PDA

View Full Version : Quote Of The Day 10-1


Lip Man 1
10-01-2006, 10:40 PM
"My first priority right now is to get my bullpen as nasty as it can be. Make it so whatever happens, my bullpen becomes a pretty good one. You look at Minnesota. You look at Detroit. They won because the bullpen was very good. That's my wish. Hopefully, get a [better] bullpen." --Ozzie Guillen to the Tribune's Mark Gonzales.

Damn right!

Lip

Sox-o-matic
10-01-2006, 10:54 PM
"My first priority right now is to get my bullpen as nasty as it can be. Make it so whatever happens, my bullpen becomes a pretty good one. You look at Minnesota. You look at Detroit. They won because the bullpen was very good. That's my wish. Hopefully, get a [better] bullpen." --Ozzie Guillen to the Tribune's Mark Gonzales.

Damn right!

Lip

I don't think the word better needed to be inserted there. He needs a bullpen.

chisoxmike
10-01-2006, 11:08 PM
Really, the bullpen is the only thing in dire need to improve. I think the Sox loss 12, yes 12, games when leading in the 7th inning.

That right there coupled with the lack of production in the lead off spot from Peter Pan is the main reason why we arn't going to the playoffs. Not Brian Anderson, not Jim Thome "changing" the offense, not Rowand not being here, not Ozzie, or anything else people come up with.

SoxSpeed22
10-01-2006, 11:12 PM
While we're in venting of what went wrong, the thing that irritated me the most was the number of times the other batters were down 0-2, 1-2 or 2-2, and managed to get on base somehow, a lot of that was the bullpen as well. You know what needs to be done, KW, do it.

BA: The Hitman
10-01-2006, 11:22 PM
I don't think the word better needed to be inserted there. He needs a bullpen.


A bullpen?


You seem to have forgotten about this closer we have who had a pretty damn good year named Bobby Jenks. Thornton and Macdougal weren't too bad either.

TheOldRoman
10-01-2006, 11:28 PM
How many games did the Sox lose because they scored an embarrassing amount of runs against a horrible pitcher or a ****ty lefty? I can guarantee you the number is higher than 12.
I am not saying the bullpen is not a priority, but the hitting also needs to be improved and more consistant. We missed the playoffs in large part because our offense crapped its pants far too many times, particularly in the second half. Everyone seems to overlook the hitting just because we hit so many homers. Our pitchers are chastised when they lose a game 4-2 against a pitcher who has an ERA over 8. The hitting let us down everybit as much as the pitching.

oeo
10-01-2006, 11:28 PM
"My first priority right now is to get my bullpen as nasty as it can be. Make it so whatever happens, my bullpen becomes a pretty good one. You look at Minnesota. You look at Detroit. They won because the bullpen was very good. That's my wish. Hopefully, get a [better] bullpen." --Ozzie Guillen to the Tribune's Mark Gonzales.

Damn right!

Lip

We've got a few of the pieces in Thornton, MacDougal, and Jenks; I sure hope it's a 'nasty' bullpen next year.

I'm already excited about 2007, because I know that Kenny will fill the holes, and they will come out hungry next year. I think I'm more excited about 2007 than I was 2006. Baseball can't start soon enough! :D:

Gregory Pratt
10-01-2006, 11:35 PM
How many games did the Sox lose because they scored an embarrassing amount of runs against a horrible pitcher or a ****ty lefty? I can guarantee you the number is higher than 12.
I am not saying the bullpen is not a priority, but the hitting also needs to be improved and more consistant. We missed the playoffs in large part because our offense crapped its pants far too many times, particularly in the second half. Everyone seems to overlook the hitting just because we hit so many homers. Our pitchers are chastised when they lose a game 4-2 against a pitcher who has an ERA over 8. The hitting let us down everybit as much as the pitching.

Worst game of the year for me, personally, was Javier's dominance in Boston.

SoxSpeed22
10-01-2006, 11:37 PM
TheOldRoman hit another one, how many starting pitchers did the Sox suck against, only because they could throw a change-up? The answer, too many! Diversify this lineup, please.

Myrtle72
10-02-2006, 12:02 AM
You seem to have forgotten about this closer we have who had a pretty damn good year named Bobby Jenks. Thornton and Macdougal weren't too bad either.

Sure, they were all good.

But they can't play every game, nor can they carry the entire bullpen. We need everyone to be solid, or at least, most everyone, most of the time. That definately didn't happen this year.

