PDA

View Full Version : Falling out of first in August


Railsplitter
08-03-2008, 08:45 PM
Anybody know if the Sox ever fell out of first in August and returned to the top?

turners56
08-03-2008, 09:25 PM
Probably happened in 03.

High Mileage
08-03-2008, 09:27 PM
They've only been around since 1900, I'm sure it's happened once or twice...

EuroSox35
08-03-2008, 09:38 PM
2 months is plenty of season, hell, we could be back by the end of tomorrow night

Hitmen77
08-03-2008, 09:41 PM
I don't know - but I am disappointed that they've fallen out of first place now.

We had a 6.5 game lead on June 16 and the Twins have gained 7 games on us since then. We had a 3.5 game lead as recently as 8 days ago and the Twins have gained 4 games on us since then.

The problem is that almost our entire pitching staff has crumbled. All 5 of our starters have looked very very hittable lately. Same goes for many of the relievers in our once-solid bullpen. I don't know what happened - are all these guys just totally gassed? If the heat and the wear of the long season is the excuse, why aren't other teams suffering this same meltdown.

Falling 0.5 games out of first on Aug. 3? Hardly insurmountable....but it's up to our pitching staff. They need to snap out of it quickly or the Twins (and maybe the Tigers) are going to bury us.

High Mileage
08-03-2008, 09:44 PM
I don't think you guys have to worry about. It's a wonder how the Twins are even winning, no Santana, no Hunter, no trade pick-ups. They'll fade, but Detroit? Will be interesting...

Bobby Jenks
08-03-2008, 10:15 PM
They are winning because of better than expected pitching and they are hitting at an ungodly clip when runners are in scoring position. They have 2 players that could play for anyone,but that is it.

chisoxmike
08-03-2008, 10:23 PM
The Sox have had a history the past few years that when they fall out of first, they crumble. They are a team that doesn't play "catch up" very well. Granted its a 1/2 game, but I feel like I've seen this movie before, and the ending is always the same.

Hopefully, the Sox come through. But regardless of what everyone thinks, the Twins aren't going to go away. It may come down to that three game series in the garbage dome at the end of September.

High Mileage
08-03-2008, 10:23 PM
They are winning because of better than expected pitching and they are hitting at an ungodly clip when runners are in scoring position. They have 2 players that could play for anyone,but that is it.
Come on now. Liriano, Morneau, Mauer, Nathan, I could name a few more...

voodoochile
08-03-2008, 10:46 PM
The Sox are .5 games out of first because the Twinkies have played an extra game and they won it. That's all. By tomorrow it will be two extra games and by a week from Thursday the two teams will be all square. Until the Sox lose a game they are making up, the two teams are effectively tied. It's just a fluke that we are in second at the moment.

One game at a time. Big week with Det and Bos coming to town. Long homestand to rest up and get fat while the twinkies got 6 on the road and then come home to the red hot Yankees. Hopefully the Royals can give the twinkies some of the same love they showed us in KC.

If not, I say we find High Mileage and show him the meaning of southside beatdown... :tongue:

SoxGirl4Life
08-03-2008, 10:48 PM
The Sox are .5 games out of first because the Twinkies have played an extra game and they won it. That's all. By tomorrow it will be two extra games and by a week from Thursday the two teams will be all square. Until the Sox lose a game they are making up, the two teams are effectively tied. It's just a fluke that we are in second at the moment.

One game at a time. Big week with Det and Bos coming to town. Long homestand to rest up and get fat while the twinkies got 6 on the road and then come home to the red hot Yankees. Hopefully the Royals can give the twinkies some of the same love they showed us in KC.

If not, I say we find High Mileage and show him the meaning of southside beatdown... :tongue:


Royals laid down for the Tigers last week. I watched two of those games and it wasn't even like the same team that shows up to play the Sox.

PeoriaSoxFan
08-03-2008, 10:52 PM
I feel a win streak coming on. Go Sox.

GoSox2K3
08-03-2008, 11:38 PM
At least Griffey got to be on a 1st place team for about 72 hours. I hope he enjoyed it.

The disturbing thing is that over the last 9 games we played vs. KC over the last month, a few of the games we won were thanks in part to the Royals ineptitude. We're 4-5 against them during this stretch and it could have been much worse.

Don't hold your breath thinking this "tough" KC team is going to do much against the Twins next week.

DumpJerry
08-03-2008, 11:50 PM
2003. I did not search further back than 1998. Baseball-reference.com will answer just about any historical question you have.

munchman33
08-04-2008, 12:22 AM
The Sox are .5 games out of first because the Twinkies have played an extra game and they won it. That's all. By tomorrow it will be two extra games and by a week from Thursday the two teams will be all square. Until the Sox lose a game they are making up, the two teams are effectively tied. It's just a fluke that we are in second at the moment.



Well if that's not the most one sided, fact ignoring argument I've ever seen...

I can play that game too. We're worse than the Twins because they've played more series against the Yankees and we have a worse record. We're worse than the Twins because they've played the Red Sox more times and we have a worse record.

Sounds stupid right? Well, your argument sounds just as foolish. If not moreso.

Fact is, the Twins were a young team starting the season, and they got better after their first 60 games. And since then, they've played a hell of a lot better baseball then we did at ANY POINT during the season. And we'll have to play BETTER than we did in the first half if we want to win the division. Is it possible? Maybe. But it's not a given. And it's certainly something we need to be extremely worried about. Because, as it stands now, they're the favorite.

