PDA

View Full Version : more praise for nardi?


jeremyb1
03-24-2003, 05:16 PM
one of my pet peeves is the often unfounded bashing of nardi contreras i've heard in the last year so i'm always interested in information which portrays his time with the sox in at least a somewhat positive light. in an article about marte in today's daily herald, our top scout larry monroe says


"I had seen (Marte) at the end of 2001,'' Monroe said. "Pittsburgh called him up after they got him in a trade from the Yankees. He threw well in Pittsburgh, but he was erratic. Then, when I saw him the next spring, it was kind of the same thing. He was erratic, but he showed good stuff.''

After coming over to the White Sox on March 27, Marte made a surprising, instant impact.

"He became much more compact and that made his direction better,'' Monroe said. "I'm not at all surprised that he did as well as he did last year. But I am surprised he did as well so many times in a row. I thought he'd be more inconsistent.''

i wonder who deserves credit for helping marte make his delivery more compact and improving his direction, leading to his success? if you use the logic used by many to justify nardi's firing, he deserves the overwhelming majority of the credit for marte.

Randar68
03-24-2003, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
one of my pet peeves is the often unfounded bashing of nardi contreras i've heard in the last year so i'm always interested in information which portrays his time with the sox in at least a somewhat positive light. in an article about marte in today's daily herald, our top scout larry monroe says

You're kidding, right? Nardi had no positive impact as a whole. Why don't you ask Kip Wells how much he was able to help him?


Originally posted by jeremyb1
i wonder who deserves credit for helping marte make his delivery more compact and improving his direction, leading to his success? if you use the logic used by many to justify nardi's firing, he deserves the overwhelming majority of the credit for marte.

Last I checked, Nardi wasn't mentioned in that quote. Cooper was with the team from Spring Training on IIRC. Who says Nardi had anything to do with it. In Spring Training, there are more than 5 coaches or roving instructors who are in camp at any given time and may be working with any given pitcher.

TheBigHurt
03-24-2003, 06:03 PM
Many people here are glad NARDI is history....... and thank god for that

Daver
03-24-2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Randar68





Last I checked, Nardi wasn't mentioned in that quote. Cooper was with the team from Spring Training on IIRC. Who says Nardi had anything to do with it. In Spring Training, there are more than 5 coaches or roving instructors who are in camp at any given time and may be working with any given pitcher.

If I had to name the absolute worst pitching coach I had ever seen on any level of baseball Nardi would come in second,behind the idiot at JJC that coaches his pitchers from the announcers box with a megaphone.

I have never seen a pitching coach at the MLB level that combined teaching bad mechanics and promoting a poor work ethic as bad as he did.

When your two main tools as a pitching coach are a radar gun and a pitch counter you need to find a new line of work.

duke of dorwood
03-24-2003, 08:34 PM
Marte benefitted early from "first time around" syndrome. Contreras had nothing to do with that.

Next case

fuzzy_patters
03-24-2003, 09:03 PM
Rather than infer what may or may not have been implied by and article, I'd prefer to listen to a manager who once won 118 games in a season. When Lou Piniella say Nardi is the worst pitching coach he has ever worked with, I assume he is a terrible pitching coach.

As for Marte, he just as easily could have worked with someone one in winter ball, spring training, or with bullpen coach Art Kusner (sp?) as with Nardi Contreras. His improvement proves nothing compared to the amount of empirical and anecdotal evidence against Nardi.

jeremyb1
03-24-2003, 11:28 PM
my point with this entire thing wasn't to argue that nardi was a god or even that it was necessarily the wrong decision to fire him. i'm a big don cooper fan. however, i wanted to point out that people's arguments on this subject are often completely illogical and i still believe nardi was a solid pitching coach. it seems to me someone good enough to be hired by an above average to good organization in terms of personel moves should be considered servicable until proven otherwise.

the two arguments in the first thread were to refer to a sox pitcher who did struggle and that nardi didn't necessarily help. these two arguments completely contradict each other. its completely unfair to apply different levels of blame/success to nardi based on the situation. its nardi's fault kip wells didn't succeed but nardi doesn't deserve credit for marte. which is it does he receive credit for a pitchers performance or not? it has to be one way or the other.

next, we simply have someone stating an opinion without support. simply saying that nardi used bad mechanics and promoted a poor work ethic is pretty meaningless without facts to back it up. this is especially true when one can refer to evidence such as the comments made by buehrle about nardi to argue otherwise. as for pitch counts and radar guns, those are again opinions. just because you don't share nardi's philosiphy doesn't mean its wrong.

next, we have the "first time around" argument. this is again assuming nardi was a terrible pitching coach until proven otherwise. i'd imagine most people would hate to be fired from their job unless they could unequivickly prove they were doing a great job all the time. maybe marte succeeded based on the first time around but again there's no evidence given in favor of that other than it was his first time around. he also had a first time around with the pirates and yankees and didn't fare quite so well.

finally we have an appeal to authority in the form of pinella. i think pinella is a good coach but certainly his word isn't gospel. if pinella is really right all the time and everything he says should be considered fact we have to have the worst front office in baseball since we employed nardi for several years. since we aren't the devil rays and we won 95 games as recently as '00 i'm going to say our organization is at least slightly above average (or was when nardi was hired). i respect pinella but its ridiculous to say "we can't argue about this because lou pinella weighed in and he's always right".

i hope this isn't interpreted the wrong way because as i said, my argument isn't as strong as it may appear to be. what i'm arguing here is that nardi contreras was not a terrible pitching coach and i've yet to see reasonable arguments demonstrating that he is.

Randar68
03-25-2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
my point with this entire thing wasn't to argue that nardi was a god or even that it was necessarily the wrong decision to fire him. i'm a big don cooper fan. however, i wanted to point out that people's arguments on this subject are often completely illogical and i still believe nardi was a solid pitching coach. it seems to me someone good enough to be hired by an above average to good organization in terms of personel moves should be considered servicable until proven otherwise.

the two arguments in the first thread were to refer to a sox pitcher who did struggle and that nardi didn't necessarily help. these two arguments completely contradict each other. its completely unfair to apply different levels of blame/success to nardi based on the situation. its nardi's fault kip wells didn't succeed but nardi doesn't deserve credit for marte. which is it does he receive credit for a pitchers performance or not? it has to be one way or the other.

next, we simply have someone stating an opinion without support. simply saying that nardi used bad mechanics and promoted a poor work ethic is pretty meaningless without facts to back it up. this is especially true when one can refer to evidence such as the comments made by buehrle about nardi to argue otherwise. as for pitch counts and radar guns, those are again opinions. just because you don't share nardi's philosiphy doesn't mean its wrong.

next, we have the "first time around" argument. this is again assuming nardi was a terrible pitching coach until proven otherwise. i'd imagine most people would hate to be fired from their job unless they could unequivickly prove they were doing a great job all the time. maybe marte succeeded based on the first time around but again there's no evidence given in favor of that other than it was his first time around. he also had a first time around with the pirates and yankees and didn't fare quite so well.

finally we have an appeal to authority in the form of pinella. i think pinella is a good coach but certainly his word isn't gospel. if pinella is really right all the time and everything he says should be considered fact we have to have the worst front office in baseball since we employed nardi for several years. since we aren't the devil rays and we won 95 games as recently as '00 i'm going to say our organization is at least slightly above average (or was when nardi was hired). i respect pinella but its ridiculous to say "we can't argue about this because lou pinella weighed in and he's always right".

i hope this isn't interpreted the wrong way because as i said, my argument isn't as strong as it may appear to be. what i'm arguing here is that nardi contreras was not a terrible pitching coach and i've yet to see reasonable arguments demonstrating that he is.

:whoflungpoo

I don't care what any other manager has said about him. Nor do I care what his good friend, Ghandi, says about him.

His approach to coaching pitchers, his lack of results, and the flurry of injuries not seen in the Sox organixzation in the 20 years prior to his arrival are all the evidence I need.

Where were you when TV had to cut away from him on the mound with the Sox' young pitchers because you could plainly read his lips as he laid into his pitchers? Seemingly 90% of the time, this was followed by cookies down the middle and the crumbling of said pitcher.

