PDA

View Full Version : Ozzie Guillen: 50 game ban "a joke"



whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 12:57 PM
GLENDALE, Ariz. -- White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen weighed in with his thoughts Sunday on New York Yankees star Alex Rodriguez admitting to steroid use, and, as expected, they were harsh.

Guillen also called for stricter penalties for those who get caught under the current program, first suggesting a one-year penalty -- instead of the 50-game suspension in place -- and later calling for a lifetime ban.

''That 50-game suspension? That's bull,'' Guillen said. ''I would say, 'Man, you get caught now, you're done for life.'''

Though Guillen praised Rodriguez for eventually admitting his steroid use, he shook his head over the idea of another player claiming he didn't know what he was taking.

''It's funny when the players say, 'Oh, I did it, but I didn't know what I was taking.' **** that. Come on. Don't think people are stupid,'' he said. ''You're not 5 years old; you should know what you were doing.''

There are 103 other players still unnamed who tested positive for steroids during the 2003 survey that netted Rodriguez. What would Guillen do if any of the 103 is a member of the White Sox?

''In 2003, I wasn't here, so I don't give a ****,'' he said. ''I'm not going to lose sleep over something in the past. My job is to make sure it doesn't happen now. You find out a guy I manage this year got caught this year? Then I rip his ***. I will be all over his *** in the paper, TV, everywhere. Because how long do we have to put up with this [stuff]?

''I talk to them every day about it. I say, 'Don't put me in that spot, guys. I'm not going to protect you.'''

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/1432736,CST-SPT-ozzie16.article

So what should the ban be?

bloodhawk
02-16-2009, 01:00 PM
gotta love his opinions..

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 01:01 PM
:laugh2: We certainly know Ozzie didn't use them, but it wouldn't have hurt his awful offense.



The 50 seems acceptable, if only because there are some guys still taking over the counter substances with banned things by mistake, however if it can be proven they are steroids or HGH, I have no problem with a lifetime ban.



He's of course talking about being caught now, not being named as having failed in the past.

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 01:07 PM
Ban Ozzie from managing, and I will be thrilled.

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 01:08 PM
Ban Ozzie from managing, and I will be thrilled.

:pity:

the only blemish on his managerial career is 2007

natepro
02-16-2009, 01:13 PM
:pity:

the only blemish on his managerial career is 2007

Well, that, and being a bad manager.

DABEARS23
02-16-2009, 01:17 PM
Well, that, and being a bad manager.

Hes the best manager people just cant handle the truth

BLooDShoT_GrK
02-16-2009, 01:17 PM
Full season for the first lifetime for the 2nd

Sport
02-16-2009, 01:23 PM
Hes the best manager people just cant handle the truth

I will admit, being a division rival, I like Ozzie.

He is certainly one of the best managers in baseball.

Sometimes, it wouldnt hurt to keep quiet, though. And I think with all the sensitivity going on with steroids right now, this would be that time to be quiet.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 01:23 PM
:pity:

the only blemish on his managerial career is 2007
And batting AJ Pierzynski 2nd, and leading off Orlando Cabrera, and playing Jerry Owens, and his entire offensive philosophy.

Ramlaen
02-16-2009, 01:28 PM
Full season for the first lifetime for the 2nd

Agree 100 percent.

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 01:29 PM
And batting AJ Pierzynski 2nd,
Bingo


and leading off Orlando Cabrera, and playing Jerry Owens
Bango



and his entire offensive philosophy.
Bongo

sguglie2
02-16-2009, 01:31 PM
I love Ozzie and he is right if you cheat you should be gone forever. God forbid Pete Rose bets on his team to win he's gone forever but because of the "loosey-goosey" era and the "relaxed culture" scumbags like Alex Rodriguez get a free pass? Kick them out.

ugafan
02-16-2009, 01:32 PM
I don't understand why A-Rod should get punished at all, a fine would be sensible, but he has tons of money, it wouldnt;t hurt.

And we're talking about 6 years ago, why be punished for something that happened that far in the past?

DABEARS23
02-16-2009, 01:42 PM
I will admit, being a division rival, I like Ozzie.

He is certainly one of the best managers in baseball.

Sometimes, it wouldnt hurt to keep quiet, though. And I think with all the sensitivity going on with steroids right now, this would be that time to be quiet.

Well its not like he just went on tv and talked about it he was asked a question and he tells the truth man hes not gonna jump around and dodge questions the guy tells his boss hes wrong on national tv so you want him to be sensitive to players????No I like that hes a tough guy and gives tough love why should he care what a CHEATER in a game feels LIFETIME BAN 1st offense that would be great for the game and clean it up

tsb77
02-16-2009, 01:47 PM
''I talk to them every day about it. I say, 'Don't put me in that spot, guys. I'm not going to protect you.'''

:laugh2: I love Ozzie

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 01:49 PM
And batting AJ Pierzynski 2nd, and leading off Orlando Cabrera, and playing Jerry Owens, and his entire offensive philosophy.

Ozzie Guillen is 1 of 37 people to manage the Sox...

Of the 37 People to Manage the White Sox, only 3 have won World Series:

Ozzie Guillen 2004-Present

Pants Rowland 1915-1918

Fielder Jones 1904-1908


lets us consider that only 9 sox managers have been tenured at least as long as Guillen (5 years)

those 9... (yrs managed)

Nixey Callahan (5) 1903-1914**
Jimmie Dykes (13) 1934-1946
Kid Gleason (5) 1919-1923
Fielder Jones (5) 1904-1908
Tony LaRussa (8) 1979-1986
Al Lopez (11) 1957-1969
Jerry Manuel (6) 1998-2003
Chuck Tanner (6) 1970-1975
Paul Richards (5) 1951-1976*

Ozzie Guillen (5) 2004-2008

*was manager from 1951-1954, then again for one season in 1976
** was manager from 1903-04, then again from 1912-14

Stats:

Nixey Callahan (5) 1903-1914

648G 309W 329L %.484

Jimmie Dykes (13) 1934-1946

1850G 899W 940L %.489

Kid Gleason (5) 1919-1923

759G 392W 364L %.519

Fielder Jones (5) 1904-1908

739G 426W 293L %.592

Tony LaRussa (8) 1979-1986

1035G 522W 510L %.506

Al Lopez (11) 1957-1969

1495G 840W 650L %.564

Jerry Manuel (6) 1998-2003

971G 500W 471L %.515

Chuck Tanner (6) 1970-1975

818G 401W 414L %.492

Paul Richards (5) 1951-1976*

774G 406W 362L %.529

Ozzie Guillen

811G 433W 378L %.534


Only two other managers have a higher Win% than Guillen and although ill concede it is much easier to get into the postseason than it used to be, Ozzie Guillen is the ONLY sox manager to get the White Sox to the playoffs twice.

Plus, in his 5 seasons here the White Sox have won the AL Central twice. Finished 2nd once (2004), and in 2006 won 90 games only to finish 3rd. As i just said, the only blemish on Ozzie Guillen's record is 2007.

For the people who think Guillen sucks, just do me 1 favor, just wait! If you're so sure Guillen has his head up his *** then eventually he will be exposed as the fraud you think he is.

I know he doesnt run his team like Billy Beane runs the A's and i know that drives every stat head in the world crazy, but until the Sox start to suck on a consistent basis to call Guillen a bad manager is just plain dumb.

You can only be lucky so many times, either there is a method to his madness or its just plain madness but if the White Sox start losing on a consistent basis (which they should if the Manager sucks...) then you can start to ***** and make wild claims that Guillen sucks.

until then i just find it terribly stupid to call out a manager as bad when the team has been better under his rein than ever before. (Come on, every stat head on here hates Guillen yet his managerial stats are pretty good, but those are conveniently ignored because he bats AJ Pierzynski 2nd? Even though the White Sox went 12-4 right after he started doing that? and in the 103 games the White Sox had him batting 2nd they went 69-34?)

Flawless logic though :rolleyes:

BTW!

Steroids 1st offense should be full season
2nd Offense should be 3 seasons
3rd offense should be banishment

how is it Pete Rose gets banned from the Hall of Fame even though he never did anything to boost his performance? ill guarantee that a player gets into the HOF who did use PEDs, we may never know he did, but someone will get in who "cheated."

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 01:52 PM
Ozzie Guillen is 1 of 37 people to manage the Sox...

Of the 37 People to Manage the White Sox, only 3 have won World Series:

Ozzie Guillen 2004-Present

Pants Rowland 1915-1918

Fielder Jones 1904-1908


lets us consider that only 9 sox managers have been tenured at least as long as Guillen (5 years)

those 9... (yrs managed)

Nixey Callahan (5) 1903-1914**
Jimmie Dykes (13) 1934-1946
Kid Gleason (5) 1919-1923
Fielder Jones (5) 1904-1908
Tony LaRussa (8) 1979-1986
Al Lopez (11) 1957-1969
Jerry Manuel (6) 1998-2003
Chuck Tanner (6) 1970-1975
Paul Richards (5) 1951-1976*

Ozzie Guillen (5) 2004-2008

*was manager from 1951-1954, then again for one season in 1976
** was manager from 1903-04, then again from 1912-14

Stats:

Nixey Callahan (5) 1903-1914

648G 309W 329L %.484

Jimmie Dykes (13) 1934-1946

1850G 899W 940L %.489

Kid Gleason (5) 1919-1923

759G 392W 364L %.519

Fielder Jones (5) 1904-1908

739G 426W 293L %.592

Tony LaRussa (8) 1979-1986

1035G 522W 510L %.506

Al Lopez (11) 1957-1969

1495G 840W 650L %.564

Jerry Manuel (6) 1998-2003

971G 500W 471L %.515

Chuck Tanner (6) 1970-1975

818G 401W 414L %.492

Paul Richards (5) 1951-1976*

774G 406W 362L %.529

Ozzie Guillen

811G 433W 378L %.534


Only two other managers have a higher Win% than Guillen and although ill concede it is much easier to get into the postseason than it used to be, Ozzie Guillen is the ONLY sox manager to get the White Sox to the playoffs twice.

Plus, in his 5 seasons here the White Sox have won the AL Central twice. Finished 2nd once (2004), and in 2006 won 90 games only to finish 3rd. As i just said, the only blemish on Ozzie Guillen's record is 2007.

For the people who think Guillen sucks, just do me 1 favor, just wait! If you're so sure Guillen has his head up his *** then eventually he will be exposed as the fraud you think he is.

I know he doesnt run his team like Billy Beane runs the A's and i know that drives every stat head in the world crazy, but until the Sox start to suck on a consistent basis to call Guillen a bad manager is just plain dumb.

You can only be lucky so many times, either there is a method to his madness or its just plain madness but if the White Sox start losing on a consistent basis (which they should if the Manager sucks...) then you can start to ***** and make wild claims that Guillen sucks.

until then i just find it terribly stupid to call out a manager as bad when the team has been better under his rein than ever before. (Come on, every stat head on here hates Guillen yet his managerial stats are pretty good, but those are conveniently ignored because he bats AJ Pierzynski 2nd? Even though the White Sox went 12-4 right after he started doing that? and in the 103 games the White Sox had him batting 2nd they went 69-34?)

Flawless logic though :rolleyes:

BTW!

