PDA

View Full Version : White Sox "DNA"


infohawk
08-10-2008, 04:50 PM
I'm writing this just as Matt Thornton walked three batters in a row against the Red Sox with our Sox clinging to a one-run lead. We may very well hang on to win this game, but lately I've been thinking about the following "truism" regarding the White Sox of the 2000s. Save for the 2005 season, the White Sox seem to put together fairly talented teams that nevertheless find a way to self-destruct at some point during the season.

I thought it would make for an interesting discussion to debate why this seems to be true. What is it about the White Sox teams, beginning in 2001 (minus 2005), that allows them to play well enough to contend, but almost reliably fall apart? They have often seemed to come up flat during a crucial series or two when they really need to show up.

Alright, a double play got us out of the inning!!!:D:

Elephant
08-10-2008, 04:58 PM
Pants pissing dark clouds!

asindc
08-10-2008, 05:17 PM
I'm writing this just as Matt Thornton walked three batters in a row against the Red Sox with our Sox clinging to a one-run lead. We may very well hang on to win this game, but lately I've been thinking about the following "truism" regarding the White Sox of the 2000s. Save for the 2005 season, the White Sox seem to put together fairly talented teams that nevertheless find a way to self-destruct at some point during the season.

I thought it would make for an interesting discussion to debate why this seems to be true. What is it about the White Sox teams, beginning in 2001 (minus 2005), that allows them to play well enough to contend, but almost reliably fall apart? They have often seemed to come up flat during a crucial series or two when they really need to show up.

Alright, a double play got us out of the inning!!!:D:

You were saying?

eastchicagosoxfan
08-10-2008, 05:21 PM
I'm writing this just as Matt Thornton walked three batters in a row against the Red Sox with our Sox clinging to a one-run lead. We may very well hang on to win this game, but lately I've been thinking about the following "truism" regarding the White Sox of the 2000s. Save for the 2005 season, the White Sox seem to put together fairly talented teams that nevertheless find a way to self-destruct at some point during the season.

I thought it would make for an interesting discussion to debate why this seems to be true. What is it about the White Sox teams, beginning in 2001 (minus 2005), that allows them to play well enough to contend, but almost reliably fall apart? They have often seemed to come up flat during a crucial series or two when they really need to show up.

Alright, a double play got us out of the inning!!!:D:

Dude?!?!

thomas35forever
08-10-2008, 05:22 PM
I'd like to nominate this thread for the one with the biggest mood swing in WSI history.

Marqhead
08-10-2008, 05:29 PM
:threadsucks

infohawk
08-10-2008, 06:16 PM
No, no, no...I think the purpose of the thread has been misunderstood. I wasn't talking about any one game, particularly today's. I've recently been thinking about the many instances over the past few seasons when the Sox have been in contention, only to cough it up late in the season (seemingly always in the Metrodome). What prompted me to post today was the three consecutive walks as a symbol of a team stumbling at a time when it was in the lead. Thornton's apparent "stumble" reminded me of the many times in the past where the Sox had an excellent shot at the division, only to underperform. I'm actually pretty optimistic about this year's club. I'm really talking about 2001-2006 (minus 2005 of course!) The question, again, is why do you guys think that those teams couldn't step up when the division was on the line?

eastchicagosoxfan
08-10-2008, 06:21 PM
No, no, no...I think the purpose of the thread has been misunderstood. I wasn't talking about any one game, particularly today's. I've recently been thinking about the many instances over the past few seasons when the Sox have been in contention, only to cough it up late in the season (seemingly always in the Metrodome). What prompted me to post today was the three consecutive walks as a symbol of a team stumbling at a time when it was in the lead. Thornton's apparent "stumble" reminded me of the many times in the past where the Sox had an excellent shot at the division, only to underperform. I'm actually pretty optimistic about this year's club. I'm really talking about 2001-2006 (minus 2005 of course!) The question, again, is why do you guys think that those teams couldn't step up when the division was on the line?
Over a 162 game season, the best team wins the division. When the sox lost, they lost to better teams. To put it simply, they didn't have the horses.

MISoxfan
08-10-2008, 07:12 PM
We lost in 2003 and 2004 because we didn't have a good enough back end of the rotation and the offense couldn't carry the team to the division title. Maybe it could have in 2004 if not for injuries, but thats part of the game.

hawkjt
08-10-2008, 10:36 PM
In 2000 sox won the division. In 05 they won the world series. In 06 they led for most of the first half..played just ok the second half..won 90 games but lost out to two teams that played great ball and won 96 and 95. No shame in that.
They have been fairly successful in the 2000-07 era. Any DNA problems are just not enough good players in their system due to low drafting positions for the last 15 years. They always finish second or third at worst(cept for last year) and they end up without the chance to draft the true studs like Frank Thomas, Joe Mauer, or A-Rod.