PDA

View Full Version : Don Cooper


HawkDJ
02-09-2003, 03:25 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/cs-030208soxcooper,0,4638302.story?coll=cs%2Dhome%2Dh eadlines

It shows how great of a pitching coach he is by the things he says...much better than Contreras.

"I don't like the alternative, like someone [ruining] your oatmeal every day. Don't get me wrong, I can get [ticked] off. But I prefer to have a positive outlook. Even Babe Ruth had a bad day."

We're coming at the hitters. We're the predators and the glove is the prey. Let's attack, attack, attack. We're the ones dictating the action."


It also shows in how much better our young pitchers pitched since Cooper became our pitching coach.

WhiteSox = Life
02-09-2003, 03:32 PM
I like it. Maybe Coop's attitude will wake up Manuel a little bit and Jerry will be more aggressive. And, if Jerry starts pushing the envelope a little bit (which is a good thing as long as it's not too much), who knows how the White Sox will react?

Hopefully, with excellent results.

jeremyb1
02-09-2003, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by HawkDJ2k2
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/cs-030208soxcooper,0,4638302.story?coll=cs%2Dhome%2Dh eadlines

It shows how great of a pitching coach he is by the things he says...much better than Contreras.

It also shows in how much better our young pitchers pitched since Cooper became our pitching coach.

i'm sorry. i like cooper but some of those stats about the sox pitchers "improvement" with coop as the pitching coash are ridiculous. as far as the starters go, as they note, rauch only had two starts with coop. figure in the fact that his health wasn't the same at the beginning and end of the season in addition to the ridiculously small sample size and the fact that they even printed that stat is ridiculous.

additionally, if you take out garland's last two starts with nardi, his era would be almost a run lower. he still did significantly better with cooper but its not as night and day as they suggest.

DrCrawdad
02-09-2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i'm sorry. i like cooper but some of those stats about the sox pitchers "improvement" with coop as the pitching coash are ridiculous. as far as the starters go, as they note, rauch only had two starts with coop. figure in the fact that his health wasn't the same at the beginning and end of the season in addition to the ridiculously small sample size and the fact that they even printed that stat is ridiculous.

additionally, if you take out garland's last two starts with nardi, his era would be almost a run lower. he still did significantly better with cooper but its not as night and day as they suggest.

There you go, spoiling a positive article.

jeremyb1
02-09-2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
There you go, spoiling a positive article.

all i'm saying is lets be realistic. it appears cooper is an improvement from nardi, but regardless of who our pitching coach is, a pitching coach can only do so much. there are only a few guys out there (mazzone) that can drastically alter a staff's performance. if our guys pitch well, coop deserves some credit but the staff deserves quite a bit more.

Bmr31
02-09-2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
all i'm saying is lets be realistic. it appears cooper is an improvement from nardi, but regardless of who our pitching coach is, a pitching coach can only do so much. there are only a few guys out there (mazzone) that can drastically alter a staff's performance. if our guys pitch well, coop deserves some credit but the staff deserves quite a bit more.

I think you may undestimate the importance of coaching.

jeremyb1
02-09-2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I think you may undestimate the importance of coaching.

i think coaching is important, i just don't think it varies all that much from team to team. how often have you heard people credit the a's pitching coach for the success of the big three? next to never because there aren't too many pitching coaches for who those three pitchers would be average pitchers.

bc2k
02-09-2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
he still did significantly better with cooper but its not as night and day as they suggest.


Bottom line like you just said, the Sox pitchers are better with Cooper instead of Nardi. Whether that difference is night and day or not, this is still a positive. To steal a line from other posters, "If Coop gets this much improvement from Sox pitchers mid-season, wait until he gets them for a full year."

The only piece from that article that wasn't positive is Nardi still being employed by the Sox.

jeremyb1
02-09-2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
Bottom line like you just said, the Sox pitchers are better with Cooper instead of Nardi. Whether that difference is night and day or not, this is still a positive. To steal a line from other posters, "If Coop gets this much improvement from Sox pitchers mid-season, wait until he gets them for a full year."