Steroids 1st offense should be full season
2nd Offense should be 3 seasons
3rd offense should be banishment

how is it Pete Rose gets banned from the Hall of Fame even though he never did anything to boost his performance, and ill guarantee that a player gets into the HOF who did use PEDs, we may never know he did, but someone will get in who "cheated."
I've seen this post before when you did it in the Sox forum

It does absolutely nothing to help your argument. Good players outweigh a bad manager most of the time. And all you're pointing at is the Sox having pathetic managers throughout their history. In today's game, being in love with the sacrifice and bunting makes you a bad manager, period. He claimed smallball in 2005 and yet the team won by and large on HR's (200 that year). The manager's impact on a season is minimal, but his philosophy and his use of players should be evaluated and Ozzie does not use his players to their best potential (such as batting sub .320 OBP Pierzynski 2nd). His winning percentage does nothing to help him, Dusty Baker had a great winning % in SF, he is still a pile of crap manager.

When you explain how Dusty Baker and his good winning % in SF was a good manager, then we'll talk about how maybe Ozzie could be. Until then, he's on the lower end of manager philosophy.

jetsfan28
02-16-2009, 02:01 PM
If you're stupid enough to get caught when there's so much out there that's undetectable, you probably don't deserve to lay baseball again, but since that also means you're so stupid you probably can't get another job, I said a full season.

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 02:01 PM
I've seen this post before when you did it in the Sox forum

It does absolutely nothing to help your argument. Good players outweigh a bad manager most of the time. And all you're pointing at is the Sox having pathetic managers throughout their history. In today's game, being in love with the sacrifice and bunting makes you a bad manager, period. He claimed smallball in 2005 and yet the team won by and large on HR's (200 that year). His winning percentage does nothing to help him, Dusty Baker had a great winning % in SF, he is still a pile of crap manager.

When you explain how Dusty Baker and his good winning % in SF was a good manager, then we'll talk about how maybe Ozzie could be. Until then, he's on the lower end of manager philosophy.

thats why hes got more world series rings than the last 55 Cubs managers, if its all about the players and not the manager why dont the Yankees win every year? Why didnt the Cubs win last year? In his 5 years here he has won the AL Central twice, won 90games in 06 only to finish 3rd, and had a 2nd place finish in 2004. 2007 is the only blemish on his career.

you may find his managerial philosophy bad , and you can find all sorts of convenient points to make and how he is bad and his numbers dont matter but i cant help but find it hilarious when it comes to Guillen his numbers are ignored, yet when it comes to anything else numbers are everything.

Oh and by the way, Dusty Baker was eventually exposed for the fraud he was and was eventually fired.

So again ill say, when Ozzie is exposed as the fraud you claim he is, then you can call him a bad manager. Until then, the numbers speak for them self (of course in Ozzie's case that doesnt matter)

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 02:04 PM
thats why hes got more world series rings than the last 55 Cubs managers, if its all about the players and not the manager why dont the Yankees win every year? Why didnt the Cubs win last year? In his 5 years here he has won the AL Central twice, won 90games in 06 only to finish 3rd, and had a 2nd place finish in 2004. 2007 is the only blemish on his career.

you may find his managerial philosophy bad , and you can find all sorts of convenient points to make and how he is bad and his numbers dont matter but i cant help but find it hilarious when it comes to Guillen his numbers are ignored, yet when it comes to anything else numbers are everything.

Oh and by the way, Dusty Baker was eventually exposed for the fraud he was and was eventually fired.

So again ill say, when Ozzie is exposed as the fraud you claim he is, then you can call him a bad manager. Until then, the numbers speak for them self (of course in Ozzie's case that doesnt matter)The Yankees haven't been winning because their pitching has sucked.


The Cubs managers recently have hit Juan Pierre leadoff, Ryan Theriot 2nd in 2007, etc. And anything from the late 80's and before is pointless because the statistical breakdown hadn't come up yet. And again, you're giving Ozzie the credit for his team, the players win the games, Ozzie's impact on that is minimal.

I can call Ozzie a bad manager from now until he is fired, because he is.

And please, please, please find me a legitimate poster discussing managerial winning percentage as a judgment for managers. I can't wait to see this. Judging managers by their team winning percentage is as bad as judging a player by the team winning percentage. 95% of competent people could put together a lineup as good or better than Guillen. Almost everyone would throw the SP's out everyday, maybe a few rejects would try to start a game with Jenks.

The impact he has is not big enough to judge by W/L whether it's 2005 or 2007's records.

Seamhead
02-16-2009, 02:07 PM
thats why hes got more world series rings than the last 55 Cubs managers, if its all about the players and not the manager why dont the Yankees win every year? Why didnt the Cubs win last year? In his 5 years here he has won the AL Central twice, won 90games in 06 only to finish 3rd, and had a 2nd place finish in 2004. 2007 is the only blemish on his career.

you may find his managerial philosophy bad , and you can find all sorts of convenient points to make and how he is bad and his numbers dont matter but i cant help but find it hilarious when it comes to Guillen his numbers are ignored, yet when it comes to anything else numbers are everything.

Yes, because in every other case, which is referring to players, we know that they have direct control over their successes.

It works both ways, too. Why do you think RBIs are discreted? Because hitters don't have direct control over those successes. Same with balls in play and pitchers. It's the reason as to why tRA and FIP exist. We're not entirely sure they have control over BIP.

And that's how it works with managers. The GM that puts the team together, and subsequently the players on the field are who has the most control over the team's success.

Managers control who plays, which given the plethora of information available to them, is very hard to get wrong, where they play (both on the field and lineup) (and lineups won't make that big of an impact in terms of run scored, either), and other tactical and philosophical moves that he can make throughout the game, but all of this has a small impact in the grand scheme of things. Interestingly enough, this is also what Ozzie sucks at. He does get credit for being a good motivator, I guess.



So again ill say, when Ozzie is exposed as the fraud you claim he is, then you can call him a bad manager. Until then, the numbers speak for them self (of course in Ozzie's case that doesnt matter)

Numbers don't speak for themselves unless proper context has been ensued.

harborboy
02-16-2009, 02:08 PM
lmfao

i absolutely love Ozzie Guillen.

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 02:09 PM
The Yankees haven't been winning because their pitching has sucked.


The Cubs managers recently have hit Juan Pierre leadoff, Ryan Theriot 2nd in 2007, etc. And anything from the late 80's and before is pointless because the statistical breakdown hadn't come up yet. And again, you're giving Ozzie the credit for his team, the players win the games, Ozzie's impact on that is minimal.

I can call Ozzie a bad manager from now until he is fired, because he is.

And please, please, please find me a legitimate poster discussing managerial winning percentage as a judgment for managers. I can't wait to see this. Judging managers by their team winning percentage is as bad as judging a player by the team winning percentage. 95% of competent people could put together a lineup as good or better than Guillen. Almost everyone would throw the SP's out everyday, maybe a few rejects would try to start a game with Jenks.

The impact he has is not big enough to judge by W/L whether it's 2005 or 2007's records.

You know this how?


The Cubs managers recently have hit Juan Pierre leadoff, Ryan Theriot 2nd in 2007, etc.

So now Pinella is a bad manager too? I'm curious, who is a good manager? Bob Geren?


And please, please, please find me a legitimate poster discussing managerial winning percentage as a judgment for managers.

i cant because no one does, but its just funny that numbers are everything until we start talking wins and losses. - im under this terrible impression that this is all that matters.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 02:11 PM
You know this how?



So now Pinella is a bad manager too? I'm curious, who is a good manager? Bob Geren?



i cant because no one does, but its just funny that numbers are everything until we start talking wins and losses. - im under this terrible impression that this is all that matters.
Read Seamhead, he explains it perfectly.

Giving managers credit or blame due to W/L is ridiculous.

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 02:12 PM
Numbers don't speak for themselves unless proper context has been ensued.

i love hearing this because it gives every stat head in the world a reason to say this stat is wrong when it goes against their argument.

Here are Ozzie Guillen's numbers in context

5 years as manager

12-4 in the Postseason
1 WS title
2 AL Central Crowns
1 2nd place finish
3 89 (or more) Win Seasons

of course, its the players that made Ozzie good...

in all honestly, none of us have any idea what Ozzie's (or any mangers) effect on their team actually is.

Now i have to go to class.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 02:13 PM
i love hearing this because it gives every stat head in the world a reason to say this stat is wrong when it goes against their argument.

Here are Ozzie Guillen's numbers in context

5 years as manager

12-4 in the Postseason
1 WS title
2 AL Central Crowns
1 2nd place finish
3 89 Win Seasons

of course, its the players that made Ozzie good...
None of those matter in determining how good he is as a manager.

Seamhead
02-16-2009, 02:13 PM
i love hearing this because it gives every stat head in the world a reason to say this stat is wrong when it goes against their argument.

Here are Ozzie Guillen's numbers in context

5 years as manager

12-4 in the Postseason
1 WS title
2 AL Central Crowns
1 2nd place finish
3 89 Win Seasons

of course, its the players that made Ozzie good...

I don't think you understand what I mean by context.

Are you telling me that Ozzie is responsible for making the players perform the way they have?

WSU Tony
02-16-2009, 02:14 PM
I think what erks me most about past steroid users is the results are not temporary. It's not like the players only do well while they are on them, that's not the case. The Homers A-Rod hits this next year are STILL results of the extra muscle he put on 5 years ago when he was using. This is why I think a full year would be enough of a punishment to deter any serious baseball player from using.

Why should A-Rod still see the benefits from his 2003 roid taking but not have ANY negative attriubtes from it? That doesn't seem like much of a deterent to me.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 02:16 PM
I don't think you understand what I mean by context.

Are you telling me that Ozzie is responsible for making the players perform the way they have?
Funny thing is I've seen him admit in the past that 2005 was due to the massive overperformance of the entire pitching staff.

Yet now it's thanks to Ozzie Guillen.

YankeeFan89
02-16-2009, 02:17 PM
Ozzie being Ozzie

DaSox_05
02-16-2009, 02:22 PM
And batting AJ Pierzynski 2nd, and leading off Orlando Cabrera, and playing Jerry Owens, and his entire offensive philosophy.

The White Sox went 69-34 with AJ batting second so that pretty much destroys your argument.

And who else was going to leadof besides OC, they had nobody else to.

Only thing I agree with is Jerry Owens cuz he does suck and I dont want to even see him on the roster.

Maine's the man
02-16-2009, 02:28 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/1432736,CST-SPT-ozzie16.article

So what should the ban be?


Ozzie should be banned from the media room


I would say a Half season then full season then lifetime ban would be good, but to say just a lifetime ban? come on.... JC Romero should be banned from baseball?

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 02:33 PM
I have yet to recieve any evidence that Ozzie Guillen is a bad manager besides the "oh he should of done this a couple of years ago." I mean, we could do that to any manager in baseball. If a manager doesn't matter, than why all the hate that he's bad? You guys make no sense. Its just like the Joe Crede thing, its either all or nothing, really bad or really good.

nstachowski
02-16-2009, 02:47 PM
Ban Ozzie from managing, and I will be thrilled.

x2

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 02:57 PM
Ban Ozzie from managing, and I will be thrilled.


x2

hehe, uhhh nah. :rolleyes:

BTownTeamsRKing
02-16-2009, 02:58 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2009/news/story?id=3911153

Oritz agrees. and i agree as well. fix the game because it is losing its respect fast.

xdoubleZx
02-16-2009, 03:07 PM
lol, going back on topic, i think the first time cought is a season.... . second offense life time...

Pierzynski4Prez
02-16-2009, 03:20 PM
Funny thing is I've seen him admit in the past that 2005 was due to the massive overperformance of the entire pitching staff.

Yet now it's thanks to Ozzie Guillen.

So you tell us who a good manager is? And whoever that person is has better have gone to the postseason every year they coached if you think you can call Ozzie a bad manager. Is Lou Piniella a good manager? I think so, despite some wrong judgement calls, but EVERY manager makes those. Nobody is perfect in predicing what the next batter/pitcher will do.

