Ozzie Guillen = TOOL - Page 2

jbergey22 · 07-08-2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RayofHope

And a dumb ass.

He claims he's "picking to win."

If that's the case, then which player do you take?:

1) AVG .312, HR 15, RBI 60, OBP .362, SLG .506, 1 SB, 16 2B, 0 3B, .972 fielding
2) AVG .322, HR 13, RBI 46, OBP .362, SLG .523, 32 SB, 12 2B, 7 3B, .988 fielding

Player 1 is hitting .308 over the last 8 games (8 for 26) with 0 homers, 3 RBI, 5 strike outs and 1 walk.

But, player 2 is hitting .471 over the last 8 games (16 for 32) with 3 homers, 9 RBI and 6 stolen bases.

Player 1 is 32 years old.

Player 2 is 24 and one of the most exciting young players in baseball.

Player 1 plays for Detroit.

Player 2 for Tampa Bay.

Player 1 is from Venezuela, Player 2 is from Texas.

Where is Manager of All-Star team from? Venezuela.

Douche.

Well, out of all of his decisions, this is on IMO is NOT a good argument. I dont think you can have two Tampa Bay Devil Rays in the All Star game with their record. I truthfully would rather see Crawford in the game(more exciting) but with numbers this close, it makes more sense to reward the better team.

The Just · 07-08-2006, 03:43 PM

Ozzie is a tool, if you agree with his managing or not. I like the fact that he speaks his mind, even when it has gotten him into some big trouble. But I don't remember him being such a tough guy before his managing days. Maybe I didn't follow his career close enough, maybe nobody did, but if he was always like this there would be more controversial incidents revolving around him. But all the controversy seems to occur when he started managing the White Sox.

If anyone can prove otherwise, I'll admit to being wrong about Ozzie Guillen. That simple.

drprestwood · 07-08-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I dont think you can have two Tampa Bay Devil Rays in the All Star game with their record.

I've never understood this argument. I don't think team record should matter so much. If you have a pitcher who is 15-0 with a 0.00 ERA and a hitter batting .500 with 50 HR at the break, and the rest of your team sucks to the tune of a 30-51 record...you should still have two all-stars.

jaxmagicman · 07-08-2006, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDOldSchool

In fairness to Crawford, his 7 triples more than compensate for 4 fewer doubles.

True.

JDOldSchool · 07-08-2006, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drprestwood

I've never understood this argument. I don't think team record should matter so much. If you have a pitcher who is 15-0 with a 0.00 ERA and a hitter batting .500 with 50 HR at the break, and the rest of your team sucks to the tune of a 30-51 record...you should still have two all-stars.

Sure, because those two guys are setting records. But when you have Player A whose team is in last and Player B whose team is the best in baseball and their numbers are very close, you take Player B.

jbergey22 · 07-08-2006, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drprestwood

I've never understood this argument. I don't think team record should matter so much. If you have a pitcher who is 15-0 with a 0.00 ERA and a hitter batting .500 with 50 HR at the break, and the rest of your team sucks to the tune of a 30-51 record...you should still have two all-stars.

In the unlikely scenario that this would EVER happen, yes they both should go. I did mention in my post(that you left out) "but with numbers this close, it makes more sense to reward the better team"

A crappy team SELDOM has a deserving player, let alone two, so the infrequency of the occurance make the argument pointless.

Winning teams=Winning Players
Losing teams=Losing Players=New York Knocks(marbury, Crawford, Richardson, Curry)

JP Cooperstown · 07-08-2006, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

In the unlikely scenario that this would EVER happen, yes they both should go. I did mention in my post(that you left out) "but with numbers this close, it makes more sense to reward the better team"

A crappy team SELDOM has a deserving player, let alone two, so the infrequency of the occurance make the argument pointless.

Winning teams=Winning Players
Losing teams=Losing Players=New York Knocks(marbury, Crawford, Richardson, Curry)

If we base it off of who is a winner, why don't we just make it the Detroit Tigers vs. the New York Mets? Better yet, why does every team get a representative if it's about winning teams? You can easily have two great players out of twenty five, and still have a bad team.

Example: Vladimir Guerrero and Jose Vidro on the 2000 Expos, whom had two all-stars.

