine more than a handful across the league actually need someone to tell them to give 100%.

Setting the batting order is largely irrelevant. And Guillen has been fairly good this year at moving hot hands up in the order - if you place value on that. I do believe you could draw straws and have only a marginal difference in output over the course of the year.
Yeah, studies have shown that the most optimal lineup is only worth about 15 runs more than the least optimal lineup over the course of a season. That's one run every 10 or so games. You're dead on, here.

As far as when to pull the starting pitcher, I can't imagine you are complaining about how OG/Coop have managed the pitching this year. I'd say that they have been fairly effective in terms of pitching and managing pitchers - wouldn't you?
I actually used to think bullpen management was Ozzie's weakness. In 2005, he used Cotts as a LOOGY way too much, as Cotts was equally dominant against all hitters. However, in recent years, he's clearly improving. Using Jenks in some non-save situations, for example, is the right move; if a situation is dire (say, 8th inning, one on, one out), your best reliever should come in, regardless of whether he can get a save.

ondafarm
06-19-2008, 12:27 PM
Yeah, studies have shown that the most optimal lineup is only worth about 15 runs more than the least optimal lineup over the course of a season. That's one run every 10 or so games. . . .


I'd like to see those studies.

I'm also assuming those studies are based on using the same group of players and just moving them up or down the lineup. Changing/ replacing guys needs to be factored in.

15 runs a season, I find that really hard to believe.

ondafarm
06-19-2008, 12:30 PM
And Guillen has been fairly good this year at moving hot hands up in the order - if you place value on that. I do believe you could draw straws and have only a marginal difference in output over the course of the year.

Really? He's made a couple of adjustments but let several guys absolutely wither on the vine in assignments. TCQ has been ice cold, and yet he's been batting #3 since he was red hot. AJ was sizzling but has cooled somewhat. Crede started hot, then cooled and had another streak. He never moved around the lineup at all. When BA gets going, he gets benched for an extended period.

ondafarm
06-19-2008, 12:31 PM
Perhaps you prefer Ozzie leave his starter in for, let's say 130 pitches?

No, quite the opposite. When a guy has trouble for two consecutive innings and you trot him out there for a third inning (any inning that is), that's plain dumb. Ozzie does this regularly.

DumpJerry
06-19-2008, 01:12 PM
No, quite the opposite. When a guy has trouble for two consecutive innings and you trot him out there for a third inning (any inning that is), that's plain dumb. Ozzie does this regularly.
:scratch:This year? What is your definition of "regularly?" Is it more than 3 games per week? Which games this year has he done this? The Sox have played 71 games so far, so I'm sure the list will be very long since it is a "regular" occurrence.

jabrch
06-19-2008, 01:32 PM
He never moved around the lineup at all.

I'm not sure how you say that - he's been moving his lineup around all season. TCQ started hitting in the bottom 1/3 - he got moved up. PK, JD and JT have all moved down. AJ has moved up. He moved Swish down. He can't be making switched all the time - can he? Find a team that has moved as many people as we have....I don't think there are many teams that have done that - but I may be wrong.

I understand you dislike OG - but moving people around the order? That's something he has done a lot of this year. Ozzie has totally flipped this order.

Eddo144
06-19-2008, 01:35 PM
I'd like to see those studies.

I'm also assuming those studies are based on using the same group of players and just moving them up or down the lineup. Changing/ replacing guys needs to be factored in.

15 runs a season, I find that really hard to believe.
Yeah, it was just using the same players in different places. Replacing guys would definitely have some effect, but for the most part, your best players will be playing at least 90% of the games when they're healthy (barring some platooning situations).

The reason for the small number of runs is basically that good hitters are good hitters no matter who they hit behind/in front of.

DumpJerry
06-19-2008, 01:35 PM
I'm not sure how you say that - he's been moving his lineup around all season. TCQ started hitting in the bottom 1/3 - he got moved up. PK, JD and JT have all moved down. AJ has moved up. He moved Swish down. He can't be making switched all the time - can he? Find a team that has moved as many people as we have....I don't think there are many teams that have done that - but I may be wrong.

I understand you dislike OG - but moving people around the order? That's something he has done a lot of this year. Ozzie has totally flipped this order.
IIRC, Ozzie has used 50+ different lineups this year. I'm with you jabrch, I have no idea what Onda is trying to tell us with this latest accusation.

jabrch
06-19-2008, 01:42 PM
IIRC, Ozzie has used 50+ different lineups this year. I'm with you jabrch, I have no idea what Onda is trying to tell us with this latest accusation.

