PDA

View Full Version : Your thoughts on Ozzie


SoxNation05
07-20-2008, 10:51 PM
There seems to be past hatred towards him. I know the media cannot stand him. Some people say Ozzie "over manages" when it comes to the way he handles the bullpen. But at the same time we have one of the top pens. He is the type of manager I would love to play for: encouraging, fun and he's going to give the player who is playing good ball a chance to play.

guillen4life13
07-20-2008, 10:57 PM
There seems to be past hatred towards him. I know the media loves him.

Corrected. The media always has something to write about when Ozzie is his normal self.

I like Ozzie a lot but he occasionally makes moves I find questionable. But there's a reason (actually many reasons) why he's a manager and I'm not.

TornLabrum
07-20-2008, 11:12 PM
Where's the choice for neither? I think about half the people overrate him and half underrate him.

SoxNation05
07-20-2008, 11:14 PM
Where's the choice for neither? I think about half the people overrate him and half underrate him.
That was exactly what I was thinking hence the thread. I am wondering what the people of WSI think. Not the media.

kittle42
07-20-2008, 11:19 PM
Where's the choice for neither? I think about half the people overrate him and half underrate him.

Neither. He is a good motivator and does an excellent job taking pressure off his players as the face of the team. He is not a great game strategist. he gets the proper amount of credit and blame.

murnau5
07-20-2008, 11:32 PM
Ozzie has done an admirable job, particularly this yr. of setting the line-up. It's critical to create a bloc of hitters, and while Ozzie lucked into AJ, Crede, and Quentin at the beginning of the yr., all hitting alongside each other, he re-jiggered the line-up to get them more ABs and around JD. Now Paulie's hitting 6th and wouldn't be surprised to see him swapped w/ Crede soon. As for the pitchers, can't complain. They all have roles and have been quite successful. I don't know if it was written in stone in the preseason we would go Dotel, Linebrink, Jenks- and Ozzie stuck w/ it even after Dotel struggled initially...

Jim Shorts
07-20-2008, 11:43 PM
How many managers have won us a world series title?

His pass is pretty inclusive in my book.

And really, here's the thing...Ozzie has yet to realize a team built to how he would like to manage. Sure he's had a lot of talent, but he wants the 'small ball excelerators' and has not had a squad that could do those types of things on a regular basis.

so that said, given your poll, I'm going underrated.

Nellie_Fox
07-21-2008, 12:45 AM
Depends on who you ask, because you have to know how he's "rated" before you say whether that's under or over. I like him.

oeo
07-21-2008, 06:43 AM
I like Ozzie a lot but he occasionally makes moves I find questionable. But there's a reason (actually many reasons) why he's a manager and I'm not.

Every manager in the history of the game has made 'questionable' calls. You're only as good as your team.

Bucky F. Dent
07-21-2008, 07:20 AM
As between the two, I'd say underrated. I think he creates his own problems with some of the things he says, but he has managed a successful franchise over the past several years, and doesn't get sufficient credit for that, IMO, due at least in part to the problems he creates for himself.

ondafarm
07-21-2008, 08:34 AM
I'm not going to surprise anyone here; I voted over-rated.

Since Opening Day 2006, the White Sox have the second worst record in the ALCD. Kansas City has the worst. The White Sox have also sported the highest payroll in the division in two of the three years.

oeo
07-21-2008, 09:16 AM
I'm not going to surprise anyone here; I voted over-rated.

Since Opening Day 2006, the White Sox have the second worst record in the ALCD. Kansas City has the worst. The White Sox have also sported the highest payroll in the division in two of the three years.

At 12 games behind the Sox this year, the Indians are 1 game behind the Sox since Opening Day 2006.

What dumb reasoning, regardless. The Sox had an off year last year which are skewing those numbers.

ondafarm
07-21-2008, 09:21 AM
At 12 games behind the Sox this year, the Indians are 1 game behind the Sox since Opening Day 2006.

What dumb reasoning, regardless. The Sox had an off year last year which are skewing those numbers.

Actually, I have them as tied. Both at 217-204.

The Indians are having an off year this year which keeps the numbers relevant.

oeo
07-21-2008, 09:22 AM
Actually, I have them as tied. Both at 217-204.

The Indians are having an off year this year which keeps the numbers relevant.

You're right, they are tied. I missed the last game of 2006.

Off year for the Indians? They haven't consistently won since the 90s. Plus, the year isn't over. At this rate, the Sox will be a good 10-15 games better by the end of the year. Then those numbers are relevant to the Indians. The Tigers and Twins are a different story, however.

PopsBrechtel
07-21-2008, 09:27 AM
I vote for neither.

Ozzie will be Ozzie. I like the way he motivates his team.
Whatever works is fine with me.

ondafarm
07-21-2008, 09:29 AM
You're right, they are tied. I missed the last game of 2006.

