Ozzie still out begging for a job

[Marty34]

And now you're showing that clear cut miscomprehension.

 

The White Sox, in the 2005 season, threw 9 complete games out of a 162 game schedule. That results in a 5.55% chance that they would throw a complete game on any given day, which is roughly 1 in 19 games. To actually throw a complete game, the team would have to be pretty lucky that the pitcher was so good that day. The White Sox did this 4 times in a row. I'm sure my math is wrong here regarding the ability to find variable events and probabilities, but I come up with a 0.00094% chance that the White Sox would have thrown 4 complete games in this instance. It would seem pretty lucky that they would throw 4 complete games in a row given that the odds that they DO NOT throw 4 complete games in a row is 99.99996%, right?

 

Thus, the White Sox were lucky to throw 4 complete games in a row. Lucky does not mean they were bad or wrong. Lucky means against the odds. Given the odds, it was incredibly lucky.

 

Now, if you are arguing that the 2005 White Sox were not incredibly lucky and fortunate and that the team won the World Series beyond all odds, then you are going to find a lot of people that disagree with you. They were incredibly lucky and fortunate, but that's the difference between a bad team and a good team. It's not all numbers and paper and probabilities. Sometimes, check that, A LOT OF times, there is this unaccounted for static fuzz or gray area that you cannot control that we call LUCK that is the difference between a bad team and a good team. You'd argue that the 2013 Red Sox were a better team than the 2013 Cardinals, and some of that is simply due to dumb luck. It's not a bad thing.

 

my comment was not in regard to the 2005 postseason.

[witesoxfan]

my comment was not in regard to the 2005 postseason.

 

If you did something that would only work 1 out of 10 times, and it worked, wouldn't you say that's pretty lucky? Do you think teams that recover onside kicks in the NFL are lucky? Or that guys who get on base due to errors are lucky? Or people who hit on 16 are lucky?

 

Lucky isn't bad, it just means against the odds.

[Marty34]

If you did something that would only work 1 out of 10 times, and it worked, wouldn't you say that's pretty lucky? Do you think teams that recover onside kicks in the NFL are lucky? Or that guys who get on base due to errors are lucky? Or people who hit on 16 are lucky?

 

Lucky isn't bad, it just means against the odds.

 

Depends on the variables involved at the time.

[Kyyle23]

This

 

Is

 

The

 

Song

 

That

 

Never

 

Ends

[LittleHurt05]

Yes

 

It

 

Goes

 

On

 

And

 

On

 

My

 

Friends

[witesoxfan]

Depends on the variables involved at the time.

 

Given my background in economics, I can appreciate this answer.

[southsider2k5]

If you did something that would only work 1 out of 10 times, and it worked, wouldn't you say that's pretty lucky? Do you think teams that recover onside kicks in the NFL are lucky? Or that guys who get on base due to errors are lucky? Or people who hit on 16 are lucky?

 

Lucky isn't bad, it just means against the odds.

 

Winning the lottery wasn't luck, it was good investing!

[Dick Allen]

One other thing to keep in mind about Garcia in game 4 when the Sox won by 6, he only allowed one hit and no walks the last 5 innings. He was cruising.

[Texsox]

Are Ozzie's chances now better about managing in Bristol?

 

Turning this back on Ozzie, does he get a chance again to manage?

 

I say no. He has proven to be too much of a liability for a franchise plus he hasn't taken a team past their expected production in 8 years. In fact his teams seem to underperform the majority of the time in the past 8 seasons.

[Dick Allen]

Are Ozzie's chances now better about managing in Bristol?

 

Turning this back on Ozzie, does he get a chance again to manage?

 

I say no. He has proven to be too much of a liability for a franchise plus he hasn't taken a team past their expected production in 8 years. In fact his teams seem to underperform the majority of the time in the past 8 seasons.

That's a really good question. I think the only way he manages again in the major leagues, is if he takes a coaching job and the organization gets comfortable with him, and he takes over that team eventually. If Loria is willing to pay him for 3 or 4 years to do nothing, I think other teams realize, that while Loria is a problem, Ozzie has had issues with both organizations he managed.

