PDA

View Full Version : ESPN (David Schoenfield): Sticking with White Sox to win AL Central


Fenway
07-20-2011, 12:08 PM
http://espn.go.com/blog/SweetSpot/post/_/id/13894/sticking-with-white-sox-win-al-central

WhiteSox5187
07-20-2011, 12:19 PM
I wish I could share his optimism but even though the Sox are only 4.5 out and the pitching is good, I don't see any reason to believe that this team is going to win the division. We keep struggling against opponents in our division (save for Cleveland and we will see how well that holds up soon) and Rios and Dunn still look lost at the plate. I hope he's right but this team hasn't done anything to give me reason to believe they have turned the corner.

tstrike2000
07-20-2011, 12:25 PM
Schoenfield's quote of, "OK, look, there’s no way Dunn, Rios and Morel will continue to be this bad. They’ll either play better or Ozzie will start playing other guys" is something we've been saying all season and next week is the beginning of August.

You'd think something would change, but I'm not holding my breath for some rapid turnaround from either of those three hitters or in Ozzie's managing.

JB98
07-20-2011, 12:28 PM
Schoenfield's quote of, "OK, look, there’s no way Dunn, Rios and Morel will continue to be this bad. They’ll either play better or Ozzie will start playing other guys" is something we've been saying all season and next week is the beginning of August.

You'd think something would change, but I'm not holding my breath for some rapid turnaround from either of those three hitters or in Ozzie's managing.

LOL. I was just going to post that the author's essential argument is, "There's no way they can continue to be this bad."

Actually, yes, they can. They've been bad for 97 games. What evidence does anyone have that the next 65 games will be different?

Fenway
07-20-2011, 12:30 PM
If IF.... the White Sox can get above .500 they might be OK..... it almost seems like they have a mental block about that right now :scratch:

chisoxfanatic
07-20-2011, 12:30 PM
Schoenfield's quote of, "OK, look, there’s no way Dunn, Rios and Morel will continue to be this bad. They’ll either play better or Ozzie will start playing other guys" is something we've been saying all season and next week is the beginning of August.
Yea, it sounds like he thinks that the almost four months that have already been played isn't a big enough sample size to predict that they won't turn it around. We aren't stupid, though. Neither Dunn or Rios have done anything all season. It looks like a mechanical issue with Dunn and a motivational issue with Rios. I doubt they get it going enough during the last couple of months in the season. And, even if they DO, it may be too late. Too many winnable games have been pissed away here throughout the season.

Rocky Soprano
07-20-2011, 12:42 PM
If IF.... the White Sox can get above .500 they might be OK..... it almost seems like they have a mental block about that right now :scratch:

They got over .500 like a week before the break.
And then went back to being the Sox we know right before the break.

The only way the Sox win the division is if the Twins, Tigers, and Indians suck more than the Sox.

Edit: I stand corrected, they never got over .500

doublem23
07-20-2011, 12:43 PM
If IF.... the White Sox can get above .500 they might be OK..... it almost seems like they have a mental block about that right now :scratch:

Uh no, they're just a .500ish team.

Johnny Mostil
07-20-2011, 12:45 PM
Schoenfield's quote of, "OK, look, there’s no way Dunn, Rios and Morel will continue to be this bad. They’ll either play better or Ozzie will start playing other guys" is something we've been saying all season and next week is the beginning of August.

You'd think something would change, but I'm not holding my breath for some rapid turnaround from either of those three hitters or in Ozzie's managing.

Agree. Especially that we really won't see anybody else.

Lip Man 1
07-20-2011, 12:47 PM
They haven't been over .500 since April 15th.

Lip

Johnny Mostil
07-20-2011, 12:49 PM
They haven't been over .500 since April 15th.

Lip

Correct. They reached 42-42 on 7/2, but are 5-8 since.

Alas, this just isn't a good team.

LITTLE NELL
07-20-2011, 01:02 PM
Has this guy watched our guys for the last 4 months?

DumpJerry
07-20-2011, 01:16 PM
Someone is trying to generate clicks for ESPN's site from outside of New York and Boston. I refuse to open the link.

