Rozner: Guillen quit on Sox long ago

[Chicago White Sox]

Not only that but he had one of the best records as well. Ozzie was a very good manager for the White Sox. He deserves the credit.

That being said, I also think he wore out his welcome and it was time for him to go. It isn't black and white scenario. Thank him for the championship and the fun times but also don't let the door hit to in the arse on the way out.

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.

[BigSqwert]

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.

[LittleHurt05]

I never believed Ozzie was "awful" last year. I think he played the high-paid guys and never faulted him for that. I tend to blame players.

 

If you blame the players, then how can you give the manager any credit for winning the World Series? I thought it was all on the players.

[greg775]

If you blame the players, then how can you give the manager any credit for winning the World Series? I thought it was all on the players.

 

I have given the players off the 05 team a lot of credit. People accuse me all the time of blindly praising the 05 guys.

[ptatc]

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.

 

Your point is valid. I just look at it differently and disagree.

 

You could look at the micromanagement point of view and examine all the little things like every in game decision, the talent of each player etc. You can say the teams underachieved since 2005. I think in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2008 they over achieved.

 

I prefer to look at the only thing that matters, winning. I never said he was a great manager I said very good and one of the best ever for the Sox. He was an awful in game manager, I think Cooper saved his rear many times with the pitching staff. I think however, that he was really good at getting the most out of his players, until the last 2 years. This is why he was a very good manager but he had lost the team and it was time to go. This seems to happen with fiery coaches/managers. They have a limited shelf life.

 

Ozzie reminds me of Lovie Smith in a way. Both are awful in game mangers but get the most out of the players. This is where they make up for the games they lose with poor in game decisions. I think the hardest part of coaching is getting the pampered millionaires to play at the highest level, especially in baseball where there are so many games and the players can no longer use the amphetamines toward the end of the season. The difference is Smith is low key with it and I think he has a longer shelf life with a given group of players.

Edited January 27, 2012 by ptatc

[LittleHurt05]

I have given the players off the 05 team a lot of credit. People accuse me all the time of blindly praising the 05 guys.

 

Then if the 05 players were that good, why should Ozzie get credit for being the best manager in Sox history for winning the WS?

 

You can't blame last season all on the players, then give Ozzie all the credit for 2005.

[Chicago White Sox]

Then if the 05 players were that good, why should Ozzie get credit for being the best manager in Sox history for winning the WS?

 

You can't blame last season all on the players, then give Ozzie all the credit for 2005.

You're missing Greg's point, everyone deserves credit for winning it all in 2005, it's just that the players, KW, & Cooper deserve all the blame for the team sucking last season. Ozzie was simply spectacular in both of these seasons.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Chicago White Sox

[Milkman delivers]

If you blame the players, then how can you give the manager any credit for winning the World Series? I thought it was all on the players.

 

If he blames the players, he should give them credit for winning. And if he gives them credit for winning, then he should give the most credit to KW. Isn't that the logical solution?