[Balta1701]

That's a really good question. I think the only way he manages again in the major leagues, is if he takes a coaching job and the organization gets comfortable with him, and he takes over that team eventually. If Loria is willing to pay him for 3 or 4 years to do nothing, I think other teams realize, that while Loria is a problem, Ozzie has had issues with both organizations he managed.

I can't imagine any coach who's not already a huge friend of Ozzie being willing to take him onto his staff. That's a ridiculous level of distraction from your 3b coach. Seriously, imagine having the media crowding around your bench coach after the game waiting for him to say something stupid and then having to clean up his mess for a week or two every year.

 

Maybe if Joey Cora gets the Mariners job I could see that, but then would Ozzie be comfortable being 2nd fiddle to a guy who was 2nd fiddle to him?

[Dick Allen]

I can't imagine any coach who's not already a huge friend of Ozzie being willing to take him onto his staff. That's a ridiculous level of distraction from your 3b coach. Seriously, imagine having the media crowding around your bench coach after the game waiting for him to say something stupid and then having to clean up his mess for a week or two every year.

 

Maybe if Joey Cora gets the Mariners job I could see that, but then would Ozzie be comfortable being 2nd fiddle to a guy who was 2nd fiddle to him?

It might be a problem, but if he isn't the manager, he may be able to back off a bit. They were showing a 2003 Marlins playoff game a few weeks ago on MLB Network, and Sutcliffe was going on and on about what a great 3B coach Ozzie was. Maybe it was his evil twin "Greg Sutcliffe".

[Kyyle23]

I can't imagine any coach who's not already a huge friend of Ozzie being willing to take him onto his staff. That's a ridiculous level of distraction from your 3b coach. Seriously, imagine having the media crowding around your bench coach after the game waiting for him to say something stupid and then having to clean up his mess for a week or two every year.

 

Maybe if Joey Cora gets the Mariners job I could see that, but then would Ozzie be comfortable being 2nd fiddle to a guy who was 2nd fiddle to him?

 

Well, Lloyd McLendon got the job, so that aint happenin

[Eminor3rd]

Depends on the variables involved at the time.

 

Those are baked into the "1 in 10" part

[Marty34]

Those are baked into the "1 in 10" part

 

So there is no situation that you would ever recommend going against a 90% success rate.

[caulfield12]

And during that 1 inning they had a 6 run lead, I would have gone with a reliever to keep Garcia's arm fresher. This ultimately didn't matter.

 

Greg said Ozzie was a genius for leaving his starters in. It is my belief that he absolutely was not a genius. If he wants to believe that, he can; I'm merely on here to state my opinion (and one shared by hundreds others on here) that Ozzie is not a genius for that. I am attempting to prove why using numbers. I have said that I have no problem with his decision to do so, given the circumstances, just that he was not.

 

Ultimately, the decision to leave his starters in as long as he did during the 2005 season may have affected their performance in 2006, which would also make him the opposite of a genius and more of a masochist. That is a far greater gray area than 1 inning a reliever would have thrown when up by 6 runs.

 

It was started as a result of the TTOP; Garcia was at a far greater likelihood to blow up in that situation than a reliever. Ultimately, each outcome is its own independent action and the reliever very well could have blown up. In that instance, at least Garcia would have been fresher for a game 7, right? But had Garcia blown up and gone over the 120 or the 130 pitch mark attempting to get a complete game, then he is more fatigued and the Sox are in a worse spot. Neither came into play and it didn't matter either way. Let bygones be bygones and be happy that they won. It's OK.

 

I am not attempting to get the last word in; people take shots at my posts that I believe are shots at my character, so I feel the need to defend them. Nothing more. Your post is a perfect example of that. It's not a personal attack, but it's questioning me. Thus, I feel obligated to answer. If I cared so much about getting the last word in, I could just use my "mighty mod sorcerer powers" and lock the thread when I make a final post. I have yet to do that and won't do that unless it becomes necessary, and thus far, it has not even gotten close to that point.

