PDA

View Full Version : laid back way to much


soxrme
04-24-2003, 10:12 AM
Can anybody tell my why Jerry or Kimm or somebody on the bench did not get thrown out for arguing last night. My gosh, nobody showed any balls at all. Does Jerry think he has to keep the Mr Cool demeaner all the time? There is NO excuse for not going off on that 3rd base umpire and the home plate umpire for blowing that call. Show some fire :angry: :angry: :angry: .

moochpuppy
04-24-2003, 10:17 AM
:jerry

"I can't tinker from the locker room."

Hangar18
04-24-2003, 10:18 AM
I think I was more PISSED OFF about the whole situation than JM or KIMM was. I broke some furniture in my place and was ready to hop a Plane To Baltimore. Anyone know the name of that Lazy Ass 3B Umpire who flat out, because of his laziness, missed that call??? Their foulpole, in Baltimore, is not just a single pole, but its actually 3 sided, to help with visual judgement on balls like that, and it wasnt even Close...ball was FAIR BY 5 to 8 FEET!!!!!!

Bobby Thigpen
04-24-2003, 10:22 AM
I'm a high school coach and I've never understood how yelling and screaming like an lunatic at a ref (or umpire in this case) does any good other than to tick that guy off at you for the rest of his life. What good is yelling and screaming at the guy going to do you or your team? He isn't going to change the call, and you just end up looking like an idiot. I've always found that if you treat refs and umps with a little respect and dignity that eventually later down the road when you need a call to go your way, magically they will. I've just never understood this way of thinking that if you go off on somebody it just shows how much you want to win. Are you telling me that guys like Walter Payton who just shut their mouths and played the next play didn't want to win? I don't think so.

There are many more things to worry about with JM than his interaction with umpires.

moochpuppy
04-24-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
I'm a high school coach and I've never understood how yelling and screaming like an lunatic at a ref (or umpire in this case) does any good other than to tick that guy off at you for the rest of his life. What good is yelling and screaming at the guy going to do you or your team? He isn't going to change the call, and you just end up looking like an idiot. I've always found that if you treat refs and umps with a little respect and dignity that eventually later down the road when you need a call to go your way, magically they will. I've just never understood this way of thinking that if you go off on somebody it just shows how much you want to win. Are you telling me that guys like Walter Payton who just shut their mouths and played the next play didn't want to win? I don't think so.

There are many more things to worry about with JM than his interaction with umpires.

I think it's a way to fire up the crowd and/or the team. Showing a little emotion is not a bad thing. If the calls are already going against you, what's the harm?

Hangar18
04-24-2003, 10:28 AM
Thiggy, I think yelling and screaming at the Ump lets him know his call was most likely a Bad One. I wouldnt care if he gets mad at me, he Needs to make the RIGHT CALL. THats His Job. He missed that call out of pure Laziness. He shouldve ran his butt down that line and wouldnt have missed that call. That call Changed the Momentum of that game, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. You could see it very plainly. Im the manager, I get thrown out and I make a Spectacle of it. I throw some bases at the guy, I throw things on the field, and when ESPN shows me on TV later that nite, and they show how Badly Missed That Call Is, I think that Umpire will try to work a Little Harder. Thats Just Blatantly Bad Umpiring

Kilroy
04-24-2003, 10:31 AM
there was no need for JM or Kimm to get themselves tossed on that blown call. Umpires rarely get together and discuss a call, and when they do, they decide one way or the other and that's it. It's not like JM or anyone else was going to get them to change their minds at that point.

I'd probably have like to seen him get a bit hotter than he did, but of course, we had the benefit of replay, where JM didn't. If he had seen it, he probably would have thrown a fit.

Bobby Thigpen
04-24-2003, 10:35 AM
What, you don't think that he already knows he missed the call? I just don't get what good making an ass or yourself is going to do. Do you honestly think that if you go out and throw stuff at him, call him and his momma all sorts of names, and kick dirt at him that it is going to influence his future decisions IN YOUR FAVOR? I just don't see it happening.

bfauble83
04-24-2003, 10:44 AM
I sat there at the game last night, and told my brother right after Manuel went back into the dugout, that if he was a good manager, he would have argued until he got thrown out...even the Orioles fans near me admitted it was a homerun.

Hangar18
04-24-2003, 10:48 AM
I dont think he knew he missed the call right there, because HE COULDVE REVERSED HIS DECISION. Which wouldve been the Stand-Up thing to do. WOuldve shown me, as a fan, that you know what, this guy cares about his job, and wants to get the Call Right, which is his job.....TO MAKE THE RIGHT CALL.
Believe me, He watched ESPN last nite, and realizes what a jack ass he is, and how that cost the White Sox the game. As an Umpire, you NEVER want to be the cause of Win or a Loss. Your Position is Arbitrary, and if your calls (or lack of them) Influence The Outcome, Your certainly then a Poor Umpire. Whats that guys name??

Kilroy
04-24-2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
I dont think he knew he missed the call right there, because HE COULDVE REVERSED HIS DECISION. Which wouldve been the Stand-Up thing to do.

And when did umpires start doing this. I agree, that on occasion, a call will get changed after a conference of umpires, but never ever has a call been changed because a manager or coach went out and argued. Never.