It doesn't take Lou Piniella's word to call a dog a dog.

fuzzy_patters
03-25-2003, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
:whoflungpoo

I don't care what any other manager has said about him. Nor do I care what his good friend, Ghandi, says about him.

His approach to coaching pitchers, his lack of results, and the flurry of injuries not seen in the Sox organixzation in the 20 years prior to his arrival are all the evidence I need.

Where were you when TV had to cut away from him on the mound with the Sox' young pitchers because you could plainly read his lips as he laid into his pitchers? Seemingly 90% of the time, this was followed by cookies down the middle and the crumbling of said pitcher.

It doesn't take Lou Piniella's word to call a dog a dog.

That's right, but Lou Piniella's words in conjunction with the improvement of the Seattle pitching staff upon Contreras's firing further illustrates that the dog is, indeed, a dog.

jeremyb1
03-25-2003, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
:whoflungpoo

I don't care what any other manager has said about him. Nor do I care what his good friend, Ghandi, says about him.

His approach to coaching pitchers, his lack of results, and the flurry of injuries not seen in the Sox organixzation in the 20 years prior to his arrival are all the evidence I need.

Where were you when TV had to cut away from him on the mound with the Sox' young pitchers because you could plainly read his lips as he laid into his pitchers? Seemingly 90% of the time, this was followed by cookies down the middle and the crumbling of said pitcher.

It doesn't take Lou Piniella's word to call a dog a dog.

i'll admit it doesn't make a ton of sense to go into incredible depth debating this so long after the fact. in some regards its my fault for bringing it up, i'd meant for this to simply be a piece for thought more than a highly detailed debate about nardi's entire career. my argument is merely that things like this indicate to me its not an open and shut case.

to breifly address your arguments without allowing this thread to become massive: first, i don't feel that as fans any of us possess true insight into nardi's approach as a pitching coach. there are very few accounts of a pitching coach's daily business reported in the media and no one here has witnessed nardi's interactions with the pitchers.

as for results, our staff's performance in the first half of '00 is what allowed us to win 95 games. nardi never had great talent to work with with the exception of very young pitchers who obviously didn't dominate immediately.

the injuries were simply the result of working the pitchers incredibly hard in '00 in order to win games. manuel takes as much or more credit for that.

as for reading lips, i'm not familiar with what you're talking about but that hardly seems reason enough to fire a pitcher in my opinion. also, as far as the "cookies" that's not sufficient evidence if you ask me. that's completely anecdotal. you're talking about a number of times you remember him coming to the mound and what you then remember happening. i'd find it a lot more effective if you had statistics of every time he went to the mound and what happened on the next pitch. however, i still don't find this sufficient reason to deem him an awful pitching coach. its entirely possible that he simply urged the pitchers to throw more strikes and our pitchers lacking good command were unable to throw a strike without throwing a cookie. none of this is conclusive in my opinion.

fuzzy_patters
03-25-2003, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
it seems to me someone good enough to be hired by an above average to good organization in terms of personel moves should be considered servicable until proven otherwise.



Speaking of unsupported opinions, it seems you are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. How do you intend to back up your assertion that the Sox are an "above average to good organization in terms of personell moves." Perhaps you will go for empirical evidence and point to the success of past Sox successful pitching coaches such as Brown and Pazik. Maybe you would prefer to point to the Sox managerial hiring practices of hiring managers who handle pitchers well such as Terry Bevington who like to call for the righty when no righty is warming up (Bill Simas incident.)

The fact is that your opinion of Nardi is simply that, an opinion, and is no more valid than the opinions of other posters. What is valid is factual data, and the fact is that both teams that have fired Contreras have seen their pitchers allow fewer earned runs after his firing.

jeremyb1
03-25-2003, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
Speaking of unsupported opinions, it seems you are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. How do you intend to back up your assertion that the Sox are an "above average to good organization in terms of personell moves." Perhaps you will go for empirical evidence and point to the success of past Sox successful pitching coaches such as Brown and Pazik. Maybe you would prefer to point to the Sox managerial hiring practices of hiring managers who handle pitchers well such as Terry Bevington who like to call for the righty when no righty is warming up (Bill Simas incident.)

The fact is that your opinion of Nardi is simply that, an opinion, and is no more valid than the opinions of other posters. What is valid is factual data, and the fact is that both teams that have fired Contreras have seen their pitchers allow fewer earned runs after his firing.

you can make that argument. i feel like i at least offered support for my opinion by referencing our records over the past several seasons. bevington was a bad manager but i'm not sure he was terrible and in any event he was gone relatively quickly. regardless, even if you disagree with the support i've offered, at least i offered support.

my opinion is that teams that tend to have relative success have pretty good organizations or this wouldn't be the case. only organizations that use a big payroll and win next to no games such as baltimore in recent years hire people like peter angelos who qualify as absolutely "terrible" and don't belong in baseball.

hold2dibber
03-25-2003, 10:02 AM
Jeremy, all of your arguments are certainly rational and make sense, but you're trying to stop an avalanche with tissue paper. The overwhelming evidence (beit circumstantial, anecdotal or otherwise) suggests pretty strongly (as has been detailed by others above) that Nardi was not and is not a very good pitching coach. That isn't to say that he never helped one pitcher ever. That isn't to say that he didn't do some things that worked. But the fact that people who have observed him working with the pitchers have reamed him, the fact that under his watch many of the Sox' pitchers came down with arm ailments, and the fact that the results under his watch both in Chicago and Seattle were less-than-impressive, along with other factors, all point to the fact that, overall, he wasn't very good. More importantly, to date, Cooper seems to be better (although it's probably still too early to really make up my mind about his value).

34 Inch Stick
03-25-2003, 10:48 AM
Jeremy since you obviously put no thought into this post and do not really believe what you are saying I will leave you with a few of my favorite movie quotes:

as the great Jimmy Conway said to Henry Hill in Goodfellas "lay of the drugs Henry, it f's up your mind"

Or how about from Apocalypse Now when referring to you, Nardi and Bevington "his methods are unsound."

And finally as Marvin Gay's ******** father said before shooting his son "that boy ain't right"

gosox41
03-25-2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
my point with this entire thing wasn't to argue that nardi was a god or even that it was necessarily the wrong decision to fire him. i'm a big don cooper fan. however, i wanted to point out that people's arguments on this subject are often completely illogical and i still believe nardi was a solid pitching coach. it seems to me someone good enough to be hired by an above average to good organization in terms of personel moves should be considered servicable until proven otherwise.

the two arguments in the first thread were to refer to a sox pitcher who did struggle and that nardi didn't necessarily help. these two arguments completely contradict each other. its completely unfair to apply different levels of blame/success to nardi based on the situation. its nardi's fault kip wells didn't succeed but nardi doesn't deserve credit for marte. which is it does he receive credit for a pitchers performance or not? it has to be one way or the other.

next, we simply have someone stating an opinion without support. simply saying that nardi used bad mechanics and promoted a poor work ethic is pretty meaningless without facts to back it up. this is especially true when one can refer to evidence such as the comments made by buehrle about nardi to argue otherwise. as for pitch counts and radar guns, those are again opinions. just because you don't share nardi's philosiphy doesn't mean its wrong.

next, we have the "first time around" argument. this is again assuming nardi was a terrible pitching coach until proven otherwise. i'd imagine most people would hate to be fired from their job unless they could unequivickly prove they were doing a great job all the time. maybe marte succeeded based on the first time around but again there's no evidence given in favor of that other than it was his first time around. he also had a first time around with the pirates and yankees and didn't fare quite so well.

finally we have an appeal to authority in the form of pinella. i think pinella is a good coach but certainly his word isn't gospel. if pinella is really right all the time and everything he says should be considered fact we have to have the worst front office in baseball since we employed nardi for several years. since we aren't the devil rays and we won 95 games as recently as '00 i'm going to say our organization is at least slightly above average (or was when nardi was hired). i respect pinella but its ridiculous to say "we can't argue about this because lou pinella weighed in and he's always right".

i hope this isn't interpreted the wrong way because as i said, my argument isn't as strong as it may appear to be. what i'm arguing here is that nardi contreras was not a terrible pitching coach and i've yet to see reasonable arguments demonstrating that he is.

