Anyone else watching the C*bs implode?

[IlliniKrush]

Hahahaha. Oh yes, I wish we had him instead of Ozzie, please!!!!!!!

 

When will the stupidity stop?

When ozzie's stupidity stops.

[shoota]

Hahahaha. Oh yes, I wish we had him instead of Ozzie, please!!!!!!!

 

When will the stupidity stop?

On a sane note. Zambrano said in the postgame that a more experienced CF'er would have gotten to those balls that dropped. Way to already call out your prized FA signing.

 

Not one of us said we'd prefer Narron over Guillen, just that Narron handled this specific situation correctly and won, unlike Guillen who handled it incorrectly and lost.

 

 

 

and even he can make basic managing 101 moves.

 

[Whitewashed in '05]

Hahahaha. Oh yes, I wish we had him instead of Ozzie, please!!!!!!!

 

When will the stupidity stop?

On a sane note. Zambrano said in the postgame that a more experienced CF'er would have gotten to those balls that dropped. Way to already call out your prized FA signing.

Comon Rock, you can't honestly defend ozzie on the decisions they are referring to.

[KevHead0881]

Hahahaha. Oh yes, I wish we had him instead of Ozzie, please!!!!!!!

 

When will the stupidity stop?

 

I have managed to come to the realization that there isn't a manager alive that would satisfy everybody, especially Sox fans. Hell, La Russa is gonna be in the HoF, and there was a period where he couldn't step out of the dougout without being booed during his final year here.

 

Ozzie certainly ain't perfect, and I question his moves quite often. I do that with every manager. All I know is that I'd take Ozzie over the majority of managers that are currently out there.

Edited April 13, 2007 by KevHead0881

[RockRaines]

Some people are so spoiled its sick.

 

He not only has 2 rings, but has one of the best records in baseball over the last 4 years. But yeah, Ozzie is stupid, a horrible manager, blah blah blah.

 

No manager ever makes mistakes........duh!!!

[Kalapse]

Some people are so spoiled its sick.

 

He not only has 2 rings, but has one of the best records in baseball over the last 4 years. But yeah, Ozzie is stupid, a horrible manager, blah blah blah.

 

No manager ever makes mistakes........duh!!!

You certainly enjoy overreacting don't you? Perhaps you shouldn't take this s*** so personally?

[AddisonStSox]

This thread has been hilarious. Guillen has been nothing short of spectacular for a first-time manager, bringing a World Series to a city that has been without one for 88 years; and yet, people will still question his defensive substitutions (or lack thereof), bullpen decisions, and lineup card on a daily basis.

 

Part of me wants Guillen to get axed just so all of you can sit through a manager that does everything by the book. Go ask Bob Brenly how that worked our for him and his career. Ask Bobby Cox how he was able to manage the same franchise for 17 years--by playing every decision by the book? Hardly...and, yet, Guillen developed his managerial prospectives while under Cox's tutelage.

 

If managers' decisions are worth roughly 10 wins or losses per year, Guillen has earned this team far more wins than he has losses.

 

You want Bob Brenly, you can have him. Get real.

[Jim Spencer]

"WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK ISN'T WORKING? YOU'VE SEEN THE DAMN GAME" -Piniella answering the question, "What do you think went wrong in today's game?"

 

 

I hope the Cubs loose the next 20 games. It would make for some very interesting Post-Game News Conferences with Sweet Lou

[shoota]

This thread has been hilarious. Guillen has been nothing short of spectacular for a first-time manager, bringing a World Series to a city that has been without one for 88 years; and yet, people will still question his defensive substitutions (or lack thereof), bullpen decisions, and lineup card on a daily basis.

 

Part of me wants Guillen to get axed just so all of you can sit through a manager that does everything by the book. Go ask Bob Brenly how that worked our for him and his career. Ask Bobby Cox how he was able to manage the same franchise for 17 years--by playing every decision by the book? Hardly...and, yet, Guillen developed his managerial prospectives while under Cox's tutelage.

 

If managers' decisions are worth roughly 10 wins or losses per year, Guillen has earned this team far more wins than he has losses.

 

You want Bob Brenly, you can have him. Get real.

 

 

I've noticed a lot of Guillen defenders take a macro approach in defending him. Like your post, they compare Guillen to other managers, I'm guessing as a way to make Guillen look like a good manager when evaluated on a curve. They mention guys like Brenley, Manuel and Bevington, even though those managers have nothing to do with the topic in discussion.

 

I believe Guillen defenders take this approach instead of discussing a specific criticism because they understand Guillen's decision was wrong and there's no way to defend it. Hence the reason for avoiding the topic and basically saying while Guillen is bad at his job, he's often better than some!

