PDA

View Full Version : the way we discuss losses


jeremyb1
06-01-2003, 05:12 PM
it troubles me that people always view losses through one key decision by the manager or one key play instead of taking in the entire game as a whole. for instance many seem to feel that we lost today's game because manuel stuck with marte too long and blew the lead.

in my mind we lost today's game first and foremost because we scored three runs in seven innings against a pitcher that entered the game with an era of 5.66. then we were hit with a barage of bloop hits and some mediocre pitching by gordon in the 8th. next, we put a runner on second base with no outs and failed to lay down a bunt or get another hit to bring the runner home. then in the 9th, we were met with an infield hit and another bloop single.

this brings several thoughts to mind. the first is that above i've identified what i feel are at least 4 legitimate reasons we lost this game, the most important of which is our continuing inability to hit bad pitchers. if you want to add questionable managerial decisions as another reason, that's five reasons. so why would people act as though there was one clear reason that cost us the game?

the other thought i have, is why are people completely unwilling to awknowledge the large roll played by luck in a game like baseball? everyone always wants someone to take their frustration out on after a loss so they always decide who's fault it is.

lets be honest here though, the pitcher that was hit the hardest today was most likely buehrle. at one point he gave up three rockets in a row two of which were caught by outfielders. koch and gordon hardly gave up a hard hit ball between them in the 8th and 10th. at some point two or three bloop hits in an inning can't be considered someones fault. how can you deny that at least in today's game luck played a huge role and it wasn't in our favor?

Konerkoholic
06-01-2003, 06:17 PM
I agree. Several times during the game I shouted "NO LUCK!" out loud. I thought Bradley's ball and then Spencer's ball were both DPs.

TornLabrum
06-01-2003, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Konerkoholic
I agree. Several times during the game I shouted "NO LUCK!" out loud. I thought Bradley's ball and then Spencer's ball were both DPs.

And boy was Gordon unlucky in the eighth!

joecrede
06-01-2003, 06:29 PM
In the big picture we're losing because we aren't hitting. But I think Manuel's use of the pen this year has been questionable at best. Marte is the best pitcher on the team, he should've been in there at the start of the eighth and certainly no later than after the lead off hitter got on. Same thing as last Sunday vs. the Tigers, why Wunsch instead of Marte . . .

mack10zie
06-01-2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
in my mind we lost today's game first and foremost because we scored three runs in seven innings against a pitcher that entered the game with an era of 5.66. then we were hit with a barage of bloop hits and some mediocre pitching by gordon in the 8th. next, we put a runner on second base with no outs and failed to lay down a bunt or get another hit to bring the runner home. then in the 9th, we were met with an infield hit and another bloop single.

this brings several thoughts to mind. the first is that above i've identified what i feel are at least 4 legitimate reasons we lost this game, the most important of which is our continuing inability to hit bad pitchers. if you want to add questionable managerial decisions as another reason, that's five reasons. so why would people act as though there was one clear reason that cost us the game?


Ok, but IMO 2 of the 4 reasons you give could have been altered by managerial decisions. 1) Gordon's mediocre pitching could have been avoided had Manuel gone with Marte earlier. 2) We may have been able to get Borchard in had Manuel pinch hit Paul (a better bunter than Rios) instead of Rios in that situation. Sure, luck plays into the equation, but the manager's job is to leave as little as possible to luck, which Manuel failed to do. So basically what I see is 3 reasons why we lost, the two you came up with and managerial decisions (as a hybrid of your other two reasons). As for your other reason, the fact the the Sox only scored 4 against Davis, which seems to be the most compelling reason left, I really don't agree with it. We basically hit him right up to his ERA for the year, or at least almost. You're not going to score 5, 6, 7+ runs every time you face a bad pitcher. Many times this season we've been dominated by what I would consider poor pitchers, being held to 0-2 runs, but when we score 4, especially when our starter only gives up 1, we should win the game. We scored just enough to win, but our lead was squandered in large part due to managerial ineptness. Just my take though.

duke of dorwood
06-01-2003, 07:17 PM
In the bigger picture, we just stink

Daver
06-01-2003, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
In the bigger picture, we just stink


Hey!