JB98
10-02-2006, 02:01 AM
A bullpen?


You seem to have forgotten about this closer we have who had a pretty damn good year named Bobby Jenks. Thornton and Macdougal weren't too bad either.

But those are the only three that are worth a damn. Cotts, Riske and McCarthy are absolute train wrecks. Minnesota and Detroit have deeper bullpens, especially the Twins. It's a major reason we aren't going to the playoffs, and they are.

viagracat
10-02-2006, 08:57 AM
But those are the only three that are worth a damn. Cotts, Riske and McCarthy are absolute train wrecks. Minnesota and Detroit have deeper bullpens, especially the Twins. It's a major reason we aren't going to the playoffs, and they are.

And there was a period in the second half when the starting pitchers hit a wall, really exposing the bullpen. The pen guys had to pitch a lot more innings that what was in the plan, although that's a lame excuse.

The pen, the starting pitching to a lesser degree, lack of production at the top and bottom of the order and too little speed in the middle of it were all factors this year. But remember, the Sox did win 90 games so it's not like a complete overhaul is in order.

southside rocks
10-02-2006, 09:22 AM
Really, the bullpen is the only thing in dire need to improve. I think the Sox loss 12, yes 12, games when leading in the 7th inning.

That right there coupled with the lack of production in the lead off spot from Peter Pan is the main reason why we arn't going to the playoffs. Not Brian Anderson, not Jim Thome "changing" the offense, not Rowand not being here, not Ozzie, or anything else people come up with.

That would certainly have made THE difference, if they had won even 8 of those games -- and if they'd hung on to win all 12, they'd have won (obviously) 102, and the rest of the league would be left in the dust.

Interesting. I hadn't gone so far as to quantify the failure of the bullpen, but that's pretty telling.

Lip Man 1
10-02-2006, 11:50 AM
The Sox did in fact blow 12 games and lost where they took a lead into the 7th inning or later.

10 of those 12 blown games came vs. teams that finished the 2006 season with a losing record. They also blew a game to Boston and Oakland.

Lip

The Immigrant
10-02-2006, 11:55 AM
The Sox did in fact blow 12 games and lost where they took a lead into the 7th inning or later.

10 of those 12 blown games came vs. teams that finished the 2006 season with a losing record. They also blew a game to Boston and Oakland.

Lip

Those numbers make me want to punch the wall for about five minutes straight.

That's our season in a nutshell.

jenn2080
10-02-2006, 12:04 PM
The Sox did in fact blow 12 games and lost where they took a lead into the 7th inning or later.

10 of those 12 blown games came vs. teams that finished the 2006 season with a losing record. They also blew a game to Boston and Oakland.

Lip


:anon: :puking:

That is unreal.

SABRSox
10-02-2006, 12:07 PM
Ozzie absolutely needs a nasty bullpen. He can't manage one, so he needs the guys back there to be so good, that it doesn't matter whom he trots out.

Also, a little aside to show just how good Minnesota's bullpen was, Dennys Reyes finished the season with a 0.89 ERA in 50 2/3 innings. That's the sixth lowest ERA since 1900 with 50 or more innings pitched.

Lip Man 1
10-02-2006, 12:09 PM
From my thread called 'By the numbers...'

‘Blown’ Games (Games where the Sox took a lead into the 7th inning or later and lost): 12

Blown Game Information (date/opponent/inning/pitcher(s)) Teams that finished season with losing record are marked in red

4/5 Cleveland. 8th inning (Logan)
4/8 at Kansas City. 8th inning (Politte)
4/24 at Seattle. 7th inning (Garland)
5/5 Kansas City. 9th inning (Thornton / Jenks / Logan)
5/18 at Tampa Bay. 7th inning (Vazquez)
5/21 Cubs. 8th inning (Cotts)
6/1 at Cleveland. 7th inning (Thornton / McCarthy)
6/2 Texas. 7th inning (Nelson)
7/30 at Baltimore. 9th inning (Jenks)
8/31 Tampa Bay. 8th inning (Thornton)
9/4 at Boston. 9th inning (Jenks)
9/16 at Oakland. 7th inning (Thornton / MacDougal / Logan)

Lip

Ol' No. 2
10-02-2006, 12:41 PM
Really, the bullpen is the only thing in dire need to improve. I think the Sox loss 12, yes 12, games when leading in the 7th inning.

