PDA

View Full Version : On this date in...


mzh
04-18-2010, 10:19 PM
2003: The Royals were 12-3. They finished 83-79, 7 GB.
2006: The San Diego Padres were 5-8. They won the division with 88 wins. The St. Louis Cardinals were tied for fourth place behind the 10-4 Astros. They won the World Series.
2007: The Minnesota Twins, Oakland A's, and Atlanta Braves were in first place. None of the three won, and the team that won the NL East was 3-10.
2008: Arizona had a 4 game lead at 12-4. they finished 82-80 and missed the playoffs. The New York Mets were in first, and the team that won the world series third and below .500.
2009: The Kansas City Royals, Seattle Mariners, and Toronto Blue Jays were in first place. 'Nuff said.

The 05 Houston Astros were 20-32 on June 1st, and they got carried for the rest of the way mostly by... lights out pitching.

Give it a while longer to condemn everything. We need to sit down, take a deep breath, and let things play out a little. If we are still in 4th plce and 5 games under in the 2nd week of May, then I'll start to get concerned. The season isn't yet two weeks old. You'd think by the postgame threads we'd lost the World Series.

These losses are extremely frustrating. But the first two weeks of the season are in no way an indicator of how the other 150 games will play out. Reserve judgment until we get a decent sample size.

I'm just as pissed off about the crappy start as everyone else, but as you can see from the examples, our season is by no means doomed :smile:

LoveYourSuit
04-18-2010, 10:26 PM
I think I can turn up 10x as many scenarios where a 4-9 team ended up sucking for the entire season or at the very least not making the playoffs.

mzh
04-18-2010, 10:28 PM
I think I can turn up 10x as many scenarios where a 4-9 team ended up sucking for the entire season or at the very least not making the playoffs.
How many of those teams had a pitching rotation of our caliber combined with the (potential for) more that enough hitting?

GoGoCrede
04-18-2010, 10:29 PM
I appreciated this, thank you. :smile:

LoveYourSuit
04-18-2010, 10:32 PM
How many of those teams had a pitching rotation of our caliber combined with the (potential for) more that enough hitting?


I think that's where we need to be a bit more realistic on. The offense has no signs of hope in my eyes. It's what many of us thought it would be, bad.

LoveYourSuit
04-18-2010, 10:37 PM
One more note, I think we under-estimated how good the Twins can be.

The Twins are a very good baseball club. There is new energy with that club and their new stadium.

doublem23
04-18-2010, 10:38 PM
I think that's where we need to be a bit more realistic on. The offense has no signs of hope in my eyes. It's what many of us thought it would be, bad.

It's not even that so many of us thought the Sox would be so terrible offensively, but we've seen this movie before. These are the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS the Sox have struggled with at the plate in 2007, September 2008, and 2009. They're not making any progress in correcting their weaknesses, so as much as I'd like to say it's just 13 games, there's still a lot of season left to play, I don't see why they'll magically find the answers to problems that have been lingering for years now.

JNS
04-18-2010, 10:41 PM
I think that's where we need to be a bit more realistic on. The offense has no signs of hope in my eyes. It's what many of us thought it would be, bad.

Jeez, the season is 13 days old! Where were the Twins at this time in 2006? Plenty of time to turn this around with or without further moves. No reason to even look in the standings till June 1.

thomas35forever
04-18-2010, 10:44 PM
Also on this date in 2007, Mark tossed his first no-no.

dickallen15
04-18-2010, 10:48 PM
2003: The Royals were 12-3. They finished 83-79, 7 GB.
2006: The San Diego Padres were 5-8. They won the division with 88 wins. The St. Louis Cardinals were tied for fourth place behind the 10-4 Astros. They won the World Series.
2007: The Minnesota Twins, Oakland A's, and Atlanta Braves were in first place. None of the three won, and the team that won the NL East was 3-10.
2008: Arizona had a 4 game lead at 12-4. they finished 82-80 and missed the playoffs. The New York Mets were in first, and the team that won the world series third and below .500.
2009: The Kansas City Royals, Seattle Mariners, and Toronto Blue Jays were in first place. 'Nuff said.

