PDA

View Full Version : The WORST Thing That Can Happen????


joegraz
05-08-2011, 07:10 AM
These pacifying scattered wins. Or another mid-season flash of greatness. This will simply grant Kenny and Co. another reprieve. I'm ready to suck it up and endure a 60 win season to FORCE this delusional ownership into doing what has been obviously necessary for the past 4 seasons. This team has assumed their personality from the management team.

Dan H
05-08-2011, 08:47 AM
These pacifying scattered wins. Or another mid-season flash of greatness. This will simply grant Kenny and Co. another reprieve. I'm ready to suck it up and endure a 60 win season to FORCE this delusional ownership into doing what has been obviously necessary for the past 4 seasons. This team has assumed their personality from the management team.

While I don't want a 60-win season, I get where you are coming from. As I stated in another post, the White Sox have played slightly under .500 since the All-Star Break in 2006. 2005 was great but that was a different team, in a time that is becoming distant. Even if the team can salvage the 2011 season in some way, I think the organization has to take a hard look at itself. If the organization doesn't want to fire people, fine. But at least try to figure out why this team has been so inconsistent for the past 4 1/2 years. Merely expecting fans to have faith in the middle of another prolonged slump doesn't cut it.

A. Cavatica
05-08-2011, 09:14 AM
Although I believe it's time to clean house, and I think they have almost gotten to the point of admitting failure, I don't think a win here or there is going to make much of a difference. They've had so many opportunities, over the past five years, to address major problems that it's clear they just don't want to.

russ99
05-08-2011, 09:23 AM
These pacifying scattered wins. Or another mid-season flash of greatness. This will simply grant Kenny and Co. another reprieve. I'm ready to suck it up and endure a 60 win season to FORCE this delusional ownership into doing what has been obviously necessary for the past 4 seasons. This team has assumed their personality from the management team.

Get over it. I know the witch hunt for Ozzie and Kenny's jobs has been going on a while, but if they can turn this season around and make the playoffs, I can't see why they'd change everything.

There are outcomes here:

1) They continue to fall apart and miss the playoffs, and wholesale changes are made to staff and players.

2) They turn it around, make the playoffs and keep the staff intact, despite player changes being needed due to FA.

Let the baseball decide, not the rantings of the fanbase.

SI1020
05-08-2011, 10:07 AM
Get over it. I know the witch hunt for Ozzie and Kenny's jobs has been going on a while, but if they can turn this season around and make the playoffs, I can't see why they'd change everything.

There are outcomes here:

1) They continue to fall apart and miss the playoffs, and wholesale changes are made to staff and players.

2) They turn it around, make the playoffs and keep the staff intact, despite player changes being needed due to FA.

Let the baseball decide, not the rantings of the fanbase. I think the baseball had been deciding for quite some time now.

asindc
05-08-2011, 10:13 AM
These pacifying scattered wins. Or another mid-season flash of greatness. This will simply grant Kenny and Co. another reprieve. I'm ready to suck it up and endure a 60 win season to FORCE this delusional ownership into doing what has been obviously necessary for the past 4 seasons. This team has assumed their personality from the management team.

I'm ready to endure the Sox winning the pennant, even if that means the current management remains in place. Yes, I'm willing to make that sacrifice. I mean, what's the best that could happen?

roylestillman
05-08-2011, 10:24 AM
This reminds me of the folks that were saying that the Bears making the playoffs last year was the worst thing that could happen because it would vindicate Lovie, Angelo, etc. Just nonsense.

Red Barchetta
05-08-2011, 10:34 AM
What I find so disturbing is the organization's ability to develop consistent talent.

The Larry Himes era was one of the best periods in White Sox history when it came to drafting and developing talent. The current regime seems to miss completely (Borchard, Rouche) or rushes prospects before they get enough minor league experience (Beckham, Sale) who are then thrown into Ozzie's managerial approach.

I would support a rebuilding effort, however I'm not sure if the SOX minor league system is up to the challenge.

Bobby Thigpen
05-08-2011, 10:51 AM
. The current regime seems to miss completely (Borchard, Rouche)
Who is that?

Tragg
05-08-2011, 11:21 AM
These pacifying scattered wins. Or another mid-season flash of greatness. This will simply grant Kenny and Co. another reprieve. I'm ready to suck it up and endure a 60 win season to FORCE this delusional ownership into doing what has been obviously necessary for the past 4 seasons. This team has assumed their personality from the management team.
I hear what you're saying, but anything under .500 and this season is a clear failure. No one, will be fooled by a decent 2nd half and 77 wins.

Red Barchetta
05-08-2011, 11:55 AM
Who is that?

So forgettable I forgot how to spell his name...Jon Rauch :(:

captain54
05-08-2011, 11:56 AM
These pacifying scattered wins. Or another mid-season flash of greatness. This will simply grant Kenny and Co. another reprieve. I'm ready to suck it up and endure a 60 win season to FORCE this delusional ownership into doing what has been obviously necessary for the past 4 seasons. This team has assumed their personality from the management team.

Keep in mind that, unless the Sox can make up 11 games on Cleveland at any point in the season, all management has to do is look at the standings and see that a team with a fraction of their payroll is ahead of them, regardless of whether or not the Sox have these scattered wins here and there.

Also, the real barometer of the possible much needed changes in the organization is gonna be the empty seats this summer. I don't seriously think that a few scattered wins here and there are gonna turn the tide for what I believe to be a situation where the fans are finally fed up.

doublem23
05-08-2011, 12:02 PM
This reminds me of the folks that were saying that the Bears making the playoffs last year was the worst thing that could happen because it would vindicate Lovie, Angelo, etc. Just nonsense.

Pretty much. I ****ing hope the Sox rip off 20 wins in a row and get right back into things. I would hope that $125 million sunk into this team, anything short of a division title will be considered a failure, so we may as well just root for them to be competitive, because really, is 60 wins any different than 90 if they still only play 162?

Bobby Thigpen
05-08-2011, 12:16 PM
So forgettable I forgot how to spell his name...Jon Rauch :(:
Just giving you some crap. Although it did take me some time to figure out who you were talking about.

