PDA

View Full Version : Is 10-15 the new 12-13?


DumpJerry
05-02-2010, 05:09 PM
The 1983 Sox team was 12-13 after 25 games. This team is only two games behind that one.

Now, if the '83 team could go on a massive run, why not again?

jabrch
05-02-2010, 05:10 PM
The 1983 Sox team was 12-13 after 25 games. This team is only two games behind that one.

Now, if the '83 team could go on a massive run, why not again?

Because all of these guys will definitely continue to play as poorly as they have so far, Peavy...AJ...MB...TCQ...all of them. There is no chance we don't suck.

DumpJerry
05-02-2010, 05:12 PM
Because all of these guys will definitely continue to play as poorly as they have so far, Peavy...AJ...MB...TCQ...all of them. There is no chance we don't suck.
Too bad there was no WSI in 1983. I would have loved to see what people said then at this point in the season about that team.

Yes, there are differences. Ozzie is no LaRussa. But our 1-4 starters have the ability to come close to Lamar.

Rohan
05-02-2010, 05:16 PM
:threadrules:

DumpJerry
05-02-2010, 05:18 PM
:threadrules:
http://www.nightflightrecords.com/Logoyou.GIF

dickallen15
05-02-2010, 05:18 PM
The Sox lost in the playoffs in 1983. I'd rather they won the WS. In 2005 they were 18-7 through 25 games. So if they play the rest of the season even with that team, they are 91 game winners. That could get them in the playoffs, especially with Mauer hurt.

LoveYourSuit
05-02-2010, 05:19 PM
As much as Hawk wants to beat the dead horse, there is no way this rotation is better than that 1983 one. For a guy who claims to have 50+ years of major league experience, he should get his eyes checked.


I don't even think this offense can match up (assuming it ever gets hot) the 1983 offense.

SI1020
05-02-2010, 05:20 PM
Too bad there was no WSI in 1983. I would have loved to see what people said then at this point in the season about that team.

Yes, there are differences. Ozzie is no LaRussa. But our 1-4 starters have the ability to come close to Lamar. Totally different. The team showed promise in 81 and 82. The Sox weren't on a three and a half year downer.

Brian26
05-02-2010, 05:20 PM
Too bad there was no WSI in 1983. I would have loved to see what people said then at this point in the season about that team.

Yes, there are differences. Ozzie is no LaRussa. But our 1-4 starters have the ability to come close to Lamar.

LaRussa was no LaRussa back then either. He was being booed out of the park up until May. Nobody believed in him, and many people didn't believe in him after the season.

GoGoCrede
05-02-2010, 05:22 PM
I wasn't alive in 1983, but I'd love to have seen what people thought of that team in May. Probably a hoot.

jabrch
05-02-2010, 05:22 PM
Too bad there was no WSI in 1983. I would have loved to see what people said then at this point in the season about that team.

Yes, there are differences. Ozzie is no LaRussa. But our 1-4 starters have the ability to come close to Lamar.

I was just a kid then - so I don't know what the tone was at the time. I remember the great times of 83 (when I was 11) and have no recollections of a single bad day that summer until the post season.

DumpJerry
05-02-2010, 05:22 PM
The Sox lost in the playoffs in 1983. I'd rather they won the WS. In 2005 they were 18-7 through 25 games. So if they play the rest of the season even with that team, they are 91 game winners. That could get them in the playoffs, especially with Mauer hurt.
An argument could be made that if one of two events did not happen, the Sox would have been in the 1983 World Series:
1. Dybzinski's brain cramp on the basepath.
2. Burns pitching into the 10th.

Lamar was pitching the next day.

SI1020
05-02-2010, 05:29 PM
I wasn't alive in 1983, but I'd love to have seen what people thought of that team in May. Probably a hoot. I was alive then, and of course there was no internet which changes everyone's perceptions in a million ways, but I don't remember this level of anger and frustation. When they bottomed out at 16-24 they were still just 7 games out. Upon reaching .500 on June 22 they were 2.5 back. It really was a totally different era and scenario than now. When they got hot they were unstoppable and were the big story on the sports page. There is nothing then that reminds me of now.

BadBobbyJenks
05-02-2010, 05:31 PM
I love when people compare bad teams to historical teams that went on runs because that is completely relevant.

LoveYourSuit
05-02-2010, 05:33 PM
I was alive then, and of course there was no internet which changes everyone's perceptions in a million ways, but I don't remember this level of anger and frustation. When they bottomed out at 16-24 they were still just 7 games out. Upon reaching .500 on June 22 they were 2.5 back. It really was a totally different era and scenario than now. When they got hot they were unstoppable and were the big story on the sports page. There is nothing then that reminds me of now.


Also, it has to do about expectations.

This team was not expected to be 6 games out and 5 games under .500 this quickly with the starting rotation it has, the payroll, and the so called weak division.

LoveYourSuit
05-02-2010, 05:36 PM
I love when people compare bad teams to historical teams that went on runs because that is completely relevant.


Agreed.

For this one 1983 team everyone is so quick to try to compare to, just for the sake of feeling better about the current situation, I can name 10-12 other Sox teams that sucked in April and sucked for the entire year.

The odds are not good in other words.

dickallen15
05-02-2010, 05:39 PM
When the Sox were 10-21 in 1995 after 2 years in a row of winning their division, they fired Gene Lamont. Would they do it to Ozzie? Geno did have a .028 better winning pct. as White Sox manager than Ozzie.

Dibbs
05-02-2010, 05:40 PM
I am guessing this thread is a joke. A pretty good one at that.

If it is not a joke, it is even funnier.

canOcorn
05-02-2010, 05:41 PM
The 1983 Sox team was 12-13 after 25 games. This team is only two games behind that one.

Now, if the '83 team could go on a massive run, why not again?

:rolleyes: to infinity.........Oh wait, I forgot you implied the teal.

dickallen15
05-02-2010, 05:43 PM
Agreed.

For this one 1983 team everyone is so quick to try to compare to, just for the sake of feeling better about the current situation, I can name 10-12 other Sox teams that sucked in April and sucked for the entire year.

The odds are not good in other words.

I don't think anyone really thinks there's much of a chance of it happening, its just to keep from banging your head. You wait all winter long for baseball and this is what we get.

I will say this, I'm pretty sure no one on this board, even the most optimistic wouldn't have thought the White Sox wouldn't go through a streak of 25 games and go 10-15. Just about every team does. Maybe they go 20-5 their next 25 and suddenly they are 30-20. Its just hard to be optimistic about this team. Nothing seems to click.

captain54
05-02-2010, 05:49 PM
I was just a kid then - so I don't know what the tone was at the time.

the Sox won a respectable 87 games in 1982, so that team was on the upswing...the feeling overall in 83' was that the Sox would probably get better after a slow start..the only team above .500 was the Angels..

the feeling this year is exactly the opposite...in every way

Ron Kittle started to catch fire as the season progressed, LaMarr Hoyt became unhittable, and Julio Cruz was acquired mid-June as completely ignited the team...

the 2010 Sox look like a team that is going to be dumping guys rather than a team that is going to be acquiring players to ignite.