The 05 Houston Astros were 20-32 on June 1st, and they got carried for the rest of the way mostly by... lights out pitching.

Give it a while longer to condemn everything. We need to sit down, take a deep breath, and let things play out a little. If we are still in 4th plce and 5 games under in the 2nd week of May, then I'll start to get concerned. The season isn't yet two weeks old. You'd think by the postgame threads we'd lost the World Series.

These losses are extremely frustrating. But the first two weeks of the season are in no way an indicator of how the other 150 games will play out. Reserve judgment until we get a decent sample size.

I'm just as pissed off about the crappy start as everyone else, but as you can see from the examples, our season is by no means doomed :smile:

Its not doomed, but 4-9 is extremely discouraging not only that its the worst Sox start in 13 seasons, but 1-5 against Cleveland? When the White Sox won it all they were 52-22 in their own division. They are 2-7 right now. The good news at least from reading this board before the season started is they haven't gone to Minnesota yet, and those games are easy wins as the Twins simply will not be able to win games outside.

LoveYourSuit
04-18-2010, 10:49 PM
It's not even that so many of us thought the Sox would be so terrible offensively, but we've seen this movie before. These are the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS the Sox have struggled with at the plate in 2007, September 2008, and 2009. They're not making any progress in correcting their weaknesses, so as much as I'd like to say it's just 13 games, there's still a lot of season left to play, I don't see why they'll magically find the answers to problems that have been lingering for years now.


That's where my theory of the "water being poisoned" comes in.

There is something wrong with the clubhouse (coaching) because the personnel (players) has gone thru a lot of turnover and we keep getting the same results.

guillensdisciple
04-18-2010, 11:26 PM
I think I love you.

LITTLE NELL
04-19-2010, 07:22 AM
Don't forget the 1983 White Sox who were 8 games under .500 in late May and won 99 games and the division.
I'm not giving up yet but lets turn this around quick.

Lip Man 1
04-19-2010, 10:33 AM
Nell:

The 83 Sox had a lot more talent than this club and were coming off an 82 season that saw them win 87 games.

Lip

mzh
04-19-2010, 11:24 AM
For crying out loud, the way some of you people talk like the season is decided in the first ten games. If Alexei hits .180 after 10 games, will he be hitting .180 in September? If Floyd gives up 7 runs in 1 inning one game, will he finish the season 2-26 with an ERA of 7? No! The season lasts 162 games, not 20. Frankly, I don't give a **** about how much better the 83 team might have been compared to this one. We have great potential for this year, no one can argue that, and that's all that matters to me right now. Some people need to just chill out and stop acting like because we hit .200 over the first 10 games no one will ever go on a hot streak and we'll lose 95 games. If you want to think like that, then fine, but please try to put in a little perspective and don't rain down the apocalypse on the rest of us.

WhiteSox5187
04-19-2010, 12:45 PM
Nell:

The 83 Sox had a lot more talent than this club and were coming off an 82 season that saw them win 87 games.

Lip

I'd say the rotations were about even. I think Konerko is better at first than Wimpy, Beckham is better than Julio Cruz (or Tony Bezzard) at second, Alexei is better than Dybzinksi at short, Tehan is going to hit more than the 4 HRs that Vance Law hit in '83, I'd also take our current bullpen over the likes of Dennis Lamp, Dick Tidrow, Juan Agosto and Kevin Hickey. I think the only positions where the '83 team was considerably stronger was at catcher, RF, and DH.

