Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

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

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    One could safely say that it was a team effort to choke in September and some of that blame should also be attributed to Francona, Epstein, and ownership. It is a shame that there are some that feel compelled to single out a few individuals. Who are the Yankee fans blaming for being eliminated in the first round?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    [QUOTE]Did Terry really say this on the record when he said he could no longer get through to them? If so, it's very provocative. Invariably, it raises the question: which players?  A guessing game in the press or amongst fans could be unfair to players. Just like questions about booze in the clubhouse, save that, IMO, this issue is more serious. Though Terry "admits" that he couldn't get through to these selfish players, he implies that he shouldn't have had to. That takes at least a little of the onus off him. "See what I had to deal with." And until we know who or what he is talking about, the inference is possible that NO ONE could have dealt with the players who made Terry's last season in Boston so trying. ( Does he say or imply that someone else might have done better than he getting through, or does he leave hanging the possible interpretation that these players were simply impossible and probably would have been impossible no matter who was in charge? ) Should we have to wait for Terry's book for him to name names?  Right now, since no names have been named, all names are theoretically suspect. That leaves the field open for speculation, some of which is bound to be unfair, as these things go. The ex-manager had made to what amounts to one of the most serious accusations that can be leveled in team sports.  Who were these players, and what form did their selfishness take? 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    Perhaps, but I can think of a few SOB's who could have made life miserable for these players: Dick Williams, Billy Martin, & Buck Showalter, for starters, come to mind.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare : Perhaps, but I can think of a few SOB's who could have made life miserable for these players: Dick Williams, Billy Martin, & Buck Showalter, for starters, come to mind.
    Posted by nhsteven[/QUOTE]
    I'm not saying, nor did I as MY opinion, that no one could have handled those players. What I am saying is that it's possible to infer that sentiment from  what Terry said.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare : I'm not saying, nor did I as MY opinion, that no one could have handled those players. What I am saying is that it's possible to infer that sentiment from  what  Terry  said.
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    Hey Ex....

    Leverage

    That's the word of the day and as a manager it's an essentail intangable to manage every employee, even ones making 20M...Players under garanteed contracts have to be trusted to fulfill the terms of the aggrement and when they fail to, whomever is charged with oversight must have a means to hold the contracted individual accoutable...when they fail to it's is incumbent on the payee to have some recoarse...In the union driven world of MLB it's a difficult process to say the least, and given the investment. the owners are going to insist that they get some return and at times that is counter to what needs to happen to maintian disipline in the clubhouse...

    So if you're Francona and let's say that you have a player that choses not to follow the stated objective and refuses to even consider it. How he handles those types of situations will have a ripple effect on the entire team...Which is why the field manager and the GM have to be on the same page and have the support of ownership...See "Manny Ramirez" circa 2004-2008 cleary Henry enabled him and charged Epstein and Francona with managing the fallout. Which they were able to do with aplomb until the infamous 2008 incidents, in part be of the lovable idiot that was Manny being Manny and more so becasue when push came to shove he put up numbers and was beloved by many in the clubhouse...Idiot Savant...

