PDA

View Full Version : Kenny's First Comment


Lip Man 1
04-19-2010, 09:37 AM
According to the Sun-Times:

''Long season, good team, relax,''

---------------------------------------

My initial thoughts are 'what do you expect Kenny to say?' since it's is so early in the season even if he's not comfortable with the way the club was put together (and indications are he wasn't) he can't do a thing about changing it at this point in time.

Feel free to discuss.

Lip

WhiteSox1989
04-19-2010, 09:43 AM
I mean he's right. Except this team has given no indication that they are actually a "good team".

g0g0
04-19-2010, 09:44 AM
I totally agree with Kenny. It's way to easy to start stressing over this team. I feel sorry for the people losing sleep over this season right now. Ask me in June and then we'll talk.

palehozenychicty
04-19-2010, 09:49 AM
It is early. I'm following the playoffs now.

spawn
04-19-2010, 09:53 AM
I don't know if he's right about this being a good team, but he is correct that it is a long season. Every team goes through a stretch like this. It just sucks that they decided to do it at the start of the season. The Red Sox are exactly lighting the world on fire either.

sox1970
04-19-2010, 09:55 AM
I totally agree with Kenny. It's way to easy to start stressing over this team. I feel sorry for the people losing sleep over this season right now. Ask me in June and then we'll talk.

How about in a few weeks when they leave Minnesota and they're 13-21 and 8 games out? If that happens, you can move up that June date.

Kenny can't say anything negative about the team. They're still trying to get fans to the park. Privately, I'm sure it's a different story. He can't be casually thinking it's early, and we'll get 'em tomorrow.

g0g0
04-19-2010, 10:30 AM
How about in a few weeks when they leave Minnesota and they're 13-21 and 8 games out? If that happens, you can move up that June date.

Kenny can't say anything negative about the team. They're still trying to get fans to the park. Privately, I'm sure it's a different story. He can't be casually thinking it's early, and we'll get 'em tomorrow.

I get what you are saying, but at 4-9? The Sox have a +/- of -2 on total runs right now (53-55). Except for 3 games of 3-7, 2-6 and 4-7 they've all been close games/loses. If they can win a few of these tight games then they'll right the ship in no time.

khan
04-19-2010, 10:30 AM
I don't know if he's right about this being a good team, but he is correct that it is a long season. Every team goes through a stretch like this. It just sucks that they decided to do it at the start of the season. The Red Sox are exactly lighting the world on fire either.
KW said all the right things. A GM should NEVER panic in public.

However, even IF all the good teams "goes through a stretch like this," this team isn't GOOD ENOUGH [as currently constructed] to rip off 8, 9, or 10 wins in a row. The good teams are able to over come "stretches" of poor play, because they're GOOD ENOUGH to go on protracted win streaks.

As I posted elsewhere, the abject lack of a consistent offense makes the margin of error razor-thin in this team. ONE SINGLE MISTAKE [by OG, by the defense, by the bullpen, by the starting rotation], and the team loses.


If they want to do something with this team, KW will have to do the work he didn't do in the offseason: Fix the offense.

happydude
04-19-2010, 10:54 AM
No one can disagree with the fact that its "early" and, yes, its a "long season". Many teams have started poorly, got their act together, and finished well. But as its already been pointed out, who's to say our team has the talent to dig its way out of a hole even when firing on all cylinders? Its not like the roster is replete with proven All Stars.

Plus, although each season brings a new team, the recent history of the White Sox, even in our better years, is to play fair to middling ball after the break. A hot start seemed imperative to me; particularly because the team's strength is pitching and I had hoped pitching would dominate during the chilly April and May games in Cleveland, Minny, and Detroit.

LoveYourSuit
04-19-2010, 11:37 AM
I don't know if he's right about this being a good team, but he is correct that it is a long season. Every team goes through a stretch like this. It just sucks that they decided to do it at the start of the season. The Red Sox are exactly lighting the world on fire either.


But I think the talent level with the Red Sox is way ahead of ours.

The only thing we could look at going for us is a weak division, but the Twins are looking much better than many folks gave them credit for.