Brian26
05-02-2010, 07:18 PM
I love when people compare bad teams to historical teams that went on runs because that is completely relevant.

It provides perspective, which makes baseball such a great game and absolutely lends relevance to the discussion. Whether or not this team has the same success, we won't know until the end of the season.

delben91
05-02-2010, 07:34 PM
Also, it has to do about expectations.

This team was not expected to be 6 games out and 5 games under .500 this quickly with the starting rotation it has, the payroll, and the so called weak division.

In fairness, despite the offensive issues the Sox are currently dealing with, the vaunted rotation hasn't exactly lit the league on fire.

LITTLE NELL
05-02-2010, 07:55 PM
1970 Sox were 11-14 after 25 games and went on to record the worst record in franchise history, 56-106.
This team has much more talent but only a few guys are playing to their potential, if the rest of them pick it up in the remaining 5 months we might see another 1983 but right now it looks like they are closer to the 1970 version.

PS In late May of 1983 we were 8 games under .500 and everybody wanted LaRussa fired, from that point on they were the best team in MLB

Lip Man 1
05-02-2010, 08:11 PM
Man for man this club can't compare with the 1983 team, which as has been pointed out, was coming off two straight winning seasons.

As bad a start as the 83 team had (and I've interviewed many of those guys) the common theme was that they weren't quitting, they didn't become paranoid over the managers status and they knew they had the talent to go on a hot streak (although NOBODY expected a streak like in August - September of 83).

I don't recall reading stories about guys "hanging their heads," using "pressure" or "cold weather" as an excuse and having their manager tell fans to "stop watching or become a Cub fan" if they disagreed with him.

I think the difference between these two teams mentally is as wide as the Grand Canyon. Any team with pros on it like Fisk, Koosman and Luzinski were mentally tough, tough enough to give themselves (and the fans) are reason to think things could turn around.

Just me, but I don't see that type of toughness or leadership on the 2010 team.

Lip

BadBobbyJenks
05-02-2010, 08:31 PM
It provides perspective, which makes baseball such a great game and absolutely lends relevance to the discussion. Whether or not this team has the same success, we won't know until the end of the season.

No, it proves that the 1983 came back from their bad start and thats it. Nothing that happened in that year means anything to the 2010 White Sox, but if that makes people feel better then by all means.

Brian26
05-02-2010, 08:39 PM
No, it proves that the 1983 came back from their bad start and thats it. Nothing that happened in that year means anything to the 2010 White Sox, but if that makes people feel better then by all means.

As I said, the example is relevant in terms of perspective. This statement does not imply the 2010 Sox will repeat that performance.

Baseball is designed for such comparisons, as the basic model and statistical framework of the game has largely been unchanged for over 100 years.

KMcMahon817
05-02-2010, 08:45 PM
I am obviously as upset as all of you, but if the Sox can somehow sweep KC, which isn't out of the realm of possibility, especially since we're missing Grienke, were two under. And if you look at the schedule for the rest of the month, it is really pretty weak. You have a series against @ TB and 2 games @ MIN but other than that, it is not very daunting at all.

I see a good month, and with Mauer hurting, I wouldn't be all that surprised to see the Sox only a game or two back by the end of May. But, hey, I am an optimist.

sox1970
05-02-2010, 09:03 PM
The '83 White Sox don't matter because they were the only good team in AL West division. This year there are two good teams in the Central, and one of them may described as VERY good.

They played a balanced schedule back in 1983. 12 against each team the other division, and 13 against each team in your own division---basically balanced. Six out of the 14 teams in the AL were over .500. Five of them were in the East.

So Hawk should shut up about 1983 because it's not relevant to what is going on now. Plus the Sox just suck this year. No amount of chemistry is going to help.

tsoxman
05-02-2010, 09:11 PM
Man for man this club can't compare with the 1983 team, which as has been pointed out, was coming off two straight winning seasons.

As bad a start as the 83 team had (and I've interviewed many of those guys) the common theme was that they weren't quitting, they didn't become paranoid over the managers status and they knew they had the talent to go on a hot streak (although NOBODY expected a streak like in August - September of 83).

I don't recall reading stories about guys "hanging their heads," using "pressure" or "cold weather" as an excuse and having their manager tell fans to "stop watching or become a Cub fan" if they disagreed with him.

I think the difference between these two teams mentally is as wide as the Grand Canyon. Any team with pros on it like Fisk, Koosman and Luzinski were mentally tough, tough enough to give themselves (and the fans) are reason to think things could turn around.

Just me, but I don't see that type of toughness or leadership on the 2010 team.

Lip
Here's another one ...If the past seasons including 2005 have shown anything, this team consistently sucks the second half of the season. I don't see any kind of run in this flawed team.

october23sp
05-02-2010, 09:16 PM
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/4/22/129164471202435208.gif

veeter
05-02-2010, 09:20 PM
The Sox don't suck this year. They're sucking right now.

cards press box
05-02-2010, 09:30 PM
I wasn't alive in 1983, but I'd love to have seen what people thought of that team in May. Probably a hoot.

Different media culture back then. Little to no sports talk radio (Jim Piersall had a call in show but, if I remember correctly, it was only on during the weekends) and ESPN was in its infancy. Yes, fans were unhappy at this point in 1983 and beyond this point -- the team started the season 16-24. But the Sox had time to make a few tweaks (like move Carlton Fisk to the #2 spot in the order) and get it together, which they most definitely did.

Too bad there was no WSI in 1983. I would have loved to see what people said then at this point in the season about that team.

Yes, there are differences. Ozzie is no LaRussa. But our 1-4 starters have the ability to come close to Lamar.

Let me a throw out a difference in the 2010 Sox favor: this team has a better bullpen than the 1983 Sox and, as Sergio Santos continues to adjust to pitching in the big leagues, this bullpen is just going to get better.

Lip Man 1
05-02-2010, 09:35 PM
I don't know if any of the Sox starters could get on a roll like Hoyt had in 83. (and remember he had already set a team record for most consecutive wins over two seasons in 81-82 even before he won the Cy Young.)

I haven't been able to line up an interview with him yet but we have talked and I'll never forget something he told me about his pitching and his confidence in 1983. "Those guys (hitters) couldn't even get a foul ball off me unless I let them..."

:D:

Lip

TDog
05-02-2010, 09:38 PM
LaRussa was no LaRussa back then either. He was being booed out of the park up until May. Nobody believed in him, and many people didn't believe in him after the season.