    to that end the best mangers can be undermined by upper management and it doesn't take much to userp a managers authority...From the sounds of the reports that are being released there appears to have been a breakdown in communication and either the ownership or Epstein broke a trust and Francona simply lost his abiltiy to hold his players accountable. something was clearly amiss...And regardless if you're Billy Martin or Grady Little if the upper management doesn't back you, you lose leverage and once you lose leverage you lose the lockeroom and at the heart of it might have been the team lack of showing the players that Francona was the boss by not picking up at ;east his 2012 option before the season..."he was the proverbail lame duck manager" the same thing happened to Torre in his last year too...
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare : Hey Ex.... Leverage That's the word of the day and as a manager it's an essentail intangable to manage every employee, even ones making 20M...Players under garanteed contracts have to be trusted to fulfill the terms of the aggrement and when they fail to, whomever is charged with oversight must have a means to hold the contracted individual accoutable...when they fail to it's is incumbent on the payee to have some recoarse...In the union driven world of MLB it's a difficult process to say the least, and given the investment. the owners are going to insist that they get some return and at times that is counter to what needs to happen to maintian disipline in the clubhouse... So if you're Francona and let's say that you have a player that choses not to follow the stated objective and refuses to even consider it. How he handles those types of situations will have a ripple effect on the entire team...Which is why the field manager and the GM have to be on the same page and have the support of ownership...See "Manny Ramirez" circa 2004-2008 cleary Henry enabled him and charged Epstein and Francona with managing the fallout. Which they were able to do with aplomb until the infamous 2008 incidents, in part be of the lovable idiot that was Manny being Manny and more so becasue when push came to shove he put up numbers and was beloved by many in the clubhouse...Idiot Savant... to that end the best mangers can be undermined by upper management and it doesn't take much to userp a managers authority...From the sounds of the reports that are being released there appears to have been a breakdown in communication and either the ownership or Epstein broke a trust and Francona simply lost his abiltiy to hold his players accountable. something was clearly amiss...And regardless if you're Billy Martin or Grady Little if the upper management doesn't back you, you lose leverage and once you lose leverage you lose the lockeroom and at the heart of it might have been the team lack of showing the players that Francona was the boss by not picking up at ;east his 2012 option before the season..."he was the proverbail lame duck manager" the same thing happened to Torre in his last year too...
    Posted by Beantowne[/QUOTE]
    As a general statement of what any manager in any field requires, this makes sense. If an administrator on level 2 does not have the support of his superiors on level 1 in personnel matters, the person on level 2 cannot be blamed entirely for operational deficits. That's Boss 101. 
    As you point out, the challenge to that guy on level 2 is all the more acute in baseball because of contracts, unions, and, not least, the need of the guys writing the checks to protect their investments. 
    Maybe in this day and age, no matter who the manager is, he'll still have all of these problems. Maybe not. That is a whole other subject.
    For the moment, we still don't have enough information to know whether the situation in Boston reached that point. We don't know, for instance, whether Tito sought assistance and support from above and didn't get it. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    "We don't know, for instance, whether Tito sought assistance and support from above and didn't get it. "

    He alluded to it in his pressor though so I'd have to think that it played a role...It might also be that it was indded his own cotracvt that may have contributed to the issue as well...clealry something was amiss you can tell by the body language of the owners and Esptein during the pressor...it ws more than simply a collapse by the team...
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    [QUOTE]Did Terry really say this on the record when he said he could no longer get through to them? If so, it's very provocative. Invariably, it raises the question: which players?  A guessing game in the press or amongst fans could be unfair to players. Just like questions about booze in the clubhouse, save that, IMO, this issue is more serious. Though Terry "admits" that he couldn't get through to these selfish players, he implies that he shouldn't have had to. That takes at least a little of the onus off him. "See what I had to deal with." And until we know who or what he is talking about, the inference is possible that NO ONE could have dealt with the players who made Terry's last season in Boston so trying. ( Does he say or imply that someone else might have done better than he getting through, or does he leave hanging the possible interpretation that these players were simply impossible and probably would have been impossible no matter who was in charge? ) Should we have to wait for Terry's book for him to name names?  Right now, since no names have been named, all names are theoretically suspect. That leaves the field open for speculation, some of which is bound to be unfair, as these things go. The ex-manager had made to what amounts to one of the most serious accusations that can be leveled in team sports.  Who were these players, and what form did their selfishness take? 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    Our management probably did the correct thing by letting Tito go, unless they knew of these issues and didn't back Tito.  Otherwise I would consider this a weakness of Tito's as a manager.  Everything that may have happened should have been addressed and players reprimanded which simply never happened. 


