Kenny & Ozzie at it again

[NorthSideSox72]

In the mid-80's, I remember these guys as the better SS in the AL:

Robin Yount

Cal Ripken

Alan Trammell

Tony Fernandez

Rick Burleson

Alfredo Griffin

Defensively? Hell no. Yount , Trammel, Ripken... those guys were not at Ozzie's level with the glove.

 

[Balta1701]

Defensively? Hell no. Yount , Trammel, Ripken... those guys were not at Ozzie's level with the glove.

Ripken? He won the 2 gold gloves right after Ozzie won his...and was only stopped from winning more by the reign of golden terror promulgated by one Omar Vizquel.

[greg775]

He was beloved because of 2005 and that's it.

 

So if one article agrees with your point of view, you don't have the blinders on, you're just right. But if it disagrees with you it's, BS... am I understanding you correctly? Man, I really am trying not to insult you, but with every blind post you make it gets harder and harder not to. I'm just trying to understand where in the world you get your sense of logic (or your lack of logic, actually) from...

 

 

oooooooh i see. must be 100 percent true since Cowley said it and he has a pen in his hand. Say, did you ever hear about this veteran trusted reporter getting banned from voting on the end of season rewards because he deliberately voted wrong so that the award winners would be different? If he is so trusted, why did his own peers suspend him? strange.

 

 

I now have a pen in my hand. whatever I say is now true. I am going to write "The Sox will sign Albert Pujols" and it must be true now

 

edit: I just looked at Joe Cowleys wikipedia page and found this "On 10/09/2008 Cowley and wife Brent Lillibridge married in middle earth in front of members of the Pittsburgh Steelers."

 

1.) He was a damn popular shortstop here as well. Both papers called him the face of the White Sox and one of the most popular figures in Chicago. Slam dunk for greg.

2.) Both papers said it. Read their takes on it.

I hope Ozzie does go and will laugh at all of you second guessing our new manager's moves every game. Cause that's what Soxtalk does now. The posters freak out over all the moves during games. And guess what, the new manager's moves are going to drive you just as wild.

I will enjoy watching you all implode. But hey, you'll just want the next guy fired immediately as well. That's why I say welcome to the revolving door of managers again.

Ozzie was our best manager in Sox history ... period.

[SoxAce]

Ozzie was our best manager in Sox history ... period.

 

That is debatable. But It's not worth arguing.

[greg775]

The bottom line is this is in Oz's court now.

He either keeps the current contract or will leave on his own for Florida or the Mets.

It's all up to Oz.

 

I have no idea with a guy of his-sized ego will do in this situation. The bottom line is he'll be making more than a million next year no matter what so he's in great shape compared to many of us in this s*** economy.

He'll either be with sox, marlins, mets or tv. He's got it made. He and his ego have it made.

[TheBigHurt]

1.) He was a damn popular shortstop here as well. Both papers called him the face of the White Sox and one of the most popular figures in Chicago. Slam dunk for greg.

 

Score nothing because you're oblivious to common sense here. Again, as Kyle said, you say something is on paper and now it's valid? One guy agrees with you and it's a "slam dunk for greg," but something that says otherwise is "BS" as you put it? Please give me your sense of logic on this if there even is any.

 

 

2.) Both papers said it. Read their takes on it.

 

I don't see you refuting the actual point.

 

 

I hope Ozzie does go and will laugh at all of you second guessing our new manager's moves every game. The posters freak out over all the moves during games.

 

Yeah, Ozzie can leave in a pitcher with 120+ pitch count who's hanging every pitch and then laugh at us for criticizing his lack of common sense... sure. And you'll defend it simply because you blindly support everything ozzie does without thinking for yourself because you love him. Is there a light on in your head?

 

 

 

The posters freak out over all the moves during games.Cause that's what Soxtalk does now. And guess what, the new manager's moves are going to drive you just as wild.

 

They'd have to be dumber then Ozzie's, then... and I find that almost impossible. I'm sorry but the manner of your posting makes it obvious you have difficulty thinking for yourself.