Dr. Walter Doodah · 07-08-2006, 07:08 PM

I'm surprised "tool" is still not censored on this forum.

canadiancreed · 07-08-2006, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Walter Doodah

I'm surprised "tool" is still not censored on this forum.

what do you have against these guys?

http://www.toolband.com/

jbergey22 · 07-08-2006, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP Cooperstown

If we base it off of who is a winner, why don't we just make it the Detroit Tigers vs. the New York Mets? Better yet, why does every team get a representative if it's about winning teams? You can easily have two great players out of twenty five, and still have a bad team.

Example: Vladimir Guerrero and Jose Vidro on the 2000 Expos, whom had two all-stars.

OR if we want to exaggerate, why not make it the Kansas City Royals vs. Pittsburgh Pirates. Every team gets represented so ALL the fans will want to watch, I never said it was ALL about winning teams. Again, I never disagreed and said a team SHOULDNT have 2 if they deserve.

What I said was very simple. If two players have similiar numbers, it should go to the player on the better team. WHY you may ask? For one, they are building their stats in competitive situations, this may not always be the case with bad teams. 2. Winning games is still why they play the game, not stats so it would make sense that the goal is to win the All Star Game, players on winning teams KNOW how to win.

The game SHOULD be about what the fans want, and I doubt even if Kansas City fans would rather see Mark Redman over Francisco Liriano.

You are twisting what I am saying into what you want me to have said so you have an agument. Please re-read paragraph 2 if you are still confused as to what I am saying. Thanks!

JDOldSchool · 07-08-2006, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Every team gets represented so ALL the fans will want to watch, I never said it was ALL about winning teams.

The problem is that it's no longer a meaningless exhibition, so no offense to Royals fans here, but screw you guys this year.

Quote:

What I said was very simple. If two players have similiar numbers, it should go to the player on the better team. WHY you may ask? For one, they are building their stats in competitive situations, this may not always be the case with bad teams. 2. Winning games is still why they play the game, not stats so it would make sense that the goal is to win the All Star Game, players on winning teams KNOW how to win.

3. Magglio Ordonez should have more say in his team getting home field advantage in the World Series than Carl Crawford should.

Quote:

The game SHOULD be about what the fans want, and I doubt even if Kansas City fans would rather see Mark Redman over Francisco Liriano.

It should be, but it's not. It's a real game now. Fans should no longer have a say in it (maybe just a final vote, but that's it).

JP Cooperstown · 07-08-2006, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

OR if we want to exaggerate, why not make it the Kansas City Royals vs. Pittsburgh Pirates. Every team gets represented so ALL the fans will want to watch, I never said it was ALL about winning teams. Again, I never disagreed and said a team SHOULDNT have 2 if they deserve.

What I said was very simple. If two players have similiar numbers, it should go to the player on the better team. WHY you may ask? For one, they are building their stats in competitive situations, this may not always be the case with bad teams. 2. Winning games is still why they play the game, not stats so it would make sense that the goal is to win the All Star Game, players on winning teams KNOW how to win.

The game SHOULD be about what the fans want, and I doubt even if Kansas City fans would rather see Mark Redman over Francisco Liriano.

You are twisting what I am saying into what you want me to have said so you have an agument. Please re-read paragraph 2 if you are still confused as to what I am saying. Thanks!

I've hardly posted here so I don't see how I'm looking for an argument. I'd suggest relaxing just a little bit, as I don't recall attacking you in any way, shape, or form. If the All-Star game was done correctly, then yes, the players on the better team should get the closer spots. But because the MLB has the crazy rule that every team deserves a representative, there's no reason why anyone should be discounted because they are on a bad team.

Elendil · 07-08-2006, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

what do you have against these guys?

http://www.toolband.com/

They're pretentious.

RayofHope · 07-09-2006, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

No, I just think that when two guys have close productive numbers then maybe it is up to the manager to be able to use his discreation based on popularity and career.

They are close in production. About .7 in Win Shares above Replacement level. They are .20 away in Slg, tied in OBP. 2 homeruns away. 4 doubles.

That's part of the point.

Crawford isn't known for being "a slugger" - and while Mags isn't really known for being a slugger in the classical sense either (at least anymore), he is supposed to be more of a slugger than Crawford, but yet Crawford's power numbers are equal to or better than his.

If Guillen wants to win as he so adamantly states, he should have taken Crawford when Manny went down, not Mags. You can do a hell of a lot more with Crawford than you can with Mags. Crawford's a better defensive sub, and a better pinch runner.

