PDA

View Full Version : Ozzie Guillen By The Numbers 2006 vs. 2005


SouthSide_HitMen
12-31-2006, 02:28 AM
I began flipping through the 2007 Bill James Handbook and one of the first places I go to is the manager evaluations. Several manager decisions are plotted out and some variances between 2005 and 2006 were interesting.

Positive Hitting Decisions:

Ozzie Guillen's 2006 lineups were more consistent than 2005 (he used 112 different lineups in 2005 and 87 in 2006). Bobby Cox (85), Mike Hargrove (84) & Charlie Manuel (81) were the only managers who had fewer variances in starting lineups. You can thank the relative good health of the 2006 team for this positive trend.

Ozzie inserted more positive platoon match-ups in 2006 (60% vs. 51% in 2005). Ozzie was among the top 1/3 in MLB in employing a positive platoon advantage.

Ozzie sacrificed and ran his team a lot less in 2006 vs. 2005. Stolen Base attempts dropped over 30% (141 vs. 204), sacrifice bunts decreased 10% (61 vs. 68) and hit and run attempts decreased by over 35% (83 vs. 148 in 2005).

Factors for these positive developments was Kenny Williams' bring in Thome which really improved our lineup (vs. Everett and Thomas circa 2004 & 2005) which allowed Ozzie to let his superior hitters take care of business. White Sox offense improved by 127 runs last season!!! (868 vs. 741) Kudos to Kenny Williams and Ozzie (as well as Thome, Dye and Konerko for kicking ass).

Positive Pitching Decisions:

Ozzie continued to be among the most patient managers as far as his pitching staff is concerned. Ozzie had his starters pitch longer than almost every other manager, yet he managed them properly (only 4 starts over 120 pitches). Ozzie continued his trend as having used the bullpen the least for a third consecutive year. Unfortunately, some of his reluctance for 2006 was due to their ineffectiveness, our team's Achilles heel.

Ozzie's strength, IMO, is his willingness to let starters work out of jams as well as to keep regulars fresh with a day off a week (with the famous (or infamous) "Ozzie Sunday Lineup"). Perhaps he can filter in the substitutions in a way which 3 or 4 starters would not be out on the same day but for whatever reason this seems to be Ozzie's preferred method.

I was somewhat apprehensive when Ozzie was hired due to his lack of experience but his performance over the past three seasons has showed he is one of the top managers in the game and is not afraid to stick to his convictions and to not worry about second guessers or playing it "by the book".

Here is to continued success for Ozzie and the Chicago White Sox in 2007 and beyond.

:gulp:

A. Cavatica
12-31-2006, 09:58 AM
Simply put, any analysis that says Ozzie managed well in 2006 is full of ****!

His tendency to leave starters in the game backfired big-time, especially with Vazquez.

He also played his bench players out of position far too often, especially with Mackowiak.

It seemed to me like Ozzie cost the team at least 5 games last year with his managing. Heck, Mackowiak in CF alone may have cost 5 games.

Corlose 15
12-31-2006, 10:20 AM
I always find it amusing whenever someone on here says person X cost the Sox 5 games last year. As if its something they can quantify. :smile:

Its like a default argument. The Sox should really dump Gene Honda he easily cost them 5 games last year with his announcing.

ondafarm
12-31-2006, 10:23 AM
Managers always get the rap but never the credit. As in, if the manager puts the right pinch hitter in at the right time, everybody praises the pinch hitter for getting the base clearing double. And yet, if the manager leaves the pitcher in too long, the manager, not the pitcher gets blamed.

Managers manage the team they are given and shape somewhat. Starting pitching was the Sox weakness in 2006. Not that it was bad, just not as good as it was in 2005. The offense struggled in tight games, but was more explosive.

I think Ozzie actually did a better job in 2006 than in 2005.

FarWestChicago
12-31-2006, 10:35 AM
Simply put, any analysis that says Ozzie managed well in 2006 is full of ****!Why? Because that is your opinion?

UserNameBlank
12-31-2006, 10:43 AM
Simply put, any analysis that says Ozzie managed well in 2006 is full of ****!

His tendency to leave starters in the game backfired big-time, especially with Vazquez.

He also played his bench players out of position far too often, especially with Mackowiak.

It seemed to me like Ozzie cost the team at least 5 games last year with his managing. Heck, Mackowiak in CF alone may have cost 5 games.

Ozzie was stuck between a rock and a hard place with Vazquez. Does he leave him in and risk getting hammered? Or does he go to the bullpen and let them take the hammering? As frustrated as I was with Javy last season, I cringed even more when Cotts or McCarthy came out, or when Riske came in with RISP.