There are plenty of areas to criticize OG. But not moving people around in the order in 2008 just doesn't resonate as fair to me.

ondafarm
06-19-2008, 03:05 PM
:scratch:This year? What is your definition of "regularly?" Is it more than 3 games per week? Which games this year has he done this? The Sox have played 71 games so far, so I'm sure the list will be very long since it is a "regular" occurrence.

"Ever" is too often. That is a game "given away" by the manager.

Here are a few of the games that Ozzie has kissed goodbye by violating this rule that every manager I ever played for regarded as set in stone.

15 June 5-3 loss to Rox
11 June 5-1 loss to Tigers
10 June 6-4 loss to Tigers
27 May 8-2 loss to Indians
24 May 2-0 loss to Angels
12 May 10-7 loss to Angels
11 May 6-3 loss to Mariners
22 April 9-5 loss to Yankees
14 April 2-1 loss to the A's
11 April 5-2 loss to Tigers
09 April 12-5 loss to Twins

That's 11 games. If the Sox had won half of them (call it 5 rounding down) the White Sox would be 45-26 and right up there with the Red Sox for best record in the league. That record is right about where Pythagorean says they should be.

DumpJerry
06-19-2008, 03:17 PM
"Ever" is too often. That is a game "given away" by the manager.

Here are a few of the games that Ozzie has kissed goodbye by violating this rule that every manager I ever played for regarded as set in stone.

15 June 5-3 loss to Rox
11 June 5-1 loss to Tigers
10 June 6-4 loss to Tigers
27 May 8-2 loss to Indians
24 May 2-0 loss to Angels
12 May 10-7 loss to Angels
11 May 6-3 loss to Mariners
22 April 9-5 loss to Yankees
14 April 2-1 loss to the A's
11 April 5-2 loss to Tigers
09 April 12-5 loss to Twins

That's 11 games. If the Sox had won half of them (call it 5 rounding down) the White Sox would be 45-26 and right up there with the Red Sox for best record in the league. That record is right about where Pythagorean says they should be.
That is just over 15% of the games played. Not a problem or habit on Ozzie's part. I don't have the time to review each game to see if the bullpen might have been overused in the games immediately preceeding or if there is some other reason why Ozzie wanted to rest the Pen (no off dates for a while, etc.).

jabrch
06-19-2008, 03:19 PM
"Ever" is too often. That is a game "given away" by the manager.

Here are a few of the games that Ozzie has kissed goodbye by violating this rule that every manager I ever played for regarded as set in stone.

15 June 5-3 loss to Rox
11 June 5-1 loss to Tigers
10 June 6-4 loss to Tigers
27 May 8-2 loss to Indians
24 May 2-0 loss to Angels
12 May 10-7 loss to Angels
11 May 6-3 loss to Mariners
22 April 9-5 loss to Yankees
14 April 2-1 loss to the A's
11 April 5-2 loss to Tigers
09 April 12-5 loss to Twins

That's 11 games. If the Sox had won half of them (call it 5 rounding down) the White Sox would be 45-26 and right up there with the Red Sox for best record in the league. That record is right about where Pythagorean says they should be.

I don't understand how you can conclude that another move would have necesarily resulted in a positive result 50% of the time.

And who cares what "Pythagorean" says they should be. The game is not about net run differential - it is about individual contests.

ondafarm
06-19-2008, 03:29 PM
I don't understand how you can conclude that another move would have necesarily resulted in a positive result 50% of the time.

And who cares what "Pythagorean" says they should be. The game is not about net run differential - it is about individual contests.

And in indiviudal games, Ozzie throws away available wins 15% of the time.

That is not a good manager.

doublem23
06-19-2008, 03:32 PM
And in indiviudal games, Ozzie throws away available wins 15% of the time.

That is not a good manager.

http://images.ibsys.com/2006/0404/8463538_200X150.jpg

If you want a manager that will baby your pitchers, I think Jerry Manuel will be available sometime later this summer.

DumpJerry
06-19-2008, 03:32 PM
And in indiviudal games, Ozzie throws away available wins 15% of the time.

That is not a good manager.
How in the Hell can you say all of those games would have been won by the Sox? The game lasts 9 innings (something people who follow baseball usually know). Anything can happen in any of the 9 innings.

