PDA

View Full Version : What happens if Buerhle got rocked...


SoxxoS
08-28-2003, 02:45 PM
We lose today's game...then we have Cotts going tomorrow where it is very possible he could of had the exact same outing he had today. Then, all of a sudden, you lose the first game against Detroit, which I believe hurts the psyche of the team a lot more than if Cotts got rocked today.

I don't think it was that bad of a move. Plus, this was the last chance to give Buehrle another day's rest. I think that is overrated, but it still needs to happen.

Jerry is a horrible manager, you won't hear me argue that. This particular move, however, wasn't as bad is you all make it out to be. I think you are underestimating that mental strength of this team.

(This will set Cotts back some, though.)

inta
08-28-2003, 02:52 PM
what indication are you going by that Buerhle would've gotten "rocked"?

you dont start a rookie against the yanks in NY. Buerhle could have easily handled the situation... not some untested kid who's confidence is destroyed.

maurice
08-28-2003, 02:53 PM
Oh, my! People really are going to great lengths to justify their support of JM's crappy decision. You can't assume that an All Star (MB) would pitch the same as a #5 starter (NC), and that the worst team in baseball history (Tigers) would hit as well as one of the best teams in baseball (Yanks). This is nonsense.

CHISOXFAN13
08-28-2003, 02:55 PM
Don't support claims with false info. While it was a bad move, Buerhle has hardly been an al-star this season.


He's 11-12 with an ERA above 4. Everyone thinks this guy is Cy Freeking Young.

inta
08-28-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
Don't support claims with false info. While it was a bad move, Buerhle has hardly been an al-star this season.


He's 11-12 with an ERA above 4. Everyone thinks this guy is Cy Freeking Young.

take your own advice.

over half of those 12 loses are games where he pitched well but got no run support or the bullpen blew it. not to mention he's been much better the 2nd half, which in case you haven't noticed is the half we're in now.

MHOUSE
08-28-2003, 03:03 PM
I'll take Mark's 40 wins the last three seasons over Cotts' 1 win in three starts. Come on. So MB hasn't been stellar, but he wanted that start and I believe that he would've handled the pressure very well and certainly better than Cotts did. How can anyone defend Manuel over this crappy display. Ridiculous.

inta
08-28-2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
I'll take Mark's 40 wins the last three seasons over Cotts' 1 win in three starts. Come on. So MB hasn't been stellar, but he wanted that start and I believe that he would've handled the pressure very well and certainly better than Cotts did. How can anyone defend Manuel over this crappy display. Ridiculous.

that's what i'm shouting...

SoxxoS
08-28-2003, 03:07 PM
Danny Wright is supposed to be our 5th starter, anyway. He should have been going today. Nobody would have said anything about that.

This hindsight 20/20 crap is rediculous.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-28-2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
I'll take Mark's 40 wins the last three seasons over Cotts' 1 win in three starts. Come on. So MB hasn't been stellar, but he wanted that start and I believe that he would've handled the pressure very well and certainly better than Cotts did. How can anyone defend Manuel over this crappy display. Ridiculous.

I think the more obvious point is that today was Buehrle's day to pitch. For most teams, the #5 starter is routinely skipped in the rotation following off days. It's even more common for teams late in the season, and more common still for teams in the thick of a pennant race. But who would ever confuse the White Sox with one of those teams!

:jerry
"Not me!"

34 Inch Stick
08-28-2003, 03:09 PM
You are really stretching it when you say an ERA over 4 as well. I guess one hundreth of a point is still above 4 but hardly something to prove that Buhrle has not had a great second half.

inta
08-28-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
Danny Wright is supposed to be our 5th starter, anyway. He should have been going today. Nobody would have said anything about that.

This hindsight 20/20 crap is rediculous.

the sox had an off day monday, the fifth guy should've been skipped.
it's not hindsight, it was foresight. I and many others were complaining about this before the game even started today.

maurice
08-28-2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by maurice
an All Star (MB)

Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
Don't support claims with false info

I never do. As any Sox fan would know, MB has indeed been named to an All Star team.

Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
an ERA above 4

That's rich! His ERA is a very solid 4.01 (less than half of Cotts' ERA). An average AL starter has something like a 4.80 ERA. MB has given up only six ERs in his last four starts (30 IP) and has been one of the top starters in the AL over the last three seasons. This year, he has the second lowest ERA on the league's second best starting rotation.

Rocklive99
08-28-2003, 03:27 PM
Not to mention that Buerhle had been planning this for a month when he asked Cooper to do the rotation so he got to pitch at Yankee Stadium. Plus I wouldn't think that switching between both Cotts and Buerhle starting helps either of their gameplans.

Jurr
08-28-2003, 03:27 PM
Buehrle could have EASILY gotten rocked. You all live by the assumption that Buehrle would've pitched a damn no hitter or something guaranteed!!!!!! This was the YANKEES. They're a good ball club. If Buehrle did lose (even if he didn't get rocked and lost 4-2 or something), we would still have an unproven guy going against the Tigers, setting up a two in a row loss situation. Now, if you ask me, I'd prefer losing one to the Yankees and that's it. But, you guys are too busy whining about how Jerry Manuel sucks. You are so pathetic sometimes...it makes it sometimes annoying to hear this crap. You are all so quick to judge a situation, never giving the guy an ounce of credit. I know that some people on this site HAVE TO UNDERSTAND that Buehrle could have easily lost, and we would be facing a Tigers team with Cotts, thus making it two in a row. Now, we have Buehrle going. He can beat the Tigers, along with Garland and E-Lo, and we only lost one game in a week. Why don't you people start looking beyond the front of your noses??????????

D'Angelo F Death
08-28-2003, 03:28 PM
Buehrle had a 3.83 ERA in June, a 3.19 in July, a 3.09 so far in Aug...this is a guy who's had his typical strong season save for a couple of shellings back in the Corpseball pre-Everett/Alomar era.

34 Inch Stick
08-28-2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
Don't support claims with false info. While it was a bad move, Buerhle has hardly been an al-star this season.


He's 11-12 with an ERA above 4. Everyone thinks this guy is Cy Freeking Young.

How about this one. All other Sox pitchers not named Cotts gave up 4 hits and 3 runs on the day in 7 2/3 innings. None of them were All Stars either and they held the Yankees down. The Yanks were primed for the sweep and we blew it. Buhrle would not have even had to be perfect today to get a win.

But that's O.K. There are "experts" on this board who get paid to analyze baseball for a living who would back Jerry's decision to the death also.

Jurr
08-28-2003, 03:30 PM
Yes, he has been solid...granted. But, he could have given up a few runs and lost this game. Making the assumption that he would have won is ludicrous.

Iwritecode
08-28-2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
We lose today's game...then we have Cotts going tomorrow where it is very possible he could of had the exact same outing he had today. Then, all of a sudden, you lose the first game against Detroit, which I believe hurts the psyche of the team a lot more than if Cotts got rocked today.

I don't think it was that bad of a move. Plus, this was the last chance to give Buehrle another day's rest. I think that is overrated, but it still needs to happen.

Jerry is a horrible manager, you won't hear me argue that. This particular move, however, wasn't as bad is you all make it out to be. I think you are underestimating that mental strength of this team.

(This will set Cotts back some, though.)

If Burly would've gotten rocked, I would have said: "Oh well, he had a bad day. At least we put our best avaible option out there. Hopefully Cotts can do well against the worst team in MLB in the past 40 years!!!

Even if Cotts were to give up 5 runs to the Tigers, I'd have a lot more confidence in the Sox offense to come back against whatever they are passing off as a pitching staff these days in Detroit as compared to the likes of Mussina, Nelson and Rivera...

maurice
08-28-2003, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Jurr
Buehrle could have EASILY gotten rocked. . . . This was the YANKEES.