Fault KW for not getting a backup CF. While Mackowiak played too much out there, and I think Anderson shouldn't have sat as often as he did, the fact is Brian looked lost at the plate much of the season and Ozzie's only other options were Ross Gload or Pablo Ozuna. Had Chris Young not gone in the Vazquez deal I doubt this would have happened (assuming Young wasn't injured when the Sox would have needed him).

If you think Mackowiak may have cost us 5 games, I'd hate to think how many games the front of the bullpen cost us. Man did they suck last year.

mcfish
12-31-2006, 11:16 AM
Thank you very much - a very interesting read. My favorite part: Ozzie continued his trend as having used the bullpen the least for a third consecutive year.
And yet I continue to read here that the bullpen is overworked and that we need the starters to go later into games to save the bullpen.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-31-2006, 11:30 AM
Thank you very much - a very interesting read. My favorite part: Originally Posted by SouthSide_HitMen http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1451733#post1451733)
Ozzie continued his trend as having used the bullpen the least for a third consecutive year.

And yet I continue to read here that the bullpen is overworked and that we need the starters to go later into games to save the bullpen.

That's because NO AMOUNT OF REASON will ever persuade the terminally-stupid that their cause is a lost one -- if not an ill-considered, wrong cause, too.

I could name names... but I won't.
:cool:

Vernam
12-31-2006, 11:31 AM
Thanks for abstracting those numbers, SSHM. In the tradition of latching onto stats that support what we already believe :wink:, here's what I found most significant: Ozzie sacrificed and ran his team a lot less in 2006 vs. 2005. Stolen Base attempts dropped over 30% (141 vs. 204), sacrifice bunts decreased 10% (61 vs. 68) and hit and run attempts decreased by over 35% (83 vs. 148 in 2005).

Factors for these positive developments was Kenny Williams' bring in Thome which really improved our lineup (vs. Everett and Thomas circa 2004 & 2005) which allowed Ozzie to let his superior hitters take care of business. White Sox offense improved by 127 runs last season!!! (868 vs. 741) Kudos to Kenny Williams and Ozzie (as well as Thome, Dye and Konerko for kicking ass).Maybe Ozzie did abandon small/smart ball due to the killer 3-4-5 combo. And maybe some top- and bottom-of-the-order guys also lost their willingness or ability to sacrifice the way they did in 2005. For whatever reason, the Sox were unable to win close games the way they consistently did the year before. In part, that definitely points back to the pitchers, who didn't take advantage of the increased offense. Games that we'd have won 2 to 1 or 3 to 2 in 2005, last year we lost 4 to 3 or 5 to 4. That old ability to scratch out a run late in the game would've come in handy in 2006 for all the games that were higher-scoring but still close. Even if Dye-Konerko-Thome (not to mention Crede) have another killer season, I think Ozzie's got to insist on better fundamentals from the rest of the order.

Vernam

DumpJerry
12-31-2006, 11:57 AM
Simply put, any analysis that says Ozzie managed well in 2006 is full of ****!
You're absolutely correct. Anyone managing his team to only 90 victories in a division which included the Twins and Tigers is pure crap. Not to mention playing interleague games against the top two 2005 NL teams.

UserNameBlank
12-31-2006, 12:14 PM
That's because NO AMOUNT OF REASON will ever persuade the terminally-stupid that their cause is a lost one -- if not an ill-considered, wrong cause, too.

I could name names... but I won't.
:cool:

Thank you very much - a very interesting read. My favorite part:
And yet I continue to read here that the bullpen is overworked and that we need the starters to go later into games to save the bullpen.

Jenks and Thornton did get a lot of work. The numbers back that up. MacDougal was used pretty frequently after the Sox got him as well. Also I wonder how many teams had a solid veteran 1-5 like we had? It would make more sense for our pen to have worked less in comparison to teams that had revolving doors at the end of their rotations.

Any amount of work for Neal Cotts, Cliff Politte, Jeff Nelson, Agustin Montero, Sean Tracey, Boone Logan, etc. in 2006 was too much work. The Sox needed a solid veteran 5/6th inning guy because Sox starters did not make it into or through the 7th as often as was planned. Of course, no one thought Politte and Cotts would be as terrible as they were so there was no real reason for an outcry, especially since people were pretty certain that McCarthy could handle the role.

I've been pining for Saloman Torres for quite a while and I think he would be a perfect fit for the Sox, especially now with so many young arms. If KW could get him cheap enough it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a solid veteran in such an important spot.