Noneck
08-04-2008, 12:57 AM
Because, as it stands now, they're the favorite.
No, The odds to win the AL central are the following :
Chicago White Sox 2-5
Minnesota Twins 5-2
Detroit Tigers 7-2
Cleveland Indians 100-1
Kansas City Royals 250-1
Last Updated: August 4, 2008 12:45:49 AM EDT

IronFisk
08-04-2008, 01:21 AM
Far too many on this board ready to give up. Loooooong season and if 05 was any indication, it's BETTER we are in a pennant fight that in those "glory" years of 83 and 2000 where we blew out the rest of the division and got spanked in the first round. I think many on here will easily agree that Cleveland did us a favor by pushing us to the brink in 05.

If the pitching staff implodes and/or other crazy stuff happens (Griffey runs off with Angela Jolie, etc.) then so be it - nothing you can do. Just sit back, keep the Tums nearby and (try) to enjoy the ride. For me, the 2005 playoffs were by far the most stressful I've ever endured - more so than any Bulls run. The reward however...



:)

munchman33
08-04-2008, 01:25 AM
No, The odds to win the AL central are the following :
Chicago White Sox 2-5
Minnesota Twins 5-2
Detroit Tigers 7-2
Cleveland Indians 100-1
Kansas City Royals 250-1

Last Updated: August 4, 2008 12:45:49 AM EDT



You're right, vegas odds prove it.

And I thought Voodoo's argument was bad....

ChiSoxGirl
08-04-2008, 01:27 AM
Far too many on this board ready to give up. Loooooong season and if 05 was any indication, it's BETTER we are in a pennant fight that in those "glory" years of 83 and 2000 where we blew out the rest of the division and got spanked in the first round. I think many on here will easily agree that Cleveland did us a favor by pushing us to the brink in 05.

If the pitching staff implodes and/or other crazy stuff happens (Griffey runs off with Angela Jolie, etc.) then so be it - nothing you can do. Just sit back, keep the Tums nearby and (try) to enjoy the ride. For me, the 2005 playoffs were by far the most stressful I've ever endured - more so than any Bulls run. The reward however...



:)

I was just looking through old pictures on my laptop not five minutes ago and went through all of the October 2005 ones... that whole month was unreal!

BTW, did you get my PM?

Noneck
08-04-2008, 01:28 AM
You're right, vegas odds prove it.

And I thought Voodoo's argument was bad....

Money talks, bull**** walks

chisoxfanatic
08-04-2008, 01:34 AM
If the pitching staff implodes and/or other crazy stuff happens (Griffey runs off with Angela Jolie, etc.) then so be it - nothing you can do. Just sit back, keep the Tums nearby and (try) to enjoy the ride. For me, the 2005 playoffs were by far the most stressful I've ever endured - more so than any Bulls run. The reward however...
The stress would be much easier if I could hear the sound of THE cowbell! Have you been ringing that thing lately?

Nellie_Fox
08-04-2008, 01:50 AM
Well if that's not the most one sided, fact ignoring argument I've ever seen...No; until the season is over, the loss column is really all that matters. They're dead even in the loss column.

munchman33
08-04-2008, 02:29 AM
No; until the season is over, the loss column is really all that matters. They're dead even in the loss column.

Forget the fact that we're pitching so poorly we'd need the offense to play over their heads just to go .500 the rest of the way...

Nellie_Fox
08-04-2008, 02:38 AM
Forget the fact that we're pitching so poorly we'd need the offense to play over their heads just to go .500 the rest of the way...Don't change the subject. You were arguing with Voodoo's assertion that the Sox aren't really behind the Twins yet. Comparing the records of teams that have played a different number of games can only be done by looking at the loss column.

TDog
08-04-2008, 02:47 AM
An interesting question.

The Sox haven't finished in first many times. In my lifetime, the times they have finished first, they weren't overtaken in August, with an exception that some people would say doesn't count.

On August 5, 1994, the surging Indians pulled ahead of the Sox by percentage points. The Sox had one more loss than the Indians, who had played two fewer games. The Sox were on a tough West Coast road trip (although every team in the AL West had a losing record), visiting Texas (never pleasant in August), Anaheim and Oakland. On the Friday night opening the series against the Angels, Wilson Alvarez couldn't hold an early 2-0 lead, and the Sox lost 5-3 to fall percentage points behind the Indians, who were rained out in Boston.

The Indians split their doubleheader on Saturday while the White Sox (with me in attendance down the line behind first) blew a 10-8 lead going into the bottom of the eight against the Angels, who tied the game in the ninth. With two out and none on, the inning was kept alive on a Robin Ventura throwing error that put a runner on second base, who scored on the predictable single that followed. The Sox, however scored six in the 10th. Darrin Jackson led off with a double. Joey Cora drove him in. Ozzie Guillen triple. Spanky LaValliere singled, Tim Raines walked and Julio Franco homered. The Sox needed that win to regain first by half a game.

Did I forget to mention that the Angels had the worst record in the American League at the time?

