PDA

View Full Version : *Official* 6-29 Better lucky than good; Mile High Club SOX 3, ROX 2 Postgamer


Frater Perdurabo
06-29-2011, 10:04 PM
It's about time...

DSpivack
06-29-2011, 10:05 PM
Pretty quick game, too, at just under 2 1/2 hours.

WhiteSox5187
06-29-2011, 10:05 PM
It was an ugly win but I am not going to get nit picky about wins.

chisox12
06-29-2011, 10:06 PM
It's about time we catch a ****ing break. Let's get a series win tomorrow!

Tragg
06-29-2011, 10:06 PM
Thank you AJ.

billyvsox
06-29-2011, 10:06 PM
It's scary to think this team is only 4 games out to a sliding Indians team and a tiger team that has no pitching besides Verlander. The divison is right there for the taking.

As bad as the Sox have played....still alive

soxnut1018
06-29-2011, 10:07 PM
Never in doubt...

ChiSoxGal85
06-29-2011, 10:07 PM
Not pretty but I'll take it...best game moment was Buehrle's double and immediate pick-off at 2nd. :rolling:

Frater Perdurabo
06-29-2011, 10:07 PM
It's scary to think this team is only 4 games out to a sliding Indians team and a tiger team that has no pitching besides Verlander. The divison is right there for the taking.

As bad as the Sox have played....still alive

Does 83 wins take the division?

GlassSox
06-29-2011, 10:08 PM
Finally we squeak one out. :D:

I loved Mark's double and then him getting picked off was funny.

JB98
06-29-2011, 10:08 PM
Pitchers are continuing to do their jobs. With 48 quality starts and the way the bullpen has settled in, the team should have a better record than it does.

We still have numerous position players who need to get their **** together, but it's nice to get a win tonight -- especially with Detroit taking a vicious pounding at the hands of the Mets.

Crooked Number
06-29-2011, 10:09 PM
More first place pitching. This staff and bullpen is outstanding. Sox win this game on an absolute gift, usually the Sox are the ones handing them out. The baseball karma has rewarded them.

If the offense can somehow, somehow wake up and start scoring some god damn runs they could make some noise.

Does that sound familiar? Broken freakin' record. I honestly don't see it happening, but the law of averages says the offense should even out at some point. Hopefully that point isnt spring 2012. Win the series tomorrow and then feast on the loveables at the dirty confines.

Zakath
06-29-2011, 10:09 PM
Pretty quick game, too, at just under 2 1/2 hours.

The Buehrle Factor.

Two mistakes by him tonight that could have been costly. The hanger to Wigginton and the missed pick-off. But, he pitched around the second one, and the baseball gods decided not to punish us again by making us strand runners at the corners with no out in the ninth.

Cox took a gamble and it paid off.

Hendu
06-29-2011, 10:11 PM
Not pretty but we'll take it...this one had extras (again) written all over it, and it had failing (again) with a runner at third with fewer than two outs written all over it. Just glad I can go to bed not feeling ticked off, unlike last night. Whew.

johnnyg83
06-29-2011, 10:13 PM
Pitchers are continuing to do their jobs. With 48 quality starts and the way the bullpen has settled in, the team should have a better record than it does.

We still have numerous position players who need to get their **** together, but it's nice to get a win tonight -- especially with Detroit taking a vicious pounding at the hands of the Mets.

Do we really have 48 quality starts? Mercy. With only 39 wins, that's sad.

soltrain21
06-29-2011, 10:13 PM
Take it however the hell you can get it.

ElevenUp
06-29-2011, 10:14 PM
I have a feeling that if this team can just get a big blowout win that they are going to go on a roll. Just keep in contention and they eventually have to start hitting.

russ99
06-29-2011, 10:14 PM
Good deal, a win's a win. Let's get these guys tomorrow.

JB98
06-29-2011, 10:16 PM
Do we really have 48 quality starts? Mercy. With only 39 wins, that's sad.

We do have 48 quality starts, and we are 28-20 in those contests.

The Sox must do better than that. The quality starts are the ones you're supposed to win.

kittle42
06-29-2011, 10:16 PM
The 2006 St. Louis Cardinals were strangely the worst thing to ever happen to the White Sox organizational philosophy.

JermaineDye05
06-29-2011, 10:20 PM
Sox win, but once again the box score doesn't really raise my confidence in this team. Offense still blows.

I was gonna say that Juan had another good game, but then I see that along with his 1-3 with a run scored, he ran into another out.

Dayan in a week I presume.

FielderJones
06-29-2011, 10:21 PM
I've been looking at the sac fly replay. Carlos looks to be about 10 feet from the catcher when the ball short-hops him. If the throw had been on the fly I think the catcher would have had less than a second to brace himself, and Carlos was barreling in. As it is, seeing Carlos coming down the line may have divided the catcher's attention. Good gamble by Cox.

WhiteSoxOnly
06-29-2011, 10:24 PM
Take it however the hell you can get it.

Indeed brother,indeed.Let's hear it for winning butt ugly.
The pitching excepted of course.:redneck

Foulke You
06-29-2011, 10:24 PM
Good gamble by Cox.
It was an excellent choice. I was yelling at my TV "SEND HIM!!" This team is so awful in RISP situations, when you have a chance to score the run you have to take it. They rolled the dice and it paid off with the bad throw. Cox hasn't made many mistakes as a 3B coach in his career on the Sox.

DickAllen72
06-29-2011, 10:26 PM
Thank you AJ.
AJ with the big clutch double and then of course the shallow sac fly to win the game.

The rest of the offense once again however.....Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

We need another run producer to bat behind Paulie.

voodoochile
06-29-2011, 10:26 PM
I guess I'm confused - and I admit to being guilty of this too, but...

How come last night when the Sox lose on a hustle play compounded by an off center throw and a bad hop it's cuz we suck but when we win tonight, it's just pure luck? :scratch:

Call it what you want, it's just baseball. Sometimes when you push the envelope good things happen and tonight was a great time to take a chance.

Watch the replay Carlos was getting ready to unload on the Rockies' catcher until the ball bounced away. He was gonna lay him out too.

Santos looking more and more confident and that's huge.

3 games under 4 games back...

:soxwin:

:)

:supernana:

arKnaD7
06-29-2011, 10:27 PM
Santos, Crain, Thornton, and Sale have been unbelievable the last 2 weeks.

By my count they have only given up 3 earned runs since June 15.

CLUBHOUSE KID
06-29-2011, 10:27 PM
Sox won but I really hope people aren't going nuts over this one game.

hawkjt
06-29-2011, 10:27 PM
Sox win, but once again the box score doesn't really raise my confidence in this team. Offense still blows.

I was gonna say that Juan had another good game, but then I see that along with his 1-3 with a run scored, he ran into another out.

Dayan in a week I presume.

Juan was cheated out of another hit by the official scorer. Was on base three times again tonite...that is 6 times in two games,and on this pathetic offensive team that means he must be released immediately?

Right now, Juan is a better offensive player than Morel,Alexei,Dunn,Rios,Beckham,Omar,and Teahen,but by all means release him immediately?
Juan has hit .316 in the second half career-wise. For him, the second half started last nite and he is hitting .450 so far. Yea,release his butt immediately! This team has so many guys hitting better,they have weapons coming outta their butts....rightttt!

fram40
06-29-2011, 10:27 PM
I've been looking at the sac fly replay. Carlos looks to be about 10 feet from the catcher when the ball short-hops him. If the throw had been on the fly I think the catcher would have had less than a second to brace himself, and Carlos was barreling in. As it is, seeing Carlos coming down the line may have divided the catcher's attention. Good gamble by Cox.

what did Cox have to lose? Rios ain't gonna get a hit and a wild pitch is unlikely. The only chance they had was to force the Rockies to make a play - a pretty simple play - and hope they failed.

It is amazing how often major leaguers fail to execute simple plays. It's not just the White Sox who cannot execute

JermaineDye05
06-29-2011, 10:28 PM
I guess I'm confused - and I admit to being guilty of this too, but...

How come last night when the Sox lose on a hustle play compounded by an off center throw and a bad hop it's cuz we suck but when we win tonight, it's just pure luck? :scratch:




Well, I think the majority of the frustration from last night wasn't simply on the Lillibridge play, but the Sox inability to score.

Hearing about the play, and looking at the box score, it sounds like the Sox were once again pretty poor at bringing runners in and the final run in the 9th was pretty much a gift.

thomas35forever
06-29-2011, 10:29 PM
Nice to pull a win out of nowhere. Can we have more of those?

Irishsox1
06-29-2011, 10:30 PM
This offense is just horrible. The good news is the Rios-O-Meter is all the way up to .218!

voodoochile
06-29-2011, 10:31 PM
Well, I think the majority of the frustration from last night wasn't simply on the Lillibridge play, but the Sox inability to score.

Hearing about the play, and looking at the box score, it sounds like the Sox were once again pretty poor at bringing runners in and the final run in the 9th was pretty much a gift.