WhiteSox5187
04-19-2010, 11:39 AM
Well, I don't know if he's right that this is a good team because they certainly haven't demonstrated that yet on the field. But he is right that it is a long season. I mentioned this yesterday but it is worth remembering, the 1983 White Sox went until mid May before they figured out how to hit (on May 18th they had one hitter with a batting average over .250 in the every day lineup) but they were getting good pitching. That team won 99 games, so there is time to turn this around.

Nelfox02
04-19-2010, 12:35 PM
Tough to call a team with ZERO all star caliber players at any non pitching position "good"

This is a (hopefully) ho hum offensive/defensive team with solid pitching

Sorry Kenny, that is not "good" you are lucky if that is adequate

Dibbs
04-19-2010, 12:41 PM
I strongly disagree this is a good team. Quite frankly, I think we have a very poor offense.

kufram
04-19-2010, 12:45 PM
Of course KW is right. That doesn't mean the team WILL turn it around but they certainly have time to. The fact that they are hitting SO badly as a unit means that they WILL hit better... it is a matter of time. Of course, we do have weaknesses but there are also strengths. The pitching could be very tough from 1st to 9th two out of three games and that gets you a long way. A little hitting will be enough, possibly.

I think that if the home fans get overly down on them (as Chicago fans have been known to do) before they have a chance to right the ship then it could stay bad. Since there is not going to be any personnel change in the immediate future the best thing a real fan can do is show support. Okay, sharpen your barbs.

KMcMahon817
04-19-2010, 12:54 PM
KW said all the right things. A GM should NEVER panic in public.

However, even IF all the good teams "goes through a stretch like this," this team isn't GOOD ENOUGH [as currently constructed] to rip off 8, 9, or 10 wins in a row. The good teams are able to over come "stretches" of poor play, because they're GOOD ENOUGH to go on protracted win streaks.

As I posted elsewhere, the abject lack of a consistent offense makes the margin of error razor-thin in this team. ONE SINGLE MISTAKE [by OG, by the defense, by the bullpen, by the starting rotation], and the team loses.


If they want to do something with this team, KW will have to do the work he didn't do in the offseason: Fix the offense.


Very, very, very few teams are. I can assure you that many teams who have won the World Series went all season long without winning 10 straight.

khan
04-19-2010, 01:21 PM
Very, very, very few teams are. I can assure you that many teams who have won the World Series went all season long without winning 10 straight.
Not meaning to be a jerk, but do you have a link that so states this?

I'm actually fairly confident that most WS winning teams [not the ****ty '06 Cardinals, for example] had at least one 8 game winning streak in their season. For THAT matter, I don't think this team is good enough offensively to win 5 games in a row. Or at least, CONSISTENT enough to win 5 games in a row.

dickallen15
04-19-2010, 01:34 PM
KW said all the right things. A GM should NEVER panic in public.

However, even IF all the good teams "goes through a stretch like this," this team isn't GOOD ENOUGH [as currently constructed] to rip off 8, 9, or 10 wins in a row. The good teams are able to over come "stretches" of poor play, because they're GOOD ENOUGH to go on protracted win streaks.

As I posted elsewhere, the abject lack of a consistent offense makes the margin of error razor-thin in this team. ONE SINGLE MISTAKE [by OG, by the defense, by the bullpen, by the starting rotation], and the team loses.


If they want to do something with this team, KW will have to do the work he didn't do in the offseason: Fix the offense.

He is saying what he has to say, although we all know its not how he feels. There was an article a couple years ago how he overreacts more than anyone here, so unless that has changed, I'm sure he's not as calm and unworried as he wants everyone to believe, especially considering he apparently was never sold on the roster to begin with.

KMcMahon817
04-19-2010, 01:48 PM
Not meaning to be a jerk, but do you have a link that so states this?

I'm actually fairly confident that most WS winning teams [not the ****ty '06 Cardinals, for example] had at least one 8 game winning streak in their season. For THAT matter, I don't think this team is good enough offensively to win 5 games in a row. Or at least, CONSISTENT enough to win 5 games in a row.

2009 Yankees: 9 games
2008 Phillies: 7 games
2007 Red Sox: 5 games
2006 Cardinals: 7 games
2005 Sox: 8 games

Need I go any further?