The YANKEES had one good half inning on offense the whole series. It's not a coincidence that the pitcher who started that inning was the Sox #5 starter. Danny freaking Wright shut them down.

This is not a matter of opinion. It almost can be reduced to math. Hindsight aside, the chances of a rookie #5 starter getting rocked in Yankee Stadium are what? Let's be conservative and say 50-50. The chances of MB getting rocked are infinitesimally smaller.

Iwritecode
08-28-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Jurr
Yes, he has been solid...granted. But, he could have given up a few runs and lost this game. Making the assumption that he would have won is ludicrous.

Making the assumption that Cotts would have lost in Detroit is ludicrous also...

What's your point?

inta
08-28-2003, 03:45 PM
hey jurr, do yourself a favor and refrain from posting when you are obviously on drugs. we're pathetic?
lol, yeah right, i'd say someone who is obviously hugging manuels pickle sack is much more so...

bc2k
08-28-2003, 03:55 PM
I'm going to take a different perspective here and suggest that the Sox now have no excuse not to sweep the Tigers. None. If the Sox don't sweep, it's on the players, not JM. No matter if you feel JM should have started Buehrle today, he put his team in the best situation to win the next three games.

I'd rather be involved in this debate than whether or not to allow Wood pitch the eighth inning. At least we have a bullpen that can save games down the stretch. Ah, go Cards!

soxruleEP
08-28-2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Jurr
Buehrle could have EASILY gotten rocked. You all live by the assumption that Buehrle would've pitched a damn no hitter or something guaranteed!!!!!! This was the YANKEES. They're a good ball club. If Buehrle did lose (even if he didn't get rocked and lost 4-2 or something), we would still have an unproven guy going against the Tigers, setting up a two in a row loss situation. Now, if you ask me, I'd prefer losing one to the Yankees and that's it. But, you guys are too busy whining about how Jerry Manuel sucks. You are so pathetic sometimes...it makes it sometimes annoying to hear this crap. You are all so quick to judge a situation, never giving the guy an ounce of credit. I know that some people on this site HAVE TO UNDERSTAND that Buehrle could have easily lost, and we would be facing a Tigers team with Cotts, thus making it two in a row. Now, we have Buehrle going. He can beat the Tigers, along with Garland and E-Lo, and we only lost one game in a week. Why don't you people start looking beyond the front of your noses??????????

Yes, he could have been rocked.

Then we would have gone down with our best--instead of a fresh kid that Manuel jerked around all week.

The reason don't give the guy an ounce of credit is that day after day he makes idiotic decisions for completely illogical reason.

We don't care if we win today because we won the first two? This the same crap that sees the JV team play on Sunday after we win the first two games of a series.

BTW--if we can't assume Buehrle would've done well today, please don't assume the same will hold true in Detroit.

BTW2--we can be sure that Buehrle would not have given up four runs before he got an out and he surely wouldn't have walked four.

But that's just based on history.

Manuel is an idiot.

cadman
08-28-2003, 04:03 PM
we have to remember though that the sox will probably play the yankees in the playoffs, they've already seen two of our big three pitchers, so maybe manuel didn't start buehrle so it would be something new to show the yanks then

ssang
08-28-2003, 04:05 PM
Even if Buehele gets DESTROYED he should've been starting this game. Even if Cotts pitches a no-hitter, Buehrle should have started. That was the right move. Why??

1) You use your better picther to start against the better team. Buehrle vs. NY and Cotts vs. Det

2) Buerh;e had an extra days rest

3) We have the slimest of leads in the division and it's the final portion of the season. SKIP THE f***ing 5th starter!

4) Buehrle expressed a burning desire to picth and sweep the Yankees...show some balls and go for the kill. Each game matters

BOTTOM LINE: Regardless of what either pitcher would or would not have done today vs. NY, the right call was to start Buherle!!! DAMN YOU JERRY "morn, idiot, loser, incompetent" Manuel!

