PDA

View Full Version : 86 wins


LITTLE NELL
09-30-2010, 07:22 AM
IIRC most of us in the spring were predicting the Sox for about 86 wins and it looks like they will hit that number, maybe 88
So after all the ups and downs we had this year how dissapointed are you, did you really feel that this was a division winning team? I think I figured the Sox for 86-87 wins but said if we picked up a solid LH bat that we would win the division and I still feel that way, but we didn't and 86,87 or 88 wins is what we got.
PS. I never thought the Twins would be that good.

dwitt76
09-30-2010, 07:30 AM
The twins have surprised me in how good they have been. With the loss of Morneau and Nathan I thought it would take 88-89 wins to take the division. I thought Pavano would fall off and the other starters would do the same (except Lariano). I also thought Thome would taper off and Mauer was not having a career yr at the plate. I am happy that the sox are playing better to finish the season and not mailing it in.

asindc
09-30-2010, 07:50 AM
I had pegged the Sox for 91 wins based on the following:

1) Much better pitching than the Twinkees. Give them credit... Slowey, Blackburn, Duensing, and Baker have pitched this 2nd half beyond what they have previously shown.

2) Given that the Twinkees pitching was not predicted to be this good, I figured the Sox would win at least 7 or 8 games against them.

3) I thought the 2010 Sox would score more runs than the 2009 Sox.



We only got one out of three of these, so it looks like 86-89 instead of 91.:(:

Red Barchetta
09-30-2010, 08:43 AM
The twins have surprised me in how good they have been. With the loss of Morneau and Nathan I thought it would take 88-89 wins to take the division. I thought Pavano would fall off and the other starters would do the same (except Lariano). I also thought Thome would taper off and Mauer was not having a career yr at the plate. I am happy that the sox are playing better to finish the season and not mailing it in.

The Twins play their (our) division very well. Outside of that, they are an average team IMO. They definitely have our number.

doublem23
09-30-2010, 08:49 AM
The Twins play their (our) division very well. Outside of that, they are an average team IMO. They definitely have our number.

Yeah, as much **** as people want to give the Sox for being a game or 2 under .500 against the AL, the Twins are only 46-40 vs. everyone outside the Central (.538 WP% 87 wins over 162 G). Hey, they can't help it they have 36 games against softies like the Indians and Royals and another 18 against a White Sox team they completely own, but beyond that, they're slightly above average.

tstrike2000
09-30-2010, 09:00 AM
86-76, essentially the '03 White Sox minus Jose Paniagua.

LoveYourSuit
09-30-2010, 09:01 AM
Expectations change as the season moves along.

With taking over first place at the AS break, I expected us to win this thing.

It is very dissapointing for me.

hoosiersoxfan
09-30-2010, 09:22 AM
If you would have told me before the season the Sox would win in the mid to upper 80s and have Peavy miss over half the season I would have been happy.

I had no idea the twins would be this good.

Hitmen77
09-30-2010, 09:22 AM
Right now, the Sox are at 85 wins. If they win 3 of their last 4 games, they'll actually finish with the same record as the '08 division-winning team did after 162 games.

Also for comparison, the Sox right now have equaled the number of wins of the magical 2007 Cubs division winners. If they win 3 of 4, they'll equal the even more magical 2003 Cubs.

Best Sox records since 2000:
99-63 (2005)
95-67 (2000)
90-72 (2006)
89-74 (2008)
86-76 (2003)
This year's team will finish between 85 and 89 wins.

But this year's team was so damn streaky, it's hard to paint a picture of them:
April/May - just awful, struggling to stay out of last place.
June/mid-July - red hot, one of the best Sox runs ever.
Since late July - they've fallen flat on their face, but even with this are streaks.

Ultimately, we failed because we couldn't beat the Twins head to head. If we even had a .500 record head to head, this season finish would be a different story.

doublem23
09-30-2010, 09:31 AM
Expectations change as the season moves along.