 

 

Except they avoided playing in 7 out of a possible 19 games that post-season, one of the shortest post-seasons for any World Series winner since they went to the 4-5 teams format (the Yankees were the other one, I think).

 

I would argue that the injury Contreras suffered in late May in 2006 (I think it was against Cincy) had as much as anything to do with the results of 2006 compared to the post-season starters pitching almost all complete games in 2005.

 

Jenks certainly wasn't overused, and he went down to injury problems as well.

[greg775]

I can't imagine any coach who's not already a huge friend of Ozzie being willing to take him onto his staff. That's a ridiculous level of distraction from your 3b coach. Seriously, imagine having the media crowding around your bench coach after the game waiting for him to say something stupid and then having to clean up his mess for a week or two every year.

 

Maybe if Joey Cora gets the Mariners job I could see that, but then would Ozzie be comfortable being 2nd fiddle to a guy who was 2nd fiddle to him?

 

Like you all said, the only way Ozzie works again as a 3B coach is if the manager is a close friend or is somebody like Leyland who would bite Ozzie's head off if he held court with the media as a lowly 3B coach for gawd sakes. Any other manager who hires Ozzie would be taking the risk that Ozzie replaces him someday. I just don't think media will be interviewing a 3B coach much if any (once in spring training; once after the initial hiring) though they might be going to mouthy Oz for inside scoops off the record, which a manager wouldn't like, either. He'd have to work for a very very very close Cora-like friend or an old stodgy like LaRussa or Leyland whom he wouldn't dare cross.

Edited November 6, 2013 by greg775

[Eminor3rd]

So there is no situation that you would ever recommend going against a 90% success rate.

 

I'm just saying that if there were other factors involved, it wouldn't be a 90% rate. Wite is assuming that when it comes down to it, it's 90%.

 

As to whether or not you'd take the chance, it depends on the risk/reward. But in this case, it's win or loss and standing pat isn;t an option. So yeah, I tazke 90% success over 10% success every time.

[Texsox]

Like you all said, the only way Ozzie works again as a 3B coach is if the manager is a close friend or is somebody like Leyland who would bite Ozzie's head off if he held court with the media as a lowly 3B coach for gawd sakes. Any other manager who hires Ozzie would be taking the risk that Ozzie replaces him someday. I just don't think media will be interviewing a 3B coach much if any (once in spring training; once after the initial hiring) though they might be going to mouthy Oz for inside scoops off the record, which a manager wouldn't like, either. He'd have to work for a very very very close Cora-like friend or an old stodgy like LaRussa or Leyland whom he wouldn't dare cross.

 

This may be the best Ozzie analysis you have ever written.

[SouthsideDon48]

Not sure if anyone saw this, but the Joliet Slammers had an article on their site about trying to get Ozzie. It kinda feels like the article is satire, lol.

 

http://jolietslammers.com/archives/8650

[soxfan49]

Some team will take a flier on Ozzie one day. He's a great fit now in the media, whether it be for ESPN, FOX or TBS, but some team will get give him an offer some day. A team who needs the publicity and wants to be seen and who need to sell tickets. Now granted, the team will most likely suck after 50 games and will stop coming to games, but the initial excitement will get fans to the park for the first month and a half.

[Balta1701]

Some team will take a flier on Ozzie one day. He's a great fit now in the media, whether it be for ESPN, FOX or TBS, but some team will get give him an offer some day. A team who needs the publicity and wants to be seen and who need to sell tickets. Now granted, the team will most likely suck after 50 games and will stop coming to games, but the initial excitement will get fans to the park for the first month and a half.

Ozzies record of selling tickets recently is um....terrible.

[soxfan49]

Ozzies record of selling tickets recently is um....terrible.

Has any Marlins manager been successful at selling tickets? With the exception of Ozzie, has any White Sox manager done it? Give me a break.

[kitekrazy]

Has any Marlins manager been successful at selling tickets? With the exception of Ozzie, has any White Sox manager done it? Give me a break.

 

Kenny thought so.