That right there coupled with the lack of production in the lead off spot from Peter Pan is the main reason why we arn't going to the playoffs. Not Brian Anderson, not Jim Thome "changing" the offense, not Rowand not being here, not Ozzie, or anything else people come up with.That doesn't mean you can count on all 12 of those extra wins. All teams blow games some times. They did last year, too. How many games did the Twins, Tigers, etc blow when leading in the 7th inning? Without context, 12 is a meaningless number.

Lip Man 1
10-02-2006, 12:53 PM
No.2:

With a week left to go in the regular season the Twins lost one...count em' one game, when they were leading going into the 7th inning or later. (That from Caulfield). I don't know what the Tigers situation is.

Lip

JB98
10-02-2006, 12:53 PM
From my thread called 'By the numbers...'

‘Blown’ Games (Games where the Sox took a lead into the 7th inning or later and lost): 12

Blown Game Information (date/opponent/inning/pitcher(s)) Teams that finished season with losing record are marked in red

4/5 Cleveland. 8th inning (Logan)
4/8 at Kansas City. 8th inning (Politte)
4/24 at Seattle. 7th inning (Garland)
5/5 Kansas City. 9th inning (Thornton / Jenks / Logan)
5/18 at Tampa Bay. 7th inning (Vazquez)
5/21 Cubs. 8th inning (Cotts)
6/1 at Cleveland. 7th inning (Thornton / McCarthy)
6/2 Texas. 7th inning (Nelson)
7/30 at Baltimore. 9th inning (Jenks)
8/31 Tampa Bay. 8th inning (Thornton)
9/4 at Boston. 9th inning (Jenks)
9/16 at Oakland. 7th inning (Thornton / MacDougal / Logan)

Lip


Just in general, the inability to victimize bad teams pissed me off this year:

11 losses to Cleveland
8 losses to Kansas City
4 losses to Seattle
3 losses to Tampa Bay
2 losses to Baltimore
2 losses to the Cubs
1 loss to Pittsburgh

Obviously, every team loses games to bad teams. That's the nature of baseball. But to me, 31 losses to these bottom-feeders seems a little excessive for a team as talent-laden as the Sox. Win six of those 31 games, and we're in the playoffs right now.

Ol' No. 2
10-02-2006, 01:15 PM
No.2:

With a week left to go in the regular season the Twins lost one...count em' one game, when they were leading going into the 7th inning or later. (That from Caulfield). I don't know what the Tigers situation is.

LipThat can't be right. Looking at the stat sheets, I count 10 blown saves. That doesn't include games blown in the 7th or 8th inning. They may have won some of those blown saves, but the numbers don't add up.

Iwritecode
10-02-2006, 02:24 PM
That can't be right. Looking at the stat sheets, I count 10 blown saves. That doesn't include games blown in the 7th or 8th inning. They may have won some of those blown saves, but the numbers don't add up.

You're right, they don't. Of those blown saves, they only actually lost 4 of them. But in all of them they had a lead going into the 7th inning.

May 21 - Gave up 4 in the 7th. Lead 3-1 going to the 7th.
May 29 - Gave up 1 in the 8th and 1 in the 11th. Lead 3-2.
June 21 - Gave up 1 in the 6th, 1 in the 7th and 2 in the 8th. Lead 3-2.
September 6 - Gave up 3 in the 7th. Lead 2-0.

Also of interest: They blew back-to-back saves against the Sox on August 25 & 26 yet won both games.
They also blew back-to-back saves against Houston and won 1 of them.

Lip Man 1
10-02-2006, 03:21 PM
No. 2:

Just a point of clarification...remember I'm talking about blown games that are lost. I don't track blown games where you come back to win for example because while that is a bullpen issue, you still won the game. Or how about a game where you blow the lead late twice yet still win? See what I mean.

They count as blown holds or saves but you won the game.

The ramifications aren't the same as when you blow a late lead and lose the game.

Even so if those numbers are right, the Twins still have blown and lost far fewer games this season then the Sox.

Lip

Lip Man 1
10-02-2006, 03:23 PM
JB:

You forgot Texas which went 80-82. Sox lost to them five times.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
10-02-2006, 03:27 PM
No. 2:

Just a point of clarification...remember I'm talking about blown games that are lost. I don't track blown games where you come back to win for example because while that is a bullpen issue, you still won the game. Or how about a game where you blow the lead late twice yet still win? See what I mean.