The only piece from that article that wasn't positive is Nardi still being employed by the Sox.

even if the bottom line is the same, i have problems with the rhetoric some people use. when discussing pitching coaches everyone always assumes that we're in a vacuum and there are no other factors that contribute to a pitchers success outside of what his pitching coach tells him. our staff improved with nardi first came aboard so by your logic he's a great pitching coach and yet you bash him in the post above.

yes, i do agree that cooper is most likely and improvement and seems to be doing a good job. i'd just rather not pretend that he's going to magically transform our staff into great pitchers based entirely on his teachings. the reality is that nardi was not a bad pitching coach. he wouldn't have been employed as long as he was if he was terrible at his job. our organization tends to hire people that know what they're doing. if this wasn't the case we would have a horrendous team. maybe nardi wasn't great and coop is probably better but its not like we replaced a pitching coach that destroyed our staff with a guy that'll be our savior.

bc2k
02-09-2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
even if the bottom line is the same, i have problems with the rhetoric some people use. when discussing pitching coaches everyone always assumes that we're in a vacuum and there are no other factors that contribute to a pitchers success outside of what his pitching coach tells him. our staff improved with nardi first came aboard so by your logic he's a great pitching coach and yet you bash him in the post above.

yes, i do agree that cooper is most likely and improvement and seems to be doing a good job. i'd just rather not pretend that he's going to magically transform our staff into great pitchers based entirely on his teachings. the reality is that nardi was not a bad pitching coach. he wouldn't have been employed as long as he was if he was terrible at his job. our organization tends to hire people that know what they're doing. if this wasn't the case we would have a horrendous team. maybe nardi wasn't great and coop is probably better but its not like we replaced a pitching coach that destroyed our staff with a guy that'll be our savior.

From the article, "Contreras not only had been the Sox's pitching coach for more than four seasons, he was and is one of manager Jerry Manuel's closest friends."

That is why he stayed employed for four years, not because he wasn't a terrible pitching coach. He would have been fired earlier had he no ties with Manuel.

Nobody has said that Coop is a savior and no other factors contribute to a pitching staff's success. We have been praising Cooper for a job - thus far - well done.

Our organization tends to know what they're doing? HAhah. Remind me who was the baserunning coach again. Who taught the team fundamentals? At at the top, what is Jerry Manuel's record with the Sox? Oh, any guy with the nickname "tinker" isn't a man that knows what he's doing. These guys are one step above Mac Newton.

From the same article, "In a similar vein, Cooper believes it's the pitchers, not the pitching coach, who are ultimately to be lauded or blamed for the results. He takes little credit for the Sox's improvement after he was named last season to replace Nardi Contreras on July 22."

"'If anything, what we tried to do was create a positive working environment where you're looking forward to coming to work," he said. "They threw all the pitches. It's funny, when they're doing good, you're taking smart pills. When they're doing bad, you must be taking dumb pills.'"

He obviously states a pitching coach can only do so much to improve the staff and the pitchers are ultimately responsible for their performances. This doesn't mean that he cannot help this team more than Nardi did/could. Which is the point everyone was trying to make.

jeremyb1
02-10-2003, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by bc2k
From the article, "Contreras not only had been the Sox's pitching coach for more than four seasons, he was and is one of manager Jerry Manuel's closest friends."

That is why he stayed employed for four years, not because he wasn't a terrible pitching coach. He would have been fired earlier had he no ties with Manuel.

Nobody has said that Coop is a savior and no other factors contribute to a pitching staff's success. We have been praising Cooper for a job - thus far - well done.

Our organization tends to know what they're doing? HAhah. Remind me who was the baserunning coach again. Who taught the team fundamentals? At at the top, what is Jerry Manuel's record with the Sox? Oh, any guy with the nickname "tinker" isn't a man that knows what he's doing. These guys are one step above Mac Newton.


how do you know nardi would’ve been fired earlier if he wasn’t friends with manuel? i want to know why anyone outside the sox organization thinks they have the knowledge required to assess nardi’s performance. none of us have any knowledge of how well nardi worked with the pitchers and that’s the essence of being a pitching coach. yes, you can look at results some but nardi didn’t have terrible results - the sox were in the top half of the al in pitching with mediocre to bad staffs in 3 of his 4 seasons) and like i said before, there are numerous factors which player into a pitcher success other than a pitching coach. there’s no way to isolate a pitching coach’s influence on his pitchers.

as for our organization, as i previously stated if we had terrible personel, we’d have a terrible team. look at teams like the orioles or d-rays. the d-rays are the laughingstock of baseball while the d-backs who have been around just as long have already won a series. why? because they have good personel while the d-rays do not. we wouldn’t have won at least 80 games each of the last 7 seasons if we had terrible baseball people in our organization. we wouldn’t have had one of the better farm systems in the game the last 4 or 5 years if we had terrible baseball people in our organization and we certainly wouldn’t have won 95 games in ‘00 if we had terrible baseball people in our organization. i think most people will defer to manuel’s manager of the year award before a stupid nickname circulating on the internet when evaluating manuel. i also, find this argument to be terribly hypocritical when in the same post that you blast the competence of those in our organization, you’re applauding our pitching coach who’s been in our organization for 15 years.

kermittheefrog
02-10-2003, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i also, find this argument to be terribly hypocritical when in the same post that you blast the competence of those in our organization, you’re applauding our pitching coach who’s been in our organization for 15 years.

