PDA

View Full Version : For those who think Ozzie overuses pen


caulfield12
03-04-2007, 06:53 AM
Adding them up

The White Sox have had 490 starts of at least six innings over the last four seasons. That's 51 more than any other American League team.(emphasis mine)

Oakland is second with 439, followed by the Yankees with 436 and Boston and the Angels with 423 apiece. At the bottom are Tampa Bay (335), Kansas City (315) and Texas (303).

from chicagosports.com

UserNameBlank
03-04-2007, 08:03 AM
It sure looks like Ozzie overused the pen last year, even though he didn't. It was just that there were always 3-4 pitchers in the pen that no one wanted to see come into the game.

That said, I certainly hope Jenks, Thornton, and MacDougal have earned enough of Ozzie's confidence to let them all pitch a full inning of relief. I really hope Ozzie cuts down on all that two-pitcher ninth stuff because we have guys that can get outs.

JohnTucker0814
03-04-2007, 08:19 AM
I don't think Ozzie over used the bullpen last year, he MIS-USED the bullpen. It always seemed like he would let the starter go out and start the 7th... the starter would let 2 guys get on base, then Ozzie would bring in the RP. This is a lot more stress on a reliever and more likely to fail. Ozzie needs to figure out when our starters are losing it, get our relievers into better situations. He was right on the money in 05 and I'm sure a lot of it has to do with luck. He would be a genius if he let the starter go out in the 7th and he went 1-2-3... that would save our bullpen.

UserNameBlank
03-04-2007, 08:40 AM
I don't think Ozzie over used the bullpen last year, he MIS-USED the bullpen. It always seemed like he would let the starter go out and start the 7th... the starter would let 2 guys get on base, then Ozzie would bring in the RP. This is a lot more stress on a reliever and more likely to fail. Ozzie needs to figure out when our starters are losing it, get our relievers into better situations. He was right on the money in 05 and I'm sure a lot of it has to do with luck. He would be a genius if he let the starter go out in the 7th and he went 1-2-3... that would save our bullpen.

I agree. And that guy always seemed to be Neal Cotts.

About '05 though, I disagree. From Ozzie's standpoint, a lot of his "genious" always will come from luck, but in '05 he had a pen good enough that it was hard to mismanage. When your worst reliever is Damaso Marte, you have a pretty good pen.

drftnaway
03-04-2007, 09:35 AM
I don't think Ozzie over used the bullpen last year, he MIS-USED the bullpen. It always seemed like he would let the starter go out and start the 7th... the starter would let 2 guys get on base, then Ozzie would bring in the RP. This is a lot more stress on a reliever and more likely to fail. Ozzie needs to figure out when our starters are losing it, get our relievers into better situations. He was right on the money in 05 and I'm sure a lot of it has to do with luck. He would be a genius if he let the starter go out in the 7th and he went 1-2-3... that would save our bullpen.

Not to mention that when he DID get the pen involved it was like 2 an inning after the 6th. the pen didn't get all that many innings but they appeared in a collective 398 games which is more than either cleveland (378) and detroit (390).
I totally agree with the misuse statement.

caulfield12
03-04-2007, 09:45 AM
Not to mention that when he DID get the pen involved it was like 2 an inning after the 6th. the pen didn't get all that many innings but they appeared in a collective 398 games which is more than either cleveland (378) and detroit (390).
I totally agree with the misuse statement.

I'm sure you would find more appearances, but not one of the highest averages of pitches thrown or innings pitched per appearance.

Some will argue he fell in love with tinkering and over-relying on each individual match-up (R-L or L-R, etc.)

The majority will say that Nelson, Cotts, Politte, Tracey, Riske, Logan and Montero were below average to abysmal.

drftnaway
03-04-2007, 11:18 AM
I'm sure you would find more appearances, but not one of the highest averages of pitches thrown or innings pitched per appearance.

Some will argue he fell in love with tinkering and over-relying on each individual match-up (R-L or L-R, etc.)

The majority will say that Nelson, Cotts, Politte, Tracey, Riske, Logan and Montero were below average to abysmal.

Of course there would be less pitches or innings per. We already established they threw fewer innings. And yes, my point would be he made too many little moves. I agree about the quality of the pitching

oeo
03-04-2007, 11:22 AM
I don't think Ozzie over used the bullpen last year, he MIS-USED the bullpen. It always seemed like he would let the starter go out and start the 7th... the starter would let 2 guys get on base, then Ozzie would bring in the RP. This is a lot more stress on a reliever and more likely to fail. Ozzie needs to figure out when our starters are losing it, get our relievers into better situations. He was right on the money in 05 and I'm sure a lot of it has to do with luck. He would be a genius if he let the starter go out in the 7th and he went 1-2-3... that would save our bullpen.