I took a shower today.


:redneck

jeremyb1
06-01-2003, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by mack10zie
Ok, but IMO 2 of the 4 reasons you give could have been altered by managerial decisions. 1) Gordon's mediocre pitching could have been avoided had Manuel gone with Marte earlier. 2) We may have been able to get Borchard in had Manuel pinch hit Paul (a better bunter than Rios) instead of Rios in that situation. Sure, luck plays into the equation, but the manager's job is to leave as little as possible to luck, which Manuel failed to do. So basically what I see is 3 reasons why we lost, the two you came up with and managerial decisions (as a hybrid of your other two reasons). As for your other reason, the fact the the Sox only scored 4 against Davis, which seems to be the most compelling reason left, I really don't agree with it. We basically hit him right up to his ERA for the year, or at least almost. You're not going to score 5, 6, 7+ runs every time you face a bad pitcher. Many times this season we've been dominated by what I would consider poor pitchers, being held to 0-2 runs, but when we score 4, especially when our starter only gives up 1, we should win the game. We scored just enough to win, but our lead was squandered in large part due to managerial ineptness. Just my take though.

first of all davis only gave up three earned runs, the fourth was charged to whomever first releived him. 3 er's in 7 ip is pretty good for a guy with an era of five and a half and a team that was supposed to have one of the best offenses in baseball coming into the season.

just because gordon didn't pitch incredibly well doesn't mean its manuel's fault for leaving him in. i still maintain it was more poor luck than anything that allowed them to score three runs in the 8th.

sometimes players don't perform as they should. if we were up 4-1 in the 9th and manuel brought koch in and he stunk up the joint and blew the game that's not manuel's fault. koch is our high priced closer that has been pitching well lately. in that instance the player didn't get it done. just because gordon maybe could've pitched better that doesn't necessarily mean it was manuel's fault for putting him in.

as for the 9th inning i don't see the failure as manuel's at least not entirely. even if manuel maybe should've called for a different guy to lay the bunt down, that doesn't mean it falls squarely on manuel. armando rios should be able to lay down a bunt. its not like he's frank thomas or even jeff liefer. paul might be able to lay one down better but then we have no backup catcher.

if i blame manuel for anything its the decision to bunt. a fly ball gets borchard to third just as easily and allows the chance for a hit. anyway you look at it i fail to see as how rios being unable to get down a bunt, being unable to move borchard over any other way with two strikes, and olivo and dj's inability, are all manuel's fault. partially maybe but nowhere near entirely.

a team is always going to make a manager look good or bad. the fact that manuel had to make the decisions he did are indicative of the fact that the game was far closer than it should've been in my opinion. we left guys in scoring position with two outs five seperate times during that game and stranded 13 total runners on base. just one or two clutch hits and we have nothing to talk about.

mack10zie
06-01-2003, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
just because gordon didn't pitch incredibly well doesn't mean its manuel's fault for leaving him in. i still maintain it was more poor luck than anything that allowed them to score three runs in the 8th.

sometimes players don't perform as they should. if we were up 4-1 in the 9th and manuel brought koch in and he stunk up the joint and blew the game that's not manuel's fault. koch is our high priced closer that has been pitching well lately. in that instance the player didn't get it done. just because gordon maybe could've pitched better that doesn't necessarily mean it was manuel's fault for putting him in.

as for the 9th inning i don't see the failure as manuel's at least not entirely. even if manuel maybe should've called for a different guy to lay the bunt down, that doesn't mean it falls squarely on manuel. armando rios should be able to lay down a bunt. its not like he's frank thomas or even jeff liefer. paul might be able to lay one down better but then we have no backup catcher.