They count as blown holds or saves but you won the game.

The ramifications aren't the same as when you blow a late lead and lose the game.

Even so if those numbers are right, the Twins still have blown and lost far fewer games this season then the Sox.

LipThe numbers AREN'T right (see IWC's post). That's the point.

Iwritecode
10-02-2006, 04:31 PM
The numbers AREN'T right (see IWC's post). That's the point.

As far as I can tell, those are the only 4 times they blew a lead in the 7th inning or later. Certainly not the 1 that was reported earlier but much better compared to the Sox 12.

They lost a couple games where they were tied in the 7th though...

caulfield12
10-02-2006, 04:32 PM
The numbers AREN'T right (see IWC's post). That's the point.


I think the statistic was that they had only LOST one game all season that they LED going into the 8th inning.

The examples are all from the 6th and 7th, but the May 29th game is the ONLY game they lost when taking the lead into the 8th.

Sox-o-matic
10-02-2006, 04:52 PM
Ozzie absolutely needs a nasty bullpen. He can't manage one, so he needs the guys back there to be so good, that it doesn't matter whom he trots out.

Also, a little aside to show just how good Minnesota's bullpen was, Dennys Reyes finished the season with a 0.89 ERA in 50 2/3 innings. That's the sixth lowest ERA since 1900 with 50 or more innings pitched.

While I think Ozzie really needs to look at abandoning all that match up crap, I think anyh manager would have had a tough time managing a bullpen with the 2005 versions of Neal Cotts, Cliff Politte, and Brandon McCarthy in it.

Ol' No. 2
10-02-2006, 04:57 PM
I think the statistic was that they had only LOST one game all season that they LED going into the 8th inning.

The examples are all from the 6th and 7th, but the May 29th game is the ONLY game they lost when taking the lead into the 8th.Still seems almost impossible, but I'm not going to take the trouble to look through all the game logs. It's still an apples and oranges comparison that Lip made because he included games blown from the 7th inning on. He also included games that they did NOT lead going into the 8th inning (gotta do your homework better, Lip).

4/5 Cleveland. 8th inning (Logan)
4/8 at Kansas City. 8th inning (Politte) Trailed 2-1 going into the 8th.
5/5 Kansas City. 9th inning (Thornton / Jenks / Logan) Tied 1-1 going into the 8th.
5/21 Cubs. 8th inning (Cotts)
7/30 at Baltimore. 9th inning (Jenks) Trailed 6-4 going into the 8th
8/31 Tampa Bay. 8th inning (Thornton)
9/4 at Boston. 9th inning (Jenks)

So the comparable number for the Sox is 4, not 12.

Makes quite a difference when you make the correct comparisons with the correct numbers.

Lip Man 1
10-02-2006, 06:15 PM
No. 2:

My point is (was?) that the Sox led in the game at some point after the 7th inning or later and lost the game.

Is that better?

I'm not differentiating what inning they led or whether they came from behind to lead and then lost or anything else. My only point was they lost 12 games where they took a lead into the 7th inning (or 8th inning or 9th inning) OR LATER and lost.

I also said I don't know how that compares to the Twins and Tigers but I read here at WSI the Twins blew a late lead and LOST once.

I'm assuming you are talking about the 8th inning in your comparison and feel that it's important to compare 7th inning to 7th inning, 8th inning to 8th inning and so forth.

I'm looking at the broader picture...wins and losses and games lost by the pitching staff (particularly to garbage teams) that should have been locked up, sealed down, put in the win column and have a safe drive home fans.

Lip

drftnaway
10-02-2006, 06:34 PM
The Sox did in fact blow 12 games and lost where they took a lead into the 7th inning or later.

10 of those 12 blown games came vs. teams that finished the 2006 season with a losing record. They also blew a game to Boston and Oakland.

Lip

Don't all teams blow games after the 6th? If you're going to add 12 games to our victory total and say we should have won them then don't you have to add all the other team's also? I don't think the difference is quite what you make it appear to be.
I'm not suggesting the bp wasn't a problem because it was, but it wasn't the only problem.

Edit: Nevermind. I see this was already addressed.

Lip Man 1
10-02-2006, 07:13 PM
DRF:

But not all teams blow the same number of games when taking a lead into the 7th inning or later do they?

