Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.

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

    Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.

    I've posted how many times Tito leaves SPs in for 6 ERs or more and it is very similar to most other playoff managers.  Did you know that HOF-bound manager Leyland left his SPs in for 6 ERs or more 22 times last year?

    Tito left his guys in for 6 ERs or more 18 times.  And considering the injuries to Dice, Buch, and Lackey, that is amazingly low.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.

    In Response to Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.:
    [QUOTE]I've posted how many times Tito leaves SPs in for 6 ERs or more and it is very similar to most other playoff managers.  Did you know that HOF-bound manager Leyland left his SPs in for 6 ERs or more 22 times last year? Tito left his guys in for 6 ERs or more 18 times.  And considering the injuries to Dice, Buch, and Lackey, that is amazingly low.
    Posted by Joebreidey[/QUOTE]

    17 times for Girardi.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.

    For the past years I have defended Terry for leaving guys in when others said he should'a done this.
    Problem with all these guys is that they are looking at one game. They never look back and see what happened in the previous two games nor do they look ahead.

    If you want to take a guy out after 3 innings and 4 runs and the two days before the SP went 6+ and they only used Bard, Paps and Aceves both days then it is ok. However if they used 4 on Tuesday, 4 on Wednesday then you try and run 4 guys who threw 2 innings on Tuesday or Wed out there on Thursday. You won't have anybody in the Pen come Sat never mind a week later.

    This is not 20 years ago when SP went 7+ on a regular bases. Most SP are between 5 and 7. It is why when I was a kid they had 10 pitchers now teams have usually have 12.
    Only 9 AL pitchers averaged 7+ innings. Shields had 11 CG and the best after that was one at 5 and only 19 pitched 200+ best being 251.
    In 1975 30 threw over 200 innings and 17 threw 250+ with 4 over 300 and the best at 328 Catfish Hunter.
    In 1985 33 threw 200 to 293 innings
    In 1992 28 threw 200 to 265 innings
    In 1995 only 13 over 200 to 278 innings


    MLB pitching has become totally different in the past 20 years. The BP used to be old pitchers with a few specialists. Now you are looking at more specialists.
    Closer, Set up, middle relief and spot starter.
    It is no wonder a teams playoff hopes ride on the BP every year. And a good BP is a crap shoot every year.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.

    "Care to tell me what happened a few years ago?"

    During a game thread 2 or 3 years ago you made a comment about someone, maybe a family member/son, getting an EE jacket or shirt.  At the time I didn't get the EE thing, it was the first time I ever seen it used.  So of course I went for the funny response and made an Erik Estrada comment.






    seems like you have been leaning negative towards me ever since.

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

    Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.

    Shaughnessy is being flat-out sarcastic in the first part of his column.  He calls Valentine the 'smarter-than-everybody' manager.  Does anybody think that's an honest compliment?

    Also of note is that Shaughnessy and Francona are writing a book together.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.

    In Response to Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.:
    [QUOTE] W T F is That??????  You play and Manage to win every game NOW!!!!  They all count the same. Posted by tcal2-[/QUOTE]

    Yes, they all count the same, and yes, you play to win every game possible, but not at any cost when you're early in the season.  I am willing to bet that there is not a single manager in MLB who manages games in April the same way they do in September.  And I have no proof of this, but I would also be willing to bet that if a manager did go all out to win every game in April and May, the net result of wins over the course of the season would be fewer than for the manager who managed for the long term as well as the short term.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.


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

    Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.

    In Response to Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.:
    [QUOTE]"It couldn't be more different" For many years there have been posters, myself included, not happy with Francona's managing style.  On more then one occasion, in the past, I used the line that's not how Bill Belichick would run a team. Yes we won 2 championships and the masses were satisfied.  Thing is we probably should of won 4 and that's what's angers the not easily pleased crowd. It all starts in April though many have pooh poohed me basically saying April games don't count because it's a long season or he's not managing to win tonight's game because he has to save the Pen for tomorrow's game. W T F is That??????  You play and Manage to win every game NOW!!!!  They all count the same. I am so happy after reading Shaughnessy's article this morning.  It's going too be a great day.  Just call me Woody.
    Posted by tcal2-[/QUOTE]

    The first Shaunessy article I have liked in years.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

    Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.