Sox score three runs on 6 hits and 2 walks. I think they did just fine getting guys home.

And if you argue that tonight's win was a gift than last night's loss was one too. Sounds like things balanced.

Noneck
06-29-2011, 10:31 PM
but the Sox inability to score.

That has been the majority of beefs for the whole season. The other problems are a minority view.

GlassSox
06-29-2011, 10:33 PM
Sox score three runs on 6 hits and 2 walks. I think they did just fine getting guys home.

And if you argue that tonight's win was a gift than last night's loss was one too. Sounds like things balanced.

:thumbsup:

hawkjt
06-29-2011, 10:35 PM
I am starting to think that Alex needs glasses or something...his breaks off the flyballs are really bad,and of course, he hits like he is blind.
Luckily he did recover on a couple of them to make nice catches...or is it something with the background at Coors...Lilly had the same problems last nite it seemed.

Coxie read the situation...we had to give it a shot,and Carlos was looking very linebackerish coming down that line.
MB had another very good outing,and showed up half the team at the plate...''see guys,it really aint that hard,see ball,hit ball''.

Gordo is struggling at the plate but his defense has been awesome...Garfein just said he is tied for best fielding percentage in MLB at second.

PK is our salvation at the plate,if he does not hit,no one does,it seems.
Juan has been on base 6 of 10 appearances in Colorado...nice.

JermaineDye05
06-29-2011, 10:35 PM
Sox score three runs on 6 hits and 2 walks. I think they did just fine getting guys home.



That line really doesn't impress me.

They got the guys in tonight, but you can still see the offense is struggling.

Frater Perdurabo
06-29-2011, 10:36 PM
Voodoo:

The Sox are a poor hitting team. They got lucky tonight that the Rox RF made a bad throw. The Rox got lucky last night when Ozzie benched Rios and Lillibridge made a bad throw.

Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. I wish our lineup was both.

Zakath
06-29-2011, 10:36 PM
Santos, Crain, Thornton, and Sale have been unbelievable the last 2 weeks.

By my count they have only given up 3 earned runs since June 15.

And all of them were in the same game - the June 24 extra-inning loss to the Nasty Nats.

Thornton hasn't given up an earned run since June 3.

tstrike2000
06-29-2011, 10:38 PM
Huge break. Whatever the case, we won. Please score more than 3 runs tomorrow.

Zakath
06-29-2011, 10:38 PM
Huge break. Whatever the case, we won. Please score more than 3 runs tomorrow.

We might need to sacrifice some live animals for that.

MtGrnwdSoxFan
06-29-2011, 10:39 PM
Thank God the Sox won!

Now let's go for the series win tomorrow. Baby steps, boys.

kittle42
06-29-2011, 10:39 PM
I guess I'm confused - and I admit to being guilty of this too, but...

How come last night when the Sox lose on a hustle play compounded by an off center throw and a bad hop it's cuz we suck but when we win tonight, it's just pure luck? :scratch:


3 games under 4 games back...

It's a .500 team that can't even reach .500.

I refuse to get excited about wins when the problems that have caused the maddening losses and lack of winning streaks are still horribly, horribly evident. I also refuse to get upset about the losses for the same reason. They are just absolutely mediocre. I have never been more ambivalent about an entire (well, minus the first two or three weeks) Sox season before.

JermaineDye05
06-29-2011, 10:45 PM
Baby steps, boys.


The theme for the 2011 season.-

GlassSox
06-29-2011, 10:45 PM
Hell I'm excited, 1 in a row and I love winning streaks. :cool:

tstrike2000
06-29-2011, 10:46 PM
I'm just wondering how long we're going to have to see the Sox stay at 3 or 4 games below .500.

Frankfan4life
06-29-2011, 10:46 PM
Unfortunately, the Sox are still struggling to score runs in the late innings. I'm glad they pulled this one out. I don't think I could have taken another loss.

TDog
06-29-2011, 10:47 PM
Does 83 wins take the division?

I'm not sure it will take a .500 record to win the AL Central. Perhaps four teams are capable of finishing above .500. Probaby two should finish above .500, but all five teams in the division have enough issues that they may not have it in them this year.

The White Sox have some pretty good pitching. Justin Verlander is having a Cy Young season, but the White Sox have the best rotation up and down in the division, even when someone has to go on the disabled list, although it forces the Sox into a five-man rotation. The bullpen is shaping up well. Santos is back to being nasty after a blown save and making people nervous his next time out. The White Sox are in the race. Their proximity to .500 is irrelevant. And strong pitching can carry a team in the postseason, regardless of their record.

Tonight, the Rockies lost by one run, despite failing to bring a runner in from third with less than two outs in three innings. The Sox put one runner on third with less than two outs and scored him. That was the difference in the game. The White Sox forcing the rightfielder to throw out Quentin at the plate was the difference in the game. And it wasn't that different from the difference in Tuesday night's game when the Rockies forced the issue in extra innings and Quentin hit into a double play with the bases loaded with the score tied earlier in the night.

Tonight's game was a great game. Some very good pitching. Some very good defense and enough hitting to win.

One thing of interest in this series. Every time the pitcher's spot comes up for the White Sox in a pinch hitting situation, the Rockies have a left-handed pitcher on the mound, negating the possibility of an Adam Dunn pinch-hitting appearance.

The White Sox are hitting .333 with runners in scoring position in this series. They were 2-for-7 Tuesday night and 2-for-5 tonight. That is 4-for-12 in the series. No one had a chance to drive in Mark Buehrle from second. How ironic that Mark Buehrle of all people should be picked off. The Rockies were 1-for-7 with runner in scoring position Tuesday night and 0-for-6 tonight, totalling 1-for-13 in the series.

kevingrt
06-29-2011, 10:51 PM
Sergio Santos slider can be straight up disgusting at times. Yeesh.

Lip Man 1
06-29-2011, 10:55 PM
As JB said 48 quality starts, a tremendous stat...unfortunately balanced out by the fact that tonight was the 40th game out of 81 played the Sox have scored three runs or less.

That's 49.3% for those of you scoring at home.

Yikes.

:o:

You take the win but as always you wonder... the division is right there for the taking, just grab it. This club simply can't hit though and shows very little in the way of breaking out of it.

Also this is the 4th game in a row and 5th in the last seven the Sox have scored three runs or less...the offense looks to be going into a funk again...well a bigger one anyway. :D:

Maybe the Cubs will snap them out of it.

Lip

manders_01
06-29-2011, 11:06 PM
Pretty quick game, too, at just under 2 1/2 hours.

That was nice but it would be really great if tomorrow's was a quick one.

AJ with the big clutch double and then of course the shallow sac fly to win the game.

The rest of the offense once again however.....Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

We need another run producer to bat behind Paulie.

That's cause I wore my AJ shirt! :cool:

---

While I love being at the game, I definitely see more of it when I'm watching at home. Hopefully the good seats tomorrow will keep my butt in them paying more attention. :D:

Take this series tomorrow boys!!! :bandance:

SoxSpeed22
06-29-2011, 11:10 PM
I'll admit that when Buehrle threw that pickoff throw away, I was sure we were going to lose again, but alls well that ends well. Another shot to take a series.

TDog
06-29-2011, 11:12 PM
As JB said 48 quality starts, a tremendous stat...unfortunately balanced out by the fact that tonight was the 40th game out of 81 played the Sox have scored three runs or less.

That's 49.3% for those of you scoring at home.

Yikes.

:o:

You take the win but as always you wonder... the division is right there for the taking, just grab it. This club simply can't hit though and shows very little in the way of breaking out of it.

Also this is the 4th game in a row and 5th in the last seven the Sox have scored three runs or less...the offense looks to be going into a funk again...well a bigger one anyway. :D:

Maybe the Cubs will snap them out of it.

Lip

You must have really hated the '60s.

FielderJones
06-29-2011, 11:31 PM
You must have really hated the '60s.

The 1906 team was probably as run-challenged as this one, but at least those guys could bunt, steal, and hit-and-run.

soltrain21
06-29-2011, 11:33 PM
The 1906 team was probably as run-challenged as this one, but at least those guys could bunt, steal, and hit-and-run.

Are we really trying to compare baseball teams that existed over 100 years apart?

hi im skot
06-29-2011, 11:36 PM
Are we really trying to compare baseball teams that existed over 100 years apart?

You mean you haven't seen the 1906 Hitless Wonders highlight DVD?

SoxSpeed22
06-29-2011, 11:46 PM
In those days, 2-1, 3-2 games were pretty common as part of the dead ball era. The ball is wound up so that it can get hit harder and further for more runs.

voodoochile
06-29-2011, 11:59 PM
It's a .500 team that can't even reach .500.

I refuse to get excited about wins when the problems that have caused the maddening losses and lack of winning streaks are still horribly, horribly evident. I also refuse to get upset about the losses for the same reason. They are just absolutely mediocre. I have never been more ambivalent about an entire (well, minus the first two or three weeks) Sox season before.