That appears to be the main reason Minnesota caught and passed the Sox. They had a lights out bullpen, the Sox didn't.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
10-02-2006, 08:18 PM
DRF:

But not all teams blow the same number of games when taking a lead into the 7th inning or later do they?

That appears to be the main reason Minnesota caught and passed the Sox. They had a lights out bullpen, the Sox didn't.

LipWell, that would be the key question. But you didn't answer it. You just stated that the Sox blew 12 games at some point from the 7th inning on and tried to imply that 12 was a lot more than other teams. I asked you how that compared with other teams and you trotted out an apples and oranges comparison with the Twins.

So is 12 more than the Twins and Tigers or not?

oeo
10-02-2006, 08:22 PM
Well, that would be the key question. But you didn't answer it. You just stated that the Sox blew 12 games at some point from the 7th inning on and tried to imply that 12 was a lot more than other teams. I asked you how that compared with other teams and you trotted out an apples and oranges comparison with the Twins.

So is 12 more than the Twins and Tigers or not?

I think the Twins had some unbelievable record of like 80-1 (I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was near undefeated), when leading after 7 innings. I think the Twins bullpen is the reason they're the AL Central champs. Without their bullpen, I don't care how good Santana and Liriano were, that bullpen did an awesome job closing out the games for them.

EDIT: I just found a game recap from September 19th that said they were 76-0 when leading after 8 innings; not quite as impressive as 7, but that's still quite impressive.

Ol' No. 2
10-02-2006, 08:29 PM
I think the Twins had some unbelievable record of like 80-1 (I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was near undefeated), when leading after 7 innings. I think the Twins bullpen is the reason they're the AL Central champs. Without their bullpen, I don't care how good Santana and Liriano were, that bullpen did an awesome job closing out the games for them.

EDIT: I just found a game recap from September 19th that said they were 76-0 when leading after 8 innings; not quite as impressive as 7, but that's still quite impressive.If you'll read back in this thread, you'll find that the Twins lost only one game when leading going into the 8th inning. The Sox lost 4. Even if the Sox had duplicated the Twins "magic", they'd still have finished in 3rd place, but 3 out instead of six. BFD

TDog
10-02-2006, 08:50 PM
"My first priority right now is to get my bullpen as nasty as it can be. Make it so whatever happens, my bullpen becomes a pretty good one. You look at Minnesota. You look at Detroit. They won because the bullpen was very good. That's my wish. Hopefully, get a [better] bullpen." --Ozzie Guillen to the Tribune's Mark Gonzales.

Damn right!

Lip

And yet, Detroit's bullpen blew a late lead to lose at home to KC in extra innings Friday and blew a 6-run lead to lose at home to KC in extra innings on Sunday. In July, I think, I read that that Detroit had only lost twice -- once to the Sox -- after leading by at least 3 runs. They lost their last two games in such circumstances -- at home to a team that had lost 100 games.

Pitching is a fragile commodity. Putting together a nasty bullpen isn't as easy as signing and trading for relievers who were nasty last year, because the bullpen can be the most fragile part of a pitching staff.

shoelessshaun27!
10-02-2006, 08:52 PM
Yea, our bullpen can't revolve around Neal Cotts.

Lip Man 1
10-02-2006, 09:02 PM
No. 2:

I've tried to do my part. Feel absolutely free to go back through the games and find out what the Tigers and Twins record was when taking a lead into the 7th inning (not 8th) or later.

See if the Twins or Tigers can match or pass 12 games. I don't think they will.

12 games is a ton of games to lose after you are leading going into a final third of a ballgame.

Lip

October26
10-02-2006, 09:12 PM
Yea, our bullpen can't revolve around Neal Cotts.

Agreed. On paper, lots of things look good. Last year Neal Cotts and Cliff Politte were lights out, right? So, they came back for 2006. And we all know the results.

I also want the David Riske experiment to end. Wonder where Kenny's gonna go to find some good pitching? Venezuela perhaps? Or Japan?

Ol' No. 2
10-02-2006, 09:46 PM
No. 2:

I've tried to do my part. Feel absolutely free to go back through the games and find out what the Tigers and Twins record was when taking a lead into the 7th inning (not 8th) or later.

See if the Twins or Tigers can match or pass 12 games. I don't think they will.

12 games is a ton of games to lose after you are leading going into a final third of a ballgame.

