PDA

View Full Version : 1983 Sox comparison


thomas35forever
06-22-2010, 06:00 PM
I know it's probably not fair to compare the current team to one that found success, but I just saw a stat on Chicago Tribune Live that said that team and this team have identical records after 20 games, 40 games, 60 games and 68 games. That's pretty ironic and maybe a sign of things to come this year.

DumpJerry
06-22-2010, 06:15 PM
Be prepared to get hit with a flame thrower by about six or seven WSIers in five, four, three, two.......

BringHomeDaBacon
06-22-2010, 06:16 PM
The 1983 team turned it on when the pitching went lights out. That's exactly what has happened during our current streak. Now it's up to KW to go get "Julio Cruz".

october23sp
06-22-2010, 07:01 PM
Pretty crazy stuff about the exact records, this team needs one more thing IMO, I don't know what it is but I feel we need one more addition to this roster to make us front runners in our division.

Rikirk
06-22-2010, 07:18 PM
What are the chances of history repeating itself....
Not impossible but highly improbable .
But at times I do believe in the improbable.
Go Sox!!

TommyJohn
06-22-2010, 08:25 PM
Flame!!!! *mock* *sneer*

FourStarsTwoBars
06-22-2010, 09:35 PM
At least the Orioles are out of the picture this time

dakuda
06-22-2010, 09:49 PM
I know it's probably not fair to compare the current team to one that found success, but I just saw a stat on Chicago Tribune Live that said that team and this team have identical records after 20 games, 40 games, 60 games and 68 games. That's pretty ironic and maybe a sign of things to come this year.

Ironic? More like coincidental...

soxinem1
06-22-2010, 10:08 PM
At least the Orioles are out of the picture this time

I was thinking the exact same thing!!:smile:

As far as the 1983 comparison.......

Amomg the similarities:

Pitching, defense, and hitting were rough in the beginning.

Both catchers struggled mightily early on.

The starting pitching was expected to be strong before the season started.

Both have good speed, though the 2010 White Sox have more balance speed-wise.

Had a SS playing 3B when they started winning.

Hawk was in the booth with a former Cy Young winner.

Greg Walker was a part of both teams.

Now, some differences:

1983 was still a much better lineup on paper, and had a real DH.

2010 has a much better bullpen stuff wise and potential to be dominant.

MIN will not lose 90+ games this year.

KC will not win 79 games this year.

Tony LaRussa didn't get pissed and try to box Roland Hemond in the clubhouse for not drafting his son higher.

FielderJones
06-22-2010, 10:41 PM
1983 was still a much better lineup on paper, and had a real DH.

The real DH I will grant you, but an infield of Vance Law, Jerry Dybzynski, Scott Fletcher, and Greg Walker better than the 2010 infield?

SBSoxFan
06-22-2010, 11:01 PM
The '83 team didn't take off until they trade Tony Bernazard for Cruz and moved Fisk into the 2 hole. Having a lead off hitter steal 77 bases helped too.

Zisk77
06-23-2010, 12:06 AM
Well if he didn't just have knee replacement we could sign Harold to DH.

Whitesox029
06-23-2010, 12:17 AM
You know, I could believe this comparison, but the thing that is holding me back is that the Sox didn't win the World Series in 1978.

LongLiveFisk
06-23-2010, 12:19 AM
As long as the final outcome is better, I have no problems with it at all. :D:

soxinem1
06-23-2010, 07:16 AM
The real DH I will grant you, but an infield of Vance Law, Jerry Dybzynski, Scott Fletcher, and Greg Walker better than the 2010 infield?

Dibber and Walker were bench players. Tom Paciorek was the primary 1B.

Law/Gray = Vizquel/Teahen
Fletcher/Dibber < TCM by defult
Walker = Jones

However:

Fisk > AJ
Bull > Any 2010 DH to date
Harold > TCQ
Cruz > Bacon
R. Law> Pierre

Other than Kittle and Rudy Law, none of the players in that lineup had career years and they led the league in runs scored. In fact, several players were around their career averages or even below them.

That team played half of their games in a pitchers park, not a pitchers nightmare.