He's had a pretty decent career away from here though.

captain54
05-08-2011, 12:23 PM
because really, is 60 wins any different than 90 if they still only play 162?

I think there would be a HUGE difference. If the Sox only win 60 games, that means they would lose 102 games. For a team with the 5th highest payroll in MLB (behind the Yankees, Philly, Boston, LA Angels)to lose 100 + games in a season would and could make the Sox ($127 M payroll according to USA today) the laughingstock of baseball for years to come

Not to mention that a team with nearly 1/4 th of the Sox payroll (KC @ $35M), and another with pretty close to 1/3 rd of the Sox payroll (Cleveland @ $49 M) would finish ahead of them.

DumpJerry
05-08-2011, 12:27 PM
I think there would be a HUGE difference. If the Sox only win 60 games, that means they would lose 102 games. For a team with the 5th highest payroll in MLB (behind the Yankees, Philly, Boston, LA Angels)to lose 100 + games in a season would and could make the Sox ($127 M payroll according to USA today) the laughingstock of baseball for years to come

Not to mention that a team with nearly 1/4 th of the Sox payroll (KC @ $35M), and another with pretty close to 1/3 rd of the Sox payroll (Cleveland @ $49 M) would finish ahead of them.
More importantly, it would stop all the whining on WSI about the Yankees and Red Sox "buying" titles each year.

That's a good thing.

Bobby Thigpen
05-08-2011, 12:30 PM
More importantly, it would stop all the whining on WSI
Good luck with that.

downstairs
05-08-2011, 12:38 PM
What I find so disturbing is the organization's ability to develop consistent talent.

The Larry Himes era was one of the best periods in White Sox history when it came to drafting and developing talent. The current regime seems to miss completely (Borchard, Rouche) or rushes prospects before they get enough minor league experience (Beckham, Sale) who are then thrown into Ozzie's managerial approach.

I would support a rebuilding effort, however I'm not sure if the SOX minor league system is up to the challenge.

The Sox don't need a great farm system if they're willing to spend money. And they are. However, that means making great decisions on free agents and trades. 2004-2008 they did that. Since then not so much.

KMcMahon817
05-08-2011, 12:45 PM
Get over it. I know the witch hunt for Ozzie and Kenny's jobs has been going on a while, but if they can turn this season around and make the playoffs, I can't see why they'd change everything.

There are outcomes here:

1) They continue to fall apart and miss the playoffs, and wholesale changes are made to staff and players.

2) They turn it around, make the playoffs and keep the staff intact, despite player changes being needed due to FA.

Let the baseball decide, not the rantings of the fanbase.

This. I couldn't have said it better myself. +1000

Johnny Mostil
05-08-2011, 12:58 PM
While I don't want a 60-win season, I get where you are coming from. As I stated in another post, the White Sox have played slightly under .500 since the All-Star Break in 2006. 2005 was great but that was a different team, in a time that is becoming distant. Even if the team can salvage the 2011 season in some way, I think the organization has to take a hard look at itself. If the organization doesn't want to fire people, fine. But at least try to figure out why this team has been so inconsistent for the past 4 1/2 years. Merely expecting fans to have faith in the middle of another prolonged slump doesn't cut it.

Why does their record since mid-2006 matter? I get it, the second half of that season wasn't good, and 2007 was horrible. But, at this point, who cares? Like the 2005 team, that was also "a different team, in a time that is becoming distant."

Since the beginning of the 2008 season, the Sox have played .514 ball. Since Guillen became manager, they have played .524 ball. Since Williams became GM, they have played .521 ball. All those records are above the .506 historical record of the franchise.

To be clear, I'd agree those records are also irrelevant in deciding what to do with the current team. And I might have fired Guillen before now. But I just don't see a historical downward trend that is relevant to getting this team to improve, or to improving it. Or, if there is such a trend, I don't understand how one selects the point at which it began.

captain54
05-08-2011, 01:18 PM
Since the beginning of the 2008 season, the Sox have played .514 ball. Since Guillen became manager, they have played .524 ball. Since Williams became GM, they have played .521 ball. All those records are above the .506 historical record of the franchise.

But I just don't see a historical downward trend that is relevant to getting this team to improve, or to improving it. Or, if there is such a trend, I don't understand how one selects the point at which it began.

Whoop de doo....! Let's have another parade to celebrate an around .500 or mediocre track record for the KW/Ozzie regime.

If you don't see a historical downward trend, then I don't think you are watching the games or following the team the last few years.

1) the Sox have had teams that go into guaranteed severe offensive slumps at any given point in any of the seasons since 05. I would say this is above and beyond what normal perennial winners in MLB experience

2) the Sox are perennial Twins chasers. at some point in every season, the Sox find a way to wet the bed and fold down the stretch with the Division on the line

3) for the second year in a row, the Sox have begun the season by digging themselves a huge hole.

I could go on, but I'm afraid I might upchuck my breakfast

Johnny Mostil
05-08-2011, 01:30 PM
Whoop de doo....! Let's have another parade to celebrate an around .500 or mediocre track record for the KW/Ozzie regime.

If you don't see a historical downward trend, then I don't think you are watching the games or following the team the last few years.

1) the Sox have had teams that go into guaranteed severe offensive slumps at any given point in any of the seasons since 05. I would say this is above and beyond what normal perennial winners in MLB experience

2) the Sox are perennial Twins chasers. at some point in every season, the Sox find a way to wet the bed and fold down the stretch with the Division on the line

3) for the second year in a row, the Sox have begun the season by digging themselves a huge hole.

I could go on, but I'm afraid I might upchuck my breakfast

Meh, I'm just tired of seeing mid-2006 as the reference point for the beginning of the trend. It's a selective starting point offered for no reason. If you don't understand that, then I don't think you understand statistical analysis. The current team sucks enough without dredging up 2007.

SI1020
05-08-2011, 01:37 PM
Why does their record since mid-2006 matter? Because it is evidence of a long term trend. Ignoring such things causes businesses to go belly up and MLB teams sink to the bottom of the standings. Nothing in life exists only in the here and now.

