PDA

View Full Version : A scary thought


MRKARNO
08-24-2003, 12:06 AM
I was at the bookstore today, reading through Rob Neyer's Big book of lineups and he ranked the top five sox teams of all time. Number four all time was the 2000 team. That is a scary thought that we got swept first round and it was one of the best sox teams ever.

Consider this about the 2000 team:

The team was probably the best hitting sox teams top to bottom of all time. Frank had 43 homers, 140 RBIs and hit .328. Maggs also had a great year and Konerko and Lee were great.

But while the hitting was great, the pitching was terrible

The starter with the best ERA was Mike Sirotka at 3.79

Eldred, Baldwin and Parque all had ERAs above 4.25

The fifth starters, which was between Kip Wells and Jon Garland, both had an ERA above 6.

No starter won more than 15 games (sirotka had the 15-10 record)

But Wunsch, Howry Simas and Foulke were all great out of the pen.


Even though the 2000 team won 95 games, I believe that this team is better. While we only have one .300 hitter this time around, we might have 3 by year's end (everett and Lee). The starting rotation is ungodly better, even though the records arent winning ones for some. The clutch hitting is sometimes in force. The bullpen as it stands now is better than the very good one of 2000.

I'm convinced that top to bottom this team is WAY better than 2000, even though we're not gonna win as many games. This team has the chance to go far if we can hold our lead.


Anybody else (prematurely) getting at least somewhat excited for october? I know the team has failed us in the past but I think the team has already failed us this year and has redeemed themselves to the point where another failure doesnt seem on the horizon

Or am I just getting too excited and begging to be overly dissapointed? Probably, but this excitement doesnt come too often for us, so I'll enjoy it while I can and while it lasts

TornLabrum
08-24-2003, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO Anybody else (prematurely) getting at least somewhat excited for october? I know the team has failed us in the past but I think the team has already failed us this year and has redeemed themselves to the point where another failure doesnt seem on the horizon

Or am I just getting too excited and begging to be overly dissapointed? Probably, but this excitement doesnt come too often for us, so I'll enjoy it while I can and while it lasts

All I have to do to get less excited is look at our schedule and then pop over to the Twins and Royals web sites to look at theirs. We've got a tough row to hoe, boys and girls!

oheeoh...magglio
08-24-2003, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
I was at the bookstore today, reading through Rob Neyer's Big book of lineups and he ranked the top five sox teams of all time. Number four all time was the 2000 team. That is a scary thought that we got swept first round and it was one of the best sox teams ever.

Consider this about the 2000 team:

The team was probably the best hitting sox teams top to bottom of all time. Frank had 43 homers, 140 RBIs and hit .328. Maggs also had a great year and Konerko and Lee were great.

But while the hitting was great, the pitching was terrible

The starter with the best ERA was Mike Sirotka at 3.79

Eldred, Baldwin and Parque all had ERAs above 4.25

The fifth starters, which was between Kip Wells and Jon Garland, both had an ERA above 6.

No starter won more than 15 games (sirotka had the 15-10 record)

But Wunsch, Howry Simas and Foulke were all great out of the pen.


Even though the 2000 team won 95 games, I believe that this team is better. While we only have one .300 hitter this time around, we might have 3 by year's end (everett and Lee). The starting rotation is ungodly better, even though the records arent winning ones for some. The clutch hitting is sometimes in force. The bullpen as it stands now is better than the very good one of 2000.

I'm convinced that top to bottom this team is WAY better than 2000, even though we're not gonna win as many games. This team has the chance to go far if we can hold our lead.


Anybody else (prematurely) getting at least somewhat excited for october? I know the team has failed us in the past but I think the team has already failed us this year and has redeemed themselves to the point where another failure doesnt seem on the horizon

Or am I just getting too excited and begging to be overly dissapointed? Probably, but this excitement doesnt come too often for us, so I'll enjoy it while I can and while it lasts

I would agree this team is better than the 2000 one. As for getting excited, if we make the playoffs, i'll be very excited because of the fact we can hit, especially the longball, our bullpen is very improved over what it was but a month or two ago, and we have one of the better 1-2-3 punches at the top of our rotation in baseball. But with that said, the sox have a long way to go before they are playing in october.

Jjav829
08-24-2003, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO


I'm convinced that top to bottom this team is WAY better than 2000, even though we're not gonna win as many games. This team has the chance to go far if we can hold our lead.