TheBigHurt
04-24-2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Whats that guys name??

WITH a little help...............
Umpires: HP: Tim Timmons. 1B: Mike Reilly. 2B: Bill Hohn. 3B: Eric Cooper

Bobby Thigpen
04-24-2003, 10:55 AM
Honestly, how many times have you ever seen an ump or ref reverse their call? I would say very, very few. The only time I've ever seen it happen was because of instant replay (which would be a very bad idea for baseball), or because someone else on the crew reversed it. Neither was going to happen last night. He blew the call, nothing either JM, Kimm, or anybody else was going to do about it. Hopefully MLB will reprimand him in some form, but that will surely be unpublicized.

voodoochile
04-24-2003, 11:32 AM
It isn't about the umps and their calls. IT'S ABOUT THE TEAM! Jerry has been doing this live and let live routine since he's been here. What has it gotten us? One division title in a year when absolutely everything went perfectly until the division was out of reach - and what started that team on it's way to greatness? A huge brawl.

I want this team to show some fire. To fight until the last out. To defend their turf. This team just takes it. Another example of this is how no one on the Royals got decked after Thomas got hit twice by the same guy. Sweeney should have been sitting on his ass the next at bat, but no. Where is that post-2000-brawl fire now? It is Jerry's job to light that fire. It's really the ONLY job a baseball manager has (I mean, managing a bullpen isn't rocket science). Jerry seems to think his job is all cerebral - fill out the lineup card with a couple of *cough* well placed *cough* tinkers and keep the bullpen from getting over worked. Yes, that's half a managers job. The other half is making a group of 25 individuals into a team. Jerry has failed woefuly in that act. It isn't all infield practice so they can turn DP's. It is getting the guys to fight for each other and for him. But, since he doesn't feel it's worth it to fight when his players get screwed, he sends a message that it really isn't that important. That sucks.

Even if it isn't part of his personality, he needs to find a way to play the role. Call it acting, call it whatever, but do it.

I agree that yelling at HS and GS level umps when you coach one of those teams is stupid and sends the WRONG message to players in their formative years, but these guys are professionals. There is no next level. This is it. You fight tooth and nails for every thing you want. If not, go do something else with your life. Maybe Jerry should be a college ethics professor, because he clearly doesn't have the mental makeup for this job, IMO.

By way of example, I bring up Earl Weaver and a story he told while working as a broadcaster. It goes like this...

One year in the playoffs there was a close play at first that went against the Orioles. It is the right call, but the crowd is going nuts. So, Earl comes running out of the dugout and gets right in the first base umps face and says (no one can hear this but them), "Do you have any gum?" The ump gets into it with him and screams back, "No, I don't have any gum, and I wouldn't give it to ya' if I did." They argue about gum for a few minutes and Earl goes and sits down. The point is that it isn't about the calls. It isn't about being right and wrong. It's about making the team and fans realize you will fight for them...

bc2k
04-24-2003, 11:33 AM
I missed the game last night but saw in the box score that we lost 7-1. Is it true that Crede's shot would have tied the game? If it was, that makes for a huge difference in the game, whatever the final score was.

I was listening to 670 and they had the Orioles call from last night, and they even said how bad of a call that was.

Hangar18
04-24-2003, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
And when did umpires start doing this. I agree, that on occasion, a call will get changed after a conference of umpires, but never ever has a call been changed because a manager or coach went out and argued. Never.

i beg to differ. Ive seen it a couple of times. way back in 1980 I believe, Brett hits the HR in Yankee Stadium, and later, Martin goes out and argues with the umpire about the amount of Tar on his bat, and Lo and Behold, the Hr was called back. Bevington, when he mis-managed the Sox, ran out to argue a foul ball agains the Brewers/Phil Garner. that call was then Reversed too.
It can happen, you just have to Make sure your 1. Right about the call 2. You have to Argue very decisively

Hangar18
04-24-2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by TheBigHurt
WITH a little help...............
Umpires: HP: Tim Timmons. 1B: Mike Reilly. 2B: Bill Hohn. 3B: Eric Cooper

Thanks HURT. This helps Immensely. Oh Mr Eric Cooper...
we Know Who You are Now......Im now a member of the Eric Cooper Anti-Fan Club. other umps DO NOT WANT to be Members of this club.

Bobby Thigpen
04-24-2003, 11:59 AM
way back in 1980

Bevington, when he mis-managed the Sox

Great, twice in twenty years, that proves Kilroy wrong.

And I'm sorry, but I don't buy this whole thing about the Sox failing because JM is too mild mannered. If the Sox fire him and bring in some screamer, than what is to blame when they fail for him? The fact that he yells too much?

I don't like JM too much, but I don't think one of his problems is his personality or his on field demeanor. I think his biggest problems lie in the lack of fundamentals, deciding on lineups, and his overall cluelessness. I don't think the Ghandi persona is a problem.

Hangar18
04-24-2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
Great, twice in twenty years, that proves Kilroy wrong.

And I'm sorry, but I don't buy this whole thing about the Sox failing because JM is too mild mannered. If the Sox fire him and bring in some screamer, than what is to blame when they fail for him? The fact that he yells too much?