SephClone89
07-20-2011, 01:45 PM
Someone is trying to generate clicks for ESPN's site from outside of New York and Boston. I refuse to open the link.

It's a decent if somewhat naive article. Tinfoil hat much?

TDog
07-20-2011, 01:48 PM
Uh no, they're just a .500ish team.

I'm not so sure the Indians, Tigers and Twins will finish over .500. I'm not sure the AL Central champion will need to finish above .500.

The last day in July when the White Sox traded Alvarez, Hernandez and Darwin to the Giants in what would be labeled "the White Flag Trade," the Sox were a game below .500 and 3.5 games out of first. Jerry Reinsdorf said that anyone who thinks we're going to catch the Indians is crazy (that's close, but I didn't look up the quote). One Chicago newspaper ran a headline that read "Wait till next century." Fans boycotted, or said they were boycotting, anyway. Certainly, attendance dropped. I'm sure there are people who post here are still angered about the trade.

The Sox right now are pretty much in the same place they were 14 summers ago, except that unlike the 1997 team, their strength is their pitching. This team is probably better because strong pitching is a better winning formula than strong hitting.

What Reinsdorf experienced 14 years ago pretty much assures the Sox aren't going to be sellers at the deadline. And if they are a .500ish team, that may be good enough. The postseason is generally about strong pitching.

captain54
07-20-2011, 02:30 PM
I'm not so sure the Indians, Tigers and Twins will finish over .500. I'm not sure the AL Central champion will need to finish above .500.

The last day in July when the White Sox traded Alvarez, Hernandez and Darwin to the Giants in what would be labeled "the White Flag Trade," the Sox were a game below .500 and 3.5 games out of first. Jerry Reinsdorf said that anyone who thinks we're going to catch the Indians is crazy (that's close, but I didn't look up the quote). One Chicago newspaper ran a headline that read "Wait till next century." Fans boycotted, or said they were boycotting, anyway. Certainly, attendance dropped. I'm sure there are people who post here are still angered about the trade.

The Sox right now are pretty much in the same place they were 14 summers ago, except that unlike the 1997 team, their strength is their pitching. This team is probably better because strong pitching is a better winning formula than strong hitting.

What Reinsdorf experienced 14 years ago pretty much assures the Sox aren't going to be sellers at the deadline. And if they are a .500ish team, that may be good enough. The postseason is generally about strong pitching.

There are some similiarities, yet some differences between now and 97'

Either way, the 1997 White Flag was a bizarre turn of events. The Sox had a terrible April that year, but played above .500 until the trade, at the end of July. They basically traded away their closer and the two starting pitchers with the best ERA's on the staff.

Cleveland and the White Sox that year could both hit the baseball. They both had suspect pitching. Most people felt that if the Sox added pitching instead of taking away, they could have surpassed Cleveland that year.

This year, the Sox are backed into a financial corner and are limited with the amount of moves they can make. Their only commodity is pitching, and the results from here on out could be horrific if they started depleting the pitching staff

dickallen15
07-20-2011, 02:46 PM
There are some similiarities, yet some differences between now and 97'

Either way, the 1997 White Flag was a bizarre turn of events. The Sox had a terrible April that year, but played above .500 until the trade, at the end of July. They basically traded away their closer and the two starting pitchers with the best ERA's on the staff.

Cleveland and the White Sox that year could both hit the baseball. They both had suspect pitching. Most people felt that if the Sox added pitching instead of taking away, they could have surpassed Cleveland that year.

This year, the Sox are backed into a financial corner and are limited with the amount of moves they can make. Their only commodity is pitching, and the results from here on out could be horrific if they started depleting the pitching staff

The big difference is the 1997 Indians were a lot better baseball team than any current team in the AL Central.

hawkjt
07-20-2011, 03:32 PM
Tribe drop their second straight to the Twins today. Sox are 4 back of the Tribe, 4.5 back of the Tigers. Tigers play the A's tonite and then go to the Twins for 4 games. Sox go to Cleveland for 3,then the Tigers come to Sox park for 3 while the Tribe host the hot Angels. One hot spurt by the Sox,right now,could vault them to 1st. I still think this shapes up to mirror 1967 with 4 teams fighting it out to the end. Sox host the Royals and Jays the last 7 at home at the end of Sept.