A.T. Money
08-28-2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Jurr
Buehrle could have EASILY gotten rocked. You all live by the assumption that Buehrle would've pitched a damn no hitter or something guaranteed!!!!!! This was the YANKEES. They're a good ball club.

Being the "Yankees" has nothing to do with this game. It's pretty easy to win when you get walked 4 times in 0.3 of an inning. The Yankees didn't even get as many basehits as us.

If Buehrle did lose (even if he didn't get rocked and lost 4-2 or something), we would still have an unproven guy going against the Tigers, setting up a two in a row loss situation. Now, if you ask me, I'd prefer losing one to the Yankees and that's it.

If Buehrle loses, then he loses. I can live with that a lot easier than I can live with Cotts walking people around the bases and giftwrapping a 5-run frame. With Buehrle pitching, at least I know they were put ourselves in the best position to win the game. Manuel just conceeded this game.

But, you guys are too busy whining about how Jerry Manuel sucks. You are so pathetic sometimes...it makes it sometimes annoying to hear this crap. You are all so quick to judge a situation, never giving the guy an ounce of credit. I know that some people on this site HAVE TO UNDERSTAND that Buehrle could have easily lost, and we would be facing a Tigers team with Cotts, thus making it two in a row. Now, we have Buehrle going. He can beat the Tigers, along with Garland and E-Lo, and we only lost one game in a week. Why don't you people start looking beyond the front of your noses??????????

Oh please. If anyone suffers from myopia here, it's you. I'll take my chances with Neal Cotts vs. Detroit ANYDAY over Neal Cotts vs. New York. This was a NY team with their backs against the wall, and the pressure was too great. The kid can't throw strikes. At least Buehrle would have been around the plate.

Don't defend Manuel dude. You doing so makes you look pitiful, and you'll lose all credibility.

kittle42
08-28-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by ssang
Even if Buehele gets DESTROYED he should've been starting this game. Even if Cotts pitches a no-hitter, Buehrle should have started. That was the right move. Why??


Thank you. I said this on another thread earlier. Whether Cotts pitched today and no-hit the Yankees, or whether MB pitched today and gave up 27 consecutive HRs in the first inning, it was the wrong decision to start Cotts and it was the wrong decision WELL BEFORE THE GAME STARTED.

All arguments about "would Buehrle have lost, too?" or "maybe Buehrle will lose tomorrow anyway" or "Buehrle would have shut them out" or whatever are irrelevant.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-28-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by kittle42
Thank you. I said this on another thread earlier. Whether Cotts pitched today and no-hit the Yankees, or whether MB pitched today and gave up 27 consecutive HRs in the first inning, it was the wrong decision to start Cotts and it was the wrong decision WELL BEFORE THE GAME STARTED.

All arguments about "would Buehrle have lost, too?" or "maybe Buehrle will lose tomorrow anyway" or "Buehrle would have shut them out" or whatever are irrelevant.

Tell that to Newman. He's having a hard time with the concept of decisionmaking in the time and space continuum.

bc2k
08-28-2003, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by ssang
Even if Buehele gets DESTROYED he should've been starting this game. Even if Cotts pitches a no-hitter, Buehrle should have started. That was the right move.

If the Sox go on to win their division despite today's loss and face the Yankees in the first round, will the Sox have better odds of winning the game(s) Buehrle starts? This is what Ed Farmer was saying in the postgame show, but then followed with the fact that you have to win the division first in order to play in the playoffs. While that is true, I'd like to hear what the Manuel dissenters think of that situation of the Sox/Yankees playoff series.

I have no idea how much, if any, advantage Buehrle would get over Yankees' hitters by having fewer at bats against him. On the other hand, maybe Buehrle could have gained some confidence by playing a regular season game in Yankee Stadium before being thrown into Yankee Stadium in the playoffs.