Johnny Mostil
05-08-2011, 01:41 PM
Because it is evidence of a long term trend. Ignoring such things causes businesses to go belly up and MLB teams sink to the bottom of the standings. Nothing in life exists only in the here and now.

One more time: why is mid-2006 the starting point?

I'm not denying a trend here. I just want to know where to begin measuring it. Has anybody explained why mid-2006 is anything but a selective starting point?

captain54
05-08-2011, 01:48 PM
Has anybody explained why mid-2006 is anything but a selective starting point?

Since mid 06, there have been one series of frustrating events after another that have led to offensive funks, starting pitching and bullpen
woes, to bad defensive teams that have pretty much kept the Sox out of the playoffs for going on 5 (including this year) of the last 6 years.

FielderJones
05-08-2011, 01:50 PM
One more time: why is mid-2006 the starting point?

I'm not denying a trend here. I just want to know where to begin measuring it. Has anybody explained why mid-2006 is anything but a selective starting point?

It's a special selective starting point, to prove Ozzie sucks. If they selected Ozzie's entire career they would have to concede a managerial record percentage better than the average Sox manager. During the 2006 All Star break, Ozzie took stupid pills and hasn't been the same since. 2008 was an aberration. Or something ...

Lip Man 1
05-08-2011, 01:50 PM
Johnny:

I'd also pick the midpoint of 2006 because if you look at the splits in the first 81 games compared to the second 81 that season they are down across the board especially in the biggest number of all...wins. Some are dramatic drop-offs. They were the best team in baseball for a year and a half, most would tell you they haven't come close to getting back to the level since then.

So I think given the drastic fall off in performance that midpoint 2006 is a fair starting point, especially since they continued that trend in 2007 which was their worst season in almost 20 years.

Lip

LoveYourSuit
05-08-2011, 02:03 PM
It's a special selective starting point, to prove Ozzie sucks. If they selected Ozzie's entire career they would have to concede a managerial record percentage better than the average Sox manager. During the 2006 All Star break, Ozzie took stupid pills and hasn't been the same since. 2008 was an aberration. Or something ...

I would like to have seen the winning percentage of past managers had ownership handed them a payroll talent in the top third in baseball every year.

For the dollars spent, this regime is not producing enough wins.

Anyone want to argue that?

Hitmen77
05-08-2011, 02:11 PM
One more time: why is mid-2006 the starting point?

I'm not denying a trend here. I just want to know where to begin measuring it. Has anybody explained why mid-2006 is anything but a selective starting point?

I think you said it yourself right there.

Regardless of what people think of KW, Ozzie, and the coaches, this to me is just a very obviously demarcation point between a quite impressive run by the Sox (1.5 seasons: 2005 through mid 2006) and a period of time where the Sox, more often than not, under-achieved since July 2006.

That's not "random" or "cherry picking". This the way the Sox generally have played during this time. That's nearly a 5 year period leading up to today. That's not just picking some random. .....and to clarify, it's not that the Sox totally sucked this entire time. They had great runs during this time, but it has been a time of frustrating inconsistency.

Okay, I'm like the 3rd guy to give this reply. If you or others keep wanting to pretend this is totally based on irrational Ozzie hate, then fine. Have fun pretending that the most recent 5 year period leading up to today is just a random time period generated by a bunch of "haters".

LITTLE NELL
05-08-2011, 02:41 PM
These pacifying scattered wins. Or another mid-season flash of greatness. This will simply grant Kenny and Co. another reprieve. I'm ready to suck it up and endure a 60 win season to FORCE this delusional ownership into doing what has been obviously necessary for the past 4 seasons. This team has assumed their personality from the management team.

I know we have been terrible but this team has way too much talent to lose 102 games. I expect some kind of turn-around, how much of a turn-around is the question. I can't see another 25-5 run but .500 by the All-Star game is a possibility. Get to .500 and go from there.

Noneck
05-08-2011, 02:50 PM
Get to .500 and go from there.

I believe thats 35-25 starting today. On paper it seems possible but the way they have played it will be tough.

TDog
05-08-2011, 02:57 PM
Meh, I'm just tired of seeing mid-2006 as the reference point for the beginning of the trend. It's a selective starting point offered for no reason. If you don't understand that, then I don't think you understand statistical analysis. The current team sucks enough without dredging up 2007.

While I tend to agree with your point, and the 2007 season tends to skew the statistics downward, there is some significance to mid-2006. That was when Guillen was required to go through sensitivity training.

Firing Guillen after last year's poor start wouldn't have improved last season, when in fact the White Sox were very, very good after not being a very good team early in the season. The Sox probably should have won the division but for a worn out bullpen in August. Peavy's injury impacted the bullpen more than anyone on the bench. When Peavy went down, you had Garcia and Hudson going back to back in what effectively became bullpen games. Jenks, Thornton and Putz developed physical problems. Santos, whose overall pitching experience was limited, ran out of gas. The offense disappeared in September after a "real" designated hitter was inserted into the lineup. For July and August, the White Sox had one of the best offenses in the American League.

Every year has a different dynamic. Even if you find consistent statistical patterns, that doesn't mean those patterns had the same root cause or would even change if you change leadership.

LITTLE NELL
05-08-2011, 02:59 PM
I know we have been terrible but this team has way too much talent to lose 102 games. I expect some kind of turn-around, how much of a turn-around is the question. I can't see another 25-5 run but .500 by the All-Star game is a possibility. Get to .500 and go from there.

I believe thats 35-25 starting today. On paper it seems possible but the way they have played it will be tough.

It will be tough especially with the terrible schedule MLB dealt us, I can't remember a schedule where we had 3 straight 3 city road trips with short home stands in-between.

BringHomeDaBacon
05-08-2011, 04:24 PM
While I tend to agree with your point, and the 2007 season tends to skew the statistics downward, there is some significance to mid-2006. That was when Guillen was required to go through sensitivity training.

Firing Guillen after last year's poor start wouldn't have improved last season, when in fact the White Sox were very, very good after not being a very good team early in the season. The Sox probably should have won the division but for a worn out bullpen in August. Peavy's injury impacted the bullpen more than anyone on the bench. When Peavy went down, you had Garcia and Hudson going back to back in what effectively became bullpen games. Jenks, Thornton and Putz developed physical problems. Santos, whose overall pitching experience was limited, ran out of gas. The offense disappeared in September after a "real" designated hitter was inserted into the lineup. For July and August, the White Sox had one of the best offenses in the American League.

