i also don't have an issue with the 6 man rotation, in their case. They have an injury prone rotation and a few rookies in there. I highly doubt Buehrle would be nearly as effective this year without the extra day rest.

 

Also, Jenks blew 4 saves last year.

It's not wise to take starts away from the number 1 or 2 and give them to Jake Peavy. If the rotation is injury-prone, you keep someone in the bullpen as a long guy, and move him into the rotation when needed. What Guillen has been doing is taxing the bullpen and depriving it from rest.

 

Jenks' struggles were not exclusively limited to recorded save opportunities, which do not account for all high-leverage situations late in games. Jenks was a mess last season and his overall stat line shows it (4.44 ERA). Much to the displeasure of White Sox fans, Guillen stuck with "his guy" in high leverage positions:

 

Guillen continues to say that he has faith in Jenks as his closer. "I never take the job away from him because he blew a game," Guillen said. "He blew the game in the World Series, and the next day he was my guy. I just worry about what I see and what my pitching coach sees."

One, the Sox have one of the better bullpens in the league. It being "taxed" doesn't seem to be showing as you believe.

 

Two, the Sox don't have a pitcher on the team where you say "man I can't believe they are taking starts away from him". If there is one, its Buehrle, who by everything I've heard from listening to Chicago radio and listening to steve stone (smartest man in the biz), believes he wouldn't be nearly as good this year without that extra day rest.

 

As far as last year with Jenks, I think that's a little nitpicky. I watch a lot of Sox games.. Thornton was their best pitcher but its hard to take a guy out of spot who is wildly successful in that role. Jenks had his implosions last year but for the most part was average as the closer. Definitely not something worth basing your whole argument against him as a manager on.

 

 

The Sox struggles this year really have absolutely nothing to do with a "taxed" bullpen or a 6 man rotation. That should be blatantly obvious.

Most teams' successes or struggles are not the result of their manager. Ozzie's not a great manager, and he's not a horrible manager, and his affect on teams is largely ineffable. I don't care if they get him or not; I don't think it would be great, and I don't think it would be a tragedy. He'd probably annoy me with his bunting and small ball stuff, but it's not a huge deal.

I can't see Ozzie and Loria getting along. I can see Loria dreaming about how they would get along, and then angrily firing him sometime around July 2012...on the latest episode of "..today on, ....As The Fish Swim."-cue bubble effect screen cut-

I can't see Ozzie and Loria getting along.

 

Way to convenient of a thing to say but completely baseless. Ozzie has a wonderful working relationship with Reinsdorf and Loria covets him. Ozzie's great relationship with Reinsdorf is a reason why he may ultimately stay in Chicago. Let's also not forget Jack is the one who recommended Ozzie for the job in Chicago.

 

 

I agree a manager ultimately doesn't effect the games.. which is why I want the one manager in baseball who would get the casual fan talking about the team.

 

If Ozzie isn't in Chicago next year, he'll be in Miami. I think we all (should) pretty much realize that. Will be interesting to see what happens to him in Chi-town.

It's based on the fact that Ozzie has never had any issue opening his mouth and speaking his mind on any issue, and historically, Loria has not been a fan of characters like that around the team. Reinsdorf liking him is irrelevant to that.

I can't see Ozzie and Loria getting along.

 

Way to convenient of a thing to say but completely baseless.

oh come on dude, you've got to have had your head buried in the sand to not recognize the justification. Fredi's talked about it, Girardi got the axe when his performance warranted the opposite, Ajay Burnett was critical, Bobby Cox is on record calling Loria an impossible boss, look what just happened to LoMo. It's an extensive resume.

I do not think the Bobby Cox or AJ Burnett things are relevant.

I don't think Ozzie is the type to bite the hand that feeds him. While he has no problem speaking his mind, its usually about on-field performance and effort (or umpiring.. lol).

 

I do find it fascinating that players love playing for a guy who has no problem calling them out publicly. Personally I think he'd be great for Hanley.. and wildly entertaining for me as a fan.

 

It could all be moot.. Reinsdorf is incredibly loyal and the sox fans really do love the guy. Will be interesting.

I don't think all players love playing for all managers who call them out publicly. Hanley did not like Fredi for calling him out. I get the feeling Logan Morrison We get it, you like Ozzie Guillen. Some players probably like him, some probably don't.

