PDA

View Full Version : Why didn't the White Sox repeat in 06'??


captain54
09-30-2009, 11:59 AM
I came across some interesting stats about the 06' season.

Out of the last 5 years, the Sox had the best offensive year that year, much better than 05. They were near the top in a lot of offensive categories.

Had an 18 game winner in Garland, and the team ERA/bullpen was about the middle of the pack.

I remember the first half of the year was great, and then after the Boston series at home around the All Star break, the team began to tank

What was the problem in 06'?

voodoochile
09-30-2009, 12:01 PM
Contreras and Buehrle both fell off the map second half of the year and posted ERA's over 6.

asindc
09-30-2009, 12:01 PM
Buehrle had a horrendous second half of the season. I think he had the worst ERA in the majors among full time starters for the second half of that year. If he has an average second half, then I think the Sox win 94 games and the Central again.

roylestillman
09-30-2009, 12:01 PM
The bullpen was awful.

ewokpelts
09-30-2009, 12:08 PM
detroit got hot that year, minnesota did thier usual thing, and the sox couldnt keep up. Just like this year.

The Immigrant
09-30-2009, 12:11 PM
Buehrle and Contreras had terrible second halves, especially Buehrle. Cotts and Politte fell off the map. Offense slumped for prolonged stretches in August and September.

soxrme
09-30-2009, 12:14 PM
Mark and the bullpen fell apart. We had no centerfielder to speak of and our defense wasn't as good.

eriqjaffe
09-30-2009, 12:24 PM
Mark and the bullpen fell apart. We had no centerfielder to speak of and our defense wasn't as good.Eerily similar to this year, in fact, except that the overall talent level on the three teams was far better. If we could magically have the '06 Sox playing this year, they'd probably have clinched a week and a half ago.

Huisj
09-30-2009, 12:34 PM
detroit got hot that year, minnesota did thier usual thing, and the sox couldnt keep up. Just like this year.

Except that that year, all three teams were pretty dang good. This year they are all mediocre or worse.

It basically was all about the pitching. After July 1, Garland pitched fine and Garcia was at least so-so, but Contrares faded, Buehrle posted a 7.12 ERA, and the Sox went 4-13 in games Vazquez started--his numbers didn't look horrible, but his stupid 5th or 6th inning meltdowns put the bullpen under pressure to throw a lot of innings in his starts, and the bullpen was not nearly what is was in '05. The offense mashed, and while that got them to 90 wins, it was the pitching that kept them from being truly a great team that year.

kittle42
09-30-2009, 12:36 PM
It basically was all about the pitching. After July 1, Garland pitched fine and Garcia was at least so-so, but Contrares faded, Buehrle posted a 7.12 ERA, and the Sox went 4-13 in games Vazquez started--his numbers didn't look horrible, but his stupid 5th or 6th inning meltdowns put the bullpen under pressure to throw a lot of innings in his starts, and the bullpen was not nearly what is was in '05. The offense mashed, and while that got them to 90 wins, it was the pitching that kept them from being truly a great team that year.

That pretty much sums it up.

Lip Man 1
09-30-2009, 12:46 PM
If you go to the newspaper archives both Joe Cowley and Mark Gonzales write about things like 'not being able to get a man home from 3rd with less than two out,' 'leaving runners on base,' 'lack of clutch hitting,' 'unable to execute fundamentals.'

It was a precursor of what would get worse and worse every year.

Simply put, the pitching faltered but the offense which was hitting home runs at a record pace in the first half, slowed down dramatically. They weren't cranking out home runs with two and three men on and the Sox couldn't figure out a way to score any other way. Something we haven't heard before right?

Lip

LoveYourSuit
09-30-2009, 02:15 PM
It was the first of 4 straight seasons of bullpen implosions for the Sox.


Hawk is dead on. A bullpen will make or break your season.

LITTLE NELL
09-30-2009, 02:25 PM
What we have been going through the last few years started in the 2nd half of 06; situational hitting and failure to get runners home from scoring posistion with less than 2 outs.

BigKlu59
09-30-2009, 02:46 PM
Agree, Little Nell... 2005 this all came together.. Thats what drives us crazy... How can you execute so well one season and the next couple just throw the game plan out of the window and pray for the big fly, or big inning.. I always felt and was taught that this game is all about scratching out a run/runs each and every inning by doing whatever you had to do for the TEAM.. I guess with all of the incentives that lace contracts these days our boys dont want to give up an out for the loss of a statistic.. If you are gonna make an out at least make it a "productive" out. When you have a bunch of ducks on the pond as we have had this year with less than 2 or 2 out and become so feeble at the plate, its disgusting.

Sure the Pen has imploded. I chalk that up to having no room for error when they do come in...I bet back in their Psyche is the memory of seein our batsman fail to convert a bases loaded situation that half inning prior. give them a little wiggle room and the whole situation works in their favor.You keep living on the edge and sooner or later you will fall off..