So, in the past 5 seasons, the team who won the WS has not won 10 games in a row, as I stated. It's not an easy thing to do for any team.

Ranger
04-19-2010, 02:29 PM
I mean he's right. Except this team has given no indication that they are actually a "good team".


That's kind of true of all good teams that get off to bad starts, isn't it? What good team ever gets off to a bad start but simultaneously gives any indication that they're actually good? When teams play poorly, they look like bad teams.

The right question is: just how good is this team? I still think they're better than they're playing. They aren't really this bad.

WhiteSox1989
04-19-2010, 02:35 PM
That's kind of true of all good teams that get off to bad starts, isn't it? What good team ever gets off to a bad start but simultaneously gives any indication that they're actually good? Wehn team play poorly, they look like bad teams.

The right question is: just how good is this team? I still think they're better than they're playing. They aren't really this bad.
Yeah. That's true. But I'm not going to believe this is a "good team" as Kenny states, until they show something to back it up. But I get what you're saying.

doublem23
04-19-2010, 02:36 PM
The right question is: just how good is this team? I still think they're better than they're playing. They aren't really this bad.

I don't think they're this bad either, but how good are they really? If you think they're good enough to turn this thing around and make a run at the division, that's fine, but since this looks like the exact same team that last year couldn't win 80 games, I just don't know.

PhillipsBubba
04-19-2010, 02:44 PM
There is one irrefutable indicator as to whether a team is good or not. Can anyone guess what that is????

4-9:(:

doublem23
04-19-2010, 03:04 PM
There is one irrefutable indicator as to whether a team is good or not. Can anyone guess what that is????

4-9:(:

Well, I really don't think record is "irrefutable" after 13 games, and the Sox are already 2 games behind their Pythagorean W-L, so like Ranger said, they're not this bad. As was pointed out in another thread, the Astros started the 2005 season something like 15-30 and wound up in the World Series. Last year's Yankees team, that won 103 games and the World Series, didn't climb above .500 for good until the middle of May.

The troubling thing about this start to the season is its the same **** as it was before that's dooming this team. Can't get a timely hit, scoring such a high percentage of their runs via the HR, Ozzie making silly decisions, pitching being lights out in garbage time but imploding in close games, etc.

Ranger
04-19-2010, 04:01 PM
There is one irrefutable indicator as to whether a team is good or not. Can anyone guess what that is????

4-9:(:

If that's true after 13 games, then the Red Sox are also not very good.

Konerko05
04-19-2010, 04:05 PM
Kenny is saying this to the public.

The real Kenny is smashing things around his office, cursing Ozzie, and scurrying through lists of potential available players.

Kenny Williams is anything, but content and relaxed right now.

spawn
04-19-2010, 04:07 PM
There is one irrefutable indicator as to whether a team is good or not. Can anyone guess what that is????

4-9:(:
4-9

That's the Red Sox record as well. I guess they suck too.

captain54
04-19-2010, 04:09 PM
the 1983 White Sox went until mid May before they figured out how to hit (on May 18th they had one hitter with a batting average over .250 in the every day lineup) but they were getting good pitching. That team won 99 games, so there is time to turn this around.

where do you see the 2010 equivalents from the 1983 team of Fisk, Luzinski, Kittle, Baines, Paciorek and Rudy Law?

tstrike2000
04-19-2010, 04:10 PM
That's kind of true of all good teams that get off to bad starts, isn't it? What good team ever gets off to a bad start but simultaneously gives any indication that they're actually good? When teams play poorly, they look like bad teams.

The right question is: just how good is this team? I still think they're better than they're playing. They aren't really this bad.

No, on paper they look good...although we've been paper good before and didn't matter much. I said in another thread that is team is predicated around veterans who were taken a gamble on and may or may not deliver. To more be more specific, we have some young guys, but the team is still very veteran based and it seems hard for me to tell how good this team really is.

spawn
04-19-2010, 04:14 PM
The troubling thing about this start to the season is its the same **** as it was before that's dooming this team. Can't get a timely hit, scoring such a high percentage of their runs via the HR, Ozzie making silly decisions, pitching being lights out in garbage time but imploding in close games, etc.
Ozzie making silly decisions? No, that's not true. I mean, batting Kotsay 3rd yesterday was a stroke of GENIUS that you obviously don't understand. I mean, it didn't really work out, but if it did? Whoa. But the better move was bringing Peavy out to pitch the 8th instead of the setup man. That was pure genius right there.