I don't like JM too much, but I don't think one of his problems is his personality or his on field demeanor. I think his biggest problems lie in the lack of fundamentals, deciding on lineups, and his overall cluelessness. I don't think the Ghandi persona is a problem.

good points. yes, Fundamentally, JM is Brutal. But a Little Fire
and Determination never hurt a Manager. Ask Lou Piniella. wait, thats a bad example, he knows how to manage a team.

Bobby Thigpen
04-24-2003, 12:05 PM
Again I would argue that fire and determination are entirely seperate things than arguing, yelling and screaming.

voodoochile
04-24-2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
Great, twice in twenty years, that proves Kilroy wrong.

And I'm sorry, but I don't buy this whole thing about the Sox failing because JM is too mild mannered. If the Sox fire him and bring in some screamer, than what is to blame when they fail for him? The fact that he yells too much?

I don't like JM too much, but I don't think one of his problems is his personality or his on field demeanor. I think his biggest problems lie in the lack of fundamentals, deciding on lineups, and his overall cluelessness. I don't think the Ghandi persona is a problem.

You know there is a middle ground between JM and a "screamer". I don't want a guy who is constantly out of his mind either, but there is a time and a place to show some fire - last night was one of them. The Royals hitting Frank was another.

You know, say what you want about the flubbies and Dusty, when Shamme got decked, they made sure someone paid the price. That's baseball. That's professional sports. Those points are NOT up for interpretation. It's part of being a teammate, team leader, etc. ALL the great managers know when to blow up and send a message to their team that the crap stops NOW. JM doesn't seem to get that point.

Lip Man 1
04-24-2003, 12:15 PM
"The White Sox Are Cursed" --Bill Gleason

Lip

Bobby Thigpen
04-24-2003, 12:16 PM
JM does go off once and awhile. It's happened once allready this year,(can't remember when, think it was a play at third) and it didn't do any good. I think that all the great yellers and screamers of the game's history (Weaver, Pinella, etc.) were great managers and coaches as well. They taught great fundamentals, and knew how to handle and make moves on the club. I think that is were JM is lacking.

God this drives me nuts, but it seems like if you read all these posts I like JM.

voodoochile
04-24-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
JM does go off once and awhile. It's happened once allready this year,(can't remember when, think it was a play at third) and it didn't do any good. I think that all the great yellers and screamers of the game's history (Weaver, Pinella, etc.) were great managers and coaches as well. They taught great fundamentals, and knew how to handle and make moves on the club. I think that is were JM is lacking.

God this drives me nuts, but it seems like if you read all these posts I like JM.

No, I get the impression you dislike the way he manages the team because of the decisions he makes.

I remember JM jawing at the 1st base ump a while back, but he did it from the mound. Like I said, I don't want JM getting in every umps face, every time some little thing doesn't go our way, but last night was NOT a little thing and JM didn't even get upset. He just talked about it. Come on Jerry, show some damn fire...

I am talking about something else. I want both in a manager - fire AND ability. The great ones have both. Where is the passion on this team? They follow their managers personality. Guys like Jimenez and Lee would benefit from a more fired up manager, IMO. It's the only point I am talking about.

Bobby Thigpen
04-24-2003, 12:30 PM
I don't like JM because he can't teach fundamentals, situational hitting, baserunning, fielding, pitching, and the overall game of baseball. Other than that he's one of the greatest managers of all time.

LetsGoSox_1
04-24-2003, 01:02 PM
The point is you have to stand up for you team sometimes. When Crede obviousy slams a two run homer that was at least five feet fair, and the umpire refuses to call it a home run, you have to go out there and show your not going to take that kind of crap. Jerry Manuel should have shown some fire last night, but instead he just walks away, and shows he can't fight for his team. It's called leadership, and it can do wonders in baseball. We know it probabaly won't change a call, but let the umpire know he was wrong, and let your team know that we are not going down without some kind of a fight.

Hangar18
04-24-2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by LetsGoSox_1
The point is you have to stand up for you team sometimes. When Crede obviousy slams a two run homer that was at least five feet fair, and the umpire refuses to call it a home run, you have to go out there and show your not going to take that kind of crap. Jerry Manuel should have shown some fire last night, but instead he just walks away, and shows he can't fight for his team. It's called leadership, and it can do wonders in baseball. We know it probabaly won't change a call, but let the umpire know he was wrong, and let your team know that we are not going down without some kind of a fight.

Amen.
Look at what this Perceived "leadership" is doing for the cubs. (little does Baker know how much History weighs, come a couple of months into the season. Hes a Fool who thinks he can change what came before him. Dusty my friend, History Weighs A Ton) Manuel fires into that team a little, you dont see half-way running out of ground ball outs. You see guys Getting Taken Out at 2nd Base on Double Plays. You see Guys Getting Thrown Inside BigTime when Frank gets Hit with a pitch. You see Umpires Reversing Bad HR Calls....You see ESPN commenting on how his not taking any "guff" from the Umps and otherwise is possibly going to lead this team back to 1st Place.

Jucier Cruz
04-24-2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
Honestly, how many times have you ever seen an ump or ref reverse their call? I would say very, very few. The only time I've ever seen it happen was because of instant replay (which would be a very bad idea for baseball), or because someone else on the crew reversed it. Neither was going to happen last night. He blew the call, nothing either JM, Kimm, or anybody else was going to do about it. Hopefully MLB will reprimand him in some form, but that will surely be unpublicized.