The next day the Indians were splitting another doubleheader in Boston, and it looked like the Sox were going to drop back into a tie. The Angels got out to a 5-1 lead. off of Alex Fernandez. The Sox chipped away, but were still down 5-3 with one out in the ninth when LaValliere lofted a fly ball over the inner fence for a home run. I can still see it 14 years later. Showing the Sox didn't care that I had to go to work in Arizona the next morning, the teams played three more innings. Guillen led off the 12th with another triple and Cora singled him in, getting his second game-winning hit in as many games. The fifth run in the inning was socred driven in by Guillen, and the Sox won the game 10-5, to move into first place by a game. The Sox won two of three in Oakland while the Indians were matching the Sox, winning, losing and winning in Toronto (home of the defending World Series champion Blue Jays). The players went on strike. The season never resumed. Many White Sox fans thought their team was robbed of the World Series, although that Sox team had some of the same issue the current Sox team does, and they were being pursued by a team much better than the current Twins.

There were seasons, such as 2003, when the Sox lost first in August and retook first in September but didn't finish first. They were also in first in September 1967, although they fell out of first on August 12. Of course, there were seasons, such as 1972 and 1977 when the Sox fell out of first place on (or about) August 12 and never held first in September.

The 1972 A's lost first place to the Sox in August, about a week deeper into August than we are now, but not only won the division but won the World Series.

The baseball season is a wild ride. When Sox fans think about 2005, they forget that getting to the postseason wasn't easy. Thirty-one years ago today, the Sox were in first 2.5 games ahead of the second-place Twins. The Sox finished the 1977 season five games ahead of the Twins, but they were four behind Texas and 12 behind Kansas City.

Don't stress out over not being in first place in August. There is no trophy awarded to the team that finishes August in first place. and even if there were, the end of August is almost a month away.

The Critic
08-04-2008, 04:25 AM
Don't change the subject. You were arguing with Voodoo's assertion that the Sox aren't really behind the Twins yet. Comparing the records of teams that have played a different number of games can only be done by looking at the loss column.

I've always wondered why the loss column is the "important one".
Even if you have the same number of losses, you'd still have to win those games in hand to take back the division lead, so why aren't wins taken as the benchmark?
I've always looked at the win column myself, as I count actual wins above hypothetical wins.

TDog
08-04-2008, 04:52 AM
I've always wondered why the loss column is the "important one".
Even if you have the same number of losses, you'd still have to win those games in hand to take back the division lead, so why aren't wins taken as the benchmark?
I've always looked at the win column myself, as I count actual wins above hypothetical wins.

Jack Brickhouse used to always talk about the loss column, saying they were the games you can't make up. When I was a kid I didn't understand what he meant. Like, you can't make up wins, but who would want to. The more I understood about baseball, the more I understood why the loss column was the important one. If you're even in the loss column and behind in wins, you still have a chance to win those games (although a lot of fans expect their team to lose those games). It is a matter of having your fate in your own hands.

The Twins and White Sox play three more games this season. Excluding those games, if both teams won the rest of their non-head-to-head games (or had the same amount of losses in those games) the team would be tied.

If you're in a virtual tie with one more win and one more loss than the other first place team (technically, if both teams have a losing record, the one that has played more games has the lower winning percentage and is in second place) you have more wins, but you could still win the rest of your games and finish in second place if the team with fewer wins won the rest of their games.

If you're looking at the win column, you're not getting a true picture of who is in the best position.

FarWestChicago
08-04-2008, 07:11 AM
Well if that's not the most one sided, fact ignoring argument I've ever seen...You obviously haven't been reading your own posts for quite a while. :redneck

delben91
08-04-2008, 07:27 AM
The Sox won't win again the rest of the year.

Back up the truck.

They won't be decent again until around 2021, so just swing back by then.

Thanks.

Railsplitter
08-04-2008, 07:31 AM
Being in the Cassandra mood right now, I feel obliged to point out the road trip the Twins are opening tonight is aginst the simply awful Seattle Mariners.

Law11
08-04-2008, 08:59 AM
At least Griffey got to be on a 1st place team for about 72 hours. I hope he enjoyed it.

The disturbing thing is that over the last 9 games we played vs. KC over the last month, a few of the games we won were thanks in part to the Royals ineptitude. We're 4-5 against them during this stretch and it could have been much worse.

Don't hold your breath thinking this "tough" KC team is going to do much against the Twins next week.

The twins suck on the road. They have THE worst bullpen era in the majors on the road. Get them out of that dome and they become an avg team.

oeo
08-04-2008, 09:36 AM
At least Griffey got to be on a 1st place team for about 72 hours. I hope he enjoyed it.

A loss by the Twins today, and we're right back in first. :dunno:

Don't hold your breath thinking this "tough" KC team is going to do much against the Twins next week.The Royals are what, 8 games under .500? They're not nearly as bad as they were in the past.

This is almost like people saying earlier in the season: "I don't care how well the Rays are playing, they're still the Rays...we need to sweep!" Open your eyes...there's only one terrible team in the AL, and it's the Mariners. There's no such thing as easy wins, or easy series this year.

balke
08-04-2008, 09:46 AM
The Sox need JC and Linebrink back. Crede in the next month wouldn't hurt either. If they can tread water for a little bit and keep it close, September should be a very good month for the White Sox.

oeo
08-04-2008, 10:14 AM
The Sox need JC and Linebrink back. Crede in the next month wouldn't hurt either. If they can tread water for a little bit and keep it close, September should be a very good month for the White Sox.

I think this is the month that we need to gain some ground on the Twins. We're mostly at home, they're mostly on the road.

voodoochile
08-04-2008, 10:19 AM
I've always wondered why the loss column is the "important one".
Even if you have the same number of losses, you'd still have to win those games in hand to take back the division lead, so why aren't wins taken as the benchmark?
I've always looked at the win column myself, as I count actual wins above hypothetical wins.