Off year for the Indians? They haven't consistently won since the 90s. Plus, the year isn't over. At this rate, the Sox will be a good 10-15 games better by the end of the year. Then those numbers are relevant to the Indians. The Tigers and Twins are a different story, however.

When I punched up the numbers, I was surprised. I mean, talent-wise, I've thought the White Sox had a pretty good team for the last few years and the ALCD doesn't really feature another big market club (argeuments from Tigers fans, I know.)

oeo
07-21-2008, 09:32 AM
When I punched up the numbers, I was surprised. I mean, talent-wise, I've thought the White Sox had a pretty good team for the last few years and the ALCD doesn't really feature another big market club (argeuments from Tigers fans, I know.)

With the exception of last year, they have been a good team talent-wise. Your 'numbers' suck, quite frankly, because you're using one bad year to prove your point. And that point still doesn't tell us why Ozzie is overrated. Maybe they had the highest payroll in the division last year, but tell me the part of the team that was talented. Was it our dreadful outfield? The awful bullpen? Crap starting pitching (for most of the year)? Maybe it was our terrible infield?

The 2007 White Sox were just a bad team (and with the breakouts of guys like Logan, Masset, Danks, and Floyd, it appears to have been a transition year)...I don't care how high the payroll was.

zach23
07-21-2008, 09:32 AM
I'm not going to surprise anyone here; I voted over-rated.

Since Opening Day 2006, the White Sox have the second worst record in the ALCD. Kansas City has the worst. The White Sox have also sported the highest payroll in the division in two of the three years.

Since 2004 when Ozzie became manager, the Sox have the second best record in the division, with only six less wins than Minnesota.
But why bother to use all the numbers when you can just select those that make your hating valid.

Tragg
07-21-2008, 09:38 AM
Sure he's had a lot of talent, but he wants the 'small ball excelerators' and has not had a squad that could do those types of things on a regular basis.


That's exactly what he was trying to do with the personnel in 2007....he's the one who called Erstad a ".400 hitter" and quickly inserted him as the starter. He was then awed by the talent of Jerry Owens. The team that best characterized what he wants, was his worst yet. Thankfully, Williams took back control of the personnel.

I think Ozzie's weakness is evaluating talent and developing young hitters. This weakness could be shored up by finding the equivalent of a Coop on the offensive side.

I think his strategy's fine overall (despite the recent pitching hiccups). I think the team performs well overall.

oeo
07-21-2008, 09:43 AM
That's exactly what he was trying to do with the personnel in 2007....he's the one who called Erstad a ".400 hitter" and quickly inserted him as the starter. He was then awed by the talent of Jerry Owens. The team that best characterized what he wants, was his worst yet. Thankfully, Williams took back control of the personnel.

This is not true at all. Erstad was a last resort (wasn't signed until February, IIRC), and Owens likely wouldn't have gotten any playing time if the team wasn't so bad.

Kenny had a bad offseason in 06-07, mostly because guys were going at insane contracts.

Did Ozzie also put together that bullpen?

I think Ozzie's weakness is evaluating talent and developing young hitters. This weakness could be shored up by finding the equivalent of a Coop on the offensive side.

Evaluating talent and developing hitters is not the job of a major league manager. If that's his only weakness, then he's the best in the game right now.

ondafarm
07-21-2008, 09:51 AM
Since 2004 when Ozzie became manager, the Sox have the second best record in the division, with only six less wins than Minnesota.
But why bother to use all the numbers when you can just select those that make your hating valid.


I don't hate Ozzie; I don't love him either. I just don't think he's a very good manager. I had teammates like him and they were fun to be around. But when you measure his results it's pretty clear, he's overrated, which is the topic of the thread.

If you think my comments in the losing ugly thread are evidence that I hate him, you are mistaken. His bad decision changed the nature of yesterday's game and made it a very difficult game to win. A good manager puts his team in situations where they can win more often than lose. Ozzie didn't do that.

ondafarm
07-21-2008, 09:54 AM
Evaluating talent and developing hitters is not the job of a major league manager. If that's his only weakness, then he's the best in the game right now.

Totally disagree with that.

Unless you are the Yankee$ who can afford high-paid guys at every position, you have to go bargain somewhere and the way the CBA works, bargain means talent you develop in your organization. You'd better be able to develop young guys to fill those roles.

The manager evaluates talent every day when he makes out the lineup card.

ondafarm
07-21-2008, 09:57 AM
With the exception of last year, they have been a good team talent-wise. Your 'numbers' suck, quite frankly, because you're using one bad year to prove your point. . .

And you are using one good year (2005) to dispute that point.

Ozzie was just what the team needed in 2005. His contrast from Jerry Manuel worked very well and produced obvious results.

But he's overstayed his welcome in my book. I wish he had retired after the parade.

oeo
07-21-2008, 10:08 AM
And you are using one good year (2005) to dispute that point.

No, I'm using his entire managerial career.

Ozzie was just what the team needed in 2005. His contrast from Jerry Manuel worked very well and produced obvious results.