The 2010 White Sox will not come close to leading in run production, even with the lineup being near their career averages.

soltrain21
06-23-2010, 07:17 AM
Ironic? More like coincidental...

It's like rain on your wedding day. It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.

pythons007
06-23-2010, 07:25 AM
It's like rain on your wedding day. It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.

Lol...nice

Moses_Scurry
06-23-2010, 07:33 AM
It's like rain on your wedding day. It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.

It's like meeting the girl of your dreams and finding out she's five.

LITTLE NELL
06-23-2010, 09:06 AM
Dibber and Walker were bench players. Tom Paciorek was the primary 1B.

Law/Gray = Vizquel/Teahen
Fletcher/Dibber < TCM by defult
Walker = Jones

However:

Fisk > AJ
Bull > Any 2010 DH to date
Harold > TCQ
Cruz > Bacon
R. Law> Pierre

Other than Kittle and Rudy Law, none of the players in that lineup had career years and they led the league in runs scored. In fact, several players were around their career averages or even below them.

That team played half of their games in a pitchers park, not a pitchers nightmare.

The 2010 White Sox will not come close to leading in run production, even with the lineup being near their career averages.

Comiskey was no longer a true pitchers park in 1983, after the new golden boxes were added in 1982 home plate was moved 10 feet towards the pitching mound thus the foul lines and power alleys were shorter by around 10 feet, for instance the lines in 1981 and before were 352 feet and in 82 were 341 feet. The power alleys were 375 feet, but before that they were actually 385 feet even though 375 was painted on the walls. Jimmy Piersall told me that general knowledge among all the players was that they were 385 feet but for some reason 375 was the official distance. Some players actually measured the distance to the pre 82 power alleys because they did not believe the 375 figure.
Anyway you can look up how the old park gave up a lot more HRs after the 81 season, roof top shots increased big time. I think Kittle and Luzinski had more roof top shots in 83 than the total for the old park up until then.

white sox bill
06-23-2010, 09:50 AM
Be prepared to get hit with a flame thrower by about six or seven WSIers in five, four, three, two.......

I don't know of ONE single WSI poster who would be argumentative especially on a internet message board. Not one!

WisSoxFan
06-23-2010, 10:08 AM
It's like rain on your wedding day. It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.

A favorite quote from Alanis Morisette I've found when sheand irony happen to come up on message boards.

For me the great debate on whether what I was saying in 'Ironic' was ironic wasn't a traumatic debate. I'd always embraced the fact that every once in a while I'd be the malapropism queen. And when Glen and I were writing it, we definitely were not doggedly making sure that everything was technically ironic. It's a testament to the fact that we didn't think it was going to be put under the microscope by 30 million people. For me the sweetest moment came in New York when a woman came up to me in a record store and said, 'So all those things in the "Ironic" aren't ironic.' And then she said, 'And that's the irony.' I said, 'Yup.'

For some reason I find that funny.

BringHomeDaBacon
06-23-2010, 10:20 AM
The stats from that team sure are fun to look at. Couple of things that would never happen today: two pitchers with over 22 wins, five pitchers with 5 or more saves (plus two from Koosman). And check out the IP totals for the top three starters: 260, 240 and 217.

getonbckthr
06-23-2010, 10:26 AM
Does Viciedo have any Kittle magic in him?

pudge
06-23-2010, 12:59 PM
Where is the throw-up smiley icon?

I am not changing my stance that all the '83 references make me ill. I'll eat all the crow in the world if this team wins 99 games, but it's not going to go down like that. This will be a dogfight in the 90-win range, assuming we stay in it, which there's no reason we can't.

sox1970
06-23-2010, 01:31 PM
Does Viciedo have any Kittle magic in him?

He'd actually have to play for that to happen. He's on the bench AGAIN tonight.

soltrain21
06-23-2010, 04:41 PM
Does Viciedo have any Kittle magic in him?

Not even Mr. Owl could answer that question.

FielderJones
06-23-2010, 07:25 PM
I'll eat all the crow in the world if this team wins 99 games, but it's not going to go down like that.

http://zembla.cementhorizon.com/archives/swerski.jpg
"The Sox will finish the year one hunnert tweny eight and tirty four, my friend."