When the White Sox traded Tony Bernazard at the trade deadline (June 15 back then, as it should be today), fans were upset. The consensus, best summarized by a fan interviewed on WGN, was "they traded the wrong Tony."

As for this season, if the starting pitching starts pitching as it was expected to pitch, there is no question the White Sox could win enough games to win the wild card or win the division. If the starting pitching does not, it will be a tough season. Fans wallowing in expected misery won't accomplish much. Even if the Sox were 6 games up now, there would be a lot of fans refusing to believe the Sox could keep up the pace. Not with Kotsay on the team, anyway.

The 1970 White Sox were 15-17, just 6.5 games out of first after winning behind Tommy John on May 16. I wouldn't say that every team with a comparable record is on pace to lose 106 games and finish 50 games out of first.

DumpJerry
05-02-2010, 09:39 PM
When Buehrle has his A game on, it reminds me of Lamar. I sat on the Fan Deck for Burl's first no-no. From there, you can really see the movement on the ball because at night the ball is a very bright spot with a dark background.

That night, from the first pitch on, it looked like Burls had a remote control on the ball which is how I always remember Lamar.

cards press box
05-02-2010, 09:43 PM
1970 Sox were 11-14 after 25 games and went on to record the worst record in franchise history, 56-106.
This team has much more talent but only a few guys are playing to their potential, if the rest of them pick it up in the remaining 5 months we might see another 1983 but right now it looks like they are closer to the 1970 version.

PS In late May of 1983 we were 8 games under .500 and everybody wanted LaRussa fired, from that point on they were the best team in MLB

This team has way too much talent to be compared to the 1970 Sox. They have played like the 1970 Sox in April 2010 but the similarity ends there. This team will get its act together and will be in the mix for the AL Central crown before all is said and done.

The 1970 team was a young rebuilding team (with some aging veterans) that, with a few moves from Roland Hemond, got a lot better in '71 and '72. To be fair, the Sox had winning records from 1951 through 1967. From 1968 through 1970, they weren't any good but by 1972, they were, in my view, a Bill Melton back injury away from going to the World Series. It's just unfortunate that the '68-'70 downturn had to coincide with the Cubs awakening from their post-WW II slumber to contend for the first time in a long while in 1969. Attendance dropped at Comiskey and guys like Bud Selig and Charlie Finley began plotting franchise re-locations that would have moved the Sox elsewhere (of course, Finley wanted to have the Sox shipped to Seattle so he could move the A's here). Anyway, in the end, 1969 didn't turn out too well for the Cubs, either.

DumpJerry
05-02-2010, 09:49 PM
MLB history is replete with incredible surges to division/league titles. The most recent one being the 2007 Rockies.

JB98
05-02-2010, 10:14 PM
MLB history is replete with incredible surges to division/league titles. The most recent one being the 2007 Rockies.

Right you are, Dump. But something like that hasn't happened here since, well, 1983.

The three most recent division championships the Sox have won (2000, 2005, 2008) have all been characterized by strong first halfs, and then hanging on in the final weeks of the season after a struggling second half. The 1993 club was a little different. They started strong, had a lull in June, then played some pretty damn good ball in August and September. But they did start well, just like the 2000, 2005 and 2008 clubs.

Looking at the past couple decades, generally speaking, the Sox have finished pretty much how they started each season. That's not to say they couldn't break that mold this year, but if they do, a come-from-behind surge would be a new experience for a lot of us younger fans.

I was seven years old in 1983, and I do have some recollections of that season. But I don't remember enough to draw on that experience and give myself hope for the current plight. I've had other years where I've been down on the Sox in early May, but all of those seasons have resulted in .500 at best. So, hopefully, all you guys who remember the team recovering from a 16-24 start in 1983 will go easy on us younger folk who are skeptical that something like that can happen here.

TDog
05-02-2010, 10:22 PM
I just realized one possible similarity with 1983. The White Sox signed Floyd Bannister in the off-season, expecting him to be dominant. He had been such a good pitcher for a losing team. Bannister was aweful up until the All-Star break. Then he was unbeatable.

I would like to see Jake Peavy turn it around in similar fashion, although I wouldn't want him to wait for the All-Star break.

KMcMahon817
05-02-2010, 10:23 PM
Right you are, Dump. But something like that hasn't happened here since, well, 1983.

The three most recent division championships the Sox have won (2000, 2005, 2008) have all been characterized by strong first halfs, and then hanging on in the final weeks of the season after a struggling second half. The 1993 club was a little different. They started strong, had a lull in June, then played some pretty damn good ball in August and September. But they did start well, just like the 2000, 2005 and 2008 clubs.

Looking at the past couple decades, generally speaking, the Sox have finished pretty much how they started each season. That's not to say they couldn't break that mold this year, but if they do, a come-from-behind surge would be a new experience for a lot of us younger fans.

I was seven years old in 1983, and I do have some recollections of that season. But I don't remember enough to draw on that experience and give myself hope for the current plight. I've had other years where I've been down on the Sox in early May, but all of those seasons have resulted in .500 at best. So, hopefully, all you guys who remember the team recovering from a 16-24 start in 1983 will go easy on us younger folk who are skeptical that something like that can happen here.

The name on the front of jersey is the only thing that this White Sox team has in common with 05 and 08, and 83 team for that matter, minus a few players. In reality, none of the talk of the past has anything to do with how the Sox will rebound or not rebound. No one here knows what will happen until it does. It's still a long summer.

samurai_sox
05-02-2010, 11:04 PM
Speaking of '83, I didn't know that The Police played at Comiskey that July.

Obviously Sting's greatness inspired the Sox to win AL West that year! :D:

rwcescato
05-02-2010, 11:20 PM
I was alive then, and of course there was no internet which changes everyone's perceptions in a million ways, but I don't remember this level of anger and frustation. When they bottomed out at 16-24 they were still just 7 games out. Upon reaching .500 on June 22 they were 2.5 back. It really was a totally different era and scenario than now. When they got hot they were unstoppable and were the big story on the sports page. There is nothing then that reminds me of now.
I was 19 yrs old back then and i really dont remeber them starting out that poorly. But I will tell u when they went on that run I knew they would win every game. You had so much confidenc that yu knew in the morning if you looked in the paper it would be a win. My dad went to the all-star game and brought back the program. I was so jealous. Atlee Hammaker gave up a grand slam to freddie Lynn I believe. Oh what memories I still hate the Orioles. Rick Dempsey and company and of course Tito Landrum.

Slappy
05-02-2010, 11:21 PM
Obviously Sting's greatness inspired the Sox to win AL West that year! :D:


I always play 'Brand New Day' after a tough loss. It's the only reason I keep watching, really.