But he's overstayed his welcome in my book. I wish he had retired after the parade.

Cool. I'm glad your book is not the same as the White Sox, because Ozzie should be here for a very long time. He's still what the organization needs...both him and Kenny. Two outspoken guys that are getting the White Sox brand out there, after it's been buried for decades.

oeo
07-21-2008, 10:10 AM
Totally disagree with that.

Unless you are the Yankee$ who can afford high-paid guys at every position, you have to go bargain somewhere and the way the CBA works, bargain means talent you develop in your organization. You'd better be able to develop young guys to fill those roles.

Which is not the job of the manager, but the job of the farm system.

The manager evaluates talent every day when he makes out the lineup card.

Yeah, pick the best at each position and put them out there. When evaluating talent was mentioned, I'm thinking more from the General Manager's standpoint. The GM gives you the players, you just have to stick them in the lineup.

ondafarm
07-21-2008, 10:48 AM
Which is not the job of the manager, but the job of the farm system.



Yeah, pick the best at each position and put them out there. When evaluating talent was mentioned, I'm thinking more from the General Manager's standpoint. The GM gives you the players, you just have to stick them in the lineup.


I guarentee a player's development does not end when they finally reach the major leagues. Although, the major league manager's job should be more of a finishing the process than shaping it.

I can certainly see your second point, the GM certainly has a big job of evaluating talent. I hope you can see mine that the field manager also has a finer job of day to day evaluation of talent. Who has the best matchups, who needs a rest, who provides good defense, etc. Both sides are valid.

ondafarm
07-21-2008, 11:10 AM
No, I'm using his entire managerial career. . .

So you are happy that he's managed only one playoff appearance in five years of his entire career? Everyone in the division, except KC has done as well or better.

His .536 winning pct in the regular season exceeds only Trey Hillman (of KC) and Eric Wedge (.509) among the current ALCD managers. Both Ron Gardenhire at (.551) and Jim Leyland (.565) far exceed Ozzie's record.

spiffie
07-21-2008, 11:27 AM
So you are happy that he's managed only one playoff appearance in five years of his entire career? Everyone in the division, except KC has done as well or better.

His .536 winning pct in the regular season exceeds only Trey Hillman (of KC) and Eric Wedge (.509) among the current ALCD managers. Both Ron Gardenhire at (.551) and Jim Leyland (.565) far exceed Ozzie's record.
Your numbers seem off. Leyland's career regular season winning percentage is a robust .496. With Detroit it is .550.

Jim Shorts
07-21-2008, 11:31 AM
So you are happy that he's managed only one playoff appearance in five years of his entire career? Everyone in the division, except KC has done as well or better.

His .536 winning pct in the regular season exceeds only Trey Hillman (of KC) and Eric Wedge (.509) among the current ALCD managers. Both Ron Gardenhire at (.551) and Jim Leyland (.565) far exceed Ozzie's record.

How many rings do those guys have while in their current positions?

guillen4life13
07-21-2008, 11:33 AM
So you are happy that he's managed only one playoff appearance in five years of his entire career? Everyone in the division, except KC has done as well or better.

His .536 winning pct in the regular season exceeds only Trey Hillman (of KC) and Eric Wedge (.509) among the current ALCD managers. Both Ron Gardenhire at (.551) and Jim Leyland (.565) far exceed Ozzie's record.

So out of curiosity, who would you have take over the Sox if Ozzie were to get fired? Who would fit the team or really jump start it (like Ozzie jump started the team after Manuel)?

I sometimes think he has overstayed his welcome but I can't argue with the team being in first place right now, and the reason the margin isn't greater is due to the offense's horrible start. Swisher, Konerko, Thome, Uribe and even Cabrera had really bad starts. There were so many games that the offense should have been able to win that they played horrible and gave the Sox pitchers the loss or ND. Look at John Danks' W-L record for evidence.

I can't necessarily blame that on Ozzie. I'll admit that I do believe Ron Gardenhire is a better manager. But frankly I think Gardenhire is the best manager in the majors for how much he's been able to get out of the clubs he's been given. The Twins, despite Carl Pohlad, have a very impressive organization that I've been hoping the Sox would try and emulate for a while... minus the low payroll. I keep thinking that if the Twins had the type of payroll the Sox have nowadays, they would be going to the World Series on a regular basis.

guillen4life13
07-21-2008, 11:34 AM
How many rings do those guys have while in their current positions?

Trent Dilfer has a ring too. Doesn't mean I'd take him over Dan Marino or Jim Kelly.

ondafarm
07-21-2008, 11:43 AM
Your numbers seem off. Leyland's career regular season winning percentage is a robust .496. With Detroit it is .550.

I have Leyland with Detroit as 183-141. That's .5648 according to my calculator. Leyland. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Leyland)

Actually, Wiki listed him at 199-159 and .570 currently.

ondafarm
07-21-2008, 11:46 AM
How many rings do those guys have while in their current positions?

As I said above and on multiple occasions, Ozzie was just what the White Sox needed when he took over. He was great for the 2005 White Sox. I question how great he is for the 2008 White Sox.

doublem23
07-21-2008, 11:51 AM
As I said above and on multiple occasions, Ozzie was just what the White Sox needed when he took over. He was great for the 2005 White Sox. I question how great he is for the 2008 White Sox.

91 days in first place = obvious fluke

God forbid a guy get his credit when it's due. :rolleyes:

Tragg
07-21-2008, 11:54 AM
This is not true at all. Erstad was a last resort (wasn't signed until February, IIRC), and Owens likely wouldn't have gotten any playing time if the team wasn't so bad.

Kenny had a bad offseason in 06-07, mostly because guys were going at insane contracts.

Did Ozzie also put together that bullpen?



Evaluating talent and developing hitters is not the job of a major league manager. If that's his only weakness, then he's the best in the game right now. The 2007 offense was the worst in baseball. Williams didn't sign Erstad to be the starter, I agree....but Ozzie loved Erstad. Ozzie played Erstad early and often. Not only that, Guillen DEMOTED Iguchi from 2nd to 8th in the lineup at the beginning of the season to make room for Erstad. Guillen did call him his .400 hitter; and even when the season was lost, Guillen would give him a prime spot in the lineup. Last choice, my eye.
Talent evaluation is part of his job. Who selects who starts then? Ozzie had Owens pencilled in. Quentin needed AAA time. Nice, huh? Injuries saved us from that debacle.
Handling young players IS part of his job. Not every young player comes into the majors hitting .300 like Ozzie wants.
We've been through this before....Ozzie prefers the guaranteed mediocre from the veteran to dealing with a talented, but struggling, young player. Ozzie wasn't budging Uribe no matter how bad he was. Remeber Ramirez' slow start? He sat for 6 weeks. Thank GOODNESS Quentin hit early.

Again, though, I think Ozzie could shore up this weakness by strengthening his coaching staff.

Johnny Mostil
07-21-2008, 12:02 PM
I have Leyland with Detroit as 183-141. That's .5648 according to my calculator. Leyland. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Leyland)

Actually, Wiki listed him at 199-159 and .570 currently.

baseball-reference.com has Leyland (http://www.baseball-reference.com/managers/leylaji99.shtml) as .550 at Detroit, .496 lifetime.

guillen4life13
07-21-2008, 12:03 PM
The 2007 offense was the worst in baseball. Williams didn't sign Erstad to be the starter, I agree....but Ozzie loved Erstad. Ozzie played Erstad early and often. Not only that, Guillen DEMOTED Iguchi from 2nd to 8th in the lineup at the beginning of the season to make room for Erstad. Guillen did call him his .400 hitter; and even when the season was lost, Guillen would give him a prime spot in the lineup. Last choice, my eye.
Talent evaluation is part of his job. Who selects who starts then? Ozzie had Owens pencilled in. Quentin needed AAA time. Nice, huh? Injuries saved us from that debacle.
Handling young players IS part of his job. Not every young player comes into the majors hitting .300 like Ozzie wants.
We've been through this before....Ozzie prefers the guaranteed mediocre from the veteran to dealing with a talented, but struggling, young player. Ozzie wasn't budging Uribe no matter how bad he was. Remeber Ramirez' slow start? He sat for 6 weeks. Thank GOODNESS Quentin hit early.

Again, though, I think Ozzie could shore up this weakness by strengthening his coaching staff.

Add Erstad/Mackowiak over Anderson into that.

Uh oh...:redneck

ondafarm
07-21-2008, 12:13 PM
baseball-reference.com has Leyland (http://www.baseball-reference.com/managers/leylaji99.shtml) as .550 at Detroit, .496 lifetime.

Allright, I'm going to say I don't care. Leyland at .550 with Detroit is a higher number than Ozzie at .536 with the Sox.

Nellie_Fox
07-22-2008, 12:45 AM
So out of curiosity, who would you have take over the Sox if Ozzie were to get fired?Onda didn't answer your question, but I seem to remember him being a big Razor Shines fan.

ondafarm
07-22-2008, 08:01 AM
Onda didn't answer your question, but I seem to remember him being a big Razor Shines fan.

Ondafarm didn't answer your question because he didn't see it. I sort of work for a living and when I'm at work I try not to sped all my time online.

Whom I think would be good depends on what criteria we are using. Who is available right now? That's a hard one, I don't know who is available at this instant. Razor Shines is I believe doing a minor league job for the Phillies. I'd love to see Trey Hillman but considering he's managing the Royals right now, I doubt he'd do it. I met Trey during his early days in Japan and know he's a smart, decent guy who loves baseball and cares about it being played right. I think the Royals have improved considerably under his leadership.

I don't think Ozzie is going anywhere during this season, unless he blathers something unusually bad.

