posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:12 AM by Jim

Tuesday morning manager

Ozzie Guillen made two questionable but defensible decisions that just so happened to blow up in his face Monday afternoon.  Leaving hindsight out of it, let's try to figure out how right or wrong he was.

***

Inning:  Top of the ninth.
The situation:  Sox lead 2-1.
The decision:  Ozzie Guillen calls for Bobby Jenks to retire the last three hitters after eight great innings by Javier Vazquez.
The result:  Jenks blows the save.

Reasons for:
  Vazquez ended the eighth inning on his 100th pitch, and would be coming up on the top of the order with Brian Roberts and Melvin Mora, who would be getting their fourth look at Javy.  Also, Jenks is one of the best closers in the game.  It's very simple, by-the-book managing that nobody would argue with had Jenks done his job.

Reasons against:  I didn't like this move for several reasons.

No. 1:  Jenks, as I've written before, has struggled against Baltimore, and Roberts and Mora are often at the heart of the Orioles' ninth-inning rallies against him.  After Roberts' double and Mora's single, they're now 7-for-11 against Jenks combined.

No. 2:  Not only that, but the Orioles had already seen Jenks three times in the past two weeks, beating him once and coming close another time.  Vazquez's start today was his first against Baltimore this season, and the O's looked like they were unfamiliar with his stuff.

No. 3:  Javy was on a roll, having retired 11 of his last 12.  Plus, he had only thrown 18 pitches over his last two innings.

No. 4:
  Pitch count isn't an issue with Javy, who worked deeper into games last year than any other Sox starter.  While he'd been roughed up a little bit between pitches 91 and 105 this season (8-for-20), that's a small sample size issue.  In 2007, he held opponents to a .209 average (33-for-158) between pitches 91 and 121.

If Javy said he couldn't go, that would be one thing.  However, from postgame comments, it seems that Vazquez was fine, and Ozzie just wanted to go with the guy he always gives the ball to in the ninth inning:
Guillen:  "I have one of the best closers for the last three years, and that's his job. Today, he [didn't] do what he always [does]."

Vazquez:  "As a pitcher, you always want to stay in. But that's the manager's decision. We had Bobby to close, and that's it."
I probably would have sent Vazquez out there with Jenks ready to go at the first sign of trouble.  At the very least, he seemed like a better matchup against Roberts, who was only 5-for-26 lifetime against Vazquez at that point.  Mora was 6-for-23.

***

Inning:  Bottom of the 10th.
The situation:  Game tied 2-2, runner on third, one out and Brian Anderson at the plate.
The decision:  Ozzie Guillen calls for the suicide squeeze.
The result:  Anderson whiffs on the bunt, Quentin is tagged out, and Anderson strikes out to end the inning.

Reasons against:  With one out, I'd rather have two chances to drive in Quentin instead of letting it all ride on one pitch.  Anderson isn't exactly Pablo Ozuna when it comes to bunting, and with first base open and Juan Uribe on deck, Jim Johnson was under no obligation to give him anything in the strike zone.  Plus, Anderson came through in the same situation Saturday night.

Reasons for:  Anderson likely works on his bunting more than the others unusual suspects, and obviously the element of surprise (and fear) plays a big part of the squeeze.  Also, here's what Anderson did with his at-bats with a runner on third since his game-winning single:
  1. Shallow flyout to right.
  2. Weak grounder to short.
  3. Foulout to first.
A replay of any of those events probably wouldn't have scored Quentin -- especially with the infield and outfield drawn in -- and obviously he has a far more extensive track record of failure than success in such situations.

I probably wouldn't have called for the squeeze, only because Johnson had no reason to throw Anderson anything he could get his bat on.  I don't think the idea was fundamentally wrong, and if Anderson walked, it probably would have been the right call with Uribe at the plate.  Either way, I find it a more defensible decision than pulling Vazquez.

Thankfully, Uribe tied up the game again with a homer in the 12th.  Now they'll have to finish it up a couple months from now.

***************************

While we're in a grateful mood toward ¡Profundo!, let's thank him for giving Guillen a reason to play him over Alexei Ramirez, who is clearly in over his head at the major-league level.

Ramirez dropped to 1-for-9 with runners in scoring position after failing twice in the clutch Monday.  He grounded out to short with runners on second and third after working the count to 2-2 in the fourth inning, then did the same thing on the first pitch after Daniel Cabrera had walked the two batters before him.

Ozzie, suffice to say, wasn't thrilled:

"This is the big leagues," Guillen said. "You should know what you're doing."

He has reasons for not knowing what he's doing.  Despite a hot spring, Ramirez shouldn't have started the season in the big leagues.  I suppose it didn't hurt to give him a shot, but now that he's quite exposed, the Sox should send him to Charlotte to refine his hitting approach and get used to shortstop again.  Orlando Cabrera, while adequate, isn't giving the Sox reasons to extend him right now.