In the end, Ozzie wins, thats all that matter in sports. **** stats, I wouldn't care one bit if every guy on my roster batted .200, if they make the postseason I am happy, and thats what matters, winning which Ozzie is damn good at.

JobaTheHeat62
02-16-2009, 03:35 PM
even tho i agree with ozzie, its still funny when one joke calls another joke a joke.....F OZZIE lol

JobaTheHeat62
02-16-2009, 03:36 PM
So you tell us who a good manager is? And whoever that person is has better have gone to the postseason every year they coached if you think you can call Ozzie a bad manager. Is Lou Piniella a good manager? I think so, despite some wrong judgement calls, but EVERY manager makes those. Nobody is perfect in predicing what the next batter/pitcher will do.

In the end, Ozzie wins, thats all that matter in sports. **** stats, I wouldn't care one bit if every guy on my roster batted .200, if they make the postseason I am happy, and thats what matters, winning which Ozzie is damn good at.

hes def. a good manager but good lord i hate him

Seamhead
02-16-2009, 03:41 PM
The White Sox went 69-34 with AJ batting second so that pretty much destroys your argument.

And who else was going to leadof besides OC, they had nobody else to.

Only thing I agree with is Jerry Owens cuz he does suck and I dont want to even see him on the roster.

And you're attributing those wins to Pierzynski's .313 wOBA? LOL.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 03:51 PM
And you're attributing those wins to Pierzynski's .313 wOBA? LOL.
Yes, Pierzynski's ****** hitting in the 2 hole contributed to that.

It's pathetic that they don't realize that put together correctly, the team's record in those games could've been immensely better. Ozzie's ONLY positive attribute has been his motivational speeches, other than that he's a ****** strategy coach, a ****** statistical coach in putting players in their optimal positions to perform and he's average at BP management (average is good, considering how poor some are)

Seriously, anyone defending Ozzie's moves by the team's W/L record is ignorant. It's the same goddamn argument I had with that entire forum regarding Crede, Owens and OBP and it took 6 good months of discussing before finally a good portion of the forum opened up.
Is Lou Piniella a good manager? Eh, he's starting to sound better by at least mentioning OBP as a useful tool, but overall I'd say he's neither good nor bad for the team.

yahmez88
02-16-2009, 03:52 PM
Maybe more than 50 but I don't think I would go full season for the first time

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 04:17 PM
other than that he's a ****** strategy coach, a ****** statistical coach in putting players in their optimal positions to perform and he's average at BP management (average is good, considering how poor some are).

I still don't know how you prove that unless the situation he puts players in continue to fail. Which in this case, it hasn't.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 04:22 PM
I still don't know how you prove that unless the situation he puts players in continue to fail. Which in this case, it hasn't.
A sub .320 OBP in the 2 hole is a failing situation, regardless of the entire team outcome, that's a clear situation that failed.

Sorry it's hard to hear your main source of news being outed for what he is, but the truth is he's a terrible game manager. A nice cheerleader, but that's about all.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 04:26 PM
A sub .320 OBP in the 2 hole is a failing situation, regardless of the entire team outcome, that's a clear situation that failed.

Sorry it's hard to hear your main source of news being outed for what he is, but the truth is he's a terrible game manager. A nice cheerleader, but that's about all.

2-hole hitter needs to put the ball in play and move runners along as well. Not everybody has the ability to put 350+ obp guys all over the place.

DaSox_05
02-16-2009, 04:26 PM
And you're attributing those wins to Pierzynski's .313 wOBA? LOL.

First off I dont know what the hell wOBA is, and dont care to know what it is. I HATE sabermetrics! Record speaks for itself 69-34 just like someone said earlier. Im pretty sure what ever team you root for if the manager put someone where you didnt like them to bat and that team went 69-34 over a stretch you wouldnt give 2 shitz were they hit. Because at the end of the day WINS is the only thing that matters. All the newer generation gets wrapped up in stats and forgets about wins. Sure stats are cool to look at and compare with different players. But last time I checked in order to win the World Series you have to WIN the game and not have the best stats!

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 04:31 PM
2-hole hitter needs to put the ball in play and move runners along as well. Not everybody has the ability to put 350+ obp guys all over the place.
Fine, don't put them all over the place, but put guys who aren't horrendous at getting on base at the top. Pretty damn simple.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 04:33 PM
Fine, don't put them all over the place, but put guys who aren't horrendous at getting on base at the top. Pretty damn simple.

Give me a name. Look at the roster. Jim Thome? Strikes out way too much. Plus his homeruns would be wasted. The team's OBP was terrible. You brought it up, i didn't.

Seamhead
02-16-2009, 04:35 PM
First off I dont know what the hell wOBA is, and dont care to know what it is. I HATE sabermetrics!

The little exclamation point at the end makes you look not only ignorant, but a bit queer....:shrug:



Record speaks for itself 69-34 just like someone said earlier.

It doesn't, unless you're a simpleton of the biggest measure.


Im pretty sure what ever team you root for if the manager put someone where you didnt like them to bat and that team went 69-34 over a stretch you wouldnt give 2 shitz were they hit.

I'd be happy, but at the same I'd be able to recognize the factors that actually led to those wins.



Because at the end of the day WINS is the only thing that matters. All the newer generation gets wrapped up in stats and forgets about wins. Sure stats are cool to look at and compare with different players. But last time I checked in order to win the World Series you have to WIN the game and not have the best stats!

We're not disputing whether or not wins are important, but what actually led to those wins. You fail to understand that.

This is the same nonsense that all of the proponents of wins being used as a means of pitcher evaluation use, such as John Kruk. I can literally see myself watching BBTN and seeing John Kruk salivating while reciting those same words.

jamesdiego
02-16-2009, 04:37 PM
It's pretty simple, the White sox don't win a World Series without Ozzie in 2005. He put the players in the best position to suceed, and if you watched any of the games from that season you would have seen that. It was also the only year he had a true leadoff hitter and a true #2 hitter in the same season. He doesn't aquire the players bonehead. And he hasn't had a team even close to being as good as 2005.

Seamhead
02-16-2009, 04:38 PM
Fine, don't put them all over the place, but put guys who aren't horrendous at getting on base at the top. Pretty damn simple.

Seriously. You should always give your best hitters the most PAs. All of that nonsense about moving runners along being an important skill for a 2-hitter is peripheral to actual production.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 04:40 PM
Seriously. You should always give your best hitters the most PAs. All of that nonsense about moving runners along being an important skill for a 2-hitter is peripheral to actual production.

I'm still waiting for a name. the fact is, you can't give me one because the team didn't have those players. Therefore, telling me he's a failed strategic manager because he put so and so in the 2 hole is rediculous.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 04:41 PM
It's pretty simple, the White sox don't win a World Series without Ozzie in 2005. He put the players in the best position to suceed, and if you watched any of the games from that season you would have seen that. It was also the only year he had a true leadoff hitter and a true #2 hitter in the same season. He doesn't aquire the players bonehead. And he hasn't had a team even close to being as good as 2005.
He gave basically that entire staff sub 3.9 ERA's, and gave almost the entire BP sub 4 ERA's?

Wow, I wish I knew another manager who could do that.

PS: Scott Podsednik is not a true leadoff hitter, he's a dinky slap hitter who stole bases for half a season and did jack **** the rest of the year. Funny enough Podsednik's biggest impact that year was on his only HR.

And he had a better core of players in '06 than in '05, the difference is the pitching staff didn't overproduce like they did in '05

Seamhead
02-16-2009, 04:41 PM
It's pretty simple, the White sox don't win a World Series without Ozzie in 2005. He put the players in the best position to suceed, and if you watched any of the games from that season you would have seen that.

Seen what? Did he go out there and instruct the players on what they should do in the middle of the game? Wait, did he actually pitch that season?


It was also the only year he had a true leadoff hitter and a true #2 hitter in the same season.

No, dude, it wasn't because of Scotty Pod's horrendous 86 OPS+. It was the great pitching.


He doesn't aquire the players bonehead. And he hasn't had a team even close to being as good as 2005.

Wait, so first you attribute the team's success in 2005 to him putting "players in the best position to succeed", but then you blame the failure's on the person putting the team together and the actual team. Can you say broken logic?

DaSox_05
02-16-2009, 04:42 PM
The little exclamation point at the end makes you look not only ignorant, but a bit queer.... :shrug: It doesn't, unless you're a simpleton of the biggest measure. I'd be happy, but at the same I'd be able to recognize the factors that actually led to those wins. We're not disputing whether or not wins are important, but what actually led to those wins. You fail to understand that. This is the same nonsense that all of the proponents of wins being used as a means of pitcher evaluation use, such as John Kruk. I can literally see myself watching BBTN and seeing John Kruk salivating while reciting those same words.

That comment in BOLD pretty much shows your age.

Was AJ the best solution for the 2 hole probably not but the Sox really had nobody else to fill that role and at the end of the day the White Sox won games.

Pierzynski4Prez
02-16-2009, 04:42 PM
who else on the team was he supposed to put there. Yes .320 is not great, but its not like we just had a guy with a .400 just waiting in the wings. Swisher failed leading off with O-Cab batting second. Just because Pierzynskis stats arent good enough for you all, Ozzie has to work with what he had. What, put Quentin 2nd, Dye, Crede, Konerko, Thome?? You tell me who should have went in that spot and maybe Kenny will give you a job.

Seamhead
02-16-2009, 04:44 PM
I'm still waiting for a name. the fact is, you can't give me one because the team didn't have those players. Therefore, telling me he's a failed strategic manager because he put so and so in the 2 hole is rediculous.

Paul Konerko. Jim Thome. Jermaine Dye. Nick Swisher. All deserved more PAs than Pierzynski during the time in which he was hitting 2nd. I'd say Alexei, but he was unproven and the sample size on him was limited., so I see why you wouldn't hit him 2nd.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 04:44 PM
I'm still waiting for a name. the fact is, you can't give me one because the team didn't have those players. Therefore, telling me he's a failed strategic manager because he put so and so in the 2 hole is rediculous.
Players with higher OBP's than AJ Pierzynski on the 2008 White Sox.

Jim Thome
Jermaine Dye
Paul Konerko
Orlando Cabrera
Alexei Ramirez
Joe Crede
Carlos Quentin
Nick Swisher
Ken Griffey Jr.
Pablo Ozuna



The only guy who started a good amount of games with a lower OBP than Pierzynski was Juan Uribe.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 04:47 PM
Paul Konerko. Jim Thome. Jermaine Dye. Nick Swisher. All deserved more PAs than Pierzynski during the time in which he was hitting 2nd. I'd say Alexei, but he was unproven and the sample size on him was limited., so I see why you wouldn't hit him 2nd.

2 place hitter to a 5-6th place hitter are going to have the same number of at bats. You put your best player in the 3rd spot (Quentin), you protect him with your second best hitter (Dye). Nick Swisher and Jim Thome also struck out 135 and and 145 times respectively. Those aren't 2 hole hitters. The fact is he didn't have anybody. Case closed. Argument dumb.

DewsSox79
02-16-2009, 04:49 PM
Ban Ozzie from managing, and I will be thrilled.

than you can have terry bevington or jerry manuel back. you are very unappreciative.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 04:49 PM
Players with higher OBP's than AJ Pierzynski on the 2008 White Sox.

Jim Thome
Jermaine Dye
Paul Konerko
Orlando Cabrera
Alexei Ramirez
Joe Crede
Carlos Quentin
Nick Swisher
Ken Griffey Jr.
Pablo Ozuna



The only guy who started a good amount of games with a lower OBP than Pierzynski was Juan Uribe.

see my comments above. There's a reason why you're sitting behind a computer and not managing the team. And i believe in sabermetrics.

