Ozzie Extension

[SkokieSox]

Talking about Erstad.

Erstad was being penciled in to the outfield, but depending on the situation out there, that could have been fine. However, I don't believe they wanted to shift him back and forth as an outfield starter, only to replace his spot with someone else.

[29andPoplar]

Considering Ozzie's reluctance to ever have no back-up catcher left on the bench during a game, I highly doubt Hall would have gotten a lot of playing time at first base with AJP catching.

 

Honestly this is pretty straightforward. They would have used him sporadically at 1B or in a unique situation when it would have been beneficial to get his right handed bat in there. Konerko could be given a day off or if he was dinged up or whatever and you have a righthanded bat in there. If something happened to Pierzynski you could have moved Hall back behind the plate.

 

All it was, they wanted more flexibility and it was the plan to try and have Hall be more versatile so he could get more AB's and help vs. lefthanders which was and still is a weakness. There is nothing wrong with what they did. Erstad was and is the primary 1B backup but it is not unusual to need more than one and having a RH bat was a plus. Hall and everybody associated with the team blamed no one and said it was a freak thing. It is telling when someone blames Guillen for this of all things.

[greg775]

Here's the question I have then....when is it the manager's fault? At what point is it the manager's fault for not getting the most out of his players? We had a year and a half of great baseball, and that's been followed by a year and a half of terrible baseball. 2008 better be a make-or-break year for KW, Ozzie, etc. (which is why I think an Ozzie extension is beyond stupid).

 

Fair question.

In Oz's case, I would say it'll be the manager's fault if we make upgrades and suck next year again.

Because now, Oz knows that some certain studs are not totally reliable and he's going to have to figure a way to make it work.

Nobody on the team outside of Bobby was reliable this year.

All the veterans sucked or were very average, and Oz will need to develop a strategy next year realizing this is no longer a WS team.

He deserved a free pass this year because who would have known the veterans were human and the acquisitions would suck?

 

If the bullpen is this bad next year, though, that will be KW's fault and he should be the first to be fired.

You are right though, if next year this team continues to sleepwalk and suck, Oz probably will be judged harshly and may even get axed.

 

 

I think next year is a make or break year for Ozzie and KW.

 

[Colorado Sox Fan]

If you go back and read my posts, you will see I have commented on several things I believe Guillen can do better. I am not sure where even an insinuation comes up that Ozzie is never ever blamed for anything. That is certainly not me.

 

It's not anyone. It's a figment of someone's imagination. The reality is there are negative people on this board who get their jollies out of criticizing just about anything, except each other's lack of baseball knowledge.

[TheBigHurt]

Did Ozzie continuously run this team out of innings? Did he put his players in position to get hurt? Did he continuously mishandle the pitching staff? No - when the teams performance is hindered by strategy, and not injuries and poor execution, then I think its fair to blame Ozzie.

 

Yes. And like fathom mentioned Hall, how could anyone say that wasn't Ozzie's fault? Hall is not a first-baseman and shouldn't have to dive for balls constantly. Not saying one game necessarily makes this happen, but look what DID happen. it just made no sense.

 

Steff mentioned, "sure, people can deny if they want to." Sure they can deny something that's true, but it's flat out stupid. Opinions aren't always valid. Sometimes they are simply inept and frankly, wrong. Ozzie has done so much to hurt this team this year alone it's sad. That's fact, not opinion. You wanna used the term "generalize?" People seem to use the word "opinion" too loosely. Is it an opinion that putting Toby at 1st wasn't a smart move? Is it an opinion that shifting for a .198 batter and then keeping it on when he tries to bunt isn't a smart move? No, that's fact. All you need is a little baseball knowledge to realize it. And surely many people here MUST have far more baseball knowledge than myself, but lately people in this topic make me actually question that.

Edited September 8, 2007 by TheBigHurt

[29andPoplar]

Opinions aren't always valid. Sometimes they are simply inept and frankly, wrong. Ozzie has done so much to hurt this team this year alone it's sad. That's fact, not opinion. You wanna used the term "generalize?" People seem to use the word "opinion" too loosely. Is it an opinion that putting Toby at 1st wasn't a smart move? Is it an opinion that shifting for a .198 batter and then keeping it on when he tries to bunt isn't a smart move? No, that's fact. All you need is a little baseball knowledge to realize it. And surely many people here MUST have far more baseball knowledge than myself, but lately people in this topic make me actually question that.