Jason Bourgeois would make matters a whole lot simpler by hitting, because he'd fill out the infield and outfield depth chart a whole lot better than Jerry Owens, but he's not cooperating.  Either that, or it's a regression to the mean after what looks like a career year in 2007.

***************************

Hey Minnesota, prepare yourself for a hefty dose of Nick Magic:

Nick Masset prevented the White Sox from getting swept in a three-game series at Wrigley Field last May, and he'll try to stop the Sox's pitching staff from getting taxed.

Masset was named to start Wednesday's game at Minnesota despite his current role as a long reliever. Manager Ozzie Guillen selected Masset to avoid the temptation to bring back 23-year-old left-hander John Danks on short rest.

Of course, if trends continue, Masset will merely be shifting the tax burden to the bullpen.  To rehash a chart after Masset's last outing against the Twins:

Masset vs. Twins
IP
H
R
ER
HR
BB
K
ERA
WHIP
2007
5.2
15
11
10
1
4
1
15.88
3.35
April 9
3.2
6
5
5
1
3
2
12.27
2.45
Total
9.1
21
16
15
2
7
3
14.46
3.00

***************************

Minor league roundup:
  • Norfolk 10, Charlotte 5
    • Jack Egbert pitched well, allowing only a solo homer over five innings.  He allowed five hits and a walk while striking out four.
    • Rob Bell allowed seven runs in one inning of work and took the loss.
    • Josh Fields hit his fourth homer of the year, a solo shot.
    • Jerry Owens went 2-for-5 with a double; Dewayne Wise went 3-for-4 with a double to raise his average to .385.
  • Birmingham 4, Montgomery 0
    • Six shutout innings by Brian Omogrosso led the Barons to their second straight blanking of Montgomery.
    • Joe Torres, Fernando Hernandez Jr. and Jon Link pitched a scoreless inning apiece to close it out.
    • Thomas Collaro, Robert Valido and Joe Persichina all had a double and an RBI; Micah Schnurstein went 2-for-4.
  • Winston-Salem vs. Potomac PPD
  • Kannapolis OFF

Comments

# re: Tuesday morning manager

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:14 AM by ChicagoPete
I'm having a hard time getting a feel for this '08 team. The starting pitching is outstanding, but the bullpen is starting to show some major cracks. The defense has been sporadic. The offense looks much improved over last year, but the situational hitting has been horrible. There've been a few times where we should have buried weaker teams (like yesterday) but let we let them off the hook.

I dunno, what the hell do we have out there?

# re: Tuesday morning manager

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:21 AM by Salty Dog
Cabrera is only adequate as a defensive replacement for Uribe, NOT at the plate. Unless we were looking for someone to pound the ball into the ground, in which case he more than suffices.

Aside from him, I saw a lot of batters yesterday trying to end the game on one swing. There has to be a change in approach at the plate in order to improve situational hitting. If you're going to get guys up there who take the same big hack with runners on as with no runners on, then I don't expect situational hitting to improve in the near future. I doubt that the Sox have anybody on staff who can get hitters to buy into a change in mentality, especially since hitters have largely been left to work out their problem on their own for so long.

# re: Tuesday morning manager

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:41 PM by Joist
I dunno, Jim, your arguments for leaving Vazquez strike me as shallow and built mostly on the very shaky foundations of small sample sizes and hindsight. Citing Roberts' and Mora's combined career mark of 7 for 11 against Jenks is pretty flimsy. And if you want small sample sizes, well, Markakis was up third in that inning, and he'd already homered off Vazquez.

And we're supposed to believe that, what, Jenks trembles when he sees black and orange uniforms? You have to give a reason *why* Jenks struggles so mightily against a particular team, especially one that has been mediocre for quite a while now, certainly since Bobby came into the league.

Also, starting the inning with Vazquez and bringing in Jenks "at the first sign of trouble" certainly doesn't strike me as a viable strategy - if you do buy that Jenks mysteriously cowers before the mighty Orioles, is it really a good idea to bring him in with a one-run lead AND somebody on base?

It also strikes me that if you bring in a pitcher who's thrown 100+ pitches to start a new inning, especially in April, you'd better have a damn good reason (such as "nobody in the bullpen was available except Nick Masset and Dewon Day"), and I didn't see one. Certainly not one that would make it "indefensible" for him to bring in Jenks.

As for the squeeze bunt? I thought it was a good call. Anderson got the right pitch, he just messed it up. (I did enjoy how Resident Sox Apologist DJ tried to argue that it was a tough pitch to bunt, and Hawk of all people had to convince him that it was in fact extremely buntable.)