Every year has a different dynamic. Even if you find consistent statistical patterns, that doesn't mean those patterns had the same root cause or would even change if you change leadership.

Peavy averaged 6.3 IP per start and Garcia went 5.6 IP. It took me all of two seconds to figure that out, probably less time than it took to type out your bull**** theory of why the bullpen collapsed.

doublem23
05-08-2011, 04:42 PM
Get over it. I know the witch hunt for Ozzie and Kenny's jobs has been going on a while, but if they can turn this season around and make the playoffs, I can't see why they'd change everything.

There are outcomes here:

1) They continue to fall apart and miss the playoffs, and wholesale changes are made to staff and players.

2) They turn it around, make the playoffs and keep the staff intact, despite player changes being needed due to FA.

Let the baseball decide, not the rantings of the fanbase.

I don't know what kind of alternate reality you're basing this post in, but the Sox have been average-mediocre over the last 5 seasons. Since the World Series, we have won 1 playoff game and are well on our pace for our 3rd losing season in the past 6.

They're not going to make the playoffs man. Another poster made a great graphic, teams that start out as bad as the Sox have, the year's over. Teams in our shoes almost never finish above .500, a trip to the postseason would take an epic, never before seen historic turn-around.

sox1970
05-08-2011, 04:54 PM
I don't know what kind of alternate reality you're basing this post in, but the Sox have been average-mediocre over the last 5 seasons. Since the World Series, we have won 1 playoff game and are well on our pace for our 3rd losing season in the past 6.

They're not going to make the playoffs man. Another poster made a great graphic, teams that start out as bad as the Sox have, the year's over. Teams in our shoes almost never finish above .500, a trip to the postseason would take an epic, never before seen historic turn-around.

It's a tough climb, but there have been teams to turn it around--Houston in 05, of course comes to mind. They started 15-30.

You have to go on these factors to give hope:

1- You thought the Sox were a good team on Opening Day. That talent is still there. And they showed last year they are capable of being hot for a long stretch.
2- The division was supposed to be Sox, Twins, Tigers on top, and all three have been bad. The win total for the division could be down to 86-88.
3- The Indians can't be this good.
4- There's over 75% of the season left.

Now, do I think they'll win the division? Probably not. But it's way too soon to write this season off.

doublem23
05-08-2011, 05:07 PM
Now, do I think they'll win the division? Probably not. But it's way too soon to write this season off.

That's a fine way to approach this as a fan, I mean ultimately, our opinions don't really mean anything, anyway, but I'm talking more from the perspective of the front office, really, the only responsible thing to do is start preparing for 2012. No matter how you want to cut it, the 2011 season is over, the Sox aren't going anywhere, we're chasing a .500 record for the rest of the year. For the Sox to keep pretending like they're playing for anything this season would be the same old, same old short-sighted BS, so I'm hoping someone at the front office acts more like an executive and less like a fan.

You and I can believe all we like, and that's fine. I just hope the guys making actual decisions know better.

captain54
05-08-2011, 05:43 PM
That talent is still there.

the proof is in the pudding. Maybe the talent really isn't there.

Kenny Williams, fans and non-fans thought this was a pretty good
team.. Maybe they were all wrong. the problem really is, the GM is
the one that is supposed to have a keen eye for talent. It's not out
of the realm of possibility the 2011 Sox are a flawed bunch, who have at
times shown flashes of brilliance.

Let's just say that I'll probably put my fist through the TV the next time I see Kenny Williams shooting his mouth off to the press, proclaiming that
he built this team to be a division winner, IF ONLY, these players would
play to their potential.

KMcMahon817
05-08-2011, 06:27 PM
That's a fine way to approach this as a fan, I mean ultimately, our opinions don't really mean anything, anyway, but I'm talking more from the perspective of the front office, really, the only responsible thing to do is start preparing for 2012. No matter how you want to cut it, the 2011 season is over, the Sox aren't going anywhere, we're chasing a .500 record for the rest of the year. For the Sox to keep pretending like they're playing for anything this season would be the same old, same old short-sighted BS, so I'm hoping someone at the front office acts more like an executive and less like a fan.

You and I can believe all we like, and that's fine. I just hope the guys making actual decisions know better.

I like what you said as far as hoping someone in the front office has their eye on 2012. With as bad as the SOX have been, that's necessary. But, I don't know, with the Twins and Tigers not playing much better than the SOX, I really don't think anyone in the division is out of it.

Is it likely the SOX make the playoffs? No. But it's May 8th. They've showed signs the past two days of breaking out of the horrific offensive slump they've been in for over a month. I am admittedly an optimist, but by your logic, the Twins are basically cooked too and the Tigers are half in the coffin. The SOX are only four back of Detroit and .5 games back of Minnesota...that could be made up in a week. In addition, I would be SHOCKED if Cleveland or Kansas City won the division.

I hope someone in the front office is thinking like executives as well. And if the SOX don't start playing great baseball soon, they are cooked. But, with the way the Tigers and Twins have played, I really don't think it is over. And were fans, it is sure a lot more fun to watch when you have some hope. :dunno:

TDog
05-08-2011, 07:13 PM
Peavy averaged 6.3 IP per start and Garcia went 5.6 IP. It took me all of two seconds to figure that out, probably less time than it took to type out your bull**** theory of why the bullpen collapsed.

It helps if you watch the games. Garcia was pitching deeper into games before Peavy was hurt. All of Garcia's seven-inning outings were before Peavy's injury. After Peavy's injury, there were games where he didn't make it out of the second or third. With the White Sox in first place in late July, he was knocked out in the second in Oakland with Hudson starting the next day. Hudson got hit hard early and had to stay in through five to save the bullpen, which was a shame because the Sox came back and made a game of it.

Peavy had pitched at least seven innings in four of the five games before his injury, once pitching six and once pitching a complete nine-inning game.

