PDA

View Full Version : Definition of Success for 2009


SoxGirl4Life
03-26-2009, 12:17 PM
For me:


The kids from last year having good seasons. Comparable ERAs for Danks and Floyd; comparable power numbers for TCQ and Alexei.
Id like to see Getz and Fields mature into legitimate big league players
At least one of our young pitchers (Richard, Marquez, Poreda) emerge as a reliable starter.
Improved defense and baserunning
I know we'd all like the ultimate outcome for the season, but realistically, whats your definition of success for the Sox in 2009?

beasly213
03-26-2009, 12:19 PM
Anything less than a World Series Championship is a failure for me. And that is my realistic opinion. That should be the goal every year.

doublem23
03-26-2009, 12:23 PM
Play-offs. There are some seriously good teams in the American League and there's way too much **** that could go wrong in a 3-game series to say I realisticaly expect the Sox to make a World Series run, but our division sucks; we should win it by at least 5-7 games.

LoveYourSuit
03-26-2009, 12:25 PM
Anything less than a World Series Championship is a failure for me. And that is my realistic opinion. That should be the goal every year.


Couldn't agree more. Making the play-offs on back to back seasons might be 1st for us, but I think we are beyond that. A WS appearance is where we need to be.

Chez
03-26-2009, 12:42 PM
I'm 50 years old. The Sox have made it to the post-season 6 times in my life. To me, any year they make the playoffs is a "successful" season.

jabrch
03-26-2009, 12:50 PM
I'd agree with those saying that the playoffs is successful. I'd also propose that a 90 win season is a success. Sometimes you run into a situation where that doesn't qualify you for the playoffs, but not very often.

But to say that a season is a failure if you don't win the world series, while it is your right to hold that opinion, is setting yourself up for failure. Sure it is a goal. Sure it is the highest of goals you can have. But the odds are long against it happening - so if that's the only thing you'd consider a success, you are walking into a season with little chance of success. If that's your view - cool...

Organizations have lots of ways that they measure success. While some fans don't like hearing that, it is true - and it makes sense. Success shouldn't be measured only in championships. It's a weak framework to judge if only a single team, 3.333% of the population, can be considered successful at the end of the year.

Case in point - I am sure KW would publicly say that nothing short of a WS win is considered a success. And I am sure that behind closed doors, he has multiple success measures.

Rohan
03-26-2009, 12:53 PM
I'd also say that Either Colon or Contreras needs to step up and throw similar to their prime years. They both have shown signs of that in their outings this spring.

Lip Man 1
03-26-2009, 12:53 PM
Given as noted (since I'm 53) that the Sox have 'only' made the post season five times in my life, my definition of "success" is more realistic.

At least have a WINNING season. (Anything above that is gravy...)

Winning 82 games gives you something positive to remember and to build on as an organization and (perhaps most importantly given the Sox situation) keeps fans in the stands.

And if you think it's so easy to have a 'winning' season look over how many times franchises have done this is say the last 53 years. Very few get to do it with any consistency. The Sox have had 32 of them in that time period which is not bad at all.

Lip

Lip Man 1
03-26-2009, 12:54 PM
Sorry mistyped. I meant six times in my life (59, 83, 93, 00, 05, 08)

Lip

sox1970
03-26-2009, 01:01 PM
Successful 2009 White Sox team= Winning the division and/or feel good about the young players for the future.

If they don't win the division, at least let me feel good about 2010 with Marquez, Richard, Poreda, Fields, Ramirez, Quentin, Beckham, Viciedo, Allen, and Flowers. Maybe not all of these guys...but most.

aryzner
03-26-2009, 01:28 PM
If the Sox players that I drafted for my fantasy team do well, it's a success! :D:

kobo
03-26-2009, 01:39 PM
Couldn't agree more. Making the play-offs on back to back seasons might be 1st for us, but I think we are beyond that. A WS appearance is where we need to be.
Making the playoffs in back to back seasons is something this team has never done, so I think it would be huge if this team accomplished that goal. I have no expectations of the Sox making it to the WS this year but do expect them to be in the playoffs.

Tragg
03-26-2009, 01:42 PM
Win the division.

Or win 92 and no division.

DirtySox
03-26-2009, 01:46 PM
Put me in the make the playoffs camp.

