I was writing a response to the Pro Cub/ Anti White Sox sentiment that commented on my post "Lou and Derrek Lee Are The Worst Manager And Player Ever" but it ended up being so long that I decided to make it into a post instead.
1) Again, I'm not making the comparisons about Guillen and Pinella as players!!! How a person played has nothing to do with how they are as mangers. Yes, Ozzie Guillen is one of the worst offensive players in the history of baseball, BUT THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW GUILLEN ACTS AS A MANAGER. And as a matter of fact, great players tend to make horrible managers. Mainly, because these players were so good that they expect greatness from their team. This ends up being an unrealistic expectation which ends up making the team worse off. John Kruk was a pretty good player and he's a terrible ESPN commentator. Joe Morgan was one of the best 2B and players of all time, and yet I can't ever watch a full game whenever he announces.
I am obviously defending Ozzie Guillen as a manager and not as a player- because there's obviously no defense for that. In case you for some reason (mainly MVP Eckstein) thought how Ozzie was as a player was implicit in my argument, I am overtly telling you right now it is not. And in fact, by you continually mentioning how Ozzie was as a player into his managerial skills, you are degrading your own argument because you are using fallacies for the sole purpose of winning an argument.
2) I do think Pinella is a better manager than Ozzie, but let's be honest, what really makes Ozzie so bad as you claim he is?
As mentioned in "Baseball Between the Numbers", the role of a manger is extremely small. All they have to do is set the lineup and switch out pitchers. What really makes Ozzie so bad at either of these? The line up this year is actually almost perfect considering the players the team has right now. Besides the lead off spot (which the organization does not have anywhere), the line up is essentially set by decreasing OBP (happy Bright One, jesus). And even so, Baseball Between The Numbers proves that who is placed where in the lineup makes a negligible difference.
-And as for the bullpen and pitching changes, what makes Ozzie so bad at this? In 2007 when the only consistent and good arm in the bullpen was Bobby Jenks, Ozzie made this comment (and I'm paraphrasing from memory but the gist is the same), "I don't know what to do? If I could I'd have Bobby throw for three innings every game I would, but I can't." Ozzie recognizes the fact that starters can realistically only throw X number of pitches per game and throughout his entire tenure he has utilized his bullpen the best that he can.
3) I would like address this notion that Ozzieball = Small Ball. It does not. In 2005, when the talent mainly consisted of speed and very few power guys, the team HAD to manufacture runs. Ozzie utilized the talent he had on his team in order to win. But throughout Ozzie's career as a manger, this is not the case. Ozzie lets his guys walk and hit home runs- all great factors that lead to a successful offense. From 2006- today, Ozzie does not sacrifice more than any other manager and allows his players to do what they do best.
4) Ozzie is a leader. Ozzie commands respect but not to the point where his players hate him. The New York Giants coach Tom Coughlin commanded respect but he was a dictator in the locker room saying that his players were "five minutes late if they were on time" But in 2008 he eased up and became more of a "players coach" yet still maintained his power. The Giants won the Superbowl- and people praised Coughlin on his new managerial style. Now Ozzie does that everyday, so if Coughlin gets praised for it, so should Ozzie. And as a sidenote, the fact that Ozzie is a latin born person helps him communicate better with his team (considering the ChiSox and most organizations have a lot of Spanish-speaking players) and helps him maximize his players talent and be a better leader.
5) Ozzie does have two rings and a winning record. And as my brother so astutely said and put into words much better than I probably could have, "from 2004 to 2008, the White Sox have gone 12-4 in the playoffs, mostly from their 2005 World Series run. From 2004 to 2008, the Cubs have gone 0-6 in the playoffs, getting swept in the NLCS over the past two years. Now I know the playoffs are an extremely small sample size. However, the point of any major professional sports franchise is to make money and win championships. There's a reason every sports player, when interviewed during the preseason, says their goal is to make the playoffs and/or win the championship. Just saying.... From 2004 to 2008, the White Sox won 433 games and lost 378 games, leading to a .534 winning percentage....Perhaps it's not the biggest sample size, but Ozzie had only been a major league manager since 2004."
I would just like to take the time to comment here on MVP Eckstein's comment of "Pinella is a HOF manager with about 100, give or take a few, better seasons than Guillen under his managerial belt" Ozzie has had 5 full season under his belt. Lou has had about 20. Obviously Pinella is going to look better because he has 15 more seasons than Ozzie! I don't want to make any broad generalizations right now but at least let Ozzie play out his managerial career before we start really comparing the two.
