Ozzie Extension

[NorthSideSox72]

Trib tried to find more, but so far, nothing more than Bruce's statement.

 

[southsider2k5]

One interesting thing to throw onto the fire regarding an Ozzie extension, is that his team has actually outpreformed their expended wins number (based on Bill James Pythagorean theorum) significantly this year. They are six games over their expected record. Only two teams in baseball have a better mark, and that is Arizona at +11, and St Louis at +7.

[kapkomet]

One interesting thing to throw onto the fire regarding an Ozzie extension, is that his team has actually outpreformed their expended wins number (based on Bill James Pythagorean theorum) significantly this year. They are six games over their expected record. Only two teams in baseball have a better mark, and that is Arizona at +11, and St Louis at +7.

What is this? (and it's a serious question). I've heard of it, I think, but can you please explain?

[southsider2k5]

What is this? (and it's a serious question). I've heard of it, I think, but can you please explain?

 

Its a mathematical formula based on runs scored and runs allowed that comes up with what your expected record should be.

 

Its not quite Black Scholes theory, but it is interesing none the less.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_expectation

[Dick Allen]

um... no.

 

2004: Sox payroll $51M, second to Minny's $55M, and CLE and DET were both around $49M, so they were pretty much on par with the Sox as well. The only team the Sox were way ahead of in payroll was KC.

 

Also, in 2005, the Sox were first but DET was only about $5M below them.

 

The gap wasn't significant until 2006, and even this year, DET is within $12M.

 

So let's not make it seem like Ozzie has been constantly given the ALC title giftwrapped.

According to baseball-almanac.com the White Sox payroll in 2004 was $76 million, significantly higher than anyone in the division. Anyone who says Boston and the Yankees have an advantage because of payroll should think the White Sox have the same advantage in their division. Also if the $5 million or $6 million in 2005 is not significant why was there all the fuss about the CLee trade how it allowed the White Sox to sign a few guys that totaled around $5 million or $6 million like Iguchi and AJ? And if its not so significant, why are people wanting Joe Crede to be non-tendered? He would cost $5.5 million tops.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Dick Allen

[klaus kinski]

I dont mind, but why so soon after recent mindless rants? Looks like they either condone it, or ignore him like the players seem to do

[NorthSideSox72]

According to baseball-almanac.com the White Sox payroll in 2004 was $76 million, significantly higher than anyone in the division. Anyone who says Boston and the Yankees have an advantage because of payroll should think the White Sox have the same advantage in their division. Also if the $5 million or $6 million in 2005 is not significant why was there all the fuss about the CLee trade how it allowed the White Sox to sign a few guys that totaled around $5 million or $6 million like Iguchi and AJ? And if its not so significant, why are people wanting Joe Crede to be non-tendered? He would cost $5.5 million tops.

Wow, that number is way different than what I found. Your source looks a little more legit though, so its probably right.

 

[southsider2k5]

Wow, that number is way different than what I found. Your source looks a little more legit though, so its probably right.

 

They must be wrong, because the other sources I have seen had us at $65 million. Plus it makes more sense, because there was a big bump in salary from 2003 to 2004 and 2004 to 2005. We went from about $50 million in 03 to $75 million in the championship year. We sure didn't cut or keep payroll the same from 2004 to 2005, which is what baseball almanac is claiming, when they say we went from 76.212 to 75.178.

[southsider2k5]

They must be wrong, because the other sources I have seen had us at $65 million. Plus it makes more sense, because there was a big bump in salary from 2003 to 2004 and 2004 to 2005. We went from about $50 million in 03 to $75 million in the championship year. We sure didn't cut or keep payroll the same from 2004 to 2005, which is what baseball almanac is claiming, when they say we went from 76.212 to 75.178.

 

BTW here is a nice breakdown of player by player for the 2004 team, which supports the $65 million payroll number.

 

http://sabrsox.blogspot.com/2004/11/how-we...pend-their.html

[TheBigHurt]

I don't think that's clear at all

 

I think you need glasses.

[SkokieSox]

I think you need glasses.

 

I think you need to watch some games.

[TheBigHurt]

I think you need to watch some games.

 

LOL. If you don't think Ozzie is an atrocious manager, then you are a pot calling the kettle black and it's YOU who need to watch games. I have watched nearly every game this season, and the last 2 seasons. I don't recall every detail of every one, but you don't need to remember every little detail to know that Ozzie is a brutal in-game manager, and the less magically the team works together and gets wins, it becomes more and more obvious. I can think of a few very poorly managed games in the last couple weeks alone.

 

I don't hate him or anything, but Ozzie supporters have a tendency of being really delusional, and this coming from a more casual fan that doesn't obsess over statistics and constant analysis. Anyone with a brain can see that Ozzie can't manage his way out of a bag. I'm in no way saying he's the sole reason the Sox failed this season and last, (when you need to go to the pen and the only good thing in it is Jenks and maybe Wausserman/Logan, it's not easy), but he's a big contribution to the failure.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2007 by NorthSideSox72

[SkokieSox]

LOL. If you don't think Ozzie is an atrocious manager, then you are a pot calling the kettle black and it's YOU who need to watch games. I have watched nearly every game this season, and the last 2 seasons. I don't recall every detail of every one, but you don't need to remember every little detail to know that Ozzie is a brutal in-game manager, and the less magically the team works together and gets wins, it becomes more and more obvious. I can think of a few very poorly managed games in the last couple weeks alone.