Because you no longer control your own destiny. If you are one back in the loss column and then play even the rest of the year the other team can win the extra game and clinch.

If you are on down in the win column you can play even the rest of the year and then win the extra game to force a tie.

Jollyroger2
08-04-2008, 10:32 AM
I think this is the month that we need to gain some ground on the Twins. We're mostly at home, they're mostly on the road.

Our last homestand we went 3-3 and gave up 36 runs. And that was against Texas and Kansas City. The way the pitching has gone in the tank, we can no longer say just cause we're at home we'll be fine. Especially with lineups like Detroit and Boston have coming in. And KC has been crushing us at the plate lately.

munchman33
08-04-2008, 10:58 AM
Don't change the subject. You were arguing with Voodoo's assertion that the Sox aren't really behind the Twins yet. Comparing the records of teams that have played a different number of games can only be done by looking at the loss column.

My point is simply looking at the records and judging what that means about teams and where they are going is foolish. We're a team on an extreme downtrend, and Minnesota is, well, not. If things continue for us this way, we'd be lucky to go .500 the rest of the way. Do you think the Twins are likely to do close to the same? I don't.

MsSoxVixen22
08-04-2008, 11:21 AM
We're a game out of 1st place and it's August 4th. We have time to get back into first place and I think they will. The pitching needs to get alot better and PK needs to get his **** together but I don't think it's any reason to say the Sox are completely done. Call me a "Pollyanna" but I'm remaining positive and optomistic about this team till the end. Am I concerned? Yes. Am I frustrated? Hell yes but that doesn't mean I'm giving up!

munchman33
08-04-2008, 11:27 AM
We're a game out of 1st place and it's August 4th. We have time to get back into first place and I think they will. The pitching needs to get alot better and PK needs to get his **** together but I don't think it's any reason to say the Sox are completely done. Call me a "Pollyanna" but I'm remaining positive and optomistic about this team till the end. Am I concerned? Yes. Am I frustrated? Hell yes but that doesn't mean I'm giving up!

Nobody is giving up. But some people seem to think we've got this thing locked up, and it's frustrating. We need quite a bit to go right for us and wrong for them.

MsSoxVixen22
08-04-2008, 11:46 AM
Nobody is giving up. But some people seem to think we've got this thing locked up, and it's frustrating. We need quite a bit to go right for us and wrong for them.


I don't think we have this locked up...it's going to go down to the wire b/w us and the Twins. Who knows, it's a slim chance but the Tigers might make a run for it and make it even more interesting

turners56
08-04-2008, 11:52 AM
Aw crap, the Twins play the Mariners today. At least it's away from the hump dome.

munchman33
08-04-2008, 11:59 AM
I don't think we have this locked up...it's going to go down to the wire b/w us and the Twins. Who knows, it's a slim chance but the Tigers might make a run for it and make it even more interesting

I also believe this. I just worry that we aren't the better team and we probably won't pull it out.

RockyMtnSoxFan
08-04-2008, 12:01 PM
We're a game out of 1st place and it's August 4th. We have time to get back into first place and I think they will. The pitching needs to get alot better and PK needs to get his **** together but I don't think it's any reason to say the Sox are completely done. Call me a "Pollyanna" but I'm remaining positive and optomistic about this team till the end. Am I concerned? Yes. Am I frustrated? Hell yes but that doesn't mean I'm giving up!

Sure, there are two months left, the Twins don't have a great team, and they play a lot on the road, but that doesn't mean the Sox are going to win the division. In August of 2005, I felt that the Sox needed to start playing better, or they were going to lose the division. The Indians were charging hard, and the Sox seemed to be crumbling. Of course, I was labeled a "dark cloud" at WSI and even kicked off for a week because I said that they were sucking, but in the end I was right: the Sox started playing better baseball, and won the division.

The same thing applies now. The Twins aren't going away, and neither are the Tigers. If the Sox continue to give up double digit runs to mediocre teams, they are going to have a hard time winning the division. Basically, they have to reverse their recent trend.

Can the Sox still reclaim the division lead? Certainly. Will they be ahead at the end of the season? Nobody knows. But to do it, they will have to play better than they have lately.

balke
08-04-2008, 01:45 PM
My point is simply looking at the records and judging what that means about teams and where they are going is foolish. We're a team on an extreme downtrend, and Minnesota is, well, not. If things continue for us this way, we'd be lucky to go .500 the rest of the way. Do you think the Twins are likely to do close to the same? I don't.

By this standard, any team who loses two consecutive series is on a downward trend that leads them to being lucky to go .500 the rest of the way.

Why even play the games? The trend says it all. Of course, if this were true Minnesota would've quit a long time ago when they were on a downturn.

I'm not giving up on a team that's within 5 games of the lead in August. Right now, the Sox are 1/2 game back, and tied for losses in their division. They have better hitters than Minnesota, and pitching that should correct itself in late August. It'll be close, but I still give the edge to the White Sox at this point.

IronFisk
08-04-2008, 02:19 PM
The stress would be much easier if I could hear the sound of THE cowbell! Have you been ringing that thing lately?

All I will say is this...

Reports of the cowbell's demise are greatly exaggerated!

munchman33
08-04-2008, 04:01 PM
By this standard, any team who loses two consecutive series is on a downward trend that leads them to being lucky to go .500 the rest of the way.