Boondock Saint
03-26-2009, 01:48 PM
My definition of success is a World Series win. But that doesn't mean that I can't be satisfied or happy with a playoff series.

soxfan21
03-26-2009, 01:56 PM
Winning the division would be a success for this team this year. As others have stated, anything short of a WS Championship is a failure, which I agree with, but it would be good to make the playoffs in consecutive seasons.

voodoochile
03-26-2009, 02:09 PM
Play-offs. There are some seriously good teams in the American League and there's way too much **** that could go wrong in a 3-game series to say I realisticaly expect the Sox to make a World Series run, but our division sucks; we should win it by at least 5-7 games.

Yep and if things break right, no reason we can't go further.

LoveYourSuit
03-26-2009, 02:14 PM
It's all about improvement.

You want to be better than you were the previous season. The Sox won the Division, so next step this season is to at least make it to the ALCS.

But I still think Kenny and Co hold it to a much higher standard than that, win a WS. That's why I stick to that.

sox1970
03-26-2009, 02:24 PM
It's all about improvement.

You want to be better than you were the previous season. The Sox won the Division, so next step this season is to at least make it to the ALCS.

But I still think Kenny and Co hold it to a much higher standard than that, win a WS. That's why I stick to that.

I don't agree with that philosophy at all. Baseball is a year-to-year thing. What happened last year makes no difference to what will happen this year. Look no further than what happened with the Sox 2004 through 2008. They had very different seasons, even half seasons, every year. And what happened the year before really had nothing to do with the following year.

All you can do is put together a quality team that can compete, and then hope you stay healthy, maybe get a couple career years, and have a hot pitching staff going into October.

Thome25
03-26-2009, 02:43 PM
I'd agree with those saying that the playoffs is successful. I'd also propose that a 90 win season is a success. Sometimes you run into a situation where that doesn't qualify you for the playoffs, but not very often.

But to say that a season is a failure if you don't win the world series, while it is your right to hold that opinion, is setting yourself up for failure. Sure it is a goal. Sure it is the highest of goals you can have. But the odds are long against it happening - so if that's the only thing you'd consider a success, you are walking into a season with little chance of success. If that's your view - cool...

Organizations have lots of ways that they measure success. While some fans don't like hearing that, it is true - and it makes sense. Success shouldn't be measured only in championships. It's a weak framework to judge if only a single team, 3.333% of the population, can be considered successful at the end of the year.

Case in point - I am sure KW would publicly say that nothing short of a WS win is considered a success. And I am sure that behind closed doors, he has multiple success measures.

Winning the World Series and having the opportunity to become the world champion is the reason MLB teams play every year.

This isn't an exercise in futility and it isn't enough just to show up for the first game or the playoffs for that matter.....anything short of winning the WS is a failure for any team. There's only 1 team that reaches that goal that every team strives for every year.......everything else is just moot IMO.

If you're not 1st you're last.

Thome25
03-26-2009, 02:48 PM
Winning the division would be a success for this team this year. As others have stated, anything short of a WS Championship is a failure, which I agree with, but it would be good to make the playoffs in consecutive seasons.

Making the playoffs in consecutive years is definitely something for this team to strive for. But, as the thread title says it isn't the "Definition of Success".....the definition of success is winning the WS point blank and period.

jabrch
03-26-2009, 03:08 PM
Winning the World Series and having the opportunity to become the world champion is the reason MLB teams play every year.

That's complete bull****. It's idealistic bull****. Tell me you think the Pirates are playing this year to win the WS.

This isn't an exercise in futility

I don't understand what you are talking about. Who said it is an excercise in futility?

and it isn't enough just to show up for the first game

Thanks...never would have figured that one out without your contribution

anything short of winning the WS is a failure for any team.

A) That's your opinion.
B) Your opinion is so full of holes it is sad.
C) It's still your opinion

There's only 1 team that reaches that goal that every team strives for every year.......everything else is just moot IMO.

assuming by moot, you mean it has no value...that's your opinion. You are entitled to it. I think it is completely assinine.

If you're not 1st you're last.

That's so completely untrue. There is a lot of ways to stratify the seasons and compare baseball teams. If you really believe that the season last year that the Tigers had was an equal success to the season that the Devil Rays had, then of course you are entitled to that opinion. Call the fans up in Detroit. Call the fans in Tampa. I'm sure both of them would tell you that you are so off base that it isn't even funny.

SoxFan1979
03-26-2009, 03:35 PM
Anything less than a World Series Championship is a failure for me. And that is my realistic opinion. That should be the goal every year.

Amen to that. :gulp:

doublem23
03-26-2009, 03:42 PM
Winning the World Series and having the opportunity to become the world champion is the reason MLB teams play every year.