 

I don't hate him or anything, but Ozzie supporters have a tendency of being really delusional, and this coming from a more casual fan that doesn't obsess over statistics and constant analysis. Anyone with a brain can see that Ozzie can't manage his way out of a bag. I'm in no way saying he's the sole reason the Sox failed this season and last, (when you need to go to the pen and the only good thing in it is Jenks and maybe Wausserman/Logan, it's not easy), but he's a big contribution to the failure.

 

I don't appreciate the implication that anyone who feels Ozzie is a good manager is "delusional" or "needs a brain". I simply disagree with your assessment, and whether you feel Ozzie is a problem, be prepared to see him here a long time...

[shoota]

Really now? You would think that from following the team you could possibly recognize when a team plays at the level of its shoetops like this year. There was nothing ANY manager in baseball could do to right this ship this year. Look at the horrible years these guys are having.

 

The question shouldn't be asking what man could have lead this Sox roster to great success, but if Guillen is the best manager in the game. The answer is no.

 

Solution: Don't extend the contract of a man of inferior managing abilites, and hire one better.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The question shouldn't be asking what man could have lead this Sox roster to great success, but if Guillen is the best manager in the game. The answer is no.

 

Solution: Don't extend the contract of a man of inferior managing abilites, and hire one better.

You are saying that if a team believes their manager is not "the best manager in the game", they should fire him? So, 29 teams should fire their managers every year?

 

[RockRaines]

The question shouldn't be asking what man could have lead this Sox roster to great success, but if Guillen is the best manager in the game. The answer is no.

 

Solution: Don't extend the contract of a man of inferior managing abilites, and hire one better.

And that person would be............

[kapkomet]

And that person would be............

anyone but Ozzie. Duh.

 

[SkokieSox]

anyone but Ozzie. Duh.

 

Very insightful - we're a lock for it all now.

Edited September 6, 2007 by SEALgep

[kapkomet]

Very insightful - we're a lock for it all now.

Oh, don't I know it! Ozzie sucks, he has to go. KW is a peckerhead that don't know anything but how to be, um, an arrogant ass. He has to go too. And Jerry, well, that asshole just has to go. It's HORRIBLE the way these people manage this club. I mean, the perfect example is today - how DARE he hurt the trade value of Jenks by putting him out there? I mean, it's obvious that Ozzie did that today just to diminish his value and to keep him on the club next year. Oh and AJ? He told him to tank the game, because they want the #1 pick! Don't you know? We're IN IT TO GET THE #1 pick! LOLZ!

 

 

[witesoxfan]

Getting rid of Ozzie right now would be like getting rid of a young player after a year when they've shown signs that they can be a star player. What Ozzie really needs is a good bench coach.

 

Ozzie is not a good manager right now, and he's never been a good in-game manager; however, he has the potential to be one of the best managers in the majors. He never will reach that potential with Joey Cora as his bench coach, nor with Rock, nor with Harold. Bring Nossek back, or bring in Jack McKeon, or someone of the ilk. Ozzie needs a strong influence, and he has never had that.

[kapkomet]

Getting rid of Ozzie right now would be like getting rid of a young player after a year when they've shown signs that they can be a star player. What Ozzie really needs is a good bench coach.

 

Ozzie is not a good manager right now, and he's never been a good in-game manager; however, he has the potential to be one of the best managers in the majors. He never will reach that potential with Joey Cora as his bench coach, nor with Rock, nor with Harold. Bring Nossek back, or bring in Jack McKeon, or someone of the ilk. Ozzie needs a strong influence, and he has never had that.

Agreed.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Getting rid of Ozzie right now would be like getting rid of a young player after a year when they've shown signs that they can be a star player. What Ozzie really needs is a good bench coach.

 

Ozzie is not a good manager right now, and he's never been a good in-game manager; however, he has the potential to be one of the best managers in the majors. He never will reach that potential with Joey Cora as his bench coach, nor with Rock, nor with Harold. Bring Nossek back, or bring in Jack McKeon, or someone of the ilk. Ozzie needs a strong influence, and he has never had that.

Completely agree. But I think that might have to be KW saying, here is a list of candidates, go pick one you like. Because I don't see Ozzie doing it on his own, and I don't see KW forcing a coach on Ozzie. therefore, I doubt it happens at all.

 

You think maybe it would help if we all emailed Ozzie to tell him to hire one?

 

[shoota]

You are saying that if a team believes their manager is not "the best manager in the game", they should fire him? So, 29 teams should fire their managers every year?

 

To be clear, the Sox don't need to hire "the best manager in the game" to improve over their current leader, Ozzie Guillen. There's plenty of managers better than Guillen, but if there's just one available, it reasons Guillen should be replaced by that man.

 

 

[shoota]

And that person would be............

 

Before getting into names of managers better than Guillen, you can agree with the philosophy of replacing an inferior manager with a superior one, correct?

[shoota]

anyone but Ozzie. Duh.

 

Saying Guillen isn't the best manager in the game is far from saying anyone would be an improvement.