Why even play the games? The trend says it all. Of course, if this were true Minnesota would've quit a long time ago when they were on a downturn.

I'm not giving up on a team that's within 5 games of the lead in August. Right now, the Sox are 1/2 game back, and tied for losses in their division. They have better hitters than Minnesota, and pitching that should correct itself in late August. It'll be close, but I still give the edge to the White Sox at this point.

We've been pitching like **** a lot long than two series. This attitude is exactly the kind I'm arguing against. You're trying to act like we haven't been bad for as long as we have.

As bad as we've produced, we've played BETTER record wise than our production dictates the last few weeks. We could easily go on a ten or twelve game losing streak with the kind of pitching we're getting. Stop sugar-coating things. We've been absolutely horrible at baseball for close to a month.

balke
08-04-2008, 04:07 PM
We've been pitching like **** a lot long than two series. This attitude is exactly the kind I'm arguing against. You're trying to act like we haven't been bad for as long as we have.

As bad as we've produced, we've played BETTER record wise than our production dictates the last few weeks. We could easily go on a ten or twelve game losing streak with the kind of pitching we're getting. Stop sugar-coating things. We've been absolutely horrible at baseball for close to a month.

.520 in July. Am I sugar coating anything, or are you ignoring every month previous to that, and predicting them to go to a .500 or lower team, when they've failed to do so any month of the season?

They have been pitching like crap. With JC and Linebrink on the team, and Richard off, I think they'll be fine. They just need to get healthier, and slug the crap out of the ball in the meantime.

I really expect Javy and MB to step it up in their next starts. Both guys owe the Sox some big outings in their next starts. The more innings the SP's can get in, the faster this team goes back to pitching well again. The bullpen can't endure these 4-5 inning outings the starters have been putting out there.

munchman33
08-04-2008, 04:09 PM
.520 in July. Am I sugar coating anything, or are you ignoring every month previous to that, and predicting them to go to a .500 or lower team, when they've failed to do so any month of the season?

Reread my post. Our record hides how crappy we've been. We can't keep pitching like this and expect not to lose a lot. We've gotten EXTREMELY lucky a ton.

balke
08-04-2008, 04:16 PM
Reread my post. Our record hides how crappy we've been. We can't keep pitching like this and expect not to lose a lot. We've gotten EXTREMELY lucky a ton.

I completely disagree with you on that. Your glass is always half empty, this is just another example. There is nothing "lucky" about having pitchers out due to injury. The Sox will be fine with health. They have improved the offense for when the happens by adding Griffey.

Offense if you remember, is the real reason the Sox aren't in 1st place at this point in the season. They should've won 5 more games earlier this year at least based on low run production.

delben91
08-04-2008, 04:25 PM
But regardless of what everyone thinks, the Twins aren't going to go away.

Mike, not picking on you, a lot of people used this statement, and I just wanted to comment on it.

There's no chance the Twins slump during the next 7 weeks of the season? None? Are they the only team in baseball immune to slumps? 0% chance of a slump?

chisoxmike
08-04-2008, 04:31 PM
Mike, not picking on you, a lot of people used this statement, and I just wanted to comment on it.

There's no chance the Twins slump during the next 7 weeks of the season? None? Are they the only team in baseball immune to slumps? 0% chance of a slump?

They'll slump. But I think people think they will go into a meltdown mode and completely fall off the table, which I don't think will happen. It will (hopefully) be a two team race all season.

I can't stand reading how people write "Twins suck" "Twins are nothing" "Don't worry about the Twins>"

The Twins are always going to give the Sox a run, and they always beat out the Sox for the AL Central title.

A lot of people thought the Tigers were going to cool off in 2006, which they did. But the Sox never took advantage of it and the Twins became unbeatable.

They'll slump, like I said, but with the Sox pitching problems, it may not matter.

Just win, Sox!

munchman33
08-04-2008, 04:34 PM
I completely disagree with you on that. Your glass is always half empty, this is just another example. There is nothing "lucky" about having pitchers out due to injury. The Sox will be fine with health. They have improved the offense for when the happens by adding Griffey.

Offense if you remember, is the real reason the Sox aren't in 1st place at this point in the season. They should've won 5 more games earlier this year at least based on low run production.

We're last in the league in pitching since the All-Star break. Playing .400 baseball in that stretch would be lucky.

We have one reliever and one starter out due to injury. Once again, you are oversimplifying a much larger problem in an attempt to completely deny it's a problem. There isn't a pitcher on our staff, reliever or starter, who hasn't had trouble since the break. Wake up. We're in a lot of trouble here, and we need twelve guys to turn it around immediately or we're ****ed.

delben91
08-04-2008, 04:35 PM
Wake up. We're in a lot of trouble here, and we need twelve guys to turn it around immediately or we're ****ed.

Epic.

Well done. :thumbsup:

Tragg
08-04-2008, 04:45 PM
As bad as we've produced, we've played BETTER record wise than our production dictates the last few weeks. We could easily go on a ten or twelve game losing streak with the kind of pitching we're getting. Stop sugar-coating things. We've been absolutely horrible at baseball for close to a month.
12 game losing streak?
One man's surgar coating is another man's hyperbole of the situation.

munchman33
08-04-2008, 05:12 PM
12 game losing streak?
One man's surgar coating is another man's hyperbole of the situation.

When you're giving up six runs a game, a twelve game losing streak is a lot more likely than running off ten of twelve wins.