BigKlu59

spawn
09-30-2009, 03:03 PM
Isn't it obvious? We didn't have Rowand roaming CF.

BigKlu59
09-30-2009, 03:11 PM
Yeah... That series in the Bronx where he siglehandedly willed the Sox to victory.. I always though of him as our wild card that year as well a Crede.

BigKlu59

spawn
09-30-2009, 03:15 PM
Yeah... That series in the Bronx where he siglehandedly willed the Sox to victory.. I always though of him as our wild card that year as well a Crede.

BigKlu59
You do know I was being sarcastic, right?

#1swisher
09-30-2009, 03:21 PM
The bullpen was awful.

Matt Thornton:angry:

BigKlu59
09-30-2009, 03:30 PM
In hindsight that may not be sarcasm, but maybe internal wishful thinking... Maybe TEAL would have been more appropriate? Would you take him over what we've trotted out there in CF the last few seasons?.... Dude was a gamer.. Nuff said..

BigKlu59

spawn
09-30-2009, 03:33 PM
In hindsight that may not be sarcasm, but maybe internal wishful thinking... Maybe TEAL would have been more appropriate? Would you take him over what we've trotted out there in CF the last few seasons?.... Dude was a gamer.. Nuff said..

BigKlu59
Definitely not internal wishful thinking. Also, I didn't think teal was necessary. One player didn't make or break the '06 team. Also, dude was overrated.

BigKlu59
09-30-2009, 03:56 PM
Overated?... If consistancy in the field and a bat that can win a game with any type of hit makes you overated I'd take it... Yeah, maybe just one missing intangible in 06, but an intangible that could have made a difference..

BigKlu59

Craig Grebeck
09-30-2009, 04:08 PM
Overated?... If consistancy in the field and a bat that can win a game with any type of hit makes you overated I'd take it... Yeah, maybe just one missing intangible in 06, but an intangible that could have made a difference..

BigKlu59
I guess I'll take the "difference" that came from Jim Thome hitting the ever-loving **** out of the ball in 2006.

spawn
09-30-2009, 04:27 PM
Overated?... If consistancy in the field and a bat that can win a game with any type of hit makes you overated I'd take it... Yeah, maybe just one missing intangible in 06, but an intangible that could have made a difference..

BigKlu59
Yeah...he was overrated. Brian Anderson was a better defensive centerfielder than Rowand. Just because he likes to crash into walls doesn't make him a great outfielder. And he wasn't an intangible that would've made a difference in '06, unless he was going to be used as a relief pitcher. :shrug:

Ranger
09-30-2009, 04:34 PM
Buehrle and Contreras had terrible second halves, especially Buehrle. Cotts and Politte fell off the map. Offense slumped for prolonged stretches in August and September.

Correct. Those two guys in the pen were NOTHING like what they were the previous season. That was huge. Can't afford to essentially lose your two setup guys. They were completely different pitchers in 2006.

It was the first of 4 straight seasons of bullpen implosions for the Sox.

Hawk is dead on. A bullpen will make or break your season.

They really didn't "implode" in 2008 and they really haven't been terrible this year either. They had their moments but nothing more than the standard bullpen rough patches that just about every single team goes through every year. They're relievers. That's what relievers do.


I guess I'll take the "difference" that came from Jim Thome hitting the ever-loving **** out of the ball in 2006.

Thome was a monster that year...especially the first half. He carried them at times.

Craig Grebeck
09-30-2009, 04:38 PM
Thome was a monster that year...especially the first half. He carried them at times.
Exactly. I don't think that trade could have worked out any better in 2006. Perhaps we should have signed a veteran CF.

PatK
09-30-2009, 05:05 PM
It's not like the Sox sucked that year- they had 90 wins.

BigKlu59
09-30-2009, 05:26 PM
Yeah...he was overrated. Brian Anderson was a better defensive centerfielder than Rowand. Just because he likes to crash into walls doesn't make him a great outfielder. And he wasn't an intangible that would've made a difference in '06, unless he was going to be used as a relief pitcher. :shrug:

BA vs Rowand in CF is a wash.... BA vs Rowand at the dish .. Advantage:Rowand

I recall our second half swoon did have alot to do with BA almost essentially becoming an "East Out" at crunch time.. Who knows, We went for the big fly and got away from small ball... We've been paying for it ever since... I think we got our answer when even for all his fantastic moments, Big Jim and his lumber didnt take us back to the promised land.
Count me as one who shook his head at the metamorphosis overnight that turned the Gashouse 05 team into trying to become Murderer's Row 06.

BigKlu59

LITTLE NELL
09-30-2009, 05:46 PM
It's not like the Sox sucked that year- they had 90 wins.
They sucked in the 2nd half.
53-27 on July 1st which was the high point, went 37-45 the rest of the way.

