PDA

View Full Version : 2nd Half Standings


Chisox_cali
08-25-2001, 12:33 AM
Sox 23-19 back on top
Toons 23-20
Royals 17-25
Tigers 19-26
Twinkies 12-30

Nellie_Fox
08-25-2001, 12:36 AM
Man, the AL central is weak.

voodoochile
08-25-2001, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Man, the AL central is weak.

You hit the nail on the head, Nellie. Our division is an F'n joke...

DVG
08-25-2001, 07:25 AM
Hhhhmmmmmmm. Last year, the baseball "experts" pointed to
Cleveland's better 2nd half record as "proof" that they were
still the better team in the division and that the Sox first half
must've been a "fluke." (the pitching rotation was shot with
injuries last year, but never mind that nit-picky detail.) The in-
evitable question: If the Sox finish with a better second-half
record than Cleveland, does this "prove" that the Sox are a
better team than Cleveland? Or does it prove that the experts
with all their blather are a bunch of idiots?

Tragg
08-25-2001, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Man, the AL central is weak.


It's been weak the second half, but in the first half it was ahead of the AL East and probably the second best division in baseball.

Bmr31
08-25-2001, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by DVG
Hhhhmmmmmmm. Last year, the baseball "experts" pointed to
Cleveland's better 2nd half record as "proof" that they were
still the better team in the division and that the Sox first half
must've been a "fluke." (the pitching rotation was shot with
injuries last year, but never mind that nit-picky detail.) The in-
evitable question: If the Sox finish with a better second-half
record than Cleveland, does this "prove" that the Sox are a
better team than Cleveland? Or does it prove that the experts
with all their blather are a bunch of idiots?


dude there is a huge difference between 23-19 and the indians 2nd half record of last season.

FarWestChicago
08-25-2001, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by DVG
Hhhhmmmmmmm. Last year, the baseball "experts" pointed to
Cleveland's better 2nd half record as "proof" that they were
still the better team in the division and that the Sox first half
must've been a "fluke." (the pitching rotation was shot with
injuries last year, but never mind that nit-picky detail.) The in-
evitable question: If the Sox finish with a better second-half
record than Cleveland, does this "prove" that the Sox are a
better team than Cleveland? Or does it prove that the experts
with all their blather are a bunch of idiots?

Well, if it happens, obviously the latter. They would be a bunch of idiots.

czalgosz
08-25-2001, 12:10 PM
I'm looking forward to next year's preseason report, where all the experts say that the 2001 Seattle Mariners were a fluke, that Ichiro is a one-year wonder, that they'll never get that level of performance out of Edgar and Olerud again...

Sound familiar?

The Mariners are basing their success on the exact same thing the Sox did last year - good but not great starting pitching, an unbeatable bullpen, and great clutch hitting. All the Experts predicted the Sox would fall this year, and they were right, but for the wrong reasons. If they don't predict the same for the Mariners next year, then that will prove that there is an anti-Sox bias.