Ozzie still out begging for a job

[Texsox]

100 replies.

 

No wonder the media loves him.

[Texsox]

BTW, I have no doubt that Ozzie would be better respected (ok I need a better word than respect) and his accomplishments seen in a more favorable light, if not for the efforts of Mr. Greg. The more Greg seeks to elevate the man, the further down we collectively push.

 

Like everyone else associated with the team, he had good years and bad. His last year was bad and that is how we remember him best.

 

 

[Rowand44]

BTW, I have no doubt that Ozzie would be better respected (ok I need a better word than respect) and his accomplishments seen in a more favorable light, if not for the efforts of Mr. Greg. The more Greg seeks to elevate the man, the further down we collectively push.

 

Like everyone else associated with the team, he had good years and bad. His last year was bad and that is how we remember him best.

He was awful after 05. The fact that he just gave up a few years ago rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, Greg or no Greg.

[Texsox]

He was awful after 05. The fact that he just gave up a few years ago rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, Greg or no Greg.

 

True. But I've seen it here for years, the more one or two people champion a certain unpopular point of view, the further to the other side the group gets.

 

"He wasn't too bad" in the face of "he was pretty good" eventually becomes "he was the worst manager of all time" in reply to "Revolutionized managing". It gives us something to do.

[Kyyle23]

True. But I've seen it here for years, the more one or two people champion a certain unpopular point of view, the further to the other side the group gets.

 

"He wasn't too bad" in the face of "he was pretty good" eventually becomes "he was the worst manager of all time" in reply to "Revolutionized managing". It gives us something to do.

 

I haven't seen "the worst manager of all time". I see a lot of "he got worse every season after 05"

[Texsox]

Hyperbole to make my point. To argue with greg, the examples will continue to be more and more extreme. It's the only way to keep the argument going.

[southsider2k5]

He was awful after 05. The fact that he just gave up a few years ago rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, Greg or no Greg.

 

I was fine with Ozzie until he put himself ahead of his team in a pennant race. That was it for me.

[Al Lopez's Ghost]

I was fine with Ozzie until he put himself ahead of his team in a pennant race. That was it for me.

Amen x 1000.

[Eminor3rd]

Are u also second guessing his managing in the 05 postseason? If so, now I've seen everything. Yeah maybe if he'd abided by the book we'd have won every single game in that postseason instead of losing one.

 

You pretend you have the memory of a goldfish. NO ONE IS COMPLAINING THAT HE LET THEM STAY IN. The first 3 pages of this thread are composed of people telling you that all the pitchers had low pitch counts, so there was no genius in not taking them out.

 

There's a second point that wite is making now. Store the first one in your memory. That second point is how overwhelmingly bad an idea it is, objectively, to leave starters in games past the second time through the order, in general. Over the course of a season, the benefit of saving your bullpen can outweigh that risk, but in critical games, you stand to benefit greatly from bullpen matchups. This is because you always claim the platoon advantage and, even moreso, because hitters have a hard time timing a pitcher for the first time.

 

Please, ditch your revisionist history. Ozzie did nothing that any manager would have done, and if things actually happened the way you claim, it would been a bad idea. Tex is right, your imagination-land preaching of Guillen makes everyone hate him more.

[witesoxfan]

I always thought one of Ozzies strengths was how he ran the pitching staff. When his starters gave him those complete games no one said it was stupid then. In fact wasnt Jerry Manuel criticized for yanking Garland consistently in the 6th and 7th innings? Ozzie would have been blasted had he removed a starter who was cruising and the bullpen got rocked.

 

I never blasted him, unless you count me saying "it wasn't smart." That's not the first time something Ozzie's done has been called "not smart." It wasn't a bad thing that he left them in, as they were pitching well and everything worked out in the end.

 

Oh, and this "If Ozzie would have removed the starter and the bullpen got rocked" is ridiculous. He wasn't criticized for removing Garland in game 3 of the World Series, even though it was, for all intents and purposes, the same exact situation. And had he left a starter in and the starter got rocked or hurt, how smart does he look then? Seriously, imagine if, in game 5, the Angels string together 4 hits in a row in the 8th inning against Contreras and he leaves with runners on 1st and 3rd with no one out and the Angels down 6-5. Is that a situation you want to put a reliever in? Because it sure didn't work out when Qualls was put in a similar situation.