     This thread brings up a few points that need further examination. It seems logical that each game has the same value, 1/162...yet, games in September have the element of scarcity, which everyone knows by experience, is more valuable. A mistake in April, can be forgiven, as there is plenty of time to fix it, a mistake in September can be catastrophic. The most valuable gaame last year was the finale in Baltimore, a win in that game puts them in the play-offs. An extra win in April would have made game 162 meaningless, and would have made game 161 the most valuable. The April-August schedule is to get you into position to win, consider it training for the race, September IS the race. This explains the mistake Tito made "backing" into the Play-offs as Texas losses, put the Sox in, and they just weren't ready for the Angels.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.

    During a game thread 2 or 3 years ago you made a comment about someone, maybe a family member/son, getting an EE jacket or shirt.  At the time I didn't get the EE thing, it was the first time I ever seen it used.  So of course I went for the funny response and made an Erik Estrada comment.

    Not sure about that one.  My kids have NYY shirts, since we have NYY tickets, but I wouldn't get them EE shirts.  And I would not take offense at the poster.  To be honest, only got the Erik Estrada = EE as I was typing just now.

    NP here.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hetchinspete. Show Hetchinspete's posts

    Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.

    In Response to Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood. : Or you can manage like Francona Hfx, miss the playoffs with the 2nd highest payroll for 3 years in a row and get fired.  Baseball is not as strenuous a sport when compaired to the other major sports.
    Posted by tcal2-[/QUOTE]

    So what does whether BB is strenuous or not have to do with any part of this conversation ? If Payproll was the barometer the Yankees should win every year and Florida never should have won in 1997 and 2003. 

    There are 31 other teams in BB that are trying to win just as much as the Red Sox so to assume they should have won two more is pure speculation typical of the riotous Boston Press. Shaughnessy is a writer I will never respect. He would be better off writing for a high school year book. 

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

    Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.

    Valentine has yet to manage the Sox in a reg. season game. Tito managed 2 WS champions, and a few other playoff teams. The styles have changed, but I only can make this opinion based on what I think is an over-perceived idea on fundamentals, rules, and managing---If the Sox go 81-81, will the same fans be happy with Bobby's motivational speaking, motivational managing? Tito treated his mostly veteran club with a hands off approach. He approached the reg. season as a 162-game marathon. I didn't agree with some of his methods, but he sure did win, so go on and on about the great Bobby V, but last time I checked Tito has a hell of a lot better track record as a MLB manager. Win 95 or advance to the WS, and then pop off.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.

    In Response to Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood. : So what does whether BB is strenuous or not have to do with any part of this conversation ?If Payproll was the barometer the Yankees should win every year and Florida never should have won in 1997 and 2003.  There are 31 other teams in BB that are trying to win just as much as the Red Sox so to assume they should have won two more is pure speculation typical of the riotous Boston Press. Shaughnessy is a writer I will never respect. He would be better off writing for a high school year book.  Hetchinspete
    Posted by Hetchinspete[/QUOTE]

    Because the excuse's I've been reading on this board for the poor April starts or the lineups with no chance of winning or allowing a burnt out pitcher to continue to give up an extra 4 runs is......It's a long season, it's not a sprint it's a marathon as well as others that all somehow imply that BB is so grueling and strenuous that you must concede games.

    Have you not read these Hetchinspete?  Do you agree with such statements?  Are you not happy or feel it wasn't time for a manager change?

    And the 4 championship thing was pure irrational exuberance spoken by the fan in me to juice it up a bit.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.