LipThey lost 72 games total. 12 is one sixth of their losses in the final one third of the ballgame. I'd be willing to bet that the difference between the Sox and Tigers wouldn't be enough to put the Sox in second place, or that the difference between the Sox and Twins wouldn't be enough to put the Sox in first place.

I think you're grasping at straws. No question the Sox bullpen lost games for them - perhaps more than the Twins or Tigers. But the starters also lost plenty of games and the inconsistent offense lost games, too. Pretty much every part of their game was poor. It seems to me more a case of a few games here and a few games there.

Lip Man 1
10-02-2006, 10:11 PM
Well I guess there's one way to know for sure. Feel free to check through the box scores and let us know what you find.

Just my opinion but as stated the single biggest reason the Sox aren't in the post season is because of their lousy bullpen. Even more then the starters regressing (although that's not as much as some folks are saying, just check the number of wins and quality starts) and the top and bottom of the order failing to execute Ozzie-Ball.

Yes it all factors in but when you can close out games, particularly against bad teams you should be beating like a drum, that's a major issue.

Lip

FarWestChicago
10-02-2006, 10:22 PM
Well I guess there's one way to know for sure. Feel free to check through the box scores and let us know what you find.Piss off, Lip. You're just talking out your ass as usual. Do some friggin' homework and back your sniveling up or shut the hell up. You're just being an asshat, plain and simple. You have three choices, back your opinion up with facts, shut the hell up or get a nice long vacation. It's up to you, though I sincerely hope you choose option 3.

Lip Man 1
10-02-2006, 10:32 PM
West:

It's up to you.

This is your board...I'm just an asshat who hasn't made any contributions to WSI in the past four years. No interviews, no audio highlights, no historical notes, no publicity with the media. Nothing.

Lip

Lip Man 1
10-03-2006, 12:14 AM
No. 2:

It took an hour of sorting through the individual Tiger boxes on the MLB web site, but here is what I found using the same guidlines and parameters as the Sox.

The Tigers blew 13 games where they took a lead into the 7th inning and lost. So they were in fact, a game worse then the White Sox.

I'm not going to try to start looking through the Twins stuff tonight. I'll do it Tuesday and let you know what I've found.

If the Twins have roughly the same amount of blown games as the Sox, I will apologize to you over it and withdraw my comment.

Lip

HerzogVon
10-03-2006, 05:38 AM
How many games did the Sox lose because they scored an embarrassing amount of runs against a horrible pitcher or a ****ty lefty? I can guarantee you the number is higher than 12.
I am not saying the bullpen is not a priority, but the hitting also needs to be improved and more consistant. We missed the playoffs in large part because our offense crapped its pants far too many times, particularly in the second half. Everyone seems to overlook the hitting just because we hit so many homers. Our pitchers are chastised when they lose a game 4-2 against a pitcher who has an ERA over 8. The hitting let us down everybit as much as the pitching.

Glad you said this, as if I had, I'd just be accused of pining for Rowand again. :whiner:

Seriously, IMO the hitting was the biggest failing on this club. It totally broke down in the second half. This was particularly evident in the final weeks when the starters showed signs of coming around. It was the hitters who let us down. Looking like the Cubs may please the sportswriters - who just love meaningless, bases empty HRs - but it hasn't done much for the Cubs, now has it?

downstairs
10-03-2006, 08:33 AM
I get nervous when anyone thinks their bullpen (sans the closer) is the answer to fixing a team. You know the old adage... middle relievers are your worst players- pitchers who are not good enough to start for an MLB team or close for an MLB team.

How many of the playoff teams also had their middle relief blow a bunch of games? I am sure quite a few- if not almost all of them.

If you go to the other old adage of "you're going to win 60 and lose 60"... I've always believed that many of those "60 losses" are because of the middle relief. It happens. No one has a staff so deep that their 5 starters are great, closer is great, AND they have great pitchers to spare.

Ol' No. 2
10-03-2006, 09:25 AM
No. 2:

It took an hour of sorting through the individual Tiger boxes on the MLB web site, but here is what I found using the same guidlines and parameters as the Sox.

The Tigers blew 13 games where they took a lead into the 7th inning and lost. So they were in fact, a game worse then the White Sox.

I'm not going to try to start looking through the Twins stuff tonight. I'll do it Tuesday and let you know what I've found.

If the Twins have roughly the same amount of blown games as the Sox, I will apologize to you over it and withdraw my comment.