The night before when the Orioles were not being granted time-out, Surhoff made a scene between innings. He did so to make a point and that was to wake the umpire up and make him think. If Manuel makes a scene it shows he wants to win and feels this could have cost him the game. This is worth getting thrown out over. He is showing that the umpire was wrong and he better get his head in the game. It also is a motivational factor to rally your team. Do they change the call........in this case it is possible, more so if he sells his case and makes the umpire think. Kimm should've been all over it to begin with. A tag play and balls in strikes can't be cahnged so I agree to voice your displeasure and that is it. In this case, you blow up.

DC Sox Fan
04-24-2003, 01:58 PM
Oh Mr Eric Cooper...

hangar18, I'll be sure to give Mr. Cooper your best tonight as I just found out I got some field level box seats for tonight's game http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/icons/icon6.gif

Anyone else have any regards to be passed along to Mr. Cooper?

DrCrawdad
04-24-2003, 02:00 PM
Have the Sox come back to win this year? Once Colon gave up the three runs in the first, the game had the feel of a surrender by the Sox. It only got worse after the blown call.

For what it's worth, I think Manuel should have been more animated. At least give the appearance that you care and you're emotionally attached to the team.

I shut the game off after the blown call and Manuel dispassionate response. Too bad to cause I would have like to see the new lefty pitch.

Bobby Thigpen
04-24-2003, 02:03 PM
Again, I don't think you prove anything to anybody by making an ass of yourself, other than you are an ass. I don't think leadership has anything to do with yelling and screaming. I mean for every yeller and screamer out there that is successfull (and I would argue that they are succesfull because of all the other things they do other than yelling- this is were my problem with JM lies) look at all of those who don't do it and are successfull. I know its a different sport, but look at Tom Osborne. If you watched a game you'd be challenged to know that he was alive, and all he did was win a few national championships. Leadership and all the things that many of you think JM should've done last night are two totally seperate things.

Besides, I highly doubt that any decent percentage of the people that blow up on umps do it for any other reason than they're just being jagoffs. A few may do it in cold calculation to get some effect, but most do it because they're a--holes.

voodoochile
04-24-2003, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
Again, I don't think you prove anything to anybody by making an ass of yourself, other than you are an ass. I don't think leadership has anything to do with yelling and screaming. I mean for every yeller and screamer out there that is successfull (and I would argue that they are succesfull because of all the other things they do other than yelling- this is were my problem with JM lies) look at all of those who don't do it and are successfull. I know its a different sport, but look at Tom Osborne. If you watched a game you'd be challenged to know that he was alive, and all he did was win a few national championships. Leadership and all the things that many of you think JM should've done last night are two totally seperate things.

Besides, I highly doubt that any decent percentage of the people that blow up on umps do it for any other reason than they're just being jagoffs. A few may do it in cold calculation to get some effect, but most do it because they're a--holes.

You point to Osborne, I point to Phil Jackson, Lou Pinella, Jimmy Johnson, Bill Cowher, Earl Weaver, Pat Riley, etc. Yes, there are guys who scream too often and who thus wear out their welcome with their teams like Mike Ditka, but at least the team always knows who is fighting for them.

What has JM shown the Sox?

Bobby Thigpen
04-24-2003, 02:34 PM
Phil Jackson? I don't really recall the ZenMaster ever getting to riled up, but then again I hate basketball.

Bill Cowher? Really, you must be joking. Are you serious in holding him up as a display of coaching genious? I know quite a few Steeler fans that may argue that.

Ok, other than Osborne here are a few more that have excelled in different manners; Joe Paterno (except the last couple of years when losing has drove him nuts), Eddie Robinson, Casey Stengel (maybe I'm too young, but everything I've ever read on him doesn't point to him being a screamer), Marv Levy, Joe Torre (again only a memory of him with the Yanks), Vince Lombardi (not really a screamer at refs or players, but more of a guy that could tear you apart or build you up with a simple soft spoken sentence, sometimes emphasized a little loudly). I'm sure there are many more but I have to go back to work.

voodoochile
04-24-2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
Phil Jackson? I don't really recall the ZenMaster ever getting to riled up, but then again I hate basketball.

Bill Cowher? Really, you must be joking. Are you serious in holding him up as a display of coaching genious? I know quite a few Steeler fans that may argue that.

Ok, other than Osborne here are a few more that have excelled in different manners; Joe Paterno (except the last couple of years when losing has drove him nuts), Eddie Robinson, Casey Stengel (maybe I'm too young, but everything I've ever read on him doesn't point to him being a screamer), Marv Levy, Joe Torre (again only a memory of him with the Yanks), Vince Lombardi (not really a screamer at refs or players, but more of a guy that could tear you apart or build you up with a simple soft spoken sentence, sometimes emphasized a little loudly). I'm sure there are many more but I have to go back to work.

I think you are confused, or at least you don't really know these coaches as well as you think you do. Phil is constantly in the officials face. That also goes for Joe Pa. Levy constantly talked to officials.

Again, I am not talking about screaming at players, or even yelling at umps everytime some little thing doesn't go their way, but every single guy you mention knew when and where to get in a refs face. JM doesn't get it at all.

nixsox
04-24-2003, 03:27 PM
Anybody remember in 83 when Larussa went crazy at Old Comiskey when an ump blew an obvious Fisk homer and called it a ground rule double? We all know what the Sox did that year, they caught fire. I think that game was in August and they really went on a tear after that. This team needs a kick in the ass. Bobby Valentine would really look good on the South Side right now. We all know that won't happen. Fire JM. :angry:

Kilroy
04-24-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by nixsox
...Bobby Valentine would really look good on the South Side right now...

Yeah, dark glasses, fake mustache, and everything...

MHOUSE
04-24-2003, 04:24 PM
I always liked Bobby Valentine when he managed the Mets to that subway series. He would be good for us. A middle ground between Pinella and Ghandi.

It's not that hard to fill out the lineup card or manage the bullpen, and Jerry can't even do that sometimes. The manager needs to motivate his team, show some emotion and give them a reason to work hard and win games. You can hardly argue that Jerry accomplishes this.

I think that kicking dirt and throwing your hat or stealing bases or getting one inch from an umpire (i.e. Pinella) are ridiculous. But go out and SAY SOMETHING! Argue a little bit and maybe even yell or scream. It was a BAD CALL. You don't have to get tossed, but say your piece intelligently and with authority. Jerry just walked out and then sat down and took it in the a**. ugh! :angry:

Why does everyone say that he doesn't have a replay? Isn't there a HUGE SCOREBOARD AT THEIR STADIUM? Look up Jer!

Kilroy
04-24-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
Why does everyone say that he doesn't have a replay? Isn't there a HUGE SCOREBOARD AT THEIR STADIUM? Look up Jer!

Hello? Where ya been? Don't you know that contoversial plays are not replayed in ML ballparks?? MLB doesn't want some DYBASS coming out of the stands attacking an ump, or waiting on him outside if a call is blown, and they don't want replays exacerbating the situation.

Yes, I know that other sports show replays and all that, but that's the MLB stance on replays of close plays...

MHOUSE
04-24-2003, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Hello? Where ya been? Don't you know that contoversial plays are not replayed in ML ballparks?? MLB doesn't want some DYBASS coming out of the stands attacking an ump, or waiting on him outside if a call is blown, and they don't want replays exacerbating the situation.

Yes, I know that other sports show replays and all that, but that's the MLB stance on replays of close plays...

Really? I did not know that. Well I don't get out the ballpark much, I live way up nort here and I assumed all sports showed replays of everything. Usually when there's a close call you can wait 5 seconds and hear the boos as the stadium sees the replays. I guess I never noticed in baseball. Thanks for the heads-up Kilroy!

Fisk72
04-24-2003, 05:26 PM
I agree that Manuel needs to get his a$$ out there. Even if it was foul (which it WASN'T), it would show that he has a backbone. This definitely showed that everyone's way too laid back. Mac, Jurko, and Harry were saying that the players are starting to act the same way and that's definitely true. KW might need to do something if this keeps up. I remember that brawl we had with the Tigers back in 2000. That definitely was turning point in the season and the team really seemed to get closer then. While I don't think we should start a fight with any team just for the point of getting closer, Manuel running out and arguing that call would show the rest of the team that he really wants to win and will put his a$$ on the line. Just my opinion, but something needs to be done to kick everyone's butt in gear.

P.S. I'll add my vote for who should be coach. Anything to get Pudge back in Chicago.

Zednem700
04-24-2003, 09:30 PM
I'm sorry but all this talk about a fight or a manager getting tossed being some sort of turning point is nonsense. These guys are professional athletes, playing their respective sports for most of their lives, but they can't get motivated until their manager gets ejected from, a game? That's just stupid.

Correlation does not equal causation. The fact that the Sox played well after the fight in NO WAY proves that the fight caused the sox to play better. The Sox caught fire immediately following the fight, but that was against the sorry ass Tigers and Orioles. Sorry but a good team beats the crap out of Baltimore and Detroit with or without a fight.

The idea that a manager getting tossed can "fire up" the team is equally idiotic. How many times did Larry Bowa get tossed the last few years, and what have they won exactly? Anyone who needs to get in a fight or see his manager tossed in order to play good baseball, ain't good enough to ever make the majors.

I can see the adrenaline increasing for a short while afterwards. I don't see how that could ever possibly carry over for a long time, and I'm not convinced that getting riled up is necessarily a positive in baseball, where pinpoint control is such an important factor for success.

One final point, the pine tar home run is not a good example of an ump changing a call due to a manager's argument. Calls like balls and strikes and fair and foul are judgement calls. Umps NEVER change judgement calls unless, another ump with a different/better angle tells him that he saw it differently, and even then there's no guarantee. THe pine tar home run was a Rules call. Billy Martin pointed out to the ump a specific rule that said Brett had to be out. When confronted with this rule that he (and pretty much everyone else) had forgotten about, he had no choice but to make the call. If he didn't, The Yankees would have protested, and they probably would have won. Being corrected on a written down rule, is not the same as buying into a managers "argument". When its a rule call, you've got nowhere to run.

voodoochile
04-24-2003, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Zednem700
I'm sorry but all this talk about a fight or a manager getting tossed being some sort of turning point is nonsense. These guys are professional athletes, playing their respective sports for most of their lives, but they can't get motivated until their manager gets ejected from, a game? That's just stupid.

Correlation does not equal causation. The fact that the Sox played well after the fight in NO WAY proves that the fight caused the sox to play better. The Sox caught fire immediately following the fight, but that was against the sorry ass Tigers and Orioles. Sorry but a good team beats the crap out of Baltimore and Detroit with or without a fight.

The idea that a manager getting tossed can "fire up" the team is equally idiotic. How many times did Larry Bowa get tossed the last few years, and what have they won exactly? Anyone who needs to get in a fight or see his manager tossed in order to play good baseball, ain't good enough to ever make the majors.

I can see the adrenaline increasing for a short while afterwards. I don't see how that could ever possibly carry over for a long time, and I'm not convinced that getting riled up is necessarily a positive in baseball, where pinpoint control is such an important factor for success.

One final point, the pine tar home run is not a good example of an ump changing a call due to a manager's argument. Calls like balls and strikes and fair and foul are judgement calls. Umps NEVER change judgement calls unless, another ump with a different/better angle tells him that he saw it differently, and even then there's no guarantee. THe pine tar home run was a Rules call. Billy Martin pointed out to the ump a specific rule that said Brett had to be out. When confronted with this rule that he (and pretty much everyone else) had forgotten about, he had no choice but to make the call. If he didn't, The Yankees would have protested, and they probably would have won. Being corrected on a written down rule, is not the same as buying into a managers "argument". When its a rule call, you've got nowhere to run.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, managers getting in umpire's faces and getting tossed or making a decisive stand on a bad call DOES affect the way a team will play. Not everytime and of course there are no guarantees, but to say it doesn't ever matter is just flat wrong, IMO. Just because someone is a professional athlete doesn't mean they are less susecptible to motivation. I have always thought that was bad logic. Every human responds to emotional pleas and demonstrative support - well almost every human. Maybe these guys shouldn't need that stuff to play at a high caliber all the time, that is a different statement, but to assume that because they are professional athletes - thus they won't respond to their manager vigorously defending them -seems a bit to simplistic to me.

BTW, fair and foul is NOT a judgement call anymore than in bounds and out of bounds on sideline receptions are judgement calls in football. It's really pretty simple - over here is fair... over here is foul.

TornLabrum
04-24-2003, 10:25 PM
[i]BTW, fair and foul is NOT a judgement call anymore than in bounds and out of bounds on sideline receptions are judgement calls in football. It's really pretty simple - over here is fair... over here is foul. [/B]

Where it passed the foul pole is a judgment of the umpire. It does not call for interpretation of the rules. Thus it is not subject to protest, any more than who reached base first the batter-runner or the ball.

The discussion of the call being a judgment call came up when it was suggested that the Sox protest the call. Under the rules they cannot. There is no rule to cite that the umpire issued an incorrect interpretation of. In the umpires eyes, as poor as his eyesight was, the ball was foul.

If the rules allowed protests of such calls, every game in which there is a disputed play would come under protest.

voodoochile
04-24-2003, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Where it passed the foul pole is a judgment of the umpire. It does not call for interpretation of the rules. Thus it is not subject to protest, any more than who reached base first the batter-runner or the ball.

The discussion of the call being a judgment call came up when it was suggested that the Sox protest the call. Under the rules they cannot. There is no rule to cite that the umpire issued an incorrect interpretation of. In the umpires eyes, as poor as his eyesight was, the ball was foul.

If the rules allowed protests of such calls, every game in which there is a disputed play would come under protest.

That's a copout. By that definition EVERYTHING is a judgement call - because the umps have to make the judgement (safe/out, fair/foul, strike/ball). In reality there are very specific rules that govern ALL of those situations and the ONLY reason they are judgement calls is because humans are the only ones we allow to make them without the benefit of any help at all. I don't think there is a way to actually make balls and strikes more accurate without taking the umps out of the equation all together - which I am not in favor of, so I will admit that that is a judgement call because even replay wouldn't help the situation. But, the rest of them? You could make an accurate fair/foul call on almost every single borderline ball with replay. Last night for example would have clearly been a home run with replay - and the fans deserve to have the game called the way the rules are written - even if it means adding a few minutes to the game or making the umps walk 50 feet and look at a TV...

I didn't know that judgement calls were unprotestable (word?), but the fact remains, most plays aren't truly judgement calls anymore than 2+2=4 is...

jeremyb1
04-24-2003, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Like it or not, agree with it or not, managers getting in umpire's faces and getting tossed or making a decisive stand on a bad call DOES affect the way a team will play. Not everytime and of course there are no guarantees, but to say it doesn't ever matter is just flat wrong, IMO. Just because someone is a professional athlete doesn't mean they are less susecptible to motivation. I have always thought that was bad logic. Every human responds to emotional pleas and demonstrative support - well almost every human. Maybe these guys shouldn't need that stuff to play at a high caliber all the time, that is a different statement, but to assume that because they are professional athletes - thus they won't respond to their manager vigorously defending them -seems a bit to simplistic to me.

