Ozzie haters

[Hideaway Lights]

Buehrle was cruising in game 2, I highly doubt even Manuel would have taken him out. Games 3 and 4 were blowouts, and game 5 was when the Angels bullpen collapsed. So I don't see what difference it made, other than it meant our bullpen went into the World Series not having worked in forever, which could have really backfired.

Yeah, Ozzie deserves a ton of credit for Garland, I think even the most anti Ozzie people out there would easily admit that.

 

It did not backfire. That's the whole point.

 

Say what you will about him, but Ozzie made a lot of great calls during the playoffs. Yes, he made a couple of bad ones too, but mostly he was on.

 

What if Manuel takes a starter out of 3 and 4 and a reliever gets blown up? Who's to say the whole series doesn't change then either?

[whitesoxfan101]

It did not backfire. That's the whole point.

 

Say what you will about him, but Ozzie made a lot of great calls during the playoffs. Yes, he made a couple of bad ones too, but mostly he was on.

 

What if Manuel takes a starter out of 3 and 4 and a reliever gets blown up? Who's to say the whole series doesn't change then either?

 

They worked, but if he had been more conventional we'd have still won the games. Everything just went our way that October, nothing really could have stopped us, not even Ozzie and his crazy, unconventional, and at times stupid moves. That's my point.

[hammerhead johnson]

Okay, so when would Manuel have removed each starter for games 2 through 5 of the ALCS last year?

 

That was my whole point. That he WOULDN'T have just handed the ball to the starter.

 

That is your whole point?

 

He'd most likely go with a pitch count. Big f***ing deal.

 

You can't rely on your starters to throw complete games every time out. If they can stay under 110 pitches, then that's great. If not, then you go to your bullpen.

[Hideaway Lights]

101, so your point is basically that Ozzie always deserves none of the credit and all of the blame

Edited September 7, 2006 by Hideaway Lights

[whitesoxfan101]

That is your whole point?

 

He'd most likely go with a pitch count. Big f***ing deal.

 

You can't rely on your starters to throw complete games every time out. If they can stay under 110 pitches, then that's great. If not, then you go to your bullpen.

 

Exactly. That Angels team was last in the AL in walks IIRC last season, and their offense wasn't that good in general, so of course our great starters (another factor) had a chance to go deep into all those games. It's all part of the "everything was going our way" thing.

 

101, so your point is basically that Ozzie always deserves none of the credit and all of the blame

 

Only if your point is Ozzie is always right and he could have taught Casey Stengal a thing or two about the game of baseball.

[SoxAce]

Ozzie is just having a bad managing year, much like Cora at 3rd, much like Cotts pitching, etc. One bad year and I've heard everything from firing him, to Jerry f***ing Manuel being way better than him. Ridiculous.

[whitesoxfan101]

Ozzie is just having a bad managing year

 

I can agree with this. Ozzie in general isn't a real good manager, but he's had a bad year and some bad luck as well. I can't agree on Joey Cora though, he's just a total idiot regardless of what year it is over at 3rd.

[Hideaway Lights]

I've never said Ozzie is alwys right, but he certainly deserves a lot of credit for last year, no matter how bad of a manager you think he is.

 

Look, part of managing is dealing with egos. Dealing with personalities. Dealing with coaches. This is all stuff we don't see.

 

The Ditka analogy is a good one - because he wasn't a great coach. But to say that any team, whether it was the 85 bears or 05 Sox was a lock to win the championship despite whatever manager you threw in there is just plain ignorant. The intangible qualities that a manager brings - such as motivation - are not apparent to us on a day to day basis.

Edited September 7, 2006 by Hideaway Lights

[WCSox]

It's even scarier because a lot of Bears fans STILL think Ditka was a great coach, when in reality he was a pretty bad one.

 

Ditka was certainly no Walsh or Belichick, but I wouldn't call him a "bad" coach. Even after Buddy Ryan took the Eagles HC job and McMahon and Payotn became non-factors, the Bears were still a pretty good team. They were consistently in the playoffs throughout the late '80s and early '90s.

[whitesoxfan101]

I've never said Ozzie is alwys right, but he certainly deserves a lot of credit for last year, no matter how bad of a manager you think he is.

 

Look, part of managing is dealing with egos. Dealing with personalities. Dealing with coaches. This is all stuff we don't see.

 

The Ditka analogy is a good one - because he wasn't a great coach. But to say that any team, whether it was the 85 bears or 05 Sox was a lock to win the WS despite whatever manager you threw in there is just plain ignorant. The intangible qualities that a manager brings - such as motivation - are not apparent to us on a day to day basis.

 

Ozzie might be good at all those things, in fact he probably is for the most part. But that doesn't change the fact that his in game management is an atrocity, and that costs us more games than any of the other stuff he does as manager wins us.