LipHere's the thing: The Twins bullpen, in fact, blew lots of games. But they came back and won many of them. So just counting losses can be misleading. Even though the Twins may have lost only one game where they took the lead into the 8th inning, attributing that solely to the bullpen is not justified.

If you want a textbook example, look no further than the Aug 26 game in Chicago. Santana got them off to an early lead while Contreras was awful and got yanked in the 3rd inning. Then the Sox came back on home runs by Konerko and Dye in the 8th and 9th innings to tie the game, only to lose in extra innings. Why did the Twins win that game? It wasn't because their bullpen was so solid. It was because of a lot of reasons all coming together. Contreras was awful. The Sox defense was shaky. But when it counted in extras, the Twins executed while the Sox were waiting for someone to hit another HR.

All teams blow games for a variety of reasons, but the question is, "How many more games did the Sox blow than a good team would?" The way I see it, the bullpen blew 3-4 games. The starters blew 3-4 games. The inconsistent offense blew 3-4 games. Add them up and it's more than enough. This was a TEAM failure.

caulfield12
10-03-2006, 11:49 AM
Here's the thing: The Twins bullpen, in fact, blew lots of games. But they came back and won many of them. So just counting losses can be misleading. Even though the Twins may have lost only one game where they took the lead into the 8th inning, attributing that solely to the bullpen is not justified.

If you want a textbook example, look no further than the Aug 26 game in Chicago. Santana got them off to an early lead while Contreras was awful and got yanked in the 3rd inning. Then the Sox came back on home runs by Konerko and Dye in the 8th and 9th innings to tie the game, only to lose in extra innings. Why did the Twins win that game? It wasn't because their bullpen was so solid. It was because of a lot of reasons all coming together. Contreras was awful. The Sox defense was shaky. But when it counted in extras, the Twins executed while the Sox were waiting for someone to hit another HR.

All teams blow games for a variety of reasons, but the question is, "How many more games did the Sox blow than a good team would?" The way I see it, the bullpen blew 3-4 games. The starters blew 3-4 games. The inconsistent offense blew 3-4 games. Add them up and it's more than enough. This was a TEAM failure.


In fact, if you remember that game, we had our chances against Willie Eyre (Scott's brother) in extras. I think we might have had two innings of at-bats with nothing to show for it, but at least one. This guy was the LAST guy in their pen and he looked like Cy Young...that game just killed us. Yeah,
we had some heroic home runs, but we couldn't manufacture a run to save our life and WIN the game.


By the way, I think the Twins had 4 losses on blown saves all season (6th or 7th...3 losses) and one from the 8th inning on (May 29).

Ol' No. 2
10-03-2006, 12:15 PM
In fact, if you remember that game, we had our chances against Willie Eyre (Scott's brother) in extras. I think we might have had two innings of at-bats with nothing to show for it, but at least one. This guy was the LAST guy in their pen and he looked like Cy Young...that game just killed us. Yeah,
we had some heroic home runs, but we couldn't manufacture a run to save our life and WIN the game.


By the way, I think the Twins had 4 losses on blown saves all season (6th or 7th...3 losses) and one from the 8th inning on (May 29).To me, that game against the Twinks was the whole season in a nutshell.

Lip Man 1
10-03-2006, 12:56 PM
No. 2:

Sorting through the Twins play by play boxes, Minnesota lost four games where they took a lead into the 7th inning or later.

5/21 (7th), 5/29 (8th), 6/21 (7th), 9/6 (7th)

So under this limited parameters, the final numbers were Detroit 13 games, Sox 12 games, Twins 4 games.

As stated earlier in the thread replying to Frater, in my opinion, the bullpen woes and the team's inability to beat, on a regular basis, the "bad" teams (i.e. teams that finished the season with a losing record) is what cost them the playoff spot.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
10-03-2006, 01:02 PM
No. 2:

Sorting through the Twins play by play boxes, Minnesota lost four games where they took a lead into the 7th inning or later.

5/21 (7th), 5/29 (8th), 6/21 (7th), 9/6 (7th)

So under this limited parameters, the final numbers were Detroit 13 games, Sox 12 games, Twins 4 games.

As stated earlier in the thread replying to Frater, in my opinion, the bullpen woes and the team's inability to beat, on a regular basis, the "bad" teams (i.e. teams that finished the season with a losing record) is what cost them the playoff spot.

