PDA

View Full Version : Ranking the talent


thechico
08-27-2007, 06:19 PM
Alright, so a lot of what I post gets ignored or thrown back in my face. This one probably will too but I gotta ask. There's a lot of talk about keep vs. dump OG, KW, or GW.
Guys on the field have a lot of stats that we can use to rank them.
So what measurable criteria belongs for a manager?

# of hits/runs given when relief is called in?
# of saves when relief is called?
Change in players' BA when lineup changes are made?

These are the best I could come up with. What others can you come up with?

oeo
08-27-2007, 06:31 PM
Alright, so a lot of what I post gets ignored or thrown back in my face. This one probably will too but I gotta ask. There's a lot of talk about keep vs. dump OG, KW, or GW.
Guys on the field have a lot of stats that we can use to rank them.
So what measurable criteria belongs for a manager?

# of hits/runs given when relief is called in?
# of saves when relief is called?
Change in players' BA when lineup changes are made?

These are the best I could come up with. What others can you come up with?
I eagerly await your slams on me for asking.

You can't measure a manager's performance through statistics. The only way to really do it is by actually watching the game, and watching for what he does/doesn't do in certain situations.

A. Cavatica
08-27-2007, 09:06 PM
I think that if a team outperforms its talent level (2005 Sox) you have to give credit to the manager. If it underperforms its talent level (2006, 2007 Sox) you have to blame the manager. Ozzie's evaluation is complicated by the fact that he was in charge all along, but here's my take:

2005 - talent level very good - results excellent
2006 - talent level excellent - results good
2007 - talent level good - results terrible

The trend is against him, and I hold him chiefly responsible for the failure to repeat in 2006, because I saw him make the same mistakes to lose games in the same way, over and over again. (Mack in center is the poster child, but he left himself shorthanded in extra innings on several occasions.)

Daver
08-27-2007, 09:08 PM
I think that if a team outperforms its talent level (2005 Sox) you have to give credit to the manager. If it underperforms its talent level (2006, 2007 Sox) you have to blame the manager. Ozzie's evaluation is complicated by the fact that he was in charge all along, but here's my take:

2005 - talent level very good - results excellent
2006 - talent level excellent - results good
2007 - talent level good - results terrible

The trend is against him, and I hold him chiefly responsible for the failure to repeat in 2006, because I saw him make the same mistakes to lose games in the same way, over and over again. (Mack in center is the poster child, but he left himself shorthanded in extra innings on several occasions.)

You have to allow for injuries. The manager can't control that.

A. Cavatica
08-27-2007, 09:14 PM
You have to allow for injuries. The manager can't control that.

Which is why I rated this year's talent level good instead of very good. Injuries weren't a big factor last year.

Anyway, Daver, you've been no fan of Ozzie's since before he was hired...how do you rate him now?

Daver
08-27-2007, 09:30 PM
Which is why I rated this year's talent level good instead of very good. Injuries weren't a big factor last year.

Anyway, Daver, you've been no fan of Ozzie's since before he was hired...how do you rate him now?

The same as I did when they hired him. He proved me wrong, and I will admit that freely, but I still think he is a lousy manager. Did Ozzie win a world series, or did the players win it despite him?

WSox597
08-28-2007, 10:41 AM
or did the players win it despite him?

I agree with this. We were just talking about it at work today. Quite a few of us believed it was despite him being manager.

I wasn't impressed with his signing as manager, and felt it was another lowball signing, like Gandhi and Bevington.

I was pleasantly surprised when the Sox won it all, but I don't attribute that to Guillen. He gets outmanaged regularly, in my opinion. I'm not fond of his constantly playing percentages with pitching, which hasn't worked too well.

oeo
08-28-2007, 10:46 AM
I agree with this. We were just talking about it at work today. Quite a few of us believed it was despite him being manager.

Well, regardless, that team would have never been put together had Ozzie not been here. We probably would have continued the no starting pitching, hit homeruns crap we were doing for years.

This team has won a lot of games since he's been here. This year being the exception, but I'm not sure how you can blame it on the manager. He won 83 games with that 2004 team that lost both Maggs and Frank, 99 in his second year + a world championship, 90 his third, and now this debacle. Ozzie has done wonders for this organization.

I'll always feel that most fans will never truly like their manager. Look around the league at message boards such as this one, and every manager sucks...every one of them makes the 'wrong decisions.' I feel like Ozzie has turned the organization around, so until he lays a couple of turds with good teams, he should be managing the White Sox.

kitekrazy
08-28-2007, 11:55 PM
The same as I did when they hired him. He proved me wrong, and I will admit that freely, but I still think he is a lousy manager. Did Ozzie win a world series, or did the players win it despite him?

Ozzie did not take any credit for the World Series. He said he had the right players.

A world championship in any sport usually buys a lot of grace. Does Ditka come to mind?

ode to veeck
08-29-2007, 12:10 AM
I credit Ozzie with infusing the right spirit with the 05 club, also with really getting Garland over the mental hump he had and making him the pitcher he was always physically capable of being. That said, I can't point to a bunch more Garland like successes with other younger or developing players since. There were a lot of injuries this year and last, and two different bullpens that completely melted down, but this team is as lost as we've seen a Sox squad in many years

Tragg
08-29-2007, 12:31 AM
Well, regardless, that team would have never been put together had Ozzie not been here. We probably would have continued the no starting pitching, hit homeruns crap we were doing for years.

This team has won a lot of games since he's been here. This year being the exception, but I'm not sure how you can blame it on the manager. He won 83 games with that 2004 team that lost both Maggs and Frank, 99 in his second year + a world championship, 90 his third, and now this debacle. Ozzie has done wonders for this organization.
I agree that the addition of speed and starting pitching is probably the result of Guillen.
I also think we won in a transition year and that THIS offense is what Ozzie has always wanted. He wanted more slappers on this team. And it's an offensive disaster. I think he has a weak coaching staff of basic ozzie yes-men, that hasn't done a good job in developing young talent or in improving hitters. (Tim Raines is fired after last year, but NO changes are made after this disaster? Please).
Some young players have been put in perfect positions to succeed (Owens has been given the leadoff spot and hasn't been jerked around a lick - probably because he slap hits like Ozzie absolutely loves) while most other young players are put in positions to fail.

The lip service on OBP was cynical - he's never mentioned it before, he and his hitting coach were completely inept at OBP as hitters; then Williams talks about it, and Ozzie almost mocks it by saying the obvious "you want the leadoff hitter to get on base" and the silly - Thome at leadoff.

I agree that we probably wouldn't have won the WS without him. But we wouldn't be nearly this bad without him either.