 

 

 

I will enjoy watching you all implode. But hey, you'll just want the next guy fired immediately as well. That's why I say welcome to the revolving door of managers again.

 

Ugh. Could you possibly generalize and make assumptions MORE??? Speaking for MYSELF (not a blind following without questioning like you seem to do), as long as the manager makes the correct fundamental decisions for basic strategy (which Ozzie seems practically incapable of)... I myself will not be calling for him to get fired.

 

 

 

Ozzie was our best manager in Sox history ... period.

 

If Ozzie was the best manager in our history then we have the clear answer as to why our franchise historically has not been one of winners.

 

Instead of again being blind and following a herd of sheep and saying, "period," how about some thoughts and logic powered by your OWN brain? Because in your entire post history, I cannot think of ONE time (personally) I've seen you put anything empirical or valid into your claims; it seems much just like empty statements based on something other than using your own head. You just keep saying "Ozzie is awesome" without any reasoning besides basically saying, "Hey, this guy from this newspaper said it so he must be right!" 2005 isn't enough. It would have taken the worst managing in the history of the game to destroy what that team had.

 

 

 

I'm sorry to insult you, but you just don't seem to think for yourself at ALL. I hope you prove me wrong but I doubt it at this point.

[fathom]

I hate how we can't even have logical discussion about this. When debating whether or not Ozzie should be the manager of the Sox in 2011 and/or longer than that, 2005 shouldn't even come into consideration.

[TheBigHurt]

I hate how we can't even have logical discussion about this. When debating whether or not Ozzie should be the manager of the Sox in 2011 and/or longer than that, 2005 shouldn't even come into consideration.

 

Some people just can't see that. I understand 2005 was HUGE, but how much did Ozzie have to do with that? You'd have had to PURPOSELY mismanage to screw up what that team had. As Rock said, a manager's role (IMO as well) is overly analyzed. Just make the correct fundamental, statistical/strategic moves; IMO that's good enough.

[South Side Fireworks Man]

Well...worth thinking about...a manager and his former GM ripping each other in public is going to hurt their chances of finding a new job a lot more than a player and a GM ripping each other. Managers and GM's are supposed to keep their mouths shut and look out for their bosses and players.

 

If you were a GM and you saw Ozzie get fired and then go off ripping KW to pieces...would you have any urge to hire that man yourself, so that he could air all of your dirty laundry in the future?

Ozzie would wait until after he signed a contract with a new team and then he would start badmouthing KW. But who cares? Everyone knows Ozzie is a blowhard.

[RockRaines]

Some people just can't see that. I understand 2005 was HUGE, but how much did Ozzie have to do with that? You'd have had to PURPOSELY mismanage to screw up what that team had. As Rock said, a manager's role (IMO as well) is overly analyzed. Just make the correct fundamental, statistical/strategic moves; IMO that's good enough.

But you have to understand that you are partially blind in this conversation as well. Look at what you just said. You give ZERO credit to Ozzie for the moves he made in 2005 including those in the playoffs, yet you very easily point out his negative influence on the team. You made my points into a defending Ozzie position which you probably will again even when I clearly pointed out that I was talking in generalities about people's opinions being influenced by outside factors. There is more that just Greg on one extreme side of the discussion, there are the haters on the other side which have a very narrow view of the truth as well.

 

At least I finally see where you are coming from as you put it clearly in your last line. That is all you really needed to say in this thread instead of insulting Greg and typing long responses to my posts about defending Ozzie when i clearly stated I wasnt. It makes alot of sense to me that you want a more logical/statistical influenced manager who is more comfortable playing the game by the book instead of feel. That would be the logical direction to go after getting rid of a pure feel manager. Its like replacing a players coach with a hard-nosed defensive minded guy because its a change. But I'm not sure the pointed insults at people helped you make your point.