JB98
04-19-2010, 04:17 PM
4-9

That's the Red Sox record as well. I guess they suck too.

The Red Sox made the playoffs last year. And the year before. And the year before that they won the World Series.

If I was a Boston fan, I'd give my team the benefit of the doubt.

What have the White Sox done lately to earn the benefit of the doubt? 79-83 last year, followed by an uninspiring offseason, then a 4-9 start. Yuck.

I'm not taking anything on faith right now. I won't say the White Sox are a good team until they show me that they are a good team.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
04-19-2010, 04:18 PM
4-9

That's the Red Sox record as well. I guess they suck too.

Yeah, but did the Red Sox lose 5 of 6 to one of the worst teams in MLB? Did their offense get stifled by Cy Young contenders such as Mitch Talbot and Jake Westbrook?

The Red Sox played the Twins, Yankees, and Rays, three teams that are postseason picks. We played the Twins, a middle-of-the-road Toronto team, and a Cleveland team who is unbeatable against the Sox, yet is a laughingstock against everyone else.

spawn
04-19-2010, 04:23 PM
Yeah, but did the Red Sox lose 5 of 6 to one of the worst teams in MLB? Did their offense get stifled by Cy Young contenders such as Mitch Talbot and Jake Westbrook?

The OP said the one irrefutable indicator of how bad a team is was the record. I'm merely pointing out that isn't true. The Red Sox have the exact same record, but they've played arguably stiffer competition.

As fas as the White Sox go, we really don't know how good or bad this team is. 13 games isn't a big enough sample size. I think i'll give them more time to prove themselves before I piss myself over a 13 game stretch out of a 162 game season. :shrug:

captain54
04-19-2010, 04:42 PM
If that's true after 13 games, then the Red Sox are also not very good.

the problem with your logic, Ranger, is that that you are comparing a team that won 95 last year, went to the playoffs, and was 4th in hitting in the AL..as opposed to a team that won 79, was not in the postseason and was last or near last in hitting...and really did not appreciably significant to bolster that offense...except to keep their fingers crossed with Pierre, Kotsay, Jones and Rios.

Keep in mind the Sox played almost half their games against a struggling, rebuilding franchise...the Indians...and have still to face the Yankees, Rays and Red Sox out east, and the the dreaded West Coast trips.

The White Sox gave no indication or promise to the fans that they would be any better than average, offensively, during the offseason. So to say this is a "good" team is really, really being highly presumptious

Frater Perdurabo
04-19-2010, 05:22 PM
The Red Sox are exactly lighting the world on fire either.

The difference is that the Red Sox have won two of the past six World Series and have made the playoffs every year except one during that time, despite playing in the toughest division in baseball. In addition, they have consistently developed talented young players and integrated them into progressively more significant roles on their team, where they generally have lived up to expectations.

Despite winning one World Series five years ago and one division title two years ago, the White Sox have had two losing seasons out of their last three, playing in what for the past three years has been a relatively weak division.

I'm sorry, but the Red Sox have more "credibility" as a winning team. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Red Sox are more likely to recover from their bad start than the White Sox are.

kevingrt
04-19-2010, 05:24 PM
Long season is right. Hopefully the home cooking coming up here will help out the boys.

WhiteSox5187
04-19-2010, 05:27 PM
where do you see the 2010 equivalents from the 1983 team of Fisk, Luzinski, Kittle, Baines, Paciorek and Rudy Law?

I think Paulie is going to do better than the 9 HRs and 63 RBIs that Pacoriek put up. I don't think he is going to hit .307 like Pacoriek, but could put up an .809 OPS. I could see Quentin matching Baines' 20 HRs from that year (not so sure about him hitting .280 or putting up 99 RBIs). I don't think anyone can match the HRs put up by Kittle or Luzinski and AJ isn't going to match Fisk's numbers, but that team only hit 157 HRs, I could see this team hitting a number similar to that. Pierre might be able to match Law's .340 OBP but he isn't going to so much as sniff 77 bases.