Lip Man 1
07-20-2011, 03:35 PM
Hawk:

Well it could be like 1967 but in name only. Those four teams that season were pretty damn good....the four teams in the Central this season....why does the word mediocre at best come to mind?

And we've been waiting for that one hot spurt by the Sox since what May?

Like JB says, they are what they are and the hot spurt probably isn't going to happen.

Lip

slavko
07-20-2011, 03:48 PM
The big difference is the 1997 Indians were a lot better baseball team than any current team in the AL Central.


There is that feeling about the Sox, like they're not ever going to put on a charge, that I also had before the White Flag Trade. I was never as upset as some of you about the White Flag Trade because of that feeling. Plus this time there's more than Cleveland to worry about. But the traded players then were going to be lost soon anyway. The guys who need to go now are untradeable. Thanks, Kenny.

JermaineDye05
07-20-2011, 03:53 PM
Even if they win the division, they're not winning the world series.

Sorry, but you can't do it when you're constantly playing .500 baseball.

Blow it up now.

JermaineDye05
07-20-2011, 03:54 PM
Tribe drop their second straight to the Twins today. Sox are 4 back of the Tribe, 4.5 back of the Tigers. Tigers play the A's tonite and then go to the Twins for 4 games. Sox go to Cleveland for 3,then the Tigers come to Sox park for 3 while the Tribe host the hot Angels. One hot spurt by the Sox,right now,could vault them to 1st. I still think this shapes up to mirror 1967 with 4 teams fighting it out to the end. Sox host the Royals and Jays the last 7 at home at the end of Sept.

Do you realize how long people have been saying this?

This team does not have a hot spurt in them. They are exactly what their record says - mediocre.

doublem23
07-20-2011, 04:06 PM
Even if they win the division, they're not winning the world series.

Sorry, but you can't do it when you're constantly playing .500 baseball.

Blow it up now.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/2006/1106_large.jpg

JermaineDye05
07-20-2011, 04:17 PM
http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/2006/1106_large.jpg

That team was actually over .500 when they won the WS.

I'm gonna take a guess and say we won't make it back to .500 the rest of the year.

We will hover around 2 games below as we had been the past couple months.

DumpJerry
07-20-2011, 04:23 PM
That team was actually over .500 when they won the WS.
Major fail on your part. You had to employ a weak strawman to make your argument. If we play it your way, they were five whopping games over .500 when they won the World Series. (94-84).

JermaineDye05
07-20-2011, 04:24 PM
Major fail on your part. You had to employ a weak strawman to make your argument. If we play it your way, they were five whopping games over .500 when they won the World Series. (94-84).

I meant prior to the post season where they were 83-79 (I believe).

They were barely over .500, yes, but I don't think .500 is in this team's grasp.

They had it for a second when they played the Cubs, then lost it in an instant.

EDIT: Turns out they were 83-78 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/STL/2006.shtml)

DumpJerry
07-20-2011, 04:25 PM
They are exactly what their record says - mediocre.
The entire AL Central is mediocre. Haven't you noticed?

DumpJerry
07-20-2011, 04:25 PM
I meant prior to the post season where they were 83-79 (I believe).
Wow. Two whole games over .500!!!!! Start the parade!

guillensdisciple
07-20-2011, 04:26 PM
I love when the onion writes articles for ESPN.

JermaineDye05
07-20-2011, 04:26 PM
Wow. Two whole games over .500!!!!! Start the parade!

Might want to check your math again on that one.

DumpJerry
07-20-2011, 04:29 PM
Might want to check your math again on that one.
81-81= .500
83-79= two games over .500.

JermaineDye05
07-20-2011, 04:32 PM
81-81= .500
83-79= two games over .500.

Fair enough. I've always considered it by the literal difference between wins and losses which to me is 4 games (actually 5 since I had the record wrong).