TDog
06-23-2010, 09:06 PM
Comiskey was no longer a true pitchers park in 1983, after the new golden boxes were added in 1982 home plate was moved 10 feet towards the pitching mound thus the foul lines and power alleys were shorter by around 10 feet, for instance the lines in 1981 and before were 352 feet and in 82 were 341 feet. The power alleys were 375 feet, but before that they were actually 385 feet even though 375 was painted on the walls. Jimmy Piersall told me that general knowledge among all the players was that they were 385 feet but for some reason 375 was the official distance. Some players actually measured the distance to the pre 82 power alleys because they did not believe the 375 figure.
Anyway you can look up how the old park gave up a lot more HRs after the 81 season, roof top shots increased big time. I think Kittle and Luzinski had more roof top shots in 83 than the total for the old park up until then.

Kittle hit seven Old Comiskey roof shots, and I think six of them came in 1983, which was his rookie season. From 1983, Old Comiskey ranked very high in home runs for among major league ballparks. In 1983, only three other parks in baseball had more balls sail out of it (the number of inside the park home runs being negligible). There were eight more home runs hit in Old Comiskey than in Wrigley that year. In 1984, Old Comiskey led all of baseball in surrendering home runs. I was at a game in 1985 and shared that with a couple of people who refused to believe it.

When people started comparing the 2010 team to the 1983 team, they weren't arguing that because the 2010 White Sox got off to a bad start they would threaten to win 100 games or win their division by 20 games. I saw a legitimate comparison between the two teams because in April and May the 2010 team was underachieving turned thing around to win its division.

soxinem1
06-23-2010, 10:57 PM
Comiskey was no longer a true pitchers park in 1983, after the new golden boxes were added in 1982 home plate was moved 10 feet towards the pitching mound thus the foul lines and power alleys were shorter by around 10 feet, for instance the lines in 1981 and before were 352 feet and in 82 were 341 feet. The power alleys were 375 feet, but before that they were actually 385 feet even though 375 was painted on the walls. Jimmy Piersall told me that general knowledge among all the players was that they were 385 feet but for some reason 375 was the official distance. Some players actually measured the distance to the pre 82 power alleys because they did not believe the 375 figure.
Anyway you can look up how the old park gave up a lot more HRs after the 81 season, roof top shots increased big time. I think Kittle and Luzinski had more roof top shots in 83 than the total for the old park up until then.

All that you are saying is true, but the ball never carried in Comiskey like it does in The Cell right now with the upper deck and shorter field modifications.

Plus, roof shots are one thing. Total HR's are a different story. You can check baseball reference's ballpark ratings to verify. In the three years the plate was moved up HR's did increase, but never to the level of the current place.

One of the smartest things Hawk did as GM was to both move the plate back AND put accurate measurements for Comiskey's dimensions.

And having watched Kittle and Bull each hit two roof shots in person that year, ten extra feet were not stopping those four I saw. They parachuted over the LF roof, just as Kittle did with the roofshot he hit off BOS in 1990 with the plate moved back.

BNLSox
06-23-2010, 11:17 PM
You know, I could believe this comparison, but the thing that is holding me back is that the Sox didn't win the World Series in 1978.

I like where your head's at.

Lip Man 1
06-24-2010, 12:06 AM
T-Dog:

Kittle hit seven Old Comiskey Park rooftop shots in his career true...however only two came in 1983.

Both came in September of that season.

Greg Luzinski hit three rooftop shots in 1983.

The Sox media guide notes that in 1983 home plate was eight feet closer than in previous seasons.

Lip

TheVulture
06-24-2010, 01:00 AM
Dibber and Walker were bench players. Tom Paciorek was the primary 1B.

Law/Gray = Vizquel/Teahen
Fletcher/Dibber < TCM by defult
Walker = Jones

However:

Fisk > AJ
Bull > Any 2010 DH to date
Harold > TCQ
Cruz > Bacon
R. Law> Pierre

Other than Kittle and Rudy Law, none of the players in that lineup had career years and they led the league in runs scored. In fact, several players were around their career averages or even below them.

That team played half of their games in a pitchers park, not a pitchers nightmare.

The 2010 White Sox will not come close to leading in run production, even with the lineup being near their career averages.

Paciorek only started 66 games at first.

