PDA

View Full Version : "It"


SpringfldFan
04-29-2003, 11:23 PM
OK, we are a month into the season. Looking back so far, in your honest judgement, aside from the names on the back of some of the jerseys, is this team really any better then last year's or the one two years ago?

It is easy to be pessimistic after losing, but looking at the season as a whole, the team just doesn't seem to have "it" and hasn't had "it" since the 2000 all star game. What is "it"? I wish I knew specifically, but part of "it" might be that the team is powerful offensively but is one dimensional. Therefore it seems it can only win when that dimension (power) is clicking and it simply cannot win when the bats are sputtering or they are in pitcher's duels or high pressure situations. Maybe they could find "it" if they would (or could) bunt, steal, hit & run, or sacrifice, but they don't. They also don't seem to have the "rabid dog" intensity that many winning teams do. They don't ever seem to be putting pressure on the opponent, whether they are winning or losing. They just seem outclassed as a result.

You know, I think back to that 2000 early east coast road trip when they were so impressive. They went into Boston and as strong as Boston's reputation, the Red Sox looked like a bunch of stooges standing around while the Sox beat the crap out of them from every direction. The Red Sox clearly didn't have "it". Well if you ask me, those Red Sox seem to be this year's White Sox. I just don't "see" this White Sox team as a championship type team.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

fuzzy_patters
04-30-2003, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by SpringfldFan
OK, we are a month into the season. Looking back so far, in your honest judgement, aside from the names on the back of some of the jerseys, is this team really any better then last year's or the one two years ago?

It is easy to be pessimistic after losing, but looking at the season as a whole, the team just doesn't seem to have "it" and hasn't had "it" since the 2000 all star game. What is "it"? I wish I knew specifically, but part of "it" might be that the team is powerful offensively but is one dimensional. Therefore it seems it can only win when that dimension (power) is clicking and it simply cannot win when the bats are sputtering or they are in pitcher's duels or high pressure situations. Maybe they could find "it" if they would (or could) bunt, steal, hit & run, or sacrifice, but they don't. They also don't seem to have the "rabid dog" intensity that many winning teams do. They don't ever seem to be putting pressure on the opponent, whether they are winning or losing. They just seem outclassed as a result.

You know, I think back to that 2000 early east coast road trip when they were so impressive. They went into Boston and as strong as Boston's reputation, the Red Sox looked like a bunch of stooges standing around while the Sox beat the crap out of them from every direction. The Red Sox clearly didn't have "it". Well if you ask me, those Red Sox seem to be this year's White Sox. I just don't "see" this White Sox team as a championship type team.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

As far as "it" goes, I don't believe "it" exists. This team will play better when the bats heat up and when the bullpen gels. However, if the bullpen doesn't gel we're screwed. That's what happened to Boston last year. If you don't have a solid pen with well defined roles you will suck.

I'm not trying to say that "chemistry" doesn't exist. It can help a team if they want to play for each other, but I don't think it supercedes talent.

Two years ago, the Angels were considered to be a team with talented hitters and no chemistry. Their pitching came along and Glaus continued to blossom as a hitter, and we are supposed to believe their chemistry got better. I'm real sure that Garret Anderson and Tim Salmon magically became better teammates last year. The Angels had a deep lineup and a lights out bullpen last year. Chemistry had nothing to do with that.

You brought up the point that you would like to see the Sox steal and hit and run more. The problem I see with that is that a lot of good teams don't play that way. Currently we are playing Oakland, and they are a good example. Oakland has built their team around OBP and power, and they are consistently among the worst teams in terms of stolen bases. Earl Weaver's Baltimore Orioles were known for playing for the three run homer, and I'm not convinced that the Yankees are a real agressive base running team either. I don't see why you can't win playing station-to-station baseball.

bc2k
04-30-2003, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
I'm not trying to say that "chemistry" doesn't exist. It can help a team if they want to play for each other, but I don't think it supercedes talent.

Who said chemistry supersedes talent? Chemistry is a good bonus and makes the team better, but nobody said chemistry is more important than talent.

Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
I don't see why you can't win playing station-to-station baseball.