I'll disagree with you. Nardi may not have been the worst pitching coach in all of baseball history, but he was certainly the worst I have seen in years of following baseball. He is clueless.

To sum up Nardi's strategy, it was to pitch to a hitters weakness. Don Cooper believes in attacking with the pitcher's strength. One's timid and one's not. What's the purpose of a player not using his biggest strength to his advantage.

I certainly don't know if it was Nardi or Cooper who helped Marte. My educated guess is it was Cooper just based on stats. Was it any coincidence that Garland and Wright had such an improvement of numbers in the second half? Was it coincidental that Kip Wells finally started to show some of the flash he had?

As for Pinella, I'll belive him more then most. There is no absolute authority on who's good and who's crap. But Pinella has a history of winning and has done quite well in Seattle since Nardi was canned. How come Seattle's pitching didn't get worse?

It's kind of like the Braves trade of Millwood. I blame KW for not getting him because Schuerholz has a reputation in the game for ebeing an intelligent GM who has survived a lot of years and has had a lot of success. If Schuerholz says he contacted every team about Millwood I believe him more then I believe a GM who has less then 3 years of experience on the job and can't even get a player's name right in a trade.

For what it's worth, last season I was talking to a wife of a Sox pitcher. She told me that her husband coudln't stand Nardi and that he completely lost touch with the pitching staff. There was a lot of frustration with him in the clubhouse.

Bob

doublem23
03-25-2003, 04:33 PM
I think I can sum it up in three words and a mathematical symbol...

Nardi Contreras = crap

jeremyb1
03-25-2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
I think I can sum it up in three words and a mathematical symbol...

Nardi Contreras = crap

i think this thread has run its course but i feel that comments of the "nardi is bad because i say so" variety such as the one above prove that many fail to understand the complexities involved in attempting to judge a pitching coach's performance. that's not to say some people didn't make good arguments i happen to agree that while nardi was incredibly helpful with some pitchers such as buehrle he may have lost enough other pitchers to justify his dismissal. however, it boggles my mind how many people refuse to even listen to arguments defending nardi or spend the time to make actual arguments themselves just because they're so incredibly convinced they're right.

Nixey 02
03-25-2003, 06:47 PM
You know, I think one that we can all agree on would be Nardi's moving, unforgettable portrayal of "Hose Harrigan" in the 1987 made-for-cable, William Petersen (CSI)-vehicle and baseball movie, "Long Gone". If only once upon a time movie fame weren't so fickle :D:

Randar68
03-25-2003, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i think this thread has run its course but i feel that comments of the "nardi is bad because i say so" variety such as the one above prove that many fail to understand the complexities involved in attempting to judge a pitching coach's performance.

How convenient you have ignored the many posts that point to his exact deficiences and think these "becasue I say so" posts are the majority.

Originally posted by jeremyb1
that's not to say some people didn't make good arguments i happen to agree that while nardi was incredibly helpful with some pitchers such as buehrle he may have lost enough other pitchers to justify his dismissal. however, it boggles my mind how many people refuse to even listen to arguments defending nardi or spend the time to make actual arguments themselves just because they're so incredibly convinced they're right.

1) Buehrle publicly stated he learned more from Wells than anyone else. In addition, Nardi had absolutely ZERO to do with Mark's rapid ascent from draft and follow signee to major leagues in such a short period of time. Mark had the tools before he got here, Nardi had as much to do with him refining them as you or I did.

2)however, it boggles my mind how many people refuse to even listen to arguments *****. This is rich.



Get off your high horse. Nardi is a fool of a pitching coach.

voodoochile
03-25-2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i think this thread has run its course but i feel that comments of the "nardi is bad because i say so" variety such as the one above prove that many fail to understand the complexities involved in attempting to judge a pitching coach's performance. that's not to say some people didn't make good arguments i happen to agree that while nardi was incredibly helpful with some pitchers such as buehrle he may have lost enough other pitchers to justify his dismissal. however, it boggles my mind how many people refuse to even listen to arguments defending nardi or spend the time to make actual arguments themselves just because they're so incredibly convinced they're right.

What boggles my mind is the fact that you continue to make it seem as if everyone else is simply biased against the man yet you are the ONLY person who has had ANYTHING good to say about Nardi AT ALL. If he really did have some redeeming qualities, it would seem that someone else would be agreeing with you, but there you sit out on that limb all by yourself while everyone else works on sawing it off behind you.

Personally, I really don't find it surprising that that is the case, because IMO Doub's mathematical forumla explains the situation perfectly. The man flat stunk at his job and now two organizations have said so by firing him (The M's didn't let it end there either - they told the whole world WHY he got fired). Even if he did help Marte - and the jury is (at best) still out on what role he actually played in that development - it could be written off as a blind squirrel getting lucky and finding a nut every once in a while - and not change the fact that Nardi was terrible for the Sox pitching staff. The facts speak for themselves on that point.

Daver
03-25-2003, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The facts speak for themselves on that point.

I think the fact that although he is still on the White Sox payroll,he is not allowed any where near any pitchers on whatever level of the minors,and the fact that he was not invited to Arizona for Spring training speaks volumes about his skills as a pitching coach.

Randar68
03-25-2003, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by daver
I think the fact that although he is still on the White Sox payroll,he is not allowed any where near any pitchers on whatever level of the minors,and the fact that he was not invited to Arizona for Spring training speaks volumes about his skills as a pitching coach.

LMAO, Daver. You people are really getting old with all your, "because I said so's."

Daver
03-25-2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
LMAO, Daver. You people are really getting old with all your, "because I said so's."

I can only call them as I see them Randar,I think I was among the first to call for Nardi's head on a plate in 2001.

:)

Randar68
03-25-2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by daver
I can only call them as I see them Randar,I think I was among the first to call for Nardi's head on a plate in 2001.

:)

Pretty sure I was right there with ya. In retrospect, did your info/opinion have roots in your relationship/insider info with a certain former player's parents???

Daver
03-25-2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Pretty sure I was right there with ya. In retrospect, did your info/opinion have roots in your relationship/insider info with a certain former player's parents???

Yes it did,but that was just icing on the cake,I can tell when a pitching coach has no idea what he is doing,you probably can too.

Randar68
03-25-2003, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by daver
Yes it did,but that was just icing on the cake,I can tell when a pitching coach has no idea what he is doing,you probably can too.

Sometimes it is so obvious you can't even find the words to express it.

voodoochile
03-25-2003, 11:28 PM
I have one other question. What's with the title of this thread anyway? MORE (??!??!??!) praise for Nardi. Has someone else praised him in the past? I haven't heard/seen any. Did I miss something?

Just curious. Where are all the people singing Nardi's praises that jeremy is so convinced exist?

jeremyb1
03-26-2003, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
How convenient you have ignored the many posts that point to his exact deficiences and think these "becasue I say so" posts are the majority.

1) Buehrle publicly stated he learned more from Wells than anyone else. In addition, Nardi had absolutely ZERO to do with Mark's rapid ascent from draft and follow signee to major leagues in such a short period of time. Mark had the tools before he got here, Nardi had as much to do with him refining them as you or I did.

2)however, it boggles my mind how many people refuse to even listen to arguments *****. This is rich.

Get off your high horse. Nardi is a fool of a pitching coach.

if you go back to my first post you'll read about how i feel that many people make poor unsubstantiated articles in this thread. the fact that not everyone made poor unsubstantiated arguments by no means negates my argument to even a slight degree. the fact that the "i say so" points are in the majority proves my main point that's why i focused on that.

however, to say i ignored other arguments is an absolute joke. in the thread you're responding to, i comment about how some people did make reasonable, thought out arguments. i also answered a number of these arguments throughout the thread despite the fact that they were not in contradiction to my main argument. i would hardly consider that to be ignoring those arguments.

buehrle also publicly stated his bullpen sessions with nardi contreras made him the pitcher he is today. that is in completely contradiction do the other quote. your again exhibiting the double standard here. pitchers like kip wells struggled because nardi is a bad coach and yet buehrle succeeded in spite of nardi. if a guy like wells with the tools couldn't succeed under nardi cause he's one of the absolute worst coaches in the history of the game, how did buehrle?

you then demonstrate more ridiculous argumentation by making personal attacks by saying i'm on my "high horse" and mocking me because i've failed to address others arguments. i don't know how i'm ignoring others arguments by arguing with a number of people in this thread and writing much more than anyone else.

jeremyb1
03-26-2003, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
What boggles my mind is the fact that you continue to make it seem as if everyone else is simply biased against the man yet you are the ONLY person who has had ANYTHING good to say about Nardi AT ALL. If he really did have some redeeming qualities, it would seem that someone else would be agreeing with you, but there you sit out on that limb all by yourself while everyone else works on sawing it off behind you.