Ok, as for Gordon, I'm with you, it's not that he pitched horribly, and there was some unlucky hits that changed the game. The fact of the matter is that he should not have been in that position where a few unluckyhits would lead to, at least in part, us taking a loss today. If the situation you brought up, bringing Koch in, were to happen, then in that case it WOULD NOT be JM's fault because he put his team in the best position to win and the players didn't come through. But when you have Marte who has been superb this season in the pen ready to go and you don't go to him in favor of a pitcher who has not only been shaky all season, but has been especially shaky lately, it IS JM's fault because he lessened his team's chances of success in that particular situation.

As for the bunting thing, yeah, I'm just gonna agree with you there. I'm shocked at the number of major leaguers who can't lay down a bunt, it's ridiculous really. I don't think bunting was the wrong call unless JM didn't really think that Rios was going to be able to get one down. If that is the case then he needs to either use someone he thinks/thought could get one down (Paul or maybe Graffy) or just do away with the bunt and hope we can advance the runner on a fly ball or ground ball to the right side.

Could we have scored more runs? Sure. Should we have? Probably. But IMO, the fact remains that we scored enough to win that ball game, and that should be satisfactory, which it wasn't because Manuel failed to manage the bullpen properly.

gosox41
06-01-2003, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
it troubles me that people always view losses through one key decision by the manager or one key play instead of taking in the entire game as a whole. for instance many seem to feel that we lost today's game because manuel stuck with marte too long and blew the lead.

in my mind we lost today's game first and foremost because we scored three runs in seven innings against a pitcher that entered the game with an era of 5.66. then we were hit with a barage of bloop hits and some mediocre pitching by gordon in the 8th. next, we put a runner on second base with no outs and failed to lay down a bunt or get another hit to bring the runner home. then in the 9th, we were met with an infield hit and another bloop single.

this brings several thoughts to mind. the first is that above i've identified what i feel are at least 4 legitimate reasons we lost this game, the most important of which is our continuing inability to hit bad pitchers. if you want to add questionable managerial decisions as another reason, that's five reasons. so why would people act as though there was one clear reason that cost us the game?

the other thought i have, is why are people completely unwilling to awknowledge the large roll played by luck in a game like baseball? everyone always wants someone to take their frustration out on after a loss so they always decide who's fault it is.

lets be honest here though, the pitcher that was hit the hardest today was most likely buehrle. at one point he gave up three rockets in a row two of which were caught by outfielders. koch and gordon hardly gave up a hard hit ball between them in the 8th and 10th. at some point two or three bloop hits in an inning can't be considered someones fault. how can you deny that at least in today's game luck played a huge role and it wasn't in our favor?

I believe to an extent, you create your own luck.

The reason we lost today is plain and simple. This team can't hit. The Sox gave up 4 runs in 9 innings. You can blame Gordon or Buehrle or wheover, but a 4.00 team ERA would rank third or fourth in the AL (the Sox are currently fifth so the team pitching has been pretty good.) That should be good enough to win 100 games in the AL with even a slightly above average offensive team. If before the season started, someone said the Sox would give up 4 runs a game...every game I'd be thinking playoffs.


This offense is getting too frustrating to me. It's time to rebuild this team and start over. Trade any and all assets. The Sox should be able to get some stud prospects for all the underacheiving talent they possess...unless KW scews it up (which is almost a certainty.)

Bob

MHOUSE
06-01-2003, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by daver
Hey!

I took a shower today.