Sounds like a post by bc2k.

baggio202
02-10-2003, 07:12 AM
jeremy ...you define nardi success by how the staff performed where he is at...in seattle..their pitching under him was terrible...and i dont buy the arguement that they improved after nardi left because the staff change personnel dramtically...but nardi sure didnt do anything special with the group he had...even if it was mediocre talent..

i think the best example is kip wells...nardi had kip all screwed up in the head..or if it wasnt nardi that screwed kip up nardi sure didnt do anything to fix it...kip shows up in pittsburgh throwing about 5 mph faster then he was here...kip even said in an interview that he needed a change because pitching here was messing with his head and screwing up his mechanics...if thats not a hit on the pitching coach then what is???

under nardi...none of our pitchers with the exception of buehrle lived up to their promise...maybe thats a little unfair on nardi because they were young but he sure didnt speed their development up any...

im not sold on cooper yet either...last years improvement was too early to tell if it was him or not...it very well could be that those kids starting pitching better because the pressure was off...we will see this year...

maybe nardi is the most knowledgeable PC on nthe face of the earth...but what good is it if it doesnt translate into results???..maybe nardi just couldnt communicate that knowledge to his pitchers..lets face it..he wasnt working with rocket scientists...ill take a dumbass with positive results anyday...

T Dog
02-10-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by baggio202
maybe nardi is the most knowledgeable PC on nthe face of the earth...but what good is it if it doesnt translate into results???..maybe nardi just couldnt communicate that knowledge to his pitchers..lets face it..he wasnt working with rocket scientists...ill take a dumbass with positive results anyday...

I met Don Cooper in Tucson in January, the week the Sox picked up Bartolo Colon. I liked his enthusiasm. While he seems to know his stuff, he also listens to people, which is something I have heard that Nardi Contreras didn't do. Cooper knows his pitchers and knows what they need to do, but the most refreshing and positive change could be the change in coaching style.

bc2k
02-10-2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Sounds like a post by bc2k.

ribbit, ribbit.

bc2k
02-10-2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
how do you know nardi would’ve been fired earlier if he wasn’t friends with manuel? i want to know why anyone outside the sox organization thinks they have the knowledge required to assess nardi’s performance. none of us have any knowledge of how well nardi worked with the pitchers and that’s the essence of being a pitching coach. yes, you can look at results some but nardi didn’t have terrible results - the sox were in the top half of the al in pitching with mediocre to bad staffs in 3 of his 4 seasons) and like i said before, there are numerous factors which player into a pitcher success other than a pitching coach. there’s no way to isolate a pitching coach’s influence on his pitchers.

Baggio mentioning Seattle reminds me of a quote I saw on WSI. I have not heard this quote myself, but I've read here that Lou Pinella called Nardi the worst pitching coach he has seen.

You're questioning how being outside the Sox organization I can assess Nardi's performance. I don't have to be in the organization to see the end result of Nardi's tenure. Obviously, the men in the organization didn't think he was good enough as White Sox pitching coach. That is not my opinion, that is fact.

Baggio also jogged my memory of former Sox pitchers who failed under Nardi's "watchful eye" and soon improved with other pitching coaches on other teams. Alan Embree is the biggest shock to me, and Howry gained about 4mph soon after Boston fixed a mechanical flaw.

jeremyb1
02-10-2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
Baggio mentioning Seattle reminds me of a quote I saw on WSI. I have not heard this quote myself, but I've read here that Lou Pinella called Nardi the worst pitching coach he has seen.

You're questioning how being outside the Sox organization I can assess Nardi's performance. I don't have to be in the organization to see the end result of Nardi's tenure. Obviously, the men in the organization didn't think he was good enough as White Sox pitching coach. That is not my opinion, that is fact.

Baggio also jogged my memory of former Sox pitchers who failed under Nardi's "watchful eye" and soon improved with other pitching coaches on other teams. Alan Embree is the biggest shock to me, and Howry gained about 4mph soon after Boston fixed a mechanical flaw.

nardi did lose his job and that did show that he was probably no longer doing the best job. but the fact that it took four seasons proves that it wasn’t an open and shut case. you could say the same about comments by kw and others that it was a difficult decision.

pinella’s opinion isn’t invalid but again he’s one person. as far as i remember the mariners had a terrible pen in 97 when nardi was fired. the pen struggled out of the gate and nardi was the fall man with pinella spouting some nonsense about the pitchers not being prepared. despite the fact that nardi was fired in the first month, the pen was still terrible featuring only two guys with eras under 4 and the team era was 11 out of 14 in the al. obviously firing nardi didn’t help the pitching much that season.