Personally, I really don't find it surprising that that is the case, because IMO Doub's mathematical forumla explains the situation perfectly. The man flat stunk at his job and now two organizations have said so by firing him (The M's didn't let it end there either - they told the whole world WHY he got fired). Even if he did help Marte - and the jury is (at best) still out on what role he actually played in that development - it could be written off as a blind squirrel getting lucky and finding a nut every once in a while - and not change the fact that Nardi was terrible for the Sox pitching staff. The facts speak for themselves on that point.

everyone else is saying it so therefore its correct? that logic is absolutely horrendous. if people disagree with you then you're wrong? why argue about it at all then? as someone's mother would say, "if everyone else jumps off a bridge then you would too?". i guess we just have to declare me the loser here because most people disagree with me.

the problem with the argument about referring to a pitching coach's success and nothing else is that you're completley ignoring key facts. you're assuming that every pitching coach has the same talent and that the team with the best era has the best pitching coach.

in order for nardi to be fired twice he had to be hired twice. considering the life of an average pitching coach being fired after 3+ seasons doesn't automatically classify one as a terrible coach. again, i'm not arguing nardi is leo mazzone part two or even that he should've necessarily kept his job but the attacks leveled at him are often uncalled for.

jeremyb1
03-26-2003, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I have one other question. What's with the title of this thread anyway? MORE (??!??!??!) praise for Nardi. Has someone else praised him in the past? I haven't heard/seen any. Did I miss something?

Just curious. Where are all the people singing Nardi's praises that jeremy is so convinced exist?

as i referred to in another thread, shortly after nardi was fired there was an article in the southtown where buehrle lauded nardi and said bullpen sessions with nardi "made me the pitcher i am today". i believe buehrle also critisized the pitchers for costing nardi his job. i think several other players also praised nardi but the southtown only archives stories for seven days.

34 Inch Stick
03-26-2003, 10:00 AM
Jeremy, everyone makes stupid posts. I called for hiring Dave Stewart over Don Cooper after Nardi was fired. Be a man, admit that you were wrong (and added to it by saying Bevington was not bad), and hope this post quickly disappears into the night.

And let's try to keep those posts shorter in the future. Just because the same thing can be said in different ways, doesn't mean it has to.

maurice
03-26-2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
shortly after nardi was fired there was an article in the southtown where buehrle lauded nardi and said bullpen sessions with nardi "made me the pitcher i am today"

The key words being "shortly after nardi was fired." MB recognized that it's in bad taste to speak ill of the recently "deceased." Others, OTOH, had no problem very specifically attacking Nardi's approach, as reported throughout this thread. Prior to the firing, MB credited only Wells for his development as a starter at the major league level.

I don't mean to pile on, but I didn't see anyone else make this specific point.

fuzzy_patters
03-26-2003, 11:58 AM
The fact that Mark Buehrle was lights out in the spring of 2000 discredits the idea that Nardi made him. Buehrle was successful from day one. If he had struggled and then turned it around the argument would have more merit, but that is not what happened. If anyone deserves credit for making Buehrle the pitcher he is today, it would be the Sox AA pitching coach. Buehrle's spring 2000 performance, as well as his performance after his July call-up that year, suggest that he was extremely well prepared before ever playing in a Major League game. By the way, who was our AA pitching coach in 1999?

voodoochile
03-26-2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
everyone else is saying it so therefore its correct? that logic is absolutely horrendous. if people disagree with you then you're wrong? why argue about it at all then? as someone's mother would say, "if everyone else jumps off a bridge then you would too?". i guess we just have to declare me the loser here because most people disagree with me.

the problem with the argument about referring to a pitching coach's success and nothing else is that you're completley ignoring key facts. you're assuming that every pitching coach has the same talent and that the team with the best era has the best pitching coach.

in order for nardi to be fired twice he had to be hired twice. considering the life of an average pitching coach being fired after 3+ seasons doesn't automatically classify one as a terrible coach. again, i'm not arguing nardi is leo mazzone part two or even that he should've necessarily kept his job but the attacks leveled at him are often uncalled for.

Both times he was hired he was friendly with the managers prior to his hiring, so it isn't hard to assume that figured into the the decision. I am positive it did in Chicago as it has been mentioned numerous times and JM is famous for hiring people he considers friends (nothing wrong with that so long as they can also do their job). In addition neither team he worked for were exactly short on young pitching talent and both had more success AFTER he stopped handling the staffs. Someone earlier in this thread talked about the results after mound visits by Nardi. Nardi goes out to the mound and chews out the pitcher. Pitcher throws a fastball. Fastball gets crushed by opposing teams batter. It was so common that it became predictable. In fact, I would bet dollars to donuts that other teams had a special rule for hitters after Nardi visits: "Sit dead red".

I agree that having everyone else disagree with an opinion is NOT grounds to dismiss the opinion out of hand, but this opinion has been getting ripped by some of the more knowledgeable posters on this board. In addition it is a BIT unusual to have NO ONE supporting the original opinion. Even the craziest concepts can normally find at least 2 people to support them especially here at WSI where there is no shortage of unique, knowledgeable and strong willed posters who will wade into a cross fire wearing only their underwear. In fact that was my thought as to what you were doing when I first saw this thread.

Maybe you are the only one who sees the truth, but it doesn't seem likely to me. Of course that is just my opinion, just as the idea that Nardi wasn't ALL bad is yours. I agree the man may not be Satan incarnate, but he was terrible for the team on so many levels that even if he had a few redeeming qualities it hardly seems worthwhile to discuss them. What are you hoping to prove with this thread? That Nardi had some good qualities? That he deserves to be listened to? That he deserves a job within the organization? If all you are looking for is support for Nardi, I think you have a long hard road in front of you. Not too many Sox fans were disappointed to see him get canned.

Still, thanks for bringing it up. It is always fun to bash Nardi and makes for lively debate...

Randar68
03-26-2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Both times he was hired he was friendly with the managers prior to his hiring, so it isn't hard to assume that figured into the the decision. I am positive it did in Chicago as it has been mentioned numerous times and JM is famous for hiring people he considers friends (nothing wrong with that so long as they can also do their job). In addition neither team he worked for were exactly short on young pitching talent and both had more success AFTER he stopped handling the staffs. Someone earlier in this thread talked about the results after mound visits by Nardi. Nardi goes out to the mound and chews out the pitcher. Pitcher throws a fastball. Fastball gets crushed by opposing teams batter. It was so common that it became predictable. In fact, I would bet dollars to donuts that other teams had a special rule for hitters after Nardi visits: "Sit dead red".

I agree that having everyone else disagree with an opinion is NOT grounds to dismiss the opinion out of hand, but this opinion has been getting ripped by some of the more knowledgeable posters on this board. In addition it is a BIT unusual to have NO ONE supporting the original opinion. Even the craziest concepts can normally find at least 2 people to support them especially here at WSI where there is no shortage of unique, knowledgeable and strong willed posters who will wade into a cross fire wearing only their underwear. In fact that was my thought as to what you were doing when I first saw this thread.

Maybe you are the only one who sees the truth, but it doesn't seem likely to me. Of course that is just my opinion, just as the idea that Nardi wasn't ALL bad is yours. I agree the man may not be Satan incarnate, but he was terrible for the team on so many levels that even if he had a few redeeming qualities it hardly seems worthwhile to discuss them. What are you hoping to prove with this thread? That Nardi had some good qualities? That he deserves to be listened to? That he deserves a job within the organization? If all you are looking for is support for Nardi, I think you have a long hard road in front of you. Not too many Sox fans were disappointed to see him get canned.