SBSoxFan
05-02-2010, 11:25 PM
I don't know if any of the Sox starters could get on a roll like Hoyt had in 83. (and remember he had already set a team record for most consecutive wins over two seasons in 81-82 even before he won the Cy Young.)

I haven't been able to line up an interview with him yet but we have talked and I'll never forget something he told me about his pitching and his confidence in 1983. "Those guys (hitters) couldn't even get a foul ball off me unless I let them..."

:D:

Lip


Then how did he lose 10 games?

PalehosePlanet
05-03-2010, 12:00 AM
MLB history is replete with incredible surges to division/league titles. The most recent one being the 2007 Rockies.

Yes, and more recently in our own division, the 2006 Twins started the season 9-16. I even remember reading an article about how their run was done, that they were already buried in the standings, that their farm system sucked and that there was no hope at all in the near future. ( I tried finding the article but came up empty.) We all know what happened next.

There are some comparisons to the 1983 team. The first that jumps out at me is Floyd Bannister and Jake Peavy. Bannister came here when he was a highly sought free agent, we paid him a lot of money, and he started terribly. He went 11-1 in the second half. Dotson was also downright terrible for a while too, and LaMarr was inconsistent until he got in a serious groove just before mid-season.

Over all I think this staff compares favorably to that staff.

Anyway, yes maybe Hawk is full of **** when he brings up the comparison, and maybe not, we'll find out soon enough. But there is nothing wrong with creating a comparison when almost everyone to a man is under-performing.

BradSox77
05-03-2010, 12:50 AM
Mod Edit: Don't plug other websites here.

Today I must say don't believe these guys have that grit to turn it around, but I'd love to be wrong.

TDog
05-03-2010, 12:59 AM
... Dotson was also downright terrible for a while too, and LaMarr was inconsistent until he got in a serious groove just before mid-season. ...

I think Dotson had a 22-7 record in 1983. He led the league in winning percentage, anyway, but Hoyt won the Cy Young Award. Hoyt, Dotson and Bannister were nearly unbeatable after the break. This year's White Sox team should have a deeper rotation and a better bullpen.

I don't think the comparisons are outrageous. Certainly it's more fun to be optimistic. There is nothing I can do to help the White Sox win. Endlessly whining and screaming about how players such won't make baseball any more fun.

jabrch
05-03-2010, 01:04 AM
I don't think the comparisons are outrageous. Certainly it's more fun to be optimistic. There is nothing I can do to help the White Sox win. Endlessly whining and screaming about how players such won't make baseball any more fun.


agreed - completely.

pudge
05-03-2010, 02:12 AM
MLB history is replete with incredible surges to division/league titles. The most recent one being the 2007 Rockies.

I swear to god I'm going to puke... for every "miracle" surge, there are 25 times as many teams that started 10-15 and did exactly what you'd expect: nothing. Especially when they had another team in their division that was tearing it up.

This '05 Astros and '83 Sox crap is just utterly tiring. This team blows right now, and odds are very much against them, period. I would rather be discussing who is going to be held responsible than buying into this lottery ticket mentality.

Then again, if they sweep the Royals, watch out...

jabrch
05-03-2010, 02:17 AM
I swear to god I'm going to puke... for every "miracle" surge, there are 25 times as many teams that started 10-15 and did exactly what you'd expect: nothing. Especially when they had another team in their division that was tearing it up.

This '05 Astros and '83 Sox crap is just utterly tiring. This team blows right now, and odds are very much against them, period. I would rather be discussing who is going to be held responsible than buying into this lottery ticket mentality.

Pudge, has anyone said that the odds are good that this team comes back to win it all? I don't think so. A lot of those 10-15 teams really did suck - I mean - they had no talent, and were getting everything they could out of that talent. (Pittsburgh the past 10 years, KC, Baltimore, etc.) This team is not as untalented as they have played. We have guys hitting significantly below their 2009, their 3 year and their career averages. All I see is a few people who don't want to write the eulogy for a baseball team with a lot of talent in late April and early May. I don't think that's too much to ask - but it is each person's prerogative to do so. Some of us just don't want to be a part of that. I'll quit on the team when the season is more likely over. But the **** if I will do that on May 2.

pudge
05-03-2010, 02:40 AM
A lot of those 10-15 teams really did suck - I mean - they had no talent, and were getting everything they could out of that talent. (Pittsburgh the past 10 years, KC, Baltimore, etc.)

There are plenty of .500-caliber ballclubs that start 10-15 and then manage to finish somewhere around .500. It's not just crappy teams that start 10-15, it's mediocre teams too, and yes even some great teams, though very, very few.

I'm not saying give up, but let's acknowledge how few and far between an '83 comeback is - lately people talk as if four or five teams experience this miracle every season. And it doesn't help that there appears to be two very strong teams in the division, and as strong as the East is, the wild card is always a long shot.

Mohoney
05-03-2010, 03:33 AM
I don't think the comparisons are outrageous.

I think the comparison is outrageous, as I highly doubt that this year's team will lead the AL in runs scored like the 1983 team did.

jabrch
05-03-2010, 07:10 AM
There are plenty of .500-caliber ballclubs that start 10-15 and then manage to finish somewhere around .500. It's not just crappy teams that start 10-15, it's mediocre teams too, and yes even some great teams, though very, very few.

I'm not saying give up, but let's acknowledge how few and far between an '83 comeback is - lately people talk as if four or five teams experience this miracle every season. And it doesn't help that there appears to be two very strong teams in the division, and as strong as the East is, the wild card is always a long shot.

I think people are acknowledging that. The owerwhelming sense of negativity here, without anyone being positive shows that to me. There is a decent chunk of people who want to not bury this team yet - but I haven't seen even the most optimistic of optimists say that we still have a good chance. And I haven't seen anyone say that teams come back from this every year - just that it certainly is possible. I personally don't see it - but at the same time, I am not willing to rule a team (with this kind of talent) out on May 3.

Railsplitter
05-03-2010, 09:48 AM
Actually, there were a few who picked the Sox to win the division in 1983, notably Sport magazine (are they still around?) In 1982, the Sox won thier first eight games, but ended up third in the division. For every team that started out slow and caught fire as the season progressed, there's a team that started out great and faded as time went out

The Sox are at .400 at the moment. That percentage means 97 losses over a full season.


I know the season is a marathon and not a sprint, but marathons tend to be won by steady, consistent performance.

SoxGirl4Life
05-03-2010, 09:49 AM
The 1983 Sox team was 12-13 after 25 games. This team is only two games behind that one.

Now, if the '83 team could go on a massive run, why not again?

I like your enthusiastic optimism! I was a mere child in 1983, but it was quite a good year-- until the playoffs started.

tstrike2000
05-03-2010, 09:52 AM
The 1983 Sox team was 12-13 after 25 games. This team is only two games behind that one.