Also, Rios >>> Rudy Law

TheVulture
06-24-2010, 01:37 AM
...and if you are going to compare left fielder Pierre to center fielder Law, why not compare Rios to Baines and Quentin to Kittle?

The comparison is not quite as damning when you don't forget to include the team's two best players. Where's Paul Konerko in your equation? I mean if Walker=Jones(I guess a .270 hitting 1b is equivalent to a .200 hitting OFer), then PK>>Luzinski if we're just randomly comparing players.

The bullpen in this version is significantly stronger, too, and if the starting pitching continues to pitch they way we thought they would the teams are highly comparable in that regard.

Vance Law couldn't carry Vizquel's jock, BTW, I don't care how old Omar is. There's a reason there was a book published in '83 called Who's On Third: The Chicago White Sox story. It could have been published any year between then and the time Robin Ventura debuted for the Sox. Law might have been the worst 3b to ever play for a 99 win team, no offence to any Vance Law fans out there.

pudge
06-24-2010, 03:02 AM
I will say though, isn't Omar sort of turning out to be the Cruz-like injection the team needed? Really does anyone want to see Mark Teahen back anytime soon?

soxinem1
06-24-2010, 03:39 AM
Paciorek only started 66 games at first.

Also, Rios >>> Rudy Law

I won't dispute that, but Rudy was the lead off man and R. Law > Pierre.

...and if you are going to compare left fielder Pierre to center fielder Law, why not compare Rios to Baines and Quentin to Kittle?

The comparison is not quite as damning when you don't forget to include the team's two best players. Where's Paul Konerko in your equation? I mean if Walker=Jones(I guess a .270 hitting 1b is equivalent to a .200 hitting OFer), then PK>>Luzinski if we're just randomly comparing players.

The bullpen in this version is significantly stronger, too, and if the starting pitching continues to pitch they way we thought they would the teams are highly comparable in that regard.

Vance Law couldn't carry Vizquel's jock, BTW, I don't care how old Omar is. There's a reason there was a book published in '83 called Who's On Third: The Chicago White Sox story. It could have been published any year between then and the time Robin Ventura debuted for the Sox. Law might have been the worst 3b to ever play for a 99 win team, no offence to any Vance Law fans out there.

Walker was compared to Jones because both are bench players in this equation.

Vance Law and Omar do compare well, as both were bench players when the season started. The team felt Lorenzo Gray, who tore up AAA in 1982, along with Scott Fletcher, one of the most heavilly scouted and touted players in the draft for several years in a row, were the future at 3B and SS, respectfully.

When neither of them hit nor fielded, Law went into 3B and Dibber at SS.

Once Cruz arrived, yes, we all know what happened next. But Vance Law was just as key as Cruz to the defensive turn around of that team, as neither player hit much.

I believe many are jumping the gun on the comparisons too quickly. Let's see if the second half either ignites the 2010 White Sox like the 1983 team, or deflates them like the 1984 team.

LITTLE NELL
06-24-2010, 05:43 AM
T-Dog:

Kittle hit seven Old Comiskey Park rooftop shots in his career true...however only two came in 1983.

Both came in September of that season.

Greg Luzinski hit three rooftop shots in 1983.

The Sox media guide notes that in 1983 home plate was eight feet closer than in previous seasons.

Lip
Here is a list of Roof top shots up until 1964, not sure how many between 64 and 82 but not many, Dick Allen for one.
http://www.todayinbaseball.com/cms/050610-roof

Hitmen77
06-24-2010, 09:20 AM
If we're going to play this comparison game, then perhaps Jake Peavy is this year's version of the 1983 Floyd Bannister. Bannister started 2-8 and finished 16-10 that season. I remember a Cubs fan friend boasting in June that Bannister was "one of the biggest busts of 1983".

....and no, I'm not buying into the idea that this team is going to parallel the 1983 teams' regular season success the rest of the way.

TDog
06-24-2010, 02:07 PM
T-Dog:

Kittle hit seven Old Comiskey Park rooftop shots in his career true...however only two came in 1983.

Both came in September of that season.

Greg Luzinski hit three rooftop shots in 1983.

The Sox media guide notes that in 1983 home plate was eight feet closer than in previous seasons.