Really though Beckham will be better than Cruz (he might even match his 24 SBs), Alexei is going to be better than Dybzinkski, and Tehan is going to be better than Vance Law.

cards press box
04-19-2010, 05:41 PM
where do you see the 2010 equivalents from the 1983 team of Fisk, Luzinski, Kittle, Baines, Paciorek and Rudy Law?

I think Paulie is going to do better than the 9 HRs and 63 RBIs that Pacoriek put up. I don't think he is going to hit .307 like Pacoriek, but could put up an .809 OPS. I could see Quentin matching Baines' 20 HRs from that year (not so sure about him hitting .280 or putting up 99 RBIs). I don't think anyone can match the HRs put up by Kittle or Luzinski and AJ isn't going to match Fisk's numbers, but that team only hit 157 HRs, I could see this team hitting a number similar to that. Pierre might be able to match Law's .340 OBP but he isn't going to so much as sniff 77 bases.

Really though Beckham will be better than Cruz (he might even match his 24 SBs), Alexei is going to be better than Dybzinkski, and Tehan is going to be better than Vance Law.

First of all, may I be the first to point out that during the first quarter of the 1983 season, the White Sox sported records (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teamstats/schedule.php?y=1983&t=CHA) of 12-17, 13-20, 14-21 and 16-24.

The biggest comparison between the '83 Sox and the '10 Sox? In my view, it is the starting pitching. The '83 Sox had a great foursome in Hoyt/Dotson/Bannister/Burns and a veteran 5th starter in Jerry Koosman. The '10 Sox also have a great foursome in Buerhle/Peavy/John Danks/Floyd and, like Jerry Koosman, Freddy Garcia should be fine as a fifth starter (and, let's not forget, the Sox have Dan Hudson waiting in the wings if Freddy falters).

The '10 Sox have a much better bullpen than the '83 Sox and have at least one dynamic young star in Gordon Beckham and perhaps another two with Carlos Quentin and Alex Rios.

Man, I'm glad I looked up the stats on the "83 Sox. It is rekindling my hope for this year.

Ranger
04-19-2010, 07:33 PM
the problem with your logic, Ranger, is that that you are comparing a team that won 95 last year, went to the playoffs, and was 4th in hitting in the AL..as opposed to a team that won 79, was not in the postseason and was last or near last in hitting...and really did not appreciably significant to bolster that offense...except to keep their fingers crossed with Pierre, Kotsay, Jones and Rios.

Keep in mind the Sox played almost half their games against a struggling, rebuilding franchise...the Indians...and have still to face the Yankees, Rays and Red Sox out east, and the the dreaded West Coast trips.

The White Sox gave no indication or promise to the fans that they would be any better than average, offensively, during the offseason. So to say this is a "good" team is really, really being highly presumptious

Well, you inadvertently helped me out there. The Sox will prove to have a very good pitching staff by the end of the year, and all they need to compete in the Central is an average offense. That's it. If they do, coupled with their pitching, they can win the division.

If the Sox would have had an average offense in the first 13 games of the season, they're 8 and 5 at the very least least, probably better.

Boston, on the other hand, is in a much tougher division and they have to see those teams 18 teams each. The White Sox do not.

PhillipsBubba
04-19-2010, 07:36 PM
Well, I really don't think record is "irrefutable" after 13 games, and the Sox are already 2 games behind their Pythagorean W-L, so like Ranger said, they're not this bad.

All the theorizing and worrysome handwringing is useless...I'm saying look at the record...right now, at this very moment, they are bad.

I've seen nothing to lead me to believe otherwise.

pudge
04-19-2010, 07:46 PM
Very, very, very few teams are. I can assure you that many teams who have won the World Series went all season long without winning 10 straight.

Yeah but you've missed the point of his post - if you dig a hole, you have to string together a streak like that. This is why the odds are so seriously stacked against a team that starts poorly.

pudge
04-19-2010, 07:48 PM
The difference is that the Red Sox have won two of the past six World Series and have made the playoffs every year except one during that time, despite playing in the toughest division in baseball. In addition, they have consistently developed talented young players and integrated them into progressively more significant roles on their team, where they generally have lived up to expectations.