Now, if the '83 team could go on a massive run, why not again?

I've heard a lot of people mention the '83 team when we get off to bad starts, but a run like the '83 has not happened before or since. We have some good core starters like that team, but in looking more that's almost where the comparisons end.

Tragg
05-03-2010, 10:19 AM
There's always a chance this team could win 99 games like that 83 team.

And when it wins 75 or so, we'll read "the 1990 team won 94 games after the 1989 team won 69, so why can't the 2011 team..."

There's always a chance. A 10% chance, but a chance.

But speaking of the 1983 team, one difference is that the braintrust then didn't demand that the DH play the field, so they were perfectly content with Greg Luzinski at DH. IN contrast, the current field manager rejected Jim Thome, because of his lack of defensive skills.

NoNeckEra
05-03-2010, 10:48 AM
Just read in Tribune this morning that Sox starters' ERA is the worst in the A.L.

As dreadful as the hitting has been (and it's worse than dreadful), if Buehrle, Peavy and Floyd would have carried their weight up to this point (just pitched to their average level of expectation), this club would be .500 or better, despite the offense.

jabrch
05-03-2010, 11:12 AM
Just read in Tribune this morning that Sox starters' ERA is the worst in the A.L.

As dreadful as the hitting has been (and it's worse than dreadful), if Buehrle, Peavy and Floyd would have carried their weight up to this point (just pitched to their average level of expectation), this club would be .500 or better, despite the offense.


And going into the season, that was what many expected was worst case scenario. Few predicted the complete collapse of the SP.

Lip Man 1
05-03-2010, 11:23 AM
Rail:

Sport Magazine is long gone...and for those to young to remember 1983:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=14&id=2321

Lip

soxinem1
05-03-2010, 11:24 AM
No, I don't think the 2010 White Sox can really compare to the 1983 team. That lineup had talent and was coming off a solid 1982 season in which the major weakness was defense.

There were stark similarities to the start of the 1983 White Sox, like the offense sputtering, the starting catcher not hitting, the defense sucking, the offensive and defensive troubles at 3B and SS, early bullpen struggles in key situations, and the starters, other than Jerry Koosman, struggling big time.

I don't think fans realize enough how much Koosman meant to the early part of the season for that team.

This team just does not seem to have that fire, spark, and offensive talent that team had on paper. Except for SS and 3B, the 1983 White Sox had excellent production from the other positions in the lineup by the ASB.

Once the team started winning, they had a rallying cry from a disrespecting opponent, hence the 'Winning Ugly' mantra. I highly doubt any team will give this team anything like Doug Rader did back then.

A different time 1983 was.

TDog
05-03-2010, 12:06 PM
I think the comparison is outrageous, as I highly doubt that this year's team will lead the AL in runs scored like the 1983 team did.

If your annual income depended on how well this team does, if your well-being determined whether you were right about the Sox having a winning or losing season, the people who seem to be so firm, even self-righteous in their contention that this White Sox team is dead, even those who are angry about the belief that this White Sox team is dead, would make sense. Get out of White Sox futures. Put your money into Giants futures. Now there's a pitching staff.

This is just baseball. There is reason for hope. If it goes unfulfilled, you haven't lost much. There is no reason to scorn people who see connections between 1983 and 2010, unless you are so reflexive about scorning Cubs fans who support losing teams that you find it distasteful to be associated with supporting a losing White Sox team -- as if losing isn't your heritage as a White Sox fan. If you feel the White Sox are wasting your time, it isn't like you became a White Sox fan because they were winners.

The fact is, NoNeckEra is right when he points to the White Sox starting pitching being a big factor in their position right now. I would take it a step further and continue to assert that the problem with this team is not the offense, at least not with the low team batting average. There have been some wasted scoring opportunities that didn't require getting hits that would have led to wins in April, but the White Sox would have a much better record, and the Twins would have a worse record, if the starting pitching that management has invested in had done what they were signed up to do. It isn't a matter of needing offense to win in the American League when you're losing with the worst-performing starting pitching. And if hitters start performing more in line with their career norms -- well, Pierzynski is no Fisk. Quentin is certainly no Baines, but this team would be scoring more runs.

The 1983 team (which won its division by 20 games) may have led the American League in runs scored, but on the long western road trip that ended the season, they were no-hit, and the season ended in more offensive frustration on a blustery Chicago Saturday afternoon with more offensive frustration that the 2010 team has yet experienced. That team was shut out twice as many times in the four ALCS games as the 2010 team has been shut out in almost its first regular season month.

Maybe you can lot and say you told us so if the Sox lose. Maybe you can strut in pride with the fact that you refuse to spend any money on the White Sox because you don't like the ownership, you don't like the manager or you don't like the players. Maybe you believe that makes you a great fan. Whatever.

I'm a White Sox fan. I've seen a lot worse than 2010, and it hasn't killed me. Finding reason for hope won't kill me either.

asindc
05-03-2010, 12:10 PM
If your annual income depended on how well this team does, if your well-being determined whether you were right about the Sox having a winning or losing season, the people who seem to be so firm, even self-righteous in their contention that this White Sox team is dead, even those who are angry about the belief that this White Sox team is dead, would make sense. Get out of White Sox futures. Put your money into Giants futures. Now there's a pitching staff.

This is just baseball. There is reason for hope. If it goes unfulfilled, you haven't lost much. There is no reason to scorn people who see connections between 1983 and 2010, unless you are so reflexive about scorning Cubs fans who support losing teams that you find it distasteful to be associated with supporting a losing White Sox team -- as if losing isn't your heritage as a White Sox fan. If you feel the White Sox are wasting your time, it isn't like you became a White Sox fan because they were winners.

The fact is, NoNeckEra is right when he points to the White Sox starting pitching being a big factor in their position right now. I would take it a step further and continue to assert that the problem with this team is not the offense, at least not with the low team batting average. There have been some wasted scoring opportunities that didn't require getting hits that would have led to wins in April, but the White Sox would have a much better record, and the Twins would have a worse record, if the starting pitching that management has invested in had done what they were signed up to do. It isn't a matter of needing offense to win in the American League when you're losing with the worst-performing starting pitching. And if hitters start performing more in line with their career norms -- well, Pierzynski is no Fisk. Quentin is certainly no Baines, but this team would be scoring more runs.

The 1983 team (which won its division by 20 games) may have led the American League in runs scored, but on the long western road trip that ended the season, they were no-hit, and the season ended in more offensive frustration on a blustery Chicago Saturday afternoon with more offensive frustration that the 2010 team has yet experienced. That team was shut out twice as many times in the four ALCS games as the 2010 team has been shut out in almost its first regular season month.

Maybe you can lot and say you told us so if the Sox lose. Maybe you can strut in pride with the fact that you refuse to spend any money on the White Sox because you don't like the ownership, you don't like the manager or you don't like the players. Maybe you believe that makes you a great fan. Whatever.

I'm a White Sox fan. I've seen a lot worse than 2010, and it hasn't killed me. Finding reason for hope won't kill me either.

Thank you. I'm dismayed that it needed to be said at all.

Nellie_Fox
05-03-2010, 12:11 PM
I would rather be discussing who is going to be held responsible than buying into this lottery ticket mentality.
You don't think there are enough threads discussing who should be fired, cut, traded, or shot? I think you have plenty of opportunities for scapegoating.

TommyJohn
05-03-2010, 12:22 PM
Too bad there was no WSI in 1983. I would have loved to see what people said then at this point in the season about that team.

Yes, there are differences. Ozzie is no LaRussa. But our 1-4 starters have the ability to come close to Lamar.
Forget 1983. I would love to have seen a WSI in 1968-70. Reading those old threads would be hours of fun. :redneck

harwar
05-03-2010, 12:40 PM
in 83 i went to sea right at seasons end and had to wait 2 and a half frustrating months to find out what had occurred .. for this year,i prefer to remain optimistic .. anything can happen from this point on and as one who doesn't have a lot of seasons left, i choose to believe that they will turn it around

TDog
05-03-2010, 12:42 PM
Forget 1983. I would love to have seen a WSI in 1968-70. Reading those old threads would be hours of fun. :redneck

Can you imagine the anger people would have expressed at the White Sox trading Tommy John for Richie Allen? It's hard to imagine now, but he was THE baseball bad boy at the time, and the first thing he did when he came to the team was hold out for a big contract.

pudge
05-04-2010, 02:41 AM
This is just baseball. There is reason for hope. If it goes unfulfilled, you haven't lost much. There is no reason to scorn people who see connections between 1983 and 2010, unless you are so reflexive about scorning Cubs fans who support losing teams that you find it distasteful to be associated with supporting a losing White Sox team -- as if losing isn't your heritage as a White Sox fan. If you feel the White Sox are wasting your time, it isn't like you became a White Sox fan because they were winners.



Well written, but you touch on an important point - we did not become White Sox fans because they were winners, but many of us DID become White Sox fans because there was a general sense of not really accepting losing as being "cuddly" or embraceable in any way. Not that you have to be angry about losing, but I just personally don't like the, "Hey it happened in '83" mentality, because you're wishing upon a star. If someone wants to logically argue the Sox can improve to such-and-such a record and the Twins and Tigers can regress to such-and-such a record, I'm all ears.

jabrch
05-04-2010, 07:34 AM
Well written, but you touch on an important point - we did not become White Sox fans because they were winners, but many of us DID become White Sox fans because there was a general sense of not really accepting losing as being "cuddly" or embraceable in any way. Not that you have to be angry about losing, but I just personally don't like the, "Hey it happened in '83" mentality, because you're wishing upon a star. If someone wants to logically argue the Sox can improve to such-and-such a record and the Twins and Tigers can regress to such-and-such a record, I'm all ears.


Pudge - lots of folks have made a viable arguement for the Sox improving. If everyone ends up on their 3 year averages (which isn't outrageous) then they have a lot of good baseball ahead of them. As far as the Twins/Tigers, I haven't seen much of either, so I can't say - but there is good reason to believe that the talent on this team will eventually produce (and that PK won't hit 75 HRs) and everyone will eventually do what is expected, both SP and hitting. If that happens, we will likely win a lot of games when they make up for the **** we saw in April.

asindc
05-04-2010, 08:42 AM
Well written, but you touch on an important point - we did not become White Sox fans because they were winners, but many of us DID become White Sox fans because there was a general sense of not really accepting losing as being "cuddly" or embraceable in any way. Not that you have to be angry about losing, but I just personally don't like the, "Hey it happened in '83" mentality, because you're wishing upon a star. If someone wants to logically argue the Sox can improve to such-and-such a record and the Twins and Tigers can regress to such-and-such a record, I'm all ears.

So, I take it that you expect Pierre, Beckham, Quentin, AJ, Kotsay, Peavy, Buehrle, and Floyd to continue to perform this badly throughout the course of the season. Based on each player's track record, what leads you to that assessment, if that is what you believe?

SephClone89
05-04-2010, 09:12 AM
This is just baseball. There is reason for hope. If it goes unfulfilled, you haven't lost much. There is no reason to scorn people who see connections between 1983 and 2010, unless you are so reflexive about scorning Cubs fans who support losing teams that you find it distasteful to be associated with supporting a losing White Sox team -- as if losing isn't your heritage as a White Sox fan. If you feel the White Sox are wasting your time, it isn't like you became a White Sox fan because they were winners.



I'm a White Sox fan. I've seen a lot worse than 2010, and it hasn't killed me. Finding reason for hope won't kill me either.

Well written, but you touch on an important point - we did not become White Sox fans because they were winners, but many of us DID become White Sox fans because there was a general sense of not really accepting losing as being "cuddly" or embraceable in any way. Not that you have to be angry about losing, but I just personally don't like the, "Hey it happened in '83" mentality, because you're wishing upon a star.

This is a good conversation. pudge, I understand what you mean about choosing the Sox as opposed to the Cubs due to the lack of a "loveable loser" element. I also agree.

I disagree, however, with your assessment that losing is an awful thing and sports fans shouldn't stand for it. Losing is part of the game. Losing is part of being a Sox fan. We don't "embrace" it, but we have to accept it. The fan who has been through dozens of losing seasons emerges with a new perspective on what it means to be a sports fan. We all know that losing makes the winning that much sweeter. This is why Chicago sports fans (Cubs included? Maybe) are inherently better than Yankees fans. We have had our love tested through lean year after lean year, and have emerged, still loyal fans.

Losing isn't a cute thing, but it's a necessary thing. In addition, I think having a little humour about sports is a good thing. We can't be so uptight that we don't allow ourselves a single poor performance or poor season. Losing is the crucible from which true sports fans emerge.

TDog
05-04-2010, 11:27 AM
Well written, but you touch on an important point - we did not become White Sox fans because they were winners, but many of us DID become White Sox fans because there was a general sense of not really accepting losing as being "cuddly" or embraceable in any way. Not that you have to be angry about losing, but I just personally don't like the, "Hey it happened in '83" mentality, because you're wishing upon a star. If someone wants to logically argue the Sox can improve to such-and-such a record and the Twins and Tigers can regress to such-and-such a record, I'm all ears.

Geography or heritage (family tradition, whatever) had much more to do with many of us being White Sox fans than winning or losing. My father became a White Sox fan because he moved to Northwest Indiana in 1959 after his Dodgers, his beloved Bums, became something expletive and left Brooklyn. I came of age as a White Sox fan in 1969, when there was nothing cute and cuddly about losing and the Cubs seemed on the verge of making it to the World Series for the first time in a quarter century. Walt Williams was missing a neck. After 1969, Carlos May was missing a thumb. People said I must be missing something, but the Sox were my team, win or mostly lose.

We like to slam Cubs fans here, but many of them hate losing as much as we do. Many of us are jealous that the Sox don't have the casual-fan support that the Cubs do, that they so many people go to their games. We stereotype Cubs fans and criticize the president's baseball fandom for being only a casual fan because we've decided that has to be a bad thing.

When Gerry Janeski was the No. 3 starter in a four-man rotation, I was a White Sox fan. I have seen bad teams, and this White Sox team doesn't come close. I'm not living in a make-believe baseball world more suitable for our Cubs-fan stereotype if I believe with nearly five months left in the season, these White Sox players can make a run in the division if they play as well as recent history has shown they typically play. Juan Pierre has been a major factor on teams that made it to the postseason in each of the past two years. He nearly had 200 hits the year "he sucked for the Cubs." But most of what I read on WSI is "he sucks" now.

Finding reason for hope isn't living in a fantasy akin the the evil practice of rooting for the Cubs. There actually are some similarities between the 2010 and 1983 White Sox. It is revisionist to believe that was a team everyone expected to win because they came close in 1982, when they finished third, 6 games out (as opposed to the 2009 White Sox finishing third, 7 games out). They lost Steve Kemp to free agency. They had two rookies in the starting lineup -- one of whom made two errors in an opening-day loss. People didn't believe in this team until they turned it around and the bandwagon powered up. The 1983 team in May had a worse record than the 1970 White Sox did. The 1983 team didn't get back to .500 until the end of June, mostly because those starting pitchers weren't as good as we thought they would be and out manager was a (n expletive) idiot.

Dismiss 1983 as our favorite bedtime story, if you will. It has the advantage for the Guillen-haters as being the year before the future Sox manager came up as a rookie. We're mostly pessimistic anyway, hardened by all those losses over the years. But if this team were 6 games up on the Twins (not unrealistic if the starting pitching was the best in the league instead of the worst as it was before last night began, and the Sox had scored the easy runners from third base with less than two outs -- the grinder runs that have been there most of this season) -- if the White Sox were six games up on the Twins, a good many fans at WSI would be warning that this team is headed for a collapse. So what if they got off to a hot start. In 1982, the Sox won their first eight games, and look what happened to them.

I will continue to believe. I'm not afraid of looking like an idiot if my team loses anyway.

Moses_Scurry
05-04-2010, 12:56 PM
Geography or heritage (family tradition, whatever) had much more to do with many of us being White Sox fans than winning or losing. My father became a White Sox fan because he moved to Northwest Indiana in 1959 after his Dodgers, his beloved Bums, became something expletive and left Brooklyn. I came of age as a White Sox fan in 1969, when there was nothing cute and cuddly about losing and the Cubs seemed on the verge of making it to the World Series for the first time in a quarter century. Walt Williams was missing a neck. After 1969, Carlos May was missing a thumb. People said I must be missing something, but the Sox were my team, win or mostly lose.

We like to slam Cubs fans here, but many of them hate losing as much as we do. Many of us are jealous that the Sox don't have the casual-fan support that the Cubs do, that they so many people go to their games. We stereotype Cubs fans and criticize the president's baseball fandom for being only a casual fan because we've decided that has to be a bad thing.

When Gerry Janeski was the No. 3 starter in a four-man rotation, I was a White Sox fan. I have seen bad teams, and this White Sox team doesn't come close. I'm not living in a make-believe baseball world more suitable for our Cubs-fan stereotype if I believe with nearly five months left in the season, these White Sox players can make a run in the division if they play as well as recent history has shown they typically play. Juan Pierre has been a major factor on teams that made it to the postseason in each of the past two years. He nearly had 200 hits the year "he sucked for the Cubs." But most of what I read on WSI is "he sucks" now.

Finding reason for hope isn't living in a fantasy akin the the evil practice of rooting for the Cubs. There actually are some similarities between the 2010 and 1983 White Sox. It is revisionist to believe that was a team everyone expected to win because they came close in 1982, when they finished third, 6 games out (as opposed to the 2009 White Sox finishing third, 7 games out). They lost Steve Kemp to free agency. They had two rookies in the starting lineup -- one of whom made two errors in an opening-day loss. People didn't believe in this team until they turned it around and the bandwagon powered up. The 1983 team in May had a worse record than the 1970 White Sox did. The 1983 team didn't get back to .500 until the end of June, mostly because those starting pitchers weren't as good as we thought they would be and out manager was a (n expletive) idiot.

Dismiss 1983 as our favorite bedtime story, if you will. It has the advantage for the Guillen-haters as being the year before the future Sox manager came up as a rookie. We're mostly pessimistic anyway, hardened by all those losses over the years. But if this team were 6 games up on the Twins (not unrealistic if the starting pitching was the best in the league instead of the worst as it was before last night began, and the Sox had scored the easy runners from third base with less than two outs -- the grinder runs that have been there most of this season) -- if the White Sox were six games up on the Twins, a good many fans at WSI would be warning that this team is headed for a collapse. So what if they got off to a hot start. In 1982, the Sox won their first eight games, and look what happened to them.

I will continue to believe. I'm not afraid of looking like an idiot if my team loses anyway.

Revisionist history is a beautiful thing. Who wouldn't think that a lineup (Not necessarily in the correct order) consisting of the following is capable of a 99 win season?!?

Rudy Law (Pierre?)
Scott Fletcher/Jerry Dybzinski (Ramirez?)
Harold Baines (Alex Rios?)
Bull Luzinski (Andruw Jones?)
Ron Kittle (Carlos Quentin?)
Pudge Fisk (AJ?)
Greg Walker (Konerko?)
Vance Law (Mark Teahen?)
Julio Cruz (Beckham?)

There are a lot of similarities with the lineups, and if you think that the '83 lineup is far and away superior, you're crazy! I'd say just looking at it, the '10 lineup is better as a whole, but it's pretty close if you ask me. The only glaring advantages I see for '83 would be Fisk over AJ and MAYBE Baines over Rios.

I don't think that the Sox will win the division this year mainly because the Twins look to be pretty good, and the Sox will have an uphill climb. I would be willing to bet that the Sox finish 2nd with an above .500 record.

TDog
05-04-2010, 01:59 PM
Revisionist history is a beautiful thing. Who wouldn't think that a lineup (Not necessarily in the correct order) consisting of the following is capable of a 99 win season?!? ...