LipIf losing games late was such a pivotal factor, how is it that the Tigers finished five games ahead of the Sox and only one behind the Twins despite having a worse record in these games? As I said earlier, there's more to this than the bullpen. The Twins' bullpen actually blew a lot of games late that they later came back to win. To me, that says more about their ability to manufacture runs at critical times than it does about the bullpen.

Lip Man 1
10-03-2006, 04:10 PM
No.2:

True. Again under limited conditions I was simply trying to show that the Sox bullpen (not starters) directly cost them games where they had late leads particularly against bad teams. I think the number was nine.

Certainly all three teams blew more late leads only in some cases they came back to win them.

Had the Sox won all those games, or even most of them, say five... they wouldn't have caught the Twins but they may have caught Detroit, or forced them into a playoff for a playoff spot situation.

Lip

Iwritecode
10-03-2006, 04:23 PM
Sorting through the Twins play by play boxes, Minnesota lost four games where they took a lead into the 7th inning or later.

5/21 (7th), 5/29 (8th), 6/21 (7th), 9/6 (7th)


That's what I came up with yesterday... :cool:

You're right, they don't. Of those blown saves, they only actually lost 4 of them. But in all of them they had a lead going into the 7th inning.

May 21 - Gave up 4 in the 7th. Lead 3-1 going to the 7th.
May 29 - Gave up 1 in the 8th and 1 in the 11th. Lead 3-2.
June 21 - Gave up 1 in the 6th, 1 in the 7th and 2 in the 8th. Lead 3-2.
September 6 - Gave up 3 in the 7th. Lead 2-0.

Also of interest: They blew back-to-back saves against the Sox on August 25 & 26 yet won both games.
They also blew back-to-back saves against Houston and won 1 of them.

Ol' No. 2
10-03-2006, 04:25 PM
No.2:

True. Again under limited conditions I was simply trying to show that the Sox bullpen (not starters) directly cost them games where they had late leads particularly against bad teams. I think the number was nine.

Certainly all three teams blew more late leads only in some cases they came back to win them.

Had the Sox won all those games, or even most of them, say five... they wouldn't have caught the Twins but they may have caught Detroit, or forced them into a playoff for a playoff spot situation.

LipBut how can you just ignore the decline in starting pitching? The starters' ERA rose from 3.75 in 2005 (2nd in the AL) to 4.65 in 2006 (8th in the AL). All the other starters' stats were also poorer than last year and solidly mediocre. How are they not at least as responsible as the bullpen?

The offense started out strong, but faltered badly in the second half. How are they not responsible?

I just don't see how you can assign a larger share of the blame to the bullpen.

caulfield12
10-03-2006, 05:40 PM
But how can you just ignore the decline in starting pitching? The starters' ERA rose from 3.75 in 2005 (2nd in the AL) to 4.65 in 2006 (8th in the AL). All the other starters' stats were also poorer than last year and solidly mediocre. How are they not at least as responsible as the bullpen?

The offense started out strong, but faltered badly in the second half. How are they not responsible?

I just don't see how you can assign a larger share of the blame to the bullpen.


Which is the primary explanation for Tigers > White Sox.

Because their offenses were similar, all-or-nothing affairs, with the White Sox having the advantage in almost any way you compare.

1) Starting pitching ERA's....White Sox had 14 less quality starts this season
2) Record in games scoring 3 runs or less/one run games/extras
3) White Sox significantly worse against AL Central
4) White Sox significantly worse against sub-.500 teams
5) Tigers had Zumaya to shut down opponents whenever they needed to use him...5th, 6th, 7th or 8th.

Tigers had Walker and Rodney to go with Jones, one more "quality" reliever. The Twins had five in Nathan, Reyes, Crain (not today), Neshek and Rincon.

FarWestChicago
10-03-2006, 07:57 PM
West:

It's up to you.

This is your board...I'm just an asshat who hasn't made any contributions to WSI in the past four years. No interviews, no audio highlights, no historical notes, no publicity with the media. Nothing.

LipYou have made wonderful contributions. You have a great deal of talent. However, that doesn't entitle you to incessant trolling. You have never, ever understood that point. You made a conjecture. You were asked to back it up with facts. If you don't, it's just trolling. I see you did some work and it developed into a fascinating discussion. I get pissed at you because you have so much to offer, Lip. Unfortunately, you are so often just bitter and whining. Bring more of your writing and knowledge to the table. That's all I'm asking.