 

 

And back to 2005 for the last time. They didnt win in spite of Ozzie at all. That was clearly one of his best managerial performances as he played his cards almost perfectly from beginning to end, especially in the playoffs. Putting El Duque in against Boston, Bobby in early against Bagwell, leaving Cotts in to strike out the side, finding Bobby immediately after his blown save, leaving the pitchers in in LA, Geoff Blum, Willie Harris, aligning the rotation so Freddy pitched on the road, Dye in the 3-hole. He made alot of top notch moves that postseason and leading up to it, I am not sure how you can ever state the opposite.

[LittleHurt05]

Ozzie was our best manager in Sox history ... period.

 

Pants Rowland just rolled in his grave

[TheBigHurt]

But you have to understand that you are partially blind in this conversation as well. Look at what you just said. You give ZERO credit to Ozzie for the moves he made in 2005 including those in the playoffs, yet you very easily point out his negative influence on the team. You made my points into a defending Ozzie position which you probably will again even when I clearly pointed out that I was talking in generalities about people's opinions being influenced by outside factors. There is more that just Greg on one extreme side of the discussion, there are the haters on the other side which have a very narrow view of the truth as well.

 

At least I finally see where you are coming from as you put it clearly in your last line. That is all you really needed to say in this thread instead of insulting Greg and typing long responses to my posts about defending Ozzie when i clearly stated I wasnt. It makes alot of sense to me that you want a more logical/statistical influenced manager who is more comfortable playing the game by the book instead of feel. That would be the logical direction to go after getting rid of a pure feel manager. Its like replacing a players coach with a hard-nosed defensive minded guy because its a change. But I'm not sure the pointed insults at people helped you make your point.

 

 

And back to 2005 for the last time. They didnt win in spite of Ozzie at all. That was clearly one of his best managerial performances as he played his cards almost perfectly from beginning to end, especially in the playoffs. Putting El Duque in against Boston, Bobby in early against Bagwell, leaving Cotts in to strike out the side, finding Bobby immediately after his blown save, leaving the pitchers in in LA, Geoff Blum, Willie Harris, aligning the rotation so Freddy pitched on the road, Dye in the 3-hole. He made alot of top notch moves that postseason and leading up to it, I am not sure how you can ever state the opposite.

 

Actually that's not true. I'm sorry if I failed to mention it, but I DO give him some credit, because it what was said is true, Ozzie was the one that wanted certain players and certain type of players to assemble a smarter ballclub. He got just that, and it did wonders. The rest was luck, as some of these players had career years that came out of nowhere. All ozzie had to do at that point was not sabotage the team because they were so good.

 

If you're not defending Ozzie, then why are you making a notion that you wish me to list every damn mistake Ozzie makes to convince you of my point? I'm sorry, but that's utterly ridiculous.

 

And I may have launched a few insults, but they have been coupled with real points. If I feel (or KNOW) someone is saying something stupid, I may say so but I will also state the contrary to what said person is saying. I rarely if EVER just insult someone and leave it at that; that's not logical, and logic is what I usually preach. That's why I speak to greg the way I do. An opinion is fine, but sometimes facts outweigh them; it helps to have some AUTHORITY behind your opinion, meaning a basis for what makes the person think what they think. Meanwhile people like greg seem to have opinions with NOTHING that supports or even motivates the opinions... they just seem to be empty thought with no sort of reasoning behind them, and that's just incomprehensible. How can you have an opinion of something with nothing fueling it? How can you say "I disagree" without having some sort of point to make. When you can't explain WHY you agree or disagree with something, it's time to face reality; you have no reasoning and need to learn to apply some.

[hogan873]

1.) He was a damn popular shortstop here as well. Both papers called him the face of the White Sox and one of the most popular figures in Chicago. Slam dunk for greg.

2.) Both papers said it. Read their takes on it.

I hope Ozzie does go and will laugh at all of you second guessing our new manager's moves every game. Cause that's what Soxtalk does now. The posters freak out over all the moves during games. And guess what, the new manager's moves are going to drive you just as wild.

I will enjoy watching you all implode. But hey, you'll just want the next guy fired immediately as well. That's why I say welcome to the revolving door of managers again.

Ozzie was our best manager in Sox history ... period.