Unless you want me to debunk every name up there.

DewsSox79
02-16-2009, 04:50 PM
Fine, don't put them all over the place, but put guys who aren't horrendous at getting on base at the top. Pretty damn simple.

i think you should be a manager of a team.

Seamhead
02-16-2009, 04:50 PM
2 place hitter to a 5-6th place hitter are going to have the same number of at bats. You put your best player in the 3rd spot (Quentin), you protect him with your second best hitter (Dye). Nick Swisher and Jim Thome also struck out 135 and and 145 times respectively. Those aren't 2 hole hitters.

Sorry, but the whole notion of putting certain skillset players at different spots has already been broken by multiple lineup studies. Read The Book. There's even one at retrosheet.


The fact is he didn't have anybody.

He had a plethora of hitters that were better than Pierzynski.


Case closed. Argument dumb.

Sure, if you're unaware of all of the new information available to you regarding lineups.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 04:50 PM
2 place hitter to a 5-6th place hitter are going to have the same number of at bats. You put your best player in the 3rd spot (Quentin), you protect him with your second best hitter (Dye). Nick Swisher and Jim Thome also struck out 135 and and 145 times respectively. Those aren't 2 hole hitters. The fact is he didn't have anybody. Case closed. Argument dumb.
By same number of AB's, you mean they'll have 60-80 less?

Each spot you move down in the lineup you can expect about 20 less PA's per year. That's why you're losing an argument and looking like a fool.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 04:51 PM
i think you should be a manager of a team.
I agree, just give me the salary to go along with it.

Seamhead
02-16-2009, 04:53 PM
I agree, just give me the salary to go along with it.

Can I help? :(

Steely McBeam
02-16-2009, 04:53 PM
i dont understand how a-rod could get punished if pettitte got off with nothing

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 04:55 PM
By same number of AB's, you mean they'll have 60-80 less?

Each spot you move down in the lineup you can expect about 20 less PA's per year. That's why you're losing an argument and looking like a fool.

And you're assuming other players are better than others, which is why the whole argument is dumb from the beggining.

Quentin - best player at 3
Dye - protection for your best player
Konerko - hurt, slow and a double play machine, no reason to put in the 2 slot.
Crede, Thome, and Swisher all struck out too much.

The problem with some of the sabermetrics people, you look at everything in a vacuum.

SEALgep
02-16-2009, 04:55 PM
And batting AJ Pierzynski 2nd, and leading off Orlando Cabrera, and playing Jerry Owens, and his entire offensive philosophy.

Not ideal, but it isn't as if he had a whole lot of other options. Still won the division with it...

DewsSox79
02-16-2009, 04:55 PM
I agree, just give me the salary to go along with it.

and maybe you will win a playoff game unlike lou.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 04:57 PM
High OBP guys are not necessarily your best players either. That's why you're whole argument is flawed.

DewsSox79
02-16-2009, 04:59 PM
High OBP guys are not necessarily your best players either. That's why you're whole argument is flawed.

bro dont you know.... OBP is the only stat :), and RWB is the guy who says that teams should be ran by statictians. lol

Gigantes4Life
02-16-2009, 04:59 PM
High OBP guys are not necessarily your best players either. That's why you're whole argument is flawed.

Players with an OBP below .320 are usually ****ing terrible, unless they're great defenders at a premium position. A.J. fails in several of these categories.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 04:59 PM
and maybe you will win a playoff game unlike lou.
Couldn't hurt.
Crede, Thome, and Swisher all struck out too much.
The problem with some of the dumb people, they think things like strikeouts matter that much.

And Konerko at slow and hurt is better than AJ healthy.

DaSox_05
02-16-2009, 04:59 PM
i dont understand how a-rod could get punished if pettitte got off with nothing

How is A-rod being punished?

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 05:01 PM
bro dont you know.... OBP is the only stat :), and RWB is the guy who says that teams should be ran by statictians. lol
Hey, bring up any place where I've said OBP is the only stat. Ever.
High OBP guys are not necessarily your best players either. That's why you're whole argument is flawed.
Correct, like Ryan Theriot, high OBP, ****ing terrible SLG

Unless they are ridiculously awful at SLG, then high OBP guys are going to be your best choices at the top of the lineup, there is no flaw in that.

DewsSox79
02-16-2009, 05:01 PM
Hey, bring up any place where I've said OBP is the only stat. Ever.Correct, like Ryan Theriot, high OBP, ****ing terrible SLG

Unless they are ridiculously awful at SLG, then high OBP guys are going to be your best choices at the top of the lineup, there is no flaw in that.

that is ALL YOU TALK ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!

SEALgep
02-16-2009, 05:03 PM
In today's game, being in love with the sacrifice and bunting makes you a bad manager, period. He claimed smallball in 2005 and yet the team won by and large on HR's (200 that year).

This is ridiculous... Ozzie appreciates the homerun like any other manager, but when you rely solely on it, you become too one dimensional. 05 a lot of homeruns were hit, but if you took the time to watch the entire season, you would see that an abundant of games were won when Pods got on, stole second, and was singled in, providing plenty of first inning cushions for our brilliant starting staff. I'm sick of everyone discrediting his influence, when it is apparently obvious people have no clue what they are talking about.

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 05:03 PM
My mind hurts...

Gigantes4Life
02-16-2009, 05:04 PM
that is ALL YOU TALK ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!

Probably because he can't move onto anything above that until your brain surrounds the concept of OBP.

Gigantes4Life
02-16-2009, 05:05 PM
This is ridiculous... Ozzie appreciates the homerun like any other manager, but when you rely solely on it, you become too one dimensional. 05 a lot of homeruns were hit, but if you took the time to watch the entire season, you would see that an abundant of games were won when Pods got on, stole second, and was singled in, providing plenty of first inning cushions for our brilliant starting staff. I'm sick of everyone discrediting his influence, when it is apparently obvious people have no clue what they are talking about.

What about all the times Posednik didn't do those things?

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 05:05 PM
Unless they are ridiculously awful at SLG, then high OBP guys are going to be your best choices at the top of the lineup, there is no flaw in that.

But if they're OPS is high, they should be hitting 3-4-5 rather than 1-2. The problem with the Sox last year, they're high OBP guys were their sluggers as well.

SEALgep
02-16-2009, 05:06 PM
What about all the times Posednik didn't do those things?

Well my friend, that's why you need both.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 05:07 PM
But if they're OPS is high, they should be hitting 3-4-5 rather than 1-2. The problem with the Sox last year, they're high OBP guys were their sluggers as well.
A lot of high OBP guys are sluggers, you have a misconception that you can't have a guy hitting 1st or 2nd who slugs a bit.

They would've been better off sticking with Swisher in the 1st or 2nd spot rather than going with AJ

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 05:08 PM
in 2005, the Sox also led the league in sacrifices, and infield hits. They also hit a lot of homeruns. I believe Ozzie called it "smartball" and dismissed the "smallball" characterization.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 05:09 PM
A lot of high OBP guys are sluggers, you have a misconception that you can't have a guy hitting 1st or 2nd who slugs a bit.

They would've been better off sticking with Swisher in the 1st or 2nd spot rather than going with AJ

That was the first thing he did. And Swisher failed and so did the team.

I don't have a misconception about sluggers hitting 1-2, i have a problem when your only sluggers are hitting 1-2.

You can't make one rule and apply it to every team. It doesn't work like that.

DewsSox79
02-16-2009, 05:11 PM
Probably because he can't move onto anything above that until your brain surrounds the concept of OBP.

yeah your right. good one buddy!

Gigantes4Life
02-16-2009, 05:13 PM
in 2005, the Sox also led the league in sacrifices, and infield hits. They also hit a lot of homeruns. I believe Ozzie called it "smartball" and dismissed the "smallball" characterization.

Sacrifices are detrimental to scoring runs, so that's not a good thing.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 05:15 PM
Sacrifices are detrimental to scoring runs, so that's not a good thing.

But it's the definition of "smallball."

DewsSox79
02-16-2009, 05:15 PM
Sacrifices are detrimental to scoring runs, so that's not a good thing.

do you read what people post or do you just read a few words and than get a un-intelligent idea to write? please tell me

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 05:25 PM
Double post

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 05:26 PM
But it's the definition of "smallball."
And that led them to 13th in the MLB in scoring.

Far and away the lowest ranked team who hit 200 HR's that year.

DaSox_05
02-16-2009, 05:28 PM
^Who cares they won the world series. I bet you would take all the lowest stats in statistical history for a Cubs World Series victory!

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 05:29 PM
And that led them to 13th in the MLB in scoring.

Far and away the lowest ranked team who hit 200 HR's that year.

Defense, Pitching, and clutch hitting is why they won.

SEALgep
02-16-2009, 05:34 PM
And that led them to 13th in the MLB in scoring.

Far and away the lowest ranked team who hit 200 HR's that year.

When your pitching and defense were to the caliber it was for the 05 Sox, you are afforded the luxury to play for the sure run. How many one or two run wins were there that year? It seemed like every other win for me...

With our starters and bullpen, why wouldn't you bunt over the guy to third with no outs in a 2-2 game in the 7th? Not with PK or Dye, but certainly with Ozuna.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 05:35 PM
When your pitching and defense were to the caliber it was for the 05 Sox, you are afforded the luxury to play for the sure run. How many one or two run wins were there that year? It seemed like every other win for me...

With our starters and bullpen, why wouldn't you bunt over the guy to third with no outs in a 2-2 game in the 7th? Not with PK or Dye, but certainly with Ozuna.

absolutely. Plus they were playing with a lead a majority of the games, a lot of those runs were insurance runs.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 05:35 PM
When your pitching and defense were to the caliber it was for the 05 Sox, you are afforded the luxury to play for the sure run. How many one or two run wins were there that year? It seemed like every other win for me...

With our starters and bullpen, why wouldn't you bunt over the guy to third with no outs in a 2-2 game in the 7th? Not with PK or Dye, but certainly with Ozuna.
That's basically the point. That year the pitching was so ridiculously lucky that it worked out, but that doesn't make it the right move, nor does it make it the right or smart move for the last 3 teams since '05

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 05:38 PM
That's basically the point. That year the pitching was so ridiculously lucky that it worked out, but that doesn't make it the right move, nor does it make it the right or smart move for the last 3 teams since '05

how is it that protecting leads by sacrificing is not the right move? I don't get this hate, i really don't. You act like if it wasn't for Ozzie, the Sox would be in the World Series every year. We all know manager don't have that big of an influence.

Seamhead
02-16-2009, 05:39 PM
^Who cares they won the world series. I bet you would take all the lowest stats in statistical history for a Cubs World Series victory!

Is this like an automated cop out?

Someone: The White Sox offense could have been better had they not wasted so many outs with bunting.

You: BUT THEY WON THE WS!!!

Someone: The Hawk is a horrible broadcaster.

You: BUT THEY WONZ THE WS!!!!

SEALgep
02-16-2009, 05:43 PM
That's basically the point. That year the pitching was so ridiculously lucky that it worked out, but that doesn't make it the right move, nor does it make it the right or smart move for the last 3 teams since '05

We haven't been playing that way the last three years since then, not to the same extent. And it wouldn't be the right move if it were "lucky" or gambling, but that is inaccurate. They were good, and good the whole entire year.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 05:44 PM
how is it that protecting leads by sacrificing is not the right move? I don't get this hate, i really don't. You act like if it wasn't for Ozzie, the Sox would be in the World Series every year. We all know manager don't have that big of an influence.
I already said they don't have that big an impact a while ago, that was when WSF83 brought up the Sox team records as evidence Ozzie is good. Then we got into this debate now about philosophy.


There is no timer in baseball, the only limit is the 27 outs you're given. To give away those outs for a single base is awful philosophy, especially because in most cases you aren't even increasing your chances for 1 run, and you're destroying your chances for multi-run innings.


I already know the response of "the Sox rarely ever have multi-run innings, so they go for the 'sure run'", well a reason they don't have many multi-run innings is because of stupid sacrifices.

And there is no such thing as a sure run. The single/SB/sac/sac scenario works so rarely that it's a detriment to make a stablehorse in your offense.

Seamhead
02-16-2009, 05:44 PM
how is it that protecting leads by sacrificing is not the right move? I don't get this hate, i really don't.

Because you're throwing away outs and not really increasing your chances of scoring. Look at this run expectancy matrix:

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html

And now look at man on 1st and 0 outs as opposed to man on 2nd and 1 out. Even if you have a horrible hitter like Pablo Ozuna, who might have a 25% chance of getting on base (aka doing something positive), it's still better than the 5% chance you give him when you bunt (5% due to the fact that maybe something goes wrong for the other team and an out isn't mad on the play).


You act like if it wasn't for Ozzie, the Sox would be in the World Series every year. We all know manager don't have that big of an influence.

I'm going to answer on my behalf, and agree that it goes both ways. Managers don't make a big difference both negatively and positively, but it doesn't mean there are some good and bad managers.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 05:45 PM
Still waiting to know how Ozzie Guillen can be defined as a bad manager, and if your argument is that Paul Konerko or Nick Swisher should have been batting 2nd instead of Pierzynski, that's pretty weak.

Did it ever occur to those who think that, that a career 3-4-5-6 hitter (Konerko) would be able to handle being a 2-hold hitter. We all saw how Swisher handled batting lead off. Which was considered the "smart" move.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 05:45 PM
We haven't been playing that way the last three years since then, not to the same extent. And it wouldn't be the right move if it were "lucky" or gambling, but that is inaccurate. They were good, and good the whole entire year.
No, they weren't, they had quite a crummy September IIRC, and they were a dominating pitching staff through the playoffs, their offense was horrendous.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 05:47 PM
Still waiting to know how Ozzie Guillen can be defined as a bad manager, and if your argument is that Paul Konerko or Nick Swisher should have been batting 2nd instead of Pierzynski, that's pretty weak.

Did it ever occur to those who think that, that a career 3-4-5-6 hitter (Konerko) would be able to handle being a 2-hold hitter. We all saw how Swisher handled batting lead off. Which was considered the "smart" move.
You're still on that, try about 2 pages ago, we've past that explanation.

A hitter is a hitter regardless of spot, the idiots who think a 2 hitter has to hit to certain areas of the field or has to hit a certain way are the reason people fail in certain places. IMO it's the reason Soriano sucks outside of the leadoff spot, he has some stupid idea that he has to hit differently elsewhere.


Short explanation, anyone should've been hitting 2nd over Pierzynski, he had the worst OBP among all starters.

DewsSox79
02-16-2009, 05:48 PM
Is this like an automated cop out?

Someone: The White Sox offense could have been better had they not wasted so many outs with bunting.

You: BUT THEY WON THE WS!!!

Someone: The Hawk is a horrible broadcaster.

You: BUT THEY WONZ THE WS!!!!

OMFG. Just go away.

PSD has gotten so many lame posters latley.

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 05:48 PM
No, they weren't, they had quite a crummy September IIRC, and they were a dominating pitching staff through the playoffs, their offense was horrendous.

This is ****ing stupid. The pitching wasn't lucky, it was awesome all year ever since Shingo got the sayonarra back to Japan and Hermanson went to the closer. Oh dear, they struggled a little bit, they struggled because Hermanson got hurt, and everyone was shifted until Jenks come up. The ****ing team went wire to goddamn wire and won the thing. How can a wire to wire team be lucky. Overperform yes? but lucky give me a goddamn break.

SEALgep
02-16-2009, 05:49 PM
No, they weren't, they had quite a crummy September IIRC, and they were a dominating pitching staff through the playoffs, their offense was horrendous.

Well, if the September IIRC was bad... Case closed

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 05:49 PM
There is no timer in baseball, the only limit is the 27 outs you're given. To give away those outs for a single base is awful philosophy, especially because in most cases you aren't even increasing your chances for 1 run, and you're destroying your chances for multi-run innings.

I already know the response of "the Sox rarely ever have multi-run innings, so they go for the 'sure run'", well a reason they don't have many multi-run innings is because of stupid sacrifices.


That Sox were good at bunting and hitting sacrifices. How could you not play to your teams strengths, especially under the circumstances i stated before. THAT, would be awful philosophy. You see, you can bring up something, but there's always a counter argument that can't be defined by numbers. Don't you understand that?

Seamhead
02-16-2009, 05:50 PM
OMFG. Just go away.

PSD has gotten so many lame posters latley.

Funny how you ignore the objective post for the half-serious one parodying your idiocy.

DewsSox79
02-16-2009, 05:51 PM
This is ****ing stupid. The pitching wasn't lucky, it was awesome all year ever since Shingo got the sayonarra back to Japan and Hermanson went to the closer. Oh dear, they struggled a little bit, they struggled because Hermanson got hurt, and everyone was shifted until Jenks come up. The ****ing team went wire to goddamn wire and won the thing. How can a wire to wire team be lucky. Overperform yes? but lucky give me a goddamn break.

I know right, lets rip the teams flaws that won the WS. So funny. I think we should now focus on teams that have great regular seasons and fail to win playoff games back to back years....lets analyze that.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 05:51 PM
This is ****ing stupid. The pitching wasn't lucky, it was awesome all year ever since Shingo got the sayonarra back to Japan and Hermanson went to the closer. Oh dear, they struggled a little bit, they struggled because Hermanson got hurt, and everyone was shifted until Jenks come up. The ****ing team went wire to goddamn wire and won the thing. How can a wire to wire team be lucky. Overperform yes? but lucky give me a goddamn break.
I never said the pitching wasn't good. But you don't think it was lucky? All the pitchers having career years on the same year? Overall they struggled in September and all year they depended on their pitching because the offense was hurting from the sacrifices/smallball.


PS: Overperform and lucky are basically the same thing, unless their peripherals are showing they simply overperformed-most overperforming players just have luck on their side.

SEALgep
02-16-2009, 05:51 PM
Short explanation, anyone should've been hitting 2nd over Pierzynski, he had the worst OBP among all starters.

At the time of the move, he was the only person on the team hitting.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 05:52 PM
You're still on that, try about 2 pages ago, we've past that explanation.

A hitter is a hitter regardless of spot, the idiots who think a 2 hitter has to hit to certain areas of the field or has to hit a certain way are the reason people fail in certain places. IMO it's the reason Soriano sucks outside of the leadoff spot, he has some stupid idea that he has to hit differently elsewhere.


Short explanation, anyone should've been hitting 2nd over Pierzynski, he had the worst OBP among all starters.

by the end of the year he had, a manager can't see into the future, he has to go on past years. Swisher was the correct choice, STATISTICALLY but it didn't work out. IMAGINE THAT! You bring up Soriano, doesn't a manager have to distinguish if a player has it in him to be in a place even though the numbers suggest otherwise?

DewsSox79
02-16-2009, 05:52 PM
Funny how you ignore the objective post for the half-serious one parodying your idiocy.

oh god

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 05:52 PM
That Sox were good at bunting and hitting sacrifices. How could you not play to your teams strengths, especially under the circumstances i stated before. THAT, would be awful philosophy. You see, you can bring up something, but there's always a counter argument that can't be defined by numbers. Don't you understand that?
They were also good at hitting HR's, if they stopped sacrificing and got some more guys on, they likely would've scored more runs.
I know right, lets rip the teams flaws that won the WS. So funny. I think we should now focus on teams that have great regular seasons and fail to win playoff games back to back years....lets analyze that. Again, they act like this is a Cubs/White Sox thing, it's not. It has nothing to do with that.

Seamhead
02-16-2009, 05:53 PM
At the time of the move, he was the only person on the team hitting.

And you should never base ANY decisions based on such a small sample size. Did he honestly think he would continue that for very long?

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 05:53 PM
At the time of the move, he was the only person on the team hitting.
But was kept in that role while he continued to suck miserably.

DewsSox79
02-16-2009, 05:54 PM
I think the Sox should hand over the banner of 05, they did not deserve it. (sarcasm)

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 05:54 PM
I never said the pitching wasn't good. But you don't think it was lucky? All the pitchers having career years on the same year? Overall they struggled in September and all year they depended on their pitching because the offense was hurting from the sacrifices/smallball.


PS: Overperform and lucky are basically the same thing, unless their peripherals are showing they simply overperformed-most overperforming players just have luck on their side.

In a 162 + 13 game season it isn't luck. And they won 90 games with the same luck team the year after that, but because of the Tigers emergence, and the Twins ******** 2nd half we couldn't capatlize on defending. And their periphals were amazing that year, which means they were good ALL YEAR. Cotts, Hermanson, Politte all had WHIPs under 1.05.

DewsSox79
02-16-2009, 05:54 PM
They were also good at hitting HR's, if they stopped sacrificing and got some more guys on, they likely would've scored more runs.Again, they act like this is a Cubs/White Sox thing, it's not. It has nothing to do with that.

than it is a coincidence I guess.

SEALgep
02-16-2009, 05:55 PM
I never said the pitching wasn't good. But you don't think it was lucky? All the pitchers having career years on the same year? Overall they struggled in September and all year they depended on their pitching because the offense was hurting from the sacrifices/smallball.


PS: Overperform and lucky are basically the same thing, unless their peripherals are showing they simply overperformed-most overperforming players just have luck on their side.

Everyone staying healthy is lucky I guess. And the offense was not hurting because of sacrificing. We were not the same looking offense we are today.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 05:56 PM
In a 162 + 13 game season it isn't luck. And they won 90 games with the same luck team the year after that, but because of the Tigers emergence, and the Twins ******** 2nd half we couldn't capatlize on defending. And their periphals were amazing that year, which means they were good ALL YEAR. Cotts, Hermanson, Politte all had WHIPs under 1.05.
So Derrek Lee's 2005 season wasn't luck?

Sorry, it's luck, overperforming, whatever you want to call it.

And in 2006 they were led by a much improved offense (Crede's only good year and Thome over Everett), not a pitching staff maintaining career best numbers across the boards.

DewsSox79
02-16-2009, 05:56 PM
Hold on a second....

Wasnt this a thread for roid users and penalties? we got way off track :)

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 05:56 PM
And luck is when your periphals suck, you get in because your division sucks, and Jeff Weaver turns into Walter Johnson. I.E. St. Louis Cardinals.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 05:57 PM
They were also good at hitting HR's, if they stopped sacrificing and got some more guys on, they likely would've scored more runs.

They would do that earlier in games, and sacrifice later in games when they would have a lead, which all managers do. So every manager in baseball is a bad manager?

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 05:57 PM
Everyone staying healthy is lucky I guess. And the offense was not hurting because of sacrificing. We were not the same looking offense we are today.
True, they aren't the same. They were better this year by avoiding the dumb sacrificing/bunting, 6th in runs scored.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 05:58 PM
Name me a world series team that didn't have guys overperform with a payroll under 100 million? What does that even mean.

SEALgep
02-16-2009, 05:58 PM
And you should never base ANY decisions based on such a small sample size. Did he honestly think he would continue that for very long?