Anybody else (prematurely) getting at least somewhat excited for october? I know the team has failed us in the past but I think the team has already failed us this year and has redeemed themselves to the point where another failure doesnt seem on the horizon

Or am I just getting too excited and begging to be overly dissapointed? Probably, but this excitement doesnt come too often for us, so I'll enjoy it while I can and while it lasts

I have the same feeling. I look at this team and part of me says that they are set up for a postseason run. IF we make the playoffs, I think there is a chance we can do something. I mean we have the 3 horses in the rotation that we are going to need and the bullpen has been strengthened with the addition of Sully (plus Garland being available out of the pen in the playoffs). If Koch can come back and make any impact, I think our pen could be ok. The bats are there to have a good offensive attack in the playoffs, it's just a matter of them actually coming through and not choking like in the 2000 playoffs.

Of course, then the other side of me kicks in and says that the Sox are going to find some way to mess this up and either not make the playoffs, or choke once they get there.

I'm going to continue to believe this team has a shot to go far if they make the playoffs though. That is what we are hoping for and a playoff appearance simply isn't enough for me. This team has been assembled to go far in the playoffs and possibly win it all. Simply winning the division isn't a success in my book, so I gotta keep hope alive that the Sox can win in the playoffs.

Thunderstruck30
08-24-2003, 12:17 AM
What were the other four teams on the list?

VaSoxfan
08-24-2003, 12:17 AM
Oh enough whining about the schedules...please. We have a pitching staff right now that is doing great, and with the addition of Sullivan the bullpen got much better. The offense is slaughtering the baseball. Right now this team can compete with anyone, and will give anyone fits. The only thing that would scare me would be another west coast trip, where the Sox just can't seem to play. But those are over.

Heck the Yanks are struggling with Baltimore this weekend, and have glaring bullpen issues. If we can get into their pen, our batters will feast on them. And I like our starting pitchers in each matchup.

Another thing, I'd rather have high-profile, tougher opponents than loads of games with Detroit or whoever. The Sox are what 8-8 with Detroit? How bout that cushy road trip we had around the all-star break at Tampa, Detroit and Cleveland. What was the result? 3-9 or something like that?

Or how bout when KC had a 3-game lead on us...and they went into a stretch where they played Tampa in 7 of 10 games while we played Seattle and Oakland? After that was over KC's division lead was gone.

It's going to come down to the games between us and KC and Minnesota. And I like our chances there also. So let's stop worrying about who we play, or who the Royals play....on paper it means nothing.

MRKARNO
08-24-2003, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Thunderstruck30
What were the other four teams on the list?

1. 1906

2. 1917

3. 1959

4. 2000

5. 1983

RKMeibalane
08-24-2003, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
1. 1906

2. 1917

3. 1959

4. 2000

5. 1983

I'm really surprised that Neyer chose the 2000 team over the 1993 or '94 teams. I really think that those two teams were surperior to the 2000 addition, for several reasons:

1. Better pitching staff.

2. Better defense (Ventura at third; Guillen at short; Lance Johnson in center field).

3. No Jerry Manuel.

MRKARNO
08-24-2003, 12:29 AM
And for the record Minnesota and Kansas City play the same teams the same number of times from here on out. They both do the anaheim/texas bit, which shouldnt be easy for them considering both teams make a living by making comebacks. Hard to comeback on Texas's leads and hard to come back against Donnelly, Weber, K-Rod and Percival in the Anaheim bullpen. Cleveland is no pushover, their pitching isnt terrible and their hitting is improving, just cant put it together most of the time. Detroit is Detroit, but I betcha Maroth, Bonderman, etc. are gonna try extra hard to get as few losses as possible as the tigers strive to not be the worst team in history. These tigers really dont want that and I think they might get better down the stretch and only lose 110 instead of 120.

And it's not like playing the white sox will yield more wins than losses :)

RKMeibalane
08-24-2003, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
And for the record Minnesota and Kansas City play the same teams the same number of times from here on out. They both do the anaheim/texas bit, which shouldnt be easy for them considering both teams make a living by making comebacks. Hard to comeback on Texas's leads and hard to come back against Donnelly, Weber, K-Rod and Percival in the Anaheim bullpen. Cleveland is no pushover, their pitching isnt terrible and their hitting is improving, just cant put it together most of the time. Detroit is Detroit, but I betcha Maroth, Bonderman, etc. are gonna try extra hard to get as few losses as possible as the tigers strive to not be the worst team in history. These tigers really dont want that and I think they might get better down the stretch and only lose 110 instead of 120.