:redneck

I took two so it's not me.

jeremyb1
06-01-2003, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by mack10zie
Ok, as for Gordon, I'm with you, it's not that he pitched horribly, and there was some unlucky hits that changed the game. The fact of the matter is that he should not have been in that position where a few unluckyhits would lead to, at least in part, us taking a loss today. If the situation you brought up, bringing Koch in, were to happen, then in that case it WOULD NOT be JM's fault because he put his team in the best position to win and the players didn't come through. But when you have Marte who has been superb this season in the pen ready to go and you don't go to him in favor of a pitcher who has not only been shaky all season, but has been especially shaky lately, it IS JM's fault because he lessened his team's chances of success in that particular situation.

i think there's some merit to what you're saying. however i don't think its quite so cut and dry as far as putting marte in giving us the absolute best chance to win. if gordon looks like he can get the job done, having marte available is incredible valuable for us. in the event that koch blows the lead in the 9th, gets hurt somehow (maybe gets hit with a liner), or looks so bad (maybe he walks the first three batters without throwing a strike) that he needs to be removed, we have a sure thing available in marte.

the problem with a lot of manuel's pitching changes in my mind aren't that he doesn't know what he's doing, its that the pen lacks depth which severely limits his options. we only have four guys on the pen i would feel safe counting on in a close game right now. three and a half might be more accurate since wunsch has primarily been used to face lefties in the past and doesn't go more than one inning too often.

the lack of depth in the pen makes it hard for manuel to look smart in his pitching moves. when you only have four guys to use you can't be very liberal in making changes and sometimes you may leave guys in too long. manuel doesn't have the liberty to use wunsch to get a tough lefthanded hitter out in the 7th, use gordon for the rest of the inning, pitch marte in the 8th and then koch in the 9th. if we go into extra innings then we'll have no solid relievers left. additionally if he uses three or four of our four dependable guys every day he's going to have to give guys days off eventually and then we'll be looking at rick white pitching the 6th or 7th in some game which will not work.

jeremyb1
06-01-2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I believe to an extent, you create your own luck.

The reason we lost today is plain and simple. This team can't hit. The Sox gave up 4 runs in 9 innings. You can blame Gordon or Buehrle or wheover, but a 4.00 team ERA would rank third or fourth in the AL (the Sox are currently fifth so the team pitching has been pretty good.) That should be good enough to win 100 games in the AL with even a slightly above average offensive team. If before the season started, someone said the Sox would give up 4 runs a game...every game I'd be thinking playoffs.

amen to that. i couldn't have said it better myself. you have to hit to win ballgames and we haven't been doing that. when that happens the pitching, the defense, and the managerial decisions all start to look really bad because there's no margin for error.

Lip Man 1
06-01-2003, 09:50 PM
I agree that in many cases luck is the residual of design.

In the Sox case perhaps the reasons for their "bad luck" is as follows:

1. Bad defense especially an ability to have good range on balls that are hit in play.

2. Perhaps bad advance scouting, which isn't communicating the actual weak points of opposing hitters. When Sox pitchers follow the reports perhaps the opposing hitters are still able to put the ball in play which results in point #1 coming into play.

3. Sox pitchers simply are missing their spots and opposing hitters are still able to make enough contact to put the ball in play.

Any thoughts on this?

Lip

mack10zie
06-01-2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
amen to that. i couldn't have said it better myself. you have to hit to win ballgames and we haven't been doing that. when that happens the pitching, the defense, and the managerial decisions all start to look really bad because there's no margin for error.

I'm gonna agree with that to a degree. I think that for the most part that has been our major problem this season, lack of hitting that is. That being said I think that we had enough hitting to get by TODAY, and that the main reason we lost TODAY'S game was because JM decided for some reason or another to stick with a pitcher who has been struggling and got into trouble today. I don't mean my comments in this thread to be taken in the vein that I think JM is to blame for all of the team's problems or anything like that, because he is not, and I do believe that the hitting has obviously been what has killed us. But I also feel very strongly that the offense did enough, just enough, but still enough to win this game. When you are up 3 runs going into the 8th, no matter if the score is 11-8 or 4-1 you should win the game, and it is the job of the manager to give the team the BEST POSSIBLE chance to get that win. I think that by sticking with Flash, JM failed to give his team the best possible chance to win. Had other things transpired we still could have/should have won the game, but I don't think we would have needed those things to happen to win this ballgame. Sometimes you have to win ugly, and maybe today was one of those times. As I have said, there is plenty of blame to go around, but the lion share of it, IMO, falls squarely on the shoulders of our manager, because I believe that this is one of those rare games that had our manager done what he should have done, we would have won.