JB98
12-31-2006, 01:35 PM
Ozzie was stuck between a rock and a hard place with Vazquez. Does he leave him in and risk getting hammered? Or does he go to the bullpen and let them take the hammering? As frustrated as I was with Javy last season, I cringed even more when Cotts or McCarthy came out, or when Riske came in with RISP.

Fault KW for not getting a backup CF. While Mackowiak played too much out there, and I think Anderson shouldn't have sat as often as he did, the fact is Brian looked lost at the plate much of the season and Ozzie's only other options were Ross Gload or Pablo Ozuna. Had Chris Young not gone in the Vazquez deal I doubt this would have happened (assuming Young wasn't injured when the Sox would have needed him).

If you think Mackowiak may have cost us 5 games, I'd hate to think how many games the front of the bullpen cost us. Man did they suck last year.

There were many times last year where I was pleading with Ozzie to remove Vazquez. He finally would, and Cotts or McCarthy would come on and continue to give up runs. A manager is definitely screwed when he has to choose between a struggling starting pitcher and a horrible middle-relief corps.

I've long argued the CF situation was KW's fault. He overestimated Anderson's readiness, and he didn't give Ozzie a suitable backup plan. My disgust with Anderson's poor hitting has often gotten me labeled as a FORM, but the fact is neither Anderson nor Mackowiak was good enough to be the full-time starter in CF last year.

itsnotrequired
12-31-2006, 01:50 PM
There were many times last year where I was pleading with Ozzie to remove Vazquez. He finally would, and Cotts or McCarthy would come on and continue to give up runs. A manager is definitely screwed when he has to choose between a struggling starting pitcher and a horrible middle-relief corps.

Some games that Vazquez started toward the end of the season:

Sep 21: 7.1 IP, 3 ER. Sox lose 0-9.
Sep 16: 6.0 IP, 3 ER. Sox lose 4-7.
Sep 10: 7.0 IP, 2 ER. Sox lose 2-5.
Aug 31: 6.0 IP, 2 ER. Sox lose 3-5.
Aug 20: 7.0 IP, 4 ER. Sox lose 3-7.The bullpen hosed Vazquez at the end of the season. Those are decent outings and the Sox got no wins out of the games. The offense let him down in those games as well. The list above doesn't even include the Sep 5 game against Boston: 8.0 IP, 3 H, 1 R, 3 BB, 11 K...and the Sox lose 0-1. Unreal...

southside rocks
12-31-2006, 01:51 PM
... he is one of the top managers in the game and is not afraid to stick to his convictions and to not worry about second guessers or playing it "by the book".


In other words, he doesn't appreciate the value of all the brilliant insights that are available to him on internet boards! What a foolish man he is, to be sure. Why, on some boards, you can't throw a cuss-word without hitting a dozen people FAR more qualified than Ozzie to manage a major-league ballclub!

I'll have extra teal with that, please. :tongue:

SouthSide_HitMen
12-31-2006, 01:58 PM
Ozzie was stuck between a rock and a hard place with Vazquez. Does he leave him in and risk getting hammered? Or does he go to the bullpen and let them take the hammering? As frustrated as I was with Javy last season, I cringed even more when Cotts or McCarthy came out, or when Riske came in with RISP.

Fault KW for not getting a backup CF.

Ozzie was stuck with many "lesser of two evils" (i.e. Leave the starter out for one more hitter / out / inning or turn to the few bullpen pitchers who were effective in the bullpen and play very good glove / no bat Anderson or very good bat / no glove Mackowiak).

There were a couple of times during the course of a year I became frustrated with individual plays / games, but if you look at his season overall, I would think just about everyone would concede Ozzie did a good to very good job with the weaknesses he had on his roster (mainly several bad years from the bullpen).

Originally Posted by mcfish http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1451807#post1451807)
Thank you very much - a very interesting read. My favorite part: Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthSide_HitMen http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1451733#post1451733)
Ozzie continued his trend as having used the bullpen the least for a third consecutive year.

And yet I continue to read here that the bullpen is overworked and that we need the starters to go later into games to save the bullpen.

The book had an additional statistic tracking the number of times a manager used his relievers on consecutive days. Ozzie did this 83 times during the season which is on the low end of the scale (52 the least by Jimmy Leland and Dusty Baker the most with 165 times :o: ). There were only a handful of managers who used relievers less than 83 times (IIRC 8) and most by only a few consecutive apperances.

One may want to say he overworked his best relievers but they would be wrong on that assertion as well.

Bobby Jenks - 67 games, 69 2/3 IP (just over 2.5 IP per week - he pitched at a slightly higher IP / week rate in 2005).
Matt Thornton - 63 games, 54 innings (just over 2 IP per week, 3 less IP vs. 2005).
Mike MacDougal (White Sox numbers) - 25 games & innings over 10 weeks (2.5 per week).