He never said it had to be permanent. He was hot, and everybody else was flat, and we were losing games. With the minimal impact a manager has on a game, this is like the one he can do for an offense. Every manager does this, lineups are interchangeable based on health and how they are swinging.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 05:59 PM
They would do that earlier in games, and sacrifice later in games when they would have a lead, which all managers do. So every manager in baseball is a bad manager?
Pretty close actually, most are old-school players who have traditionalist mindsets and don't understand the game is different than it was in the 70's.
And luck is when your periphals suck, you get in because your division sucks, and Jeff Weaver turns into Walter Johnson. I.E. St. Louis Cardinals.
The only peripheral you listed was WHIP, you realize they ALL had their career years the SAME year, starters and bullpen.

How is that not luck?

You seem to think I'm saying they were lucky as in "they should've sucked," which is not what I'm saying at all.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 05:59 PM
True, they aren't the same. They were better this year by avoiding the dumb sacrificing/bunting, 6th in runs scored.

which is better, scoring 10 runs one game and 2 the next, or 5 in one game and 5 in the next?

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 06:00 PM
And BTW. We won games because Quentin was 3rd instead of 7th. Not AJ 2nd.

SEALgep
02-16-2009, 06:00 PM
True, they aren't the same. They were better this year by avoiding the dumb sacrificing/bunting, 6th in runs scored.

And replacing Everett with CQ didn't hurt.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 06:01 PM
Name me a world series team that didn't have guys overperform with a payroll under 100 million? What does that even mean.
Every team has some, the Sox had something like 12 pitchers overperform.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 06:02 PM
Pretty close actually, most are old-school players who have traditionalist mindsets and don't understand the game is different than it was in the 70's.

The game is always changing, so to say an idea is better than another is just not looking at things realistically. The smart thing to do is take things from different areas and formulate into one scheme.

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 06:03 PM
Pretty close actually, most are old-school players who have traditionalist mindsets and don't understand the game is different than it was in the 70's.The only peripheral you listed was WHIP, you realize they ALL had their career years the SAME year, starters and bullpen.

How is that not luck?

You seem to think I'm saying they were lucky as in "they should've sucked," which is not what I'm saying at all.

We are arguing semantics. I don't think you can be lucky for 162 games and then the playoffs. You say you can. Yes, they all had career years, it's not like they called these guys up in June and they had a .90 era and 30 year old minor leaguers, like a bullpen full of Brad Zieglers. Besides Cotts they all had history of success before. With the exception of Garland I guess too.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 06:03 PM
And replacing Everett with CQ didn't hurt.
Thome replaced Everett, CQ replaced Pods.
which is better, scoring 10 runs one game and 2 the next, or 5 in one game and 5 in the next?Depends on you're pitching. If you're ERA is over 5, I'd take my chances with the 10/2 combo, if it's lower then 5/5 is nice.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 06:03 PM
And BTW. We won games because Quentin was 3rd instead of 7th. Not AJ 2nd.

and not batting first.....or second.

natepro
02-16-2009, 06:04 PM
This has been a pretty entertaining read. Some of you people are not smart.


It's been really funny to watch Seamhead mention wOBA, and everyone turn it into OBP.

They're not the same, children. Expand your horizons a bit. We're not still using gas lanterns on the streets, because electric lights are better. Progress is a good thing.

And yes... Guillen is a bad manager.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 06:04 PM
We are arguing semantics. I don't think you can be lucky for 162 games and then the playoffs. You say you can. Yes, they all had career years, it's not like they called these guys up in June and they had a .90 era and 30 year old minor leaguers, like a bullpen full of Brad Zieglers. Besides Cotts they all had history of success before. With the exception of Garland I guess too.
Not success near that level save Buehrle.
The game is always changing, so to say an idea is better than another is just not looking at things realistically. The smart thing to do is take things from different areas and formulate into one scheme.
Oh it's entirely realistic.

Sacrificing=bad 99% of the time
OBP at the top=good in all cases
SLG around the lineup=good in all cases
2B's are better than a single/bunt or single/SB, they are not the same.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 06:05 PM
Depends on you're pitching. If you're ERA is over 5, I'd take my chances with the 10/2 combo, if it's lower then 5/5 is nice.

which is way runs scrored during a season doesn't tell you the whole story.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 06:05 PM
This has been a pretty entertaining read. Some of you people are not smart.


It's been really funny to watch Seamhead mention wOBA, and everyone turn it into OBP.

They're not the same, children. Expand your horizons a bit. We're not still using gas lanterns on the streets, because electric lights are better. Progress is a good thing.

And yes... Guillen is a bad manager.
I haven't mentioned it since he did, I frankly haven't gotten deeply into wOBA so I couldn't say too much with it.

MooseWithFleas
02-16-2009, 06:06 PM
"''In 2003, I wasn't here, so I don't give a ****,'' he said. ''I'm not going to lose sleep over something in the past. My job is to make sure it doesn't happen now. You find out a guy I manage this year got caught this year? Then I rip his ***. I will be all over his *** in the paper, TV, everywhere. Because how long do we have to put up with this [stuff]?"

That sums it up perfectly Ozzy. That A-Rod **** is in the past, just make sure people in the current era don't do this ****.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 06:06 PM
which is way runs scrored during a season doesn't tell you the whole story.
It tells you about the team as an offensive unit. Didn't say it told you anything about consistency.

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 06:06 PM
Not success near that level save Buehrle.Oh it's entirely realistic.

Sacrificing=bad 99% of the time
OBP at the top=good in all cases
SLG around the lineup=good in all cases
2B's are better than a single/bunt or single/SB, they are not the same.

Garcia?

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 06:09 PM
It tells you about the team as an offensive unit. Didn't say it told you anything about consistency.

exactly, they built the team for more consistency. And they won because of it. Pretty smart if you ask me.

Seamhead
02-16-2009, 06:10 PM
He never said it had to be permanent. He was hot, and everybody else was flat, and we were losing games. With the minimal impact a manager has on a game, this is like the one he can do for an offense. Every manager does this, lineups are interchangeable based on health and how they are swinging.

Cold and hot streaks don't have any predictive value, though. AJ was going to regress to the mean sooner than later, and that sooner could have been the very game he was penciled at the #2.

He hit him there the rest of the season, anyways, except for around the last 20 games.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 06:13 PM
And yes... Guillen is a bad manager.

A lot of managers would disagree with you. Unless your like RWB and think everybody is a bad manager because they don't adhere 100% of the time to an idiology.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 06:14 PM
Sacrificing=bad 99% of the time
OBP at the top=good in all cases
SLG around the lineup=good in all cases
2B's are better than a single/bunt or single/SB, they are not the same.

maybe in the steriod era. Who knows now.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 06:14 PM
Garcia?
When you consider Safeco field is a spacious domain and US Cell is a toy model in comparison, not really.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 06:15 PM
maybe in the steriod era. Who knows now.
(raises hand)
I know.

Seamhead
02-16-2009, 06:16 PM
maybe in the steriod era. Who knows now.

Yes, you're correct in that the value of different events will change depending on the run environment, but the run environment hasn't changed dramatically the past few seasons.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 06:16 PM
(raises hand)
I know.

yes, the person on a message board knows. He told me. :/

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 06:16 PM
When you consider Safeco field is a spacious domain and US Cell is a toy model in comparison, not really.

Then I guess 2001 he was lucky too being 3rd in the Cy Young and all.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 06:18 PM
Yes, you're correct in that the value of different events will change depending on the run environment, but the run environment hasn't changed dramatically the past few seasons.

I'm talking about from here on out. We don't know, even if you have over 60,000 posts on a message board.

natepro
02-16-2009, 06:19 PM
yes, the person on a message board knows. He told me. :/

You are a flat-out moron for saying this. You can't be on a message board making a claim, and then crap on a guy for being on a message board just because he's making the opposite claim. You continue to use some of the most illogical, ridiculous arguments around. :pity:

natepro
02-16-2009, 06:19 PM
I'm talking about from here on out. We don't know, even if you have over 60,000 posts on a message board.

Run environments don't have wild swings in them from season to season. If you knew anything about what you're trying to talk about, you'd know at least this much. Good God man.

Seamhead
02-16-2009, 06:21 PM
Run environments don't have wild swings in them from season to season. If you knew anything about what you're trying to talk about, you'd know at least this much. Good God man.

Ditto.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 06:22 PM
You are a flat-out moron for saying this. You can't be on a message board making a claim, and then crap on a guy for being on a message board just because he's making the opposite claim. You continue to use some of the most illogical, ridiculous arguments around. :pity:

I never made any claim you idiot. I ask a question on how you can prove he's a bad manager. Still no evidence.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 06:23 PM
Run environments don't have wild swings in them from season to season. If you knew anything about what you're trying to talk about, you'd know at least this much. Good God man.

check out the year 2000.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 06:23 PM
Then I guess 2001 he was lucky too being 3rd in the Cy Young and all.
Mm...good year at 26, you got me there, missed that year.

So the overproducers that year are:
Garland
Contreras
Buehrle (lowest ERA, BB and HR totals)
McCarthy
Hermanson
Cotts
And Politte all overperforming to a noticeable degree

A few others right at or matching their career years.

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 06:26 PM
Mm...good year at 26, you got me there, missed that year.

So the overproducers that year are:
Garland
Contreras
Buehrle (lowest ERA, BB and HR totals)
McCarthy
Hermanson
Cotts
And Politte all overperforming to a noticeable degree

A few others right at or matching their career years.

McCarthy meant nothing to that team. Yes, it's Buehrle's best year, but no way was he lucky based on past. Garland, I'll give you he hasn't come close to that ever. Hermanson has done it before, Politte done it before. Middle relievers are like lightning in a bottle, you can't predict value out of them with the exception of 10 guys maybe.

Big E
02-16-2009, 06:30 PM
Ozzie is right.
like always.

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 06:30 PM
Wow this **** blew up while i was gone, i thought we agreed teams only won because players were good? so why does it even matter if hes a good or bad manager?

damn i shoulda just asked the steroids punishment question and left it at that.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 06:31 PM
McCarthy meant nothing to that team. Yes, it's Buehrle's best year, but no way was he lucky based on past. Garland, I'll give you he hasn't come close to that ever. Hermanson has done it before, Politte done it before. Middle relievers are like lightning in a bottle, you can't predict value out of them with the exception of 10 guys maybe.
He pitched (I think he was starting all of them) in 12 games.


Hermanson and Politte had done it before?

Politte's best year before that was 23 games with the Phils in 2001, he pitched in 68 for the Sox in '05 and his WHIP was .2 below the closest year.

Hermanson never came close either.

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 06:31 PM
Wow this **** blew up while i was gone, i thought we agreed teams only won because players were good? so why does it even matter if hes a good or bad manager?

damn i shoulda just asked the steroids punishment question and left it at that.

No, I ****ed up calling him a bad manager. I opened the Pandora's box of facts. :)

You can be a bad manager, like you can be a bad employee, does it make that much of a difference as a whole entity, probably not. That's all I'll say.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 06:32 PM
Wow this **** blew up while i was gone, i thought we agreed teams only won because players were good? so why does it even matter if hes a good or bad manager?

damn i shoulda just asked the steroids punishment question and left it at that.
Yup, bad you.

Now it's a debate on how sacrificing and bunting is good and the basic "they're managers, they know more than you" argument.

And me and JD are disagreeing that he '05 WS were extremely lucky with pitching.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 06:34 PM
Wow this **** blew up while i was gone, i thought we agreed teams only won because players were good? so why does it even matter if hes a good or bad manager?

Exactly, that's why i don't understand how one could be a "bad" manager.

And apparently, handling a pitching staff, handing the clubhouse, media, and player development have nothing to do with being a good/bad manager. All of these things, people like us would have no knowledge of. But hey, that doesn't stop us by saying if they were bad or not.