My theory isn't something I came up with from looking at statistics for two seconds. It was a problem I posted that I was concerned about before I went to see the first-place White Sox lose two of three games in Oakland last summer. And a worn out bullpen turned out to kill the White Sox when they scored the third most runs in the league but still had a losing record.

Even fans who don't actually watch games but see all they need to know from stats might conclude that the Sox lost last year chiefly because the bullpen failed in August.

Lip Man 1
05-08-2011, 08:21 PM
Actually I conclude the Sox didn't win the division last year because they were god friggin' awful in April and May and buried themselves....that was before Peavy got hurt and the bullpen got injured. It was the lack of hitting early in the year that doomed the Sox... not pitchers getting hurt, but that's just my opinion from watching the games.

(And some might say Ozzie is somewhat at fault for that because he uses a lot of guys to get through one or two innngs - those guys have to warm up and as Jack McDowell told me in his interview, fans don't appreciate or understand how much warming guys up night after night after night factors into play.)

Lip

TDog
05-08-2011, 09:22 PM
Actually I conclude the Sox didn't win the division last year because they were god friggin' awful in April and May and buried themselves....that was before Peavy got hurt and the bullpen got injured. It was the lack of hitting early in the year that doomed the Sox... not pitchers getting hurt, but that's just my opinion from watching the games.

(And some might say Ozzie is somewhat at fault for that because he uses a lot of guys to get through one or two innngs - those guys have to warm up and as Jack McDowell told me in his interview, fans don't appreciate or understand how much warming guys up night after night after night factors into play.)

Lip

Of course, there's no way to know which answer is most correct. The White Sox were in first place in late July. There were games they lost in April and even later, people would charge, because he didn't pull a pitcher soon enough. You really don't know if a pitcher is taken out too soon or left in too long until you lose the game. If managers ignored pitch counts, they wouldn't warm up or use as many pitchers. But fans would complain that their manager is ignoring pitch counts.

People will believe what they are most inclined to believe. If you are inclined to be anti-management, you'll find blame in the management. If a White Sox hitter pops up a bunt into a triple play because a catcher, playing out of position at first base, makes a diving catch, there will be pages about Guillen is an idiot for bunting. People will right that he should never have Ramirez bunting because insiders tell him that Ramirez isn't comfortable bunting, although his attempts this year to bunt for hits on his own with no one on base might indicate he isn't that uncomfortable with bunting. If a Mariner sets up a two-run inning to tie a game with a popped up bunt with good fielders at the corners and a Gold Glove pitcher on the mound, no one can criticize the manager for bunting or the player for doing so on his own if that was the case.

Last year, blown saves by the bullpen, which was worked harder after the Peavy injury, cost the White Sox the division after I wrote that I was concerned with the loss of Peavy's starts would overwork the the bullpen. What I wrote I was afraid would happen I saw actual happen, driving the Sox out of first place. I'm inclined to believe I was right.

If the Padres had won two more games in April and/or May, their September losing streak wouldn't have cost them the division. I'm inclined to blame the September losing streak for the Padres losing the division to the Giants.

But you would have no opinion on that if you don't watch National League baseball, just as you no longer have any opinion on the White Sox because you've stopped watching their games.

russ99
05-09-2011, 08:59 AM
Contrary to popular opinion, we lost the division last year getting killed head-to-head vs. the Twins and not due to our slow start.

My entire point of the post (and others) is that who's to say the Sox have zero chance on May 9th? And if they do end up falling short as many suspect, then the Sox can replace the manager and GM with a vastly larger number and more capable candidates then than they can now.

Firing the manager now when it makes little difference is how we got stuck with Bevington. Do we really want another subpar "Sox lifer" to get the job and then have Jerry stick with him?

I'd rather see if the 2nd best manager in Sox history can turn it around, then if not, have a large pool of experienced guys available for the job.

GoSox2K3
05-09-2011, 09:04 AM
More importantly, it would stop all the whining on WSI about the Yankees and Red Sox "buying" titles each year.

That's a good thing.

Never mind the fact that the Yankees payroll is still about $100M more than the Sox "All In" payroll.

Yep, the Sox floundering this year shows that the Yankees aren't buying themselves into permanent contention status. That's hilarious. :rolling:

Actually I conclude the Sox didn't win the division last year because they were god friggin' awful in April and May and buried themselves....that was before Peavy got hurt and the bullpen got injured. It was the lack of hitting early in the year that doomed the Sox... not pitchers getting hurt, but that's just my opinion from watching the games.

(And some might say Ozzie is somewhat at fault for that because he uses a lot of guys to get through one or two innngs - those guys have to warm up and as Jack McDowell told me in his interview, fans don't appreciate or understand how much warming guys up night after night after night factors into play.)

Lip

They were 6 games behind the Twins in late April and ended up losing the division by 6 games. There you go, no matter how you slice it, sucking in those early games mattered.

Of course, there are so many other things about last season that one can point to last year that ended up costing the Sox. Yes, if the Sox didn't lose Peavy and have bullpen injuries in the 2nd half, maybe they would have been 6 games better. But, regardless, they dug themselves into a 6 game hole within a few weeks and lost the division by 6 games. Unfortunately, it looks like the Sox outdid themselves this year by repeating their ice cold April tradition.

khan
05-09-2011, 09:57 AM
That's a fine way to approach this as a fan, I mean ultimately, our opinions don't really mean anything, anyway, but I'm talking more from the perspective of the front office, really, the only responsible thing to do is start preparing for 2012. No matter how you want to cut it, the 2011 season is over, the Sox aren't going anywhere, we're chasing a .500 record for the rest of the year. For the Sox to keep pretending like they're playing for anything this season would be the same old, same old short-sighted BS, so I'm hoping someone at the front office acts more like an executive and less like a fan.

You and I can believe all we like, and that's fine. I just hope the guys making actual decisions know better.

This.

The reality is that the team has unexpectedly started off poorly. So much so, that there is scant hope left for this season.

Therefore, someone in the FO has to put on the "big boy pants," and figure out a way forward for this team and this organization.

