QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 26, 2012 -> 06:12 PM)
I just don't get how someone can have this line of reasoning. Wins alone don't tell you if someone is a good manager. Don't you think the actual amount of talent on a roster is single biggest driver of wins? Sure, the manager can impact that production by motivating his players and having them prepared to play, but there's no easy way to measure exactly how much of a difference he made. The manager's in-game decision-making is the other major way he can improve his team's chances to win and that is also difficult to measure. Regardless, wins only tell you how all the individual pieces performed in aggregate, they do not tell you anything about manager's specific contributions.
Unfortunately, evaluating a manager has to be subjective. Look at how his roster performed versus how much talent it posesses. Consider how well his team did in close games, where the manager can actually make a difference. The worst team in baseball record-wise could very well have the best manager, if he got more out of his talent and made better decisions than all other managers would have in his role.
You use wins to defend Ozzie as a great manager, while I would say his teams did not live up to expections since 2005. He may have the best record in Sox history, but IMO it should have been better given the talent he had. On top of that, he became a terrible in-game manager in recent years, making decisions so confounding it almost seems like he made them simply to put his stamp on the games. Guillen did a good job in 2005, but has progressively gotten worse to the point where he is a bad manager. If people don't agree, they must have missed the past couple seasons, because he cost a lot of games during that time with his idiotic decisions.