With taking over first place at the AS break, I expected us to win this thing.

It is very dissapointing for me.

I agree.

spawn
09-30-2010, 09:49 AM
Ultimately, we failed because we couldn't beat the Twins head to head. If we even had a .500 record head to head, this season finish would be a different story.

Actually, I think this team failed because they couldn't beat the Indians, Royals, and Orioles. Those are teams you HAVE to beat. Do that, and win are at least 3 more games against the Twins, and the Sox win the division. It didn't happen. Those losses frustrate me more than the losses to the Twins.

BringHomeDaBacon
09-30-2010, 11:00 AM
Yeah, as much **** as people want to give the Sox for being a game or 2 under .500 against the AL, the Twins are only 46-40 vs. everyone outside the Central (.538 WP% 87 wins over 162 G). Hey, they can't help it they have 36 games against softies like the Indians and Royals and another 18 against a White Sox team they completely own, but beyond that, they're slightly above average.

I can see how 1 game behind the best record in the AL and 1.5 GB the best record in baseball would make them slightly above average.

doublem23
09-30-2010, 11:06 AM
I can see how 1 game behind the best record in the AL and 1.5 GB the best record in baseball would make them slightly above average.

:dunno:

They're 55-49 against teams not named the White Sox, Indians, or Royals. All I'm saying is it's catchy around here to say the Sox are worse than their record because they padded it against crap teams. The Twins have pretty much done the exact same.

55-49 is roughly a .529 winning percentage, which doesn't even get you 86 wins over 162 games. The Twins have played great against their division, and just average against everyone else. Not saying they don't deserve to be going to the play-offs, but they've got their pretty record the same way the Sox have, pounding bad teams and more or less playing average baseball against everyone else.

Noneck
09-30-2010, 11:17 AM
I thought that 87-88 wins would have a shot to win the division. The twins exceeded my expectations and the tigers didnt live up to my expectations.

Considering the Peavy situation (losing your ace for most of the year), The Sox actually had a pretty good year.

Zisk77
09-30-2010, 11:46 AM
The sox had a weird year. And lets face it, whatever your agenda was, they gave you fodder to support your cause. so if your optimistic or pessimistic about 2011 you can back up your argument pretty easy. So prepare for a winter of heated debate...fire Walker!

kjhanson
09-30-2010, 12:28 PM
:dunno:

They're 55-49 against teams not named the White Sox, Indians, or Royals.


The Yankees are 63-57 (.525) against teams not named Indians, Orioles or A's. All playoff teams beat bad teams. That's why they're bad teams.

(I'm agreeing with you)

guillen4life13
09-30-2010, 12:59 PM
For an extended period, they were absolutely smoking hot.

I was certainly a supporter of the Andruw Jones experiment from the beginning of the season, and I think he may have been the bargain signing of last off-season.

I think these factors really undid the Sox this year:

Rotation:
1. They lost Peavy pretty early on, and even when he was pitching, it was really ugly until June when he started to lock in. If he had continued pitching that way and hadn't gotten injured, it may have gotten back a couple games.
2. Buehrle continued to regress. This was his worst year since 2006 and second worst year of his career. From his start April 21st up to his start May 21st, he had a horrible stretch, and he's had a mediocre to horrible past 5 starts. Granted, the offense weren't scoring in the games he gave up a lot of runs in.
3. Danks didn't make the jump a lot of us were hoping for. He has pitched a career high in innings though. He certainly wasn't a bad pitcher either.
4. Gavin Floyd seems to have regressed a bit also, but he still wasn't a bad pitcher. He just didn't meet expectations.

We really just didn't get what we were expecting from the rotation as a whole, but there is reason to be positive about next year.

Offensively,

1. Mark Kotsay got so many at bats.
2. Beckham's slow start really hurt. It took him until late June to finally get over a .200 batting average for good.
3. Teahen vastly underperformed.

