Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    His team currently has the second best ERA in the American League, but he has already lost five straight this season to the Sox.  Plus all those years the Sox and Francona owned LA in the playoffs.  Plus last year when the Angels took one game from Boston. 

    Georom, bosox1941, and others have assured us that all losses are chargeable to the manager and the manager alone.  They also insist that the dumbest manager in MLB is Terry Francona.  And the evidence is overwhelming that Francona owns Scioscia.  So doesn't that make Scioscia pretty dumb?

    I of course believe nothing of the kind.  Scioscia is a very good manager who almost always has his team in the hunt and in the playoffs--to say nothing of their WS win a few years back and the fact that Angels management keeps re-signing him for season after season. 

    But I keep remembering what georom, bosox1941, and other Francona bashers insist upon.  Only dumb managers lose games.  Smart ones always win. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from byebyeepstein. Show byebyeepstein's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    if it were a choice between sciosa and francona managing the RED SOX, i'd, without hesitation, select sciosa.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    Well, you couldn't complain about his pitch-calling, which this year has apparently been very good. 

    I'd rather have Francona. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    Getting to watch the Angels play alot since I live in market I have my own opinions about Mike.

    He comes into play in more wins and losses because he tends to force the action more rather than putting the players into positions where they can excel and letting the action take its course.

    At his worst he will run or bunt his way out of an inning, at his best he will run or bunt his way into runs. IMO he doesn't handle his starting pitchers or his relievers and differently than Francona. Uses match-ups, individual match-ups and situations to make changes. His intra-division opponents and the marine layer at night in Anaheim do tend to keep the runs down a bit more.

    Watching both I think Scioscia would have troubles dealing with the Boston media unless he got himself a Belichick pass pretty quickly, which I don't think a baseball manager in Boston can get.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from chuchos. Show chuchos's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    Angels swept them in the 08 ds.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from newenglanderinexile. Show newenglanderinexile's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    In Response to Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?:
    if it were a choice between sciosa and francona managing the RED SOX, i'd, without hesitation, select sciosa.
    Posted by byebyeepstein


    I would too since Scioscia has one World Series ring while Francona only has two.  
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from newenglanderinexile. Show newenglanderinexile's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    In Response to Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?:
    Angels swept them in the 08 ds.
    Posted by chuchos


    And before that the Sox beat the Angels nine times in a row in the playoffs, including sweeps in 2004 and 2007.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    Sox swept the Angels (or beat them anyway) in 2004, 2007, and I think 2008. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    In Response to Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?:
    if it were a choice between sciosa and francona managing the RED SOX, i'd, without hesitation, select sciosa.
    Posted by byebyeepstein


    You are sort of making the OPs point.  So many here love Mike and HATE Tito.  But when it comes to a critical comparison of actual managerial acumen, no one cares to really get down to brass tacks.  Love Mike because he imposes his will on a game?  Fine, but that has a big down side too.  Hate Tito because he doesn't?  Fine, but there is a big upside of that approach.  And, head-to-head, Tito's clubs have by and large gotten the best of Mike's.  Why is that?  Talent?  I don't know.  Angels have had some pretty great clubs.  

    Tito is flawed.  Mike is flawed.  All managers are flawed.  But to think Francona is somehow at the bottom of the barrel and Scoscia is at the top doesn't really bear out.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from chuchos. Show chuchos's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    In Response to Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?:
    Sox swept the Angels (or beat them anyway) in 2004, 2007, and I think 2008. 
    Posted by maxbialystock
    Quite right, I was thinking the 09 Angels division series sweep.  

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    In Response to Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?:
    In Response to Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid? : You are sort of making the OPs point.  So many here love Mike and HATE Tito.  But when it comes to a critical comparison of actual managerial acumen, no one cares to really get down to brass tacks.  Love Mike because he imposes his will on a game?  Fine, but that has a big down side too.  Hate Tito because he doesn't?  Fine, but there is a big upside of that approach.  And, head-to-head, Tito's clubs have by and large gotten the best of Mike's.  Why is that?  Talent?  I don't know.  Angels have had some pretty great clubs.   Tito is flawed.  Mike is flawed.  All managers are flawed.  But to think Francona is somehow at the bottom of the barrel and Scoscia is at the top doesn't really bear out.
    Posted by SpacemanEephus
    A sensible summary of the issue.  Scioscia is something of a crybaby.  Maybe it gets him some calls or costs him some calls, depending upon the umps.  But he often looks like he could use a teddy bear. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    Scioscia couldn't manage here.  Media, ownership, GM.  Seems to be a control freak and that wouldn't work here in Boston.  He seems to have a strong personality and I think one of the reasons Tito works in Boston is his laid back style.  He'd let the press get under his skin and they'd never let up. 