 

You still don't know the difference between fact and opinion. "ozzie has done so much to hurt this team this year alone it's sad" would be your opinion and maybe others opinion but it is not a fact. It's subjective which means it's open to debate. Stating a batting average or a pitchers won/loss record is fact but your statement is opinion. I believe your last statement to be fact, but actually it's just my well founded opinion.

 

But that's ok, believe what you want.

[TheBigHurt]

You still don't know the difference between fact and opinion. "ozzie has done so much to hurt this team this year alone it's sad" would be your opinion and maybe others opinion but it is not a fact. It's subjective which means it's open to debate. Stating a batting average or a pitchers won/loss record is fact but your statement is opinion. I believe your last statement to be fact, but actually it's just my well founded opinion.

 

But that's ok, believe what you want.

 

I keep explaining WHY it's fact, and all anyone does is simply say it's not. No reasoning whatsoever. Must I reference all the bad moves I've mentioned throughout this topic again and again? Yes, it is FACT that most of the examples I gave were BAD MOVES. At this point, I could care less about other people's denial and ignorance. Like I've said, some opinions are NOT always valid, and some opinions ARE fact.

[kapkomet]

Go get Webster's and look up opinion and fact, and get back to me.

 

[Baines3]

If it were up to me I would have fired KW instead.

[TheBigHurt]

Go get Webster's and look up opinion and fact, and get back to me.

 

fact (fakt), n. 1. something that actually exists. 2. something known to exist or to have happened. 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.

 

Those moves I mentioned are bad, and that's a FACT. What is so hard to understand? Furthermore, if no one is going to actually make a logical point instead of simply contradict what I'm saying and spout meaningless one-lined "clever" posts, just don't bother with this conversation anymore, because you obviously have no comprehensive skills.

Edited September 8, 2007 by TheBigHurt

[SkokieSox]

Yes. And like fathom mentioned Hall, how could anyone say that wasn't Ozzie's fault? Hall is not a first-baseman and shouldn't have to dive for balls constantly. Not saying one game necessarily makes this happen, but look what DID happen. it just made no sense.

 

Steff mentioned, "sure, people can deny if they want to." Sure they can deny something that's true, but it's flat out stupid. Opinions aren't always valid. Sometimes they are simply inept and frankly, wrong. Ozzie has done so much to hurt this team this year alone it's sad. That's fact, not opinion. You wanna used the term "generalize?" People seem to use the word "opinion" too loosely. Is it an opinion that putting Toby at 1st wasn't a smart move? Is it an opinion that shifting for a .198 batter and then keeping it on when he tries to bunt isn't a smart move? No, that's fact. All you need is a little baseball knowledge to realize it. And surely many people here MUST have far more baseball knowledge than myself, but lately people in this topic make me actually question that.

 

I think you need to freshen up on your baseball knowledge... In any case, its been explained, but you're obviously either not picking it up or not willing to. Just for good measure I'll say it a final time: Hall was not a first baseman, but was being penciled in to spell PK during this season. Therefore playing him there in ST is appropriate. It gives flexibility and insurance, but also would have allowed Hall more at bats which was what was promised to him when he signed. Remember, he could have started for lesser teams.

 

But I can see how ignoring that would be convenient if you hated Ozzie and wanted to grasp onto anything to ensure that stays true for yourself.

[SkokieSox]

I keep explaining WHY it's fact, and all anyone does is simply say it's not. No reasoning whatsoever. Must I reference all the bad moves I've mentioned throughout this topic again and again? Yes, it is FACT that most of the examples I gave were BAD MOVES. At this point, I could care less about other people's denial and ignorance. Like I've said, some opinions are NOT always valid, and some opinions ARE fact.

 

# a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case"

# a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"

# an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"

# a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"

 

Here, maybe this will help...

[Steff]

Go get Webster's and look up opinion and fact, and get back to me.

 

"Agree to disagree" might be a good one to hit as well.

[29andPoplar]

fact (fakt), n. 1. something that actually exists. 2. something known to exist or to have happened. 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.

 

Those moves I mentioned are bad, and that's a FACT. What is so hard to understand? Furthermore, if no one is going to actually make a logical point instead of simply contradict what I'm saying and spout meaningless one-lined "clever" posts, just don't bother with this conversation anymore, because you obviously have no comprehensive skills.

 

Well I will make one last post on this and if you want the last word, go ahead.

 

You have made about a dozen subjective statements (opinion based) in this thread and continue to question why not many understand. You have stated:

 

- people who disagree with you "obviously have no comprehensive skills" (as you judge comprehension)

 

- Hall being at 1B for that game in spring "made no sense" even though it's been explained to you multiple

times as to the rationale. You can disagree with that rationale, again, that's your opinion.

 

- "Ozzie has done so much to hurt this team this year it's sad", as if a subjective statement like that isn't open

for debate. Many others have given countless examples of numerous good things he's done, and/or explained that other factors may have been involved in decisions, factors a "casual fan" wouldn't know about.

 

- "I could care less about other people's denial and ignorance" (as you define denial and ignorance)

 

- "anyone watching can clearly see he (Guillen) is atrocious", another highly subjective statement.

 

- "anyone with a brain can see Ozzie can't manage his way out of a paper bag", when again, many others have given numerous examples of the good things he has done.

 

- "I know damn well what I'm talking about", another highly subjective (and highly debateable) statement

 

- if people don't agree with you you think they "know nothing about baseball or are in complete and utter denial"

 

Great, ok.

 

So in your world, if people don't agree with you on your OPINIONS, they are:

 

Lacking comprehension skills, in denial, ignorant, lacking a brain, know nothing about baseball, and oh yes another mention of being in denial, this time complete and utter denial. Further, a moderator suggested you look up the difference between fact and opinion, which to me sounds like a hint.

 

I felt it might be a public service to post this so everyone here knows where you're coming from in the future.

 

As Steff says above, I will agree to disagree with your opinions.

[kapkomet]

And where's the definition of opinion? You missed part of your assignment.

[TheBigHurt]

Well I will make one last post on this and if you want the last word, go ahead.

 

You have made about a dozen subjective statements (opinion based) in this thread and continue to question why not many understand. You have stated:

 

- people who disagree with you "obviously have no comprehensive skills" (as you judge comprehension)

 

- Hall being at 1B for that game in spring "made no sense" even though it's been explained to you multiple

times as to the rationale. You can disagree with that rationale, again, that's your opinion.

 

- "Ozzie has done so much to hurt this team this year it's sad", as if a subjective statement like that isn't open

for debate. Many others have given countless examples of numerous good things he's done, and/or explained that other factors may have been involved in decisions, factors a "casual fan" wouldn't know about.

 

- "I could care less about other people's denial and ignorance" (as you define denial and ignorance)

 

- "anyone watching can clearly see he (Guillen) is atrocious", another highly subjective statement.

 

- "anyone with a brain can see Ozzie can't manage his way out of a paper bag", when again, many others have given numerous examples of the good things he has done.

 

- "I know damn well what I'm talking about", another highly subjective (and highly debateable) statement

 

- if people don't agree with you you think they "know nothing about baseball or are in complete and utter denial"

 

Great, ok.

 

So in your world, if people don't agree with you on your OPINIONS, they are:

 

Lacking comprehension skills, in denial, ignorant, lacking a brain, know nothing about baseball, and oh yes another mention of being in denial, this time complete and utter denial. Further, a moderator suggested you look up the difference between fact and opinion, which to me sounds like a hint.

 

I felt it might be a public service to post this so everyone here knows where you're coming from in the future.

 

As Steff says above, I will agree to disagree with your opinions.

 

When will anyone ever come in here with logic? You keep questioning my demeanor and my "opinions" instead of looking at the real picture, the reason I'm doing all this debating: OZZIE. Not a SINGLE person has come in here with a solid argument or a statement that argues that the moves I mentioned Ozzie making are bad moves, simply attack me in ways that are irrelevant. Until someone can come in here and prove this wrong, just please stop. PLEASE try some logic and stop posting inept, redundant posts. I'm talking about Ozzie, and you all agree talking about me and have not provided a single solid argument. Wow, this feels like a board full of Cubs fans. Agree to disagree? You can disagree all you want, but it doesn't make you any less inept.

Edited September 9, 2007 by TheBigHurt

[Gregory Pratt]

All managers make terrible decisions caused by momentary lapses, personal vendettas, a lack of availability of other players due to injury or hangover that we don't know of, punishments of players for not arriving in time, things like that. Analyzing Ozzie based solely on bad decisions is fine and well, good for you, but you'd find similar nonsense from just about every manager. Every manager fails and makes terrible decisions -- some becuase they're bad, some because of bad personnel, some because of bad situations, etc. etc.

 

Ozzie's not the best but he's young and very good, IMO, especially with a pitching staff and gaining their respect. Beyond that, I simply love Ozzie the person, and you've got a good level of support from me.

[SkokieSox]

When will anyone ever come in here with logic? You keep questioning my demeanor and my "opinions" instead of looking at the real picture, the reason I'm doing all this debating: OZZIE. Not a SINGLE person has come in here with a solid argument or a statement that argues that the moves I mentioned Ozzie making are bad moves, simply attack me in ways that are irrelevant. Until someone can come in here and prove this wrong, just please stop. PLEASE try some logic and stop posting inept, redundant posts. I'm talking about Ozzie, and you all agree talking about me and have not provided a single solid argument. Wow, this feels like a board full of Cubs fans. Agree to disagree? You can disagree all you want, but it doesn't make you any less inept.

 

Normally I do not encourage attacking a man's sense of reason on this board, but you either have trouble reading or understanding what you've read. All anyone has done is given you reasons, yet you choose to call these reasons "inept" and further challenge it by saying it doesn't count because your thoughts are facts. That won't get you far in life...

 

So call anyone you want as inept, stupid, whatever, but the reality is you are just being ignorant. But hey ignorance is bliss, so I'm cool with it if you are.

[TheBigHurt]

Normally I do not encourage attacking a man's sense of reason on this board, but you either have trouble reading or understanding what you've read. All anyone has done is given you reasons, yet you choose to call these reasons "inept" and further challenge it by saying it doesn't count because your thoughts are facts. That won't get you far in life...

 

So call anyone you want as inept, stupid, whatever, but the reality is you are just being ignorant. But hey ignorance is bliss, so I'm cool with it if you are.

 

Uh, no. All anyone else has done is ignore what I'm really talking about. I find it funny the only "argument" that has been at ALL relevant to my point has been "all managers make mistakes like these." I understand no manager is perfect, but that's a poor argument. First off, just because other managers do dumb things doesn't make Ozzie any better. Poor argument #1. Furthermore, you're all saying every manager makes moves as dumb as shifting and staying shift to a .198 batter who tries to bunt, constantly leaving ailing pitchers in against good hitters (both actually and statistically), constantly taking cruizing pitchers out early, constantly failing to do his homework on what matches make sense, putting Hall at 1st base, etc.? I don't buy that for a second. Ozzie simply makes bad moves TOO often.

Edited September 9, 2007 by TheBigHurt

[Yossarian]

I've been a Sox fan just say a long time and leave it at that. In that time the best managing I've seen IMHO is Al Lopez 1963-65, Chuck Tanner in 1972, Jeff Torborg in 1990, and Ozzie just two years ago. I view Ozzie as a manager with great strengths and equally great weaknesses. He needs a team with players of the ability and temperament to execute his pitching, speed, defense philosophy. If he's able to set the tone, and his players will allow him to manage on cruise control, everything is fine. If he has guys that can't bunt, hit and run, hit behind the runner, or do all those other important little things, his volatile temperament gets the best of him. He's never been good at handling his pitchers in games. He leaves them in when he should take them out, and vice versa. He can be rigid and inflexible when it comes to going by that awful "book". He's not the only manager that makes that mistake. Today's managers I think are terrified of going against the "book", and then maybe losing a game because they let that left handed pitcher face that right handed hitter. It's a stupid and short sighted philosophy. Old time managers like Casey Stengel and Leo Durocher weren't afraid to trust hunches and instincts and live with the results be they good or bad in an individual game. They looked at the bigger picture. Lastly, Ozzie like everyone else, players and management had a bad year. He made some jaw droppingly bad decisions this year. This team threw him off his game. Ozzie made requests after his initial year and KW delivered. It needs to happen again, but I doubt it will. To me, everything I've posted here is a fact, but of course they are all my opinions.