This isn't an exercise in futility and it isn't enough just to show up for the first game or the playoffs for that matter.....anything short of winning the WS is a failure for any team. There's only 1 team that reaches that goal that every team strives for every year.......everything else is just moot IMO.

If you're not 1st you're last.

That's absolutely ridiculous. The World Series is the ultimate goal, of course, but to deem anything less than that a failure is stupid.

The 1993, 2000, 2008, and even 2006 Sox were great teams and those were great seasons that, IMO, are not tarnished at all by the fact they weren't World Champs.

asindc
03-26-2009, 03:50 PM
Making the playoffs in back to back seasons is something this team has never done, so I think it would be huge if this team accomplished that goal. I have no expectations of the Sox making it to the WS this year but do expect them to be in the playoffs.

What he said. That would be an accomplishment the team has not reached before. That means success in my book.

sox1970
03-26-2009, 03:53 PM
So 1901-2008, 107 teams have won the World Series, and over 2,000 teams were complete and utter failures. Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:

Madscout
03-26-2009, 04:07 PM
Get to the playoffs. Once you do that, anything can happen.

Does anybody really think that the Phillies were the best team last year? In the WS yes, in the NLCS/DS yes, but I don't think they were the best in the MLB. Yet they have the trophie and it is all because they were the best in those respective series. So, as I said, anything can happen.

Thome25
03-26-2009, 04:07 PM
So 1901-2008, 107 teams have won the World Series, and over 2,000 teams were complete and utter failures. Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:

No but, those 107 teams achieved the "Definition of Success" IMO......while what the other 2,000 teams achieved was moot IMO.

IMO there's only winning the World Series and individual milestones (500hrs, 3,000 hits, 3,000 strikeouts, etc.) Everything else means very little IMO.

Look at the Twinkies.......did all of those division titles in the 2000's get them anything?......what are do they mean without winning the WS too? IMO nothing.

doublem23
03-26-2009, 04:10 PM
Look at the Twinkies.......did all of those division titles in the 2000's get them anything?......what are do they mean without winning the WS too? IMO nothing.

Maybe you should ask Pirate fans how much 3 division titles in a decade would mean.

So, the tiebreaker game last year was for nothing? No way.

Noneck
03-26-2009, 04:12 PM
My idea of success is being in the hunt for the playoffs through the summer, Sept 21. I could care less if its with a winning record or not. I love being able to watch meaningful White Sox games throughout the summer. Not being in the hunt for long and ending up with a winning record means squat.

Thome25
03-26-2009, 04:21 PM
That's complete bull****. It's idealistic bull****. Tell me you think the Pirates are playing this year to win the WS.



I don't understand what you are talking about. Who said it is an excercise in futility?



Thanks...never would have figured that one out without your contribution



A) That's your opinion.
B) Your opinion is so full of holes it is sad.
C) It's still your opinion



assuming by moot, you mean it has no value...that's your opinion. You are entitled to it. I think it is completely assinine.



That's so completely untrue. There is a lot of ways to stratify the seasons and compare baseball teams. If you really believe that the season last year that the Tigers had was an equal success to the season that the Devil Rays had, then of course you are entitled to that opinion. Call the fans up in Detroit. Call the fans in Tampa. I'm sure both of them would tell you that you are so off base that it isn't even funny.

1.) It should be the goal of every team to win the WS every year....if the ****ing Rays and Rockies can get there then why not the Pirates? How they run their organization is a totally seperate subject.

2. An example of an exersize in futility would be the Chicago Cubs......that we are not and no team or fanbase should settle the way they do. We are the Chicago White Sox......our team and fanbase take each season more seriously.....it isn't enough just to make the playoffs IMO.

3.)Thanks.....that "yay.....this year is here" attitude is better kept on the northside.....that's what that quote meant.

4.) A.) I'm glad you're smart enough to recognize this.
B.) That's YOUR opinion and you're entitled to it......just like I'm entitled to mine.
C.) Apparently. you're still smart enough to recognize this....good for you.

5.) again you are entitled to your opinion......just remember, I never belittled YOUR opinion in my first post by calling it assinine or anything else for that matter.

Why is it so assinine to describe "The Definition Of Success" as winning the WS?

Thome25
03-26-2009, 04:23 PM
Maybe you should ask Pirate fans how much 3 division titles in a decade would mean.

So, the tiebreaker game last year was for nothing? No way.

No the tiebreaker game meant something just as the division titles in 83, 93, 00, 05, and 08 meant something too. They were a certain measure of success....they just weren't the "Definition Of Success" IMO.