Thanks for abstracting those numbers, SSHM.In the tradition of latching onto stats that support what we already believe :wink:, here's what I found most significant:(Less small ball, increased offense) .... Even if Dye-Konerko-Thome (not to mention Crede) have another killer season, I think Ozzie's got to insist on better fundamentals from the rest of the order.

Vernam

Ha! I agree with your post as well. Ozzie does need better execution during the times he does call upon the team to bunt / move the runners over (which I agree is important though usually later in close games), something every Sox fan can agree on. :wink:

Jenks and Thornton did get a lot of work. The numbers back that up. MacDougal was used pretty frequently after the Sox got him as well. Also I wonder how many teams had a solid veteran 1-5 like we had? It would make more sense for our pen to have worked less in comparison to teams that had revolving doors at the end of their rotations.

Any amount of work for Neal Cotts, Cliff Politte, Jeff Nelson, Agustin Montero, Sean Tracey, Boone Logan, etc. in 2006 was too much work. The Sox needed a solid veteran 5/6th inning guy because Sox starters did not make it into or through the 7th as often as was planned. Of course, no one thought Politte and Cotts would be as terrible as they were so there was no real reason for an outcry, especially since people were pretty certain that McCarthy could handle the role.

I've been pining for Saloman Torres for quite a while and I think he would be a perfect fit for the Sox, especially now with so many young arms. If KW could get him cheap enough it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a solid veteran in such an important spot.

1. Jenks, Thornton or MacDougal were not overworked (based on what I posted above).

2. We can all agree several bullpen arms were disappointing in 2006.

3. Everyone would like Torres, but I don't think Kenny will want to give up what the Pirates would want (i.e. overpay for him). Kenny made four trades over the past month to help the bullpen in 2007 (and address our starting pitching long term) overcome their lack of quality arms and I think the bullpen will be in great shape this season.

oeo
12-31-2006, 02:43 PM
Why? Because that is your opinion?

Because if the players don't perform, it's the manager's fault. :dunno:

It's really simple: the team didn't perform to expectations...that is why we only won 90 games last year.

drftnaway
12-31-2006, 04:37 PM
Managers always get the rap but never the credit. As in, if the manager puts the right pinch hitter in at the right time, everybody praises the pinch hitter for getting the base clearing double. And yet, if the manager leaves the pitcher in too long, the manager, not the pitcher gets blamed.

Managers manage the team they are given and shape somewhat. Starting pitching was the Sox weakness in 2006. Not that it was bad, just not as good as it was in 2005. The offense struggled in tight games, but was more explosive.

I think Ozzie actually did a better job in 2006 than in 2005.


It's funny, but no one ever brings this up if the manager you're talking about is Terry Bevinton.

champagne030
12-31-2006, 04:42 PM
Simply put, any analysis that says Ozzie managed well in 2006 is full of ****!

His tendency to leave starters in the game backfired big-time, especially with Vazquez.

He also played his bench players out of position far too often, especially with Mackowiak.

It seemed to me like Ozzie cost the team at least 5 games last year with his managing. Heck, Mackowiak in CF alone may have cost 5 games.

He cost a lot more than that!

JB98
12-31-2006, 05:40 PM
Some games that Vazquez started toward the end of the season:

Sep 21: 7.1 IP, 3 ER. Sox lose 0-9.
Sep 16: 6.0 IP, 3 ER. Sox lose 4-7.
Sep 10: 7.0 IP, 2 ER. Sox lose 2-5.
Aug 31: 6.0 IP, 2 ER. Sox lose 3-5.
Aug 20: 7.0 IP, 4 ER. Sox lose 3-7.The bullpen hosed Vazquez at the end of the season. Those are decent outings and the Sox got no wins out of the games. The offense let him down in those games as well. The list above doesn't even include the Sep 5 game against Boston: 8.0 IP, 3 H, 1 R, 3 BB, 11 K...and the Sox lose 0-1. Unreal...

No question, but I think if you look at the outings Vazquez had throughout June and July, you'll note that he let the team down repeatedly. He couldn't get out of the sixth inning, and that left Ozzie to bring in our middle-relief gas cans. I believe at one point Vazquez had only one quality start during a stretch of something like 12 outings. Yuck.

Hopefully, the way Vazquez ended the year is a sign of things to come, but I doubt it. Javy has been a tease his whole career: Stretches of greatness, stretches of misery and mediocre overall numbers.

JB98
12-31-2006, 05:44 PM
He cost a lot more than that!