And no one had any respect for Tony LaRussa as a manager. Harry Caray said (multiple times during Cubs games, despite the irrelevancy) that the only reason LaRussa was managing was that the White Sox didn't want to pay a real manager.

Of course (with tongue firmly in cheek and teal implications obvious), that was the season before Ozzie Guillen came up to the White Sox and infected the franchise with his cooties.

TommyJohn
05-04-2010, 05:32 PM
And no one had any respect for Tony LaRussa as a manager. Harry Caray said (multiple times during Cubs games, despite the irrelevancy) that the only reason LaRussa was managing was that the White Sox didn't want to pay a real manager.

Of course (with tongue firmly in cheek and teal implications obvious), that was the season before Ozzie Guillen came up to the White Sox and infected the franchise with his cooties.

Geography or heritage (family tradition, whatever) had much more to do with many of us being White Sox fans than winning or losing. My father became a White Sox fan because he moved to Northwest Indiana in 1959 after his Dodgers, his beloved Bums, became something expletive and left Brooklyn. I came of age as a White Sox fan in 1969, when there was nothing cute and cuddly about losing and the Cubs seemed on the verge of making it to the World Series for the first time in a quarter century. Walt Williams was missing a neck. After 1969, Carlos May was missing a thumb. People said I must be missing something, but the Sox were my team, win or mostly lose.

We like to slam Cubs fans here, but many of them hate losing as much as we do. Many of us are jealous that the Sox don't have the casual-fan support that the Cubs do, that they so many people go to their games. We stereotype Cubs fans and criticize the president's baseball fandom for being only a casual fan because we've decided that has to be a bad thing.

When Gerry Janeski was the No. 3 starter in a four-man rotation, I was a White Sox fan. I have seen bad teams, and this White Sox team doesn't come close. I'm not living in a make-believe baseball world more suitable for our Cubs-fan stereotype if I believe with nearly five months left in the season, these White Sox players can make a run in the division if they play as well as recent history has shown they typically play. Juan Pierre has been a major factor on teams that made it to the postseason in each of the past two years. He nearly had 200 hits the year "he sucked for the Cubs." But most of what I read on WSI is "he sucks" now.

Finding reason for hope isn't living in a fantasy akin the the evil practice of rooting for the Cubs. There actually are some similarities between the 2010 and 1983 White Sox. It is revisionist to believe that was a team everyone expected to win because they came close in 1982, when they finished third, 6 games out (as opposed to the 2009 White Sox finishing third, 7 games out). They lost Steve Kemp to free agency. They had two rookies in the starting lineup -- one of whom made two errors in an opening-day loss. People didn't believe in this team until they turned it around and the bandwagon powered up. The 1983 team in May had a worse record than the 1970 White Sox did. The 1983 team didn't get back to .500 until the end of June, mostly because those starting pitchers weren't as good as we thought they would be and out manager was a (n expletive) idiot.

Dismiss 1983 as our favorite bedtime story, if you will. It has the advantage for the Guillen-haters as being the year before the future Sox manager came up as a rookie. We're mostly pessimistic anyway, hardened by all those losses over the years. But if this team were 6 games up on the Twins (not unrealistic if the starting pitching was the best in the league instead of the worst as it was before last night began, and the Sox had scored the easy runners from third base with less than two outs -- the grinder runs that have been there most of this season) -- if the White Sox were six games up on the Twins, a good many fans at WSI would be warning that this team is headed for a collapse. So what if they got off to a hot start. In 1982, the Sox won their first eight games, and look what happened to them.

I will continue to believe. I'm not afraid of looking like an idiot if my team loses anyway.
Guillen actually came up in 1985. But I like everything else in your post. I was too young to appreciate the 1970 White Sox, but I do remember the ineptitude of the Bill Veeck era. I don't mind hoping, either. And it isn't just the 1983 White Sox that have come back from a bad start, or the 2005 Astros, to whip that horse again. Many teams have done it. Sure comparisons with the past are lame in one sense-because it happened in 1983, doesn't mean it will happen now. But they are useful in another sense-to teach people not to give up on the season in April, even if you are an all-time expert who saw that this team was bad.

And I like what you wrote about if the team were in first place, people would be anticipating the collapse. Or does no one here remember September, 2005?

TDog
05-04-2010, 06:39 PM
Guillen actually came up in 1985. ...

That was an embarrassing mistake. I was actually living in the spring-training home of the Padres in those days -- even got a pair of free tickets to the 1984 World Series, would would have been worthless if not for Leon Durham letting a ball trickle through his legs and Ryne Sandberg losing a ground ball in the sun. I knew people who were friends of Ozzie Guillen as a Baby Padre (including the man who taught him English) and was aware of the timing of his coming to the White Sox. I was too lost in the rhetoric to pay close attention to the details.

Thank you.

GoSox2K3
05-04-2010, 09:09 PM
The 1983 Sox team was 12-13 after 25 games. This team is only two games behind that one.

Now, if the '83 team could go on a massive run, why not again?

I'm not sure how the 1983's team success has any bearing on the fact that this team is mediocre.

Just because the '83 team won 99 games doesn't make Juan Pierre less sucky. It doesn't make Beckham be any more ready to be a key part of the lineup and it doesn't make Ramirez bounce back to his 2008 one-year-wonder season.

soxinem1
05-04-2010, 09:32 PM
Revisionist history is a beautiful thing. Who wouldn't think that a lineup (Not necessarily in the correct order) consisting of the following is capable of a 99 win season?!?

Rudy Law (Pierre?)
Scott Fletcher/Jerry Dybzinski (Ramirez?)
Harold Baines (Alex Rios?)
Bull Luzinski (Andruw Jones?)
Ron Kittle (Carlos Quentin?)
Pudge Fisk (AJ?)
Greg Walker (Konerko?)
Vance Law (Mark Teahen?)
Julio Cruz (Beckham?)

There are a lot of similarities with the lineups, and if you think that the '83 lineup is far and away superior, you're crazy! I'd say just looking at it, the '10 lineup is better as a whole, but it's pretty close if you ask me. The only glaring advantages I see for '83 would be Fisk over AJ and MAYBE Baines over Rios.

I don't think that the Sox will win the division this year mainly because the Twins look to be pretty good, and the Sox will have an uphill climb. I would be willing to bet that the Sox finish 2nd with an above .500 record.

The 1983 White Sox led MLB in runs. The 2010 White Sox will not.

That season, the production from C, LF, CF, RF, and DH were well above the MLB average in each of those positions, and the aggregate RBI totals at SS, 2B and 1B were not bad either.

I'd be suprised if we ranked above average at three positions this year.

And Teahen compares more to the 1983 Opening Day 3B, Lorenzo Gray, than Vance Law.