Using your line of thinking, there really is no reason to actually play the games. The outcomes are pre-determined.

ondafarm
06-19-2008, 03:36 PM
How in the Hell can you say all of those games would have been won by the Sox? The game lasts 9 innings (something people who follow baseball usually know). Anything can happen in any of the 9 innings.

Using your line of thinking, there really is no reason to actually play the games. The outcomes are pre-determined.

I think that's a leap of logic that even Evil Knievel would blush at.

DumpJerry
06-19-2008, 03:37 PM
Onda, have you written to Kenny and Jerry R. to let them know that you are available to take over for Ozzie? I think with you on the top step of the dugout, the Sox will go 162-0, all shutouts.

ondafarm
06-19-2008, 03:40 PM
If you want a manager that will baby your pitchers, I think Jerry Manuel will be available sometime later this summer.

Not baby pitchers. In fact, quite the opposite. Major league pitchers don't want to come out of games they started. When a guy has had back to back troublesome innings, then it is time to thank him for his effort and say "I'm handing this one over to the next guy." Pinella does that extremely well and he's got a lot less pitching than the White Sox do.

I wouldn't call what Pinella does as "babying" his pitchers. But he doesn't squander wins and the Cubs are playing very well.

ondafarm
06-19-2008, 03:41 PM
Onda, have you written to Kenny and Jerry R. to let them know that you are available to take over for Ozzie? I think with you on the top step of the dugout, the Sox will go 162-0, all shutouts.

For an advertised latrine attendant, you certainly seem to yack a lot.

jabrch
06-19-2008, 03:57 PM
And in indiviudal games, Ozzie throws away available wins 15% of the time.

That is not a good manager.


There's some level of analytical rigor that you need to use to make statements like that - isn't there?

This feels like you are completely picking an arbitrary number based on the number of losses that we have without determining (and I don't know how you could do that) with any degree of reality if we'd actually have a different result if our action was different.

ondafarm
06-19-2008, 04:16 PM
There's some level of analytical rigor that you need to use to make statements like that - isn't there?

This feels like you are completely picking an arbitrary number based on the number of losses that we have without determining (and I don't know how you could do that) with any degree of reality if we'd actually have a different result if our action was different.

11/71 = ~15%

Ozzie violated a Golden Rule of Managing 11 times this year in losses. If he'd started the new inning with a fresh arm (a relief man coming in to start the inning) then we might have won I'd say 5 of them.

I know, the Sox have just completed their 72nd game of the season. I made the statement while they were playing that.

doublem23
06-19-2008, 04:22 PM
11/71 = ~15%

Ozzie violated a Golden Rule of Managing 11 times this year in losses. If he'd started the new inning with a fresh arm (a relief man coming in to start the inning) then we might have won I'd say 5 of them.

It's a marathon, not a sprint. Maybe the Great, Infallible Lou Piniella prefers to yank his starter on a short leash, but the Cubs bullpen has also thrown over 50 more innings than ours has. Maybe this is finally the year that doesn't come back to bite them in the ass, but I don't know that it's a thing to brag about that your starters don't average 6 IP/start.

voodoochile
06-19-2008, 04:23 PM
11/71 = ~15%

Ozzie violated a Golden Rule of Managing 11 times this year in losses. If he'd started the new inning with a fresh arm (a relief man coming in to start the inning) then we might have won I'd say 5 of them.

I know, the Sox have just completed their 72nd game of the season. I made the statement while they were playing that.

So even in your version of reality, it's really only 5/71 = ~ 7%...:?:

ondafarm
06-19-2008, 04:29 PM
So even in your version of reality, it's really only 5/71 = ~ 7%...:?:

7% better.

Ozzie violates the rule in 15% of games he manages.

If I wasn't clear on that (and the 50% better wins is just a guess) then I apologize.



In "my version of reality"?

voodoochile
06-19-2008, 04:30 PM
I also notice that the Sox scored a whopping total of 33 runs in this 11 game all Ozzie's fault group and were held to 3 or less runs 7 times.

Under those circumstances I can see why everyone would assume it was Ozzie's handling of the pitching staff which was the deciding factor...

voodoochile
06-19-2008, 04:30 PM
7% better.

Ozzie violates the rule in 15% of games he manages.

If I wasn't clear on that (and the 50% better wins is just a guess) then I apologize.



In "my version of reality"?

Everyone's viewpoint by definition is subjective.

ondafarm
06-19-2008, 04:36 PM
I also notice that the Sox scored a whopping total of 33 runs in this 11 game all Ozzie's fault group and were held to 3 or less runs 7 times.