With apologies to Sigmund Freud: Sometimes a win is just a win. Why does it all need to be analyzed to death. Be happy. Your team won a game tonight...:D:

Lip Man 1
06-30-2011, 12:04 AM
T-Dog:

I LOVED the 60's because even though I knew the Sox weren't going to score a lot of runs they were going to win a lot of games.

They had the best overall pitching in the A.L. particularly from 1963 through 1967. Won the ERA title three years, missed the 4th by less than one percentage point behind Baltimore.

They had an air-tight defense, a lights out bullpen, and could run. Plus with Lopez and Stanky they didn't put up with any bull****. You can't get a guy home from 3rd with less than two out?...you sit...can't drop down a bunt?...you sit...can't execute a hit and run?...you sit.

They knew how to play the game the way it's supposed to be played.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=14&id=2241

FREE NATE SCHIERHOLTZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !


Lip

BainesHOF
06-30-2011, 12:19 AM
Right now, Juan is a better offensive player than Morel,Alexei,Dunn,Rios,Beckham,Omar,and Teahen,but by all means release him immediately?
Juan has hit .316 in the second half career-wise. For him, the second half started last nite and he is hitting .450 so far.

Oh my.

Moving along...nice decision by Jeff Cox. In normal circumstances it would have been stupid to send Quentin, but our offense is so bad that it was actually worth the gamble.

This place can be unintentionally funny. We win one game and all of a sudden a lot of people feel so much better about the team? Really? This team isn't going to do jack with such poor offense and managing/coaching. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see how this team is going to start suddenly playing better out of the blue. Until some changes are made, the team isn't going anywhere. That's unfortunate considering the quality of the pitching.

To summarize where we're at right now, a left fielder is starting and leading off when statistically he's one of the worst players in baseball, the DH is the worst in the league and might set an all-time strikeout record, the center fielder is lost, the third baseman hits for no power whatsoever and the second baseman can't hit. Oh yeah, the catcher can't throw anyone out. I'll stop there.

I'm all for enjoying wins as a fan, but I'm not sure how some of you can act like all of the serious problems don't exist when discussing the team.

Soxfest
06-30-2011, 12:43 AM
Nice to give a closer the loss on the other team.

Tragg
06-30-2011, 12:52 AM
I just watched the Sac fly....wow, he should have been ought by 12 feet. But, make them make a play and they didn't.

captain54
06-30-2011, 01:57 AM
This place can be unintentionally funny. We win one game and all of a sudden a lot of people feel so much better about the team?.

Bill Melton on the Comcast post-game, that its nice to have a win under your belt and some great pitching, but you have to keep in mind that the Sox don't really play well after the All Star Break, and haven't for years now.

Its been mentioned that 83 wins could take the division. To get there, the Sox would have to play 7 games over .500 for the remaining 81, where they've played 3 under for the first 81. Cleveland and Detroit would have to play just under .500 for the remainder for the Sox then, to overtake them.

The Sox schedule gets tougher, but yes, they do have a lot of games left in their division, where they do not have a good record, with the exception of Cleveland. Can the pitching stay consistently good and the offense wake up from the funk other than Konerko? I'd be willing to say that even the most die-hard optimists would be hard pressed to put their hard earned money down on that wager.

TDog
06-30-2011, 02:46 AM
Bill Melton on the Comcast post-game, that its nice to have a win under your belt and some great pitching, but you have to keep in mind that the Sox don't really play well after the All Star Break, and haven't for years now. ...

Except for 1983, and perhaps 1972 and maybe a couple of years when the Sox were so far out of the race that it didn't matter, that has always been the pattern. Even in 1977, the Sox were a bad team after the break. The fact that they had no pitching and weren't terribly good at defense caught up to them.

But I wonder how the six-man rotation will affect the second half of this season. The starters are getting fewer starts. Even a couple of non-arm injuries have cut some of the starters' innings. It is an interesting dynamic because the starters are not just working on more rest, but they are going a little deeper into games, forcing less work from the bullpen than in recent years. Guillen seems to rarely warm up pitchers he doesn't bring into the game. Last year's August problems involved an overworked bullpen and starters who couldn't go deep into games.

The way Guillen is handling his pitching this year seems different from the way he has handled his pitching in the past. I don't believe you can assume the Sox will run into the same second-half problems they have in the past.

PeteWard
06-30-2011, 04:02 AM
.

But I wonder how the six-man rotation will affect the second half of this season. The starters are getting fewer starts. Even a couple of non-arm injuries have cut some of the starters' innings. It is an interesting dynamic because the starters are not just working on more rest, but they are going a little deeper into games, forcing less work from the bullpen than in recent years.


Plus most of the Sox hitters should be fresher after not having to run the bases during the first half.

Frater Perdurabo
06-30-2011, 05:37 AM
Plus most of the Sox hitters should be fresher after not having to run the bases during the first half.

Exactly. And stepping on the plate while running is hard on the ankle and knee.

doublem23
06-30-2011, 05:55 AM
It's scary to think this team is only 4 games out to a sliding Indians team and a tiger team that has no pitching besides Verlander. The divison is right there for the taking.

As bad as the Sox have played....still alive

I know people demand perfection at every second of the day, but really, when you look at how the Sox are performing compared to the rest of the American League, they haven't been terrible... Not good, not bad, just OK. That's why they've been hanging around .500 for so long.

Zakath
06-30-2011, 06:02 AM
In those days, 2-1, 3-2 games were pretty common as part of the dead ball era. The ball is wound up so that it can get hit harder and further for more runs.

You'd be surprised. Not as many 2-1, 3-2 games as you think there were.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teamstats/schedule.php?y=1906&t=CHA

BTW, that team had an even or winning record against everyone in the AL, and went 21-4 in August.

TommyJohn
06-30-2011, 06:17 AM
Are we really trying to compare baseball teams that existed over 100 years apart?

Yes.

LITTLE NELL
06-30-2011, 06:18 AM
T-Dog:

I LOVED the 60's because even though I knew the Sox weren't going to score a lot of runs they were going to win a lot of games.

They had the best overall pitching in the A.L. particularly from 1963 through 1967. Won the ERA title three years, missed the 4th by less than one percentage point behind Baltimore.

They had an air-tight defense, a lights out bullpen, and could run. Plus with Lopez and Stanky they didn't put up with any bull****. You can't get a guy home from 3rd with less than two out?...you sit...can't drop down a bunt?...you sit...can't execute a hit and run?...you sit.

They knew how to play the game the way it's supposed to be played.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=14&id=2241

FREE NATE SCHIERHOLTZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !


Lip

Lip, could not have said it better myself. We had 17 straight winning years because those guys knew how to play the game. Some pretty good managers starting with Richards then Marion, Lopez and Stanky.
I know Ozzie would love to have a team like those guys from the 50s and 60s but when we bring a player up from the minors he usually can't bunt, doesn't work the count, doesn't move runners over and never hits to the opposite field. You wonder what what they teach in the Sox minor league system. Pierre is the only guy who does all those things. The bad news is my little league grandson is a better fielder and hitter than Pierre. Beckham in his first year did all that and what happenned to him, I don't know. Morel looks like he knows how to do the little things but I expected a little more power from him. PK knows what to do depending on the situation.
Anyway, as bad has this team has been the first half, we are still in it and a nice winning streak probably puts on in first place.

kravdog
06-30-2011, 07:00 AM
Juan was cheated out of another hit by the official scorer. Was on base three times again tonite...that is 6 times in two games,and on this pathetic offensive team that means he must be released immediately?

Right now, Juan is a better offensive player than Morel,Alexei,Dunn,Rios,Beckham,Omar,and Teahen,but by all means release him immediately?
Juan has hit .316 in the second half career-wise. For him, the second half started last nite and he is hitting .450 so far. Yea,release his butt immediately! This team has so many guys hitting better,they have weapons coming outta their butts....rightttt!

Settle down, Ozzie :D:

TomBradley72
06-30-2011, 07:21 AM
Juan was cheated out of another hit by the official scorer. Was on base three times again tonite...that is 6 times in two games,and on this pathetic offensive team that means he must be released immediately?

Right now, Juan is a better offensive player than Morel,Alexei,Dunn,Rios,Beckham,Omar,and Teahen,but by all means release him immediately?
Juan has hit .316 in the second half career-wise. For him, the second half started last nite and he is hitting .450 so far. Yea,release his butt immediately! This team has so many guys hitting better,they have weapons coming outta their butts....rightttt!

Over his past 10 games- Juan us hitting .244, with zero stolen bases- a true juggernaut.

harwar
06-30-2011, 07:23 AM
I think that all of this season's anger and frustration were coming down the line with Carlos .. maybe Iannetta is lucky that the ball short-hopped ..

doublem23
06-30-2011, 08:04 AM
T-Dog:

I LOVED the 60's because even though I knew the Sox weren't going to score a lot of runs they were going to win a lot of games.

They had the best overall pitching in the A.L. particularly from 1963 through 1967. Won the ERA title three years, missed the 4th by less than one percentage point behind Baltimore.