On the other hand, if the Sox don't right their ship and at least perform respectably for the remainder of this season, I wouldn't call him a lock for next year. The seeds of his removal are already in place, the question is wil they be watered and grow.

doublem23
07-22-2008, 08:12 AM
On the other hand, if the Sox don't right their ship and at least perform respectably for the remainder of this season, I wouldn't call him a lock for next year. The seeds of his removal are already in place, the question is wil they be watered and grow.

:rolleyes:

You can keep pretending like you have some sort of "insider info" or whatever, but as long as Williams is running the ship, Ozzie's job is safe.

ondafarm
07-22-2008, 10:22 AM
:rolleyes:

You can keep pretending like you have some sort of "insider info" or whatever, but as long as Williams is running the ship, Ozzie's job is safe.

There is only one vote in the White Sox organization that counts. It's not yours, not mine, not Kenny Williams.

doublem23
07-22-2008, 10:26 AM
There is only one vote in the White Sox organization that counts. It's not yours, not mine, not Kenny Williams.

Hey, I understand that but if you think the Sox are canning the manager that's lead them through the greatest 5 year stretch this franchise has seen since the 1910's, I think you're crazy.

TomBradley72
07-22-2008, 10:46 AM
I think Ozzie is a very solid manager and probably as good as any we've had since I became a fan in 1971. I think he does a good job of managing the marathon season..he seldom wears a player out by not getting him the right amount of rest, so they are fresh for the final push. I think he does a good job of managing the starting rotation and the bullpen. He maintains control of the clubhouse.

Tactically he has his "misses"...but all managers do. The CF situation and how he's handled the cards he's been dealt there has not been a bright spot.
Sometimes he's TOO patient with players (Erstad, Mackowiak) and sometimes TOO impatient (Anderson)...but that's the challenging balance of management/leadership. He's not perfect...but overall I'd say he's more underrated as a manager than overrated. And some guys are the right fit for specific teams. For alot of reasons, he's a very good fit for the White Sox organization. There's no way I'd want any of the alternatives out in the market over Ozzie as our manager. Razor Shines and Trey Hillman (who I agree has made a very postive impact in KC) do not belong in Chicago managing the White Sox.

ondafarm
07-22-2008, 11:11 AM
I think Ozzie is a very solid manager and probably as good as any we've had since I became a fan in 1971. I think he does a good job of managing the marathon season..he seldom wears a player out by not getting him the right amount of rest, so they are fresh for the final push. I think he does a good job of managing the starting rotation and the bullpen. He maintains control of the clubhouse.

Tactically he has his "misses"...but all managers do. The CF situation and how he's handled the cards he's been dealt there has not been a bright spot.
Sometimes he's TOO patient with players (Erstad, Mackowiak) and sometimes TOO impatient (Anderson)...but that's the challenging balance of management/leadership. He's not perfect...but overall I'd say he's more underrated as a manager than overrated. And some guys are the right fit for specific teams. For alot of reasons, he's a very good fit for the White Sox organization. There's no way I'd want any of the alternatives out in the market over Ozzie as our manager. Razor Shines and Trey Hillman (who I agree has made a very postive impact in KC) do not belong in Chicago managing the White Sox.

Whew, at least we agree on Trey.

All kidding aside, and I'd like to question you on the prowess of Chuck Tanner as the White Sox manager in the early 70s. Since the 1980s I'd agree with your statement.

I'm actually glad you acknowledge that Ozzie has strentghs and weaknesses. I agree.

His strengths really came to a fore in 2005. He was great then. But every team has always evolving needs.

I agree that one of Ozzie's strengths is running the team in marathon mode, not sprint. If the White Sox make the playoffs this year, then I think they will do well.

I don't always like his "getaway day lineups" and I don't think I'm unique in that criticism.

As a former infielder, I don't think Ozzie really understands outfield defense. On the other hand, I think his handling of the middle infielders has been masterful.

I think we can disagree on the pitching staff.

I didn't mean to limit myself to just those two guys as options. Especially at the end of the season, there is a significant amount of 'rotation' among managers.

Of everybody alive, I guess my choice of managers would be Tommy Lasorda or Sparky Anderson. Since neither would probably take the gig, my next category would be everybody active. I'd love to have Ron Gardenhire, Mike Scioscia or Joe Torre. Again, I doubt any would take the post.

Mohoney
07-22-2008, 11:17 AM
I voted underrated, simply because I think his volatility is a larger asset than it is a detriment.

I think that he does a pretty good job of creating a circus around himself to let his players relax a bit. Ozzie's always the story when it comes to the White Sox.

That being said, I wish he would straight steal or bunt a runner from 1st to 2nd a little more often, and I wish he wasn't so beholden to lefty-lefty and righty-righty matchups when he utilizes his bullpen.

TomBradley72
07-22-2008, 11:21 AM
Whew, at least we agree on Trey.

All kidding aside, and I'd like to question you on the prowess of Chuck Tanner as the White Sox manager in the early 70s. Since the 1980s I'd agree with your statement.



Tanner was my runner up. I have huge respect for him and what he accomplished with that team...especially in 1971-72. Difficult to assess the end of his tenure when he didn't have much to work with (1973 they were decimated my injuries, 74-75...never had a chance).

ondafarm
07-22-2008, 11:32 AM
Tanner was my runner up. I have huge respect for him and what he accomplished with that team...especially in 1971-72. Difficult to assess the end of his tenure when he didn't have much to work with (1973 they were decimated my injuries, 74-75...never had a chance).

Fair enough. I never really was able to watch him in action with a critical eye (I was too young.) What I do recall was him doing some miraculous things with smoke and mirrors.

I recall an interview he did pre-game with Jack Brickhouse(?) Pirates-Cubs. I think it was a rain-delay or something like that. Jack asked him what he thought of the Cubs and Tanner joked that Joey Amalfitano needed to change his signs. Jack said "Really?" and Tanner said "Yeah. His sign for steal is this . . " demonstrated it. "His sign for bunt is this . . . " Demonstrated it. etc. etc.

Brickhouse looked totally shocked.

I thought, how cocky that was, not only telling on-air the opposition that you had their signs, but also being confident enough that when they inevitably changed them, you'd be able to pick those off as well.

Adele_H
07-23-2008, 12:15 AM
Is OZZIE overated or underated? .


Diplomatically speaking:

I've always viewed Greasy McTourette's as a team mascot, a catalyst of attention, controversy, both of local and national variety.

As a manager-tactician? Highly overrated. These days, he seems to be more preoccupied with more important managerial tasks like sticking needles in CJ Wilson voodoo doll and dreaming of bean-ball wars with last place team.

As a teacher? (As we had ample opportunity to witness on this homestand replete with more awful "fundamentals"), I don't think so.


Gimme Senile Lou, Sciossa, Gardy in his place any day.

jabrch
07-23-2008, 12:25 AM
On the other hand, if the Sox don't right their ship and at least perform respectably for the remainder of this season,


Correct me if I am wrong...but we are in first place, have one of the top offenses in the AL in terms of runs scored, one of the best pitching staffs in baseball using any measure, and have seen great development from our young players this year.

What about the ship needs to be righted?

Nellie_Fox
07-23-2008, 01:05 AM
Correct me if I am wrong...but we are in first place, have one of the top offenses in the AL in terms of runs scored, one of the best pitching staffs in baseball using any measure, and have seen great development from our young players this year.

What about the ship needs to be righted?Don't interrupt Onda's Ozzie hatred. In his world, the Sox are ten games out and sinking fast.

ondafarm
07-23-2008, 07:52 AM
Don't interrupt Onda's Ozzie hatred. In his world, the Sox are ten games out and sinking fast.

And in your they are the best team in the history of baseball.

ondafarm
07-23-2008, 07:55 AM
I voted underrated, simply because I think his volatility is a larger asset than it is a detriment.

I think that he does a pretty good job of creating a circus around himself to let his players relax a bit. Ozzie's always the story when it comes to the White Sox.

That being said, I wish he would straight steal or bunt a runner from 1st to 2nd a little more often, and I wish he wasn't so beholden to lefty-lefty and righty-righty matchups when he utilizes his bullpen.

A very solid post which I agree with. Keep in mind, I started the "Ozzie has been hired" thread and it had a distinctly positive tone. He has aspects which are great for the team.

peelwonder
07-23-2008, 10:37 AM
:threadsucks

kitekrazy
07-23-2008, 11:36 AM
:threadsucks

Amen. He's still a young manager and sometimes it's shows.

Nellie_Fox
07-24-2008, 01:27 AM
And in your they are the best team in the history of baseball.Please point to a single post I've made that supports that. Your post indicated that the Sox needed to "right the ship" when they're in first place.

TornLabrum
07-24-2008, 07:42 AM
Please point to a single post I've made that supports that. Your post indicated that the Sox needed to "right the ship" when they're in first place.

I'm sure onda was unhappy in '83 when the Sox won by 20 games. (I'm talking about before the ALCS here.)

ondafarm
07-24-2008, 07:49 AM
Please point to a single post I've made that supports that. Your post indicated that the Sox needed to "right the ship" when they're in first place.

Please point to a single post where I've employed that phrase.

The Sox could have a few more wins if they had a better manager. I have pointed out in multiple games a poor decision that has been made by Ozzie which cost the White Sox the game.

The Arizona Diamondbacks (50-51) are in first place in their division. Do you think they could have a few more wins?

Is first place good enough? First place while throwing away several wins is still subject to criticism.

With the talent they have I believe the White Sox should be the best team in the AL. You can squander wins in first place, last place or any place in between.

ondafarm
07-24-2008, 07:50 AM
I'm sure onda was unhappy in '83 when the Sox won by 20 games. (I'm talking about before the ALCS here.)