TaylorStSox
07-20-2011, 04:41 PM
Yea, it sounds like he thinks that the almost four months that have already been played isn't a big enough sample size to predict that they won't turn it around. We aren't stupid, though. Neither Dunn or Rios have done anything all season. It looks like a mechanical issue with Dunn and a motivational issue with Rios. I doubt they get it going enough during the last couple of months in the season. And, even if they DO, it may be too late. Too many winnable games have been pissed away here throughout the season.

How is Dunn trying harder than Rios? This type of conjecture pisses me off. We can talk about their complete level of suck all day, give me some evidence that Dunn's .158 means he's trying harder than Rios' .210. I have an idea of the reason people say this but it will get this thread roadhoused and me banned.

It's pretty obvious to a novice baseball fan that Rios is having real mechanical issues with his stance and swing while Dunn's issues are with pitch recognition and confidence as evidenced by the visits to the sports psychologist. But I suppose if Rios was second behind AJ in bats thrown after pop up surely it would mean that he's trying.

gobears1987
07-20-2011, 04:43 PM
I think this prediction is based on the false assumption that hot weather makes the Sox bats wake-up.

SoxNation05
07-20-2011, 05:31 PM
How is Dunn trying harder than Rios? This type of conjecture pisses me off. We can talk about their complete level of suck all day, give me some evidence that Dunn's .158 means he's trying harder than Rios' .210. I have an idea of the reason people say this but it will get this thread roadhoused and me banned.

It's pretty obvious to a novice baseball fan that Rios is having real mechanical issues with his stance and swing while Dunn's issues are with pitch recognition and confidence as evidenced by the visits to the sports psychologist. But I suppose if Rios was second behind AJ in bats thrown after pop up surely it would mean that he's trying.

Are you referring to race? Because any race can go out and party hard and dog it on several occasions.

guillensdisciple
07-20-2011, 05:38 PM
It sucks, I was hoping that Dunn could become a Sox hero of the ages and we could name some sandwich after him. The canyonero sandwich that comes with a mix of spices, hot peppers, and other delicacies. It would have been great because the customer would have paid a lot of money for it, but the sandwich would have never come close to justifying the money spent.

Still though, the store would keep on making them and advertising them as a great sandwich because sooner or later that sandwich would turn around and become the sandwich everyone really hopes for.

Thanks Adam, you had a hell of a cool sandwich name coming up.

LITTLE NELL
07-20-2011, 06:33 PM
81-81= .500
83-79= two games over .500.

There is fuzzy math going on here.
If you are 79-79 and win your last 4 games to finish 83-79, you are 4 games over .500.

JermaineDye05
07-20-2011, 06:39 PM
There is fuzzy math going on here.
If you are 79-79 and win your last 4 games to finish 83-79, you are 4 games over .500.

I think Dump is making the assumption that every game counts as a half like in standings, which doesn't make sense, because that would mean the Sox are 1 and half games under .500 instead of 3.

LITTLE NELL
07-20-2011, 06:42 PM
I think Dump is making the assumption that every game counts as a half like in standings, which doesn't make sense, because that would mean the Sox are 1 and half games under .500 instead of 3.

I've been following baseball for almost 60 years and I've never heard it explained like that.

russ99
07-20-2011, 06:49 PM
I don't think the Sox need that assumed needed win streak to get back in the thick of the division race, only win tonight, and win 2-3 in Cleveland, which they just might do.

But this team is going nowhere until they can play consistent baseball at home.

JermaineDye05
07-20-2011, 06:50 PM
I don't think the Sox need that assumed needed win streak to get back in the thick of the division race, only win tonight, and win 2-3 in Cleveland, which they just might do.

But this team is going nowhere until they can play consistent baseball at home.

and against their division.

LITTLE NELL
07-20-2011, 06:53 PM
I don't think the Sox need that assumed needed win streak to get back in the thick of the division race, only win tonight, and win 2-3 in Cleveland, which they just might do.

But this team is going nowhere until they can play consistent baseball at home.

The next homestand could be the defining point of the season, the Tigers for 3, Red Sox for 3 and the Yankees for 4.

DickAllen72
07-20-2011, 06:55 PM
There is fuzzy math going on here.
If you are 79-79 and win your last 4 games to finish 83-79, you are 4 games over .500.
You are correct, Sir.