34 Inch Stick
08-28-2003, 04:37 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bc2k
[. While that is true, I'd like to hear what the Manuel dissenters think of that situation of the Sox/Yankees playoff series.

I have no idea how much, if any, advantage Buehrle would get over Yankees' hitters by having fewer at bats against him.

Cotts had never faced the Yankees before today either. Good pitchers get good hitters out no matter how often they face them.

anotherDCsoxfan
08-28-2003, 08:02 PM
I added my two cents this morning, but I want to reiterate what I said. This may turn out to bite us in the ass, but it was a justifiable decision by Jerry.

-- As the Sun Times pointed out, Jerry is being very careful not to burn our pitchers arms out, a la 2000. While I agree that we have to make the playoffs, getting swept in the first round is no real prize. The White Sox are playing for a world championship. The extra day of rest (rather than pitching on his regular 5th day) will benefit Buehrle over the stretch.

-- The fact is, we will most likely win tomorrow and stop the bleeding pretty quickly. You couldn't have said that if we'd have lost today (which you have to assume is a possibility going against Mussina).

That said, Cotts does not deserve another start at the major league level. He is not ready and should not be pitching in a playoff run. But Dan Wright or any other 5th starter would have made this a decent decision.

voodoochile
08-28-2003, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by anotherDCsoxfan
I added my two cents this morning, but I want to reiterate what I said. This may turn out to bite us in the ass, but it was a justifiable decision by Jerry.

-- As the Sun Times pointed out, Jerry is being very careful not to burn our pitchers arms out, a la 2000. While I agree that we have to make the playoffs, getting swept in the first round is no real prize. The White Sox are playing for a world championship. The extra day of rest (rather than pitching on his regular 5th day) will benefit Buehrle over the stretch.

-- The fact is, we will most likely win tomorrow and stop the bleeding pretty quickly. You couldn't have said that if we'd have lost today (which you have to assume is a possibility going against Mussina).

That said, Cotts does not deserve another start at the major league level. He is not ready and should not be pitching in a playoff run. But Dan Wright or any other 5th starter would have made this a decent decision.

No, it wasn't a justifiable decision and the proof is in the pudding. To answer the original question in the title of this thread, HOW WILL WE EVER KNOW?

Maybe Buehrle gets rocked? Cotts did get rocked. It can't get worse than what he did - .1IP, 5 ER, Left the bases loaded. You want to talk about hypotheticals? Let's talk about what happened. Manuel decided he knew best, despite what EVERYONE said and the team paid the price. This much we already know... Now, what were we talking about again?

steff
08-29-2003, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by maurice
Oh, my! People really are going to great lengths to justify their support of JM's crappy decision. You can't assume that an All Star (MB) would pitch the same as a #5 starter (NC), and that the worst team in baseball history (Tigers) would hit as well as one of the best teams in baseball (Yanks). This is nonsense.

And you can't assume he wouldn't..

steff
08-29-2003, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
No, it wasn't a justifiable decision and the proof is in the pudding. To answer the original question in the title of this thread, HOW WILL WE EVER KNOW?

Maybe Buehrle gets rocked? Cotts did get rocked. It can't get worse than what he did - .1IP, 5 ER, Left the bases loaded. You want to talk about hypotheticals? Let's talk about what happened. Manuel decided he knew best, despite what EVERYONE said and the team paid the price. This much we already know... Now, what were we talking about again?



Who's everyone? Who's the everyone that told JM it was a bad idea to pitch Neal?

voodoochile
08-29-2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by steff
Who's everyone? Who's the everyone that told JM it was a bad idea to pitch Neal?

I have no idea if anyone told Manuel or not. I know Buehrle was publicly campaigning for the start. I know Hawk was livid when Cotts got rocked. I know national media types have been ripping Jerry for the decision. I know that 90% if the fans on this board wanted Buehrle to start the game and the rest weren't so much advocating Cotts as saying "Jerry is probably right" (which he wasn't and the proof is in the results).