Since Tony LaRussa (1986), the Sox have had 6 managers. Not exactly a revolving door. Ozzie is the only one to bring a WS title to the team, but it wasn't all him. Not by a long shot. The way that team clicked early in the year and in the playoffs, many managers could have helmed that ship.

 

And as far as your comment about laughing at the rest of us when we second guess the next manager, of course we will second guess some moves. I'm sure you will, too. You can't tell me that you approved of every move and decision Ozzie made...or can you?

Edited September 23, 2010 by pittshoganerkoff

[TheBigHurt]

Since Tony LaRussa (1986), the Sox have had 6 managers. Not exactly a revolving door. Ozzie is the only one to bring a WS title to the team, but it wasn't all him. Not by a long shot. The way that team clicked early in the year and in the playoffs, many managers could have helmed that ship.

 

And as far as your comment about laughing at the rest of us when we second guess the next manager, of course we will second guess some moves. I'm sure you will, too. You can't tell me that you approved of every move and decision Ozzie made...or can you?

 

I've got no right to speak for greg, but he did once say, as ridiculous as it is, that "any game we won was well managed (LOL), and any game we lost was poorly managed," so I guess not, even though it seems otherwise sometimes.

[fathom]

And back to 2005 for the last time. They didnt win in spite of Ozzie at all. That was clearly one of his best managerial performances as he played his cards almost perfectly from beginning to end, especially in the playoffs. Putting El Duque in against Boston, Bobby in early against Bagwell, leaving Cotts in to strike out the side, finding Bobby immediately after his blown save, leaving the pitchers in in LA, Geoff Blum, Willie Harris, aligning the rotation so Freddy pitched on the road, Dye in the 3-hole. He made alot of top notch moves that postseason and leading up to it, I am not sure how you can ever state the opposite.

 

Great post Rock. He led that team to the championship, and he deserves a ton of credit for it. The reason I said 2005 shouldn't be taken into consideration is because any grace period needs to have been erased by now.

[TheBigHurt]

Great post Rock. He led that team to the championship, and he deserves a ton of credit for it. The reason I said 2005 shouldn't be taken into consideration is because any grace period needs to have been erased by now.

 

Well, we did win the division in 2008 but I always feel that is irrelevant because our division was TERRIBLE that year and we still basically got a miracle to win it.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Since Tony LaRussa (1986), the Sox have had 6 managers. Not exactly a revolving door. Ozzie is the only one to bring a WS title to the team, but it wasn't all him. Not by a long shot. The way that team clicked early in the year and in the playoffs, many managers could have helmed that ship.

 

And as far as your comment about laughing at the rest of us when we second guess the next manager, of course we will second guess some moves. I'm sure you will, too. You can't tell me that you approved of every move and decision Ozzie made...or can you?

 

You obviously don't know greg well. Ozzie could call for an intentional walk with the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th of a tie game and greg would be like "Well, what if the guy hit a slam? Better to lose by one than by four. That's Ozzie, baby."

[TheBigHurt]

You obviously don't know greg well. Ozzie could call for an intentional walk with the bases loaded in the bottom of the 9th of a tie game and greg would be like "Well, what if the guy hit a slam? Better to lose by one than by four. That's Ozzie, baby."

 

LOL. And I thought I was cold!

[hogan873]

LOL. And I thought I was cold!

Yeah, I cringed a bit, too.

[nitetrain8601]

I'm in between them all. I like Ozzie, but no so sure to what degree if it comes down to obtaining a different manager. For example, if we hired Cito Gaston, I'm sure we would've loved some of the moves he did in game, but at the same time, would have hated his lack of feel for the game. Like when a pitcher is hot, and he takes him out just to put in his closer who the hitter is batting .097 against in his career. Then the closer gives up a blown save. I'm sure soxtalk would be asking for his head for taking out such a hot pitcher for someone else just to play a numbers game.

 

Bottomline, if we win with any manager, we're going to need the horses. At first I wanted to see Ozzie go, but now after thinking about it, I'm not so sure. Who else would be significantly better? I sure wish his kid would shutup about team business though.