That said, Paul Konerko exceeded expectations rather significantly. Alex Rios met and may have exceeded expectations as well.

This off-season is going to be interesting. I really hope the Sox can get themselves someone legitimate to DH. If Paulie will take the right deal, I'd like him back for a year or two.

russ99
09-30-2010, 01:20 PM
For an extended period, they were absolutely smoking hot.

I was certainly a supporter of the Andruw Jones experiment from the beginning of the season, and I think he may have been the bargain signing of last off-season.

I think these factors really undid the Sox this year:

Rotation:
1. They lost Peavy pretty early on, and even when he was pitching, it was really ugly until June when he started to lock in. If he had continued pitching that way and hadn't gotten injured, it may have gotten back a couple games.
2. Buehrle continued to regress. This was his worst year since 2006 and second worst year of his career. From his start April 21st up to his start May 21st, he had a horrible stretch, and he's had a mediocre to horrible past 5 starts. Granted, the offense weren't scoring in the games he gave up a lot of runs in.
3. Danks didn't make the jump a lot of us were hoping for. He has pitched a career high in innings though. He certainly wasn't a bad pitcher either.
4. Gavin Floyd seems to have regressed a bit also, but he still wasn't a bad pitcher. He just didn't meet expectations.

We really just didn't get what we were expecting from the rotation as a whole, but there is reason to be positive about next year.

Offensively,

1. Mark Kotsay got so many at bats.
2. Beckham's slow start really hurt. It took him until late June to finally get over a .200 batting average for good.
3. Teahen vastly underperformed.

That said, Paul Konerko exceeded expectations rather significantly. Alex Rios met and may have exceeded expectations as well.

This off-season is going to be interesting. I really hope the Sox can get themselves someone legitimate to DH. If Paulie will take the right deal, I'd like him back for a year or two.

I think Floyd and Danks did very well this year, up until the 3-4 pennant race series' vs. the Twins and Tigers. Then they failed under pressure. If either of these guys is going to turn into an ace-type starter, they need to elevate their games when it counts.

Also, the entire offense was awful in April and May. But one issue still continues to rear its ugly head, even during the hot streaks, is not being able to drive in runners in scoring position with less than 2 outs.

Can't blame any players directly (maybe Manny, since we acquired him for that purpose), but to me it's an organizational issue.

Our hitters overall end up with 2 strikes way too often, which gives the pitcher a big edge, especially at 0-2. I can't tell if it's too much patience, too much hacking or poor strike zone recognition -maybe all three.

Also, our hitters need to go opposite field a heck of a lot more and stop swinging for the fences (especially early in the count) in nearly every RBI situation.

So, Fire Walker? Not going to happen, but they certainly can change the overall hitting approach starting this spring.

khan
09-30-2010, 01:31 PM
So after all the ups and downs we had this year how dissapointed are you,

I'm disappointed and embarrassed that this team got their teeth kicked in again and again and again and again by the twins. I'm ashamed of my favorite team's apparent inability to punch the twins in the mouth when they needed to, but instead to lay down and take it.

I'm disappointed that this team failed to crush, punish, and destroy the ****ty teams in the division. I'm disappointed in the AL record and the ALC record.

did you really feel that this was a division winning team?

No, I didn't think that this was a division winning team back in the last offseason. However, baseball is a strange game, anything can happen, and that's why the games are played.

Having said that, opportunities will present themselves to each and every team. When an opportunity opened up, I was initially encouraged, but ultimately disappointed in the utter failure to answer the bell once they got out of June/July.

So, surprises can and do happen in this game. But not to this team, for whatever reason. For the record, an 86 win season is mediocre when you've got the resources the SOX have, and you're playing in THIS division.

downstairs
09-30-2010, 02:02 PM
Records don't tell you everything. Consistency is important, especially if we were headed to the playoffs.

It was more than luck that gave us a ton of winning and losing streaks.