When compared to the so-called definition of success. Division titles are fun and a measure of some success but by no means the definition of it.

doublem23
03-26-2009, 04:24 PM
Why is it so assinine to describe "The Definition Of Success" as winning the WS?

It's not so much that winning the World Series as a definition of success is assinine, it's the statement that anything short of that is an abject and complete failure.

No the tiebreaker game meant something just as the division titles in 83, 93, 00, 05, and 08 meant something too. They were a certain measure of success....they just weren't the "Definition Of Success" IMO.

Well then we're apparently just splitting hairs.

esbrechtel
03-26-2009, 04:26 PM
Sorry mistyped. I meant six times in my life (59, 83, 93, 00, 05, 08)

Lip


I am spoiled...I am only 24 and have seen them in the playoffs 4 times :cool:

Now that they have won a Series in my lifetime...I would be very happy with making the playoffs...anything else is great, but I would love for them to make the playoffs this season...

Thome25
03-26-2009, 04:26 PM
It's not so much that winning the World Series as a definition of success is assinine, it's the statement that anything short of that is an abject and complete failure.



Well then we're apparently just splitting hairs.

Winning the WS is what good, successful teams show up for.......why set goals so short and settle for a Division title?

Especially with surprise teams sneaking into the WS every year.

TomBradley72
03-26-2009, 04:29 PM
If we make it to the play offs I'll always consider that a successful season. Last year was an incredible finish to the season: beating the Indians on Sunday, the Tigers on Monday, and the Twins on Tuesday was the most intense and fun three days I've had as a White Sox fan excluding 2005. That team had alot of flaws, but came up big when their backs were against the wall. With all of the injuries, I consider the 2008 WSox a success.

"Success" for my team as a fan is based more on the memories and good times a season created, and any time we've made the post season, it's been very memorable and a great time.

doublem23
03-26-2009, 04:29 PM
Winning the WS is what good, successful teams show up for.......why set goals so short and settle for a Division title?

That's fine, I'm not saying winning the World Series is the same as winning your division. Obviously the off-season after 2005 was much better than those after 1993, 2000, and 2008. I'm just saying I don't think "just winnign your division" is as meanigless as finishing dead last in your division. There are realistic goals you can set for your team and this year I think it's very realistic that the Sox can win the division. But there are a lot of other good teams in the American League, so I won't be utterly devastated if they get bounced in the play-offs, and I'd still consider 2009 a success if that's what happens.

whitesox901
03-26-2009, 04:31 PM
Successful 2009 White Sox team= Winning the division and/or feel good about the young players for the future.

If they don't win the division, at least let me feel good about 2010 with Marquez, Richard, Poreda, Fields, Ramirez, Quentin, Beckham, Viciedo, Allen, and Flowers. Maybe not all of these guys...but most.

Ditto

jabrch
03-26-2009, 04:35 PM
1.)Why is it so assinine to describe "The Definition Of Success" as winning the WS?

If you can't recognize options short of winning the WS that would be considered successes, then you probably won't understand me trying to explain them to you. I'll pass on further trying.

why set goals so short and settle for a Division title?

Nobody said to either set goals short, or to settle for anything. You set goalS. One goal is to win the WS, but that's the goal you list at the bottom of the list. Another goal is to make it to the WS. It's a goal to make the playoffs, to win 90 games, etc. Ideally, you achieve all your goals. But to say it is a failure if you don't win the WS is naive. That's not how it works out there Thome. It's nice and idealistic. Every team does want to win it. Every team does try. But calling anything short of that a failure is ridiculous. Nobody said to settle for anything. But ignoring accomplishments that good teams make, even in falling short of the ultimate goal? Silly.

Thome25
03-26-2009, 04:58 PM
If you can't recognize options short of winning the WS that would be considered successes, then you probably won't understand me trying to explain them to you. I'll pass on further trying.



Nobody said to either set goals short, or to settle for anything. You set goalS. One goal is to win the WS, but that's the goal you list at the bottom of the list. Another goal is to make it to the WS. It's a goal to make the playoffs, to win 90 games, etc. Ideally, you achieve all your goals. But to say it is a failure if you don't win the WS is naive. That's not how it works out there Thome. It's nice and idealistic. Every team does want to win it. Every team does try. But calling anything short of that a failure is ridiculous. Nobody said to settle for anything. But ignoring accomplishments that good teams make, even in falling short of the ultimate goal? Silly.

Perhaps I was overzealous and exaggerating when I described "everything else" as a failure. They are simply lower levels of success. IMO the definition of the word success would be winning the WS.