Give me one valid reason for starting Cotts yesterday and I'll back off. I don't buy the extra day of rest theory. I don't think Buehrle is injured. I think Manuel made a decision to run one of his little experiments and it failed, miserably.

Why did he go from 99.9% sure that Buehrle would be starting to starting Cotts at the last minute? Those are his words. What changed from the time that there was a 1/10th of 1 percent chance that the rookie #5 starter with 3 ML starts would start the game over the team ace to the actual start of the game when the rookie was sent out there.

I don't believe Buehrle was actually stiff or needed time off, or Manuel would have never given such a high chance he would start in the first place.

:firejerry

maurice
08-29-2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by maurice
You can't assume that an All Star (MB) would pitch the same as a #5 starter (NC)

Originally posted by steff
And you can't assume he wouldn't..

Sure you can. It would be extremely safe to bet a rather large amount of money that MB will not produce the following pitching line in his next start against the Yankees:

1/3 INN, 3 H, 4 BB, 5 ER

voodoochile
08-29-2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Sure you can. It would be extremely safe to bet a rather large amount of money that MB will not produce the following pitching line in his next start against the Yankees:

1/3 INN, 3 H, 4 BB, 5 ER

I wonder if Steff is giving odds :)

I'll take a piece of that action...

Mammoo
08-29-2003, 12:55 PM
I think Manuel was happy with 2 of 3 from the Yanks and wanted to insure a win in Detroit. :?: He probably felt that Mussina was hot and was going to give his team a good chance of winning. JM basically conceded that game.

He knows that if the Sox lose tonight in Detroit it could spell disaster, so he wanted MB pitching!

What a goof! :angry:

fquaye149
08-29-2003, 04:28 PM
ok let's be realistic here:

buehrle would have given us a better chance to win the game,

in hindsight he would have no doubt pitched better than the effort cotts put forth.

however, there is no guarantee we would have still won that game.

i will say this in defense of the decision, if not manuel:

if i had the choice to start cotts in the last game of a series we have already won or in the first game of a series against a team who we absolutely need to beat convincingly PERIOD...i would have to choose to start cotts against new york rather than detroit.

however if there was anyway of getting around having cotts start either pivotal game i would do it to the extent that it did not put any of our pitchers' arms in jeopardy.


so if it was a do or die decision: cotts on thursday, buehrle friday OR buehrle thursday, cotts friday with no other possible option, i must say i would have to go with the first option.


and danny wright? everyone here would have been calling for jm's nuts if he would have started wright on thursday

voodoochile
08-29-2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
ok let's be realistic here:

buehrle would have given us a better chance to win the game,

in hindsight he would have no doubt pitched better than the effort cotts put forth.

however, there is no guarantee we would have still won that game.

i will say this in defense of the decision, if not manuel:

if i had the choice to start cotts in the last game of a series we have already won or in the first game of a series against a team who we absolutely need to beat convincingly PERIOD...i would have to choose to start cotts against new york rather than detroit.

however if there was anyway of getting around having cotts start either pivotal game i would do it to the extent that it did not put any of our pitchers' arms in jeopardy.


so if it was a do or die decision: cotts on thursday, buehrle friday OR buehrle thursday, cotts friday with no other possible option, i must say i would have to go with the first option.


and danny wright? everyone here would have been calling for jm's nuts if he would have started wright on thursday

Interesting, but you leave out another possibility which still fits your scheme:

Buehrle Thursday
Garland Friday
Cotts Saturday

With Loaiza going Sunday all they would need is for either Garland or Cotts to do well and they would probably win the series.

steff
08-30-2003, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I wonder if Steff is giving odds :)

I'll take a piece of that action...



I would have bet straight up that he would have pissed his pants last night.... :D: