PDA

View Full Version : Guillen vs. Manuel, many similarities


soxinem1
09-21-2009, 08:17 PM
As Ozzie Guillen gets ready to wind down his sixth year as White Sox manager, which is the same number of seasons Jerry Manuel managed the team, I notice there are many repetitive similarities between them.

And the similarities are very striking. It seems like the same stories, issues, and circumstances had to be dealt with by both managers.

Both of them, for most of their tenures:

were out-of-the-box picks to get the job, as others were favored.

had personality issues with Frank Thomas.

experienced troubles with the CF position.

had teams with little speed.

used different lineups almost every game.

managed teams with questionable defense.

dealt with underachievers.

had to battle with the team lacking in fundamentals.

were given rosters with swing-for-the-fence hitters.

couldn't win on the West Coast.

needed many candidates to be their fifth starters.

Now many will want to give Ozzie a pass because of 2005, when everything fell together, but for all of his other years at the helm, Guillen has dealt with the same issues as Manuel.

So let's face the facts. This will now be four years in a row that a White Sox team resembled resembles the same teams Manuel managed, but JM got a lot of flack for. He hasn't been around in six seasons, but these persistent team characteristics still exist.

Is it the organization? GM? Ownership?

thomas35forever
09-21-2009, 08:24 PM
I'm not blaming anyone. Whatever happens happens. That's just the way it is.

russ99
09-21-2009, 08:28 PM
As Ozzie Guillen gets ready to wind down his sixth year as White Sox manager, which is the same number of seasons Jerry Manuel managed the team, I notice there are many repetitive similarities between them.

And the similarities are very striking. It seems like the same stories, issues, and circumstances had to be dealt with by both managers.

Both of them, for most of their tenures:

were out-of-the-box picks to get the job, as others were favored.

had personality issues with Frank Thomas.

experienced troubles with the CF position.

had teams with little speed.

used different lineups almost every game.

managed teams with questionable defense.

dealt with underachievers.

had to battle with the team lacking in fundamentals.

were given rosters with swing-for-the-fence hitters.

couldn't win on the West Coast.

needed many candidates to be their fifth starters.

Now many will want to give Ozzie a pass because of 2005, when everything fell together, but for all of his other years at the helm, Guillen has dealt with the same issues as Manuel.

So let's face the facts. This will now be four years in a row that a White Sox team resembled resembles the same teams Manuel managed, but JM got a lot of flack for. He hasn't been around in six seasons, but these persistent team characteristics still exist.

Is it the organization? GM? Ownership?

Manuel - 500-471, playoffs:0-3
Ozzie - 506-455, playoffs:13-4

I think the difference is all personality. Manuel was too quiet and didn't relate well with the players. Ozzie, as we all know is quite different, be that good or bad for the Sox.

And other than defense, lineups and fundamentals; all the things you listed were more the GM's responsibility than the managers'.

This year, the lapse in defense and fundamentals are primarily due to starting 2 rookies and a second-year player on the infield, 2 of which switched positions. And we all know how much Ozzie stresses those things in the spring. At some point it has to lay at the feet of the players who aren't executing.

The only thing you can gripe about Ozzie on a managerial level is the varied lineups (which IMO are due to him learning his chops in the NL) and the way he handles pitchers.

soxinem1
09-21-2009, 08:32 PM
Manuel - 500-471, playoffs:0-3
Ozzie - 506-455, playoffs:13-4

I think the difference is all personality. Manuel was too quiet and didn't relate well with the players. Ozzie, as we all know is quite different, be that good or bad for the Sox.

And other than defense, and fundamentals; all the things you listed were more the GM's responsibility than the managers'.

This year, the lapse in defense and fundamentals are primarily due to starting 2 rookies and a second-year player on the infield, 2 of which switched positions.

The only thing you can gripe about Ozzie on a managerial level is the varied lineups (which IMO are due to him learning his chops in the NL) and the way he handles pitchers.

What about 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2008?:smile:

russ99
09-21-2009, 08:35 PM
What about 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2008?:smile:

As I recall, Iguchi, Uribe, Crede and Cabrera were all quite good defensively...

I won't give him a total pass, but c'mon we have short memories around here.

soxinem1
09-21-2009, 08:39 PM
This was not meant to be a judging of the managers, it is more of a comparison of what they dealt with.

BTW, I forgot to note they both had hitting coach drama as well.....

Tragg
09-21-2009, 08:44 PM
The teams had a lot of similar traits - not that unusual as it is a product of an organization and a ballpark (better be able to hit homers if you play in the Cell).
As a manager, Guillen has a lot more energy and uses his roster.

Lip Man 1
09-21-2009, 10:31 PM
Jerry Manuel aka Manager Gandhi did not have the personality to inspire or motivate a group of highly paid athletes. Period.

His "act" has worn thin in New York too.

Guillen is light years ahead of him in terms of a passion for the game, his players, the organization and the bottom line, which is to win.

Lip

doublem23
09-21-2009, 10:41 PM
Jerry Manuel aka Manager Gandhi did not have the personality to inspire or motivate a group of highly paid athletes. Period.

His "act" has worn thin in New York too.

Guillen is light years ahead of him in terms of a passion for the game, his players, the organization and the bottom line, which is to win.

Lip

Yes, I'm sure it was his personality and lack of passion that cost him over 1/2 his Opening Day lineup to extended trips to the Disabled List. If he had more fire, nobody would have gotten hurt!!!

Nobody could have saved the Mets this year, name any old-timer "fiery" manager you want, that "act" would be getting run out of town, too.

ode to veeck
09-21-2009, 10:47 PM
Jerry Manuel aka Manager Gandhi did not have the personality to inspire or motivate a group of highly paid athletes. Period.

His "act" has worn thin in New York too.

Guillen is light years ahead of him in terms of a passion for the game, his players, the organization and the bottom line, which is to win.

Lip

thank you lip, you beat me to it, many light years ahead

Lip Man 1
09-21-2009, 10:58 PM
Double:

He had many of the pieces in place with few injuries in 2003 and urinated away a divisional title.

He is not a good manager in my opinion, sorry if you disagree with it.

Lip

doublem23
09-21-2009, 11:06 PM
Double:

He had many of the pieces in place with few injuries in 2003 and urinated away a divisional title.

He is not a good manager in my opinion, sorry if you disagree with it.

Lip

I'm not defending him or his managerial style, I was merely pointing out that putting this season in New York on his shoulders is pretty unfair.

Lip Man 1
09-21-2009, 11:11 PM
Double:

Point taken but also keep in mind what happened last season when the Mets blew the division title down the stretch to the Phillies. He was in charge of that one a la 2003.

Lip

doublem23
09-21-2009, 11:13 PM
Double:

Point taken but also keep in mind what happened last season when the Mets blew the division title down the stretch to the Phillies. He was in charge of that one a la 2003.

Lip

Well that probably happened because he's not a very good manager.

LITTLE NELL
09-22-2009, 05:34 AM
I'm curious what goes on during a game. Do you think Ozzie and his coaches are stressing the little things to win a ball game or do they just do that in spring training? For instance we are horrible getting runners home when they are in scoring position, is Ozzie telling the guys just get a base hit or are they up there swinging for the fences regardless of the situation? It seems to me since the 2nd half of 06 that we just can't seem to do the litle things to win games.
When do we ever hit and run, when was the last time we pulled off a squeeze play, most of our guys except for Pods, AJ and Beckham never heard of hitting to the opposite field. Give me the old Go-Go Sox of the 50s and 60s, they new how to win ball games with great pitching, great defense and timely hitting, having Al Lopez as manager did'nt hurt either.

DumpJerry
09-22-2009, 07:17 AM
OP:

Many of the factors you point out in your initial post could be said of every team in MLB. Those are not true "similarities," but issues which all baseball teams not named "Yankees" or "Red Sox" have to deal with year after year.

If you want to look for similarities in Ozzie and Manuel, you have to look at their managing style and personalities. At the point, the comparison falls apart. When the Sox are in the hunt, lineup changes Ozzie makes are in response to either injuries or specific pitchers they are facing. When the Sox were in the hunt, lineup changes Manuel made were in response to whether or not the prunes he ate for breakfast did their job.

Ozzie has become a cult of personality, Manuel has no personality. End of comparison.

dickallen15
09-22-2009, 07:19 AM
Double:

He had many of the pieces in place with few injuries in 2003 and urinated away a divisional title.

He is not a good manager in my opinion, sorry if you disagree with it.

Lip


He was pretty good in 2000. Did he just get stupid? C'mon Lip, Carl Everett in CF, Billy Koch closing and its all on Manuel?

wilburaga
09-22-2009, 10:21 AM
Guillen>Manuel>Bevington

W

Lip Man 1
09-22-2009, 11:12 AM
Dick:

The Sox had the talent to win in 2003. They had a two game lead with 18 games to go. Do the names Jose Paniagua or Neal Cotts ring a bell for you?

Did any manager ever say anywhere, "the first half of the season is for playing everybody...the second half is for winning."

Pale Hose George blew a gasket over that one and wrote a scathing column here at WSI over it if memory serves.

To answer your question, yes...it's on him. He was an imbecile.

And in the division series clinching game with Seattle Carlos Guillen CLEARLY stepped on the plate delivering the suicide squeeze. He should have been out. Manuel just sat there sleeping in the dugout. Look at the play yourself, I just did on my White Sox Memories DVD.

Lip

dickallen15
09-22-2009, 11:47 AM
Dick:

The Sox had the talent to win in 2003. They had a two game lead with 18 games to go. Do the names Jose Paniagua or Neal Cotts ring a bell for you?

Did any manager ever say anywhere, "the first half of the season is for playing everybody...the second half is for winning."

Pale Hose George blew a gasket over that one and wrote a scathing column here at WSI over it if memory serves.

To answer your question, yes...it's on him. He was an imbecile.

And in the division series clinching game with Seattle Carlos Guillen CLEARLY stepped on the plate delivering the suicide squeeze. He should have been out. Manuel just sat there sleeping in the dugout. Look at the play yourself, I just did on my White Sox Memories DVD.

Lip

Well the White Sox can't afford to lose the last few weeks and all their regualars are getting a rest. You can argue all you want about Manuel going out to argue a call, it won't change a call. The Sox had the talent to win in 2006 but came in 3rd. They still think they have the talent to win in 2009 but are 11 games under .500 vs. the rest of the AL. Manuel wasn't responsible for the personnel. That's the GM's job. Blaming JM and Paniagua for the Sox collapsing is nice, but its simply not true. The one game Paniagua pitched, the Sox won. Don't give me he gave up a couple of runs so Minnesota got momentum. That's just a theory from people who want to blame a manager for playing someone on his roster but never ever blaming the person responsible for putting him on a roster. If scoring runs gives you momentum, how did the Sox only score 1 run the last 2 games after exploding on Saturday?

wilburaga
09-22-2009, 12:12 PM
Well the White Sox can't afford to lose the last few weeks and all their regualars are getting a rest. You can argue all you want about Manuel going out to argue a call, it won't change a call. The Sox had the talent to win in 2006 but came in 3rd. They still think they have the talent to win in 2009 but are 11 games under .500 vs. the rest of the AL. Manuel wasn't responsible for the personnel. That's the GM's job. Blaming JM and Paniagua for the Sox collapsing is nice, but its simply not true. The one game Paniagua pitched, the Sox won. Don't give me he gave up a couple of runs so Minnesota got momentum. That's just a theory from people who want to blame a manager for playing someone on his roster but never ever blaming the person responsible for putting him on a roster. If scoring runs gives you momentum, how did the Sox only score 1 run the last 2 games after exploding on Saturday?

My issue with Manuel is that he had trouble going to his whip hand. Ozzie has won 4 out 5 postseason series. (Conveniently for my argument, I count the play-in game.) Manuel lost his only postseason appearance, and he and his team look moribund in the process.

I agree with you on the Paniagua issue, and the suicide squeeze, but Manuel's bumpng of Buehrle for Cotts in NYC was, IMHO, an egregious failure of leadership that deservedly cost him his job.

W

Zisk77
09-22-2009, 12:23 PM
Manuel (capt. hook) was terrible trusting his young pitchers. He would yank garland for example the first base runner after the 5th. Ozzie is great with instilling confidence in young pitchers by letting them try to get out of jams late as he did last night with Hudson. So pitchers aren't looking over their shoulders to see if they are getting yanked like they did with jerry.

Zisk77
09-22-2009, 12:29 PM
I'm curious what goes on during a game. Do you think Ozzie and his coaches are stressing the little things to win a ball game or do they just do that in spring training? For instance we are horrible getting runners home when they are in scoring position, is Ozzie telling the guys just get a base hit or are they up there swinging for the fences regardless of the situation? It seems to me since the 2nd half of 06 that we just can't seem to do the litle things to win games.
When do we ever hit and run, when was the last time we pulled off a squeeze play, most of our guys except for Pods, AJ and Beckham never heard of hitting to the opposite field. Give me the old Go-Go Sox of the 50s and 60s, they new how to win ball games with great pitching, great defense and timely hitting, having Al Lopez as manager did'nt hurt either.


i think its clear that Ozzie stresses to do the little things to win its just many of our players are poor at executing them. For example. I've have seen guys try to hit the ball to the right side with a guy on 2nd and nobody out. However they seem to foul off pitches or still "roll over" on off-speed pitches. its clear from their swings they are trying to go the other but fail. we have been MUCH better at sac bunting and hitting and running however, but this is due a lot to the new players that we now have that are giving this assignment.

sullythered
09-22-2009, 12:34 PM
Ozzie Guillen is a better manager than Jerry Manuel. There are many, many, many more differences between the two men and the two managers than there are similarities.

Saying "we had similarities like trouble in CF," makes no sense. That has more to do with the GM than anything else. It's like saying, "these managers are different because our starting rotation has been way way better since Ozzie has been here." Isn't that because the Mark Buehrle and John Danks are better than James Baldwin and Jim Parque?

soxinem1
09-22-2009, 12:48 PM
Manuel (capt. hook) was terrible trusting his young pitchers. He would yank garland for example the first base runner after the 5th. Ozzie is great with instilling confidence in young pitchers by letting them try to get out of jams late as he did last night with Hudson. So pitchers aren't looking over their shoulders to see if they are getting yanked like they did with jerry.

That is not totally accurate. Garland had WAY, WAY too many games where he would sail along and all of a sudden, within five minutes a 6-0 lead is a tie game. Plus, he was only 20 when he was first brought up.

Garland had consistent fifth and sixth inning issues when Manuel was his manager, and other than the first half of 2005, and the second half of 2006, it continued under Ozzie. There were no big increases in Garland's IP totals once the team changed managers. JM felt that Garland was immature and tried to help him and the team by eliminating the problem innings.

Garland averaged nearly six innings a start his last two years pitching under Manuel, the same as he did under Ozzie in 2007.

I remember fans griping about JM pulling Mike Sirotka too early as well. Manuel raised a good point that proved true. He said when Sirotka threw over 90 pitches, regardless of how many innings he threw, his next outing was almost guaranteed to be short. His popcorn arm gave out soon afterwards and he never made it back.

True, JM was no genious, but he had to deal with the hand he was dealt, just like any manager.

I didn't intend this post to be a grading session of Manuel and Guillen, but I should have expected it. While I agree 2003 was blown, it was the players who did it. Like Konerko taking half the year off, or KW giving Manuel no fifth starters in any year he managed the team. Like the All-Star game DH being your CF. It was a team effort.

Now I thought Manuel did a bone-headed move with starting Cotts against NYY, but just like Ozzie pitchiing to Ichiro in the 14th inning the other night, managers make bonehead moves. That White Sox-Yankees game did not cost them the division. It was games like the next night when they played mighty DET and lost that hurt them. Like the 2009 White Sox, that team played very poorly against weaker teams.

As far as Daniel Hudson is concerned, well, he only threw five innings last night and got yanked below 100 pitches. What was your point?

Zisk77
09-22-2009, 04:01 PM
That is not totally accurate. Garland had WAY, WAY too many games where he would sail along and all of a sudden, within five minutes a 6-0 lead is a tie game. Plus, he was only 20 when he was first brought up.

Garland had consistent fifth and sixth inning issues when Manuel was his manager, and other than the first half of 2005, and the second half of 2006, it continued under Ozzie. There were no big increases in Garland's IP totals once the team changed managers. JM felt that Garland was immature and tried to help him and the team by eliminating the problem innings.