Thatguyoverthere
09-30-2009, 05:52 PM
That team also failed against the ****ty teams, kinda like this year. IIRC, the Sox had the best record against teams with winning records in the entire MLB in '06.

LoveYourSuit
09-30-2009, 06:14 PM
They really didn't "implode" in 2008 and they really haven't been terrible this year either. They had their moments but nothing more than the standard bullpen rough patches that just about every single team goes through every year. They're relievers. That's what relievers do.

.


The bullpen has been beyond terrible this year Ranger. Linebrink and Jenks have not done their jobs and they are the biggest keys of that pen.

Where that bullpen would be without Thornton is scarry to think of.

Kenny has his work cut out to fix this bullpen once again. This is why IMO you have to find a way to bring Dotel back because I still do not trust Pena as being next year's RH set up man. That's what he will be next year if no Dotel.

Ranger
09-30-2009, 07:20 PM
The bullpen has been beyond terrible this year Ranger. Linebrink and Jenks have not done their jobs and they are the biggest keys of that pen.

Where that bullpen would be without Thornton is scarry to think of.

Kenny has his work cut out to fix this bullpen once again. This is why IMO you have to find a way to bring Dotel back because I still do not trust Pena as being next year's RH set up man. That's what he will be next year if no Dotel.

I agree bringing back Dotel would not be a bad thing and I think people don't understand his value because they're too busy screaming about how bad he is. They'll find out, when he's gone, that he's actually a pretty good reliever as relievers go.

And, no, this bullpen has not been "beyond terrible." Quit speaking in absolutes. I don't think you understand what "beyond terrible" really is. This pen has turned to be about an average bullpen which is not "beyond terrible." They've had some really good stretches and some bad stretches. But, overall, they've evened out to about average.

I think your problem might be that you think everything is either "great" or "terrible," with no possibility of "in-between." Well, that's just not realistic.

It's Dankerific
09-30-2009, 07:34 PM
I agree bringing back Dotel would not be a bad thing and I think people don't understand his value because they're too busy screaming about how bad he is. They'll find out, when he's gone, that he's actually a pretty good reliever as relievers go.

And, no, this bullpen has not been "beyond terrible." Quit speaking in absolutes. I don't think you understand what "beyond terrible" really is. This pen has turned to be about an average bullpen which is not "beyond terrible." They've had some really good stretches and some bad stretches. But, overall, they've evened out to about average.

I think your problem might be that you think everything is either "great" or "terrible," with no possibility of "in-between." Well, that's just not realistic.

I'm a little confused at which bullpen you have been watching. When your primary set-up man: Linebrink and your closer: Jenks start blowing game after game, thats not a normal "blip" or averaging out.

Especially when we were trotting out people like : Gobble, MacDougal, Broadway, etc. at various times of the year.

This is a non-competing bullpen. Thinking this was average and doubling down for another season would just be silly.

I think the average poster here knows that Dotel is a valuable piece of the bullpen. However, there are people in the pen in a "gots to go" situation, regardless of their contract.

Ranger
09-30-2009, 07:45 PM
I'm a little confused at which bullpen you have been watching. When your primary set-up man: Linebrink and your closer: Jenks start blowing game after game, thats not a normal "blip" or averaging out.

Especially when we were trotting out people like : Gobble, MacDougal, Broadway, etc. at various times of the year.

This is a non-competing bullpen. Thinking this was average and doubling down for another season would just be silly.

I think the average poster here knows that Dotel is a valuable piece of the bullpen. However, there are people in the pen in a "gots to go" situation, regardless of their contract.

Come on, people. You don't win close to 80 games with a "beyond terrible" bullpen. I didn't say they were good, I said they were average. Not terrible, not great. The numbers support that. Good in some statistical categories, not so good in others.

And stop with the Gobble, MacDougal, Broadway references. Those guys were barely here. Let's not act like they were bullpen staples this season. Thornton and Carrasco were very good in their roles this year. Dotel was a bit above average at what he did. Jenks struggled, Linebrink was bad.

This bullpen was around average.

Furthermore, thinking the bullpen was average and "doubling down for another season" are two completely different ideas. I never said they should go with the same exact product next year. I was simply stating that it was hyperbole to suggest the Sox bullpen was "beyond terrible" this year.

Ranger
09-30-2009, 07:48 PM
Let me amend the above post by saying that a team with an offense and defense like the Sox have had, must have been doing something right on the mound in order to win close to 80 games.

doublem23
09-30-2009, 07:55 PM
I don't think many of you quite comprehend the level of difficulty it takes to win one World Series, let alone two in a row.

Zisk77
09-30-2009, 07:58 PM
- Despite a good first half the bullpen blew games we should have won. Cliff Politte was so horrid he got waved mid-season. Cotts was ok 1st half and abysmal for the second half. we tried to plug holes with Jeff Nelson & David Riske to no avail.

- Some of our starter pitched in the 1st WBC and weren't the same. Garcia magically lost his velocity but still posted a good record but couldn't beat the royals and other crap teams. Buerhle and Jose were bad the 2nd half.