BTW, fair and foul is NOT a judgement call anymore than in bounds and out of bounds on sideline receptions are judgement calls in football. It's really pretty simple - over here is fair... over here is foul.

i agree with you that pro athletes aren't unsusceptible to motivation. however, that doesn't mean that it is always necessary for the manager to be motivating the players. everyone says its manuel's fault for failing to increase the intensity of the team but maybe the team just isn't responding. why is it that if a team is unmotivated the manager takes all the blame yet at the same time who gives the manager credit for intense players such as erstad. some players are simply more susceptible to motivation than others. manuel certainly must get some credit for the team's motivation in '00, right?

also, one thing no one has mentioned is that manuel isn't watching the instant replays everyone is at home, nor does he have the view tv viewers or even the players do. did it every occur to anyone that from his vantage point, he may not have been able to tell if the ball was fair or foul? the trib reported that the players didn't become really upset until they saw the play in the dugout.

voodoochile
04-24-2003, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i agree with you that pro athletes aren't unsusceptible to motivation. however, that doesn't mean that it is always necessary for the manager to be motivating the players. everyone says its manuel's fault for failing to increase the intensity of the team but maybe the team just isn't responding. why is it that if a team is unmotivated the manager takes all the blame yet at the same time who gives the manager credit for intense players such as erstad. some players are simply more susceptible to motivation than others. manuel certainly must get some credit for the team's motivation in '00, right?

also, one thing no one has mentioned is that manuel isn't watching the instant replays everyone is at home, nor does he have the view tv viewers or even the players do. did it every occur to anyone that from his vantage point, he may not have been able to tell if the ball was fair or foul? the trib reported that the players didn't become really upset until they saw the play in the dugout.

I guess that is a possibility, but Crede seemed to think it was fair and that should have been enough for Jerry, IMO. Besides, I keep waiting for him to make a stand, ANY stand. If he had been better with this stuff in the past, maybe that would be an excuse, but at some point he has to step up and fight for this team if he wants them to fight for him. I truly believe that.

2000 this team could have been managed by Terry Bevington and made the playoffs (well, maybe not). They were just ready and everything came together perfectly. What has JM done since that time to make this team better either emotionally or physically?

joecrede
04-24-2003, 11:05 PM
I think managers and coaches have a shelf life. For instance, I thought the one correct thing Hawk did as a GM was fire LaRussa, it was time. This is Manuel's 6th season and I'm beginning to think the right thing is to let him go.

TornLabrum
04-24-2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
That's a copout. By that definition EVERYTHING is a judgement call - because the umps have to make the judgement (safe/out, fair/foul, strike/ball). In reality there are very specific rules that govern ALL of those situations and the ONLY reason they are judgement calls is because humans are the only ones we allow to make them without the benefit of any help at all. I don't think there is a way to actually make balls and strikes more accurate without taking the umps out of the equation all together - which I am not in favor of, so I will admit that that is a judgement call because even replay wouldn't help the situation. But, the rest of them? You could make an accurate fair/foul call on almost every single borderline ball with replay. Last night for example would have clearly been a home run with replay - and the fans deserve to have the game called the way the rules are written - even if it means adding a few minutes to the game or making the umps walk 50 feet and look at a TV...

I didn't know that judgement calls were unprotestable (word?), but the fact remains, most plays aren't truly judgement calls anymore than 2+2=4 is...

It's not a copout. It's the rules, and they've been that way since before even I was born. When I was a young whippersnapper, you learned what could be protested and what couldn't before you were 8 years old.

Replay is another story entirely that has nothing to do with the right to protest an umpire's decision.

voodoochile
04-24-2003, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
It's not a copout. It's the rules, and they've been that way since before even I was born. When I was a young whippersnapper, you learned what could be protested and what couldn't before you were 8 years old.

Replay is another story entirely that has nothing to do with the right to protest an umpire's decision.

We're talking about apples and oranges. I am saying that the rules are very clear about how things are supposed to be called and you are saying that the rules make it clear that the umps HAVE to make those calls. While I agree that you are correct, I wouldn't mind seeing the rules you are talking about changed so the other rules can be better enforced. I am not saying that JM should have protested - at least not anymore since I learned the rule, but I still wouldn't have minded seeing him blow up and get kicked out...

TornLabrum
04-24-2003, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
We're talking about apples and oranges. I am saying that the rules are very clear about how things are supposed to be called and you are saying that the rules make it clear that the umps HAVE to make those calls. While I agree that you are correct, I wouldn't mind seeing the rules you are talking about changed so the other rules can be better enforced. I am not saying that JM should have protested - at least not anymore since I learned the rule, but I still wouldn't have minded seeing him blow up and get kicked out...

I think everyone except Dan McNeil feels the way you do about that. I know I sure do. (See the column I submitted tonight to PHG when it gets published.)

jeremyb1
04-25-2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
2000 this team could have been managed by Terry Bevington and made the playoffs (well, maybe not). They were just ready and everything came together perfectly. What has JM done since that time to make this team better either emotionally or physically?

what seems unfair to me is that in '00 everything went perfectly so manuel deserves zero credit yet when everything goes wrong he takes all the blame. there are certain posters on this board that blames absolutely any problem this team encounters on the fact that manuel hasn't instilled any intensity within this team.

