PDA

View Full Version : 17 of 32 against 1st place teams


cws05champ
05-13-2009, 08:45 AM
I just looked at the results of the White Sox so far and noticed that 17 of their first 32 games have been against teams that are currently in 1st place(or tied for 1st) in their divisions. One could argue that these teams are in 1st because they have played the White Sox.

Despite the Sox not playing well, and catching some decent teams at the wrong time has had a little to do with their lackluster start.

Kansas City 5 games, 1-4
Detroit 3 games, 2-1
Texas 6 games, 2-4
Toronto 3 games, 1-2

We have four more against Toronto and 3 more against KC this month. Hopefully we can finish out strong.

Jim Shorts
05-13-2009, 08:53 AM
Here I thought it was because of all those runners left on 2nd and 3rd....

latiger12
05-13-2009, 08:58 AM
Here I thought it was because of all those runners left on 2nd and 3rd....

Same thing I was thinking...to many straned on base.

The Tiger
http://secsportschat.com/sport-chats/img/3760/y09w0429bqwm/whitesox.gif

thomas35forever
05-13-2009, 10:05 AM
Without even looking at the numbers, I knew that a lot of our games have come against first-place teams. I'd like to blame our slow start on that, but that would just be making excuses. We need to win regardless of what team shares the field with us.

areilly
05-13-2009, 10:24 AM
Without even looking at the numbers, I knew that a lot of our games have come against first-place teams. I'd like to blame our slow start on that, but that would just be making excuses. We need to win regardless of what team shares the field with us.

Exactly - and I'll bet at least two of those teams are simply crappy teams playing well early, i.e. this year's edition of the 2003 Royals.

Like they say, you can't win a division in April and May, but you can certainly lose one. Everyone loves to make an example of the 2005 Astros, but that was a Wild Card team led by Andy Pettite, Roger Clemens and Roy Oswalt.

Look what happened to the Cleveland Indians that same year: a terrible start cost them their shot. One of those two teams is the exception, one is the rule. I think we all know which is which.

jabrch
05-13-2009, 11:27 AM
Is it possible that all is not hopeless and that the season may not be over yet when we are 2 games under .500 and 2.5 games out of first place on May 13?

delben91
05-13-2009, 11:33 AM
Is it possible that all is not hopeless and that the season may not be over yet when we are 2 games under .500 and 2.5 games out of first place on May 13?

Impossible. Back up the truck.

Come on jabrch, you should know better by now to not ask stupid questions.

JB98
05-13-2009, 11:34 AM
Without even looking at the numbers, I knew that a lot of our games have come against first-place teams. I'd like to blame our slow start on that, but that would just be making excuses. We need to win regardless of what team shares the field with us.

It's definitely not an excuse because the Sox managed to lose two out of three to the Orioles, who are clearly not good.

The Sox have just been in a rut lately, regardless of opponent. Hopefully, they can get a winning streak going soon. Despite the poor play, it isn't like the Sox are that far behind in the division.

jabrch
05-13-2009, 11:47 AM
Impossible. Back up the truck.

Come on jabrch, you should know better by now to not ask stupid questions.

Stupid people ask stupid questions. I'm stupid. I believe that we still have a chance to stay competitive in this division despite some of the bad performances recently. Stupid me.

Jpgr91
05-13-2009, 07:13 PM
Maybe part of the reason these teams are in first place is because at least 10% of their games were against the Sox, and the Sox are not very good at the game of baseball?

oeo
05-13-2009, 07:18 PM
Maybe part of the reason these teams are in first place is because at least 10% of their games were against the Sox, and the Sox are not very good at the game of baseball?

We're 3 games under .500, not 15.

102605
05-13-2009, 07:20 PM
I think that playing the White Sox is the reason those teams are in first place!:tongue:

Jpgr91
05-13-2009, 07:25 PM
We're 3 games under .500, not 15.

And the Sox were able to accomplish that by only being shut out by top tier pitchers, superb starting pitching, and hitting with RISP? Some how I think all that is a little more problematic than how many 1st place teams the Sox have played.

oeo
05-13-2009, 07:38 PM
And the Sox were able to accomplish that by only being shut out by top tier pitchers, superb starting pitching, and hitting with RISP? Some how I think all that is a little more problematic than how many 1st place teams the Sox have played.

No, I didn't imply that at all. You're just over the top with how bad the Sox are. Waaay over the top.

Hartman
05-13-2009, 07:49 PM
Oh good so this team can't be expected to beat 1st place teams. We'll just settle for 3rd or 4th place in the division and call it a season. Brilliant.

This thread sucks and proves no point.

Rdy2PlayBall
05-13-2009, 07:53 PM
Oh good so this team can't be expected to beat 1st place teams. We'll just settle for 3rd or 4th place in the division and call it a season. Brilliant.

This thread sucks and proves no point.Being over .500 against 1st place teams is GOOD. :scratch: What do you expect 1.000?

mzh
05-13-2009, 08:20 PM
My old baseball coach used to tell us, "you're not good if you beat bad teams; you're good if you beat the good teams." If you ask me, he's hit it right on the nose. Perhaps if the best team in the league had had the same schedule as the Sox, they would still be the best team in league because they are good enough to beat the good teams. Maybe the reason the Sox are 2 games under .500 is not because of tough scheduling, but because that's the caliber team they are.

According to this philosophy, that is what makes a good team good: being able to win against the good along with the bad. If the Sox can't win against, the good, then they're just not a good team.