And it's not like playing the white sox will yield more wins than losses :)

Agreed. This race is by no means over with. The Twins seem to have the same problem with bad teams that the Sox do. I fully expect them to get hammered by Anaheim and Texas, and Detroit, too. Kansas City spends most of September on the road, which can't be good for their playoff chances.

I'm hoping that the Sox have a solid four or five game lead going into the final week of the season. Then, if they can just win a few games that week, they'll wrap up the division. What I don't want to see is the Sox in a one-game playoff to determine who actually goes on to the post-season. That would be a disaster.

MRKARNO
08-24-2003, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane

I'm hoping that the Sox have a solid four or five game lead going into the final week of the season. Then, if they can just win a few games that week, they'll wrap up the division. What I don't want to see is the Sox in a one-game playoff to determine who actually goes on to the post-season. That would be a disaster.

In a one game playoff with the twins or royals, they'd get a big lead and squander it, I like the thought of having a big lead going into the last 10 games. Lets take this win streak to 13 games and finish off the rangers, and then go on the road and sweep the best team and the thorn in our side. A 10+ game win streak might seal the division in our favor

TornLabrum
08-24-2003, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by VaSoxfan
Oh enough whining about the schedules...please. We have a pitching staff right now that is doing great, and with the addition of Sullivan the bullpen got much better. The offense is slaughtering the baseball. Right now this team can compete with anyone, and will give anyone fits. The only thing that would scare me would be another west coast trip, where the Sox just can't seem to play. But those are over.

Heck the Yanks are struggling with Baltimore this weekend, and have glaring bullpen issues. If we can get into their pen, our batters will feast on them. And I like our starting pitchers in each matchup.

Another thing, I'd rather have high-profile, tougher opponents than loads of games with Detroit or whoever. The Sox are what 8-8 with Detroit? How bout that cushy road trip we had around the all-star break at Tampa, Detroit and Cleveland. What was the result? 3-9 or something like that?

Or how bout when KC had a 3-game lead on us...and they went into a stretch where they played Tampa in 7 of 10 games while we played Seattle and Oakland? After that was over KC's division lead was gone.

It's going to come down to the games between us and KC and Minnesota. And I like our chances there also. So let's stop worrying about who we play, or who the Royals play....on paper it means nothing.

The problem with your reasoning is that it is the Sox who have been battered by the lousy teams on a fairly regular basis, not the other teams we're in this race against.

Let's look at the the schedule starting Monday:

Sox:

3 @ NY
3 @ Det
2 vs. Bos
3 vs. Cle
4 vs. Min
3 @ Bos
3 @ Min
3 vs. KC
3 vs. NY
4 @ KC

15 home games, 16 road games:

6 vs. Yankees
5 vs. Red Sox
7 vs. Twins
7 vs. Royals
3 vs. Indians
3 vs. Tigers

That's 24 games vs. teams playing over .500 and 6 vs. teams playing under .500. 14 of those games are head-to-head against our competition.

Twins:

3 @ Ana
3 @ Tex
3 vs. Anaheim
3 vs. Tex
4 @ White Sox
4 @ Cle
3 vs. White Sox
3 vs. Det
2 vs. Cle
4 @ Det

14 home games, 18 road games:

7 vs. White Sox
6 vs. Angels
6 vs. Rangers
6 vs. Indians
7 vs. Tigers

That's 7 games with teams over .500 and 25 games with sub-.500 records. And the competition with the over-.500 "teams" is the 7 games head to head with us.

Royals

3 vs. Tex
3 vs. Ana
3 @ Tex
1 vs. Ari
3 @ Anaheim
3 vs. Cle
4 @ Det
3 @ Cle
3 @ White Sox
3 vs. Det.
4 vs. White Sox

17 home games, 16 road games:

7 vs. White Sox
1 vs. Diamondbacks
6 vs. Angels
6 vs. Texas
6 vs. Indians
7 vs. Tigers

The Royals have 8 games vs. teams over .500 and 25 with sub-.500 teams. Seven of those with teams over .500 are head to head with us.

Factors adverse to the White Sox:

1. We go 14 games head-to-head against our direct competition, with one more road game (at KC) than home game. The Sox are excellent at home and terrible on the road, so we can expect the three division leaders to beat up on each other.

2. We play more games against teams that are above .500 than than below .500. Again we can expect the Sox and Yankiees and Red Sox to pretty much beat each other up.

3. Of our 6 games with sub-.500 teams, three half are on the road at Detroit. We've played .500 ball against the Tigers this year, and we're a bad road team.

