Should Scioscia be in the running for MOTY?

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

Nope you're being a hypocrite for calling people out for being to extreme, when you literally do the exact same thing.  

so were all hypocrites, yeah us.  

[stormngt]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

Bottom line i dont think much of Sven this year, i give credit to the players, but no other manager in the AL is doing much better so whatever.
Aside from that im done with this if its degraded into that at this point if were now suggesting that since he couldnt fuck up the Dodgers im somehow a hypocrit. 

Isn't the job of a manager is to fet the most out of his players over the long haul of the season?

[floplag]

32 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Isn't the job of a manager is to fet the most out of his players over the long haul of the season?

Absolutely, i do not feel hes done that.  Can you tell me he has with a straight face and explain why Pujols is still in the 3 behind Trout?  This is getting the most out of the roster?

[eligrba]

He should be considered but will only have a chance to win it if the Angels finish as one of the wild card teams.

The winner is obvious.........The ESPN/MLB spinners will see to that.

[VariousCrap]

He can drive me nuts...a lot...but there is no denying what he has done with this team.  With all the injuries this team has had all season, they should be 15 games under .500 and they are not.  Sosh played a huge role in that.

He still can drive me nuts though. lol

[70runner]

Not much of a Scioscia fan, but Connie Mack probably couldn't coax much more than a 500 record with this crew.  10yr manager contract is silly, but that isn't Scioscia's fault.  As to MOTY, that seems a bit of a reach at this point.  His use of a fast fading Pujols remains problematic.  Scioscia seems unwilling to pinch run for him in obvious situations and hitting him after Trout virtually assures Trout will continue to get lotsa walks.  The retort, who else would make pitchers deal with Trout?, is compelling as likely no one on the Angels and very few in MLB.  Having said that, why not continue the 2nd Nats game lineup, with Calhoun & Simmons, perhaps Cron, backing up Trout with Pujols down the order where he belongs?  

[Stradling]

11 minutes ago, 70runner said:

Not much of a Scioscia fan, but Connie Mack probably couldn't coax much more than a 500 record with this crew.  10yr manager contract is silly, but that isn't Scioscia's fault.  As to MOTY, that seems a bit of a reach at this point.  His use of a fast fading Pujols remains problematic.  Scioscia seems unwilling to pinch run for him in obvious situations and hitting him after Trout virtually assures Trout will continue to get lotsa walks.  The retort, who else would make pitchers deal with Trout?, is compelling as likely no one on the Angels and very few in MLB.  Having said that, why not continue the 2nd Nats game lineup, with Calhoun & Simmons, perhaps Cron, backing up Trout with Pujols down the order where he belongs?  

One of the best posts by someone who frequently speaks out about Sosh.  Good post!  

[red321]

8 hours ago, floplag said:

 

Obvious sarcasm aside almost everyone here, including both of you if im not mistaken,  has taken issues with Scoscia's lineups and other moves, now you're defending him and giving him credit for the results?   Cant say that makes a lot of sense to me.  

It's not binary. I can think some lineups are bad (actually, I usually just laugh at the whining about the daily lineup) or wonder about some pitching changes, etc. But I also know that there is a ton of shit that goes on we don't have insight into. Results speak for themselves. A team of mike trout and not much else is contending for the playoffs. This team has no business contending and yet they are. bailing wire, duct tape, and a handful of guys barely hitting their weight. 

[floplag]

27 minutes ago, red321 said:

It's not binary. I can think some lineups are bad (actually, I usually just laugh at the whining about the daily lineup) or wonder about some pitching changes, etc. But I also know that there is a ton of shit that goes on we don't have insight into. Results speak for themselves. A team of mike trout and not much else is contending for the playoffs. This team has no business contending and yet they are. bailing wire, duct tape, and a handful of guys barely hitting their weight. 

Agreed, the difference is i credit the players, you credit the manger, simple right   

[AngelsFaninGA]

Scioscia's done a mostly good job this year (minus the Pujols nonsense and overusing Norris when he had clearly turned into a pumpkin), but coaching a below average roster to a merely average record doesn't make for a compelling enough story to win MOTY. They usually give the award to someone who coaches an average team to a great record (like Black or Lovullo in the NL), but since no such team really exists in the AL they'll just give it to Hinch or Farrell for coaching a loaded roster to the record they should be anyway. 

[stormngt]

4 hours ago, floplag said:

Absolutely, i do not feel hes done that.  Can you tell me he has with a straight face and explain why Pujols is still in the 3 behind Trout?  This is getting the most out of the roster?

Can you tell me with a straight face that Scioscia hasn't gotten the most out of this team that has be decimated by injuries?

Questionable tactical decisions does not over shadow strategic success.

[stormngt]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

Agreed, the difference is i credit the players, you credit the manger, simple right   

The manager should get credit for the players success.

[floplag]

27 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Can you tell me with a straight face that Scioscia hasn't gotten the most out of this team that has be decimated by injuries?

Questionable tactical decisions does not over shadow strategic success.

We can agree to disagree on this one as i feel thats exactly what overshadows it and suggests the success isnt due to his strategies. 

 

26 minutes ago, stormngt said:

The manager should get credit for the players success.

Why?  he hasn't swung a bat or thrown a pitch.    

He put the guys out there he was told to put out they and they performed.   It isnt like he had all these options in terms of lineups or rotations when you are down to your 10th options for starters, i mean what decision did he really have to make?  

What we do know is that hes made some horrible pitching change decisions at times, questionable lineup cards on an almost daily basis, and is still trotting Pujols out in the 3 every single day.   Until that stops its hard for me to consider him a genius, sorry.  

[Lou]

5 hours ago, floplag said:

Agreed, the difference is i credit the players, you credit the manger, simple right   

We're winning in spite of the players.

 

BAM!!!

[Lou]

8 hours ago, VariousCrap said:

He can drive me nuts...a lot...but there is no denying what he has done with this team.  With all the injuries this team has had all season, they should be 15 games under .500 and they are not.  Sosh played a huge role in that.

He still can drive me nuts though. lol

absolutely. 

[Lou]

11 hours ago, Angelsfan1984 said:

You realize that Dipoto had many issues other than thinking he was the smartest person in the room...maybe you don't though go figure.

@Inside Pitch well, that settles it.

He definitely isn't the smartest guy in the room 

[stormngt]

9 hours ago, floplag said:

We can agree to disagree on this one as i feel thats exactly what overshadows it and suggests the success isnt due to his strategies. 

 

Why?  he hasn't swung a bat or thrown a pitch.    

He put the guys out there he was told to put out they and they performed.   It isnt like he had all these options in terms of lineups or rotations when you are down to your 10th options for starters, i mean what decision did he really have to make?  

What we do know is that hes made some horrible pitching change decisions at times, questionable lineup cards on an almost daily basis, and is still trotting Pujols out in the 3 every single day.   Until that stops its hard for me to consider him a genius, sorry.  

Maybe you don't know the difference between tactical decisions and strategic decisions.

Based on your belief than no manager nor coach has any impact on a game.  After all it's all on the players.

[floplag]

3 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Maybe you don't know the difference between tactical decisions and strategic decisions.

Based on your belief than no manager nor coach has any impact on a game.  After all it's all on the players.

Or maybe i just disagree with your evaluation of them.    And i never said they have no impact, quite the contrary.

[stormngt]

Just now, floplag said:

Or maybe i just disagree with your evaluation of them.    And i never said they have no impact, quite the contrary.

They only impact the team in a negative sense   they can screw things up but it's the players who win.  The manager doesn't manage personalities,  psychological conditions of a player, team chemistry, instilling confidence and not giving up in face of adversity.   

[floplag]

5 hours ago, Lou said:

We're winning in spite of the players.

 

BAM!!!

Yeah cause that makes perfect sense as anything other than argumentative, though ill admit the multiple exclamation points did up the accuracy level by about 3 points.  
Now if you could actually justify that it would be intriguing to read, but we both know you cant.  Not to mention its contradictory considering if that was the case he should have made the decision to replace them if he was all that.  But, I guess it makes for good forums fodder. 

[Stradling]

9 hours ago, floplag said:

We can agree to disagree on this one as i feel thats exactly what overshadows it and suggests the success isnt due to his strategies. 

 

Why?  he hasn't swung a bat or thrown a pitch.    

He put the guys out there he was told to put out they and they performed.   It isnt like he had all these options in terms of lineups or rotations when you are down to your 10th options for starters, i mean what decision did he really have to make?  

What we do know is that hes made some horrible pitching change decisions at times, questionable lineup cards on an almost daily basis, and is still trotting Pujols out in the 3 every single day.   Until that stops its hard for me to consider him a genius, sorry.  

I really don't get this line of thought.  So a manager plays who he's told to play according to you.  No one is saying he's a genius.  But you have set up in your mind that he can receive blame but he can't receive credit.  So when he brought in Chavez on Wednesday and everyone gave him shit for doing so, does he get blame for bringing him in even though it worked or credit because it worked?

[Inside Pitch]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

Yeah cause that makes perfect sense as anything other than argumentative, though ill admit the multiple exclamation points did up the accuracy level by about 3 points.  
Now if you could actually justify that it would be intriguing to read, but we both know you cant.  Not to mention its contradictory considering if that was the case he should have made the decision to replace them if he was all that.  But, I guess it makes for good forums fodder. 

The tongue in cheek nature of what Lou typed out seemed to not register with you.   

[floplag]

Just now, Inside Pitch said:

The tongue in cheek nature of what Lou typed out seemed to not register with you.   

Apparently not, if so then i apologize to Lou again as i seem to be misreading his sarcasm of late.   

[Inside Pitch]

Just now, floplag said:

Apparently not, if so then i apologize to Lou again as i seem to be misreading his sarcasm of late.   

Lou is typically a pretty light-hearted guy ... his comment seemed rather cheeky.

[floplag]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I really don't get this line of thought.  So a manager plays who he's told to play according to you.  No one is saying he's a genius.  But you have set up in your mind that he can receive blame but he can't receive credit.  So when he brought in Chavez on Wednesday and everyone gave him shit for doing so, does he get blame for bringing him in even though it worked or credit because it worked?

Of course he does, i never said otherwise.  Im not suggesting he get no credit for the right decisions, only that they dont in my opinion overshadow the wrong ones or erase them.  Its funny to me that you pick that one game knowing that most of the things many here have criticized him for were not there but ill let that go.
Look i can even forgive making what should be the right move that doesn't work out, bringing in the right pitcher in the right spot that has an off night, whatever no way he could predict that.  
What i cannot abide and will never understand is the rigidness of some of his decisions, or lack thereof in regards to things like struggling players and his efforts to try to catch up to the stat world by forcing platoons that shouldn't be forced.