How good is Terry Francona??

[CrespoBlows]

Some people are crazy. [/b]The game rarely swings on managerial moves as long as you have a talented team' date=' and we do. [/b'] Building a good clubhouse environment and doing a good job taking care of your players, getting them fired up and confident, these things probably add more wins than who you bring in out of the pen (especially this pen where everyone's a weapon) or who you pinch hit with.

 

?

[Dojji]

!

[The_Destroyah]

$

[schillingouttheks]

!

 

Chemistry is extremely overrated. If you are a professional athlete and your performance suffers because you don't like someone on the team or how certain things are run, you shouldn't be a pro.

[Dojji]

That's an interesting philosophy. At its core it seeks to proclaim that all baseball is fantasy baseball. I disagree with it because however professional these guys are they're still human beings.

[schillingouttheks]

That's an interesting philosophy. At its core it seeks to proclaim that all baseball is fantasy baseball. I disagree with it because however professional these guys are they're still human beings.

 

I would argue that the New York Yankees do not have the best team chemistry. Especially with an idiotic manager. With their salaries (their = baseball players in general, not only the Yankees), there is no excuse to not put aside their differences while they are on the field.

[Dojji]

It can be hard to tell from the outside. For the most part the only time we really learn of the actual elements if team chemistry is after the fact. But I have never heard anything negative about Tito's ability to keep people all heading in the right direction. At least other than maybe a guy like Manny or Nomar who are completely determined not to go with the program.

[schillingouttheks]

It can be hard to tell from the outside. For the most part the only time we really learn of the actual elements if team chemistry is after the fact. But I have never heard anything negative about Tito's ability to keep people all heading in the right direction. At least other than maybe a guy like Manny or Nomar who are completely determined not to go with the program.

 

I'm not saying it doesn't help to keep everyone happy, but it's not necessary. It may help to get certain players to want to return to the team during FA. Other than that, I certainly don't believe it adds to the win column.

[Dojji]

And that's not significant?

 

It's a debate about intangibles, so it's not really something that can be conclusively settled, but since we're dealing with human beings and people tend to perform better when they're happy and don't have a ton of distractions around them, I believe Tito's ability to manage personalities is a huge element of our winning.

[schillingouttheks]

And that's not significant?

 

Some people are crazy. The game rarely swings on managerial moves as long as you have a talented team' date=' and we do. Building a good clubhouse environment and doing a good job taking care of your players, getting them fired up and confident, [b']these things probably add more wins than who you bring in out of the pen[/b] (especially this pen where everyone's a weapon) or who you pinch hit with.

 

I'm saying that I believe this statement to be entirely false. It's nice to have happy players, but it isn't going to give you a world series title. If professionals need to be happy (see: Randy Moss in Oakland ... he shouldn't have even bothered coming onto the field - let's not go into other sports though, because I believe football to be a completely different sport in terms of locker room chemistry) in order to perform well, they're far too selfish to be on a professional team. We may have to agree to disagree, but I believe you can look in the Bronx to find an example of a team who seems to have pretty s***** chemistry but wins anyway and has players who want to return.

[Dojji]

It doesn't necessarily mean that you need to be a nice guy to win games, but you've got to be able to get people to buy in. As long as you do, they'll play their best for you but if you can't, you have no business behind the bench, and yes, you CAN tell the difference.

[schillingouttheks]

We'll have to agree to disagree, but I'm maintaining my stance that who you bring into a game out of the bullpen is far more important than having good team chemistry (which I will always believe to be incredibly overrated). I've played on teams with people who strongly dislike each other. Come game time, the differences are set aside because everyone wants to win. If my high school football and baseball teams can do that, professionals certainly can.

[YAZMAN]

?

 

$

 

1) Underpants

 

2) ?

 

3) Profit

[The_Destroyah]

1) Underpants

 

2) ?

 

3) Profit

 

exactly

[CrespoBlows]

1) Tito

 

2) Mike Timlin

 

3) ALCS loss

[BoSox21]

1) Tito

 

2) Mike Timlin

 

3) ALCS loss

 

IIRC, he didnt have a choice but to go to Timlin in that game. there was no one left

[TheKilo]

IIRC' date=' he didnt have a choice but to go to Timlin in that game. there was no one left[/quote']

 

Paul Byrd.

 

He also mismanaged Masterson terribly.

[CrespoBlows]

IIRC' date=' he didnt have a choice but to go to Timlin in that game. there was no one left[/quote']

 

They had Byrd, and that wasn't even the worst move he made of the game. Francona cost them that series.

[Dojji]

Let's not pretend that Paul Byrd was the second coming of Keith Foulke. Guy wasn't used to appearing in relief. Just because Tito tried a different move doesn't mean it would have worked better.

 

Just sayin'.

 

We lost that ALCS when we moved Masterson to the bullpen rather than letting him work through out his issues as a starter, and had to run Wakefield out there as our #4 playoff starter. Wakefield sucks in the playoffs. Or when buchholz spit the bit. Or when they kept running Lowell out there hurt in July instead of DLing him earlier on when he might have been able to rest, come back, and play through the same pain in October to much more useful effect. Or maybe when Beckett was hurt and generally less effective throughout the year. Or when Schilling was unable to come back.

 

The point is that we just didn't have a roster primed to go deep into the playoffs and the team as constituted wasn't winning anything. the Phills would have beat them like they beat the Rays.

[TheKilo]

Let's not pretend that Paul Byrd was the second coming of Keith Foulke. Just because Tito tried a different move doesn't mean it would have worked better.

 

Just sayin'.

 

Explain the mismanagement of Masterson then

[CrespoBlows]

Let's not pretend that Paul Byrd was the second coming of Keith Foulke. Guy wasn't used to appearing in relief. Just because Tito tried a different move doesn't mean it would have worked better.

 

Just sayin'.

 

You see, this is why you are the easiest person to hate.

[CrespoBlows]

Explain the mismanagement of Masterson then

 

Plus, leaving an obviously ineffective Beckett in to surrender the lead.

[Dojji]

Explain the mismanagement of Masterson then

 

which one? The one where they pulled him too soon a playoff game or the one where he was in the bullpen at all when the team spent the entire second half of the season desperate for a decent 4th starter?

 

If you're talking about game 2 bot 9, I don't know what else he was supposed to do. It was walk off territory, Masterson is not very effective against lefthanders and was up against Carlos Pena with a runner at second base. If he leaves him in with Papelbon warm and ready and Pena wins the game with a base hit, you'd have gone after him for that, and you'd be right.

 

It's not a move that worked, but let's not pretend there was no justification for what Tito did. With Oki having already pitched, in that situation I'd go to Papelbon there too and hope that the team could put something together in the bottom of the inning (i was Pedroia, Ortiz, Youkilis up top 10). If they had, this would have passed as nothing.

 

The real crime here was the failure to get anything going against Wheeler in the top of the 10th. If the Sox can't pull together a run in extra innings, no amount of pitcher use would have made a difference.

 

Theo's failure to rest Lowell properly has more bearing on that playoff series than the decision to pull Masterson after 2/3 of an inning.

[Dojji]

You see' date=' this is why you are the easiest person to hate.[/quote']

 

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I actually care. I used to, but I learned it just doesn't pay to let other peoples' opinion of me determine my opinion of myself. Fortunately I don't have to stand for election so it actually works out reasonably well.

[TheKilo]

If you're going to burn Papelbon in the 9th, why wouldn't you start the inning with him, thereby saving Masterson for 10-12?

[Dipre]

This is ridiculous.

 

Tito's a good manager, but his bullpen management is obviously questionable.

 

His management of the media and players on a personal level is fantastic though.

[Dojji]

Because Tito was still playing to win at that point, which means trying to save your closer for a chance to actually close out a lead.

 

The original inning was Bartlett, Iwamura and Upton, two righties and a lefty not known for game-changing power. But when Carlos Pena came up, the formula changed. "Play to win" now involved neutralizing TB's best lefthanded hitter by any means necessary,because the alternative was an instant loss.

 

Again, if the Sox score in the top of the 10th, no one has a problem with what Tito did, and with his bullpen taxed, they weren't going to last much longer anyway.

 

The immortal Paul Byrd, Tito's only other option, surrendered 4 runs in relief in the very next game, so again, if the Sox don't score in the top of the 10th there really isn't much Tito can do to keep that game going. He got miracles out of that bullpen in that game as it was.

 

Tito's handling of Game 2 was tactically sound and followed conventional wisdom to the letter. Your problem is either with conventional wisdom itself, or with the fact that Tito's moves did not result in a win. Tito did the best you could reasonably expect with the roster he was given in that series, and with our injury-sapped rotation, Beckett reduced to a shadow of himself, Daisuke wild and no credible #4 starter we still got to game 7 with out best remaining pitcher on the mound and every chance to win. Pity we didn't, but there's enough blame to go round.

 

I'd be more inclined to focus said blame on Theo myself for not taking the chance to strengthen that roster when he could have, and for making moves that sapped our starting pitching depth without responding to the resulting problems until it was too late to get a quality replacement. Also for not taking the opportunity to explore our other youngsters, especially Bowden, to see if they might help solve a known problem in time to get them onto a playoff roster. It's not like Bowden would have been that much worse than Byrd!

[CrespoBlows]

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I actually care. I used to' date=' but I learned it just doesn't pay to let other peoples' opinion of me determine my opinion of myself. Fortunately I don't have to stand for election so it actually works out reasonably well.[/quote']

 

You should be aware that you have the annoying habit of refuting people's points that you make for them.

[TheKilo]

Because Tito was still playing to win at that point, which means trying to save your closer for a chance to actually close out a lead.

 

*head explodes*

[Dojji]

*head explodes*

 

OK, so apparently your problem is with the closer's role itself, not with Tito. You can debate the role of the closer and the way teams use them, but it's disingenouos to blame specifically Tito for that.