Neither do I, but not with this team and these hitters.

soxnut
04-30-2003, 01:20 AM
If this team has to sit around a wait for the 3-run homer--ala the Baltimore Orioles, then we might as well forgert it. I hate those kinds of teams. I want to see consistency. Waiting for a 3-ru homer is like waiting to win the lottery------it's ridiculous......this teams offense is selfish and it sucks...........it's worse than the '97 team. How can you lead off with a double and not even advance him to 3rd that's ridiculous. This team is going nowhere unless they change their attitude. :(:

baggio202
04-30-2003, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by SpringfldFan
OK, we are a month into the season. Looking back so far, in your honest judgement, aside from the names on the back of some of the jerseys, is this team really any better then last year's or the one two years ago?

It is easy to be pessimistic after losing, but looking at the season as a whole, the team just doesn't seem to have "it" and hasn't had "it" since the 2000 all star game. What is "it"? I wish I knew specifically, but part of "it" might be that the team is powerful offensively but is one dimensional. Therefore it seems it can only win when that dimension (power) is clicking and it simply cannot win when the bats are sputtering or they are in pitcher's duels or high pressure situations. Maybe they could find "it" if they would (or could) bunt, steal, hit & run, or sacrifice, but they don't. They also don't seem to have the "rabid dog" intensity that many winning teams do. They don't ever seem to be putting pressure on the opponent, whether they are winning or losing. They just seem outclassed as a result.

You know, I think back to that 2000 early east coast road trip when they were so impressive. They went into Boston and as strong as Boston's reputation, the Red Sox looked like a bunch of stooges standing around while the Sox beat the crap out of them from every direction. The Red Sox clearly didn't have "it". Well if you ask me, those Red Sox seem to be this year's White Sox. I just don't "see" this White Sox team as a championship type team.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

"it" was what we had in '00..the right mndset...it was the team first....ive seen glimpses of it...last game in minny for example when we won with only 3 hits..but for the most part we have not excelled in team baseball...we are freaking horrible in getting runners over and in when they are in scoring position and less than 2 outs..if somewhere there are stats on this it wouldnt surprise me if the sox were dead last....productive outs seem to be taboo to the white sox...

i believe the day we fired von joshua was the day " it " left the building..von had a good approach to hitting and always stressed situational hitting....i dont see the effort from the players nor accountability for failure to even try it from the manager...jerry always talks about small ball...but thats all it is ..talk

South Sider
04-30-2003, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by soxnut
If this team has to sit around a wait for the 3-run homer--ala the Baltimore Orioles, then we might as well forgert it. I hate those kinds of teams. I want to see consistency. Waiting for a 3-ru homer is like waiting to win the lottery------it's ridiculous......this teams offense is selfish and it sucks...........it's worse than the '97 team. How can you lead off with a double and not even advance him to 3rd that's ridiculous. This team is going nowhere unless they change their attitude. :(:

Thanks! You speak directly from my heart.

The best post I read today.

Just one thing !

To hit a 3-run homer you must have two men on the bases.
That is something we've not seen very often this year from the Sox.

They can't hit and even have no patience at the plate to get some BBs.

So a 3-run-homer will not come quiet so easily :D: :D: :D:

Let's learn from the O's who gets 3 points with a hit, walk and dinger !

Can't see that happen for the teethless Sox :whiner: :whiner:

Lip Man 1
04-30-2003, 06:49 PM
I was more "optimistic" going into this season then in the previous two years but the Sox are still tremendously flawed let's not forget about that.

They have trouble executing, playing fundamental baseball, base running and catching the ball.

I also think they simply have a bunch of "dumb" (in a baseball sense only) players.

I mean how many times is carlos lee (or Armondo Rios) going to try to steal 3rd base with less then two outs and with the tying run at the plate? I could see it happening once, OK you made a mistake but three times?

Or Tony Graffinino forgetting that the force play was not in effect when he tagged 3rd base against the Cubs.

I think these guys keep making the same mistakes because the manager will not sit them down if they keep doing it. There is no threat of punishment.

I also think the manager is overmatched. Finally we have in the immortal words of Sox scribe Bill Gleason this "reality," "I'm convinced the Sox are cursed."

Lip

dougs78
04-30-2003, 08:48 PM
That "unspeakable it" you refer to is nothing other than confidence. Those teams that have "it" are the ones who have confidence even in the face of insurmountable odds. Of course confidence is born of talent.

In 2000 that talent expressed itself and suddenly the players believed in themselves and thus "it" was present. This year, the talents have not shown themselves at once to get the ball rolling. If they do, it is still possible to get that confidence going this season. Lets hope it happens soon.