Harry Chappas
05-09-2011, 10:04 AM
These pacifying scattered wins. Or another mid-season flash of greatness. This will simply grant Kenny and Co. another reprieve. I'm ready to suck it up and endure a 60 win season to FORCE this delusional ownership into doing what has been obviously necessary for the past 4 seasons. This team has assumed their personality from the management team.

So in 2007, just 2 years removed from a WS championship, you thought it prudent to fire our manager and the architect of that team?

Today, you might - might - have a point, but 4 years ago?

Lip Man 1
05-09-2011, 10:11 AM
Russ:

I'm curious (not to hijack this) who in my opinion was the "best" Sox manager?

And I think you've got Ozzie rated a little higher than most historians do.

Lip

Harry Chappas
05-09-2011, 10:15 AM
the proof is in the pudding. Maybe the talent really isn't there.

Kenny Williams, fans and non-fans thought this was a pretty good
team.. Maybe they were all wrong. the problem really is, the GM is
the one that is supposed to have a keen eye for talent. It's not out
of the realm of possibility the 2011 Sox are a flawed bunch, who have at
times shown flashes of brilliance.

Let's just say that I'll probably put my fist through the TV the next time I see Kenny Williams shooting his mouth off to the press, proclaiming that
he built this team to be a division winner, IF ONLY, these players would
play to their potential.

I can't believe Kenny didn't forecast Adam Dunn's atrocious start or Peavy's injury. :rolleyes: The ONLY move Kenny made that I wasn't thrilled about was resigning A.J. Otherwise, in spite of their abysmal record, this team has enough talent to win. Kenny and Jerry provided Ozzie with the ammo, but between Ozzie's mismanagement and the players performing well-below their career averages, this team has failed miserably. Hell, even our bullpen has started to settle down and our starting pitching has put us in a position to win most games.

russ99
05-09-2011, 10:40 AM
Russ:

I'm curious (not to hijack this) who in my opinion was the "best" Sox manager?

And I think you've got Ozzie rated a little higher than most historians do.

Lip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chicago_White_Sox_managers

Ozzie's third in Sox Manager wins behind Jimmy Dykes and Al Lopez, and third in winning percentage of managers with 650 games managed.

I consider Ozzie 2nd behind Al Lopez, with LaRussa, Paul Richards and Chuck Tanner slightly behind him. Jimmy Dykes managed for 13 years with a .489 win percentage, so while he leads in wins, he's out of the top 5.

While LaRussa has a better career track record, he has worse results than Ozzie with the Sox.

Lip Man 1
05-09-2011, 12:03 PM
I'd rate Fielder Jones, Pants Roland, Kid Gleason, Paul Richards and Al Lopez ahead of Ozzie myself.

Lip

TDog
05-09-2011, 03:11 PM
Contrary to popular opinion, we lost the division last year getting killed head-to-head vs. the Twins and not due to our slow start.

My entire point of the post (and others) is that who's to say the Sox have zero chance on May 9th? And if they do end up falling short as many suspect, then the Sox can replace the manager and GM with a vastly larger number and more capable candidates then than they can now.

Firing the manager now when it makes little difference is how we got stuck with Bevington. Do we really want another subpar "Sox lifer" to get the job and then have Jerry stick with him?

I'd rather see if the 2nd best manager in Sox history can turn it around, then if not, have a large pool of experienced guys available for the job.

Consider how the Sox lost to the Twins, late in the season. There were two losses that spring to mind where the White Sox were leading with three outs to go in Minneapolis. Bobby Jenks blew a save and Matt Thornton was in line for an extra-inning win when he gave up a home run to Jim Thome. The White Sox were blowing saves elsewhere as well.

You are right. Losing the winnable games against the Twins cost the White Sox the division last year. Some fashionably attribute this to the White Sox being gutless. Some point to losses of winnable games against other teams and look to a worn down bullpen.

Relevant to the discussion is that the White Sox wouldn't have done any better last year if Ozzie Guillen was fired after the team's slow start. Whether you rank Al Lopez higher than Guillen on the all-time manager depth chart is irrelevant to the discussion. If WSI replayed the 1959 season with game threads, I'm sure no one would complain about the only regular .300 hitter in the lineup, the league's MVP, sacrificing nine times.

dickallen15
05-09-2011, 03:16 PM
The worst thing that could happen to the Sox would be to come back and win the World Series. We would be stuck with KW and Ozzie forever. The best thing would be to fall apart lose 110 games get everyone fired, sell off all the good players and totally suck for several years. That sounds like a lot of fun.

LITTLE NELL
05-09-2011, 03:54 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chicago_White_Sox_managers

Ozzie's third in Sox Manager wins behind Jimmy Dykes and Al Lopez, and third in winning percentage of managers with 650 games managed.

I consider Ozzie 2nd behind Al Lopez, with LaRussa, Paul Richards and Chuck Tanner slightly behind him. Jimmy Dykes managed for 13 years with a .489 win percentage, so while he leads in wins, he's out of the top 5.

While LaRussa has a better career track record, he has worse results than Ozzie with the Sox.

I will take Al Lopez as the best Sox manager of all time, great handler of pitchers and got the most out of his players.
The only thing is that he didn't get along well with Little Nell, and while he was on the HOF veterans commitee he kept Nellie out of the Hall.

SI1020
05-09-2011, 04:08 PM
I will take Al Lopez as the best Sox manager of all time, great handler of pitchers and got the most out of his players.
The only thing is that he didn't get along well with Little Nell, and while he was on the HOF veterans commitee he kept Nellie out of the Hall. Apparently he didn't get along with Billy Pierce all that well either. Lopez had a harsh side, he was boss and let you know it, as some of Lip Man's interviews reveal. In spite of it all he was to me the best manager the Sox have had in my lifetime. I know the key losses and consecutive 2nd place finishes from 63-65 ate at him. He was a little bit of a dictator, the times were different back then, but he was also one of the best strategists in my lifetime.