Still, thanks for bringing it up. It is always fun to bash Nardi and makes for lively debate...


The funniest thing in this whole thread is that 2 of the posters have direct connections to pitchers or former pitchers under Nardi. In each case, these people despise him and his methods.

Yet, here sits jeremy, out on his limb, ignoring all the facts and going simply by conjecture and speculation....

Boy, I can see the intelligence just pouring from his keyboard.


:threadsucks

jeremyb1
03-26-2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Jeremy, everyone makes stupid posts. I called for hiring Dave Stewart over Don Cooper after Nardi was fired. Be a man, admit that you were wrong (and added to it by saying Bevington was not bad), and hope this post quickly disappears into the night.

And let's try to keep those posts shorter in the future. Just because the same thing can be said in different ways, doesn't mean it has to.

can we just try reading to the posts? if you go back you'll find me saying exactly that bevington was a bad manager just that i didn't think he amongst the worst in the history in the game. why can't people differentiate between average or below average and horrendous? clearly the blue jays weren't equally as bad as the devil rays last season just because neither team was particularly successful.

my posts are long because i'm attempting to address everyone's argument and i have no one to support me and at least 4 or 5 posters arguing against me. even when i do write long posts and answer everyone else's arguments i get accused of ignoring people's arguments and accused of writing uneccessarily long posts.

jeremyb1
03-26-2003, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by maurice
The key words being "shortly after nardi was fired." MB recognized that it's in bad taste to speak ill of the recently "deceased." Others, OTOH, had no problem very specifically attacking Nardi's approach, as reported throughout this thread. Prior to the firing, MB credited only Wells for his development as a starter at the major league level.

I don't mean to pile on, but I didn't see anyone else make this specific point.

nardi was fired so buehrle figured that in order to be polite he'd credit nardi with all of his success up to this point? that's not a logical jump in my opnion. i agree that players might refrain from critisizing a recently departed coach in some instances, but buehrle could simply say "i didn't a problem with him i thought he did a pretty good job". why take it to the level of saying nardi was responsible for his success? there's absolutely no reason to say that unless its true.

jeremyb1
03-26-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Both times he was hired he was friendly with the managers prior to his hiring, so it isn't hard to assume that figured into the the decision. I am positive it did in Chicago as it has been mentioned numerous times and JM is famous for hiring people he considers friends (nothing wrong with that so long as they can also do their job). In addition neither team he worked for were exactly short on young pitching talent and both had more success AFTER he stopped handling the staffs. Someone earlier in this thread talked about the results after mound visits by Nardi. Nardi goes out to the mound and chews out the pitcher. Pitcher throws a fastball. Fastball gets crushed by opposing teams batter. It was so common that it became predictable. In fact, I would bet dollars to donuts that other teams had a special rule for hitters after Nardi visits: "Sit dead red".

I agree that having everyone else disagree with an opinion is NOT grounds to dismiss the opinion out of hand, but this opinion has been getting ripped by some of the more knowledgeable posters on this board. In addition it is a BIT unusual to have NO ONE supporting the original opinion. Even the craziest concepts can normally find at least 2 people to support them especially here at WSI where there is no shortage of unique, knowledgeable and strong willed posters who will wade into a cross fire wearing only their underwear. In fact that was my thought as to what you were doing when I first saw this thread.

Maybe you are the only one who sees the truth, but it doesn't seem likely to me. Of course that is just my opinion, just as the idea that Nardi wasn't ALL bad is yours. I agree the man may not be Satan incarnate, but he was terrible for the team on so many levels that even if he had a few redeeming qualities it hardly seems worthwhile to discuss them. What are you hoping to prove with this thread? That Nardi had some good qualities? That he deserves to be listened to? That he deserves a job within the organization? If all you are looking for is support for Nardi, I think you have a long hard road in front of you. Not too many Sox fans were disappointed to see him get canned.

Still, thanks for bringing it up. It is always fun to bash Nardi and makes for lively debate...

as far as i know manuel was not friends with nardi prior to his hiring. i could be wrong though. even so i doubt that schuler would allow manuel to higher nardi if he really agreed he was the worst pitching coach pinella had ever seen. nardi was eventually fired. i doubt the organization was intentionally letting the ship sink so not to offend manuel.

seattle did not have young pitching talent when nardi was around. guys like piniero, anderson, meche, and garcia were not ready for the majors when nardi was the pitching coach. pitchers fared somewhat better under cooper but we're talking about a relatively small sample size here. additionally, all young pitchers improve over time so its different to differentiate between natural progression that comes with experience in the league and a change in pitching coaches.

you're not going to convince me that anyone here has the knowledge to render my position useless. i'm not going to be convinced i'm wrong just because other people believe so. i don't know what you want me to do? conceed i'm wrong even though i don't believe so because others say so? not going to happen.

i do think that nardi had some good qualities and worked well with some pitchers. that doesn't mean he's the right pitching coach or belongs in the organization.

jeremyb1
03-26-2003, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
The funniest thing in this whole thread is that 2 of the posters have direct connections to pitchers or former pitchers under Nardi. In each case, these people despise him and his methods.

Yet, here sits jeremy, out on his limb, ignoring all the facts and going simply by conjecture and speculation....

Boy, I can see the intelligence just pouring from his keyboard.

ok. this is how good argumentation works. you have to support your arguments. if i'm ignoring facts what facts am i ignoring them? how am i ignoring them? i've put out specific arguments citing how am i doing my best to address everyone's claims. for you to just say "no you're not" that means nothing because you can't explain why or how i'm doing that. again, calling me stupid may make you feel better about yourself but it is nothing more than a personal attack and in no way applies to any argument i've made in this thread.

try again.

voodoochile
03-26-2003, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
ok. this is how good argumentation works. you have to support your arguments. if i'm ignoring facts what facts am i ignoring them? how am i ignoring them? i've put out specific arguments citing how am i doing my best to address everyone's claims. for you to just say "no you're not" that means nothing because you can't explain why or how i'm doing that. again, calling me stupid may make you feel better about yourself but it is nothing more than a personal attack and in no way applies to any argument i've made in this thread.

try again.

How many different ways do we need to say these things?

1)The pitching staff had many more injuries under Nardi

2)The young pitching staff as a whole failed to develop under Nardi and showed marked improvement after he left.

3)Nardi has been fired by two organizations. One of whom publicly ripped him after he left.

4)Nardi could be seen swearing at his pitchers during mound visits

5)After said mound visits, the other team regularly crushed the expected meatball that the pither then threw.

6)Maybe Nardi isn't all bad, but he certainly doesn't deserve to be defended

You want explicit verifiable evidence, but the ONLY evidence you have provided is annecdotal and even that is suspect. I never claimed your position was useless (though I strongly disagree with you), but my question remains - what are you hoping to prove with your statements? That Nardi isn't all bad? Okay, consider me convinced that Nardi was 10% positive and 90% negative for the Sox and their pitchers...

Nardi, is that you?

34 Inch Stick
03-26-2003, 02:44 PM
And because you continue to defend Bevington as well as Nardi I will try to keep this post active. Yes I do think Bevington was among the worst managers in the history of the game. I cannot, in my limited existence (I would say La Russa is the beginning of my White Sox consciousness) recall a full season White Sox manager that was as inane and inept.

If this post has a use, I am at a loss to find it, so I guess I am in the camp that thinks this is useless.

That does not mean I think you are stupid. The opposite is true.

Your posts tend to be long no matter the subject.

TornLabrum
03-26-2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
And because you continue to defend Bevington as well as Nardi I will try to keep this post active. Yes I do think Bevington was among the worst managers in the history of the game. I cannot, in my limited existence (I would say La Russa is the beginning of my White Sox consciousness) recall a full season White Sox manager that was as inane and inept.

If this post has a use, I am at a loss to find it, so I guess I am in the camp that thinks this is useless.

That does not mean I think you are stupid. The opposite is true.