SI1020
04-19-2010, 01:06 PM
I'd say the rotations were about even. I think Konerko is better at first than Wimpy, Beckham is better than Julio Cruz (or Tony Bezzard) at second, Alexei is better than Dybzinksi at short, Tehan is going to hit more than the 4 HRs that Vance Law hit in '83, I'd also take our current bullpen over the likes of Dennis Lamp, Dick Tidrow, Juan Agosto and Kevin Hickey. I think the only positions where the '83 team was considerably stronger was at catcher, RF, and DH. OK then I expect at least 99 wins from this year's team.

khan
04-19-2010, 01:25 PM
I'd say the rotations were about even. I think Konerko is better at first than Wimpy, Beckham is better than Julio Cruz (or Tony Bezzard) at second, Alexei is better than Dybzinksi at short, Tehan is going to hit more than the 4 HRs that Vance Law hit in '83, I'd also take our current bullpen over the likes of Dennis Lamp, Dick Tidrow, Juan Agosto and Kevin Hickey. I think the only positions where the '83 team was considerably stronger was at catcher, RF, and DH.

That was an entirely-different time than now. Many players back then barely bothered to quit smoking, let alone work out. Back then, the overriding majority of middle infielders were no more than great defenders that couldn't hit their way out of wet paper bags. Comparing player to player from ~30 years ago to today is an exercise in futility.

But Back to the 21st Century: The Twins look to be an extremely strong opponent this year. The Tigers look to be competent. Hell, even the Indians just beat the **** out of the SOX, and they're supposed to suck.

For all the outliers that were in the original post, there are FAR MORE examples of flawed teams starting poorly, and finishing poorly. This team appears to be incomplete, and the results are/were predictable, unfortunately.

Lip Man 1
04-19-2010, 09:03 PM
5187:

And they had one thing you can't quantify, chemistry.

I've interviewed a bunch of guys off that club...Law, Fletcher, Paciorek, Kittle, Koosman all tell me the same thing, they'd sit in the locker for hours after a game talking about it, breaking it down, learning from it.

They had solid hard edged vocal leaders in Fisk, Luzinski, Koosman who wouldn't take excuses or a half hearted attitude about things.

Does this club have that type of leadership?

The Sox rebounded from a disasterous start in large part because the players didn't have a "fragile psyche" that the current group seems to have. Plus they had guys on the club who worked harder and made sure their teammates were doing the same thing.

Lip

Lip Man 1
04-19-2010, 09:04 PM
MZH:

I'm willing to cut the fans a little slack. After all they heard the same things coming out of the mouths of players and management in 2007 and 2009.

We saw how those years turned out.

Lip

WhiteSox5187
04-19-2010, 09:31 PM
5187:

And they had one thing you can't quantify, chemistry.

I've interviewed a bunch of guys off that club...Law, Fletcher, Paciorek, Kittle, Koosman all tell me the same thing, they'd sit in the locker for hours after a game talking about it, breaking it down, learning from it.

They had solid hard edged vocal leaders in Fisk, Luzinski, Koosman who wouldn't take excuses or a half hearted attitude about things.

Does this club have that type of leadership?

The Sox rebounded from a disasterous start in large part because the players didn't have a "fragile psyche" that the current group seems to have. Plus they had guys on the club who worked harder and made sure their teammates were doing the same thing.

Lip

Again, that chemistry can develop. Winning typically breeds chemistry, I can think of very few losing teams with chemistry. They brought back most of the '83 team in '84, what happened to the chemistry then? You don't even need chemistry to win, the A's of the 1970s HATED each other. The 2008 White Sox didn't have very good chemistry either.

Also, AJ is vocal, we've seen him giving guys (like Alexei) a talking too.

Lip Man 1
04-19-2010, 11:01 PM
5187:

A.J. is not as vocal as you think.

What happened to the 84 Sox (who had a lead at the All Star Break and had won seven in a row) depends on who you talk to.

Ron Kittle said to me the team flat out quit. Everyone I've spoken with said the chemistry was destroyed when the Sox traded Koosman for Ron Reed.

Lip