- Pods couldn't hit got hurt again & again and B.A. couldn't hit while Mackowiak couldn't field.

- We struggled with the small things & Iguchi had numerous brain farts.

-We had a 6 1/2 game lead on the wild card going into the allstar game and we were hot. We had a 4 day lay-oof instead of 3 that many had and got swept in a 4 game series at Yankee stadium while the twins won 4 to trim the wild card lead to 2 1/2. It was a tough go the rest of the way.

It's Dankerific
09-30-2009, 08:00 PM
Come on, people. You don't win close to 80 games with a "beyond terrible" bullpen. I didn't say they were good, I said they were average. Not terrible, not great. The numbers support that. Good in some statistical categories, not so good in others.

And stop with the Gobble, MacDougal, Broadway references. Those guys were barely here. Let's not act like they were bullpen staples this season. Thornton and Carrasco were very good in their roles this year. Dotel was a bit above average at what he did. Jenks struggled, Linebrink was bad.

This bullpen was around average.

Furthermore, thinking the bullpen was average and "doubling down for another season" are two completely different ideas. I never said they should go with the same exact product next year. I was simply stating that it was hyperbole to suggest the Sox bullpen was "beyond terrible" this year.

Let me amend the above post by saying that a team with an offense and defense like the Sox have had, must have been doing something right on the mound in order to win close to 80 games.

Now "almost" 80 games is a good thing. Interesting that 76 now equals almost 80. I'd assume at 78 equals almost .500? Considering that we're now guaranteed to have a protected draft pick, I don't consider that a very good mark. Especially since we've only had 2 below .500 seasons in 10 years (although 2 in 3 should start to be damning).

At least you admit that Linebrink was bad. I thought he might have just been "slightly below average".

I won't stop with Gobble, MacDougal, and Broadway references when they appeared in: 12, 5 and 8 games respectively. While posting : 7.50, 12.46 and 5.06 ERAs respectively.

You shouldn't need 12 games and a 7.50 ERA to figure out Gobble sucks. Unless, the real reason is that the rest of the bullpen was ****ty too.

captain54
09-30-2009, 08:02 PM
Thornton and Carrasco were very good in their roles this year. Dotel was a bit above average at what he did. Jenks struggled, Linebrink was bad.

This bullpen was around average.



If you take a closer look at the numbers, the Sox bullpen was actually above average in a couple respects. They are amongst the bullpens giving up the least homers in the AL, and they have given up less ER's than the Yankees..

Overall ERA, they are 9th of 14. They are near the botton in opposing BA.

Thornton, Dotel, and Carrasco's numbers are above average. Linebrink, Pena...way below average....Put Jenks in the middle and you have a truly mediocre bullpen.

Ranger
09-30-2009, 08:17 PM
Now "almost" 80 games is a good thing. Interesting that 76 now equals almost 80. I'd assume at 78 equals almost .500? Considering that we're now guaranteed to have a protected draft pick, I don't consider that a very good mark. Especially since we've only had 2 below .500 seasons in 10 years (although 2 in 3 should start to be damning).

At least you admit that Linebrink was bad. I thought he might have just been "slightly below average".

I won't stop with Gobble, MacDougal, and Broadway references when they appeared in: 12, 5 and 8 games respectively. While posting : 7.50, 12.46 and 5.06 ERAs respectively.

You shouldn't need 12 games and a 7.50 ERA to figure out Gobble sucks. Unless, the real reason is that the rest of the bullpen was ****ty too.

Your strawman is nice. I didn't say that 80 games was "good," I said 76 was close to 80. And, yes, 76 games (with 4 still left to play) is close to 80. I certainly did not say 78 was close to .500 (though it actually kind of is). Why did I just have to explain that to you?

My point was that if a team has, at best, a below average offense and is the worst team in the AL with unearned runs and errors, they must be at least an average-pitching team in order to win close to 80 games. If they were not, they'd have 65 wins right now.

That's my point. Though, you may continue to argue against a point I'm not making if you like.

Ranger
09-30-2009, 08:17 PM
If you take a closer look at the numbers, the Sox bullpen was actually above average in a couple respects. They are amongst the bullpens giving up the least homers in the AL, and they have given up less ER's than the Yankees..

Overall ERA, they are 9th of 14. They are near the botton in opposing BA.

Thornton, Dotel, and Carrasco's numbers are above average. Linebrink, Pena...way below average....Put Jenks in the middle and you have a truly mediocre bullpen.


Yes. Average.

russ99
09-30-2009, 08:23 PM
Contreras and Buehrle both fell off the map second half of the year and posted ERA's over 6.

I'd say Pods groin surgeries limiting his effectiveness would be a slightly larger factor.

Center field being a black hole offensively all season didn't help things either.

But that's why it's so hard to repeat. That extra month of baseball the year before takes its toll.