Your posts tend to be long no matter the subject.

As one who remembers Don Gutteridge, I can safely say that Bevington was as bad as he was, and up to Bevington's regime, Gutteridge is the worst I'd seen in a Sox uniform.

Randar68
03-26-2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
ok. this is how good argumentation works. you have to support your arguments. if i'm ignoring facts what facts am i ignoring them? how am i ignoring them? i've put out specific arguments citing how am i doing my best to address everyone's claims. for you to just say "no you're not" that means nothing because you can't explain why or how i'm doing that. again, calling me stupid may make you feel better about yourself but it is nothing more than a personal attack and in no way applies to any argument i've made in this thread.

try again.

Aside from what Voodoo has said just above, how about this, which you fail to address.


2 of the posters have direct connections to pitchers or former pitchers under Nardi. In each case, these people despise him and his methods.


Aside from this, Buehrle, on various occassions, has now credited at least 3 different people for his success.


You have zero evidence, partial quotes, no links, and no connections to the situation. Yet, despite all this, you continue to stare facts in the face and deny their existence.

There is no arguing this with you because you attack the weaker evidence, use unverifiable or inaccurate evidence to support your point of view, and ignore the rock solid evidence/facts that have been systematically laid before you.

Stop wasting our time with this trash...


:pee :nardi

jeremyb1
03-26-2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
How many different ways do we need to say these things?

1)The pitching staff had many more injuries under Nardi

2)The young pitching staff as a whole failed to develop under Nardi and showed marked improvement after he left.

3)Nardi has been fired by two organizations. One of whom publicly ripped him after he left.

4)Nardi could be seen swearing at his pitchers during mound visits

5)After said mound visits, the other team regularly crushed the expected meatball that the pither then threw.

6)Maybe Nardi isn't all bad, but he certainly doesn't deserve to be defended

You want explicit verifiable evidence, but the ONLY evidence you have provided is annecdotal and even that is suspect. I never claimed your position was useless (though I strongly disagree with you), but my question remains - what are you hoping to prove with your statements? That Nardi isn't all bad? Okay, consider me convinced that Nardi was 10% positive and 90% negative for the Sox and their pitchers...

Nardi, is that you?

first of all, its good that you are now at least explaining which arguments i am referring to. however, that doesn't make the argumentation displayed by randar in the previous post any less ineffectual.

next, of the six arguments you listed there i have addressed all of them except for the sixth one which is a new argument in this thread. you may not agree with my answers to those arguments but they exist like it or not and i therefore did not ignore those arguments as people have claimed throughout the thread.

to summarize my answers to those arguments were
1) the work of the staff in '00 was a huge contributing factor to those injuries almost all of which were incurred during '00

2) young pitchers often struggle. the pitchers improvement after nardi left was night not and day, can only been seen in a small and therefore somewhat unreliable sample size (a third of a season), and the pitchers increased experience in the league could've been a factor.

3) nardi spent something like five seasons in the majors as a pitching coach, if he was as terrible as people assume he woudln't have lasted that long.

4) i personally never witnessed this, so i've pleaded ignorance here. this is suprising to me and i've never seen it reported anywhere. regardless different coaches have different styles, while i don't really appretiate that style nardi certainly wouldn't be the first coach to swear. also, it seems unlikely that maunuel a follower of ghandi would've kept nardi around if he were that brutal to the pitchers.

5) this is largely anecdotal evidence which limits its credibility although i'll admit there is some truth to it. however, i don't think mound visits are the only important task of a pitching coach and this might be a case of our pitchers lack of command in certain cases.

if you look through my previous posts, all of the arguments i made in numbers one through five above are present.

as for the sixth argument, that "nardi doesn't need to be defended" is a value statement, a personal judgement. you may personally feel that nardi isn't worth it and you have the right to your opinion but i feel that if he was an average pitching coach with some admirable qualities and is regularly referred to by people as a joke, he should be defended.

one of the problems with attempting to evaluate a coach is that there isn't direct conclusive evidence available to us. anecdotal evidence such as pitchers talking about nardi's performance is somewhat valuable when it appears to be credible and its the best we have to go by whereas anecdotal evidence such as "i remember a number of times when nardi came to the mound and the next pitch was hit hard" is much less reliable because it addresses issues of absolute fact.

attempting to judge a pitching coach is largely subjective so it is hard to present concrete evidence one way or the other. at the point that there is no conclusive evidence i don't understand why people have to crucify him instead of just giving him the benefit of the doubt. he's not the pitching coach anymore. why not just say "he wasn't the right fit for the team" instead of "he was an awful pitching coach" when the facts aren't their to prove it. if your reputation was at stake and conjecture was mostly all there was to go by, i'm sure you'd prefer to be given the benefit of the doubt. innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent.

i don't feel like the burden is on me to present conclusive evidence that nardi was a good pitching coach because that's not what i'm arguing. i'm arguing that he wasn't necessarily as bad as many assume. the people arguing that i'm out of my mind for defending him on any level and that he's one of the worst pitching coaches in the history of the game are the ones that should be presenting concrete evidence due to the nature of their claim.

jeremyb1
03-26-2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
And because you continue to defend Bevington as well as Nardi I will try to keep this post active. Yes I do think Bevington was among the worst managers in the history of the game. I cannot, in my limited existence (I would say La Russa is the beginning of my White Sox consciousness) recall a full season White Sox manager that was as inane and inept.

If this post has a use, I am at a loss to find it, so I guess I am in the camp that thinks this is useless.

That does not mean I think you are stupid. The opposite is true.

Your posts tend to be long no matter the subject.

some of this is getting ridiculous. we're really mincing words at this point. i think bevington was a pretty big manager. i didn't like him and i'm still not a fan of him. what i reject is only that he was completely incompetent in every possible way.

i didn't mean to accuse anyone else of insulting my intelligence. it was only randar that made a sarcastic comment about my intelligence and as far as i remember everyone else has been pretty civil which i appretiate.

Iwritecode
03-26-2003, 03:43 PM
:deadhorse

Isn't there a tag for this???

maurice
03-26-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
nardi was fired so buehrle figured that in order to be polite he'd credit nardi with all of his success up to this point?

My conclusion was based on the following recollection, which could be wrong:

SCORES OF INTERVIEWS BEFORE NARDI FIRING

Reporter: Gee, you're a top AL pitcher and kinda came out of nowhere. What's up with that?

MB: Well, I was an okay prospect, and then I met Wells, who helped me become the pitcher I am today.

ONE INTERVIEW IMMEDIATELY AFTER NARDI FIRING

Reporter: Nardi finally got fired, and lots of people say he sucks. What do you think?

MB: I'm sad to see him get fired. He helped me a lot with my cut fastball. I was an okay prospect, and now I'm an All-Star pitcher.

In my experience, this is consistent with conversations people have when good-for-nothing people at their office get fired or when good-for-nothing people they know die. There is no question that MB goes to great lengths to sound like a nice guy in his interviews. See MB interview thread.

Originally posted by jeremyb1
all young pitchers improve over time

No, they don't. Some start off bad and keep being bad. Others actually start off good and get worse. It is significant, however, when a young pitcher starts good, then goes bad, and then gets good again (especially without suffering a serious injury):

1999 - Highly regarded prospect Kip Wells posts an encouraging 4.04 ERA in limited action, earning him a spot near the top of the Sox rotation.

2000 and 2001 - Wells bombs under the tutalige of the selfsame nardi, posting a disasterous 5.something ERA in 40 starts, causing the Sox to cut bait and trade him.

2002 - Finally escaping the grasp of nardi, Wells thrives, posting a 3.59 ERA in almost 200 innings.

Yes, this is anecdotal evidence. Yet the sum of a ton of anecdotal evidence = a statistically significant sample.

jeremyb1
03-26-2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Aside from what Voodoo has said just above, how about this, which you fail to address.

2 of the posters have direct connections to pitchers or former pitchers under Nardi. In each case, these people despise him and his methods.

Aside from this, Buehrle, on various occassions, has now credited at least 3 different people for his success.

You have zero evidence, partial quotes, no links, and no connections to the situation. Yet, despite all this, you continue to stare facts in the face and deny their existence.