 

Fact of the matter is that he was lucky. That entire year was lucky. It's OK to be lucky...that is not a bad thing.

Edited October 28, 2013 by witesoxfan

[kageman129]

Like I'm sure many on here, I have been re-watching my '05 World Series DVDs. Man, watching Ozzie in the dugout during those games makes me miss him as the manager - he was fun, laid back (well, other than screaming at umps), hilarious in '05.

 

That being said, from '06 till the end, he thought he was the best manager in the world and should get paid like he is... As said above, that is when he was too much and needed to go. Doesn't change the fact that in '05 he helped make that the best year of baseball for Sox fans.

 

 

[Dick Allen]

I never blasted him, unless you count me saying "it wasn't smart." That's not the first time something Ozzie's done has been called "not smart." It wasn't a bad thing that he left them in, as they were pitching well and everything worked out in the end.

 

Oh, and this "If Ozzie would have removed the starter and the bullpen got rocked" is ridiculous. He wasn't criticized for removing Garland in game 3 of the World Series, even though it was, for all intents and purposes, the same exact situation. And had he left a starter in and the starter got rocked or hurt, how smart does he look then? Seriously, imagine if, in game 5, the Angels string together 4 hits in a row in the 8th inning against Contreras and he leaves with runners on 1st and 3rd with no one out and the Angels down 6-5. Is that a situation you want to put a reliever in? Because it sure didn't work out when Qualls was put in a similar situation.

 

Fact of the matter is that he was lucky. That entire year was lucky. It's OK to be lucky...that is not a bad thing.

The starter didn't get rocked or hurt. The team won the WS. That is the only thing that matters. Ozzie removed Garland in the 7th or 8th inning that game, and still ran out of pitchers. If he did it by the fangraphs book, the Sox probably lose that game. And considering they actually count actual wins and losses in the WS and not theoretical, Ozzie's way was the better way.

 

Just keep in mind if you manage the fangraphs way and pull your starter because he might fade the second or third time through the line up, your bullpen is going to in shambles in a month. One key to that 2005 team was when they had the lead in the 5th inning, the game was basically over. Ozzie used the bullpen perfectly that year.

 

Who knows what happens if the bullpen was taxed because Ozzie managed based on fangraphs.

 

 

Greg is obviously over the top in his love for Ozzie, but to say Ozzie was wrong or just got very lucky with how he used his pitching staff in the playoffs is ludicrious, and just as over the top, if not more, the other way.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Dick Allen

[iamshack]

I remember a lot of folks here giving Ozzie kudos for the way he managed the pitching staff in that playoff run. We shouldn't take away from that now just because of the way things went downhill.

 

Ozzie did a fabulous job of managing that club and he deserves respect for that. Unfortunately, that's about where the respect ends.

[witesoxfan]

The starter didn't get rocked or hurt. The team won the WS. That is the only thing that matters.

 

Just keep in mind if you manage the fangraphs way and pull your starter because he might fade the second or third time through the line up, your bullpen is going to in shambles in a month. One key to that 2005 team was when they had the lead in the 5th inning, the game was basically over. Ozzie used the bullpen perfectly that year.

 

Who knows what happens if the bullpen was taxed because Ozzie managed based on fangraphs.

 

 

Greg is obviously over the top in his love for Ozzie, but to say Ozzie was wrong or just got very lucky with how he used his pitching staff in the playoffs is ludicrious, and just as over the top, if not more, the other way.

 

Yes, if you manage each game like it's the last game of the year or the last 7 games of the year, then it will happen...which is why you don't manage each game like it's the last game of the year. But, come the playoffs, when they really are the last games of the year, you can afford that a bit more.

 

You are the one who brought up "if the bullpen would have failed, Ozzie would have been roasted." Then you admit that the bullpen was dynamite all year, which it was. Thus it's safe to assume they wouldn't have failed. They certainly could have, but you are assuming unlikely hypothetical scenarios, so I am going to do the opposite and assume likely hypothetical scenarios. At the end, the Sox still would have won. The fact that the Sox did that for 4 games and didn't get bit on the ass is lucky, and it's generally not wise to have guys throw 4 complete games. They were pitching really well though, and the need to relieve those pitchers never came up. That's also incredibly lucky.