TDog
08-04-2008, 05:18 PM
Reread my post. Our record hides how crappy we've been. We can't keep pitching like this and expect not to lose a lot. We've gotten EXTREMELY lucky a ton.

By the same token, the Twins' record hides how crappy they have been. Not only have they been EXTREMELY lucky, they've been EXTREMELY lucky at the White Sox expense a few times. Not that I am making excuses. I just don't think that today you can consider the Chicago White Sox the luckiest team on the face of the earth.

The Tigers' record, on the other hand, pretty much tells the story of a team that leads the league in games scoring 19 runs and games being shut out. I think they lead the league in issuing game-ending walks, getting another on on Sunday, but the Tigers aren't the issue right now.

From the Angels' record you would guess they were the best team in baseball. It hides the fact that they played a crappy series in New York.

For that matter Clayton Richard's 10.38 ERA hides how much worse he has pitched.

The fact is, some team is going to win the American League Central, and it will probably hide the fact that the team played crappy baseball and got lucky. Purists will mourn, but few will care.

SoxGirl4Life
08-04-2008, 05:23 PM
The fact is, some team is going to win the American League Central, and it will probably hide the fact that the team played crappy baseball and got lucky. Purists will mourn, but few will care.


:rolling:

WhiteSox5187
08-04-2008, 05:34 PM
I have no idea WHY I feel this way, but for some reason I think before the week is out, we're 2.5 up.

munchman33
08-04-2008, 07:41 PM
By the same token, the Twins' record hides how crappy they have been. Not only have they been EXTREMELY lucky, they've been EXTREMELY lucky at the White Sox expense a few times. Not that I am making excuses. I just don't think that today you can consider the Chicago White Sox the luckiest team on the face of the earth.

The Tigers' record, on the other hand, pretty much tells the story of a team that leads the league in games scoring 19 runs and games being shut out. I think they lead the league in issuing game-ending walks, getting another on on Sunday, but the Tigers aren't the issue right now.

From the Angels' record you would guess they were the best team in baseball. It hides the fact that they played a crappy series in New York.

For that matter Clayton Richard's 10.38 ERA hides how much worse he has pitched.

The fact is, some team is going to win the American League Central, and it will probably hide the fact that the team played crappy baseball and got lucky. Purists will mourn, but few will care.

Once again, someone oversimplifies to counterpoint. Comparing our last month+ to one Angels series is ridiculous. Teams slump for three games. Pitching staffs don't go from best to worst unless something is seriously wrong. And we're not talking about three days, or eight days, or even two weeks. We're passed trend territory. Right now, there isn't a staff worse than ours. We can take any other staff in the league (starters and pen) and replace our guys for the last month and win more games. That's how bad our guys have been. That isn't something you can simplify or explain away. It's extreme. Our pitching has been bad beyond comparison.

whitesox901
08-04-2008, 08:45 PM
The Sox are .5 games out of first because the Twinkies have played an extra game and they won it. That's all. By tomorrow it will be two extra games and by a week from Thursday the two teams will be all square. Until the Sox lose a game they are making up, the two teams are effectively tied. It's just a fluke that we are in second at the moment.


this was the awnser i was looking for! :bandance:

TDog
08-04-2008, 08:58 PM
Once again, someone oversimplifies to counterpoint. Comparing our last month+ to one Angels series is ridiculous. Teams slump for three games. Pitching staffs don't go from best to worst unless something is seriously wrong. And we're not talking about three days, or eight days, or even two weeks. We're passed trend territory. Right now, there isn't a staff worse than ours. We can take any other staff in the league (starters and pen) and replace our guys for the last month and win more games. That's how bad our guys have been. That isn't something you can simplify or explain away. It's extreme. Our pitching has been bad beyond comparison.

You're misunderstanding my post, probably because you're too wrapped up in your doom-and-gloom feelings toward the Sox. I didn't compare the Angels playing like crap over the weekend to the White Sox pitching slump. And if you don't understand that pitching staffs do indeed go from being first over a long stretch to being last over a short stretch, you don't understand that baseball is a human game where players slump and teams fall into slumps because they have to work around player slumps. Hitting can do that too.

The Twins have been playing like crap and they're in first place. You can play like crap and finish first. You can play like absolute crap while blowing a huge division lead and finish second and still go to the World Series, as the Tigers showed a couple of years ago, although they didn't show much when they got to the World Series because they played like crap. The team that plays the least crappy and is the luckiest will win. Playing like crap yesterday doesn't mean you'll play like crap tomorrow.

If you're looking for great baseball, you're not going to find it in 2008. But it's good enough that it could be a fun summer if you just sit back and enjoy the pennant race. The Sox have a great chance this year to be less crappy than the Twins. They might even be less crappy than the Angels in the ALCS and return to the World Series to play a crappy National League team.

munchman33
08-04-2008, 09:00 PM
You're misunderstanding my post, probably because you're too wrapped up in your doom-and-gloom feelings toward the Sox. I didn't compare the Angels playing like crap over the weekend to the White Sox pitching slump. And if you don't understand that pitching staffs do indeed go from being first over a long stretch to being last over a short stretch, you don't understand that baseball is a human game where players slump and teams fall into slumps because they have to work around player slumps. Hitting can do that too.