It's Dankerific
09-30-2009, 08:27 PM
Your strawman is nice. I didn't say that 80 games was "good," I said 76 was close to 80. And, yes, 76 games (with 4 still left to play) is close to 80. I certainly did not say 78 was close to .500 (though it actually kind of is). Why did I just have to explain that to you?

My point was that if a team has, at best, a below average offense and is the worst team in the AL with unearned runs and errors, they must be at least an average-pitching team in order to win close to 80 games. If they were not, they'd have 65 wins right now.

That's my point. Though, you may continue to argue against a point I'm not making if you like.

When 2 games seperate 1st and 2nd in the division, you're not going to get me to believe that 4 games is "close".

Who said the Sox weren't an average pitching team? thats your strawman. I dont think you should lump starting pitching in with that ****ty bullpen. but, i guess you do.

Your line of logic doesn't make sense. Couldnt the point just as easily be "that if a team has, at best, a below average bullpen and is the worst team in the AL with unearned runs and errors, they MUST be at least an average hitting team in order to win close to 80 games!!" I mean, just look at it. their batting average is only .006 from what would be middle of the league! thats "close"

Ranger
09-30-2009, 08:58 PM
When 2 games seperate 1st and 2nd in the division, you're not going to get me to believe that 4 games is "close".

Who said the Sox weren't an average pitching team? thats your strawman. I dont think you should lump starting pitching in with that ****ty bullpen. but, i guess you do.

Your line of logic doesn't make sense. Couldnt the point just as easily be "that if a team has, at best, a below average bullpen and is the worst team in the AL with unearned runs and errors, they MUST be at least an average hitting team in order to win close to 80 games!!" I mean, just look at it. their batting average is only .006 from what would be middle of the league! thats "close"

Oh, for the love of God. Their batting average is not even the important statistic. Their runs scored is the important stat. Who cares what they have hit, because it's all about the runs they've scored. And they've scored nearly 60 runs less than what is average in the league. That's significant.

But, yes, if the pitching was bad and the defense was also bad, they would have to be hitting at least above average in order to be anywhere near .500. This is not difficult to understand. At least, not for most people.

I didn't say that anyone called them anything but an "average pitching team," but I was making a point that the staff as a whole would have to be average at least in order for them to be where they are.

I won't take your advice on what is considered a ****ty bullpen because you don't know what a ****ty bullpen is. You don't have any perspective. And you kind of have to lump the bullpen in with the starting staff because the Sox have the second best starters' ERA in the AL, and many of the runs a bullpen allows are charged to the starter. And in terms of bullpen ERA, as captain mentioned, the Sox are right there near the middle.

Could you also explain to me how you don't see that the number 76 is close to the number 80? I'm not talking about the number in relation to what other teams are doing, I'm saying that, all things considered, to reach 76 wins (with still 4 finals yet to come), the Sox have to have been pitching right.

dickallen15
09-30-2009, 09:05 PM
When 2 games seperate 1st and 2nd in the division, you're not going to get me to believe that 4 games is "close".


2 wins more every 3 months isn't close? 76 is pretty close to 80.

Ranger
09-30-2009, 09:10 PM
2 wins more every 3 months isn't close? 76 is pretty close to 80.

Don't bother. It's pointless.

Oh, and make that 77...which is even closer to 80 than 76 is! This ****ty bullpen, which also happens to be short-handed, just pitched 3 scoreless innings.

TommyJohn
09-30-2009, 09:19 PM
I don't think many of you quite comprehend the level of difficulty it takes to win one World Series, let alone two in a row.
:moron

The mere fact that they didn't win five in a row means that 2005 was a fluke!

*Kaplan* The Cubs were more impressive in defeat in 2003.

*Morrissey* I'm still waiting for that big, big, big, bigger-than-the-White Sox-by-a-mile Cub World Series victory parade!!!

WhiteSoxOnly
09-30-2009, 09:25 PM
:moron

The mere fact that they didn't win five in a row means that 2005 was a fluke!

*Kaplan* The Cubs were more impressive in defeat in 2003.

*Morrissey* I'm still waiting for that big, big, big, bigger-than-the-White Sox-by-a-mile Cub World Series victory parade!!!

I've always heard that Kaplan is a weasel cub fan TJ,but did
he really say THAT ?

It's Dankerific
09-30-2009, 09:29 PM
I didn't say that anyone called them anything but an "average pitching team," but I was making a point that the staff as a whole would have to be average at least in order for them to be where they are.

I won't take your advice on what is considered a ****ty bullpen because you don't know what a ****ty bullpen is. You don't have any perspective. And you kind of have to lump the bullpen in with the starting staff because the Sox have the second best starters' ERA in the AL, and many of the runs a bullpen allows are charged to the starter. And in terms of bullpen ERA, as captain mentioned, the Sox are right there near the middle.


Holy ****! Maybe our bullpen is above average and just being dragged down by those average hitters!