[29andPoplar]

I've been a Sox fan just say a long time and leave it at that. In that time the best managing I've seen IMHO is Al Lopez 1963-65, Chuck Tanner in 1972, Jeff Torborg in 1990, and Ozzie just two years ago. I view Ozzie as a manager with great strengths and equally great weaknesses. He needs a team with players of the ability and temperament to execute his pitching, speed, defense philosophy. If he's able to set the tone, and his players will allow him to manage on cruise control, everything is fine. If he has guys that can't bunt, hit and run, hit behind the runner, or do all those other important little things, his volatile temperament gets the best of him. He's never been good at handling his pitchers in games. He leaves them in when he should take them out, and vice versa. He can be rigid and inflexible when it comes to going by that awful "book". He's not the only manager that makes that mistake. Today's managers I think are terrified of going against the "book", and then maybe losing a game because they let that left handed pitcher face that right handed hitter. It's a stupid and short sighted philosophy. Old time managers like Casey Stengel and Leo Durocher weren't afraid to trust hunches and instincts and live with the results be they good or bad in an individual game. They looked at the bigger picture. Lastly, Ozzie like everyone else, players and management had a bad year. He made some jaw droppingly bad decisions this year. This team threw him off his game. Ozzie made requests after his initial year and KW delivered. It needs to happen again, but I doubt it will. To me, everything I've posted here is a fact, but of course they are all my opinions.

 

I agree on Tanner in '72 and Torborg in '90.

 

I am not sure how you can possibly say Guillen manages totally by the book. Countless times this year he's let Logan and Thornton face righthanded hitters and when he's criticized himself, he says it's because he does too many things on "hunches" or by his gut. And he lives with the results too. What he primarily needs is better talent so the results end up being better.

 

Thanks though for expressing your opinions without getting into name calling like the other guy.

[southsider2k5]

And that plan seemed pretty dumb when there is a gold glove firstbaseman on the roster.

 

 

Honestly this is pretty straightforward. They would have used him sporadically at 1B or in a unique situation when it would have been beneficial to get his right handed bat in there. Konerko could be given a day off or if he was dinged up or whatever and you have a righthanded bat in there. If something happened to Pierzynski you could have moved Hall back behind the plate.

 

All it was, they wanted more flexibility and it was the plan to try and have Hall be more versatile so he could get more AB's and help vs. lefthanders which was and still is a weakness. There is nothing wrong with what they did. Erstad was and is the primary 1B backup but it is not unusual to need more than one and having a RH bat was a plus. Hall and everybody associated with the team blamed no one and said it was a freak thing. It is telling when someone blames Guillen for this of all things.

 

That was the whole point. Ozzie wanted to be able to load up against guys like CC and Johan. He wanted another righty bat in the line up.

[fathom]

That was the whole point. Ozzie wanted to be able to load up against guys like CC and Johan. He wanted another righty bat in the line up.

 

Yep, and he would have been playing catcher. We'd have the same amount of lefties in the game if he caught or played first.

[kapkomet]

Yep, and he would have been playing catcher. We'd have the same amount of lefties in the game if he caught or played first.

Ahhh, yes, we all KNOW that Ozzie told Toby to dive for that ball, and more specifically, to injure himself all so that the great and mighty fathom could b**** about it almost on a daily basis - 9 months later at that!

 

Therefore, it IS Ozzie's fault!

 

That's about the level that this arguement has taken pretty much since day one.

 

[Steve9347]

wowsa

 

YAY, i broke the story.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Steve9347