The Twins have been playing like crap and they're in first place. You can play like crap and finish first. You can play like absolute crap while blowing a huge division lead and finish second and still go to the World Series, as the Tigers showed a couple of years ago, although they didn't show much when they got to the World Series because they played like crap. The team that plays the least crappy and is the luckiest will win. Playing like crap yesterday doesn't mean you'll play like crap tomorrow.

If you're looking for great baseball, you're not going to find it in 2008. But it's good enough that it could be a fun summer if you just sit back and enjoy the pennant race. The Sox have a great chance this year to be less crappy than the Twins. They might even be less crappy than the Angels in the ALCS and return to the World Series to play a crappy National League team.

It's not a short stretch. It's been over a month since we've been pitching bad. The last time something like this happened, it was our 2007 pen. And they finished all the way that bad.

kitekrazy
08-04-2008, 09:10 PM
Offense if you remember, is the real reason the Sox aren't in 1st place at this point in the season. They should've won 5 more games earlier this year at least based on low run production.

Only the Tigers have been shut out more.

TDog
08-04-2008, 09:16 PM
It's not a short stretch. It's been over a month since we've been pitching bad. The last time something like this happened, it was our 2007 pen. And they finished all the way that bad.

Again, you missed my point.

munchman33
08-04-2008, 09:27 PM
Again, you missed my point.

No I haven't. You're saying there are ups and downs. I said you're oversimplifying a bigger problem. You're saying everyone is bad anyway. I once again say you're oversimplifying. It's not that I don't see what you're saying. I just think you're trying to explain away something that's incredibly obvious.

kitekrazy
08-04-2008, 09:31 PM
They'll slump. But I think people think they will go into a meltdown mode and completely fall off the table, which I don't think will happen. It will (hopefully) be a two team race all season.

I can't stand reading how people write "Twins suck" "Twins are nothing" "Don't worry about the Twins>"


People think the game is played on paper. The Twins play fundamental baseball, good defense, make few mental errors. That's going to win you a few games.

Their lack of talent shows up in the post season. Most of those teams don't make the mental errors, and often out pitch them or out hit them.

As of right now it's not the Twins that suck.

Vienna
08-05-2008, 12:52 AM
Let's hope this holds up. Mariners just scored 10 in the 7th to lead 6-11.

TDog
08-05-2008, 01:03 AM
No I haven't. You're saying there are ups and downs. I said you're oversimplifying a bigger problem. You're saying everyone is bad anyway. I once again say you're oversimplifying. It's not that I don't see what you're saying. I just think you're trying to explain away something that's incredibly obvious.

I was suggesting you lighten up. As I post this, although the game isn't over, the Twins are playing every bit as crappy against a last place team as the Sox did at any time this weekend.

PeteWard
08-05-2008, 01:15 AM
Back in first!

munchman33
08-05-2008, 01:18 AM
I was suggesting you lighten up. As I post this, although the game isn't over, the Twins are playing every bit as crappy against a last place team as the Sox did at any time this weekend.

One Twins game versus the last 30 White Sox games.

Once again, oversimplifying.

I don't get excited for one Sox win/loss or one Twins win/loss. The Twins are not playing that bad on the whole (or at all actually). We are.

PeteWard
08-05-2008, 01:26 AM
One Twins game versus the last 30 White Sox games.

Once again, oversimplifying.

I don't get excited for one Sox win/loss or one Twins win/loss. The Twins are not playing that bad on the whole (or at all actually). We are.

I get very excited about a win. I call it "Being a Sox fan". :rolleyes:

RowanDye
08-05-2008, 01:47 AM
One Twins game versus the last 30 White Sox games.

Once again, oversimplifying.

I don't get excited for one Sox win/loss or one Twins win/loss. The Twins are not playing that bad on the whole (or at all actually). We are.

The Twins were playing bad, but that game has now mercifully ended. The Sox actually didn't play at all today.

You can't have it both ways with this oversimplification stuff. You don't get to just arbitrarily pick a time frame (i.e. 30 games) and then say "See, the White Sox suck!". There's a reason why the season is long and games in April count just as much as games in August or September.

The Sox need to get more quality starts and timely hitting, the Twins have to avoid giving up 10 runs in one inning to awful teams. It's going to be a tough battle, but I'm willing just to confidently root for the White Sox and not **** my pants about it like you.

TDog
08-05-2008, 01:49 AM
One Twins game versus the last 30 White Sox games.

Once again, oversimplifying.

I don't get excited for one Sox win/loss or one Twins win/loss. The Twins are not playing that bad on the whole (or at all actually). We are.

If you paid more attention to how the Twins play, you would see that they play their share of sloppy baseball. Nathan doesn't blow many saves. (He did blow a save to the Royals with a three-run, two-out, game-tying inside-the-park homer.) Granted the Twins do win some sloppy games. But so do the Sox.

munchman33
08-05-2008, 03:33 AM
The Twins were playing bad, but that game has now mercifully ended. The Sox actually didn't play at all today.

You can't have it both ways with this oversimplification stuff. You don't get to just arbitrarily pick a time frame (i.e. 30 games) and then say "See, the White Sox suck!". There's a reason why the season is long and games in April count just as much as games in August or September.

The Sox need to get more quality starts and timely hitting, the Twins have to avoid giving up 10 runs in one inning to awful teams. It's going to be a tough battle, but I'm willing just to confidently root for the White Sox and not **** my pants about it like you.

It isn't a random piece of the season. It's right now. It 30 games ago until now. As in it's the present, and it's not something that's just a phase or something that will easily pass, because it's been going on for a very long time. Calling it a random portion of the season or something that is no different from any other stretch in the season IS oversimplifying. Because this is not the same team from any other point in the season.