5) Ozzie is purely entertaining. If the manager really doesn't affect the field of play so much, why not have a guy who is fun to listen to? And everything Ozzie says is true. Jay Mariotti is a faggot, A Rod should always play for USA in the WBC because he was born and raised and plays in the USA, and the ChiSox rarely get any love by Chicago media outlets when they are doing well and does seem to get SHIT ON at every little bump in the road (hmmm, sounds familiar Ozzie). While Ozzie may offend people, it's always a riot to listen to his sound bites.
Of course Ozzie is not without some faults. The first one that comes to mind is telling Kenny to go after Darin Erstad. I can't think of any really other big ones now but there are most certainly many small in games ones that when I watch the games on TV, I'm forced to scratch my head. Ozzie is far from perfect but but certainly does not deserve the kind of criticism this site seems to give him.
I wrote that Lou Pinella is the worst manager ever as my title, but it was obviously not mean to be taken literally. My point is that Cubs fans seem to think of Lou as god but he most certainly has some faults. And I criticized Ozzie for going after Erstad so Pinella deserves some flack for going after Joey Gathright this off season just so the Cubs can have some "left handed bats in the line up." (In all fairness this site DID criticize the Cubs for that). I know for a fact Pinella makes a fair share of questionable in game decisions as well because my current roommate is also a huge Cubs fan and yells at the top of his lungs ever time the Cubs make a minor bad decision. My roommate yells a lot.
I'm also not trying to make comparisons between Lou and Ozzie. All I'm saying is that you, with a huge Cubs bias, treat Lou and the Cubs with the utmost respect and treat Ozzie and the Sox like dog turd. I can't believe I have to say it again even though I said it in my Lou/D-Lee post and as a comment in the Alexei, Guillen, LOL post: I'M FINE WITH SOX CRITICISM BUT AT LEAST WRITE ABOUT THE FAULTS OF THE CUBS AS WELL.
I personally don't hate the Cubs like many Sox fans do, but I asked a co-worker of mine (who lives on the South side of Chicago and is a Sox fan) Why do you hate the Cubs really? His response was that the Cubs garner the vast majority of sports coverage in Chicago and the Sox get left in the dust. This is a sentiment Ozzie said last year that garnered ESPN coverage and one that I have noticed as well being a Sox fan. And this blog is coming dangerously close to that. I'd like to think of us as a mainly Chicago sports blog but when ESPNChicago.com seems more ChiSox friendly than GOI, I grow concerned and feel I need to post pro White Sox posts to maintain balance and fairness
I know all my rambling and specific points are going to get lost by MVP Eckstein, but what I hope people to get out of this article is not how great of a manger Ozzie Guillen is, but I'm writing these type of posts because of the seemingly Pro Cubs/ Anti ChiSox culture that this blog seems to have and I'd like it to stop- and that clearly the Sox do not deserve the many criticisms they get
In Defense of Ozzie Guillen
Posted by
Adam Kaplan
on Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Labels:
Chicago White Sox,
Ozzie Guillen
10 comments:
The stats in this post are repeated in a comment by Sexy Rexy on the DLee/Piniella post. Some things just need repeating.
Ozzie Guillen winning percentage as manager: .534 Lou Piniella career winning percentage: .521
Ozzie's numbers are for his first five years as manager. During Piniella's first five years, his winning percentage is .524
In their first five years, both managers won a world series. Ozzie has a .750 winning percentage, while Lou has an .800 winning percentage
Really, looking at their first five years, Piniella and Ozzie are comparable, with Ozzie having a better overall regular season record
However, in his two years as Cubs manager, Lou has a .563 winning percentage
Also, I know general managers play a significant role in a team's performance, as a manager can only do so much if the team sucks. Is there an objective way to compare GMs? (Besides World Series rings...)
As a White Sox fan, I have always disliked the amount of coverage the Cubs got over the White Sox. I sometimes feel like a conservative watching CNN, or a liberal watching Fox News. I forget who specifically I asked, but I know I have talked to people from the Chicago Tribune and WSCR as to the discrepancy. The person from the Tribune said they did a study of who got more coverage based on number of stories and number of front page stories. They found that the discrepancy is mostly mental, and highly dependent on the team's performance. 2003 had a lot of Cubs coverage, whereas 2005 had a lot of White Sox coverage.