Lip


I didn't look it up. Ron told me that at the 1983 All-Star Game on July 6 in Old Comiskey in the bottom of the eighth against Cubs pitcher Lee Smith, he was trying to hit "another roof shot" but ended up striking out. The fans, he said, wanted to see another roof shot, this time against a Cubs pitcher. You probably have better information than I do because I was depending on Ron's memory. There may have been some mention of roof shots when you interviewed him, but I didn't take the trouble to go back to your interview.

Ron was a powerful hitter, of course. In his tryout with the Sox in the old ballpark, before home plate was moved up, he hit a line drive out of the ballpark -- not over the roof but through one of the archways behind the leftfield grandstand.

That doesn't change the fact that Old Comiskey that year surrendered more home runs than all but three major league parks, in Toronto, Detroit and Anaheim. There were eight more Comiskey home runs than Wrigley home runs that year. The year after that, Comiskey surrendered the most home runs with only Fenway coming close.

IronFisk
06-26-2010, 01:49 AM
I'm thinking '83 as well...very similar. Our story revolves around pitching...period. I boasted (many times over) that our starting 5 was the best in baseball (not that we have the best pitchers...but we have a chance every night). Garcia was the wild card and he's playing huge. Floyd has become untouchable.

Kenny still needs to rustle up another bat though...but I feel our pitching will get us to the postseason.

kingpin_rcs
06-26-2010, 10:28 AM
The 1983 team turned it on when the pitching went lights out. That's exactly what has happened during our current streak. Now it's up to KW to go get "Julio Cruz".


The Sox are STILL paying him!

tacosalbarojas
06-28-2010, 12:35 PM
My only question is will Erick Threets be this year's answer to 1983 Kevin Hickey or Juan Agosto?

CommanderPudge72
06-28-2010, 09:48 PM
The 1983 team would not have lost to the 2010 Royals when they could have picked a game up in the division...that's my take anyway....that, and we have no Fisk.

asindc
06-28-2010, 09:53 PM
The 1983 team would not have lost to the 2010 Royals when they could have picked a game up in the division...that's my take anyway....that, and we have no Fisk.

Bull****.

hi im skot
06-28-2010, 11:21 PM
Bull****.

Seriously; where to start with this one?

CommanderPudge72
06-29-2010, 06:25 AM
Bull****.

Gee, thanks for that insight.

asindc
06-29-2010, 08:27 AM
Gee, thanks for that insight.

Anytime.

TDog
06-29-2010, 02:21 PM
The 1983 team would not have lost to the 2010 Royals when they could have picked a game up in the division...that's my take anyway....that, and we have no Fisk.

The 1983 White Sox were two games behind the Texas Rangers and one game behind the California Angels going into their June 28 game against the last-place Mariners. The Rangers beat the Angels 3-1 in Anaheim while the White Sox were losing 6-2 in Seattle to a team that would lose more than 100 games. That left the White Sox just two games over .500, three games behind the Rangers in third place and, no doubt, left fans complaining that this White Sox team was destined to fade into oblivion, perhaps some were even complaining that Carlton Fisk was no Sherm Lollar.

As if the coincidences weren't staggering enough, the losing pitcher in that June 28 game had a two-year-old boy, whose picture was in the White Sox media guide because he was present when the father, Floyd Bannister, signed the big free agent contract. That little boy was Brian Bannister, who will be starting for the Royals tonight. But I digress.

I think asindc nailed it.

Edit: When I was marveling at the coincidence, I missed that Floyd is starting against the Royals against Bannister.

pudge
06-29-2010, 03:56 PM
Gee, thanks for that insight.

Yes, he's a fountain of brilliant insight, but I think what he was trying to say is how dumb will your statement look if they come back and win the next two?

white sox bill
06-29-2010, 04:25 PM
Guess we will have to wait at least another month, maybe longer before we can make any factual comps to that magical 83 team. Although the 05 season ended more favorably, I have to say I loved that '83 team to death. I was all of 23 yrs old at the time, living 100 miles away and made it to a few games on top of watching them on a grainy TV screen.