One, the Sox have one of the better bullpens in the league. It being "taxed" doesn't seem to be showing as you believe.

 

Two, the Sox don't have a pitcher on the team where you say "man I can't believe they are taking starts away from him". If there is one, its Buehrle, who by everything I've heard from listening to Chicago radio and listening to steve stone (smartest man in the biz), believes he wouldn't be nearly as good this year without that extra day rest.

 

As far as last year with Jenks, I think that's a little nitpicky. I watch a lot of Sox games.. Thornton was their best pitcher but its hard to take a guy out of spot who is wildly successful in that role. Jenks had his implosions last year but for the most part was average as the closer. Definitely not something worth basing your whole argument against him as a manager on.

 

 

The Sox struggles this year really have absolutely nothing to do with a "taxed" bullpen or a 6 man rotation. That should be blatantly obvious.

 

The talent in the pen is completely irrelevant. By "taxing" I'm talking about the workload. No matter how talented your pen is, in the 6 man rotation you have the same number of innings for your pen to pitch, but you have less arms to do with work. That's taxing on the pen. That's why guys like Rick Peterson (probably the best ML pitching coach right now) have been against what Ozzie is doing.

 

Not having a Cy Young caliber ace is irrelevant too. The bottom line is that the White Sox have several arms where even if one doesn't stand out, they are better pitchers than Peavy is. By shoehorning Peavy into a 6 man rotation, you are taking innings away from all of the better pitchers in the rotation and giving them to a weaker pitcher.

 

All of this amounts to the White Sox being handicapped by the rotation. I haven't seen any credible evidence yet that this configuration is responsible for boosting Buehrle's performance. Even if true, I highly doubt that this "boost" outweighs the negatives in less IP and the greater stress you put on your bullpen.

 

Obviously the 6 man rotation is not the one of the biggest problems the White Sox are facing (I'd start with Adam Dunn), but Ozzie's plan has no net benefit for the team and certainly doesn't help the team any. It's such an ass-backwards way of thinking, that I question the managerial abilities in general of anyone who endorses this plan.

 

I had Jenks on my fantasy team last year, so I followed his progress very closely. He was a mess at some points. Looking at his 4.44 ERA I'm not sure how you can question this. If he wasn't blowing saves, he was giving up leads in tie games, or he was making games a lot closer than they needed to be. There was definitely a concern that Jenks could not handle the high leverage situations anymore and the belief was that Thorton was waiting to take over (I believe he got some opportunities as did Putz when Jenks missed some games due to injury), but overall Guillen gave Jenks a lot longer of leash than he deserved. I'm not sure how a 4.44 ERA can be considered "average" for a closer.

 

Jenks was just as shakey as Nunez has been this season.

Most teams' successes or struggles are not the result of their manager. Ozzie's not a great manager, and he's not a horrible manager, and his affect on teams is largely ineffable. I don't care if they get him or not; I don't think it would be great, and I don't think it would be a tragedy. He'd probably annoy me with his bunting and small ball stuff, but it's not a huge deal.

 

 

I don't think that the fate of a team has ever been primarily decided by the quality of a manger (for better or worse), but the manager absolutely has some affect on the team's success. I don't understand how you can even rationalize his influence as being negligible (I don't think you know what "ineffable" means because it doesn't make sense in the context you are using).

 

In the rise of the stat era, there is a lot of consideration given to lefty/right splits, lineup optimization, and "values" based on defense and baserunning. It's the responsibility of the manager to orient his resources efficiently so tthat the value of the players can be realized. If a manger is going to start doing stupid things like mismatching relievers with hitters, he's unquestionably going to hurt the team's success even if not to an extent where his decisionmaking might not be the dominant determining factor of a game's outcome.

 

It wasn't Edwin's fault that the team sucked in the first half. Absolutely. He wasn't a bad manager, either. However, in the big picture I do think that having a good manager contributes somewhat to success as opposed to a weaker manager.

I can't see Ozzie and Loria getting along.

 

Way to convenient of a thing to say but completely baseless. Ozzie has a wonderful working relationship with Reinsdorf and Loria covets him. Ozzie's great relationship with Reinsdorf is a reason why he may ultimately stay in Chicago. Let's also not forget Jack is the one who recommended Ozzie for the job in Chicago.