They had an air-tight defense, a lights out bullpen, and could run. Plus with Lopez and Stanky they didn't put up with any bull****. You can't get a guy home from 3rd with less than two out?...you sit...can't drop down a bunt?...you sit...can't execute a hit and run?...you sit.

They knew how to play the game the way it's supposed to be played.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=14&id=2241

FREE NATE SCHIERHOLTZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !


Lip

So I guess all the trophies from the 60s were just out for cleaning the last time I was at the park... Or were they destroyed in the Great White Sox Trophy Fire? I forget.

Yeah! Eddie Stanky! Best manager in baseball history*!

* Does not include any manager who has finished higher than 3rd place at least one time in their career

slavko
06-30-2011, 08:05 AM
I think that all of this season's anger and frustration were coming down the line with Carlos .. maybe Iannetta is lucky that the ball short-hopped ..



You're all hoping that DLCarlos crashes into a catcher? Think!

Chez
06-30-2011, 08:21 AM
Two late-inning stellar defensive plays were huge: (1) the double-play started by Gordon to get out of the 8th and (2) the catch by Alex Rios on a sinking liner leading off the 9th. Beckham has played a great second base this year.

We've got to start hitting sometime, don't we? How about today and then continue into the weekend on the north side. I'd like to see Ozzie give Teahen a start at 3B today.

Sox
06-30-2011, 08:24 AM
Huge break. Whatever the case, we won. Please score more than 3 runs tomorrow.

:thumbsup::gosox:

LITTLE NELL
06-30-2011, 10:10 AM
Huge break. Whatever the case, we won. Please score more than 3 runs tomorrow.

Don't bet on it. Starting with the 2 game sweep by the Twins in mid June we have averaged 3.07 runs a game. 40 runs in 13 games, not exactly the 1927 Yankees.

tstrike2000
06-30-2011, 10:13 AM
Don't bet on it. Starting with the 2 game sweep by the Twins in mid June we have averaged 3.07 runs a game. 40 runs in 13 games, not exactly the 1927 Yankees.

If only we had a stud DH. Where could he be, he's hiding in there somewhere, behind a multitude of strikeouts.

bluedemon45
06-30-2011, 10:51 AM
Don't bet on it. Starting with the 2 game sweep by the Twins in mid June we have averaged 3.07 runs a game. 40 runs in 13 games, not exactly the 1927 Yankees.

I knew it was a low number but didn't think it was that low.

Glad we got the W last night, lets take care of business this afternoon.

Lip Man 1
06-30-2011, 11:07 AM
Double:

Never said he was "the best manager in history" and you know it. As Daver often says, please don't put words in my mouth. He was a good manager by my count and was very good according to a lot of the guys who, you know, actually PLAYED for him.

Sox didn't and haven't exactly torn up the time period since you've been around either. (I know they won a World Series in 2005 - and I was happy to be around for it, it doesn't happen often here...)

Lip

khan
06-30-2011, 11:28 AM
I'm not sure it will take a .500 record to win the AL Central. Perhaps four teams are capable of finishing above .500. Probaby two should finish above .500, but all five teams in the division have enough issues that they may not have it in them this year.

The White Sox have some pretty good pitching. Justin Verlander is having a Cy Young season, but the White Sox have the best rotation up and down in the division, even when someone has to go on the disabled list, although it forces the Sox into a five-man rotation. The bullpen is shaping up well. Santos is back to being nasty after a blown save and making people nervous his next time out. The White Sox are in the race. Their proximity to .500 is irrelevant. And strong pitching can carry a team in the postseason, regardless of their record.
It's nice to have a good pitching staff. But given the amount of money invested into that part of the team, one should anticipate good performance out of them.

That said, "just" having a nice pitching is not enough to get into the playoffs, and then WIN in the playoffs. NOT when your team gives up what looks like opportune times to make hay vs. mediocre or weakened competition. NOT when your team has a sub-.500 record at home. NOT when your team becomes a pile of surrender monkeys to the rest of the ALC. NOT when your team scores 3 runs or less in half their games.

And now, NOT when the consistency of effort appears to be lacking.

PlayOFFS? PLAYoffs? Many here mock the twins for their less-than-stellar postseason record, and here we are as a fandom, clinging to some remote postseason possibility with a sub-.500 team.

khan
06-30-2011, 11:34 AM
So I guess all the trophies from the 60s were just out for cleaning the last time I was at the park... Or were they destroyed in the Great White Sox Trophy Fire? I forget.

Yeah! Eddie Stanky! Best manager in baseball history*!

* Does not include any manager who has finished higher than 3rd place at least one time in their career

Don't you know? The old-timers are always right:

Years ago, every player knew ALL the fundamentals. None of them ever made an error in the field or running the bases. They all worked the count, and always made the right decisions at all times.

Pitchers always went 9 innings, and they all pitched every 2 days. Every pitcher also hit for themselves, and they always amassed a .900 slg% and a .400 BA.

And the SOX won 25 World series championships in a row.


Nowadays? Bah! The good old days were always better than today.

kittle42
06-30-2011, 11:36 AM
PlayOFFS? PLAYoffs? Many here mock the twins for their less-than-stellar postseason record, and here we are as a fandom, clinging to some remote postseason possibility with a sub-.500 team.

10000000% agree.

Lip Man 1
06-30-2011, 11:38 AM
From a historical standpoint at least in what is considered the "modern era" of baseball (post 1900) no league or division has ever been "won" by a team with a record under .500.

It would be unprecedented.

The closest it came to happening was in 1994 when the A.L. West was so bad the Rangers (the White Sox probable 1st round opponent had they played a post season) were leading at the time of the labor shutdown with a record 10 games under .500.

Pretty doubtful they would have been able to make that up in six weeks.

I think the Mets have the worst record to ever 'win' a division and make the postseason when they won 83 games in 1973. I think St. Louis had 84 wins in 2006 when they went on to win the World Series.

Lip

soltrain21
06-30-2011, 11:38 AM
Double:

Never said he was "the best manager in history" and you know it. As Daver often says, please don't put words in my mouth. He was a good manager by my count and was very good according to a lot of the guys who, you know, actually PLAYED for him.

Sox didn't and haven't exactly torn up the time period since you've been around either. (I know they won a World Series in 2005 - and I was happy to be around for it, it doesn't happen often here...)

Lip

How many people are going to actually badmouth a former manager? It's just bad form to do that.

Lip Man 1
06-30-2011, 11:43 AM
Khan:

You making this a generational issue now? Please stop with the hyperbole...you know EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make...you're a smart individual.

You want to disagree with my position, fine...let's talk about it. Mocking it does nothing but weaken your views whatever they may be.

I've refrained from making any comments about your stat-first / computer mentally of baseball.

You can do me some courtesy in at least trying to respect my opiniuon.

Lip

Lip Man 1
06-30-2011, 11:45 AM
Soul:

We'll Ed Herrmann did it in his interview....I'd assume that 40 years after the fact and with Eddie dead that they'd say what they really felt.

There would be no reprocussions either way.

Like I said originally when this came up last week, some hated him, some loved him but everyone I spoke with said he was a very sharp manager.

Lip

hawkjt
06-30-2011, 11:45 AM
Over his past 10 games- Juan us hitting .244, with zero stolen bases- a true juggernaut.

What were any of those guys hitting over the same period? Alexei is 5 for his last 37 at bats,for instance.

All I am saying is that Juan has been on base 6 of 10 plate appearances in Colorado,and yet we still have fans singling him out after last nites win as the problem with the offense. He has done his job this week,and the rest? Not so much.

khan
06-30-2011, 11:50 AM
Khan:

You making this a generational issue now? Please stop with the hyperbole...you know EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make...you're a smart individual.

You want to disagree with my position, fine...let's talk about it. Mocking it does nothing but weaken your views whatever they may be.

I've refrained from making any comments about your stat-first / computer mentally of baseball.

You can do me some courtesy in at least trying to respect my opiniuon.

Lip
Lip, I do respect your opinion, but I do find it hillarious that old timers romanticize a team that won exactly jack and **** in the '60s.

Hell, SOX fans, both young and old, mock old timer scrubs fans that wax poetic about their 1969 team that won exactly jack and ****. [Overall, I'm meaning it to be a bit of fun for us to recognize this.]

All posters, both young and old, can be subject to hyperbole. The "good old days" weren't so good. It wasn't always a 2-1 scoreline back in the '60s. Players didn't always do the right thing, on or off the field.

So too is it hyperbolic to default to always defend this team, the players, the coaching staff, and the front office post-2005. The record of achievement since then speaks for itself.


We all look back fondly at our youth, and defend everything from "back then" as a proxy to defend ourselves from "back then." However, when we look back at the record objectively, it isn't always the case that it was always better in the "good old days."

Lip Man 1
06-30-2011, 11:59 AM
Khan:

Not saying it was or is. The record speaks for itself though doesn't it? You're a stat guy so you'll appreciate this.