Despite winning one World Series five years ago and one division title two years ago, the White Sox have had two losing seasons out of their last three, playing in what for the past three years has been a relatively weak division.

I'm sorry, but the Red Sox have more "credibility" as a winning team. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Red Sox are more likely to recover from their bad start than the White Sox are.

Dare I say maybe the Red Sox aren't all that good this year either??

rdwj
04-19-2010, 07:51 PM
KW is right - it's a long season. If they don't start playing better, It's going to be a REALLY long season

captain54
04-19-2010, 08:14 PM
The Sox will prove to have a very good pitching staff by the end of the year, and all they need to compete in the Central is an average offense.

If the Sox would have had an average offense in the first 13 games of the season, they're 8 and 5 at the very least least, probably better.



Agreed... However, at this point, since they are one of the worst offenses in MLB, even a below average offense would be a stretch...An average offense would be an incredible. monumental achievement.

Rdy2PlayBall
04-19-2010, 08:21 PM
the problem with your logic, Ranger, is that that you are comparing a team that won 95 last year, went to the playoffs, and was 4th in hitting in the AL..as opposed to a team that won 79, was not in the postseason and was last or near last in hitting...and really did not appreciably significant to bolster that offense...except to keep their fingers crossed with Pierre, Kotsay, Jones and Rios.
How does a previous season's record have anything to do with the White Sox? If your a fan... you'd notice the Sox haven't been real consistent from season to season recently. Right now, both teams suck. If the White Sox are written off of playoff contention because of these 13 games... so should the Red Sox. It's too early. Rough starts happen almost (if not) every year for decent - good teams.

WhiteSox5187
04-19-2010, 08:28 PM
Yeah but you've missed the point of his post - if you dig a hole, you have to string together a streak like that. This is why the odds are so seriously stacked against a team that starts poorly.

Actually, not really. Again, to return to the 1983 White Sox their longest winning streak was eight. What happened after going .444 in April and May, they started playing .600 and .700 baseball. You don't necessarily have to win 10 in a row. You don't even have to win 8 in a row, you win two out of three every series you're playing .600 ball.

doublem23
04-19-2010, 09:07 PM
Actually, not really. Again, to return to the 1983 White Sox their longest winning streak was eight. What happened after going .444 in April and May, they started playing .600 and .700 baseball. You don't necessarily have to win 10 in a row. You don't even have to win 8 in a row, you win two out of three every series you're playing .600 ball.

Its pretty incredible for a team to just start playing .600 and .700 ball over the course of several months. That's why you can only cite a few historical samples. It's not impossible, but it is really, really damn hard.

captain54
04-19-2010, 09:29 PM
How does a previous season's record have anything to do with the White Sox? If your a fan... you'd notice the Sox haven't been real consistent from season to season recently. Right now, both teams suck. If the White Sox are written off of playoff contention because of these 13 games... so should the Red Sox. It's too early. Rough starts happen almost (if not) every year for decent - good teams.

the only thing the Sox have been consistent with is not playing well in the 2nd half in recent seasons....so to dig yourself a hole of 5 games out after two weeks, means that you have to pray 4 teams in front of you play like crap and you play well ... all at the same time....and that's just to break get back near the top.

so given the trend of the weak 2nd halves, the Sox would really have to turn the afterburners on to get away ahead in the division, in order to compensate for that....do they have the offensive firepower to get 5, 6, 7 games ahead by the All Star Break??? you tell me

WhiteSox5187
04-19-2010, 09:39 PM
Its pretty incredible for a team to just start playing .600 and .700 ball over the course of several months. That's why you can only cite a few historical samples. It's not impossible, but it is really, really damn hard.

Oh god, it's damn CLOSE to impossible! My over all point though was you know, you play a couple of weeks of .600 ball (like the Twins in 2006) and you're right back in the race. I'm not saying you need to play a couple of months of .600 ball...but that certainly helps!

Again, to go back to '83 they actually played like three months of close to .600 ball, that first month got them back into the race and then they just SPRINTED away with it.

gosox41
04-19-2010, 09:41 PM
According to the Sun-Times:

''Long season, good team, relax,''

---------------------------------------

My initial thoughts are 'what do you expect Kenny to say?' since it's is so early in the season even if he's not comfortable with the way the club was put together (and indications are he wasn't) he can't do a thing about changing it at this point in time.