There is no arguing this with you because you attack the weaker evidence, use unverifiable or inaccurate evidence to support your point of view, and ignore the rock solid evidence/facts that have been systematically laid before you.

the argument about two posters having ties to pitchers appeared about three posts ago. that's the first time you made it and that's why i didn't respond to it ealier. i can't be ignoring an argument if its not made. the only thing in the thread is a vague reference by daver about the parents of a pitcher.

obviously if a number of pitchers are of the opinion that nardi's methods are completely ineffectual that's has a lot of bearning on this argument. however, that fact hasn't exactly be presented at least not in an incredibly clear manner.

also, this still doesn't affect my main argument that many condemn nardi far too quickly without well thought out arguments since most people that knock nardi do not have relationships with pitchers that worked under nardi.

i don't have the link to the buerhle article because its not on the southtown's website any longer. i fail to see exactly how that's my fault. again, you're demanding i show conclusive evidence when no one on the other side of the argument has done so.

i'm arguing against facts. i'm not denying their existence. tell me how you disagree with my arguments if you want just telling me i'm wrong isn't helpful.

my evidence is unverifiable? how are relationships with players verifiable? because someone says so? that's one of the most unverifiable claims one could make.

i'm attacking the weaker evidence? that would mean i've ignored the stronger evidence yet no one has successfully pointed out an argument i've ignored up until this point. how is that?

jeremyb1
03-26-2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by maurice
My conclusion was based on the following recollection, which could be wrong:

SCORES OF INTERVIEWS BEFORE NARDI FIRING

Reporter: Gee, you're a top AL pitcher and kinda came out of nowhere. What's up with that?

MB: Well, I was an okay prospect, and then I met Wells, who helped me become the pitcher I am today.

ONE INTERVIEW IMMEDIATELY AFTER NARDI FIRING

Reporter: Nardi finally got fired, and lots of people say he sucks. What do you think?

MB: I'm sad to see him get fired. He helped me a lot with my cut fastball. I was an okay prospect, and now I'm an All-Star pitcher.

In my experience, this is consistent with conversations people have when good-for-nothing people at their office get fired or when good-for-nothing people they know die. There is no question that MB goes to great lengths to sound like a nice guy in his interviews. See MB interview thread.

No, they don't. Some start off bad and keep being bad. Others actually start off good and get worse. It is significant, however, when a young pitcher starts good, then goes bad, and then gets good again (especially without suffering a serious injury):

1999 - Highly regarded prospect Kip Wells posts an encouraging 4.04 ERA in limited action, earning him a spot near the top of the Sox rotation.

2000 and 2001 - Wells bombs under the tutalige of the selfsame nardi, posting a disasterous 5.something ERA in 40 starts, causing the Sox to cut bait and trade him.

2002 - Finally escaping the grasp of nardi, Wells thrives, posting a 3.59 ERA in almost 200 innings.

Yes, this is anecdotal evidence. Yet the sum of a ton of anecdotal evidence = a statistically significant sample.

i agree with your assessment of buehrle's quote on nardi but that's not what he said. if that was what he said, the argument that he was just being polite would've made sense but he said his bullpen sessions with nardi made him the pitcher he is today. there's no way around that. that's not minor praise, that's about the ultimate compliment one can give a pitching coach.

you're right about my argument about young pitchers. that wasn't what i intended to say. however, i stand by my point that a lot of good young pitchers struggle at first due to their inexperience and then improve over time. a guy like dan wright in the second half of last season is improving partially because he is learning a lot by working with any decent pitching coach and regularly facing major league pitchers. therefore, it he is to improve and become successful he will have an upward developement curve.

as for kip wells, he certainly did improve under nardi and he probably would've pitched better for us under a different coach. however, i don't think that one case makes the difference. certain players need a wake up call by getting traded or a change of pace. certain pitchers simply work better with a certain type of pitching coach that isn't necessarily better but different.

reports were that nardi had repeatedly implored kip to take less time between pitches for two years and kip didn't heed his advice as he apparently did with the pirate's pitching coach. that may reflect poorly on nardi's movitiational skills but it doesn't necessarily mean he's a horrible pitching coach.

again, this is one pitcher. i agree with you that anecdotal evidence certainly adds up and several examples such as this would change my thinking here but i simply haven't seen any other circumstances such as this.

Iwritecode
03-26-2003, 04:11 PM
Two points that haven't been brought up yet:

1. When Bob Howry went to Boston he was quoted as saything that they're pitching coach helped him gain a few extra miles on his fastball simply by watching him pitch once and finding a flaw in his mechanics. Something about standing up straight IIRC?

2. Todd Ritchie helped to injur his shoulder last year because of bad mechanics. Ed Farmer of all people noticed it after his 2nd or third game of getting shelled. (probably his 5th or 6th start).

For whatever reason, Nardi seems incapable of correcting flaws in a pitcher's mechanics. Burly did well under him because his mechanics have always been perfect...

AngelLeroy
03-26-2003, 04:29 PM
... I don't see the point of this thread at all. Nardi Contreras was fired, because he wasn't doing a good job. Don Cooper comes in, and the team has a better win percentage, and posts a lower era. He seems to be helping this spring as well, judging by the fact that the Sox team era went from somewhere around infinity last spring to ~4.5 this year. Don Cooper is better for this team than Nardi Contreras was. It doesn't matter if Nardi was a stand up guy or gave teddy bears to little sick children or whatever one can find to support him. It's totally immaterial, because he was a horrible pitching coach for the Sox.

voodoochile
03-26-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i don't feel like the burden is on me to present conclusive evidence that nardi was a good pitching coach because that's not what i'm arguing. i'm arguing that he wasn't necessarily as bad as many assume. the people arguing that i'm out of my mind for defending him on any level and that he's one of the worst pitching coaches in the history of the game are the ones that should be presenting concrete evidence due to the nature of their claim.

Nardi got fired by the Sox for being a bad pitching coach. That is enough evidence for me. In fact, I believe it puts the lie to your above statement.

If we accept your statement that it is our burden to prove then we must by default accept the opposite viewpoint: Sox management was wrong to fire Nardi. In effect it calls in to question the abilities of everyone above Nardi who came to the conclusion that he needed to be replaced.

So, either the whole management team is incompetent... OR... the burden of proof truly does lie with you to prove that Nardi wasn't as bad as he has been made out to be. BECAUSE - the only emperical evidence that either side truly has is the fact that the people who run the team and make the decisions about the players and coaches fired Nardi.

I'm not going to debate the competence of KW, his advisors, JR, JM, etc. in this thread though I am willing to give my $0.02 on the matter if asked. But, I am going to say that I think you are wrong about where the burden of proof lies.

One final point. 5 years as a pitching coach for 2 teams is hardly a record to be defended, IMO. That's 2.5 seasons per team and they both ended with him getting fired. In almost any coaching job, the first year is free. The second year is your proving ground and if you don't do well, they will sometimes give you a third season to see if you can turn it around, but if you don't then you are gone at the end of the season or earlier. That is a fairly standard routine in almost all professional sports from what I have observed. In other words, Nardi averaged about the minimum amount of time that any coach in any sport gets to prove their competence, not once, but twice. If anything this seems to support the opposite side of the argument from the one you are on...

Randar68
03-26-2003, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
the argument about two posters having ties to pitchers appeared about three posts ago. that's the first time you made it and that's why i didn't respond to it ealier. i can't be ignoring an argument if its not made. the only thing in the thread is a vague reference by daver about the parents of a pitcher.

obviously if a number of pitchers are of the opinion that nardi's methods are completely ineffectual that's has a lot of bearning on this argument. however, that fact hasn't exactly be presented at least not in an incredibly clear manner.

also, this still doesn't affect my main argument that many condemn nardi far too quickly without well thought out arguments since most people that knock nardi do not have relationships with pitchers that worked under nardi.

i don't have the link to the buerhle article because its not on the southtown's website any longer. i fail to see exactly how that's my fault. again, you're demanding i show conclusive evidence when no one on the other side of the argument has done so.

i'm arguing against facts. i'm not denying their existence. tell me how you disagree with my arguments if you want just telling me i'm wrong isn't helpful.

my evidence is unverifiable? how are relationships with players verifiable? because someone says so? that's one of the most unverifiable claims one could make.

i'm attacking the weaker evidence? that would mean i've ignored the stronger evidence yet no one has successfully pointed out an argument i've ignored up until this point. how is that?