Under those circumstances I can see why everyone would assume it was Ozzie's handling of the pitching staff which was the deciding factor...

Close games are what seperates good management from poor management. It's the same in business, it's easy to manage when you are scoring 8 runs a game, trot anybody out there. Winning games when you score only 3 runs means your margin of error is a lot less.

ondafarm
06-19-2008, 04:40 PM
Everyone's viewpoint by definition is subjective.

Tˇuche.

kobo
06-19-2008, 04:56 PM
"Ever" is too often. That is a game "given away" by the manager.

Here are a few of the games that Ozzie has kissed goodbye by violating this rule that every manager I ever played for regarded as set in stone.

15 June 5-3 loss to Rox
11 June 5-1 loss to Tigers
10 June 6-4 loss to Tigers
27 May 8-2 loss to Indians
24 May 2-0 loss to Angels
12 May 10-7 loss to Angels
11 May 6-3 loss to Mariners
22 April 9-5 loss to Yankees
14 April 2-1 loss to the A's
11 April 5-2 loss to Tigers
09 April 12-5 loss to Twins

That's 11 games. If the Sox had won half of them (call it 5 rounding down) the White Sox would be 45-26 and right up there with the Red Sox for best record in the league. That record is right about where Pythagorean says they should be.
Let's look at these games. We'll start at the bottom and work up, so we go April to June.

09 April 12-5 loss to Twins
Danks started, had trouble in the first because he walked Gomes, then gave up 2 hits, walked another, another hit and then got out of the inning. Came back and retired the side in the 2nd, pop out, K, fly out. In the 3rd he started and was pulled after giving up 3 staright singles, then a K, then another single, and then a walk. I don't see how Ozzie could have pulled him after the 2nd when he was able to go 3 up 3 down. Maybe in the 3rd he could have pulled him after the 3 straight singles, but that still would have left the bases loaded.

11 April 5-2 loss to Tigers
Sox had early lead of 2-0 heading into the 3rd when Contreras gives up 3 in the 3rd. Sox had a whopping 4 hits in this game. Even if Contreras was pulled in the 3rd the Sox still lose.

14 April 2-1 loss to the A's
Buehrle start. He gave up a bunch of hits in this game, 9 total, but only 2 runs. One in the 4th and 1 in the 6th. Sox scored 1 run in this game off 8 hits.

22 April 9-5 loss to Yankees
Contreras started. He gave up a homerun to Giambi in the 2nd, Sox were leading 3-2 going into the 7th. He got the first out, walked Ensberg on 4 pitches and then gave up a single to Cabrera. Jose actually pitched pretty well this game until the 7th, and Ozzie pulled Contreras with 1 out and 2 on. Dotel came in and struck out Jeter and then fell behind Abreu and gave up the slam. Again, where should the move had been made? Not have Contreras start the 7th?

11 May 6-3 loss to Mariners
Floyd went 3 2/3, giving up 5 runs on 9 hits. He probably should have been pulled after the 3rd, because he was bad that day.

12 May 10-7 loss to Angels
Buehrle start. Gives up 8 runs and 10 hits in 5 2/3. Had a very bad 5th and probably should have been pulled after that inning. This was the 11th straight game for the Sox who would play 6 more before having a day off.

24 May 2-0 loss to Angels
Danks started. Gave up 5 hits and 2 runs. Had given up 3 hits and then Guerrero led off the 6th with a home run and the next batter got a hit. Danks was pulled after that, Dotel came in, gave up another hit that scored the run and then got out of the inning. Sox bats fail to show up again. Not much Ozzie could have done here.

27 May 8-2 loss to Indians
The last bad Buehrle start. Gave up 5 runs in the first, 4 of them on a grand slam. Case could be made that Ozzie should have gone to the pen after the 1st, but the damage was already done. Offense scored 2 runs that game.

10 June 6-4 loss to Tigers
Contreras start. He pitched well through the first 4 innings and then ran into trouble in the 5th. Gave up 3 runs that inning and was getting smacked around. Should have pulled in the 5th or after the 5th, but again, he had pitched well the first 4 innings.

11 June 5-1 loss to Tigers
Vazquez start. Gave up 1 hit in the first and then gives up 3 runs and 3hits and 2 walks in the 2nd inning. Even if you pull Javy after the 2nd, the damage had been done. Verlander pitches a complete game in this one and the Sox offense gets 4 hits and 1 run. What was Ozzie supposed to do in this one?