Relevant to the discussion is that the White Sox wouldn't have done any better last year if Ozzie Guillen was fired after the team's slow start. Whether you rank Al Lopez higher than Guillen on the all-time manager depth chart is irrelevant to the discussion. If WSI replayed the 1959 season with game threads, I'm sure no one would complain about the only regular .300 hitter in the lineup, the league's MVP, sacrificing nine times. So I guess we're all irrelevant except for you. I rank Lopez higher than Guillen too. How's that for irrelevancy. As for the sacrifices, that team knew how to execute them. Fox was as close to the perfect number 2 hitter as any I've ever seen in the game. Ozzie I think would love to manage a team like the 59 White Sox. They played his kind of game.

BringHomeDaBacon
05-09-2011, 04:24 PM
Apparently he didn't get along with Billy Pierce all that well either. Lopez had a harsh side, he was boss and let you know it, as some of Lip Man's interviews reveal. In spite of it all he was to me the best manager the Sox have had in my lifetime. I know the key losses and consecutive 2nd place finishes from 63-65 ate at him. He was a little bit of a dictator, the times were different back then, but he was also one of the best strategists in my lifetime.


So I guess we're all irrelevant except for you. I rank Lopez higher than Guillen too. How's that for irrelevancy. As for the sacrifices, that team knew how to execute them. Fox was as close to the perfect number 2 hitter as any I've ever seen in the game. Ozzie I think would love to manage a team like the 59 White Sox. They played his kind of game.

i.e. The kind of game that a player with zero offensive skills must use in an attempt to seem like he's pulling his weight.

kufram
05-09-2011, 04:40 PM
I wonder what Al Lopez's (my vote for best Sox manager ever) offensive skills added up to (he did hit .301 one year) and how much they made an impact on his skills as a manager?

doublem23
05-09-2011, 05:34 PM
I wonder what Al Lopez's (my vote for best Sox manager ever) offensive skills added up to (he did hit .301 one year) and how much they made an impact on his skills as a manager?

Yeah, but how long did he go to college?

TDog
05-09-2011, 06:57 PM
...


So I guess we're all irrelevant except for you. I rank Lopez higher than Guillen too. How's that for irrelevancy. As for the sacrifices, that team knew how to execute them. Fox was as close to the perfect number 2 hitter as any I've ever seen in the game. Ozzie I think would love to manage a team like the 59 White Sox. They played his kind of game.

I'm sorry if I offended you.

Al Lopez is irrelevant to the discussion because Al Lopez is dead. He hasn't managed since 1969 when he retired a month into an awful White Sox season because of ill health. Whether the Al Lopez of a half century ago would make a better manager than Ozzie Guillen is irrelevant. It also is irrelevant to speculate whether Ozzie Guillen would have won the World Series with the 1959 White Sox (or even the 1954 Indians) because Ozzie Guillen wasn't born until 1964.

Ranking dead men ahead of Ozzie Guillen on the all-time list of White Sox managers may be something people care to do. It is not an illegitimate topic for discussion, although it is one I have never considered. But it is tangential and irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

A. Cavatica
05-09-2011, 09:18 PM
I'm sorry if I offended you.

Al Lopez is irrelevant to the discussion because Al Lopez is dead. He hasn't managed since 1969 when he retired a month into an awful White Sox season because of ill health. Whether the Al Lopez of a half century ago would make a better manager than Ozzie Guillen is irrelevant. It also is irrelevant to speculate whether Ozzie Guillen would have won the World Series with the 1959 White Sox (or even the 1954 Indians) because Ozzie Guillen wasn't born until 1964.

Ranking dead men ahead of Ozzie Guillen on the all-time list of White Sox managers may be something people care to do. It is not an illegitimate topic for discussion, although it is one I have never considered. But it is tangential and irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

I'm pretty sure Terry Bevington was dead when he managed the Sox.

canOcorn
05-09-2011, 10:01 PM
Consider how the Sox lost to the Twins, late in the season. There were two losses that spring to mind where the White Sox were leading with three outs to go in Minneapolis. Bobby Jenks blew a save and Matt Thornton was in line for an extra-inning win when he gave up a home run to Jim Thome.

Wasn't that the all-star break and not late in the season?


You are right. Losing the winnable games against the Twins cost the White Sox the division last year. Some fashionably attribute this to the White Sox being gutless. Some point to losses of winnable games against other teams and look to a worn down bullpen.Maybe the fact that Ozzie has ordered, numerous pitchers, not to retaliate for hit by pitches makes the team seem gutless. Or that MB stormed about talking about drilling Hunter after the Burke cheap shot that Ozzie, again, ordered his pitcher to not retaliate.

Relevant to the discussion is that the White Sox wouldn't have done any better last year if Ozzie Guillen was fired after the team's slow start. Thanks for your OPINION.

TDog
05-10-2011, 12:16 AM
...
Thanks for your OPINION.

An opinion is calling a team gutless for not intentionally throwing at hitters, putting runners on base and risking ejection and suspension. It isn't like Carlos Quentin is doing much to avoid being hit. Retaliation by hitting batters on the other team is meaningless. Drag a bunt and lay open a pitcher's leg with your spikes if you want to retaliate. Eddie Stanky would have done that when he was playing for the Dodgers, but he was no Al Lopez.

I don't see how anyone can see the question of whether Al Lopez was a better than Ozzie Guillen is relevant to the question of whether Ozzie Guillen should be fired. If this is at all related to the standard you are using to hire a new manager, who could you hire?

Really, it is not the subject of the thread. It was first raised a question brought up in a response by Lip. I didn't write that the discussion was inappropriate. When you're talking baseball, there will be a tangent or two. I wrote that it was as irrelevant to the question of whether Guillen would have managed the 1959 White Sox to the World Series. Certainly it was irrelevant to the point I was making about the Sox not winning the division last year. Unless you are arguing that Guillen should have gone to a four-man rotation and worked his starter for more complete games.

The 2010 White Sox went into the All-Star break in first place with a win against the Royals and their bullpen badly overworked after the loss of Peavy. The bullpen losses to the Twins I referenced came after the All-Star break and after the Peavy injury.

The White Sox were in first place in July. In late July and August, their bullpen gave away a bunch of games, including games to the Twins. My opinion is that if the bullpen was overworked in large part out of necessity after Peavy went down.

I respect your opinion, though.

joegraz
05-10-2011, 05:15 AM
So in 2007, just 2 years removed from a WS championship, you thought it prudent to fire our manager and the architect of that team?