Can we stop using ERA when our lovely **** defense (or average defense for you) has given us so many unearned runs. our runs scored goes from 2nd best to "close" to middle of the pack after you do THAT.


Could you also explain to me how you don't see that the number 76 is close to the number 80? I'm not talking about the number in relation to what other teams are doing, I'm saying that, all things considered, to reach 76 wins (with still 4 finals yet to come), the Sox have to have been pitching right.

2 wins more every 3 months isn't close? 76 is pretty close to 80.

Don't bother. It's pointless.

Oh, and make that 77...which is even closer to 80 than 76 is! This ****ty bullpen, which also happens to be short-handed, just pitched 3 scoreless innings.

You are right, those are close numbers. This team is close to being a 90 loss team! THAT should be troublesome.

Ranger
09-30-2009, 09:42 PM
Holy ****! Maybe our bullpen is above average and just being dragged down by those average hitters!

Can we stop using ERA when our lovely **** defense (or average defense for you) has given us so many unearned runs. our runs scored goes from 2nd best to "close" to middle of the pack after you do THAT.



You are right, those are close numbers. This team is close to being a 90 loss team! THAT should be troublesome.


Am I taking crazy pills or is this truly getting ridiculous?

It's Dankerific
09-30-2009, 09:49 PM
Am I taking crazy pills or is this truly getting ridiculous?

Well, we are the same level of closeness to 89 losses as we are to 80 wins. whats another loss?

asindc
09-30-2009, 09:56 PM
Well, we are the same level of closeness to 89 losses as we are to 80 wins. whats another loss?

You really hate conceding any point, don't you?

It's Dankerific
09-30-2009, 10:29 PM
You really hate conceding any point, don't you?

I conceded his point. We're close to 80 wins. Just like we're close to 90 losses (or 89). I think that particular criticism of me is unfounded.

BubblingCalderon
09-30-2009, 10:40 PM
Rob Macowiack. When he started I knew we would lose that night. I remember Carmen Defalco from WMVP refused to watch games that Macowiack started. I remember feeling if he had more range we wouldn't have lost as many games late in 06.

TommyJohn
09-30-2009, 10:53 PM
I've always heard that Kaplan is a weasel cub fan TJ,but did
he really say THAT ?No, it is a parody of a weasly thing that weasel Kaplan did say: In the afterglow of Mark Buehrle's perfect game, he said that Kerry Wood's 20 K game from April of 1998 was "more impressive." Dan Bernstein (who loves to mock idiots) said the same and there was even a poll put up (I think by Kaplan on one site, I could be wrong) and a nasty thread or two here debating the point. It was all so pointless and stupid. It bugged me because if any Sox fan had said something similar in the wake of a Cub accomplishment he would've been laughed at and ridiculed as a complete moron by some of the same people (Kaplan, Bernstein) who were being jerkoffs about the perfect game.

EDIT: I must say, I wouldn't put it past weasel Kaplan to say something like that about 2003 vs. 2005.

It's Dankerific
09-30-2009, 10:57 PM
Rob Macowiack. When he started I knew we would lose that night. I remember Carmen Defalco from WMVP refused to watch games that Macowiack started. I remember feeling if he had more range we wouldn't have lost as many games late in 06.

I agree, but if I posted that it would have been a whole different storm.

Ranger
09-30-2009, 11:16 PM
Here was your original post to me:

I'm a little confused at which bullpen you have been watching. When your primary set-up man: Linebrink and your closer: Jenks start blowing game after game, thats not a normal "blip" or averaging out.

Especially when we were trotting out people like : Gobble, MacDougal, Broadway, etc. at various times of the year.

This is a non-competing bullpen. Thinking this was average and doubling down for another season would just be silly.

I think the average poster here knows that Dotel is a valuable piece of the bullpen. However, there are people in the pen in a "gots to go" situation, regardless of their contract.

You asserted that the current Sox bullpen is terrible. I responded by telling you that, given the offensive and defensive deficiencies, the pitching staff as a whole (including the bullpen) would have to have done a decent job to get this team close to 80 wins. My overall point is that this bullpen is average, not terrible. I didn't say "good." I said "average."

You then turned this into some absurd, convoluted argument about whether 76 is close to 80. (Which, by the way, I'm not sure how anyone could argue that it's not.) This isn't really debatable.


I conceded his point. We're close to 80 wins. Just like we're close to 90 losses (or 89). I think that particular criticism of me is unfounded.

Actually, not really. The Sox could win 80 games. They cannot lose 90. I'm not arguing that this is good for the season, because clearly it isn't. What I am saying is that if the bullpen was "****ty," as you called it, they would have closer to 65 wins than they would 80.

You didn't concede the point. You turned the discussion into something completely outlandish.

At any rate, this is really stupid.

soxinem1
09-30-2009, 11:21 PM
There is always a good bit of luck involved in winning a championship, and it is very difficult to repeat the way you won previously.