I do see your point, and I do see its merits; I just don't agree with them. I feel like you are putting too much of this on pure luck, and too little on the job that our manager is supposed to do and IMO is failing to do. Anyways, I do agree with you that hitting has been our main problem this season, I just don't see that as necessarily our biggest problem in TODAY'S game (as I obviously see JM's 'mismanagement' as the biggest problem today). Hopefully we can turn this around somehow...

pudge
06-02-2003, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
amen to that. i couldn't have said it better myself. you have to hit to win ballgames and we haven't been doing that. when that happens the pitching, the defense, and the managerial decisions all start to look really bad because there's no margin for error.

Jeremy, I really have to disagree with you on this whole thread. This was a game we should have had, and if Manuel would have started this season with the mentality that Marte would bridge the gap to Koch by pitching 8th innings, I think we'd at least have avoided a few losses this season, including today's. Yes, the Sox offense has been terrible. Yes, we suck mostly because our offense can't score. BUT, today was a game in which we DID have enough runs to win... Buherle pitched a damn nice game, and we could not close it out, because our second-best reliever was not in to pitch a full 8th inning.

In the big picture, I agree that a different manager probably could not save this team this season. But the fact is, Manuel sucks at winning close games. He has been that way ever since the 2000 play-offs. He really does hurt our team.

jeremyb1
06-02-2003, 04:37 AM
Originally posted by pudge
Jeremy, I really have to disagree with you on this whole thread. This was a game we should have had, and if Manuel would have started this season with the mentality that Marte would bridge the gap to Koch by pitching 8th innings, I think we'd at least have avoided a few losses this season, including today's. Yes, the Sox offense has been terrible. Yes, we suck mostly because our offense can't score. BUT, today was a game in which we DID have enough runs to win... Buherle pitched a damn nice game, and we could not close it out, because our second-best reliever was not in to pitch a full 8th inning.

In the big picture, I agree that a different manager probably could not save this team this season. But the fact is, Manuel sucks at winning close games. He has been that way ever since the 2000 play-offs. He really does hurt our team.

see i would place more blame on manuel if we were in a situation where we were playing a tough team with a good pitcher say we were facing oakland and zito or mulder was on the hill. then i could take a step back and say these are the close games against tough teams and tough pitchers where we won't score a lot of runs and the manager has the make the calls and avoid taking any kind of chance whatsoever.

however, in my opinion the problem is we are all acting as though this was such a game when in reality it was against a rebuilding indians team, one of the worst in baseball, trotting a pitcher with an era of five and a half out on the mound. come on, this is the type of situation a young, less than confident pitcher on an underacheiving team, where in the past when our offense was clicking we would've scored 12 runs today.

my point is that this game never should've played out how it did in the first place. we're supposed to be a world series contender we were trotting one of our two aces on the hill, a 19 game winner last season, against a young kid that has been struggling some and in the bottom of the 8th inning the score is 4-1?! obviously we can't win every game against the poor teams and every pitcher will have a good start from time to time but lets take a step back for a minute: we haven't had any blowouts, we haven't been facing any pitchers on "off days".

i don't see how anyone can take a step back and look at this game and say: the problem with this team is simple, manuel made a poor managerial decision and hence the game was lost.

mack10zie
06-02-2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i don't see how anyone can take a step back and look at this game and say: the problem with this team is simple, manuel made a poor managerial decision and hence the game was lost.