The job of the reliever is to come in in high-stress situations. Guys like Cotts and Politte did it just one year before. Ozzie did not change anything in the way he managed the bullpen from 2005 to 2006, the major difference was the 2006 bullpen didn't get the job done.

The biggest thing was, Ozzie didn't trust his bullpen. And rightfully so, because it blew.

IndianWhiteSox
03-04-2007, 12:22 PM
I don't think Ozzie over used the bullpen last year, he MIS-USED the bullpen. It always seemed like he would let the starter go out and start the 7th... the starter would let 2 guys get on base, then Ozzie would bring in the RP. This is a lot more stress on a reliever and more likely to fail. Ozzie needs to figure out when our starters are losing it, get our relievers into better situations. He was right on the money in 05 and I'm sure a lot of it has to do with luck. He would be a genius if he let the starter go out in the 7th and he went 1-2-3... that would save our bullpen.

I couldn't have said it better myself, I mean, you need to put your pitchers in the best position to succeed at all costs. If that means putting in BA everyday or using MacDougal or Thornton in the 6th or 7th inning before turning the ball over to the LR to bridge the game over to BIG BAD BOBBY JENKS, then so be it.

caulfield12
03-04-2007, 01:03 PM
I couldn't have said it better myself, I mean, you need to put your pitchers in the best position to succeed at all costs. If that means putting in BA everyday or using MacDougal or Thornton in the 6th or 7th inning before turning the ball over to the LR to bridge the game over to BIG BAD BOBBY JENKS, then so be it.


Which is fine if you have the 2005 White Sox bullpen or the 2006 Tigers' bullpen. You can use MacDougal, Thornton or Jenks like they used Zumaya. Jones wasn't a very good closer...but he was effective in terms of saves and opportunities.

The problem is that the Tigers had those 4/5/6 guys who came through when they were needed, we didn't. Somehow, you're going to have to use them or you're going to ruin your three best relievers.

IndianWhiteSox
03-04-2007, 01:11 PM
I couldn't have said it better myself, I mean, you need to put your pitchers in the best position to succeed at all costs. If that means putting in BA everyday or using MacDougal or Thornton in the 6th or 7th inning before turning the ball over to the LR to bridge the game over to BIG BAD BOBBY JENKS, then so be it.

Which is fine if you have the 2005 White Sox bullpen or the 2006 Tigers' bullpen. You can use MacDougal, Thornton or Jenks like they used Zumaya. Jones wasn't a very good closer...but he was effective in terms of saves and opportunities.

The problem is that the Tigers had those 4/5/6 guys who came through when they were needed, we didn't. Somehow, you're going to have to use them or you're going to ruin your three best relievers.

Caulfield, the ones I bolded are also what I was agreeing with you in the fact that your 4/5/6 have to work and you have to put them in situations where there are no runners on base,which is what I was saying.

caulfield12
03-04-2007, 01:25 PM
Caulfield, the ones I bolded are also what I was agreeing with you in the fact that your 4/5/6 have to work and you have to put them in situations where there are no runners on base,which is what I was saying.


Indian, what's the biggest complaint about managers who have bullpen management issues?

The pitchers don't know their roles, right?

Well, everyone in 2005 knew exactly where they fit...last year, almost nothing worked.

Politte lost his job. Nelson got hurt. Cotts lost his job and Thornton took it.
Tracey and Montero weren't ready. McCarthy and Riske were forced to pitch in the RH set-up roll that Politte lost, and he wasn't ready either...which led to MacDougal.

The pen was a lot better in the second half, Riske was so-so, but by then, the damage was done. And then Jenks broke down because he was out of shape to start the season.

There wasn't a single pitcher who maintained or stayed in the same role, except for MacDougal and Jenks.

Unblyleven Bread
03-04-2007, 01:30 PM
I agree. And that guy always seemed to be Neal Cotts.

About '05 though, I disagree. From Ozzie's standpoint, a lot of his "genious" always will come from luck, but in '05 he had a pen good enough that it was hard to mismanage. When your worst reliever is Damaso Marte, you have a pretty good pen.

The '05 staff overall was just amazingly consistent. A robot could've managed that rotation and bullpen.

caulfield12
03-04-2007, 01:55 PM
The '05 staff overall was just amazingly consistent. A robot could've managed that rotation and bullpen.

A robot wouldn't have picked El Duque to go into that Game 3 at Fenway Park when Freddy came out.

IndianWhiteSox
03-04-2007, 03:24 PM
A robot wouldn't have picked El Duque to go into that Game 3 at Fenway Park when Freddy came out.

That's because a robot wouldn't have put Damaso Marte to relieve Freddy Garcia in the first place.
:tongue: