example1

So the FO is unreasonable? Doesn't that crapshoot excuse (made by Billy Beane to justify why his team COULD win in the playoffs against teams with many more resources) just make you feel warm and fuzzy inside? It isn't appliable to a team that spends nearly 100% more than the rest of the teams in baseball. Sorry. It just doesn't. Home field advantage? Check. Rotation setup as they would want it? Check. Healthy lineup? Check. MVP caliber players on both corners? Check. World's best closer? Check. True Ace? Check. I think perhaps the whole concept of "crapshoot" deserves its own thread as it has come up a lot recently.

This is very reasonable. The Yankees are absolutely the favorites to win the World Series. It will be an utter disaster if they do not.

My we are being selective today, aren't we Gom? Have you looked at AJ's line against the Red Sox this year? Here it is: 4 GS, 0-2, 8.85 ERA, 20.1 IP, 23 H, 22 R, 20 ER, 16k/16BB, 1.918 WHIP That INCLUDES the 1 hitter. Ouch.

Yeah, bad internet connection. Problem fixed. Thanks.

He was never going to hit Youkilis, but brought him out so Baldelli would see better pitches to hit? Wanted to have Youk hitting with RISP rather than witha man on 1B? :dunno: Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I don't think it was an oversight. I doubt Tito was like "oh s***, I have Youkilis on deck and Baldelli hitting. That was totally not what I meant to do!"

I'm not sure... I think there's 2 ways to measure the move: 1) Does it help the team win 2) Does it have a longterm positive or negative outcome on Beckett He's not far over 100 pitches, but I was shocked to see him out there too. Recently I've seen someone (was it Duncan from St. Louis or Maddux from Texas??) saying that what they measure are actually "stress" pitches, i.e., pitches made with runners in scoring position with less than two outs. Those are the pitches that pitchers REALLY need to focus on and execute, and which take the greatest toll on them. I'd be curious to see if Beckett has had many of those tonight... Inning over, no immediate negative impact, no bullpen usage.

My dad just commented that "it's sad, like watching a dying racehorse"

Bizarre series of events with both of the recent Tek miscues. It feels like a freakish coincidence.

Right now's situation in the Angels game might be a good example of what you're talking about though Dipre. Bullpen is rested, would be a nice game to win. Let's see how this goes... Could be a huge confidence boost for Beckett... or a bad choice. EDIT: Situation is guys on 2nd and 3rd, 2 outs, Figgins batting, up by a run. EDIT 2: RESULT: Passed ball on a K. Not something tito could have managed around. Ouch in either case.

How was the bullpen doing that game? (I literally don't know... I"m curious) And how was the bullpen used in subsequent games? IIRC (and I often don't) they needed Beckett to go deeper in that game because the pen was either tired or was going to be needed in the next few games.

I don't see it. I think he takes out pitchers at a pretty reasonable time, except when he's trying to rest the bullpen. If he leaves Byrd in longer than I might like a day after the pen was used and in a game he doesn't expect to win, that's fine with me. If he leaves Dice-K in too long so he can blow his win and feel dejected about his performance for no reason, then I would complain.

EDIT MY LAST POST: Strategy should trump tactics every time, except in the playoffs, when Tito's tactics really can't be questioned. Seems like exactly the mix a good team would want from its skipper, right?

So then strategy should trump tactics every time. We agree he's good with strategy and that his tactics may be questionable (a premise I"m not willing to concede yet). In either case, having poor tactics would be a much less grievous crime than having poor strategy. If his strategy is encapsulated by his resting of players, he lack of bunting or stealing bases, his non-use of the hit and run, his use of platooning players and resting arms in the bullpen for their longterm health--all of these ultimately helping the team get to the playoffs (not bunting, etc.,) and winning in the playoffs (having arms that can be effective in the 163rd-180thish games) then what more could we possibly ask for? :dunno: I think that Francona may have been hired for his big picture, longterm view of the game and the franchise. Much like Theo was hired for the same reason. It seems like a winning strategy and a winning choice. Anyone else see Pedro throw 130 pitches the other night? Do they want him to be useful in the playoffs?

Back to the discussion... To me this would be a problem if this team consistently missed the playoffs by one game or didn't have good results. I see Francona's sitting of his stars as both frustrating and planful. He won't sit Drew against a lefty in the playoffs unless Drew is really bad against that player. There appears to be a real difference in how he forms his lineups in "ought to win" games vs. "must win" games, and the results have been pretty spectacular IMO. I too get frustrated when Drew sits on a night when both V-Mart and Youk are out of the lineup. Then again, when they win those games and Drew is used appropriately as a pinch hitter, I can't complain too much. Also, I like Baldelli a lot more than I liked Gabe Kaplar.

Honestly man, that's usually my intent. That's kind of what this board is all about, isn't it? It isn't about makin people feel s***** about themselves. I hope that's not what you were getting from my posts, or my requests for more elaboration.

If we're talking about "in game" decisions, I would rather have a manager who manages like Francona than one who sacrifices and sends runners all the time. LaRussa may not do those things every time, but plenty of all-time-great managers did. It is poor decision making both in theory and in retrospect and is something that Francona deserves credit for, even if it lies below the surface more than 'active' managing does. In order to be as good as someone else I don't believe that one needs to be as good or better in all areas that can be measured. Perhaps LaRussa is better at choosing when to bunt or when to send the runner or pull the double switch. I think Tito is possibly better with sticking to a proven and sabermetric approach to the game, picking guys for particular situations and getting good matchups in big games. They both have dealt with egos well (though I contend that Tito has done it in a more difficult setting than LaRussa over the past 5 years), but they're in different environments. Dipre, if you weren't such a sharp guy and an overall good poster I would have tolerated your "lol, no" comment. I responded because I wanted to be convinced otherwise and I know you have the knowledge to do it. I think we can agree to disagree at this point, but my desire for more of your opinion was based on respect for your knowledge of the game, not because I wanted to pick on you or be an attention whore. I find it frustrating to get curt "duh!" kind of answers when it is a topic that is both subjective and clearly debatable. To me, the discussion was much more akin to "who's better, Pedro in his prime or Walter Johnson in his prime?" than it is to "which is the more accomplished franchise, the Yankees or the Rangers?". The first is something that can lead to discussion, the second is just stupid. Clearly, this discussion came from someplace and I have appreciated it greatly. No hard feelings, I hope. :thumbsup:

Last nights game was LITERALLY won with 3 s***** shortstops contributing when nobody else would have thought they could. Lowrie got a key single (could have been a game winning double). Green got a key walk (thanks ump, thanks Tito for hitting him for Kotchman). Gonzalez got a bloop base hit. The first two moves had me groaning, yet this team won, again, and that win may have cemented their playoff birth. I imagine the Rangers watching that game in their clubhouse and hanging their heads.

I think you are avoiding the substance of my post, which addresses a number of points beyond simply WS victories. I don't agree that he's a terrible tactician. That's something you've said repeatedly and apparently it isn't convincing enough, given both the results on the field and his continued employment on a team that wouldn't tolerate a s***** manager. Your argument is apparently that being a HOF manager isn't top eschelon. Is your argument that Casey Stengel and those others are not top managers? I bet that Tony LaRussa would disagree with you. How can you call someone a terrible tactician when he does so many things that we agree are the right thing to do (not bunt a man to 2nd) which other managers who were clearly in the top eschelon did all the time? How could a manager who platoons regularly, doesn't steal bases all the time (because it is a failed strategy) and all of the other things that make up the Red Sox philosophy, be a terrible tactician, when so many HOF managers and even managers who you would certainly praise, did all the time? Would you commend a manager who allows his star pitcher to throw 160 pitches? How about one who doesn't use relief pitchers, platoon hitters, steals bases at every turn, bunts guys to second whenever he can, etc.,? I think you were afraid to actually address my points because you don't know how to argue against it. Apparently you disagree with the OBP/not wasting outs philosophy which Francona (more than just about every other manager in baseball) understands and practices. I think your argument is ********, whether or not you agree that WS victories matter. Take any measurement that might be used to qualify "top eschelon" managers (a term you used), then look at their philosophy about baseball. How many of them agree with what the Red Sox (under Terry Francona) currently do. He has a unique strategy which many of them didn't, and it clearly works and is being replicated more than eschewed.

Stengel McCarthy Mack Torre Alston McGraw Huggins Anderson 8 managers with at least 3 WS victories. All of them HOF managers. I would call that the top eschelon of MLB managers. 1) What were the particular strategy skills of Miller Huggins and John McGraw and Walter Alston and Connie Mack? (without looking them up). 2) Would you rather have a manager who knows when to bunt or make a double switch than a manager who believes that OBP is the most important aspect of an offensive baseball team? I'm willing to bet that you would exhault managers who would bunt with a man on first 90% of the time over Francona, even though you actually know that bunting isn't the way to go. I believe it is a faulty premise that being a top strategist is the main qualification for being a top manager, especially when the best way to manage a team actually involves very little bunting, very little stealing, few hit and runs, taking lots of pitches, no leeway with letting pitchers go much above 120 pitches, etc., The playoffs are a crapshoot NOT because anything can happen, but because with some variation in any particular short series the better team can lose. If they were a complete crapshoot then there would be no way to explain why the Yankees would win 4 WS in a row in the 30's, or their success in the 90's. Good teams who don't blow it and whose managers manage appropriately win in the playoffs. The crapshoot phrase is an easy one to latch onto, because sometimes good teams lose when they shouldn't. However, if it were completely random then there would be no way to explain teams that win multiple championships in a row without using luck as the main variable, thus making 4 championships in a row an extremely unlikely event. Those Yankees teams won because they were the best teams, that isn't debatable.

You should actually read the argument. The question was about IF the Sox were to win the World Series again this year. I said that if Francona got his 3rd WS this year then he would be one of the best managers of the past few decades, and that he would be "up there" with LaRussa. I didn't say "as good" and I certainly didn't say "better". Your misinterpretation has led this board on a wild goose chase. That goose chase also led you to many defenses of LaRussa and many knocks of Francona. I agree with Kilo, LaRussa is wildly overrated. He managed some GREAT teams, some absolute powerhouses, especially in Oakland where he had Canseco and Mac, Dave Stewert, Eck, Lansford, and a few other pitchers. They were definitely the best team in the AL for those three years. I assume you've all read "Three Nights in August" by Buzz Bissinger, the book about LaRussa. He's an interesting guy, and definitely someone that those of us who love baseball would find interesting.

It wouldn't be blind luck that would give Tito 3 WS titles and thus tie him for 4th all time. Hell if they win this year I'd say it is quite a display of managing. Crapshoot or not he's the first manager to win his first 8 games in the World Series and he's 9-1 in elimination games. There have been plenty of good managers who do not have the same playoff success.