*17 straight winning seasons (Eight straight in the 60's)
*Sox AVERAGED 95 wins a year between 63 and 65 (pretty good no?)
*They came closer than anytime to winning pennants in 64 and 67
(without actually winning one since there wasn't a playoff system)
*Had 21 players make the All Star Team that decade (28 total number and
this was before it was a popularity contest)

Yes they didn't win any championships but from a consistently good standpoint, that decade wasn't bad by any stretch. If the ultimate judge of whether a time period is 'good' or not is simply number of championshipos, than the Sox have had only three good decades in over 100 years...and you know that's not the case either.

Lip

SI1020
06-30-2011, 12:04 PM
Don't you know? The old-timers are always right:

Years ago, every player knew ALL the fundamentals. None of them ever made an error in the field or running the bases. They all worked the count, and always made the right decisions at all times.

Pitchers always went 9 innings, and they all pitched every 2 days. Every pitcher also hit for themselves, and they always amassed a .900 slg% and a .400 BA.

And the SOX won 25 World series championships in a row.


Nowadays? Bah! The good old days were always better than today. All you've proved is that humor is definitely lacking these days. I should probably know better, these old timer versus young blood arguments are so devoid of intellectual content. Anyway, back in the days when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, kids played freely when they weren't subjected to second hand smoke, and guys like Al Lopez and Eddie Stanky managed, players did seem to have a better grasp of the fundamentals. Mainly because on most every team if you didn't master them, you didn't stay in the big leagues long. I've had the privilege of watching the local collegiate team achieve back to back championships. Their coach, Ray Tanner likes the bunt as least as much as Ozzie. Guess what? His players, most of whom will never don a big league uniform almost always successfully bunt, hit behind the runner or sacrifice. He has two catchers with rocket arms who actually threw out base runners. So, it's not that just us old whippersnappers knew the fundamentals, they can and are taught in some organizations. As far as making errors, MLB fielding is better than ever in this era. We didn't have 24/7 coverage with web highlights, but I marvel at the fielding exploits of today's big leaguers. In that regard, we are in the golden age of baseball. The White Sox hitters are terrible at working a pitcher. Everyone, even those who know little about baseball seems to be aware of this. The Sox of the go go era were pretty good at it, particularly Nellie Fox who was one of the better contact hitters in the history of the game. I suspect Luke Appling was at least as good, but even I wasn't around to see him play. The team that was best at working over a pitcher was IMHO the 1998 Yankees. I marveled at how up and down that lineup they seemed to be able to successfully wait a pitcher out and get what they wanted in a given situation. Pitchers were once much more durable. I don't know why, but I suspect training methods have changed for the worse. I never see pitchers doing long toss or wind sprints, a common thing back in the horse and buggy day. Quite frankly, I find today's pitchers somewhat brittle and wimpy. Not all of them of course. Most pitchers then and now make a mockery of the art of hitting. There were exceptions, like Don Drysdale and our own Gary Peters. I can't remember anyone feeling cheated because pitchers had to hit, and no I don't want to rekindle the DH argument, it is here to stay. The 1951-67 White Sox were in general good scrappy teams that managed to break your heart in the end. There were no expanded playoffs back then, and Sox pitching was usually a lot better than good. 17 straight winning seasons brought me a lot of personal happiness and only two teams have exceeded that in the history of the game. Championships have always been hard to come by in White Sox history.

khan
06-30-2011, 12:10 PM
Yes they didn't win any championships but from a consistently good standpoint, that decade wasn't bad by any stretch. If the ultimate judge of whether a time period is 'good' or not is simply number of championshipos, than the Sox have had only three good decades in over 100 years...and you know that's not the case either.
On this point, we agree.


All you've proved is that humor is definitely lacking these days. I should probably know better, these old timer versus young blood arguments are so devoid of intellectual content. Anyway, back in the days when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, kids played freely when they weren't subjected to second hand smoke, and guys like Al Lopez and Eddie Stanky managed, players did seem to have a better grasp of the fundamentals. Mainly because on most every team if you didn't master them, you didn't stay in the big leagues long. I've had the privilege of watching the local collegiate team achieve back to back championships. Their coach, Ray Tanner likes the bunt as least as much as Ozzie. Guess what? His players, most of whom will never don a big league uniform almost always successfully bunt, hit behind the runner or sacrifice. He has two catchers with rocket arms who actually threw out base runners. So, it's not that just us old whippersnappers knew the fundamentals, they can and are taught in some organizations. As far as making errors, MLB fielding is better than ever in this era. We didn't have 24/7 coverage with web highlights, but I marvel at the fielding exploits of today's big leaguers. In that regard, we are in the golden age of baseball. The White Sox hitters are terrible at working a pitcher. Everyone, even those who know little about baseball seems to be aware of this. The Sox of the go go era were pretty good at it, particularly Nellie Fox who was one of the better contact hitters in the history of the game. I suspect Luke Appling was at least as good, but even I wasn't around to see him play. The team that was best at working over a pitcher was IMHO the 1998 Yankees. I marveled at how up and down that lineup they seemed to be able to successfully wait a pitcher out and get what they wanted in a given situation. Pitchers were once much more durable. I don't know why, but I suspect training methods have changed for the worse. I never see pitchers doing long toss or wind sprints, a common thing back in the horse and buggy day. Quite frankly, I find today's pitchers somewhat brittle and wimpy. Not all of them of course. Most pitchers then and now make a mockery of the art of hitting. There were exceptions, like Don Drysdale and our own Gary Peters. I can't remember anyone feeling cheated because pitchers had to hit, and no I don't want to rekindle the DH argument, it is here to stay. The 1951-67 White Sox were in general good scrappy teams that managed to break your heart in the end. There were no expanded playoffs back then, and Sox pitching was usually a lot better than good. 17 straight winning seasons brought me a lot of personal happiness and only two teams have exceeded that in the history of the game. Championships have always been hard to come by in White Sox history.

Firstly, paragraphs are your friend.

Secondly, you should know that I have a healthy respect for the history of the game.

Most importantly, look at how far you went to defend a team that won nothing, and was jested about by me? Youngsters wouldn't do such a thing. And that's the joke:

Old timers will defend the "good old days" 'til the ends of their lives, because it is a proxy for themselves. Have a little fun with it, because no one is insulting YOU, nor Lopez, nor any of those teams/players. I actually would like the SOX to be more consistent today, as they were in the '60s.

But the team was never a champion, and it wasn't the case that players always played the right way back then. And nor do they today.

SI1020
06-30-2011, 12:15 PM
On this point, we agree.




Firstly, paragraphs are your friend.

Secondly, you should know that I have a healthy respect for the history of the game.

Most importantly, look at how far you went to defend a team that won nothing, and was jested about by me? Youngsters wouldn't do such a thing. And that's the joke:

Old timers will defend the "good old days" 'til the ends of their lives, because it is a proxy for themselves. Have a little fun with it, because no one is insulting YOU, nor Lopez, nor any of those teams/players. I actually would like the SOX to be more consistent today, as they were in the '60s.

But the team was never a champion, and it wasn't the case that players always played the right way back then. And nor do they today. I haven't defended the good old days if you bothered to read what I wrote. I merely attempted to provide some balance to your usual angry diatribe. There is NO ONE on this or any other message board that rubs me wrong like you do. Now I go in search of the ignore option. I truly feel sorry for you.

khan
06-30-2011, 12:19 PM
I haven't defended the good old days if you bothered to read what I wrote. I merely attempted to provide some balance to your usual angry diatribe. There is NO ONE on this or any other message board that rubs me wrong like you do. Now I go in search of the ignore option. I truly feel sorry for you.

There's no anger in anything I've posted in this thread, if you read carefully. Perhaps some jesting, but no "anger."

Crestani
06-30-2011, 12:28 PM
On this point, we agree.





Old timers will defend the "good old days" 'til the ends of their lives, because it is a proxy for themselves. Have a little fun with it, because no one is insulting YOU, nor Lopez, nor any of those teams/players. I actually would like the SOX to be more consistent today, as they were in the '60s.

But the team was never a champion, and it wasn't the case that players always played the right way back then. And nor do they today.

If we only had computers and WSI in 1983 I can imagine the dialogue concerning Jerry Dybzinski's base running gaffe that cost the sox a golden chance for a trip to the World Series..!!

LITTLE NELL
06-30-2011, 12:29 PM
Considering the record of the Sox down thru the years with 1 WS win in 94 years, I for one (being one of the oldsters) will always treasure those 17 straight winning seasons, especially 1959. We had the bad luck of having the NY Yankees around, otherwise I'm sure we would have a few more pennants and maybe a few more WS titles. Until 1968 I never saw a losing season and could not believe that we went 65-95 that year. Could this really happen? It was a given that the Sox would win 90 or so games every year.
Yes the players were not perfect back then, they made errors and struck out (not Nellie) but they knew the fundamentals. They could hit and run, they would move the runner over, they would work the count and they could pitch and catch the ball with the best of them. Sox had 4 Gold Glovers in 1960, Fox, Minnie, Landis and Aparicio. When is the last time that happenned?

captain54
06-30-2011, 12:42 PM
But the team was never a champion, and it wasn't the case that players always played the right way back then. And nor do they today.