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from promise4you. Show promise4you's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    Im curious, why would Francona not divulge the names? Only because he plans on managing somewhere else? Write a book its worth more money, I would pay $80 to know what went down in that clubhouse! And Harness why are you so worried about a witch hunt, let me give you a clue, my family lived through the Salem witch hunts and i have studied it. This is not the same thing. People pay good money for a quality product Red sox, they did not get it and I think its fine to speak up.
    This team quit! And I dont blame the manager, even though I never liked him. Better to know who those players are and GET RID OF THEM! Stop defending the defenceless, they are losers and until they are removed, this team will be losers! remember this is a business not a game.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    The ball is in your court Harness.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare : Hey Ex.... Leverage That's the word of the day and as a manager it's an essentail intangable to manage every employee, even ones making 20M...Players under garanteed contracts have to be trusted to fulfill the terms of the aggrement and when they fail to, whomever is charged with oversight must have a means to hold the contracted individual accoutable...when they fail to it's is incumbent on the payee to have some recoarse...In the union driven world of MLB it's a difficult process to say the least, and given the investment. the owners are going to insist that they get some return and at times that is counter to what needs to happen to maintian disipline in the clubhouse... So if you're Francona and let's say that you have a player that choses not to follow the stated objective and refuses to even consider it. How he handles those types of situations will have a ripple effect on the entire team...Which is why the field manager and the GM have to be on the same page and have the support of ownership...See "Manny Ramirez" circa 2004-2008 cleary Henry enabled him and charged Epstein and Francona with managing the fallout. Which they were able to do with aplomb until the infamous 2008 incidents, in part be of the lovable idiot that was Manny being Manny and more so becasue when push came to shove he put up numbers and was beloved by many in the clubhouse...Idiot Savant... to that end the best mangers can be undermined by upper management and it doesn't take much to userp a managers authority...From the sounds of the reports that are being released there appears to have been a breakdown in communicationand either the ownership or Epstein broke a trust and Francona simply lost his abiltiy to hold his players accountable. something was clearly amiss...And regardless if you're Billy Martin or Grady Little if the upper management doesn't back you, you lose leverage and once you lose leverage you lose the lockeroom and at the heart of it might have been the team lack of showing the players that Francona was the boss by not picking up at ;east his 2012 option before the season..."he was the proverbail lame duck manager" the same thing happened to Torre in his last year too...
    Posted by Beantowne[/QUOTE]

    Bean: This sounds plausible, and losing may have unmasked some communication issues - just as the poor pitching unmasked the poor team fundamentals.

    It's like most any relationship in that there will be conflicts, but when things are going well, they are manageable.

    What would have been interesting is if the team had just barely made the PIO's, but were ousted quickly and efficiently. Would Tito still be managing?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    [QUOTE]Im curious, why would Francona not divulge the names? Only because he plans on managing somewhere else? Write a book its worth more money, I would pay $80 to know what went down in that clubhouse! And Harness why are you so worried about a witch hunt, let me give you a clue, my family lived through the Salem witch hunts and i have studied it. This is not the same thing. People pay good money for a quality product Red sox, they did not get it and I think its fine to speak up. This team quit! And I dont blame the manager, even though I never liked him. Better to know who those players are and GET RID OF THEM! Stop defending the defenceless, they are losers and until they are removed, this team will be losers! remember this is a business not a game.
    Posted by promise4you[/QUOTE]


    That's a perception, Promise, and Moon and I are hotly debating it on the newer Realistic thread. Poor pitching compromised by injury and poor coaching can give the impression of quitting or lethargic play. Hitters can only do so much, and when the team was constantly trailing, it's hard to show heart.

    The bottom line is, no team can win giving up 6-7 runs per game for a month.
    The collapse began when Beckett/Bedard went down. That's not by coincidence.
    The replacements for Dice/Buch/Beckett/Bedard couldn't hold the forte. Nor were most of them expected to.

    I don't buy into dissention causing the collapse. Not at all. I think it was unmasked as a result of the collapse. I do think poor/lax coaching contributed to poor fundamentals and erratic pitching form.
    It all comes down to outscoring the opponent. The hitting simply couldn't compensate for the pitching breakdown.

    No label or finger-pointing is gonna change that.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    Beane,
    What Tito said at his presser cannot be taken at face value. He was still raw from the collapse. He was cryptic. He was trying, understandably, to avoid getting too much blame. 
    The body language showed that people were uneasy. Considering the circumstances, no surprise there.
    We still don't know specifically whether Tito sought assistance, for what, and whether or how he was turned away -- or nothing was done on his behalf.
    At this point, it's prudent to wait for more information.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    You are the one who alludes to the fact the alleged dissention cost the team a trip to the PO's. I said it was primarily the injury-riddled pitching staff.