[fathom]

The Ditka analogy is a good one - because he wasn't a great coach. But to say that any team, whether it was the 85 bears or 05 Sox was a lock to win the WS despite whatever manager you threw in there is just plain ignorant. The intangible qualities that a manager brings - such as motivation - are not apparent to us on a day to day basis.

 

Here's my way of looking at it: Obviously, Ozzie ended up being the perfect manager for the 2005 Sox. It was a team that could shut down the opposition, so playing Ozzieball worked out perfectly. Ozzie might not be a good manager for what 2006 is ending up being. Our pitching has struggled all year, so Ozzieball isn't really effective (we can't win if we don't score more than 3 runs). He will be back next year, so lets just hope the personnel is adjusted to fill some of the holes we've had this year.

[Wealz]

Guillen deserves as much credit as any manager of the underdog teams that have won a World Series in recent history. Guys like Kelly, Pienella, McKeon, and Scoscia. In fact, he probablly deserves more because he took a concesus third place team in the division before the season and won the most games in the A.L. before storming through the postseason @ 11-1.

[whitesoxfan101]

Guillen deserves as much credit as any manager of the underdog teams that have won a World Series in recent history. Guys like Kelly, Pienella, McKeon, and Scoscia. In fact, he probablly deserves more because he took a concesus third place team in the division before the season and won the most games in the A.L. before storming through the postseason @ 11-1.

 

How were we an underdog?? We finished with the best record in the far superior AL, and had the best pitching by far.

[RockRaines]

Why debate Manuel's possible moves in the playoffs? He would never have made the playoffs.

[whitesoxfan101]

Why debate Manuel's possible moves in the playoffs? He would never have made the playoffs.

 

 

Your fly by posts lately have been so strange that I'll assume your being sarcastic with them.

[Wealz]

How were we an underdog?? We finished with the best record in the far superior AL, and had the best pitching by far.

 

Look back to April 2005.

[Controlled Chaos]

They worked, but if he had been more conventional we'd have still won the games. Everything just went our way that October, nothing really could have stopped us, not even Ozzie and his crazy, unconventional, and at times stupid moves. That's my point.

 

You don't know if we still would have won the games. All you or anyone can go by is what happened and we won the way Ozzie did it. Now you want to just chalk it up as oh everything went our way....Unbelievable

 

Your point is lame.

 

Ozzie had a great deal in winning us a world championship last year. By no means, do I think that gives him a pass this year, but give credit where it is due.

[Dick Allen]

I've never said Ozzie is alwys right, but he certainly deserves a lot of credit for last year, no matter how bad of a manager you think he is.

 

Look, part of managing is dealing with egos. Dealing with personalities. Dealing with coaches. This is all stuff we don't see.

 

The Ditka analogy is a good one - because he wasn't a great coach. But to say that any team, whether it was the 85 bears or 05 Sox was a lock to win the WS despite whatever manager you threw in there is just plain ignorant. The intangible qualities that a manager brings - such as motivation - are not apparent to us on a day to day basis.

Buddy Ryan had more to do with the Bears winning the Super Bowl than Ditka. Buddy leaves and the rest of the Ditka reign is dissappointment. Ozzie managed a world championship team. Nobody can ever take that away from him. My problem is now you see him on ads, television specials, and popping off in the media about something almost daily. I don't know how many times I've heard him say his job is to win games. I just wish he'd put all the side stuff away, and concentrate on finding ways to help the White Sox win games. He is the same kind of huge personality Ditka is. He is loyal to "his people" just like Ditka, his tactical game decisions appear questionable, just like Ditka, and all the stuff that came with winning in a title-starved town seems to have, at least to me, made him lose his focus just like Ditka. Ozzie can get it back. He'll never be a genius in-game manager IMO. But he can get his focus back. Ditka loved the spotlight and 21 years later it still shines on him. Ozzie loves it too, but he's not going to be able to maintain his popularity with bad seasons, the one difference between him and Da Coach.

[tony72]

Buddy Ryan had more to do with the Bears winning the Super Bowl than Ditka. Buddy leaves and the rest of the Ditka reign is dissappointment. Ozzie managed a world championship team. Nobody can ever take that away from him. My problem is now you see him on ads, television specials, and popping off in the media about something almost daily. I don't know how many times I've heard him say his job is to win games. I just wish he'd put all the side stuff away, and concentrate on finding ways to help the White Sox win games. He is the same kind of huge personality Ditka is. He is loyal to "his people" just like Ditka, his tactical game decisions appear questionable, just like Ditka, and all the stuff that came with winning in a title-starved town seems to have, at least to me, made him lose his focus just like Ditka. Ozzie can get it back. He'll never be a genius in-game manager IMO. But he can get his focus back. Ditka loved the spotlight and 21 years later it still shines on him. Ozzie loves it too, but he's not going to be able to maintain his popularity with bad seasons, the one difference between him and Da Coach.