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 06:34 PM
No, I ****ed up calling him a bad manager. I opened the Pandora's box of facts. :)

You can be a bad manager, like you can be a bad employee, does it make that much of a difference as a whole entity, probably not. That's all I'll say.

i just dont get what makes a manager bad or good.

looking at W-L, win%, playoff appearances, WS appearances, i think Guillen is at the very least the best manager in White Sox history.

I'm curious though, Who is a good manager, and why?

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 06:34 PM
He pitched (I think he was starting all of them) in 12 games.


Hermanson and Politte had done it before?

Politte's best year before that was 23 games with the Phils in 2001, he pitched in 68 for the Sox in '05 and his WHIP was .2 below the closest year.

Hermanson never came close either.

Politte, I can see, considering he throws a hard straight fastball, that's it ala Grant Balfour on why I think he will be terrible this year. But, Hermanson has success as a starter before. I honestly didn't know 2005 was his only year as being primarily used as a reliever, so it's hard to really form an opinion on him over performing or not. And unfortunately he got injured and his career was over.

Telios9
02-16-2009, 06:35 PM
don't be hating on ozzie

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 06:38 PM
i just dont get what makes a manager bad or good.

looking at W-L, win%, playoff appearances, WS appearances, i think Guillen is at the very least the best manager in White Sox history.

I'm curious though, Who is a good manager, and why?
Philosophy.
W/L, winning %, postseason appearances and WS trophies are more the team's doing.

Ozzie is using 1930 philosophy in the 2000's. His era has more HR's and 2B's, more runs in general.

Ignoring things like OBP and run expectancy charts for any manager is bad.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 06:41 PM
Ignoring things like OBP and run expectancy charts for any manager is bad.

Then why was swisher batting leadoff?

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 06:43 PM
Ozzie is using 1930 philosophy in the 2000's. His era has more HR's and 2B's, more runs in general.

which his teams had in every year he's been manager. I never seen ozzie sacrifice a homerun for a bunt.

Seamhead
02-16-2009, 06:43 PM
check out the year 2000.

Runs Per Game:

1999: 5.0
2000: 5.1
2008: 4.7

I don't see the wild swing anywhere. There's been a .4 decrease since 2000, but that's a very gradual change.

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 06:45 PM
which his teams had in every year he's been manager. I never seen ozzie sacrifice a homerun for a bunt.

The suspended game when playing the Orioles in the 12th inning, 1st and 2nd, Nick Swisher up, has Swisher attempt 2 bunts, fails, Swisher reaches to make contact so he doesn't whiff, GIDP, we fail to score. His flawed logic with certain players has cost us games before. This being one example.

Managers putting their players in position to fail = Bad.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 06:46 PM
Then why was swisher batting leadoff?
Better question is why was Swisher removed.

He had a .354 OBP from the leadoff spot, and was replaced by AJ in the top 2 (O-Cab moved from 2 to 1) on May 5th, quite a quick move for someone who was getting on base at a good clip.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 06:46 PM
Runs Per Game:

1999: 5.0
2000: 5.1
2008: 4.7

I don't see the wild swing anywhere. There's been a .4 decrease since 2000, but that's a very gradual change.

which is huge, i never said it would be spike from one year to the next. I don't even know why that was brought up.

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 06:46 PM
Yup, bad you.

Now it's a debate on how sacrificing and bunting is good and the basic "they're managers, they know more than you" argument.

And me and JD are disagreeing that he '05 WS were extremely lucky with pitching.

the problem is with the 2005 White Sox is they completely and totally defy new age baseball logic, and were anchored by the greatest bullpen in the history of baseball. So whenever they get brought up, so does the philosophy war that is going on in baseball right now.

Baseball is in an era right now where new age thinking and old age thinking are clashing; i personally dont like to commit to either side because, imo, i think to be so absolute on either side is stupid. Of course in the middle of this war of ideas is the steroids era and the new focus on the importance of the bullpen, its because of all these different factors and the introduction of the internet that sites like PSD are flourishing.

i think history will look back at 2005 White Sox as the first team that one with their bullpen since this was around the time where the loads started being taken off of the Starters. And, to get back to Guillen, in the history of the White Sox Guillen will be looked back at as one of the best managers in team history.

And because he has such a crazy personality and has won a world series, whether he is a bad manager is irrelevant because history while record him as a good manager...and in the end thats really all that matters.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 06:48 PM
Better question is why was Swisher removed.

He had a .354 OBP from the leadoff spot, and was replaced by AJ in the top 2 (O-Cab moved from 2 to 1) on May 5th, quite a quick move for someone who was getting on base at a good clip.

So basically, a "good manager" won't change a lineup at all during the season.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 06:49 PM
So basically, a "good manager" won't change a lineup at all during the season.
A good manager won't drop a hitter with a .354 OBP from 1st to 7th and put a player with a .312 OBP in the 2 spot.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 06:50 PM
The suspended game when playing the Orioles in the 12th inning, 1st and 2nd, Nick Swisher up, has Swisher attempt 2 bunts, fails, Swisher reaches to make contact so he doesn't whiff, GIDP, we fail to score. His flawed logic with certain players has cost us games before. This being one example.

Managers putting their players in position to fail = Bad.

Swisher was one of our worst hitters at the time. I don't mind one of my worst hitters bunting with a guy at second with no outs in extra innings.

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 06:52 PM
Swisher was one of our worst hitters at the time. I don't mind one of my worst hitters bunting with a guy at second with no outs in extra innings.

Considering Swisher maybe has 1 bunt in his life. Despite how easy it looks like to bunt, some guys cannot do it. Even if Swisher gets it down successfully, with the force at 3rd, the odds are greater higher the guy gets to 3rd with him swinging away from the start. He does the same **** with AJ, and AJ seems to never get a bunt down too.

Lincecum4CY
02-16-2009, 06:55 PM
I would give them a major stiff fine, maybe something like 25% of their contract as well as a 100 game suspension for the first time, and 75% of their contract and lifetime ban the second time around. I don't believe they should get jail time unless they were like Tejada,Bonds,Clemens, etc. and lied to the jury.

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 06:56 PM
A good manager won't drop a hitter with a .354 OBP from 1st to 7th and put a player with a .312 OBP in the 2 spot.

what you have to understand is what i pointed out earlier.

its easy to play the numbers game and say well he shouldnt have done this or that, but...

Swisher leading off: White Sox 14-16

AJ batting in the 2 hole: White Sox initially went 12-4 with him there, and in the 103 games had him at the 2 hole went 69-44

of course AJ didnt win those games by himself because he was in the two hole, but Ozzie wasnt going to change anything when the team was winning because thats the way he rolls.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 06:57 PM
Swisher was one of our worst hitters at the time. I don't mind one of my worst hitters bunting with a guy at second with no outs in extra innings.
It was the 8th inning of that game, 2 on and Swisher walked his last 2 PA's the inning before (leading off both the 5th and 7th innings), the Sox were up 2-1.

Swisher had a .373 OBP at the time of that game. Hardly one of the worst hitters on the team.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 06:57 PM
Considering Swisher maybe has 1 bunt in his life. Despite how easy it looks like to bunt, some guys cannot do it. Even if Swisher gets it down successfully, with the force at 3rd, the odds are greater higher the guy gets to 3rd with him swinging away from the start. He does the same **** with AJ, and AJ seems to never get a bunt down too.

I know you remember the game. The odds of hitting a homerun in that weather was small. And the defense making an error because of the turf was higher than hitting a homerun. AJ bunts on his own a lot, he's said that himself.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 06:59 PM
what you have to understand is what i pointed out earlier.

its easy to play the numbers game and say well he shouldnt have done this or that, but...

Swisher leading off: White Sox 14-16

AJ batting in the 2 hole: White Sox initially went 12-4 with him there, and in the 103 games had him at the 2 hole went 69-44

of course AJ didnt win those games by himself because he was in the two hole, but Ozzie wasnt going to change anything when the team was winning because thats the way he rolls.
This reminds me of the 2007 discussion of Koyie Hill.

The Cubs were like 17-4 when Koyie hill started. Of course Hill struggled to touch the Mendoza line and was a black hole offensively, defensively he wasn't any better than Blanco.

We had people actually arguing to play Hill over Soto because of the team record.

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 07:00 PM
I'll agree on the latter with AJ, but as RWB said bunting was stupid there. It's just as easy to hit a grounder and it be lost in a puddle then putting a bunt down.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 07:03 PM
It was the 8th inning of that game, 2 on and Swisher walked his last 2 PA's the inning before (leading off both the 5th and 7th innings), the Sox were up 2-1.

Swisher had a .373 OBP at the time of that game. Hardly one of the worst hitters on the team.

we're talking about the making up game that ended up being in Baltimore later in the year.

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 07:03 PM
Now, I'm going to go fail a test because this goddamn, ****ing, horseshit, proppycock, dumbass, stupid, mindless, catastrophe of a debate. I HATE YOU PSD! I! HATE! YOU!

JDIsMyGod23
02-16-2009, 07:04 PM
Wow, one word was edited. Oh well.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 07:06 PM
we're talking about the making up game that ended up being in Baltimore later in the year.
Yes, there is one extra inning game between the Sox and Baltimore, a 14 inning marathon, Baltimore tied it in the 9th and it was finished later on, on August 25th...the failure came in the 8th though, the continued game resumed in the 11th.

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 07:08 PM
This reminds me of the 2007 discussion of Koyie Hill.

The Cubs were like 17-4 when Koyie hill started. Of course Hill struggled to touch the Mendoza line and was a black hole offensively, defensively he wasn't any better than Blanco.

We had people actually arguing to play Hill over Soto because of the team record.

not saying its right, im just saying, if you're Ozzie and everyone is telling you that your doing something stupid, yet your team is winning when your doing it, it doesnt seem stupid to you, so you keep doing it.

And if the White Sox win, what does Ozzie care that AJ had no business in the two hole? The whole point is to win.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 07:10 PM
not saying its right, im just saying, if you're Ozzie and everyone is telling you that your doing something stupid, yet your team is winning when your doing it, it doesnt seem stupid to you, so you keep doing it.

And if the White Sox win, what does Ozzie care that AJ had no business in the two hole? The whole point is to win.
Because eventually, as did happen, AJ started to hit like **** yet wasn't replaced.

That leads to less production and a higher chance of defeat.

It's all about probabilities, batting AJ second lowered theirs, whether they overcame it or not isn't in question.

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 07:15 PM
Because eventually, as did happen, AJ started to hit like **** yet wasn't replaced.

That leads to less production and a higher chance of defeat.

It's all about probabilities, batting AJ second lowered theirs, whether they overcame it or not isn't in question.

and ill of course say for the 3rd time...

when that higher chance of defeat, turns into real defeat, and the White Sox start to lose on a consistent basis. when more and more seasons like 2007 start to happen more often. then we can call him a bad manager.

until then batting AJ 2nd helped the sox win 69 games out of 103, maybe you're right, maybe batting him 2nd should have only helped them win 40 games not 69 but...

until the team starts to suck and stops winning AL Central titles, i disagree that he is a bad manager, even if he is, his way of doing things has thus far worked.

Pierzynski4Prez
02-16-2009, 07:32 PM
69-34, thats all that ****in matters. End of argument.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 07:39 PM
RWB, according to you, if a manager doesn't adhere to the sabermetric rules 100% of the time, they're considered a bad manager. Correct?