listing embree and howry is exactly what i mean by not knowing the entire situation. every pitch coach makes mistakes. no pitching coach will fix every flaw a pitcher has. if you isolate the howry and embree situations they make nardi look like a terrible coach because you can’t see any of the positives. you never know when he corrected a flaw or helped a pitcher fix his delivery. this is largely because the media doesn’t report it as much but also due to the fact that you’re choosing to ignore positives such as buehrle saying nardi was responsible for his success this last two seasons or wright crediting his turnaround last season to a new grip nardi taught him for his curve. embree had an era of 11 with san fran in ‘01 and an era of 5 with the sox so while he wasn’t great for us he did improve under nardi. additionally, if nardi deserves to be fired because of embree’s performance san francisco’s pitching coach (who took the team to the series last year) should also be out the door, right?

maurice
02-10-2003, 12:16 PM
Cooper was on WMVP yesterday. He discounted rumors that Marte would become a starter, since he considers him among the best lefty relievers in the game. He sounded really optimistic, as usual (which I understand substantially distinguishes him from Nardi). I wish they would have asked him about some of the Sox pitching prospects, though. Coming from his former minor league position, he knows all those guys well.

gogosoxgogo
02-10-2003, 12:19 PM
I was listening to the score, I can't remember who it was, possibly Murph and Fred, and they were saying how the biggest difference between Nardi and Coop is that the pitchers like playing for Don. They've worked with him in the past and are very comfortable. IMO, that alone is worth the upgrade.

jeremyb1
02-10-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
I was listening to the score, I can't remember who it was, possibly Murph and Fred, and they were saying how the biggest difference between Nardi and Coop is that the pitchers like playing for Don. They've worked with him in the past and are very comfortable. IMO, that alone is worth the upgrade.

i agree. i think that the biggest plus is that nardi lost some of the pitchers - which often happens when a coach has been around for a long time - and coop has created more enthusiasm from some of the pitchers. the same applied to von joshua when he was fired. based on ‘00 its clear he was a great hitting coach but he’d simply lost the players. if the players won’t work for a coach anymore he has to go.

bc2k
02-10-2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
listing embree and howry is exactly what i mean by not knowing the entire situation. every pitch coach makes mistakes. no pitching coach will fix every flaw a pitcher has.

Right, and I believe that Cooper makes less mistakes.

Originally posted by jeremyb1

if you isolate the howry and embree situations they make nardi look like a terrible coach because you can’t see any of the positives. you never know when he corrected a flaw or helped a pitcher fix his delivery. this is largely because the media doesn’t report it as much but also due to the fact that you’re choosing to ignore positives such as buehrle saying nardi was responsible for his success this last two seasons or wright crediting his turnaround last season to a new grip nardi taught him for his curve. embree had an era of 11 with san fran in ‘01 and an era of 5 with the sox so while he wasn’t great for us he did improve under nardi. additionally, if nardi deserves to be fired because of embree’s performance san francisco’s pitching coach (who took the team to the series last year) should also be out the door, right?

It is near impossible for us fans to know every positive and negative in a pitching coach's tenure. That is why you look at the bottom line:

PITCHER BEFORE AFTER

Mark Buehrle 3.63 3.49
Jon Garland 5.46 3.16
Gary Glover 4.62 5.89
Damaso Marte 3.38 1.74
Jon Rauch-* 9.72 2.25
Dan Wright 5.53 4.62
*- Rauch made just two starts after the Sox hired Cooper.


I will admit due to the small sample size, I am not sold on Cooper either. Some success has to due with a new coach - no matter who he is. Look at Bill Cartwright's Bulls when he took over for Tim Floyd. The Bulls were sparked and had their focused restored for a short time after Bill took over. The same may have happened with the Sox staff after Cooper took over. Neither of us knows if this success was just a spark, or if Coop's pitchers will have success throughout this season. But, that wouldn't stop me from betting the Sox staff will be better next year under his control. I think Cooper is the better pitching coach and you think Nardi is the better pitching coach. I guess we disagree.

jeremyb1
02-10-2003, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by bc2k

I will admit due to the small sample size, I am not sold on Cooper either. Some success has to due with a new coach - no matter who he is. Look at Bill Cartwright's Bulls when he took over for Tim Floyd. The Bulls were sparked and had their focused restored for a short time after Bill took over. The same may have happened with the Sox staff after Cooper took over. Neither of us knows if this success was just a spark, or if Coop's pitchers will have success throughout this season. But, that wouldn't stop me from betting the Sox staff will be better next year under his control. I think Cooper is the better pitching coach and you think Nardi is the better pitching coach. I guess we disagree.

no, i think the odds are good coop is a better pitching coach but i don't think nardi was a below average pitching coach.