It is easy to question a manager's in game decisions after they are made. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

Last year Neal Cotts and Cliff Politte came in from the bullpen and almost always never let the base runners score. This year it is completely the opposite. If the Sox are leading by one run and Ozzie puts in a usually dependabe reliever who comes in and gives up a home run..it is easy to criticize a manager after. It is not Ozzie's fault if a guy does not come in and do the job he is supposed to do..

 

Is it Ozzie's fault Freddy, Jose and Mark's era are up by over a run from last year? It's not his fault if players are not doing what they are making millions to do...

 

The only criticism I have with Ozzie is some of the off field and on field antics that may distract from the game at hand. One move he did make I did not like was back when the Sox were playing the Rangers on a Sunday and had already lost the first two games of the series. The Sox were only leading 1 to 0 at the time and Ozzie berated Garland in the dugout for not hitting the Texas batter. They were on a losing streak with only a one run lead ! and what if Garand had been tossed from that game because Ozzie had to "settle a score" with Buck Showalter. Garland was the only dependable starter at the time and it seemed it was more important for Ozzie to be Tony Soprano than win the game. This is my only criticism of him..his actions that take away from the game. But his decisions in the game..every manager makes poor in game decisions..look at Joe Torre in 2003...do you go to your job every day and make the perfect decisions 100% of the time on your job or do you sometimes make mistakes?

[greg775]

Great thread!

Oz rocks.

[WCSox]

Buddy Ryan had more to do with the Bears winning the Super Bowl than Ditka. Buddy leaves and the rest of the Ditka reign is dissappointment.

 

Agreed about Buddy Ryan, but Ditka still managed to go 14-2, 11-4, and 12-4 after Buddy left town. The main reason that the Bears never repeated was that they couldn't find a replacement for McMahon after the injuries kept him out for long stretches.

[CWSGuy406]

Back to the point. Ozzie Guillen's vision of rebuilding the White Sox was the reason the team was even put in a position to win the division last year. It was Ozzie Guillen who demanded that Kenny reconstruct the roster around what he wanted - with more speed at the top of the lineup. Sure, KW went along with it, and made the moves, but as I understand it, the impetus was from Ozzie. And even though Podsednik basically sucks now, he was the catalyst of last year's lineup and a true leadoff hitter is the reason why we were able to succeed with players like Carl Everett and a one-legged Frank Thomas DHing. It was that style of play that won. Not Carlos Lee and a bunch of right handed beefcakes taking batting practice.

 

Yes -- he was the catalyst of an offense that ranked ninth in the AL in runs scored. Which is to say, he was the catalyst to a below average offense.

 

I can't believe there are still people out there who think last year's offense was in any way, shape, or form, good. The best thing I could say about the offense it that we were able to 'get by with it' because of our stellar pitching.

 

When did Manuel's players ever successfully bunt or steal bases?

 

Are you implying that this year's team is good at bunting? Because, outside of Pablo Ozuna, and maybe one or two other guys, I think this team is pretty bad at bunting. And I don't put that on the shoulders of the manager -- a major league ballplayer ought to get a bunt down.

 

And, why SHOULD Manuel have bunted more? The teams Manuel had a middle of the order of Frank Thomas, Magglio Ordonez, Paul Konerko, Carlos Lee, Jose Valentin, and Joe Crede. f*** -- I wouldn't waste outs when you have six guys who, at any moment, can launch one into the bleachers.

 

If there was any problem whatsoever with those offenses, it was the lack of a real leadoff hitter. Other than that, they ranked in the top five year-to-year. Manuel never had an ounce of good pitching to work with...

 

How were we an underdog?? We finished with the best record in the far superior AL, and had the best pitching by far.

 

Wealz is definitely correct there, in a sense.

 

First off, we were predicted by most publications to finish anywhere from second to fourth.

 

Second, even when we made the playoffs, I don't recall a whole lot of people in the national media predicting a White Sox series win. Hell, I remember after we took the first two games, there were some nuts already talking about a game five matchup, saying that Boston wouldn't lose at home.

 

Even when we made the World Series, there were some that said we'd be shut down by the dominant big three of Houston.

Edited September 7, 2006 by CWSGuy406

[cgaudin]

Buddy Ryan had more to do with the Bears winning the Super Bowl than Ditka. Buddy leaves and the rest of the Ditka reign is dissappointment. Ozzie managed a world championship team. Nobody can ever take that away from him. My problem is now you see him on ads, television specials, and popping off in the media about something almost daily. I don't know how many times I've heard him say his job is to win games. I just wish he'd put all the side stuff away, and concentrate on finding ways to help the White Sox win games. He is the same kind of huge personality Ditka is. He is loyal to "his people" just like Ditka, his tactical game decisions appear questionable, just like Ditka, and all the stuff that came with winning in a title-starved town seems to have, at least to me, made him lose his focus just like Ditka. Ozzie can get it back. He'll never be a genius in-game manager IMO. But he can get his focus back. Ditka loved the spotlight and 21 years later it still shines on him. Ozzie loves it too, but he's not going to be able to maintain his popularity with bad seasons, the one difference between him and Da Coach.