    I think Tito is here because his approach to managing players and managing the game fits in well with the front office.  They seem to work real well together.

    I'm not sure Scioscia shares the same philosophy about the game as the front Office, and I'm not just talking about Theo.  I think the entire organization is on the same page about the team.  (I think the earlier friction was about how the team dealt with the media.) 

    I think Tito and Scioscia's success is due in large part to their situations.  Switch them and I bet neither is successful.

    How many managers have been successful with multiple teams?  LaRusso is one.  Any others?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    Sparky Anderson won titles with 2 different teams.  Leyland, Piniella and Showalter have been successful with more than one team, but haven't duplicated Sparky's feat. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    Pretty good discussion, guys.  I still like Scioscia because I enjoy watching his teams.  I remain astonished that he calls every single pitch, but, hey, it seems to work.  But give me Francona.  He puts the responsibility on the shoulders of the players while always trying to put them in a position where they can excel. 

    Thanks, spaceman, for cogent thoughts. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from newenglanderinexile. Show newenglanderinexile's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    In Response to Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?:
    Scioscia couldn't manage here.  Media, ownership, GM.  Seems to be a control freak and that wouldn't work here in Boston.  He seems to have a strong personality and I think one of the reasons Tito works in Boston is his laid back style.  He'd let the press get under his skin and they'd never let up.  I think Tito is here because his approach to managing players and managing the game fits in well with the front office.  They seem to work real well together. I'm not sure Scioscia shares the same philosophy about the game as the front Office, and I'm not just talking about Theo.  I think the entire organization is on the same page about the team.  (I think the earlier friction was about how the team dealt with the media.)  I think Tito and Scioscia's success is due in large part to their situations.  Switch them and I bet neither is successful. How many managers have been successful with multiple teams?  LaRusso is one.  Any others?
    Posted by DirtyWaterLover


    Joe McCarthy.  Sparky Anderson.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    In Response to Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?:
    Sparky Anderson won titles with 2 different teams.  Leyland, Piniella and Showalter have been successful with more than one team, but haven't duplicated Sparky's feat. 
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut
    If success is measured by being good versus winning it all, we can add Joe Torre to the list who after some bumpy stops enjoyed success with the NYY and the LAD.

    Scioscia's situation with LAA of A is very different than Terry's. He has out lived the GM and at this point his philosophy is the Angel Way and Regans builds the Angels to it. They develop players in the minors to the philosophy.

    In Tito's case he was hired into a situation with a very defined philosophy and a CEO (Lucchino), GM (Epstein) and Managing Partner (Henry) who were strong baseball people who wanted a manager to implement their philosophy.

    The Angels will put outs at risk to force action and will trade an out to increase the odds of scoring a single run. The RS are protective of outs and as a rule early in the game believe that giving up an out for a single run is higher risk- lower reward versus playing for a bigger inning.

    I don't see a lot of difference in how the managers use their pitchers, though Mike is a control freak and calls most of the pitches. I sometimes question this because it makes it harder for the pitcher to shake off the boss and sometimes the pitcher knows best what he command at any moment.

    As far as the two guys switching roles, I think Tito would have a much better chance of adapting to the Angels personnel and would find being the second team and the kinder LA media market refreshing. Scioscia on the other hand would IMO be eaten alive by the media unless his first RS team won 114 games and man handled the NYY while doing it. He doesn't like being questioned and can be quite curt and condescending at moments and Belichick only gets away with it because of the rings he wears.

    Terry is a much better manager than people want to give him credit for. He doesn't manage from the gut. His moves don't always work but they are educated decision dictated by historical data. He has won a lot games here. His 2005 team had no business making the playoffs. His 2010 team due to injuries had no business being over .500. Taking the 2008 RS with their injury situation to Game 7 of the ALCS was another case of getting the most out of the team.

    In my time following the RS he is the best manager they have had, hands down.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from kbev97. Show kbev97's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    The sarcastic wit of the OP did not escape me. I thought it was quite clever. If Manager A is always wrong but his team always beats Manager B's club then it follows that Manager B must be even worse than Manager ( who is always wrong). It is simple logic.  You did forget to add BaseballDr and RedSox-11 to Georom4 and Boston1941. The flaw is pointing out them out as being illogical is that trolls have no desire to be logical.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    So Scioscia calls the games eh?
    How come he was so much better when he called Mathis' games over those Napoli caught?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ConcernTroll. Show ConcernTroll's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    Read my lips. Ninety percent of the Tito bashing on this forum is from four CONCERN TROLLS. Who knows if they are Yankee fans or generic trolls since it really doesn't matter. What matters in taking them seriously and if you do then shame on you.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from M1A2. Show M1A2's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    Harness, it sure looks like he does.  When the camera is on him between pitches, he sure does signal a lot. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimdavis. Show jimdavis's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    In Response to Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?:
    if it were a choice between sciosa and francona managing the RED SOX, i'd, without hesitation, select sciosa.
    Posted by byebyeepstein