Today, you might - might - have a point, but 4 years ago?

No. My feelings today are that it's time for change....based on the trend starting 4 years ago.

rdivaldi
05-10-2011, 09:37 AM
No. My feelings today are that it's time for change....based on the trend starting 4 years ago.

The calendar reads May 10, I suggest gaining some perspective and playing out the season.

doublem23
05-10-2011, 09:48 AM
The calendar reads May 10, I suggest gaining some perspective and playing out the season.

That's fine and all, but at what point do you carry over the trends of previous seasons?

rdivaldi
05-10-2011, 09:59 AM
That's fine and all, but at what point do you carry over the trends of previous seasons?

What trend? Not making the playoffs? Hitting slumps? Pitching slumps? Losing streaks?

doublem23
05-10-2011, 10:31 AM
What trend? Not making the playoffs? Hitting slumps? Pitching slumps? Losing streaks?

Yes and all.

I'm just saying, most of the people calling for Ozzie's head have been dissapointed with his performance as manager for a while, I don't think there's anyone who entered this season OK with Ozzie who has suddenly turned on him. More or less, everyone who wants him fired has been tired of him for a while now.

Chez
05-10-2011, 10:44 AM
Damn it! The worst thing happened AGAIN last night. These senseless, pointless victories must stop now. We need a revised chart confirming that teams starting 14-22 have no chance to finish above .500 much less contend for the playoffs. As Al Davis once said, "Just lose, baby."

rdivaldi
05-10-2011, 10:45 AM
Yes and all.

I'm just saying, most of the people calling for Ozzie's head have been dissapointed with his performance as manager for a while, I don't think there's anyone who entered this season OK with Ozzie who has suddenly turned on him. More or less, everyone who wants him fired has been tired of him for a while now.

I guess you can chalk me up as a supporter. I see almost all of the "distractions" as media-created BS. It's his fault for not holding his tongue more often than not, but I don't believe that any of it creates our struggles. I continue though to be very concerned with Walker and will probably continue down that road until the day he's fired.

doublem23
05-10-2011, 11:12 AM
I guess you can chalk me up as a supporter. I see almost all of the "distractions" as media-created BS. It's his fault for not holding his tongue more often than not, but I don't believe that any of it creates our struggles. I continue though to be very concerned with Walker and will probably continue down that road until the day he's fired.

And that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. Really, there's no right or wrong answer to the question, no one knows if the Sox are really just this bad, if they were just unlucky, or if they'd be better with or without Ozzie, I just think you're misconstruing the arguments the other side is making if you think people want him fired only because the team is off to a crappy start in 2011.

rdivaldi
05-10-2011, 02:11 PM
Ano one knows if the Sox are really just this bad

Just to nitpick for a sec, I think we all know the answer to this question is a resounding no. We were what? 11- 22? There's no way in the world that a team with this much talent could end up 54-108.

Anyway, I agree with you 100%, there is no definitive answer to the question. I just think that our bad start has fanned the flames and has brought out more than a few knee-jerk posts. Patience is not in the official Webster's White Sox Fan Dictionary.

doublem23
05-10-2011, 02:38 PM
Just to nitpick for a sec, I think we all know the answer to this question is a resounding no. We were what? 11- 22? There's no way in the world that a team with this much talent could end up 54-108.

Anyway, I agree with you 100%, there is no definitive answer to the question. I just think that our bad start has fanned the flames and has brought out more than a few knee-jerk posts. Patience is not in the official Webster's White Sox Fan Dictionary.

OK, well I agree the Sox are not a 54-win team, but I think that's just splitting hairs. Is 70 wins really that big of an improvement? 75? Where is the line in the sand between "bad" and "good?"

At any rate, I think a lot of people have been patient with Ozzie, KW, etc. Since winning the World Series, the Sox have won 1 play-off game and have had losing seasons 2 of the last 5 years, possibly en route to 3 of 6. Considering the financial advantages this team should have over its division, I think that's not cutting it. I think people went berserk when this team started so ****ty because JR opened up his wallet, spent lavishly on veteran talent, and it's the same old, same old.

rdivaldi
05-10-2011, 02:58 PM
OK, well I agree the Sox are not a 54-win team, but I think that's just splitting hairs. Is 70 wins really that big of an improvement? 75? Where is the line in the sand between "bad" and "good?"

Splitting hairs and nitpicking, yes. Guilty as charged.

70, 75, 80, 85 wins are not acceptable for this team in my book. We should set the bar at 89 and go from there. There's too much talent on this team.

Golden Sox
05-13-2011, 08:15 AM
The White Sox have now won there last two series. The bad times are over. The White Sox are coming, tra la, tra la.

russ99
05-13-2011, 09:41 AM
Splitting hairs and nitpicking, yes. Guilty as charged.

70, 75, 80, 85 wins are not acceptable for this team in my book. We should set the bar at 89 and go from there. There's too much talent on this team.

For the last 5 years only the Red Sox, Angels, Yankees and Phillies have averaged 89 wins or more.

While I can understand the wish to be among the best, averaging 89 wins is not a realistic baseline.

BringHomeDaBacon
05-13-2011, 10:02 AM
For the last 5 years only the Red Sox, Angels, Yankees and Phillies have averaged 89 wins or more.

While I can understand the wish to be among the best, averaging 89 wins is not a realistic baseline.

He said we should set the bar at 89 for THIS team. No one said anything about averaging 89 wins.

Considering all rah rah about being "All IN" and the hefty payroll that is plenty realistic. In fact, it's probably low.

kittle42
05-13-2011, 10:16 AM
For the last 5 years only the Red Sox, Angels, Yankees and Phillies have averaged 89 wins or more.

While I can understand the wish to be among the best, averaging 89 wins is not a realistic baseline.

But I would think any team being managed by Ozzie Guillen should expect at least 90 wins a season.

NLaloosh
05-13-2011, 05:02 PM
The worst would be the Sox being tied for the divison lead in mid-July which would trigger Kenny's subconcious into trading the last 2 or 3 half way decent prospects the Sox have for another over the hill former star or two just so that the Sox can finish 3 games back.