Remember in 2005, CLE actually got within a game of the White Sox, but our heros recovered and put on a clinic the last two weeks of the season, and the head-to-head match up against The Tribe that year was big time in the White Sox favor, including several 1-0 wins and the season ending sweep.

The 2005 team was incredible in one and two run games....

The 2005 team spanked the AL Central teams all year....

The 2005 team had a lead in, what, the first 36 games of the season? This was due to Pods being the first true high-volume major stolen base threat on the team since Tim Raines in 1991-92, for the first 2/3 of the season.

The 2005 team got to more balls and made more plays than we may ever see again. They got the outs when we needed them. Over and over and over again.

The 2005 team had three journeyman relievers have career years and a closer with a screw in his elbow emerge in the last two months. Ozzie's silly pitching moves always seemed to work. Remember him bringing in El Duque against BOS in the ALDS? Did anyone, myself included, think that move would work when it was made?

Comparitively, the only thing that emerged from the 2006 bullpen was a bunch of loose screws.

And none of the prior characteristics I noted carried over to 2006.

The starting pitching was consistent in 2005. First it was Garland beating up on the fifth starters he faced, then El Duque being sharp in his first dozen starts, then Buehrle took over, then Garcia, then Contreras went nuts for nearly three months.

In 2006 Garcia and Garland started like crap but MB and JC held up well. Vazquez got a ton of runs early, but then JC got hurt, MB began throwing BP, and the defense lagged.... especially with a utility player taking a lot of playing time in CF.... and all the journeyman relievers came down to earth.

But honestly, the team's play the first 7-10 games after the ASB killed them in 2006. They went from a game or so out at the break, and had a big lead in the Wild Card. They had one of the best records in the game, then struggled to win 90.

By the time they picked up the pieces they were 7-8 games back, and even the four game sweep later that summer against DET didn't do much, especially when MIN caught fire and won the Central.

The one true positive thing I will always remember about the 2006 White Sox was the way they crushed the ball the first half, and how many times they pinned blown saves on premier closers in the ninth inning.

It's Dankerific
09-30-2009, 11:31 PM
Here was your original post to me:



You asserted that the current Sox bullpen is terrible. I responded by telling you that, given the offensive and defensive deficiencies, the pitching staff as a whole (including the bullpen) would have to have done a decent job to get this team close to 80 wins. My overall point is that this bullpen is average, not terrible. I didn't say "good." I said "average."

You then turned this into some absurd, convoluted argument about whether 76 is close to 80. (Which, by the way, I'm not sure how anyone could argue that it's not.) This isn't really debatable.




Actually, not really. The Sox could win 80 games. They cannot lose 90. I'm not arguing that this is good for the season, because clearly it isn't. What I am saying is that if the bullpen was "****ty," as you called it, they would have closer to 65 wins than they would 80.

You didn't concede the point. You turned the discussion into something completely outlandish.

At any rate, this is really stupid.

In my first post I said the bullpen was not average and not competitive.

I consider not competitive = ****ty

I guess you consider not competitive = average

That about right? Because if it is, we dont have to discuss that anymore because its as clear as day.

the distance between 76 wins and 80 and 76 wins and 72 is the same. 72 wins = 90 losses. I don't know why one is any better than the other in your game of "closeness". perhaps you have changed your assertion to they CAN get to 80 wins. but, that wasn't clear in any post except the last one. it certainly isn't the same as saying they are close to 80 wins when they've won 76 (at the time.)

Lip Man 1
09-30-2009, 11:33 PM
Sox:

Point of clarification. Cleveland never got within a single day's play of the lead. They got as close as a game and a half, before Crede's home run in extra innings gave the Sox a 7-6 win and pushed the lead back to 2 1/2 games.

Lip

soxinem1
09-30-2009, 11:34 PM
In my first post I said the bullpen was not average and not competitive.

I consider not competitive = ****ty

I guess you consider not competitive = average

That about right? Because if it is, we dont have to discuss that anymore because its as clear as day.

the distance between 76 wins and 80 and 76 wins and 72 is the same. 72 wins = 90 losses. I don't know why one is any better than the other in your game of "closeness". perhaps you have changed your assertion to they CAN get to 80 wins. but, that wasn't clear in any post except the last one. it certainly isn't the same as saying they are close to 80 wins when they've won 76 (at the time.)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2268/2255581637_a59a956bfe.jpg

soxinem1
09-30-2009, 11:36 PM
Sox:

Point of clarification. Cleveland never got within a single day's play of the lead. They got as close as a game and a half, before Crede's home run in extra innings gave the Sox a 7-6 win and pushed the lead back to 2 1/2 games.

Lip

Game, game and a half, my mistake. It was still a nervous, nervous, nervous time around these parts. Especially after the blown lead that pushed that game to extra innings.