    Which is one reason we are all glad that you have no say in anything related to the organization.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    In Response to Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?:
    Harness, it sure looks like he does.  When the camera is on him between pitches, he sure does signal a lot. 
    Posted by M1A2
    He does, it is often discussed factor in LA. If you watch an LA feed you will often see the catcher looking into the dugout and Scioccia giving him signs. I can't get NESN feeds so I don't know how they show the games.

    He also manages his pitchers with signs, telling them when to hold the ball longer with runners on and such.  He signals the sign to the catcher and the catcher relays this to the pitcher. In fact the play-by-play commented on Mike's signals a couple of times. Mike's doing this dates all the way back to when he had Molina brothers (Benji and Jose) on the same team.

    The difference between Napoli and Mathis, is to a large extent a coincidence, though some could say that Mathis frames pitches better and pitchers liked his target better. I think in the midst of the epic Catcher's Relevance thread Scioscia's preference for calling pitches himself was mentioned.

    Back to managers being second guessed, Mike first goes with his starter longer than he should have, 410 feet later thinks better of it and brings in Takahashi who had worked last night and two innings the night before and let the poor guy get hammered. Imagine if that happened to Tito who gets second guessed in victory. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    In Response to Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?:
    In Response to Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid? : He does, it is often discussed factor in LA. If you watch an LA feed you will often see the catcher looking into the dugout and Scioccia giving him signs. I can't get NESN feeds so I don't know how they show the games. He also manages his pitchers with signs, telling them when to hold the ball longer with runners on and such.  He signals the sign to the catcher and the catcher relays this to the pitcher. In fact the play-by-play commented on Mike's signals a couple of times. Mike's doing this dates all the way back to when he had Molina brothers (Benji and Jose) on the same team. The difference between Napoli and Mathis, is to a large extent a coincidence, though some could say that Mathis frames pitches better and pitchers liked his target better. I think in the midst of the epic Catcher's Relevance thread Scioscia's preference for calling pitches himself was mentioned. Back to managers being second guessed, Mike first goes with his starter longer than he should have, 410 feet later thinks better of it and brings in Takahashi who had worked last night and two innings the night before and let the poor guy get hammered. Imagine if that happened to Tito who gets second guessed in victory. 
    Posted by fivekatz



    LOL

    That's some coincidence! 4 years running - All the starters doing better/ much better with Mathis over Napoli...with Scioscia calling 'em all!
    61% points win/loss difference covering three hundred games.
    That's some pitch framing!

    Sorry Katz. I don't buy into it.
    In fact, I disputed it on the Caddy thread and asked someone to show evidence. Nobody did.  Managers/bench coaches signal their catchers to throw over to hold runners close. Scioscia didn't invent this. If he were calling these games, then Mathis would be looking over there on every pitch. He doesn't.
    I watch these games too.
    I watch the replays and freeze-frame it.
    I watch when the camera is on Scioscia directly after a pitch and he just shuffles around.

    Watch it closely when nobody's on base. Then observe it with runners on. That's when he's flashing signs. He's an aggressive manager, as you said.

    But never have I heard that he calls the pitches. Never have I read it or heard it from any announcer. And I get the live feed from all teams in the MLB package. Never have I seen evidence of it. It's press BS.

    The only times I have ever heard of a manager calling games is with a rookie receiver or a catcher with the IQ of a Softlaw - just out to lunch.
    These guys (managers) have a hell of a lot on their minds during a game. The last responsibility they want is to delay the game and call 130 pitches a night.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    I'm watching Haren on the replay in the 7th frame. Two out, Pedey up. 1-0 the count. He just shook off Mathis two-three times. Is he shaking off Scioscia? Is he allowed to? Why isn't Mathis looking over to the dugout after each shake-off? Mathis is simply putting down alternative signals/suggestions.
    Same as any other catcher.

    The difference between Mathis and Napoli sure as hell ain't Scioscia!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?

    In Response to Re: Is Mike Scioscia really this stupid?:
    The difference between Mathis and Napoli sure as hell ain't Scioscia!
    Posted by harness


    Napoli's career OPS is 838, Mathis's is 574.  Napoli is gone, Mathis is still there.  It does say a lot.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share