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 07:54 PM
and ill of course say for the 3rd time...

when that higher chance of defeat, turns into real defeat, and the White Sox start to lose on a consistent basis. when more and more seasons like 2007 start to happen more often. then we can call him a bad manager.

until then batting AJ 2nd helped the sox win 69 games out of 103, maybe you're right, maybe batting him 2nd should have only helped them win 40 games not 69 but...

until the team starts to suck and stops winning AL Central titles, i disagree that he is a bad manager, even if he is, his way of doing things has thus far worked.
Why is it that AJ "helped" win 69/103

He's just a part of it, the word "help" is what I can't agree with there.
RWB, according to you, if a manager doesn't adhere to the sabermetric rules 100% of the time, they're considered a bad manager. Correct? What are the sabermetric rules?

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 07:59 PM
Why is it that AJ "helped" win 69/103

He's just a part of it, the word "help" is what I can't agree with there.

He helped because he is 1/9 players in the linuep

:shrug:

its a team game, they all have their own part and if your Ozzie you arent going to mess with success, even if AJ isnt the reason for that success thats all im saying.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 08:02 PM
He helped because he is 1/9 players in the linuep

:shrug:

its a team game, they all have their own part and if your Ozzie you arent going to mess with success, even if AJ isnt the reason for that success thats all im saying.
We simply won't see eye to eye on this, the manager should put the players in the best spot for the team IMO, and AJ hitting 2nd can in no way be considered the best spot when he has the lowest OBP of any starter.

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 08:04 PM
We simply won't see eye to eye on this, the manager should put the players in the best spot for the team IMO, and AJ hitting 2nd can in no way be considered the best spot when he has the lowest OBP of any starter.

Agreed 100%

but since the Sox started to win when AJ was hitting at the 2 spot, Ozzie didnt consider it a bad spot to put him, thus he didnt move him, and since the White Sox did win the central (and have twice in five years) i just dont think its fair to call him a bad manager.

Even if it was a bad move...

If he continues to make those bad moves eventually they will catch up to him, but so far they haven't, which tells me he may be smarter than we all give him credit for. When those moves stop working for the Sox ill be right there with you, until then ill give Ozzie his credit even if i dont understand what the hell hes doing.

BearsBullsCHWS
02-16-2009, 08:10 PM
He helped because he is 1/9 players in the linuep

:shrug:

its a team game, they all have their own part and if your Ozzie you arent going to mess with success, even if AJ isnt the reason for that success thats all im saying.

What I think you are failing to see is that the white sox could have had an even better record if they had a better hitter in the two hole. The white sox were winning then, great, but they could have scratched out a few more runs and won another close game or two, but hey, they could have been worse too (although it is unlikely). It just seems to me that you are saying that Ozzie felt that AJ in the two hole was the reason the white sox were winning and therefore leaving him there was a smart thing, when in truth it wasn't.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 08:10 PM
Agreed 100%

but since the Sox started to win when AJ was hitting at the 2 spot, Ozzie didnt consider it a bad spot to put him, thus he didnt move him, and since the White Sox did win the central (and have twice in five years) i just dont think its fair to call him a bad manager.

Even if it was a bad move...

If he continues to make those bad moves eventually they will catch up to him, but so far they haven't, which tells me he may be smarter than we all give him credit for. When those moves stop working for the Sox ill be right there with you, until then ill give Ozzie his credit even if i dont understand what the hell hes doing.
The Cubs have won the Central 3 times in 6 years, Baker was a POS manager who had great pitching one year and a great offense another, and Piniella has an All-Star team that he still finds a way to **** up with the lineup. The team's results don't matter on the judgment of the manager.


They caught up with him bigtime in 2007 (Hellooooo Jerry Owens). In fact, outside of the spectacular pitching year of 2005, his other 4 years look almost identical to Dusty Baker's tenure with the Cubs.

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 08:26 PM
and eventually it caught up with baker, when it catches up with ozzie ill be right there with you.

so far it hasnt.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 08:28 PM
and eventually it caught up with baker, when it catches up with ozzie ill be right there with you.

so far it hasnt.
2007 sure did, 2008 rebounded, we'll see where he goes from there.

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 08:28 PM
What I think you are failing to see is that the white sox could have had an even better record if they had a better hitter in the two hole. The white sox were winning then, great, but they could have scratched out a few more runs and won another close game or two, but hey, they could have been worse too (although it is unlikely). It just seems to me that you are saying that Ozzie felt that AJ in the two hole was the reason the white sox were winning and therefore leaving him there was a smart thing, when in truth it wasn't.

I'm not saying batting AJ in the 2 hole was smart, im saying since the White Sox won the central it proved to be a smart move (even if it wasnt)

My whole point is that when a guy does well as a manager im not going to sit here and say hes a bad manager because the bottom line is his team did well, when he shows us that he is infact a fraud or a bad manager, then ill be on his ***. But so far he hasnt...

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 08:30 PM
2007 sure did, 2008 rebounded, we'll see where he goes from there.

exactly, and if 2007 starts to repeat itself, ill be right there calling Ozzie a bad manager. Until then i just cant bring myself to do that (even if i do think AJ is the 2 hole is ****ing stupid) because the fact is, the White Sox still won with AJ in the 2 hole.

Its easy to say we could have won more games if we didnt, but we just dont know that for sure and never will so ill judge him on what happened, not what could have happened.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 08:36 PM
exactly, and if 2007 starts to repeat itself, ill be right there calling Ozzie a bad manager. Until then i just cant bring myself to do that (even if i do think AJ is the 2 hole is ****ing stupid) because the fact is, the White Sox still won with AJ in the 2 hole.

Its easy to say we could have won more games if we didnt, but we just dont know that for sure and never will so ill judge him on what happened, not what could have happened.
Again saying 'because they won games, it was a good move' is not correct.

And it's not like he put a struggling hitter in that spot who then raked, then I might agree with you that it was a bad idea that proved to work out, but he put a bad hitter and kept a bad hitter in that spot. They won in spite of AJ hitting there, not because or with help from.

He was kept in the 2 hole until he was at a .319 OBP and had OBP's after April (when Swisher was in the 1 hole all month) of .303, .347, .300, .302 and .258. He did not help the team win, they won in spite of him.

dodgerphreak
02-16-2009, 09:01 PM
Full season for the first lifetime for the 2nd

Agreed. The season-long suspension should be a suspension without pay, too. It'd make em think a little more before using PED's...

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 09:22 PM
Again saying 'because they won games, it was a good move' is not correct.


this is where you and i are not going to agree.

yes i think batting AJ 2nd was dumb, but the fact is they did win, and you can say they won in spite of AJ being in the 2 hole (which may be true) but we will never know if in fact it is, so as i said before ill judge what actually happened.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 09:34 PM
this is where you and i are not going to agree.

yes i think batting AJ 2nd was dumb, but the fact is they did win, and you can say they won in spite of AJ being in the 2 hole (which may be true) but we will never know if in fact it is, so as i said before ill judge what actually happened.
Fine by me, I like to judge on the known facts before the move, and not make the move and judge it's effects later on based on what did happen.

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 09:36 PM
alright well here's where we agree to disagree, nice arguing with ya ;)

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 09:39 PM
alright well here's where we agree to disagree, nice arguing with ya ;)
Discussing, not arguing.

*******:p

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 09:55 PM
What are the sabermetric rules?

I don't know, using statistical evidence and certain measures to analyze decisions and performances. You point out instances where he (ozzie) doesn't use this method, but you don't acknowledge times he has. As i mentioned earlier, managing a pitching staff, the clubhouse, the media, ect, i feel are measure to define a "good" manager as well as moves during a game. But you mentioned earlier that there are no "good" managers in the game so i don't even know if its worth "discussing" any further.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 10:00 PM
I don't know, using statistical evidence and certain measures to analyze decisions and performances. You point out instances where he (ozzie) doesn't use this method, but you don't acknowledge times he has. As i mentioned earlier, managing a pitching staff, the clubhouse, the media, ect, i feel are measure to define a "good" manager as well as moves during a game. But you mentioned earlier that there are no "good" managers in the game so i don't even know if its worth "discussing" any further.
There aren't any great managers, there are some that are better than others-most noticeably anyone who puts their best 5 hitters in the first 5 spots in the lineup.

misterd
02-16-2009, 10:11 PM
Ozzie is my new hero.

Actually, I do think the manager's job is to protect his players publicly (even if he rips them 4 new *******s in private), but I have to give him credit for sending this message to his players.

I would want to be careful about bans on one test - false positives are always possible, and with so many supplements out there who knows what will set it off.

But I still say a positive test, in addition to the ban, should allow the current team to void your contract, and result in the removal of any major records or awards.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 10:14 PM
There aren't any great managers, there are some that are better than others-most noticeably anyone who puts their best 5 hitters in the first 5 spots in the lineup.

its not as simple as that, if it was, there would be no managers. Just a guy with a computer in a skybox.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 10:15 PM
its not as simple as that, if it was, there would be no managers. Just a guy with a computer in a skybox.
Give it 20-30 years, you're going to see a lot fewer ex-players as managers.

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 10:22 PM
Ozzie is my new hero.

Actually, I do think the manager's job is to protect his players publicly (even if he rips them 4 new *******s in private), but I have to give him credit for sending this message to his players.

I would want to be careful about bans on one test - false positives are always possible, and with so many supplements out there who knows what will set it off.

But I still say a positive test, in addition to the ban, should allow the current team to void your contract, and result in the removal of any major records or awards.

heres what i dont get, why dont teams put a PEDs clause in the contracts? and basically state that if you are caught using PEDs while still under contract the team has the right to void the remaining money your owed and can collect a portion of the money you have already been paid.

if baseball really wants its players to stop they would hit them where it hurts; their wallets.

from some reasons teams dont do this, which just adds to the theory that even the teams dont care who uses what unless they are caught.

Southsideheat
02-16-2009, 10:23 PM
Give it 20-30 years, you're going to see a lot fewer ex-players as managers.

making on the field decisions is just one part of being a good manager.

whitesoxfan83
02-16-2009, 10:24 PM
btw i love that when Guillen says this its nowhere on ESPN.com

Ortiz comes out today and says the same thing and its the #2 story on their site.

:rolleyes:

gotta love that fair and balanced reporting.

redwhitenblue
02-16-2009, 10:40 PM
making on the field decisions is just one part of being a good manager.
There are few on-field decisions to be made.

Pitching replacements are all that is really needed in the AL, in the NL there are a few more with PH's, but overall most of the manager's game-involved job could be done and be done better by a computer.

Their only impact that can't be repeated by a formula is their handling of players.

DaaBoTownSox
02-17-2009, 12:45 AM
I think a full season should be the ban.

As for Ozzie, I think he should get a lifetime ban. I really can't stand that guy.

Southsideheat
02-17-2009, 02:24 PM
Just heard John Dewan on the radio, he said he would put Alexei Ramirez (low obp, strikeouts a lot, hits into a lot of double plays) in the 2-hole. Doesn't that go against everything he believes in?

yankeemule4life
02-17-2009, 02:24 PM
The only "joke" in this discussion is Ozzie.

leiasgoldbikini
02-17-2009, 02:34 PM
I think that with the potential for false positives, the first positive test should come with a probationary period of one full season. That way they could further test the sample to see if they can determine exactly what caused the positive, and freely obtain more samples from the player whenever they want. Second test, one year ban. Third test, lifetime, without possibility of reinstatement.

yankeemule4life
02-17-2009, 02:38 PM
I think that with the potential for false positives, the first positive test should come with a probationary period of one full season. That way they could further test the sample to see if they can determine exactly what caused the positive, and freely obtain more samples from the player whenever they want. Second test, one year ban. Third test, lifetime, without possibility of reinstatement.

I like this...never thought about probationary option. This seems like a legit solution.