Kittle, Luzinski, whimpy, Pudge, the Laws, Hoyt, Bannister, Dotson, Baines to name a few all bring back great memories. Of course add in Old Comiskey, my ex GF and a care free lifestyle.

But I'm hoping that this '10 team will play great baseball from here on out and win the Central

CommanderPudge72
06-29-2010, 05:34 PM
Yes, he's a fountain of brilliant insight, but I think what he was trying to say is how dumb will your statement look if they come back and win the next two?


I was just commenting on some basic incivility in the response. It speaks more of the respondent, than the wisdom of the original comment.

asindc
06-29-2010, 06:11 PM
I was just commenting on some basic incivility in the response. It speaks more of the respondent, than the wisdom of the original comment.

CommanderPudge72,

I apologize to you for my flippant response. No disrespect intended. TDog expressed thoughts similar to mine much more eloquently than I did.

sullythered
06-29-2010, 06:20 PM
Gee, thanks for that insight.

Actually, I kinda agree with the "bull****" statement. I hate that "a good team wouldn't lose to that bad team" crap that people pull all the time. Every single championship team in baseball history lost to a ****ty team once or twice. And the '83 team wasn't even a championship team.

Also, I love Pudge Fisk, but we have a couple guys currently having better years than he did in '83.

CommanderPudge72
06-29-2010, 07:48 PM
Actually, I kinda agree with the "bull****" statement. I hate that "a good team wouldn't lose to that bad team" crap that people pull all the time. Every single championship team in baseball history lost to a ****ty team once or twice. And the '83 team wasn't even a championship team.

Also, I love Pudge Fisk, but we have a couple guys currently having better years than he did in '83.

It's not that big of a deal....I was actually not serious about that statement as an indictment of the 2010 team....nor was I inferring that they lost the season. Although, I do think we lost a golden opportunity to pick up a game. That seems self evident. I hope we continue to surge.

I love the 83 team and Fisk is my favorite Sox player along with Nellie. Although, I think AJ is just as smart in his baseball acumen.

Hitmen77
06-29-2010, 08:08 PM
CommanderPudge72,

I apologize to you for my flippant response. No disrespect intended. TDog expressed thoughts similar to mine much more eloquently than I did.

It's not that big of a deal....I was actually not serious about that statement as an indictment of the 2010 team....nor was I inferring that they lost the season. Although, I do think we lost a golden opportunity to pick up a game. That seems self evident. I hope we continue to surge.

I love the 83 team and Fisk is my favorite Sox player along with Nellie. Although, I think AJ is just as smart in his baseball acumen.

:grouphug:

CommanderPudge72
06-29-2010, 08:17 PM
:grouphug:

Agreed....just sharing the Sox love.:D:

thomas35forever
07-11-2010, 12:38 AM
This team keeps reminding me of the 1983 team even though I wasn't alive yet: a rocky start and then getting hot. Does anyone else see the stars lining up the same way they did that season? I know the All-Star break's not quite here yet, but it's crazy how many similarities I'm seeing with this team and that one.

pudge
07-11-2010, 12:54 AM
This team keeps reminding me of the 1983 team even though I wasn't alive yet: a rocky start and then getting hot. Does anyone else see the stars lining up the same way they did that season? I know the All-Star break's not quite here yet, but it's crazy how many similarities I'm seeing with this team and that one.

Oh sweet jesus, we have to revive this again? As hot as the Sox have been, I'd be curious to know how many people are expecting another drought at some point? This pace cannot possibly be sustained, and with Peavy going down, let's wait and see how the new "5-hole" shapes out.

Nellie_Fox
07-11-2010, 01:09 AM
This pace cannot possibly be sustainedNo, of course it can't. I don't think anybody is expecting that.

But it's gotten the Sox back into a position where they just have to play reasonably good ball the rest of the way to stay in the thick of it. Playing .600 the rest of the way would be 94 wins.

TDog
07-11-2010, 01:58 AM
Oh sweet jesus, we have to revive this again? As hot as the Sox have been, I'd be curious to know how many people are expecting another drought at some point? This pace cannot possibly be sustained, and with Peavy going down, let's wait and see how the new "5-hole" shapes out.