Feel free to discuss.

Lip

Can't argue with it. The reality is that the Sox are a veteran team with hitters who have a track record. The Sox have three regular players hitting about .260 (I count Jones as a regular though that is open to debate.) Tehan is right where I thought he would be.

But you have TCQ at .200, PK at .214, Beckham at .240, Pierre at .208, AJ at .171, Ramirez at .233 and Kotsay (another semi regular when Jones doesn't play) at .120.

If one thinks all these hitters will hit like this all season then they're right, the season is over. I don't think these hitters are this bad.

Perhaps the better question is why do the Sox seem to have a team every year that goes through agonizingly long and painful slumps every year?


Bob

Lip Man 1
04-19-2010, 09:56 PM
Bob:

Your guess is as good as mine...mentally weak? Greg Walker? who knows.

Lip

KMcMahon817
04-19-2010, 10:37 PM
Yeah but you've missed the point of his post - if you dig a hole, you have to string together a streak like that. This is why the odds are so seriously stacked against a team that starts poorly.

I perfectly understood the point of his post.

I was just pointing out that the basis of his post was entirely false.

balke
04-19-2010, 11:37 PM
Good lord people - listen to the man. Relax.

Horrible start - but the season isn't over yet. Sox could easily go 9-4 in the next stretch and go from there. Whoever said Thome Pods and Dye should all be back - I don't really agree.

If the Sox could've gotten Dye instead of Kotsay - maybe I'd go for that... but that would be a lot of money for a guy who's not playing everyday and refuses to DH.

Thome or Kotsay will really be a wash. Even if Thome hits more HR - he doesn't play a position and he can barely run when on base. I think Andruw Jones will have the best season out of all 3.

Pods or Juan Pierre? I'll take either - they are pretty much the same guy.

This team will turn it around. I know that because Peavy isn't even close to where he will be 3 weeks from now - and I think this team will learn how to play together as the season goes on. RELAX.

Ranger
04-20-2010, 12:29 AM
Dare I say maybe the Red Sox aren't all that good this year either??

Do you really believe that to be true?

Agreed... However, at this point, since they are one of the worst offenses in MLB, even a below average offense would be a stretch...An average offense would be an incredible. monumental achievement.

I don't think it would be monumental at all for them to start hitting like the team they should be. Average isn't unreasonable for them and it isn't a stretch.

Zelemont
04-20-2010, 12:37 AM
My problem with this statement is that I don't even feel like this is a new season. It is a continuation of last year, despite a much different lineup. I'm sure the team will bounce back and have a few decent winning streaks through the season, but recent history has shown that this team, under it's current management, is unacceptably inconsistent and prone to COLLECTIVE slumps on a regular basis. Maybe that means this team has a great bond, but it is starting to make sense to me when I read posts about them having the wrong philosophy.

Also, somebody made the point about no all-star caliber players in the offensive lineup, which is a great point, but I actually think Beckham and Quentin are very likely to be all-star caliber in the near future (perhaps with a different team), and with the exception of this season Ramirez has shown that he has the talent to be amazing but obviously has the wrong attitude, leading to lazy errors and mediocre performance between amazing plays and solid hitting.

I still love the pitching staff, but I know I couldn't perform at my best knowing my team isn't going to back me up in the least. That has to have an effect on the pitcher's mental state.

Boooooooooooooooooooooooo.

pudge
04-20-2010, 02:34 AM
Do you really believe that to be true?


I'm just raising the question, why not? I'll admit I don't know their team in depth, but I remember looking at the lineup and thinking, wow, for the Red Sox, that is nothing special. They're in a similar boat we're in, if they don't get exceptional pitching, who knows, especially in that division.

pudge
04-20-2010, 02:38 AM
I perfectly understood the point of his post.

I was just pointing out that the basis of his post was entirely false.