Hitmen77
10-01-2010, 09:50 PM
Actually, I think this team failed because they couldn't beat the Indians, Royals, and Orioles. Those are teams you HAVE to beat. Do that, and win are at least 3 more games against the Twins, and the Sox win the division. It didn't happen. Those losses frustrate me more than the losses to the Twins.

The Orioles have a 33-22 record since Showalter took over. The Sox didn't face the O's until Buck became manager. They're not the only ones who haven't been able to beat Baltimore.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101001&content_id=15292378&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

SBSoxFan
10-03-2010, 06:09 AM
The Orioles have a 33-22 record since Showalter took over. The Sox didn't face the O's until Buck became manager. They're not the only ones who haven't been able to beat Baltimore.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101001&content_id=15292378&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Something needs to be done about the schedule. It should represent the ebb and flow of an entire baseball season. How can that be done when a lot of games are played against the same team in back-to-back weeks?

I'd bet that if the Sox and Twins had played the vast majority of their games prior to the all-star break that the Sox would have done better than 5-13.

dickallen15
10-03-2010, 07:01 AM
Something needs to be done about the schedule. It should represent the ebb and flow of an entire baseball season. How can that be done when a lot of games are played against the same team in back-to-back weeks?

I'd bet that if the Sox and Twins had played the vast majority of their games prior to the all-star break that the Sox would have done better than 5-13.
Really? The Sox get killed by Minnesota almost every year. What makes you think they would have had an easier time with them when they had Mourneau putting up MVP numbers?

This year's win total isn't going to be shabby, but when you think about it, this late season hot streak was very empty. Normally, beating Boston 3 out of 4 after a sweet 4-2 West Coast trip would be great, but it meant absolutely nothing. After Minnesota sticks a fork in them and then they get swept at home vs. Detroit virtually ending their season, they win some meaningless games. Ho hum. The bottom line is making the playoffs. If that doesn't get done, whether you win 95 or 65, its a fail. The Sox had an incredible hot streak. For 30 games they were fun to watch, visions of another WS danced in our heads, but for the other 130 games they were as mediocre as can be. I've enjoyed seasons when the Sox didn't make the playoffs. In fact, I've enjoyed seasons when the Sox have won less games than they will win this year. This really has been the least enjoyable season when the Sox have won this many games I can ever remember. There have been some highlights, like every year, but this feels more like a 78-79 win season than what it actually is.

dickallen15
10-03-2010, 07:02 AM
Yeah, as much **** as people want to give the Sox for being a game or 2 under .500 against the AL, the Twins are only 46-40 vs. everyone outside the Central (.538 WP% 87 wins over 162 G). Hey, they can't help it they have 36 games against softies like the Indians and Royals and another 18 against a White Sox team they completely own, but beyond that, they're slightly above average.

The 2005 White Sox were .500 against the AL East and West. They were great in interleague and dominated the AL Central.

Domeshot17
10-03-2010, 10:37 AM
The goal should always be to win 90+ games. Winning anything less will very very rarely get you into the playoffs. Any season you don't make the playoffs is failure. Baseball is a pass/fail sport when the year is over.

That is what bothered me all along. When you make the playoffs by winning less then 90 games, its because of a bad division. Even the 2006 Cardinals (who are a little different story mostly because of injuries and such and got healthy for the playoffs) really didn't belong there. But then again, usually one of the better teams ends up winning.

Honestly, I have a hard time comparing this year to 2006. 2006 sucked, but you could understand how Mark and Contreras were just gassed from 2005. 2008 we backed in and ended up the tallest midget that year. Winning the division this year would have been a real accomplishment. The Twins are raising the bar, the AL central probably will never see a powderpuff champion again, it seems to be back to 90 wins or more is what will get you in.

Also, I don't think it matters how you win games or versus who, just that you do it. This isn't football where you can luck into a good schedule and be a Jim Miller Bears team going 13-3. Baseball, the schedules, the grind, it is hard to 93 games no matter who you play.