[TheBigHurt]

I'm in between them all. I like Ozzie, but no so sure to what degree if it comes down to obtaining a different manager. For example, if we hired Cito Gaston, I'm sure we would've loved some of the moves he did in game, but at the same time, would have hated his lack of feel for the game. Like when a pitcher is hot, and he takes him out just to put in his closer who the hitter is batting .097 against in his career. Then the closer gives up a blown save. I'm sure soxtalk would be asking for his head for taking out such a hot pitcher for someone else just to play a numbers game.

 

Bottomline, if we win with any manager, we're going to need the horses. At first I wanted to see Ozzie go, but now after thinking about it, I'm not so sure. Who else would be significantly better? I sure wish his kid would shutup about team business though.

 

Well I'm just looking for a balance between the two. You just gotta go with the most logical scenario. If he's hot against so-and-so, pitch him. Otherwise just go with the statistical logic. I'm not saying a manager should be perfect at all, but some decision just reek of ignorance.

[lostfan]

He was not a terrible hitter. He swings at everything much like Tank. He was a decent hitter and a good baseball player. He's also a damn good manager.

Whatever team he goes to I will start to follow and root for No. 2 behind the Sox. Guillen is very likeable.

The dude has a career OPS+ of 68. That is legendary bad. 100 is average and he was never close to average in any given year. Actually since that's for Ozzie's whole career which means that for half the time, he was actually worse than that. He was a fantastic fielder and usually had respectable batting averages but he never walked and he almost made Juan Pierre look like a power hitter. I wasn't that old but I definitely remember this.

 

To put this in perspective, there is 32 points between 68 and 100. Going the other way, a career OPS+ of 132 (the point I'm making in the difference between an average hitter and Ozzie) is usually approaching Hall of Fame territory (and for a middle infielder you're a shoo-in). Derek Jeter is 118, Cal Rikpen was 112, Ryne Sandberg was 114... Joe Mauer is 136, Ken Griffey Jr was 135, Alex Rodriguez and Jim Thome are 145 and 147.

 

To put it further in perspective, Brian Anderson has a career OPS+ OF 69. One point better than Ozzie.

[lostfan]

Once again that is one example of a decision out of many during a game. The question is, what is it that you actually want from a manager? What would be your sucecss criteria? You understand saying "a guy that doesnt do dumb s*** like this one time something happened bad" isnt actually explaining your viewpoint. Either is "he does THAT regularly". How regularly? How many times has that happened? If you can remember each time, then it really didnt happen that often, its just that you remembered a particular instance because it upset you personally.

 

Personally, I dont think a manager has all that much influence on a game, in fact the good ones you never notice. I am of the frame of mind that the players do the actual work while the manager takes the blame for when they dont.

This. Usually I think it's easier for a manager to be noticed f***ing up than not f***ing up but generally managers in baseball are really overrated. It's not like the NFL or the NBA where they can make the difference between a below .500 team and a playoff team because of certain strategies and schemes.

[TheBigHurt]

To put it further in perspective, Brian Anderson has a career OPS+ OF 69. One point better than Ozzie.

 

Holy s***. Thanks for putting that into perspective for me well enough for me to really grasp the concept. WOW...

 

As far as Ozzie being likable (the only point in the quote I felt was even worth anything)... I dunno. On the fence there. I think he USED to be... I dunno about now. Once you start s***ting on your fans, I don't think "likable" is the word I'd use anymore.

[The Critic]

Defensively? Hell no. Yount , Trammel, Ripken... those guys were not at Ozzie's level with the glove.

Just for conversation, fielding percentaes during each guy's Gold Glove years:

Trammel .980, .983, .979, .980

Yount .969

Guillen .977

Griffin .960

Fernandez .987, .979, .981, .992

Ripken .986, .984

 

I realize other factors go into this, such as range, arm strength, etc., but the %s suggest that Ozzie wasn't light years ahead of anyone except maybe Yount and Griffin. However, their bats may have made them more valuable overall than Ozzie.

I liked Ozzie as a player, but I never thought I was seeing a game-changing defensive player.