 

 

I agree a manager ultimately doesn't effect the games.. which is why I want the one manager in baseball who would get the casual fan talking about the team.

 

If Ozzie isn't in Chicago next year, he'll be in Miami. I think we all (should) pretty much realize that. Will be interesting to see what happens to him in Chi-town.

 

Loria coveted both Girardi and Valentine too (supposedly against the wishes of his baseball people). I don't think Loria always has the best perception of what type of manager works well with his front office.

I think at this point, most managers do things 90% the same. So yeah, they have an impact. But it's on the margins, not really worth getting worked up about one way or the other. Talent wins out, as you can see with Ozzie. When he has talent, his style of managing can win you a world series. When he doesn't, his style of managing will put you in the cellar.

 

And yes, I used a word wrong. Thank you.

From all of the offseason rumors about Valentine, it was pretty clear that:

 

1. He wanted too much money

2. Loria wasn't interested in giving him much control over the team

 

I highly doubt Guillen ends up here, primarily for how outspoken he is. It's not impossible, but probably not too likely. Also Guillen is under contract for 2012 the last time I checked.

I do not think the Bobby Cox or AJ Burnett things are relevant.

 

Correct. Cox was talking like he had been in the org himself. And some took the future Hall of Famer's words as the gospel. And AJ was a head case that wouldn't listen to his coaches or his catcher. He always knew better. Things were seldom his fault. When it was evident that he was the "unnamed club house source" that was constantly ripping almost everyone, he was basically fired from the team with a week or so to go in the season.

 

Still.......I wouldn't mind Ozzie here. If, and only if, Loria would sit back and let the guys he hired to do a job actually do their jobs. IOW, shut up, enjoy the product, and only pipe in with how much more $$$ we can have when we need another piece or two during the season. Pretty big "if".

1. Peavy is definitely a major league starter, when healthy.

2. They can't move Peavy out of the starting rotation, either way. That's probably not even Ozzie's decision, at that point. Have you seen how much money Peavy is making? Unless he's Barry Zito terrible, the organization is going to want him in the rotation because they invested in him, financially.

 

Also, if Bobby Jenks only blew 4 saves last year despite a 4.44 ERA, isn't it safe to say that Ozzie probably pulled him at times in the middle of save situations? Not to mention that Jenks was probably the highest paid arm in the Sox bullpen last year so, once again, the decision to stick with him might've had to do just as much with the front office as it did with Ozzie.

 

Anyway, http://www.fangraphs...-saber-bullpen/ is a recent article on how he's used his bullpen this year.

 

I don't really care who our manager is because they have a minimal impact on the record results, but I think some of your criticisms are rather unfair.

 

Edit: Forgot to quote it...but directed to el penguino's posts.

I do not think the Bobby Cox or AJ Burnett things are relevant.

 

Yeah, sure they're not important. But when you have three other incidents then it begins to look like a pattern, and the scope of relevance can then be expanded.

But they are not the same as the other things...

1. Peavy is definitely a major league starter, when healthy.

2. They can't move Peavy out of the starting rotation, either way. That's probably not even Ozzie's decision, at that point. Have you seen how much money Peavy is making? Unless he's Barry Zito terrible, the organization is going to want him in the rotation because they invested in him, financially.

 

Also, if Bobby Jenks only blew 4 saves last year despite a 4.44 ERA, isn't it safe to say that Ozzie probably pulled him at times in the middle of save situations? Not to mention that Jenks was probably the highest paid arm in the Sox bullpen last year so, once again, the decision to stick with him might've had to do just as much with the front office as it did with Ozzie.

 

Anyway, http://www.fangraphs...-saber-bullpen/ is a recent article on how he's used his bullpen this year.

 

I don't really care who our manager is because they have a minimal impact on the record results, but I think some of your criticisms are rather unfair.

 

Edit: Forgot to quote it...but directed to el penguino's posts.

 

Peavy being a MLB caliber starter doesn't factor in here. He's certainly capable of starting but the point is that his performance has been in decline over the past two seasons (ERA around 4.50 last season, 5.00) this season. All 6 arms in the rotation are not equally good, so when you take away starts from the better pitchers and give them to the weaker pitchers, you hurt your rotation.