A. Cavatica
09-30-2009, 11:36 PM
Ozzie had his worst year as a manager.

tacosalbarojas
10-01-2009, 12:35 AM
I agree, but if I posted that it would have been a whole different storm.
Count me in the Mackowiak cost us more than anyone wants to admit camp. He waved at balls going by him that any other CF we've had in recent memory would have put in their hip pocket....a lot of fly balls like that throughout the year, and they added up and took a major toll on those piss poor second halves from our starters.

LoveYourSuit
10-01-2009, 12:48 AM
I agree bringing back Dotel would not be a bad thing and I think people don't understand his value because they're too busy screaming about how bad he is. They'll find out, when he's gone, that he's actually a pretty good reliever as relievers go.

And, no, this bullpen has not been "beyond terrible." Quit speaking in absolutes. I don't think you understand what "beyond terrible" really is. This pen has turned to be about an average bullpen which is not "beyond terrible." They've had some really good stretches and some bad stretches. But, overall, they've evened out to about average.

I think your problem might be that you think everything is either "great" or "terrible," with no possibility of "in-between." Well, that's just not realistic.

Ranger, reason I refer to the bullpen being terrible or beyond terrible is because I expected this to be one of our strengths going into the season along with our middle of the order.

Both were extreme dissapointments.

The Sox were suppose to contend in an awful division and the middle of the order and bullpen let them down big time.

The only passing grade from me comes to our starting rotation. They kept us in most every game and I think were tops in the league in quality starts. Let's hope the Sox don't waste next season in what appears to be another good collection of a starting rotation for 2010 as they did this season with bad offense and bullpen play.

Ranger
10-01-2009, 12:52 AM
In my first post I said the bullpen was not average and not competitive.

I consider not competitive = ****ty

I guess you consider not competitive = average

That about right? Because if it is, we dont have to discuss that anymore because its as clear as day.

the distance between 76 wins and 80 and 76 wins and 72 is the same. 72 wins = 90 losses. I don't know why one is any better than the other in your game of "closeness". perhaps you have changed your assertion to they CAN get to 80 wins. but, that wasn't clear in any post except the last one. it certainly isn't the same as saying they are close to 80 wins when they've won 76 (at the time.)

Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? I'm not sure you even know what you're talking about.

What do you even mean by "not competitive?" Was the pen good enough to win the Central? Of course it was. It was good enough to win the division, so by definition, this bullpen was competitive. But it's hard to win when the offense was as bad as it was.

I didn't change anything. All I've been saying -- and read carefully -- is that this team would be closer to 65 wins than 80 if it had a ****ty bullpen. Therefore, this was an average bullpen, not a ****ty one.

Stop bringing up 90 losses. It's totally ludicrous and has nothing to do with anything I've said. This "game of closeness" is yours, not mine. Yeah, ok, if they had 5 more losses at this point, they could still possibly be a 90-game loser. What is your point?

I take back what I said to captain the other day...you're way more like that ex-girlfriend of mine than he is. It's like we're having two different arguments and you refuse to be wrong.

PKalltheway
10-01-2009, 01:00 AM
I don't think many of you quite comprehend the level of difficulty it takes to win one World Series, let alone two in a row.
Exactly. Besides, only two teams in the last 30 years have won back-to-back titles (Toronto in 1992-93 and the Yankees from 1998-2000). Also, it's no coincidence that both of those teams had the highest payroll in baseball in their respective periods.

IMHO baseball is the toughest sport to win consecutive titles in.

Nellie_Fox
10-01-2009, 01:42 AM
This is getting too close to personal. Everybody tone it down.

It's Dankerific
10-01-2009, 01:52 AM
Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? I'm not sure you even know what you're talking about.

What do you even mean by "not competitive?" Was the pen good enough to win the Central? Of course it was. It was good enough to win the division, so by definition, this bullpen was competitive. But it's hard to win when the offense was as bad as it was.

I didn't change anything. All I've been saying -- and read carefully -- is that this team would be closer to 65 wins than 80 if it had a ****ty bullpen. Therefore, this was an average bullpen, not a ****ty one.

Stop bringing up 90 losses. It's totally ludicrous and has nothing to do with anything I've said. This "game of closeness" is yours, not mine. Yeah, ok, if they had 5 more losses at this point, they could still possibly be a 90-game loser. What is your point?

Please explain how 72 wins is any further away from 76 wins as 80 wins is. Please.

No one wants their kid to be below average, i get it. We're just an average team that got cheated out of our average chance for the division, right? damn other teams with their lucky wins!!!

You've convinced me. This was an amazing bullpen. If it were a ****ty bullpen, we would have won like only 4 games, the number of complete games we had by the starting pitchers. An average bullpen would have probably put us around 35 wins. Luckily, we had the GOAT bullpen that willed us to close to 84 wins.

Nellie_Fox
10-01-2009, 02:18 AM
I don't know how a thread about the '06 team got this thoroughly hijacked, but it has degraded to the point that I don't see any reason to leave it open any longer.