Nellie_Fox
08-05-2008, 03:43 AM
Okay Munch, we get it. The Sox are dead in the water. You knew it was coming all along, while the rest of us didn't. I think you've pretty much exhausted your arguments now, and you're repeating yourself.

SOXBOY
08-05-2008, 06:41 AM
The Sox just fell back into first!

Railsplitter
08-05-2008, 07:08 AM
Still, I'm not convinced much help will be forthcoming. Sweep the Kitties, The Twinkies are off Thursday.

aryzner
08-05-2008, 08:13 AM
Still, I'm not convinced much help will be forthcoming. Sweep the Kitties, The Twinkies are off Thursday.
Agreed. The Sox have to help themselves from now on. And they have a head start by only having 49 losses to the Twins' 50.

RowanDye
08-05-2008, 08:29 AM
It isn't a random piece of the season. It's right now. It 30 games ago until now. As in it's the present, and it's not something that's just a phase or something that will easily pass, because it's been going on for a very long time. Calling it a random portion of the season or something that is no different from any other stretch in the season IS oversimplifying. Because this is not the same team from any other point in the season.

Arbitrary does NOT mean random. Read the rest of my post for the context of why I think your arbitrary decision is too simplistic of a judgment.

stl_sox_fan
08-05-2008, 08:42 AM
The Sox just fell back into first!

Went to bed with the Twins up 4-0 and was certain they'd be a full game back this morning.


1 day in first and counting.......

munchman33
08-05-2008, 09:22 AM
Arbitrary does NOT mean random. Read the rest of my post for the context of why I think your arbitrary decision is too simplistic of a judgment.

The last month does not, under any circumstances, constitute an arbitrary piece of season. Any time before it would, however. Who our sox are now (and have been for a while) is way more of an indication of how they will play the rest of the way than any other point of the season. It isn't arbitrary or opinion. It's common sense.

munchman33
08-05-2008, 09:23 AM
Okay Munch, we get it. The Sox are dead in the water. You knew it was coming all along, while the rest of us didn't. I think you've pretty much exhausted your arguments now, and you're repeating yourself.

People keep disagreeing!

Jurr
08-05-2008, 10:28 AM
Funny...I was pissing and moaning to my girlfriend last night about the Sox and how bad they've been looking. I told her that I had concerns that they wouldn't make the post season. She just shrugged and said, "ehhh..it's just a little bump in the road. They happen. The Sox will be fine. They're pretty solid."

I just shut up and smiled. Worked for me.

RowanDye
08-05-2008, 01:58 PM
The last month does not, under any circumstances, constitute an arbitrary piece of season. Any time before it would, however. Who our sox are now (and have been for a while) is way more of an indication of how they will play the rest of the way than any other point of the season. It isn't arbitrary or opinion. It's common sense.

Who are "the sox now"? Has there been enough roster turnover to warrant an identity crisis?

Why not look over the past two or three months? How is the past month NOT arbitrary? Oh yea I forgot, because you picked it to push your pessimistic agenda.

balke
08-05-2008, 02:10 PM
The last month does not, under any circumstances, constitute an arbitrary piece of season. Any time before it would, however. Who our sox are now (and have been for a while) is way more of an indication of how they will play the rest of the way than any other point of the season. It isn't arbitrary or opinion. It's common sense.

You're absolutely right. From this point on every judgement for the Sox will be made on month to month basis. There is no such thing as a slump or hot streak in baseball. There is only a bad month followed by a series of bad months. Jim Thome's July will not continue. If it had been bad, it would've been repeated all throughout the rest of the season. Common sense says because it was good, it can't continue..

YeS WE ALL MUST THINK LIKE MUNCHMAN33. It rained today, so it will rain tomorrow and every day moving forward :(. I'll never get a tan /mope.

munchman33
08-05-2008, 02:13 PM
Who are "the sox now"? Has there been enough roster turnover to warrant an identity crisis?

Why not look over the past two or three months? How is the past month NOT arbitrary? Oh yea I forgot, because you picked it to push your pessimistic agenda.

You're absolutely right. From this point on every judgement for the Sox will be made on month to month basis. There is no such thing as a slump or hot streak in baseball. There is only a bad month followed by a series of bad months. Jim Thome's July will not continue. If it had been bad, it would've been repeated all throughout the rest of the season. Common sense says because it was good, it can't continue..

YeS WE ALL MUST THINK LIKE MUNCHMAN33. It rained today, so it will rain tomorrow and every day moving forward :(. I'll never get a tan /mope.

I picked a month ago because that's when the team started playing completely different. You can look at the team before that point and after that point and see two completely different teams. It isn't arbitrary. I picked it because it was obviously, so far, the turning point in our season.

surfdudes
08-05-2008, 05:29 PM
I'm in the manufacturing business. I manufacture ALL my own misery......
Sox in first, loss column is important, injured players coming back to the lineup, we got Griffey, pitching will be good enough to keep us around in September. Thank the great Buddha we are not going flat in September. Let's see how the Chisox respond to the KC Brawl during the homestand.

gobears1987
08-06-2008, 01:25 AM
2008!!!

Nellie_Fox
08-06-2008, 01:59 AM
Agreed. The Sox have to help themselves from now on. And they have a head start by only having 49 losses to the Twins' 50.The Twins now have 51 losses.