Well, as measured by his team's Equivalent Ground Advancement Runs (EqGAR, basically the number of runs contributed via bunting and similar ball-in-play one-run strategies), Ozzie has cost this team about 5 runs since 2005. That may not seem like much, but that's just one facet of the game the manager is presumed to have direct control over, add in another area like stolen bases, and Ozzie's total runs cost (just in those two areas) since 2005 jumps to about 30 runs, or roughly 3 wins since 2005.
Again, that may not seem like much, but it
is 3 whole wins in a relatively short period of time, and we're only looking at bunting and stealing here. It's no secret that Ozzie has a penchant for making bad bullpen decisions (outside of 2005, but more on that later) and otherwise sticking with decidedly inferior ballplayers longer than he should (off the top of my head, you have Jerry Owens, Rob Mackowiak, Darin Erstad, Bartolo Colon, Jose Contreras, Randy Williams, DeWayne Wise and Mark Kotsay, to name just a few).
Now, studies have shown that nearly every manager in the major leagues uses such antiquated 1-run strategies as bunting far too often, and that overuse manifests in the form of lost runs and wins. That being said, just because "everyone else does it" is no reason to give Ozzie a pass for signaling for bunts in stupid situations (for instance, you should never, EVER bunt with a runner on first and nobody out, no matter what the inning, the score, who's batting, etc.) and the like.
I'll only stay on a few conditions...
If you are only willing to use team wins as a measure of what Ozzie has done versus what he should have or could have done, then I highly doubt you will be able to understand anything I have said or am about to say, but I'll try. And for what it's worth, Ozzie has already cost this team about 2 runs through his bunting and stolen base usage alone, as measured by EqGAR and EqSBR.
And up until this recent stretch they've had a piss-poor offense, to deny this or gloss over it is laughable.
Really? Then how in the hell do you explain 2005? (I know how you are going to explain it, so just save me the trouble and don't even try, I'll get to that stupid notion in a minute). Or how about 2006, when you still had a damn good ballclub that was in the hunt for most of the season? Or how about 2008, when they made the playoffs again?
That's because "Ozzie Ball" is laughably stupid.
But didn't KW give Ozzie a team "he could win with" in 2005? How about in 2008?
No he doesn't, he's a buffoon that got lucky with can't-miss pitching both in the rotation and in the bullpen for one year, and outside of an absolute gift of a playoff appearance in 2008, has done nothing but mis-manage and continually turn in sub-par performances.
It doesn't matter who the last one was, because the most recent one was not won
because of Ozzie and his doings in any capacity. The team won because they could mash the ball out of the ballpark more than once per game and then rely on their airtight starting pitching and bullpen help for the win. Ozzie would have had to
try to miss a starter or reliever having a career year (or close to it) that season.
I know a "stolen bases" retort is sure to follow, so let me say this now: the Sox did steal a lot of bases in '05, but they also got caught a TON, and as a result ended up
costing themselves runs throughout the course of the season.
As for the miraculous playoff run: it's just another bullet-point in the "playoffs in baseball are heavily dependent on luck" brief. John Garland, Cliff Politte, Orlando Hernandez and Neal Cotts were absolutely dominant out of the pen during that run, and there is no way anyone got that from those players by any way other than blind luck.
It was a great season, don't get me wrong, but to credit Ozzie and some antiquated-at-best strategy for that season is completely preposterous, and really belies your knowledge of the game rather than others' lack of knowledge.