WTS.....we aren't the Cubs. we don't have that "next year is here" attitude on opening day. We aren't just happy when the sun is shining and a certain slugger hits 60 homeruns. Our orgainzation and fans have higher expectations and goals. It isn't enough just to win a division.

Especially when teams are sneaking into the WS every year. Why not us? Did anybody expect the Angels and Giants in 2002? Or the Marlins in 2003? Or the Red Sawx and Cardinals in 2004? Or the White Sox and Astros in 2005? Or the Cardinals in 2006? How about the Phillies and Rays in 2008?

When we've seen so many teams surprise us and two 8-decade droughts end recently and so many surprise teams claw their way there, why wouldn't the WS be a realistic definition of success?

LITTLE NELL
03-26-2009, 06:33 PM
Starting following the Sox in the early 50s and in those days it was a given that the Sox would have a winning season and contend, so I always felt content with an over.500 season. When 1968 came around the Sox had their 1st losing season since 1950 and it was like having a nightmare. I feel with playing over .500 baseball you are doing something right and with some tweaking you might find yourself in the playoffs and winning a WS ala 2005. We did some tweaking by picking up Pods and Iguchi in 05 and we got our WS.
I'm feeling pretty good about the Sox organization and their mindset with fielding winning ball clubs. Like Patton said "Americans will not tolerate a loser", same with Sox fans. Since 1999 we have had only 1 losing season and I sense another run at the WS coming real soon. Maybe this year.

rdwj
03-26-2009, 06:36 PM
Anything less than a World Series Championship is a failure for me. And that is my realistic opinion. That should be the goal every year.

Sounds like you get your opinions from afternoon radio shows

SoxGirl4Life
03-26-2009, 07:38 PM
Successful 2009 White Sox team= Winning the division and/or feel good about the young players for the future.

If they don't win the division, at least let me feel good about 2010 with Marquez, Richard, Poreda, Fields, Ramirez, Quentin, Beckham, Viciedo, Allen, and Flowers. Maybe not all of these guys...but most.


That was my thinking too. If we can see those guys have solid, consistent production in 09, I think it gives Kenny a good idea of what we need for 2010 and beyond. A nice solid base to build on.

Bucky F. Dent
03-26-2009, 09:25 PM
Definition of success.....World Series Championship.

But, I'll settle for a division championship.

getonbckthr
03-26-2009, 09:30 PM
29 teams have unsuccessful seasons, 1 is successful.

MeanFish
03-26-2009, 11:33 PM
Winning the WS is what good, successful teams show up for.......why set goals so short and settle for a Division title?

Especially with surprise teams sneaking into the WS every year.

Your goal should be to play the best baseball you can and see where that takes you. Periodically, that might mean a world series victory. More often, it doesn't.

JB98
03-26-2009, 11:41 PM
With the personnel we have, a repeat as AL Central champion would be a successful season, IMO.

I believe we will have a winning campaign, but I won't be satisfied with 82-80. Let's see if we can get close to 90 wins and get back in the playoffs.

WhiteSoxJunkie
03-27-2009, 12:14 AM
My definition of success would be to make the playoffs and at least make the ALCS. Making the playoffs and bowing out in the first round is what happened last year. The team needs to improve on that meaning at least one playoff win is needed. It would also be a success if the team wins at least 8 of the games I attend with my Ozzie Plan. :D:

thomas35forever
03-27-2009, 12:21 AM
Anything less than a World Series Championship is a failure for me. And that is my realistic opinion. That should be the goal every year.
I didn't know Kenny Williams had an account at WSI.

Really though, the obvious goal is to win a world championship. If they can repeat as division champions though, I'll be satisfied.

kaufsox
03-27-2009, 12:08 PM
My idea of success is being in the hunt for the playoffs through the summer, Sept 21. I could care less if its with a winning record or not. I love being able to watch meaningful White Sox games throughout the summer. Not being in the hunt for long and ending up with a winning record means squat.

this is about it for me as well. Keep it interesting, guts churning into late September and I feel pretty good. Ultimately, sure I want to see another World Series, but being competitive for the season I feel like I got my money's worth.

A thread like this always seems to appear and it is amazing how so many people consider a winning Sox season, playoff season a success, yet deride Billy Beane because he hasn't won a World Series. He had a pretty good run through the 1990s, and people say he failed.

doublem23
03-27-2009, 12:31 PM
29 teams have unsuccessful seasons, 1 is successful.

And again, we have to call out your bull****. If you're trying to tell me the Rays and White Sox (coming off 96 and 90-loss seasons in 2007 respectively) didn't have successful seasons in 2008, you're insane.