    Although the pitching was not up to par in September, I am not buying that the pitching was the main reason. The sox lost 8 one-run games in Sep, 4 of which they allowed 4 runs or less. Bad base-running, untimely hitting, and mediocre defense were also a major part of the demise.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    Over the course of the season, a single loss isn't that big of a deal - that's why they play a series.  Besides, if a player goes 0-4, then they aren't helping the team win.

    And Zilla, what purpose does pointing fingers at players after a loss?  What purpose is served by airing dirty laundry at a press conference? 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    [QUOTE]Im curious, why would Francona not divulge the names? Only because he plans on managing somewhere else? Write a book its worth more money, I would pay $80 to know what went down in that clubhouse! And Harness why are you so worried about a witch hunt, let me give you a clue, my family lived through the Salem witch hunts and i have studied it. This is not the same thing. People pay good money for a quality product Red sox, they did not get it and I think its fine to speak up. This team quit! And I dont blame the manager, even though I never liked him. Better to know who those players are and GET RID OF THEM! Stop defending the defenceless, they are losers and until they are removed, this team will be losers! remember this is a business not a game.
    Posted by promise4you


    I agree with you 100% and that is exactly my take on it, I only wish I could say it as you did. That is all I am looking for are names, why should I wave the pom-poms for a player if he helped bring down the team from within.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare : Bean : This sounds plausible, and losing may have unmasked some communication issues - just as the poor pitching unmasked the poor team fundamentals. It's like most any relationship in that there will be conflicts, but when things are going well, they are manageable. What would have been interesting is if the team had just barely made the PIO's, but were ousted quickly and efficiently. Would Tito still be managing?
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    End of the day our collapse was squarely on the shoulders of the pitching staff and regardless of the teams chemistry when your teams best two starters go 1-9 with 2 QS in the month of September and your set-up and closer blow 7 or 8 games between them...you're in for a tough month...I find it difficult to believe that any of their struggles were due to "attitude issues"...

    As for whether or not Francona's still here had they made the playoffs...I'm not convinced that he would have been retained or they have extended his contract during the season...I think that behind the scenes there were more issue than have been brought to light and in hindsight it appears that Gammons alluding to a change in the relationship between Epstein and Francona saying they appeared to be distant or owrds to that effect have proven to have had substance after all...I feel that much of that may well have centered on Francona not feeling as though the "front office" supported him and or trusted him to be the leader and clearly there appears to be a rift between the two that was not a prt of thier relantionship in years past...
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare : End of the day our collapse was squarely on the shoulders of the pitching staff and regardless of the teams chemistry when your teams best two starters go 1-9 with 2 QS in the month of September and your set-up and closer blow 7 or 8 games between them...you're in for a tough month...I find it difficult to believe that any of their struggles were due to "attitude issues"... As for whether or not Francona's still here had they made the playoffs...I'm not convinced that he would have been retained or they have extended his contract during the season...I think that behind the scenes there were more issue than have been brought to light and in hindsight it appears that Gammons alluding to a change in the relationship between Epstein and Francona saying they appeared to be distant or owrds to that effect have proven to have had substance after all...I feel that much of that may well have centered on Francona not feeling as though the "front office" supported him and or trusted him to be the leader and clearly there appears to be a rift between the two that was not a prt of thier relantionship in years past...
    Posted by Beantowne[/QUOTE]
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare : End of the day our collapse was squarely on the shoulders of the pitching staff and regardless of the teams chemistry when your teams best two starters go 1-9 with 2 QS in the month of September and your set-up and closer blow 7 or 8 games between them...you're in for a tough month...I find it difficult to believe that any of their struggles were due to "attitude issues"... As for whether or not Francona's still here had they made the playoffs...I'm not convinced that he would have been retained or they have extended his contract during the season...I think that behind the scenes there were more issue than have been brought to light and in hindsight it appears that Gammons alluding to a change in the relationship between Epstein and Francona saying they appeared to be distant or owrds to that effect have proven to have had substance after all...I feel that much of that may well have centered on Francona not feeling as though the "front office" supported him and or trusted him to be the leader and clearly there appears to be a rift between the two that was not a prt of thier relantionship in years past...
    Posted by Beantowne[/QUOTE]
    Francona's "not feeling" that the FO was behind him is slightly different from his having 