While I agree with you that we probably should have scored more runs yesterday, I can't agree with the above statement. The fact of the matter is that we were up 3 runs going into the bottom of the 8th inning. Whether the score is 4-1, 12-9, or 115-112 doesn't matter at that point. Your team should win games that they are up three at that point, no matter the actual score. Obviously there will be times when your team blows the lead, and that's ok, as long as the manager has put his team in the best possible position to win (i.e. if Marte blows that lead, or if Koch blows it in the 9th I would say that Jerry made the proper move and would take the blame off of him). Yesterday JM completely failed in this regard. Leaving Gordon in for so long DID NOT put this team in the best possible position to win, and therefore, IMO, he must take most of the blame for the loss.

voodoochile
06-02-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
see i would place more blame on manuel if we were in a situation where we were playing a tough team with a good pitcher say we were facing oakland and zito or mulder was on the hill. then i could take a step back and say these are the close games against tough teams and tough pitchers where we won't score a lot of runs and the manager has the make the calls and avoid taking any kind of chance whatsoever.

however, in my opinion the problem is we are all acting as though this was such a game when in reality it was against a rebuilding indians team, one of the worst in baseball, trotting a pitcher with an era of five and a half out on the mound. come on, this is the type of situation a young, less than confident pitcher on an underacheiving team, where in the past when our offense was clicking we would've scored 12 runs today.

my point is that this game never should've played out how it did in the first place. we're supposed to be a world series contender we were trotting one of our two aces on the hill, a 19 game winner last season, against a young kid that has been struggling some and in the bottom of the 8th inning the score is 4-1?! obviously we can't win every game against the poor teams and every pitcher will have a good start from time to time but lets take a step back for a minute: we haven't had any blowouts, we haven't been facing any pitchers on "off days".

i don't see how anyone can take a step back and look at this game and say: the problem with this team is simple, manuel made a poor managerial decision and hence the game was lost.

I think you've got it backwards. Against guys like Zito, you just hope to win. Make some moves to manufacture a few runs, hope Zito has an off night and hope your starter goes 8 giving up less than 3 runs.

On the other hand, leading a bad team by 3 runs in the 8th inning, a manager should do everything in his power to win the game. You are in essence assuming that a 3-run lead in the 8th against Cleveland is a gimme and should be managed like one. That's the surest way I know to lose a game. There are no gimmes in MLB and managing like there are is a crappy way to manage a team.

Yes, I realize that a bunch of the hits that Gordon gave up were cheapies, but it is JM's job to ensure the lead gets protected BEFORE it the tying run is on third with less than 2 outs. He failed, plain and simple. He's not the ONLY reason the Sox are stinking it up this year, but he is definitely PART of the reason and that alone is reason to can his worthless ass...

maurice
06-02-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bad defense especially an ability to have good range on balls that are hit in play.

This is driving me nuts. Bad D has always bugged me, but lately I find it unsufferable. Valentin is absolutely killing us. At least we have some young options in CF. We've got nothing at SS. KW needs to make a move and get a young SS who can catch the damn ball. Who's out there?

Sox pitchers simply are missing their spots and opposing hitters are still able to make enough contact to put the ball in play.

Given the crappy defense behind them, our pitching has been outstanding. There's nothing wrong with a pitcher giving up grounders and soft fly balls. You can't expect them to strike everyone out.

pudge
06-02-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1


however, in my opinion the problem is we are all acting as though this was such a game when in reality it was against a rebuilding indians team, one of the worst in baseball, trotting a pitcher with an era of five and a half out on the mound. come on, this is the type of situation a young, less than confident pitcher on an underacheiving team, where in the past when our offense was clicking we would've scored 12 runs today.



I agree that our offense has sucked this season. No doubt. But have you ever watched a full 162-game baseball season? There are times when a bad team with a no-name pitcher will toss a good game. Yes, it seems to be happening too often to the Sox, but it DOES happen. These guys are all professionals, you never know when a bad team will suddenly play well. The whole "any given Sunday" rule for Pro Football applies to baseball too. Didn't the Tigers just win two against the Yankees (and almost sweep them)? The point is, we had a 4-1 lead - that should have been enough to win.