This argument holds absolutely no water because, as a number of posters have mentioned, there were no playoffs or divisions in place until 1969.

10 teams competed in the AL and it was all or nothing. You had the best record out of 10 and you went to the WS. 2nd best out of 10 and you went home.

-In 1954, the Sox won 94 games and finished 17 games out. Cleveland won 111 that year, but were swept by the Giants in the WS
-In 1963, the Sox won 94 games and finished 10.5 out. the Yankees won 104 but were swept by the Dodgers in the WS
-In 1964, the Sox won 98 games, finished 1 game behind the Yankees, who lost to St. Louis in the WS

So to say that the Sox of the 50's and 60's were not a champion is a totally irrelevant and weak point

all*star quentin
06-30-2011, 12:45 PM
I know this is yesterdays news :wink: MB doubles and then gets picked off. I love that man. :)

khan
06-30-2011, 12:45 PM
This argument holds absolutely no water because, as a number of posters have mentioned, there were no playoffs or divisions in place until 1969.

So to say that the Sox of the 50's and 60's were not a champion is a totally irrelevant and weak point

Actually, look back at what I wrote:

I never mentioned "playoffs," nor "division" with respect to the SOX of the '60s. I merely stated that they were "never a champion," which is factually correct.

I also have a healthy respect for their regular season record, and have so stated it. But those teams won exactly jack and ****, whether we like it or not.

October26
06-30-2011, 12:51 PM
Thank you AJ.

+1. Nice to see some energy and enthusiasm from AJ and the Sox bench after AJ hit the sac fly last night. I know that Quentin is out by a mile if that's a good throw, but the Sox got lucky on one, for a change. It was nice to see.:D:

Noneck
06-30-2011, 12:57 PM
There was only 1 championship that most here remember but nothing compares to the era of the 50's and 60's. Baseball is more than winning championships it is the enjoyment of watching your team. The 50s-60s met that standard because of their consistency in winning. When you follow a team that wins more games than it looses year after year it is an enjoyable experience. I am afraid though that some people now a days would not enjoy this era because they didnt play the type of baseball that is played now. There were years when the Sox as a team didnt have 100 HRs. in a year, there were years when no one on the team hit 20 HRS in a year but they won games. I cherish the championship but my love for baseball is because of the 60's Sox.

captain54
06-30-2011, 01:03 PM
But those teams won exactly jack and ****, whether we like it or not.

It's really hard to believe that you're not grasping this, or maybe you're just choosing to ignore it for the sake of your argument.

In 1969, the playoff structure was instituted. That means that you no longer needed the best record in the AL to qualify to compete for a championship

I will go all the way back to 1973 to illustrate this point. The Oakland A's had the 2nd best record in the AL, and not only won the AL Pennant, but beat the Mets in the WS.

There were many other similiar situations like that up until the current 2011 season, whereas you could win a WS Championship, and not necessarily have the best record in your league.

khan
06-30-2011, 01:15 PM
It's really hard to believe that you're not grasping this, or maybe you're just choosing to ignore it for the sake of your argument

There's no "argument" necessary here, nor is there any reason to explain the evolution of MLB's postseason.

I merely stated a fact:

The SOX teams from the '60s did not win any championships. That is factual, and not debatable by any means.

It is also factual that they had a nice run of winning seasons in the '60s. But no one is attacking them, your favorite player from back then, you, or your memories from back then to state that they did not win a championship, OK?

kittle42
06-30-2011, 01:31 PM
There's no "argument" necessary here, nor is there any reason to explain the evolution of MLB's postseason.

I merely stated a fact:

The SOX teams from the '60s did not win any championships. That is factual, and not debatable by any means.

It is also factual that they had a nice run of winning seasons in the '60s. But no one is attacking them, your favorite player from back then, you, or your memories from back then to state that they did not win a championship, OK?

I actually have to defend khan here. He is stating the 100% truth - those Sox teams never won a championship. He is NOT stating that they wouldn't have had there been a playoff structure instituted, etc. He is saying they never won a championship, and they did not. Pretty simple to understand.

kufram
06-30-2011, 01:33 PM
Don't you know? The old-timers are always right:

Years ago, every player knew ALL the fundamentals. None of them ever made an error in the field or running the bases. They all worked the count, and always made the right decisions at all times.

Pitchers always went 9 innings, and they all pitched every 2 days. Every pitcher also hit for themselves, and they always amassed a .900 slg% and a .400 BA.

And the SOX won 25 World series championships in a row.


Nowadays? Bah! The good old days were always better than today.

Tiresome

captain54
06-30-2011, 02:07 PM
I actually have to defend khan here. He is stating the 100% truth - those Sox teams never won a championship. Pretty simple to understand.

I'll say it one more time and then i'm done. It's a ridiculous statement. Had there been playoffs in place in the 50's and 60's the Sox could have won 4 or 5 championships. They were that good.

BigKlu59
06-30-2011, 02:08 PM
:D: Khan needs to take a happy pill... Sure, we didnt win jack ****, But those teams on the field for over 17 seasons started the season knowing 1st place and the pennant was an attainable goal... You must be a convert who's followed the 2nd Division Cubbies in your lifetime.

Think of it Khan.. 90+ winning seasons in bunches.. Actually being in a race after June 1st and still hanging round till the leaves start to fall off of the trees.. Your teams games pre-empting other coverage of the other leagues in town.. Nah, they didnt win ****, but at that time ,other than the Hawks and a blip by the Bears in the Lombardi era they carried the City on their shoulders and didnt become a sports embarrasment..

And yes, players back then had to play the game at a high level at all of the skill levels,or you got a BUS. not train or plane ticket out of town.. Same as the Original 6 in Hockey..There was always somebody down on the farm who could replace you overnight..

And yes, pitching was the art of the game.. Your starting horses ran the track as late in the game as they could. When the heat started to wane about the 5th inning then the mind games and ball movement would begin.. The greats were masters at this.. Some guys had to be dragged off of the mound... Down 1 run...

As Lip, Nell, Nelli and I will attest the Yanks at that time were just too deep,plus they always had the Pro/Minor league affliate with the Kansas City Athletics for those just in time trades down the stretch...

Ya... We didnt win Jack ****... But it was the most exciting baseball this town has seen over a close to 20 year period.. Think of that... almost 2 decades of WINNING baseball.....

Ya... we old timers would give a leg to have Sox teams like that in this everybody gets a chance to go to the Series format. We'd be buying playoff tickets every year...

BK59

kittle42
06-30-2011, 02:24 PM
I'll say it one more time and then i'm done. It's a ridiculous statement. Had there been playoffs in place in the 50's and 60's the Sox could have won 4 or 5 championships. They were that good.

He's not arguing that.

Brian26
06-30-2011, 02:24 PM
I'll say it one more time and then i'm done. It's a ridiculous statement. Had there been playoffs in place in the 50's and 60's the Sox could have won 4 or 5 championships. They were that good.

Perhaps they would have won none. They were very good, but they weren't good enough to win the pennant more than once. The subject of multiple rounds of playoffs for 60's baseball is ridiculous.

SI1020
06-30-2011, 02:28 PM
Perhaps they would have won none. They were very good, but they weren't good enough to win the pennant more than once. The subject of multiple rounds of playoffs for 60's baseball is ridiculous. Why? They didn't have them then, and with teams like the 73 Mets, 87 Twins and 06 Cardinals the watered down playoffs that everyone seems to love are often a big crapshoot.

Johnny Mostil
06-30-2011, 02:43 PM
Does 83 wins take the division?

FWIW, it appears the Sox have previously gone 39-42 in their first 81 three times since the 162-game schedule was instituted:


in 1961, they finished fourth in the AL with a record of 86-76.
in 2001, they finished third in the AL Central with a record of 83-79
in 2003, they finished second in the AL Central with a record of 86-76.
That said, I may hit my baseball snooze button more often than not until they get above .500 . . .

LITTLE NELL
06-30-2011, 02:55 PM
Perhaps they would have won none. They were very good, but they weren't good enough to win the pennant more than once. The subject of multiple rounds of playoffs for 60's baseball is ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than the NHL having 4 out of 6 in the playoffs and the NBA which had 2 divisions of 4 back in the day having 4 of 8 in the playoffs.

BigKlu59
06-30-2011, 03:56 PM
Since we are all such prognosticators and Sages and armchair Managers Here's alittle Divisional Game of what if, before the tearing down of the purists 2 best teams AL & NL in baseball play for the Championship.