 

I believe Ozzie, for all his unconventional approach, is a good manager. But the highlighted portion above is dead on balls right on. It seems to me that Ozzie is relying too much on what his players have done before, rather than how they are playing at the moment. Perhaps it is loyalty, maybe it's patience with the expectation that since the player has gotten it done before, he'll get it done yet again. It is that mind boggling "patience" that has cost the Sox at least 10 ballgames this season, and fair or not, Ozzie is directly responsible for the negative outcome of those games. When everyone in Palehose Country screamed and yelled at the TV for Ozzie to pull a pitcher when it was clear he was going to lose the ballgame, it was obvious to everyone but Ozzie. It is probably too late in the season, but you can clearly see that Ozzie has shown less "patience" in the last two weeks. He has "modified" his managerial approach in that sense, and I dare anyone tell me otherwise. It is plain as day that he has changed his view of his own players. I give him credit, because not many people would openly assert as such. He may have ruffled some feathers in the locker room in the last few days. I just hope his players understand that it's about wins at this point in the season, and he gave each and everyone in the roster plenty of opportunities to prove his worth this year. But like I said, he gave way too much rope for too long and the season is now on the brink. Hopefully, the Sox still pull it off.

 

 

Yes -- he was the catalyst of an offense that ranked ninth in the AL in runs scored. Which is to say, he was the catalyst to a below average offense.

 

I can't believe there are still people out there who think last year's offense was in any way, shape, or form, good. The best thing I could say about the offense it that we were able to 'get by with it' because of our stellar pitching.

Are you implying that this year's team is good at bunting? Because, outside of Pablo Ozuna, and maybe one or two other guys, I think this team is pretty bad at bunting. And I don't put that on the shoulders of the manager -- a major league ballplayer ought to get a bunt down.

 

And, why SHOULD Manuel have bunted more? The teams Manuel had a middle of the order of Frank Thomas, Magglio Ordonez, Paul Konerko, Carlos Lee, Jose Valentin, and Joe Crede. f*** -- I wouldn't waste outs when you have six guys who, at any moment, can launch one into the bleachers.

 

If there was any problem whatsoever with those offenses, it was the lack of a real leadoff hitter. Other than that, they ranked in the top five year-to-year. Manuel never had an ounce of good pitching to work with...

Wealz is definitely correct there, in a sense.

 

First off, we were predicted by most publications to finish anywhere from second to fourth.

 

Second, even when we made the playoffs, I don't recall a whole lot of people in the national media predicting a White Sox series win. Hell, I remember after we took the first two games, there were some nuts already talking about a game five matchup, saying that Boston wouldn't lose at home.

 

Even when we made the World Series, there were some that said we'd be shut down by the dominant big three of Houston.

 

I think your history is a little fuzzy. Once the playoffs started, vegas odds had the Sox as the slight favorite over the Cardinals. When the WS started the Sox were the overwhelming favorite. The Astros were a HUGE underdog. I remember the ESPN coverage with John Kruk and Harold Reynolds both had the Astros winning just one game.

[WCSox]

Are you implying that this year's team is good at bunting? Because, outside of Pablo Ozuna, and maybe one or two other guys, I think this team is pretty bad at bunting. And I don't put that on the shoulders of the manager -- a major league ballplayer ought to get a bunt down.

 

No, I'm implying that last year's team excelled at it. And that this year's team is still better at it than any of Manuel's teams.

 

And, why SHOULD Manuel have bunted more? The teams Manuel had a middle of the order of Frank Thomas, Magglio Ordonez, Paul Konerko, Carlos Lee, Jose Valentin, and Joe Crede. f*** -- I wouldn't waste outs when you have six guys who, at any moment, can launch one into the bleachers.

 

How did that power lineup of Frank, Maggs, Konerko, Lee, Valetin, and Crede fare in the 2000 playoffs?

 

You don't win games by sitting back and waiting for the three-run HR.

 

If there was any problem whatsoever with those offenses, it was the lack of a real leadoff hitter.

 

And which manager told Kenny Williams to trade for a base-stealing leadoff hitter? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't Jerry Manuel.

 

Manuel never had an ounce of good pitching to work with...

 

That's just flat-out wrong. Manuel had a very good staff in 2000 (Sirotka, Baldwin, Eldred, Parque, Foulke, Wunch) and another solid one in 2003 (Loaiza, Buehrle, Colon, Marte, Wunch, Gordon). Nice try.

[chiguy79]

I am not going to put it on Ozzie...

 

Joey Cora on the other hand needs to go...