Prove it.

itsnotrequired
12-31-2006, 05:53 PM
No question, but I think if you look at the outings Vazquez had throughout June and July, you'll note that he let the team down repeatedly. He couldn't get out of the sixth inning, and that left Ozzie to bring in our middle-relief gas cans. I believe at one point Vazquez had only one quality start during a stretch of something like 12 outings. Yuck.

Hopefully, the way Vazquez ended the year is a sign of things to come, but I doubt it. Javy has been a tease his whole career: Stretches of greatness, stretches of misery and mediocre overall numbers.

No doubt Vazquez acted the fool for a good chunk of the season but he finished very strong in his last couple months. He lowered his ERA over half a run from the beginning of August through the middle of September. That's hard to do considering how late in the season it was. He struck out nearly as many guys in his 5 September starts as his 12 July and August starts COMBINED. I mean, a guy pitches into the 8th with only three runs earned and the Sox lose NINE to nothing? A guy goes through 8 with only ONE run and the Sox can't win? Vazquez stepped it up at the end of the season but it seems like the rest of the team didn't want to help him out when he pitched.

JB98
12-31-2006, 07:30 PM
No doubt Vazquez acted the fool for a good chunk of the season but he finished very strong in his last couple months. He lowered his ERA over half a run from the beginning of August through the middle of September. That's hard to do considering how late in the season it was. He struck out nearly as many guys in his 5 September starts as his 12 July and August starts COMBINED. I mean, a guy pitches into the 8th with only three runs earned and the Sox lose NINE to nothing? A guy goes through 8 with only ONE run and the Sox can't win? Vazquez stepped it up at the end of the season but it seems like the rest of the team didn't want to help him out when he pitched.

I think we can agree that Vazquez sucked for an extended period of time, and we can also agree that he stepped it up significantly down the stretch and got screwed by teammates who didn't help him out.

The topic posed by this thread is whether Ozzie did a good job of handling Vazquez through the ups and downs. My response is, well, what is Ozzie supposed to do? We went through a stretch where he was damned either way. Stick with a struggling Vazquez, or gamble on a middle reliever like Neal Cotts? Neither was a good option, yet many blamed Ozzie for all those sixth-inning implosions.

Given how Vazquez finished the year, maybe those of us who were imploring Ozzie to remove Vazquez after five innings every time were wrong. By September, the idea of watching Neal Cotts pitch was about as appealing as putting a bullet in my head.

itsnotrequired
12-31-2006, 07:34 PM
I think we can agree that Vazquez sucked for an extended period of time, and we can also agree that he stepped it up significantly down the stretch and got screwed by teammates who didn't help him out.

The topic posed by this thread is whether Ozzie did a good job of handling Vazquez through the ups and downs. My response is, well, what is Ozzie supposed to do? We went through a stretch where he was damned either way. Stick with a struggling Vazquez, or gamble on a middle reliever like Neal Cotts? Neither was a good option, yet many blamed Ozzie for all those sixth-inning implosions.

Given how Vazquez finished the year, maybe those of us who were imploring Ozzie to remove Vazquez after five innings every time were wrong. By September, the idea of watching Neal Cotts pitch was about as appealing as putting a bullet in my head.

I totally agree. Ozzie was in between a rock and a hard place and did what he had to do. I was just trying to point out that Vazquez was pitching like a #2 (or even #1) pitcher and was getting totally hosed. 4 of his 5 starts in September featured 10+ strikeouts.

My hope is that he was just starting a Contreras-esque era of dominating pitching. Look for Vazques to have 12 wins at the All Star break.:cool:

SBSoxFan
12-31-2006, 08:00 PM
The topic posed by this thread is whether Ozzie did a good job of handling Vazquez through the ups and downs. My response is, well, what is Ozzie supposed to do?

The same thing he did with Garland in '04. Without getting into whether a win is a valuable statistic ( :?: ), it remains a fact that Garland has won 18 games each of the last two years. I believe the way Ozzie handled him in '04 greatly contributed to Jon's improvement the following years. I expect a similar improvement from Vazquez.

JB98
12-31-2006, 09:12 PM
I totally agree. Ozzie was in between a rock and a hard place and did what he had to do. I was just trying to point out that Vazquez was pitching like a #2 (or even #1) pitcher and was getting totally hosed. 4 of his 5 starts in September featured 10+ strikeouts.

My hope is that he was just starting a Contreras-esque era of dominating pitching. Look for Vazques to have 12 wins at the All Star break.:cool:

I sure hope all you Friends of Javy are correct. Until I see otherwise, though, I look at him as our No. 4 starter. If he wins 12-14 for the whole season, I'm happy.

It sure would be nice if he became the next Contreras.