If Divisional paly had existed in that 17 year run and we had the same format as today with a wild card from both leagues and the Divisions were split,

EAST
NY Yankees
Boston Red Sox
Philadephia A's
Washington Senators

WEST
Chicago White Sox
Detroit Tigers
Cleveland Indians
St. Louis Browns


After the A's and Browns shoot craps


NY Yankee's
Boston Red Sox
Baltimore Orioles
Washinton Senators

Chicago White Sox
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
Kansas City Athletics


When the Angels and the Twins come calling Tigers go east and we pick up the Twins and Halo's...

Run the Univac on this and you'd see what could have been...

BK59

LITTLE NELL
06-30-2011, 04:18 PM
Since we are all such prognosticators and Sages and armchair Managers Here's alittle Divisional Game of what if, before the tearing down of the purists 2 best teams AL & NL in baseball play for the Championship.

If Divisional paly had existed in that 17 year run and we had the same format as today with a wild card from both leagues and the Divisions were split,

EAST
NY Yankees
Boston Red Sox
Philadephia A's
Washington Senators

WEST
Chicago White Sox
Detroit Tigers
Cleveland Indians
St. Louis Browns


After the A's and Browns shoot craps


NY Yankee's
Boston Red Sox
Baltimore Orioles
Washinton Senators

Chicago White Sox
Cleveland Indians
Detroit Tigers
Kansas City Athletics


When the Angels and the Twins come calling Tigers go east and we pick up the Twins and Halo's...

Run the Univac on this and you'd see what could have been...

BK59

Without looking it up I think the Tribe beats us in 51,52,53,54,55 and 56.We win the division in 57,58,59, 60, and 61 since the Tigers go to the East that year. We win again in 63, and 64. The Twins beat us in 62, 65, 66 and 67.

BigKlu59
06-30-2011, 04:42 PM
Nice work Professor.. You are correct. The twist I threw in there is the Sox if not having the best record for the division is they had the 3rd best overall in the league and would play in a WC format today.. So food for thought. We'd have atleast 8 Division winners out of 17 Seasons.

If they had the WC format where the top 4 teams Div Winners second best records played cross division we's pretty much be at the dance every year... I could have been a **** and tossed the Tribe out east but the O's and New Senators put the kabash on that.


You'll never see another almost 20 year run like that again in this town...


BK59

khan
06-30-2011, 05:12 PM
Perhaps they would have won none. They were very good, but they weren't good enough to win the pennant more than once. The subject of multiple rounds of playoffs for 60's baseball is ridiculous.

Why are you throwing around such anger on this thread? It's ridiculous to say anything other than happy things about the Sox from the '60s.


We're discussing of how "swell" the Sox were back in the '60s, and how everyone had a "gay old time" at Sox Park, and you go and ruin it!

BigKlu59
06-30-2011, 05:21 PM
Nah, we had a "Gay Old Time"watching the Flintstone's..... Wilmaaaaaaa !!!!

BK59

Brian26
06-30-2011, 05:38 PM
[/COLOR][/B]

No more ridiculous than the NHL having 4 out of 6 in the playoffs and the NBA which had 2 divisions of 4 back in the day having 4 of 8 in the playoffs.

I think it falls into the same category of wishful thinking that Hoyt was a lock to beat the Orioles in Game 5 and that the Sox were automatically win the Series over the Expos until the strike got in the way. The 50s and 60s discussion feels like whining when the bottom line is that the Sox were only able to best the Yankees, Indians and Bosox once in 20 yrs based on the established rules of the day.

Daver
06-30-2011, 05:47 PM
Why are you throwing around such anger on this thread?

Even in sarcasm you have no place making a post about displaced anger, when the vast majority of your posts drip with it, a good chunk of them are railing at the education levels of a minority manager and a minority GM.

Johnny Mostil
06-30-2011, 05:49 PM
I think it falls into the same category of wishful thinking that Hoyt was a lock to beat the Orioles in Game 5 and that the Sox were automatically win the Series over the Expos until the strike got in the way. The 50s and 60s discussion feels like whining when the bottom line is that the Sox were only able to best the Yankees, Indians and Bosox once in 20 yrs based on the established rules of the day.

And they lost to the Dodgers the one time they did . . .

BigKlu59
06-30-2011, 06:16 PM
I think it falls into the same category of wishful thinking that Hoyt was a lock to beat the Orioles in Game 5 and that the Sox were automatically win the Series over the Expos until the strike got in the way. The 50s and 60s discussion feels like whining when the bottom line is that the Sox were only able to best the Yankees, Indians and Bosox once in 20 yrs based on the established rules of the day.


Funny how only the Tribe, BoSox, Twinks and O's were only able to vanquish all 1 time over that time period as well... I'd say the Sox met requirements for the times..

As for losing to the Displaced Bums... If they had played in anything resembling a ball park like Ebbets that one would have gone either way.. Hell, Klu had to hit one 500 ft to right to clear the fence in that screwed up sandlot.. They drop em 285 feet away in that little league porch in left...

BK59

Lip Man 1
06-30-2011, 06:24 PM
Klu:

A few years ago, here in a thread, I actually broke the league down into two division, three would have been a bit much to figure out.

During that 17 year period, based on the final records the Sox would have made the 'postseason' three times in the 1950's and three times (63,64,65) in the 1960's.

Lip

TDog
06-30-2011, 06:25 PM
So I guess all the trophies from the 60s were just out for cleaning the last time I was at the park... Or were they destroyed in the Great White Sox Trophy Fire? I forget.

Yeah! Eddie Stanky! Best manager in baseball history*!

* Does not include any manager who has finished higher than 3rd place at least one time in their career

During the 1960s, despite the Yankees winning through 1964, six of the eight pre-expansion American League teams went to the World Series. The A's didn't, and the White Sox didn't. While the White Sox were headed down, having gone to the World Series at the end of the 1950s, the A's were relocating and building a great team. The A's were the reason the back-from-the-dead White Sox didn't go to the postseason in 1972, during their three straight World Championship seasons in the next decade. The old St. Louis Browns and Washington Senators relocated and became strong American League teams than the White Sox before the 1960s was over. Oddly enough, the amateur draft instituted in 1965 that killed the Yankees dynasty also sent the cheapskate White Sox into oblivion while establishing a dynasty for a cheapskate in Oakland that would last until free agency took hold.

I loved 1960s White Sox baseball, too, going to the ballpark as a little kid, watching the games on television with the commercials with the Hamm's bear. I even have fond memories of the 1970 season. My father was more frustrated with the team not winning enough games than I was. If there was an Internet and WSI around for the 1960s, the instant feelings recorded would not have matched the fond memories.

The White Sox were better at fundamentals in the 1960s. Everyone was better at fundamentals in the 1960s.

With all the times in the last two nights that the Rockies failed to bring in a runner from third with less than two out in first a on-run ninth-inning loss and second an extra-inning loss, I guess they are lucky Eddie Stanky isn't around to put the hammer down.

And I find it odd that someone (not you) who fondly remembers days of a bad offensive team with great pitching and defense should teal (if I can use that as a verb) a snipe at me for my desire to go out and get a great defensive outfielder who hits well in the clutch instead of a potential 200-strikeout, defensive-challenged designated hitter.

Johnny Mostil
06-30-2011, 06:25 PM
As for losing to the Displaced Bums... If they had played in anything resembling a ball park like Ebbets that one would have gone either way..

BK59

Didn't the Dodgers win 2 of 3 in Comiskey and 2 of 3 in the Coliseum?

LITTLE NELL
06-30-2011, 06:28 PM
Didn't the Dodgers win 2 of 3 in Comiskey and 2 of 3 in the Coliseum?

Yes they did, game 2 which I attended was the turning point.

Johnny Mostil
06-30-2011, 06:35 PM
Yes they did, game 2 which I attended was the turning point.

Lollar getting thrown out at the plate? (Before my time, I should add . . .)

khan
06-30-2011, 06:36 PM
Even in sarcasm you have no place making a post about displaced anger, when the vast majority of your posts drip with it, a good chunk of them are railing at the education levels of a minority manager and a minority GM.

A fair overall point, but what are you stating here with the bolded?

As a minority myself, and someone who has been called the n-word to my face several times in my life, I'm curious to know what you're suggesting.

I know that the coward The Old Roman levelled a reckless and baseless charge against me, and then wasn't man enough to directly apologize. But, whatever you think of me, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

BigKlu59
06-30-2011, 06:38 PM
Yes they did, game 2 which I attended was the turning point.

Roseboro meets Lollar for a handshake at the plate and the memories of Game One fade in a blink of an eye...

Sucks that wrapped around by 2 blow outs either of those games were a pie on the windowsill aching to be snatched...

BK59

SI1020
06-30-2011, 06:38 PM
Yes they did, game 2 which I attended was the turning point. Yes, a bad memory that doesn't go away. Tony Cuccinello was a good third base coach but he made an error in judgement that day. I was just shy of my 9th birthday and knew it was the beginning of the end.

Daver
06-30-2011, 06:40 PM
A fair overall point, but what are you stating here with the bolded?

As a minority myself, and someone who has been called the n-word to my face several times in my life, I'm curious to know what you're suggesting.