Jim Shorts
05-13-2009, 08:32 PM
Is it possible that all is not hopeless and that the season may not be over yet when we are 2 games under .500 and 2.5 games out of first place on May 13?

Yes, it is possible. But, let's let them score runs at will or show any signs of life before anything else.

Can you really argue that this team is NOT flat, boring and lifeless?

BadBobbyJenks
05-13-2009, 08:36 PM
Is it possible that all is not hopeless and that the season may not be over yet when we are 2 games under .500 and 2.5 games out of first place on May 13?

Instead of regurgitating this same thought, maybe give some reasons you think this team will turn it around. What evidence have you noticed to suggest this team is going to play better?

Jpgr91
05-13-2009, 09:03 PM
No, I didn't imply that at all. You're just over the top with how bad the Sox are. Waaay over the top.

Maybe, maybe not. The rotation is a huge problem of which I do not think they have any good solutions for. The only hope they have is that the ALC is easily the worst division in the AL.

oeo
05-13-2009, 09:18 PM
Maybe, maybe not. The rotation is a huge problem of which I do not think they have any good solutions for. The only hope they have is that the ALC is easily the worst division in the AL.

No, not maybe, maybe not. You're way over the top. You said those teams are in first place because 10% of their games are against the Sox. Please...

Pointing out they have issues is one thing, saying they're basically the worst team in baseball (or close to it) is another. At 3 games under .500, and mostly because of a rough last week and a half, the Sox are not the laughingstocks you're making them out to be.

Jpgr91
05-13-2009, 09:36 PM
No, not maybe, maybe not. You're way over the top. You said those teams are in first place because 10% of their games are against the Sox. Please...

Pointing out they have issues is one thing, saying they're basically the worst team in baseball (or close to it) is another. At 3 games under .500, and mostly because of a rough last week and a half, the Sox are not the laughingstocks you're making them out to be.


Texas is in first place, 22% of their wins have come against the Sox. The Sox complete ineptitude against the Rangers sub par starting pitching surely has something to do with them being in first place. And yes, I realize it is early and it is a small sample size.

I never said they were the worst team in baseball, but right now they are for sure playing as if they are in bottom 1/3 of the league. They have been shut out more than any other team in baseball, they have 3 huge question marks in their rotation, and their Center Fielder is Brent Lilibridge.

canOcorn
05-13-2009, 09:50 PM
I just looked at the results of the White Sox so far and noticed that 17 of their first 32 games have been against teams that are currently in 1st place(or tied for 1st) in their divisions. One could argue that these teams are in 1st because they have played the White Sox.

Despite the Sox not playing well, and catching some decent teams at the wrong time has had a little to do with their lackluster start.

Kansas City 5 games, 1-4
Detroit 3 games, 2-1
Texas 6 games, 2-4
Toronto 3 games, 1-2

We have four more against Toronto and 3 more against KC this month. Hopefully we can finish out strong.

Or maybe those teams are in 1st place because they've had the Sox on their schedule. :shrug:

The lineup we rolled out there today is easily in the bottom five of all teams and it got worse when JD was tossed. We've got two starting pitchers, several injuries, an inept manager, stubborn GM, cheap owner, and several hitters that are batting below their normal way. I predict a very long season, along the lines of 2007. Slash payroll, raise ticket prices during a recession, FTW.

DSpivack
05-13-2009, 09:57 PM
Or maybe those teams are in 1st place because they've had the Sox on their schedule. :shrug:

The lineup we rolled out there today is easily in the bottom five of all teams and it got worse when JD was tossed. We've got two starting pitchers, several injuries, an inept manager, stubborn GM, cheap owner, and several hitters that are batting below their normal way. I predict a very long season, along the lines of 2007. Slash payroll, raise ticket prices during a recession, FTW.

:rolleyes:

canOcorn
05-13-2009, 10:06 PM
:rolleyes:

Got that and raise you one. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

:shrug:

cws05champ
05-14-2009, 08:26 AM
Or maybe those teams are in 1st place because they've had the Sox on their schedule. :shrug:

The lineup we rolled out there today is easily in the bottom five of all teams and it got worse when JD was tossed. We've got two starting pitchers, several injuries, an inept manager, stubborn GM, cheap owner, and several hitters that are batting below their normal way. I predict a very long season, along the lines of 2007. Slash payroll, raise ticket prices during a recession, FTW.
Maybe you should read my original post when I said exactly:
"One could argue that these teams are in 1st because they have played the White Sox"

I'm not saying the Sox are not a flawed team, they are, and brutal to watch right now. But I was pointing out that while the Sox have been playing bad baseball, they are also facing teams that are off to good starts as well.

Also I'm getting kind of tired of people calling JR cheap. The payroll over the last 4 years has been in the top 4-5 of all of baseball. I expect it from the lemming Cub fans that just believe what the media tells them, but not our own fans.

Just for comparison sake I looked at the mighty Cubs first 32 games, they played only 6 games out of 32 against teams in 1st place, all of those against the Cardinals. This was before yesterday's games.

Tragg
05-14-2009, 09:19 AM
I just looked at the results of the White Sox so far and noticed that 17 of their first 32 games have been against teams that are currently in 1st place(or tied for 1st) in their divisions.
This is nice, but it's also self-generated.
Why are the Royals in first place? Because they beat us 4 out of 5. Had we beat them 4 out of 5, only 12 of our first 32 would have been against first place teams and we would be in first place.