Your inability to read brings new meaning to the term, illiterate.

asindc
07-24-2008, 08:44 AM
Underrated. Shrewd Sox observers know that Ozzie's tirades are calculated, not the result of him losing control. Most, if not all, Sox players understand this and generally respond positively to them. I think it's a masterful strategy, especially in 2005 when we had the pressure of 88 years to deal with.

Tactically, there are better managers out there. But even some of them would not be a good fit for the Sox. Look at Jerry Manual, for instance. Not saying he's a good tactician, but he is obviously a better fit for the current Mets team than he was in his last 2-3 years here. It's not just X's and O's, it's about leadership as well. Ozzie knows this franchise better than any other credible managerial candidate, which should not be overlooked.

I'm glad he's still here.

rocky biddle
07-24-2008, 08:56 AM
Please point to a single post where I've employed that phrase.

The Sox could have a few more wins if they had a better manager. I have pointed out in multiple games a poor decision that has been made by Ozzie which cost the White Sox the game.

The Arizona Diamondbacks (50-51) are in first place in their division. Do you think they could have a few more wins?

Is first place good enough? First place while throwing away several wins is still subject to criticism.

With the talent they have I believe the White Sox should be the best team in the AL. You can squander wins in first place, last place or any place in between.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1971062&postcount=40

First sentence of your last paragraph.

No offense, but you're like a broken record. If I wanted to read irrational Ozzie hatred, I'd buy a Scum-Times.

chisoxmike
07-24-2008, 09:47 AM
The media underrates him. The fans overrate him.

I think he's the perfect guy for the Sox.

Heffalump
07-24-2008, 10:19 AM
So out of curiosity, who would you have take over the Sox if Ozzie were to get fired? Who would fit the team or really jump start it (like Ozzie jump started the team after Manuel)?

I sometimes think he has overstayed his welcome but I can't argue with the team being in first place right now, and the reason the margin isn't greater is due to the offense's horrible start. Swisher, Konerko, Thome, Uribe and even Cabrera had really bad starts. There were so many games that the offense should have been able to win that they played horrible and gave the Sox pitchers the loss or ND. Look at John Danks' W-L record for evidence.

I can't necessarily blame that on Ozzie. I'll admit that I do believe Ron Gardenhire is a better manager. But frankly I think Gardenhire is the best manager in the majors for how much he's been able to get out of the clubs he's been given. The Twins, despite Carl Pohlad, have a very impressive organization that I've been hoping the Sox would try and emulate for a while... minus the low payroll. I keep thinking that if the Twins had the type of payroll the Sox have nowadays, they would be going to the World Series on a regular basis.

I agree. Onda definitely has a great deal of baseball knowledge. However, he never mentions who would do a better job than Ozzie? People say Ozzie is a bad game manager, Ozzie is a bad talent evaluator, Ozzie is a loudmouth, yadda yadda yadda......But who would do a better job? Every manager has some weaknesses. I think Ozzie is the perfect guy to manage the Sox (for now anyway) Sometimes the grass is NOT greener on the other side.

jabrch
07-24-2008, 10:22 AM
It's easy to say you'd pull this guy or bench that guy because there's no way to prove what is right and wrong. Guillen's record as a manager is pretty good. He's not on my list of worries at this point in time.

ondafarm
07-24-2008, 10:23 AM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1971062&postcount=40

First sentence of your last paragraph.

No offense, but you're like a broken record. If I wanted to read irrational Ozzie hatred, I'd buy a Scum-Times.

Fine. I did say that.

If you think I hate Ozzie then I don't think you've read my postings very well.

jabrch
07-24-2008, 10:28 AM
Please point to a single post where I've employed that phrase.



Um...
On the other hand, if the Sox don't right their ship and at least perform respectably for the remainder of this season, I wouldn't call him a lock for next year. The seeds of his removal are already in place, the question is wil they be watered and grow.

ondafarm
07-24-2008, 10:49 AM
I agree. Onda definitely has a great deal of baseball knowledge. However, he never mentions who would do a better job than Ozzie? People say Ozzie is a bad game manager, Ozzie is a bad talent evaluator, Ozzie is a loudmouth, yadda yadda yadda......But who would do a better job? Every manager has some weaknesses. I think Ozzie is the perfect guy to manage the Sox (for now anyway) Sometimes the grass is NOT greener on the other side.

Thanks. I think we can agree to disagree on that last opinion. I thought Ozzie was a great choice when he was hired and was great for the 2005 White Sox. Sure easy to call that hindsight, but I did start the "Ozzie was hired thread", and it does have a positive tone.

This team (2008) is different than the 2005 squad. The relief corp is virtually entirely turned over. The starters have two (or one) of the same guy (JC is DL.) The starters at positions are four the same and five different. That squad was mostly considered 'has beens' or really 'never was' guys and a lot of unproven performers. This team has two guys with rings from elsewhere and of course, still the rings from 2005.