Garland averaged nearly six innings a start his last two years pitching under Manuel, the same as he did under Ozzie in 2007.

I remember fans griping about JM pulling Mike Sirotka too early as well. Manuel raised a good point that proved true. He said when Sirotka threw over 90 pitches, regardless of how many innings he threw, his next outing was almost guaranteed to be short. His popcorn arm gave out soon afterwards and he never made it back.

True, JM was no genious, but he had to deal with the hand he was dealt, just like any manager.

I didn't intend this post to be a grading session of Manuel and Guillen, but I should have expected it. While I agree 2003 was blown, it was the players who did it. Like Konerko taking half the year off, or KW giving Manuel no fifth starters in any year he managed the team. Like the All-Star game DH being your CF. It was a team effort.

Now I thought Manuel did a bone-headed move with starting Cotts against NYY, but just like Ozzie pitchiing to Ichiro in the 14th inning the other night, managers make bonehead moves. That White Sox-Yankees game did not cost them the division. It was games like the next night when they played mighty DET and lost that hurt them. Like the 2009 White Sox, that team played very poorly against weaker teams.

As far as Daniel Hudson is concerned, well, he only threw five innings last night and got yanked below 100 pitches. What was your point?



My point was with Hudson was Ozzie went out to talk to him before the Cuddyer at Bat with his pitch count already high. he didn't yank him he left the kid in to try to get out of the jam and qualify for a win (5 innings needed) Unfortunatley he gave up a seeing eye single. Since he was only slated to go 5/6 innings max (He was just under 100 pitches and had been pitching in the bp for a bit) he didn't prematurely yank him which I witnessed many times with Garland. I understand your point with him in 2000 & 2001 when Jon was really young but he kept the pattern later and even if Jon had a penchant of going all Javy on us with 6-0 lead (as you say) he could have waited until Jon gave up more baserunners.

The innings pitched may be similar under Ozzie and Jerry but Ozzie let his pitchers get out of jams and tended to pull them based on pitch count. he Also gave his pitchers every opportunity to win but yanked them before they could get a loss. Players appreciate that. (I'm not sure that was clearly stated). Example, letting them pitch late into games into some trouble but not allowing them to face the go ahead run.

Jerry had a tendency to yank players at the first sign of trouble from the 5th inning on and depended greatly on the bullpen (which may have lead to collapses late in the year from overwork) True Ozzie's had better starters to work with by far, but I also think he is good at instilling confidence in them where they didn't have that under Jerry.

soxinem1
09-22-2009, 10:38 PM
My point was with Hudson was Ozzie went out to talk to him before the Cuddyer at Bat with his pitch count already high. he didn't yank him he left the kid in to try to get out of the jam and qualify for a win (5 innings needed) Unfortunatley he gave up a seeing eye single. Since he was only slated to go 5/6 innings max (He was just under 100 pitches and had been pitching in the bp for a bit) he didn't prematurely yank him which I witnessed many times with Garland. I understand your point with him in 2000 & 2001 when Jon was really young but he kept the pattern later and even if Jon had a penchant of going all Javy on us with 6-0 lead (as you say) he could have waited until Jon gave up more baserunners.

The innings pitched may be similar under Ozzie and Jerry but Ozzie let his pitchers get out of jams and tended to pull them based on pitch count. he Also gave his pitchers every opportunity to win but yanked them before they could get a loss. Players appreciate that. (I'm not sure that was clearly stated). Example, letting them pitch late into games into some trouble but not allowing them to face the go ahead run.

Jerry had a tendency to yank players at the first sign of trouble from the 5th inning on and depended greatly on the bullpen (which may have lead to collapses late in the year from overwork) True Ozzie's had better starters to work with by far, but I also think he is good at instilling confidence in them where they didn't have that under Jerry.

Manuel dealt with an immature Garland, who would lose it at the snap of a finger. It seemed whenever he would try to stretch him out, he let him down, not the other way around.

I remember a game against KC (I believe 2003) when Garland threw 14 pitches with a 6-0 lead and the game was tied. These types of games were all too common, but again, Garland's IP totals didn't jump by a whole lot with Ozzie versus Jerry.