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

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare : Francona's "not feeling" that the FO was behind him is slightly different from his having sought and not received support, presumably on a specific issue. He and Theo might have clashed or argued, as both have said happened all along, but got through it. More about what was clearly some kind of rift will come out in time.  
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    [QUOTE]You are the one who alludes to the fact the alleged dissention cost the team a trip to the PO's. I said it was primarily the injury-riddled pitching staff . Although the pitching was not up to par in September, I am not buying that the pitching was the main reason. The sox lost 8 one-run games in Sep, 4 of which they allowed 4 runs or less. Bad base-running, untimely hitting, and mediocre defense were also a major part of the demise.
    Posted by Alibiike[/QUOTE]


    I strongly suggest you check UR math, IKE.
    The Sox lost only 3 one-run games in Sept. giving up 4 runs or less.
    Two 4-3 decisions and a 1-0 one.

    They lost 7 one-run games in Sept. and won two. The 2004 team went 16-18 in one-run games...and won a ring.
    One-run games can go either way.

    Pitching is why they tanked.
    In 19 of the 27 games, Sox pitching allowed 6 runs or more.
    No offense can compensate for that.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare : End of the day our collapse was squarely on the shoulders of the pitching staff and regardless of the teams chemistry when your teams best two starters go 1-9 with 2 QS in the month of September and your set-up and closer blow 7 or 8 games between them...you're in for a tough month...I find it difficult to believe that any of their struggles were due to "attitude issues"... As for whether or not Francona's still here had they made the playoffs...I'm not convinced that he would have been retained or they have extended his contract during the season...I think that behind the scenes there were more issue than have been brought to light and in hindsight it appears that Gammons alluding to a change in the relationship between Epstein and Francona saying they appeared to be distant or owrds to that effect have proven to have had substance after all...I feel that much of that may well have centered on Francona not feeling as though the "front office" supported him and or trusted him to be the leader and clearly there appears to be a rift between the two that was not a prt of thier relantionship in years past...
    Posted by Beantowne[/QUOTE]


    Hey Bean: Totally agree with high-lighted.
    As for what went down with Tito/Theo, only they and the flies on the wall know that one. They both laughed it off in mid-Sept. when hearing such press hyperbole.
     
    What we do know is that Theo and Larry have different philosophies, and perhaps Theo had Tito's back more than some of the FO personal had Theo's.
    I doubt many MGMT. teams get along like the Waltons...
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    Good points, harness. I wish we could have spread out some of those runs from our big blow-out wins in September.

    One side note about 2004:
    While we were 16-18 in 1 run games, one big difference was that in Spetember we were 4-1in 1-run games.

    In 2007, we were 22-28 in 1 run games. (4-6 in Sept)  
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    In Response to Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare:
    [QUOTE]Good points, harness. I wish we could have spread out some of those runs from our big blow-out wins in September. One side note about 2004: While we were 16-18 in 1 run games, one big difference was that in Spetember we were 4-1in 1-run games. In 2007, we were 22-28 in 1 run games. (4-6 in Sept)  
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I often say the same when I hit a horse and he/she wins by 10 lengths...then I lose 4 big races by a nose or a neck.

    It goes to show how flawed run differential can be.
    It'd be nice if we can see team OPS numbers that don't include blow-out games.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    Harness,

    I'll leave the heavy lifting to Henry and Luccino regarding Epstien, Francona and what went wrong within the group..

    I'm ready to move on, watch the rest of playoffs and root for the Brewers and the Rangers to meet in the finals for no other reason than both franchises have yet to win it all..So that would be cool for either city and the game..ultimately I think the Rangers are the team to beat at this point...

    As for the Sox I'm confident they hire the best to manage and coach the team and fill the roster and I'll wait until the Spring to pass judgement on how we did in the winter retooling the roster and building a new management team. In Henry I trust...fpr what that's worth
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Players "madder" at 0 for 4 than for a loss, more interested in personal goals than in the team's welfare

    Yes it would be great to see either team win, and I will gladly take Detroit as my other favorite. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share