Teams change. That's a fact of life. I never thought Ozzie was a great game manager or a great fundamental skills manager. In 2005, the team needed a great motivational leader. They had it.

In 2008, I think the Sox have greater need of a tactical (game) manager and less of a motivational one. And honestly, I think the Sox have gotten sloppy on the fundamental skills of baseball. Examples abound if you want them. The 2008 or more importantly, the 2009 White Sox need a teacher of unquestionable authority who forces everybody to do all the stupid little drills which resharpen fundamental skills. They need a better tactical manager, not a players manager.

So you want me to name names. It's easier to describe the guy than pick a name from a hat. There are a bunch of guys who could fit my description. Most of the managers I know intimately are Japanese, and I don't think a Japanese manager would be good for the Sox.

Heffalump
07-24-2008, 10:51 AM
Thanks. I think we can agree to disagree on that last opinion. I thought Ozzie was a great choice when he was hired and was great for the 2005 White Sox. Sure easy to call that hindsight, but I did start the "Ozzie was hired thread", and it does have a positive tone.

This team (2008) is different than the 2005 squad. The relief corp is virtually entirely turned over. The starters have two (or one) of the same guy (JC is DL.) The starters at positions are four the same and five different. That squad was mostly considered 'has beens' or really 'never was' guys and a lot of unproven performers. This team has two guys with rings from elsewhere and of course, still the rings from 2005.

Teams change. That's a fact of life. I never thought Ozzie was a great game manager or a great fundamental skills manager. In 2005, the team needed a great motivational leader. They had it.

In 2008, I think the Sox have greater need of a tactical (game) manager and less of a motivational one. And honestly, I think the Sox have gotten sloppy on the fundamental skills of baseball. Examples abound if you want them. The 2008 or more importantly, the 2009 White Sox need a teacher of unquestionable authority who forces everybody to do all the stupid little drills which resharpen fundamental skills. They need a better tactical manager, not a players manager.

So you want me to name names. It's easier to describe the guy than pick a name from a hat. There are a bunch of guys who could fit my description. Most of the managers I know intimately are Japanese, and I don't think a Japanese manager would be good for the Sox.

No offense, but that sure is a long answer without actually answering the question.

ondafarm
07-24-2008, 10:58 AM
No offense, but that sure is a long answer without actually answering the question.

Fine, Sadaharu Oh. Currently managing the Fukuoka Softbank Hawks.

Heffalump
07-24-2008, 10:59 AM
Fine, Sadaharu Oh. Currently managing the Fukuoka Softbank Hawks.


Wow, I can't believe that you are serious. Yes, he is the all-time world home run king of Japan and a great manager over there. But really, the Sox batboy has more MLB experience.

Wow. Simply wow. You MUST be joking.

ondafarm
07-24-2008, 11:03 AM
Wow, I can't believe that you are serious. Yes, he is the all-time world home run king of Japan and a great manager over there. But really, the Sox batboy has more MLB experience.

Wow. Simply wow. You MUST be joking.

Do NOT get me started on the batboy.

ondafarm
07-24-2008, 11:27 AM
Wow, I can't believe that you are serious. Yes, he is the all-time world home run king of Japan and a great manager over there. But really, the Sox batboy has more MLB experience.

Wow. Simply wow. You MUST be joking.

Like Nostradamus says: "Didn't see that coming!"

Tadahito Iguchi would disagree with you.

Heffalump
07-24-2008, 11:38 AM
Like Nostradamus says: "Didn't see that coming!"

Tadahito Iguchi would disagree with you.

Okey dokey. If you really believe that Oh would be a better manager for the Sox than Ozzie, then unfortunately, I must recind my previous compliment on your baseball knowledge.

I still think you must be joking. Based on your posting history, you are too smart of a 'baseball guy' to believe that. I'll just chalk it up to you trying to joke your way out of a failed argument (or lack thereof).

ondafarm
07-24-2008, 11:56 AM
Okey dokey. If you really believe that Oh would be a better manager for the Sox than Ozzie, then unfortunately, I must recind my previous compliment on your baseball knowledge. . .

Ouch, now that hurt.

Heffalump
07-24-2008, 12:16 PM
Ouch, now that hurt.


I know, I know. my compliment meant so much to you.

hi im skot
07-24-2008, 01:17 PM
I think Ozzie is "rated."

TornLabrum
07-24-2008, 01:27 PM
Your inability to read brings new meaning to the term, illiterate.

Oh, I'm quite literate. I just don't happen to believe that because a person has actually played the game he actually knows anything about things like how a game should be managed.

BringBackBlkJack
07-24-2008, 01:38 PM
:popcorn:

Just imagine the theatrics if we weren't in 1st for the last 70 or so games straight...

ondafarm
07-25-2008, 03:02 PM
Oh, I'm quite literate. I just don't happen to believe that because a person has actually played the game he actually knows anything about things like how a game should be managed.

The former is a neccessary but not a sufficient condition for the latter, as I was reminded yesterday.