The comparison to the 1983 team was not that people believed the 2010 White Sox would win 99 games and finish first with a 20-game lead just because this team started out as poorly as the 1983 team. The comparison was that when this White Sox team was losing that it could turn things around as the 1983 team did because some of the same dynamics of early underachievement and potential pitching excellence were in place.

The White Sox are playing great baseball right now. They are closer to first tonight than they were 27 years ago tonight. I think that vindicates those of us who found similarities between 1983 and 2010, no matter what happens the rest of the season. If the White Sox fade because their best pitcher has been lost for the season, it hardly justifies the I-told-you-sos that people enjoy posting as if to celebrate failure.

You can still be negative about this White Sox team. Being negative appears to be wired into our White Sox fan DNA. But the eye-rolling over the 1983 comparisons should cease.

pudge
07-11-2010, 02:40 AM
You can still be negative about this White Sox team. Being negative appears to be wired into our White Sox fan DNA. But the eye-rolling over the 1983 comparisons should cease.

I'm not being negative or seeking pleasure in failure - I've enjoyed this historic run as much as anyone. But if this team wins the division with 88 wins or 91 wins, it's still not '83. The "big name" pitcher going down with injury is incredibly relevant, because it speaks to my exact point against the '83 crowd - each season has it's own twists and turns. If Hoyt went down in '83, who knows how that turns out. Nonetheless, we're splitting hairs at this point.

TDog
07-11-2010, 08:17 AM
I'm not being negative or seeking pleasure in failure - I've enjoyed this historic run as much as anyone. But if this team wins the division with 88 wins or 91 wins, it's still not '83. The "big name" pitcher going down with injury is incredibly relevant, because it speaks to my exact point against the '83 crowd - each season has it's own twists and turns. If Hoyt went down in '83, who knows how that turns out. Nonetheless, we're splitting hairs at this point.

If Hoyt had gone down, the White Sox would have had only two consistently unbeatable pitchers in the second half. Maybe they don't win the division. Maybe Dotson wins the Cy Young Award. Maybe the White Sox only win the division by seven or eight games.

This thread was started when people insisted it wasn't worth our time as fans to pay attention to a White Sox team bad enough to lose 100 games. Those of us who remember 1983 saw the value in not giving up on a team with underachievers in mid-May. There are people who still want to stick a fork in this season.

I hope they are just as wrong as the people who rolled their eyes at the 1983 comparison at the beginning of this thread. In mid-July, at the All-Star break, this looks a lot like the 1983 team, even though there are different players now with a manager whose major league career hadn't even begun in 1983.

LITTLE NELL
07-11-2010, 08:58 AM
As late as July 31st after the first game loss of a Sunday DH against the Yankees the Sox were only 5 games over .500. at 53-48 They won that 2nd game which gave them the series win and then caught fire going 46-15 the rest of the way at a .754 clip. I was at the game the night before and Dotson pitched a great game in front of over 46,000 and I felt that night that this team was going all the way .That still is the greatest stretch of White Sox baseball in a single season that I have witnessed. I'm hoping that the 2010 Sox can make a run like those 83 Sox, they sure have a good start.

TomBradley72
07-11-2010, 09:08 AM
I'd take the 1983 starting rotation over the 2010 team. But this year's bullpen is MUCH better. Dennis Lamp and Salome Barojas were the "closers" on that team (led to the Ron Reed experiement of 1984), with Tidrow, Agosto and Hickey (all with ERA's > 4.00) as the set up guys.

2010 has big advantages at SS & 1B, kind of a wash at CF, RF, 3rd.

1983 had big advantages at DH, C, 2B, LF.

Main similarities to me were the slow starts of both teams, the calls to fire the manager in May/June, and the "lights out" stretch by the starting rotations leading to a great season.

pudge
07-11-2010, 01:32 PM
There are people who still want to stick a fork in this season.


I don't know how you could even waste an ounce of your energy paying attention to those people - I wonder if they truly believe what they are saying at this point.

SI1020
07-11-2010, 02:28 PM
The most important thing to me is that the Sox win, not that someone gets to lord their superiority and prophetic abilities over someone else. This year's team looked as bad as can be for two months. Now they look unbeatable. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, hopefully much closer to the juggernaut playing now. Even as a child I noticed the hard edged realism of most Sox fans. It's one of the reasons I picked them instead of the adorable ones. A Sox fan should never be afraid to call it like he or she sees it. No matter how well or badly the team is playing.