Hangar18
06-02-2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I agree that in many cases luck is the residual of design.

In the Sox case perhaps the reasons for their "bad luck" is as follows:

1. Bad defense especially an ability to have good range on balls that are hit in play.

2. Perhaps bad advance scouting, which isn't communicating the actual weak points of opposing hitters. When Sox pitchers follow the reports perhaps the opposing hitters are still able to put the ball in play which results in point #1 coming into play.

3. Sox pitchers simply are missing their spots and opposing hitters are still able to make enough contact to put the ball in play.

Any thoughts on this?
Lip

to me, theres 2 kinds of luck in baseball. theres that blind luck, that you just cant help, the bad bounce etc etc. Then theres
the "Luck" that your team sets itself up for. Putting a man
on First, bunting him successfully to 2nd base, then putting
the ball in play on the right side, and the second baseman
bobbles the ball, allowing the super-fast pinch runner
you just had pinch-running, to score from 2nd, taking the lead
for your team. This kind of "Luck" would more be what I
called "Setting-yourself-up-for-Success" though it gets
lumped in the "luck" category.

jeremyb1
06-02-2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I think you've got it backwards. Against guys like Zito, you just hope to win. Make some moves to manufacture a few runs, hope Zito has an off night and hope your starter goes 8 giving up less than 3 runs.

On the other hand, leading a bad team by 3 runs in the 8th inning, a manager should do everything in his power to win the game. You are in essence assuming that a 3-run lead in the 8th against Cleveland is a gimme and should be managed like one. That's the surest way I know to lose a game. There are no gimmes in MLB and managing like there are is a crappy way to manage a team.

Yes, I realize that a bunch of the hits that Gordon gave up were cheapies, but it is JM's job to ensure the lead gets protected BEFORE it the tying run is on third with less than 2 outs. He failed, plain and simple. He's not the ONLY reason the Sox are stinking it up this year, but he is definitely PART of the reason and that alone is reason to can his worthless ass...

i never said the game was a gimme nor do i think it should have been managed as though it was. i think we were in an excellent position to win the game with gordon in for the 8th. we're talking about a pitcher coming in with an era of 3.5 and an era under 2 in the last month. my point was that you don't have to lessen your chances of winning in order to win this game because the victory shouldn't be so hard to come by. if gordon can get it done in the 8th - and i believe everything indicated he could - then if you bring in marte you are lessening your chances of winning the game in the event that you need your pen later as i discusses in a different post.

first and foremost though, my point had very little to do with the above, my point was that if you're a good team you play three run games against barry zito and the a's not davis and the indians. if you play a good game in our situation yesterday you do not need to make these decisions. if you're team is playing well and you deserve to win and compete you are not constantly put in a situation where the manager's decisions affect whether you win or lose against the tribe.

jeremyb1
06-02-2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by mack10zie
While I agree with you that we probably should have scored more runs yesterday, I can't agree with the above statement. The fact of the matter is that we were up 3 runs going into the bottom of the 8th inning. Whether the score is 4-1, 12-9, or 115-112 doesn't matter at that point. Your team should win games that they are up three at that point, no matter the actual score. Obviously there will be times when your team blows the lead, and that's ok, as long as the manager has put his team in the best possible position to win (i.e. if Marte blows that lead, or if Koch blows it in the 9th I would say that Jerry made the proper move and would take the blame off of him). Yesterday JM completely failed in this regard. Leaving Gordon in for so long DID NOT put this team in the best possible position to win, and therefore, IMO, he must take most of the blame for the loss.

i agree you should win games when you're up three but no one wins every game they're up three. for that reason the more three run games you play the more losses you'll stack up. if the most your team can reasonably expected to acheive against one of the worst teams in baseball is a three run lead, you're in trouble and its not only becase you lose that particular game or because your manager makes a poor decision.