 

If you can't move Peavy out of the rotation because of his contract, you still have other options. You could consider moving Danks or Floyd into the long role to prevent your bullpen from being shorthanded. The best solution is the one proposed by Rick Peterson (who is against the 6 man rotation); since the hope was to ease Peavy back into the rotation slowly, perhaps consider maintaining a 5 man rotation, but select the 5th starter based on the match-up. In other words, rotate starters in and out, and use the guy who's not starting as a long-man in the pen that week. That way you have a reliever to work when your starter can't go 6 full innings and you don't take innings away from the better starters.

 

Guillen's use of Jenks last season was as conventional as it gets. Look at the game log. He routinely worked full innings except for the occasional non-situation when Guillen would bring him in the ninth to replace another reliver and get some work. It's also a stretch to say that he couldn't have been pulled from that role because he was making $7 million. Ask any knowledgeable White Sox fan and I think they would make similar claims with regard to how Guillen used Jenks last season. In fact, I think the burden of proof is on you to show me otherwise, because what I'm suggesting here is assumed to be common knowledge.

 

That Fangraphs article is pretty poor. There are some valid criticisms in the comments section that led the author to even admit that Santos has been used in a pretty traditional fashion. It's also worth noting that Guillen has just recently annointed Santos as "his guy."

 

‘‘From spring training on, he’ll be the guy, no matter what,’’ Guillen said. ‘‘That’s the way he should be working.’’

 

So he's used the "my guy" rhetoric with both Jenks (see my previous quote on Jenks) and now Santos and you are going to try to pass Guillen off as some sabermetrics bullpen manager? For the time being certain circumstances might have encouraged him to give Santos a one out save, but I think you are misled if you think Guillen shys away from convention.

I do not think the Bobby Cox or AJ Burnett things are relevant.

 

Yeah, sure they're not important. But when you have three other incidents then it begins to look like a pattern, and the scope of relevance can then be expanded.

But at the time with the AJ thing, it didn't come across as a Loria thing. Sounded more like a Jack and the FO decision. Heavy emphasis on Jack. And I really think Loria just agreed with what they wanted. Looking at it years later and putting it all on Loria is actually quite unfair.

 

And Cox should have been heavily critisized by everyone for his comments. Much like Samson was every time he made disparaging remarks about how other FO's/owners were running their teams. Having never worked here or even being asked to work here his comments came across as pure hate filled and should have been taken as such. As in, "We get it, Bobby. You don't like the Marlins. Guess what. We don't like the Braves. What's your point?" And it probably was. But a future HOFer gets alot more leeway in his comments than the president of an org like ours.

Yay for small ball

Guys, Leyland and Valentine are NOT Y O U N G. We tried Y O U N G with Fredi and Rodriguez and didn't get anywhere. Keeping McKeon would give some continuity as well as teach the young team what it means to play as a big leaguer, mature them by kicking aXX and tongue lashing. Look how many managers we have gone through the last few years. Every year the players have to adjust to someone different. My preference is keep McKeon.

 

Why would Leyland leave Detroit?

 

 

It was a sarcastic post, due to the fact that we are worrying about who the next manager of the Marlins will be.

 

I figured since the Marlins brought Jack back and it didn't work why not bring back another manager who won a WS title with the Marlins.

Guys, Leyland and Valentine are NOT Y O U N G. We tried Y O U N G with Fredi and Rodriguez and didn't get anywhere. Keeping McKeon would give some continuity as well as teach the young team what it means to play as a big leaguer, mature them by kicking aXX and tongue lashing. Look how many managers we have gone through the last few years. Every year the players have to adjust to someone different. My preference is keep McKeon.

 

Why would Leyland leave Detroit?

 

 

It was a sarcastic post, due to the fact that we are worrying about who the next manager of the Marlins will be.

 

I figured since the Marlins brought Jack back and it didn't work why not bring back another manager who won a WS title with the Marlins.Didnt work? You mean he wasnt able to turn sh*t into sandwiches? Managers cant turn bad players good.

 

Right because McKeon had absolutely nothing to do with turning 2003 around, managers can change the way players approach the game and can bring a spark if there isn't one. I don't think I need to delve anymore into the situation.

 

Once again though it was sarcasm I wasn't actually considering Leyland as an option.