4. The other teams' schedules are heavily weighted in their favor. They are through playing each other after tomorrow. We can no longer count on them beating each other up. We now have to beat them up plus a couple of the best teams in the AL.

I'm not whining about the schedule. I'm looking at it from a realistic standpoint. A very likely scenario is that KC fades in the stretch after playing over their heads for so long, Minnesota beats up on inferior competition except for the Sox (they beat each other up), and the Twins clinch as the Sox and Royals beat up on each other the last series of the season. That's no whining. That's assessing talent and strength of the teams each of the Central Division leaders are playing.

VaSoxfan
08-24-2003, 01:40 AM
You're analyzing things too much. With our pitching staff and lineup, playing the way they should, we should be able to compete with anyone.

The point of my post was that yes the Sox have done poorly against the losing teams, while they tend to play better against key or high-profile opponents. (Minn, KC, Cubs, etc)

As for the win-loss records of the opponents, we are finishing a stretch of games (Ana and Tex) against sub-.500 teams. Does that make them gimmes? No. Plus look at the Twins record against Detroit and Cleveland..it aint exactly sparkling.

It will come down to pressure, etc...lots of big games...that favors the Sox...pitching in the end is what wins games and ours is best in the division easy. Plus I think they will look at the games with Boston and NY, and certainly the rivals, as high profile, key games...and we'll get the best the Sox have.

TornLabrum
08-24-2003, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by VaSoxfan
You're analyzing things too much. With our pitching staff and lineup, playing the way they should, we should be able to compete with anyone.

The point of my post was that yes the Sox have done poorly against the losing teams, while they tend to play better against key or high-profile opponents. (Minn, KC, Cubs, etc)

As for the win-loss records of the opponents, we are finishing a stretch of games (Ana and Tex) against sub-.500 teams. Does that make them gimmes? No. Plus look at the Twins record against Detroit and Cleveland..it aint exactly sparkling.

It will come down to pressure, etc...lots of big games...that favors the Sox...pitching in the end is what wins games and ours is best in the division easy. Plus I think they will look at the games with Boston and NY, and certainly the rivals, as high profile, key games...and we'll get the best the Sox have.

The Sox certainly have their share of games against high-profile/key opponents. they also have their fair share of road games.

Guess what. The Sox may do well against, high-profile/key opponents, but they have a terrible record on the road. Conclusion: The Sox and the high-profile/key opponents pretty much split their games. This leaves the door open to the Twins who have the best schedule of the three contenders in the Central.

I have bad memories of 1964 and 1967, the closest races the Sox have been in in my lifetime. They say, "Once burned, twice shy." Sox fans of my generation were burned twice in three years. That's why I've gone on record as being pessimistic until we win our fourth game in the 2003 World Series.

I might be more optimistic if we'd done better than 1-5 on our last road trip. Then you might be able to convince me of your arguments. But after that fiasco, I'm not so sure you can.

It's ironic, isn't it that fans from Missouri have this unquestioning faith that the Royals will win it all while many of us not from that state have so little faith in the White Sox? I guess it's because the Royals have just 35 years of history, much of it successful, while the Sox have experienced a century of futility.

VaSoxfan
08-24-2003, 02:25 AM
As I said in another post, I'd be a lot more scared if we had road games on the slate against the western division, where we just seem to do terrible. But those are history. Now Boston and NY are not exactly easy locales, but...this team went into a huge situation at KC and won easily...recently. Same for the Metrodome and Wrigley where they took 4 of 6.

I think this team is a classic example of one that plays to the level of its competition. With most of the games upcoming against key opponents...I think the Sox will be up for every game...road or home. And...on paper this team has very good pitching and a powerful lineup...something that will be a handful for the Yanks, Bosox, or whoever.

***A huge asterisk here...this team cannot afford any more lapses where they dont seem to give a squat. (the recent Ana-Tex trip, the 3-9 Tampa to Detroit debacle) I think with the race ending soon..and with such high profile opponents...this team will give us a solid effort every nite. They know KC and Minn might have an easier ride on paper....

gosox41
08-24-2003, 08:54 AM
[i]

I'm not whining about the schedule. I'm looking at it from a realistic standpoint. A very likely scenario is that KC fades in the stretch after playing over their heads for so long, Minnesota beats up on inferior competition except for the Sox (they beat each other up), and the Twins clinch as the Sox and Royals beat up on each other the last series of the season. That's no whining. That's assessing talent and strength of the teams each of the Central Division leaders are playing. [/B]

That's exactly why I was hoping for the Twins to get swept by the Royals.

Bob