Yet another post not about Robinson Cano

I'm regretting the name of this blog at this point.

Anyways, Ozzie Guillen once again proves he knows nothing about baseball. If it weren't for the freak World Series win in 2005*, this guy probably wouldn't have a job because he's an idiot.

“If this was the 1980s, (none) of these guys would be in the big leagues right now, because if you hit .210-.230 and you can’t execute, I don’t think you should be out here,” Guillen said.

“When you can’t bunt, hit-and-run, squeeze and move the guy over, you better hit 40 home runs and drive in 140.” (source)

So lets dissect the crazy bullshit here step-by-step:

1. If this was the 1980s, (none) of these guys would be in the big leagues right now

I'll admit that I didn't follow baseball in the 1980s, so I'm not too familiar with the changes in style of play since that point. I can say with little doubt, however, that most teams from any era would take some of the White Sox regulars. Jermaine Dye is having on of the best seasons of his career (BA/OBP/SLG of .288/.353/.565), Paul Konerko seems to be going through a small renaissance after two slightly-off years, and Jim Thome is still a big power threat even though he's on the downside of his career. That none of these guys would be good enough to play on any team from the 1980s is unfathomable. I have a hard time accepting that there was no market for guys that get on base frequently and hit home runs.

Although technically speaking, Ozzie is correct. No one on the current White Sox roster was in the big leagues during the 1980s.

2. because if you hit .210-.230 and you can’t execute, I don’t think you should be out here

This one I'll agree with. Sure, batting average is not the best way to gauge a hitter's performance, but I'll give Ozzie the benefit of the doubt that "executing" covers the players that hit .230 yet are still major offensive forces. Adam Dunn, for instance, has a career batting average of .248, yet his career EqA is .302. (Side note: Adam Dunn playing for the Nationals proves two things: first, his agent must be horrific, and, second, that most front offices still don't understand modern statistical analysis in baseball.)

That being said, who are all of these not-cool-enough-to-hang-out-with-Don-Johnson choke artists that make up the White Sox offense? Since I'm assuming Ozzie is only talking about recent struggles, I looked up the offensive stats for the Sox regulars over the past two weeks, and the culprits are:

Chris Getz (10 major league at bats prior to this season)
Josh Fields (career OPS of .721)
Brian N. Anderson (career OPS of .649)

In other words, the players that sucked beforehand and not the cornerstones of the offense (i.e. Dye, Konerko and Thome). Therefore it should be no surprise to Ozzie that his lousy players are playing lousy baseball. Sure, they probably shouldn't be out there as starters, but the White Sox don't seem to have the talent to replace them. Although, once again, Ozzie does get points for the "shouldn't-be-playing-in-the-80s" thing. All three players were under the age of 10 come 1989.

3. When you can’t bunt, hit-and-run, squeeze and move the guy over, you better hit 40 home runs and drive in 140.

I would argue that the huge problem with the current White Sox offense is their inability to get on base. Out of 14 teams in the AL, they're ranked 11th in OBP. Bunting, hit and runs, squeezing, and generally "moving guys over" all contribute to this number decreasing. Furthermore, if your offense can't get on base, no amount of "small ball" is going to help you because there won't be anyone on base for it to hypothetically benefit.

Also, is it me or did Ozzie just equate a guy's ability to bunt with hitting 40 home runs? Is it possible that he doesn't listen to the things that come out of his mouth or is he really that dumb? If the latter is the case, Ozzie can have a team full of Scott Podsedniks, I'll take one full of Adam Dunns and we'll play an entire season against each other. Factoring in aberrations, I guarantee I'll win at least 120 of those games.

*If you do not believe that 2005 was a fluke, take a look at the stats of Dustin Hermanson, Cliff Politte and Neil Cotts. How many teams have had three regular relievers with ERA+ over 200?* Especially guys who never did anything significant afterward?

*Maybe I should look that up.