As my father has said, Chicago is a Bears and Cubs town. Unfortunately, that is how it is. The city has a larger number of Cubs fan than White Sox fans. Sports media outlets cater their coverage for the largest number of readers/listeners/viewers. Ideally, Chicago sports journalism, and all journalism for that matter, would be completely objective in its coverage. As we all know, this is not the case.
As a White Sox fan, I understand my favorite baseball team will never have the fan base the Cubs do. Frankly, I like it like that. I like being in the minority in that regard, going against the grain. Even here in Boston, I like getting comments about the White Sox hat I wear at work, especially considering I see Cubs hats relatively frequently and hardly ever any White Sox hats. (Unfortunately, I see far too many Red Sox and Yankees hats). Being a White Sox fan is part of the male side of my family. I still treasure my Frank Thomas jersey. Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that I know the White Sox will never be as popular as the Cubs, but that doesn't stop me from liking the White Sox. I've gotten too used to liking the second favorite team to have it any other way.
Unlike others, I do not hate the Cubs. They have a great team this year and I wish them the best. I was overjoyed when the White Sox won the World Series. I hope Cubs fans will have that experience sometime soon. I know how much a Cubs World Series would mean to my friends, neighbors and the city of Chicago. I do dislike the Twins though.
One last note, in my last post, the fourth paragraph refers to each manager's winning percentage in the playoffs during their first five years.
Journalismo, Pinella has been coaching MUCH longer than Ozzie and was forced (via trade) to helm the terrible rays. You take those years out and Ozzie ain't got shit on Lou's winning percentage
Plus, it's the TEAM, not the coach, who wins games
I would also like to point out that I do not hate the White Sox. Just ignorant white sox fans who can't ever give the cubs props. I also hate Cubs fans who do the same shit. Can't we all just get along?
David "MVP" Eckstein-
There is a reason I compared Piniella's first five years with Ozzie's first five years. When looking at the beginning of both their managerial careers, winning percentages both in the regular season and in the playoffs are very similar. Does this mean that Ozzie will go on to have as long and distinguished of a career as Piniella? Of course it is too early to tell. But the numbers are interesting. Clearly Ozzie's numbers as a manager and Ozzie's numbers as a player are divergent. Also, Piniella's winning percentage with the Cubs is higher that Ozzie's with the White Sox over the past two years. The numbers don't lie, and I freely admit that.
Yes, I understand it is the team and not the coach that determines a vast majority of baseball games, hence why I asked if there is an objective way to measure a general manager, as it is the general manager that mainly assembles a specific group of players. Without winning percentage, is there another objective way to determine the success or failure of a manager?
I agree with your comment about a dislike for overly possessive fans who love their team unconditionally and hate the other team with intense hatred. I dislike the Twins because, over the past few years, they have been incredibly competitive and always seem to beat the White Sox. I have enormous respect for the franchise, but I will not be rooting for them to win the AL Central anytime soon.But hey, what's sports without passion anyway.
Regarding the question of ranking organizations, Fangraphs did an analysis and ranking of current situations and a five year-going forward outlook of all 30 teams.
Chicago Cubs Analysis (#7 of 30):
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/organizational-rankings-7
Chicago White Sox Analysis (#17 of 30):
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/organizational-rankings-17
No one is arguing that right now!? I fully admit the White Sox front office is bad and the Cubs is good. But I don't necessarily put the blame on Ozzie and that still doesn't mean the White Sox needs to get constantly shit on
Oh, and a writer for the Chicago Tribune- the paper that OWNED the Cubs up until recently. A paper that had clear vested interest to hype up the Chicago Cubs. A paper that did its own study about a team people claim they hype. Yeah I'm not gonna lie, I don't trust what the Chicago Tribune says to be true
Although yes there are more Cubs fans, not really in Chicago. Look at this cool pic (based on real data):
http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/835641802_ef422b12cf_b1.jpg
What are you talking about Rexy? Dave Cameron is a Mariners fan who I'm 90% sure doesn't write for the Tribune (he writes for USS Mariner)
Who the fuck is Dave Cameron? My response is to this line:
"I forget who specifically I asked, but I know I have talked to people from the Chicago Tribune and WSCR as to the discrepancy. The person from the Tribune said they did a study of who got more coverage based on number of stories and number of front page stories."
Oh, Jesus Christ Eckstein, not every comment is about you or directed at what you say. Did you not read my line "No is arguing that right now!? I fully admit the White Sox front office is bad and the Cubs is good." My response to is what something Journalissimo said in his second comment
Post a Comment