    In Response to Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.:
    [QUOTE]Valentine has yet to manage the Sox in a reg. season game. Tito managed 2 WS champions, and a few other playoff teams. The styles have changed, but I only can make this opinion based on what I think is an over-perceived idea on fundamentals, rules, and managing---If the Sox go 81-81, will the same fans be happy with Bobby's motivational speaking, motivational managing? Tito treated his mostly veteran club with a hands off approach. He approached the reg. season as a 162-game marathon. I didn't agree with some of his methods, but he sure did win, so go on and on about the great Bobby V, but last time I checked Tito has a hell of a lot better track record as a MLB manager. Win 95 or advance to the WS, and then pop off.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    When was the last time we made the playoffs?  When was the last time we didn't finish in 3rd place?  What do Francona and the Roman Empire have in common?  They were both great at one time, in the past.

    Red Sox ownership made the Manager change not me.  I'm sure they had many high paid consultants who know more about baseball then anyone on this board helping them make the choices they did. 

    If all Bobby V is doing is nothing more then a Dog and Pony show then so be it.  I'm happy knowing that the players will be in better shape to start the season and they will act as a team moving forward.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.

    In Response to Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood. : When was the last time we made the playoffs?  When was the last time we didn't finish in 3rd place?  What do Francona and the Roman Empire have in common?  They were both great at one time, in the past. Red Sox ownership made the Manager change not me.  I'm sure they had many high paid consultants who know more about baseball then anyone on this board helping them make the choices they did.  If all Bobby V is doing is nothing more then a Dog and Pony show then so be it.  I'm happy knowing that the players will be in better shape to start the season and they will act as a team moving forward.
    Posted by tcal2-[/QUOTE]

    You obviously have no idea whether or not the Red Sox will act as a team going forward.  There is no way to know what will happen in the future and the fact that we have to rely on the media to let us know what is going on means that in actuality we have no idea what is happening now.

    All you are doing really is responding to a column written by a guy that gets paid to rile people up.

    Obviously Francona did a good job during his tenure here.  Obviously he didn't do a very good job managing personalities last year.  Obviously he had to go.

    Obviously no one has any idea whether or not the Red Sox will respond to Bobby V any better.  I get this is a forum to express ideas but to say that you "know that they will act as a team going forward" is kind of rdiciulous.  By June they could all be telling Valentine to go get screwed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.

    "I get this is a forum to express ideas but to say that you "know that they will act as a team going forward" is kind of rdiciulous."

    There are a lot of people out there just dyeing to jump on other posters.  It kinda make me believe this whole forum thing is frequented by mostly unstable people.

    If you read the article Bobby has stopped the practice of players traveling on their own.  Moving forward they will all travel together as a TEAM.  So at the very least Bobby is promoting a team building principle in what maybe a small way, but at least they will be acting as a team by traveling as a team.

    So accurate - YES / ridiculous - NO
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.

    In Response to Re: Shaughnessy's article invokes some wood.:
    [QUOTE]"I get this is a forum to express ideas but to say that you "know that they will act as a team going forward " is kind of rdiciulous." There are a lot of people out there just dyeing to jump on other posters.  It kinda make me believe this whole forum thing is frequented by mostly unstable people. If you read the article Bobby has stopped the practice of players traveling on their own.  Moving forward they will all travel together as a TEAM .  So at the very least Bobby is promoting a team building principle in what maybe a small way, but at least they will be acting as a team by traveling as a team. So accurate - YES / ridiculous - NO
    Posted by tcal2-[/QUOTE]

    People that disagree with you are unstable.  Whatever gets you through the night man.  Then again you think someone has been mad at you for years because you made a joke about Erik Estrada.

    So your point was when you said that you know that the Red Sox are moving forward as a team is that you are happy they are traveling together.  Sorry. If I knew that was all you were trying to say I wouldnt have bothered to respond.

     

Share