Whoever said Nixon or Swisher, you have to be kidding, right? I guess Swisher instead of Mags, maybe, but not Crawford.

Guess it comes down to me just detesting Guillen, and thinking Crawford is the most ignored stud in baseball.

It's a LOCK if Crawford played for pretty much anyone but the Rays, he'd be an all-star.

RayofHope · 07-09-2006, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbergey22

OR if we want to exaggerate, why not make it the Kansas City Royals vs. Pittsburgh Pirates. Every team gets represented so ALL the fans will want to watch, I never said it was ALL about winning teams. Again, I never disagreed and said a team SHOULDNT have 2 if they deserve.

What I said was very simple. If two players have similiar numbers, it should go to the player on the better team. WHY you may ask? For one, they are building their stats in competitive situations, this may not always be the case with bad teams. 2. Winning games is still why they play the game, not stats so it would make sense that the goal is to win the All Star Game, players on winning teams KNOW how to win.

The game SHOULD be about what the fans want, and I doubt even if Kansas City fans would rather see Mark Redman over Francisco Liriano.

You are twisting what I am saying into what you want me to have said so you have an agument. Please re-read paragraph 2 if you are still confused as to what I am saying. Thanks!

And the Yankees, Red Sox, and Blue Jays all suck, right?

Boozie1580 · 07-09-2006, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RayofHope

And the Yankees, Red Sox, and Blue Jays all suck, right?

How is this statement even related to what he said?

I'm pretty sure his point is this:

Winning each game is more important for a playoff contender than it is for Tampa Bay.

Thus, the player is facing more pressure each at bat than a player for Tampa is.

Thus, you'd be more inclined to think that the player can perform in pressure situations, if he's putting up the same numbers as someone who faces less pressure on a daily basis.

Thus, you'd want him on your team if your goal is to win, because you want guys who can perform under pressure.

None of this has anything to do with the teams Tampa is playing.

mlyons · 07-09-2006, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RayofHope

Whoever said Nixon or Swisher, you have to be kidding, right? I guess Swisher instead of Mags, maybe, but not Crawford.

Nixon's got an OBP seventy points higher than Crawford. Those thirty stolen bases Crawford have don't nearly make up for that. Swisher's OBP is only a little higher than Crawford's -- I'm willing to call it a wash because Crawford's batting average is higher -- but his power numbers are way better than Crawford's.

jbergey22 · 07-09-2006, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RayofHope

And the Yankees, Red Sox, and Blue Jays all suck, right?

I'm with you Boozie, I have no idea either! And you nailed it perfectly as to what I was trying to say.

Boozie1580 · 07-09-2006, 07:20 PM

By the way, the AL Central isn't too shabby either.

QuestGAV · 07-09-2006, 09:11 PM

WARP1/EQA:
Swisher 3.9/.303
Nixon 3.3/.315
Crawford 2.9/.305
Ordonez 2.2/.293

So Ordonez was a pretty piss-poor pick but Crawford shouldn't have been it either.

07-08-2006, 03:43 PM	#22
The Just Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 122	Ozzie is a tool, if you agree with his managing or not. I like the fact that he speaks his mind, even when it has gotten him into some big trouble. But I don't remember him being such a tough guy before his managing days. Maybe I didn't follow his career close enough, maybe nobody did, but if he was always like this there would be more controversial incidents revolving around him. But all the controversy seems to occur when he started managing the White Sox. If anyone can prove otherwise, I'll admit to being wrong about Ozzie Guillen. That simple. __________________

07-08-2006, 07:08 PM	#28
Dr. Walter Doodah Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: not Libya Posts: 199	I'm surprised "tool" is still not censored on this forum. __________________ There's that word again; "heavy". Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the earth's gravitational pull?

07-09-2006, 07:20 PM	#39
Boozie1580 All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: MD Posts: 1,255	By the way, the AL Central isn't too shabby either. __________________

07-09-2006, 09:11 PM	#40
QuestGAV Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Connecticut Posts: 2,008	WARP1/EQA: Swisher 3.9/.303 Nixon 3.3/.315 Crawford 2.9/.305 Ordonez 2.2/.293 So Ordonez was a pretty piss-poor pick but Crawford shouldn't have been it either.