[Wedge]

I've noticed a lot of Guillen defenders take a macro approach in defending him. Like your post, they compare Guillen to other managers, I'm guessing as a way to make Guillen look like a good manager when evaluated on a curve. They mention guys like Brenley, Manuel and Bevington, even though those managers have nothing to do with the topic in discussion.

 

I believe Guillen defenders take this approach instead of discussing a specific criticism because they understand Guillen's decision was wrong and there's no way to defend it. Hence the reason for avoiding the topic and basically saying while Guillen is bad at his job, he's often better than some!

 

I think that Guillen defenders take the macro approach for good reason. I think even the most ardent Guillen supports would agree that some of his in game decisions are somewhat questionable, and yes, they may cost games. However, as we all know the season is a marathon. I think that sometimes those decisions help the team out in the long run. Cox has always been a master of this and I believe Ozzie tries to emulate it.

[IlliniKrush]

This thread has been hilarious. Guillen has been nothing short of spectacular for a first-time manager, bringing a World Series to a city that has been without one for 88 years; and yet, people will still question his defensive substitutions (or lack thereof), bullpen decisions, and lineup card on a daily basis.

 

Part of me wants Guillen to get axed just so all of you can sit through a manager that does everything by the book. Go ask Bob Brenly how that worked our for him and his career. Ask Bobby Cox how he was able to manage the same franchise for 17 years--by playing every decision by the book? Hardly...and, yet, Guillen developed his managerial prospectives while under Cox's tutelage.

 

If managers' decisions are worth roughly 10 wins or losses per year, Guillen has earned this team far more wins than he has losses.

 

You want Bob Brenly, you can have him. Get real.

1. Bob Brenly won the same ring Ozzie did. If you want to use the ring argument, keep Brenly out of the equation, fired or not. And Brenly knows a whole hell of a lot about baseball, just listening to him during Cubs games. The guy gets it.

 

Moving on, I didn't know Ozzie shouldn't play it by the obvious book when it comes to defensive substitutions. There was absolutely, positively zero reason Pods should have been out there that game, and look what happened. No one's been able to defend that, nor should they be able to.

 

I'm sick of people waving the "ozzie won a ring" flag and saying we can't criticize anything he does. There's been plenty a time when he's been wrong (especially last year), and he deserved to get ripped for it.

 

This is a message board, after all.

[Milkman delivers]

I wonder if Cub fans are enjoying watching our offense suck.

[AddisonStSox]

I've noticed a lot of Guillen defenders take a macro approach in defending him.

 

I believe Guillen defenders take this approach instead of discussing a specific criticism because they understand Guillen's decision was wrong and there's no way to defend it. Hence the reason for avoiding the topic and basically saying while Guillen is bad at his job, he's often better than some!

 

No, no, I think your approach is far more logical. Let us psychoanalyze every move he makes during the course of the season, and pay no attention to the win totals, or his ring finger. You are most right. This is a very baseball savvy approach.

 

 

I think that Guillen defenders take the macro approach for good reason. I think even the most ardent Guillen supports would agree that some of his in game decisions are somewhat questionable, and yes, they may cost games. However, as we all know the season is a marathon. I think that sometimes those decisions help the team out in the long run. Cox has always been a master of this and I believe Ozzie tries to emulate it.

 

Gets it. Always has, always will.

 

 

I'm sick of people waving the "ozzie won a ring" flag and saying we can't criticize anything he does. There's been plenty a time when he's been wrong (especially last year), and he deserved to get ripped for it.

 

See the former response, not the latter.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

This thread has been hilarious. Guillen has been nothing short of spectacular for a first-time manager, bringing a World Series to a city that has been without one for 88 years; and yet, people will still question his defensive substitutions (or lack thereof), bullpen decisions, and lineup card on a daily basis.

 

Part of me wants Guillen to get axed just so all of you can sit through a manager that does everything by the book. Go ask Bob Brenly how that worked our for him and his career. Ask Bobby Cox how he was able to manage the same franchise for 17 years--by playing every decision by the book? Hardly...and, yet, Guillen developed his managerial prospectives while under Cox's tutelage.

 

If managers' decisions are worth roughly 10 wins or losses per year, Guillen has earned this team far more wins than he has losses.

 

You want Bob Brenly, you can have him. Get real.

 

Good post.

 

He's not perfect and you can question some of his decisions and choices, as you can any manager/coach in any sport, but overall, he's proven to be a pretty good manager. Maybe not great, but pretty good, in my opinion.