# re: Tuesday morning manager

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:03 PM by Fundman
Jim, I posted here the last time Jenks blew a save against the Birds, and now I'm utterly convinced that something weird is going on. Last time he got killed on breaking balls; this time he got beat on fastballs.......strange things afoot at the Circle K.

Regarding the bunt - who cares! We stranded about 54 runners. The problem is hitting with men in scoring position and that will start to happen. I'm actually pretty happy up to this point. Once we start to hit we'll kill people with all the base runners we're getting. Patience and continued starting pitching and we'll be fine.

# re: Tuesday morning manager

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:36 PM by Joist
Fundman, that's an excellent point. I was looking at last year's stats for perspective, and I didn't realize that the Sox managed to finish dead last in the MAJORS in OBP, behind all the NL teams, which, by the way, have to include a pitcher in the batting order. The fact that this year's Sox are first in runs per game despite being last in batting average strikes me as a very good sign, since one of those is much more predictive than the other.

# re: Tuesday morning manager

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:04 PM by Jim Margalus
Hooray for healthy debate! I have some rebuttals to your argument, Joist, but I can't knock it out on my lunch break, so I'll get to it tonight.

The only concern I have about batting average is that it could be repressed equally by luck *and* approach. Put any lefty who can establish the outside corner with a changeup on the mound, that batting average is likely to suck, because the Sox play like it's opposite field out in those situations. But yeah, any improvement in luck, which has been below-average, would be worth a few notches in runs per game.

# re: Tuesday morning manager

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:09 PM by soxfan1
Excellent dialog on yesterday's game! I think Ozzie made two reasonable decisions & neither worked out. Going to your closer in the 9th of a close game is almost always the right strategy. Whenever he blows the save, it is second guessed. I think the only obvious exceptions are a starter on a roll with a low pitch count or a no-hitter. If your closer is successful on 35 of 40 opprtunities, he is legitimate. Against this argument, I'd be hesitant to use Jenks against the O's later this year in a one run game, especially if Roberts is coming up. Every pitcher has a nemesis who kills him against the odds.

The squeeze was a perfect call. Anderson just blew it. A major leaguer has to be able to get the bat on the ball. I like Brian but I think he choked on this one. Foul it off or let it hit you if you can't get it down in fair territory. Deep fly balls are hard to hit in freezing rain!!

It was an interesting last 3 innings!!

# re: Tuesday morning manager

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:51 PM by dudeman
"Cabrera is only adequate as a defensive replacement for Uribe, NOT at the plate. Unless we were looking for someone to pound the ball into the ground, in which case he more than suffices."

What?!?! Can you support that with any data at all? They both have more than enough AB's in the bigs to draw from. OC is a significant upgrade over Uribe at SS, offensively. That is without question.

As for the failed squeeze... The Sox set an MLB record yesterday, stranding 1,213 runners, and we are talking about a squeeze play? AJ said himself that if he got a single hit in the game we win.

# re: Tuesday morning manager

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:42 PM by Salty Dog
"What?!?! Can you support that with any data at all? They both have more than enough AB's in the bigs to draw from. OC is a significant upgrade over Uribe at SS, offensively. That is without question. "

I take the, "...but what have you done for me lately" approach. Take a look at his current stats. He hasn't done squat in his 98 at-bats this season, and over his last 10 games he's only managed to do slightly worse. I know that over his career he's shown that he can produce a whole lot more than he has, and I'd be as happy as everybody else if he can finally warm up or whatever. But, to be honest, I don't care about what he did last year or the year before. I don't care what any of these guys did last year. A lot of Sox fans would probably prefer to pretend that last year never even happened. I want to see some better baseball this year (starting now if I had my druthers), which I think is something we all want to see.

# re: Tuesday morning manager

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:07 PM by dudeman
Is it August yet?

# re: Tuesday morning manager

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:15 PM by Jim Margalus
"You have to give a reason *why* Jenks struggles so mightily against a particular team, especially one that has been mediocre for quite a while now, certainly since Bobby came into the league."

I'm not sure why he struggles -- as Fundman says, they've beat him on breaking balls, and they beat him on fastball (which Fangraphs says is at an average of 92.4 m.p.h.). But after today, here's how AL teams rank against him in OPS:

1. BAL: .963 (56 PA)
2. BOS: .927 (31)
3. LAA: .724 (43)
4. OAK: .722 (36)
5. TEX/CLE: .721 (29/75)

I suppose I'll answer a question with a question -- when is the sample size significant enough? In his last six full-inning outings against the Orioles, they've had at least two hits in five of them. They've had three baserunners in four of them.

And then there's the guy on the mound, Javy. If it were anybody else, I'd probably call for Bobby. But when Vazquez is on, and working easy innings late in the ballgame, I'm inclined to let him go until something besides "100 pitches" says he can't. An A-plus Javy is as effective a closer as any, especially against a team that has repeatedly shown a knack of getting to the regular closer.