JermaineDye05
07-20-2011, 06:57 PM
The next homestand could be the defining point of the season, the Tigers for 3, Red Sox for 3 and the Yankees for 4.

I actually think the defining point of the season was the homestand a couple weeks ago against the Royals and Twins, where we won 2 games. They had a golden opportunity to gain some ground in their division, and they fell on their faces.

soltrain21
07-20-2011, 07:03 PM
I actually think the defining point of the season was the homestand a couple weeks ago against the Royals and Twins, where we won 2 games. They had a golden opportunity to gain some ground in their division, and they fell on their faces.

And yet, here we are, still only 4 games out of first. This team isn't very good, but they right in the middle of the race with an opportunity to hopefully get their **** together.

BigKlu59
07-20-2011, 07:03 PM
The next homestand could be the defining point of the season, the Tigers for 3, Red Sox for 3 and the Yankees for 4.

Just like the good old days... Lose to these teams and we can start playing "Taps" on this season, if we havent already shined up the bugle..

Or to mess up our heads even more... win 9 out of 10 and have us running to the shrink for meds for another 90 day supply to get us thru to September..

My Chicago White Sox.. You gotta love these guys...

BK59

JermaineDye05
07-20-2011, 07:08 PM
And yet, here we are, still only 4 games out of first. This team isn't very good, but they right in the middle of the race with an opportunity to hopefully get their **** together.

I'm of the opinion that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

The 2011 White Sox are a mediocre .500 at best team.

Sure, if Rios and Dunn ever get their heads out of their asses, and this team learns how to hit with RISP, they could be much better.

However, it just doesn't look like that's going to happen this season. The same mistakes have plagued the team all year, and I honestly don't think they have what it takes to make a world series run in 2011.

tstrike2000
07-20-2011, 07:14 PM
I actually think the defining point of the season was the homestand a couple weeks ago against the Royals and Twins, where we won 2 games. They had a golden opportunity to gain some ground in their division, and they fell on their faces.

I was just listening to Stone Pony on Dave Kraplin's show on CSN on I agree more that the next homestand is even more important. We have three each against Detroit and Boston before four against New York. Detroit is winnable, but the other series are against superior teams. Our offense could put us easily into fourth place after that point not to mention we have three at Minnesota after New York.

JermaineDye05
07-20-2011, 07:17 PM
I was just listening to Stone Pony on Dave Kraplin's show on CSN on I agree more that the next homestand is even more important. We have three each against Detroit and Boston before four against New York. Detroit is winnable, but the other series are against superior teams. Our offense could put us easily into fourth place after that point not to mention we have three at Minnesota after New York.

Yeah, but the Sox put themselves in that situation by losing 5 of 7 games at home against two pitiful teams.

TDog
07-20-2011, 07:19 PM
There is fuzzy math going on here.
If you are 79-79 and win your last 4 games to finish 83-79, you are 4 games over .500.

But if you are 83-79, losing your last 2 wins would have made you a .500 team.

The whole .500 thing isn't that important. If you can make the postseason playing under .500, you aren't at any greater disadvantage in the postseason than if you had played over .500.

As I noted earlier in this thread, fans in 1997 didn't rally behind the White Flag Trade because the team was a game under .500 when it was made and all had lost hope. The White Sox actually had a .500 record after the trade and lost only 2.5 games to the Indians in the standings because the Indians in 1997 weren't much better than a .500 team.

LITTLE NELL
07-20-2011, 07:23 PM
Just like the good old days... Lose to these teams and we can start playing "Taps" on this season, if we havent already shined up the bugle..

Or to mess up our heads even more... win 9 out of 10 and have us running to the shrink for meds for another 90 day supply to get us thru to September..

My Chicago White Sox.. You gotta love these guys...

BK59

I don't think ''love'' is the word I want to use for my feelings for the 2011 White Sox.

JermaineDye05
07-20-2011, 07:25 PM
But if you are 83-79, losing your last 2 wins would have made you a .500 team.

The whole .500 thing isn't that important. If you can make the postseason playing under .500, you aren't at any greater disadvantage in the postseason than if you had played over .500.