[Eminor3rd]

The starter didn't get rocked or hurt. The team won the WS. That is the only thing that matters. Ozzie removed Garland in the 7th or 8th inning that game, and still ran out of pitchers. If he did it by the fangraphs book, the Sox probably lose that game. And considering they actually count actual wins and losses in the WS and not theoretical, Ozzie's way was the better way.

 

Just keep in mind if you manage the fangraphs way and pull your starter because he might fade the second or third time through the line up, your bullpen is going to in shambles in a month. One key to that 2005 team was when they had the lead in the 5th inning, the game was basically over. Ozzie used the bullpen perfectly that year.

 

Who knows what happens if the bullpen was taxed because Ozzie managed based on fangraphs.

 

 

Greg is obviously over the top in his love for Ozzie, but to say Ozzie was wrong or just got very lucky with how he used his pitching staff in the playoffs is ludicrious, and just as over the top, if not more, the other way.

 

Managing a bullpen "the fangraphs way" is expressly, explicitly only recommended in must-win or playoff games. None of them have ever claimed that the strategy should be used in the regular season. We're talking only about the post-season.

[Eminor3rd]

I remember a lot of folks here giving Ozzie kudos for the way he managed the pitching staff in that playoff run. We shouldn't take away from that now just because of the way things went downhill.

 

Ozzie did a fabulous job of managing that club and he deserves respect for that. Unfortunately, that's about where the respect ends.

 

Right, this is dumb. We're all bickering with one another over something we weren't even mad about until greg came in here and started spouting Ozzie garbage about changing the game and the best ever and all.

[southsider2k5]

I remember a lot of folks here giving Ozzie kudos for the way he managed the pitching staff in that playoff run. We shouldn't take away from that now just because of the way things went downhill.

 

Ozzie did a fabulous job of managing that club and he deserves respect for that. Unfortunately, that's about where the respect ends.

 

I thought keeping that '08 team alive was some of his best work ever. It amazed me that they made it.

[Dick Allen]

Yes, if you manage each game like it's the last game of the year or the last 7 games of the year, then it will happen...which is why you don't manage each game like it's the last game of the year. But, come the playoffs, when they really are the last games of the year, you can afford that a bit more.

 

You are the one who brought up "if the bullpen would have failed, Ozzie would have been roasted." Then you admit that the bullpen was dynamite all year, which it was. Thus it's safe to assume they wouldn't have failed. They certainly could have, but you are assuming unlikely hypothetical scenarios, so I am going to do the opposite and assume likely hypothetical scenarios. At the end, the Sox still would have won. The fact that the Sox did that for 4 games and didn't get bit on the ass is lucky, and it's generally not wise to have guys throw 4 complete games. They were pitching really well though, and the need to relieve those pitchers never came up. That's also incredibly lucky.

And he would have been roasted. His pitchers were cruising.

Buehrle 9 innings 5 hits 0 walks

Garland 9 innings 4 hits 1 walk

Garcia 9 innings 6 hits 1 walk

Contreras 9 innings 5 hits 2 walks.

 

Lucky? I don't think so. Ozzie screwed up a lot of things. But that playoff run was done very well. He had his ace starting game 1 of the WS, with a completely rested bullpen.

[southsider2k5]

Yes, if you manage each game like it's the last game of the year or the last 7 games of the year, then it will happen...which is why you don't manage each game like it's the last game of the year. But, come the playoffs, when they really are the last games of the year, you can afford that a bit more.

 

You are the one who brought up "if the bullpen would have failed, Ozzie would have been roasted." Then you admit that the bullpen was dynamite all year, which it was. Thus it's safe to assume they wouldn't have failed. They certainly could have, but you are assuming unlikely hypothetical scenarios, so I am going to do the opposite and assume likely hypothetical scenarios. At the end, the Sox still would have won. The fact that the Sox did that for 4 games and didn't get bit on the ass is lucky, and it's generally not wise to have guys throw 4 complete games. They were pitching really well though, and the need to relieve those pitchers never came up. That's also incredibly lucky.

 

Am I the only one who really doesn't give the Sox managers any credit for pitching stuff? Whether it is Guillen or Ventura, I tend to think of Cooper pulling the strings instead of the manager.