15 June 5-3 loss to Rox
Contreras started. Gave up 2 in the first, 3 hits to start the inning. Took a ball off his foot or leg, can't remember where he got hit. Taveras led off this game and his hit was what hit Jose. He pitched well the next 4 innings and the game was tied at 3 going into the 6th. He gives up a home run in the 6th which put the Rockies ahead 4-3. Sox offense stranded 11 in this game. Contreras maybe could have pulled after 5, but again, he wasn't getting rocked around the previous couple innings.

So out of all those games there are maybe 4 where Ozzie could have done a better job with the pitching. And those games he didn't really kiss away, as you implied.

ondafarm
06-19-2008, 10:51 PM
I can't quite agree with a couple of your characterizations so let me comment on each.

09 April 12-5 loss to Twins
Danks started, had trouble in the first because he walked Gomes, then gave up 2 hits, walked another, another hit and then got out of the inning. Came back and retired the side in the 2nd, pop out, K, fly out. In the 3rd he started and was pulled after giving up 3 staright singles, then a K, then another single, and then a walk. I don't see how Ozzie could have pulled him after the 2nd when he was able to go 3 up 3 down. Maybe in the 3rd he could have pulled him after the 3 straight singles, but that still would have left the bases loaded.

I was at this game, the Dragons had asked me to scout a couple of guys from Minny, so my notes are fairly detailed. Danks had trouble in the first and did get the side in order in the second, but he was clearly laboring. The last out in the second was a dandy catch by Swish. His breaking stuff wasn't fooling anyone and his fastball he couldn't throw hard for strikes. Gomez had gotten picked off in the first, that kept him out of big trouble. He got lucky in the 2nd, but everybody knew he was living on borrowed time. Lamb and Everett are both below the Mendoza line, he had obvious trouble with the tail of a lineup in the 2nd, how would he fair against the top of the lineup in the third. I actually won a bet with my co-scout at the game because he said "No way, Floyd goes out for the third."

Technically a violation of the rule? Maybe not. But one heck of a lot of managers at the end of two would pat the kid on the fanny and say, "You ain't got it tonight, I'm going to protect you from the sharks."

11 April 5-2 loss to Tigers
Sox had early lead of 2-0 heading into the 3rd when Contreras gives up 3 in the 3rd. Sox had a whopping 4 hits in this game. Even if Contreras was pulled in the 3rd the Sox still lose.

Third inning was messed up. Contreras got lucky in both the fourth and the fifth. Double play gets him out of trouble in the 4th. Why Rentaria chased it I don't know, it was identical to the previous pitch. Rodriguez roped a liner that Uribe made a really nifty play on to nail IRod at first. Fifth, had two really sharply hit balls which turned into outs. Jose had stopped fooling anybody by this point.

So end of five. Jose is getting roped, the Sox are facing their third Tiger pitcher, Thome just got tossed out by the umpire for arguing a lousy call, JD ground out with the bases loaded. The Sox are clearing getting to a weak bullpen, so as the manager you have to ask: Is this game worth winning or is Jose's confidence more important? Do you ask him to try for another inning or two? He goes out for the sixth, gives up a hit and a couple of more liners in a 17 pitch inning. You got lucky but why gamble on a seventh. Ozzie does, Jose gives up a run, can't make it out of the inning and whatever momentum your offense had is dispersed. The Sox offense never did much after that. If he'd been yanked after five the offense might have woken up. Knock Grilli out (yes Jason frickin Grilli) and this is a winnable game.


14 April 2-1 loss to the A's
Buehrle start. He gave up a bunch of hits in this game, 9 total, but only 2 runs. One in the 4th and 1 in the 6th. Sox scored 1 run in this game off 8 hits.

MB doing an impression of MB. His cutter wasn't working. MB tried to switch to his changeup but he didn't have that pinpoint control. Trouble in the fourth, but he got lucky and only gave up one . Gave up a hit in the fifth but got out of it before Sweeney and Emil Jones, who both were hitting him well and have before, got up in the sixth. This ones iffy to me. He's down only one run, but isn't sharp. I know some managers yank him, some don't.

22 April 9-5 loss to Yankees
Contreras started. He gave up a homerun to Giambi in the 2nd, Sox were leading 3-2 going into the 7th. He got the first out, walked Ensberg on 4 pitches and then gave up a single to Cabrera. Jose actually pitched pretty well this game until the 7th, and Ozzie pulled Contreras with 1 out and 2 on. Dotel came in and struck out Jeter and then fell behind Abreu and gave up the slam. Again, where should the move had been made? Not have Contreras start the 7th?