As I noted earlier in this thread, fans in 1997 didn't rally behind the White Flag Trade because the team was a game under .500 when it was made and all had lost hope. The White Sox actually had a .500 record after the trade and lost only 2.5 games to the Indians in the standings because the Indians in 1997 weren't much better than a .500 team.

I don't think white flag trades are ever going to be favorable among fans, unless the team gets a player like Bryce Harper in return.

It's tough because you're finally slapped in the face with the reality that your team isn't going anywhere that year.

It's a necessary evil though as I'm sure we're all aware.

I wish this team would take the initiative and start rebuilding now. Better now than later. The sooner they start, the sooner this team can get back to the postseason and have another parade for us.

The state of the organization as a whole right now is really depressing.

DumpJerry
07-20-2011, 09:57 PM
The display of math skills in this thread is scary.

The number of wins above 81 (if all 162 games are played) determine how many games you are above .500. What is so complicated about that? If your team is 83-79, you're two games over .500 because if you lost two instead of winning two, you'd be .500.

JermaineDye05
07-20-2011, 10:04 PM
The display of math skills in this thread is scary.



Everyones math is fine.

It's just the interpretation which is askew.

Johnny Mostil
07-20-2011, 10:12 PM
I've been following baseball for almost 60 years and I've never heard it explained like that.

Me neither. FWIW, baseball-reference.com here (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/2011-schedule-scores.shtml) says the Sox were a season-high 3 games over .500 on April 12, when their record was 7-4. I had thought that meant they'd have to lose three straight to fall to .500. Just as now I thought they were four under because they'd have to win four straight to reach .500.

So is it bad news that they weren't as good as I thought when they were at 7-4, which some would say was 1.5 (and not 3) over? Or is it good news that they aren't as bad as I think they are at 47-51, which some would say is just 2 (and not 4) under?:scratch:

BigKlu59
07-21-2011, 01:12 PM
Me neither. FWIW, baseball-reference.com here (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/2011-schedule-scores.shtml) says the Sox were a season-high 3 games over .500 on April 12, when their record was 7-4. I had thought that meant they'd have to lose three straight to fall to .500. Just as now I thought they were four under because they'd have to win four straight to reach .500.

So is it bad news that they weren't as good as I thought when they were at 7-4, which some would say was 1.5 (and not 3) over? Or is it good news that they aren't as bad as I think they are at 47-51, which some would say is just 2 (and not 4) under?:scratch:

Johnny.... Stop thinking and start drinking... I hear it makes the confusion and pain a little more bearable.. I gotta number for a good shrink if you need it..

BK59

BigKlu59
07-21-2011, 01:23 PM
I don't think ''love'' is the word I want to use for my feelings for the 2011 White Sox.

I've got a few euphimism's as well.... But I'm trying to keep what comes out of my squidly mouth clean for consumption... What, didn't Nazareth wail about the fact that "LOVE HURTS"...,or something to that effect..

Damn straight !!!!

BK59

Johnny Mostil
07-21-2011, 01:25 PM
Johnny.... Stop thinking and start drinking... I hear it makes the confusion and pain a little more bearable.. I gotta number for a good shrink if you need it..

BK59

:gulp:

Thanks, BK! I read on another thread where somebody was checking out until the Sox were three games over .500. Does that mean waiting until they're 3-0 next year? Or 6-0? Or, if they get hot, 55-53.5? :scratch:

Ah, the hell with it . . . you had it right the first time! Cheers!:gulp:

BigKlu59
07-21-2011, 01:33 PM
:gulp:

Thanks, BK! I read on another thread where somebody was checking out until the Sox were three games over .500. Does that mean waiting until they're 3-0 next year? Or 6-0? Or, if they get hot, 55-53.5? :scratch:

Ah, the hell with it . . . you had it right the first time! Cheers!:gulp:


:gulp::gulp: Back at ya....and dont bogart the beer nuts and trail mix..

Oh look... another Sox caught stealing... twist me another one.. this is gonna be a long game :D:

:gulp: Hey, wheres that peanut vendor when you need him? :scratch:


BK59