[LittleHurt05]

The starter didn't get rocked or hurt. The team won the WS. That is the only thing that matters. Ozzie removed Garland in the 7th or 8th inning that game, and still ran out of pitchers. If he did it by the fangraphs book, the Sox probably lose that game. And considering they actually count actual wins and losses in the WS and not theoretical, Ozzie's way was the better way.

 

Just keep in mind if you manage the fangraphs way and pull your starter because he might fade the second or third time through the line up, your bullpen is going to in shambles in a month. One key to that 2005 team was when they had the lead in the 5th inning, the game was basically over. Ozzie used the bullpen perfectly that year.

Who knows what happens if the bullpen was taxed because Ozzie managed based on fangraphs.

 

 

Greg is obviously over the top in his love for Ozzie, but to say Ozzie was wrong or just got very lucky with how he used his pitching staff in the playoffs is ludicrious, and just as over the top, if not more, the other way.

 

When your two set-up guys magically transform into Mariano Rivera, it makes it much simpler to manage a bullpen. It's still incredible that they got such amazing seasons from Cotts & Politte, once-in-a-career type stuff for both of them.

[witesoxfan]

And he would have been roasted. His pitchers were cruising.

Buehrle 9 innings 5 hits 0 walks

Garland 9 innings 4 hits 1 walk

Garcia 9 innings 6 hits 1 walk

Contreras 9 innings 5 hits 2 walks.

 

Lucky? I don't think so. Ozzie screwed up a lot of things. But that playoff run was done very well. He had his ace starting game 1 of the WS, with a completely rested bullpen.

 

The fact that 4 guys threw complete games in 4 consecutive games is lucky as hell, even if it was because they were cruising. You are likely to run into some kind of hiccup. Beyond that, it wasn't ground breaking or revolutionary, which was the original point.

 

If you can't agree that 4 consecutive complete games is lucky on its own, then we won't ever find agreement on this and it's a neverending argument. Lucky isn't a bad thing, and I'm not saying Ozzie leaving them in was wrong or right. I'm saying it's not smart. Sometimes, not smart works out. It did in that instance.

[greg775]

BTW, I have no doubt that Ozzie would be better respected (ok I need a better word than respect) and his accomplishments seen in a more favorable light, if not for the efforts of Mr. Greg. The more Greg seeks to elevate the man, the further down we collectively push.

 

Like everyone else associated with the team, he had good years and bad. His last year was bad and that is how we remember him best.

 

That's just not correct. Most of my posts are meant to give Ozzie his due. When I see a slight like this headline I feel like I have to react. His signaling for Jenks in the bullpen is what baseball is supposed to be about, fun. Instead of signaling for a righty, he does the hulk maneuver. That's out of a movie, hilarious.

Ozzie was fun. And of course we know my feelings on 05.

[Dick Allen]

The fact that 4 guys threw complete games in 4 consecutive games is lucky as hell, even if it was because they were cruising. You are likely to run into some kind of hiccup. Beyond that, it wasn't ground breaking or revolutionary, which was the original point.

 

If you can't agree that 4 consecutive complete games is lucky on its own, then we won't ever find agreement on this and it's a neverending argument. Lucky isn't a bad thing, and I'm not saying Ozzie leaving them in was wrong or right. I'm saying it's not smart. Sometimes, not smart works out. It did in that instance.

Just remember next time Sale goes 8 or 9, gives up a couple of hits and strikes out 15, he was "lucky".

 

And I get a kick out of you saying "I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's not smart". Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

Just remember next time Sale goes 8 or 9, gives up a couple of hits and strikes out 15, he was "lucky".

 

And I get a kick out of you saying "I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's not smart". Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

 

1 complete game is not lucky. 4 complete games in a row is lucky

 

Next time Mark Buehrle gets 45 guys out in a row again, there was absolutely no luck involved.

 

---

 

Bobby Jenks as the closer was not smart either in 2005. A rookie who has had emotional problems in the past? Yeah, sounds like a great closer, even with electric stuff. It worked out.

[Dick Allen]

1 complete game is not lucky. 4 complete games in a row is lucky

 

Next time Mark Buehrle gets 45 guys out in a row again, there was absolutely no luck involved.

 

---

 

Bobby Jenks as the closer was not smart either in 2005. A rookie who has had emotional problems in the past? Yeah, sounds like a great closer, even with electric stuff. It worked out.

Wow. You are off the rails.