Can you make simple replies without writing a novel.


How about this: This thread is stupid beyond belief. I know of 2 people here who have spoken with players who have played for Nardi, and 2 of them (100%) have said he was TERRIBLE

GET OVER IT. YOUR ARGUEMENT IS DUMB AND UNSUPPORTED BY THE FACTS.

The only way you have argued against any fact or point made is by spouting your own opinion which has obviously been shared by exactly ZERO other posters (many of them with a TON more inside knowledge than yourself) and obviously was not shared by the organization.

Your arguements have had ZERO factual basis, yet you continue to keep digging this hole.


Can we get a nomination for the "JUST SHUT UP AWARD?"

Jerry_Manuel
03-26-2003, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Can we get a nomination for the "JUST SHUT UP AWARD?"

I'll second that.

The people who fought for Clayton at least had a legit argument. Fighting for the reputation of Nardi is one of the most bizarre things I've seen in a long time.

Daver
03-26-2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


Can we get a nomination for the "JUST SHUT UP AWARD?"

When did WSI start awarding this award,and why wasn't I informed?

:)

jeremyb1
03-26-2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Two points that haven't been brought up yet:

1. When Bob Howry went to Boston he was quoted as saything that they're pitching coach helped him gain a few extra miles on his fastball simply by watching him pitch once and finding a flaw in his mechanics. Something about standing up straight IIRC?

2. Todd Ritchie helped to injur his shoulder last year because of bad mechanics. Ed Farmer of all people noticed it after his 2nd or third game of getting shelled. (probably his 5th or 6th start).

For whatever reason, Nardi seems incapable of correcting flaws in a pitcher's mechanics. Burly did well under him because his mechanics have always been perfect...

yeah. those are very good points. the howry one would actually be on par with the kip wells one in my mind but i'm not sure that he's still hitting 94-95 on the gun these days. but yeah nardi definately failed there.

as for ritchie, i'm not sure nardi had any impact there. i listened to farmer talk a lot about ritchie's mechanics last season and he talked about how he was somehow tucking his arm behind his back or something to that affect. he heaped an incredible amount of praise of cooper for helping ritchie to phase that out because he'd never seen anyone successfully do that before. that implied it was a deeply ingrained habit and not something nardi taught ritchie to do last season.

Jjav829
03-26-2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by daver
When did WSI start awarding this award,and why wasn't I informed?

:)

We can call it the Martha Burk award! :smile:

PaleHoseGeorge
03-26-2003, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
...The people who fought for Clayton at least had a legit argument. Fighting for the reputation of Nardi is one of the most bizarre things I've seen in a long time.

That's an interesting point. Even in the middle of those incredibly fierce fights over Clayton's value, there was always at least one credible bit of statistical evidence to back up the Clayton supporters theory: Royce committed fewer errors. The rest of us could never assail that fundamental fact.

I'm searching real hard for facts defending Nardi. Can't say I've found one.

Daver
03-26-2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
:deadhorse

Isn't there a tag for this???

Unfortunately this is too big......

jeremyb1
03-26-2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Nardi got fired by the Sox for being a bad pitching coach. That is enough evidence for me. In fact, I believe it puts the lie to your above statement.

If we accept your statement that it is our burden to prove then we must by default accept the opposite viewpoint: Sox management was wrong to fire Nardi. In effect it calls in to question the abilities of everyone above Nardi who came to the conclusion that he needed to be replaced.

So, either the whole management team is incompetent... OR... the burden of proof truly does lie with you to prove that Nardi wasn't as bad as he has been made out to be. BECAUSE - the only emperical evidence that either side truly has is the fact that the people who run the team and make the decisions about the players and coaches fired Nardi.

I'm not going to debate the competence of KW, his advisors, JR, JM, etc. in this thread though I am willing to give my $0.02 on the matter if asked. But, I am going to say that I think you are wrong about where the burden of proof lies.

One final point. 5 years as a pitching coach for 2 teams is hardly a record to be defended, IMO. That's 2.5 seasons per team and they both ended with him getting fired. In almost any coaching job, the first year is free. The second year is your proving ground and if you don't do well, they will sometimes give you a third season to see if you can turn it around, but if you don't then you are gone at the end of the season or earlier. That is a fairly standard routine in almost all professional sports from what I have observed. In other words, Nardi averaged about the minimum amount of time that any coach in any sport gets to prove their competence, not once, but twice. If anything this seems to support the opposite side of the argument from the one you are on...

what you're saying would be true if my argument was that the white sox should not have fired nardi. then you would have to accept the opposite that he should still be the pitching coach by default.

however, my argument is merely that nardi was not as poor a pitching coach as many argue. accepting that argument still allows for a plethora of possibilities. it is still possible that nardi was not a good pitching coach. he merely was not a terrible coach. its also possible that nardi was even a good coach yet needed to be fired because he wasn't a good fit with our particular pitchers or had lost the ability to communicate well with the staff. accepting my argument by no means necessitates the viewpoint that nardi should not have been fired.

accepting my argument does not mean management was wrong. maybe nardi was good or average but cooper is excellent. maybe i think nardi was average and the organization thinks he was slightly below average. either way, dismissing him is a reasonable option to consider. the views are not mutually exclusive since i've never argued nardi needed to be retained.

a lot of people apparently feel my argument is completely pointless but i didn't post four pages talking to myself. if i'm just splitting hairs (which i'll admit i'm doing to a certain extent) and this thread is therefore entirely pointless, why all the heated responses?

i disagree with your assessment of how long coaches are aloud to stick in the majors. first of all, nardi's last season with the sox was his 4th. that means he spent over 3 and a half years with the team. even if he had spent less though, if he was doing a horrendous job there's no way he would've lasted into a third season. if his incompetence was as gross as most suggest, it would've been so apparent the sox would have had no choice but to fire him. this is a huge business. reinsdorf wouldn't tolerate the massive losses in revenue that come from an underacheiving team if he could fix things by simply firing nardi.

regardless, i don't think every coach gets two seasons just because they're hired. did bill buckner and ron jackson each last two full seasons as hitting coach? i'm not sure von joshua even lasted three full seasons.

jeremyb1
03-26-2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
I'll second that.

The people who fought for Clayton at least had a legit argument. Fighting for the reputation of Nardi is one of the most bizarre things I've seen in a long time.

i simply find the extent to which people bash him unneccessary. i don't blast players and coaches on my own team. i get frustrated with them but i don't make them out to be a disgrace without an incredibly good set of facts to back up my opinion.

TornLabrum
03-26-2003, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i simply find the extent to which people bash him unneccessary. i don't blast players and coaches on my own team. i get frustrated with them but i don't make them out to be a disgrace without an incredibly good set of facts to back up my opinion.

Then it's okay to bash Nardi since he is neither a player nor coach for our own team.

Jerry_Manuel
03-26-2003, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i simply find the extent to which people bash him unneccessary. i don't blast players and coaches on my own team. i get frustrated with them but i don't make them out to be a disgrace without an incredibly good set of facts to back up my opinion.

When he was the pitching coach he deserved everything he got. Now that he's not the coach, I don't think anyone should be talking about him.

All you need to do is look at the stats and the amount of injuries pitchers received under his guidance to see how bad he was.

Randar68
03-27-2003, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i simply find the extent to which people bash him unneccessary. i don't blast players and coaches on my own team. i get frustrated with them but i don't make them out to be a disgrace without an incredibly good set of facts to back up my opinion.


BTW, none of them are YOUR teammates or on YOUR team

34 Inch Stick
03-27-2003, 02:53 PM
Jeremy I have not read one of your responses in a couple of pages (I already read War and Peace). Still, I find this post incredibly entertaining and that is why I am going to send it back to the top again.

As for the just shut up award... you can't just give that out without a vote. We have a few candidates for that prestigious award.