I know that the coward The Old Roman levelled a reckless and baseless charge against me, and then wasn't man enough to directly apologize. But, whatever you think of me, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

Are you trying to say that a minority is incapable of forming opinions based on race?

SI1020
06-30-2011, 06:46 PM
Isn't calling someone a coward a personal attack?

khan
06-30-2011, 06:46 PM
Are you trying to say that a minority is incapable of forming opinions based on race?

No, because I myself am a minority, and am capable of forming opinions and capable of bettering myself, and yes, capable of succeeding in the classroom.

The Old Roman played the "racist" bull****, and then didn't directly and publicly apologize. Nor did he delete his post.

Now, I am offended at being accused of being a racist by someone who doesn't know me, and even moreso for a coward who didn't subsequently apologize [or at least did his best to BURY the so-called apology at the bottom of a backpedalling post].

So the minority angle did raise some alarms for me, honestly. And, I'm not putting words into anyone's mouth. I'm curious what you mean or are inferring by putting in the "minority" thing into your post.

khan
06-30-2011, 06:48 PM
Isn't calling someone a coward a personal attack?

Not if you understood exactly what The Old Roman suggested in a post about me just a few days ago. Levelling a baseless attack, and then not apologizing is indeed cowardly.

kevingrt
06-30-2011, 06:54 PM
Love when winning postgame threads turn into piles of crap like this...

Can we turn it around.

Sale, Crain, and Santos were stellar today. Our hitting has shown signs of coming around albeit only after the seventh inning. And we have three very winnable games coming up.

I mean who are the Cubs throwing out there? A not-so-good Randy Well who just came off the DL and has been bad. We got Phil Humber versus a consistent Matt Garza. But if both pitchers continue to pitch like they have their last ten starts we should win. And I don't even know who the Scrubbies are throwing out there Sunday but I saw him pitch once and he was pretty horrendous.

So lets not bash people around here and celebrate a win. Hey maybe we will be over .500 come the All-Star Break. Check that. We should be over .500, hopefully like three games or so.

Daver
06-30-2011, 07:14 PM
No, because I myself am a minority, and am capable of forming opinions and capable of bettering myself, and yes, capable of succeeding in the classroom.



And because you managed to succeed in the classroom, your view of everyone that didn't, or did not feel the need, is not biased by this? Especially if they are also a minority?

spawn
06-30-2011, 08:23 PM
A fair overall point, but what are you stating here with the bolded?

As a minority myself, and someone who has been called the n-word to my face several times in my life, I'm curious to know what you're suggesting.

I think it's pretty obvious what he is stating. There aren't a lot of minority GM's in baseball if you hadn't noticed. I would think that, since you state that you are a minority, that you would possibly understand how hard it is to have to work to get to the level that KW did. You don't know him. You don't know how smart or intelligent he is. You have no idea how hard the man works. It sickens me that you're basically calling him an idiot because he doesn't have the education you think he should based on some moves he's made trying to better this team.

As for TOR's statement, I'm sorry but I would've considered it racist no matter who it came from, and even more so from someone that considers themselves a minority.

You really need to get over yourself. Calling yourself a minority doesn't give you an automatic out from making statements some would consider racist, although your statements do make you seem to be more of elitist than anything else.

spawn
06-30-2011, 08:27 PM
Now, I am offended at being accused of being a racist by someone who doesn't know me, and even moreso for a coward who didn't subsequently apologize [or at least did his best to BURY the so-called apology at the bottom of a backpedalling post].

Yet you have no problem calling KW and Ozzie "idiots" even though you don't know them? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.......

SI1020
06-30-2011, 08:44 PM
Love when winning postgame threads turn into piles of crap like this...

Can we turn it around.

Sale, Crain, and Santos were stellar today. Our hitting has shown signs of coming around albeit only after the seventh inning. And we have three very winnable games coming up.

I mean who are the Cubs throwing out there? A not-so-good Randy Well who just came off the DL and has been bad. We got Phil Humber versus a consistent Matt Garza. But if both pitchers continue to pitch like they have their last ten starts we should win. And I don't even know who the Scrubbies are throwing out there Sunday but I saw him pitch once and he was pretty horrendous.

So lets not bash people around here and celebrate a win. Hey maybe we will be over .500 come the All-Star Break. Check that. We should be over .500, hopefully like three games or so. Today's win, to go along with the one on this thread takes a little of the sting out of this years toughest losses. The division is so tepid. Yes, at this late date there is still time to make a real move and keep it going into October.

Johnny Mostil
06-30-2011, 10:09 PM
Today's win, to go along with the one on this thread takes a little of the sting out of this years toughest losses. The division is so tepid. Yes, at this late date there is still time to make a real move and keep it going into October.

I haven't been paying much attention to the rest of the majors, so I hadn't noticed until today how tepid some other divisions also are (or seem to be). The first-place Tigers are only six games over, but so are the Brewers and Cards, tied for first in the NL Central. The Rangers lead the AL West even though they are only four games over.

BigKlu59
06-30-2011, 10:38 PM
I haven't been paying much attention to the rest of the majors, so I hadn't noticed until today how tepid some other divisions also are (or seem to be). The first-place Tigers are only six games over, but so are the Brewers and Cards, tied for first in the NL Central. The Rangers lead the AL West even though they are only four games over.

So it seems the Sox arent the only ones bitten by the parity bug... This season is far from over and a hot streak could turn things around in a heartbeat.. alot of lazy dogs just dont want to go all out and chase the rabbit...

BK59

Nellie_Fox
07-01-2011, 12:31 AM
You'd be surprised. Not as many 2-1, 3-2 games as you think there were.The ball might have been dead, but I wear winter gloves that are bigger and have more padding than what they wore back then.

Don't you know? The old-timers are always right:

Years ago, every player knew ALL the fundamentals. None of them ever made an error in the field or running the bases. They all worked the count, and always made the right decisions at all times.

Pitchers always went 9 innings, and they all pitched every 2 days. Every pitcher also hit for themselves, and they always amassed a .900 slg% and a .400 BA.

And the SOX won 25 World series championships in a row.


Nowadays? Bah! The good old days were always better than today.Why do you so often grossly overstate the position of other posters in order to ridicule them? Does that make you feel better about yourself? Knock it the **** off. You made absolutely no valid argument with that crap.

Lip, I do respect your opinion, but I do find it hillarious that old timers romanticize a team that won exactly jack and **** in the '60s.This has already been addressed, but as the oldest mod on the board (and older than Lip, I think) I'd rather not be called "old-timer" by someone who clearly doesn't mean it fondly. Knock that off too.

It's really hard to believe that you're not grasping this, or maybe you're just choosing to ignore it for the sake of your argument.

In 1969, the playoff structure was instituted. That means that you no longer needed the best record in the AL to qualify to compete for a championship

I will go all the way back to 1973 to illustrate this point. The Oakland A's had the 2nd best record in the AL, and not only won the AL Pennant, but beat the Mets in the WS.

There were many other similiar situations like that up until the current 2011 season, whereas you could win a WS Championship, and not necessarily have the best record in your league.THIS is the point. The Sox were a consistently successful team in the fifties and sixties, and they did it with fundamental baseball and good pitching. That's all that's being argued, and the "they won exactly jack and ****" argument is irrelevant. It was a different time, and a different championship system, so success can be measured differently.


As a minority myself, and someone who has been called the n-word to my face several times in my life, I'm curious to know what you're suggesting.I'm not making any assumptions about your own attitudes, but surely you can't be arguing that a member of one minority group can never be prejudiced against another minority group, because that's nonsense.

I know that the coward The Old Roman levelled a reckless and baseless charge against me, and then wasn't man enough to directly apologize. But, whatever you think of me, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.Perhaps he didn't apologize because he still believes that what he wrote may be true and didn't think an apology was warranted, in which case he is not a coward, and you are leveling a baseless and reckless charge against him, for which you haven't apologized.

Johnny Mostil
07-01-2011, 06:40 AM
So it seems the Sox arent the only ones bitten by the parity bug... This season is far from over and a hot streak could turn things around in a heartbeat.. alot of lazy dogs just dont want to go all out and chase the rabbit...

BK59

FWIW, I looked a little further at this . . . at the end of play on 6/30, there were three divisions with leaders at six or fewer games over .500. That doesn't appear to have happened since baseball went to six divisions in 1994.

Obviously 6/30 is an arbitrary date, and I'm sure there are far better measures of parity, but that particular measure for yesterday's date is what caught my eye . . .

SI1020
07-01-2011, 07:25 AM
FWIW, I looked a little further at this . . . at the end of play on 6/30, there were three divisions with leaders at six or fewer games over .500. That doesn't appear to have happened since baseball went to six divisions in 1994.

Obviously 6/30 is an arbitrary date, and I'm sure there are far better measures of parity, but that particular measure for yesterday's date is what caught my eye . . . Good observations. Parity has come to MLB in a big way this year. May the Sox get their act together and take advantage of the situation. They could be out of it by now but they are far from it thanks to the so so nature of many contending teams.