MHOUSE
04-25-2003, 12:47 AM
Haven't any of you guys ever been through brawls/ejections as a team? It DOES bring the team together. Coaches look out for their players and the players look out for their teammates. If someone gets cheap-shotted, the first thing the bench asks when they limp off is "what number was it?" Then they get him back. Coaches arguing shows they got your back. There's nothing worse for a player when he knows he was wronged by the referee and the coach either sides with the ref or says nothing.

Right or wrong, judgment or not, coaches arguing and players fighting helps to bring a team together and is a part of all sports. It's life. They shouldn't go looking for a fight but if the opportunity is there (fair/foul homer) or the other team starts it then take it and have some fun.

baggio202
04-25-2003, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
what seems unfair to me is that in '00 everything went perfectly so manuel deserves zero credit yet when everything goes wrong he takes all the blame. there are certain posters on this board that blames absolutely any problem this team encounters on the fact that manuel hasn't instilled any intensity within this team.

i look at it this way....we used to have this same arguement about nardi...but the fact was we would never know if the pitchers failing to develop and all the injuries were nardi's fault or not until he was fired...since his firing the pitching did improve some under coop...maybe not drastically , but enough to say nardi probably wasnt the best candidate for a pitching coach...at best for nardi firing him and hiring coop was a wash....so his firing really didnt matter

same thing with manuel...we wont know if it's manuel's fault or not until we fire him and see what happens under his replacement... we do know this about manuel...he did a good job when he was first hired and it seems like he peeked in '00..not just because that team won but because it played team inspired baseball...since then , in '01 and '02 jerry manuel had on paper what i think most educated baseball people would say was the best team in the central and both years the team underachieved...

is that manuel's fault??..maybe , maybe not...myself i think it alot of it falls at the feet of KW..especially for bringing that little twerp k-layton over here and for ther ritchie trade...but does that absolve jerry for the fact that this team didnt live up to expectations??..no, he still needs to be held accountable...

the biggest thing to me that has me on the fire manuel bandwagon has nothing to do with moves , handling the pen , tinkering with the line up or whatever...it has to do with the fact that in the last 2 season i would almost gaurentee that the sox have the worst record in baseball when they trail a game going into the 7th inning for two years now..even worse is not that we have no come from behind wins , but we usually cant even get a baserunner...we could be in a 6-6 tie and in the top of the 7th the other team goes up one run and from that point on we cant even get a base runner...this team shows absolutely no life or emotion at all if they are down even one run going into the last 3rd of a ballgame..to me thats almost a refelection of jerry's personality..no sense of urgency...for that reason and that reason alone id make the switch to either wally backman , nick leyva or nick capra...3 quality people within our own org..

i got a feeling the worst thing that would happen is the outcome would be a wash...not make that much of a difference..but there is a chance a new manager thats young and hunger might be just what this team needs to bring some life into it...whether its manuel's fault or not , firing him wont hurt this team at all..it can only help it..

so if in one month if we are still floundering around .500 , a move has to be made

jeremyb1
04-25-2003, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by baggio202
i look at it this way....we used to have this same arguement about nardi...but the fact was we would never know if the pitchers failing to develop and all the injuries were nardi's fault or not until he was fired...since his firing the pitching did improve some under coop...maybe not drastically , but enough to say nardi probably wasnt the best candidate for a pitching coach...at best for nardi firing him and hiring coop was a wash....so his firing really didnt matter

same thing with manuel...we wont know if it's manuel's fault or not until we fire him and see what happens under his replacement...

i don't know how much i agree but i certainly buy the shakeup argument much more than any other argument. i don't see how you can fault manuel that much but i could see that maybe this club just does need some fresh blood. that no one is to blame, its just time for something new.

voodoochile
04-25-2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
what seems unfair to me is that in '00 everything went perfectly so manuel deserves zero credit yet when everything goes wrong he takes all the blame. there are certain posters on this board that blames absolutely any problem this team encounters on the fact that manuel hasn't instilled any intensity within this team.

No, that's an oversimplification. But, SOME intensity would be nice. Manuel got lots of credit for 2000 - IN 2000. Then came 2001 and 2002 and by 2003 it's pretty obvious what the guys shortcomings are. It's not just, "What have you done for me lately?" It's "What have you done for me in the last 2.5 years (other than get completely schooled in the playoffs by a manager who knew how to motivate his players)?" Manuel doesn't deserve all of the blame. Guys like KW, DW, TR (and more recently) TG and BK share some of the blame, but Manuel HAS to shoulder some of the blame for the teams performance these past few years.

My opinion on Manuel during the 2000 season has been generated by his performance these past few years. I just no longer believe he had much to do with that season's success - that it was more a combination of luck, timing and emotions. The only thing he did that season that got the team off hot was confronting Frank in ST which caused the team to come together. Unfortunately it seems to be the only emotional ploy he is willing to use and it seemed to have reprecussions the next few years when guys like Paulie and Boomer thought it was fair to blame Frank for the teams problems. That obviously hasn't worked regardless of what side of the FT debate you fall on. I'm not trying to turn this into another Frank debate - there have been enough of those, but honestly, what has JM done to motivate this team to a higher purpose? What credit/blame does he deserve for the current state of the team?