[IlliniKrush]

No, no, I think your approach is far more logical. Let us psychoanalyze every move he makes during the course of the season, and pay no attention to the win totals, or his ring finger. You are most right. This is a very baseball savvy approach.

But that's what we can all see with our own eyes. And those things do contribute heavily to wins and losses - what they are getting paid to do. Again, if you want to use the pure 'ring' argument, Brenly has one. I think the guy sucked during that year he won it and throughout those playoffs, but he has one. Now, if you want to evaluate a manager based on tangible things, then we're gonna be on ozzie where appropriate.

 

Furthermore, talent alone can get you wins, as does your pitching staff taking the ball and running with it in the 2005 postseason.

 

I mean did you say Piniella sucks as a manager when he was with the Drays? That team had zero talent. So you can't go off win totals there, either.

Edited April 14, 2007 by IlliniKrush

[shoota]

No, no, I think your approach is far more logical. Let us psychoanalyze every move he makes during the course of the season, and pay no attention to the win totals, or his ring finger. You are most right. This is a very baseball savvy approach.

 

Your philosophy of crediting Guillen reminds me of John Shoop's comment, "I'll let my record speak for itself," when asked about his questionable play calling. Sure, Shoop's record was good, but it was the defense that was mostly responsible for his record, not his play calling. Just like Guillen's players are mostly responsible for Guillen's ring and record; they win despite him (well, except in Oakland, when even they couldn't overcome Guillen's poor 9th inning outfield arrangement).

 

I've been fair in my evaluations of Guillen. Unlike you, I point out his good moves and bad.

 

If you want to discuss how to evaluate a manger, using win totals and rings is a poor way. Since some managers have more talented teams than others, it'd be unwise to judge them based solely on win totals.

[RockRaines]

. Just like Guillen's players are mostly responsible for Guillen's ring and record; they win despite him (well, except in Oakland, when even they couldn't overcome Guillen's poor 9th inning outfield arrangement).

 

I've been fair in my evaluations of Guillen. Unlike you, I point out his good moves and bad.

 

If you want to discuss how to evaluate a manger, using win totals and rings is a poor way. Since some managers have more talented teams than others, it'd be unwise to judge them based solely on win totals.

So instead of using a whole boatload of information on how to judge a manager, you prefer to look at a handful of decisions that did not work out for him. Why is that a better solution? For every late game decision Ozzie has had go wrong, he has had one go right. People who hate Ozzie only look at the ones that go wrong, you never look at the decisions that make the game a winner, because you expect every game to be a winner. Saying that a team wins despite a manager is a pretty retarded thing to say, and basically only amplifies your extreme bias against Ozzie and his managing. If you dont feel comfortable going by his stellar record, his ring as a coach and as a manager, or his players willingness to play for him, why dont you come up with a solution?

[shoota]

So instead of using a whole boatload of information on how to judge a manager, you prefer to look at a handful of decisions that did not work out for him. Why is that a better solution? For every late game decision Ozzie has had go wrong, he has had one go right. People who hate Ozzie only look at the ones that go wrong, you never look at the decisions that make the game a winner, because you expect every game to be a winner. Saying that a team wins despite a manager is a pretty retarded thing to say, and basically only amplifies your extreme bias against Ozzie and his managing. If you dont feel comfortable going by his stellar record, his ring as a coach and as a manager, or his players willingness to play for him, why dont you come up with a solution?

 

Tom Kelly.

[SoxFan1]

Your philosophy of crediting Guillen reminds me of John Shoop's comment, "I'll let my record speak for itself," when asked about his questionable play calling. Sure, Shoop's record was good, but it was the defense that was mostly responsible for his record, not his play calling. Just like Guillen's players are mostly responsible for Guillen's ring and record; they win despite him (well, except in Oakland, when even they couldn't overcome Guillen's poor 9th inning outfield arrangement).

 

I've been fair in my evaluations of Guillen. Unlike you, I point out his good moves and bad.

 

If you want to discuss how to evaluate a manger, using win totals and rings is a poor way. Since some managers have more talented teams than others, it'd be unwise to judge them based solely on win totals.

You're argument is a double edged sword my friend. The 2005 White Sox weren't a very talented team, they were a cohesive unit that came up with a lot of big hits and defensive plays. El Duque, Dustin Hermanson, Willie Harris...come on now. Ozzie Guillen took a mediocre-to-good team and made them a great team. Jim Leyland took a mediocre-to-good team and made them a great team. No one expected the White Sox to be that good in 2005, no one expected the Tigers to be that good in 2006.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

I've been fair in my evaluations of Guillen.

 

<_>

[Kalapse]

<_>

Even I can agree with you on that one.

[Mplssoxfan]

Tom Kelly.

GMAB.