There was far more to his point than just the win streak. You fall down early and another team in your division starts hot, you are going to need some monumental stretches. Maybe you don't need a 10-game winning streak per se, but you need to get historically hot. Everyone is pointing at the '83 White Sox as if that happens every season. Furthermore, he was asking the question: Do you see this '10 team as a club that can get incredibly hot? I think that's a valid question with the defensive and offensive holes that are showing up.

khan
04-20-2010, 09:54 AM
Actually, not really. Again, to return to the 1983 White Sox their longest winning streak was eight. What happened after going .444 in April and May, they started playing .600 and .700 baseball. You don't necessarily have to win 10 in a row. You don't even have to win 8 in a row, you win two out of three every series you're playing .600 ball.
Great. My question to the group was/is: Do you think this team [as currently constructed] can do this?

This team has ready-made excuses ["We haven't seen this pitcher before," "You just have to tip your hat," etc...] for many of their shortcomings. Excuses are like *******s: Everyone has one. Whatever happened to "We will either find a way, or we will make one"?

My view is that this team isn't consistent enough on offense to win 8, 9, 10, or even 5 in a row. If they're not good enough to beat the crap out of a ****ty team like Cleveland, they're not going to win "two out of three every series you're playing .600 ball."

khan
04-20-2010, 10:04 AM
There was far more to his point than just the win streak. You fall down early and another team in your division starts hot, you are going to need some monumental stretches. Maybe you don't need a 10-game winning streak per se, but you need to get historically hot. Everyone is pointing at the '83 White Sox as if that happens every season. Furthermore, he was asking the question: Do you see this '10 team as a club that can get incredibly hot? I think that's a valid question with the defensive and offensive holes that are showing up.
It's not "just" the defensive and offensive holes that narrows this team's margin for error. The bullpen HAS TO BE perfect in each of their appearances, or the team will lose. No bullpen nor defense are THAT good, I don't care who you're talking about.

Also, this "flexible" lineup makes Ozzie's managerial decisions all the more critical. He simply can't **** up even ONE decision in a game, or this team will lose. Not Connie Mack, not Sparky Anderson, not even Casey Stengel were THAT infallible.

Over the course of the season, one **** up by the offense, the defense, the bullpen, the starting rotation, or by the manager adds up. For example, by not forcing Floyd to take one for the team the other day, the bullpen will be shortened somewhat v. a STRONG Tampa team.

Since the offense is too weak to even catch up v. Cleveland, not ONLY did the SOX lose that game, but Ozzie's decision may cost the SOX v. Tampa this week. [Due to the bullpen being shortened.] This means Linebrink will be pitching in a critical situation instead of Pena or Santos vs the rays.


In sum, the margin of error is too short for this team to win. If ONE THING goes wrong, they're dead. Over 162 games, that means that the team can't go on a good win streak to catch up to Minnesota, or even win "two out of three every series you're playing .600 ball."

pudge
04-20-2010, 11:44 AM
It's not "just" the defensive and offensive holes that narrows this team's margin for error. The bullpen HAS TO BE perfect in each of their appearances, or the team will lose. No bullpen nor defense are THAT good, I don't care who you're talking about.



As you say, no bullpen is perfect, no manager is perfect, no defense is perfect. The question is are they balanced and steady enough to overcome imperfections, as all good teams must. An argument for why they are *not* is because they have glaring holes on defense that top teams don't tend to have, and they have a streaky-at-best lineup that most top teams don't tend to have.

The arguments for them getting hot would be a pitching staff that can carry a lackluster offense, a lineup and home park that tend to play much better in the summer months, and a potentially great bullpen.

And then there's Ozzie's bunting philosophy, I think that goes in the "negative" column...

Lip Man 1
04-20-2010, 11:55 PM
Like him or not, think he's doing a fine job or not, Kenny understands the Sox fan base (and it doesn't seem to bother him) The last paragraph is the operational statement:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/ct-spt-0421-brite-white-sox-rays-chicago-20100420,0,4262783.story

Lip

captain54
04-21-2010, 11:36 PM
I don't think it would be monumental at all for them to start hitting like the team they should be. Average isn't unreasonable for them and it isn't a stretch.

Really? pray tell, what indicators or "behind the scenes" inside info do you have that would back that up? or is it the wizardry of Greg Walker that's going to pull them out of it?

even if you're right, they could be 10 games out by May 1 and trying to climb over four other teams and it'll all be a moot point.