Your nursing a 3-2 lead starting the seventh. Jose got a lucky double play in the sixth. He got the first man in the seventh, but walked the next. I'd say yank him then. Tying man put on base, any base in the seventh or later is something a lot of guys change the starter for.

11 May 6-3 loss to Mariners
Floyd went 3 2/3, giving up 5 runs on 9 hits. He probably should have been pulled after the 3rd, because he was bad that day.

In the first Floyd gave up a run. In the second he had the based loaded, no outs and got out of it, in the third he gave up two more and got a double play to reduce that. Why did he go out for the fourth? To get really pasted?

12 May 10-7 loss to Angels
Buehrle start. Gives up 8 runs and 10 hits in 5 2/3. Had a very bad 5th and probably should have been pulled after that inning. This was the 11th straight game for the Sox who would play 6 more before having a day off.

MB had a decent start but a four run fifth should have been his last. Goes out for the sixth, totally ineffective and the Sox lose the game before Guillen makes the switch.

24 May 2-0 loss to Angels
Danks started. Gave up 5 hits and 2 runs. Had given up 3 hits and then Guerrero led off the 6th with a home run and the next batter got a hit. Danks was pulled after that, Dotel came in, gave up another hit that scored the run and then got out of the inning. Sox bats fail to show up again. Not much Ozzie could have done here.

In both the fourth and the fifth Danks gave up ground rule doubles, but lucked out and those were stranded. In a tight game act as if those are homers and the rule not to let him go out for the sixth applies. If he's winning by three maybe you let him try, but not a 0-0 pitchers duel.

27 May 8-2 loss to Indians
The last bad Buehrle start. Gave up 5 runs in the first, 4 of them on a grand slam. Case could be made that Ozzie should have gone to the pen after the 1st, but the damage was already done. Offense scored 2 runs that game.

Big first innings can be funny. Some teams just shut down their offense after scoring in the first and some teams just roll over and die when they are scored against in the first. The key is not to let a dormant offense back in and to keep pecking at the lead. Alexei got doubled off second in our sixth and the Indians fourth and fifth both featured men getting into scoring position and MB squeaking out of trouble. Why send him out for the sixth and more trouble?

10 June 6-4 loss to Tigers
Contreras start. He pitched well through the first 4 innings and then ran into trouble in the 5th. Gave up 3 runs that inning and was getting smacked around. Should have pulled in the 5th or after the 5th, but again, he had pitched well the first 4 innings.

Jose gave up a run in the fourth and got out of a man at second with one out. Then again he didn't have a clean third, or a clean second. Sending him out for the sixth, after getting smacked around in the fifth and then out again for the seventh, cost the Sox this game.

11 June 5-1 loss to Tigers
Vazquez start. Gave up 1 hit in the first and then gives up 3 runs and 3hits and 2 walks in the 2nd inning. Even if you pull Javy after the 2nd, the damage had been done. Verlander pitches a complete game in this one and the Sox offense gets 4 hits and 1 run. What was Ozzie supposed to do in this one?

Well, you certainly don't send him out for the sixth to give up another run. If you are down one or two to a guy who's dealing, but have five or six innings left to get to him, most teams will scrape together a few runs. Javy had a rough 2nd and the Sox got one back in the fourth, but Javy out there after a rough , but lucky third, gives up another run. That takes a lot of wind out of your sails. If all you can do is peck away, but the manager considers the game lost, you stop trying.

15 June 5-3 loss to Rox
Contreras started. Gave up 2 in the first, 3 hits to start the inning. Took a ball off his foot or leg, can't remember where he got hit. Taveras led off this game and his hit was what hit Jose. He pitched well the next 4 innings and the game was tied at 3 going into the 6th. He gives up a home run in the 6th which put the Rockies ahead 4-3. Sox offense stranded 11 in this game. Contreras maybe could have pulled after 5, but again, he wasn't getting rocked around the previous couple innings.

So last of the fifth. Your guys have just tied it up. Your starter had a rough first, trouble in the second and third and gave up a run in the top of the fifth. But it's a brand new ballgame, you're tied up. Run out a guy who's had significant trouble already against the heart of their lineup or start a new guy? You've scraped a few runs together, do you commit a new guy to winning or try a fresh arm and count on being able to bring home another one eventually?

You can't see five wins coming out of these eleven games if Ozzie commits to winning them and yanking the pitcher? That is kissing away victories.