But again, I never intended this thread to be a grading of the two, it was meant to note the same type of issues the team has experienced, other than 2005, since 1998.

oeo
09-23-2009, 01:42 PM
I'm curious what goes on during a game. Do you think Ozzie and his coaches are stressing the little things to win a ball game or do they just do that in spring training? For instance we are horrible getting runners home when they are in scoring position, is Ozzie telling the guys just get a base hit or are they up there swinging for the fences regardless of the situation? It seems to me since the 2nd half of 06 that we just can't seem to do the litle things to win games.

Of course it seems that way, because very few are hitting the ball, especially in the middle of the order.

When do we ever hit and run, when was the last time we pulled off a squeeze play, most of our guys except for Pods, AJ and Beckham never heard of hitting to the opposite field. Give me the old Go-Go Sox of the 50s and 60s, they new how to win ball games with great pitching, great defense and timely hitting, having Al Lopez as manager did'nt hurt either.

We hit and run, we just don't execute very well. Just last night the hit and run was put on, Getz grounded out. Throughout the year we've seen swing and misses which have resulted in CS, double plays because we hit it right at the defense, and so on. I also disagree with your statement about hitting to the opposite field. When we were hitting well in June and July, everyone was hitting opposite field. Dye was at his best when he was hitting it to right/right-center.

Everything is always so short-sighted around here. Whatever you've noticed lately is obviously what's been going on the entire year or two, three, four years.

LITTLE NELL
09-23-2009, 02:30 PM
Of course it seems that way, because very few are hitting the ball, especially in the middle of the order.



We hit and run, we just don't execute very well. Just last night the hit and run was put on, Getz grounded out. Throughout the year we've seen swing and misses which have resulted in CS, double plays because we hit it right at the defense, and so on. I also disagree with your statement about hitting to the opposite field. When we were hitting well in June and July, everyone was hitting opposite field. Dye was at his best when he was hitting it to right/right-center.

Everything is always so short-sighted around here. Whatever you've noticed lately is obviously what's been going on the entire year or two, three, four years.
The Sox are 2nd in the league in ERA so its plain to see that the situational hitting sucks (along with the defense). Plain and simple and not being shortsighted we have not done a good job of manufacturing runs since the first half of 2006.

Lip Man 1
09-23-2009, 04:53 PM
Nellie:

Agreed. Since that 19 inning win over Boston right before the 2006 All Star Break the hitting and manufacturing element of this team has vanished almost completely.

Lip

Medford Bobby
09-23-2009, 07:29 PM
Nellie:

Agreed. Since that 19 inning win over Boston right before the 2006 All Star Break the hitting and manufacturing element of this team has vanished almost completely.

Lip
Yea that game sure is the"DMZ" line between what ever had the Sox had in 2005 and early 2006 to the "malaise funk" of the present day.

Is it crummy team chemistry or overall poor "culture" of this team? The Twins have had a"culture" for many years to grind it out with whom ever comes out of their farm system. What is the Sox present "culture" today???:scratch:

soxinem1
09-23-2009, 08:37 PM
Nellie:

Agreed. Since that 19 inning win over Boston right before the 2006 All Star Break the hitting and manufacturing element of this team has vanished almost completely.

Lip

That is correct. Since Cliff Politte's last MLB win this team has been up and down, up and down, etc.

The team led the world in runs scored at the 2006 ASB, but they sure didn't manufacture anything in 2006. They just hit the **** out of the ball for three months. Pitching and defense were mediocre all year, but the slugging overshadowed those issues.

They haven't manufactured runs since the 2005 World Series.

Waysouthsider
09-23-2009, 09:10 PM
I like your point Medford B. If you play for the Angels or the Twins for example there seems to be a very clear mission and vision for the team. Our team also seems to have a vision, though....swinging for the fences no matter what the situation.

I wish Manuel had had more fire too, but I think Ozzie needs to use his head more and heart less....start thinking organizationally and build a culture that supports the goal of developing the necessary skills to meet specific situations rather than using the same skills for every situation. Seems like we are a "one size fits all" hitting team.

Defensively, I've been really bummed by the performance this season, but I agree that we shouldn't expect anything else given the youth of our infield compounded by the number of players working out of position.