A. Cavatica
07-11-2010, 02:34 PM
2010 has big advantages at SS & 1B, kind of a wash at CF, RF, 3rd.

1983 had big advantages at DH, C, 2B, LF.

1983 could mash, but as we know, grindy singles hitters beat home run hitters any time.

Kittle >> Pierre
R. Law < Rios
Baines > Quentin
V. Law > any 3B we trot out there
Fletcher/Dybzinski < Ramirez
Bernazard/Cruz > Beckham (so far)
Paciorek/Walker < Konerko
Fisk >> Pierzynski
Luzinski >> Kotsay/Jones

1983 coaching staff >> 2010 coaching staff

Nellie_Fox
07-12-2010, 12:40 AM
I'd take the 1983 starting rotation over the 2010 team. But this year's bullpen is MUCH better. Dennis Lamp and Salome Barojas were the "closers" on that team (led to the Ron Reed experiement of 1984), with Tidrow, Agosto and Hickey (all with ERA's > 4.00) as the set up guys.I'm the type of fan who is often unrealistically attached to Sox players, and defend them when I probably shouldn't. Agosto sent me into fits of rage every time he was brought in from the bullpen.

LITTLE NELL
07-12-2010, 05:08 AM
I'm the type of fan who is often unrealistically attached to Sox players, and defend them when I probably shouldn't. Agosto sent me into fits of rage every time he was brought in from the bullpen.

Hence the moniker; Juan Disgosto.

TomBradley72
07-12-2010, 10:17 AM
1983 could mash, but as we know, grindy singles hitters beat home run hitters any time.

Kittle >> Pierre
R. Law < Rios
Baines > Quentin
V. Law > any 3B we trot out there
Fletcher/Dybzinski < Ramirez
Bernazard/Cruz > Beckham (so far)
Paciorek/Walker < Konerko
Fisk >> Pierzynski
Luzinski >> Kotsay/Jones

1983 coaching staff >> 2010 coaching staff

Not sure about Baines > Quentin the way he is mashing right now, not sure about V. Law at 3rd either..he was adequate defensively but pretty weak on offense...Viciedo/Vizquel may give him a run.

Ex-Chicagoan
07-12-2010, 04:40 PM
I'm the type of fan who is often unrealistically attached to Sox players, and defend them when I probably shouldn't. Agosto sent me into fits of rage every time he was brought in from the bullpen.

Seconded. (or was I third?) Either way - I used to cringe at seeing #50 warming up.

thomas35forever
07-12-2010, 05:27 PM
I'm the type of fan who is often unrealistically attached to Sox players, and defend them when I probably shouldn't. Agosto sent me into fits of rage every time he was brought in from the bullpen.
Send in Mahoney!

soxinem1
07-12-2010, 10:56 PM
Seconded. (or was I third?) Either way - I used to cringe at seeing #50 warming up.

He was also #49 when he made the team in 1982, IIRC.

Agosto had a few good stretches with the White Sox.

In 1983, after Hickey went down and Agosto came up, Juan actually did okay as a closer on more than a few occasions.

His seven scoreless innings over two days in the 25 Inning Game during the 1984 season began about a month of excellent pitching in which he also became a quasi-closer for about a month.

And in 1985 he actually has a pretty solid season setting up Bob James from the left side.

Now for the 1983 comparison, well, you can count 1984 as well, as that team picked it up towards the end of the first half with a seven game winnng streak and they were in first when the ASB arrived.

Of course that team did a two month swan dive that saw them clobbered in BAL to start the second half and they never looked good again the rest of the season.

We need to come out smoking Thursday in MIN. Time to send a message!!!:wink:

A. Cavatica
07-13-2010, 05:00 AM
Not sure about Baines > Quentin the way he is mashing right now, not sure about V. Law at 3rd either..he was adequate defensively but pretty weak on offense...Viciedo/Vizquel may give him a run.

Baines had an off year with the bat in 1983; we still don't know what kind of year Q will end up with. But Baines was a great right fielder. Q vs Luzinski might be a better matchup.